program, for there is no provision guaranteeing that it would be continued according to that bill, S. 287, after the first year.

Another basic difference between the bill that we support, namely S. 1670, and the other proposed school construction bills, is that our bill, S. 1670, places the setting of construction standards and the supervision of construction under the Federal Works Administration, which is the Federal agency which now has the staff, the know-how and the experience to supervise construction work.

The American Parents Committee prefers, for several reasons, this provision of its bill to the provisions in S. 287 or S. 1699 which would burden the United States Office of Education with all the physical details of the construction.

In the first place the Federal Works Administration with its Bureau of Community Facilities-that is its bureau which has engineers and architects in it and staff all over the country to supervise construction work, experienced staff-already has the staff and the set-up to establish and maintain construction standards. It carries out these functions in conjunction with the Surgeon General for local United States sewage treatment plants under the Water Pollution Act of the last Congress.

The construction of schools is not a new problem for the Federal Works Administration. This agency built 17,000 permanent schools under various programs during the war and during the depression. Without its contribution the number of schools built during and since the war, instead of reaching at least one-half of the normal rate of construction, would have been negligible, that is without the Federal Works Administration.

In these programs the Federal Works Administration worked in cooperation with the United States Office of Education and the State Education Department officials, so there is a precedent for the coordination proposal provided for in S. 1670. Moreover, in S. 1670 the bill is much more specific in its assignment of authority to the three major participating agencies, namely the United States Office of Education, the Federal Works Administration and the State education offices, than in the programs suggested by the other bills. The Federal Works Administration, as I have said, already has the engineers, the architects, and the specialists who know what makes a foundation safe, who know what makes a building fireproof, and who know how to supervise and enforce construction standards so that the building will not just look pretty but will be useful, fireproof and safe.

On the other hand, the United States Office of Education would have to build up an entirely new staff of engineers and architects whom they do not have now, to do an adequate job of maintaining school construction standards throughout the States. Its school housing department, which now has the responsibility of helping States with their local construction problems, now only has two specialists on its staff. The State organizations themselves do not now have adequate staffs to supervise construction, to make sure that they are getting their money's worth in adequate schools.

Twenty-one States have no school plant specialists at all. On the other hand, 12 States have only one person, one school plant specialist, and 10 other States have only two or three professional construction consultants. To insure that Federal funds are used to build the best

possible school buildings, the American Parents Committee believes that construction standards should be set up and carried out under the supervision of the Federal Works Administration.

However, the American Parents Committee believes that the responsibility for educational policies inherent in school construction should be placed on those best qualified to carry them out, namely, the United States Office of Education and the State educational agencies.

The over-all long-range school construction program would be drawn up by the States themselves applying for funds appropriated under S. 1670. Approval of these plans plus other administration not pertaining to actual physical construction standards, would be the job of the United States Commissioner of Education.

Because all States are not equally able to finance needed school construction, the American Parents Committee believes that the formula for apportioning funds to the States should be based not only on the number of children but also on the per capita income of the State. Every State needs some help, but the Southern States, which have one-third of the Nation's children but only one-eighth of the Nation's wealth, have a special problem.

Alabama reports its school construction needs at $200,000,000; Kentucky at $100,000,000; South Carolina at $250,000,000; West Virginia at $110,000,000. Arkansas estimates that it will be able to spend 51⁄2 million dollars for schools in the 1949-50 school year, but it actually needs $50,000,000 to do an adequate job.

Georgia is already spending $2,000,000 this year, but it needs. $100,000,000. Florida is spending $12,000,000, a drop in the bucket compared to its $150,000,000 need. Under grants related to the per capita income and number of school children, these Southern States would receive the help they need.

Beyond this provision, the American Parents Committee is anxious only that the committee work out the best method of granting money to the States. It prefers the formula in Senater Humphrey's bill, chiefly because such a formula has worked in the Hospital Construction Act passed by the last Congress.

However, if the formula in S. 287 seems politically possible and practical to the committee, we would support the other formula. We want a school-construction program to pass. We want any sensible formula that will get such a bill passed at the earliest possible

moment.

