The people of our country, having enacted compulsory attendance laws and having set up a system of free schools, are inclined to indulge in complacent satisfaction with the school situation, inclined to take it for granted that, having installed an educational machinery universal in its scope, there remains only to experience universal benefits of literacy, if not of cultured intelligence. To their discomfiture, it is found that there are unknown numbers of the illiterate and apparently increasing numbers of the mentally deficient and of those handicapped in body. The discovery of these unfortunates, the determination of the particular type of their need, and the correction of their disabilities, can not be the sole responsibility of local remedial agencies, because in the very nature of the case such agencies do not always exist, especially in the places where they are most needed. Want can not relieve want, nor ignorance teach ignorance. The enlightenment and wealth of the whole Nation are needed to secure through research the facts as regards child conditions at large and to advise remedies.

Such research is needed, also, to discover untapped sources of funds, to settle questions, with the aid of discovered facts, of unequal and discriminating alloca tion of educational moneys, to determine fair averages for the expenditure of public moneys as between education and other useful and necessary public agencies, to devise, in the light of population and wealth facts, a system of allocation of educational funds, such that the children of one region shall not perish for lack of knowledge, while those in another region perish from excess pampering of wayward and extravagant fancies. All this is yet to be achieved. In the meantime, universal free education is unachieved and unachievable.

Many other benefits will come from the beneficent provisions of this measure, but it is my purpose to speak only of the blessings of research as applied to the remedy of our educational shortcomings. These shortcomings are not confined to the unequal support of public education in different localities; they involve, also, because of lack of accurate knowledge, a failure to secure the largest educational returns in the way of student achievement. How to overcome physical and mental deficiencies, such, for instance, as those that produce great crops of nonreaders; how to discover the type of instruction suitable in a given subject in a given locality; how to adapt all instruction to new experiences in a rapidly changing civilization; these questions can be answered only in the light of discovered facts. They and many others have universal significance and whatever is found in one part of the country that throws light on any educational question should, through a central, national agency, be made available for use everywhere.

The day of educational practice based on theory or notions is past; such practice in the future must be based on discovered facts.

STATEMENT OF T, S. DAVIS, COUNTY SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS, HOLLIDAYSBURG, PA.

The school business of the United States is the greatest business we have. More people are engaged in it than any other business, when we take into consideration the army of pupils, parents, teachers, and school officials. If that be so, and we know it is so, why should we not have a Federal department of education with a secretary in the President's Cabinet?

We have a Department of Agriculture with a Secretary; we have a Department of War with a Secretary; and of Navy, with a Secretary; and other departments which all put together do not equal in importance or in size the education of the children of the Nation.

We particularly need research in every phase of education, so that we school officials who are out on the firing line shall know what is being done and what should be done in every part, even the remotest part of the Nation.

A Federal department of education and a secretary, as I see it, would not interfere with the rights of local school officials, neither would it interfere with the conduct of private and parochial schools. On the contrary, it would give them information as well as public school people, what is going on throughout the entire country in the educational line, and would put pep in their motor to improve their own educational work.

This is practically the sentiments of more than 90 per cent of the school people throughout the Nation.

STATEMENT OF JOHN B. HEFFELFINGER, SUPERINTENDENT OF CITY SCHOOLS, NEWTON, KANS.

May we express to you our strong approval of the Curtis-Reed bill providing for a department of education and a secretary in the President's cabinet.

Many of the features are commendable and we can see no objectionable ones, but the main feature is the opportunity for research which this new department would have. Much progress has been made in education during the past quarter of a century; that is, in spots, but the present state offices and the bureaus do not seem to be able to secure a widespread acceptance of the findings.

For example, in our own State, much has been said about better school buildings, better lighting, yet buildings are being put up from day to day which are not up to the standards now generally accepted. The whole range of educational procedure, better methods of teaching, better organized curricula, economical school administration, details of physical equipment, etc., for their name is legion, are being investigated and the proved findings could be made available for all of us.

Recently, we have had requests from several towns near by regarding our system of school accounting. Boards have also inspected our buildings for proper school construction, for equipment of kindergartens, etc., and we find there is nothing in our State department at this time which seems to be available. As we stated, it is a matter of fact that the best procedure, as it obtains to-day, is not a matter of common knowledge among school people under the plan existing at present.

We read with much interest lately the statement of Secretary of Agriculture, W. M. Jardine, who said that the aggregate production per person engaged in agriculture has increased 25 per cent since 1900, and he states that this increase is due to scientific discovery in three fields controlled by, and whose findings have been made public by, the Department of Agriculture. Farmers generally are willing to take advantage of agricultural research and are not concerned with any false statement of domination from Washington or bureaucracy.

