CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF THE UNITED STATES MAJORITY REPORT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION PARTICIPATION OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IN EDUCATION Frank J. Loesch, Chicago, III. John G. Lonsdale, St. Louis, Mo. Henry S. Pritchett, New York, N. Y. Henry D. Sharpe, Providence, R. I. James J. Storrow, Boston, Mass., Chairman % i£ n NOVEMBER 20, 1922 MAJORITY REPORT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2017 with funding from University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign Alternates https://archive.org/details/majorityreportof00cham_0 CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF THE UNITED STATES MAJORITY REPORT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION PARTICIPATION OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IN EDUCATION Frank J. Loesch, Chicago, 111. John G. Lonsdale, St. Louis, Mo. Henry S. Pritchett, New York, N. Y. Henry D. Sharpe, Providence, R. I. James J. Storrow, Boston, Mass., Chairman NOVEMBER 20, 1922 PARTICIPATION OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IN EDUCATION RESOLUTION OF BOARD OF DIRECTORS This Committee was created pursuant to the follow- ing resolution of the Board of Directors of the Chamber of Commerce of the United States: “The resolution adopted by the Civic Development Department Committee recommending that the Board submit to a referendum the subject of education, the participation of the Federal Government in education work, and the correlation of the education work of the Federal Government to other activities of the Federal Government was considered, and it was voted that the President be authorized to appoint a Special Committee on Education to consider the questions involved and report to the Board.” PARTICIPATION OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IN EDUCATION GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS The Questions Before Us By far the most important subject submitted to this committee is the question of Federal participation in education. Shall the states continue to maintain and be respon- sible for the public schools of the country? Shall the National Government take over the support and control of the schools? Shall there be a divided support and control, partly vested in the National Government and partly vested in the states? These questions are not academic. They are of the utmost practical importance and they are now before the American people for decision. For a decade, and with especial vehemence since the war, a nation-wide propaganda has been carried on looking toward the gradual transfer of responsibility for the support and control of our public schools from the state, and local unit within the state, to the Federal Government at Washington. If we travel this road we shall end with a great bu- reaucratic machine at Washington having its Secretary of Education in the Cabinet, its Assistant Secretaries of Education, and a horde of bureau chiefs and clerks and three-quarters of a million of Federal employees teaching in the schools and bossed by several thousand field inspectors, supervisors, and other petty traveling officials. [ 3 ] General Considerations Federal Board for Vocational Education This nation-wide propaganda succeeded in 1917 in securing the passage of its first bill and created at Wash- ington a special Federal Board to control vocational education. This National Vocational Board is now operating from Washington, disbursing Federal money, laying down regulations, controlling, inspecting, and dictating the manner in which vocational education shall be carried on by the states, the cities and towns, and other local educational units. Sterling-Towner Bill Now comes the Sterling-Towner Bill, prepared by collaboration between representatives of the National Education Association, and representatives of the Amer- ican Federation of Teachers, composed of those teachers who have joined the American Federation of Labor. This bill was introduced at the request of the National Education Association and the American Federation of Labor, hearings were held and it was favorably reported in the last Congress by the House and Senate Committees on Education, but failed to come up for action before the end of the session. It has again been introduced during the present Congress and is now in the hands of the Senate and House Committees. Sterling-Towner Bill Most Radical Step Towards Federalizing Schools This Sterling-Towner Bill, which constitutes a long and radical second step towards federalizing the schools of the country, calls for the appropriation of the round sum of one hundred million dollars, of which $7,500,000 is to be expended for teaching illiterates, $7,500,000 for Americanization work (chiefly teaching illiterates be- yond school age English and to read and write), $20,- 000,000 for physical training, $15,000,000 for training [4] General Considerations teachers, and $50,000,000 to raise the pay of teachers throughout the country.* Framers of Constitution Intended to Leave Education in Hands of States The Constitution does not mention education, and nowhere gives the Federal Government authority to direct or control education. As this power was not reserved by the Constitution to the Federal Govern- ment, it is clear that the framers of the Constitution deliberately intended to vest in the states the power to establish, maintain, conduct, and control education. This does not mean that the framers of this Federal democracy failed to realize the importance of edu- cation, but that like many other activities vital to the welfare of our people they believed education could be carried on with better regard to the interests and wishes of the people, with better adaptation to local needs, and with greater efficiency and more economy if left to the states than if it should be federalized and so controlled and conducted by Federal officers located at the National Capital. Dangers of Federal Control Great is the danger of handing the power of controlling the ideas and ideals of the growing generation to a group of bureaucrats located far away at the seat of government. They may willfully do great damage. They may unwittingly sow seeds on a nation-wide scale which will * The language of the bill is $50,000,000 “to equalize educational op- portunity.” These words of the bill are certainly vague, but the under- standing among the proponents seems to be that this $50,000,000 is to be used to raise the pay of teachers. “The appropriation for the equalization of educational opportunities will contribute $50,000,000 annually to this end, and while the same is relatively small (adding less than $100 to the salary of each teacher), it will operate upon the basis of a public sentiment already alive to the imperative need of raising teachers’ salaries.” (Keith and Bagley, “The Nation and the Schools,” p. 285.) General Considerations fructify only after many quiet years of germination so that the noxious weeds can perhaps be eradicated only by the slow growth of public reaction after grievous injury to our body politic. Germany to her ruin and sorrow has reaped her har- vest from seeds quietly sown in her schools for many years by the Berlin bureaucracy. The world’s history is strewn with the wreck of governments whose dis- integration began when the people saw the local control of their dearest concerns taken away and concentrated in the hands of a bureaucracy at the seat of empire. The creators of our Federal Government clearly foresaw and wisely undertook to protect us from the inefficiency and the dangers of over-centralization. Control of Schools for the People Should Remain Near the People The genius of our people should and must control our schools. There is nowhere else to place this trust. But if our people are to control our schools and to cause them to be sensitive to their ideals, to their varying needs from year to year and from locality to locality, those in charge must be near them, accessible to them, and responsive to them. A vote once in two or six years for a member of Congress or a Senator who is to live at the seat of government far from home, and who must be elected to attend to a hundred other things and can therefore rarely be elected on an educational issue, coupled with the rigidity which would almost certainly be attained by the managing bureaucracy at Washing- ton, would make our school system about as sensitive and responsive to the average man as a ton of pig iron to a tack hammer. Constant Practice in Local Self- Government Vital Moreover, if our government is to survive, if these 100,000,000 people, soon to become 200,000,000 people, [ 6 ] General Considerations made up of racial stocks from many countries, embody- ing many varying degrees and forms of civilization, and of governing knowledge or rather lack of knowledge of self-government, are to succeed in maintaining and carrying on this great Federal democracy, it will only be by the constant practice of local self-government in things which vitally concern them. Our people should have constant practice in critical local affairs, in affairs which are not matters of comparative in- difference but of such vital consequence that the people of the community will be hurt, and seriously hurt, if they are not conducted properly. These alone will teach each succeeding generation and the millions of less experienced people arriving from foreign shores what good government is, what bad government is, and how to secure the former. Self Help Builds Character and Citizenship The doctrine of self help, the idea that the things we get for ourselves are the best tilings we possess, that sturdily striving to care for ourselves builds character and citizenship, seems recently to have evaporated from the minds of many. They seem to think that each local group of American citizens should stand around like a Greek chorus waiting for the gods at Washington to make the next event happen. Federal Control of Public Education Inevitable Under Sterling-Towner Bill Many of those who advocate the Sterling-Towner Bill urge that Federal control or interference with our public school system will not result from the passage of the bill. This Sterling-Towner Bill did not spring up over- night, and it is perhaps significant that as originally framed with great deliberation by its present sponsors [ 7 ] General Considerations and pushers, it directly contemplated a high degree of Federal control just as is now being actually exercised by the Federal Board of Vocational Training in dis- tributing its Federal money. There have now been inserted in the bill, however* specific words stating in effect that the Federal Govern- ment shall not interfere or endeavor to control the ex- penditure of the money which it is to turn over to the states. Apart from the fundamentally unsound policy of having A levy the taxes, collect the funds, and then wash his hands of all responsibility for the expenditure of the funds by B , it only takes, we think, a moderate experience in affairs to realize that people are bound to be sensitive to the views of the dispenser of their annual largesses even though his wishes are not embodied in words of command but are conveyed in terms of sug- gestion and recommendation. But right at the outset and on the face of the bill, its proponents are trying to sit on both sides of the fence at the same time, as another part of the bill sets up certain standards which the states must meet and maintain if they are to receive Federal money and the new Cabinet officer, the Secretary of Education created by the bill, is given authority to withhold the money from any state which fails to meet the standards. But really common sense is sufficient without argu- ment to tell us that if the six hundred thousand teachers of this country find themselves on the Federal payroll, they are going in the long run to be subject at least to a dual influence and a dual control. Besides, if the Sterling-Towner Bill passes and six hundred thousand teachers begin looking to the Federal Government for fifty million dollars of their pay, why in their opinion should the Government stop at a fifty million bonus? The argument for a second fifty million will be almost exactly as good as for the first and the desire of the bene- [ 8 ] General Considerations ficiaries probably not a whit less. Certainly the new Secretary of Education who will be in contact with the President as the head of one of the great political parties and with his fellow Cabinet officers and other political leaders and with the appropriation committees of Con- gress, will not need to speak much above a whisper to have his perhaps quite recently acquired views as the holder of a quite recently acquired office sway the whole course of public school education. Moreover the pro- ponents of the Sterling-Towner Bill are, in our judg- ment, handing the teachers of the country poisoned fruit because for each dollar received from the Federal Government five dollars will be held back by the states and local authorities waiting for Uncle Sam to make the next move. National Education Association We differ in this report from views officially formu- lated by the National Education Association and set forth by its official representatives at the hearing on the Sterling-Towner Bill. We do so with entire respect. The National Education Association is performing great public service in crystallizing and making known to us the views of those engaged in public education. In its arguments urging Federal pay for teachers it is helping the American people to realize the sound public policy of more generous compensation for teachers in the public schools. In stressing the dangers of illiteracy, of the need of Americanization and making known to the American people the shortcomings of their school systems, they are helping to accelerate the constant forward march of our public schools. Quick Remedies Not Always the Best We admire the impatience of the teaching profession with the defects of our public schools and we sympa- thize with their viewpoint that to get a quick remedy [ 9 ] General Considerations for some of these defects they desire to call the National Government to their aid. Bryce, a thoroughly sympathetic as well as perhaps the most profound student of Democracy of our genera- tion, well describes this impatience: “Reformers, impatient with the slackness and parsimony common among local authorities, have, however, been everywhere advocating State (i. e . National) intervention, insisting that the reluctance of the local citizen to spend freely makes it necessary to invoke the central government, both to supervise schools and to grant the money from the treasury for the salaries of teachers and various educational appliances. Here, as is often the case, the choice is between more rapid progress on the one hand, and the greater solidity and hold upon the average citizen’s mind which institutions draw from being entrusted to popular management. (Bryce, “ Mod- ern Democracies,” p. 436.) Danger of Hasty Generalization Hasty, ill-considered generalization based upon in- complete assembly of the facts and superficial study of the facts is the plague of the world. We shall endeavor now to marshal what seem to us to be the more material facts bearing on this question and to consider them in some detail. He who wishes to arrive at a sound conclusion on this complex subject must examine many facts. There is no short cut to a sound opinion. HAS OUR PRESENT SYSTEM OF EDUCATION BROKEN DOWN? Proposals for participation of the Federal Govern- ment in the support and control of public education are based upon two premises : First: That under the present method of support and control by states and communities our system of education has broken down; and Second: That some of the states are too poor to pro- vide a fair standard of public education for their people. These are serious charges and deserve serious considera- tion. We shall therefore consider these questions in turn. Throughout the history of our national life the public school system has been entirely under state and local government and has been dependent almost exclusively on state and local support. Under these conditions it has developed with constantly increasing effectiveness into a system which, in spite of all its defects, represents an achievement in education unparalleled in any other country. It is the tendency of over-zealous proponents of change in any field of human endeavor to overlook substantial merits and to exaggerate defects. Advo- cates of a revolution in our methods of support and control of public education have so directed attention to defects in our present system that we are in danger of overlooking its merits. It is necessary, therefore, to review briefly the great development of public edu- cation within the past fifty years. Progress in Education Under State and Community Control increase in scholars The following table shows the growth in scholars under state support and control since 1870: Has Our Present System Broken Down? Year Pupils Enrolled Average Daily Attendance 1870 6,871,522 4,077,347 1880 9,867,505 6,144,143 1890 12,722,581 8,153,635 1900 15,503,110 10,632,772 1910 17,813,852 12,827,307 1918 20,853,516 15,548,914 (U. S. Bureau of Education, Bulletin 11, 1920, p. 4.) The increase in scholars attending our public high schools also has been amazing. Year Pupils Enrolled in Public High Schools 1870 80,227 1880 110,277 1890 202,963 1900 519,251 1910 915,061 1918 1,645,171 S. Bureau of Education, Bulletin 11, 1920, IMPROVEMENT IN DAILY ATTENDANCE In 1920 the U. S. Commissioner of Education de- scribed the progress made as follows: “No field in education, with the possible exception of school revenues, has in recent years been more prolific of progress as regards legislative provisions than has compulsory school attendance. “Within the past decade the seven states which had previously enacted no laws on the subject all enacted initial requirements, and they and various other states have by this time made their laws stronger and extended their application.” (U. S. Commissioner of Education, Annual Report, 1920, p. 77.) Has Our Present System Broken Down? INCREASE IN ATTENDANCE IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS Per Cent of Children Year Enrolled Attending Each Day 1870 59.3 1880 62.3 1890 64.1 1900 68.6 1910 72.1 1918 74.6 (U. S. Bureau of Education, Bulletin 11, 1920, p. 5.) INCREASE IN LENGTH OF SCHOOL YEAR There has been a steady increase in the length of the school year. Year Average Number of Days Schools were in Session 1870 132.2 1880 130.3 1890 134.7 ‘ 1 1900 144.3 1910 157.5 1918 160.7 (U. S. Bureau of Education, Bulletin 11, 1920, p. 5.) INCREASE IN NUMBER OF YEARS OF ATTENDANCE There has been , also, a steady increase in the average number of years children remain in school. Year Average Number of Years of 200 Days Children Remain at School 1870 2.91 1880 3.45 1890 3.85 1900 4.67 1910 5.40 1914 5.64 We call attention to the increase in the South Atlantic and South Central States shown in the table following. Although the average in these states is below the average [ 13 ] Has Our Present System Broken Down? in the other groups the relative progress made has been much greater. This reflects to a large extent the effect of more schooling for the negro population. NUMBER OF YEARS* ATTENDANCE BY DIVISIONS Divisions 1870 1880 1890 1900 1910 19H The United States . 2.91 3.45 3.85 4.67 5.40 5.64 North Atlantic Division . . . 4.43 4.84 4.99 5.91 6.38 6.64 North Central Division . . . 3.71 4.19 4.67 5.57 6.28 6.47 South Atlantic Division . . .80 1.90 2.42 2.95 3.93 4.23 South Central Division . . . .80 1.57 2.20 2.91 3.77 3.95 Western Division . 2.77 3.57 3.98 4.99 6.29 6.80 (U.S. Bureau of Education, , Annual Report for 1916, Vol L 2 f p. 6.) INCREASED EXPENDITURES FOR EDUCATION Do the expenditures by the states and local govern- ments for public education show that they are stinting the support of the schools as is alleged by those who claim our present method of state and local support has broken down? The increase in expenditures for public schools since 1870 has been as follows: School Year Total Expenditures 1871 $63,396,666 1880 78,094,687 1890 140,506,715 1900 214,964,618 1910 426,250,434 1918 763,678,089 1920 1,103,651,201* (U. S. Bureau of Education, Bulletin 11, 1920, p. 4.) According to these figures the expenditures for the public school system of the country increased from $63,396,666 in 1871 to $1,103,651,201 in 1920, or more than sixteen times, while the school population during the same period increased slightly more than three times. SOURCES OF FUNDS Local taxes are the mainstay in the increasing cost of the public schools. * Obtained from Bureau of Education. [ 14 ] Has Our Present System Broken Down? SOURCES OF FUNDS AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC SCHOOL PURPOSES, 1890-1918 Income of Permanent All Other Funds & Lands Local Taxes State Taxes Sources Total 1890 $7,744,765 $97,222,426 $26,345,323 $11,882,292 $143,194,806 1895 7,800,740 118,915,304 34,638,098 15,210,769 176,564,911 1900 9,152,274 149,486,845 37,886,740 23,240,130 219,765,989 1905 13,194,042 210,167,770 44,349,295 34,107,962 301,819,069 1910 14,096,555 312,221,582 64,604,701 42,140,859 433,063,697 1915 17,079,977 456,956,495 91,104,045 24,511,076 589,651,593 1918 21,517,040 580,619,460 101,305,057 33,434,885 736,876,442 (U. S. Bureau of Education, Bulletin 11, 1920, p. 4.) In the 28 years from 1890 to 1918 local taxation for public schools increased from $97,222,426 to $580,619,460 or 498 per cent. In 1890, 67.9 per cent of the support of the public schools was paid by local taxation and 18.4 per cent by the state. In 1918 the figures were 78.8 per cent for local taxation and 13.7 per cent for the state, showing that contributions from local taxation have made the faster growth. INCREASE IN VALUE OF SCHOOL PROPERTY The increase in the value of school property is not less remarkable, the increase being from $130,383,008 in 1870 to $1,983,508,818 in 1918. Year Value of School Property 1870 $130,383,008 1880 209,571,718 1885 263,668,536 1890 342,531,791 1895 440,666,022 1900 550,069,217 1905 733,446,805 1910 1,091,007,512 1915 1,567,391,225 1918 1,983,508,818 (U. S. Bureau of Education, Bulletin 11, 1920, p. 4.) [15] Has Our Present System Broken Down f QUALITY OF INSTRUCTION Not only has there been a notable increase in the quantity of education given our children since 1870, but even more notable has been the improvement in the quality of our schools; better teachers, better text- books, better methods of instruction, better buildings and equipment; the whole spirit of our public school instruction has been revolutionized in the past fifty years, or even within the past two decades. Within a brief period of time we have seen the real development of the kindergarten, a new science of educational psychology with less emphasis upon learning from books and more emphasis upon learning by doing, the introduction of manual training, of drawing, of music, school gardens, playgrounds, and a multitude of other improvements in educational methods. It is safe to say that public education within the past two decades has made more rapid progress than for any corresponding period in the history of American education. In many respects within recent years the American school system has become the center of educational interest for the world. PROGRESS IN SPITE OF SERIOUS