Mr. DANIELS. Is Dr. Megel in the room?

Mr. MEGEL. Yes, sir.

Mr. DANIEL. Dr. Megel, you have not been listed to testify here today, but I understand you traveled a great distance to come here.

STATEMENT OF CARL J. MEGEL, PRESIDENT OF THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF TEACHERS

Mr. MEGEL. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I appreciate this opportunity, and I will not encroach upon your time to testify at great length. I have a prepared state ment, and other materials that we have presented to you. I represent the American Federation of Teachers, the classroom teacher's organization, affiliated with the AFL-CIO, and our organization by executive counsel action, has supported entirely the educational bill that is before you, this House bill 3,000.

I am here to testify in support of that bill as the entire measure, because it is an overall educational bill that provides aid for education all the way through from the elementary, the kindergarten all through the adult college level, and we support all of this.

Now, I can say that in the past 10 years, I have had the privilege of visiting schools in 46 of our States, and I have visited over 1,000 schools, and I know the needs, the shortages of teachers, the fact that teachers are not properly paid, and money is so essential and so necessary, and therefore, the effort of the Federal Government to help in this area will not only be a stimulus to teachers, but to all people, feeling that we are putting some emphasis upon education.

Just last Monday night, I had the privilege of having a guest in my home-the secretary-treasurer of the Indonesion trade union movement, and he was telling me that in 1945, 90 percent of the Indonesians were illiterate, and that today, only 10 percent are illiterate, and they have made a great effort.

I was in Austria and found the adult education program there far superior to ours. These are all deficiencies; I could enumerate them at a long rate, but I want to say, No. 1, that we support the program as outlined, not any section of it.

No. 2, I make the statement that the only thing I can find wrong with it is that is only half enough. It should be at least twice as much in every category as there now is.

With that statement, Mr. Chairman, I conclude my statement. Mr. DANIELS. Mr. Megel, would your organization support this bill if only certain sections of it were adopted?

Mr. MEGEL. We support the bill as it is in total, in unit.

Mr. DANIELS. And all its sections.

Mr. MEGEL. And all its sections.

Mr. DANIELS. I would like the record to show Mr. Megel's statement, and his oral remarks will immediately follow.

Mr. Brown?

Mr. BROWN. No questions.

Mr. DANIELS. Mr. Hawkins?

Mr. HAWKINS. No questions.

Mr. DANIELS. Thank you very much.

Mr. MEGEL. Thank you very much.

(Statement and material submitted by Mr. Megel follow :)

STATEMENT OF CARL J. MEGEL, PRESIDENT, AFL-CIO AMERICAN FEDERATION OF TEACHERS

My name is Carl J. Megel. I am president of the American Federation of Teachers, AFL-CIO, a national organization of classroom teachers affiliated with the labor movement.

I am appearing before your committee in support of a bill to strengthen and improve educational quality and educational opportunity in the Nation, sponsored by President Kennedy and introduced in the House of Representatives by Congressman Powell and in the Senate by Senator Morse and others. While I am here to support this legislation, may I, first of all, state that the bill is quite inadequate to provide the assistance so necessary properly to finance American education. Its financial provisions should be at least twice

as large in each instance.

There is a great urgency and need throughout the country for the enactment of this bill. American education, in our publicly supported schools and colleges, is facing its greatest need and test of either our times-or history. How our Congress and our Nation meets this test will, in our opinion, decide America's future.

The time for controversy is past, and the time for action is here. Education can no longer be retarded by those who view with alarm; who demand that the bill include unconstitutional provisions, or who contend that State and local oxcart school financing methods can be adapted to this space age.

The American Federation of Teachers, the only national teachers organization affiliated with the labor movement has, throughout its history, supported Federal aid to education. We believe in the responsibility of the Federal Government to help the individual States and localities educate all the children of our country. We believe that every child in America deserves the opportunity to reach his highest potential.

This Nation is blessed with tremendous resources. It is the position of the American Federation of Teachers that our people constitute our most important resource. To fail to develop resources like water, oil, timber soil, etc., would be considered folly. How much more disastrous it is to fail to develop the kind of educational system of which we are capable.