The same thing seems to me to be true in education. We know that the State laws give us control of schools. We are not worried with the thought that a department with a secretary would control our procedure nor standardize methods beyond our wish. Most of the teachers in Kansas, I am sure, are anxious to secure the many advantages for education that the farmers secure from the Department of Agriculture, that the business interests secure from the Department of Commerce, and that labor interests secure from the Department of Labor. In conclusion, it seems to me research work is most important and can be done satisfactorily only under the new Curtis-Reed bill. The objections raised to this bill, if valid, would hold for other departments and would be so objectionable as regards Departments of Agriculture, Labor, and Commerce that the entire electorate would ask for repeal of laws which established these three departments. On the contrary, no objections are made to their functions and activities. These departments have been a constant help, and are a constant help to the three groups benefited.

What is more important to our country than the education of our youth and the training for future citizenship? Education is certainly entitled to all the help and inspiration and leadership which the National Government can give in centralizing present educational agencies into one department and in giving it its proper rank in the affairs of the Nation.

Hon. C. C. DILL,

United States Senate, Washington, D. C.

BOARD OF EDUCATION, Spokane, Wash., February 10, 1926.

MY DEAR SENATOR DILL: I am writing to call your attention to the education bill, which provides for the organization of a department of education with a secretary as a Cabinet member.

To my mind a department of education would be of very great value to education throughout the country and would give it an impetus and a standing which it does not now possess.

I wish you to note particularly that the bill provides only for fact finding and fact distribution so far as the country generally is concerned. In other words, a department of education would make available for Spokane or any other school

system the results of research work in the educational field but would leave local systems completely free to do whatever they might choose to do in the light of the facts thus disclosed. The relation would be quite similar to that between the farmers of Spokane County and the Agricultural Department.

That department brings information relating to agriculture to the attention of those engaged in this line of work but leaves them absolutely free to use it or ignore it, just as their own best interests seem to dictate.

As a superintendent of schools I would be delighted to have coming to my desk reliable information along educational lines, but I should want, of course, in any action taken to do whatever under the circumstances seemed best for the school system of Spokane.

I trust that you will see your way clear to support the education bill.

Yours very truly,

O. C. PRATT.

STATEMENT OF L. M. McCARTNEY, SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC SCHOOLS, HANNIBAL, Mo.

I earnestly hope that your investigation of the educational needs of the United States will lead to a favorable report on the bill to establish a department of education with a secretary of education as a member of the President's Cabinet. This action, in my opinion, should have been taken by our country a long time ago. We need a central office in Washington for the official research work without which definite and sane advance in educational methods can not be made. By taking this step the Government will aid in eliminating a vast amount of haphazard unofficial and largely inefficient work that is now carried on by many voluntary agencies. Entirely aside from the inefficiency of present methods of research, the duplication involved is a sufficient reason for centralizing this work and making it official.

There is no reason why the United States can not meet this need and at the same time duly protect the local school authorities of the various states, and also duly protect the interests of all parochial schools.

STATEMENT OF A. G. YAWBERG, COUNTY SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS, CLEVELAND, OHIO

TO THE COMMITTEE IN CHARGE OF THE CURTIS-REED BILL

It will not be necessary here to summarize the arguments either for or against this measure, the Curtis-Reed bill (S. 1584 and H. R. 7). They are as well known to you as to the teaching profession and I may now add to the public generally. The arguments for this bill are so convincing and conclusive and the opposition so vague and mysterious in its attitude that the public is coming to the conclusion that the whole opposition is based on political expediency in deference to forces wholly opposed to all public schools by whomsoever controlled.

This is a most unhealthful condition. It should be met by an out and out, open-and-above-board statement relative to the bill. It is our feeling that the best procedure political or otherwise is to report this bill out and give it a chance on the floors of both Senate and House.

This will give the opposition a chance to make a stand in public where if there are any valid reasons against the measure the public will be given a chance to get them.

It seems altogether ridiculous for a Federal Government to be so much concerned about matters of business even petty business in some cases and neglect to even notice "public education" everywhere recognized as the most necessary and fundamental activity for the perpetuity of this Nation.

The time has come for action and we hope this committee will exercise the privileges of statemanship, which are now presented by the opportunity to report out and espouse the cause of public education.

STATEMENT OF J. J. UNGER, COUNTY SUPERINTENDENT, CUMBERLAND COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS, BRIDGETON, N. J.

I am heartily in favor of the education bill. I believe it would greatly help the rural schools throughout the Nation. Through its research department it would make available many excellent studies that could be made of the rural-school situation which can not be made under the present Bureau of Education.

I am sure that the present bill would not deprive any districts of any local powers that they now possess.

STATEMENT OF R. E. POWERS, SUPERINTendent HenDERSON COUNTY SCHOOLS, LEXINGTON, TENN.

I have always been very anxious for the bill to pass both Houses of Congress which would create a new member of the President's Cabinet, that of secretary of education. It seems to me that if the schools of the country represent the entire Nation and the expenditure of such a vast sum of money that there should be a department of the Government, the duty of which it should be to supervise and work for a better system of schools for the country.

