work. In each case, competent architects were employed to prepare plans and specifications. This office participated in the program and worked with all of the communities in the preliminary stages of planning for their housing needs. We were asked in each case to approve the application in terms of need. We had no final say, however, in the districts receiving approval. This final action, of course, was in the regional office located in New York City. In all fairness to the program I feel that a majority of the districts needing funds were granted approval. It was unfortunate that some of our most needy cases were last on the list and were not given consideration because Federal funds were no longer available for this purpose. We are now feeling the effects of this program in the districts of the State. Many communities have plans and specifications prepared ready for bidding. We are running into the same problem that I raised at the beginning of the program and that was, what arrangement is made under the provisions of this act to amend plans and specifications for necessary changes in the work to meet revisions in the plan involving materials, equipment, and space changes. Only last Sunday the Walpole building committee was confronted with this problem. Walpole, 2 years ago, approved a plan to house all of its pupils in one building. This structure was planned on a conservative unit cost. Today we find that the building cannot be built for the appropriation voted at the last annual meeting. Building costs have not decreased as rapidly as our architects estimated they would when buildings were built. This results in a major change in plans and specifications. In the case of Walpole, new plans must be drawn to keep the building within the appropriation. The committee is confronted with a duplication of architect fees and a compromise had to be made by both district and architect in order to meet this changing situation. I think we have very few buildings planned that can be built without major changes in the plans and specifications, especially if they were planned early in the program when there was so much uncertainty as to building costs in the postwar period. There is no question in our minds but what a program of this type could be more efficiently administered through the chief State school officer. We feel very definitely that if Federal aid is available for construction that it can be best administered through the State department of education where allotments can be made to districts in keeping with an over-all program for improving the present school-district structure. I trust you are enjoying your new work and will have an opportunity to pay us a visit during the spring months. Cordially yours, PAUL E. FARNUM, Chief, Division of Administrative Services. Dr. FULLER. With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I would like to comment just very briefly on two or three points which seem to be focal points here. Senator HUMPHREY. Yes. Dr. FULLER. The first is the formula of S. 287, which I think you discussed quite at length yesterday with various witnesses. Senator HUMPHREY. Yes. Dr. FULLER. As Dr. Meadows pointed out, full equalization would make the range between the richest and poorest States about 79 to 21, that is, the per capita income taken baldly is about two and a half to one at the latest figures, and then taking into account the much greater proportion of children for each thousand in the population, it runs out at about 79 to 21, so that in getting equalization of the Federal funds among the States according to their physical capacities and according to their educational needs, if you had full equalization, it would mean about 79 percent of Federal money to Mississippi and about 21 percent of Federal money to New York on each $1 total program expenditure. S. 287 does not do that. It compromises full equalization, and in much the same way, although in a different manner, than S. 246 does. Senator HUMPHREY. I gathered that after what we discussed yesterday that this is an approach to meeting the problem of absolute equalization. I mean it is a compromise approach to meeting that problem. Dr. FULLER. That is right. Senator HUMPHREY. You do not give full equalization. Dr. FULLER. That is right. Senator HUMPHREY. You are making a concession to the well-to-do States. In other words, you do not get exactly as much from them as one could theoretically exact if you wanted full equalization. Dr. FULLER. Right. I would like to point out though, Mr. Chairman, that within the States under the respective State plans any type of equalization among local school districts which is the policy of the State may be followed. Alabama, for instance, may have extremes of wealth, and such counties as Dr. Meadows described and such counties as are described in some of the information which will be placed in the record here might require that Alabama and other States would have an equalization plan which would give the poorest county in the State, perhaps, 80 or 90 percent of Federal funds. Dr. MEADOWs. We do that now, go up as high as 80 percent. Dr. FULLER. On the other hand, we have some States with State policies of making almost entirely flat grants to local districts. In those States, in many instances, the discrepancies among the districts in wealth are not as great as they are in other States, and what I would like to emphasize is that S. 287 would permit complete flexibility within the State among its local school districts. Senator HUMPHREY. You would leave that entirely to State judgment? Dr. FULLER. To