The Dilemma of Federal Aid

If the Kennedy education bill again fails to pass this year, one man who may claim much credit for the kill is A. W. Ford, state commissioner of education in Arkansas. On grounds that the Kennedy version of federal aid leads inevitably to "creeping federal control," he is sounding off against the bill loud and clear. Since Ford is also president of the Council of Chief State School Officers, and mirrors many of his counterparts in 49 states, he speaks for a current of opinion that Congress cannot ignore.

Commissioner Ford hotly opposes the bill because it proposes to aid education by categories--for example, a percentage of each state's federal money would be earmarked for city slum schools. As Ford sees it, this violates state control of education: it takes from states the power to spend the money as they please. Under the Tenth Amendment, states are regarded as responsible for getting Americans educated. (Education is unmentioned in the Constitution, and "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution" are thereby "reserved to the states respectively.")

But many states are to some degree failing their responsibility--and to that degree failing the nation. For example. Commissioner Ford's Arkansas still pays teachers an average of $3.737 a year, about half as much as average pay in California, and presumably gets a lower quality of schooling. (Only about one out of four Arkansans has a high school education.) To the Administration, such disparities cry out for federal aid to eliminate pockets of poor education. But the mere act of singling out the pockets unquestionably invades a state prerogative.

Last week Harvard's former President James B. Conant suggested a way out of the dilemma, a way to national standards without onerous control and without "wholesale bribery of the states by the Federal Government." In a speech at the University of California at Santa Barbara, Conant envisioned a nationwide adviso ry council, approved by Congress, to be called the "Standing Group on Educational Strategy." Chosen by state legislatures, its 50-odd members would develop education "guidelines" on a national basis and persuade state lawmakers to adopt them. Chairman of the group would be a newly created U.S. Secretary of Education with Cabinet standing. The Secretary would serve as a buffer between the states and Congress, which in turn would appropriate federal funds for state spending on his recommendation.

As Conant sees it, this would prod states to raise standards while using federal funds without federal control. With out such a plan, Conant foresees "a patchwork series of decisions about spending federal funds, reached by compromises in Congress between pressure groups. That a sensible, nationwide policy can be developed the way we are now going. I question with all the emphasis I can."

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.