PAGENO="0001" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 HEARINGS BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES NINETIETH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION ON H.R. 6230 A BILL TO STRENGTHEN AND IMPROVE PROGRAMS OF ASSISTANCE FOR ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION BY EXTENDING AUTHORITY FOR ALLOCATION OF FUNDS TO BE USED FOR EDU- CATION OF INDIAN CHILDREN AND CHILDREN IN OVERSEAS DE- PENDENT SCHOOLS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE. BY EXTENDING AND AMENDING THE NATIONAL TEACHER CORPS PROGRAM, BY PROVIDING ASSISTANCE FOR COMPREHENSIVE EDU- CATIONAL PLANNING, AND BY IMPROVING I'ROGRAMS OF EDUCA- TION FOR THE HANDICAPPED; TO IMPROVE PROGRAMS OF VOCA- TIONAL EDUCATION; TO IMPROVE AUTHORITY FOR ASSISTANCE TO SCHOOLS IN FEDERALLY IMPACTED AREAS AND AREAS SUFFER- ING A MAJOR DISASTER; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES HEARINGS HELD IN WASHINGTON, flC., MARCH 2, 3, 6, 7, AND 8, 1967 Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and Labor CARL D. PERKINS, Uh4ir?fl4Th 0 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 75-492 WASHINGTON: 1967 PAGENO="0002" COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR CARL D. PERKINS, Kentucky, Chairman 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 HUGH L. CAREY, New York AUGUSTUS F. HAWKINS, California 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 CARL ALBERT, Oklahoma II WILLIAM H. AYRES, Ohio ALBERT H. QUIE, Minnesota CHARLES E. GOODELL, New York JOHN M. ASHBROOK, Ohio ALPHONZO BELL, California OGDEN R. REID, New York EDWARD J. GURNEY, Florida JOHN N. ERLENBORN, Illinois WILLIAM J. SCHERLE, Iowa JOHN DELLENBACK, Oregon MARVIN L. ESCH, Michigan EDWIN D. ESHLEMAN, Pennsylvania JAMES C. GARDNER, North Carolina WILLIAM A. STEIGER, Wisconsin PAGENO="0003" CONTENTS Hearings held in Washington, D.C.: Page ~1arch 2, 1967_ ~ 1 March 3, 1967_ 321 March 6, 1967 411 March 7, 1967 525 March 8, 1967 621 Text of H.R. 6230 3 Statement of- Briggs, Dr. Paul, superintendent, Cleveland public school system_ - - 720 Fuller, Edgar, executive secretary, Council of Chief State School Officers, Harry Sparks, superintendent of public instruction. Ken- tucky; Floyd T. Christian, superintendent of public instruction, Florida; Ray Page, superintendent of public instruction, Illinois, and Paul F. Johnston, superintendent of public instruction Iowa_ - 41 1 Gardner, Hoii. John W., Secretary of Department of Health, Educa- tion, and Welfare 525 Gordon, Dr. Jack D., member, Advisory Committee on Title V, Dade County, Fla 476 Howe, Hon. Harold, U.S. Commissioner of Education; accompanied by J. Graham Sullivan, l)eputv Commissioner of Education; R. Louis Bright, Associate Coinrnissioiier for Research: Nolan Estes, Associate Commissioner for Elementary and Secondary Education; J. William Rioux, Acting Associate Commissioner for Education of the Handicapped; Richard Graham, Director of the National Teacher Corps; and Albert L. Alford, Assistant Commissioner for Legislation 30 Hughes, John F., 1)irector, Division of Compensatory Education_ - - - 609 T~1ar1and, Dr. Sidney P., Jr., superinteiideiit of schools, Pittsburgh, Pa.; \Lrs. Elizabeth D. Koontz, president, Department of Class- room Teachers, National Education Association: Thomas W. Carr, staff director, National Advisory Council on the Education of Disadvantaged Children; and Michael Kirst, assistant staff director of the council 321, 368 Multer, Hoti. Abraham, a Representative in Congress from the State of New York 622 Pepper, Hon. Claude, a Representative in Congress, from the State of Florida 476 Representatives of Greater Cities Superintendents Association: Dr. Bernard Donovan, New York City; Dr. Laurence Paciiiin, Balti- more, Dr. William Ohrenberger, Boston; Dr. Paul Briggs, Cleveland; Dr. Normami Drachler, Detroit, Dr. Harold Vincent, Milwaukee, Dr. Taylor Whittier, Philadelphia; and Dr. Ralph Dailard, San Diego 622 Reuss, Hon. Henry S., a Representative in Congress from the State of Wisconsin 621 Vanik, Hon. Charles A., a Representative in Congress from the State of Ohio 719 Prepared statements, letters, supplemental material, etc.: Crowther, Jack P., superintendent~, Los Angeles city schools, testi- mony by 728 Dailard, Ralph, superintendent~, San Diego city schools: Preliminary report on the use of Federal funds in educational programs in the San Diego city schools 735 Statement by 725 Department of Health, Education, arid Welfare fact sheets 62 m PAGENO="0004" IV CONTENTS Prepared stateiuent~. letters. supplemental material, etc-Continued T)onovan, Bernard E., superintendent of schools, Board of Education, City of New York: Entitlements and allotments to selected States under title I, ESEA Act fiscal years 1960-68 (table) Letter to Chairman Perkins, dated March 3, 1967 Drachier, Norman, superintendent of Detroit Public Schools: Statement of Testimony of Basic reading demonstration component (abstract) Communication skills component (abstract) 1)eveloprnental career guidance in action (abstract) Dissemination project (abstract) Educational television for disadvantaged schools (abstract)__ Federal and State supported projects (tables) Great cities expansion component (abstract) In-service education (abstract) In-se hool youth work-training component (abstract) Job-upgrading project (abstract) Preschool child and parent education component (abstract) - - Program evaluation project (abstract) Program to continue education of girls who must leave school because of pregnancy (abstract) Fuller Edgar, executive secretary Council of Chief State School Officers: Position on title III amendments for congressional action-copy of sentigram Statement of Supplemental statement on necessary State planning in education_ USOE memorandum of November 9, 1966 Gardner, Hon. John W., Secretary of Department of Health, Educa- tion, and Welfare: Comparison of fiscal year 1967 actual allotment (less juvenile delinquents, dependent and neglected, and migratory children) with fiscal year 1967 allotments without regard to the floor provisions of individual States; administrative funds are included in both amounts (table) Comparison of fiscal year 1967 allotments with estimated 1968 allotments (table) Families by total money income in 1953 to 1965, in constant dollars, for the United States, by regions (table) Need for staff resources for educational planning in State depart- ments of education, statement on the Summary of title I, ESEA funds for fiscal years 1966, 1967, and 196S (table) Title I, assistance for educationally deprived children (table)..__.. Goodell, Hon. Charles E., a Representative in Congress from the State of New York, letter from John F. Hughes, director, Division of Compensatory Education, dated February 27, 1967 Graham, Richard, Director, Teacher Corps, U.S. Office of Education: Statement of "Teacher Corps," paper entitled Hawkins, Hon. Augustus F., a Representative in Congress from the State of California, report on the Teacher Corps in the State of California prepared for Johnson, President Lyndon B.: Message on education and health in America Message on welfare of children Kottmeyer, William, superintendent of instruction, St. Louis public schools, statement of Manch, Joseph, superintendent, Buffalo Public Schools, Buffalo, N.Y., "Buffalo Schools Meet the Challenge," publication entitled Statement of Page 776 776 691 693 702 697 714 696 695 716 699 707 704 701 706 705 715 461 441 458 456 589 551 591 564 554 587 609 180 183 246 19 69 636 642 640 PAGENO="0005" CONTENTS V Prepared statements, letters, supplemental material, etc.