PAGENO="0001" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION HEARINGS BEFORE THE SPECIAL SUBCOMMITTEE ON EDUCATION OF. THE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION . AND LABOR HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES EIGHTY-NINTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION ON THE STUDY OF THE UNITED STATES OFFICE OF EDUCATION PART 2 HEARINGS HELD IN ORONO, MAINE, DECEMBER 1, 1966; BOSTON, MASS., DECEMBER 2 AND 3, 196~; ATLANTA, GA., DECEMBER 7 AND 8, 1966; EVANSTON, ILL., DECEMBER 7 AND 8, 1966 Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and Labor U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE fl 728 WASHINGTON : 1967 PAGENO="0002" COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR ADAM C. POWELL, New York, Chairtnam CARL D. PERKINS, Kentucky EDITH GREEN, Oregon FRANK THOMPSON, JR., New Jersey ELMER J. HOLLAND, Pennsylvania JOHN H. DENT, Pennsylvania ROMAN C. PUCINSKI, Illinois DOMINICK V. DANIELS, New Jersey JOHN BRADEMAS, Indiana JAMES G. O'HARA, Michigan RALPH J. SCOTT, North Carolina HUGH L. CAREY, New York AUGUSTUS F. HAWKINS, California CARLTON R. SICKLES, Maryland SAM GIBBONS, Florida WILLIAM D. FORD, Michigan WILLIAM D. HATHAWAY, Maine PATSY T. MINK, Hawaii JAMES H. ScHEUER, New York LLOYD MEEDS, Washington PHILLIP BURTON, California LOUISE MAXIENNE DARGANS, Chief Clerk RUSSELL C. DERRICKSON, Staff Director C. SUMNER STONE, Special Assistant to the Chairman Dr. EUNICE S. MATTHEW, Education Chief LEON ABRAMSON, Chief Counsel for Labor-Management ODELL CLARK, Chief Investigator TERESA CALABRESE, Administrative Assistant to the Chairman MICHAEL J. BERNSTEIN, Minority Counsel for Education and Labor CHARLES W. RADCLIFFE, Special Educatioiv Counsel for Minority JOHN BRADEMAS, Indiana ALBERT H. QUIE, Ninaesota CARI/PON R. SICKLES, Maryland JOHN M. ASHBROOK, Ohio SAM GIBBONS, Florida OGDEN. R. REID, New York HUGH L. CAREY, New York JOHN N. ERLENBORN, Illinois WILLIAM D. HATHAWAY, Maine PHILLIP BURTON, California WILLIAM H. AYRES, Ohio ALBERT H. QUIE, Minnesota CHARLES E. GOODELL, New York JOHN M. ASHBROOK, Ohio DAVE MARTIN, Nebraska ALPHONZO BELL, California OGDEN R. REID, New York GLENN ANDREWS, Alabama EDWARD J. GURNEY, Florida JOHN N. ERLENBORN, Illinois SPECIAL SUBCOMMITTEE ON EDUCATION EDITH GREEN, Oregon, Chairman U WILLIAM F. GAUL, Counsel PAGENO="0003" CONTENTS Hearings held in- Page Orono, Maine, December 1, 1966 355 Boston, Mass.: December 2, 1966 467 December 3, 1966 519 Atlanta, Ga.: December 7, 1966 579 December 8, 1966 647 Evanston, Ill.: December 7, 1966 775 December 8, 1966 849 Statement of- Ackerman, Joseph, member of the Elmhurst, 111., Board of Education, and president of the National School Boards Association 857 Acree, Jack, executive secretary, Georgia School Boards Association_ 662 Arbuckle, Dugald S., professor of education, Boston University~ 530 Armstrong, Louis W., program officer for the disadvantaged, title I, Elementary and Secondary Education Act, region IV 606 Aronson, Henry, attorney, NAACP.legal defense and educational fund_ 743 Beemon, R. C., coordinator, title I, Elementary and Secondary Edu- cation Act of 1965, for the State of Georgia 659 Bement, Maurice D., executive director, Kentucky School Boards Association 701 Boldt, Albert W., representative, higher education, U.S. Office of Education, region IV 601 Bradley, Francis X., Jr., assistant dean of the graduate school and research administrator for the University of Notre Dame 897 Brewer, Julian, executive secretary, Tennessee School Board Associ- ation 692 Brown, Ernest, senior program officer, Chicago Regional Office 893 Buchmiller, Archie A., deputy State superintendent of public in- struction, State of Wisconsin 879 Ciaravino, Casper, superintendent, School Union 69, Camden, Maine 428 Clifton, A. D., superintendent, Candler County Schools, Metter, Ga Crawford, John 723 Dake, Donald, assistant superintendent of schools, South Bend Com- munity School Corp 914 Dc Foor, Joe T., director, Division of Administrative Services, Georgia State Department of Education 647 Dellart, Donald C., regional representative, Office of Education - 483 Eaton, Wendell, superintendent of schools for the Bangor School Department 435 Entwhistle, John, president, North Carolina State School Boards Association 706 Findley, Warren G., director, Research and Development Center in Educational Stimulation, University of Georgia 621 Grant, Buford, Waterville, Maine 442 Green, J., DeKaib Human Relations Association 729 Green, Miss Winifred, Alabama community relations program, American Friends Service Committee; Member, AFSC legal defense fund, school desegration task force 739 Griffin, Jasper M., superintendent, Cobb County Schools 720 Grindle, Bryce, assistant director of student aid, University. of Maine, Orono, Maine 380 III PAGENO="0004" IV CONTENTS Statement of-Continued Page Gunness, Peter, director of financial aid, Harvard University 559 Hagan, Frank, Coordinator, title I, Higher Education Act 370 1-lailford, Mrs. Nell, superintendent, Habersham County Schools - - - 715 1-larrell, William, vice president, University of Chicago, Chicago, IlL 823 Herzog, John, director, Research and Development Center, School of Education, Harvard University, accompanied by Joseph Young, assistant dean, Harvard University 536 Hopper, Robert L., director, Southeastern Education Laboratory_ - - - 634 Hosch, Melville H., regional director of region V, of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare 777, 904 Hudson, William E., executive secretary, Georgia Higher Education Facilities Commission 613 Johnson, Eldon, vice president, University of Illinois, Urbana, I1I_ - - 829 Johnson, Eric H., administrative vice president of Illinois State University 314 Jones, Sam, Massachusetts, Institute of Technology 566 Kates, Robert J., Jr., chairman, and director of financial aid, North- eastern University 559 Kinney, Bruce J., superintendent schools, School Administrative District No. 5, Rockland, Maine 447 Knowles, Dr. Asa S., president, Northeastern University, Boston, Mass 468 Lemmon, Teretha, 10th grade student, St. George High School, St. George, S.C 742 Lewis, Lawrence, superintendent of schools Maine School Union, No. 90, Milford, Maine 432 Martin, Dr. C. J., Regional Assistant Commissioner Office of Educa- tion 580 Mauksch, Hans 0., dean, College of Liberal Arts, Illinois Institute of Technology 818 McCann, Richard V., executive director, Massachusetts Higher Education Facilities Commission 503 McHugh, Rev. Paul F., director, New England Catholic Education C~mter 573 McLaurin, John N., Jr., representing several State school board associations 699. Mercier, Woodrow A., superintendent of schools in Maine School Union 113 454 Mizell, Hayes, South Carolina community relations program, Amer- ican Friends Service Committee member, school desegregation task. force 742 Moulton, Walter, secretary to committee on student aid, Bowdoin College, Brunswick, Maine .374 Mousolite, Peter S., regional representative, Office of the Commis- sioner, and regional representative, of the Bureau of Higher Educa- tion 784 Mulling, George, State director of vocational education, Georgia Department of Education 655 Nickerson, Kermit S., deputy commissioner of education, Augusta, Maine 404 Ohrenberger, William H., superintendent of public schools for the city of Boston, accompanied by Mr. Tohin, deputy superintendent of schools, and Mr. Kennedy, office of compensatory services 519 Riley, Robert, dean of the Vocational Technical College, Indianapoli&. 922 Robinson, W. L., president, Fulton County Board of Education 712 Russell, J. Weldon, superintendent of schools, Lewiston, Maine 458 Sennett, Lincoln, president, Washington State College, Machias, Maine 365 Shabat, Oscar, director, Chicago City College, Chicago, Ill 824 Summers, Hobart, regional representative, MDTA 801 Trezza, Alphonse F., associate executive director of the American Library Association, executive secretary of the Library Administra- tion Division, American Library Association 850 PAGENO="0005" CONTENTS V Statement of-Continued Page TJmbeck, Sharvy G., president, Knox College, Galesburg, Ill 808 Vittetow, Frank H., assistant superintendent, State-Federal relations, for department of education, Commonwealth of Kentucky 702 Well, Rolf A., president, Roosevelt University, Chicago, Ill 804 West, Paul, superintendent, Fulton County Schools, State of Georgia 711 Williams, Mrs. Annie Mae, program associate, school desegregation task force, Wetumpka, Ala 740 Wood, Sam W., superintendent, Clarke County School District~ 718 Young, Edwin, president, University of Maine, Orono, Maine - - 356 Prepared statements, letters, supplemental material, etc.: Acree, Jack K., executive secretary, Georgia School Boards Associa- tion, statement of 668 Excerpts from the official record of the meeting of the Griffin- Spalding County Board of Education on August 11, 1966: Exhibit A. Closed meetings, etc 672 Exhibit B. Arbitrary and inconsistent judgments 676 Exhibit C. Extra legal requirements 677 Exhibit D. Freedom of choice-Plan, discrimination, etc -- 678 Exhibit E. Dual school system-Percentages, imbalances, etc 679 Exhibit F. Administrative practices 681 Exhibit G. Arbitrary judgments concerning pupil transfers, etc 682 Exhibit H. Arbitrary judgments re faculty transfers, etc - 682 Exhibit I. Bypassing local school officials, etc 685 Exhibit J. Closed meetings, etc 686 Exhibit K. Intimidation 688 Exhibit L. Administrative practices 689 Exhibit M. Administrative practices 689 Exhibit N. Arbitrary judgments re pupil transfers 691 Exhibit 0. Arbitrary judgments re pupil transfers 691 Exhibit P. Arbitrary judgments re pupil transfers 692 Ackerman, Dr. Joseph, president, National School Boards Associa- tion, statement presented by 857 American Friends Service Committee, Atlanta, Ga., and NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, New York, N.Y., statement submitted by 750 Armstrong, Louis W., program officer for the disadvantaged, title I, Elementary and Secondary Education Act, region IV, statement of 608 Boldt, Albert W., representative, higher education, U.S. Office of Education, region IV, Atlanta, Ga., statement of 602 Bergin, Thomas P., dean of continuing education, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, md., prepared statement of 902 Brewer, Julian, executive secretary, Tennessee School Boards Associa- tion: "Headstart Program for Coffee is Urged," newspaper article entitled 697 Jarrell, James G., superintendent, Coffee County Schools, Manchester, Tenn., letter from 697 Statement of 695 Wooten, Clyde, chairman, Coffee County Board of Education, letter to Mrs. Sarah Benet, Murfreesboro, Tenn., dated November 1, 1966 699 Buchmiller, Archie A., deputy State superintendent of public instruc- tion, State of Wisconsin: Prepared statement of 879 Appendix A. Administrative relationships and concerns- - - - 883 Appendix B. Line and staff organization (chart) 884 Appendix C. Expenditures and budget for 1965-67 and 1967-69 bienniums (table) 885 Appendix D. Cost of administration of Federal aids to local programs (table) 886 PAGENO="0006" VI CONTENTS * Prepared statements, letters, supplemental material, etc.-Continued Ciaravino, Casper, superintendent, School Union 69, Camden, Maine, Page formal statement oL 428 Dake, Donald, assistant superintendent of schools, South Bend Community School Corp., South Bend's Federal programs (table) - - 918 Eaton, Wendell, superintendent of schools for the Bangor School Department, formal statement of 435 Fairfax, Jean, NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc., New York, N.Y., letter to Hon. Harold Howe II, U.S. Commis- sioner of Education, dated September 26, 1966 753 Flanagan, James E., principal, Portland Adult Evening School, Portland, Maine, statement of 465 Griffin, Jasper M., superintendent, Cobb County Schools: Funds received by Cobb County School System Economic Opportunity Act, title II, section B, basic education 722 Funds received by Cobb County School System under Elementary and Secondary Education Act, titles I, II, and III 721 Funds received by Cobb County School System under other Federal projects 722 Funds received by Cobb County School System under National Defense Education Act (NDEA) titles III and V 722 Funds received by the Cobb County School System under Public * Law 815 for buildings (table) 721 Funds received by the Cobb County School System under Public Law 874 for maintenance and operation (table) 721 Ilerzog, John D., executive director, Center for Research and Develop- ment, Harvard University: Letter from Hendrik D. Gideonse, dated January 3, 1967_ 557 Prepared statement by 536 "The National Program of Educational Laboratories," article by Hendrik D. Gideonse 542 Holmes, George W., III, executive secretary, Virginia School Boards Association, letter to Chairman Green, dated December 5, 1966 - 662 Hosch, Melville H., regional director, region V., HEW: Prepared statement of 777 "Services to People," Department of Health, Education, and Welf are programs administered in cooperation with appropriate State and local agencies (table) 906 Hudson, William E., executive secretary, Georgia Higher Education Facilities Commission: List of all grants recommended by the Georgia Higher Education Facilities Commission under the Higher Education Facilities Act of 1963, as amended: Public Community Colleges-Category 103 (table) 615 Private Institutions-Category 104 (table) 616 Public Institutions-Category 104 (table) 616 Summary-Grants recommended to date (table) 616 Johnson, Eino A., acting officer in charge, Bureau of Higher Education, region I, statement by 516 Johnson, Eldon, vice president, University of Illinois, Urbana, Ill., prepared statement of 829 Johnson, Eric H., administrative vice president, Illinois State Uni- versity, statement of Illinois State University 814 Kates, Robert J., chairman and director of financial aid, Northeastern University, et al., statement by 559 Kinney, Bruce J.. superintendent of schools, School Administrative ~IDistrict No. 5, Rockland, Maine, formal statement of 447 Knowles, Dr. Asa A., president, Northeastern University, Boston, Mass.: "Selected Federal Programs in Support of Higher Education," paper entitled 496 Statement by 468 Lewis, Lawrenc~, superintendent of schools, Maine School Union No. 90, Milford, Maine, statement by 452 PAGENO="0007" CONTENTS vir Prepared statements, letters, supplemental material, etc.-Continued Martin, C. J., Regional Assistant Commissioner, Office of Education: Decentralization of State grant programs, memorandum from Page J. Graham Sullivan, deputy commissioner of education 584 Estimated obligations incurred in the State of Alabama, fiscal year 1966 (table) 585 Obligations incurred in the State of Florida, fiscal years 1966 and 1967 (table) 587 Obligations incurred in the State of Georgia, fiscal year 1966 (table) 588 Obligations incurred in the State of Mississippi, fiscal year 1966 (table) 590 Obligations incurred in the State of South Carolina, fiscal year 1966 (table) 592 Obligations incurred in the State of Tennessee, fiscal year 1966. - 594 Mauksch, Hans 0., dean, College of Liberal Arts, Illinois Institute of Technology: Prepared statement by 818 U.S. Office of Education grants 820 McCann, Richard V., executive director, Massachusetts Higher Edu- cation Facilities Commission: Suggestions for the improvement of post award grant procedures for title land II projects 506 Statement of 503 Mercier, Woodrow A., superintendent of schools in Maine School Union 113, statement of 454 Mizell, M. Hayes, "School Desegregation in South Carolina, 1966": A critique by 1\'lorris, Delyte W., president, Southern Illinois University, statement by 833 Mousolite, Peter S., acting regional representative, Office of the Commissioner, and regional representative, Bureau of Higher Education: Institutions in region V participating in title III of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (table) 842 Prepared statement of 784 The role and function of the regional representative of the U.S. Office of Education, article 788 Nickerson, Kermit S., deputy commissioner of education, State of Maine, statement by Ohrenberger, William H., superintendent of schools for the city of Boston, prepared statement of 519 Robinson, W. L., president, Fulton County Board of Education, and Paul D. West, superintendent of Fulton County Schools, joint state- mentby 714 Russell, J. Weldon, superintendent of schools, Lewiston, Maine, testimony of 458 Seeley, David S., Assistant Commissioner, Equal Educational Op- portunities Program, HEW, letter to Miss Jean Fairfax, dated December 6, 1966 Sennett, Lincoln, president, Washington State College, Machias, Maine, statement of 365 Shabat, Oscar, director, Chicago City College, Chicago, Ill., prepared statement of 824 Stratton, L. M., president, board of education, Stuttgart School District No. 22, Stuttgart, Ark., telegram to Chairman Green- - - - 661 Tipler, George, executive secretary, Wisconsin Association of School Boards, Inc.: Resolution positions adopted by WASB delegate assemblies 871 Statement of 867 1966 regional meeting discussions 869 Trezza, Alphonse F., associate executive director, American Library Association, prepared statement of 850 Umbeck, Sharvy G., president, Knox College, Galesburg, Ill: Prepared statement of 808 Appendix 810 PAGENO="0008" VIII CONTENTS Prepared statements, letters, supplemental material, etc.-Continued Page Vittetow, Frank H., assistant superintendent, Department of Edu- cation, Commonwealth of Kentucky, statement of 703 Young, Edwin, president, University of Maine: "Community Service and Continuing Education," title I, Higher Education Act of 1965, newsletter 368 Exhibit H of the Maine State plan (table) 36S Prepared statement of 36 PAGENO="0009" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION THURSDAY, DECEMBER 1, 1966 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SPECIAL SUBCOMMITTEE ON EDUCATION OF THE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR, Orono, Maine. The subcommittee met at 9 :30 a.m., pursuant to call, in the Bangor Room, Memorial Union, the University of Maine, Orono, Maine, Hon. Sam M. Gibbons presiding. Present: Representatives Gibbons, Hathaway, and Quie. Present also: Maurice Heartfield and Mrs. Helen Philipsborn, mem- bers of the subcommittee staff. Mr. GIBBONS. Good morning. Gentlemen, first of all, we appreciate your coming to us and adding to our store of knowledge. You will recall about 5 months ago Con- gress authorized and directed this subcommittee of the Education and Labor Committee to study the Office of Education, to reevaluate the programs that Congress had enacted, and to file a report of what we found within 6 months. This is a study that has been conducted, and which we expect to continue to conduct, on a very broad front. We had public hearings and executive sessions in Washington with the Office of Education and with other interested witnesses. We are now involved in the pro- gram of going to the institutions and school systems, both on the record and off the record, to get their opinions of these programs and of the Office of Education, and to get any other helpful suggestions which they might have as to how Congress can improve its activity in this broad field of education. We have present for the hearing this morning, of course, your own Congressman, Bill Hathaway, whom we are very proud to have on our Education and Labor Committee, and who has worked extremely hard and very diligently and very effectively in the whole congressional activities, particularly in this area. We have to my left Congressman Quie of Minnesota, a man more senior than myself on this committee, a man of great knowledge and great ability who serves not only on the Education and Labor Commit- tee but also on the Agriculture Committee of the Congress. I think that we will proceed very informally this morning if that meets with your approval. I know that you have prepared state- ments to present. We would ask you to either read your prepared statement or to summarize it, whichever you ma.y wish to do. If you would like we will, at any rate, include your prepared state- ment in the record for our review at a later date and for the review 355 PAGENO="0010" 356 U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION by others on the committee. Then we will go into an informal discussion. As I understand, the witnesses that we have present here this morn- ing are Dr. Edwin Young, President of the University of Maine; Mr. Bryce Grindle, Assistant Director of Student Aid at the university; Dr. Walter Moulton, who is the secretary to the Committee on Student Aid of Bowdoin College; and Dr. Lincoln Sennett, President of the Washington State College. Is Mr. Fred Reynolds here? Mr. REYNOLDS. Yes. Mr. Gm~oxs. Then Dr. Charles Phillips, president of Bates College. Is Dr. Phillips here? Suppose, Dr. Young, the time being about 9:40, and considering the fact that we have to break up around noontime to go to another meet- ing, will you in your mind divide the time, and limit the opening state- ment to about 10 minutes? We will pass around the table starting with you, Dr. Young. You do not need to take all that time. You may take more if you feel you need to go further. I will say to my panel members we might try to keep the discus- sion limited during these statements but after that, break it up with no holds or time limits involved. If any of you in the audience, when we get into the general discus- sion, have anything you think is at all pertinent or want to add to or subtract from what is said, we will be glad to hear you if you will just ask to be recognized. Dr. Young, we will hear from you first. STATEMENT OP DR. EDWIN YOUNG, PRESIDENT, UNIVERSITY OP MAINE, ORONO, MAI~I Dr. YoUNG. Mr. Gibbons and members of the committee, I am very pleased to welcome you to our campus. We feel honored that the committee would come here and hold hearings. To us it is a very important matter. I have a prepared statement. There are copies available for you so that I can skip through it fairly fast, hitting on the highlights rather than reading it to you and then get on to the discussion more quickly. (Dr. Young's prepared statement follows:) PREPARED STATEMENT OF Dn. EDWIN YOUNG, PRESIDENT, UNIvERsITY OF MAINE Mr. Ohairman, I am Edwin Young, President of the University of Maine. I appear today on behalf of the University of Maine which is participating in the following Office of Education programs: Higher Education Facilities Act of 1903 PL 88-164 Education of the Handicapped PL 87-447 Educational Television NDEA Student Loan Program XDEA. Graduate Fellowships XDEA Counseling and Guidance Institutes NDEA Institutes for Advanced Study Economic Opportunity Act-Work Study Program Higher Education Act of 1965 Title I Community Service and Continuing Education Title II College Library Title IV Student Assistance Title V Fellowships for Teachers Title VI Undergraduate Instruction PAGENO="0011" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 357 Since Mr. Grindle will discuss our participation in the various student financial aid programs, I shall confine my remarks to the other programs I have identified. As a land-grant Institution, the University of Maine has long been accustomed to the concept of federal support for higher education. Founded in 1865, the University received its initial thrust from a federal grant of land under the Morrill Act; additional money grants at later dates fostered the development of the University, particularly in agricultural teaching, research, and service. But the broadening of the scope of federal aid and the increase in its amount in recent years have been so sudden and significant that even those most used to the idea of federal aid-the faculty, staff, and alumni of land-grant institu- tions-have been jolted and jarred by the changes. I am, happy to report that these jolts and jars have been, on the whole, happy and fruitful ones. The new federal programs have made a substantial contribution to the improvement of the University and the expansion of its programs. T'hey are helping *the University accommodate an increasing number of students at a time when Maine stan'ds 51st among the states in the percentage of high school graduates who go on to higher education They are encouraging innovation in teacher education and in teaching methods on all levels at a time when higher standards and higher `efficiency are national necessities. They are providing more opportunities for graduate education in a state where the first Ph. D. was granted not more than a decade ago. It should not be overlooked that these programs reach out into the state to encourage more young people to go on to higher education; to improve the qualifications' of teachers in languages, history, and mathematics; to support enrichment of education through ETV; and always with a multiplicity of primary and secondary effects. Naturally, certain problems have arisen in connection with these programs. I understand the `interest of the Subcommittee in these problems which new legislation might be able to solve or alleviate, and will try to point to specific problem areas. But if I `appear to dwell longer on problems than on progress, on lapses rather than leaps, it is' only because the benefits seem so self-evident to educators and informed citizens alike. I propose to give you a brief résumé of federal programs presently in course at the University of Maine, and then to consider some of the patterns of problems that have been encountered in putting them into effect. I purposely omit references to student grants, loans, and work-study programs as Mr. Grindle, the Assistant Director of `Student Aid, is to testify separately on that subject. The Higher Education Facilities Act of 1963 has made it possible to expand our building program to provide more and `better facilities for graduate and undergraduate education. Additional space for psychology and foreign lan- guages was partly underwritten b''y the Federal Government. Besides a number of renovations to existing buildings, two new buildings for zoology and forestry are under construction. It is worth noting that these two structures are not only going to be more adequate and better equipped than had been hoped a few years ago, they will also be architectural creations in which the citizens of the state can take pride. Public Law 87-447 provided $96,000 to assist in the construction of an addi- tional link in the state-wide ETY network at Oa'lais. Programs of the network can now reach~ over 90 percent of the population of the state, if a cooperating station owned by private `colleges in southern Maine is included. The National Defense Education Act has had `an impact `on the University for a number of years now. Loans, institutes, and fellowships have widened opportunities in important fashion. In particular, the NDEA doctoral fellow- ships have been instrumental in encouraging the introduction `and expansion of Ph.D. programs in a number of disciplines. (The University now offers the Ph.D. in nine specialties, and the Ed.D. in two areas.) NDEA institutes for teachers and counselors have been conducted each sum- mer since 1959. The institutes have contributed `to strengthening the regular programs `by bringing national, professional leaders to the campus to work closely with resident staff, by encouraging curriculum and teaching changes which feed back to the regular program, and by increasing the geographical "mix" of the student `body. Of course, the Higher Education Act of 1965 is a landmark in this area. The University has been making every effort to exploit its potential fo~ improving PAGENO="0012" 358 U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION higher education in Maine. Its recent date and broad scope have necessitated both urgency and zeal on the part of the University in order to obtain maximum benefit from its extraordinary possibilities. Title I provides the first funded opportunity to marshall the interests and capacities of institutions of higher education on a state-wide basis in educational programs directed towards problems of broad citizen concern. The potentials for community service are limited only by the funds available and the awareness and imagination of the institutions. Both are less than is desirable. The quality of proposals will improve as experience is gained and already there are indica- tions that Title I funds will provide seed money to encourage institutions to increase their own community service efforts from institutional funds. A total of ~1O.QOO was granted to the University under Title II for the purchase of books for the Orono and Portland libraries last year. It is hoped that a new Master of Library Service degree program may soon become eligible for fellow- ship support. In connection with Title III, the University has indicated a willingness to work with other institutions in Maine to assist in developing their resources. Last year a cooperative arrangement with the Maine Maritime Academy was deemed worthy of support by the Office of Education but not approved for lack of funds. Mr. Grindle will report on our activities under Title IV. As for Title V, no experienced teacher fellowships were approved for the University (or for New England) for the current year. A prospective teacher fellowship program is being conducted. The encouragement to interdisciplinary planning and teaching which these programs have provided is one of their virtues for it contributes to an all-University acceptance of responsibility for teacher education. Under Title VI the University has received funds for the purchase of audio- visual materials and equipment for science laboratories. There are other programs which could be mentioned-for example, education of the handicapped-but these are the main programs in which we have particpated. Relations with USOE in the implementation of these programs has been gen- erally satisfactory. With the explosion of new programs in the last year there has been an understandable increase in the problems of planning and negotiating contracts. I will comment on three salient problems reported by our staff mem- bers who have been responsible for implementing ITSOE programs: First, too little time provided by USOE between the publication of guidelines and the deadline for proposals. The lack of lead time between issuance of guidelines and deadlines for proposals is understandable in the first year of a program. but not in subsequent years. For example, prospective teacher pro- posal guidelines were received on this campus on January 28. 1966, for a Feb- ruary 25 deadline the first year of the program. But for the second year, guide- lines were received on November 18 with a December 17 deadline. Proposals for interdepartmental and intercollege programs require involvement of many faculty and administrative personnel in planning. Unlike research proposals developed by individual faculty members, the proposals for complex programs for instruction require considerable time for communication in the planning Process. Second. a slow down in the processing of contracts leading to uncertainties about program features which require closure well in advance of the opening of a program. In the period between FSOE announcement of an institute award and the final contract arrangements. considerable negotiation is undertaken. In recent years, this negotiation has been by telephone with the director of the institute. Such negotiations have involved fiscal as well as curriculum matters, yet the USOE has not obtained concurrence of the University financial officer in readjustments in a proposal he has already signed before incorporating these adjustments in a binding contract. In these negotiations at a date as late as April and May. such items as salaries, allowances for postage, and support for practicum activities in a summer institute to start in July have been questioned by USOE although the proposal may have been in their hands for many months. Under these circumstances. the original announcement through a senator's office that USOE and the University had an agreement to offer a program appears premature. A further difficulty in contract negotiations has appeared as fiscal officers in USOE unfamiliar with educational programs and processes have made seem- PAGENO="0013" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 359 ingly arbitrary cutbacks in program proposals without the benefits of profes- sional understanding of the proposal which another branch of USOD could be expected to provide. That is, University faculty have respect for and reasonably clear communication with professional staff in USOE, but not with fiscal officers who may have final veto power over components of a program. A's long as good will prevails on both sides, these *crises can be surmounted. However, if contracts are to be honored, they must be concluded at a reason- ably early date `with all parties to the contract fully informed. Third, late decisions on proposals `by USOE disrupt the planning of staff assignments. When proposal's are made for programs 6 to 15 months ahead `but for which final approval may not be forthcoming until a few months `before the start of the program, major difficulties may `be experienced in scheduling faculty assignmen'ts. Staff cannot easily be recruited at the last minute to replace faculty promised to new programs, yet the University is not in a position to `stockpile extra faculty in anticipation of approval of programs. In summary and conclusion, then, our experiences with USOE have generally been satisfactory in a partnership which has already demonstrated unquestioned values for the State of Maine. The following suggestions are made in recogni- tion that USOE has experienced growing pains in recent years. Fundamentally, the irritations of our experience with the Office would be substantially reduced if Congress itself would provide more lead time for programs. It would assist the orderly process of education if the following suggestions could be adopted: 1. If USOE could approve two-year proposals, planning could be more ef- ficient, staff assignments could be more certain, and a generally more orderly procedure could be followed. From the standpoint of the University manpower devoted to planning could be doubled if it were possible for each program to be funded for a two-year period since it requires no more of a man's time to plan and write a two-year program than a one-year program. 2. Negotiated changes in contracts, while discussed by phone, should be put in writing and approved by all parties before t'hey become binding. 3. Common budget and accounting procedures should be adopted and followed by each agency of the government thus allowing greater efficiency of record keeping in the University business office. 4. Deadlines should be set by USOE to provide more time after receipt of guidelines for preparing proposals and more time for completing negotiations before the program must be operational. Dr. YOUNG. As you can see from the first page we are concerned with a number of titles. `Mr. Grindle will talk about the financial aid for students. The treasurer of the university, Mr. Gordon is in the room in case there is some issue arising about the fiscal affairs. In the first place, to our university and every State university, Federal money is very important for the continuation of education. We have had it for a long time. We expect `to have it in the future. However, the recent increase has been phenomenal and it has taken us a bit of time to adjust to make the most use of it, but we think it is very successful. These new programs have made a substantial con- tribution to the improvement `of the university. They are helping us to accommodate more students. They are encouraging innovation in teacher education and methods, more graduate education. Our first graduate Ph. D. degree was granted less than a decade ago. In addition to what we do on the campus we are a'ble to reach out into the State to encourage more young people. We improved the qualifications of teachers in language, history, mathematics, to sup- port education through ETV, and many other effects. Naturally, certain problems have arisen in connection with these programs. I understand that your interest is with the legislation that might solve or alleviate some of these and therefore I will try to point to specific problem areas. PAGENO="0014" 360 U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION But if I appear to dwell longer on problems than on progress, on lapses rather than leaps, it is only because the benefits seem so self- evident to educators and informed citizens and the like. I propose to give you a brief resumé of programs presentable at the university and then consider what implications of what some of those are for us. Our Education Facilities Act of 1963 has made it possible to expand our building program to both graduate and undergraduate education. We have more space for psychology and foreign languages, and reno- vations of a number of existing buildings. If you notice, the campus is dug up. Part of it is because we are getting two new buildings for zoology a.nd forestry, both with substan- tial assistance of Federal money. I might say although it is not in my statement here, we would have been in a very bad situation without it because building costs have risen about 30 percent since the legislature appropriated the money and your matching money has made it possible for us to keep it going. They are going to be better buildings and larger buildings than they would have been without this help. We have had $96,000 to help in our statewide ETY network. As you perhaps Imow, we have three transmitters and the three private schools in the western part of the State, own one, and we link them together for an educational network which broadcasts to 90 percent of the people of Maine. The National Defense Education Act has had a very large effect. We have loans, institutes, and fellowships. The doctoral fellowships have been instrumental in encouraging the introduction and expansion of Ph. D. programs in a number of disciplines. We offer Ph. D.'s in nine fields and the Ed. D. in two areas. We have had teachers and counselors since 1959. They have been useful in strengthening our program in a variety of ways. The Education Act of 1963 is a landmark and we are making every effort to exploit its potential. We are looking at it constantly to see what it may mean for us. Title I provides that the first funded opportunity to marshal the interests and capacities of institutions of higher education on a. statewide basis in educationa.l programs directed toward problems of broad citizen concern. The potential community services are limited only by the funds available and the awareness and imagination of the institutions. So far they have not been as great as we had hoped but we think the quality of proposals will improve as we gain experience and there are indications now that the seed money from the title have encouraged institutions to put in some of their own money. Under title II we have $10,000 for our two university libraries. On the basis of these moneys and some other activities we are hoping to develop a master of library service degree program. We are working under title III to cooperate with the institutions and did work out a proposal which was acceptable to the Office of Education under which * we would hope to enable the Maine Maritime Academy to strengthen its faculty. That proposal was not approved because of lack of funds. Mr. ~Grindle will report on title IV~ Title V-we have not yet had experi- PAGENO="0015" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 361 enced teaching fellowships at the university or in New England but a prospective teacher fellowship program is being conducted and we are going ahead with that. We received funds for audiovisual materials under tifle VI and we have other programs, education for the handicapped. Now rela- tions with TJSOE `have generally been satisfactory for these programs. There have been some understandable increase in problems of plan- ning and negotiating `contracts an'd I will comment on three of these. First, too little time provided by TJSOE between the publication of guidelines and the deadline for proposals. The lack of leadtime between issuance of guidelines and deadlines for proposals is under- standable in the first year of the program but not in subsequent years. For example, prospective teacher proposal guidelines were received on January 28, 1966, for a February 25 deadline the first year of the program. But for the second year the guidelines were received on November 18 with a December 17 deadline. Proposals for interdepart- mental and intercollege programs require involvement of many faculty and administrative personnel and planning. Unlike the research pro- posals developed ~by individual faculty members, proposals for com- plex programs for instruction require considerable time for communi- cation in the planning process. Second, a slowdown in the processing `of contracts. In the period between USOE announcement of an institute award and final contract arrangements, considerable negotiation is under- taken. In recent years this negotiation has been by telephone with the director of the institute. Such negotiations have involved fiscal as well as curriculum matters. Yet the TJSOE has not obtained con- currence of the university financial officer in readjustments in a pro- posal he has already signed before incorporating these adjustments in a binding contract. In other words, we sign a contract, a proposal, committing ourselves, it goes to Washington and at the last minute it is changed there with- out our official concurrence. In these negotiations at a date as late as April or May, such items as salaries, allowance for postage and sup- port of activities in a summer institute starting in July have been questioned by TJSOE although the proposal may have been in their hands for many months. Under these circumStances the original announcement that a. uni- versity has an agreement to offer a program is premature. We under- stand why the announcements come from the Senator's office. It is a little embarrassing if we have not agreed to what is in the contract. We still take the money. A further difficulty in contract negotiations has appeared `as fiscal officers in TJSOE, unfamiliar with educational programs and process, have made seemingly arbitrary cutbacks in program proposals with- out the benefits of professional understanding of the proposal which another branch of USOE could be expected to provide. That is, uni- versity faculty have respect for reasonable `and clear communication with professional staff in USOE but not with fiscal officers who may have final veto power over components of the program. May I interject here in addition to this statement that in my deal- ings, when I was at the University of Wisconsin, with AID we found the same problem over and over again. When I was an adviser to PAGENO="0016" 362 U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION AID in Washington, over and over again the professional work was undercut by fiscal people. I think this is a problem that may spread in other areas, too. As long as good will prevails on both sides these crises can be surmoirnted. If contracts are to be. honored they must be concluded at a reasonably early date with all parties to the contract fully informed. Third, late decisions on proposals by TJSOE disrupt the planning of staff assignments. When proposals are made for programs 15 months ahead but for which final approval may not be forthcoming until a few months before start of the program, major difficulties may be experienced in staff assignments. Faculty may not be recruited until the last minute. Yet the urn- versity is not in a position to stockpile faculty in anticipation of approval of the programs. In summary and conclusion, then, our experience with TJSOE has generally been satisfactory in a partnership which has already demon- strated unquestioned values for the State of Maine. The following suggestions are made in recognition that TJSOE has experienced growing pains in recent years. Our irritation with the Office would be reduced if Congress itself would provide leadtime for programs. It would assist the orderly process of education if the following suggestions could be adopted: One, if USOE could approve 2-year proposals, planning would be more efficient, sta.ff ap~ointments more certain and generally orderly procedure could be followed. From the standpoint of the university, manpower devoted to planning would be doubled, since it requires no more of a man's time to plan and write a 2-year program than a 1- year program. Two, negotiated changes in contracts discussed by phone should be put in writing and approved by all parties before they become binding. Three, common budget and accounting procedures should be adopted and followed by each agency of the Government, allowing greater efficiency in recordkeeping in the business office. Maybe this is going too far. We deal with a lot of general situations. Mr. GIBBONS. It is not unreasonable. Dr. YOUNG. Four, deadlines should be set by TJSOE to provide more time after receipt of guidelines for preparing proposals and more time for completing negotiation before the program must be opera.- tional. Thank you very much. Mr. GIBBONS. Thank you very much, Dr. Young. Mr. QmE. Could I ask this one question? You have had experience with the Federal assistance for a long time. You mentioned you got aid under the Morrill Act for a hundred years. Dr. YOUNG. Yes. Mr. QuiB. How does that compare with the new program? Dr. YOUNG. This is something which I feel very strongly about. Under the Morrill Act we had outright grants, support money, which you could use `to support our teaching program, for instance, and our research programs. We decided on the research side, in cooperation with the Federal officials, how to spend it. We reported on how we spent the money for PAGENO="0017" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 363 education, ourselves, for the education of students. We made those decisions. What I really believe is that grants for which a university is ftc- countable for basic programs really can contribute more in the next few years to higher education than some of the programs which are so closely supervised by people in Washington in hEW. One of my good friends is Wilbur Cohen. I am sure some of you know him. He and I have argued about this some. He thinks that if the progress is to be made that they want to make with the pro- grams, and is not to be wasted by those of us out in the field who don't know what we are doing-he didn't put it quite that way-it is a mistake, but I would hope that the Congress would look at the Morrill Act as an example of how to help institutions and look at the record. I think I once said to Mr. Hathaway, that if one looks at some of the money that has been given to the States under the Social Security Act over 25 years, they have been very responsible with Fed- eral grants. I would prefer more future aid in the land-grant pattern. That money allows us to support our basic programs. You provide loan money which the students get and grants and work-study money. This means more students come to us and we have to provide them with the education. These projects don't do that directly. We have to get that from the States. As you well know, the States' burden of welfare and education is getting almost unbearable. I am going to meet with the Governor this afternoon to explain why his proposals can't be balanced by the university. Mr. Qum~. On page 2 you talk about encouraging innovation and teaching methods at all levels at a time when higher standards and higher efficiencies are national necessities. Are you saying that a categorical approach encourages innovation that would not have come about otherwise and therefore you are agree- i.ng with Wilbur Cohen in that statement? Or do you think there would have been more innovation had you had the land-grant ap- proach? Dr. YOUNG. The record over the last hundred years shows there has been a great deal of innovation in our institutions. If the money was granted, and Congress said some of this money would be for innova- tions, we hope it would happen without having had the particular thing approved by HEW. Now, being a conservative person, I would say that the Congress can do it both ways. The tendency now as you know in the last budget message is to pull away the outright grant money and put it all in category. This is my argument with Wilbur Cohen. He is all cate- gory. I think we need some of the other. Mr. QuID. What you are saying is that there has been great inno- vation in the past without categorical programs. Dr. YOUNG. The fact that American higher education is the out- standing system in the world is due in large part to the Morrill Act. Mr. QUID. Do you think that we ought to then move in the direc- tion of eliminating the categorical approach by providing the same amount of aid and general assistance? 73-728----67-pt. 2-2 PAGENO="0018" 364 U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION Dr. YOUNG. I would not recommend moving that fast. I would say that perhaps you could provide more general assistance and perhaps less categorical and watch to see what happens over some time. I don't think it is appropriate every 2 years to upset everything, turn it upside down. I would argue for moving now to look at ways of insuring through the institutional grant the objectives of the Con-. gress. I think they can be because I think the Morrill Act and expe- rience with the land-grant institutions points that way. But I would not remove all category because there are certain things that Congress must do. Mr. QUIE. Don't we have political pressures built UI) from those who are receiving the categorical aid who would be screaming for continuation of it? Dr. YOUNG. I suppose so. We certainly built some pressure to continue what little Morrill Act money we have. I think very seriously that you could consider trying both and see what happens. But mov- ing all to the category I think is a mistake. Mr. HATHAWAY. Do you deal with the regional office or directly with Washington? Dr. YOUNG. We deal with the regional office. Mr. Freeman, who does that, is not here today because he had a meeting that he had to attend in Boston in the regional office a.nd which was scheduled before this meeting was scheduled here. As near as I can find out, we seem to be getting along well with the regional office. They are helpful in every way. They come up when we ask them to. I ge.t an impression, and this is an impression of my own and, remember, I have been here only a year so I can make some serious mistakes, but my impression is that sometimes the regional office is somewhat handicapped in the commitments they can make. Perhaps they should be allowed to make more commitments if we are to continue this pattern. I think this is the tendency in the Government, anyway. Some- times you talk to a regional man and he can't say yes or no. 1-fe has to check back. Mr. HATHAWAY. You would be in favor of giving them more responsibility? Dr. YOUNG. Yes, in defining the program. Mr. GIBBONS. Dr. Young, I am from Florida~ and this is my first trip to Maine. I Imow very little about your institution. I would like to put it in a frame of reference so that I can understand it. Your institution is over a hundred years old. How many students do you have? Dr. YOUNG. 6,300 on this campus, 1,300 in Portland, and 200 in Centus. These are full-time day students. We have as many part- time students. Mr. GIBBONS. In the administrative setup, President Young, have you found it necessary to establish some kind of agency within the uni- versity to deal exclusively with the Federal programs or do the differ- ent departments just go to the Federal Government? * Dr. YOUNG. No one is supposed to make any serious, any formal proposal without clearing through the office of the treasurer to make sure it is legal and binding. PAGENO="0019" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 365 I recently got myself an assistant who will be primarily concerned with watching all Federal programs. But we encourage individual faculty members and departments to deal with their counterparts. We know that this is the only way. No one person can be an agent for everybody dealing with Washington. Our people in agricul- tural research, for instance, have years of experience and they know their counterparts. They know the problems. They can deal. We have confidence in them. I encourage individual faculty members to informally work out proposals. We try to provide guidelines. At the same time, they are asked to notify their deans immediately and notify my assistant that they are doing this. But the ability of a good chemist to get money from the NSF is much greater than the ability of my assistant to get money for him from the NSF. So we have to do it that way. And we do the same thing with foundations. Mr. HATHAWAY. How much extra time do you think you need on the average to meet these deadlines? Would 60 days be enough? Dr. YOUNG. Sixty days would be a tremendous improvement. People are teaching full time. We decide to get a proposal together. First a committee has to be formed. Then they get a draft. It has to be checked back and be reproduced and cleared. Some of it has to be sounded out informally with the people that we are dealing with in Washington. So that 60 days would be much better. Mr. GIBBONS. Thank you, sir. President Sennett, we would like to hear from you next. STATEMENT OP LINCOLN SENNETT, PRESIDENT, WASHINGTON STATE COLLEGE, MACHIAS, MAINE Mr. SENNETT. I haven't any prepared statement as I received my invitation over the phone and was asked to appear, but I will be glad to submit a written statement following this session. Mr. GIBBONS. It is not necessary but if you would like, we will have it included at this point in the record. (The statement furnished follow s:) WASHINGTON STATE COLLEGE, Machias, Mai'ne, January 19, 1067. Mrs. EDITH GREEN, Chairman, Special Subcommittee on Education, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. M~ Di~n REPRESENTATIVE GREEN: I believe a few comments are in order rela- tive to the experience we are having with various Federal programs assisting students alt Washington State College. 1. I wish to commend the Boston office for their cooperation and helpfulness in advising us about problems which might arise or have arisen in administering the programs. 2. The forgiveness feature for those entering teaching has not in my belief aided to any extent in influencing training for teaching. It might be advisable to discontinue this forgiveness feature. 3. The repayment period of eleven years seems long especially if the total loan indebtedness of the student is $1,000 or less. Please consider shortening the period to not more than six years, for loans not exceeding $1,000. 4. It is my conviction that a minimum payment repayment schedule should be established for all loans. 5. Opportunity grants are proving to be especially helpful in meeting needs of students from extremely poor families. Federal scholarships in lieu of grants PAGENO="0020" 366 U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION would have a tendency to funnel funds away from the most needy cases. In many cases students coming from a poor environment are not apt to compare scholastically very favorably with those students originating from more favor- able environments. 6. The program of the United Student Aid Fund seems to be working extremely well except the number of eligible applicants greatly exceed available funds. Therefore, it is my sincere belief that a sizable increase would be appropriate to assist in making more guaranteed loans available. 7. If U.S. Student Aid Funds could be increased to the extent necessary to meet student needs it might be advisable to faze out the National Defense Student Loan Program. This would permit the colleges to go out of the loaning business as most of them are not set up to adequately service the loans. If this change is not possible there should be developed a state agency to handle collections. 8. We have had only six months experience with the Work-Student Program, but this meager experience makes us enthusiastic supporters of such a pro- gram, and it is our hope that the program will be expanded. Sincerely, LINCOLN A. SENNETT, President. Mr. SENNETT. We are a very small institution. We have not taken advantage to any extent of the Federal programs. Our activities are confined largely to the student loan, the work-study and the oppor- tunity grant arrangement. As far as our relationship with the IDe- partment, the Office of Education, we find that we have had excellent cooperation with them. They are very responsive and they have been willing to give us the benefit of their experience with other institutions, and ire have had really no problems with them except that they cut our request for funds like, probably the request of other institutions. As far as administrative procedure is concerned, we do not have any particular quarrel other than some of the reports they require. It is difficult for amateurs, you might say, to complete and have them in on time. That is as far as I wish to go now-. I would like to interject a few things later to find out the experience of other institutions relative to bookkeeping, relative to the NDEA versus the TJnitecl Student Aid Fund, as far as the method of aclminis- tration and the method of loans. Also this student work program, how it works in other places and methods which we might find to improve the program. And, of course, the opportunity grants perhaps speak for themselves in an area such as we find here in the State of Maine. Mr. GIBBONS. President Sennett, could you describe for me-as I explained before, I am a foreigner to this part of the country-the size of your institution? Mr. SENNETT. We are located in eastern Maine. We were a small State teachers college with 300 enrollment. We were changed a year ago to a State college with the expectation that our program would be considerably expanded to take care of needs other than teacher education. Of course, the report of which Dr. Young spoke a minute ago, relative to reorganization of higher education and ad- rnimstration in the State of Maine, came out only a short time ago. We expect, if this program is followed, to greatly expand our op- portunities in higher education. Mr. GIBBONS. What is the age of your institution? Mr. SENNETT. It is 58 years of age. Mr. GIBBONS. You say you have about 300 students? Mr. SENNETT. We have 32?~' students this year. PAGENO="0021" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 367 Mr. Qrm. How many State colleges? Mr. SENNETT. There are five in the State of Maine. Mr. Qmu. All under a State college board? Mr. SENNETT. No. They are under a State board of education. The State board of education is a policy group, you might say, of the State department of education. Mr. QUIE. The same group of people makes the policy decision on elementary and secondary schools as well? Mr. SENNErr. Right. Mr. QUIE. Do you have any junior colleges? Mr. SENNETT. No, no public junior colleges in the State of Maine. We have a few private junior colleges in the State of Maine but no public ones. Mr. GIBBONS. Is this State board of education elected or appointed? Mr. SENNETT. They are appointed by the Governor. They repre- sent different groups. They represent the public colleges, the private colleges; they represent labor and industry, and so on. They cater to different segments of our population. Mr. GIBBONS. Do they all come and go with the Governor? Mr. SENNETT. No, they have staggered terms. Mr. GIBBONS. How many people on the State board of education? Mr. SENNETT. Either nine or 10. Mr. QIJIE. Why do they represent private colleges? Mr. SENNErT. Well, private colleges, you might say, are quite a large segment of our postsecondary education system in our State of Maine. Mr. Qtni. But they don't get any State aid? Mr. SENNETT. No. They exercise a lot of influence on public edu- cation in the State. The former chairman who just retired as chairman was also a~ professor of Bowdoin College, a prominent pro- fessor of Bowdoin College for many years. Mr. QUIE. Does this State board handle any of the Federal pro- grams like the Higher Education Facilities Act? Mr. SENNETT. Yes. Mr. QUIE. Do the same ones handle the title I? Mr. SENNETT. Yes. Dr. YOUNG. We have title I. Mr. Qrrn~. Title I of the Higher Education Act of 1965? Mr. GIBBONS. The urban extension program. Dr. YOUNG~ We have a higher education title I. Mr. QUIB. Given to the university? Dr. YOUNG. Yes. Mr. QUIE. Have you used all the money yourself or have you shipped some of it out to some of the other institutions? Dr. YOUNG. We have been very careful to ship some of it out to our other institutions. Mr. QUIB. How do you decide who gets what? Do you call the individuals from the other institutions and talk it over? Dr. YOUNG. We have a statewide advisory committee. We ask the other institutions to submit proposals. In fact, we encourage them to, and help t.hem, in fact, promoted them in the first round of pro- posals. Deaii Libby, head of our Life Sciences and Agricultural Col- PAGENO="0022" 368 u.s. OFFICE OF EDUCATION lege, is chairman of that. Our staff in consultation tries to indicate the strengths and weaknesses of the various proposals as they relate to the purposes of the act. The advisory committee makes the final recommendation. They are to be-personally, I guess I am the re- sponsible person in that I sign it but we do what the advisory com- mittee agrees to. It has worked out quite well so far because there have been funds for most of the projects. Mr. QU~. Did you have a general extension program prior to this? Dr. YOUNG. Yes. A very active one. Mr. Qc~ri. Is any of the money in the LTniversity of Maine used for the general extension of the program now where they relate to the community problem? Dr. YOUNG. We didn't use any of this money for anything that we were doing before. We set up, if I can remember-I don't think there is anybody in the room, but I think Miss Page could get from Dean Libby a copy of the report of this first year. Would that be useful to you? Mr. QmE. It would be useful to know the kind of projects you have funded not only in the University of Maine but other institutions. Dr. YOUNG. We can have the material by lunchtime for you. (The information follows:) E~vhibit H of the ]Iaine State plan Proposal No. Institution Proposal Contribution Local HEA 1-67 2-67 Bowdoin College, Gorham State, Nasson College, University of Maine-Portland, Portland Sym- phony Orchestra. Westbrook Junior College Southwestern Maine String Quar- tet. The community leadership sem- mar. $13, 000 1, 778 $25, 000 5,865 3-67 4-67 University of Maine College of Life Science and Agriculture, Gorham State College Community education concerning pesticides in our environment. Community leader training pro- 1,825 4,850 3,604 0,465 5-67 University of Maine Cooperative Extension Service, gram. An informationand advisory serv- ice for adult women; select- 5,625 768 16,700 3,600 6-67 University of Maine Bureau of Public Administration, Seminar for councilmen men. 1, 545 4,250 7-67 8-67 do University of Maine educational television. A Maine State-local government executive seminar in PPBS. Distinguished Maine visitors 1, 7,492 8,700 7,000 9-67 University of Maine Bureau of Public Administration. Principlesof fire administration~~-- mainte- 2,333 7,070 10-67 do Street and urban road nance course. 11-67 12-67 do EffectivesupervisoryPraCtiCes Locaiplanning administration~___- 3,201) 2, 166 48,112 0,000 6, 500 106,754 Total NEWS LETTER COMMUNITY SERVICE AND CoNTINUING EDUCATION TITLE I-HIGHER EDUCATION ACT or' 1965 STATE TITLE I, HIGHER EDUCATION A~' ADVISORY COUNCIL APPOINTED Governor John Reed and President Edwin Young have collaborated in a ppoint- ing a State advisory Council consisting of tile following individuals: Stanley L. Freeman, Jr., chairman, University of Maine. Hayden U. V. Anderson, Department of Education, Augusta, Maine. Benjamin J. Dorsky, Maine State Federated Labor Council, Bangor, Maine. PAGENO="0023" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 369 F. Philip Dufour, director, Maine Technical Services Act, Orono, Maine. Father John J. Curran, parish priest, Augusta, Maine. Paul C. Emerson, State chamber of commerce, Portland, Maine. David B. Hopkinson, University of Maine in Portland. Wolcott A. Hokanson, Jr., Bowdoin College. Mrs. Thomas Pinkham, Fort Kent, Maine. Graham W. Watt, city manager, Portland, Maine. The council will meet August 18 to begin organizing and evaluating project proposals to be funded for the fiscal year 1967. TITLE I COORDINATOR APPOINTED Frank W. Hagan of South Paris, Maine, has been appointed to the University of Maine Extension Service effective August 15, 1966, to administer title I of the Higher Education Act. Mr. Hagan, who will be located in Orono, has been an employee of the Cooperative Extension Service, Oxford County, Maine, for several years. In his new responsibility, Mr. Hagan will be working with Maine institu- tions, citizens, and the advisory council to promote the community service and continuing education goals of the Higher Education Act. PROJECTS FOR FISCAL 1967 At this time, the funds available to Maine for fiscal 1967 (July 1, 1966-June 30, 1967) are not definitely known. Nonetheless project proposals are solicited. Deadlines established earlier by the Office of Education indicate that allocations to projects should be made by October 1, 1966. Proposals and questions should be directed to Mr. Frank W. Hagan, coordinator, title I, HEA, Merrill Hal1~ Orono, Maine. COMMUNITY SERVICE PROPOSALS PREVIOUSLY APPROVED The interim advisory council, together with President Young and Dean Libby,. approved proposals from the following institutions for funds provided during the fiscal year 1966: Institution Project Proposal Bowdoin College Land use and recreation Westbrook Junior College Problems of youth University `of Maine Land use, pollution St. Francis College Guidance and counseling Aroostook State College Guidance and counseling University of Maine Public administration University of Maine Guidance and counseling PREVIOUSLY SUBMITTED PROPOSALS Institutional proposals submitted for fiscal year 1966 which were not funded will automatically be presented to the new advisory council for consideration. Those who wish to change previous proposals in any way are encouraged to con- tact Mr. Hagan as soon as possible to have their original proposals returned for amendments. MISCELLANEOUS The State of Maine title I, Higher Education Act, funds were completely allocated. Indications from Washington imply funds for the fiscal year 1967 will be in- creased over those appropriated for last year. Forty-nine of the possible 55 States and territories have had State plans ap- proved and $9,239,258 of the $10 million authorized were obligated. Dr. YOUNG. Frank Hagan has come into the room. He is admin- istrator of title I. Instead of hearing from me let us have Mr. Hagan tell us about the projects in 1966 and the ones we propose in 1967. Mr. GIBBoNs. We are very much interested in this. We realize it is new. We had a lot of trouble in this committee trying to put it together, the philosophical problems as well as the technical problems. ~Te want to find out from you how it is working. PAGENO="0024" 370 U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION STATEMENT OP PRANK HAGAN, COORDINATOR, TITLE I, HIGHER EDUCATION ACT Mr. HAGAN. John Blake was assigned this task first. He had a very short time in which to get the committees and to get the colleges in the State of Maine really aware of the program so that they could take advantage of it. However, in the fiscal 1966, I believe there are eight colleges in Maine that saw the possibility, the opportunities in title I and have applied for grants and the types of programs that these colleges were interested in involved training of municipal government officials. This was interesting because it was not only true in Maine that this interest came about, but all throughout the ~atioii there has been great interest in this type of project.. So, a group of courses have been laid out by the bureau of public administration in the department of the University of Maine that attempts to fill this need. The pro- gram is underway and in terms of responses by people and the com- munities it appears to be well taken and is appreciated as an opportunity for inservice training in this area. Another area of interest by the colleges in the State of Maine is land use. Of course what has been happening to our land, especially the coastline, brought to the attention of the people of t.he State of Maine through a Bowdoin College project, the Maine coastline- Mr. GIBBONS. Could I interrupt just a moment there? Could you distinguish between the programs that are in operation and the pro- grams which you plan ? These are programs in action, actually in operation now in t.he t.raiuing of municipal officers and employees. Mr. HAGEX. These are in progress. These are funded under 1966. Mr. GIBBONS. How long have they been in progress ? Mr. HAGAN. The courses actually began in September. Mr. GIBBONS. They have been in operation 2 months ? Mr. HAGAN. Yes. In the case of the land-use project by Bowdoin- that was in progress soon after the funding of the project, which came in August, 1 believe. They had their symposium in October. This has gained a great deal of recognition throughout, not only the State of Maine and in New England, but this project has gained attention throughout the country as a real issue of need. Mr. GIBBONS. In these programs, how many hours of study, of in- struction, are actually carried on with the student.? Maybe you are going to cover all of t.his, so go ahead. Mr. HAGAN. Another type of project is the recognition by St. Fran- cis College in Biddeford of the need for social worker aids. This has been a gap which has been hard to fill. They have taken this as an issue. Their course is 4 hours a week, t.wo evening classes. Two credit hours are given for this particular course. Mr. QUIE. What does the social worker aid do-the paperwork for them or to help the social workers? Mr. HAGAN. I believe in this instance they are out in the field doing work with people. Mr. GIBBONS. That is where social work is supposed to be, not filling )ut forms. PAGENO="0025" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 371 Mr. HAGAN. St. Francis College was overwhelmed by the response they got. They didn't have any idea of the number of people who would be available. They feel it is a tremendous course. At Westbrook College, for instance, the parent-adolescent-there is a real struggle apparently here in most communities in coinmuni- cation. Mr. QUIE. Adolescent parent or the- Mr. HAGAN. Understanding of the adolescent by the parent. They have a course in progress. We have the first semester now and they will have a second repeat in the second year. Dr. Levy, who is one of Maine's outstanding psychologists and psychiatrists, is handling this course. The parents are taking part, and this is for parents. They just believe this project has tremendous value. It is not reaching enough people. It is limited in its size and scope and facilities and circumstances and money but it is performing a real service for par- ents who are really struggling how to understand and cope with the teenagers' behavior which is giving them a hard time. Another project is agricultural wastes from processing plants and from actual agricultural production. This is planned for 1966 fiscal, but it won't actually occur until spring. Mr. QUTE. Is this training people or studying what they are going to do with it? Mr. HAGAN. This is trying to give the producer and the processor facts that he must face on the dangers of polluting the stream, and what ultimately he can do technically and economically to correct it. This is attempting to give them something to work with. They don't have the answers. They are trying to see some leads that the processor and producer can use. They call it a seminar. That covers basically the areas of interest with one exception. I left out Aroostook State College concerning the disadvantaged student that is able, and they are trying to pick that student out at an early age, at the grammar school level. This course is designed to help identify and assist the student who has the thility, yet whose finan- cial background indicates that his chance to continue his education is small. This is a training procedure *to know the techniques of finding these able but disadvantaged youngsters at an early age. It follows hand in hand with some other projects that are attempting to find the able students. This is for Aroostook County. It is unique. Mr. QUIF. That makes three programs for needy students. Mr. HAGAN. Then there is guidance and counseling on a limited scale in the State of Maine by the University of Maine. We are hop- ing to put on a demonstration and a system of guidance and counsehiug that will interest groups of schools that can't afford this type of thing. It is designed to help them to see its value so that they will be willing' to put their money in it after they see what it can do and what it does' for their younger generation. That covers basically the areas of iiěterest that the Advisory Council has decided title I money should be devoted to in 1966. Dr. YOUNG. Would you read quickly the list of proposals for 1967? Mr. HAGAN. Recommended proposals for 196~i again covers several courses in government officials, a continuation of other areas of interest PAGENO="0026" 372 u.s. OFFICE OF EDUCATION and the training, inservice training, for government officials carried on by the bureau of public administration of the university. We have, coming to Maine, some of the world and national leaders in a variety of industrial and other interests. ETV could be an excellent medium to grasp the material that these visitors could give to us-to give Maine some focus on where it can go to grow and to progress economically. Tapes and pictures might also be made, for ~use by service clubs and teaching organizations. Another one is Information Service and Advisory Service for Adult Women. There are women in the middle age group of ability who just need a little encouragement and assistance to come back into the work force. And how to reach them and how to tap this and encourage it? There is a community leader training program by Gorham State College attempting to encourage certain forms of developing cultural activities in the small communities which can't afford this type of thing ordinarily. If they can get i~olunteer leaders to come in and be trained in art and music and formal recreation, they can go then back to their communities and try to set up programs there. There would be a followup by the proposal director to see to it that they attempt to utilize their training to develop programs in their small communities on the outer fringes of Portland. In another community leadership training program at Westl)roOk College, it is hoped that. influential leaders, carefully selected from the Greater Portland area, could be brought in any given a real task to consider. Local government is now concerned with social and eco- nomic affairs, and local leadership ought to try to help their local government to do a better job in welfare, economic development, and social development. This would explore the question of: How can we involve these local leaders and see that they are better equipped to use their organizations and their own. initiative to help local government perform better? Another project in the cultural line involves four colleges, Bowdoin, Gorham, Nasson, and Portland, plus the Portland Symphony Or- chestra. With the aid of title I funds, the four colleges will add to their personnel capable people in certain musical talent, certainly the classical and stringed instruments. So that by bringing in a quartet, with each college sharing a part of the cost, and having the benefit of one of the groups of four on its faculty, they hope to bring to the students of music a kind of quality and depth in certain musical instruments that they have not been able to have before. The quartet would be a part of the symphony or- chestra, and would be given a chance to~ perform in the area both as a demonstration and teaching procedure, and thereby give the public something new and interesting in this phase. Mr. GIBBoNs. It will be most interesting to come back in a few years to see how this idea works out. Mr. QrrIE. Is this last one funded? Mr. HAGAN. No. This is all based on if and when. These are recommended. Mr. QuIE. If you follow the intent of what we are talking about, I think you will have a little problem. Mr. HAGAX. We hope we will know real soon whether the problems that exist are gone. PAGENO="0027" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 373 Dr. YOUNG. The people who proposed this were told it would not be recommended beyond one year. The schools are making commit- ments. They are now putting $13,000 of the $20,000 Federal funds and they will have to pick up the total tab after the first year. It might turn out to be a very good investment under those terms. Mr. Qtru~. Does Washington State College get any title I money? Mr. SENNETr. No, but we cooperate with the university in adminis- tering the program. Mr. GIBBONS. Dr. Young, how long is this report of your title I activities? I am thinking about whether or not we should include it in the record now. If it is extremely bulky we will receive it for our files. Dr. YOUNG. I don't know. At this stage it would be very informal. There has been no time to get a formal report yet. Mr. GIBBONS. Without objection, I will leave it to the staff to decide whether we ought to put it in now or keep it in our files but I think all of us would like to see what is going on. Dr. YOUNG. Yes. In fact, if you would like, I would ask Dean Libby to come right over. Mr. GIBBONS. That would be fine. Ask him to come prepared to talk about title I. Mr. QtJIE. You say the university has indicated a willingness to work with other institutions in Maine. My concept of title III was that the purpose wasn't for a large institution in the State to work with other institutions in the State. I am even more surprised when you talk about an academy. I look at the academy as a high school rather than a college. Dr. YOUNG. It is not. It is a degree-granting maritime institution. Mr. Quiz. Why is this a developing institution when the bill was passed as a means of strengthening weak Negro institutions? Dr. YOUNG. I knew what the Congress had in mind. Let me ex- plain a little bit. Some years ago, about the beginning of the war, this maritime academy was set up and had some Federal support. I am sorry that the head of it is not here. It has had good years and bad. Under present administration, I think it is excellent. They have developed a program that is quite strong in preparing people to become deck officers. In fact, they are in great demand, as you know. The Government has asked them to graduate a class early this year. But in recruiting the faculty their finances are such that the faculty gets paid less than the graduate who goes out and takes a position on a ship. So the recruitment has been difficult. They have recruited re- tired officers, some of whom are excellent as far as the maritime part is concerned, the deck and ship part, but who do not have the academic background. Mr. QUIE. Their English is not so good. Dr. YOUNG. Yes. Perhaps their English is not so good. Their mathematics may not be as good as it ought to be. They may understand, but to teach they need some help. At least, they be- lieve they do. They have asked us to help them. Having worked on the programs at Wisconsin with one of the institutions in the South, I can't see that the public purpose is any different. We want better education. PAGENO="0028" 374 U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION Can I say something that won't get on the record? Mr. GIBBONS. Sure. (Off the record.) Mr. GIBBONS. On the record. Mr. QrnE. That is the only institution, the Maine Maritime Acad- emy, which you consider is a developing institution. Dr. YOUNG. For this purpose. Mr. QUIE. That is all I have. Mr. GIBBONS. Well, next then to the man who seems to specialize in student assistance. Has Dr. Phillips come in the room yet? Maybe he got snowed in. lYe will go next to the student assistance. Since we have not heard from anyone from Bowdoin College, perhaps we ought to hear from you next about your views. So, Mr. Moulton, you may proceed. STATEMENT OP WALTER MOULTON, SECRETARY TO COMMITTEE ON STUDENT AID, BOWDOIN COLLEGE, BRUNSWICK, MAINE Mr. MOULTON. I have no particular statement to make other than the very short one that is in front of you. l3owDoIN COLLEGE Bowdoin College is represented by Walter H. Moulton, Assistant Director of Admissions, who also serves as Secretary of the Faculty Committee on Student Aid. Mr. Wilder, the Director of Student Aid, is not available, being out of the State at a professional meeting. Bowdoin has participated since their establishment in the National Defense Student Loan Program, the College Work Study Program, and the Educational Opportunity Grants Program. The loan program has been of incalculable assistance to the College and to its students, and presents no serious administrative problems. Operations under the other programs have been limited, but satisfactory. The College recognizes that the loan program must eventually be phased down, and students are being increasingly referred to their hometown banks for assist- ance under the Guaranteed Loan Program. I am the assistant director of admissions in Bowdoin College. I spend approximately 75 percent of my time doing this. Mr. Wilder, who is the director of student aid, is in Connecticut today and he could not be here. He asked me to stand in his place. I spend approximately 25 percent of my time-most of this period is in the spring when prematriculation awards are made to incoming students at Bowdoin. I handle all of the prernatriculation awards. That includes the assignment of grants, loans, and jobs to students who are entering the college. The final two paragraphs in the statement pretty much wrap it up. The program that we have been involved in for the most part is the National Defense Education Act program. We have been in it since 1958. This year, we have approximately $100,000 of Federal funds, and it is of inestimable use to us. lYe can finance about 250 students a year who find it extremely difficult to pay the cost at Bowdoin, which is about $3,450 per year now. `We are less involved with the educational opportunity grant pro- gram and with the college work study program. At present, we have PAGENO="0029" U.S~ OFFICE OF EDUCATION 375 some 45 students at the college who are working under and receiving Federal help for their work. We have about 25 to 30 students who are receiving educational opportunity grants varying from $200 to $800. `Where we have been able to provide these funds for students they have been very, very useful, but our experience so far is limited with both of these programs. I am afraid as a private college, with the cost of $3,450 a year, we discourage an awful lot of people who might qualify for this kind of help from even applying to us. Wherever possible, we try to encourage such people to come. `We do not want to exclude anyone on the basis of financial need from the college. `We have been involved in a~ number of programs here in the State, notably Upward Bound, to try to bring students to the campus, to encourage them to think in terms of colleges, both public and private. We have been involved in the talent search program. Mr. Shaw, the director of admissions, has been very much involved with it over the past year. I can't say that we have made great use of either of these two programs. Other than that, I have no formal statement to make. I have some random thoughts, simply from dealing with them. Mr. GIBBONS. Go ahead. The floor is yours. Mr. MOULTON. One, the National Defense Education Act, andI may be trespassing a little bit here on Mr. Grindle's statement, but I agree with him that it is time to stop, look, and listen at all of the Federal programs. The educational opportunity grants, the national defense student loan program, guaranteed loan program, and the college work- study program work in concert as' far as I am concerned, tO provide a package of financial assistance that makes it possible for students to come to the college, to various colleges. Basically we have grants, gifts, for the neediest. We have the low- cost loan program for a kind of middle group and we have a some- what higher cost loan program for the higher income groups but people who are still going to have trouble getting up $3,450 a year. Mr. QrnE. When you say "we" are you talking about the loan pro- gram or the one that came before that? Mr. MOULTON. I am talking about Bowdoin College with reference to these four programs now. I am giving the private college point of view on this. At our cost it is quite probable that we will have to make use of all four programs and, therefore, I would be loathe to see any one of them dropped at this point. Now I am referring, of course, `to the possi- bility of phasing out the national defense student loan program. Mr. QUIE. Why do you say that the college recognizes `that the NDEA loan program must eventually be phased out? Why should it be phased out? Mr. MOULTON. I don't know whether it will or not. I am referring to the cut from approximately $190 million to about $30 million that was proposed by the President in his budget message last year. There is overlap in these two programs. I think this is quite ap- parent to almost everyone dealing with them but how much we don't know. ` The guaranteed loan program is not operational in all States yet and we have not had any experience with this, we don't know whether PAGENO="0030" 376 U.s. OFFICE OF EDUCATION the private sector of the economy is going to be able to supply all the money necessary for students to obtain their education from one year to the next. Economic conditions are going to change. There may be a good deal of money available some years and less in other years. Mr. Qun~. What is your experience with the overlap? Mr. MOULTON. I don't really have any. We have just instituted the guaranteed loan program in this State. We have had some students applying for guaranteed loans. Wherever possible we have tried to refer students to banks. Mr. G~BONS. Are they getting any loans? Mr. Mour~ox. Yes, they are. Mr. QUIE. In other words, if they can get a guaranteed loan pro- gram you won't provide a NDEA loan program for them? Mr. MOULTON. We have need for approximately $140,000 worth of funds under NDEA this year and our appropriation is $100,000. So for some students it was necessary to refer them to banks. Mr. QUIE. What would happen if you did find yourself in an over- lap? Would you try not to use the NDEA program? Mr. MOULTON. This, I don't know. I will plead ignorance. This is actually Mr. Wilder's province. How he would handle this one, I don't really know. The situation might very well rest on the financial situation of the family. If it is a family that is fairly prosperous now, a family that is making $15,000 or more, we definitely send them to the bank. We view the National Defense Education Act program as be- ing money available to students who are going to find it very, very diffi- cult to pay their bills to the college. Mr. QmE. It was never intended that the NDEA loan program would be available to students from families with incomes over $15,000. Mr. MOULTON. That's correct. Mr. QmE. As I recall, $10,000 and $11,000 is as high as the schools have gone on that. Mr. MOULTON. It is on a college scholarship service need analysis basis. That is if students have a need on a CSS basis they qualify for National Defense Educational Act money and we would provide it if we have the money for them. Mr. QmE. I am concerned when I see a sentence like your last one in. your report because the Congress refused to go along with the Presi- dent. In fact, we were unanimous in our committee not to cut out the student loan program in NDEA; neither to phase it out. We should not even buy the new gimmick, the so-called revolving fund, which would end up phasing it out. To me, the most damaging testimony they had on phasing it out is that it would cost the Federal Govern- inent more money in the guaranteed loan program than it costs the: Federal Government in the NDEA loan program. The only reason why Congress supported the guaranteed loan program in the first place is that they thought they would save some money and they would give the loan money to the students at lesser cost. I recognize that the college bears costs in the NDEA. loan program. that you don't in the guaranteed loan program. Mr. MOULTON. That is correct. Mr. QUIE. So, because of that I should say I loqk at the selfisl~ reasoning for the college willing to see the shift. But I am concerned PAGENO="0031" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 377 when a bank runs a loan program and knows how to determine the credit risk, but does not know the academic potentialities of the poor student. I look only at `the institution having that knowledge. Mr. MOULTON. Perhaps you misunderstand me here. I am not finding any fault with the National Defense Education Act. I think under all costs it should be maintained. I think once all 50 States have the guaranteed loan program in operation that there could be some overlap and that in the National Defense loan there may be a large appropriation one year and a considerably smaller one the next, depending on the need that is being felt by the students who are attending colleges from one State to another. It may be an excellent buffer program when economic conditions get tight. For example, they will be able to loosen up a little bit on the NDEA program. But to phase it out now would be a disaster, I think. Mr. HATHAWAY. You don't know what percentage of students have been denied guaranteed loans? Mr. MOULTON. I have no idea. Mr. HATHAWAY. Are any students getting both NDEA and guaranteed? Mr. MOULTON. That is an interesting question. I can't answer it specifically. It would be possible if the student were granted a National Defense educational loan for a thousand dollars and then borrowed a thousand dollars under the guaranteed loan program; there is nothing illegal about it so far as I know. Mr. HATHAWAY. Would you first refer somebody to a bank and ask, "See if you can get a guaranted loan and if you can't, come back and we will talk about NDEA"? Mr. MOULTON. I don't know what procedure Mr. Wilder would follow in this case. There is some honest indecision amongst financial aid officers as to what they would recommend if this situation cropped up. If a student received a National Defense Education Act loan and accepted it and then turned around and went to the bank and sought another thousand dollars under the guaranteed loan program, what kind of recommendation could we make to the bank in this case Would we recommend that the student be granted the loan or not? The right of paying for the educa~tion any way he would like to pay for it is still his. But at the same time, is the budget unreasonable? Should we withdraw the NDEA money? Should we in turn cut his grant? How should we package it in a situation like this? These are questions up in the air. I think we `have not had much experience with these two programs yet, working in conjunction. Mr. HATHAWAY. How about the administrative costs? Mr. MOULTON. Our administrative costs do exceed the Government subsidy. Mr. HATHAWAY. About how much? Mr. MOULTON. I don't know. I would have to ask the business office on, this. There has been no problem administering the program. We are grateful for the' money. Mr. HATHAWAY. Any problem with late funding? PAGENO="0032" 378 U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION Mr. MOULTON. Very little. We have no serious default rate. The serious default rate, the real delinquents would be less than 3 percent. Occasionally we will n.m into some people who will delay payment for a month or two but it has been our policy for a number of years now to give students a coupon book in their exit interview. They are clearly told what the repayment schedule will be a.nd they agree to it. They are given a coupon book and they pay back on a~ monthly basis. This has kept the delinquecy rate way down. We have had no problems on this of any sort. Mr. HATHAWAY. How about the late funding by the Congress? Mr. MOULTON. It would be very helpful to have at least another month on that. Especially last year. * Mr. GIBBONS. I wish it had gotten out earlier last year, too. Mr. MOULTON. We did have to rearrange our funds for the fresh- man class at n very late date because we did not know how much ~DEA money we were going to have. As it t.urned out, we were not given what we asked for. Consequently, we had to do a. little l)it of juggling between the upper classmen and freshmen to get the things balanced. So an additional month or two would be delightful. Mr. GIBBONS. I know Bowdoin College is an old college. Give me some estimate of its size. Mr. MOULTON. We have about 885 students in residence right now in th~ four cla.sses. We are an undergraduate men's college entirely. Mr. GIBBONS. Does the problem of forgiveness in the NDEA loans give you any problem? Mr. MOULTON. ~O. Mr. Qtr1E. You don't have much forgiveness? Mr. MOULTON. No, not a great deal. A great many of our students go on to graduate school and then into the professions. A fair num- ber of them do go into teaching. But forgiveness as such has not been a major item. Mr. GIBBONS. In the $3,450, what does that include, and what does it exclude? Is that total cost? Mr. MOULTON. That is total cost. Our fixed cost is $2,915. That includes the tuition, room, board, and fixed fees. The additional $500 to $550 would be in personal expense items which we feel is reasonable for us. This is the budget figure which we use for calculation of financial need by the CSS method. Mr. GIBBONS. In the work experience program or the work-study program that you have, what kind of work are the students actually doing? Mr. MOULTON. Tutorial assistance, research assistance to various faculty members. As a matter of fa.ct, I can give you exactly what we put in it for this year, tile title of the job. Again, I am afraid I will have to plead ignorance on other items. Of all of the Federal programs, I deal less with college work-study than I do with any other so I know less about it. Tutorial assistance, teaching assistance, research assistance, laboratory assistance, usually these are chemistry, biology, and physics majors who are assisting faculty members in either their own research projects or in the laboratory with other students. Library and museum assistance. Teciulicians, graphic arts, some clerical help, hospitality assistance, guides for campus and SO PAGENO="0033" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 379 forth. These are the kinds of jobs that we have been able to defer under the college work-study program. Mr. GIBBONS. In the college work-study program, did you have a program similar to this prior to the college work-study program? Mr. MOULTON. We have had work programs on the campus for a great many years. Our work budget now for an 885-man college is about $95,000 this year. It is hard to control a lot of it since men work in fraternity houses. Fraternities are private and the men in the fraternity hire their own waiters, their own dishwasher, and so on. Of course, skill is involved. You can't go out to hire anyone to ring the chimes and bells, call for classes, and so forth and so on. * But students have been working on the campus for a great many years. Mr. QUIB. How does that $95,000 compare with the Federal money in the work-study program? Mr. MOULTON. We are requesting $15,000 this year. Mr. HATHAWAY. Will the change in matching requirements alter the work-study program? Mr. MOULTON. Very little. We have, as I say, only 40 to 45 students who are going to be under college work-study. This is simply an institutional program. There is no carryover to summer programs. So that the matching requirement will affect us practically none at all. Mr. GIBBoNS. You conducted an upward bound program, I believe. Will you tell me how many people were involved in that? Mr. MOtTLTON. There are two people on the campus involved on a full-time basis, Robert Melody, associate director of the missions, and Doris Davis. Mr. Melody was director of the upward bound program. He hired 57 faculty members for this summer's program. He is in- volved with a number of other people throughout the State, counselors. Mr. GIBBONS. How many students did you have? Mr. MOULTON. Fifty. We had 25 boys and 25 girls. Mr. QUIE. Did they all go on to college? Mr. MOULTON. They are all seniors in high school now. Mr. GIBBONS. What is your opinion of the program? Mr. MOULTON. I had very little contact with it. From what con- tact I did have, it seemed to be working very well. I gave a lecture On financial aid and possibility of receiving help to finance education be- yond secondary school to this group one evening for about 21/2 to 3 hours. They seemed very excited about the whole project. Mr. GIBBONS. Do you think this is something that the Federal Government ought to be involved in? Mr. MOULTON. In what way? Mr. GIBBONS. Promoting such a program. Mr. MOULTON. Yes, very definitely. I think these were students who quite possibly, if it weren't for upward bound, would never had considered anything beyond secondary school. Mr. GIBBONS. Do you have any problem of dealing with the admin- istrators at the Washington level with this program because it is not an Office of Education program? Mr. MOULTON. Bob Melody, the associate director of the missions and director of the upward bound project, would have to comment on this. From what he has told me, none whatsoever. He has re- ceived excellent cooperation. 73-728-67-pt. 2-3 PAGENO="0034" 380 ms. OFFICE OF EDUCATION Mr. Qtm~. What about your educational opportunity grant?~ What kind of criteria did you write there? Mr. MOULTON. We use the CSS method of calculating the financial need. Any student whose total parental contribution was less than $625 a year would qualify for one of these grants. We gave out the money to all of the students who did qualify for it, concentrating primarily on the freshman class, the incoming students. Mr. QmE. Do you feel that they would not have been able to go to college if it had not been for the grant? Mr. MOULTON. May 1 speak candidly on that one? Mr. QUIE. OK. Mr. MOULTON. This is one of the requirements in the law. I think any financial aid officer has to tuck his tongue back in his cheek when he answers this one. The answer is both "Yes" anft "No." They are on campus. A student who is receiving an $800 educational opportunity grant will be receiving something like $2,200 from Bowdoin College. It has been my experience that if you giver the student $2,000, $2,200 or $2,300, he will get there somehow. Tech- nically, I guess the answer to that is "No." But of course what this money has enabled us to do is spread our funds over a greater number of students. We have also been able to encourage some students who might not think of Bowdoin in bringing them to the campus. It is an integral part of the package. If we didn't have it, it would put quite a burden on us to continue financing. It would be extremely difficult. Mr. GIBBONS. Have you ever had an outside audit of your NDEA funds? Mr. MOULTON. That, I don't know. Where I am involved with them, you see, on the freshman level primarily, I do not get involved. in the requests for the funds or in the audit or anything of this nature. Mr. HATHAWAY. Are your costs the same as Bates and Colby, stu- dents' costs? Mr. MOULTON. Probably $200 or so more expensive, the major difference being in tuition. I do not know what the Colby or Bates tuition is at present but we might be $100 or $200 more expensive than they are. Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Grindle. STATEMENT OP BRYCE GRINDLE, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OP STUDENT AID, UNIVERSITY OP MAINE, ORONO, MAINE Mr. GRINDLE. Yes, would you like me to comment now? Mr. GIBBONS. We certainly would. Mr. GRrnDLD. The tenor of my presentation I think is in keeping with President Young's feelings generally in that as far as student aid is involved, less category and more freedom of decisionmaking in our own office is needed. I am going to read from my statement, if you don't mind. Mr. GIBBONS. Certainly, go ahead. Mr. GRINDLE. I will limit my comments to the Financial Aid Branch of the U.S. Office of Education since this is the area of responsibility in which I am involved. PAGENO="0035" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 381 It is, in my view, time to stop, look, and listen. Apparently, Mem- bers of Congress are in agreement with me; hence this committee hearing. From a student aid officer's point of view there are now sufficient programs available to provide financial assistance to students. Quan- tity, or lack of it, is not our problem. With the passage of the Higher Education Act of 1965 and the establishment of federally supported grants-in-aid this is particularly true. We must now concern ourselves with quality of administration and finesse in assisting the most needy students with the best possible aid arrangements. Ideally, to make student aid most effective, few restrictions should be placed on the administration of funds. Present policies of the USOE, Federal Government, have turned student aid officers into little more than bookkeepers. Imagination and expertise in financial aid administration have been lost. I doubt that there would be any marked change in present award patterns if more freedom were allowed. Needy students would continue to be assisted. Also, there would be in most cases little civil rights conflict. Student aid officers are in the best position to evaluate a student's need and to decide which financial aid package is best suited to his needs. Present restrictions are so binding in the arranging of awards that there is little else to do except to follow tables. This is particularly true in the awarding of funds under the educational opportunity grants program. Please allow me at this time to evaluate the three major financial aid programs that the university is involved with: 1. THE NATLONAL DEFENSE STUDENT LOAN PROGRAM This is the oldest of the Federal programs and one of the m~st successful. In no small measure can the success be attributed to the fact that great freedom in administration has been enjoyed by. the student aid officer.. This program must be heralded as a maj or break- through to the college cost barrier. For the first time, large sums of loan money were available to needy students on an unsecured basis. It is my opinion that hundreds of thousands of young people have been able to attain a college educa- tion because of the availability of this loan a~istance. Without it, they would not have had this opportunity. Rumors that administration plans called for the phasing out of this program came as~ a great shock to student aid personnel. Any action of this kind would constitute a grave injustice to the young people of this country and would leave a large gap in financial aid programs. 2. COLLEGE WORK-STUDY PROGRAM This program of self-help is becoming an increasingly mportant program of financial assistance. Most students welcome the oppor- tumty to help meet their college costs through their own efforts. The shift of part of the burden to meet expenses from the parents tO the student is most desirable as college cost continue to rise. The psychological benefit.s cannot be measured as the student as- sumes this responsibility, but it certainly is important. Also, the PAGENO="0036" 382 u.s. OFFICE OF EDUCATION chance to participate by working gives the student a keen awareness of economic problems and develops a certain camaraderie between his friends and faculty. Most significantly, it gives the student, from the low-income family, the opportunity to have a few dollars to spend on clothing, recreation, and travel which he otherwise would not have. It gives him the chance to participate in the whole college experience, because some of these experiences cost money. 3. EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY GRANT PROGRAM This is one of the most exciting programs which has ever been de- veloped. Gentlemen, I do not need to remind you of the historic sig- nificance either. Truly, there need be no talented youngsters stay out of college for a lack of ftmds. The administration and the Congress should be complimented on meeting the high cost of college head on. As things were going, it was indeed impossible for a youngster to aspire to attend college. Financially, it was simply out of reach. Now, with the advent of this program, coupled with the national defense loans and college work-study jobs, a financial aid package can be arranged which will make it possible for these youngsters to go to college. Significantly, this is a grant program. Undue or excessive loans can be avoided by making this part of the aid package. Generally, the Office of Education does an adequate job in adminis- tering the Federal student aid programs. However, as was mentioned before, less restrictions and more freedom in administration is needed. All too frequently the administrative memorandums come some months after the program has been put into effect at the institution. This re- sults in blind groping and error. Some difficulties arise in preparing reports, because no instructions well in advance of the report are sent indicating what information will be requested. Likewise, data processing systems are thrown off when USOE changes report requirements and coding in midstream. I would like at this time to express concern over three major problems. 1. The first of these are: late notIfication of National Defense Stu- dent Loan Program funds. At this point I would like to stop and give the dates from 1962 to 1066, the dates on which the University of Maine received a firm com- mitment of national defense funds. In 1962, we got our commitment on August 15th; in 1963, on September 5th; in 1964, on September 16th; 1965 was a very good year, June 16th; in 1966, on August 5th. This causes great problems in committing money to students since we don't have a commitment ourselves as to exactly how much money we will have to loan. The U.S. Office of Education need not share the blame here. It seems that Congress insists on waiting until the 11th hour to appro- priate the funds. However, the wrath of the participating institutions must be borne by the Office of Education. It would seem advisable for Congress to put the appropriation of the money for this program at the top of the calendar in order to give participating institutions an opportu- PAGENO="0037" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 383 nity to receive a commitment of their allocation at the earliest possible time. It seems that year after year, school is about to open before a firm commitment of funds is received. 2. Secondly, in regard to the college work-study program the share of agency payments to students will increase to 25 percent from the present 10 percent on August 20, 1967. It is the view of most student aid officers that this will have a disas- trous effect on the future growth of the program. I have talked to the administrators of several of the off-campus agencies that employ our students and am told that they simply will have to withdraw, because they cannot raise the additional funds. Likewise, institutional employment will drop off, because depart- mental budgets simply cannot expand to meet this increase. It is my considered judgment that it is a disservice to nonprofit agencies, insti- tutions, and needy students if this is allowed to happen because of an increase in percentage support. Congress should be implored to sup- port a bill to freeze the matching share at 10 percent. To do this would be in the public interest, and entirely in keeping with the spirit of providing financial assistance for needy students. 3. Finally, present Office of Education schedules for determining the amount of EOG awards are too restrictive. By law, no award can exceed $800 and none can be less than $200. This is entirely acceptable. However, between these extremes, the student aid officer has to determine the size of the grant within the maximum and minimum levels based on his own information, knowledge of the students' needs, and prevailing economic conditions. In summary, we must strive for quality in education while opening new vistas of opportunity for all our citizens. It is a time to stop and reflect on what we have, to look searchingly at new approaches to our problems, and to listen to experience. That is my presentation. Mr. QUIE. Since there is a pause here, let me ask a few questions, if I may. Mr. GIBBONS. Go ahead. Mr. QUIE. You are concerned over the change in matching money? Mr. GRINDLE. Yes, sir. Mr. QmE. But listening to the jobs that Mr. Moulton spoke of in his college it looked like the program was especially of aid to the college because all the jobs that are being done are ones that if the college had the money they would have funded themselves. There- fore, since the college benefits to such a great degree, surely 25 percent should not be out of line because they can do a better job of teaching and every other way. Mr. GRINDLE. You will note that Bowdoin's program is entirely for the institution itself. He listed no jobs off campus. The University of Maine has done a good deal of activity off campus. We do during the school year, while school is in session. I must confess the great bulk of our students are employed here because we have transportation problems, even into Bangor, which is only 8 miles away. There is no bus service after 6 in the evening. It is very difficult for us to get students back and forth. PAGENO="0038" 384 U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION However, we do have over 40 students employed with seven different agencies in the Bangor area during the school year. Our major con- cern is primarily in the summer. I have arranged a work program for next summer to include prac- tically the entire State of Maine. I attended a meeting in Augusta at the office of Mr. Robert Brown, who is the State coordinator for the Office of Economic Opportunity, at which all of the community action program directors from all of Maine's 16 counties were present. I asked them if they would cooperate with us to arrange a work program this summer to employ our students at various nonprofit agencies, or with OEO activities, so that these students could be em- ployed basically in their hometowns. We have a program this summer which will operate from Fort Kent, Maine's northernmost city, to Kittery, which is Maine's southernmost city, in conjunction with the program. So we will be able to offer students under these programs employ- ment in their hometowns virtually statewide. Concern arises out of the fact that we employ students with agencies such as the YMCA. As you know, they work on very, very limited budgets. They can't hope to operate on membership fees alone. They must receive their money from gifts and contributions and their fair share of United Fund activities. It will cause them some problem when this goes to 25 percent. We are actually talking almost 30 percent, you see, because we must consider social security benefits in this payment, too. Also, each of these agencies is required to provide workmen's compensation. In many cases, this requires them to go out and purcha.se a separate policy. So that when we are talking the difference between 10 and 25 we are talking of a difference between really 15 and something over 30. Mr. Qum. Do you feel there could be any difference where the in- stitution benefits from the work that the student does and one where it doesn't benefit? Mr. GRINDLE. Yes, there probably could be a difference. Our fiscal arrangement here at the university is that each university department has its own budget, and part of that budget is allocated to student em- ployment. This is all university money, I will grant you. But departmental budgets are strained to provide for equipment and research and this type of thing, and the student employment item of that budget is not a great one. It will cause departments to not be able tohire as many students as they did before. President Young could comment on this much better than I could. Maybe what is in your mind is: "Why does not the university generate more money for student clinics?" I don't know. Mr. MOULTON. I think the one who is benefiting from the Work- Study Program is not the institution necessarily, it is the student. Mr. Qur~. I don't know about that. If the student could have worked for the institution without any Federal money and therefore instead of increasing your own program of employment you got the Federal help by the Federal Government paying the student, really the institution is benefiting from it. Dr. Youi~o. Mr. Chairman, may I comment on this? Part of the requirement when we started this is that we continue all previous levels PAGENO="0039" `U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 385 of student employment. This we have stuck to very closely. We un- derstood when the law was passed that the 10 percent would later go to 25 percent, and we accepted it under those terms. We have a policy, insofar as we can, of providing our increased jobs for students. We will make every effort if it goes up to 25 percent to shift to stu- dent employment. There are many areas where it is difficult because of hours, as in running kitchens and dormitories. I think the basic point is, when we ask the department can you afford to go from 10 per- cent to 25 percent, their answer is "No." But I can pledge you that we ~would much prefer 10 percent. But if it goes to 25 we will still do our `very best to make it work and shift our funds accordingly, but it will take some doing. Mr. Gordon is in the room. He is our treasurer. He may want to make some comment but I know his resourcefulness and I know some- `where, somehow, he will find as much of the money as we can lay our `hands on. We will try to divert. It is a burden on some of our man- agement people to use students who will disappear during examination time and go on vacations. There are lots of things around the universities that students can't do. Bowdoin projects are clearly the kind that are not bothered by the problems we have. But we have a lot more students. Unless we can employ them with our own money, the thing we have to do, student employment does create problems. But we will handle it. We would rather stick to 90 percent rather than 75 but we will take the money and work with it. Mr. GRINDLE. Our basic problem' will be more off campus than on campus. Mr. HATHAWAY. What are some of the other agencies besides YMCA? Mr. GRINDLE. Mr. Hathaway, it depends on what particular unit we are talking about. Let me cite an example of one of our most impressive projects, I call it, last summer in Augusta. We did have a program with the Augusta- Gardner Area Community Council which is the community action program for southern Kennebeck County. We employed 51 students in that area. They worked in about a dozen different agencies. We ~had many students employed by the State of Maine as clerical help in the State department. We had several employed as guides in the State house. We had students at the Augusta State Hospital. In addition to this, other agencies such as the Augusta Nature Club ~used one of our students as a natural trail guide. The student had `considerable experience in forestry and did a real hangup job. We had students at the Augusta General Hospital and with the various Augusta municipal departments as well. One student, a business major, assisted the city of Chelsea, and did `a real fine job there, too. `This is generally the type of work which you will find the student involved in in most communities. In addition to this, they work for school districts and school systems. Sometimes it is in Headstart, `assisting teachers in OEO programs. Sometimes it is as maintenance ~people if we can't find anything else. We don't generally like to put ~ college student in a maintenance job. We have very few of these. PAGENO="0040" 386 U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION We try to make the experience a meaningful and a learning experience when we can. Mr. HATHAWAY. These agencies have complained that 25 percent is going to hurt them. Mr. GRINDLE. Many of them have, yes. Mr. HATHAWAY. Even those are jobs they would have had normally. Mr. G-RINDLE. No, these are not jobs they would have had normally. These are jobs they would have above and beyond. We must remain within the spirit of the law and not replace existing workers. These are jobs tha.t were desirable to be done and which in many cases had never been done before but now could be with this program. Mr. QUIB. But they do lighten the load of the organization? Mr. GRINDLE. In some instances, yes. But in maiiy instances it is a service being performed which otherwise would not be performed. We have had students working at Acadia National Park in Bar Harbor the last two summers. The superintendent at the park was overjoyed at the work that is being done, particularly in the opening of new accesses to the park, which could not have been done otherwise with his own staff. I don't know if you are familiar at all with the Bar Harbor area, but this was the summer home of the Rockefellers for many years, and cutting through Acadia National Park are many carriage trails. These trails have just simply gone to ruin. They have grown over. Some of our students worked opening these trails up. This makes a much more enjoyable place for visitors to go now because the park is much more serviceable. The superintendent assured me that these trails would not have been opened because they did not have the staff to do it themselves. Mr. GIBBONS. Would you really call that a meaningful learning experience? Mr. GRINDLE. No, I wouldn't. Dr. YOUNG. May I interrupt, sir? Mr. GIBBONS. Go ahead. Dr. YOUNG. I was at the park and these students were developing exhibits and classifying them. They were really doing botany. Mixed up with some of the digging was excellent supervision. I was surprised. I would have had the same view you had, but I was down there looking around seeing what was going on, and found that it was for these students a very meaningful experience. Mr. GRINDLE. Not all of our students were involved in this work at Acadia. We had other students involved with some of the types of activities he suggests plus doing receptionist work and mamiing some of the information booths, this type of thing, in the park as well. Mr. QrnE. Of course there they are working in a national park and therefore it is still the Federal Government's money, the 25 percent share that they would pay. Mr. GRINDLE. I would like to comment on that if I might, on the park. The Federal Government has paid us nothing for the employ- ment of these students down there. There is no conflict of Federal money, matching Federal money. The then Attorney General Katzen- bach ruled t.h~.t this could be clone. However. the Interior Department has not paid us, for two summers. their share of employment clown there. PAGENO="0041" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 387 Mr. QUIE. They are even worse than the U.S. Office of Education. Mr. GRINDLE. Yes. The reason being that the Legal Counsel for the Interior Department has determined that* since the appropriations bill to rim the Interior Department, which is a public law, carries no specific reference to payment of money for these students, legally it caimot be done. We got stung. The University of Alabama got stung the same way. They em-~ ployed students under the auspices of the Bureau of Mines and they have not received their money either. I know Congressman Hathaway is aware of this because we enlisted his aid to see if we could not resolve the situation. Two summers ago, we employed 21 students; this past summer, 17 students, at the park. Next summer it is doubtful that we will be able to employ any, unless some type of arrangement can be made for the park to fund its share. Mr. HATHAWAY. On the economic opportunity grants you mention that you are relegated to a position of being a bookkeeper. You would like what, a 100-percent discretion at this time, limit the amount? Mr. GRINDLE. I would like the opportunity to make this comment on that. This educational opportunity grant program as it is now in operation is a difficult one to administer fairly, keeping in mind that there is a great deal of difference between institutions. For instance, at the University of Maine, our total cost is $1,650. Bowdoin's is $3,450. Mr. QuIR. Are you comparing the same costs? Mr. GRINDLE. The same types of costs, total costs. Mr. QuIE. Room, board, clothing. Mr. GRINDLE. The whole bit. Mr. MOULTON. Our difference being in tuition. Mr. GRINDLE. Ours is $400 and theirs is $1,900. Under present schedules, as I pointed out, if a student is eligible for a $700 grant we must give him that. We must; Bowdoin must. If we give a student a $700 grant and Bowdoin gives a $700 grant, we are doing a great deal more, proportionately, for that student than Bowdoin is. I am not talking about the final package now. I am talking about what the grant represents. So that we would like the opportunity to give that student something less than t.hat, to possibly give that stu- dent only a $400 educational opportunity grant; but the schedule says he is entitled to $700, and you must give him $700. Mr. GIBBONS. We didn't intend it that way. I really didn't under- stand that, because that is not what we intended. Mr. GRINDLE. That is what OE says. Mr. MOULTON. I disagree with Bryce on this point, quite frankly. I think the guidelines for the U.S. Office of Education are entirely reasonable. The U.S. Office of Education is squarely behind the scholarship service method of computing financial need. In that method I think the financial aid officer has all the flexibility that he needs. He may acceptor not accept the family income figure on the scholarship service statement. He tha.y accept or he may grant or he may not grant the allowances that are usually taken into account on the system of computing need. He may accept or not accept the contribution from income. He may increase it; he may decrease it. What he does in this process of PAGENO="0042" 388 U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION establishing a student's need will then be reflected in the educationaI~ opportunity grant the student is given, but he has complete freedom~ to decide how much is coming from the home. It is common practice for me when computing financial need for- incoming students to change approximately 35 percent of the financial needs analysis reports that are submitted by the College Scholarship Service when these forms are ified. Mr. Gi~mTDI~u. There is no conflict here, because whether you use the parents' contribution that comes through on the parents' financial~ needs analysis report, from the College scholarship Service, or- whether you adjust it and use your own, you still are going to be working with a figure in the end. You are still going to be working- with a parental contribution. I don't question that these are changed. We change them, too. I don't Imow if we change 25 percent of them but the point is that there is a definite schedule here, starting at 625 at the top and zero at the- bottom. Now, whatever your final parental contribution is-and this can be- the CSS figure or your own; I don't care-you must look down on that schedule and find the parents' contribution; and that is the size of they award-it must be that. Now I don't particularly like to do it this way. I would rather,. within the spirit of the law, the 800 maximum, the 200 minimums based~ on our experience and our knowledge, be able to determine the size of the award. One other point comes to mind on this. Every out-of-State stu- dent necessarily has a higher financial need because out-of-State.. students pay more tuition. For instance, an in-State student pays $400 tuition. An out-of- State student pays $1,000. The budget, therefore, for an in-State- student is $1,650. Theoretically for an out-of-State student it is $600 more, $2,250. This makes practically every out-of-State student ap- pear to have a higher degree of financial need. We use our educational opportunity grant money on those students~ with the highest financial need. We take all of* our folders and we pull all those out who need the help the most and these we want to~ give this grant money to. Mixed m that group are many, many out-of-State students. So that theoretically what this program does here is to assist out-of-State stu- dents and the money is gone and we have nothing left to help the- Maine students. Let us bear in mind at the same time that we have an 80-20 rela- tionship in enrollment-80 percent of our students are from Maine, 20 percent are from out of State. But because of the higher cost to an out-of-State student, and therefore, a higher financial need, all the- EOG money will go to out-of-State students-to 20 percent of the' student body. Mr. GIBBONS. I wish the staff would make a note to check whether- that is unique here or whether that is a constrained interpretation. Mr. Guxnn~. We don't have the flexibility to determine who gets; the award and the size of the award within the maximum and mini- mum levels. We don't have the same problem that Bowdoin College PAGENO="0043" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 389 has. If they give an EOG award they are still a long way from meet- ing the student's need. If we give an $800 EOG, we are halfway there. I did want to make this point clear. Mr. MOULTON. May I ask you a question, please? Mr. GRINDLE. Yes. Mr. MoULToN. Do you have any EOG money to finance all the peo- pie in your freshman class that qualify for it? Mr. GRINDLE. We had more than enough EOG money to assist all of our freshman students who had a relatively high degree of ftnan- cial need, yes. Mr. MOULTON. The reason I ask the question is this: If you accept a student from out of State versus a student from within the State, if both families make the same amount of money, if the financial sit- uations are comparable, the student from out of State does have a higher need, consequently, the money is going to the needier student, whether he is in the State or out of State. Mr. GRINDLE. Yes. I can't argue that fact, of course. Mr. MOULTON. I would assume, too, there would be some reciprocity between States. Mr. GRINDLE. Yes. But we want to be sure that we are helping the most needy students and not giving this money to a small segment of our small minority, if you want to call it that, of our student body. We use our educational opportunity grants money to our most needy students. When that is gone, then our institutional money goes into play. By law, of course, we must maintain our own spending, our own institutional spending. We have done this. In fact, we have exceeded it. It has gone up. Mr. QUIE. What about the requirement that the student would not otherwise have been able to attend college or the university? Mr. GRINDLE. This is a difficult thing to say because if the student didn't get an educational opportunity grant we probably somehow would have arranged a University of Maine scholarship forhim. So it is difficult to say. You have to look at it maybe another way. By using this money on the top of our need schedule it allows us to assist more students who have maybe a moderate financial need. If you are coming to college and your need is $600, that is just as real to you as the need to a student who has a $1,200 deficit. Do you see what I mean? A student has a $1,200 need, he has a real need to him. A student who has a $600 need, his need is real, too- Mr. Qnn~. But the $600 student would be more willing to work through a loan method than the $1,200 student. Mr. G1iTNDLE. I don't know. I don't think anybody is any more willing to accept a loan than a scholarship. Mr. Qrriu. Not that, but I think it is easier to accept a $600 loan than a $1,200 loan. Mr. GRINDLE. Exactly. Mr. MOULTON. One of the things that the educational opportunity grant has done is to convince some students who would not think of college, that college is possible; that the publicity of the EOG through the school systems has resulted in an increase in the number of people who wouldn't consider college. PAGENO="0044" 390 U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION Mr. G~BoNs. One thing we tried to do in the EOG operation was to reach out and identify and really tie it in with upward bound. There is also a program that is similar to upward bound that is authorized under the same section of this law. What kind of programs of outreach is the university carrying on? Dr. YOUNG. May I answer that? Mr. GIBBONS. Yes. Dr. YoUNG. I found this item in the law as soon as it was pubFshed. We joined with the other institutions in the State in developing a program which we called the talent scout program we have about $75,000. We have a staff of five people. An advisory committee representing Mr. Moulton's superiors, I guess you would say, is very active in this. \\Te have a staff going out from here telling the schools, change your guides and program because there are opportunities now for the able students if you combine all these things. This is going on. Everywhere I speak in the State, the service clubs, alumni, I say it is the task of every businessman, every person in the community, to help with the program, to explain it to young people, and to advise them. One of the great problems we have in our admissions office is that of bright students who took the wrong programs in high school, simply because 4 or 5 years ago this opportunity did not exist and they were advised to take the short course, the wrong track. Now we are trying to overcome this by get.ting to the eighth and ninth graders and to t.heir families. We are very proud of this program. Mr. GRINDLE. May I make some additional comments? In addition to working very closely with what is called the Maine Talent Utilization Agency that Dr. Young mentioned, the office of student aid at the university has endeavored to launch a recruitment activity. We have contacted all three upward bound programs in Maine. We have one here at the university. Bowdoin College has one and so does Gorham State College. I have invited all of the directors of these programs to refer, without a moment's hesitancy, to me any of the students in this program who express a desire to attend the university, and to give that student a real hard look, studentwise. Of course, when the student gets admitted I do intend for this stu- dent to have an educationa.l opportunity grant without any question. In addition to this, every high school principal and guidance in- structor in Maine has been sent information, broken down in simplified terms, regarding the educational opportunity grant program. They all have been invited to remain in close contact with me, to refer to me any student who appears t.o be talented, who appears to need this money. * So that we have launched this recruitment activity. Another thing which I haven't done, but which I contemplate doing, is to get in touch with the Family Services Division of the Maine Department of Health and Welfare and to encourage each and every social worker in the State to refer to me any student. that they come in contact with in their day-to-day dealings with families who appears to be a candidate for this t.ype of assistance. PAGENO="0045" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 391 We are not limiting our contacts to 12th grade or seniors, either. We want to know of ninth grade students or sophomores and juniors in high school, to advise them as early as we can to be sure to take the proper programs to get into college. We can't make a formal commitment. I can't tell a high school freshman that 4 years from now he will receive this and this and this, because our money is not structured that way. Mr. QuiE. The University of Minnesota, by the way, does do that now. They have a program where they will make the commitment. Mr. GRINDLE. This is a very desirable thing to do. But when Con- gress makes commitments, or the U.S. Office of Education makes com- mitments, from year to year it is difficult to make commitments for 4 years hence. We particularly find this true with the National Defense program. Mr. Cutts, who admisters this program, was telling me yesterday that the curve has been continually going up in the amount of money we have received and the number of students who have gotten these loans since the program was instituted in 195g. However, this year the curve drops sharply. We received over $100,009 less in National Defense money to use this year than we got last year. Last year, we received $416,000. This year, we are receiv- ing $280,000. Mr. QUIR. What is the reason for the cuts since the Congress ap- propriated the money? Mr. GRINDLE. We asked the same question. We were given this answer: that according to a schedule, this is what the University of Maine is entitled to. Now we asked, of course, why did we get $416,000 last year or why have we been getting over the schedule, and now suddenly a schedule is applied? Well, we got this answer that apparently. in the last decade there has been a tremendous growth in colleges and universities in the Midwest and Far West and there has not been a comparable growth in New England and that New England institutions have been in the past re- ceiving money above `what the schedule called for. Now since this money is needed more badly in the Midwest and Far West because of their growth, they must now take away from us the money that they were `allocating above the schedule. Mr. QuiR. That is why my friends from Minnesota have never come to me with this problem. Mr. GRINDLE. Yes. It seemed to us a reasonable explanation and one which we were satisfied with, and while we are not happy about the loss of money to use, we certainly don't want to penalize somebody who is entitled to this money `and we will be very happy with our scheduled share. But this did, you see, cause us a serious problem. Now a good deal of the void has been filled with the guarantee loans. About 2 weeks ago, we ran a quick tape on what we know about University of Maine students who have borrowed. At that time, the University of Maine students had borrowed in excess of' $230,000. So that the amount of money that we did not have to lend was more than made up by stu- dents being able to go to the bank and borrow money. PAGENO="0046" 392 u.s. om~E OF EDUCATION Mr. GIBBONS. Let me interrupt you here. One problem which has been worrymg the whole committee for a number of years is the general philosophy of forgiveness in the NDEA loan. Let us talk a little about the whole philosophy of forgiveness in the national defense education student loan program. Can we get some philosophical views from you as well as some practical views of the admimstration of this particular phase of the program ~ Mr. SE E'rr. I would like to make one comment relative to the forgiveness feature. It is my conviction that we should abolish the forgiveness feature not only from an administrative angle but also from a philosophical angle of getting something for nothing. In telling a student, "It is a loan which we will forgive you," we are saying in other words, "We are bringing you to become a teacher in a public or a private school." I think it is absolutely wrong to set aside a particular group to re- ceive these benefits while other groups do not receive comparable benefits. Then there is another thing which I would like to see and that is a considerable shortening of the time of repayment of these loans, especially if they do not exceed, we might say, a thousand dollars or something like that. It seems to me it is an extremely long time to carry on an account for as long as 12 years from the time the student leaves school to period- ically collect five, six or what-have-you dollars from that student. `Mr. GIBBONS. I agree with you. Mr. Qurs. I just want to comment that your statement on the for- giveness was surely after my heart. I would like to hear what the other gentlemen think on it. What we tried to do for awhile was to give to the institution the latitude. of receiving the total amount of money, of $100,000 to use as an ex- ample. Since about 24 to 25 percent of the student loan money is actually forgiven to them, you can use all of the $100,000 for loans or if you desire, and up to 25 percent of it can be used in a grant for the most needy students to work out a package for them so that they would receive their financial grant not as a result of going to a partic- ular occupation, and later on when they can afford to pay it back but at a time when it will do the most to encourage them to enter college or pursue their college. Mr. GIBBONS. You have forgiveness now, maybe it doesn't hit you all. I don't Imow whether you have medical training schools and iiurse training schools and things like that, hut we have forgivenesses `now in so many of these loan programs that it has really become a hodgepodge. We would like you to talk about the philosophy of forgiveness, the practicality of forgiveness. Dr. YOUNG. Our treasurer, Mr. Gordon, is here. He may have had some experience. Mr. GoRDoN (treasurer, University of Maine). Philosophically, I agree with Mr. Sennett, but mechanically, of course, it is a mess- because, as you mentioned, there are so many areas of forgiveness. We ~an live with it. We are not suffering, but it seems very complicated. PAGENO="0047" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 393 Mr. GIBBONS. Do you feel it makes second-class citizens out of teachers? Does it really affect their income, say, "Well, you got your ~education partly for free or mostly for free and we are going to take :it out of your pay anyway"? Mr. GORDON. I don't know. I think originally it was to encourage :teachers. I don't think it does that. I don't think most people have gone into the teaching profession. Mr. GIBBONS. Does it have the effect of making people look down on teachers to say, "Well, the only reason you are a teacher is because you got your education free"? Mr. GORDON. I don't believe so. Dr. YOUNG. Mr. Crawford may have some comment. Mr. CRAWFORD. I agree with Mr. Sennett that I do not like the idea of the forgiveness feature, particularly since it applied to teachers, ~but I would not like it anywhere for a category. It Congress wished to forgive a certain amount for all who went to college that would be ~a different story. That would be essentially the grants you are talk- ing about. But to pick out casually, I don't like it but so far as -teachers are concerned, I don't like it at all. Mr. GIBBONS. That is interesting. The teacher lobby doesn't tell us the same thing. Mr. MOULTON. I don't have strong opinions on this one way or the other. I am not invols-ed in it. I was sitting here thinking, how- ever, that if a student in a very expensive college such as Bowdoin manages to borrow $3,000 and is paying it back on a 10-year basis and is forgiven $1,500 of it, that represents only $150 a year. I don't think that a teacher, or for that matter any other group of people, is going to feel extremely pinched for $150 a year. Mr. GRINDLE. I have rather mixed feelings about it because it strikes me personally. I was married when I went to college, myself, and self- supporting, and borrowed national defense money and went into teach- ing and did get a cancellation. I might comment that I signed a contract to teach school the first year for $3,900-married and two children. While paying back $150 or $200 or whatever it is, I would have done it had I had to. Cer- tainly it was a welcome relief at the end of the year to receive this grace. I am very thankful for it. I don't know how many teachers start at $3,900 any more. I know they start in Maine for about $4,700 now. Outside of Maine, they start for a great deal more. Our place- ment director tells us that those who go into industry or government or whatnot start for anywhere from $1,500 to $2,000 more a year than those who go into education. So that theoretically, keeping in mind the era out of which this program was born-the post-Sputnik era- and the great charge ahead for excellence in teaching, I don't have any strong feelings that forgivness is bad. That was nearly 10 years ago. The need to attract people I think is still here but the need to cancel may not be here. I really don't know. I don't have strong feelings on it one way or the other. But I don't think that the country has suf- fered. I don't think the teaching profession has suffered because of PAGENO="0048" 394 U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION this cancellation. I don't personally feel they are being singled out. I don't feel that they are being labeled or anything of this iiature. It is a very personal thing. If you borrow in a 1-to-I relationship from the college you pay it back the same way.. I am sure that the business office of any college isn't making public the fact that you have money and that each year you must come and pay this off. To get the thing canceled you only hake to have your superintendent sign a form so that he is the only one in the school system who knows this. If you don't choose to tell anybody else-I am making mine as a matter of public record with the Congress of the United States-but if you don't choose to tell anybody, who knows ? :1 just offer these comments, that is all. Mr. QUIE. May I ask a couple of questions here. One has to do with the Congress appropriating the money, which ends up with the forgiveness, to better use some place else. And the second one is that in 1958 we needed quantity. We didn't have the teachers, quali- fied or not. Now we have the numbers, we need the quality. Will the forgiveness give us quality? * Mr. GRINDLE. I don't think so. I think if a person is a high-type individual and talented he will or will not go into teaching because he does or doesnot want to teach or he will or will not go into busi- ness. In other words, I don't think that the forgiveness feature at- tracts talented people into teaching, no. Your first question, if I am right now, was the ability to use 25 percent of that money for grant~purposes~ I would suggest that since we have a grant program now that if this is what Congress wishes to do, just give us ~T5 percent of whatever our loan allocation would be and put the other 25 percent onthe EOG program. Why create anot:her administrative problem, another set of reports and another application?. : Mr. Qum~. Of course, this was recommended before on EOG. Mr. GRINDLE. Yes. Mr. GIBBONS. Wipe out forgiveness. Mr. HATHAWAY. President Young, I was curious when we got to your statement on page 5 that no applications for title V have been granted to this university or New England. Do you know why? Dr. YOUNG. I don't know why. I don't think there is anybody in the room who knows why. Mr. SENNETT. Mr. Chairman, there is a.nother problem as far as we are concerned. The teachers' colleges, State colleges in most cases now throughout the land, have for the most part a student body which is not of the economic level of the student body at Bowdoin, Bates, Colby, and so on, or even the State university. The gra.nts are made on more or less of a basis of cost to students at these institutions as far as the NDEA loans are concerned. It is my belief that the percentage of need for students at State colleges is considerably greater than it is at the major portion of ~ur private colleges. To give you an ifiustration of that, 1 believe Bowdoin had a. grant this year of roughly $100,000 with 850 students. Mr. GrEBoNs. What program is this? PAGENO="0049" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 395 Mr. SENNETT. NDEA. Bowdoin had a grant of something over $100,000. Washington State College has a grant of $13,500, in the neighborhood of $13,500. In other words, about $35 per student. Mr. GIBBONS. How many students did you say you had? Mr. SENNETT. 327 students. We can say $35 per student with Bowdoin's grant of considerably over $100 per student. It is my con- tention that the percentage of need on the part of our students is con- siderably greater than it is at most of our private colleges. In other words, $100 on the account of a student at Washington State College means a great deal more than on the account of the student at Bowdoin College. Mr. HATI-JAWAY. Were you cut back like the other institutions? Mr. SENNETT. Yes, we were cut back on what we requested and the formula we were supposed to go by. Mr. HATHAWAY. Were any of you on that regional panel, in the regional office from the New England area? Anybody from the IJni- versity of Maine on that regional panel? Mr. GRINDLE. You mean to consider the applications for student aid programs for this current school year? Mr. HATHAWAY. Yes. Mr. GRINDLE. No. But the Director of Student Aid, Mr. Warrick, is on the panel to consider the applications for the next school year. But the year we got the big cut we weren't represented. Mr. MoijuroN. Could I ask a question, Dr. Sennett? How much would it cost a student reasonably to go to your school for 1 year? Mr. SENNETT. Exclusive of personal expenses, almost an even $1,000. Mr. MOULTON. I would be interested now, it will cost a student $2,915 to go to Bowdoin exclusive of personal expenses. What would be the percentage of need to fill by our $100 versus your $35 per student? Mr. SENNETT. Of course, that is taking figures off the tOp of my head but I do believe that if we take the average parental income of Bowdoin College parents and compare it with the average income of parents of Washington State College students, I am going to say the parental income of Bowdoin College students would probably be four to five times the parental income of Washington State students. Mr. MOULTON. I can tell you what the average income of our schol- arship recipient is. These are people getting grants and loans. For the class of 1959 I can give you several different figures on this. The average family income of candidates requesting aid, was $10,191. The average family income of aid recipients, that is those to whom we made offers of aid, some of these did not matriculate of course, was $8,469. The average family income of aid recipients who matriculated was $7,778. Our total cost of $3,450, of course, represents 50 percent of such families. I suggest the need may be a relative consideration. Mr. SENNETT. I am not arguing the question of the need of assist- ance to Bowdoin or anything of that nature so far as that is concerned, but it does concern me, because the relative aid to our students and the relative aid to students at other types of institutions seem to vary considerably. Mr. GIBBONS. What you are saying is that Congress is preferring students who pick out the high-priced institutions? 73-728-~7-pt. 2-4 PAGENO="0050" 396 u.s. OFFICE OF EDUCATION Mr. S~i~rr. Right. Mr. GnmoNs. That has worried me. I have some practical exam- ples down in my State, too, in the college work-study program. Mr. MouLToN. I don't know whether there is an answer to it. I don't think we should be in the business of telling students which col- lege they should prefer. I think that is their business, not really ours. Dr. YOUNG. I think there might be some advantage in giving a flat sum to needy students and let them go where they want to go with their money. Mr. GIBBONS. I think that is where you differ right there. That is the problem we run into. Mr. QUIE. In effect that is what is happening in the EOG. Dr. YOUNG. Not the way NDEA is giving out. Otherwise, he would get at least a third as much as Bowdoin. Mr. GIBBONS. Not the Work-Study Program, by the way. Mr. QuIE. Both t.he Work-Study and EOG are grants to students. In the loan program until this last year really most of the institutions received the money they asked for. Dr. YOUNG. Now they are at the point of using the formula. Its unfairness shows up the first time if you agree with Mr. Sennett. As long as they didn't use it, it did not make any difference. Mr. QuID. It was great until you had to go to the formula. It makes us wonder whether the formula ought to be retained. I think we ~ot into the trouble because the administration started toying around with the guaranteed loan program, so that the loan program would not show up on the budget as a deficit. Mr. GRINDLE. I doubt if the formula would have been used if it had not been for the guaranteed loan program. Mr. QUIE. Yes. You mentioned the fact that the Congress should appropriate `for 2 years or at least give commitments for 2 years so you čould get some leadtime. I think we also are guilty of continually changing these programs so that you are confused enough on what is coming next. Mr. GIBBONS. I wish the staff would make a note of the fact we ought to examine these formulas and have discussions among ourselves as to what we ought to do about it. Mr. MOULTON. I would like to reemphasize what Bryce said con- cerning the national defense loans program notification date. To give the committee a little background on this-we normally make commit- ments to students about June 20. That is, as soon as grades have `been passed in at the conclusion of the academic year. We try to let students know in early summer how much aid they are going to have and in what proportion. Of course, if we don't learn how much National Defense money we are going to have until August or September, that makes things a little difficult for us. One other comment. I have been impressed in my travel with what impact the four Federal programs, college work-study, national de- fense, guaranteed loan and EOG are having on both colleges and secondary schools, and, of course, students. As a consultant for the college scholarship service, I make service calls on other colleges. `This year I have been particularly impressed with the munber of colleges who are very much aware of financial aid and the need for a financial aid office in a coordinated program. Many colleges have run PAGENO="0051" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 397 a vest-pockst operation with maybe the business office or the dean's office just kind of taking care of whatever funds were available. The impact of the Federal program has made a lot of colleges re- appraise financial needs and its role on the campus. A lot of colleges who had never considered this before are now in the market for a competent financial aid officer. Also, in the secondary schools that I visit, when I talk to counselors, counselors who had never even asked a question about financial aid, who didn't know anything at all about it and who were in a position to do nothing mo~re for students except hand them a parents' confi- dential statement and say "go talk to a college financial aid officer," are now asking very serious questions about these programs. They feel a real need to know something about them. I think this attitude is filtering down to the student. The full impact of it may not be available, may not be recognizable for another 3 or 4 years but it is a very, very helpful thing. There is no question about that. Mr HATHAWAY Just one more question for the record Do any of you have any comment with respect to Federal control on education as a result of the Higher Education Act? Dr. YOUNG. I would like to say that this is not a great worry. As long as we have the channels of committees such as this or Congress- men we can go to and ask, "Why are those people in HEW holding us to this and is that the intent?" We may not win that time, but the next time you will fix it up. The law will be changed. As long as we have the avenues, we have our associations and we protest, you will hear from us. Mr. HATHAWAY. You are happy with that, that we are not exercis- ing undue control? Dr. YOUNG. I don't regard that we are under Federal control, par- ticularly We are gomg to fight it very hard If it comes not from the Congress but from the people down the line who interpret we will come back to the Congress. Mr. MOULTON. I agree with Dr. Young. I think the Federal Gov- ernment is giving us a great deal of money and giving us a great deal of latitude on how to use it within the scope of the law. Mr. Quiz. Could I just add to this? If you shift to the kind of broad aid rather than the categorical, then you will be protected from the danger of control. Dr. YOUNG. Yes. I would hope that the Congress would set up a very carefully thought out accountability program so that we would not get ourselves in a situation, especially those who had not been work- ing with such programs, of doing things and then be called on the carpet afterward and saying, "Look, you misspent the money," but the broad outlines and some instructions in accounting and so on so that we can truly live within the spirit of the law. Mr. HATHAWAY. You think your communication with the Office of Education is good? Dr. YOUNG. Yes. Mr. HATHAWAY. You get the information yOu need about Federal programs? Dr. YOUNG. Yes. There has been a great change in personnel there, of course. As you know, they have expanded it and they have re- organized a number of times recently. PAGENO="0052" 398 u.s. OFFICE OF EDUCATION Mr. HATHAWAY. It is difficult to get personnel. Dr. YOUNG. Yes. This is one of the dangers of having too much of the new programs' direction in Washington. The people who are available on very short notice to take a job in Washington may not be the ablest people to make very major decisions on some of these projects. Mr. QuTE. Has the regional office setup helped at all ~ Dr. YOUNG. I think so. At least, there is promise of doing that. By and large, we are very happy about things. We can always ask for more and better. Mr. HATHAWAY. Are the reports they require too burdensome or do you think they are necesary? Dr. YOUNG. We are in the process now, they are trying to get some uniform agreements worked out and uniform reporting. The first round is very, very difficult because everything is changed but they promised us that all the questions will follow the same pattern. If we set up our IBM machines accordingly, eventually this will pay off. This is what we are working with now. Mr. QuiE. I will say that I have felt a great sense of respect in the Congress for the administrations of our institutions of higher learn- ing. There is very little, if any, suggestion that you can'tbe trusted with your own work as you hear constantly in State departments of education. For the higher education community there is a tremendous respect in the Congress. I am glad it ha.s been maintained through these years where the Federal Government has become a sort of major partner in financing highereducation. Dr. YOUNG. We worry about this at our end. Mr. Qu~. I hope you will always worry. Mr. GIBBONS. I am sorry we didn't get to cover all the things we had in mind. For instance, I would have liked to discuss the National Science Foundation and all of the other Defense contracts and every- thing else that you are required and called on to do and try to do. As you Imow, we have tackled a very broad subject. I don't know if we spent a week with you whether we would be able to cover every- thing. But we thank you for the care that you have exercised in preparing your statements and coming here and discussing the sub- jects with us. As a person from another part of the United States, I have been with the fine caliber of indigenous people here in Maine and I think it is amply reflected by your representation in Washing- ton. We welcome our new colleague, Congressman Kyros, with us here today. Without any further ado, the meeting will be adjourned. (Whereupon, at 12 :05 p.m. the subcommittee recessed, to reconvene at 1 :30 p.m. the same day.) AFTER RECESS (The subconmiittee reconvened at 1:30 p.m., Hon. Sam XI. Gibbons presiding.) Mr. GIBBONS. The meeting will come to order. As all of you Irnow, this is a meeting of a section of the Special Subcommittee of the House Education and Labor Committee. We PAGENO="0053" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 399 are here today pursuant to a directive from the House to investigate and study the oper~tion of the Office of Education and of the new educational programs that, have been started by Congress, to make some appraisal of the effectiveness of these programs, and to report back to the Congress. We have on the committee today, on my right, of course your own Congressman, Mr. Bill Hathaway, of whom we think quite highly. Certainly for a man who is just beginning his second term in Congress he has made a distinguished start, and has vigorously and ably repre- sented this area of the country. On my left, Congressman Al Quie of Minnesota, a man with more seniority than Mr. Hathaway and myself, a man who because he is in the minority party does not have the opportunity of sitting in this chair and is not burdened with this responsibility, but a very distin- guished Member of Congress and a very fine contributor to all of our education programs. He brings a great deal of insight, intelligence, and vigor to the whole consideration of these problems. We want you to speak your minds on all these things and not to hold back. If you feel you have `to go off the record to discuss any of these things we are pretty liberal about that. We want you to feel that this is an exchange of information. If you have any formal statements we will be glad to allow you to either read those into the record or place them in the record as if you had presented them, or to summarize them or to make any comment that you might have. We have as our first witness this afternoon the deputy commissioner of education for the State of Maine, Mr. Nickerson. Mr. Nickerson, suppose you just lead off. We will interrupt you from time to time. (The formal statement by Mr. Nickerson follows:) STATEMENT ON OPERATION OF FEDERAL EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS, BY KERMIT S. NICKERSON, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Kermit S. Nicker- son. I am Deputy Commissioner of Education for the State of Maine. I appreciate this opportunity to appear before this committee and thank the committee for its great courtesy in coming to Maine for this hearing. At the outset I want to say that we are very appreciative of the new and increased Federal aids for various educational programs. A very harmonious relationship exists between this Department and the Federal officials. In mat- ters of development and implementation of programs, demands on the state for records and statistical data, auditing and personal consultation regarding matters subject to review, the utmost in cooperation has existed, while at the same time we have attempted to meet the requirements of the Federal Govern- ment diligently, thoroughly and without prejudice. Time does not allow me to comment in detail on the several programs but I do wish to mention a few of the most important. The largest aid program until recently was P.L. 874 which provides assistance in the education of Federally-connected pupils. While the state does not handle any of the monies involved, as payments are made directly to each administra- tive unit, the State Department does have a close connection wih all phases of the program such as applications, financial records, reports and all communica- tions are cleared through the state office. This is a major undertaking involving nearly $3,000,000 and takes a considerable amount of time by members of our staff. There are no Federal funds for administrative purposes. We believe that the Federal Government should provide financial assistance for staiftime required. The same suggestions are proposed for P.L. 815-Construc- tion of Facilities for Federally-connected Pupils. There has been periodic PAGENO="0054" 400 U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION concern over the time lag involved in renewal or extension of these laws. I would hasten to add that the Federal administration of these laws as they have involved the state have been conducted in a very efficient and cooperative manner. The Federal officials have been most helpful in securing the financial assistance to which local units are entitled. This program has been a good example of Federal aid without restrictive controls. VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION This is a well-established and long-continued program which has operated efficiently and provided both humanitarian and economic assistance to many underprivileged and handicapped persons. The recent increase in matching ratio from 2 to 1 to 3 to 1 and increased Federal assistance has enabled the state to expand the program. SCHOOL LUNCH AND SPECIAL MILK This is a sizable program with approximately 85,000 pupils per day par- ticipating in the school lunch and 65,000 more in the school milk program in 900 different schools. Federal funds exceeding $1,000,000 were received for both programs in fiscal 1966. We are now reimbursing local units at the rate of 41/2 cents per meal which is not sufficient to provide a satisfactory meal. It is evident from the calls we have been receiving from school administrators that there is much concern regarding the financial status of many programs. As of June 30, 1966, 32% of the programs in the state were operating in the red. Over 60% of all programs had less than $500 on hand. The situation has been effected by increases in prices of food and more particularly by a drastic cut in the amount and kinds of donated foods. The value of these foods averaged 32.34% less than for the 1964-65 school year. These programs cannot and should not be allowed to drift deeper into deficit operations. More revenue is necessary but prices to children cannot increase unless the program is to be available only to the economically-advantaged children. The only solution in sight, unless the Federal appropriation is increased, is for the school districts to provide additional financial support which in turn will tend to react unfavorably or decrease appropriations for instructional purposes. The state has been hard pressed to provide funds for administration and supervision of these two programs. It is strongly recommended that an allow- ance of Federal funds be made for administrative purposes as is done in some other programs. THE NATIONAL DEI~NSE EDUCATION ACT This act has been of inestimable value to the Department of Edtcation and the schools of Maine. It has enabled the state to perform some of the super- visory and leadership functions which have been recognized for many years but could not be accomplished without additional support. With respect to Titles administered in full or in part by the State Department: Title 11-Student loans Maine is ranked as 50th among the states in those going to post-secondary edu- cational institutions. This title has enabled many students to enter and remain in the five state colleges which are dedicated to the preparation of teachers. With a serious shortage of teachers this has had a small but beneficial effect Title 111-Strengthening instruction in science, math, modern foreign language, English, history, civics, reading Federal funds have made it possible to employ long-needed state supervisors in science, mathematics, modern foreign language, English, social studies and reading. The science equipment in the local schools has been significantly im- proved by use of Federal-matching funds. Unfortunately in the early years many of the local units were too poor to be able to provide sufficient local funds to utilize all Federal monies available. This situation is now reversed and with the addition of new subject areas Federal funds are insufficient to meet the applications. PAGENO="0055" U~S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 401 Title V-Guidence and counseling This title has enabled the Maine Department of Education to employ an add- tional state supervisor of guidance and has assisted a number of districts to employ guidance personnel. Unfortunately Federal funds have not been avail- able to meet the requests for matching money. Title Vu-Educational media The Maine Department obtained a substantial grant for The Identification and Evaluation of an Economical and Practical Method of Providing Intellectual Stimulation to Gifted Pupils in Small Secondary Schools Through a Televised Instructional Program. This study stimulated interest in educational television. Title Vill-Area vocational educational programs Maine secondary and post-secondary institutes have had few courses eligible for assistance under this title. Southern Maine Vocational-Technical Institute has had some assistance for courses in electronics. As more interest is generated for vocational education greater participation is expected. Title X-Improvement of statistical services Federal funds on a matching basis up to $50,000 have been available and fully matched and utilized. Under this title the Maine Department of Education has been able to purchase automatic data processing equipment and employ a staff for statistical service. The information available at any given time has been greatly expended :and much laborious hand work has been eliminated. While the $50,000 minimum allotment to each state was adequate in the early stages of statistical development Maine has now reached the stage where it is made- quate and the minimum should be increased. MANPOWER DEVELOPMENT AND TRAINING ACT This has been a valuable program for Maine adults and out-of-school youth in need of retraining or further education. A recent report indicated that 193 projects had been in operation involving 8,734 unemployed persons, that 2,779 persons had completed the prescribed training period with a 7G% placement rec- ord. The cooperation with the Employment Security Commission has been ex- cellent. The most disturbing feature in the operation of this program is the considerable time required for approval by the participating agencies. For example, it is necessary to make plans for site and facilities before a project is presented and several months may elapse before approval is granted. This long delay, oftentimes, makes changes in the original plan necessary. ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT Title I, Part B-Neighborhood youth corps The Department of Education has been closely involved with the administra- tion of this title. It has served as the sponsoring agency for the state operating 73 projects and assisting 800 deserving students. These projects have enabled. students to remain in school and also performed much useful work. Title II, Part B-Adult basic education programs This program is one which is giving real concern because this title has been replaced and the administration of adult education has been transferred to the U.S. Office of Education and Departments of Edducation. The transfer to the United States Office of Education Is considered desirable but concern is expressed for state matching funds and no allowance being made for state administration. Unless some solution is forthcoming Maine IIB programs will come to an end. DONATED COMMODITIES The annual value of Federal donations is about $3,000,000. Without this aid it is estimated that the cost of maintaining school lunch programs would rise about 23%; the cost to state institutions would increase by approximately $130,- 000 per year and municipalities would either forgo assistance to the needy or increase appropriations proportionately. An original acquisition value of nearly $2,000,000 in surplus property is dis- tributed annually to eligible educational applicants, civil defense units and public libraries. PAGENO="0056" 402 U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION ACT Title I-Education of cliildrea of low income families For the fiscal year 1965-66---465 projects were approved for a total of $3,738.- 324.50. The projects by major areas were as follows: Reading and basic elementary school subjects 222 Mathematics, science and social studies 20 Preschool and kindergarten 6 Education of the handicapped 11 Art, music, health, and physical education 17 Business education and other terminal courses 30 Books, supplies, and equipment 159 Total From the personnel standpoint, 450 teacher aides and 150 teacher assistants were employed. In the construction and facilities area, 11 projects including 17 portable or mobile classrooms were approved for an expenditure of $193,334.00. Within these projects 37.877 public school pupils and 1,342 non-public pupils were served. In summary, Title I ESEA has been effectively administered at the state level without undue interference from the LTnitecl States Office of Education. Federal guidelines have been adequate and have allowed a sufficient flexibility for state administration. Representatives of the U.S. Office of Education have shown competence in their assignments, and have served with sincerity and cooperation. The greatest problem encountered in the area of administration has been con- cerned with the changing interpretation of the guidelines. This, it is recognized, may be an unavoidable characteristic of the first year operation of any major program. Title Il-School library The State of Maine has made good and full use of the Title II funds of $525,829. The state has served as the agency for distribution of books and in- structional materials to the eligible non-public schools. Title III-Svpplementary educational centers and service Maine was allotted 8659.025 under this title for fiscal 1966. The Main school officials worked industriously on these projects and had the distinction of pre- paring and submitting more projects than most states. The scope of the projects indicated ingenuity and stressed creative thinking and innovation. For example Operation of a Residential Home for Possible Dropouts, Space Age Curriculum, Music in Maine, Operation Lighthouse, Treasure Hunt, A Multi-Purpose Edu- cational Center, Language Laboratory, Social Service Program, Roving Reader and Mobile Reading Laboratory, A Marine Program, A Computer Center, Dem- onstration Teaching Center For Slow Learners, Model Library and Materials Center. County School Enrichment Project and Electricity-Electronics Curricu- * lum For a Rural Area. Projects approved included the Mobile Remedial Reading Laboratory at Kennebunk for $31,741; Music in Maine at an estimated cost of $183.436: a Regional Marine Program at Kittery for $12,550; A Demonstration Teaching Center for Slow Learners and Disadvantaged Youth at S.A.D. #5 in Rockland for $18,930. Other projects not approved were judged to have suf- ficient merit to warrant resubmission. Title V-State departments of edncation Maine has been allotted $143,000 for the purpose of strengthening the leader- ship resources of the Department. In the administration of this title the state has been given considerable latitude in identifying its needs and designing pro- grams to meet those needs. Projects have included In-Service Training for Professional Staff. Employment of a Coordinator of Federal Assistance Pro- grams. A Language Arts Supervisor, Adult Education Supervisor, Coordinator of Teacher Education Programs, Evaluator of Teacher Credentials and in the fine arts field, a supervisor of music and another for art. These programs should go a long way to strengthen the services rendered by the Department and sought by local units. PAGENO="0057" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 403 VOCATIONAL EDUCATION ACTS P.L. 88-210 The allotment to Maine under this act for fiscal 1965 was $659,252 and ap- proximately $1,000,000 for fiscal 1966. The state has always made good use of Smith-Hughes and George-Barden vocational funds and has welcomed the Vocational Act of 1963 with increased funds and a higher degree of flexibility. These funds have been used to encourage and expand the meager vocational offering now existing in secondary schools and post-secondary vocational-techni- cal institutes. HIGHER EDUCATION FACILITIES ACT OF 1963 FL. 88-204 The State Board of Education, under Maine statutes, has served as the Higher Education Facilities Commission for allocation of Federal funds for higher education. The allotment to Maine for fiscal 1967 is $3,223,000. As Maine has rio public community or technical colleges the amendment which made it possible to trans- fer funds for community colleges to other institutions was welcomed and has been instrumental in broadening higher educational opportunities in Maine. The majority of grants have been made to private institutions because matching funds for state institutions have not been available. The state should consider establishing a flexible fund for state-operated institutions which could be used for matching Federal grants. CONCLU5ION5 AND SUGGESTIONS 1. In the administration of these programs a very harmonious relationship has existed between the Maine Department of Education and the Federal Gov- ernment. In matters of development and implementation of programs, demands on the state for records, auditing and personal consultation regarding matters subject to review, the utmost cooperation has existed while at the same time the requirements of the Federal Government were being met diligently, thor- oughly and without prejudice to its interest. The suggestions which follow are intended to be made in a constructive manner and for the best interests of all concerned. 2. The Maine Department of Education is in concurrence with the estab- lished policy of the Council of Chief State School Officers that general Federal educational aid should be dispensed in accordance with state laws. Such aid would be preferable to a proliferation of special aids, unless a need cannot be met by a general aid. 3. The Department strongly favors Federal legislation which would include funds for the administration of particular programs which require a large amount of state work. Examples of laws where such aid is desired are school lunch and milk programs, aid to war-impacted areas, P. L.'s 874 and 815. Funds should be provided for adequate supervisory services when new subject areas are added, such as NDEA Title III, i.e. the first three subject areas mathematics, science and modern foreign language were funded; the next three, reading, geography and English were also funded but the later subject additions such as industrial arts and arts and humanities have had to be absorbed by state administration. There is also the problem of meeting increased work- loads not identifiable with any specific program. 4. We believe that more flexibility should be allowed in the use of funds provided by various titles of a particular act. For example, the State of Maine in past years has been obliged to lapse sizable amounts under Title III of NDEA but has had inadequate funds to meet the need for guidance services under Title V of the same act. 5. It would be very beneficial if major Federal programs could be enacted on an on-going basis and not subject to termination at the end of a one-two-or three year period. Such time limitations do not lend themselves to stability and good budgeting procedures. Delayed extensions of P.L. 874 and NDEA is a good illustration of the need for long-range planning and budgeting. Con- tinuous resolutions are of dubious value when programs are just getting under- way and have had no previous level of expenditure as a basis for determining allotments. PAGENO="0058" 404 U.s. OFFICE OF EDUCATION Failure to make appropriations on time has proven to be costly in terms of employment of competent personnel, in organization, effectiveness, evaluating and reporting and has caused higher financial outlays. We are very much concerned with delays in Congressional approval of funds for on-going programs. The delays have resulted in loss of personnel, in- adequate planning, and in some cases of loss of a complete program. For example as of December 1, 1966, Title I of P. L. 89-10 is operating without full guidelines for 1966-1967. Eighty per cent of the projects have already been approved for operation under 1965-1966 guidelines. Any changes may necessi- tate major revisions after a half-year of operations. 6. We would like to see an appropriation of the full authorization or possibly to provide for reallocation among the states when any state does not use its full entitlement. We would like to see the full authorization under NDEA Title III appropriated for acquisition of equipment. 7. Increase the $50,000 ceiling on Federal matching funds in NDEA Title X to allow for increased costs and expanded operations. 8. With respect to P. L. 815 we have experienced great difficulty in utilizing Federal construction aid to which a unit is eligible because of the wage scale requirement. In some cases the benefit of the Federal assistance has been offset in whole or in large part by a wage scale which was much higher than the prevailing rate for similar work in the state or community. To be specific, the small town of Cutler where a Federal radio station was located had to expand their small school system to accommodate additional Federally-con- nected pupils and was obliged to follow the Boston, Mass. wage scale. As a result, the project was bid three times and reduced considerably from the first plans which were conservative and minimal in nature. 9. We applaud the intent of P. L. 89-10 Title V to assist in strengthening State Departments of Education. We accept the responsibilities that rightfully belong to a. state department and will endeavor to see that Federal fu.nds are expended as judiciously as state or local funds and that they are channeled to local units in accordance with the Federal statutes. We do believe that all such educational programs which supplement state and local programs should be channeled through the State Departments of Education and that they should not be by-passed by dealing directly with local units. 10. We find that we are dealing with many agencies and would prefer to see educational assistance programs administered through the U.S. Office of Education. The transfer of adult education, and handicapped children is a step in what we believe is the right direction. 11. With regard to the Vocational Education Act of 1063, we believe that the most beneficial change would be the elimination of matching categories to permit across the board matching. In Maine, we are over matching con- siderably in the total amount but do not match Federal funds available in some specific categories. If a higher degree of flexibility were allowed Maine could make better use of these funds. Our vocational administrators also desire some relaxation in the detail required for the annual description of projected activities. We do have an approved state plan to which all programs must conform and must submit complete and detailed reports. These should be sufficient because oftentimes it is difficult to project activities in detail, especially when appropriations may not be determined prior to the development of such a projection. This is mainly an administrative matter. 12. We endorse the principle of consolidation and coordination of aids but ask that care be taken that one program is not increased at the expense of another unless the aims are similar. For example, the proposal to reduce allot- ments under P. L. 874 because of funds available under Title I of P. L. 89-10 would not be comparable in this state because the purposes and pupils served are not comparable. STATEMENT OP KERMIT S. NICKERSON, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OP EDUCATION, AUGUSTA, MAINE Mr. NICKERSON. Thank you, Mr. Gibbons and members of the com- mittee. I am Kermit S. Nickerson, deputy commissioner of educa- tion representing Commissioner William T. Logan, Jr., who could PAGENO="0059" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 405 not be present today because of attendance at a prelegislative confer- ence which is a high-level, important conference in our State. I appreciate very much this opportunity to appear before this committee and its great courtesy in coming. to Maine which I think is rather unusual for this type of hearing. At the outset I want to say that we are very appreciative of the new and increased Federal aids for various educational programs. A very harmonious relationship exists between this department and the officials of the Office of Education and other departments. In fact, I think sometimes the visiting auditors or visiting officials from the department.s spending some time in our office are looked upon as members of our staff. In matters of development and implementation of programs, demands on the State for records, for presentation of statistical data, in the auditing, in personal consultations regarding matters which are subject to review, the utmost in cooperation has existed. We have at the same time attempted to meet the requirements of the Federal statutes, diligently, thoroughly and without prejudice. Time does not allow me to comment in detail on all of the programs but I will mention a few of those which are perhaps the largest and perhaps are of the greatest importance. We have about 40 different accounts in our office dealing with Federal aid. So it is a sizable operation. Most or many of the problems as we see them are related to the statutes rather than to the administration and operation of the statutes. The largest Federal aid program until very recently was Public Law 874 providing assistance to the federally connected pupils. Maine has, with its sizable airbases, about 79 communities receiving this type of aid. Now while the State does not handle any of the moneys involved, as payments are made directly to each administra- tive unit, the State department has had a very close connection with all phases of the program such as applications, financial records, reports, and all communications are cleared through our office. Even yesterday afternoon I had a call from the Boston regional office making arrangements for one of their representatives to come and visit three or four school systems in our State. next week. This is the closeness of the operation. This is a major operation invOlving nearly $3 million annually and does take quite a considerable amount of time by members of our staff. I would point out that there are no Federal funds for administrative purposes in connection with this law. We believe that the Federal Government, as in some other programs, should provide some financial assistance for the staff time required. The same suggestions are proposed for Public Law 815, the con- struction of facilities for federally connected pupils. There has been periodic concern with both of these laws over the time lag involved in renewal or extension. This has happened a number of times and has involved a considerable amount of uneasiness. I would hasten to add that the Federal administration of these two laws as I have seen them in my 13 years in the office as they have involved the State, have been conducted in a very efficient and highly PAGENO="0060" 406 U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION cooperative manner. The Federal officials have b~n most helpful in securing the financial assistance to which local units are entitled. They have frequently gone out of their way to assist local units. This program has been a good example of Federal assistance without restrictive or limiting Federal controls. The vocational rehabilitation program is another of the older, well established, longstanding programs which has operated efficiently and has provided both humanitarian and economic assistance to many underprivileged and handicapped persons. The recent increase that Congress has made in matching ratio from 2 to 1 to 3 to 1, three Federal a.nd one State, has increased the Federal assistance. and has enabled t.he State to expand the program. We have had some problems in connection with matching moneys for the rehabilitation but most of this has been due to the State's inability or lack of matching appropriation. I think sometimes it has been due to the fact that not enough was asked to match all the Federal moneys. If this was a lesson to be learned, I think we have learned it., and I am sure the next legislature will not have any fault to find in that respect. Mr. Qu~. Mr. ~ickerson, because of some other reasons, a.nd my interest, in how vocational rehabilitation operates, would you mind explaining in more detail how the vocational rehabilitation works in Maine, both on the local level, who has the responsibility t.here, and who doe.s on the State level? Mr. NIcKr~soN. In Maine, which is not true in some States, I know, it is a function of the State Department of Educ.ation under the State Board of Education. The division of vocational rehabilita- tion is a pa.rt of our staff organization and operation. We have a person directly responsible, and have, regional offices located in stra- t.egic centers in the Sta.te. We have eight of these regional offices, so that the counselors will be available to local people who want to come in to talk to them, without having to travel to a central point in Augusta. We do have a central control. Of course, the funds are limited to the Federal and the State appropriat.ions so that the central office makes an allotment to each of the regional counselor offices and then there is a basic approval at the central office of all of these programs. But the local school systems are encouraged to ma.ke applications or to provide consultation services for local people, students in school or out of school, who might need these services. So we have quite a close connection between our State office and the regional offices. Does that a.nswer your question? Mr. Qu~. Do local school districts actually operate a vocational rehabilitation program? Mr. NIcKn~soN. No. There may be some service in a local school that is funded through the State and through Federal funds but not directly operating locally on that. Now we have some programs in institutions in the. State, not school systems as such but institutions in the State, which are assisted in this way, specialized services. Mr. Qm~. Thank you. Mr. NIC~RsoN. Turning to the school lunch and special milk pro- gram, which is a sizable program involving approximately one-half of the stude.nts in the State, we have about Si million of Federal money PAGENO="0061" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 407 available each year for this purpose. We have a problem in con- nection with this in that we are now reimbursing the local units at the rate of 41/2 cents per meal which is, of course, insufficient to provide an adequate and satisfactory meal. As evident from the calls that we have been receiving and reports from school administrators, there is concern about the financial status of many programs. As of the end of the last school year, June 30, 32 percent of the programs were operating in the red. Over 60 per- cent of all the programs had less than $500 on hand. The situation has been affected adversely by increases in prices of food and more particularly by a drastic cut in the amount and kinds of donated foods. The value of these foods averaged 32.34 percent less this past year than the preceding year. These programs cannot be allowed to drift deeper into deficit opera- tion. More revenue is necessary but prices to children cannot be increased to offset these deficits unless the program is to be available only to the economically advantaged children and this, of course, would be contrary to what we have been trying to do with other programs. The only solution in sight, unless there should be an increase in the Federal appropriation, is for school districts to provide additional support which, in turn, however, will tend to react unfavorably on appropriations for instructional purposes. We would like to see the Federal appropriation equal to meeting the 9 cents per meal at which the program started out years ago, or somewhere nearer that 9-cent level. The State. has been hard pressed for funds for administration and supervision of these two programs. It is strongly recommended that an allowance of Federal funds be made for administrative purposes as is done in some of the other programs. This is similar to the recom- mendation on Public Laws 874 and 815. The next major act is the National Defense Education Act. It would be an understatement to say that this has been of great value to the department of education and the schools of Maine. I would point out that it has enabled the State to perform some of the supervisory and leadership functions which have been recognized as needed for many years and recommended to vari~us legislatures but could not be accomplished because of lack of funds. With respect to titles administered in full or in part by the State department, title II, student loans, I think perhaps you have heard testimony this morning about this area. Maine is ranked as 50th among the States in those going to post-secondary-educational insti- tutions and has a real problem in this respect. This title has enabled many students to enter and remain in the five State colleges. I mention the five State colleges because they are the ones that are under the jurisdiction of the department and the State board. And they are dedicathd to the preparation of teachers. And with a serious shortage of teachers this has had some beneficial effect. It has not been large but has been very helpful. Title III, the strengthening of instruction in various subject mat- ter fields. The Federal funds have made it possible to employ long- needed State supervisors in science, mathematics, modern foreign lan- guage, and we have recommended these in the past, English, the so- cial studies, and reading. PAGENO="0062" 408 U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION The science equipment in the local schools has been significantly im- proved by use of Federal matching funds. Unfortunately, in the early years, many of the local units were unprepared or too poor to be able to provide the local moneys to match the Federal funds available. We had several hundred thousand dollars unused in this title. But this situation is now reversed, and with the addition of the new sub- ject matter areas, Federal funds are insufficient to meet the applica- tions that we are receiving. Title V, on guidance and counseling, administered by the depart- ment, has enabled us to employ an additional State supervisor of guid- ance. It means we have two now instead of one. It has assisted a number of local districts to employ guidance personnel. Unfortunately, Federal funds have not been available to meet the requests for matching money. This is quite unlike title III where in the past we have had a surplus. We would like to see more flexibil- ity or transfer of funds between titles within the same act if this is at all possible. The department has participated in title VII, educational media. and the work done in the education of the gifted through televised instruction I think has been very helpful and has led to the develop- ment of a statewide television, educational television system. Title VIII, the area vocational-educational programs. Here in Maine we have had very few secondary and post-secondary-school programs and course eligible for assistance under this title. One, the oldest, our Southern Maine Vocational-Tec.hnieftl In~itnte. has had some assistance for courses in electronics. There have been two or three secondary school programs which have received some assistance. What is more, interest has been generated for vocational education. Maine is making real advances in vocational education. Benefits in this section have been definitely extended by the Vocational Act of 1963. With respect to title X, the improvement of statistical services, Fed- eral funds on a matching basis up to $50,000 have been available and have been fully State matched and fully utilized. Under this title, the department has been able to purchase automatic data processing equipment and employ a staff for statistical service. The information available at any given time has been greatly expanded and much laborious handwork has been eliminated. We have supplied services to some of the local school systems. An example of the benefit of this during the last session of the legislature, when change computations in our subsidy calculation were needed the next morning or the next day, legislative day, we were able to supply that information, thanks to this equipment. Now while this allotment of $50,000 minimum to each State was adequate in the early stages of statistical development, Maine has now reached the stage where it is inadequate and we feel that the minimum of the $50,000 should be increased. TI~ MANPOWER DEVELOPMENT AND TRAINING ACT This has been a valuable program for Maine adults and out-of- school youth in need of retraining or in need for further education. A recent report indicated that 193 projects had been in operation in- PAGENO="0063" IJ.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 409 volving 8,734 unemployed persons, that 2,779 had completed the pre- scribed training and that there was a placement record of 76 percent. The cooperation with the employment security commission has been excellent. The most disturbing feature is the operation of this program is the considerable time required for approval by participating agencies. For example, it is necessary, I understand to make plans for site and for facilities before a project is presented and several months may elapse before approval is granted. This long delay oftentimes makes changes in the original plan necessary as these become obsolete. Mr. HATHAWAY. At that point, may I ask a question? Mr. NICKER50N. Yes. Mr. HATHAWAY. On the 76 percent, you mean 76 percent of those completing it, or did some of those 8,000 jobs get included and that is included in the 76 percent? Mr. NICKER50N. Some are still in training; 2,779 have completed the training and we have these programs going on at the present time. The continuance of employment after placement has been high. That has been one of the encouraging features of this. Mr. HATHAWAY. Thank you. Mr. QUIE. What has been your responsibility with the NDEA? Mr. NICKERSON. The responsibility has been that when the employ- ment security commission of the State determines that more people should be employed in a certain industry, that there is a demand for labor, they then certify the people who are eligible for this training and it is the responsibility of the State department of education through contract and arrangement through local systems to provide this training. It is the department of education that provides the training through cooperation with other agencies to those who are certified to us as eligibles. Mr. QUIE. Does MDTA have some on-the-job training programs with which you don't have any connection? Is it all institution train- ing through vocational education? Mr. NICKERSON. No, no, this is on-the-job. Mr. QmE. You have responsibility for the OJT program, too? Mr. NICKERSON. For example, Mr. Russell, superintendent of schools, present here, has a training program for cooks and `bakers. This is a program not involved with any institution as such. Mr. GIBBONS. You mean it is conducted in private kitchens and things of that sort? Mr. NICKERSON. No, this is in a facility that is secured and rented and used for that purpose. Mr. QuIE. Then it is an institution-type of training; however, you have it separate from the school? Mr. NIcliERsoN. It is operated by the school but it is not in the school plant. It is separate and apart from it. Mr. Qun~. On-the-job training is if you contracted with a big bakery to do the training. You don't have any of that? Mr. NICKERSON. We have some of that, I think, with some of the shoe industry, do we not, Mr. Russell? PAGENO="0064" 410 U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION Mr. RUSSELL. Yes. Mr. QuIB. You don't have any connection with that, then? Mr. NICKERSON. Yes, we do. Mr. Qu~. Do you make the contract with the shoe manufacturing company? Mr. NICKERSON. With the school system which in turn makes the arrangements with the industry as such. So everything is channeled through the Mr. Q;UIE. Educational system? Mr. NIC~soN. Yes. Turning to the Economic Opportunity Act, we are involved in the Neighborhood Youth Corps and the administration of this title. In the beginning, the State of Maine served as the coordinating agency, the department of education coordinating agency, for local Neighbor- hood Youth projects. This, I think, is a little interesting because while this was approved in the beginning, then there was some think- ing that perhaps it should not be done in this way and now they have returnedto thinking that this is a good way. This is well adapted to the State of Maine. The department operates 73 projects in cooperation with the local school system and is assisting 800 students in this fashion to return to school or to stay in school. It has also contributed in performing useful work in the school systems or in the comnnmity. Mr. GIBBONS. Are all Neighborhood Youth Corps programs run through the State? Mr. NICKERSON. They are this year. That was not true last year. Most of them were but there were a few of the larger school systems that operated them separately. This year they are all chamleled through the State department. Under title II, part B, the adult basic education programs-this is one which is giving us a little concern at the present time. It is not because of the repeal of the title and the transfer of the adminis- tration of adult education to the U.S. Office of Education, because we do consider that the transfer to the U.S. Office of Education of adult education is highly desirable. But we have a problem at the present time with this transfer involving no State matching funds or allow- ance for any State administration. LTnless some solution is forthcoming, Maine's IT-B programs may come to an end. Mr. GIBBONS. I don't understand that. Will you explain that to me? I knew there was a good reason why I voted against that. Mr. NICKEBSON. We have several adult education programs, but this is the basic one which is for those with less than an eighth grade education. We have been able through a staff member to promote and to assist local school systems in offering this type of program. Be- ing an educational program, I presume, is the basic reason for its having bee.n transferred from its home there in Economic Opportunity to U.S. Office of Education. Mr. GIBBONS. How does it affect your matching money? Mr. NI0KERs0N. The person in charge, the director of the program, has been subsidized or paid through Federal funds entirely in the PAGENO="0065" OFFICE OF EDUCATION 411 past. Now the `State has the problem, if this is to `be continued then this must be handled through a State appropriation, as I understand it. Mr. QUIB. The U.S. Office of Education always actually ran the adult basic education program so the transfer really did not bring about anything very new. Mr. NI0KER50N. The funding is the problem. Mr. QUIE. But prior to this the U.S. Office of Education funded a State administrator of this program? Mr. NICKERSON. Yes. Mr. QUIE. Now they won't fund the State administrator, and you are supposed to pick that up? Mr. NICKERs0N. That is as I understand it. Now I have a possible solution to this dilemma in that under title V or through further State legislative appropriations-our budget was made up last summer without providing for this-under title V of the Public Law 89-10 it may be possible to continue this work in basic adult education. It is unknown at the present time whether that can be done. That is a possibility. Mr. GIBBONS. How~ ~~big a problem are you talking about? Mr. NICKERSON. It is not a major problem. It is one of these mat- ters of gettinga program started, with staff employed, and then having the question of the salary of the staff. That is the major problem. Mr. QmE. I can understand why you are worrying about your budget. The State department of education can't spread it out to all the areas you might want, but this amount of Federal aid is going to basic adult education, and you evidently need it in Maine because there are people who don't have the equivalent of an eighth grade education in Maine, quite a number of them. Why do you say, so' flatly, the. program will come to an end? It is like you either pick up the administration money or you are not going to let this help go to those people. Mr. NICKERSON. I :haV~ on my desk two memos from our director, not the person doing the work but the bureau chief in charge of the program, who feels that perhaps this can be continued to June 30, but beyond that date we will have to make some other arrangements as far as the funds available are concerned. Mr. GIBBoNs. How much money is that? Mr. : NICKERs0N. It is not a large sum. It is a matter of State leadership in this program with which we are concerned. Mr. QUIE. The legislature will convene the first part of January? Mr. NIOKERSON. Yes, but the, budgets are already made up and it is a question of- Mr. GIBBONS. Are you talking of $50,000, $100,000? Mr. NICKER5ON. Probably less than $50,000. Mr. QmE. Evidently the people with less than eighth grade educa- tion don't have the political muscle to put it through. Mr. NIOKERSON. If I may comment on that, Congressman Quie, Maine has had its problems of funding the elementary and secondary education programs without consideration of adult programs. So that `has been the local prc~blem. 73-728-67-pt. 2-5 PAGENO="0066" 412 u.s. OFFICE OF EDtCATION Mr. QuIB. I recognize that. The local schools have not felt that adult education is their basic responsibility. However, the fact that you have run this program for a little while I wonder if they could find the means? Mr. NICKRR50N. This is not the only adult program. There are some others. I think there is a greater acceptance of this and recogm- tion of its need. That is developing. Mr. GIBBONS. Go ahead. Mr. QuIB. Are you going into any donated commodities? Mr. NICKRRs0N. Not particularly, unless you have some question on it. Mr. QmE. I would like to ask you about another OEO program, Headstart. Mr. NICKERSON. I think probably there will be some testimony from some of the others today regarding that. Of course, this has not been a department operation as such, although we have had two programs, I think it is, in the unorganized territory of the State. I don't know whether you have any unorganized territories in Minnesota- Mr. Q.uIB. We are all organized there. Mr. NICKERSON. It is not disorganized. Our feeling on this is that if this is to be an educational program, and that is what we feel it is, that it should be administered by educational agencies. If the schools are to have obligations in connection with this, then the schools should have the responsibilities of operating them, and that this Head- start or early childhood education program should be a part of the U.S. Office of Education. Mr. QUIE. You have run some preschool and kindergarten programs under title I of Public Law 89-10? Mr. NICKER50N. Yes. Mr. QUIE. I imagine there have been some Headstart programs run through OEO money, separate from the State department of edu- cation. What kind of wedding of these two have you seen? Have some of those six projects received money from both places as the city of New York did? Mr. NICKER50N. May I call on one of our title I administrators for comment, Mr. Morrison, if he is present? Mr. MORRISON. We have only one program, the funds for t.he two agencies we used, that was Dover-Foxcroft where we had combination Headstart and title I projects. Mr. QUIE. Any comments on how the program worked, whether they were ftmded from both places, especially since the OEO money could only be used for poor kids, while title I money was not neces- sarily limited to poor kids? Mr. MoRRIsoN. There was no problem with the small program they operated. They felt they operated a very successful program. The funds under title I were used specifically for salaries of per- sonnel, teachers who were going to work with disadvantaged youth. So this was no particular problem. I suppose in a larger operation perhaps it would be. Mr. QuIR. What was the OEO money used for then since most of t.h~ money goes for ~ak~ri~ anyway? PAGENO="0067" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 413 Mr. MoRRIsoN. Much of this money was used for health and related social services other than educational activities. Mr. QuIB. Did any of the title I projects which were fully funded by title I bring any other services than the actual teaching? Did they bring any health home visits? Mr. MORRISON. Yes, many of the programs had health and other services in the project. I think it would be difficult to visit the Dover program, which we are ta]Jcing about, and distinguish between that and another program which was operated entirely under title I. Mr. QuIE. I judge from what you said it does not make any differ- ence where the money comes from? Mr. MORRISON. We don't see a great difference between the two programs. I see no reason why, if this money is made available through the State department to local school districts, we could not operate just as successfully under title I, or whatever title you want to call it, and operate the same type of program which has been quite successful under Headstart. Mr. QUIE. What about the preschool programs that will be run outside the schools? The schools tend to be filled with students and so many times they utilize church facilities. Have you had any ex- perience with local communities in the use of church facilities, funded through a private operation? Mr. NIcx~RsoN. Title I? Mr. QUJE. Under title I, of course, you can't actually give the money *to a private institution. It has to be run by the local school. Are you familiar enough with the Headstart program funded out of OEO money to know if some of them were funded through churches? Mr. MORRISON. I believe there are very few year-round programs remaining. I don't know that there is a year-round program funded, Headstart program operating year-round. I believe they have all been summer programs. I am not that familiar with the Headstart programs to say definitely. I doubt that they have programs operat- ing out of churches. They have the schools available in the the sum- mer and made use of those facilities. I think we have had other preschool programs that have operated locally that have been in churches or other buildings. Mr. NI0KER50N. May I ask if any of the superintendents here have had any programs operating all year round? Under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act I have listed here a few of the statistics. Maine has had a good participation record, being well organized as early as possible and getting these funds as early as possible to the local school systems. With the $3,738,000, this became the largest Federal assistance pro- gram, exceeding Public Law 874. I have listed the project areas and these have been practical, general, and basic assistance. From the personnel standpoint, employment of 450 aids and 150 teacher assistants I think is quite significant in a State where we have a shortage of te'tchers In the construction `~nd f'icihties, 11 piojects, including 17 portable and mobile classrooms, w ere appro~ ed, and w ithin these projects, 37,000 public school pupils and 1,342 nonpublic pupils were served. PAGENO="0068" 414 U.s~ o~i~E ~F EDUCATION Mr. QuIB. Did you actually construct any buildings? Mr. NlcxrusoN. There might be some minor remodeling. Not con- struction as such. It is termed construction, in that nature in the project, but it is not that. In summary, we feel that title I has been effectively administered without undue interference ~frorn the U.S. Office of Education. The Federal guidelines have been adequate and have allowed a sufficient flexibility for State administration. Representatives of the U.S. Office have shown competence in their assignments and have served with sincerity and cooperation. The greatest problem encountered in the area of administration has been concerned with the changing interpretation of the guidelines. This has happened but I think it is oniy fair to recognize that it is probably an unavoidable characteristic of the first year operation of a major program and especially when it starts late in the year. So that the problems have not been insurmoi~mtable. Mr. QUIE. I would like to have a breakdown. You mentioned here what went into preschool and kindergarten but also in the first three grades. How much would you consider went into the elemen- tary school as compared to the secondary school? Mr. ~IOKERSON. May I ask Mr. Morrison who works on those figures? Mr. MoRRIsoN. Yes, I can give you the figures on elementary and secondary, but it would be difficult to break it down into-you are talking about early grades? Mr. Qun~. Yes. Mr. MoruilsoN. I think I can give you an approximation here. Mr. QuIB. All right. Mr. MoRRIsoN. On the number of students enrolled in public schools participating in title I: 22,499 elementary; 15,378 secondary. Total, 37,877. Mr. QrnE. Do you include preschool, kindergarten, and elementary? Mr. MoRRIsoN. Yes. We have very few preschool, some kinder- garten projects listed. As a further breakdown I would say one-half of the 22,000 would probably be in the middle grades, grades 4, 5, and 6. In other words, about 1,000 youngsters wifi be in the middle grades, 5,500 in the lower grades, and 5,500 in the upper elementary or junior high. Mr. Quii. How much of the title I money went for private school children or how many private school children? Mr. NIOKERSON. 1,342 pupils were involved. Mr. QUTE. Private school pupils? Mr. NICKERs0N. Yes. Mr. GIBBONS. Out of 37,000? Mr. NIcKERs0N. Yes. Mr. MoRRIsoN. You could use an approximate figure of $100 per pupil. If you wish to have that~ in do]lars you could use approxi- mately $100 per pupil to give you an estimate of the number of dollars used for private school, nonpublic school children. Mr. GIBBONS. How did they participate? Did they participate on a shared time basis or dual enrollment? Mr. MORRISON. This is one of the changes that took place in the in- terpretation of the law or in the changing of the guidelines. When PAGENO="0069" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 415 we started out we found that nonpublic school children could partici- pate in those activities which were in operation by local school dis- tricts. If the public school was operating a remedial program then the nonpublic school children could participate. This was the usual situation. If they were offering remedial read- ing to the public schools then this was also offered to the nonpublic school. Later we found that the guidelines were interpreted to mean that the needs of the nonpublic school children should be considered along with the needs of the public school children and the~ needs could be entirely different. Perhaps the nonpublic school children needed additional work in science. Some were completing their elementary education in a non- public school and then going to a public high school. If they were deficient in the science area, they could be classified as disadvantaged, and some type of program offered them in this particular area with the public school local education agency hiring the teacher and providing this service for nonpublic school children. Mr. GIBBONS. Where was the service provided? Mr. MORRISON. Science instruction or other services. I just use this as an illustration. Mr. GIBBONS. Physically, where was this provided? Mr. MORRISON. It could be provided on the public or on the non- public grounds, either way. Mr. GIBBONS. Was it done both ways or could it have been done both ways? Do you know as an actual illustration? Mr. MoRRIsoN. This was done both ways. Mr. HATHAWAY. Didn't you have a lot of private school students in Lewiston? Mr. RUSSELL. We participated by sending teacher aids to the private schools, working with their staff and determining what they wanted. We did not hire anybody for the private school and give them total employment there. Our teacher aids would work 2 days, two or three might work 2 days. We actually brought private school pupils into our school for remedial reading, and we also sent our remedial read- ing teachers into the private schools. We opened libraries which are available to the private schools in the area that is designated, and they participate every day in our libraries now. Mr. HATHAWAY. What percentage do you know offhand in Lewiston goes to private schools? Mr. RUSSELL. I don't have those figures with me. I just wouldn't know but we have had excellent cooperation. We have worked vei~y well together. Obviously, they want more and more, but the money has become less and less. So we have not been able to give them the services they want. But we have gone just as far as we felt we should go in a reasonable manner. Mr. HATHAWAY. Thank you. * Mr. RUSSELL. It has been very effective. * * Mr. MORRISON. Mr. Chairman, I should state it is a nonduplicating account. There may be many youngsters in nonpublic schools who receive a variety of services. So thus far this figure may seem small. We actually have probably three communities where there is a great deal of participation by nonpublic school children. PAGENO="0070" 416 U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION Mr. HATHAWAY. Which are they? Mr. MORRISON. I am thinking of portland, Lewiston, and I believe ~it is Biddeford. Mr. HATHAWAY. How about North? Would it not be Van Buren and Fort Kent? Mr. NIOKERSON. It is all public schools, pretty much. Mr. FLANAGAN. I am from the Portland, Maine, system. At the present time they have a science program in operation in Portland on the shared time and a breakdown in percentages, 80 percent the regular elementary, and 20 percent for parochial elementary. They have two teachers and a. director operating the program at the present time. Mr. GIBBONS. WThere is the instruction actually, physically, carried on? Mr. FLANAGAN. In the schools' own classrooms, in the parochial school classroom, and in the public school classroom. Mr. HATHAWAY. Is that roughly the percentage attending the pub- lic, parochial schools, 80-20? Mr. FLANAGAN. Yes, it is. Pretty close. Mr. GIBBONS. You may proceed, Mr. Nickerson. Mr. NIOKERSON. If there are no more questions about title I, I will turn to title II. The State of Maine has made good and full use of title II funds of $525,000. The State has served as agency for distribution of all books and instructional materials to the eligible nonpublic schools. Mr. QmE. Let me ask you a question about this. Is this both text- books a.nd other instruction materials and library materials? Mr. NIOKERSON. Yes, any expenditures under this title. Mr. QuIB. You did not then provide free textbooks in Maine for the public schoolchildren prior to this? Mr. NIOKERSON. Yes. For the public. Mr. QUIE. For the public? Mr. NIOKERSON. For the public school pupils we have free text- books. Mr. QUIE. Then how could you use this money for textbooks if you were already providing free textbooks? Mr. NIcKERsoN. This has not been used for textbooks. This has been library books, upon which particular emphasis was put during the first year. This has not been a replacement or duplication of local effort. It has all been additional and we have had approvable lists, a list from which they might choose. The emphasis has been in the first year on libraries because libraries have been very short in the State of Maine. Audiovisual materials to a small extent, but in the first year of operation it was felt that the greatest need was library books. Mr. QUIB. Where is the library material stored in the nonpublic schools? Mr. NIc~soN. They would be ordered and delivered through the State office of education and would stay and remain in the private school. That would be the property of the State of Maine Depart- ment of Education. So this is a loan arrangement with these private schools. PAGENO="0071" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 417 Mr. QmE. Suppose it is an encyclopedia that is made available to the private school, it would be located in the library and remain there for year after year? Mr. NICKERSON. Yes, except that there is a provision that any of these materials within an area-and we are expected to set up these areas-would be available for use by any students in this area. About 100 areas would be needed to serve the State of Maine, with its sparse population and geographical centers, and a listing of all of these ma- terials is kept up to date. Mr. Qmi~. What are you going to do about inventory later on, checking on the condition of the material in the private schools? Mr. NICKERSON. This is a matter we have not fully decided upon so far as procedure is concerned, but the schools have had notification that it is their responsibility to see that there is good care and reason- able use of the materials. Mr. QmE. The public schools have been notified that they should check on the private school materials? Mr. NICKERs0N. No. The relations between the private schools are with the State office so far as these books and materials are concerned, not with the local school system. Mr. Quiii In Minnesota the private school books are stamped with the name of the public school having jurisdiction over that area. But in Maine they are stamped the property of the State department of education? Mr. NICKERSON. That's right. This was done, I think, as perhaps a more effective way because of having so many small school systems, that this perhaps could be handled through the State office better in that fashion more efficiently than otherwise on this. It might involve perhaps less detail on reporting and collecting and so on. Mr. QIJIE. Then any check on the condition will `have to be made b~ the State department of education with the private school? Mr. NIOXERSON. Yes. Mr. QUIE. Did you read the interview with Commissioner Howe in the most recent U.S. News & World Report? Mr. NIOKERSON. No, I have not seen that. Mr. QUIE. He made the statement that no material under title II was stored in nonpublic school facilities. Mr. NICKERSON. We have them in the State of Maine, but it is on loan to them. I think we may have a problem of keeping these lists up to date for these geographical areas `of the State for use by all pupils, but that is a responsibility that we would have for both the public and the private schools. Title III, the supplementary educational centers and service, Maine has been in the forefront here and the school officials have presented projects in considerable number which have been analyzed and have been considered to be representing the type of thinking that should be' done, creative thinking and innovation. Mr. GIBBONS. Give us some ideas of just how you are using that money. Could you tell us? PAGENO="0072" 418 u.s. OFi~ICE OF EDUCATION Mr. NIc]i~RsoN. Yes. There is a mobile remedial reading lab proj- ect at Kennebunk, Maine, funded with $35,000.. This is equipped with essential remedial materials and will visit schools. We have a project in Maine which has taken the largest amount of money, bringing music in Maine to our rural areas or to all areas of the State. This music organization visits the schools and presents a program to the pupils, particularly in the elementary schools, arous- ing interest and opening their minds and. eyes a bit to what can be done far as music is concerned. Music is one of the areas where we have been quite sadly lacking in the State. The reception of this program, according to `the testi- mony of superintendents of schools, where they have visited, has been excellent. Those `who have heard this have felt it was making a real contribution. Mr. Eaton, the Bangor superintendent, has been instrumental in this and the project has been funded through his school system. Perhaps you might like to ask him some questions about that par- ticular project. Mr. Ginnoxs. I would be interested more in the scope of the differ- ent types of projects. Mr. NIcu~RsoN. That is one. We have a regional marine program at the secondary level at Kittery, Maine-Kittery being a coastal area. That is $12,550. A demonstration teaching center for slow learners and disadvantaged youth at Rockland. The superintendent of schools of Rockland is present here, and he can tell you more about the details of that. That is for $18,930. Some of the other projects were considered to be worth while and worthy but funds were not available and they were put on the list for further consideration. Mr. QmE. What is the Treasure Hunt? Mr. NICKERSON. That is a rather glamorous name. We have Trea~- ure Hunt. It is something like some of these acronyms we have had. We have one, Lighthouse, and I would comment facetiously here that we `talk about Lighthouse operations. Back in 1917, the commissioner of education arranged for a person on the staff to visit all the lighthouses in the State of Maine to look into the education of the children residing at those lighthouses. That was a real lighthouse operation~ Mr. QmE. The ones you have listed are the only ones approved so far? Mr. NlcurusoN. That is correct. Mr. QUIE. What part did you in the State office play since all of these are contra.ct.s with the Federal Government and the local school sys- tem and not with the State department? Mr. ~`ICKERsox. All of the projects were submitted through the State office, to our State office. All were reviewed by our staff and the commissioner of education. Recommendations were made on these proiects as to their excellence, their rating. Then they were forwarded to Washington `for final decision on this. Mr. HATHAWAY. Were any approved locally that the State did not approve? . Mr. NIcKER50N. Yes. The order of priorities has certainly been shifted some. We believe that the State should have approval of these PAGENO="0073" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 419 projects under a State plan which would be developed in accordance with the needs of the State. The State recommendations have been overruled in some cases. It is felt that the State and State officials should know the needs of the State better than someone at a more remote point. What is innovation or change in Scarsdale, N.Y., may not be in Meddybemps, Maine, or in the State of Maine. So we feel that perhaps we would have more intimate knowledge as to what would be of greatest worth to the State of Maine. Mr. HATHAWAY. The person in Meddybemps would know, better what was an innovation there than the State. Mr. NICKERSON. Yes. Mr. HATI-JAwAY. You would agree with the program not requirmg State approval? Mr. NICKERSON. No; we would favor State approval of these proj- ects, if I understood your question correctly. We believe that there should be State approval of these title III projects. Mr. Quu~. You sound like you go a step further suggesting that there be a State plan. Mr. NICKER50N. I imagine there would have to be a State plan to a certain extent for guidance in most of these programs. Mr. QUJE. In title I there is not a State plan, whereas in other pro- grams there is a requirement of State plans in title III where you need Federal approval. Mr. NIcTcJu~soN. What I am speaking of is broad guidelines, not a detailed restrictive type of thing at all. Mr. HATHAWAY. You don't mind Washington approving Meddy- bemps proposal even though you disapprove it? Mr. NICKERSON. Yes; we do. I think we feel that the State and local school officials in the State of Maine should have the decision- making authority on this rather than an official in Washington or in the State of Maine. Mr. HATHAWAY. If it does not have State approval it could still be approved in Washington? Mr. NICKERSON. Yes. Mr. HATHAWAY. You do not like that? Mr. NIcKEEs0N. Not exactly. I am not thinking of this as the State wielding any big stick or great authority but we have a very close relationship, as you know, in the State department, between our de- partment and the local systems. Mr. HATHAWAY. Has any friction developed along this line? Mr. NICKERSON. No; not particularly. It has been a fait accompli. What has been done has been approved and it has gone ahead. Title V has been an inspiration, stimulation, so far as the State office of education is concerned. I mentioned that we do try to perform a leadership and a service role here in the State. This title has given considerable latitude to the State in identifying its needs and designing programs to meet those needs. I think that the 93-page questionnaire or analysis and evalu- ation that we made out was quite helpful and quite illuminating. The projects have included inservice training for professional staff. I would like to comment that this has met a real need because we want our staff people to be well prepared to be up to date. Opportunities PAGENO="0074" 420 U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION for further study in the State are not too extensive, and this has en- abled us to allow some of our staff to go for further education at Har- vard, Maryland, Columbia University, and some other places. The only problem is losing their services during the period of time but be believe we will profit by having an upgraded staff. Other projects are language-arts supervisor, coordinator of teacher education programs, evaluator of teacher credentials, a supervisor of music, and another for fine arts. I put in here the adult education supervisor that was mentioned under the other title but has not been approved as yet. We have not had those positions in our department. We are having a visit from the staff of the U.S. Office Thursday of next week to talk to us about our title V programs. The Vocational Education Acts, in particular the one~ in 1963, have greatly increased the funds for vocational education from the days of the Smith-Hughes and the George-Barden Acts, so that approximately a million dollars is available to the State for this fiscal yea.r. We have been pleased to see that with these increased funds has come a higher degree of flexibility in their use. It is not tied quite as closely to the subject areas, they have been broadened, also the time allotments. These funds have been used to encourage and expand the meager vocational offering now existing in secondary schools, and possible secondary vocational and technical institutes. I have one or two comments I would make later regarding this pro- gram that might be an improvement in its operation. Mr. Qum. Do you have the area vocational school system or do you have a teclmical school system? Mr. NICKERSON. Do you mean, may I ask, secondary or postsecondary? Mr. Quiz. Like in some States they have the area vocational school which is primarily a postsecondary but there is some secondary school teaching. Mr. NIoKr~usoN. So far as the secondary situation is concerned, we are a State that is not large enough to have a separate technical high school, a technical secondary school in general. It has been the policy to operate the comprehensive type of school with vocational programs as a part of the school system. Unfortunately, we have not had very many of those programs. They are very few, but they are growing and they are expanding. On the secondary level, the State department of education has the responsibility for the operation now of four postsecondary vocational- technical institutes. One has been in operation for about 15 or 20 years, and the others are relatively new. There is a real interest in increasing the opportunity for vocational education here in the State. Mr. QUTE. Are all four of them residential? Mr. NICKERSON. No, only two of them at the present time are resi- dential. One in northern Maine at Presque Isle, a deactivated air- base, and the one at south Portland. Those have dormitory facilities and eating facilities. The one in central Maine has a fine site but it is in its infancy and it has one building at the present time. We have requests in our capital budget for some residences there. The new one being developed down the road between here and Bangor is getting one classroom building in operation. PAGENO="0075" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 421. Mr. Qum~. Do you have any comparison of the two residential vo- cational schools with a Job Corps center? Mr. NICKERSON. I don't think we have. Mr. QUIE. Do you have any Job Corps centers in Maine? Mr. NICKERSON. Yes, the one at Poland Spring for girls. There is one at Mount Desert, Bar Harbor, for boys. I think there are about a thousand expected when they get full enrollment at Poland Spring, and about half that number at Bar Harbor. Mr. HATHAWAY. The one in Poland is the largest girls' center in the United States. Mr. NICx~RsoN. With respect to the Higher Education Facilities Act, I know you have been talking about higher education but the State board of education is the higher education facilities commission in the State by virtue of State statutes and interpretation, and has had the function of allotting the funds to both the private and the public institutions. I would point out here that the majority of the grants have been made to private institutions because the State institutions have not had the balance of the funds available for matching funds. At a hearing that was held Monday of this week with the bureau of public improvements, the incoming Governor's representatives, it was pointed out that the State needed a flexible fund that might be available for State institutions to be used for matching the Federal grants. In this way the Federal funds could assist the public institutions to much better advantage than they are doing at the present time. Mr. QurE. What do you mean by a flexible fund? Mr. NICKERSON. That the State appropriate a fund that is not ear- marked specifically for this building at this institution. As it has been at the present time, appropriations have been for a specific build- ing as such on a particular campus and no transfer is allowed. But if the State is going to afford this aid for its taxpayers and citizens it must set up a flexible fund. We cannot say so many Federal dollars will be available for this in- stitution because the applications come in, we have a priority system, and they must take their own chances with this priority. If they qualify, fine. If they don't, they don't get the money. Mr. QuTE. In Minnesota, the University of Minnesota could use all the money if they worked out an agreement that they share things more equally. Mr. NICKERSON. The University of Maine, of course, being our largest institution, has had assistance from this fund, but private col- leges have had more than the State institutions. Mr. QUIE. The State board of education, did it comply with the requirements of the commission on higher education facilities when the law was passed, or did you have to make a little shift in the State board in order to comply?' Mr. NICKERSON. No changes were made. It was deemed eligible or acceptable by the attorney general, and Washington officials in charge of this act reviewed this, and accepted the State board as meeting the necessary requirements. Mr. QUIE. You always had a representative of the University of Maine on the board and always had a representative of some private college? PAGENO="0076" 422 U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION Mr. NIOKERSON. Not specifically as such, not always. Now in the beginning five members of the State board of education were chosen because of the positions they held or by a group. The Municipal As- sociation had a representative a.nd the Teachers' Association had one; the private colleges had one, and I guess the Congress of Parents and Teachers had one. But this was taken out of the statute some years ago, and the Governor appoints all 10 members at the present time. But the makeup in the membership of the State board of education does include people who have served or are serving on the staff of some of the private colleges. Mr. Quii~. And the university as well? Mr. NIcKJu~soN. I don't think there is anyone connected with the university except the commissioner-he is not on it, the commissioner of education is secretary of it but he is a trustee of the university by virtue of his position. That is as close as it has come on that. The State board of education I would say did not seek this function but due to a section in our statutes that says we shall have charge of the expenditure of any Federal funds available for construction, they seem to have been the designated agency for that-although the higher facilities act was not even thought of at the time that statute was enacted. I have a few conclusions or suggestions that I would like to make. The first point listed on this is a repetition of what I have said before. Perhaps as a foreword or preface, our experiences have been har- monious with the State operations. The next point I make is that the Department of Education is in concurrence with the established policy of the Council of Chief State School Officers, that more general Federal educational aid should be dispensed through State regulations or State laws. Such aid would be preferable to the so-called proliferation of categorical aids unless- and this is part of the chief's policy-unless this need cannot be met by general aid. And there are certain areas, like Public Laws 874 and 815, that general assistance would not necessarily cover. The Department strongly favors Federal legislation which would include funds for the administration of particular programs which require a large amount of State work. Examples I have previously mentioned are the school lunch and milk programs, the aid to federally impacted areas, both of those statutes. Funds should be provided for adequate supervisory services when new subject areas are added, such as NDEA, title III. For example, the first three subject areas, the mathematics, science, and foreign language were funded. The next three were also. But the latest subject additions, such as industrial arts and arts and humanities, had no such a provision and we have had to absorb these in our State administration services. There is also the problem of meeting the increased workloads that are not identifiable with any specific program. This may sound a little indefinite, but it does constitute quite an item. The chiefs at their recent meeting in Louisiana have made a sug- gestion I believe that title V funds be made available to cover these workloads not identified with any specific program. I don't know all the backgrounds on that but that is a suggestion that has been made. Mr Qum Title V of which act ~ PAGENO="0077" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 423 Mr. NICKERSON. Strengthening of the Department of Education un- der 89-10. That is a recent action. Fourth, we believe more flexibility should be allowed in the use of funds provided by various titles of a particular act. I mention as an illustration that Maine has lapsed sizable amounts under title III in the past but has been on a starvation diet so to speak, on title IT, to meet the need for guidance. It is all within the same act itself. Fifth, it would be very beneficial if major Federal programs could be enacted on an ongoing basis and not subject to termination at the end of a 1-, 2-, or 3-year period. Such time limitations do not lend themselves to stability, confidence, and good budgeting procedures. By confidence, I am thinking of the employment of personnel in par- ticular. Delayed extension of Public Law 874 and NDEA is a good illustra- tion of the need for long-range planning and budgeting. I recog- nize that you have had continuous resolutions and that they have filled the gap, but sometimes when programs are just getting under- way and there is no previous level of expenditure to use as a basis they present their problems. Failure to make appropriations on time. By that I mean prior to or at the beginning of a fiscal year-has proven to be costly in terms of employment of competent personnel-we have the problem, for exam- ple, of employing personnel in September or October. Under the terms and code of ethics, teacher personnel are not expected to make changes after the first of August. This has been somewhat restric- tive-in terms of employment, personnel, and organizations, effective- ness in evaluating and reporting and probably has caused higher financial outlays. We are much concerned with delays in approval of on-going pro- grams. They have sometimes resulted in the loss of personnel, per- haps hasty or inadequate planning and in some cases in the inability to operate a program at a late date. Perhaps I should not mention this but, for example, as of today, December 1, Public Law 89-10, title I is operating without full guidelines for this fiscal year 1966-67. Eighty percent of the projects have already been approved for oper- ation under the previous year's guidelines. If there are any major changes and revisions they will have to be made after they have been in operation for about half a year. We would like to see an appropriation of the full authorization under the acts or if this cannot be done, possibly provide for rea1loca~ tion among the States when any State does not use its full entitle-~ ment. There are some provisions in some cases for this but not hi all cases. Some States may have unused moneys held in reserve that could be used in other places. We would like to see the full author- ization under NDEA, title III, appropriated for the acquisition of equipment. Mr. GIBBONS. May we pause there. We have had considerable discussion in this subcommittee about that one particular item that you just mentioned, equipment under NDEA. It has been the feeling generally on the subcommittee that we had about gotten caught up on the equipment seed money. PAGENO="0078" 424 tr.s. OFFICE OF EDUCATION Mr. NIox~RsoN. I don't think we have in the State of Maine. Per- haps this is part of our own inability to have taken advantage of this is in early days. But we are certainly at the present time not able to meet the needs. Mr. QUIB. You said you let it lapse. Why did you let it lapse in sizable amounts? Mr. NIOKERSON. The local school systems were not prepared or could not obtain the necessary matching funds for their share of it, the 50-50 basis. While the Federal dollars were there, like the reha- bilitation that I mentioned earlier, the local dollars for matching were not available. So these moneys were not utilized, which was unfortunate, but we could not do anything about it at the time. Mr. GIBBONS. Thank you. Mr. NIOKERSON. We would like to see, if possible, an increase in the $50,000 ceiling on matching funds under title X of NDEA to allow for the expansion of services and operations and for increased costs which have developed since this was put into operation. This is not a large item but would help considerably. With respect to Public Law 815, we have experienced great diffi- culty in utilizing Federal construction aid to which a unit is eligible because of the wage scale requirement. In some cases the benefit of the Federal assistance has been offset in whole or in a large part by the wage scale which was much higher than the prevailing rate for similar work in the State or in the area or conimunity. To be specific, the small town of Cutler on the northeastern coast of Maine, where a Federal radio station is located, a few years ago had to expand their small school system to accommodate additional federally connected pupils, and was obliged not to have the Cutler wage scale which might be rather low, not the Bangor or Portland wage scale but the Boston wage scale. Mr. GIBBONS. How in the world could that have happened? We never intended that to happen. Mr. NIOKERSON. This was protested. We made vigorous protest on this scale. We got a little change but still there was a very wide discrepancy. We are in favor of good wages but there seemed to be such a wide discrepancy. What actually happened in this particular project, which was a small project, it was bid three times before they were able to get an acceptable bid within funds available, and it was cut back each time. And it was a minimal building to start with. So that this is an illustration that we sometimes have in connection with our rural areas. Mr. GIBBONS. That is about 300 miles away. That would be 300 miles away from Boston-something like that? Mr. MCKERSON. Yes. Mr. GIBBoNs. Have they tied you in with the Boston wage scale? Mr. NIc~soN. Yes. We believe that all of the educational programs which supplement State and local programs, and I am thinking particularly of the local here, emphasizing that, should be administered through the educa- ~tiona.l agencies, hocal and State. and should be channeled in their operations, in rela~tion to the Federal Government., through the State dep.artnents of education. And the department shbukl not be by- PAGENO="0079" U.S.. