the South, because we have predominantly the county unit system, but even there some reorganization can be made.

Senator HUMPHREY. Now that is the advantage of the State plan and of the State school agency.

Dr. MEADOWs. That is right.

Senator HUMPHREY. Of really having the control over the use of the funds.

Dr. MEADOWS. That is right, so the aid can go in there to fit in, in building up a program.

The amended S. 287 provides for variable matching of Federal funds by States and/or local funds so that the wealthiest State would receive 40 percent of its total construction program cost from Federal funds while the poorest States would receive 60 percent from Federal funds. The other States would receive between 60 and 40 percent from Federal funds, depending upon their relative wealth. The realtive wealth of the States would be measured by the per capita income over a period of the last 3 preceding years for which income data are available, that is, it would be on an objective basis.

Senator, I would like to say to you after studying this for several years in connection with our Southern States work conference, this whole picture, that I have come to the conclusion that Federal aid on State principles on this in substantial amounts will help to put these low income areas on their feet to where those sections will eventually begin to build their income to the point where they will carry their part of the load and some of those States will get to where they will no longer need funds on an equalization basis and may be able to contribute to some other area that is less fortunate economically. There is no question in my mind about that.

Senator HUMPHREY. I can see the possibility. For example, out in the rural area we have what we call the cut-over area in Minnesota. It is not highly productive. Wonderful people live there, but the land is not as productive as, let us say, in the southern part of our State.

I could see where we could build a nice school building up there and in the building have not only what we call the traditional school plant, but also an auditorium and facilities for adult education and community meetings: and have a community clinic, all in one plant. Dr. MEADOWs. Right.

Senator HUMPHREY. Because the modern school plant today needs at least physical examinations for children.

Dr. MEADOWS. It needs to serve the whole community.

Senator HUMPHREY. And the minute you tie the whole community in with it, you get a better school program. With a little imagination on this you know it becomes quite interesting.

Dr. MEADOWS. It is thrilling when you think of what can be done for this country with this program.

S. 287 follows the sound principle of appropriating funds to be allocated through duly constituted educational agencies on an equalization basis. Only in this manner can the people hold their elected educational representatives responsible for efficient and economical school construction to fit school programs.

Whenever another agency is inserted in between your appropriation and your school people, that divides responsibility and the people have no way to pass judgment on the responsibility. It permits the old saying "passing the buck," and we as school people are willing

to be held responsible for the efficient expenditure and economical expenditure of educational aid, but we do not see how we can be held responsible and really do the job if it is going to go through some other agency, some noneducational agency.

I think that is a principle well worth considering in this country, because the people ought to have a right to know where their money is going and who is responsible for spending it wisely.

Senator HUMPHREY. That is correct.

Dr. MEADOWS. When you divide it up, they cannot know that. I think that is a fundamental principle.

The principles of S. 287 and S. 246 represent the straightest channel yet conceived in Federal, State, and local relationship. I think that channel is almost as important as the monetary aid that goes into this whole set-up in this country with as much confusion as we are bound to have in the whole economic set-up we have in this country.

In closing, I would like to say that Federal aid to the public schools through the principles of S. 246 and the principles of S. 287 is one of the great hopes of the school children of this country and is possibly one of the important keys to the great hope of the people of this Nation and for a free people everywhere, and what we face in the future.

Thank you very much, Senator.

Senator HUMPHREY. Thank you very much. We are very grateful for your testimony. We touched on things this morning that should even thrill the spirits of those who have lost a little of their spirit, it

seems to me.

Dr. MEADOWs. Thank you, sir.

Senator HUMPHREY. All right; I think we want to progress here. Dr. Fuller.

STATEMENT OF EDGAR FULLER, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, NATIONAL COUNCIL OF CHIEF STATE SCHOOL OFFICERS

Dr. FULLER. Mr. Chairman, and I need not say members of the subcommittee, my name is Edgar Fuller.

Senator HUMPHREY. The other members are Senator Morse, Senator Aiken, Senator Hill, and Senator Murray. I do not think you even need to have them here as they would be were it not for the pressure of other duties. They are most friendly. I am their spiritual representative.

