I may say that the American Federation of Teachers would not be here supporting this bill if the Supreme Court had not rendered that decision in the Oregon case. By the Oregon case I refer to a case growing out of an incident in Oregon in which the State of Oregon passed a law which practically put out of commission private schools in that State. The Portland local of the American Federation of Teachers was the first of our locals to take the matter up, and it was at the request and through a resolution introduced by the delegate from the Portland local that the American Federation of Teachers went on record deploring that piece of legislation, and asking the Oregon Federation of Labor to work for its repeal.

An appeal was taken to the Supreme Court of the United States, and the contention was made that the law was unconstitutional. We recognize the fact that because of that decision of the Supreme Court as to private schools, the right of any individual to determine the type of education his child is to have is definitely established. We continue in our support of this measure, because we feel most emphatically that the individual parent has a right and must have a right to determine the type of education that his child is to have. Then another thing

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. You do not deny the right of the State to prescribe the length of the term of attendance?

Miss BORCHARDT. I feel that the administration of the public schools is properly a function of the State.

Mr. BLACK. You would not want the Government to do by indirect pressure what it can not do by legislation?

Miss BORCHARDT. No; I do not.

Mr. BLACK. That is what some people are afraid of.

Miss BORCHARDT. Of course we in the labor movement are not afraid of our Government. We have faith in it.

Another thing is that our organization is interested not only in the formal education in the classroom, but in education as the most important phase of improvement in a functional democracy. We know that at present practically every organization is conducting educational work-that is, the religious and higher religious organizations, and the clubs, and, of course, that is probably one of the finest forms of education now going on.

Denmark stresses the so-called high school more than any other part, almost, of its educational system; and of course we, through the educational department of the American Federation of Labor, are very much interested, and actively interested, in the workers in education. We want to make available to the private organizations and private institutions not direction, but information gathered from all of the sources.

May I say that in this instance I differ with the people who spoke in connection with having the Government send out, or in any way control, textbooks. We are very definitely opposed to any legislative control in the selection of textbooks, or in the form of teaching, and we stand unqualifiedly for that. I think the statement was not in opposition to that, but the interpretation seemed to be so.

I think anyone in the teaching profession feels that the technical points of education must be left to those who are actually trained in the profession.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. Do you favor the frequent changing of textbooks in the public schools, such as I understand is going on at the present time?

Miss BORCHARDT. In that matter I may say that I made a study, on behalf of the committee on education of the American Federation of Labor, on what textbooks are being used, and what percentage of States have free textbooks, and how often they are changed. It was alarming to find that in 24 per cent of communities there is no contact between the professional teachers and the people who select the textbooks; and the textbooks are changed very often on some personal whim of some one other than a teacher.

Mr. ROBSION. Yes; on something more than a personal whim. Mr. LEATHERWOOD. There is often a little commission in it.

Miss BORCHARDT. I think you are probably more closely in touch with the unfortunate tendency than we are.

Mr. SEARS. Do you think it is advisable to have about the same course of study pursued all over the country?

Miss BORCHARDT. I do not.

Mr. SEARS. To what extent do you think they ought to differ? Miss BORCHARDT. To the extent to which local conditions differ and in the same way that social conditions differ. We do not believe in making people conform to a rigid, Prussianized form of education, and therefore we do not believe that education should be put into an iron cast.

Mr. SEARS. Of course I am with you on that; but, now, supposing that people could get together and have what every one would agree to as practical, normal, fine textbooks; would it not be better to have the same ones all over the country?

Miss BORCHARDT. If you raise the matter as to the contents of the textbooks

Mr. SEARS. I mean that the books should be chosen by the local board.

Miss BORCHARDT. A fact is a fact, and it can not be disputed. We think that it is most unfortunate that at present three of the largest textbook publishers in the country publish one history textbook for the North and another for the South.

Mr. ROBSION. That is due to a difference in the way the facts are regarded.

Mr. BLACK. And one historian writes one way on a subject and another writes another way.