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 425 passed, dealing directly with local units or with noneducational agencies. We find that we are dealing with many agencies and would prefer to see all truly educational assistance programs administered through the U.S. Office of Education. The transfer of adult education and handicapped children, recent legislation, is a step in what we believe is the right direction. WTe would like to see more of this done. We hope to see some consolidation, fewer but broader programs approach- ing somewhat general aid. Perhaps as an illustration, the State of Maine some years ago had a number of aid programs to local com- munities for the employment of teachers. A subsidy for a general teacher, a subsidy for industrial arts teacher, a subsidy for a physical education teacher. They were all different. Finally it was felt that all of these subsidies and different reimbursements did not make very much sense and they were put under one foundation program. I think that is what we would like to see as far as some of these Federal programs that have so much in common and affect the general oper- ation of schools. Mr. QuIE. Let us use the example of NDEA. There are a number of titles under which you receive assistance under NDEA. Would you suggest now that we take that same amount of money in NDEA and make it available for the purpose of NDEA but not divide it up in titles, and let you set your own priorities here? Mr. NIOKER5ON. Yes; I would have definitely to agree with that ex- cept there would have to be a little distinction because some of these would operate through State departments of education and others would be institutional, like the language institutes that might be oper- ated at a college. So there are some that we would not have any involvement with. Mr. QUIE. But where the State department of education and local secondary and elementary schools receive assistance of the program directly? Mr. NICKER50N. Yes; this is an approach to a general type of aid but it is a little too divided and, subdivided. With regard to the Vocational Education Act of 1963 we believe that the most beneficial change would be the elimination of matching categories to permit across-the-board matching. In Maine, for e~- ample, we are overmatching considerably in the total amount. The State appropriations have exceeded the amount required for matching, but do not match Federal funds available in some specific categories. * So those funds remain unused. If a higher degree of flexibility were allowed, Mttine could make better, and we feel more efficient, use of these funds. Vocational administrators also desire some relaxation in the detail required for the annual description of projected activities. We do have anapproved State plan to which a:ll programs must conform and we must submit complete and detailed reports. These we believe should be sufficient because oftentimes it is difficult to project acti'~ities in detail, especially when appropriations may not be determined irior to the development of such a projection. This perhaps is mainly an administrative matter but we think this could be improved. We endorse the: principle of consolidation and coordination of aids but ask that care be taken that one program is not increased at the expense of another unless the aims are similar. PAGENO="0080" 426 u.s. O~CE OF EDUCATION For example, we were a little disturbed about the proposal to reduce allotments under Public Law 874 because of funds made available under title I of 89-10 or other acts but we did not feel this would be comparable in the State because the purpose and the pupils served were different, were not comparable. Mr. QUEE. You say you should always have separate fimding for Public Law 874 but you would like to see some other categorical pro- grams shifted to general aid. How do you feel about vocational edu- cation? Do you feel that should be continued as a program limited to vocational education, however, removing- Mr. NIOKERSON. I think vocational education is a part of the gen- eral educational program and could be well included in the overall approach to this. Mr. Qtun. I hope the vocational educators don't give you too hard a time for saying this. Mr. NlcwnRsoN. May I say in our department that vocational edu- cation is not a separate entity itself. We have a bureau of vocational education but it is a part of the division of instruction. So it is con- sidered to be a part of the entire program, not a separate entity. Mr. Qurs. I have been amazed at the strength of the State depart- ment of education here in Maine in handling many of these programs as you have gone through them. I kind of suspected first you were taking credit for some things that you did not have full responsibility for but I see you do. Mr. NIc~ERsoN. Thank you. We consider we are a service orga- nization and try to be of all possible assistance. I have mentioned previously that we would like to see State ap- proval of 89-10, title III, and I think too there could be quite a high degree of correlation between some of these title III projects and the title IV laboratory projects. The title IV laboratory projects are designed to improve education. They need some experimental centers. I think these could be cór- related and could work well together. One of the suggestions that has been made by our accounting staff is that the statutory date for filing the annual vocational reports should be eliminated from the statute. This is peculiar to this par- *ticular act. I understand it is uniformly agreed among the States and the U.S. Office of Education that the September date is unrealis- tic, cannot be met in most States. It is not being met* in Maine, although we~ dislike very much to be in teclmical violation of the law. But all in all, the administrative problems have been of a minor nature. At times there has been a lack of siifficieiit copies of enacted laws, regulations, and guidelines and circular letters to keep all of our program directors and our acting staff well informed~ Our account staff is involved with audits and they need to be kept abreast, but I think this is something that can be easily corrected. There has been some problem with oral interpretations of some of the new laws but they have been given in the best of faith. Perhaps they may be subject to review later, and we hope we don't have too many difficulties at audit time when that arrives. I think, and I am not too serious about this, sometimes we have been a little concerned about the number of meetings that have been held to orient the staff people about the programs, but we feel this is a good procedure to hold meetings for informing people, and partic- PAGENO="0081" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 427 ularly our staff members, about these programs. All in all, it has been helpful. I think we have many of these same problems administratively at the State level, and we have one of new and changing personnel and I know that the U.S. Office of Education has had the problem of new and changing personnel. I would say all in all, our experience has been a happy one and we feel that the cooperation we have had has been of a high degree. Mr. HATHAWAY. What do you think about decentralizing the Office of Education? Are you in favor of it? Mr. NICKERSON. I think you can have too much decentralizing or too many offices to go through. The Boston office on 874 and 815 has been an excellent aid. Our business has been transacted very effi- ciently there. There* is a meeting going on today that I would have liked to have attended on the changes in the law. As far as many of these programs are concerned, I think the Boston office has difficulty keeping-I am using Boston as an illustration of regional-keeping informed and having to go to Washington for many things. We have a feeling we would rather deal in most cases directly with headquarters than going through too many agencies. Mr. HATHAWAY. Do you think if the Boston office were given more authority it would work out better? Mr. NICKERSON. I think they need more information and authority if it is to be done that way. Mr. HATHAWAY. Your information channels are pretty good back and forth? Mr. NICKERSON. Yes, they are. They want to be very helpful. We have no problem in that respect. But delays are always involved when one must go through too many hands and too many offices. I know * that we have this process established in this way, the regional offices, and perhaps it can be improved some utilized to good advantage that way. We would prefer in many cases to deal directly with Washington. Mr. HATHAWAY. Thank you. Mr. QmE. There is one education activity that has not been spoken of this morning, and this afternoon. That is the National Teachers Corps. Do you have any of that activity going on in Maine? Mr. NIcK]~soN; We have indicated, an interest in the Teachers Corps and have had some applications for placements, but I don't know * that we have any in the State. I think there were some delays here in getting this underway. Mr~ Qun~. I question whether it will live very long, too. Mr. GIBBONS. Thank you very much. We appreciate the long time that you have spent here with us. You have certainly handled yourself extremely well. You have given us a lot of information. Let us take a 10-minute break right now, and come back around 3:10, something like that. Then if the gentlemen who are going to be next on the program will sit at the table in the same order that their names appear on `the slip it will help the reporter. (Brief recess.) Mr. GIBBONS. As we open this section of our hearings, if those of you who are out in the audience feel you would like to participate in the discussion we are about to have, just move up closer. If you 73-728--67-pt. 2-6 PAGENO="0082" 428 U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION want to be recognized, catch my eye and I will be glad to recognize you if you have anything to add to the discussion or any point you wish to make. We have a 5 p.m. deadline here that I hate to impose on anybody, but there is so much to do today and so little time in which to do it. As you all Irnow, we are going to have to work together and treat this as a group discussion. I would like if each one of you would make your remarks, and we will insert your statements in the record, to- gether with the statement of Mr. Flanagan, and let each one of you briefly summarize what you have there. Tonight on the plane and tomorrow morning, we will go over your statements again when we get on the ground. As I said before, we will include those in the record. You have heard a lot of discussion that has preceded you here. If you want to change the focus of your remarks, this is your oppor- tunity to do it. Let us start over here. Mr. Ciaravino, suppose you open for 5 or 10 minutes and then we will pass it around. STATEMENT OP CASPER CIARAVINO, SUPERINTENDENT, SCHOOL UNION 69, CAMDEN, MAINE (Mr. Ciaravino's formal prepared statement follows:) FoRMAL STATEMENT OF CASPER CIARAVINO, SUPERINTENDENT, SCHOOL UNION 69, CAMDEN, MAINE School Union 69 is a medhun size unit located in mid-coastal Maine. It con- sists of Camden-Rockport School Administrative District #28, the Town of Hope, Lincoinvile and the Island of Islesboro. Its origin dates back to the days of the adventurous Captain J~ohn Smith. The first permanent settlers arrived in 1769 at both Camden and Rockport and a year later at Lincolnville. The area is well known for its rugged coast, its mountains that reach the sea, its lakes and its emerald islands that dot Penobscot Bay. From the top of 1~It. Battle a panoramic view of the area lies at the feet of the beholder so varied, so expansive and so beautiful that it is the equal of any. School District #28 is made up of Camden and Rockport. The combined population of the two towns, according to the 1960 census, was 5,882. Of this number 3,988 individuals reside in Camden and 1,894 were Rockport residence. The population increase during the interim period has been slight to moderate. The District has a school enrollment of approximately 1,485 and a staff of 78 teachers. The pupil enrollment is distributed as follows: Kindergarten 92 8th grade 111 1st grade 124 9th grade 138 2d grade 111 10th grade 134 3d grade 100 11th grade 118 4th grade 117 12th grade 115 5th grade 6th grade 106 Total 1,478 7th grade 119 Special class 7 The State valuation of the two towns is: 1964 1966 Camden $12, 000,000 Rockport 5,550,000 $13, 000,000 6,300,000 PAGENO="0083" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 429 The 1966 expenditures for schools is $047,136.00, while the present bonded indebtedness for school construction is approximately $800,000. Using the present method of computing ability to pay, Camden-Rockport is in a very favorable financial position. A visit to the town confirms this impres- :sion in many, many ways. Its attractive main street with the window boxes, the distinctive shops, the expensive yachts in the harbor and the late model Rolls Royce parked within a hundred yards of the Superintendent's office-an office housed in a five room elementary school building built in 1869 and long obsolete according to today's standard. A view from the top of Mt. Battle rein- forces this impression. Riding the school bus on its regular run will also con- firm this impression, in addition it exposes pockets of poverty, poor housing, neglected children, wasted and wasting human resources. Half the pupils enrolled in the high school take the College Course. Most of the pupils will continue their education beyond high school, but not always in a degree granting program. For approximately 20-30 percent of these pupils the curriculum is meaningless and inadequate. Efforts are being made to reach such students through a cooperative work program. An in-school Neighborhood Youth Program has not materialized. Notification was received from the State Director on November 28, 1966, that all supplemental agreements have been halted by the Boston Office. On November 29, 1966, the State Supervisor of Adult Education notified this office that all States must live within existing resources for the remainder of the fiscal year ending June 30, 1967. As a result of this notification the basic adult education program will end with the calendar year. There are 18 adults in this program, one of the enrollees is a fifty-one year old woman who has always lived in the community, raised a family and accord- ing to information provided by her never attended school. These are two examples of lack of communication, lack of awareness as to what takes place and lack of a sensitivity of what happens to the disadvantaged caught in a failure syndrome recruited for programs and then disappointed. Is it any wonder that they distrust society, and that agencies asked to sponsor programs hesitate? Union 69 also includes the towns of Hope and Lincolnville. These are two small towns, one in the county of Knox and the other in Waldo county. They are sparsely populated rural areas each having a single school of 4 and 5 teachers respectively and sharing a remedial reading teacher and a music teacher. Until this year they had combined classes with grades 1 to 8 in each school. By trans- porting pupils and operating both schools as a union it was possible to house grades 1-4 in the Hope School and grades 5-8 in the Lincoinville School thus * providing a single grade learning situation for all pupils. Hope enrollment: 1st grade 28 4th grade 34 2d grade 28 - 3d grade 34 Total 124 1966 Hope School budget $51, 024 Lincolnville enrollment: ~th grade 26 8th grade 0th grade 28 - 7th grade 26 TOtal 113 1966 Lincolnville School budget $69,982 The town of Islesboro operates its own school system which includes grades K-12, with 8 teachers on the staff. The pupil population is distributed as follows:. Kindergarten 6 8th grade 8 1st grade 8 9th grade 2 2d grade 10 10th grade 3 3d grade 6 11th grade 7 4th grade 4 12th grade 9 5th grade 6 6th grade 10 Total 89 7th grade 10 * The island is separated from the mainland by Penobscot Bay. During the win- ter months the ferry makes three. round trips daily. Its location and limited PAGENO="0084" 430 U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION transportation to and from the mainland has a limiting effect on the educational offerings of the school. Inspite of this the per pupil expenditure for education is one of the highest in the state. The total school budget for 1966 is $55,931.00. School Union 69's participation in Federal Program includes: A. Camden-Rockport School Administrative District #28: 1. Improvement of Reading, Title I - $12, 000 2. Improvement of Business Education, Title I 2, 000 3. Aid to school libraries, Title II 2, 720 4. Basic Adult Education, Title JIB 1, 526 5. In-school Neighborhood Youth Corps 11, 000 6. Out of school Neighborhood Youth Corps (1) 1 Unknown. B. Towns of Hope and Lincoinville received approval for a remedial and de- velopmental reading program under Title I. Hope received $172.00 under Title II for library aid. Lincolnville received $261.00 under Title II for library aid. C. The Island of Islesboro receives less than $1,000.00 under Title I and $144.00 under Title II. The philosophy of the Educational Act, as I understand it, is: 1. to equalizeeducational opportunities 2. to broaden and enrich the services of the school 3. to provide a teaching and learning environment that will seek out, identify and develop the abilities of the individual to the fullest potential. To serve this purpose programs must be well planned, organized and imple- mented. At present we are continuously forced into hasty decision, attempting to carry out crash programs and are faced with one crises after another. Needs and situations differ within a community and vary from year-to-year. With proper guidelines and safe-guards, I would recommend a federal general purpose aid to education and that the method of allocating funds be re-examined. Numbers alone do not always constitute greatest need. Mr. CIARAVINO. Mr. Chairman, I am superintendent, of schools in the Camden area. I am responsible for the administration of School Union 69. This is composed of the towns of Camden and Rockport, which in itself is an administrative school district, quasi-municipal. It has a population of 6,000. people and school enrollment of 1,400 or 1,500 youngsters. In addition to this, I am responsible for the administration of the town of Hope, Lincoinville, and island of Islesboro. One thing I would like to Point out in a union like this is that there is great . difference in the makeup of the t.owns. And within the towns themselves, iii the composition of the population a.nd t.he educational background of the people. I am not sticking to the text.. Mr. GIBBONS. Go right ahead. That is all right. Mr. ~IARAVINO. I thought this would be quicker and if you will read the rest of it you will get that information. Mr. GIBBONS. You certainly have a varied district. Mr. ~IARAVINO. This. is the main point I wanted to make at this particular time. It is varied, complex, complicated. It is a district within the union. It supports I hope what Dr. Kickerson brought out-that the local communities need a certain amount of leeway to plan, . to organize, and the time to work out plans to implement the intent of the law. The philosophy of Federal aid and all aid to education is to equalize opportunities, to broaden and enrich the services of the school, to provide a learning and teaching environment that will seek~ out, identify, and develop the abilities of the individuals to the fullest potential, however and wherever that potential may lead to. PAGENO="0085" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 431 Mr. GIBBONS. May I ask a question here, since we have the assistant superintendent. Your school system is a mechanical arrangement type, its organization is somewhat of a mystery to me. We have a very simple system in the State of Florida. There are 67 districts that are really synonymous with county lines. There are no school unions or city districts or anything else. Will you explain to me briefly how yours works down at the State level, down to the local level? I think I will then be able to better understand some of the problems. Mr. CIARAVINO. Mr. Chairman, the State of Maine originally, or until a few years ago, had 493 separate towns, cities, and municipali- ties. Reorganization of schools into larger units was necessary for efficient school operation and for economical support, to have resources enough to support education. So that in 1957 a change was made and districts were formed. As far as counties are concerned, the counties in Maine have never had any educational function. So county lines have been no barrier. Districts have been formed. We have 62 districts now, I believe, involving 220, or nearly half, of the munici- palities of the State. These districts operate separately and inde- pendently. They are quasi-municipal in operation, but there are no more town or local lines. This is the school district as an entity. Mr. GIBBoNS. You have 62 districts altogether in the whole State of Maine? Mr. NIOKERSON. Of the new type, of the school administrative district. Now in Mr. Ciaravino's situation he has had a district formed in- volving two municipalities, but the original school supervisory services embraced several separate towns. Besides the district, he also has the three separate towns to which he is responsible and they employ him as a separate person for supervision of their schools. Actually, this really is in the process of evolution and the State has an overall plan so that all of these small municipalities would be in a single district a~ some time in the future, subject, of course, to acceptance by the legisla- ture. Mr. GIBBoNs. It sounds complicated. Mr. CIARAVINO. It is complicated and time consuming because each community has a board of its own and each one is a policymaking unit. You have to meet with them. You have to prepare a separate budget. You have similar problems with each one. The largest of the communities is the Camden-Rockport School Dis- trict. You might say that it is two separate towns. Its problems are much different from the rural towns. Hope and Linconville are rural, sparcely populated. There are small farms. There is some lumber going on but most of the people work out of town. This is marginal farming, part time. The island of Islesboro, and on the third page I show you the pupil population there, has a single school. There are 89 pupils in the whole school. They run from kindergarten to 12th grade. There are eight teachers. The island is somewhere out in Penobscot Bay. It takes about a half hour to get there on the ferry. During the winter there are three round trips. This creates prob- lems. It is isolated by water. If you and I would visit the island PAGENO="0086" 432 U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION we would remark about the scenic beauty. The school is housed in an old estate that was given to the town. It is a beautiful estate, beautiful grounds. As I talk to the. youngsters, though, about the school and the school sit.uation they offhandedly remark yes, they see its beauty, but they feel trapped. I think things like this present problems which do not come in the Newton, Watertown, Harvard, MIT, Lexington areas. Our school districts have problems that are peculiar to us. They have problems that are hard to define. Sometimes the guidelines do not provide for an opportunity to express the need of a community like that. WThat it boils down to is financial need. The island of Islesboro has one of the largest per pupil expenditures in the State. But with a school population such as indicated on this chart on page 3 what kind of education program can you provide? What kind of education program can you provide in grades 9 and 10 when there are two pupi1s~ and three pupils in those grades respectively? One of the things requested in your letter was type of educational programs, Federal programs that we are having now. I have listed. those on the last page. In Camden-Rockport we have a program for the improvement of rea.ding, one for the improvement of busine~s edu- cation, a.id to libraries under title II, basic adult education under title JIB, the inservice Neighborhood Youth Corps program. We had t.his last year. Here we got sidetracked by t.he Knox County Community Action Program, and during the summer program there was some confusion. about whether this was to be carried on by the schools or by the Community Action Program in the fall of the year. Because of this. confusion we don't have a program. We have an out-of-school Neighborhood Youth Corps program, which is very limited. The problems that I run int.o in trying to implement the program are that, first, shall we say we are asked to develop crash programs. I may get a telephone call at 10 o'clock in the morning and I am sup- posed to have an answer or program rea.dy by 4 o'clock that same after- noon. This is impossible to do. The other thing is that if we have a program going, let us say in adult basic education, I have a letter from the director of the State program telling me that funds are no longer available. This means that we must terminate the program in December. Now in our program we have 18 adults. One of these adults is a woman of 51 years of a.ge. She has lived in the community all her life. She has brought up her family. Now she wants to go to school. Ac- cording to the information we got from her, she has never attended school before. It is an extreme case, but it exists. If you ask how much money is involved, it is less than $1,500. Yet $1,500 for a special program like this is hard to come by. At the mo- ment, I am in the process of buying a bus which costs about $7,500. We are trying to raise teachers' salaries for next year, which comes to an additional $30,000. Thesefigures add up. Time community is willing; the State department of education tells me they have ability to pay; and I still ha.ve trouble raising the $1,500. I would like to support Kermit Nickerson's recommendation that a general purpose aid, administered through the State and through the PAGENO="0087" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 433 local school boards, would at least put me in a better position to plan the program, to implement the program, to be able to organize staff and line communications and relationships, so that I can establish priorities and get more effective use of the dollar spent. Mr. GIBBONS. I don't see how you can write a plan when I see what you are faced with. Mr. CIAn~&vINo. We have in our system about half the youngsters taking the college program. Most of these youngsters will go on to education beyond high school, not always in a degree granting pro- gram. I can certainly work up a cooperative program for some of them. Mr. GIBBONS. What is the total number of students for whom you are responsible? Mr. CIA~vINo. I would say 2,000. Mr. QUIE. That means your district comprises more than the Cain- den-Rockport, the Hope, Lincoinville, and Islesboro? Mr. CIARAVINO. There are 1,478 in Camden-Rockport, 124 in Hope, 113 in Lincolnville, and 89 in island of Islesboro. Until last year Hope had four classrooms, Lincolnville had four classrooms. They divided one in half and they called it five. Mr. GIBBONS. Physically is it possible to transfer and consolidate these students at any viable size school? I am not asking whether it is completely possible but physically possible. Mr. CIARAVINO. Physically it is. We are in the process of study- ing the possibility of Hope and Lincolnville's joining Camden. This is physically possible. It is educationally desirable. As far as ending some duplication and some other things, it would provide a better program. However, politically that is something else. What exists there, is that the towns of Hope, Lincoinville, and Appleton have no indebtedness as far as school buildings are concerned. They are old buildings and all paid for, while the communities of Camden and Rockport have just completed a construction program, of bonded indebtedness of $800,000. That means, according to our present status, these towns would have to pick up quite a bit of this bonded indebtedness. They don't have the resources to do it. Mr. GIBBONS. Thank you, sir. Mr. HATHAWAY. You suggest at the end of your statement that other criteria should be used to allocate Federal funds under a general aid program. What other criteria do you have in mind? Mr. CIARAVINO. Perhaps I know the district that Mr. Kiniiey represents better than my own. I was associated with him for 18 years. I just moved to Camden in the middle of August. But work- ing on the title I and title III projects, in examining the guidelines and doing research in this area, we always ran into the problem of numbers. So many people have to have an income below $3,000 a year. So many people have to be eligible, like in the Headstart program. In our particular case in a rural, sparsely populated area like Mamo, you don't have the numbers and you can't play the numbers game as well as they can in a highly concentrated metropolitan area. But every child we have is just as worthy and just as needy. This one woman who is 51, if she wants to come in and take advantage of a basic adult education program, she ought to. We have high school PAGENO="0088" 434 TJ.S. OFFICE OF EDTJCATION dropouts who are just learning how to read in this particular program. We have youngsters who need mental health clinics. In a metropolitan area, if they have the training fare or busfare, they can go to the health clinic or medical clinic or any of these services. The can take advantage of them. Yet in Appleton they don't Imow what mental health is. Because we only have a few peoplu out there, because we can't raise the $30,000 or $35,000 it takes to ge~ a clinic started, these yoimgsters go without the services. Mr. HATHAWAY. So the geographical distribution of the people should be a consideration. Mr. GIARAVINO. That is one consideration; yes, sir. Mr. QrnE. Do you think that within the State, title I money has a fair distribution? Mr. CIARAVINO. If I were speaking from Mr. Kinney's side of the fence, I would say yes. On my side of the fence, I would say no. Mr. QrnE. You are talking about your side? Mr. CIARAVINO. Looking at it from a community like Isleboro that Thas a lot of estates, valuable property, high estate valuations so far as property is concerned. I go into the school and we have a music concert there and I look over the kids and these kids are in hard shape as far as their physical needs, the way they dress, their nu- trition needs. The money may be there, it may be in the property- but it is not in these youngsters. In Camden and R.ockport as I ride the bus I go by the estates, I go by the country club, I go along the shore and it is beautiful. I also go in the Hosmers Pond Road where maybe a 12 by 16 building with a tarpaper finish and a wood stove is housing a family that may have five to seven youngsters in it. Mr. Qu~. In determining your eligibility for title I money you don't take into consideration the property value at all? It is just families with income of less than $2,000 and ADC? Mr. CIARAvIN0. We get $12,000 as our total allocation for title I funds. What does this do? At most it hires two teachers. Does it develop a vocational program? Does it teach youngsters an em- ployable skill? Does it. make them economically competent? If they Thave abilities and the aspirations to go on to further education does it put them in a program which will inspire them to do this? Mr. QuIR. Now you can't expect to get any more than Maine's share for Maine, and I have a. quarrel with the formula dividing the States. How do you think we should go about giving the Camden Mea and Isleboro better treatment than they have had in the past? Or if you got more than that $12,000 would all the rest of these men be up in arms because they are going to lose some? Mr. CIARAVINO. Yes, they would be. I don't come here to take anything away from them because I am sure they are in a position ~where they could take from me. Mr. GIBBONS. It is geographic isolation t.hat gives you the problem? Mr. CIARAvIN0. Yes. Space is one thing. Mr. GIBBONS. Is it the reluctance of the people, the indigenous peo- ple, to move where the good schools are or is it great distances that are involved? PAGENO="0089" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 435 Mr. CIARAVINO. it is distance, rural roads, and then some one will live up on a mountain and we have to send the buses to pick up the youngsters. This ties up buses, transportation. Mr. GIBBONS. What does somebody do that lives up on top of a mountain? For a living, I mean. Mr. CI~nAvINo. We had a family in Lincoinville where you could not go in the road with a car during certain times of the year. We sent the bus on a round trip of something like 14 miles to pick up two youngsters. The father works at a chemical plant in Searsport. He wants to live in IRockport. Mr. HATHAWAY. A lot of them are stuck with their occupation as lobster fishermen. They can't very well move. Mr. CIARAvIN0. This is true, but the lobster fishermen are not the ones that live on the backroads. They will generally live somewhere where you can get into the area. Mr. HATHAWAY. They are the ones living in the Islesboro community? Mr. GIBBONS. Some people just don't like neighbors, is that it? Mr. CIARAVINO. At times I can appreciate their point of view. Mr. GIBBoNs. Where do the rich people's children go to school? Mr. CIAIi~vINo. They go to the private schools or are summer residents, not full year residents. Mr. GIBBONS. Do you have many private schools in your area? There could not be a great many, but percentagewise. Mr. CIARAVINO. There are none in this area. Mr. GIBBONS. Thank you very much. You have a very interesting, almost quaint setup there. Let us go on to the next gentleman. You may proceed, sir. STATEMENT OF WENDELL EATON, SUPERINTENDENT OP SCHOOLS~ FOR THE BANGOR SCHOOL DEPARTMENT (Mr. Eaton's formal statement follows:) FORMAL STATEMENT OF WENDELL EATON, SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS FOR TUE BANGOR SCHOOL DEPARTMENT Mr. Chairman, Members of the House of Representatives, Special Sub- committee on Education, I am Wendell Eaton, Superintendent of Schools for the Bangor School Department. The school district served is the City of Bangor. The public school population is 7300, drawn from a total resident population of some 38,000. Within the district are three elementary parochial schools and one parochial high school with a total student population of about 1400. The Bangor School Department has operated the following programs in which the federal government has participated: Public Law 874: 1965-66, $623,112 received; 1966-67, $609,736 budgeted. Title I, ESEA: 1965-66, $64,400 spent; 1966-67, $78,440 budgeted. Title II, ESEA: 1965-66, $15,400 spent; 1966-67, not yet budgeted. Title III, ESEA: 1965-66, none; 1966-67, $212,019 budgeted. Bangor is the recipient and administrator, in behalf of the entire ~State of Maine, of $212,019 for a project entitled Music in Maine, Inc. This highly innovative effort establishes a fine professional chamber orchestra which divides itself into four ensembles (two string quartets, a woodwind quintet and a brass quintet) to bring live classical music to all the students in the state, grades PAGENO="0090" 436 U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION three to eight. It is highly successful and plans are underway for a joint venture with New Hampshire for FY 1968. MDTA: 1965-66, $118,969 spent; 1966-67, $48,254 budgeted. We served 241 persons in 11 different programs during 1965-66, and in 1966-67 to date have served 133 in 7 programs. Basic Adult Education: 1965-66, $12,016 spent; 1966-67, $13,860 budgeted. In our initial attempt last year we reached 75 adults, and there are now 42 persons active in the program. Headstart: 1965, $20,454 spent; 1966, $27,280 spent. This program served 117 youngsters in the summer of 1965 and 110 last summer. Neighborhood Youth Corps: summer 1966, $8,069 spent. 25 youths were in the summer program, and there are now 17 in an in-school program. NDEA: about $7,500 of federal money has been spent annually since the in- ception of this program. Distributive Education: Bangor has long maintained this vocational pro- gram. Junior ROTC: Bangor has the oldest high school military instruction unit in the nation, though this is funded and administered by DOD rather than USOE. The Bangor School Department has virtually no direct dealings with the TJSOE except in the areas of PL 874 and PL 815. Our major contact for all other federal participation is with the Maine State Department of Education. It is my strong feeling that the USOE should strengthen the Maine State Depart- inent, as under Title V, ESEA, and should then deal through this department exclusively for all Maine educational affairs. It is my conviction that the State Department of Education, properly strengthened could assume the major responsi- bility for the improvement of education in Maine, and that if federal funds should be allocated on a modified Heller plan, the State Department could spend them more wisely and with greater impact on education than under present Tmethods. I applaud the activities of the TJSOE in establishing regional laboratories and in setting up the Educational Research Information Center. These efforts should be productive of innovation. Technical assistance with curriculum, facilities and particularly evaluation should be continued and expanded through the regional offices, and through a strengthened State Department of Education. The particular difficulties of the Bangor School Department in its relationship to federal programs have been these: 1. The lack of both time and expertise in the preparation of applications, the administration and the evaluation of programs. This has impeded our early progress, and is still a deterrent. Recommendation: Provide more help from USOE through the Maine State Department. 2. The lack of teachers for special programs we would like to initiate. Recom.ineiidation: Provide more help for recruitment and training of teachers. 3. Restrictions, under Title I, ESEA, which require a needy student to be in an area of impoverishment in order to receive the benefits. Recom- mendation: Eliminate categorical aid. 4. The difficulties, although admittedly few, of dealing with OEO for Headstart and Basic Adult Education, and with the Labor Department for MDTA. Recommendation: Consolidate educational programs in the Office of Education. May I commend the Special Subcommittee on Education for its conduct of this study, and express my sincere appreciation for the privilege of presenting my testimony. Mr. EATON. Thank you. I am Wendell Eaton, superintendent of schools for the Bangor School Department. I have indicated in a written statement something about the school department and the community it. serves. I have also indicated some- thing about the programs in which I say the Federal Government has participated. The largest of these moneywise is Public Law 874 because of the Dow Air Force Base which is within the limits of Bangor. PAGENO="0091" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 437 Mr. GIBBONS. I see why your representative supports this program so vigorously. I see that amount of money. Mr. EATON. I am pleased to know that he has. We also have had programs under title I, title II, and title III, Elementary and Secondary Education Act. .1 call particular atten- tion to the title III program, which is a program for the entire State of Maine. Bangor was kind enough to act as the applicant and receive and administer the moneys for this program which brings a fine professional chamber orchestra to the State. This is a highly profes- sional group which divides itself into four ensembles, and these en- sembles travel throughout the State, two string quartets, one wood- wind quintet, and a brass quintet. This is a highly innovative and highly successful program. So highly successful that New Hampshire wants to pay a part of the program. I think you will see something of a further innovation of two States sharing the same program. In fiscal year 1968, however, we have some difficulty in this because under present guidelines in the U.S. Office of Education we are unable to get approval of program for fiscal 1968 until after May 1. In fact, I understand they don't want any submission for approval until after May 1. If we are going to retain these musicians under contract, I think we are going to have to get some kind of sanction either by the U.S. Office or take a real flyer, otirselves, and hire the musicians. Right now we don't know exactly how to get around this. This is a difficulty not only here, but in many other programs that we have where we are not sure they are going to continue into the next school year. It is difficult to employ teachers, and they should be employed by March 1 or during March because this is the time for the reemploy- ment of teachers. So we have a timing difficulty here with which I am sure the U.S. Office is concerned because there was a question, like in the questionnaire sent out by your committee, concerning this par- ticular point. Mr. HATHAWAY. This group travels around the State? Mr. EATON. Yes. Mr. HATHAWAY. Instruction as well as music? Mr. EATON. No. This is performance, not instruction. Music in Maine has not gotten into the instruction business. The attempt is to motivate, and already this motivation has brought good results, and some communities are providing or plan to provide more instruction in music than we have heretofore. Mr. COATS. They do provide workshops, though. Mr. EATON. That is true, the director, who is a competent conductor, I would say of national repute, does conduct workshops with music personnel. Mr. MERCIER. This is not entirely a musical assembly, however. It is an instructional type of program where they explain to the young- sters the type of instruments and the ba.ckground of the istruments and. then follow up. So it is really a combination. Mr. HATHAWAY. Carried on during regular classroom hours? Mr. MEndER. During the regular school hours. Mr. OTARAVINO. They also put on a demonstration of the different instruments. PAGENO="0092" 438 U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION Mr. MI~ncrEI~. It is a combination of instruction and entertainment. Mr. HATHAWAY. The workshop is with the music instructors in the individual schools? Mr. MERCIER. Yes. Mr. COATS. And in some places they will schedule with the ele- mentary schools, and we have utilized them with the high schools. Mr. EATON. We have operated MDTA programs in Bangor. We have served 244 persons in 11 different programs during 1965-66. To this date in 1967, we have served 133. The most outstanding program there was not funded as a demonstration program. It is a program for the education of the mentally retarded young adults. This is one of the significant programs in the New England area in this respect, that is this side of Connecticut. The other program, basic adult education needs no explanation, I guess. The Headstart program has been operated through the United Community Services of Penobscot Valley, which is a Community Action program. We operated it 1 year, and then turned it over to them. I would like to see this brought over into the Office of Education. 1,~\T~ have participated in the Neighborhood Youth Corps and NDEA for some time, and we have maintained a program of distributive edu- cation. Although it is not within the purview of this committee, I would like to have you note that we have a junior ROTC program of which Congress has also been a strong support. We have virtually no direct dealings with the U.S. Office of Educa- tion except in the areas of Public Law 874 and Public Law 815. Our major contact for t.he Federal programs is with the Maine State IDe- partment of Education. I would like to state my very strong feeling that the U.S. Office of Education should continue to strengthen the Maine State Department of Education as it is now doing under title V of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, and that then it should deal through this department exclusively. I also feel that the Federal Govermnent could very well return money under some modified Heller plan, for instance. Then I have strong conviction that the State department and people of Maine could spend this money more wisely, more prudently and with greater impact on the local education scene than can be spent from a distance in Washington. I will admit that our guidelines are quite flexible, but our programs are categorical and I feel we should move away ;from that as rapidly as possible. I think that the innovation can well be handled through the regional laboratories which have been established under title IV. I think that the Research, Education, and Information Center offers to school men-and many of us do&t use it sufficiëntly-but the center offers us an opportunity to study the research and to bring what has been innovation in another place into our community. I think that teclmical assistance should be given, again through the State department of education but from the U.S. Office, the curricu- lum and particularly the evaluation. I hope somebody will speak more particularly to this evaluation business because right now we are able to make very excellent subjective evaluations but there is not PAGENO="0093" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 439 the means, there is not the know-how within our local situations to give good objective evaluations to the worth of these programs. Mr. GIBBONS. What in the world are yOu going to do when you close down that airbase and you lose that $609,000? Mr. EATON. That is one of the major questions which is facing us. I don't know. * Mr. GIBBONS. You will still have the schools. . Mr. EATON. We can close one school. It is already frightening our staff. V There is no possible way to make up such a cutting back of funds all of a sudden and this is something I have tO explain to the local people next Monday night. I don't see any possible way to* absorb the drop of $609,000 all at once. Over a period of time we can, pos- sibly. It may be that other students will come in. That money will come from local tax sources. This is going to be extremely difficult in a couple of years, in 1968 and 1969, extremely difficult. We are trying to cut back to meet it. Inevitably we will curtail someprograms. I would mention the particular difficulties that we have had in Bangor. I have cited the lack of both time and ability to prepare applications and to administer and in particular to evaluate the~ pro- grams. I would recommend that more help for these particular things be provided. If the legislators and the Federal Government feel that there are programs of particular Federal interest, then some help in getting them underway ought to be secured and also some help provided in evaluating them. V V V V There is also a lack of teachers. One thing that I can point out is that we spent $64,400 under title I but we had $88,000 available. We didn't spend the rest of it because V we could not find the teachers for the program we felt would be of the greatest interest. We had only. a half year to spend that much. It becomes available to us in February and for the fiscal year ending June 1 to be carried over V only to August 1. V V ~V V Again, I think the U.S. Office. should give V some attention to the recruitment, and I know that it is, to the recruitment and training of V teachers. I think increased emphasis here is necessary. I think there are restrictions that have been put on title I which in Bangor requires that our needy students live in certain areas SO that they can be served by target area schools. If a needy student happens to live in an area that is by and large not needy, he jS out of luck. He can't get this program. Of course, my recommendation would be very sweeping. It would be to eliminate categorical aid, a rather sweeping recom- mendation, I realize. V Mr. QuIB. Let me ask a question on that. Conceivably the kids who live or who attend school where most of them are educationally deprived, therefore aren't getting the association with other kids-the classes are too big or something is wrong. If there is one needy child in a school where all the rest of them aren't needy, why isn't that one just by association of the other kids receiving all the other kinds of programs they do and not be educationally deprived? V Mr. EATON. Of course, education deprivation is in the home as well as in the school. The youngster who is needy might very well be edu- cationally deprived in that he has no reading materials at home. The PAGENO="0094" 440 is.s. OFFICE OF EDUCATION parents have not the time nor the interest to deal with him and interest him in school. Mr. Qmi~. None of your title I money is going for reading materials in the home? Mr. EATON. No, but it is going for additional and supplemental help. Particularly we have a postkindergarten class, a class between kindergarten and first and second, specifically aimed at these young- sters who are deprived at home. The deprivation is not in the school. We tried to provide the same level of service throughout all the schools of Bangor originally. So, the deprivation is in the family and not in the school. I wouldn't want to say we have educationally deprived schools in Bangor. It is the youngsters who are educationally deprived. They are educationally deprived no matter where they live. Mr. QtrrE. The fact that they are needy does not mean that they are necessarily educationally deprived. They may come from non-needy families and be educationally deprived. Mr. EATON. That is true. Of course, we have used need as a basis of educational deprivation. Mr. Quiz. Yes, as a basis of getting money. Mr. EATON. I think again without or with much more flexible guide- lines at least, or without the categorical aid, we could bring the aid to the youngster as needed. My other recommendation would be to consolidate education pro- grams in the Office of Education. I think you gentlemen have done very well to come to Maine to listen to such inadequate testimony as I have offered, and I commend you for it. Mr. GIBBONS. I think you have given us a great insight into what your problems are, and to help you overcome your problems is one of the best things we can do. How many people do you have on your school staff? I am not talking about busdrivers. I am talking about your assistants in the professional and educational side and the professionals in the admin- istrative side. Mr. EATON. I am far better off than Casper is. I can't complain too much. Mr. GIBBoNs. Casper,he is it? Mr. EATON. He is it. But as far as administration, there also is an assistant superintendent for instruction, a business manager, a director of buildings and grounds, a food service supervisor. We also have an elementary supervisor out of our office. We have social workers. We have guidance people on both the elementary and sec- ondary levels. Most of them predate Federal entrance into many of these areas. So we already are making a good effort. Mr. GIBBONS. What you did, you got all these Federal programs in which they wanted you to do all kinds of new things and you really never could mobilize a staff to carry on the additional work that was dumped on you. Am I interpreting it corre~t.ly? Mr. EATON. That is true. Had we been able and given time enough, we could get to this, but of course we had to let some money go by the board originally for that reason as well as the reason that we could not ftnd the people to employ. I feel that we should be able PAGENO="0095" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 441 to write, and I did find out, somewhat late, that it would be possible to write an administrator into a program, particularly a planning program under title III, but it was not too easily done under title I. Mr. Quii~. You run into difficulty under title III that if you used your own money for planning instead of using Federal money for planning then you were cut out this year from the operational part of it. That is a difficulty that some schools ran into which seems as unfair as it could be. Let me ask a couple of questions here. You mentioned basic adult education and speak of this as an ongoing program. We find out that it is going to cease up there in your area. How do you plan to deal positively for basic adult education program? Mr. EATON. We have a $13,650 budget for the 1966-67 school year. I think we originally planned on $16,000. I think we will wind up with about $12,000. We can make some cuts, and the cuts will be in the area of guidance service and some ancillary services and we can still keep our program. A cut in the same proportion to Casper just virtually eliminates the program. Mr. GIAn~vINo. The only expense we have on basic education is teachers. Mr. QuIE. You mentioned a type of Heller plan. I agree with you. I am a strong supporter of this, too. My one question is, this new way of providing aid for the church-related institutions or non- public schools in which the aid actually goes to the child and to the teacher like in title I and title II, if you have a Heller plan this means that Federal money would go to the States for them to dis- tribute it as they saw fit. Conceivably, it would be the formula of the State aid to education. There is not one penny of State aid to education that goes to nonpublic schools, not even to the children and teachers of the nonpublic schools. How would you prevent the nonpublic school lobby from killing such a difficulty? Mr. EATON. I don't know. I don't know how I could prevent it from being killed. I think that I would do so by having the money going to the public school and then go a great deal more of dual en- rollment programs. I feel that to have the money go to the private school encourages the proliferation of private schools and drains money off the public school effort. My thinking would be that we explore much more fully this matter of dual enrollment and have the youngsters actually receive their benefits in the public school. Mr. Quin. Would it be necessary in the legislation to require that the State permit the children of the private schools to share in the use of this money in the percentage that they are to the total enroll- ment in the State? Mr. EATON. I would say not. Mr. Qmn. In effect, that is what we are doing in title I? Mr. EATON. Yes. I would say not, because I think that certainly your private school problem is different in different parts of the coun- try. I think here in New England ive have not generally realized the extent that parochial education has weakened public education. Again, I know that there are programs outside the area of education where the money has been administered by the States, and not with the amount of unfairness that seems to be anticipated with educational money. PAGENO="0096" 442 u.s. OFFICE OF EDUCATION Mr. Qur~. You mean like Hill-Burton in hospitals? Mr. EATON. Yes. I think it could be administered fairly by State departments of education. I speak from some distance of the heart of the problem on that. * Mr. Quii~. That is all. Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Grant. STATEMENT OP BIJTORD (+RANT, WATERVILLE, MAINE Mr. GRANT. Mr. Chairman, I am sorry I do not have a prepared statement. I am the only delinquent in the group. I did not receive the necessary information. I apologize. Mr. GIBBONS. We want to apologize to all of you. You got your instructions late. Mr. GRANT. I would like to thank the committee for coming up lmrc~ and listening to our pleas for making some changes and so forth. I will go through the outline which I wrote out on the way over. I tried to assemble some information. Waterville is a community of about 19,000 people. It has Colby College. It has a business col- lege. It has substantial industries; three employing from 100 to 1,OQO people. We have in our school population a considerable number of professional people. We have youngsters of workers. So we have a mixed population. Among all this is our fair share of needy families. Mr. GIBBONS. You have 19,000 population~? Mr. G~&NT. That is correct. Mr. GIBBONS. And two colleges and some bigindustries? Mr. GRANT. Colby College is not a large college. It has an enroll- ment of about 1,200, 1 think. It is a liberal arts college. We have about 3,300 youngsters. We have a dual school system. We have about 65 percent of the youngsters going to public school, and about 35 percent to parochial school. I will run through as quickly as I can because I want all the boys to have a chance to have their say. May I say, by the way, that we have been very fortunate in our pro- grams. We have had our full share of Federal programs, and we appreciate the help that they have given us. First, the title I program last year amounted to $62,000, this year about $74,000. This program is citywide and we are getting to the parochial school population-private school population in equal amounts to public school. It is working out very well. May I say that the two systems have complete cooperation and we try to help each other out because we are all in the same business. This program briefly is designed to help socially, emotionally, and edu- c ationally deprived youngsters in grades 7 through 12. What we have t tied to do is take some of the perennial problems that you have and not only treat them from an educational point of view, but from an emo- tional point of view and a social point of view. This means that we have in this program the services of a psychiatrist, a psychologist, we have two full-time social workers, and we have private tutorial. Our tutorial work goes in single sometimes but not too often. We try to group tutorial for various reasons. And we have a special class. We are very proud of this program; it works very well. PAGENO="0097" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 443 I would like to emphasize one thing. We are very much pleased with the social workers. We have two full-time social workers. We buy this service from the Maine Home of Little Wanderers. We buy our psychiatric service from the health clinic. We don't want to get into the social service business, nOr do we want to.get into the medical busi- ness, but we buy these services and it works very well all the way around. We are very much impressed with the two full-time social workers who are getting to these families, and it is helping us tremen- dously. We are not batting a hundred percent. by any manner of means. We have some youngsters that we can't seem to reach. I would like to bring, out that we are most pleased with the gentleman heading this up. It is like anything~ else. You have an excellent teacher and it is pretty hard to have poor results., . Going on, the title II, the regular title II for Our elementary and secondary and junior high school, we were fortunate in Waterville to be chosen as the model library for the State on a secondary level. This entitles us to $25,000 a year for 5 years I understand, which is excel- lent. We are beginning to get the thing organized. What makes it even better is that at the same time we applied for a title III program and we have a title III program going in conjunction with the titlO II library program. . The title III program amounts to $100,244 this year. We are setting up a library and a resources center. We have the thing going and we are most impressed by it. We are more impressed right now on what it has done for our high schools. It is tremendous. We want to make that available as soon as we possibly can to other places. We think we will be in a position to help not only the larger school but the smaller school so that we can improve library facilities. Mr. GIBBONS. When you say resources under title III, what are you talking about specifically? Mr. GRANT. If I say library--- Mr. GIBBONS. You mean books and periodicals? Mr. GRANT. You get a connotation of books and periodicals. It is broader than this. It includes visual aids. We also have a. lan- guage arts specialist there who goes to the various teachers. We are trying to offer as much service as possible. Mr. GIBBONS. You are talking about recordings and pictures and things of this sort? Mr. GRANT. That is right. In fact, one thing which has impressed me-it is one of the many things-we just acquired replicas of 150 famous paintings. We can loan these out periodically. Youngsters take these home and hang them up for a couple of weeks. You would be amazed what it does to kids. It is something like this. So we are most enthusiastic with this program. Of course, we have a little dynamo who reaches out. That is always the way it is. She is tremendous and she has an excellent crew around her. We are in a bind now on furniture but by February I think we will be straightened away. May. I say in this program through the U.S. office, Dr. Young came up .when we had this thing in the fire and he was most helpful.. We sat down and very reasonably put our..budget in a condition that he would accept or recommend, and we. have been happy with the 73-728-67-pt. 2----7 PAGENO="0098" 444 U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION whole thing. The checks come through, the reporting demands are not tremendous. We did get into a bind. We had some renovation to do. We got into a bind because we could not get anybody for the small amount of money available at the time to take a contract, so we contracted them down there in Washington and we bled it out. It took a little longer and it didn't work out quite so well, but now we have it rolling. We have been in the Headstart business, for 2 years. We have done it on an area basis. My supervision covers Waterville only; the city of Waterville. We have gone outside of our system and we included three towns the first year. This summer we expanded to six towns. We didn't have a community action council that was activated. So we took that through our office and did it. Last year we serviced 60 youngsters, and this year 120. If I were going to give a priority need on this program, I would say it was to provide money so that we get the health things taken care of. Last year we looked at the youngsters and. found that one might have a whole mess of teeth that were not suitable or that he has a curvature, or something else wrong with him. This year we not only did that, but the U.S. office provided and we asked for sufficient money so that we have their mouths cleaned up and provide other needed medical services. Now about 3 months ago I wrote and told them that I would like to apply funds to this account so that we could do this. I haven't received an answer yet but when they get the funds in December they will be depleted some. Mr. GIBBONS. You haven't heard from OEO in 3 months? I mean the Office of Economic Opportunity? Mr. GRA~. Not on that particular thing. Mr. GIBBONS. Do you write to the regional office? Mr. GRANT. I have difficulty communicating. I will give this as a recommendation later if you don't mind, Mr~ Chairman. I don't want to take that much time. Mr. Qtm~. You have to be patient. * Mr. Gwcr'. I am not panning anybody else, but last summer I got a call on a Thursday afternoon to have eight teachers in the University of Maine Sunday afternoon to be ready to take a week's work for Head- start. Gentlemen, this shakes you? Mr. QUTE. They don't answer congressional mail any faster. Mr. GRANT. One thing we are proving. We are proving that this country is a big country, a diversified country. Isn't it true? Going on in the Headstart program, I would like to mention one or two things. This program depends upon the teacher. It is important that there be a certified teacher of 5-year-olds. Teaching 5-year-olds is not a job for anybody. It is a job for skilled people. If you don't get good teachers here, you are in trouble. Mr. QurE. Is anybody `working on a training program for the pre- school? Mr. GR~wT. We run a summer program. We are not in a position in our system and many others to run a year-round program, because this calls for a building expansion and most of us don't have the room. Mr. QmE. Do you rent the church facilities? PAGENO="0099" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 445 Mr. GRANT. We run a' summer program and put it in one of our schoolhouses. Mr. Qrne. In some places they rent church facilities where they use them on Sunday only, a few of them on Saturday. Mr. Giwcr. Of course I do not `approve of having, a Iieadstart program outside of educational agencies. Mr. Quin. You can rent their facilities. Mr. GRANT. Yes, you could do this. If you are going to be con- cerned with educating 5-year-olds or anything else pertaining to edu- cation, we who are in education don't always do the best job but I am sure we are in a better position than some others to handle it. We are used to it; we are geared for it. For instance, in Headstart, the main thing that strikes me i's that we can save a great deal of money if it is done through education. ` ` In our Headstart program in the particular~ building" we have, we have pretty good kindergarten program, pretty well equipped. In the summer we use a tremendous amount of this equipment. We might as well use it. You don't have to set up new facilities. ` You don't~'have to get all this extra equipment. We think in, terms of all our Federal programs, in' terms of getting just as much money as you can to the youngster. This is where the good comes. It' does not come filtering all the way through, you see. The Neighborhood Youth Corps we are offering through the State Department. We have 15 or 20 on that. I'think wehave made some progress there. When we first started that the youngsters would work a day or they would skip a day.' They would' not show up. It seems that these youngsters are typical of this type of family. These youngsters work' a couple of days, they get a few "bucks",' they figure it is enough to last them. But we are overcoming this. `This is not the ultimate when you get enough to last you this week. You may want to live next week also. In the basic adult education we operate, there are 50 or 60 in that. We are gearing first and foremost right now trying to get these people So that. they can pass the high school equivalent examination, and for working purposes they can say, "Yes, I have the equivalent of high school education." We are trying to do this. And it is work- ing. We had five or six last year. We were hung on the hooks for 6 weeks this spring by not having funds, but I think this has been taken up by the Commission NDEA-we have not been able to participate in this as much as we would have liked to.. Because as was brought out, we have not had suf- ficient funds. Waterville is not'a poor town. But it has a dual school system, and it is not the easiest town to get funds for that. But we have not been able to put in our 50 percent. I `hope that before any- thing is done to lessen the funds in' NDEA you will take a very close look. I am sure in Maine that `we have not reached nearly the satura- tion point in equipment that we need. Mr. GIBBONS. You are talking about equipment you need? Mr. GRANT. That is right. Now in this program the point I would like to bring out is that this money goes directly to the child, directly to the person it is supposed to go to; the. people it is supposed to go PAGENO="0100" 446 U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION to for assistance. It is so designed that they get the use out of it in the classroom. I think this is something that should last some time longer. I hope that it doesn't go by the board. Now for what it is worth, I have listed 10 thoughts that I have on this in `the short notice that we have had. No. 1: I have found it more difficult to communicate with OEO than the U.S. office. My reaction would be that OEO is more segre- grated, they don't seem to jell so that you know exactly where to go for information. I could be wrong and this could be an isolated case, but it has been my experience that we find it difficult to communicate. Mr. GIBBONS. Off the record. (Discussion off the record.) Mr. Gim.&NT. You get a tremendous number of directives. You read the directives. But when you get to where the chips are down, you call and you ask for certain information, the first thing they will assure you is that they don't have charge of this but they think it is this way. This is not too helpful to you. All you want is somebody to say yes or no. If it is yes, fine; if it is no, fine. I have said that, but nobody seems to be able to help. Mr. Qtrm. There are some isOlated cases in only 49 other States. Mr. Gitr. To my knowledge we have not been dictated to in any way in the programs, and we have been in this fairly well up to our ears. There are certain rules you abide by. If you want to play the ball game you play by the rules that are set u~. If you don't want to play by the rules, don't play the game. This is the way we consider it. I don't think we have been really dictated to. Title III. has not offered any particular problems except one that Twill mention in item 10. No.4. On programs through the Department of Education, we seem to be able to get more help than we do on those with direct grants. I suspect this is true probably for the reason that we are used to work- ing with the Department of Education. We know the fellows. We know the ones to go to for certain answers. It `helps us more. This seems to be true. No. 5. It would seem that those .pr~grams directly related to edu- cation should be operated `by educational agencies or educators. I have already brought out that 1 think you can save a lot of money this way. I just don't think that you need t~ spend as much money as you do going around to other agencies. No. 6. It would be very helpful in direct grants to be able to con- tact somebody for help and get some firm answers. I have already ~ommented on that one. No. 7. The requirements for the Headstart application are cumber- some. May I say-I hestitate to say it on the record but I will-that it borders on the ridiculous. If you don't believe it you look at the application. No. 8. I suspect most. people in education would prefer to deal directly with the department of education on Federal programs. This is a repetition somewhat of the other~ No 9 There should be admmistrative funds to see that the pro- grams are:properly conducted. I think this is very obvious,~ gentle- men, because if we are going to spend this money we had better have PAGENO="0101" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 447 somebody who can see that it is done properly. In our' systems we have some competent people, who, if they were to be given not a big stipend but a reasonably small stipend to just watch out for this thing, could accomplish this. It is not only good for everybody concerned but it develops this person who is a potential, it develops him also to become more versatile. The last thing in the title III programs: if there is renovation and building to do, I would very strongly re~ommend that we be allowed to use the local wage scale. In our case, we had some work done that should have gone for $5,000 or $6,000. But I believe before we get through with it, it will cost eight, or nine because the men were paid almost double what our' local scale was. I am quite sure that the job lasted longer than it might have needed to. Mr. HATHAWAY. Do you use the Boston wage scale? Mr. GRANT. Yes; `which. is much, much higher than ours. Mr. GIBBONS. I don't want to hurry anybody but we are going to run out of time and the airline won't wait for us. That is our problem. Mr. GRANT. Thank you, gentlemen. Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Kinney? STATEMENT OP BRUCE ~F. KINNEY, SUPERINTENDENT OP SCHOOLS, SCHOOL ADMINISTRATIVE DISTRICT 5, ROCKLAND~ MAINE (Mr. Kinney's formal statement follows:) FORMAL STATEMENT OF BRUCE J KrNNEY SUPERINTENDENT or ScHooLs SCHOOL ADMINISTRA~rIVE DisnucT 5, ROCXLAND," MAINE.' SCHOOL DISTRICT , S.A.D. 5is a quasi-municipality comprised of the City of Rockland `(Pop. 9,000'), and the towns of Owl's Head (Pop. 1,500) and South Thomaston (Pop. 500). The School District is located in mid-coastal Maine-Knox County. Tradi- tionally, historically and economically it has been closely allied to the sea. The peak of its prosperity was due to fishing, shipbuilding, shipping and related industries. With the decline of wooden ships, automation in fishing an'd fish processing, a corresponding decline in prosperity and income has resulted to the point where Knox County has been `declared a federal depressed area. Efforts made by the communities to provide the best in education have been far reaching and go beyond the normal expectations of their financial ability to pay. Of the seven school buildings in the District five have been constructed since 1949, the last one being a 1~ million dollar high school in 1902. All five buildings are still being paid for. The other two buildings need to be replaced in the very near future. In addition to problems faced in buildings, operational costs have been steadily increasing. In the past 8 years the operational budget has doubled. ESEA OF 1965 With the advent of the Federal Government into aid for elementary and secondary schools it was felt by me that assistance could be given local corn- munites in their financial problems, and much needed additional educational services and programs could be provided. However, in practice this has not been so or in some cases where it is so on a very limited basis. District #5 has participated in the E'SEA of 1965 under Title I, II, and III. I would like to comment briefly on each. Title I (&hool Year 1965-CC, $56,51O.~JO) This money was spent to provide instructional equipment and materials, teacher aides, teachers and a social worker. I'm certain that much good instruc- PAGENO="0102" 448 u.s. OFFICE OF EDUCATION tion came from this expenditure of this money. Some of the value is still felt. However, the program was hampered in a number of ways: 1. Time of year when programs were approved-January. With a critical teacher shortage this is a poor time to hire additional personnel and especially specialists in reading, mathematics, etc. 2. Voluminous application-appears to be statistic gathering only, and have no real bearing on the program to be approved. Paper work falls upon admin- istrators who have little additional time for this. 3. Aid to education is nOt for everyone but only to selected schools and designed for only a selected group within that school. The philosophy of the local school board has been to provide equal opportunity for all. This type of aid makes opportunity unequal. 4. Local school boards are in a better position of deciding where monies need to be spent and for what than any other group. 5. Evaluation of the program had to be made before the program was fully in effect. 6. Timing for 1966-67 is as untimely as it was in 1965-66. We do not yet know our full allotment for the current year. 7. This aid cannot be counted on to build quality programs. There can be no long range planning because there is no guarantee that monies will be forthcom- ing to support programs once established. Quality teachers want nothing to do with these programs because of the insecurity of their continuance. Title 11-Library $ervices This program has been instituted into the local school program rather easily. It has had less red tape, less control and more freedom of choice than any other program. Local school systems have been able to use their own judgment and have implemented this in such a way as to supplement existing materials to the benefit of all pupils. Title III~"PAUE"-ProJects To Advance Creativity in Education Quoting from a manual by the U.S. Office of Education: "This title is designed to encourage school districts to develop imaginative solutions to educational problems; to more effectively utilize research findings; and to create, design and make intelligent use of supplementary centers and services. Primary objectives are to translate the latest knowledge about teach- ing and learning into widespread educational practice and to create an aware- ness of new programs and services of high quality that can be incorporated in school programs. Therefore, PACE seeks to (1) encourage the development of in- novations, (2) demonstrate worthwhile innovations in educational practice through exemplary programs, (3) supplement existing programs and facilities. The heart of the PACE program is in these provisions for bringing a creative force to the improvement of schools and for demonstrating that better practices can be applied. "Since the innovative and exemplary programs supported by PACE are in- tended to contribute substantially to educational improvement, priority in fund- ing is given to those projects which offer the greatest promise of advancing education and solving persistent problems." Our District applied for two planning grants under this title and has been awarded funds to conduct both studies. One planning grant for the Study of Slow Learners has now been completed. It was a logical assumption that if a planning grant was successfully carried out that this would lead to a construction grant-if no building facilities were available to house an innovative program. This fact was clearly stated in our original application. Our planning project has been completed as previously stated, the report has been submitted to the U.S. Office of Education and classed by them as a project of "high quality". In preparation of an application for a construction grant, the U.S. Office w-as further consulted and advised me that no money was available for construction now or in the forseeable future. I feel that this is not right nor does it follow the intent of the law as passed by Congress when `this section was included. It would appear that monies spent on planning grants have been partially wasted and the work and aspirations of many people cast aside if this is so. Slow Learners is a persistent problem of every schoolsystem. Our study shows that 20 to 25% of the pupil population in every school falls into this classification. We feel that we came up with some solution for this group in our study which could set the example for many school systems throughout the nation if only PAGENO="0103" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 449 we could proceed through construction and operation. Yet this program is dead without further goveriiment aid. CONCLUSION It would appear that in some of my statements here that I am opposed and critical of Federal Aid to education. On the contrary, I am for it in spite of its shortcomings. Some of the problems here can easily be solved by the mem- bers of Congress and the U.S. Office of Education to the point where federal as- sistance can be of great help to local communities. As it is now it leads to frustration on the part of school administrators. If you wish full value for each dollar spent then Federal Aid for each district should be alloted much as our State Aid is now, and leave the definition of needs up to the Local School Committee. Mr. KINNEY. I will make mine very short. On the sheet that I passed to you it gives an outline of our district. Actually I represent `three communities with a combined population of about 11,000 and a school population of about 2,600. We are neighboring districts to the one that Mr. Ciaravino has. We would like to have his financial resources in our community. Mr. GIBBONS. What? You mean you are worse off than he is? Mr. KINNEY. Surely, financially. We operate seven school build- ings within the district, five of them have been built since 1949. We are still paying for all five of them. We have two other buildings that need replacing very badly even now. In addition `to this, our operational budget `has doubled in the past 8 years. I would like to just confine my remarks to title I and title III in the interest of time. Last year we had an allotment of title I of just over $56,000. This went mostly for equipment, materials, teacher aids, teachers, and social worker. There were some things in title I that have hampered the goodness of the program. One is the time of year when the pro- grams were approved. Last year it was January. With the critical shortage of teachers, this is a poor time to hire additional personnel ~nd especially specialists in reading, mathematics, and so forth. The application last year was voluminous. It is a little better this year and all of the projects could be lumped together within the school system. However, there is still a great amount of paperwork. Paper- work falls on administrators who have little time for this. It appears in the applications that they are only gathering statistics-which has nothing to do with really good school programs. The aid that has come is not for every `one but only for selected schools, as I am sure you folks know. Then it is decided only a selected group within that school. The philosophy of our local board has always been to provide equal opportunity for all and this type of aid makes opportunities unequal within our school system. Mr. Quin. I did not like this program when it was started, either. I feel I ought to say something for the legislation even so. When you say i't only goes to selected schools, about 90 percent of the school dis- tricts of the country are covered by the Act. That seems pretty widespread. Don't all the schools in your district receive money? Mr. KINNEY. No, sir. Mr. QuiB. That is up to you to decide who it goes to? PAGENO="0104" 450 U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION Mr. KINNEY. That is right; for instance, we have one high school that serves all the ninth through twelfth. We can have a project there. We have one junior high that serves seventh and eighth. We can have a project there. But we have five elementary schools, subpri- mary through sixth. We have been told by the guidelines that we can have them in less than half of the schools. So in the elementary schools, there can only be two projects. Mr. QUTE. Why can you h~ve them in only half of them? Becanse some of them have poor kids and the others don't? Mr. KINNEY. No; because these a-re the Federal guidelines. Mr. EATON. You have to select the level of impoverishment. If the schools have higher than level of impoverishment they can receive funds and have projects. If they don't have they can't receive funds. Mr. QurE. The intention is not to provide enough money for every- thing for everybody, but rat-her to try to reach the toughest situation. We -are finding that it is impossible to find what an educationally deprived child is. They decided that since a large percentage of the poor kids were educationally deprived then hit the areas where there is a great incidence of poverty kids? Mr. KINNEY. I -agree with this. However, I think rural poverty is a little different than city poverty. Mr. QUrE. I am a- farmer and I work a farm and pay an income tax too. Mr. KINNEY. There a-re some differences here. For instance, young- sters can come from the same family and go to junior high and be in theproject if -they a-re deprived. Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Kinney, you have seven schools altogether? Mr. KINNEY. Yes. Mr. GIBBONS. And five of the seven are elementary schools? Mr. KINNEY~ Yes. Mr. GIBBONS. Is it local community provided? Mr. KINNEY. No; our elementary schools, actually the subprimary through grade six ones, are neighborhood schools. They run 14 to 15 teachers. - Mr. GIBBONS. You must be transporting your high school children a long distance. Mr. KINNEY. Yes. Mr. GIBBONS. How many miles? Mr. KINNEY. Probably 10 miles is the greatest distance. Mr. GIBBONS. Do you think it would be wrong to transport these elementary school pupils 10 miles? Mr. KINNEY. It would be in this case because of newbuildings that have been built and so on. We can't close them. We can't build new ones. Mr. GIBBONS. You have an unviable school system? Mr. KINNEY. Two of the elementary schools run 500 youngsters. In our section this is a good-sized school. Mr. GIBBONS. The others must be extremely small. Mr. KINNEY. The smallest one is probably 125. * Mr. QurE. Do you think we ought to get rid of this poverty criteria? Mr. KINNEY. Yes. Mr. GRANT. In our title I, if we had put it lower down it would have been more beneficial to catch these kids ea-rlier. If we had gone PAGENO="0105" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 451 into the elementary school we would have run into a healthy run school. Mr. Qun~. You mean the program actually prevented working with the kids? Mr. GRANT. We could not, taken citywide. You may have a school that has more poor youngsters than any other school in the city. That does not preclude the idea that in the richest section, the best school, you may have a dozen kids in there that need it just as bad. Mr. GIBBONS. Off the record. (Discussion off the record.) Mr. QuIB'. The rest of the country did not go the way Maine did, and since some of us on the minority side will be more to contend with, there will be more improvement. Mr. KINNEY. Evaluation of the program had, to . be made before the ~rograms were fully in effect. Programs that were in effect in January had to be evaluated in May. It `meant that some of the equipment and so ~on wasn't there. The timing for 1966-67 is as untimely as it was in 1965-66. We do not yet know our full allot- ment for this current year Mr GIBBONS Off the record (Discussion off the record.) ,. .,, Mr. GIBBONS. All right. Mr. QuIB. , If.you have a problem next year I wish you: would write to us specifically, since we have talked to you here We extended the act for 2 years with this in mind, with the promise exacted from the leadership that they would take it up this year rather than next year, so that we again can get leadtime for you. This is a very valid criticism. If you have some next time then there will be some other faults. Mr.' KINNEY. Fine. My' last comment on title I. We have not been able to count on this aid, up until now at least, to build a quality program. There could be no long-range planning, because there is no guarantee that money will be forthcoming to support the programs once they were established. Quality teachers want nothing to do with these programs because of the insecurity of their continuance. I will skip title II and go to title III, which is a disappointment to me as compared to my neighbor here. Title III as you folks know, is called PACE, which are Projects to Advance `Creativity in Education. I have included in my report here, quoting from a manual put out by the U.S. Office of Education. I would just like to point out at the end it says that, "priority in funding is given to those projects which offer the greatest promise of advancing educa- tion and solving persistent problems."' My district applied for two planning grants under this title, and we received them both. The one which has been completed was' a planning grant for slow learners. This project was completed and the final report has been given the U.S. Office of Education and they classed it as a project of high qual- ity. In our original application for a planning grant, we specifically stated that we would later ask for construction funds if the project were a successful one. We had to ask for a construction grant be- cause of building facilities that are available to house such a program. We have been told that there are no moneys available for construc- tion now or in the foreseeable future. PAGENO="0106" 452 U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION We were about ready to prepare an application for these construc- tion grants. I do not feel that it is right, nor does it follow the intent of the law as passed by Congress, when this section was in- cluded. Because it very, definitely states that construction is available. It would appear that moneys spent on planning grants have been partially wasted, and the work and aspirations of many people cast aside in doing so. Slow learners are a persistent problem of every school system, not only mine. Our study shows that 20 to 25 percent of the pupil popula- tion in every school falls into this classification. We feel that we came up with some solutions for this group in our study and could set the example for many school systems throughout the Nation if we could proceed to construction and operation. Yet this program is dead without further Government aid. In conclusion, I would like to say that it would appear from my state- ment that I may be critical of Federal aid to education. On the con- trary, I am for it in spite of its shortcomings. Some of the problems here can easily be solved by the Members of Congress and' the U.S. Office of Education to the point where Federal assistance can be of great help to local communities. As it is now, it leads to frustration on the part of school admin- istrators. If you wish full value fOr each dollar spent, then Federal aid for each school district should be allotted much as our State aid is now, and leave the definition of needs up to local school committees. Mr. GIBBONS. Thank you very much. Mr. HATHAWAY. State aid now is on an effort and evaluation basis? Mr. Kn~o~r. Kermit can answer this. Mr. NIOKERSON. For the general-purpose aid `there are some specific aids that are on fiat grant bases. Mr. HATHAWAY. How much money was involved in the construc- tion under title III ~ Mr. Kn~cTx. About $300,000 in construction in the first year of operation. STATEMENT OP LAWRENCE LEWIS, SUPERINTENDENT OP SCKOOLS, MAINE SCHOOL UNION NO. 90, ~ILPORD, MAINE (Mr. Lewis' formal statement follows:) STATEMENT BY LAWRENCE LEWIS, SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS, MAINE SCHOOL UNT0N No. 90, Muvonn, MAINE To the HonorabTe Members of the Congress: Maine School Union No. 90 is composed of eight towns having a total of under one thousand pupils in grades K-8. The largest school houses about 400 pupils while the smallest has one teacher and fourteen pupils enrolled in nine grades. In short, this Union is about as rural as can be. Federal aid recently arrived in the form of ESEA Titles I and II and III to join previous programs primarily in the School Lunch field. Title II helped us start or improve school libraries while Title I put Teachers Aides to work in the majority of our buildings. The school superintendents in this area are working on a Title III project to start a residential treatment and educational center for emotionally disturbed children. PAGENO="0107" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 453 I would like to proceed to first lick and then bite the hand that feeds us. Through imaginative legislation, such as ESEA, the Federal government is mak- ing possible some of the practical pipe dreams that educators have had for years. More attention for individual children in oft-crowded classrooms cannot but help. Special programs to fill educational cavities in reading, math, and study skills will pay off. Financially, the local towns-even with State aid-were unable to be adventurous to any marked degree. While a well-endowed private school might support a ratio of ten pupils to a class, we in public schools often exceed thirty-five pupils in a room. The theory of Federal aid lay dormant for many years while political problems such as parochial school aid, desegregation, and states' rights muddied the looking glass. At last, through a porthole marked Poverty Program, our dream was launched. We thank our Federal legislators for clearing away the puckerbrush and making programs available to help children. A partnership between legislators and educators will doubtless continue to improve the yield in the vineyards of our public schools. It's past time that educators burn the effigy of the venal poli- tician with jowls, graft, and a two-foot cigar, provided our legislators set a match to the picture of a school man as one who does not know what a dollar is and has a head full of impractical ideas stemming from ivory towers such as our University of Maine! In our progress .to the Educational Utopia, I see some curves in the road- not roadblocks-to which I would call your attention. I cannot see why there should continue to be a tie-in to the poverty program other than as a basis on which to award funds. Children's educational liabilities and difficulties do not correlate highly to the Poverty Line. I think the accent should be that, if towns are continuing to support schools without saving on local taxes because of Federal aid, then the programs supported by the Federal dollar within the regular school program should be planned for all in need and not only the poverty stricken. Actually, this is what happens now in practice, but the machinery is administratively cumbersome. I suggest that programs should not be categorical. By this I mean that programs for all instigated by local initiative should be supported-not just those programs which benefit the poor. A. second problem we face is that of evaluation. When using Headstart funds last summer through OEO, when using NDEA funds to buy equipment, and when using the Federal support for the lunch program, no evaluation is required. By requiring this for ESEA programs under Title I, you invite a mountain of paper work and endless unnecessary staff hours. Should evidence be needed in Wash- ington to sell future support under ESEA, let the call go out and we will be there. Our present scientifically unsound methods of evaluation are nothing more than objective window dressing for the much more important factor- our subjective opinions. If money is being wasted, I feel most school people are honest enough to say so if asked. In conclusion, Federal aid is doing the job for which it was intended under ESEA. I am pleased that continued and increased support was forthcoming from the last session. At the same time, there is room for improvement in the administration of the ESEA program. Mr. LEWIS. Gentlemen, I am the most unimportant man you will hear from today. I have the smallest school union. You have been hearing from the giants in Maine's education. I hold the distinction of having a town that goes under the name of Grand Falls Plantation, that has no children, no school, and a school budget of $112; no people of childbearing age. We do use Federal aid, however. One thing Maine superintendents have needed for some time is three psycho- therapists to let us vent our spleen and we appreciate your being. here. First off, I would reiterate this business about the difficulty of eval- uation of programs. In my opinion under title I you fellows should eliminate the request that we evaluate. You don't require it under the National Defense Act. You don't require it under school lunch. You don't require it any more under Headstart. What we do when we evaluate is come up with a pseudoscientific four- or five-page report and it is either in such educational jargon PAGENO="0108" 454 U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION that nobody, including other superintendents, can understand it, or it is so simple that it doesn't have anything to say. Mr. GIBBONS. That is what I always thought about it, too. Mr. LEWIS. I think it is important to get rid of that thing. The second point, late commitment of funds from Congress. We would like to imow `in March or April at the latest what we would have for the coming season so that' we can go out and hire in the spring. Right now I am running teacher aides because I can pick ~t housewife off the street, put her in as a teacher aide and not contract with her. So if funds run short-and as has been pointed out we don't imow what we will have this year-I can `dump her when funds expire. This limits our creativity. I would like to speak to one final point, which is in Headstart, run very successfully in my school union last summer. We are beginning to feel for the coming season the Federal nudge. I would like you fellows to get rid of this. The Federal nudge consists of this: We are told in forthcoming guidelines we are going to be in- structed that our teacher aides must come from the poverty group. We want to hire the best teacher aides we can find. We want to hire teacher aides who have standards that the little children might emulate. I don't see that the school is a welfare agency~ designed to pump money into the pockets of the poor. If we are gomg to run an educational program we want to run a good one. Last year we were encouraged to hire as teachers parents of the children who' we were to enroll in the Headstart program.' We didn't do it. We hired, as Mr. Grant has said, competent teachers who were already teaching little children. This was not mandatory. I hope it won't `become so. But the guidelines seem to getting a little more strict and more strict to the point that an independent character such as myself may come to the point where we have to recommend to our school committee that we dump it because we are getting too much Fed- eral control. It is beginning to creep. So far it hasbeen all right. Those are the three minor points that I would like to mention. Mr. GIBBONS. Thank you. Mr. MERCLER. STATEMENT OP WOODROW A. MERCIER, SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS IN MAINE SCHOOL UNION 113 (Mr. Mercier's formal statement follows): STATEMENT OF WooDnow A. MERCIER, SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS IN MAINE SCHOOL UNIoN 113 Mr. Chairman and Members of Special Subcommittee on Education, I am Woodrow A. Mercier, Superintendent of Schools in Maine School Union 113, com- prising the towns `of E'ast Millinocket and Meciway. It is a pleasure to appear before you this afternoon to discuss with you the program introduced in our school union as a result of money made available under the Elementary and Secondary Act of 1965. Later in my presentation, I shall make specific recom- mendations which I feel this Committee should consider. The town of East Millinocket is a compact area, with its chief source of industry the Great Northern Paper Company. The elementary school enroll- ment is 534 pupils. Medway has a sparsely-scattered populace, with an ele- mentary school enrollment of 303 students. All students in these towns attend PAGENO="0109" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 455 Schenck High School in East Millin'ocket, which has a total enrollment of 479 students. The town of East Millinocket was allocated $2,059.30 and Medway $2,279.40 under Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Act of 1965. Neither had suf- ficient funds to introduce new programs. However, application was made for a co-operative project-a summer school of six weeks' duration in reading, English and mathematics for students in grades four through eight on a tutorial or group basis. Our enrollment of 147 students, far higher than our earlier esti- mates, was well within the means of our staff and equipment. We were espe- cially well planned, with enthusiasm and interest on the part of both instructors and pupils. Of the original 147 enrolled, we lost only 15 students during the six-week period. In the opinion of the students, teachers, and parents, it was a successful program. We were able to help those children who participated, and we added invaluable knowledge to our understanding of children. The students in return were in many instances given an educational experience unique in itself. All funds under Title II were expended. East Millinocket received a total of $1,785.88 and Medway $717.92. It should be pointed out that the ulmost co-operation has been given by the Penobscot County Committee on Community Action and the Maine State De- partment of Education. Their co-operation and assistance in preparing our proj- ect was excellent. EECOMMENDATIONS 1. Funds `be `turned over to the State Department of Education for distribution. This recommendation is based on several inadequacies which have arisen as `a result of the distributions previously made. A. The excessive allotment to some communities which were unable to use all funds allocated. B. The to'wn of Macwahoc received no allotment since the `1960 census information was not provided. C. Money was not made `available in `sufficient time to assure the continu- ance of an approved project for the entire school year. D. The State Department of Education should be more familiar with the make-up `of the state and would be able to submit a pl'an for the distribu- `tion of funds on a more equitable basis. The use of the 1960 census is not a `current. enough basis for distribution of funds in a "moving" America. 2. To simplify preparation and evaluation of a project. Frankly it `appears as though the guide lines prepared, failed to consider that many superintendents in the state of Maine, do not have sufficient `staff to prepare projects. It becomes a burdensome undertaking if he has four to ten towns for which projects must be prepared. 3. To have education projects approved `by the State Department of Education. It appears unnecessary to seek approval of both a Committee on Com- munity Action and submit proposals `to the State Department of Education. 4. To speed up channeling information to local units. Guidelines for projects have been considerably delayed. Information con- cerning the allocations of funds `to each. town have not been made available soon enough. 5. To speed up project approvaL Many of our superintendents have had to telephone Washington in order t'o better acquaint officials with ,pertinent information, which has delayed project approval. I shall be pleased to answer any questions you have concerning my remarks. Mr. MEROTER. Mr. Chairman and members of the special subcommit- tee, I am Woodrow A. Mercer, superintendent of schools of Maine `Union 113. This comprises the towns of East Millinocket and Mcd- way. I am in a little different situation than some of these that you have heard previously. I have three school buildings, two of which are elementary. I have a supervisory principal in each. The town of East Millinocket is a very compact area which doesn't own a school bus. Children walk to school, and the chief source of industry is the Great Northern Paper Co. PAGENO="0110" 456 U.s. OFFICE OF EDUCATION The other town, Medway, is a very sparsely settled population in- dividually scattered over an entire township. In East Millinocket we have 534 pupils in the elementary school. In Medway 303 students. All students in both towns attend Schenck High School in East Milli- nocket which has a total of 479 enrollment. I have been told on several occasions that we come from a rich corn- niunity. As a result, of course, our allotment was relatively small. We received $2,659 for East Millinocket. and $2,279 for Medwa.y under title I. Since there weren't sufficient funds to run a new program, we de- cided to request and submit an application for a cooperative project which was a summer school of 6 weeks' duration in reading, English, and mathematics. WTe had an enrollment of 147, which far exceeded our expectations. The program was well planned by the administra- tor in charge, and it was met with enthusiasm and interest from the students, teachers, parents, and pupils. In the total, we lost 15 students which we felt was exceptional. This, of course, goes along pretty much with the situation we have in the community, since our dropout rate ov~er the last 3 years in high school has been 1.5 percent which was exceedingly low. This is primarily due perhaps to the fact that the. Great Northern Paper Co. will not employ anyone unless they have a high school diploma. We have had, over the last 4 years, 40 to 62 percent of our youngsters seeking education beyond high school. So I am not too much in- volved with many of the. programs because we aren't in a situation where we can run a Hea.dstart program because of our local situation, industry of course paying especially good wages in the State of Maine. However, we expended all of our title II money with no problem. Of course, we are in a situatiOn under the NDEA funds where we do have local funds available for matching purposes, and I have recently or within the last couple of months submitted several applications for matching funds which, of course, are being held up because money is not available. We have on occasion, because we wish to provide as well as possibl~ for our youth, gone out and purchased equipment and materials which would have been available under NDEA, but we felt. we could not wait the 6 or 7 months for the matching funds. However, I was supposed to represent the smaller unions in~ the State. I can specifi- cally turn to some of the recommendations which I have made here. Some of this, of course, is repetitious. First of all, I indicated that the funds should be turned over to t.he State department of education for distribut.ion. I see no problem with our State iilan. I say this because I feel that it would be distributed on a more equitable basis, although one of my towns might be hurt by it. I have no objection, for example, to having the State submit a plan to the Office of Education, going along with this distribution to t.ake care of the private schools as well as the public. I also indicated here that the allocation of money for Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1~65 was based on the 1960 census. In our area, not in my jurisdiction, ~I have the town of Macawa1~oc, which received no money, since information was not provided by the selection on the 1960 census. We have a situation where money has PAGENO="0111" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 457 been made available to towns which far exceeded the amount that they could possibly spend. I would rather not name the specific towns and mention the sums but we have had several very small communities, one of which was allocated in the vicinity of $120,000. They have done, I think, extremely well by themselves with the innovation of many new programs, but they are unable to expend the amount of money allo- cated to them. I think this is not a typical situation but there are many such situa- tions in the State. Of course I also indicate the fact here that money was not made available in sufficient time to assure continuance of approved projects and that, as has been mentioned before, the State department is more familiar with the makeup of the State, and would be able to submit a plan of distribution of funds on a more equitable basis. To simplify the preparation and evaluation of a project is my sec- ond point. There is a very simple project which I indicated that we had in our community, for whose approval we had to submit five pages of single-spaced typewritten material. When it came to the evalua- tion, we submitted a 12-page report on the evaluation of our small project. We were notified that this was not adequate, and we were given some additional information to fill out on statistics and so forth. Coming from a papermill town I think it is wonderful that we use this amount of material for reporting. Of course, I support this wholeheartedly. But I wish that the paper would be used in giving out information rather than having to receive it. To have the education projects approved by the State department of education, although we have had excellent cooperation with the Community Action group along with the State department of educa- tion, I feel it is unnecessary to duplicate this. As a matter of fact, on my project, to. show you `how easy, how much cooperation we had, I had the administrator who was going to run the program write the thing up. I called the office of the Community Action group and asked them if they would approve such a project. They said, "Well, you send us a, copy of the project and we will send you approval." I went to .Augusta, the' next day, and my approval arrived in Augusta shortly after I did. So that, of course, I had no problem with the cooperation `there, beôause they felt that this type of thing should be handled by the superintendents in the area. I do feel that we should speed' up the channeling' of information to local urnts I recall when this was initiated that superintendents were called in on several occasions to meet. Th~ date was set 4 or 5 weeks in advance. We arrived at a central location, only to find those people who were supposed t.o explain those projects to us had not received the materials from Washington so that they would do the best they could on, what knowledge they had. But as ,a result we went home with. very little knowledge with the exception of the fact that there was' ,a law passed through Congress. `This `happens on many occasions, you see, ~e here this m'~terial is quite late I recall, I think it was the third meeting I attended to get' the in- formation that I should have had months before, and they finally did send the guidelines along, but they were in insufficient numbers so that `ill of us could not take one home I also rndic'ite here to speed PAGENO="0112" 458 U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION up approval, the project approval. I know of several instances in the State where undertitle III superintendents submitted projects. They ended up getting on the telephone, first I think going to the State department of education, wondering what happened to the project that had been approved there and forwarded. By getting on the tele- phone, I was able to talk to people in the State department, giving them additional pertinent information and received an approval over the telephone. This was only after 3, 4, 5, or 6 weeks of waiting. This is about the basis of my reaction, at least to the moneys made available by Congress. We don't fall in the category where we get too much, we have used everything we have and naturally we would like to have more. We didn't get into the area of adult education because the town provides sufficient funds to run an adult program. We have a total population in the two towns of about 3,900 people, 1,300 of whom are attending schools. So that you see we have . ap- proximately a third of the populace in the schools. Of course that is an indication as to the amount of money that is earned by these people. They provide pretty well for the youth in the community. So that we have no great kick coming except the fact that if money was available were more available, we could do more for them. Thank you very much for your attention. Mr. GIBBONS. Thank you, sir. Mr. Russell. STATEMENT OP r. WELDON RUSSELL, SDPERINTENDE~T OP SCHOOLS, LEWISTON, MAINE (Mr. Russell's formal statement follows:) TESTIMONY OF 3. WELDON RUSSELL, SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS, LEWISTON, MAINE Comments to this Committee reflect some personal experience and also reflect a concensus gained in discussions with many of my colleagues in the New England area. In order that this testimony be kept concise, I have prepared a series of brief statements concerning P.L~ 89-1O and other federal programs. These state- ments are as follows: 1. Generally speaking, I feel that P.L. 89-10 has made a real contribution to Education in the United States. TO implement the many programs involved has been a frustrating experience for most administrators, but still there is a strong feeling in its favor by most administrators. 2. The philosophy behind P.L. 89-10, as it is related to Title I, especially, has certainly caused the educators in this country and the public in general to take a very hard and objective look at the needs of the economically and educa- tionally disadvantaged. It has brought about new thinking, new approaches and a better understanding in the field of Education. 3. Undoubtedly, the combination of extensive paper work, delays in the making of appropriations, lack of funds for administrative personnel for planning and development have caused many inefficiencies and, in fact, prevented the participa- tion of some of the smaller school districts in some of the titles. 4. The rapidity with which Title I was put into operation, without proper pilot programs, was very frustrating to most school administrators. It would seem that new federal programs should be inaugurated, with long-term planning pilot programs and training of personnel to administer them. 5. One of the great weaknesses in the program has been to secure proper per- sonnel to carry on the programs, as written up in the shveral communities. It would seem advisable to inaugurate training programs well in advance, so that personnel would be available to carry them through. PAGENO="0113" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 459 6. Most school districts already have crowded conditions and lack of physical facilities has been a ~trong deterrent toward innovations and efficiencies in new programs. 7. At the outset of the program no clear directions, proper forms and account- ing procedures were available to assist local districts in setting up proper finan- cial controls. The lack of control by the local school district to reallocate funds when real needs arise, and where a desire to develop and extend good programs exists, has been somewhat of a deterrent. 8. The procedure for allocating funds by using census figures has been proven to be unfair to many communities, as conditions have changed. 9. Procedures should be developed whereby accurate information can be se- cured to determine who are the economically underprivileged families, and based upon monetary income per family member, rather than family as a whole. This would require the expenditui~e of funds for a local census, but would get at the root of many inequities that now exist. 10. Title II has been very effective and the minor difficulties encountered can be readily ironed out. 11. I believe, and I am sure that many others will agree, that Title III of P.L. 89-10 should grow and develop in the future. This title gives ample time for preparation, review and consideration, in depth. It also tends to lead away from strict categorical aids and the use of funds would be placed in areas where the greatest need lies. The innovative factor of Title III should be tempered, as many sound pro- grams which are forward moving in a community may not necessarily be innova- tive in the eyes of a reviewing committee and still be very much needed. 12. The Head Start Program has been most effective in many communities where it has been operated under the direction of the local School Board. I strongly question placing Head Start under the O.E.O~, as it is an educational program and should not be under federal control. I might add that the Lewis- ton-Auburn Boards of Education have voted not to sponsor the Head Start Program in 1967, as the O.E.O. has indicated that all non-professional personnel will be appointed by them and that the program director will be under their office. The Boards of Education have deemed that this is direct federal control of Education and they do not wish to participate, under these conditoins. Let's keep Head Start in the hands of educators and local Boards of Education. * As a Superintendent of Schools in the State of Maine I have offered these comments and recommendations, which I realize are repetitious of many others. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before the Committee and present this testimony and wish to express my appreciation for the efforts of your Commit- tee on behalf of American Education. Mr. Russnu~. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, Lewiston is a com- munity of 42,000, with a school population of 5,800. The programs we have had under 89-10 are titles I and III, the Youth Corps; man- power training has been one of our largest programs. We have 58 center programs in Lewiston for the State of Maine last year. Mr. GIBBONS. How big is your district? Give us the number of people we are talking about. Mr. RUSSELL. 42,000. Mr. GIBBONS. 42,000 adults? Mr. RUSSELL. That is everybody.~ That is the census figure. Mr. GIBBONS. How many schools? Mr. RUSSELL. Nine schools. Mr. GIBBONS. How many school-age people? Mr. RUSSELL. About 5,800. That is not including the adults. This is normal school. It does not include the manpower training schools we have for basic education, and so on. This is our straight schooL Mr. QmE. How many title I kids do you have? Mr. RUSSELL. The number of title I youngsters involved would be about 500. Our title I program is just under a hundred thousand dollars. Title II, around $14,000. I don't know just how you figure 73-728-67--pt. 2---8 PAGENO="0114" 460 U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION MDTA., but about $500,000 to $750,000. It has been a very large pro- gram. Headstart, we have had that for 3 years and so on. I feel that undoubtedly the combination of extensive paperwork, delays in appropriations, delays in approval, like under the manpower train- ing, has made it very frustrating for us to keep people. The lack of funds for planning programs at the outset has been a major problem, too. In fact, some of the smaller districts have not been able to participate. I believe the procedure for allocating funds under title I to be wrong, using the 1960 or 1962 census. I believe the figure of taking $2,000 a family is wrong. It should be the amount of money per person in the family rather than that. I be- lievé if this is going to be an ongoing program we should forget the census. We should take our own census, and Congress should provide the funds so that we can take census within our community and find * out who the poor people are and then serve those people. Not do it this way. Then you can continue to identify from year to year very easily. But this should be done if this is to go on as a successful program. Mr~ Qiirn~. Since the program is to train educationally deprived, would it be possible to allocate ~t.he money defining who these children are without resorting to poverty standards? Mr. RUSSELL. I think your local communities and I don't know how this can work in the big cities, but there are many factors in- volved. It is not just money. There are many other factors. These other factors should be listed. You should be able to use some judg- ment. You have a factor, a man may be making $4,000 or $5,000 in my community and have a family of eight or 10. But this man is not putting out the money for the child for medical, for the dental aid, and the child is falling behind in school. I don't know how you supplement, but I think educationwise we * should supplement funds for that youngster for the medical treatment and so on, and they should not suffer because the father is out playing around or drinking or away from home half the time. If you are going to get down to the people we want to serve, you can not say this is it, $2,000. You have to use some judgment on this sort of thing. I know this is extremely difficult, but a real census and a real study by the. people going from door to door is the only way. If it is going to be iong term I think we should be thinking certainly in that direc- tion and get some real accurate information. I believe that title III is our best opportunity to get away from categorical aids. If title III will forget some of the innovative fac- tors that it. has in it and let the community write up programs. which are what they see and they know can be implemented a.nd will be valuable. Then you get the local level element into this and you write up your program. In this way, you would have ample time to' study * and analyze and follow the program through next year. Possibly you should have a pilot program ahead of any major amount of money being dumped into a program. But if we could work in that, then you could work in many of these things that we are getting now through NDEA and so on. You could work into a title * III program. . PAGENO="0115" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 461 This becomes, I realize, a general aid. We could work it this way and I think it could be worked effectively, but this again is long-term planning. If we are going to go to crash programs where all of a sudden you are told, "You are going to have a hundred thousand dollars, you have to set up a staff and have a program, no pilot pro- grams, you just have this money to spend,"-this is for the birds. Mr. GIBBONS. I may be wrong, Mr. Russell, but I think this is a gimmick.to get the money to you. That is really what it is. We feel, as I have told you before, generally the way you do, but unfortunately those of us who feel that way don't have enough votes in the Congress. Mr. RUSSELL. I agree on that but as these things develop, can't you fellows who feel that way gradually change it Mr. GIBBoNS. We have to change some of the people up there. Mr. RUSSELL. I realize the change will be gradual but we have to get some direction as to what the change is going to~ be. Do you not agree? Mr. GIBBONS. I agree with you. So that the record will be clear, a lot of things you say we agree with, but after trying for many years to get aid to education programs going, Congress finally found a vehicle, and although it. 1ias~not turned out to be the best vehicle, at least it got it going. We are going to try to straighten it out but our real problem is votes. We haven't had enough votes in the past that felt the same way that many of us do here at this table. That is our problem. If you will do the best you can with what we give you, as I know ycu have in the past, we will try to resolve the problems. Mr. RUSSELL. My preliminary remarks I left unsaid. . This has made some very definite improvement in education. We recognize * this. I thought you people were interested in knowing how we fe.el locally. This is fine. We have spent all our money. We have im- proved the program. We still get criticism whether from an editor of a paper of Joe Blow on many of the things brought out by these boys. This is the thing we have to look at, and piecemeal by piecemeal, bring the thing together so `that it makes sense, so that when the Federal aid becomes as normal as State aid it will be done on an equitable and reasonable basis and. reach every child `and give every child an equal opportunity. . . Mr. GIBBONS. You like the vehicle we use in title III? Mr. RUSSELL. I think that opens the door `to general aid more than anything else. and still keeps local control. I would like to see this again, as all the boys have said, go through the State and back. to the local district-make this circuit. I think that is the most promising vehicle we have. Not that there can't be better ones written, but of all we have now without upsetting the political bit let us increase the funds there, decrease the innova- tions and some of the stricter guidelines. Something .that is not innovative in a particularly prosperous. town may be very innovative in some of t.he smaller communities and be much needed. But it.won't be approved because that is done in. 50 places already and yet they say that is not innovative. . If we broaden the concept of title III, not upsetting the applecart, gradually you may be able through title III to get this equipment, PAGENO="0116" 462 U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION to get many of the things you have now and you can write that poverty program or anything you want to in title III. I think this could be worked out. That is your job but this is just the idea. Mr. HATHAWAY. Did you have some specific proposals rejected under title III? Mr. RUSSELL. No, I am just writing one now. I didn't even write one. I had too many Federal programs. I couldn't handle them. We are writing one now which I don't expect to get anywhere with but it will be fun writing it. My staff will gain something from going through the procedure. It will make them think. Mr. HATHAWAY. Why don't you think it will get anywhere? Mr. RussE~r~. One in four goes through. What we have in mind is not too innovative but it is very much needed in our community, I feel. I don't feel it has too much of a chance. Mr~ QUTE. Mr. Russell, before you go let me say this is the kind of testimony which we don't get in Washington. I can say for myself I really appreciate the testimony and the record you have made here today. I hope that this falls on ears besides the three of us. We hope that it will reach them. I think the effect of your testimony will be quite widespread. The old forces of opposition to Federal aid to elementary and secondary schools are gone. That was the fear of Federal control and the parochial school people. Mr. RUSSELL. We are moving in a new era. Mr. GIBBONS. You know, we have had some very deep problems. You probably know this as well as I do. We have had the problem with the church-state relationship and the nonpublic school attendance. That was a political problem. Then we had the race problem. Very fortunately for you it is not an issue in this part of the country. Mr. MEROIER. Could I ask a question? Could you tell me whether this is the same reaction that you are getting countrywide from school men? Mr. Qum. We will tell you in 2 weeks. Mr. MEROrER. This is the first one? Mr. GIBBONS. Yes. Mr. MERCIER. If we knew where you were going we could tip them off. Mr. QUIE. We will be glad to tell you. Mr. RUSSELL. I think we know your problems. We understand your political problems. We are very cognizant and aware of them. We think you are very aware of ours. We are very happy with the work that you have done. But we do feel that we have a responsibility to let you people know. I write occasionally to Bill and to others and work through AASA and the New England association and our State association. We are doing this all of the time. But we do know you have problems. We know they are political. Still we just hope you won't give up. We hope you will keep on plugging for those things that are best for the youngsters of this country. Before the time runs out, I do want to speak of OEO and the prob- lem we have on that. The point I have here is that I think OEO is getting into the area of education. It is Federal control. You prob- ably read in the papers this morning, that in Lewiston and Auburn PAGENO="0117" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 463 both boards have agreed that the Federal control is moving in when they tell us they are going to appoint the people who are to operate the program other than the teachers who are in the class of a profes- sional person. Mr. GIBBoNs. Where did that come from? Mr. RussEI4I4. Directly from the director of the OEO office in our area, our county or area office. Mr. GIBBONS. I am not sure yet to what you are referring. Are you referring to somebody in Boston or in Maine? Mr. RUSSELL. He refers to and shows us the guidelines that they have. He says you must take these people from this group. Mr. LEwIS. A man in Lewiston is telling you this? Mr. RUSSELL. Yes. That is the director of the local OEO office. Mr. GIBBoNS. He has some guidelines? Mr. RUSSELL. He has guidelines. In fact, we have read his guide- lines. It does state they should get the personnel from the poverty group and put them in our schools. This cannot be done. It is im- possible. The fact is that they are going to hire them. They are going to direct them. They are going to set a director over our di- rector and run a program. Mr. GIBBONS. Would you send me a copy of that? I would be much interested in that. Mr. RUSSELL. Yes; I have sent a letter to Dr. Shriver. I will send the same letter to you. Mr. GRANT. We sat down in our town. I told him I would be de- lighted to hire the teachers and handle the education of the 5-year-olds. However, it would not be that way. And if we could not have com- plete control of the education of the youngsters-he could have the health and everything else-then I wanted nothing tO do with it. This is the way we left it. If it can't be that way-that I have com- plete control of the education-I don't want to be associated with it at all. Mr. RUSSELL. That is the same position we were in. They said, "We have the funds and we are going to have the authority." Those were the exact words used. So we have voted not to participate in Head- start. Both boards Of education, and have left it that way. Of course, they gave us three alternatives, one of which we accepted, where they would not operate the program entirely by themselves separate from the school department. They have not had an executive com- mittee since this has come out. I don't know what is going to come out of it. I feel as educators we have to draw the line. This is the thing we have been worrying about for years, actually Federal control, Federal people getting into our clasrooms and oper- ating programs, and we must not allow this under any circumstances. I believe Headstart should go under HEW. Mr. GIBBONS. Off the record. (Discussion off the record.) Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. Chairman, it is long after 5. Although there are other things to be said, I realize you have a plane to catch. I thank you for listening and I trust the hearing here in Maine has been worth- while to you back in Washington. Mr. GIBBONS. It certainly has been that. PAGENO="0118" 464 U.s. OFFICE OF EDUCATION Mr. Qum. We have time for a couple of questions ~ Mr. GIBBONS. Certainly. Mr. QUIE. In talking with people in OEO there is a strong feeling that the people in the welfare departments don't know anything, and that we ought to separate from them and drop them. There is the same attitude in OEO about educators. It is the old Peace Corps concept, where you sent people overseas who are not contaminated by State Department philosophy. Now they attempt to do the same thing here. There is some truth to what they say, too, which gives it some cre- dence. One of them has been the reluctance of educators to work out- side of the school. I recall before our committee one time, we were talking about juvenile delinquency and reaching the children, one principai told me about an amazing thing that had happened in his school ~f reaching the parents of the deprived children and the chil- dren themselves. They required the teacher to visit the home at least once during the year with amazing results because the parents, when they were asked to come to school to visit with the teacher because of a problem with the child, usually didn't show up. Arid if they did they were tense and out of their environment entirely. They were meeting with people who were in authority similar to the police. But when the teacher, went to the home-the teacher was frightened to death at `first~ but the parents were in their home environment and therefore they were theones who were relaxed. There were really good results. This is what we need. But in some places they absolutely refuse to do it. Mr. RUSSELL. Every one of the.se deprived children we have listedi have all been visited by the te'icher We have had a nurse or social worker visit them. We have had these people invited in small groups to come out andsee the program and talk it over. We have had people in from various departments to speak to them on diet and budgeting, and itilas been amazing to me that they did want it and they come back. But we feel as educators that we want to do the educational job, and we will work every way we can with OEO or any other office to help in the home. But we definitely feel if this is their objective they should give us the leadership, and we should give them every help we can. We feel we should give the leadership in the school and we will accept any service they can give us on the side whether it is health or whatever it may be. It just is a matter of two women working in the same kitchen, they get into problems. I think that is what happens here. Mr. QuTE. I fully agree with you but I recognize the impact these people have made on Congress. I would like to make certain that it will change a bit. Mr. GIBBONS. One of the best arguments we have for OEO is one that you really can't defeat. Everybody has had a chance to put on something akin to Headstart, for how many years nobody knows, yet it took OEO to put on Headstart, the idea of really getting family hivolvement, the idea of combining health services with educational services. There is no reason why it could not have been done in the past, except apparently there was a reluctance on the part of some PAGENO="0119" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 465 people somewhere to do these t.hings. While we are a~ tImes critical, and certainly I am critical of OEO, they have done one. heck of a good job in some of these programs. I would not want any of my levity. about OEO to indicate that all the things they are doing are bad. I think they have accomplished some remarkable things in the last couple of years, but I don't care to see them move in and try to set up dual school systems of dual operations. Mr. RUSSELL. I think we all will agree. on that, that they have done some fine things. They certainly have in my school. Last year we had an excellent program, as I know the other boys did in their schools. But it was a cooperative thing and we worked together very well. The fact is the fellow, Mr. Hooper, who was second in command, so to speak, was a former principal of mine, a very good friend. There is nothing personal about this in any way. It is the rules and the regula- tions and the way you have to play the game that is bothering us. They have done fine things. I am sure they will continue to. We have no argument with that. It is just this Federal control in the school system that is bothering us. Mr. GIBBONS. This is not Federal control that Congress has author- ized. Of course every now and then we have trouble with people who administer the law, not following what we thing are the congressional guidelines, or law. We try to straighten it out every time we can. Now,~ Mr. James E. Flanagan, principal of the Portland Adult Evening School, who has been in attendance at this meeting, has sub- mitted a statement for inclusion in the record. Without objection it will be inserted in the record at this pomt. (Mr. Flanagan's formal statement follows:) STATEMENT OF JAMES B. FLANAGAN, PRINcn'AL, PORTLAND ADULT EVENING ScHooL, PORTLAND, MAINE We are all aware of the increased necessity of education. Expansion has been abundant due to the elementary, secondary and higher education Acts and while we have Headstart for the toddlers, and new graduate programs for the Doctoral candidate, all substantial projects which have received the plaudits of every branch of education, there is one area of need which remains a challenge frontier-that is the field of Adult Education and I sincerely hope that this field may be brought to the attention of the entire Congress. It was the consensus of the National Adult Conference in Chicago last month, since state, federal and local finances are used for elementary, secondary and higher education, therefore every citizen is entitled to the same use of taxpayers money for suitable education. In 1964 Science Research Associates made a national survey of Adult Educa- tion, finding that today we have more than 25 million adult students of all ages from 16 to 65. During the next ten years there will be a veritible explosion in Adult Education: Predictions are: 1. Our population will grow about 35%. 2. The number of adults under 35 years of age will increase 70%. N.B. The 18 to 35 age bracket supplies 90% of present adult enrollment. 3. Mere extensions of these numbers figure enrollment to increase 66.5%. 4. These figures combined with the present natural growth of adult educa- tion give us strong indications of an overall increase of 100%. The new Congress will receive many requests for financial assistance in Adult Education. However, the one purpose for being here today is to ask your con- sideration and help on the new Amendment to the Elementary-Secondary Act, Title III-"The Adult Education Act of 1966". In the closing days `of the 89th Congress, Title II B of the E~onomic Opportunity Act was repealed, shifting PAGENO="0120" 466 U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION the authority for Adult Basic Education to the U.S. Commissioner of Educa- tion. Congress authorized the appropriation of 40 million dollars for the fiscal year ending June 30th, 1967-but only 30 million dollars were actually appro- priated. This has created a situation where many states will have to curtail, yes, even shut down Basic Programs that have been so difficult to recruit and build over the last eighteen months. If Congress in January was able to act swiftly and restore the 10 million cut from the original authorization it would enable many states to continue this Program through the fiscal year. Experience has shown that to drop the Program at this time will make it most difficult to start it again in July 1967 Mr. GIBBONS. We appreciate very much the information you have given us today. It has been very helpful. I cannot say any more than just thank you very much for this. Mr. Scheible, we appreciate very much the hospitality of the college here today, and all that you have done for us. We know it has been a long day for most of you, having to sit here all day. We appreciate it. We hope we will be back in Maine again soon. (Whereupon, at 5:20 p.m. the hearing was concluded.) PAGENO="0121" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION FRIDAY, DECEMBER 2, 1966 HOUSE o~ REPRESENTATIVES, SPECIAL SUBCOMMITTEE ON EDUCATION OF THE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR, Boston, Mass. The committee met at 9:30 a.m., pursuant to call, in the Carl S. Eli Student Center, Northeastern University, Boston, Mass., Hon. Sam M. Gibbons, presiding. Present: Representatives Gibbons, Hathaway, and Quie. Also present: Representative John W. McCormack. Staff members present: Dr. Eunice Matthew, Education Chief; Charles W. Radcliffe, minority counsel for education; Maurice Harts- field and Mrs. Helen Philipsborn, members of the professional staff. Mr. GIBBONS. The meeting of the Special Subcommittee on Educa- tion of the House Education and Labor COmmittee will come to order. First let me introduce myself. I am Sam Gibbons, a Member of Congress from Florida. On my right is Congressman William D. Hathaway, of Maine, once removed from Massachusetts, not too far removed either. On my left is Congressman Al Quie, of Minnesota. We regret we are a little late in starting this morning. We had traffic problems. It is always hard to get started in a new city early in the morning. Yesterday we spent a very informative day in Bangor, Maine, with the officials of the University of Maine and other higher education in- stitutions there and with representatives of the State department of education and other public witnesses and public school superintend- ents. This is the first day of our hearing in Boston. We have been charged by the Congress with the responsibility of evaluating the efforts of the U.S. Office of Education, and the implementation of the new acts dealing with the education legislation that the Congress has passed. I might say the new and the old acts because some of them are getting pretty old now. We wish to make this hearing as informal as possible, and we wish it to be as candid as possible. We are not here seeking to castigate or criticize anyone. We are here merely to try to promote the cause of better education in the United States. First on our list of witnesses this morning is the president of this very fine university, Dr. Asa Knowles. Dr. Knowles, we would like to thank you for providing these very fine facilities this morning and 467 PAGENO="0122" 468 U.s. OFFICE OF EDUCATION for all the arrangements and for this opportunity to be with you, not only this morning but during the next day. We thank you for your hospitality. We admire your surroundings here and we want to know more about your activities. So, Dr. Knowles, I will turn the program over to you now. STATEMENT BY DR. ASA S. KNOWLES, PRESIDENT, NORTHEASTERI~I UNIVERSITY, BOSTON, MASS. STATEMENT BY DR. ASA S. KNOWLES, PRESIDENT, NORTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY, BosToN, MASS. INTRODUCTION My name is Asa S. Knowles and I am President of Northeastern University. Northeastern University is the largest university in New England, one of the largest private universities in the nation, and the largest university in the free world committed to the Co-operative Plan of Education. I am pleased to appear before this committee to testify on the University's involvement with programs administered by the U.S. Office of Education. Northeastern has been the beneficiary of a large amount of funds from the U.S. Office of Education. Our experience with the Office has been a very happy one, and I am, therefore, very pleased to be here to make some recommenda- tions to the Committee relative to the financial support of higher education in the United States. Northeastern: Beneficiary of Federal aid In recent years, the University's expansion of academic and research pro- grams has been supported by industry, private foundations and federal gov- eminent agancies, including the U.S. Office of Education. During the past year the OffiCe provided support in each of six major areas: Construction of Facilities $1, 616,219 Fellowships and Student Assistance 2, 827,557 Library Materials and Instructional Equipment 5,000 Training and Course Development 125,875 Research 42,985 Institutional Development 18, 000 Total 4,635,636 By far, the major portion of this support (75%) was for construction under Titles I and II of the Higher Educational Facilities Act and for scholarships, fellowships and student loans (under the National Defense Education Act and the Higher Education Act). Particularly noteworthy were grants of $1,800,000 for the Work-Study Program and $350,000 for Educational Opportunity Scholarships. As I understand it, the purpose of this committee is to make the most effec- tive use of the taxpayer's dollars and assure us of the best system of education this nation can provide. It is important with a growing population such as ours, that fifteen to twenty institutions of academic excellence not be expected to carry the nation's educational obligations. What is neded is 150 to 200 uni- versities of academic excellence in order to adequately serve our educational needs.: RECOMMENDATIONS In this light, I recommend that institutional grants be given to those colleges and universities which have shown evidence of a strong potential for academic excellence in the areas they serve. As our society moves rapidly from a rural to an urban-based population, I believe that most of these institutions selected~ f or development should be universities in municipal areas. Secondly, it is my recommendation that these programs be administered on a regional basis by regional representatives of the U.S. Office of Education, as they PAGENO="0123" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 469 are most familiar with the progress and potential of the institutions in their locale. Thirdly, I should like to recommend that more funds be made available under Title 3 of the Higher Education Act for the initiation of Co-operative education programs in colleges and universities across the country. I need not expound on the advantages of Co-operative Education other than to say that this unique system of higher education which integrates classroom study with paid practical work experience enables many youths of low-income families to attain the college education they could not otherwise hope to afford. In addition, we think it is a superior form of education. Colleges and universities conducted on the Co-operative Plan of Education require five calendar years to complete the traditional four-year college program. Those who attend these colleges complete all of the academic requirements of the traditional college. In addition, they have the benefit of two years of experience related to their chosen field of study in regular paying jobs. Under this plan, students attend college on a full-time basis during the freshman year and then devote four additional years to alternating regular periods of study and work. Northeastern has more colleges and programs operating on the Co-operative Plan, more students enrolled in these colleges and programs, and more students employed on co-op jobs than any other institution in the world. More than 8,000 upperclassmen studying in forty different undergraduate and graduate programs are employed as "Co-op trainees" by some 1,500 different employers. The com- bined earnings of these students total over $18,000,000 annually. Northeastern has made a special effort to urge the underprivileged to take advantage of the University's educational programs. With the cooperation of the Ford Foundation, Northeastern has offered Negro youths who were not plan- ning to attend college, the opportunity to come to Northeastern on a special pro- gram designed to prepare them for collegiate study. The Negro community's own enthusiastic response to this program has encouraged other Negro students to apply to Northeastern. NORTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY Northeastern's unique contribution to higher education has been in the realm of Co-operative Education. Here the University has assumed a position of world leadership and is today a model for many colleges and universities seeking to adopt the Co-operative Plan. Nationwide, there are more than 100 colleges and universities conducted on the Co-operative Plan at this time. Northeastern, through its Center of Co-operative Education Information, is providing consult- ing services to approximately 40 other colleges and universities which are con- sidering the adoption of this plan. ACQUISITION OF LAND THROUGH HEW At this time I want to express to you and other officials of the United States government the appreciation of the Board of Trustees, the University adminis- tration and the faculty for making available to Northeastern University without cost two former Nike sites which had been declared surplus property. One of these is situated in the town of Burlington, Massachusetts, and consists of nearly 16 acres of land. This has been developed as a suburban campus of the University. Its primary purpose is that of serving Boston's famous electronic row situated on or near Route 128. The University constructed a classroom building costing one million dollars and has provided parking space for nearly 2,000 cars. In addition the University converted and enlarged a former barracks building to be a library. This campus now enrolls more than 5,000 students attending day and evening programs. A second site, situated in Nŕhant and consisting of nearly 20 acres of land, is *now being developed as a Marine Biology Research Center. The University has remodeled the existing building and iniproved the property. The University has already spent nearly $50,000 to develop this site and contemplates spending in the immediate future another $150,000 to provide laboratories and other facilities needed. I would like at this time to express my deep appreciation of the splendid co- operation received from the officers of the U.S. Office of Education serving the PAGENO="0124" 470 TJ.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION New England area, from Mr. Donald De Hart, Regional Representative, Office of the Commissioner, Office of Education, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, and also to Mr. Edward G. Bradley, Regional Representative, Depart- ment of Health, Education, and Welfare, Surplus Property Utilization Division. I also want to report the splendid assistance Northeastern has had from Dr. Eino Johnson, Student Financial Aid Officer, Bureau of Higher Education, and Dr. Richard McCann, Executive Director, Higher Education Facilities Commission. The federal government is indeed fortunate to have men of such high caliber Lu its service. Estimated Federal support from the U.& Office of Educatio~i dnring 1965-66 Construction: Chemistry and Bouvé $1, 616,219 Fellowships, scholarships, and student loans 2, 827, 557 NDEA-Doctoral fellowships (14, at $5,000 a year) 70, 000 NDEA-Student loans 487,500 Educational opportunity grants 353, 682 Work-study 1,856, 500 Talent-search project 59, 87~ Library materials and instructional equipment: Library basic grant. 5,000 Institutional development: Special education-Speech and hearing__ 18,000 Training and course development 125, 875 Community and continuing education 60,000 Career information manuals 6,000 Laboratory school-Remedial education 59, 875 Research: Instructional technology - 42,985 Total 4,635,636 Dr. KNOWLES. Thauk you very much, Representative Gibbons. I want to welcome all of you here to the campus. We are very pleased that we were able to work out these arrangements for the committee. We are hoping that we can make you comfortable while you are here. We will be glad to provide you with any services that we can that you need. We look forward to becoming better ac- quainted with you. I will make a brief statement as requested. Forthe record I would like to say that my name is Asa S. Knowles. I am president of Northeastern University. This university is the largest in northern New England and one of the largest private uni- versities in the Nation. We have a total enrollment of approximately 33,000 students of whom roughly 12,500 are full-time students or, as we call them, cooperative students. I am very pleased to be before the committee because Northeastern has been a beneficiary under the grants programs of the U.S. Office of Education of t.he Department of Health, Education, and Welfare and we have received significantly large amounts of funds from the U.S. Office of Education. Our experience I am happy to say with the Office of Education has been a very pleasant one, very cooperative. We are very impressed with the officials that they have. - We are very pleased to commend you a.nd your associates for the fine caliber of people that you are PAGENO="0125" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 471 bringing to the Office of Education and the work that they are doing. You requested that I make a brief statement of Northeastern's fi- nancial aid. I have done so in my written statement. The total amount of this this past year was $4,635,000 in round figures. Seventy-five percent of this was spent for construction of new fa- cilities under the Higher Education Facilities Act provisions in the act of 1965. Particularly noteworthy, too, have been grants of $1,800,000 for the Work-Study Program. I think that may be the largest grant for Work-Study in the United States. It might interest you to know how we used this in part. It is not in my script but I will depart from my statement for a moment to say that we have found that this makes it possible for us to use this as a basis for providing competent students for a number of source agencies that very much need the additional help. We operate on a cooperative plan of education which I will describe later. This plan of education is a plan to which we are wholly com- mitted. Our students come here for the first year and attend college for three-quarters and then at the first year they divide into two divisions, division "A" and division "B". They are on a quarter calendar system. For the next 4 years these students alternate on a 12~-week basis with programs of study and regular paying jobs in industry, business, professional organizations, health agencies, social agencies, and Government agencies. In fact the Federal Government is our largest employer. We have a number of studeuts in the Library of Congress. They work for the Federal Power Commission, they work for a number of local agencies and for the Office of Education itself. The following listing, furnished after the hearing, gives a break down of types of assignments held by students in the Work-Study program at Northeastern University. Nortiveastern University Coflege work-study program distribution by type-estimated Number of Oooperative assignments: students Federal agencies 6 State agencies 24 Municipal agencies 40 Private agencies 62 On-campus 40 Subtotal 172 Part~time assignments: Federal agencies 5 State agencies 12 Municipal agencies . .90 Private agencies 300 On-campus 330 Subtotal .737 Total employed 909 NOTE-Data from July 1, 1966-Dec. 1 1966.. PAGENO="0126" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION *Some or aU of the students placed with these agencies are on regular cooperative work assignments. Dr. KNowr~s. This plan allows students to alternate, regular periods of work and study. Work is in the fields in which they are studying for the most part, and they are able to earn enough money during their period of upper class years. to pay in some instances all of their ex~ .pensesif.they can live at home or, if they cannot live at home, nearly all their expenses. Our students last year earned $18 million in wages and salaries which is quite a financial help program. Under this program we are able to have the social agency put up 10 percent of the funds, I believe it is, and then the students are assigned to them as regular cooperative students. to provide essential staff personnel that they need, and these students work in these .source agencies, receiving salaries that can be paid under this program, Work~-Study program. We are able, therefore, to m'ike `iv'ulable to a lot of social agencies the very valuable assistance that they would not otherwise be able to obtain because their budgets do not have enough funds to hire these people. I think we may be one of the few schools in the United States doing this although there are a hi,mdred colleges on this co- operative plan in the Eastern United States and new ones being estab- lished all the time. *We are worhing with 4Q others Tight now who are converting to this prOgram. Mr. GIBBONS. Would you repeat the. amount. of money that your students earned last year? Dr. KNOWLES~ $18 million. Mr. GIBBONS. That is very impressive. Dr. KNOWLES. It is. Mr. GIBBONS. It certainly is a great form of student assistance. 472 NORTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY OFF-CAMPUS AGENCIES EMPLOYING WORK-STUDY STUDENTS IN FISCAL Ywt 19O5-19(~6 aBoston State Hospital Y.W.C.A.-Cambridge Y.M.C.A.-Boston Denison souse Newton Boys' Club Elizabeth Peabody House Newton-Wellesley Hospital Y.M.C.A.-Cambridge Massachusetts General Hospital *Chrjst Child House City of Boston, Administrative Serv- ices Department *Division of Child Guardianship, Com- monwealth of Massachusetts *Boston Municipal Research Bureau *~Iassachusetts League of Cities and Towns *Broadcasting Foundation of America *National CommisSion on Co-operative Education * Teenage Employment Skills Training Tncorporated *House of Representatives, Common- wealth of Massachusetts Children's Museum Y.M.C.A.-Malden *Massachusetts Historical Society *Department of Correction, Common- wealth of Massachusetts Brookline Recreation Commission Hattie B. Cooper Community Centre ~ Clinic Foundation *Albany Redevelopment Authority *National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials City of Waltham Boston Housing Authority C.A.P.R.I. (Community Action Prog.) Hawthorne House Fidelity House Youth Activities Board Board of Higher Education, Common- wealth of Nassachusetts Boston Public Library. City of Lynn Dorchester House * Girls' Clubs of Boston Citizen's Scholarship Foundation of America Incorporated Morgan Memorial PAGENO="0127" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 473 Dr. KNOWLES. It is. On top of that we give out pretty close to $2 million financial aid to students. Part of this is Federa~l grants under the program of educational opportunity scholarships and some if it, of course, is Federal loan funds. But about $1 million of hard cash comes from our own endowment funds, income, and other sources. Mr. GIBBONS. In the 12-month period how much time does the stu- dent spend in this cooperative work? Dr. KNOWLES. Approximately 50 percent. During the 5-year period he obtains 2 years of experience in the job related to his field of study. The engineer works for an engineering firm or industry related to engineering. The accounting student works for profes- sional accounting organizations. The sociology major works for social agencies. Mr. GIBBONS. Let me see if I understand the way you physically ar- range this for your student body. You bring a freshman in here and for three-quarters he works ~I1 the university as a student- Dr~ KNOWLES. Right. Mr. GIBBONS. Then he takes his fourth quarter out. You divide the class at that time. Then he comes back after that quarter. Dr. KNOWLES. He comes back in the fall of the next year. One group of students goes to school and another goes to the job. We re- peat each quarter twice so that at the end of the quarter the student who has been in school goes to work. The student who has been at work comes to school. We repeat each quarter twice so that they have the same educational program and the job is covered all the tithe, because each job is held by two students. Mr. GIBBoNs. How long does it take the student to graduate? Dr. KNOWLES. Five years. We work and go to school around the calendar. Five calendar years are involved. We complete all the academic requirements of the traditional college. They have an addi- tional 2 years of experience. Mr. GIBBONS. It makes maximum use of your physical plant. Dr. KNOWLES. It does. Our faculty can be smaller in size. There is the added advantage that we don't need as large facilities because at any one time only two-thirds of the total student body are here on campus. In other words, we have 12,500 total enrollment. Of that number 7,500 are undergraduates who are here on campus at any one time. Mr. GIBBONS. Are there any other universities or many other uni- versities or colleges that follow the same procedure you have? Dr. KNOWLES. Yes. There are about 103 college~s right now that we call cooperative colleges. The University of Cincinnati is like Northeastern in several of its programs; not all of them. Drexel In- stitute in Philadelphia is the next largest in size to Northeastern. 11'hey are wholly cooperative, as we are. Antioch College of Western Ohio is a well-known one. They operate a little differently than we do. Georgia Tech is one of the large ones. They have 1,200 students on Cooperative Education. There are variations of this plan. We begin in the sophomore year alternating work and study. Some don't start until the upper class PAGENO="0128" 474 U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION years. We are unique in that we try to place all students. Some schools make it a selective program. They only place students of B grade or better. We don't believe in that. We believe that the work experience is just as important to the student who does not study as hard as to those who have good grades. Mr. GIBBONS. Dr. Knowles, to the best of your knowledge what percentage of all the students in higher education are involved in this plan? Dr. KNOWLES. In terms of those enrolled in the upper class years of cooperative colleges, about 60,000 full-time students at the present time. Some of the colleges in this. field are very small. We are the largest and we have the most programs. We have 1,500 employers. I gave testimony on this in Washington before Senator Morse. The Higher Education Act, title III provides funds to assist colleges to convert to this plan of education. Senator Morse took the position he would rather see Federal funds used to establish the type of education so that students could provide it themselves than to provide Federal money for scholarships which are just handouts. Mr. HATHAWAY. Doctor, would the increase in the. matching re- quirement of from 10 to 25 percent affect the Work-Study Program? Would the fact that the agency or institution will have to put up 25 percent beginning next year instead of the 10 percent be a deterrent? Dr. KNOWLES. I see what you mean. This I can't say. I don't know how the social agencies will react to this beacuse they are putting up this money. I don't think it will affect us in the numbers we hire here at the university. Whether the various social agencies in the field will feel they have the funds I don't know. They operate.under very tight budgets and they are supported by the Community Chest. This has been a tremendous help to the organization. Mr. HATHAWAY. Does this cooperative plan extend to your graduate school? Dr. KNOWLES. Yes. Nearly all our graduate programs are on the cooperative basis. Mr. HATHAWAY. Including the law school? Dr. KNOWLES. The law school that we are about to reopen will be cooperative, yes. We used to have a law school. We closed it in 1956. We are now reopening it in the fall of 1968. This program is to be cooperative. The law students have to have approximately a year of really seven quarters of internship working in legal departments of corporations and in law offices. We have already lined up jobs for these students. This will give them internship as well as legal education. Mr. QuIB. Do you have any combination for tile student who re- ceives some of his assistance under the work-study program and part of it under one of the work programs, the cooperative programs, or does he receive work-study money on that-. Dr. KNOWLES. We have situations where students will be coopera- tive students and also have some Work-Study opportimities while they are in school. I bélievé Nr. Cat.es is going to testify on this a little later and give you quite a breakdown on figures. . PAGENO="0129" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 475 He is very knowledgeable in this. I think he is one of the ablest men around in the student financial aid area. He is testifying later. He can give you very complete inform'~tion on th'~t Mr. QUIE. I will withhold my questions until he appears. Dr. kNoWLEs. To get on with my recommendations, I think I have already covered some of the things I had in my report. First I would like to recommend that the Office of Education give greater attention to what I call institutional grants to the universities and colleges that show evidence of being strong and have a potential for being strong and academically excellent. I think that in a country as large as ours with a big and rapidly growing population, education is vitally important to our national welfare. The Nation can't be as strong as it ought to be if we have only 15 to 25 of what we think of as academically excellent, outstanding institutions of higher education. These are in part as you know the"name" institutions that are usu- ally mentioned when we talk of those that are very outstanding. I think we ought to have a couple hundred of these. I would hope that we could select the institutions that we think have the greatest poten- tial, and pour funds into them so that we would have not just a small number but as many perhaps as 200 very strong, very outstanding, academically excellent institutions. I think these programs secondly should be administered- Mr. QrnE. Before you get on the second point, let m~ ask you, what you are talking about is really an expanded land-grant-college type of grant used by the institutions for whatev~er purpose they see fit? Dr. KNOWLES. Not necessarily. The Land-Grant College Act pro- vides funds for the support of agriculture, mechanical arts, home eco- nomics, and so on. I am talking about institutions that are already privately financed and are on the threshold of academic stature of real strength. I think substantial grants of $5 million, $10 million or maybe grants to bolster certain departments across the board within the institution could make this difference between having very outstanding under- graduate and graduate programs and doctoral programs and having institutions that are not as strong as they ought to be. Mr. QUIE. Once they become as strong as they ought to be would they lose their grants? Dr. KNOWLES. It ought to be done two ways. First of all I think the institutions should try to find some ways of bolstering their own finances. I think that this might be a continuing program of grants. I know what you are talking about, "What hap- pens when the grant runs out?" There ought to be a continuing pro- gram of grants. I think this is important to our total national welfare. The Na- tional Science Foundation is already doing this. As you know, in some instances they are helping institutions in the technological science fields to bolster them and become very much stronger and outstanding in different parts of the country. I learned just this morning that apparently the Department of De- fense is going to have a program in the science area. I think we need to support more than just science. We need to support the humanities, 73-728-67-pt. 2---~9 PAGENO="0130" 476 U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION business science, health science, in these paramedical fields of nursing education, pharmacy, physical therapy, occupational therapy. We ought to have outstanding academic institutions. I think Fed- eral funds should be given on an institutional basis to let these insti- tutions become really strong and outstanding. I think it would be a good investment of public funds to do this. You might raise the question, "What happens to the institutions that don't get this?" I think we have to say that these are the institutions that have not yet demonstrated that they are at this point where these additional funds will make the difference. The national welfare requires that we single out the institutions that are on what we call the threshold of strong academic stature. Mr. Quin. Who would make the decision? Dr. KNOWLIS. I am recommending that it be done on a regional basis by representatives of the U.S. Office of Education because I feel that they know the area best, know the institutions, and they are in a posi- tion to give an honest appraisal from firsthand knowledge to people in Washington. These are very able and competent, but they a.re not close to local situations, and naturally I think there is a tendency for them to finance and support the institutions that are best known, the "name" institu- tions in large part, which are excellent institutions. But if you ask the average ~person to name colleges, he could usually name a few of those nationally known because of the reputation made, a few who have very outstanding football teams perhaps. Then you ask him to name any others and he can't go too far. This is to be expected but there are a number of excellent institu- tions serving regions and areas, that are regional institutions and local institutions that meet very important needs of that region. For example, here in Boston our University has the most extensive programs in engineering and science for the local community. We offer a large number of programs including programs that are at the postdoctoral level for the engineers and scientists in our local busi- nesses and industries. We have a suburban campus on Route 128, "electronic row" in Bos- ton. This was set up to provide graduate programs for engineers and scientists for the business and industries in that area. One of the pro- grams is a so-called start of the art programs, where we offer postdoctoral work for a large number of scientists who want to be kept up to date in their field. We have about a thousand people in those programs. We admit the largest number of students to college of any college or university in this area from the metropolitan high schools. We also have a large number of students who come from outside of Boston, but we are primarily an institution that is serving a local community. We ha.ppen to have a grant of $900,000 from the National Science Foundation for electric engineering. We have a similar grant for a chemistry building under title II where quality of faculty happens to be a factor. These are departmental grants. I would rather see broader grants. Mr. QuTE. Why do you say regional basis rather than State basis? Dr. KNOWLES. I define the region as being a metropolitan area or New England area or State area. PAGENO="0131" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 477 Mr. QUIB. You don't mean by region necessarily the region estab- lished by the U.S. Office of Education for the regional office? Dr. KNOWLES. I think that the New England area established is a pretty cohesive unit. We think of ourselves as bemg a regional institution. We draw students from all New England. There are a large number of students from Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire. We draw them from Connecticut and Rhode Island. We have 1,500 employers of our students. `I would say 1,200 or 1,300 of those are in the New England area. I think the regional administration will help because they know the institutions and they know the colleges and know the most about them. It does not mean you should not have people in Washington making final decisions. I also would like to suggest that more money be made available for urban education, urban institutions, because as you know our population is becoming urban oriented. You hear various reports that within 10 years, 85 percent of our people will be living in metro- politan areas. I have not seen figures lately but I think more than half of all the students attending schools go to schools in metropolitan areas. I would like to urge that in your grants the urbanuniversities be singled out for special attention because here is where you are going to serve the greatest number of students going to college. This is very important. The other thing I would like to `stress before you is that `I hope you will see t.o it that more funds are made available under title III of the Higher Education Act to provide moneys needed to establish more cooperative colleges. I think this is the best way to help young people. We happen to offer a superior kind of education because students' get work ex- perience related to their field of study. The boy, for example, who is in engineering can work in research laboratories of some of the larger electronic companies here in electric engineering or mechanical engineering or in a chemical company if he is in chemical engineering. If he gets out of school, he has a pretty line education, with the combination of work and experience. I would like to see more of this type of college because the financial aid has to come primarily the first year. After that, they can pretty much help themselves in going through college. I have talked about Cooperative Education so I just want to say briefly that this plan of education has great advantages for the under- privileged people. I suppose the great bulk of Northeastern students come from middle class income and lower-middle-income groups. We made a study a year ago that showed 20 percent of our students came `from families having incomes of less than $4,000 a year. This means this is the kind of school to which they can go. Now we have been able to admit here a substantial number of Negro `students. This last year' we took in a hundred Negro students. Part of this was a program financed by the Ford Foundation in which we go out to the field and find boys and girls in the Negro community who would not be going to college, but who have the ability to do so. We give them special instruction to prepare them for college, summer school, and then we bring them to the university and PAGENO="0132" 478 U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION enroll them in nursing, business education, pharmacy and so forth, and they go through. The Ford money provides scholarships for the first year. In their upper class year `they are assigned to jobs. You remove a fear that many of these youngsters have th~.t even though they get an education they won't be able to enter their professional fields. They go out on cooperative jobs. They earn money, get a. great deal of confidence. The other employers can observe them. We think this is a very fine program for them. This has been very popular and very well received by the Negro community in Boston. I suppose we do more for this community than any other single college in this area. We run a dropout school, for example, in this area. So, Cooperative Education is really a great help to young people who come from families of limited resources. The fact that they can earn part of their education-in fact, a big part of it, and the fact that they get work experience and learn how to get along with people and adjust to the work situation-this is of great advantage. We are very pleased, we are very proud of our service in this area. We have large numbers of students who could afford to go to college anywhere but who come here because they want a Cooperative Ed- ucation. WThat I am saying is that this kind of school has for a long time given the biggest educational opportunity for those whose financial resources are very limited. I think that is a very fine contribution for us to make. Mr. Q.u~. How many Negro young people are there in all these programs you talked about? Dr. KNoWLEs. I am not supposed to count the number of people by racial groups. I was talking to young Negro students who came in to ask if I could give them money to go to New York to attend a con- ference, which I am glad to say we did. They wanted to go to a con- fere.nce on African-American student relationships at Columbia this weekend. I asked them how many there were, in school. We con- cluded there must he 250 here. They know pretty well. This was a figure they agreed upon. We never counted by color. Mr. Quii. How about the dropout group you work with before they attend? Dr. KNowLEs. This is a school we established to encourage those people who are~ dropouts to come back to school. We run this from our office of college education.' This is conducted over m the Roxbury area. I am not sure of the numbers enrolled at the present time but I would guess it is probably more than 25 but less than 50. Mr. HATHAWAY. Doctor, what is your tuition here? Dr. KNOWLES. Roughly $1,300 a year. Mr. HATHAWAY. Do you have dormitories? Dr. I~ownis. Yes; we do. We have dormitories. We have ap- proximately 2,500 students in dormitories. Mr. HATHAWAY. What does the board and room cost? Dr. KNOWLES. Roughly $30 a week. Mr. HATHAWAY. Do the dormitories accommodate all the students that need them? PAGENO="0133" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 479 Dr. KNOWLES: No; we have need for more dormitories. We. have used Federal funds here to build dormitories. This has come out of the Department of Housing and Urban Development. We have been very fortunate in obtaining funds from the Federal Government for building dormitories. We have built two new dormitories and are building a third with Federal funds. We have had $10 million in funds for dormitories. We have put a lot more money in other buildings. We have bought and remodeled dormitories ourselves. We are headed toward a 50 percent local enrollment, 50 percent from away from greater Boston-New England States, Eastern States. This kind of education is very popular. We had over 11,000 apph- cations for admission last year. That shows you the popularity of this kind of education. Mr. HATHAWAY. Will this new dormitory plan take care of the 50 percent that come from away? Dr. KNowI~S. The dormitories, when. they are all completed and the fraternity houses plus boarding houses would; yes. You see, our dormitories do not have to be as spacious as you think because the student in the cooperative job sta.ys for his term in school, goes out and another student comes in. So for the upper-class student, the dormitory room very ofte.n serve two students. Mr. HATHAWAY. You ha.ve a night school? Dr. KNOWLES. We have a very large program in the evening serving 20,000 students. Mr. HATHAWAY. Do you work that on a. cooperative basis? Dr. KNOWLES. No. Mr. HATHAWAY. The daytime job might not be connected with the night school activities? Dr. KNOWLES. Very likely they are, because the student in account- ing will come here and major in accounting in the evening, or the student that is working for an electronics company will come here and take electrical engineering in the evening, and similarly in con- struction and civil engineers. Mr. HATHAWAY. Do you help those get jobs during the day? Dr. KNOWLES. No. Boston is a very unusual area. The Boston areas for the most pa.rt pay.. tuition costs of all .students going to par~-time evening programs. There are over a hundred compa.nies in the area that have programs which pay all of the costs of their employees going t.o college. They encourage them to go to evening school to get their~ degrees and advanced degrees. This area and southern California are the only two areas in the coun.t.ry that do this extensively. . .. .. . I think perhaps I have sa.id all I need to say, except I do want to commend some people here very briefly. I want to mention two other things. . . .. . . We did receive from t.lie Federal Government two very fine pieces of laud that were . formerly . Nike sights. Our si~burban campus is a Nike sight, with parking space for nearly 2,000 cars. This ha.s been very successful. We enrolled about 2,000 students there. We took another Nike sight in Nahant. We are building `a marine biology station there. We are pouring $200,000 into this in the next PAGENO="0134" 480 U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION year or so. We have already spent $50,000. I said $150,000 in the paper but that was conservative figure. It is nearer $200,000. These two Nike sights now are being used very constructively. I think some of the people in General Services Achninistration had requested pictures of our suburban campus as being an example of the best use of surplus property which has been made. I want to express my appreciation to Donald DeHart, who is here, who has been most cooperative. You know who he is, regional repre- sentative of the Office of the Commissioner, Office of Education. He has been very helpful to us in a great many ways. I want to particularly thank Mr. Edward G. Bradley, regional representative of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Surplus Property Utilization Division. He has been very helpful to us in these grants of lands. And Dr. Eino Johnson has been very helpful to us in the student finance area. Dr. Richard McCann on my left, the executive director of the Higher Education Facilities Commission, has been very helpful to us. I want to say that you are very fortunate to have such fine people in Boston. For that matter, our experience in Washington is the same. These are all high caliber people. They are doing a fine job. Try as I might I can't find anything to complain about. That is all I have to say. Mr. GIBBONS. Dr. Knowles, we appreciate your testimony. It has been very stimulating and very interesting. We know that the presi- dent of a university is always very busy so if you have to leave at any time please don't feel you will be offending us. We would like to have you here and would like you to join in the rest of the conversa- tion with us as we go along because we can use your expertise, but we know that you are busy so we will leave it to you to make the decision. Mr. HATHAWAY. Dr. Knowles, on the fact sheet you have some figures. I am interested in how many students are getting the $487,500 in NDEA. student loans and how many are getting the opportunity grants. Dr. KNOWLES. I don't have those figures but Mr. Cates is going to~ have them for you. He has been asked to testify and he will give you, I am sure, a breakdown of all this if you wish it. Mr. HATHAWAY. Thank you. Mr. GIBBONS. Dr. Knowles, is your university in any way church related? Dr. KNOWLES. No, we are entirely independent. Mr. GIBBONS. How old is it? Dr. Ki~owu~s. We were established in 1898, established as an eve~ ning school of law. We pioneered education in New England on an evening basis. In 1909 we started our day programs as a cooperative school of engineering. This has grown. Today we have eight under- graduate colleges, some six or eight graduate schools~ a number of special schools. We have the traditional arts and sciences and en- gineering and graduate schools and we have a special graduate school in actuarial science, supported entirely by the life insurance companies. This is a special graduate school in professional accounting supported by the large accounting firms because of the great shortages in these areas. PAGENO="0135" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 481 We offer doctoral programs in, I believe it is 10 different fields now, predominantly engineering and science, although we have just moved into psychology and biology. We are considering some in the human- ities and social science area. Mr. GIBBONS. Dr. Knowles, we have with us this morning Dr. Matthew who is the educational chief of the full Education and Labor Committee. Dr. Matthew would like to ask some questions at this time. Dr. MATTHEW. I might say your testimony was quite exciting, particularly your description of the cooperative programs. It is good to hear how it operates. One thing that I wanted to ask you was,, in view of your desire to insure academic excellence here in Northwestern,, whether or not the figures for research on library material increase by any amount that you get from the Federal Government. You get $5,000 for library materials and instructional equipment. Dr. KNOWLES. We are expanding our library as rapidly as we can. We find that our libraries are inadequate. The expansion of knowledge, the vast numbers of publications coming out all the time, in a great many different fields, make things difficult for many li- braries to have the numbers of volumes or number of titles on the microcards, and so on, that they would like to have. We are expending at the present time $250,000 a year for new books. We will expand this by another $100,000 next year. We are rapidly expanding our library facilities. This is an area where a great many universities need help. This is one way you can help them get academic excellence. For the research program it is very important to conduct research in a great many of these areas of engineering and science as well as the humanities and social science because I honesty feel that good research and good teaching go hand in hand. I know there are some who feel that the research programs have drained off the good teachers in the classroom. I think a man who is in research is a more exciting teacher than one who is not. Research can also be bringing together existing knowledge, just organizing it. I like to see this kind of research, too. I would hope that research would be supported because this is a key to strong doc- toral programs. Dr. MATTHEW. The reason that most of the money has gone into construction grant from the Federal Government is because they are giving that priority? Dr. KNOWLES. No, because of U.S. Office of Education funds available. We have had a lot of money from the National .Science Foundation. The National Science Foundation is giving us three- quarters of a million dollars or more a year to support ongoing research projects.. Actually we are getting money under a number of other Government contracts so that our total expenditure for research is about $31/2 mil- lion. Ninety percent of this is coming from Government contracts. We also have received money for buildings, laboratories, and equip- ment from the National Science Foundation. We have money from NASA, we have money from the Department of Defense. We have PAGENO="0136" 482 U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION had money from General Services Administration as well as from the Office of Education. Dr. MArr~w. Dr. Knowles, in view of the importance of the universities and colleges to the national welfare as you have indicated, do you think that 2,000 such institutions would be a sufficient figure? In other words, I am concerned about 200 out of the 2,000 would be proper institutions. I was wondering whether an institution such as yours would not have a responsibility for the small developing institutions in this region. Dr. KNowLEs. Yes, I think we would be glad to help them. I was asked yesterday if we would be sponsor of one small college. We are already working out now to be sponsor of one, two, or three col- leges in the South, predominantly Negro colleges I should say, under the cooperative plan. We are asking that we be included as a spon- sor of a group of colleges in Michigan. We are glad to help other colleges, particularly this Cooperative Education field. Mr. GIBBoNs. We welcome to our hearing this morning our very distinguished Speaker of the House. Mr. Speaker, we have just had a very interesting and stimulating conversation; we are having one with Dr. Knowles here. Right now Dr. Matthew, our education chief of the full committee, is asking questions of Dr. Knowles. We believe we are physically in your district right now, is that right. Mr. MCCORMACK. Now, that is right; as in recent years. Mr. GIBBoNs. You have a very impressive institution here in your district, Mr. Speaker. Dr. KNow~s. We are very proud of the fact that the Speaker is our Representative. Mr. GIBBoNs. You could not have a better one in every sense of the word. Dr. KNOWLEs. Again answering your question, about 600 of the 2,200 or 2,400 colleges today are junior colleges. Then there are a ni~imber of very highly specialized types of institutions that are named as colleges, college of music, independent professional schools, tech- nical institutes, and this type of thing. When I say 200 1 am thinking of the broad-gage type of institutions, including our State institutions as well as our private universities. When I say 200 of this type of institution you would cover probably two-thirds of all the students enrolled in colleges. You would also include those areas where you have the greatest number going to college. My figure was not picked out of the air. T am thinking of the metropolitan centers, urban centers-and not just big ones. Dr. MATrBIEW. My last question has to do with your regard for~ the regional office of the Office of Education. I am glad to hear that you speak of the office in that way. I am wondering if you would like to suggest some things that might be done to increase the staff or facilities or just any suggestions you would have to enable the regional office to improve its service. Dr. KNowT~s. I do think in my conversations from time to time with the officials here that they could use additional staff. They would probably need additional staff if they were to do what I am proposing. I would like to see them given greater authority to recommend and PAGENO="0137" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 483 to have a participating voice in some of the decisions. This would have the great advantage of having people who are close to the grassroots of education making the judgments and recommendations- which .1 think is very advantageous. As it is now, very often in the grants you find that in Washington a public panel is appointed, and the panel may be someone from Oregon, California, and Utah passing on a proposal for New England. They may or may not have heard of the college. I would rather see judgments made by those who are in a position to intimately know the institutions. Dr. MATTHEW. Thank you. Mr. GIBBONS. Thank you, Doctor. I don't see the name of your student assistance man on the agenda here this morning. Is he scheduled to appear later on today ~ Dr. KNOWLES. He was invited to testify. Mr. GIBBONS. Well, we want to hear him particularly. Dr. KNOWLES. His name is Cates. He is scheduled to testify tomorrow. Mr. GIBBONS.. Perhaps we might have him testify earlier. I know Mr. Quie wa.nts to talk to him. Mr. Quie has to leave this evening. At this time we will move next to Dr. Donald DeHart who is the regional representative of the Office of the Commissioner of Education here in Boston. Dr. DeHart, we have met so many times in the last few days I feel like you are an old friend now. WTe would like to hear what you have to say. STATEMENT OP DR. DONALD C. DeHART, REGIONAL REPRESENTA- TIVE, OFFICE OP EDUCATION Dr. DEHART. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. GIBBONS. May I interrupt just a moment. We have other mem- bers of the panel with us here this morning including Dr. Knowles. We are not too formal in the way we conduct these hearings. If you gentlemen feel the urge to add something, swap ideas back and forth with us here as you go along, just go ahead and interrupt at that time. Dr. DEHART. Thank you, sir. I hope I will be . forgiven. Dr. Knowles has stolen a few sentences of my thunder here but I knew he would when he started to speak first. He has a lot to offer. I am regional representative of the Office of Education, Office of the Commissioner. The responsibilities of the position include general administrative supervision of the regional activities of the Office of Education and serving as chief adviser on education to the regional director, HEW. In contrast with the specific program activities of my colleagues, my duties reflect a comprehensive concern for all the activities of the Office of Education in relation to the interrelated programs of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare focused upon human need; in relation to the State education departments of the region; the mstitutions of higher learning; and to other agencies, private and public, that are concerned with educational services and progress. PAGENO="0138" 484 U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION The traditional role of the Office of Education for nearly a century was that of collecting and disseminating education data. In sharp contrast, tke result of changing national and worldwide economic, social, and technological circumstances and the subsequent enactment by the Congress of large-scale programs of financial as- sistance to education to meet pressing nationwide needs, the Office finds itself in the role of administrator of vast financial operations to help support elementary and secondary education, higher education, student financial aid, vastly expanded vocational programs, newly devised manpower development and training activities, library devel- opment, the improvement of State departments of education, up- grading of teachers, help to the handicapped and disadvantaged, and research, to cite some of the major areas of current challenge. At the same time during the decade of the 1960's, as Secretary Gardner cited on November 18 before the Subcommittee on Inter- governmental Relations of the Committee on Government Operations of the U.S. Senate- this decade is characterized by (1) civil rights struggle and (2) the extraor- dinary reshaping of our Federal-State-Local Government relationships. Add to these unprecedented developments the financial magnitude of the challenge to the Office of Education of a budget which grew in about 4 years from three-quarters of a billion dollars to con- siderably over 3 billion, and it can readily be understood that the Office had to change radically in organization and personnel to do its new work effectively. I need not invite the attention of this distinguished group of leg- islators to President Johnson's "vigorous and determined interest in good management." Out of these factors emerged the reorganiza- tion of the Office of Education, including a commitment to a policy of decentralizing a number of functions and services to the established regional headquarters. The thrust of regionalization is to bring es- sential program services requisite to efficient administration close to where the State, local, and institutional education leaders are. Washington is far from the college or school district in northern Maine. Travel is very expensive and travel time is at a premium. Often States and local institutions lack any but the most meager travel funds. Federal personnel stationed in regional offices are readily available to applicants for assistance and can maintain first- hand knowledge of needs, assist in understanding and interpreting leg- islation, and in developing plans and applications. At little cost they can visit the State or local situation and make recommendations or decisions on the basis of firsthand knowledge. Regional personnel are in a favored position to cooperate with re- lated Federal and State agencies to bring to bear on the solution of problems of common concern and, I should add, human need, a multiple array of departmental services. A case in point is the recent joint visits to each State of Federal Health, Education, and Welfare staff members with the help of their State counterparts to study and reveal all the services available or that are lacking in a State as they affect or could affect the lives of human beings of all ages needing assistance. Human problems are so complex that a single agency approach, as in the case of the poor or the exceptional, is generally too limited to be of really lasting help. PAGENO="0139" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 485 `In the process of extending field services the New England region's reorganization is not completed. One important point to observe in the process is that an extension of field services does not impose an extra layer of administration to block from communication between the field and the central headquarters in Washington. Some service functions are more effectively and conveniently per- formed in the field because of proximity and a better understanding of regional problems. Some functions as in policymaking, nationwide planning, reporting and publishing, can better be performed at a cen- tral location. The expansion of the regional services is an evolution rather than a revolution. Transfer of functions inevitably involves the transfer of some personnel. The uprooting of families and matching of profes- sional qualifications to the job require serious thought, for during the process of change the work of the programs must continue unimpeded. And the end result to be justified must be an improvement in effec- tiveness of operations. The cautious expansion to date has been well received in New England. Program officers in the field representing the bureau structure in the central office, while under the general administrative guidance of the regional director and the Commissioner's representative for purposes of effective coordination, economy of operations, maintenance of good public relations and the like, are nevertheless in direct contact on tech- nical program matters with program leaders in the central office. Experience to date has demonstrated the all-around value of this kind of organization. Through the Office of Field Services in Washington the regional representative reports to the Commissioner on significant factors and influences related to the need for Federal aid, the evaluation of the effectiveness of field and office practices, the regional, social, and eco- nomic situation, interagency relationships in the field, the need for changes in rules and regulations. Close contact with State departments of education, the colleges and universities and other education-related agencies enables the Office to meet problems constructively and to apprise the Commissioner of events that may affect the Federal-local-State relationship-the part- nership that has developed. Several factors that directly affect the field organization and total reorganization `of the Office and the effectiveness of staff effort on behalf of State and local consumers are the current personnel freeze and the comparative uncertainly of funds to be available until a given school year is well underway. In the Boston office, the staff consists of 12 professional members and 6 secretarial-clerical workers. These people handle limited pro- grams in higher education, vocational and manpower development, and school assistance in federally affected areas `and the work of regional administration. This is three under last year's authorized ceiling and two under the current authorized ceiling. Projected minimum needs for this year indicated a staff of 33, to include 23 professionals `and 10 secretarial- clerical. The present personnel freeze is creating backlogs of work and precludes further planning in terms of potential levels of staff PAGENO="0140" 486 U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION assignment. It is at this point that the Office's services to the appli- cants are affected. The factor of fund availability to schools, State agencies and colleges and universities prior to the beginning of each successive school or college fiscal year, which in New England in general corresponds to the Federal fiscal yea.r, is of crucial importance. Educational agencies nmst make commitments by April to faculty and other staff and before the end of the year in most cases to students. When commitments based on Federal funds, the exact amount of which may not be known until several months of the school year have passed, cannot be made in advance of the college or school year, frequently well-qualified people cannot be retained or hired and in some instances very needy students may not enroll. During the completion of the reorganization of the field services of t.he Office of Education, we shall be learning from experience how most effectively to use our personnel-whom to transfer and how many from Washington to the field and for what specific prp~~~ The Congress and the President have dealt thoughtfully and gen- erously with the education community of the TJnitecl States. The Office in its growth for assuming new responsibilities and participating effectively in the new partnership that has developed and will continue among the Federal, State, and local `agencies, must through prudent planning, honest, deliberate thinking and wise judgment demonstrate competent stewardship of the vast resources at its disposal that will inspire across the Nation and in the seat of Government confidence, trust, and approval of the way the education billions are being invested in the people of America.. There is evidence that the care with which we are proceeding is pointing toward "creative federalism" which the Secretary has so aptly defined. Improvements in the State education departments al- ready can be cited, and schools and colleges are moving in the direc- tion of improved programs and the output of educated youth and men and women more nearly equipped to assume a responsible role as citi- zens in toclay~s rapidly changing world. In closing, may I observe that planm~ed expansion of our field serv- ices, within the practical limits of funds available and services that will directly benefit students, the States, schools, colleges~ and the econ- omy, fits well into the improved pat.terns of improved Federal-State- local relationships as outlined by the Secreta.ry before the Senate Com- mittee on Government Operations. We are, I believe, in our growth in the field improving coordination at. the Federal level. Through the. Office of Field Services we are im- proving commuication among levels of Government.. We are keenly aware of the constant need for the need of a wise philosophy and guid- ing principles for our many interrelationships in the "mutually re- specting partnerships we seek." We are beginning to achieve effective coordination at Federal, State, and local levels, but we have a. `long way to go. We are beginning in our new programs to sense a need for creating more comprehensive planning areas. We are seeing evidence of cooperation among institu- tions. And we are sure of the great. need continuously to improve our capacity to study and "to appraise problems.' PAGENO="0141" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 487 Although we are only at the beginning of a new era of the Federal interest in American education, I believe that the lessons we are learn- ing have justified the magnificent legislative program that provides the foundation of the Office's activities. With the continued effort of the entire education community and with the benefit of the findings of such studies as are now being made by the Special Subcommittee on Education. I feel confident that this region and all the rest of Amer- ica will be glad that the Federal Government is interested in educa- tion. I thank you for this opportunity to appear before this select com- mittee. Mr. Qun~. The criticism that I get from people in educational orga- nizations in Washington especially and some in the field is that they really want to go to Washington because the guidelines haven't filtered out to the regional offices. I had a kind of feeling in Maine that they don't have the same in- stitutions as the institutions in Boston because you talk about close proximity. You can go to lunch together and call each other on the phone without any additional cost in Boston but in Maine, it is a little bit further away, to use that as an example. Do you have any comments on your relationship where there is a tendency to go over you to Washington? Dr. DEHART. Of course, tradition is a powerful factor and the Office of Education is the last Office in the Department of Health, Educa- tion, and Welfare to attempt decentralization. There frankly is some resistance to it. You will find a variation of attitudes over all of New England. I suppose it is an inherent weakness that the schools near us in Boston can see us more often just by walking down the street or picking up the telephone. How- ever, I would say that there is extensive field service in which our program officers go to visit these institutions whenever it is necessary. We are a little concerned at the moment because of the present freeze of personnel which has made us shorthanded and the added pressure, which I learned of yesterday, to take a hard look at travel and cut out as much of it as we can. If too much of it is cut out that would, of course, weaken the field service and would prevent our men making necessary visits to local institutions and would give rise to further criticism of this kind. What you have just said is fairly understandable to us who are here in the region. Then, too, we have not had the authority in the region to make some of these recommendations and decisions that Dr. Knowles mentioned. Our field service having been reorganized so very re- cently, and because we are one of the regions here that is not yet reorganized with a regional assistant commissioner and further dele- gation of authority, perhaps we are not performing at the same level as they may be for instance, in Atlanta, Ga. That was the first one to be reorganized and I understand is now working on a reorganized basis. I feel that once we are fully reorganized and we are delegated the authority- Mr. GIBBoNs. Will you speak a little louder, Dr. DeHart. PAGENO="0142" 488 U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION Dr. DEHART. Once we are fully reorganized, and they have not started on us yet here, I think we can set up an organization that will establish uniform services throughout all the States of the region. Actually if we have the funds to travel, the distances are not so great but that we can get back and forth quite conveniently. Mr. QiTIE. What part will you play in the guidelines? One of the criticisms we have is that the guidelines are changed and the guide- lines come out before the project has to be in. Do you have any feed- back on guidelines to the U.S. Office, on how it ought to operate be- cause of the peculiar interest problems of your region? Dr. DEHART. Up to the present time the guidelines have been de- fined in Washington and mailed from Washington directly to the local constituent. The region eventually gets copies of them. The program people get copies of them usually before I do. Mr. GIBBONS. You mean they don't consult you in developing the guidelines? Dr. DEHART. They don't consult me. I am the general administra- tor. Some of the program people from time to time are called to Washington to do program work. I suspect they have had a voice to some extent in developing some of the guidelines but not all of them. My colleague, Dr. Johnson on my right, has been called to Wash- ington on program matters. We do feel that the Office of Education has been quite deficient, though, in making as much use of valuable services, services we think wOuld be valuable, of experienced field staff in sharing from the beginning the development of new programs. Mr. GIBBONS. Tell us briefly the development of the field staff here. How long has it been in existence and when did it start.? Dr. DEHART. Back in 1950, with the functional advent of the school systems program in federally affected areas, one regional per- son was placed in each region. At that time I served New England out of the New York office. There was not a resident person here. That program grew and has been conducted, I think, quite ad- mirably. In 1958 with the passage of the National Defense Education Act, after the implementation of the act, I should say, in 1959, Dr. Johnson was placed here in New England in charge of the student assistance work and other details related to the higher education parts of the act. That staff has grown as the act has been amended and services have been demanded by the field, until now Dr. Jolmson has a total staff of four professionals and a small clerical staff. Then in 1960, when Dr. Derthick was Commissioner, he crystallized the thinking that had been discussed for a long time about the advis- ability of really extending the field staff of the Office of Education. Between November 1959 and February 1960, a Commissioner's representative was placed in each region. I reported here February 8, 1960. We were not directly supervising the programs. The contact with program people has always been directly with program super- visors and leaders in Washington. The Commissioner's representatives were assigned what was termed administrative supervision of the office, and to work with the regional director and on matters of educational concern, and to represent edu- cation in cooperation with related efforts of other Federal agencies, the welfare people- PAGENO="0143" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 489 Mr. GIBBONS. That does not sound like too good an organizational technique to me, your position as representative of the Commissioner and apparently Dr. Johnson, your colleague, is not working under you but is working parallel to you. Am I right? Dr. DEHART. Not exactly. I think that in part is true. I will say that that is what has been. I think since the Office of Field Services was established with an Associate Commissioner that the reorganiza- tion is, step by step, delegating definite authority out in the field. I think it is the intention to center many of the program activities in the field, and the Assistant Regional Commissioner will then be a line officer rather than a staff officer. In the beginning, the Commissioner's representative was a staff offi- cer. There was a reason for that, Mr. Gibbons. This was a new step and local people back there in 1960-some local people and education agencies-feared there might be Federal control if too big a staff of the Office of Education were placed in the field. However, Dr. Derthick went ahead with this because the experi- ence of the school assistance program representatives in federally af- fected areas had been quite successful. Studies had been made. One was made by Dr. Ferber, superintend- ent of schools in Brookline, that showed conclusively that a program that paid money from the Federal Government directly to the school district did not demonstrate any interference at all with State and local programs. It was largely on the strength of that that Commissioner Derthick planned to go ahead with this organization. Then with the expansion of the Vocational and Manpower Acts other staff were added. We have four such men in this region now. I think that the fact of regionalization of some of the functions of the Office of Education is quite well a.ccepted now. From time to time we will hear objections. I have noted this hu- morously enough. Sometimes there will be among local groups a public statement against Federal aid and interference and so forth. I recall one such experience. Then one man ~ho did the talking came up to me afterwards and said, "Say, when are we going to get that check we were supposed to get last week?" Mr. QUIE. We find the same thing. A lot of people making speeches against Federal aid but they want the impact aid. Dr. DEHART. I think right now in this region our expansion of the field services is a sort of halfway between. State. I think the direction is good. We have control management of the budget. We don't have to go to Washington so long as I don't allow any expenditures that exceed the total amount. We used to have to go back for every package of pencils we wanted and that kind of stuff. I understand that under the new organization, appointment authority up through grade 13 will rest with the region and not with Washington. There are some reasons why higher ap- pointment authority cannot be delegated. In some cases the Commissioner is required by law to approve the appointments and make them. Mr. QmE. Appointment up to grade 13? I don't understand that. Dr. DEHART. You have your GS grades 1 through 18. As it now is in the region, we have appointive authority. PAGENO="0144" 490 U.s. OFFICE OF EDUCATION Mr. QUIB. Is that the breakoff point on supervisory authority? Dr. DEHART. No, it is not. This varies among agencies in the re- gion, Mr. Quie. In the Office of Education for a number of years, we have had regional appointive authority through grade 9. That is, the regional director and senior program representative, the Commis- sioner's representative, cOuld appoint and recruit directly from the region. Above grade 9, all personnel actions, recruitment, appoint- ment and so forth, with the approval of the regional director and Commissioner's representative, is done by Washington. Now that will be extended according to information we have re- ceived, and I believe it is entirely official and is in effect now in regions that have been reorganized and now have a regional assistant com- missioner. The appointing authority ivill be up through grade 13. Mr. GIBBONS. Dr. DeHart, what is your grade level? Dr. DEHART. GS 15. Mr. GIBBONS. Dr. Johnson, what is yours? Dr. Jonxsox. 14. Mr. HATHAWAY. Dr. Dellart, is there any geographical break- down of staff in the regional office-that is, someone in charge of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont? Dr. DEHART. There is for periods. The sta.ff people for a period of a year or two may have a designated territory and then he changed. It is not permanent. I don't believe Dr. Johnson in higher education has a fixed geographical distribution. Mr. HATHAWAY. We had the feeling expressed yesterday, and I have heard it expressed before, that the problems of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, and northern New York are different from the problems in southern New England. They thought the regional office was not really as conversant with their problems as they were in the Boston area and Rhode Island and Connecticut. Dr. DEHART. We are aware of the fact that in the New England. region you have in a general way two divisions. In my conversations with State commissioners of education I am sensitive to that. I think one of the reasons we have not had a geographical breakdown has been the fact that we have an extremely small staff here in New England. We are way understaffed as compared to what had been projected, the reason being of course now the personnel freeze, and up to a few weeks ago, the back of appropriated funds for the current year's operation. But in terms of the overall planning that I haYe seen for the vari- ous regions, and I have seen the Atlanta, Ga., chart, I think they are taking into account the need for staff to cover these functions and to take into consideration the special needs within the regions. I feel very hopeful as we look toward the future, and yet I can. readily acknowledge that some of these observations that you have pointed out currently and in times past are probably quite accurate. Mr. HATHAWAY. Are the personnel on the staff indigenous to this region? Are they from New England originally? Dr. DEHART. Yes, and no. I am not. I am a native of New Jersey. Dr. Johnson has had broad experience and long residence in New England. Mr. Anderson and Mr. Hondrogen are both from New Hampshire. Mr. Jones comes from Missouri. Two other men in voca- PAGENO="0145" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 491 tional work in the Massachusetts State Department of Education are local. There is no attempt to choose people from a narrowly defined area. Of course, Washington has handled this. They have had nation- wide coverage. They select whom they think is the best man qualified for the job. I will say this, that I think our staff is stronger by hav- ing a mixture of both fairly local people and a fresh viewpoint now and then from outside. Mr. HATHAWAY. Thank you, Doctor. Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Quie. Mr. QUIE. You mentioned on page 3 of your testimony bringing together people in Health, Education, and Welfare. You mentioned no single agency. Now in education it is the Office of Education that administers a little over a billion dollars Federal money for assistance to education? Dr. DEHART. That is correct. Mr. QUIE. What kind of coordination does the regional office exer- cise just in education? Dr. DEHART. Within the past 2 years I have served for instance as the subcommittee chairman of the Inter-Governmental Relations Com- mittee of the Federal Executive Board. I can recall in meetings that I chaired there, and we had 15 or 18 people from other Federal agen- cies in the area-. At one of the latter meetings when I had the respon- sibility, there were, I recall, State people from the general Boston area-. Of course the Federal Executive Board is a Boston-oriented Board, it is not regional. But at that time we came together and discussed common problems and pointed out chiefly the fact that we had not beeii working closely enough together. More recently in these visits to the States, the joint team visits, we found that we had a lot of common problems involving various types of educational needs. It might be health education, it might be educa- tion in family welfare. You take a kid in school that is malnourished is not a very good student. So we have some educational aids of wide variety to bring to bear in that one case through welfare agencies or welfare service bureaus. We have found that there has not been enough working together. One hand does not know what the other one is doing. Mr. GIBBONS. Let me ask you some more questions in that area. You have the Housing and Urban Development providing dormi- tory moneys for these institutions. At least we hope they will start providing them again soon. And you are providing the classrooms or helping to provide the classrooms. What kind of liaison is there between your agency and the Housing and Urban Development? When did you learn of the proposed dormitory expansion plans? Is there any way to tie these two together? Dr. DEHART. I will turn to Dr. Johnson in higher education because the contact normally would go into higher education. I think you can see why. Mr. GIBBON. Will you comment on that, too? One of the tricks down in Florida was to build more dormitories than you needed and 73-728-67--pt. 2-iO PAGENO="0146" 492 U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION then you had to build more classrooms. And when you got ahead on classrooms you built more dormitories. You never would keep the two in balance because then the legislature would not have to build one or the other. Dr. DEHART. My impression is that this has not been too good liaison. Dr. JOHNSON. There definitely has not been any liaison. I might as well say that. We hear about the buildings going up. Mr. GIBBONS. You learn about it when you see the buildings going up? Dr. JohNsoN. That is right. Mr. GIBBONS. Don't you think this is one of the areas where Congress might take corrective action to establish some liaison so as to keep the physical plant moving together? Do you all know what the National Science Foundation is planning to do with these institutions or proposed grants? Dr. DEHART. At the regional level, we have not been adequately informed on those programs. The relationships have been largely a matter of Washington concern and we have not been fed detailed information. Things could be going on in the institution right here at North- eastern. I am sure I don't know half of what Dr. Knowles has been doing with tile National Science funds or sometimes whether he has even had them. Mr. GIBBONS. Is it necessary for you to know this? Dr. DEHART. I think in overall planning to spend the amount of money that is going into the education world today, that there might be the chance for some unhappy results if everybody concerned does not have all the facts. Dr. JOHNSON. May I comment on that point? Certainly it would be most desirable if we did know about these things because we are at the present time trying to collect together data of this kind in our office and in the Higher Education Bureau Office through the assistance of a program analyst so that we might have a better picture, a constantly improving picture of what is going on not only in the student financial aid area but in all of the areas. Mr. GIBBONS. If Congress undertook to try to enact some corrective legislation in this field what would be your suggestion as to how we ought to do it? Dr. JOHNSON. I think this would require quite a bit of thought be- fore one could answer that kind of question. Mr. GIBBONS. Give us some off-the-cuff ideas so that we can be mul- ling it aroimd between now and the next meeting that we have. Dr. JOHNSON. I think this point that Dr. DeHart brought out a little earlier here, and others have also, this problem about staffing- which is a most important aspect-staffing and planning for just this kind of thing. That is how it could be best coordinated. Staff is needed for it. It won't become efficient, it won't become effective if it is just placed on the present staff as an additional responsibility. The time will not permit this kind of coordination. . Mr. GIBBON. Do you think the National Science Foundation and HUB will tell you what they plan to do if you asked them? PAGENO="0147" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 493 Dr. JOHNSON. No, I don't think so. Mr. GIBBONS. You think Congress will have to tell them? Dr. JOHNSON. That is right. Something will have to be provided there so that we can get this kind of information directly and ac- curately. Dr. DEHART. One suggestion, Mr. Gibbons, has been made to me from time to time. I can remember only one distinguished person who made it a number of years ago and that was Dr. James Allen, a good friend of mine, now commissioner of education in New York State. But the suggestion runs along something like this: that education or the Federal interest in education is spread over so many Federal agen- cies that poor man down here, Mr. John X. Public, is just baffled. Even professional men, heads of colleges and public school districts and State commissioners, do not know where to go to be sure that he can take advantage of everything that is available to him. They would like to see programs that are educational put in one office. Mr. GIBBONS. Let me ask you something along that line right now. Let us talk about the Office of Economic Opportunity. While it is not directly connected with what you are doing I assume that their regional office is somewhere in this area. Is that true? Dr. DEHART. It is in New York. Mr. GIBBONS. In the New England area is the closest contact you have with them in New York? Dr. DEHART. Yes, sir. I will say this, however. They frequently visit New England and the officers down there have been most co- operative. Mr. GIBBONS. You have a great many programs in which there are ties and some people say overlaps between OEO and the Office of Edu- cation. Is there any attempt at a regional level to coordinate these problems? Dr. DEHART. Yes, there is a requirement in the rules and regulations that under title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and projects under title II of OEO the Community Action people work- ing with OEO money and the State education department and local educators review each other's programs to be sure that the benefits to the same group are not duplicated, and to insure that the purposes of these acts to help the poor are really being carried out. Now we have experienced in a practical manner-and I am thinking now only of these programs that affect elementary and secondary edu- cation-we have found that the education people and the Community Action people have not known really how to get together. In some cases they have not been willing to get together and there has been a little of the attitude developed we find in some of the Commu- nity Action agencies that one agency has the right to veto the other project. Mr. GIBBONS. We found that in Maine yesterday. Dr. DEHART. Well, we found it all over New England. It is an un- fortunate thing. Again it is a lack of experience. Education has been rather aloof unfortunately from some other segments of society that it should have been close to. I think the same thing can be said about health and welfare people. I think we are at the beginning of the period when people are realiz- ing we must work together if we are going to satisfy human needs. PAGENO="0148" 494 U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION Mr. GIBBONS. Do you have any suggestion how Congress could help that. We do we need to do from a legislative standpoint to bring these programs closer together? Dr. DEHART. I think if programs are education programs they ought. to be centered under a common agency. That seems to be the most prac- tical suggestion which has cowe to me from t.he field. Mr. GIBBONS. What do you say of the criticism that educators have been too reluctant to push some of the programs such as Headsta.rt, Up- ward Bound and programs of this sort, a.nd they need some innovative spirit a.nd that is what OEO has brought to it? What is the answer to t.hat? Dr. DEHART. I think that many educators have lacked this. They have just got to be pushed, retrained, and encouraged until they get to performing up to a decent level of meeting social need. Dr. KNowLEs. May I interrupt at this point? Mr. GIBBONS. ~1es. D.r. KNOWLES. I think one of the really valuable helps~ that edu- ca.tors need is t.o have brought together in one office like the New England regional office a complete compendium or information book- let on what are the places you may go to obtain Federal assistance. My assistant for Federal regions, who was here a minute ago, just delivered a paper to the Massachusetts group of the. New England As- sociation of Colleges and Secondary Schools. He has had a tremendous request for this because he listed all of t.he Federal agencies and what you get from each one. One of the problems that educators have is that we get all kinds of bulletins from. different office.s. Many of the administrators are very busy, they don't always read these. We need concise statements of the programs of NASA, of t.kn Atomic Energy Commission, of t.he Office of Education, the National Science Foundation, Department of Defense and General* Services Administration, the whole array of offices that are providing money for education, including Commerce a.nd Labor. If this were available a.nd we had people in the region who would. inform all the educators of what agencies provide and what and how do you proceed to get it and how do you make proposals and what are the services and what are the contributions required by t.he insti- tutions, this would be very, very valuable. A lot of programs that may be dragging on their feet because there is a lack of information. going out to colleges would be greatly expedited. Now our university has two full-time people who go to Washington regularly and work with the Washington agency. As you know,. there are a number of consultants t.oday selling their services telling you where to go for what. I feel this should be provided by the Federal Government, by the regional offices, and we should be able to go to regional offices at any time and say, "we think we can do this or that, we need this help.. When do we get it, how .do we get it?" The bulletin should be sent out to the colleges. The Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co. just published a. booklet on this. There are two or three organizations having services available at a cost of several hundred dollars. PAGENO="0149" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 495 The Commerce Clearinghouse provides some of it, but I think this is a Government function. I think this is a reasonable office function. .1 think it will do a tremendous amount in terms of making sure that the amount is spent wisely. Mr. GrBBONS. I know some of the commercial companies have these publications. Do you have these in your office, Dr. DeHart? Dr. DEHART. No, sir; not in anything like the manner that has been suggested-and with which I agree, incidentally. We will get one or two copies of publications of the Office of Education. Mr. GIBBoNs. Something like the Commerce Clearinghouse which tells about all the Federal programs, you are not allowed to purchase `those? Dr. DEHART. We don't have the budget for it. Dr. MCCANN. Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I might refer to the `necessity for the education people and the C'ommunity Action people `to get together and the aloofness of education from some segments of society to which Dr. DeHart referred. This very serious gap, this very serious breakdown in communica- tion, I think is being repaired very significantly although in a very modest way and in a beginiiiiig way by title I of the Higher Educa- `tioii Act of 1965. The community services in the continuing education program, I will have some more specific references to that program in my remarks later. Mr. QrnE. You have title I of the Higher Education Act where the institutions of higher learning get into community assistance. Then you have title I of the Elementary and Secondary School Act which in a way does away with elementary and secondary school sources espe- cially overlapping with OEO and then OEO being community activi- ties, especially community action. If you don't have any coordination of these agencies I wonder if we are still going to be running off in many different directions. Now you do have `coordination within your regional office of the activities under title I in higher education, and anything in elementary and secondary. Now you suggest, Dr. Hellart, that if you have one agency so that it would be coming out of one regional office of course it would, go `throughout the region. Are you trying to give us a rundown what it would be like if you were administering Headstart all under you direction rather than two agencies as it is now? Dr. KNOWLES. Mr. Willard just brought over copies of his paper. It lists all `of the agencies, all the programs. Would you like to see this? Mr. GIBBONS. Not only I would like to see it but we will put it in the record so that somebody else can see it, too. If you will furnish us a copy we will appreciate it very much. Make sure the reporter gets one. At the end of the discussion this morning without objection we will include this m'atter in our record. We appreciate your doing this job for us. We will study it. I assure you. (The paper referred to follows:) PAGENO="0150" 496 U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION SELECTED FEDERAL PROGRAMS IN SUPPORT OF HIGHER EDUCATION New England Association of Colleges and Secondary Schools, Inc., Mount Holyoke College, October 19, 1966 DISCUSSION GROUP: HIGHER EDUCATION John B. Whitla, Assistant to the President, Northeastern University Carl W. Janke, Comptroller, Harvard University MAJOR CATEGORIES OF SUPPORT Construction of Facilities Fellowships, Scholarships, and Student Loans Library Materials and Instructional Equipment Institutional Development Training and Course Development Research CONSTRUCTION OF FACILITIES Higher Education Facilities Act of 1963 Vocational Education Act of 1963 Higher Education Act of 1965 National Science Foundation-Graduate Science and Research Facilities NASA-Space Science Research Facilities Atomic Energy Research Facilities Health Professions Educational Assistance Act of 1963 Health Research Facilities Act of 1956 Nurse Training Act of 1964 Medical Libraries Assistance Act of 1965 Housing and Urban Development Act FELLOWSHIPS, SCHOLARSHIPS AND STUDENT LOANS FellowshipS National Aeronautics Space Administration National Defense Education Act (Title IV) National Science Foundation Atomic Energy Commission National Institutes of Health Public Health Service Nursing National Foundation for Arts and Humanities Air and Water Pollution Elementary and Secondary Teaching Aquatic Science Graduate Education Grants Scholarships: Educational Opportunity Grants Health Professions Scholarship NSF Undergraduate Science Programs Student Loans: NDEA Loans Health Professions Nursing Loans NDEA Teacher Loans Other: Work-Study Program-Economic Opportunity Act IJBRAR~ MATERIALS AND INSTRUCTIONAL EQUIPMENT Higher Education Act of 19435 (Title TI-Libraries) Higher Education Act of 1965 (Title il-Instructional Equipment and Closed Circuit TV) Special Research Resources-Computers (P.H.S.) Research Equipment: Public Health Service Atomic Energy Commission Department of Defense U.S. Office of Education (Handicapped Children) PAGENO="0151" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 497 NSF Undergraduate Instructional Scientific Equipment Program Vocational Education Act of 1946 and 1963 Surplus Property INSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT Quality Grants to Health Professions Schools National Institutes of Health Resarch Health Sciences Advancement Award Biomedical Sciences Support Grant NSF Centers of Excellence Program NSF Institutional Grants for Science NSF Graduate Education Development Projects Developing Institution Program-Title III of Higher Education Act of 1965 Child Welfare Grants U.S. Office of Education-Higher Education Curriculum Development TRAINING AND COURSE DEVELOPMENT Continuing and Community Education-Title I of the Higher Education Act Manpower Development and Training Act Peace Corps State Technical Services Act Law Enforcement Act Economic Opportunity Act: VISTA Job Corps Community Action Programs Head Start Project Adult Education Department of Defense Department of State Vocational Education Act Elementary and Secondary Education Act National Defense Education Act Institutes Juvenile Delinquency and Youth Offenses Control Act Civil Rights Act of 1964 Vocational Rehabilitation Act NSF Advanced Science Seminar Nurse Training Projects' Public Health Training Grants Public Welfare Training Grants Medical Educational Program' RESEARCH Department of Defense : Advanced Research Projects Agency Defense Research and Engineering Defense Atomic Support Agency Information Analysis `Centers Department of the Army Department of the Navy Office of Naval Research Department of the Air Force Public Health Service: Office of the Surgeon General National Institutes of Health National Institute of Mental Health Bureau of Health Manpower Bureau of Health Services Bureau of Disease and Injury Prevention and Control National Library of Medicine National Center for Health Statistics National Science Foundation: Mathematical, Physical; and Engineering Sciences Division Biological and Medical Sciences Division Social Sciences Division Geophysical Research Centers Basic Research Facilities Office of Science Information Service PAGENO="0152" 498 u.s. OFFICE OF EDUCATION Department of State Department of the Interior Ptst Office Department of Agriculture Department of Commerce Department of Labor: Office of Manpower Policy, Evaluation and Research Bureau of Apprenticeship and Training Labor-Management Services Administration Bureau of Employment Security Wage and Hour and Public Contracts Divisions Women's Bureau Bureau of Labor Standards Bureau of Labor Statistics ( )ffice of Education: Office of the Commissioner Bureau of Higher Education Bureau of Elementary and Secondary Education Bureau of Adult and Vocational Education Bureau of Research NASA: Bioscience Space Applications Grants and Research Launch Vehicle and Propulsion Lunar and Planetary Manned Flight Physics and Astronomy Atomic Energy Commission Federal Aviation Agency Vocational Rehabilitation Administration Welfare Administration Dr. DEHART. We have already had one instance in which a pro- gram concerning higher education has been transferred from the Economic Opportunity Act. to the Higher Education Act. While I have not had any statement on that year, I have not asked for such a statement, I would be interested in finding out how it is working. Dr. JOHNSON. As far as t.he Work-Study Program, if that is what you are referring to, the college WTork~Study Program in the colleges of the region is I would say working in an excellent fashion. In talking about the Community Action programs and community agencies we do have this contact and this relationship established in a very real way throughout the region. Of course this is somewhat spotty. Still we don't have a great deal of activity in, let us say, the outlying areas up in Maine, or up in New Hampshire and. Vermont. There are some rather spotty areas. But the college Work-Study Pro- gram is providing students not only a great deal of experience in con- nection with their educational objectives, but also assists them in pay- ing their educational expenses. I do have some statistics on that but I think there would not be ally point to speak on those at this point. I would say that the program is very successful and that colleges are cooperating very well with it. Mr. Quii~. Let us use another example where it does not seem to be successful and that is basic adult education where this is OEO, and Maine has found they may have to cut it out next year. Dr. JOHNsoN. That is where we have lack of coordination. We have no responsibility directed to us at all in connection with adult education. That is in the Bureau of Elementary and Secondary Education, not in the Bureau of Higher Education. PAGENO="0153" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 499 Dr. DEHART. It is the responsibility of the State department of education to operate it. In the field of adult education many State departments of education have not yet developed any great strength. In some of the States here, and in other States throughout the Na- tion, I daresay there is a great need for improving the State depart- ment of education leadership-which present legislation is doing in many areas quite effectively. They are responding but this is going to take time. They just don't have the know-how. They don't have representatives trained in this field. There have not been public rela- tions programs between State departments of education and local school districts and supporting public to lmow the values of basic adult education. There again I think the present legislation provides the ways and means of stimulating growth so that the future need not look too black. I don't think the start has been too good in many eases in New England. But I am not entirely hopeless about it. Mr. QUIB. They said they made the start and there was Federal assistance for administration and now that was being removed and they didn't have the budget. Dr. DEHART. This, sir, is a very, very vital factor. This has come out of every one of the meetings at which I have spoken conducted by Congressmen Representatives and Senators, for local administrators; 1 have attenJed about 70 of those here in New England. Every one of those has brought out the fact that Federal programs should in- clude money that can be spent for administration and money that can be spent to hire in dommunities that don't know "grantsrn~nship," if you will allow the use of that coined term. This would permit them to hire enough expert help to develop applications, do the necessary back- ground research and so forth, so that the small place will have the same opportunity in competition for funds and getting applications in on time as the big city that has research specialists and so forth. Mr. GIBBoNs. Why do we have to have all these fancy, complicated applications? It would seem to me that you could work up forms and then send them out to communities and let them check off what they seem to need instead of having to have some expert come and write up some long-winded program that no active person is going to have time to sit down and read. I don't know who reads all this stuff. Mr. QITIE. Let me use an example of how a Federal program does as you suggest. The ACP program in agriculture is devised ill Wash- ington. It is sent out to the State. There they'make the change to make it fit the State. They send it to the counties and they accept the parts. that fit them. Locally, they make the decision on what they are going to do, but it is only that which fits them. They don't have to revise it with the `high-priced planners. Dr. DEHART. Simplication of those documents would be a godsend and boon to education. Right there because we have lost one secretary in this freeze we have 83 appiications'that are just waiting to be typed. Now that is `a long, printed form, and essentially what they have to find is' a cost factor and the number of eligible kids to find' out how much the local school district gets. But it takes the typist the better part of an hour to type that thing up after there has been a day of fieldwork by the men in the field to bring back the data, and another day to write up the reports. PAGENO="0154" 500 U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION Mr. GIBBONS. For the life of me I can't see the necessity of getting high-powered scenario writers to go out in the field to write up these scenarios and then pawn them off on the agencies. I have picked up a hundred of them and tried to read them. I would say 90 percent of the material in each one of them is the same. The verbiage may be a little different. It looks to me it is something where you could almost put the information on a punchcard and get it done. Am I oversimplifying the thing or am I correct? Dr. DEHART. I think you have raised a challenge that ought to be looked into. I think everybody that looks at them in the region- everything that you are criticizing is done in Washington and it is not shared in the region. We don't have voice in it at all. Mr. GIBBONS. You even have to hire readers in Washington to read the programs. The agencies can't read them. They are read outside the agency. Then they get a one-page summary. I don't understand it. I was wondering if there was some good reason for it. What do you think about it as educators and people in this field? I see some of the people in the audience smiling back there. Dr. DEHART. I think these complicated forms confuse people who are working in the field. I don't know how the average layman who is the object of the benefits of these programs can be very happy with them if he can't read them easily and understand them thoroughly. But I understand that they are developed on the basis of policy by professionals and that they all have to be reviewed by lawyers, and then they all have to be approved for a cost factor by people interested in granting money down there. I suppose by the time all these people get them through and have them legally and technically correct they have the kind of document they need but they really need simplifica- tion in general. Mr. GIBBONS. These are the kinds of things that are bounced back and forth time and time again, the local people tell us, because they have not filled out "page umpty-ump" correctly. Are you people bouncing them back or do they come baek from Washington? Dr. DEHART. They come back from Washington, generally speak- ing. Dr. JOHNSON. Except in the student financial area. Mr. GIBBONS. Let us talk about student financial aid. There is nothing really unique in each institution about it. Does every institu- tion have to develop a very complex program and write it all out in scenario form? Dr. JOHNSON. No, I don't feel what they have to do is unreasonable at all. I think the application they submit is quite reasonable. We ask the kind of information we really have to have in order to evaluate how much these institutions should be granted. It is our responsibility to do that. These are funds that are limited in amount. They have to be distributed to the institutions to the max- imum extent possible. In the student financial aid area we do ask for information in connection with the institution's own student fi- nancial aid programs, in connection with the enrollments, in connec- tion with the costs to attend that institution. PAGENO="0155" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUC4~TION 501 We ask them to make careful estimates of the amount of money which they will need to supplement their own student financial aid pr~grams. This concerns all the grant programs under the Work-Study and the National Defense Student Loan Program and on that basis we then are able to make some kind of reasonable judgment as to the validity or reliability of their estimates. We really need to have that in order to do this. If the institutiOn just came to us and said now we want $50,000 for a college Work-Study Program, that would not be adequate. If they said we need to have $100,000 for loan money, "Well, on what basis?" We need to know the basis. This I feel is quite true about a good many of these programs that we see carried on by institutions not only in the student financial aid area. There are many programs where actually a legal contract has to be set up because there is money in- volved there. We definitely plan in a certain way by law, and con- sequently I feel to a fairly great extent it is necessary to have some of these scenarios you speak of. I think we do have to have some of them. Whether they have been overdone, they require too much and some should be cut off; that is something that we can argue about. That is probably where we are. Mr. GIBBONS. May I change the subject here briefly? I am watch- ing the clock. I want to get to Dr. McCann. I realize he is not a Federal employee and he has an interesting statement here. Mr. HATHAWAY. Dr. Johnson, don't you have periodic conferences with the Washington office of t:he Office of Education? Dr. JoHNsON. Certainly. Mr. HATHAWAY. So that these guidelines that you get in the field are talked over? Dr. JoI~NsoN. Yes, sir; we have direct conferences with our Wash- ington program offices. We are in constant contact with them. Speaking of them in preparation of these guidelines, I must come to their defense. They also are bothered with this problem of staffing. For example, just to give one illustration, we have been trying to get out a manual for the policies and procedures for the National Defense Student Loan Program now for quite some time this has been delayed because of the staff limitations and inability of the staff to be assigned for that purpose. We have a manual but the manual has to be revised constantly in order to bring it up to date because of the amendments that have been passed since the original act was passed. There have been a great many amendments and significant changes. Mr. GIBBONS. You mean we don't have the manual yet on the NDEA program? Dr. JOHNSON. We have an oldmanual. Mr. GIBBONS. How old? Dr. JOHNSON. 