II

The new department of education, through its secretary, would assume the leadership in developing American education. Such national leadership is sorely needed.

Leadership, to be sure, is needed, but not the kind of leadership that for the past three decades has been running riot through American public education from the kindergarten to the university. Furthermore, true leadership can not be created by fiat, or by the power to assign Government subsidies. On the contrary, such a power is more likely to bolster up a false leader, to smother local initiative and responsibility, and consequently to discourage the development and recognition of natural leaders. Another section of the bill provides for the creation of a "national council of education," consisting of approximately 100 educators and laymen who shall annually "consult and advise with the secretary of education on subjects relating to the promotion and development of education in the United States" (sec. 17). Experience seems to suggest that such a large advisory council might be of very questionable value to the secretary and might tend to foster dissension rather than leadership.

III

The position which the secretary would hold in the President's Cabinet would increase the dignity and prestige of educational matters in the eyes of the American people.

Again, we maintain that the dignity and prestige of educators or of education can not be legislated into being, can not be increased by the creation of a secretaryship. On the contrary, there is grave danger that the creation of a new department, analogous to the Department of Agriculture, or of Labor, for instance, will make education the plaything of political parties, and in so far as this happens, the dignity and prestige of educational matters will approach the vanishing point. There must be other safer ways of arousing the American people to the true value of education-ways which will be more compatible with our traditional policy of maintaining the independence of our educational systems, and with the growing tendency to free the school administration from oppressive political control, even when that control is confined within the limits of a city. Indeed, it requires only a very short memory to recall the consternation in the educational world at the sudden and apparently involuntary resignation of a commissioner of the present Bureau of Education. If politics can reach down and cut off the head of a subordinate bureau of the Department of the Interior, how much more active would these same influences be in displacing a member of the President's Cabinet which, it is taken for granted, will be of the same political complexion as the party which happened to dominate the last election.

IV

The commission of the National Education Association, which drafted the educational bill in its original form, came to the conclusion that education in the United States was suffering from four main defects: (1) Failure of the schools to reach the non-English-speaking aliens, and native illiterates; (2) failure to provide an effective health program; (3) great inequalities of public schools, and particularly inferiority of many rural schools; (4) lack of a sufficient supply of trained teachers. The National Education Association maintains that it is impossible to find a speedy remedy for these defects without substantial subsidies from the Federal Government.

The present chaotic condition of our public schools (as well as of our colleges and universities) is generally admitted-due partly perhaps to the defects cited, but in much greater degree to other more fundamental causes, which the educational bill does not specifically aim to remove. These more fundamental causes, which "those who run may read" in the prevailing tendencies of the past two or three decades, may be thus tersely summarized: "Scattering" and "smattering," "leveling down" rather than “leveling up." Do not these tendencies truly involve the greatest danger to the intellectual life of our Nation to-day? are to hold fast to our ideal of democracy, in its original lofty conception, must we not allow greater opportunity for the development of an intellectual aristocracy? The present-day persistent cry for "uniformity," alias "equalization," of educational opportunity and standards threatens to kill the spirit of intellectual endeavor on a high plane, to reduce intellectual attainment to the dull mediocrity

If we

of a common level, to smother those who, by nature, should become the intellectual and moral leaders of the Republic.

We admit that "equal opportunity for all" is the noblest battle cry for democracy. But by "equality" we do not mean "identity." On the contrary, every individual must have equal opportunity to develop his individual powers to their highest, whether those powers carry him to the heights of Mount Olympus or only to the steel mills of Pittsburgh. No social or political democracy can long endure unless it is at the same time an intellectual and moral aristocracy. An equality which means reduction to a dead level inevitably leads to mediocrity. One of the imminent dangers of our democracy is failure to recognize frankly the intellectual strata of mankind, and to afford to each the dignity which is its due. To be sure, everyone is not capable of learning or appreciating the beauties of subtleties of a work of art or a foreign language, or a problem in pure mathematics or to find poetry in the performance of a surgical operation, or in the construction of a bridge or skyscraper. Many of us are limited to an acquaintance merely with intellectual brick and mortar. Individuals so limited have an honorable place in society--this we can learn from Plato-so long as they perfori loyally and well the functions assigned to them by Providence. They are quite as necessary to the life of the State as those more lavishly endowed by nature. As matter of fact, it is not always possible to make such a sharp distinction. Some of us occasionally glimpse the heights although most of the time we can not get beyond the valleys or the foothills. It should be the function of public education to take account of both these elements in man's nature, and not, as at present, to put obstacles in the path of those who are bound for the higher road. In short, the fundamental relation between "equality" and "democracy' seems to be still a moot question. Until a satisfactory solution is found and generally accepted, there seems small hope that other efforts for reform will meet with any great measure of success. The education bill tends to emphasize, rather than to remove, the present lamentable confusion between equality and identity.