Since assuming the duties of this office more than seven years ago, I can see more clearly each day the need of more intensive research. There are problems to confront the schools almost daily on which we are demanded to give a decision but we can not give expert advice due to the fact that the same is not available. Many times we happen to make a reasonable solution but many more times we make mistakes which are not easily remedied. It is my firm conviction that if the department should be created and given the power and means of doing more intense research, that the schools of the country would be relieved of expending large sums of money that we are now forced to spend due to the fact that we do not have practical, expert advice.

I would never in any manner favor any bill which would deprive the States and counties of any of the power they now have or to in any manner place the schools of the States and counties under Federal control.

STATEMENT OF WALTER L. PHILIPS, SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC SCHOOLS, WEST CHESTER, PA.

The 48 State systems of public school education in the United States causes our education to be loose-jointed and lacking coordination.

It is not possible now to procure findings of a research division which are as essential in education as in other large enterprises in our American civilization. A Federal department of education could be vested with such powers and duties as to provide data needed by school systems.

In my opinion the education bill does not in any respect infringe upon the rights of local school officials, nor with the operation of private and parochial schools. These schools would likewise profit by the work of a Federal department of education with a secretary in the President's Cabinet.

STATEMENT OF A. L. THRELKELD, SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC SCHOOLS, DENVER, COLO.

It is becoming more urgent all of the time that we have a Federal department of education with a secretary in the President's Cabinet. Such a department could be of inestimable value in directing and carrying out programs of educational research of vital importance to every community in the United States. As it is at the present time, every progressive local school system has to expend much time and money gathering information from over the country which it needs in meeting its own problems. It is absolutely impossible for a local community to go ahead without the assistance of nation-wide studies. But as I have just said, under present circumstances such a local system has to do much of this itself at great waste of time and money as compared to the way in which such service could be obtained from a Federal department adequately supported

to enable it to carry out nation-wide programs of research and to correlate and make available local research projects.

No nation professing, as does ours, to place its faith in the education of its people can be consistent in the recognition given education by the Federal Government if such recognition is limited to a bureau of a department. The present Bureau of Education has done a great service and it continues to render very valuable service, but it is inadequate, and every one who fully appreciates the significance of education to our country and who at the same time understands the relationship of a bureau to the department in which it is located realizes that a Bureau of Education is inadequate.

A Federal department of education headed by a secretary in the President's Cabinet is the only form of national recognition of education adequate to the position which education should hold among our people as a nation.

I believe the fear that such a department would come to dominate in a dictatorial fashion the policies and management of local school systems is unfounded. It is not at all necessary that such a state of affairs should eventuate. The fear that such might be the case I believe comes from reasoning by analogy which is frequently very misleading. We should need to draw no comparison between a secretary of education in the President's Cabinet and the minister of education in one of the highly centralized forms of government in Europe. Such centralization is a natural thing in certain European governments but quite unnatural among our people. There would need to be no more dictation to local school authorities on the part of the secretary of education in the President's Cabinet than there is dictation to the individual farmer by the Secretary of Agriculture. I am sure that the typical farmer in the United States feels no oppression from the Secretary of Agriculture. On the contrary, the more progressive farmers realize that the Secretary of Agriculture has been of immense service to them. He has been a servant, not a dictator. We school people would be especially resentful of dictatorship from a Federal department. I do not believe that the development of any such dictatorship would be permitted, and it certainly is not inherent in the nature of the proposal to put a secretary of education in the President's Cabinet any more than dictatorship of the individual farmer is inherent in having a Secretary of Agriculture. The present bill providing for a secretary of education specifically provides against such dictatorship and such protection surely would be kept in the bill at least as long as the people would want it there.

There are many other reasons for supporting the national education bill, but I shall not extend my statement further.

STATEMENT OF A. S. JESSUP, SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC SCHOOLS, CHEYENNE,

WYO.

A Federal department of education with a secretary in the President's Cabinet would dignify the cause of education and bring it to the attention of the Presi dent and Congress more forcefully. With a reasonable appropriation for the work of the department, a tremendous amount of research work could be done and such work is certainly badly needed. A slight forecast of what benefits could arise from such work is seen in the work now being carried on by the department of superintendence research department. This department, however, is supported by contributions from boards of education and superintendents all over the country. The information which we receive, however, is boiled down, up to the minute and timely. There is great need for more such work.

If any one should object to the encroachment of the Federal Government upon the local school situation, it should be the local school superintendent. For my part, I have no fear whatever of having to surrender any of the rights and privi leges of the local school districts because of strengthening the Federal department. Instead, I believe the attitude of the Federal department of education would be simply to assist and stimulate the local educational work. I am, therefore, heartily in favor of the passage of the education bill.