RHODE ISLAND STATE FEDEration of WOMEN'S CLUBS, Hon. DANIEL ALDEN REED, House of Representatives, Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: At a meeting of tke Rhode Island State Federation of Women's Clubs held January 21, 1928, the following resolution was unanimously indorsed: Resolved, That in so far as the so-called new education bill (S. 1584 and H. R. 7) creates a department of education with a secretary in the President's Cabinet, coordinates existing educational activities in the Federal Government, and provides for much-needed educational research, and in that it does not provide Federal aid to the States for education, nor give to the department the control of education within the States, nor interfere with the conduct of private and parochial schools, nor standardize education within the States, the Rhode Island State Federation of Women's Clubs, in delegate body assembled at its midwinter meeting on January 21, 1928, expresses its approval of such measure, and directs that a copy of this resolution be sent to the Senators and Representatives now representing this State in Congress. Respectfully, MARTHA S. L. POTTER, Mr. PECKHAM. May I insert a letter from the president of Bowdoin College, and a brief by Dr. George Johnson, of the Catholic Educational Association of Washington; also a letter of Senator Borah, dated January 2, 1926, addressed to the State Superintendent of Public Instruction of Idaho, which Senator Borah said I might insert in these hearings as a reiteration of his views? The CHAIRMAN. You may hand them to the stenographer.. (The letter referred to is as follows:) CHAIRMAN HOUSE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION, BOWDOIN COLLEGE, Brunswick, Me., April 25, 1928. House of Representatives, Washington. MY DEAR SIR: I have often in the past expressed my opposition to the bill to create a Federal department of education with a seat in the President's Cabinet, and I should like to go on record again against the Curtis-Reed bill. It seems to me that such a step in the direction of more centralization of power is unnecessary and undesirable at the present time, and I, furthermore, believe that in a subject like education a Cabinet officer would necessarily have from time to time to take political and partisan points of view that would be reflected through the whole school system. I believe one of the great merits of American education has been local responsibility. Yours very truly, KENNETH C. M. SILLS. (The brief and accompanying letter referred to are as follows:) WASHINGTON, D. C., April 28, 1928. The Hon. DANIEL A. REED, Chairman of the House Committee on Education, HONORABLE AND DEAR SIR: I wish to submit to your committee the following brief as a representative of the Catholic Educational Association, a voluntary and unofficial society of Catholic educators with a membership representing Catholic educational endeavor in every part of the Union, which though devoted primarily to the interests of Catholic education, is necessarily interested in everything that affects the progress of education in general. Respectfully yours, GEORGE JOHNSON. BRIEF SUBMITTED TO THE CHAIRMAN OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION BY DR. GEORge Johnson, oF THE CATHOLIC EDUCATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF WASHINGTON The Catholic Educational Association is opposed in principle to any movement that tends to establish even the beginnings of Federal control over education, and looks askance at the introduction of any Federal political influence that would weaken local self-government and go contrary to the principle of parental responsibility in education. It feels that such measures are not in accord with American educational traditions nor with our constitutional theory of government. Education primarily belongs to the parent, and its legal control should not go beyond the State. It is in no way a function of the Federal Government. Consequently, the Catholic Educational Association wishes to go on record as opposed to Senate bill 1584, H. R. 7, introduced into the Seventieth Congress by Senator Charles Curtis, of Kansas, and Representative Daniel Reed, of New York. It feels that this bill which would establish a Federal department of education with a secretary in the President's Cabinet, is an unnecessary bit of legislation, and if enacted into law would endanger some of the best traditions of American education, injure the public schools of the counrty, and introduce a principle dangerous to some of our most cherished American liberties. The tendency in industrial civilization is, more or less naturally, in the direction of undue standardization and centralization. Industry and business find they can secure greater efficiency by means of unification, and by the production of standardized materials by means of standard processes. Habits of thinking engendered by industrial and commercial preoccupations readily transfer themselves to other fields, as, for instance, to the field of education, with the result that administrative devices and machine-like organizations are given an importance far beyond their deserts. Education is, after all, a human process and depends vitally upon the personal relation between the teacher and the child. The initiative of the teacher and his freedom from