1964. Since then there have been a number of amend- ments that have been enacted. In fact, the amendments in the Higher Education Act are significant amendments. This is a problem. But the Washington staff has been struggling to get this out. We are constantly in touch with them and reminding them of the importance of this very thing. PAGENO="0156" 502 ms. OFFICE OF EDUCATION It is highly important. Something should be clone about it.. That is an example of the kind of thing we run into a. great deal. We, of course, in advising the institutions on very technical matters have to provide the best of answers we possible can without recourse to a manual. Tins is rather difficult when you are dealing with 160 insti- tutions at the same time and all of which have questions. Mr. HATHAWAY. Do you think that is the reason the application has not been simplified, they don't have the staff to put on the job? Dr. JOHNSON. I wouldn't say it is simply a matter of multiplica- tion of staff. I do think the staff time so far has to be very carefully thought out and coordinated. It is not simply a matter of having staff. It is a matter of leadership in the development of these various forms and manuals, and so on. Once a. staff is made possible and leadership is there-and I believe the leadership is there-we can do something about it. Mr. GIBBONS. We have just had a staff conference, and we decided we have not amended that act since 1965. It was at that time the Office of Education brought us in the amendments they suggested. They withheld revising the manual until Congress changed the law. It is a little hard to believe they can't change the manual in a year. Dr. JOHNSON. You a.re entirely correct. The Higher Education Act of 1965 enacted on November 8, 1965, of course contains those last amendments. They are the ones that are very, very critical. I must admit that I do think that our Office should have produced a. manual before this time but I want to defend them, too, that they have been short on staff. Mr. Qure. It was their suggestion, all those amendments caine out of the Office of Education. They should have known how they were going to administer it before they recommend it.. Dr. JOHNSON. That is right. However, all these amendments have been clarified and the implications have been carefully described and set clown in memorandums that have been sent to all institutions. In other words, in a definite sense the institutions have all received the information regarding these amendments and how these amend- rnents affect the programs which they are administering. So the insti- tutions are not without information on it. It. is merely that we have not a compendium called a. manual bringing up tO date all the amend- ments, not only 1965 laws but the preceding amendments in 1964. Mr. GIBBONS. Th~se small institutions just don't have the staff to put together all these different publications that come rolling out. I have seen junior colleges in t.he NDEA programs in my area that have been snowed under with a massive amount of administrative detail where they never really knew whether they were right or wrong. Dr. JOHNSON. We maintain a. service from our Office visiting all these institutions and providing them with this kind of administrative material. In fact., I have copies of that right here with me. Mr. GIBBONS. How man auditors do you have? Dr. JOHNSON. IVe don't have any auditors associated with us di- rectly. We work in coordination with the HEW Audit Agency. They do, of course, perform definite fiscal audits, with some program review functions added to it. Mr. GIBBONS. In the student assistance programs have all institu- tions in your geographical area been audited at least once? PAGENO="0157" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 503 Dr. JOHNSON. No; they have not been. That of course is not under our control and they should have been. But every institution in our region has been visited more than once and they have had program reports made out by us. You see, I have been in this work since May 1959, and I have visited every institution in the region in this connection, and many of them several times, and written reports on them. Mr. G-IBBoNs. Excuse me a minute. What you are saying is very interesting to me and the rest of the cprnmittee, but we have Dr. McCann. I feel we are transgressing on what should logically be his time. I hope you will stay with us a while longer, Dr. Johnson, and we will come back to you. Without objection, all the statements of all the witnesses will be placed in the record at the beginning of their testimony. Dr. McCann, you may proceed. STATEMENT OF DR. RICHARD V. McCANN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MASSACHUSETTS HIGHER EDUCATION FACILITIES COMMISSION STATEMENT OF DR. RICHARD V. MCCANN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MASSACHUSETTS HIGHER EDUCATION FACILITIES COMMISSION My name is Richard V. McCann. I am the Executive Director of the Higher Education Facilities Commission, Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The Higher Education Facilities Commission was established by Chapter 388 of the Massachusetts Acts and Resolves of 1964 to administer Title I of the Higher Education Facilities Act of 1963, the program of Federal grants for the construction of undergraduate facilities. . . . From its inception, I sat frequently with the Commission as the official representative of the Commissioner of Edu- cation, and came on as Director in September of 1905 after serving the Com- monwealth as Director of Research for the Advisory Board of Higher Education Policy. In Fiscal 1965, this Commission awarded (that is, recommended to the United States Office of Education) Federal shares for construction amounting to some- what over $7 million. Of this amount, $2.9 million was granted to four public institutions, and $4.1 million to 7 private institutions. Section 103 of the Act makes provision for public two-year community colleges and public two-year technical institutes. The Federal share under Section 103 ($1.2 million) was awarded to the first institution in the newly developed family of regional community colleges to move from rented and renovated facili- ties to a new campus. This policy, you will be interested to know, is now being followed by the Board of Community Colleges-namely, one of the community colleges, as it reaches the point of readiness for the development of a campus, is designated by the Community College Board in annual sequence as the insti- tution to apply for Federal assistance under Title I. The amounts distributed under Section 104 of the Act (providing for alt other institutions) provided assistance for three libraries, two library-science combina- tion facilities, and five science buildings (thus reflecting the limitation, under Section 104, during the first year of the administration of this Ttle, to the five eligible subject areas of mathematics, engineering, natural. sciences, modern languages, and libraries.) The Higher Education Act of 1965,. whose Title VII carried amendments to the 1963 Facilities Act, doubled the appropriation for undergraduate facilities and removed the restrictions to. the five academic areas, thus greatly increasing the scope of the program and the opportunties. for participation by our institu. tions of higher education. For Fiscal 1966, this Commission awarded Federal shares amounting to $13.9 million-$5.3 million for private institutions, and $8.6 for public, the latter total including an award of $2.5 million for the new campus of the second public community college to qualify under this Act. The variety of the purposes of PAGENO="0158" 504 U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION these facffities-5 libraries, 4 science buildings, 5 general classroom buildings, 2 renovations, 3 library-classroom combination facilities, and 3 specialized facilities, including a swimming pool for instructional purposes-reflects the greatly in- creased flexibility and scope of the program subsequent to the removal of the restrictions as to subject area. At about the mid-point of Fiscal 1966, this Commission was designated as the agency to administer for the Commonwealth the program for the improvement of undergraduate instruction, by means of the provision of equipment and ma- terials-Title VI of the Higher Education Act of 1965. Under this Title, closely related to the undergraduate facilities program, during the first year of its opera- tion-Fiscal 196(3-we provided somewhat over one-half million dollars-the Fiscal 1966 allotment to Massachusetts-in 29 grants, 10 to public institutions, and 19 to private. The Higher Education Facilities Commission, composed of 19 members ap- pointed by the Governor, has also been charged with the added responsibility of administering Title I of the Higher Education Act of 1965, the program of com- munity service and continuing education. The Commission is assisted on this program by a 17-man Advisory Council, as provided by the Act. The Federal regulations for the Community Services program were distributed very near the end of the Fiscal Year; but despite the split second end-of-the-year timing, our announcement describing this program and inviting proposals was met with 70 applications from 30 colleges and universities. From among these, we funded 20 projects. These are now in operation. The range of the projects shows both considerable scope and a coordinated pattern: 2 on problems of community health 1 on regional planning 3 on municipal administration and the community economy 3 projects on the improvement of educational techniques and content for special groups 3 designed to raise the educational potential of the disadvantaged 2 on problems of employment and under-employment 6 on special problems related to the urban setting. Again, this fall, in response to the notification and guidelines sent to our colleges and universities, we received 68 proposals, of which, with the same allotment for Fiscal 1967 as for Fiscal 1966--namely $231,000-we endorsed 15 projects. These are now being reviewed by the Office of Education and upon final approval will constitute our State Plan amendment for Fiscal 1967. Even handicapped by inadequate lead time on this program, our colleges and universities, both public and private, responded to the challenge and the oppor- tunity, once they learned about it, with what I consider an almost overwhelming demonstration of interest, of alertness, of capacity. They proved beyond a doubt that, at least in this Commonwealth, we have many institutions varied in kind, in size, in sponsorship, in geographic location, that are ready and able to bring their resources-their personnel, their time, their know.how-outside the more traditional confines of the institutional role and program and invest them in the solution of urgent community problems. It is the high hope of the members of the Commission and of the Advisory Council, representatives of the institutions, and of community agencies, that the Congress in its wisdom will provide for the continuing growth and strengthening of this program. We thus are working with over approximately 90 eligible institutions of higher learning in this Commonwealth at some of the most critical and essential levels- providing expansion of facilities, equipment for instructional improvement, and direct engagement in the problems of the community. On many matters in the administration of these programs, we find ourselves in cccmmunication with various staff members of the Office of Education. I have been struck by the capacity and the understanding of these people and by the patient skill that underlies the great assistance they have provided. And I would refer particularly to Charles Griffith, Gail Norris, and Richard Sonnergren in connection with Title I of the 63 Act, and to Al Dubbe and Peter Esseff on Title IV. Our relations with the Office of Education regional office have been most fruitful, particularly as reflected in the ready assistance and sound advice always available from the regional representatives for the facilities and equip- ment programs, John Edwards. PAGENO="0159" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 505 In launching the Community Services program, Title I of the Higher Educa- tion Act of 1965, we were convoyed safely through the reefs and ledges at the first stages of what is still a voyage of exploration by Paul Delker, Eugene Welden, and Jules Pagano in the Bureau of Adult Education. Regarding the administration of the programs, I could wish for more infor- mation from the Office of Education on matters affecting the States arid the Commissions, and particularly more lead time to embody changes and inform institutions. Regarding the grant programs, I confine myself here to concerns with and suggestions for the program of facilities construction (Title I, Act of 63) While absolute objectivity was required, and was in fact secured, for the process of determination of Federal grant awards, It was obtained at the expense of eliminating qualitative and programmatic considerations from the priority criteria. The emphasis, quite understandably, had to be on expansion of enroll- ment capacity rather than, for example, on creating opportunities for moving into new fields that would require new academic facilities, and thus improving the programmatic and qualitative aspects of the institution's plans and goals. It is not only in the best interests of our colleges and universities that they be encouraged and assisted in keeping up to date in the rapidly changing techno- logical fields and other current emphases, but it is very clearly in the national interest as well. In Massachusetts more than three-fourths of the students enrolled in higher education are in private colleges and universities, a pattern that is almost the mirror-image of a state such as California, and quite different from the national average. It is apparent that the expansion needs will be met primarily by the public institutions and that the private ones will tend more and more to spe- cialize. Sufficient flexibility for an equal opportunity for both kinds of plans might well be provided in revised regulations and related state plans, thus per- mitting the shaping of programs to suit more freely the requirements of the individual State. The appropriation of Federal funds for long-range planning of the development of facilities is as creative a step as was the removal of the restrictions to the original five subject areas. We have not yet been informed as to the details of the planning procedures. We urgently hope that curriculum needs-of the institution, of the area, of the times-and other programmatic and qualitative considerations will be al- lowed a strong but controlled, voice along with enrollment needs and projections. Once again, I emphasize my awareness of the difficulties of scoring, of deter- mining priorities in what constitutes a state-wide competition for the funds available when other than quantitative factors are present. But the objectivity of the determination of grant awards has been clearly and firmly established; I do not fear that it would be shaken by the introduction of more and more qualitative and programmatic considerations. I conclude this portion of my testimony by returning for a moment to an administrative consideration. As you know, the Office of Education contracts the pre-approval engineering and architectural processing as well as supervision during construction to the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Both of these stages `are beyond the scope of the State Commission's administration. However, I should like to call your attention to a problem that persists at the latter of these stages. Several recipients of Title I grants, both private and public but particularly the latter, have found the post-award procedures of grant administration har- rowing, particularly the construction supervision. The procedures are bound and tied with inelastic red tape. The staff `at H.U.D. in both the New York and Boston offices are, I am informed, most obliging and helpful in guiding the appli- cant through the maze of red tape, but are powerless to cut it. The endless ap- provals, re-approvals, assurances, verifications, conformances, certifications, reports, and controls could `be streamlined to resemble the procedures of the National Science Foundation, which are simple and direct without endangering the Federal interest in the project. Appended to my printed remarks is the statement by one institution describing its tribulations during the construction supervision phase and offering further suggestions for betterment. I do not intend to reflect on either the competence or the capacity of the H.U.D. staff, all of whom are highly respected. But it is to be hoped that when the PAGENO="0160" 506 U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION decentralization of the Office of Education takes place and OE brings engineering and architectural staff to the regional offices, the outmoded rigidities of the construction supervision will be superseded by more flexible methods. COMMISSION MEMBERSHIP The Honorable William H. Vanderbilt, Oblong Road, Williamstown (Chairman) The Very Reverend Michael P. Walsh, S.J., President, Boston College, Chestnut Hill (Vice Coairman) Mr. J. William Belanger, Director, Division of Employment Security, 881 Com- monwealth Avenue, Boston Mr. Theodore Chase, 53 State Street, Boston (Chairman, Massachusetts Board of Regional Community Colleges) Dr. Joseph L. Driscoll, President. Southeastern Massachusetts Technological Institute, 741 State Road, North Dartmouth Mr. Louis J. Dunham, Jr., Director, Franklin Institute, 41 Berkeley Street, Boston Mr. Frederick Ferry, President, Pine Manor Junior College, Chestnut Hill Dr. Kenneth H. Fox, Fabric Research Laboratories, Inc., 1000 Providence High- way, Dedham (Chairman, Board of Trustees of the State Colleges) General James M. Gavin, Arthur D. Little Company, 25 Acorn Park, Cambridge Mr. Kurt M. Hertzfeld, Vice President for Administrative Affairs, Boston Uni- versity, 755 Commonwealth Avenue, Boston Dr. Owen B~ Kiernan, Commissioner, Massachusetts Department of Education, 200 Newbury Street, Boston Dr. Asa S. Knowles, President. Northeastern University, Boston Dr. John W. Lederle, President. University of Massachusetts, Amherst Dr. Martin J. Lydon, President, Lowell Technological Institute. Lowell Dr. Thomas C. Mendenhall, President, Smith College, Northampton Dean John Monro, Harvard University, Cambridge Mrs. Muriel Snowden, Associate Director, Freedom House, 14 Crawford Street, Roxbury General Harry P. Storke, President, Worcester Polytechnic Institute, West Street, Worcester Executive DirectOr: Dr. Richard V. McCann, Higher Education Facilities Com- mission, 45 Bromfleld Street, Boston S~GGEsTIoN5 FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OF POST AWARD GRANT PROCEDuRES FOR TITLE I AND TITLE II PBOaECTS In accepting a grant, a college or university is required to provide USOE with certain assurances. These may be grouped roughly as. follows: 1. Financial, legal, and eligibility status of the institution as related to the project. 2. Compliance w-ith federal statutes. 3. Design and Construction. 4. Management and Operation of the completed facility. Although assurances given are reasonably checked and confirmed, much reliance is placed on the integrity of the institution; especially in the important category of management and operation of the faculty for a twenty year period. In contrast to this, the assurances related to design and construction are not only checked, they are policed. The Department of Housing and Urban Development, which has been desig- nated as the agency to protect the federal interest during the design and con- struction phase of a project, has designed elaborate safeguards and procedures in stich depth and detail, that they would effectively provide the protection of federal interest required for dealing with an unscrupulous real estate promoter. Colleges and universities, all of which have considerable construction experi- ence in recent years and have generally established procedures for contract administration, are required to change procedures and forms and adapt those designed by H.U.D. Hardly any decision can be made without H.TJ.D. approval in advance. The architectural contract must be approved Plans and specifications must be approved certificate as to project site must be approved (again) PAGENO="0161" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 507 Land description and plot approved Evidence of ability to finance approved (again) Addenda to specifications must be approved Proof of advertising for bids furnished Selection of low bidder approved Certifications on the part of the low bidder approved Subcontractors approved Approval of executed contract documents A preconstructlon conference with H.U.D. Field Engineer is required before contractor can proceed. Change orders approved Budget deviations approved During contruction, progress schedules, weekly payrolls, project supervision and inspection, payments to contractor, insurance, safety and equal oppor- tunity are under constant H.U.D. review requiring reporting and letter writing as well as inconvenience to the contractor and owner. In a like manner, the procurement of equipment is subject to control and advance approval. An equipment list must be sent to USOE for approval; detailed specifications, bid invitations, and contract documents covering each equipment item must be sent to H.U.D. for approval. Prior to award, certi- fied bid tabulations and other documents must be sent to R.U.D. for concurrence in the proposed award. Change orders and budget deviations must also be approved by H.U.D. After delivery, another report of equipment received must be sent to H.U.D. All of these reports are to be made on special forms. It should be noted that all of the above must be done even though not one cent of federal money has been dispensed. Before an institution can receive any of their grant funds, the following adth- tional safeguards have been provided: 1. The institution, working through the H.U.D. regional office obtains the latter's assurance through actual inspection where appropriate, that terms of the grant applicable to construction, have been met thus far. 2. The H.TJ.D. regional office prepares a certification of compliance. 3. The applicant submits a request for funds covering that portion of the work completed together with the Certificate of Compliance. 4. USOE verifies and processes request and forwards payment installment. 5. Final payment is made only after a final audit by USOE. From the above it can be seen that much time and expense is incurred in getting various approvals. One architect, who has been through the maze several times, estimates that the administrative procedures associated with a Title I grant represent an additional $50,000 of cost. A construction agency supervisor related that, on a project which was bid without grant and then a short time later with grant, the price in the latter instance was $32,000 higher. It is believed that in dealing with colleges and universities which are certainly responsible, reputable, bodies, that much of the in-between policing and reporting associated w-ith the construction p'ha.se of a project could be eliminated to the benefit of all concerned. After the grant agreement has been signed, it would seem that an inspection and certification of compliance on the part of the Re- gional H.U.D. office would be sufficient assurance to allow an installment pay- ment. A final payment would, of course, be subjected to a final audit. The National Science Foundation, which has been in the business of dispensing construction grants since 1950 has developed a procedure which is simple, efficient, and expeditious. It also complies with the same or `comparable laws under which Title I and Title II grants are administered. The system used by N.S.F. is essentially as follows: A. A grant application is submitted. This `application contains about the same amount of detail as that of Title I and Title II grants except that it includes a listing of proposed equipment. B. An on the site conference is held between N.S.F. and institution repre- sentatives to discuss merits, feasibility, etc. C. An agreement is signed by the grantee which .contains assurances sim- `liar to those required `by Title I and Title II. D. At the time th.e project is awarded, the grantee is required to submit plans and specifications, a list of participating bidders and a revised project budget (based on the contract award) to N.S.F. N.S.F. reviews the data and advises the grantee as to the acceptability of data and compliance with the agreement. 73-728-67-pt. 2~11 PAGENO="0162" 508 U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION E. Funds are provided the grantee as needed by means of a simple request letter. F. Brief annual progress reports are submitted to N.S.F. until the time of completion of project. G. A completion report of the project is submitted to N.S.F. and approved or disapproved by them. H. A post completion inspection and audit is conducted by N.S.F. per- sonnel to assure that all terms of the grant have been met. Informal discussions with N.S.F. personnel indicate that they have experienced no major difficulty in protecting the federal interest by such a procedure. Dr. McOANN. Mr. Chairman and Mr. Speaker, and other members of the committee, I will pick up your suggestion, Mr. Chairman, and perhaps select some of the highlights of my report instead of reading the whole thing. My name is Richard McCann, executive director of the Higher Edu- cation Facilities Commission for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. This commission was established by the Massachusetts Legislature to administer title I of the 1963 Higher Education Facilities Act for the construction of facilities for undergraduate programs. As you may remember, at first during the first years of the activities of this Act throughout the Nation, the program was limited to facili- ties for engineering, mathematics, the national sciences, modern lan- guages, and libraries, that is for all but community colleges and 2-year technical institutes in which case the other subject areas were eligible. The plan of administering the facilities grants by a State commis- sion I believe was determined since the local, agency could be in much closer touch with the institutions in a State than could the central Office of Education in Washington which administers titles II and III, the graduate facilities construction program and the loans program of the same act. Incidentally it is true, Mr. Chairman, that. I am not. a Federal em- ployee although all our grant funds and our administrative moneys arc Federal. This is a. State agency. I feel somewhat like a Federal wolf in State clothing, or wearing a Federal jacket. and State trousers. At least there is an interesting combination here which is much to be desired. I would like to review, very briefly, the kind of things the commis- sion accomplished during its 2 years of operation so far. Mr. GIBBONS. May I ask a question there? Did Massachusetts, prior to the Higher Education Act have any agency or institution roughly corresponding to what you are doing now? Dr. MCCANN. No. My own work, which was somewhat comparable to this was as research director of the advisory board of higher educa- tion policy but this dealt only with the public institutions. Of course with this program we are dealing with the eligible institutions, both public and private. About $7 million was the Massachusetts allotment in fiscal 1965 for community colleges. This was on a 40-percent basis as you prob- ably are aware and for other institutions it was on a 33'%3-pe.rcent. basis. In tha.t first year of operation $2.9 million was granted to four public institutions and $4.1 million to seven private institutions. The system in this State is extremely interesting and I think very well done to PAGENO="0163" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 509 administer section 103 which, as you know, is devoted to public 2-year colleges and technological institutions. That is, in sequence as one of this new family-which are regional in Massachusetts-as the regional community college becomes ready for moving to a campus rather than remain in renovated, or borrowed, or rented facilities, as they develop their program and staff and are ready for a permanent site, then that institution in sequence annually is designated by the community college board to be the applicant under the Higher Education Facilities program. And also, inciden- tally, to be the No. 1 priority among the community colleges family for candidacy for the capital outlay program by the Massachusetts Legislature. So that now pending before us with the November 15 closing date is the third application from a community college in a sequence of 3 years. In 1966 the appropriation was doubled nationwide and the allotment for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts for this facilities program is approximately doubled. Also, the restrictions as to the five original subject categories eligible for this act were removed. This I consider to be a tremendously valuable step. In fiscal 1966 the Masachusetts commission awarded Federal shares of just under $14 million. In this case there were $8.6 million for public institutions which included $2.5 million for the new campus of one community college which I mentioned earlier. So that in that year we have $5.3 million for private institutions and $8.6 million for public, including the large construction of the new campus of the second community college. As you see in the report, the new movement in that year reflected a tremendous or at least I should say marked increase in the scope of the kind of institution, the kind of facility that could come under this act. This was no longer limited to the original five categories. Mr. QUIE. May I ask a question? Swimming pools have defeated so many local bond issues in high schools. Why do you feel that the swimming pool was more impor- tant than perhaps some classroom for the humanities that must have been lower on the priority list? I see you list a swimming pool for instruction purposes. Dr. MCCANN. This was an institution in which it was clear this was not a recreational purpose. This was an institution whose spe- cialty is physical education and their outmoded pool has been a tremendous handicap in moving on in the program that they are presenting. This was an instructional procedure, instructional f a- cility, and not a recreational facility. From the point of view of the various criteria on which the institutions were rated on statewide com- petition, this was one of the winners. Mr. Q.rnE. Were they training swimming instructors? Dr. MCCANN. Yes. They weren't just teaching their students to swim; they were training students who will, go out in our public schools and teach the subjects. In other words, the major focus of the institutional curriculum as a whole is training teachers of the various physical education activities. I included that, I believe, as an example of the somewhat unusual movement into these other allowed areas of the removal of the restrictions of the first original five. PAGENO="0164" 510 u.s. OFFICE OF EDUCATION In latter fiscal 1966 the Higher Educational Facilities Commission was designated to carry out the provisions of title VI of the 1965 Higher Education Act, a program providmg equipment and mate- rials for the improvement of undergraduate instruction. In the first year of operation of that program we provided somewhat over ~1.5 million in 29 grants, 10 of them to public institutions and 19 to private institutions. As you can see, this title is very closely allied with the facilities constructioli program which within itself already included provisions for certain kinds of instructional equipment but not materials. Then the next step, and I am trying to give you a brief review of the three prog~ams for which the commission is responsible, this commission was given the added responsibility of administering title I of the Higher Education Act of 1965, its community service pro- gram. And an advisory council consisting of 17 people was ap- pointed to assist the commission in administering this act. The setup, the launching by Washington of this program came very, very late in the fiscal year. Consequently, the directives out of Washington were late getting to us but we were of course in touch with the institutions in spite of that~. I bring this out particularly to show the response to this program we received, once we issued the invitation and the information about the Federal regulations, we received 70 applications from 30 of our colleges and universities. Among these, we funded 20 projects in each one of which a commu- mty problem of some urgency is identified and then methods of con- tributing to a solution, particularly through an educational program for service. You see here a summary of the problems by general problem area. Then again this fall when the second round of programs was made available by the fiscal 1967 appropriation for this particular title we received 68 proposals from -which we funded 15 programs under the same allotment as the preceding. Again I want to stress the fact that our institutions seem to be very interested, alert, and capable of moving in this direction which is now made possible for them. This is not entirely new, of course. These institutions already have clone this kind of thing. However, they prove by this response to these two closing dates for this particular title that they are capable and alert and willing to bring their re- sources, particularly their personnel, outside the more traditional con- fines of the institution and Into the life of the community, to bring them into confrontation with community problems. I would be remiss not to add here that we are very, very hopeful- the institutions and all people concerned with the administration of this program both in our institutions and in the community agencies and in local government agencies-that this program will receive sufficient appropriation in subsequent years to expand and be strength- ened. So in the total scope of the three programs of our commission we are working with the approximately 90 institutions in the State on these three levels, and developing and expanding the potential at home, and developing improved curriculum throughout the provisions of equipment for this purpose in direct engagement in the problems of the community and of the region. PAGENO="0165" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 511 I would like to summarize my remarks on this page which is really my feeling of extreme appreciation for the kind of help we have received from the people who are responsible for these three programs in Washington. I think you have some absolutely excellent people, particularly Gail Norris, Charles Griffith, and Richard Sonnergren, who are dealing particularly with the construction facilities pro- gram, Al Dubbe and Peter Esseff who are operating title VI, and Paul Delker, Eugene Welden, and Jules Pagano, who have been very crea- tive in developing community services programs. Mr. GIBBONS. I am kind of interested when you get down to page 7 there. I am glad you made those remarks complimenting some people, but I notice on page 7 you get to be pretty straightforward, Doctor. I -wonder if you would be sure to hit that for us. These are sOme of the things that we need to know. We are glad to hear all the nice things. I want to say the nice things outweigh the things that should be corrected, but we certainly need to know where the prob- lems are. Dr. MCCANN. There are several points I made in this direction, not the one that your eagle eye caught on page 7. I will take that perhaps in sequence with the others. I will say that even though I feel that these programs have moved very creatively and very imaginatively with scope for institutions to develop new departures, yet I feel that there are improvements that can be made. One of these is a much better communication between the State agency and Washington. They are always available when we initiate the contact. They don't initiate the contact nearly as much as I would like to see, particularly through providing us with stages of development and information and not just final development of information. Particularly, more leadtime is needed in order for us to embody changes in our State plan and administrative procedures, and also to get this informa.tion to our participating institutions. Another problem which I think is worthy of comment here, and I will refer specifically here to the construction program, is that I am very hopeful that in addition to the objective criteria or standards that prevail in the regulations thus reflected in the determination of Federal grant awards, that more programmatic and qualitative aspects will come in. Of course one of the key reasons for this program was the development of the expansion of enrollment capacities in our institutions throughout the Nation. This was proper. This was the focus of the program at first. In order to meet the tremendous demands for these Federal funds, absolutely objective and fair procedures had to be developed for determining who would be the winners or recipients of these grants. This was done. Now I think the time has come for adding more qualitative aspects, more programmatic aspects. For example, in our public institutions here I think is going to be the major continuing expansion of enroll- ment capacity. Our private institutions will probably move more in the direction of specialization. Institutions which do not plan ex- tensive enrollment capacity ought to have the same grounds, shall we say, the same luck, the same chance, the same opportunity to get a grant under the facilities construction program as an institution planning considerable enrollment capacity. PAGENO="0166" 512 u.s. OFFICE OF EDUCATION This is one level at which I think a change would be appropriate. Both from the point of view of flexibility and from the point of view of permitting institutions to move in programmatic directions which will suit the needs of the area., will suit the changing needs of the times. Such considerations are greatly needed in the design, the continuing changing design of this program. I realize that the objective nature of scoring a huge program like this in which at most closing dates your demand far exceeds the supply has to be kept completely fair, completely objective. Yet I do feel that the qualitative, the program- matic, the curriculum needs, the movement in new directions on the part of our institutions, should play an increasingly decisive role in the determination of grants. Mr. QUIE. Do you think you are competent to make that evaluation in the. State or do you think that nee.ds to be done on a Federal level? Dr. MCCANN. You mean `an evaluation of the- Mr. QUTE. Qualitative aspects. Dr. MCCANN. Yes, I do. Mr. Qu~. You think it can be clone in the State? Dr. MCCANN. Yes, I do. Mr. Quru. You think it can be done in the State? Dr. MCCANN. Yes. I think representatives of a commission such as ours and I know a. similar type of commission exists,in the TJnitecl States, a representation of small and large, different types of institu- tions and of the general public will `be able to make ths kind of deter- mination. I see also the possibility for increased coordination and in- creased cooperation on the part of the Office of Education itself, through the new decentralization process. Here I think being in close touch with the total processing from the receipt of applications right through to the determination of grants, the determination of the grant awards to the construction phase, I think this whole thing cen- tered in the regions will make this procedure even more effective. ~ow in comuection with this, there is one further administrative consideration. In addition to the very needed addition or, shall we. say, infiltration of greatly needed qualitative considerations and programmatic consideration into the State plan, I would like to turn from this programmatic factor to an administrative consideration. That is that we have heard about a considerable reflection of difficulty on the part of institutions in the latter procedures. Now I bring this up as an attempt to contribute to a resolution of some of these difficulties even though the post.grant procedures of the facilities program lie beyond the scope and responsibility of the inch- viclual commissions. Several recipients have found the postaward procedures, particu- larly that during construction supervision, to be frankly harrowing. These procedures seem to be bound with redta.pe and the staff of the Housing and Urban Development Administration, though extremely helpful and extremely capable in assisting the applicant, guiding the applicant., are unable to cut this redtape. lYe have seen many ir~- stances of this. The endless procedures-w~hich can easily be identi- fied as approximately 2 dozen-could really be streamlined to make this construction phase more efficient.. Several of the suggestions we have received have referred to a parallel between the possible new proce- dures or possible streamlined procedures and those used by the Na- PAGENO="0167" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 513 tional Science Foundation which evidently are quite direct and much simpler and at the same time adequately protect the Federal interest iii the project. Now I have appended to these remarks a statement by one institu- tion which describes its tribulations during the construction phase and which offer suggestions for improvement. This final point that I am making does not in any way intend to reflect on the competence or the capacity of the HUD staff, all of whom are highly respected, but it is to be hoped that when the decen- tralization of the Office of Education t.akes place and the Office of Education brings engineering and architectural staff into the regional offices, that the rigidities of the construction supervision phase will be superseded by more flexible ways and means. Mr. QUIE. Will or should be? Dr. MCCANN. I hope they will be. They should be. Mr. GIBBONS. Just contrast for us briefly the difference between the technique that the National Science Foundation uses in its grants and what comes out of the Office of Education supervised by HIJD for this title I facility. Can you tell us in layman's terms what the difference is? Dr. MCCANN. Follow with me just briefly the suggestion pagewise appended to this preliminary statement of mine. In the procedure as at present you see at the bottom of the first page the various ad- vanced approvals and followup approvals that must be made. The approval of the architectural contract, plans and specifications, the site certificate approval, the approval of the land and plot description, the financial ability. This of course is an inevitable requirement. Proof of advertising for bids, approval of the selection of low bidders, certifications on the part of the low bidder approved, subcontractors approved. I would say in connection with this that an extremely long negoti- ation was required in order to reach the kind of compromise method of contract particularly in the subcontracting. In the bureau of building construction of the Commonwealth one method was used, in HUD another method was used. It took nearly half a year to resolve this particular problem. Mr. GIBBONS. What do you mean by the words "again" shown in parentheses? Do you mean those already approved? Dr. MCCANN. Yes, followup approval. The approval of the budget, even the very, very small budget changes within subsidiary accounts need to be approved. As you can see, there ace about two dozen steps here, all of which are very time consuming. The National Science Foundation pro- cedure which is outlined on page 3 follows the grant application which is about approxiniate to that required in both title I and title II. The site conference follows, the agreement is signed by the grantee containing assurances similar to those under title I and II. Plans and specifications are submitted at the time of the project award, a list of participating bidders and based on the contract award revised project budget submitted to NSF. Then data are reviewed and then the grantee is advised as to the acceptability of the data in compliance with the agreement. PAGENO="0168" 514 U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION The next step is a simple request. letter for funds. Brief annual reports arc submitted to NSF up to the time of completion of the project. The completion report is submitted, and then postcomple- tion inspection and audit is conducted. The suggestion has been made that as this program moves on some aspects of the National Science Foundation procedure can be approximated rather than the niuch more intricate procedures that HUD still uses based perhaps on its earlier administration of very intricate housing projects. Mr. GIBBONS. iou feel that HUD is carrying over to public insti- tutions or essentially public institutions some of the things that they have learned or had to do when they were dealing with private con- tractors, buildling apartment houses and individual homes and things of that sort? Dr. MCCANN. This seems to be a possible reason why the pro- cedures are so intricate, so involved and why the applicant now working in an academic facility is really so badly hampered. Mr. GIBBONS. Could you give us any suggestions other than to sa.y that the HIJD procedure was 50 percent more costly or time consum- ing than the National Science one? Can you make any rough esti- mates as to what is involved? Dr. MCCANN. I have several estimates ranging between $32,000 and $50,000 extra cost in administering the construction supervision in this way. That is to the individual institution. Mr. GIBBONS. On what size building? A million dollar building? Dr. MCOANN. These two ranges ra.nge from one and a ha.lf to three. That is not a very substantial percentage of the. total con- struction cost but it is something that certainly has to be considered. Mr. GIBBONS~ Mr. Quie, do you have any quest.ions? Mr. Qura. No. Mr. MCCORMACK. I would like to invite the attent.ion of Dr. De.Hart to this. I read with interest on page 4 of your statement the observa- tion on your part and I quote: One important point to observe in the process is that an extension of field services does not impose an extra layer of administration to block free com- munication between the field and the central headquarters in Washington. To me that would presuppose that in your mind there has been or there is now such a blocka.ge to just.ify an inference on your part to that extent. Will you .clarify that? Dr. DEHART. Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will try to do that.. When the field service was first extended there was then fear in the minds of many educators that establishing an extended field serv- ice might impose an extra la.yer of administration through which the public, the education community and the general public will have to go. There was fear in the minds of many educ.ators that. extension of t.he regional service might impose an extra layer of administration, a barrier as it were, through which people in the field would have to go in order to reach Washington's central headquarters. It was never the intention, and it seems not to have worked out that. way, because we have kept open channels of free communication between the field, commissioners of education, superintendents of schools, colleges and universities, and the public in general directly to Wash- PAGENO="0169" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 515 ington when it better seemed to meet the needs of the people in the field to contact Washington directly. It was felt, however, that many services could be more effectively and more quickly rendered at the regional location than they could be rendered in Washington. If that were the case, and as people were assigned to the regional office of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, they could within the limits of their authority obviate the necessity of the local people having to go to WTashington every time they wanted to know something or to get something from the Office of Education. I think it has in general worked out that way. We provide serv- ices in the region where such services seemed to be justified. But there is no requirement that a commissioner of education, for instance, has to go through the regional office in order to reach Washington. Mr. McCoRMAcI~. Has there been blockage of communication in the I)aSt? Dr. DEHART. We have had no inference of blockage, that kind of thing. In fact, it has been quite the contrary. The people in the field have taken advantage of the regional services. Yet they have con- sistently maintained the opportunity, the freedom, the privilege-call it what you will-of picking up the phone and calling the Commis- sioner of Education or any of the Bureau chiefs down there when they felt they could get an answer to a question that was beyond the au- thority of the regional office. We have had no complaint from our six commissioners of education on that score. In fact., just the other day one of them told me that he had just picked up the phone and called somebody in the Commis- sioner's office in Washington and said, "We like this system, you are here when you can help us but we know we can get there as fast as the telephone and get our voice down there when we need them." Mr. McCoR~iAcIc. So that this observation of yours is not an ex- pression as to the difficulty of the past or the present but the expression of hope that the difficulty will not exist? Dr. DEHART. That is correct, Mr. Speaker. There has been no real evidence of it but the posibihity of it is mentioned from time to time. We feel strongly in the office that there should not be a blockage of free communication between the public and Washington. Mr. MCCORMACK. That is all. Mr. HATHAWAY. Dr. McCann, you indicated on page 4 that 15 of 68 proposals were endorsed by your office. Was that selection made only in view of the amount of money that was allotted, that is, were all 68 proposals good ones, or was that narrowed down because of the money? Dr. MCCANN. Not every proposal was totally appropriate to title I. For example, some were a little more appropriate under the Elemen- tary and Secondary Education Act. However, the majority of them were. In general, the boiling down of 68 to 15 is caused by the limit of the Massachusetts allotment. Mr. HATTIAWAY. Do you have any idea of how muchi additional funding would be nece~sary to finance all of the ones you consider worth while under title I? Dr. MCCANN. The total of approximately $1 million will be neces- sary to finance all those 68 programs. PAGENO="0170" 516 U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION Mr. HATHAWAY. You said some of them were not really applicable under title I, but for the. ones that you considered to be good projects under title I how much additional financing would be entailed ~ Dr. MCCANN. That would be the answer. Mr. HATHAWAY. About a million dollars? Dr. MCCANN. In other words, about four times the amount of money would have financed the ones that. we thought were appropriate. Mr. GmBoNs. We are running a little overtime. We want to thank those who have taken the time to attend this morning. Dr. Johnson, we want to talk to you a little later today about some of the things you have talked about. Since we are running so late I will close by saying thank you very much for your kind attendance and for the valuable information you have given us. I imagine we will be seeing all of you a little later on today and tomorrow. If we have any questions about the things that you have talked about we will be in touch with you by phone. Thank you very much. The meeting is now adjourned. (The formal statement submitted by Dr. Johnson follows:) STATEMENT BY EINO A. Jouxsox, ACrING OFFICER IN CHARGE, Bu~Au OF HIGHER EDuCATION, REGION I Mr. Chairman and members of the Special Subcommittee on Education, I am Elno A. Johnson, Regional Representative of the Division of Student Financial Aid and also, since September 20, 1965. Acting Officer-in-Charge of all Bureau of Highere Education activities in Region I. It is my pleasure to appear before you this morning to outline briefly the nature and scope of the activities in which the regional office of the Bureau of Higher Education is engaged. At your request. special reference will be directed toward the general student financial aid programs in our institutions of higher education to w-hich the Federal Government contributes essential funding. The regional BHE office is charged w-ith many responsibilities in addition to those concerned specifically with student financial aid programs, although these have been and will probably continue to be a major area of responsibility. In general terms, the office provides expert consultative and advisory services to institutions of higher education, professional organizations, State agencies, and individuals on problems and problem areas arising in the administration and management of Federally-supported programs in higher education, with special attention given to student financial aid and institutional and faculty development and construction programs. This calls for cooperative effort be- tween these various constituencies in the Region and the office looking toward possible participation by them in various other programs provided in the Na- tional Defense Education Act, the Higher Education Act, the Mutual Educa- tional and Cultural Exchange Act, and in other legislation having implications for higher education. In the area of student financial aid programs, a greatly increased responsibility has been assigned this year to the regional BHE office. In effect the regional office is now responsible to make the final decision- subject only to appropriate administrative confirmation-on funds to be allotted to individual institutions of higher education to operate the student~financial aid programs in which they wish to participate. Paralleling this responsibility is the on-going responsibility to examine into and evaluate, quantitatively and qualitatively, the administration and management of the Federally-supported student financial aid programs in all the participating institutions in the Region. These responsibilities are by no means exhaustive of the many the regional BHE office undertakes to carry. These others include organization and par- ticipation in special workshops. special and follow-up conferences with imli- viduals and institutions, promotion of understanding of legislation aimed to- ward improvement and development of individuals, efforts toward coordination of higher education resources and general and specific community needs with provisions appearing in separate legislative enactments. PAGENO="0171" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 517 To carry out these responsibilities the present professional regional BilE staff is composed, of an Acting Officer-in-Charge, a Field Representative for the Division of Student Financial Aid, a Regional Representative for the College Facilities Branch, and a Program Analyst; a Secretary-stenographer and a Clerk-stenographer comprise the secretarial and clerical supporting staff. Responsibility of this office for the administration of Federally-supported student financial aid programs in institutions in the Region, is a major one. As objects of primary responsibility, these SPA programs are: the National Defense Student Loan Program (`Title II, PL 85-804), the College Work-Study Program (Title I, Pt. C, PL 88-452), the Educational Opportunity Grant Program (Title IV, Pt. A, PL 89-329), Contracts to encourage the Full Utilization of Educational Talent (Title IV, Sec. 408, PL 89-329), and the United States Loan Program for Cuban Refugee Students (PL 87-510, as amended). Concurrent with these SPA programs, and also in certain respects w-ithin the area of primary responsibility of this office, is the Guaranteed Insured Loan Program (Title IV, Pt. B, PL 89-329)-although the loan funds for this program are from private sources, Federal subsidy of interest benefits necessitates supervision by Federal officials of certain aspects of operation of the program. In respect to these SPA programs, the regional BilE office is directly involved in the total process of participation in the programs by individual institutions in the Region. This involvement includes, (1) advisement and instruction of new, and also formerly participating, institutions preliminary to application for funds, (2) action on applications for funds, and negotiation as necessary, (3) special services for organization of the programs in new institutions, (4) con- tinuing advisement of all participating institutions on special problems, and on changes in legislation and regulations, (5) quantitative and qualitative program reviews, and consultation with chief administrative officers on recommendations consequent to review and also audit by other Federal offices, (6) special action and follow-up on special problem areas, viz, NDSLP collection, non-conformity with legal requirements or regulations, staff utilization, communication and records, etc. It may be instructive at this point to elaborate on the practices being carried out by the regional BilE staff in connection w-ith activity (5) noted above, "program review procedures". These procedures result from the experience of this office in reviewing institutional NDSL program operations over the past seven years, and the CWSP over the past two years. Although the present procedures are directly specifically toward SPA programs, it is hoped that this same approach could be adapted and applied for reviewing and promoting institutional management and administration of other Federally-supported pro- grams in institutions of higher education. The steps in performing individual reviews of SPA program areas are as follows: Step 1: Intensive On-Site Program Review, requiring on the average one man-day per program. This review proceeds point by point along orderly lines which are detailed in respective review outlines entitled, "Guides for Program Administration and Program Review" (sample copies of these "Guides" are available for examination). Institutional program and fiscal officers receive copies of these "Guides" for study and reference. Step 2: Program I? eview Report, prepared in the regional office following each program review, describing the institution's administrative structure and practices for each program and detailing those practices w-hich are found to be in need of improvement, and offering specific recommendations (copies of sample "Program Review Reports" are available for examination). Step 3: Post-review Conference taking place approximately three or four weeks after the on-site review of the program (s). This important confer- ence is held between the BHE Acting Officer-in-Charge and the folTowing institutional officials: President (or his delegate). Program Institutional Representatives. Program Fiscal Officers. The Program Review Report (s) is (are) delivered to the President and his staff at this time and its (their) contents discussed point by point. The President is requested to summarize in a letter to the BilE Regional Representative the actions the institution plans to take, or has taken, to meet the recommendations made in the Report (s), including recommendations made in reports following earlier reviews performed by the Regional Office staff, or/and by other OE and HEW audit agencies. PAGENO="0172" 518 U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION Step 4: Transmittal of copies of Program Review Reports and of pertinent correspondence to Washington OE Program Office (s) concerned. Step 5 and 6: On-site Program Re-review and Probation Review and Con- ference are steps under present study, proposed to be carried out in specific, documented cases of substantive deficiencies in the program management and administration. The above type of approach to program supervision is held to be essential for securing reliable information on how well institutions are carrying out the responsibilites they accept in signing the terms of "Agreement" as a condition for participation in respective programs. Small-group workshops for institu- tional SFA officers are also being held, and have been found to serve a useful purpose, but it must be emphasized that only through person-to-person involve- ment in the examination of actual materials of program operation can con- structive and mutual understanding be achieved. Such supervision is necessary, w-hatever size in monetary terms a program assures. But it may be instructive to point out that since its beginning and through the present fiscal year, New England institutions of higher education have been entrusted with approximately $67,500,000 of Federal funds to use as loans to students imder the National Defense Education Act. In general, institutions have accepted this trust magnificently and have striven to use the funds only in such a manner and for such a purpose as the legislation and regulations require. However, with their own problems constantly looming up before them, particularly in matters of staff restrictions and turnover, lapses in required attention to important details do frequently occur. Thus the effort of this office in respect to this program alone must continue, and should be strengthened. to maintain even the present level of reasonably good administra- tion by the participating institutions. In this connection it is estimated that with the present staff, the regional BHE office will be able to perform intensive on-site reviews of programs (NDSLP, CWSP, and EOGP) in only 76 of the 160 participating institutions in this Region in FY 67. In conclusion, a reminder may be offered, and it has to do with the all- important matter to rapport and cooperation. It has been my happy experience throughout the past years of work with all the institutions in the Region that these qualities have always characterized our relationships with the institutions. Despite problems and various irritations, a mutual trust has been established and difficulties ironed out constructively through cooperative effort. (Whereupon, at 1~ :13 p.m. the committee was recessed, to recon- vene at 9 :30 a.rn. the following day, Saturday, December 3, 1966.) PAGENO="0173" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION SATURDAY, DECEMBER 3, 1966 HousE OF REPRESENTATiVES, SPECIAL SUBCOMMITTEE ON EDUCATION OF THE Co~IMrrrIE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR, Boston, Mass. The committee met at 9: 30 a.m., pursuant to recess, in the Carl S. Eli Student Center, Northeastern University, Boston, Mass., Hon. Sam M. Gibbons presiding. Present: Representatives Gibbons and Hathaway. Staff members present: Dr. Eunice Matthew, Education Chief; Charles W. Radcliffe, minority counsel for education; Maurice Harts- field and Mrs. Helen Phillipsborn, members of the professional staff. Mr. GIBBONS. Dr. Ohrenberger, we are very glad to have you with us this morning. Since you know Mr. Hathaway, I won't go into his credentials and introduce him. I am Sam Gibbons. We appreciate having you here, a man who has an intimate experience with the operation of a large school system in a highly metropolitan area, to tell us about some of the problems and some of the pitfalls of legislation that we have passed and the opera- tion of the Office of Education. So, we will let you proceed, Doctor. STATEMENT OF WILLIAM H. OHRENBERGER, SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC SCHOOLS FOR THE CITY OF BOSTON; ACCOMPANIED BY MR. TOBIN, DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS; AND MR. KENNEDY, OFFICE OF COMPENSATORY SERVICES (Dr. Ohrenberger's prepared statement follows:) PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. WILLIAM H. OHRENBERGER~, SUPERINTENDENT OF ScHooLs FOR THE Crn~ OF BOSTON INTRODUCTION Mr. Chairman and Members, I am William H. Obrenberger, Superintendent of Public Schools for the City of Boston. I should like to identify and describe briefly, the different programs in which we are currently involved, that are administered directly or indirectly through the U.S. Office of Education. Should the members of this Committee desire more detailed descriptions of any program to which I shall refer, I should be happy to provide this information. Elcinenta'ry. and ~Secondary Education Act First and foremost are those programs funded under the various titles of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. 519 PAGENO="0174" 520 u.s. OFFICE OF EDUCATION I. Under Title I, the Boston Public Schools received, for the school year 1965-66, $3.1 million for program operation. It is anticipated that $3.6 million will be allocated for this purpose this year. Of this amount, approximately $2.8 million will be spent on compensatory and enrichment programs operated by the Office of Compensatory Services. The remainder, approximately $800,000 will be spent on the innovative experimental program operated through the Office of Program Development. Both the compensatory and experimental pro- grams are being operated in disadvantaged areas throughout the city, benefiting approximately 29,170 children. II. Under Title II of E.S.E.A., the Boston Public Schools received $172,000 for the purchase of books and audio-visual materials to provide or improve school library facilities. This sum was administered by the Massachusetts Department of Education in conformity with its State Plan. III. Under Title III of E.S.E.A.. the Boston Public Schools submitted a plan- ning proposal to the U.S. Office of Education which was approved and funded for S207.000. *This proposal includes five different planning projects which have now been initiated under the supervision of a Title III Coordinator within the office of Program Development. IV. Under Title IV, the Boston Public Schools are actively cooperating with The Institute for Educational Innovation which has received a federal grant to plan improvement of urban, suburban, and rural education in the New England area. The Boston School System, serving the largest and most varied urban popula- tion in New- England, has every intent of pursuing and expanding its participa- tion in this project. Ot1~er prOgra117.S adnhtnistcre(j tli rough U.s. Office of Edvcatiom Boston is participating in other programs administered partially or completely by the U.S. Office of Education. These include such programs as: A. Operation Head Start. B. Neighborhood Youth Corps. C. Adult Basic Education. D. Educational Enrichment Programs in conjunction with private schools. E. National Teacher Corps. OTHER SOURCES OF FEDERAL FUNDING Federal legislation under which the Boston Public Schools receive funds for the operation of other programs or the purchase of supplies and equipment in- cludes: A. Smith-Hughes Act. B. George-Barden Act. C. National Defense Education Act. D. Manpower Development and Training Act. E. Aid to Federally Impacted Areas Act. F. Economic Opportunity Act. G. School Lunch Program. H. School Milk Program. I. Vocational Education Act. EVALUATION OF E.S.E.A. PROGRAMS It is still a little early thoroughly to evaluate the effectiveness of our programs. However, presently available data substantiate the following findings : Our com- pensatory programs have brought about improvement in pupil reading achieve- ment, general academic performance, and attitude toward school. There is a strong evidence of decline in pupil absenteeism and truancy. Our experimental programs have also improved pupil performance in aca- demic subjects. In addition, individual case studies and questionnaires to parents have revealed increased enthusiasm for school activities on the part of the pupil and the parent. During the latter part of the 1965-1966 school year we assembled an Inter- University Evaluation Committee to react to our evaluation procedures and to suggest possible improvements in our methods of assembling and interpreting PAGENO="0175" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 521 data. Many recommendations of this committee have already been adopted. These and further recommendations should improve the quality of our evalua- tion tecimiques for the current school year, and enable us better to interpret the effectiveness of our programs. Advantages of Federal assistance That federally sponsored programs have been of great benefit to our schools cannot be denied. Without such assistance we would have been unable either to extend our compensatory services to disadvantaged children, or to initiate our experimental program. We feel that both of these programs will have a far-reaching effect on the entire school system and will greatly improve the quality of education in Boston. Thus, it now seems obvious that the continua- tion of these newly-initiated or expanded educational programs hinges upon sus- tained federal support, and, hopefully, increased federal funding. Additional views and comments I have been asked to comment upon the administration of federal programs through the U.S. Office of Education from the viewpoint of the local educational agency. In general, I should like to compliment the Office of Education for the efficient way in which it has handled what must have been a monumental job of organization and administration. The qualifications and reservations that follow should not be taken as adverse criticisms but rather as suggestions that might be helpful in future legislative decisions affecting education. 1. All federal legislation affecting education might better be administered through the U.S. Office of Education rather than through several different agencies, departments, or bureaus. It would expedite matters at the local level tremendously. Evidence of the need for this is the fact that many di- rectors of federally funded programs in our school system are not clear as to which is the responsible federal administrative agency for their programs. 2. We realize full well that Congressional decisions cannot be anticipated. Still, in~ofar as possible, local educational agencies would benefit greatly from knowing reasonably in advance: a. changes in emphasis or interpretation of present legislation; b. changes in amount of funding or allocation of funds; and, c. proposed new legislation. 3. Allocation of funds for Title I programs should be made as early as possible in the spring, rather than in September. It is in March and early April that most school departments make plans for the coming school year in the areas of supplies, equipment, personnel, and curricular programs. 4. The January 15 and July 1 deadlines for the submission of Title III operational proposals fall at inconvenient times. From the standpoint of the local educational agency, a mid-spring deadline would be more realistic. 5. It would be extremely desirable if ESEA funding grants under Title I were guaranteed for a minimum of three years. This would permit long range planning in previously mentioned areas. 6. More assistance might be given to State Department ofEducation under Title V to insure staffing adequate to meet the administrative demands aris- ing from greatly expanded federal education legislation. 7. At present, federal funding under Title I is not adequate to meet the needs of all the children for whom the legislation was designed. The pres- ent program serves approximately one half of the culturally `and eco- nomically disadvantaged children in this city. In addition, funds are lacking to extend city wide, proven experimental and innovative programs now being conducted on a limited scale. There is a definite need for at least double the present amount of allocated funds for the two principal reasons previously' mentioned. 8. Cooperation and communication between the local educational agency and the community action agency should be encouraged in every way. With this in mind, we have already established a joint liaison committee involving the Boston Public Schools and Action for Boston Community Development. However, it should be made abundantly clear by a clarification of present federal directives that, while either agency may react to the programs of the other, neither may exercise a veto power over such programs or delay the implementation thereof. In closing I should like to thank the committee for the opportunity of testifying today. PAGENO="0176" 522 u~s. OFFICE OF EDUCATION Dr. OHRENBERGER. Thank you~ Mr. Chairman. First I would like to present Mr. Tobin, on my right, deputy super- intendent of the schools; and Mr. Kennedy, who is the director of our compensatory education program. I would like to preface my remarks by indicating to the committee that the Boston Public Schools, the largest school system in this par- ticular area, some 93,000 pupils, is particularly grateful to the Federal Government for the great help that we received through the Ele- mentary and Secondary Education Act, and many other acts. We really marvel at the way the Education Department has put this program on the road, so to speak, in such short time. It is a very difficult assignment. We cite and appreciate the complexity of such a terrific undertaking. But we have been able to do some things in Boston for which we feel there is a great deal of credit to the Office of Education and for that reason we are very, very happy to be here this morning to tell you a little about what we are doing with the funds that you are providing. Tinder the Elementary and Secondary Education Act under title I we received last year about $3.1 million and expect this year about $3.6 million. Of this amount, we spend about $2.8 million in the area of compensatory education, and this involves enrichment. This par- ticular program is run by the director of this particular department. The remaining $800,000 is spent on a program which develops imaova- tion, hopefully to discover materials and programs that would help us a.nd should be expanded throughout our city. This we call our model subsystem. I think it is unique. I think it is something that has received a great deal of credit. Frankly, it is in its infancy and we don't have too much to report on it. Tinder title II, we received about $172,000 for the purchase of books, visual aid and materials, and library facilities. This is administered through the State department of education, as the law provides. Tinder tItle III we have $207,000 for a planning program which has five separate projects. We expect this particula.r program to be reported on so that our submission in January hopefully will give us an operational grant. We also are working very closely under title IV through the Institute for Educational Innovation, which also has a planning grant at this particular time. In addition, I am sure that with the Office of Economic Oppor- tunity we will operate. a Heads~a.rt program and Neighborhood Youth Corps program, adult basic education and enrichment program iii conjunction with private schools in the area, and National Teacher Corps and then, of course, the many other sources of Federal fi.ind- ing, the Smith-House Act, George-Barden, national defense. For all these, we are very, very grateful. in the area. of evaluation, however, at the present time we do not feel that we have an evaluation that could be considered completely scien- tific, that is self-evaluation. We do have very, very strong convic- tions, however, that, for example, our reading achievement in our dis- advantaged areas has met an advance in the general academic per- formance in our schools. We see a great evidence in the decline of absenteeism and truancy. We also feel the cooperation now in the community, and parent participation that perhaps was lacking before. PAGENO="0177" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 523 Now I cite these to indicate that we feel that without the Federal aid we could not have expanded the program we had started. The compensatory education was `started as a Boston pilot program under our own funds. We felt we had something that we thought was at least breaking the surface for making great inroads in the problems of urban education. We expanded it the following year through our own funding. My teachers, incidentally, gave up a pay raise that year so that I could do it. I thought it was a terrific demonstration of their loyalty to us. Then the Elementary an'd Secondary Acts came along. We ex- panded to 16 districts and increased the type of activity appearing in the original 12. It is `our feeling, however, that the funds are not adequate for us to touch all the pockets of difficulty that we have in the `city. We feel we `should expand at least to 12 more districts, and perhaps `double the number of districts we have at present. We also feel, in the innovative area of our title I project, that if we discovered something that would be dynamic and terrific we would be short funded to expand this to the disadvantaged areas and particularly to the whole city. It is our feeling that many of the programs that we hope to dis- cover and we are discovering could not be advanced if we don't have the proper funding. For what we have done to `date we are grate- ful. We hope this particular committee can return to Washington and make sure that we can at least live, `and hopefully that `we will be expanded. I am sure this is what you have he'ard everywhere else in America. Mr. GIBBONS. Dr. Ohren'berger, let me ask a question: What is the number of pupils in your school system? Dr. OHRENBERGER. About 94,000. Mr. GIBBONS. What is your `annual budget? Dr. OHRENBERGER. About $53 million. Mr. GIBBONS. You have `about $3.5 million from the Federal Government? Dr. OJIRENBERGER. That is right. Mr. GIBBONS. Thank you. Dr. OHRENBERGER. Now actually I have indicated the far-reaching effect that the Federal funds have made for us. I do feel, however, that we can't continue without continued support from the Federal Government. Now I have some views `and comments that I think might be interesting to this committee because I think it might grease the way or really smooth out the participation in the future. I have indicated that the Department of Education must `have: h'ad a gigantic pr6blem putting this great machinery into operation but I am certain that what I would say now should not be considered as faultfinding, but I think ways in which we perhaps could improve it. For example, I `am sure on my staff-this is a large school system-~ we have to break it up into segments `and I have directors for various divisions and subdivisions `and my directors indicate to me many, m'any times that it is difficult for them to know which agency is supplying the funds under which they work. I am sure that this is not `new to you but it is very difficult for us, indicating that it would be desirable to have some `sort of unity here, 73-728-67-pt. 2-12 PAGENO="0178" 524 U.s. OFFICE OF EDUCATION perhaps working through the Office of Education alone. For example, I am thinking of one particular project that was funded through OEO, which is now coining through our title I funds. These have necessi- tated changes within my owii staff. Without warning, a program funded under OEO, that I must find a piece of under my title I funds if it is to be continued-adult basic education. These are some of the things that are difficult for us. It is also very difficult for us to operate full force at the reopening of school when funds are not allowed to us in midsummer. Now the big difficulty for a school system of our size is to get the personnel to do the job. It is impossible to pick them up in the middle of the yea.r. In fact, I would be very frank `to say to you that I would guess we have increased our staff between 300 and 500 different people as a result of our title I funds. I couldn't get these people in the middle of the year. If the funds come in the middle of August it is impossi- ble for me to have the operation going September 1. We also find it is true in planning. For example, our title III pro- posal is in a planning grant at the present time. Theoretically I should have my operation grant in on the 15th of January. We feel this is unrealistic. The money . came to me in midsummer, I had to develop a staff. I couldn't hire anybody until September 1. I tapped people in my own organization to put the operation into effect. But actually I would have to admit to you I haven't got it going full blast yet. Yet on January 15 we are supposed to make some sort of proposal for an operational grant. Now I am sure that we can talk to the people who are going to hear us but I think a more realistic date could have been arrived at., perhaps early spring, something in that area. Then I should know if the operational grant is going to come because I could not put this into operation on September 1 unless I had sufficient time. Now I realize the difficulties so far as the legislative committee is concerned. It is hard for you. I repeat, I am grateful that the legis- lation was enacted. But to expect too much immediately is a burden put on us. I think there must be' some way of reducing the paperwork for example, that goes with it. 1 think that school systems could sit down in concert with a subcommittee such as this and indicate what we find for ways to make it nm a little better. Mr. GIBBONS. Does having a regional office of the Office of Educa- tion here in your own city provide any assistance to you? Dr. OHEENBERGER. It certainly has. I would have to say at this particular point we have, had a great deal of cooperation from our local office and particularly from Dr. Dellart. Mr. HATHAWAY. You deal directly with that office? Dr. OHRENBERGER. No, all our grants go through the State commis- sion. I am sure when you people have questions to ask about the Bos- ton school system you tap your local office. I have made our records available. They are our problems. As a for instance, we were under investigation for compliance with the Civil Rights Act. Your office came. We opened all our records to them. I let them in. I gave them all `the service we could. I would like to see the report some time. I am sure it has been made. The conclusions must have been good or I would have heard about it. before this. PAGENO="0179" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 525 rllhis is the type of intercommunication we have. This is a two-way street. I think we are doing it very, very well. I mentioned long-range planning. I think the State board of educa- tion under title V could get some adequate staffing. The job of the State board of education must be impossible. I think the guidelines for specific courses could come from the committee. For example, it is very difficult for me to believe that when Headstart was in it.s plamiing days, separate programs from 15,000 different cities could have had too much difference in describing the particular thing. To me this should make an awful impact on Washington, but it does locally. This is where I think the State board of education through title V should have adequate staffing to assist us. I have indicated that I needed twice as much money as I have. To answer the question that you will ask me, why don't I get it locally, the $53 million that I have in my opinion is about 60 percent of what I need to really put quality education into operation. Mr. HATHAWAY. Is any of the sales tax labeled for education? Dr. OHRENBERGER. It is. Mr. HATHAWAY. What is it, 3 or 4 percent? Dr. OHRENBERGER. Three percent. Mr. HATHAWAY. How much of that is labeled for education? Dr. OIIRENBERGER. Practically all of it. Mr. TomN. The sales tax is expected to yield about $150 million. Twenty percent of tha:t comes off tile top for aid to cities and towns. Then there are special educational programs: mentally retarded, school transportation, school lunch program that is taken out. Then the remainder is divided on the formula depending on the equalized valuation and t.he amount spent per pupil in each of the cities and towns. `We should get from the sales tax in Boston somewhere around $16 to $18 million. Mr. HATHAWAY. That will add to this $53 million? Dr. OHRENBERGER. `Wait., I would like to explain this to you. WTe' are in a little bind here in Boston. `We should not make `this specific. `We are `the only `school board in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts that does not have the right to set i'ts own tax rate for its schools. `We have a ceiling. We have filed legislation to eliminate this ceiling. It is never heard, because unfortunately the rules of the general court re- quire a commission of the mayor and city council, or filing by the bill of the mayor and city council, to change it. We had a little success 2 years ago by changing the flat ceiling which at that time was $20.2 million. Previously, I would ha.ve to go with my hat in hand to the mayor and city council. They have been very good to us, believe me. But our school committee is the only school committee in the `Commonwealth that does not have the right, to set their own tax rate for `school purposes. `We are now governed by a formula. Unfortunately this is the thing that I think Mr. Tobin is indicating, pro~ect.ed income is deducted from the formula. So it is still `an inflexible situation. This is a very complex budgetary ar- rangenient. But I am sure next year $53 million, that is one thing we did accomplish, they can't cut back. It has to go up. .. There is only one other thing I have to mention to you that I feel is a very serious thing as far as I am `concerned as a superintendent of PAGENO="0180" 526 U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION schools, and this does not mean that we don't have the cooperation of our local community action group, because I think we do. `We have formed a liaison committee, four from my staff, four from the com- munity action group. `We try to screen everything through this par- ticular committee so that they will know what we. are doing and we will know what they are doing. `LTnfortunately some people in com- munity action groups have the opinion that. they can negate or veto the other proposal. Now this is a deterrent.. For example, this year in t.he submission of my title I proposal it was touch and go down to the very end whether we would get per- mission. Tecimically, the Commissioner of Education could still send my project along but this does not look good to me as a superintendent of schools in my own coimnunity. Unfortunately, the impasse is re- solved. Now I am a men~be.r of the Great Cities Improvement., which in- cludes the 15 largest cities in America. `We meet twice a year. We discuss our problems. I also belong to the ASA group. We meet twice a yea.r. At these meetings we find that. our problems with the local Community Action groups are the same. This is not saying that they are "baddies," or we are the "goodies," or vice versa.. I think there should be great cooperation. I don't think that the right, of veto should be held up by a school system which has the right .t.o reject any proposals of the Community Act.ion group, or vice versa.. `W'~ll, those are the suggestions I could make. Mr. GIBBONS. Doctor, we will put your formal statement at the. beginning of your testimony t.his morning. We appreciate what you have sa.id here. Let me ask you, does the Conmnmity Action group agency contract its programs throughout? Dr. OHR.ENBERGER. `Yes, the Headstart. program, part of it. Last. yea.r we had about half of it. Let me give you a "for instance." I think this is an excellent example. We were so impressed with what happened in Headstart, we had some preliminary work with prekinderga.rten. `We had two prekinde'rga.rten classes of grants I think I received from the Ford Foundation, and we were quite im- pressed with this. This gave us the model for our Headstart program. Now the preschool and the Headst.art, I am sure you are aware that the Headstart program is really a preschool program with social serv- ices and medical services added. As a. result of the success tlia.t we had in Boston this year, starting last Sepetember, we had kindergar- tens in every district and prekindergartens in every district. I am sure there is not another school system in America. that. has this. Now, we did this out of our own funding. I still think that there may be some small group-this is permissive educat.ion, you understand. The law does not give me the power to have people attend. I would say that a IIeadstart program for next summer is desirable in Boston but certainly not in the proportions that we had any other year. Now hopefully I will be able to get some funding to provide the social services a.nd the health services for the kids who are in my pre- kindergarten. This is something we are going to work out.. This is something where our liaison cOmmittee, four and four with the Contmunit.y Action~ in the school system, can work in conceit and hope- fully čome tip with somethii~g. PAGENO="0181" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 527 Now Headstart means different things in other parts of the country. Headst.art to me means something before kindergarten, prekinder- garten, in Boston. Yet I am sure there are plenty of places of this type in America, in fact in Massachusetts-one-third of the school sys- tems in Massachusetts do not have kindergarten, so 1-Ieadstart in some communities would be kindergarten. This is where there have to be some guidelines drawn~ and I am sure you are aware of this. During the G-rea.t Cities meeting which was about 2 weeks ago in Milwaukee, I brought this to the attention of Mr. Shriver, who was one of our speakers, indicating that there should be some type of balance so that Headstart in one place has a little of the same con- notation as in another. I think the same thing is true of the Teacher Corps. This is just a supposition on my parL In some. parts of the country I think Teacher Corps means training somebody with a high school education to assist teachers. Locally, it means training persons who have qualified for degrees, but not degrees in education, to be retrained and oriented into supplying me with the type of leadership we require here. Mr. GIBBONS. How many Teacher Corps people do you have here? Dr. OHRENBERGER. At the present time, four teams of Teacher Corps. We had a great deal of difficulty here. Many of the road- blocks that I have talked about today were precipitated because of our experience last year with Teacher Corps. You see, it wasn't funded. There was a situation in the Teacher Corps where the local schools of education applied for the training and setting up of a program for the training. We were not involved. This is a. place where the public school system should have been involved. I have something to say about the objective~s and what we expected to accomplish. This, however, was not palatable. Last summer when it became evident that I had four Teacher Corps teams in my school system, we were then brought in to draw' up our proposal. We had to rapidly get a proposal drawn-which we did. Then we had a terrific draw-back because of agreements we made with these people about salary. This is the place where Federal and local control-nobody should tell us in Boston what salary we should pay our teachers any more than I should tell somebody in California what salary they should pay their teachers. This is one of the roadblocks. We are for the Teacher Corps. I asked for 17 teams. I wound up with four. Mr. HATTIAWAY. When you run the Headstart program you run i~ exclusively? Dr. OTIRENBERGER. No, I do not. Last summer's program was partly run by the Boston public schools with the health and social component run by the local CAP, ABC action for Boston. They ran half that number in locations that I established providing the teachers, and so forth. However. w-e both have the same curriculum. Mr. HATHAWAY. OEO does not dictate to you what teachers you should hire when you run the Teacher Corps? Dr. OH1mENBERGER. My teachers dictate to me but I can't dictate to them whom they hire. Mr. HATHAWAY. We ran into this problem in Maine a. couple. of days ago. PAGENO="0182" 528 U.s. OFFICE OF EDUCATION Dr. OIIRENBERGER. Naturally I feel that anything that involves education should come under the local superintendent as the execu- tive officer of the school board in that district. Every private school in this area has to account to me and superintendents in my geo- graphic area regarding the curriculum and number of days in session. I feel that the State law here indicates that there is a group of per- sons who are charged with excellent and proper procedures for education. Mr. HATHAWAY. Did you say you had any title III projects approved? Dr. OBRENBERGER. I have none operational. I have the planning grant in title III where we have something that is really dynamic. \Ve are planning for first of all the education specifications for a new campus-type high school. Secondly, some fringe area schools. What I mean by this is elementary schools built in areas that would draw a better mix from the densely nonwhite neighborhood contiguous to a white neighborhood. Then I have a planmng grant in this which will provide a special type service with Tufts Medical, where I would be teaching physically handicapped kids in a normal situation with normal type kids. Also, we have something on mental health, and we have something on speech difficulty. Mr. HATHAWAY. These you discuss with the Commissioner of Education? Dr. OHREXBERGER. Yes; everything is submitted to the Commis- sioner of Education. Mr. HATHAWAY. It is not a State plan for this? Dr. OHRENBERGER. At the present time, as you probably know, Massachusetts has been a leader in education for the emotionally dis- turbed and special classrooms. So we have a gigantic program on- going. There is constantly the plowing of new fulds. At the present time, the emotionally disturbed is a real problem, not only to us but to the entire country. I think a lot of the groundwork has been laid here. Mr. HATHAWAY. What about the private school participation under title I in Boston? Mr. T0BIN. For the past three summers, in fact before any of the Federal money caine in, we have been running a program with six private schools in the vicinity of Boston on the summer program for elementary and junior high school children. The private schools have been using their own money, plus money from foundations, to run this program. It has been very very successful. They would like and I would like to see them come in under title I. As the superintendent has indicated, we could use much more title I money right in our own school system, so that we have not been able to designate any part of our money for t.heir use. Dr. OHRENBERGER. We thought we would be funded under title I in November. Actually we were funded in February. In February I had $3 million for 6 months. Now the worthwhile programs have to be funded for 12 months under my ~3.6 million. In the meantime, our schoolteachers had a salary raise. Now I have to start this out. on my own. The point that Mr. Tobin makes is that this minute this very desirable program, which we look on with a. gTeat deal of favor, is not in our title I proposal. PAGENO="0183" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 529 Mr. HATHAWAY. You had a little difficulty until you had the Attor- ney General's ruling on the parochial school participation which just came recently? Dr. OHRENBERGER. Yes; but fortunately, our program started under funds provided through foundations. Mr. T0BIN. The ruling allowing them really to come in caine so late that they had to cancel for last summer. Hopefully they will be in next summer. Mr. KENNEDY. We have had active participation of parochial school pupils in the after-school and summer-school phases of our title I program. Mr. HATHAWAY. Don't teachers that teach in the public schools teach in the parochial schools-special reading and classes like that? Mr. KENNEDY. Yes. Mr. HATHAWAY. Do you use mobile units here.? Mr. KENNEDY. No. Mr. HATHAWAY. Are they committed to class during class time? Mr. KENNEDY. No; after. Mr. GIBBONS. Dr. Ohrenberger, do Mr. Tobin and Mr. Kennedy have separate statements they would like to file? Dr. OHRENBERGER. No, thank you. I think that we have indicated our gratitude to you and reemphasize the fact that we still need much more help. Mr. GIBBONS. Can you tell me about Operation Exodus? Dr. OHRENBERGER. Yes; he will be happy to talk about Operation Exodus. We have open enrollment in the Boston schools. Any child in Boston may go to any school his parents wishes him to go to regard- less of his class. There are three things necessary: A seat available, the proper course, and that the parents supply the transportation. So we operate it. Some 7,000 of our families children take advantage of this. Operation Exodus is a fraction of this particular group. This is a group of parents in the district that wished to take advantage of open enrollment, but did not have the funds. I have said publicly that I would be willing to provide transportation for all of them, but I can't provide for all of them because I don't have this kind of money. It would be impossible for me to pick a segment of the 7,000 to provide transportation for, however, because this in my opinion would be dis- criminatory. These people through their own energies, and I give them a great deal of credit for this, have attempted to raise funds privately to continue this. particular program. It is difficult for. me to know how many of the 7,000 pupils are actually part of the Exodus program. We rely on their figures. They say there are approximately 800. This, as briefly as I can say it, is t.he Operation Exodus program. Mr. GIBBONS. Then t.here are no 89-10 funds in operation? Dr. OHRENBERGEIm. There are none. Mr. GIBBONS. Thank you very much. We appreciat.e it.. I am sorry, we would like to talk to you all day but we still have a lot of others scheduled to appear. Dr. OHRENBERGER. I am very grateful for this opportunity. It has been nice knowing you. I think many of you have seen Mr. Tobin. I send him to Washington every chance I can. Mr. GIBBONS. Dr. Arbuckle? PAGENO="0184" 530 U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION Wnithout any formality we welcome you to our conference this morning. WTe turn the floor over to you. STATEMENT OF DR. DUGALD S. ARBUCKLE, PROFESSOR OF EDUCATION, BOSTON UNIVERSITY Dr. ARBUCKLE. Without any formalities I will just go ahead with this brief presentation, which is centered on the activities of the Divi- sion of Educational Personnel Training of the U.S. Office of Educa- tion. It is equally applicable, however, to any Federal office which has moneys available for education. Let me simply ask a few ques- tions, then try to answer them: 1. Who determines the policies and the procedures in the profes- sional implementation of XDEA, title V-B? The obvious answer, I would think, would be those individuals who are considered by their colleagues to be the most professionally competent in the particular area. An equally obvious pomt is that these individuals are not usually the different officials at the various levels in the U.S. Office. Mr. Gardner, I assume, would be the first to admit that he i~iows next to nothing about the functions and the education of the per- son known as the school counselor. The evidence would tend to at least imply, however, that policies and procedures are being deter- mined counter to professional advice. For example: A. The July 1966 `~Manual for the Preparation of Proposals" indi- cates an increase in the number of short-term institutes, a decrease in the number of full-time institutes. This is counter to the recom- mendation of the American Personnel & Guidance Association, and at the last APGA convention a. recommendation in this direction was unanimously defeated. B. The manual indicates that institutes might be awarded to institu- tions with no graduate programs in counselor education. This is com- pletely destructive of the efforts, over the years, of many individuals in guidance and counseling to develop competent professional programs for the education of counselors. C. The manual indicates that there is no longer any need to submit an inventory of institutional resources, but it is surely obvious to any professional individual in the field that the quality of a proposal must be related to the quality of the program of which it should be a part. A program, for example, which has been experimenting for several years with a 2-year minimal program of counselor education should be able to utilize the taxpayer's dollar more effectively, for the purpose for which it. was intended; namely, the education of counselors, than can an institution which has no graduate program, but refers to a few courses as its offering. 2. What is the source, and what are the specific criteria used in determining the institutions which are to be. offered contracts for NDEA institutes? A. Position papers~ describing in some detail the makeup ~f an effective program of counselor education have been available for several years from both the American Personnel & Guidance Associa- tion and the Association for Counselor Education & Supervision. Since institutional inventories are 110 longer needed, it would appear PAGENO="0185" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 531 that these professional criteria are considered to be unimportant by the U.S. Office. B. The U.S. Office would appear to be setting itself up as the de- veloper of a "model" program which must be closely followed by any institution which wishes to be offered a contract for an NDEA institute. The publicly indicated deadline for the proposa1.s this year was November 12, but long before this the Office of the Director of the Division of Educational Personnel Training was soliciting cer- tain institutions for the submission of institute proposals, and was forwarding to these institutions a special set of guidelines. There was also developed a detailed description of the "right" kind of pro- gram, which was patterned after that developed by one of the directors of an NDEA institute. Such a procedure might raise some question about the sincerity of the U.S. Office in its statedi concern with creativ- ity and innovation, particularly since the professional reaction of counselor educators to this program ranged from all the way from "very good" to "so-so." This, I might say, is a modest statement. During this time it was very difficult to determine just what was happening in the U.S. Office, and various officials contacted gave vague "I can't speak to that," or "You'll have to talk to someone else," or "Things here are very confusing," answers. I could elaborate on this but modesty makes it impossible. Among the institutions which were solicited were the University of Illinois, Michigan State University, and the University of Pitts- burgh. On what I believe to be reputable authority, others which were solicited were Ohio University, Ohio State TJniversity, Univer- sity of Michigan, and the Universit~y of Texas. There are, of course, others. The proposal from Illinois was unacceptable to the U.S. Office, and since the university was unwilling to change it to the satisfaction of the U.S. Office officials, it was not, as of 2 days ago, I I)elieve, offered a contract. All of this, again, was done in a highly secret manner, and as far as the general professional individual is con- cerned, the proposals, submitted up to November 12, are now being evaluated. We can assume, however, that many contracts have already been determined. C. In keeping with the above, the new manual indicates that "The Office may * * * offer suggestions on how an institution might make a special contribution * * * the Office may take the initiative in approaching an institution." This statement is being interpreted most liberally. These again are of course innocent statements but they seem to be interpreted liberally. The evidence at least raises this question: Are a few officials in the U.S. Office setting themselves up as the determiners of the criteria of quality in the education of school counselors? Are they, in effect, manipulating andl controlling the professional direction of counseling and guidance by their use of Federal funds? D. The NDEA institutes for the current year present a revealing picture which raises doubts as to the validlity of the criteria USedl in evaluating institutes. It may be noted that~ in the whole North At- lantic area only one institution, the TJniversiy of Pittsburgh, was of- PAGENO="0186" 332 U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION ferecl a contract. No institutes are to be found in such institutions as Boston University. Harvard University, Columbia University, New York University, Syracuse University, Buffalo, Chicago, University of Michigan, Michigan State tTniversity, University of Wisconsin, University of Minnesota. On the other hand, we may note institutes in such institutions as California State College at Los Angeles, San Diego College, LTniversity of South California, University of Arizona, University of Alabama, University of Georgia, University of Kentucky, Washington State University, Oregon State System of Higher Education (2). Using such standard criteria as quality and number of staff, quality and number of graduates, physical facilities of the institution, diver- sit.y of program, et cetera, the contrast between the two above groups of institutions is illuminating. Mr. Hornig, the President's special assistant for science and technology, has stated that Federal funds were distributed on "the basis of merits of individual program, thus avoiding political judgment.' Does the U.S. Office of Education hold to this point of view? Mr. GIBBONS. Let me ask you a question at this point. Why in the world would such schools as the ones you list up here in the first part of your statement not have institutes? What do you think? Dr. ARBUCKLE. Although there would be many possible reasons, one of course would possibly be that they wouldn't want to have them. The other possible reason would be that. they were not solicited or they were not acceptable to the U.S. Office. E. The lack of the use of effective criteria is also shown in the rat- ings of proposals. One such proposal, for example, was given a 2-2-4 rating, with 1 being the best, 5 being mediocre. There was no jury consensus as to how two raters saw it as a "2" while one saw it as a "4," and the makeup of the panel was kept secret.. This proposal was in the "not acceptable" category, but the only reasons given by the U.S. Office were several vague statements which had no meaning whatsoever to those who prepared the proposal, and even raised some question as to whether the proposal had been read since some of the suggestions seemed to be totally unrelated to the proposal as it was presented. Nothing further, however, was forthcoming from the U.S. Office, and communications went unanswered. And I believe the U.S. mails are more efficient than that. No. 3: Who uses the criteria to determine which institutions are to be offered contracts for NDEA institutes? A. The logical answer to this question would be those individuals who are professionally most competent in the area, and the profes- sional organizations which could suggest names would be the Ameri- can Personnel and Guidance Association, the Association for Coun- selor Education and Supervision, and the American School Counselor's Association. B. What has happened is the overuse of "related disciplines," and the individuals so used are determined by the U.S. Office. When, for example, an institution is not offered a contract because of the nega- tive vote of the president of a church-related college, or a chairman of a. department in a liberal arts college, or a dean of women in a. large PAGENO="0187" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 533 university, one may wonder about the professional competence in the area of school counseling, of the rating panel. The use of "related disciplines" in evaluating proposals is to be encouraged, but not to the point where the basic discipline has a minority representation. C. U.S. Office of Education communications frequently stress the fact that the Commissioner of Education has the "right" to determine which institutions will be offered contracts for various programs. The manual says that the submission of proposals by institutions "does not restrict any initiative the Commissioner may take in arranging for institutes * * ~." This is, of course, legally correct, just as a uni- versity president, as the chief executive officer, has the "right" to hire a professor in any department in the university. In both cases, how- ever, these individuals would show a high degree of professional irresponsibility if they took it upon themselves to determine which programs, and which individuals, were effective in areas about winch they knew little or nothing. Counselors and counselor educators would not be of too much assistance in helping NASA to develop a new guidance system for space research, nor would NASA officials be very effective in determining which institutions were offering superior programs in counselor education. The determination of which institutions receive Federal funds for the education of school counselors should be in the hands of those who have shown themselves to be most competent in the area of counseling and personnel services, and in the professional education of those who work in this area. It would be illuminating to know the number of times recently Mr. Howe and other U.S. Office officials have "taken the initiative," as well as the names of the institutions who have been recipients of their "initiative." Briefly, then, a few suggestions: 1. Federal moneys should go to those institutions which can best per- form the function for which the money was legislated, and the top professional people in the field are the ones who should determine just which institutions satisfy this criterion. 2. There should be a high level of openness and honesty in the U.S. Office of Education, since the funds being used are public, and the American taxpayer has the right to know how his moneys are being expended. There is an unfortunate tendency among sonic offi- cials to refer to "my". $32.7 million, and some, by their actions, appar- ently feel it is "their" $32.T million. I modestly suggest such delusions should be discouraged. 3. U.S. Office of Education officials should not abuse their power and authority. The broader their powers, the greater their area of gnorance over the areas which they direct, but hopefully do not con- trol. We could assume that Mr. Gardner would have a broader area of i2norance than Mr. Howe. This is reasonable enough, but these offi- c~a1s should understand their limitations of knowledge, and should not confuse power with understanding. 4. The U.S. Office of Education, with its vastly increased budget, is rapidly becoming the major determiner of the direction of education n the United States. Thus it would appear that when various pro- posals and programs are being evaluated by the U.S. Office, it is actual- PAGENO="0188" 534 U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION ly the quality of the programs that is being measured. Consultants, then, who evaluate programs and proposals, are functioning very much in the role of an evaluative committee and their evaluations should be professionally defensible by the evaluators and by the U.S. Office of Education. Those mdivicluals who accept the responsibility of functioning as evaluators of programs and proposals should also accept the profes- sional responsibility, as does any professional evaluating committee, of suggesting specific means by which programs might be improved. A proposal might well be very poor, but the U.S. Office could be a sig- nificant instrument in helping develop better programs if a more cle- tailed evaluation was returned to the institution, closely indicating strengths and weaknesses of the program. The ethical relationship between the applyiiig institution and the evaluating team would also be strengthened if the evaluating team ~was identified. 5. As the U.S. Office of Education becomes more involved in the professional task of educating counselors and various other pupil per- sonnel services specialists, it is important that its role and its position be clear and consistent. Currently this is anything but the case, and it is extremely difficult t.o find any official who is able to clearly enunciate policy and proce- dures. There appears to be a minimal decentralization of authority and responsibility, and it is extremely difficult to find an official who will accept individual responsibility for any action taken by the U.S. Office of Education. The current. unfortunate impression is that every decision in the Division of Educational Personnel Training is made by the Director, and other officials refuse to accept any personal re- sponsibility for these decisions. Hopefully, in the future, the various officials working at different levels will have their areas of respon- sibility clarified, and will accept responsibility for decisions made in these areas. Thank you very much. Mr. GIBBONS. What is the name of this official? Dr. ARBrCKLE. Dr. Bigelow is the Director. Mr. GIBBONS. That certainly gives us some food for thought here, Dr. Arbuckle. We will try to find out the answers to some of the questions you have propounded. Dr. ARBU0KLE. Mr. Gibbons, might I make another statement. This is sort of this morning's homework. I realize the difficulty of getting top professional people. I realize this is a very complex and a very difficult task, particularly with the tremendous expenditure in the use of Federal funds. I might say, and I will be happy to have this go on the record, that there was one such man who died last year. His name was Harold McCulley. He represented a. very happy coin- bination, I believe, that you don't find too often, of intellectual, per- sonal, and professional integrity. There are not too many like him. Every effort should be made to locate people somewhat like him. I think the position of the Commissioner of Education is, of course, to a degree political. In a sense it is a change in position and one would expect it would be. But I think there should be a sharp differentiation below that. point audi I think this is very important as Federal funds PAGENO="0189" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 535 become involved in education, the criteria is professional competence and that this continues to be a major criteria. I think Members of Congress and committees such as this should have a very deep interest in the professional competence of those who are appointed to the various positions in the U.S. Office hierarchy. I trust, ladies and gentlemen, that you and your colleagues will exert yourselves to see that professional decisions of grave importance to millions of people in* the United States, representing the expenditure of hundreds of millions of dollars of public funds, are not made by individuals whose professional competence might at least be ques- tioned. Mr. GIBBONS. I think that is something that, of course, we will all strive to do. I have had some question, myself, about the operation of some of these review panels, trying to determine better ways that decisions could be made, as to who will conduct this program or that program. Do you have any suggestions as to what we could do rather than use review panels? Dr. ARBUCKLE. I think again that the people who know most should be the ones, obviously, who make the decisions. Mr. GIBBONS. How are you going to pick those people, though? Dr. ARB~CKLE. Again I would think the best you can do is to go to those organizations which have the most in the way of know-how as what is happening and who is involved in it. I would assume, for example, if you have any Federal money for cancer research you would probably go to the American Medical Association and, related professional bodies and say, "Hey, this is the direction we think it makes sense to go. What do you think? Do you have some people who have really been involved in this? Have they gotten some new stuff?" And so on. I think this is the general point. Mr. GIBBONS. Are you saying that the professional association, then, should have a greater voice in the selection of people who fill these slots that we are talking about? Dr. ARBTJOKLE. That is right. Mr. GIBBONS. I frankly don't know what voice they now have so I can't agree or disagree with you. I would imagine that they do have some influence. I know most of them are very vigorous. It is a very difficult task. I have seen these piles and piles of material that come in in response to requests for institutes and programs. I don't see how any group of human beings could ever read and digest all of it. Dr. ARBUCKILE. Just a little pardon, however, Mr. Gibbons. If you look at that manual for this year, for example, I don't think this is really showing geographic prejudice when you look at a map of the United States and you see one dot which says University of Pitts- burgh, that is the only one in the North Atlantic area. If you look at California, with due respect to Mr. Regan and others, you find three dots in the State of California, two dots in Indiana, you find one in a number of Southeastern States. It would seem that, in terms of pro- fessional competence, it is a little bit dislocated. Mr. GIBBONS. Thank you very much. Dr. ARBUCKLE. Thank you, I appreciate being here. Mr. GIBBONS. Dr. John Herzog is next. PAGENO="0190" 536 U.s. OFFICE OF EDUCATION STATEMENT OP JOHN HERZOG~, DIRECTOR, RESEARCH AI~1) DE- VELOPMENT CENTER, SCHOOL OP EDUCATION, HARVARD UNI- VERSITY; ACCOMPANIED BY JOSEPH YOUNG, ASSISTANT DEAN, HARVARD UNIVERSITY Mr. HEIRZOG. I am John Herzog, executive director of the Harvard Center for Research and Development on Educational Differences. This center is one of 10 R.. & D. centers established in the past 3 years by TJSOE. I don't want to read this word for word. Mr. GIBBONS. I guess you will tell us what you mean by educa- tional differences. Is that in here? I am not sure what you are talking about. Mr. HERZOG. No, it is not in here. We generally try to avoid tell- ing people what it is. It is sort of a cover term. We are interested in differences among youngsters, both individual a.nd group differences, and how we can help schools and other educational agencies to exploit these differences for the benefit of the ldds more effectively, more than you do now. Mr. GIBBONS. You go into everything from intelligence quotient to emotional and environmental ? Mr. HERZOG. Right.. We do not only studies but. also we attempt to have sort of model projects, pilot projects and some day maybe even more complicated schools or educational institutions of a total nature. Mr. GIBBONS. You go ahead and present your statement. Mr. HERZOG. I will be calling your attention to one page, to a couple of errors in the typing. Mr. GIBBONS. We will put your statement in the record right now in toto at this point. (Mr. Herzog's prepared formal statement follows:) PREPARED STATEMENT BY JOHN D. HERZOG, EXECuTIVE DIRECToR, CENTER FOR RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, HARVARD UNIvERsITY I am John P. Herzog, Executive Director of the Harvard Center for Research and Development on Educational Differences. This Center is one of ten r & d centers established during the past three years by USOB. At the outset, I would like to disavow the flattering title generously awarded to me by the Committee's staff; I am Mr. Herzog, not Dr. Herzog, at least for the next several months. My comments today will be based mainly on the experience of my colleagues and myself with programs and projects authorized under the Cooperative Re- search Act and the Elementary-Secondary Education Act of 1965. Our experi- ence with ESEA. of 1965 goes beyond the Title IV of that Act, I should add. The organization and philosophy of our R. & D. Center here has encouraged us to become involved, when invited, in the Title I and Title III efforts of our school system partners. Although much of what I say today will deal with problems or suggested changes in 1JSOE procedures, I want to say at the outset that the past two or three years in education have been heady ones. This new atmosphere was, of course, created by the several branches of the Federal Government, whose members have proposed, enacted, and administered a complex variety of new programs. As Commissioner Howe pointed out in previous testimony to this Committee, the level of support for innovation in education still does not ap- proach that already attained in comparable fields, but both the legislative and the operational accomplishments of the past two or three years should not therefcre be dismissed as trivial or unimportant. PAGENO="0191" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 537 We educators often feel under enormous pressure to justify federal expendi- tures in research and development by pointing to concrete "products" of our activities in use in numerous public schools. People sometimes seem to be saying to us, "All right; we supported your Head Start Program for a year; where are those additional graduate engineers ?" Educationists try to resist these pressures, yet it is safe to say that at Harvard alone, there are a number of "products" to which we can point which probably would not exist today had the Government not become involved in the business of improving education. These "products" run the full gamut from pure research to eminently practical curriculum materials already in use in numerous classrooms. At the first end of the spectrum, we are proud of our association (with Hunter College of New York City) in Professor Gerald Lesser's study of mental abilities among several (thnic groups and social classes in New York City and Boston. For the first time, Dr. Lesser has been able to demonstrate clearly that contrasting patterns of mental abilities exist tin five-year-old children in different ethnic and class groups. These differences seem to stem from environmental factors, currently under study; they have serious: implications for the manner in which youngsters are introduced to the standard school curriculum. Another study, this conducted by Mr. Leslie Cramer, has developed a computer program for cutting redundant sounds from recorded speech, thereby creating an exciting new means of com- pressing instructional materials for blind people. As final examples, we have three extremely promising curriculum develop- ment projects in a stage very close to completion. Working through Mr. Wayne Altree of the Social Studies Department of the Newton, Massachusetts, Public Schools, and Professor Richard Douglas of M. I. T., the R. & D. Center has spon- sored the development of an entirely new course of study for tenth, eleventh, and twelfth grade social studies, which instead of attempting a chronological coverage of the history of Western man, digs deeply into selected periods of history and examines social and cultural circumstances as well as political and economic developments, and ranges well beyond the usual European and Amer- ican events. Another project, this funded by the Project Social Studies program of USOE, seeks to develop a set of procedures and materials for the teaching of social studies through close analysis and debate of current public issues. Finally, let me mentioned Harvard Project Physics, an example of USOE's wise policy of encouraging competition among curriculum projects within relatively narrow subject matter fields. This project, supported by a combination of TJSOE and National Science Foundation funds, is conceived by its directors, Professor Gerald Holton of the Harvard Physics Department, and Professor Fletcher Watson and Dr. James Rutherford of the Graduate School of Educa- tion, as an effort to broaden the range of physics curricula available to high schools. The materials under development are aimed at the upper half of the junior and senior classes, a slice somewhat larger than usual for instruction in physics. I am sure that other universities, research and development organizations, and school systems could provide this Committee with similar examples of achievements which could not have come about without the new Government support. There is one other happy facet of the past years which I also wish to mention, briefly. As we have been drawn into increasing association and cooperation with officials at the U.S. Office of Education, we have been much impressed with the caliber of these men and women. It is amazing to us that this governmental agency, emerging from almost complete obscurity during a short three or four year period, has been able to find within its ranks, and to recruit from without, such an outstanding team of intelligent, sensible, and dedicated individuals. It is clear that the nation and the Congress have received full value, if not more, from their investment in personnel. Yet, there have certainly been some problems, and I would now like to turn to them. The first set of problems relates to the topic which I was just discussing: the professional staff at USOE. The people we know at USOE are capable individuals; the problem is that they must move at a steady dog trot, if not gallop; and that as result of one reorganization or another, they are perpetually engaged in musical chairs. In sort, gentlemen, OE people strike us as competent, but grossly insufficient in numbers. These are fighting words, in view of wide- spread feelings about the growth of the federal bureaucracy, and the fiscal current PAGENO="0192" 538 U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION fiscal purse tightening, but they need saying because it appears to us that the Office of Education has not been completely frank with you in its previous testi- mony. I sympathize with OE's reasons for reticence, but I am free of restric- tions. In our opinion, the present LTSOE staff is being asked to do too much, and therefore to do it less capably than they are able. Let me now pass to a second issue. We have noticed, in reading the testimony already presented to this Committee, the care with which the Committee has been investigating the systems through which the Office of Education obtains advice and consultation on general policy and on the award of the specific con- tracts and grants. I would like to suggest a third area concerning which this Conunittee may wish to inform itself: the procedures through which the Office of Education develops guidelines for the implementation of new legislation. It is in the process of drafting and applying guidelines that the dreaded spectre of "federal control" may best be discerned, or more accurately, from with the spec- tre w-iIl emerge if it ever emerges. In enacting legislation, Congress goes to great lengths to avoid provisions which would lead to "control" of local and state educational activities. Similarly, the system w-hich IJSOE uses to award grants and contracts is eminently fair and rational; the grumblings about it which are occasionally heard stem largely from discontented applicants who have been denied funds for sound reasons. However, in its efforts to avoid federal control, the Congress often enacts legislation which requires, for purposes of implementation, a good deal of admin- istrative specification of what may or may not be done under the new law. There is a tendency in all bureaucratic organizations to routinize and to regu- larize: there is. therefore, a tendency for guidelines to emerge which effectivly stifle the very diversity and experimentation which Congress, and the higher echelons at FSOE, wish to encourage. Complicating the situation is the great pressure of time and politics under which guidelines for most new programs must be worked out, a pressure which does not encourage flexible and creative thinking on the part of the officials charged w-ith very difficult tasks. Under this pressure. it is inevitable that a relatively small number of outside advisers and consultants can be involved in the process, and that the advisers thus in- volved will come from a narrow band of persons with whom the harried officials are acquainted and comfortable. The consultations which result are neither as unhurried nor helpfully critical as they might be. As result of these circumstances, guidelines often appear which afford the potential applicant virtually no time really to plan his proposed program, in view of the deadline confronting him. We find in some guidelines, too, that arbitrary decisions, which TJSOE officials later agree are unwise, are fixed into USOE procedures for a year or for one "round" of project applications. I wish to make several simple suggestions for the consideration of this Com- mittee which are addressed to some of the problems just discussed. First, USOE desperately needs. and should be authorized to obtain, a larger staff. Second, the career and professional opportunities of working in the U.S. Office of Educa- tion should be enhanced, so that the nation is assured of obtaining the best pos- sible men and women to work in this crucial agency. In this respect, we endorse Secretary Gardner's proposed reorganization plan, which we know about only from the press. The designation of the Office of Education as a separate "depart- ment" within the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare would not only give stature to the agency; it would also result in a meaningful Civil Serv- ice upgrading of the entire staff. Third, I w-ish to suggest that the present procedure of approving HEW appropriations in August or September is seriously detrimental to the operations of the Office and to the efficacy of the programs w-hich the Office sponsors. USOE, through Commissioner Howe, has already made its feelings clear on this matter, and we wish only to underscore the urgency of the situation. Finally, a good deal of the hectic atmosphere at USOE, and a good part of the feelings of insecurity which TJSOE-supported projects and agen- cies experience, might be alleviated if USOE were permitted by Congress, or if the agency used the authority which it now possesses, to enter into more than year-to-year agreements, on either a contract or a grant basis. We are confused about USOE's present authority in this area, and 1 do not wish to go further except to say that other Government agencies seem to have fewer inhibitions about entering into agreements for longer than 12 or 15 month periods. PAGENO="0193" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 539 Before turning specifically to the problems and early achievements of the Harvard Center for Research and Development, I want to comment on three broader issues effecting Federal involvement in education which are currently being felt in our R. & D. Center operation. First, and most briefly, it has been suggested in the press, in meetings called by T.JSOE officials, and in testimony to this Committee, that it might be a good thing if private industry were involved, through contract with USOE in the development of new educational programs and practices. We agree: this would be an interesting and healthy experiment. Certainly, the U.S. Office should not exempt private industry from the various special provisions of doing business with the Government which private, non-profit agencies are forced to accept: I refer to restrictions on copyrighting, limits on overhead, etc. The performance of industry, as well as the performance of the universities and other non-profit agencies, should be evaluated by appropriately similar standards. These are fairly common sense considerations. The experiment would be a useful one, and, frankly, we have confidence in our own and in other univer- sities' capacity to compete with, and perhaps do better than, most profit-making concerns. The record of the corporations, when they have finally gotten onto the firing line in education, as in the Job Corps Camps, has not been all that inspiring. The second point I wish to mention has to do with the application of "systems analysis" to the internal operations of USOE, and to the understanding of the American educational system. These dual efforts within USOE have occasioned considerable impassioned testimony before this Committee. I feel, in general, that the tone of alarm is overdone, and that these enterprises are eminently worthwhile intellectual activities, as long as they are kept in proper perspective. However, I am not completely convinced that they are, or will be kept, in appropriate perspective. In the first place, the U.S. Office of Educa- tion is under increasing pressure from the White House and from the Congress to rationalize and justify its varied programs: the Office, like the academic community, must show "results". Further, it is the tendency of many "systems analysts" who have become interested in education to be entirely too sure that they understand both the goals of education and the processes of teaching and learning through which the goals are to be achieved. There is, in other words, a kind of intellectual arrogance in the typical systems analyst-and I may be doing a severe injustice to OE's specialists-which alarms those of us who think we know something about a little piece of the entire system which the analyst is studying. Finally, the two related analyses are taking place in the anonymity and freedom from informed public scrutiny which virtually all USOE delibera- tions experience, in view of the shortages of staff and time afflicting the agency. All in all, I think that USOE is involved in some important work here, but I would like to see it conducted more visibly than I fear it now is. In the long run such a style of operation will produce more valuable' "systems analyses" of both the Office and American education. 1\Iy third general consideration is an example of relatively premature, over- simplified application of the "systems development way of thinking", the kind of application about which we are nervous. It has to do with the "pipeline model" of educational reform which the Office's Bureau of Research apparently espouses. I have brought with me a copy of an article by Dr. Hendrick Gideonse,* who I believe is associated with the Bureau of Research, which appeared in the November, 1965, issue of the Phi Delta Kappan, in which the model is set forth as well as in any other public statement I have run across. Basically, the model suggests that ideas for new practices and procedures normally arise in the "research" shops, where they are tested and clarified; when they are intel- lectually validated, they move to the stage of "development", where on a large scale and with considerable investment of money, they are tried out and adapted in a limited number of "hot house" school situations. Once through the develop- mental process, the new practices go into a stage of "demonstration", where they are put on view for school people to observe and criticize, often for periods of several years. Finally, and often in conjunction with each of the preceding processes, the new ideas are "disseminated", which means that they are promoted within the educational community through a variety of channels. I am conscious of over-simplifying and perhaps loading my description of the "pipeline" model. There is not time to do it justice, and the Gideonse article *Article by Dr. Hendrick Gideonse reproduced following Mr. Herzog's prepared state- ment. 73-728-67-pt. 2-~-13 PAGENO="0194" 540 U.s. OFFICE OF EDUCATION is in your bands. I would like only to point to some of the dangerous assump- tions contained in the model; none is totally wrong, but all are partly or mostly wrong, and in combination they seriously undermine, in my view, the usefulness of this mode of conceiving of educational reform. I would question the following assumptions: (1) A great deal is known about education, in particular as result of the research supported by the Cooperative Research Program. - (2) It is possible to specify in advance the useful end products of research. (3) Most, if not all, good ideas for innovation in education stem from the research, or perhaps the development, community. (4) I.t is generally possible to document clearly the superiority of new or innovative practices to old or traditional practices. (5) School people have neither personal investment in, nor good reasons for, whatever they are currently doing. (6) School people are in general reprehensible because they do not value change for the sake of change, and research and development people are irresponsible for not trying as actively as they might to promote change. (7) The dissemination of new practices from demonstration school A. to real school B is a simple process, about which we know a good deal. Not all of these assumptions can be observed in the very brief summary of the pipeline model which I have provided, and I apologize for this. I believe that they can be found in Gideonse's article, and I w-ould be willing to discuss these problems further if the Committee wishes. Let me turn to the R. & D. Center with which I am specifically connected. In listing some of the research and development projects of which Harvard is particularly proud, I deliberately chose a preponderance of R. & D. Center activi- ties and will not list them again. In addition to the research and development accomplished, or in process, there has been a second achievement of the Center which neither Harvard nor USOE, I think, fully predicted when we were estab- lished. This is the very valuable training which part-time employment in the Center provides. The Center does not offer scholarships or fellowships; but we do employ our own and other universities' students to carry out activities which are deliberately made as "educational" as possible. Through this route, we have already supplied ourselves with number of well-trained junior faculty and made similar contributions to other universities. Another partially unanticipated accomplishment, in which the members of this Committee may be particularly interested, are the bridges to the schools of Boston and Cambridge which the existence of our Center has enabled us to build. These two large and proud urban school systems have for many decades been remote from the thinking and activities of Harvard faculty members. During the past two and one-half years, because of the opportunities for dialogue and mutual confrontation which Center resources have assured us, an exciting romance has budded and begun to blossom, we think. We have found when we discuss educational problems calmly and privately with our colleagues in Boston and Cambridge, that we can agree on possible solutions, some quite radical and far-reaching. I cannot list for you very many public examples of the fruits of this dialog, as we are still engaged in sniffing each other out; but I promise that if you return, two or three years hence, we will be able to present a surprising panorama of joint meaningful activities w-hich go directly to the "guts" of urban educational problems. There have been some problems with the operation of the Center, with respect to its relationship to USOE, of course. On the policy level, we sense the approaching focus upon us of the "pipeline" model, and of the systems analysis way of thinking, which threatens to vitiate the programmatic type of support which we thought, originally, the U.S. Office of Education intended to offer under its R. & D. Center Program, and in which we believe most firmly. We sense pressures, for example, to specify in advance what the products of our research will be. We feel "encouragement" to set up a particular organizational frame- work for the Center which seems appropriate to achieving the "results" (which we have not necessarily agreed we wish to produce). I shall not push this line of thinking too far, because we may be worrying unnecessarily and inappro- priately about Washington's intentions. The malor point is that we find it extremely difficult to reach and to talk to USOE officials about these matters, in a thoughtful atmosphere conducive to increased mutual understanding. For PAGENO="0195" ThS~ OFFICE OF EDUCATION 541 example, we have been told repeatedly and clearly by USQE that each R. & D. Center is expected to achieve a "focus" on some "significant educational prob- lem", but we have never been able to get beyond or beneath these phrases, to discover what is meant by "focus" and by "educational problems". Thus, we actually do not know whether we agree or disagree, a situation obviously provoca- tive of anxiety. Further, there are some procedural issues effecting the operation of this and other R. & D. Centers which I wish to call to the Committee's attention. Singly, each probably does not merit a good deal of the Committee's time, but together these problems conspire to threaten this Center, at least, with the loss of its most eminent staff members and potential staff members, and to alienate the U.S. Office of Education from the most productive sectors of the American academic community. First, there is the problem of USOE's new copright policy, which might best be described as a "on copyright" policy. You undoubtedly know that as of the fall of 1965, all materials stemming from USOE research and development contracts and grants were to be placed in the public domain. Most of my colleagues have no quarrel with the notion that the final products of USOE-supported research should be in the public domain. They do question its manner of application. In the first place, USOE has decided that "in-process" materials may not be copy- righted, or otherwise effectively protected from outside and inappropriate ex- ploitation. In-process materials, of course, may be defective materials; they may do the opposite of what their originator intended them to do. With the Congress and other parts of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare currently much-concerned about protecting individual "human subjects" in psychological experiments, it is surprising that the Office of Education appears impervious to the argument that new and experimental curriculum materials, counseling tech- niques, or computer programs may be harmful at certain stages of their develop- inent to the students with whom they are used. Furthermore, it seems that USOE consulted with the textbook publishing industry in developing its new copyright regulations, which is entirely appropriate, but not with the less agressive, but still important, academic publishing houses, or with the university community. We are far from sure, at the present time, that the typical academic publisher of a book, or of a journal, will accept a manuscript or a monograph which he cannot copyright. But we do know from our local experiences that many top people in research and development will refuse to accept USOE contracts as long as they are prohibited from copyrighting the work which they have produced. A second procedural difficulty which I want to mention concerns the application of the Federal Reports Act of 1942 to the R. & D. Centers, and to USOE and non- USOE supported research in general. Under this Act, which was instituted during World War II to avoid duplication of efforts and to conserve paper, w-e are currently required to submit to Washington six copies of all questionnaires and other forms going out to ten or more potential "subjects", for prior approval by an in-house review committee at USOE. In addition to the copies of the questionnaire, we must supply detailed (but under the circumstances, quite justified) information about the study of which the questionnaire is a part, about the numbers of subjects who will complete it, etc. This regulation was only recently brought to bear upon the r & d centers. We are considerably dis- turbed about the paper work which compliance will entail, and the delays in our research which will be inevitable. Clearly, the Congress has established that there is a need for greater~ self- surveillance by the academic community of the research which its members carry out, so as to protect both the privacy and the well-being of all potential sub- jects. However, the mechanisms of review which the National Institutes of Health of the Public Health Service have recently established seem to us more manageable and approporiate to a mature research community than the present procedures of the Office of Education. I wonder if Congress in 1942, or since, i cally intended the Federal Reports Act to be applied to outside go~ ernment con PAGENO="0196" 542 u.s. OFFICE OF EDUCATION tracts and to semi-autonomous agencies such as the present research and de- velopmeiit centers. A third procedural problem which we have faced now twice in our brief existence is TJSOE's inability or unwillingness to provide in its contracts or grants more than twelve, or perhaps fifteen, months of funding. I have already mentioned our puzzlement over this situation. However, you should know that in our judgement, in order to get the best possible staff members for our various programs and projects, we have to offer two, three, or even five years of employ- ment to various individuals. This offer of several years of employment, instead of just one. has enabled us to secure almost all of the particular staff members we have wished to add. But the resulting multi-year appointments are figura- tive nooses around the Dean's neck, nooses which twitch perceptibly each year around budget-negotiating time. In other words, the Dean has a two or three or five year commitment to numerous individuals, but has the where- withall to pay them for only one year. We do not think this is a healthy situation. Finally, I want to mention that the "time and effort reports", which the Bureau of the Budget is insisting be submitted iii connection with all Government contracts, have made us, too, extremely nervous. These reports must have been designed by people who have no conception of academic affairs. How- ever, in discussing this issue I am considerably over my head, and would defer to other persons who have already testified before you, or who would be eager to do so if invited. The results of these particular problems are three-fold. First, I suspect that we take a partially unjustified and undesirable "dog~in-the-maflger" attitude towards certain 1JSOE policies and requirements, on many occasions. Since we are unable to talk frequently to the policy makers and since we do not presume always to understand what they have in mind, we tend, like most Americans, to think the worst of the bureaucrats, and our relations with them suffer. Second, we seem to be involved in an awful lot of paperwork, not as much as some of us feared, but still an amount w-hich could be pared. Finally, we are in serious danger of losing our most valuable staff members, and prospective staff members, to other forms of Government support, and to foundation-spon- sored research, which do not burden them with the variety of general threats and petty annoyances which I have mentioned. This potential loss of top men. whom w-e at Harvard see as our partial responsibility to attract to the study of education, is the problem which concerns us most at present. (The foflowing is the article referred to in Mr. Herzog's statement:) THE NATIONAL PROGRAM OF EDUCATIONAL LABORATORIES By Heiidrik D. Gideonse* A team of researchers having completed their experimental efforts to intro- duce and sustain change in a school setting, dropped in on the principal to express their thanks. "Oh, not at all," he said. "Please feel free to come back anytime. Why, it's hard to believe that you've been working here at all. We've hardly noticed your presence !" The tale is not apocryphal, and though it provided a note of humor in a research summary (goodness knows, such notes are rare enough), the conver- sation also confirmed the team's intention to try the whole project over again, basing the new attempt on knowledge gained from the initial failure. The story illustrates in bold relief a peculiar difficulty which has long con fronted us. Ecotrenleiy little of what has been discovered in edveational research has ever been made operational. In a sense this problem is part of a larger one, namely, the inability of American education to adapt quickly and in an orderly way to the changing *Mr. Gideonse (Iota 1049) Is program development adviser, Bureau of Research, TJSOE. In which the new Division of Laboratories and Research Development is located. Interested persons may write for the division's "Guidelines for a National Program of Educational Laboratories." PAGENO="0197" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 543 demands of our society. To some extent, excessive compartmentalizatiofl of the educational system explains the tortoise-like pace; schools, universities, state departments of education, teacher education programs, and the public have found it difficult to work together productively. If we are to achieve imaginative, rapid, effective, and meaningful improvements in the nation's schools, however, corn- partmen'talization must give way to cooperation among these groups. Fortunately, we have a new opportunity to develop the kinds of relationships needed to implement orderly educational change. Under the enlarged authority of the Cooperative Research Act, the U.S. Office of Education has established a National Program of Educational Laboratories. This program is designed to create a moderate number of regionally based educational laboratories to do several things: 1) conduct educational research, 2) provide facilities and equipment for research, 3) carry out the training of individuals for leadership in such activities, 4) translate the findings of research into feasible educational practices and programs, and 5) assist in the implemenation of productive change by disseminating innovative programs and practices throughout the region being served. The establishment of this program may well mark the beginning of an era of dynamic change in our school system of a magnitude comparable to the recent exciting developments in the fields of health and the natural sciences. The new program will be the capstone to existing and continuing programs in support of project research and the Research and Development Centers.' It is useful, I think, to explore some of the assumptions that undelie the establishment of the new program. One of these is that new, comprehensive institutions are needed to foster educational innovation and improvement. An- other assumption, evident in the USOE stipulation that laboratories be multi- institutional in character, is that educational improvement depends upon effective patterns of cooperation among several different elements in the educational system, including universities with their research competence, schools as the agencies of practical implementation, state educational agencies where political responsibility for education is lodged, and others such as private industry, social and welfare agencies, and private foundations. (The ecumenical character of laboratory operations does not necessarily mean that in the actual creatioi~ of these institutions every single interested party must or will play a role, but all educational interests certainly ought to have a meaningful role in the laboratories once they are established.) The multi-institutional nature of the laboratory program will be paralleled by an emphasis on an all-disciplinary approach to educational research and development. The guidelines for the new program clearly assume that educa- tion ought to be approached from every discipline that might contribute to our understanding of the educational process. Just as there is much to be said for developing a political and professional consensus conducive to t'he support of productive change in our schools, so, too, a case can be made for making use of a variety of research talents, techniques, and interests. These convictions are underscored by the adoption of an evaluation procedure for laboratory applications that emphasizes cooperaiton and coordination rather than competition. Rather than follow the usual project research approach of subjecting fully developed applications to competitive review, the new procedure calls for the submission of a prospectus of limited size in which interested parties will be able to identify themselves and their region, plus their interests, concerns, and plans. Only after the approval of a prospectus w-ill a formal application be entertained. The prospectus will be an indication of the depth of commitment, but it will not entail the risks of prior application procedures which demanded the engage- ment of extensive `human and financial resources in the preparation of'a formal application without any guarantees as to the likelihood of success. Submission of a prospectus marks only a preliminary `stage in' the developemnt ,of a laboratory. It could be reshaped prior to submission of a formal application, or could be eventually combined with other prospectuses after different groups from the same 1 Already established at these universities: Harvard. Pittsburgh, Wisconsin. Texas, Stanford. Oregon and Georgia. Also, there is a consortium in New York City, Arizona and California (Berkeley) are bidding for centers--Time Editor. PAGENO="0198" 544 U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION region had been informed of one another through copies of their prospectuses. The new procedure creates continued opportunities for conversation between interested parties prior to the eventual establishment and operation of a laboratory. The evaluation process is symbolic of the emphasis on cooperation in the laboratory program. Here is no competition for research funds, but rather the deliberate attempt to create a network of institutions designed to research, develop, and implement educational innovations. Because there will be so few laboratories and because it is critically important that they be born with in- dividual, institutional, and political support, the program requires that the USOE be in a position to perform a mediating role by stimulating and encour- aging dialogue, discussions, and debate-and maybe even a little horsetrading- between groups which may submit overlapping prospectuses. Finally, it seems clear that the USOE fully expects that laboratories from different regions will develop in different ways. The prospectus format for the laboratory program allows for this anticipated diversity. Given these assumptions, what can we hope for from these new institutions? Bow will they develop? Who ought to be involved in their establishment? What kinds of research will laboratories do, what kinds of service will they provide, and how far will their responsibilities extend? Laboratories will conduct basic research related to the field of education in such disciplines as psychology, sociology, history, political science, economics, and philosophy. In addition, these new institutions should encourage multi- disciplinary approaches to educational problems. If this kind of research is to be done w-ell. however, the laboratories clearly must have access to a variety of institutions, must be endowed with enough prestige to, entice scholars of the highest caliber to participate in them. and must appropriately reward insti- tutions for releasing their best minds for limited periods of time. Those who seek to involve themselves in the creation of these new institutions would do well to study the success of the Atomic Energy Commission's national labora- tories in securing cooperation of both scholars and `the institutions which employ them. A second concern for the laboratories will be development and applied research. A major portion of this effort will be directed toward curriculum improvement. But there are other areas such as school organization, teacher education, edu- cational planning. and techniques of administration which will involve major resource commitments. Effective dissemination will be coequal to the research function in the regionally based laboratories. But dissemination ought not to mean just the transmittal of information. It ought to mean the actual operational incorpora- tion by the practitioner of skills, techniques, and strategies. The dissemination process, then, has at least two elements. The first is developing a commitment to and an involvement in educational innovation. This element-the active, self-induced stimulation and preparation of the practitioner, be he teacher, administrator, professor, or university president, to assimilate and incorporate new ideas and practices-is just as crucial as the second element, which is the process of transmitting information about such practices. Dissemination can take many forms, but one useful way to think of it is as the engineering of consent. Many different kinds of interests are represented in the educational system. Keeping that system fluid and receptive to educa- tional improvements means building firm, mutually supportive links between those interests. Besides the researchers, then, teachers, administrators, state educational officials, teacher training personnel. regional educational leaders, and the lay public will have to have meaningful access to the deliberations of whatever body governs each educational laboratory. The service responsibilities confronting regionally based laboratories are large and complex. The techniques, therefore. by which each laboratory con- ducts its business will be numerous and diverse. To its research program will be added a host of activities involving trial, evaluation, demonstration, and persuasion. Laboratories will train and serve researchers, to be sure. They PAGENO="0199" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 545 will also benefit directly large numbers of pre-service and in-service teachers, administrators, and laymen. The range of dissemination activities that a laboratory might engage in is wide. Teacher education, for example, is a critical part of any campaign to disseminate the results of educational research. We also know, however, that teacher education presents some of the most baffling substantive, professional, and political problems. There is a great deal of controversy, for instance, about how best to train teachers in the first place. Moreover,~ while faced with developing better ways of training new teachers, we must also consider bow best to renew the skills of teachers already staffing our schools. In addition, even if improved programs for teacher education are developed there are still problems with regard to implementing those programs in schools, colleges, and departments of education. Clearly, regional educational laboratories can perform important functions in this area. One such function might be the development of curriculum pro- grams that more skillfully relate the pre-service training of teachers to the process of education and the teacher's role in that process. Such programs ought to be flexible enough to absorb readily the research findings that labora- tories and other research agencies will produce, and to develop in the teacher trainee a desire for continued professional development. Laboratories might open channels of communication with colleges of education and university departments to help insure that knowledge and understanding of new educa- tional practices and programs are continually examined and allowed to influence the development of programs for training teachers. Laboratories also might work on developing in-service programs for teachers, perhaps of the institute or workshop variety with which we are generally familiar. Laboratories might take advantage of opportunities existing under independently funded NSF and NDEA institute programs. Laboratories also might seek to involve local and *state teachers' associations as important professional and political links in the process of implementing innovation, and to involve state educational agencies, since they are the political entities for teacher certification. Similar programs of development and service directed to administrators and educational policy planning personnel, including school board members at the local and state levels, should be vitally important parts of a laboratory's operation. Laboratories might also introduce innovative instructional practices through exemplary or demonstration programs. Brickell2 has shown us that the way teachers react to innovative practices often depends upon the opportunity to observe them at close hand and to try them out. Laboratories might seek to establish such exemplary programs on their own, or might very well coordinate the activities of local educational agencies seeking support for such programs from other sources, including Title III of the Elementary and Secondary Educa- tion Act of 1965. Laboratories also might seek to disseminate their findings through print, tele- vision, radio, film, augmented telephone, and other techniques. They might explore the possibility of developing new types of school personnel whose sole responsibility would be keeping up with educational innovations and making them operationally available to teachers. School districts are beginning to under- stand the value of "assistant superintendents in charge of heresy," and labora- tories might do a great deal to encourage the hiring and effective use of such personnel. Admittedly, a good deal of research has yet to be designed and com- pleted before any productive answers are developed as to the role and function of such persons. But if we don't know the answers, we certainly are aware that there are many questions in this area to which laboratories might very well address themselves. Henry M. Brickell, Organizing New York ,S'tate for Educational Change. Albany, New York: State Education Department, 1961. PAGENO="0200" Dynamic Interplay of a Laho rat oty with Other institutions ci ri~ Super/rn posed on a Schema/ic Geographic Dstrihui/on ETV Tue above diagiani represents only a small sample of ihe possil'le relations/zips anzolzg various kinds of inst liii- tions a/ic! a laboratory. A 11 institutions have program andresearch tzced inputs. A ii receive service from tile labora- tory. Research and development interactions are possible itithin i/ic laboratoiv; beiiz'ecn i/ic laboratory aii! schools, colleges, universities, inthsiry and state departments of education; among scnoo!s: and betiicen schools a/Ic! col- leges and lIiIii'r')siIiCS. PAGENO="0201" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 547 A more specialized dissemination function for each laboratory will be making available the findings of its research to other laboratories and other researchers. Individual laboratories can be much more effective in terms of their research, their service, and their program development if they are part of a communication network designed to keep one another completely informed of the activities of their sister institutions. This kind of communication can be accomplished by automatic data processing links, research bulletins, publications of the laboratory network, institutes for researchers, and connection with USOE activities of a similar nature, including the Educational Research Information Center. Hopefully, a great many different types of agencies, organizations, and institu- tions will become involved in developing laboratory programs. Although large numbers of people with different kinds of skills are expected to be participants in laboratory operations, it is unlikely that laboratories will ever come to exist at all if every institution that is to be ultimately involved is also represented at the very beginning. In fact, it would appear to be more than likely that the initial steps in the development of a laboratory might be taken by a bold, imagina- tive, representative group of relatively small size, charged with the responsibility for developing an institution responsive to the needs and interests of all future cooperating elements and capable of performing the desired functions with effectiveness and dispatch. There will be many difficulties attendant upon the operation of regionally based educational laboratories, but perhaps the most impressive of these will be the actual creation of the institutions. Finally, I would note two additional conditions that should be placed upon the emerging laboratories by their founders. First, difficult though it may be, laboratories should strive from the very beginning to see and create themselves as institutions of the highest prestige. They should be so designed that schools, universities, and states will eagerly call upon them. Second, great care must be taken to see that the laboratory programs develop in such a way that none of the participating institutions are in any way injured by the creation of educational laboratories. Good things are now being accom- plished within existing institutional frameworks. It would be a shame to com- promise the continuing success of activities that already are giving fair iromise to improve the nation's educational system. The laboratory program is a challenge to progressive leadership. It is a challenge of broad implications for the relationships between existing institu- tions. It promises much; it will fulfill whatever the educational community will enable it to fulfill. Mr. GIBBONS. Now you can tell Mr. LaFrance where the errors are. Mr. HERZOG. One error is that I am Mr. Herzog. I appreciate the thoughts of the committee staff to make me a doctor, but I am Mr. for a while. This is Assistant Dean Joseph Young, who knows a good deal more than I do on certain points here. So I have asked him to come along. I am delighted you have invited him to sit here with me. A lot of what you hear in these hearings in Washington and here and I suppose elsewhere in the country seem to be comp'aints, criticisms, or suggestions. I want to go on record at the very begin- ning in saying that these have been very exciting and productive years, these past 2 or 3 years, since the Federal Government got into the business in a big way of trying to improve and support education in this country. Commissioner Howe has pointed out that even with this very recent increase in interest and support, the level is still nowhere near that in medicine and some other fields. But there have been some very real accomplishments and many of the complaints I think that you hear are based on how the accomplishment might have been made a little bigger and better rather than general criticism of the whole thing and a lack of appreciation of what the Federal Government has been doing. Another side of this is that many people in education, bth in the schools and in the universities, feel under enormous pressure to sort PAGENO="0202" 548 U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION of help you in a sense, our friends, to justify these great expenditures and these apparently useless or not immediately useful research and developmental activities. We really feel sometimes that our research on preschool kids should in some people's minds have a payoff in some kind of increase in the number of college graduates, or something like that, in the next year or so even though they are entirely different individuals of course that we are dealing with. I did want to call your attention to a number of the things that even in the 2 or 3 years of expanded involvement in education that we at Harvard could point to, and which, in a sense, you made possible. These would include studies of mental abilities, and studies of speeded speech, where we make direct recordings useful to the blind people for learning, far more useful and far less time consuming than they have been up to now. Mr. GIBBONS. Speeded speech? What do you mean? Mr. HERZOG. A man could take a recording-if we were making a recording of what I am saying and what you are saying, we could, by some carefully worked out splicing of some of the sounds I make now, still permit the whole utterance to be heard and understood in less time but just as efficiently. Instead of a recording of 3 inches on a. 33-r.p.m. record, a person could hear and learn from a recording of an inch and a half on the surface of the record. Does this make sense? In other words, many of the sounds we make when we speak normally are not really necessary for communication. It makes for more secure coin- munication, but if you are listening attentively, the recording is good and the dialog is clear, you don't need all the sounds we usually use in making words. Some R. & D. centers have a number of curriculum development projects that we think are going to be producing, and have already produced, some very useful and exciting new materials. There is a new social studies curriculum, 10th, 11th, and 12th grades in Newton High School which has been supported in part by the B. & P. Center, in part by the Newton schools, which is just about finished, is in full use at Newton. Copies of samples have been sent to other schools, although full-scale dissemination has not been attempted yet. Mr. HATHAWAY. You deal directly with the schools, is that correct, not with the Commissioner of Education? Mr. Hi~nzoc. The B. & P. center has a kind of autonomy. We wrote an original proposal outlining some of the sorts of things we thought we would be doing during the next 5 years. OE said, "It sounds inter- esting to us," and gave us a sum of money to do most of those things. But we then decide locally exactly what it is and how it shall be done on a year-to-year basis. Each year we tell them ivhat we think we will be doing the next year. There, frankly, seems to be less and less room for our own decision making, although this is not a crucial problem yet. But compared to the very first description and inspiration of the program, there seems to be an increasing interest by OE in exactly what it is we will be doing as opposed to the more general topical descriptions. This project came to our attention really after the center got going, but. we thought that it was a very valuable one and we were able under the terms of the kind of contract we have to say, "Yes, Mr. Altree and Mr. Douglas and your PAGENO="0203" TJ.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 549 staff, go ahead and keep working on this for a couple of years," and they have. Mr. HATHAWAY. On these projects like the one in Newton High School, you just go to the Newton High School and say we would like to get them tO try it out there? Mr. HERZOG. The other way. The Newton people were working on this and presented their plan to us. They had already started, very much on a shoestring, and we said this is very good, it is within the bounds of what we said we were going to do. We didn'tknow exactly this would work out, but this is the type of activity, "Go ahead, how can we help you?" Mr. HATHAWAY. Is the superintendent of Newton brought in on this, and Commissioner of Education of the Commonwealth? Mr. HERZOG. In the latter case the commissioner was not. The su- perintendent sat at that time on our executive committee and was per- haps more involved in the decision than might be desirable. TIns kind of relationship was intended. We are trying to have ideas stem not only from the university community but from schools and educa- tional TV. Mr. HATHAWAY. I am wondering as time goes on if there will not be friction created between your organizations-the superintendents thinking they are being bypassed-with your going directly to the schools and not getting their approval for these various ideas. Mr. Hi~iizoo. I think there is friction that we are not going too much to the schools, that too much of our activities and resources are com- manded by the university scholars doing sort of esoteric research which the superintendents feel does not help them. I don't think we perhaps respond enough from their point of view in doing this sort of thing. The State superintendent is on our execu- tive conunittee, a larger policy board which meets less often. He knew aJbout this. I have no hesitation of saying he is probably de- lighted about the whole thing. Mr. HATHAWAY. Who is this? Mr. HERz0G. The commissioner of education. He is on the execu- tive committee, yes. Vaguely he knows about this and it is the type of thing he would like to see. Mr. HATHAWAY. Who else ison the executive board? Mr. HERZOG. In addition to myself and another administrative officer of the center, there are seven members on the executive com- mittee. Generally four professors from the university. Two s~ho~1 superintendents and the dean of the school of education. The policy board has somewhere between 25 and 30 representatives. Perhaps twice as many professors, in this case not only from the School of Edu- cation but also from several of the faculties of the university, a repre- sentative from each of the six; superintendents from each of the six school systems that we have formal relationships with; the commis- sioner of education, a representative from WGBH-TV, our educa- tional station; representative from the National Association of Independent Schools, a representative of New England School Devel- opment Council, which is a semiprivate association of New England school systems. I never can complete the roster but there are eight or 10 nonschool, nonuniversity pa.rtners~ a total of about 25. PAGENO="0204" 550 U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION Mr. HATHAWAY. Thank you. Go ahead. Mr. HERZOG. I just want to call your attention to one thing which I think is an example of the very wise policy of the U.S. Office of Edu- cation. That is this Project Physics which is being sponsored both by the National Science Foundation and the U.S. Office of Education. This is a physics curriculum development project conceived in part to provide an alternative to the Physical Science Study Commission ma- terials which are much better known which have been in use in the United States I think since the late fifties produced by the organiza- tion which is now Educational Services, Inc., Dr. Harold Zachai~ias. An excellent program, too. But the office has deliberately sthnulated two rival curriculum development programs which have basic differ- ences. I think it is an excellent. posture to take to avoid this Federal control which people worry about. There is another thing which I want to call to your attention, another very happy facet of the past few years. We have been sin- cerely and regularly impressed with the quality of the persom~el at the U.S. Office of Education. This is not to say that there are prob- ably not a few who might well be replaced. But this is a very small minority. In general the Office, considering its obscure history and the speed with which it has come into the public scrutiny and given enormous responsibilities, has an outstanding array of sensible and dedicated and intelligent people. Many of the arbitrary things that we experience, and Dr. Arbuckle referred to and I am sure you have heard from other witnesses, are a function of the other side of the problem, that they have been given enormous responsibilities which they are not used to entirely, but which there are certainly not enough of them to handle. The Office is simply too small. When you go down there, when you try to reach them on the phone, when you try to deal with them just through correspondence they quite obviously are running at a steady dogtrot. There is this musical chairs with all the reorganizations they have been through in the last several years, which I think are necessary. A lot of this last-minute business, a lot of this apparent arbitrary business, a lot of the reason that most of us feel we can't get through and talk to these people and we don't know why they are making certain decisions, I think at base is a function of the fact that they are terribly overtasked. We are, too, and everyone these days is, afraid of increasing the Federal bureaucracy. Maybe for another agency a much better case cotild be made. I sympathize very strongly with these men. I don't think Harold Howe made this point very clearly in the hearings. I suspect that as part of the general economy drive he felt it would be impolitic for him to suggest that maybe his agency could use more staff and a higher- level staff through Civil Service upgrading, and so forth, than it now has, but I am free from that restriction, and I think this agency is being mistreated by both the rest of the executive departments and the Congress. T~iey are given too few horses to do the job that they have been asked to do. Despite this they have performed very ably under the circumstances. I would like to call your attention now to some of the problems. Another that we are impressed with, and this is where Joe Young can PAGENO="0205" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 551 be particularly helpful, I think, is that while you have-when the Congress initiates legislation there is generally some very consider- able and thoughtful investigation and hearings and so forth, and when the Office actually gets into the process of awarding grants and con- tracts the money for this, that, and the other, this is, we think, a fairly efficient and certainly just system of making awards. There obviously will be particular examples of bad justice or bad practices and so forth. I don't know about the cases that Dr. Arbuckle just described to you. He may be perfectly correct. I think that there is a process within OE as well as within other agencies in Washington which may be overlooked. That is the process of developing guide- lines, which, after all, is a crucial step between the legislation and the awarding of money under the guidelines. I think it is here that the spectre of Federal control, if it ever is going to emerge, will probably emerge first. Ironically, it will emerge in those programs which the Congress has deliberately tried to make as flexible as possible. Then given all these pressures, these poor fellows are understood to come out with announcements of how you get the money 3 days after the Congress has enacted and the President has finally signed the legislation. The last thing you can really set up in an organiza- tional framework is flexibility, the last you can build into a way of doing things is flexibility. I am pretty much in the dark, really, about how guidelines are made up. It would seem to be a kind of secretive process, secretive not from the sense that it is deliberately kept from scrutiny but pres- sures come on, people have decisions to make, deadlines to meet, and a lot of conflicting advice to try to bring into concord one way or another. And they have to go back to their office and hatch something. Mr. GIBBONs. Let me interrupt you for a moment. We think that perhaps we are going about the legislative process in the wrong man- ner. We on the congressional end sometimes get the feeling that when somebody has a legislative idea', they turn it into a lot of legalistic terms, what we sometimes call mealymouthed words, and they go over and they jockey it through Congress hoping tha.t Congress won't un- derstand it too thoroughly, get the President's signature on it, and then they run back and say, "Oh, boy, look what we got; let us see what, we can do with it." And then they put out the guidelines. I think be-fore the legislation comes to Congress there should be some narrative about what they want to accomplish. There should be some guidelines, some regulations, and the package of material should per- haps be at least available for interested Members of Congress and their staffs to study. Then, when we get the legislation passed, there would not be this panicky period that you talk about, where somebody has to figure out what all these words mean. Perhaps I have over- simplified it and I have made it too sarcastic, but I think that is where the problem is. Mr. HERZOG. I think that is an excellent idea. I would like to see what Joe Young thinks of it. Except one thing, I don't think it would be successful unless you gave the Office another staff to do this. Mr. GIBBONS. More staff? Mr. HERZOG. Right. Maybe this particular new assignment or new way of doing it wouldn't require a great many people, but it will be PAGENO="0206" 552 u.s. OFFICE OF EDUCATION kind of hopeless to add it to the present burden that they carry. It would be an excellent investment. Mr. HATHAWAY. What we mean is that they have to write the guide- lines anyway. They should write them first and then come to Con- gress rather than with a. draft of the bill. Then we could work back- ward from there as to what we think the draft of the bill ought to be to cover what they want to do. Mr. YOUNG. I should make one comment in this connection. You used the word "secretive," Jolm. I wouldn't concur with that. I think it has connotations I don't think you intended, but my experi- ence has been confined to fellowship programs generally under title V. I have been closely associated with the various processes, developing the guidelines, participating in some of the reviews of both the expe- rience and the prospective, and also the committee which Mr. Bigelow ~et up to look back at the year of action and try to make some sense out of it. Most of the difficulty I think is the absence of time and the fact that people have not formulated their ideas and a considerable amount of leadtime is required. Of course that is a very excellent suggestion of trying to do this beforehand, Mr. Gibbons. This Experienced Teacher Fellowship Pro- gram, for example, was signed on November 8 and the fellowships were announced on February 10. That is a herculean task because it meant that the guidelines had to be developed and to accomplish this Mr. Bigelow invited a number of people (I was not among them) to develop the guidelines for the Experienced Teacher Fellow- ~hip Program. Then the announcement came that they had a thousand proposals. All that action. They had 50 t.ř 75 people around the country to review these proposals. Now he is trying to look at this question of changing the guidelines and so forth, but the time that is involved is enormous in trying to get people freed from the university respon- sibility, the school responsibility, to come down to Washington to present their views. It is a very difficult problem. I would like to say I have no idea of this guidance institute issue to which Mr. Arbuckle has referred, but with respect to the title V I know that Mr. Bigelow has involved a number of people in this process and, in fact, in a fashion which I think is quite different from what we would expect in bureaucratic arrangement. In some of these things he has called the people together, set the charge and then withdrawn himself, saying, "You come up with something that makes sense." It is your responsibility. He has not abdicated his responsibility as a bureaucrat to go into this matter of awards, but he has sought the reaction of the people in the field. Mr. Hr~zoo. I agree with what Mr. Young has said. I would like to make a couple of suggestions. First I think IJSOE is under- staffed. It should be looked into. Second, I think the career and professional opportunities of working in the Office should be en- hanced, so that the Nation is assured of obtaining the best possible men and women to work there. Mr. GIBBONS. How do you do that? Pay them more? Mr. HERZOG. That would be one way. Secretary Gardner, accord- ing to the newspapers, has a plan for reorganizing the entire Depart.- PAGENO="0207" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 553 ment of Health, Education, and Welfare which would involve making three separate departments within it, the way the Department of Defense is. I understand that this would mean civil service up- grading all along the line. This would enable the Office in general to staff its top positions with a notch or two higher of civil service rated employees. This is one way of dong this. New positions would also mean that new people, perhaps attracted to the Department of Education or whatever it would be called, within HEW, would be recruited to a level and variety of jobs that don't exist now and perhaps another infusion of high-quality people could be obtained that way too. Again along with Commissioner Howe, we wish to suggest that the present procedure of approving HEW appropriations in August or September is extremely detrimental to the operation not only of the Office but of the schools and universities in which the Office is more and more engaged. I am sure the superintendents have made their feelings clear to you about that. The Federal Government is out of phase with the way the school systems make their budgets. Universities with endowments are a little more flexible but you are out of phase with us too. The Office also, you know, goes through a summer of almost paralysis, starting in May or June, no knowing what they can get started, hedging bets, talking without seeming to commit itself to everybody. A great deal of tension, anxiety and ill feeling builds up, with nobody knowing what they will have to work with. Finally, I think it might be possible, and I am confused here and I would like to ask really that maybe you look into this. it would seem that a good bit of the decisionmaking and the hectic atmosphere could be alleviated if USOE were permitted by Congress or if the agency used `the authority which it now possesses to enter into more than year- to-year contracts, on a multiple-year contract or grant basis. I have heard that the Office does have this authority now and I have also heard that the Office does not have authority now-~by people you suspect should know in `both cases. I am very much confused. There are other agencies such as the National Institutes of Health which `say that they have authority to make grants for 7-year periods. They don't usually go to 7, they still stop at 5, but this is still quite a con- trast to USOE. And when many of the projects we are engaged in now are of a long-term nature, a 6 months' or 1-year involvement is often just enough to get started. It `would seem to me that a more flexible arrangement, if it is not permitted by Congress now, or inter- pretation `by the Office- Mr. GIBBONS. That is a problem of Congress because most of these acts that we are operating under have 1- or 2-year terms, or perhaps 3-year terms. Elementary and secondary has been on a 1-year basis, now a 2-year basis. OEO is on a 1-year basis. NDEA is on a basis I don't really understand. It comes up for review so often that they probably don't have any statutory authority to go past that. In drafting legislation for the `future that is something to remem- ber-to put. the research and development part of it on a much longer basis than some of the operational phases. `Congress has been afraid if we got into the operational phase of some of these programs without getting an opportunity to review them, we might be creating something we were not sure we wanted. PAGENO="0208" 554 U.s. OFFICE OF EDUCATION Mr. HERZ0G. The grants that NIH makes include a provision that says, "This money is awarded to you subject to congressional appro- priation." This is a reasonable request both by the National Insti- tutes and by Congress. There is a degree of control which Congress would always retain because it makes annual appropriations. This might lead to embarrassments if Congress did not quite produce all the money that the contract called for. But the other extreme we are at now, where no one is willing to commit anything beyond the. S or 9 months of the year they are already in, it is really difficult. Mr. GIBBONS. I can see that. You talk about pipeline here, and pipeline models. I hope you will get into that. Mr. HERZOG. I will get right to it. Do you want me to go over these other things? Mr. GIBBONS. Yes. Mr. HERZOG. There was an article that I brought along that was passed out which really I think puts this philosophy or way of think- ing, whatever it is, in black and white better than I can do, both because I don't believe in it and because I don't have time to do it. But I feel there is a kind of ideology that is guiding the Bureau of Research within the Office of Education, and I think it is shared in other sectors of the Office of Education, that ideas for the improvement of educa- tion are generally hatched or come to light, within a rather narrow group of mtellectuals, of research people, of university scholars. This ideology would allow that maybe sometimes suggestions can come from the field, but basically teachers' or administrators' suggestions are hind of naive and simpleminded. Their ideas, you know, may be diamonds in the rough, but they have to be carried back to the research shops and worked out there, tested as to whether they are real and true. or not. When they have been tried out, the next step of kind of developing them in real school situations, is taken. Some of your first studies may just have been questionnaires or observational or very much part-by- part attempts to test validity and nature of some new proposition. ~\Then you move into the stage of development, you usually go out into some kind of laboratory school or hothouse school or experimental school, or more and more these days the classrooms where a benevolent and openminded school superintendent says, "Okay, you can work in it, we will let you try out your social studies material in these six class- rooms in the high school, and you work out the bugs there." And then, at some usually not-too-clear point, you decide that this stuff works, you have been doing a lot of testing and analyzing and evaluating while you are doing it, you say, "Okay, now we are in a stage of demonstration. We will invite other school people in to see what we have developed." Then they can decide for themselves or maybe we can run training institutes in the summer or after school or during special periods of the school year, so that the teachers or whoever is supposed to be involved in this new enterprise or this new form of activity can really learn what it is all about, see it in operation, have a chance to practice it, practice teaching the new social studies curriculum and so forth, and go back to their own school systems. You try to involve people from all over the country or region so that there will be a kind of spreading out. When you start doing this PAGENO="0209" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 555 YOU reach the stage of dissemination which I think is a very obvious stage of trying to promote the adoption of this new idea, usually not in a hucksterish way. Sometimes perhaps some of the textbook coin- panies get a little bit aggressive about the new math or the new this or new that, but I think, in general, and appropriately, every new idea has a lot of competition to be heard and noticed. This essentially is the pipeline model. USOE is currently in the business through the B. & D. centers, through its reorganization or supposed reorganization of the Coopera- tive Research Act, through the establishment of the regional educa- tional laboratories, through attempts to build connections between re- search projects, R. & D. centers, regional labs, title III and title I and general support I would suppose in various ways. This notion of, "whatever is going on needs improvement," is one with which most of us will agree. Programs can be improved through kmd of just developing ideas through the process I have just described, and some- how getting school people all over the country, over a hopefully shorter time than it has taken up until now, to adopt these new ideas. It is my feeling and the feeling of many of us at Harvard that this way of thinking does provide a perhaps needed rationale for the en- tire range of activity that the Bureau of Research supports, which it didn't have before. It didn't do dissemination before, and so to a much more important degree than I think OE believes, the result of the previous cooperative research works were not widely known. And in my opinion, few deserve to be widely known, not because they weren't well-done pieces of work, but they were not relevant. Mr. GIBBONS. To get down to the fundamental problem that we have, you get so much research, maybe not enough-and I am not an opponent of research, I support it-but we seem to get a lot of it. The Library of Congress has tons of it stacked up over there in the field Of education. If you go into the stacks and start wading through that, you feel like the world is coining to an end when you see all that paper. It is a little bit here and a little bit there. Who is supposed to eva- luate all this and determine whether it is worth anything? Who is sup- posed to disseminate it? Who is supposed to put it together and put it into some kind of action? I sometimes think if we did all the things that research found prac- tical, we would never be able to stand it all. Do you get what I am driving at? We have to find some media to turn research into action or to discard it, to at least know where to go in the future in research. We are often accused and ridiculed in articles about just promoting research for the purpose of research, one of the things that we who have to get elected every 2 years get sensitive about. Can you give us any guidance in that field? Mr. HERZOG. I agree with this criticism in the sense of urgency with which it is offered to you or by you. I think that really by oversim- plifying the problem, the issue can be avoided for a year or two or three, but it will be right back with us because if you try to solve an enormous problem by obviously inadequate methods or ways of think- ing the problem will still be there a couple of years from now. I think a crucial element has been left out, and I am not sure whether it is the greatest, but it strikes me personally because it is the way I 73-728-~67---pt. 2-14 PAGENO="0210" 556 U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION think about things. We are faced with requirements for a very, in- tensive1 very time-consuming, very complicated set of relationships to develop between the people who run schools, not just in general but particular schools in school systems, and persons who are interested in new ideas in education and have them think that maybe they have a few ideas that might be of use. The adaptation of the innovation to the particular situation is one side of it. The X curriculum cannot be taught in schoot A and school B in the same way. This cannot be imported and exported like that. On the other hand, school people are doing things now for some reason or other. Maybe we don't agree with them but maybe we would if we knew them better. They do, after all, have a certain pride in what they are doing. I don't think many school people go to school day after day think- ing, "Gee, I am doing a lousy job, I ought to be ashamed of myself." They avoid this issue in a lot of ways and in some cases they are not doing a lousy job day after day either; a few of them, anyway. I think this need to feel that whatever I am doing now is worth- while stands in the way of a great deal of useful educational change, and it is simply not dea~Et with by this particular model. This model assumes that people are standing around in their school system just waiting to be told what these new ideas are, or waiting to be trained to use these new ideas, and everything they have been doing can be just flushed away and we start all over again. There is an enormous problem, an enormous task of really opening up on both sides: the school people to the new ideas, because they hear and see a university or whoever the researchers or innovators are, paying attention to them as persons with real problems and real con- cern in investments; and imiversity people on the other hand realizing they are dealing with real people and real institutions. Not only the people but the institutions have investments in what is going on. We are trying to build this sort of interplay here at Harvard with Boston and Cambridge and to a degree we have had it. It is easier to have with several of our suburban school system friends, Newton, Brookline, Concord and Lexington. We have not had it with Cambridge and Boston. We think we are on the road to achieving it to a degree here because through the center we have been able to enter into this kind of dialog and see the same problems from each other's view. At the same time we cannot increasingly have the feeling that we are not doing what USOE would like us to do, but that we are doing something very surprising and different because it does not fit into this rather over- simplified model. Mr. Grsno~cs. Mr. Herzog, my pusher back here has needled me twice about the fact that I have run out of time. Usually I get gaveled down. But I am very much interested in what you and Mr. Young have to say. I hope that perhaps you will call on me sometime during your visits to Washington, since you know I have been inter- ested for some time in the field that you both work in. We are going to put your statement in total in the record at the beginning of this discussion together with the article on the educa- tional laboratory. PAGENO="0211" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 557 (N0TE.-A copy of a letter from Hendrik D. Gideonse, author of the aforementioned article, to John D. Herzog appears below.) Mr. HERZOG. For a variety of reasons that are in my prepared state- ment which we have not talked to and some of the ones we have talked about, our greatest problem right now is to continue the interest of our top people in education and Harvard in general in working on education through the U.S. Office of Education. There are procedures and policies and expectations which really seem to come from the Office which effectively discourage the really top men in various academic disciplines from wanting to work with USOE. This is a tragedy. In some cases they can go to another Government institution like the National Institute for Child Development, for example, or they can go to foundations and continue their work. In other cases I think the discouragement, and it is `a new one, is when an eminent man who is becoming newly concerned with education, may effectively turn his concern to something else which he can go into without this bother and problem. This really bothers us now and I am sure it should bother USOE. I am sure it does, but I don't think they realize how serious it is here and maybe elsewhere. Mr. GIBBoNs. Thank you very much. Mr. HERZOG. Thank you. (Letter from Hendrik D. Gideonse to John D. Herzog.) (Dr. Gideonse is the author of the article entitled "The National Program of Educational Laboratories," to which Mr. Herzog referred in the course of his testimony.) WASHINGTON, D.C., January 3, 1967. Mr. JOHN HERZOG, likoecutive Director, Harvard Research and Development Center, Graduate School of' Education, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass. DEAR JOHN: I recently became aware of the testimony you delivered before Representative Edith Green's Special Subcommittee on Education in their Boston hearings on December 3, 1966. You have imputed a number of things to the November, 1965, Phi Delta Kappan article and the Office of Education's view of educational improvement which de- mand comment and correction~ Insofar as anyone thinks of the process by which knowledge is created and applied about learning and education `(or for that matter any area of human concern) it makes a great deal of sense to talk about a logical flow from research through development and demonstration to imple- mentation. But that logical flow is vastly different from the process of changing any system so that it can accommodate the newly developed knowledge and its applications in its everyday ongoing operations. I agree with you, therefore, that the application of anything approaching a "pipeline" model to change in the educational system would be inappropriate. It would be so because it would make it appear that improvement in the schools followed a direct linear route. We both know that is not the case. If you wish to use the word "pipeline" generally, if somewhat infelicitously, in connection with the logical description of the knowledge-building process, then I have no objection. But to describe the model of change underlying the article using the word "pipeline" is to make a fundamental mistake. One of the principal pur- poses of the laboratory program is to marry (not merge) more closely the logical process of the development of new knowledge and improved procedures to the * empirical processes of change and growth in the educational system as we now find it. Quite to the contrary of your contention, then, the article is about a program part of whose rationale is that the "pipeline" model you describe will not work by itself. `(I might add here that even the clearest explication I know PAGENO="0212" 558 U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION of presenting the research-development-diffusion-implementatiofl model added im- portant caveats to the effect that it was possible to begin the process at any point in the model and that it was always necessary to keep in mind the possibility that fi~w through it would be less than linear. See David L. Clark and Egon G. Guba, An Ecvamination of Potential Cli ange Roles in Education (mimeographed), pp. 4-6, 9, and 10.) There is a second problem with your critique, however, this one a little more serious. The assumptions which you impute to the supposed pipeline model are neither true, held by me, necessary to the model as you describe it, or present in my article as you implied they were. My belief that generally speaking it makes sense to think about the process of building a foundation of knowledge on which to build educational improvement in terms of a research-development-demonstra- tion-implementation continuum does not entail subscription to some of the "dan- gerous" assumptions which you claim to abstract from the "pipeline" model. In fact, if you will re-examine the article I think you will find many passages which contrast rather sharply with the assumptions you ascribe to the model. For example, you will find that I make clear over and over again that I am talking about improvement, not just change. You will find that I refer to the importance of teachers not only seeing demonstrations of new practices but act u- ally trying them out, hardly the "hot-house" demonstrations you ascribe to the model. You will find that I specifically mention how little we know about the role and function of change agents in the school but that at least we are coming to the point of asking the questions. Even the opening anecdote is a refutation of the last assumption. And as for the sixth, that "assumption" is not present in any way, shape, or form in the article, and it would be foolish to claim that it is! To carry the example further is pointless; the disparity between the article and the claimed assumptions is apparent on a back-to-back reading of both. If the assumptions are essential concomitants of a belief in the long-range effectiveness of well-conceived and balanced research and development efforts then I for one would be the first to recommend we quit our efforts right now. On the other hand, we cannot afford to spend public dollars at any level of govern- ment for "messing around." And the oniy real alternative to messing around is carefully planned cumulative research, well-supported development, credible dem- onstration, and the development of the required capabilities in the army of pro- fessionals who must know the improved practices in order to implement them. If there is a philosophy or model expressed in the article and the laboratory program it is that simple attention to the logic of the research-development- demonstration-continuum will never by itself get us to any more efficient levels of instruction, learning, or education (in other words, a claim of the insufficiency of the "pipeline" model), but rather that improvement in education depends upon a process of persuasion and accommodation among different identifiable sub- systems In education. No one understands more fully than those of us here bow difficult and com- plicated educational improvement is. We do not know yet how to bring about the general implementation of improved practices on a continuing basis, but we have some clues. We do not castigate anyone or find anyone reprehensible; it is hard to do so when we are all begiimers in this effort. We do not believe that all good things in education now stem from research; but in the long run. if there is good, coordinated research and it is well-supported, it is likely that much of what is good in instruction will come from there. Dialog on these matters is important among all parts of the research and education community. You reported, however, that you found it "extremely difficult to reach and talk to TISOE officials about these matters." It has been fourteen months since the ~ticle appeared. I have yet to hear from you I suppose the most disappointing aspect of your testimony is that while it bore all the signs of an act of demolition it offered little in the way of construc- tive suggestion. It would be foolish to deny that the school is by and large unchanged and inadequately implementing what we already know about human learning and human motivation. But models of educational change can be intellectually criticized all day long. It is a pleasant academic pastime. The problems of the schools, however, be they urban, rural, suburban, segregated. poor, advantaged, or inadequate are numerous and will not wait, and what we need are constructive suggestions which go something beyond your critique. Let us get the issues out where they count and can be dealt with. Our job is to help, and I am at your service in that effort Sincerely, (Signed) HENDRIK D. GIDEONSE. PAGENO="0213" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 559 Mr. GIBBoNs. Now we will hear from the panel of student financial aid officers. We will put all your statements in the record at the beginning of the time you appear in the record. Mr. Hathaway and I are both very familiar with most of the student assistance programs that the Federal Government has because we sat through the birthing of them and the modification of them in the case of NDEA. So you can keep your remarks on the phase of what is in the act and how it operates relatively short. We would like to hear from you as to what problems you are having, how the act can be improved and what criticism you might have of how the acts are being achninistered. I don't know whether we have any order of seniority here. Being left handed I will start over here on my left and go across. If each one of you will make a brief opening statement and then we will start kicking it around. STATEMENT OF PANEL OF FINANCIAL AID OFFICERS, ROBERT 3. KATES, ER., CHAIRMAN AND DIRECTOR OP FINANCIAL AID, NORTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY, AND PETER GUNNESS, DIRECTOR OF FINANCIAL AID, HARVARD UNIVERSITY, GRANT E. CURTIS, DIRECTOR OF FINANCIAL AID, TUFTS UNIVERSITY, ROBERT J. MORRISEY, DIRECTOR OF PLACEMENT AND FINANCIAL AID SERVICES, UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS Mr. KATES. I am Robert .J. Kates, Jr., chairma.n of the group and director of financial aid at Northeastern. We have our group state- ment. (The statement follows:) Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, I am Robert J. Kates, Jr., Director of Financial Aid at Northeastern University. Let me introduce to you at this time my colleagues on our panel this morning. Mr. Peter Gunness, Director of Financial Aid, Harvard College; Grant E. Curtis, Director of Fi- nancial Aid, Tufts University; Robert J. Morrisey, Director of Placement and Financial Aid Services, University of Massachusetts. Mr. Gunness, Mr Curtis, and I are also members of the Eastern Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators Steering Committee. As financial aid officers at these institu- tions, we administer the major programs which we have broken down by levels of activity in the attachment to our statement. My plan this morning is to pre- sent a brief opening statement and then to direct questions at my colleagues on the panel and to provide answers to as many of your questions as we can at this time. We are greatly appreciative of the efforts of Congress to provide the colleges and universities with a complete package of aid implements which we can use to solve the ever increasing financial problems of students and make possible an equality of opportunity in education. There is general agreement that the co- ordination of grant, loan and employment programs as represented in the Higher Education Act of 1965 provides a sound approach for federal aid to students in higher education. Our mutual problem is to modify these programs in such a way as to improve our ability in the colleges to carry out the intent of Congress. With this in mind, let me voice several general concerns. One of the major concerns of the aid officers is the gradual departure in the new legislation and resulting administrative procedures from the dependence on PAGENO="0214" 560 U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION the judgment and integrity of aid officers and the colleges and universities. In both the College Work-Study Program and the Educational Opportunity Grant Program, the guide lines spell out operating procedures in such specific fashion as to make more difficult our job of effectively and efficiently administering these programs. In addition, the great quantity of information required both in the application procedure and later reporting procedures impose a heavy burden on aid offices without appearing to add anything to the effective operation of our program. We are also concerned that the appropriation time table for these programs imposes severe budgeting, planning, and, in some cases, financial hardships on the institutions since most recruiting, admitting and awarding procedures are completed by the institutions by April 1 of the year in which the students enter college. This year our first indication of an approximate level of support was received in mid-May and was followed by notification of the continuing reso- lution providing for minimum support levels in mid-August. With the growing importance of these federally supported programs to increasing number of stu- dents, it is important that a means be found to move the appropriation time table forward to coincide with the college admission time tah1~~- We are also concerned that the Guaranteed Loan Program be revised to bring a consistency of philosophy regarding financial need to this program, which will play a greater role in over-all student support in the future. The Guaranteed Loan Program must also be made more attractive to the banking community, if it is to achieve the wide-spread support needed to meet the demands which will be placed upon it. At this point, let me ask my colleagues on the panel to elaborate on some changes which we feel necessary. Major student aid programs-Levels of activity 1966-67 Tufts University: National Defense Education Act loan $380, 000 Economic opportunity grant 43,000 College work-study program_ 274,000 Northeastern University: National Defense Education Act loan 650,000 Economic opportunity grant 353, 000 College work-study program 2,060, 000 University of Massachusetts: National Defense Education Act loan 434,000 Economic opportunity grant 235,000 College work-study program 358, 000 Harvard University: National Defense Education Act 1, 300,000 Economic opportunity grant 67,000 College work-study program 500,000 Mr. KATES. At this time, I should like to introduce to you the fol- lowing directors of financial aid: Mr. JoIm Madigan, Boston Col- lege; Mr. Everett Hicks, Boston University; Miss Nancy McIntyre, Radcliffe College; Miss Jan Gebron, Regis College; Mr. Robert Cas- well, assistant director, Northeastern University. Mr. GIBBONS. We are glad to have their presence noted and we welcome them. Mr. KATEs. I would like to elaborate on one area and that is the problem caused by the funding process of the programs as opposed to our timetable in trying to get the student into college. The two are not tied together. We are recruiting and talking with students and receiving their applications long before we have any idea of the commitment on the part of the Office of Education. These programs are essential to the students if they are going to attend. In the case of this past year where we had a longer than usual process, we saw in our own institution a significant increase in the PAGENO="0215" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 561 number of people who dropped out because they had no work, they had no assurance that they would have the funds. Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Hathaway and I want to make it perfectly clear. We understand your problem but we are not guilty of any of this delay-but go ahead and criticize. It won't hurt its. Mr. KATES. We would need to know of our organizations, our firm commitments, by at least January of the year in which the student is going to enter college. In the case of the Educational Opportunity Grant Program, now we are being asked by the Office of Education what we are doing to make firm commitments to high school students prior to their senior year. Mr. GIBBONS. You need at least 9 or 10 months of leadtime, is that right? Mr. KATES. We do because we are telling these students that they must make a choice among institutions by the first of April or the first of May. Mr. GIBBONS. These are appropriated funds you are talking about? Mr. KATES. These are appropriated funds. These are the firm commitments that are being made to us. Mr. GIBBONS. I wish the staff would make a note of the fact that we perhaps ought to investigate some way we could get perhaps an appropriation a whole year in advance. If we could get you an ap- propriation a whole year in advance- Mr. K~ms. You are doing this I believe with the Opportunity Grant Program where you are making a firm appropriation in one year to be used with the entering class the following year. This is what we need because by the intent you are driving us into making firm com- mitments to students even earlier than their senior year in high school in order to prevent them from dropping out of high school, in order to encourage them to go on to college programs. Mr. GIBBONS. Frankly, we want you to get down to the ninth or 10th grade where the family obviously has no chance. Mr. KATES. Right. We have to put something in their hands to the effect that "this guarantees you the financial resources when you are admitted to a college." Mr. GIBBONS. You keep your grades up. Mr. KATES Right. If you are admitted then you can rest assured of the finances. This would help to keep them in the college programs. But we can't do this unless we have some assurance that when the student arrives at our doorstep we are going to have the resources. The problem that we had this year left us in a position where we had to tell many of our upperclassmen that we don't have the loan funds for you, for example, because they are needed to match the Opportunity Grant Program. I think at this point if Mr. Morrisey~ from the University of Mas- sachusetts would comment on the opportunity grant program and some of their problems it might be appropriate. Mr. GIBBONS. Is this the first time you have run short on loan money? Mr. K~TEs. This is the first year that I, myself, have run short. Mr. GIBBONS. Is this true of any of the rest of you? PAGENO="0216" 562 u.s. OFFICE OF EDUCATION Mr. GUNNESS. We have always been short. Mr. MORRISEY. Every year. I wanted to mention along with Bob Kates' remarks along with the Opportunity Grant funds in referei~ce to the matching funds, I would like to preface my remarks by saying that if one could gen- eralize on needy students, which one should never try to do, one might say you could have three groups of needy students. You have the real needy student who has need of a thousand dollars on up to go to college. You have a student, who is slightly needy, needs somewhere between $500 and $1,000 and you have the student. who is not really needy at all, he might need a $100 to $500 but he is not very needy. OEG funds are going to the most needy group that need at least $1,000 or more. Now we have to match that. In most cases we do not have enough scholarship money of our own to match. Therefore, we dig very heavily into the National Defense Loan Fund to match. As a result., since OEG came out, our National Defense Loan ftmds are being used so heavily with this heavy-need group that your middle- need group, the $500 to $1,000, which I use as an offhand figure, is hurting in terms of getting National Defense Loan money because we have gone so heavily into using that in matching with the OEG. Now what I would like to suggest is that it all be amended to allow us to match OEG by culling work-study models as well as National Defense and also by the Guaranteed Loan Program. This would give us a much greater cushion for the matching of the OEG. Mr. GIBBoNs. That sounds like a good suggestion. Mr. MORRISEY. I have lots of other things but I told Bob I would stick to that point. So I will turn it back to Bob Kates. Mr. KATES. One of our other problems was a shift. in the basic philosophy on relying heavily on the judgment and integrity of the aid officers and their institutions into a type of control which penalizes the institution and our operations. I would like Mr. Gunness from Harvard to speak on this problem. Mr. GuNNESS. This becomes a. sort of more general problem, I think, of one that was mentioned earlier by JoIrn Herzog. The whole range of control, Federal control, implicit or otherwise, that gets injected into colleges as they administer various programs- Mr. GIBBoNs. When did this begin to take place? Mr. GuNNESS. As I think back in history, and these are my observa- tions: the NDEA program was set up in quite a remarkable way. Congress was to appropriate money to colleges to give to students. The colleges were to develop their specific. standards which, as long as they followed the broad general guidelines set imp both in the legis- lation and in the way that the guidelines were written. A lot, of dis- cretion was left to the fiancial aid officer and to the university to choose those students to whom it would give the money, and how it. would report and keep track of the money. as long as it was accountable in whatever way the Office said, but not down to specific operational day-to-day details. I guess how I see what happened was that at first a lot of colleges didn't go into these programs. Colleges that had loan programs did. PAGENO="0217" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 563 They saw the opportunity and jumped in easily. It was easy for them to add another kind of loan program to their already existmg program. They had procedures, styles, operational means whereby they could handle the new money that they were given to lend to students. As long as the Office of Education defined broad frameworks within which they were to give this money, it was quite easy for the college that had experience to follow these guidelines without havmg to change many of its own procedures to coadapt to the needs of the 01.1cc of Education. Then, as new colleges came into the program that had no experience with loan programs-and this I think might apply to other of the financial aid programs-turned to the Office of Education for guidance. When colleges asked, "How do we do it, what do we do?" the Office of Education probably said, and I would say this was not intentional on their part, "You have to figure out how to do it, we don't want to control you." The colleges said, "You can't give us this much money and not tell us how to administer it." There was a felt need on the part of some col- leges to have more direction. The response was very obvious. Some guidelines would be dra.fted which were really not guidelines but in fact rules on how one should run a. program. The Office of Education was responding to a request for guidelines which were drafted for colleges who were often new to programs of this type. Those of us who had a lot of experience were confronted with guidelines which really drastically altered the opera- tions of our programs and very often the decisionmaking that we had sort of ha.d as a prize before. We had been trusted instruments, if you will, and we beca.me less so, I think. I don't think there was any conspiracy or any intentional effort on the part of the Office t.o take over, to move into an area which we feel is our responsibility, but in fact I think it has happened. I suppose it is terribly hard to set up guidelines that respond to what I think is the great strength of American education, which is its diversity and variety. Yet you begin to pipe in guidelines to help colleges having many different purposes and n'iany different points of view, and you begin t.o get a kind of homogenization or standardiza- tion. In a way, the colleges are asked to produce whatever it is the Office of Education wants to see at the end of the line. We have to alter our procedures, and maybe we do begin to standardize some of our practices beyond the point that we would want to. Mr. HATHAWAY. Can you give us an example of how you are re- stricted now compared to when you were not before? Mr. KATES. Probably the Work-Study Program was the first major program where they changed the direction of operations. We had to out exactly what we were going to do, where the students were going to work, how much they would be paid on a job-by-job category. Our application this year for our own institution runs 70 pages, and I am sure it is not going to be read, absorbed, and really scrutinized in that sort of detail. Nor does it have any effect on our program. RathEr, it has an adverse effect in that in dealing with outside agen- cies who. have the same budgetary problems that we do they are apt to say, "Well, we caii't tell you specifically what. the job would be cr how many we can use. We can niake a tentative commitment." PAGENO="0218" 564 u.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION They may not want to be bound by this. We say a student can work no more than 15 hours a week as a hard and fast rule, without allowing any flexibility in terms of a longer workweek in one week but no work at all in the final exam week. There is no provision for averaging out a work schedule for a student. Representative Q:uie' asked the question of whether we took into account a student's academic performance on the job. And we do. If we felt the student was not able to work, we would not assign him to work. We are not going to force him into a job. There is this feel- ing that we should regulate and spell everything down to the last detail on this. Mr. GIBBONS. If you can give us a memorandum how you think that Work-Study Program ought to be amended we are probably going to get to that one next year. Mr. KA~rns. I would like Mr. Curtis of Tufts to comment on the grant program. Mr. ~un~is. Any testimony of this kind should not begin without urging you to continue your support of the National Defense Loan Program. The colleges were pretty well concerned last spring when we thought we might lose it. No doubt you saw some evidence of the concern that parents, students, and the colleges themselves felt if this program were done away with. We feel the guaranteed insured loans are helpful, but we urge the continuance of the NDEA program f or low- and middle-income families in particular. They are the ones least likely to approach banks. They are the ones least likely to get loans from banks. Continuance of the program will also allow us to continue to package right in the college where the financial aid officer can work out a rea- sonable proportion of work, loan, scholarship for students who must get various sources of funds in order to meet the high cost of college. The guidelines in this program are general in contrast to the EOG's and the college work-study program, where we have seen a gradual erosion of the flexibility of the financial aid officer's opportunity to make flexible decisions. This is an aside, but we think that the Office of Education ought to go back and rewrite the guidelines for the EOG's a.nd the college Work-Study Program more in line with the trust that was placed in the financial aid officer in each of the institu- tions irnder the National Defense Loan Program. The National Defense Loan Program has been attacked from time to time by various sources indicating that the students will not repay their loans, they will treat them as an outright gift or disappear or what have you. No doubt you have seen articles in the New York Times and Wall Street Journal and so on. I do not have the national figures but we submitted our own report to the Office of Education on national defense loans last month. In the last 8 years I have loaned $2.5 million to over 2,000 students at my university. At the present time, 1,199 persons are under collection; $1.4 million is under collec- tion; 28 persons have $4,300 overdue. Two percent of those that have borrowed and are now repaying are overdue by 30 days or more. The amount of money is 3 percent of the total under collection. My recommendations for ti'e National Defense Loan would be that, as you are no doubt aware, there is a maximum of $1,000 a year with PAGENO="0219" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 565 a total of $5,000, which an undergraduate is presently allowed. This is a rather artificial type of demand or law in that some students need to borrow more than a thousand in some years, and in pther years they need to borrow less than that. Yet if a student borrows $500 in one year his total amount of money that he may borrow eventually is cut down by a thousand, not by the $500. I would urge increasing the maximum loan in any One year to $2,000, let us say, which will meet the tuition in many of the private institutions of the country. I would urge this not with the intent that you increase the maximum undergraduate loan. In fact, I would suggest they remain at $5,000 or $6,000. But give the financial aid officer and the student some more flexibility and some more latitude. Finally, I don't think I would represent the educational and the financial aid community very well if I did not call your attention to the fact that we would still like to see that oath removed from the National Defense Loan law. We feel that its efficacy still re- mains to be pioved. We are not aware of any studies which inch- cate `that it is helpful. Students treat it in various ways. I have had very few people refuse to sign the oath. I think that in seven years, four students have refused to take the National Defense Loan because of the oath. In each case it usually was a religious pro- hibition or a religious feeling on their part. So we wpuld hope in future legislation on the National Defense Loans, the oath. would be omitted. Mr. M0nRISEY. If I may, gentlemen, just add a point relative to collection to Grant's fine point. My own president of the University of Massachusetts asked me specifically to comment on this point. He feels strongly-and, of course, you have heard this many times- that the colleges were given quite a burden as far as collection of National Defense Loans were concerned.. One of the reasons, of `course, for the high default rate in the early days was that institutions were not prepared for this kind of thing and actually did nothing about it for several years until they finally discovered what a dilemma they were in. It is his feeling and mine and that prevalent in good many colleges that the Government could be doing a little more in aiding us financially with the administrative financial burden that we get in terms of the collection process. In a large institution, it means hiring several people to carry this out, do all the paperwork involved, and so on. It is a tremendous burden. I would be remiss if I didn't bring this point up, that we feel there needs to be a greater aid than the 1 percent that is now al- lowed for administrative purposes, particularly at the collection end. *Mr. GuNNE55. Could I just ~tdd that it sort of follows along with one of my thoughts that money is important, and it helps to make the i ob of collecting easier. But I have the feeling that this is one of those areas where the problem was recognized perhaps a little later than it should have been recognized. The solution is a rigid set of principles which will then be issued by the Office of Edu- cation as to the definitions and ways of handling the problem. ,There is too often very little technical assistance, especially to the college who didn't have the expertise in collecting the money. A lot PAGENO="0220" 566 U.s. OFFICE OF EDUCATION of misunderstandings developed, both on definitions of what was out- standing and. bad debt. Default can be defined in many different ways. It seems to me that applying a single definition of default through the. collection procedures of 2,000 independent and separate institutions just is impossible. Is it 15 days, 14 days, 13 days? It has to be. adjusted to t.he requirements of t.he college, some negotiation with the Office of Education on this. It seems to me at times there hasn't been. Mr. GIBBONS. I think the problem is brought about as most problems are brought about: there is always an apple that goes bad in the barrel and they throw out a lot of other apples to get to that one. We have had that problem in the NDEA loan program although it has been extremely minor. Mr. Joic~s. [Director of student aid, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.] I have done some consulting with other universities. I am from MIT. I was largely called in because MIT has a very old loan fund of it.s own, something like 35 years old. We have had a re.inarkthle record of repayment which is probably due to two t.hings: One, the quality of our students; and Two, the conservatism with which we have handled the loan fund for a. very long time. For a long time, we had to practically prove you didn't need money to get it. In any case, with a 30-year history involving over $9 million~ we have ordy written off something like $25,000. The point that I discovered in investigating this collection problem with other institutions is in two parts: One, b~ause of the nature of the collection procedure that was forced on the college, they had to be very inflexible with their students. They had to insist on collection when good educational judgment would have indicated that they should have extended t.he loan even though it did not match. the administrative or legal requirement.. For instance, a girl marries a graduate student and she is in debt, and he goes on to gradua.te school. Mr. GIBBONS. A negative dowry? Mr. JoNEs. That is correct. I have read letters in folders where these students had every intention of repaying but they simply were not because they were now two and not one-a family rather than a single individual. They didn't have the resources to meet this re- pa~~ment. Mr. GIBBONS. You wonder what two of those $5,000 borrowers would do if they married each other. Mr. JONEs. The second point I discovered was that there is actually a conflict in the law, it seems to me. It seems to me that the Congress had the. idea originally that a good deal of risk would be involved in this program if you were t.rying to reach people who were upgrading themselves, who were probably stretching their potential as it were and consequently the insitutions were making loans on quite a risky basis. They were not conservative loans; they were quite liberal; they were definitely risky. You are going to have a higher rate of default with that kind of program than you are going to have if you run a very conservative program which MIT did run for a good deal of its history with its own private loan fund. WTe have now gotten very much more liberal with this and it is quite possthle that the fine record that we have will vanish, a.nd that PAGENO="0221" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 567 we will have a more serious default problem. Although, again,~ we have the advantage of dealing with a high-caliber student body and certainly academically, we don't run that much risk. But in a large municipal-type institution for instance or very large State university, if you are doing the kind of job I think Congress wanted us to do, you are going to have a higher rate of risk involved. Consequently, if I were a representative in Congress on the com- mittee, I would be very dubious about these national figures. 1 don't think they tell you the whole story. Mr. GIBBONS. That is a good observation. Mr. JONES. I would like to make a couple of other points if I may, simply to round out a little bit-I associate myself with everything that has been said by my colleagues this morning, and they are actually much more experienced in the National Defense Loan Program than we are because of the strength of our own program. We only got into the NDEA about three years ago. But I would like to say first of a.ll, and this harkens back to Mr. Herzog's testimony, I am most impressed with the quality if not the quantity of the staff of the Office of Education. I think it is remarkable that a bureaucracy that started in small with such a traditional history behind it has grown to the degree it has and acquired the personnel that it has of this really very high quality. We find it very easy to deal with these people. It is just that there are so few of them and their attentions are so divided. Mr. GIBBONS. Do you deal primarily with the regional office or Washington office? Mr. JONEs. Both. The regional office is understaffed. Given that limitation, it does a remarkable job. The quality is high. Mr. HAThAWAY. You deal with both because you can't get an au- thoritative answer out of the regional office? Mr. JONES. No, sir. It is simply because we tend to be a national kind of clientele, you might say. Mr. MORRISEY. May I make a point that very frequently I will find myself contacting Washington rather than Dr. Johnson in Boston. Not because Dr. Johnson won't give me a wonderful answer, he is a very fine person, but very frequently I will receive a communication from Washington about our program which invariably says in the last sentence "If you have any problem regarding this, don't hesitate to call me." So I do. Mr. JONES. Not only that, Dr. Johnson in any given day is apt to be at Colby or Dartmouth or almost any other place. As a matter of fact, in my little black book, I have Deacon's number or Alexander's number so that I can dial directly. Mr. HATHAWAY. You think that decentralization is advantageous, too? Mr. JONES. Yes, it is necessary. At the same time we need contact with Washington, too. By and large, one way or the other, we have had it. I am still speaking to the general thinking that these people have been wonderfully able, effective, cooperative, and generous with their time when they could be. I would certainly underline Mr. Herzog's statement that you need more staff down there. I think you need more staff in the regional PAGENO="0222" 568 U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION office. But goodness, you are marvelously served by the quality of people they have pulled in. The whole thrust, the whole orientation of the Office has been so drastically changed. I go back 10 years and I remember the annual production of statistics by Mr. Swatzenbaum who must have been a * furiously busy man, and there wasn't much else. The statistics were 2, 3, and 4 years out of date at the time. They had to do with the general sort of ideas that ignored the individual college. I have never been able to use any of that stuff. Now, we have this remarkable new group of people who understand us and our problems. I think the country is extraordinarily fortunate in this. Going on, I don't know whether it is in the purview of your investi- gation this morning but I would like to know that eventually you will come around to looking into the accounting procedures. To speak for my own institution, I would simply have to classify our accountants as practically apoplectic over the problems that they have to contend with in trying to do an accounting job within the guidelines or the administrative rules or the law that they have been handed. We have had almost to completely retool a very large, complicated, highly automated accoirnting system in order to do the job that has been demanded in this field. Now, we are talking about an institu- tion that has an mmual budget of $70 million. It is so big I don't even know about it. But just to handle a fairly small part of it, they have had to do a tremendous amount of work in redesigning their equipment, redesigning their programing, rede- signing their categories. I just wonder if we have not gotten the phenon~ei~on of the tail wagging the dog here. I would like to know that eventually you peo- ple will be asking the college, its business officers and accounting of- ficers their views on this aspect of the thing. Mr. GIBBONS. Have any of you been audited by the GAO onNDEA? Mr. KATES. Yes. Mr. GIBBoNs. Have all of you been audited by GAO? Mr. GUNNESS. Two years. Mr. Giuuoxs. How about on the college Work-Study Program? Mr. KATES. No. Mr. GUNNESS. No. We have had careful review. Mr. GIBBONS. Let me ask you something about the philosophy of forgiveness for teachers. What is your practical view? Mr. JONES. Could I stick an oar in on that? I have a strong view on that. I think the forgiveness feature is marvelous. I am fully in agreement with it. I think it is simply too narrow. I think there are other occupations which have a high social value which Congress certainly should take into account. That is where the normal economic return to the individual is, let us say, under scale in terms of the actual return of that occupation to society. I would think generally of two other categories, and I am sure that my colleagues could come up with others. You undoubtedly have others still. In particular, I would think of the importance of social work and the whole apparatus that is now being developed in community action programs, with t.he underprivileged programs, et cetera, where we ought to be encouraging people by the same device. PAGENO="0223" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 569 Mr. GIBBONS. Are we really encouraging this? Mr. KATES. Let me speak to that point. I am diametrically op- posed because in my experience you design the law to encourage teaching by forgiveness. It does not do that. It works the other way around. The students apply for the loan because they are going into teaching and can take advantage of the forgiveness aspect. Their concern is, "Where can I get the money? I have these sources, this is most favorable. I will take it." But if we think we are going to encourage anyone to go into a career with enthusiasm and vigor on the basis of a 10-percent or even 50- percent writeoff over 5 years or a hundred percent over 7 years-that is an amount that is $1,000 or $2,000-we are going at it the wrong way. Mr. GUNNESS. I would be in favor of helping people, giving money to people who are going into higher social need areas, but I don't think you attract them through a device like this. Mr. JONES. A rebuttal. It is not just attraction. It is driving them out by reason of having too many burdens after they get into the profession. It is to the extent you are preventing a loss, an attrition on the profession after the students go into the work. ~A. teacher may have every intention of making a career out of it, but he begins to run into problems of family formation, of carrying a home mortgage, and that sort of thing. If he also has to pay off a lot of NDEA, then ob- viously you are forcing him to look around -for alternative professions. Mr. GIBBONS. The answer is to pay him better, Mr. MORRISEY. I think the important `point here is that the intent of the law is really not being served. I understand the intent of the law was to get more people into teaching. I don't think the intent of the law is served. Mr. JONES. Iwould want to see statistics on that. Mr. HATHAWAY. I was going to ask you about Work-Study any time you are ready. Will the increase from 10 to 25 percent materially affect your program? Mr. KATES. This will hurt the on-campus program particularly. We .have not found' any problem offcampus. We have a fairly sub- stantial off-campus program. The 25 percent does not scare these people off. On campus this would mean an increase in the cost of the Work-Study programs. It would wipe out roughly 30 percent of the proposed tuition increase next year, which is rough. It also means I can't get as much in scholarship aid which I need to match my EOG funds. So that the increase would have a very serious effect on our total aid program, not necessarily Work-Study. Off campus my feeling is that the increase to 25 percent is beneficial, at least if you are going to run a large and effective program, because it gives the agency more of a' stake `and perhaps' encourages them to more closely supervise the students. `Mr. HATHAWAY. You think they will be able to raise the money? Mr. KATES. We have hard and firm commitments on our students for next year. We didn't expend our money this year because `of a ``duplication in summer jobs. They `file them with several agencies. We are attempting to work on an exclusive arrangement for fixed commitment of people `to certain agencies, and they have assured us that they will come up with the funds on the 25-percent basis, and PAGENO="0224" 570 U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION we will solve that problem because the students have provided a. tremendous amount of assistance for them. They are not make-work jobs with these agencies. They are allowing them to expand programs that otherwise might not be expanded. They are perfectly willing to come up with the 25 percent. As I say, from our standpoint we would almost encourage the in- crease simply to make the program more meaningful to them. If you give it away there is a tendency perhaps not to evaluate it quite so highly and perhaps not pay quite so much attention. But on campus we would be. definitely hurt drastically if it went above the 10-percent level. Mr. hATHAWAY. You must have had a difficult problem persuading the Office of Education where you have a cooperative program any- way, that these were all new jobs at Northeastern. Mr. KATES. The bulk of our jobs are off campus and on campus part time. The co-op program in terms of full-time assignments for st~idents while they are not in school is a. limited part of our total cooperative program, and I feel can be justified in several areas. One. it is finding jobs for people in the social agency field that the agencies could not afford at the hundred percent rate. It also provides us with a. buffer in that we are totally committed to Cooperative Edu- cation for upper classmen and must find assignments for these people. So a limited number of co-op assignments gives us this flexibility of putting fellows in a. job that must be clone for this period while we are searching for a job in one of the industrial firms or one of the other areas. Mr. HATHAWAY. All of your cooperative employment is off cam- PUS? Mr. KATE5. Well, say the greatest, probably 90 or 95 percent of our cooperative employment is off campus. Mr. W~m~w~x. In private industry? Mr. KATES. In private industry, in the same social areas, in munic- ipal agencies, Federal Government. It covers a wide range of fields. Our general way of encouraging institutions to participate in the ~T~rk5tudy Program is to do it on a combination basis where they will not simply fund their entire program through Work-Study in the case of a school system but would use a fair amount of their own funds to take people who would not be eligible for Work-Study because a stu- dent going on Work-Study must meet the same need of employment. If a student can finance his education without the earnings of coopera- tive education, then he is not eli~iMe for a cooperative full-time job. That Work-Study co-op is a. limited aspect, but one that was a great benefit because it is of assistance in an area where the agencies need these people but could not afford a hundred percent. Mr. GIBBONS. May I ask about the Work-Study? We have limited it to private, nonprofit~ corporations or governmental agencies. Is it possible or is it desirable to perhaps extend that into some of the other organizations, profitmaking? Mi'. KA~r~s. Conceivably, from one standpoint, if you are dealing with youngsters who need a great deal of training and who perhaps don't have much to offer industry. But our basic philosophy would be no, the demand from private industry for students is far greater PAGENO="0225" U.S. OFFICE OP EDUCATION 571 than we are able to supply. So in that area there is no problem, and we would just as soon, I think, stay out of it. The greater need for funds in this area is for the training and de- velopment of Cooperative Education programs in developing mstitu- tions, where you could perhaps use the funds under title III to msti- .tute and develop a program of Cooperative Education in an institution which does not have one. The funds could be used to tram the staff people, help them to set up the machinery for doing this, for going out and recruiting the initial industrial firms to come into the program, and in effect, act as seed money that would be actually withdrawn after 3 or 4 years when the program is in full operation. We attempted a proposal of this nature which combined funds for the training of cooperative people, the research on the effects of Co- operative Education on attendance, the value of it, with a financial aid package that would encourage the recruitment of students from low- income families, from high-need areas. It was an interagency or an interbureau committee, but we didn't get it funded. This is a thing where dealing with private industry, you are financing the recruitment of the industry into the program, but let them pay for the peopic- Mr. GUNNESS. The one attempt we had this last summer was with a number of the graduates of the School of Design. We would have liked to have placed all the students on jobs, on building sites around the city. It seemed to us that even if the money had been available to pay for something such as this, that this is a recruiting effort on the part of the construction and architectural industry, and a part of the curriculum which it seems to me they should finance. Mr. GIBBONS. You say there is plenty of demand in this area of the country for that type of operation anyway? Mr. KATES. Right. Private industry has a wide range of positions which could be filled by Cooperative Students because they in most programs go into industry with 1 year of college under their belt and have a little bit of background and can enter industry without any hardship to industry. They can generally get their money's worth out of a pair of Cooperative Students. They have a year's service. It is tied in with the educational program. There is no lack of demand there. The problem is simply to get more schools to participate in this program so that the demand in major industrial areas can be satisfied. Mr. GIBBONS. Fine. My pusher is pushing me back here again. Father McHugh is here. Do you have some other points you want to cover very briefly? Mr. KATES. One point on the collection. There is no provision that ire know of for actually writing off a bad loan when we have deter- mined that it is bad. We are just stuck with reporting that year after year. The other final thing perhaps would be to emphasize again the importance of eliminating the nonsense from the statistical reports, the great burden of administration on us. It creates a problem. Mr. GIBBONS. What kind of nonsense are you talking about? Give us ~n illustration. Mr. KATES. For example, on the educational opportunity grant program, they come around in October and say, "OK, now what have 73-728-67-pt. 2-15 PAGENO="0226" 572 u.