THE RECENT DEBATE ON FEDERAL AID TO EDUCATION LEGISLATION IN THE

UNITED STATES

by J. J. VALENTI, Chicago

In late August 1958, the United States Congress passed a four year Federal Education bill providing 900,000,000 dollars and chiefly designed to spur science education. Actually this bill is a milestone in U.S. history for it marks the first time that federal funds have been used extensively for academic pre-collegiate education. Under U.S. constitutional law, education is a function of each of the fifty states and not of the federal government. While the federal government over the years has aided local education, even secondary education (under the U.S. con- stitution's "general welfare clause"), it has only been special or emergency aid, usually vocational, never aid for general academic purposes. While the present bill, termed the "National Defense Education Act" falls short of the more ardent federal aiders' demands for general purpose grants to public elementary and secondary schools, it probably is only a toe-hold in the entry way to future federal assistance.

The chief features of the new law are: loans to college students, funds to help schools buy scientific equipment, fellowship appropriations to train college teachers, identification and encouragement of able students through aid for testing and guidance programs, foreign language develop- ment through aid to institutes and language centers, and funds for research and experimentation, vocational education, and improvement of educational statistical services. The bill was heavily debated and culmi- nates a long fight by federal aid advocates to get bills such as this one enacted into law. Many bills in the past have never experienced more audience than a hearing by a congressional committee. Within the past decade four major aid bills have passed the upper chamber, the Senate. They were the "Taft Bill" in the 80th Congress, the "Barden Bill" in the 81st Congress, the Democratic legislators' version of the Eisenhower administration proposal in the 84th Congress, and the National Defense Education Bill in this last 85th Congress. Only the last was able to get through the lower chamber, the House of Representatives.

One might wonder why this enactment should create such a furor among Americans. Federal aid to schools is quite a thorny issue in itself. But it has been interlocked with such touchy American problems as church-state relations and the racially segregated schools issues. Just what is there to fear in federal school aid ? Outside of the desire to limit

190 j . j . VALENTI

public spending, especially federal government spending, the foremost objection has been the prospect of federal government control and inter- ference with local autonomy in education. In the United States, traditi- onally and legally, the administration of schools has been turned over by the states to the local school boards. Except for a minimum of regulation by the state, these locally elected authorities hire teachers, levy taxes, build school buildings, set up courses of s tudy - in short they are re- sponsible for running the schools which they do through their executive officer, the school superintendent. Many Americans realize "the power of the purse strings," and consider that the allocation of huge sums of national monies will take initiative away from the local boards who are close to the people and centralize decision making in Washington. There are, of course, other objections to federal aid.

The proponents of federal aid have built up many arguments to j ustify their claims to federal subventions. Among these usually are found the following:

(I) The amount of money spent on education per pupil varies con- siderably among the 50 states - as much as 4 to 1 in the cases of Nevada and Mississippi.

(2) Within each of the states there is even greater variation - the wealthier school districts are spending much more than the poorest ones.

(3) States differ in their ability to finance education. The ratio among wealthiest and poorest states is close to 3 to ! in per capita income and even 41/2 to 1 in income per child of school age.

(4) States differ in the effort put forth to support education (usually measured by finding the percentage that school expenditures are of the total personal income payments). There is a slight negative correlation between ability and effort. This means that the most able states tend to put forth less effort and the poorer states greater effort.

(5) These inequalities in educational support are accompanied by and in part the cause of substantial differences in educational attainment, economic productivity, and general cultural status.

(6) With the present population trends, many persons educated in the poorer states migrate to the wealthier states. It is to the advantage of the latter, if these persons were to receive better schooling and skilled training during their formative years of residence in the poorer states.

(7) These widespread inequalities in educational opportunity can only be reduced by the federal government which has the financial resources necessary.

(8) Historically, federal aid to education has been a fact. There has

DEBATE ON FEDERAL AID TO EDUCATION IN USA 191

been no constitutional objection to federal aid under the "general welfare clause".

(9) Federal aid can be extended with a minimum of control allowing each state to use grants as it sees fit.

However, the opponents invariably reply that : (1) Although education is a vital social activity, it is constitutionally

the state's responsibility. The U.S. Constitution's "general welfare clause" can be stretched too far.

