Evening star., 1940-02-04

As the demands upon Congress and the
President for funds to be spent for local
purposes multiply, there is becoming in
creasingly active movement to induce
the Federal Government to spend hun
dreds OF millions of dollars in coming
years to aid elementary secondary,
special and higher education within the
States. The illusion persists that the
Federal Government possesses, or can
rightly create, money apart from that
which it collects from citizens In every
State.
Few persons advocate detailed and
strict management of education by the
Federal Government, except in its own
schools for military and naval training
or the teaching of its employed personnel.
DR.. Paul r. Mort of Columbia University
emphasizes the differences between Fed
eral dictatorship, Federal interference
with local prerogatives, Federal brakes
upon educational experimentation and
the uses of the influences and resources
Of the Federal Government to improve
local schools and to secure equality Of
educational opportunity within the
States.
Notwithstanding DR.. Morris useful
analyses, this cardinal fact remains:
degree of Federal regulation and control
Is inescapable whenever Federal subven-
tons for education in the States are
made and administered at Washington.
Promoters of Federal Participation.
Sincere advocates of enlarged Federal
funds for education. those who suffer
no delusions about the sources and the
dangers of Federal funds, are numerous.
They may be motivated by the glaring
inequalities of educational opportunity
in the different States and even within
progressive, local communities both in the
South and the North.
Shocking contrasts are sometimes
pointed to as between great Federal ex-
penditures for emergency purposes, for
strengthening the Army and the Navy
in hazardous times, for agriculture, home
building and the present expenditures
for education. The truth is, some of
the preceding spending may have been
wasteful and is no justification for a
similar procedure for schools Or, pro-
moters of multiplying expenditures by
the Federal Government for education
couple their arguments with graphic de-
scripdons of the plight of young people
who have been interviewed in selected
regions, lPleas for Federal funds may
mingie with clamor from youth move
ments."
In spite Of the humorous groWths of
Federal intrusion into education, the
schools remain predominate1y 4 local
and State responsibility. That is why,
after the experience of century and
a half, the Constitution is stin silent
concerning education. Nevertheless, Fed
eral participation in education has null
tipled in four ways: First Congress,
prior to the admission of many States,
set up enabling acts containing stipula-
tions about education to be written into
State constitutions. Second, Congress
by special acts granted lands or made
subventions to the States, embodying
stipulations with respect to favored as
poets of education. Third, discretionary
rulings by officials and bureaucrats at
Washington. Fourth, decisions by Fed
eral courts, as in the Dartmouth, Vim
cennes and Berea College cases. Re-
Gently this kind of participation has
been brought into prominence by the
decision of the Supreme Court with ref
erence to colored person and the Uni
versity of Missouri. In effect, the court
has told Missouri what it may not do
with reference to the uses of certain
scholarships in that State. Similar is
sues have arisen in Virginia, Tennessee
and Maryland.
Under our system of checks and bal
ances Federal court decisions affecting
education are unavoidable and necessary
modes of Federal participation. The
following listing of instances of Federal
activity works backward from the pres
ent, with strict regard for chronol-
ogy. Court decisions are written first
in the list The brief enumeration is
sufficient to prove the gradual increase