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION you actually disbursed since the first of September until the 30th of September? What will you disburse in the next fiscal period?" We can tell them this without having to identify them by freshman, sophomore, male, female bi~eakdown on the award. Mr. MORRTSEY. They want us to tell them how much mOney we are going to spend per month wider the Work-Study program and the month of August broken down. Why would it make any difference on the number of student.s work- ing in two parts of the months? This gets to be nonsense. Mr. GIBBONS. Why don't you send us some of these requests for in- formation that, you feel should be eliminated from the reports. Mr. IcA~s. If I might comment on the Guaranteed Loan Program. ~Tithi the originai design of the program to aid middle and upper in- come family students we are completely agreed. As the program `breaks down, as a substitute for National Defense or major supplement to National Defense it does not work because the banks are n~t inter- ested in the very students who need the money most. The banks are naturally gravitating toward the upper income family students. Mr. GIBBONS. WTe really meant the Guaranteed Loan Program to go up and t.ake some of the heat off some of the people with larger in- comes, and we set a $15,000 ceiling on the family income be- cause we didn't want people taking these funds and investing them in the stock market or something like that. We figured we would keep it down reasonably. . Mr. K~rns. This is a perfectly reasonable limit.. It is a. perfectly fine program as long as we don't get the idea that the banking com- munity will now extend this to provide the funds for the total student loan programs that. are required. The presidents of the banking asso- ciations may indicate that their member associations will cooperate, but like anything else, it depends on persuasion. When you get down to the operating level and the hard cash of how much the banks can comn'iit, they just ca.n not get involved in an extensive program of *that nature. It is unfortunate because the people who suffer are the st.udents who are caught in the middle, unable to get funds at the college, given a razzle-dazzle and showing a display of footwork that would amaze even someone like good old Cassius here by banks who don't want to touch the program with a 10-foot pole. We have a letter of introduc- tion that the students use to try t.o get the banks to tell us why they won't participate, simply so that we can go back to our own bank and say, "Here is a student who has tried and has been refused." Our bank has agreed to pick these up and go beyond the normal bank accounting, but now the banks are shuffling the student and saying, "Don't talk to us at all." Mr. GIBBONS. The banks are getting 8 percent on pretty good com- mercial loans where they used. to get 4 percent. Mr. JoNEs. The pressure on us comes in part from getting less in the way of National Defense Funds than we need. This forces us to look hard at GILP as a way of supplementing or using our own institutional loan funds in ways that are in a sense dangerous for their own future. We are diverting what investments we may have in cash and lending it out and taking 1 or 2 percent interest income rather than a 6 or 8 percent. PAGENO="0227" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 573 Mr. GIBBONS. Gentlemen, we could goon all day. I would like to hut Eastern Air Lines won't let us. Thank you very much, gentlemen. Mr. KATES. Thank you. Mr. GIBBONS. Father McHugh, by having you last- Mr. HATHAWAY. He understands the last shall be first. Mr. GIBBONS. Father McHugh, we welcome you here. We will give you as much time as we have remaining. We will even try to stretch that a little. Father, we can place your written statement in the record at this~ point, or allow you to read it, summarize it, or say anything you want to. STATEMENT OP REV. PAUL F. McHUGH, DIRECTOR, NEW ENGLAND CATHOLIC EDUOATION CENTER Reverend MCHUGH. Mr. Chairman, I would like very much the opportunity to read this because I think it does establish the frame- work for further questioning and sources of information of benefit to you. I understand there is a time factor so if we do adjourn at 12 o'clock, I will understand. Mr. Chairman, Congressman Hathaway, members of the staff and counsel, I appreciate this opportunity to appear before you today to share with you certain observations concerning the operations of the U.S. Office of Education in im~)lementing th~ intentions of Congress and the specific legislative provisions of the Elementary and Second- ary Educa.tion Act of 1965. May I compliment the committee in undertaking this investigation, which should be of benefit to Congress in further intensifying the maj or responsibilities toward education, which should be of invaluable assistance to the Office of Education in their operations, and of im-~ measurable benefit to the recipients of educational legislation, the children of America. I would like to introduce myself as the director of the New England Catholic Education Center, which was established at Boston College on July 1, 1965, to research and service the educational needs of the nearly half million students in New England whose parents chose Catholic parochial schools for their children. These schools number nearly 900 elementary schools and 300 secondary schools, staffed by 16,000 lay and religious teachers, maintained at a.n annual operational expense of $50 million, and which, in current public school expendi- tures, would represent an annual operational output of over $2 billion. During its first year and a half of operation, the center's activities have focused upon research relative to the needs of the pupils and teachers in these schools, has provided services to upgrade the pro- fessional competencies of these teachers, has served as a clearinghouse for educational information relative to these schools, and has~ at- tempted to relate the needs of these children and their teachers to pro- grams currently forming the mainstream of quality American education. I hasten to say that the 11 Catholic school superintendents of New, England are in full accord with the philosophy and specifications of PAGENO="0228" 574 U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. I hasten to add that~ speaking for these 11 superintendents in New England, I have this opportunity to congratulate the Office of Education, which in spite of many difficulties, has made every attempt to translate this piece of legislation into programs and services of benefit to all the children which this legislation was conceived to assist. There is a popular notion that children attending church-related private schools are children of parents in favorable economic and social conditions. One of the recent studies supported by the center, however, indicates that nearly 50 percent of the children attending Catholic elementary schools in New England come from families of the lower middle or upper lower class, highly concentrated in urban areas, and, consequently, are in personal need of the programs and services, which are geared to alleviate the handicaps of educational deprivation. The guidelines prepared by the U.S. Office of Education to imple- ment various titles of ESEA give every evidence of the sensitivity of the Office of Education and its staff to both the intention of Congress in formulating this unique legislation and to the educational needs of the children in all schools that this legislation intended to serve. It is the feeling of the New England superintendents that every effort has been made by the US. Office of Education to inform the admin- istratórs of nonpublic schools of their opportunities and responsibili- ties to assist public school authorities in the preparation and conduct of programs and services of benefit to all children. It is the consensus of opinion among New England Catholic school superintendents that any difficulties arising in the implementation of this legislation finds its source, not in the efforts of the Office of Edu- cation, but in breakdowns at the State and local levels, resulting from State constitutional prohibitions or misunderstandings of the bill itself. I would like to inject in my testimony at this time a substantial agreement among my colleagues to the statement made by the National Advisory Council on the Education of Disadvantaged Children in its report to the President on March 31, 1966, which stated, and I quote, "There are some early indications that the disadvantaged children in private and parochial schools are receiving less help than title I in- tended for them." And further, "Many localities seem to involve private school pupils in the periphery of a project, or at a time and place that is inconvement." The feelings of my colleagues, however, do not attribute this situa- tion to the Office of Education aiid its efforts, but rather agree to the supplemental report from the Committee on Education and Labor (89th Cong., second sess., II. Rept. 1814, p. II), which urges that, heretofore: The administration of title I by the U.S. Office of Education will be pursued with strong requirements to assure that there is meaningful and cooperative discourse between public and private school administrators in advising projects in which the special educational needs of educationally deprived children who do not attend public school can be met. At the present time it is the feeling among Catholic school super- intendents of New England that the first year of implementing Pub. PAGENO="0229" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 575 lie Law 89-10 has been marked with considerable success. It is our feeling that these main points have been accomplished: 1. Under title I the educational needs of deprived children attend- ing nonpublic schools have begun to be served by a variety of imagma- tive and educationally sound programs. 2. That new and strong lines of communication and partnership have been effected between public and nonpublic school personnel. 3. That nonpublic school education at large has become more aware and considerate of the educational problems of public education. 4. That there has been a strong willingness to modify and even abandon traditional administrative and educational patterns that for all too long have been hallmarks of separation rather than cooperation between the public and nonpublic sectors, which serve America's ed- ucational needs. 5. There has been a willingness on the part of nonpublic schools to expend additional moneys to implement new programs and services initiated and stimulated by 89-10. 6. Under title II, there has been a concentrated effort to establish a State list of approved textbooks and other instructional materials, which meet the requirements of current legislation and which are of immediate service to the children who attend both public and non- public schools. 7. The implementation of title III in New England has not met with the immediate success of titles I and II because of the very na- ture of supplementary centers, which involves careful planning and the inclusion of educational agencies other than formalized educa- tional institutions. At this point, I would like to offer some positive suggestions as to the improved operations of the Office of Education. 1. That nonpublic school personnel be encouraged to take a more positive role in the initial planning of programs of service to chil- dren. 2. That the Office of Education enlist in a positive manner the ad- vice and counsel of nonpublic school administrators at every level of program approval and evaluation. 3. That the Office of Education encourage State departments of edu- cation to enlist the advice and counsel of nonpublic school personnel in their role as program evaluators. 4. That the Office of Education establish clearer and more constant lines of communications with non-public-school administrators in the establishment of regional offices of the Office of Education. My testimony today is deliberately brief in order to afford the mem- bers of the committee ample opportunity for information and ques- tioning. In summary, may I say that the ingenuity of Congress in composing this legislation has not found in the Office of Education any less ingenuity in the implementation of this legislation for which many children in America, previously unrecognized, will be afforded the educational opportunities for developing into intelligent and partici- pative citizens. Mr. GIBBONS. Father, I thank you. That is a very fine statement and very well delivered. It almost leaves me questionless. I certainly PAGENO="0230" 576 U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION don't have any disagreement with the recommendations that you make there. I think they are sound. I hope that they are carried out. Mr. HATHAWAY. How are the parochial school children participat- mg in title I in Massachusetts ~ Reverend MCHUGH. There is a. unique problem in Massachusetts. 1 prefer not to enter that in the testimony if possible. Mr.. HATHAWAY. That was cleared up. by the Attorney . General's opinion, but too late this year to do anything about it. Reverend MCHUGH. That is true. I am not talking about culpabil- ity. I am talking about lack of fill understanding of the local State department of education in interpretation. That has been clarified by the Attorney General's decision. Mr. HATHAWAY. In title II, you are getting all the textbooks? Reverend MCHUGH. Title II is fine. Mr. HATHAWAY. Title III, implementation, don't they include in it discussions of proposals of private schools? Reverend MCHUGH. There has been discusison with non-public- school authorities. I think perhaps one of the most imaginative title III proposals is now subject to a planning grant, this is in a rural area of Vermont. This involves planning and new facilities for a new program to meet the needs of children in a cooperative school district. The nice part of this particular program is not only is it imaginative in terms of new and creative programs of education, but it does take into consideration the religious needs of a variety of religious institu- tions in t.ha.t area. No funds of course are being used for construction purposes, but the various denominations have pooled their resources in terms of placing, adjacent to a new school, facilities for religious instructions of all faiths. I think this is really imaginative and should be watched in terms of a~ pilot program to be duplicated in other areas~ Mr. HATHAWAY. You are recommending finally that OE just sug- gest to these local school administrators that they call in non-public- school personnel, not necessarily require them to be on their planning boards? Reverend MCHUGH. Yes, sir. Mr. Ginnoxs. Do you have any contact ~with the higher education programs? Reverend MCHUGH. I would say tangentially, but it is not my direct responsibility. Mr. HATHAWAY. You think in general. the program in elementary education ha.s worked out fairly well- in New England? Reverend MCHUGH. I say given the fact that there are local mis- understandings, given the fact this was a quickly expedited piece of legislation, I think in general it has been satisfactory. Mr. GinnoNs. I agree with you. I think they have done a remarkable job in the time they have had. They might send out some peculiar questionnaires or something like that, but we send out questionnaires, too. I am getting ready to send out one. I am sure a lot of people will think the mateii~ial in it is not needed. I really think the Office of Edu~ation, from what little we have seen in the field in 3 days, has apparently dOne a very remarkable job, and that the understand- PAGENO="0231" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 577 ~ng in the matter of the church-State relationship has been better and more tolerant, and with a greater degree of wisdom than many of us feared. I have no further questions. Father, we certainly appreciate your coming. Mr. HATHAWAY. Thank you very much, Father. Mr. GIBBoNs. You work so precisely you have practically left us questionless. Thank you very much for the thought you have given to this. Reverend MCHUGH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. GIBBONS. This. concludes our hearings in Boston, Mass. (Whereupon, at 12 noon, the hearings were concluded.) PAGENO="0232" PAGENO="0233" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION WEDNESDAY, DECENBER 7, 1966 HousE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SPECIAL SUBCOMMITTEE ON EDUCATION OF THE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR, Atlanta, Ga. The subcommittee met at 9:40 a.m., pursuant to call, in room 318-20, ~[J.S. Post Office and Courthouse, Mrs. Edith Green presiding. Present: Representatives Green and Erlenborn. Present also: Maurice Heartfield, research assistant. Mrs. GREEN. Good morning. I am Congresswoman Green, and to my left is Congressman Erlen- ~born from the State of Illinois, and to my right Mr. Heartfield, the student aid officer at George Washington Urnversity, who has been loaned to us by the university for study of the U.S. Office of Education. While Congressman Erlenborn and I are in Atlanta today and tomorrow and in Kansas City on the following 2 days, other members of our subcommittee are holding hearings in Chicago and then in Minneapolis. The study of the Office of Education started last July 1, on the adoption of a resolution by the Congress. We hope to have the report; in January, or at the latest in the early part of February. The study is primarily directed toward the Office of Education and how the programs that have been enacted by the Congress in the last few years are being implemented. The hearing in no way is to be considered as an attempt to carry on a vendetta against any particular individual. I think the members of the subcommittee have had a very splendid working relationship with the Office of Education. At times we have had our differences of opinion, but during these hearings, both in Washington and across the country, we hope that attention will be focused upon the legislation itself, and the adminis- tration of programs. Congressman Erlenborn and I have been asked to state what con- clusions we have reached. Let me assure you that we come to Atlanta, and we come to the other parts of the country, not with the answers, but rather with the hope that we would have a better understanding of the problems. As I have said to others, we are concerned, during the study, with all of the programs from the preschool level to the graduate level, but we do hope that we may focus our attention primarily on three specific pieces of legislation, one, the National Defense Student Loan Pro- gram; two, the work-study program, and three, title I of the Ele- inentary and Secondary Education Act. We are concerned about the 579 PAGENO="0234" 580 U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION legislation itself. We are concerned about the guidelines, the rules, and the regulations that have been drawn up to implement that legisla- tion. We do not ask that all of the comments be limited to these three areas. If there are other parts of the legislative program in which constructive recommendations could be made, and should be made, we hope that the witnesses will feel free to do that. Congressman Erlenborn and I are also very much concerned about the reaction of the educators in this part of the country to the establish- ment of the regional offices, the decentraliaztion of program adminis- tration by the Office of Education. We will turn to our first witness this morning, Dr. Jack Martin, regional assistant commissioner for the Office of Education, and also charged with the responsibility of implementing title I of the Elemen- tary and Secondary School Act. Dr. Martin, will you proceed in any way that you wish in presenting your views? STATEMENT OP DR. C. r. MARTIN, REGIONAL ASSISTANT CO1~MIS~ SIO~tER, OFTICE OP EDUCATION Dr. MARTIN. Thank you, Madam Chairman. For reasons already explained to you, I am going to have a colleague read my statement, and following that we will have a statement from Dr. A. W. Boldt, whois the regional representative for Higher Educa- tion, who will speak primarily to student financial-aid problems, and then following that, Dr. Louis Armstrong, who is the senior program officer of title I, Public Law 89-10. My colleague, Dr. Childers, will read this prepared statement. Dr. CHILDERS (Dr. B. E. Childers, regional representative, Adult and Vocational Education) (reading): 1~Iy name is C. J. Martin, regional assistant commissioner, U.S. Office of Edu- cation, region IV, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. First, I want to welcome you and members of the committee to Atlanta, and tell you that I feel it is a step forward to hold these public hearings in the regional offices where the committee can call in people who do not have so far to travel to testify. In this way the committee should be able to reach the people who know best how the Office of Education operates at the local and State level. Region IV consists of six States, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Tennessee. At the present time some of our program officers operate in both regions III and IV. Region III is headquartered at Charlottesville, Va., and covers States from Maryland through North Carolina and extends as far west as Kentucky. In region IV, there are 255 colleges and universities, all of which have at one time or another participated in student financial aid programs. For various rea- sons some have dropped out of the programs, although we still maintain admin- istrative responsibility to see that these institutions which have dropped out make collections for loans previously made. There are 226 institutions which' are now actively participating. There are 692 school systems in this region, many of which are county systems, and the others are city or independent school systems. There is no record of how many local schools participate in Federal programs, but it is my guesa that 97 to 98 percent participate in some kind of Federal program. Office of Education programs which have program officers in the Atlanta re- gional office-and these are broken down according to the operating bureaua of the main office-are: Higher education, which includes National Defense Student loans, guaranteed loans, college work-study, educational opportunity grants, and higher education fadlities; grants and loans. PAGENO="0235" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 581 Under adult and vocational education, we have representatives of manpower development and training, agriculture, home economics, business and office edu- cation, continuing education and community services, adult basic education, and civil defense education. - In elementary and secondary education, we have school construction in fed- erally impacted areas, Public Law 815; maintenance and operation for schools in impacted areas, Public Law 874; Cuban refugee programs; aid to disaster areas; education of the disadvantaged, title I, ESEA; grants for supplementary and innovative centers; grants for strengthening instruction, NDEA, title III; and grants for guidance, counselling, and testing. In addition, we also have a small projects program in research which permits the approval of grants up to $10,000, providing the research can be completed in 18 months. We also have representatives of the Civil Rights Act who work in conjunction with the Equal Educational Opportunities Office in Washington. A function recently added to the regional office is what we call the information center. The center provides information to the public and assists staff members by providing various data needed in the performance of their professional responsibilities. This has been most valuable and is growing in importance. There are 20 grant and/or loan programs of the Office of Education that are administered in the Atlanta office. At the present time the regional office staff consists of 27 professional personnel who administer these 20 programs. Three regional representatives, at GS-15, are authorized in the broad areas of: higher education, adult and vocational education, and elementary and secondary eclu- cation. Two of these regional representatives have been appointed, one in higher education, the other in adult and vocational education. The regional representative for elementary and secondary education will be selected shortly, I understand. Grades of the program officers range from GS-11 through GS-14. I have been delegated authority to select and appoint personnel through grade 13. Grades 14 and 15 are selected and appointed by the Washington office, but with my concurrence. Since January 196~, the staff in the Atlanta office has been increased by 15 professional personnel. It was at this time that the decision was made to designate the Atlanta office as a pilot to other regional offices by expanding the staff to effect decentralization of program operations. The staffing pattern as it now stands calls for a total of 71 clerical and pro- fessional positions by July 1, 1967. Whether we reach this goal or not will depend upon how long the present freeze lasts. Selections have been made for three positions, but no reporting dates have been set, since the candidates can- not be appointed until the freeze is lifted. If a disagreement should arise between the regional assistant commissioner and one of the program officers, and it could not be reconciled at the regional level, it would then be brought to the attention of the Associate Commissioner for Field Services and the appropriate Bureau Director, and the decison would be left to them.. So far this has ~ot occurred in the Atlanta office. The decentralization of functions to the regional office seems to me to be necessary if we are going to serve the clientele adequately in these grant and loan programs. In my thinking, it is impossible to maintain contact that is necessary to the successful operation of the programs from the Washington office. Certainly the Washington office should establish policy under which the region- al offices must operate. The people who are responsible for making a success of Federal programs at the local and/or State level are most anxious to main- tain constant contact with the Office of Education program officers. They have many questions concerning these programs to which they desire to receive direct answers. It is much easier to obtain answers from the regional level than it is from the national. It is my feeling after having workedin this field for a number of years, that. all of the schools and institutions want to do a good job with the Federal funds now going into education. The Deputy Commissioner of Education, Mr. Graham Sullivan, issued a memo- randum, dated November 21, 1986, which goes into detail about the decentraliza- tion of State grant programs. It also lists programs which are to be decentralized. At this point, Madam Chairman, I should like to insert for the record, as exhibit No. 1, a copy of Mr. Sullivan's memorandum to which I referred. PAGENO="0236" 582 U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION The actual décčntralization will depend upon the willingness of bureau and division directors to implement the memorandum referred to above. Atthe present time, there is no funding of programs at the regiOnal office leveL It is my understanding, however, that consideration is `being given to' decentrali- zation of funding. There are three programs which are now decentralized up to the point of funding. They are: Manpower Development and Training, title III Of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, and the small grants program under research. In fiscal year 1966, the six States which make up region IV received a total of $430,514,053 for all Federal aid programs in education. Madam Chairman, here I am inserting, if I may, exhibit No. 2, which is a photostat copy of the breakdown of expenditures by the six Southeastern States. From all indications, this amount will not decrease in the future, but perhaps will increase. A strong responsibility of the Office of Education in administering funds of this magnitude should be in the field of proper accounting for funds expended. One of the responsibilities of the program officers in the regional office is to make a determination that institutions and local and State agencies are expend- ing their funds for the purposes intended by Congress. This does not constitute an audit. All audits are performed by Office of Audit, DHEW. This can only be achieved by continuing field trips and working with the constituents. My immediate superior in the Washington Office of Education is the Associate Commissioner for Field Services, a position which was established early in 1966. The Associate Commissioner is responsible directly to the Commissioner, and provides a direct line of communication for me with the Commissioner himself. This, I think, is a great step forward in the U.S. Office of Education. Budgeting for the regional office has been consolidated rather than broken down by program areas, as it has been clone in the past. It is necessary to use three appropriations: one for manpower development and training, which ac- tually comes from the Department of Labor; one for civil rights; and the third for all other services. Funds are no longer broken down by program areas. We do have authority to make changes in object classifications. The program officers in the regional office maintain direct contact and communication with the appropriate division and'b'urëau personnel in the Washington office. The bureau establishes an over- all work plan, but day-to-day activities are decided at the regional level. * The Regional Director, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare in Atlanta, is interested and actively engaged in educational programs. The co- ordination between the Regional Director's office and the Regional Office of Education is a reality, and not just in theory. For instance, the Regional Director became interested in an attempt to improve the staffs of the various Negro colleges in the Atlanta area. This came to his attention due to the fact that so few Negro graduates were entering Government employment through the Federal Service entrance examination. He and the regional representative for higher education have held a number of meetings and have made some progress in bringing into the Negro institutions of higher learning competent people who can help the seniors do a ~efter job on the Federal service entrance examination. The regional director of HEW in Atlanta shows a very great interest in all of our educational programs. The Regional Office of Education in Atlanta has worked hand in hand with the Office of Economic Opportunity in an effort to obtain better cooperation between the OEO Headstart program and the title I preschool programs. We have had some degree of success, although not as much as we would like. This is due in part to the fact that some communities in the South looked with disfavor on the Headstart program and also the fact that school systems tend to show a degree of independence when Federal funds are available., The Office of Education in Atlanta has also participated in numerous State and regional meetings with community action officials. Our cooperation with the Bureau of Employment Service, Department of Labor, is constant, because there must be joint approval of manpower development and training programs by the Bureau of Employment Security and the Office of Education. We have worked very closely with the Neighborhood Youth Corps and have a liaison committee appointed w hich is interested in establishing some pilot PAGENO="0237" U.S... OFFICE OF EDUCATION 583 projects that would ~e of interest to both Neighborhood Youth Corps and title I (education of the disadvantaged) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. The Office of Education must also maintain close contact with the Department of Housing and Urban Development,, since at the present time all architectural and engineering services for construction of facilities are provided by this Depart- ment It is my understandmg that eventually these services will be transferred to the Office of Education In the summer and early fall of 1966, joint meetings were held in each State with representatives of Health, Education, and Welfare. These meetings were designed to pr.omote better coordination of services. It is evident that a great deal of overlapping occurs now in the services avail- able for children in the agencies of Health, Eduëation, and Welfare. The States, in turn, have been making an attempt to pass this idea for better coordi- nation down to the local agencies concerned. The Office of Education in Atlanta maintains contact with all of the profes- sional educational associations in the States, the region, and the Nation. Staff members of the Office hold positions in regional and national associations. The Southern Association of Colleges and Schools, which is the accrediting agency for Southern States, is headquartered in Atlanta, and the Office maintains a close relationship with this organization. We have also been interested in and worked with various foundations con- cerned with education. There are five regional laboratories which cover some of region IV. Phe research adviser on the staff of the Atlanta office has made contact with two of these la~oratoriës and plans to work with all of them tO promote the cause of education in this region. The research adviser reported for duty about a month ago. I would like to call to the attention of the committee some areas of needs so far as the office is concerned. It is a known fact that in student financial a.id, this region has the poorest collection record* on loans that have been made to students. I would like to call attention to the fact that with the large number of colleges and universities in thia'region, we need additional staff to serve the institutions properly and to help them in setting up proper procedures for making collections on loans. Writh the~ present staff it is impossible to make frequent pers6nal contacts that are necessary to improve the collection procedure. In the area of adult and vocational education, we need representation in library services and construction. We also need a position in the area of health occupations. There is a great emphasis on training people in this broad cate- gory. If title III projects o.f the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and small research projects are approved here we will desperately need a con- tracts officer to negotiate the contracts. This is now a bottleneck in the Office in Washington, and if we are going to be of better service to our clients we need someone here on the staff to' negotiate contracts. The position has been estab- lished, and the person has been selected but cannot be appointed until the freeze is lifted. . I cannot close this statement without emphasizing the need for more travel funds. Personnel who are located in the field and are expected to keep constant contact with clientele are practically useless when sitting in the office. My understanding is that funds fo.r travel have been cut by approximately 50 percent, and that we are 110W at the end of the third quarter so far as funds are concerned, even though we are still in the second quarter of the fiscal year chronologically. Madam Chairman, thank you for the privilege of appearing before you and the committee. My colleagues and I would be happy to attempt to answer any questions which you and members of the committee may ask. Mrs. GREEN. Thank you very much. Without any objection, the exhibits made a part of the record. (Documents referred to follow:) to which you refer will be PAGENO="0238" 584 U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION EXHIBIT 1 MEMORANDIThI NOVEMBEE 21, 1966. To: Associate Commissioners for BANE, BESE, BilE, BR, OFS, and Assistant Commissioner for Administration. From: J. Graham Sullivan, Deputy Commissioner of Education. Subject: Decentralization of State Grant Programs. This follows up my memorandum of September 9, Next Steps in Decentraliza- tion, and recent discussions involving the Assistant Commissioner for Admin- istration, the Associate Commissioners for the operating Bureaus and for Field Services, and myself. It has been decided to transfer State grant programs to the field as soon as possible. These transfers will be made to the maximum extent but consistent with principles of economy and good management. For many years, such programs have been administered through direct re- lationships between headquarters offices and State agencies with little recourse to regional staffs. We are convinced that regional offices should be more direct participants with the States in planning and development, and in funds management. We are, therefore, directing that actions to regionalize State grant programs be undertaken immediately. This in no way changes the concepts of decentralization stated in the Com- missioimr's memorandum of August 4, in my memorandum of September 9, and in our several discussions of this subject. The headquarters Bureaus retain their responsibility for program planning, policy, and direction. The Associate Com- missioner for Field Services, through the Regional Assistant Commissioners, is responsible for coordination and management of those programs in the field. Headquarters Bureaus and Staff Offices are responsible for the technical pro- grammatic direction of field programs. As we envision the separation of these responsibilities, the headquarters Bureaus would be responsible for the following general functions: 1. Prčgram planning, including aimual plan of operations; 2. Program evaluation, including accomplishment of established program goals; 3. Development and revision of overall program policy and objectives; 4. Development and issuance of regulations, instructions, operating manuals, procedures, etc. (N0TE.-To assure consistency and uniformity of systems and methods, a Guidelines Review Committee of both headquar- ters and field representatives will be formed. The Committee will review, coordinate, and assure consistency and uniformity of all proposed issuances of guidelines materials which affect State grant programs.) The Regional Offices would be responsible for the following general functions: 1. Authority to review and approve State grant proposals; 2. Maintenance of allotment records, including reports and recommenda- tions for redistribution of funds based on such records; 3. Program reviews, including assessment of programs in relation to cost and appropriateness in relation to objectives; 4. Recommendations of ways to strengthen program administration or to improve level of quality in State education activities; 5. Review and amendment of State Plans, and approval of Annual Pro- jected Activities Reports. You are requested to examine with your staff the State grant programs for which your Bureau is responsible in order to plan and assess how best to transfer to regional offices the responsibility for review and approval of State grant proposals as well as program review and administration. The entire range of questions should be explored to determine not only what functions should be relocated but how best to staff them and perform them in the field. Where you identify positions to be transferred, we hope that you will also be able to identify personnel who are interested in regional office assignments. This is probably the most critical of the actions you are being asked to consider in planning regionalizatioll of State grant programs. All the actions to be considered should be set forth in a "Planning Document" for each such pro- gram. We will need the documents as soon as possible, preferably before Christmas, but not later than January 16, 1967. I have asked Jim Turman to coordinate the development and scheduling of necessary actions and to receive and evaluate these planning documents. He and his staff will work with you in outlining the steps to be taken, in describing PAGENO="0239" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 585 headqu~~ters and field responsibilities under the regionalization plan1 and in develdping the time schedule for accomplishing this major management effort. We hope to be in full operation by April 1, 1967.1 Attached is a list of State grant programs. and current organizational responsibilities for them. Title Description Organization Public Law 89-10, ESEA, title I Programs to aid educationally deprived children. BESE-DCE. Public Law 89-10, ESEA, title V Grants to strengthen State departments of education. BESE-DSAC. Public Law 89-10, ESEA, title II Public Law 89-209, National Foundation on Arts and Humanities, sec. 12. Public Law 85-864, NDEA, title III School library resources Grants to States Instructional assistance: Grants for equip- ment, grants for administration and BESE-DPSC. BESE-DPSC. BESE-DPSC. Public Law 89-329, HEA, title I supervision. Community service and continuing pro- BAVE-DAEP. Public Law 85-864, NDEA, title V-A Public Law 88-452, EOA 1964, title II-B~ Public Law 81-920, Civil Defense Act 1950 Public Law 64-347, Smith-Hughes AcL P~ublicLaw79-586, George-Barden Act Public Law 88-210 Vocational Educ8tion grams. Guidance, counseling, and testing Adult basic education Civil defense education Vocational education do Grants for vocational education BESE-DPSC. BAVE-DAEP. BAVE-DAEP. BAVE-DVTE. BAVE-DVTE. BAVE-DVTE Act 1963. Do Public Law 89-511, Public Library and Construction Act, title I. Public Law 89-511, Public Library Services and Construction Act, title II. Public Law 89-511, Public Library Services and Construction Act, title III. Public Law 85-511, Public Library Services and Construction Act, title Work-study program Public library services Public library construction Interlibrary cooperation State institutional library services BAVE-DVTE. BAVE-DLSEF. BAVE-DLSEF. BAVE-DLSEF. BAVE-DLSEF. IV-A. Public Law 89-511, Public Library Services and Construction Act, title IV-B. Library services to the physically handi- capped. BAVE-DLSEF. Public Law 85-864, NDEA, title X Improvement of statistical services of State educational agencies. NCES-DDSS. EXHIBIT 2 DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE-OFFICE OF EDUCATION Estimated obligations incurred in the State of Alabama, fiscal year 1966 I. OFFICE OF EDUCATION APPROPRIATIONS Expansion and improvement of vocational education: Vocational Education Act of 1963: Grants to States.1 Work-study programs George-Barden and supplemental acts Smith-Hughes and supplemental acts Subtotal Elementary and secondary educational activities: Title I-Assistance for educationally deprived children: 1 Basic grants' State administrative expenses1 Title IT-Grants to States for school library materials Title Ill-Supplementary educational centers and services____ Title TV-Cooperative research Title V-Strengthening State departments of education: 1 Grants to States Grants for special projects 1966 estimate ~3, (389, 854 503, 159 1,149, 3434 143,330 - 5,485,707 3.1,455, 281 65, 412 1, 734, 277 397, 872 129, 991 279, 569 0 Subtotal 34,062,393 See footnotes at end of table. 1 Contingent upon action by the Department on our request for additional positions. PAGENO="0240" Subtotal Higher education facilities construction: Title I-Undergraduate grants: Public community and technical institutes 1 Title II_GraOi1~1~ ~rp51nt~ Title III_T~~~ Subtotal Colleges of agriculture and the mechanics ri-c Grants for public libraries: 1 Services' - Construction 1 Subtotal 586 u.s. OFFICE OF EDUCATION Estimated obligatfrmns incurred in; the ~`tate of Alabama, flscaly~r1966-Con~ I. OFFICE OF EDUCATION APPROPRIATIQNS-continued Higher educational activities: - Title I-Grants to States for community service and continu- 1966 estimate ing education programs' $184, 74G Title lI-Library assistance: Strengthening higher education resources -~~----- 153, 100 Title TV-Student assistance: Educational opportunity grants: Grants to higher educa- tion institutions 1,394, 44~ Work-study programs 3,288,366 Title V-Teacher programs: Fellowships for teachers: Recent graduates 78, 400 Strengthening teacher education programs 63, 778 Title VI-Improvement of undergraduate instruction: Ac- quisition of equipment and minor remodeling 210, 717 5, 373, 608 colleges - 7,729, 853 - 376, 616 1,059,000 9, 167,469 ~77, 647 457,209 543,258 1,000, 467 Payments to school districts (Public Law 81-874) 7 001 998 Assistance for school construction (Public Law 81-815) 870, 642 Defense educational activities: Title IT-Students loans: 1 Contributions to loan funds 2, 888,361 Title ITT-Instructional assistance: 1 Acquisition of equipment and minor remodeling: Grants to States 1 1, 630, 242 State supervision and administration' 128, 634 Title TV-Graduate fellowships 642, 900 Title V-Guidance, counseling, and testing: Grants to States' 470, 611 Institutes-for counseling personneL 323, 159 Title X-Grants to States for statistical services' 50, 000 Title XI-Institutes for advanced study 292,932 Subtotal 6,426, 839 Educational improvement for the handicappe& 312, 760 Research and training 79, 039 II. TRANSFERRED FUNDS FROM OTHER AGEN0~S Manpower development and training activities Area redevelopment activities Educational television facilities Assistance to refugees in the United States: Cuban student loans_ Economic Opportunity Act of 1964: Adult basic education Civil defense educational activities Supplemental Appalachian grants for construction and equipment of facilities Total See footnotes at end of table. $1,436, 329 6,766 458, 815 33, 805 879, 851 75, 392 155, 195 73, 104, 722 PAGENO="0241" U.S. `OFFICE OF EDUCATiON 587 Estimated obligations incurred in the Htate of Alabama, fiscal year 1966-Con. II. TRANSPERRED FUNDS FROM OTHER AGENCIES-continued Equal educational activities; Grants to localsehool boards Institutes for school personnel Subtotal - Grand total 1 State allocated programs administered by StatS agencies. 2 Preliminary obligation; subject to final adjustment as of June 30, 1966. Obligations incurred in the state of Florida, fiscal years 1966 and 1967 Fiscal year 1966 actual $5, 020, 861 805, 821 359, 959 955, 303 187, 558 27,883,033 279, 836 2, 604,655 1, 552, 185 359, 113 1, 332, 655 2,502, 301 173, 500 294,000 234, 432 372, 846 169,071 11, 661, 028 1, 957, 000 317, 693 641, 126 643,741 1966 estimate $406, 265 131, 994 538,259 273, 642, 9'81' I. OFFICE OF EDUCATION APPROPRIATIONS Expansion and improvement of vocational education: Vocational Education Act of 1963: Grants to States1 Work-study programs Research and special projects George-Barden and supplemental acts Smith-Hughes and supplemental acts Elementary and secondary educational activities: Title I-Assistance for educationally. deprived children: 1 Basic grants1 State administrative expenses `_ Title TI-Grants to States for school library materials 1 Title Ill-Supplementary educational centers and services._...... Title V-Strengthening State departments of education:', Grants to States Higher educational activities: Title I-Grants to States for community.service and continuing education programs' Title TI-Library assistance:~ Strengthening higher education resources: Grants to insti- tutions Grants for training in librarianship Title Ill-Strengthening developing institutions: Cooperative relationships Title TV-Student assistance: Educational opportunity grants: Grants to higher educa- tion institutions Work-study programs Title V-Teacher programs: Fellowships for teachers: Experienced teachers Recent graduates Strengthening ~teacher education programs Title VT-Improvement o'f undergraduate instruction: 1 Acquisition of equipment and minor remodeling: Television, equipment' Other equipment `_ National Teacher Corps Higher education facilities construction,: Title I-Undergraduate grants: 1 Public community colleges and technical institutes' Title Ill-Loans Colleges of agriculture and the mechanic arts: Permanent endow- ment (Morrill-Nelson Acts) Grants for public libraries:' Services' Construction' See footnotes at end of table. 239, 732 252, 597 19,440 105, 438 73-728-67-pt. 2-16 PAGENO="0242" ~588 u.s. OFFICE OF EDUCATION Obligations~i~eurreIiiv. the State of Flori4q~ fiscal years ~ I. OFFICE OF EDUCATION APPR0PRIATI0NS-cc)ntinUed Fiscal year 1566 actual Payments to school districts (Public Law 81-874) $13, 130, 637 Assistance for school construction (Public Law 81-815) 1,026,321 :Defenseeducational activities: Title Il-Student loans :1 Contributions to loan funds 3,766,141 Title Ill-Instructional assistance:' Acquisition of equipment and minor remodeling: Grants to States' 2,402, 949 Loans to nonprofit private schools 9, 520 State supervision and administration1 236,677 Title IV-Graduate fellowships 1, 292, 650 Title V-Guidance, counseling, and testing: Grants to States' 666, 782 Institutes for counseling personnel 321, 821 Title VI-Advanced training in foreign languages: Language and area centers 117, 608 Fellowships 121, 515 Title VII-Educational media research 22,420 Title X-Grants to States for statistical services' 50,000 Title XI-Institutes for advanced study 991, 878 TEducational improvement for the handicapped: Training grants 485,343 Research and demonstrations 207,798 lResearch. and training 2,240,916 Foreign language training and area studies (Fuibright-Hays) 19, 737 Civil rights educational activities: Institutes for school personnel~ 1, 054, 001 II. TRLNSFERRED FUNDS FROM OTHER AGENCIES Manpower development and training activities 2,708, 702 Educational television facilities 386, 759 Assistance to refugees in the United States: Cuban student 1oans~ 1, 167,074 Economic Opportunity Act of 1964: Adult basic education 888,277 Civil defense educational activities 127, 515 Total 2943,367,365 1 State allocated programs administered by State agencies. 2 Preliminary obligation; subject to final adjustment as of June 30, 1966. Obligations incurre4 in the State of Georgia, fiscal year 1966 I. OFFICE OF EDUCATION APPROPRIATIONS Expansion and improvement of vocational education: Vocational Education Act of 1963: Fiscal year Grants to States $4, 658, 862 Work-study program 621, 168 Research and special projects 215, 352 George-Barden and supplemental acts 1,291, 071 ~Smith-Hughes and supplemental acts 172,456 Elementary and secondary educational activities: Title I-Assistance for educationally deprived children: Basic grants 36, 197, 794 State administrative expenses `114, 568 Title Il-Grants to States for school library materials 2, 174, 706 Title Ill-Supplementary educational centers and services.... 985, 982 Title V-Strengthening State departments of education: Grants to States `327,963 See footnotes at end of table. PAGENO="0243" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 589 Obligations incurred'~in the State of Georgia, fisoal year 1966-Continued I. OFFICE OF EDUCATION APPROPRIATrONS-contiflued Higher educational activities: ~i'iscai year Title I-Grants to States for community service and con- 1966 ~wtuaZ tilling education programs $538, 061 Title II-Li4brary assistance: Strengthening higher education resources: Grants to institutions 191, 785 Grants for training in librarianship 19,500 Title Ill-Strengthening developing institutions: Cooperative relationships 250, 174 Title IV-Student assistance: Educational opportunity grants: Grants to higher educa- tion institutions Work-study programs (college) Title V-Teacher programs: Fellowships for teachers: Experienced teachers Institutional assistance grants Title VI-Improvement of undergraduate instruction: Acquisition of equipment `and'minor remodeling: Television equipment National Teacher Corps Higher education facilities construction: Title I-Undergraduate grants: Public community colleges and technical institutes Other undergraduate institutions Title Il-Graduate grants Colleges of agricultural and the mechanic arts: Permanent endowment (Merrill-Nelson Acts) Further endowment (Bankhead-Jones Act) `Grants for public libraries (Public Law 89-~269): Services (title I) Construction (title II) Interlibrary cooperation (title III) Payments to school districts (Public Law 81-874) ,Assistance for ~choolconstruçtion (Public Law 81-815) Defense, educational activities: Title IT-Student loans: Contributions to loan funds Title Ill-Instructional assistance: Acquisition of equipment and minor remodeling: Grants to States State supervision and administration Title IV-Graduate fellowships Title V-Guidance, counseling, and testing: Grants to States Institutes for counseling personnel Title Vil-Educational media research Title X-Grants to States for statistical services Title XI-Institutes for advanced study. Educational improvement for the handicapped: Training grants - Research and demonstrations Research and training `Civil rights educational activities: Grants to school boards:. City of Atlanta School Board - Georgia State Department of Education Institutes for school personnel: Clark College Paine College Arts and humanities educational activities: Institutional assistance: Grants to States See footnotes at end of table. 1 117, 560 `1, 757,093 245,000 118, 000 1252,141 400,064 2,477,482 6,660,496 932,667 250,000 ~243, 723 531, 043 680, 700 102,685 9,442, 790 520,300 `2, 927, 892 2,543,469 259, 087 1,309,300 574, 968 539, 033 214,201 50,000 560,848 317, 576 224, 190 732, 968 282,440 93, 652 47, 044 53, 872 17, 022 PAGENO="0244" 590 U.S.:OFFICE ~OF EDUCATION Obligaiions incurred in the Rtate of (1eorgia~ fiscal year 1966-Continued Ix. TRANSFERRED FUNDS FROM OTHER AGENCIES Actual Manpower development and training activities___~J ~~___ $1,954,954 Educational television faci1ities_:_.__~_ 863, 891 Assistance to refugees in the United States: Cuban student loans~_ 54, 843 Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 Adult basic education 1 363 872 Subtotal 87, 306, 816 National Teacher Corps 179, 999 Total 87,486, 815 `These programs are allotted among the States. The Office of Education cannot provide information below the State level. 2 This amount is distributed to Fort Valley College ($15,445) and to the University of Georgia ($34555). 3 amount is distributed to Fort Valley State College ($75,287) and to the University of Georgia ($163,437). Preliminary obligation; subject to final adjustment as of June 30,1966. Obligations incurred in the state of Mississippi, fiscal year 1966 I. OFFICE OF EDUCATION APPROPRIATIONS Expansion and improvement of vocational education: Vocational Education Act of 1963: Actual Grants to States' $2, 553, 274 505, 136 1, 160, 348 ~ 107,308 Work-study programs Research and special projects George-Barden and supplemental acts Grants to States under Appalachian Regional Development Act' Vocational student loan assistance: Advances for reserve funds Interest payments on insured loans Smith-Hughes and supplemental acts Elementary and secondary educational activities: Title I-Assistance for educationally deprived children:' Basic grants' State administrative expenses1 21, 558, 851 Title IT-Grants to States for school library materials1 1,218, 307 Title ITT-Supplementary educational centers and services 278,182 Title V-Strengthening State departments of education:' Grants to States 226,641 Grants for special projects Higher educational activities: Title I-Grants to States for community service and continuing 135,265 education programs' Title IT-Library assistance: Strengthening higher education resources: Grants to institutions - Special purpose grants Grants for training in librarianship Research and demonstration projects Title ITT-Strengthening developing institutions: 120, 157 Cooperative relationships 495,527 National teaching fellowships Title I-Student assistance: Educational opportunity grants: 1,050, 112 Grants to higher education institutions Identification and encouragement of educational talent. Insured loans: Advances for reserve funds Interest pa~yments on insured loans Work-study programs See footnotes at end of table. 3,370, 691 PAGENO="0245" OFFICE OF EDUCATION 591 Obligations incurred in the State of Mississippi, fiscal year 1966-Continued I. OFFICE OF EDUCATION. APPROPRL&TIONS---continued Thgher educational activities-Continued Title V-Teacher programs~: Fellowships for teachers: Actual Experienced teachers Recent graduates $117, 600 Strengthening teacher education programs 177, 301 Title VI-Improvement of undergraduate instruction:' Acquisition of equipment and minor remodeling: Television equipment1 Other equipment' 186, 754 Institutes National Teacher Corps 150, 310 Higher education facilities construction: Title I-Undergraduate grants:' Public community colleges and technical institutes 5, 839, 902 Other undergraduate institutions' State administrative expenses1 Title IT-Graduate grants 191, 186 Title Ill-Loans Colleges of agriculture and the mechanic arts: Permanent endowment (Morrill-Nelson Acts) 50, 000 Further endowment (Bankhead-Jones Act) 201, 772 Grants for public libraries:' Services' 338, 375 Construction' 421, 161 Payments to school districts (Public Law 81-874) 2, 409, 029 Assistance for school construction (Public Law 81-815) 767, 814 Defense educational activities: Title IT-Student loans: Contributions to loan funds 3, 150, 628 Loans to educational institutions Cancellation of student loans Title ITT-Instructional assistance: Acquisition of equipment and minor remodeling: Grants to States1 800, 000 Loans to nonprofit private schools' State supervision and administration1 75,000 Title TV-Graduate fellowships ~___ 153, 950 Title V-Guidance, counseling, and testing: Grants to. States' 332, 639 Institutes for counseling personnel 42, 167 Title VT-Advanced training in foreign languages: Language and area centers .- Fellowships Research Title VTI-Educational media research - Title X--Grants to States for statistical services' 32, 500 Title XI-Tnstitutes for advanced study 380, 348 Educational improvement for the handicapped: Training grants 192, 500 Research and deironstrations Research and training Foreign language training and area studies (Fulbright-Hays) Civil rights educational activities: Grants to school boards 407, 568 Institutes for school personnel Arts and humanities educational activities: Instructional assistance: Grants to States' 7, 935 Loans to nonprofit private schools Teacher training Institutes See footnotes at end of table. PAGENO="0246" 592 U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION Obligations inozsrred in the State of Mississippi, fiscal year 1966-Continued II. TRANSFERRED FUNDS FROM OTHER AGENCIES Actual Manpower development and training activities_ $4, 549, 839~ Area redevelopment activities Educational television facilities Assistance to refugees in the United States: Cuban student loans Professional training and placement Economic Opportunity Act of 1964: Adult basic education 331, 525 Civil defense educational activities 91, 514 Supplemental Appalachian grants for construction and equipment of facilities Total 254, 282, 627 1 State allocated programs administered by State agencies. 2 Preliminary obligation; subject to final adjustment as of June 30, 1966. Obligations incurred in the State of South Carolina, fiscal year 1966 I. OFFICE OF EDUCATION APPROPRIATIONS Expansion and improvement of vocational education: Vocational Education Act of 1963: Actual Grants to States' $2, 944, 013 Work-study programs 395,415 Research and special projects 76, 770 George-Barden and supplemental acts 954, 745 Grants to States under Applachian Regional Development Act' Vocational student loan assistance: Advances for reserve funds Interest payments on insured loans Simth-Hughes and supplemental acts 114, 75T Elementary and secondary educational activities: - Title I-Assistance for educationallydeprived children: 1 Basic grants' 22, 974, 021 State administrative expenses' 89, 545 Title TI-Grants to States for school library materials' 1, 320, 035 Title Ill-Supplementary educational centers and services 222, 690 Title -Strengthening State departments of education: 1 Grants to States 238, 401 Grants for special projects Higher educational activities: Title I-Grants to States for community service and continuing education programs' 162,373 Title TI-Library assistance: Strengthening higher education resources: Grants to institutions 160, SOT Special purpose grants Grants for training in librarianship Research and demonstration projects Title ITT-Strengthening developing institutions: Cooperative realtionships 235, 441 National teaching fellowships Title TV-Student assistance: Educational opportunity grants: Grants to higher education institutions 532, 50& Identification and encouragement of educational talent Insured loans: Advances for reserve funds Interest payments on insured loans Work-study programs 727,246 See footnotes at end of table. PAGENO="0247" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 593: ObiiOations incurred in the $tate of &ntth Carolina, fiscal year 1966-Continued. I. OFFICE OF EDUCATION APPI~OPRIATIONS-COntinUOd Title V-Teacher programs:. Fellowships for teachers: Actual Experienced . teachers Recent graduates $19, 600 Strengthening teacher education programs - Title VT-Improvement of undergraduate instruction:' Acquisition of equipment and minor remodeling: Television equipment' Other equipment' 152,385 Institutes National Teach~r Corps 90,094 Higher education facilities construction: Title I-Undergraduate grants:' Public community colleges and technical institutes' Other undergraduate institutions' 6, 163, 766 State administrative expenses' Title IT-Graduate grants 18, 835 Title ITT-Loans 2, 396, 000 Colleges of agriculture and the mechanic ar.ts: Permanent endowment (Morrill-Nelson Acts) 50, 000 Further endowment (Bankhead-Jones Act) 206,632 Grants for public libraries:' Services' 360, 694 Construction' 452, 087 Payments to school districts (Public Law 81-874) 6, 337, 432 Assistance for school construction (Public Law 81-815) 886, 023. Defense educational activities: Title II-~Student loans:' Contributions to loan funds 1, 731, 6031 Loans to educational institutions Cancellation of student loans Title ITT-Instructional assistance: 1 Acquisition of equi.pment and minor remodeling: Grants to States ` 1, 577, 83~ Loans to nonprofit private schools' State supervision and administration' 129, 825 Title TV-Graduate fellowships 311, 025 Title V-Guidance, counseling, and testing: Grants to States ` 365, 752 Institutes for counseling personnel 38, 804 Title VT-Advanced training in foreign languages: Language and area centers Fellowships Research - Title 1111-Educational media research Title X-Grants to States for statistical services 1 .50, 000 Title XI-Tnstitutes for advanced study 654, 828 Educational improvement for the handicapped: Training grants 81, 270 Research and demonstrations Research and training 89, 625 Foreign language training and area studies, (Fulbright-H.ays) 1, 135 Civil rights edüëational activities Grants to school boards Institutes for school personnel Arts and humanities educational activities: Instructional assistance: Grants to States' 8, 725 Loans to nonprofit private schools Teacher training institutes See footnotes at end of table. PAGENO="0248" 594 ThS~ OFFICE OF EDUCATION Obligations incurred in the State~ of South Carolina, fiscal year 1966-Continued II. TRANSFERRED FUNDS FROM OTHER AGENCIES Actual Manpower development and training activities 1,684,233 Area redevelopment activities Educational television facilities 286, 821 Assistance to refugees in the United States: Cuban student loans 5,900 Professional training and placement Economic Opportunity Act of 1964: Adult basic education 1, 344, 326 Civil defense educational activities 48,806 Supplemental Appalachian grants for construction and equipment of facilities Total 245, 878, 518 1 State allocated program administered by State agencies. 2 Preliminary obligation; subject to final adjustment as of June 30, 1966. Obligations incurred in the State of Tennessee, fiscal year 1966 I. OFFICE OF EDUCATION APPROPRIATIONS Expansion and improvement of vocational education: Fiscal year Vocational Education Act of 1963: 1966 actual Grants to States' $4, 011, 274 Work-study programs 627, 728 Research and special projects 335, 874 George-Barden and supplemental acts 1,424, 720 Smith-Hughes and supplemental acts 159, 386 Elementary and secondary educational activities: Title I-Assistance for educationally deprived children :` Basic grants1 30, 685, 715 State administrative expenses' 258,397 Title ITT-Supplementary educational centers and services 220, 320 Title V-Strengthening State departments of education: 1 Grants to States 289, 119 Grants for special projects 26, 391 Higher educational activities: Title I-Grants to States for community service and continuing education programs' 193,954 Title IT-Library assistance: Strengthening higher education resources: Grants to in- stitutions 181, 679 Grants for training in librarianship 20,000 Title ITT-Strengthening developing institutions: Cooperative relationships ~ ~ Title TV-Student assistance: Educational opportunity grants: Grants to higher educa- tion institutions 1, 173, 214 Insured loans: Interest payments on insured loans Work-study programs 3,120,212 Title V-Teacher programs: Fellowships for teachers: Experienced teachers 153,000 Recent graduates 196. 000 Strengthening teacher education programs 153, 721 Title VT-Improvement of undergraduate instruction:' Acquisition of equipment and minor remodeling: Television equipment' 314,374 National Teacher Corps - 199, 555 Higher education facilities construction: Title I---Undergraduate grants: `Public community colleges and technical institutes' 8 995 734 Title ITT-Loans 1,397,000 See footnotes at end of table. PAGENO="0249" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION II. TRANSFERRED FUNDS FROM OTHER AGENCIES Manpower development and training activities Educational television facilities Assistance to refugees in the United States: Cuban student loans__ Economic Opportunity Act of 1964: Adult basic education Civil defense educational activities Supplemental Appalachian grants for construction and equipment ef facilities 595 2, 075,005 11,400 70,300 1, 026, 250 490, 178 88, 742 49,499 11,466 50, 000 410,306 599, 771 231,459 394,081 7,400 428,288 11,474 22, 057 Total 274,855, 74T 1 allocated programs administered by State agencies. 2 Preliminary obligation; subject to final adjustment as of June 30, 1966. Mrs. GREEN. Congressman Erlenborn, do you have any questions to direct to Dr. Martin, before we turn to his colleagues?. Mr. ERLENBORN. Yes. I would like to ask about the program of decentralization. What, specifically, will you be authorized to do, `here, at the regional level, that yoU were not authorized to do before? Dr. MARTiN. Well, this memorandum, which has been made a part `of the record, outlines specifically the duties to be delegated `to the re- gional office, such as approval of State plan, approval of amendments, reception of receiving reports, and even to the point, we hope, of mak- ing payments, `of funding projects, `because that is also being discussed in the Office. Qbligations incurred in the 1~tate of Tennessee, fiscal year 1966-Continued L OFFICE OF EDUCATION APPROPRIATIONS-cOfltiflUed Fiscal year 1966 actiial $50,000 234, 786 487,040 622, 596 4,417,438 3, 611,330 Colleges of agriculture and the mechanic arts: Permanent endowment (Morrill-Nelson Acts) Further endowment (Bankhead-Jones Act) Grants for public libraries:' Services' - Construction' -_ Payments to school districts (Public Law 81-874) Defense educational activities: Title IT-Student loans:' Contributions to loan funds Title Ill-Instructional assistance:' Acquisition of equipment and minor remodeling: Grants to States ` Loans to nonprofit private schools' State supervision and administration' Title IV-Graduate fellowships - Title V-Guidance, counseling, and testing: Grants to States' Institutes for counseling personnel Title VT-Advanced training in foreign languages: Language and area centers Fellowships Title X-Grants to States for statistical services' `Title XI-Institutes fo;r advanced `study Educational improvement for the handicapped: Training grants Research and demonstrations Research and training Foreign language training and area studies (Fulbright-Hays) `Civil rights educational activities: Institutes for school personnel_. Arts and humanities educational activities: Instructional assistance: Gi~ants to States' Teacher training institutes 2,531,536 487,703 28, 153 1,173,997 63, 786 696,600 PAGENO="0250" 596 U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION It is a: matter of the Commissioner delegating this authority to bureau directors, who, in turn, will redelegate to the Assistant Com- missioner and the region. This delegation has not come out as yet. Mr. ERLENBORN. You have not~ yet been delegated this authority. Is that right? Dr. MARTIN. No. We have in these three programs I mentioned been delegated the authority as. to title III ~of the. Elementary a.nd Sec- ondary Education Ace, and the smaller projects under research. We have been delegated that authority. Mr.. ERLENBORN. How is the extent of the funds available to you determined ~ Will this be. broken down on a regional basis? You will be allocated a certain percentage of the funds in the total program? Dr. MARTIN. Of course, under most programs, the allocation is made by a formula that is set up in the act. In the case of research, this small projects grant is a new idea. `We have been told that this year we have nothing t.o base it on, no experi- ence. They will allocate a certain amount of money to us, which can be adjusted accordingly; I mean, if we need more, and more is avail- able, we can get it. And then, of course, after a year or two of opera.- tion, we will have the experience on which to base a.n allocation, a more or less firm allocation. Now, title III of elementary a.nd secondary has the firm allocation for each State. . Mr. . ERLENBORN. Prior to this decentralization, there were already regional offices of the Office of Educa.tion,I presume. D-~. MARTIN. Right. Mr. ERLEBORN. And there are nine regions? Dr. MARTIN. . Correct. .. . Mr. ERLENBORN~ There are also regional~ offices of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. How many regional offices are there for HEW? Dr. MARTIN. There are nine. Mr. ERLENBORN. There are nine, also? Dr. MARTIN. They coincide. Mr. ERLENBORN. They do coinc.ide? . They use the same physical building, offices, and so forth? Dr. MARTIN. Right. ... . Mr. ERLENBORN. Have you found that the practice that you are now following, of having architectural .a.nd engineering services rendered by the Department of Housing and Urban Development, has caused any problems? Dr. MARTIN. Not that I am aware of. I have my representative of the Office of Higher Educational Facil- ities in the room. He would be aware of a.ny problems. He would be glad.to speak to that. I don't know of any. I think the question of transferring this is based more on the fact that it is now in a separate department, HTJD, a new department, and it might be more difficult to work across depart- mental lines. . You see, at one time, CFA, the Community Facilities Administra- tion, was an independent agency, and it was not difficult working with them, and I don't know that it is difficult now, but at least in Govern- PAGENO="0251" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 597 ment structure I. think when they are in two separate departments, interdepartmental cooperation might be a little more difficult to attain than it would with an independent agency. That is the thinking that I have received in Washington about the idea of transferring the function. Mr. ERLENBORN. The reason I ask the question is that yesterday in Washington we had testimony from the representative of George Washington University, and he was very critical of the fact that the engrneering and architectural services were performed by HUD.. His feeling was that they were putting the same commercial tests to the construction of student housing facilities and college buildings, the same sort of tests that they would use for commercial apartment build- ings, and so forth. He felt that they were~ not rendering the kind of service that HEW could and would, or that the Office of Education itself would. Dr. MARTIN. Yes; Well, Dr. Geiger is here. I don't know whether he has heard of any- Dr. Geiger, would you speak to that f~r a moment? Dr. GEIGER. We have had no objection that I know of, and of course our relationship with the people in the local office, here, is So good, and as far as I know, what they get from Washington is good. But we have had no direct objection in that connection. Mr. ERLENBORN. Thank you. One last question. I hear the complaint from many people that there are so many Fed- eral programs now in the field of education, most of them new, or a good many of them new5 that the individual colleges and universi- ties and junior colleges have great difficulty in determining which pro- gram they are eligible for, which they should make application for, and liowto fill out the forms. Now, will the regional offices be better equipped to handle this sort of problem, once the decentralization has been completed? Dr. MARTIN. I think they will. And I think we can agree that the programs have become so numerous that many colleges, many institutions, are having to designate an individual just to try to keep up with what they are eligible for, and what they can participate in. We have established here, as was mentioned in the paper, this information center, and it is growing very rapidly in importance. We have been able so far to answer, I think, all of the questions that have come into the office. If we don't know the answer ourselves, we can get on the phone to Washington and find out. But we are trying to render service to all of the clientele in this region, giving them proper answers. Mr. ERLENBORN. I have heard, f~r instance, that the practice has grown in Washingt6n Of individuals engaging in the~ business of helping school administrators' prepare `the forms and make applica- tion to the Office of Education, and that they are charging a fee based upon the amount of grant that is received. And this rather bothers me, that you would have business `being developed along the line of this sort of thing, where the remunera- tion of the person who is rendering the service to the college or uni- versity depends upon the amount of the grant that is'given ultimately. PAGENO="0252" 598 u.s OrnCE OF EDUCATION And if you find that there are one, two, or three very influential people who have developed this sort of business and are very success~ ful, it doesn't have the right sort of connotation. Are you familiar with this? Dr. M~u~rmr. Yes, I am. Very familiar. There are a number of private consulting firms that are cashing in on it. There is no ques- tion about it. I think in this region, though, we have the State universities ren- dering this service more than we do the private consulting firms. I may be wrong. I have no documentation. But I do know that the State universities are furnishing consultant help to the local schools, for preparation of projects. Mr. ERLENBORN. Will the decentralization tend to take the emphasis away from this sort of service, because the place where the application is made, and the advice, will be closer to the institutions? Dr. MARTIN. I think the program in which this is most prevalent is title III of the Elementary and Secondary Act, and I have my man here on that, too. He may want to comment on it. He is more familiar with it than I am, as to the extent in this region of private consulting firms getting into the act of writing projects. Joe, would you mind? Mr. PUKAGH (Joseph R. Pukachb program management chief). There is only one project that I know of, from Sarasota, Fla., that has engaged Englehart & Englehart to do part of their work, but basically, they don't charge a fee, actually. They write project pro- posals, hopefully that the project will be approved eventually, and then they get part of the business. But prior to the time, there is no money exchanged between the local district and the private agency, so there is very little of this going on in the Southeast. Having worked with the Northeast, I found in the New York area this is quite prevalent, probably where more of the agencies get into the picture. Mrs. GREEN. I would hope that the regional offices could perform this function of providing services and information. I am a little bit concerned about the statement you make on page 8. You say this is due in part to the fact that some communities in the South look with disfavor on the Headstart program, also that school systems tend to show a degree of independence when Federal funds are available. Dr. MARTIN. Perhaps independence is the wrong word to use. This was perhaps written hastily. But by that I meant they have a tendency not to want to cooperate with an outside agency if they are getting Federal funds for a particular purpose. And I don't guess that would be independence. That would be an unwillingness to co. operate, you might say. When they have Federal funds for them- selves, they want their program as they design it and planned it. The first statement, about the unpopularity of the Headstart pro- gram in the South, is true. I mean many of the States look with dis- favor on it. It is improving from year to year, though, and ~I think you understand why they look with disfavor upon it. Mrs. GREEN. In this region you have six States. What is the aver- age expenditure per pupil in elementary and secondary schools? PAGENO="0253" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 599 Dr. MARTIN. I have those figuresin exhibit 2 that I attached to the statement, by States and by programs. I don't recall. Now, let's see. I guess in title I, the total allocation for the six States would cer- tainly run in the neighborhood of $150 million, don't you think, Dr. Armstrong? For the six States? Mrs. GREEN. My question is directed to you primarily because I want to know if there is a reaction in this particular region to the title I formula. In title I, one of the factors in the formula is the amount that the States spend. I am one of those who feel that this formula needs a thange, that we.should not base Federal programs and Federal aid on the fact that the more you spend the more you are going to get from the Federal Government. It would seem to me that perhaps this region would be well advised to present this case to the Congress, if they have strong feelings on it. Mr. MARTIN. Naturally, this region would go for that in a big way, because the expenditure per child is lower in this region than in any other part of the country, which they feel does cut them down. And of course there has been some talk over the region about places like Westchester County in New York and some of the other wealthier areas, where they are spending $700 or $800 per child, or even a thou- sand dollars, some of them, and it is based on one-half of their per capita expenditure, while in the Southern States I suppose the average expenditure would be about $350. That is a guess, too, off the top of my head, but my guess is that it would average about $350 per child. Mrs. GREEN. In some of the States it is less than that. Dr. MARTIN. It is in 1968, is it not, that they can take the national figure, or the local, whichever it larger? Mrs. GREEN. Whichever is the higher. But it still is to the disad- vantage of those areas which spend the least. Dr. MARTIN. Yes. Mrs. GREEN. Let me turn to title III, to which you referred a moment ago. Do local educators in this region want a change so that the State department of education is not bypassed? Dr. MARTIN. Very definitely. Well, we get that more, I think, from State departments of education. Again, Mr. Pukach, who responded a while ago, may have a reac- tion to that, because he is the one who actually contacts the local agen- cies where they are designing projects. Mr. Pukach, could you react to that? Mr. PIJKACH. Having established rapport over the years with the State departments of education, we find, at least in the Southeast, the States that I work with, really no concern with the way the pro- gram is operating. In fact, they feel very comfortable with it, be- cause we work with the State department right along with the local educational agency. We do not bypass them, although, as you recall, in the act itself they are supposed to review and recommend projects, and that is just what they do, but in addition they do have a very important role to play as far as helping us in the Office of Education to administer and supervise the program. PAGENO="0254" 600 ~ OFFICE* OF EDUCATION It is a partnership, and we have very little trouble with administer- ing this program. And I think I can identify one or two States where there may be a. problem, but I think, working again with the local education a.gei~cies; a majority of them would prefer to do it the way we have been doing it. Dr. MARTIN. I think that. would be peculiar to the Southeast. Hav- ing worked out of Washington on a national scale, the rest of the country I think would feel otherwise about tha.t. Mrs. GREEN. How many positions are now vacant in this regional office? Dr. MARTIN. As I mentioned in the paper. we have three who have actually been selected, and are just awaiting a reporting date, which we can't give them, of course, at this time. `We have a number of other vacancies. We have a total of 26 vacancies uncommitted right now. Mrs. GREEN. Out of 71? Dr. MARTIN. Out of 11, yes. Mrs. GREEN. And how many can you hire, if you can find the per- sonnel? Dr. MARTIN. `We can hire up to the fullamount, can't we? Mrs. KOONTz. WTell, under the freeze- Mrs. GREEN. Under the freeze, can you hire any of the 26? Dr. MARTIN. Under the freeze, we cannot put anybody on. This contracts officer I mentioned is now with NASA. It would just be a lateral transfer, but they still tell us we cannot hut. him on until the freeze is lifted. . I don't understand that. myself. I am going: to be in Washmgton next week, and I am going to try to find out why. Mrs. GREEN. One final question., From where you sit, what would be your reaction to transferring the enforcement of the Civil Rights Act out of the Office of Educa- tion and into another department, or into a new department under hEW? Dr. MARTIN. Into a new department under HEW? Mrs. GREEN. Or entii~ely out. of HEW into the Justice Department.. Dr. MARTIN. Well, I personally believe that it is impossible to sepa- rate programs from enforcement.. As much as I would like personally having to do it, because they are now doing it in `Washington in the Office of Education, I do think that enforcement of the Civil Rights Act could be accomplished much better at the regional level, with re- gional people, who are southerners, if you please, I mean who under- stand the mores of `the South, who are educators, who understand wha.t the school systems are like,' how they operate. A~nd I have the firm conviction that it would work more successfully from the regiona.l office than from the `Washington office. I have expressed that a. number of times, and we have been told that it will be decentralized. When, we don~t know. Mrs. GREEN. In your judgment, you do not see any conflict when a.n office is charged with the responsibility of offering educational leader- ship and at the same time has to perform the role of an enforcement agency. Dr. MARTIN. `Well, it. is a necessary evil. Let's put it that way, be-. cause if it is transferred to the Justice Department or to HE'W or to PAGENO="0255" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 601 some other agency, if they don't have an understanding of school boards and schools and how they operate, I don't care how smart they are, they really can't talk the language of the people they are working with, and as long as you cannot communicate with them satisfactorily, I don't think you can make much progress in solving this in an appli- cable way. Now, you know, we all have to take bad medicine sometimes, but we can sympathize with people when we are forcing the medicine on them, and that makes it go down a little bit easier, you see. So I think the school people, the educators, can attack this problem and conquer it better than anyone else outside of education. Mrs. GREEN. Thank you Dr. Martin. We have two other gentlemen from the regional office. We are going to stay on schedule, and because of the time, I am wondering if I might ask the other two gentlemen to summarize their statements, and the full statements will be placed in the record. Could we ask you to do that, Dr. Armstrong? And also Dr. Boldt? Which one of you would like to go first? Dr. Boldt? STATEMENT OP DR. ALBERT W. BOLDT, REPRESENTATIVE, HiG~HER EDuCATr0N, U.S. OFFICE OP EDUCATION, REGION IV Dr. Borixr. Maclain Chairman and members of the committee~ I am Albert W. Boldt, representative for higher education, U.S. Office of Education, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, region IV, Atlailta, Ga. It is a privilege to appear before this distinguished committee to re- port on the Office of Higher Education programs administered by that office in the Southeast. I have prepared a paper here for you, but I can summarize it. Mrs. GREEN. Would you do that? Dr. BOLDT. I have broken down the student financial aid programs by States, the six States over which we have administrative respon- sibility, and I will say that, in summary, since 1959, the Atlanta re- gional office has witnessed a growth of nearly 80 percent in the number of colleges and universities. This is on page 8, Madam Chairman. In the number of colleges and universities administering Federal student programs of financial assistance, the number of participating institutions and programs have expanded. In 1959, 142 institutions received approximately $2.8 million in Federal funds to .provide National Education Act funds to their stu- dents. Today, 255 region IV higher educational institutions are ad- ministering one, two, or three of the student aid programs enacted or amended by title VI of the Higher Education Act of 1965. I would like to refer to page 8, and talk about the programs which, we experience, have common difficulties in administering. Experience has shown that administrative problems have generally developed where one or acombination of the following situations exist: 1. Responsibility for award determination and fiscal management assigned `to part-time and/or overburdened or undertrained personnel. PAGENO="0256" 602 u.s. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 2. Frequent turnover of personnel assigned responsibility for the above functions, thereby seriously hindering continuity in manage- ment of the program. 3. Inattention on the part of college personnel as to the importance of directives, suggestions, and recommendations contained in program reviews and audit reports. 4. Nonattendance of institutional personnel at regional or State informational meetings and workshops. 5. Failure by responsible institutional personnel in familiarizing themselves with administrative memorandums and procedural manuals distributed by the Office of Education, and to recognize the importance of these issuances. Perhaps the best example of ~cvhat can occur when one or more of the above situations exists is the problem of delinquencies in repayment of National Defense Student loans. A detailed report on this problem, as well as the action which has and is being taken in the regional office, has previously been submitted to this committee. Through such efforts, the institut1onal reports submitted to this office indicate a marked improvement on collections over the past 6 months. One of the programs enacted recently by Congress is the Guaranteed Loan Program. I would like to refer the committee's attention to *page 10. In general, the hesitancy of lenders lies not with the applicant, but with a variety of other reasons, including the following: 1. Return on investment insufficient; loans handled at a loss. 2. Tight money market dictates that credit be extended where re- -turn is highest. 3. Unwillingness to extend credit over periods up to 15 years. 4. Lenders contend that need should be a factor in the award de- Lision, since this would help insure that available and limited funds are being used to their best advantage. 5. Smalltown lenders often disenchanted because experience shows many of their young people do not return to their home locality after graduation. 6. Lenders want benefit of experience and recommendation of col- lege financial aid officer regarding applicant's need. Currently, it is not the function of the college to make any recommendation based on -the applicant's need. That, Madam Chairman, is a summary of my report. (Dr. Boldt's full statement follows:) STATEMENT OF DR. ALBERT W. BOLDT, REPRESENTATIVE, HIGHER EDUCATION, U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION, RzoIoN IV, ATLANTA, GEORGIA Madam Chairman and members of the Committee, my name is Albert W. Boldt, Representative for Higher Education, U.S. Office of Education, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Region IV, Atlanta, Georgia. It is a privilege to appear before this distinguished committee to report on the operation of higher education programs administered by that Office in the Southeast. The U.S. Office of education has maintained field services for some programs in Higher Education since 1960. The scope of these field services varied with the reorganization patterns of headquarters. In 1960, for example, the Regional -Offices established liaison with the colleges participating in such programs as PAGENO="0257" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 603 Language and/or Guidance Institutes, Title IV Graduate Fellowships, Educa- tional Research and National Defense Education Act Title II Student Loans. The passage by the Congress of various acts affecting education added greatly to the functions and responsibilities of the Office of Education. It became neces- sary to reorganize in order to properly administer the new as well as expanded existing programs. One program materially affected was financial assistance to college and university students. Presently there are six programs to aid students pursuing courses of education beyond secondary school-from the voca- tional and undergraduate level through the graduate school. In order to conserve time I shall report the activity of these programs by states and later present the means by which the participating institutions are serviced by the personnel of Region PT, as well as point up some of the problems for which we are presently seeking a solution. ALABAMA In fiscal year 1959-at the beginning of the National Defense Student Loan Program-Federal funds approximating $4430000 were allotted to nineteen partici- pating institutions. In fiscal year 1967, the expanding student aid programs witnessed the partici- pation of thirty-six Alabama colleges and universities, embracing a total Federal commitment of approximately $9 million. These funds will provide assistance in the nature of loans, employment, grants, singly or in combination, for approxi- mately 10,000 eligible and needy students. In addition to the 36 Alabama institutions currently participating, there are eight additional colleges which are ineligible for further program funding, due to failure to sign the Civil Rights Title VI Assurance of Compliance. Under the original Terms of Agreement (National Defense Student Loan Program), these colleges must continue to account for collections and submit progress ré- ports to the U.S. Office of Education. Including these, there are 44 colleges hi Alabama with which the U.S. Office maintains liaison. FLORIDA For the academic year 1958-1959, FlOrida had fourteen colleges participating in the National Defense Student Loan Program. Federal funds totaling approxi- mately $551,000 were allocated to these institutions. With the expansion of the student financial aid programs, as well as the establishment of new colleges, this participation has grown to forty-five colleges and universities. Our records indicate that approximately 14,000 elegible stu- dents will be aided through these programs of Federal assistance. Fiscal year 1967 allotments will approximate 9~5 million dOllars. There has been some merger of Negro colleges with white State-supported colleges in this State; however, no college has withdrawn from the programs because of refusal to comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. GEORGIA Approximately $509,000 was allocated to twenty-nine Georgia colleges to help finance the cost of education for students qualifying for National Defense Loans in the academic year 1958-59. The expanded programs for financial assistance to more than 10,000 Georgia students required the funding of approximately 5.5 million dollars. In fiscal year 1967, our records reveal the active participation of forty-five Georgia insti- tutions of higher learning. V Two colleges, formerly in the student aid programs, did not apply in time for fiscal 1967 funding. Altogether, there are forty-seven Georgia colleges participat- ing in the student aid programs. V MISSISSIPPI V There were twenty-two colleges in V Mississippi which entered the National Defense Loan Program in 1958-59, involving a tOtal outlay by the Federal Gov- ernment of some $341,000. V V Currently considering all expanded student aid programs this participation has increased to thirty-three colleges. The U.S. Office has committed approxi- mately 8 million dollars, which will lend financial assistance to approximately 10000 Mississippi students 73-728-67--pt. 2-17 V V V V V V PAGENO="0258" 604 U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION There are, however, six additional colleges in i~Iississippi with which the Regional Office has program responsibility becau~e of previous participation. Thus far, four of the six colleges have not elected to comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. Two junior colleges did not make application for fiscal 1967 funds. SOUTH OABOLINA South Carolina began participation in the National Defense Loan Program with a roster of twenty-one colleges involving $341,000 of Federal funds. Currently the same number (21) of colleges are participating in the expanded student aid programs. At the end of this current fiscal year, more than 3 million dollars will have been granted to these colleges for their student aid programs. It is estimated that more than 5,000 South Carolina students will be aided through these federal assistance programs. Our records will show that there are presently twenty-seven colleges which the Regional Office continues to assist with the administration of programs. Six of these colleges are no longer participating; three by reason of the Civil Rights Act, two did not apply for 1967 funding, and the Medical College, which is funding its programs through the U.S. Publlc Health Service. TENNESSEE Tennessee has always had the largest number of actively participating in- stitutions in federally-aided student financial aid programs. In the academic year 1958-59, Tennessee had thirty-seven colleges participating in the National Defense Student Loan Program. This required approximately $569,000 in grants to Tennessee institutions of higher education. Funds approximating $8.7 million have thus far been tentatively committed to forty-six institutions, which will assist over 10,000 students in their pursuit of higher education. In summary, since fiscal year 1959, the Atlanta Regional Office has witnessed a growth of nearly 80 percent in the number of colleges and universities ad- ministering Federal programs of student financial assistance. The numbers of participating institutions and programs have expanded. In 1959, one hundred and forty-two institutions received approximately $2.8 million in Federal funds to provide National Defense Education Act loans to their students. Today, 255 Region IV higher education institutions are administering one, two, or three of the student aid programs enacted or amended by Title VI of the Higher Education Act of 1965. During the 1966/67 academic year, approximately 60,000 students enrolled in Region IV institutions will receive nearly $44 million in Federal aid to assist them with the expenses of their college education. Staffing From 1960 to 1964, the Bureau of Higher Education staffed the Regional Office with one representative, the position which I have held under frequently chang- ing titles denoting varying degrees of responsibility. These titles have ranged from Higher Education Representative, to Student Financial Aid Representa- tive, to Acting Officer in Charge of the Bureau of Higher Education, and, most recently, Regional Representative, Higher Education. This shifting of position titles is, I think, indicative of the numerous changes which the organization pattern of the Office of Education has undergone during the past six years, and is still undergoing. Since 1964, the staff has expanded from one professional staff member to five. Program Administration The major emphasis of the staff embraces the philosophy of helpfulness to new and participating institutions. Colleges are encouraged to ask for our assistance with the administration of all programs, including those not specifically admin- istered at the regional level. It must be emphasized here that due to the heavy turnover of student financial aid personnel in the institutions, we feel that the office has a special obligation and responsibility to constantly alert the institu- tions to the importance of the proper implementation of the rules, regulations, and pollcy guides which emanate from the Washington office. This is done by regional and state meetings, workshops, on-site visits, and by t1i~ constant use of communication media. A detailed description of meetings and proce- dures for assisting colleges in Region IV has been furnished to the committee. The Regional Office welcomes the decentralization of those higher education program functions which will provide a greater degree of flexibility and prompt- PAGENO="0259" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 605 ness in its institutional relationships and services, provided that such decen- tralization is accompanied by adequate staffing. This office now receives and reviews institutional applications for funding, examining such applications for correctness of computations, completeness, and the extent to which the funds requested are reasonable in view of the institu- tions' student enrollment and economic status of the area served. A regional panel of financial aid officers then reviews each application and recommends funding. Where such recommendations differ from the institutional request, the Regional Office staff then negotiates acceptance of the panel's recommendation with institutional officials. Final action on fiscal approval and funding is taken by the Washington office. Programs Having Gommon Difficulties To re-emphasize, the Region IV area of responsibility in student financial aid has increased from one program in 1959 to three major programs in 1966, exclud- ing the guaranteed loan program, involving an expansion from some 2.5 million dollars to approximately 44 million dollars. Participation by institutions of higher education has increased by nearly 80 percent. During this same period, the Regional Office professional staff directly involved with student financial aid has increased from one to four persons, only two of which are in position to spend the greater portion of their time on college visitations. Consequently, visitations must be scheduled to give priority to those institutions where problems are known to exist. This leaves too little time for visits of a preventive maintenance nature, or those that would serve, through proper counseling, to assist colleges in avoiding problem areas, including those listed below. Experience has shown that administrative problems have generally developed where one or a combination of the following situations exist: (1) responsibility for award determination and fiscal management as- signed to part-time and/or overburdened or undertrained personnel; (2) frequent turnover of personnel assigned responsibility for the above functions, thereby `seriously hindering continuity in management of the program; (3) inattention on the part of college personnel as to the importance of directives, suggestions, and recommendations contained in program reviews and audit reports; (4) non-attendance of institutional personnel at regional or state infor- mational meetings and workshops; (5) failure by responsible institutional personnel in familiarizing them- selves with administrative memoranda and procedural manuals distributed by the Office of Education, and to recognize the importance of these issuances. Perhaps the best example of what can occur when one or more of the above situations exists, is the problem of delinquencies in repayment of National De- fense Student Loans. A detailed report on this problem, as well as the action which has and is being taken in the Regional Office, has previously been sub- mitted to this committee. Through such efforts, the institutional reports sub- mitted to this office indicate a marked improvement on collections over the past six months. Guaranteed Loan Program A non-federal guarantee agency, either state or private, now operates in all six Region IV States. The States of Alabama, Florida, and Mississippi have a designated state agency, which supervises a comprehensive program operated under contract by United Student Aid Funds, Inc. There is no state agency in South Carolina, the program being operated by United Student Aid Funds, Inc., under agreement with the Commissioner of Education. The State of Georgia operates its own comprehensive program, covering all eligible students attending both in and out-of-state colleges. In Tennessee, a state agency operates a limited program for eligible residents attending Tennessee colleges. United Student Aid Funds, Inc.. under agreement and the direction of the state agency, guarantees loans for Tennessee residents attending out-of-state schools. In Region IV, `the difficulties encountered under the guaranteed loan program can be separated into `two general areas: (1) Insufficient understanding of procedures on the part of college personnel; (2) Student difficulties in locating lenders willing to consider loan applications. PAGENO="0260" 606 t.s~ OFFICE OF EDUCATION With regard to problem (1), colleges began receiving inquiries and student applications prior to receiving procedural instructions. This problem was created largely because several of the States were late in establishing a guarantee agency. Thus, procedural informatiOn was not available in such instances until shortly before the 1966 fall academic term began. Problem (2) has caused far greater concern since many students, having overcome the procedural difficulties, have been unable to find a lender willing to consider a loan application. In general, the hesitancy of lenders lies not with the applicant himself, but with a variety of other reasons given, including the following: (1) return on investment insufficient-loans handled at a loss; (2) tight money market dictates that credit be extended where return is highest; (3) unwillingness to extend credit over periods up to fifteen years; (4) lenders contend that need should be a factor in the award decision, since this would help insure that available and limited funds are being used to their best advantage; (5) small town lenders often disenchanted because experience shows many of their young people do not return to their home locality after graduation; (6) lenders want benefit of experience and recommendation of college financial aid officer regarding applicant's need. Currently. it is not the function of the college to make any recommendation based on the applicant's need. Dr. BOLDT. Madam Chairman, I want to thank the committee for granting me this time to speak about the programs for which I am responsible in this region. Mrs. GREEN. Thank you. I wonder if we might turn to you, Dr. Armstrong, then to questions. STATEMENT OP DR. LOUIS W. ARMSTRONG, PROGRAM OYFICER POI~ THE DISADVANTAGED, TITLE I, ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION ACT, REGION IV Dr. ARMSTRONG. Madam Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I am Louis Armstrong. I am pleased to have this opportunity to ap- pear before you on behalf of the disadvantaged children of the South. As you recall, there are approximately 15 million so-called disadvan- taged children, and we are ministering to only a small percent of those in this region. I know you are concerned about what is going on in this region, and we are concerned, also, about many of the things that we would like to be doing better. We know there are some shortcomings. We know that we are not moving at as rapid a pace as we would like to move. As a result of projects and reports on programs in operation *for some time we. have been concerned about the proper use of funds to effect favorable results in the education of educationally and emotionally deprived children. We have a limited time, . and the time that our staff can devote to this situation disturbs us. We are concerned to see some evidence of lack of proper planning, poor project design, limited development, in- volving staff and community, resources, and poor communications. We are concerned about the lack of private school involvement, with public school officials. But I would like to brmg to your attention the duties and responsi- bilities of our staff, along with the. concerns that we have. PAGENO="0261" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 607 It is our responsibility to establish and maintain relationships with the officials and representatives of State educational departments. It is our responsibility to maintain the same kind of relationship with the local school systems through the State departments of education. I see our responsibilities as program officers to work cooperatively with and to provide assistance to State educational agencies. And this we feel we have done very successfully in this region. It is our responsibility, as program officers, to review the assurances and reports and make suggestions where necessary. At this time there are some differences of opinion as to what the function of the program officer is in visiting local schools. There are those who believe the program officer's function in making such visits is simpiy to monitor and report the results. Then there are others who believe the program officer should take an active role in the assess- ment and future direction of the local program. There is also a strong concern that Federal representatives should not even visit the local educational agencies. At the present time, and in the light of these various viewpoints, we have attempted to carry out a course of action to some degree that would satisfy each of these opposing viewpoints. These conflicting points of view, of course, will continue to be a problem until such time as the differences are settled. I should mention that another major objective of our staff is to review and analyze and evaluate the Department of Health, Educa- tion, and Welfare audit reports in the title I program in the States in our region, and to negotiate with officials of the State agencies to determine whether disaliowances should be sustained as an audit exception. It is also our responsibility to recommend approval or disapproval of such allowances, or disallowances, in these cases, to make recom- mendations for the formulation of policy with respect to settlement of similar cases. Now, our staff, through conferences and workshops and panels and presentations and personal contacts with State educational agency representatives and professional organizations I think stimulates and encourages improvement of established quality systems for the plan- fling of long-range educational programs. I would like to mention here the recent surveyor budget restrictions, as has been mentioned before, and the freeze on the personnel, and the indecision on the part of the U.S. Office of Education and Congress will restrict our progress in fulfilling our responsibilties as program officers. As you know, there are some State departments of education that have voiced their strong opposition to a regional system which cannot provide them with decisionmaking personnel. If decentralization is to succeed, it is vital that the authority to con- duct and administer the programs involved be delegated to the regional offices. If this is not done, it is the fear of the States that an extra layer will be built in between them, and the other level will become a reality. I think also the States are concerned that the appropriation proce- clures of Congress will seriously hamper the effectiveness of their PAGENO="0262" 608 U.s. OFFICE OF EDUCATION programs. This concern is not oniy related to the lateness of the appropriations, which naturally severely detracts from the adminis- tration of a well-plaimed school project, but also to the cutbacks in appropriations at all levels. Since our staff is field service, and we are expected to spend a major portion of our time in the field, it will be necessary to reevaluate the duties of the program officer; travel and visitation to the various State departments of education continues to be restricted. My remarks have been brief, in order to allow this committee to ask questions, to comment, or to suggest ways in which we can do better the job we are all so vitally interested in. I am pleased to have had the opportunity of appearing oii behalf of the disadvantaged children of the South. (Dr. Armstrong's prepared statement follows:) STATEMENT OF Ds. Louis W. ARMSTRONG, PROGRAM OFFICER FOR THE DISADVAN- TAGED, TITLE I, ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION ACT, REGION IV Madam Chairman and Members of the Committee. I am Louis Wilson Armstrong. I am pleased to have the privilege of appear- ing before you on behalf of the disadvantaged children of the South. My posi- tion and title is Senior Program Officer for Title I of the Elementary and Sec- ondary Education Act of 1965. I know this Committee is here because you have an interest and a concern in what we are doing in the Regional Office. I am glad you have this concern because this program for the disadvantaged that we are administering is in my opinion the most important event that has ever happened in American education. May I digress just a moment and tell you just what the disadvantaged child is like. There are approximately 15,000,000 of these children who are disad- vantaged because they need dental and medical care, because they lack cultural experiences, because they come to school hungry, because they are mentally and emotionally disturbed, because they do not have adequate clothing and a decent place to live. There are many more factors to be considered and members of our staff are concerned about them. We believe we have seen enough evidence in the limited time we have been associated with the program to warrant our praise of what is taking place in our school systems for these children. At the same time we are concerned, as we should be, about the shortcomings of the progress being made, we are concerned that we are not moving at a rapid enough pace. For some time. as a result of field visits, program reviews, examination of projects, reports on programs in operation, and recently thorough interviews with persons who have visited Title I project areas, we have come to realize that there is a real and pressing concern for the quality of programs and the apparent lack of funds on the target populations. The concerns for the proper use of funds to effect favorable results on the education of educationally deprived children is the number one responsibility of our staff in the Title I program of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. The limited staff and the limited time our staff has been in the Region is hardly sufficient to give a comprehensive appraisal of all that is good or all that is bad; or the degree of either concerning programs for the educationally dis- advantaged. We are concerned and see some evidence of lack of proper planning, poor proj- ect design, limited development and involvement of staff and community re- sources and poor communications. We are concerned about t.he lack of private school involvement with public school officials in planning projects. In the time allotted before this committee, I have only been able to mention a few concerns we have at this point in our program. Now, I should like to bring to your attention the duties and responsibilities of our program staff. It is our responsibility to establish and maintain rela- tionships with officials and representatives of State Educational Agencies, local school superintendents, professional organizations, and representatives of civic PAGENO="0263" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 609 agencies and other federal agencies working for the improvement of the dis- advantaged. I see our responsibilities as program officers to work cooperatively with and provide assistance to State Educational Agencies in the development of admin- istrative policies and procedures. To interpret pertinent provisions, rulings, requirements, regulations, procedures, and standards established under the ena- bling legislation. The State educational agency in its formal application to the Commissioner `of Education for participation in Title I, includes assurances that it will `admin- ister the program and submit reports in accordance with the provisions of the law and the regulations. It is our responsibility as program officers to' review with the `State the assur- ances and the repo'rts and m'ake suggestions where necessary and/or feasible. The local educational agency is responsible for developing and implementing projects to `fulfill the intent of Title I. It `i's therefore responsible for identifying the educationally deprived children in areas of h:igh concentrations of low income families, `determining their special needs, designing projects to carry out the purpose of the legislation with regard to such children, and submitting applica- tions to the appropriate State educational agencies for grants to carry out pro- posed projects. `At `this time, there is some difference of opinion as to what the function of the program officer is in visiting local schools. There are those who believe the program officers function in making such visits is simply to monitor `the local program and' report the results. There are~~ others who believe the program officer should take an active roll in the `assessment and future direction of the local program. There is also a strong concern that federal representatives should not even visit the local educational agencies. At the present time, and in the light of these various viewpoints, we have attempted to carry out a course of action to some degree that would satisfy each of `the opposing viewpoints. These conflicting points of view will continue to be a problem until such time that these differences are settled. Another major objective of our staff will be tu review, analyze, and evaluate the Department of Health an'd Education Audit Reports of the Title I program in the states in Region IV, and negotiate with officials of the State agencies to determine whether disallowances should be sustained as an audit exception; or whether `the State `has presented a rationale which will satisfy the acceptance of the questioned expenditures. it i's our responsibility to recommend approval or disapproval of `such allow- ances or dis'allowances in `these cases, a'nd make recommendations for the formu- lation of policy with respect to the settlement of similar cases. Our staff, through conferences, work shops, panels, presentations ,and personal contacts with State educational agency representatives and professional orga- nizations, should stimulate and encourage the improvement and/or establishment of quality system's for the pl'aiming `of long-range educational programs and for the efficient economical administration of such programs, including budgeting, accounting, and reporting systems. It is the program officers responsibility to provide advice and recommendations on how to accomplish these ends by making appropriate contacts, suggestions, and follow-tips. The recent severe budget restrictions, the freeze on personnel, and indecIsion on the part of the U.S. Office of Education and Congress, will restrict our progress in fulfilling our responsibilities as program officers. There appears to be some disagreements and misunderstanding among Bureaus as to whether dc-centralization is the answer to the successful administration of programs for its educationally deprived. Some State Departments of Education have voiced their strong opposItion to a Regional system which cannot provide them with decision making personnel. If dc-centralization is to succeed, it is vital that the authority to conduct and administer the programs involved be delegated to the Regional offices. If this is not done, the fear of the states that an extra layer will be built between them and the decision making level will become a reality. The states are also concerned that the appropriation procedures of Congress will seriously hamper the effectiveness of their programs. This' concern is not only related to the lateness of the appropriations, which naturally severely detracts from the administration of a well-planned, smoothly operated project; but also to the cut backs in appropriations at `all levels. PAGENO="0264" 610 U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION Since our staff is one of field service, and we are expected to spend a major portion of our time in the field, it will be necessary for those responsible to re-evaluate the duties of the program officer if travel and visitations to the various State Departments of Education continues to be restricted. If this Committee could see just one project for the disadvantaged that I saw a few months ago, .1 believe it would be highly satisfied that the potential for ha- provements of our educationally deprived children is all around us, if only we will put all our forces to work. May I digress a moment and tell you very sketchily of an after school program; one that started around six o'clock in the evening with parents and children coming back to school for a good dinner. Parents, children, teachers sat down together and enjoyed a dinner prepared in the school by volunteer help three times a week. At the close of the dinner, during which time pleasant music was played, the children went to various classes for their improvement in whatever skills they were lacking. The parents, having become a part of the program perhaps for the first time in their lives, went to their various chosen interests. Here was a program involving children and parents; all were involved in an educational program. No doubt the dinner three times a week played an important part in getting parents and children back to school-These parents and children were hungry; they were hungry for food as well as hungry for the importance of feeling wanted and being a part of a society. I believe that all involved experienced an educational insight that had not been experienced in this locality before. My remarks have been brief, in order to allow this Committee to ask questions, to comment, or to suggest ways in which we may do better the job we are all so vitally interested in. I am pleased to have had the privilege of appearing on behalf of the dis- advantaged children of the South. Mrs. GREEN. Thank you, Dr. Armstrong, and Dr. Boldt. Congressman Erlenborn? Mr. Enrm~oni~. Though the Federal activity in the field of aid to primary and secondary education is fairly new, I have already heard some comments from school administrators that categorical aid is not, in their opinion, the best method of giving aid to primary and secondary education. They feel that broad grants, without specific particular categories and particular programs, would be more advan- tageous to them. Some say, for instance, that they need additional help with their basic educational program, and instead they are gettmg the cream on the top-additional programs that are not basic education. What would be your feeling concerning this? Dr. ARMSTRONG. I think we hear continuously that they would pre- fer general aid, and of course a good many of them assume that the aid they are now getting is a forerunner to general aid. I think that would be the general opinion, from those that I~have talked with. They are hoping some day there will be general aid. Mr. ERLENBORN. Is this a hope, or an opinion? Dr. ARMSTRONG. It is probably hope. Mr. ERLENBORN. The hope was motion to the opinion. I have no other questions. Mrs. GREEN. On page 5, Dr. Armstrong, you expressed a concern whether decentralization is the answer for the programs for the educationally deprived. Is this based solely on the concern that another layer of bureaucracy is being imposed? Dr. ARMSTRONG. This is not my concern as much as it is that of the State people. They believe if they cannot get the office at the re- gional level that they are getting in Washington, there is no use in PAGENO="0265" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 611 putting people out in the field and having to go through them to Washington. That is the concern. Mrs. GREEN. Are you expressing a concern over the total decentrali- zation plan or just that part regarding the programs for the education- ally deprived? Dr. ARMSTRONG. I am not expressing a concern of my own. I am expressing the concerns of those people who think that they are going to have to go through another layer, unless .we are equipped to do the job in the region, and that means staff and the money to do it. Mrs. GREEN. The answer I am trying to find here is whether your remark on page 5, on decentralization, applies to the total decentrali- zation program. Dr. ARMSTRONG. Total. It is across the board. Mrs. GREEN. You refer to the cutback and the freeze. What about travel funds? Dr. ARMSTRONG. `Well,. they have been, restricted, I guess, 50 per- cent or better. Mrs. GREEN. Is there considerable travel involved in your job? What do you do? Do you travel? Dr. ARMSTRONG. Yes; 70 percent of our time is supposed to be rn the field. We don't have much of a job in the office. `Our job is in theY field. Mr. MARTIN. Madam Chairman, I guess I should react to that. We have just received word .recently that we will have to take a hard look at our estimates for the year, that the overall U.S. Office of Education funds `have been cut 50 percent, all of the administrative appropriations are being watched next week, and that is one of the main points on the agenda. We don't have a figure, as yet. We have not reached a figure as to what we can expect. We have just been told to reassess our travel plans and cut them down where possible. Mrs. GREEN. Expressing a personal view, I would `prefer to see a cut in the travel funds to the moon and places beyond, and less pf a cut in this corner of the planet. It would seem to `be that it would be tragic indeed if the cuts have to `be absorbed by the Department of HEW and the `Office of Educa- tion, and I for one will push for ecor~omy on the $20 or $40 billion raise to the moon program and a few others, and hope we can concen- trate on making life here a bit more meaningful to our own people. Dr. Boldt, on the student assistance programs this committee is con- cerned about the delinquency rate on collections. Let me ask you, though, from the standpoint of the Office of Educa- tion, and the standpoint of Congress, what is the timelag between the enactment of the law, the `beginning of the school year, and the moment when the procedural manuals or the handbooks get into the office of the student personnel man at the college or university? Dr. BoLur. Madam `Chairman, this has been quite a difficulty with the colleges. F'or example, the present manual has been in revision f~r over a year, and I was in Washington several months ago, and was given a draft copy `of the new manual, which was supposed to come out, at that time, next month, which is still not out. And I asked if I couldn't have a copy of this draft, and we came and got permission here to duplicate that, and we have given them to all our `colleges. PAGENO="0266" 612 U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION So this is, again, I think, a fault of the U.S. Office of Education administrators, in failure to get this material out to the colleges, plus some of the enumerations I made about the colleges' failure to go to workshops and such that you provide for them. We gave you the report here on what we did in Atlanta, and yet we had 40 colleges. Mrs. GREEN. Is this a neutral responsibility, though? I have had college personnel tell me-and I am not singling out Atlanta; I am speaking more of the west coast, with which I am more familiar- that the reason they do not attend is that they ask a question and don't get the answer. The manual isn't out, or they don't have the copy of the regulations at that time, and so the answer is, "Well, we can't tell you, because the handbook won't be out until next March." Dr. BoLrYr. We never tell a college we don't know. We get on the telephone, and we will contact the program person in Washington. And I think your questionnaires that you have sent out to our col- leges will speak for themselves as to the relationship of the Atlanta regional office to our colleges. We attempt, even though the program might not be particularly related to our area, even if it is the Public Health Professions Act, when we get a query, we will answer it, or we will get the answer for these people. Mrs. GREEN. A couple of quick questions. What is your judgment of the forgiveness feature in the student loan? Do you think it has accomplished its purpose in attracting more people to the teaching profession? Dr. BOLDT. No, I don't. Mrs. GumN. Would you favor continuing it? Dr. BOLDT. No. Originally I think it was a very laudable idea, but in my experience it doesn't attract more students into teaching. I think it is unfair to those students who are not going into it. They are just as much needed in our society, perhaps, from their point of view, as teachers. Mrs. GREEN. What is your reaction to the Teacher Corps? Dr. BOLDT. I am very much in favor of that, and especially in our area, because we haven't the depth of teaching skills that are needed, as they, for example, might have in some other areas of the country. Mrs. GREEN. Is it your judgment that the Commissioner of Educa- tion is in a better position to recruit and train teachers than a local school superintendent? Dr. BOLDT. No, it is not. I think the local superintendent is in a better position than the Commissioner of Education. Mrs. GREEN. Then why do you think so highly of the Teacher Corps- Dr. BoLur. I think there have to be some basic changes in that legis- lation, to permit this, as to the recruitments in the lower levels, that we are certainly going to pay them and work with them in the pro- gram. Mrs. GREEN. Do you think there would be any question about the loyalty of the individual teacher, if he is paid with a hundred percent Federal funds? Dr. BOLDT. I think so. Absolutely. Yes. There is no question in my mind about that. : PAGENO="0267" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 613 Mrs. GREEN. Dr. Armstrong, Mr. Erlenborn wonders if you would comment on the Teacher Corps. Dr. ARMSTRONG. Well, my knowledge of the Teacher Corps is pretty sketchy. However, in my own opinion, I don't think there is much place for the Teacher Corps in our system of education. I just can- not see it. I think that we can operate a good system on the local level, through the State departments of education. Mr. ERLENBORN. Would the gentleman yield at that point? Would you happen to know if any of the school administrators or the people in colleges and universities dealing with teacher education, the training of teachers, were consulted concerning the drafting of this program of the Teachers Corps? Dr. ARMSTRONG. It would only be an opinion, and my guess is that they would not. Mr. ERLENBORN. This was the information we got from others in the field, that they were not consulted in the drafting of this program, and pretty generally their opinion is the same as yours, that it is not a very valuable program. I don't recall the details of the Teachers Corps. Can they receive a short course in education and then be qualified to teach in a State where they would not otherwise be qualified? Dr. ARMSTRONG. To my knowledge, that has been recommended. Whether that is in force or not, I don't know. Mr. ERLENBORN. It seems to me to be a circumvention of the teacher education laws of the various States, and it was one of the things that bothered me about the proposal. It seemed to me merely a reaction to the dissatisfaction of former Peace Corps people, that though they did not have the formal training, they thought, since they have been edu- cating in Africa or South America or some place, they ought to be teachers when they came back home. Dr. ARMSTRONG. I believe that the American Association of School Teachers has gone on record against that. Mrs. GREEN. I must say Congressman Erlenborn .and I, although on different sides of the aisle, are in agreement on this particular matter. Mr. ERLENBORN. And a few others, too. Mrs. GREEN. My deep appreciation to Dr. Martin, Dr. Boldt, and Dr. Armstrong. Thank you for the courtesies you have extended to us. The next witness to appear before the committee is Dr. Hudson, executive secretary of the Georgia Higher Education Facilities Commission. Will you proceed Dr. Hudson? STATEMENT OF WILLIAM E. HUDSON, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, GEORGIA HIGHER EDUOATION FACILITIES COMMISSION Mr. HUDSON. Thank you, Madam Chairman. You have a copy of my statement, and it is intentionally brief. I will save the time of the committee by reading the statement, and then be available for questions. PAGENO="0268" 614 U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION This is William E. Hudson, executive secretary of the Georgia Higher Education Facilities Commission. The purpose of this com- mission is to recommend to the U.S. Office of Education the relative priorities of eligible projects for the construction of academic facili- ties submitted by institutions of higher educaton within the State of Georgia. The commission is composed of Mr. .John A~ Sibley, chairman; Dr. Harmon W. Caidwell, vice chairman; and Mr. James A. Dunlap, Dr. Rufus C. Harris, Dr. Waights G. Henry, Jr., and Dr. Benjamin Mays, members. I could identify those various individuals. They are college presi- dents and people connected with the higher education effort in this State. The foregoing group has served without change since the inception of the program. The commission has an office at 1108 Candler Build- ing, Atlanta, Ga., and, in addition to the executive secretary, who de- votes one-fifth of his time to the affairs of the commission, the commis- sion retains the services of Mrs. Jeanne Roe as a full-time secretarial employee. The State commission-Office of Education relationship is working well. The Federal-State partnership arrangement is most advan- tageous. The State commission has received no official complaints from any higher educational institution, public or private, in the State, and, in fact, no unofficial complaints have been received. The commission's business is a matter of public record, and the plan for determining priorities of grant requests is on file at all accredited institutions. A few facts concerning the program from its beginning are: 1. There are 61 accredited institutions of higher education in Geor- gia, 34 of which are classified as "privately supported institutions," and 27 are publicly supported. 2. Nineteen grant. requests have been received from the private col- leges-and this is total from the begiiining of the program-and all of these requests have eventually been recommended to the U.S. Office of Education. These grant requests total $4,272,313. No request has been refused by the commission. 3. Thirty-two grant requests have been received from the public institutions, and with the exception of one request., which was declared ineligible for consideration by the commission, all of the requests have presently been recommended to the U.S. Office of Education. These gra.nt r~quests total $13,725,140. No eligible request has been denied by the commission. 4. At the present moment, there remains on hand $4,529,483 to be allocated during the current fiscal year. Indications are that this amount will be insufficient to cover the requests which will be re- ceived. 5. A list of grant requests by institutions is attached. 6. The allotment of Federal grant construction funds to Georgia has been fully utilized to date. No funds have lapsed or have been lost because of lack of demand. PAGENO="0269" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 615 7. The. commission has never utilized all of the operation money `available to it. Operation expenditures have been kept at approxi- mately one-fourth to one-third of the State's allotment. As a general comment, the relationship between the State commis- sion and the U.S. Office of Education College Facilities Grants Branch has been of an extremely high order, and most satisfactory. A spirit of excellent cooperatiou has existed from the beginning of the pro- gram. From the standpoint of the State, we have only praise and no complaints regarding the desire on the part of the Office of Education to render a useful service. With regard to the programs, we have two suggestions. First, we believe that the level of Federal participation could usefully and help- fully be increased to 50 percent of the eligible project costs for both category 103 and 104 projects. This is the same level of participation which has existed with most Nationai Science Foundation and National Institutes of Health grants. Some compensation to the Federal participation because of this in- crease could come from elimination of any participation in administra- tive and `loose equipment costs. This second item is particularly troublesome, in that an inordinate amount of work in great detail is required for both the applicant and for the Office of Education. Second, we see or sense a need to assist in increasing the quality of. instruction through this construction aid program. We know that increased student enrollment capacity is the base for the grants as now programed. However, increased instructional quality could be productive also, and this aspect of the Nation's educational effort could be studied. In conclusion, we acknowledge with appreciation the valuable aid that this program has rendered to our institutions, and we see every need for its continuance in the future at an increasing rate. (Attachments to statement follow:) LIST OF ALL GRANTS RECOMMENDED BY THE GEORGIA HIGHER EDUCATION FACILITIES COMMISSION UNDER THE HIGHER EDUCATION FACILITIES ACT OF 1963 AS AMENDED Public community colleges-Category 103 Grant 1. Middle Georgia College $125, 878 2. Marietta Junior College 993, 911 3. Abraham Baldwin Agricultural College 121,359 4. Southern Institute of Technology 233,333 5. Georgia Military College 125, 856 6. Albany Junior College 655,497 7. DeKaib `College 759, 925 8. Middle Georgia College 37, 208 9. Gainesville Junior College 752, 242 10. Dalton Junior College 717, 292 11. Abraham Baldwin Agricultural College 106,362 12. DeKalb College 63, 733 13. Columbu,s College 177, 848 Total 4, 870, 444 PAGENO="0270" 616 U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 1. West Georgia College 2. Georgia Institute of Technology- 3. University of Georgia 4. University of Georgia 5. University of Georgia 6. West Georgia College 7. University of Georgia - 8. University of Georgia - 9. University of Georgia - 10. Georgia State College - 11. Georgia Southern College - 12. Georgia Institute of Technology_ 13. Armstrong State College - 14. West Georgia College - 15. Valdosta State College 16. University of Georgia - 17. Georgia Institute of Tn~hi,n1nav 18~ University So in at ary-GrcintS reconin? en defi to date Grant $098, 192 279, 560 998, 993 676, 994 82, 537 234,437 267,491 287, 325 1,000, 000 867,316 413, 545 459, 092 323, 886 581, 987 583, 333 955, 743 70,317 73, 948 8, 854, 696 Community colleges (103) (13 grants) $4, 870. 444 Private institutions (104) (19 grants) 4, 272, .313 Public institutiOnS (104) (18 grants) 8, 854, 696 Balance of grant funds on hand for remainder of 1966-67 year: Category 103 Category 104 2, 308, 190 2, 221. 293 - 22, 526, 930 LIST OF ALL GRANTS RECOMMENDED BY THE GEORGIA HIGHER EDucATIoN FAc1LI- ~ms Co~fMLssION UNDER THE HIGHER EDUCATION FACILITIES ACT OF 1903 ~s AMENDED-Continued Public institutions-Category 104 "~ ~eor~na 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. Private institutions-Category 104 Morris Brown College Morehouse College Gordon Military College Berry College Young Harris College Clark College Berry College Spelman College Moreho~e College wesleyan College Emory-OxfOrd Andrew College Oglethorpe College Oglethorpe College Reinhardt College Reinhardt College Young Harris College Reinhardt College Berry College Total Grant $48.3, 079 200, 000 151, 497 183, 892 81, 215 ~ 3 124, 137 212, 22S 23, 848 242, 980 200,000 75.000 576, 130 514, 914 282,497 209, 149 20, 357 87, 780 14,217 Total awards plus funds on hand. PAGENO="0271" U~S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 617 Mrs. GREEN. Thank you.. Congressman Erlenborn, do you have questions? Mr. ERLENBORN. I don't believe so, Madam Chairman, thank you. Mrs. GREEN. Do you see any change in this service statistical pro- vided by the Office of Education through the years? Dr. HUDSON. No, because we don't get very many statistics. The release of this information comes very slowly. It is almost too late to be of any benefit to us. For instance, in our office, the latest information that we have on enrollment.s at educational institutions, higher educational institu- tions, in the State of Georgia, is for the fall of 1965. Mrs. GREEN. Is this not, in and of itself, a comment on the ability of the Office of Education to provide meaningful statistics at a time when they would be useful to higher education? Dr. HUDSON. This is my point, Madam Chairman, that by the time we get the statistics, they are of little help to us. We don't rely on them, particularly. Mrs. GREEN. Has this always beenthe case? Dr. HUDSON. Well, I haven't been associated with the program that long, but I think that through the bureaucratic process it proves pretty slow. Mrs. GREEN. In the State of Georgia, how nearly do you meet the requests for grants and loans under the Higher Education Facilities Act? Dr. HUDSON. The program for our State, Madam Chairman, is bal- anced almost perfectly at this time. Mrs. GREEN. You are able to meet all of the requests? Dr. HtmsoN. We have at the present time met all~ of the requests and have about $4~/2 million left for the remainder of this fiscal year, soit has been, as I said, almost perfect. Mrs. GREEN. You are, in a very fortunate position. Dr. HUDSON. Yes, we are. We appreciate the fact that we are in this position. Now, the other side of the problem would be that our institutions lack the other $2 to go with the Federal $1. The needs may be there, but they may not be applying because of lack of funds on their part. Mrs. GREEN. Have you or your commission, or has the regional office, made any study of this, in terms of the ~needs and the ability of the institutions to match? Dr. HUDSON. No. We have not made any detailed study of this. Mrs. GREEN. In many States they do not have anywhere nearly suf- ficient funds. The applications for the Federal funds far exceed the available amount. With this in mind I am concerned about your recommendation for 50-50 matching. * I am thinking in terms of spreading the available amount of money over more institutions. Dr. HUDSON. Well, unless the amount of money would be increased, then there is no advantage to going to the 50 percent. In my judgment, it would be better to remain at the one-third to two-thirds participation level, and let the money be spread to more institutions by this means. PAGENO="0272" 618 U.s. OFFICE OF EDUCATION Mrs. GREEN. I think here I should put in a commercial the Congress authorized a few hundred million dollars for the Higher Education Facilities Act more than was recommended to us by the Office of Education. We felt the needs were much greater. Dr. HUDSON. Yes. And I would like to help you with that. You have programed for the future increasing education needs, which we think we will be able to match and use very effectively. Mrs. Giu~N. `What is your view on categorical aid versus general aid? Dr. HUDSON. For instance? Mrs. GREEN. In higher education, originally the Higher Education Act, as you know, said that the funds could only be used for certain categories of academic buildings. Dr. HUDSON. Oh, we are much in favor of the amendments that were accomplished through the 1965 Higher Education Act. This gave an even break across the board to the arts and the other segments of valuable education subjects, academic subjects, and did not restrict the aid to just science, mathematics, engineering, and this sort of thing. This was a considerable improvement, and this helped us a great deal Mrs. G~N. In the State of Georgia, and if you have knowledge of the otherfive States in this area, what is your comment on the reserva- tion of funds for junior colleges? Is this desirable, or not? And if it desirable, is the percentage correct? Dr. HUDSON. We have no quarrel with the percentage, and in our Stnte particularly, the public segment is establishing junior colleges at what could be called a pretty rapid rate, and the help that they have secured through a 40-percent grant rather than the one-third has been very constructive on their part. We have no quarrel with the two categories, the public community college and the remainder of your higher educational institutions. Mrs. Gm~r~. Are your responsibilities limited to the Facilities Act? Dr. HUDSON. Yes. Well, we also are responsible for title VI, under the 1965 act, part A, the equipment branch, and this we have just been working with now, of course, since last spring. This program is moving well, and has been oversubscribed. We have lost no Federal funds. We have utilized all that were available to us. Mrs. GREEN. Turning to the guidelines, what is the timelag be- tween the enactment of the law and the time when the guidelines and the rules and regulations are in your hands, or in the hands of the commission? Dr. HUDSON. If I may, I will answer that in this way. We knew that the rules and regulations were being changed last summer, in July. The actual changes were not received by us in an official form until November. We had prepared, using the original tentative regulations, a revised State plan, but we had to hold this until the official regulations came out, because we didn't want to act with unofficial information. Mrs. GIm~N. Were these rules and regulations whih governed the action of your people from the 1st of September? Dr. HUDSON. Yes. Mrs. GIu~N. And you did not receive them until November? Dr. HUDSON. This is correct. PAGENO="0273" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 619 Mrs. GREEN. Do you think that there is any way that this pro- cedure could be speeded up by the Office of Education? Dr. HUDSON. Madam Chairman, I don't know what their procedure is, to get these regulations approved, but apparently, they will go, I will say, "upstairs," and it floats around somewhere in a nebulous state, apparently. This is my own viewpoint. The people that I deal with, the people that I pick up the telephone and talk to, to get answers to my prob- lems-I get answers from them, but they seem to be helpless in try- ing to speed the regulations through, because it moves to some other level. I speak particularly of Mr. Morris and this College Facilities Branch. They are most helpful and cooperative in perfect measure. Mrs. GREEN. Have you or have members of the commission ever been consulted on the drafting of the rules and regulations, or the guidelines? Dr. HUDSON. Yes, ma'am; we have. Mrs. GREEN. At what point are you consulted? Dr. HUDSON. We are consulted I think fairly early in the process. They want our viewpoints. They want our reactions as to how to improve the program. I am perfectly. satisfied with this relationship. Mrs. GREEN. Is ityour judgment that this is the policy that is fol- lowed across the country, that the State commissions are called in? Dr. HUDsoN. Yes. The executive secretaries and members of these State commissions. The program has been in effect, and now we are in our third year. We have had two national meetings, and this was an effort on the part of this College Facilities Branch section to get information to the working groups at the State level. Very helpful. Mrs. GREEN. In your particular job, do you see any evidence of this new profession of grantsmanship? Dr. HUDSON. Not in our particular program, because we work with the institutions and assist them in preparing the grants. Our major problem is that of all of us: read the instructions. I have had grant applications come in, and the institution did not even put its own name in. This is ridiculous. You don't need profes- sional help for this. You simply need to carefully take the time to prepare the applications. I know of no instances in Georgia where, under the title I program, professional help has been employed, other than the architects who develop the plans which serve as a basis for many of the calculations necessary in the grant application. Mrs. GREEN. Does the small college or university, with limited re- sources and personnel, have the same opportunity. to get grants or loans under the Higher Education Facilities Act as do the much larger institutions with great financial resources? Dr. HUDSON. Well, except for the limitations of money, the op- portunities are there, but if the small institution does not have its two-thirds necessary, then, of course, it is in trouble. And this is the reason for our comment. Somewhere in the long run of this pro- gram, we have got to be looking to improvement of quality through construction. Mrs. GREEN. In Georgia, do you have a variation on the percentage amount of Federal funds? Or do you have a flat amount? 73-728-----67-pt. 2-18 PAGENO="0274" .20 U.S.~ OFFICE OF EDUCATION Dr. HUDsoN. A flat amount. One-third in the case of higher edu- cational institutions, and 40 perce.nt in the case of public community colleges. Mrs. GREEN. Because of the differential in the financial resources of individual institutions, would there be any merit, as is done in some States, to have a sliding scale, so that one institution might have 10 percent matching funds, and another 33, and one junior college might have 10, and another 40 percent? Dr. HUDSON. We appreciate this privilege, and we have it. We could allocate our funds in this manner. However, it is almost im- possible for an educational institution, Madam Chairman, to apply for money and not know how much they are going to get, and work out a budget for a construction project. We want to put up a hundred thousand dollar building. Can we get 40 percent? Do we get 40 or 30 or 20 or 10? It makes it extremely difficult for the institution to organize a pro- gram to get a project constructed, because they would be uncertain about the financial portion of it. Mr. ERLENBORN. Would you yield to me? I have a couple of questions now. Have you had any difficulty in dealing with the Department of Housing and Urban Development in the engineering and architec- tural services? Do you think this could better be done by the Office of Education? Dr. HUDSON. Possibly it could. We have not had any difficulty, because the office is located here in Atlanta, and we have personal contact with them. If a problem arises, we can go directly to them and work it out. Mississippi, for instance, if they had to travel all the way into Atlanta, would be at a greater disadvantage. Possibly the Office of Education could handle this portion of this work. I would think that the coordination would be improved. Mr. ERLENBORN. It would not be an improvement, however, if they would concentrate that in Washington? Dr. HUDSON. No. We would lose the local contact. That is true. Mr. ERLENBORN. That leads me to my next question: How do you feel about the decentralization of the Office of Education, admitting, of course, that it has not been completely effective, even though you are farther ahead here in Atlanta than elsewhere in the country? Dr. HUDSON. Sir, I am already acquainted with, have worked with, t~he individual in the college branch section that will be assigned to this region. I will be delighted to have him here in Atlanta, because again our contacts will be much closer. However, he is only a telephone call away. As long as I can get the answers to questions that I can't answer, that institutions bring to me, as long as I can get those answers, I don't care whether he is lo- cated here or in Washington. I think lie could possibly do a better job here. He would be closer to our problems. Mr. ERLENBORN. You really have experienced no difficulty in your relationship with him presently? Dr. HUDSON. No difficulty at all. Mr. ERLENBORN. You are not required to travel frequently to Wash- ington and consult with him? Dr. HUDON. I am in Washington four times a year, if this is neces- sary. PAGENO="0275" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 621 The fact is that I can catch a plane from here in the morning and be back here in the evening, and still get 4 to 5 hours of work in Washington. I can tell them all I know in that length of time. Mr. ERLENBORN. Thank you. Mrs. GREEN. One other question, Dr. Hudson. Let me read `a comment from hearings in one of the New England States made by the person who was administering the Higher Educa- tion Facilities Act there: Several recipients of title I grants. both private and public, `but particularly the `latter, `have found the po'sta'ward procedures of grant administration frus- trating, particularly the construction supervision. The procedures are `bound and tied with in~lastic redtape. The staff at fluiD in both the Boston and New York `offices are, I am told, most `helpful in guiding the appli'cant through the maze of red'ta'pe, but are powerless to cut it. The endless approvals, reap- provals, assurance, investigations. conformances, certification, reports, and controls could `be streamlined to resemble the procedure of the National Science Foundation, which are simple and direct, without endangering the Federal in- terest in the project. Do you have any of this kind of a feeling `here in Georgia? Dr. HUDSON. I think `there is a great deal `of truth in what is said there, yes. Mrs. GREEN. Do you have any specific recommendations to the Con- gress on legislative changes that we might make, or to the Office of Education, on procedural changes, which would make your job easier? Dr. HUDSON. Well, first of all, Madam `Chairman, this does not worry me,, as an executive secretary to `this commission, because by the time we get through and make our recommendations to Wash- ington, then it is up to the iiistitution to. struggle with all of these other matters at some future time. The public colleges under the State board of regents, here. in Georgia-most of their constructions takes place under an agency called the University System Building Authority. This agency will match almost any Federal agency so far as redtape and procedures are concerned, and if we make it through that agency, then it pretty well takes care of the other. But a private institution would have its diffi- culties. So again I would say that possibly the U.S. Office of Edu- cat~cn would appreciate these problems a little more. Mrs. GREEN. Thank you very much, Dr. I-Iud'son. The next witness is Dr. Warren Findley, director of t.he Georgia Research and Development Center. Dr. Findley, we also welcome you to the meetings this morning. We appreciate the `time that you have taken out of your official schedule to prepare a statement and, give us the benefit of your views. You may proceed as you wish. STATEMENT OF PROF. WARREN G. FINDLEY, DIRECTOR, RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CENTER IN EDUCATIONAL STIMULATION, UNIVERSITY OF `GEORGIA Dr. FINDLEY. May I, in turn, thank you for this opportunity. to appear before this hearing. I am Prof. Warren G. Findley, director of `the Research an'd De- velopment Center `in Educational Stimulation at the University of Georgia. PAGENO="0276" 622 U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION My contacts with programs and activities of the Research Branch of the Office of Education include participation in curriculum improve- ment projects in elementary written composition and in the teaching of anthropology in elementary schools and in a research project on the sequence of teaching the newer mathematics topics in the inter- mediate grades at the University of Georgia. I have served since 1964 as a field reader for small contract pro- posals and am currently under contract to evaluate proposals of any specified scope in my fields of competence. Earlier, from 1959 to 1962, I served as a member of the Research Advisory Committee to the Cooperative Research Branch at a time when we operated as a committee of the whole to review and evaluate all research projects submitted for funding. More recently, I have served as a Headstart observer in the summer of 1965 for a project partially supported by the Office of Economic Opportunity, as a panel consultant to the Office of Education on its equality of educational opportunity survey during 1965-66, and as a site visitor and evaluation committee member for the Office of Educa- tion in the summer of 1966 for its projected national program in early education. This year we have had the experience of providing postdoctoral edu- cational research training in early childhood education to one fellow. My first reaction, and I feel sure I speak for my colleagues at. the University of Georgia, is that the Office of Education has shown a re- markable ability to evolve a progressively more functional program of research and development in a rapidly changing situation. Starting from scratch 10 years ago, it first developed a program of basic and applied research under not merely the scrutiny, but the control of non-Government research personnel, which earned the con- fidence of the Congress and the research community. Each year it att.racted greater numbers of acceptable research proj - ects than its appropriations could support, so there was no occasion to discontinue or cut back support.. Rather, there developed a small backlog of worthy projects to be carried forward for funding in the next fiscal yea.r, for which gradually increased appropriations were made. At the same time, the small professional staff looked ahead, con- ceiving and proposing constructive extensions each year from the solid base of defensible projects in hand. The first extension, in 1962, was into 5-year curriculum improvement projects. These permitted bringing together specialists in substantive knowledge and research design, they permitted maintenance of functioning research staffs on studies that could be planned in sequence in advance with confidence that funding would be available when needed, a.nd they permitted longitudinal studies over time with their promise of definitive findings not obtainable from short-term studies. A second extension followed successful administration of this pro- gram. In 1964, the research and development center concept. was broached and adopted. With each center funded for approximately 10 times the amount of the curriculum projects, for a 5-year period, with the prospect of renewal for a second 5 years, subst.antial inter- disciplinary efforts could be mounted, semipermanent research staffs PAGENO="0277" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 623 of professional, technical, and clerical personnel could be assembled, and truly longitudinal studies could be planned. These centers, as you well know, have also been given the responsi- bility for demonstrating effective practices and disseminating them. Our own experience has paralleled this development. We moved from individually approved studies to curriculum projects in which materials for seven grades had to be developed and tried out over 5 years through elaborate plans for overlapping and sequencing in particular subject areas. We now have a research and development center in educational stimulation in which we have been able to plan a longitudinal study over the 10 years from age 3 through age 12 to determine the effective- ness of continuous, structured sequential stimulation of young children over that period in producing greater achievement than might other- wise have been attained. An excellent example of the kinds of outcomes to be expected from such centers is the applied research study conducted for the past 6 years by the Denver Public Schools under arrangements prevailing in 1960, and just published. This study had to do with the beginning teaching of reading with ~-year-olds. In 1966, a third extension has been undertaken. The regional edu- cational laboratories, combining the resources of the advanced train- ing institutions and the State departments of education of several contiguous States, have been given broad responsibilities for dis- semination of effective practices. Dr. Hopper, who has also been summoned to testify, can speak of that extension for this region. As the fiscal pressures of international conimitments have increased, the Office of Education and we collaborating centers have made sev- eral adaptations calculated to render our total effort more efficient. We have accepted a reallocation of responsibility, so that our re- search and development center sees its chief function in the develop- ment and refinement of materials and procedures in ongoing field situations, in schools under normal operating conditions. Basic and applied research studies will continue to need support to encourage exploration of new ideas falling outside the focused efforts of research and developments centers. At the same time, a consid- erable dissemination responsibility is being assumed by the regional laboratories. In keeping with out responsibility for refinements of workable in- novations, we are looking toward progressively more collaborative arrangements with local districts under title III of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Both our current major field efforts are in counties where title III grants have been made for related exploratoy activities. The ar- rangements are mutually beneficial and provide a model for extension of our efforts into other areas of exploration and refinement of new approaches. We have one unique project going in the teaching of a cross section of a community's children 3 to 5 years of age in a public school. PAGENO="0278" 624 U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION An area I would like to see us explore would be the substantial in- troduction of male participants in the teaching of children at the preprimary and elementary levels. We are also taking steps to apply systematically the cost-benefit ap- proach to evaluation of our activities. The materials developed by a project suppoi:ted by the Office of Education and resulting in a Pro- gram Evaluation and Review Technique, PERT, are directly appli- cable to charting the expected flow of act.ivties and the. data t.hey generate into usable findings for further refinement and/or dissemination. A word about the small contracts program. This has been bene- ficial in at least two important ways. First, it has enabled research workers to conduct pilot studies, pre.- hminary to larger studies, so that problems of detail and of instru- mentation can be worked out in advance, rather than become hazards to the efficient accomplishment of the larger studies. Second, a numbe.r of doctoral dissertations have been made feasible or broadened in significance by the underwriting .of costs that would otherwise have forced the relatively impecunious investigator back int.o a more limited type of study wit.h correspondingly more limited generaliza.bility of findings. Another word concerning a further extension of the research and development center concept. The national program in early educa- tion, involving a national coordinating center with autonomous satel- lite centers, seems well designed to meet the demand for accelerated trial of procedures to deal with a rapidly emerging phenomenon requiring innovation, refinement, and systematic evaluation, because of its immediate importance. Other areas might be given similar prompt., systematic exporat.ion when identified. One suggestion I feel might. help in achieving the most efficient use of funds appropriated for research and development centers and regional laboratories on one hand, and for title III innovat.ive projects on the other, would be to allocate 10 percent of the title III grant for research and evaluation to administration by an autonomous agency like a center or laboratory If such funds were under the authority of the evaluators, they might be in a better position t.o assert considerations basic to objective evaluation. The idea occurred to me from consideration of the Vocational Edu- cation Act of 1963, with its 10 percent for research provision. I can- not claim to have thought it through, or to involve my colleagues in it. It does not arise from negative experience, but. from the positive experience of being able to assert posit.ions when contributing to a collaborative effort. Let me conclude by "praising with faint damns." Reimbursement procedures for readily justifiable expenses and honorariums of consult.a.nt.s to the Office of Education are unwar- rantedly tedious. No State or private organization would tolerate them. Communication with the Office of Economic Opportunity and with the Educational Research Information Center program leave much t.o be desired. In all our ma.jor negotiations and communications with the. Office of Education, however, we can only pay tribute to the courtesy, effi- PAGENO="0279" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 625 ciency, and professional integrity and imagination of the small, often overworked staff, despite its considerable turnover. Mrs. GREEN. Thank you very much, Dr. Findley. Mr. ERLENBORN. Dr. Findley, my first question will relate to re- search and development work in colleges and universities. Do you feel that too much of the time of university professors is now being taken up with this sort of activity? Is there more prestige connected with this than there is to teaching, nowadays? I am thinking of an article that I read in the National News mag- azine just the other day, where many of the students were complain- ing that it was the assistant professor, or maybe a teaching fellow, who was teaching them, whereas the prestigious professor was busy going to Washington to get research projects, was busily engaged in research, and was no longer teaching. Dr. FINDLEY. I am sure such dialog is taking place on every campus, and ours is not an exception. I would not say that in my view the matter has reached serious proportions. It may be treason to my fellow professors to say that sometimes a graduate assistant or teach- ing fellow, being closer to the learning process himself, may do as good or better job of teaching as the prestigious professor. However, I do feel that it is well to maintain the balance between construction and research, and thus far at our university that balance has been maintained. I think a few of us, in order to warrant the Government in sup- porting us and getting us started in this project, have had to be specified as giving full time at the start, but even within members of my own staff, a man I recruited last year expressed preference for doing some teaching. We have made it feasible for him to do such teaching, sort of trading off a fraction of his time for a corresponding fraction of another faculty~ member's time in research. Mr. ERLENBORN. This is, however, a problem that people are aware of, and something that you think is a cause for concern, that you should watch? Dr. FI~DLEY. Let's put it this way. Right at the time, when we have recognized the need for the research and development activities, there has been this tremendous upsurge in the number of students wanting to go on into college. Someone must teach them. And who is to say, on the point? Mr. ERLENBORN. There also have been criticisms that within the Federal Government there is no one that knows the totality of re- search and development contracts that are put out by the various agencies and departments of Government. Do you have any comment on this? Do you feel that there is not sufficient overall control, across the board, as to where the research and development contracts are going? Dr. FINDLEY. The research and development contracts with which I am specifically familiar are those in the field of education. Mr. ERLENBORN. They would all come from the Office of Educa- tion, then? Dr. Fnmtany. The ones I have spoken about do come from there. There are some that come from private foundations into local systems, with which we and others are collaborating. PAGENO="0280" 626 U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION I would say that the present emphasis in the Office of Education programs is toward a better coordination of a series of programs that have grown up rather rapidly. Now, as to what to say about other programs: I noticed before this committee in Washington, where testimony was given me to read, there was some question as to whether NSF and other agencies were being properly coordinated with the Office of Education's efforts, particularly since they were attempting to support special efforts to improve instruction in the sciences in the schools. That I think is a proper program of coordination, but I see that as existing at the national level. Mr. ERLENBORN. Clearly there is a lack of coordina~ion between agencies and departments. I recall one study, one of the subcommittees of our Congress made, that developed the information that in at least one instance there was a graduate student working for his doctorate who had three separate research and development contracts from dif- ferent agencies, none of which Imew that he had a contract with an- other agency; a.nd he was at the time going to school, collecting some- thing in the neighborhood of $25,000 or $30,000 a year from the Gov- ernment under these contracts. Dr. FINDLEY. I can assure you that as far as the University of Georgia is concerned, this would be quite impossible. Only within the last month I have been negotiating with the con- troller's office over the propriety of an individual student's obtaining certain support from an outside agency while also receiving some sup- port from our grant, because the checks to him had to process through the same office. I would suspect that that would not happen, and we are in very good touch with the other departments of the university. For exam- ple, the academic year institutes, that are run under the NDEA and science are run by persons who serve on committees with us, in approv- ing the doctorates of those persons if they continue on in further work. So we are quite familiar with what they are doing, and they with what we are doing. Mr. ERLENBORN. What is your feeling about the possible lack of independent judgment and critical evaluation in universities and col- leges that are dependent to a great extent of their income from the Federal Government? Dr. FINDLEY. Are you saying that Federal funds might distort pro- graIns in a local institution? Mr. ERLENBORN. Not only distort programs, but maybe take away from the ability of the individuals in the school to render a critical evaluation of proposals pending before Congress. Dr. FINDLEY. Well, now, I am not quite sure what we would be do- ing, "rendering critical evaluations." Mr. ERLENBORN. Let me just put this in different terms. Do you feel that there is any danger in a school becoming dependent to a great extent, because maybe more than half of its total income comes from the Federal Govermnent, through grants and such? Dr. FDmLEY. I can conceive of an institution that carelessly entered into a program of expansion, based so much on external support that if that support should for any reason be withdrawn, they would then be embarrassed. PAGENO="0281" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 627 I can only say, with respect to our own particular center, that if the funds should be withdrawn next year, that would simply save the dean one year's recruiting pay for his teaching staff. Mr. ERLENBORN. Now, talking about Project ERIC, is this opera- tive, at the present time, or merely being tooled up? Dr. FINDLEY. Well, it is in the stages where certain preliminary documentary digests have been forwarded to us. I think a first step on a financial scale with respect to our urban communities, if I am not mistaken, came through in the last week. They are tooling up. Our only misadventure, and I think we would not complain a'bout it too bitterly, because we think the position taken was properly sound, was that we were busily trying to do something which it had `already been decided was going to be done in a different way. Mr. ERLENBORN. Generally speaking, is information concerning the result of your educational research on individual projects published and disseminated within a reasonable length of time., or is there such a timelag that it may no longer be valid or useful by the time it becomes published or available? Dr. FINDLEY. I would say that the publication of such research as is done is rather well provided for within the grant made to us for the conduct `of the center, that we might in `some way say that we are bet- ter prepared to disseminate things than we are to have things to disseminate. Yet it so `happens that in this State we have had a bureau of field studies, under Dr. Doynsmith, which has received national recogni- tion, and he is sort of standing there ready to disseminate anything we `have to disseminate, and `has the contacts that we have helped to support this last year with elementary principals and others that we think we will want to have ready to `hear us when we have something more definitive to offer. Mr. ERLENBORN. How `are your reports published? Locally? Or does the Office of Education in Washington publish them? Dr. FINDLEY. Each of the research and development centers has a budget for dissemination, and this dissemination is provided in part by others participating, particularly the schoil systems in which we might be carrying on experiments. But there is `also provision for distributing reports and studies, and these can be done on a quite varied and informal basis. I was quite impressed by the reports recently received from the project at the University of Pittsburgh, where they simply adopted a convenient identifiable format for an outer cover, and they put inside of them all sorts of reports, some blueprints from professional jour- nals, some mimeographed short reports of studies they had done, some accounts of things that they were starting upon. I think probably we and they are better prepared to disseminate in-process information than has been true in the past, and I look for- ward to the ERIC operation when it gets into full swing `to pick up more of what might be called casual publications, publications that are made locally for local purposes, and sometimes don't get distributed unless somebody knows somebody has it and asks for it. I think this would bring quite `a lot of useful, less formal publica- tion to people who need it. PAGENO="0282" 628 U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION Mr. ERLENBORN. This would not be applicable to the particular type of research that you do, but lust recently in Washington we had testi- mony from some people concerned with higher education that when there is partial funding or complete funding by the Office of Education of a particular study, the Office has a blanket rule now that there can be no copyright attached to the results of the material when it is pub- lished, and therefore they felt that often the university press or the other methods of obtaining printing and publishing were not available to them, because of the lack of copyright, and that many of the re- searchers did not care to engage in research where they could not pro- tect their end product through copyright; not necessarily because of the monetary consideration, but its use and possible changes in the wording. Dr. Fn~m~y. We have not been disturbed by the copyright provi- sion, that sometimes is referred to as the public, domain policy. We. have found that it is natural to publish in order to, on the one hand, make more information as widely available as possible. and on the other hand, to obtain whatever prestige comes with having furnished this type of information. I know copyright has its values, but I would say that we would be most happy to have anything that comes out of our operation generally available. I think only certain special instruments would be the sort that would need a close copyright, and insofar as IJncle Sam has paid us to develop them, I think h~ is entitled to let other people use them. After all, a copyright is only a right to sue. Mr. ERLENRORN. You don't necessarily want to buy a lawsuit, then. Do you feel that the Office of Education does the job of determining today what the needs of business and industry will be 12 or 16 years from now, when the student presently entering the educational system will be going out into the field, where his knowledge will be used? Is this sort of work being done? Does the Office of Education have the ability, or are they making the attempt to predict what educational requirements will be needed over this period of time? Dr. FINDLEY. The Office of Education has participated in sponsoring at more than one institution conferences on education for 1980 or 1990. and I am sure they have included in this the drawing together of, let's say, projections as to manpower needs and things of that sort t.hat would be relevant to considering what kind of output you want from your educational process. I know of specific processes at Stanford. and I think at. Pittsburgh, of this kind of work. I think much could be done to explore this matter. It is a matter of real concern. I remember being struck, some 4 or 5 years ago, by Gilberg Rehm's publication, "A Counsellor in a. Changing World," prepared by the American Guidance Association, in which he made the statement, which I have not. heard challenged, that every student. which was then being coi.mseled in the high school should be counseled with the notion that on the average twice during his working career he would have to change jobs. not because lie was doing the job poorly, or that his com- pany was doing its work poorly. but that the process by which they were operating had become obsolete. Mr. ERLENBORN. Again, in our testimony in Washington. we had some criticism of our educational system as really being no system PAGENO="0283" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 629 whatsoever-individual school districts really determining what the curriculum will be, and so forth, and along with this a criticism of the development of some of this curriculum, some of the teaching methods, particularly the new math. Now, what is your opinion of the new math? The opinion expressed yesterday was that it was not designed to be useful. It maybe was great theoretically, but it was not good in application. Dr. FINDLEY. Well, I would have to say that although I did major in mathematics as an undergraduate, I would hesitate to pose as any kind of authority. To answer your question, let me simply say that I have read state- ments by persons in the area of mathematics, and physics, and some of the other areas in which newer curriculum developments have come along, suggesting that some of the new approaches have not been entirely helpful. I can quote the head of the physics department on our own campus because this has been in the newspapers as his opinion. Some of the PSCC physics, as it is called, the newer curriculum there, has had the effect of perhaps upgrading the curriculum in physics for certain students who, as you might say, can take it and enjoy it, but being pitched at such a. level as to overreach the average capabilities of students, so that a smaller proportion of students are being channeled into physics than before. So that you can have effects of that sort. I would not want it to appear that this is a general condemnation of those newer approaches, but there gets to be a stage after the early effort, in which our subject matter specialists are anxious to bring things up to date, you might say, where matters have to be tried in the operating situation, and adaptations made, when disproportions such as the one I have just talked about seem to appear. Mr. ERLENBORN. To get into a different subject, and maybe one a little closer to your experience: Preschool education-what do you think about Project Headstart? Is this validly carried on by the Office of Economic Opportunity, or is this really just an integral part of education, and should it be handled by the Office of Education? Mr. FINDLEY. Well, actually, as you know, support for public edu- cation has been a local matter. At the present time there are many State and local school systems, that support kindergarten for 5-year- olds. We know of a1mo~t none in which something is done at lower age levels than that. In fact, in inquiring. I have almost c~ome to the conclusion that our little experiment out here in Clayton County is unique in having 3-year-oids and 4-ycar-olds, a cross-section of the public school population there, actually in a public school, as con- trasted with private schools or otherwise. I would say that our Headstart approach is one of two approaches that are in the field at the moment, which are in effect contradictory to each other. The Headstart program is proposed for those who need a head start in order to be better able to take full advantage of the type of program that will be offered them in the first grade. * For. years, we have had another program for those who were so advanced as a result of favorable background that they could profit from the present arrangements for first grade, even before they reached the normal age for entering first grade. PAGENO="0284" 630 IJ.S. OFFICE or EDUCATION So we are giving it to some because they can take it without hav- ing to fix it over any. We are giving it to some others because they need to have something to bring them up. And the great bulk in between is not being touched. The thesis of our center, and the emphasis in our research is on the usefulness of this type of earlier education for all, and that is what we are trying to explore. Mr. ERLENBORN. Would you feel that Operation Headstart, how- ever, is an educational process, and should be handled through the Office of Education? Dr. FINDLEY. Well, I don't know whether Headstart would have gotten started off with the bang it did if it had been limited by some of the process that we would ordinarily go through in trying to plan and put something like that into effect. Headstart got started, and I am glad it got started. I think it was good for us. And I would say that it should not present any un- wanted competition, but rather should show something that can be done. And perhaps when more people see it, the question will arise quite naturally, "Why don't we have this for all children?" Mr. ERLENBORN. Am I getting the correct impression, that what you are saying in a way is that the old established agencies such as the Office of Education, the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, are so set in their ways that they are not ready to innovate, and we have to go outside of the regular structure to create something new? Dr. FINDLEY. Well, in a way you might make that criticism but I think one has to recognize that local school officials are dependent on local taxpayers for support of what they do. Now, for many years, here in Atlanta, when the public schools were supporting, as they are now, kindergartens, out of local taxation, since there is no State aid for kindergartens, there would be mention on the part of some that a good way to save money would be to do away with the kindergarten. Well, it so happened that that would generally trigger off all the first-grade teachers and PTA people in the community, to ringing doorbells to make sure that it did not happen, because the first-grade teachers were glad that the children had had kindergarten. And so, I would say that we have been quite limited in extending education downward. I think now some of the reason for our starting our center with the age level we did is that there is rather good research evidence that so much goes on at this early age level, and so much of a youngster's readiness to benefit from the regular program seems to depend upon it, that we do well to try to help. Any of us who have had any broad experience can think back that we came from homes that were, shall we say, educationally advantaged, and that there are things which were done for us which others don't get. I personally recall having learned to tell time to the minute long before I went to school, out of a little book my mother bought for me that had a little watch face on it, and you could "Tell what time Timothy got up." I knew those things. On most school records I think the grade level for which some of these things are expected is second or third grade. PAGENO="0285" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 631 There are many other things that are done, particularly in Head- start, by way of producing conversation between children and adults who are interested in conversing with them, which helps build them up. To my mind, the principle of early education is very sound. If I did not feel that way, I would not have sent my older daughter to nursery school at age two and a half, when I could ill afford it. Mr. ERLENBORN. Thank you very much. Mrs. GREEN. Let me just pursue that for a moment, Dr. Findley. If I understood correctly one of the previous witnesses, there was resistance in this region to the I-Ieadstart program. Would you com- ment on this? Dr. FINDLEY. I would have to wonder whether that was as wide- spread as stated. I do know this, and I am quite sure I am right about this: that the Atlanta public schools had been in conversation with the Ford Foun- dation about an educational improvement program by the spring of 1965, when Headstart was broached, and they were so far along that they simply shot in their proposal to the U.S. Office, or to the OEO, I should say, with the suggestion that they would be glad to undertake it with 400 children, 100 in each of four schools, and it came back with the request "Why don't you do it in 26 schools?" And their approach was used as a model for suggesting to others as to how they might do it. I would say that here in Atlai~ta there was a very avid acceptance of Headstart. Mrs. GREEN. Have you made any evaluation in your research de- partment on the effectiveness of Headstart? Dr. FINDLEY. No. We have not. The Headstart people have tended to prefer a kind of national evaluation that they direct, and we are only beginning to enter into conversations with them about ways in which we might participate. Mrs. GREEN. Did I understand you to say that the national. people only prefer an evaluation that they direct? Is that what you are saying? Dr. FINDLEY. That was the way it was conducted during the first year, and even into the second year. Mrs. GREEN. By the Office of Economic Opportunity? Or Ike Of- fice of Education? Dr. FINDLEY. The Office of Economic Opportunity. Mrs. GREEN. Do you think this is a good procedure? Dr. FINDLEY. Well, no, and I think they have broken out of it. They have now entered into a million and a half dollar contract with the Institute for Educational Development in New York City to try to set up studies over a longer term basis. But their initial studies were all quite short term, and I would say quite inadequate from my thought of the fact you can often get very quick results. Mrs. GREEN. Let me go to a couple of other questions. It seems to me that in education, and especially with the tremendous amount of growth and the tremendous amount of research that is being done, we are inclined to go for any new program just because it is new. When there is a proliferation of agencies, as there is, and a follow- ing fragmentation of programs, do we lose a continuity of program- ing? Do we lose the advantages of one individual or one group, look- PAGENO="0286" 632 u.s. OFFICE OF EDUCATION ing at the whole child from the time he is two or three until he gnts in high school? I refer specifically to }Ieadstart. What justification is there from an educational specialist's viewpoint in saying that we will spend in Headstart $1,100 on the child when he is 3 years old, and 4 years old, and 5 years old, and then, when he is 6 years old, place him in the overcrowded classroom, with little counseling and guidance little clin- ical attention, and little attention to medical needs? What real justification is there for this? And would you react to a suggestion that was made yesterday, that we need `the equivalent of the Food and Drug Administration in the field of education, to say whether or not we should use the rec- onmiendations and findings of educational research? Are they good for education? That is an oversimplification, but would you react to that? Dr. FINDLEY. To react to this last point first, I would say that it would certainly be helpful to have a body serving to guide people in the interpretation of the significance of findings and new aproaches. I have felt it has been of great advantage to those of us who are in the field of educational measurement, which happens to be my specialty, that there have been the mental measurement yearbooks, which are published at about 5-year intervals, under the editorship of Prof. Oscar Burroughs of Rutgers University. These are, you might call them, a consumer's research kind of publication with respect to the tests that have come out during the period, and those of us who are professionally responsible in the field take considerable pride in being asked to contribute to that, and con- siderable care in our responses, because Dr. Burroughs has the very happy device of having not one but three people review every test, so your review will be laid alongside of everybody else's. I think this notion of having a `body that might pronounce on the significance of studies is a good one. I think that this should be in the form of advice, rather than dicta. I think a great deal of research that comes out is rather carefully controlled and designed to give leads, but much of the research in education needs to `be conducted on the level of what is now dignified by the term "systems approach," in which you develop something to meet a purpose in an ongoing situation, and you evaluate how well it has worked on the first go-round. You then attempt to improve how you will do it. You then attempt at a later time to see how well that has come about. In other words, the research is of a great variety of sorts, and I think we need to draw on all of it, and have this type of advice. Now, as far as separating the function of the ea.rly education of children from that of the later education of `children, I feel that there is a definite inefficiency in this separation. I think, however, until such time as we gain acceptance of support of education at more levels, the fact that an experiment was tried, even by an agency that some might want to say is not qualified to conduct such inquiry, has had the effect of `bringing something forward faster for consideration than would have been the case otherwise. W~th respect to the matter of reducing the amount per child as you go further up through the schools, I think that this is a point that PAGENO="0287" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 633 someone better fortified with data than I might comment on. But I would just say this: That to my mind, it has been a crime in the schools `all these years to think that you could teach beginning reading to children in the first grade, with just as large classes as you presume to teach in `the fifth, sixth, and later on into high school. I have been quite pleased that our own school superintendent has spoken out in favor of reducing the size of classes in the first `and second grades, which has this effect of increasing the per-pupil cost. Now, the per-pupil cost in Headstart runs considerably higher than that. I don't know how much higher it `ought to go, or can go, or we can support it. It is true that with young children it seems to be desirable to have a smaller pupil-teacher ratio than with the older ones. Mrs. GREEN. Yes; but my point is this: Is Congress justified, is the administration justified, in supporting a program which gives $1,100, for early education, and does little about following through to sustain what has been gained? Dr. FINDLEY. $1,100 for a presumed group that needs special atten- tion, as opposed to the generality of students. It does, there. But I would agree with you. My criticism of the OEO research to date would `be that it h'as not given evidence of longitudinal effects of what has been done at the earlier period of time. I like the model of the Denver study, and of our own model, of at- tempting to not only give the youngster a head start, but then to build upon that head start whatever additional help is mostly likely to carry him further forward, so that he does not slip back, The Denver study was significant in its finding that those young- sters who were given a great deal of help in kindergarten, and then given less help, gradually lost their advantage over the other students. Mrs. GREEN. On page 2, you spoke of research funding. What experience are you having at the present time in the fund- ing of ongoing research programs, or ones for which you have made application? Dr. FINDLEY. Our experience in the funding of, let's say, the re- search and development center, is just this: That we are receiving every bit as much as we were promised when we started. We have not been cut back. On the other hand, I think it is fair to say that the atmosphere that prevailed when the grant was originally made, before the escala- tion, or whatever you want to call it, of activity in Vietnam, was: "All right, we are giving you this money. If you can conceive of additional areas in which you would like to expand, and you have plans that we see are sound, we will have no difficulty in expanding* your program to fund those." Today, we have not had that. I mean because of what we recog- nize as other pressures that have made it difficult. And we have found, I think, a not too unhappy compromise in this matter, of taking on the consultant role with title III areas, with the counties that are using title lilfunds for innovation. Mrs. Gmu~EN. Thank you very much, Dr. Findley. The next witness is Dr. Robert Hopper, director of the Southeastei'n Education Laboratory. PAGENO="0288" 634 U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION Dr. Hopper, welcome to the subcommittee session this morning. Are you fairly new in this position? Dr. Hopprit. That is correct. Since July of 1966. Mrs. GREEN. Fine. Will you proceed as you wish? Dr. HOPPER. Thank you. STATEMENT OP ROBERT L. BOPPER, DIRECTOR, SOUTHEASTERN EDUCATION LABORATORY Madam Chairman, Members of the Congress, I am pleased to ap- pear before this committee today as it proceeds with its significant review of the Office of Education. It is certainly most thoughtful of the conimittee to provide a series of regional hearings to facilitate the appearance of interested citizens throughout our Nation. Let me identify myself as the director of the Southeastern Edu- oation Laboratory with offices at 3450 International Boulevard, Hape- ville, Ga. Our laboratory is one of a network of 20 laboratories funded under provisions of title IV, Public Law 89-10. The primary purpose of the laboratories is to promote educational change and development, translating research findings into improved school practices. We are, in fact, a new bridge which has been developed to make certain that our schools have the opportunity to accelerate their growth by taking advantage of teclmologicai developments in all fields of endeavor. Especially are we concerned that schools make use of curriculum innovations which have come into being primarily as a result of the leadership of our Federal Government. It is not necessary for me to labor the point of the compelling need for educational advancement in our Nation's school system. We know of the dramatic progress which has been made with Federal funding in such segments of our society as health, defense, space exploration, science, public housing, and highway development. All of us are equally sensitive to the fact that our educational sys- tem is not developing as fast as other areas of human endeavor. if our people are to perform effectively in modern society, none- theless, it is imperative that they be provided new kinds of educational opportunities now. Our regional education laboratory serves the States of Alabama, Oeorgia, and Florida. We have a 62-member regional council which represents the educational and civic interests of the three-State area. The regional council elects a board of directors, consisting of 12 people. The board serves as the policymaking body of the labora- tory. The board selects the director, and approves the appointment of three associate directors in the central office, as well as the appoint- ments of eight component office directors. Four of the laboratory's component offices are located in Florida, two in Alabama, and two in Georgia. Each of the laboratories throughout the Nation has a primary program focus. Our focus in the Southeastern Laboratory is on the amelioration of educational deprivation. PAGENO="0289" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 635 The sources of educational deprivation in our region are obvious. Problems resulting from desegregation of schools, problems relating to the inner core city and small rural schools, and problems related to the education of children from families of migratory workers are all a part of this program focus. Although our laboratory was placed on a formal operational basis only in July of 1966, we have been able to move quickly and develop responsible activities which meet these problems head on. We are, for example, helping to- 1. Disse~ninate information through the ERIC system. 2. Develop supporting research projects which seek new ways to ameliorate education deprivation. 3. Initiate system of 24 pilot demonstration schools in educa- tionally deprived areas of the region to secure accelerated educa- tional advancement. 4. implement a continuous system of newsletters and daily news releases to provide up-to-date information on new technology and programs to all persons interested in educational advancement in our region. 5. Provide technical supporting services to accelerate planning and development at both a local school district and regional level. In all of our program activities, we have `a variety of relationships with the Office of Education, as `well as with other Federal agencies. Deepest involvement at the moment is with titles I and III of Public Law 89-10, where we assist school systems in educationally deprived areas with the `development of significant projects and provide for their evaluation. This technical assistance through our `component offices results in more efficient and effective utilization of Federal funding in `schools where such financial `assistance is most sorely needed. Our laboratory is also involved with such other activities as title IV, Public Law 89-10; title IV, Civil Rights Act; Vocational Education Act of 1963; `and the Higher Education Act of 1965. While the laboratory is working with a number of Federal pro- grams, it should `be noted that our direct funding `comes from title IV, Public Law 89-10, and that no further funding of our operations is derived from other authorizations to the Office of Education. We have received, and I should assume we would continue to receive, financial support `from a variety of Federal agencies, other than the Office o'f Educa'tion. For example, we have received funds from the United States De- partment of State to `assist in building a bilingual educational materi- al's center. Here we find an illustration of the laboratory `seeking to be effective in interrelating various groups and institutions to meet national needs and concerns. In thi's instance, the concern is to provide appropriate educational opportunities for Cuban refuges. We know that in Dade C'ounty, Fla., alone there are 25,000 non-English-speaking children, and this number continues to increase at the rate of a'bout 250 per month. Materials to meet the unique educational needs of these children are the `same nee'ded by American-sponsored schools in Latin America, 73-728-67-pt. 2-19 PAGENO="0290" 636 u.s. OFFICE OF EDUCATION which are supported by the State Department, hence the need and desirability of our cooperative endeavors with the Department of State. It is my belief that the Office of Education continues to build a strong staff and a system of organizational relationships across the Nation which is much needed by our educational system. As the many new Federal programs have been implemented, the Office of Education, State agencies, local agencies, as well as other groups, have been faced with numerous problems along with many new opportunities. The pressures of administrative problems- mostly growing pains-are certainly to be anticipated and most will be short lived. The remarkable thing to me is that we can observe such a tremendous amount of progress after the very short period new Federal programs have been in operation. On the other hand, I am certain that I, as well as other persons, both in Washington and throughout the Nation, can identify continuing concerns. These concerns for me this morning might best be framed in four broad questions: 1. Are our systems of evaluation of these new programs continuing to mature so that we may make certain the highest payoff in achieve- ment is being obtained? 2. How can we insure that congressional `intent is correlated with Office of Education action and regional and local implementation? 3. Is `there a way in which the administration of our Federal pro- grams can provide greater stability and continuity, as opposed to pro- gram renewals from year to year? 4. In the process of considering the national organization for the administration of educational programs, is it not time to consider relating programs in a more meaningful fashion rather than in the present system of discrete administrations of such programs in a variety of departments and agencies? I believe that the initial tediousness of initiating new programs and negotiating contracts will continue to subside. I also believe that we are seeing responsible parties across our Nation from every walk of life beginning to build respect for each other a.s the Federal- State-local partnership matures. In my opinion, an Office of Edu- cation continues to emerge which is sensitive to its own problems, and will continue to effect changes ultimately to provide an appro- priate national administrative unit for our educational system. Finally, we must recognize that never before has the Office of Edu- cation had the leadership and financial responsibilities which it has today. I believe that through the work of this committee we may all continue to sharpen our concerns and our performance so that the Of- fice' of Education will become the viable administrative agency which the Congress and the Nation idealizes, needs, and deserves. Let me say again how much I appreciate this opportunity of ap- pearing here today. I shall certainly be delighted to respond to any questions which you may care to direct to me. Mrs. GREEN. Thank you very much, Mr. Hopper. You were with the Office of Education? Dr. HOPPER. That is correct. PAGENO="0291" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 637 Mrs. GREEN. You were `administering title V? Dr. HOPPER. Title V, Public Law 89-10. Mrs. GREEN. And you came here in July? Dr. HOPPER. Yes. Mrs. GREEN. What is your relationship to the regional director of HEW? Dr. HOPPER. It is one of having known the individual for several years, but no official day-to-day responsibilities. The coordination of our laboratory is with the Laboratory `Division, Bureau of Research, in Washington. Mrs. GREEN. And it is completely separate and apart from the re- gional Office of Education? Dr. HOPPER. Yes. Mrs. GREEN. Do you think this is good? Dr. HOPPER. I think so; yes. You see, our laboratory is a private corporation, nonprofit, so certi- fied by the Internal Revenue Bureau, and as it represents the educa- tional civic forces of the three-State area, it needs to be independent, and has such independence from the Office of Education. Mrs. GREEN. It is entirely independent from the Office of Edu- cation. Dr. HOPPER. Yes. Mrs. GREEN. To whom are you responsible? Dr. HOPPER. I am responsible to a 12-member board of directors. Mrs. GREEN. For this region? Dr. HOPPER. That is correct, which employed me as the director. Mrs. GREEN. And you are not responsible to the Office of Education at all? Dr. HoPPER. Not as such; no. Mrs. GREEN. And yet, the funds come from the Office of Education? Dr. HOPPER. That is correct. We make application to the Office of Education. We have a contract through which the funds flow. Mrs. GREEN. What is the relationship of your office and the other regional labs to the State departments of education? Dr. HOPPER. It varies from laboratory to laboratory, since, under the wording of title IV, 89-10, groups of people in various regions could develop their own structure to form a laboratory. In this particular region, our structure provides for representation from the State agencies, so of the 12 board members, two are from State agencies, to whom I report. The Governor of each State ap- points representation to our 16-member council, and this council elects the board, so that we have direct activity with the State agencies, in- situations of higher learning, local school systems, the whole network of educational operations. Mrs. GREEN. I am not confining my remarks to this region, but be- cause we are here, let me direct them to you. Do you see any basis of conflict when the regional labs are entirely funded by the Federal Government, and by the Office of Education, and you are in no way responsible to them in reporting and you have no responsibility to report to the regional office. Do you see the possibility for conflict with State departments of education? PAGENO="0292" 638 U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION Is this a good, healthy situation, from an educational standpoint? Dr. HOPPER. I believe it is. This is one reason, obviously, why I am with the laboratory. It seems to me we have a new opportunity for excellence in education, with the laboratory being a vehicle for change to create new opportunities for our young people as well as adults. Mrs. GREEN. What can you do there that you cannot do in the other offices? Dr. HOPPER. Well, we might start with one of our three States, with whieh we are working now, local systems, where less than one-third of the title III funds of 89-10 have been committed. That is the State of Alabama. At the present time, we are working with a whole variety of school districts there to assist them in developing new and innovative programs where leadership is not otherwise available. It is one thing for a group of people to come together and say, "We are going to make certain that our systems have the opportunity for growth, for development, rather than be dependent upon the legal structure." We are in the legal structure. We are related to the Office of Education through fimding and reporting, through approval of our activities. On the other hand, we are a free agent to move for educational change. This has not been present before. The best parallel would be in the field of agriculture, where we have established agricultural experi- ment stations to demonstrate change, the possibility of change, the feasibility of change. Mrs. GREEN. In developing programs under title III, why cannot the State superintendent-or, if we follow on through the regional offices-offer leadership and service in this area. Dr. HOPPER. This is a possibility. We know that the quality of State educational agencies varies from State to State. We know that the climate within States, the receptivity to Federal funds, the recep- tivity to change, varies from time to time, obviously. Therefore, from time to time, I would presume that there will be need for add- tional leadership capacity if we are to have consistent, continuing growth of our educational system. On the other hand, I think that our role is quite different from that of the regional office of the Office of Education. It is one thing to be responsible for approving projects, and to be responsible to the Congress, the Executive, for their actions. It is another thing-well, you almost have a competition for excellence in making applications for many of the Federal funding programs. One would be to raise the question of t.o what extent is it appropriate to assist in research design, on the part of a Federal agency, because this prejudices their attitudes toward the particular systems with which they have provided consultant assistance in de- veloping project designs. . . What I am suggesting is that it is possible for our laboratory, as a supporting technical service, to provide such assistance in design of research, without any charge to anyone. We are not in this group of for-profit consultations. There is no charge for our service, where we assist local systems who are members of the laboratory itself, to develop reasonble research PAGENO="0293" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 639 designs, reasonable project designs, in order to qualify for the funds which Congress intended the districts to use in the first place. Mrs. GREEN. You make reference to the non-English-speaking chil- dren in Dade County, Fla.; and I take it that you are working with them. Dr. HOPPER. Yes. We have a component office in Miami. Mrs. GREEN. Why isn't the department of education in Florida capable of doing this? And are they not doing it? And again, is there the potential for conflict? Dr. HOPPER. I suppose any time that you have changed programs 1n effect, there is the possibility of some conflict. Mrs. GREEN. I was not speaking about the change in programs. I am thinking of duplication. Dr. I-ToPPER. The duplication in function? Mrs. GREEN. Yes. Dr. HOPPER. Ours would be quite different. May I just take a moment on this? Sometimes, I know, we ask for a drink of water, and you get the firehose turned onyou. Not only in Florida, but through Texas and along the Mexican-United States border, we have this same problem of bilingual education. Throughout Latin America we have the same problem, as we have intensified in Dade County, and also coming up through Florida-Tampa, and the like. In each school system, and sometimes almost in each school where the problem is felt, or faced, they have proceeded to develop materials for a bilingual kind of educational program. The literature is now beginning to contain references but, on the other hand, in effect, everybody has been discovering America over *and over again in the various States, as well as in Latin America itself. No one has pulled these materials together, has brought together experts to say what is the quality of the various instructional ma- terials which we are providing for Spanish-speaking children to help them to speak English and be effective in our society. So the thing that we are doing here is bringing materials together, bringing together panels of experts to say these materials at these grade levels, and these subject areas, appear to be the most efficient and effective, and then we will have the tryout in different kinds of settings of these materials, rather than having each of the communities develop discretely without the benefit of experience elsewhere. Mrs. GREEN. I have read of various programs where this has been done by State departments. For instance, California, obviously, has not ignored the problem of the non-English-speaking children. We have passed legislation au- thorizing institutes for teachers of English when it is a second language. I still do not understand why we have to have an agency that is separate and apart from the Office of Education, or from the State departments, carrying on this kind of program. Dr. HOPPER. Certainly I think you are illustrating the problem, as we see it. California has done certain things, and Arizona, Texas, Florida, but nowhere do we have an assimilation of the activity both PAGENO="0294" 640 U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION in the State departments of education and the U.S. Department of State, in the terms that they are funding elsewhere also. So in this case, we are a catalytic agent, using this as one illustration of our activity. Mrs. GREEN. When we set up a separate laboratory that is not re- sponsible to the Federal Government, and across the ~oimtry employees in the labs have the highest salaries of anybody in education; what does this do, in terms of potential conflict? And to whom do the peo- ple in education then turn for counsel and guidance? I really have a deep concern: Are we building something into the educational system as a result of congressional action that someday we may really regret? Dr. HOPPER. You are quoting some figures which I am unaware of. Mrs. GREEN. Well, let me quote them, then. The regional director here for Atlanta gets $20,000. Your State superintendent, your chief State school officer, gets $22,000. In Flor- ida, $24,000. In Alabama, $10,000. In Mississippi, $16,000. In South Carolina, $15,000. In Tennessee, $20,000. And I believe your salary is $30,000, which is even higher than the Com1nissioner of Education in the Office of Education in `Wash- ington, D.C. What kind of a superstructure are we building into the educational system, and to whom are people going to be responsible? Dr. lOOPER. The figure you quote for my salary is just a bit high. I wish it were that. Mrs. GREEN. I have $30,240; is that not correct? Dr. HOPPER. No, that is not correct. I have provided a statement, I think, to the committee $28,800. Mrs. GREEN. Do you have an expense account with that, then? Dr. HOPPER. Expenses are paid, yes. Under our contract with the Office of Education, an average of $16 per diem. To continue to respond to your question, the Office of Education did develop guidelines for expenditures by or allowable under the con- tracts to operate the regional laboratories. Under the Office of Education guidelines, increases may not be pro- vided of more than 20 percent of what a person has been earning pre- viously. And having come to the laboratory in July, I would be in no position to discuss having 1~owledge of action prior to that time with regard to t.he development of guidelines and the salary structure. When I was contacted concerning this laboratory, it was stated very frankly that the board of directo~'s had established the salary schedule in accordance with the leadership structure in this three-State area, relating the laboratory director's salary to that of the State universi- ties, and scaling the other positions within the laboratory comparable to university activity. Having served as dean of the University of Alabama, and knowing something of this, my general understanding was that this salary schedule was in line and consistent with the insti- tutions in this area. If this is to he a leadership kind of operation, one in which we de- rive new opportunities, we provide for greater change, then I don't believe any but the ablest kinds of talent can be provided in this case. PAGENO="0295" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 641 Mrs. GREEN. With regard to the regional laboratory directors, out of 20 that I have here listed, 10 receive salaries higher than the Com- missioner of Education. Now, what does it do to our main structure if we build this kind of a superstructure? Dr. HOPPER. Well, I think one of the responses is my being in this laboratory, since I was in the Office of Education and found this to be an attractive kind of opportunity. I would raise questions about the salary level of the staff members in the Office of Education. Of course, it is within the civil service system. Certainly the number of chief State school officers in this land that make more than the Commissioner of Education raises an interesting kind of question, whether it be the State of Michigan, Pennsylvania, New York. You can go all around. There must be at least, just offhand, 10 or 12 State school officers who make more than the U.S. Commissioner of Education. Mrs. GREEN. I only find six. The chief State school officers in this region, all of them, are below. Dr. HOPPER. Below what the Commissioner of the U.S. Office of Education makes? Mrs. GREEN. Yes. The only States that pay more than the Commissioner of Education are: Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Michigan. Dr. HOPPER. Most of them are much lower, and, of course, some of them are elective offices, some of them are without professional re- quirements. They vary in their requirements for the position. On the other hand, one might look at State university presidents. Certainly there we get another view of people. It raises a series of questions. Mrs. GREEN. I believe, though, when you take these people in the regional laboratories that are being set up, and in the other depart- ments, then it seems `to me- Dr. HOPPER. I would dare say that the lthoratories would have- well, to put it bluntly-I don't know whether I would have joined the laboratory program from the Office of Education without a salary increase. It is customary in all walks of life to receive a salary increase, and as long as a reasonable one, `which does not involve any contrary forces, then I think in our free enterprise system, most of us are inclined to- Mrs. GREEN. I am not raising `any personal issue. Dr. HOPPER. I understand; there is a matter of principle here. Mrs. GREEN. What we are doing in terms of building superstruc- ture, and to what extent are we really weakening the authority that for instance the regional director would have under this decentralization program. It seems to me that his authority is weakened, if he has a salary, for example, of $8,000 or $9,000 less than yours. We pass legislation in the Congress to strengthen the State depart- ments of education, on the principle that the leadership must come from the local and the State level, and the Federal Government can at best be a junior partner in it. PAGENO="0296" 642 U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION What we are doing is saying out. of one corner of our mouth that we want to strengthen the State department, but at the same time establish another department that ha.s a great deal more in the way of finances, and which will hare more authority and more travel funds and everything else to go out and work with the local people. That is my concern. Di'. HOPPER. Yes. Well, it seems to me we have a variety of differ- ent kinds of functions involved here. First off, we have in the Office of Education responsibilities for administering the actions of the Con- gress. I do not see our work in a regional laboratory conffic.ting with at all the work of the regional office, here. It is not a matter of authority- Mrs. GREEN. Let me interrupt there, if I may. To refresh my recollection on the original legislation, we did not provide that nonprofit corporations run the regional laboratories. How was this arrived at? Dr. Ho~pru. You mean in the original co-op research back in 1956, when that was initiated? Mrs. GREEN. Tinder what authority is your regional lab supported? Dr. HOPPER. Title IV of 89-10. Mrs. GREEN. There is nothing in the law that sets up a regional lab as a nonprofit corporation to be run by a separate board? Dr. HOPPER. No. Not as such. But a general statement appea.rs in the legislation, which has been further spelled out in the imple- mentation of the guidelines. Mrs. ~ This is the Office of Education, then? Dr. HoppIll~. The Office of Education. Mrs. GI~ruN. Through its guideline it has set up the nonprofit corpo- ration. Is that right? Dr. HOPPER. No. No; the people in this region have set up the nonprofit corporation. Mrs. GREEN. Where did they get the authority to do this? Dr. Hoppru. Just like any group can get together and form a private corporation. Mrs. GREEN. From what Federal legislation did this authority stem? Dr. Hoprru. Public Law 89-10, title IV, provides the opportunity for nonprofit educational corporations to receive funds. Mirs. GREEN. And then the Office of Education wrote the guidelines and the rules and regulations, setting up the regional lab. Serving on that committee, I never visualized this. Dr. HOPPER. Frankly, once again, I can only speak from my under- standing since July of this year, but in the discussions as I was work- ing over on another title, in a different kind of administration, I heard something about the laboratory development. To me, contemplated in the legislation is a series of educational laboratories. It didn't specify the number, precisely. It didn't say how large, but it provided a network for the entire Nation to carry research findings and interpret those research findings for use in a particular part of the country, this sort of thing. This is my under- standing. Mrs. GREEN. One very small question. Has your board cut your travel funds? PAGENO="0297" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 643 Dr. FlOPPER. You mean have they specifically cut back on the num- ber of dollars I personally may spend for travel? We have specified in our contract a budget, including a specific amount for travel. We seek to operate within that budget, and we are certain that the budget is considerably less than we requested of the Office of Education. So once we get the contract, my responsibility is to operate within that budget. Mrs. GREEN. I was thinking of the regional commissioner. He said they had had a 50-percent cutback. Would yours compare to that? Dr. HOPPER. What we would like to do, I suppose, might approach that, but the laboratories, as a new educational force, have not been funded at a level where any of them were able to operate as they prob- ably should to have the greatest impact. Mr. ERLENBORN. If I might interrupt at that point. Since this is under a contract, it would appear to me the Office of Education will have lost control once this has been cut into. They could not cut back on the educational items for travel, nor could they provide for a freeze in hiring, because once the contract has been entered into for the contract period, the Office of Education no longer has any control. Is that correct? Dr. HOPPER. Except reporting control. Mr. ERLENBORN. But they could not vary the terms of the contract to reduce the amount of funds available? Dr. hOPPER. There are, as in all Federal contracts, of course, provi- sions for amendments of contract; yes. Mr. ERLENBORN. Renegotiation? Dr. HOPPER. Renegotiation; yes. Mr. ERLENBORN. Might I ask: Prior to the establishment of the re- gional laboratories, what was the extent of the research dOne by the Office of Education in curriculum development? Dr. HOPPER. As Dr. Findley `indicated, in the National Science Foundation, as well as in other localities, with other sources of sup- port, there has been a growing research base. The Office of Educa- tion, of course~ was starting out with less than a million dollars in 1956, building it on into, oh, as late as 1964 and 1965, when it passed the $10 million level. The National Science Foundation had a much heavier investment. I don't have the figures at my fingertips, but I think most people esti- mate that in this day and age the Federal Government is spending in excess of a hundred million dollars a year now. Mr. ERLENBORN. In curriculum development? Dr. HOPPER. In curriculum development, not only in the Office of Education, but the National Science Foundation and elsewhere. Mr. ERLENBORN. As I understand it, the National Science Founda- tion develops curriculum only in the physical sciences. Is that correct? Dr. HOPPER. In sciences and mathematics. They do have some ma- terials now in the social sciences. Mr. ERLENBORN. Isthere any overlapping of the curriculum devel- opment in the Office of EdUcation? Do they get into the same areas as the National Science Foundation? Or do they try to coordinate their efforts so that they stay out of the field in which the National Science Foundation is involved? PAGENO="0298" 644 U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION Dr. HOPPER. I suppose that there might be some considered overlap. Certainly the Science Information Exchange has sought to index re- search and development activities, and probably it has not been as successful as it might have been, operating in a rather loose fashion, with the strong Federal departments. We are having larger expenditures of Federal dollars in the same areas, but what we are getting now is second-, third-, fourth-, and fifth-generation material, coming down the road not this year but 2 or 3 years from now and 5 years from now. We Imow that minimath, the new math science in elementary grades, which we are seeking to test in this area, sponsored by the National Science Foundation, appears to have considerable merit, and perhaps will take us beyond where some of the Yale math took us. I wouldn't see needless duplication at this time, even though one could identify a whole host of, say, math science curriculum programs. But we are getting a layering now in maturing of them, the same as we are having with computers and other technological areas. Mr. ERLENBORN. With the development of the regional laboratories, is' there any cutback in the activity of expenditure of the Office of Education in their curriculum development activity? In other words, are the labs taking the place of the efforts of the Office of Education in curriculum development, or are they in addi- tion to? Dr. HOPPER. Oh, in a sense. But just using the minimath as an illustration, the National Science Foundation in the last fiscal year spent approximately a million dollars on that particular program at the University of Minnesota. This year, in my understanding, they are spending close to $800,000, and the regional educational labora- tories are assisting in the trial of materials to see how effective the materials are in different regions of our country. The Office of Education probably has never had sufficient funding, until the last few years, to support massive curriculum development. The National Science Foundation has been doing it for years, of course-some of the first generation new curricula you alluded to this morning. I would say in some instances there are cases where funds have been saved because of these regional laboratories, and this, we are saying, is only after 5 months of operation, since I have been there less than 5 months, at this point. In the future, the great value comes in opportunities for young people through educational development for much stronger programs than we have now. Mr. ERLENBORN. Do I understand correctly that your principal ob- jective, here, in this region, is to conduct research and develop the curriculum for this region? In other words, are you responsible to the three or four States that form your region? Dr. HOPPER. We are not responsible for the development of cur- riculum offerings directly. The concept of the labs is obviously so new that I am certain that from laboratory to laboratory you may get some disagreement on precision, and of course this is one of the very strengths of it. A's I would propose, in our U.S. way of life, here we are having an opportunity to see how an independent group, unfettered PAGENO="0299" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 645 by particular local restrictions, or State restrictions, can move to ac- celerate educational development. This has never happened before. Mr. ERLENBORN. What my concern is: What are you responsible to? This three-State area? Dr. HOPPER. This three-State area. That is correct. Mr. ERLENBORN. In other words, you would not be conducting re- search nor rendering advice outside of the three-State area? Dr. HOPPER. Under the guidelines of the Office of Education, these laboratories-no. But our h~boratories are primarily dissemination and development units, and complement, as Dr. Findley has said, the B. & D. centers. Mr. ERLENBORN. You are not involved too deeply in research? Dr. HOPPER. That is correct. Mr. ERLENBORN. What is your relationship to the ERIC project? Dr. HOPPER. We have initiated some workshops to help people understand what ERIC is, and see what this resource may mean in the field of education. In addition to that, we use the ERIC microfiche, analyzing research results and pilot programs elsewhere, interpreting those and making them available within this three-State area, so that they can serve children in this part of the country, and adapt it in an appropriate fashion. Mr. ERLENBORN. Is this your major source of interchange of infor- mation with laboratories and research and development in other areas of the country? Dr. HOPPER. No. This is one means. But certainly through publi- cations, through various professional meetings, we would see a host, the institutions that are part of our laboratory. We have a variety of sources from which information is received. However, to me the great advantage of ERIC is that in the field of education, like in all scientific areas today, the volume of research results is so tremendous, or is becoming so tremendous, that one person cannot take the time to read all the publications. Here is a system of coding research results, pilot activities which permit an individual to zero in on a problem through the coding sys- tem, and find what is best known at this time, identify the best prac- tice, and seek to tailor it, then, to a particular local community. Mrs. GREEN. Would you yield at that point? In this laboratory, you say that you are not primarily concerned with research? Dr. HOPPER. That is correct. Mrs. GREEN. This would vary from region to region, then; would it not? Some laboratories would be involved in research? Dr. HOPPER. Well, we are involved to 10 percent of our endeavors in seeking to research new materials, and their reception and accom- plishment. Mrs. GREEN. Your job is dissemination? Dr. HOPPER. More dissemination and development, yes, ma'am. Mrs. GREEN. Would you take a specific case and outline to me the procedure that you will follow? Dr. HOPPER. Surely. PAGENO="0300" 646 U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION And obviously, I am talking once again with 5 months of back- ground on this pomt, which may not be long enough to give the best kind of responses, the most meaningful responses. Let me take one of the illustrations a step or two further that I have heard mentioned here this morning-the minimath. Here is a new system of teaching mathematics in the elementary grades, different from what we call the new math, which is in effect the Yale math system, supported by the National Science Foundation. These materials eventually will be available to correlate or inter- relate the teaching of science and mathematics, from kindergarten through at least the sixth grade, being the immediate. plan, which might achieve increased learning rate on the part of children. Mrs. GREEN. I am interested more in the procedure, rather than the substance of it. How would you get it out. to the local school systems? Dr. HOPPER. The first thing that we are doing now is test.ing these materials in two schools, because once you start, you need to begin to go through three or four grades. So we now have nine teachers that are using this particular- Mrs. GREEN. How do you go to the school, and how do you select the teacher, and how do you get the material for that teacher? Dr. HOPPER. We are using the normal educational protocol, where involved is an understanding on the part of the State department of education that this is a kind of activity that we are trying out. From there, the staff member goes to the superintendent, to determine if there are schools that would be interested in his system, and there is discussion with the faculty to see if they are interested in this kind of innovation, of trying out new materials, to evaluate materials, to find out how they work with young people, assisting in the standardi- zation of material. Then the teachers are consulted, in the PTA meetings in the two schools in which they are being tried. From this point, assuming that some significant success is obtained, that is, learning beyond that normally anticipated in the early grades, then we will provide opportunities to move these materials into the 24 pilot demonstration schools, in order to have broader testing around the region. Now, it is this ingredient of the trial and test of new materials which has really blocked educational development in the past. Mrs. GREEN. Can you go to the superintendent and then to the in- diviclual school. and then to the teacher? Dr. HOPPER. That is correct.. Mrs. GREEN. We will adjourn until tomorrow morning in this same room, beginning at 9 :30. My thanks to all of you people who have given us the benefit of your views. The committee is adjourned. (Whereupon, at 12 :45 p.m., the committee adjourned, to reconvene at 9 :30 a.m., Thursday, December 8, 1966.) PAGENO="0301" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION THURSDAY, DECEMBER 8, 1966 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SPECIAL SUBCOMMITTEE ON EDUCATION OF THE COMMIrn~E ON EDUCATION AND LABOR, Atlanta, Ga. The subcommittee met at 9 :25 a.m., pursuant to adjournment, in room 318-20, U.S. post office and courthouse, Mrs. Edith Green pre- siding. Present: Representatives Green and Erlenborn. Present also: Representative Flynt, and Maurice He'artfieid, pro- fessional staff member. Mrs. GREEN. The meeting will come. to order. This morning we have, as the. first witnesses, officials from the Georgia State Department of Education: Dr. DeFoor, representing Dr. Nix; Dr. George Mulling, Director of Vocational Education; and Dr. Robert Beemon, Coordinator for title I. STATEMENT OP DR. J~OE T. DePOOR, D'IRECTOR~ DIVISION OP AD- MINISTRATIVE SERVICES, GEORGIA STATE DEPARTMENT OP EDUCATION Dr. DEFOOR. Madam Chairman, I am before you on the direction and instruction of Hon. Jack P. Nix, State superintendent of schools. I assure you if I had had my wish, Mr. Nix would have been before you in person, but this is biennium budgetmaking time in Georgia. In accordance with a previous engagement, he and the associate State superintendent of schools are today briefing some important members of the 1967 General Assembly of `Georgia whicth convenes in January 1967. He requested me to convey his regrets to you. Complying with the committee's request, it is my purpose to supply you with some information concerning our experiences, especially at the State level, in dealing with the U.S. Office of Education that may help you identify"some areas of concern. However, I feel it incumbent on me to mention to this committee some factual statements concerning the current status of public school education in our State. During the past 4 years in particular the General Assembly of Georgia, the Governor of the State of Georgia, the State board of education, the State department of education, our professional educa- tion associations and civic groups, have been taking a serious look at our public school education program. Under the leadership of these groups, every hamlet of Georgia has heard `the story that public schools 647 PAGENO="0302" 648 U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION exist solely for the education welfare of children, and that instruction is the basic purpose of schools. It is our contention that when lay people and our State and national leadership accept this philosophy of public school education, then and oniy then will our public schools be permitted to do that which they were established to do-instruct children. After some years of self-evaluation and study, the 1964 General Assembly of Georgia acted on the basis of the foregoing philosophy in accordance with the following quotation: The General Assembly of Georgia, recognizing the importance and extreme necessity of providing improved educational opportunity for all Georgians- children, youth, and adults; of establishing equality of educational opportunity for Georgia's children and youth regardless of where they may live or what their station in life may be; of establishing and maintaining minimum standards for public schools so that every Georgia child and youth can attend an accredited public school; of improving the quality of education through continued develop- ment and improvement of balanced programs designed to provide academic and occupational preparation of Georgia's children and youth for adult life in this age; of developing a public school program that will attract, bold, and fully utilize competent professional personnel in the public school systems of this State; of establishing and maintaining adequate planning, research, and expert- mentation programs so as to assure continued future improvement of public school education in Georgia; of providing for better efficiency in the operation of public schools, elimination of waste, and better utilization of existing school services and facilities; of the need to finance adequately the improvement of Georgia's public education program and facilities; of the need to assure Georgia's children and youth of receiving an improved minimum level of education; and of the need for providing a method whereby all Georgians shall pay their fair share of the cost of such program, and recognizing fully its responsibility to provide a means whereby the foregoing needs might more readily be met, does hereby establish a State Minimum Foundation Program for the education of Georgia's children and youth. Stemming out of this act, our State board of education began to assert its full leadership in moving toward the kind of instruction asked for by the people and required by our State legislature. A study financed by our State board of education and conducted by Dr. WT. D. McClurkin of George Peabody College for Teachers on the "Organization of School Systems in Georgia" has pointed us in the direction of larger area school systems and larger schools which would provide the necessary financial support for quality instruction. Our State department of education, with assistance from local school people, are involved in an 8-month study and evaluation of an instru- ment to evaluate local schools and local school systems. "Standards for System Wide School" evaluation have never been attempted before by any of our States. We also have the benefit of a recent 11 Southern States' study of "School Size and Program Quality in Southern High Schools," which included Georgia high schools, conducted by Dr. Joe L. Jackson of George Peabody College for Teachers. The composite thinking of these studies, and our new MFPE law point us in the direction of the quality of instruction Georgia wants. They also point up the kind of organizatiOnal vehicle on which we must travel to obtain the kind of instruction Georgia wants. These spectacular reports and this law are serving as a basis and foundation for what we think is a good education program. This is an effort on Georgia's part to help our- selves attain this objective, the attainment of which objective will of necessity require time, leadership, patience, and money if we can only PAGENO="0303" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 649 keep before our people the basic purposes of schools-the instruction of our children. In 1964-65, the financial receipts for maintenance and operation of public school education were as follows: Amount Percent Local sources Statesources Federalsources Total $91,277, 036. 00 194,479,945.12 18,433,971.36 30. 0 63.9 6.1 304, 190,952. 48 100.0 Georgia's proposed biennium budget is as follows: 1967-68 1968-69 Biennium Amount Percent Amount Percent Amount Percent Local State Federal Total. -- $63, 854,065 359,018,452 76,273,593 12. 79 71. 93 15. 28 - 569,202,060 367,423,802 80,525, 653 13.38 71. 05 15. 57 $133,056,125 13. 09 726,442,254 71. 48 156,799,246 15. 43 499,146,110 100.00 517, 151,515 100.00 1,016,297,625 100.00 Georgia employed 42,104 teachers during the 1964-65 school term. If all the Federal money had been available to finance teachers' salaries, it would have taken care of only 2,568 teachers. This is a ratio of about 20 to 1, which illustrates the meager contribution the Federal Government makes toward the maintenance and operation of public school education in Georgia. Percentagewise, the Federal ef- fort will not be expected to be too much better in the next biennium. We appreciate even this contribution, I assure you. However, from the noise that is being made by the minor partner, you would infer that the Federal Government is underwriting the total program of instruction in Georgia. I do not agree with the concept that our national education goals should be to implement basic national goals such as national defense, economic growth, full employment, civil rights, and others, as im- portant as these may be. Instruction of children is the basic purpose of schools. As a matter of fact, such objectives and the limited thinking producing such end results have only scratched around the edges of the vehicle on which we must travel toward all goals. Helping children through instruction to obtain the necessary skills to communicate intelligently, to live with each other, to sharpen their native ability to think, and to be informed will produce adults indi- vidually and collectively who will compose a society that cannot only shape worthy goals, but can implement them as well. To help the legally constituted local and State boards of. education implement this concept of elementary and secondary education, I hold to the belief that all Federal funds should come to the State board of education as a general financial grant for the purpose of instruction. The State board of education would then allocate to local boards of education through its regular legal formula used to allocate State funds. PAGENO="0304" 650 U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION Of course, if necessary, the State board of education should submit a plan for the use of the money. Just as Sta.te moneys are audited, so should Federal moneys be audited. However, the word of a State auditor should be sufficient. Instead of a simple general Federal aid law, what do we now have? Today we have a multiplicity of "programs," each with a Federal grant. There is no overall approach to financing instruction: the basic purpose of schools. The result is that we have a multiplicity of "little U.S. offices of education" in Washington, and now area offices are springing up, all of which have mushroomed into existence gen- erally as special-interest groups have been able to pressure Congress. Nowdays, financially, in Washington, "The wheel that squeaks the loudest gets the grease." Now, don't let me mislead you. There, are some excellent school people in the U.S. Office of Education. However, generally speaking, they `have become administrators over fiscal affairs, reports, and guide- lines for programs. They are not personnel who offer consultative assistance in instruction development, except as they attempt to con- trol the use of Federal money. Let's strengthen this local-State-Federal partnership through financial assistance to instruction, rather than through a multiplicity of programs, each having a confusing set of rules and regulations, guidelines, and directives. I personally feel that this "program ap- proach" of Federal assistance is the basic cause for much of our dissatisfaction. Without having time to thoroughly research our records, I found our Department of Education has coded 32 individual Federal pro- grams. Many of these. programs, of course, will have one or more titles or subsections, which will add to this number. However, the July-August 1965 issue of the "American Education" magazine of HEW lists 65 grant programs financed by the U.S. Office of Education for 1966. Our records show that program administrators of the Department have made 52 trips to Washington to get Federal interpretations and instructions since January 1, 1966-and I might ad lib that the year is not over. The total travel expense was over $7,000. I did not try to determine the number of telephone communications made. Every new program necessitates new personnel at all three levels. and new administrative expenses. I would like to point out some experiences we have had that seem to indicate little acquaintance with local and State operations. Decisions are made in the U.S. Office of Education to initiate a specific activity that does not lend itself to sound administration of State and local school systems. A specific example is a telegram from N. Karsh, Assistant Com- missioner foD Administration, Office of Education, dated June 16, 1966, to Mr. E. B. Davis, State auditor, relative to withdrawals of Federal funds by letter of credit: Current reports indicate the use of letter-of-credit is operating in a manner that appears contrary to intent of the system. Funds are being withdrawn at a rate which makes it appear that payments are being made to LEA's and others considerably in advance of the actual need for cash. To enable us to determine actual need, no further withdrawals of Federal funds shall be made until further PAGENO="0305" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 651 notice. Please take inventory of each balances at the State level and in each LEA, and submit following information: LEA NEEDS 1. Total disbursed to LEA's to date. 2. Remaining balance in LEA's as of 6/11. 