-Continued Howe, Hoii. Harold, II, U.S. Commissioner of Education: Budget requests of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Office of Education: Page Arts and humanities educational activities (table) 288 Civil rights educational activities (table) 287 Colleges for agriculture and the mechanic arts (permanent) (table) 286 Educational improvement for the handicapped (table) - - - - 285 Ediicatioiial research and training (special foreign currency program) (table) 285 Element:irv and secondary educational activities (tabie)_ 282 Expansion and iniprovemeiit of vocational education (table) - 284 Higher education loan fiuid (table) 287 higher educational activities (table) 283 Libraries and community services (table) 284 National Teacher Corps (table) 283 Promitotiomi of vocatiomial education, act of February 23, 1917 (permanent) (table) 286 Research amid training (table) 285 Salaries and expenses (table) 286 School assistitmice iii federally affected areas (table) 282 Student loan insurance fund (table) 286 Summary (table) 281 Ellenhogen, Theodore, assistant general counsel, memorandum from 272 ERIC clearimighoitses 169 Fact sheet describing legislation that the Department has pre- pared 62 Federal funds for education, training, and related programs by agency (table) 240 Institutions having NCATE accreditation 222 "National Conference on Education of the 1)isadvantaged,'' pub- licationerititled 83 Statement by 31 Appendix A.-Estimated Expenditures Uader Title I, ESEA (table) 9 Appendix B-The First Year of Pace-Elementary and Secondary Education Act (Public Law 89-10, Title III, Fiscal Year 1966 (charts) 50 Appendix C-Research and Development Centers 54 Appendix D-1.-Examples of Developmental Activities Funded by the Research Division 56 Appendix l)-2.------Research and J)emonstration Projects Sup- ported Under Section 302, Title III, of Public Law 88-164 (table) 57 Appendix E-1.-Brief Statistical Summary of the Current Employment Status of 1,857 Academic Year 1965-66 Award Recipients Included in This Study (table) 57 Appendix E-2.-Grant Program in the Education of the Handicapped, Public Law 85-926, as Amended (table) - 57 Appendix E-3.-------Graiit Program for the Preparation of Professional Person nel in tin Edit cation of Hand ta nned Children Under Public Law 85-926, As Amended (table) -- 58 Appendix F-Public Law 89-313 Fiscal Year 1966 Entitle- ments (table) 59 Appendix 0.-Press release of Thursday, January 12, 1967_ 59 Appendix H -Amendments to Disaster Authority iii Public Laws 874 and 815 59 PAGENO="0006" VI CONTENTS Prepared statements, letters. supplemental material, etc.-Contlnued Ohrenberger, William H., superintendent, Public Schools, Boston, Mass.: Page Letter to Chairman Perkins, dated March 31, 1967 758 Estimated fiscal needs of the Boston Public Schools under title I, ESEA from September 1, 1967, through August 31, 1968 Disposition of title I, ESEA funds for 1966 and 1967 758 The interrelation of activities of the Boston Public Schools under ESEA of 1965 and other public laws affecting education 752 Redmond, Dr. James F., general superintendent of schools, Board of Education, Chicago, Ill.: Abstract of statement by 640 Statement of 638 Sparks, Dr. Harry M., superintendent of public instruction, State Department of Education, Commonwealth of Kentucky: Allen, 0. J., superintendent, Breckinridge County Schools, Hardinsburg, Ky., letter from, dated February 24, 1967 415 Fancy, Gene C., superintendent of schools, Hopkinsvile, Ky., letter from, dated February 24, 1967 415 Progress report on utilization of title I funds 418 Exhibit 1.-Summary of utilization of title I funds, fiscal 1967, by counties (table) 421 Exhibit 2.-Summary of district utilization of title I funds 1967, and student participation (table) 422 Exhibit 3.-Total professional and nonprofessional personnel participating in title I projects as of March 1, 1967 (table)_ 428 Listing of projects approved, by region, title, type, and funds allocated (table) 420 Stimbert, E. C., superintendent, Memphis City Schools, Memphis, Tenn.: Statement of 623 Supplemental material submitted by 624 PAGENO="0007" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1967 THURSDAY, MARCH 2, 1967 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITrEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR, Washington, D.C. The committee met at 9:30 a.m., pursuant to call, in room 2175, Ray- burn House Office Building, Hon. Carl D. Perkins (chairman) pre- siding. Present: Representatives Perkins, Green, Thompson, Holland, Dent, Pucinski, Daniels, Brademas, O'Hara, Carey, Hawkins, Gib- bons, Ford, Hathaway, Mink, Scheuer, Meeds, Burton, Ayres, Quie, Goodell, Bell, Reid, Gurney, Erlenborn, Scherle, Dellenback, Esch, Eshleman, Gardner, and Steiger. Staff members present: Robert E. McCord, senior specialist; H. D. Reed, Jr., general counsel; William D. Gaul, associate general counsel; Benjamin F. Reeves, editor; Louise M. Dargans, research assistant; and Charles W. Radcliffe, special education counsel for minority. Chairman PERKINS. The committee will come to order. A quorum is present. I am pleased to welcome before the committee this morning the dis- tinguished Commissioner of Education, the Honorable Harold Howe, of the U.S. Office of Education. It is my personal observation that the Commissioner has handled with considerable skill the many complex problems confronting the U.S. Office of Education in effectively administering new educational programs recently initiated by the 88th and 89th Congresses. This morning the committee will be particularly interested in the course of the.se hearings, in learning how the law may be strengthened to bring about the greater educational opportunities all of us who have worked so hard on the legislation during the last. two sessions would like to see in the elementary and secondary schools of our Nation. I note that the administration has given attention to those certain features of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act which need additional authority for their continuation beyond June 30 of this year-the National Teacher Corps, the participation by the Bureau of Indian Affairs schools and the provisions of titles I, IT, and III of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. of 1965, and the support being given the Department of Defense overseas schools for dependents of military personnel under the provisions of titles II and III of the act. In addition to receiving data on the operation of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, I am hopeful that we will be PAGENO="0008" 2 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDLTATION AMENDMENTS receiving concrete information from the administration as to the technical amendments and the improvements that we sought to make in Public. Law 81-874 in the 19~6 amendments. I am pleased that the proposals call for changes in the National Teachers Corps program which will greatly strengthen this source of vitally needed teaching resources for disadvantaged schools. I am hopeful that this committee may proceed to expedite its consideration of this legislation. I should say at this point that this special sub-. committee. composed of all the members will consider all features of HR. ~30 with the exception of title II dealing with vocational education which will be referred to the general Subcommittee on Education. It. is entirely appropriate that these hearings open on this day, March 2. l9(i7. This is a landmark day for education. It marks the centennial anniversary for both the U.S Office of Education and 1-Toward University. This committee has legislative jurisdiction over 1)0th. The establishment of Howard University 100 years ago was the earliest. Federal institution to provide free higher education for the recently freed slaves. During its century. Howard has made great progress and today, as it embarks on its second century, its goals are to become a great university, rather t.han just a. great Negro university. In this it is reflecting the spirit and mood of the times just as its founding 100 years ago reflected the spirit and mood of those times. The progress that Howard has made. is evidenced by the fact that the Nation's leading industrial corporations annually send recruiters to its campus seeking its eager and bright young students for employment in professional capacities. On behalf of myself and the committee.. I wish to congratulate Howard University and its fine president. Dr. James Nabrit. I pledge that this committee will cooperate wherever necessary with the admin- istration of 1-Toward to hell) it achieve its lofty goals. Today also marks the 100th anniversary of the U.S. Office of Educa.