Some States and localities have the initiative and the finances to provide an outstanding school system. There are far too many communities in this otherwise wealthy country that are unable to provide adequate education for their children. They simply do not have the necessary tax base. So long as we allow these conditions to exist, we are guilty of gross neglect: a neglect which our Soviet rivals gleefully observe.

Part of the responsibility of providing adequate education belongs to the Federal Government. Quite often citizens from the more wealthy States have ideas similar to those prevailing in the Colonies before we became a Nation. They express the opinion that education in Alabama, Mississippi, Kentucky, New Mexico, and Arizona is not of their concern.

A

Yet, serious consideration of the problems in any large city in the wealthier States will prove that these citizens are in error. For example, the State of Illinois, and the city of Chicago in particular are faced with a tremendous welfare problem. This problem threatens the financial solvency of the State. recent survey by the welfare department disclosed that over 50 percent of the wage earners on relief could not read past the third grade level. Many of these welfare recipients migrated from other sections of the Nation. Quite obviously, inadequate education in a number of localities in the United States ends up as a problem for Illinois, New York, California, Pennsylvania, and so forth.

A national problem that has reached scandalous proportions is the high school dropout rate. Forty percent of the Nation's boys and girls do not get through high school, but enter the labor market at a time when the number of available jobs is declining and the demand for higher skills is rising. For greater employment opportunities, a higher standard of living for our people, improved future income for the Federal Government, and the national defense effort, we must solve the dropout problem.

The dropout problem is complex, requiring study to determine why children quit school and which groups in our society have higher dropout rates. Great progress as already been made in the description of the dropout problem. Solutions to the problem, as usual, are not so simple. It is our opinion that if class

size were greatly reduced, children would receive a great deal more attention from the teacher, and dropouts would diminish accordingly. It has been my experience that many students drop out because they feel that the school does not care about them and their aspirations. I ask you, "How can teachers provide the kind of individual attention so necessary when they often have 35, 40, and even 50 students in a class?"

I cannot overemphasize the necessity of having a portion of Federal aid appropriation mandated for teachers' salaries. The average salary for teachers in the United States is less than $5,000. Nearly 20 percent of our teachers make less than $3,500. I have stated repeatedly that "Bricks without brains constitute national folly."

Estimates of the teacher shortage range from 140,000 to 250,000. At the same time, there are authoritative estimates that the number of new classrooms range from 150,000 to 350,000. I submit to you that whichever of these estimates are correct is beside the point. So long as groups of American boys and girls are crowded into classrooms of 40 to 50 in a class, American education is not serving America nor America's youth.

Low salaries contribute to teacher shortage, as well as to the employment by school districts of improperly trained schoolteachers. The American Federation of Teachers supports adequate salaries for teachers, not as an overall panacea, but certainly as an effective economic inducement to hold competent teachers in the classroom. It is also quite obvious that adequate salaries will encourage our finest college graduates to enter education as a life profession.

The plain fact is, we are not spending enough money for education. The Soviet spheres of nations, with their dictatorial methods, channel a higher percentage of their wealth into their schools. Just the opposite should be true. Education in a democracy is far more difficult since, in addition to specific skills, a broad liberal understanding of our democratic functions must be provided.

It is estimated that the national average of expenditure per pupil approximates $390 per year. Yet many districts in this country provide less than $125 per pupil. Under these conditions, it becomes impossible to provide adequate educational opportunities. It should be the purpose of Federal aid to eliminate these obvious inequalities.

I am not saying that money is the solution to all the educational ills, but proper education cannot take place in thousands of areas until adequate finances are available. We are still trying to finance our educational system through an inadequate tax structure designed during the oxcart age, completely outmoded today.

In addition to raising teachers' salaries, Federal aid must be provided to colleges and universities in order for them to provide quality education for an increasing number of teachers. Figures indicate that college enrollment will double by 1970. Today's crowded campuses simply cannot accommodate this increase. New buildings, better equipment, and more attractive salaries for college teachers are a must. The rising costs of a college education should not act as a deterrent to the average citizen's wish to provide his children with a higher education.