OBSTACLES The development of public education in this country has gone steadily forward in spite of certain serious obstacles to educational progress. Chief among these obstacles should be mentioned the following facts: (1) that the South did not re- cover from the Civil War until toward the end of the 19th century; (2) that the enfranchisement of nearly four million negro slaves thrust upon the South and upon the country a tremendous educational problem; (3) that the constant stream of immigrants, particu- larly from Eastern and Southern Europe, presented educational problems of great magnitude. STANDARDS OF CRITICISM RISING It should be noted also that many of the defects which [161 Has Our Present System Broken Down? we now recognize in our system of public education are defects of which we have become conscious only within the last few years. Some of the defects were not clear to the American people until the disclosures of the selective draft. Other defects have been disclosed only within recent years as improved methods of educational analysis have been available and as comprehensive sur- veys and intensive investigations have brought to light conditions which may have been familiar to specialists in education, but which were not known to people in general. It is further to be noted that within the last few years the science of education has developed far higher stand- ards for education and that it is unfair to indict states and communities for failure to reach right away edu- cational standards which have been raised markedly within a short time. Never have the states and communities been so alive to the needs of education and so ready to meet those needs as at the present time. BASIS OF ATTACK ON PRESENT PUBLIC EDUCATION SYSTEM The leaders in the movement to secure fifty millions of Federal money for teachers’ salaries and the other lesser appropriations of the Sterling-Towner Bill have felt that as an essential part of their case and to clear the way for the Federal Government to take hold they must establish the breakdown of our educational system or at least that the people of this country are today suddenly confronted with a great educational emergency which requires an immediate remedy. This general indictment against our present educa- tional system was briefly summarized before the Joint Senate and House Committee on Education, 1919, by Dr. George D. Stray er. President of the National Edu- cation Association and Chairman of the National Edu- cation Association “Emergency Commission”: [ 17 ] Has Our Present System Broken Down? “As chairman of the Commission on Emergency- in Education,* we gathered the facts with respect to education in the United States and found . . . that the particular emergencies which confront us in the United States at this time have to do with the over- whelming number of illiterates, the need for the Americanization of the foreigners who live among us, the training of teachers, the establishment of a program of physical education and health service, and the equalization of educational opportunity.” (Record of Joint Hearings before Committees on Education and Labor, Sixty-Sixth Congress, First Session, July, 1919, p. 49.) Charles B. Stillman, President of the American Fed- eration of Teachers, said at the same hearing: “In conclusion, you will readily agree that the threatened breakdown of our educational system which this bill is designed to avert would be very disastrous to the Nation as a whole, more disastrous to the Nation as a whole than to any State or local- ity.” (Record of Joint Hearings,1919, p. 112.) These attacks are based largely upon conditions which came to light or received new emphasis as the result of our war experiences, and the charges are as follows: 1. The illiteracy of our people. 2. Failure to Americanize the foreign-born population. 3. Low physical standard of our population. 4. Inadequate rural schools. 5. Shortage of teachers. 6. Low salaries of teachers. 7. Poor quality of teachers. The attack along these lines has been developed by what we think may be described as the “shock” method. REVELATIONS OF THE WAR Some of these conditions, like the acute shortage of teachers, applied to every line of public and private activity and were temporary in their nature and are Appointed by the National Education Association. Has Our Present System Broken Down? now fast approaching, if not already back, to normal. The war unquestionably also did reveal to us in educa- tion as in other directions weaknesses which should be attended to and mended as soon as possible. We must maintain, however, our perspective as to these things, and we want to say at the outset that the war also revealed, in a way that inspired the soul of every American citizen, the essential vigor and strength of the American people and the soundness of American institutions. It established that, despite a recent Civil War, and despite the many alien and polyglot elements of which our population is composed, there was a national consciousness, intense, united, and vigorous, certainly not surpassed by any other belligerent nation. The intelligence, resourcefulness, and skill of our men in the field, and of the men and women in the workshops and civilian war activities, bore eloquent witness to the gen- eral soundness of the educational training of our people. Illiteracy Congressman Towner states the illiteracy charge as follows : “The disclosure of the draft, by which it was ascertained that out of 2,400,000 young men between the ages of 21 and 31, 700,000 of them — almost one- third — were not able to read and write, was a re- flection upon our educational interests in the United States that ought to be blotted out, ought to be obliterated, just as soon as it is possible for us to accomplish it. The number of illiterates in this country is increasing — not decreasing. The con- ditions that exist in this country, where so many men and women and children — probably between twelve and fifteen million of them — that cannot read the English language, the language of our Gov- ernment, the language of our social intercourse, the language of our commercial business interests, is a condition that reflects great discredit upon this country.” (Record of Joint Hearings, 1919, p. 11.) Has Our Present System Broken Down? The illiteracy charge is also made in the resolution of the National Education Association as presented at the same hearing by Dr. George D. Strayer, at that time its President: “An alarming percentage of illiteracy in our popu- lation shown by the Army tests to be approximately 20 per cent of the total population.” (Record of Joint Hearings, 1919, p. 71.) But Congressman Towner and the framers of the resolution quoted are by no means the only educational authorities who have been misled by the Army sta- tistics. We find in the report of the U. S. Commissioner of Education for 1921 the following statement: “The war has made appalling revelations. Some of the outstanding things are: The illiteracy of prac- tically 25 per cent of the population, the serious lack of attention to health, hygiene and physical education, the urgent need for Americanizing our heterogeneous foreign elements. All these are matters of national importance and need subsidies from the Federal Government.” (U. S. Commissioner of Education, Annual Report, 1921, p. 36.) NUMBER OF ILLITERATES IS DECREASING The number of illiterates in this country is not in- creasing, as stated by Congressman Towner. Not only has the percentage of illiteracy decreased, as we have already noted, but the actual number of illiterates has decreased substantially in every decade. The census figures since 1890 are as follows: Number of Per Cent of Year Illiterates Total Population 1890 6,324,702 13.3 1900 6,180,069 10.7 1910 5,516,163 7.7 1920 4,931,905 [201 6.0 Has Our Present System Broken Down? The percentage of illiteracy is not 20 per cent, as stated in Dr. Strayer’s resolution. According to the 1920 census it is 6 per cent. THE ARMY STATISTICS There have been so many erroneous conclusions based upon the psychological tests given in the Army that it has become essential to carefully analyze the data. We therefore give the original official statement in the Appendix. (Official Report of the Division of Psy- chology of the Office of the Surgeon-General, published with the approval of the Department of War. Chapter 9, p. 743 ff. See Appendix A.) ANALYSIS OF ARMY ILLITERACY STATISTICS It will be seen from this official statement that strictly speaking there was no examination for literacy in the drafted army. About fifteen hundred thousand men were given psychological tests and were divided for that pur- pose into two groups: — those who were supposed to be able to read and write English readily enough to answer questions in a very short time, measured by a stop-watch; and those whose knowledge was presumably insufficient for that kind of examination. In some camps the men were asked if they could read newspapers and write letters in English; in other camps they were asked if they had finished four, six, or even seven grades in school. For three of the camps no basis for the testing of literacy was reported. The other camps varied from the third grade standard, as in Camp Wadsworth, to seventh grade standard, as in Camp Wheeler and in Camp Grant, in the latter camp this meaning ability to “read and write rapidly.” In seven camps the standard was not defined in terms of school grades but solely as “read and write,” meaning sufficient facility in reading newspapers and writing letters home in English to satisfy the particular examining officer. In a number of cases the standard was changed during the period covered by the sta- [ 21 ] Has Our Present System Broken Down? tistics, though the number of men examined on each of the respective bases is not stated. The tests were so far from being uniform that they hardly warrant a definite conclusion. It is also true that the men submitted to these psy- chological tests did not accurately represent our general population for four reasons. First, they were all men from twenty-one to thirty -one years of age, and the 1920 census shows that in this age-group there exists even among natives an illiteracy rate at least twice as great as that of the general average of the total population if we go down to children over ten, because of the steady improvement in our schools. Second, because so many immigrants to this country come at about the age of twenty, and moreover a large proportion of them are males, so that the proportion of foreign-born men of military age is much greater than among the popula- tion at large. Third, there were 1,400,000 volunteers. Fourth, there were hundreds of thousands of men ex- cused from the draft on account of being public officials or ministers or students or indispensable employees in war industries, and there can be no doubt that the amount of illiteracy among these men was much less than that in the drafted group. The Army tests did bring home to us, however, that a distressingly large proportion of our population must still be classified as “less literate” — the term used in the Army report — but that is not the same as illiterate and its definition is far from being clear. NATIVE WHITE ILLITERATES We cannot accurately comprehend the literacy situa- tion without further analysis. There are really three distinct problems involved — the native white population, negro population, and foreign-born population. The number of native white illiterates has decreased steadily and rapidly since 1880: [ 22 ] Has Our Present System Broken Down ? Year Number Per Cent. 1880 2,255,460 8.7 1890 2,065,003 6.2 1900 1,913,611 4.6 1910 1,534,272 3.0 1920 1,242,572 2.0 It will be seen that whereas in 1880 out of every thousand native whites ten years old and over, eighty- seven were illiterate, in 1920 only twenty were illit- erate. During the past decade the percentage of illiteracy decreased in every single state except those which had already reached in 1910 what is virtually an irreducible minimum — less than one-half of one per cent. The following states showed in 1920 an illiteracy rate for native whites in excess of the average for the country : 1920 1910 1900 1890 1880 New Mexico 11.6 14.9 29.4 42.8 64.2 Louisiana 10.5 13.4 17.3 20.3 19.8 North Carolina 8.2 12.3 19.5 23.1 31.7 Tennessee 7.3 9.7 14.2 18.0 27.8 Kentucky 7.0 10.0 12.8 16.1 22.8 South Carolina 6.5 10.3 13.6 18.1 22.4 Alabama 6.3 9.9 14.8 18.4 25.0 Virginia 5.9 8.0 11.1 14.0 18.5 Georgia 5.4 7.8 11.9 16.5 23.2 West Virginia 4.6 6.4 10.0 12.9 18.6 Arkansas 4.5 7.0 11.6 16.6 25.5 Mississippi 3.6 5.2 8.0 11.9 16.6 Texas 3.0 4.3 6.1 8.3 13.9 Florida 2.9 5.0 8.6 11.3 20.7 Oklahoma 2.3 3.3 7.7 3.4 — Arizona 2.1 4.2 6.2 7.9 8.1 Although the illiteracy rate in several of the South- ern and Southwestern States is considerably above the average for the country as a whole, rapid prog- ress is being made by the educational systems of [ 23 ] Has Our Present System Broken Down? these states in reducing illiteracy. Certainly the record does not indicate failure of the present state educational systems. NEGRO ILLITERATES Negro illiteracy has also shown a steady decrease since 1880, as appears by the following Census statistics: 1880 — 700 out of every thousand negroes of ten years of age and over were illiterate. 1920 — The number had been reduced to 229 out of every thousand. The figures in numbers and percentages since 1880 are as follows: Year Illiterate Negroes Per Cent. 1880 3,220,878 70.0 1890 3,042,668 57.1 1900 2,853,194 44.5 1910 2,227,731 30.4 1920 1,842,161 22.9 The 1920 census shows that the following states have a rate of negro illiteracy in excess of the aver- age for the country. The percentage of negro illit- eracy in these same states for previous decades is also shown : States 1920 1910 1900 1890 1880 Virginia 23.5 30.0 44.6 57.2 73.6 North Carolina 24.5 31.9 47.6 60.1 77.4 South Carolina 29.3 38.7 52.8 64.1 78.5 Georgia 29.1 36.5 52.4 67.3 81.5 Alabama 31.3 40.1 57.4 69.1 80.6 Mississippi 29.3 35.6 49.1 60.8 75.1 Louisiana 38.5 48.4 61.1 72.1 79.0 Although the percentage of negro illiteracy is still much higher than that of the whites, the steady improve- ment indicated by the above figures shows good, indeed remarkable progress. In considering the figures we [ 24 ] Has Our Present System Broken Down? must bear in mind that the illiteracy problem of the negroes has been entirely separate from that of the whites because at the close of the Civil War the negro popula- tion (approximately 4,000,000) was almost entirely illiterate, and it was hardly possible to make much progress in the education of the illiterate negro adults. The statistics show the result of the gradual dying off of the older illiterate negroes and the effect of the educa- tional opportunities which have been created for negro children during the past few decades. EFFECT OF NORTHERN MIGRATION OF NEGROES A factor in arousing greater public interest in negro education in the Southern States has been the large emigration of negroes northward in recent years. It is estimated that not less than three-quarters of a million negroes went North in the four years 1915-1918. Al- though the higher wages resulting from the shortage of labor under war conditions in the industrial states were the main factor in causing the movement North, the desire to take advantage of the better educational conditions in the North was also an important influence. The present policy of restriction of foreign immi- gration is bound to continue to bring the industrial districts of the country into competition with the South, for negro labor and the necessity for improving educa- tional conditions in the Southern States as a means of holding the best negro labor is an argument the impor- tance of which has already been strongly felt in some states. We quote from the report of the State Super- intendent of Education of North Carolina: “There is another phase of this problem of negro education worthy of the serious consideration of our people. It is manifest to me that if the negroes be- come convinced that they are to be deprived of their schools and of the opportunities of an education, most of the wisest and most self-respecting negroes [25] Has Our Present System Broken Down ? will leave the State, and eventually there will be left here only the indolent, worthless and criminal part of the negro population. Already there has been considerable emigration of negroes from the State. . . . Their emigration in large numbers would result in a complication of the labor problem. Some of our Southern farms would be compelled to lie untenanted and untilled. The experience of one district in Wilson County some years ago illustrates this. The county board of education found it, for various reasons, impossible to purchase a site for a negro schoolhouse. Before the year was out the board received several offers from farmers to donate a site. Upon inquiry by the chairman of the board as to the reason of these generous offers, he was told that when it was learned that no site for the schoolhouse could be secured and that the negroes were to have no school in that district, at least one-third of the best negro tenants and laborers there moved into other dis- tricts, where they could have the advantage of a school. This is a practical side of this question that our people would do well to consider. What hap- pened in this district will happen in the entire state if we give the best negroes reasonable grounds to believe that their public school privileges are to be decreased or withdrawn.” (U. S. Bureau of Educa- tion, Biennial Survey, 1919, p. 432.) GROWTH IN SOUTH OF PUBLIC INTEREST IN NEGRO EDUCATION As indicating also the change in the public attitude toward negro education, we quote from the report of the Superintendent of Education of South Carolina, for the year 1918: “For the first time in the history of our public school system, State Superintendent’s office has undertaken definitely the betterment of our negro schools. . . . “The task is difficult. Houses, terms, salaries, equipment, standards — all these are low. Funds [ 26 ] Has Our Present System Broken Down? are limited. A foundation must be laid in public opinion and in public support before a definite pro- gram can be outlined and undertaken. “The present welfare and future progress of the State are indissolubly linked with the development of our entire population. A careful perusal of the chapter dealing with negro schools will show specifi- cally the work undertaken during the year. The co-operation of outside agencies is readily acknowl- edged. The attitude of the negro has been apprecia- tive, and in my opinion the time has come when the general assembly ought to authorize and direct a campaign for better health and better industrial conditions among the negroes. “The foundation for such effort lies in the schools. The prejudice that has long hampered the progress of the negro youth has been largely modified by the events of the past two years. The first step in the program for their betterment would be a modest appropriation to be expended solely in negro schools.” (U. S. Bureau of Education, Biennial Survey, 1919, p. 433.) As an indication, however, of some of the difficulties still pertaining to negro education, we quote from a publication of the Louisiana Department of Education: “It may be well to point out here that in some sections of the State the negro is not receiving for the education of his race the direct school taxes that he contributes. To fail to grant him this amounts to confiscation. ... In dealing with this question we must learn to apply the same standards of honesty and fairness that we use in dealing with the different white schools and white communities. Only through the exercise of justice and fair play may we expect justice and fair play in return and as a result of this good feeling and good citizenship.” (“Aims and Needs in Negro Public Education in Louisiana,” issued in 1918, quoted U. S. Bureau of Education, Biennial Survey, 1919, p. 434.) Has Our Present System Broken Down ? PROGRESS OF EDUCATION IN SOUTH SINCE CIVIL WAR The progress made by the South in education is well described in Graves’ “History of Education in Modern Times” as follows: “ With the cessation of the reconstruction influence and the subsidence of the dread of mixed schools, attendance and appropriations have greatly in- creased, girls have come to be given equal oppor- tunities with the boys, the education of colored children has been adequately supported, and pro- vision has been made for training and stimulating teachers of both races. Separate state institutions for higher education, cultural and vocational, have been established to furnish a broad education for both whites and negroes. Since 1890 there has been no evidence of any widespread hostility to public education, and the expenditures and intensive im- provement of the schools have been constantly progressing. Thus, in the Southern States there has been a continual, though somewhat fluctuating, growth of a sentiment for common schools from the time of its initiation by the broad-visioned Jefferson to the universal sentiment of today. It evolved through long years of varied success and failure, broke its chrysalis after the wreck of the Civil War, and gradually attained to its present proportions. Its achievements during the past two decades seem almost unparalleled in history.” (Graves’ “History of Education in Modern Times,” p. 271.) STERLING-TOWNER BILL DOES NOT SPECIFICALLY AP- PROPRIATE ONE DOLLAR FOR NEGRO SCHOOLS The Sterling-Towner Bill appears to take no cogni- zance of the problem of negro education as such. The bill does not specifically appropriate one dollar for negro schools out of this one hundred million dollar appropriation. It is entirely impossible to estimate what sum of money or what proportion of the total [ 28 ] Has Our Present System Broken Down ? donated to a state where the percentage of negro illiteracy is high would be devoted to removing negro illiteracy. Foreign-Born Illiterates — Americanization The second charge in the indictment of our educational system, — that it has failed to Americanize the foreign population, — in the resolution of the National Educa- tion Association, to which we have referred, is stated as follows: “An increasingly large un- Americanized element, both native and foreign born, in our population evidenced by statistical research to be one in three.” (Record of Joint Hearings, 1919, p. 71.) It is stated more conservatively by Congressman Towner in a recent speech : “ Consider the condition of our immigrant popula- tion. We now have 15,000,000 foreign born people in the United States. More than 5,000,000 cannot speak, read or write English. More than 2,000,000 cannot read or write any language. Unfortunately these foreigners often group themselves into alien settlements or colonies where our language is not spoken, where our journals are not read, and where the whole environment is un-American.” (Uni- versity of Illinois Bulletin, December 26, 1921, p. 83.) In another part of the same speech he said : “Take illiteracy as an example and consider con- ditions. The census of 1910 showed that in the United States there were 5,500,000 over ten years of age who could not read or write any language. In addition there were 3,500,000 who could not speak or read or write English. This placed us below the standard of most of the civilized nations of the world.” According to the 1920 census the foreign-born