3. Thirty-day requirement for LEA's. STATE NEEDS 1. Cash balance at State level as of 6/11. 2. Thirty-day requirement for cash disbursements for all purposes. All balances in excess of thirty (30) days needs shall be returned to the Office of Education as soon as possible. Upon review of above data, you will be notified to resume withdrawal of Federal funds. Submit above data to Director, Finance Branch, Room 40070, USOE, 400 Maryland Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. Information copy to all State Treasurers. N. KARSH, Assistant Commissioner for Administration, Office of Education. Our chief State school officer was shocked that the U.S. Office of Education would initiate this action, and in this manner. 1. The State superintendent of schools did not receive a notice of this action, but was advised through his staff members, who were, in turn, notified by other State officials. This violates traditional lines of communication between the U.S. Office of Education and State education agencies. 2. No other State agency could have supplied the information re- quested, because accountability for Federal funds for educational programs at the State level is the responsibility of the Georgia State Department of Education. 3. There had been no prior indication from the U.S. Office of Education that the use of letter of credit was operating in a manner contrary with the intent of the system. 4. The telegram was sent to all States, without limiting the criticism to States in violation of the intent of the letter-of-credit system. 5. The request for cash balances at the State level was ill timed, because of end of fiscal year pressures, and would have required unwar- ranted additional hours of work by accounting and administrative personnel. 6. The request would have necessitated contact with local educa- tional agencies, and imposed the same interruption upon their end of the fiscal year procedures as those imposed upon the State agency. The above comments were transmitted to the Commissioner, and the congressional delegation from Georgia, with the request that this action be rescinded. Our State superintendent of schools later learned that other chief State school officers had taken similar action, and this specific request was rescinded. To point out specifically how little attention was given to the prac- tical administration of State and local agencies, the telegram specifi- cally asked for cash balances as of June 11, 1966. A natural question would be, "What agency maintains an account- ing of funds as of the 11th day of any month?" The normal report- ing date would be at the end of the month, quarter, or fiscal year. 73-728-67-pt. 2-20 PAGENO="0306" 652 u.s. OFFICE OF EDUCATION Another example of creeping intervention on the part of the U.S. Office of Education to exert itself in the administration of education at the State and local level was evidenced in a letter from Commis- sioner Howe dated September 9, 1966. In this letter, he asked for- 1. Summary of enrollment and staff of each school system. 2. Enrollment and staff of each school within the system. 3. Inventory of public school systems. 4. Inventory of public elementary and secondary schools. All of this information was to be submitted on the basis of race. Providing this information was a real chore on the part of the indi- vidual school systems. The State superintendent of schools did not take issue with the Com- missioner's authority to request this information, but in Mr. Howe's letter he asked that a specific staff member, by name, within the State department of education, be designated to assemble this information. It is our contention that it is highly irregular for the U.S. Office of Education to request specific persoimel assignments within the State. This is a prerogative of the State that should not and must not be delegated to a Federal office, regardless of the agency. Superintendent Nix's position was transmitted to the Commissioner in a letter dated September 15, 1966, and on September 22 an apology for this specific request was received from Mr. A. M.Mood, Assistant Commissioner for Educational Statistics. It is Superintendent Nix's contention that local and State agencies are being requested to furnish information to the U.S. Office of Edu- cation that has no relevance to the proper administration of a Federal law. Much of the information requested, in our opinion, is at the whim of some individual staff member, according to his specific and personal area of interest. It is our contention that a more efficient and economical administra- tion of Federal education laws could be accomplished if less specific direction was given by members of the U.S. Office staff. Our staff is experiencing almost daily telephone calls from specific individuals in the `Washington Office, concerning rather insignificant items of administration. They refuse to put many of these questions in writing, and this brings about confusion and uncertainty. School administration, to be successful in the fulfillment of the basic purpose of schools, must of necessity be kept as close to the child, the teacher, and the classroom as possible and practical, for it is within this pupil-teacher relationship that instruction and learning actually take place. All the available money available to this triune partnership should be channeled into this pupil-teacher relationship, if we are really con- cerned about the learning we want the children of this country to have. Therefore, in conclusion, I would suggest the following recommendations: 1. That the major contribution of the Federal Government to this partnership be in the form of a basic financial contribution for the instruction of schoolchildren, regardless of where they live or what their station in life may be. PAGENO="0307" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 653 2. That the amount of funds to which individual States are entitled should be determined on objective formulas, thereby reducing the discretionary power of Federal authorities to a minimum. 3. That amounts of funds earned be somewhat predictable, so as to enable State and local school people to do long-range planning. 4. That the present program approach of allocating Federal funds be curtailed and move toward general aid for instructional purposes. 5. That auditing and accounting provisions be provided, but not necessarily in addition to the State requirements. 6. That local and State plans show the use to be made of the funds allocated. 7. That the triune partnership, local, State, and Federal education agencies, recognize that the basic purpose of our elementary and secondary schools is the instruction of children, and unite our resources in this direction. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and members of your committee. Mrs. GREEN. Thank you very much, Mr. DeFoor. Dr. DEFOOR. May I say that here are some copies of this. Mrs. GREEN. Did this telegram go to every chief State school officer in this country? Dr. DEFOOR. I assume it did, by the way it ended. As a matter of fact, I have a copy of it here. Mrs. GREEN. I understand that we are going to have a chance to visit informally with Mr. Nix and some of the rest of you, so I am not going to take very much time in questioning. I would like to read, however, a section that is in almost every education bill passed by the Congress. Let me quote: Nothing contained in this title shall be construed so as to authorize any officer, employee, or agent of the United States to exercise any supervision or control over the curriculum, the program of instruction, or the personnel of any educa- tional institution or school system, or over the selection of library resources, textbooks, or other printed or published instructional materials by any educa- tional system or school system. This is the law. Dr. DEFOOR. That is a good statement. * Mrs. GREEN. And it does seem to me that if I were in your position, and I received requests which I felt perhaps were contrary to this law, I would fire back a similar telgram and quote it. I say this as a person long interested in civil rights, but one who supports Federal aid for education, yet is deeply committed to the local and the State control of education, and one who insists that the Federal Government be the junior partner. May I also say to you and to others that today I intend to send a telegram to the Commissioner of Education, asking for a breakdown of the employees of every regional office of the. 11.5. Office of Ecluca- tion in the United States, on the basis of race. It seems to me that this may be interesting. . Congressman Erlenborn, do you have questions? Mr. ERLENBORN. From your statement, I certainly can see that one of your major concerns is the time that is taken up by your staff in answering queries that are directed to you from the Washington Office of Educat.ion, filling out forms, and all the Other requirements that must be time consuming and somewhat irritating. PAGENO="0308" 654 U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION Are you familiar with the present move to decentralize the author- ity of the Office of Education, particularly here. in Atlanta, which is the first region that is being geared up for this purpose? When this is completed, and the local regional director does have the real authority to go through your program applications, to make grants, and to have t.he final word, and not just be another layer of ad- ministrative personnel between you and Washington, do you think that this will eliminate many of the problems? Dr. DEFOOR. I would rather say it ihis way: I think that is a far better scheme of administration-the U.S. Office of Education-than what we now have. And the one thing that I would base this state- ment on, too, that is, for the success of it, would be for these people to have sufficient authority to work among us. Mr. ERLENBORN. This, of course, is the key. If they don't have the authority, this will not work, but if they do have the authority to make final decisions here, I think it will work. You have some hesitancy about whether they will ever have the authority, I imagine.. Dr. DEF00R. Right. But the thing that I have tried to say in my statement is that administration must be just as close to the pupil- teacher relationship as it possibly can be, in order to do what we think instruction ought to do. When it is as far removed as it is, I think we are illustrating some of the experiences we have, in order to get direction. I spent 2 days in Washington Thanksgiving weekend, with two of our staff people, myself, and I could do better by being here working. Mr. ERr~xBon~. Just one other question, in the area of the en- forcement of the civil rights laws.. Do you feel that the authority for this enforcement is properly lodged with the Office of Education, or would you prefer that the enforcement of these laws be given to some other agency of the Justice Department, for instance? Dr. DEFOOR. Well, let me say it this way: I am jealous of public school education. I am jealous of instruction. I don't care what it is. I don't like the idea., personally, of using instruction as a means of doing things of that nature. I am talking about using it as a stick by which to do it. I just never have liked that. I don't want anything to interfere with good instruc- tion. I don't care what race they are. I have had personal relation- ships in this matter, now, and I know it can be handled if the local people see that they have to do it. Mr. ERLTENBORN. Accepting for the fact that we do have Federal laws concerning the desegregation of schools, and they are going to be administered by someone, would you prefer tha~t they be administered by the Office of Education, or by the Justice Department, or do you have any thoughts? Dr. DEF00R. Well, I have this thought. Too frequently, I feel that the U.S. Office of Education t.ries ito control that which occurs, shail we say, in the classroom, through the control of money, and that is a wrong thing to do, in my opinion. I believe as people learn, given time to learn, they will do it, and if education is part of that learning process, I would accept it. PAGENO="0309" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 655 Mr. ERLENBORN. Thank you. Mrs. GREEN. Dr. Martin, were you ever given any advance notice of the telegram from Mr. Karsh? Dr. MARTIN. No, ma'am. Mr. Nix called me about it. We were in Washington the week after that, and Mr. Karsh was put on the spot- the chief State officer at the meeting, there. The telegram went to the State treasurer, the State comptroller, and the State superintendent, and in about six States the State comptroller did not get it, through State distribution of mail, you see, and we caught it. Mrs. GREEN. There was no consultation with you in advance? Dr. MARTIN. No. I said at the time if Mr. Karsh had just called us, we could have gotten this across to the State superintendent very easily. Mrs. GREEN. May I call on George Mulling, the State director of vocational education. STATEMENT OP GEORGE MULLING, STATE DIRECTOR OP VOCA- TIONAL EDUCATION, GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OP EDUCATION Dr. MULLING. Thank you, ma'am. Madam Chairman and men~bers of the subcommittee, my name is George W. Mulling. My position is State director of vocational edu- cation, Georgia Department of Education. I appreciate the oppoi~tunity to discuss with you my ideas and rec- ommendations f or the strengthening of relationships between State departments of education and the U.S. Office of Education as regards improved leadership for the national program of vocational and tech- nic.al education. Generally, concern within the States regarding relationships has grown out of the reorganization of USOE which has taken place in recent months. Let me say first there is no argument with the necessity for such action, for we in the States have also been reassessing and re- structuring. our vocational department staff organizations. The Vo- cational Education Act of 1963, as an outgrowth of an exhaustive study of the Nation's vocational education program, dictates that we approach program leadership activities at both the Federal and State levels in ways more imaginative and in keeping with the signs of the times. Specifically, our concern in vocational education-and it has been well voiced through the American Vocational Association-is that due recognition and status in the organizational pattern has not been given to vocational and teaching education. It is our conviction that vo- cational and tecimical education should and must have recognition within its own right, at least equal to higher education and/or ele- mentary and secondary education. It is contended further that the matter of status for vocational and technical education should be equated with, and not inferior in rank to, its counterparts in other Federal a.gencies having similar, or shared responsibility for the development of manpower resources. Thus, we are pleading just recognition for an educational enterprise that historically grew out `of neglect on the part of our educational leadership, which failed to see occupational training as a necessary PAGENO="0310" 656 U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION part of the educational process. Being, as it is now, an economic and social necessity, it would seem that the cause for a place in the educa- tional hierarchy would have been overcome, and indeed a groundswell of superrespectabiity would have developed. How long can it wait? This question defies answering. But the longer we wait, the firmer becomes the grip in our system of the class education which too often prescribes the "classical" and shuns the practical. Direction or re- direction for recognition must come from the national level, if accep- tability is gained on a widespread basis. We have seen a growing concern in the Congress that vocational education be provided substantial increases in funds so that established and continuing educational forces can pick up responsibilities within their purview, but unmet, and therefore assumed by *other agencies through various stopgap legislative acts. Representative Perkins' proposed amendments to Public Law 88- 210 stand in evidence of the fact that vocational education can and must play a larger role in solving this national problem. Vocational educators welcomed two announcements recently whereby the matter under discussion here will hopefully be clarified. The congressional appropriation of $150,000 to the Secretary of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare to study the effects of overlapping by the several agencies engaged in training, with the use of Federal money, is one. The other is the naming of members to the national advisory com- mittee to evaluate vocational education. Leadership must be forth- coming, because it seems now that perhaps the shifting of responsibility for matters belonging under the umbrella of education away from edu- cational forces is reversing. Nor do we claim that education can solve all our problems. It is a known fact, however, that a great change is coming about in the minds of educators generally with regard to enlarging considerably on the scope and nature of the public school program. We were pleased to learn that the Education Commission of the States has included a study in vocational education in its outline of seven priority areas of study, and that a task force has been appointed to study and improve vocational-technical education. Dr. Grant Venn, Associate Commissioner for Adult and Vocational Education, U.S. Office of Education, has recently proposed a four- point program which, if adopted and funded, would revolutionize the whole scheme of elementary and secondary education. In essence, it would provide, beginning at the junior high school level, an orientation to the world of work for all youngsters. For how can we be completely surrounded in a world of technology and leave the business of work out of the program of education? The second aspect of this program would include work experience. Third, there would be expanded vocational and technical training opportunities afforded. And finally, high schools would assume responsibility for entry job placement for all its students-dropouts and graduates. What a dream. What a hope. What an opportunity. And all it takes is commitment. But commitment comes through leadership, and it is in this realm of activity that I would recommend we concentrate. PAGENO="0311" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 657 Many groups are hard at work in education to improve and enlarge on their efforts. None is more important than the effort needed in the Office of Education, Bureau of Adult a.nd Vocational Education. `We are pleased with the new leadership and direction in the Bureau, but the plan for increasing their effectiveness is not complete. The regional offices as well as the central office in Washington desperately need professional staff to assist us in the States. We must have stimulation, direction, and a coordinated effort. There must be leadership training for administrative people, re- searchers, vocational counselors, and teacher trainers. `We must have practical research and project demonstration that will give us basic devices of measurement and approaches to total program planning and development. Organized instructional materials in vast quantities and variety are and historically have been needed. Recommendations regarding the planning and construction of facilities are long overdue. NatiOnal, regional, and local institutes and other forms of instructor training in the areas of technical and professional skills require acceleration. Evaluation and accreditation in recognition of quality instruction must be forthcoming. The need for these and many other things has been substantiated by a survey conducted by the American Vocational Association, and you have this report. We support it 100 percent. And again I say we appreciate the opportunity of appearing before this subcommittee. Mrs. GREEN. Thank you very much, Mr. Mulling. Would you tell me, here in Atlanta, how many vocational high schools you have? Dr. MULLING. None. Mrs. GREEN. None ~t all? How many would there be in Georgia? Dr. MULLING. Vocational high schools, as such, we do not have. We have a few that are called comprehensive high schools that have vocational. Mrs. GREEN. What kind of vocational training is given in the At- lanta high schools? Dr. MULLING. We have a few programs in cooperative training, primarily in the areas of industrial cooperative training, distributive education, and a few in office occupations. Mrs. GREEN. Would you say it is anywhere near adequate? Dr. MULLING. I would say, by all means, it is not. Mrs. GREEN. Do you have the per-pupil expenditure per year for a school offering good vocational training, and the expenditure per pupil per year in an academic program? Dr. MULLING. As a comparative sort of thing? We do not. We have some figures that we have accumulated recently in the operation of our adult vocational programs in the area schools, and I think we have arrived at a figure of something like 50 cents per student hour, which compares to some figures in the national cost operations, and we were at about half level. Mrs. GREEN. Let me make just a couple of comments, because your paper strikes a very important note, as far as I am concerned. I have said that I thought that in the next Oongress we really ought to stop, look, and listen. `We ought to give the country time to digest PAGENO="0312" 658 u.s. OFFICE OF EDUCATION the bills we have passed, with the one exception, and that is vocational education. This is an area~ where we muse expand the programs. Otherwise, we are going to pay for it in other ways which will be much more expensive. The reason in Oregon that we have not provided adequate vocational education is that. it is more costly than just an academic program. Across the country, we have refused to provide the ftrnds that are necessary for vocational education for those who are not going on to college, and we have refused to spend the few hundred dollars per pupil per year, and now, when the youngster drops out of school, we turn to a cra.sh program such as the .Job Corps, where the average cost per boy per year, in 1965. was $9,100, and the average cost per girl per year, in 1965, was $8,400, with the individual costs in certain Job Corps camps going up to $13,000 per year per student. If there is anything that proves the statement that society is going to either pay for the education of the boy, or the ignorance of the man, I think these statistics prove it~ But with that in mind, I hope that there will be a real push for the program that Dr. Venn has outlined. In Dr. Venn we are going to find outstanding leadership. Dr. MrTLLIXG. We are quite pleased. And I want to say, so that you don't misunclerstaaicl me, we have deveioped a rather extensive system. At the completion of our con- struction program next fall, we will have 25 of these in operation, and we think this is making a considerable difference in the educa- tional pattern. However, at the high school level, we do not have very much. lYe are making a move at the high school level. It is slow, but we feel it is significant, and will be more so. Mrs. GREEN. I hope my State of Oregon a.nd your State of Georgia both push on this But where do we have the dropouts? Dr. M~LLTNG. They are in the high school program. No doubt about it. And we are losing nearly half of ours before they get through high school. And we think this is critical. And I think one of the points Dr. Venn makes, that we must give some orientation at the junior high school level, is essential if we are to ever do anything about this. We are very much in favor of it, and I hope some provision will be made for the funding of this program, because it has been left out in everything that has been done. Mrs. GREEN. Congressman Erlenborn? Mr. ERLENBOORN. In your statement you say that there is concern in the States growing out of the reorganization of the Office of Edu- cation. Can you explain why? Dr. MULLING. Well, let me say to you at this point our concern is not as great as it was before Dr. Venn came on the scene. We had a great deal of concern about this business of levels, and whereas voca~- tional education now is a division within a bureau, it is not comparable to higher education, or elementary and secondary education, and we feel it is just as important. PAGENO="0313" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 659 As far as organization offices are concerned, the breakdowns at the regional leved, of course, are quite a move, and the matter of who in the business conununity you can go to for an answer and get an answer is really important tO us. In the national office, we had a breakup that left us without repre- sentation in several of the areas of vocational education, and we do not feel that you can generalize staffing in a program as critical as vocational-teclmical education and really care for it as it should be. You cannot have generalists who can give you the type help you need. Now, in the regional office, here, we are getting some specialists, and we feel that this is good. Now, if they can have the authority to approve programs and give us answers, I think we will deliver. Mrs. GREEN. Thank you very much. Now may we hear from Mr. Beernon, the State coordinator for title I? STATEMENT OF R. C. BEEMON, COORDINATOR, TITLE I, ELEM~N- TARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION ACT OP 1965 FOR THE~ STATE OF GEORGIA Mr. BEEMON. Yes, Madam Chairman. I am R. C. Beemon, coordinator for title I, Public Law 89-10, for the Georgia State Department of Education. My office counsels with local educational agencies with regard to title I, reviews and approves their project applications, and serves as the central coordinating serv- ice center for the State administration of the title I program. In my opinion, title I, the Elementary-Secondary Education Act program, has done a great deal of good for the educationally deprived children who have received the benefits of projects designed to help them. Reports which I receive from various locations over the State testify to improved attendance, better health, and greater educational attainment on the part of children who are recipients of title I services. This program is making a considerable impact for good upon those who are in greatest need. Also, the existence of the program indi- rectly exerts a positive influence on the educational experiences of children who are not specifically included in title I projects. Many young people are now benefiting from educational and sup- plementary services which were not previously available to them, cer- tain inadequate services have been expanded, and some promising new instructional materials and methods have been put into operation. The fact that there is a national concern for the educational well- being of children of economic and educational deprivation and a trans- lation of this concern into tangible interest and assistance for these children brings to them new hope, new aspirations, new ambitions, and new self-confidence, which will make for a more productive and satisfying adult citizenship on their part. In the operation and administration of the title I, Elementary and Secondary Education Act program by the U.S. Office of Education, most of my contacts with that Office have been with the Director of the Division of Compensatory Education and with the staff of Area Desk PAGENO="0314" 660 U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION No. 2. These people have always been polite, courteous, good listen- ers, and have displayed an attitude of helpfulness. Conferences set up and conducted by the US. Office of Education for the purposes of disseminating information and exchanging ideas relative to the title have proved to be very helpful. it has sometimes been difficult to secure adequate copies of printed materials, such as copies of the act, of the guidelines, the regulations, and the audit guide, or to learn if and when such copies would be pro- vided by the Office, while we sometimes receive more copies than we can use of publications which we have not requested, such a.s "A Chance for a Change," and "National COnference on Education of the Disad- vantageci." Some written communications from the Office have not been as specific as I would have liked; in my opinion, being subject to different interpretations. Answers to correspondence have sometimes not been as prompt as I desired. Expenses in connection with conferences have not always been paid promptly by the Office. The changing of guidelines, application blanks, and instructions for completing application blanks during the course of a given fiscal year have presented some minor problems. One of my areas of concern is the late date in a given fiscal year on which firm figures are available for the amount of money which may be used by the various local educational agencies. Another concern is the altering of legislation affecting title I oper- ations for a given fiscal year after much of the fiscal year has passed. I would suggest that legislation and appropriations be established well in advance of the fiscal year in which they are to become effective. This would, I believe, make for better planning, more effective pro- grams, and wiser use of the money available. Mrs. GREEN. Thank you very much, Mr. Beemon. May I say that in all of the hearings we have been conducting the point which you raised in your last paragraph has become abundantly clear: that Congress is still operating on the time schedule which existed prior to a major involvement by the Federal Government in education. I think that Congress has not taken notice of the prob- lems of the school year in authorizing legislation or appropriating the funds. Mr. BEEMON. I appreciate your recognizing that fact. Mrs. GREEN. At the beginning of your statement, in paragraph 2, you cite things that specifically were done under title I. If the funds from the Federal Government went to the States in the form of just general funds, do you think the innovative programs which you out- lined would have occurred in Georgia? Mr. BEEMON. Well, perhaps not in the same way. It would depend, of course, on the State guidelines that would be developed, as to whether encouragement was given to extended services-say, in wel- fare agencies-as well as in educational levels. I think we have had perhaps a lack of initiative on the part of many local school systems to spend title I moneys in the areas of welfare, because they have not seen that that was perhaps an educational serv- ice, and perhaps they continue to look to the Department for that. PAGENO="0315" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 661 So in the beginning, perhaps, it would not; but with a program of guidelines developed, it might develop along the same lines. Mrs. GREEN. Congressman Erlenborn. Mr. ERLENBORN. You mentioned some of the difficulties that you have had with changing regulations and rules and forms, and so forth. Have you been contacted by, or are you familiar with some of the commercial services that are now being offered by, oh, say, ~ornmerce Clearing House, or Prentice-Hall, to give you a looseleaf annotated service with the guidelines and forms and so forth? I understand that these commercial services are now being made available. Mr. BEEMON. Available to State people, or to local people? Mr. ERLENBORN. Anyone that wants to buy them. Mr. BEEMON. Well, I am not too familiar with that. Mr. ERLENBORN. I was wondering if you felt that something more could be done by the Office of Education, in furnishing not just the directives and the forms, but annotated compilations, so that you would know which is the latest form, and what changes have been made in regulations, and so forth. Mr. BEEMON. I believe that my office is advised and kept up with what the latest forms are, and if we do not get sufficient copies of them from the U.S. Office, we have them duplicated or printed and promulgated among the local educational agencies. I don't really believe that we have a problem in that regard. Mr. ERLENBORN. This is not a problem? Thank you very much. Mrs. GREEN. Thank you very much, Mr. Beemon. `We are very pleased to have now with the committee several repre- sentatives from school board associations. I believe that the representative of the Tennessee School Board Association-and forgive me if I do not pronounce your names right- is Mr. Brewer; Mr. Acree from the Georgia School Boards Associa- tion; Mr. McLaurin from South Carolina and M. Bement from the Kentucky School Boards Association; and Mr. Vittetow, the superin- tendent of schools in Kentucky. Is Mr. Entwhistle here? Would you come up, too, and join us? I will ask permission for inclusion in the record at this point of a telegram which I received yesterday from a board of education in Arkansas, and a letter from the Virginia School Boards Association. (Documents referred to follow:) STUTTGART, ARK. Congresswoman EDITH GREEN, Congressional Hearing Chambers, Old Post Office Bldg., Atlanta: Because of late notice the Stuttgart, Ark. School Board cannot send witnesses to appear before your committee, although we desire to do so. If under commit- tee rules this telegram may be considered, this school district objects to the basic concepts of the Commissioner of Education's guidelines for the following reasons: 1. The HEW agency is withholding or threatening to withhold funds because of refusal of districts to confirm to undeviating language in their published forms, thereby threatening to deprive children of funds voted for their use without a determination as to whether the district is in fact desegregating. PAGENO="0316" 662 u.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 2. The whole congressional concept of punishing school children by with- holding money from them because persons in local authority refuse to carry out specific social concepts or refuse to do any other act is contrary to the basic consitutional principle that the innocent shall not be penalized for the offenses of the guilty. 3. It destroys all confidence on the part of those who have thus far worked to meet the law with courage and sincerity because we find that we cannot trust the authorities who approved our original plan. 4. The HEW agency has arrogated to itself legislative authority beyond the powers delegated by Congress both by verbal contacts with this district and in its guidelines by publishii~g the guidelines as part of Federal regula- tions thereby imposing an unlawful tyranny over our schools destroying faith in representative government. We consider our elected Members of Congress our representatives. But are we being represented in this instance? BOARD OF EDUCATION, STUTTGART SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 22, By L. M. STRATTON, President. DECEMBER 5, 1966. EDITH GRERN, Chairman~ Special Subcommittee on Education, House 01 Represenatives, Washington, D.C. DEAi~ MRS. GIuEN: The Executive Board of the Virginia School Boards Asso- ciation, at its session which was held on December 3. 1966, directed us to ex- press to you its concern over the confused state of communications that exists between the local school boards in Virginia and the United States Office of Education. Particular concern has been expressed from all areas of the Commonwealth about the manner in which communications are received and the lack of definiteness as to what is expected in the operation of various programs. The school boards are experiencing great difficulty in securing written com- munications from the U.S. Office of Education upon which to base their actions. It appears that the Office of Education relies too heavily upon the use of the telephone as a means of communication. As you know, it is imperative that school boards plan the operation and ad- ministration of a school system well in advance of the initiation of any program, and that these programs must have continuity. Under the present methods of operation intelligent planning and continuity of programs are almost impossible. Sincerely yours, GEORGE W. HOLMES III, Executive Secretary by Direction of the Executive Board, Virginia School Boards Association. Mrs. GREEN. We are delighted to have our colleague, Congressman Flynt, join us at the hearings this morning. Our very cordial welcome to you. I hope yo a will feel free to participate. I wonder if I might ask you to summarize your statements, not leav- ing out the important points, but to summarize them, and then the full statements will be made in each case a part of the record. May we start out with Mr. Acree, the executive secretary of the Georgia School Boards Association. STATEMENT OP JACK AGREE, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, GEORGIA SCHOOL BOARDS ASSOCIATION Mr. AcREE. Madam Chairman and members of the committee, may I say that we appreciate this opportunity of appearing before you. I would hasten to say that I have presented to you a brief which I hadn't intended in the first place to read to you. It is a brief that is PAGENO="0317" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 663 rather comprehensive, for two or more reasons, the first reason being the very nature of our responsibility and of our contacts with the several school systems throughout the State. Of course, the second important reason is that the very seriousness of our complaints suggested that we not only excerpt statements, possi- bly out of context, but that we provide you with information to which you could refer that would indeed give you the feeling that exists in our school systems. Thus, this is more comprehensive than it would have been otherwise. In my remarks I shall briefly refer to the contents of the brief. We have attempted to do three things, simply, first, to state to you our position as a State school boards association. We would respectfully call your attention to the fact that our posi- tion is one that is constructive and costly, so far as we are capable of making it. It is not intended to be evasive or negative in any sense of the word. Secondly, I would assure you that our association has the highest regard for all of the intents of Congress with regard to assistance to education. We feel that Federal assistance to education is essential, but we do feel this assistance must be so administered as not to encroach upon the control of our local school systems, our duly constituted agencies. Then I would suggest that our position emphasizes and actually extends to you an appeal to preserve our very precious heritage, of local control of all governmental affairs, education in particular, in this instance. We would likewise insist that we subscribe to the position that our schools exist for a singular purpose, for the education of our boys and girls. And as worthy as the objectives of other programs designed and ad- ministered by other agencies, or even under agencies to which we refer, as worthy as those objectives may be, we do not feel that our schools should be used for the accomplishment of certain of those objectives. We underscore the fact that we do have a deep appreciation of the laws which you, our Congress have passed, and we take no issue with any laws which you have passed, per se. Ourstatements; in the main, will be addressed to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, for two reasons. First, the fact that we do not engage in the direct administration of any of the programs, as Mr. Beemon and Mr. DeFoor know. The second reason, and we think of course the overriding reason, is that the Civil Rights Act, or, pardon me, the administration of the Civil Rights Act, has very gravely affected the administration of all of the other programs of education. The complaints which I shall refer to in a moment have affected the effectiveness, the efficiency, at each local unit of administration, in some degree, with regard to all of these programs. In the second instance, we would respectfully call your attention to our complaints. They are briefly listed in my initial statement in the brief, and they are documented. Our first complaint is that we take issue with the promulgation of policies and guideline statements or directives by the U.S. Commis- sioner of Education or his staff members which are in conflict with the provisions of the law, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, in this instance. PAGENO="0318" 664 u.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION We have called your attention to specific sections of the law, which we feel, very strongly feel, are being violated consistently by these policies, guidelines, and directives from Washington. Secondly, we complain of the evasive, conflicting, and confusing meaning given to certain key words and expressions which are being used daily by HEW officials, State officials, and local officials, because of the necessity that they must be used, such words as integration, desegregation, imbalances, freedom of choice, dual school systems. In my personal conversations with certain of our HEW officials, as well as contact with these many pieces of documented evidence which I have, some of which I make available to you, we find abundant evi- dence of the fact that there is nocommon agreement on the meaning or the proper usage of the meaning of these terms to which I refer. And then we of course would hasten to follow by calling your attention to the fact that we are astounded, as a matter of fact, at the contradiction by HEW representatives of their own guidelines, memorandums, and directives, as they proceed to visit school system after school system. This, we feel, is evidence of their being unqualified and/or inefficient in the administration of even their own guidelines and policies. Our next complaint, of course, pinpoints that to which I referred. That is the use of personnel by the Office of Education in administering these very comprehensive and very delicate and very meaningful laws, if they are properly administered, the use of personnel who are not qualified by training, experience, or temperament. Further, we complain that the administrative practices and tactics these people use are unprofessional, ineffective, and detrimental. I trust that we have provided you with documented evidence which will substantiate this complaint. We complain specifically as to the practice of HEW people of issuing memorandums. These memorandums are included in the brief. Upon being requested to issue these memorandums on official letterhead from the duly constituted office, many of our school people have failed to get a response to this. We have many copies of these memorandums issued in longhand on pads or other paper, which is very unbecoming such important and far-reaching documents as they suggest these to be. Mrs. GREEN. May I interrupt you? Are those included here in this brief? Mr. AGREE. Yes, ma'am. They are. And I shall call your attention to the exact location, if I may. I believe you will find, in exhibits N, 0, and P, an exact replica, 46, 47, and 48. I have other copies that I can make available to you in addition to the three copies included herein. Mrs. GREEN. May I interrupt you here? I have seen some of these memorandums before. What is your reaction to the fact that in the regional office at Atlanta there is one Negro employee? Mr. AGREE. One Negro employee in the office? Mrs. GREEN. At a. GS-1 level. Mr. AGREE. Again, my reaction would be, immediately: This is further evidence of the inconsistency of the application of even their PAGENO="0319" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 665 own philosophy and guidelines, which I have referred to previously in my statement, and to which I shall refer later. Mrs. GREEN. I think it does point up to the people in Washington that there are problems which must be taken into consideration. Mr. AGREE. Yes, ma'am. We take no issue with the problems. We recognize that we have problems, Madam Chairman. It is primarily the manner in which these problems are approached, the way the solutions are developed and administered. If I may proceed, our next complaint, Madam Chairman and mem- bers of the committee, we consider this to be a very grievous complaint. It is the fact that many of these representatives-and these are in some instances part-time employees, this past summer even college students, but not always part-time people-who go into a school community. Possibly they have called the administrator, saying, "We will be in your community on such-and-such a date." Just that brief. Then they will proceed into the community, and they will proceed to inter- view certain select citizens. How they select them, I don't know. And they will garner from them opinions and information that they will refer to later, which we consider highly unfounded fromthe point of view of professional information. The most important complaint we have on this score is the fact that they then proceed back to the administrator and his board members, and in essence accuse them of being out of compliance, or not in accord with the guidelines of the policy statement. In essence, they are accusing these responsible school officials of being guilty in the first instance until they prove themselves innocent, based on such information as they have gathered in the manner in which I indicated. We even complain, and seriously so, of the practice of their going into school systems, into the classrooms, and visiting-I am speaking of duly constituted officials from the Office of HEW-and questioning pupils and teachers, and then inviting someone from the office, maybe the principal of that school, to accompany them. We think that is disruptive. We think it causes uneasiness, and finally leads to a deterioration in the morale and the good atmosphere, to say nothing of the administrative practices and policies. Mrs. GREEN. May I interrupt you again? Do you mean to say that this was done without even a courtesy call ~o the State superintendent's office? Mr. AGREE. So far as I know, they didn't even call the State superintendent. Mrs. GREEN. Or the city superintendent's office? Mr. AGREE. But they, in many instances, possibly did call-I don't know of any instance that I could pinpoint where they didn't call sometime in advance, saying, "We will be in your community at such- and-such a date," but upon their arrival, they did not go to the office of the superintendent and pay their respects, and let him know they were in the community. The first they knew of their being in the community was when they returned to his office, having visited these people and having garnered certain evidence which they proceeded to use in suggesting that these responsible school officials were out of compliance. PAGENO="0320" 666 U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION Mrs. GREEN. May I comment here that. Members of Congress would be sharply criticized, and rightfully so, if Congressmen from outside this district, though duly authorized to visit and make studies, first did not notify Mr. Landrum, who so long served on the Education Committee, and other Members from the area, and if we did not first of all make contacts with the duly authorized officials who bear the responsibilities and burdens of administering the programs. I consider what you have described as a very bad situation, and certainly a very unwise use of authority. Mr. AcREE. Thank you, ma'am. We consider it as being one of the most serious complaints. It is really so diametrically opposed to our American way of life, it not only conflicts with good administrative practice in any profession, but it is in violation of our basic American tenets of Americanism. And, of course, the next complaint we consider equally serious and contradictory to our American way of life. This is the demand for closed meetings, secret meetings, by these same officials. They go to the State administrators. Of course, they have made an appointment., in this instance, where they want to meet with the board members and the superintendent. Lpon arriving, they not only let it be known, but they will sit for as long as is necessary, or they did, until one of your colleagues, the one who arrived this morning, where this last instance happened- it did happen more than once-until the local press, the Georgia Press Association, and lion. Jack Flynt, intervened. And then, of course, we received all sorts of apologies, saying that this was not intended, the Commissioner having made the statement that it was not intended, that there was some misunderstanding. And, of course, one of our basic complaints is about these misunder- standings in every Phase of the administration of these policies. But we have furnished you with a lengthy transcript of what tran- spired. Mr. Flynt sat in on most of this meeting himself. This is so grievous that we felt you should not only have a brief excerpt, but you should be able to get into the feel of the situation as it developed. And lastly, we strongly complain of the suggested practices of the use of intimidation and coercion in an effort to achieve racial balance, or to do away with imbalances, whatever interpretation you might want to use of the terms. You will find a notarized statement from one the finest citizens in Georgia, one of t:he finest members of the board of education, the Union City Board of Education, Union City, Ga.; a very distinguished gen- tleman, who has notarized to the effect that he and his board members were advised that if a teacher will not accept the assignment you give them, "Fire them, and then take steps to see that they are blacklisted, that they cannot secure a certificate, that they are barred from the profession." You have that included in the material rn the brief. Those are the sorts of things we are complaining of. Mrs. GRF~N. Did you say this was a directive? Mr. ACREE. This was a directive given verbally to the members of tJie Union City Board of Education, in the. presence of Mr. James Beavers, Jr. PAGENO="0321" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 667 I believe that is exhibit K, on page 41. On page 41 is the statement to which I referred. Mrs. GREEN. Who gave that directive, Mr. Acree? Mr. Aoiu~E. A Mr. Rich, who wrote most of the memorandums, I believe all of those I have submitted to you in this brief. The documented statement from the Griffin-Spalding County Board of Education, and a similar statement documented by the officials of the Telfair school system, included in our brief, substantiate our position in this area. I was speaking of the coercion matter, which we have in our brief. Those constitute `our complaints, and in conclusion, unless there is some other question at this juncture- Mrs. GREEN. May I again read the law: "that nothing shall be con- strued so as to authorize any department, agency, officer, or employee of the United States, to exercise `any direction, supervision, or control over the curriculum, program of construction, administration, or personnel." Mr. AGREE. It happens `that the honorable gentleman was present at the board meeting when this particular subject was discussed, and I am sure he will have some observations to make in this connection. I realize the time is running very tight, and I shall conclude my observations by suggesting to you that we respectfully request of you Members of Congress, and all of our other fine Congressmen, that some- how, some way, we all shall be brought to recognize the fact that the schools exist for a singular purpose: that policies and guidelines for the implementation of any and `all Federal aid to education shall be construed in accordance with the purpose and intent of the public law; that we have valid interpretations that are consistent and practical for the implementation of all the provisions of these laws; that qualified personnel by training, experience, temperament, and otherwise, be used for the administration and implementation of the provisions of your laws; that the `administrative structure be decentralized. There has been some previous discussion on this. We heartily endorse the decentralization of the `administrative proceedings, and insist that as such is done, the duly constituted State and local agencies be used in the administration, and that one and allrecognize the fact that communities differ in personal and impersonal composition, and that no set of arbitrary standards, particularly involving percentages and other arbitrary formulas, can apply alike to all communities, where the human element is so `terrifically involved. We further, of course, appeal to one and all for the preservation and perpetuation of our own system of local control of `our educa- tional programs. And in conclusion, we are most hopeful that immediate action will be taken by all concerned to prevent the utter deterioration of our school system, where we are losing administrators, board members, teachers, where bond issues hang in the balance, some failing, where education generally, the structural program particularly, is suffering, as a result of the complaints which we have registered today. Thank you very kindly. Mrs. GREEN. Thank you. Congressman Erlenborn? Mr. ERLENBORN. No questions. 73-728-67-pt. 2-21 PAGENO="0322" 668 U.s. OFFICE OF EDUCATION (The prepared brief of Mr. Acree follows:) STATEMENT OF JACK K. ACREE, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, GEORGIA SCHOOL BOARDS ASSOCIATION I am Jack K. Acree, Executive Secretary of the Georgia School Boards Asso- ciation, and the presentation which I shall make represents the position and attitude of the Association. We of the Georgia School Boards Association wish to express our appreciation to each member of the Committee for this opportunity `to appear before you in behalf of the local boards of education throughout Georgia. Our presentation concerns the administration of federal laws pertaining to the public schools of our state, particularly the Civil Rights Act of 1964. We commend you and the other members of our Congress for enacting laws which contribute to the total well-being of the people of our great nation, espe- cially their educational welfare. We know that it is your will and the will of the people whom you represent that these laws always be administered in a wa~ which will achieve the immediate purpose of the legislation in the most efficient and effective manner. OUR POSITION We of the Georgia School Boards Association are dedicated to the proposition that the very best possible educational opportunities must `be made available to all of our youth. Furthermore, we are committed to provide these educational opportunities in keeping with our American traditions which have nurtured and perpetuated the principle and practice of local control of our public school systems. We believe that our schools exist for the singular purpose of educating our youth, and we hasten to take issue with the U.S. Commissioner of Education or anyone else who indicates that, "If I have my way, schools will be built for the primary purpose of social and economic integration." We respect all local, state and federal laws concerning public school education. Furthermore, the beards of education we represent have the same high regard for the laws of our country. We recognize the need for and completely endorse necessary statements of pol- icy and guidelines for the implementation of all laws in a realistic, legalistic, and effective manner. In other words, the position of the Georgia School Boards Association is and shall continue to be positive and constructive, not negative or evasive. OUR COMPLAINTS 1. We vigorously protest the promulgation of policy and guideline statements by the U.S. Commissioner of Education, Harold Howe II, and his staff members which go beyond the provisions and intent of laws passed by Congress. Specifically, we make reference to all policy and guideline statements which conflict with the following provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964: (a) Title 4, Section 401, Paragraph B, "Desegregation' means the assignment of students to public schools and within such schools without regard to race, `color, religion, or national origin, `but `desegregation' shall not mean the assign- ment of students to public schools in order to overcome racial imbalance." (`b) Title 6, Section 604, "Nothing contained in this Title shall `be construed to authorize action under this Title by any Department or agency with respect to any employment practices or any employer, employment agency, or labor orga- nization, except where a primary objective of the federal financial assistance is to provide employment." Subsequent references and documented information will show beyond any question of doubt that Commissioner Howe and members of his staff have con- sistently formulated policy and exercised judgments which either conflict with or extend `beyond the provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 2. We deplore the absence of valid definitions and workable interpretations of key words and expressions in constant use by everyone involved in the applica- tion of the provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1904. The broad and constant application of the interpretations placed upon `these words and terms affect both the integrity and fiiiancial solvency of many school boards. The following examples are submitted to substantiate this complaint: PAGENO="0323" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 669 (a) "Integration" An interview with Education Commissioner Harold Howe II, carried in the December 5, 1966, issue of U.S. News and World Report, clearly reveals a degree of vagueness and uncertainty on the part of the Commissioner as he responds to the following questions: Q. "Another word that's being used a lot today is `integration.' What is integration in a school?" A. "I don't know in any quantitative sense. This is like the racial-balance question. Obviously, the word means bringing together the races in the context of this discussion. Q. "Is integration required by law? Or just desegregation?" A. "The Supreme Court has said that segregated schools are discriminatory by nature. So you certainly have an implication that, in order not to be dis- criminatory, you have to have a degree of integration." (b) "Segregation" In the same interview referred to in (a) above, Commissioner Howe again contributes to the current state of indecisiveness and confusion when he re- sponds to the question: Q. "Even `the word `segregated' raises questions. Is a school segregated simply because it is all white or all Negro? Wouldn't it help for Congres.s or somebody to clarify all this and tell school boards just what is required of them?" A. "What we have is a highly decentralized governance of education-and I think Americans want it this way. The notion of imposing some kind of order on education, either in terms of pupil arrangement or in terms of curriculum or in terms of any other major area of policy, is not something that the Congress or the President or I or anybody else that I know of would subscribe to. There is clearly a concern-in both the North and the South-about the prob- lems of segregation and desegregation and integration, and the whole mix of issues that are involved in these words." (c) "Racial imbalance" Still further evidence of Commissioner Howe's uncertainty and/or evasiveness is evidenced in the same interview referred to in (a) and (b) above as he answers the question, Q. "You have used the phrase `racial imbalance,' haven't you? What is racial imbalance?" A. "I suppose it would be racial imbalance to have a school 90 per cent Negroes and 10 per cent whites in a community where you have 90 per cent whites and 10 per cent Negroes. But I really don't know what this concept amounts to as an eamact definition. The lawyers don't seem to know. I've asked them. I think it would be useful to pin down a definition." (d) "Discrimination" This complaint is further substantiated by evidence found in the following exhibit: Ewhibit D: Griffin-Spalding County Board of Education, page 17, through paragraph 3, page 18. (e) "Dual school system" This complaint is again substantiated by evidence found in the following exhibit: Ea~hibit B: Griffin-Spalding County Board of Education, page 20 through para- graph 3 on page 22. (f) "Freedom of choice" The complaint is still further substantiated by evidence found in the following exhibit: Ecehibit D: Griffin-Spalding County Board of Education, pages 16-19. 3. We are appalled at the arbitrary, ambiguous, and inconsistent interpreta- tion and application of existing HEW guidelines by Commissioner Harold Howe II and his staff members. The confusion, resentment and damage caused by these practices in many of Georgia's school systems is beyond description as well as immediate repair. PAGENO="0324" 670 U.S. OFFICE OF EDtTCATION This complaint is substantiated by evidence found in the following exhibits: Exhibit B: Griffin-Spalding County Board of Education, pages 12-13. Exhibit G: Griflin-Spalding County Board of Education, page 26. Exhibits N, 0, P which are exact replicas of arbitrary memoranda, found on pages 46-48. 4. Administration of certain Federal laws by personnel not fitted for this responsible position by either training, experience or comprehension. Specific reference is made to the administration of the provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which refer to the desegregation of schools. Education as a profession is entrusted with the responsibility of both practicing and teaching efficiency and effectiveness. Nothing can be more disruptive and detrimental to the administration of educational programs by professionals than to have totally unqualified people advising, admonishing and even intimidating these respon- sible school people. This situation has been imposed upon school officials throughout Georgia. Abundant evidence exists to substantiate the complaint that many representa- tives from the Office of HEW do not possess the necessary qualifications to properly administer the delicate provisions of the Civil Rights Act app1ying~ to our public schools. 5. Use of administrative practices and tactics which are unprofessional, ineffective, and highly detrimental to the educational processes. An examination of the abundance of available evidence testifying to the afore- stated practices by representatives of the Office of HEW strongly suggests that never before has such a comprehensive and potentially fine a program been so ineffectively administered. Special attention is called to the following administrative practices by HEW officials: (1) Lack of any consistent system of communications with local school officials concerning their problems, shortcomings, etc. (2) Use of form letters to call attention to deficiencies and unacceptable practices. It is readily concluded that such letters cannot possibly serve to communicate judgements and instructions to several school systems which differ appreciably in many respects. Exhibit AT: This exhibit, which is a form letter and found on pages 46-48, is representative of the practice mentioned above. (3) Lack of fixed responsibility and direct lines of communication. Exhibit L: This exhibit, found on page 42, testifies to the confusion ex- perienced by one system superintendent. (4) Use of the telephone by HEW officials for transmitting judgements con- cerning compliance with HEW Guidelines by local school officials. Innumerable school officials have stated to me that upon receipt of such calls, they requested that the communication be reduced to writing and forwarded to them. This was either not done or done so belatedly that it contributed to the complaint registered in this instance. 6. Practice of issuing memoranda, usually in long-hand, labelled as "Suggested Amendment to Desegregation Plan" by HEW field representatives. Exhibits N, 0, P found on pages 46-48 provide copy of memoranda in question. An examination of these exhibits reveals an absolute disregard for even the provisions of the guidelines as promulgated by the Office of HEW, to say nothing of the provision of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. These memoranda have seri- ously impaired the good relationships which should and must exist between all agencies responsible for the administration of public school systems. 7. Practice by HEW representatives of by-passing school officials upon visiting in a school community to determine the degree of compliance with HEW guidelines. This widespread practice violates any cede of ethics and further characterizes *those engaging in such practice as lacking the necessary qualifications for the responsible position which they hold. Furthermore, and most disturbing, is the fact that these tactics result in HEW representatives confronting school officials with arbitrary and unfounded opinions garnered from a few hand-picked citizens of the community and de- claring them guilty of unsatisfactory compliance-guilty until proven innocent. This despicable practice violates one of the basic tenets of our American way of life. PAGENO="0325" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 671 The following exhibits substantiate this complaint Exhibit I: Griffin-Spalding County Board of Education, pages 34~-35. Exhibit J: Telfair County Board of Education, page 38, paragraphs 11-18. Exhibit K: Letter from Member of Newman City Board of Education on page 41. 8. Demands by HEW representatives for closed school board meetings. The persistent demands by HEW representatives that representatives of the school community, including the press, be excluded from school board meetings where problems concerning compliance with HEW Guidelines were to be con- sidered are in direct;confiict with Georgia law which requires that all board meetings be open to the public. Furthermore, such demands glaringly contra- dict one of the most common admonitions from HEW officials to local school officials, that is, that they should solicit the assistance of citizens of the school community, particularly its leaders, in resolving problems pertaining to the deseg- regation of their schools. This practice clearly violates another one of the basic tenets of our American way of life. This practice by HEW officials was not abandoned until considerable pressure was brought to bear by the local press, the Georgia Press Association, and Con- gressman John J. Flynt, Jr., in whose district the last in the series of such inci- dents took place. The Exhibits referred to below furnish documented evidence of this complaint: Exhibit A: Griffin-Spalding County Board of Education, pages 1 through 11. Exhibit J: Telfair County Board of Education, pages 39-43. 9. Intimidation. HEW officials have resorted to practices which might be characterized as acts of intimidation or even coercion in attempting to secure the transfer of teachers of one race to schools of another race. The substance of the Exhibits referred to below substantiates this complaint Exhibit H: Griffin-Spalding County Board `of Education, page 30, paragraph 2. Exhibit H: Griffin-Spal'ding `County School Board, page 31, paragraph 5, continued on page 32. Exhibit J: Telfair C'ounty Board of Education, page 36, paragraphs 1-5. Exhibit K: Letter from James Beavers, Men~ber of Newnan City Board of Education, on page 41. We respectfully request and shall aggressively pursue the following: (a) An acceptance of the fact by all responsible officials that our public schools exist for t'he singular purpose of educating people, and are not to be used under any circumstances in an effort to reform society, fulfil political expectations, or to achieve the objectives of other branches or agencies of government, no matter how worthy these objectives may be. (b) Statements of policy and guidelines for the implementation of a given law which are strictly in keeping with the' intent and provisions of the law. (c) Valid definitions and interpretations of words, expressions, and objectives embraced in or `suggested by laws passed by Congress. We respectfully request Congress to see that we are provided with `such valid information. * (d) Responsible a'nd professionally qualified personnel to interpret and admin~ is'ter federal laws in keeping with the provisions and intent of the laws. (e) The decentralization of the administrative structure fOr the administration of all federal programs an'd projects and the channelling of all administrative policies and directives through duly constituted `state an'd local agencies. (f) Recognition by one and all `of the well established fact that each com- munity differs from every other in both personal and impersonal composition and that no arbitrary formula or. set of criteria `based upon ratios and percen- tages can be imposed upon all communities under any circumstances. (g) An abiding' respect by one and all for our democratic precepts and insti- tutions. More especially do `we seek to preserve. `and perpetuate our unique American policy which provides for local control of our public school systems. (h) Lastly, we respectfully request that you and your fellow Congressmen take immediate action to deal with the fact that policies and practices docu- mented in this presentation are defeating the primary purpose of your legisla- tive action, which was, in `the case o'f `the 1964 Civil Rights Act, to up-grade educational experiences for all our youth. We submit that as a direct result of those `things about which we complain many of our most needy chi'ldren are beiag deprived of the benefits of your action; local school bond issues are failing because `of the increasing confusion and lack of confidence; school board mem- bers, superintendents, and classroom teachers are leaving our public schools in PAGENO="0326" 672 u.s. OFFICE OF EDUCATION increasing numbers when we most need them; and, as a result of these critical developments, both the efficiency and effectiveness of our public school programs are being seriously affected. EXCERPTS FROM THE OFFICIAL RECORD OF THE MEETING OF THE GRIFFIN-SPALDING COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION ON AUGUST 11, 1966, WITH THE FoI~owING REPRE- SENTATIVES FROM THE OFFICES OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE, WASH- INGTON, D.C.: MR. RICH, Mn. HAZEL, Ma. PERLMAN (The following people representing the Griffin-Spalding County School System were present: Board of Education Members: C. T. Parker, Chairman, Taylor Manley, John West, Mrs. Edith Newton, Miss Anne Hill Drewry, Russell Smith, Bill Westmoreland, Billy Brooks, and Don Jackson; Superintendent of Schools, George Patrick, Jr.; Assistant School Superintendent, Ben Christie; School Board Attorney, J. C. Owen, Jr.; and School Board Secretary, Mrs. Carter.) EXHIBIT "A" CLOSED MEETINGS, ETC. Mr. RICH. We are. I think we might have an initial problem here, that is, skipping the introductions, I would ask are some people here members of the public as opposed to members of the Board and school officials? Mr. PARKER. Yes, Sir, there are visitors here other than members of the Board of Education. Notice of this meeting was in the local newspaper and there are probably 4 or 5 visitors who are interested citizens, who are interested in Griffin-Spalding County Board of Education and our school system. Now, we are perfectly willing to take the time to have positive introductions all the way around. Mr. RICH. I think rather than the necessity of that, the point is, that we are authorized to speak on these matters only with the Board and the school officials, because it's a similar kind of thing to a jury, for example, whereby things are expressed in the confines of the jury room, and perhaps there might be some things involving individuals that will come up, or other things that the Board will, naturally, want to keep out of public view until they have discussed the thing, and then they can talk about it with the public. We would certainly have no reservations about your talking to any members of the public or the press after we have had our meeting about what has gone on, but the meeting, itself, we will have to ask that we meet with the Board and school officials. Mr. PARKER. Mr. Owen is our attorney. Are we authorized under the Georgia law to hold a closed meeting of this public body? This is a constitutional body elected by the people of this county. Mr. RICH. We are familiar with the law, sir, and we have gone through this several times on this trip, and also, the times in the past, and we are also familiar with the practice of many Boards, for example, where they are dis- cussing teachers, as to whether they should be re-elected or not, or teachers being fired, or new teachers being elected, often do hold executive sessions, and we, in addition to that, we would only be authorized to meet with the Board and the school officials. It is certainly a very common practice for Georgia Boards to meet only among themselves. Mr. CUMMING. My name is Cumming, J. R. Cumming. I am head of the Sav- ings and Loan Association in Griffin. I am an attorney. This is a public body, public officials, this is public business affecting every child in this county. I fail to see what is secret about it. This is public business. Mr. RICH. Well, sir, the same-by the same token a jury- Mr. CUMMING (interposing). This is not public business? Mr. RICH. Yes, sir, it certainly is. Mr. CUMMING~ There is no connection with all the people, with the man there? This is a public body on a matter that affects every one of us. Mr. RICH. Well, I would say I will have to disagree with you. Mr. CUMMING. Are your instructions are that no citizen of this county can sit in this meeting that you are attending with the Board of Education? Mr. RICH. Yes, sir. Mr. CUMMING. No other reason? If that is your instruction, I would like to know that. I would not embarrass the Board by holding the meeting up. Mr. RICH. Yes, sir, that is our authorization. Mr. CUMMING. Does that come from Washington? Mr. RICH. Yes, sir. PAGENO="0327" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 673 Mr. GUMMING. I would like to know that. Mr. SMITH. Mr. Ohairman, irregardless of how the Board feels as to executive session and open session, I want to go on record that this be a public meeting as such, called for public interest, to handle public matters, and nothing be withheld from the public. Mr. GUMMING. Getting back to one point that you mentioned, speaking of teachers, hiring and firing, if I, as a citizen of this county, wanted to sit in at a meeting where the teachers were being procured, I don't think the *Board could prevent me from doing it. Mr. RICH. Well, the Board does sometimes meet in executive session. Mr. GUMMING. I will leave, but, actually-I am leaving on your statement there that your instructions from Washington are that this meeting you will not meet with any citizen of Spalding County sitting in on it other than members of the Board. Mr. RICH. And the school officials. Mr. PARKER. Joe, and the other citizens here, we recognize your feelings in this matter. The members of this Board have nothing whatsoever to hide. Before any visitors leave, I would, on behalf of our Board, like to make a brief statement, at which time, in order to avoid any further delay, we will ask the cooperation of our interested citizens and taxpayers that they leave in order that the meeting might proceed. But before you leave, I would like to read a brief statement, my personal statement, to open this meeting. The purpose of this meeting is to discuss with representatives of the United States Office of Education alleged inadequacies in our school desegregation plan. Board members have received copies of letters recently dated June the 7th, July the 11th, and July the 18th. We understand that certain other school systems in Georgia have received similar letters. Before the meeting gets under way, I want ito review briefly for these representatives what has transpired in Griffin- Spalding County. When the Courts directed that the school districts make a prompt and reasonable start toward desegregating the schools, this Board acted promptly and in good faith to determine from all possible sources a plan that would constitute compliance and that would still give our children, both white and black, the best possible educational opportunities. At this point I want to get the record straight. There has never been a group of public spirited citizens who worked harder or more conscientiously to do what was fair and just for all. The Court ordered plan and a voluntary plan based on freedom of choice was studied for long and difficult weeks; colored and white citizens were consulted at great length. The decisions to follow a voluntary plan based on freedom of choice was based on our feelings that the people themselves should have a free choice in selecting the school where they felt their children could get the best opportunity. This choice has been given to everyone on a fair and equal basis as prescribed by the United States Office of Education. In the 1965-66 school year 68, or 2.1% of the negro students were freely given perniis- sion to attend schools that were formerly all white. Because of. the dedicated work of these Board members, our administrators and teachers, and the public in general, there was not a single incident in this county throughout the school year. When the 1966 guidelines were isued, re-registration was held in exact compliance with the rules, and 161, or 4.8% of the colored students requested at- tendance on a desegregated basis for the coming year. Assignment has been made on these choicbs without exception. We submit that this is a reasonable progress towards peaceful, orderly, and intelligent desegregation of the schools in compliance with the law. I appreciate your position here, and I also appreciate your cooperation. Mr. RICH. I might add that we appreciate it also, and we certainly would en- courage that the Board and the Superintendent do talk to the members of the press and members of the public about what has transpired. Mr. OWEN. Just let me ask one question to get the record clear. Mr. Chairman, the way I understand it, this meeting was called as a Board meeting, as a public meeting. Now, the Board is not going into executive session, but since Mr. Rich has stated that he is forbidden by his instructions from Washington with this rule to inform the Board as to what he has come down here to tell us, that our visitors are leaving voluntarily without this Board actually excluding them, and we are still in public session as far as the meeting goes, but they are leaving voluntarily. Mr. PARKER. That is correct. Now, is there any visitor that understands it otherwise? Thank you very much. PAGENO="0328" 674 U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION Mr. Rich, the little statement that I have made summarizes what we have done and the feeling of this Board that in good faith we have adopted a plan based on freedom of choice, and we have followed that plan. Mr. RICH. May I just state as One addendum along with what we are talking about, as far as members of the public, that we certainly can't object to recording minutes and having minutes taken on it. We just do ask that, here, again, this not be played to members of the public. Certainly, if the Board wishes to use it to review what has been discussed, we have no objection to that, but `that it should not be played for members of the public. Mr. P&nnEa. Feeling that we represent all of the people, Mr. Rich, we always have a secretary pi~esent at our Board meetings to record what transpires. Mr. RICH. Yes-well, you would not release the transcript of what had hap- pened, you might wish to go back over it and make an announcement to the press, or something like that. Mr. PARKER. We always have an announcement to the press on the morning following our meetings, and the press is always welcome to come and sit in on meetings. Any citizen is welcome to come and sit in on any of our meetings, and this meeting is proceeding no different from any of our others. Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman, could any interested citizen cOme over and look at these minutes or any other minutes, if he so desired? Mr. PARKER. They are a matter of public record. Mr. SMITH. A matter of public record. Mr. PARKER. To give you one more step in the Georgia law governing this, our financial records are audited once each year by the State auditing department, and a copy of that audit is transmitted to the press and there is a specific law requiring that that be done. Nothing that we do is hidden, and can not be hidden, our attorney tells us, from the public. We would like for you to proceed with anything you would like to tell us. Mr. RICH. I think we still have a problem in effect in that if there is a ver- batim transcript and notes made available, this is the same sort of thing, and we do ask that it not be made public. Mr. PARKER. How can we represent the public and hold a secret meeting? Mr. RICH. It is not unusual for public bodies, bodies representing the public, to meet among themselves and to afterwards report the results of that meeting to the public, which is not at all unusuaL Mr. PARKER. Mr. Owen. as our attorney, would you answer that? Mr. OWEN. Well, if the public asks to see the results of the meeting, can we keep these minutes secret by law? I think by law, under the Georgia law, our minutes would be public. Mr. RICH. I know some Boards in Georgia-it is going to the extent that some of the `school records have been kept from Board members that didn't agree with the majority of the Board. I am sure there are a lot of things that-I have never heard of that law being pressed upon- Mr. OWEN. Well, thisis just- Mr. RICH (interposing). We are simply faced with a situation of authoriza- tion, and in effect, this is a public meeting where the notes are made public- Mr. OWEN. Well, what our Chairman-I think, Mr. Rich-was the Georgia law saying that all meetings would be public, and of course, the minutes of these meetings, as I understand, would also be public. And if this law is on the books because other people don't observe it, then I think it is obligatory that we observe it. Mr. RICH. Well, we are faced with a situation where we are not authorized to meet with members of the public, are present, and where exact records will be made which will be released to the public. Mr PARKER Would it be fair if we request that you show us some authonza tion, because we- Mr. RICH (interposing). There is no written authorization, we simply have instructions. Mr. PARKER. We can't conceive of a situation where a public official from the taxpayers payroll would come out and say "We want to meet with you, you can't take any notes". Mr. RICH. We didn't say that, sir. What we said is that you certainly can take notes, but you can't release it to the public. You can talk to the public about what has transpired in the meeting, but to have an exact copy Of every- thing that goes on in the meeting- PAGENO="0329" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 675 Mr PARKER Has anyone said that we are going to issue a verbatim report `~ Mr. RICH. But I say, if an individual can come in, if any member of the public can come in and look at the record, which includes the verbatim record of the meeting, as opposed to notes, simple notes about what has transpired at a meeting, it is quite a different thing. Mr. PAIiKER. We take the position that any taxpayer in this cOunty has a constitutional right to come in and examine any records in the office of the Superintendent of Education or the official records of this Boai~d. Mr. RICH. We haven't run into a problem whereby the Board has had some- one who has taken exact transcript of what transpired in the meeting. And, so, we haven't run into a situation like this before. It is the same thing as holding a meeting in public, if any member of the public can come in and read an exact transcript, whereas, notes would be a summary of what transpired. Mr. OWEN. Mr. Rich, I don't believe the Chairman had in mind calling the press in tomorrow and saying, "We want to release this to the newspaper". I don't think that is the intent of this at all. * Mr. RICH. No, sir. Mr. OWEN. But here, I mean, to take minutes down at meetings, and if some member of the public asks about a specific point to come back and refer to the record on this specific point that had transpired, I don't believe we could refuse them the transcript of the minutes of the public record in this office under the Georgia law. Mr. RICH. When it conflicts with the orders we have, I am sure you could, yeah. Mr. OWEN. Well, I mean, we don't know of any law it conflicts with. Mr. RICH. I am telling you, we have instructions not to meet with members of the public, including a record which would be made available to the public. Mr. OWEN. Well, suppose we do this, Mr. Chairman. If it's all right with Mr. Rich, suppose we go ahead and take these and transcribe them at the meet- ing, and then maybe we can thrash out the point as to whether we can refuse or not after we conduct the meeting. Mr. RICH. Well, no, the problem with that is, if you decided you would make It available, then what could we do at that point except say that you were acting in bad faith. Mr. Owi~n~. No, I mean, if it Is in compliance with the law that we can not refuse people to see these, then, of course, we would have to let them see them. But if it is in compliance with some law or instructions you refer to- Mr. RICH. It is not a Federal law, sir, it is our authorization. If we must bring it down, the alternative would be us not meeting with you, or a meeting with you where no exact transcript be made available to the public. Mr. OWEN. I know the Board wants to meet with you, and would have the benefit of what you have to tell them. But as far as making it public, I can't tell the Board that it is not my opinion-I will say this: I can only say that it is my opinion that a meeting of this sort must be made public. I don't be- lieve we can have, a meeting that is not public and take any official action. Now, I think you can have executive sessions where you don't take official action, but any meeting where you take official action, it would have to be public. Then, if we have a meeting and have minutes of this meeting, in my opinion, I think these minutes would be public records, and if they asked me "Can I,-caii they refuse to show these records I would have to tell them "No" they could not refuse. They would have to show the records. Mr. RICH. We would not anticipate that the Board would take any official action at this meeting, anyway, so, that perhaps the meeting would be an executive session at which no official action was taken. Mr. OWEN. Well, I don't know whether the Board would want to take official action or not. If they did, certainly, that part would have to be for the public. Now, perhaps you could have the executive session, Mr. Chairman, transcribe your notes, where no official action is taken. Now, perhaps these notes that you take here would not be minutes in the sense that official action was taken to go in your minute book. Is that the point, Mr. Rich? Mr. RICH. Yes, sir. Mr. OWEN. In other words, what these gentlemen have `to report to you, if you are in executive session and receive that report from them verbatim and transcribe it, for your information and your use, at a session where no official actions were taken, perhaps these gentlemen are correct that you co~ild refuse to allow that to be seen by an inquisitor or some member of the public coming PAGENO="0330" 676 tr.s. OFFICE OF EDUCATION in to see it. Certainly, any meeting that you take official action and have minutes of that meeting, I don't believe you could refuse to show that to someone, if he came to ask for it. Is that your understanding of the law? Mr. Ricu. Well, I am not sure what it would. come to, but we certainly don't anticipate that the Board will take any official action. And meetings where we felt the Board would not take official action were generally worked out-in presenting a proposed recommendation or amendment to the plan, the desegregation plan, and then the Board has considered at a later date what action it will take on a proposed amendment, and I think that's what we are going to end up with this evening. Mr. PARKER. Well, now, our understanding of this meeting is this: Every Board member here feels conscientiously that our plan of desegregation has been orderly and in accordance with the law, and that our progress toward desegregating the schools has been reasonable. We have tried mighty hard to cooperate and to comply. We have suffered some criticism for trying so hard and for going as far as we have gone, and we don't believe there is a citizen in Spalding County that can stand up and face us and say that we haven't made an honest, sincere, effort to comply with the law. We know that there is not a citizen that will stand up and face us and deny that we haven't made such an effort. Our only purpose in hearing you is to see wherein you criticize what we have done and what do you say that we should do in addition to what we have done, and our decision as to whether that is reason- able and under all the conditions in this county will be decided upon after we have had time to give it due consideration. G. W. PATRIcK, Sap en ntendent, Griffin-Spalding County Schools. Subscribed and sworn to before me this 7th day of December 1966. J. 0. WEBB, Notary Public, Georgia, State at Large. My Commission Expires March 6, 1970. (The following excerpts are taken from the official records of the Meeting of the Griffin-Spalding County Board of Education on August 11, 1966, referred to on page 1 of Exhibit "A".) EXHIBIT "B": ARBITRARY AND INC0N5I5TRNT JusonMnwrs Mr. PERLMAN. Well, although I think this increase does represent some progress, I think it does fall short of what the Commissioner's expectations were. The Commissioner's expectations were expressed in terms of substantial progress. But the review we have made of the system has led us to conclude at this time that-if we look at the total picture, both student performance, coupled with the fact that faculty desegregation does not measure up to what the Commissioner's requirements were in the faculty area, we can say that we have concluded that this number, although it is some progress, it does not meet the Commissioner's expectations of substantial progress. And we are going to-I think one of our purposes in coming tonight Is to make a few suggestions as to what the- Mr. PARK~ (interposing). What you have just said is merely an expression of an opinion. I expressed an opinion that it was substantial progress, and you expressed- Mr. PEBLMAN (interposing). The Commissioner has suggested that when we review the results of a school system's desegregation plan, we look at the total picture, the amount of student desegregation, and coupled with the amount of faculty desegregation, and when we look at this total picture, the suggestions that the general plan that the Commissioner sets up, has suggested that we apply, would lead us to conclude at this time that this does not meet the Com- missioner's expectation of substantial progress, and I believe- Mr. PARK1~ (interposing). In other words, in your opinion it may not meet his expectations? Mr. PERLMAN. Well, I will have to say that we were given- Mr. RICH (interposing). The pertinent thing is that I am sure Mr. Patrick went to some of the meetings where Dr. Kruger spoke and explained the guide- PAGENO="0331" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 677 lines during March and April, and at that time I am sure that be gave you a more definite idea of what the Commissioner's expectations were. And cer- tainly, the guideline experience, for example, there is a smaller percentage of students picking up the second paragraph such as 4 or 5 per* cent, trans- ferred from segregated schools for the 1065-66 school year, a substantial increase such as tripling would be expected for the school year. Then he goes on "If a lower percentage of students transferred for the last school year, then the rate of increase would normally be expected to be proportionately greater, so, it would be, say, 4 or 5 times what it had been the year before"., which would mean somewhere, oh, lets' say, I guess it would be 10 and 12%, or something like that, I guess, based on that. But this is sort of the expectation the Com- missioner had, and as Mr. Penman has mentioned, it is the total picture that the Commissioner looks at, and the Commissioner has decided in this case, upon review, that the total picture does not meet his idea of substantial prog- ress, and, therefore, be would ask some additional steps be taken. Mr. PARKER. In other words, what you are saying is, that all those who voluntarily requested transfer is not sufficient? By the same token, is it lawful to arbitrarily move them? Mr. RICH. We are-we haven't made any proposal at all yet, and one of the proposals we would make would be that there would be an additional transfer period to further aid the movement toward the ending of the dual school system. G. W. PAmICK, Superintendent, Griffin-Spalding County Schools. Subscribed and sworn to before me this 7th day of December, 1966. J. C. W~nn, Notary Public, Georgia, State at Large. My Commission Expires Mar. 6, 1970. (The following excerpts are taken from the official records of the Meeting of the Gniffin-Spalding County Board of Education on August 11, 1966, r~ferred to on page 1 of Exhibit "A".) ExHIBIT "C": EXTRA LEaAI~ REQUIREMENTS Mr. RICH. Let me point out first what the whole theory of what freedom of choice is, and this is that,-we are all working to comply with the law, and the law has stated as long ago as 1964 that what we have to do is end the dual school system completely. In 1964 the Congress Mr. PARKER. Wait just a minute now. Will you quote me that law again? Mr. RICH. Brown v. Board of Education. Mr. PARKER. Said what, now? Mr. RICH. Pardon? .. Mr. PARKER. It said what, now? Mr. RICH. Said there must be no dual school system. Mr.' PARKER. Mr. Owen, Will you check that for us? Mr. RICH. It didn't say there must be part of a dual school system eliminated, -said there be no dual school system. Mr. OWEN. I- . . , Mr. RICH. . Said there must be no. dual school system. . . ~. . Mr. OWEN. Is this a statute?. . . . . . Mr RICH Brown v Board of Education and the Civil Rights Act reiterated this, and through the acts of legislative history along with it, and that is what we are all working to do as the eventual goal, is to end the dual school system. And the freedom of choice plan, the guidelines which have been published in the Federal Code of Regulations, which are part of the law authorized under the Civil Rights Act of 1964,-as they have stated, the freedom of. choice plan,- and the Courts, themselves, have said,-that the freedom of choice plan is simply `a device by which we can accomplish the ending of the dual schOol sy&tem, or at least, we can work towards it. Bi~t, if it doesn't work as a device, just as using a band plow to plow a field is not necessarily the best way to do that, a tractor is much bel~ter, freedom Of choice plan is not, the best way to accomplish the ending of the dual school system. So that' there may he some other step that is required to be taken in order to meet that goal. `But the Commissioner PAGENO="0332" 678 U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION has stated that we will allow a gradual rate of desegregation. We won't say, "Do it all at once", because we are doing things that would affect people's lives to a great extent, and we are asking people to change social mores that have eixsted ever quite a long period of time. And we are not saying, "Junk the free choice plan here". We are saying that one of the recommendations that we would make would be that there would be an additional choice period of possibly two weeks under which there would be a possibility of any student transferring. G. W. PATRICK, Superintendent, Griffln~-Spaiding County Schools. Subscribed and sworn to before me this 7th day of December, 1966. J. C. WEBB, Notary Public, Georgia, State at Large. My Commission Expires March 6, 1970: (The following excerpts are taken from the official records of the Meeting of the Griffin-Spalding Oounty Board of Education on August 11, 1966, referred to on page 1 of Exhibit "A".) EXHIBIT "D": FREEDOM OF CHOICE-PLAN, DISCRIMINATION, ETC. Mr. RICH. Well, let me finish this, because I think this will clear up what you are thinking. This would not be a choice period open to all students who wanted to transfer to any school. This would be only a choice period whereby students could make a choice which would further desegregation, further work toward ending the dual school system. In other words, any white student could choose a negro school, or a negro student who has not already chosen to attend a formerly white school, could so choose at this time. But there could not be, say, a white student who had chosen a negro school going the other way. There could not be a negro student who had chosen to attend a formerly white school, choosing to attend a negro school. I think this is what you were getting at. Mr. PATRICK. Because I already have aboutl5- 1~Ir. RICH. Yes. sir. Mr. PATRICK. Requests to go back, and I refused those requests. Mr. RICH. That's what I thought you were talking about. But this, again, would still be subject to scrutiny by the Commissioner. If the results did not work out so that there was substantial progress, then there would still have to be further steps taken. If I might continue with this,-the way the office has set it up, it would be possible, certainly, if we speak realistically, it would be unlikely that there would be white students choosing to attend a negro school. If the district so desires, they could simply make forms available, and possibly we would suggest that they be mailed to the negro students who have not chosen to attend the formerly white schools, so you could limit the number of students to whom you would provide these forms. Mr. PARKER. How can we discriminate against certain of our students just to accommodate an opinion of an administrator? This is discrimination what you just said,-you said, "Only to a limited group". Mr. RICH. Number. Mr. PARKER. You said only open it to negro students- Mr. RICH (interposing). You could certainly have everyone make the choice. We are simply saying as a,-an administrator easing the burden for you, that districtshave preferred that they only provide these forms for the negro students who have not chosen to attend white schools. Mr. PARKER. And discriminate against those others? Who would do the choos. ing of the students who want to transfer? Mr. RICH. Transfer,-this plan is open to anybody who wants to transfer from a school where there are races in the majority to other races in the minority. Mr. PARKER. In other words, the plan is open to suit your limited purpose only. Mrs. NEWTON. That is discrimination. Mr. RICH. What are you discriminating against? I think we ought to stick to this point, now, because any white student who wishes to choose a negro school is certainly free to do so. It is just that the fact is, I have ndt come across an PAGENO="0333" U.S. OFFICE' OF' EDUCATION 679 instance in the State of Georgia where a white student has chosen to attend a formerly negro school. `Mr. OWEN. Mr. Chairman, in order to get it clear, let me ask Mr. Perlman,- the Superintendent referred to 15 negro students that bad indicated a desire to transfer back from a white school back to a negro school. Now, is it your sug- gestion that he disallow these 15 to transfer back? Maybe for scholastic reasons they feel like they made a mistake. Mr. PERLMAN. It is required by the guidelines, yes, that be disallow. Mr. OWEN. That he disallow that. Now, would not that be discrimination against those 15 negro students, if they thought it would be to their best educa- tional interest to go back to their own educational level classroom? Mr. PERLMAN. No, sir, this is certainly not discrimination. What we are say- ing,-the policy is open to all students so that they may,-first of all, let's get at this notion, which may be behind this, that there is some sort of constitutional right to a freedom of chOice, so far as schools are concerned. There is no such thing. And I am sure that you will agree with us that the freedom of choice plan is a unique, odd, and very difficult, and educationally speaking, probably the worst kind of plan that any school system can have. It is much easier to have other kinds of plans that most school systems in the country use, namely, to operate on a neighborhood school basis where there is a zone around the school and all the students attend that school. But we have permitted the device to be used. Mr. OWEN. This is our Congressman. Mr. PARKER. Come in, Mr. Flynt. Mr. Flynt, that is Mr. Rich on the left of us here. Mr. Rich, Mr. Flynt, and Mr. Hazel, Mr. Peariman, and Mr. Walter. Have a seat, Mr. Flynt. Where were you,-you were telling us about the "device". Mr. RICH. Yes, sir. It is not the most workable device. It is about the worst, aa a matter of fact. You don't know how many students you are going to have where in the coming year. And it makes it extremely difficult to make long range, educational plans. But, what we are all working towards is the ending of the dual school system. Now, this is another device which we, and the office of the Commissioner, has suggested as a means by which under operation of the free choice plan and a further extension which is also a regular part of all geographical zone plans, I may add, there is a minority transfer policy where choices may be made to further desegregation and ending of the dual school system. So, it is not a question of discrimination. It is a question of a device which is open to all students regardless of race to further desegregation. G. W. PATRICK, Superintendent, GrifJin-Spalding County Schools. Subscribed and sworn to before me this 7th day of December, 196G. J. A. WEBB, Notary Public, Georgia, State at Large. My Commission Expires Mar. 6, 1970. (The following excerpts are taken from the official records of the Meeting of the Griffin-Spalding County Board of Education on August 11, 1966, referred to on page 1 of Exhibit "A".) Exnmir "E": DuAL SCHOOL SYSTEM-PERCENTAGES, IMBALANCES, ETC. Mr. PATRICK. Mr. Rich, you have referred on two or three occasions to the dual school system. We contend that we do not have a dual school system; What is your definition of a "dual school system"? Mr. RICH. Where a system has been operated so that schools have been set up intending for members of one race or another, and we are having to work to erase the stigma of what has existed where' it has been intentional, and the first time it was not intentional it was under the plan. Mr. PATRICK. A school system operating under one school superintendent, one Board of Education, all faculty meetings, and all principal administrative meet- ings integrated, with freedom of choice of any child to attend any school be de- sired, how could that still be designated as a dual school system? ` Mr. RICH. Well, sir, up until 1964 or `65, up until last school year would we agree that this was a dual school system? PAGENO="0334" 680 U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION Mr. PATRICK. I will agree,-no, I' won't agree it was a dual school system. I would agree we had `separate faculty meetings, and so forth. Mr. RICH. It was not intended `for the memers of one race or the other? That is what a dual school system is. Mr. PEELMAN. That is,what these guidelines are attempting to do. But you do have to `work with that term, though, whether you- Mrs. NEWTON (interposing). If we don't have it, we don't have to work with that term. Mr. RICH. Well, you would- Mr. P&anra. If everyone would stop talking, we would get more accomplished. Mr. RICH. It was operated as such up until this agency started working with these school districts, and Congress has said, and the Commissioner has issued his guidelines in accordance with this, that this is what we must work to over- come, and `by this definition, and this system was intentionally operating schools for one race or another, in a dual system,-and it is eliminated when there is no,-well, l'et's see,-when the schools are,-I don't know how obviously we can say it, but- Mr. PATRICK. What you are saying is that we should no longer have any racial imbalance? Mr. RICH. No, sir. Mr. F'LYNT. What is your authority for saying Congress said that? Mr. RICH. Through the Civil Rights Act of l9~i5. Mr. FLYNT. Which Title? Mr. RICH. Title VI, sir. Mr. FLYNT. What about Title IV? Mr. RICH. Title IV refers to something entirely different. I don't understand the significance of Title IV with what we are talking about, the ending of the dual system. Mr. FLYNT. Title IV says specifically that there shall be no assignment or trans- fer of any pupil for the purpose of overcoming racial imbalance. Mr. RICH. I believe, sir, that there is a term of,-well, the,-overcoming racial imbalance,-yes, sir, we are talking there about the assignment of students to public schools in order to overcome racial imbalance. We are talking here about a- Mr. FLYNT (interposing). Read it. What does it say? Mr. RICH. Well, the definition of desegregation means the assignment of stu- dents to public schools, within such schools, without regard to their race, color, religion or national origin, desegregation shall not mean an assignment of students to public schools in order to overcome racial unbalance. Mr. FLYNT. That is what I said. Mr. RICH. Well, I don't understand the effect asfar as Title VI is concerned. I don't think that is relevant to what we are discussing as far as a dual school system is concerned. Mrs. NEWTON. If you are saying the Commissioner feels that we have not made reasonable progress and certain percentages of our schools being more integrated, isn't that the very crux of the matter? You are asking us to increase the num- ber of negro students entering into our formerly all white schools, which is cer- tainly asking for more of a racial balance, isn't it? Mr. PARKEE. You are telling us, in effect, to make some more students transfer, are you not? Mr. RICH. No, sir, we are not. No,-we are asking you to take further steps mainly by running a minority transfer of further choice. I would also say that,- we are talking here on the one hand about Title IV, and Title VI is a separate sec- tion than this Title IV.-but I would go on further to state that the Commissioner has simply followed after what some of the Courts have said, in that there is a way of looking at how a desegregation plan is doing. He is not requiring that a certain percentage of students choose or be assigned, or whatever, from negro schools to formerly white schools, or from formerly white schools to negro schools, or any such thing. He is not requiring any racial balance. What he is requiring is that there be some substantial progress towards the ending of the dual school system, which necessarily involves some students moving across racial lines, but does not require any racial balance. Furthermore, requiring racial balance in schools is what Title IV talks about, and we are talking about a system, not a par- ticular sch.ol. You certainly could have one school totally desegregated and another school completely segregated, and this would not be any different in our PAGENO="0335" u.s. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 681 eyes than having one school which was half desegregated and the other school which was half desegregated. G. W. PATRICK, Superintendent, Griyjln-Spalding County Schools. Subscribed to and sworn to before me this 7th clay of December, 1966. J. C. WEBB, Notary Public, Georgia, State at Large. My Commission Expires Mar. 6, 1970. (The following excerpts are taken from the official reeords of the Meeting of the Griffin-Spaldilug Gounty Board of Education on August 11, 1966, referred to on page 1 of Exhibit "A".) EXHIBIT "F": ADMINIsTRATIVE PRACTICES Mr. PATRICK. That is true, Mr. Rich. The statement was made that additional steps might be required. But I want to ask two or three questions. First, does the Office of Education have any concern for education, or do they only have con- cern for integration; second, did we not present to the Office of Education at the end of May, two months ago, 21/2 months ago, factual information about how much integration we had in our public schools? And is it not a fact that we did irnt hear until only a week `ago any fault with the amount of integration that we had, although we had `the feeling that possibly it wasn't enough? But is it not a fact `that your guidelines prohibited us during the period of freedom of choice from influencing any child to integrate or `to segregate, or in any way as far as his choice of schools might be concerned, and the employees of the Board of a school system, would include the Board of Education, would include the Super- intendent, would include the Assistant Superintendent, the Princii~als `and `teach- ers, `and they were not allowed in any way to influence registrants, although we felt that perhaps not enough students crossed. But we did everything according to your guidelines, and now you come up when our school system is ready to open, the classes `are balanced with approximately in every school `an average of about 28 or 29 children to a class, and it's in only one school, and that's `an all white school, `that runs over 30 `students to R class. And yet you tell us now a school system that doesn't have any extra classrooms, that we are going to have to move children into these `already crowded classrooms in order to obtain inte- gration `at the sacrifice of education. I think you are making `a drastic mistake not to take a look at education at the same time you are looking at integration. Mr. PARKER. Loo1~ at the welfare of the youngsters. Mr. MANLEY. Let Mr. Rich answer the question about education. Mr. RICH. We are certainly interested in education, and certainly the Office of Education is. And we `are looking for,-tbat is why we h'ave come to talk to you, rather than simply, like `a flat, or by a cold, impersonal letter, saying that the Commissioner would require such and such steps, or would recommend as alternative, `such and such steps. We feel that by coming and talking `to you in person, and by discussing things with you, t'ha't we can have `a better idea, we could work out something .that would work in the system that would better the school system, that would work in the community, and that would `be adaptable for `all the purposes that we particularly need. Now, so far as `the other points that you raised, if I can recall them,- Mr. PATRICK. I contend that the U.S. Office of Educa'tion has failed miserably in keeping school systems informed a's to the fact that our progress was not adequate. I contend that Augu'st,-~the middle of August, is a mighty late da'te to tell us that we are going to make adjustments in our school system. If the U.S. Office of Education is really interested in education, they would immediately upon receipt of information `that I sent them, they would immediately inform me that "This is not enough", and given me means by which we could have made some corrections at that time. My hands were tied. G. W. PATRICK, Superintendent, Griffin-Spaldinfi County Schools. Subscribed and sworn to before me this 7th day of December, 1966. J. 0. WEBB, Notary Public. PAGENO="0336" 682 U.s. OFFICE OF EDUCATION (The following excerpts are taken from the official~ records of the Meeting of the Griffin-Spalding County Board of Education on August 11, 1966, referred to on page 1 of Exhibit "A".) EXHIBIT "G": ARBITRARY JUDGMENTS CONCERNING PUPIL TRANSFERS, ETC. Mr. PARKER. Mr. Rich, I assume that you would be willing to write down for us the things that you suggest we do? Mr. RICH. I have a printed copy of the suggestions. Mr. PARKER. Aliright, sir, will you proceed with the next one? Mr. RICH. O.K. As an alternative,-~--well~ I would also, by the way, disagree so far as,-you were talking about forcing you to,-I don't remember the exact terms, but to,-force,-----I don't know- Mr. PATRICK (interposing). I said that you,-to integrate any change of stu- dents in this county to another would overcrowd the classes in that given school, because all of our classes are fairly well balanced. We do not have empty class- rooms, and if we have to allow anyone to move, we will have to allow over- crowding. Mr. PARKER. Suppose you go ahead with your next suggestion. Mr. RICH. Yes, sir. As I understand it, the Northside Elementary school and Moore Elementary school are located close together, and so are the Fourth Ward Elementary school and the Annie Shockley school. Now, a further recommenda- tion might be that all students who live in the second Ward, and who would be in the first grade would attend Northside Elementary school, and all those in the second grade would attend the Moore Elementary school. And a similar sort of arrangement, this would be run either way, you could have the first grade students, say, in Moore Elementary, and the second grade in Northside. Similarly with the Fourth Ward Elementary and Annie Shockley, that first grade students attend one school and the second grade students attend the other school. G. W. PATRICK. kS~uperintendent, Griffin-Spaiding Uounty E~chooi$. Subscribed and sworn to before me this 7th day of December, 1966. J. C. WEBB, Notary Publie. (The following excerpts are taken from the official records of the Meeting of the Griffin-Spalding County Board of Education on August 11, 1966, referred to on page 1 of Exhibit "A".) EXHIBIT "H": ARBITRARY JUDGMENTS RE FACULTY TRANSFERS, ETC. Mr. RICH. Yes, sir. The guidelines do state that the general expectation, gen- eral requirements of the Commissioner, is that there be at least on full time classroom teacher teaching in a school where the majority of the faculty are of the opposite race in each school in the system. Now, there is flexibility in the guidelines, but this is the general requirements. However, the reason that the requirement,-general requirement is stated in this fashion would negate for the most part part time teachers, especially where they are teaching in all the schools in the system, because the basic reason is that everybody in the community, and we, ourselves, also, at the present time, think of one school as the white school, and another school as a negro school. People don't think of it as intended for everyone, but intended for members of one race or an- other, based on the path, and based on where students and faculty have attended in the past. And at the present time the regular faculty of the school is either a white faculty or a negro faculty. These are the faculty members who are resident there and who teach. regular classroom subjects there, and for that reason the Commissioner has asked for a very gradual beginning of breaking down that identity through desegregation of faculties. Now, some courts have gone so far as to require total desegregation of the faculty immediately. Sup- pose there were 100 faculty members, 60 white and 40 negro, and there were 10 schools, then what they have required has been that there be 6 white and 4 negro teachers in each and every school in the system. Now, this is a much more drastic thing than what the Commissioner is asking. And he is just ask- ing that there be a start toward this. PAGENO="0337" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 683 There are advantages in this, in that every teacher is in the same situation, and they can all say, "Well, I didn't get picked on, I am in the same boat every- body else is in". But the Commissioner in line with what we were discussing before about allowing things to take place more gradually, has simply asked that the general requirement be that there be at least one full time class room teacher in each school. There. is some flexibility in this, and perhaps we can work out something at this time that would accomplish the same purpose in a slightly different fashion. Mr. PARKER. You haven't stated a definite recommendation. Mr. RICH. Well, the . general recommendation would be that there be a full time faculty member in each of the schools of the opposi.te race from the ma- jority of the faculty members in that school. But there is another possibility,- let me ask you, you have how many schools in the district? Mr. PATRICK. 17. Mr. RICH. 17? Now, if you had, let's say- Mr. PARKER. 81/2? How are you going to get the half? 1\Ir. Ricri. No, sir, if you had 17 full time classroom teachers teaching where races are in a minority on the faculty, you can say, only 13 of the schools, so that there would be 2 or maybe 3 teachers in some of the schools. Then this would be acceptable. This would accomplish most of the purpose that the Commissioner is looking for, and perhaps in some way, as I have pointed out before, we are not talking about total desegregation where every teacher is in the same boat, still, there are advantages in gaining assurances of teachers that they will, either voluntarily, or after a time, teach in a school where there are races of the minor- ity. There would be two or maybe three teachers who would be in the minority racially in that particular school. Mr. P~u~KEim. Assign them against their will? Mr. RICH. Well, sir, first of all, let me ask-the contracts of the teachers are with the Board of Education, are they not? Mr. PARKER. Yes~ sir. Mr. RICH. They are not with a particular school, they are with the Board? Mr. PAT1UCK. They have my agreement. But teachers became wise this Spring, arid they have from the Superintendent his promise that he will place them as of September in a given school. I have lost about 14 teachers-short at the present time. I have missed getting several fine prospective teachers, white teachers, because I tried to assign them to negro schools as they came in. Two young gentlemen that the Board authorized me to double their local sup- plements to teach shop at the negro school, which would have given them almost double salary, and they saw that salary and they said, "Yes, sir, we will do it". And the next day they came in and handed m.e their contracts and said, "Now, we will either stay where we are, or you can have these". And we have two weeks notice in our contract. I have lost teachers, we have tried to assign teachers. We have tried to find teachers to go over voluntarily, and the atti- tude of the teachers is, "We don't have to have this job". But the boys and girls in Spalding County need teachers. Mr. Rien. We would certainly agree with that, sir, and we would not want to have the school system faced with a shortage of teachers. Mr. PATRICK. My shortage is with negro teachers, also. And if I am unable to place my white teachers in negro schools, is it fair to leave the little negro children without a teacher and put that teacher over in a white school? Mr. PARKER. We are talking about the practicability of this thing, now, and if we do some faculty desegregation more than what we have done, it has got to be related to the practical matters of finding the school teachers. Go on to your next recommendation. Mr. RICH. Yes, sir. Well, going along with this, we would ask that the Board which always does have the responsibility of making assignments regard- less of whether it makes it to the school where the teacher has been teaching before, or to a new school, as an example,-and I might point out that,-let's start with your freedom of choice plan that you had 1,000 students choosing schools that they had not formerly attended, say, they were negro students choosing formerly white schools, they might be white .students who decided they would like to go to school on the other end of town. Then you would have had to transfer a significant number of teachers from their usual, positions to some other position, to a school that they hadn't taught at formerly, and we can liken this in this situation. Now, so far as the practicalities are concerned, we 73-728-67-pt. 2-.--22 PAGENO="0338" 684 u.s. OFFICE OF EDUCATION would ask that if it became necessary that the Board assign a teacher, obviously the Board can not force a teacher to teach in a school, the teacher can always resign .the position. But, it is the responsibility of all of us to comply with the law, and complying with the law is to cOmply with the guidelines, and the guide- lines do require significant progress and a substantial beginning in desegre- gation of the faculty, and this has not been achieved at this time. Let me ask you, sir, have you spoken, or has the principal spoken to the teachers individ- ually, or in two's or three's? Mr. PATRICK. I have talked to,-I have asked various members of my faculty to help me locate people who were of a liberal attitude toward this matter, and I have gone to these individuals and talked to them. And they are frank to give me, "No, sir, if you demand it of me, you can have my contract". I ac- tually have one situation where I can't even assign a white teacher from one white school to transfer to another white school. They feel so strongly and they are so independent, and they will tell you frankly that "We don't have to teach. We are teaching because we feel that the children need us, and we know that you have a problem." But I would say that better than 50% of our teachers are local housewives. Judge Cumming that was speaking to you earlier, his wife is a teacher, for instance, he is worth enough that she would never have to even get out of bed, somebody could take care of her and completely feed her, and everything in bed. But she feels that she is needed. If I told her she would have to go over there and teach music at the school, she would tell you, "Thank you, Mr. Patrick, here is your contract." Mr. RICH. How many teachers do you have in the system? Mr. PATRICK. I will have 380, I will have a little better than 400 if Title I continues, so I can't answer that. Mr. PARKER. Mr. Rich, let me put it this way. We will do everything pos- sible to make reasonable progress on this score. Some can be done, possibly some more than what has been done already, but we have got to open these schools with a teacher in every classroom, if at all humanly possible. Now, this is just the practical matter of it. We will do the best we can on this score. Let's go on to the next item. Mr. RICH. Well, sir, the point is that the Commissioner does have some requirements, and what we are talking about is maybe 4% of the teachers you would ask to make this move. We know from our own experience, having talked to teachers that some of them have said that if the superintendent, or even the principal, came and said to them, "Will you teach in a school where you would be in the minority racially" that they would say "no," they didn't want to be a trail blazer. They didn't want to stick their necks out. But that if they were assigned to cross racial lines, or teach across racial lines, to teach where their race would be in the minority, that they would be happy, and certainly willing, to accept that assignment. And we would ask that you, obviously, do not select someone who has stated-that obviously do not have to teach-and has stated their opposition to this kind of position. But we think that it would be normal for most teachers to not want to-just as Mr. Penman pointed out earlier, the very individual who is in a bad position to make this move being the one who is asked to change the status quo, so, with teachers there is a reluctance. And we would ask that you, we would advise, and this is certainly up to you as to which teacher you would assign, but it would seem that the teacher who was dedicated to education above all would look on this as an educational challenge and would be willing to accept the assignment. Mr. PAxRI~R. I will repeat what I said before. We are going to do everything we can to go along in this area, and if we get 6 or 8 volunteers, we will be mighty fortunate. We may get as many as 8, Mr. Patrick, before this mess ever came along, before the guidelines ever- Mr. PATRICK (interposing). These people that are teaching are not teaching white and negro schools, the white teacher teaching altogether in negro schools, but she-~--- Mr. PARKER (interposing). Moves to several schools. Mr. Ricui. I understand, sir. Mr. PARKER. All right. We will do the best we can on this score. Let's go on to the next one. Mr. OnaisTix. If you had one math teacher that wanted, I mean, that would go to a colored school, and you are three math teachers short, and you can't find any math teachers, what would you do with the 150 students you had? That's the question I would like to ask. PAGENO="0339" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 685 Mr. PERLMAN. In this situation, sir, would there be a math teacher in the negro school? Mr. CHRISTIE. We have got three-we are short three already. Mr. PERLMAN. You would still be short, if you got a negro teaching in a negro school. Mr. PATRICK. We were talking about that she was in an automobile wreck yesterday, Mr. Christie and I were talking about it, and the negro teacher was in an automobile wreck yesterday, and she will be out until about November. And, therefore, Mr. Daniel is frantic for a teacher, also. Mr. PERLMAN. I thought we were just talking in the abstract. Mr. PARKER. Can't we be frank about just one point and say we will do the best we can about it, and I think we can pretty well get some reasonableness about that, and go on to the next point. Mr. RIcH. Well, I think that is the only other point. But I do think that the Commissioner has set some sort of requirements. He certainly will listen to whatever recommendations, whatever the Board states is the further action that it will take. But as Mr. Patrick has pointed out, the school year is about to begin, and it is not likely that many more changes will occur, and as to the satisfying of the Commissioner's expectations and the over-all picture so far as this district is concerned, they have fallen short in both of the major phases and he is faced with a situation where it's expected that the situation will be r~solved for the coming year. We are faced with a situation where it doesn't look like it is going to be, and so far as we know, I mean, the steps haven't been taken whereby the teachers have been assigned, and where they have been faced with a situation of teaching or not teaching. G. W. PATRICK, Superintendent, Grij7ln-Spalding Uounty Schools. Subscribed and sworn to before me this 7th day of December, 1966. 3. C. WEBB, Notary Pnblic. My Commission Expires Mar. 6, 1970. (The following excerpts are taken from the official records of the Meeting of the Griffin-Spalding County Board of Education on August 11, 1966, referred to on page 1 of Exhibit "A".) EXHIBIT "I": BY-PASSING LOCAL SCHOOL OnrIcALs, ETC. Mr. PERLMAN. My only purpose in coming into the comunity is to find out the reasons that negro students have chosen or not chosen to attend a white school. And I only think once did I have to make it clear to ~omebody that I was not there to suggest which school he was going to attend. I was only there for the purpose to see the particular reasons why the number of students who chose to attend the former-the number was not higher or lower-so we can make a sug- gestion to the Board when we met with it. Now, in this particular-well, I would not be the person who wa1s in Griffin-Spalding-I have been in neighboring com- munities. But there were members of our team talking to members of the community, and the only purpose is to see if this is the type of community where this additional transfer period would be advisable in the community, the reasons why negro students have failed to choose a white school would make it ~uch that this would not be the advisable recommendation. In this case where you have a community where negro students don't want to be the trail blazers, which is a perfectly human trait, we feel this type of plan, this amendment, is perfectly adapted to this type of situation. Mr. PARKER. I pointed out briefly in my opening statement that I made, some of the things that we have done about talking to our white and negro leaders. We had this room full of negro leaders before this thing was ever started, tell- ing them what we proposed to do, asking their suggestions and their help and support. And we have had it. And I pointed out, also, in this statement, we had not the first incident of any kind whatsoever when we put 60 some odd negro students in white schools for the first time. Not the first incident did we have. Now, I have had literally hundreds of negro and white people to come to my office and tell me about how the thing was handled in this county, and PAGENO="0340" 686 ILS. OFFICE OF EDUCATION how proud they were of the fact that it was proven. It was a community concerted effort that this thing could be done in an orderly fashion, and that we are just boiling mad that we get penalized for the tremendous effort that we put on it, when we should ;have,-the many hours that we put on it, when we could better have been doing something else we would have been paid for, and then to have somebody `way off at a distance try to penalize us for saying that we hadn't made an honest effort, we hadn't made enough progress,-we don't like it. G. W. PATRICK, Superintendent, Griffin-Spalding County Sc/tools. Subscribed and sworn to before me this 7th day of December, 1966. J. C. WEnB, Notary Public, Georgia, State at Large. My Commission Expires Mar. 6, 1970. EXHIBIT `J": CLOSED MEETINGS, ETC. Mr. E. M. Rountree, County School Superintendent, Telfair County opened meeting by introducing Board Members and presented the following people: Dr. Frank Mann, Chairman of Board Mr. Barclay Williams, Board Member Mr. Rob Stanley, Board Member Mr. Z. T. Wooten, Board Member Mr. Billy Walker, Board Attorney Mr. Joe Smith, Principal of Telfair County High School Mr. Marvin Dixon, Coordinator, Title I, Telfair Co. Board of Ed. Mr. Howard Purdue, Foreman of Grand Jury presently in session Mr. Jeff Smith, Past president, McRae-Helena PTA Mr. Foster Poore, President, McRae-Helena PTA Mr. Dave Billings, President, Roydon Wear, Past president PTA Mr. Murphy McRae, President, Chamber of Commerce Mr. Rountree-"We had a two hour discussion with these people Tuesday afternoon, July 26, 1966, and they had two major points they wish to present to us. They went through the ramifications of the guidelines and meaning of it, so I'll turn the meeting over to them to discuss it, and we will begin ques- tioning." Mr. Hazel-"Mr. Rountree do you feel sir that in a business like this we are discussing the school boards problems and situations that we should have peo- ple here that are not members of the board." Mr. Rountree-"Board meetings are always wide open Mr. Hazel by law, and we wanted some of our patrons to know what we are facing because this matter has to be brought to the public, and these people represent various organiza- tions and this is not what we call an open meeting at all." Mr. Rich-"I believe I called you earlier and talked to Mr. Dixon and made it clear that since we expected to get down to brass tacks that we did not ex- pect any members of the press or members of the public to be present, and I think we made our position clear the other evening." Mr. Rountree-"That we would not have press representatives". i~ir. Rich-"ArLd members of the public and we stated that pretty clearly the other day, I sought." Mr. Rountree-"You just don't want the public to know what we are required to do?" Mr. Rich-"No, I think we made it clear that you could certainly speak to members of the public afterwards, but we felt a meeting itself should remain confidential, because when we are discussing these matters, we are supposed to keep it between the board and us." Mr. Rountree-"Mr. Rich, since it is your word against mine and you tried to prove me out a lie about what Mr. Kruger said-I think we need somebody to up- hold and support us; Mr. Barclay Williams, what did i~Ir. Kruger say about a faculty member who refused to transfer?" Mr. Williams-"He said, fire him." Mr. Rountree-"Mr. Rich, you said he didn't say it, didn't you ?" Mr. Rich-"I said I didn't believe he said it-I don't think we need to get on that." PAGENO="0341" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 687 Mr. Rountree-"Since you think I was lying about it, I think we need some kind of support because you don't have any confidence in me." Mr. Rich-"Well sir, what we are talking about here is we are certainly happy to meet with you and your board, and that's what we said the other day, and with school officials of the school system, but we are not authorized to discuss this sort of business with the members of the public at large, and we feel that this is an advantage to you as well as to us, plus the fact that of course, as we made it clear, we don't expect `this tape recording to go outside the school officials, but we also made it clear that you certainly could talk to the newspapers, and tell them what you wanted to' and we didn't restrict you. We restricted our- selves, and we `discussed this about half an hour th'e other day, and called you up to remind you." Mr. Rountree-"We told you we were recording this for our own purposes, and we were not going to release it to the press." Mr. Billy Walker-"Mr. Rountree has just not invi'ted people at random off the streets for the sake of having someone here, only people whom he feels should be here-he has a position a's other members of the Board of Education, quite re- sponsible, and they need the support of the community and couaty, otherwise their programs are hopeless; they cannot achieve their purposes and it is quite difficult to tell the people of this county and McRae and this `school system that we must do this in order to comply with this or that. On the other hand, we have a group of people here who hold position's in other organizations that will be interested in issues that will come up here. It makes it somewhat easier to them; they are not trying to shift the burden, but they are trying to get in posi- tion whereby they can substantiate whatever position they mu'st take at the con- ference. Mr. Rounree is not `trying to deter you in any way, but this is aid to the purpose. That's the whole matter." Mr. Purdue, Foreman of Grand Jury in session at this time stated that they had statutes to' support their stand on not opening Grand Jury discussions to the public, and asked Mr. Rich if be had such statutes to support his positiOn. Mr. Rich-"Yes sir, there is something in the guidelines, and there may be." Mr. Purdue-"In the what?" Mr. Rich-"Phe guidelines." Mr. Purdue-"I said in the law" Mr. Rich-"That is part of the" law"-"these were issued under the Civil Rights Act 19G4"-These require that certain matters remain confidential." Mr. W'alker-"Mr. Rich, you can't very well accomplish your purpose by hold- ing `confidential those matters you seek to promote here. The public must know about it." Mr. Rich-"We do not feel that we have been directed to make these matters public on our side." Mr. Williams-"We cannot keep these matters we are going to discuss here to- night confidental under no conditions." Mr. Rich-"We cannot state them to the public-you can go out and talk to `the public afterwards." Mr. Williains-"The Board of Education has nothing to hide." Mr. Rich-"I'm sorry, our director and directive `of the guidelines, which are part of the law, and therefore we try to avoid a discussion such as we are in be- fore the group." Mr. Rountree-"Does your director say that when you come down in a com- munity that you are to contact only the Negro patrons, and not the white pat- rons ?" "Does your director tell you that ?" "To visit only the colored schools and not the white schools." Did you contact anybody except the colored peo- ple?" "Monday when you came into our community, did you contact any white people or white patrons?" "The other day you said you didn't." Mr. Rich-"White patrons-what do you mean?" Mr. Rountree-"Oitizens, the peoplein the county." Mr. Rich-"Other than school officials?" Mr. Rountree-"Anybody, di'd you contact any white people Monday when you were visiting around." Mr. Rich-"We called you ahead of ti'me." Mr. Rountree-"I'm talking about Monday." Mr. Rich-"No, we didn't but we notified you we were coming down." Mr. Walker-"I cannot to save me understand how you can take position that anything could be more public by nature than a matter that concerns the public schools. How could it be.-"These people aren't here to criticize you or to make PAGENO="0342" 688 u.s. OFFICE OF EDUCATION an assault upon you, they are here simply to gain for themselves information, that we wish for them to have, which is to understand your purpose in being here." "They are not here to criticize, they are not here to quiz, you are not going to be subjected to any ridicule." "Now, if we had planned some sort of meeting whereby you would have been brought in here to be humiliated by some method-that would be a different matter, but all these people hold some responsible position, and they are people that the Board of Education needs the support of." "You say that after you leave here that we can discuss the matters with the public, now, you justify your position." Mr. Rich-"We do not expect to work out problems with the public." "Our deliberations on this matter are to remain from the community." Mr. Walker-"Will you discuss those general sections of the guidelines which are at issue here without any particular applicability, and then subsequently perhaps they could leave and then you could discuss particular problems with our school officials in detail." Mr. Rich-"No, we are not authorized to do that-and furthermore the actual deliberations, we are not allowed to conduct in public." Mr. Walker-"We might as well get down to the blunt question." "Will you or will you not meet with the people who are here, and if you will not, the Board of Education will meet with you without them." Mr. Hazel-"We are prohibited from meeting with the public to discuss the affairs of the school district." At this point the gentlemen not directly connected with the school board withdrew from the meeting. I certify that the above statements are verbatim excerpts taken from taped record of the meeting on Friday night, July 29, 1966 in the Grand Jury room of the Telfair County Courthouse with representatives of the Office of Education, James H. Rich, Civil Rights Advisory Specialist; Marion W. Hazel, Program Specialist; William Hermelin, Program Specialist, and a negro woman not identified, and members of the Telfair County Board of Education, the County Attorney, the County School Superintendent, and others included in introduction. Subscribed and sworn to before me this 1st day of December, 1966. Boxxin S. PUCKER, Notarii Public. EXHIBIT "K": INTIMIDATION NEWNAN, GA., October 13, 1966. Mr. JACK ACREE, Georgia School Boards Association, Biltmore Hotel Arcade, Atlanta, Ga. DEAR JACK: The following statement was made by Mr. James Rich, a repre- sentative of the U.S. Department of Education, to Newnan Board of Education on August 13, 1966. The problem concerned the placement of white and colored teachers in schools of the opposite race. Mr. Rich was informed that the Newnan Board of Educa- tion had asked for volunteers and received none. Also that the teachers had threatened to resign if they were assigned to schools of the opposite race. Mr. Rich was asked for a solution to the problem. A summary of his suggestion was as follows: "The teachers are under contract to the Newnan Board of Education and should teach wherever they are assigned. Assignment being the prerogrative of the board as the emplôyer~ Furthermore, if such teachers resigned because of su~h assignment. they should be blacklisted and kept from securing jobs with other systems since teachers with such little dedication to the profession should be driven from the profession and not allowed to teach." JAMES A. BEAVERS, Jr., Member, Newnan Board of Education. This is to certify that the above statement to the best of my knowledge is true and accurate. JAMES A. BEAVERS, Jr. Attest: EDWARD F. ADDISON. ~sTotary Public (Seal). PAGENO="0343" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 689 EXHIBIT "L": ADMINISTRATIVE PRACTICES HENRY COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, A[cDonongh, Ga., November 30, 1f166. Mr. JACK ACREE, Eaecutive Secretary, Georgia School Board Association, Atlanta Biltmore Arcade, Atlanta, Ga. DEAR JACK: I am enclosing three (3) copies of The Henry County Weekly of Thursday, August 18, 1966. If I can locate any more copies I will mail them to you. I would like to explain to you about the letter to 1~fr. Harold Howe II from the Henry County Board of Education. This letter was dated August 16, 1966. I received an answer to this letter which was dated September 29, 1966 and was received in my office on October 5, 1966. I am enclosing a copy of this letter. I had been informed through the State Department of Education that Henry County had been put on the deferred listfor Federal funds.. I was never officially notified when our funds were released. I talked to a member of the State Depart- ment of Education staff and was informed that Henry County had been taken off the deferred list about September 12, 1966. Very truly yours, CHARLES A. WAITS, Jr., Superintendent, Henry County Schools.. GEORGIA, Henry County: I, Charles A. Waits, Jr., Superintendent Henry County Schools, hereby certify and affirm that the facts stated in above letter are true and accurate to the best of my knowledge. CHARLES A. WAITS, Jr., Superintendent, Henry County Schools. Sworn to and subscribed before me this 30th day of November 1966. LUCILE ROWAN, _______ Notary Public. EXHIBIT "M": ADMINISTRATIVE PRACTICES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE, OFFICE OF EDUCATION, Washington, D. C., July 14,1966. DR. PAUL P. WEST, Superintendent, Fulton County Schools, 500 Fulton County Administration Building, Atlanta, Georgia. DEAR Dn. WEST: The report of anticipated student enrollment for the 1966-67 school year submitted by you for the Fulton County School System has been received by this Office. A review of this report indicates that the anticipated enrollment for 1966-67 of Negro students in previously all-white schools falls substantially short of the increased enrollment expected for your free choice plan ,to be considered effective in eliminating the dual school structure. You have reported that in the 1965-66 school year, 13 of your 4,329 Negro students (0.3%) attended school on a desegregated basis and that .for the 1966-67 school year you expect that only 63 of 4,619 Negro students (1.3%) will attend School on a desegregated basis. All of the white students are attending schools originally established for white students only. We do not believe that your desegregation plan, as it has operated thus far, can reasonably be considered* adequate to accomplish the purpose of the Oivil Rights Act. As such, under the Departmental Regulation, the plan would no longer~ provide a basis for continued participation in Federally assisted programs, unless the lack of. adequate progress can be remedied. As you know, the Revised Statement of Policies for School Desegregation Plans Under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 makes the assumption that a voluntary desegregation plan based `on freedom of choice can be a viable means in `the initial stages of desegregation. The Revised Statement of Policies, in Section 181.54, also indicates, however, that if such a plan is used, it must operate fairly and effectively, and that "The single most substantial indication as to whether a free choice plan is actually working to eliminate the dual school structure is the extent to which Negro or other minority group students have in fact transferred from segregated schools." PAGENO="0344" 690 u.s. OFFICE OF EDUCATION The Revised ~taternent of Policies also indicates certain criteria (Sec. 181.54) which will guide the Commissioner of Education in scheduling free choice plans for review due to a lack of effectiveness. These criteria (Sect 181.54) indicate the approximate number of Negro students that should transfer from segregated schools for the 19G6-67 school year if your free choice plan is to be determined as adequate with respect to student desegregation. Before any full compliance review is cOnducted by this Office, however, there are additional steps which the school system itself may take to increase the effectiveness of its free choice plan without abandoning the results obtained by previous efforts. Such additional steps may include the reopening of the free choice period (although if your community does not give the free choice plan more support in the future than it apparently has in the past, giving students and their parents a further opportunity to make a choice of schools would probably be a futile gesture), meetings with parents and civic groups, further arrangements with State or local officials to limit opportunities for intimidation, and other further community preparation. Another method which may he utilized is the amending of the desegregation plan presently in use to include a provision for minority transfer. This type of provision, already applicable to geographic zoning plans, specifies that: "A. school system may (1) permit any student to transfer from a school where students of his race are a majority to any other school, within the system, where students of his race are a minority, or (2) assign students on such a basis." (Section 181.33(b)) If the school system proposes to assign students, the criteria for assignment must be approved by the Commissioner of Education in advance of such assignment. Since the identifiability of schools as being intended for students of a particular race, because of staffing practices such that teachers of a particular race concentrated in those schools where all, or a majority, of the students are of that race, most certainly has an effect on free choice, further faculty and staff desegregation beyond the minimum required by the Revised statement of Policies might be a most practical means of achieving additional student desegregation. Should the Commissioner conclude that a free choice plan is not operating fairly, or is not effective to meet constitutional and statutory requirements, he will require substantial further changes in staffing patterns to eliminate such identifiability, in addition to such others steps as he may require to further desegregation. In addition, Section 181.11 of the Revised Sftaternent of Policies describes other types of desegregation plans that a school system might implement in order to carry out its responsibility to eliminate the dual school system and all other forms of discrimination as expeditiously as possible. Other plans which may be acceptable include the closing of schools which were established for children of one race, and assigning all teachers and students to desegregated schools, the reorganization of grade structures so that schools are fully utilized, on a desegregated basis, although each school contains fewer grades, or the establishment of non-racial attendance zones. If the Commissioner concludes that further steps taken under a free choice plan have failed to remedy the defects in the existing free choice plan, he may require the adoption of a dif- ferent type of desegregation plan, such as those described above. Please inform us within the next 10 (ten) days of~ additional steps which you feel may be profitably undertaken in your school district. Measures volun- tarily taken now which produce a significant increase in minority transfers may make further review of the operation of your district's plan for 196&-67 unnecessary. If any administrative procedure of the types suggested, or others, would modify your existing desegregation plan, as amended by the 1966 Revised ~tatenwnt of Policies, approval as a plan amendment should be secured from the Commissioner of Education before the procedure is implemented. My staff is prepared to assist you in any way we can, so please do not hesitate to contact us. Sincerely yours, W. STANLEY KRUGER, Director, Area II (Ca., Fla., S.C.), Equal Educational Opportunities Program. PAGENO="0345" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 691 EXHIBIT "N": ARBITRARY JUDGMENTS RE PUPIL TRANSFERS RECOMMENDED AMENDED PLAN FOR TELFAIR Cou~vry BOARD OF EDUCATION FOR THE 1966-6-7 SCHOOL YEAR I. STUDENTS 1) All Negro and white first grade students of the two Milan Elementary Schools (one Negro and one white) shall attend classes together. All second grade students of the two Milan Elementary Schools shall attend classes together. 2) All white and Negro first and second grade students at the two Lumber City Elementary Schools shall attend class together. 3) All white and Negro first and second grade students at Central Elementary and at Telfair County Elementary Schools sl~ll attend classes together. In all of these cases, there will be total desegregation of each and every classroom. II. FACULTY 1) There shall be a total of at least nine teachers teaching in schools where their race is in the minority in the schools mentioned above, with no more than four (if only nine switch) teachers crossing racial lines in any one of the schools. 2) All of these teachers must be full-time classroom teachers. 3) At least four of these must be white teachers, teaching in a Negro school. 4) The assignment of teams of teachers is suggested. III. TRANSPORTATION As the guidelines state, all students will be provided with transportation to the nearest formerly white or Negro school, whichever they have chosen to attend or whichever school they are assigned to under this recommended amended plan. 1) Monitors will be provided to see that students are permitted to wait for buses (wherever necessary because the student (s) rides more than one bus) within local business establishments at the pick-up points, and that no incidents occur on the buses. 2) Where buses pass by a student's house and his school, they will pick him up and drop him at the school, at an entrance to the school. This plan is a package plan, with the approval by the Board of all parts necessary for recommendation to the Commissioner of Education. The Office of Education stands ready to offer further assistance wherever it can on any matters pertaining to the operation of the Telfair County desegrega- tion plan, and hopes that voluntary compliance will be achieved. EXHIBIT "0": ARBITRARY JUDGEMENTS RE PUPIL TRANSFERS RECOMMENDED AMENDED DESEGREGATION PLAN FOR THE HENRY COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION FOE THE SCHOOL YEAR 1966-6-7 ~Students: All 1st and 2nd grade students residing in the McDonough area shall attend the Henry County Training School. All 3rd grade students in this area shall attend the MeDonough Elementary School. All 1st and 2nd grade students residing in the Stockbridge area shall attend the Stockbridge Elementary School. All -3rd grade elementary -school children in this area shall attend the Smith- Barnes Elementary School.- All students who reside in the Hampton area iii the 1st grade shall attend the Hampton Rosenwald School. All students in this area in the 2nd and 3rd grade shall attend the Hampton Elementary School. In each case, all 3 grades are interchangeable, that is, 1st & 3rd or 2nd and 3rd may be substituted -for 1st and 2nd grade. All other choices shall be- honored. Faculty There shall be at least 11 teachers, full-time classroom teachers at one school, with at least one in each of the 8 schools in McDonough, Stockbridge, and Hampton. - PAGENO="0346" 692 U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION The Board is asked to submit whatever proposal it adopts to the Commissioner, who will make the final determination of the acceptability of the Henry County plan. /s/ JAMES H. RIcH. August 12, 1966. EXHIBIT "P": ARBITRARY JUDGMENTS RE PUPIL TRANSFERS SUGGESTED AMENDED DESEGREGATION PLAN FOE THE JONES COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION FOR THE SCHOOL YEAR 1966-67 Students: A. All first & second grades will be zoned, that is, geographic zones will be established around all the elementary schools in the district for the first & second grades. B. All first grade students residing in the Gray area shall attend the Maggie Calif School. (All those students may attend the Jones County Elementary School instead.) All second grade students residing in the Gray area shall attend the Jones County Elementary School (all these students may attend the Maggie Calif School instead). C. Whichever of those alternatives is adopted, all other choices shall be honored. Faculty: Either there shall be at least one full-time classroom teacher teaching iii a single school & in which he is of the minority race in the faculty of that school in each of the schools in the system or the same number of teachers shall be teaching in at least four of the schools in the system. (Each teacher shall teach full-time in one school only.) JAMES H. RICH. August 12, 1966. Mrs. GREEN. May I. call on Mr. Brewer, from the Tennessee School Boards Association. STATEMENT OP JULIAN BREWER, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, TENNESSEE SChOOL BOARDS ASSOCIATION Mr. BREWER. Madam Chairman, members of the subcommittee, we are pleased to have the opportunity to make a presentation of our views on Federal administration of various acts. I will not read all of my statement, in view of your crowded schedule. Resolutions of prior years by the Tennessee School Boards Asso- ciation advocated broad Federal support for education, without Fed- eral control. This was also the accepted goal of the various educa- tional professional organizations in the State of Tennessee. Furthermore, the accepted goal was that this type of general support should be on an equalizing basis; that is, greater amounts of Federal support per pupil should go to States of low wealth, sumlar to many State aid or foundation programs. The dissatisfaction with the various categorical grants of recent years prompted school board members in Tennessee to approve res- olutions expressing concern and disagreement with recent Federal legislation. Excerpts from resolutions passed by the most recent convention of the Tennessee School Boards Association indicate the following points of view: 1. That future Federal legislation affecting either elementary or secondary schools should be enacted only after considerable consulta- tion with local and State boards, superintendents, and their selected personnel. PAGENO="0347" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 693 2. That the U.S. Congress and the U.S. Office of Education be urged to consult with local and State boards and their adminis- trators in adopting guidelines for implementation of existing legis- lation. 3. That categorical aid programs are a threat to the control of edu- cation at the State and local level. Categorical aid programs are fragmented and piecemeal in nature. Most categorical programs do not reflect priorities determined at the local and Sta;te level: That it would be desirable to reexamine the present types of categorical grants and work toward changing Federal policy to provide a general type of aid to be distributed through the State departments of education in accordance with a State foundation plan developed by local boards, administrators, and State departments and approved by the U.S. Office of Education. 4. That Federal funds should flow from the U.S. Office of Educa- tion to State departments to locaJ education agencies. 5. That leadership be provided for the encouragement of further study of the proper roles of the local, State, and Federal Government in public education. 6. That at least equal weight be given to educational excellence, as well as the promotion of socioeconomic goals and ideals. 7. That it would be desirable to know that various guidelines pre- pared by Federal agencies are in keeping with the intent of the Congress. 8. That provisions be included to provide for judicial review of legislation. These concerns were also expressed by consensus statements de- veloped in table discussions in a series of nine conferences held jointly by the Tennessee Education Association, the Congress of Parents and Teachers, and the Tennessee School Boards Association. The debate and discussion on the control of education has stimulated considerable evaluation of local and State efforts in meeting responsi- bilities for education. Most are willing to admit that we have not measured up to our educational responsibilities in many areas, for various reasons, such as lack of finances, lack of understanding, un- willingness to deal with issues, and other reasons. This, no doubt, is a worthwhile outcome of the debate. Most educators in Tennessee now accept the fact that Federal in- volvement in education, at all levels, is here to stay, and that it is likely to increase; if so, other questions quickly follow. What will be the nature of the involvement, and how is it to be managed? Is there anyone to speak for the States as a whole? Does the Federal Government speak with one voice? In general, how is the partnership to be implemented? Partners are supposed to have intimate and constant communica- tion, and each is to have influence upon the other. It appears to many that where previous programs were organized to provide fiscal support for programs determined in the States, we* are now engaged in pro- grams written in Washington and determined to be good for the States. The Headstart program is an example of this. The point is not whether the program is good or bad, but that it was not determined or recommended by the States. PAGENO="0348" 694 U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION This indicates a trend, if continued, of Federal establishment of programs within the States, rather than Federal support for the States' programs. This trend toward program writing in Washington should he re- versed. Federal involvement should be largely financial, in support of State plans made in States independently, and these plans should be controlled by the Federal Government only within broad policy objectives. The States would become true partners in the enterprise, not ap- plicants for participation in new programs about which they were not consulted. A Tennessee superintendent recently stated: Categorical aid may have been necessary in the beginning to by-pass the historical roadblocks of church-school and segregation issues. Is there a chance that this type of aid may continue because the philosophy of those who initiate legislation deem it desirable? Perhaps too many are naively assuming a happy marriage between Federal assistance and local administration of the money made available. Just as marriage has been defined as a compromise, the compromise intelligence makes with nature, perhaps with Federal aid we made a compromise between what was urgent and what was important. On the question of philosophy, the U.S. Commissioner of Educa- tion, Harold Howell, who, in a publication entitled "Education 1965: A Report to the Profession," said: The 88th and 89th Congresses, responding to the desires of the people, enacted laws enabling the Federal Government to take its place in the local-State-national educational partnership-toward this end, the Congress has enacted 24 major pieces of education legislation in the past three years. These new laws are channels through which billions of Federal tax dollars will go into our elementary schools, vocational schools, colleges, and universities. But this money is not simply handed out in the pious hope that it will be put to good use. Each of the education laws is quite specific. Categories and condi- tions of aid have been established to insure that these funds are spent in an efficient and prudent manner. Dr. Eric Lindman, writing in the September issue of the School Administrator, states that: This new federalism in education rests upon four rather clear premises: First, it assumes that State and local school leaders, including State legisla- tors and local boards of education, will not spend Federal funds prudently and in the national interest without specific Federal direction. Second, it assumes that a series of Federal categorical aids for selected serv- ices or programs, with accompanying guidelines, audits, and reports, will result in better local school management. Third, it assumes that public schools throughout the nation have uniform strengths and weaknesses which can be remedied by categorical aids applied uniformiy throughout the nation. Fourth, it assumes that State and local tax sources will provide in the remain- ing. 90 percent of the school budget the funds needed to improve existing pro- grams and services. These conflicts suggest a reexamination. For this examination, each partner should look at the problem through the eyes of the other partner. Perhaps, if this were achieved, the word "improvement" would become more significant than the word "innovation," and ele- ment.ary and secondary aid to give every child the opportunity to develop according to his potential would become a reality. I have some additional statements, and two or three letters from one particular board of education, which I won't read at this time, in the PAGENO="0349" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 695 interest of others that want to speak, which are self-explanatory, I think, in my prepared statement. (Mr. Brewer's prepared statement follows:) STATEMENT OF JULIAN BREWER, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, TENNESSEE SCHOOL BOARDS ASSOCIATION Resolutions of prior years by the Tennessee School Boards Association advo- cated broad federal support for education without federal control. This was also the accepted goal of the various educational professional organizations in the State of Tennessee. Furthermore, the accepted goal was that this type of general support should be on an equalizing basis, that is, greater amounts of federal support per pupil should go to states of low wealth, similar to many state-aid or foundation programs. The dissatisfaction with the various categorical grants of recent years prompted school board members in Tennessee to approve resolutions expressing concern and disagreement with recent federal legislation. Excerpts from resolutions passed by the most recent convention of the Tennessee School Boards Association indi- cate the following points of view: 1. That future federal legislation affecting either elementary or secondary schools should be enacted only after considerable consultation with local and state boards, superintendents, and their selected personnel. 2. That the United States Congress and the United States Office of Educa- tion be urged to consult with local and state boards and their administrators in adopting guidelines for implementation of existing legislation. 3. That categorical aid programs are a threat to the control of education at the state and local level; Categorical aid programs are fragmented and piecemeal in nature. Most categorical programs do not reflect priorities determined at the local and state level: That it would be desirable to re-examine the present types of categorical grants and work toward changing federal policy to provide a general type of aid to be distributed through the State De- partments of Education in accordance with a state foundation plan developed by local boards, administrators, and state departments and approved by the U.S. Office of Education. 4. That federal funds should flow from the U.S. Office of Education to state departments to local education agencies. 5. That leadership be provided for the encouragement of further study of the proper roles of the local, state, and federal government in public education. 6. That at least equal weight be given to educational excellence, as well as the promotion of socio-economic goals and ideals. 7. That it would be desirable to know that various guidelines prepared by federal agencies are in keeping with the intent of the Congress. 8. That provisions be included to provide for judicial review of legislation. These concerns were also expressed by consensus statements developed in table discussions in a series of nine conferences held jointly by the Tennessee Educa- tion Association, the Congress of Parents and Teachers, and the Tennessee School Boards Association. The debate and discussion on the control of education has stimulated consid- erable evaluation of local and state efforts in meeting responsibilities for educa- tion. Most are willing to admit that we have not measured up to our educational responsibilities in many areas for various reasons such as lack of finances lack of understanding, unwillingness to deal with issues, and other reasons. This, no doubt, is a worthwhile outcome of the debate. Most educators in Tennessee now accept the fact that federal involvement in education, at all levels, is here to stay and that it is likely to increase, if so, other questions quickly follow. What will be the nature of the involvement and how is it to be managed? Is there anyoneto speak for the states as a whole? Does the federal government speak with one voice? In general, how is the partnership to be implemented? Partners are supposed to have intimate and constant communications and each is to have influence upon the other. It appears to many that where previous pro- grams were organized to provide fiscal support for programs determined in the PAGENO="0350" 696 U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION states, we are now engaged in programs written in Washington and determined to be good for the states. The Head Start Program is an example of this, the point is not whether the program is good or bad, but that it was not determined or recommended by the states. This indicates a trend, if continued, of federal establishment of programs within the states rather than federal support for the state's program. This trend toward program writing in Washington should be reversed, federal involvement should be largely financial, in support of state plans made in states independently, and these plans should be controlled by the federal government only within broad policy objectives. The states would become true partners in the enterprise, not applicants for participation in new programs about which they were not consulted. A Tennessee superintendent recently stated-"Categorical Aid may have been necessary in the beginning to by-pass the historical roadblocks of church-school and segregation issues. Is there a chance that this type of aid may continue because the philosophy of those who initiate legislation deem it desirable? "Perhaps too many are naively assuming a happy marriage between federal assistance and local administration of the money made available. Just as mar- riage has been defined as a compromise, the compromise intelligence makes with nature, perhaps with federal aid we made a compromise between what wa~ urgent and what was important." On the question of philosophy, the U.S. Commissioner of Education, Harold Howe II, who, in a publication entitled Education 1965: A Report to the Pro- fession, said: "The 88th and 89th Congresses, responding to the desires of the people, enacted laws enabling the federal government to take its place in the local- state-national educational partnership-toward this end, the Congress has en- acted 24 major pieces of education legislation in the past 3 years. These new laws are channels through which billions of federal tax dollars will go into our elementary schools, vocational schools, colleges and universities. "But this money is not simply handed out in the pious hope that it will be put to good use. Each of the education laws is quite specific. Categories and conditions of aid have been established to insure that these funds are spent in an efficient and prudent manner." Dr. Eric Lindman, writing in the September issue of the School Administrator, states that-"this new federalism in education rests upon four rather clear premises: "First, it assumes that state and local school leaders, including state legislators and local boards of education, will not spend federal funds pru- dently and in the national interest without specific federal direction. "Second, it assumes that a series of federal categorical aids for selected services or programs, with accompanying guidelines, audits, and reports, will result in better local school management. "Third, it assumes that public schools throughout the nation have uni- form strengths and weaknesses which can be remedied by categorical aids applied uniformly throughout the nation. "Fourth, it assumes that state and local tax sources will provide in the remaining 90 per cent of the school budget of the funds needed to improve existing programs and services." These conflicts suggest a re-examination. For this examination, each partner should look at the problem through the eyes of the other partner. Perhaps, if this were achieved, the word "improvement" would become more significant than the word "innovation, and elementary and secondary aid to give every child the opportunity to develop according to his potential would become a reality. In conclusion, I would like to make a few general statements pertaining to the administration of various federal programs and the U.S. Office Guidelines for complying with the Civil Rights Act. It would be helpful if we could have some idea of funds available at the time budgets are being prepared for presentation to Boards of Education. It is rather difficult to recommend a desirable intelligent program in April which is going to make use of an undetermined amount of money which may be avail- able in August. Fiscal years of the federal government and state and local agencies are dif- ferent, which creates some problems. In general, school systems don't have the personnel to keep up-to-date on what is available much less prepare necessary applications for obtaining aid. PAGENO="0351" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 697 The paper work, etc., is involving too much time and some administrators are neglecting other tasks to prepare and administer projects under various legis- lation. Numerous conflicts have developed between local education agencies and OEO officials, especially in the development and administration of the Head Start Program. I am including statements from officials in Coffee County relative to their experiences and beliefs about Head Start. Superintendents over the State feel that they have experienced a certain amount of unfair pressure brought about by articles in magazines, newspaper releases, and speeches made by various officials. As to complying with Civil Rights Act of 1964-many school boards have the following concerns: 1. Are the requirements of the guidelines in keeping with exact intent of Congress? 2. Clearer definitions should. be provided for many terms such as desegrega- tion, discrimination, dual systems, etc. 3. In many cases, USOE officials have changed requirements, interpretations, instructions, and opinions from week to week. 4. The inability of school officials to secure from USOE officials timely and pertinent information in writing. 5. In several school systems of West Tennessee during the month of August. one or two weeks prior to the opening of school, local school officials were told that Freedom of ChOice Plans were ineffective, therefore, it would be necessary to pair certain schools, close certain schools, or to close a few grades in some schools. At any rate, these demands, in fairness to local officials, should have been made weeks in advance of school opening dates. COFFEE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, Manchester, Tenn., December 5, 1966. Mr. JULIAN BREWER, E~recutive Secretary, Tennessee School Boards Association, Nashville, Tenn. DEAR MR. BREWER: Enclosed you will find an article which was approved in the local newspaper the day after Dr. Evans, Clyde Evans, and myself talked with Robert Moore, of the Atlanta Regional OEO office, via a three-way tele- phone hookup. Neither of us had talked with the news media concerning the conversation and as you can see in the article there are quotations from each of us. This article is almost word for word the conversation which was carried out on the three-way hookup. At this time they were trying to get one "Head Start" program for the entire county which consist of three school systems. Enclosed also you will find a copy of a letter which was written to a person who is doing a paper, in a course in Public School Administration at MTSU, on the effects of OEO Programs at the local level. The chairman of our board wrote her this letter, which sums up our feeling toward Federal programs which do not oome through the proper channels. I hope this information will help you get across to the Congressional Sub- Committee some of the things which are happening to us at the local level with respect to Federal programs. Sincerely yours, JAMES G. JARRELL, Snperintendent, Coffee Connty Schools. [From the Manchester Times, May 13, 1966] "HEADSTART" PROGRAM FOR COFFEE Is URGED The Federal Office of Economic Opportunity has proposed that school systems of Tullahoma, Manchester and Coffee Counties operate a consolidated "Head- start" kindergarten program for children of low-income families this summer. PAGENO="0352" 698 U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION The proposal by Robert Moore, of the OEO office in Atlanta, provides for a total budget of $40,9G2 in Federal funds for one center in Tullahoma, one in Man- chester and six in the rural areas of Coffee County. Coffee County, which participated in the "Headstart" program last summer, and Manchester have filed separate applications for programs this year. Coffee County has asked $32,724 in Federal funds and Manchester has asked $9,400. However, James G. Jarrell, superintendent of Coffee County schools, and Clyde Evans, superintendent of Manchester schools, said they would not object to a consolidated program if details can be worked out. WON'T PARTICIPATE Dr. Ralph Evans, superintendent of Tullahoma schools, said the Tullahoma School Board considered the program when it was started last year and decided against participation. He indicated that the board's position has not changed, and that Tullahoma will not participate this year. Dr. Evans said the Tullahoma School Board decided against participation last year because a preliminary application of eligibility rules indicated a very small number of children would be involved. He said he informed Mr. Moore that the Tullahoma School Board had not expressed an interest in the kindergarten program. "We feel a responsibility to examine all these programs as they are presented and see which would be of benefit to us," Dr. Evans said. "We participate in many Federal programs, but it was not felt that `Headstart' would be of great benefit at this time. We feel we have an obligation as sitizens to turn down any program unless we can wisely spend the dollars-even thOugh they are Fed- eral dollars." He said Tullahoma has a few children eligible to attend the kindergarten, and that these could attend centers at Jones Elementary School or Hickerson Station School. ESTIMATE "TOO HIGH" Dr. Evans said an OEO estimate that 60 children in Tullahoma would be eli- gible is "entirely too high." He pointed out that the largest first-grade class is at Bel-Aire School, where only eight Would have been eligible for "Headstart" classes. Coffee County's application is based on an estimated enrollment of 192 children, and Manchester's is based on about 50 children. In a telephone conversation recently with the three superintendents, Mr. Moore pointed out that a jointly-administered program would ~e more economi- cal because it would eliminate duplication in administration. Mr. Moore's proposal calls for one director, eight head teachers, eight teachers, 20 teachers' aides, eight cooks, one dietician, one bookkeeper, one transportation supervisor and one maintenance supervisor. TO PROVIDE BUILDINGS The school systems' contributions to the program would be to provide buildings for the centers. Supt. Clyde Evans and Supt. Jarrell said they had no objections to a combined program if the details could be worked out. "I don't know whether it would be possible," the Manchester city superin- tendent said. "If some school system with transportation a~bi1ity and centers wanted to take it over, it might do well. We have no transportation potential and couldn't do it." Supt. Jarrell noted the time involved in the job of administering the program in the county system last year and felt that each system should be free to make its own determination. "I feel this ought to be left up to the individual school system whether it wanted to participate or combine," he said. "I know I can only speak for my system. It might be all right to combine the programs if the problems could be worked out through the board of education. I certainly wouldn't want to administer the city's program, but we might let them run ours." Both superintendents said they did not know what might come of the pro- posal to com,bine the programs but were awaiting word on their fund applications. PAGENO="0353" U~S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 699 DECEMBER 1, 1966. Mrs. SARAH BENET, Murfreesboro Tenn DEAR Mns. BERET: In a special session on November 8, 1965, the Coffee County Board of Education unanimously adopted the following policy: "The Coffee County Board of Education will consider conducting or making their facilities available only, for those programs which come through the State Department of Education, or those initiated by the Coffee County Board of Education." We feel that the local Board of Education should be permitted to perform the following functions with regard to any program for which it is to be held responsible. 1. Determine which programs, within the guidelines handed down from the Federal and State levels are suitable for the people who come under our jurisdiction. 2. Develop the program and a budget to carry out said program. 3. Set up employment standards and employ all personnel to carry out program. 4. Maintain all personnel and financial records which meets with the approval of the "Internal Accounting Code." 5. Carry out periodic evaluations to determine whether or not program is doing what it was designed to accomplish. OEO Programs which come through Community Action Agencies do not permit many of the things which we have listed above. Some of our experiences and guidelines of OEO are as follows: 1. We have been told by authorities, the Regional OEO Office in Atlanta, that we have no choice as to the programs we will conduct at the local level. 2. The guidelines under which you develop your program are changed one week after the program has begun. 3. They withheld our "Head Start" funds because we refused to partici- pate in a companion program called "Home Start." 4. The guidelines state clearly that a citizens advisory committee will select the "Head Start" director. 5. The guidelines state that one-half of Teacher Aides shall be parents of target children. 6. They ask you to submit a budget for your program which they change in the Regional Office in Atlanta. We could list others but we think the above is more than enough to justify the action which our Board has taken. Sincerely yours, CLYDE WooTEN, Ukairman, Coffee County Board of Education. Mrs. GREEN. Thank you very much, Mr. Brewer. I think I will withhold any questions until we hear from the other people on the panel. Mr. McLaurin, from South Carolina. STATEMENT OP J~OHN N. MeLAURIN, SR., REPRESENTING SEVERAL STATE SCHOOL BOARD ASSOCIATIONS Mr. MCLAURIN. You notice, I have a very short statement. Our executive director happened to be in the hospital. Our vice president found out at the last minute he could not attend, so I am the goat today, appearing for them. I am also appearing in the capacity of chairman of a representative group from several State school board associations. At a recent meeting of these representatives in Atlanta, Ga., on November 2, I was authorized to appear before the special congres- sional subcommittee if and when hearings were scheduled. 73-728-67-pt. 2-23 PAGENO="0354" 700 U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION I wish to express my appreciation to the members of this subcom- mittee for providing me with this opportunity to appear. The primary purpose of State school boards associations is to assist local boards of education with common problems. The policies of each State association dictate a positive and constructive approach to those common problems to which the association addresses itself. In no instance does an individual association, or combination of associations, propose to engage in artivities of an evasive or negative nature. IRepresentatives of the associations meeting in Atlanta unanimously concluded that a cooperative course of action should be carefully for- mulated by the associations in developing good relations with the U.S. Office of Education, and with other Federal agencies affecting the op- eration and administration of our public schools. The following objectives appeared to command the immediate in- terest of these associations: (1) The preservation of local and State control in the operation and administration of our public schools. (2) A clarification of the intent and the legal limitations of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 with regard to school desegregation. (3) The promulgation of policies and guides for the implementation of proper legal interpretations of the 1964 Civil Rights Act which are in keeping with the law. (4) The administration and implementation of policies and guide- lines by representatives of HEW and other Federal agencies who are qualified both by training and experience to work with State and local school officials in a highly professional, ethical, and constructive manner. This coordinated approach by the several State associations was deemed advisable due to the following policies and practices of certain Federal representatives: Inability of State and local school officials to secure from hEW and other Federal officials timely and pertinent information in writing. Instructions, interpretations, and suggestions from HEW and other Federal representatives which have been inconsistent, vague, and thus most confusing. People assigned by the Office of HEW to work with local school of- ficials who have proven inefficient and ineffective. The practice of many HEW representatives in bypassing local school officials and securing fragmented information and unfounded opinions upon which to base judgments with regard to the degree of compliance of local school officials with HEW guidelines. The development of a state of uncertainty and suspicion by some Federa.l representatives in their relations with State and local educa- tion officials. In conclusion, I respectfully request that the members of this coin- mittee and other Members of Congress take necessary action to clarify- the provisions and intent of all Federal legislation concerning public education. Thank you. Mrs. GREEN. Thank you very much. And now may we hear from Mr. Bement, from the Kentucky School Boards Association. PAGENO="0355" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 701 STATEMENT OP MAURICE D. BRMENT, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, KENTUcKY SCiIOOLBOARDS ASSOCIATION Mr. BEMENT. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Members of the committee, I am Maurice Bement, the executive di- rector of the Kentucky School Boards Association. We would like to say that we really express our appreciation to you for giving us this opportunity, aiid also we want to express to the Con- gress through you the appreciation of the Kentucky School Boards Association and its 200 local school district facilities for the renewed interest and concern of the Congress in public education in this country. We feel that recent Federal support programs are helping Kentucky local school districts to provide new and improved educational oppor- tunities to the children and youth of our State. Our association, through Kentucky Members of the Congress, sup- ported Public Law 89-10. We did so with the understanding that the Federal Government would not exercise unreasonable or arbitrary con- trols. We did so after reviewing section 604 of the 89-10 act-and, Madam Chairman, you have already quoted it this morning-which states: Nothing contained in this Act shall be construed to authorize any depart- ment, agency, officer, or employee of the United States to exercise any direction, supervision, or control over the curriculum, program of instruction, adminis- tration, or personnel of any educational institution or school system, or over the selection of library resources or printed or published instructional materials by any educational institution or school system. After a review of experiences of our State education agency and our local school districts in the administration of programs under Public Law 89-10, we raise a question as to whether all departments, agencies, officers, and employees `of the United States have acted in compliance with section 604 of the act. This association has accepted the philosophy as reflected in this statement: American education-a local function, a State responsibility., and a Federal concern. Acceptance has also been given to the junior partner role of the Federal Government in the development of education programs under appropriate Federal-State-local relations. In considering the three partners, it must be understood and ac- cepted that the Federal Government is farthest removed from the classroom where teaching and learning take place. The Federal Gov- erument is least able to plan and provide for the specific needs of certain communities, schools, and children. If we are to strengthen State and local education agencies and if we are to plan for specific education programs to meet the needs of specific schools and children, then we must reassess the Federal grant pro- grams which employ a fiscal mechanism of control and administration. In order to make the best use of the Federal, State, and local tax dollar, to efficiently coordinate all education programs where teaching and learning occur, and to preserve State and local control of educa- tion, we respectfully present, for the consideration of the Congress, the following criteria: PAGENO="0356" 702 u.s. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 1. General Federal support to education should be made to the States under a basic foundation program principle determined on the basis of need and ability of the States. 2. General Federal aid to elementary and secondary education should be available to all pupils and programs, without discrimination, as determined by State and local plans for improving educational opportunity. 3. Federal funds for education should be made to State governments to be allocated to local school districts by the States in accordance with State plans. 4. Federal funds should be made available to the States, to be al- located to local school districts, for the purpose of school construction. 5. Federal funding should be made known and available to the States in time to permit proper planning in order to insure efficient use of all available funds. Any expenditure of funds without plan- ning and without the properly trained personnel can lead to waste. Our educational needs cannot justify waste. 6. Accounting and auditing procedures of Federal funds made available to the States should be in accordance with procedures re- quired by the States. Separate accounting procedures should not be superimposed on State requirements for local accountability of State and local fimds. 7. The administration of all Federal funds for all educational pro- grams should be centered in the U.S. Office of Education at the Fed- eral level, in the State education agency at the State level, and in the local education agency at the local level. 8. Federal controls of funds made available to education programs in the States, by the Congress, should be restricted to a determination of basic intended use by the State education agencies. 9. Guidelines developed by the U.S. Office of Education should be observed as guidelines, and such guidelines should not be viewed and `administered as regulations. Should the Federal Government observe these basic principles, and manifest a respect for the ability and sincerity of the administrators of State and local education agencies, we believe a more effective partnership can be developed for improving educational opportu- nities for all the children and youth of our States and commumties. Thank you very much. Mrs. GREEN. Thank you very much, Mr. Bement. Mr. Vittetow, could I ask you to summarize your statement, because of the time. STATEMENT OF FRANK H. VITTETOW, ASSISTANT SUPERINTEND- ENT, STATE-FEDERAL RELA.TIONS, FOR DEPARTMENT OF EDU- CATION, COMMONWEALTH OP KENTUCKY Mr. VITrETOW. I am Frank Vittetow, Assistant Superintendent of Public Instruction, Commonwealth of Kentucky, in charge of Federal- State relations. And I might express my appreciation on behalf of the Department of Education of Kentucky, Madam Chairman, for the' privilege of appearing before the subcommittee, and also for the great concern PAGENO="0357" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 703 and appreciation given to the Congress of the United States for its mtent in supporting this issue. I would also like to state that this matter of redress of grievances is so basic to all of us in America that sometimes in looking at the operation of programs we forget the democratic process itself, and I say this because I have just recently returned from 8 years in the Far East, working for our foreign aid program. I just returned to the United States in June. And I see this being denied many people throughout the world, so I would like to throw this in first. And my appreciation is given to you because of this. If I may, I would like to just list some of the overall recommenda- tions that our Department of Education would like to give to the sub- committee for its consideration. 1. If Federal aid to education is to continue to come to the States, the amount of money and time factors should be predictable to all concerned. ~. All Federal fimds for education should come to the States under a minimum foundation program type of an approach, based on an objective formula which would include consideration of the financial ability of a State to support education. 3. A congressional task force should be empowered to study the myriad of educational aid programs to the several States, offering suggestions for consolidation wherever necessary in order to avoid duplication, waste of effort, and possible inefficiency. 4. All Federal funds coming into a State for education should be routed through the State Department of Education, which is the legally constituted entity regulating all educational activities. & Basic planning by the U.S. Office of Education with State depart- ments of education should be completed in the spring, so as to assure enough leadtime for budget review and implementation on the part of local school boards. 6. A conference should be held with State and Federal fiscal per- sonnel to "clear the air" on basic requirements relating to accounting and audit procedures pertaining to Federal funds. These in essence would be the gist of ou~r recommendations coming from Kentucky at this time. We appreciate it. Mrs. GREEN. Thank you very much, Mr. Vittetow. The complete statement will be made a part of the record. (Statement referred to follows:) STATEMENT OF FRANK H. VITTETOW, ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY The Department of Education of the Commonwealth of Kentucky would like to express its appreciation to the Congress of the United States for its concern for and support of public education. The purposes and intent of the past and present educational legislation is clear to all of us-the improvement of the welfare of the individual in his environment which in turn will provide for the well-being of the United States. The Kentucky school structure has always worked to its capacity in providing the best possible education for its approximately 672,000 children now in school. A break down of Kentucky tax revenues shows that approximately 65% of each tax dollar goes into education. During the 1965-1966 school year Ken- tucky's Minimum Foundation Program~ sent $128,114.139 into the local school districts. The local communities furnished an additional $53,601,000' in sup- 1 Required local effort. PAGENO="0358" 704 U.s. OFFICE OF EDUCATION port of schools. In the same year the federal government provided almost $46,000,000 for services and/or materials for programs under Vocational Educa- tion, Rehabilitation Services, Titles I, II, III, V, National Defense Education Act, Adult Basic Education Act, Civil Defense, OASI, School Lunch and School Milk Act and Graduate Fellowships. Some examples of the types of program improvement being made as a result of the local, state and federal relationship may be in order. ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION ACT, TITLE I The Federal Government working with the state and local governmental agencies as a partner in education, has for the first time, provided major finan- cial assistance to bring added opportunities to America's disadvantaged youth. in Kentucky, 196,000 public and non-public disadvantaged student.s in 196 local school systems received these added opportunities during the first year of Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. Disadvantaged students provided these opportunities ranged from pre-schoolers to drop-outs. Opportunities encompassed special reading services, cultural activities, health programs, and classes for the mentally and physically handicapped. These were provided for during the regular school day, beyond the school day as well as during the summer months. ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION ACT, TITLE II The Title II Program has been well received by all groups concerned. It is felt that federal funds under this Title have assisted in strengthening the mate- rial programs in both public and non public schools. Moreover, teachers have had available more resources for the enrichment of the instructional program. ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION ACT, TITLE m The Commonwealth of Kentucky is divided into seven regions from which projects relating to innovations in education are developed. Fourteen projects were approved during the past school year. Typical regional projects repre- senting cooperative educational efforts ranged from an educational diagnostic and treatment center to a multi-discipline educational center for the diffusion of emerging instructional techniques. REHABILITATION SERVICES The Bureau of Rehabilitation Services has experienced a cooperative and supporting effort from the Vocational Rehabilitation Administration. The new Rehabilitation amendments have enabled the Kentucky Bureau of Rehabilitation Services to expand their services to 10,176 disabled Kentuckians who were returned to gainful employment. The achievement ranked Kentucky in the top 10 Rehabilitation Agencies in the Nation. The Kentucky Rehabilitation Agency has utilized state appropriations as well as support from other state agencies to secure the available Vocational Rehabili- tation funds allotted to Kentucky. The Region III office of the Vocational Rehabilitation Administration has provided support, guidance, and technical consultation in the expansion of the growing Kentucky Rehabilitation Agency. VOCATIONAL EDUCATION The 1967 budget estimates reveal a federal expenditure of $1.4 billion for programs of vocational education, work training and other adult or continuing education programs throughout the United States. Encompassed in this cate- gory are vocational programs administered by the Office of Education, the Man- power Development and Training Program, and training components of many activities financed by the Office of Economic Opportunity. Much progress has been made. A sampling of major concerns pertaining to federally assisted programs throughout the Kentucky Department of Education indicated the following: ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION ACT, TITLE I Serious difficulties encountered during the first year of operation in this program centered around three major areas: 1) lack of funds for planning PAGENO="0359" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 705 projects; 2) late appropriation date by the Congress; 3) lack of adequate staff and facilities at all levels. ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION ACT, TITLE II Basic problem area of this Title revolved around Section 117.5(c) Uirculatio~ of Loaned Materials. This section concerns the requirement of a centralized depository for materials and the preparation of a materials list for each schooL The following are some reactions to this section: 1. To provide a central depository for Title II resources is highly im- practical for school libraries and such a plan is not consistent with the basic philosophy of a central library within the individual school. 2. Equally unrealistic is the suggested regulation requiring card catalogs or lists of Title II materials as well as their location. Preparation time of such lists is a prime factor. 3. At the present time, library staffs are involved to the point of having to spend more time in the administering of Title II program with less and less time being given to curriculum program development and service to children and their teachers. 4. The figure of 5% allotted to each state to administer the program is inadequate. ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION ACT, TITLE III Currently no funds are provided for administration cost for Title III. A minimum of 3% would be suggested as the minimum for such support factors. NDEA-TITLE III 1. Uncertainty with respect to amounts of money and when such funds may be expected into the program is of major concern. 2. The categorical approach to the NDEA Title III program requires a tre- mendous amount of detail which, in view of the fact that almost all of the elementary and secondary school subjects are covered, seems unnecessary. REHABILITATION SERVICES One of the greatest problems presently being experienced in all growing rehabilitation agencies is lack of manpower and the training of key personneL VOCATIONAL EDUCATION The coordination of educational activities throughout the ten cabinet depart- ments and more than fifteen governmental agencies at the federal level seems to be the major problem to be revolved. Because of such a lack of coordination at the federal level a most perplexing problem presents itself to state and local education administrators. SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS OFFERED FOR CONSIDERATION Elementary and Secondary Education Act, Title I The following suggestions for improving the opportunities for disadvantaged students are: (1) The appropriation should be made by Congress in the spring, (2) Regulations should be liberalized to permit more construction under Title I funds, (3) The 15% cut made by the Congress during the current school term should be restored, (4) Additional Title I funds should be made available for the training of staff members. Elementary and Secondary Education Act, Title II The provision requiring states to provide a centralized materials depository and preparation of material lists for all schools under Title II should be eliminated. Elementary and Secondary Education Act, Title III Provisions should be made to allow State Departments of Education to develop state-wide projects on innovation in education. Current provisions provide only for local or regional development within a state. PAGENO="0360" 706 U.s. OFFICE OF EDUCATION NDEA-Title III With the addition of more of the subject areas to the program, the categorical approach of aid should be dropped so that project applications could apply to the overall improvement of instruction. Rehabilitation Services There is a continuing need to serve more disabled Kentuckians and to help local communities with Rehabilitation facilities and workshops. Additional funds in the Rehabilitation Laird Amendments would assist states in the reha- bilitation of additional handicapped persons. OVERALL RECOMMENDATIONS OFFERED FOR CONSIDERATION 1. If Federal aid to education is to continue to come to the states, the amount of money and time factors should be predictable to all concerned. 2. All federal funds for education should come to the states under a Minimum Foundation Program type of an approach based on an objective formula which would include consideration of the financial ability of a state to support education. 3. A Congressional, task force should be empowered to study the myriad of educational aid programs to the several states, offering suggestions for con- solidation wherever necessary in order to avoid duplication, waste of effort and possible inefficiency. 4. All federal funds coming into a state for education should be routed through the State Department of Education which is the legally constituted entity regu- lating all educational activities. 5. Basic planning by the U.S.~Office of Education with State Departments of Education should be completed in the Spring so as to assure enough lead time for budget review and implementation on the part of local school boards. 6. A conference should be held with state and federal fiscal personnel to "clear the air" on basic requirements relating to accounting and audit procedures pertaining to federal funds. Mrs. GREEN. Mr. Entwhistle. STATEMENT OP JOHN ENTWHISTLE, PRESIDENT, NORTH CARO- LINA STATE SCHOOL BOARDS ASSOCIATION Mr. ENTWHISTLE. I don't have a formal statement. I would like to identify myself as John Entwhistle, president of the North Carolina State School Boards Association, and on their behalf I would like to say to you and your committee that we appreciate your representation in Congress, and appreciate the time to come down and be better informed on educational matters. In North Carolina, I don't think we have ally specific complaints, and I don't think we have any specific praise for the Federal education program, either. I think the thousand members of the North Carolina School Boards Association whom I represent are as fine a group of men and women as you will find anywhere. I think their deep concern for the chil- dren in North Carolina is evident. And I think sometimes when a Federal program is handled down to a State level, it seems that it comes to the State and local level in a little bit of a spirit of criticism. And my only comment would be that I wish it were possible that the Federal program could be implemented in North Carolina and other States in a spirit of cooperation, rather than in a spirit of criticism, because the school board members in North Carolina would not ever defy a Federal law, and they would not do anything to not carry out any law of the land, National or State, or on any level. PAGENO="0361" U.S~ OFFICE OF EDUCATION 707 So I wish that the school board members in each and every State could be put into a spirit of this real partnership that we hear cbs- cussed with the Federal Government. I wish that we could work with them more closely toward carrying out the aims of education. That is all. Mrs. GREEN. Thank you very much. And may I say that is one of the reasons for this subcommrttee hold- ing hearings,. so that we can have the opportunity to work more closely with you. May I ask: What is the average expenditure per child in elementary and secondary education in Tennessee? Mr. BREWER. Last year I think it was approximatey $340, something like that. Mrs. GREEN. And in Kentucky? Dr. VITrETOW. Just around $350. MrS. GREEN. And in. North Carolina? Mr. ENTWHISTLE. I would guess just lightly below that, maybe $330 or $340. Mrs. GREEN. And South Carolina? Mr. EN vrnsmE. Around $320, I believe. Mrs. GREEN. And Georgia? Mr. ACREE. I believe ours was $340. Not exact, but I believe that is approximately correct. Mrs. GREEN. As representatives of State school boards, do you feel this is an adequate amount? Dr. VIrrET0W. Speaking for Kentucky, I would say it is not. Mr. BREWER. We feel the same way in Tennessee. Mrs. GREEN. Are school board members elected in Tennessee? Mr. BREWER. Tennessee has various types of school boards, and has various methods for electing menthers. County school boards are either appointed or elected by the people. Some are in cities ap- pointed by city councils, and some are eleCted by the people. Mrs. GREEN. What can the school hoards do to increase the amount of funds for education in your respective States so that the Federal Government will remain the junior partner in the educational com- munity? Mr. BREWER. We are doing two things on this. First, getting the permissive legislation to increase the support at that level, and No. 2, we are increasing our State support. Mr. AGREE. We have done a very similar thing in Georgia, in that we are under local matching funds and State funds, and we have increased the local requirement by 5 percent, as of 3 years from now. And our tax evaluation and other schemes having to do with our property on .which the school taxes are levied. The school board mem- bers are in the forefront in bringing this to pass. We are going into .a program of equalization, statewide. On that basis, this will be reassessed. In addition to that, we are trying to get legislation to work on the basis that some county that will not have an income~--as long as they make an effort to come up to a certain amount,. they will be given an equal share to bring them up with the richer counties. PAGENO="0362" 708 U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION As to the richer counties not being penalized, they are not being penalized, but they are helping the poorer counties to come up to the State level. Mrs. GREEN. I must say that my daughter-in-law could not secure a babysitter for part of the year for what is being spent for a full year on the education of children in `many States. Do you all agree that Federal aid is just as essential? Is there any disagreement on that? Mr. MOLAtJRIN. As long as you leave it in the State, it is. I think it should be left in the State to use for an educational pro- gram, rather than send it to Washington and get it back, because there is a lot lost between the time it leaves the State and the time it gets back. Mrs. GREEN. What do you mean, "a lot lost"? Mr. MCLAURIN. All these kickbacks. There is a percentage on handling the money, so when it goes from the States to Washington-~ Mrs. GREEN. I hope the National School Boards Association is doing some research on this. I have heard statements that out of every dollar 40 cents does not get back. I think all of these studies and surveys show that the cost of the administration of `these school programs is under 2 percent. Mr. Bimwra. I would think it is 40 percent, or somewhere near that. I would think that some of the programs in Washington are very good, and others are not, under the present setup. Mr. ACREE. I am sure I speak for a great majority, if not all, of the school officials in the 196 systems of the State when I say that we do recognize the need for Federal funds that are properly `allotted, and properly used, in keeping with what has been presented to you this morning. Of course, ideally, with such a thing as Mr. McLaurin referred to-if the money did not have to go there and come back-we could possibly save some of that 2 percent, but to that point we would hope we could receive some of these State funds and that they would not be used as ,leverage or a whip. Mrs. GREEN. Since you all are with members of school boards, may I say that I have welcomed what I seem to see in the National School Boards Association as a member of the committee, I look to the school boards across the country for much stronger leadership in educational matters at the Federal level than I think they have exercised in years past. It seems to me that at least 10 or 12 years ago-I don't know, Jack, whether you agree or not-there was almost an emotional or an in- stantaneous reaction of the school boards against all Federal aid, re- gardless of what kind. There was not an objective analysis. And I think this change in direction is something that we will look forward to. I am sure we will all benefit from it, because I agree with you that the school boards are closer to the people, and should be play- ing a very, very important role in planning legislation, evaluating it, and implementing it. May I also say, Mr. Acres, that your brief will be studied with a great deal of interest. PAGENO="0363" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 709 Let me state very clearly my own position, and I may be in disagree- ment with some }~eople in the room. But after havmg said that, may I also say that I was a very strong supporter of the Fountain amendment in the last session of Congress. I did think that the instances to which you refer in your brief, where individual employees went out and circulated memorandums, where the action was deferred on applications for new funds-went beyond the law. I think the overwhelming vote in the House indicated that the House recognized the problem you have stated this morning. And I assure you that as one member of the Education Committee, I intend to turn my attention to this in the next session. Congressman Erlenborn. Mr. ERLENBORN. I think, in the consideration of time, I will waive any right to ask questions. Mrs. GREEN. Congressman Flynt? Mr. FLYNT. Thank you, Mrs. Green. I am not going to usurp the prerogatives of you, as chairman, and Mr. Erlenborn as a member of this subcommittee. I would like to say for the record, however, that I think that the conduct of these meetings by you has been most meaningful. I think that this is the most effective way that you could have obtained direct information, such as has been presented to you yesterday and today by dedicated people, people who are making every effort to make this Federal-State-local partnership a fruitful reality. in this instance, to make all funds, from whatever source derived, that are allocated to education, improve educational standards, and thereby improve the education. which we are offering to the young men and young women of the respective States and of our entire country. If I may be permitted to do so, let me say this: Recognizing that ~ some particular piece of legislation, the gentlewoman from Oregon * and myself occasionally find Ourselves casting opposite votes, during the entire period of the service of the gentlewoman from Oregon, I have come to know her as a Member of Congress, possessing integrity and ability. I. think that in the field of legislation affecting public education at elementary, secondary, and higher education levels, our colleagues in the Congress recognize the gentlewoman from Oregon, the Honorable ~Edith Green, `as a person who has done massive research, and has applied to that research an abundance of good judgment and common- sense. So I think that I not only speak for my colleagues in the Congress when I say that we recognize her devotion `and dedication to this sub~ ject of education, particularly as a legislative subject, but as a part of the State of Georgia and of the southeastern region of the United States, I think that I speak for certainly those with `whom I have dis- cussed this meeting,, that we are indeed grateful to you and Congress- man Erlenborn for coming, and visiting with us and receiving the points of view which we have heard. We are indeed grateful to you. And I cannot let this opportunity pass without thanking my col- league from Illinois, Congressman Erlenborn, for joining Chairman Green in the conduct of these hearings. PAGENO="0364" 710 U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION Congres~man Erlenborn is a relatively young Member of the House of Representatives. He is a man who, in a relatively short; period of ~service, has demonstrated outstanding ability and capability. * As a rather junior Member of Congress, we often see him as the minority floor manager of important legislation. He is particularly interested m the subject of eduóation legislation. And I would like to publicly iąecognize him as a colleague in whom ire have confidence, and whom we admire and respect. * I thmk that we in Georgia, where this meeting is being held, and that we in the Southeast, are indeed fortunate to have had Members of Congress of the character, integrity, and ability of these two members of this fine subcommittee who are here today. Mrs. GREEN. Thank you very much, Congressman Flynt, for your very generous comments. And all of you who are here can see that if they do not persuade us with arguments, at times, they always persuade us with their southern charm. Mr. FLYNT. Madam Chairman, could I trespass on your time very briefly to point out one thing, which I know Mr. Acree had hoped to have a memorandum on at the time he made his presentation? Without imposing on his prerogative to present this, I would like to call to your attention and to the attention of the subcommittee an incident which took place during a visit of a "compliance team" to the Griffin-Spaulding County School Board, which is not only within the district which I represent, but also my hometown. I am not saying whether this statement that I am about to refer to was made during a recess of that meeting, or whether it was made after instructing the court reporter who was reporting the proceed-. ings to go off the record, but when the question arose about mandatory assigmnents to create a racial balance in the faculties of different schools, the superintendent of schools of this Griffin-Spaulding County system told Mr. Rich and Mr. Peariman and the other two members of the compliance team that if he followed their verbal instructions and directives, he would be confronted with either singular or mass resigna- tions from members of the faculty, which was already understaffed, and he said that he could not, 2 weeks before school opened, take a position and issue transfer orders which would deplete an already understaffed faculty. My recollection is that at that point Mr. Pearhnan either asked- and he was a member of the compliance team-either asked to go off the record, or, during a recess, in an outer office from the one in which the meeting was being held, Mr. Peariman seriously suggested using economic pressure by making~ investigations and inquiries to find out which members of the faôulty of that school system were either in debt or so economically situated that they could not resist a transfer order, even though they would not like to comply with it. Mr. Patrick and I were both shocked when we heard this suggestion, and Mr. Patrick asked him if he understood him properly, and if he did, would he elaborate on it. He said: Yes. What I mean Is this: It is for you to find a schoolteacher, preferably a lady schoolteacher, who has an elderly or invalid parent dependent upon her for support, so that she cannot resign her job* if she is transferred to a school that she does not want to teach in. PAGENO="0365" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION. 711. To me, that was one of the most inhuman and cruelest statements that I have ever heard uttered by any person in an official capacity with the U.S. Government. I think that that particular statement, among many unbelievable statements, which were made during this 4-hour conference between the compliance team and the Griffin-Spaulding County School Board, has certainly caused me to take a more than casual interest in this overall subject, for the purpose of helping develop a record upon which the Congress can base a mature and intelligent judgment when we consider this legislation again next year, or the year after. Because what we want to see done-and I think the members of the subcommittee agree with me on this-is that we are interested in seeing this legislation administered to improve education in the respec- tive States, and throughout the United States. We are not interested in seeing this entire Federal participation in education jeopardized by imprudent and irresponsible actions of of- ficials in the Office of the Commissioner of Education, from Mr. Harold Howe on down to and including this man, Mr. Pearlman, who suggested the use of inhuman and cruel methods to obtain his objectives. Mrs. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Flynt. My thanks to all of you gentlemen, who have come from various States. I am well aware of the demands. that are made upon your. time. It has been very helpful to me, and I think I speak for Mr. Erlenborn, to have you come to the committee this morning. Other members of our subcommittee are listening to school board members in Minneapolis today. When we get back to Washington we will compare notes. We will tell them of the testimony which you gave, and they in turn will tell us of the testimony which they heard in Minneapolis. My thanks. We now have a panel of the persons who have to be on the firing line day after day, and to whom society has turned to cure all of the ills of society. We welcome to the hearing Dr. Paul West, Mr. W. L. Robinson, Mrs. Nell Hallford, Mr. Samuel Wood, Mr. Jasper Griffin, and Dr. A. D. Clifton. We also have with us representatives from Kentucky, and North Carolina, and Florida. We are also glad to have Mr. Paddock from Houston in the audience today. I think we will start out by calling upon Dr. Paul West, the super- intendent of the Fulton County schools. STATEMENT OP DR. PAUL WEST, SUPERINTENDENZ PULTON COUNTY SCHOOLS, STATE OP GEORGIA Dr. WEST. Madam Chairman and members of the subconunittee, we understand we are under slight pressure of time. In view of the fact that the first part of this deals with the programs in which the Fulton County Board of Education is involved, and since there are other statements which have been made in this regard by other school systems, I think we may omit this. PAGENO="0366" 712 U.s. OFFICE OF EDUCATION The first part is a joint statement by W. L. Robinson, president of the Fulton County Board of Education, and myself, so I shall go beyond a discussion of the programs in which we have participated, and begin at this point. Our school board commends the Federal Government for its in- terest in, provision for, and sustaining of these programs which strengthen American education, provided it does not attempt to ex- ercise autocratic and unreasonable control over local schools. Our major concern is with the implementation of the 1966 guide- lines of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. We were greatly distressed by the confusion and chaos emanating from the Office of the Commissioner of Education when he presented the 1966 guidelines and their application to local school districts. `~\Te were shocked by the severity of his statements, and his unbend- ing manner when professional and articulate questions were asked by members of our professional group. His presentation was character- ized by complete inflexibility and frigidity. An example of this uncompromising manner was his reply to a school superintendent who asked him what a superintendent and board of education would do in the case of a white teacher who might be assigned to a previously all-Negro school, and who might refuse to accept the new assignment. His cryptic reply was, "You would fire her for insubordination." May I say parenthetically that U.S. Education Commissioner Harold Howe said he was cognizant of individual school systems. He said there could not possibly be a consistency throughout the land, that each had its own personality, its own problems, and he did not feel it would ever be possible to arrive at any iron-clad policies or regula- tions which could be made applicable to every system in the country. That, Madam Chairman, is my statement, and I think Mr. Robinson would like to supplement it. Mrs. GREEN. Thank you, Dr. West. We will call on Mr. Robinson next. STATE1V[ENT OP W. L. ROBINSON, PRESIDENT, PULTON COUNTY BOARD OP EDUCATION Mr. RoBINsoN. Thank you. Madam Chairman and Congressman Erlenborn, I am W. L. Robin- son, president of the Fulton County Board of Education, and immedi- ate past president of the National School Boards Association once removed. I served as president during the year 1964-65. I would like to supplement this joint statement prepared by Dr. West and myself by imderscoring the fact that the people in this area, and, I might say, the people in 11 or 12 Southeastern States, and I speak with some authority on this matter, because we have had two meetings with representatives from 11 or 12 of the Southeastern States here in Atlanta, because of their concern about the inconsistencies, the ambiguities, and the contradictions that come out of the Office of Education, and as a matter of fact, the contradictions of the Coinmis~ sioner of Education himself. I did not lrnow that Congressman Flynt would be here this morn- ing. I have several exhibits that I would like to quote from briefly, just to get them in the record. PAGENO="0367" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 713 I am certain that you are familiar with the debate that took place on the floor of the House, at which time Congressman Flynt said that 13 of his school districts had been notified of the withholding or deferral of Federal funds, and Congressman Corman of Califorma went over to the Office of Education to check this statement and was told that only one, Meriwether County, had funds withheld. Congressman Flynt went back-and this is a direct quotation from Congressman Flynt-went back to Mr. Howe's office- and Mr. Howe has informed me there are presently outstanding at least 13 letters of disapproval, rejection, or deferral, and that be expects to recommend that all 13 school systems be held in non-compliance. That is an illustration of the confusion that I referred to. From the News and World Report, this week, one of the questions asked of Mr. Howe: Your thinking has not yet reached the point where you would say to a school district that it must change its set-up in order to obtain a mixture of pupils? Answer: On, no. First of all, we haven't got that authority, and if we did have, we wouldn't use it. But we do think it is interesting for school districts to look at these findings and consider how they might react to them. Yet you will have, in these documented papers given to you by Mr. Acree, that his men were given written memorandums to school dis- tricts in Georgia telling them to move entire grades from one school to another. And one of the reasons that we have lost confidence is the fact that the Commissioner either does not know what his men are doing, which he should know, or else he is misstating the facts, when he says to the House Rules Coimnittee, as quoted in one of the~ Atlanta papers on October 1: U.S. Education Commissioner Harold Howe insisted before the House Rules Committee Friday that his office had not stepped outside the law in setting de. segregation guidelines and getting local schools to comply. The Commissioner denied charges that the Office of Education's compliance officers had pressured school districts to achieve racial balance which is specifically prohibited by Title IV of the 1964 Act. "We are not engaged in anything of that sort," Howe said. Many of the people in these Southeastern States have suspicions of the motives of the Office of Education and of the Commissioner of Education, and they are well founded. If we are to believe quotes fro1n his speech, I would like to read this quote: As recently as May 3, in a speech at Columbia University, Mr. Howe was heard tO say that if he had his way, the American school would be built for the primary purpose of social and economic inte- gration. The Commissioner of Education, in short-this is an editorial com- ment, not a quotation, and incidentally, this is from the Charlotte News- Mr. Entwhistle just finished testifying before you, here, but this is an indication of the interest in other States besides Georgia. This comes from the Charlotte News of Charlotte, N.C., Tuesday, SepLem- ber6. The Commissioner of Education, in short, has never given the slightest shred of evidence that he sees or values the difference between vigorous racial con- PAGENO="0368" 714 u.s. OFFICE OF EDUCATION science and steam roller evangelism. Despite his repeated disclaimers, he often pursues his obsession with race to the detriment, if not the total exclusion, of education. Now, we, as board members, Madam Chairman-and I have been a board member for 17 years-are interested in the education of the children, primarily. We intend to educate them within the confines of the law to the best of our ability, and we hope that we will be permitted to do this without pressure tactics, and without the Federal Govern- ment using the fact that they do furnish part of the money for an edu- cational program without their using that as a whip over us to bring about certain philosophical social changes which you cannot legislate overnight, but which takes time to bring about. Thank you very much. Mrs. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Robinson. (Prepared joint statement by W. L. Robinson and Paul D. West follows:) V V JoINT STATEMENT BY W. L. ROBINsON, PREsIDENT OF THE FULTON COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, AND PAUL D. WEST, SUPERINTENDENT OF FULTON COUNTY SCHOOLS This is a joint statement by W. L. Robinson, President of the Fulton County Board of Education and Paul D. West, Superintendent of Fulton County Schools. The Fulton County Schools are involved in the following Office of Education programs: 1. Public Law 874, affecting federally impacted areas-approximately $210,000.00. 2. National Defense Education Act-Titles III and V. Title 111-Improvement of instruction in Mathematics, Science, Modern Foreign Languages, Social Studies, English and Reading. Title 17-Testing, Counseling and Guidance. For both programs-$65,000.00. 3. Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Title I-For the disadvantaged child only-$400,000.0O. Title II-TeYtbook and Library Resources for all children-$64,000.00. Title 111-Supplemental centers or innovative projects. Planning grant of $22,535.00; Operational grant approximately $200,000.00. V NDEA-Titles III and V are handled through the State Department of V Education, although the funds are Federal. ESEA-Title I is handled directly with the Federal government; Title II through the State Department of Education; and Title III directly with HEW in Washington. Our system is also the beneficiary of certain funds combined with state funds for the operation of the Vocational Education Program ($58,000) through the state. Our school board commends the Federal government for its interest in, pro- vision for, and sustaining of these programs which strengthen American educa- tion, provided it does not attempt to exercise autocratic and unreasonable con- trol over local schools. Our major concern is with the implementation of the 196G Guidelines of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare. We are greatly distressed by the confusion and chaos emanating from the Office of the Commissioner of Edu- cation with reference to this implementation at the local level. Incidentally, we should like to make it perfectly clear that the Fulton County Board of Education at no time has had any desire or intention to evade the laws of the United States. It has striven in a conscientious manner for many years to operate the schools ~ that all our children and youth might receive the best possible education. As evidence of the good faith of the Fulton County Board of Education, the Board President and the Superintendent accompanied a group of fellow Georgians to Washington March 30, 1986 following a visit tO Atlanta by Mr. W. Stanley Kruger, Director Area II, Equal Educational Opportunities Program, of the Office of Education when he presented the 1966 Guidelines and their application to local school districts. We were shocked by the severity of his statements and his un- PAGENO="0369" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 715 bending manner when professional and articulate questions were asked by mem- bers of our professional group. His presentation was characterized by complete inflexibility and frigidity. An example of this uncompromising manner was his reply to a school superintendent who asked him what a superintendent and board of education would do in the case of a white teacher who might be assigned to a previously all negro school and who might refuse to accept the new assignment. His cryptic reply was, "You would fire her for insubordination." `Commissioner Harold Howe, several of his associates, and members of the Georgia ~ongressional delegation participated in this Washington conference, March 30. The Commissioner appeared quite perturbed by statements made by the members of our Georgia delegation and requested a subsequent conference on April 5 with a small committee of school board members and superintendents from Georgia. Our committee was heartened in this conference with the Com- missioner when he explained that he was aware of gross misunderstanding as between the Office of Education and the officials of local `school system's insofar as the implementation of Guidelines was concerned. The Commissioner took great pains to state, first, that he was fully cognizant of the necessity of gradual- ism in the process of desegregation; secondly, that the Office of Education asked for nothing more than gradualism-progress year by year over the preceding year. We left this conference with the feeling that the `Commissioner had con- curred in our understanding of the purposes, intention, and interpretation of the 1966 Guidelines. As a result of what we considered a highly satisfactory conference with the Commissioner, our Board `of Education decided to take steps beyond its deseg- regation plans as previously approved by the Office of Education and to deseg- regate all twelve grades in 1966-67 rather than eight, as well as to keep open the period of Freedom of Choice for ninety `days rather than the thirty days pre- scribed by the Federal government. The Board also proceeded promptly with faculty desegregation consistent with its understanding of the Commissioner's statement. Our Board of Education experienced a major sh'ock when it received a letter from Mr. Stanley Kruger under date of July 14, 1966 in which `h'e implied that the Fulton County Board of Education was not moving in good faith with its desegregation program. He went so far as to suggest that the Board might arrange meetings and conferences with parents and civic groups in order to limit opportunities, for intimidation. Consistent with the desire of `the Fulton `County Board of Education to move professionally and properly, the Board Presiden't and the Superintendent were immediately au'thorized to seek an additional con- ference with Commissioner Howe. This took place August 4, 1966 and was at- tended by Commissioner Howe, Mr. Kruger and Mr. David Seely. When the Board President and Superintendent read excerpts from Mr. Kruger's letter of July 14, the Commissioner replied that he did not know the letter had been written and that he felt there was gross misunderstanding with regard to the intent of the letter. At this point, parts of the letter were re-read to him to give full evi- dence of a lack of communication, confusion, and chaos which apparently charac- terize the activities `of the Commissioner's office. The Commissioner assured th'e group that no other letters of this nature would be forthcoming. Our concern is heightened by direct quotations of the `Commissioner in magazine and newspaper stories when his words are in direct conflict with the apparent policies and actions of his office. Mrs. GREEN. Now may I call on Mrs. Haliford, superintendent of the Habersham County schools. STATEMENT OP MRS. NELL HALLPORD, SUPERINTENDENT, HABERSHA~ COUNTY SCHOOLS Mrs. HALLFORD. Madam Chairman and members of the subcom- mittee, I, too, appreciate the opportunity to talk with you today. I do not have any copies to submit to you, because my invitation did not come with instructions, so I am delinquent. My system is rural, having an enrollment of around 4,800 students. There are seven elementary schools and three `high schools. We have 172 classroom teachers. We do have in our community the services of a State trade and industrial school. 73-728-67-pt. 2-24 PAGENO="0370" 716 U.s. OFFICE OF EDUCATION Our system has participated in numerous Federal programs, name- ly, title I, with an appropriation of $126,000 t.he first year and $92,000 the second year; and title IT, with appropriations of approximately $10,000; and title III of the Elementary and Secondary Act. Then, in several areas of the National Defense Education Act, chief- ly NDEA titles III and V. Under the Economic Opportunities Act we have participated in Youth Corps, adult education, Headstart. And from each of these we have derived benefits. Our system is completely desegregated. A desegregation program was begun in 1965-66, when 10 Negro students entered formerly white schools, under a freedom of choice plan. The system was completely desegregated this term, 1966 and 1967, when all Negro students en- tered formerly white schools. This program was accomplished without difficulty to speak of, ex- cept in the case of faculty desegregation. And I could tell you a story about that, but I think it is the same story that has been told. Some misunderstanding came up about that, but was resolved after many telephone calls and visits from the committee, from the Depart- ment of Education, the Office of Education. We ha.d followed with all our faculty exactly the same rules and regulations that we had done in all previous years, and just as fairly as we know how to do. And at the present time, we have re.quested that we be allowed to sign a 441 form, and we have not heard from that, but we should hear from that any day. We certainly appreciate the aid we have received, and commend Congress for making possible many things we have always wanted for our schools, but have not been able to afford financially. I offer suggestions for improvement, because I believe we all realize that no law was ever passed, no rule or regulation was ever made, that was perfect, and not one of those was ever made of which all impli- cations were realized before it was tried. And I certainly feel t.hat your purpose here, and our purpose here, is to see what difficulties can be made better, and I am speaking from a very personal standpoint.. I am speaking from the things that I, on the level with the committee, have seen, that my staff and I have found out by ourselves. I was gratified to see how many things were parallel to the people who are in larger systems and are looking at it from a higher angle. As far as titles I and III are concerned, we feel that the guidelines should be stabilized, and dates of allotments and approvals of projects made more timely. The old cliche, "Haste makes waste," has been evidenced in many cases already. Personnel, for instance, must be employed, and prepa- rations must be ma.de prior to your actually starting the program, and in systems like mine, when those preparations have to be made, it fell upon the systems themselves to pay for things that had to be done before the approval date became known and legal. So I think that is one of the most important things, and that has been brought out several times. We feel that insufficiency and in- adequacy result from those things. Second, we feel that limited Federal aid is practically a necessity in our educational programs, but local control is necessary in order PAGENO="0371" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 717 for the most good to be realized. We would request that you have some, or rather much, faith in the judgment and integrity of local school administrators, who should know better than anybody else what their needs are. We would request that you allow more elasticity for meeting in- dividual needs of each community, even to the point of approving construction of buildings, without which many problems are just impossible, particularly in systems like ours. Then, that you allow continuation of some of the programs already in existence, and by that I mean the financing of programs that are already in existence. It is my firm belief that administrators of school programs are cognizant of the needs of all types of children, the advantaged and the disadvantaged, and should have the privilege of determining how funds can best be spent for the total good. We are aware of, and in agreement with, the fact thatdeadlines are necessary. However, we believe that it should be a two-way street. If school personnel meet their deadlines, why cannot the personnel in the Office of Education submit to deadlines, also? We have to wait a mighty long time for them, sometimes. We sincerely request that an attitude of realism be applied to proj- ects under title III. Last week, I heard this statement concerning title III projects: "Unless the title III project is wierd, and way out, it has no chance of acceptance in the Washington office." Programs I believe should first build a strong, basic foundation, and then become far out, if necessary. Again we reiterate our appreciation and offer suggestions only in the hope that our money may be spent to the best advantage. We must all cultivate the attitude that we are working together toward the accomplishment of the same goal. Thank you. Mrs. GREEN. Thank you, Mrs. Hallford, for your very helpful suggestions. It is my understanding that there are 197 superintendents of schools in Georgia, and 159 county school systems. Mrs. HALLFORD. Yes. Mrs. GREEN. Mrs. Hailford, could you tell me how many women are `superintendents? Mrs. HALLFORD. Six. Mrs. GREEN. I hate to be accused of a bias, but it does seem to me there is rank discrimination. Mr. FLYNT. Those six make up in quality, Mrs. Green, what they don't have in quantity. Mrs. GREEN. Mr. Flynt, I have been told that is the way the South has been arguing for a hundred years. As a woman, I will not accept this. I was just wondering if we could work in Congress to bring about some kind of a balance, here. Would we have the cooperation of your colleagues? Mrs. HALLFORD. Definitely. Mrs. GREEN. Thank you very much. Dr. Samuel Wood, superintendent of the Clarke County schools. PAGENO="0372" 71& U.S. ~OFFICE OF EDUCATION STATEMENT OF SAM W. WOOD, SUPERINTENDENT, CLARKE COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT Mr. WOOD. I hold the position of superintendent in the Clarke County School District. The Clarke County District is a countywide district of, generally, urban and suburban nature. The community has a population of about 50,000, and a school enrollment of about 10,500 pupils. The University of Georgia is located in Athens, and the general level of education in the community may be somewhat higher than that in districts of comparable size in the State, although there is a wide socioeconomic range, and there has been considerable recent in- dustrial devleopment in the county. The school system includes two senior high schools, three junior high schools, and 13 elementary schools, with a professional staff of approximately 475, in addition to a vocational-technical school with about 600 students. Exclusive of the vocational-technical school, the average annual expenditure per pupil is in excess of $400, not including debt service. The Clarke County School District is involved in programs under titles I, II, and III of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, and various titles under the National Defense Education Act. And, of course, others that are not involved in the Offiče of Education. The Clarke County School District began desegregation in the fall of 1963, before the Civil Rights Act was enacted, under policies es- tablished by the Clarke County Board of Education in 1959, pursuant to the Supreme Court; decision of 1954, but without court order. At that time, the first applications were received from Negroes seek- ing admission to previously all white schools, and five of the seven applicants were accepted. The initial desegregation was carried out smoothly and without incident. The following year the number of approved Negro applications for formerly all white schools was more than doubled. In 1965, the Clarke County Board of Education continued to follow its policy concerning desegregation, resulting in the acceptance of approximately 40 Negro pupils in formerly all white schools. It was at this point that the Office of Education required the sub- mission of a desegregation plan and form 441. The form was sub- mitted, with a delineation of past performance and an explanation of the plan. After an unduly long period of time, notification was received that what had been done was not acceptable. Two trips to Washington were required in order to determine what would be necessary to placate the Office of Education. It was at tha.t time that it became apparent that past performance, sincerity of purpose, and forthrightness of approach were of no value to the Office of Education officials. In fact, I was told by an attor- ney in the Office of Education that statements about what we had done was merely "preamble," and was of no interest, and not worth reading. The result of the trips to Washington was that the Clarke County Board of Education was required to reopen the "freedom of choice" period. This created considerable confusion, hut resulted in some increase in the number of Negroes in formerly all white schools. PAGENO="0373" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 719 I must add that, in response to a letter of complaint, a representa- tive of the Office of Education appeared in my office. Having a copy of the letter of complaint, I quickly proved that it was baseless by displaying a copy of the local newspapers in which the desegregation plan had been published. Without going into minute details, which would be too time con- suming at this hearing, the situation in 1966 was even worse. The Clarke County Board of Education submitted form 441B with a statement that it would comply with only such modifications that would be in keeping with truth, fact, and feasibility in this community. On this basis, the procedures were carried out, resulting in 17 per- cent, more than 500 of Negro pupils being accepted in formerly all- white schools. This created crowded conditions in some schools, and left empty rooms in others. As to staff desegregation, the school district has 13 teachers assigned and functioning well in desegregated situations. In addition to these, seven employees in supervisory and consultative positions serve on a desegregated basis. On July 18, 1966, a letter was received stating that the school dis- trict was on a "deferral" list, and that no funds would be approved for any new programs involving Federal money. The letter pointed out that the "deferral" was based upon: (1) Notices to parents were not sent by first-class mail. (2) A slight change was made in the text of a letter which required the signature of the superintendent. (3) It was required that parents or guardians exercise the "freedom of choice." The position of the Clarke County Board of Educaition was that: (1) The first-class-mail requirement was ridiculous on its face. The responsibility of the board was to send notices, explanations, and "free- dom of choice" forms, and to receive the "freedom of choice" forms from parents. This responsibility was carried out. (2) The text of the letter which required the signature of the super- intendent stated: Our community has adopted a school desegregation plan. This was, in point of fact, untrue. A change was made so that the letter read: Our Clarke County Board of Education has adopted a school desegregation plan, as required by the U.S. Office of Education. (3) To accept choice of schools made by 15-year-old children would tend to abrogate the responsibility of parents for their minor children. No issue arose as a result of dealing with parents or guardians. On August 9, 1966, three individuals who identified themselves as Mr. Corrigan, Mr. Prager, and Mr. Nelson, and who stated that they were representatives of the Office of Education, conferred with me in the presence of the attorney for the board of education. This conference was recorded on tape. After a review of all points, they stated that they were satisfied that everything was in good order, and that they would so report to their supervisors. PAGENO="0374" 720 U.S. OFFICE OP EDUCAT[ON Without reference to numerous telephone calls, in which suggestions were made as to what the school district should do, it is significant that at the late date of September 19, 1966, a copy of the following telegram was sent to me by State Superintendent of Schools Jack P. Nix: We are reviewing the situation regarding Clarke County in view of the infor- mation you have furnished. In the meantime they should not be included on the deferral list. New activities can be funded at this time. We will continue to discuss with county officials their desegregation plan for this year and next. DAVm SEELEY, Director, Office of Equal Educational Opportunity, U~S. Office of Education. Nothing further has been heard from the Office of Education, but I must admit that I cannot anticipate 1967 relationships with the Office of Education with any degree of enthusiasm. I should like to feel that the Clarke County School District may be allowed-without harassment-to continue its progress, including compliance with the purposes of title VI of the Civil Rights Act. It should be true that the all-important item is "results," and not adherence to minor technicalities and relatively insignificant require- ments that are largely academic in nature. The Clarke County School District has produced amply acceptable results. I state to you emphatically that no school system in the State of Georgia has accomplished more under title VI of the Civil Rights Act than has the Clarke County School District. * As to the "guidelines": Why are they not of general applicability throughout the Nation, as provided by section 602 of the Civil Rights Act? WThere, in the law, is there a provision for deferral of Federal funds? Is it not in violation of section 604 to make requirements concerning teacher transfers and assigmnents? Is it not impractical to require the sending of notices by first class, or any other class of mail? Is it not an assumption of anthority to determine whether or not a plan is acceptable solely on the basis of the percentage of children choosing transfers? Why was it ever even suggested that 15-year-old children be allowed to choose their schools, when this is clearly the responsibility of parents? These and other such questions may well be appropriate to ask. Thank you. Mrs. