Doctor KEITH. I would not be responsible for giving him a job as a teacher.

Mr. BLACK. He might be made secretary of education. Doctor KEITH. He will not be secretary of education. --Mr. BLACK. Fall became Secretary of the Interior.

Mr. HOLADAY. I asked you this question because it appears from this hearing that Columbia University and her men have had quite a little to do with the drafting of this bill, and are here supporting the bill in person and by publication; and yet that is the university which has made arrangements for this man to deliver lectures in their university.

Doctor KEITH. In response to your statements, I can only say that so far as I understand the matter, the president of Columbia University has never declared himself in favor of this bill. Quite the contrary. He has expressed his disapproval of it. He, however, is a large-minded enough man to allow the men on his faculty to have some ideas of their own and to think for themselves, even though he does not agree with those men.

Mr. HOLADAY. I am glad to hear that the members of the faculty do not agree with the president of the university.

Doctor KEITH. Do not make any mistake; I am not connected with Columbia University.

Mr. HOLADAY. I understand you are not, but I understand one gentleman who is connected with it has appeared, and others probably will.

Doctor KEITH. Yes; but they are not entirely responsible for all the opinions of the university.

Mr. FILENE. Would you take one man who was wrong, and blame the whole university for him?

Mr. HOLADAY. If the university has the mistake called to their attention, and there is time to rectify it and they do not make any effort to, I might be inclined to blame the entire university to some

extent.

The CHAIRMAN. It is almost 12 o'clock, and I would like to ask Miss Williams how many more witnesses she has-people from out of town?

Miss WILLIAMS. Nine more, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. These people come from out of town, and if the committee is agreeable, I wish that in some way we could hear them.

Mr. FENN. Mr. Chairman, it seems to me I would like to hear everybody who comes here, but there is a matter of great consequence before the House this morning, a matter of the highest importance. (At 12.05 o'clock p. m. the committee took a recess until 8 o'clock p. m.)

EVENING SESSION

The committee reconvened at 8 o'clock p. m., Hon. Frederick W. Dallinger (chairman) presiding.

Miss WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, the first speaker to-night, representing the college people of the country, is Dr. John H. MacCracken, president of Lafayette College, Easton, Pa.

STATEMENT OF DR. JOHN H. MacCRACKEN, PRESIDENT OF LAFAYETTE COLLEGE, EASTON, PA.

Doctor MAC CRACKEN. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I appear to-night for the American Council on Education, and more especially as chairman of their committee on Federal legislation. This committee is made up of the presidents of the State Universities of Michigan, Minnesota, and Texas, a representative of the Catholic University of America, the University of Chicago, of Oberlin College, and of the Institute of Government Research, and what I have to present in the matter of our attitude on the question of a department of education is the unanimous sentiment of this committee.

I know that your time is very brief, so that I shall try to present our position in a very few words, stating first our platform, second, answering two objections and, thirdly, advancing two arguments.

The platform I think can best be stated in the words of President Coolidge, "I consider education a fundamental requirement of national activity, which is worthy of a separate department and a place in the Cabinet." The President said "which, accompanied by allied subjects of welfare, is worthy of a separate deparmtent and a place in the Cabinet;" but we omit that aspect and confine ourselves to his statement, "I do consider it a fundamental rquirement of national activity, which is worthy of a separate department and a place in the Cabinet." That states our platform.

I was counting to-night and I find that it is just 25 years since I made my first public plea for a Federal department of education. That was just at the close of the Spanish-American War and I had just completed, with the State superintendent of education of the State of Missouri, a count of the rural schools of the county of Callaway, known in that part of the world as the "Kingdom of Callaway," because it is the only county that ever made a sovereign treaty with the United States of America. We plowed all through the yellow mud of that county visiting the rural schools. I had become very much interested in the whole problem of national education and I, went to Jefferson City and made a speech on behalf of a Federal department of education.

At that time I was inclined to stress what the Federal Government could do for education. My point of view has changed somewhat since that time and I am now more inclined to stress what education can do for the country if given an opportunity to express itself through the National Government.

There are two objections which we constantly meet in a contention for a department of education. One is the objection which we met, perhaps in its most decided form, with the late President Wilson, that his Cabinet table was only so big; that it had no extension leaves, and that he could not place another chair at the table. This argument that the Cabinet table is a Procrustean bed, to which the Nation must adapt itself, and is not an extension table which can adapt itself to the needs of the country, is an argument which we frequently meet. I have discussed the matter with the man who has brought the greatest success in reorganizing executive departments of administration in this country, Governor Lowden, of Illinois, and he confirmed the view which seemed to me to be the realizing one,

that there was nothing sacred in the present number of the Cabinet. In fact, as Governor Lowden put it, if the necessities of the country required, there was no practical reason why the Cabinet could not number 18, if necessary, and the whole contention that the Cabinet number is closed and does not admit of an addition, reminds me a good deal of a paragraph in President Elliott's book on University Administration. The president of Harvard writes, in his book on University Administration, that the right number of trustees for a university is seven. We have seven at Harvard. [Laughter.]

The second objection which we constantly meet is the argument that if we set up a Federal department of education we are sure to have a centralization of authority and, eventually, tyranny, so far as the school system of America is concerned. That is an argument. which is emphasized considerably in the report recently put out by the Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America. But they advance no argument in that report to show that the farmers of this country have ever suffered from the tryanny from the Department of Agriculture, or that the labor unions of the country feel that they would be better off if there was no Department of Labor to tyrannize over them. Some of the business men of the country may squirm quite a little over their Department of Commerce, but they are not proposing to give up their Department of Commerce. that there is no argument drawn from experience which bears out the contention in this report of the Chamber of Commerce of the United States that the creation of a department of education would lead to tyranny.

