Should the U.S. help the states pay for public education? For ten years, off & on, Congress has talked about it—but has never done anything. Last week, with President Truman’s new U.M.T. and draft proposals casting a somber glare over the debate, the Senate took up a federal-aid-to-education bill (S.472) again. This time the bill’s backers brought up some new arguments.
In World War II, they reported, the Army & Navy rejected 659,392 men for “educational deficiency”—enough for 40 combat divisions. Another 302,838 were drafted but classified as illiterate. The twelve states with the worst educational rejection records were all relatively poor, relatively populous Southern states which spent the least (per capita) on public education. Explained Alabama’s Senator Lister Hill, one of the bill’s sponsors: “The children are where the money ain’t.”
S.472 would help equalize educational opportunities in all the states by unequal expenditures of $300 million in federal funds. New York, which spends the most on education, would get only $5 for every schoolkid; Mississippi, which spends the least, would get $28.50. Objective: a $50-a-year minimum outlay for the education of every U.S. child. Such controversial issues as segregation and aid to parochial schools were bypassed by a provision allowing each state “home rule” on use of federal funds.
Bipartisan S.472’s most earnest, effective sponsor was Ohio’s Senator Robert A. Taft, who four years ago was the foremost opponent of federal aid to education. Reflecting on that debate, Bob Taft had become convinced that it was not sound logic for the U.S. to let a poor state “do the best it can”—if its best was not good enough. Asked a colleague: “Then the Senator surrendered to facts?” Replied Bob Taft with typical candor: “I changed my mind.”
After a week of listless debate, the Senate passed the bill, 58 to 22. That left it up to the House, which was not so likely to change its mind: in view of foreign aid, military expenses and tax relief, majority leaders there were opposed to new spending for social legislation.
More Must-Reads from TIME
- How Canada Fell Out of Love With Trudeau
- Trump Is Treating the Globe Like a Monopoly Board
- Bad Bunny On Heartbreak and New Album
- See Photos of Devastating Palisades Fire in California
- 10 Boundaries Therapists Want You to Set in the New Year
- The Motivational Trick That Makes You Exercise Harder
- Nicole Kidman Is a Pure Pleasure to Watch in Babygirl
- Column: Jimmy Carter’s Global Legacy Was Moral Clarity
Contact us at letters@time.com