(2) The variation of ability to support education among the states has usually been misrepresented. If one uses the statistic "disposable income" per capita instead of "per capita income", the ratio becomes smaller. Disposable income is income payments to individuals less Federal in- dividual income taxes. As is very well known the U.S. individual income tax is a steeply graduated progressive tax. In addition, the disparity among states in fiscal capacity has shrunk substantially since before World War II. While the per capita income rose by 37 per cent in the 12 highest income states, it rose 96 per cent in the 12 lowest income states. The spread between the highest and the lowest state narrowed from 4.35 : 1 to 2.76 : 1. The President's Commission on Intergovernmental Relations indicated that while substantial differences among states still remain, they may continue to diminish although they are unlikely to be wiped out in the foreseeable future.

(3) The increase in school age population between 1940 and 1952 has been concentrated in the high income states. This change has been due part ly to population migrations but also to the fact that rise in the birth rate was three times as high in the high income states as in the low income states. (The less wealthy states still have a higher birth rate than the wealthy states).

(4) If the taxing powers of the states and localities are relieved of crippling handicaps such as tax exemptions, tax rate limitation - statutes and constitutional debt limitations, they can reach the taxable wealth where it is located and where it is needed. In addition to reorganization in tax structure, there is needed a reorganization into larger-sized school districts and a better utilization of classroom manpower.

(5) Non-public school enrollments are greater in the wealthier states and this additional educational burden must be considered.

(6) Federal aid programs will be accompanied by federal controls. Since most states do not use their funds to the best advantage to amelior- ate the wide discrepancies between economic capacity and school needs, there is no reason to believe that they would allocate federal monies more wisely. Thus, if federal assistance were to at tempt to bring about true

192 j . j . VALENTI

educational opportunity, there would be necessitated prescribed stan- dards.

(7) A progressive tax system is much more effective in reducing dispa- rities in fiscal capacity than federal grants-in-aid.

There have been limited objections to past federal aid proposals from minority groups. Some persons expect a guarantee that federal monies will not support discriminations against Negroes. The Taft and Barden bills made no specific provisions in this direction and some of the op- position to them developed on this account. When passage of the aid bill in the 84th Congress appeared probable, a "rider" to the bill in the form of the "Powell amendment" denying assistance to districts maintaining racially segregated schools served to divide the bill's supporters and torpedo the legislation.

Some limited opposition has also come from Roman Catholic and private school supporters. They maintain that all children in the United States including those in private schools should have similar educational opportunities, that trying to solve the problems of inequality through a State system alone is totalitarian. They seek guaranteed provisions for the education of private school students but considering the constitutional problem of separation of church and state, they usually have demanded only aid for auxiliary and welfare services under the legal basis that the assistance will go to the pupil and not the church school.

Certain American groups have traditionally aligned themselves in favor and some against school aid bills. Usually in favor have been many members of both the Democratic and Republican parties. The Democrats have usually been more vocally in favor although the recent Republican administrations have sponsored similar school legislation. Organized labor has favored federal aid through the American Federation of Labor, Congress for Industrial Organization, and the American Federation of Teachers. Farm support has come chiefly from the National Farmers Union. The foremost women's organizations, the general Federation of Women's clubs, the American Association of University Women, and the League of Women Voters have expressed themselves for such assistance. Most major professional education associations have been its greatest supporters - the National Education Association, The American Asso- ciation of School Administrators, the National Council of Chief State School Officers, the Association of Land Grant Colleges. Usually working hand in hand with professional groups has been the National Congress of Parents and Teachers. All major religious groups have favored such aid. The National Council of Churches of Christ in America, The Synagogue Council of America, the Southern Baptist Convention are all in favor but

D E B A T E ON F E D E R A L A I D TO E D U C A T I O N IN USA 1 9 3

stipulate that no monies must go to non-public education. The National Catholic Welfare Conference has supported federal assistance with distinct reservations (1) that all pupils benefit therefrom (2) that aid go to states with inadequate taxable resources only. The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People has supported aid.