Miss BORCHARDT. You will find that the organization for which I speak has constantly appeared against any control of textbooks. Mr. LEATHERWOOD. Does your organization indorse the history text-books in the Washington schools?

Miss BORCHARDT. The organization does not take the position of indorsing a specific text, because that would require that a commission or committee of historians or teachers should be appointed to make a detailed investigation of that particular text. What we do is, if in a local community a textbook is used which is not accurate, we protest against that textbook; and we have done that.

Mr. SEARS. Have you pointed out any omissions, or any things that are there that ought not to be there?

Miss BORCHARDT. We have in a number of cases pointed out the fact that the presentation is not an accurate presentation. Our

position is that history has no right to be partisan. It is true or

untrue.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. Are you in favor of the textbooks on history in the public schools of Washington?

Miss BORCHARDT. I personally do not teach history, but

Mr. BLACK. Do you use Muzzey?

Miss BORCHARDT. We use Muzzey in the District schools. I know there has been an attack on Muzzey's histories, but

Mr. BLACK. Have you read the report of the commissioner of New York City on Muzzey's history?

Miss BORCHARDT. I have not read that.

Mr. BLACK. Do you think it would be possible now to get a textbook that would teach the pupils in the schools of this country English grammar?

Miss BORCHARDT. As a teacher, I will say that I wish there was some way of doing that.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. Do you still compel the boys and girls to study a little French and German and Spanish?

Miss BORCHARDT. I think that is one of the most unfortunate tendencies to-day in our schools, that our education still dates back to the humanities, whereas our culture is practical; we are not adapt ing ourselves, or adapting our studies, to meet the growing social needs of the community.

Mr. BLACK. If we are teaching the humanities, do you not think it would be well to teach the boys and girls a little about English grammar?

Miss BORCHARDT. As a teacher of English, I yearn for it. Mr. BLACK. With reference to the labor movement, you said that the American Federation of Labor were for you in that case. have not changed their position on the Federal injunction?

They

Miss BORCHARDT. We are very definite on that. It is our major issue. But although we are most emphatically for the principleMr. ROBSION. This is very interesting, but there are three or four more witnesses here to be heard. We can not try out the injuction here.

Miss BORCHARDT. No; I am not going into the injunction. That is not my field. But while we did indorse this legislation

Mr. ROBSION. We will have to invoke the injunction here. Miss BORCHARDT. We do not support every part of this bill. We are opposed to section 10 of the bill. That is the section which provides for a national council on education to advise and consult with the secretary of education. The people placed on that are to be the administrative heads of the several States. Our position is that if a council of education is to be purely advisory, then the classroom teacher should be on it because we feel that the classroom teacher knows something about teaching, or else has no right to be a teacher, and if there is to be this advisory council the classroom teachers should be represented. We feel that the council would be purely administrative.

The other section to which we object is the one that several speakers here have spoken of as one of the finest in the bill, and that is section 7. Mr. LEATHERWOOD. Do you object to that? Miss BORCHARDT. We object, for this reason. bringing under one head, as a natural thing, the educational func

We believe in

tions of the Government, but we do not feel that an interdepartmental conference should be established by statute, for this reason. If the conference is merely to meet as a clearing house and not to serve as a sort of propaganda, then it is not necessary that it be incorporated in the actual statutes.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. You are speaking now for your organization? Miss BORCHARDT. For my organization, and the American Federation of Labor.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. Does your organization determine its own policy?

Miss BORCHARDT. Yes, wholly.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. Without any interference from any other organization or affiliated organization?

Miss BORCHARDT. We determine our own policy; and it is referred back to the locals.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. It is a fact that you are affiliated with another organization. By that affiliation you have not surrendered your right to determine your own policy?

Miss BORCHARDT. No; we have merely furnished ourselves with the opportunity to present our view to a larger organization. But we feel that this would serve as a very definite source of propaganda, and if it is simply to be in an advisory capacity then it is not necessary that it be created by statute.

