whole country. That the establishment of such office with such rank as is contemplated will inject the educational affairs of the country into all sorts of political controversies.

I can not understand the psychology of people who make either of these charges. Being jealous of State prerogatives and rights in the field of education, I am supporting this bill because the whole history of the development of education in America shows that the contention of our opponents is not sound. Each State in the Union has a State department of education. Many of them are strong and effective and exercise a leadership in education that is felt in every section of the State. Many of them were established in the early history of their respective States. Whenever the establishment of one of these State departments came up in a State legislature, the same charges of centralization of authority in the State capital and the injection of politics into the administration of the schools have been made. Neither of these great injuries and wrongs have been perpetrated upon education by the establishment of State departments of education. In many States such departments are a bulwark of defence against the political assaults which have been leveled at public education.

There has probably been no great reform proposed in educational practice or administration in any State in the Nation which has not been subjected to the charge of centralization of power, the usurpation of the people's prerogatives, or the injection of the evil influences of politics. These evil results have not been realized upon the adoption of such reforms. It is not strange therefore that these charges should be made against the Sterling-Reed bill. Such charges were of course expected.

Men in public education administration are on the average men of the same ordinary horse sense that men are who are serving in other fields of administration. Educational leaders in positions of responsibility usually survey their fields and ascertain their official relation to every branch of the work under their supervision. Educational administrators profit by the success or failure of other administrators.

We all know that the United States Steel Corporation is one of the most successful business concerns in the country. It is composed of several constituent companies-20 or more. Does the president of that company usurp the powers and functions of each of these constituent companies or does he throw back upon the authorities of each one of them the power and initiative to operate their companies and produce results? The officials and the experts of the main company offer advice and suggestions but the direct responsibility of the management of each of these constituent companies is placed directly upon the officers of such companies. Wise men who have such responsibility seek advice of those who are having the larger and broader experiences. Such action produces cooperation which promotes efficiency and progress.

A wise executive or administrator will never seek to exercise power or authority arbitrarily. He will seek the cooperation of all interests under his supervision or control. Every educational administrator knows from experience that the greatest asset he can possess is a public sentiment on the part of his constituency which will support progressive school policies. Even where great power may be vested

in a State or Government official it is generally exercised under what may be called a decentralized policy. In other words, official authority may be exercised by the process of devolution. Such processes are never arbitrary.

I assume that any man chosen to a position in the President's Cabinet as a secretary of education would not undertake to inaugurate a policy hostile to the feelings and beliefs of all the educational leaders of the country as well as the sentiment of the public. He would, I take it, respect the traditions and settled policies in education in this country. Without legal authority he would not undertake to offend the American people including the entire teaching profession.

If

But assume a person should be chosen in such position who would endeavor to do all these objectionable things, how could he accomplish his purpose? The Sterling-Reed bill does not confer upon the proposed secretary of education power or authority to centralize the direction or supervision of education in the several States. that officer should enter upon a program to obtain such power, he would immediately have arrayed against him the entire teaching profession of the Nation. The men and women who have been urging the enactment of this bill would be here urging the Congress to oppose such program. The Congress including you men upon this committee could deal with this question if it should ever be raised and brought before you.

There is nowhere in this bill a single line that confers upon the secretary of education power or authority to control in the slightest degree the educational policies of the States. There is nothing in this bill which centralizes power and authority to any extent in the Federal Government. There is nothing in this bill which seeks to standardize education throughout the Nation. Each State continues without interference on the part of the Federal Government to work out its own State programs. There are 48 general plans of education, one in each State under the Sterling-Reed bill. The bill provides, first, that in order that a State may participate in the apportionment of the funds appropriated, it shall maintain a school for a period of 24 weeks. What States in the country do not maintain a school for 24 weeks? There is no State in the country which does not have a school term for that period of time. But suppose there were some States that did not have such terms. In such case should not the concern and interest of the Nation in education give proper expression to the desirability of each State, providing its future generations with at least 24 weeks of schooling in order that these children might receive that minimum education and training essential to American citizenship? There is no State in the country to-day which does not have a compulsory attendance statute. True, they are more rigidly enforced in some States than in others. In some States they are not properly enforced; but that is a very serious question, and the States ought to see that those laws are enforced. Under the Sterling-Reed bill the enforcement of such laws rests absolutely with the States. If a State expects to receive its proportion of this aid, then that State ought to enforce the compulsory attendance laws.