- tion which, like Howard, has grown from very modest beginnings to one of the most important. if not the most important single bureau within the Federal Government structure. This committee can join with Commissioner 1-lowe in taking pride in the development, of this Office, for the legislative, programs which we have initiated during the last 10 years have contributed to its importance. The anniversary will he marked by ceremonies in front of the Office's headquarters. 400 Maryland Avenue. at 12:30. Members of the corn- mit~~e have been invited to attend. and I should like to at this time remind them of the ceremonies and urge t.heir attendance. Tt is entirely possible that the Commissioner may wish to be excused before completion of his testimony and questions and answers, for t.he purpose of attending the ceremonies, and I am sure the committee will a.ccrnninodate him. Tf all members have not completed the questioning of the Com- missioner and his staff, we can have him return this afternoon after the ceremonies and he will remain here as long as necessary for the completion of his testimony and all of the members have an oppor- tunitv to interrogate the Commissioner. PAGENO="0009" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 3 Commissioner Howe, on behalf of the committee., we extend our con~ratulat ions. We take pride in two other landmark aspects of today's hearings. The Elementary and Secondary Education Act, when it was passel 2 years ago, was universally ha fled as a landmark bill and today we seek to extend and amend it.s provisions, many of which do not expire until June 30, 1968, in a.n attempt to provide the time to the thou- sands of school administrators throughout the Nation. If achieved, this will be a landmark effort in coordinating Federal-State relation- ships. Let me say, Mr. Commissioner, that there is tremendous interest. I personally know because of telephone calls that I have received every day from the school people throughout the Nation. They are critical about the cutback in the budget. I am hopeful that from the estimates that we have., that somewhere along the line you may be able to tell us whether or not a supl)le- mental has been discussed. With so many of these people. who have already started on programs, it was difficult for some of them to get started and they now say they will have to cut back their personnel and dilute their best programs to a great degree. I know the, President of the ITnited States, as hard as he worked to get this bill enacted, certainly want.s t.o see a most efficient opera- tion in all of t.he deprived schools of this Nation. I am most hope- ful that the legislation can be financed to t.he full exte.nt of the authorization. The complaints that I seem to be receiving are to the. effect that we only have sufficient money in t.he deprived sections of the. country for operation purposes, not considering the great need for school construction in these deprive.d areas of the country. It will be the purpose of this committee to strengthen these oppor- tunities in every way we possibly can. We cannot. appropriate money, of course, but. we intend to provide the best. legislation possible so that the Appropriations Committee can fulfill the authorization. It is a great pleasure for me to welcome you here. I know you are doing an outstanding job as Commissioner of Education. The hearings will be held on the bill that. I have introduced. The number of that bill, H.R. 6230, and the number of the bill introduced by the distiiiguislied gent leuiaii from Indiana, Mr. Brademas, who will sponsor the legislation, is H.R. 6236. (H.R.. 6236 is identical to H.R. 6230.) (The bill, H.R. 6230, referred to follows:) [HR. 6230. 90th Cong.. 1st sess.] A BILL To strengthe.n and improve programs of assistance for elementary and secondary c'ducation by extending authority for allocation of funds to he used for education of Indian children and children In overseas dependents schools of the Department of Defense, by extending and amending the National Teacher Corps program, by providing ~oiotance for c'~mprohcnsivo cth~catiana] pinr~ng, and by liaproving programs of e(lucation for the handicapped : to improve programs of vocational education to improve authority for assistance to schools in federally impacted areas and areas suffering a major disaster and for other purposes Re it enacted. by the Senate and House of Representatives of tie United. States of America in. Congress assembled. That this Act may be cited as the "Elementary and Secondary Education Amendments of 1967". PAGENO="0010" 4 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS TITLE I-AMENDMENTS TO THE ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDU- CATION ACT OF 1965, AND RELATED AMENDMENTS PART A-AMENDMENTS TO TITLE I OF ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION ACT OF 1965 SUBPART 1-AMENDMENTS TO TITLE II OF PUBLIC LAW 81-874 Extending for One Year Provisions Relating to Schools for Indian Children SEC. 101. The third sentence of section 203 (a) (1) (A) of the Act of September 30, 1950 (Public Law 874, Eighty-first Congress), is amended by striking out "June 30, 1967," and inserting in lieu thereof "June 30, 1968,". Raising the Dollar Limitation for State Administrative Expenses Under Title II of Public Law 874 SEC. 102. Effective for fiscal years beginning after June 30, 1967, section 207 (b) (2) of the Act of September 30, 1950 (Public Law 874, Eighty-first Gongress), is amended by striking out "$75,000" and inserting in lieu thereof "$150,000". Technical Corrections With Respect to Payments on Account of Neglected or Delinquent Children and Payments for Children of Migratory Agricultural Workers SEC. 103. (a) The first sentence of section 203(a) (2) of the Act of September 30, 1950 (Public Law 874, Eighty-first Congress), is amended by inserting "(other than such institutions operated by the United States)" immediately after "living in institutions for neglected or delinquent children", and by striking out "paragraph (5)" and inserting in lieu thereof "paragraph (7)". (b) Section 205(c) (1) (C) of such Act is amended by striking out "(8)" and inserting in lieu thereof "(10)". (c) Section 206 (a) (3) and section 207(b) of such Act are each amended by striking out "section 205(a) (5)" and inserting in lieu thereof "section 205 (a) (6)". Redesignating Section Numbers in Title II of Public Law 874 SEC. 104. For the purpose of avoiding confusion between references to section numbers of title II of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 and references to section numbers of title II of Public Law 81-874 (which latter title is also generally cited as title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965), sections 201 through 214 of Public Law 874, Eighty-first Congress, as amended by the preceding sections of this Act, are redesignated as sections 101 through 114, respectively, and all references to any such section in that or any other law, or in any rule, regulation, order, or agreement of the United States are amended so as to refer to such section as so redesignated. SUBPART 2-TEACHER CORPS Teacher Corps Program Transferred and Reconstituted as Part B of Title I of Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 SEC. 111. (a) Part B of title V of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (with its references therein to title II of Public Law 81-874 redesignated as provided by section 104 of this Act) is deleted from that Act (but without repeal thereof) and is inserted (as captioned) as part B in title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 immediately after the last section of such title; and the sections so transferred (which are numbered 511, 512, 513, 514, 515, 516, and 517), and internal cross-references therein to any such section, are redesignated and are hereinafter in this title referred to as sections 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, and 157, respectively, of such title I, so