Moreover, it is by no means clear that substantial subsidies by the Federal Government will remedy the shortcomings cited by the National Education Association, and much less those more glaring and far-reaching defects, which are undermining the foundation rocks of our democracy, so wisely and so hopefully laid by the founders of the Republic. The champions of the bill seem to have implicit though unwarranted faith in the power of money and legislation to eradicate the shortcomings of the public schools. It is also maintained that supporters of the bill have no adequate fact basis for their statement that such defects can be remedied only by Federal money grants. It is by no means established that low educational standards and unsatisfactory results are the outcome of low financial ability on the part of any particular State to provide adequate schooling for its citizens. For instance, Pennsylvania is one of the wealthiest States in the Union. In spite of its high per capita wealth, however, its State and local taxes are extraordinarily low and its support of the public school system proverbially deficient (outside the larger cities). To what extent would the education bill encourage the people of Pennsylvania to promote education by making them believe that they are getting two dollars for every one they spend? How much less likely would they be to raise adequate funds through local taxation, if they knew that a large proportion of the meiger State and 'o 'al appropriations would be duplicated by Federal grants. In short, it seems hardly reasonable to press the necessity for Federal aid until careful examination has been made of the tax systems of the various States to ascertain what effort local communities are making to meet their own responsibilities and to express an interest in education proportionate to their financial ability.

It should also be pointed out that no evidence has been offered in support of the bill (or in the bill itself) to indicate that the particular amounts stipulated for the special purposes enumerated have been arrived at after any careful study of actual needs. No tentative budget has been presented to support even the item of $500,000 for the administrative expenses of the Washington offices of the department. This may seem a minor point, but its importance looms large when we consider how long and how earnestly the most far-seeing of our citizens and public officials have been endeavoring to eliminate "blanket appropriations from our national finances and to inaugurate a budget system to cover all Federal expenditures.

An even more important point is the power which the promise of Federal aid would exert in the debates of the State legislatures. Obviously, the pressure would be great to secure a Federal grant for, say, "Americanization," because

this would mean doubling a State appropriation without increasing the burden on the local taxpayers. Such a grant from the Federal department could only be secured, you remember, by making an equal appropriation from State funds available for educational purposes. In order to meet this condition the tendency would be to devote to "Americanization" money needed more urgently perhaps for other phases of education in that particular State or locality. Actually this provision would result in a compelling or controlling influence over the States by the Federal department, even though, technically, it does not posit administrative control. Such influence would control the expenditures, not only of Federal funds, but actually of State funds as well.

V

We must have equalization of educational opportunity. Education of its citizenry is of prime importance in a democracy, and is the concern of the Nation as a whole. Moreover, the Nation is under obligation to see that all its citizens have an equal opportunity for education. Therefore, to this end, all the wealth of the Nation must be taxed for educational purposes irrespective of State boundaries.

Equalization of educational opportunity in the name of democracy" is such a high-sounding phrase that it is difficult to resist its appeal. We have already discussed the meaning of "equality" as the corner stone of our democracy, and have come to the conclusion that it is not synonymous with "identity." Nor do we believe that "educational opportunity" and "per capita expenditure for schooling" are synonymous terms. Witness the present situation in New York City! Nor is the money-incentive the most effective way of arousing interest in education, or of stirring local energy to action. Even less likely would this be the case, when perhaps a large percentage of per capita expenditure would come from the National Treasury rather than from local sources.

The corollary of "equalization of educational opportunity" is "equalization of tax burden.' This, too, sounds like a plausible aim for a democratic government. The clinching argument seems to be that the uneducated are free to go from State to State, and therefore, Massachusetts, for example, for her own protection, must see to it that the citizens of Georgia have an education equal to that of her own sons.