In addition the American Parents Committee prefers its own bill, S. 1670, because it requires the States to submit over-all building programs to the Office of Education which would insure that schools will not be built on a hit-or-miss basis without regard to long-term needs or priorities, using Federal funds.

At the same time, S. 1670, unlike S. 1699 or S. 137, does offer immediate help to those communities 'which are suddenly faced with an acute need for schools with its provision for emergency construction, at the discretion of the Commissioner of Education.

S. 1670 also assures that these school-construction projects will not be used to undermine wage scales in the communities when unless S. 287 or S. 137, it specifies for compliance with prevailing wage

rates.

92679-49-17

Believing that all children in this democracy, no matter what their color, are entitled to a decent school, the American Parents Committee wholeheartedly supports the provision in S. 1670 that funds should be allotted where there are dual school systems in a ratio based on the proportion of racially segregated school-age children to the total child population of each State. This would insure that each group of children would receive its fair share of Federal school-construction funds.

The American Parents Committee is convinced that the provision in S. 287 providing "equitable" distribution even with the safeguard of no reduction in State funds expended in 1948, is not enough. Even maintaining the status quo, a status quo which is grievously unfair to the Negro children in the South whose schools are valued at $545,000,000 less than the white schools, would be shirking Federal responsibility.

The Southern Regional Council estimates that the value of school property in 1945-46 for each Negro pupil enrolled was $63 per Negro child, as compared with $221 for each white pupil enrolled. Unless this provision as clearly defined, the provision of being fair to the Negro children is clearly definied in the bill, the gap between the white and the Negro schools can be criminally widened. We want to see that the Negro children get a fair deal.

To sum up, the American Parents Committee is supporting S. 1670 because, one, it is the only bill authorizing appropriations which approaches the total needs, reaches in every respect the total needs as estimated by the United States Office of Education and the Federal Works Agency.

Second, it is the only bill which safeguards construction standards by placing supervision in the Federal Works Administration, the Federal agency which is now equipped to supervise such a job.

Third, its formula for apportioning money to the States takes into account both the number of school age in the State and the financial ability of the State to take care of its school construction problems itself.

Fourth, this bill allows for immediate emergency construction.

Fifth, this bill provides specifically compliance with prevailing wage rates on school-building projects.

Sixth, it insures that all children, whether they attend a racially segregated school or not, get their fair share of the Federal funds to provide school buildings.

This generation of children, our generation of children, must not be cheated out of their right for an adequate education, an adequate education supplied in decent adequate shoools. The Federal program for aid to States for school construction would help insure a future safe in the hands of an educated citizenry. This is an investment that the United States Government cannot afford to miss.

Senator THOMAS. Mr. Hecht, when was the American Parents Committee organized?

Mr. HECHT. About two to two and a half years ago.

Senator THOMAS. Is it connected at all with the Parent-Teachers' Association?

Mr. HECHT. No.

Senator THOMAS. It is entirely independent?

Mr. HECHT. Entirely independent.

Senator THOMAS. It is a private corporation; is it not?

Mr. HECHT. A private nonprofit organization, organized under the membership corporation laws of the State of New York.

Senator THOMAS. Thank you, Mr. Hecht.

Mr. Gifford, please. For the record, Mr. Gifford, will you state what you want to have appear about yourself?

STATEMENT OF NATHAN GIFFORD, SUPERVISING PRINCIPAL, DOVER TOWNSHIP PUBLIC SCHOOLS, TOMS RIVER, N. J.

Mr. GIFFORD. Mr. Chairman, honorable sirs, I am Nathan Gifford. I hold the position of supervising principal of the Dover Township public schools at Toms River, N. J. I have had 18 years' experience of school administrative service in the State of New York and New Jersey combined. I have helped to build one new school building, and have been advising consultant on several others.

I am here purely in the interest and welfare of the children of this Nation. I am particularly worried and concerned about school housing facilities for boys and girls between birth and 5 to 7 years of age, and the unborn children of the next 5 years.