as to make such part B read as follows: PAGENO="0011" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDLCATION AMENDMENTS 5 "PART B-NATIONAL TEACHER CORPS "STATEMENT OF PURPOSE AND AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS "SEC. 151. (a) The purpose of this part is to strengthen the educational opportunities available to children in areas having concentrations of low-income families and to encourage colleges and universities to broaden their programs of teacher preparation by- "(1) attracting and training qualified teachers who will be made available to local educational agencies for teaching in such areas; and "(2) attracting and training inexperienced teacher-interns who will be made available for teaching and inservice training to local educational agencies in such areas in teams led by an experienced teacher. "(b) For the purpose of carrying out this part, there are authorized to be appropriated $36,100,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1966, and $64,715,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1967. "ESTABLISHMENT OF NATIONAL TEACHER CORPS "SEC. 152. In order to carry out the purposes of this part, there is hereby established in the Office of Education a National Teacher Corps (hereinafter referred to as the `Teacher Corps'). The Teacher Corps shall be beaded by a Director who shall be compensated at the rate prescribed for grade 17 of the General Schedule of the Classification Act of 1949, and a Deputy Director who shall be compensated at the rate prescribed for grade 16 of such General Schedule. The Director and the Deputy Director shall perform such duties as are delegated to them by the Commissioner. "TEACHER CORPS PROGRAM "SEC. 153. (a) For the purpose of carrying out this part, the Commissioner is authorized to- "(1) recruit, select, and enroll experienced teachers, and inexperienced teacher-interns who have a bachelor's degree or its equivalent, in the Teacher Corps for periods of up to two years; "(2) enter into arrangements, through grants or contracts, with institu- tions of higher education or State or local educational agencies to provide members of the Teacher Corps with such training as the Commissioner may deem appropriate to carry out the purposes of this part, including not more than three months of training for members before they undertake their teaching duties under this part; "(3) enter into arrangements (Including the payment of the cost of such arrangements) with local educational agencies, after consultation in appropriate cases with State educational agencies and institutions of higher education, to furnish to local educational agencies, for service during regular or summer sessions, or both, in the schools of such agencies in areas having concentrations of children from low-income families, either or both (A) experienced teachers, or (B) teaching teams, each of which shall consist of an experienced teacher and a number of teacher-interns who, in addition to teaching duties, shall be afforded time by the local educational agency for a teacher-intern training program developed according to criteria estab- lished by the Commissioner and carried out under the guidance of the experienced teacher in cooperation with an institution of higher education; and "(4) pay to local educational agencies the amount of the compensation which such agencies pay to or on behalf of members of the Teacher Corps assigned to them pursuant to arrangments made pursuant to the preceding clause. "(b) Arrangements with institutions of higher education to provide training for teacher-Interns while teaching in schools for local educational agencies under the provisions of this part shall provide, wherever possible, for training leading to a graduate degree. "(c) (1) Whenever the Commissioner determines that the demand for the services of experienced teachers or of teaching teams furnished pursuant to clause (3) of subsection (a) exceeds the number of experienced teachers or of teaching teams available from the Teacher Corps, the Commissioner shall, to the extent practicable, allocate experienced teachers or teaching teams, as the PAGENO="0012" 6 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDFCATION AMENDMENTS case max he. from the Teacher Corps among tile States in accordance with para- graph (2,. ~`~2) Not to exceed 2 per centurn of such teachers or teams, as tile case may be, shall be allocated to Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands, aecording to their respective needs. The remainder of such teams or teachers, as the case may be. shall be allocated among the other States in proportion to the number of children counted in each State for the purpose of determining the amount of basic grants made under section 103 of title II of Public Law 874, Eighty-first Congress. as amended, for the fiscal year for which the allocation is made. "(d) A local educational agency may utilize members of the Teacher Corps assigned to it in providing, in the manner described in section 105(a) (2) of Public Law 874, Eighty-first Congress, as amended, educational services in which children enrolled in private elementary and secondary schools can participate. "COMPENSATTON "SEC. 154. (a) An arrangement made with a local educational agency pursuant to paragraph 3) of section 153(a) shall provide for compensation by such agency of Teacher Corps members during the period of their assignment to it at the following rates: `(1) an experienced teacher who is not leading a teaching team shall be compensated at a rate which is equal to the rate Iaid by such agency for a teacher with similar training and experience who has been assigned similar teaching duties `(2) an experienced teacher who is leading a teaching team shall he corn- pensated at a rate agreed to by such agency and the Commissioner; and "(3) a teacher-intern shall be compensated at a rate which is equal to the lowest rate paid by such agency for teaching full time in the school system and grade to which the intern is assigned. "(hI For any period of training under this part the Commissioner shall pay to members of the Teacher Corps such stipends (including allowances for sub- sistence and other expenses for such members and their dependents) as he may determine to he consistent with prevailing practices under comparable federally supported training programs. "(c) The Commiscioner shall pay the necessary travel expenses of members of the Teacher Corps and their dependents and necessary expenses for the trans- portation of the household goods and personal effects of such members and their dependents, and such other necessary expenses of members as are directly related to their service in the Corps, including readjustment allowances proportionate to service. "(d) The Commissioner is authorized to make such arrangements as may be possible, including till' payment of any costs incident thereto, to protect the tenure, retirement rights. participation ill a medical insurance program, and such other similar employee benefits as the Commissioner deems approl)riate, of a member of the Teacher Corps who participates in any program under this part and who indicates hi~ intention to return to the local educational agency or in- stitution of hizher education by which he was enlI)lOyed immediately prior to his service under this part. "APPLICATION OF PROVISIONS OF FEDERAL LAW "SEc. 155. a) Except as otherwise specifically provided in this section, a member of the Teacher Corps shall be deemed not to be a Federal employee and shall not be subject to the provisions of laws relating to Federal employment, in- cluding those relating to hours of work, rates of compensation, leave, unemploy- ment compensation, and Federal employee benefits. `i h) (U Such niembers shall, for the purposes of the administration of the Federal Emnpln.vees Compensation Act (5 U.S.C. 751 et seq.). be deemed to be civil employees of the United States within the meaning of tile term `employee' as defined in sectiomi 41) of such Act 5 U.S.C. 790) and the provisions thereof shall apply except as hereinafter provided. "(2) For purposes of this subsection ..