I have stated repeatedly that the struggle for the survival of our Nation may well be won or lost in our Nation's schools.

Federal aid for education should not be evaluated in terms of its cost, alone, but in terms of an investment that will increase the national wealth and the individual's earning ability many times over the amount of the expenditure.

Education is the basis of our national progress and prosperity. From now on, in days of world rivalry among nations, in days when man will compete to reach the stars, while communism threatens us-it is also our hope for national security.

The teachers in your public schools plead that it is time to end inconsistent controversy over Federal aid for education, and that Congress act for the greatest benefit to the greatest number. The greatest number are in the public schools.

The bugaboo of Federal control is pure fantasy. We have had Federal aid to education since the very beginning of our country. It has not resulted in Federal control, nor will this bill. It is our opinion that the majority of the American people are willing to support a better school system. Their sense of values is not so perverted as to fail to recognize our needs.

In previous testimony in support of Federal aid to education, I stated that "We spend billions for defense while on every street corner in every city of the Nation, women beg for coins for cancer. And in the same cities, children

are improperly schooled for lack of funds." At that time, I asked that question, "What kind of philosophy allows billions for bombs, charity for cancer, and peanuts for pupils?"

It is our confident hope that this committee recommendation and this Congress will rectify this medieval philosophy so that an educated society may preserve the American dream for all people regardless of race, creed, or color. Time is growing short; Federal aid 2 years ago would have meant tremendous progress toward solving our problems in schools at every level. We simply cannot afford to procrastinate any longer. With industry, with vision, and with money, we can accomplish the task.

[From the American Teacher magazine, February 1963]

LAWS RESPECTING AN ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION-A LEGAL REVIEW OF A TOUCHY SUBJECT

By John Ligtenberg1

The recent Supreme Court decision outlawing the use in a New York classroom of a prayer composed by the New York State Board of Regents has revived interest in an issue seldom far below the surface of the American consciousness. To the average American it was no historical accident that the first amendment to the new Constitution contained the guarantee of religious freedom. It was there affirmed that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The 14th amendment made this command applicable to the State governments.

Since we are prone to look upon ourselves as a religious people, it is no wonder that this freedom is zealously guarded. A few years ago the U.S. Supreme Court summed up this part of the national character in these words: "We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being," Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U.S. 306, 313.

In spite of this clause in our basic law, there are countless examples of statutory and executive aid or at least acknowledgment of the place of religion in our social fabric. These range from the Declaration of Independence, through every Presidential inaugural address to our coinage (since 1865), the Pledge of Allegiance (since 1954), and our national anthem.

Why then should not a simple prayer be prescribed for use in the schools? The one in question was intended to be used as part of the opening exercises right after the pledge to the flag in which the pupils recite that they stand for a nation under God. The majority of eight judges thought it "wholly inconsistent with the establishment clause" of the first amendment.

Why did not the plaintiffs in the New York case also object to the present form to the Pledge of Allegiance? (If they had, it appears possible that at least one Justice would have agreed.)

These and many other questions are opened, and not necessarily answered, by the High Court decision. The decision is criticized by many who felt the Court went too far and many others who would have gone much further.

What then is the touchstone? What is the true rule, the simple test? This issue is likely to occupy our theologians, lawyers, and judges for some time to come. As we move into the question we shall probably find that both the problem and the answer tend to change before our eyes; they will vary from region to region within our country. Our own religious and philosophic heritages will often stand in our light.

If we are indeed a religious people, it may be difficult to satisfy us with schools drained of religion or religious content. But if the public schools are for all the people, then no one should be subjected to the religion of another. Is then the only answer that religion shall not be mentioned in the classroom?

This would seem to be virtually impossible in a social order in which GrecoRoman and Judeo-Christian concepts predominate. Almost nothing of literature, art, history, or even law or government can be understood apart from these concepts.

The ultimate conclusion of a total "separation" can satisfy but few, and perhaps not even the atheist. So the problem becomes how high the "wall of separation" shall be built. This phrase is not found in the Constitution, although it is

1 General counsel, American Federation of Teachers, in a paper read at the Convention of the National Organization on Legal Problems in Education, in Des Moines, Iowa, recently.