Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1959-05-05
CIoshinq Views

On April %, your paper
carried a report of a speech
given by Secretary Flemming
of the Department of Health.
Education and Welfare, be-
fore the Fairfax County
Council Of PTAs.
The Secretary made the
following statement, which
appears as a direct quote:
IF passed, the Murray-Me
calf Bill would make direct
contributions to local school
board operating budgets for
one or two years with no
strings attached but the
localities would then have to
face the possibility that the
Government later may want
to exert control, citing its
unattached contributions as
an argument to get it's foot
in the local school board
door"
You then say that the Sec
rotary indicated that such
control could include de-
termination Of policy-from
the setting of teachers SAL
aries to school construction.
Instead. he said, the admin
istration program, offers as
sistsnce without trying to tell
the Localities how to run their
systems"
These quotations from the
Secretary's speech and the
summary of his other state
ments contain several mis-
statements of fact which I
feel must be answered. The
statement that passage of
the Murray Metcalf Bill
would establish direct Fed
eral contributions to local
school board operating budg-
cts for one or two years with
no strings attached" is COM
plrtelv fsllacious. Under the
bill there would be no Fed
eral rela tionships with the
school districts whatsoever.
The mcnev would be allo-
Gated to the State educa-
tional agencies to be spent
for either or both of two
purposes-construction and
teachers salaries - as they
see At. Once the ALLEGATIONS
are turned over to State
agencies they become State
funds. and there would be no
wav whatsoever. in which the
Federal Government could
interfere with the school dis
tricts' control over their
educational program. Such
interfererca is specifically
prohibited in no uncertain
terms.
So plain is the LANGUAGE of
the bill as reported out of the
House subcommittee that his
statement was either mode in
complete ignorance of the
provisions of the bill, or it
was a deliberate misrepre-
sentation of the facts. Neither
of these interpretations is
f1attering to a man of Mr..
Trimmings ability. Possibly
he was misquoted.
The Secretary repeatedly
made another equally crucial
misstatement, when he said
that the administration pro-
gram. offers assistance
without trying to tell the To-
calities how to run their sys-
TENS" The record made in
the hearings in both the
Senate and the House makes
it quite clear that the admin
istration's proposal would re-
quire Constitutional amend
ments and statutory changes
in many of the States. 1t
would establish standards of
reasonable tax effort for all
districts participating. 1t
could also establish the per-
centage of local funds which
a district would be allowed to
spend for construction and
the amount allowable for OPP
Grafton and maintenance.
Furthermore, the record
indicates that. rather than
aiding localities ''in increas-
ing teachers salaries" as the
Secretary states. it would in
all probability act as a de-
pressant on them.
In addition to the obvious
miSstatements of fact which
were made by the Secretary
in this speech, there is a
twist of logic which is in
triguing. He indicates that
the Murray-Metcalf bill is
much more susceptible of
future controls than the adj
ministration proposals. He
seems to arrive at this con-
clusion by means of the fol-
lowing syllogism: Aid given
without controls can be used
as an argument for estab-
fishing later controls more
easily than aid with controls:
tho AE,,,.,.ox AEofroIf hill droe