FEDERAL SCHOOL AID Do the States Want It?

Of all the items in President Eisenhower's domestic program, few seem less likely to succeed than federal aid for school construction. But would the defeat of this proposal be as great a calamity as its backers insist? Last week TIME surveyed the 48 states to find out. The answer: no. Though the nation as a whole must keep building classrooms faster than ever before, a surprisingly big proportion of the states do not need--or do not want--any help from the Government.

The Desperate. Even among the states that hope for federal aid, only seven seem to qualify for the critical list. The Alabama legislature, for instance, has called the condition of its school buildings "appalling." According to the latest available figures (1953), 726 had no artificial light, 960 no water, 375 no toilets. To build the $300 million worth of classrooms needed by 1960, says Superintendent of Education Austin Meadows, Alabama "most urgently" needs federal money.

Wealthy California faces quite a different sort of problem: the staggering shift and growth of population make it impossible to keep pace with the classroom shortage. Though the state has appropriated $675 million for school construction in the last ten years, it will need a whopping $3 1/2 billion more by 1970. Arizona has a similar population problem, but the legislature has consistently refused to do anything to aid construction. Result: most educators, desperate, hope for federal aid.

If New Mexico does not get federal aid, says Assistant Superintendent Floyd Santistevan, the state will probably be able to raise only $5,000,000 of the $25 million it will need by 1960, and "practically every community will have a hopeless educational problem." In West Virginia, only three out of 55 counties have kept their school buildings up to par; the rest have either been unable or unwilling to foot the bill. Rhode Island, which says it needs between $60 million and $70 million in the next four years, also has a crisis. (Example: Pawtucket recently had to close temporarily nine out of 23 schools as too dangerous to use.) In Kentucky, almost all of the 220 districts have already reached the maximum tax rate allowed by state law. Though the 1956 legislature appropriated more than $54 million to help districts maintain certain minimum standards of quality, only a small part of the amount was earmarked for construction--in spite of the fact that 200,000 children now go to schools with no inside plumbing or central heating. Without outside help, say Kentucky officials, the state will be able to raise less than half of the $350 million it will need by 1960.

The Worried & the Willing. In other states that want federal aid, the picture is not nearly so black. Arkansas' 423 districts have been spending a total of $6,000,000 a year on construction, but they will have to up the ante to $78 million to take care of 1960's student load. On the other hand, overcrowding and the necessity for double shifts are not yet serious problems, and the various districts have still not used up their bonding capacity.

Maine estimates that it should raise $41 million in the next three years, but it has already taken some impressive steps on its own. Maine's School Building Authority has the power to build schools, then rent them back to poor districts at nominal rates. The legislature is considering a plan to award construction grants to school systems on the basis of per capita income and need. Actually, Maine's problem is pretty well limited to five or six heavily populated counties in the south.

Pennsylvania has so far done an outstanding job in keeping up with its school needs. But, says Superintendent of Public Instruction Charles Boehm, it must have federal aid in the future. "Our foreseeable needs in the next decade will require an expenditure of more than $1 billion. If Pennsylvania should raise taxes to increase school construction, it will be unable to compete successfully with its neighbors." Oregon is also reluctant to raise its taxes and the state house of representatives has come out in favor of federal aid.

Though North Carolina says it needs federal aid, a $50 million bond issue voted in 1953 has kept the state in fair shape. But even though it has been building about 2,000 classrooms a year, it still needs 2,800 more. Oklahoma, which, has already received $80 million in federal aid for federally "impacted" areas, would not be averse to taking more. But this is largely so because the legislature has no plans to meet the classroom shortage. Speaking for Minnesota, Commissioner of Education Dean Schweickhard says: "Without federal aid, we'd struggle along. But we wouldn't get the job done as fast."

The Divided. In Kansas, farmers who have happily accepted soil-bank subsidies and drought relief from Washington are opposed to federal aid. But education officials say that unless the legislature removes bond limitations from local districts or unless the U.S. Government steps in, Kansas will fall $75 million short of what it will need by 1961. Utah is even more widely split. The state's Education Association hired an independent research agency to make a poll, found that 80% of the people wanted federal aid. But a respected group called the Utah Committee on Education came to the conclusion that "all foreseeable school building needs can be met from existing sources of revenue." True enough, there are districts where classes are held in hallways and gymnasiums, but of 40 school districts, only ten have reached their bond limit, and there are state emergency funds available to help those. Nevertheless, the educators are definitely after federal aid.

In spite of strong opposition in the legislature to federal aid, Wyoming's educators also want help. But some of them admit that the state may be able to take care of its own needs. Says Superintendent Velma Linford: "Yes, we are able, but I'm not sure we'll do it." Vermont's Swedish-born Governor Joseph Johnson flatly says that "Vermont can and is taking care of its own school needs." But Commissioner of Education A. John Hoiden Jr. thinks that federal aid is just the thing "to give extra help to the most needy districts."

In New Hampshire, where only a quarter of the communities have exhausted their bonding capacity, Governor Lane Dwinell is inclined to favor federal aid just to "get over the hump." But the legislature has adopted a resolution asking Congress to "refrain from enacting new grant-in-aid programs." Though Nevada is lukewarm to federal aid, it will accept the money if it is offered. Iowa officials think that it can afford a state-aid program big enough to take care of its needs. Unfortunately, the wealthier areas are unwilling to take on the burdens of the poor, so Iowa may find federal aid its only solution.