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Wood. Mr. Griffin. STATEMENT OP JASPER M. GRIFFIN, SUPERINTENDENT, COBB COUNTY SCROOLS Mr: GRIFrIN. Madam Chairman, Congressman Erlenborn, Con- gressman Flynt, my name is Jasper M. Griffin, superintendent of the Cobb County Schools (student average daily attendance 35,511), Marietta, Ga. The Cobb County school system participates heavily in numerous Federal programs administered by HEW as outlined below. PAGENO="0375" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 721 I had intended, Madam Chairman, if I may be permitted to digress here just a moment, to press very strong personal appreciation to the chairman of this committee for her very strong interest in the educa- tional welfare of the youth of this Nation, and her strong and con- tmuing acknowledgment of the fact that the Congress of this country has a responsibility there, also. The average daily attendance of Cobb County schoolchildren in- creased from 9,904 in the school year 1952-53 to 35,511 in 1966-67. This abnormally large increase is the result of Lockheed Aircraft Corp., Air Force plant No. 6; Dobbins Air Force Base; U.S. Naval Air Station-all of which are located in Cobb County. The Federal `Government has removed from the tax rcdls of Cobb County 10,000 acres of land. The total bonding capacity was com- pletely exhausted in 1961, with many schoolchildren not properly housed. The Cobb County school system is heavily dependent upon Federal funds for maintenance and operation as well as housing. Madam Chairman, the Federal program in the next eight or 10 pages is set forth, and if I may go to the following page, I will conclude. (Pages referred to follow:) FEDERAL PROGRAMS Public Law 87~~ The following funds were received by the Cobb (3ounty School System under Public Law 874 for maintenance and operation: 1960-61 $486, 330. 53 1961-62 444, 081. 00 1962-63 613, 983. 00 1963-64 743, 222. 00 1964-65 772, 284. 00 1965-66 1, 036, 674. 00 - 4, 096, 574. 53 - 1,250, 000. 00 5,346, 574. 53 Public Law 815 The following funds were received by the Cobb County School System under Public Law 815 for buildings: 1959-60 1900-61 1961-62 1962-63 1963-64 1964-65 1965-66 1966-67 Total Estimated additional funds for 1966-67 - Estimated grand total Elementary and ~Secondary Education Act Title I In 1965-66 the Cobb County School System received the following funds under Title I: Total Estimatéd total, 1966-67 Estimated grand totaL None None None None $152, 709. 00 830, 964. 00 434,300. 00 1, 797, 173. 00 - 1,435,944.00 536, 000. 00 1, 971, 944. 00 Summer Reading Program - Library Books (approximately)__. Head Start Program - $152,000.00 150,000.00 45,000.00 PAGENO="0376" 722 U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION Application for $57,000.00 for a Head Start Program in the summer of 1966-67 has been filed. Elementary and ~econdaryEducat ion Act Title II In 1966-67 the Cobb County School System received a grant of $64,821.00 for library materials. Elementary and ~S'econdary Education Act Title III In 1966-67 the Cobb County School System received a grant of $31,800.00 for a Pupil Personnel Center. National Defense Education Act (NDEA) Title III In 1965-66 the Cobb County School System received $11,740 for strengthening elementary and secondary instruction. National Defense Education Act (NDEA) Title V In 1965-66 the Cobb County School System received $30,796.57 for strengthen- ing the county-wide counseling programs. Economic Opportunity Act Title II, ~Section B, Basic Education In 1965-66 the Cobb County School System received $14,312.89 for an adult education program. OTHER FEDERAL PROJECTS A. In 1965-66 the Cobb County School System received $213,227.23 for lunch- room operations. B. In 19t6-67 a commitment of $121,355.37 was made to the Cobb County School System to finance a vocational program for Junioi~s and Seniors with saleable skills in various vocations. Mr. GRIFFIN. Funds received from Public Law 874 and Public Law 815 have benefited the Cobb County school system more than all of the other Federal programs. Because of the present increase of 3,000 students each year, it would be impossible to offer comparable services without these funds. The programs are efficiently administered. The service is prompt and courteous. The other Federal programs administered by HEW, in which the Cobb County school system participated, appear to be well organized. Most of these new programs will require additional time for objective evaluation. There is a very strong feeling that the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as it applies to school systems, has been operated in a very inefficient and inconsistent manner. Information has been most difficult to obtain. Some information received from different HEW officials has been contradictory. The guidelines were not received in time to comply in an efficient and orderly manner with them. Although the Cobb County school system seems to be considered in compliance, notification has not been received to date. The superintendent and a school board member recently visited the Washington HEW office for the express purpose of determining whether or not the system is in compliance. After a conference with three or four courteous HEW officials, a letter was promised, but has not been received. It is strongly recommended that clear-cut, understandable guide- lines be provided well in advance of their expected implementation, thereby avoiding the chaos that we have literally had in this State this past year. PAGENO="0377" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 723 It is recommended that experienced and able elementary and sec- ondary school men and women be placed in positions of authority along with the lawyers and college students. Appreciation is expressed for the opportunity of presenting the material herein to Members of the Congress. Thank you. Mrs. GREEN. Thank you very much. Mr. Clifton. STATEMENT OP A. B. CLIFTON, SUPERINTENDENT, CANDLER COUNTY SCHOOLS, METTER, GA. Mr. CLIFToN. I am A. D. Clifton, superintendent of Candler County schools, Metter, Ga. Our system is a small system with 1,716 students and 84 teachers; 1,094 of the students are transported. Eighteen of the 84 teachers are paid in part or in full from Federal funds administered from the U.S. Office through the State department of edrication. We have only three schools, and all of them qualify for title I funds under Public Law 89-10. Our allotment is a little more than $130,000, and we have what we think is an excellent program. Five of our teachers are vocational teachers, and part of the funds for these programs come from Federal funds administered from the U.S. Office of Education through the State department of education. I feel that this arrangement, whereby the U.S. Office of Education works out agreements with the State department of education, and local systems work with the State departments, is a good arrangement. I feel that the U.S. Office of Education is making the right approach when it assists with finances and encourages local systems to develop their own programs. Through this approach there will be many innovative programs that will help students to greater achievement than there would be if the U.S. Office of Education prescribed the programs for the schools that participate. This is assistance without local control. This, I think, is the business of the Office of Education. However, I think the progress of education has been hindered when educational programs, such as Headstart, have been permitted to be operated by agencies other than the schools. When the Federal Government decided to use the schools as the medium through which the civil rights laws would be enforced, they imposed problems upon the schools that have made it very difficult to make the progress that needs to be made in education. When the U.S. Office of Education exercises the control over the use of Federal funds, and cuts off these funds when school systems cannot or will not comply with certain guidelines, in many cases the students that have the greatest need of education are the ones that are deprived the most from lack of these programs financed with Federal funds. In my opinion, this is too much Federal control. The U.S. Office of Education has had a serious lack of communica- tion with the local school boards and local people. This has been brought about by: PAGENO="0378" 724 U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 1. Consultants from the U.S. Office of Education, in many cases, have not been educators, and they have little knowledge of the prob- Tems that exist in trying to operate a good school program. 2. These consultants ~-have not taken into consideration the prob- Tems that local school boards have in dealing with local people. 3. They have refused to talk to boards of education in the presence of representatives of the press. I feel that these programs under the National Defense Education Act, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, and other acts administered by the Office of Education are excellent programs, and do much to raise the level of education of all students who participate. There is a need, however, for adjustments in the law-and I am referring to title I-that will enable more schools and more students to participate. I feel that these programs contribute much toward equal educational opportunities for all students, regardless of where they live or what their social backgrounds may be. I do feel very strongly, however, that control of these programs should be with local people, rather than with the Office of Education. Mrs. GREEN. Thank you very much. Let me turn to you, Congressman Erlenborn. Do you have ques- tions? Mr. E~~oiu~. I would take it from the statements each of the members of the panel have made that you are pretty well agreed that the receipt of Federal funds is necessary for the operation of your school districts. My question is: Is this merely a monetary need? Do you feel that the reason you appreciate the receipt of the Federal funds is that you just need more money, and this is one place that you can receive it when it is difficult or impossible to raise these funds locally or statewide? And I am going to make a pretty long question, here, but I hope it can be answered. I think that I can put the question in this way: Do you believe in categorical aid? Do you believe in these programs, like title I or title III? Or would you be just as well satisfied or possibly better satisfied if you just got the money without the direction of the Office of Educa- tion or the Congress as to how you would spend these funds in specific programs? Dr. WEST. May I reply? I always like to think of the statements of the late and very dis- tinguished Senator Robert Taft, who in my judgment shed a light that was characterized by equanimity, and I think this was quite evi- dentin his attitude about Federal aid to education. It was Senator Taft who said that there must be in America a partnership as among the local, the State, and the National level, insofar as education is concerned. We can never educate our people, otherwise. As you remember, Senator Taft felt that some Federal control was necessary, but he said the country would make a great mistake if it ever come to the time that the Federal authorities would try to dictate the educatiOnal policies of the Nation. I do not think, Congressman, that we would be true to the ideals of our profession if we thought purely in terms of the monetary. PAGENO="0379" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 725 We might add parenthetically that we cannot get along without the cash, and we are not going to try to do it. But I think that our philosophy goes far beyond that. You may know that the highest professional associations and organizations in this country stood for general Federal aid. It was not the thinking of these groups that this money should come without any control, without any suggestions, and, we might :say, without mild guidelines. But we realized that in the first place there was going to be a tremendous amount of extravagance, and waste, with these airtight programs that we have. And I would like to give you an illustration. In our system, we have had a title I program, Headstart, for only a summer session, because our facilities did not make it possible to go beyond that, but if this program had been projected for a year, with all the restrictions, with all the ramifications, with all the provisos set forth by the Federal Government, it would have cost us $1,605 per pupil, whereas we provide what we think is an excellent program of education for our pupils in the school district at about $435 per year. So I feel that there is a half-way point, somewhere. I think what we are all going to have to do is to develop a common understanding of what we are trying to do for all the children in this land. I think the present program goes entirely too far, insofar as its re- strictive elements are concerned. I think we are boxed in. I think it is forcing upon us extravagance and waste, which I think the Congress ~f the United States strongly disapproves. I do not advocate simply giving the money to the State and saying, ~`Spend it as you wish," but I belive if we are going to have this three- way partnership, each group must recognize the integrity of the ability and the philosophy and the point of view of the others; that it must not get out of line to the extent that we have bureaucratic control of education, to which we are opposed. Mr. ERLENBORN. I think that is a fine statement. Does anybody have anything to add to that ~ Mr. GRIFFIN. I would like to make a long statement on this, but I would like to show a little more courtesy than to make a very long statement. First, I would like to say that I believe very strongly that this Federal Government of ours has a responsibility to every citizen in its land. I think we need to recognize the fact that in various sections of this country there are varying degrees of economic ability. I think we need to recognize the fact that if the Federal Govern- ment does not join hands and participate in the education of the youth of this country, we are going to have certain sections of our country where we will have ignorance and poverty from then on out, until there is an industrial development moving into that area. I think these are factors that we cannot overlook. And I would like to say that I believe that the Armed Forces will also bear out the fact that our country cannot be strong when large sections of it are weak. Therefore, I think very strongly that this Federal Government of ours does have-and I think, and I want to say to my former classmate and good friend Carl Flynt, that I wish he would move a little closer to our chairman, over here, on this-that the Cpngress does have a PAGENO="0380" 726 Ü.S; OFFICE OF EDIJCATION responsibility to help finance the education of the youth of this Nation, wherever they are. Secondly, I would want to point out this: Yes, I want the money. I am interested in the money. I don't hide that at all. I have heard all my life, though, that when you get money from the Federal Gov- ernment, they are going to take over control. I have lived several years, as you can note. These public laws to which I have just re- ferred-this money comes to the Cobb County Board of Education. It goes into the same account that our tax money goes into. The Fed- eral Government has no control over it whatsoever. And we have numerous bills in our county, handled exclusively, 100 percent, by this, with no control. For many, many years, we have had Federal funds coming in, and for some reason or other we still hear that we are going to have Fed- eral control. I do not want Federal control. I do not want our schools run by the Federal Government. But I do get a little bit tired of hearing, over and over again, people who say that the Federal Government is going to move in and tell us how to teach history and how to teach English, and what to do. I do recognize, unfortunately, that in recent times, in the implemen- tation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, certain elements have entered in there that have given impetus to this sort of thing, and that I regret very much. But I am strongly, unalterably, and wholeheartedly interested in the Federal Government participating in the education of the youth of this Nation. Thank you. Mr. WooD. May I add one short sentence, reaffirming what Mr. West has said, and Mr. Griffin? I just want to add that there is also a new disease among many superintendents around about the country, known as innovative in- digestion. Mr. ROBINSON. Mrs. Green, you are interested in equality among the sexes, so perhaps you would be interested in equality of equal opportunity among board members and superintendents. You have heard from three superintendents. As a board member, may I say that I think board members throughout the country, and particularly in the South, to answer your question, Congressman, would much prefer general Federal aid than categorical aid. The reasons for that are evident, and have been expressed, here, that you have more controls, you are boxed in more, and it costs more, and the needs of different sections of the country, even in a State, are different. And what a group of people in Washington would set up for a program in one State, or even in north Georgia, would no1~ be the type of thing that would fit as well in south Georgia, and therefore general Federal aid in my estimation would be much preferred. Mrs. HALLFORD. I feel the same way about the State that I feel about the Federal Government. We have to have their money. But we do not want too much of their control, either. And when I say that: An individual school system is just as mdi- vidual as an individual is. And to do everything in my county that PAGENO="0381" U.S. OFFICE - OF EDUCATION 727 another county does may be total waste. I may already have that sort of thing.~ So I want to say that we don't mind accounting for money. I think accounting for it, and taking suggestions, are well. But tied so tightly that we cannot move, when with the same amount of money we could have really much more adequacy if we had leeway to go with it-that is all I mean when I say I don't want Federal aid, or State aid, legislation, either, to interfere with who teaches history, or what history is taught, or when it is taught, or where. I don't think that ought to be in it. Mr. CLIFTON. I might make one complaint about this Public Law 89-10. I referred to it in my statement. This does not apply to my little county so much, but in so many counties you may have a third of your children who are just as culturally deprived, in schools that do not participate or cannot par- ticipate, as you do in the two-thirds or maybe almost half that do participate. And it seems to me that this is an unfair situation, when part of your children participate, and your other part cannot, who are just as culturally deprived as the ones who participate. We talk about discrimination. We are discriminating in a law that is trying to alleviate discrimination. Mr. ERLENBORN. May I ask just one other question? Outside of the field of the enforcement of the Civil Rights Act, how is your relationship with the Office of Education? Mr. WOOD. May I say to you that under the title I projects, the re- lationships have been, in my experience, very good. Like Mr. Beemon, who testified before you earlier, I can say that has worked out very nicely. I think the only criticism that I would make would be the fact that in just a little over a year, the basic guides for title I have had com- plete major revisions six different times, and only during the past week, just that recently, we have received amendmeiits revising some part of it, No. 19. It is an almost impossible task to keep abreast of the various changes they are making. Dr. WEST. May I just make this brief comment? I think our relationships are very cordial in this regard. Of course, we are tremendously concerned about what we call excessive redtape, about all these changes. It takes an enormously expanded staff to carry out all the direc- tions that are given. Someone said the other day that one of our troubles at the present time-and I think this statement is applicable now-is that we have too much paralysis of the analysis and too much friction of the diction. I would hope they might be reduced. I would think it might save us time and money. Mr. GRIFFIN. Congressman, I believe that many people have been quite unhappy over some of the recent Commissioners of Education that we have had, and some of their philosophies, perhaps; but if we can get away from the fact that the Federal Government is going to step in and demand, and control, and take over, I think our relation- ship in the past years has been good. PAGENO="0382" 728 U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION For example, Mr. Lily~iiite, Mr. McEwen, Mr. Cherry-those are three gentlemen that administer 815 and 874, and we have found them to be extremely courteous, extremely polite, and very, very efficient. So Public Law 89-10-I cannot say too much for that. As I said here, I think we need more time to evaluate part of it. But general Federal aid, as Mr. Robinson, here, has mentioned, I think would be the answer. We get criticized for receiving this impact money, when some other systems do not receive it. So I do think that a general Federal aid program, with a minimum of Federai control, is the thing. That would be my philosophy. Mrs. GnnEN. In conclusion, may I make a couple of comments. Mr. West, you referred to Senator Taft. I recall in 1949 that he was "one of those awful Socialists," and some referred to him as left of the Socialists, because he would be~ so bold as to suggest that there should be Federal aid for education. I wish to heaven that we had followed his good advice in 1949, for in 1969 we might not have the problem we will if we had done it. And I think of Luther Burbank, who said~ a long time ago, that if we paid no more attention to our plants than we do to our children, we would be living in a world of weeds. This is why we have our problems today, because we have been unwilling to finance education properly, and we have placed burdens upon school superintendents without giving them the authority and the means of doing the job. And then in regard to your comments, Mr. Griffin, I was delighted to hear them. As one who has strongly supported Federal aid for edu- cation through the years, and who has seen the necessity for it in my own part of the country, and when I review the rate of rejections in the military, I cannot help but be convinced that we have done an inadequate job in education. And I must say that I have never seen, until the last couple of years, any indication of any Federal control in any educational program. For the first time, in the last year, perhaps, and I think it is the enforcement of the civil rights, I have seen a bit of a problem that does bother me, and I think that we need to be alert to it in the Congress, and we need to be alert to it in the educational community. And if we are alert to it, and we provide the kind of leadership that we should, I see no reason why major problems should develop. I, too, want this control and direction of education at the local and the State level. If we do not see some of you again, may I express my deep grati- tude, on behalf of the committee, for your willingness to come here and give up thne that I 1mow~ is precious. We are grateful for the comments and the recommendations you have made. We are very grateful to those people who made it possible for us to use this very charming, very delightful room, where my colleague tells me he tried many cases. Coming from the part of the State that has timber-lumber-as a No. 1 industry, and the finest lumber in the world, I appreciate the wood paneling. PAGENO="0383" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION~ 729 And I am exceedingly grateful to Dr. Martin and the regional of- flee for all of the arrangements thwt he has made, and the many cour- tesies, the many kindnesses, that have been extended to us in our brief visit here. It has been most helpful. And to Congressman Flynt, and to his colleagues, with whom we have had a very close working relationship over the years, Phil Lan- drum, who served on `the Education and Labor Committee for about 10 years, to Mr. Landrum, Mr. Flynt, and John Davis, and our very dear friends Charlie Weitner and Mr. Mackey, I want to express our appreciation for their cooperation and their help in making this visit possible. Our colleagues from Georgia are most effective legislators, and we on the Education and Labor Committee have benefited by their views and by their interest in the legislation before the committee. We hope also that we may have a closer working relationship iii the Congress on the Education Committee with you people who are on the firing line, as I suggested, and who have the responsibilities that we sometimes wisely, and perhaps sometimes unwisely, place upon your shoulders. Thank you again. (V\Thereupon, at 12:55 p.m., the subcommittee recessed, to recon- vene at 2:15 p.m. the same day.) AFTERNOON SESSION Mrs. GREEN. This `was not originally included in our on-the-record hearings, but it seemed to me that it might be advantageous to have it. I hope this afternoon we can make this very informal and discuss the problems as you see them. Mr. Green, we are glad that you could rearrange your schedule to be here at this time, and we appreciate your willingness to dis- cuss the problems as you see them. STATEMENT OP J. GREEN, DE KALB HUNAN RELATIONS ASSOCIATION Mr. GREEN. I might say we appreciate very much the opportunity to be heard, and we regret that on such short notice I was the only one who could manage to flip his schedule around so as to make it here. However, everybody else wished me good luck over the phone, and hoped I would say the things others could say better than I. What we have to tell is sort of a story of our efforts in human relations, concerned with improving human relations, and promoting racial understanding and racial integration in our home district, `and our efforts to try to in particular bring about desegregation of the De Kalb County schools, `in line with the Civil Rights Act, and our attempts to get the U.S. Office of Education to perform in the manner we felt the law required them to perform in, and cooperate with citizens in a manner that we would feel was reasonable. For a variety of reasons that are not open to our knowledge, in many instances, we ended our letter to you asking to be heard, saying: O~ur efforts as citizens to concern ourselves with the problems we face here in De Kaib County in education have been totally defeated by the action of PAGENO="0384" 730 U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION the Office of Education. We are totally frustrated by the failure of that office to enforce its own guidelines. We have appealed in writing to Commissioner Kemis, Commissioner Howe, Mr. Howe, Mr. Johnson, and others, but no investi- gation has ever been made of our complaints. If you could stand it, I would like to give you a much abbreviated chronological version of some of the things that happened, and why we feel so strongly that it was the operation of the U.S. Office of Educa- tion that has in fact prevented the ending of the dual school system in De Kaib County. We think it could have been ended at any time. I might, just for clarity-I am not sure how much you know about De Kaib County, but I think it contributes a great deal if you realize it is a largely white bedroom county with a school population of around 70,000 pupils, of which only about 3,000 are Negro, living in small pockets scattered around the county. At the present time, we have achieved some integration of schools and faculty. However, some schoolhouses which were integrated last year are segregated this year. Negro children are still bussed out of their attendance districts to Negro schools. In fact, some of them are bussed past several white schools in order to get to the Negro schools. We still have in existence two very small Negro high schools, with limited course offerings. One of them has only something like 120 pupils in the whole school. There are many over-a-thousand pupil schools within a couple of miles, or 5 or 10 miles, in any case, of this school. Our superintendent of schools boasts that he received $5 million of Federal aid to education in the last year. We have repeatedly suggested to Mr. Seeley's office that just the suggestion of the with- holding of Federal aid would bring De Kaib into immediate compliance. Now, this all started, as far as we are concerned, back in 1965, but I won't go through what happened during the year 1965, but pick it up in the spring of 1966. We reported by letter to Mr. Seeley, in the U.S. Office of Educa- tion, in February of this year some of the particular points concerning the events in De Kalb County that we felt needed correction, such as that there was no faculty integration, and t.here was no individual notification concerning the possibilities of transfer of schools. The burden of proof at that time was entirely upon the Negro, and we had very clearly and obviously gerrymandered school districts. We asked the Office to intervene. We got no response to that letter. We then wrote to Mr. Peter LeBasi, a month later, asking for help in getting the Office of Education to pay attention to our complaints. We also sent a copy of this letter to Mr. Howe. We received no response to the letter to Mr. Howe. On March 21, however, we did receive a reply from Mr. LeBasi, apologizing for the Office of Education not responding to our com- plaints, and stating that Mr. Kruger would follow through. In the meantime, on March 11, we had written again to Mr. Seeley, right after the new* guidelines were prepared, noting not only that their Office had not answered our letters, but we thought the new guidelines were just great. We still think that the guidelines themselves were a very fine docu- ment, and a very intelligent one, that was produced by someone who PAGENO="0385" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 731 understood what the problems of getting some kind of compliance would be. We suggested in this letter that Federal pressure would be needed to make Do Kaib County comply. Our reasons for this were our own personal experience, plus published statements by the superintendent of schools, boasting of his success as a segregationist. For example, in an~ Atlanta Constitution article back in 1965, Mr. Cherry was quoted as saying: I suppose I am the most successful segregationist in the country. I am just taking this in order. We didn't know about this, but on April 14, Mr. Harper, the assist- ant superintendent of schools in Do Kalb County, who is more or less in charge of dealing .with the U.S. Office of Education with respect to segregation, silenced by Mr. Cherry, superintendent of schools, went to Washington, and we were told later in a letter from Mr. Seeley that Mr. Harper was told at that time that the county was operating under a geographical zone attendance plan. I am sure you are not basically concerned with the features of this as such. I hope you understand there is a difference between a geo- graphic-zone plan and a freedom-of-choice plan, because around this distinction a good deal of our difficulties in dealing with the U.S. Office developed. De Kalb County, then, according to Mr. Seeley, did not have a freedom-of-choice plan, had an attendance-zone plan, and Mr. Seeley claims that not only had De Kalb County chosen to do this a year before, but in his conference with Mr. Harper on April 14, this had been reiterated and made explicit. In the meantime, we began to read in the newspaper, and hear discussions, and get notices and comments from the school people, that seemed to indicate to us that the county was now operating under a freedom-of-choice plan. This was not our notion of the greatest idea in the world, but any plan was better than no plan. We read the guidelines, and the guidelines laid out certain require- ments to be followed by school systems, following a freedom-of-choice plan. They were not being followed completely, just in part, at that time. We wrote Mr. Seeley and asked that he explain what was going on. On April 22, we got a reply from Mr. Seeley, saying that Do Kalb had until April 30 to mail parents, giving name and location of the school to which the student had been assigned by the school leader, and information about bus service, and that they were supposed to publish map attendance zones, and so forth. We received notices from the school system on May 2. Now, these notices were freedom-of-choice notices. They were exactly the notices that the guidelines said should be sent under a freedom-of-choice plan. We pointed this out to everybody we could, and in the meantime we made some complaints to various and sundry people, that the free- dom-of-choice procedures wore not being followed. For example, the freedom-of-choice plan covered what choices were not offered at all high schools. This was never done, for obvious reasons. 73-728-67-Pt. 2-25 PAGENO="0386" 732 U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION In any case, Mr. Kruger at this point took a hand, and while I don't' know the details of what he did, at all, and I do not claim that what: I have here is an accurate report of what he did, it is what we under- stand happened. We understand that on May 3, Mr. Cherry received a telegram from Kruger, Mr. Kruger at the Office of Education, saying that let- ters should have been sent prior to April 30, assigning students to school, and then a transfer permitted, also that the system should have submitted a map by April 13, and asked for immediate publication of a geographical request zone plan, and a requested explanation. The next day, Mr. Harper stated to the Constitution that he knew of no deadlines for mailing letters. We understand that Mr. Cherry was incensed by this telegram from Mr. Kruger, and said he would have no further dealings with him, that he would only talk with Mr. Howe. On May 6, the De Kaib Council met with Mr. Corrigan, of the U.S. Office of Education. He reiterated that the procedures for a geographic plan would be enforced. He also stated that all faculties would b~ integrated. And he stated that preparation of pupils, teachers, and staff for desegregation was an important consideration in the Office's considerations of compliance. On May 9, we wrote a letter to Mr. Corrigari, pointing out the variety of courses currently offered in De Kaib schools, and asked when we would receive new notices. We got no answer to this letter. It was on May 11 that Mr. Cherry was quoted in the paper as saying he would not deal with Kruger, because of statements made. We had community support, then, for insisting that t.here be com- pliance. I can point to articles in the Atlanta Constitution pointing out there should be no reason why there should have been any diffi- culty, under the guidelines. On May 16, Mr. Cherry saw Mr. Howe, and came out of the meeting with a letter in hand in which Mr. Cherry was absolved completely. And Mr. Howe said Mr. Cherry was doing just great, that he did not have to have any notices of attendance zones, because "each child understands that he is initially assigned to an attendance area." In the meantime, in fact following this for a number of weeks, our committee in the schools were being told that they must sign these freedom-of-choice forms. My own job people, for example, told a third grade student that he would not be able to go to school next year unless his parents completed the freedom-of-choice forms. However, some did not complete those forms, and we did want to see if we would ever get a notice of our attendance zone. On June 8, assignments by attendance zone were made for those who had not completed the choice form. This was after school closed. In the meantime, we wrote to Mr. Howe, on May 26, citing what we considered to be 10 violations of the guidelines, and asking him to answer this letter. We never did get a reply to this, although we wrote him a month later asking if he could not reply. and since we could not get any information from that point, De Kalb County paid no further atten- tion to us. PAGENO="0387" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 733 In fact, they did not have to. Mr. Howe's letter resolved the con- clition of the guidelines. And while they answered our letters in due course, they were evas- ive letters, and just said, "I am sure if you take any particular child to a school, the questions will be answered for that child." I might note that although the assignments were given* at the end of June, that was not universally true. The principal of one Negro school said he did not assign seventh grade students to the school. In Do Kalb County, grade eight is the beginning of high school, so that apparently none of the children in that school were told which high school zone they lived in. On June 10, we wrote a letter to Mr. Corrigan, asking for some specifics about what aspects of the guidelines still applied to De Kalb County, if any, such as the unlimited transfer permissible for bus service to Negro children, and asking who was in charge of compliance in Do Kaib County now. We got no answer to that letter. In fact, we never, nearly, until a few days ago, got anythmg further out of the U.S. Office of Edu- cation, and we made a number of attempts, but we never really did get any. We became totally ineffective. What newspaper support we had for the notion that De Kalb could comply vanished immediately, was all a misunderstanding, and Mr. Cherry and Mr. Howe agreed that the thing that De Kalb County was doing was great. As we note in our letter to you, Congresswoman Green, late last year, you had been told by Mr. Howe, we understand, that he would see to it that Do Kalb County was investigated. As far as we know, that is not true, and has never happened. In fact, in August, representatives of the Office of Equal Oppor- tunity were in Atlanta doing a field investigation in Georgia, and at that time we were told that Mr. Seeley had refused to give permis- sion for any investigation in De Kalb County. I will call your attention to only one other thing. On June 22, of this year, the Atlanta Constitution front page head- lines had an article referring to Mr. William Page's memorandum to Secretary Gardner, in the local office, which said in part: The ineptitude in handling the De Kaib County matter is unequaled in our experience. Local peo'pie in this Regional Office have attempted for a year to get this problem handled constructively by the Office of Education. If any of the 2,000 school superintendents can negotiate his case with Commissioner Howe, why should 10,000 hospital administrators not have access to the Surgeon General?- and so on. `We feel rather strongly that this is a case of a bureaucracy tripping over itself; in its efforts to accomplish one thing, it is accomplishing something else. I don't think any of us doubt the individual personal sincerity of the people in the Office of Education. `We nevertheless feel that we personally have been treated shabbily, but above all, a number of children in Do Kalb County could have been in some semblance of adequate schools, or still remain in the segregated schools unneces- sarily, and we really had come to a dead end when we had the oppor- tunity to be heard by you. PAGENO="0388" 734 U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION Mrs. Giu~EN. How many schools are there in the county, and to what extent are they integrated? Mr. GREEN. Number of schools-we are a rapidly growing suburban county, and 1 am not sure of the exact number of schools at the moment. There may be something like 60-odd schools, or more. Mrs. GREEN. Elementary? Mr. GREEN. Around 55 elementary schools, maybe 10 to a dozen high schools, something on this order. Mrs. GREEN. And your high school is from the eighth grade through the 12th? Mr. GREEN. Eighth through 12th. There are around, as I say-enrollment figures, 70,000, and Negro enrollment figures are in the neighborhood of 3,000. There is no large concentration of Negroes in De Kaib County. They live in scattered pockets, scattered around the county. That is, all those that are eligible for the De Kalb County schools. The city of Atlanta extends into De Kaib County, but that is a different question. Mrs. GREEN. I don't understand. Are you saying you have a completely dual system in De Kaib County? There is no- Mr. GREEN. No. I am sorry. You asked about integration. As of October, according to my best information-this is not official information-we did discover later on that there was an official report available- Mrs~ GREEN. As of what date? Mr. GREEN. As of October of this year. Our attempts to find these official reports-we finally came across them, but it takes a lot of getting anything out of the school office these days, for us. We are not very welcome there, and when they can evade our questions, they do. Our information is that there are about 25 Negro teachers or staff in previously all white schools, and about five white teachers or staff in otherwise Negro schools. The number of Negro pupils in integrated schools in the county at this time I seem to have a blank. Let me give you a figure off the cuff that I think is approximately correct: 400. Mrs. GREEN. 400 Negroes in all 55 schools? Mr. GREEN. They are not in all of them. There are approximately 17 or 18 schools that have such a situation, as far as students are concerned. The remaining schools are either all Negro or all white. Both of my children attend'schools that are all white. We really think there is no reason for this, at all, in this county. It is a well to do, wealthy county. I don't mean that the people who live there are all in favor of inte- gration. Don't misunderstand me, at all. We think that if it became a matter of obeying the law, they would obey the law, without any question. Mrs. GREEN. Are they operating under freedom of choice? Mr. GREEN. No. We have a school attendance plan. There are many difficulties with this plan, as we see it. There are difficulties with the districts. There is difficulty with the application of the plan. PAGENO="0389" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 735 Operating with an attendance zone plan followed by freedom of choice-now, what exactly this means is one of the things we have been unable to discover, but this is the description of the system. Mr. Howe's letter to Mr. Cherry on May 16, 1966, this is the de- scription of it as given, that we have attempted to find out what this really means, but we are told that basically it is a geographic plan, with attendance zones, and children assigned by zone. Mrs. GREEN. Do you know of any instance in Dc Kalb County where a student presented himself at any school and said, "I would like to en- roll in this school," and he was denied the opportunity to attend? Mr. GREEN. Not in direct fashion; no. We know of some instances in which there were some discouraging steps taken, but, no, I would have to say that any child who made a direct, clear, cleancut request to be assigned to that school-we could not say anybody had been rejected for race in that school. Mrs. GREEN. What do you think the Office of Education ought to have done that they did not do? Mr. GREEN. We think they ought to have asked that De Kaib County toe the line on guidelines. Mrs. GREEN. What, specifically? What guidelines? And what do you mean by "toeing the line"? Mr. GREEN. Using the 1966 guidelines, we believe that perhaps the most important thing that should happen, that has not happened, is that every single parent and child in the county receive notice of his zone, of the attendance zone in which he lives. There are still many children, particularly Negro children and par- cuts, in De Kaib County, who don't really know. They know their children go to that Negro school, a number of miles away. They don't know whether they live in that zone, or they live in that white school zone, or that Negro school zone. Now, I don't deny that those who care about it strongly enough to take the initiative, to go down and visit each school in turn, can, by looking at the map on the wall, find out whether they live in the zone at that school, and after making the rounds at several schools, they can probably find out in just which attendance zone they live. Then they could, presumably, next year apply to transfer to that school, and my guess is that that request would. be granted. There would not be any basic difficulty. But we think that the burden of this kind of thing should not be put upon the transferring of Negro children. Mrs. GREEN. Then you say, one, you think that the Office of Edu- cation should see that a notice is given to everyone in the county? Mr. GRm~N. That is correct. Mrs. GREEN. Now, what about the Human Research Council? Have they taken leadership, sent out notices, done an educational job in the county? Mr. GREEN. Yes, and no. In fact, in many respects this is one of the things that had us so very angry, at first. In 1965 we did just ex- actly that. We spent our time in notifying parents. In 1965, first and eighth graders only were allowed to transfer. We spent a great deal of time and effort finding families that had rising eighth graders and entering first graders, and notifying them of the PAGENO="0390" 736 u.S. OFFICE OF EDUCA'~IQN possibilities of getting their children in this school or that school, and :flnding out what could be done about transportation, which has been a very difficult problem. Part of our difficulty the following year was that we believed the U.S. Office of Education's statements that they meant to enforce their rules, and as we read the rules, I still believe that if the rules they had laid down had been observed carefully, there would have been no dif- ficulty. Mrs. GREEN. How much success did you have in 1965 with the first and eighth graders? Did you send everyone a notice that had children in the first; and eighth grades? Mr. GREEN. No. In most cases this meant a door-by-door attempt, attending church meetings, going from door to door, in this little Ne- gro ëommimity, trying to find out who had such children. We did not have any master list from which we could work. In 1966, we simply did not do this. We thought all we would do was watch the national Office of Education enforce the guidelines. This was a terrible mistake, which we regretted very much. However, in the fall of 1965, nearly 250 pupils transferred. It only went up to 400, or thereabouts-I don't claim I know the exact figure- in the following year, when all grades went up. I am sure that we could have done much better. * Mrs. GREEN. You have said one thing. What else do you think the Office of Education ought to do? Mr. GREEN. They have a paragraph in their guidelines saying they will not tolerate the existence of small, isolated, inadequate schools. There is at least one school of roughly 120 pupils in De Kalb County, an all-Negro high school. That is five grades, now, we are talking about. That is being maintained, -which we think is in direct con- tradiction to the provisions of the guidelines. Yet it is a good provision, and we don't believe that that high school should be maintained. There is also an elementary school on the spot, and we are not sug- gesting that that spot should be eliminated. We believe that in the immediate action, the U.S. Office of Education should investigate at the very least the actions of the school system with regard to its bus transportation. Some buses that were desegregated last year are segregated again this year. Unfortunately, I could not get some people of the council here who know in precise detail about this particular point, but there is one story of the Negro cornm~.mity in Tucker, which is a small community or city or town in De Kalb County. It is a very small Negro community, and four buses go around through that little Negro community. Many of the children go to a nearby white elementary school. As I understand it, and this is hearsay on my part, now; I have, not mv esti- gated this personally-the bus to that school, to that white elemei itary school, with the Tucker Negro children, used to~ go down the si reet, where they lived. It was an integrated bus. They discovered that a bridge over which that bus had to go was defective, and the white children on that bus were taken off the bus and put on other buses, and the Negro children continued to ride that particular bus, which now is segregated going to school. PAGENO="0391" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 737 There are other cases where segregated buses take children to schools, and particularly the high school children, the Negro high school. chil~ dren, I understand, resent this very much. Mrs. GREEN. These instances that you cited-can you document this? Mr. GREEN. 1 can get people to testify of their own personal knowl- edge of these circumstances. I am sorry, very sorry, we are not here in force, so that I could turn and say that so-and-so knows about that experience. Mrs. GREEN. What else would you ask of the Office of Education? Mr. GREEN. Specifically with respect to promoting understanding- how shall I rephrase that-we do not feel that De Kalb County has taken any really constructive steps to help, officially to help, the people of the county understand about desegregation. We think the U.S. Office of Education could have helped the county and assisted, as they say in their guidelines that they demand positive action by the school system to instruct people about this, to promote understanding and acceptance of the guidelines. We do not think the Office of Education has urged this, even. Mrs. GREEN. Do you think this is really the responsibility of the Office of Education? Mr. GREEN. I had better speak personally on this. I don't know about the people in the country generally. We do think that if an agency of the U.S. Government announces it is going to follow a policy, it ought to follow it, or admit publicly it is not, and retract. Mrs. GREEN. In this case, of what policy? Mr. GREEN. In this case, enforcing the act. Mrs. GREEN. But let's take the point of bringing about better under- standing. Mr. GREEN. Should they have undertaken the responsibility'? Should they have the responsibility of trying to bring about desegre- gation? Is this what you are asking? Mrs. GREEN. No. On your last point, I asked: What else would you have the Office of Education do? Mr. ERLENBORN. I think you were saying that there is a guideline that requires this. Mr. GREEN. Yes. Mr. ERLENBORN. And I think here the point is not whether you feel they should do it; but if it is in the guidelines, they should do it; or if they should not do it, it should not be in the guidelines. Is that a fair way to put it? Mr. GREEN. Yes, it is. Mrs. GREEN. Is that in the guidelines, that the Office of Education shall come out with proposals? Mr. GREEN. No; it is in the guidelines that the school systems will come out and do the same, and this is one of the criteria. Mrs. GREEN. The school systems will come out and do what? Mr. GREEN. Will, take action to obtain acceptance of desegregation. This is one of the official provisions of the guidelines, that this Office of Education said it would use as a judge of whether or not the school system is in compliance, if they in fact take steps to win public acceptance. . . . . PAGENO="0392" 738 U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION I don't believe that the U.S. Office pays any attention to this, at all. Certamly there is no evidence of this for De Kaib County. Mrs. GREEN. How would you have them do it, specifically? What would you have the Office of Education do? Mr. GREEN. in this particular case, I would have them say to De Kaib County, "This is something you have not done. For heaven's sake do something." They have not done anything. They could have programs exp~Eain- ing this. They could promote a positive attitude among school em- ployees, and ask for it. I think there are many things they could do to promote better human relations, generally speaking, within the county. The school system has grudgingly complied, rather than being forced to comply. How much of this sort of thing there is, and how effective it is, I don't know. I belong to an organization that dedicates itself to try- ing. We don't claim that we know the answers on human relations, either. We just try. Mr. ERLENBORN. You made reference to a letter from, I beaieve, the regional director of the Department of Health, Education, and Wel- fare, to the Washington office. Is that right? During this last year, have you been in fairly frequent contact with the regional director? Mr. GREEN. Off and on, people in our council have been in contact with the regional office. We have always found that they understood. I think we have al- ways found they understood the nature of our problems quite well. For the most part, they have been unable to help us. Mr. ERLENBORN. Let me put the question to you this way: Do you think you would have a better job done if the job of civil rights enforce- ment were decentralized, and the regional director had the authority? Mr. GREEN. Yes, I think so. I think most of us at this moment believe that would be the case. Mr. ERLENBORN. I will just make two quick observations. I think your experience in Do Kalb County is probably just about the complete antithesis or contrary experience of other counties that we have heard about; but interestingly enough, your conclusion is about the same as the conclusion of the people on the other side of the fence, that local enforcement would be better. I think this is rather interesting. Mr. GREEN. And one of the reasons we wanted to be heard was that we were fairly sure that this was the circumstance, that is, that we were on one side, and almost everybody else was on the other. We do agree with the conclusion, anyhow. We may be wrong. Until it is tried, I am not sure. But I really think that there are just so many layers to the bureaucracy, here. This has been our major problem. I don't think anybody has intended to undercut anybody else. I suspect this is true on the other side of the coin, too. No, I don't see any reason why there could not be some local au- thority on this matter. Atleastit ought to be given a trial. Mrs. GREm~. You don't `have any other specific recommendations for the Office of Education? PAGENO="0393" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 739 Mr. GREEN. No, I don't. Mrs. GREEN. Thank you very much, Mr. Green. Mr. GREEN. Thank you for the opportunity of presenting the coun- cil's views. Mrs. GREEN. Next we have representatives here from the American Friends Committee. This seems to be an afternoon of the Greens. Miss Wmifred Green, and Mr. Green of the public relations council, and myself are no rela- tion, to my knowledge. We just happen to all have the same name. Would you introduce the people who have come with you, too? STATEMENT OF MISS WINIFRED GREEN, ALABAMA COMMU~TY RELATIONS PROGRAM, AMERICAN FRIENDS SERVICE COMMIT- TEE; MEMBER, AFSC-LEGAL DEFENSE FUND SCHOOL DESE!GRE~ GATION TASK FORCE Miss GREEN. I certainly would. My name is Winifred Green. I am a menther of the Alabama Com- munity Relations staff of the American Friends Service Committee. Sitting to my immediate right is Miss Teretha Lemmon, a 10th grade student at St. George High School, in South Carolina. Next to her is Mr. Hayes Mizell, a member of the South Carolina Comnurnity Relations staff of the American Friends Committee; Mrs. Frieda Mitchell, a program associate of the school desegregation .task force, and chairman of the Beaufort County Education Committee; Mr. Henry Aronson, a legal attorney with the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund; Mrs. Annie Mae Williams, a program associate of the task force from Wetumpka, Ala. To my left, Miss Constance Curry, of the desegregation task force, and southern representative for the American Friends Service Com- mittee. Mr. ERLENBORN. Might I suggest before we get started that we might explain our time limitations, so that the presentation could be tailored to fit our plane schedule. We do have to catch a plane this evening, to go to Kansas City, and from what we understand about the traffic, and the time between here and the airport, we will have to leave here at about quarter to 5, so that gives us about half an hour. I thought you should be advised of this, so that you could tailor your presentation to fit what is a rather stringent time limitation, I realize, but if we are going to get to Kansas City, that is the way it is. Mrs. GREEN. If you could, summarize your statement, and then the entire statement will be made a matter of the printed record, not only for us to refer to and read, but also for our colleagues. Miss GREEN. I planned to read sections of this, and summarize, but I think, in view of the time schedule, if it is all right, I will only read the five recommendations that we have to make, and then have the people, many of whom come from a long way, make their presentations in regard to this. V I wonder if we could let them make their statements, and leave the remainder of the time for questions when finished. I will just say, to start out, that the American Friends Committee is speaking out of 15 years of community programs. V PAGENO="0394" 740 U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION Mrs. GREEN. We are very familiar with the American Friends Serv- ice Committee. I have great respect for it. Miss GREEN. We have recommendations in five areas. Our first recommendation is that the guidelines should be strength- ened, and you will notice on page 2 of our report their comments about that. Our second reconunendation, on page 4 of the statement, is that the Office of Education should develop an informational and educational program to interpret the goal of abolishing the dual school structure, to inform Negro citizens of their rights, and to win a broad base of sup~ port for securing equality of educational opportunity. On page 5 is the third reconimendation. At this critical juncture, the Office of Education must launch an affirmative compliance program, with adequate machinery and staff, and with a strengthened technical assistance component. Our fourth recommendation is that the Office of Education should develop a well coordinated approach to compliance, so that Federal programs are working toward the same goal. Our fifth recommendation is that the Office of Education should build into its compliance program a process of systematic factfinding and evaluation, so that it can make an accurate assessment of progress, identify areas of weakness in the guidelines, and strengthen its com- pliance machinery on the basis of documented experience. I think that the exhibits indicated in the statement are clear, except Exhibit E is not marked. That is a letter received this morning. Mrs. GREEN. Are your recommendations particularly pertinent to Georgia, or to all of the South? Miss GREEN. They are pertinent to the nine Southern States where the desegregation task force has operated. I would like next to let Mrs. Williams from Wetumpka, Ala., speak about her experience in desegregation in Ehriore County, Ala. STATEMENT OF MRS. ANNIE I~~AE WILLIAMS, PROGRAM ASSOCI- ATE, SCHOOL DESEGREGATION TASK FORCE, WETTTMPKA, ALA. Mrs. WILLIAMS. I am a parent of four children in the desegregated schools in Wetumpka. Last year 19 Negroes were enrolled in the white school at Wetumpka. Forty signed up, but lost their nerve for one reason or another. One reason some of the children did not attend is because the attendance supervisor went around in the Negro community encourag- ing parents not to send the children to the white school. In October of last year, the home of Mrs. Cara Teavey was burned to the ground. The fire department let this house burn all night, and all the whites stood around a~Il night. Her car was broken into by a group of white boys. The fire department let the house burn, and never came back. This happened after Mrs. Chew integrated the schools. Deborah Gracie, a Negro girl in the 11th grade at the desegregated school, was shot by rubberbands by the white students from the very beginning, and no one did anything:to defend her. After taking all she could, she had to defend herself. When she~ hit back, she was expelled from school, put in jail, and kept there over- night, without bail. She was kept out of school almost 4 months. PAGENO="0395" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 741 The day before Deborah was to return to school, her parents' home was destroyed by firebombs. It was a total loss. Nothing has been done to replace the home, or punish anyone for the crime. My son Victor's arm was broken in physical education class. The white kids laughed and said, "Oh, goody, `Nigger' got his arm broke. It should have been his neck." The lunchroom workers treated the Negro children very cruelly. They just treated them different from all the others. The teachers made jokes about "niggers" and helped the students laugh at the Negro children. The harder the Negro children were working to make good grades, the lower the grades would be. Three Negro girls were refused admittance to Wetumpka High by white students because they were told their transfer blanks had gotten lost. This loss of transfer blanks did not prevent them from return- ing to the Negro school. During the past summer, we worked very hard, trying to encourage parents to send more children to the white school. The things that happened to Teaveys and Deborah made others afraid to send their children. Others were afraid of losing their jobs, or being cut off welfare. I had gone to work before then as practical nurse and assistant teacher, but after enrolling my children in the white school, I am no longer called to do any work. We worked very hard, and got almost 300 promises for the present school year, but many were afraid, and did not keep the promise. We were happy to get 150 children enrolled throughout the county~ This year we were so proud we had some larger boys attending the formerly white school. Some of the boys went out for sports, but soon had to stop, because the whites treated them so cruel. Two of the boys were hurt during football practice, and they were never protected by the white players. The spectators started going to watch the practice, and encouraged the white boys to spank the Negroes. Two of the boys were hurt and taken to the school doctor. The doctor always treated the Negroes very cruel. When time for basketball came this year, the Negro boys thought they would have a better chance. They were allowed to practice, but they couldn't play on the team. They were told they couldn't play the first year they transferred, even though the guidelines clearly say they can. The whites buses are not transporting the Negro children to the white school. Only one bus is bringing children to the white school, and this driver sat back and watched while the whites sprayed de- odorant in the faces of the Negro kids. One girl was hit in the face with a baseball bat. Most of the children had to ride the bus to the Negro school and then walk to the white school, rain or shine, and some of the time they are punished for being tired. The home economics teacher makes the Negro girls sit on a sewing machine, while~ the whites were at tables. She always told the Negro girls to clean the bathroom and wash inside the toilets. The whites are never told to do this. PAGENO="0396" 742 u.s. OFFICE OF EDUCATION The worst thing that happened to those of us who work so hard is that the children in the integrated school have an easy chance of going back, and many children have changed their minds and gone back, because of the grades, and the treatments they received. And all they have to do is to ask for a little yellow sup and say they want to go back, and it is easily done. The few Negro children who attend the white schools are outnum-. bered, so they are left out on all activities, such as homecoming. Small, inadequate schools, with outdoor toilets, are still being used. They are heated by old potbelly stoves. According to the guidelines these schools should be closed. Dobey High School, the Negro school, is so crowded they have classes in the halls, a.nd some teachers have as many as 50 or 60 children at one time. Everything that has been going on has been reported to the Office of Education, but we are still waiting for some action. Mrs. GREEN. Thank you, Mrs. Williams. Mr. Hayes Mizell. STATEMENT OP HAYES MIZELL, SOUTH CAROLINA COMMUNITY RELATIONS PROGRAM, AMERICAN FRIENDS SERVICE COMMIT- TEE, MEMBER, SCHOOL DESEGREGATION TASK FORCE Mr. MIZELL. The findings I have made in South Carolina during the last 8 months are contained primarily in exhibit C, and I will just refer you to that for my primary criticisms, observations, et cetera. Now I would like to introduce Miss Teretha Lemmon, who is a 10th grade student at St. George High School, a desegregated high school in St. George, S.C. STATEMENT OP TERETHA LEMMON, 10TH GRADE STUDENT, ST. GEORGE HIGH SCHOOL, ST. GEORGE, S.C. Miss LEMMON. I am at St. George High School. From the day we have walked in that school, we have been treated like little dogs-like a person who goes in a place and you are not wanted. And our principal is very nasty. Even though Negro students, we try to be as nice as we can, and if someone do something to you, well, we ignore them for a while, until they push us too far, and then, if we hit back, we are sent to the principal. He doesn't wait for us to give our side of anything. He always listens to what the whites have to say, and whenever a Negro's state- ment doesn't count, we get the pimishment, whereas some of us maybe are put out of school, and the rest of them remain in school. And in our classes, we sit in the back of the classroom, and the whites are ahead of us, or either we sit on one side, and they~ sit on the other side, whereas the teacher stands in front of the white kids and displays things to them. And if we have questions, a.nd we ask our questions, she seems to ignore us, as though she doesn't even hear us, as though we are not a part of the class. And if we hold up our hands and answer a question, she looks over our hands and calls on some of the white kids. PAGENO="0397" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 743 All right, then. The bus seating: We sit on one side of our bus, and the whites sit on the other side. And we do this because the prin- cipal came on the bus one day and told us where we had to sit, and we are not allowed to sit on the other side. The door on the bus has a hole in it, and the wind comes in, and quite naturally we wanted to sit on the side where the heater is, too, but we aren't allowed to sit on that side. V~Te sit on the opposite side all the time. In the class, we sit there because the teachers tell us to sit there. We aren't allowed to participate in any activities. And the reason for that-they don't give us a reason for that. And in the gym, we sit on one side of the gym, and they sit on the other side of the gym. And we pass the students in the hall. They call us "niggers" and all kinds of things, names, throw paper on us, and we report this to the principal and the teacher, and they don't say anything. And I say tha't a whole lot of students around there are tired of it, and a whole lot of our student.s have transferred back to the Negro schools. And we asked one-Miss Jennie Patricia asked to transfer some students over there. He said they couldn't take the school time to transfer students over there, but they would take time to transfer Negro students back to a Negro school. And the Negro students have Negro teachers and the others is all white teachers teaching Negro students. Mr. MIZELL. Madam Chairman, we had planned' to hear from Mrs. Mitchell, of Beaufort County, but the statement is similar, and I think we will go on `to Mr. Aronson, and come back. STATEMENT OP HENRY ARONSON, ATTORNEY, NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE AND' EDUCATIONAL FUND Mr. ARONSON. For 12 years, the law of the land regarding segregated schools has been unequiwcal. They are illegal. Every school district which does `that is acting in violation of the Constitution.' The fact is that southern school districts, with few exceptions, con- tinue to be operated in whole or in part on a segregated basis. Recognition of the fact that the Supreme Court decisions require action only of the party or named parties to the decision is basic to understanding the current segregated status of southern schools. While the principle that segregated schools are unconstitutional, as enunciated in Brown, applies to 2,000-plus southern school districts, the decree requires desegregation only, and required desegregation only of five school districts, namely, those school districts that were parties to the Brown litigation. The limited reach in terms of mandatory action `of a court decree explains the essential failure of litigation as a technique to effect wide- spread desegregation. `Too few attorneys are available to conduct litigation against the hundreds of segregated school systems in existence at this time. And in particular deference to Congresswoman Green-and I know your very real concern for local au'tonomy in local school districts doing `their job-I think it is relevant to note that school districts have not been willing, anywhere in `the Deep South, to voluntarily desegregate. PAGENO="0398" 744 U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION The law of the land-and we are told that we are a nation of laws, and not men-was that segregated schools were unconstitutional and illegal. Yet, in 1964, there was not one desegregated school system in the State of Mississippi. It is ironic to tell schoolchildren that this is a nation of laws; yet those school systems don't feel bomid by those laws. Administrative remedies, such as title VT of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, assume monumental importance here. It is nothing less than a tragedy that the conceptual scheme and enforcement procedures adopted by the Office of Education have been ineffective to effect the results required by the 14th amendment to the Constitution. Statistics published by the Office of Education are deceptive. We are told that x number of Negro children are attending school with white children, usually a geometric percentage increase over the previous year. Our natural inclination is to marvel at such astronomical improve- ment. A closer, examination .of the unstated facts should dampen our ~esponse and discredit the numbers gained. Examples of the imstated facts would include, one, that nowhere iii Mississippi, in one district in Alabama., in one district in South ~Jarolina, and in only a. handful o.f districts in the remainder of the Deep South, do white children attend schools formerly maintained by Negroes. The Negro schools continue to exist. And I am aware of no action or plans on the. part of the Office of Education to abolish this segre- gated institution. There ha.s been no progress worthy of note in faculty desegregation in the Deep South. To my knowledge, there are no Negroes teaching as regular teachers in formerly white schools in all of Mississippi. There are two in the whole State of Alabama. Similarly, to my knowledge, there are no white teachers in Negro schools in Alabama and MiSSiSsippi, and the pattern is the same, with few exceptions, throughout the Deep South. Not one Negro team has played a team from a formerly white school anywhere in the Deep South. Segregated transportation systems are maintained throughout the Deep South to this day. Little or no effort has been made. to consoli- date routes serving both whit.e a.nd Negro students, even where t.hese children attend the same schools. As of this time, new schools are constructed to accommodate. children of one race. In Alabama, prior to a new school being constructed, the State department of education takes a census of only thOse children of the raée for whom the school is built. The Alabama State Board of Education has been found by the Office of Education to be in compli- ance with title VI. And I might add that these racial censuses were testified to last `week in Alabama, in the case of Lee v. ~I[aso~ Co~i~ty. Alabama. The existence of all Negro schools, segregated facilities, segregated athletics, segregated transportation. continued building Of schOols for children of one race. .suggests t.hat the Office of Education's stand- PAGENO="0399" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 745 ards of practice, the number of Negroes in white schools, are of little or no value, and even where these statistics are considered, they are pretty unimpressive 12 years after Brown v. The Board of Education. The continued existence of pervasive segregation within school sys- tems can be traced in large part to the use of freedom-of-choice as a means of accomplishing desegregation. Southern school superintendents readily admit that white children will not choose Negro schools. Extraordinary pressures exist in many communities which inhibit Negro children from ~hoosing white schools. The ugly events of this past September in Grenada, events which I personally witnessed, carry a message to Negro homes throughout the South. Aside from violence, there is the omnipresent threat of loss of jobs, of homes, to countless Negro families, who choose to do no more than exercise their constitutional rights. The failure of the white, coupled with the fear of the Negro, will undoubtedly insure the continued existence of the Negro school so long as freedom-of-choice is relied on by the Office of Education as the primary technique for accomplishing desegregation. The Negro community cannot in good conscience be expected to as- sume the burden of desegregating schools. The burden must be shifted to school authorities. They alone created segregated schools. They must assume the responsibility of desegregating their schools. * If we accept the thesis of title VI, that Federal moneys cannot be used to support segregated institutions, a thesis that I feel is com- pelled by the Constitution, the Office of Education is subject to criti- cism for doing too little, rather than too much. The criticism we have heard from Southern whites is simply not supportable in fact. * Nine Mississippi school districts which at this time are considered to be in compliance with title VI have not one Negro in a formerly white school, not one white in a Negro school, and no faculty deseg- regation. For the record, they include Bay Saint Louis, Franklin County, Jones County, Lowndes County, Monroe County, Pawnatuck, Union County, Wayne County, and Union Special Municipal School District. In fact, most, if not all, school districts found to be in compliance with title VI would be required to do more, if they were brought into court. I find it ironic that the Office of Education has not been defended by the Southern States, for the Office of Education has added respect- ability and credibility to the continued existence of segregated prac- tices in countless southern school communities. The Congress has an obligation, and I sincerely hope that the work of this subcommittee will lead the way, to enact further legislation *which will provide funds and a mandate to the Office of Education and all other Federal agencies to insure that Federal moneys are in fact not used discriminatorially. Title VI, like Brown versus the Board of Education, set down a principle. Hopefully, further legislation will provide for the realiza- tion of this principle. Thank you. PAGENO="0400" 746 U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION Mrs. GREEN. Let me interrupt here to clarify my own position. One, you made reference to my belief in autonomy at the lOcal level. My statements on this have been with regard to leadership. I have at no time said that I thought the enforcement of the Civil Rights Act should be left to the lOcal level. We have raised questions whether the enforcement should be taken out of the Office of Education and put either in the Justice Depurt- ment or in a new office in HEW, but my concern is that there should be local leadership, and that this should remain at the State and the local level. Mr. ARONSON. I am sorry. I did not mean to misstate your position. I say as far as I am concerned, I would like to see local leadership. I think it is a sin and a crime that we have to sue school district after school district, and use countless energies to effect only that which the court said must be effected 12 years ago. MisS GREEN. Mrs. Mitchell, is there any point that you would like to add? Mrs. `MITCHELL. No, unless there are questions. What I was going to say is very much similar to what has been said. Miss GREEN. We certainly appreciate this opportunity to be here. Mrs. GREEN. Do either of you wish to speak? Miss. GREEN. I would like to use the remaining time for questions. Mr. ERLENBORN. I don't want to be quarrelsome on your figures, but one thing you said caught my attention, because I had heard some- thing just to the contrary in the last day or two~ In some of your figures, `as to the lack of desegregation, you stated that there were no football games played between Negro and white~ schools. Is that correct? Was that one of your statements? Mr. ARONSON. Mr. Congressman, I referred to the Deep South, and most particularly to my intimate experience with Alabama and Mis- sissippi. I have been informed by people from South Carolina that the same thing is true there. Mr. ERLENBORN. I just had related to me that here in Atlanta they have had- Mr. ARONSON. I believe that is true, but I think that is `an exception. Mr. ERLENBORN. That may be, in your definition of the Deep South. Mr. ARONSON. Certainly not Atlanta and the general area, no, sir. Mr. ERLENBORN. Do you feel that the Office of Education is the proper instrument for the enforcement of the 1964 Civil Rights Act? Mr. ARONSON. With respect to schools and education? Mr. ERLENBORN. With respect to schools, right. Mr. ARONSON. I think their work should be more closely dovetailed with the Department of Justice, `and I think that the failure of the 196~ Civil Rights Act, which would have given the Department of Justice authority to bring suit on i4s own initiative, as opposed to having the necessary complaint under title IV of the 1964 act, would have in- creased the Federal abilities a great deal. I think the Office of Education is as proper an agency as any other agency, if they are willing to follow their own rules, and secondly, if they are willing to set down rules which will accomplish the task that needs to be accomplished. PAGENO="0401" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 747 I said in my statement, and I cannot emphasize strongly enough, I am most concerned with the continued existence of the all-Negro school. As long as you have an all-Negro school and freedom-of-choice, you combine with that fear on the part of the Negro to transfer out, an easy alternative, particularly in the delta region of the South, where people are living as sharecroppers and are subject at will to being kicked off of that land- No Negro in his right mind is going to subject himself to being kicked out, or perhaps brutalized, or indeed go as far as what hap- pened in Grenada. On the other hand, we are told time and time again by white edu- cators that the white children will never choose the former Negro school, which is still the Negro school. Given these two conditions, the fear of the Negro, and the nonactiom on the part of the white, we are going to have a continued segregated institution. And I don't think we are talking about meaningful de- segregation until we attack the problem of the Negro school. And I think that is going to require, as a basis, at least an initial start at zoning. If zoning locks people in, then I think we have to look beyond that. I went to school in the Northwest. I never knew anyone that chose a school. I was assigned to the school I went to, grade school, junior high, and high school. I think this freedom-of-choice, given these other considerations, will never bring about the end of the dual system. An'd that is what we will have'to address ourselves to. Mr. ERLENBORN. Of course, if you go to assignment by zones, the natural housing patterns are going to maintain the separate system, too. Mr. ARONSON. Not in the rural counties, sir. In the cities, yes, but not in the rural counties. Mr. ERLENBORN. One of the questions that is of main concern to our subcommittee is whether decentralization of the Office of Educa- tion will be helpful, and this, of course, is in many areas of the work of the Office of Education. But let me ask you your opinion on this question of enforcement of the `school desegregation aspect of civil right's. Do you think that that could be done better on a regional `basis than out of the office in Washington? Mr. ARONSON. Depending on how much money and staff they had. I think th'at the thing `that has most crimped the Washington staff has no't been mobility, because they have in effect a regional breakdown within the Office of Education. They have a Missi'ssippi section, an Alabama `section, and then divi- sions made up on a regional basis, and whether they moved them out into the region, or `they kept it in Washington, I don't think is a ter- ribly relevant consideration. I think the consideration that we must focus on is that they have sufficient funds to carry out their work, and a mandate to `support carrying out their work. 73-728-67-pt. 2-26 PAGENO="0402" 748 u.s. OFFICE OF EDUCATION Mrs. GREEN. You don't think freedom-of-choice will work. What would you do? What would you have the Office of Education do, specifically? Mr. AR0NS0N. I think we need be more result-oriented. And I don't think that the submission of a plan on its face is the beginning of compliance. It may be the beginning, but it certainly isn't the end. Mrs. GREEN. Let's talk about specifics. To get to the results you want, what would you want to have the Office of Education do? Mr. ARONSON. Certainly in Negro areas I would have them close Negro schools, or draw zone lines. Mrs. GEEEN. What in the law allows the Office of Education to, as you suggested, abolish Negro schools? As I take it, you meant closing them down. Mr. AR0NS0N. The law would not provide authority to issue a man- date to close the school, but the law could provide authority not to give Federal funds to such schools, where they found they were inferior to the continued education of these children. And, therefore, Federal funds could be avoiding a problem which is prevalent throughout the South, of reconstructing little shamble Negro schools and making permanent plants out of them on a continued segregated basis. Mrs. GRREN. I think I am really in sympathy with the views which you express, and I have been all my life, and I think the compliance with the 1954 decision has been far too slow. I think the 1964 Civil Rights Act should be enforced. But I have serious reservations as to* whether the Office of Educa- tion and employees of the Office of Education have any right to go beyond the law. Now, this is what I think this committee is concerned about, and I think that I have been presented evidence where the guidelines have gone beyond what I interpret the law to allow. Now, what would be really helpful to us, when I am basically in sympathy with your objectives, would be to give specifics that you think the Office of Education has a right to do, under the law, to bring about better schools for everybody, and equal opportunities. Miss GREEN. May I point out on page 6 of our prepared statement, where you are talking about preparing compliance program: The Federal role should be to compile all available information, and work out with local officials and community leaders a comprehensive desegre- gation plan for that district. This plan would include the closing of inferior schools, the maxi- mum nonracial utilization of adequate facilities; school construction and site selection; the upgrading of programs, the reorganization of grades, the rerouting of buses, nonracial staff assignments, and in- service training remedial programs, to compensate for previous dis- advantage, and the proposed use of State and Federal funds. The Office of Education would provide technical assistance in the farms of model plans and staff to help develop these plans, which would have have to be approved by the Commissioner. Mr. ARONSON. Mrs. Green, may I respond just very shortly and say that I would be glad to supply your office with a memorandum of law which sets out the support I think is in the law, the 1964 Civil Rights Act, for the results that we are talking about. PAGENO="0403" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 749 Mrs. GREEN. I wanted to read to you a law which applies to the Office of Education. It says specifically that neither the Office of Education nor any employee of the Office of Education shall have any right to have any supervision, control, or correction over the curricu- lum or the personnel of a school system. It se~ems to me that the things that you have referred to on page 6 are outside of the law. Miss GREEN. It seems to me that these things refer to an advisory role of the Office of Education in helping a community to work out a * desegregation plan, rather than ordering them to do this. Mrs. GREEN. May I quote: Nothing contained in this Act shall be construed to authorize any department, agency, officer, or employee of the United States to exercise any direction, super- vision, or control over the curriculum, the program of instruction, the administra- tion or personnel, of any educational institution or school system, or the selection of library texts, or other materials, by any educational school system. I think you are in an advisory role-offering information-but I don't think that the law allows the Office of Education to come in and supervise this kind of a thing, or even to work it out for them. I think the local district has to do it. The law does provide that if they don't comply with the law, their funds shall be withheld, and this I agree with. If they do not comply, then I think the funds should be withheld. But I don't think, for example, that the law provides that you can abolish a school. Mr. ARONSON. No. If I was understood to say that, I want to cor- rect my testimony to say that what I `think the law does provide is that they should and can withhold. And I agree with you, and my criticism of the Office of Education is that they have been too lenient, and too slow, and often not present in cutting off. There is too much money involved, and these local school districts will on their own, and through their own means, accomplish the end of segregated school systems, in most instances, if the very real threat of cutting money off is there. I say at this time `the threat is not real enough, and that the southern school districts are not fearful of losing their money, thinking they can continue on as they have been, and still keep on getting their money, as they do right now. Mrs. GREEN. I think the area we might well have some difference of opinion on is: What is a desegregated school? And whether freedom- of -choice complies with the law. Isn't this really the area of controversy? I agree with you that after 1~ years the number of integrated~ schools is small, but I just do not think we are going to solve the problem by going outside of the law. If the law should be changed, the Members of Congress should have a full debate. We are grateful to you. Some of you have traveled long distances. I am very sorry that the time limitations were rather restrictive, but that is the way it goes on these field trips. (Whereupon, at 4:55 p.m., the subcommittee adjourned.) PAGENO="0404" 750 U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION (The following material was submitted for the record:) STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY AMERICAN FRIENDS SERVICE COMMITTEE, ATLANTA, GA., AND NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND, NEW YORK, N.Y. The American Friends Service Committee and the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund share a concern about the elimination of segregated public school systems, not only because children have a constitutional right to education without discrimination but also because equality of educational opportunity is basic to the moral right of every child to develop his full potential. The AFSC speaks out of 15 years of experience in community action programs to promote school desegregation. The Legal Defense Fund has handled virtually all of the litigation in the last quarter century to abolish segregation in educa- tion. During the decade following the Supreme Court's decision of 1954, we came to recognize that an attack on segregated education which relies solely on the courts is agonizingly slow. Therefore, we have welcomed an administrative approach to this problem which has lodged responsibility in the Department of Health, Education and Welfare, to effectuate nondiscrimination in federally sup- ported educational programs as required by Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Our two agencies were eager to play their part in making this admin- istrative role successful. It held promise of removing the burden for school desegregation from the individual Negro, by placing it on the responsible edu- cational authorities. In 1965 and again in 19436, we co-sponsored a School Desegregation Task Force which has reached hundreds of communities in nine southern states. The goal has been to inform Negro families of their rights, under Title VI regulations as well as court orders, to develop local leadership to promote substantial school desegregation, and to maintain close contact with Federal officials in order to give prompt and accurate reports of attempts to deny parents and children their rights. Having observed the overall development of the compliance program, we re- ported in November 1965, the findings of our first Task Force to Secretary John W. Gardner. We made twenty recommendations for the more effective carrying out of the mandate given to HEW by Congress. Our report is attached. (Ex- hibit A.) We are now preparing a document with our recommendations for abolishing the dual school structure based on our most recent Task Force work. We are glad to have this opportunity to discuss our concern with the Special Subcom- mittee on Education as it reviews the operation of the Office of Education. Our experience shows that the close relationship between program effectiveness and administrative competence is undeniable. Our observations of the effectiveness of the Equal Educational Opportunities Program (EEOP) of the Office of Education lead us to several conclusions con- cerning the administration of the program. It is clear to us that an administer- ing agency must have: (1) regulations adequate to carry out its mandate; (2) adequate interpretive and informational programs to advise persons of their rights and obligations under these regulations; (3) an affirmative compliance program with effective implementation machinery; (4) a well coordinated, com- prehensive approach; and (5) built-in mechanisms for information gathering and evaluation of effectiveness. Our recommendations deal with these five areas. I. The Guidelines should be strengthened. The Office of Education's 19436 Guidelines (Revised Statement of Policies for School Desegregation Under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) should be evaluated as to their adequacy for eliminating dual school systems. The fact that an estimated 88-90% of the Negro pupils in the southern states are still in totally segregated schools in this third school year since the passage of the Act indicates the disappoint- ingly modest progress which has been made. The 1966 Guidelines are stronger than those of 1965. The objective-eliminating dual school systems as expedi- tiously as possible-is forthrightly stated. There is a clear requirement for performance in pupil and staff desegregation in comparison with 1965, when a policy commitment from a school district seemed sufficient. Recognizing impediments to desegregation in 1965 for which local officials were often responsible, the 1966 Guidelines outlined in detail the procedures to be followed, particularly in implementing freedom of choice plans. The require- PAGENO="0405" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 751 meat that small, inferior schools must be closed and the elaboration of earlier regulations concerning nondiscrimination in programs, facilities and services such as transportation strengthened the 1966 Guidelines. However, the exclusion of court-ordered districts from EEOP's compliance machinery seriously limits the Guidelines. Population centers which have a majority of the South's Negro children are desegregating under District Court orders, most of which are not up to the most recent standards of the Circuit Court. Court rulings are not necessarily issued. with the school calendar in mind; good orders in South Carolina this fall will not be in effect until 19437. Many court orders are not being fully implemented. Federal judges have wel- comed the role of the Commissioner of Education as "long overdue" because of the "utter impracticability of a continued exercise by the courts of the respon- sibility of supervising the manner in which segregated school systems break out of the policy of complete segregation . . . and toward complete compliance." The general and uncritical approval of freedom of choice plans as devices for eliminating segregated school systems is another major weakness in the Guide- lines. Although the overwhelming evidence is that freedom of choice produces only tokenism at best, the Office of Education has permitted most districts to use these plans and EEOP has been unable to deal with intimidation, fear, repisals and the legacy of total segregation in the community, all of which operate as de- terrents to the success of freedom of choice. The Guidelines should be expanded to deal with Northern style de facto :segregation. HEW's Regulation requiring compliance agreements from state education agencies should be supplemented with specific guidelines which recognize the role of these agencies in preserving or abolishing segregation. State agencies play a crucial role in decisions concerning site selection and school construction, school consolidation, transportation, school lunch programs, the equalization of techers salaries, textbooks, projects under special Federal programs, etc. Our experience indicates that state agencies often use this role to strengthen segre- .gation even though Federal funds are involved. II. The Office of Education should develop an informational and educational program to interpret the goal of abolishing the dual school structure, to inform Yegro citizens of their rights and to win a broad base of support for securing equally of educational opportunity. Unlike other Governmental agencies, the Office of Education has developed no materials or mass media programs for wide dissemination of accurate information about its compliance programs, which has suffered from distortions and misinformation. The burden for in- itiating desegregation is still on Negroes; yet many do not know what their rights are. In the absence of an officially sponsored information program which reaches the grass roots, Negroes must rely on local school officials and the local press, which are often hostile. Private civil rights groups have tried to dose this information gap, but their resources are too meager. The enjoyment of constitutional rights should not be dependent upon an individual's ability to discover on his own how he may secure these rights. III. At this critical juncture, the Office of Education must launch an affirma- live compliance program with adequate machinery and staff and with a strength- ened technical assistance component. Lacking an affirmative program and under- staffed, the Office of Education's compliance efforts tend to be focused on the worst offenders and to be compliant-oriented. In 1966, sanctions were exercised for the first time. Funds were cut off only from districts whose intention not to comply was evident in their refusal to sign the 441-B compliance form. Ac- cording to press reports the referral of funds was not a major hardship because only new funds were deferred and state offices of education helped school districts re-write the proposals so that projects could be considered to lie "continuing." The 90-day limit on deferrals should speed up the process of withdrawing Federal funds from non-complying districts. HEW is just beginning to exercise sanctions against poor performers and the initial standards have been very modest indeed. If a school district has executed its paper compliance and has 3% desegrega- tion-i.e, 97% of its Negro pupils are still in segregated schools-and has token faculty desegregation, it seems assured that Federal funds will flow in 1966-67. In direct violation of the Guidelines, segregated bus transportation, harassment and reprisals, segregation in: shorts and other school related programs, and the use of inferior schools continue. Staff desegregation has been minimal. TO presorve segregation, students are still being educated outside their hoitie school PAGENO="0406" 752 u.s. OFFICE OF EDUCATION districts. Where these violations are known, districts have been warned, but many feel no threat of withdrawal of Federal funds. The lack of staff, the concentration on the poorest of the poor performers and the uncertainty about what Federal officials can specifically require to effectuate the constitutional mandate to abolish segregation have contributed to hesitancy about launching an affirmative program. Although the wise, prompt and consistent use of sanctions is a necessary part of the total effort, it is not a substitute for an affirmative program. An affirma- tive program would not be centered just on the worst offender, but would be con- cerned to achieve the most comprehensive and effective desegregation plan for each school district-a plan which would be adequate to abolish the dual school structure. The Federal role should be to compile all available information about each school district and to work out with local officials and community leaders a comprehensive desegregation plan for that district. This plan would include the closing of inferior schools, the maximum and non-racial utilization of acle- quate facilities, school construction and site selection, the up-grading of pro- grams, the reorganization of grades, the re-routing of buses, non-racial staff as- signments and in-service training, remedial programs to compensate for pre- vious disadvantage and the proposed use of state and Federal funds. The Office of Education would provide technical assistance in the forms of model plans and staff to help develop these plans, which would have to be approved by the Com- missioner. Federal financial support should be withdrawn from those school districts which are unable to devise and implement plans which will end the segregated structure, in Tact. The mandate, authority and skills of the staff of a Federal government com- pliance program are crucial to their effective role in achieving the goal of abol- ishing the dual school system. HEW's compliance program needs a full-time, year-round staff, adequate in numbers, maturity and resourcefulness to get the job done. IV. The Office of Education should develop a well-coordinated approach to compliance so that Federal programs are working toward the same goal. If Federal funds are to be an effective lever for achieving nondiscrimination, the Federal investment must play this role in its entirety; one program should not be strengthening segregated schools on the one hand, while a narrowly con- ceived compliance program seeks to abolish them on the other. We are par- ticularly concerned about reports that programs funded by the Elementary and Secondary Education Act are being used in such a way as to discourage desegre- gation. V. The Office of Education should build into its compliance progi-am a process of systematic fact-finding and evaluation so that it can make an accurate assess- ment of progress, identify areas of weakness in the Guidelines and strengthen its compliance machinery on the basis of documented ecperience. On September 26, 1966, we submitted to Commissioner Harold Howe, II, a list of questions, the answers to which we believed would provide material for an assessment of the effectiveness of the compliance program in 1966. (Exhibit B) Since that time, representatives of the Task Force have had several conferences with EECP staff about the letter. In spite of the fact that Office of Education officials have stated that the information requested would reveal the effectiveness of their pro- gram and administration, they have admitted that the present process of data- gathering and compliance review do not produce the information needed. Be- cause of this serious shortcoming, the letter remains officially unanswered. It is hard to see how sound planning is being done for 1967. in the absence of evaluation based on the full documentation of the 1966 experience. American Education is still largely segregated and unequal. The American public school, as a symbol of exclusion, is building up bitterness and frustration among Negroes. Locked into segregated schools and locked out of participation in the mainstream of economic, cultural and civic life, American Negroes are now less inhibited in their expressions of alienation and despair. Time is running out. The Office of Education now has an unprecedented opportunity to secure integrated quality education for all American children. It must develop *the administrative capacity to seize this opportunity. We hope that the study currently being carried on by the Special Sub-committee can help strengthen the Office of Education and thus support it in this most difficult but most urgent task. PAGENO="0407" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 753 NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC., New York, N.Y., September 26, 1966. Hon. HAROLD HOWE II, U.S. Commissioner of Education, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. Howz: The findings of your survey, Equality of Educational Op- portunity, that American public education remains largely segregated and unequal, are very sobering. Increased cooperative efforts by educators, public officials and citizens to remedy *this alarming situation are urgently needed. We have welcomed recent statements of your personal commitment to equal education and of your rejection of gradualism and trust that under your vigorous leadership evidences of progress will counteract the growing despair experienced by Negro parents across the nation. Now that the third school year since the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is under way, this is an appropriate time for the Federal agency which has major responsibility to effectuate Title VI to evaluate the effectiveness of its efforts to secure nondiscrimination in public education. We understand that you are already discussing the compliance program for the 1967-68 school year. We commend your sense of urgency. However, we are deeply concerned that plans for the future should not be made until you have made an assessment of this past year's performance based on a thorough analysis of the data which school officials should be submitting to the Office of Education within 30 days after schools opened. We hope that you will share these data and your analysis of them with the civil rights organizations which have experience in school desegregation and that yOu will seek the insights and recommendations of private agencies. The American Friends Service Committee and the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund sponsored in 1966 our second School Desegregation Task Fore. Beginning in March, about 40 workers, including full-time staff and part-time program *associates, were involved in Task Force activities in nine Southern states in school districts which are desegregating under court orders as well as under HEW regulations. Our goal has been to achieve maximum desegregation through a program of education about the values of integration, information about required procedures, local leadership development and com- munity action. We should like to propose a meeting of some of our Task Force members with representatives of your staff once your data have been compiled. Our purpose in writing now is to raise some questions in anticipation of such a meeting. In the 1966 Guidelines, HEW has stated unequivocally that compliance re- quires the elimination of the dual school structure. We believe that it is im- portant to ask the right questions of your data, questions that will get to the heart of the matter: whether HEW's compliance program is eliminating the dual school structure as expeditiously as possible. The question is not whether more Negro pupils have registered to attend formerly all-white schools. The extent to which the racial identity of public schools is disappearing should be the measure and not just the recording of more tokenism. As the use of sanc- tions under Title VI is assessed, the question is not how many school districts have been cited for hearings, but whether the process is accomplishing its: purpose, viz., the withdrawal of Federal support from segregation and the end of dual school systems. On the basis of our experience this year. we believe that the following questions must be answered as you evaluate the data from school officials, your records and the experiences of your staff and as you make plans for a realistic program operation for 1967. These questions all reflect our program experience which we would be glad to share with you. 1. What has HEW done to interpret to the general public the mandate to abolish the dual school structnre? It has often seemed to us that HEW has turned over to the Southern press and the Southern school officials the job of defining and clarifying what nondiscrimination of education means. We have met white and Negro principals who have never seen the Guidelines. There is very little public understanding that the dual school system must be abolished. The prevailing view is that the legal requirement is satisfied by a process which ends the policy of segregation. admits a few Negro pupils to "white" schooT~ but which leaves the Negro school intact as a segregated institution. We PAGENO="0408" 754 U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION know that HEW officials are aware of the difficulties created by adverse mass media and hostile officials. We would like to know whether there are school districts where HEW has undertaken to inform the public directly about the goals and the specific requirements of the Equal Educational Opportunities Program and whether such an effort has made a difference. 2. What has been the impact on the total program of the eaclusion. of school districts tinder court order from HEW's compliance machinery? How does hEW ascertain whether these court orders are actually being implemented? In how many school districts has HEW determined that court orders are not being complied with and what has HEW done in these cases? During 19136 how many school districts were in litigation and in negotiation with HEW at the same time. What special problems were created by this situation? Our experience this year leads us to affirm even more strongly the recommendation which we made to HEW a year ago that court-ordered districts should not be excluded from the compliance machinery. 3. Has the closing of small, inferIor segregated. sel' ools contributed signif- icantly to the elimination of dual school systems? How does HEW learn of the existence of such schools? What does HEW do when it finds out about these schools? How does HEW define a small, inadequate school? For ex- ample, there are many 12-grade Negro schools with unaccredited high school departments which have fewer than 100 pupils in grades 9-12. By educa- tional standards these schools would be rated as unable to provide an ade- quate program. Would HEW require the closing of such high schools even though the plant facilities might not be substandard? Are school officials re- quired to report what happened to the Negro pupils and teachers when small schools are closed? How does HEW insure that the students are not con- solidated into other Negro schools, thus creating larger units of segregation? How many small, inferior schools were reported in 1966? How many were closed? What happens to Negro schools which become small when large num- bers of their pupils choose to attend desegregated schools? Why has HEW not required the closing of certain obviously inferior schools which were reported by concerned Negro citizens? 4. What do your data reveal about the adequacy of freedom of choice plans to effectuate Title VI? In how many school districts have freedom of choice plans resulted in the elimination of dual school systems since 1964? Where, and under what conditions? In 1966 how many school districts came up to the percentages suggested in the Guidelines? In how many districts and by what criteria was the performance under freedom of choice plans determined inadequate by HEW? How many districts were required to improve their performance? What kinds of suggestions for additional steps were made to them, what did they actually do, and what were the results? Where a sec- ond transfer period was held, were the results significantly increased? What has HEW done where additional efforts to implement freedom of choice plans have been ineffective? Where freedom of choice plans have not worked, how have HEW and/or local school officials determined what would work? What has HEW learned this year about the actual operation of freedom of choice procedures? Do your data corroborate our staff experience that there continue to be considerable violations of the procedures required by the Guide- lines, such as inadequate notice to parents, abbreviated transfer periods, etc.? How many districts have been cited for noncompliance for these violations? The Guidelines require that pupils who did not make a choice during the spring registration period should be assigned during the first week of school to the nearest school regardless of race. What happened to these students? In how many districts did this result in an increase in nonracial enrollment? Where formerly all-white schools have become overcrowded as the result of the exercise of free choice, what has happened? How has HEW determined whether the criteria for overcrowding were uniform throughout the district? What has HEW done when Negro students have been sent back to Negro schools because of the overcrowding of desegregated schools? What has happened to white pupils where desegregated schools have become overcrowded? In how many cases, and where, has overcrowding resulted in the enrollment of white pupils in formerly all-Negro schools, either through assignment, school pairing or some other action by school officials? In how many school districts desegregating fewer than 12 grades did Negro pupils request transfer under the provisions enumerated in 181.71 of the Guide. PAGENO="0409" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 755 lines? Where they were rejected, in how many eases did HEW investigate the reasons? Ha~ much desegregation occurred as a result of these provisions? What has been your experience with the regulation that choices are binding? How many Negro pupils sought to return to Negro schools after registering to attend desegregated schools? What happened to them? There are clearly two schools of thought about whether freedom of choice plans should eontinue to be approved as acceptable devices for eliminating dual school systems. Some hold that the emphasis should be on making these plans truly free and on liberalizing the process, such as extending the choice period from 30 days to six months. Others, and they would include the overwhelming majority of civil rights workers, have become increasingly convinced that the most honest freedom of choice plans cannot abolish dual school systems in Deep South communities. What do your findings reveal? 5. Have the zoning plans which have been approved by HEW resulted in the elimination of segregated schools? How many zoning plans are in effect in the 1966-67 school year? What changes in racial attendance patterns have resulted as zoning plans have been implemented? In how many districts is zoning com- bined with freedom of choice? How does HEW check to be sure that zones do not fortify segregation? In how many districts has HEW scrutinized zoning plus free choice combinations and determined them to be unacceptable because they will not eliminate the dual school system most expeditiously? How does HEW justify the approval of the DeKalb County, Georgia, plan? 6. In how many school districts, and where, has staff desegregation contri bated significantly toward the elimination of the racial identity of schools? To what extent were HEW's minimum requirements for staff desegregation met in 1966 and what has happened to those districts which did not comply? What do the data reveal about staff desegregation: how many Negro teachers are now as- signed to formerly all-white schools? Of these, how many are teaching academic subjects? How many are in nonacademic areas such as music, library work and physical education? In how many districts are the desegregated teachers pri- marily in Federal programs? In how many districts is the desegregation all one way, i.e. white teachers assigned to Negro schools? A report that a South Caro- lina district had over 20 teachers in desegregated assignments seemed enenuraging until it was revealed that Chinese and Latin Americans and teachers from the National Teachers Corps were included and that few local Negroes have been assigned to full-time classroom teaching. We would be interested in your assess- ment of the concept of fuihtime teacher equivalents which has been approved for use this year. Do your studies reveal that this is a helpful transitional device or does it provide officials with an excuse for not assigning regular, full-time teachers on a nonracial basis? 7. Inasmuch as school officials are required to promote and to prepare for the successful implementation of their desegregation plans, what information do you haive concerning their efforts and what they actually accomplished? How many community meetings were reported as held by school officials? What other steps did they take? Where school officials have not taken steps required by the Guidelines, what has HEW done? Has HEW taken action against any school districts where white or Negro school staff members actively worked against desegregation? 8. What data do you have on situations where the negative experiences of Negro pupils in desegregated schools have discouraged desegregation? How has HEW handled such reports as harassment and physical attacks on Negro stu- dents which have occurred without corrective action by school officials, discrimi- nation by teachers and segregation within the desegregated school? Has HEW had a procedure for immedia:tely investigating such charges and for involving the Justice Department and the Community Relations Service? In how many cases where these abuses have not been corrected have school districts been cited for noncompliance? The Task Force considers failure to deal with such viola- tions of the Guidelines a major impediment to the abolition of dual school sys- tems. We can furnish case histories from our files. 9. What do your data reveal about intimidation, harassment an4 reprisals against families of Negro children seeking a nonsegregated education? In fulfilling their obligations under the Guidelines, what have local school officials done to protect persons exercising their rights? What action has HEW taken against school officials who have defaulted in their responsibilities? In how many school districts, and where, have you determined that freedom of choice plans cannot work because of a climate of fear and intimidation? PAGENO="0410" 756 U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 10. In how many districts has transportation been corn plëtely desegregated? Has this also involved the desegregation of drivers and the elimination on dif- ferences in the quality of buses available to Negro and white pupils? In how many districts have buses been re-routed to facilitate desegregation? What has HEW done in cases where Negroes have not been advised that transporta- tion would be available to take them to desegregated schools, where buses have not been re-routed, where inequality continues, where transportation for Negro pupils is provided only to Negro schools or where Negro children are harassed on integrated buses? Have any school districts been cited for noncompliance for their refusal to desegregate transportation and to protect children on the buses? 11. Where has the discontinuance of the practice of educating pupils out of the district contributed to the elimination of the dual school system? Under what conditions is HEW still permitting students to be educated away from home? Where students in all or some grades are still educated out of the dis- trict, were they given the choice to attend desegregated schools? How many school districts has HEW cited for noncompliance for educating students on a segregated basis outside the district? 12. Is HEW coordinating information about all Federal programs which relate to public schools to ascertain whether their total impact is to reinforce segregation or to promote the elimination of the dual school system? Does HEW have information about site selection and school construction plans which may involve the use of Federal. funds to promote segregation? Does HEW have information about funds provided under the Elementary and Secondary Educa- tion Act of 1965 which are being used to enhance segregation and discourage desegregation? Has HEW taken action where Federal surplus property has been used in segregated schools or where school lunch programs are operated on a discriminatory basis? We are particularly concerned if districts are using ESEA funds instead of local and state monies to equalize schools. Also, we believe there are some communities where the availability of free lunches in Negro schools under ESEA programs has been a deterrent to desegregation be. cause parents have not been advised that free lunches would be available in de- segregated schools to needy pupils under the regulations of the National School Lunch Program. 13. In how many school districts have programs and activities been desegre- yated? In how many cases have social affairs, such as proms, been cancelled or shifted to private sponsorship? How many PTA's have been integrated? How many school districts sponsored integrated summer schools or adult education~ programs? What action has HED taken where districts have not complied with the requirement of nondiscrimination in school-related activities? 14. I smnch as the inferiority of a.li-iVegro schools is not only unconstitutional but is a major deterrent to the enrollment of white children, what specific in.for- mation does HEW have on the conditions in ~Tegro schools relative to white schools in the same district in such areas as: plant facilities, equipment, accredi- ~tation, libraries, educational materials, teacher qualifications and salaries, etc.? In what way has the knowledge of these conditions acelerated the move to abolish the dual school system? Does HEW have information about special fees charged to pupils in Negro schools or about money-raising for basic needs such as gas and electricity which Negro parents must undertake even though these are provided in the white schools? 15. How do you evaluate the role of sanctions available under Title VI in the elimination of the dual school structure? How long is the period from the time you have reason to believe a district is not complying until funds have been fully cut off? We understand that HEW has deferred funds pending the determination that a district is not complying. What happens during the period of deferral? Iii how many cases have intensified efforts to get voluntary corn- pliance during this period been successful? * An article in the Birmingham News of September 10, 1966, reports that Alabama districts which have refused to comply and which have had funds deferred are nOt suffering very much because of the interpretation which has been given to "continuing" as differentiated from "new" programs and because the State Department of Education "helped local superintendents - . . rewrite ~rojeets so they would be continuing projects and thus eligible for funds. If this is true, how much Federal money has in fact been cut off to date? PAGENO="0411" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 757 Furthermore, if other press reports are true that some school districts are prepared to give up Federal funds, what information does HEW have about what this loss means in terms of termination of educational programs? What efforts does HEW make to get schools desegregated by legal action when the use of sanctions fails to abolish the dual school system? Do HEW and the Justice Department have a coordinated strategy? In May, 1966, seventeen Negro parents in Crenshaw County, Alabama, wrote the Justice Department request- ing that a suit be filed after school officials had an inadequate transfer period and had indicated that only a few Negro students would be admitted to formerly all-white schools. After numerous complaints which were received during the summer, HEW initiated action for noncompliance. Shortly before the~ opening of school when the school board denied most of the applications of the 200 Negro pupils who sought enrollment in desegregated schools, a Legal Defense Fund attorney filed suit and secured a good court order in a few days. There are still problems; the judge has modified his order and fewer children will have the ad- vantage of a desegregated education. If the Justice Department had filed suit last spring, we believe that much uncertainty and suffering would have been prevented. What does HEW feel is its role in those Louisiana districts which are not com- plying but where no court suits have been filed to desegregate schools? 16. What has been the impact on the abolition of the dual school structure of the growth of private, segregated schools for white children who are boy- cotting desegregated schools? What data does HEW have on these schools, their sponsors, their financing and their educational program? Has HEW de- termined whether public school officials have been involved in the establishment of these schools? What action has HEW taken to insure that these segregated schools are not being Federally subsidized from programs including surplus property, school lunch, etc.? Do HEW data reveal conditions under which these schoOls are likely to flourish and suggest a strategy for weakening this threat to public education? Negroes such as those in the Sharkey-Issaquena district in Mississippi who have suffered reprisals in order to get a nonsegregated educa- tion for their children are understandably disheartened when they finally enroll in formerly all-white schools which have been completely boycotted by white pupils and teachers. 17. What overall information do your data provide and what general con- clusions do your staff members make about compliance and the rate of progress in ending dual systems when different kinds of communities are compared: rural vs. urban; Border states vs. Deep South states; districts withY high per- centages of Negroes vs. those with small Negro population, etc.? Are there signif- icant exceptions? How do you account for them? Does the posture of the state agency seem to make a difference in comparing compliance among the states? We know that these questions are not new to you for they have come up fre- quently this year as we have conferred with staff members of the Equal Educa- tional Opportunities Program. We hope that you will agree with us that the answers to them could provide the agenda for a very profitable meeting of mem- bers of your staff with field workers from our School Desegregation Task Force. We trust that this meeting can be held as soon as possible and look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely yours, JEAN FAIRFAX. SCHOOL DESEGREGATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA, 1966: A CRITIQUE (By M. Hayes Mizell) INTRODUCTION On May 17, 1954, the Supreme Court of the United States wrote, "We conclude that in the field of public education the doctrine of `separate but equal' has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal." This historic decision in the case of Brown et al. v. Board of Education of Topeka et al. involved cases coming from the states of Virginia, Delaware, Kansas, and South Carolina. The South Carolina case, Briggs et al. v. Elliott et al., came to the Supreme Court from Clarendon County School District No. 22. Today, twelve years after the 1954 Supreme Court decision, there are less than 50 Negro cMl- PAGENO="0412" 758 U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION dren attending desegregated schools in (Jiarendon County. The vast majority of Negro students there still attend segregated schools and the dual school sys- tem prevails. After twelve years County Superintendent of Education L. B. McOord continues to insist that integration is `~theologica1ly wrong" and he still feels that "you can't change people overnight." During this 1966-1967 school year approximately 95% of South Carolina's Negro children are attending segregated schools. Only about 12 of the state's 108 school districts have made sufficient progress towards abolishing the dual school system so that the United States Office of Education can say that their performance is "satisfactory at this time." This does not mean that these dis- tricts have eliminated the dual school system, it merely indicates that they have demonstrated that they are making some reasonable progress towards achieving that goal. During the past two years, the American Friends Service Committee and the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund have pooled their resources to sponsor the School Desegregation Task Force. Working in nine deep South states this group has informed citizens of their rights under school desegregation law, aided communities in organizing to effectuate greater desegregation, and has sent complaints to federal agencies when there were violations of school desegregation guidelines in local communities. This critique is based on the Task Force experience in South Carolina and the majority of the information was collected during seven months involvement in and observation of school desegregation efforts in South Caroilna. Some of the information is based on newspaper accounts, reports from citizens, and other private but reliable reports. THE GTJIDELINE5 In early March, 1966, the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare published its "Revised Statement of Policies for School Desegregation Plans Under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964." This publication was commonly referred to as the "guidelines." In subsequent months the guidelines became the foundation for political opportunism and vilification of officials of the United States Office of Education. The guidelines were the regulations for school desegregation and were issued as required by Section 602, Title VI, of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Title VI of that act provided that: "No person in the LTnited States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the- benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiv- ing Federal financial assistance." The guidelines were first issued in 1965. Southern school districts were frequently successful in violating these guidelines because in an attempt to give the districts an opportunity to comply in good faith and establish their own administrative procedures for school desegregation, HEW made the guidelines vague. In order to correct this defect and to effectuate more substantial progress towards the abolition of the dual school system, the 1966 guidelines were more explicit and definitive in their requirements. The 1966 guidelines required the following: (1) To be eligible for federal funds, school systems with voluntary school desegregation plans had to submit an assurance (Form 441-B) that their plans would be carried out in accordance with the standards outlined in the guidelines. (2) School systems had to make significant progress in eliminating the dual school system under free choice plans. (3) The school system had to inform the community of its plans, solicit community support, and take the necessary steps to protect all persons exer- cising their rights under the plan. (4) In school districts operating under a free choice plan, every student had to choose a school each year. There could only be one choice, and the school system had to ensure that the choice could be made without fear of reprisaL (5) All school activities, facilities, and programs had to be desegregated. (6) Schools had to make significant progress in desegregating their faculty and staff. HEW later explained that -in a district, for example. with eight schools there should be at least -eight full-time teachers involied in faculty desegregation. (7) Small, inadequate schools established for Negro students or other minority groups had to be closed. PAGENO="0413" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 759 (8) School districts had to send out forms, letters of explanation, and publish newspaper notices giving students and parents information con- cerning the administration of freedom of choice plans. The Office of Education had originally hoped to publish the guidelines in Jan- uary, but they were not promulgated until March 7. This was because HEW took extra time to consult with Southern school officials before the new guidelines were issued, and because the guidelines were being carefully reviewed by HEW's legal counsel. The 1966 guidelines required that school districts operating under a freedom of choice plan should have a free choice transfer period beginning no earlier than March 1 and ending no later than April 30. Many school adminis- trators were undoubtedly caught by surprise, and they generally felt that they had too little time to interpret the guidelines and follow their requirements. Ninety-eight of South Carolina's 108 school districts were operating under free- dom of choice plans. Of the remainder, some districts were still in violation of the 1965 guidelines and had no authorized plan at all. Six of the state's largest districts were operating under federal court orders. Since many districts were concerned only with complying with the absolute minimum requirements of the guidelines, they felt that they were being pressured into a quick acceptance of the guidelines without being given time to study them adequately. However, some districts complained because they found 50 days inadequate time to plan for the traditional tactics of delay and circumvention when faced with the possibility of meaningful school desegregation. By May 7, 1966, 105 of the 108 school districts in South Carolina had filed Form 441-B with the U.S. Office of Education. If a district did not submit Form 441-B, the commitment of federal funds for new activities was subject to deferral. The record of South Carolina school districts submitting Form 441-B was one of the best in the South. South Carolina school administrators did follow those guideline regulations which called for letters, explanatory notices, and choice forms to be sent to all parents. In many cases these forms followed the exact form recommended by the Office of Education. There is no question but that the mere sending of these letters and forms resulted in an increased number of transfers from Negro to de- segregated schools. THE PERCENTAGES In order to have an administrative guide by which they could determine whether or not a school system was making satisfactory progress towards the abolition of the dual school system, the Office of Education established a system of percentages in the 1966 guidelines. These percentages were grossly misunderstood by the public and school officials. The percentages were misinterpreted to mean "racial balance" or the percen- tage of Negroes attending schools with whites. Superintendent J. B. Kirkley of Marion District # 3 (which had its funds deferred) said that the ratio of Negro to white students in the desegregated schools of his district exceeded that of many larger districts in the state (Columbia $tate, Sepember 5, 1966). Bluffton Dis- trict Superintendent H. E. McCracken said, "Twenty per cent of the students in our white schools are Negro. . . one of the highest percentages in the state. The federal government is using some sort of new math on us" (Charleston News ~ Courier, August 16, 1966.) Some school officials understood the percentages to mean the percentage of increase in the number of Negro students attending desegregated schools this year as compared to last year. Georgetown County Board County Chairman James C. Bourne said, "Well, we've doubled our Negro enrollment this year" (Charleston News c~ Courier, July 20, 1966). Mr. Bourne did not say that there would still be 98% of the Negro students in the county attending segregated schools. Similarly, Chester County Superintendent E. W. Nunnery expressed surprise that the performance of his school district had been judged unsatis- factory by the Office of Education even though the Negro enrollment in the county's all-white schools doubled that of last year (Columbia ~Srtate, August 4, 1966). In Chester County in 1965 there were 80 Negroes attending desegregated schools, and there are 177 in 1966. This still leaves 96% of the Negro students in the county attending segregated schools. Superintendent Hugh T. Stoddard of Sumter School District #2 said, "We had more than 90 last year and we're expecting more than double that amount in the fall" (Charleston News ~ Courier, August 3, 1966). This year there are only 171 Negroes in desegregated schools PAGENO="0414" 760 U.s. OFFICE OF EDUCATION in District #2 and there too most of the Negro students in the county are in segregated classes. Unfortunately, many people of good will who were genuinely concerned about abolishing the dual school system, as well as some leaders in the Negro com- munity, were caught up in this numbers game. They generally did not under- stand the reason for the percentages in the guidelines and frequently felt that if there were more Negro students in the desegregated schools this year than last year then things were moving along quite well and there was no reason to get disturbed. They did not stop to realize that if the present rate of desegrega- tion continues it will be many, many years before the dual school system is abolished. All of the above interpretations of the meaning of the percentages in the guide- lines were incorrect. The percentage used as a guide by the Office of Educa- tion was the number of all of the Negro students in a district divided into the number of Negro students who were transfering to the desegregated schools. For instance, if there are 4,059 Negro students in Chester County schools and 175 transfer from the all-Negro schools to the desegregated schools this year, this means that about 4.1% of all the Negro pupils would be transfering. This does not demonstrate that Chester County is well on its way towards abolishing the dual school system (since about 96% of the Negro students in the district would still be in segregated schools), and therefore the Office of Education lists it as a "poor performer." The guidelines, in fact, do not mention anything about racial balance and they do not measure performance by the percentage of in- crease of Negro students in white schools over last year. The guideline per- centages were either genuinely misunderstood or they were deliberately mis- interpreted in order to confuse the public and put the Office of Education on the defensive. Secretary Gardner of HEW attempted to deal with the percentage issue in his letter of April 13 to school superintendents, but following that at- tempt, the Office of Education more or less abandoned effort to interpret the purpose of the percentages. Those in opposition to the guidelines, however, continued to hit hard on the issue. INFORMING THE COMMUNITY In only a few school districts did officials attempt to encourage community support for the acceptance of their desegregation plan. This encouragement was required by section 181.17 of the guidelines. School men argued that the hostility of their communities would not permit them to *take a progressive position on this issue. They cited the names of other superintendents in the state who had tried to lead their communities and who had been fired as a re- sult. Many school officials had been lax in preparing the community for the inevitability of school desegregation and, as a result, they were caught be- tween the hostility of the community and the requirements of the guidelines. School officials did not seek the cooperation of white and Negro citizens in making the freedom of choice system work in their communities. Instances in which the public was adequately informed about the school deseg- regation plan by school officials and the local media were rare. In only a few cases did school superintendents call public meetings to fully explain the guidelines and the local desegregation plan to the citizens of the community. Such inadequate information to the public allowed for rumor and minunder* standing about the guidelines and about the intentions of the Office of Education. Some school officials attempted to keep their plans as quiet as possible so as not to arouse the indignation of the white community and not to indirectly stimulate a greater number of transfers by Negro students to the desegregated schools. Other school officials feared their own local press because of past experiences when the press had inaccurately reported their plans relating to other matters. School board meetings concerning the guidelines were frequently closed and local citizens had no opportunity to take part in deciding how the district would respond to the guidelines. On April 2, 1966, the United States Commission on Civil Rights held a state- wide conference on the guidelines in Columbia. Approximately six hundred per- Sons attended the conference. This was one of the few opportunities for South Carolinians to receive a clear and direct explanation of the guidelines from federal officals representing IIEWT, the Office of Education, and the Justice Department. Following this meeting there was a meeting attended by Negro PAGENO="0415" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 761 community leaders who met to discuss how communities should organize to promote school desegregation. ~his meeting was attended by about two hundred people and was a confederation of South Carolina civil rights, human relations, and education groups. Throughout the summer those persons working to stimulate greater school deseg- regation found that the concerned white persons in the state generally were not aware of the magnitude of the problems, and it was difficult to organize a fearful Negro community. While the major civil rights groups in the state made some efforts to promote school desegregation, their energies were usually devoted to registering voters and other political matters so that any focus on school desegregation was of a low priOrity. There were only two people in the state who were working full-time on school desegregation for human relations groups. There were, of course, a number of individuals who worked on a vol- unteer basis in their own communities. Where there were a substantial number of transfers, the large number was due to the efforts of some individual or group in the community who worked to encourage school desegregation. The Office of Education made little effort to speak directly to community leaders in an attempt to explaTh government actions. Many concerned individ- uals in South Carolina communiteis were totally unequipped to answer the crit- icisms of the guidelines and the Office of Education. Potential allies were lost because they had no information about what was going on except what their community leaders chose to tell them. In most cases they could only rely on the reports in the local conservative press and they had no idea as to bow they could play a constructive role in encouraging their community to com- ply with the guidelines. The failure of the Office of Education to tell its story effectively to local people permitted those persons who wanted to obstruct its purpose to do so more effectively. Rumor, misinformation, and speculation thrived because the Office of Education failed to recognize the necessity of filling the information gap at the community level. TERMINATION OF FEDERAL FUNDS? South Carolina school officials spent considerable time trying to determine whether or not the Office of Education was really serious about cutting off federal funds if a school district did not comply with the letter of the guidelines. Evidence that the Office of Education might be backing down came as early as April 8, 1966, when The state reported that it had learned from an Office of Education official that the guidelines would be enforced in a "democratic" way. Then in Secretary Gardner's April 13 letter he stated that the guidelines would he enforced with "considerable flexibility." The June 9 issue of The ~tate re- ported that, "The word from Washington is that substantial faculty and student desegregation will be insisted upon or federal funds will be cut off." But then on June 11 The state ran an article with the headline, "U.S. May Not Hold Fast to Threat of Halting Funds to S.C. Schools." For most of the summer there were reports that state officials were trying to get the guidelines "clarified." What they wanted clarified were the absolute mininvum requirements of the guidelines. Though HEW and the U.S. Office of Education repeatedly told school officials that their funds would be terminated if they did not comply with the guidelines, the school men never really took them seriously. The administrators were aware that the Office of Education were susceptible to political pressures and felt that the Office would eventually have to back down. Others felt that the U.S. Office was merely bluffing and would not really cut off funds. Still others had defied the guidelines last year and had not been denied federal funds, so they felt they could get away with it again in 1966. Inter- pret:itions of the Office of Education's position by state officials and newspaper pundits did little to clarify the issue. There were indications that the Office of Education would insist that some provisions of the guidelines be adhered to, but that some of the requirements were less important and would not have to 1)0 followed as closely. The alleged lack of clarity in the guidelines and on the part of the Office of Education, fused with the desire of school officials to get off the book, per- mitted school officials to say: "It's a little difficult to know exactly what they (Office of Education) want" (Charleston News & Courier, July 30, 1966); "We don't know what is coming from day to day" (Columbia State, August 19, PAGENO="0416" 762 U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 1966); "We don't know what they (Office of Education) will accept" (Coluin- bia State, June 28, .1966); "Before we do anything we want to know on what grounds they (Office of Education) are deferring our payment" (Columbia State, September 5, 1966). The Office of Education also did not make it clear to school superintendents, school boards, and the general public that the intent of Title VI and the guidelines was to abolish the dual school system. School officials felt that they were re- quired only to achieve a kind of progressive tokenism. They did not realize that if freedom of choice did not adequately move the school system toward the abolition of the dual school system, the school district would have to adopt another plan or risk losing its federal funds. Most school districts, however, were aware that the termination of funds for a district is an absolute last resort for the Office of Education and that prior to that step every device is utilized in an effort to get the district to comply with the guidelines. Many districts were willing to gamble that the Office of Education was bluffing, that it would back down, or that it could just be worn down. Some districts, of course, decided that they would rather do without federal funds. THE POSITION OF THE "ESTABLISHMENT" South Carolina school officials were reluctant to follow the literal requirements of the guidelines because they knew that state officials were working actively to get the Office of Education to back down on its commitment to the guide- lines. One official high in the Office of Education has said, "In many ways we consider South Carolina more of a closed society than Mississippi." He went on to explain that at least in Mississippi and other states the Office of Educa- tion had received some cooperation from the officials in the State Department of Education and in the executive branch of the state government. The Governor Governor Robert McNair played a strong role in supporting local school offi- cials in their fight against the guidelines. Running for election for his first full term as governor this year, and facing opposition from Republican nominee Joseph Rogers, Governor McNair undoubtedly realized that he would have to take the lead in fighting the guidelines or otherwise risk being attacked by Rogers as a governor who would not stand up to the federal government. The Repub- lican Party of South Carolina had called for a court test of the guidelines at the state GOP convention in March. Rogers was formerly a state representative from Clarendon County and had served as a loyal member of the South Carolina General Assembly's special committee to advise the state on legal methods of circumventing school desegregation. It was certain that Rogers would hit hard on the Issues of federal involvement in local school affairs and the guide- lines. Governor McNair, either because of conviction or because of political necessity, decided to become a leader in the fight against the guidelines. At the National Governors' Conference in July, Governor McNair set up and presided over a meeting between Secretary John Gardner of HEW and the Southern governors. The meeting was for the purpose of seeking "clarification of the guidelines." It was also an opportunity for the Southern governors to express their feelings about the guidelines (Columbia State, July 7, 1966). On July 19, Governor McNair met with Assistant Commissioner of Education, David S. Seeley, and HEW Special Assistant for Civil Rights, Peter Libassi, to discuss "school desegregation compliance problems in South Carolina" (Columbia State, July 29, 1966). In late July, Governor McNair revealed that the state was giving some consideration to a court test of the guidelines and that state Attor- ney General Daniel R. McLeod was prepared to give legal assistance to any school district that wanted to take the guidelines issue to court (Charleston News c~ Courier, July 30, 1966). In August, Gov. McNair sent the state Attorney General to Washington to meet with officials in the U.S. Office of Education. According to press reports, the purpose of the meeting was to get "clarification as to how they (Office of Education) justify the requirements of the guidelines issued for school desegregation." (Columbia State, August 5, 1966). It was later reported that Gov. McNair was going over the head of U.S. Com- missioner of Education, Harold Howe II, and was dealing directly with staff members of Secretary Gardner's office (Charleston News c~ Courier, August 7, 1966). Shortly thereafter Gov. MeNair announced that south Carolina would challenge the guidelines in court. The Governor took the opportunity to also PAGENO="0417" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 763 say that he was taking this action partly for the reason of removing the guide- lines issue from the political area (Columbia State, August 13, 1966). In late August, GOP nominee for State Superintendent of Education, Dr. Inez C. Eddings, said that Gov. McNair had told a closed meeting of school administra- tors that "token" faculty integration and a 3% Negro transfer would satisfy federal officials this year. According to Dr. Eddings, the Governor told the administrators that the 1966 desegregation guidelines would not otherwise apply to South Carolina "since it has acted in good faith." The Governor was also reported to have said that he had received these assurances from HEW officials and "other top officials" (Charleston News c~ Courier, September 1, 1966). At the Southern Governors' Conference, Gov. McNair presented a resolution which called for the governors to express "disapproval" of the guidelines, and also called for a congressional investigation of HEW (Columbia State, Septem- ber 20, 1966). Gov. McNair's resolution, was adopted in a milder form by the Southern Governors' Conference, and McNair later said that he was optimistic that Congress would initiate an investigation of the guidelines (Columbia State, September 23, 1966). Also in September the South Carolina Education Association defended Gov. McNair after he had been attacked by Republican gubernatorial nominee Joseph 0. Rogers for doing nothing to weaken. the guidelines. The SCEA stated that "on numerous occasions during the past several months the governor has met with the South Carolina Association of School Superintendents, its executive committee, and other randomized groups of superintendents" to discuss the guidelines and problems . related to school desegregation. The SCEA quoted Gov. McNair as saying that while South Carolina would comply with the law, the 1966 guidelines appeared to go beyond the law and the State was not asking any South Carolina district to go beyond the requirements of the law to fulfill the requirements of the guidelines. Gov. McNair was also reported to have told the superintendents that the protection and preservation of the educational program was more important than meeting some quota or percentage of desegre- gation required by the guidelines. Gov. McNair pointed out that boards of education and school superintendents had shown courage and restraint in deal- ing with the difficult problems, especially harassment and "wishy-washy" inter- pretations by federal officials (Columbia State, September 25, 1966). Though McNair had previously stated that a suit against the guidelines would be filed before the opening of school, it was not until mid-October that the state Attorney General filed suit in behalf of Lee County challenging the 1966 school desegrega- tion guidelines (ColUmbia State, October 8, 1966). The Legislators State officials were aided in their efforts to weaken the enforcement of the guidelines by members of the United States House of Representatives and the United States Senate from South Carolina. These men were not only extremely vocal in their opposition to the guidelines and to the Office of Education's at- tempts to enforce them, but they constantly bombarded the Office of Education with letters of protest which set forth complaints on behalf of individual school districts. One official in the Office of Education has said that these letters were numerous, and since they had to be answered, it was difficult for the Office of Education to do its real work of enforcing compliance with the guidelines. In April, Republican Senator Strom Thurmond said of the guidelines, "Oppres- sion through arbitrary power is no longer just a threat, it is a reality" (Char- lotte Observer, April 18, 1966). Thurmond also sent two telegrams to President Johnson and called the denial of federal funds to two South Carolina school districts "irresponsible, inequitable, and illegal" (Columbia State, June 29, 1966). In July five members of the House from South Carolina sent a letter to Commissioner Howe declaring that, "Good education is being sacrificed to arbi- trary and vascillating interpretations of the law" (Columbia State, July 1, 1966). Thurmond's Republican colleague, Rep. Albert Watson, attacked the guidelines when they were first issued and even met with Commissioner Howe in an effort to have the guidelines rescinded (Columbia State, July 3, 1966). One of the vehement attacks against the guidelines and Commissioner Howe came from Rep. L. Mendel Rivers. Rivers, a former Citizens Council member, had once said that the 1954 Supreme Court decision would bring "mongrelization of the Caucasian race" (Columbia State, November 29, 1955). He `had also said that. "Regardless of the court decision, we will never see integration in South Carolina in our lifetime" (Charleston News ~ Courier, March 24, 1965). This 73-728-67-Pt. 2-27 PAGENO="0418" 764 U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION year, in a speech on the House floor, Rep. Rivers called Commissioner Howe a "misfit" and said he was "ignorant." Rivers accused the Johnson administration of sending "commissars" into the South to demand recruitment of Negro teachers for integration purposes. He said the law had been "raped" and warned that, "We are really bitter and somebody is going to pay for it" (Columbia State, August 10, 1966). On September30, 1966, Rivers said that Howe "talks like a Communist" and accused him of destroying the school system of America "lock, stock, and barrel." Rivers suggested also that the "best way to stop him (Howe) is to quit paying him" (Congressional Record, September 30, 19436). Rep. W. J. Bryan Dorn felt that arbitrary decisions by the Office of Education were causing many veteran educators to retire earlier than they expected. The Greenwood legislator said that the rules from the Office of Education were coming from people "who know little if anything about real education" (Columbia State, August 10, 1966). Rep. Watson charged Commissioner Howe with attempting to "sabotage" local school systems. Watson called Howe a "czar" whose office was "rapidly growing into a totalitarian regime . . . bent upon the destruction of local control of education." Watson also asked for Howe's resignation and criticized Office of Education employees for being "heavy-handed" in their treat- ment of school officials (Columbia State, September 9, 1966). Shortly before the 89th Congress adjourned, New York Representative Emanuel Celler appointed a seven man subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee to determine whether or not the Office* of Education had exceeded its legal authority in enforcing the guidelines. One of those appointed to the subcommittee was Rep. Robert T. Ashmore of South Carolina. Ashmore has said that he will "hold their (Office of Education) feet to the fire" when the hearings begin. Ashmore has promised that, "I will see that the South's viewpoint is represented (Co- lumbia State, October 4, 1966). The Educators Soon after the guidelines appeared efforts were made to get some top state education officials to appear on a panel at the Civil Rights Commission confer- ence. None of the individuals contacted were willing to serve on the panel, however. As early as April 12 it was reported that State Superintendent of Education, Dr. Jesse T. Anderson, would decline an invitation to meet with Harold Howe II, U.S. Commissioner of Education, to discuss the new guidelines. Dr. Anderson said that he had already discussed the guidelines with Howe and in the future he would just "read Howe's letters" (Columbia State, April 12, 1966). On June 7, 1966, the Columbia State reported that Dr. Anderson was promoting negotiations between two South Carolina school districts that did not sign 441-B and the Office of Education so that the districts would continue to receive funds. On June 11, 19436, the Columbia state reported that Dr. Ander- son had told the State Board of Education that the government might not cut off funds to the two schools. In the same article it was also reported that a member of the Board from Lexington County District #1 (a non-complier in 1965) had said that his district had been just as well off without federal funds. in early July Dr. Anderson was in Washington, D.C., for an education meeting and took the opportunity to approach federal officials and ask that funds be restored to school districts not in compliance with Title VI (Columbia State, July 2, 1966). When officials from the U.S. Office of Education came to Columbia in July, Dr. Anderson refused to allow them to utilize the facilities of the State Depart- ment of Education so they could discuss school desegregation plans with various school administrators from around the state. As a result, the Office of Educa- tion representatives had to meet in the Wade Hampton Hotel. Dr. Anderson refused to attend the meeting and insisted that no efforts had been made to arrange the meeting through the State Department of Education. it is now clear that attempts were made to work with the Department (Columbia State July 12, 1966). In late July the State Department of Education in cooperation with the South Carolina Association of School Superintendents jointly sponsored a closed meeting to discuss school desegregation problems. This meeting was closed to the press and all visitors (Columbia State, July 29, 1966). When a group from Florida State University held a conference in Columbia in August to help South Carolina school officials deal with admini~tratjve prob- lems incident to school desegregation, they made an effort prior to the conference to clear it with the State Department of Education. Such clearance is important PAGENO="0419" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 765 since most administrators in the state contact the State Department of Education when they are invited to a meeting and know little about is sponsors. in spite of the fact that the PSU people contacted the State Department of Education twice, they received no reply. As a result the conference was very poorly at- tended. In August, both the Republican and Democratic nominees for the office of State Superintendent of Education (Dr. Anderson is retiring at the end of this year) endorsed the South Carolina court suit against the 1966 guidelines (Charleston News ~ Courier, August 8, 1966). In the spring of this year *the National Education Association announced that it would be able to make a grant to Southern teachers' associations' to hold a conference in each state. The conference would deal with faculty desegregation, and the condition of the grant was that the conference had to be sponsored by both of the teachers' associations, Negro and white. Such a conference w~uid have undoubtedly contributed to progress in the area of faculty desegregation but at this time no such meeting has been held in South Carolina. It is reported that the South Carolina Education Association, the predominantly white teachers' association, was unwilling to co-sponsor such a conference with the Palmetto Education Association, the Negro teachers' asso- ciation. Another opportunity for a positive contribution to education in South Carolina was apparently forfeited. The Newspapers In both the Columbia State and the Charleston News ~ Courier thro~ughout the summer there appeared editorial attacks on the guidelines, officials of the U.S. Office of Education, and the role of the federal government in education. On April 6, The News and Courier's lead editorial was entitled "Guidelines to Disaster." The editorial accused the federal government of seeming "deter- mined to create new formulas of mixing." The lead editorial of the June 27 issue of The State called Commissioner Howe "the U.S. Commissar of Inte- gration" and said that the guidelines could better be described as a "federal strait-jacket." A July 9 lead editorial in The State said that when Goy. MeNair and the other Southern governors had met with Secretary Gardner at the National Governors' Conference all they got was "a lot of gobbledegook and guff from Harold Howe's henchmen." On July 24 another lead editorial in The State again referred to "Commissar Howe" and `his "emissaries." The editorial said that "These guidelines not only gO far beyond the requirements of the (1964 Civil Rights) law, they run counter to its very spirit in several particulars." The editorial observed that, "Gommissar Howe has said that public schooling itself will `not be tolerated unless the races are mixed in a manner acceptable-not to Congress or the Courts-but to theHowe hierarchy." On July 19 The State's lead editorial was entitled "Tyranny in Education" and took the liberty of expanding on the National Republican Coordinating Committee's position paper dealing with the role of the federal government in education. T'he editorial suggested that the President should see to it that "his minions in the Office of Education" were advised of his statement that the tradition of local control of schools would not be forsaken. The News and Courier's lead editorial of July 30 intimated that the Office of Education would be disrupting the tranquility of South Carolina schools if it continued to insist on "forced integration of faculties as well as student bodies." The August 16 lead editorial of The News and Courier said that, "Mr. Howe and those who share his educational views also have no legitimate place in govern- ment." The editorial also observed that, "The American way of life is sup- posed to be a free way of life, not a social laboratory for off-beat experiments in human relations." On September 6 The News and Courier's lead editorial referred to Commissioner Howe as "a zealot for integration" who' could be removed only by getting rid of "the administration that allows him to pressure the people with the people's own money." These editorial opininns from the state's two largest newspapers are representative of similar O~~fl~Ofl5 expressed in the editorials of other state newspapers. This examination, then, of the `position of state educational, political and newspaper leaders toward the 1966 school desegregation guidelines reveals a posture of defiance, misinterpretation, and an almost total lack of cooperation with those seeking to abolish the dual school system in the South. Intemperate language was the order of the day, and repeated condemnation of the guide- lines and inferences concerning the legality of the ~iidelines contributed sig- PAGENO="0420" 766 U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION nificantly to the public lack of confidence in the Office of likiucation and itS administration of the guidelines. For Negroes, the posture of the state's `Establishment" did little to reassure them that they could attend desegregated schools without fear of confronting hostility and possible danger. As the sum- mer wore on it became obvious that the state's posture would significantly contribute to the failure of freedom of choice to abolish the dual school system in South Carolina. Every phblic statement, no matter how much it was couched in terms of legal questions, seemed to point to the fact that South Carolina school administrators and the state's leaders did not want to have more than a token number of Negroes in the schools with whites. THE BURDENS OF FREEDOM OF ouoicn During the freedom of choice period itself it was clear that the choice was not as free as the guidelines intended. The guidelines specifically stated in section 181.49 that no student could be denied his choice for any reason other than overcrowding. In Orangeburg County District #2 the chairman of the school board of trustees told one Negro parent that her child's application to attend the desegregated school had been rejected because the board did not feel that his grades were high enough to demonstrate that he cduld perform satisfactorily in the desegregated school. Also in Orangeburg #2 some Negro students who chose to attend the desegregated school were rejected but were not told why their applications for transfer were refused. This was in vio- lation of the guidelines. In Williamsburg County a Negro family was threatened that they would have to move off the land of the owner if their child did not change his choice from the desegregated school. In Dorchester County District #2 Negro par- ents from a rural area near Summerville were told by the superintendent that the "guidelines do not apply to rural areas" and that their children could not be picked up by the school buses going to the desegregated schools because It would not be feasible to reroute the buses. Approximately 79 of these chil- dren who bad chosen to go to the desegregated schools in the district were refused transfer in spite of the fact that the guidelines did apply to all areas in a school district, urban and rural; and subsequent investigations showed that school buses take white children from the same general area as where these Negro children live to the desegregated schools where the Negro children were denied entrance. In Dorchester #3 approximately 200 Negro children chose to attend the desegregated schools b~it all of these were rejected for over- crowding. Only the 30 Negro children who attended the desegregated schools in Dorchester #3 last year were allowed to return. The children who were rejected were notified only three days in advance of the 1960-1967 school term that they would not be allowed to attend the desegregated school. Parents from the area reported that the desegregated schools are not at all overcrowded. Now both District #2 and #3 face the possibility of losing their federal funds. Reports from Barnwell District #19 indicated that some Negro parents have been told that they would have to either move or take their children out of the desegregated schools. In many counties throughout the state Negro parents were reluctant to send their children to the desegregated schools because of a fear that they would suffer physical harassment, social isolation from their classmates, and academic failure. Other parents were reluctant to transfer their children for fear that the parents would lose their jobs. In most school districts, officials made no effort to communicate with the Negro community in an attempt to alleviate these fears. Where such contact was made it was often relayed through the traditional middle-class Negro leadership which has little effective contact with the grass-roots members of the community. One superintendent said: "We operate on a freedom of choice basis. We baven't clone anything fOr or against them coming. We feel that is the best method." This was typical of school officials who were reluctant to take any action which might infer that they were trying to aid the transfer of Negro students to desegregated schools. As a result, Negro parents and students found little reason to believe that they would not undergo considerable hardship if they transferred to the desegregated school. Assurances of concern, protection, and respect for their rights as citizens and human beings were generally not forthcoming from school officials. Without some personal expression of these PAGENO="0421" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 767 concerns from school officials and leaders in the white community, there was iio reason for most Negroes to believe that their experience in the school would (llffei greatly fiom the years of physical and spiritual intimidation they had known in the past. A CHOICE MAY NOT BE CHANGED Most school districts in South Carolina closed their free choice periods by May 30 Some districts how e~ ci kept their choice periods open throughout the summer for Negro students who decided to attend the desegregated schools. Shortly after the closing of the formal choice period, school districts were re-. quired to submit to the Office of Education an estimate of the number of children in their district who would be attending schools across racial lines for the first time this year. Then, shortly after school opened, districts were required to send in another report giving the actual number of children attending schools across racial lines. A comparison of the two figures for 86 of the 98 school districts operating under freedom of choice indicates that 32 of the districts bad an increase over the number of students estimated in the first report. In other words, Richland County School District #1 estimated (based on the return of choice forms) that they would have 1,184 Negro students enrolled in desegregated schools, but the actual figure after school opened was 1,240. In 54 school districts, however, the number of students attending schools across racial lines for the first time was less than the original estimate. For example, in Charleston District #9 the original estimate was 142 but after school opened only 31 Negro students were reported to be attending desegregated schools. In Chesterfield #3 the number dropped from 5 to 0; in Hampton #2 from 83 to 55; in Orangeburg #3 from 58 to 35; and in Union from 304 to 90. Certainly in some of the districts where the number dropped it was because the parents of children moved out of the district between the time of the choice period and the time school opened. On the other hand, in those districts where there was a significant decrease, it was because Negro students changed their minds and decided to return to the Negro school rather than to stick with their original choice of attending the desegregated school. This was a direct viola- tion of the guidelines. Section 181.48 of the guidelines states that once a student has made his choice it could not be changed for any reason except (1) In case of change of residence (2) in case of compelling hardship (3) In case a student required a course of study not offered at that school. In many cases, however, students were per- mitted to transfer back to the Negro school without meeting any of these condi- tions. Such cases even occurred after school opened. In McCormick County, for example, Negro children were permitted to transfer back to Mims High School (Negro) from McCormick High School (desegregated) several days after school had begun. There was no effort made on the part of school officials to keep the children at McCormick High and there were no administrative procedures to be followed in changing schools. The Negro chil- dren merely quit going to McGormick High one day and began going to Mims High the next. It is also reported that in Spartanburg District #3, Lee County, and Beaufort County there were similar incidents of transfer after the beginning of school. This was a general pattern across the state. In Laurens County District #56 seven Negro children were returned to the Negro school by school authorities after they bad failed a testat the desegregated school. These children were told that they were not academically prepared to attend the desegregated school. While the students were judged not to be academically fit for the desegregated school they were returned to the same grade at the Negro school as the one they had been in at the desegregated school. Such actions only perpetuate the idea that the Negro school is an inferior educa- tional institution and that its products are "unready" to compete with whites. HARASSMENT OF STUDENTS There has been some harassment of Negro students in desegregated schools since the beginning of the 1900-1967 school session. In DorchesterDistrict #1 a child threw a baseball at a Negro student, a Negro girl was hit by a white girl in the restroom, and white students threw rocks and other missiles at the Negro students. Students are segregated in the classrooms and on the school buses. PAGENO="0422" 768 U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION Students report that white teachers ignore the Negro students in class and make no effort to involve them in class discussions. There are also charges of unfair judication by school administrators of disputes between Negro~ and white children. In McCormick County, Negro students attending the desegregated high school were called names, hit with paper and pennies, and did not feel that the aca- demic environment was such that they could study properly. In Beaufort Coun- ty a Negro girl was hit with a piece of glass and had to have five stitches taken in her face. There were also incidents of fights in the school yard involving Negro and white children and there has been harassment of Negro children on school buses. Local parents do not feel that discipline problems in which Negro and white students have been involved have been disposed of in a fair manner. In Colleton County there were reports that Negro children were forced to sit in the rear of the school buses and that they were harassed on the school buses. In Lee County one Negro student in a desegregated school had his house shot into. In Kershaw County there was some fighting on the school buses so seats have now been assigned to Negro and white students to keep them apart. In general, however, there was relatively little harassment of Negro students by their white schoolmates. Many Negro students report that they are doing well and are enjoying and benefiting from their experience in the desegregated schools. There is name caffing in most every school but this has subsided as the school year has progressed. Discipline on school buses is a general problem and this is undoubtedly due to the fact that in South Carolina there are student drivers. The ability of these students to maintain discipline on their buses and drive their buses at the same time is strained. Too, the drivers are frequent- ly driving their own classmates and are probably reluctant to reprimand them or report them to school officials for discipline problems. It should also be re- membered that these student drivers are subject to the same prejudices as their parents and classmates. ROUTING OF SCHOOL BUSES South Carolina school districts have refused to follow the 1986 guideline re- quirements for eliminating segregation of school bus routes. The guidelines said that "Routing and scheduling of transportation must be planned on the basis of such factors as economy and efficiency, and may not operate to impede desegregation. Routes and schedules must be changed to the extent necessary to comply with this provision." In most districts the school buses were desegre- gated only for those students attending the desegregated schools. In other words, buses carrying white students going to the predominantly white school us- ually pick up Negro children who have transferred and are now attending the predominantly white schooL Buses have not been rerouted so that white and Negro students ride on the same buses if they live close to each other. Buses have not been rerouted so that a school bus, for instance, will pick up a Negro student and a white student who might live on the same road less than 200 yards from each other, and then take them to the town where the children are dropped at their respective schools. White student drivers drive buses loaded with white children and Negro student drivers drive buses loaded with Negro children. A bus with white children may follow a bus with Negro children for a considerable distance `on the same road, each bus picking up students of each race separately, and then take them to two schools in close proximity to one another. DESEGREGATION OF SCHOOL ACTIVITIES Many schools have begun to desegregate their activities and Negro students are beginning to participate in school sports, glee clubs, and other activities at for- merly all-white schools. There are schools, however, where no Negroes are par- ticipating in such activities, either because they are barred from doing so or because no Negroes have yet taken the initiative to join such activities. The segregation of high school athletic conferences contributes to the preserva- tion of the dual school system. A predominantly white school will not play a Negro school of the same size located in the same town. In one South Carolina town the Negro football team must play all of its night games out of town because its field has no lights. no seats, and no yardline markers-in fact, it only `has two goal posts. The white school in the same town has good foot- ball facilities but they are not made available to the Negro team. While news- PAGENO="0423" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 769 papers throughout the state publish the rankings of white teams in various ath- letic conferences, Negro high school rankings are unlisted. In many Negro schools the PTA must raise money for team uniforms, field lights, or other equip- ment for athletics. At many desegrated schools, Negro students are not eligible for class awards given by the United Daughters of the Confederacy, and other fraternal and civic organizations. The academic honor societies do not hold their state-wide con- ferences on an integrated `basis and the same is true of some other state con- ferences of high school organization~s which exist in both Negro and white schools. Throughout the state the Negro students are excluded from social affairs which are routinely part of the school's activities. Such activities as junior-senior proms, beach trips, and other similar affairs have come to `be privately sponsored in those school districts where the schools are desegregated to the degree that Negro students might be involved if `the activities were school-sponsored. This practice is one of the most pernicious forms of discrimination which serves only to isolate the Negro students from any meaningful social activity with their fellow students. In some districts the PTA is open to all parents, Negro and white, while in others it is closed. In some of the bi-racial PTAs the organization is structured so that it is virtually impossible for Negro parents to be elected to leadership po- sitions. Even where the PTAs are desegregated, `there are reports that the Negro parents have little voice or representation. FACULTY DESEGREGATION South Carolina's greatest failure in the area of school desegregation is the low number of full-time teachers who are in schools of the opposite race for the first time this year. Only a very few schools in the state have any significant number of teachers involved in teaching full-time across racial lines. Most of these teachers are not involved in the traditional academic subjects of the sciences, languages, social sciences, and mathematics. Instead, they are teach- ing such courses as agriculture, band, carpentry, vocational education, driver education, library science, physical education, and home economics. It is esti- mated that less than 24% of the state's school districts have any full-time faculty desegregation. Sixty percent of the districts have some type of part-time faculty or staff desegregation, but even it is apt to be negligible. Those persons par- ticipating in part-time faculty desegregation after often involved in speech therapy, remedial reading, or work with retarded children. These people usually serve both the Negro and white schools and frequently work out of the central administrative office of the district. School officials feared faculty desegregation even more than student desegre- gation. Many of these administrators felt that many Negro teachers had at- tended inferior public schools and colleges and had then been hired to teach in a similar situation where they were given few opportunities for professional advancement or training. These administrators found themselves in the dilemma of saying that the Negro teachers were adequate for the Negro school but were somehow inadequately prepared to teach white children. Moreover, these school men were reluctant to restructure their traditional methods of class organiza- tion (as team teaching would necessitate) so that faculty desegregation would proceed more smoothly `and would be more palatable to the community. Administrators missed out on an opportunity to acclimate their communities and faculty to teacher desegregation when they refused to follow the suggestions offered in the 1965 guidelines. Those guidelines did not call for any specific faculty desegregation but did suggest that school administrators begin some part-time faculty desegregation and to `also begin to hold teachers meetings together. Most school districts chose not to follow these suggestions, thinking that the guidelines would not be enforced. Indeed, there were no penalties for those districts which did not choose to follow the suggestions. This year, how- ever, when confronted with specific teacher desegregation requirements, schools were unprepared and, in fact, are doing for the first time `this year what was recommended for last year. Some school districts are still not holding joint teachers' meetings and some have no desegregation of faculty, either part time or full time. Negro parents and children have said that they believe that more Negro students would choose to attend the desegregated schools if there were Negro teachers there who were teaching traditional academic subjects. PAGENO="0424" 770 U.s. I OFFICE OF EDUCATION - Superintendents certainly faced many problems when considering how they should desegregate their faculties. Though some superintendents said that they could not find Negro teachers who were willing to teach in the desegregated schools, subsequent investigations showed that there were Negro teachers in those communities who were willing, and able. It has also been reported that some superintendents: instructed their Negro principals to try to find white teachers to transfer to the Negro schools. Given the fact that the social mores of the South do not look favorably on a Negro male approaching a white female in a professional capacity it i~ not surprising that such attempts were usually futile. Many superintendents said that they were giving their teachers a "freedom of choice" and they could teach wherever they wished to do so. These adminis- trators likewise said that they had traditionally assigned teachers on this basis and that if they told a white teacher to go to a Negro school the teacher would quit. This might have happened but a few school officials tried it to find out. Instead, they insisted that they were already facing a critical teacher shortage and that it was impossible to assign teachers. In most areas of school desegre- gation, it u-as found that school superintendents did exactly what they wanted to. If they wanted to make progress they generally did so. but if they didn't want to follow the guidelines, they used some rationalization for not doing so. There is a fear that in the future teaching may prove to be a dead end pro- fession for Negroes. As more and more schools are desegregated and as more Negro teachers are in desegregated schools there is some question as to whether these teachers will have the opportunities of professional advancement available to their white colleagues. If this is the case there may be less and less Negro students who decide to go into teaching as a career. Similarly, there is a feel- ing among many professional Negro educators that when the two teacher associa- tions merge, the white group will merel absorb the Negro group rather than genuinely merge with it. They point to such recent cases as the "mergers" in Florida and Virginia. In each of these cases the Negro associations have appar- ently been taken into the white groups with little representation given to the Negroes, and thus their professional interests are at the mercy of the whites. Such concerns are presently some of the factors for delaying the merger of the two associations in South Carolina. In no district in the state did school officials seek to utilize resources avail- able under Title IV of the 1964 Civil Rights Act to cope with problems incident to school desegregation. Title IV provides resources which can take the form of technical assistance, grants to school hoards, and training institutes for teachers and administrators going into newly integrated situations. Funds are available for financing these programs and these resources have been successfully utilized in other Southern states to hell) teachers and administrators deal with desegregation problems. No school system, school board, or college in South Carolinahas yet held a program in the state that has been funded-by Title IV. Officials in the Office of Education are eager for some sort of Title IV program to begin in the state and they have practically said that they will fund any worthwhile program which is submitted from South Carolina. This opportunity to deal constructively with school desegregation problems in the state has been bypassed by South Carolina educational leaders. SMALL, INADEQUATE SCHOOLS The 1966 guidelines required that small inadequate schools maintained for the exclusive use of one race be closed. There are few of these schools in South Carolina because since the 1950s the state has consolidated schools and built new school plants for Negro students. There are no unaceredited high schools in South Carolina, but parents continue to report inadequate facilities in Negro schools. The accreditation of elementary school is entirely voluntary and of the almost 1000 elementary schools in the state only about 143 were accredited last year. hi Dorchester County District #3 there is Four Holes School which is main- tained for the exclusive use of an ethnic group of Indian background. This year Four Holes School offers eight grades but has only 56 students and three teachers. It is reported that students from this school attempted to transfer to the desegre- gated school but were rejected. At first they refused to attend their old school, but eventually they did return after the superintendent promised to get their birth certificates changed to "white" and to add two rooms to Four Holes School. PAGENO="0425" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 771 Also, in Charleston County District #23 the Edisto Island Elementary School has only 42 students and two teachers though it allegedly has seven grades. This school is maintained for the exclusive use of white children. There are about 20 other elementary scbOpls in the state with less than 100 children in each one. In other districts in the state small inadequate schools were closed this year. The students at these schools were given a free choice as to where they wanted to go to school in the future and the Negro children involved went either to an all-Negro school or to a desegregated schooL ESEA: EQUALITY OF SEGREGATION There is evidence that programs funded by Title I of the Elementary and Sec- ondary Education Act are playing a major role in retarding school desegregation The ESEA provides for the availability of federal funds to school districts based on the number of school-age children in the district from low income families. The money is granted to the st'ite and the state in turn is responsible for approving programs submitted from local school districts. South Carolina is eligible to receive about twenty-two million dollars under the program. Much of this money is being used for underprivileged children in Negro schools, since that is where most such children are located. In South Carolina the projects funded with ESEA money are to provide free lunches, free textbooks, remedial reading teachers, clothing, eyeglasses, medical and dental care, social workers, mobile classrooms, etc. For Negro children and parents who live on a low income, these services are meeting a real need. If, however, a child can receive these services only by attending the Negro school he is likely to stay there and chances of meaningful desegregation in the district are slight. It is not necessary that the programs be restricted to those schools with the highest concentration of children from low income families. Commis- sioner Howe sent a letter this summer to the state departments of education notifying them that when uilizing ESEA funds, it was possible to devise pro- grams to benefit the child, regardless of where he attended school. This has not been done to any great degree in South Carolina and therefore these programs tend to be available to many Negro children only if they stay at the Negro schooL One South Carolina school superintendent has `admitted that the ESEA encour- ages segregation because some Negro families would rather have their children romain in a poor school that qualifies for the ESEA funded programs. In some school districts which had their federal funds deferred, school officials attempted to blame the federal government for the deferral and piously expressed their concern for those who would no longer benefit from the funds. Superin- tendent Kirkley of Marion #3 said, "Our night adult education classes will be what will hit us hardest. We'll have to cut that out." Mr. Kirkley went on to explain that there were 100 adults in the classes, all Negro. In Dillon #1 where less than 1% Of the 1,246 Negroes in the district transferred to desegre- gated schools, the district's funds were deferred. The district had provided 425 free lunches in 1965-1966 but after the funds were deferred the superintedent suddenly found that there were 1,200 children who needed to be fed~ The Chester Board of School Trustees wrote the U.S. Office of Education that, "The educa- tional welfare of our culturally deprived Negro boys and girls would be adversely affected by the withdrawal of federal funds and that in such an event it would be our responsibility to take an action to court in an effort to protest the rights of these children." In Chesterfield #4 the superintendent warned Negro citizens that if they continued to send letters of complaint to Washington the district's funds would be in danger of being cut off and the Negroes would be ones who would be hurt by this. This threat influenced many people in the Negro com- munity. While all adult education programs in the state are supposedly integrated, many communities have found ways around this. The most common ploy is to hold adult education classes at both the white and Negro schools in the corn- inunity. In such situations, the Negroes usually attend the classes at the Negro school and the white adults go to the classes at the predominantly white school. DEFERI~AL OF FEDERAL FUNDS Much of the current controversy snrrounding the U.S. Office of Education hinges on the question of whether or not the Office has the authority to defer a school district's funds without first having a hearing to determine whether or not the district is violating Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Regardless PAGENO="0426" 772 u.s. OFHCE OF EDUCATION of the legality of the action, however, there is little evidence to suggest that withholding federal funds is an effective sanction to encourage abolition of the dual school system in most South Carolina school districts; An article in the September 27, 1966, issue of The State indicated that federal deferral of funds for new programs would affect only about nine of the state's 108 school districts because the State Department of Education worked hard to allocate funds before the deferral notices were issued. State Department of Education officials stated that they were "not working against Washington, but working for our own people" in seeking to see that the districts got their money before the deferral notices were published. Because of early planning and preparation the State Department of Education was able to approve ESEA Title I projects amounting to more than $16 million out of a tentative allocation of $22 million. The Chairman of the Marlboro County Board of Education (which did not submit a 441-B) said, "We did not use federal money in our budget last year nor will we this year." He then pointed out that the district was carrying on the same programs now as when it had used federal funds. The superin- tendent of Marion #3 said1 "We're not hurting . . . We can raise taxes, put on 10 mills, and make it up . . . We can curtail our operation a little bit arid get along fine." It is true, however, that some districts have gone along with the guidelines because they feared losing their federal money. It seems that many school districts consider their relations with the federal government to be a game in which they see how little they can do under the guidelines and still receive federal funds. In those districts where federal funds are lost, there is little desire to move towards the abolition of the dual school system. The district may be brought into court but court decisions on school desegregation requirements in South Carolina are less stringent than the guidelines, and less apt to be updated and revised. DESEGREGA~ON rx COURT ORDER DrsTaIc'rs South Carolina has six school districts which are operating under federal court order, and these cases were initiated by Negro parents. These court orders were first handed down in 1964 and the required administrative pro- cedures to effect school desegregation were considerably more lenient than more recent court decisions and the 1966 guidelines. This summer the plain- tiffs in these cases went back into court to get the decisions revised. The school districts involved were Greenville County, Orangeburg #5, Sumter #2, Clarendon #1, Charleston #20 and Darlington County. The cases were argued in federal court on June 27 but it was not until August 27 that a three judge federal court gave its decision that the 1964 orders would be revised. The school districts involved were required to present new plans for the court to approve. The effect of the litigation was that the requirements of the court would not be effectuated until the 1967-1968 school year. Because the Office of Education has no authority over court order school districts, any degree of school desegregation in the six districts for the 1986-1967 school year is acceptable, and the question of performance, which is the major criterion for compliance in those districts operating under the guidelines, is of little concern to those under court order. As long as a court order district in South Carolina complies with the requirements of the court, they can desegregate at a minimal rate. In court order school districts, the burden of desegregating the schools and abolishing the dual school system is totally in the hands of the Negro community unless the school officials feel a responsibility and commitment to assume this burden. The latter is not the case in South Carolina. There are several South Carolina school districts which are operating under court orders, but who were taken into court by the U.S. Department of Justice rather than by private citizens. These cases involved Lexington #1, Calhoun #2, and (Jiarendon #2. As provided for in Title IV of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, Negro parents asked the Justice Department to file suit on their behalf since they were financially unable to initiate the litigation. In each of the cases, the federal judge required the districts to submit free choice plans to the court. The Office of Education also has no jurisdiction over these districts. CONCLUSION Based on our experience in the field of school desegregation, we feel that South Carolina's lack of progress in this area is attributable to the following factors: PAGENO="0427" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 773 (1) Local school officials and state political and educational leaders have resisted change in the area of school desegregation. (2) The majority of the white community has also resisted change and has, at times, been openly hostile to any policies which would tend to bring about greater desegregation. When school officials have taken positive steps to produce change, they have not been supported by the white community. (3) Because of the hostility of the white community and the resistance on the part of local school officials, political, and educational leaders, the Negro community has been beset by fear and cynicism. As a result, it has been difficult to organize the Negro community for meaningful desegregation and difficult to overcome the inertia created by past years of oppression. * (4) Federal agencies have failed to provide strong leadership and effec- tive enforcement of school desegregation regulations. One would hope that in the years to come, when there is perhaps less political ferment in the state, school desegregation will be approached with more reason and equanimity. There is no question that genuine progress can be made in this area, but it demands leaders who are willing to recognize opportunities for progress and who do not feel obligated to defy the federal government with such enthusiasm. Educators, to be sure, are being called upon to face the challenges of equality of educational opportunity with imagination and courage. Unfortunately, it appears that many professional educators are finding it difficult to adjust to the increased involvement of the federal government in education, and too few of them recognize that the goal of Title VI is to abolish the dual school system. South Carolina will not make genuine progress in education until our citizens recognize that integrated schools and quality education are not mutually ex- clusive. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, ANI) WELFARE, Or~'IcE OF EDUCATION, Washington, D.C., December 6, 1966. Miss JEAN FAIRFAX, Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc., National Association for the Advancement of Co'ored People, New York, N.Y. DEAR Miss FAIRrAx: Your letter of September 26 requesting operating policy and statistical data from the Equal Educational Opportunity Program on school desegregation has been carefully reviewed by my staff. You are aware as a result of your contacts with our office and the two con- ferences held with you and the American Friends Service Committee staff that a considerable amount of staff time has been assigned to this project. Two task force units have diligently sifted our files, circulated questionnaires, and con- ducted interviews with our Area Directors and field staff for pertinent informa- tion. After a careful analysis of the information collected we have reluctantly concluded that replies to many of your queries could be secured only if a uni- form system of record-keeping was designed and placed into operation when the program began. Nevertheless, we are prepared to forward to you replies to those questions we can answer responsibly at the earlies possible time. Our staff has never exceeded 125 full-time people serving the South, the North and the West, and it reached this size only recently. The maximum energies of the operating field staff have of necessity been put into the demands of the com- pliance and negotiating phases of the program. The September 26 correspondence has a great deal of meaning for our program as well as for you. The 17 multi-phased questions raised by you have set in motion new ideas for uniform recording and data collection in our office, some of which depend on obtaining sufficient staff to permit this. If a similar request is made in another year we would very likely be equipped to produce the answers in considerably less time. Sincerely yours, DAVID S. SEELEY, Assistant Commissioner, Equal Educational Opportunities Program. PAGENO="0428" PAGENO="0429" V ILS. OFFICE OFVEDUCATION WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 7, 1966 HOUSE OF REPREsENTATIvES, SPECIAL SUBCOMMITTEE ON EDUCATION OF THE V V V COMMITTEE ON V EDUCATION AND LABOR, V V Evanston, J77* V The subcommittee met at 9 :30 a.m., pursuant to call, in Scott Hall, Northwestern University, Evanston, Ill., Hon. John Brademas (chair- man of the subcommittee) presiding. V V V Present: iRepresentatives Brademas and Quie. V V V V V Also present: Hon. Roman C. Pucinski. V V V V V: V V Also present: Charles W. Radcliffe, Special Education Counsel for minority, and Mrs. Helen Phillipsborn, member of V the subcommittee staff. V :V V V V V V Mr. BRADEMAS. The Special Subcommittee on Education of the House Committee on Education and Labor will come t~o order. V V V V It might be appropriate for the members of the subcommittee to introduce our~elves. I am Representative John Brademas of the' Third District of Indiana, and with me today is my distinguished colleague, Representative Albert Quie of V the First District of Min~ nesota, a Democrat and a Republican. V V V V V V V VV V V V Let me say atV the outset before Vj make a few opening comments on the purpose of our hearings, how very grateful the members of our subcommittee are, and here I speak for our distinguished subcommit- tee chairman, Mrs. Edith Green of Oregon, to all of you who have helped make possible our coming to Northwestern University on what we are aware is very shOrt notice. V V V We appreciate particularly Vthe cooperation of Dr. Miller, president of the university, and of Dr. Payson Wild, vice president of North- western University, who I may say was my professor of international law V at Harvard many, many years ago. So I am especially glad to be here at Evanston. V V V We want also to express our appreciation to the regional office of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare and the Office of Education and in particular to Mr. Hosch, Dr. Mousolite, Dr. Nelson, Miss Proesel, Miss Chipman and others, I am sure, whose names I don't have for their help. As you are aware, House Resolution 614 authorized a study of the TJ.S. Office of Education and of the operation and administration of the wide spectrum of Federal education programs in the United States. V V V Not long ago Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare Gardner remarked that. in the first 3 years of the 88th and 89th Congresses some 775 PAGENO="0430" 776 U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 19 landmark educational bills had been written into law. These bills are aimed at providing education in our country and wider educational opportunities at every level of education, and while they represent the great strides forward they nonetheless impose great burdens on the Federal Government in getting these programs into effective operation. Much of the money that has been authorized and appropriated by Congress in the field of education in these last 3 years is being ad- ministered by the U.S. Office of Education. As I recall the amount of money being administered by the Office of Education in fiscal 1964 came to some $700 million and in a period of about 3 years that figure had increased fourfold to a figure of $3.3 billion. This subcommittee, under Mrs. Green's leadership, has begmi its work by undertaking a study of the operation of the Office of Educa- tion in Washington, D.C., discussing with officials of the Office of Education not only their organization but the development of the guidelines that are used in connection with these several programs and discussing as well the relations between OE in \Vashington and the field offices in the country. In addition our subcommittee and its staff have been engaged in discussing with members of the educational community at every level their points of view with respect to the relationships that they have had with the Office of Education. As you are aware, many of you have been asked for your comment on these questions by means of a questionnaire. I think many of you will have received another questionnaire which you will be asked to complete by the time of the end of this study which is the 31st of December of this year. Members of our subcommittee felt that it was not enough only to talk with Office of Education officials in Washington or to rely on questionnaires but that it was essential that we should talk with the user population; that is to say, with those persons who actually must make effective the Federal education programs here in the field. That is why Congress- man Quie and I are here in Evanston in the Midwest with you today. We would like to discuss with you how these Federal education pro- grams are indeed operating at the local level. We would like to get your judgments on how the administration of these programs can be improved at the local level. We would like to get any suggestions you may have for the elimination of bottlenecks. We are sure that Congress itself is probably as responsible as any other institution in this picture for some of the bottlenecks. I might say in conclusion before I invite Congressman Quie to make any comments he may wish to make, that because we are operat- ing on limited time we shall ask those of you who have been kind enough to come to spea.k as quickly as you can and to the point. We will begin in a moment with officials of the regional office of HEW and OE, and then we shall ask people from the universities to join them. Read your statements and then we shall engage in a colloquy in a~ panel form. Mr. Quie, have you any comment you would like to make ~ Mr. Qun~. Well, just very briefly. I am glad to be here in Evan- ston and to hear from people from the regional office and from educa- PAGENO="0431" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 777 tors of this region because in this coming congressional session, we of necessity will be considering amendments to practically all of the educational legislation that has been passed m previous Congresses This really is the first time we have had any field hearings on the legis lation. Prior to this we usually only heard from the national organizations and people who come to Washington, and for that reason the identity of the particular area people are from and their detailed problems were not available to us, nor at that time had anybody had any experience with the legislation while now many of us have 2 years' experience. Even though there may be just two of us here, we will be keeping a transcript of what is said, and other members of the committee will turn to us to find out what you people were thinking. So we will be carrying the message to our colleagues, and I think this is going to be your opportunity to engage in the legislative process for this coming year. I look forward to the opportunity to serve in this way, too, and I wifi assure you that I believe the attitude is such, not only between Congressman Brademas and myself, but of other members on the committee that there is a deep concern of people of both parties that we need to have the best possible legislation in order that we can have the best possible education in the country so there won't be any ex- treme partyism in the approach to education legislation. Mr. BRADEMAS. I would like very strongly to second what Al Quie has just said, that our common concern is excellence of education for as many of the people of our country as possible. May we call first on Mr. Hosch, the director of the regional office of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. If you have statements, we will be grateful if you will give them to Mr. Radcliffe of our committee. STATEMENT OP MELVILLE H. HOSCH, REGIONAL DIRECTOR OP REGION V, OP THE DEPARTMENT OP HEALTZ, EDUCATION, AND WELPARE (The prepared statement of Mr. Hosch follows:) PREPARED STATEMENT OF MELVILLE H. Hosori, REGIONAL DIRECTOR OF REGION V, HE~W Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: My name is Melville H. Hosch. I am Regional Director of Region V of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, which includes the States of Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio and Wis- consin. As the administrative head of the Regional Office, I am responsible to the Secretary of the Department for leadership and coordination of all Depart- ment programs. I have been the Chicago Regional Director since 1955. My statement to the Subcommittee, attached, is largely devoted to aspects of Regional Office program coordination, with special emphasis upon the role and coiftribu- tions of Regional Office of Education staff. I am very pleased to be able to respond to your Subcommittee's invitation to comment on the admini~stration of Regional Offices of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, with special reference to inter-relationships with Re- gional staff of the Office of Education and to the processes of coordination of Department programs. In the sixteen years I have served in the Office of Regional Director, I believe I can say that at no previous time have the opportunities and challenges facing Regional Offices been greater. This is partly becau1se many of the functional PAGENO="0432" 778 U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION areas of concern, to our Department are in a state Of productive ferment, with many new ideas and new programs propelling us into reexamination of traditions and. methods of organization and administration... In addition, we have the strong leadership of Secretary Gardner who has insisted that he wants a Department in his words, "thatis not boggeddown in' its own vested interests and that is not characterized by bureaucratice possessiveness; an organization that follows the problems where they lead and is not tripped up either by categories or procedures If I may, I would also like to repeat part of Secretary Gardner's statement before your Committee last August, at which time he said: "A, good field organization is absolutely essential if we are to be promptly responsive to local: needs and sensitive to the ways in which one locality's require- ments differ from those of anOther locality. "Even more important is the role of the Regional Offices in coordination. We've already talked about the need for coordinated thinking and planning among Washington agency heads. Equally important is coordination at the grass-roots. In fact, it is at the gra~s-roots that the evils of uncoordinated agency activity really strike hOme. - .-. "In its Regional Offices and Regional Directors, DREW has an immensely valuable resource for coordination. The Regional Director has no vested interest in one or another of DREW's agencies. His goal is to help them all and coordinate where possible. And since he~ ha~ such a large chunk of the domestic program under his jurisdiction he is a crucial element in the grass roots coordination of Federal programs generally." Such an expression of confidence by the Secretary should call forth a detailed response from any Regional Director; however, it is difficult for me to describe our Regional organization and administration with the limited time available at this hearing Therefore in order to get to the matter of coordination with special reference to education programs~ I would like first to mention very briefly the general characteristics of Regional Offices and methods they use to carry out the Department's mission: 1. Almost all Bureaus of the seven operating agencies have a Regional Representative and staff sj~ecialists in the Regional Offices, who work under the technical and professional supervision of, their Bureaus. 2. The Regional Director, as the Secretary's representative, gives general administrative supervision to all Regional Employees, and coordinates their activities, particularly in such functional areas as aging; migratory labor; economic opportunity; civil defense, manpower and training; civil rights compliance; neighborhood center development, etc. 3. The Regional Director evaluates and makes recomendations to the Secretary on any program area; maintains liaison with other Federal agen- cies, with State and local governmental and voluntary agency Officials, and with Congressional delegations in his Region. 4. The Regional Director also provides management, legal and audit services to DREW Regional personnel; fosters public understanding of the Department's programs; and directs the Department's activities at the time of natural or civil defense emergencies. So much for the nuts and bolts of the Regional organization. A description of how a Regional Office works is much more difficult, and each of our nine Regional Directors has and exercises the freedom to carry out the Regional Office mission in different ways, depending on tradition, regional program em- phasis, State and local needs and developments at given times, the particular style of leadership adopted, etc. But the major goal of coordination, in all Regions, is accomplished by providing the two indispensable ingredients of "coordination": one, an atmosphere in which coordination is encouraged and supported; and two, effective methods for free exchange of information. I will not take time to list the many different ways in which the atmosphere of coordination is developed and maintained or to describe the values of the physical contiguity of our staff, which so greatly aids the process of communica- tion. Nor can I go into a description of the continuous and many-faceted meth- :ods `by which `information is exchanged between our `staff and to and from State and local agencies and Washington offices. Perhaps you will want to asic questions about these areas later.' The major point I wish to make is, that the Regional Office of DREW is more than a physical location, an organization chart, or an administrative conglomera- tion of authorities, decision-makers and purveyors of funds and information. A PAGENO="0433" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 779 DHEW Regional Office is also a state of mind, an attitude, a situs of intellectual exchange and a forum for expression of serious concern about our social welfare problems. A Regional Office is, or can be, a place where the action is, where men and women of differing education and* experience can test their convictions, and' seek the counsel `and help of respected professionals in other fields;' an office where respect for different viewpoints can, and most often does, evceed the recognition of distinctions in program responsibilities; where staff can and I think do, in most cases, set an example to State and local agencies and other Federal agencies of willingness to adjust operations to the realities of problem's and to interpret what programs mean, a~ well as how they operate and what their limits are. I suppose that sounds a bit fanciful and idealistic, but if this were not my opinion, I could not survive as a Regional Director. Faith in the capacity of professional people to share information, to communicate convictions, and to tolerate differences-to try to make a "mesh of things"-this is what makes a Regional Director's life tolerable. I have been strengthened in my convictions of late by the more recent exam- ples set by the War on Poverty programs which, despite some criticisms, I be- lieve have given DHEW and other programs new oppOrtunities, if not impera- tives, for better coordination at the local level where programs and people meet. This point of view I think can best be expressed by the statement that the most accurate measure of success in the administration of DHEW programs is the effectiveness with which services are delivered to people' who need them at the community level. Not in terms of State agency plans or commitments, Washington policy statements, referral agreements, etc., but in terms of the family or individual who needs help or service at *a given time.' and place. Without agency coordination across program and disciplinary lines, we can- not serve people well. Too often we have comforted ourselves by referring to certain groups' `or individuals as "hard `to reach." It seems to me the time is long overdue for us to turn the telescope around and `to determine whether it is oar services which are "hard `to reach"; whether we have, offered infor- mation regarding our services in a manner which is meaningful and acceptable to the disadvantaged, the ill and the illiterate; whether we have been guilty of devising services fo'r those ` with' `middle class values who have a capacity for gratitude, rather than for those who have lost hope, who are `embittered, antagonistic and' poverty-logged. I believe current emphasis on the, `problems of inner-city residents, `minority groups and the chronically `disadvantaged now gives us even more reason' for seeking betters means of~ coordination, for rid ding ourselves of the fear of criticism of self-aggrandizement and `by reaching out to those who `have not themselves reached' out to us. I believe we can do this better by decen'tralizing as much program responsibility as possible to Regional Offices. Most of the operating agencies have already done so to a con- siderable extent, `and oithers are in the process. And I am glad to report that the Office of Education is moving strongly in this direction. I have agreed to list a few examples of coordinating ~activities and to give some `special emphasis to relationship with OE programs. This puts me on the horns of a dilemma; ,one, I could list a number of examples in order to include mention as of many programs as possible, which would take too' much time; or two, I could limit my examples to two or three and give more detail and thus run the risk of over-emphasizing those `activities at the expense of many others. I don't believe I have solved this dilemma; but I have `tried to steer a middle course. You will be the judge of whether I have done so successfully. The following examples are not of equal importance; are not subject to neat quantification as to results; and should not be regarded as the best or the most significant. They are examples of the kinds of Regional Office activity which contribute to coordination through the process of communication and cooperation among agencies and among professional staff of DHEW and other Federal, State and local agencies: 1. Top Regional staff of the Welfare Administration and the Office of Educa- tion, accompanied by the Economic Opportunity Coordinator, have made joint visits to State capitols to meet jointly with their State agency opposite numbers, to discuss problems and progress in bringing education, health and social services to children, particularly those in low-income families. Without a formal agenda and with maximum opportunity for free exchange of views, these joint confer- 73-728-67-pt. 2-28 PAGENO="0434" 780 U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION ences developed an interest and involvement in the coordination of Federal, State and local programs and a renewed commitment to improved communica- tion and cooperation at all three levels. 2. During the past three years, the OE Regional staff have joined with Reg- ional staff from the Public Health Service, Bureau of Family Services, Children's Bureau, Vocational Rehabilitation Administration, Economic Opportunity, etc. in~ regionwide conferences and smaller group meetings under the auspices of a group called the "Great Lakes Area Conference," of which I have the honor to be Chairman. This Conference is composed of Federal, State and local public and voluntary agency officials in our five States, engaged in the functional fields of Education, Welfare, Health, Mental Health and Employment Security. The basic purpose of this relatively informal organization is to further our mutual ~eapacities for communication and cooperation in the area of community plan- ning. Although at present relatively inactive, this Great Lakes Area Confer- ence has the potential for productive activity if additional resources and staff could be devoted to it. 3. The Economic Opportunity Coordinator in my office, with the support and encouragement of the DHEW and OEO Regional Director, and the help of the Itegional staff of OE, PITS, BFS, CB, Mental Health and the Office of Economic Opportunity, has planned conferences in two of our States, first in the State Capitols and then in a major city in each State. The primary goal of these meetings has been to discover and deal with any problems of multiple agency coordination; to work out joint fundings of projects where possible; and to in- crease the capacity of those concerned to plan mutual efforts to deal with priority needs in the local community. Similar meetings are now projected in our other ~three States. It might be significant to point out that these more comprehensive <~oordinating efforts arose from the initial concern of Regional OEO and GE staff that maximum use was not being made of the "check-list" procedure in the Community Action and the Title I Elementary and Secondary Education Act projects. As this problem was explored informally by Regional professional staff, we sOon found that the responsibilities and program contributions of pub- us mealth, public welfare, mental health and other programs had to be con- sidered at the same time. Thus evolved the more broadly representative confer- ence. 4. Recently, in one State, I have interested the Governor in taking leadership in an experimental plan for Joint Visitation by State Agencies to Local Commu- nities. The hope here is that State Departments of Public Instruction, Health, Welfare, and perhaps others might mutually profit by having joint visits made by top Department staff and the Governor's representative to local communities for discussion with the local directors of those agencies, plus the political, religious, labor, minority group, civic, etc. leaders in that community. By frank review of any existing obstacles to coordination and seeking local recommendations for eliminating or ameliorating them, I believe the State agencies and the Gover- nor's office would find such a program of joint visitation productive and enlight- ~ning. Of course, DHEW Regional staff would be willing and able to assist in ~this process if called upon for consultation, but I believe the basic initiative in this kind of effort belongs with the State. Aiid, of course, your Committee is well acquainted with the national concern currently being expressed regarding the ability of State and local governments to strengthen their roles as partners in a "Creative Federalism." 5. Fifth and finally, there are three separate project activities which I believe have characteristics which are basically related to adult education, and which could usefully be supported by the activities of a Regional Office specialist on Adult Education, if we had one. These three are (a) the "Project Moneywise," :sponsored by the Bureau of Federal Credit Unions of the Social Security Ad- ministration and the Office of Economic Opportunity, for training of selected local residents in consumer education and Credit Union development; (b) the pilot pro- gram in Health Counselling, jointly sponsored by the PHS and the SSA, to measure the effectiveness of health counselling to the aged who contact Social ~Security District Offices; and (c) the Medicare Alert program, recently concluded, supported by OEO and administered by State Commissions on Aging. The pur- pose of this was to inform persons over 65 of their rights and obligations under the Medicare program, and in the process, utilize the aged themselves in a public :serviCe. PAGENO="0435" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 781. In all of these, there is a common thread of using and improving the abilities of adults not in school to perform valuable work or live more rewarding lives- and this surely is a major goal of the Adult Education program. Well, those are the five examples I have selected. Each deserve more extended treatment, but perhaps they will indicate in a small way how valuable the Re- gional Office is as a setting for formal and informal exchange of information and sharing of effort. I might add that we have had splended understanding and support from the OE Regional staff. Personally and professionally they have been 100% cooperative despite many burdens in the day-by-day administration of many new programs. If my conviction is well founded that families and individuals should be the focus of our efforts, then we need more than ever before to make available ad- ininistrative settings where program interests can be fully discussed, where inter- relationships can be seen and appreciated, where accumulated professional wis- dom can be shared, and whole rather than fragmented solutions at least con- sidered. This is the possibility, the dream, and the mission of DHEW Regional Offices. I am sure we are far from perfect in our implementation, but the road is there to travel; I think we have begun, and under Secretary Gardner's leader- ship, I think our progress will be speeded up. Without competent Regional representatives of the many programs of the Office of Education, we cannot do the job. They must supply the E in HEW. We need the input of OE Regional professional staff as they need the help of special- ists in other disciplines. I am completely convinced that the Regional Office setting and atmosphere provides a maximum opportunity for this type of mutual helpfulness. There is a striking phrase in Robert Frost's poem, "Death of the Hired Man," which defines the meaning of the word "home." "Home," he writes, "is. the place where when you have to go there, they have to take you in." I feel the Regional Office of DHEW is the place where, when professional people need help or infor- mation, other professional people must offer that help or information. And I believe we will become more and more effective in helping State and local agencies to deliver services to people as we learn more and more from each other. I shall be very pleased to try and answer any questions you may have. Mr. HosoH. I am Melville H. Hosch, regional director for the De- partment of Health, Education, and Welfare in region IT, which in- cludes the States of Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, and Michigan. My statement is relatively brief, but I think it. might be better if I merely made a few remarks on what is in the statement and then make the kind of contribution that I think is appropriate for. the Administrator to make and then comment on the activities of HEW. I suppose there is no activity that is more exciting to engage in than administration and it is more difficult to describe in terms of its real meaning in a regional office like HEW. I have chosen to describe a little bit the . structure of our regional office where, of course, we have regional representatives of all the bureaus of the Department and we think the physical continuity and communication between the professional people in our staff and the regional office makes for at least potential understanding and better coordination than would be possible otherwise. I have several examples of the kind of activity and I have tried here to highlight the potential and actual contribu- tions of our professional Office of Education staff. Before giving those examples which are in my statement, I would like to simply comment on another example that I happened to be reading last night which was found in the report of the National Advisory Council on Education~ of Disadvantaged Children. As you know, this Council headed by Meredith Wilson had some 27' teams out visiting 86 different communities across the country in terms of the use they were making of their summer programs under title I of Public Law 89-10. PAGENO="0436" 782 u.s. OFFICE OF EDUCATION One of the' striking examples given of the emphasis in one com- munity in the southeastern Kentucky area was the fact that, they had spent a inajorit~ of the money under title I on food, clothing, and medical necessities rather than any kind of remedial reading program. One of the striking statistics that was presented in the report was that, of `a total of 195 children who were examined, 97 were referred ` for medical attention and of that 97, 95 were found to have intestinal worms. This again brought to my mind the need for best possible cooperation' between `health, welfare, and education agencies because with respect to these 95 children, although the report does not go into the obvious, it would be a nice question to determine what hap- pened as a result of the discovei~y of these needs in a title I program; whether this would be appropriate for the State or local health de- partment to do something about it; whether such conditions might more appropriately be treated under title XIX, assistance to the'medi- cally indigent program; whether the Children's Bureau, special pro- grams and maternal and child' health, might more appropriately be called on, et cetera, et cetera, as possibility of a community health program in our community action program, `if there is one in that neighborhood. `These kinds of questions are what we find `ourselves in the regional office conce~ned more and more with. `We feel that the regional set-' ting, where it is possible for professional people to share information, to share convictions, to talk about problems and opportunities at the State and local level across the board; all health, education, welfare, vocational rehabilitation, social security, surplus property, et cetera, et cetera, does offer some `opportunities that we think are difficult to find any other way. If it is your pleasure, I would like to comment just on two of the examples that I have listed in my testimony which' perhaps are t:he more obvious examples. First, the top regional staff of the Welfare Administration, the Children's Bureau, and the Office of Education staff,' accompanied by an Economic Opportunity Coordinator who re- ports directly to me in the Office, have made joint visits to the five State capitals in our region to meet together with their State agency opposite numbers to discuss problems and progress in bringing educa- tion, health, and social services to children, particularly those in low~ income families. Without a formal agenda a.nd with maximum opportunity for free exchange of views, these joint conferences developed an interest and involvement in the coordination of Federal, State, and local programs ~and renewed commitments to improved communication and coopera- tion at all three levels. I will conclude with this last example. The Economic Opportunity Coordinator in my Office had the support and encouragement of the Department of Health, Education, and W~lfa,re and the. Office of Economic Opportunity regional director. We were the first in the country to have a joint setup with the man in my office having a desk and telephone in the Office of EconOmic Opportunity so he could have maximum' reciprocity. With the help of the regional staff in the Office from the Public Health Service~ Bureau of Family Services, Children's Bureau, Vocational Rehabilitation Administration, PAGENO="0437" U.S~ OFFICE OF EDUCATION 783 et cetera, the coordinator had planned conferences in two of our States, first in the State capitals and then in `a major city in each State. The primary goal of these meetings has been to discover and deal with any problems of multiple agency coordination; to work out joint fundings of projects where possible, and to increase the capacity of those concerned to plan mutual efforts to deal with priority needs in the local community. Similar meetings are now projected in our other three States. It might be significant to point out that these more comprehensive co- ordinating efforts arose from the initial concern of the regional Office * of Economic Opportunity and Office of Education staff, title I, that maximum use was not being made of the "checklist" procedure in the community action and the title I Elementary and Secondary Education Act projects. As this problem was explored informally-this was born largely at coffeetimes and lunchtimes and so on- Mr. Quin. May I ask what is the checklist procedure? Mr. Hosen. This is the procedure set up in both OEO and title I. When there is a title I program, it is necessary to check with the community action program to make certain that the kind of program- ing they were planning to start in that community fits in properly with the other community action program activities in that locality. This is a form which they must sign in effect that this is permissible and desirable. Mr. BRADEMAS. This is the procedure which has given rise to dispute in some communities: whether or not local public school authority has the right to veto a local community action authority, and vice versa. Is that what we are talking about? Mr. Hoscn. Yes. As this problem was explored informally by regional professional staff, we soon found that the responsibilities and program contributions of public health, public welfare, mental health, and other programs had to be considered at the same time. Thus evolved the more broadly representative conferences that I spoke of. In other words, we started from the `base of looking at this as proper coordination communication between education and the economic opportunity program, but we soon found that other programs had equal or large shares of responsibility at the local level. Therefore, we beefed up our teams that went to' visit with representatives `of Public Health to the Bureau of Family Services. This I submit is another example of the ease with which it is possible and in many cases I think it is carried out by four professional people from the Office of Education who, as far as I am sure Peter and I are concerned, have to supply the "E" in HEW ~at the regional office level if we are to attain anything like the kind of coordination that we think is required in regional office operation. I would be glad to respond to any questions. I am very happy to be able to present this information to you. Mr. QmE. What kind of changes have occurred in' your regional office since the decentralization plan was put into effect which we have seen largely occurring in Atlanta, Ga. * Mr. HOSCH. I think we just checked this morning. We have about 32 people. In 1950 when I first came to this office, we had none. Then PAGENO="0438" 784 u.s. OFFICE~. OF EDUCATION we got four or five people in the assistance to federally impacted areas program. This was followed, ithink, first by the Commissioner's rep- resentative, then the vocational educational staff, and now the higher education facilities staff so it has grown from the small nucleus of four or five people to nowabout 32. We hope that we will get additional staff in the areas, particularly vocational education and adult education, because we find so many aspects of the other programs of the Department involved in one aspect or another of the adult education. One of the examples I gave in my written testimony was of three different projects in which we have been involved in the regional office, where the input and the contribu- tions of an adult education consultant would have been very useful. Mr. Qum. What was the number of individuals assigned by the Office of Education to your office a year ago? Mr. Hoscu. I would judge somewhere around 22 to 25, but I don't have that figure. We could supply it for the record if you like. Mr. Qum. All right. Now you say there are 32? Mr. HosoR. Thirty-two and five vacancies. Mr. QuIE. How long have you had those vacancies? Mr. MousoLrn~. Off and on, 2 or 3 years, depending on whether you look at one area or another. Mr. Qum. Are they above or below grade 4? Mr. M0USOLITE. One is grade 14, one is a grade 15, and three are grade 13. Mr. Qiiia. In other words, you control the three and the U.S. Office has to fill the other two? You can fill the grade 13 and below and the U.S. Office has to fill the ones above that? Mr. MOUSOLITE. This is a technical point. There has to be an assist- ant regional commissioner appointed and at present I am acting regional representative for the Office of Education. In my testimony I have one sheet attached which gives all of the personnel in the Office and the dates when they entered into the Office. Mr. QmE. Good. What has been your relationship in the elementary and secondary schOol now in increased involvement with local school districts? Mr. HOSOH. I think Dr. Mousolite could respond more accurately and fully. Mr. BRADEMAS. Why don't you, Dr. Mousolite, go ahead and read your statement and then we can put questions to both of you. STATEMENT OP PETER S. MOUSOLITE, ACTING REGIONAL REPRE- SENTATIVE, O~TICE OP THE COMMISSIONER, AN]) REGIONAL REPRESENTATIVE, BU1tEAU or HIGHER EDUCATION (The prepared statement of Mr. Mousolite follows:) P~AnEn STATEMENT OF Prnia S. MOU5OLITE, AcTING REGIONAL DIREcToR, OBTIcE OP THE COMMISsIoNER, AND Ri~uoxAL REPRESENTATIVE, Buna&u OF HIGHER EDUCATION Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, lam Peter S. Mousolite, Acting Regional Representative, Office of the Commissioner, and Regional Representa- tive, Bureau of Higher Education. PAGENO="0439" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 785 In the former capacity my responsibility is to Mr. Harold Howe II, United States Commissioner of Education, through the offices of Dr. James A. Turman, Associate Commissioner of Field Services. In the latter capacity my responsi- bility is to Mr. Peter P. Muirhead, Associate Commissioner, Bureau of Higher Education, through the offices of Dr. Ward Stewart, Director of Field Services, Bureau of Higher Education. I have also a direct responsibility to Mr. Melville H. Hosch, Regional Director of Department of Health, Education, and' Welfare. As the Acting Regional `Representative my duties are to administer the various units of the regional office in a cooperative and coordinated manner, and render whatever aid they may request, require and/or need. These units are School Assistance in `Federally Affected Areas; Manpower Development; Adult, Voca- tional and Technical Education; Elementary and Secondary Education; Re- search; Student Financial Aids; and Higher Education Facilities. As the Regional Representative for Higher Education my duties are to ad- minister the activites of the higher education unit and aid those on the staff responsible for Higher Education Facilities and Student Financial Aids. At `this point, I must confess to a strong feeling of ambivalence when, as the individual in charge of higher education activities, I go to the person' in charge of the Office, to make necessary requests whatever they may be. The ambiva- lence b~comes overpowering when such requests are refused on occasion and more so at present due to the "freeze" on employment of personnel and most recently the curtailment of budgetactivities. Before proceeding to the main thesis of the assigned su'bject, I wish to state in behalf of the Office of Education and particularly for those of us in the Regional Office that it is, indeed, an honor and privilege' to have you with us. As "travelers" of a sort we are very cognizant of what your itineraries entail in terms of personal expenditure of time and effort. We are grateful also for the services of Messrs. Heartfield and Maney of your staff. They facilitated the setting up of the sessions and their advice and counsel has been appreciated. It has been a real pleasure to work with them. To Northwestern University and President Miller we are indebted for hosting these sessions. We thank Dr. Miller and his staff, particularly William Ihlanfeldt who was our liaison for the University. It has been requested that my testimony dwell on the role and function of the Regional Office, specifically Region V, with offices in Chicago, Illinois. To do so adequately in the limited time avaliable, I have taken the liberty of append- ing to each of the twenty copies of the testimony an article entitled `The Role and Function of the Regional Representative of the U.S. Office of Education which appeared in a number of professional journals in 1963 and 1964. It presents in detail and at some length the activi'ties of the Regional Office. It may be updated by adding several programs to those listed, namely, Higher Education Facilities, Elementary and Secondary Education, Higher Education, Research, and amendments to the National Defense Education Act, Vocational Education Act, and others. In discussing any phase or activity related to education we must place it in proper perspective on the national and international scenes. This is not an ordi- nary period in American history. It is the first time in the history of civilization that one country has had the means, both in material wealth and s'ocial struc- ture, to give to every child born an opportunity for education up to the height of his power. We are, also, at the beginning of what amounts to a cultural revo- lution made possible by science and education, moving in an incredi~bly short time from education and culture for the few, to universal education and a high level of mass culture for the total population. The attitude of the na'tion towards education has changed noticeably in terms of its commonality. Everywhere there is a growing faith in education as the one road to an abundance of material wealth. But more than this education is the road to "cultural enlightenment, to intercultural communication, and to world-wide understanding. More important, education is the road to genuine freedom-the freedom and dignity of the individual." Therefore today, education-more specifically higher education-is expected to provide the foundation of economic growth and national power, the training of technical and professional personnel, be the source of future citizens and leaders, be the cradle of philosophers, a patron of the arts, and a promoter' of sports. PAGENO="0440" 786 U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION It is into* such an environment that the U.S. Qffice of Education has been projected as an active partner-partk~ipant with the education community in the attainment of those responsibilities given to education.. Several years ago The Carnegie Study of Federal Government and Higher Education posed this question: "Will representatives of educational institutions find effective ways to sit down with informed and concerned representatives from Government to evolve wise policies, and then even more important, to get them to understand in Congress and in the, country at large ?" A year or so later, Dr. David Henry, President, University of Illinois, speaking in behalf of the American Council on Education proposed two thought-provoking theses: "Higher education must increase the effectiveness of its `liaison with the Federal Government" and "Legislative proposals must be interpreted across the land as well as in Washington." . Dr. Douglas Knight, President of Duke University, concerned that perhaps government officials were inclined to be submerged in the management, super- vision, and technique aspects of their programs thereby losing the necessary sensitivity to their substance, stated: "Although physical support does imply intellectual and moral support I am of the firm belief that the most important question we can ask about any Federal program is not what construction or expansion does it make possible but what ideas does it encourage ?" Dr. John W. Gardner, Secretary of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, expressing his strong conviction that Federal programs are important only as they affect the lives of citizens, spoke on a similar theme in his remarks to the Foreign Service Association, Department of State, June 30, 1966. He stressed the phrase "Creative Federalism" which `President Johnson empha- sized in a speech made at the University of Michigan in 1964. What all this suggests quite strongly is that our citizenry, lay and professional, must work cooperatively at all levels of government in order to understand the basic issues confronting education and determine to solve them. We cannot obtain success otherwise. Under our democratic system, no level of govern- ment-local, state, or Federal-can succeed in securing necessary action pro- grams or funds to carry them out unless our citizens understand, actively endorse, and indeed participate in the steps that need to be taken. "Cooperation," "partnership," "dialog," or "Creative Federalism," whatever terms we use, strike a responsive chord in the `hearts and minds of individuals but problems exist. One is the apprehension of Federal control. The Committee may wish to explore this further at the conclusion of the testimony. My credo in such matters is based on the words of Thomas Jefferson :. "I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of society but the people themselves, or if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a whole- some discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but' to inform their dis- cretion by education." Having stated this, I must add that we should want our government to be capable of great leadership in the arena of national and world affairs.. History provides that dictatorships do not grow out of strong and successful governments, but out of weak and helpless ones~ If by democratic methods the people get a gov- ernment strong enough to protect them from fear and starvation, their democracy succeeds; but if they do not, they grow impatient. Therefore, the only sure bulwark of continuing liberty is a government strong enough to protect the interests of the people, and a people strong enough and well informed enough to maintain its sovereign control over its government. The administration of the regional office has been easy and yet difficult. In the almost six years of inhabiting the Chicago Office following two years in Washington and some 20 years of teaching and administration in large and small public and private institutions of higher education, namely,, the Universities of Iowa and Minnesota and Macalester College in St. Paul, Minnesota, I feel we are recovering from a "siege of famine." It should be added hastily that we are not in' a "state of feasting"-far from it-but our "meals" are becoming somewhat more balanced. The word "easy" has been utilized because we have always had the strong support of our extremely able, highly competent, and very sympathetic Regional Director, Mr. Melville H. Hosch, who has been a tower of strength in the implementation of our role and function. The past year has given additional support. Dr. James A. Turman, Associate Commissioner for Field Services, and his staff have been instrumental in work- ing with the Bureau Chiefs so that we now have additional staff members to accomplish what was an almost impossible task. More important, we feel that PAGENO="0441" U.S, OFFICE OF EDUCATION 787 "someone up there" is not only cognizant of our existence but is supporting us as we carry out our assignments in close cooperation with our colleagues in the Central Office. 