Toms River should have built a new high school to replace its overcrowded 1889 building a decade ago. War needs prevented this necessary construction when it could have been built at less than half of today's construction costs. Such a building was designed in the early years of the war estimated to cost just under a half million dollars. Now, this building would cost a little over double this figure. In the meantime what has happened to the grade-school facilities in Toms River? The grade school constructed some 25 years ago for 660 children is now trying to house 1,050 pupils. Six poorly lighted, heated, and ventilated rooms have been made over into classrooms in the basement of the grade school. Next year grades one, two, and three must go on half time in order that this building can accommodate some 1,100 children that will seek educational facilities at school opening in September 1949.

Grade registration increased 105 pupils in September 1948 over the previous year. The first grade increased 33.6 percent. Preregistration for next year indicates a similar increase for September 1949.

Dover Township can, within its 8 percent legal bonding limits, and after its present debt is deducted, raise $236,000 for school building purposes. The high school alone is estimated to cost three times this amount, while added grade rooms for the next 8 years are estimated to beter than double this figure. The State of New Jersey does not give building aid to help in this construction.

Senator THOMAS. Why is that? Is there some law against it, or is it the policy of the State?

Mr. GIFFORD. The State never has passed such a law.

Senator THOMAS. No contribution has ever come from the State for local schools?

Mr. GIFFORD. That is right, only for general school needs, and that is very small in the State of New Jersey compared to a great number of States. Our own local PTA has 1,008 members and our own Kiwanis Club has adopted a resolution favoring Federal aid for school building construction.

The little children that are flooding our first three grades, are for the large part, the sons and daughters of the men who fought our war for freedom, democracy, and better schools for their children. How can the schools hope to offer the children of these men an even chance for a good education when schoolrooms and school desks are not available for their use?

Included in the large registration for this year are 24 pupils from the Federal reservation known as the Lakehurst Naval Air Station. Eighty more of these pupils come from the families of naval air station personnel not living on the station. Also in this large registration are 22 children from the families of Fort Dix Federal Training Station personnel not living on the station.

It is hardly fair to assume that property owners adjacent to Federal military training reservations are to assume the entire load of bonded indebtedness without Federal assistance for school facilities of the children that should be the responsibility of the Government.

THE NEED FOR BUILDING ASSISTANCE IN GENERAL

The Commissioner of Education of the State of New Jersey reports that for 1945-56—and I go back that far because that is the last written report-19 new classrooms were added to New Jersey schools while 68 classrooms were abandoned the number of basement rooms in use increased from 25 to 378. New buildings and major repairs are badly needed, but they cannot be made at the present high prices. Less than $1,000,000 was spent in the state on school buildings in 1945 as compared to nearly $10,000,000 in 1939. Costs of building have risen in the meantime 100-125 percent. This actually represents less than one twentieth of the actual building in 1945 that was done in 1939.

FUTURE REGISTRATION OUTLOOK

The Kiplinger Washington letter of December 24, 1948, says that the 18.6 million elementary children in the Nation's schools today will increase to 26.6 million by 1957. The 6.3 million high school children will drop to 6 million in 1951, but will reach 8.1 million by 1960-an increase of about 33 percent.

The Federal census survey as published in Parents' magazine shows an increase of 38.9 percent in registered school children by 1960.

If our local communities cannot build for today's children, what will be the school housing picture for the Nation's children 6 to 8 years from now without joint assistance?

WHAT OF EQUAL EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY?

In the May issue of the education bulletin of the department of education of the State of New Jersey, the assistant commissioner of education gives costs of education in all State school districts. It is interesting to note that in Bergen County, the district of Alpine had a per pupil ADA instructional cost of $282.92, and a total per pupil ADA cost of $454.35, while the district of upper Saddle River in the same county had for the same costs $58.23 and $102.53 respectively. The building cost needs, if they could be compared would show, I believe, an even greater discrepancy. Does this represent equal educational opportunity for children?