Has "State sovereignty" then become an empty phrase? Has the time come for the United States to rush headlong into paternalistic socialism? Let us remember that the Republic was founded on the basic principle of the "concrete universal"—an indestructible Union of indestructible sovereign States. And it is too soon for us to forget that the paternalistic socialism of the Hohenzollern led to the most pernicious and all-pervading autocracy-ultimately to the downfall of Germany and the spiritual ruin of the German people. That way madness lies.

As matter of fact, this proposal to "equalize the tax burden" would actually mean an abrogation of State rights, taxation without representation, and a disregard of property rights. For example, New York taxpayers would be helping to pay Alabama's bills, even though New York had no voice in deciding how or for what purposes such funds should be expended. Or California would be helping to pay Pennsylvania's bills, even though, as we have seen, the citizens of Pennsylvania are quite able (though apparently unwilling) to meet their own educational liabilities.

VI

Local responsibility must be fostered by limiting Federal subsidies to those States able and willing to make equal appropriations from State funds for the same purpose.

The desire to foster local responsibility by providing funds on a "50-50" basis may prove a boomerang. As already suggested, under such a scheme the Federal Government would virtually dictate to the various States for what purposes large sums of the local tax levy should be expended. Instead of local responsibility, such a plan would rather foster local servility to the Federal department of education and would tend to weaken the intelligent and disinterested exercise of local responsibility and initiative.

Secondly, if the "50-50" idea were carried into effect along with the other provisions of the bill, the result in some cases would be either to increase the present discrepancies between the educational opportunities now enjoyed by the children of the various States (so far as opportunity may be measured by finan

cial outlay), or the taxyayers and legislators of the wealthier or more enlightened States would take into account the prospective Federal grants and would fail to make annual increases in their own educational budgets to provide for the increasing needs of the State. To illustrate: The money for paying and training teachers is to be allotted in proportion to the number of children of school age and of teachers at present employed within a given State. On both counts New York State, for instance, would rank high. She would therefore receive a large share of the Federal funds available for these purposes. On the other hand, New York State also ranks high in the money now spent for educational purposes. The Federal grants, by swelling her coffers would, therefore, either increase the advantage which New York children now enjoy over, say, the children of Mississippi; or-the even more disastrous alternative-when making up the State educational budget New York taxpayers and legislators might take into account the prospective Federal grants and reduce their own tax rate accordingly. Under this latter alternative the tendency might be toward "equality," to be sure, but it would be an equality of dead mediocrity. It would tend to lower, rather than to raise, the educational standards of the State receiving Federal funds.

VII

Centralization is highly desirable to remove the waste and duplication of effort now caused by the multiplicity of educational boards and bureaus. Such centralization in a single department does not involve Federal control, as is feared by the opponents of the bill. Indeed, the National Education Association has gone on record as emphatically opposed to such unified control, and the bill itself explicitly provides against it.

The sections (3, 4, 6) of the bill referring to this proposed centralization are too indefinite to provide adequate ground for discussion. No mention is made in the bill of the particular bureaus and boards to be consolidated, except in the case of the present Bureau of Education. It is not even clear whether the proponents of the plan contemplate or advise the amalgamation within the new department of the various Federal agencies concerned with the vocational rehabilitation of soldiers, or with other forms of educational service in connection with national defense. In fact, no authoritative list has been presented of Federal agencies engaged in educational activities, which might coneicvably come within the provisions of the bill. To estimate their accumulated appropriations at $200,000,000 is probably not an exaggeration. The absorption by the proposed new department of education of any particular now independent bureau is to be left to the discretion of Congress. (Here again is to be noted ample opportunity for political maneuvering.) The time which would probably be required to effect such a consolidation has also been variously estimated from one to several years. In any case, it seems clear that several of the now independent bureaus would resist such consolidation on the ground that their special interests would be submerged in such a top-heavy bureaucratic organization.