(A) the term performance of duty' in the Federal Employees' Compensa- tion Act shall not include any act of a member of the Teacher Corps- "(i) while on authorized leave: or "(ii) while absent from his assigned poet of duty, except while par- ticipating in an activity authorized by or under the direction or super- vision of the Commissioner; and PAGENO="0013" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 7 ``(B) in computing compensation benefits for disability or death under the Federal Employees' Compensation Act. the iiionthly pay ot a member of the Teacher Corps shall he deemed to be his actual pay or that received under the entrance salary for grade 6 of the General Schedule of tile Classification Aet of 1949, whichever is greater. "(e) Such members shall be deemed to he eni~doyees of the Government for the purposes of the Federal tort claims provisions of title 28, United States Code. "LOCAL CONTROL PREsERvED "SEc. 156. Memhers of the Teacher Corps shall he under the direct supervision of the appropriate officials of the local educational agencies to winch they are assigned. Except as otherwise provided in clause (3) of section 153 (a), such agencies shall reta in the authority to- "(1) assign such members within their systems "(2) make transfers within their systems; "(3) deterniine the subject matter to be taught; "(4) determine the terms and continuance ef the assignment of such members within their systems. "MAINTENANCE or EFFORT "Si~c. 157. No member of the Teacher Corps shall he furnished to nay local educational agency under the provisions of this part if such agency will use such atember to replace any teacher who is or would otherwise ho employed by such agency." tb) The heading of title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 is amended by striking out "FINANCIAL" and by striking out "TO LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCIES", and the following new h"ad!ng is in- serted below such heading: "PART A-FINANCIAL AssISTANcE TO LocAL Em-cAt-ToNAL AGFN('iEs eon EDUCA- TION OF CiliLammex IN AREAs hAViNG CONcENTRATIONs OF CIIILIIRm S FROM LOW-IN COME FAMILIES". (ci Wherever in any law, rule, regulation, order, or agreement of the United States reference is made, however, styled, to part B of title V of the Higher Education Act of 196.5, or to any section thereof, such reference is aniended so as to make comparable reference to part B of title I of tire Elcmacntary and Secondary Educatioa Act of 1965, or to such section of that part as redesignated herein, respeetivel~-, (d) Subject to the provisions of subsections (a) and (ci. aiiy order, rule, regulation, right, agreement, or application in effect under Part U if title V of time Higher Education Act of 1965 imniediatelv l~mior to the enactment of this Act, shall continue in effect to the same extent as if this section had not been enacted. let Appropriations made for carrying out part B of ritli' V of the Higher Effima I ion Act of 1965 which is transferred by this section to and rite nstituted as part B of title I of the Element :mry and Secondary Education Act of 1965 shall he deem `d made ti ii' ia rrying Ott sm~t'li pe i't B of `tn-li t tilt I. (f ) The sect ;on af title II of Pahiic Law S74. Eiglity-ttrst C'aarc~-, redesig- nated as sect ion 114 if such ti tie liv sect i in 1 ((4 if liii a A `I, s na mdccl I inserting "Part A of immediately before "Title I". Extending Teacher Corps Program Sn', 112. Subsection ( b) of tile scs'tion redesicnated l?y this Act as section 151 of such part B of title I of tile Elementary antI Secoialarv Education At of' 1965 is anmeirded ty striking out ``and'' after ``.Iune 30. 1966.'' and by inserting the following immediately heft ire the period at the end of sniP su I -a'i't liii: ``, 000.00(1 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1 Itt H. and siii'li 511111 ~ls iii v lit' necessary for ilit' asia t yea i's t'ndi rig J uiie 30. 1969, and J a iii :;o, t TO, resrec- tively ; a ad there are further authorized to he a il m'~I itt a tel sin-li sirius fir r lie fiscal year ending June 30, 1971. as may he necessary to enni'le ti ny te:tclier-intem'n ~i'hi has not comideted his pi'ogra in of practical ii nil :1 i-a dciii ii' Ira tnt air to cent intie such pm'ogranm for' a period if a it more than line addi ritual yearS PAGENO="0014" 8 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS Requiring Approval of State Educational Agency SEc. 113. The section redesignated by this Act as section 153(a) of part B (National Teacher Corps) of title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 is amended as follows: (a) Paragraph ~2) is amended by striking out "with institutions of higher education or State or local educational agencies" and inserting in lieu thereof "with institutions of higher education or local educational agencies (upon ap- proval in either case by the appropriate State educational agency) or with State educational agencies". (b) Paragraph (3) is amended by striking out "after consultation in appro- priate cases with State educational agences and institutions of higher education," and inserting in lieu thereof "upon approval by the appropriate State edu- cational agency and after consultation, in appropriate cases, with institutions of higher education,". Limiting Compensation for Teacher-Interns SEC. 114. (a) The section redesignated by this Act as section 154(a) (3) of such part B is amended by insertthg ", or $75 per week plus $15 per week for each dependent, whichever is less" immediately after "to which the intern Is assigned". (b) The amendment made by this section shall not apply to any person enrolled in the Teacher Corps I)efore the date of enactment of this Act. Clarifying Authority of Local Educational Agency To Refuse To Accept Particu- lar Members Assigned to Such Agency SEC. 115. The second sentence of the section redesignated by this Act as section 156 of such part B is amended by inserting "no such members shall be assigned to any local educational agency unless such agency finds such member acceptable, and" immediately before "such agencies shall retain the authority". Authorizing Acceptance of Gifts on Behalf of Teacher Corps SEC. 116. The section redesignated by this Act as section 153 (a) of such part B, as amended by this Act, is further amended by- (a) striking out "and" at the end of clause (3) (b) striking out the period at the end of clause (4) and inserting in lieu thereof "; and"; and (c) inserting the following new clause at the end thereof: "(5) accept and employ in the furtherance of the purposes of this part (A) voluntary and uncompensated services notwithstanding the provisions of section 3679(b) of the Revised Statutes, as amended (section 665(b) of title 31. United States Code), and (B) any money or property (real, per- sonal, or mixed, tangible or intangible) received by gift, devise, bequest, or otherwise." Authorizing Assignment of Teacher Corps Members to Schools for Indian Children Operated by Department of the Interior SEC. 117. The first sentence of the section redesignated as section 153(c) (2) of such part B is amended by striking out "2 per centum" and inserting in lieu thereof "3 per eentum", and by striking out "Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands" and inserting in lieu thereof "Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and elementary and secondary schools operated for Indian children by the Department of the Interior,". Authorizing Assignment of Teacher Corps Members to Special Programs for Children of Migratory Agricultural Workers SEC. 118. Such part B as amended by the preceding sections of this Act is further amended by adding the following new section at the end thereof: "TEAChING IN SPECIAL PROGRAMS OR PROJECTS FOR CHILDREN OF MIGRATORY AGRICTJLTURAL WORKERS "SEC. 158. For purposes of this part the term `local educational agency' in- cludes any State educational agency or other public or private nonprofit agency PAGENO="0015" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDTCATION AMENDMENTS 9 which provides a program or project designed