Florida's Governor LeRoy Collins placed before the legislature a two-year, $92 million program to take care of the state's immediate needs. But this does not touch the backlog of $85 million needed for classroom replacement. While the governor is against federal aid ("There is really no sound reason, why the states shouldn't handle the problem"), State School Superintendent Thomas D. Bailey is for it. The various counties, says he, may well have enough bonding capacity to wipe out the backlog, "but they are not going to do it."

South Dakota's senate passed a resolution opposing federal aid; the house let it die. In Tennessee the state Education Association has come out for federal aid, but the legislature failed to pass a resolution authorizing the state to take it. Missouri, which will need to spend $185 million by 1960, is also divided. Educators favor federal aid, but the senate is now considering a bill to enable the state to make sizable (up to $250,000) loans to districts at 2% interest in order to make sure the Federal Government will not "enter our Missouri school picture with controls and meddling."

The Self-Sufficient. The rest of the 48 states not only feel confident they can take care of themselves; a good many just don't want outside help. In Delaware even the educators admit that the $400,000 the state would probably get from present federal-aid proposals would look slightly silly alongside the $44 million school-construction plan now before the state house of representatives. Since 1949 the legislature has appropriated $100 million for buildings, and still only two out of 102 districts have exhausted their bonding capacity.

Colorado estimates that its local districts must dig up $35 million a year for four years to take care of their building needs. But last year the state raised more than $37 million, and Commissioner of Education H. Grant Vest has "not the remotest doubt that Colorado can build all we need without recourse to federal aid." Idaho reports no critical problem: the state department of education is sure that it has ample resources available for needed construction. In neither Wisconsin nor Michigan has any community reached its bonding, capacity. In Louisiana only twelve out of 64 parish school systems seem unable to meet their needs over the next five years. Of these, only two are in critical condition. Louisiana's main problem is not a shortage of classrooms but of qualified teachers--a problem federal aid will not touch.

The Washington legislature has passed a $52 million bond issue to be matched with $60 million from local communities. Though Washington officials do not think they will be able to go it alone indefinitely, most agree that federal aid is not needed now. In Connecticut, only three communities have applied for hardship grants from the state board of education, and the legislature now has a plan before it to put up at least half the cost of local construction. Mississippi, which would probably get $3 back for every dollar it paid out in taxes on any federal-aid bill, is darkly suspicious that the Government will attach strings to its handouts. Governor J. P. Coleman believes that "the state can take care of its own building program."

In a speech to his legislature, Texas Governor Price Daniel summed up the sentiment of his state: "Texas should have the finest school system in the nation, and this should be accomplished with Texas money." In spite of serious shortages in New York City and on Long Island, New York officials are not at all worried about raising the more than $1 1/2 billion the state will need by 1960. But New York--like Massachusetts and New Jersey--has another reason for being cool to federal aid: it would have to pay out far more to support a national program than it would get back. ,

If only the legislature in Ohio would take action, says Assistant Director W. Dwight Darling of the department of education, Ohio could handily take care of its needs. This year a legislative service commission report declared that "regardless of what may be the actual school enrollment in 1960 . . . the $1,000,400.000 of uncommitted debt capacity present in Ohio's school districts is far more than enough to supply the needs."

The Opposed. If Montana voters approve a constitutional amendment to allow districts to increase their bonding limit, the state will have no trouble. Says Superintendent of Public Instruction Harriet Miller: "Until we exhaust our resources and abilities, we should not ask for federal help." South Carolina, which has put up 8,000 classrooms since 1951, neither needs nor wants federal help. In 1955 both North Dakota and Nebraska school officials went on record for the White House Conference on Education as definitely opposed to it.

In spite of the pro-federal-aid efforts of the Illinois Education Association, Illinois officialdom does not want federal aid. In Virginia, not a single county or city has exhausted its bonding capacity, and from Governor Thomas Stanley and Senator Harry Byrd on down, most political leaders vigorously oppose help from the Government. In Maryland, the most serious classroom shortage is in Baltimore county, but even there educators are looking not to the U.S. but to the state for the funds they need.

In Georgia, which is now completing a fiveyear, $261 million building program, both Governor Marvin Griffin and Senator Herman Talmadge are against federal aid. State Superintendent of Schools M. D. Collins has endorsed it because he thinks it would hasten school construction. "Georgia," says he, "is certainly capable of financing its own school program, but it would have to be on a long-term basis, say 20 years. The question is whether Georgia wants to take on such an obligation."

Though the powerful Indiana State Teachers Association has endorsed federal aid. Governor Harold Handley and his elected superintendent of public instruction, Wilbur Young, do not want it. According to their estimates, the state needs to build somewhere around 1,600 classrooms a year, has actually built more than that since 1955. Says Governor Handley: "I am opposed to federal aid for the primary reason that we can take care of ourselves." Adds Superintendent Young: "We can do it better, we can do it cheaper, and surrender none of our rights in the process."

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.