popu- lation of the United States of ten years of age and over Has Our Present System Broken Down? was 13,497,866, of whom 1,763,740 or 13.1 per cent were illiterate. Literacy as defined by the census, however, is not necessarily literacy in the English language. It means ability to read and write in any language. The statistics of the number of the foreign-born popu- lation unable to speak English have recently been issued by the census for 1920. This shows that of the 13,497,866 foreign-born ten years of age and over, 1,488,948 or 11 per cent were reported as unable to speak English. Both the number and percentage are only about half as large as in 1910, when 2,953,011 foreign-born white persons ten years of age and over representing 22.8 per cent of the total, were returned as unable to speak English. We find, therefore, that instead of three and one-half million of our foreign-born population unable to speak English, as stated by Congressman Towner, the 1920 census shows the number to be less than 1,500,000. INCREASE IN NUMBER OF FOREIGN-BORN ILLITERATES DUE TO UNRESTRICTED IMMIGRATION POLICY In 1880 there were 120 out of every thousand foreign- born white, ten years of age and older, who were illiter- ate; in 1920 out of every thousand 131 were illiterate, that is, unable to read or write in any language. The number of illiterate foreign-born and the ratio for the decades since 1880 are shown in the following table: Year Foreign-Born Illiterates Per Cent, of All Foreign Born 1880 763,620 12.0 1890 1,147,571 13.1 1900 1,287,135 12.9 1910 1,650,361 12.7 1920 1,763,740 13.1 The increase in the number of foreign-born illiterates cannot be considered as an indictment of our public school system. It was the result of our policy of admit- ting immigrants without prescribing any test for literacy. [ 30 ] Has Our Present System Broken Down? From 1896 to 1921 there were 3,450,000 immigrants (mostly adults) admitted into the United States who could not read or write in any language. (See Ap- pendix B.) It is therefore not surprising to find that in 1920 there had been a slight increase in the number of foreign-born illiterates as compared with 1910. NEW LITERACY TEST CUTS OFF FURTHER ILLITERATE IMMIGRANTS ALTOGETHER Congress in 1917 went to the very heart of the prob- lem of foreign-born illiteracy by providing that thereafter no more illiterate immigrants should be allowed to enter this country. This is one of the causes now in operation which beyond peradventure of a doubt will cause the next census to show a drop in illiteracy beyond anything heretofore accomplished in the United States. IMMIGRATION FROM SOUTHERN AND EASTERN EUROPE RESTRICTED BY QUOTA LAW The enormous increase in the volume of immigration from the countries of Southern and Eastern Europe in the past 25 years has also been a big factor in the increase in the number of foreign-born illiterates. Until 1890 the greater proportion of our immigrants came from Northwestern Europe. A large proportion of them were English-speaking people and those who came from the Continent came from countries with institutions gener- ally similar to our own. During the decade from 1890 to 1900 there was a marked increase in the immigration from Southern and Eastern Europe where educational standards are low and the percentage of illiteracy is high. This movement continued to grow and continued in great volume until the outbreak of the European War. This immigration came from the following coun- tries: Austria-Hungary, Bulgaria, Greece, Italy, Portu- gal, Rumania, Russia, Spain, and Turkey. During the Has Our Present System Broken Down? period 1880 to 1921, 12,877,855 people entered this country from Southern and Eastern Europe and Western Asia. Congress itself has recently attacked this problem in the most radical way by legislation which took effect in 1921 and which reduces largely the quota of immigrants which can yearly enter this country from the Mediter- ranean countries and Eastern Europe. Under the new law the annual quota for the fiscal year 1922 for these countries is 157,489 (see Appendix D), whereas during the decade from 1900 to 1910 the annual aver- age immigration from these countries was 588,860, and during the decade from 1910 to 1919, in spite of the prac- tical cutting off of immigration during the war years, the annual average was 402,696. MOVEMENT BACK TO SOUTHERN AND EASTERN EUROPE Another favorable factor is the considerable number of immigrants from the Southern and Eastern European countries who after living here a number of years return home. In 1920 the emigrants returning to countries of Southern and Eastern Europe numbered 224,152 as against 151,712 new immigrants admitted — a loss of 72,440. In 1921 the emigrants to those countries numbered 188,132 as against 357,350 immigrants ad- mitted. It is true that the figures for these two years show a net gain of 96,778 immigrants admitted, but this was due to the abnormal Italian immigration in 1921, amounting to 222,260, caused by eagerness to get into the country before the new law limiting the number of immigrants became effective. Moreover many of those returning home were illiterate, while the newcomers must have been able, since the new law of 1917, at least to read and write in their own language. During the current year immigration from the countries of Southern and Eastern Europe has just about been balanced by the emigrants returning home to these countries. The [ 32 ] Has Our Present System Broken Down? figures for the year July 1, 1921 to June 30, 1922 are: immigrants 136,543, emigrants 142,115, a net loss of 5572. (See Appendix E.) CONCLUSION Beyond question the war disclosed great need for provisions which may safeguard American institutions against the dangers of an unassimilated foreign popula- tion. But it also disclosed their essential stability and the fact that old-world traditions and old-world associ- ations could not seriously interfere with adherence to American ideals and American institutions. Although the work of Americanization is one of our important social problems it is time for us to recover from war hysteria and to view the problem in its proper perspec- tive. Here several facts should be remembered : 1. We must recognize that “Americanization” is most effectively developed through participation in daily American life. It is not a process which can be imposed to a great extent upon the immigrant. 2. We must realize that the place to control the evil possibilities of large numbers of foreign born is at its source, i. e., in our immigration laws. 3. This has already been provided for by the laws excluding illiterate immigrants and limiting the amount of immigration. Hence the problem of “Americanization” of the foreign born must become one of constantly decreasing importance. 4. The most effective agency for Americanization is the public school system. The most important problem of Americanization is not that which in- volves the adult immigrant but his children. A dollar spent on the second generation is worth many times a dollar spent on the adult immigrant and accomplishes things with children which cannot possibly be done for adults. 5. States having appreciable proportions of foreign born population are keenly alive to the problems of Americanization and for their own sakes have been Has Our Present System Broken Down? attacking them with vigor, their attempts being sup- plemented by numerous civic agencies. Further, the states in which the problem is most acute are our richest states which neither need nor ask for Federal aid and Federal control. Physical Standard of Population The attack on the present educational system based upon the alleged physical unfitness of our people as shown by the war, in the resolution of the National Education Association previously quoted, is stated as follows: “an astonishing degree of physical unfitness in our people betraying a lack of preparedness either for the duties of defense or the responsibilities of peace — amounting to at least one-third of the entire adult population.” (Record of Joint Hearings, July, 1919, p. 71.) Congressman Towner states it as follows: “Perhaps no disclosure of the draft examinations carries more reproach to our intelligence than the fact that out of about 2,400,000 young men examined for service 700,000 or nearly one-third were found disqualified because of physical disability. Ninety per cent of these disabilities could have been pre- vented by a knowledge of the simplest rules of hygiene and health. It was ignorance, gross ignorance, that in the vast majority of cases was the cause of their incompetence.” (University of Illinois Bulletin, December 26, 1921, p. 84.) The resolution quoted seems to depict a race that is physically decadent. Here again conclusions have been based upon misinterpreted army statistics. Nowhere in the indictment against the present educational system by the proponents of federalization is the lack of anal- ysis or sober thought more evident than in the dis- cussion of this question. Has Our Present System Broken Down ? EXAMINATION OF ARMY FIGURES The second report of the Provost Marshal General showed that of the 3,200,000 men examined after De- cember 15, 1917, 16.25 per cent were totally disqualified for military service. This is quite different from Con- gressman Towner’s figure of one-third disqualified. But this figure is not a fair index of the condition of our total male population of military age, for it leaves out of consideration over 500,000 men drafted before December 15, 1917, and about 1,400,000 volunteers in the army, navy, or marine corps, who were 100 per cent physically qualified. All of the men between 21 and 31 who were rejected by the recruiting officers, or by the draft boards before December 15, 1917, were reexamined and are in- cluded in the 16.25 per cent mentioned above. Most of the volunteers were under 31. Making proper allowance for the volunteers, it would seem that the correct figure for the proportion of men 21 to 31 years of age who are unfit for military service is under 12 per cent, and if we choose to add them understanding^, plus about 8 per cent of men in good general health but not qualified for the forced marches and terrific strain of front line battle conditions. These latter men were classed as qualified for limited service. Without a doubt these figures would have been considerably reduced if the war had lasted longer, for standards of fitness are not absolute, but de- pend on the need for men. With 24,000,000 men of military age to draw from we naturally set our standards high. It was sound policy to reject men who would doubtless have been accepted by the other belligerent nations. We were looking for men of the physical quality which the Germans assembled in their shock battalions. Moreover, many of the defects which dis- qualify for military service in no way disqualify for ordinary civilian pursuits. As for the number of disqualifications that might have been remedied or prevented by education, no one can Has Our Present System Broken Down? tell how great this was. Many of the commoner causes of disqualification were not of the sort that are generally considered preventable to any great extent. Flat feet, hernia, heart disease, defective vision, undersize, in- sanity, feeble-mindedness, malformation of the limbs, varicose veins, wounds, congenital deformities — to mention a few of the common defects — who will say that ninety per cent of these are preventable by edu- cation? PUBLIC HEALTH WORK A RECENT DEVELOPMENT In considering the development of health work in our public school system, in order to get a fair picture of the situation we should remember that the whole conception of preventive medicine is quite new even in the medical profession. Louis Pasteur, considered the founder of modern preventive medicine, died in 1895. Harvard University Medical School, for example, did not establish a chair for preventive medicine until 1909. If we go back to the Civil War we find that the improvement in the condition of the health of our pop- ulation during the past fifty years has been most notable. The first Health Commissioner of New York City is still alive and has recently given a picture of the status of public health administration at the close of the Civil War: “New York had no effective sanitary administra- tion. There were numerous departments filled with active politicians, but not one had any expert super- vision. There was a Board of Health when the aider- men were summoned to meet as such. The value of the Board was stated by Mayor Fernando Wood, an expert in city politics, to a medical delegation that requested the Mayor to call the aldermen as a board of health to take measures against an approach- ing cholera epidemic. The Mayor replied, ‘I will not call the Board, for I consider it more dangerous to the city than cholera.’ There was the Health [ 36 ] Has Our Present System Broken Down ? Commission, with practically no well-defined duties. The ‘city physician’ attended the neglected cases of sickness among the poor, a negligible number. The most conspicuous figure in the list of sanitary officials was the head of the Street-Cleaning Depart- ment, who had an annual appropriation of nearly $1,000,000 to expend upon his political followers. The sanitary inspection of the city was one of his duties, and for this work he appointed scores of ‘Health Wardens,’ who were generally saloon keepers. The qualification of these sanitary officials for their duties was tested by a legislative committee. One was asked to define the word ‘ hygiene ’ and he replied ‘the vapor which rises from stagnant water.’ An- other was asked, ‘What do you do when you are called to a case of contagious disease?’ He replied, ‘I go to the house and call the people to the street, where I give my orders, which are to burn sulphur; I never go into the house.’” (Stephen Smith, “ The * History of Public Health, 1871-1921,” in Ravenel, “A Half Century of Public Health,” p. 7.) In 1872, there were only three state boards of health, Massachusetts (1869) and California and Virginia (1871). In 1876, there were only twelve boards of health in the whole United States. Today, in every state there is a state board of health. The wonderful achievements of public health admin- istration have recently been summarized as follows : “The death rate in New York City in 1869 was 28. In 1919 it was 12.93. This means the saving of 28.000 lives a year. There are no national statistics extending back fifty years, but in the last twenty years there has been a fall in the death rate of the rapidly expanding registration area of 4.7 per 100,000 living. This is equivalent to the saving of nearly 400.000 lives a year. Typhoid fever is a vanishing disease. The diarrheal diseases caused four times as many deaths fifty years ago as now. Scarlet fever mortality has fallen ninety per cent. Diphtheria [ 37 ] Has Our Present System Broken Down? has decreased nearly as much, and the mortality from pulmonary tuberculosis has been cut in two. Infant mortality in our better cities has dropped fifty per cent.” (Ravenel, “A Half Century of Public Health,” p. 159.) RAPID GROWTH OF HEALTH WORK IN THE SCHOOLS The responsibility for the health of the whole nation never can, except to a minor extent, be loaded on to our publicf education system. There are 150,000 doctors in this country and there will continue to be a medical profession as well as the profession of teaching and these doctors are more and more emphasizing the importance of general hygiene and preventive measures. In recent years, however, there has been a great development of health work in the schools. Medical inspection of schools began in the United States in Boston in 1894 as a result of an outbreak of contagious disease in the preceding years. In the first decade of school inspection it made slow progress, but since then it has been extremely rapid. In 1910 it had been introduced into 400 cities. The idea has rapidly gained ground that it is the duty of the school authorities to assist in protecting the health of the school children. The injurious effect on the growing child of unbalanced food, bad teeth, bad tonsils, adenoids, the hookworm, and other physical dangers or ailments has only within a comparatively few years come to be widely stressed by the medical profession, and the medical profession out of the schools as well as in the schools is now hard at work contributing to the health and vigor of the growing generation by removing or minimizing these and numerous other unfavorable factors. The first school nurses were employed in this country in 1902 in New York City. This work has been widely developed throughout the cities of the country. The Playground Movement is directly concerned [ 38 ] Has Our Present System Broken Down ? with the healthy development of childhood. It has received widespread popular support and millions of dollars of public money have been and are still being expended in promoting this idea. IN 1918 THIRTY. NINE STATES HAD PASSED LAWS RELATING TO HEALTH AND PHYSICAL EDUCATION Since the war the importance of physical education as a part of the public educational system has had a rapid development throughout the nation, and in 1918, thirty-nine states had legislation on health or physical education, and several states have passed legislation since that time. Today there are hundreds of public, semi- public, private, and philanthropic agencies of national, state, and local scope working for the improvement of the health of the people, with an annual expenditure of many millions of dollars. Not only are the states almost universally putting into effect physical education programs in the public schools, but the movement is also being fostered by the development of organized athletics and outdoor sports of all kinds, by the rapid growth of the Boy Scouts, the Girl Scouts, and many other kindred organizations. Inadequacy of Rural Schools The advocates of Federal participation call attention to the inadequacy of the rural schools of the country as evidence of the failure of the present education system. Dr. William C. Bagley, Member of the “Emergency Committee” of the National Education Association said to the Committee of Congress in 1919: “In the first place, the system of rural education is notoriously inadequate. The proportion of illit- eracy in our rural districts is twice as high as in our urban districts. Consequently the problem of il- literacy is largely a problem of rural education. We have another significant fact, namely, that the na- tive-born children of the native-born population [ 39 ] lias Our Present Systeni Broken Down ? are proportionately three times as illiterate as the native-born children of the foreign-born population. In other words, we have done three times as well for the children of the immigrants as we have for our own children. The reason for this is that the immi- grants tend to congregate in the large cities where educational facilities are provided, where compul- sory education laws are generally enforced, and where schools are generally attractive. The children will go to school, they are well taught, and their tendency to regular attendance is very much greater than in the country. We have another fact that was brought to our attention strongly because of the findings of the Army tests, namely, that approxi- mately one-half of the young men drawn into the Army camps had had only six years of schooling or less, and if we think of the draft as forming a ‘cross section’ of our population, this means that one-half of all of our citizens are limited to six years’ school- ing or less. This gives us a conception of the inade- quacies of the public school system that we could not get in any other way. I believe that the only way to correct this condition is through some such form of national stimulation as is proposed in this bill.” (Record of Joint Hearings, 1919, p. 146.) It is stated that half the children of the country are in rural schools, that the average school term of the rural school is about two months less than that of the urban schools, that about 80 per cent of the rural schools are one-teacher schools, that rural school teachers seldom teach more than one year in the same school, many of them are without even high school training, and that as a result of the inefficient rural school, illiteracy is twice as great in rural as in urban territory. It is also stated that the schools are generally poorly equipped, often unsanitary, and there is usually a lack of ade- quate supervision. It is also pointed out that the average salary of rural teachers is less than that of the urban teachers. Has Our Present System Broken Down ? DISTRICT SCHOOL’S PLACE IN HISTORY However, despite its limited equipment and shorter terms and the other disadvantages under which the rural or district school has always been conducted as compared with the city school, the district school has played a notable part in our national history. “A reliable authority estimates that % of the ministers, % of the college professors of the entire country, % of the men in authority in city churches, and about the same proportion of the influential men of affairs in the city — merchants, manufac- turers, bankers, lawyers — were born and reared in rural regions. Twenty-six of the Presidents of the United States were country boys.” (Emer- gency Commission of National Education Asso- ciation, Bulletin 4, p. 3.) It is possible that the professional educator’s eyes are so intently fixed on the technique of the profession that he does not always take into account some of the educational advantages of country life which no ex- penditure of money can ever bring to the boy in New York City, Chicago, and other cities of the country. IMPROVEMENT IN RURAL SCHOOLS IS NOW WELL UNDER WAY It is true that in the rapid educational progress of the past generation the rural schools have failed to keep pace with the advance in our cities, but there is much evidence that most of the states are making great efforts to improve the condition of their rural schools. They are better today in many states than they have ever been in the past. Many states are now engaged in establishing ‘ ‘consolidated” rural schools by combining several of the district schools and furnishing transporta- tion to the pupils. Mrs. Mary C. C. Bradford, State Superintendent of Schools of Colorado, and former president of the Na- Has Our Present System Broken Down? tional Education Association, described these con- solidated rural schools before the Joint Senate and House Committee: “One gentleman wants to know something about the consolidated school. Consolidation means that two or three or more districts vote to come together and form one district, with a large school instead of a number of small schools. By the larger means of taxation there is more money to do that with. It is possible to take the child by transportation to the school. In my own state it is necessary for the majority — we will say that five districts are going to be consolidated — and it must be a majority vote of each one of the districts before they can be con- solidated. Then you put together all the resources of these five districts and you establish a central school, to which the children are taken by transporta- tion. We have one in the San Louis Valley, which has 16 teachers, pays its superintendent $3,000, and the minimum salary paid teachers there is $1,500 a year, in that particular school. There is a commu- nity church and a community