the State plan. Senator HUMPHREY. And State educational policy? Dr. FULLER. It would be an objective judgment. It would not be district by district. It would not depend on discretion by any Federal or State official, but it would be a comprehensive policy of the State expressed in the State plan and it could be whatever the State and local people will meet their own particular needs. Now there is one bill in this group, Mr. Chairman, S. 1263, I believe it is, which is a counterpart of the original S. 834, where matching is required on a 50-50 basis, and with a loan provision. I would like to comment briefly on that. Senator HUMPHREY. Is that not S. 137? Dr. FULLER. No. I am talking about the Butler bill. Senator HUMPHREY. Oh, yes; I know which one you mean. That is right. Dr. FULLER. In that bill there is an effort to overcome the shortcomings of the 50-50 matching system, which has no equalization in it, by providing that a school district may have its building built 100 percent with Federal funds and then pay back 50 percent of those funds at the rate of 2 percent a year for 25 years. Now that is to take care of the many thousands of school districts in this country which are up against their bonded debt limitations. I think it cannot be done legally. A school district under the State law, when it has bonded to its legal limit, has no authority to contract that it will pay to the Federal Government the equivalent of a payment on a bond issue every year. for 25 years. Senator HUMPHREY. I think you are right. Dr. FULLER. I say that as one who has dealt with the law somewhat. It seems to me that that makes that 1,263 entirely inadequate. It violates all the principles of equalization in its administration that we know anything about, and we are definitely opposed to that type of legislation. Senator HUMPHREY. And there is rather unanimous agreement, is there not, amongst all the school groups in reference to these principles of equalization? Dr. FULLER. That is right. Senator HUMPHREY. And the State-Federal relationship. Senator HUMPHREY. I think we should try to work toward the policy of getting our educational policy as pertains to the Federal Government based upon the considered judgment of the educational groups. I mean this is your forte. This is the field to which educators direct their attention, and we should be looking now, as you have stated in your testimony, toward establishing a firm policy on the part of the Government. I can see in one of the bills where you have direct Federal aid to the local school district. I do not remember which it was. What you get is just running to Washington. It becomes a matter of pressure on Congressmen, Senators, and what have you, and it opens the door clearly even in such programs as S. 246 for Federal interference in the school pattern, and I can assure you that the chairman of this subcommittee is unalterably opposed to any Federal direct jurisdiction in the local school pattern. I think that this is one field that we have simply got to be very careful with right down the line. Dr. FULLER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to comment on one other item which has come up repeatedly during the hearings of the previous days. There has been a great deal of testimony concerning the State funds for school construction. Now a number of States have recently increased the amounts a great deal, but the fact remains that only 12 or 15 do supply school construction funds in substantial amounts, although about half of them supply funds in some amounts. I might say that that can be very easily explained by the fact that the States as a whole now supply more than $1,000,000,000 a year for the current operating costs of schools. It amounts to 39.6 percent of the total cost of operating schools in this country. In some States such State aid runs as high as 87 percent, and in the average State, as I have said, nearly 40 percent of the total school cost is paid by the State. Now the States conceivably could cut their percentage of aid for current operational costs down a little and put more money into school buildings, but they have chosen by and large to put all the money they could find at the State level into the current operational costs. That has come first, and I think that explains why some States have not put State funds into building programs. There is a tendency in that direction, however. The amounts are being increased and new States are being added to the list which are supplying State funds for school construction purposes. Thank you very much, sir. Senator HUMPHREY. I would like to keep talking to you here, but I think we ought to try to get Dr. Lindman on. Doctor, I do not want to cut you too short. I always get down there for the roll call a little bit late, but if we do not complete all of your testimony, if you would like to just file it for the record, it will be the same as having delivered it orally. We will try to stretch it as far as we can. Go right ahead. STATEMENT OF E. L. LINDMAN, DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC CONSTRUCTION IN THE STATE OF WASHINGTON Dr. LINDMAN. Senator Humphrey, and members of the subcommittee, my name is E. L. Lindman. I am deputy superintendent of public construction in the State of Washington. I have a prepared statement of Mrs. Pearl A. Wanamaker, State superintendent of schools in Washington. Before reading that, however, I should like to take a few minutes to give you a picture of school conditions in those States which have had severe enrollment increases due to the shift in population