to meet the special educational needs of migratory children of migratory agricultural workers, and any refer- ence in this part to teaching in the schools of a local educational agency includes teaching in any such program or project." Conforming Amendment SEC. 119. Subsection (c) (2) of the section redesignated by this Act as section 153 of part B of title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 is amended by striking out `basic". PART B-AMENDMENTS TO TITLE II OF THE ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION ACT OF 1965 EXTENDING FOR ONE YEAR PROVISIONS RELATING TO SCHOOLS FOR INDIAN CHILDREN AND DEFENSE DEPARTMENT OVERSEAS DEPENDENTS SCHOOLS SEC. 121. (a) Section 202(a) (1) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 is amended by striking out "June 30, 1967" and inserting in lieu thereof "June 30, 1968". PART C-AMENDMENTS TO TITLE III OF THE ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION ACT OF 1965 EXTENDING FOB ONE YEAR PROVISIONS OF TITLE III OF PUBLIC LAW 89-10 RELATING TO SCHOOLS FOR INDIAN CHILDREN AND DEFENSE DEPARTMENT OVERSEAS SCHOOLS SEC. 131. Section 302(a) (1) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 is amended by striking out "June 30, 1967," and inserting in lieu thereof "June 30, 1968,". PART D-AMENDMENTS TO TITLE V OF THE ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AC'r OF 1965 SUBPART 1-AMENDMENTS RELATING TO GRANTS TO STATE EIJUCATIONAL AGENCIES Inclusion of Trust Territory of Pacific Islands SEC. 141. (a) The lirst and third sentences of paragraph (1) of section 502(a) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, relating to apportion- ment of appropriations, are each amended by striking out "and" after "Samoa," and by inserting ", and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands" after "Virgin Islands". (b) (1) Paragraph (j) of section 701 of such Act, defining the term "State", is amended by striking out "and for purposes of title II and title III, such term includes the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands" and inserting in lieu thereof ", and for purposes of titles II, III, and V such term also includes the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands". (2) Such section 701 is further amended by inserting ", except when otherwise specified" immediately after "As used in titles II, III, and V of this Act". Revision of Apportionment Formula SEc. 142. The second sentence of paragraph (1) of section 502 (a) of such Act is amended to read as follows: "The remainder of such 85 per centum shall be apportioned by the Commissioner as follows: "(A) He shall apportion 40 per centum of such remainder among the States in equal amounts. "(B) He shall apportion to each State an amount that hears the same ratio to 60 per centum of such remainder as the number of public school pupils in the State bears to the number of public school pupils in all the States, as determined by the Commissioner on the basis of the most recent satisfactory data available to him. PAGENO="0016" 10 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDFCATION AMENDMENTS SUBPART 2-ADDITION OF NEW PART RELATING TO PLANNING GRANTS Comprehensive Educational Planning SEc. 145. (a) Title V of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 Is amended by adding "AND FOR STATEWIDE EDUCATIONAL PLANNING" to its heading and by inserting the following immediately ~e1ow its heading: "PART A-GRANTS FOR STRENGTHENING LEADERSHIP RESOURCES OF STATE EDUCATIONAL AGENC~S" (b) Title V of such Act is further amended by striking out the words "this title" wherever they appear and inserting in lieu thereof "this part", and by adding at the end thereof the following new part: "PART B-GRAXTs FOR CoMPREHENsIvE EDUCATIONAL PLANNING AND EVALUATION "AUTHORIZATION `SE(. 521. To the end of enhanrin~ the capability of the several States to make effective pr~ gr~ss. through comprehensive and continuing planning, toward the achievenieiit of opportunitie~ for high-quality education for all segments of the popul:itioii throughout the State. the Commissioner is authorized to make, in ace rIance with the provisions of this part. comprehensive planning and evalua- tion grants to ~tatcs that have submitted. and had approved by the Commissioner, au application pursuant to section 523. and special project grants, related to the purposes of this part. pursuant to section 524. For the purpose of making such grants, there are authoriZe(l to be appropriated $15,000,000 for the fiscal year en(ling Juuue 30. lOGS, and such sums as may be necessary for the next four fiscal years. "APPORTIONMENT AMONG TIlE STATES "SEc. 522. (a (I) From the sums appropriate(1 for carrying out this part for each fiscal year. 25 per ~en tuin shall 1)0 reserved for the purposes of section s24 and the remaining 75 per ceuitum shall be available for grants to States under section 523. (2 The Commissioner shall apportion not in excess of 2 per centum of the amount available for grants under section 523 among the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. Guam. American Samoa. the Virgin Islands. and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands. according to their respective needs for carrying out the purposes of this part. The remainder of such amount shall be apportioned by the Commissioner as follows: "(A) lIe shall apportion 40 per centum of such remainder among the States in equal amounts. "(B) He shall apportion to each State an amount that bears the same ratio to GO per centuin of such remainder as the population of the State hears to the population of all the States, as determined by the Commissioner on the basis of the most recent satisfactory data available to him. For purpose~ of the preceding sentence, the term `State' does not Include the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. Guam, American Samoa, the Virgin Islands, and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands. "(h) The amount apportioned under this section to any State for the fiscal year ending June 30. lOGS, shall be available for obligation for grants pursuant to applications approved during that year and the succeeding fiscal year. "(c) The amount of any State's apportionment for any fiscal year under paragraph (2) of subsection a) which the Commissioner determines will not be required for grants to that State under section 523 during the period for which such apportionment is available may from time to time be reap- portioned by the Commissioner to other States. according to their respective needs, as the Commissioner may determine. Any amount so reapportioned to a State from funds appropriated for any fiscal year shall be deemed to be a part of the amount apportioned to it under subsection (a) for that year. "CoMPP.FHENSIVE PLANNING GRANTS "SEc. 523. (a) (1) Any State desiring to receive a grant or grants under this section from its apportionment under section 522 for any fiscal year PAGENO="0017" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDFCATION AMENDMENTS 11 shall designate or establish a single State agency or office (hereafter in thts part referred to as the State educational planning agency) as the solo agency for carrying out or supervising the carrying out of a comprehensive statewide program of systematic planning and evaluation relating to educa- tion at all levels (including remedial education and retraining of adults), except that- "(A) the field of higher education shall be included only if the State so elects and so provides in an application (or amended or supplemental application) under this section. and "(B) in the event of such election the State may designate or estab- lish a separate State agency (hereafter in this part referred to as the State higher education planning agency) for carrying out or supervising the carrying out of such planning and evaluation program with respect to higher education. "(2) A grant to a State may be made under this section only upon approval of an application submitted to the Commissioner through the State educational planning agency, except that, with respect. to States electing