No Place for Economy

This week's Buffalo teachers' strike for a minimum annual salary of $2,400 is but another clear portent that the American public, which spends seven billion dollars per year for liquor, will have to lend far greater support to its school system than the annual 2.5 billion it now sees fit to part with. No one was surprised last week when the United States Commissioner of Education stated that American education's paramount problem, and one that can be solved only by better salaries, is to improve the quality of public school teaching.

With a minimum yearly stipend of $2,400 existing in but six states, the nation's average teacher's pay is a scant $36 dollars per week. Recent college surveys reveal that graduates are by-passing the teaching profession for very hard-headed economic reasons. Yet, if the quality of teaching is to rise (360,000 teachers have not gone beyond the college sophomore level) it is precisely these educated people who must be attracted and held. The states are responsible for education, but mere historical precedent cannot allow the Federal government to shirk a financial role any longer. For education, unlike bridges or garbage disposal units, cannot be used or misused by any one state isolated from the other 47. Not only do millions move from one state to another, carrying with them their educations, good or bad, but the sum total of the national intelligence and wealth rests upon the education received by all.

A few states, by diverting funds from pork barrel projects or dust and interest collecting treasury acounts, could increase their school budgets and raise salaries. To refuse to do the latter on grounds of economy would be to practice a very foolish economy indeed. But other states, because of tax laws which throw part of the school financing burden upon local communities, while at the same time severely restricting the possible sources of local revenue, impose an impossible problem for themselves. Similarly, too much state taxation is laid upon real estate values and not enough upon income an incongruous situation if finer schools are the goal.

South of the Mason-Dixon Line, peculiar problems present themselves. Neither property values or income levels are sufficient to raise adequate funds for decent schools. Mississippi, for example, spends 3.4 percent of its income for education as compared to New York's 2.5 percent. But in the former this adds up to only $400 per schoolroom per year, as opposed to $4000 for the same use in the Empire State. And the southern dual school system, with separate buildings and expensive duplication because of Jim Crow, adds to the difficulty. Clearly, many of these states cannot afford good schools.

Some form of Federal aid to supplement state funds is needed then, if teaching salaries are to be placed on a satisfactory national level. If a state has shown that, even after readjustment of its tax structure and budget, it is still unable to supply more funds towards educational expenses, the Federal Government should be empowered to step in with financial grants based upon need. Since a Federal aid act would have to be written and approved by Congress, it is extremely unlikely that any aid with strings attached could be passed. Our history and sentiment are strong on the question of state management of schools, and there is no reason why Federal aid could not be definitely divorced from Federal control. Whatever the mechanics of the plan, the need is simple and urgent. It is no cliche to observe that our Democracy rests upon its schools and the teaching inside them; these, at the moment, are in decline and in need of revival.