Opposition to federal assistance has been most active among business- men's and taxpayers' associations and some patriotic and professional groups. The Chamber of Commerce of the United States (C. of C.) re- presenting local and state commerce and trade associations has long expressed its belief that the increased economic and individual wellbeing of the people accompanies rising educational levels, but it has also long maintained the position that the need of schools should be met by the states from their own resources. A similar position has been assumed by the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) which fears that such aid will bring centralization, control, and regimentation. Agreeing with these groups are the National Conference of Taxpayer Executives, the American Legion, the largest veterans association, the Daughters of the American Revolution, the Association of American Physicians and Sur- geons, and the National Society of Professional Engineers. The nation's largest farm group, the American Farm Bureau Federation, which in the past has supported some special aid programs, is opposed to present bills.

A few interested groups have not taken a definite stand. Included among these are the American Council on Education, representing the country's colleges and universities (although some of its committees have avowed support for federal aid), and the Governors' Conference, an association of the governors of the 50 states.

The legislative debate preceding passage of the bill was lively to say the least. Floor leaders for the bill were Senator Lister Hill in the Senate and Representative Carl Elliott in the House. Both are Alabama Democrats.

The sponsors tried to stress the importance of a national educational policy citing comments on the power of education made by Edmund Burke and H. G. Wells. They then turned to the challenge of Soviet education. They were joined very early by Senator Neuberger (Oregon), a Democrat, and Senators Allott (Colorado), Smith (New Jersey) and Javits (New York), Republicans. These Senators made a plan for federal assistance based on the nation's (1) need for the recruitment and training of scientific and professional talent (2) need for teachers (3) need for strengthening curricula in scientific areas and language teaching. They defended the bill's provisions of loans, fellowships, and special aids. Senator McNamara, a Michigan Democrat, presented an amendment calling for funds for school construction.

194 j . j . VALENTI

The opposition to the bill gathered momentum. Senator Thurmond, Democrat of South Carolina, argued the present bill would not guarantee that award winners of loans and fellowships would pursue courses of s tudy best fitted for them and follow the profession for which they will have been educated at federal expense. Thurmond deplored the mental inertia of the American public and the evils of "progressive" education, and he pointed out that nothing in the bill could overcome these evils. In fact, he feared that the bill would do more harm than good "through the destruction of individual initiative". Senator Goldwater, Republican of Arizona, felt there was no need for national assistance. The gifted students were getting to college since a study of the National Merit Scholarship Board showed that 97 per cent of the top 7500 students in the exam are in college. Goldwater continued as he cited studies by educational psychologists, showing the lack of collegiate attendance by gifted students is not the result of lack of money, but rather the lack of motivation, or the preference for other pursuits. Goldwater attacked the continuing centralization of federal government. He compared Gibbon's "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" to the U.S. situation today. " I am not very proud," he said, "o5 the Republican par ty tonight, as I realize it has joined in the chorus started by the Democrats, 'Let us federalize the schools.' . . . . as surely as I am standing on the floor of the Senate, if the McNamara amendment is not successful tonight, within the course of one year there will be before Congress a bill providing for the construction of schools. I prophesy that in the following Congress, bills will be introduced to control education and the schools." He stated that such measures would destroy American life as we know it.

Perhaps the most dramatic opposition came from Senator Jenner, Indiana Republican. " I do not want the federal government ever to put its clammy hand on the free educational system of this country, because if it does, it will be delving into the home and the church and local govern- ments, and no good can come of it." When the Senate was ready to pass the bill, Jenner successfully tacked on an amendment spe- cifically excluding his home state o5 Indiana from receiving federal funds.

The bill's proponents were equally as vigorous. The sponsors cited a statement by Marion Folsom, recently resigned Cabinet Secretary of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare: "The U.S. is probably weaker in foreign language abilities than any other major country in the world." They presented the favorable testimony of military officials of government - the Secretary of Defense, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, of leading Scientists, and of the President's Advisory Committee

DEBATE ON FEDERAL AID TO EDUCATION IN USA 195

on Science. The Democratic leadership in the Senate gave the bill strong support.