farm, and there are homes for the superintendent and his family, and there are places of meeting for all. “The Chairman: How extensive is the curric- ulum in that school? “Mrs. Bradford: It is just as good as it is in the Denver Schools, and it is modified in such a way that it meets the requirements of the coun- try life and develops the children for functioning in country life.” (Record of Joint Hearings, 1919, p. 46.) This consolidated school movement is spreading all over the country. It is going especially strong in the Middle West. Comment is made on this progress in the Report of the United States Commissioner of Edu- cation for 1920, as follows: [42] Has Our Present System Broken Down? “The past year has seen marked progress in the matter of consolidation. Probably the greatest advancement has been made in the State of Iowa, which has averaged one consolidation effected for each day of the school year. The consolidated schools in the United States now number about 12,000. The greatest development has been in the Middle West. Indiana, Minnesota, Iowa, North Dakota, and Colorado are some of the leading states in this movement.” (U. S. Commissioner of Education, Annual Report, 1920, p. 42.) Congressman Towner himself has testified to the excellent educational facilities provided by these rural consolidated schools. At the hearing before the Com- mittee of Congress in 1919 he said: “Mr. Towner: I would like to know whether or not. Dr. Joyner, you would sanction this observa- tion I have made by a visit to some of the consoli- dated schools. I have wondered at the wonderful efficiency — ” “Dr. Joyner: (Interrupting) Sir? “Mr. Towner: (Continuing) And the splendid opportunities that those schools afforded. I would rather have my children educated in one of those modern consolidated country schools than to have them go to any city school in the country.” (Record of Joint Hearings, 1919, p. 44.) STATE HELP FOR RURAL SCHOOLS The obstacle to the growth of this movement caused by the poverty of some of the counties and other local government units, which is pointed out by the critics as perhaps the root of the evil, has already been rem- edied in most states by State Equalization Funds. To be sure, some difficulties are being met in the proper working out of some of these state funds but they are gradually being solved and the march is steadily forward. Has Our Present System Broken Down? BETTER ANALYSIS OF RURAL SCHOOL SITUATION IS NEEDED In the treatment of this subject, as in fact of most of the shortcomings which are pointed out by the pro- ponents of Federal participation, we are handicapped in getting a true picture of the significance of the facts because the statements are so general and the problems are not sufficiently analyzed. For example, the con- ditions of the white and negro schools are not presented separately. As these schools are separate, and negro education is an entirely distinct educational problem, it is essential that conditions be shown separately for white and negro schools. Shortage of Teachers It is further stated by those who attack our present educational system that there is a great shortage of teachers and that thousands of schools are closed be- cause of lack of teachers. Congressman Towner, before the Joint Committee of Congress, said: “A condition has come about also with regard to our common schools in the country which calls for most immediate and imperative action that they be remedied. Thousands of schools in the United States have had to be closed, or their terms very ma- terially curtailed, because of the want of any kind of teachers.” (Record of Joint Hearings, 1919, p. 11.) This statement was apparently based on war con- ditions. During the war there was not only a shortage of teachers but there was a shortage of almost every- thing that we had been accustomed to consider essential under peace conditions. There was a shortage of coal, there was a shortage of wheat, there was a shortage of nurses and doctors as well as teachers. Experience of the past three years has seen the wartime shortage in most instances transformed into a surplus. [44] Has Our Present System Broken Down? RAPID GROWTH OF SCHOOLS OUTSTRIPS SUPPLY OF TEACHERS With the rapid extension of the public school, the growth of the high school, the growth of our universi- ties, the demand for teachers has increased every year by leaps and bounds. This has been perhaps an inevitable consequence of the rapid development of our state educational systems. In some measure a shortage of teachers may perhaps be considered as a healthy sign of educational progress. The shortage, as we have noted, was greatly accentuated during the war; many of the men teachers went into the service and into various branches of war work, many of the women teachers replaced the men or went into one or another of the various war activities of the government. The usual supply of new teachers from the normal schools and colleges was restricted for the same reasons. SITUATION BECOMING NORMAL There has been a marked improvement in respect to the shortage of teachers with the return of more normal conditions. We quote from the Annual Report of the United States Commissioner of Education speaking of the conditions prevalent in 1920: “Although there is a teacher shortage without question the tide drift is setting back toward the teaching profession. For some time to come some localities may have difficulty in securing as many teachers as they desire of the type they prefer, but already the more favored localities are reporting a surplus. Furthermore, it is to be noted that in all periods of rapid expansion, when new activities are springing up, calling without much discrimination for help of all kinds and in a position to pay salaries considerably above those which the more stabilized professions and occupations pay, it is natural that the latter should suffer. On the other hand, when expansion ceases and contraction sets in, and when [ 45 ] Has Our Present System Broken Down ? new activities shut down, it will always be found that the stabilized occupations and professions will be swamped with persons seeking employment. So, although the schools have suffered in this respect during the past five-year period, nevertheless to the mind which recognized that the period of abnormal expansion would be followed by a period of con- traction, the situation had nothing in it to cause alarm.” (U. S. Commissioner of Education, Annual Report, 1920, p. 24.) Teachers’ Salaries It is stated also that the state educational system has failed because the teachers are underpaid and that this is largely responsible for the shortage of teachers already referred to. Mr. Lampson, Vice President of the American Feder- ation of Teachers, described the situation to Congress as follows: “The way to improve the schools of America at this critical juncture in our history is to raise teachers’ salaries. “The average annual salary of the teachers of this country, inclusive of superintendents and other supervisory authorities, is said to be about $630, or, measured in the terms of the former purchasing power of the dollar, about $350. The low salaries, the high cost of living, the strain and stress of the times have wrought havoc with the teaching per- sonnel of the public schools within the States. The teachers must be relieved from economic oppression for the sake of the children whom they teach and the people whom they serve. “Mr. Chairman, of what avail is the appropria- tion of $7,500,000 for the removal of illiteracy without well-paid and efficient teachers to do the work? Of what avail is the appropriation of $7,500,000 for Americanization without well-paid and efficient teachers? Of what avail is the appropriation of $20,000,000 for physical education without well-paid Has Our Present System Broken Down ? and efficient teachers? Of what avail is the appro- priation of $50,000,000 for equalizing the educa- tional opportunities without well-paid and efficient teachers? There is a close connection between pay and the efficiency of teachers. The bill before your committee is fundamentally sound. It not only provides for the preparation of teachers, but also for Federal aid in the partial payment of teachers’ sal- aries. The country can not afford to penalize its teachers. The latter must be paid in money and public respect, those returns to which the value of their services entitle them.” (Record of Joint Hearings, 1919, p. 115.) We all recognize that in many parts of the country teachers have been underpaid. According to the Bureau of Education the average salary of teachers in the pub- lic schools of the country in 1918 was $635. (See Ap- pendix E.) LOW SALARIES OF NEGRO TEACHERS KEEP DOWN AVERAGES OF SOUTHERN STATES Here again we find difficulty in getting a true picture because of insufficient analysis. The ten states paying the lowest salaries are all states with large negro popu- lation. In some of the Southern States the negro schools are operated only for a few months in the year and the compensation of the teachers is very small. The annual report of the Department of Education in Alabama in 1918 stated that the average length of term of negro schools in that state in that year was 104 days. The average salary of the man teacher in the negro schools was $167, the woman teacher $152. A bulletin of the National Education Association refers to a similar case: “In another state the average monthly salary paid colored female teachers in the elementary schools during 1918 was only $26.12, or a total of $156.72 for a year of six months. This represents an average wage for these teachers, many of whom are [ 47 ] Has Our Present System Broken Down ? graduates of colored normal schools, of less than one- half what they could earn without training doing washing or general housework in many of the large cities.” The white schools of the South also pay relatively low salaries as they run for shorter terms but the average is pulled down by the low salaries of negro teachers. GREAT IMPROVEMENT IN SALARIES SINCE 1916 The increase in the cost of living during the war brought distress to all employees who were working on a salary basis and the teaching profession suffered severely. As a result of the presentation of the situation, by the teachers and their organizations, to the local and state authorities, the pay of a very large proportion of the teachers has been substantially increased and with the decline in the cost of living during the past year throughout the country, which has amounted to more than 25 per cent, although the salaries of the teachers in many places are still low, conditions are today much better than they were in 1918 when the situation was presented to Congress by the National Education Asso- ciation. The situation in 1920 was thus reviewed by the United States Commissioner of Education: “During the five-year period now closing a range of salary advance from a third to a half of that paid at the beginning of the period will include the great bulk of the cities of the United States. This advance by no means makes up to the teachers the loss they have suffered through the decline in the purchasing power of their salaries. Burgess’ study, indeed, shows that the teacher’s salary now, despite the advances that have been made, is actually less in purchasing value than at any other time since the Civil War. Nevertheless, serious efforts have been made to lessen the discrepancy. The conscience of [48] Has Our Present System Broken Down ? the people, as never before, has been touched respect- ing the work and economic status of the teacher. Without doubt when a decline in living costs sets in, as it now bids fair to do, and conditions become more nearly normal, the teachers of the country will find that they have made a distinct gain, and that their status financially as well as in other important re- spects will have been greatly bettered.” (U. S. Commissioner of Education, Annual Report, 1920, p. 23.) Poor Quality of Teachers The next charge in the indictment is that our teachers are inadequately prepared for the work, stated by the Emergency Commission of the National Education Association as follows: “At the present time, more than one-half of the public school teachers of the United States are im- mature; they are short lived in the work of teaching; their general education is inadequate; their profes- sional equipment is deplorably meagre.” (Emer- gency Commission of National Education Associa- tion, Bulletin 3, p. 4.) Mr. Charles B. Stillman, President American Feder- ation of Teachers, said before the Congressional Com- mittee : “If the present is alarming, let us look at the future. The normal schools have been running with less than half the customary enrollment.” (Record of Joint Hearings, 1919, p. 111.) It is also stated that no fewer than 5,000,000 children have teachers who have not passed the age of 21; that these teachers have had as preparation for their work only one, two, three or four years’ education beyond the eighth grade of the elementary school. Dr. William C. Bagley thus described the situation in more detail as follows : [ 49 ] Has Our Present System Broken Down? “ I have called your attention to the more immature and untrained half of our teaching population. We should not infer that the better half represents the high level of training and efficiency that the schools of a great democracy demand. As a matter of fact the proportion of well-trained, mature, and relatively permanent teachers in the public-school service is shamefully small. The rewards of teaching are so meager, the recognitions are so few, the conditions of work are so arduous, that only a small number of men and women prepare themselves adequately for the service and remain in it as a life career. The annual ‘turnover’ amounts to at least one-fifth of the entire teaching population; that is, it is necessary to secure each year more than 100,000 new teachers. Our normal schools, with their inadequate facilities, can furnish only a small fraction of these recruits, and those that are furnished by these institutions have usually had a hurried and consequently inade- quate preparation for their work. * * * * * “Our normal schools in general are the most penuriously supported of all of our professional schools. Their instructors are notoriously under- paid and notoriously over-burdened with difficult and exacting duties. You would all agree, I am sure, that there is no more responsible service than that of preparing teachers for the public schools. The nor- mal schools should be able to secure and keep the best instructors. Of all education institutions they should be in a position to pay the highest salaries and their service should confer the highest distinc- tion. In no State of our Union is normal-school work so rewarded or regarded.” (Record of Joint Hearings, 1919, p. 148.) GROWTH OF NORMAL SCHOOLS SINCE 1900 The growth of normal schools, although at a rate below that of high schools and colleges, has been note- worthy. [ 50 ] Has Our Present System Broken Down ? Students Graduating Expenditure State, City, 1900 69,551 1918 110,053 in Normal Courses 11,359 24,501 and County $3,500,000 15,751,693 In eighteen years the number of students graduated from normal schools has more than doubled and the appropriations for their support increased more than fourfold. In 1919 there were 308 normal schools — 172 state, 34 city, 45 county, and 57 private normal schools. OTHER FACILITIES FOR TRAINING TEACHERS With the specialized developments of the high schools in recent years there has been added in many states a teacher-training course to give training to students intending to teach in rural schools. In 1919 there were 21 states, with 1,493 of these normal departments or classes, with an attendance of 27,000. There has also been growing quite rapidly in some states a new type of institution of higher education known as the junior college (85 of them in 1918). These junior colleges are beginning also to provide training for teachers. Schools or Departments of Education are to be found not only at most of the state universities but also in many of the older endowed universities. As long ago as 1914, the last year for which we have been able to obtain statistics, the enrollment in departments of education conducted by colleges and universities was 36,327. There has also been an enormous development of summer schools for teachers during the past decade. In 1921 there were 410 summer schools conducted by colleges, universities, and normal schools with enrollment of 253,111 students. (Journal of National Education Asso- ciation, January, 1922, p. 12.) Throughout the length and breadth of the land there is great activity and many institutions are working to improve the professional edu- [ 51 ] Has Our Present System Broken Down? cation of teachers. In no other form of professional education has there been such an increase in facilities during recent years. CAUSES OF RAPID TURNOVER OF ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TEACHERS The rapid turnover among elementary school teachers presents a difficult problem. This turnover is stated by the proponents of the new legislation to be largely due to lack of proper appreciation of the dignity of the pro- fession on the part of the American public and to the low salaries. The low salary certainly has contributed, but the main reason why there is now and always will be a rapid turnover among the elementary school teachers is that most women marry and married life cuts short their professional careers. CONCLUSION The various subjects that we have just reviewed give the basis of the argument made by the advocates of the Sterling-Towner Bill that Federal aid is urgently needed to protect the nation against the “threatened breakdown of our present educational system.” We find that the picture of the shortcomings of our educational system is in many respects exaggerated, in other cases inadequately analyzed. We find great interest and great activity on the part of the states. The important question in considering the criticisms of our public school system that really have merit, such as the condition of the rural schools, inadequate compen- sation of school teachers, lack of preparation of teachers, is to know whether we are making substantial progress on these difficult problems under the present system. Looking at the situation historically instead of by the “shock ” method, and discounting passing war conditions, we find that although we are still far from what we should attain, enormous progress has been made, especially in the past decade. We think it is clear that our present Has Our Present System Broken Down? educational system has not failed and that there is no reason for scrapping it and no adequate reason for putting the Federal government into our public schools, or for appropriating today one hundred million dollars of Federal money. [ 53 ] “POVERTY” ARGUMENT FOR FEDERAL PARTICIPATION Statement of Argument The advocates of Federal participation claim that it is necessary because some of the states are too poor to furnish adequate schools for their children. Dr. J. Y. Joyner, former president of the National Education Association, stated it to the Committee of Congress in 1919 as follows: “Giving that in a plain statement, Mr. Chairman, it is this, and it is the point that I am trying to get to, that those who should have the most efficient schools, and who have the most deficient schools today, and the greatest inequality of educational opportunity are those who have the lowest amount of wealth to provide schools. “Tiie Chairman: In other words, the greater the deficiency in the rural sections, the less the oppor- tunity and the less wealth. “ Senator Smith : And that has always been true, has it not? “Dr. Joyner: Yes, sir; but it ought not to con- tinue here in a democracy founded on educational opportunity, please God. “ That is the point I want to come to now. I think I have given enough facts to show you that the rural people today, the rural states, and the rural commu- nities, taken as a whole, have the most sadly inade- quate educational opportunity of any part of our population; that the census shows that they have the least wealth to provide those educational oppor- tunities and to give through their own efforts by State and county taxation proper education to their children.