its history in public-school education, that condition is found; and the same is true in other States. The appropriations for the State agricultural colleges, which are stimulated by the Federal Government through the Morrill Land Grant Act and through the continuing money act of 1890 and succeeding acts providing for a part of their sustenance from the Federal Treasury, are also far more liberally supported by the States than the appropriation for the State normal schools that do not have this stimulus. Consequently, it is perfectly clear to me that Federal aid acts as a stimulus to the State; it encourages the State to make a larger investment. When the agricultural colleges were established they were supported almost entirely by the proceeds from Federal grants. To-day the Federal grants are only a very small proportion; they form a very small proportion in the maintenance costs of those colleges. They are supported now almost entirely by State agents. Federal aid has been a distinct stimulus to State enterprise and initiative.

I have said Federal aid will act as an encouragement, as a stimulus. I am sure, also, that the aid is needed as aid. I have recently been making a study of the normal schools of Louisiana for the State department of education of that State with the object of making a program of development for the next 10 years. Louisiana, by the way, has made very rapid progress in education during the last 10 or 15 years and now ranks first among the Southern States in the proportion of trained teachers in schools, but ranks very well up among all of the States. It is No. 14, I think, which is a very good rank, particularly when you remember that all of the States of the South have been very seriously handicapped in developing facilities for public education. In making up this program for the next 10 years, I found by continuing the rate of progress that has been going on for the past 10 years, and which has been financed very liberally and generously by the State, that if we can continue that, and it is possible that we can, by the next 10 years the State of Louisiana will be in the position of one of the New England States that is now farthest behind; in other words, it will take another 10 years of all the effort that Louisiana can make to bring it up to that point; showing, it seems to me, that, much as the States are doing, they need this Federal aid. We have already had our attention called to Pennsylvania and other States that are attacking this problem; but I think if there is one phase of education that deserves Federal aid, and one phase of education that deserves Federal encouragement, it is this effort the States are making to provide trained teachers for their children.

The task of the normal school is an extremely difficult task. The type of student that they get is not so highly qualified for the work by native ability as other students that go into the colleges. The students come very largely from families in moderate circumstances. There is one normal school I have frequently visited where one-third of all the students come from homes where the English language is not spoken. They are going into the public schools of that State to serve as teachers. It is very clear, is it not, that the job the public school faces in taking teachers of that sort and fitting them for publicschool service is very enormous, a very heavy job, and it is a job not only for the State but for the Nation. And my contention on that is that if the stimulus of Federal aid is deserved anywhere it is deserved in connection with those institutions.

Mr. BLACK. Do you happen to know of the cost of the outlay now made for normal schools throughout the country, by States and cities?

Doctor BAGLEY. Yes; including student fees; I would include those? Mr. BLACK. Yes.

Doctor BAGLEY. Because I would like to say in the last 10 years the students have been compelled to pay larger and larger fees themselves. They have not been able to support the schools with the appropriations made. Including the fees, it is $21,000,000 a year that the States are now putting into this enterprise for normal schools and teachers colleges.

Mr. BLACK. This would practically double it?

Doctor BAGLEY. Yes; it would practically double it under our bill as first drawn. This, together with the general appropriation for equalizing educational opportunity, will enable us to bring the normal schools and teachers' colleges, at least to make a start toward bringing them, up to the level of other teacher institutions publicly supported. The appropriation of $50,000,000 for the equalizing of educational opportunities, if spent in a right way, would enable us to add the increments of salary that are necessary with the increased training for our teachers; in other words, as drawn, it would enable them to pay more salaries.

Mr. BLACK. You think it would be economically impossible for some sections of the country to provide adequate teacher training? Doctor BAGLEY. Oh, yes; I am sure of that.

Mr. BLACK. That being a very important item in this bill, do you think it would be advisable for the Federal Government to attempt to bring the teacher-training colleges under the absolute control of the Federal Government in certain sections of the country?

Doctor BAGLEY. I would rather, myself, not see that done. I think education is a State function; the public schools are under the control of the States, and I do not think the Federal Government should do anything except give the money to the States for that purpose.