Mr. BLACK, May I interrupt you at this point?
Doctor FINEGAN. Certainly.

Mr. BLACK. Do you not think that there would be danger of compelling the enactment of a model compulsory school attendance law throughout the States at the suggestion of this Federal department of education?

Doctor FINEGAN. We already have compulsory attendance laws in each State in the Union.

Mr. BLACK. I mean as to the form.

Doctor FINEGAN. No; I think not; but if there should be any such effort, those attempting to do so would have to come here and get authority from you and your associates in the Congress to get such a law. Congress would have the opportunity to pass upon that question when it came before you. The question of school attendance is a very important one in this country. Last year every day that the public schools in this country were in session there were more than 5,000,000 boys and girls of school age, registered in the schools, who were out of school on an average every day.

Mr. FENN. Do you not think that if the proposed child labor amendment should become a part of the Constitution, it would cure that situation?

Doctor FINEGAN. Undoubtedly. The child labor amendment should go hand in hand with this effort to enforce school attendance. It would help greatly.

Mr. FENN. As you know, it has already passed the House. Would not that have a great deal of effect upon the statement that you have just made that 5,000,000 school children were not attending school?

Doctor FINEGAN. Yes, sir; it would have some effect, but that in itself would not be sufficient. There should be all in the States compulsory attendance laws. It will be a hard piece of work to get all these children regularly in school even with child labor and compulsory attendance laws.

Mr. LowREY. Have not nearly all of the States child labor laws, as well as compulsory school attendance laws?

Mr. TUCKER. All except two, Utah and Wyoming, have child labor laws, and all of them have compulsory school attendance laws. Mr. FENN. What I mean, if I may suggest, is that you could compel the States to enforce their own statutes by a national law.

Mr. TUCKER. I was going to ask Doctor Finegan about that when he got through.

Mr. FENN. Excuse me for interrupting you.

Doctor FINEGAN. That was not my thought at all, but the fact that the State law is upon the books, and the fact that in order for the States to participate in the funds to aid in the support of education they must enforce that law, would have a moral effect in bringing about the enforcement of the statute. There is not a more serious social problem facing the country to-day than nonattendance upon school of children between the ages of 7 and 14 years. When the number of children out of school regularly every day is equal to the entire enrollment of all the children in the schools of New England, New York, and Pennsylvania combined, it becomes a question for very serious consideration on the part of the entire country.

But let us pass on to a consideration of some of the purposes for which funds may be allotted by the Federal Government, as, for instance, physical education and health, illiteracy, Americanization, and teacher training. The bill provides that $15,000,000 shall be

appropriated for that physical training and health. It also provides that there shall be $7,500,000 appropriated to aid in wiping out illiteracy in the country, and that a like amount shall be appropriated for the purpose of what is known as Americanization. I shall not take up your time in going over the details of the physical defects of children in attendance upon the public schools, because these have been recited to you time after time in these hearings. The result of the physical examinations by the Army to test the best of our young men from all parts of the country showed that 70 per cent of them did not possess the physical qualifications to enter. The importance of this subject and the vital interest of the Nation in it is so obvious that comment is unnecessary.

