OCR Text |
Show WASHINGTON Recent Soviet scientific develop-Ivents develop-Ivents are being utilized as the basis for an intensified propaganda pro-paganda campaign on behalf of federal aid-to-education. Congress twice rejected in 1956 and 1957 proposed pro-posed legislatiorf to permit the Federal Government to tolre over part of what have commonly been regarded as 0e proper functions of the states mm& localities In the school con-traction con-traction field. 1 Because of these two defeats, It looked very much as If federal aid-to-education was a dead issue is-sue for 1958 until the Sputnik launchlngs provided a new propaganda pro-paganda tool. This was the contention con-tention that the United States must speed up scientific education educa-tion and, to do this, Federal ap. propriations are essential. Obviously, Federal-aid advocates advo-cates are seeking to use the Sputnik Sput-nik "scare" to facilitate the success suc-cess of the 'foot-in-the-door" technique. It would work like this: If they could start their Federal-aid program under the Sputnik stimulus, they would have a "beachhead" established from which they cor.i wage their battle In future years for vastly expanded federal appropriations. Federal-aid opponents contend that this line of reasoning overlooks over-looks the most important issue; whether there Is any need for Federal Intervention. They maintain main-tain there is none. One of the basic ba-sic reasons for the detent of Federal Fed-eral aid for school construction was the fact that the states and localities were solving the problem prob-lem and there was no reason for encroachment in that field by a Federal bureaucracy already far too big. Likewise, no case has been n.ido that the states and localities locali-ties are unable to meet the needs for scientific education. Therefore there is no necessity for the Federal Fed-eral Government to enter this field of activity. Industry believes In the time-honored time-honored principle that the determination, deter-mination, administration and cor.tiol of education rests properly prop-erly with local communities and not with the Federal Govern- ment. This Includes elementary, secondary and higher education. Industry maintains that control con-trol of public schools should remain re-main in state and local hands, close to the people and responsive respon-sive to their wishes and needs, and not be transferred to a central cen-tral government authority. One of the big Items Involved Is the additional administrative costs In a program handled from Washington Instead of at the local level. For example, a city gets Federal funds for low-cost housing. For every dollar that the Federal Government "gives' the city, the taxpayers must pny nearly $1.40. And the total Federal Fed-eral grandts-ln-aid program for this year requires about $3 bll lion of the Federal budget. The Eisenhower Administration Administra-tion has Initiated a program Intended In-tended to return to the states and localities as many as possible of the functions now performed by the Federal Government. Also Involved Is a study of what tax sources can be shifted from the Federal Government back to the state and local level. As part of this enterprise, a group of state governors, representing repre-senting the governors Conference, proposed recently that the states assume responsibility for public school construction instead in looking to Federal aid. In return they asked (among other things) for the right to collect local telephone tele-phone taxes. Backers of states' rights contend con-tend that this trend should be encouraged and it would be unthinkable to let the Federal Government get a foothold in the educational domain. Another reason why this should not be done Is that private organizations, or-ganizations, including the National Na-tional Association of Manufacturers, Manufactur-ers, are doing far more than the government could do to stimulate stimu-late the Improvement of educational educa-tional facilities and expansion of scientific education. |