to include the field of higher education as provided in clause (A) of paragraph (1) of this subsection and designating or establishing a State higher ecluca- don planning agency as provided in clause (B) of paragraph (1), the Com- missioner, by or pursuant to regulation- "(A) shall authorize the submission of a combined application which includes higher education (or an amended or supplemental application filed upon the making of such election) jointly through both of the State's planning agencies involved, or the submission of a separate appli- cation (or supplement) through the State's higher educational planning agency as to so much of the State's program as relates to planning and evaluation in the field of higher education, and "(B) may provide for allocating, between the State's two planning agencies, the amount of any grant or grant.s under this section from the State's apportionment. "(3) An application (or amendment or supplement thereto) under this section shall set forth, in such detail as the Commissioner deems necessary, the state- wide program referred to in paragraph (1) (or. in the case of a separate appli- cation or amendment or supplement with respect to the field of higher education, so much of the statewide program as relates to that field), which shall include provision for- "(A) setting statewide educational goals and establishing priorities among these goals; "(B) developing through analyses alternative means of achieving these goals, taking into account the resources available and the educational effectiveness of each of the alternatives (including, in the case of higher education, the resources and plans of private institutions in the State bearing upon the State's goals and plans for public higher education) "(C) planning new programs and improvements in existing programs based on the results of these analyses; `(D) developing and strengthening the capabilities of the State to con- duct, on a continuous basis, objective evaluations of the effectiveness of educational programs: and "(E) developing and maintaining a permanent system for obtaining and collating significant information necessary to the assessment of progress toward the State's educational goals. "(b) Applications (including amendments and supplements thereto) for grants under this section may he approved by the Commissioner only if the application- "(1) has been submitted to the chief executive of the State for review and recommendations; "(2) sets forth, if the State has elected to include the field of higher education and has designated or established a separate State higher educa- tion planning agency, such arrangements for coordination, between the State's educational planning program in that field and the remaining educa- tional planning program submitted by the State, as will in the Commis- sioner's judgment be effective; "(3) contains satisfactory assurance- "(A) that the assistance provided under this section, together with other available resources, will he so used for the several purposes 75-492- 07-2 PAGENO="0018" 12 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS specified in subparagraphs (A) through (E) of paragraph (3) of sub- section (a) of this section as to result in the maximum possible effective progress toward the achievement of a high level of competence with respect to each of them, and `(B) that assistance under this part will, by the State planning agency involved, be used primarily in strengthening the capabilities of its own planning and evaluation staff or, to the extent that the program is to be carried out under the supervision of that agency by other agen- cies. the planning and evaluation staffs of such other agencies; but consistently with this objective part of the funds received under a grant under this section may he used, in appropriate circumstances, to em- ployee consultants, or to enter into contracts for special projects with public or private agencies, institutions, or organizations having special competence in the areas of planning or evaluation; "(4) make adequate provision (consistent with such criteria as the Com- missioner may prescribe) for using funds granted to the applicant under this section, other than funds granted for I)laliniflg and evaluation in the field of hirher education. (A) to make program planning and evaluation services available to local educational agencies, and (B) in the case of such agencies in areas (particularly metropolitan areas) with school populations suf- ficiently large to warrant their own planning or evaluation staffs, to assist such agencies (financially or through technical assistance, or both) to strengthen their planning and evaluation capabilities and to promote co- ordinated areawide planning for such areas; "(5) provides for such methods of administration as are necessary for the proper and efficient operation of the program: "(6) provides for such fiscal control and fund accounting procedures as may he necessary to assure proper disbursement of and accounting for Fed- eral funds paid under this part to the State including any such funds paid by the State to agencies, institutions, or organizations referred to in sub- paragraph (B) or paragraph (3)) : and "(7) provides for making such report~, in such form and containing such information as the Commissioner may reasonably require (copies of which shall also be sent to the chief executive of the State), and for keeping such records and for affording such access thereto as the Commissioner may find necessary to assure the correctness and verification of such reports. `(c) A grant made pursuant to an approval of an application under this sec- tion may be used to pay all or part of the cost of activities covered by the approved application and included in such grant, but excluding so much, if any, of such cost as is paid for from grants under part A. "SPECIAL PROJECTS "SEC. 524. (a) The sums reserved pursuant to section 522(a) (1) for the pur- poses of this section shall be used for grants for special projects in accordance with subsection b) of this section. `(b) The Commissioner is authorized to make grants to public or private non- profit agencies, institutions, or organizations, or to make contracts with public or private agencies, institutions, or organizations, for special projects related to the purposes of this part, to be conducted on an interstate, regional, or metropolitan area basis, including projects for such purposes as- "(1) metropolitan planning in education in areas covering more than one State; "(2) Improvement and expansion in the educational planning of large cities within a State with due regard to the complexities of adequate metro- politan planning in such places; "(3) comparative and cooperative studies agreed upon between States or metropolitan areas; `(4) conferences to promote the purposes of this part and involving dif- ferent States; "(5) publications of general use to the planning of more effective and efficient educational services, and other activities for dissemination of in- formation related to the purposes of this part. PAGENO="0019" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 13 "PAYMENTS "SEC. 525. Payments tinder this part may be made in instal]inents, and in ad- vance or by way of reimbursement, with necessary adjustments on account of overpayments or underpayments, as the Commissioner may determine." PAxT E-AMENDMENTS TO TITLE VI OF THE ELEMENTARY AND SECONDAnY EDIJCA- TION ACT OF 1965, AND RELATED AMENDMENTS REGIONAL RESOURCE CENTER SEC. 151. Title VI of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 is amended by- (1) inserting immediately below the heading of such title "PART A-ASSISTANCE TO STATES FOR EDUCATION OF HANDICAPPED CHILDREN"; (2) inserting immediately below section 607 `PAxT D-GENERAL PROVISIONS"; (3) redesignating sections 608, 609, and 610 as sections 610, 611, and 612, respectively, (4) striking out the words "this title" wherever they occur in sections 601 through 607, and inserting in lieu thereof "this part"; and (5) inserting immediately after Section 607 the following: £~PART B-REGIONAL RESOURCE