The CHAIRMAN. This $15,000,000 for the training of teachers does not call upon the States for $15,000,000 more than they are now spending?

Doctor BAGLEY. Some States would have, probably, to spend something more to come up to meet, dollar for dollar, the Federal allotment; but what they are spending now for teacher-training institutions could be counted against the Federal appropriation.

The CHAIRMAN. The reason I asked that question is that it is commonly represented that this is a 50-50 proposition; that the State would give so much and the Federal Government would match it. As I understand you, what each State is now spending would be counted toward its part?

Doctor BAGLEY. That is my understanding, that what they are now spending would be counted toward meeting the Federal aid; yes. The CHAIRMAN. So that really, so far as the training of teachers is concerned, this would be a gift out of the Federal Treasury to the extent of $15,000,000 to encourage this sort of work?

Doctor BAGLEY. To most of the States that is true. Some of the States would have to put in a little more than they are now contributing.

94041-247- 4

Mr. BLACK. Some of the States might not seek it at all?
Doctor BAGLEY. Some of the States might not ask for it.

Miss WILLIAMS. There are at least six others who must get out of town to-night and, since they are very eminent speakers we all want to hear them. If they are to be heard to-night we shall have to ask them to limit their remarks so that the members of the committee may have an opportunity to ask these very interesting questions, which make the record a most interesting thing to read. We regret very much to have to ask the speakers who come after this to boil down their remarks, as much as it is possible to do so, but it is necessary if the remaining speakers are all to be heard.

The CHAIRMAN. If any of them have their remarks written out, we would be glad to have them extend their remarks in the printed hearings.

Miss WILLIAMS. If there are any who do not have the opportunity to speak, we will take advantage of that suggestion. The next speaker is Dr. Cheesman Herrick, president of Girard College, Philadelphia, Pa.

STATEMENT OF DR. CHEESMAN HERRICK, PRESIDENt of GIRARD COLLEGE, PHILADELPHIA, PA.

Mr. HERRICK. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I shall depart from my original purpose and devote myself to a single point on the objections which have been urged to this bill particularly with regard to the domination of the Federal Government in affairs of education of the States.

I have listened with interest to the argument of a distinguished university professor in America; I have examined with interest the referendum of the United States Chamber of Commerce and participated in the discussion under that referendum on the objections which have been urged to this bill. I have had also, during the past year, an opportunity to make observations of the operation of a centralized department of education in another country, and I wish to say that the fears which have been counseled in all these considerations of the bill seem to me entirely unwarranted and needless.

I think we have established, beyond peradventure of a doubt, the constitutional fact that education rests with the States: that this bill does not supersede State authority. Not only is that true of our constitutional system in general, but the bill specifically says, six times over, that the initiative and administration of education shall be with the States and that the authority which would be set up in the Federal Government by this bill should not supersede State initiative or State supervision. Nevertheless, those who have opposed the bill have felt there was some sort of hokus-pokus involved in the arrangement; that Federal domination of education was coming in by a side door in some way, and that State initiative and private education and the education of religious societies was going to be, in some fashion that we do not now sunderstand, superseded.

Now I have had a great opportunity, in the last year, to spend three months in an examination of education in Great Britain and to visit a goodly number of the schools of that country both public and private, and to witness the operations of the president of the

board of education as a minister in the British Cabinet; to visit the inspectors of the English school system; to interview the head masters of the schools to which these inspectors had gone, and I want to bring to the committee assurance that practically all of the secondary schools of England, with the department of education operating in the British Government, are under private control. The governing bodies are constituted entirely outside of Governmental domination or dictation; the supervision and inspection is carried on in those schools, private as they are, without interference with the local autonomy, the methods of teaching, or anything connected therewith. In so famous a school as Rugby, which is a household word in America (but which I take as a type) because the inspectors of the department of education from London go to Rugby School on the invitation of the governing body of that school, they conduct an investigation, they make a report in detail on the instruction being given; they offer suggestions for the improvement of Rugby School and lend a very substantial service to that school, and all without interfering, in one iota, in the final control over that school and in the local and independent operations of the school. And the thing which is true of Rugby is true of 30 or 40 other schools which I saw and examined at close range.