* ***** * This statement may be based on some purely mathematical average, but it would certainly lead one far astray both as to the character of the schools and the prosperity of leading rural States — for example, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Texas, and Idaho. “ Poverty ” Argument “If you will think of it for a moment, gentlemen, you can have no equality of educational opportunity in a county that has a diversity of wealth and popu- lation in the different communities, without the larger unit of taxation and appropriation, and you can have no equality of educational opportunity in a given State, with its great diversity of wealth and population and material resources, in the different counties and communities, without the larger unit of taxation and appropriation of the whole State, whereby the State, in cooperation with the counties and communities brings all the strong of the State to the help of all the weak of the State, and thus stimu- lates all the weak of all the State to help themselves to the extent of their ability. “Carrying that point a little further, gentlemen, in a Nation like ours, with its wide extent of terri- tory, from ocean to ocean, from Arctic almost to Torrid Zone, with its great diversity of material resources, with its great diversity of wealth, follow- ing the diversity of material resources, out of which wealth may be made, with its great diversity of popu- lation, there can be nothing approaching equalization of educational opportunity for every child in the Nation, without cooperation with the States and the communities, through large Federal appropriations, whereby all the strong States and all the strong people of the Nation can stand in cooperation with all the strong of all the States and all the strong of all the communities, to help all the weak of all the States and stimulate all the weak of all the States to help themselves and provide equality of educational opportunity, irrespective of who the child is or where he lives. There is the logic of the situation, gentle- men, as I see it.” (Record of Joint Hearings, 1919, p. 42.) This poverty argument plays an important part in the presentation of the case of the advocates of Federal participation. “ Poverty ” Argument STATE EQUALIZATION FUNDS The thought, however, is not always clear. The statement is urged and is unquestionably true, that in some counties there is so little taxable property that it is not possible by local taxation to furnish adequate educational facilities for the children living in the county. This situation cannot be disputed, but in order to meet conditions in poorer towns or counties the states almost universally have provided for the equalization of educa- tional opportunities by means of state equalization funds. RELATIVE WEALTH OF STATES NOT AN ISSUE The real question with which we are concerned is whether taking the state as the unit of government there are any states which are unable to furnish to their school population a fair standard of education. This fact appears to be taken for granted by the proponents of the Sterling-Towner Bill except for the statistics they present indicating some of the states have a larger per capita wealth than other states. Nowhere has any specific state been named as being too poor to furnish suitable educational facilities for its children, nor is there anywhere a statement of what it is that the less wealthy states cannot afford. The burden is squarely on the shoulders of those urging the radical change in governmental policy to show what state or what states really lack the resources to bring their educational system up to a fair standard. EQUALIZATION BETWEEN STATES BASED ON A FALSE ANALOGY A false analogy has been created. There is an im- portant difference between equalization of the wealth of the different states for school purposes and equaliza- tion within a state. Those who propose Federal participation fail to appre- ciate this fundamental distinction. Under our form of government the state has a sovereignty of its own. In [ 56 ] “Poverty” Argument all activities which are not specifically given into the power of the Federal Government by the Constitution the state sovereignty is supreme. The analogy cannot be carried to the organization within the states. Each town, county, city, is the crea- tion of its state; it receives its charter from the state and is subject to the direction and control of the state. What is proposed in this Federal participation is in fact that the state system of government should be abolished, that the government should be free to equalize local taxation as between localities regardless of state lines. Because the wealth of the states is unequal (this of course was true at the time the republic was founded by the federation of the thirteen original states) the next logical step will be to establish an equalization tax for public health, for the administration of justice, for police, for poor relief, and so on and on, until the present character of our government is destroyed. Equalization within the states is a sound governmental procedure, but equalization of the states for education involves a change in the fundamental nature of our government. Moreover, the state income and the ability of a state to maintain a satisfactory public school system depends only in part upon the property within the taxable area. It depends quite as much also upon the willingness of the people of the state and their legislative and executive representatives to adopt a modern system of tax laws, to assess to its real value the property within the state, to collect a substantial tax upon the property thus as- sessed, and then to use a large proportion of the income thus derived for school purposes instead of frittering it away or using it for other less essential purposes. Is it not fundamentally unsound for the Federal Gov- ernment to go to a state or local community with a sum of money and say: “We know you could perfectly well maintain adequate schools just as well as many other “Poverty” Argument communities all over the country are actually doing, but as you won’t make the sacrifice, here is some money we have taken away from these other people for you to use for the purpose.” Not only is the idea unsound as tending to weaken local self government and local responsibility for local conditions, but unless a Federal inspector stays on the ground and bosses the job it is going to be a simple game to take the money and as a result of antiquated tax laws, inadequate assessments, careless collection of taxes, and turning state funds into other channels, to continue the same lack of equalization of educational opportunity between this state and some other state that existed before these Federal largesses were set in motion. EQUALIZATION REQUIRES CONTROL OF EXPENDITURE If it is proposed to equalize the wealth of the states and take away funds from a wealthier state to be donated to a state which it is alleged is too poor to furnish educational opportunities for its people, unless teeth are put into this bill and a corps of Federal officials created to follow up, audit, and supervise the expendi- ture of the money, the government will be guilty of noth- ing less than wanton spoliation. This has been recog- nized in the administration of the state equalization funds. Inasmuch as a state’s control of education is supreme within the limits of the state the necessary standards have been set up and suitable inspection provided to see that the communities which receive money from the state properly expend it. EXAMINATION OF POVERTY ARGUMENT Is there any state too poor to furnish a fair standard of educational opportunity to its children? No state has as yet established the fact that it cannot provide a good common school education for all its children and before we proceed to radically alter the theory and [ 58 ] 66 Poverty’ 7 Argument working of our government we ought to insist upon a clear and accurate statement of the economic facts from the states which desire to make the claim. No state and no authorized state official appeared at the hearing before the Joint Senate and House Committee to even make a perfunctory request for this bill and much less was there an attempt made by any person whatever to present facts which laid the slightest basis for such a claim. The wealth statistics presented to Congress by the advocates of the bill show that the least wealthy states were all Southern States. But there is an abundance of evidence from official state reports within these very states that the real difficulty is not poverty but that their systems of assessment and of taxation are poorly administered and of an antiquated and ineffective character. RESULTS OF TAX REFORM IN KENTUCKY For example, the state of Kentucky, one of the eight poorest states, according to the figures given Congress recently put into effect a revised taxation system. The result is given in the following quotation from a state- ment of Hon. M. M. Logan, Chairman State Tax Com- mission of Kentucky: “Our new tax laws have proved wonderfully suc- cessful. The county assessors last year (1917) turned in a total assessment of $922,000,000 including bank deposits. This year the assessment turned in by the county assessors under direction of the State Tax Commission will reach $1,400,000,000 or a total of $1,579,000,000 which shows a net gain in one year of $657,000,000 in total property listed for assessment. Exclusive of bank deposits, our total intangibles last year were only $67,000,000. This year, exclusive of bank deposits, intangibles will probably reach $260,000,000.” Again Mr. Logan says: “I think the best feature of our law is the small rate on intangibles as well as the small rates on [ 59 ] “Poverty” Argument manufacturing machinery and raw materials. I believe we have gone a long way towards solving the different and perplexing questions of taxation. Not- withstanding our tax rate was reduced 15^ on the hundred dollars of assessed valuations for state pur- poses, which was equivalent to a reduction of two million dollars, we will collect a good deal more money this year under the new law than we col- lected last year. It appears now that including license taxes imposed at the special session in 1917, we will have about two million dollars more revenue than we did last year.” (Report of Special Tax Commis- sion of Georgia, 1919, p. 27.) RESULTS OF TAX REFORM IN NORTH CAROLINA North Carolina, also described as one of the less wealthy states, put into effect a new system of taxation in 1920 with the following results, as described by the Special Tax Commission of South Carolina, which inves- tigated the situation in North Carolina and reported as follows : “This act was ratified on March 11, 1919, and by August, 1920, the work of listing all property and revaluing the same at its full money value was com- pleted. A representative of your committee visited Raleigh on September 16, 1920, and went over the situation fully with the North Carolina Tax Com- mission. From the facts furnished it appears that the results of this revaluation were as follows : “1. The taxable property of the state was raised from $1,099,120,389 to $3,158,480,072, or practi- cally trebled. “2. The general levy for State, Pension, School and County purposes was reduced from 14^4 mills to 4.98 mills. (This was the reduction figured by the Tax Commissioner. When the Legislature met in Special Session, it removed entirely what is called the State Tax, but this does not include school taxes, the pension fund, etc., as it does in this State, South Carolina.) [ 60 ] “Poverty” Argument “3. One million acres of untaxed lands were dis- covered and placed on the tax books. “ 4. The amount of intangible property classified as solvent credits was increased from $90,055,893 to $214,546,231 or not quite 23^ times. “5. Assessed value of railroads was increased from $125,417,618 to $250,587,158 or approximately doubled. “6. The real estate assessment made in 1915 was increased from $506,808,394 to $2,006,124,997 or very nearly quadrupled. “ 7. Personal property was increased from $426,062,907 assessed in 1918 to $807,866,443 or not quite doubled. “8. Cotton mills were increased from $58,266,591 to $205,581,304 or about 3 x /l times. “ 9. Over 20,000 taxable polls were discovered and placed on tax books. “10. The cost of revaluation to the State was about $130,000.” (Report of Special Tax Commission of South Carolina, 1920, p. 65.) NEED OF TAX REFORM IN SOUTH CAROLINA DESCRIBED BY SPECIAL TAX COMMISSION OF THAT STATE As a further indication that the root of the difficulty in these states is the nature and to a minor degree the administration of the tax laws, we quote from the Special Tax Commission of the State of South Carolina describ- ing the situation in that state as late as 1920. A portion of the resolution of the State Assembly creating the commission reads as follows : (Report of Joint Special Committee on Revenue and Taxation appointed by the South Carolina Gen- eral Assembly Session of 1920; submitted to the Regular Session of 1921.) “Whereas, it is a matter of common knowledge that a considerable proportion of the taxable prop- erty of the State is now escaping taxation, and that [ 61 ] “ Poverty ” Argument methods and sources of raising revenue now generally resorted to by other States are not in use in this State . . (Page 6.) The report also states: “But, having disposed of one disturbing issue, there arose another equally embarrassing alternative. That was a choice between leaving severely alone and thereby tacitly approving, a tax system that had led to the imposition of an excessively high tax rate upon property, or taking some action toward challenging the right of such a system longer to exist and function in its present form. Lined up behind the policy of ‘masterly inactivity’ were a number of potent in- fluences — the force of inertia, the example of pre- ceding legislatures, the anaesthesia of flush times, and (more formidable than all others) the well- founded belief that ‘monkeying with taxes’ in any shape or form is dangerous to the legislators’ political health. On the other hand, were the considerations that for many years past the State had been, to the knowledge of all men, under an outlaw tax system; that the system itself in its actual legal form and sub- stance, was under the condemnation of the best mod- ern opinion of political economists and practical tax administrators; that if the States established insti- tutions and the governmental activities to which it was already committed were to keep pace with the natural growth and development of the State the need for increased revenues would grow more and more acute, and — most potent of all considerations — that the general property tax as a producer of revenue had about reached the breaking point.” (Page 5.) “That a vast amount of the [taxable property of the State is not upon the tax books at all is not only well known, but is acquiesced in and openly justified by the majority of our citizens. All of which can mean but one thing — that the operation of the tax system of South Carolina is in point of fact as much [ 62 ] “ Poverty ” Argument of an outlaw business as the gentle art of cracking safes or of distilling moonshine whiskey.” (Page 25.) “It would therefore seem to be a conservative esti- mate to place the value of all taxable intangible prop- erty in South Carolina now escaping taxation, at not less than $300,000,000 which is more than 70 per cent of the present assessed value of all property of every character in the State.” (Page 43.) “In directing especial attention to the escape of this form of property from the tax rolls, the Commit- tee has not been inadvertent to the fact that much real estate is also escaping. The Committee has reason to believe that there are thousands of acres of land outside of the towns and cities that are not upon the tax books. The U. S. Census Bureau (1912) gives the land area of South Carolina as 19,516,800 acres. The acreage returned for taxation in 1919 for all lands outside of cities and towns was 18,693,519. This leaves 823,281 acres to be accounted for as town lots. Even in the cities, where the listing and assess- ment of real estate would seem to be comparatively easy, improved lots have been known to escape taxa- tion for years. In 1915 the Tax Commission of this State had surveys made of five of the city blocks in Columbia and found as to three of them that two- thirds of the land and one-half of the buildings in one block were not returned for taxation; in another block twenty-three-fortieths ( 2 %o) or over half of the land and half of the buildings were escaping taxa- tion; in the third block, 23 front feet, valued at $460,000 and a lot and small building valued at $600 escaped taxation.” (Page 35.) This commission in summing up its deductions begins with the following two conclusions : “From the foregoing broad outline of the State’s financial affairs the following would seem to be legiti- mate deductions: “1. That the State of South Carolina is not a pauper colony. [ 63 ] “ Poverty ” Argument “2. That a State which is spending approximately 2% times less than the average American Com- monwealth for State purposes is probably doing less for its people through governmental agencies than they are entitled to.” (Page 16.) TAXATION SITUATION IN GEORGIA In Georgia a Special Tax Commission reported in 1919 and called attention to the following facts: All Property Valuation Assessment in Georgia “1912 2,382,600,866 842,358,342 36% 1918 4,258,919,048 1,079,261,333 2 5%” (Page 4.) It is not surprising that the tax rates may have seemed excessively high when the basis of valuation was actually reduced on the average from 36 per cent of true value in 1912 to 25 per cent of true value in 1918. The Georgia Commission further called the attention of its legislature to the following facts : “1916 Average per Capita State Tax U. S. . . . $5.09 So. Atlantic States 3.26 Per Capita State Tax Georgia 2.55 Only five states pay less.” (Page 28.) TAXATION SITUATION IN TENNESSEE In Tennessee the situation is thus described by a Special Tax Commission in 1915: “It is not surprising therefore that despite the advances in the values of land all over the State which are well known to all those who have investi- gated the subject the tax aggregate has grown very slowly most of the increases, as shown being in the assessments of city property. In fact the Comp- troller’s report for 1914 shows that 31 counties re- duced their average acreage assessment between 1913 and 1914 and that there were actually six [64] “ Poverty ” Argument counties which were assessed at less per acre on acreage property in 1914 than in 1879. In the ten years between 1904 and 1914 the total assessments of the State increased from $429,767,708 to $672,- 754,691 or 56.5 per cent. This is not an increase commensurate with the rapid growth of wealth. According to the Federal census the capital invested in manufactures in Tennessee was $63,141,000 in 1899 and $167,924,000 in 1909, an increase of 166 per cent. The value of farm property in 1900 was $341,202,025 and in 1910 $612,520,836, an increase of 79 per cent. The average acreage assessment now is less than $9. “These figures speak for themselves. Our prop- erty every year is assessed on a lower basis compared to value. “In addition, statements of assessors before this committee show that in many cases throughout the State the bases of assessment in counties adjoining one another vary between 25 per cent and 60 per cent of the actual value of the property in those counties. The game of dodging a fair share of State taxes is be- ing played all over the State just as some individuals dodge taxes in their individual assessment, and such a thing as actual cash-value assessments in accord- ance with the assessment law of 1907 is practically unknown anywhere. In fact numerous assessors testified that they dared not assess property at its actual cash -value; for, if they did, they were sure to lose their official positions at the next election — if, indeed, they were not before that time run out of the county. “We are unable to furnish statistics as to the actual value of property in Tennessee as compared with the assessment, but from those collected by its agents the Federal Census Bureau estimates that the assessed value of property is about 38 per cent of the actual value of property in the State. We are in- clined to the belief, however, from admissions made by assessors and tax payers who have come before [ 65 ] “ Poverty ” Argument this committee that this estimate is much too high.” (Report of Special Tax Commission of Tennessee, pp. 10, 11.) “ Tennessee is now one of the most cheaply gov- erned states in the Union. Only four other states, all Southern, imposed a lighter burden on their tax payers as shown by per capita receipts and expend- itures. These in Tennessee now average only about $2 per capita annually, which is about one-half the average for the United States and considerably less than the average in Southern States. “All the states bordering Tennessee except North Carolina and Mississippi expend larger sums per capita. Nevertheless, within 10 years our receipts increased approximately from $2,600,000 to $4,- 600,000, the increase being constant from year to year showing the prosperity of the State and our expenses have increased in proportion. When we consider that in 1904 the State paid out for charities, schools and pensions the sum of $989,609.44 and in 1914 paid out $3,075,142.45 for the same purposes we see how the heart of our State has throbbed in unison with the great movements affecting this nation. Now are we going to escape our obligations to do more for our heroes of the past, for our youth the hope of the future, and for the unfortunates to whom we wish again to open the door of opportunity. And also we are under obligation to do much more than we have done for good roads and in aid of agriculture, mining, forestry and for other good purposes.” (Page 34.) TAXATION SITUATION IN MISSISSIPPI In Mississippi the situation is similar. (See report of Senate and House Committee on State Revenue System and Fiscal Affairs submitted to the Mississippi Legis- lature in 1918.) “ Mississippi’s antiquated revenue system must be reformed so as to establish an equitable and adequate system for raising the states’ income as well as a [ 66 ] “Poverty” Argument logical and economical method of disbursing public funds.” (Page 9.) “Deficits have been further increased by a reduc- tion in some sources of state revenue, despite the fact that the past few years have shown great devel- opment in the material prosperity of our people. For example, there was a reduction of $20,781,736 in the total Assessed Valuation in 1915 from what it was in 1914. In 1915 there were 127,242 more acres of land in cultivation as appears from the assessment rolls than in 1913 and yet the assessed valuation of the cultivated lands in 1915 with this increased acreage was $1,512,255 less than in 1913. And there was a decrease of $5,000,000 in the valua- tion of wild lands also. These figures are significantly suggestive. Second : Our system of taxation was not equitable. More deplorable and intricate than the inadequacy of our system was its inequity. Under it a tax furnishing an insufficient income was a greater burden on a portion of our people than a sufficient tax equitably distributed would have been. It was to be regretted that because of variations in land assessments this phase of the question has come to be regarded by many as a sectional one. This view was erroneous for some of the greatest inequalities existed between values in adjoining counties. “Land for instance in Jones County paid to the State a tax of 5^ per acre; in Jasper County which is adjacent the same character of land paid 2.7^ per acre; Harrison County paid 21.9 per acre; Jackson County adjacent and of the same character of land paid 2.7 ^ per acre; Lee County paid 4.1^ per acre; Monroe adjacent, paid 2.4 per acre; Covington County paid 4.9^ per acre while Franklin County paid 1.9^ per acre. These figures are only illustra- tive of the general condition. These variations were due to the fact that we have 80 different Boards of Supervisors, each having supreme control over the assessment rolls of its particular county. Valuations were reduced, local levies increased, and [67J “Poverty” Argument the state deprived of its legitimate and necessary income. “The tax payer was supposed to list his property at its actual value as specified by the State Consti- tution and not purposely to reduce his assessment because his neighbors had reduced theirs. Yet many citizens who are the soul of honor in their general dealings with their fellow men, felt that they were compelled to do that very thing. Because his neigh- bors never listed their property at its actual value the levies were two or three times higher than they would be if the law were complied with and there- fore each tax payer felt that he could ill afford to be an exception by listing his property at full value. “The practise of undervaluation resulted in high levies and high levies drove certain classes of prop- erty which might be easily concealed from the assess- ment rolls. In many districts of this State the rate of taxation was as high as 45 mills and sometimes even higher. The man who lends money at 8 per cent and pays 4 P er cent taxes feels that he is not being justly dealt with by his Government which is thereby exacting of him an income tax of more than 50 per cent on gross earnings. Money is worth more than 6 per cent in Mississippi when loaned in small sums and the small borrower has to pay more for it if he gets it. As a result subterfuges for evading taxation were resorted to. The borrower paid the market value of the money he borrowed, the State lost the revenue and the people became accustomed and even recon- ciled to tax dodging. Because of high levies result- ing from under valuation we received practically no income from taxation on intangible personalty, that class of property which, with the industrial and commercial progress of recent years has increased in amount and value as has no other.” (Page 10.) CONCLUSION In the face of these statements not from outsiders but from the public officials of the states towards which [ 68 ] “ Poverty ” Argument those urging this measure seem to point the finger in their poverty argument, it seems clear the proponents should come forward with more and better and more specific proof as to just where the states are which cannot maintain a good sound public school system. Let us have their names. They