The main storm of the argument has centered about the question of Federal supervision and control. Both the proponents and the opponents of the bill protest vehemently against any such control, and yet the specter still looms large. The fact is that the original draft of the bill explicitly provided for direct Federal supervision of certain State educational activities. It seems fair to assume, therefore, that this was the intention of those who first framed the measure. In view of widespread protest, clauses were later inserted specifically providing for State autonomy in the administration of Federal grants. Even this has not silenced critics, for, they claim, the power to grant money implies and will inevitably lead to control. Their position seems to be strengthened when they hear supporters of the bill urging its passage because it will provide "an effective national system of education," and a "national educational policy," and when Professor Strayer, of Teachers' College, declares in support of the measure that the bill "will make for the realization of a more efficient system of public education," and that "we have lacked in our National Government the voice of one whose obligation it was to think and to act for the safety and for the development of our democracy through the creation and maintenance of a truly democratic system of education." Presumably the proposed secretary of education would be such a "one." Further confusion arises when we read the following resolution passed in 1919 by the National Education Association: "We advocate the enactment of the following measures as fundamental beginnings of a national program in education: (1) The Smith-Towner bill (an earlier draft of

the present educational bill); (2) an act providing for a year of compulsory civic, physical, and vocational training under the proposed department of education." This resolution obviously implies interference and dictation in local educational affairs by the proposed Federal department of education. If these are the fundamental beginnings of a national program in education," what might the end be?

It is to be borne in mind that the original framers and spiritual sponsors of the bill were authorized representatives of the National Education Association. In fact, the association still officially refers to the measure as 'our education bill," and is making most earnest and persistent efforts to effect its early passage through Congress. It seems fair to assume therefore that the policy of the National Education Association in regard to a national educational program fairly represents the educational theory which the bill would tend eventually to put into practice.

As already noted, the bill as now presented specifically stipulates (section 13) that the secretary of the department shall exercise no control over local educational activities, except as provided for in the bill (sections 9, 12, 13, 14, 16). It is therefore urged that that objection has been removed "in black and white," and it is unfair to continue criticism on that score. Unfortunately, it is not so easy to eradicate the danger, by a mere stroke of the pen. Centralized Federal control is not a question of motive or intention. The fundamental question is, What is logically implied in Federal subsidy of local educational activities? Even though the bill explicitly forbids such control, those States that want Federal financial aid will tend to follow Federal policies. The power of money is undeniable. That power may be attractive, as well as coercive. As already suggested, the promise of Federal funds might easily induce State legislators to divert State taxes to any one or more of the special channels stipulated, whereas in reality local needs might call for quite a different disposition of State funds.

The only alternative to Federal control seems to be no Federal control of funds, for the expenditure of which Federal authorities are legally and morally responsible to the taxpayers. For Congress to authorize the distribution of vast sums of money among the various States, without at the same time providing for direct supervision and responsible control by the department making such distribution, can hardly be defended as a wise and sound financial policy. Even assuming that a secretary of the department were to be appointed who would consent to place himself in the anomalous position of disbursing Federal funds without control, such a situation could not long endure. It seems inevitable control would be tacitly recognized and exercised, or that either that central. Congress would later be appealed to, explicitly to grant such control as a necessary corollary to such heavy financial responsibility. Moreover, if there is to be no supervision or control, no formulation of educational policies to guide the distribution of the proposed appropriation of $100,000,000; if the conditions of such distribution are to be rigidly fixed by statute, and the new secretary is not to be allowed to exercise any discretion or discrimination, will the office be more than a central distributing bureau of Federal funds? Wherein would the creation of such an office "increase the dignity and prestige of educational matters in the eyes of the American people"? How much of the appropriation of $500,000 to cover administrative expenses, etc., would be needed to make such automatic distribution? Is there no other Government agency already in existence that could properly be called up to administer funds under such restricted conditions. The other function-of investigation and reporting on various educational matters-is now being performed by the Bureau of Education at Washington. It is not clear why the proposed new department would be able to carry on the nvestigation work any more effectively than the present bureau.

SUMMARY OF OBJECTIONS

1. The education bill will not be a panacea for existing defects in education. Rather, it threatens to postpone indefinitely a possible cure of present ills by smothering local initiative and responsibility in the matter of our public schools. 2. It will create a centralized bureaucracy at Washington, with its tendency to deadening overorganization, overstandardization, and "red tape."

3. Such an organization, with an initial appropriation of $500,000 for administration, will prove a fruitful hotbed of petty office seekers. It is not unreasonable to surmise that even the political complexion of the secretary, as a member of the President's official family, will change with each new administration, and with him will change the policies of the department.