Senator Clark, newly elected Democrat of Pennsylvania replied to the constitutional attacks on the bill. He argued that the principle of federal aid had been upheld when the U.S. Government granted land to stimulate the development of land grant colleges. He maintained that local property was an insufficient tax base to finance school building construction, that the issue of progressive education had nothing to do with the National Defense Education Bill. Wayne Morse, the Oregon Senator who in the past few years has run the political spectrum first as a Republican, then as an Independent, and presently as a Democrat supported this stand. Backing came, too, from the administration's "moderate" Republicans: Cooper and Morton of Kentucky, Aiken of Vermont, Thye of Minnesota, and Ires of New York. Senator Cooper who also backed the McNamara amendment quoted the late conservative Robert A. Taft 's views on financing education when he joined the debate.

But the McNamara amendment went down to defeat in the Senate 61-30 primarily because of the realization that it would not succeed in the House. An amendment to the bill introduced by Senator Cooper, and providing for $ 250 yearly scholarships was passed. And then the Senate's version of the bill finally emerged victorious 62-46. A school aid bill containing similar provisions also passed the House of Representatives. Finally, on August 21, a four year federal aid bill devoid of scholarships was passed by Senate-House conferees and ratified later by each chamber.

The 900 or so millions authorized under the National Defense Education Act are to be distributed through several stimulation type aid programs none of which is necessarily allocated on the same basis.

A foremost program provides loans to students in higher education. This will probably be the first program to go into effect. For this purpose $ 295,000,000 has been authorized (471/9. million for the first year, and 75,821/2 and 90 million for each of the next three years). The money will be allotted to the states in proportion to the states' full-time college and university student enrollment. The loan will be made through loan funds of individual institutions backed by 10 per cent of institutional monies and 90 per cent of federal funds from this program. The maximum loan is $ 1,000 a year, totalling not more than 5000. Interest is 3 per cent, and the loan is repayable in 10 years. Preference in loans is to those students desiring to teach in elementary or secondary schools, to those with superior aptitude and to those preparing in science, math, engineering or modem foreign language. A "forgiveness clause" in the act allows the repayment to be reduced at the rate of 10 per cent for each year tha t the

196 j . j . VALENTI

student teaches in a public or secondary school (up to a maximum of 50 per cent). Loans are to be administered according to need with students required to be in full-time attendance maintaining satisfactory academic standing.

A second program involving 300 million mainly provides for the purchase o] equipment and materials ~or science, mathematics, and ~oreign anguages. Seventy million a year for each of four years has been authoriz- ed for equipment and an additional five million a year (for 4 years) for the improvement of supervisory services for public elementary and secondary schools in these areas of instruction. The individual states must match federal allotments on a complicated formula containing such variables as "total personal income per child of school age (in the State, and also for the continental U.S.)" and the "number of school age children (in the State, and also in the continental U.S.)". Twelve per cent (ap- proximately the proportion the private school enrollment is of the total elementary and secondary enrollment) of the 70 million dollar fund is reserved for making low interest loans up to 10 years for private schools purchases of equipment.

A third program authorizes funds for short term or regular term institutes /or improving the qualification of those persons engaged in, or preparing to engage in public school guidance, or public school modern language teaching. The actual amount allocated has not been set but Congress has already authorized (a) 61/4 million for the first year, and 71/4 million for each of the next 8 years, or a total of 28 million for counseling and guidance training and (b) 71/4 million for each of 4 years (a total of 29 million) for modern language institutes. An individual attending such an institute would be eligible for a stipend of $ 75 per week plus $ ! 5 per week for each dependent. The institutes are to be arranged by contract of the Commissioner of Education with the institutions of higher education.

A fourth phase totaling an estimated $ 59,400,000 involves college and university fellowships, and will probably be the last program taking effect. I t authorizes the U.S. Commissioner to award 1000 fellowships the first year, and 1500 for each of the next three years - all awards actually depending on the money available. The fellowships are good for a maxi- mum of three academic years of graduate study and carry a stipend of $ 2000 for the first, $ 2200 for the second, and $ 2400 for the third with an additional payment of $ 400 a year for each dependent. The college or university providing the education may obtain up to $ 2500 for each student who gets the fellowship. The commissioner is authorized to approve graduate programs only upon application by the institution and only upon his finding that (a) such a program is new or an existing

DEBATE ON FEDERAL AID TO EDUCATION IN USA 197

program that has been expanded (b) that the expansion will further the objectives of increasing graduate training facilities for university level teachers, and promoting a wider geographical distribution of such facilities (c) that preference in acceptance of persons to study will be given to persons interested in teaching in institutions of higher education. Pay- ments to winners will continue only as long as satisfactoryproficiencyis maintained and as long as the student is not engaged in gainful employ- ment other than that approved by the Commissioner.