1 do not mean to imply that support was not given in the past, but it was sporadic, uncoordinated in terms of all of our units. What we did receive was strong and meaningful. Washington has been referred to as the Mt. Sinai or the Mecca of the world (I am ecumenical on this point). Hopefully,. in the near future we shall have 10 Mt. Sinais or Meccas-one large and nine small- whose efforts to work in concert with the educational community will be equally effective in relation and in proportion to the areas involved and work to be accomplished. The word "difficult" has been used simply because Region V (Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio and Wisconsin) is the largest of nine regions. Based on statis- tics listed in Dr. Parker's Annual Survey of Higher Education Enrollment pub- lished in School and Society, in this region there are over 400 institutions of post high school vintage. Twenty-five of the fifty largest institutions in the United States reside in the region, including eight of the so-called Big Ten. Last year, of the total five and* one-half million enrolled in higher education, some 22 percent attended institutions in this region. We have somewhere near 5,000 school districts enrolling approximately 0,000,000 youngsters. Four of the 10 largest cties-Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland, and Milwaukee-with all of their many and varied problems make for an active regional office. One should add that in these cities, particularly in Chicago, are the headquarters of many na- tional organizations, publications, news services, and international activities. There must be provided, therefore, a varied and extensive information service about education in the United States and foreign countries, about Federal pro- grams or proposals under consideration, about international or foreign service programs in education. Many requests are by telephone. Equally numerous are those by mail. The past two years has seen a great influx of requests made in person, bringing individuals to the regional office. Attached to this testimony is a list of staff members and when they joined the Office. This item merits attention and is basic to our success for it has been difficult to get competent personnel to work with us. The professional staff should be singled out for high praise. In my opinion, they have few peers in the areas of competence, devotion to duty, and ability to get the job done on a co- operative basis. As to another abbreviated segment of the Office-the secretarial staff-too much cannot be said in their praise. In my some 25 years of service in education, I have never been so privileged to be associated with a group of ladies so devoted to carrying out their responsibilities and willing to assume ad- ditional duties. We of the professional staff are grateful to be able to work with them. In my capacity as Acting Regional Representative for the Office of Education, I have one basic function to perform and that is to facilitate the work of the prograni officers which takes precedence over all other activities of the Office. The success of these officers in their relations with local and state officials depends on how well they carry out their responsibilities. A factor which some- times impedes the success is the inordinate amount of paper work which we are attempting to solve. Another related factor has to do with regulatory and procedural matters. All of us are aware of these problems. Hopefully they can be solved in the near future which should cause great joy to all but particu- larly to our state and local colleagues. We are greatly. indebted to the latter who work with the programs at the grass roots levels and give so much of their time and use of their facilities to implement the programs. They give us also their thinking about the adequacies and inadequacies of the rules and regulations given to them to carry out the provisions of the Acts passed by Congress. This often results in beneficial changes and at times brings about necessary amend- ments to the laws. In such matters, the regional offices are utilized to great advantage to carry such thinking to the Central Office. We are the antenna of the Office of Education. It is our responsibility to keep our constituency at the grass roots levels informed on all matters pertaining to the mandates given to us by Congress. Equally important and often more so is our responsibility to keep ourselves-the regional and central offices-informed as to the thinking of the grass roots constituency. By implication and inference and more in a philosophical vein than practical, I have attempted to illustrate what, to me, is the role of this regional office. This does not negate the importance of "practical" aspects of our day-to-day activities. But, in the last analysis, we are really concerned about the basic PAGENO="0442" 788 U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION problems of the human condition and these are problems of spirit and value and attitude. We must carry out our "nuts and bolts" responsibilities and this we are doing. In addition, as individuals and as an agency of the Federal Govern- ment, responsible ultimately to the people, I conceive our task also as aiding the education community in the nurturing of whole persons of broad vision, humane sensibilities, and great hearts. Thank you, again, for the privilege of appearing before you. I shall be very pleased to try and answer any questions you may have. THE ROLE AND FUNCTION OF THE REGIONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE U.S. OrFIcE OF EDUCATION By Peter S. Mousolite The United States Office of Education will celebrate its 100th anniversary in 1967. For nearly 100 years it has rendered an important national service-that of gathering and disseminating educational information for the nation; offering consultative services to state, local, and institutional leaders in American edu- cation; and administering federal funds authorized by the Congress for desig. nated programs to advance the cause of education. The recent quickening of national interest in education, however, has given the office important new responsibilities in the administration of federal financial support programs and opportunities for leadership in the formulation of goals and their implementation. These are vital, both for the survival of the nation and for the advancement of those values of our civilization which are nurtured through education. The regional offices are the antennae of the U.S. Office of Education. They feel the pulse of those at the grass-roots levels and provide, at best, the means by which the two-way communication system invioving the central office and the schools and colleges at the local and state levels can be implemented. The idea of the regional office is not new. In its enbryonic form it consisted of services provided by specialists from the Washington office to state educa- tional agencies and independent schools by mail or by travel throughout the country prior to World War 2. With the passage of the Lanham Act the US Office was called upon to provide consultant services to the Federal Works Agency in the program for construction of school facilities for new communities of war workers. This necessitated, for the first time, specialists who were continuously available in a certain geographic area. Later, the same kind of need developed for the disposition of war surplus property; in the administration of the school assistance program for federally affected areas; for the higher eduction titles of the NDEA (Titles 11-Loan Program, PT-Graduate Fellowship Program, V(B)-Guidance and Counseling Program, and VI-Language Development Program); and, most recently, for the Manpower Development Training Pro- gram. Specifically, what are some of the functions of the regional representative and the services his office provides? Region V will be used as an illustration, al- though the other eight regional offices have similar roles and offer similar services. The difference is in the size of the regions, which often plays an important part in the variety and extensiveness of services requested. The office of Region .\T is located in Chicago, headquarters for many national organizations, publications, news services, and international activities. In the five states comprising the region, there are approximately 340 institutions of higher education, including eight of the Big Ten. In addition to Chicago, the region includes some of the largest cities in the nation-Cleveland, Detroit, Milwaukee-and hundreds of school districts. INFORMATION NEEDED There must be provided, therefore, a varied and extensive information service about education in the United States, about federal programs or proposals under consideration, about international or foreign service programs in educa- tion. Many requests for information are by telephone. Requests by mail are equally numerous. It is interesting to note that an increasing number of requests are made in person, which brings the individuals to the regional office. This type of activity, together with the increasing cooperation of the regional representatives from the various agencies in the regional office in attempting PAGENO="0443" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 789 to resolve mutually important problems at the local and state levels, keeps all staff in "high-activity" status throughout each and every day. The regional representatives of the Office of Education, as well as regional representatives of many other bureaus-such as Children's Bureau, Bureau of Family Services, Public Health Service, etc.-work under the general acimin- istrative supervision of the regional director for the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, who is responsible to the secretary for the coordination and effective performance of all department programs in the region. INCREASED DEMANDS Demands for the services of the regional representative have increased and expanded during the past few years. Some of these have been for reviews involving the federal loan program; evaluation of NDEA guidance and counseling and foreign-language institutes; conferences with graduate deans and directors of NDEA graduate fellowship programs; requests for aid in organizing con~ ferences, workshops, and meetings at a local, state, or regional level devoted to a variety of subjects involving faculty, research coordinators, vice-presidents in charge of campus development, financial aids officers, controllers, counselors, curriculum supervisors, principals, superintendents, school boards-the list could be continued ad infinitum. Specific examples of internal regional office cooperation of agencies include requests by the surplus property regional representative to give an "opinion" on the feasibility, from an education point of view, of an application by a college or university for surplus property available; conferences with welfare repre- sentatives devoted to aiding a Cuban refugee family whose children may wish to attend college and need financial aid; conferences with public health repre- sentatives on matters pertaining to nurses programs in colleges and universities; conferences of representatives of all agencies held at the request of the regional director to discuss ways and means of facilitating the progress of urban renewal and public housing developments; a request by the regional director to visit the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction for the purpose of inform- ing him and his staff of a forthcoming Concerted Services Workshop to be held in the chief state school officer's state. Specific services performed in the region including the following examples. A college president invited the regional repr~sentative to visit his institution and meet with various members of the faculty and administration to discuss trends and problems of the small college as observed over the nation as a whole, and possible roles for the small college in international education with specific emphasis on foreign-student programs, area studies, language laboratories, the status of summer school programs, student personnel services, guidance services, etc. The president of a large university requested the services of the regional representative to discuss a cooperative program whereby the university would aid the small private colleges in the state in areas of administration, curriculum, and research. A chief state school officer invited the regional representative to meet with his staff to aid in cooperative efforts to coordinate and unify activities in the state pertaining to Titles III, V(A), and V(B) of the NDEA; to discuss recent develop- ments under Title X; and to present a review of the area of research and progre~s to date pertaining to fields of subject matter and grade levels. A school superintendent of a large city has requested the regional representative to appear before the board of education of that city on the occasion of a visit of an official of a school boards association to present some of the "new directions in American education," to discuss the role of the board members in the school sys- tem with specific emphasis on relations with teachers, and to consider how the ~cbool system can enter on more varied and extensive relations with the U.S. Office of Education and its programs. The director of guidance of the public school system in one of the largest cities in the nation has invited the regional representative to meet with the counselors of the schools to present some of the latest developments in the field of guidance, particularly those relating to underprivileged areas where large minority groups reside. The principals of the schools of this city have requested the regional representative to meet with them to discuss a program of FLES (foreign lan- guages in elementary schools) and its implication for the city and the school system. PAGENO="0444" 790 U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION NEW DIMENSION ADDED During the past two years a new "dimension" in the activities of the regional Office has attained ever-increasing momentum and importance. Numerous re- quetas cOme directly to the regional representative in the regional office, through the cential office in Washington or via the regional director s office to appear before lay and professional groups and speak on a variety of subjects directly or peripherally related to education; to participate in panel discussions; to be inter- viewed on television and radio; to participate in organizing conferences, work- shops, and so on. Groups making such requests include: Conference of Illinois Colleges and Universities, Midwestern Conference of Deans, Indiana College and University Business Offices, Ohio Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Offi- cers, Wisconsin Association of Admission Counselors, Michigan Modern Language Teachers Association, Cleveland Commission on Higher Education, National Association of Foreign Student Advisors, Tn-State County School Boards Asso- ciation, Citizens Education Council of Fort Wayne, College Entrance Examina- tion Board, School Administrators Conference (University of Chicago), and numerous parent-teachers associations throughout the five states. PR FUNCTION IMPORTANT This final area of activity is not to be minimized. Eminent leaders in the field of education have stressed the ever-growing importance of getting "education news" to the public, particularly those at the grass-roots levels. U.S. Commissioner of Education Francis Keppel, in an address delivered at the annual Harvard Summer School Conference on Educational Administration on July 18, 1963, stressed the great need for communicating to each and every citizen. He said, we might w-ell ask ourselves what we are doing-or failing to do-to promote the cause of education `back home' where, in the last analysis, interst in education is put to the test. Have we failed to communicate because we have not been talking to the right people? How successful have we been in informing the men and women whose votes determine public policy and whose children's future depends upon what we are able to do in the schools ?" Carroll Hanson, director of the department of publications and information of the Seattle, Wash., public schools, emphasized the rebuilding of school-commun- ity relations in an address delivered at the 10th annual seminar of the National School Public Relations Association in Aurora, IlL ". . . The remarkable ad- vances in educational quality since World War 2 have not been adequately com- municated to the general public . . ." was one of the reasons he gave for the public's "rapidly changing to a `hold-the-line' attitude against any tax for any purpose." In a recent publication emanating from the Carnegie Study of the Federal Government, the penetrating question was presented, "Will representatives of the institutions of higher education find ways to sit dow-n with informed and concerned representatives from government to evolve wise policies, and then- even more importantly-to get them understood in Congress, and in the country at large?" David D. Henry, president of the University of Illinois and a member of the board of directors of the American Council on Education, proposed two theses in his remarks entitled "A Program 0ą Action for Higher Education," presented at the last meeting of the council: ". . . first, higher education must increase the effectiveness of its liaison with the federal government; and, second, legislative purposes must be interpreted across the land, as well as in Washington." In an article, Is Education News? by Barbara Carter and Gloria Dapper, ap- pearing in the March 17, 1962, issue of the Saturday Review, criticism was leveled at the newspapers for not informing the public adequately about educa- tion. Major problems, issues, and new developments in depth are neglected in favor of school board meetings, bond issue squabbles, and such routine stories as teacher appointments. Here is where the regional office can perform yeoman service by virtue of its close, professional, and personal relations and contacts with those at the local and state levels and particularly with the lay citizenry at the grass-roots level. The regional office, then, through its regional representatives, working in co- operative manner with numerous lay and professional groups, provides the best service possible to all levels of education by disseminating information; provid- PAGENO="0445" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 791 ing consultant services; arranging for and conducting me~tings for purposes of presenting broad overviews of situations, issues, problems, needs, and solutions on a nationwide basis. Most important, it provides for the creation of a climate conducive to the birth of new ideas, incentive, and inspiration. REGIONAL OFFICES Grornmesh. Marcella M Mousolite, Dr. Peter S Nelson, Dr. Henry W Schmidt, Robert E Chipman, Clark 11 Petrie, Phyllis W Petersons, Julia K Vacancy Proesel, Marion E Christine, Dorothy A Murnin. Joseph A Caldwell, Gloria B Brown, Ernest N Ritter, Mamie 3 Eldridge, Marjorie Talley, Harley E Aaland, Gordon A Beucler, Wilbur D Page, Phillip A Clevenger, Ralph A McMahon, Mary Dennes, Bonnie K Sommers, Dr. Hobart H Edwards, Homer E Nichols, Daryl E Saunders, Frances G Kohanski, Viola M Krieger, Madeline McClurkin, Thaddeus A..~ Parker, Doris I Vacancy do ~do Secretary (6) Regional representative, BHE (15)__. Field representative, SFA (13) do Program analyst, SFA (9) Secretary (6) Secretary(5) Regional representative, SFA (l4) - - - Regional representative, REF (l4)~.. Secretary (5) Education research adviser (14) Clerk-steno (4) Senior program officer, title I, ESEA (14). Program officer, title I, ESEA (13)__. Secretary (5) Regional representative. SAFA (14)_._. Field representative, SAFA (13) do do Associate field representative, SAFA (12). Secretary (6) Clerk-steno (3) Regional representative, MDTA (14) - Field representative, AVTE (agricul- ture) (13). Field representative, AVTE, (distri- bution and marketing) (13). Field representative, AVTE (health occupations) (13). Secretary (6) do Secretary (5) do Field representative, AVTE (persons with special needs). Regional representative, AVTE (15)_ Regional representative. MDTA (l4) January 1962 to May 13, 1962 (detail). May 14, 1962 to Aug. 1, 1964. Sept. 26, 1965, to present. June 14, 1959. September 1960. May 31, 1966. Aug. 15, 1966. July 18, 1966. May 13, 1962. April 26, 1965. June 27, 1965. Aug. 15, 1965. Aug. 1. 1960. March 14, 1966. Sept. 11, 1966. Aug. 1, 1966. March 6, 1966. December 1965. June 25, 1961. Nov. 29, 1959. May 9, 1965. July 6, 1966. Nov. 17, 1958. July 6, 1966. Sept. 10, 1962. Nov. 15, 1965. Feb. 28, 1966. March 13, 1965. Sept. 30, 1962. Feb. 4. 1963. Aug. 14, 1963. Aug. 19, 1965. The headquarters of the US Office of Education are in Washington, D.C. There are nine regional offices located in large metropolitan cities in the con- tinental United States, with each office encompassing various States. Regional offices, their locations, and the states in each region are: Region I-Boston, Mass.: Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hamp- shire, Rhode Island, Vermont. Region IT-New York, N.Y.: Delaware, New Jersey, New YQrk, Pennsylvania. Region III-Charlottesville, Va.: District of Columbia; Kentucky, Maryland, North Carolina, Virginia, West Virginia, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands. Region TV-Atlanta, Ga.: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, South Caro- lina, Tennessee. Region V-Chicago, Ill.: Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin. Region VI-Kansas City, Mo.: Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota. Region Vu-Dallas, Tex.: Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas. * Region VITI_Denver, Cob.: Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Utah, Wyoming. Region IX-San Francisco, Calif.: Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Ne- vada, Oregon, Washington, Guam, American Samoa. Name Title Entered on duty OE (OC) Mousolite, Dr. Peter S Acting regional representative, OE (OC). BHE RES DCE SAFA Voc. Ed PAGENO="0446" 792 u.s. O~~ICE OF EDUCATION Dr. MOtTSOLrrE. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am Peter S. Mousolite, acting regional representative, Office of the Com- missioner, and regional representative, Bureau of Higher Education. In one capacity, the former, I am responsible for the various units in the regional office administering the activities and the coordinated matter and render whatever aid they request, require, or need. These units as you will note are school assistance in federally impacted areas; manpower development; adult, vocational, and teclmical education; elementary and secondary education; research; student financial aids, and higher education facilities. As the regional representative for higher education, my duties are to administer the activities of the higher education unit and aid those on the staff responsible for higher education facilities and student financial aids. Now, in the interest of brevity I am going to ab- breviate some of this, if it is all right with the committee. Mr. Bn~DrnrAs. Without objection, your entire statement-and in- deed I may say where other witnesses summarize-their entire state- ments will be included in the record. Dr. MOUSOLITE. Thank you. My testimony is to dwell on the role and function of the regional office specifically of this region V. In order to facilitate the giving of the testimony, I have appended an article entitled, "The Role and Function of the Regional Representative of the U.S. Office of Educa- tion," which appeared in a number of professional journals in 1963 and 1964. It can be updated by adding a number of the acts passed by Congress such as education facilities, elementary and secondary educa- tion, and so on. May I just condense the next two pages by saying that the Office of Education has been projected into a new era with regard to thinking about education and with regard to the place of education and its importance in society. I won't go into detail on this but I think we all know as educators and professionals what this is. I have looked into this communication with regard to the people at the grassroots level. For years we have had people in the professional area that have spoken out on this and I have noted a few. Several years ago the Carnegie study of Federal Government and higher education posed this question, and I think I should read this. "Will representatives of educational institutions find effective ways to sit down with informed and concerned representatives from Govern- ment to evolve wise policies, and then; even more important, to get them to understand in Congress and in the country at large?" Then Dr. David Henry, president of the University of Illinois, speaking in behalf of the American Council on Education, proposed two thought-provoking theses: "Higher Education Must Increase the Effectiveness of Its Liaison With the Federal Government" and "Leg- islative Proposals Must Be Interpreted Across the Land as Well as in Washington." Dr. Douglas Knight, president of Duke University, concerned that perhaps Government officials were inclined to be submerged in the management, supervision, and technique aspects of their programs, thereby losing the necessary sensitivity to their substance, stated: "Al- PAGENO="0447" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 793 though physical support does imply intellectual and moral support, I am of the firm belief that the most important question we can ask about any Federal program is not what construction or expansion does it make possible, but what ideas does it encourage?" Dr. John W. Gardner, Secretary of the Department of Health, Edu- cation, and Welfare, expressing his strong conviction that Federal pro- grams are important only as they affect the lives of citizens, spoke on a similar theme in his remarks to the Foreign Service Association, De- partment of State, June 30, 1966. He stressed the phrase, "creative federalism" which President Johnson emphasized in a speech made at the University of Michigan in 1964. Very briefly, I won't read the next part of the testimony, what this means is that all of our citizenry, lay and professional, must work in a cooperative manner in order to understand the basic issues confronting education and determine to solve them. We cannot by any other means obtain success, because under our democratic system, any and all levels of government-local, State, or Federal-cannot succeed un- less they are participating, actively endorsing, and understand the steps that have to be taken. As I say, we have used the terms "cooperation," "partnership," "dia- log," or "creative federalism" or whatever terms we use, to strike a responsive chord in the hearts and minds of individuals, but problems exist. One is the apprehension of Federal control. The committee may wish to explore this further at the conclusion of the testimony. My credo in such matters is based on the words of Thomas Jefferson: I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of society but the people themselves, or if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to in- form their discretion by education. Having stated this, I must add, of course, that we should want our Government to be capable of great leadership in the arena of national and world affairs. Therefore, the only sure bulwark of continuing liberty is a government strong enough to protect the interests of the people, and a people strong enough and well informed enough to main- tain its sovereign control over its government. The administration of the regional office has been easy and yet difficult. In the almost 6 years of inhabiting the Chicago office, fol- lowing 2 years in Washington, and some 20 years of teaching and administration in large and small public and private institutions of higher education, I feel we are recovering from a "siege of famine." It should be added hastily that we are not in a "state of feasting"-far from it-but our "meals" are becoming somewhat more balanced. The word "easy" has been utilized because we have, always had the strong support of our extremely able, highly competent, and very sympathetic regional director, Mr. Melville H. Hosch, who has been a tower of strength in the implementation of our role and function. This past year has seen a new development which has given us a great deal of encouragement and hope. Dr. James A. Turman, as- sociate commissioner for field services, and his staff through many, many intricate workings and overcoming of obstacles are now work- ing with the bureau chiefs, so that we now have additional staff mem- bers to accomplish what was an almost impossible task. I say this PAGENO="0448" 794 U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION very, very frankly because for a number of years as acting regional representative and also working on the financial aid programs, I was the only officer in higher education in the field here. More important, and this is the problem of the spirit, we feel that "someone up there" is not only cognizant of our existence but is supporting us as we carry out our assignments in close cooperation with our colleagues in the central office. I do not mean to imply that support was not given in the past but it was sporadic, uncoordinated. In terms of our units, what we did receive was strong- and meaningful. Now Washington has been referred to, as I go out in the field, as the Mount Sinai or the Mecca of the world, and I am ecumenical on this point. Hopefully in the near future we shall have 10 Mount Sinais or Meccas, one large and nine small, whose efforts to work in concert with the educational conmiunity will be equally effective in relation and in proportion to the areas involved and the work to be accom- plished. The word "difficult" has been used simply because region V with its five States is the largest of nine regions based on statistics which appear in "School and Society," Dr. Parker's survey. In this region there are over 400 institutions of post high school vintage. Twenty- five of the 50 largest institutions in the United States reside in this region, including eight of the so-called "Big 10." - Last year of the total 5.5 million enrolled in higher education, some 22 percent attended institutions in this region. We have somewhere near 5,000 school districts enrolling approximately 9 million young- sters. Four of the 10 largest cities-Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland, Milwaukee-with all of their many and varied problems, make up an active regional office. In these cities, particularly in Chicago, are the headquarters of many national organizations, publications, news services and inter- national activities. So there must be provided a varied and extensive information service a-bout education in the United States and foreign countries about Federal programs, about -international or foreign serv- ice programs in education. Many requests are made by telephone. Equally numerous- are those made by mail. In the past 2 years there has been a great influx of requests made in person bringing individ- uals to the regional office. - I do want to say that I have this list of staff members, both profes- sional and secretarial, which is appended to the testimony which may be of interest as to their positions, as to their function, and when they joined the Office. I say this because this is very, very important. We have had difficulty in getting competent, dedicated professional staff as well as secretarial staff. What we have I am extremely proud of, and in my estimation they have no peers. They are abbreviated in ma-ny respects, primarily in number. Now in conclusion, in my capacity as the acting regional represent- ative, I have one basic function, and this is important in thinking in the relationship between the regional office and the people in `Wash- ington, and that is to facilitate the work of t-he program officers, which takes precedence over all activities of the Office, at least at this particu- lar time. The success of these officers in their relations with local and State officials depends on how well they carry out their responsibilities. PAGENO="0449" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 795 One factor which sometimes impedes their success is the inordinate amount of paperwork which we are attempting to solve. Another related factor has to do with something that we are not as yet responsible for, and is determined primarily in Washington with regulatory and procedural matters that ultimately end up in terms of guidelines, rules, regulations, questionnaires, and the like. I-lope- fully, they can be solved in the near future, which should cause great joy to all, but particularly to our State and local colleagues. We are greatly indebted to the latter who work with the programs at the grassroots level, and give so much of their time and use of their facilities to implement the programs. But more important, they give us also their thinking about the adequacies and inadequacies of the rules and regulations given to them to carry out the provisions of the acts passed by Congress. May I say that I have found out, for example, in the National De- fense Education Act, this often results in beneficial changes and at times brings about necessary amendments to the law. In such matters, I think one of the most important reasons for the regional office is that services that are available are utilized to great advantage to carry such thinking to the central office because, in my own thinking, we are the antenna of the Office of Education. It is our responsibility to keep our constituency at the grassroots level informed on all matters of mandates given by Congress. Often more so, it is our responsibility to keep ourselves, the regional and central offices, informed as to the thinking of the grassroots con- stituency, and attempt somehow to evaluate this by either mail, or by personal confrontation. By implication and inference, and more in a philosophical vein than practical, I have attempted to illustrate what, to me, is the role of this regional office. This does not negate the importance of "practical" aspects of our day-to-day activities. But in the last; analysis, we are really concerned about the basic problems of the human condition, and these are problems of spirit and value and attitude. We must carry out our "nuts and bolts" responsibilities, and this we are doing. In addition, as individuals and as an agency of the Federal G-ov- ernment, responsible ultimately to the people, I conceive our task also as aiding the education community in the nurturing of whole persons of broad vision, humane sensibilities, and great hearts. May I conclude that we do have a philosophy in our office, which is exemplified by a very brief story, if I may relate it. This concerns the sequence of a new minister in his congregation. While delivering his first sermon he had the misfortune to have his trousers fall. The congregation was embarrassed, there was a hushed silence, but he very calmly and nonchalantly pulled up his trousers and adjusted the;m and said, "Brethren, from where I came we have a saying which I hope you will accept and it is, `The more we get to see of each other, the better we will understand each other.'" I shall be very happy to answer questions which you may have. Mr. BRADEMAS. Thank you very much, Mr. Hosch and Mr. Mouso- lite. I have two or three questions to start our conversation. 1-lere in the region that you gentlemen serve, you have a wide variety of educational institutions; you have four of the biggest cities in the 73-728-67-pt. 2-29 PAGENO="0450" 796 U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION country: Chicago, Cleveland, Detroit, Milwaukee. In your relation- ships in carrying out these programs a.nd administering these several aid-to-education programs, what are the areas where you have the most trouble and what are the areas where you have the least? For instance, when I use the word "area" I think of your relation- ship to the State departments of education, the colleges and universi- ties, both public and private, with local school systems. Are there administrative troubles that you identify with given kinds of institu- tions, or is that a fair question? Mr. HoscH. As a more impartial observer since I don't go into the day-to-day professional decisionmaking, on allocation of time may I just simply say from my observation we have something like 360 people on the regional office so I don't get a chance to see Peter every hour, or his staff. One of the maj or problems, and I think this was brought out fairly clearly in the August hearings that your committee had, is the speed with which new programs have to be started and the limited amount of time that both State departments of education and higher education institutions have had to mount programs which in many respects con- tain new ideas, new directions, require innovations and imagination. Sometimes it is a little difficult to get instant response. It takes a little time to talk through the capacities of State departments of edu- cation. To offer advisory and consultive services to local districts, as you know, is rather weak in some places, so that I think the time element, the number of deadlines which have been necessary the last 2 or 3 years, has created a problem of getting around to seeing all of the people that should be seen, so that there can be a larger degree of understanding of what the programs are supposed to serve and how they should be organized. I think Dr. Mousolite could answer your question a good bit more specifically than I can. Dr. MOUSOLITE. Thank you, Bill. As I said, I have been in the Office for 6 years here, 2 in Washington in addition. When I came out to the region, I discovered that one of the things that we had to do was to meet people, discuss our programs, work in our program reviews of the financial aids. That was one excellent way that we could show our professionalism, not only in terms of abilities to know this area but other areas of the institutions as well. The nine of us in the regional offices were all either deans or assistant presidents or presidents. We had no difficulty as an entree. So therefore in a few years, and I think I can say this very frankly, I think we have certainly cement.ed some very excellent rela- tionships. Now this was done simply because we went out 3 or 4 weeks out of the month, and kept visiting and going out. We were not able to visit all the institutions, we had our conferences, we talked; that is, we were there and were of help. I have often said in my reports that I think we have the same sit- nation now occurring with rega.rd to our relationships in elementary and secondary education. We have had some good relations with the assistance to the impacted areas, some good relations in the voca- tional and technical areas. Now we are entering for the first time in a PAGENO="0451" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 797 very close relationship, or at least attempting to, with the elementary and secondary education people. How we will succeed will depend I think bascially on who we have in the offices going out having a personal confrontation with the people at the State and local levels throughout the entire regions-how they deal with them, how the coordination exists with the people in Washington, what their concept of a regLonal office is, and what they ought to do. This I say has been a very difficult problem with regard to how we function, so it was fortunate that some of us had Washington ex- perience as well as regional experience. I know what the problems are that exist at the present time and I have heard the complaints as well as some of the praises, of what is happening in the Office pf Education, and how it is implementing its program. Very little educational legislation was passed in the last 2 years except this one very important International Education Act which was chaired by Mr. Brademas, and I hope it will have an impact. Again I have no doubt that if these things will exist we certainly will be on the same level in terms of our relationships with elementary and secondary as we are in higher education. Mr. BRADEMAS. This is very helpful. I don't think I put my ques- tion quite sharply enough. We are very hard-hitting politicians, Mr. Quie and I, and we are accustomed to coming very much to the point. Now would it be a fair summary of what you two gentlemen just said that you get along a lot better with colleges and universities in respect to administering these programs because they have been in the Federal education business a lot longer than you do with the secondary and ele- mentary, and that you are just really finding your way in the latter areas? Dr. MonsoLITE. This is what I meant. Mr. BRADEMAS. Let me ask another question. I have been impressed by the efforts you have made tO insure a degree of consultation with the various institutions with which you do business. Is any effort being made on a systematic. basis to develop some kind of network of consul- tajtion and discussion? For instance, with the guidelines coming out, with many colleges and universities and elementary and secondary school officials wondering just what is available in the several pro- grams-this is a question that I find when I go home all the time- are you making enough information available? Is anything being done on a systematic basis to insure that we hear from the con- sumer population, as we are doing this morning, and that we get not only their complaints but provide them with information as to what is available? I know you have given me these examples. My question is, do you operate systematically? If you don't, do you think it would be a good idea systematically to carry out such an undertaking? Mr. HoscH. I think this would be an excellent idea. I am not sure quite how we have done because of the variety of programs and the different groups. Mr. BRADEMAS. That is just the point. Mr. HoscH. Yes, but if you had a system that included all these, I think you would wind up with an unmanageably large group of people to bring together at any given time. Mostly we find in educa- PAGENO="0452" 798 U.s. OFFICE OF EDUCATION tion and health and so on, that you break up the areas to be explored and to exchange information on a basis of either a discipline, such as staff development or medical social work and public information, because the number of people involved becomes so large that it is diffi- cult to get a decent free exchange. If you have an auditorium of 2,000 ~eople, it is a little more difficult to manage than if you have 200. Mr. BRADEMAS. I don't suggest that it should be a mass conference or only one conference. What occurred to me is that there might be something to be said for getting together elementary school superin- tendents and principals and teachers to talk about the Elementary and Secondary Act. Mr. HoscH. I think this has been done to some extent, but Peter can talk more particularly. Dr. MOUSOLITE. Yes, this we have done but not on an organized basis, because this is the first real year of the ESEA. We plan to do this now since we have two members of the staff, but unfortunately they are serving two regions. An outstanding example is the student financial aids. We have done this on a systematic basis, we have con- ferences which are hosted by institutions. We had six, for example, in the last 6 weeks. We plan to have 25 more by the time this fiscal year terminates. One area, for example, I think you all know what problems we are having with the guarantee loan program. We get reports, for exam- ple, in the Cleveland area that the banks there will not cooperate. Mr. BRADEMAS. Do you invite the bankers to sit in on some of these? Dr. MOUSOLITE. Here in Illinois we have great success. Mr. Bates, who is vice president of the American National Bank, and Mr. Boyd and his staff of the Illinois State Scholarship Commission. So when I find that there is a plea from the Cleveland area where they have a half-dozen to a dozen banks but five big ones that are not participating, we make arrangements to go to Cleveland, as we did 2 weeks ago. We presented to the bankers and to the institutional people there, the financial aids, how the program was being implemented in Illinois, and why could they not do it in Cleveland, and this has been successful. Mr. BRADEMAS. Let me ask you one more quick question before I yield to Mr. Quie. Do you in the regional office find at your level, and at your level respectively, many appeals being made from local or State agencies? For instance, suppose in respect of title I of the ESEA you get a quarrel between the local public school district and the local parochial school system. I am told that, happily, there have not been very many quarrels in the country. Does this ultimately land up in your office or not? Dr. MOUSOLITE. May I answer this? There was one instance in Wisconsin, and our people went out, and what they did was they listened, they gave advice when asked, and they made their report; to Washington. Now they have just been out in the office for 2 or 3 months, and I think there is still something to be done with regard to how far they can go. Mr. BRADEMAS. So this does not happen very often? Dr. MousoErrE. No. Mr. HOSCH. I think it might be added here that the general plan has been, as I understand it, for the State department of education to take PAGENO="0453" u.S. OFFICE OF EDIJCATION 799 the responsibility for solution of such difficulties as may arise at the local level between community organizations that may have different ideas of what title I is for. Mr. BRADEMAS. Mr. Quie. Mr. Qun~. Yes. I have a little problem with your idea of nine little Mount Sinais around the country. Remember the story of Moses coming off Mount Sinai and how they didn't get along too well without him and it ended uj~ he was supreme boss with the experience. I gather that th1s is the way it presently operates in most regional offices and with the Elementary and Secondary Act right now. For instance it was told us in the Boston area that the guidelines reached the superintendent of schools before they ever reached the regional office. When we talked t.o the elementary and secondary school peo- ple-to a man in the Northeast and in the national organizations ap- pearing in Washington, they said "We don't want to have the regional offices strengthened. It is as easy to call WTa.shington as it is the re- gional office." They contend that nobody there can make decisions. They are a service organization and could help in that way. For instance, in higher education they have been involved in the construc- tion of buildings and give that kind of assistance, while in programs it is just impossible because you have to go to the top. I was wondering if you had any comments on that. We are in a dif- ferent region, and there may be a different story out herb. Dr. MousoLrrn. Yes. In the higher education in this region we have decentralized where we make decisions in the financial aids. Hopefully, we will be doing this in~ June in the higher education facilities. One excellent area, under Dr. Joseph Vernon, small grants proj - ects, and the consortium of institutions working together to implement the proposal that has to be approved. Now this project, this program here is almost completely decen- tralized. He draws in his consultants, they go over the proposals that have been submitted, and there is a great deal of activity in this area now, as there should be. Then the decisions are made and sent to Washington. Eventually the commissioner will delegate his signature to the head man out in the region. I think perhaps Mr. Bright made this point in the testimony last August. Mr. Quin. That is in the regional research laboratories? Dr. MousoLrrE. No; this is in the research small grants projects, which are devoted to the small colleges and the like, not the large institutions. There are other programs for them. May I say again that just as we have begun to work closely and we have been given decisionmaking authority in the higher education area, we are just beginning this now but we certainly have problems which I know we will overcome. Problems existing in what the people in the regional office should do in elementary and secondary, how much authority should they have? I fully expect them to have authority to work with the State Depart- ment people, to help the local districts prepare their prOposals, and to work on a coordinated basis and then perhaps follow up on those who were refused or those who were successful in being given moneys to implement the programs. PAGENO="0454" 800 u.s. OFFICE OF EDUCATION Mr. Quii~. In the higher education area there is no State organiza- tion which has the relationship of a State. department of education with the local colleges, be. they private or public, as the State depart- ment of education really has a main responsibility for elementary and secondary educat.ion and has close connection with every local school district. Now if you strengthen the regional office in elementary a.nd secondary education comparable to the higher education, won't this in effect weaken the State departments of education? Dr. MOUSOLITE. No, I don't so. Of course we have not gone into this yet.. I don't think it can be because the duties and responsibilities of the State department of public instruction are certainly spelled out, and we certainly would not interfere with these. We could come in wherever we were asked. We would attend conferences, we would go out with their permission to visit the local school districts. We in a sense would be an arm of t.he State department of public instruction. Mr. QmE. You mean you would iiot go to the local school district without the State department lmowing about it and being fully informed? Dr. M0US0LITE. I was talking about procedures. Mr. QUTE. Under title III, as an example. Dr. MOU5OLITE. Yes. May I say when I first came out here in an acting position, I could not. visit the schools unless I had the State de- partment of public instruction's permission. When I became ac- quainted with Mr. Bartlett. in Michigan, for example, he said, "For- get, about it., you go out. whenever you feel that you get a request to come out." May I say that sometimes I perhaps feel t.lia.t. the immediacy and urgency of a situation demands certain actions, but. we certainly will abide with these particular rules and regulations whenever possible. Now in higher education incidentally, Mr. Quie, there is of course the State commission. Mr. Qum. Yes; that is on the facilities. Dr. MousoLI1~. Where they have two functions to perform. One is to determine which of the program proposals that come to them could be accepted and, second, how much money is to be given to each of these in terms of availability of funds and so on. Now I see a person on my staff, Miss Man an ProeseT, who I think is just tops in this area with HEFA. She has been a help in aiding these State commissions, and I think many of them do need help in terms of advice and consultat.ion. She has gone to many of these meetings and has been of great help to them in the interpretation of rules, and the like. Mr. HosoH. Could I add one point on your point about decentraliza- tion? I think we have found through the years in many other programs besides education that t.here is a question of timing here as to when you can decentralize. I think it is an obvious point. When you a.re beginning a new program and there are areas and progra.ms whic.h need t.o be assessed, you need to hold decisionmaking at the central of- fice level umtil such time the ma~jor policies have been decided upon. At that time, it is a little safer, shall we say, in terms of avoiding con- fusion, to decentralize decisionmaking because you have a policy base on which it is possible to act. PAGENO="0455" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 801 We have found this in every other program of the department, so I don't see why it would n~t also be true of the Office of Education. Mr. QTJIE. Let me ask you a question about vocational education, because this is a program where you have had a strong regional office relationship in the secondary school level for some time. I would like to have you tell me how you relate with the schools and the State de- partment of education in this program, bearing in mind that, under the vocational education program, there i:s a strong State department of education involvement, to the extent of devising a State plan as com- pared to title I of the Elementary and Secondary School Act, for which you require State Department approval, and then with title III where the State department only is asked to give recommendations, and their approval is not necessary, nor is there any State plan. Dr. MorisoLITE. Dr. Summers, who heads up this area in the Of- fice-I think he is in this audience-works very closely with the State department of vocational education people. It would seem to me that the relationship which has been established-and I mentioned this in speaking of the federally affected areas-has certainly gone a long way toward bringing the various people at the local grassroots levels, together. Mr. QuIE. I don't want to include the federally affected areas. I would like to have you follow it through and perhaps he could do this in detail, showing us how it operates with the vocational education be- cause here there is a stronger directed State responsibility than in any of the others. Dr. MOUSOLITE. Hobart? Mr. BRADEMAS. Identify yourself for the record, please, sir. STATEMENT OF DR. HOBART SUMMERS, REGIONAL REPRESENT- ATIVE, MDTA Dr. SUMMERS. My name is Hobart Summers, regional representa- tive, MDTA. I also have another hat; I am the regional representa- tive for manpower creating activities in the five States of this region. Mr. QUIF. That is one of the vacant positions you are filling here? Dr. SUMMERS. Yes. It is customary in this region to have two jobs. Mr. QUIE. I noticed that. Mr. BRADEMAS. Built-in coordination. Mr. QUII. My question then is what kind of service do you provide for the States, and what does this relationship of. where you have a direct cooperation or work with them on the real decisonmaking in the State? Dr. SUMMERS. Yes. May I take a State like Michigan, for instance? We have two or three or four acts that we are servicing: the Vocational Education Act of 1963, the Smith-Hughes Act, and the G-eorge-Barden Act, which are the old acts as you well know, and the new one, 1962, Manpower Development and Training Act. They are serviced with supposedly two staffs. At the present time we are short handed, but we give service directly to the State director of vocational education who is also the assistant superintendent of instruction in the State of Michigan under their new constitution. PAGENO="0456" 802 i~.s. OFFICE OF EDUCATION We also give service through a staff having agriculture experts, healt~h occupation experts, and a distributive education expert who is now on board in our office. We do not have a complete staff at the present time but that is for the vocational and technical work under the Vocational Act of 1963. So there are services available to the States and their directors throughout both the Manpower Develop- ment and Training Act and through vocational and technical activities. Mr. QUIE. You deal only with the State officers? Dr. SUMMERS. We deal directly with the State offices, and when we go into Detroit to visit the Detroit Skill Center, we are sure that the State department knows that we are doing it. Mr. Qu~. What kind of work do you do at the Detroit Skill Center? Dr. SUMMERS. We are the ones that have to approve their buda~ets, and sometimes we have to give advice to them in preparation of tleir budget approved by Detroit city schools, Detroit vocational educa- tion and which finally needs the approval of the regional representa- tive of the Commissioner of Education. Mr. QUIE. Why can't the State director provide that assistance in preparmg their budget? Dr. SUMMERS. Well, for the reason that the regulations of the Fed- eral Register call for the Commissioner of Education to give final approval to the budget for a program of manpower, for instance. Mr. Quu~. Has it gone through the State office then? Dr. SUMMERS. It has gone through the State office. I believe there is a regulation in manpower that any program that is under $50,000- tha.t includes both the training allowances and the training costs-can be approved by the State director, without having to have approval of the Federal representative. Small programs are approved by the State director, but the larger programs call for approval through the Federal Register, and regula- tions by the representative of the Commissioner of Education. Mr. QUIE. In other words, the Detroit Skill Center has already worked with the Detroit school system and the State office? Dr. SUMMERS. That is right. Mr. QUIE. Then you come in to give the final approval by the Commission? Dr. SUMMERS. That is right. That is what the regulations call for, and we come in at their request. Mr. QUIE. All right. Dr. MOUSOLITE. May I just add that Dr. Summers was formerly assistant superintendent of education in the city of Chicago and has had wide experience. We are delighted that he is with us. Dr. SUMMERS. I have been in this job 4 years. I might say I was the first one in this area as a regional representative for the vocational education activities under the Manpower Act. It has been a very stimulating experience, to say the least. Mr. QmE. Let me ask you one more question, Peter, with regard to the education programs that are administered outside of the De- partment of Health, Education, and Welfare. Do you have any problem in coordinating them? Dr. M0USOLrrE. No, we don't have much. PAGENO="0457" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 803 Mr. QmE. You don't have anything to do with it? Dr. MOUSOLrrE. We get inquiries about the National Science Foun- dation because we do have some programs that are in the facilities, for example, and the like. We do get requests for information. Mr. QUIE. No responsibility in coordination? Dr. MOUSOLITE. Nothing. Mr. QUIE. What about OEO's Headstart program? Dr. MOUSOLITE. We have had some initial meetings with the OEO people about a year or so ago that went by the board, we became so active. I understand now under title I there is consideration being given for Headstart to be at least coordinated with the OEO. How far this has gone I don't know. Mr. QtrIE. What do you think of that idea of bringing Headstart and title I together? Dr. MOUSOLITE. Very good idea. Very good. More so in programs like Upward Bound. I think a program like Upward Bound, without hurtmg the feelings of OEO, would certainly jell and mesh with our education talent and education representatives. I think those three have a similar mission to perform, and we should coordinate because we have had some difficulty under the educational activity grants. Mr. QmE. Thank you. Mr. BRADEMAS. Thank you very much, gentlemen. We have about an hour and a half before we break for lunch, so what the Chair would like to suggest-he is not sure if he has an accurate list of the next witnesses-would be that the witnesses or their representatives who have been scheduled to appear at 10:30 now come forward and take seats at the table that is being set up as well as alongside Mr. Hosch and Mr. Mousolite. In a moment the Chair will ask you to identify yourselves. Mr. Radcliffe, of our committee staff, has name cards if you would be kind enough to assist him. (The Panel assembled for discussion and questions follow:) Meirille H. Hosch, Regional Director of Region V, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Peter Mousolite, Regional Representative, U.S. Office of Education. Hans 0. Mauksch, dean, College of Liberal Arts, Illinois Institute of Tecimology, Chicago, Ill. Eric H. Johnson, Administrative Vice President, Illinois State Uni- versity, Normal, Ill. Sharvy Umbeck, President, Knox `College, Gaiesburg, Ill. Rolf A. Weil, President, Roosevelt University, `Chicago, Ill. William Harrell, Vice President, University of `Chicago, Chicago, Ill. Oscar Shabat, Director, Chicago City College, `Chicago, Ill. Eldon Johnson, Vice President, University of Illinois, Urbana, Ill. Mr. BRADEMAS. Would you gentlemen making up the Panel please identify yourselves' for the record. Mr. MAUKSOH. I am Hans 0. Mauksch, Dean, `College of Liberal Arts, Illinois Institute of Technology, and I represent Dr. John T. Rettaliata. Mr. ERIC JOHNSON. I am Eric H. Johnson, Administrative Vice President of Illinois State University. I am representing President Robert Bone. PAGENO="0458" 804 U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION Mr. UMBECK. Sharvy Umbeck, President of Knox college. Mr. WElL. Rolf A. Well, President of Roosevelt University. Mr. HARRELL~ William Harrell, a Vice President of the University of Chicago, representing Dr. George Beadle, President. Mr. SHABAT. Oscar Shabat, Director, Chicago City College. Mr. ELDON JOHNSON. Eldon J. Johnson, Vice President of the Uni- versity of lilmois, appearing in place of President David D. Henry. Mr. BRADEMAS. I would like to make the following suggestion: Because there are several of you, and we want to hear from all *of ~ I would suggest, that each of you summarize his statement in about 3 minutes-no more than 5 minutes. We will then put questions to yOU individually, or put questions to which we will invite you to make any comment you wish. I know that Mr. Well has to leave, so if he would like to comment now, we would be pleased to hear from him. STATEMENT OF ROLF A. WElL, PRESIDENT, ROOSEVELT UNIVERSITY, CHICAGO, 111L. Dr. WElL. I am most grateful to you, Mr. Brademas, Mr. Quie. I think I can read mine in 5 minutes and I will abbreviate where possible. My name is Roif A. Weil. I am the president of Roosevelt Uni- versity in Chicago. I hold a-n earned doctorate in economics from the University of Chicago. Prior to my assumption of the presidenc~y of Roosevelt University, I served as professor of economics and finance, chairman of the department of finance, dean of the College of Business Administration and acting president of Roosevelt University. Roose- velt University is a- private nonsectarian institution with 6,800 full- and part-time students (or approximately 4,500 full-time student equivalents). It is the fifth largest private university in the State of Illinois and has a-n operating budget of over $5 million annually. Roosevelt University is participating in a wide variety of fed- erally supported programs administered by the U.S. Office of Educa- tion, including the student loan program, the educational opportunity grants program. the guaranteed student loan program, the college -work-study program, the program to strengthen libraries and library resources, the program for cooperation with developing institutions, the program for equipment for undergraduate instruction, the program of institutes nuder the National Defense Educational Act., and con- struction programs imder the Higher Education Facilities Act.. Roosevelt University is also participating and has participated in a wide variety of educationally related programs under the jurisdic- tion of administrative units ot-her than the U.S. Office of Education. These include programs under the Office of Economic Opportunity, the Peace Corps Administration. the National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, and the National Institute of Men- t-al Health. - Even though we have had a wide variety of experience. wit-h fed- era.lly supported programs, many of these are new programs which have been in operation only a- year and it is. therefore, too soon for us to offer anything other than preliminary opiriion8 a~nd evaluations, PAGENO="0459" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 805 The U.S. Government has, through recent congressional action, taken steps to satisfy one of the most pressing needs of this Nation. The massive support to education in general and to higher education in particular, which has been approved in recent legislative sessions, is a bold and dramatic response. The extension of support under the Higher Education Act of 1965, the Higher Education Facilities Act of 1963, and other legislation aiding both private and public institu- tions of higher learning, is significant recognition of an important partnership which has existed and which must continue to exist. In the processing of our applications under the various programs and in subsequent contact during their operation, our experiences with the U.S. Office of Education, in both the national and local offices, have been extremely positive. The administrators in these offices have gone out of their way to recognize our strengths, to understand our problems, and to give us every help within the provis1ons of the law. We are impressed with the burden which has been thrust upon the U.S. Office of Education, particularly its national office, with the re- sponsibility of administering a wide variety of new programs under multiple legislation. We offer the suggestion that increased decen- tralization of. authority and the assignment of greater decisionmaking power to the regional offices might provide a way of relieving the bur- den in Washington. The regional offices, which are well acquainted with the educational panorama in their areas, are in a position to be- come familiar with the resources of the institutions with which they deal. Although Roosevelt University is only 21 years old and has a rela- tively small endowment, it is an institution which is interested in per- forming its share of public service responsibilities as well as in teach- ing. Other institutions in the metropolitan area look to Roosevelt University to help provide services in the public interest. We are, because of our location and tradition, willing and prepared to render such services. We welcome those aspects of Federal legislation which will help us perform these tasks. Nevertheless, we have come to recognize that when we undertake service programs where the total cost of such programs is not provided for, we must divert some of our resources from areas such as our regu- lar teaching program in which they might otherwise have been al- located. Although the principle of requiring institutions to provide match- ing funds for Federal grants appears to be sound for an individual program, the total effect on an institution which wants to engage in a variety of programs is burdensome. Congress; in utilizing the prin- ciple of matching grants, may have unintentionally created a situation where public institutions with access to State funds and heavily en- dowed private institutions are able to participate in, and take ad- vantage of, a wide variety of programs that they might otherwise have undertaken at a much higher cost to them. Private institutions, that are less heavily endowed find their re- sources stretched even further than in the past and, in comparison with the older and wealthier institutions, may be falling further be- hind in meeting their educational responshilities. Therefore, we PAGENO="0460" 806 U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION would favor legislation that would cover the total cost of programs that are deemed to be in the national interest or which would establish equalization grants that would take into account the relative resources of participating institutions. I might liken the opera.tion of the new programs in support of higher education to the early operation of the programs of Federal grants to States for highway construction and for welfare purposes. As you Irnow, in the early days of this legislation, many States with relatively low budgets were not able to take advantage of the funds available or actually authorized for them. A few of the wealthier States were able to utilize all of the funds available to them. Sub- sequently, reducing matching requirements and equalization grants were introduced into these programs. May I suggest that the prin- ciple of equalization be considered in the area of higher education legislation. We also wish to encourage and support legislation that strengthens teaching as well as research and public service programs, and the need for facilities. We are in agreement with others who have advo- cated the development of a program of unrestricted institutional grants. Such a plan does not deny the importance of specific pro- grams in particular categories and is, in fact, necessitated by the exist- ence of such categorical aid. During the past year, Roosevelt University has shared the expe- rience which must be common to most other universities as well as to the U.S. Office of Education: the feeling that we have had to prepare for and submit proposals under tremendous pressure of time. It is our understanding that this pressure was a result of the new legislation and the necessity of developing immediate implementation. It is our hopeful expectation that, as more experience is gained with these pro- gra.ms, more advance notice can be given to us of the deadlines and guidelines. We have already noticed considerable improvement in this area during the current academic year. I am confident that your committee, which has initiated these pro- grams to serve the national need for education, will continue to be cognizant both of the national welfare and the specific needs and problems of the Nation's colleges and universities. I would be gla.d to answer any questions. Mr. BRADEMAS. Thank you very much, Dr. Wiel. Also affected by the name of Roosevelt, I will let you answer a ques- tion that Mr. Quie has for you. Mr. QmE. We are talking about Teddie there. [Laughter.] Dr. WElL. Take it either way. Mr. Qum. I want to ask you a question. I understand you have to leave. You mentioned a 100-percent need for financing of Federal pro- grams. It is my understanding they are already 100 percent financed, with all the overhead costs covered in the research contracts and the Appropriations Committee setting a fixed figure which causes difficulty with the institution. They all seem to be 100 percent ftnanced. Dr. WElL. Many of our programs are not 100 percent financed. I think you are right about the institute programs. Mr. Qur~. Which ones do you specifically have in mind? PAGENO="0461" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 807 Dr. WElL. I am not sure I can make a distinction between those under the Office of Education and the others. But take the whole stu- dent aid prpgram; although this helps the institution in many ways, it requires a tremendous staff to handle it. There are various aspects of the student aid program. Many of the programs, such as Upward Bound, are under considerable pressure to contribute not only in terms of overhead but also in terms ~f direct costs toward the maintenance of a program. Mr. QUIE. Does not the institute share some responsibility for bring- ing students to college who otherwise would not have attended an institution of higher learning, similar to the aid for Federal-State roads and county `roads where 50-percent matching is the highest we go in the highway program? Dr. WElL. I recognize there is such responsibility; however, it goes beyond that. For example, you want to perform a task of educat- ing at the colleges and universities young people who might otherwise not even attend college, and you have to go out into the high schools and try to identify those who could benefit from college education, espe- cially in the inner city. Then you `bring them in and you see to it that they get the package of aid which is flow available. Yet if you take your financial purpose seriously, and if you do the thing we are doing, going out into the inner city schools to try to identify these youngsters, you have considerable costs when you bring them to the university that are in no way covered. Mr. BRADEMAS. If the gentleman will yield? Is it essential, however, in achieving a national purpose that the Federal Government carry the entire burden? The private and public non-Federal sector, aren't they involved in helping achieve the national purpose? Dr. WElL. Yes. I am not suggesting that the Federal Government carry the entire cost; I am suggesting that they may carry the entire cost of certain specific programs. After all, your facilities available to go out and recruit staff, and you divert staff from other functions to the particular functions that the legislatipn asks you to perform. Some of these costs are simply not covered. The Higher Education Facilities Act, of course, is another obvious illustration. I am all in favor of matching but there is so much of it that it becomes burdensome after a certain point. We have been in- volved now in all of the various facilities programs, the dormitory program, the Upward Bound program. In most of these programs we have had to put some of our resources into it, and I am not saying that this is not desirable, but it makes it extremely difficult for an institution that is not very affluent. We have to go out and raise money not only for our traditional objectives but now also for these particular objectives, which are terribly important. I am particularly concerned with problems of the inner city. These are the greatest problems that I think the Nation~ faces, and it is not enough to say we are going to help a youngster who conies from the South Side of Chicago and comes out of the slum area if he ever gets to our institution. What are the chances of getting him to come to our institution? You have got to do something to get him there. This means that we have to advise and to confer with his counselors, his teachers, and with him. PAGENO="0462" 808 U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION Mr. QuIB. Just to bring to the record here some of the thinking of the Members of Congress, when we funded such a program we kind of felt that the institutions of learning should assume more of the responsibility than they had previously assumed. We wanted to give them the incentive to get into what we felt was their responsibility, and we had in mind this very thing, that you would bear some of the burden. You see, we have problems similar to yours in raising the money for these programs. Dr. WElL. I am one of those from whom you raise it. [Laughter.] Mr. Quii. We don't come back again if we don't get a little help in raising money for the private sector. Dr. WElL. Let me comment by saying very quickly that I think that the institutions of higher learning are dedicated to the programs for which this new legislation has been passed, and we are willing to make all the contributions we can. But I think Congress must recognize that when you pile program upon program it does begin to strain the resources of the less affluent private institutions. And not only the financial resources, but the human resources. You see, even if you had the money there is sometimes the problem of getting all the staff qualified to take care of the pr grams which are important. and which we do want to carry out. Mr. QuTE. Let me ask one other quick question, and some of the others of you may want to speak on this when you make your remarks, and that is the recommendation for institutional grants. I am im- pressed in a sense with the institutional grants program, and what it has accomplished. I like it.. I would ask you, though, as a. private nonsectarian institution, do you feel that we have any constitutional problems if we would provide institutional grants for private church- related institutions of private learning? Dr. WEu~. I am not a. constitutional lawyer so I don't think I would speak with any expertise on this. As far as I am concerned, I person- ally have no reservations on aid to any educational institutions as long as the national objective is met. I am no expert on the con- stitutional question. Mr. BRADEMAS. Thank you very much indeed, Dr. Well. We ap- preciate your taking the time to come. Dr. WEu.~. Thank you. Mr. BRADEMAS. We will next hear from President Tlmbeck. STATEMENT OP SKARVY G. UMBECK, PRESIDENT, KNOX COLLEGE, GALESBURG, ILL. (The prepared statement of Mr. Umbeck follows:) PREPARED STATEMENT OF SHAEVEY G. UMBECK, PRESIDENT, Kxox COLLEGE, GALESBURG, ILL. My name is Sharvy Umbeck. 1 am the president of Knox College, an hide- pendent gift-supported, liberal arts college, located in Galesburg, Illinois. Knox is not affiliated with any religious organization. It is an undergraduate, co- educational college with an enrollment of 1,250 students. The trustees of Knox have adopted a set of principles defining the consiclera- tions which shall govern our decisions regarding application for and acceptance of federal funds. Because of the far-sighted and sensitive fashion in which PAGENO="0463" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 809 Congress has developed its programs for higher educaton and because of the effective fashion in which they have been administered, the extent and scope of federal programs in which Knox has been able to share has been extensive. As a matter of fact, a review of federal programs available to even so small a college as Knox is astounding. cf. Appendix. Let me make it abundantly clear that trustees and administration and faculty of Knox College feel that Congress is to be cOmmended for the extraordinarily effective and prompt fashion in which you have addressed yourselves to a broad spectrum of very basic and important problems in the field of higher education. You have permitted neither the complexity nor the vast dimensions of these problems to stand in the way of forthright and immediate action. Further- more, we are especially appreciative of the helpful and understanding attitudes which your able and respected administrators have brought to the management of the programs you have established. Because most of the men who will speak here this morning are from large multi-purpose universities, I shall confine my suggestions and observations to those areas which are especially applicable to free-standing liberal arts colleges. Of course I am well aware of the fact that some of these concerns are shared with the large complex universities. First: I suppose that every speaker who appears before you will point to the pressing need for more adequate funds for the College Housing Loan Program and for the Educational Facilities Loan Program. You must be aware of the extent to which the growth of many colleges, large and small, is seriously delayed by the lack of funds in these two programs. `Although I am not competent to judge its impact on the federal budget, I am convinced that the proposal of Mr. Thafkind for no-interest college housing loans by providing federal government guarantees and interest subsidies to private investors would stimulate expansion of college housing facilities to its required pace. second: One of your primary objectives has been to increase the number of spaces available to the growing number of students seeking admission to institutions of higher learning. You have taken gigantic strides to increase student facilities-teaching and research facilities as well as dormitories, dining rooms, and unions. However, you have yet to provide, some much-needed tools to enable expanding institutions to acquire the land necessary for growth. You must be well aware of the fact that a host of colleges are situated in land- locked locations. This is true of many liberal arts colleges as well as urban uni- versities. For many of these institutions growth is not a viable possibility un- less there is opportunity for expanding the boundaries of the campus. Cost of land acquisition is an important, but by no means the only, consideration. The reluctant or recalcitrant seller can be a major impediment to campus expansion. Urban Renewal has proved to be an effective aid for those colleges whose unique circumstances permit its use, but land-locked colleges are not always located adjacent to areas which qualify for Urban Renewal. These colleges, therefore, must utilize the cumbersome and slow and expensive method of indi- vidual negotiation with owners of adjacent properties. The power of eminent domain, with appropriate safe guards for community planning and land use, may offer one alternative. Third: Through a series of fortuitious circumstances, I have been placed in a po'sition to be especially sensitized to the lack of managerial expertise in a host of small liberal arts colleges. There can be no question about, the fact that many colleges are not making optimum use of existing resources of personnel and funds due, in part, to lack of sophistication in rudiments of good institu- tional management procedures. Most, but by no means all, of these institutions would be included among those which you define as "developing colleges." This problem will be brought into even sharper focus if you will examine the extent to which these institutions, the very colleges which most need help, have failed to avail themselves of the many opportunities you have placed before them. For this failure they frequently plead lack of staff, without even rec- ognizing the fact that they cannet afford to be inadequately staffed-that mad- equate staff, in and of itself, may contribute to inefficiency. I would urge the development of programs directed toward improving and strengthening the management processes and procedures at, these colleges. Through such programs you could facilitate more efficient and effective utiliza- tion of institutional resources-including resources made available by the federal government. PAGENO="0464" 810 U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION I am well acquainted with existing efforts in this area of concern, and can say unequivocally that these efforts are not reaching and are not likely to reach significantly that group of institutions identified as "developing colleges." Fovrth: Perhaps most helpful of all would be the creation of programs directed toward the development of able, well-trained scholar-teachers for undergraduate liberal arts colleges. Historically, liberal arts colleges have been compelled to look to the great graduate centers to supply faculty personnel. The liberal arts colleges have had neither the resources nor the structure to provide personnel essential to the perpetuation of their own species. The graduate centers have been fully occupied with tasks relating to their own objectives-most of them have not addressed themselves seriously to the preparation of teachers of the type we need. It is urgent that there be created programs of a post-doctoral character which have as their main objective the preparation of teachers for undergraduate liberal arts colleges. Such teacher-oriented post doctoral centers should make full use of the growing body of information regarding most effective practices and procedures for attaining the ends of undergraduate liberal arts education. Fifth: You must be well aware of the financial burden which many federal programs have imposed on the private free-standing liberal arts colleges. Many federal dollars are "so expensive" that we can't afford to take them. Frequently the problem originates in a conflict of basic objectives. Programs designed to provide financial aid to the .student may turn out to be a liability to the college because of high costs of administration or because of dollar match- ing requirements. Look, for example, at the Economic Opportunity grants. The relatively high tuition costs of colleges of our type make the demands of institutional matching funds (to meet student financial need) practically pro- hibitive. Many of us enter into these programs only on a "token" basis because we cannot afford the larger scale participation which you would like. To compound the problem, the need to withhold income taxes from earnings under the work-study program diverts significant funds from their intended purpose- student aid. If you really want to make liberal arts colleges accessible to economically underprivileged groups, it would appear necessary to expand the upper limits of scholarship funds available to these students. Sia~th: Very modest grants for non-project oriented science research has given great impetus to science departments on liberal arts campuses. It is amazing to note how much full-time teachers in humanities and social sciences, as well as natural sciences, can accomplish with a little money for special library pur- chases, travel to major library collections, micro-film, approriate apparatus, and undergraduate assistants, etc. I would urge expansion of programs designed to support such work at those institutions which have demonstrated their capacity to conduct distinguished teaching programs. It might be fruitful to utilize such objective measures as those described in House Report No. 1158, October 1965, pp. 42-43. APPENDIX U.S.O.E.: Federal Guaranteed Student Loaa Program. National Defense Student Loan Program. Educational Opportunity Grants. College Work-Study Program. Library-Material acquisition grant. Higher Education Facilities Construction-Grants & Loans. NDEA Language Institute for High School Teachers. N S.F.: Academic Year In-Service Institute for High School Teachers. Summer Science Institutes for High School Teachers. Summer Science Institute for High School Students. Undergraduate Research Grants. Faculty Research Grants. Institutional Grants. Undergraduate Scientific Equipment Grants. N.I.H.: Undergraduate Research Grants. Grant for Intern Programs in Mental Health Care. Veterans Readjustment Benefits Act of 1966. PAGENO="0465" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 811 Educational Benefits Clause-Social Security. AID-Bureau of the Census-International Statistical Programs Office. R.O.T.C. Federal Surplus Property Program. College Housing Loan Program. Urban Renewal. Dr. UMBECK. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Quie, I am the president of Knox College. It is an independent, gift-supported, liberal arts college located in Galesburg, Ill. When Peter talks about the grassroots, we are really in them, al- though this morning we would not boast of being the Riviera of the prairie, I assure you. Knox is not associated with any affiliated position. We are an un- dergraduate institution with an enrollment of about 1,250. Because I am the only speaker here this morning from a liberal arts college, I shall confine my suggestions and observations to those areas which are e~pecially applicable to the free-standing liberal arts college. I am well aware that some of these concerns are shared with large complex universities. First I suppose that every speaker here today will point to the press- ing need for more adequate funds for the college loan program, both for housing and for educational facilities. Second, one of your primary objectives has been to increase the number of spaces available to the growing number of students seek- ing admission to institutions of higher learning. `You have taken gigantic strides to increase student facilities-teaching and research facilities as well as dormitories, dining rooms, and unions. However, you have yet to provide some much needed tools to enable expanding institutions to acquire the land necessary for growth, and 1 am speak- ing now, of course, of the nonpublic institutions. You must be well aware of the fact that a host of colleges are situated in landlocked locations. This is true of many liberal arts colleges as well as urban universities. For many of these institutions, growth is not a viable possibility unless there is opportunity for expanding the boundaries of the campus. Cost of land acquisition is an important, but by no means the only, consideration. The reluctant or recalcitrant seller can be a major impediment to campus' expansion. Urban renewal has proved to be an effective aid for those colleges whose unique circumstances permit its use, but landlocked colleges are not always located adjacent to areas which qualify for urban renewal. These colleges, therefore, must utilize the cumbersome and slow and expensive method of individual negotiation with owners of adjacent properties. The power of eminent domain, with appropriate safe- guards for community planning and land use, may offer one alternative. Third, through a series of fortuitous circumstances, I have been placed in a position to be especially sensitized to the lack of man- agerial expertise in a host of small liberal arts colleges. There can be no question about the fact that many colleges are not making optimum use of existing resources of personnel and funds due, in part, to lack of sophistication in rudiments of good institutional management pro- cedures. Most, but by no means all, of these institutions would he included among those' which you define as "developing colleges." 73-728-67-pt. 2-30 PAGENO="0466" 812 u.s. OFFICE OF EDUCATION This problem will be brought into even sharper focus if you will examine the extent to which these institutions, the very colleges which most need help, have failed to avail themselves of the many opportuni- ties you have placed before them. For this failure they frequently plead lack of staff, without even recognizing the fact that they can- not afford to be inadequately staffed-that inadequate staff, in and of itself, may contribute to inefficiency. I would urge the development of programs directed toward improv- ing and strengthening the management processes and procedures at thesecolleges. Through such programs you could facilitate more effi- cient and effective utilization of institutional resources-including resources made available by the Federal Government. I might say that I am well acquainted with existing efforts in this area of concern, and can say unequivocally that these efforts are not reaching and are not likely to reach significantly that group of institu- tions identified as "developing colleges." Fourth, perhaps most helpful of all would be the creation of pro- grams directed toward the development of able, well-trained scholar- teachers for undergraduate liberal arts colleges. Historically, liberal arts colleges have been compelled to look to the great graduate centers to supply faculty personnel. The liberal arts colleges have had neither the resources nor the structure to provide personnel essential to the perpetuation of their own species. The graduate centers ha.ve been fully occupied with tasks relating to their own objectives-most of them have not addressed themselves seriously to the preparation of teachers of the type we need. It is urgent that there be crea.ted programs of a postdoctoral character which have as their main objective the preparation of teachers for undergraduate liberal arts colleges. Such teacher-oriented postdoc- toral centers should make full use of the growing body of information regarding most effective practices a.nd procedures for attaining the ends of undergraduate liberal arts education. Fifth, you must be well aware of the financial burden which many Federal programs have imposed on the private freestanding libera.l arts colleges. Many Federal dollars are "so expensive" that we can't afford to take them-and here I am supplementing in part Dr. Weil's testimony in a conflict of basic objectives, programs that. are designed to provide financial a.id to the student which turn out to be a liability to the college because of the high cost of administration or because of * the dollar-matching requirements. Look, for example, if you will, at the economic opportunity grants. At Knox College in order fOr us to grant one student- Mr. Qun~. Let me stop right here. Are these educational oppor- tunity grants ~ Dr. TJMBEOK. Yes. If you want students, and I am not sure you do or should, but if you want students under the educational opportunity grant to come to colleges of our type, the cost becomes prohibitive. For example, at Knox College every such student that we take costs us in excess of $2,000 per student. That is assuming we get the full grant of $800, and that we can give him a full workload of up to $600. We still have to put in over $2,000. Perhaps you don't want him at institutions of our kind. If you do, this is what it costs us. The Gov- PAGENO="0467" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 813 ernment compounds the problem by compelling us to withhold income taxes from the money he does earn and you divert money intended for student aid in other directions. Mr. Qrrn~. Isn't this true of all the other students to whom you might give a scholarship? Dr. TJMBECK. I don't follow your question. Mr. QrrIE. Suppose there was no Economic Opportunity grants, and you provide scholarships. Dr. TJMBECK. In the case of every student who has full need of the type that qualifies for the Economic Opportunity grant, this would be true. But you see, the number of such students we can take is lim- ited. For example, last year out of an enrollment of 1,250 we had 150 students where the total family income was less than $5,000, but these were people handpicked on the basis of high ability. Under the Eco- nomic Opportunity grants the basic is need. In token fashion it costs us over $2,000 per student, whereas that same money could be diverted to students who could pay part of their way. I would be glad to discuss that with you if you wish. The last point I want to make is that the very modest grants for non-project-oriented science research has given great impetus to sci- ence departments on liberal arts campuses. It is amazing to note how much full-time teachers in humanities and social sciences, as well as natural sciences, can accomplish with a little money for special library purchases, travel to major library collections, microfilm, appropriate apparatus, and undergraduate assistants, and so forth. I would urge expansion of programs designed to support such work at those insti- tutions which have demonstrated their capacity to conduct distin- guished teaching programs. It might be fruitful to utilize such ob- jective measures as those described in House Report No. 1158, October 1965, pages 42-43. In closing, two comments. I was startled when I made a list of Fed- eral programs in which Knox was involved, in excess of 20; a small institution like ours. The last comment, sir, you raised the question earlier with your staff about communication. Grassroots communications have been su- perb, the opportunity to consult has been free and easy and informal. We have had ready and easy access to the people. We, have no prob- 1cm at all keeping up with new legislation. Our services on this are very good. Our real problems stem from the changing interpreta- tions and definitions of legislation. Thank you for this opportunity. Mr. BRADEMAS. Thank you very much. I have some questions but it would be helpful if we could try to give everybody a chance to sum- marize his statement. The Chair observes our distinguished colleague, one of the most ac- tive and able members of the committee, Congressman Pucinski of Chicago, is with us. In view of the elections we have a very narrow platform. [Laugher.] After we have heard from the witnesses this morning with their summaries, the Chair would like to invite Mr. Pueinski to come up and join us. Next can we hear from Mr. Johnson, of Illinois State University. PAGENO="0468" 814 u.s. OFFICE OF EDUCATION STATEMENT OP ERIC H. J~OHNSON, ADMINISTRATIVE VICE PRESIDENT, ILLINOIS STATE UNIVERSITY Mr. JOHNSON. I have a statement. (The statement of Mr. Johnson follows:) STATEMENT OF ERIC H. JOHNSON, ADMINISTRATIvE VICE PRESIDENT, ILLINOIS STATE UNIVERSITY During recent years, Illinois State University has received substantial support from the U.S. Office of Education for a variety of its programs and activities. Several members of the faculty have received research grants from the Bureau of Research. We have had six NDEA Summer Institutes. The University is operating an Experienced Teacher Fellowship Program in History under a grant from the Bureau of Elementary and Secondary Education and a Prospective Teacher Fellowship Program in Latin under a grant from the Bureau of Higher Education. In addition, the history department is supported by an Institutional Assistance Grant from the latter bureau. For the coming academic year, the University has received NDEA graduate fellowships to support two of its three doctoral programs-in biological sciences and in art education. Thirty percent of the cost of a new general classroom building is being supplied from funds made available under the Higher Education Facilities Act. The University has established an Adjacent Municipalities Institute under funds granted under Title I of the Higher Education Act and a self-teaching audio-visual laboratory under Title VI of the act. The administration and faculty of the University are most grateful for this support and for the confidence in the University which this support represents. With this support, the University has undertaken projects which would not have been otherwise possible. With out exception, the officials of tits U~S~OE have extended services and assistance to the University far in excess of those required by laws and regulations. These officials have demonstrated a devotion to the requirements of education and of educational institutions which should earn them the respect and gratitude of their fellow-citizens and the Congress. Federal programs in aid of higher education have multiplied rapidly in the past few years. No catalogue of these is here necessary. The expanded federal role is both cause and effect of the era of transition which currently characterizes most colleges and universities. As programs have been created, problems have followed. Some that we have encountered may be of value to this committee in its investigation. There is one area about which we are concerned. This is relative to the length of time which it takes for processing federal grants and loans for building construction. We estimate conservatively that any time federal money is used in a construction program, we will be delayed one full year in the construction of the building. Not only does this mean that the University is denied the use of much-needed facilities at a time when space is at a premium, but also the amount of federal assistance may be nuffified due to the increase in construction costs during the delay. On a recent bidding, 30% of the construction and equipping costs of a general classroom building are to come from federal sources. We estimate that in the last year building costs have risen approximately 28%. We were delayed one full year in getting construction under way, largely because of the length of time it took to process the application for the federal share. There was a very great possibility that this delay would result in the University getting no additional facilities for the federal dollars as well as losing the much-needed classroom and office space for a full academc year. Similar delays are encountered in connection with research and training programs. In the well-established programs, such as the NDEA summer institute program, the USOE has established a long lead time between the date proposals are due and the date the institutes are actually conducted. This means that the University must reserve space and staff very far in advance, not knowing whether or not the proposal will be accepted. If a proposal is rejected, staff and facilities often go unused. If the University assumes that the proposal will be rejected, PAGENO="0469" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 815 this undermines the morale of those responsible for making the proposal. U~urthermore, if the University assumption proves wrong, then staff and facilities must be taken from other programs in order to conduct the institute. In the case of newly established programs, on the other hand, the problem is just the opposite. Deadlines for the submission of proposals have often come too late, in *the sense that the University. calendar, budget, and staff commit- ments have already been fixed and making changes is extremely difficult. When a faculty member submits a research program, the University must make some kind of commitment to him in terms of released time for conducting the research. Very often there is a great time lag between the submission and final action on a proposal. Even more critical, in many ways, is the time lag between the approval of a proposal and the securing of funds. This delay often means that the researcher has free time and no money. The USOE specifically forbids the University from advancing the researcher money, even though it has approved his proposal. Another kind of problem the University has encountered derives from the division of similar programs between two or more USOE bureaus. For example, me Experienced Teacher Fellowship Program and the Prospective Teacher Fel- lowship Program are divided between the Bureau of Elementary and Secondary Education and the Bureau of Higher Education, respectively, even though Title V-C of the Higher Education Act which provides for these progranis makes no explicit distinction between them. The two bureaus have developed different guidelines and rationales for the programs, introducing a distinction not found in .the original act. The act also provides that universities receiving such pro- grams are eligible for Institutional Assistance Grants from the USOE. These grants are all administered by the Bureau of Higher Education. This means that the program director for an Experienced Teacher Fellowship Program can get caught between the philosophies of the two bureaus in creating and defending his program. At the root of the problems which we encounter in our relations with the USOE is an assumption which derives not so much from the USOE as from the legislation which the Office of Education administers. The Office of Education must, however, share part of the lesponsibility for the preservation of this as- sumption in its programs. Simply stated, this assumption is that American uni- versities cannot be trusted~ to identify the educational problems with which they should deal, to prepare adequate remedies for these problems, and to effec- tuate the remedies and solve the problems. This assumption about the admin- istration and operation of the universities significantly, affects the ability of these institutions to meet the problem~ which federal aid is presumably designed to assist them in nieeting. In all the specific instances cited above, one can see this assumption operating. Delays in receiving, money are encountered because there is a lack of confidence in university fiscal controls. Programs are so specifically designed that universities must bend their own schedules and staffs to fit them or run the risk of not being able to participate in meeting very real national educa.tional needs. This means that universities must devote many man hours to the preparation of specific proposals, taking carefully into consideration whatever insights they can obtain about current winds of change blowing in the USOE. USOE guidelines are read with special care to find out what it is the office wants the university to say, so we may' be sure to say it. Nearly all universities and colleges wanting to participate in federally-aided programs find it expedient to obtain some kind of Washington-based representa- tion to alert them to new programs, policies, and personnel. There has been a great proliferation of special service companies and services designed to keep the university official abreast of developments. This kind of jockeying would be unnecessary if the federal government gen- erally had confidence in institutions of higher education. More particularly, it should be possible for federal agencies to identify those institutions which have responsible managerial systems and fiscal controls and provide such institutions with a kind of across-the-board financial support. If we had more adequate financial resources at our disposal, we are confident that Illinois State University could provide imaginative, innovative, ami creative solutions (to use a very current phrase) to many educational problems, involv- ing research, teacher training, comunity service, etc. The federal programs currently available are helping greatly to make such resources available. But PAGENO="0470" 816 u.s. OFFICE OF EDUCATION they are doing so at the price of institutional autonomy and integrity. Across- the-board assistance to well-managed universities would enable such universities to get on with the task of problem-solving. At present, the best-managed Uni- versity tends to be treated no differently then the worst. Across-the-board assistance, based on some formula-per student, per semester- hour-generated, etc.-should not be used to replace existing income. A univer- sity receiving such support should have to demonstrate maintenance of effort. It should also have to demonstrate annually that the use to which it has put such support in some significant way contributes to meeting nationally recog- nized educational problems. But such a system would intro~Iuce a much-needed flexibility into federal aid to higher education. Institutions w-ith different cap- pacities and needs would develop different programs. A significant change in in the present Procrustean Bed of federal aid would ensue. In conclusion, it is worth repeating that the 1J.AS~. Office of Edvcation is serving the ~atioa iceil. The problems encountered by this tniversity must be measured against the very real contribution which the TJSOE is making and which the University can make because of USOE assistance. It would be far better to retain all of the present system of federal assistance to higher education than to in any way diminish the level of such assistance because of inadequacies in the operation of the system. If we know anything, it is that we must know more about everything. The present system contributes effectively to that goal. We have no guarantee that any change in the system could do more. Mr. BRADEMAS. Gentleman, if you can, try to summarize your state- ments. It would be helpful. Mr. JoHNsoN. I will not read the statement. I will comment very briefly about it, Mr. Chairman. I a.m Eric Johnson, administrative vice president of Illinois State University located in Bloomington Normal, midway in Illinois from almost any direction, which I suspect is one of the emerging public universities and institutions. We have some 10,000 undergraduates students, with a sizable number of students in our laboratory sc~hools. We are one of those institutions that went through the phases of being a teachers' college and now a multipurpose institution offering degrees through the doctorate. We, as other institutions of our type, are very deeply involved with Federal programs of one kind or another, and some listing is made of this in our statement and I will not repeat them here.. We would like to underscore one part of our statement by. saying at t.he very beginning that without exception the officials of the U.S. Office of Education have extended services and assistance to the uni- versity far in excess of those required by law and regulations. Our relationships have been very good. We have always been able to se- cure assistance upon our asking for it, and we are very pleased with this relationship and looking forward to its continuation. I would like to fairly well confine my remarks and explanations of our statement in one area. I suspect that most institutions of higher education are very much concerned with this matter of institutional autonomy, and I would suspect it underlies much of what all of us have to say about our attitudes toward and our relationships with Federal programs. Without going into that further, let me say that our principal con- cern in working with the U.S. Office of Education has to do with the matter of the timing of grants and of loans. Let me concentrate upon just one of those. We are principally con- cerned with the guaranteed loan program. Our reason for it is that PAGENO="0471" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 817 as I look ahead in our particular institution, the building program which must go on in the coming years-the next 2 specifically-for every $1 of State funds that `we are going to use to construct facilities of our campus, we will generate $2 more out of revenue bond resources self-liquidating kinds of projects. In institutions such as ours, where, when we take a new student we must build a dormitory bed, in a man- ner of speaking, to accommodate that student, we must generate' these dollars through self-liquidating procedures. Our problem has to do with the availability of such funds-they are n~ot available in quantity. Our present understanding is that there is a waiting list which we might get on for projects that we are going to construct in 1970-which is a considerable time in advance. The diffi- culty with the money when you are able to borrow it, and we have had some of it, is that the same kinds of regulations with reference to construction apply to funds secured in this way, a guaranteed loan, as if we have an actual grant. The matter of timing is one which is the most severe. If I may use an example, we were awarding this week construction contracts for a Hall of Humanities on our campus, a building~ which will be in the $4 million class, perhaps slightly over that figure' at the time we finish construction of that project. We estimate that we took about a year's delay, and given our climate, our part of the country, if we don't get projects out of the ground fairly early in the construction season, these prpjects are delayed for several months while we await the next spring and the beginning of a new construction season. If we meet delays of one kind or another, which add about a year, many times the grant itself is eaten up in increasing costs, and we have this example with this particular building. It is a matter of timing. If we could make a suggestion, it would be to the effect that perhaps qualification of a State pr qualification of an institution might be given on a one-time basis, and obviously the audit trial must be complete if we are dealing with the Federal dollar. But to repeat again and again, the qualification does take a lot of time and does seriously interfere with our constructLon schedules and the matter of timing with other grants is a serious matter. We have a feeling that all are treated alike. Those institutions that, let's say, have the best procedures in the handling of funds, and perhaps those where the record' is not quite so good, still must all fol- low the same procedure. It is rather well known auzong institutions that if you are going to avail yourself of this kind of help you must also face the problem that you have to take the delay that goes along with it. We can tolerate this in certain of our bond revenue construction. We tolerate it with our academic facilities. When we are building items such as residence halls, we cannot tolerate it and therefore can make but very, very little use of this kind of assistance. May I close by saying that we are very much gratified at the kind of assistance we have been able to get from the U.S. Office of Education and are looking forward to this `kind of continuing relationship. Thank you. Mr. BRADEMAS. Thank you very much. Dean Mauksch. PAGENO="0472" 818 u.s. OFFICE OF EDUCATION STATEMENT OF HANS 0. MAUKSCH, DEAN, COLLEGE OF LIBERAL ARTS, ILLINOIS INSTIT1JTE OF TECHNOLOGY (The prepared statement of AIr. Mauksch follows:) PREPARED STATEMENT BY DR. HANS 0. MAUKSOH, DEAN, COLLEGE OF LIBERAL ARTS, ILLINoIS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY I am Hans 0. Mauksch, Dean of the College of Liberal Arts of the Illinois Institute of Technology. lIT is a private university with emphanis on education and research in science and technology. Twenty-two hundred undergraduate and 840 graduate students are enrolled in the full-time day programs of this institution. During the aca- demic year 1965-1906, Illinois Institute of Technology was the recipient of $3,400,000 of federal grants in support of research and educational programs. Of this amount. $190000 was awarded by the United States Office of Education.1 In addition to these areas of support. Illinois Institute of Technology has received grants under Title I and Title II of the Higher Education Facilities Act. Furthermore, support for students derives from three programs of the Office of Education. namely: the National Defense Student Loan Program, the Educational Opportunity Grants Program, and the College Work Study Program. The relationship with a federal agency can be fruitfully discussed under three headings: program, procedure and personnel. Speaking for the staff of our schooL I would like to compliment the personnel of the U.S. Office of Education in Washington as well as in the Chicago office for their courtesy, their interest and their efforts. Administrative staff and faculty have frequently voiced praise for the assistance and cooperation they have received from Office of Education staff. It w-ould be helpful if the Office of Education would make available to col- leges organization charts with descriptions of positions to facilitate proper con- tacts and to keep abreast of organizational changes. I should like to offer brief comments on the various categories of programs in which our institution participates. We are very pleased with the National Defense Student Loan Program which has been an effective source of assistance. Our experience with the Educational Opportunity Grants under Title IV of the Higher Educational Act of 1965 has been limited. It is an excellent program. except for the limiting effect of some of its provisions. Th eapparent rigidity of the current matching requirements can create procedural problems. Thus, a problem arises when a student qualifies for $800 educational opportunity money but has a total need of less than $1600 according to the College Scholarship Service. In this case. the institution is prevented from giving a total award in excess of the need and thus canont match the amount of educational opportunity money if the award remains within the need figure. We recommend that flex- ibility be applied to these provisions. Similar comments must be made about the College Work Study Program, which has regrettably been less than successful on our campus. Again, the fact that eligibility is tied to the need formula of the College Scholarship Service prevents the university from using discretion in utilizing this money to combine allevia- tion of financal stress with the stimulation of educationally relevant activities. The program of graduate fellowships under Title IV of the National Defense Education Act is an excellent one. We urge the Congress to appropriate funds for support of the full 7,500 fellowships which have been authorized. This program has been particularly useful to institutions, such as lIT, in which graduate enrollment has been increasing rapidly. We awarded 56 Ph. D. degrees last year, compared with 46 in the previous year. and 32 the year before. Our ability to expand graduate training at this rate can be attributed in large measure to the support received under the Title IV fellowship program. Most of the initial defects in this program have now- been eliminated, and it is at present an excellent vehicle for achieving its intended purpose. One serious problem remaining is to appraise entering graduate students with sufficient accuracy. This is particularly important because the awards are for 1 A list of grants is attached. PAGENO="0473" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 819 three years. Since it takes most students a minimum of four years to earn the Ph. P. degree, it would make sense to liberalize the iiumber of awards that could be made to second year. students. The likelihood that the . student can successfully complete his graduate program can be judged much more reliably at this stage, and generally he still needs three more years of study. A possible device for making more efficient use of the available funds might be to divide them among a number of one-year fellowships for first year students, and another, somewhat smaller number of two-year fellowships for those fellows who have given evidence in their first year that they are likely to complete successfully the balance, of their Ph. D. studies. Another area for improvement lies in the . amount of the stipend. `The stipends have been fixed for some years during which `salaries in industry have increased substantially. Therefore, these fellowships no longer compete as well as they should and attract fewer college graduates into graduate study. Also, the fellowship stipends are determined by the number of years of fellow- ship tenure rather than graduate study. Thus, a second year graduate student who is in the first year of an NDEA. fellowship receives a first, not second, year level stipend. It would `be more equitable if the stipend were determined by his level of graduate study. Illinois Institute of Technology is participating in several research and edu- cational projects supported by the U.S. Office of Education. These programs cover an admirably large scope of activities. In general, we feel that there is an adequate range of programs available from which faculty can develop support for important experiments and research. Without implying criticism, I `should like to bring before this committee an area of concern which relatea to institutions like the one I represent. It is generally known that those institutions which have established reputations for excellence and eminence have an advantage in the competition for program sup- port. For struggling institutions, there is a most helpful provision under Title III of the Higher Education Act of 1965. it almost seems as if those in the middle have the hardest time. I respectfully suggest that it would be appropri- ate to effect a wider distribution of support in order to assist those institutions which have shown intent, capability and promise to strive for academic ex- cellence. A further area of support by the Office of Education from which Illinois Insti- tute of Technology has benefited is support for construction under the Higher Education Facilities Act. This program is of tremendous benefit to colleges and universities and addresses itself to one of the major limitations which institutions of higher education face in trying to meet the educational needs of society. Like the programs cited before, this activity is worthwhile and effective. There are, however, some problems of procedure and implementation. While I would accord an "A" to the personnel of the U.S. Office of Education and a high "B" to its pro- gram, the procedures of this agency would only earn a "C" in my classroom. A building for which I have academic responsibility is being completed on our campus with the support of three federal grants. The proposals and reports to be submitted to the three agencies (Office of Education, National Institutions of Health, and National Science Foundation) are not only different in format and content but even require different breakdowns of comparable categories of in- formation. The program under the Office of Education is locally supervised and administered by the local agency of the Department of Housing and Urban De- velopment. This has caused many delays in processing. A period of as long as a year may elapse from the time of approval of a grant until bids are received for contract. During this p'eriod of rising prices, most bids have exceeded budgeted expectations. There is no provision for a quick decision regarding reduction of the scale of the project when bids come in sub- stantially in excess of available funds. Although the college may expend the full amount that it anticipated, and even more, the federal agency insists that it carry out the original project in complete detail. Most projects can proceed only by trimming certain features so that the total costs fall within budgeted appropria- tions and the government grant. There should be some streamlining of the procedures necessary to secure approval under these circumstances. Another difficulty of this program is the requirement governing the purchase of equipment.' A $1,000 (and even less) equipment item must follow the same procedure and entails the same amount of paper work as a $3,000,000 contract for a building. The cost and delays of following this procedure result in inefficient PAGENO="0474" 820 U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION expenditure of funds granted for equipment purchases. The requirements of approval for purchase of auxiliary equipment to the building program should be reviewed and streamlined to be made more effective. Similar procedural comments can be made for the provisions of Title VI of the Higher Education Act of 1965 which is intended for the improvement of undergraduate instruction. The National Science Foundation has a program for support of Undergraduate Instructional Scientific Equipment with similar aims. A comparison of the administration of the two programs is instructive. The NSF separates requests by discipline and has panels of experts evaluate the merits of each proposal and how well it contributes to the aims of the program. Under Title VI, each proposal earns priority points which depend on (1) the aver- age educational cost per credit hour in the institution, (2) the percentage of equipment to be used in existing as opposed to new facilities, (3) the institution's capacity/enrollment ratio, and (4) the date of the most recent previous award under Title VI. Awards are made on the basis of priority points earned, with no consideration given to the actual need for or benefits to be derived from the specific equipment requested. ITT has fared well under this system so far. since we were awarded everything we requested. However, this program fills an important need and it should be administered in a more effective way. These remarks are presented to the Special Subcommittee on Education of the U.S. House of Representatives as a way of expressing both appreciation and critical comment. The academic community is, I believe, cognizant of the sincere and persistent effort by the U.S. Congress to assist institutions of higher educa- tion to do their job in a more effective and courageous fashion. Yet, at the same time, the awesome size and complexity of the organizational network carries within it the seed of procedural limitations to the spirit of legislative intent. U.S. Office of Education grants Project No. Amount Life sciences building: Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Office of Education. Ill. 4-0100 $460, 517 Engineering building: Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Office of Education. College work-study program: Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Office of Education. National defense student loan program: Department of Ill. 4-1455, title I Ill. 2-1455, title II 38-23-0160 23-23-0460 (1966-67 allocation) - -- 606,131 827, 212 42,047 204,065 Health, Education, and Welfare, Office of Education. Educational opportunity grants program: Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Office of Education. 23-0460 (1966-67 allocation) 121, 340 Undergraduate facilities engineering: Department of Health, Ill. 6-0576 72, 281 Education, and Welfare, Office of Education. Counseling and guidance training institute: Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Office of Education. OE-6-12-058 53, 268 Language resource information for teachers of the culturably disadvantaged: Department of Health, Education, and W'elfare, Office of Education. After school study centers: Department of Health, Educa- OEC-3-7-061340-0071 OE-5-10-114 65, 640 35, 018 tion, and W'eifare, Office of Education. National defense graduate fellowship program: Department Title IV (1966-67 allocation) 145,000 of Health, Education, and Welfare, Office of Education. Mr. MALTKSOH. I will try to be as brief as possible. ITT is a private university. It is an institution primarily con- cerned with education and research in science and technology and has, particularly recently, also emphasized the social sciences and biological sciences. Our students come to about 2,200 undergraduate day students, ap- proximately 850 undergraduate students in the day, about 4,000 eve- mug students. During the last year, ITT was the recipient of $3,400,000 of Federal grants, and this means only in the area of research and education, this does not include student and housing grants. Of this amount, about $190,000 was awarded from the U.S. Office of Education. A list of our grants from this area are attached to my report. PAGENO="0475" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 821 Probably the best way of trying to summarize it is to separate what I think are the three major areas and that is personnel, program, and procedures. I would like to add to what some other speakers have already said, that I am in the area of-if this were a classroom and I were to give grades-I would give a very high A to all the personnel that all of us have ever been in contact with. Locally, Dr. Mousolite has been extremely helpful, sensitive, and available. The same ou the national level. Our faculty and administrators have had beyond- the-call-of-duty effort, courtesy, and assistance. On the area of program I would give a high B. We have had, we feel, imaginative programs. There are areas in which suggestions should be made and in which more courage and more farsighted plan- ning, farsighted awareness of the real leverages of social sanction should be taken into account. I must say that in the areas of procedure I would only award a C. I would say that is in this area-I emphasize this-not merely to offer here to this committee critical comment but really on a larger scale to suggest that maybe it is in this area which we so frequently take as the nasty afterthought that it is maybe here where the most creative thinking and the most imaginative work needs to be done. In an age where the total national picture is involved in awesome complexity, where colleges are changing from leisurely communities of thinking scholars to essentially product mills, I think President TJmbeck's comment here can be supported and amplified. The creativity of procedural efficiency is probably one of the greatest challenges that confront us both in the public sector and the private local level. The examples that President iJmbeck gave I would support wholeheartedly although I would amplify that. Mr. TJmbeck referred primarily to the so-called developing college. I would take it upon mysel f to say that every one of our institutions, from the smallest to the largest, has not kept up with the real opportunities that are available. If I think of my own position as a dean of a liberal arts college within a larger institution, I am supposed to exert educational leader- ship, I am supposed to keep my faculty informed, I am supposed to try to encourage them wherever they are. Yet the detail of the con- tinuous and sometimes not well coordinated daily demands is such that, in order to do what is necessary, we are kept from doing what is important. This puts it glibly, maybe. Mr. BRADEMAS. That is, if the chairman may interject, a problem not uncommon in all walks of life. Mr. MAUKSCH. Yes. Yet I feel it is the colleges of our day, and particularly those institutions which by society have the mandate to support and to encourage the intellectual product, where this becomes a critical product. Speaking critically about some of the programs, let me start with various student loan programs. We have very good experiences with all of them. I would support the point that President TJmbeck made about the educational opportunity grant. The procedural implemen- tation of that particular grant carries with it some very real problems. We are caught between two conflicting procedures and frequently feel that there should be more flexibility. If either the matching require- PAGENO="0476" 822 u.s. OFFICE OF EDUCATION ments could be averaged rather than per capita applictaion, or if the mstitution could be given what I would call the clinical judgment of occas~onalIy exceeding the minimal formula of the scholarship serv- ice, we feel we could be more effective in really helping those students who in many instances come to us at real sacrifices, and with motiva- tions that sometimes cannot. be translated in dollars. There arc many students in our institutions, maybe more so than in any others, who come out. of communities and cultures where they are the first. and sec- ond generation educated. The effort., the price, the cost of what it means for them to come to the school cannot be put intO terms of money. Again, I don't want to repeat what President IJmbeck said. Another program that I would like to make specific comment about that is very close to my own heart, even though it is administered by the students, is the work-study program. Here is one of the most imag- inative pieces of legislation ever written. It combines in its concept the possibility of bringing financial help to a student, of providing a leverage to bring the college student out into the communities, which to me is one of the most exciting aspects of it, and at the same time. or- ganizing these activities in such a way that academic credit can be combined with ~nancial help. Yet here again we are hamstrung by the present. definitions of when we can declare a student eligible. I have, spent publicity money, I have put the resources of both the formal and informal communication proc- esses of the college, to get to the students and solicit students to par- ticipate in this program. I have made the very successful relationship with outside agencies who would be delighted with our students. I am thoroughly con- vinced that our students would gain not only money but real experi- ence. Yet I must confess that our program is sadly unused, as Dr. Mousolite lmows. We feel if we could declare a greater availability, we could make more of the program. Mr. QUIE. I am afraid I don't understand the work-study criticism you have. I understand the work-study program, but I don't under- stand your similar criticism of the EOG. Mr. M~&uKscn. Maybe I was not clear, I was shifting the criticism in the EOG. Here I was speaking about the eligibility requirement. If a student is on a student loan program, though lie may only be minimally supported, lie becomes eligible. I was speaking of shifting. Did I clarify? ~\Ir. Orir. Ye.s. Mr. MAUKSCH. Let me move to research programs. Am I in error? Mr. QDTIE. I think you are. That is what I want to get back to. It was not my understanding that a person on a. student program was ineligible for a work-study program. Dr. Mousolite can probably comment on that. Dr. Mousorrr~. By packaging it you may not give him the work, but there is no regulat.ion that states this as such. Mr. Quir. You are only reauired to package it if you gave an EOG-; otherwise you would work like any other system without Federal re~nTlat.Ton. Dr. MOUSOLTIT. You would have the loan, the EOG-, and the work- study. The work-study cannot be used for matching purposes and I think that is one of the great criticisms that may come up on this. PAGENO="0477" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 823 Mir. MAUKSCH. This is one but I actually was referring to another one, which maybe our dean of students can answer. There may be misinterpretation. If a student becomes aware of the work-study program during the semester and he has already been packaged, you might say, under a loan program he cannot be for that semester eligible any more. Dr. MousoLITE. That would be an institutional decision. Mr. MAUKSCH. Is it? Dr. MOuSOLITE. Yes, based on the arrangement. Mr. MAUKScI-I. It is very possible. This has been one of our biggest problems, and it is very possible it is a local misinterpretation. Mr. BRADEMAS. I don't want to `cut you off, Mr. Mauksch, but there are three other persons to be heard so the Chair is going to have to request you perhaps summarize in a couple of minutes the rest of your statement. Mr. MAUKSCH. Let me just say then as far as research programs are concerned, the only comment I would make, because we are extremely pleased with the many opportunities, is that possibly great opportu- nities and emphasis might be provided for controlled experimentation. Particularly for those institutions, and here again is a comment by President Umbeck, who are striving in the areas in which the tradi- tional research procedure has not been the established one. In the fields of humanities and social sciences, for instance, I would support his comment in this area. As a last comment, let me speak about the construction grants. We are very pleased with the program; benefit greatly. Here again my comment would be on procedures. I am academically responsible for a building that carries three grants: National Science Foundation, Na- tional Institutes of Health, and on3 under the title I. Each of these requires a different breakdown of categories, different reports, and in the case of the Office of Education grant, it requires approval by the local office of the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Two particular points on this: One is that items even of less than a thousand dollars, or considerably less than that, need to be subjected to the same bidding procedures as larger items. And it is in the smaller items that we lose very valuable time and where frequently the insti- tutions should be trusted to have what you might call economic judg. ment or other judgment in making such purchases. The second comment which applies to all three agencies is that the time delay and changing prices frequently make it necessary with the budget available to cut somewhat back on some of the original plans. Let me finish with this comment, and I add that it was a great privi- lege to be able to bring this before this committee. Mr. BRADEMAS. Thank you very much. Mr. Harrell of the University of Chicago. STATEMENT OP WILLIAM HAItRELL, VICE PRESIDENT, UNIVER~ SITY OP CHICAt+O, CHICAGO, ILL. Mr. TIIARRELL. I can identify the University of Chicago as a rela- tively small institution in this area and I do not mean to be facetious. We have only 8,350 students, of which two-thirds are graduate students and in this area, that is a small institution. PAGENO="0478" 824 U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION Our experience with the Office of Education has been wholly satis- factory, both at the local and at the watchman levels, which means we have not always agreed in our negotiations initially, but we have in the end. We have found the local office especially helpful in the student loan program. I will have the urge to discuss some philosophical questions but I will stop at this point. Thank you. Mr. Bn~EMAs. Thank you. Mr. Shabat. STATEMENT OP OSCAR SHABAT, DIRECTOR, CHICAGO CITY COLI~GE, CHICAGO, 114L. (The prepared statement of Mr. Shabat follows:) PREPARED STATEMENT OF OsCAR SHABAT, DIRECTOR, CHIcAGo Crrr COLLEGE, CHICAGO, ILL., a~ GOVERNMENT FUNDING AND THE CHICAGO CITY COLLEGE The Chicago City College is a public two-year institution serving the youth and adults of Chicago for the past 55 years. The 35,000 students, enrolled at eight commuter campuses and the TV College, make it the second largest collegiate institution in Illinois. The College offers a full range of credit courses for full time and part-time students during the evening as well as the day. The comprehensive educational program offers: 1. Liberal arts and transfer curricula for students planning to transfer to senior institutions. 2. Occupational programs for those desiring preparation for immediate employment. 3. Part-time offerings for adults seeking up-grading or up-dating of skills. 4. General education courses for personal adequacy and civic competence. 5. Remedial and basic education for the disadvantaged. 6. Advanced placement work for superior high school students. 7. TV education for the handicapped, shut-in, or home-bound. SCOPE OF GOVERNMENT FUNDING In 1959 the Chicago City College first availed itself of federal funding to begin a program of technical education financed under the National Defense Education Act of 1958. Since that date there has been a constant expansion in the use of federal funds from many agencies. In 1966 the breadth and depth of federally supported programs in the Chicago City College is indicated in broad outline by the following list: Approximate Funding source Programs total expenditure ~ Vocational Education Act 19 occupational educational programs $400 000 Higher Education Facilities Act of 1963 2 new campuses 3,100,000 Higher Education Act of 1965: Title [I, llbrary assistance Books for 8 libraries 40 000 Title VI, pt. A 3 AV centers and reading laboratories 36 000 Economic Opportunity Act Student loans (7 years) 43 000 Work-study (student aids) 607 000 Headstart 90, 000 Opportunity Grant Act 5 campuses 13,900 Vocational Rehabilitation AdministratiOn~_- 1 program 48, 000 Total 4,377,900 NoTE-Federal contril)utiOfl varies from 50 to 90 percent in above programs. In addition to these programs above the college has applied for grants under title III of the Higher Educa- tion Act. PAGENO="0479" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 825 COMMENTARY ON FEDERAL FUNDING strengths There is no doubt that federal assistance has been a vital if not absolutely essential ingredient in the recent growth and diversification of the Chicago City College. The point is well illustrated in our vocational and technical programs and in the areas of physical facilities, equipment, and student help. The bulk of the occupational programs `in engineering technology, health occu- pations, business and data processing, and public service offerings rests squarely on federal funding. In all of these programs the Chicago City College has been helped in the training and education of technicians and sub-professionals through reimbursement for teachers salaries, equipment which the college could not otherwise have purchased, traveling expenses for key personnel `to meet and collaborate on curricula, purchase of technical books and films, vocational coun- seling service, and supervision service to insure effective program operation. The federal portion of construction funds for the first new Chicago City College campus was an absolute essential before construction plans and site acquisition could become realities. The assistance to campus libraries provided needed books and periodicals to improve quality and balance of holdings. Financial assistance for audio visual installations has made feasible some long cherished plans for reading and language programs. The rapidly expanding student work-study programs gave the college needed clerical and laboratory help and encouraged our needy students to stay in school. Contrary to what has happened in many states, my personal experience is that the Illinois community colleges, including the Chicago City College, have fared quite well in the distribution of funds under the Vocational Education Act. Even though the federal law is permissive as to the distribution of funds among various types of institutions, and might possibly be amended to insure adequate allocations to community colleges, our experience indicates that community col- lege participation in funded occupational education programs has been encour- aged and supported rather than discriminated against. Particular commendation should be accorded the U.S. Office of Education's national efforts in encouraging vocational and technical education programs in rapidly developing but inexperienced junior and community colleges. The model curricula and program giudelines, coupled with personal consultation, informa- tion on trends, and general exchange of ideas and information at national tech- nical clinics, did much to quiet the concerns and counter the hesitations of com- munity colleges moving more deeply into occupational education. At the regional or local level of the U.S. Office of Education there are some promising developments. One recent encouraging trend in processing requests for federal grants handled by the U.S. Office of Education is the decentraliza- tion of approval for small research grants now possible on an experimental basis in the middle west (Region 5). Much of the depersonalization and arm-length and time-consuming process necessitated by dealing direct with Washington is dispelled with the non-deadline, local approval, personalized approach now being tried here under the able efforts of Dr. Murnin. We have had this kind of personal, face-to-face local control and flexibility for some time where state agencies such as the Illinois Board of Vocational Education and the Illinois Board of Higher Education have conscientiously and effectively worked closely with educational institutions in the decentralized administration of federal funding programs. It is encouraging to see the U.S. Office of Education decen- tralizing itself not only geographically but functionally. Proposed improvements OccupationaZ education-Unitary funding Within our own limited experience with federal funding programs for higher education there are a few rather specific concerns. Under the Vocational Education Act the full, two-year, pre-service type of curriculum is encouraged, yet only part of the balanced and sequential two-year package, the technical specialty part, is reimbursed. From' the community college standpoint it would make more educational sense, and it would make for simpler processing and record keeping, if a unitary pattern of reimbursement rather than a selective one could be used. The precedent is now established in reimbursement for health occupations programs under the Allied Health Professions Act wherein a flat sum is allocated per student and `per program. This type of reimbursement has much to commend its being applied across the board to all occupational programs. PAGENO="0480" 826 U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION Occupational. education---Promotion and development support In most areas of occupational education there is ample and growing funding for operational programs but less emphasis and less funding available for the necessary preliminary work in the researching and developmental phases of occupational curricula. Good beginnings to fill the gap are apparent here in such efforts as the Research Coordinating Unit and the Program Promotion and Development Unit recently established under the Illinois Board of Vocational Education to get new Vocational Education Act occupational programs started. Additional financial support for such efforts is highly desirable particularly in the areas of public information programs and necessary administrative personnel to research and develop new programs. ~Veed for localized and generalized assistance Mention has already been made of the experimental effort of the U.S. Office of Education to localize, personalize, and expedite federal financial support in the small research grant area. Coupled with this progressive development is a very real need for generalist service, preferably available through the U.S. Office of Education on a local or at least a regional basis. General guidance, particularly for inexperienced institutions or those without expert grantsmen, is much needed if proposals and projects are to be directed toward the most compatible and effective funding sources. The recent rise of professional grantsmen whose services are for hire on a contract basis is indicative of a large gap in the process of matching educational creativity with the proper support sources. We need direction and detailed assistance in getting to the many educational support programs administered not only through the U.S. Office of Education but also through such agencies as the Vocational Rehabilitation Administration, the Public Health Service, and even those outside of Health, Education and Welfare such as the Departments of Justice and Housing and Urban Development. Clarification of the role of the various state agencies performing screening and distribution functions is also needed. Someone has to bring into focus this vast array of educational assistance and bring it to bear in a meaningful way on the educational need of an educational institution. The alternative would seem to be an uneven distribution of requests with some funding sources oversubscribed and others looking for customers while, on the educational side, many needy and willing institutions are frustrated in attempting to thread the federal funding maze. Standardization of forums It is obvious that the various federal support programs for education differ in their purposes. Hence the information requested through application forms amid guidelines for proposal-writing must necessarily vary. Nevertheless additional effort in the direction of standardizing at least the financial and statistical information sought, as well as the format of the application, would be helpfuL Mr. Sm~uAT. The Chicago City College is a public 2-year institution serving youths at Chicago and suburbs for the past 55 years. We serve 35,000 students. We have eight commuter campuses including the TV college, a very imaginative project aided to begin with by Ford money and in recent years in many more dollars by our own money, local initiative and local financing. \Ve are the second largest collegiate institution in Illinois, if that means anything, and we serve students day and night, full time and part time. We have availed ourselves of Federal funding smce 1959. We have had very cordial and fine relations with Dr. Mousohte and others of the regional office. The only trouble is I think that we have not had enough of it because there just are not enough of them. \~\Te have a number of programs. We are strong in vocational education, we have 19 occupational programs there. We have not gotten much money but we have made a lot of headway with the money we have gotten. We have a commitment for a couple of million dollars for a new campus and that, of course, is something very important. PAGENO="0481" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 827 `We have another million dollars that we hope to get. What we should get, there are many millions of dollars, but that is another problem. We have gotten help for libraries for what we hope to be some audiovisual centers. For the last 7 years we have had student loans, $43,000 worth of money. So you see, the magnitude has been very small. One of the biggest problems is how we are going to collect that money and this is a joint problem and this to me I think is perhaps national. You people are going to have to decide whether you are going to forgive it or whether you are going to really get effective machinery, and that involves cost as well. And we hope it is not our cost to make collections. Mr. QUIE. How bad is your delinquent rate? $48,000 is not very much. Mr. SITABAT. No; but a good high percentage. My impression is a very high percentage has not been collected, and we have made efforts at our cost and have been unsuccessful. This is one of those Problems. I will go into what I consider to be the problems, and there are many. You see, we are a 2-year college; we are the junior college, we are part of higher education. We are strong for those students who may not go on to the senior college, in preparing them for employ- ment directly in adult education, continuing education in a spectrum that we have not even started to touch, in my judgment. Mr. QuJE. Could I ask you another question on this: What are you doing with Headstart? Mr. SHABAT. We have only been training a thousand of them in each of the past two summers in cooperation with Roosevelt, and that is only a begimming because I am not happy with what we have done. We have done a good job, and we have a long way to go. We have done it on a shoestring. We have put up a lot of money in addition to the $90,000 we received. We believed in this sharing thing up to a point. Now to train a thousand teacher aids ourselves in the summer in their orientation so that we can go into the iimer city, that is important. We are only at the beg'inning there. I am very critical of our own position and our own efforts. I would say that one of the things we see that is promising is the intent to decentralize. I won't believe it until I see it, because this is one of the big diseases of modern society, and with all of the intent there has got to be more than just a lot of words. This is true, of course, of all major institutions, including the Chicago City College. We have eight campuses, we say we want *to decentralize. Do we mean it? Then do we act on the basis of it? We hope that the decentralization will go on at a faster pace because this means flexi- bility, this means sensitivity to local needs, this means maximizing our cordial relations with Dr. Mousolite. I find, for example, in a very recent program that involves Roosevelt that he has had to call Washington a number of times to get answers, which is kind of ridiculous. Once in a while we should perhaps get to the point where we say, as the old lady did when writing to a Repre- sentative, "On this next issue use your own judgment." fLaughter.] 73-728-67--pt. 2-31 PAGENO="0482" 828 U.S. OFFiCE OF EDUCATION One of our big problems concerns the area of occupation education, where we have not been too happy about the way in which the funding is taking place. For example, if you had an easier program in, let's say, mechanical design technique, and we get some money for the very directly related technical training, but not for most of the pro- gram which is in general education but which we believe to be essential, we would, of course, at this time give merely the technical training, because we believe that our program should be comprehensive, should involve personal development in civic competence as well as teclmical and occupational training. I think another big need, if we are here after ideas, that we do pretty well in getting money for the programs that are established, but we need a lot of help in getting the development, the preliminary, the preparatory. In other words, you are not going to have the ideas, I don't think, unless you have had much more wisdom in Washington than perhaps I believe. It is the local area with all of the very sensi- tivities to the differing and diverse problems. When we get the ideas, we need some help to translate these into action. This is where we need some money and it would not cost much, and we as a junior col- lege would not be getting much. The next problem, I have only another minute or two, is the need for beefing up the regional office because we don't have anyone on our staff who spends all of his time at our expense to go after these grants. WTe have information, but when it finally gets down to getting money, translating something into a written proposal, we find that we cannot get the amount of help from the regional offices that we would like and at the time that we would like it. If you want any proof, all you have to do is look at what is appear- ing on the scene. There are professional grants men, they all need to come in to fill a void. This means that they know how to push the right buttons, go to the right people, and know how to translate an idea into money, assuming, of course, that we are entitled to the money, and this is the interest and the intent of the Government. Now we need to either, or perhaps both, beef up that office so that they have more contact with us, or you give us some help so we can hire someone in order to know how to wend our way through the maze of procedures in order to get the help that was intended in the various laws. I might say, too, that this busmess of procedure we experience in a maze of forms, not standardized. We are asked for so many statis- tical reports that I am just sick and tired of it. Many times I want to throw the original request into the wastepaper basket because it just does not pay. How many times must you ask for the same thing? Let's get it once and then use it in the various offices because otherwise this bureaucracy is going to choke everything, it is choking us. We, of course, fill out the reports at the last minute and then we pray that it will take 15 years for you to know whether it has any meaning anyway. Another problem has to do with this work-study business. We pay 10 percent and you are going to increase it to 25. I can only tell you as a public junior college, and maybe it is the same way throughout the country, that we are not going to do what you people intended, because we are not going to have the money with which to increase up to PAGENO="0483" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 829 the 25 percent. We are making an effort, we are going to continue. We will increase it to the extent of our ability, but with our limited funds based on local real estate, and the State funds that we get, we are just going to have to take a very hard look in the next number of months as to whether or not we want to use the money. We have about $670,. 000 and we can get money. We are the ones, incidentally, who can get those students who get that kind of money, qualify. I don't know how the universities catch these people but they are supposed to have an income below a certain amount. We have got them. We must get some help there. Finally, let me say this: You are after a big idea. There are ap- proximately 40,000 people in the city of Chicago 16 to 25 years of age. They are the dropouts-at least they are not in school and they are not working. There is your problem in your big cities. We must be imaginative. We are ready but we have no way of knowing how to get this help from the Federal Government. There is a need to develop career centers. What we are doing with Roosevelt, that is a token. I am talking about dealing not with 100 or 200 but having a program that could be expanded to 40,000. A career center reaching out and getting these people, getting them counseled, getting them into programs that are work and study with academic credit, if necessary; develop salable skills. Something we have not had because we have not got the money, volume-not just forget about the fellow or the girl when they get into a job, but find out whether or not we are making a difference in the full, realized potential of that individual, educating them civicwise and in terms of making a living. This to me is one of the most challenging and promising leads that could flow your way if you want to do a big thing for your hard core centers of the city with all of these people who need the money. I mean need it.. They need help, really, not too much money but that which we could do as an educational institution better than any other institution in the spectrum of education. Mr. BRADE.MAS. Thank you very much. Mr. Johnson of the University of Illinois. STATEMENT OP ELDON ~FOHNSON, VICE PRESIDENT, UNIVERSITY OP ILLINOIS, URBANA, ILL. (The prepared statement of Mr. Johnson follows:) PREPARED STATEMENT OF ELDON JOHNSON, VICE PRESIDENT, UNIvERsITY OF ILLINOIS, URBANA, ILL. Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I am Eldon L. Johnson, Vice President of the University of Illinois, appearing in place of President David D. Henry, who wishes to express regret that he could not be present. We are glad to present a brief statement which we hope the Committee will find helpful. The University of Illinois, with 42500 students on three campuses (excluding extramural students), has been much involved in relations with the U.S. Office of Education through facilities grants, student financial aid, research grants and contracts, and reporting responsibilities. Perhaps one could call our experience extensive. The `dollar volume, $4,000,000 last year, not counting facilities, is impressive. This is, needless to say, extremely helpful for us; but to keep perspective, we should note that these funds work as a part of an annual budget of $185,000,000. PAGENO="0484" 830 U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION We currently have relations with the U.S. Office of Education involving the following totals in 1965-66: ~esearch and teaching Si, 759, 466. 64 NDEA fellowships 230,000.00 Student aid 1, 991, 2.37. 00 Total 3, 980, 703.64 Under the Higher Education Facilities Act, we have received to date grants approved in the amount of 54.508,000 for construction on our three campuses, most of it at the new Chicago Circle campus. These funds are not yet expended. These figures illustrate that our cooperation with the U.S. Office of Education under the new educational programs has been most meaningful, first, in launch- ing entirely new undertakings and, second, in supplementing and extending old ones. This is significant in the light of the urgent need to extend educational opportunity in every state. To illustrate what we mean, more than three- fourths of all the funds we have received from the Higher Education Facilities Act have been for buildings on our new campus at Chicago Circle. Also, as shown in the following table, new student financial aid programs have had special significance in our new Chicago Circle operations, where 26% of all student employment aid through official university offices is currently under the College Work-Study Program; whereas it is only 2% at the older Urbana- Champaign campus and only 15% at the older Medical Center campus. Also, at the Chicago Circle campus, 99% of all loans payable after graduation are made possible under the NDEA program; whereas the supplementation of the older program at Urbana-Champaign has brought NDEA loans to a significant, but much smaller, 75% of the total loans made last year. These figures obviously reflect the influence of a century of endowment, experience, and planning on one campus as contrasted with the other; but it also points up the advantages we gain from legislation which can be used in launching new educational yen- tures without such tradition and heritage. Ratio of Federal financial aid by programs to total of such assistance [In percent] Programs Urbana Chicago Circle Medical Center NDEA 75 99 33 CWS 2 26 15 EOG 22 65 18 Our relations with the U.S. Office of Education generally have been quite satis- f~i~~Ory. We have no complaints to lodge. Where we have found delays. or rigidity, or faulty communication, we have attributed it to largeness of organiza- tion. new-ness of programs, and difficulty of personnel recruitment. Furthermore, w-e would have to say. and would w-ant to say, that our relations with and services from the U.S. Office of Education have been as good as those with agencies admin- istering programs of greater age and experience. Appropriate officials have been willing to work with us in any difficulties encountered. Therefore, where we have felt remedies were in order, we have gone directly to the Office of Education with our case, and we expect to continue to do so, with confidence, as may be necessary in the future. As to desirable changes in legislation, we have worked closely w-it.h the National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges (in fact, President i-Ienry~ is the immediate past chairman of that organization's Executive Cam- niittee) in developing a series of legislative proposals which have been or will be presented to the Congress. We endorse and urge adoption of these recom- mendations, which need not be repeated here. We wish to associate ourselves with those who welcome the substantial infusion of federal funds into higher education. Without detracting from existing pro- grams and their methods of fund distribution, we would urge that in the future more emphasis be placed on institutional support and on distribution patterns which will reduce the need for detailed review, project by project. We would like to make one point which otherwise may not be strongly stated. Programs at the advanced graduate level, and indeed some in the professional PAGENO="0485" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 831 areas, arise out of their contribution to needs which respect no local or state boundaries. They are national in purpose and impact. They justify national attention, national support, and national program administration. We hope, therefore, that recognition of this fact will be made both in legislation and in administration. In conclusion, we express our gratitude to the Committee for its interest in, and concern about, the federal impact on colleges and universities, which are, in the final analysis, the only effective instruments for translating public educational policy into better higher education. Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Quie, I am Eldon Johnson, ap- pearing in place of President David Henry, who expresses his regret at not being able to be here. I shall try to be brief but I am afraid I cannot break the record set by Vice President Harrell a while ago. The University of Illinois with 42,500 students on three campuses has been much involved in relations with the U.S. Office of Education, I suppose in every program that is avail able. So one can say our experi- ence has been extensive. The dollar volume, $4 million last year, not counting facilities grants, is impressive. This, needless to say, has been extremely helpful to us. But, to keep prospective, if this thing is very large we should note that these funds have to work in the context of an annual budget of $185 million. We currently have relations with the U.S. Office of Education involving the following totals in 1965-66. For research and teaching we had approximately $1,760,000; for NDEA fellowships, $230,000; for student aid, just slightly under $2 million. Then under the Higher Education Facilities Act we received to date, in grants approved but the funds not yet expended, $4.5 million for construction on our three campuses. Most of this went to the new Chicago Circle campus which is close in, West Side of the Loop. Now these figures illustrate I think that our cooperation with the U.S. Office of Education under the new educational programs has been first, meaningful in undertaking those new programs and, second, in supplementing old ones. I think this is significant in the light of the urgent need to extend educational opportunity in every State. To illustrate what. we mean, more than three-fourths of the total facilities grants you had approved are for the new buildings on our new campus of Chicago Circle. If time permitted I would go ahead and illustrate how new programs have been benefited. in the student a.id, and make a contrast of the 100-year-old Champaign-Urbana and the new facilities at Chicago Circle. Since two representatives have been asked, one from Champaign- Urbana and one from Chicago Circle, I will bypass that part of my testimony. Let me say in summary, then, that our relations with the regional Office of Education have generally been quite sat.isfactory. We have no compiaint.s that are too large. Where. we found delays or faulty communication, we have attributed these to the large organization, the newness of the programs, and the difficulty, of personnel recruit~ ment. Furthermore, we would have to say and we want to say that our relations and services from the U.S. Office of Education have been as good as possible, of much greater age, much greater experience. Ap- propriate officials have been willing to work with us in any difficulties we have encountered and therefore., where we have felt we had remedies in that, we could go directly to the U.S. Office of Education and present PAGENO="0486" 832 u.s. OFFICE OF EDUCATION our case. And we expect to continue to do so with confidence in the future as the necessity arises. As to desirable changes in legislation, let me simply say that we have, of course, been closely associated with the National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges. In fact, ~ Henry is the immediate president of that committee. As we do each year, these have been or will be presented to the Congress. I think they may not be presented here except to say we endorse them and urge the adoption of these recommendations. WTe wish certainly to associ- ate ourselves with those who welcome this substantial influx of Federal funds into higher education. May I endorse what has been said before without detracting from the existing programs or the method of distributing the funds. We would urge that, in the future, more emphasis be placed on institutional grants for institutional support, and on distribution patterns which reduce the need for detailed review project by project in the initial phase of that sort of distribution pattern. Finally, with respect to suggestions, we would like to make one point which may otherwise not be stated strongly enough. Programs at the advanced graduate level, in professional areas, arise out of their contribution to needs which reflect no local and no State boundaries. They are national in purpose and impact. They justify national at- tention and national support. We hope, therefore, that this recogni- tion will be taken into account in the future both in legislation and in administration Let me say in conclusion that, as to our colleges here, we are all grateful to this committee for its interest and its concern about the Federal impact on the colleges and universities, which in the final analysis are the only effective instruments for translating national educational policy into better higher education. Mr. BRADEMAS. Thank you very much. Mr. QUIE. Do you have copies of your statement? Mr. SHABAT. Yes. Mr. BRADEMAS. The Chair would like to observe that it is about 10 minutes to 12. Instead of adjourning at noon, Mr. Quie and I would like to adjourn this session at 12:30 to give us a chance to ask you some questions, and then for the benefit of those who are taking part in the afternoon meetings, we will convene at 2 o'clock instead of 1:30. Let me say at the outset how much we appreciate all of these state- ments. You have been most stimulating. I sense common threads running through some of your comments. Correct me if I misrep- resent you: (1) generally you have had good relations with the re- gional Office of Education here in Chicago; (2) generally you feel you need a good deal more leadtime for submission of applications for funds; (3) generally you want a lot more money than you have been getting and you resist any suggestion that Congress may set forth, and I overstate this last point somewhat, I realize, that there ought to be a degree of matching. The Chair just wants to make this observation without being com- bative about it, that this next congressional session will undoubtedly give a good deal of attention to a discussion of the whole Federiil- State relationship in our country. Our hearings today are one ex- ample. There will undoubtedly be discussions of the proposed Heller plan with which most of you are familiar. PAGENO="0487" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 833 As I listened to what you have said here today it occurs to me that nobody has yet suggested what must sound terribly revolutionary: perhaps maybe State governments might raise a little money and help. We hear a good deal about states rights but it seems that it is the Congressmen who are supposed to take the heat for raising the money. No one says much about Governors and State legislators who are all anxious, like university presidents and college presidents, to get their hands on the money; but nobody wants to take the political responsibility for voting the tax moneys. For instance, Mr. Shabat spoke of the difficulties faced by a public junior school confronted with property tax problems. I don't know the financing situation here in this State but is it utterly unthinkable that there could be a modest, progressive income tax in some of the States of our country. Why not let the State legislators go to the peo- ple and defend that kind of a proposition? I only offer it because there seems to have run through our entire dialog here this morning the sug- gestion that there either has to be more money from Uncle Sam or we are all in trouble. You have no other sources to turn to for help I don't know, but I don't think that in this respect Mr. Quie and I would be completely at odds with one another. I am a Methodist and this is a Methodist institution so I have to give a little sermon. Mr. ELDON JoHNsoN. Could I make one comment? This may be confined to the public institution but I am sure we should not leave the impression that the main burden of support of higher education is now being carried by the Federal Government. Mr. BRADEMAS. I realize that. Mr. ELDON JOHNSON. And in the University of Illinois, even count- ing research funds, I suppose this would be in the neighborshood of $40 million a year out of a budget of $185 million. In other, words, the impact on the State is still tremendous. This is where the main burden is carried and will continue to be. Mr. BRADEMAS. I am aware of that and I think that is a well-taken point. Let me ask a couple of quick questions and reiterate that you can all make your observations as pointed as possible. Mr. KEANE. Mr. Chairman, before you start on that could I intro- duce myself? Mr. BRADEMAS. Yes. Mr. KEANE. Roland Keane, with Southern Illinois University. I am representing President Delyte W. Morris. Mr. BRADEMAS. Did you wish to be heard? I didn't realize you were here. Mr. KEANE. May I be granted the privilege of filing a statement with you in the next few days? Mr. BRADEMAS. Of course. (Dr. Morris' statement follows:) STATEMENT BY DR. DELYTE IV. MORRIS, PRESIDENT, SOUTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITT 1. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS Federal aid to education is an old and significant instrument of national policy in this country. In its application both to higher education and to the common schools it predates the Constitution of the United States. Its significance lies PAGENO="0488" 834 u.s. OFFICE OF EDTJCATION in the fact that the alternative in achieving national policy through education lies in a centralized ministry of education along the lines of the European modeL Federal aid, especially of a project or ad hoc nature, is conducive to the preserva- tion of diversity and personal initiative responsive at the local level to the will of the people, while at the same time achieving the national purpose through the democratic processes of choice and the decision to participate or not to partici- pate. The central ministry, on the other hand, has often resulted in a monolithic educational structure moulded to the national goal with little or no direct re- sponse to the people. A recognition of federal support for education as au instrument of national policy should result in a strong reaffirmation of the basic principle underlying it as both necessary to and compatible w-ith the democratic nature of American society. At the same time, it should provide the philosophical framework within which guidelines can be constructed for evaluat- ing both policies and programs. In general, there has been a strong tendency in the United States with certain notable exceptions, to avoid permanent programs of federal aid to education. This caution stems from an assumption that federal support will result in the long range in federal control that will be restrictive upon academic freedom, ex- perimentation, innovation, and local initiative. Experience with the Smith- Hughes Act and similar programs indicates at least partial justification for such an assumption. Therefore, great care should be used, in those instances where programs of a relatively permanent nature appear to be indicated, to build into such programs careful and effective safeguards for those elements of diversity and initiative that lend strength to American education. It may well be these very elements that have enabled education in this country to achieve those suc- cesses that are in such spectacular contrast with education elsewhere in the world. The need for federal support for higher education should, therefore, be predi- cated upon the national goal. Matters that bear upon that support, such as in- equities in educational opportunity, projections of expected enrollments and facility needs, teacher preparation, and relatively untapped pockets of largely unrealized potentialities, have been adequately reported elsewhere and need not be dwelt upon here. There is widespread agreement that national maturity in higher education will require increased and continued federal support beyond the capabilities of the states and the individual institutions. The value of higher education and its relation to national purpose is evident in the education given to an increasing number of Americans, in the increase of scholarship and research, in the expansion of the use made of knowledge in busi- ness and government and other areas of society, in the moves to consolidate new areas of information and activity and to relate them to new trades and pro- śessions sharpened and sanctioned by introduction into college and university programs, and in attempts to apply its own tools and insights to its own domain, The result is increased education in knowledge and sensibility, expansion of knowledge, expansion of meaningful services to society, and preparation of new practitioners for our increasingly upgraded manpower needs, as well as increased tax benefits from graduates whose incomes without the benefit of college or university education might not be as large. The national outreach of higher education is evident not only from tlue recogni- tion being extended by federal legislation but also from the several ways in which most of the major universities and colleges already have a "national" character, in the diverse backgrounds of their faculties and students, and in the way their graduates go into all corners of the nation, and indeed of the world. The national service provided by higher education is indicated by the resources now available in the populations of institutions of higher education, in the re- sources available in the present and emerging facilities of colleges and univer- sities, in the products and activities, in tasks performed such as the international undertakings of Southern Illinois University, in the effect upon the educational level of the American people, and in the importance of the principle that the society which does not value trained intelligence is doomed. Federal support of higher education is an essential and valuable instrument of national policy. It is itself highly diverse in its many aspects. And, even though institutions may feel increasingly compelled to accept it in order to meet the challenges placed upon them by the complex and changing larger society or simply in order to meet their "competition," their choice to participate or not, or to selectively participate, is and must continue to be preserved. PAGENO="0489" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 835 2. SOME PROBLEMS IN FEDERAL SUPPORT OF HIGHER EDUCATION It may be profitable to your committee for us to point out certain problems that our experience with various federal programs seems to have revealed. It should be remarked that the personnel in the United States Office of Educa- tion, both at the national and regional levels, are quite sensitive to the needs and the prerogatives of the institutions with which they deal. These people go far beyond the call of duty in order to be accommodating and helpful. We have found, however, that the people in this as well as in other agencies have a very* human tendency to categorize institutions upon a status continuum that may well be out of date. In short, there is a tendency to award the truly important projects and grants to the "big name" institutions. It seems to be difficult for people to recognize or, if they recognize, difficult for them to accept the rather massive competencies and worthy achievements of Southern Illinois University which admittedly is a newcomer to the lists of large, complex multipurpose universities with faculties of diverse and significant achievement. We feel this to he true in spite of the obvious attempts of the federal government to generate competence and participation among the emerging institutions in the United States. Another problem which we have encountered is often found in large bureau- cratic enterprises. It is the general problem of "red tape", the proliferation of forms and reports, and the apparent inability to introduce a kind of standardiza- tion into these matters which would streamline the matter of communication. Often the reasons for federal support for higher education appear to be unclear or confused. The Congress appears to lack guidelines or succinct statements of long-range purpose in these matters. This makes it difficult to initiate proposals based on new ideas and innovation and occasionally results in the assumption that whatever it is, let's get .the federal government to do it. Finally, it appears to us that the increase of federal support of and attention to higher education increases policy problems, both for the federal government and for higher education. Many of these problems turn around the issue of account- ability-the accountability of the federal government to itself and its citizenry that its support is wisely and efficiently used, and is directed toward appropriate aims and desirable consequences; accountability of institutions of higher edu- cation to maintain and lift the quality of and the preservation, discovery, and dissemination of knowledge and wisdom, to serve an increasing number of students and an increasing number of national and even world needs, and to exercise those standards of freedom and examination and validation required for discharge of its commitment-a commitment which, at the risk of pushing around an apparent platitude, is still indicated by the word "truth." Some friends both of higher education and of federal government are thus dis- turbed by the prospect of these polarities: an expanding and seemingly monolithic bureaucracy against the desired diversity of institutions of higher education; the demands for governmental supervision for the nature and efficiency of opera- tions against the demands of individual and institutional freedom-which can produce its own kind of efficiency; the pressures of "political" constituencies to obtain a "slice of the federal pie" against the pressures of educational constitu- encies to make and in fact to expand their. own decision-making., powers; the introduction of mass criteria and methods against the importance in the giving and getting of education of individual initiative and inquiry; short-term "crash" programs linked with yearly budget schedules against the need of long-range planning and the fact of long-range fruition. These are a sample of prevalent concerns. The pressing problem is to exercise both federal practicality and edu- cational autonomy. Under that relationship, which should err, if it be in error, on the side of educational freedom, there are needs both to scrutinize current op- erations and to explore new, or untapped, areas. 3. SOME PROPOSALS Accordingly, we should like to offer some proposals for current and possible future development. Continuing scrutiny should be maintained of current types of budget controls and approval procedui-es for grants to specific programs. There should be some effort made toward the standardization of forms and reports. The recent recommendation of the National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges and the Association of State Colleges and Universities PAGENO="0490" 836 U.s. OFFICE OF EDUCATION to enact a national institutional grants program should be explored for the purpose of increasing research and other conipetencies throughout the system of higher education. Attention should, of course, be given to appropriate safe- guards for institutional autonomy under such a program and emphasis in this direction can indirectly help the project type of support. It would be salutary from the point of view of the government and the insti- tutions involved if the governmental agencies would adopt a policy for the rational evaluation of institutions that are potential grantees. An evaluation of the competence of an institution should not necessarily be related to an institution's traditional reputation. Neither should it be affected by the lack of a long-term "Ivy" status. We feel that while some state systems of higher edu- cation have a logical claim to be dispensers of certain federal funds, the regional and national character and contributions of American colleges and universities are not restricted to state boundaries, and support should also be considered for regional compacts in higher education and various forms of interinstitutional cooperation. We note in passing that some effort has already been made in this direction. Coordinated understanding of the growing complexity of higher education will be needed, both by the federal government and by higher education. Many agencies already gather many data. Specific research into facets of higher education from the character of students in a campus environment to the assess- ment of graduate education to the preparation of administrators is already underway and shall increase. Augmented and improved data reporting from central agencies such as the United States Office of Education or the American Council on Education will aid the flow of information. In addition to many areas of specific research, however, there is also a need of improved general interpretation. Toward this end there may well be investigated a national commission on higher education to serve not as general supervisor of federal relations with or activities within higher education but rather as a general student of the assumptions, operations, and achievements of the higher learning in America. Such a commission should not be a dispenser of federal aid. Supporting the endeavor suggested in the preceding paragraph, we would propose an expanded development within the universities of the nation of departments, centers, and institutes of higher education whose academic staffs would draw upon the standards and resources of the universities not merely for specific research projects but also for continuous, coordinated general study of the nature and significance of higher education. By such developments col- leges and universities would draw upon ancient traditions and modern resources for their ow-n enriched self-understanding. The federal government should find it profitable to give initial but not necessarily permanent financial support to the establishment and development of such departments and centers. The federal government could at this point in the development of higher education be of great assistance by entering into the arena of the development of the junior colleges. Illinois, which has embarked upon a plan for the extensive development of comprehensive junior colleges, comprehensive not only in the sense of providing terminal programs of both general and vocational nature as well as academic programs for transfer to four-year institutions, but compre- hensive also in the areas of adult and continuing education and programs planned to reach segments of the population now experiencing an excessive educational drop-out, is a prime example of states that could benefit in great measure from assistance of this nature. A partial list of projects in this area would deal with the following kinds of subjects: articulation with four-year institutions, compatible record keeping, breadth and comprehensiveness of programs related to social need, depth of programs for the transfer student, quality control. joint planning by four year institutions and junior colleges of basic first and second year courses, and interiiship programs for junior college teachers and other personnel. Educational opportunities for adult Americans who might want part-time studies for retooling, upgrading, or general enlightenment will apparently receive increased demand. Consideration might well be given to special federal support, both for programs and staff and facilities. Not all such opportunities would be met on current campus sites, but many are and could be if organizational imagination could be stirred and support generated. These proposals are offered on the assumption that in each and every case they would serve the national purpose. PAGENO="0491" IJ.S~ OFFICE OF EDUCATION 837 4. A GENERAL COMMENT ON REFINEMENT AS SUPPLEMENT TO EXPERIMENTATION Experimentation is a popular word today and an important word. Education must be relevant and must be informed. Innovation is necessary just to maintain the pace of changing times and conditions. But the motif on experiment throughout the educational process as distinguished from that experimental confirmation that is part of the emergence of new knowledge can be the sign of youth and adventure. Maturity means, however, not only the ability to adjust but also to maintain momentum. Endurance in excellence is one thing; the discovery of more excellent ways is another. New recipes and new flames for new stews should always be sought. A less strident note in higher education will emerge, however, when in its maturation there is also maintenance of sound practice and quiet appreciation, if you will, of the refinements of the master chef not upon display at another national convention but at his old stand under the new ivy. Mr. QUIE. Why don't you move up to this chair? You might wish to engage in this conversation we have. Mr. T3RADEMAs. Let me ask Mr. Shabat a couple of quick questions. You use the phrase "We are a part of higher education," yet I think in your testimony you also indicated that you use both Vocational Education Act moneys and moneys from higher education legislation. This poses a problem that we have had in our committee, namely, in the area of 2-year institutions. What are you, fish or fowl? To put it combatively, are you trying to have it both ways? Mr. SI-TABAT. No; we are caught so that we try to use each to get what we need. Now that is not quite the answer, perhaps. I am saying this, we are now part of higher education in the State of Illinois because of our master plan which was implemented by way of the Public Junior College Act of 1965. We were separated from the common school, of which we were a part for all of our 55-year history. Now, we still get money under the Vocational Act and we are happy with the money. We make pretty good use of it. I don't know that there has been any problem. I don't think that should get into the picture, really, because that money does a lot of good. We do emphasize technical occupational instructions and that is pretty much leading directly to employment, and this is one of the technical func- ~ions of the junior college which differentiates us from the senior college and university. Mr. BRADEMAS. I understand that. The real question I had in the back of my mind was an argument we had in 163 in our committee when we wrote the Higher Education Facilities Act. In title I, 22 percent was set aside for 2-year institutions. That was deliberately put by our committee in the Higher Education Act and not in the Vocational Education Act because we wanted to make it clear that we were interested in developing greater support for 2-year college- level institutions. Your situation and those out in the State of Cailifornia posed cer- tain problems for us in this respect. Do you have any comment on this question of how that 22-percent set-aside has operated in your institutions? Mr. SHABAT. Well, as you know, the Federal grant is, in Illinois, part of the 75 percent of help that we get. The remainder of the 75 per- cent comes from the State government. We are making our applica- tions in order to relieve the burden of the State government, but more PAGENO="0492" 838 U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION than that to increase the number of dollars available for building funds. Mr. BRADEMAS. Mv question is perhaps not clear. That 22-percent set-aside. Are you familiar with that? Mr. SHABAT. Oh, yes; we have, some of the money. Mr. BRADEMAS. You go to the State higher education agency for that money; is that correct? Mr. SHABAT. We make our application through them and we go to the Federal Government and we received $2.1 million. Mr. BRADEMAS. You have not found any problems with an operation of that type? Mr. SHABAT. No, none at all. Mr. BRADEMAS. President Tjinbeck, you were talking about the prob- lem of developing more sophisticated managerial expertise for colleges and universities. What do we need, NDEA college institutes for college presidents? Dr. UMBECK. Possibly. This has been done, sir, and I think with rather conspicuous success. Obviously the scope of it w~s confined to about 50 institutions. Mr. BRADEMAS. You bring in management experts? Dr. TJMBECK. Yes, sir. Mr. BRADEMAS. Is that what you have done? Dr. TJMBECK. Yes, sir, and the two particular programs to which I have refe.rence at this point were sponsored by the Ford Foundation. There were seminars established in the fields of education, one of them on long-range planning. one broader in the field of management. At least 50 percent of the 50 schools participating in the educational pro- gram, were to be predominantly Negro schools. Participation of an institution required that. the iresiclent, the academic clean, and the chief business officer participates. They extended over two summers and there wa.s a consulting service in between. Now, I am not. urging that particular kind of group program but only an illustrative program. sir. Mr. BRADE3IAS. You spoke of the need in a. small liberal arts college for a teacher program. lVhat did you have in mind? Do you mean something like a title IV graduate fellowship, in return for which a recipient would guarantee that he would teach in a particular institu- tion for a specific number of years? Dr. TTMBECK. Again I can only give you an illustration. I am not sure this is the best answer to the problem that exists. I do not favor the programs which would dilute the scholarly program. It could be a postdoctoral program. What I have in mind would be the establishment, of centers, preferably away from universities, where the interest, is on teachers. Our teachers in the liberal arts college have many meetings and the discuss the disciplines of physics or chemistry but there is little in the way of teaching institutional objectives. I would favor the establishment, for example, of a center, let's say. for the training of science teachers to which you admit. postdoctoral people and where these people are exposed to the latest know-how in teaching. I ma~ add a. word there. it is a curious thing-and here the colie~ies are to blame, not. anyone else. We have been very adroit in developing PAGENO="0493" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 839 and sophisticating research techniques, we have, passed them on to industry, but we have failed to apply them to our own products and our own methods. This is starting, there are places and there are men where this is being done. This body of information is not being made available adequately, and is certainly not being utilized by faculties. I would think that these centers for the development of undergraduate teachers would make full use of this growing body of information. Mr. BRADEMAS. This is kind of the reverse justification of the title V teacher fellowship program for elementary and secondary school teachers. Dr. TJMBECK. Precisely. Mr. BRADEMAS. Where they felt they were getting plenty of peda- gogy and needed more substance. Dr. TJMBECK. Yes. The idea as I presented it here-I happen to make a practice of reading regularly all the applications from students who are entering class and making notes. Anyone who does this can- not help but be impressed by the science in such areas, mathematics, chemistry, and so on. The preparation of college students has dras- tically improved. You have done a great job here. Now we need to develop a structure as well as an organization for preparing teachers for the undergradu- ate program. We have gone so far in higher education that we measure our input carefully and pay little heed to our outputs, the value added. Mr. BRADEMAS. Three other points. Mr. QuIE. Would you yield so we can follow through on that? Mr. BRADEMAS. Yes. Mr. Quii~. Now, the main objective of the NDEA fellowship pro- grain was to prepare college teachers. That is what the main objective was. Also, I don't recall the section in the Higher Education Act, but we have a provision which is being utilized, I believe in the Northwest, where undergraduate institutions can band together in a cooperative venture for some graduate program. Could not that be utilized by you, with a number of other colleges with a similar concern, to get some Federal assistance and start such a program? Dr. TJMBECK. I am not prepared to answer, but quite possibly so. My feeling is they have been oriented quite largely in the area of pre- doctoral work and in the direction of scholarly production rather than an emphasis on teaching as such. I could be wrong, sir, I am not fully informed on this. Mr. QUIR. Also, not knowing how the Office has written the guide- lines, it may be the emphasis, but not the intent of Congress in passing it. It seems to me that you have the machinery right there that could be utilized. Dr. TJMBECK. Precisely where is this? Mr. .QUIE. It is in the Higher Education Act and I wish I could re- member the section. I will get that for you. Dr. MousoLrn~. Title VI, I think. Dr. UMBEOK. Is it being used in this area? Dr. MousoLITE. Not that I know. Mr. MAUKSCJTT. I don't think that it comes in. PAGENO="0494" 840 U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION Mr. BRADEMAS. I just have three more points that I would like your comments on and then I will yield to Mr. Quie for his questions. First, let me make an observation about two programs with which all of you are familiar. You are aware of the effort that the admin- istration made to put rhore emphasis on the private banks in the NDEA undergraduate loan program. I don't know what you have heard, but the same suggestion could be forthcoming. I don't say this year but in a couple of years, in respect of college housing loans. In other words, we should move in financing undergraduate aid and construction, both of housing and possibly academic facilities, more toward the private banking institutions in the country and less from direct Federal funding. Do you have any reaction? Mr. HARRELL. Mr. Chairman, this is not going to work in the sense that the burdens of financing on the majority of the people in college would be so heavy they simply can't perform that service both in in- terest rates and the terms that banks would have to lay down. It is not going to be substantive unless the Federal Government picks up part of the interest rate. Mr. BRADEMAS. Would there be any substantial disagreement among the rest of you with that observation? Dr. TJMBECK. I think Mr. Rafkind's suggestion was a very able one. Mr. Rafkind proposes that the Federal housing loan program be di- verted in large measure to the private institutions with the Govern- ment subsidizing the interest, as you were suggesting. Mr. HARRELL. To keep the record straight, I was speaking of the student loan program. I do not disagree with those comments. Mr. BRADEMAS. Actually with both and if you have a different com- ment on either aspect. All I am saying is that an effort may again be made to do this in the field of student undergraduate assistance. I am suggesting that there is a possibility someday that the same prosopal may be made with respect to construction of facilities. Do I take it that you are in agreement that in either respect such a move would impose onerous burdens? Mr. MAUKsCH. Yes. Mr. BRADEMAS. I have another question.~ It is a two-part one. We have not talked at all, really, about the title I community service ex- tension, the adult education title, or about the title III, the developing institutions title. Have you gentlemen any comments to make, pri- marily focusing on your procedural problems but on any substantive comment as well on how you see the operation of those two programs? Mr. HARRELL. I would be glad to comment on the second one, the National Science Foundation programs. There is a slight variation with the same concept. I have had the privilege of acting in an ad- visory capacity on the Panel and followed that one very closely, and I think it is one of the most promising programs that I know of in terms of upgrading the institutions. Mr. MAuKscii. Yes. Dr. MousoLrrE. Mr. Chairman, may I just say when Dr. Umbeck was talking about this managerial program, 1 had the privilege of be- h~g invited to participate, talking about the Federal programs, and I was there some time. Tremendous~ Dr. Willa Player, who heads up PAGENO="0495" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 841 the developing institutions program, was a member of this particular group. This was an institute, for example, to train and. educate the financial aid officers looking into the future. There is a great need in our Nation for such a program to train foreign student visitors. There are some 70,000 foreign students that we have in our Nation, but we are not doing the job as a nation. Dr. UMBECK. May I speak off the record? Mr. BRADEMAS. Yes. (Discussion off the record.) Mr. QrnE. In this regard are there any developing institutions in Illinois, which instit.utions were working with a developing institution someplace else? Mr. ELDON JOHNSON. The University of Illinois is cooperating with developing institutions. Mr. Quii~. Are there any developing institutions? Dr. MOUSOLITE. Yes. One of them in Eureka College which has re- ceived some of the graduate people working on their degrees. This is one area in which title III has not been too closely informal though there has been tremendous pressure on us to get information. At my suggestion of about 5 months ago, the title III began holding a series of conferences, inviting higher institutions. I would say this, that from the comments received, from the thinking of the people, that the wish of the community is that it would be expected to include a number of institutions that do not fall within the guidelines, some that perhaps are not struggling for survival, but are simply out of the mainstream. Mr. SHABAT. Mr. Chairman, when you mentioned adult education, I thought that was one of the maj or thrusts of m.y remarks, particularly at the end. This is aimed at young and more mature adults in programs that will not be traditional because they have not worked at the lower levels. If they did, we would not have these dropouts. We must do new things, new thinking. I am wondering whether or not the title I of Adult Education is going to really he flexible enough to grab this. Now, for example, recently I have been involved in the city's attempt to think through the Demonstration Cities Act about the way in which we can fit into that overall picture; that is, in a given locality in the city, what is the significant policy, if any, that the community college can play. Not in terms of just giving the first 2 years of training for the transfer student, not just the technical training. We are talking about an area that comes to grips with one of the major problems in our large urban centers. They just don't want to seem to deal with the problem of this great number of people who can incidentally, be- come a part of a great deal of trouble we have. If we are not going to be able to reach them, we have to be aggressive and give them the type of adult education--I hate to use the term because it has narrow connotations-we have got to start leading, and I hoped that that part of the act would be flexible enough to allow us locally to start moving. Now I am not going to say to Pete `here, "You have let us down." We have not even approached `him. But he has not helped us, either. In other, word's, it `has not been that aggressive active lead into this and I am going to `be in touch with him because I `say that for the help that we need-see, if we could do this ourselves we would not PAGENO="0496" 842 U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION ask you. We want the help so we can help ourselves and then support this locally. . I believe in this matching thing not because I am afraid of Federal control, I have never seen that happen, not in any of the experience that I have had. You just talk about it but I have never seen it actually happen. It is true that sometimes procedures get. in the way and there are regulations about what should the minimum or maximum be, but after discussing it we get some kind of a fair resolution. I am talking about the heart of the program. I would like to see us devote some time to higher education. Whether you call it higher education or not, whether a studeiit gets credit on a college level, that should not give us any problem whatso- ever. I think realism does not go along that line. Much of our work, of course, is of that nature, but if we are going to do anything about the major problem in the big cities we are going to have to tackle this particular one. I think it falls under the heading of whether it is secondary, elementary, or higher education, it is truly adult continuing education in a new way that we have got to define as we move along. Mr. BRADEMAS. I think Mr. Quie had another question to put to Mr. Johnson. Mr. QUTE. I would like to know in your region which are the devel- oping institutions who have received title III help, and also which institutions like the LTniversity of Illinois have been on the benefactor side of assisting development. Dr. MousoL'TE. I am sorry, I cannot answer t.hat because that. is information that has not come to me. Mr. QuIE. Could you get that and provide it for the record? Dr. MOUSOLITE. Yes; I certainly can. (The information requested follows:) in.StitfltiO4ls in region. V ~a.rticipatin.g in title III of the Higher Eincation Act of 1965 State Developing institution (receiver) Amount District Illinois Indiana 1. Belleville Junior College, Belleville, cooperated with Southern Illinois University. 2. McKendree College, Le~anon, cooperated with Ohio Wesleyan University. 1. Bethel College. Mishawaha, cooperated with Taylor University - 2. Marion College, Marion. cooperating with no one; fellowships only. 3. Tn-State College, Angola. cooperating with Bail State University and Michigan State Uni~:ersity. 545, 400 27, 100 7. 800 7, 300 18, 400 24 24 3 5 4 Michigan 1. Madonna College, Schoolcraft, cooperating with no one; all fellow- shins. 14, 600 19 Ohio 1. Findlay College. Findlay, cooperating with Bluffton College, Defiance College, Mary Manse College, and University of Toledo. 1. Wilberforce College, Wilberforce, cooperating with Antioch Col- 14, 435. ~ 64, 299 s W'isconsin lege. 1. Dominican College, Racine, cooperating with Argonne National Laboratory. 2. Viterbo College, La Crosse, cooperating with no one; fellowships only. 7, 645 7,300 NoTE-These figures may be off slightly because of subsequent negotiations with the schools-but only small amounts. Dr. TJMBECK. Mr. Chairman, may I expre.ss a concern here? I am not speaking for myself, I happen to be among those that believe that t.he liberal arts colleges as you and I have known that historically are rapidly becoming obsolete. We need to find a new structural form. 3 PAGENO="0497" TJ.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 843 I don't mean we are going out of business. Our purpose and objectives are still viable and real and important, but I think we need to find new institution forms or structural forms. This is not the Government's job, this is our job. Mr. BRADEMAS. There is a study now in process out of Antiocli Col- lege addressed to that very point. Dr. UMBECK. Yes; I happen to be working on it. In connection with the developing colleges-and I know whereof I speak-these developing colleges are trying more and more to become the type of the existing liberal arts and they are already becoming ob- solete. I think some attention might be paid and some cautions thrown in that they do not try to become colleges of the kind that they are moving toward in general. Mr. MAtriisoIJ. Yes. Mr. QUIE. You are convinced they are obsolete? Dr. UMBECK. Yes; I am convinced and my board is convinced, and only recently my faculty. But we are not the students. The students were convinced before we were. I am speaking not only for my own institution, sir. This is an-I won't say a widespread feeling-but there are many who concur. I hope I am understood that I do not think these colleges are about to die, but we need to find a new struc- ture through which we carry on our purpose. And it is a structure that probably does not exist; it requires some imagination, and some creativity. The point at which this concerns the Federal Government is in the area of the developing colleges-that they don't try to become institu- tions that are already obsolete. Mr. Qun~. It is interesting that an institution finds they are obsolete before a new structure is developed. That does not happen very often. Dr. UMBEOK. I hope not. Mr. BRADEMAS. The Chair just noticed there are other names listed here for appearance this morning, and unless they came up to the table the Chair assumed they were not here. But we want to be sure nobody is sitting out there who is supposed to be up here making comments. We have Dr. Glenny, Dr. Stewart, and Dr. Summers all listed here. Dr. MOTJSOLITE. Mr. Chairman, Dr. Stewart has an appointment later on and I think Dr. Glenny will appear at a later date, also. Mr. BRADEMAS. I heard Mr. Summers. Good. Dr. Weil. Mr. QrnE. I would like to pursue title I of the Higher Education Act a little further. I was surprised when you gave your testimony, Mr. Shabat, that you didn't mention that title I was one of the projects that was operating in your college. Who in the State of Illinois is responsible for this program? In Minnesota it is the Higher Education Commission, which handles the facilities program as well. Who is it here? Do you know? Mr. SHABAT. Yes; the State Board of Higher Education, Dr. Glenny. Mr. QUJE. So Dr. Glenny would be the one? Mr. SHABAT. Yes; he is the person. Mr. QUIE. Is there any one institution through which he works or does he have a board that is representative of all the institutions? 73-728-67-Pt. 2-32 PAGENO="0498" 844 U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION Mr. MAUISCH. May I comment~ that there was only very recently a series of several meetings, at the time of the second submissions of programs under title I and my institution is one example, and I am sure there may be some others in process of submitting proposals under title I. iMir. QUIE. This is the second submission of proposals? How about the first one? Do you know which institutions receive money under the first submission of proposals ? Mr. MAUKSCH. I don't know. Mr. ELD0N JOHNSON. The University of Illinois did. There is an advisory board that works on the allocation of these funds. Dr. MOUS0LITE. Wayne State University was another university in adult basic education skills which I visited last summer. Mr. QUIR. So when you mention that Peter has not been talking to you I kind of feel that was the responsibility of the State commis- sion. They should have been talking to you rather than Peter be- cause the administration of title I in every case was given to a State commission and they are the ones that should have been rolling. Mr. SHABAT. I didn't mean criticism, I just indicate the gaps that exist and this is what we fall into. Mr. ERIC Joixsox. It is just 6 years from its inception. It is a statewide appointed board representing both public and private edu- cation. They have been an extremely busy group. They have had a tremendous number of problems because they assumed responsibility for all public higher education `and they are in the throes of developing a system of State junior colleges. I think perhaps Dr. Glenny when he appears could tell you of some of the problems they have had here but I think that they perhaps could be as diligent under the circum- stances as you might hope. Mr. QUIE. Let me ask you another question, Mr. Johnson. I thought there was a little bit of inconsistency in your statement when you talked about the regulations you had with the U.S. Office of Education and with the regional office, and yet you talked about- an assumption that the American university could not be trusted to identify the problems they deal with. You mentioned this lack of' trust and you said: This kind of jockeying would be unnecessary if the Federal Government generally had confidence in institutions of higher education. Before you answer let me say one thing about the Congress. I have gained the impression in the Congress that we have a greater respect for the institutions of higher education than any other educa- tional body which is evidenced, I believe, in its desire to have its pro- grams administered as much as possible by the institutions themselves rather than inflicting a Federal administration on it. I would be interested in your developing a little more this lack of trust because if there is any, it is not in the Congress, it has to be in the U.S. Office. Mr. ERIC JOHNSON. No, I think `there is no inconsistency here be- cause I am reflecting a different level of concern than you are referring to here. There is no question that our programs are not jeopardized in any way by any outside interference after we once get these pro- grams rolling, whether they be construction programs or whether they be institutes or something of this sort. W~hat I was reacting to was again the matter `of timing. PAGENO="0499" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 845 As has been indicated by others, the number of reports, the number of times we must file the same kind of material. If I could add to the complication that someone has pointed to here dealing with two or three kinds of Federal grants-we do our construction in Illinois under an Illinois Building Authority which is a bond-selling orga- nization. They too have sets of regulations so that the sheer paper- work, the number of times and the number of different ways in which we must explain what we are doing, adds months to our construction projects. It is not a matter of reflecting any feeling `that we are; interfered with when we are dealing with, let's say, academic matters or institute programs. But I was reflecting-perhaps lack of trust is not a good way to put it except this is almost the way we have to look at it. When we are asked the same questions over and over again we begin to wonder, can't we make some of these decisions once and not make them over and over again? Mr. QUIE. Do you think there is some way they could determine which institutions would be qualified to make those kinds of manage- ment decisions? Mr. ERIC JOHNSON. Not complete analogy, in the same direction. Somebody said schools were covered for years under the whip of credentialing, to some extent higher education, but mostly elementary and secondary education. There is no doubt that the credentialing of teachers in the school stems from a `time when you simply could not trust boards of education to do what they should do in the way of hiring qualified people. We are a long, long way past that in this State and in other States. The way we d'o much of this now is we qualify a program once, and then we say that the instiution is to be trusted to put people through this ~rogram and therefore we will "credential" the people ~ho come out, not individually but as they pass through a program. This would be a direction we might want to think about. We might want to qualify a program, we might want to qualify a State, we might want to qualify institutions. Leave the followup to be as precise as necessary in terms of auditing the expenditure of the Federal dollar, but that we see this `as a possible way of reducing this ieadtime. It is `the leadtime that bothers us more than anything else in working with Federal programs, working with Federal dollars. Mr. QUIE. I might add to this, and I appreciate your clearing this up for me through this question of trust, that, from testimony be- fore, the supervision given by the Department of Housing and Urban Development over academic facilities grants to construct buildings, it seems to me that is way out `of line and I don't blame the institutions for being upset about that kind of constant duplication of supervision that is being given. Mr. ERIC JOHNSON. If I could give just another example, there was a, recent construction project which we didn't get cleared, and as I say we had a tremendous amount of cooperation both at the regional level and in Washington. But when we finally got geared on the project it had. gone through every agency it could go through~ `and then it faced this finaT test of when it would be appropriate to bid it. The waiting time on whether or not the word would come from Washington on whether this was appropriate to bid, and it had to do PAGENO="0500" 846 U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION with the general inflationary tendencies around the country, happened to occur in these prime construction months of September, October, and November, when we sat and we lost the little leadtime that we had all been able to resurrect from our project. Dr. MOUSOLITE. Mr. Chairman, may I just interject here that this very same problem iS now bemg worked on in Washington and a mem- ber of my staff, Miss Marion Proesel, has been in WTashington a num- ber of times to help work out these procedures and she is in the audi- ence here. If it is the wish of the committee to listen to some of her remarks, I think it would help here. Mr. Enic Jorrxsox. May I say-I don't want. to take Marion Proesel's time-if it had not been for her we would be lots worse off than we were. Mr. BRADEMAS. Do you have any comments? Miss PROESEL. I am Marion Proesel. U.S. Office of Education. I think it would be interesting for all these. people present here to know that one of the biggest pitfalls that we had with the original regulations which were promulgated occurred at the time that the act. was enacted in 1963. Now, because of the interest of the colleges and universities and their real opposition to this, I knew that these things were completely unworkable. Changes have been made. The new regulations, which I don't believe any of you have gotten attempt to overcome some of your objections. One of the big problems was that of the movable equipment., which had to be under contract. You had to have performance and payment bonds and there was a minimum of nothing to be approved under $10. It was expendable. That has all gone by the board. Now the regulation reacTs, and this was printed, it was approved on October 13 this year. It says that it is the same thing as title VI, that the movable equipment may be purchased economically the same way as under title VI but it is subect to the instructions which the Com- missioner may from time to time prescribe. WTell, these new instruc- tions are about to come. out to you people, and the sooner tha.t they come out the better. There is another area on this about the decentralization. Actually the facilities program has been decentralized as far as monitoring of construction from the beginning. As Mr. Quie mentioned, lie thought it was a little bit unusual. I came from college housing and I thought it was very unusual to have an outside agency to actually be the only source at the time of contract. HTJD has done a splendid job, but if we can get the personnel in decentralization, to have our own field staff in engrneermg audi architecture, I think that is going to help the matter considerably. Thank you. i\ [r. BRADEMAS. Very good. Mr. QUIE. Let me ask one more question of Dr. Umbeck. In your first point you mentioned the suggestion of low interest in the college housing loan program. Now, until recently there was enough money to take care of the requests, and one of the big reasons there were many more requests than money available for the loans is the fact that we reduced the interest rate and made it a mandatory 3 percent.. PAGENO="0501" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 847 Dr. TJMBECK. Have you read Mr. Rafkind? Mr. QUIE. No. Dr. TJMBEOK. He points out that you need, apparently, approxi- mately a billion dollars a year, that only $300 million is being made available and the amount is not being increased because it is being treated in Government budgeting as an expenditure. Now if that is the limit of the expenditure, he points out that by making it an interest- free loan with the $300 million being appropriated to pay the interest, that over a billion dollars a year could be made available for the next 10 years at less cost to the Government than the present system of a loan. Now I am not supporting that, I am simply saying that if this is the only way a billion dollars a year can be made available, I think it ought to be considered. Am I making myself clear? He proposes $300 million to a local bank and secondly that the loan be made interest-free so as to keep the cost to the student down and also tokeep the cost down to the Federal budget because it is treated as an expenditure, not as a loan, in the budget. Mr. QTJIE. This is sort of budget gimmickry. Dr. UMBEOK. That is correct, but it is also budget gimmickry to treat it as an expenditure. Mr. QUIE. This is all a problem in the budgeting. You can budget many ways in the Federal budget. I am not familiar with the U.S. Office of Education budget. I am familiar with the Department of Agriculture, and they budget seven different ways there, so you better designate which way you want the budget to come through to you. Dr. UMBEOK. I think there is a real bottleneck in the lack of availability of funds and that the demand is clearly of the stature of a billion dollars or more for the next decade. Mr. QUJE. Let me add another point on the college student loan program. The guaranteed loan program was sold to the Congress that it would reduce the Federal Government's involvement but I think the most telling testimony we received in this subcommittee was the fact that over a period, I believe, of 8 years they have felt there would be a billion dollars made available for college student loans and under the guaranteed loan program it would cost $55 million more for the Federal Government to use that device tha.n the National Defense Student Loan Program which was so well accepted in the past. So we have to look at how we budget and the actual cost to the Federal Government. Dr. UMBECK. I understand that, sir. Mr. QUIE. That is all. Mr. BRADEMAS. Before we adjourn I would like to call on Congress- man Piicinski for any comment he may have. Mr. P~cINsKI. Mr. Chairman, I would like to congratulate your subcommittee for this very salient set of hearings. There is no question that the Federal Government is now deeply involved in assisting the Na- tion's institutions of higher learning and I think that these hearings, gentlemen, have brought up many fine points. I am particularly interested in the lament regarding the tremendous amount of time consumed in reporting, and bookw-ork and bookkeeping. We are getting the same complaints about the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. The educators, the superintendents, and PAGENO="0502" 848 U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION local principals are complaining that they are getting to a point now where they cannot even walk through their school any more because they are tied up in filling out reports and surveys. This is a serious problem and I think that our committee should look into this pro- liferation of reporting procedures. I am encouraged by the report that we heard this morning but I am afraid that when this new concept comes into play Mr. Shabat is going to find this is just one more regulation he has to plough through and he will be back where he started from when it is through. I think that this is one of the big things your hearings will bring out. I am encouraged, though, to hear the good that is coming out of this program. There are those who have criticized it this morning in the press in Chicago. We had a story from one of our colleges in Illinois, which ventured up to Chicago to warn how the Federal Government is mov- ing in on all of these educational institutions. It is reassuring to hear these men who are on the firing line give us their view. As a matter of fact, I gather from their testimony that the Office of Education has been rather careful in staying away from changing the basic con- cepts in these educational institutions, and that is very encouraging to me. I certainly want to encourage you in your hearings, Mr. Chair- man. I want to welcome you to Chicago and extend our hospitality and I hope you have a good time. Mr. BRADEMAS. Thank you. it is true that none of our witnesses has, at least as I can recall, urged us to repeal any of these measures. [Laughter.] Thank you very much, gentlemen, for your most informative testi- mony. We appreciate~ your statements and your comments and an- swers to our questions very much indeed. Your prepared statements will appear in full in the record. Thank you, gentlemen. The subcommittee will meet informally at 2 o'clock, the public hear- ing to reconvene at 9 o'clock tomorrow morning. (Whereupon, at 12:40 p.m., the subcommittee recessed, to reconvene in public hearing at 9 a.m. Thursday, December 8, 1966.) PAGENO="0503" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION THURSDAY, DECEMBER 8, 1966 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SPECIAL SUBCOMMITTEE ON EDUCATION OF THE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR, Evanston, Ill. The subcommittee met at 9 a.m., pursuant to recess, in Scott Hail, Northwestern University, Evanston, Ill., Hon. John Brademas presiding. Present: Representatives Brademas and Quie. Also present: Representative Donald Rurnsfeld. Also present: Charles W. Radcliffe, special education counsel for minority, and Mrs. Helen Phillipsborn, member of the subcommittee staff. Mr. BRADEMAS. The Special Subcommittee on Education will come. to order. For the benefit of those who may not have been present yesterday as we opened our hearings here in Evanston, the Special Subcommittee. on Educa.tion of the House Committee on Education and Labor is engaged at the present time in a study of the operations of the U.S. Office of Education and of the several Federal programs in support of education that are administered through that Office. The distinguished chairman of our subcommittee, Mrs. Edith Green of Oregon, has initiated this study and our subcommittee has engaged in conversations with people from the Office of Education in Wash- ington, has undertaken to send a number of questionnaries to members of the educational community at every level throughout the country and is now engaged in the third stage of our study; namely, to move across the United States and have a number of hearings such as these in the field with', as it were, the consumer population, with those persons who have the responsibility for carrying out these Federal proo~rams at the local level. We had some very useful discussions yesterday and we have a num- ber of witnesses today. Because we are operating under great pres- sure of time and we want to give everyone who has been scheduled an opportunity to be heard, and also because Congressman Quie and I would like to be able to direct some questions to the witnesses, the Chair is going to be moderately ruthless in imposing time limitations. So I will plead with you not to read your complete statements through, for that. will just take up all our time. Because we are sure you are intimately familiar with everything you are about to say. summarize briefly the major policy points that you wish to bring to the attention of the subcommittee. 