The question of wiping out illiteracy in this country was first taken up by President Grant, as probably many of you know. In one of his messages to Congress he took up that question and proposed an appropriation for the purpose of aiding the States in wiping out illiteracy. If the advice contained in that message had been followed, we would not be facing either the question of illiteracy or the question of Americanization to-day, because these problems would have been gradually taken care of during the last half century. It is said by opponents of this measure that these appropriations by the Federal Government gives the Government power and control over education. What are the real facts on this point and what power is conferred on the Federal Government in this respect? The bill provides that the money which is appropriated by Congress for these purposes shall be paid into the several State treasuries, and that the money shall be used for the development of the specific purposes for which it is appropriated in accordance with the statutes of the States. For instance, my State, Pennsylvania, would be entitled to a certain amount of Federal funds and such funds would be paid into the treasury of the State of Pennsylvania. Then the superintendent of public instruction of that State would have the expenditure of these funds for the specific purposes appropriated and in accordance with the laws and plans of that State. The funds for health work would be carried out in accordacne with the statutes and regulations of Pennsylvania and in accordance with the policy that the educational authorities of that State are authorized to put into operation.

There is no State in this country that has an adequate supply of properly trained teachers, nor is there a State which has a program established which contemplates an adequate supply of teachers in the future for its public schools. Of course, the great factor in a school is the teacher, and yet more than half of the teachers of this country are without adequate education, and they have had no professional training. Under this bill the Federal Government would not set up a system of teacher-training institutions. Each State would continue its system of teacher-training institutions. The Federal funds due a State under the terms of this bill would be paid into the treasury of that State, and the State would proceed with its program of teacher training as it is now carrying that work out. Therefore, the Federal Government would have no authority whatever in that regard. If a State does not enter upon this enterprise and become entitled to its proportion of the Federal funds for this specific purpose, the secretary of education could exercise no

authority whatever in the matter except to report to Congress what the situation is. There is no authority given him in this bill to undertake to compel the States to either enter upon this work or to adopt any plan or policy in relation to its program.

Mr. BLACK. What would be the purpose of a report to Congress? Doctor FINEGAN. For the sole purpose of giving Congress the information that here is a State that is not proceeding, in the first place

Mr. BLACK (interposing). Do you suppose that Congress would go further and legislate with only that information at its disposal? Doctor FINEGAN. I think not; I think there is no such intention in this bill.

Mr. BLACK. Surely Congress has to be something more than a filing place.

Doctor FINEGAN. Yes, certainly; but it is customary for all of the Federal departments and bureaus to transmit reports to Congress, even without the expectation that Congress would legislate upon those subjects.

Mr. BLACK. Of course, the Federal departments file their reports with Congress upon the theory that Congress in legislating in reference to those departments should have information upon which to base the legislation.

The

Doctor FINEGAN. I have never served the Federal Government, and all of my experience has been with State governments. State departments make their reports to the legislature, and we prepare the reports with the understanding that they will be read, but they seldom are.

Mr. BLACK. The reports are used frequently in the debates and discussions of legislative matters.

Doctor FINEGAN. Perhaps they are. They should be. Of course, I am aware, Congressman, of the great help that you rendered the cause of public education in the State of New York while serving in the senate. I am not able to recall a single progressive measure in the interest of education before that body that did not have your support, but I doubt if you ever read one of the reports I wrote. Mr. BLACK. I read everything you wrote, and it was of great help

to me.

Mr. ALLEN. Is it not likewise a fact that the recognition of the low standards of education in our country prompts us to take some action?

Doctor FINEGAN. Yes; certainly it does. That is one of the great services and functions of a State department of education. A State department of education is not expected to go out into a community and usurp the functions of the community in relation to its schools. A State department should be able to develop a public sentiment, so that the people themselves, in every administrative unit of the State, shall want good schools, shall be willing to vote for them, work for them, and pay for them. Similar relations should exist between a Federal department and each State department and a commissioner of education in Washington who could speak with official and professional authority upon education, and whose voice would be heard throughout the Nation-not in a coercive way, but in the language of America's tradition in public education-would establish such relations. His utterances would be received as representing the