For the fifth phase "Guidance, Counseling, and Testing", Congress authorized 60 million (or 15 million for each of 4 years). The allotments will go to state educational authorities having approved programs and will be determined by the State's proportionate share of the nation's school age population. The states will not be required to match grants the first year, but must match for the next three years. The testing program to identify persons of outstanding aptitudes and ability is for public secondary schools and, if authorized by state law, other secondary schools. In states where the state authority is not legally permitted to make payments for testing to private schools, the Commissioner shall arrange for the testing and pay the complete cost for the first year, and one-half of the cost for each of the next years out of such state's allotment. The section of the law dealing with guidance and counseling, however, refers only to the counseling and guidance in public secondary schools.

An estimated 32 million will be spent on a program for language development- particularly for the study of little-known languages. Language and area centers would be set up by contract with institutions of higher education. The Commissioner will determine (1) individuals trained in such language are needed by the Federal government, or by business, industry, or education (2) adequate instruction in such language is not readily available. Priority in contracts is to be given if the language taught is of the Middle East, Africa, or Asia (including the Soviet Union). Teaching under the contract isn't limited to modern languages but in other fields needed to provide a full understanding of the area, regions, or countries in which the language is used (history, political science, lin- guistics, economics, sociology, geography, anthropology). Funds are to be on a matching basis between the federal government and the institution. Stipends, dependency allowances, and travel are allowed but the Act does not specify amounts.

Another estimated 18 million (3 million the first, and 5 million for each of 3 years) has been authorized for research and experimentation in more effective utilization o/television, radio, motion pictures and related media /or educational purposes. An advisory committee on new educational media

198 j . j . VALENTI

will be set up in the U.S. office assisted by a representative of the National Science Foundation and 12 others (3 from liberal arts and sciences in higher education, 3 from elementary and secondary education, 3 audio- visual experts, 3 from the lay public interested in problems of com- munication media). The Commissioner in cooperation with the advisory committee will make grants and award contracts for research and experi- mentation in these fields.

An eighth program provides 60 million for Vocational Education. This is actually an extension of the Smith-Hughes Education Act and the Vocational Education Act of 1946 (George-Barden Act) which provided vocational education to residents of areas inadequately served. This provision also purports to meet national defense requirements for per- sonnel equipped to render skilled assistance in fields particularly affected by scientific and technological developments.

Also authorized was $ 6,500,000 (for four years) for the improvement of state educational statistics and a science information center to which no specific sum was assigned. (It would be partly financed by the National Science Foundation).

Published reactions after passage of the Act have come mainly from advocates of federal assistance. Some have viewed it as a declaration of the federal government's stake in the support of American education. The Act has been referred to it as the greatest landmark of federal re- sponsibility in education since the Morrill Land Grant College Act of 1862. The Act's congressional floor managers, Senator Hill and Congressman Elliott, considered the bill excellent but like Senator Smith, N. J., Re- publican, they were disappointed at the exclusion of federal scholarships.

Federal administrators charged with the execution of the Act praised its provisions. The U.S. Office of Education officials believe there is sufficient money in the bill to do the tasks anticipated. They see the matching provisions as a federal inducement to states and localities to do the job themselves. Arthur Flemming, the new Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare in whose Department the Office of Education is located, has the wheels set in motion for implementing the act. Said Flemming, "This act provides us with the first opportunity this country has ever had to strengthen some of the obvious soft spots in education." But he was not completely satisfied because of the scholarship exclusion. "To me it was never a question of either scholarships or loans. I looked at the program as both scholarships and loans. The loan program won't bring in the type of competitive student that the scholarship program would have brought in." Flemming indicated he would ask the next session of Congress to reinstate incentive scholarships in the new aid plan.