will find themselves among friends. If they need help we shall all be glad to try to find some sound way to do it. But this present measure, as will be pointed out in more detail later, simply throws a hundred million dollars round the country to the rich and the less rich alike in the vague hope that somewhere some small fraction of it will fall into the lap of some one needing it. Meanwhile the gratifying truth is that practically every one of the states, on whose behalf the claim is apparently being put forward, is proceeding to modernize its taxation laws and practices and to successfully dis- charge on its own account this function of local self- government. PUBLIC INTEREST MORE IMPORTANT THAN MONEY The advocates of the bill have overestimated the relative importance of public interest and money. Pub- lic interest never fails to produce the needed funds. But the donation of Federal money is not always successful in stimulating public interest. It is more likely to kill responsibility and destroy initiative. EXAMPLE OF MISSISSIPPI The following example from Mississippi, recently described by Charles Riborg Mann, well illustrates that “where there ’s a will there ’s a way.” “Mississippi has been held up by the proponents of Federal subsidies for education as a state which has so little taxable wealth that it cannot itself raise enough money for the proper support of schools. Therefore — so the argument runs — it is neces- [ 69 ] “ Poverty” Argument sary to call in the Federal government to collect taxes from New York and distribute subsidies in Mississippi to help the inhabitants there in estab- lishing their school system. “It happens that in Mississippi in 1910 a man with creative imagination visited the state and saw what was needed to create better schools. Having some private funds at his disposal, he employed another man with a creative idea to spend his time among the people of Mississippi showing them how they could improve their conditions by organizing corn clubs and canning clubs and consolidated schools. The work prospered. The legislature passed the necessary statutes authorizing the es- tablishment of consolidated schools. These schools have now grown rapidly until there are 525 of them, each replacing from two to seven or eight small one- room schools. “The course of study in consolidated schools is not the conventional course given in most public schools; it is aimed at teaching the children to be productive citizens. When the corn clubs demon- strated that it is possible to raise 130 bushels of corn to an acre, and the schools showed how to prepare the land for other crops than cotton, the adults of the district became interested and sought further information. The result has been that the produc- tivity of the communities about the consolidated schools has increased, their ready money has multi- plied, and their bank credit has become more stable. They have taxed themselves heavily to support these schools, and the schools have become the centre of social and uplift work for their respective com- munities. “All of this work in Mississippi was done by the people themselves, without Federal subsidies, be- cause of the skilful missionary work of one man with a dynamic idea. When in 1917 the Smith-Hughes law was passed and Federal subsidies were available, these contributed somewhat to the further develop- [ 70 ] “Poverty” Argument ment of the schools; but at present only 30 of the 525 consolidated schools are receiving aid from the Federal grant. “This experience of Mississippi indicates that even in communities that seem to have low taxable wealth, there is latent energy which when aroused enables them to achieve great results for themselves. It indicates that when a school delivers goods the people want, the people are ready to pay the price. The financial difficulties of schools at the present time are not due to lack of money among the people.” (Charles Riborg Mann, “Federal Organization for Education,” in Educational Review, February, 1923, pp. 104 ff.) EXAMPLE OF KENTUCKY Another striking illustration of what an awakened public opinion can accomplish is shown by the work already done in Kentucky in removing illiteracy under the leadership of Mrs. Cora Wilson Stewart. We quote from her testimony before the Joint Committee of Con- gress : “It has been my privilege for the past eight years to deal exclusively with adult illiterates in my own and other States and from that experience I have found how eager these people are to learn, how grateful they are for a chance, and how rapidly they progress. In 1911 we started the movement to eradicate illiteracy in one county in the State of Kentucky. Later it developed into a State-wide movement to eradicate illiteracy before 1920. Other States took up the plan and began to campaign against illiteracy until now almost every State in the Union is making an attempt to stamp illiteracy out of the Commonwealth. In some States this work is being done under the direction of illiteracy commissions; in some, under State departments of education; in others, under volunteer organizations. The State that is not doing something to relieve adult illiterates is the exception. [ 71 ] ‘ ‘ Poverty ’ * A rgument “Senator Walsh has asked the question whether or not Kentucky has appropriated money for the removal of illiteracy from the State. Ten thousand dollars was first appropriated for the purpose, and later the interest was so increased that the legislature appropriated $75,000, making $85,000 in all that Kentucky has appropriated for the relief of adult illiterates. “I am sure that you are more interested in the results of the campaign to eradicate illiteracy than anything else. The test of any educational system is its results. In Oklahoma, 5,000 adults were taught to read and write in the moonlight schools in one year; in North Carolina, 10,000 were taught in the year of 1915, and the work continues with increasing success. In New Mexico, they have taught 45,000 to read and write since 1915, says the State superintendent of public instruction. You will agree with me, I am sure, that the State in- spector and examiner of our State is an official quali- fied to make a report. In the State of Kentucky it is his duty to report on the various commissions and departments and to show what they have and what they have not done. In the report of this official to the governor of Kentucky in December, 1918, he stated that after examining the official reports of school superintendents and the sworn reports of teachers, he found that in Kentucky 100,000 persons had been taught to read and write. This is a demon- stration of what has been done in one State in re- deeming men and women from illiteracy.” (Record of Joint Hearings, 1919, pp. 102-104.) DESCRIPTION OF STERLING-TOWNER BILL The way is now cleared for a more detailed discussion of the Sterling-Towner Bill. The bill appropriates $100,000,000, divided as follows: $7,500,000 for the removal of illiteracy; $7,500,000 for Americanization; $20,000,000 for physical education; $15,000,000 for the preparation of public school teachers, and $50,000,000 for equalizing educational opportunities in the states. The basis of apportionment follows: The $7,500,000 for the removal of illiteracy is to be apportioned to the states in the proportions which their illiterate population of fourteen years or over, not including foreign-born illiterates, bears to the total illiterate population of the United States. The $7,500,000 for Americanization is to be apportioned in the proportion which the respec- tive foreign-born population of the states bears to the total foreign-born population of the United States. The $20,000,000 for physical education is to be apportioned to the states in the proportion which their respective population bears to the total population of the United States (per capita basis). The $15,000,000 for the training of teachers is to be apportioned in the propor- tion in which the number of public school teachers in the respective states bears to the total number of public school teachers in the United States. The $50,000,000 for equalization is to be apportioned one-half in the proportion that the number of children between the ages of six and twenty-one of the respective states bears to the total number of such children in the United States, and one-half in the proportion which the number of school [ 73 ] Description of Sterling -Towner Bill teachers employed in the respective states bears to the total number of public school teachers in the United States. THE “fifty-fifty” BASIS The appropriations are to be made available to the states on the so-called “fifty-fifty” basis, which means that a state in order to receive Federal funds must appro- priate for each specific purpose at least as much money as it expects to receive for that purpose from the Federal Government. For physical education, the training of teachers and equalization, the state must appropriate, however, not less than it appropriated the preceding year. In this amount may be figured all appropriations for the various purposes designated, whether made by the state itself or by any city, town, or county, or other sub-division maintaining public schools. The proponents of the bill seem to differ among them- selves as to the extent to which the Federal appro- priations would require increased appropriations by the states. Some of the proponents believe that the bill, if accepted by all the states, would mean an increase in the state appropriations of $100,000,000. Others favoring the bill, with whom we substantially agree, have taken the position that except in some cases for the special purposes, state appropriations would not need to be increased. For example, The National Com- mittee for a Department of Education in its pamphlet says: “The states are now spending more than ten times the total allotment, so that, except in some cases for the special purposes, appropriations would not need to be increased to qualify for the total allot- ment to the state.” It is obvious that many of the state legislatures will exert themselves to obtain the maximum of Federal money with a minimum expenditure of state money and [74] Description of Sterling -Towner Bill that a considerable shifting about of the items in the present state appropriations will take place. The largest appropriation — that for $50,000,000 for equalization — is so vaguely defined that it hardly seems likely that it would involve an increased appropriation in any state in order to obtain the Federal funds. MORTGAGING STATE FUNDS One of the serious but inevitable results of the “fifty- fifty” policy will undoubtedly be the distortion of state educational budgets by the segregation of too much of the available funds for special and limited purposes which Congress with less knowledge of local budgets and local conditions will over-emphasize, but which states will submit to rather than lose their Federal plum. If this meant that sufficient funds would be still avail- able for other essential purposes the result would be less harmful. But certainly this will not always be the case. The bill does not give evidence of careful analysis. No explanation has been offered by those who prepared the bill or those who advocated its passage before the Joint Committee as to how conclusions were arrived at either as to the amounts or the division of the appro- priations. They are all good round figures and the total adds up to $100,000,000, which is another good round figure. ILLITERACY APPROPRIATION While the creators and proponents of the Sterling- Towner Bill in presenting their arguments for the bill before the Joint Committee lumped the great number of negro illiterates into their illiteracy figures and used them to urge an illiteracy appropriation, yet when we come to the provisions of the bill we find nothing requir- ing any fixed proportion of the money, or indeed any part of the illiteracy money, to be used to reduce negro illiteracy. Description of Sterling -Towner Bill State Native White Illiterates Negro Illiterates Amount State would Receive* Alabama . . . 65,394 210,690 $698,689 Georgia . . . 66,796 261,115 775,350 Louisiana . . 81,957 206,730 676,976 Mississippi . . 22,242 205,813 547,545 North Carolina 104,844 133,674 575,253 South Carolina 38,742 181,422 551,315 Virginia . . . 70,475 122,322 459,431 Totals . . . 450,450 1,321,766 $4,284,559 AMERICANIZATION APPROPRIATION With regard to the appropriation for Americanization it is difficult to understand the reasons which led the framers of the bill to devise a plan appropriating such huge sums of money to the states already having strong educational departments, and which in all cases are now providing additional facilities for Americanization and which everyone admits are well able to sustain the ex- pense out of their own funds, and, so far as we are aware, are entirely willing to do so. Under the bill, the following eight states receive approximately $5,000,000 out of the total appropriation of $7,500,000 for Americanization : New York .... . . . $1,525,146 Pennsylvania . . . . . . 800,517 Illinois . . . 668,949 Massachusetts . . . . . 587,880 New Jersey . . . . . . 366,737 Ohio . . . 332,097 Michigan .... . . . 331,640 California .... . . . 325,469 $4,938,435 * The figures for the apportionment of the appropriations quoted in this report are those presented to the Committee of Congress at the hear- ing, July 10, 1919. (Record of Hearing, pp. 23-24.) [ 76 ] Description of Sterling- Towner Bill PHYSICAL EDUCATION APPROPRIATION We find here, again, huge appropriations of Federal funds are to be made to states which already have well- developed physical educational systems in their schools, states whose ability to pay their own education expenses no one anywhere at any time has ever questioned. The following states receive more than $500,000 for physical education : New York .... . . . $1,982,211 Pennsylvania . . . . . . 1,667,161 Illinois . . . 1,226,393 Ohio . . . 1,036,848 Texas . . . 847,497 Massachusetts . . . . . 732,195 Missouri . . . 716,300 Michigan .... . . . 611,212 Indiana . . . 587,440 Georgia . . . 567,483 New Jersey . . . . . . 551,833 California .... . . . 517,116 Wisconsin .... . . . 507,614 Total .... . . $11,551,303 EQUALIZATION APPROPRIATION This bill bears little relation to the educational needs of the country described by its promoters as its reason for being. This is to be noted in the treatment of the largest appropriation — $50,000,000 for the equaliza- tion of education — described in the Act as follows: “ Shall be used in public elementary and secondary schools for the partial payment of teachers’ salaries, for providing better instruction and extending school terms, especially in rural schools and schools in sparsely settled localities, and otherwise providing equally good educational opportunities for the children in the several states, and for the extension and adaptation of public libraries for educational purposes.” Description of Sterling -T owner Bill This appropriation is apparently intended to strike at the very root of the two most important arguments advanced for Federal participation, — need of improving rural schools and of increasing teachers’ salaries. The basis of distribution, however, bears no particular relation to the necessities. This has been well commented upon by Professor Judd, Director of the School of Education, University of Chicago: “So I say with regard to subsidies, let us have clearness, let us make our Federal subsidies on a sound scientific basis. We have been saying to the Superintendents, 6 Do not ask your community for funds unless you are clear and have distinct grounds for your demands and definite plans for distribution of the funds. Be intelligent before you go before your people. But in this larger national demand we have gone before Congress with a bill that lacks every one of the requirements that we impose on local schools. Every figure in the present bill is a mere guess; not only so but the principles for the distribution of such funds as are specified are a de- plorable series of incoherences. I will give one illus- tration. Take two items, the illiteracy fund and the teachers’ fund. The illiteracy fund is distributed in proportion to the number of illiterates in the state. Let us assume that this is a wise method of distri- bution. When we turn to the teachers’ fund we find that it is to be distributed according to the number of teachers in the state. This looks like the same principle as that accepted for the distribution of the illiteracy fund but in reality it is the reverse. We give money in the case of illiterates to cure defects. We give money to the teachers in proportion to their excellence.” (University of Illinois Bulletin, De- cember 26, 1921, p. 99.) Bearing in mind the importance that has been given to the inequality in wealth between the states by the advo- cates of the bill, it will be interesting to compare the allotment which is to be used for improving rural schools [78J Description of Sterling -Towner Bill and increasing the pay of teachers between the poor and wealthy states, those now paying low salaries and those paying high salaries, and states with high percentages and low percentages of rural population. We give the following figures : Percentage Average Per Unit Rural of Total Salary Appropriation of Rural Population Population Teachers for Equalization Population State 1920 Rural 1917-18 $1,496,150 $7.40 Massachusetts 202,108 5.2 $858 4,363,978 2.43 New York 1,795,383 17.3 976 2,795,978 1.34 Illinois 2,079,602 32.1 778 2,327,513 .74 Texas 3,150,539 67.6 487 843,067 .67 So. Carolina 1,389,737 82.5 315 1,020,874 .66 Mississippi 1,550,497 86.6 291 We find that New York, a wealthy state with a rural population of only 17.3 per cent, and paying its teachers an average salary of $976, is to receive $4,363,978 of the equalization appropriation, or $2.43 per person of the rural population, while Mississippi, which is 86.6 per cent rural, and pays its teachers an average salary of $291, is to receive $1,020,874, or only $0.66 per person of the rural population. As a matter of fact, the number of rural inhabitants in Mississippi is very nearly as large as the number in New York State. Massachusetts, with a rural population of only 202,108 and paying its teachers an average salary of $858, is to receive $1,496,- 150, or $7.40 per person of the rural population for improving rural schools and raising salaries of its teach- ers, while South Carolina, with a rural population of 1,389,737 (almost seven times that of Massachusetts), and paying its teachers $315, is to receive $843,067, or $0.67 per person of the rural population. The com- parison between Texas and Illinois further illustrates the same absurd results for the method of apportion- ment. The bill purports to equalize rural conditions, when as a matter of fact its effect will be still more to exaggerate the present inequalities. [ 79 ] Description of Sterling -T owner Bill THE APPROPRIATION FOR TRAINING TEACHERS Fifteen million dollars is to be appropriated for the training of teachers. Comment should be made on one feature of this appropriation. It is provided among other things, that the money appropriated under this section may be used “to provide an increased number of trained and competent teachers by encouraging, through the establishment of scholarships and other- wise, a greater number of talented young people to make adequate preparation for public-school service.” This policy is referred to by leading advocates of the bill as the extension of the “West Point” policy to normal schools; the theory being that as the govern- ment furnishes free education to the students at West Point and Annapolis the same principle should be ex- tended to the students of the normal schools. (Keith and Bagley, “The Nation and the Schools,” p. 286.) We are right in “West Pointing” our fighting ma- chine but let us go slow in “West Pointing” our teachers. As there are at present more than 250 state, city, and county normal schools with an enrollment in 1918 of 110,053, the possible consequences of this policy to the Federal treasury may well be viewed with some concern. DIVISION BETWEEN STATES We have not referred as yet to the division of the total appropriation as between the states. The follow- ing eight states receive $40,000,000 out of the $100,000,- 000 appropriation: New York $9,246,846 Pennsylvania 7,338,739 Illinois 5,595,490 Ohio 4,712,732 Massachusetts 3,261,087 Michigan 3,046,305 Iowa 3,019,743 Texas 4,397,742 $40,618,684 Description of Sterling- Towner Bill These states, while doubtless having their share of shortcomings, cannot be classed as states with backward educational institutions. They pay their teachers well above the average for the country. There is neither an educational nor a poverty argument for Federal aid for these states. A LOG-ROLLING BILL The evidence irresistibly leads to the conclusion that the bill has not been framed with a view to doing the maximum for education. Statesmanlike educa- tional policy is not there. The hand of the skilled politician is seen. The bill is constructed on well- known log-rolling principles. There is to be a piece of pie for everybody. The bill itself is a most unhappy augury of the sort of legislation that may be expected once we embark upon a policy of Federal participation. [ 81 ] FEDERAL SUBSIDIES MAKE FEDERAL CONTROL INEVITABLE We have stated throughout our argument that Fed- eral participation in public school education is revolu- tionary because it means Federal control of our public school system. Many of those who advocate the bill, however, sincerely believe that it contains every pre- caution against Federal control. This thought is well evidenced by the resolution passed by the National Education Association at the convention in Salt Lake City in 1920, as follows: “We urge the immediate passage of the Smith- Towner Bill by which Federal participation in the support of public education is provided and which, at the same time, preserves the autonomy of the state in the management of its schools. We con- demn the efforts of the enemies of the public schools to defeat this measure, particularly by stigma- tizing it as a measure which involves national con- trol of education. Such control is not only clearly unconstitutional, but it is out of harmony with the spirit of American institutions. This Association pledges itself unreservedly to oppose any move- ment or proposal that would centralize control of the public schools.” It is further pointed out by those who support the bill and condemn Federal control that any danger of Federal control is specifically provided against by the language of the bill itself : “All funds apportioned to a State shall be dis- tributed and administered in accordance with the laws of said State in like manner as the funds provided by State and local authorities for the same purpose, and the State and local educational authorities of said State shall determine the courses of study, plans, and methods for carrying out the purposes of this section within said State in ac- cordance with the laws thereof.” Federal Control Inevitable And provided further: “That all the educational facilities encouraged by the provisions of this act and accepted by a State shall be organized, supervised, and administered ex- clusively by the legally constituted State and local educational authorities of said State, and the Secre- tary of Education shall exercise no authority in relation thereto; and this Act