Mr. LOWREY. Mr. Chairman, might I suggest is not that just in line with what happens in all of our States when the State board of education or the State university sends its visitor to private schools and denominational schools to inspect and affiliate the school with the colleges? It is a kind of supervision, and yet it is a welcomed supervision and a helpful supervision?

Doctor HERRICK. And leaves the local authorities free.

Mr. LowREY. It interferes in no way at all with the local authority. Doctor HERRICK. I think that might well be said.

Mr. REED. I was just going to ask you this question: So far as you know or can say, would there be any Federal inspection of our schools, or is it contemplated in our schools to have any Federal supervision in any way, shape, or form under this plan?

Doctor HERRICK. I do not think so. So that it would be more removed from the danger of interference or the setting aside of local authority, than would be true even under the English system; yet under the English system there is no setting aside of the local authority or interference with the religious societies in the maintenance of their schools, or of locally incorporated school societies in the maintenance of their own schools.

Mr. WELSH Doctor, would you consider the English system sufficiently parallel to ours to use it for purposes of comparison?

Doctor HERRICK. In this particular I would. I think it offers to us a very splendid evidence of the fact that the Minister of Education does not dominate and stifle and retard the local educational activity. Mr. BLACK. May I ask what local government has control of the schools in England?

Doctor HERRICK. They are called governing bodies and each of them is a distinctive incorporation.

Mr. BLACK. Answerable to whom?

Doctor HERRICK. Answerable generally to their own society.
Mr. BLACK. Are they answerable to any town or city?

Doctor HERRICK. In secondary schools.

Mr. BLACK. There is nothing analogous to our State school system, of course?

Doctor HERRICK. They have a system of board schools of the elementary grade. The secondary schools are practically all under independent local governing bodies.

Mr. BLACK. There is no local political guidance of the educational

bodies?

Doctor HERRICK. They are local educational bodies, some church officials, some selected by private companies; some of them are deans of colleges or presidents of universities-some one thing, some another but they are each a distinctive thing.

Mr. BLACK. They are publicly supported; is that it?

Doctor HERRICK. Yes; they receive in certain instances grants from the board of education, but in Rugby School they receive no grant at all. This inspection is on the invitation of the governing body of Rugby School, and the board of education gives advice, counsel, and stimulation, and Rugby gets no money at all from the board of education. The English system is very individual. The local authority has the great control and initiative, and it is operating in connection with the minister of education, and the minister of education has not retarded or stifled individual initiative.

Mr. BLACK. There is no attempt at standardization, either, proceeding from the minister?

Doctor HERRICK. I would say through suggestions of the minister they are attempting to standardize. There are certain ideals their inspectors and examiners do set up, and in these written reports which they make to the school they examine they do offer a standard or level to which they think the school might come; they do suggest to the school improvements which might well be introduced to the benefit of the school.

Mr. BLACK. Is there indirect control over the school and governing body of the school, by any authority, or denial of authority, in the credit that the minister of education might give to a school certificate?

Doctor HERRICK. No; they give no credit to school certificates at all in England; everything is on an examination system, scholarship admissions, and all the system of preferments and scholastic recognítion is based on examinations and not at all through what we ordinarily know as certificates or official recognition.

Mr. TUCKER Doctor, may I ask you a question? Would you favor this bill if you thought there was any danger of the Federal Government taking control of the educational systems of the States? Doctor HERRICK. I would not.

Mr. TUCKER. The bill itself is very clear on that subject, giving the entire control to the State officers, and yet I find in it three distinct conditions upon which it can be accepted. One is that there must be a 50-50 appropriation. The second is that each State that seeks the benefit of the bill must have a compulsory system of education. The next is that each State must have 24 weeks of school term. Now, those are very good propositions; we all want them. They are not objectionable. But, if the State of Virginia has a school system running for 20 weeks instead of 24, and in order to get in under this bill they adopt the 24-week system, does not the Federal Government practically control the school system of Virginia to the extent of those four additional weeks?