D E B A T E ON F E D E R A L A I D TO E D U C A T I O N IN USA | 99

Some Americans have recognized the stimulation the new federal act supplies to meet deficiencies caused by the "cold war" and the "expanding technology". The encouragement to graduate study and teaching in higher education comes at a time when the number of doctor's degrees awarded each year has been dropping and at a time when an insufficient number of Ph.D's is entering the teaching profession. The guidance and testing features aim to change the counselor-student ratio from its present one to 800 nearer to the generally accepted standard of one to 300. The testing program, it is hoped, will help identify gifted students early in high school and with improved guidance it may be possible to steer them into courses suitable to their aptitudes and prepare them more adequately for college.

Commenting on the program for procuring science, math, and language teaching equipment, a federal official stated, "a school can't build a new building with the money, but if it has four walls and a roof, it can equip and furnish a l a b o r a t o r y . . , and it will help in other fields, too. Some of the money now earmarked for science, for instance, may be shifted to English or history."

The language program is expected to do much to improve the quality and quanti ty of language teaching and extend language study to tongues heretofore pursued only infrequently in America. The Research and Experimentation program intends to develop daring measures which will make a "breakthrough" into additional classroom procedures with the effective utilization of T.V. and related media.

The Act has extended many benefits to private schools and their students. They share in the two largest areas of aid - student loans and loans for purchase of equipment. Teachers in private schools will be allowed to take part in special institutes for teachers of science and foreign language - but they are not eligible for stipends as public teachers are. Also, students of all schools are eligible for graduate fellowships and the private universities which enroll "winners", if approved, may receive assistance. The testing aspects of the law are available to private schools, too.

The terms of the bill specifically rule out control over the curriculum, instruction, administration, or personnel of any educational institution or school system by any federal department, agency, or official. To take advantage of the Act, state legislation will have to pass special legislation. Forty-four of them were scheduled to meet in January, 1959. The others may call special sessions.

The opponents of federal aid are sorely disappointed. Their reaction is perhaps best summed up in a statement by Representative Gwinn (Re-

200 J . J . VALENTI

p u b l i c a n , N e w York ) , " G o d h e l p s t h o s e w h o h e l p t h e m s e l v e s - t h e

g o v e r n m e n t h e l p s a l l o t h e r s " .

DAS PROBLEM FINANZIELLER BUNDESHILFE PIeR DAS AMERIKANISCHE SCHULo UND HOCHSCHULWESEN

von JASPER J. VALENTI, Chicago

Die Verfechter des Gedankens der Bundessubventionen ftir das amerikanische Erziehungswesen haben im Kongrel3 ein elltsprechendes Gesetz durchgebracht. Obgleich ihre Hoffnungen auf eine hohe allgemeine Subvention fiir Grundschule und High School llicht ganz erftillt wurden, ist das Gesetz doch von historischer Bedeu- tung. Nach Tradit ion und Verfassung ist das Erziehungswesen der Vereinigten Staaten Angelegenheit der Einzelstaaten, die die Verantwortung den 6rtlichen Beh6rden iibertragen haben. Durch die Bestimmullgen fiir die allgemeine Wohlfahrt (general welfare clauses) der amerikanischen Verfassung garant ier t die Bundes- regierung in EinzelfAllen Beihilfen ffir besolldere Erziehungs- und Bildungsvor- habell. Das Gesetz, das Ende August 1958 verabschiedet wurde, ist das erste Bei- spiel einer direkten Bundeshilfe fiir einzelne Zweige des Schulwesens.

Die Frage: ,,Soll die Bundesregierung das Erziehungswesen untersti i tzen ?" ist jahrzehntelang diskutiert worden. Befiirworter dieser gesetzlichen Unterstfitzung kommen aus den Reihen der Arbeiterorganisationen, der Berufserzieher, der Frauenorganisationen ulld der Eltern- und Erzieherverbi~nde, sowie aus kirchlichen Kreisen. Sowohl Republikaner als auch Demokraten gaben ihre Zustimmung. Stiirkere Opposition erwuchs der Bundeshilfe aus den Organisationen der GeschAfts- welt und der Steuerzahler und aus einigen Gruppen mit beruflichen oder patr iot i - schen Zielsetzungen. Die Hal tung der Farmerorganisationen schwankte zwischen Unterst i i tzung einzelner Programme und der v611igen Ablehnung des gegen- w~irtigen Gesetzes.