unnecessary restraints and interferences are sacred elements in the process. The tendency of strong administrative organizations is to standardize educational processes as machine processes are standardized; to interpose themselves between the teacher and the child eventually to dehumanize the teacher and to regard him as the mere guardian of the machine. The results as far as the child's mind are concerned are deadening. You get regimentation of mentality but not the development of the individual mind that is, after all, the truer objective of sound education. This is a truism that any educator will admit, but it is a truism that is often forgotten by those whose zeal is for efficiency and standardization in matters educational. It is forgotten in particular by those who favor the interference of the Federal Government in the conduct of the public schools of the country. Obsessed by the immediate advantages which they hope to derive from such interference, they are blind to its ultimate possibilities. It is vain to argue that because the present bill does not provide for Federal control of education, or even disavows it, that it will not make for such control. The principal reason advanced for establishing this department is that it will facilitate research and the diffusion of knowledge of educational facts. No one would deny that such research is valuable, though some might question its relative value. We need to be wary lest educational research as carried on by a strongly organized Federal department become the means of standardizing educational ideas and molding educational processes. The direction of educational research would be very much determined by the secretary of education. It is he who would set out the lines of inquiry. This he would do on the basis of his particular point of view concerning the function of education, whether in general or in specific details. After all, there is a difference in educational research and in research in other lines, such for example, as in the matter of hog cholera. It is easy enough to find whether or not a hog has cholera. Everyone agrees that it would be better for the commonwealth if the hog could be rid of cholera. Moreover, since we are dealing with a specific germ, it is easy enough to find a specific cure. In educational matters, however, the question is quite different. Outside of matters of sheer illiteracy and the teaching of doctrines that are subversive to the principles of American Government, there is room for considerable difference of opinion as to whether a certain thing that some people call an evil in education is really an evil. This difference of opinion is due to a healthy difference of opinion as to what the purposes and objectives of education really are. The secretary of education, for instance, might follow the present fad in educational thought and conclude that the teaching of Latin is a waste of time. Educational research, skillfully directed, might serve to justify his opinion. By using the prestige and facilities which his office would lend him, he might, if not forbid, at least thoroughly discourage the teaching of Latin in American schools. Surely, there are enough sane thinking men in the United States who know that the whole process, while claiming to be based upon scientific principles of education, is no more scientific than the story of Jack and the Beanstalk. In other words, educational ills are quite different from ills in hogs, and they must, in their very nature, defy forever the exact diagnosis and specific treatment that proved so successful in the battle against porcine ills. The following words from a booklet, published in furtherance of the interests of this bill, indicate that the real intent of the bill is not mere academic study of educational problems but something like forcing the results of such study upon the thinking of American educators: "Educational reforms, the wisdom of which the great mass of educators recognize, fail because of the fact that they do not receive the attention of our citizenry. Enjoying such attention they would promptly be put into effect in thousands of local school systems. No one in the field of education to-day occupies a position that automatically insures attention to his words when he cites the problems of the schools. A secretary of education would command such attention." In other words, it would be easy for the secretary of education and his particular advisers, by means of the powerful instrument of educational research, to go very far along the line of preventing local education from thinking for themselves and depriving the individual teacher of the joy of solving his own problems in his own way, of committing this Nation to educational policies as hard and fast as anything dreamed of in Prussia before the war. We believe that such possibilities are inherent in this bill, and because we believe that the necessary research in education can be carried on more safely by the existing agencies of the Government, we oppose this bill. There is too much standardization and too much of the lock step in American education as it exists to-day without opening additional possibilities by the injection of the element of Federal interference. The following words of President Coolidge, spoken on the occasion of the meeting of the American Legion in