shall not be construed to imply Federal control of education within the States, nor to impair the freedom of the States in the conduct and management of their respective school systems.” But these limiting words are not consistent with the essence and nature of the bill. If the policy imbedded in the bill ever gets under way they will prove inade- quate. They are a Ford brake on a Pierce-Arrow car. They don’t fit and they won’t hold. ORIGINAL FORM OF BILL SET UP FEDERAL CONTROL The history of the bill shows that Federal control was contemplated by the National Education Association Commission on the National Program in Education which originated the present bill. We quote Professor Charles H. Judd, Director of the School of Education, University of Chicago: “We have seen this bill amended two or three times. In the first place, the bill was adopted by the National Education Association in 1918. That bill needed radical revision and some of us said so. We were told to keep quiet in the hope that Congress would act quickly. We did until the fourth of March, 1919. When Congress showed no disposition to act quickly some of us ventured to voice our objec- tions to the provisions of the first bill. That bill con- tained exactly the provisions of the Smith-Hughes law with regard to Federal control of funds given to states. It gave control to the Federal Department of Educa- tion on exactly the same terms that control was given to the Federal Board for V ocational Education. For [ 83 ] Federal Control Inevitable a period of nine months that was the form of the bill. During these nine months there was no public discussion of the bill but a good deal of personal dis- cussion was carried on and such objection was found among state officials to the control features of the bill that by the time the bill turned up in the next Congress it had to be changed to secure general support. It was changed in such a manner as to give it exactly the opposite effect. No public dis- cussion, mark you, had preceded this change. It seems to me that it is fair to infer that the framers of this bill were without any real policy in the matter. They were ready to reverse themselves on cardinal issues to secure support. It is my judgment that we have a right to ask for more insight on the part of those who frame our bills.” (University of Illinois Bulletin, December 26, 1921, p. 98.) We also give the account of the history of the bill furnished before the Joint Senate and House Committee, July 11 , 1919, in the statement of Mr. L. V. Lampson, First Vice-President American Federation of Teachers, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor: “The facts relating to the inception and history of this bill should appear in the report of these pro- ceedings for the information of the country. They are in substance as follows: At a convention held in St. Paul, in June, 1918, upon a resolution intro- duced by Delegate Stillman, representing the or- ganized teachers, the American Federation of Labor went on record in favor of the creation of a depart- ment of education, and the annual appropriation of $100,000,000 by the Federal Government in aid of teachers’ salaries. “Senator Kenyon: The American Federation of Labor? “Yes, sir. At its convention in Pittsburg, held in June of 1918, the American Federation of Teachers went on record in favor of resolutions of similar im- port. Federal Control Inevitable “In conformity with these resolutions a bill was in the process of being drafted. In the meantime, the National Education Association secured the intro- duction into the Senate of what is known as the Smith Bill, which had as its object the creation of a department of education and the annual appro- priation of $100,000,000 for Federal cooperation with the States in the encouragement and support of education. Then followed the introduction of the Smith Bill, amended, into the House under the name of the Towner Bill. “As a result of various conferences between the legislative sponsors of these two bills, and the offi- cial representatives of the three organizations men- tioned, there was introduced into the House and Senate, at the request of the American Federation of Labor, the American Federation of Teachers, and the National Education Association, what is known as the Smith-Towner bill, revised/’ (Record of Joint Hearings, pp. 114, 115.) THE BILL LAYS SURE FOUNDATION FOR FEDERAL CONTROL The present bill already carries in it in express words the beginnings of Federal control in two important respects. Although setting up the very minimum of standards it has appeared to the proponents at the outset to be at least necessary that the bill should provide that the states should establish and maintain the following three standards : (a) A legal school term of at least twenty-four weeks. (b) Compulsory school attendance law requiring all children between the ages of seven and fourteen to attend school. (c) A law requiring that the English language be the basic language of instruction in all schools, public and private. [ 85 ] Federal Control Inevitable The setting up of these Federal standards will require an investigating force in order to make sure that they are maintained as provided in the Act, and the bill also gives the power to the administrator of the Act to withhold the appropriation. When the Federal Gov- ernment begins by setting up standards, no matter how good or necessary they may be, and in giving some one the power to withhold appropriations, Fed- eral control has begun. It is indeed significant that the same bill which pro- vides for these huge Federal appropriations for edu- cation also establishes a Department of Education with a Secretary at the head, who is to be a member of the Cabinet, with an appropriation of $500,000 for ad- ministrative expenses, so that the necessary adminis- trative machinery is being set up in the very bill which proclaims in another section that no degree of Federal control is contemplated. WITHOUT FEDERAL CONTROL WASTE IS INEVITABLE The advocates of Federal participation and Federal appropriations, if they oppose all Federal responsibility for and control of the expenditure of the money, are placed in an awkward dilemma, for without control there will be tremendous waste of Federal funds. The history of subsidies even for educational purposes shows that Federal bonuses without any machinery on the part of the National Government to see to their appli- cation has led in the case of many states to great waste and in numerous cases to the sequestration of the entire fund to purposes entirely foreign to the purpose of the donor. WASTE OF THE LAND GRANTS We can find no better illustration of this than in the past history of the public school funds. We quote from a report by Professor Swift of the University of Minnesota: Federal Control Inevitable “The domain granted specifically for schools by our National Government to its 30 public land states, 114,000 square miles, is larger than Italy, more than twice as large as England, more than nine times as large as Maryland and 23 times as large as the state of Connecticut. “Even more startling are the findings reached when we compare the nations and states selected with the total Federal area which might have been devoted to schools. This potential school land empire of 233,000 square miles is more than twice as large as Italy, considerably larger than England and Italy combined, and four and one-half times as large as England. It would have made 47 states the size of Connecticut besides leaving 2,700 square miles for a Federal District which would be nearly three times the size of the present District of Columbia (1,000 square miles). If we add to the Federal land grants the area of the grants devoted to permanent funds by the states receiving no Federal lands, we find we have as the total area which might have been devoted to permanent funds over 31 1,000 square miles. This is a domain almost large enough to have made an Italy and a France. Out of it might have been carved nearly three Italies; more than six Eng- lands; three Coloradoes; twenty-six Mary lands; seven and a half Ohios; or sixty-three Connecticuts. “ Let us not dismiss this comparison without noting that not only in vastness of extent but that in variety and wealth of natural resources this school domain is worthy to be designated an Empire. “From contemplating the school heritage which might have been we now pass to the stern reality; namely, that even an incomplete record shows that in 32 of our states funds totalling many millions of dollars have been lost, diverted or squandered. In sixteen states, school endowments exist entirely or in part only as an unproductive state debt; and in nine states the funds annually reported as permanent endowments are mere fictions having no existence [ 87 ] Federal Control Inevitable whatever except on paper. If we confine our atten- tion to the thirty states receiving land grants from the Federal government we find that in eleven of these the situation parallels that just described. Let us not lose sight of the fact that many public land states have cherished their school endowments as sacred heritages, but in the immediately following paragraphs our concern will not be with these states but rather with those whose funds have been diverted or lost. * * * * * “The real facts in the case are that in no less than one-third of our states the funds reported as per- manent school funds are totally or largely mere fictions. In some states funds once accumulated have been diverted or lost. In other states, such as Michigan, Maine, and Ohio, the state has by legis- lation adopted a definite policy of using for its own purpose all monies paid into the state treasury to the credit of the permanent fund and establishing a state debt on which the commonwealth binds itself to pay interest at a fixed rate to public schools ***** “The situation revealed by the preceding table is a melancholy record of the outcome of the vast and generous grants bestowed by the Federal Govern- ment for the support of public schools. The story told is one of amazing waste of a great national gift. Carelessness, mismanagement, diversion, theft, em- bezzlement and land frauds are some of the causes that have played a part in the dissipation of these princely endowments. “Much of the mismanagement and many of the losses recorded in the last three tables were undoubt- edly due to the inexperience of the states receiving these grants, and to their lack of adequate vision of the possibilities of such endowments, and of a proper conception of the purposes of the same. Such a de- fence cannot be made, however, of states which with [SB] Federal Control Inevitable generations of experience continue to mismanage or divert these sacred trusts. Arkansas is an example of a state pursuing such policies. A study of the Fed- eral land grants devoted by this state to her per- manent public school fund shows that had this fund been properly managed Arkansas would today pos- sess a permanent endowment of ninety-two million dollars, yielding an annual revenue of $4,600,000, more than }/$ of the total amount Arkansas expended for public schools in the year 1920. Instead of any such princely sum Arkansas has today a non-produc- tive fund whose paltry annual income of $74,000 is a pure fiction raised by a state tax. “If space permitted it would be interesting to trace the process by which this fund was deprived of the lands devoted to it by constitution and de- frauded by laws which gave (and still give) title to school lands to persons who were able to show tax receipts for a certain number of years but who un- doubtedly had no legitimate claim to the lands deeded them. Indeed, a study of the present as well as of the past laws in Arkansas would seem to show that the citizens of this commonwealth have con- ceived of their permanent fund and of the lands given them by the federal government for public schools primarily as sources of revenue to be used for the ad- vantage of individual citizens or to be employed to rescue the state from any and every financial crisis. As late as 1921, $180,000 in cash which had been ac- cumulated in the state treasury to the credit of the permanent fund was used to pay the state’s peniten- tiary debt and was replaced by state paper. One of the most significant, as well as one of the most dis- heartening features of the situation is the fact that the transactions involved were entirely lawful, being in fact merely the carrying out of the provisions of the legislature. “From the account just given of Arkansas trans- actions, it will be seen that the story, begun long ago in Ohio when school lands worth $50 were sold [ 89 ] Federal Control Inevitable for $6 and to which another great chapter was added when monies derived from federal grants for schools were employed for purposes entirely unjustifiable, continues today in some of our states at least.” (Swift, “ Federal Aid to Public Schools,” pp. 45-48, 50, 53.) FEDERAL ROAD AID ALREADY BEGINNING SHOWS NEED OF FEDERAL CONTROL An example of the necessity for Federal control as a consequence of subsidies is seen in the Good Roads Appropriation, which was passed in 1916 on the same “fifty-fifty” basis contemplated in the proposed Ster- ling-Towner Bill for education. We quote from Presi- dent Harding’s Message to Congress, April 12, 1921 : “Large Federal outlay demands a Federal voice in the program of expenditure. Congress can not justify a mere gift from the Federal purse to the several States, to be prorated among the counties for road betterment. Such a course will invite abuses which it were better to guard against in the beginning. “Highways, no matter how generous the outlay for construction, can not be maintained without patrol and constant repair. Such conditions insisted upon in the grant of Federal aid will safeguard the public, which pays and guards the Federal Government against political abuses which tend to defeat the very purposes for which we authorize Federal ex- penditure.” This statement of President Harding, together with his recommendation for such amendment of the “Good- Roads” Act as will bring about effective supervision on the part of the Federal Government of the expenditure of the money, shows plainly enough where the Federal Government must finally land if it is to embark on the policy of great annual Federal appropriations for school purposes. The self-denying words inserted in this Act [ 90 ] Federal Control Inevitable as an afterthought furnish no permanent guaranty. If we are drawing the specifications for a bridge, we can- not make it safe by inserting words saying that the law of gravity is suspended. SUBSIDY AND CONTROL In reviewing the inevitable tendency of the subsidy policy to carry control with it, it is interesting to notice that in England the effect of granting subsidies to the local governments under the name of “grants in aid” is well understood. Sidney Webb, the well-known British economist, who has been one of the champions of National “Grants in Aid,” says in his book on the subject: “The second reason for a system of grants in aid is of even greater moment than that of Equaliza- tion of Burdens. They are needed to give weight to the suggestions, criticisms and authoritative instruc- tions by which the central authority seeks to secure greater efficiency and economy of administration. This is indeed by far the most important aspect of Grants in Aid.” (Sidney Webb, “Grants in Aid,” p. 11.) EDUCATION NOT MORE VITAL TO NATIONAL GOVERN- MENT THAN TO STATE AND LOCAL UNITS There is a tendency on the part of some educational leaders to set up the Nation as a mysterious entity with a sort of sacrosanct character, and to claim that the Nation’s interest in education in some way transcends that of the states or of the local governments. In their enthusiasm they overlook the fact that the common life of every citizen is much more intimately concerned with his local and state government than with the National Government. The low standard of education in any state is of far more consequence to the people living in that state than it is to the residents of other states in distant parts of the country. [ 91 ] Federal Control Inevitable Danger of Federalization to Educational Progress The federalization of our schools would be the worst possible thing for educational progress in this country. The danger to education has been well presented by President Butler of Columbia University. “So far as education is concerned, there has been over-organization for a long time past. Too many persons are engaged in supervising, in inspecting and in recording the work of other persons. There is too much machinery, and in consequence a steady temptation to lay more stress upon the form of edu- cation than upon its content. Statistics displace scholarship. There are, in addition, too many laws and too precise laws, and not enough opportunity for those mistakes and failures, due to individual initiative and experiment, which are the foundation for great and lasting success. “It is now proposed to bureaucratize and to bring into uniformity the educational system of the whole United States, while making the most solemn assur- ance that nothing of the kind is intended. The glory and the success of education in the United States are due to its freedom, to its unevennesses, to its reflec- tion of the needs and ambition and capacities of local communities, and to its being kept in close and con- stant touch with the people themselves. There is not money enough in the United States, even if every dollar of it were expended on education, to produce by Federal authority or through what is naively called cooperation between the Federal Government and the several states, educational results that would be at all comparable with those that have already been reached under the free and natural system that has grown up among us. If tax-supported education be first encouraged and inspected, and then little by little completely controlled by central authority, European experience shows precisely what will happen. In so far as the schools of France are [ 92 ] Federal Control Inevitable controlled from the Ministry of Education in Paris, they tend to harden into uniform machines, and it is only when freedom is given to different types of schools, or to different localities, that any real prog- ress is made. Anything worse than the system which has prevailed in Prussia would be difficult to imagine. It is universally acknowledged that the unhappy decline in German university freedom and effective- ness, and the equally unhappy subjection of the educated classes to the dictates of the political and military ruling groups, were the direct result of the highly centralized and efficient control from Berlin of the nation’s schools and universities. For Ameri- cans now to accept oversight and direction of their tax-supported schools and colleges from Washington would mean that they had failed to learn one of the plainest and most weighty lessons of the war. It is true that education is a national problem and a national responsibility; it is also true that it has been characteristic of the American people to solve their most difficult national problems and to bear their heaviest national responsibilities through their own action in the field of liberty rather than through the agency of organized government. Once more to tap the federal treasury under the guise of aiding the states, and once more to establish an army of bureau- crats in Washington and another army of inspectors roaming at large throughout the land, will not only fail to accomplish any permanent improvement in the education of our people, but it will assist in effecting so great a revolution in our American form of govern- ment as one day to endanger its perpetuity. Illit- eracy will not be sensibly diminished, if at all, by federal appropriations, nor will the physical health of the people be thereby improved. The major portion of any appropriation that may be made will certainly be swallowed up in meeting the cost of doing ill that which should not be done at all. The true path of advance in education is to be found in the direction of keeping the people’s schools closely Federal Control Inevitable in touch with the people themselves. Bureaucrats and experts will speedily take the life out of even the best schools and reduce them to dried and mounted specimens of pedagogic fatuity. Unless the school is both the work and the pride of the com- munity which it serves, it is nothing. A school system that grows naturally in response to the needs and am- bitions of a hundred thousand different localities, will be a better school system than any which can be im- posed upon those localities by the aid of grants of pub- lic money from the federal treasury, accompanied by federal regulations, federal inspections, federal reports and federal uniformities.” (Columbia University Annual Report of the President, 1921, pp. 21-22.) We conclude the discussion of Federal participation in public school education with the closing words of the notable address of President Kinley, made last December on the occasion of his installation as President of the University of Illinois: “The most important question of internal adminis- tration before the American people today is whether or not this onward sweep of Federal control over the details of their local affairs shall go on. The part of that question which we are considering today is whether it is advisable to permit it to include our education. Shall we accept the doctrine that we are destined to become a great continental democracy, governed in all important public activities from Wash- ington, or shall we try to preserve the local autonomy in communities and States which is necessary to the preservation of our liberties? If we accept the doc- trine that it is well to become a continental democ- racy, there is no need of further discussion, and State governments may as well be abandoned. If we do not accept that doctrine, but stand up against the present tendency, we should keep our State governments in substance and not merely in form. Above all, we should keep our education out of Federal bureaucratic control.” (University of Illi- nois Bulletin, December 26, 1921, p. 46.) DO WE NEED A FEDERAL DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION? The second question referred to the committee for con- sideration is the coordination of the educational activities of the government. This question calls for a discussion of the proposal in the Sterling-Towner Bill to establish a De- partment of Education with a Secretary in the Cabinet. The bill provides $500,000 for the first year’s expenses of the new Department, and provides (Section 5) — “ that it shall be the duty of the Department of Edu- cation to conduct studies and investigations in the held of education and report thereon. “Research shall be undertaken in: (a) Illiteracy; (b) Immigrant education; (c) Public school education, and especially rural education; (d) Physical education, including health educa- tion, recreation and sanitation; (e) Preparation and supply of competent teachers for the public schools, higher education, and in such other fields as in the judgment of the Secretary of Education may require attention and study.” It is provided by Section 3 that there is to be trans- ferred to the Department of Education the Bureau of Education and such other offices, bureaus, and branches of the government as Congress may determine, to be administered by the