We all agree that what we are asking for and we all agree that what we want in a department of education is not an administrator in American education, but rather for a leader of American educational thought, for a mouthpiece of American education, for an opportunity for the educational world to have its voice heard in the councils of the United States.

There are almost a million voters to-day engaged in the business of teaching in the United States, and that is a very considerable industry, a very considerable profession, and they feel that they are entitled to a voice in the councils of the Nation.

These are the two objections which I feel it is important to answer at this time.

Now, for the two arguments which I would advance, which seem to me the strongest arguments for a department of education. One is an argument which is not touched on at all in the report of the United States Chamber of Commerce; it is an aspect of the question which was entirely ignored in that report, and that is the argument as to the international relations in education. If the United States had no international relations, as some of our statesmen wish that it might not have, it would not be necessary for us to have any national agency of education for international concourse. At the present time, there is no one who can speak for American education nationally; who can meet the representatives of other foreign nations on a par and speak with a voice on American education with equal authority.

I recall when the arrangements were being made for the visit of the educational commission from Great Britain, which was headed by the former Prime Minister of Great Britain, Mr. Arthur Balfour.

In a conference that some of us had with President Wilson at that time, we happened to let drop the statement that this educational commission, headed by Mr. Arthur Balfour, was coming over to America, and the President said: "Why, is that so? Another commission!" He had not heard anything of their coming, and here was a great commission coming over with authority from the English Government to America, to officially visit with this country on educational matters, and the President of the United States was even ignorant of the existence of the plan. When they came, there was no provision for national reception; in fact, the traveling expenses of the commission in this country had to be guaranteed by two university professors.

So, in international matters, we lack a national voice. And what that means you can see most clearly in Japan, where the ideals of the United States and Anglo-Saxon civilization meet and come in conflict with the educational ideals of Germany. Germany's well-organized educational system was making great progress in Japan up to the time of the war and America had no way of urging its ideals and advancing its theories of education in a contest with Germany.

The argument for a national department of education, which I think should be urged, is that we have at the present time in the National Government no representation of the intellectual spiritual ideal interests of man. When we have gone outside of the limited field of Government, as we have done, we have created departments which have to do with man in economic relations-agriculture, labor and commerce. Now, it is quite as true of governments as it is of individuals, that man can not live by bread alone; and as warfare, as international strife, diminishes as one of the chief occupations of the governments of this world, the question is, what is to take its place.

It is no mere chance that room is made for a department of education and welfare in the Brown reorganization plan, through the consolidation of the War and Navy Departments. It is a logical and philosophical sequence. But unless you make room for representation of education in the National Government, it is going to be a government of business, by business, and for business. And that does not reflect the American ideal.

The only opportunity which we can see for bringing the ideal interests of man to formal recognition by our Government, inasmuch as we are estopped from having any State church, is through the representation of education in our national system of government.

These arguments have nothing to do, of course, with the detailed provisions of this particular bill. As I say, I have been speaking for a department of education for 25 years. I do not think it has been too long a time. I looked up the history and found it took 25 years to get the present Bureau of Education, which, by the way, was originally named "department of education," and continued as such for a space of 12 months. But I think that 25 years is long enough; I think we ought to come to a decision pretty soon, and, speaking for the council, while we do not believe that the 50-50 principle is sound, either politically or economically, if that is to be the policy of the Federal Government, we would not draw the line at education and are prepared to take the department of education with the subsidies or

take it without the subsidies, whichever way we can get it. We are prepared to take it with welfare attached, if that is the only way we can make progress toward this recognition of the ideal interests of man in national education.

Miss WILLIAMS. The next speaker this evening is Dr. W. C. Bagley, professor of education, Teachers' College, Columbia University, who will speak on the provisions of the bill which have to do with teacher training.

STATEMENT OF DR. W. C. BAGLEY, PROFESSOR OF EDUCATION, TEACHERS' COLLEGE, COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY

Doctor BAGLEY. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, the question was asked this morning, when the bill was being discussed, particularly with regard to its provisions for adult education in reducing illiteracy and the Americanization of foreigners. The question was asked what the bill proposed to do for the education of children in our country.

The aspect that I am to discuss, the phase of the bill that I have as my topic, I think will, in one way, answer that question. This bill proposes Federal aid to the States for the training of teachers for the public schools, and I think that the members of the committee will agree that there is no phase of public education that is more significant than that which is concerned with the professional education of the personnel of the public-school service--the men and women who are to do the work in the schools.

In beginning this discussion, I think it is perhaps only fair to say that the provisions that we are making in this country for the professional education of public-school teachers are generally recognized as far below what they should be. Professor Judd, of the University of Chicago, and Professor Parker, in a monograph published under their joint authorship in 1916 and issued as a bulletin of the Federal Bureau of Education, stated that we pay less attention in this country to the training of teachers than does any other nation of comparable rank. That was in 1916.

Not very long ago I was discussing this problem with my colleague, Prof. Paul Monroe, who is now director of the International Institute of Education, which is attached to Teachers' College, and who had just returned from an extended visit to the Orient, where he was studying the educational systems of Japan and China. Professor Monroe made the statement that if we were to establish in this country the same standards of preparation for our public schools, for the teachers of our public-school system, that Japan had established and put into effect, and if we were to do that overnight, so to speak, if we were to raise our standards of preparation of teachers to the level that Japan has reached, it would be necessary for us to close 40 per cent of the classrooms of our American public schools. That will give you an indication of what competent students of the problem--what conclusions they have come to with regard to the inadequacy of our present provisions for the professional education. of public-school teachers.

Now, just to refer, very briefly, to a few of the outstanding facts. More than half of the teachers in our public elementary schools throughout the country are below standard in training. A great