Die Beftirworter der Bundeshilfe setzten sich aus folgenden Griinden ffir das Gesetz ein:

1. Es erleichtert die Finanzierung des Erziehungswesens in Staaten mit geringen wirtschaftlichen Einkiillften.

2. Es macht den Weg ftir eine verbesserte Ausbildung frei, die einerseits zu einer h6heren wirtschaftlichen Produkt ivi t~t in weniger entwickelten Staaten beitr~igt, und die alldererseits akademische und wissenschaftliche Allforderungen des , ,Kalten Krieges" und der wachsenden Technisierung erftillt.

3. Es schafft Abhilfe fiir best immte schulische M~Lngel, die durch das Wachstum und die Binnenwanderung der Bev61kerullg verursacht wurden. Gesetzesbeffir- worter behaupten, dab die Bundeshilfe konstitutionell in den ,,general welfare clauses" verankert sei. Sie verlangen finanzielle Bundeshilfe ohne eine sich daraus ergebende Bundeskolltrolle.

Die Opposition bringt folgende Kri t ik : 1. Bundeshilfe ohne Kontrolle ist ein ,,Mythos". 2. Den Einzelstaaten und Gemeinden stehen aus verschiedenen Quellen geniigend

Mittel fiir erzieherische Zwecke zur Verffigung, wenn sie diese wirklich verlangen.

DEBATE ON FEDERAL AID TO EDUCATION IN USA 201

3. BevSlkerungs- und Wirtschaftsentwicklung der letzten Jahre haben in ehemals schw~icheren Staaten einen giinstigen Verlauf genommen.

4. In den Beihilfepl~nen mfiBten, was nicht wilnschenswert ist, die Schiller der Privatschulen berilcksichtigt werden, die in grSBerer Anzahl in den wirtschaftlich begfinstigteren Staaten zu finden sind.

5. Die schulische Ausbildung ist theoretische und gesetzliche Verpflichtung der Einzelstaaten, w~hrend die praktische Durchfilhrung in den H~nden der 6rtlichen Schulbeh6rden liegen soll.

Die Kongrel3debatte mit dem Ffir und Wider der Vertreter des Senates behandelt der Artikel ausfilhrlich.

Das neue Gesetz (The National Defense Education Act) enth~lt Bestimmungen fiber folgende Punkte:

1. Darlehen filr College-Studenten. 2. Bereitstellung von Geldmitteln zur Anschaffung wissenschaftlicher, sprach-

licher und mathematischer Lehrmittel. 3. Darlehen zur Ausbildung von Lehrkr~ften an Colleges. 4. Mittel zur Einrichtung von Test- und Beratungsstellen zur Auslese f&higer

Studenten. 5. Finanzielle Unterstfitzung fremdsprachlicher Inst i tute und Sprachzentren zur

Verbesserung des Niveaus der fremdsprachlichen Ausbildung. 6. Zuteilung yon Geldmitteln filr dem Erziehungswesen dienende Fernsehver-

suchsstationen und ~hnliche Einrichtungen. 7. Unterstil tzung berufsbildender Insti tute und Finanzierung yon erziehungs-

statistischen Vorhaben. Eine Summe yon 900 Millionen Dollar wurde filr eine Zeitspanne yon vier Jahren

bereitgestellt. Im Augenblick wird im Office of Education fiber die Ausffihrung des neuen Gesetzes beraten.