Omaha on October 6, 1925, containing as they do one of the most profound and timely utterances made by any statesman in this or any country, should be well pondered before we even consider any movement which remotely approaches further standardization in American education: "Progress depends very largely on the encouragement of variety. Whatever tends to standardize the community, to establish fixed and rigid modes of thought, tends to fossilize society. If we all believed the same thing and thought the same thoughts and applied the same valuations to all the occurrences about us, we should reach a state of equilibrium closely akin to an intellectual and spiritual paralysis. It is the ferment of ideas, the clash of disagreeing judgments, the privilege of the individual to develop his own thoughts and shape his own character that makes progress possible. It is not possible to learn much from those who uniformly agree with us, but many useful things are learned from those who disagree with us, and even when we can gain nothing our differences are likely to do us no harm." Respectfully submitted. GEORGE JOHNSON (The letter referred to is as follows:) SENATOR BORAH AGAINST FEDERALIZED EDUCATION Senator William E. Borah, of Idaho, has written the following letter to an educator who sought his support of the Curtis-Reed bill to establish a Federal department of education: Miss ELIZABETH RUSSUM, JANUARY 2, 1926. State Superintendent of Public Instruction, Boise, Idaho. DEAR MISS RUSSUM: I have your letter in which you advise that the new educational bill has been introduced and stating it provides for a department of education, with a secretary in the President's Cabinet. You further express the hope that my influence and my vote may be found in support of the bill. I regret to say to you that I can not support the bill and shall do everything within my power to defeat it. It is simply inconceivable to me that people, who have reflected upon this subject of building up bureaucracy at Washington, now wish to put under the control of the bureaucrats the development of the minds and character of the young people of our country. I can not imagine anything more deadening to initiative, to responsible citizenship, and to the ultimate welfare of the common people than to centralize here in Washington under the arbitrary and autocratic dictatorship of some bureaus the problems of education. If there is anything which has given strength to our country and which gives assurance of the future happiness and prosperity of our people and the permanency of our institutions, it is the very opposite of everything which this bill would tend to establish. I venture to say also that in less than 10 years after the establishment of this bureaucratic dominance of educational affairs the teachers of this country would be the most belligerent and aggressive force in the country for its repeal. Of course, I perfectly understand that this present bill provides "to collect and distribute facts and statistics," etc. But that is the "nose of the camel under the tent." Those who have watched the building up of the departments here at Washington will not be misled by that proposition for a moment. That is the way they all start. But before many years the insatiable maw draws in everything that is within possible reach and that which was tepid and tame in the beginning becomes widespread, and autocratic, and dominant in the end. I speak plainly, Miss Russum, because this is a matter about which I feel deeply and uncompromisingly. Very respectfully, Wм. E. BORAH. Doctor DAVIDSON. I should like to submit a statement in reply to the criticism of the Pennsylvania State education program made by one of the opposition at the hearing before this committee last week. The CHAIRMAN. If there is no objection, the statement will be received. Statement of Dr. William M. Davidson, of Pittsburgh, Pa.: In the evidence submitted at the hearing before the House committee on the Curtis-Reed bill for the establishment of a department of education, with a secretary occupying a place in the President's Cabinet, reference was made by one of the opposition to the program of education in Pennsylvania and to the organization of its State department of education in such a manner as to reflect criticism upon the Pennsylvania program. I would not now give attention to this criticism of Pennsylvania's State education program-for Pennsylvania's program needs no defense-were it not for the fact that an attempt was made by the witness to use it as a concrete example against the establishment and development of even a State department of education. Mr. Chairman, we hold the contrary view that the development of the Pennsylvania program is a striking example and a timely illustration of the great value of survey and research work in connection with all matters pertaining to educational procedure-whether such surveys or researches are conducted within the boundaries of a given State or the boundaries of the Nation itself. In order that the members of the committee may understand clearly the true situation in Pennsylvania, I beg to submit the following facts: Education in Pennsylvania suffered seriously during and immediately subsequent to the World War, but the real facts in the case were not brought directly to the attention of the people