which has occurred during the war. Senator HUMPHREY. Would it be possible for you just to put this into the record? I will read the record. I am very interested in this. I am the only member of the subcommittee here today, and the rest of them will have to read it anyhow, and I would like to hear your oral testimony. You can fortify this. Is that all right? Dr. LINDMAN. That will be fine, if I may refer to certain tables here. Senator HUMPHREY. We will put into the record both the prepared testimony and the tables. (The document above referred to is as follows:) STATEMENT BY PEARL A. WANAMAKER, SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, STATE OF WASHINGTON School construction in the State of Washington has failed to keep pace with requirements during recent years. The intensive school-expansion program which occurred from 1920 to 1930 left school districts under heavy bonded indebtedness and not in position to maintain replacement programs during the depression years. The preempting of critical materials by the Federal Government for military purposes prevented school districts from building during the war years. The inevitable result-thousands of children are attending school in obsolete, poorly ventilated, poorly lighted and, in some instances, unsafe school buildings. One of our basic obligations to the children of our State is to guarantee their right to good health. No matter how good our teachers or how interested our communities are in their children and youth, it is impossible to provide a healthful school environment in the incomplete, substandard buildings in which thousands of our boys and girls must spend their formative years. When we penalize our children by denying them classrooms with fresh air, good light, adequate heating, and proper seating, actually we are penalizing our Nation. The bitter record of health rejections for military service in the past war is proof of this situation. We can take no more important step to build the health of our Nation, both now and for the future, than to provide our children with healthful school environment-where growing bodies have good posture, where young eyes can study without strain, and where children's lungs can breathe good clean air. Sad to say, this picture is not possible under today's crowded and outmoded school facilities. An intensive school-building program alone can bring these rights to our State's children and youth. The State of Washington's postwar efforts to rehabilitate its school plants have been superseded by a more urgent need to house an unprecedented increase in school enrollment. Available school-building funds are being used to house additional school children; virtually no funds can be diverted to replacement of obsolete buildings. A summary of school-housing conditions in the State of Washington, as of October 1948, is as follows: Number of elementary classrooms with more than 40 children.. Number of classrooms operated on double-shift basis... 345 415 877 454 196 The State is taking steps to meet the situation. Since 1941 the investment in school construction totaled $64,000,000, of which $6,700,000 was contributed by the Federal Works Agency for emergency construction in war-congested areas. Since the war, 1,500 new classrooms have been constructed; State allocations for 400 more were approved a few days ago. The building program has not kept pace with growing school enrollments and has used a substantial part of the bonding capacity of local school districts. The State has provided $26,500,000 in State assistance to school districts for building purposes. The last legislature submitted to the people a $40,000,000 State bond issue for school-building purposes and proposed a constitutional amendment increasing the school district debt limit from 5 to 10 percent of the assessed valuation. These issues will be voted upon at the next general election. However, even these measures fall far short of meeting our school-expansion needs. The following comparative statistics based upon population estimates prepared by the United States Census Bureau, show the effect enrollment increases have upon school-building requirements in several States. According to this table Washington must invest $96,000,000 in new school buildings to house its increased school population, before it can begin to replace its obsolete school buildings. Some other States have similar problems. 1 Estimated by multiplying 80 percent of increase in school-age population by $1,000, the estimated cost per child for providing new school buildings. Enrollment increases during the war years have been confined to a relatively few States, and these States have a special problem. However, the postwar increase in number of births is not limited to a few States; it is quite general. The following table, based upon forecasts of school population prepared by the United States Census Bureau, indicates the size of the Nation's school plant replacement and expansion requirements. Cost estimates are based upon a cost of $1,000 per child to provide new school plants for additional children, and one-fortieth of this amount for each child to replace existing facilities, assuming school plants last 40 years. Replacement requirements are estmated by multiplying the total enrollment by $25 each year; expansion requirements are estimated by multiplying the annual gain in school enrollment by $1,000. The table indicates in a general way the size of the problem ahead; a careful survey of school plant conditions in each State is needed to ascertain national needs more accurately. |