LE FINANCEMENT PAR LES A U T O R I T E S F E D E R A L E S DES ECOLES ET U N I V E R S I T E S

par JASPER J. VALENTI, Chicago

Les partisans de l 'octroi de subventions f6d6rales aux 6coles am6ricaines ont fair adopter au Congr~s une loi en ce sens. Cette loi revet une importance historique bien qu'elle n 'a i t pas enti~rement confirm6 les espoirs de ceux qui souhaitaient que des subventions lib6rales soient syst6matiquement accord6es aux 6coles primaires et aux high schools. La tradition et la constitution veulent, aux Etats-Unis, que l'6du- cation soit du ressort de chacun des Etats, ceux-ci en remettant la responsabilit6 aux autorit6s locales. Les clauses de la constitution am6ricaine qui ont pour objet le "bien-~tre public" permettent au gouvernement f6d6ral d 'apporter en certains cas une aide financi~re ~ certains 6tablissements scolaires ou universitaires. La loi adopt6e au mois d'aofit 1958 fournit le premier exemple d'une aide f6d6rale directe aux 6coles du premier et du second degr6.

On a discut6 pendant des ann~es pour savoir si le gouvernement f6d6ral devait ou non apporter un soutien financier g l 'enseignement. Les partisans d'une telle dis- position 16gislative se retrouvent dans les organisations syndicales, l 'enseignement professionnel, les organisations f6minines, les associations d'enseignants et de

202 DEBATE ON FEDERAL AID TO EDUCATION IN USA

parents, ainsi que les grandes confessions religieuses. Le parti r~publicain et le parti d~mocrate ont appuy6 ce projet. L'opposition la plus forte est venue du monde des affaires et des associations de contribuables ainsi que de quelques groupes patriotiques ou professionnels. Les associations de la profession agricole, apr~s s'~tre montr~es favorables au proj et, sont pass~es dans l'opposition.

Les partisans de cette mesure mettent en avant les raisons suivantes: 1. Elle facilite le financement de l'~ducation dans les Etats off la situation

~conomique est moins favorable. 2. Elle ouvre la voie ~ des ameliorations qui permettent, d 'une part, d 'augmenter

la productivit~ dans les Eta ts moins favoris6s et d 'autre part, de r~pondre aux exigences de la guerre froide et du d6veloppement technique dans le domaine de la formation acad6mique et scientifique.

3. Elle permet de combler certaines difficult6s scolaires li~es ~ l'accroissement et la mobilit6 de la population.

Ils estiment en outre que cette aide financi~re f6d6rale devrait, du point de rue constitutionnel, t rouver sa justification dans les "general welfare clauses". Elle ne devrait pas entrainer, pour autant, une immixtion des autorit6s f6d6rales.

Les opposants, de leur c6t6, d6clarent: 1. Une aide f6d6rale sans contr61e correspond ~ un "mythe" . 2. Les Etats et les collectivit6s locales peuvent disposer en mati~re d'6ducation de

moyens financiers suffisants, s'ils y t iennent vraiment. 3. L'6volution d6mographique et 6conomique a, au cours des derni~res ann6es,

am61ior6 la situation darts les Eta ts jadis moins favoris6s. 4. Les plans d'assistance devraient, ce qui n 'est pas souhaitable, englober les

61~ves des 6coles privies qui se trouvent, en majorit6, dans les Etats les plus floris- sants.

5. En principe et selon la loi, l '6ducation scolaire incombe aux Etats, mais en pratique, elle est aux mains des autorit6s scolaires locales.

L'A. expose dans le d6tail le d6roulement des d6bats du Congr~s. La nouvelle loi (The National Defense Education Act) contient les dispositions

suivantes: 1. Pr~ts aux 6tudiants des "colleges". 2. Des fonds sont destin6s A l 'achat de mat6riel pour l 'enseignement des sciences,

des langues et des math6matiques. 3. Des pr~ts sont autoris6s pour favoriser la formation du personnel enseignant

des "colleges". 4. Des fonds sont pr6vus pour l'instaUation de centres d'orientation et le d6pistage

des 6tudiants dou6s. 5. Subventions aux instituts de langues 6trang~res pour am61iorer le niveau de la

formation. 6. Fonds destin6s ~ encourager des exp6riences telles que l 'utilisation de la

t616vision ~ des fins p6dagogiques. 7. Soutien accord6 aux instituts de formation professionnelle et financement de la

statistique scolaire. Un montant de 900 millions de dollars a 6t6 accord6 pour une dur6e de quatre ans.

Le bureau f6d6ral de l '6ducation pr6pare en ce moment les modalit6s d'application de cette loi.