Dr. FULLER. As executive secretary of the National Council of Chief State School Officers, I would like to continue the presentation for the council so ably begun by Chairman Meadows of the legislative committee. He related the urgent need for Federal aid for school construction and analyzed S. 287, which is supported by the council as the best practicable way to meet that need. I shall continue this analysis, showing how S. 287 meets the requirements of sound policy and effective educational administration, and why some of the provisions in some of the other bills before the subcommittee fail to do so. The formula of S. 287 proposes to distribute Federal funds for school construction through the United States Commissioner of Education to the principal State educational agency in each State, and carefully defines procedures for the payment and safeguarding of the Federal funds.

Since the United States Office of Education was established in 1867 it has been dealing with education in the States and local communities through the responsible State educational agencies. Experience of more than 80 years has demonstrated that this is the way the Federal Government should deal in the field of education. The National Council of Chief State School Officers is particularly anxious that no Federal agency except the Office of Education shall administer any Federal funds for education. On the basis of experience, we believe no other Federal agency has any legitimate function in connection with the administration of Federal aid for school construction.

Senator HUMPHREY. Right there is a point of contest. happy that you emphasize it.

I think that this is a precedent, or let me say a principle, that needs to be established, but I can assure you that there are some persons who believe that there ought to be other agencies involved in this. In fact, the bill that I personally put in included the Federal Works Agency having some supervision, but I have been persuaded of the error of my ways.

I am happy to see that you bring it out, and I just wanted to take this opportunity of reemphasizing it.

Dr. FULLER. I will go into it in considerably more detail, Senator. That is my part of the chore here.

We wish to emphasize also the importance of the principle that all Federal aids to education shall be administered through the States. The statements of policy from major groups of organized educators of the country in appendix A of this statement reflect the experience of many decades. I would like to enter that in the record later. Senator HUMPHREY. Yes.

Dr. FULLER. They refer to some of the most crucial issues in educational administration and educational policy. We believe the States are the only agencies capable of dealing on an equal basis with Federal agencies; that the only agencies strong enough to prevent the administrative attachment of Federal control to Federal funds by Federal officials are the States themselves. The 100,000 school districts, with the possible exception of a handful of the largest, are in no position to deal with Federal agencies in any way except to take whatever the Federal officials may give and on the basis of purely Federal terms and controls.

Control of the planning and construction of school facilities means control of the school program itself to a large degree, because the facilities determine what education shall be offered. If elementary school buildings suitable to house a modern elementary program are built, such a program is likely to result, as in these rural areas that Dr. Meadows discussed.

If a stadium is built instead, there may remain 40 or 50 elementary children in a classroom under conditions where a good elementary educational program is impossible. We regard school facilities and the program in those facilities alike in our efforts to keep education free from Federal control.

We would like to emphasize this point in the words of James B. Conant, president of Harvard University, who has expressed it in his recent book as follows:

There is one aspect of this problem that is not at first apparent, and yet which is of prime importance. Federal funds should flow to the State and be

disbursed within the State by State authorities acting according to State law. If this principle is adhered to in any plan for Federal aid to schools, control of education from Washington by the most zealous bureaucrat will be almost impossible to achieve. Let it be noted carefully that the points of contact, so to speak, would be kept to 48; no Federal agents would be involved at the school level. Federal funds would be merged with State control, always an issue before the voters.

A bit of history is important in this connection. We have had some experience with the use of Federal funds spent locally by Federal administrators for educational purposes. In the thirties we saw the growth of something approaching a system of Federal vocational schools throughout the country. This was the outgrowth of the vast expenditure of Federal money for relief. Without entering into any argument about the necessity for this program or the general pattern of the administration of such relief, one may say categorically that the educational implications were most serious. A competition developed between schools inadequately financed but locally controlled and parallel institutions amply supplied from Washington and controlled from Washington. The prospects were not pleasant for those who see the necessity for community responsibility for education. The lessons of this period should not be forgotten. If our wellestablished public schools founded on the doctrine of a high degree of local autonomy are properly supported, there will be no subsequent temptation to repeat this experiment. The pattern will be set for Federal expenditures for school purposes on an indirect, not a direct, basis.