Department of Education. HISTORY OF THE PRESENT BUREAU OF EDUCATION The proposals for the establishment of a Bureau of Education date from 1864. In 1866 it was the subject of a memorial presented to Congress by the National Do We Need a Federal Department of Education ? Association of State and City School Superintendents, and in 1867 an Act was passed establishing a National Department of Education, with an appropriation of $18,676, and a staff of four employees. The appropria- tion bill of July 20, 1868, declared that “the Depart- ment of Education shall cease from and after the 30th day of June, 1869,” and in its stead a Bureau of Educa- tion was created and attached to the Department of the Interior. The purpose of the bureau was stated to be : “To collect (quoting Section 516) statistics and facts showing the condition and progress of educa- tion in the several states and territories and to dif- fuse such information respecting the organization and management of schools and school systems and methods of teaching as shall aid the people of the United States in the establishment and maintenance of efficient school systems, and otherwise promote the cause of education throughout the country.” (Act of July 20, 1868, ch. 176, 15 Stat. L. 92, 106.) The appropriation by the Bureau has grown from the $8,550 provided in 1870 to $162,045 in 1921. Although there is a tendency on the part of the proponents of Federal participation to belittle the work of the Bureau, yet when the Bureau has possessed at its head an edu- cational leader it has played a useful part in the de- velopment of education, and any review of educational development in the past fifty years must give an hon- orable place to Henry Barnard and William T. Harris. ARGUMENTS FOR A DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION The principal arguments advanced for the creation of a Department of Education with a Cabinet officer at its head are: First: That it would give to education due “rec- ognition” of its importance and dignity in the life of the nation; Second: That it would furnish educational leader- ship to the nation; Do We Need a Federal Department of Education ? Third: That it would coordinate and give more effective administration of the many edu- cational activities now conducted by the various departments of the Federal Gov- ernment. PRESTIGE It is claimed that in the United States public educa- tion suffers because it lacks the prestige of being repre- sented in the Cabinet, whereas the cabinets of most nations contain a Minister of Public Instruction. There is hardly an analogy here, however, because the Federal Government of the United States is something unknown among European nations which are highly centralized and where education is administered by the nation. The Minister of Education is the administrative officer in charge of the administration of education throughout the nation. It can hardly be seriously argued, however, that because there is no Secretary of Education in the Cabinet the people of the United States are more indiffer- ent than other nations to the importance of education. It is common observation that there is no country in which education has a more vital hold upon the con- science and minds of the people than in the United States. EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP With reference to the furnishing of educational leader- ship, it seems that this is more a question of personality and of creation of ideals than of official position. The great leaders in the history of education have perhaps occasionally held official positions but more often not. CONSOLIDATION OF ALL EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITIES OF FEDERAL GOVERNMENT NOT PRACTICABLE The argument that a Department of Education should be created in order to take over the administration of the various educational activities of the government now scattered throughout the Federal departments is urged with considerable force. [ 97 ] Do We Need a Federal Department of Education? The Sterling-Towner Bill, however, does not specifi- cally provide for the consolidation under the new Depart- ment of Education of any of the other educational activities of the government, but simply provides that: “There is hereby transferred to the Department of Education the Bureau of Education and such offices, bureaus, divisions, boards or branches of the government connected with or attached to any of the executive departments or organized independ- ently of any department, as Congress may deter- mine should be administered by the Department of Education.” (67th Congress, 1st Session, H. R. 7, Section 3.) As a matter of fact, if the bill is passed in its present form it is difficult to see how any progress in the so-called coordination of government activities will be effected. A further study of the nature of these activities shows that many of them by their very nature can never come under a Department of Education. The educational activities of the Army and Navy, for example, including West Point and Annapolis Academies, must be operated and controlled by the Army and Navy Departments. The Indian schools are so essentially a part of the Indian administration that it is impossible that they should be administered by a Department of Education. The specialized education in connection with the agricultural experiment stations and the various educational enter- prises now being conducted by the Department of Agri- culture are also so specialized and bear such close relation to the other administrative work of the Department of Agriculture that there seems to be no good reason for transferring them to a Department of Education. In fact. Senator Smith of Georgia, one of the proponents of the proposed bill in the last Congress, stated at the hearing before the Joint Committee in July, 1919: “Senator Smith: I think that some of the addi- tional branches of educational work might perhaps [ 98 ] Do We Need a Federal Department of Education? be added to the Department of Education. I doubt whether it should invade the agricultural work be- cause it is a class of work while it is educational, yet it is work in agriculture, and I think that the farm extension work through the colleges is in splendid shape. I do not know that it ought to be transferred. It may be later on that the Department of Education will as it gets hold of the work get ready for it. We thought, however, that it had better grow and de- velop first.” (Record of Joint Hearings, 1919, p. 18.) STATUS OF THE BOARD FOR VOCATIONAL EDUCATION UNDER THE BILL There remains the principal other educational activity of the Federal Government, — vocational education under the Smith-Hughes Act. One of the interesting features of the bill is that though this bill is being pushed by substantially the same people and interests that were behind the Smith-Hughes Act, yet the bill does not pro- vide that this work should be administered by the new Department of Education. The comment of Pro- fessor Judd of the University of Chicago on this point is illuminating : “Many of us have felt all along that there is at least one fundamental objection to the first part of the bill. This objection was presented to the com- mission that formulated the bill and to everybody who has had charge of the bill. The b ill does not say anything about the Federal Board for Voca- tional Education. It is fair to record the history that explains why that is so. When the commission was considering w hich branches of the government were to be included in the Department of Education, the director of the Vocational Board appeared before the commission and notified them that if his Board was included in the original draft of the bill he would oppose the bill ; so the commission left the board out. “Suppose that a new department is created. One of the first matters that will have to be discussed will [ 99 ] Do We Need a Federal Department of Education? be the question of adopting the Federal Board for Vocational Education into the new Department. So far as I can see, there are only two answers to the question raised: “ (1) Either the Federal Board is to be allowed to go on its own independent way or (2) its activities will have to be taken up by the new department. If the Vocational Board is not absorbed we shall have a perpetuation of one of the most damaging policies that Congress has ever adopted. At the behest of commercial interests Congress passed TFTe Smith- Hughes law and drove a dividing wedge into our unified American educational system. If the Fed- eral Government goes on separating vocational edu- cation from acade mic e ducation it will be committing a grave offense against American institutional life; for in this country we have and ought to be allowed to continue to develop a unified, undivided educa- tional system. “For my part, I should be glad to see the Smith- Hughes law repealed root and branch.” (Univer- sity of Illinois Bulletin, December 26, 1921, p. 98.) It should be noted, therefore, that those who argue that the present bill necessarily means the coordination of the educational activities of the government are labor- ing under an illusion, for the bill, as proposed, does not provide for the taking over of a single one of the edu- cational activities of the government, nor indeed is it likely for the reasons just given that if the department is set up any of these activities will be put in its charge. DANGER OF FEDERAL CONTROL The principal argument, however, against the creation of the Department of Education with an appropriation of $500,000 is the danger of establishing Federal control of our educational system. We have already discussed that question at length and need not refer to it further except to note that it is an interesting coincidence that the very bill which provides for the establishment of [ 100 ] Do We Need a Federal Department of Education? this Department also carries the appropriation of $100,000,000 for Federal participation in education; and as we have already seen as originally drafted by its present sponsors, it provided for a substantial degree of administrative control over these appropriations, al- though an ineffectual attempt has been made to patch up the bill in this respect. DANGER OF PUTTING EDUCATION INTO NATIONAL POLITICS The putting of a Secretary of Education into the Cabinet necessarily means putting the interests of educa- tion into national politics. This is inevitable, and as bear- ing upon this point it is interesting to notice that in the fifty-four years since the Bureau of Education was estab- lished there have been but six commissioners, as follows: Henry Barnard 1867-1870 John Eaton 1870-1886 Nathaniel H. R. Dawson 1886-1880 William T. Harris 1889-1906 Elmer Ellsworth Brown 1906-1911 Philander Priestly Claxton .... 1911-1921 John James Tiger t 1921- Cabin^t officers are chosen from the party in power. Under _a Democratic administration there will be a Democratic Secretary of Education, and under a Repub- lican administration the Secretary of Education must be a Republican. The average tenure of office of a Cab- inet officer during the period since 1861 has been two years and eight months. This indicates one of the diffi- culties which will be involved in seeking to increase the prestige of education by changing it from a bureau to a department. PROPOSED SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT There is a serious question, also, whether it is advis- able to add further to the size of the Cabinet. The President has already proposed the creation of a new [ 101 ] Do We Need a Federal Department of Education? department, with a Secretary in the Cabinet, to be known as the Department of Public Welfare. In the draft of the bill presented by Senator Kenyon, it is proposed that there should be a Division of Education under this new department. Further discussion of the proposal, we understand, is awaiting the report of the Commission on the Reorganization of Government Activities. If it is considered necessary to add another member to the Cabinet, it would seem on the whole preferable that it should be a Department of Public Welfare along the lines recommended by the President, because if a Department of Education is created it is likely that there will be further departments created to represent other branches of public welfare, representing public health, for example, and perhaps eventually other social welfare activities. PRESENT APPROPRIATION FOR BUREAU OF EDUCATION SHOULD BE INCREASED Our review of the proposals for Federal participation in education and for the creation of a Department of Education has shown clearly the necessity for more comprehensive study and a deeper and sounder analysis of the educational problems of the nation, and one devoid of propaganda and the sensationalism which mark the present discussion. We believe it is desirable that there be substantial increase in the appropriation for the present Bureau of Education to make it possible for educational research to be conducted on a larger scale and for a greater degree of leadership to be furnished to educational effort, especially in the more backward states. However, instead of increasing the appropria- tion of the bureau at one jump from $ 162,000 to $ 500,000 it will undoubtedly be more effective to' make the in- crease gradually, and the increased appropriation should be based upon definite proposals for the expenditure of the money, which is one of the conspicuous defects of the proposal in the present bill for the appropriation of $ 500,000 for the proposed Department of Education. [ 102 ] APPENDIX A U. S. ARMY REPORT ON LITERACY OF DRAFTED MEN Transcript from National Academy of Sciences Memoirs. Psychological Examining in the United States Army. {Submitted to the Surgeon General of the Army as the official report of the Division of Psychology of the Office of the Surgeon General , and published with the approval of the Department of War.) Chapter 9 , p. 71±3 ff. “CHAPTER 9 Literacy “Information on illiteracy in the drafted army was obtained only incidentally as it was indicated by the type of examina- tion given recruits. The beta examination was developed primarily for men who could not read and write English and was used for these men in place of the alpha examination which presupposes English literacy. The percentages of men taking the beta examination are available, but unfortunately the method of segregation for beta in different camps and at different times differed greatly, so that no positive definition of illiteracy can be laid down on this basis.* Without a defini- tion, statistics of illiteracy are meaningless, for men vary by all degrees from inability to sign their names or to read even digits up to degree of ability that would be classed as literate by any one. In general it may be said that many of the camps aimed at an ‘ability to read and understand newspapers and write letters home ’ as a basis for the alpha examination, and that the figures for the numbers of men taking beta do approxi- mately reflect this level of literacy. Unfortunately, however, the degree of adequacy with which the intended separation * “ See section on camp organization in Part I, chapter 3, section 6 (pages 62 to 87), and the chapter on methods of segregation. Part II, chapter 5, especially section 1 (pages 347 to 355). [ 103 ] Appendix A was made depended on chance conditions, such as the skill of a sergeant who separated the men, the presence of an inter- preter, the immediate availability of space in the beta exam- ination room. Camp conditions were rough and examining procedure was constantly being adapted to meet the ever- present emergency. The figures for men taking beta, given in this chapter, are rather the figures for the ‘less literate’ in the drafted army than for the illiterate in any strictly defined sense of the term.* “Notwithstanding these limitations the extent of illiteracy among the drafted men is a striking fact. The figures for beta are not an exact measure of this fact, and it is equally obvious that without a more definite measure of literacy and a uniform standard for the segregation of groups detailed statements are impossible. Nevertheless, these measures, though rough and varied, do indicate conditions of serious public concern. “The weekly statistical reports to the Surgeon General’s Office from the camps give the numbers of men taking the beta examination. The usual basis of separation for beta was ‘ability to read and understand newspapers and write letters home.’ In a number of camps, however, an educational quali- fication (four, five or six years’ schooling) was added, and in a few camps an educational qualification alone was used. Table 279 indicates, for 28 stations in which extensive exam- ination was carried out, both the basis on which a man was considered literate, and the number and per cent of all men examined whom it was found necessary to send to the beta examination for illiterates.” * “Very roughly the figures for beta correspond to a literacy of the fifth grade or less although the variation about this point is great. It is that to call fifth or fourth grade literacy ‘illiteracy’ is to use the term ‘illiteracy’ in a very different sense from the usual usage. The United States Bureau of the Census classifies as illiterate any one 10 years of age or over reporting himself as unable to write. (See Abstract of the Thirteenth Census of the United States, Washington, 1913, p. 239.) This classification is quite as indef- inite as the segregational division in the psychological service, but it repre- sents presumably a much lower degree of literate ability. The extent of illit- eracy is often largely dependent on the proportion of negroes in the group; this is therefore indicated in the final column. The figures cover the period from April 27, 1918, to the close of examining.” [ 104 ] TABLE 279 Number of Men Given Examination Beta, as Bearing Upon the Literacy of Recruits Station Literacy Basis * Number Examined Number Sent to Beta Per Cent Beta Per Cent Negro Bowie . . . Read and write, finished 4th grade 27,464 5,497 20.0 10.7 Cody . . . Fourth grade 43,482 5,003 18.8 0. Custer . . Read and write; negroes, 5 years at school 54,354 10,004 18.4 9.9 D evens . . 50,031 11,370 22.7 1.7 Dix .... Read and write 67,768 19,768 29.2 19.8 Dodge . . Read easily, 6th grade . . . 69,927 22,701 32.5 25.4 Funston . . Read and write, finished 4th grade 75,678 21,967 29.0 25.5 Gordon . . Read and write 63,648 16,119 25.3 10.8 Grant . . . Read and write rapidly, or 7th grade 83,229 24,218 29.1 18.8 Greene . . Read and write, 4 years at school 27,807 10,512 37.8 38.6 Greenleaf . Read and write, 4th grade, and 5 years U. S 56,097 9,992 17.8 0.8 Hancock Read and write fairly, reached 6th grade 44,433 12,714 28.6 5.1 Humphreys 13,981 1,957 14.0 0. Jackson . . Read and write 98,996 19,587 19.8 17.5 Kearney Read and write, speak Eng- lish and over 5th grade . 18,921 2,931 15.5 .005 Lee .... 82,441 23,104 28.0 8.8 Lewis . . . Read and write 75,519 10,209 13.5 2.2 Logan . . Read and write 19,984 3,769 18.4 0.3 Meade . . Reached 5 th grade .... 65,700 21,089 32.1 20.8 Pike . . . Read and write 75,942 21,981 28.8 16.1 Sevier . . 4 years at school (later 6 years at school) 24,139 6,567 27.2 18.7 Sheridan Read and write (later 6 years at school) 55,165 11,985 21.7 10.0 Sherman 6th grade; negroes, 8 years at school 64,408 26,938 41.8 30.4 Taylor . . Read and write; negroes, finished 6th grade . . . 53,336 10,672 20.0 16.9 Travis . . Read and write 77,555 17,403 22.4 22.0 Upton . . Read newspapers 61,559 14,486 23.5 15.4 Wadsworth Northern recruits, 3d grade; Southern recruits, 4th grade 67,704 13,442 19.9 6.0 Wheeler . . Read and write, reached 6th grade (later 7th grade) . . 32,988 10,411 31.6 10.9 Total 1,552,256 386,196 24.9 14.2 * “ Read and write ” means “ ability to read and understand newspapers and write letters home.” [ 105 ] APPENDIX B Number of Immigrants Admitted Unable to Read Write in Any Language 1896 . . . . 78,130 1897 . . . . 43,008 1898 . . . . 43,057 1899 . . . . 60,446 1900 . . . . 93,576 1901 . . . . 117,587 1902 . . . . 162,188 1903 . . . . 185,667 1904 . . . . 168,903 1905 . . . . 230,882 1906 . . . . 265,068 1907 . . . . 337,573 1908 . . . . 172,293 1909 . . . . 191,049 1910 . . . . 253,569 1911 . . . . 182,273 1912 . . . . 177,284 1913 . . . . 269,988 1914 . . . . 260,152 1915 . . . . 35,057 1916 . . . . 40,138 1917 . . . . 35,215 1918 . . . . 3,512 1919 . . . . 2,827 1920 . . . . 11,395 1921 . . . . 27,463 Total . . 3,448,300 ( Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1920, p. 92.) [ 106 ] APPENDIX C Growth of Mexican Immigration Bearing upon the foreign-born illiteracy problem in some of the southwestern states, it is interesting to note the extent to which immigration from Mexico has increased in the past fifteen years. The statistics are as follows : IMMIGRATION FROM MEXICO 1907 . . . . 1,406 1908 . . . . 6,067 1909 . . . 16,251 1910 . . . . 18,691 1911 . . . . 19,889 1912 . . . . 23,238 1913 . . , . 11,926 1914 . 14,614 1915 . . . 12,340 1916 . . . 18,425 1917 . . . 17,869 1918 . . . 18,524 1919 . . . 29,818 1920 . . 52,361 1921 . . . . 30,758 Total . . 292,177 {Annual Reports of Commissioner of General Immigration.) [ 107 ] APPENDIX D Number of Aliens Admissible from Countries of Southern and Eastern Europe and Western Asia Under Immigration Act of May 19, 1921 Quota Fiscal Country of Place of Birth Year 1922 Albania 287 Austria 7,444 Bulgaria 301 Czechoslovakia 14,269 Danzig 285 Finland 3,890 Fiume 71 Greece 3,286 Hungary 5,635 Italy 42,021 Jugoslavia 6,405 Poland 20,019 Eastern Galicia 5,781 Portugal (including Azores and Madeira Islands) . 2,269 Rumania 7,414 Russia (including Siberia) 34,247 Spain 663 Armenia 1,588 Palestine 56 Smyrna District 438 Syria 905 Turkey (Europe and Asia) 215 157,489 ( Report of Commissioner General of Immigration , 1921 , p. 18.) [ 108 ] APPENDIX E Statistics of Immigration and Emigration for Countries of Southern and Eastern Europe — July 1, 1921, to June 30, 1922 Immigrants Emigrants Austria 5,019 579 Hungary 5,756 4,307 Bulgaria 297 660 Czechoslovakia 12,541 7,846 Finland 2,767 1,179 Greece 3,457 7,506 Italy 40,319 53,651 Poland 28,635 33,581 Portugal 1,950 5,877 Rumania 10,287 3,795 Russia 17,143 6,407 Spain 665 6,793 Turkey in Europe 1,660 201 Yugoslavia 6,047 9,733 136,543 142,115 (U. S. Bureau of Immigration , Bulletin 438.) [ 109 ] APPENDIX F Average Annual Salaries of All Elementary and Secondary Teachers, 1917-1918 Annual Annual State Salaries State Salaries District of Columbia $1,052 North Dakota . . $578 California . . . 1,012 Oklahoma . . . 571 New York . . 976 Nebraska .... 562 Arizona .... 952 Delaware .... 561 Washington . . 922 New Hampshire . 548 New Jersey . . 911 Wisconsin .... 521 Nevada .... 874 Kansas 513 Massachusetts . 858 South Dakota . . 504 Rhode Island . 802 New Mexico . . 500 Illinois .... 778 Texas 487 Utah 754 Louisiana .... 471 Colorado . . . 749 Vermont .... 467 Connecticut . . 745 Maine 443 Ohio 744 West Virginia . . 408 Oregon .... 702 Arkansas .... 387 Pennsylvania . 702 Virginia .... 385 Maryland . . . 687 Florida ..... 383 Idaho .... 685 Tennessee .... 370 Montana . . . 670 Georgia 366 Michigan . . . 663 Kentucky .... 364 Minnesota . . 651 Alabama .... 345 Missouri . . . 651 South Carolina . 315 Indiana .... 587 Mississippi . . . 291 Wyoming . . . 578 North Carolina . 284 Iowa 578 Average for whole U. S. $635 (U. S. Bureau of Education, 1920 , Bulletin 11, p. £2.) [ 110 ] UNIVERSfTY OF ILLINOIS-URBANA 12 105033 879