849 PAGENO="0504" 850 U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION Because he must catch a plane, Mr. Trezza, of the American Library Association, has asked if he might be permitted to speak first and we are very pleased to hear from him. STATEMENT OP ALPHONSE P. TREZZA, ASSOCIATE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AMERICAN LIBRARY ASSOCIATION, EXECUTIVE SEC- RETARY OP THE LIBRARY ADMINISTRATION DIVISION, AMERI- CAN LIBRARY ASSOCIATION (The prepared statement of Mr. Trezza follows:) PREPARED STATEMENT OF ALPHONSE F. TREZZA, ASSOCIATE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AMERICAN LIBRARY ASSOCIATION I am Alphonse F. Trezza. Associate Executive Director of the American Li- brary Association, and Executive Secretary of the Library Administration Divi- sion of the American Library Association. This statement is presented on behalf of the American Library Association, a non-profit professional association of more than 31.000 members consisting of librarians, trustees, and laymen interested in the development, extension and improvement of libraries as essential factors in the education program of the nation. I have been invited to appear here this morning to discuss what we see as the strengths and weakenesses of the Office of Education in administering programs, and to help identify areas of concern which we hope will provide a basis for recommendations which would be of benefit to the education community and to the Office itself. My particular involvement with the U.S. Office of Education for the past six years has beei~ in the area of library statistics. I have also been concerned with various aspects of the Library Services and Construction Act of 1965. Prior to the reorganization of the U.S. Office of Education in the spring of 1965, the LAD's relationships with the Library Services Division relative to matters of library statistics were generally fruitful. We worked well together on formulat- ing common definitions of library terminology, in order to asure comparability in the collection of statistics. A Library Services Division representative helped us formulate a proposal for a statistical study which was funded by the Council on Library Resources, but the director of that project was a member of the staff of the U.S. Office of Education, who was given a leave of absence to work with us. As a result of that project a very jmportant publication was issued by ALA, in the spring of 1966, entitled Library Statistics: A Handbook of Concepts, Defi- nitions and Terminology. This publication served as a basic document for a Na- tional Conference on Library Statistics held in Chicago, i~une 6-8, 1966, co-spon- sored by the National Center for Educational Statistics, USOE, and the Library Administration Division. ALA. You can see. therefore, evidence of close coopera- tion between the library profession and USQE. The problem areas that we have had to a varying degree these past six years have had to do with the currency of these statistics. The need for valid, mean- ingful arid recurring statistics for academic libraries, public libraries, and school libraries for measuring and comparing the development and growth of effective library service is so obvious that it hardly needs emphasizing. Up to date and comprehensive statistical surveys are needed if we are to measure the effec- tiveness of library legislation on the program of our nation's libraries these past ten years. For a number of years the Association, with the support and cooperation of other library associations gathered and published academic library statistics. In 1959. by mutual consent, we ceased collecting these statistics, agreeing in- stead to cooperate with the Office of Education in their collecting and publish- ing academic library statistics. USOE had the responsibility for the collection of statistics for academic institutions and it seemed unnecessary to have a na- tional group, such as ours. collecting similar statistics. It was agreed, however. that library statistics, if they were to be of any real value to academic institu- tions in their development of library programs and institutional budgets, had to be collected in the late summer and early fall, and published no later than the end of .Tanuary. The 1962-63 and 1963-64 academic statistics w-ere pub- lished by USOE in January of 1964 and 1965. PAGENO="0505" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION When the USOE was reorganized, with the responsibility for library statis- tics being moved from the Library Services Division to the National Center for Educational Statistics, I expressed the Association's concern that the reorgani- zation might affect the collection and publication of the academic library sta- tistics. We were assured that at least for the 1064-65 statistics there would be no change in the schedule of collection and that these statistics would be pub- lished in January, 1966. We are now in December of 1966 and the 1964-64 sta- tistics have not as yet been published, nor will they be available for at least four months. The reasons for the long delay of almost a year are many. When academic: library statistics were part of the Library Services Division they were consid- ered a major part of that Division's program and, therefore, received the kind of priority treatment that was necessary for their collection and publication. When academic library statistics became the responsibility of the National Center for Educational Statistics they were just one morO statistical program in a Center that had responsibility for literally hundreds of statistical activities. In addi- tion, the whole future of these particular library statistics has been affected with the Center's decision to collect total academic statistics on a new basis, the general. information form. Without going into the full background and details of what this implies, it affects library statistics to the extent that instead of the information being re quested on a single form to the library it is now requested on at least four different forms, only one of which is filled out by the librarian. The return dates of the four forms are not the same. For the librarian's form (Part V) it is Septeniber 15th; for Parts II, III, November 1st; and for Part IV, November 30th. In the past September 15th was the deadline for the academic library statistical forni. The four months between the time the form w'as due to be returned arid the statistics were due to be published was, at best, a very tight schedule. With the new setup, the last part of the statistics will not be in USOE until November 30th. This means that at best the statistics will no be available until April. Un- fortunately, however, the General Information Forms were mailed two months late. In an effort to cooperate with the National Center for Educational Statistics: and in assuring the continuation of a meaningful statistical program, the Asso- ciation proposed that for this year alone a parallel statistical survey be carried out for academic libraries. If given a Small Contract Grant from TJSOE, the Association would undertake to collect the academic library statistics, using the method that USOE used these past three years, i.e., we would send out a single form containing the same basic questions that have always been asked, we would collect the data, and we would publish the information, and we would attempt to meet the end of January deadline. In the meantime the National Center would proceed with its general information forms, collect its statistics, and prepare to publish its figures as soon as its schedule permitted. A comparison of the results of the two surveys would then be undertaken and an evaluation, which w-e would hope would result in recommendation for future collection of academic library statistics. The Association's proposal for a Small Contract Grant was fully sup- ported by Mr. Alexander Mood, the Assistant Commissioner for Educational Statistics, and was very efficiently expedited by Mr. Joseph A. Murnin, Education Research Advisor for Region V Office of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare here in Chicago. Because of the time factors involved in getting a grant and in setting up the full machinery to undertake such a survey, how-ever, it was not possible to begin the collection of the statistics early enough to meet an end of January deadline. However, the hope is that they will be available no later than the. middle of March, only six weeks off the most desirable schedule. I relate this one particular problem in detail to give you some idea of the com- plexity as well as the willingness of both the U.S. Office of Education and the American Library Association to work together in appropriate ways to try to resolve a common problem. I think it is obvious that the complications that have arisen because of the reorganization have not helped matters. For exam- ple, no new statistical surveys have been undertaken by USOE on school libraries. A "quickie" survey of public library statistics w-as undertaken this pimst spring, but these have not as yet been published. None of the previous statistical sur- veys w-hich were under way these last few years have been published since the reorganization. I think the w-eaknesa in TJSOE at present, from the point of PAGENO="0506" 852 U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION view of libraries, is the fact that libraries have been subsumed in the total orga- nization rather than having a single place in the USOE which has the total responsibility for library problems, whether they affect academic, public, or school libraries. As a total program it is an important package which can command a priority and result ui effective work, not only in the implementation of the very important library legislation that has been passed these last four or five years relative to libraries, but in strengthening library service at all levels and for all citizens. Libraries do not get the same attention and priority when they become a small part of the various other bureaus in the 1JSOE. The need for adequate staffing of the Library Services Division and for vigorous and effec- tive leadership from that Division is essential. We cannot, I think, urge strongly enough that careful consideration be given to the advisability and feasibility of bringing together all matters relating to libraries under one head with total responsibility, and at a level in keeping with its importance. Mr. TREZZA. Thank you, sir. I am the associate director of the American Library Association and the executive secretary and I have been working with the Office of Education on library matters for 7 years. On the whole, I must say our relationship has been most cordial and most cooperative. Our main concern at the moment is the result of the reorganization of the U.S. Office of Education in the spring of 1965 at which time the various parts of the library function were assumed by other bureaus within the Office. Originally there was the Library Services Division of the Bureau and all library activities were in one area; now it is not so-most of it is, but not all. This has served to weaken the leadership role of that Division. It has also served to place the libraries program on a lower scale of priority. In my written statement, which is lengthy and I will not read it, I use as an example statistics which is the area where we have had our closest work. As you know, the Office of Education has responsibility for collecting statistics on the national level for a variety of field libraries. I use university and college statistics as an example, because there is where the American Library Association for 15 years collected data and then in about 1959 by mutual agreement we gave them up and instead worked with the Office of Education in these collections. The biggest problem is getting the statistics collected and published so that they can be of value and use to university officials in the prep- aration of their budgets, in the preparation of their library program. S~ the schedule has always been to have them collected in ea~rly fall and have them published by the end of January if they were to meet all the various budget deadlines. The first 3 years, 4 years, this was done by the Office of Education and it worked out fine. In 1964 and 1965, in fact, it did come out on schedule. When they reorganized in 1965, we immediately raised a question about this and were told there would be no immediate change in the schedule for at least 1 year. They were due to be published in January 1966, and we are now in December of 1966, and they are still not out, and if they are lucky they will be out in 4 more months. Then to further complicate matters during this past year they have decided in the future they are not going to collect them that way any more but they are going to use a "general information form" which is a large pack of materials that goes to the university president, made up of six, seven, eight parts. One part is library. However, they took out of the library part three different pieces and spread it through the other parts and every one goes back at a different time. The library PAGENO="0507" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 853 part goes as originally scheduled December 15 but of the remaining three parts, two are going December 1, one December 30. They have enough publictaion in January when they get it back on Decemb After much us year e association, -1~f we could get a grant from the Office of Education, would carry on a parallel survey and Mr. Mood, the Assistant Commissioner of Na- tional Center of Educational Statistcis, supported our request for the grant in excess of $9,500. This grant was a good example of how the divisional office here in Chicago was able to expedite a proposal where time was of the essence and Mr. Murnin, who handled it for us, was able to expedite it in much less time. This still took a little longer than we hoped. It still means our schedule is not as good as it might be. However, we do have the grant. What we are going to do is conduct the total survey as has been done by the Office of Education, while they are conducting their survey of the new system. When it is all over, we hope to do a study of the two to discover the advantages and disad- vantages and come up with a recommendation for the future. This is an example of how we do cooperate when we have a problem that is of concern to both of us and we have had this cooperation. One of the biggest problems we have had there is not enough staff in the National Center of Educational Statistics. They had a library specialist who left and the position is still vacant and we have been trying to get it filled. They have difficulty because they can not offer enough of a salary to get the person who is right in the Office who would be ideal for the job. This is not true in the Center but it is true in the branch. Mr. QUIE. What salary is being offered? Mr. TREZZA. I think it is a grade something like a 13 and it should be a 14. If I remember rightly, it is a one-grade differential. The person that left had the higher grade but he had been moved over from the Library Service of the Division and apparently now they are placing it one grade lower so they are having trouble filling it. There is a person who would do the job and we recommended him for it. Now the Library Services Branch itself had problems with servicing and staffing, and just ifiled the vacancy January 1 with Mr. Ray Fry right here from Chicago. So they have filled that one. The weakness of the organization, as far as libraries are concerned, by pulling apart statistics this is given a much lower priority. The National Center after all does hundreds of surveys on statistics. The library one to them is just one small one. We have not had a single statistical survey published since the reorganization. We have no school library statistics. If we don't have these, how can we measure the effect of this if we have no figure to show where they were, how they are improving and where they are going. You need this infor- mation, the college universities and otherwise. Especially now with the new Higher Education Act-with the acquisition funds in it-if we don't have the figures, and we are still waiting to get last year's, the ones we are getting this year will give you a base before the Federal money impact, how can you really measure the effectiveness of this program? You can't. Mr. BRADEMAS. Do you know when the National Center for Educa- tional Statistics was founded and begun? PAGENO="0508" 854 U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION Mr. TREZZA. On the reorganization in the spring of 1965. That is when they reorganized the Office of Education. Mr. BRADEMAS. You may not be the person to whom to put this question. Do you have any idea wheif they expect to he moving at full throttle? *My pomt, of course is, while understanding your very relevant crit- icisms, it may be that the Center is just not completely in business yet. Mr. TREZZA. That is part of it except that the problem they have of course is the priority demands from programs were much larger grants always pushed the library one down. The total library pro- gram, if you take all the action together and lump it together, comes out to $300 million, something like that. Well, compared to some of the other educational programs this is peanuts, yet this $300 million impact on libraries is probably what all the library programs are matching. All the library programs are always said to be seed money. The Library Service Construction Act, which is 10 years old now, has done this job beautifully because it has had this effect of growing. So the amount of money iself is really not the fact of importance but in administering any office you tend to give priority to where the most money is. This is natural and we don't frown on it, it is the facts of life, but if we had all the library activity in one place- Mr. BRADEMAS. I am trying to be the DeviFs advocate here for the momeiit to see the other side of the coin and it might be that in the Office of Education they have said: "\Vell, our chief purpose is edu- cation; our chief mission is education, not libraries. Libraries are an integral part of the enterprise of education in the IJnitecl States and we want to be sure that the tail is not wagging the dog, rather than the other way around." I say this because we are familiar on our committee with each particular interest group feeling that its interest ought to be at the top of the heap in terms of priority. I should have thought that there is at least one good reason for this change in the technique of collecting information that you suggest. Namely, instead of having separate library forms, you would have one educational form on which libraries and other things are included. This form would enable the Office of Education, for perhaps the first time, to see the entire picture and not to see only fragments of it as in the past. Now as I say, I don't know that that is the explanation but that is one conceivable one. Mr. TREZZA. That of course is a basis of explanation but the diffi- culty is that library statistics are such that von cannot use them. If you are going to u~e them, for two purposes; one is legislation but the other which is equally as important in the long run, is really why you have the legislation and that is the development of libraries-the de- velopment of the best library. Research was another example. They didn't spread that, they put that up as a separate bureau of research. Now why didn't they spread that out? Why did they have a. bureau of reasearch with the pieces in it? Because this was the reasoning behind this where libraries are common to all. Elementary school is common to elementary andl I can see elementary and secondary and higher education. However, libraries run across the entire gamut and then we keep talking about the absolute necessity of having real cooperation of kinds of 1ibrane~ PAGENO="0509" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 855 college, university, public school. You can't do this if you are frag- mented. Now, if it is together you can get seed money under title III of LSCA planning money, which is all they got this time trying to de- velop in early library cooperation between universities, school libraries, and public libraries. This is part of the reason. Mr. BRADEMAS. I don't know if I quite understand that last point y'u made. It would seem to me, purely in commonsense terms, that it is less important-I am not trying to be combative, I am just trying to elicit some response-that it is less important for an elementary school library to compete with a graduate research library than it is for the people running that elementary school library to be working very closely with the people who are running the elementary school. Mr. TREZZA. When you take the extreme this is true, but you re- member this is a graduated business. We have to cooperate with the junior college library and public library. Mr. BRADEMAS. You are going to have a hard time persuading me that junior high school libraries in southwestern Indiana have very much in common with the research library at Notre Dame. Mr. TREZZA. No, but it has a lot in common with the elementary school. Take the public library. The public library has got to work with the grade school library because no grade school can really have a. collection that is going to do a full job, it has to rely on the pi.Tblic library. If you take Harvard, which is probably the best university library in th~ world, it is self-sufficient. The Library of Congress will tell you the same thing. Mr. BRADEMAS. That is reciting the obvious. The point I am get- ting at is you are arguing, as I understand it, that all the library func- tions of the Office of Education ought to be thrown into one shop because of the inner relationship that you are arguing is to be found among all libraries. I am suggesting, just speaking for myself, that I am profoundly skeptical of what you just said; that is, I don't think that it can be shown very accurately that aside from the fact that you have `books and shelves, and librarians that there is a great deal in common between the elementary and secondary school libraries in most schools in this country and college and university libraries. Mr. TREZZA. No; but the point I make is if you take the two extremes of everything the distance is great but remember you have to take the gamut. You are thinking of the elementary, which is the lowest, to the university, which is the top of the educational ladder. ~Tou need cooperation of all kinds together because there are several things which are accountable to all of us. The processing of books, this whole thing, it is the same whether it is done by a college or a grade school. Now there are many differences in degree, in depth, at the university which you never have at the elementary level, obviously. Mr. QUTE. Let me interrupt. I see you two are never going to reach that point of agreement between junior high and high school. I think that y.ou people in the library association are to blame here as well, because when you began inserting portions in legislation that was not primarily for libraries, you added some language which would give assistance to libraries. I asked Miss Krettek and others from my own State who represented the library association why they didn't. PAGENO="0510" 856 u.s. OFFICE OF EDUCATION add this to the library construction services legislation, putting it all together so it would be administered together, because the reorganiza- tion after the spring report was that it would be patterned after the legislation that was passed. Now we have the Higher Education Act and we have the people administering that program with all its facets and the Elementary and Secondary School Act. Because your legis- lation was fragmented among a number of pieces of legislation, there- fore, the administration became fragmented and the whole Office of Education now is administered in that way so that nobody can find identity in Washington. Monday and Tuesday we had people with the junior college come down and say well, they cannot find that person who is identified as Mr. Junior College and the guidance counselor cannot find the people identified as Mr. Guidance Counselor, a.nd so forth and so on. Then they saw what happened in legislation last year when through the pressure of groups interested in handicapped children they got an- other bureau established for them in legislation. This kind of gave a little assistance to your request that you have some recognition of libraries, even though nobody has come in and said they want a bureau for that separate identity. I think as we go along some way or other this will have to be re- solved or the result. will be that there is no identity whatsoever and you are left out. Some way the recognition will have to come about. I am concerned about the lack of publication of statistics because this one at one time was the primary responsibility of the Office of Edu- cation and this responsibility was not removed from them by legislation. Now we find that the National Education Association is accumu- lating statistics from the U.S. Office of Education. I am concerned that you would even get a grant to collect statistics for the library association because your organization should have some outside entity collecting this information for you because there is always a little bit of suspicion when the organization itself collects the statistics. You would expect that if there is any way of being able to jump one way or another you would be able to make the organization look a little bit better than it did. I am not accusing you of doing it, but there is always the. suspicion that the human factor might come into play. I would hope that you will continue your pressure for the U.S. Office to provide all the statistics so that when you do your own independent statistical gathering it can be compared with the U.S. Office. I surely agree with you there. Mr. TREzZA. We had a national conference on library statistics last spring when we discussed the whole matter of the problems of the Center, where it was going. At that stage someone suggested that, and the association said, "Heaven help us, no; the responsibility be- longs with the Office of Education." Our job is to insist it is done and insist it is done well and see that it is done. It is our job to make sure there are universities and colleges, for example, really answer the survey. If they send out 2,000 questionnaires and they get back 40 percent, well, that is pretty bad and then it is our fault, then it is up to us to fight our universities and colleges and say, "You scream about the importance of it, give us results. Give us 80 percent, 90 percent return." PAGENO="0511" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 857 Now the parallel study is a research attempt to try to establish whether their new idea of how to do it is better than the old idea. We are using the same questionnaire they used before, so we have not changed the questions, you see. We are trying to make it a controlled study and from that point of view this is a cooperative venture. If we can possibly help it, we will not get into gathering library statistics when we don't think it is our job. I agree with you it is the job of the Office of Education; it is one of the reasons my written statement cen- ters specifically on statistics. I have to use the one example to show what happened. We will continue the pressure, I can assure you. Mr. BRADEMAS. I just have one quick question, Mr. Trezza. What about title II of the Elementary and Secondary Act? Have you had any problems with respect to the church-state matter? Mr. TREZZA. We have not had any. I have not actively engaged in that in Illinois. I have worked very closely with the department of public instruction. In fact, I am a Catholic, so I have been working with the parochial schools. I am in a position to be aware of it. I say at least in Illinois we have had no trouble whatsoever, it has worked out fairly well like all new accounts with the guidelines on time, but on the whole we have done fairly well and we are kind of pleased with the way it is going. It needs a lot more work and we are struggling to make it better. Mr. BRADEMAS. Thank you, Mr. Trezza. Very stimulating testi- mony. I appreciate it and so does Mr. Quie. Mr. Wright of the National Congress of Parents and Teachers. Mr. Wright is not here. Dr. Joseph Ackerman, president of the National School Boards Association. Would you go ahead, Dr. Ackerman. STATEMENT OP JOSEPH ACKERMAN, MEMBER OP THE ELMHURST, ILL., BOARD OP EDUCATION, AND PRESIDENT OP THE NATIONAL SCHOOL BOARDS ASSOCIATION (The statement of Mr. Ackerman follows:) STATEMENT PRESENTED ~ Dn. JOSEPH ACKERMAN, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL SCHOOL BOARDS ASSOCIATION I am Dr. Joseph Ackerman, Member of the Elmhurst, Illinois, Board of Edu- cation and President of the National School Boards Association. It is in the latter capacity that I am appearing before this committee today. The National School Boards Association is a non-profit federation of the state school board associations of the fifty states, the District of Columbia and the Virgin Islands. This association, through its member school boards associ- ation, represents approximately 15,000 local school boards of districts in whIch over 95% of the public elementary and secondary school students are enrolled. The primary objective of the association is to work for the improvement of public education. This includes a concern that local citizen involvement in education policy making be preserved. In this objective, the association strives constantly to expand its services and functions to better assist state school boards associations and local school board members in their respective tasks. Our schools began as local institutions responsive to the people which support them. More than 130,000 citizens serve voluntarily on the school boards of the country, usually without pay. In many cases this amounts to a part time job with virtually full time responsibility. PAGENO="0512" 858 U.S~ OFFICE OF EDUCATION We should always keep well in mind that school board members represent the public which owns and supports the schools. School boards spend taxpayers' money, and they are responsible to the citizens for their actions. The NSBA is the only national organization representing school boards throughout the United States and is recognized as one of the nation's major education associations. On several occasions during the past two years the National School Boards Association has testified before the Congress concerning its philosophy and policies and its position on proposed legislation. In the fall of 1965 the National School Boards Association sponsored five area conferences involving a broad representation of those interested in education around the country; the main topic of discussion at these conferences concerned the roles of the national, state and local levels of government ineducation. The National School Boards Association welcomes the opportunity to appear today before this sub-committee studying the United States Office of Education and related matters. The XSBA is aware of the importance of representatives of local and state educational agencies being involved in policy making for legis- lation at the national level. It is also interested and concerned about the opera- tion of the United States Office of Education and how it affects state and local education. Cognizant of the fact that educational activities of the federal gov- ei-nment are not limited to those programs conducted by the United States Office of Education, the NSBA also has interest in the programs of other governmental agencies involved in education. We might summarize the concerns of the NSBA about the involvement of federal governmental agencies in education programs under five headings: The first of these regards the fragmentation of educational programs among many governmental agencies. The 1966 Delegate Assembly, XSBA's governing body which represents its member states at the Association's Annual Convention, passed a resolution concerning this scattering of educational programs. The resolution states: "The NSBA Delegate Assembly urged that federal education programs affect- ing elementary and secondary education be administered at the federal level through the United States Office of Education; at the state level by state depart- ments of education.; and at the local level by public school boards." The NSBA endorses federal aid to education but will continue to concern itself with the effect this aid may have upon local and state responsibility for the public schools. NSBA has reservations about the implementation of educational programs which are not channeled through the proper educational authorities and which are not under the control of the local board of education. Such a program is illustrated by project "Head Start" which is conducted in some com- munities by non-public school agencies. The National School Boards Association believes that educational programs supported by public funds should be admin- istered by the public school agencies so that the total educatiOnal program will not be fragmented. This coordinated approach is necessary if the best educational program is to be developed. The second concern about the educational operations of the federal government relates to the guidelines or regulations which are issued by the various agencies responsible for these programs. The NSBA recognizes that it is necessary for the federal government to set up certain broad guidelines for the conduct of the programs which it administers. However, if these regulations or guidelines are so rigid that local initiative and local interpretation are stifled, then the NSBA must raise questions about theni. It is obvious that problems have arisen in large cities and small towns throughout the nation concerning the implementation of federal government educational programs. It has been reported that some local school districts, for example,, have failed to qualify in time for funds to which they are entitled because of seemingly excessive delay in the approval of their plans. NSBA believes that the local boards of education and the state departments of education, because they are close to the problem. are familiar with local conditions and, because of this fact, are better able to adapt programs to the specific needs of students to be educated. The NSBA is interested in helping develop the best educational program at the local level and feels that local and state agencies should be consulted early and often in the development of federal guidelines. Thirdly, the proposed decentralization of the United States Office of Educa- tion policy making powers to its regional offices raises the following questions: Will these offices simply be another layer in a bureaucratic structure through which requests for assistance from the United States Office of Education must be PAGENO="0513" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 859 made-with the ultimate decisions still made at the national level? Or, will these regional offices truly eliminate red tape by being given decisionmaking power? What effect will the proposed extension of decisionmaking power to regional offices have on state departments of education? Will this increased authority of regional offices mean ultimately that federal education programs may be ad- ministered directly to the local district, thus bypassing state departments of education? If this is possible, then the NSBA would be in opposition to such extension of authority to regional offices. The 1966 Delegate Assembly reaffirmed its position on governmental participation in education as reflected in the fol lowing statement: ~merican Education-a local function a state responsibility and a federal concern The NSBA believes that all money which comes from the federal government to the local level should be channeled through the state department of education. The state department of education will be weakened and cease to have a viable function in regard to many of the programs for local school districts unless this procedure is continued. A fourth matter of interest to the NSBA is the role the United States Office of Education may have in promoting plans for nationwide testing, such as the proposed National Assessment Program presently sponsored by the Carnegie Foundation and others. The implications of such testing programs are serious and require thoughtful study by all those who will de affected-school boards, administrators, teachers. While there is no appropriation in the educational legislation passed during the last session of the 89th Congress for assessment pur- poses, this is no guarantee that appropriations previously asked for in the budget will not be requested to be reinstated in the future. While it is true that repre- sentatives of educational groups have been invited to meetings on the national assessment issue, NSBA believes that any possible national testing programs * must have the whole hearted active support of groups professionally and legally responsible for public education. As a fifth point, NSBA has an interest in the role of the United States Office of Education in relationship to the development of curriculum materials. If the United States Office of Education has a role in this area then the people who are working in the field of education should be consulted about developing plans. Private interests which are not directly responsible for education should have an incidental role in the development of such materials. For example, legitimate questions are being raised concerning governmental subsidization of the development of curriculum materials by profit-making organizations. The National School Boards Association, as the representative of local boards and state association, has a continuing interest in the development of federal education legislation. During the past two years the National School Boards Association has testified on the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, the National Teacher Corps Bill enacted in 1965 and the Judicial Review Bill proposed in 1966. Over a period of years NSBA has developed a set of policies concerning the beliefs of the Asociation about the principles underlying federal aid to education. For years the NSBA has supported certain kinds of categorical grants in which the federal government seeks to promote special programs in local school systems. NSBA recognizes that there are certain education issues that transcend state boundaries and that the federal gov- ernment has a legitimate interest in developing programs to meet the needs of national defense and the special needs of groups of citizens. At the same time, however, the NSBA has some concerns about the impact of too many categorical aid programs upon school systems. It is possible that, if these kinds of aids are continued without additional unearmarked aid being given, the curriculum may be unbalanced in support of special programs to the neglect of the general program. Therefore, at the 1966 Delegate Assembly of the National School Boards Association, a policy in regard to general aid to education from the federal government was adopted. This statement reads as follows: "The federal funds appropriated for public educational purposes should include funds in the form of general aid administered without federal control through the United States Office of Education and the appropriate state agency in accordance with state policy." Ageneral aid prOgram would provide the maximum kind of flexibility through which state and local school systems can meet the needs of particular localities. In addition to support for certain categorical aids as well as general aid, NSBA 73-728-67-pt 2-33 PAGENO="0514" 860 u.s. OFFICE OF EDUCATION for several years has been in favor of financial aid to school districts in which~ federal government installations affect population and revenue. Another concern that the National School Boards Association has about federal educational legislation is that oftentimes programs are adopted and funded for too short a period of time. Recognizing the legal restrictions upon appropriating money ahead of time of use, the National School Boards Association feels that steps should be taken to insure that the need for long range appropriations might be met. One of these would be careful consultation with the Bureau of the Budget about future financial needs of federal education programs which have been inaugurated. The NSBA feels that the involvement of local and state policy making groups in the gathering of the necessary information to be presented to the Bureau of the Budget and to the Congress would do much to overcome the problems of short range appropriations. Otherwise, programs instituted one year sometimes have to be curtailed the next year for lack of funds. In addition, there actually have been instances where programs authorized have not been funded in time for them to be put into effect by local school systems. Schools plan programs and adopt budgets before July 1. Yet, in some instances, federal programs are not funded until after the school years begins. One of the more serious concerns that the NSBA. has about educational legis- lation which has been passed by the Congress during the 89th session is that many programs were implemented too rapidly. Inadequate planning time for local school systems to prepare to put the programs into effect has caused many problems, including inability to adequately staff the programs, These problems at the local level have increased our attention to the role of the federal govern- ment in education. There also has been a failure to consider state and local administrative costs in the funding of programs. While it is true that some effort has been made dur- ing the past year to include these costs in funding, a serious situation still re- mains. Certainly, consultation with local and state educational agencies would have helped avoid some of these problems. The final concern which I will mention here today which has serious implica- tions for federal legislation is the provision of financial assistance directly or indirectly to non-public schools. Such assistance violates, in the view of NSBA, the principle of church-state separation. This assistance to non-public schools is a matter of practical concern as well, because public schools will surely be weakened if multiple tax supported school systems are permitted or encouraged to develop. The NSBA, in its testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee on March 10, 1966, emphasized these points. The NSBA firmly believes that some provision must be made for the church-state question to be resolved by the Supreme Court of the United States so that the Congress may be guided in pass- ing future educational legislation. The National School Boards Association has worked for many years with other national organizations and with the United States Office of Education on educa- tional matters. NSBA feels strongly that established organizations and school boards must be consulted constantly about pending proposals for all educational legislation. Bypassing or failing to consult fully with these groups will result in a lack of understanding and surport for educational proposals. NSBA par- ticularly hopes that the lay point of view, as reprsented by the school boards of America, will be solicited and utilized because school boards are close to the educational needs of the community. We stand ready to assist in providing representation on advisory committees and other planning bodies, The public school boards of America, united in the several state associations and federated into the National School Boards Association believe "Education is the Bulwark of Freedom." They believe our universal system of free public education is literally the nation's first line of defense andy the greatest con- structive force in the position of the American peoplefor the preservation of their freedoms and for advancement of the democratic way of life. They hold that public schools will keep America strong and free if America's public will keep the schools free and strong. And firm in this conviction, the NSBA works con- stantly to strengthen local bOards of education and supports the strengthening of state departments of education so they may carry out effectively the functions which are reserved to them by the United States Constitution. The NSBA firmly believes that it is better for local citizens to control the educational program than it is for a remote bureaucracy. In this way the needs of the local community can be bettermet and the schools will remain flexible intheir approach to edu- cational problems. PAGENO="0515" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 861 Mr. ACKERMAN. I am Joe Ackerman, a member of the Elmhurst, Ill., Board of Education, and president of National School Boards Association and it is really in this capacity that I am here before you today. Just a little background on the National School Boards Association. It is a nonprofit federation of State school board associations. We have approximately 15,000 local school boards or districts in which over 95 percent of the elementary and secondary schopl students are enrolled. I would say that the objective of our association is primarily to work for the improvement of public education and as such we try to expand our services to better assist our State associations to do a better job. Our schools in general began as local institutions and our associa- tion has been set up to support them. We have over 137,000 citizens that serve on school boards, most of them without pay. For many pf them this is a part-time job actually with full-time responsibility. I would say that the NSBA is the only national organization represent- ing school boards throughout the United States, and as such it is recognized as one of the Nation's major education associations. We did sponsor a series of meetings a year ago, five area conferences in- volving a brpad representation of those interested in education around the country. The main topic of those conferences was concerned with the role of the National, the State, and the local level of government and education. We really welcome this opportunity to appear before this subcom- mittee today studying the Office of Education and related matters. I think what I would like to do is to present Our concerns under five major headings, the first of which regards the fragmentation of edu- cational programs among governmental agencies. Our own associa- tion in its 1966 meeting stated that- The NSBA Delegate Assembly urges that Federal education programs affecting elementary and secondary education be administered at the Federal level through the United States Office of Education, at the State level by State departments of education; and at the local level by public school boards. The NSBA endorses Federal aid to education, but we will continue to concern ourselves with the effect of this aid upon the local and the State responsibility for the public schools. Mr. BRADEMAS. Did the NSBA enforce the Elementary and Second- ary Education Act? Mr. ACKERMAN. Well, for years NSBA was anti-Federal aid. Then 2 years ago, being somewhat realistic and also the fact that a good many of the larger cities particularly were having difficulty financing, they passed a resolution that though they have been-and this I will bring out a little bit later-have been opposed to it categorically, they have always been for the general aid to education. I would say the one thing that we have been concerned with all along has been the channeling of the educational programs through the .proper educational authorities in order to preserve, let's say, State and local initiative and involvement in such programs. We think that these necessary educational programs t.hat are sup- ported by public funds should be administered by the public school agency so that the total educational programs will not be fragmented, PAGENO="0516" 862 U.s. OFFICE OF EDUCATION and that we think that this coordinated approach is necessary if we are to develop the best education program. Now the second concern that we have is about the education operation of the Federal Government relating to the guidance or regulations which are issued by the various agencies responsible for these programs. Now we recognize that it is necessary for the Federal Government to set up certain broad guidelines for the conduct of the program which it administers. However, if these guidelines and regulations are so rigid that you take away logical initiative and logical interpretation, then we have certain serious questions about them. It is obvious that problems have arisen in large cities and small towns throughout the country concerning the implementation of Federal Government edu- cational programs. It has been reported at some local districts that they will fail to qualify because of some seemingly excessive delay in the approval of their plan and KSBA behie~es that the local boards of education and the State departments of education, because they are close to the problem, are familiar with the local condition and because of this fact, are better able to adapt the programs to the specific needs * of the students to be educated. So NSBA is interested in helping to develop the best educational program at the local level and feels that the local and the State agen- cies should be consulted early and often in the development of any Federal guidelines. Mr. QuiE. Were you consulted at all by the National School Board Association? Mr. ACKERMAN. I would have to refer this to you, Bob. Mr. WILLMOT. To the best of my lniowledge, NSBA was consulted in some capacity during certain stages of the development. You talk about elementary and secondary in particular. I believe this is true, but how extensive that involvement, was my background does not permit me to say with authority. Mr. BRADEMAS. Identify yourself for the record. Mr. WILLMOT. I am Bob Wilimot, director of information for the National School Boards Association. I have been with the associa- tion about. a year. Mr. ACKERMAN. I would have to say as I have gone to the State meeting and talked with them in the respective States about their particular problems, at least the impression that I got is they have not really had much voice in the preparation of the guidelines. Now our third concern is in the proposed decentralization of the U.S. Office of Education policymaking powers to its regional offices. There we have a number of questions that we would like to raise. Will these offices simply be another layer in the bureaucratic struc- tures through which requests for assistance from the U.S. Office of Educat.ionrnust be made-with the ultimate decision still to be made at the national level? Or will these regional offices truly eliminate some of the red tape by giving decisionmaking power? What effect will be proposed extension of decisionmaking power to regional offices have on the State departments of education? Will this increased authority of regional offices mean ultimately that the Federal education programs may be administered directly to the local district, thus bypassing many State departments of education? PAGENO="0517" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 863 Again as 1 have heard people discuss this at the various State as- sociation meetings that I have attended, I think this is the one area where you have a great deal of concern among the State people that it may mean a bypass of education at the State level. If this is possible, then our organization would be in opposition to such extension of authority to the regional offices. The 1966 delegate assembly reaffirmed its position on governmental participation in edu- cation as reflected in the following statement: America's education-a local function, a State responsibility, and a Federal concern. Certainly we believe that all moneys that come from the Federal Government to the local should be channeled through the State de- partment of education, and that the State department of education will be weakened and cease to have a viable function in regard to many of the programs for the school districts unless we continue this pro- cedure. Now, the fourth matter of interest to NSBA is the role the U.S. Office of Education may have in promoting plans for nationwide testing such as the proposed natIonal assessment program that is pres~ ently sponsored by the Carnegie Foundation and others. The implication of such testing programs are serious and require thoughtful study by all those who will be affected-school boards, administrators, teachers, and others. While there is no appropriation at the present time in the educational legislation passed during the last session of the Congress, this is no guarantee that~ appropriations previously asked for in the budget will not be requested to be rein- stated in the future. I would say again as I have heard board people talk that the very State meeting in this area where they have a great deal of concern, certainly it is true that representatives of educational.groups have been invited to the meetings of our national assessment issues. We believe, however, that any such program ought to have a whole- hearted active support of the groups that are professionally and legally responsible for public education. Now, the fifth point, NSBA has an interest in the role of the U.S. Office of Education in relation to the development of curriculum mate- rials. If the U.S. Office of Education has a role in this area, then the people who are working in the field of education ought to be consulted about developing plans, and private interests which are not directly responsible for education should have an incidental role in the devel- opment of such materials. You have a lot of people raising questions concerning the govern- mental subsidization of the development of the curriculum materials by some of our major enterprises. The National School Boards Association, as the representative of the local board and of the State association, has a continued interest in the development of Federal education legislation. During the past years we have testified on the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, on the National Teachers Corps, on judicial review. We haxe developed a series of policies concerning the beliefs of the association about the principles underlying Federal aid to educa- tion. We have supported in the past certain kinds of categorical grants in which the Federal Government seeks to promote certain programs. PAGENO="0518" 864 U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION However, NSBA recognizes there are certain education issues that transcend State boundaries and that the Federal Government has a legitimate interest m developing programs to meet these needs of national defense and also the special needs of special groups. At the same time we are really concerned about the impact of too many categorical aids upon the school system. It is possible that if the,se kinds of aids are continued without additional unearmarked aid being given, then you might develop an unbalanced curriculum and at the same time not give attention to some very important areas. So here on this particular question again the delegate assembly said that the Federal funds appropriated for public education purposes should include funds in the form of general aid administered without Federal control to the U.S. Office of Education and the appropriate State agencies in accordance with State policy. Now, a general aid program would provide the maximum kind of flexibility through which State and local school systems could meet the needs of their particular locality. In addition to support for certain categorical aids as well as general aid, NSBA has for several years been in favor of financial aid to school districts in which the Federal Government installations affect the population and also its revenue. Another concern that we. have is that oftentimes programs are adopted and funded for entirely too short a period of time.. They can give you an opportunity to really plan and to make arrangements for the program itself. . .. . . . .. . . , Now, recognizing the legal, restrictions upon~ appropriating money ahead of time of use, the NSBA does feel that steps should. be taken to. insure the need for long-range' appropriations might be met. One of' these would be careful consultation with the Bureau of the Budget about future financial needs of Federal education programs which have been inaugurated. The NSBA feels that the involvement of' local and State policymaking groups in the gathering of the neces- sary information to be presented to the Bureau of the Budget and to the Congress would do much to overcome the problems of short-range appropriations. Otherwise, programs instituted one year sometimes have to be cur- tailed the next year because of lack of funds. In addition, there have actually been instances where the programs authorized have not been funded in time in order to be put into effect `by the local school system. One of `the more serious concerns that NSBA has about educational legislation that has been passed through the 89th session is that many programs were `implemented too rapidly and, therefore, you have had inadequate planning time for the local school systems to put the pro- gram into effect and consequently, many, many problems arose and in many instances it was inability to even staff the. program. Now, these problems at the local level have increased our attention to the role of Federal Government in education. Also there has been failure to consider the State and local administration cost. While it is true that the effort has been made to include these costs in funding, you still have a serious situation at hand. Certainly `consultation with State and local agencies would have helped, I think, to have avoided a good many of these problems. Mr. Quin. Could you cite an example `here when you say "Failure to consider State and local administration costs"? PAGENO="0519" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 865 Mr. ACKERMAN. Yes. The added cost is the planning and the ad- ministration of the operation of the fund itself within the State. Mr. QUIR. Why isn't it good that the State at least do this much? Mr. ACKERMAN. I think in many instances it is. But when you come and foist a big program upon the State when they have not been really prepared for it in some cases it does overload your administra- tive staff and you are not equipped administratively to handle it. Mr. QuIE. I think in title I of the Elementary and Secondary Edu- cation Act, there was an amount set aside for administrative costs. Mr. AcKERMAN. This year? Mr. QuIE. Right from the very beginning. The problem that came up is that the State didn't receive its funds until they had approved projects and therefore, they didn't have any money in order to analyze whether they would approve them or not, so it came late. Yet they had the assurance of the money coming, so it is not that they would be out of it entirely. The only criticism I have gotten so far was when we shifted adult education from OEO to the Office of Education. Prior to that the Office of' Education was still administering it for the OEO and then they provided some money for the States to administer it. Now, I understand no money was made available to the States for that purpose so I. `could see a valid criticism for the transition., Other than th:at I have always had a strong feeling that you would have more independent administration of this legislation if it is paid by the State for the most part. With Federal help you get it started. In fact, I would like to see all administration money cease after the program gets going `and have it `all picked up by the State and local communities. Then nobody could claim they are being told how they can administrate their program. Mr. BRADEMAS. It may be so I say to my friend from Minnesota it will be interesting to see to what extent the milj~tant* advocates of State and local control of education are willing to invest some State and local money in the administration of these programs ~once~ they havethat opportunity. Mr. ACKERMAN. I certainly feel there needs to be a great deal of in- volvement. In fact, as far as I am personnally concerned I would like to see the State provide the majority of funds. I would like to see a minimum of Federal support. In many instances, it will require some State legislation, however, in order to change some of your revenue laws. Well, the final concern that I would like to mention here today is this provision of financial assistance directly or indirectly to nonpublic schools. In the view of NSBA, such assistance violates the principle of church-state separation. This assistance to nonpublic schools is a matter of practical concern as well because public schools will surely be weakened if multiple tax- supported school systems are permitted or encouraged to develop. In the testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee on March 10, 1966, NSBA emphasized that some provision must be made for the church-state question to be resolved by the Supreme Court of the `United States so that Congress may be guided in passing future edu- cation legislation. PAGENO="0520" 866 U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION Mr. QUIE. May I ask you a question about specific legislation now? In title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, it provides that the funds be made available even if they attend parochial schools; however, any program is administered by the local public school. The same way with title II. There are schoolbooks, mostly textbooks, and library materials available but in this case the property belongs to either the local public school or in at least one instance, the State department of education, which is a public entity. Do you have any objection to that system of Federal assistance to the children of the private schools? Mr. ACKERMAN. Of course, I t:hink we need to support and supply education to all youngsters. On the other hand, I think one has to `be very careful in this particular area. Are you going to raise the question "Are you going to support public schools or are you going to support all private schools"? The. minute you begin to proliferate your support. and let it move in the direction of th~ other, I think you are going to weaken the public school sys- tern, and this is what concerns me. It concerns me not only. from what I hear in t.he United States but in the many Opportunities I have had to visit schools in other areas, in other countries. `Where you have the development of a strong pri- `vate school system, you always find your public school system even- tually being weakened. Mr. BRADEMAS. I believe you just used the phrase "The minute you begin to move in the direct.ion of providing assistance to private school children." Mr. Qm~. I think you used the word "children." Mr. BRADEMAS. You mean to say you would oppose school lunch, school milk programs for children in parochial schools, as an instance of moving in the direction you feel would be dangerous? Mr. AcKERMAN. Well, the comment I made was that I think one needs to be very careful. Mr. BRADEMAS. No question about that, but that is not my question. You . see, we are engaged in making significant distinctions on this committee. `We really do not survive by sort of cloudy generaliza- tions. We have to decide what happens in the bill. `What do you say on that kind of a question? Mr. ACKERMAN. The minute you begin moving in on one, where do `you stop? Mr. BRADEMAS. So you would oppose school lunch programs for children in parochial schools? Mr. ACKERMAN. I would oppose using Federal funds for private schools. Mr. BRADEMAS., `Well, that is not my question. I myself do oppose Federal grants to parochial schools but that is not the question that Mr. Quie or I are putting to you. Mr. Qu~. `We oppose it and have the same concern you do, but in drafting the legislation we felt that we found a means where we could assist the children of the private schools, stay within the Constitution, leave the jurisdiction imp to the public schools as you want, and try and find this common ground where both the private school, peop'e and the public school people could work together. PAGENO="0521" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 867 From' what I have ob~erved, these people have worked together better now than ever before in history. This has brought, them into a dialog which to me should strengthen education. As I have observed, the big change which will, be created by that legislation will `not come in the public schools but in the private schools. We are going to see a revolution of thinking in the private schools because of this legislation. If anybody ought to be concerned, it ought to be the private schools because they can't corrupt the education in, this country, but the Government being involved in their activities could corrupt what they are doing. I believe it was Monday of this week the papers carried an article of a new study just completed by the Catholic parochial schools. Mr. ACKERMAN. I saw that. Mr. QuIR. And the changes that have been wrought in those schools. If they are going to close down `some of their colleges and contemplate the same with their secondary schools, just imagine what would happen if one of the public junior colleges in a particular community was closed down after that. Mr. ACKERMAN. I think as far as I am `concerned I covered most of the items I `had in the formal report. Mr. BRADEMAS. Doctor, thank you very much. I notice we have with us George Tipler, the executive secretary of the `Wisconsin Association of School Boards. I have just quickly looked at his statement and find that it is on all fours with yours. I would suggest that Mr. Tipler come on up to the table and join Dr. Ackerman. If you don't mind, Mr. Tipler, we will put your statement in the record and we will ask questions. (The statement follows:) STATEMENT OF GEORGE TIPLER, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, WISCoNSIN AssOCIATION OF SCHOOL BOARDS, INC. The Wisconsin Association of School Boards is a voluntary statewide Associa- tion of 400 local public school boards representative of school districts educating over 95% of the children in Wisconsin public schools. The Association policies are determined by the annual Delegate Assembly of official delegates of its member districts. Operating control is vested in an elected board of directors consisting of eleven persons who are local board mem- bers in districts representative of the membership. The Association Secretary is the manager and is responsible for the program of services, information, and communications which, involves the Association. The Association conducts a full program of institutes, conferences, conventions, meetings, newsletters, and visitations. It is upon the basis of these contacts and activities that the Association respectfully submits this information for the Special Subcommittee on Education. The Wisconsin Association of School Boards respectfully submits these issues on behalf of its officers and as a concensus expression from its membership among Special Sub-committee on Education. I. REGIONAL SCHOOL BOARD MEETING OPINIONS 1 The Association recently completed a statewide series of regional drive-in meetings of local school board members and superintendents. The written reports from their small group discussions resulted in the summaries in the attached materials. , School Board concerns were: 1 The voluminous papeiwork in present federal piogrims is objectionable 2. Identification of deprived youngsters.. Schools aren't prepared or qualified, to identify economically depri~ ed youth 1 Attached statement of Association policies and summary of 1966 Regional School Board meeting discussions. PAGENO="0522" 868 U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 3. Time factors-_employing a staff, deadlines for budget determination, future appropriations, etc. 4. Shortages of qualified personnel to meet program needs. 5. Delays on program information and USOE decisions. 6. Project development and approval frustrations. II. FEDERAL STATE-LOCAL RELATIONSHIPS The school boarls of Wisconsin, individually on a widespread basis and col- lectively by majority decision, are concerned about and opposed to the extension of the U.S. Office of Education as it reaches down and out to the state and local educational provinces. 1. The local boards prefer to have their State Department of Public Instruc- tion as the intermediary between local education and the federal government. 2. Local boards are disturbed by the ever extending local infringement by the U.S.O.E. Boards object to subjecting their decisions to non-school organiza- tion sanction as in the case of community action agencies. They are also dis- turbed by the siphoning off of public funds to support private or non-school organization program in competition with local public school programs. 3. Local Wisconsin boards have confidence that their State Education Agency can serve and administer the federal programs. We feel that the Congress could assign a greater State Agency role in the federal programs. If the states aren't capable of this assignment, then correct those deficiencies but not ignore the competent agencies. 4. Local school boards are convinced that the USOE programs and guidelines would be more easily implemented and understood if local board members and superintendents could have counseled during the development stages. III. PUBLIC SCHOOL ADMINISTRATION FOR EDUCATION PROGRAMS Wisconsin is somewhat unique with its historic dual (Public education and vocational education) system which does affect local public (grade 1-12) edu- cation. In our state the vocational system is now becoming a statewide post- high school system, but federal legislation has prevented some of the historic vocational programs from being relegated to the public schools (Smith Hughes, etc.). Also, our boards are concerned about the trend toward a proliferation of jurisdictions in local education programs. 1. Local Wisconsin school boards want programs and funds for elementary and high school education programs to be allocated directly to and distributed by the State Superintendent. 2. Wisconsin boards want their State Superintendent to be recognized officially in the design and promulgation of any educational preparation or training for youth below grade 12. 3. Proposed guidelines for Title III (PL 89-10) contemplates grants for "dual enrollments", "studying ways to improve the legal and organizational structure for education", "Making available-educational equipment and especially quail- fled personnel-to public and other nonprofit schools", and "providing mobile educational services" and "proposals shall include evidence that representatives of appropriate culture and educational resources have participated in the plan- ning and will participate in the operation." These broad references and provi- sions are further alarming when considered as being a direct independent local organization contract with the USOE and little State Superintendent involve- ment or correlation. IV. PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION Some Wisconsin school districts are becoming involved in more than one federal program and in some cases more than one under Title I of P.L. 89-10. The planning, drafting, administration, etc. is extensive and may involve, con- currently, services to more than one program by individual staff people. 1. Wisconsin boards are most anxious to have the law or guidelines modified to allow local board to allocate a fixed sum or percentage from each federal pro- gram to an administrative fund or pool from which to employ and pay for defined administrative services under these programs. This would avoid the arbitrary separation of á~lministrative personnel service and charges among various programs with the resulting accounting and assignment complexities. PAGENO="0523" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 869 2. The Wisconsin professional school employe contract law requires that each employe be notified of renewal or non-renewal of his contract for the succeeding school year, on or before April 1. Wisconsin school boards must have definite answers before that date regarding the status of their federal programs being financed on an annual basis. Local boards can't understand this "deferred decision making" practice and ask for revision to provide at least a one year advance assurance on each federal pro- gram-approval and funds. 3. Wisconsin school boards repeatedly complain, and their administrators complain, about the nebulous, inaccurate and discriminatory criteria of economic deprivation as a qualification for the Title I (Pb 89-10) funds. Our people feel strongly that the educational deprivation criteria is more reasonable and equally justifiable for the presumed federal goals. V. AID PROGRAMS The history of the federal programs has been one of categorical aids. This is serving to fragment the educational program and, more particularly, the administration. 1. Wisconsin board members are becoming more concerned about adequate financing of present programs. We need property tax relief or funds for present programs as badly as new programs in the opinion of many Wisconsin board members. 2. Many new programs aren't a relief for our present tax load but, instead, extra burden. The local boards aren't in sympathy with additional categorical aids. Wisconsin school boards repeatedly express concern over the growing super- vision role of the 1IJSOE. They will prefer limitations on this role. Our boards are concerned about revenue for educational programs benefiting all students. They don't like nor are they convinced about the singular merit of special programs for poor, gifted, handicapped, etc. when we can't assist average students equally. The greatest relief to our members would be consolidation of programs, more authority in the State Education Agency and less administrative complications and fragmentation. 1966 REGIONAL MEETING DISCUSSIONS, WISCONSIN ASSOCIATION OF SCHOOL BOARDS, INC., WINNECONNE, Wis. The Wisconsin Association of School Boards has recently concluded a series of 14 Regional Meetings, attended by 2,000 school board members, school admin- istrators, other school administrative personnel and citizens. The schedule of meetings was Randolph, September 27 Shawano, October 11 Dodgeville, September 28 Two Rivers, October 12 Milton, September 29 Greenfield, October 13 Nekoosa,, October 3 Peshtigo, October 17 Westby, October 4 Tomahawk, October 18 Amery, October 5 Mellen, October 19 Neenah, October 6 Stanley-Boyd, October 20 At each of the 14 regional meetings a representative from the Department of Public Instruction reviewed the impact of the federal aid to education programs on local districts in 1965-66. The WASB Executive Secretary also reported on current education issues in Wisconsin and issues which the State Legislature is likely to consider in 1967. Following the presentations at each meeting, board members and administra- tors met in small discussion groups to discuss recent developments in education. A summary of the reactions of the discussion groups to key questions is presented below: I. Major problems laced by districts in connection with nse 01 Federal school aid in 1965-66. The problems mentioned most often by the discussion groups at the 14 WASB Regional Meetings were: 1. Getting personnel to develop and submit project applications-extra load on administrator and clerical staff. 2. Shortage of teaching personnel to staff new programs. PAGENO="0524" 870 ThS. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 3. Paperwork, research and evaluation-red tape. 4. Indentification of deprived youngsters under present Federal criteria. 5. Uncertainty about future aids once programs started. 6. Time factor-money allotted too late in school year. 7. Schools weren't staffed and ready to develop programs. 8. Poor communication and interpretation guidelines for local districts. 9. Equipment shortage and delivery delayed-inability or delay in getting instructional materials. 10. Lack of information-delay and Federal indecision. 11. The reports are too technical. II. TVhat changes, revisions or new concepts would (10 the most to make Federal funds more useful for or more easily used by school districts? The suggestions mentioned most often by the discussion groups at the 14 WASB Regional Meetings were: 1. Simplify reporting requirements-less red tape 2. More local-state discretion as to how funds should be used-general aids preferred rather than categorical aids 3. Change basis of appropriations-1960 census statistics out-dated. 4. Continuing program-not year to year. Allocations and appropriations might be ddtermined 2 years in advance so plans could be made. More time for planning needed. 5. Funds needed for school construction and property tax relief 6. Need more assurance tha~t funds will be available on a continuing basis. 7. Provide schools with funds to improve some of the present educational pro- grams which the local districts feel are needed-general aids. Less restrictions as to how the funds are to be used-especially for rural school districts. III. TVhicl~ type of Federal school aids would be best-General aids or special program. aids as are now being provided? Delegates at the regional meetings in rural areas favored, for the most part, general federal aids allowing for more discretion by the local school district as to how the funds will be used. Several references were made about the need for general federal aids to education, with local and state determination of the de- ficiencies in the local district and how the funds should be used. Delegates at the regional meetings in urban area (Greenfield particularly) seemed to be more in favor of categorical special aids because: 1. general aids invite control 2. there are too many abuses in the application of general aids. 3. special program aids are more efficient and guarantee, in pailt, that certain expectations will be met. At the regional meetings in urban areas there was more divided opinion as to whether special program aids or general aids would be better. IV. S'lzou.ld all high school level vocational education be operated and supervised by the ~nibiic school system? Why? Practically all of the discussion groups expressed concern that there be proper coordination and administration of the vocational education programs at the secondary school level; and that this coordination would best be met if the vocational education programs were supervised by the public school syaiem. Many of the discussion groups favored the establishment of area vocational school districts on public school district lines rather than county lines. The groups mentioned that the Department of Public Instruction was the state agency best equipped to supervise the vocational education programs at the secondary school leveL TT. TVhat are tii e most important problems affecting public education which thi e legislature should consider in 1967? The problems which were most frequently mentioned at the 14 WASB Regional Meetings were: 1. Property tax relief for education costs (highest) 2. Professional Staff issues: Supply, contract breaking, opposition to job ten- ure, and employment negotiations on wages, hours and employment conditions. 3. Increases in state aids for local public education 4. Boundaries of area vocational school districts 5. School district reorganization problems PAGENO="0525" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 871 6. Make teaching profession more attractive 7 Educational TV for Wisconsin 8 Rising costs of school construction 9 Vocaitional education training (secondary and post high) RESOLUTION POSITIONS ADOPTED ny WASB DELEGATE ASSEMBLIES FEDERAL LEGISLATION AND REGULATIONS School program The WASB and its membership pledges to cooperate with other groups in pro- moting an "all out" effort to formulate programs which will serve, all youth in preparation for their earning careers The WASB will explore possible means for greater utilization of high school vocational facilities and personnel includ- ing sponsorship and development of programs outside of the regular school hours. 1/22/64 The WASB is on record in favor of maximizing consumption of dairy products, and especially butter, in our school lunch programs. The dairy products for school lunch and welfare programs should be purchased in the market to the extent they are not available from CCC stocks. 1/20/65 Ta~vation of trailer homes The WASB shall invite other organizations concerned about the depletion of the local tax base to join us in an attempt to secure provision for funds to com- pensate for any state or federal property ownership or easement program which results in a loss of tax base or revenue to the school districts. 1/22/64 State aids WASB asks the Legislature and the Legislative Council Biennial Aid Adjust- ment Committee to implement the provision for an annual guaranteed valuation figure in the state aid formula; continue to accentuate the integrated school pro- gram in the aid formula, resist any attempts to modify the present state aid con- cept and give* favorable attention to an increase in financial support for schools from other than property tax sources. 1/24/62 National The WASB is on record in opposition to the creation of a national board of education. 1/24/62 The U.S. Office of Education has been developed over a period of years as a coordinator of statistics; a coordinator of educational research; and the admin- istrative agency for special national programs or projects. The WASB does oppose any extension of programs or authority of the U.S. Office of Education which may adversely affect the authority of local school boards and our historic concept of the organization of our system of education. 1/24/62 The WASB opposes any federal appropriations providing funds for the U.S. Office of Education which may allow extensions of present programs of federal aid or infringe upon the responsibilities and prerogatives of local school districts in determining their programs, when such programs meet state statute require- ment. This position assumes that the state and local communities will design and implement tax and aid programs which will provide the funds necessary for our schools, while effecting local property tax relief. 1/24/62 The Association shall continue to investigate the local effect of programs be- fore the Congress and communicate with the members of Congress regarding the policy of the Association toward the programs being considered. 1/20/65 The WASB requests that the State Superintendent have exclusive jurisdiction over all federal funds, programs and personnel involved in the public school operation and that existing legislation and policies be modified to provide this jurisdiction. 1/20/65 PAGENO="0526" 872 U~S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION Whereas, the Association wants to correctly represent the opinions of its local member school boards in communications to Wisconsin Congressmen and for purposes of voting at the National Association Conventions, the Association re- solves to poll its local member school boards on the questions of supporting or opposing the extension of federal aid programs. 1/20/65 American field service The WASB endorses the American Field Service program to bring about a better understanding and spread goodwill between their countries and the United States of America through these students. 1/24/62 (Jompact for education The Association urges Governor Knowles and the Legislature to join the COMPACT FOR EDUCATION and urges that provisions be made for representa- tion of local school boards on the Wisconsin delegation. The WASB strongly urges that the Wisconsin Compact delegates insist on appropriate representa- tion from, and attention upon, public elementary and~ secondary education and that the Compact Commission exert efforts to modify the present fed- eral policy of categorical aids for education. 1/19/66 Other agencies The WASB commends and continues to support the variety of research projects directed by the State University and other institutions or groups. 1/21/60 Department of public instruction * The WSAB recommends and will support action by the 1963 Legislature to initiate a constitutional amendment to provide for an elected state board of education with powers to establish policies and appoint a state superintendent. The Association further directs that the Association President reactivate the former WASB State Board of Education Committee. 1/16/63 Mr. BJt~DEMAs. I have a couple of questions. Dr. Ackerman, what percentage of school board members in the country are elected and appointed? Mr. Acunn~rAN. You know I can't really answer that but the ma- jority of them are elected. I can't give you the exact figure. In fact I don't recall that I have seen that but the majority of them are elected. Mr. BRADEMAS. I have three or four questions on some of the points you raised. As I understand it you would like to see the public school districts assume responsibility for Project Headstart programs. I personally am openmirided on that although my bias leans against your proposal and I will tell you why. I will be a devil's advocate and you can respond. Until the passage of the Economic Opportunity Act, we didn't really see much leadership or initiative on thepart. of the local public. school systems in providing Headstart type programs. Now, we have a Headstart program going outside the school system and has generated very widespread support in the country. It would seem that the public school systems, the public school dis- tricts, would now like to get on board the glory train and take it over. What do you say when that kind of a charge is leveled against you? In other words, where were you, why weren't you out there providing leadership? Mr. ACKERMAN. I think this one I could answer because I can give you both sides and in fact, I have given both sides in various meetings that I have attended. PAGENO="0527" U.S~ OFFICE OF EDUCATION 873 I think that quite often on some of these things we need some innova- tive types of programs. I would also say that there are lots of people at one tune or another in the educational field that raise the question of where do you begin on this Now, I think that the experiences definitely show that this is a good educational envirOnment certainly for a segment of the population and it may be that it is good for the entire segment. This we don't know. In other words, where should we begin our edu- cational program with all our youth, not only with the culturally de- prived. Certainly we have seen that from an educational point of view these youngsters do get something out of this. Now, if it js education at that particular point, then it seems to me we ought to begin involving the educational agencies. Now, I do think this, however, because it was so uncertain and I think we would have to say that it was uncertain. These types of things could best be done outside because after all, let's say they had completely failed. Mr. BRADEMAS. You are not saying that you only want to get on board the successful ones? Mr. ACKERMAN. No, no, no. Many innovative schemes ought to be tried outside first. Mr. BRADEMAS. Mr. Tipler, you had a point you wanted to make. Mr. TIPLER. In Wisconsin we had a Headstart; it was called 4-year- old kindergarten. We didn't know it was Headstart. We experi- mented with this for :a number of years. In view of the tremendous impact after the war on our regular school program in order to prevent any part-time sessions and to meet our building programs we had to consolidate. We kept our program going and concentrating on those years from the regular kindergarten through high school in my particular juris- dictions. However, if the Federal Government is in the position of having some funds to be made available after. we have exhausted ours and we keep current with our primary responsibilities, we think that we are in the position-we have the know-how-to do this if we can just get the funds, that we shall provide. Mr. Qur~. I feel so strongly about the transfer., of Headstart from OEO to the Office of Education, that I don't want the record to be left vacant without me Saying a word. The Opportunity Crusade Act, which I introduced last year for revamping of OEO, included this transfer and from all I have been able to observe in testimony and talk- mg to people, I am even more convinced now that the Headstart pro- gram, in fact the education portions like Heŕdstart program under OEO ought to be transferred over to the Office of Education. I am glad that more and more people are coming to that opinion as well. `:" Mr. BRADEMAS. I wanted to use another. example. We `have not touched on this problem very much in our discussions and I think it is very relevant to the whole operation of the ESEA and the Office of Educition I refer to the problem of de facto segregation in the schools. This is one of the reasons I asked you if most of your sch6ol board members PAGENO="0528" :874 u.s. OFFICE OF EDUCATION were elected or appointed, `because that could have some impact on my question. - - Running throughout' the entire testimony of both you gentlemen is a-n2 apprehension about too much involvement of the Federal Gov-' ermnent' and about diminution of State and local responsibility, if that is a-fair summary. Would it~ not be fair to turn to this terribly complicated problem that we all know faces us, would it not be fair to suggest that one way to- keep- the nose of the `Federal camel out of the tent would be for local public school districts and State departments of public instruc- tion to take some initiative and some leadership~in solving the problem of de facto segregation?.- In that way, you could have a good posture from which to say that the Federal Government might not be `the one to push so hard in this respect. The National Association of School Boards, what are your people doing in this respect? Are you facing up to this problem? Are you trying to provide leadership through your local school boards to attack this problem? Mr. ACKERMAN. Well, I would sa.y that we have had the general policy all through the years that we needed to provide equal educa- tional opportunities for all a-nd that you had to have full access to educational responsibilities and this had to be done without respect to race, ethnic backgrounds, religion or even in your social-economic conditions, so this has been more or less the general policy. Now, when you are operating as the national organization you can voice the overall general policies that there should be no barriers, and yet you can't go out and eliminate all ofthe-m. Mr. BRADEMAS. I am deeply saddened by your response but not surprised. It is easy to enunciate policy but I would just say this: I don't think local school boards should complain if Uncle Sam begins to move in this field, if they are not doing anything at the local level aside from passing resolutions. Mr. ACKERMAN. I think we have been doing more-than just passing resolutions. Mr. BRADEMAS. Tell me, what have you been doing? Mr. AG MAN. When you hold a series of meetings on this question and you stress the importance of the elimination of these barriers and you stress the need of joining with all community leaders in eliminat- ing all of these evils in these barriers, I think you are doing something. I think you can only~move so rapidly in a situation such as this and I, personally, feel that when you begin to utilize the schools as the means of bringing about some social le islation. you are making education suffer, you see. But I think at the same time you have got to move in this direction as rapidly as you can get people to move. Mr. BRADEMAS. To somebody who has been in Congress for several years you have just uttered a very revealing sentence. I would be very glad if you could give us `a memorandum telling us in rather specific, concrete ways what the NSBA has been doing aside from passing resolutions and holding conferences to enable our coun- try to attack what 1 think most of us would agree is perhaps the thorniest problem in American public education today. PAGENO="0529" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 875 What are the State departments doing in your judgment, Mr. Tipler? Mr. TIPLER. I am glad you asked that, Congressman. I would hate to have the record have this void. In Wisconsin, we have had some studies on this. We are in support of legislation which would recom- mend that the State legislature appropriate money for these problems. We are in support of this. Now, we cannot make the legislature appropriate money but our support is directly in this area. I think that our school boards in Wisconsin or the records of our school boards in Wisconsin are such that they bear anyone's examination. I think, in their commitment to educational materials, to educational professional staff members, to facilities and so forth, they have tried to attack this problem in a realistic manner. They have gone just as far as local resources will allow, and they have committed resources above and beyond what the average is getting. I think in this respect we do not hide anything. We are proud of our record and we would be willing to have our record examined. We did not, as might be the case in Minnesota, have a widespread problem here, but we have it in different areas involving different kinds of situa- tions. We have Indian boys and girls for whom there have to be different kinds of programs. So, in this respect, I think we have been moving, we have things to which we can point, we have not been waiting for the Federal Government. Sure, if there are additional funds available, we could put more pressure on some of these problems and attack them to a greater extent with more resources. I think the one thing we are concerned about, Congressman-two things-we have been trying to keep our overall commitment up to date and we think we have done a good job on a current basis. That is one. The other, in our State we think we have a very competent superin- tendent-and they are, too, attacking and I believe our State superin- tendent's office is scheduled to report to you this morning and I think they can point to specific instances and I will defer to them. But we would like to make this point, Congressman, that in our case, we think that we have a State department capable of implementing the guidelines or the direction set by Congress or by the U.S. Office. We would like, then, and this is one of my points on pages 2 and 3, to have the legislation provide that in those cases where they do have competency, you he willing to accept that they be allowed more lat- itude. In those areas where you feel they have some deficiencies, that you allow the Education Office to :beef up the department instead of bypassing the department to deal directly with the local boards. in our humble opinion, this would be more fruitful. In the case of the people I represent, we could accomplish much more easily, your objectives along this avenue. Mr. BRADEMAS. I find both of your points very encouraging. Let me say to make the record clear, the reason I made the statement as strongly as I have is just as one member of this committee I get very annoyed with people who say "We will keep the Federal Government out of this. We will do it at State and local level." 73-728-67-pt. 2-34 PAGENO="0530" 876 U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION Then when one looks at the State and local level, they are not doing anything. The best way to keep Uncle Sam's nose out of these matters is to solve the problem at the State and local level, really to attack the problem at the State and local level and not approach them in a sort of papier mache way. I just have one other question before I yield to Mr. Quie. Mr. Ackerman, you commented on the whole business of assessment of how we are doing in our elementary and secondary schools which, of course, is important to us because if we are supposed to vote public moneys, we would like to know if we are getting our money's worth. As I recall your statement, you did not object to assessment and evaluation as such, you wanted to be consulted. Would you have any objection to the kind of evaluation and assessment that we have been reading about in the papers if it were financed privately by nongovern- mental funds? Mr. ACKERMAN. You see, I have been in this research area all my life, particularly in the field of agriculture, as Mr. Quie knows, and `consequently, I think I have a real appreciation of the difficulty of making an overall national assessment. Now, school people themselves are always assesing and eva.luting, and your State univeristies are also evaluating and so forth. I think your~ major fear and concern is not in this question of evaluating be- cause we have been testing our youngsters on many, many different kinds of tests. I think the real question is that these tests not be taken out of their contexts and used for purposes for which they were not designed. After you get a national test, it is quite frequently very easy to do that. If you take it out of its context and use it for something it `is ~ot de- signed for, it may not give the right decisionmaking answers. This is your major concern among your educational people `and~ I think also the major concern of the School Board Association. Mr. BRADEMAS. Mr. Quie. Mr. Qmi~. I would hope that since we are meeting in Evanston there will be somebody before the day is out who will tell us about what is being done about the integration of schools in Evanston. `I `read about this and heard about it on the radio when I was driving through Chi- cago a couple of weeks ago. I was kind of impressed by the results of the survey that was made in the Evanston area and what is being attempted here. So I am still waiting patiently for this but I cannot ask anybody from Wisconsin. Mr. ACKERMAN. Nor someone from Elmhurst. Mr. MousELI1~. You will be meeting with them at lunch today. Mr. Qurs. Mr. Tipler, you said on the second page of your state- ment here in item No. 2 in your' regional school board meeting opinions:' Identification of deprived youngsters. Schools aren't prepared or qualified to identify economically deprived youth. Why do you say that? Mr. TIPJJER. I think if there is one thing that our regional meetings produced, Congressman, it was the fact that the school beard mem- bers-and I believe this probably is in some measure true about super- intendents-are confused about this. PAGENO="0531" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 877 There is identification of qualification based upon the economically deprived, and then when they get to the schools, they have not identi- fied these people. They say if you have a concentration you have to design a program for this. We have many medium- and small-sized school districts.. Some have two centers. Trying to identify programs for one or. other of these schools or maybe even three or four centers in our medium-sized school districts becomes very confusing. These people say it is very easy for them to identify the children that have prthlems in learning or problems of educational depriva- tion. If they are to relate this to economic deprivation, they become confused and then we learn there is some correlation, and then they become more confused. They say if you are going to allow us to design and bring boys and girls ahead in their economic achievement, we are equipped to do this, we can identify it, we can do it. But when you mix in this element of the unknown of economic deprivation with no identity and this kind of segregation, we are not as well equipped to handle this, and they really become confused. If you want to get school board members~ pounding on tables, you get into a discussion of this. For whatever it is worth, this is their confusion and I would be remiss in not reporting this. Mr. ACKERMAN. I could add to that because I have heard this ques- tion discussed in a number of State association meetings which I attended and they expressed exactly the same feeling. The minute yOu begin to break it down on the basis of economics, how are you going to determine that without asking some questions? Parents don't like to have some of these personal questions asked. Mr. QrnE. Then we find a dilemma where the Federal Government can determine from the census figures who are 7 years old now, which you can't do, but the Federal Government can't determine what an educationally deprived child is because neither in the first legislation nor when it was extended, did anyone write a definition of an educa- tionally deprived child. Nor could the Office of Education tell us who they were. Do you feel on the local level you can tell who the educationally deprived child is who needs help? Mr. ACKERMAN. On the basis of test. Mr. TIPLER. This is what our professional educators are trained to do. In our humble opinion, if I speak for my colleagues, we think that with the cooperation of our State department we. can achieve that purpose or we can lean toward that goal in a realistic manner productively. Mr. QUIE. Then another question. On page 3 of your statement, Mr. Tipler, on the bottom of the page you refer to title 3 of 89-10 and leave some questions on whether you approve of dual enroll- ments and inclusion of the other nonprivate schools.. You come to the end and say that it is further alarming when considered as being a direct independent local organization contract with the TJSOE and little State superintendent involvement or correla- tion. PAGENO="0532" 878 U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION Now, would you approve of this relationship which you find alarm- ing if all of title III programs had to go through the State depart- ment of education for approval and even better a State plan devised for title III before the State could utilize that program? Mr. TIPLER. Precisely. congressman. Mr. QUIE. You would not have any question with the relationship with private schools? Mr. TIrLr~n. I am not prepared or authorized to respond to that kind of question, but the State plan idea and the State department involvement, this is something about which we are concerned and this is something we would like to support. We would hope that the Congress would see this as a possibility. Mr. BRADEMAS. Just at that point, Mr. Quie, since it is an exception to my point a moment ago, I will have to take exception to his. Based at least . on my conversations with local school superintendents, many of them do not want what they regard as unwarranted State. inter- ference and State intervention with their, as they regard it, sovereign local capacity to put together title III applications. School superintendents not far removed from where we now sit have expressed to me real misgivings about the ability, to be very blunt about it, of State departments of public instruction to provide them with very imaginative .or innovative leadership. So I would have to disagree with Mr. Quie on that one. Mr. QmE. I am glad.t.o report t.hat the national organization does not agree with the local people in this area and I find that there is now developed a unanimity not only with the school association by NEA and the Association of Secondary School Principals a.nd the Associa- tion of School Superintendents as well. I think we are coming along. Mr. TIPLER. I think you are entitled to a response to that, Congress- man.. I think this focused more directly my original contention that maybe upgrading some of the competencies in the State departments would be the answer. I don't believe in our State that we would have the consensus that you are expressing. I think that we have a most excellent rapport with the superintend- ents in the department of public instruction and I don't believe they would take exceptions. Mr. QUIE. Dr. Ackerman, you indicated genera.l support for gen- eral education. Now has your association prepa.red any suggested formula that should be used? Mr. ACKERMAN. No. Mr. QmE. Are you going to be doing that? Mr. AcxER~L~. We t.hink it ought to be on some formula basis and I say we certainly would give some attention to tha.t. Mr. Qmu. I hope that some specific recommendations will be forth- com1flg. Also you say you testified on the National Teacher Corps. Now that you have observed it operate for a short period of time, have you any comments about support or lack of support? Mr. ACKERMAN. That question I could not. answer because I was not the one that test.ified on it and I have had an opportunity of sitting in PAGENO="0533" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 879 on some State extension service meetings where we discussed that. I would say that on the basis of some of the discussions that I have heard that I think probably-Mr. Tipler might be able to be a bit more specific because I have not had any direct contact, but I have not had any real criticism. Mr. QUIE. Do you have any knowledge of it? Mr. TIPLER. I am not prepared to reply, Congressman. I am sorry. Mr. BRADEMAS. Thank you very much, gentlemen. It has been very useful and helpful testimony. Can we now hear from Mr. Archie Buchmiller? I notice you have an extremely long and I am sure very thoughtful statement. Do you think you can summarize it for us pretty quickly so we can ask you some questions, because we have a number of other witnesses. STATEMENT OP ARCHIE A. BUCRMILLER, DEPUTY STATE SUPER- INTENDENT OP PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, STATE OF WISCONSIN (Prepared statement of Archie A. Buchmiller follows:) PREPARED STATEMENT OF ARCHIE A. BUCHMILLER, DEPUTY STATE SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, STATE OF WISCONSIN i\Iaclam Chairman, members of the committee, it is a privilege for me to appear before your committee. My name is Archie A. Buchmiller, and I hold the position of Deputy State Superintendent of Public Instruction. It is a pleasure for me to represent Mr. William C. Kahl, State Superintendent, and the Wisconsin Depart- ment of Public Instruction, the educational agency responsible for public elemen- tary and secondary education in Wisconsin. Our agency does not serve higher education nor post-high school vocational, technical and adult education programs in the state of Wisconsin. These programs are the responsibilities of other state boards or agencies in Wisconsin. Thus, of necessity, my remarks to you must bear only on federal programs affecting public elementary and secondary education. The Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction has approximately 450 em- ployees of about which 150 are at the Schools for the Blind and the Deaf. We are the administering agency for the National Defense Education Act, the Ele- mentary and Secondary Education Act, Public Law 874 and 815, Title XIX of Public Law 89-97, the in-high school phase of the Vocational Act of 1963, Menominee County aids, school lunch and milk program, surplus property and a member of the Governor's Task Force for implementing the Economic Oppor- tunity Act. Federal programs administered by this Department Involved over $30 million in fiscal 1966. Wisconsin has a school enrollment in 1966-67 of 890000 pupils in the public schools, 264,000 in private schools and approximately 42.000 professional staff in our public elementary and secondary school system. It is not my intent or desire to take a negative position with respect to federal aid to public elementary and secondary schools or to arbitrarily criti- cize the operations of the U.S. Office of Education. Rather, I hope my comments may provide you with some of our viewpoints and concerns. ft is our firm conviction that the educational well-being of each state and of the nation as a whole can be best assured over the course of time by strong leadership on the part of state departments of education; by effective per- formance on the part of local school districts (which in the end must carry out any educational program, be stimulated and administered by federal or state agencies) ; and by a supportive federal role which insures that the federal interest is recognized and that the primary objective of equitable dis tribution of the national wealth to the states is fulfilled. In our opinion, the best role of the federal interest is one which enhances the state and local agencies. States and communities, like individuals, are different, and each must ultimately develop its own operational education programs. We do not believe that the local school district has the right to be ineffective, but we do support tl~e position over the abOve certain minimums, each local community has the right to develop as good educational programs as it desires. PAGENO="0534" 880 U.s. OFFICE OF EDUCATION Wisconsin school districts spent approximately $460.00 per public elementary and secondary school pupil during 1965-66. Of this figure approximately $196.00 is state support and $264.00 is local support. To maintain this level of per- pupil expenditure, the local school district must rely on local property taxes for 60-70% of its revenue. Educational improvement and expansion at the local level must be supported by state and federal sources of income, for only in this way can the local district obtain the necessary capital without establishing oppressive levels of property taxation. This year the state of Wisconsin will approach the 30% level of financial support for the operation of local district educational programs. $303,354,000 is being requested by the Department in its 1967-69 biennial budget for state aids to Wisconsin school districts. In the long run, significant improvement in education cannot be effected with- out financial assistance from the federal government. Redistribution of a part of the national wealth to each state is essential for long-range educational well-being. Thus, the issue for us is not whether we should or should not have federal aid; rather the critical issue, in our opinion, is what type of categorical aid, prescriptive control, and administrative processes should ac- company federal legislation. We are concerned that the 89th Congress, though providing increased amounts of federal support to education, bound that support by greater specificity, increased administrative control, and many more requests for information and statistics. This increased specificity taxes the local school district and the state agency and necessitates the development locally of greater administrative capacity in order to prepare applications, operate programs, gather data, and comply with reporting requirements. We understand that such specificity, in many cases, sterns from the natural concern of Congress about legislative programs and the needs of the U.S. Office of Education in reporting to Congress about programs it administers. We hope that the Congress will, to a great extent, look to each state and its educational agency or agencies for assurance that the intent of Congress is being fulfilled. We believe it desirable that each state educational agency be designated.as the agency responsible for administering federal aid programs in the state according to the appropriate legal structure and administrative pro- cedures, of the programs. Each `state has its problems in administering federal education programs. Federal definitions for categorical aids often differ from those used by the state (for example, the term equipment as versus that of supplies). The de- velopment of a regional depository plan for Title II library resources runs counter to the Wisconsin philosophy of developing strong libraries in each school. The, direct federal-to-local district relationship provided for in Title III is detri- mental to the development of a purpose and direction in supplementary centers and services funded by federal and state programs. Incompatibility as mani- fested in'the above examples makes it difficult for federal and state programs to be mutually supportive and complementary. A major consequence of this Incompatibility is the increasing tendency of local school districts to set aside or Ignore state goals, objectives, and administrative procedures in order to qualify for federal aid. I recognize that the committee is pressed for time. Rather than give a detailed report at the present, I Invite you to request any information from the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction that will prove useful to the committee. With your consent I would like to conclude my presentation by discussing several concerns of the agency I represent. 1. The Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction would prefer that a gen- eral distribution of federal funds earmarked for education be made to the state for priorities determined by the state. If general aid is not expedient or feasible in the near future, then we emphaticaliy endorse federal programs utilizing the state-plan method of operation, such as the National Defense Education Act, the Vocational Act of 1963, and Title VI of the Elementary and Secondary Educa- tion Act, rather than programs requiring detailed state applications and federal guidelines, as in Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. We believe that we can effectively assure fulfillment of the intent of Congress for Title I by means of the state plan procedure which has been the pattern of the National Defense Education `Act arid the Vocational Act of 1963. 2. We hope that, rather than proliferate individual programs of federal aid, the Congress will consider the utilization of general categorical plans, each of PAGENO="0535" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 881 which could carry numerous aid channels. In this way, existing programs could be consolidated under the most effective existing channels with a minimum of change and organization. 3. We strongly urge you to give serious consideration to the principle whereby all federal educational programs available to the states would be administered by a single federal agency rather than multiple federal agencies and whereby an educational agency or agencies in each state would be designated as the ad- ministering agency for these programs. Examples of programs for which this principle would be applicable are the pre-school program and the adult basic education program under the Office of Economic Opportunity. 4. Our school year starts with an upswing in Septem.ber and ends with a downswing in June. Educational planning for this period must be done at least three to six months in advance. This lead time is necessary not only for recruit- ment of personnel, but also for action to be taken on educational programs by local school boards and school electors during the annual school meetings in July. Crash programs initiated after the beginning of the school year and late appropriations cause problems. For what are probably good and valid reasons, guidelines from the Office of Education are usually not developed and finalized until after the authorization and appropriation of funds by the Congress. As I am sure you are aware, this practice causes additional time lags and sometimes results in the hasty develop- ment of administrative guidelines prior to consultation with state and local agencies. Moreover, the prescriptive guidelines and administrative controls of the Office of Education oftentimes tend to over-reach what seems, upon intensive reading, to be the intent of legislation. Programs and administrative guidelines developed under the press of time sometimes require precipitous changes at the federal level. Although such changes can be made quickly and effectively at the federal level, follow-up at the state and local levels cannot be accomplished so expeditiously. Commit- ments already Incurred by contractual relationships and programs already initiated are not so easily or quickly altered. 5. Many local districts are already over-taxed. In fact, the poorer ones that need federal assistance the most can become over-burdened with the dollar- matching requirements of federal aid programs. Dollar matching strips such. local districts of the fiscal ability of adapting their educational programs to local needs. Carried to an extreme, .state and local agencies may well become follow- up agencies for federal programs rather than agencies with the goal of . closing educational . gaps at the local level. We must encourage and maintain local. responsibility and initiative and enhance the quality and quantity of the whole educational endeavor at the local level, rather than therapeutically, treat only the most serious symptoms of our educational deficiencies. 6. We support the conversion of Title III of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act to a state-plan operation which will permit each state to admin- ister its plan of supplementary services and centers. We maintain that the primary responsibility of providing general services to local districts should rest with the state agency mmd the local school district. The only reference to the state role in the proposed guidelines for Title III is the following: "118.49 ~S~tate educational agency review and recommendations. "In order to afford state educational agencies a reasonable opportunity to re- view and , recommend project proposals submitted within a State, the Commis- sioner will not take final action with regard to any project proposal, nor will the Advisory Commmittee on Supplementary Educational Centers and Services make its final review of any project proposal, until 30 days after the applicable deadline date established by the Commissioner for the filing of project proposals by local educational agencies." The direct federal-to-local administration of the existing Title III program bypasses fundamental state responsibility and thereby sets a questionable precedent. If, in fact, the federal Interest in the stimulation of ea~emplary demonstration programs should be maintained as part of the Title III package administered by the U.S. Office of Education, the relationship of Title III and Title IV which now finances regional laboratories, and research and demonstra- tion centers must be explored. PAGENO="0536" 882 u.s. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 7. It is our conviction that Title V of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act carries with it the fewest number of undesirable side effects. We would support the elimination of the existing 10 per cent line item budget controls. We acknowledge that Title V support at fiscal 1968 levels or above will materially assist the state educational agency in becoming one kind of educational leader- ship force needed within each state. Title V will develop state agencies to the point where they will provide a far more effective administrative performance than is now possil)le. 8. We believe that the educational research information centers developed under Title IV of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act should serve as clearinghouses of information for state educational agencies which, in turn, should be charged with the responsibility of disseminating information to local school districts within each state. One advantage of this approach is that com- munication channels from state agency to local district already exist. 9. In view of the increased demands for basic educational data and statistics by the U.S. Office of Education and by the Congress, we would endorse an in- tcnsive effort under Title N of the National Defense Education Act to develop, as rapidly as possible, a comprehensive and uniform educational data system for elementary and secondary schools. The development of such a system would insure the transmission of compatible and comparable educational data by state educatmonal agencies to the U.S. Office of Education. 10. The federal government seems to be bending toward even greater specificity and administrative control in its educational aid programs. Prescriptive detail narrows the options available to state agencies and local school districts. For example, guidelines for Title II programs during fiscal 1967 suggest that the state consider establishing geographic area depositories for library resource materials acquired under Title II. Further details spell out such aspects as annual catalogue lists, circulation, recall inventory, and redistribution regarding the depositories. Preliminary estimates from some of our districts indicate that costs of administering such depositories would consume from 20 to 25% of the district's allocation. This type of program and its underlying philosophy run counter to our state goals of building strong school libraries where students have daily access to these resources. Another example of such prescriptive detail is found in the proposed guide- lines for Title I, "(g) Each application by or through a State educational agency shall contain an assurance that the State educational agency will make such other reports to the Commissioner as be may reasonably require from time to time to enable him to perform his duties under Title I of the Act. Such reports shall include a disclosure of any allegations which may be made by local educational agencies or private individuals or organizations of actions by State or local educational agencies contrary to the provisions of Title II of the Act or the regulations in this part. a summary of the result of any investigations made or hearings held with respect to those allegations. and a statement of the disposition by the State edu- cational agency of those allegations. It is recognized that the responsibility with respect to the resolutioli of such matters rests, in the first instance, in the State educational agency." Having explored various implications of the federal, state and local partner- ship. we propose that the role of the federal interest should be to stimulate and encourage the development of strong, effective state and local partners. As we recast the traditional roles of the three above-named agencies, we will need to be reminded that strengthening any one of the partners at the expense of either or 1)0th of the others will not. in the long run, serve the best interests of education. In conclusion, we respectfully urge that the Congress consider supplying needed federal resources and funds to the state with a minimum of prescriptive detail and administrative control; that it consider charging the states with the major responsibility of complying with the intent of Congress: and that it consider en- couraging the most effective mix of local, state and national resources in order to carry out the interest of all three. Thank you for offering me the~ opportunity of presenting these remarks to you. I will try to answer any questions that you may have as well as I can. PAGENO="0537" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 883 [APPENDIX A] ADMINISTRATIVE RELATIONSHIPS AND CONCERNS 1. The relationship and responsibility between regional offices and the Wash- ington office are not clear; as a result, most of the state agency's contacts are with the Washington Office of Education. 2. Administrative procedures and guidelines may, from time to time, be hastily conceived. For example, Title I guidelines were revised two or three times while the program was being initiated. It is also apparent that fiscal 1967 guidelines will not be finalized until December or January. We recogaize that late Congressional action may have an effect on the development of guidelines. While difficult to achieve, we would hope for maximum participation of state agency staff in the development of guidelines and mandatory administrative procedures. 3. Administrative procedures in federal guidelines often seem to place high priority on compatibility with federal procedures without needed flexibility for state and local administration (i.e. letter of credit freeze requesting program balance in middle of a month rather than end of month or quarter). 4. Peak loads of state and federal reporting occurs at the beginning arid end of the school and fiscal year. Increased program reports at these times taxes the performance of local and state agencies. The incidence of late or delinquent reporting has increased significantly the past two years. 5. Approval of fiscal operations by the U.S. Office of Education, such as intra-state re-allocation, ratable reductions, ratable increases, should be left in the hands of state agencies in order to avoid time lags and to expeditiously make funds available for program operations. 6. Technical assistance from the U.S. Office of Education depends upon per- sonnel from the Office of Education thoroughly understanding the legal and administering operations of each state. For numerous reasons, personnel from the U.S. Office of Education are not always familiar, nor possibly can they be with impact at the state level. For this reason greater reliance should be placed on the state to administer within the intent of.Congress and within exist- ing state channels. 7. Communication is one of our most critical problems. Various sources many times provide a series of conflicting interpretations. We believe there is a great need for the U.S. Office of Education to provide prompt, comprehensive, official communications on program changes, authorization, entitlement, etc. Up-to-date official information is essential for common understanding. 8. Upon occasion we find gaps in policy and administrative action. Probably this cannot ever be totally overcome, it should be minimized to the greatest degree possible. 9. Whether fact or fiction, there seems to be some inclination to believe regulations and guidelines are developed to secure compliance with the intent of Congress based upon performance compliance from the agencies least able to perform. Individualized general state plan procedures can be developed to meet unique and individual state abilities. state plan procedures are preferred by us to federal administrative guidelines. 10. One of our most formidable problems in the State educational agency is responding to requests for information. Not only do we have definition problems, multiple collection of same information (dates arid data conflict can cause the collection of the same information within 15 to 30 days). While it would be a great asset to know everything, increasingly it is apparent this is not possible. Our problem, state and federal, is to collect data which is significant and mean- ingful within a total system approach with maximum compatibility between state and federal systems. 11. Education program efforts are rapidly expanding. It is, and promises to become, a large effort. We believe serious policy decisions need to be made as to responsibility for given areas of our total effort, if duplication of effort is to be avoided and maximum compatibility betw-een local, state and federal efforts are to be achieved. PAGENO="0538" APPENDIX B LINE AND STAFF O~I6ANIZATIOft Augast 1, 1965 STATE SUPERIP1TENDENT D.piity Stat. Sopasint.cd.nt [ Assistant S e,int,ndact - Dicisiec L Adchttnstian and Staff Saccicas - Adniniatnatica Satcic.. F lanai nslans&P.cn.d..n.o L,9al SaccIcas Rcs.acohlaccica. [ ~;!i~1 Asse. Sop?. - Dicision of icscnnicticnal SC,cICC~ Ass?. Scnpf. - Dicisian fcc Handicapped Chiidc.n Adoiac,y Cccclnn., F~nL~&ocy Ekcnntony&S.candccy E.i.cc,lon] Asat. Sops-Din. of - Fi.idlocn. taLocallohis Assc. Sops - Din, of Sic?. Aids & School Financ. -~ Asit. Sop?. - Din. Pot Libtany S.coia.a haitian of T.ach.c Edo~~i~1 & Cactificatios HE ~pi:d Child.. Sccaio.a Snicaci cc ha Visn.ilp Hon~,~e~J Scf.a,ifo;nhaD.of - Ad,inisinatiac & Aid. I 0 0 I! Schaci lid0. 0 Plant Sacaica Sahaai noah A Ccics.dicy Sonaicai W.f.A.A. Lioi.ac ~;::cia~_jI1 Snot. Aid. ~~H.S.A.dO ~ Padacci Pcagcon Aid. j I Ed at Plaid Sccain.s 1 Gan.R.f.&Laan J Liatnn.oc. .P..iniia Libcaclcnsl Adcslci .ccasiao E~a°'i.~pcuna I T.anh,c Edonocioc ~ - Tccah.c C.cniiioonicc&Licccs~j Coonly Coii.a.. 1 Liai .anca T.aoh.c Tcainic5 PAGENO="0539" APPENDIX C Expenditures and budget for 1965-67 and 1967-69 bienn!um~ Expendi- tures, 1965-66 Estimate, 1966-67 Total, 1965-67 Request, 1967-68 Request, 1968-69 Total, 1967-69 Biennial in- crease or decrease Percent blen- nial Increase or decrease LOCAL ASSISTANCE AND SCHOLARSHIPS .. Elementary and secondary school aids $96, 110, 718 $115, 276, 500 $211, 378, 218 $122, 836, 500 $129, 906, 700 $252, 743, 200 $41, 355, 982 20 ~p General transportation 8, 171,815 8,912,000 17, 123, 815 9, 230, 500 9, 730, 400 18, 960, 900 1, 837,085 11 Foster home tuition 343,420 1, 188, 000 1, 531, 420 1, 338, 900 1, 526,000 2, 864, 900 1, 333,480 87 Tuition of certain children 31, 728 35, 200 66,928 86, 900 96, 000 182, 900 115, 972 173 County teacher college aids 661, 179 690, 000 1, 351, 179 744, 100 623,000 1, 367, 100 15, 921 1 Cooperative service agency aids 551, 000 551, 000 1, 102,000 551, 000 551,000 1, 102,000 0 0 P4 Menominee County aids 44,000 44,000 -44,000 -100 C) Indian scholarships and aids 130, 019 178, 550 308, 569 195, 250 209, 300 404, 550 95, 981 31 ~ School library aids 970, 210. 880,000 1,850, 210 920,000 960, 000 1, 880,000 29, 790 2 Driver education 766, 875 991, 700 1, 758, 575 1, 116, 700 1, 241, 700 2, 358, 400 599, 825 34 County superviser teacher aids 378, 702 378, 702 -378, 702 -100 County superintendent aids 86, 358 86, 358 -86, 358 -100 National defense education 2, 482, 969 1, 756, 917 4, 239,886 1, 748, 526 1, 748, 528 3, 495, 054 -744,832 -18 School lunch aids 2,072,945 2,210, 000 4, 282,945 2, 370, 000 2, 530, 000 4, 900,000 617, 055 14 School milk aids 2,608,023 2, 660, 000 5, 268,023 2, 710,000 2, 760,000 5,470, 000 201,977 4 Vocational education 232, 623 1,089, 215 . . 1, 321, 838. 1,074, 551 1,070, 771 2, 145, 322 823, 484 62 ~ ESEA education of disadvantaged children 10, 360, 015 17,820,000 28, 180,015 17, 820,000 17,820,000 35, 640,000 7, 459, 985 26 ,-3 Handicapped children, aids and transportation 6,966, 949 8, 145, 026 15, 111,975 9, 136,805 10,099, 355 19, 236, 160 4, 124, 185 27 ~ Library services aids 355, 884 376, 035 731, 919 378, 035 376, 035 752, 070 20, 151 3 Library construction aids 303 599 640 403 944 002 640 403 640 403 1 280 806 336 804 36 ESEA school library and instruction materials 3 831 2 206 365 2 210 196 2 206 365 2 206 365 4 412 730 2 202 534 100 Library scholarships 13, 438 11, 750 25, 188 11, 750 11, 750 23, 500 -1, 688 -7 Total 133 646 300 185658 661 299 304 961 175 114285 184 105307 359 219 592 59 914631 20 SOURCE OF REVENUE Segregated revenue 1 737 085 1 871 700 3 608 785 2 036 700 2 201 700 4 238 400 629 615 17 Program revenue 18, 863, 329 29, 220, 985 48,084, 314 29, 445,885 29,658,407 59, 104, 292 11,019,978 23 General purpose revenue 113, 045, 886 134,565, 976 247, 611,862 143, 631, 700. 152, 245, 200 295,876, 900 48, 265,038 19 PAGENO="0540" 886 U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION APPEIcDTX D Cost of administration of Federal aids to localities programs, fiscal year 1966-67 Federal State Total NDEA III, V, NFAH Lunch milk and commodity distribution Vocational education: Matched by State funds in department of vocational and adult education $105,823 80,785 $92,484 189,151 80,785 $198,307 189,151 161.570 ESEA: Title 1 180,000 -- 180,000 ESEA Title II 46~ 4b Indian education including Public Laws 874 and 815 Crippled children funds A and B Library Services and Construction Act Administrative and staff services: Portion of State expendi- tures superintendent, business office, etc., which applies to the Federal aid programs above- Estimated ~~~~=17.6%XS204,9S4== Total 23,449 290,000 140,995 (1) 140,995 36,077 23,449 290, 000 281,990 36,077 893,514 539,492 1,433.006 I All crippled children administration is paid by CC Federal funds. Federal amount includes every- thing in the way of consulting and supervising services it should plus some it shouldn't-only possible exception is L. Block, H. Donahue, and Secretary, but then there would have to he changes. The reverse of this of some of the Secretaries' time. NoTE-The following programs not counted: ESEA-title V-apps. 151, 451, and 851. Federal English language arts program. Surplus property charges. Lunch program handling charges. NDEA-title X. Mr. BUCHMILLER. I believe I can suiurnarize~ my statement, because many of the salient points have already been covered. I might say it is a pleasure tobe here. As you know I ~m the deputy Statesuperintendent of public instruction and I speak for William C. Kahl who is the State superintendent in Wisconsin, Department of Public Instruction. I want to emphasize that we are the agency for public elementary and secondary education in Wisconsin but do not represent the higher education or post-high-school vocational, technical, and adult educa- tion programs. Thus, my comments will have to be on the programs that relate to elementary and secondary and not the other areas. Also, I do not feel I am here to criticize either the Federal aid programs nor to arbitrarily take a negative position with respect to the U.S. Office of Education. Rather I hope that my comments might be reflective of some of our concerns, and that is about as far as I would like to go. I would like to also emphasize the fact I have only been a State employee for 3 years and a superintendent of schools for 17, so, neces- sarily, some of my bias from my former employment will probably wash over. Now, we are firmly convinced that the educational well-being of each State in the Nation as a whole can best be assured by strong de- partments of public instruction, by strong leadership, and by stimula- tion by the Federal Government in the development of comprehensive programs and that the primary interest of the Government ought to be the stimulation and development of programs, and not the operation and sustaining of those programs. Now, also it seems to us that in the long run, significant improve- rnent to education cannot be effective without financial assistance from the Federal Government, and it is necessary that there be some redistribution of some of the wealth to the States for educational well-being. PAGENO="0541" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 887 Thus, the issue for us is not whether we should or should not have Federal aid; rather the critical issue, in our opinion, is what type of categorical aid, prescriptive control, and administrative processes should accompany Federal legislation. Our issue, then, becomes with the administrating process of that Federal aid or grants, and in the controls that sometimes we feel com- ing along with that prescription administrative progress. I think that the increasing demand of Public Law 89-10 with the detailed application procedures tends to tax the ability of the local administrative agency. I just would like to emphasize a couple of points and let you inter- ject as you would. We hope that the Congress will look to each State with increasing assurance that the education agency in that State can become a viable agency and fulfill the intent of Congress rather than substitute separate administrative paths, and I will deal with that a little later. Each of our States has unique problems and sometimes the pre- scriptive administrative detail seems to cause certain problems. I would like to bring a couple of those out. For example, in title II, there is strong tendency to write in the current guidelines that will probably become effective in January of this year, a depository system. This kind of a system would run counter to our State philosophy of developing strong school libraries for use to issue materials to children in the school, of being an on-site kind of thing. Also, I allude to the direct locale to distribute relationships pro- vided for in title III as really being detrimental to the integration of State, local, and Federal courses of funding. There are some kinds of incompatability with that. We need to find a way to make those multiple rather than separate. Now, of course, we in the department of public instruction, I think, in the State would prefer a general aid of some type or another rather than the categorical paths. We recognize that this is perhaps u.n evolutionary process and not one for immeçiiate implementation. Therefore, we would urge you to consider the development of categorical paths, general ones, broad-band channels, if you please, which would carry a number of programs under similar addministra- tive processes. This would simplify our procedure. We urge you to give serious consideration to the principle whereby all Federal educational programs available to States would be ad- ministered by a single Federal agency. Again, I allude to 1-Ieadstart as an example out of OEO, or the Neighborhood Youth Corps under theLabor Department, and so forth. In the appropriation structure, I think you are well aware of the fact that. schools start in September and end in June and very often significant leadtime needs to. be available for planning, for staffing, for approval by the constituents of those districts, the electors who authorized programs. Now, with respect to guidelines, I think fOr good and valid reasons guidelines are issued late, they are not developed or finalized until after the appropriation. I think sometimes this causes some guidelines to be developed in some haste, because of the. timelag. Sometimes, within those guide- lines changes have to be made which I would almost call precipitous. PAGENO="0542" 888 u.s. OFFICE OF EDUCATION In other words, the administrative decision to follow up on this change at a local and State level requires additional time. I have a couple of examples, letter of credit, and a few other things. In dollar matching, we feel many districts are already overtaxed. When we put dollar matching on categorical paths, we begin to tax the local agulicies, and it strips them of fiscal ability to fulfill educa- tional needs at the local level. In a sense we become kind of a followup to a Federal program. If we carry this to the extreme of the categorical paths, .1 think we are going to become followup agen- cies rather than meeting the needs you indicate we should. `%7~Te would support the conversion of title III to State plan opera- tion and if you want to question our attitudes on this, I will define them for you. I would like to emphasize two things in title III. One is the fact that it is concerned with supplementnry centers and services, and lists such things as physical education, academic programs, sciences. We maintain that these kinds of services ought to be the responsibility of the local State agencies to fulfill. * Now, the second aspect is a secondary and exemplary program. I think the emphasis has been heavily on the innovation aspects. I suspect there is a stronger relationship to that focus or that thrust than to title IV through the demonstration programs there to the regional labs and so forth than there is to the previous concept of sup- plementary services that are needed by the children in the district. It is an area where we feel strongly we would like to have a stronger involvement in the administration. Now, as far as ERIC is concerned in title IV, ERIC is developing, there are some subcenters funded and so forth. We would believe in the dissemination of research information; there is a vast need, as we see it. The State educational agency has the liaison and the light now and somewhere in this network, this hookup~ the State educational role ought to have a function within ERIC. Also-and the last point I would like to make, 1 am going through these hurriedly so you can react with me if you wish-with regard to the guidelines in this prescription, I would like to cite the one thing I enumerated. The current guidelines will have it in some addition to the guidelines of last year, and some things like this give us concern. In item G of title I, let me quote: "Such reports shall include a disclosure of any allegations which may be made by local educatiOnal agencies or private individuals or organizations of actions by State or local educational agencies contrary to the provisions of title II `of the act or the regulations in this part, a summary of the result of any investigations made or hearings held with respect to those allega- tions and a statement of the disposition by the State educational agency of those allegations," et cetera. I think we have some concerns about the kind of statement in guide- Ii ties like this. What. does this mean? Our house counsel tells us that; an allegation is otherwise "hearsay." It leads us to feel that we are being used almost in a sense of enforcement concerning some kinds of problems that might develop concerning guidelines which could cause us someproblems. PAGENO="0543" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 889 The rest of the appendix A and B material you have in front of you. I just would like to call your attention to appendix D, which gives~ a breakdown of administrative expenses coming with the administra- tion of Federal programs.. We have in the department of public in- struction this fiscal year some $1,433,000 of administrative effort. This: carries with it about $893 of Federal support but it does mandat& about a half million dollars in State support to that effort; Irrespective of the Federal program, the State must make some effective effort. The rest of my being here would be at your pleasure, sir. Mr. BRADEMAS. Thank you very much, Mr. Buchmiller, for a very' useful statement. The Chair would like to note the presence of our distinguished. colleague Donald Mumsfeld, of Illinois. rrh.ough we don't have a, very wide platform up here, Don,. if you want to come join us, we~ would be glad to have you. Mr. RrTMSFELD. This is fine. Mr. BRADEMAS. Just a couple of questions `before I yield to Mr. Quie.. Mr. Buchmiller, first of all 1 am glad to hear you say what you just'. observed; namely, that the State of Wisconsin is itself making an~ effort to give some support to the effective operation of these Federall aid to education programs. I am a strong supporter of title V, in fact I am the one on our com- mittee who `offered the amendment that was adopted to double the~ administration recommendation for that title. I did so because I feel so very strongly about having strong State departments of public~ instruction. In that connection, I call your attention to page 4 where you remark on the increasing tendency to set aside or ignore State goals in order to qualify for Stat.e aid. It may be that the Federal programs them-. selves are one of the reasons but I suggest at least for your considera-~ tion that in other States, outside Wisconsin, of course, one of the rea- sons is inadequate help from State departments .of publIc instruction.. To be very blunt about it, local districts don't get adequate support' from the State legislatures. Consequently, a hard burden has corn-- pelled local school districts to look to where they can to get some help. Once again 1 come back to the same observation I made a moment ago to Dr. Ackerman, if we got more support for local edtication from the States, then you would not need to turn as often to the Federal Government. Mr. BudHMILI~iR. Congressman, I think we would acknowledge that most State departments of education have been created as a weak' administrating agency. It was expedient to keep those weak, and maybe in the 19th century, .this was a good philosophy~ I think today we are changing this philosophy. 1 would' acquiesce' that title V is the reai hope of really getting real leadership in the~ State departments. .. . . Mr. BRADEMAS. You remarked on the difficulty that the F~deral dollar matching re4uirement impOses on poor school districts. Rather' than relax the matching requirements for such districts, I have a rev- olutionary suggestipn. Why~ don't the State legislatures supply' additional St'tte moneys to those poorer school districts w ithin their States to enable them to meet the matching requirements~?: PAGENO="0544" 890 u.s. OFFICE OF EDUCATION Is it outrageous to suggest some modest State responsibility in these matters? Mr. BUCHMILLER. I think it is appropriate. I believe we are unique in the national picture that we have an equalizing State aid formula which recognizes wealth, the local effort and the number of pupils. For example some of our districts will get 25 percent aided by State aid, other States will get up to 70 percent. Now, if you will turn to appendix C, the next biennium we are asking from the State legislature, the people of the State of Wisconsin, $41 million more in State aid for such districts which they can use if we were to use State funds against Federal expenditures in any of their programs. Mr. BRADEMAS. I applaud that very warmly. That is a State re- sponsibility that I would hope would be emulated elsewhere, but I am skeptical. I have one other question. Can you give us any comment on any Problems that your office has encountered in the operation of titles I, II, and III of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act in respect of the church-state relationship? Mr. BIJCH3HLLER. First, let me speak of title I. As you are probably aware, we have about one-fourth of our total school population in Wisconsin in private schools, and we have some history of slowly evolving a relationship from private schools to public schools in shared time, clue to enrollment. Now, that has been slowly developing. `We do not really have any serious problems in the administration of title I, although there are those who would read into it that when you say "mobile equipment" when you say "equipment on loan," that those services and things ought to be more firmly on the site of private school than participating in the school in a public program. It is a growing understanding that needs to he developed. It is not really a problem. In title II I believe we avoided a problem whereby we had a separate plan and path by making resources available under two basic plans, one a distribution of funds to the local school or public school district, secondly by designating our State lending library as a de- pository for le.iiding to private school children. If we take the guidelines seriously with the regional depository plan which would designate depositories outside libraries to circulate all materials outside title II to all children between private and public, then I think we could start running into some trouble with that. distribution. Mr. BRADEMAS. Thank you. Mr. Quie. Mr. Qrir. I want to compliment you on an excellent statement. I think this is the kind of material that we need in order to make the proper decisions and amendments to the legislation this coining year. I have a. few questions I want to ask you. You speak of the great help that title V gives the State departments of education and because of some problem in beginning the State matching that great day was delayed. What do you think about State matching in the future? Mr. BUCHMILLER. I think we would like to avoid State matching for this purpose if possible. If that were not possible, then we would hope PAGENO="0545" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 891 that some kind of in-kind matching rather than cash matching of the dollars would be possible, and we would see the latter alternative as a workable one. In other words, we have many State dollars that we would lay aside just as we do in the Vocational Act of 1963 for salaries of teachers in institutions of higher learning. We could match that State expendi- ture against eligibility for vocational education money. If we could get this in title V we would work it out. For example, in fiscal 1968 in education if you should follow appropriation with authorization in the amount of $845,000 and if t.he matching require- ment should be written in on a 50-SO basis and we had to then present the legislature with a half-million-dollar matching bill at one time, I just suspect we would have some problems. Mr. QUIE. If we don't provide matching but provide 100 percent Federal money, won't we see an expansion of a concept that. I look on as dangerous-that of the employees who are hired with these Federal funds being looked on as Federal employees even though they are operating under the State laws? When there is a question of whether the full amount or only a por- tion of Federal money would be forthcoming because of the lateness of the appropriation, then these "Federal einployees" are the ones who are standing around wondering whether their jobs will continue or not. If this concept is expanded and there ends up. to be a large percent- age of federally paid employees in the State office, don't you end up with a grave danger of t.he State department of education probably being an arm of the Federal Government eventually? Mr. BUOHMILLER. I think the danger exists of the controls coming with the granting of those funds to the St.ate department which are negligible so that the State can put its priority to work. At least in our State the same set of civil service rules regulate both. On a per pupil cost for Wisconsin we get about $5.66 per pupil for the administration of our department. Of that, $3.06 comes from Federal money right now, and two dollars and some cents from State. * Mr. Quiu. But that comes along with the Federal money? Mr. BUOHMILLER. Yes, title I, title III, and so forth. Mr. QurE. Do we include title V in that? Mr. BUORMILLER. Yes. I don't believe we would feel a danger to becoming an arm of the Federal bureau for . the administration of Federal Government. If this were a grant-in-aid to the State department to exercise its own priorities to fund within State philosophy, I don't see this as a problem. ** Mr. QuIR. Not if it were granted to be commingled with State funds. I think you would have less of a danger if it were commingled. The employees would feel that at least a portion of their salary still would come from the State and they would not be out in the cold if no Federal money was forthcoming. Mr. BUCHMILLER. We had a ruling from the Attorney General when. the moneys were received in the State. They were then treated in the same manner as State funds, and subject to the same control. Mr. QuIR. Being treated in the same manner but not commingled, some people are employed with Federal money. If that Federal money 73-728-67--pt. 2-35 PAGENO="0546" 892 U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION would not have been forthcoming, it would not have been a reduction in money for all people, but some would have been without a job. Mr. BUCHMILLER. No; let me cite an example. In title V the people we hired were initially 281,000 in fiscal 1967. The State of Wisconsin has picked up the differential between appropriating at the level so that actually about out of each quarter, 1 month of each quarter, the State of Wisconsin was carrying the salary with State money until such time as our allocation came through, which to this date it has not. Mr. Qm~. So you have been carrying them along on State money? Mr. BUCHMILLER. Yes. Mr. QmE. Then Wisconsin is unique in this regard compared to some Northern States that we have talked to so far in our investigation? Mr. BUGHMILLER. Might I cite another example, that when we have employed personnel with Federal funds totally and those firnds di- minish or dry up, such as they did in mental health, we have no com- punction in transferring those functions over to State, and they. have gone along with us. In other words, it does not eliminate the person per Se. Mr. QUIE. Now, in the item on page 6 where you mention that some school districts can't afford to match like some other school districts can, do you have any suggestion on the operation of Federal programs like title I on the allocation of money within the State? Now, there is an entitlement to each school district and if they can devise a program which someone in your department decides actually helps children, they will be able to receive that entitlement. You have no voice on whether more of the funds ought to go to some problem area in the center of Madison or up in the northern end or anything of that nature. Do you think that more jurisdiction in this regard ought to be given to the State department of education when it is a categorical aid pro- gram for deprived children? Mr. BIJCHMILLER. Yes. Incidentally, our State superintendent is also on record as saying that we would see that the problems of the disadvantaged in some of our metropolitan centers should permit a categorical increase in State support to supplement and enhance title I funds for the education of those children. Mr. Q'mn. The other question I have in that regard, you heard the conversation with Mr. Tipier that the local school could figure out who the educationally deprived children were in a school, but they could not and did not want to determine who was poor. On the Federal level, the money is based on who is poor because there is no definition as to what is "an educationally deprived child." We have a dilemma and you are haifway between the local school district and Federal Government. Could you suggest any way you would be able to bring these two ideas together because as we all know an educationally deprived child may or may not be a poor child. Mr. BUCHMILLER. Yes. I think of the total population that there is perhaps 70, 80 percent correlation between educationally disad- vantagernent and economic and social deprivation.. The incidence is very high; if you find one of the factors you would find the other. I think the point in the previous discussions that some- PAGENO="0547" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 893 times is missed and I think needs to be mentioned here is that the eligi- bility for funds under title I came from the 1966 census tract on eco- nomic aid to dependent children, but once the eligibility for money was established, you didn't have to use. that population as the deter- miners or who you ran the program for. You, by your own criteria, determined what then was the socially and economically disadvantaged population which currently existed. Sometimes we kind of swept across that pretty rapidly. I would say that if the State could estab- lish certain standards or criteria recommendations for the identifica- tion of economic deprivation which had carried with it factors of social, economic, and so forth, it would be pretty easy. Mr. BRADEMAS. Not for education? Mr. B1JcHMILLER. Educational deprivation which had with it an incidence of other factors. We can identify the centers in the city of Milwaukee. For example, we can lay out 26 schools and say these are the schools we are talking about on the factors of economic depri- vation. When you go up nort.h which is a homogeneous, fixed center, try to go out there and lay your hands on it. Now you might do it by housing or welfare rolls, but we have to remember that the local superintendent and. local board out there know their population well enough to be pretty aware of who these people are. But you ask a pride- ful family, "Are you economically deprived?', and he is a pretty hOnest individual if he would say, "Yes, I am." Mr. QUIB. I ran into the problem in some of the rural school dis- tricts where they had a poor crop year so most of the children are economically deprived but since that time crops have been much better and there have even been better prices, and by no standard could they be called economically deprived now. Also, in center city, when the census was taken in 1960, they didn't have anywhere near as severe a problem as they have now, and there is no way the State can make adjustments because of it. That is all I have. I appreciate your statement. Mr. BRADEMAS. Thank you for an extremely valuable statement. Could we hear from Mr. Ernest Brown ~ Would you identify yourself, please, sir? STATEMENT OP ERNEST BROWN, SENIOR PROGRAM OFFICER, CHICAGO REGIONAL OFFICE Mr. BROWN. Yes. I am Ernest Brown, senior program officer in the' Chicago regional office representing title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. ``` I believe my testimony might be a little bit more valuable if I could give just a little bit of background. I have served in both private and public schools. `I have been a teacher, principal, curriculum coordinator, superintendent. I worked at an intermediate district level; I wOrked for a State department of education in New York State and I have been with the Office of Education for a little over 3 years. During that time, most of my time has been working out of the Washington office. I worked on such programs as NDEA titles III, and V and have worked with various ones of the Elementary and Secondary Educa- tion Act, although not title IV. PAGENO="0548" 894 U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION I have been interested in the testimony and I wonder if I could adjust a little bit about how we see title I for example, from our re- gional office. I believe I am speaking for all of us when I say that our position or mission in this region is to serve the States and the local school districts and to represent them in Washington. It is to assist makmg their views known, so that they can be considered in the development of policy. Furthermore, we bring back the policies and so forth from Washington and explain their purpose and help the States and through them, the local schools. This would be the broad statement. Specifically on title I, I have made a number of talks in this region nnd the adjacent one working out of Kansas City, in which I have taken certain liberties with the congressional intent as given in the policy of Congress for title I. I have done this to help to explain to our consumers what we believe is the intent of Congress. In the :intent of Congress they mention that the moneys in title I are to be used to meet the special educational needs of educationally deprived children in areas of economic deprivation. I have taken the liberty in this way: I have stated it as "to meet the greatest educational needs of the most educationally deprived children in the areas of highest economic deprivation." In other words, I believe this is the intent of Congress; I believe this was very helpful to States and locales in focusing on the children that are really under consideration. The States and locales have had various reservations, as have been mentioned here. I would like to follow up just a little bit on one of them, wherein it was said that they felt the schools were not equipped and should not be equipped to determine economic deprivation. Education, yes; economic, no. Very recently in attempting to represent these consumers, consti- tuents of ours, to the U.S. Office I wrote a memo in which I pointed out that the Welfare Administration nationally is furnishing data so that we can administer the initial allocation to counties through- out the country. It would be helpful if Welfare, in securmg these data would do just one thing more-and we have found that generally in States they can do this-if they would, in making their surveys, find out the school district and they tell us that these data then fed through the U.S. Office, through the States back so that they can be used for sub- county allocations would furnish two things which would be very helpful. One, it would provide a basis with ADC figures for the determina- tion of subcounty allocations. This is money to the specific school districts. It would furnish this, provided the State in its wisdom felt that this followed the intent of Congress and the legislation is there already. Furthermore, it would provide the local school district with a guide to just which were the areas of highest economic deprivation within that school district. It would provide this by school~ attendance areas. Mr. Qurs. Only to the extent of ADO children. Mr. BROWN. In this relation, it seems to be the intent of Congress to lean more heavily on that because it is so much more recent. PAGENO="0549" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 895 Mr. QmE. What about the proposed increase to $3,000 to show some kind of intent in the other direction at the same time, not that Con- gress has never before had two intents at the same time. Mr. BROWN. This I see is no problem because this is a guideline to the local school district. I do not see a mandate here for the local school district to say if when we take the top two, the top three, whatever it is, the top so many, these attendance areas are the ones which we will have our projects. If this is not realistic, the regulations allow the use of other data. What I am saying is this is a way in which the locale can, provided this is reasonable, remove all the worries they have about trying to make a survey, trying to spot individual families and find out about their earnings. Mr. Quii~. In other words, let me understand what you are saying. That the school district receives its entitlement based upon both the ADO children and the low-income children? Mr. BROWN. Basically, yes. Mr. Quii~. But after they receive that entitlement and then in their determination of which schools they. will use the program, then they would follow the intent of Congress that they use only the ADO in- formation. Mr. BROWN. Provided this meets a realistic appraisal of where the economic deprivation, is, yes, and as an initial guess, it seems to be the intent that this is the best single factor. If I might, I would like to make one or two other comments. I noticed something was said about letting all. State administrative funds be furnished by the State. This has in some cases been ex- tremely difficult. One State near here just happens to be just east of Illinois. I met with the school board there at one time on title III of the National Defense Education Act. I talked with them on the use of-these were matching now-funds for State supervision and administration. I talked with them specifically on this because those funds, partic- ularly the supervision part, multiplied tremendously the value of the much larger funds available for equipment, and the State board was vitally interested. They thought this was tremendous. They thought this was one in which they should take advantage of every penny for State supervision and administration. However, the State legislature is the final determining factor and I would say that this would enhance the position of those States which feel that if matching is not required at that level, those States are going to move much faster in education. I could list several other States where the same situation exists. Mr. BRADEMAS. I just have a couple of quick questions. Do you find in your area of responsibility that appeals come to your shop on programs that involve public and private school children? Mr. BROWN. In the short time I have been there, no. Mr. BRADEMAS. How long have you been there? Mr. BROWN. Three months. Mr. BRADEMAS. Are you aware whether or not since the law was enacted there have been troubles that have reached the regional level? Mr. BROWN. I know in our region we have had a suit in title II for example. Actually appeals coming to my attention, if you say PAGENO="0550" 896 U.S~ OFFICE OF EDUCATION complaints, yes. We have had complaints. We have gone out and worked with the parties involved and tried to find a common meeting ground. S I believe that we have been moderately successful and I believe we will be more so as we become increasingly familiar with our clientele. S Mr. BRADEMAS. That is very encouraging to me to hear, I must say. Mr. Quis. You say somebody brought suit on title II? Mr. BROWN. Yes; that is my understanding. Mr. QmE. That indicates some kind of a breakdown in communi- cation at that level or it could indicate that. Is that what happened or did somebody just precipitously bring suit against someone? Mr. BROWN. As I understand this was in Dayton, Ohio, Wand this was an organization which objected to the aid to private schools, public schools, and so forth. There are more of those in the country. Mr. QuiD. I know there are. Mr. BROWN. Part of it is just natural development of our demo- cratic process. They say, "This is something that should be tried through the courts and let's find out what the courts say." Mr. Qum. This is what the situation was, an organization that decided to try the courts. S Mr. BROWN. Yes. S Mr. BRADEMAS. In your region of responsibility, what have you experienced as far as title I is concerned? Mr. BROWN. As far as title I is concerned, I have not really run across the title at all. Mr. Qum. Do you have any involvement with the Evanston effort? Mr. BROWN. I read it in the paper. I understand this is something which has been developing over a period of several years and again my understanding is they feel this a major factor in its success. Mr. BRADEMAS. Are there any particular problem areas in the oper- ation of title I that you have seen that you would like to tell us about. Mr. BROWN. I think the biggest complaint, and representing now I believe the local schools in the States, the biggest complaint was their inability to plan ahead because of late funding. This has been serious and frankly, we sympathize with it. Mr. BRADEMAS. Thank you very much, Mr. Brown. It has been very helpful. S Mr. BI~&r)E3rAs. Is Mr. Winger here? A VOICE. Mr. Wiiiger is State Vocational Director of Michigan and he sent word he could not come. S Mr. BRADEMAS. Is Mr. Dake here? Mr. Riley is not here. I think I do not see him. We will hear from Francis X. Bradley, of the university of Notre Dame. S Mr. Bradley, do you have a prepared statement? S Mr. BRADLEY. Yes. There are five copies there. Mr. BRADEMAS. If you would identify yourself, Mr. Bradley, and proceed. S S S Mr. BRADLEY. Do you want me to read the formal statement? Mr BRADEMAS Your own statement is only two pages long Why don't you go ahead and read it? S S PAGENO="0551" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 897 STATEMENT OF FRANCIS L BRADLEY, 1R., ASSISTANT DEAN OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL AND RESEARCH ADMmISTRATOR FOR THE UNIVERSITY, UNIVE1~SITY OF NOTRE DAME Mr. BRADLEY. Honorable members of this distinguished subcommit- tee, I am Francis C. Bradley, Jr.,. assistant dean of the graduate school and research administrator for the university of the University of Notre Dame. You have heard from others during these hearings about the size and character of the University of Notre Dame. I would like to comment on my experience gained over the past 10 years in coordinating with the executive agencies of the Federal government the research and educational programs supported by them at my university. I consider Notre Dame as the prototype among Catholic colleges and universities of an institution that has, through the inspired leadership of its president in the development of its intellectual and administra- tive resources, responded generously to the national interest through effective participation in Federal programs. In fiscal year 1966, Notre Dame expended $5,680,102 of Federal funds in 248 grants and contracts. For the period 1959-67, the university has been awarded $3,260,011 in support of programs administered by the U.S. Office of Education. Also, during 1967-68, we are requesting or will request approximately $1,467,000 from the U.S. Office of Education for continued support of programs already established or for the initiation of new programs. I have appended to this statement a detailed list of these programs. Mr. C. F. Lennon, my associate, and I maintain close liaison with the dedicated staff and program directors in the U.S. Office of Educa- tion. We have come to appreciate the onerous responsibility thrust upon them through the belated and concentrated enactment of legis- lation in support of the Nation's educational establishment. We find that the program staff of the U.S. Office of Education is readily accessible to all and is determined to develop reasonable and equitable policies, rules, and procedures. These public servants seem as effec- tive as any could be within the bureaucratic turmoil created by the delegation to them of operational responsibility for a p1ethora of diversely formulated laws. We find it easier to participate in those programs which under the pertinent legislation are administered directly by the U.S. Office of Education. Those programs administered by a State-appointed commission create special difficulties for a private institution. We are at a disadvantage in competing with State institutions for funds allocated to the State. For instance, because the. State Legislature of Indiana, which must appropriate matching funds for certain Federal education programs, meets only biennially, the Governor did not designate a State agent for title I of the Higher Education Act Consequently, neither pri- vate nor public schools recerv ed anything from that title in its first 2 years of.effectiveness. We see also the possibility that in some States, rncludmg ours, the chtirch-state issue may be successfully raised to preclude inclusion of church-related schools. in the State administered plan. We consider the likelihood of this issue affecting the direct Federal grants as remote PAGENO="0552" 898 u.s. OFFICE OF EDUCATION From my vantage point, I see the federally sponsored higher edu- cation programs brought into being by recent legislation inspired by your subcommittee as essential both to the achievement of pressing national goals and to the expanded opportunity for participation by our citizens in education of every increasing quality. I share your demonstrated concern, however, that the legislated terms and condi- tions under which private colleges and universities are invited to serve these laudable goals may prove to be self-defeating. They should, therefore, be subject to the kind of continuing evaluation you are now giving them. I would be happy to answer your questions. Mr. BRADEMAS. Thank you very much, Mr. Bradley. Could you give us a little further comment on one of the problems you alluded to in your statement; namely, the question of Federal grants to church- related institutions? You are aware of the Maryland case and any comments you may have in that respect from your perspective is somewhat identified with the major church-related institution and would be helpful. Mr. BRADLEY. I might also add that I am a constitfltional lawyer and have followed the church-state problem very intimately. I am personally convinced, and I think this conviction is shared by many people, that a succession of tests of the Federal people are sooner or later going to place the courts in the position of making I think pro- gressively unfavorable rulings with respect to the constitutionality of the use of Federal funds in the support of some types of programs that are currently supported through these programs and church-re- lated schools. I would think that in the long run, and it may go far beyond the scope of the effectiveness of this committee, that we are probably going to need a Federal constitutional amendment. But even with the Fed- eral constitutional amendment, with the diverse constitutional pro- visions of the States, we would continue to run hazards of having those provisions raised. legally as belong to participation of the university and Federal programs. I am convinced these legal prohibitions could disable the State agencies from taking any public public action with respect to the transfer of public funds from whatever source to church-related schools. I think it is an issue that has to be faced squarely and I think it is up to the scores of citizens of our country to face this in whatever way it can be brought to them for decision and that ultimately it is going to have to be reflected in our laws. Mr. QmIE. Is my understanding correct that as a constitutional law- yer, you feel when the cases are brought to the Supreme Court, they will rule that the Federal aid now being made available to church- related institutions would be declared unconstitutional? Mr. BRADLEY. In many instances, I think this is true. I think there is a strongly argued tendency away from the use of the public purpose argument as the basis for sustaining the constitutionality of grants to church-related schools, and a trend toward the adoption of the argu- ment that was used in the Maryland cases in which this argument was not given weight. The real effect of the contribution of Federal funds or State funds, public funds, to a church-related school with respect to the develop- ment of those schools, I think, became the key issue in those cases. PAGENO="0553" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 899 Mr. BRADEMAS. By school, you mean colleges or universities? Mr. BRADLEY. Yes. Mr. Quri~. Why is it that in the Higher Education Facilities Act we have not run into problems in any State of them establishing a State commission which would provide funds for the private as well as the public institutions? Mr. BRADLEY. I think that is just a matter of time. I anticipate we will run into such problems. Mr. BRADEMAS. Why would you think that the outlook is so bleak, and I say that from the point of view of how one supports the present arrangement? Why would the courts move in that direction in view of these facts: following the election returns, as Mr. Dooley says, we see the increas- ing influence of the ecumenical movement; in Florida this last week the National Council of Churches invited participation of the Roman Catholic Church in this country in their deliberations; almost every major movement is going in the other direction within American so- ciety. Why then would the courts, which have not historically moved against trends in our country, move in the other direction? 1 don't know if that is a fair question to put to you or not. It is nothing that one can prove, but have you any comment on that observation? Mr. BRADLEY. Well, I think we have some countervailing forces at work within our society. Certainly what you have described is a po- tent force in favor of continuation of the kinds of programs that the Federal Government has been supporting in the church-related col- leges and universities. On the other hand, I believe that because this support is becoming massive in many respects that we get into the political problem of com- petition for funds between the various kinds of institutions within our society, and as this competition for the funds becomes exacerbated, I think you will find that the social, economic, and the strictly local political aspects will override these very broad human conditions you brought up. This is certainly a personal o.pinion that would have to be weighed. Mr. BRADEMAS. If the assistance to be provided by the Federal Gov- ernment becomes larger and larger, as you suggested, would it not fol- low that if the courts were to rule against the granting of such funds to church-related institutions that this could mean economic disaster for many private colleges and universities in this country within the foreseeable future? * Mr. BRADLEY. I believe-again speaking from the legal stand- pointr-that this very fact may. influence the court to throw the ques- tion back into the political arena. I think there is certainly strong feeling in legal circles that this is a political question, it ought to be resolved through the due process of law that is provided by the Con- stitution of the United States that does in fact, permit its citizens to amend it through legal procedures. My own feeling is that the question is getting more political all the time and as such becomes less amenable to solution by courl cases and by appeals to the judicial side of our Government. Mr. BRADEMAS. Didn't we used to be taught in constitutional law courses t hat the tough political problems were ultimately resolved by the Supreme Court, likeschool desegregation? PAGENO="0554" 900 U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION ~ Mr. BRADLEY. Yes, I guess that is right. Mr. BRADEMAS. I have one more question if you have any question on church and state of any other questions ahead. Mr. QUIE. In this one sentence of yours, third from the last sen- tence, you said, "I share your demonstrated concern, however, that the legislated terms and conditions under which private colleges and uni- versities are invited to serve these laudable goals may prove to be self- defeating." Now, why are the legislated terms and conditions self-defeating? You seem to have a self-defeating frame of mind about what the courts will do. Mr. BRADLEY. The private institutions, of course, have no source of funds comparable to the State institutions to go in for the matching fund requirements. I know you probably heard much about matching funds but from the private standpoint2 I have already described the increasingly mas- sive and rapidly growing support. At my institution our success for competing for these funds, and then being able to carry out the pro- grams of national and public interest under the terms of this legislation can, in fact, bankrupt us. We feel that there is a point beyond which we cannot continue to match 50-50 on facilities grants; we cannot continue to match 70-30 on demonstration funds. We cannot do this because we do not have this massive sort of funds for matching. We would have to restrict our programs to that extent and count up increased amounts which come available for these purposes. This money would then go to the institutions that would be in the best position to match, and these are certainly going to be the State in- .stitutions which can go to their legislatures to recapture the taxpayer's dollar to get back to the local by taking appropriate provisions for matching. I thinkwe had an example of this in the national highway program. Over a period of 15 years, we committed ourselves to spend $15 billion for the State highway. Even that would tax the resources of the State. We put 90-10 on that program realizing that something more traditional, for instance, than the State highway-which was on a 50-50 basis-wa.s not thought of for the Interstate System. I think this business of bankrupting the private institution is as good as the possibility of bankrupting the State in terms of the Inter- state Highway System, so we have this problem. Mr. QUTE. Well, in the Interstate System, there was a national de- fense concept that got into that and I guess we looked at it differently. In the Academic Facilities Act it was that the colleges would have the desire and feel their own responsibility to provide facilities fOr the p-rowing enrollment. Heretofore. that had been done mostly with- out Federal help and this time the Federal Government decided to step in and help them with a job they would probably do anyway. So I could see some reason for putting in 50 percent for some institutions for some States. I guess we just look at it from a different frame of reference than you do, because it surely can't be called strictly a national defense effort to construct all these institutions of higher learning. Mr. BRADLEY. Our only reply would be that in our search for this hi the 10 years that I have been directly involved in this, the University of Notre Dame has gone from the point where they were PAGENO="0555" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 901 involved in six different types of supported programs, six different agencies, up to where I think my last count was th'tt we are involved in 42 programs, 33 Federal agencies. This is in 10 years. This is calling on us in a way to be a different kind of institution. If we wanted to be rather parochial, middle-class or upper-class boarding school, which we were up tO about 15 years ago, we could continue to do this with our own resources, generating our usual alumni and other support and perhaps, build all our buildings without Federal support. Does the Nation want. our institution to be .that kind of a place or use our capabilities and leadership in order to perform a broader and a wider range of useful functions for our society or do they want us to be this bigger thing? They are going to have to help us with the resources because we just can't command them ourselves. Mr. Qure. Is there any limit to which the Federal Government assists where you kind of lose some of the basic integrity and control of the operation that you wanted? In fact some administrators come to me now and say that the Federal tail is kind of wagg.ing the dog because of research grants going to individuals. They would like to see more go to individuals. They have more control over it. Mr. BRADLEY. I would say we agree with the position that this creates a very difficult, sensitive problem for all of us in higher education, especially those of us who are deeply involved in the research programs and educational programs. Here again what we are really. saying is that the institutions themselves have to organize to conduct these kind of activities, effectively to continue to exercise contrOl over their own activities, and I believe it can be accomplished. I think we are in a trying time now. I think we are gaining experience. We are learning new ways of handling situations. With some little stress and strain, I think we can and will be capable of becoming a new kind of institution to carry on all of these national purpose programs. Mr. Qure. The last question I have relates .to the Higher Education facilities Act. . Has there been any discrimination against private institutions in Indiana? Mr. BRADLEY. I am sorry, I just can't answer that question. I do know that, and this is second hand, it comes from our vice president for business affairs who has represented our institution in all of our dealings with the State commission. I think I reflect his opinion carefully when I would say the decision with. respect to internal allocation within the State was done somewhat arbitrarily because at the time it was done the State commission was lacking significant guides or a well-developed rationale for making the decision Now, I have it that at their very first meeting for instance, they decided to split the State allocation 50-50 between the private schools and the public schools, and the private institutions in Indiana, I think, number something like 32 or 33 I am not sure of this figure I would have to check it, but the public institutions are much fewer in number, but, of course, . enroll a significantly larger number of students because of their size and facilities. So, I don't think there is any question of discriminatiOn. PAGENO="0556" 9i2 U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION Let's say that there have been nonsubstantive political considera- tions involved in the determination of the allocation of the funds. Mr. Bi~aDEisi~s. Mr. Bradley, you also have for the record a state- ment by Dean Thomas P. Bergin of your Center for Continuing Edu- cation. Dean Bergin makes one point in his statement, perhaps you can summarize it and make any comment you have on it. Mr. BRADLEY. I made reference to it in my statement, too, because it was an example of the difficulty we have with the State commission. The Higher Education Act in the State of Indiana, for apparently internal legal reasons, was unable to take the necessary action to participate effectively in title I because the State legislature, according to the letter from the Governor, had to convene and make the neces- sary authorizations for the State institutions to participate. So we private institutions are sitting around waiting for the leg- islature to convene and do those things which it must do before we can participate. So we are really the tail that is tied to the State dog in this respect. Mr. BRADEMAS. I am always grateful to state that all of our troubles in these matters are not the monopoly of the Federal Government. Thank you very much indeed, Mr. Bradley. We appreciate your testimony. Very helpful. Mr. BRADLEY. Thank you. Mr. BRADEMAS. Dean Bergin's statement will be put in the record at this point. (The statement follows:) PREPARED STATEMENT OF Di~ THOMAS P. Bunoix, DEAN OF CoNTINuING EDUCATION, UNrvERsrrY OF NoTim DAME, NOTRE DAME, IND. Upon accepting the responsibilities as Dean of Continuing Education, I con- tacted the Office of Education to explore the possibilities of the University pre- senting a proposal under Title I of the Higher Education Act. The response, interest and spirit of cooperation on the part of Dr. Jules Pagano and Dr. Eugene Welden of the Division of Adult Education Programs was most encouraging. In spite of the interest at the federal level and our enthusiasm for presenting an imaginative program under Title I, it has been impossible to carry out nego- tiations any further because the State of Indiana has not yet designated its state agency to administer Title I of the Higher Education Act. In April of 1966, Dr. Pagano, Director of the Division of Adult Education Programs, wrote me and stated: "The State of Indiana has not established an organizational structure for Title I. We hope that something can. be worked out. in the months to come. We have just recently written to the Governor again with additional suggestions for implementing Title I ~vow, but we have not yet received a reply. The Gov- ernor's office has the information and you should, perhaps, review what has been done to date." In July of 1966, 1 wrote to Governor Roger D. Branigin requesting that a state agency be designated so that we might initiate a program in which the Univer- sity might participate under Title I of the Higher Education Act. His reply was as follows: "No state agency has been designated for the Title I program of the Higher Education Act because of a requirement that the State provide matching funds which had not been appropriated for this purpose. "Provision of such funds will be considered by the General Assembly next January. "It is regretted that there is no certain legal means by which the State could act on this program earlier. Besides the matter of funds, the General Assembly should have an opportunity to pass upon new programs of services involving State Institutions." With this letter there seemed to be little the Center for Continuing Education could do until such time as the legislature would convene PAGENO="0557" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 903 * In October of 1966, following a conference of the Deans of Continuing Educa- tion at Purdue University, we requested that the Indiana Conference on Higher Education petition the Governor to act on this important matter. The resolution which was submitted and approved on November 4, 1966, read as follows: A RESOLUTION CONCERNING TITLE I OF THE HIGHER EDUCATION ACT OF 1965 Whereas the Indiana Conference on Higher Education in session at the Uni- versity of Notre Dame in November, 1966, recognizes its responsibility as the most representative body of higher education in the State of Indiana and, Whereas the Conference is aware of the action taken by the Congress of the United States by its passage and funding of the Higher Education Act of 1965 and, Whereas the Conference has had ample opportunity to observe that the State of Indiana has not initiated action `to take advantage of Title I of the Act related to college and university assistance in the areas of community service and con- tinuing education and, Whereas this delay places in' jeopardy acquisition of a new `allocation of ~219,OO0 for fiscal year 1967, which it, is believed can have an important impact on initiating assistance to communities of Indiana in seeking solutions to their problems: It is therefore Resolved, That the Indiana Conference on Higher Education favors the provi~ sions `of Title I of the `Higher Education Act of 1965 and strongly recommends that the General Assembly of, Indiana in session `beginning January, 1967, take immediate positive action `to assure the State of Indiana and her people of a rightful share of the total funds appropriated by the Congress of the United States for the funding of proposals related to Title I of the Higher Education Act; and that it is further Resolved, That members of the Conference stand ready to assist the Legisla- ture in deliberations pertinent to the establishment of an agency or the naming of an existing agency to carry out administrative matters connected with (1) seeking proposals from institutions of higher education within the State, (2) the development of the State plan as required by the Act and, (3) `the administration of the State plan after appr~va1 has been received from the funding agency in Washington, D.C.; furthermore be it Resolved, That the Conference believes the only action required by the General Assembly of 1967 in connection with this Act will be to adopt a resolution inform- ing the Governor of the State of Indiana early in 1967 of (1) the desire of the Legislature to have Indiana participate in this program of college and university assistance to communities of the State in the identification and solution of their problems and, (2) the need to immediately designate an agency to carry out the required provisions of Title I of the Higher Education Act of 1965. My experience to da'te would lead me to believe that the Division of Adult Education Programs of the Office of Education would be most cooperative and effective in processing a proposal if the State would participate in the program. When in Washington, D.C., this November, I visited with Dr. Joseph Coleman and Mr. Otto Schaler, `of the Office of the Assi~tant Secretary of Education, con- cerning `the possibilities of the University of Notre Dame participating in a program to help implement the International Education Act of 1966. Here again, the department representatives were most cordial and cooperative. No definitive action can be taken, however, until such time as the Congress votes the appropriation. Mr. BRADEMAS. The Chair thinks he is right in saying, but stands subject to correction, that there is but one other witness who' requested to testify this morning. There are others who were scheduled but who were not here. That would be Mr. Hosch. Is there any other witness who had asked to be `heard before I call on Mr. Hosch~ I want to be sure we have not omitted anyone. In that event, Mr. Hosch, won't you please come forward? We were pleased to have heard from you yesterday, but for the record, would you be kind enough to identify yourself once again and make any statement you wish to make? Mr. HoscH. Yes. PAGENO="0558" ~JO4 U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION STATEMENT OP MELVILLE H. HOSCH, REGIONAL DIRECTOR OF REGION V, DEPARTMENT OP HEW Mr. Hosen. I think, perhaps, I ought to start by saying I am prob- ably the most biased of any of the witnesses you had these 2 days, and I think I almost have to be, based upon the degree of conviction that I have managed to accumulate over 15 years in the regional office. I find it very difficult to describe the sum total of that experience to you. I would strongly urge, if it~ is at all possible in your schedule, that you spend a day in a regional office, any one of them, of HEW~ because I think the opportunity to see the process of professional coordination in practice is one of the best ways to understand the degree of enthusiasm that I have about it. As I understand, one of the basic purposes of the committee hear- ings is to determine whether or not there should be more decentrali- zation of the Office of Education activities to the regional offices. If I may be quite dogmatic, and I know you will challenge me if you disagree, I don't think it is a question of choice. I think it has to be done. I don't say it has to be done in all pi~ograms or that it has to be.doneimmediatehr, but if we are to meet what John Ma.cy called on September 19 the crisis in public admmisti ation, I think thei e has to be more attention to the processes of. coordination at the local level,. where programs and people meet. Now, my personal conviction is that this can be done. This can be accomplished better by the coordinated activity of professional people across the board in HEW in regional offices by virtue of their more intimate knowledge of what goes on at the State and local level and their ability to communicate more easily and effectively with each other which I happen to believe is not possible to do in Washington. I worked in Washington for .6 or 7 years, and I know the distinction in, shall we say, the atmosphere and the ease with which communica- tions and convictions are shared. I happen to believe that t.his process of better "coordination," whatever that word means, at the local level is the heart of the enterprise of Health, Education, and Welfare, and I can see standing behind me here Secretary Gardner and the other eight regional directors looking over my shoulder in a sense to see if I am reflecting their views. I think Secretary Gardner has made his testimony quite clear in August, testimony before your committee, and in many of his writings that the process of coordination, where programs and people meet at the local level, is necessary if we are going to get the job done. This, incidentally, has been done to a much greater extent in the Public Health Service. It is now being very seriously considered in the Food and Drug Administration. It has already been done to a considerable extent in the Welfare Administration and in the Social Security Administation. I took the advantage of the time earlier this morning to make a few notes. I have listed a few examples of what I believe are advantages of decentralized operat.ion of the Office of Education in regional offices. I have had this on my mind for a good many years as the most effective use of consultants who have national and international reputa- tions. I don't mea.n t.o be unduly critical here, but I think sometimes people at the State and local level take a selfish view of t.he avail- ability of top level consultants, real experts at the central office level. PAGENO="0559" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 905 Now, the reason I say that is this: To the extent that a consultant is able to help with developing problems anywhere in the country, he is only one man to cover 50 States. The practice in the other operating agencies, and I think this could be equally true in the Office of Education, is for the top level consultant in Washington to engage in a teaching and learning experience with the regional staff in relation to any problems that need his help at the State and local level. When the consultant comes out, he comes with the knowledge of the relationship of that particular problem to other problems that exist in that particular agency, be it a State or local. When he visits to work with them for 2 or 3 days in the other operat- ing agencies, and I think it could be true of the Office of Education, he goes with a person on the regional staff who has some interest or background in that particular problem. In other words, there is a teaching and learning experience here which enables the regional staff member when a similar problem comes up in another State or locality, to have the advantage of the addi- tional information, and understanding which the central office con- sultant has been able to give him on a prior occasion. I think this is a method of spreading the values and the contribu- tions to the consultants that is much superior to the one relationship that the consultant may have either personally or by correspondence with the people in the States and localities. Another area is the area of Health, Education, and Consumer Edu- cation. I mentioned this to you earlier, Mr. Quie, in private con- versation. Our Department has a great many activities which a consultant in adult education at the local level, could help us with. As I mentioned, six of the best sellers of the Government Printing Office are children's publications. There is a vast responsibility vested, for example, in the bureau of family services and social security asso- ,eiation for informing a great many people about the content of their programs and the kinds of advantages they can take of those programs. The Secretary is, as I understand it, currently in the process of dele- gating to regional offices another position, that of a regional informa- tion officer. Now, this person will, obviously, need a great deal of help, and the presence of our staff of experts in as many areas as possible of the Office of Education will be able to provide such help to the public information officer. We produced, for example, in our Office approximately 8 months ago these three charts and I would be happy to furnish copies of these to you if you wish. They are related to health, education and welfare. The chart on education took us approximately 2 weeks because what we tried to do was to boil down the content of the program into one sentence, and to get a professional person to agree to describe this program in one sentence, I assure you, is a very difficult matter. But we did it and we could not have done it without the help of the Office of Education people. We distributed approximately 10,000 copies of this on request. Normally, this takes a book about 2 inches thick. We have done it in three pages. This is the kind of information we think is of use to people at State and local level. Mr. BRADEMAS. Without objection, that document will be inserted at this point in the record. (The document follows.) PAGENO="0560" Support for educational programs with specific emphasis in the following areas: 1. Student loans: 3 percent interest loans to needy college students (waiver of repayment possible). 2. Strengthen instruction in critical subjects: Science, math, languages primarily. 3. Recruit and train more teachers: Provide graduate fellow- ships. 4. Improve guidance and testing in elementary and high schools: `testing In private schools. 5. Improve ability of guidance counselors: Conduct special institutes. 6. Upgrade quality of instruction of foreign languages: Con- duct special institutes. 7. Improve statistical services of State department of edu- cation. 8. Improve teaching skills: Elementary and high schoollevel, Includes teaching the disadvantaged. 9. Conduct research on educational uses of TV, radio, and other media. Funds to Improve elementary and high school education espe- cially in low-income districts: I. Special programs and services to improve education of disadvantaged children. II. Libraries materials, textbooks, etc., to public and pri- vate scfmols. III. Supplementary educational centers, special services not otherwise available. IV. Research, training, experimentation, and demonstration to improve education. V. Improve State education department staffing services to~ counties and local school districts. War On poverty efforts to develop the following interagency programs: 1. Basic adult education-3 R's for adults-to wipe out Illiteracy and Ignorance. 2. Work study program for needy students (transferred to Higher Education Act). "SERVICES TO PEOPLE," DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE PROGRAMS, ADMINISTERED IN COOPERATION WITH APPROPRIATE STATE AND LOCAL AGENCIES Education Legislation Programs-Purposes or provisions-Special features Federal agency State agency Local agency National Defense Educa- tion Act, Public Law 85-864. Elementary and Second- ary Education Act, Public Law 89-10. Economic Opportunity Act, Public Law 88-452. Office of Education do do do do do do do do do do do do Department of public In- struction administers some programs. do do - do do do do do do do do do do Colleges and universities, board of education. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Local schools. Do. Do. Universities. do do Do. do do do Local schools. do Colleges and universities. PAGENO="0561" Higher Education Act, Public Law 89-329. 9 Public Law 89-287 ~ Smith-Hughes Act, George- Barden Act and Voca- tional Education Act, Public Law 88-210. Manpower Development and Training Act of 1965, Public Law 89-15. Funds for improving higher education, assist colleges and uni- versities to- 1. Strengthen community services: Aid communities on urban, suburban problems. 2. Improve libraries, training of librarians 3. Raise academic standards, particularly of new institutions 4. Provide grants to qualified students with exceptional need, high ability. 5. Encourage low-interest insured student loans for median income families. 6. Establish National Teachers Corps: Improve quality of college training. Vocational student loan program-encourages low-interest loans-for medium income families. Vocational and technical education programs-for youths and adults-including the disadvantaged: 1. Help States implement vocational education program, numerous vocational courses. 2. Research and Pilot Programs: Improve vocational and technical education and expand vocational counseling. 3. Work-study program: Paid work for vocational education students only (like Economic Opportunity Act, title I-B). 4. Co-op education progra1n: Vocational training including planned work experience in industry. 5. Vocational school construction and curriculum expansion program. 6. Preemployment and extension vocational education courses for youths and adults. Manpower development and training program-full-time voca- tional training-youths and adults: 1. Train unemployed out-of-school youths and adults for nonprofessional jobs. 2. Experimental and demonstration projects to improve methods of teaching. 3. Extend 1962 MDTA program through fiscal year 1969, vocational training for youths and adults. 4. More liberal training allowances and more flexible qualifi- cations for enrollment. Do. Do. Do. Do. Banks. Boards of education and universities. Banks, etc. Local public schools. do do do do do do do do (10 do do do do Office of Education plus Labor Department, IJSES-BES. do do do do None Department of public instruction administers same program. do do do State scholarship corn- mission. Board of vocational edu- cation; department of public instruction. do do do do do Board of vocational edu- cation; department of of public instruction plus State employment security agency. do do do C 0 I'd C 0 C Public and private schools. Do. State employment serv- ice office. Do. PAGENO="0562" Social security-Old-ago survivors, disability, and health insur- ance programs: 1. Old-ago insurance; workers retiroment plan; financial pro- tection for old ago. a. Benefits for retired workors, 65 and over; reduced benefits if at ago 62. b. Benefits for retired workers families; wife and/or dependent children. c. Benefits for uninsured workers and others 72 and over~ 2. Survivors insurance protects families against total loss of income if wage earner dies: a. Benefits forwidows or dependent widowers of bene- ficiaries. b. Benefits for dependent children of beneficiaries. c. Benefits for dependent parents of beneficiaries. 3. Disability insurance protects disabled workers and fami- lies (not workmen's compensation). 4. Health insurance; medicare program; pays for medical care, those 65 and over: a. Hospital insurance; pays hospital bills primarily, some related expenses. b. Medical insurance; voluntary $3 monthly premium plan, primarily for doctor bills. Credit union program: Federal staff provides advice and tech- nical assistance to groups that wish to organize a credit union; also performs supervisory examinations (annual audits); pro- vides instructional materials and advice to credit union staffs and committees. None; entirely federally administered; Social Security Administra- tion contracts with some State agencies for some services. "SERvICEs TO PEOPLE," DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE PROGRAMS, ADMINISTERED IN COOPERATION WITH APPROPRIATE STATE AND LOCAL AGENCIEs-Continued Welfare Legislation Programs-Purposes or provisions-Special features Federal agency State agency Local agency Social Security Act of 1935, as amended, titles II and XVIII. Federal Credit Union Act of 1934, as amended. Social Security Adminis- tration. District social security chico. tn 0 tn 0 do None None. PAGENO="0563" Social Security Act of 1935, Public assistance programs-provide for general welfare of specific Welfare Administration; State department of wel- County department of wel- as amended, titles I, Iv, groups of needy persons: Bureau of Family fare. fare. X, XIV, XVI, and 1. Grants for aid to aged, blind or disabled; financial aid and Services. XIX; Economic Oppor- so~Aal services to persons 65 and over; the blind (all ages) tunity Act, Public Law and disabled over 18 years of age. 88-452, title V. 2. Medical assistance program provides medical care for public assistance recipients and for medically indigent persons who can provide their own maintenance. 3. Aid to families of dependent children; financial aid and social services for needy mothers and children, because of death, desertion, or unemployment of wage earner. 4. Work experience and training program; trains unemployed ADO parents and others (including potential indigents) to be employable; job training and education (3 R's). Older Americans Act, Programs for the aged and aging-provide grants and technical Administration on Aging~ As designated by Gov- Various public and private ~ Public Law 89-73. assistance to States, public and private nonprofit agencies and ernor. agencies. groups to develop services for the elderly and train personnel for such work. Social Security Act of 1935, Child welfare programs-follo~~ing services plus case finding, Welfare Administration; State department of Local department of as amended, title V. referral, followup, and other care: Children's Bureau. welfare, public welfare. 1. Day care centers for pres2hool children of working mothers and others. - 2. Special programs providing services to children and mothers, including: a. Foster care; placement of children in private homes or institutions. b. Protective services for abused or neglected chil- dren, includes legal. c. Services for unmarried mothers; counseling, medi- cal, financial, other. d. Licensing of all child care facilities includes day 0 care centers, foster homes, etc. e. Adoption information service; actual placement for adoption by departmenb of welfare. Vocational Rehabilitation Vocational rehabilitation program; helps handicapped persons Vocational Rehabilita- Vocational rehabilita- Vocational rehabilita- Act, Public Law 83-565; to become employable: tion Administration. tion agencies. tion office. Public Law 89-333. 1. Provides all services necessary to help disabled become employable, diagnosis to treatment. 2. Authorizes research demonstration projects and training for careers in rehabilitation. 3. Cooperates with Social Security Administration in disa- bility determination program. PAGENO="0564" "SERvicl~s TO PEOPLE," DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE PROGRAMS, ADMINISTERED IN CoOPERATIoN WITH APPROPRIATE STATE AND LOCAL AGENCIES-Continued Health Legislation Progra.nis~-Purposes or provisions-Special features Federal agency State agency Local agency Public health Service Act Public health grants to help State health departments provide Public health Service, State department of County department of of 1944, as amended. services and conduct prognuns for: Bureau of State Serv- health, health. 1. Cancei control, screening exams, testing, referral, fohiowup ices. and educational programs. 2. Chronic illness and aghig, preventive examination an(l referral, detection uf diabetes an(l glaucoma, home çi~ services for ill and aging, teams of doctor, nurse, and social worker. 3. (leneral health, laboratory tests, sanitation, milk and food inspection, health education, etc. 4. Heart disease control, prevention and early detection; rheumatic fever registry, free medicine and referral and treatment for coronary disease. 5. Radiological health, registration and inspection of radiation sites, check hazards, etc. 6. TB control, testing, early detection, referral, registry, fohlowup, surveillance. 7. l)ental health; hnprove dental health, laboratory services, screening. Community health Serv- Out of hospital health services for the chronically ill and the Public health Service, (10 County or city health ices and Facilities Act of aging, special projects such us: h)ivision of Chronic department, welfare 1961, Public Law 87-395. 1. Improve nursing home srevices; team of nurse, OP., PT.; Disease. council, universities, or ~ teach staff better procedures. hospitals, etc. 2. Expand home care program; visiting nurse, homemaker, physician, therapists (OP-PT-Speech). 3. home (lental care; senior students provide services using portable equipment. 4. Meals on wheels; private agencies provide hot uiseals to homebound elderly at low cost. 5. Provide artificial kidneys and transplants to those who wOul(l otherwise die. National heart Act, Community heart (lisease control programs combined demon- .do (10 County or city health Public Law 80-655. stration and service projects such as: department. 1. Rome nursing care, additional nurses to care for cardiac patients at home. 2. Rheumatic fever prevention; dentists take throat cultures and provide dental services. 3. Treatment and rehabilitation of stroke victims; help communities "strike back at stroke". PAGENO="0565" National Cancer Act, Reduction of illness and death from cancer; special projects and do do County or city health de- Public Law 87-290. demonstrations such as: partment, universities, 1. Public health visiting nursing care for cancer patients at voluntary agencies. home. 2. Detection of cancer and training of physicians and tech- nologists in use of new techniques. 3. Screening for cervical cancer and testing of new "do-it- yourself" exam methods. 4. Other special projects; early detection and treatment, services plus training. PUS Act, as amended, Communicable disease control programs; immunizations, VD- Public Health Service, do Local health departments. Public Laws 78-410; TB-control measures to: Communicable Disease 87-868; 89-109. 1. Eradicate syphilis; case finding, testing, treatment, fol- Center. lowup, doctors' reports, education. 2. Reduce new cases of tuberculosis by early detection, d treatment, and followup. 3. Immunize against polio, tetanus, diphtheria, measles, etc.; preschool children. National Mental Health Mental health programs; assist States to develop, provide, and PUS, National Institute State department mental Board of health, mental C Act, Public Laws 79-487 improve services: of Mental Health. health. health division. and 88-164. 1. Grants for prevention, care, treatment, and rehabilitation of mentally ill; includes out-patient clinics and com- munity programs; grants for initial staffing in some cases. 2. Grants for construction of facilities for mentally ill and retarded; specific conditions. Title V, Social Security Maternal and child health programs to provide and improve Welfare Administration, State department of Local health department Act and 1965 amend- services to mothers and children: Children's Bureau. health. and university hospitals. ~ ments, Public Laws 1. Prevent or reduce sickness and death of mothers and 89-97 and 88-156. children; includes diagnosis and treatment. 2. Provide health care to mothers and infants with compli- 0 eating health conditions, low income. 3. Improve health of preschool and school age youth in low income areas; includes treatment. o 4. Provide special medical and other care to crippled and other handicapped children. 1~ PAGENO="0566" 9 [2 U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION Mr. Hoscn. In the Medicare program, and I don't want to go into that because I realize it is a little bit to the side, I think we sometimes conceive of this as a. direct Federal operation without full cognizance of the Welf are Administration and the Public Health Service in terms of working with the State agencies, the relationship to the title XIX medical program, et cetera. In all of those activities, we find that the most common and per- sistent problem is the one that I know you are fully familiar with, and that is the scarcity of both professional and subprofessional levels. 1 believe at the regional level, it would be possible to gain more ac- curat.e information about training needs at the State and local level. You are familiar with the general thrust of the Muskie bill which attempts to identify a.nd do something about the more difficult per- sonnel shortages and the shortages in training. Also, as I understand it, the Appropriations Committee has di- rected there be a study of the training grants that. are made available to State and local agencies and institutions through our department to see if some greater degree of uniformity in the stipends, the length of the training, the conditions of the training-whether this might be possible. I think in the course of time that this could be carried out, whatever the results are of this study in terms of revised methods, I think these could be carried out. far better at the regional office level than they could be in Washington. In fact., I believe also that if you consider that. training also includes staff development or inservice training, I think a consultant who is responsible to it could work with all of our professional people. in beefing up, creating a better understanding of the need for staff de- velopment, and so on. I think this could be a marvelous contribution. I have to serve as representing the Department of HEW on a number of inter- Federal agency committees such as the Federal Executive Board, Critical Urban Problems Committee. We have tried to work with the President's Committee on Man- power and all of this kind of conimittee work, the input, the avail- ability of information, of skills in the area. of education which is indispensible. If I don't have somebody on the staff that does know this, I cannot fulfill my function of making maximum use of the RElY input as far as the work of other Federal agencies. Another area I would like to mention is that of civil rights coordi- nation. We don't want t.o go into this in terms of national disagree- ments and de facto and de jure and so forth and so on. However, my personal convictions-and I think this is in the state- ment of the Secretary-we need far more emphasis on positive coin- phance work on a commurntvwide basis. I don't think we can cTo this with hospitals, nursing homes, welfare. departments, and the hous- ing and construction fields unless we also consider the many kinds of problems that exist North and South in the area of civil rights as it affects the entire educational community. So I think we need again to be decentralized to the local level, someone thoroughly familiar and expert in the area of civil rights compliance. PAGENO="0567" U.S. OFFICE OF EDTJCATION 913 Am I taking too long? * In the title I area, I think other witnesses have indicated the many, many difficult points of contact between the title I Elementary and Secondary Act program and the other health and welfare programs. It is of great value, I think, and I believe Dr. Brown and Miss Ritter would support me in this, to have inunediately available at the regional office level regional levels of the Bureau of Family Services, the Public Service, the Children's Bureau, the Vocational Rehabilitation, and so on. These are all people with intimate knowledge and many years of association in region V. They know the capacity, the interest, the limitations, and the potential contributions of the State and local, both public and voluntary agencies, because this is their business. Mr. Brown and Miss Ritter, at any time they need help in any par- ticular community or any State department of public education that has problems, that has difficulty in revising or increasing the impact of the title I program-not all but almost all of the professional people in the regional office have had long years of working with the disadvan- taged who know the kinds of help that they can get from State and local, public and voluntary, health and welfare agencies. I think this is the source of assistance that is available on 5 minutes' notice practically; you don't have to write or make a visit to Wash- ington in order to get it. Now, these examples I put down primarily from the standpoint of buttressing what I hope is my not too offbeat suggestion that decen- tralization is essential rather than desirable, because I don't think some of these things that I mentioned can be done by the central office of the Office of Education. I think they have to be done at the regional level. The degree, the accuracy, the sensitivity of the feedback from State and local agen- cies-and as you know organizations die if they don't have adequate feedback. This is true, I believe, in all the other operating agencies of our Department and I think it is equally true in the Office of Education. Mr. BRADEMAS. Thank you very much, Mr. Hosch. That is an ex- tremely thoughtful and interesting suggestion that you have put forth and we will examine it with even greater care once we return to Washington. Mr. Quie. Mr. QuIE. I have no questions. Mr. BRADEMAS. Thank you again, sir. Thank you once again for all your help in making the arrange- ments here today. Mr. }-Ioscu. it has not been only our duty but our pleasure, sir. Mr. BRADEMAS. The Chair observed that the last two witnesses have come into the room and wants to be sure to call on them, first, because they are able and intelligent, and second, because they are the Chair's constituents. I would like first to call on Donald Dake, the assistant superintend- ent of schools from the South Bend Community School Corp. Mr. Dake, we are glad to have you with us, now. Please proceed in any way you like, sir. We have a copy of your review here of Federal programs in South Bend. Perhaps, you would like to make a comment on it. Make any statement you would like to make. PAGENO="0568" 914 U.S~ OFFICE OF EDUCATION STATEMENT OP DONALD DAXE, ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT OP SCHOOLS, SOUTH BEND COMMUNITY SCHOOL CORPORATION Mr. DAKE. I would say that the South Bend Community School Corporation is engaging in every kind of Federal aid program related to public school education that we can involve ourselves in. We have applications for others that we have not been fortunate enough to receive as yet. but we are hopeful. Mr. Q~IE. Have you been turned down on title III? Mr. DAKE. We have, been turned down on title III but that has not deterred us, we are preparing two other title III proposals at the me- ment. Apparently our first title III proposal either did not meet the specifications desired or there were others much b~tter than ours. To date, we are involved in six general areas of Federal aid to edu- cation. First, I would like to say that the funds that have been avail- able to our corporation from Federal sources have made. it possible to provide a type of education that would not have, been possible without these extra funds. `We are most appreciative of them and feel that boys and girls in our community are finding a better type of education than they could have under entirely local and State suppoi~t. I would commend all the programs that we are now involved in and I presume that is not all you want to hear. You would like to Imow how they can likewise be helped to some extent. I think one area that we are most concerned with is in the National Defense Education Act. We are involved in so much paperwork and so much administrative detail that in some instances, it might deter our use of this area in the future as much as we would like to use it. I have one recommendation at least that you might consider. At the present time, we prepare an order under NDEA, a project for material primarily. That order then must go to the State level, that order then must be approved, it must come back to us, we must then rewrite it, then we must receive the materials, then we must turn this information and all the paperwork on the order back to the State again and theim receive one-half of the total order back and then reimburse. We certainly think that in line with some of the other Federal pro- grams, it might be possible to eliminate a lot of this activity and actu- ally make grants the same as they are done in some of the other aid programs. In other words, after we prepared an NDEA order that we send it to our State and it is either approved or rejected and then half of the order is returned in the grant form. This would eliminate tre- mendous hours of red tape and administrative detail. Mr. BRADEMAS. Would you comment, Mr. Dake, on your observa- tion that you would like to see matching grants for NDEA projects, that you would like to see title III NDEA money used for teachers' salaries? Mr. DAKE. ` Yes. I stated on this "dopesheet" that I hive given you that some of these grants or some of this money in NDEA might be used for teachers' salaries or teachers' programs on a grant basis and not on a reimbursable basis. I think that would be very helpful. I can't praise too much the significant contributions that I feel our corporation is making under title I of the Elemeutary and Secondary Education Act.. - PAGENO="0569" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 915 If we have a problem in `there it is only that the schools in which we are operating under the Elementary and Secondary Act are becom- ing the schools that other principals would like to administer and other kids would like to go to school too simply because the funds that are becoming available for the activity in these disadvantaged schools in many cases are providing the kinds of programs that should go in many other schools, not necessarily disadvantaged. Mr. BRADEMAS. Is that observation you have just made not one, I don't say the only, of the answers to the problem of de facto segre- gation? Mr. DAKE. Correct. That is one. Mr. BRADEMAS. If you so greatly insure excellence of instruction in a given school which may be attended by many Negro youngsters, you create a great inducement for white children to come to that school because the teaching is so good. Mr. DAKE. That is correct. Every school program I presume is somewhat unique but in our case, we have provided what we call an instructional resource staff in these schools, a group of people who do nothing but try to improve the instruction in that school and are not handicapped in carrying this out by having a group of children to in- struct every day. They can devote their full attention to working with other teachers, with materials and staff in producing the highest quality of education that we can provide. Mr. QUTE. How many private and how many public? Mr. DAKE. We have in our whole corporation 49 public schools. I cannot give you the exact figure on `the number of parochial schools in our district. I presume there are probably around 20. In the title I program, of course, we are working as you note here with eight, these are all parochial schools. Mr. BRADEMAS. Do you get along all right with them? Mr. DATu~. Very well. There is one coniment I would make in reference to title II under the act. There has been some discussion relative to a central de- pository for title II materials. We think that this would be a most difficult thing to administer and a real handicap to the use of ma- terials if all materials had to be sent in and out of a central depository and on a short-loan basis. As it is in our local community, all of the title II materials that are being used in parochial schools are all inventoried and all cataloged and are all on loan from a public school to a parochial school for a certain length of time, so we know where every piece of material is and we know for how long it is going to be used in a parochial situation. Mr. Qun~. When you say for a certain length of time, say a year, they don't have to bring it back at the end of the year? Mr. DAKE. We ask them to bring it back at the end of the year. In essence, I suppose we have a central depository for every one of the 12 schools that are in the corporation and the parochial schools. This functions because it is not so `big and burdensome, but to put all this in a central center we feel this would be just a little bit more than we could adequately handle and manage under the present setup. There is another comment that I would like to make that is of quite a bit of concern to us under our manpower training program, which is an excellent one;. when , these various programs run out, we have 73-728~67~pt. 2-37 ` `,` ` ` ` , , ` ` ` PAGENO="0570" 916 U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION difficulty in retaining a skilled staff, which is very difficult to secure at the moment. If we have a good training program going and we are not sure that we are going to be funded for another go-around in that same area, we have no way of holding onto the staff. They come and go from us pretty rapidly. This may be a problem that cannot be alleviated but it is a problem in carrying out a good instructional program. Mr. Qtrre. It is a severe problem and especially in the programs which are of short duration, it must be even more severe, like those that only run 15 weeks or so. Mr. IDAXE. That is true. When you have some of the skill areas to develop to retain the staff over a year's period it is quite some concern. Mr. BRADEMAS. Mr. Dake, could you make a comment on the kinds of relationships you have had with respect to regional Office of Educa- tion and the State department of public instruction in Indiana, par- ticularly in respect to ESEA funds-but also any other Federal-aid programs? Mr. D~x,n. We have had an excellent relationship with the State department in Indiana. I feel that we know as soon as they know what the problem is. Within our corporation we have a man assigned to just State and Federal projects. He keeps very close to all of these programs and to these various offices. `We, I suppose, are closer to the State office and the staff there and the friendly give-and-take relationship keeps us informed about what is going on. In the regional office we are not as close to that situation, and the staff changes rapidly in those offices so we don't develop the rapport as much as we do with our State offices. However, I find we have had nothing but good workable relation- ships. Mr. QurE. In your efforts to fund the program under title III, how do you view the future of this program where the funds are not tied to the number of economically or educationally deprived children, but just to improve the excellence of education? What kind of use would you like to see made of this in the future? We have had a suggestion that the vast expansion transfers the emphasis to this. Mr. DAXE. Well, I think that title III of course has been referred to as "the golden title," the title in which you can dream and education can be upgraded or uplifted with creative and innovative projects. I certainly think there is a need for this, providing we can spread whatever is exciting and successful in other areas to the rest of our cities, and I believe there must be an opportunity for this to take place. I think adequate funds going into the every day on-going programs of the schools are essential. Certainly title II, library books, is a. tremendous asset to school corporations. If we poured more money into title III, I think you would have to take it out of title II or out of title I, and here the on-going every day program that is getting a great deal of impetus at the moment out of title I and title II might haveto be reduced. . - Title III funds, I think, should be kept. I am not so sure there are tremendous sun's of money unless it- might be in the Iorm of school- house construction. PAGENO="0571" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 917 Mr. Quii~. In the form of what? Mr. DAKE. Schoolhouse construction. Mr. Quu~. I see. Mr. DAKE. Where novel ideas and new concepts are developed and ideas are to be implemented, you have to have certain kinds of struc- tures to do it, and we have the feeling that money could be tight under title III for schoolhouse construction. Mr. QIJIE. At least there was a liberalization of title III to permit the construction this time as they inventoried the suburb. Mr. DAKE. We are also extremely interested in the same moment at the area under the demonstration cities project hopefully that there might be funds for schoolhouse construction. Mr. QtJIE. Have you any comments on the way the programs run through the State departments of education title I, title II, and title III? As you know in title III, it only permits the State to make some recommendations. What do you think of it; of the idea of requiring State approval or else each State devising a State plan, as some peo- pie have suggested? Mr. DAKE. At our level, I am really not too disturbed over the fact that title III may go directly to the Federal Government. Where we are doing a lot of per capita basis in title I, title II, and so on, I think this works very well as far as the State is concerned. I don't see any necessity to change that program. Mr. BRADEMAS. I want the record to show I have not discussed that issue with Mr. Dake prior to the discussion with Mr. Quie. Mr. QrnE. That is all the questions I have. Mr. BRADEMAS. I have just one more question, Mr. Dake. What about the issue of Federal control? Your middle-sized American city is involved now in a variety of these programs. Has this been a~ problem for you? Mr. DAxJ~. We don't `sense any direct Federal control in that there is a dogmatic direction or a dogmatic direction as to exactly what will happen to the instructional program. Mr. BRADEMAS. That is what I am talking about. Mr. DAKE. Today we have had complete freedom to do what we wanted in this title I program, the kinds of materials that we have' purchased, and they have been numerous, and have had no direction or no curtailment as far as Federal funds areconcerned. If the program were to continue in the same fashion that we are now operating on, I would have no great concern over Federal involve- ment. Mr. BRADEMAS. Mr. Dake, I found your statement very helpful and I want to congratulate you on this extremely useful chart that you have put together on Federal programs. I dare say this is the kind of thing that would be helpful to Members of Congress in every dis- trict in the country, and I don't say so because you come from my city. I am proud of the kind of leadership that is being given in the public' schools of my own home city of South Bend, and I hope you will corn- murncate that observation to our school superintendent, Dr. Holt. I would be grateful, Mr. Dake, if you would just retain your seat there while we bring up the last witness this morning because you may have comments on `what he talks about. (The following table was submitted by Mr. Dake:) PAGENO="0572" Vocational high school programs In distilnutivo, and diversified co- operative education Vocational home economics at Clay and North Linerty. Will operate a vocational business education pro- gram under provisions of 1963 act In 7 hIgh schools thIs year. Adult education, practical nurse education, trade and Industrial apprenticeship, and home eco- nomics in evening school program. Equipment for science, language and reading labs at John Adams, Jackson, Riley, and LaSalle; sci- ence labs at Coquillard, Hamilton, and Eggleston. Numerous ma- terials In all critical subjects. Assistance for counselor's salaries in grades 7-12. AssIstance for salaries and materials for the pilot ele- mentary guidance program. Spe- cial dropout followup studies. nI Same funding problems as in NDEA present legislation funds voca- tionil programs on a rehnbursaolo basis. We woald like to see match. lug grants for approved vocational ~ programs rather than after-the- fact rehnbursa )les. Quallilcd vocational teachers are very hard to iind. Legislation to give ~ scholarships to qualified ap)en- tices might ennurage qualified ~ apprentl~es to go Into vocational teaching. 0 Present legislation funds NDEA ~ projects on a matching, rein- bursable basis. Relmbursables create much additional bootkeep- lug procedures at the local level. Grants co:ild accomplish the same purpose and cut down administra- tive time and paperwork. We would like to see matching grants for NDEA. projects especially in title Ill, or title III money fqr teacher's salaries. 1)o. South Bend's Federal programs Legislation Amount of funding Programs supported South Bend's use of funds Problems wo see * VOCATIONAL EDUCATION ACTS Matching funds for vocational programs that prepare stu- dents for gainful employment not requiring a college degree. NATIONAL DEFENSE EDUCATION ACT Title III materials and equip- ment for critical subjects. Title V guidance and testing_j. Fiscal year 1966, $54,662; fiscal year 1967, $70,000. 1 Fiscal year 1966, $161,531; fiscal year 1967, $54,000.2 Fiscal year 1966, $44,294; fiscal year 1967, $29,819. Adult education; distributive edu- cation; diversilled cooperative edu- cation; tra(le and Industrial edu- cation; practical nurse education; home economics education; and apprentiCesllil) programs. Equipment and materials for sci- ence, math, reading, English, history, civics, government, geog- raphy, and modern foreign lan- guage. Guidance, counseling, and testing programs at all grade levels. PAGENO="0573" MA141'OWEII DEVELOPMENT AND TRAINING Institutional and on-the-job train- ing for unemployed persons who need training or retraining to pre- pare for jobs available in the local economy. 2700 persons have been enrolled as follows: 1964, 1100 (Studebaker closing); 1965, 900; 1966, 400; and 1967, 300 (estimate). Classes offered: Machine trades; auto mechanic; auto body repair; drafting; heating service; air-con- ditioning service; TV and radio repair; furniture upholsterers; cooks and bakers; building main- tenance; nurses aids, clerk-stenog- raphers; clerk-typists; and data processing programers. Difficult to operate sound educa- tional programs because of indefi- nite funding which causes lack of continuity in programing and plan- ning with consequent staffing, ad- ministrative, and enrollment prob- lems. For example, to operate these programs effectively, we need highly skilled instructors. If you cannot offer ass instructor some con- tinuity in his job, you cannot hold him or employ him. When Stude- baker closed there was a surplus of skilled tradesmen but now they are in demand, and we must offer some continuity in employment for a qualified instructor. We lose staff between projects be- cause of delays in approval. Too much "crash" programing. More coordination between MDTA and Neighborhood Youth Corps so that enrollees can receive train- ing and retraining as well as just work experience. Annual appropriations and contracts make it difficult to plan for pro- gram continuity in renewal of annimi contracts. Annual appro- priations also result in "crash" programs. For example, 1 of our contracts expires in 1 week, and we do not know the status of our new contract yet. At the present time, personnel changes in regional office result in different interpretations of guide- lines governing operation of pro- grams. Titlc II, training and skill de- To date, $2,441,76& velopment programs. ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT Title I, Neighborhood Youth Corps. To date, $905,915 Neighborhood Youth Corps Work experience program for dis- advantaged youth ages 16 through 21. Project STEP Financial as- sistance to encourage these youth to (1) stay in school; (2) return to school; (3) become employable; and (4) acquire self dignity. Work in private and nonprofit agencies. Do not compete with private business. To date, 1,902 applications with 1,083 youth enrolled. Program operates in St. Joseph County. w ci See footnotes at end of table. PAGENO="0574" ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT- continued Title II, Project Headstart South Bend's Federal programs-Continued Fiscal year 1965, $13,000; fiscal year 1966, $55,000. Legislation Amount of funding Programs supported South Bend's use of funds Problems we see Preschool programs for disadvan- taged chiidren. ci w 0 1~j 0 ci More time for planning and organiz- ing programs. Too much indefinitness and "crash" programing involved for good management. We need definite funding and pro- gram commitments early for sound educational planning. Two summer Headstart programs: 1965, 90 children; 1966, 475 chil- dren. Programs provided following ser- vices: 1. Preschool education. 2. Morning snack, noon meal. 3. Social services. 4. Medical services. (a) Physical exams. (b) Eye and hearing. (c) Speech. (d) Psychological. (e) Immunizations. (f) Followup. Program housed in public school buildinc-s. 1966 program served South Bend, Penn, and Misha- waka children. PAGENO="0575" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION ACT Title I, educational programs for disadvantaged children. Special educational program and services for children from low- income areas. Programs operate in target public and private schools where there are high con- centrations of disadvantaged chil- dren. Purchase of library, audiovisual, and instructional materials for all children and teachers. A program of compensatory educa- tion that is an integral part of the regular school program providing such services as: 13 instructional resource teachers; 13 instructional aids; 4 elementary counselors; 5 adult community leaders; 1 physchologist; 1 testing specialist; 6 nurses; 6 fine arts teachers; 4 special education teachers; 1 speech therapist; and 1 librarian. In addition to the personal serv- ices, there are instructional ma- terials and equipment for total curriculum enrichment. 13 public and 8 private schools participate in this program. Strengthening libraries in public schools with books, periodicals, and audiovisual materials. Mak- ing similar materials available to children and teachers in private schools. Need for planning grants and plan- ning time to develop good, sound educational programs. Rapid in- flux of Federal money causes rapid expansion at the local level with resultant administrative, staffing. management, and morale prob- lems. Inadequate staff experience behind new ideas. Adequate time and money to support planning so that all phases of these programs can be thoroughly thought out and planned before money is "dumped" on school districts. Need more autonomy for budget reprograming at the local level, particularly with new programs. No funds provided for administra- tion of this title at the local level. Administrative funds are needed. Amounts of funds provided for processing of materials are not sufficient to get the job done effi- ciently and effectively. Idea of central depositories for mak- ing materials available to children and teachers in private schools is an administrative headache. We would like to see the loan basis for private schools continued. Fiscal year 1966, $500,961; fiscal year 1967, $417, 716.3 Fiscal year 1966, $67,900; fiscal year 1967, $59,651.' Title II, library and instruc- tional materials. 1 Estimate. 2 50 percent of total. 0 t~J 0 tn 83 percent of total. PAGENO="0576" 922 u.s. OFFICE OF EDUCATION Mr. BRADEMAS. Could we now hear from Robert Riley, the dean of the Vocational Technical College of Indianapolis? Will you come forward, please? I may say that Mr. Riley was in charge of adult and vocational education in South Bend for a number of years and I had the good fortune of working with him in the period following the shutdown in 1963 of the Studebaker plant when we had about 8,000 people out of work in South Bend. The fact we were able to provide some rapidly effective manpower training programs is due in large measure to Mr. Riley's very able leadership. We are glad to have you here. Perhaps you will tell us your new position and tell us any comments. STATEMENT OP ROBERT RILEY, DEAN OP THE VOCATIONAL TECHNICAL COLLEGE, INDIANAPOLIS Mr. RILEY. Thank you for the comments. It is nice to see you, Congressman. I have no copies. I was not informed of this until a late date. I would like to impress upon this committee that, in our opinion, there is a new educational spectrum arriving in the United States that is post-high-school, adult education. I hope this committee realizes that out of every 100 students entering high school, 30 drop out during their high school career. That leaves 70 at graduation and if you use the percentage going on to baccalaureate degree, ~3.6 percent flunk out of the baccalaureate degrees in the first year. So you end up basically, in the United States, with 14 to 15 students who enter college receiving a baccalaureate degree. The training and retraining of adults is of tremendous importance. It is esti- mated adults will have to retrain three to four times during their life- time to maintain occupational competence during this, age. Now, of the 95 percent of those entering the ninth grade we must provide the higher type of education strictly oriented to occupational training. I would like now to speak specifically to the Federal legislation concerning the Vocational Act of 1963. I have several points. First, I would like to say that the Federal officials within the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare are most helpful and we see no Federal control at all from this level. In regard to the cooperative education phase of the 1963 act, this is the phase that provides funds to pay salaries of youngsters who may be working in nonprofit organizations, we see this as a duplication of effort with the OEO Neighborhood Youth Corps. know in Indiana we have had to return all funds allocated for that imder the 1963 act because the Neighborhood Youth Corps picked up all the April earnings that were needed in the various governmental and not-for-profit agencies. I believe that more emphasis in the vocational legislation should be for the construction of facilities. It is our understanding that Fed- eral funds are to stimulate the States to provide the type of education that I have spoken about. I feel that the construction of facilities is the long-term stimulation to keep things operating. It has l)Een noted throughout the United PAGENO="0577" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 923 States that if you have facilities then funds come from the State or local level regardless of whether you have Federal funds available. The next item that I would like to present for your consideration is that we would hope that the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare could consolidate all of the Federal acts into laymen's lan- guage so that people in the State would know what is available. I have here a document we had to hire a law firm to tell us just what was available for us to apply for and work with. Mr. QuIE. That is why they call some of these acts the attorney's retirement program. Mr. Riui~y. Number 4 has to do with communication. Under the line staff organization the Federal officials communicate usually with one individual in a State and it is rather difficult for local educational. institutions of both secondary and higher education to communicate except there may be one named individual. Now, this may be good for management. However, it would seem. to me that at times surveys or questIonnaires could be made available to the local educational agencies to see if their thoughts and their com- munications are getting through, you see. We in Indiana in the field of post high school and higher education encourage Federal Government to pursue further legislation in the area of post high school and to provide more and more funds for this type of education. As we all know, our population is increasing, our industries are changing rapidly to keep up with the economy. To keep well-trained people available, we feel that more and more legislation and more funds should be returned to the States to keep a stimulus going so that our economy can forge ahead. Item No. 6 is a repeat of the other but I cannot emphasize the tre- mendous need in Indiana, and I would assume throughout the Nation, for education which we call post high school and the post-high-school area for those people who have completed secondary education whether they have graduated or not and we also feel for college dropouts. We encourage job training and encourage institutions to keep train- ing programs job oriented. We have many facilities for baccalaureate degrees and there are systems of junior colleges, junior colleges that do an excellent job. We hope that the junior colleges and senior colleges will keep their training job oriented to fill the needs of business and industry. , As Indiana business and industry grow, the need for trained men and women will become more acute. Thousands of Hoosier men and women have capabilities but lack the skills to hold responsible posi- tions.. Job opportunities in busines and industry are great today and will be greater in the years ahead. Indiana's business, labor and gov- ernmental leaders are dedicated to this end. would imagine the committee would, be interested to hear that Indiana dedicated to the proposition of developing 13. regional tech- nical institutions. We are dedicated to providing post-high-school technical vocational education. completely job oriented within the State of Indiana. Mr. Quu~. Howmany of those are operating now?. Mr.' Rir~y. Four now. , ` . . . Mr. QurE. Then, `what is the time sëhedule to get to the 13th one?. PAGENO="0578" 924 U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION Mr. RILEY. Four additional ones in 2 years and then in the other areas, we will operate through a system of contracting with existing educational agencies. Mr. QuIE. These are called colleges. Is it right that you are called "educational college"? Mr. RILEY. Yes. Mr. QuIB. That is different from the area of vocational schools you are talking about? Mr. RILEY. Some areas call them area vocational technical schools and some are operated under the State departments of public instruc- tion. In Indiana ours is devised to operate as the fifth State. college and we feel that this is t.he best approach because the operating ex- pense of this college will come from the general assembly or State funds. I think the big problem in our State is the tremendous increasing of local property tax. Post-high-school education is operating on a local property tax basis, this drains funds from the secondary and elementary educational program. So we have chosen the route as a State institution. Mr. QUIE. What liaison and what duplication of program is there between the vocational and technical school in the region in which Indianapolis exists and your vocational technical college? Mr. RILEY. Nowhere in the State of Indiana does there exist an institution dedicated strictly to post-high-school vocational technical education. Local school systems for years have been operating pro- grams of this nature but they are all part-time programs 2 or 3 hours a night, 1 night a week. Mr. Qurs. You say there are now four vocational technical schools? Mr. RILEY. Our technical institutes at the present time. Mr. QuIE. That is different from the college you are talking about, or are they the same? Mr. RILEY. Excuse me. This is somewhat unique. The Indiana Vocational Technical College is the State college. Mr. Quir. But those 13 are different than State colleges? Mr. RILEY. The way we have organized this is to divide the State into 13 regions and we will put a college, or we call them institutes, in each region. Mr. BRADEMAS. It is a branch, then, of the central college? Mr. RILEY. That is right. Mr. BRADEMAS. And the fifth college is not a teaching facility but rather is the name of the organization? Mr. RILEY. That is correct. Mr. BRADEMAS. Of which these are the creatures? Mr. Ruj~y. The college per se is the administrative organization which sets the guidelines and standards and provides the funds for our 13 institutes. Mr. BRADEMAS. And it is not a college in the sense of being an institution of higher education on a level with a degree-granting col- lege or university. Is that correct? Mr. RILEY. No, sir; it is not of a baccalaureate nature. It is less than baccalaureate. Mr. Qurs. Is there any vocational, technical training and Federal money going into an institution of higher learning or is all of it going into your college and the institutes that they will be operating? PAGENO="0579" U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 925 Mr. RILEY. Federal funds are being channeled into the vocational technical college which are used to- Mr. Quii. But not any of the higher education institutions? Mr. RILEY. Purdue University and Indiana University receive Fed- eral funds for those programs that qualify. Mr. BRADEMAS. By those programs that qualify which Purdue and Indiana receive funds for, do you refer to moneys under the Voca- tional Education Act of 1963 and/or the 22 percent set-aside in title I of the Higher Education Act of 1963 which is aimed at college level, semiprofessional tecirnical education? Mr. Riu~y. My information is that those two universities qualify f or both acts inasmuch as under the Vocational Acts it can be made available. Mr. BRADEMAS. In the Indiana Technical Vocational College you would not qualify under the act for technical education as distin- guished from vocational education moneys. Is that correct? Mr. RILEY. That is correct. Mr. QUIE. Who makes the determination in the State of the amount of Federal vocational money that goes to the high schools on either a part-time basis for adults or for the secondary school level? How much goes into your operation with the institution connected with the college and how much goes into the Purdue operation? Mr. RILEY. We have in Indiana State a board of vocational and technical training whose sole and only responsibility is to make that judgment. It has now been organized in such a manner that the Indiana Vocational Technical College receives all of the funds that they wish to provide for all post-high-school and adult education, and then we make those funds available to Purdue, Indiana, Indiana State, Ball State, and to the local school systems in that area. We have broken this down so there are only two agencies. One, the department of public instruction receives its funds for secondary edu- cation and Indiana receives the balance of the funds for this type of education, post high school, and then we make available to all of the institutions. Mr. Quru. Very good. Mr. BRADEMAS. You are making available funds, are you not, for the construction of area vocational schools? Mr. RILEY. Yes, we are. Sir, I detect we have received a $1.2 million last fiscal which we have allocated to South Bend, md., for the St. Joseph Valley Technical Institute. Mr. BRADEMAS. Will you be drawing on the same construction money for the same institutions around the State or will you be using existing institutions to house these facilities where you can? Mr. RILEY. We will be using existing facilities where they are avail- able to us and where we need to build new facilities, we will be drawing. under the area school concept. Mr. BRADEMAS. Mr. Dake observed that he felt we needed more voca- tional teachers. Have you any comment on that observation? Mr. RILEY. Yes. In Indiana, and I would once again assume throughout the Nation, there is a dire shortage of highly skilled voca- tional teachers. PAGENO="0580" 926 u.s. OFI~ICE OF EDtTCATION Mr. BRADEMAS. What do we need to do to get more? This is a matter that may be discussed by our committee very soon. Mr. Ruj~y. As I have always pointed out, you can generally train an individual in teacher training techniques, but it is very difficult to train him to become skilled in the occupation. And the solution to that is to attract highly qualified individuals who are working into some type of a teacher training program of a shorter duration than 4 years so that he or she may become available to fill these vocational education teaching spots throughout the country. Mr. QuIE. How many have you lost to say the Job Corps? Mr. Ru~uy. Normally the public schools have lost very few because the Job Corps is not tied to certain policies of 4-year degree and voca- tional training. They can hire vocationally competent people and put them in as competent. A few we have lost. Mr. BRADEMAS. Mr. Dake, does this structure of which Mr. Riley was speaking in the field of vocational education pose any problems for you in the public school systems? Mr. DAur. I was going to make one comment about staff where I think we have to keep quite a bit of balance in mind. The shortage of vocational teachers-we were using teachers who do not necessarily have public school degrees. We ought to keep in mind that in our high schools, we are offering the undergraduate training to vocational education and that is the industrial arts program and all of our schools are well equipped with this facility and with these teachers. We have to watch this balance or we are going to lose the secondary art teacher into these various vocational schools. Even though they may not require the amount of training, the salaries that they would pay, the 12-month assignment and so on will have a great deal of effect on the retention of industrial arts people who are in a sense vocational people in schools starting at the seventh grade. And so we have been trying to keep that balance in our own local community but with a great shortage of not only vocational partly trained teachers in comparison to the regular teachers, we also are not training enough teachers in various institutions to do the industrial arts job either. So we are really in a bind any way you look at it. Mr. BRADEMAS. Thank you very much, Mr. Riley and Mr. Dake. Let me observe by way of conclusion that Mr. Quie and I have found our 2-day meeting here in Evanston on the campus of Northwestern University extremely helpful and we want to express once more our appreciation to the president, Roscoe Miller of North- western, to Mr. Hosch, Mr. Mousolite, Miss Proesel, Mr. Chipman, and indeed, to everyone who has testified and who has made our visit here a fruitful one. Thank you very much indeed. We are adjourned. (Whereupon, at 12:20 p.m., the Special Subcommittee on Educa- tion adjourned.) 0