The committee on citizenship is a clearing house but was never created by statute. A number of interdepartmental conferences are held but are not authorized by statute. We feel that every statutory provision for their creation makes them a source of more or less official report. Even though the representatives report back to their own department and not to the departments in general, a statement made in the conference would be given publicity as coming from the department of education, and as such could well be used as a source of propaganda, and hence we do oppose it. I may say that the Federation of Teachers and the American Federation of Labor at the Detroit convention went on record as opposed to section 7. Mr. LEATHERWOOD. Are you opposed to propaganda generally? Miss BORCHARDT. Very positively, and I may say that the American Federation of Teachers are now engaged in a study of propaganda in the schools. We object to any propaganda.

Mr. ROBSION. Do you folks employ it yourselves? Of course you would object to it for somebody else, but do you use it for yourselves? Miss BORCHARDT. It depends on what you mean by propaganda. I agree that it was a very respectable word before the war.

Mr. ROBSION. If we took out section 7, there would not be much left of the bill.

Miss BORCHARDT. No; I differ with you, because we feel that the main part of the bill is the research part. That is why we support it. Doctor DAVIDSON. The next speaker, Mr. Chairman, is Mrs. Kate Trenholm Abrams, representing the General Federation of Women's Clubs, with headquarters in Washington, D. C.

(At this point the chairman entered the committee room and assumed the chair.)

STATEMENT OF MRS. KATE TRENHOLM ABRAMS, VICE CHAIRMAN LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT, GENERAL FEDERATION OF WOMEN'S CLUBS

Mrs. ABRAMS. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I bring to-day Mrs. John D. Sherman's very sincere regrets that, due to not being very well, she is not able to appear here in person, and she has asked me to represent her in so far as bringing this statement that is signed by herself, and also asking that it should be placed in the record. I am sorry to say that I am rather blind to-day, and I am going to ask Miss Williams to read this statement, with the permission of the committee.

The CHAIRMAN. Unless the committee wishes it to be read, I would be very glad to have it inserted in the record in order to save the time that it would take to read it.

Mrs. ABRAMS. I feel that that would be satisfactory.

The CHAIRMAN. If there is no objection it will go into the record. (The paper referred to is here printed in the record as follows:) GENERAL FEDERATION OF WOMEN'S CLUBS, Washington, D. C., April 26, 1928.

To the Members of the Education Committee of the House of Representatives: The General Federation of Women's Clubs has always been greatly interested in education. Our organization has stood squarely behind every educational movement that we have believed would improve the status of oncoming gener ations. In line with this policy, the General Federation has for 10 years given its active support to the movement for the establishment of a department of education with a secretary in the President's Cabinet.

The Curtis-Reed bill is one of the major legislative measures in which this great body of women is interested. Not only has the bill been indorsed at biennial conventions of the General Federation, but it has been studied and indorsed by State federations and local clubs, so that there is a widespread information among the individual members of our organization regarding the provisions of the measure.

The number of children to be educated in this country is increasing every year, and likewise the cost of education is growing steadily. In order to give the best possible training to these millions of school children and to administer the schools most effectively and economically, we believe that it is necessary to have scientific research, study, and experimentation in education. To be most beneficial, such investigations would necessarily be conducted on a national scale, such as only a Federal department of education could direct.

We believe firmly in the constitutional safeguard of State rights in education, and have not the least fear of Federal domination of education. Nor do we see any possibility of interference with private or parochial schools by the new Federal department, but, rather, we believe that such schools will benefit equally with the public schools.

Because of our convictions as to the need for a department of education, because of the study which we have given to education and intend to give to it in the months and years to come, we urge the members of the Education Com-mittee of the House of Representatives to report this bill (H. R. 7) favorably to Congress in order that it may have full and free consideration by the Members of that body.

Respectfully,

MARY SHERMAN, President General Federation of Women's Clubs.

Doctor DAVIDSON. The next speaker is Miss Margaret Germond, who I believe is secretary of the National Federation of Business and Professional Women's Clubs.