of the State until the Ayres survey was published, in which Pennsylvania was shown to rank twenty-first among the States of the Union. Governor Sproul was beginning his administration in January, 1919, just at the close of the World War, and immediately gave attention to the serious situation which confronted Pennsylvania's public schools. Supporting a forwardlooking program, he was responsible for calling to the head of the schools of Pennsylvania a man with a distinguished record as a State administrator of schools, Dr. Thomas E. Finegan, who met with the united support of Pennsylvania educators and laymen and launched what has become known as Pennsylvania's public education program. In a period of four short years Doctor Finegan made a contribution to the cause of public education, the like of which has but once before been accomplished in America by but one State school educator in a lifetime, namely, by Horace Mann in Massachusetts. Since Doctor Finegan's time this State program in Pennsylvania has been carried on and expanded by every State superintendent of public instruction who has succeeded to that high office-by Dr. J. George Becht, who died in office; by Dr. Francis B. Haas, expert in the field of school finance and now president of the State Teachers' College at Bloomsburg, Pa.; and by the present incumbent in that office, Dr. John A. H. Keith, a man of wide and successful educational experience in Illinois, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. Both Doctor Keith and Doctor Finegan, you will recall, appeared before your committee last week in support of the Curtis-Reed bill. One of the first steps taken under the new program was to organize and develop a strong State department of education and to inaugurate at once a critical and minute study of the State's immediate educational needs. One of the very first problems to be attacked was the raising of the standards required of all teachers in Pennsylvania. At that time nearly 5,000 of the State's then 45,000 teachers had no more than an eighth-grade education. The salaries paid these teachers were deplorably low, which no doubt accounted for the low standard of qualifications permitted by the State. Immediately the State department of education, with the active support of Governor Sproul and the General Assembly of the State, and with the assistance of the leading educators and the leading laymen of Pennsylvania, prepared a plan which became known as the Edmonds bill. In the session of the legislature of 1921 this bill was enacted into law, together with many necessary and essential supporting bills. The passage of these acts by the legislature did more to improve the schools of Pennsylvania than had been accomplished by any previous legislation in the history of the State, excepting only the laws of 1834 and 1835, through which the commonwealth first set up its State free tax-supported public-school system. In order to meet the financial requirements of this program, larger State appropriation was necessary to the several school districts of the State, which was immediately made possible through the passage of additional appropriation acts by the general assembly. These appropriations have been continued and increased by every succeeding session of the legislature from 1921 down to the present day. One of the noteworthy facts in connection with the development of this State program in Pennsylvania has been that it has received the hearty support and encouragement of the governor who inaugurated it, Gov. William C. Sproul, and of the two men who have succeeded to that office since his time-Governor Pinchot and Governor Fisher. It should be further noted that this program and all the laws which have been enacted to make it effective have been passed by the several legislatures, after most careful consideration of every bill presented to them, by practically unanimous vote. The vast majority of these bills were passed by the legislature without any opposition whatsoever. Indeed the State's new educational program has won one of the most encouraging, one of the most unanimous, and one of the most whole-hearted supports ever given to any educational project in the history of the Commonwealth. Of course there has been some opposition to the rapid development of the program, but this opposition has been negligible and without avail. The people of the State have been, and are, preponderantly for the program and for the continued progressive development of the schools. Another of the noteworthy events connected with the history of this program is the fact that it has been surveyed by four distinct and separate agencies, comprising men and women of the highest character in the Commonwealth or the Nation. These surveys were as follows: First. A survey of the fiscal policies of the State of Pennsylvania in the field of education by a committee of citizens appointmed by the Hon. Gifford Pinchot, governor at the time. The Pinchot committee, called the citizens' committee on the finances of Pennsylvania, was assisted by 18 or 20 of the leading educators of the States, many of them expert in the field of investigation and research. This high-class committee put itself in every way and with every ounce of its influence back of the State's great educational program, and its report received the hearty |