One may hope that if a proper pattern be established, certain practices now in existence can be altered. Over the years there has grown up a piecemeal approach to the whole problem of spending Federal money for education. Congress now votes funds to be expended in our schools for special purposes such as vocational training and school lunches. A review of this whole situation is badly needed; some of the expenditures should be eliminated and others coordinated and fitted into a sound scheme of administration. Washington should deal with State authorities, not with the local schools; Federal agents should be conspicuous by their absence.

The National Council of Chief State School Officers, Mr. Chairman, is also concerned that the administration of any Federal school construction aid shall be through the United States Office of Education to the State educational agency in order to protect the State-wide district reorganization now under way in numerous States. Any direct Federal-local administration would lead to the most obnoxious Federal interference in this field.

S. 287 properly provides that State plans shall be the basis for administration of the school construction programs. These State plans would take into account the district reorganization plans of each State, the present system of State aid for current operations and for capital expenditures, the present legal responsibility of the State for minimum school construction standards, and the ordinary legal requirement that the State department of education or the chief State school officer must approve plans and specifications for school construction in local school districts before contracts for such construction can be let. Samples of State statutes providing for such approvals are attached to this statement.

That would be in the appendix that I would like to introduce at the end.

Senator HUMPHREY. Yes.

Dr. FULLER. Each State plan would coordinate the federally aided school construction program into its established educational system. If a State, for instance, provides equalization funds so that the poor local school district with a large number of children may receive more State funds than a rich local school district with only a small number of children, Federal school construction funds could be allocated in the same manner under the State plan. There could be equalization

among the local school districts of each State according to their relative educational needs and fiscal abilities.

The State agency would, of course, be responsible to the Federal Government for keeping in balance the over-all ratio of State-local and Federal expenditures. If a State were entitled to an over-all 46 percent of Federal funds to be matched by a total of 54 precent of combined State and local funds, for instance, the State plan formula might provide that poor school districts in that State might receive 70 or 80 or even 90 or 100 percent of their construction costs from Federal and State funds, and provide as little as 20 or 30 percent, or even nothing at all, locally. To balance the effect of such arrangements for these poor school districts, however, the State would be responsible for a formula allocating less to rich districts, so that the over-all average for the State would be the required 46 percent of Federal funds and 54 percent of State and local funds. Thus each State plan would take into account the present State-local plan for financing local schools.

Senator HUMPHREY. It is your opinion that S. 287 would protect that sort of a relationship.

Dr. FULLER. It does that completely, I think.

Another important aspect of S. 287 is its limitations on official discretionary authority. State plans for school construction must be approved by the United States Commissioner of Education when the requirements set out in the statute itself have been met. These requirements are (a) designation of the responsible State educational agency for State administration, (b) evidence of the authority of the State agency, (c) a construction program for the State, or principles for the development of such a program, (d) the amount of State funds to be made available, if any, (e) the formula for distribution of funds to local school districts, (f) provision of accounting procedures to make the State agency fully accountable to the Federal Government and to insure prudent expenditure of funds, (g) opportunity for local project applicants to have hearings before the State agency, and (h) provision for adequate reports by the State agency to the United States Commissioner of Education. The conditions under which State plans must approved are thus largely removed from the discretion of Federal officials and are made general enough that each State may make a plan according to its own needs. The statute. provides specifically for hearings and appeals to the courts in every instance where any Federal or State official makes important administrative decisions.

The requirement of S. 287 that the State plan shall set forth a State-wide construction program, or principles and standards for the development of such a program, does not authorize any Federal control to decide what the program or principles shall be. There is full freedom to meet the needs of the school districts of each State and to apply the patterns of educational organization, administration, and financial support which have been worked out in each State by the legislature and school autorities. All questions of educational policy would be decided in accord with the established policies of the State; it is only a State plan the Federal law would require, not any specific plan in terms of details.

The bill provides that the local school agency shall submit its construction projects to the State educational agency. Consistent with