CENTERS FOR IMPROVEMENT OF THE EDUCATION OF HANDICAPPED CHILDREN "REGIONAL RESOURCE CENTERS "SEC. 608. (a) For the purpose of aiding in the establishment and operation of regional centers which will develop and apply the best methods of appraising the special educational needs of handicapped children referred to them and will provide other services to assist in meeting such needs, there are authorized to be appropriated $7,500,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1968, and such sums as may be necessary for each of the four succeeding fiscal years. "(b) Appropriations under this section shall be available to the Commissioner for grants to or contracts with institutions of higher education, State educa- tional agencies, or combinations of such agencies or institutions, within part- ticular regions of the United States, to pay all or part of the cost of establish- ment (including construction) or operation of regional resource centers for the improvement of education of the handicapped in such regions. Centers estab- lished or operated under this section shall (1) provide testing and educational evaluation to determine the special educational needs of handicapped children referred to such centers, (2) develop educational programs to meet those needs, and (3) assist schools and other appropriate agencies, organizations, and in- stitutions in providing such educational programs through services such as consultation (including, in appropriate cases, consultation with parents or teachers of handicapped children at such regional centers), periodic examina- tion and reevaluation of special educational programs, and other technical services. "(c) In determining whether to approve an application for a project under this section, the Commissioner shall consider the need for such a center in the region to be served by the applicant and the capability of the applicant to develop and apply, with the assistance of funds under this section, new methods, techniques, devices, or facilities relating to educational evaluation or education of handicapped children. "(d) Payment pursuant to grants or contracts under this section may be made (after necessary adjustments on account of previously made underpay- ments or overpayments) in advance or by reimbursement, and in such install- ments and on such conditions as the Commissioner may determine." PAGENO="0020" 14 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDIJCATION AMENDMENTS IMPROVEMENT OF RECRUITMENT OF EDUCATIONAL PERSONNEL AND INFORMATION ON EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE HANDICAPPED SEC. 152. Such title VI is further amended by inserting immediately after part B, as added by the preceding section, the following new part: ~PART C-RECRUITMENT OF PERSONNEL-INFORMATION ON EDUCATION OF THE HANDICAPPED "GRANTS OR CONTRA(TS TO IMPROVE RECRUITING OF EI)ITCATIONAL PERSONNEL, AND TO IMPROVE I)ISSEM INATION OF INFORMATION CONCERNING EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUN- ITIES FOR TIlE hANDICAPPED "SEC. 609. (a) The Commissioner is authorized to make grants to public or nonprofit private agencies. organizations, or institutions, or to enter into con- tracts with public or private agencies, organizations, or institutions for projects for- `( 1) encouraging students and professional personnel to work in variou5 fields of education of handicapped children and youth through, among other ways, developing and distributing imaginative or innovative materials to assist in recruiting personnel for such c~areers. or publicizing existing forms of financial aid which might enable students to pursue such careers, or "(2) disseminating information about the programs, services, and re- sources for the education of handicapped children, or providing referral services, to parents, teachers. and other persons especially interested in the handicapped. "(b) To carry out the purposes of this section, there are authorized to be appropriated ~1,000.000 for the fiscal year ending June 30. 196S, and such sums as Duly be necessary for each of tile four succeeding fiscal years." TRANSFER OF DEFINITION AND OTIIF:R TEChNICAL AMENI)MENTS SEC. 153. a) Section 602 of such title VI is redesignated as section 613 and transferred to the end of such title. ili) Section 601 of such title is amended by- (it striking out tile section heading and inserting in lieu thereof the ii (a ding GRANTS TO STATES FOR EDUCATION OF HANDICAPPED CHILDREN"; (2) striking out "(a)" in subsection (a); 3) rodesignating section 601(b) as section 602 by striking out "(b)" in subsection (h) and inserting "SEc. 602." in lieu thereof: and (4) inserting above section 602 as so redesignated the section heading "APPROPRIATIONS AUThORIzED". (c) (1) The Portion of section 701 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (containing definitions) which precedes subsection (a), as amended by section 141(a) of this Act, is further amended by striking out "As used in titles II, III, and V" and inserting in lieu thereof "As used in titles II, III, V, an(i ~I''. (2) Paragraph (j) of such section 701, as amended by section 141(b) of this Act, is further amended by striking out "and V" and inserting in lieu thereof `V, and VI". ShORT TITLE OF TITLE VI OF ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION ACT OF 1965 SEC. 154. Title VI of such Act is further amended by adding at the end thereof the following new section: "SHORT TITLE "SEc. 614. This title may be cited as the `Education of the Handicapped Act'." INCLUDING SChOOLS FOR INDIAN CHILDREN OPERATED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND DEFENSE DEPARTMENT OVERSEAS DEPENDENTS SCHOOLS IN TITLE VI SEC. 155. So much of paragraph (1) of section 603(a) (1) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 as follows the first sentence is amended to PAGENO="0021" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 15 read as follows: "The Commissioner shall allot the amount appropriated pur- suant to this paragraph among- "(A) Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa. the Virgin Islands. and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands according to their respective needs, and "(B) for the fiscal year ending June 30, 19(38, (i) the Secretary of the Interior according to the need for such assistance for the education of handi- capped children in elementary and secondary schools operated for Indian children by the Department of the Interior, and (ii) the Secretary of De- fense according to the need for such assistance for the education of handi- capped children in the overseas dependents schools of the Department of Defense. The terms upon which payments for such purpose shall be made to the Secretary of the Interior and the t~ecretary of Defense shall be determined pursuant to such criteria as the Commissioner determines will best carry out the purposes of this title." EXPANSION OF INSTRUCTIONAL MEI)IA PROGRAMS TO IX('LL'DE ALL IIANDICA,PPED C IIILOREN SEC. 156. Subsection (b) of the first tion of the Act entitled "An Act to provide in the 1)epartment of I-Iealth, Education, and Welfare for a loan service of captioned films for the deaf' (42 IT.S.( ~. 2491 et seq. i. is aniended to read as follow's in order to conform its statement of objectives to amendments niade to such Act by Public Law 89-258: "(b) To promote the educational advancement of handicapped persons by (1) carrying on research in the use of educational niedia for the handicapped, (2) producing and distributing educational media fr the use of handic'a pped per- sons, their parents, their actual or potential employers, and other persons di- rectly involved in work for the advaticement of the hai~dieapped. and 3) train- ing persons in the use of educational media for the instruction of the handi- capped." SEC. 157. Section 2 of such Act is amended by adding the following at the end thereof 4) The term `handicapped' means deaf, mentally retai-ded. speech impaired, visually handicapped, seriously emotionally di"turbed. crippled, or other health impaired persons." SEC. 158. Section 3 of such Act is amended by striking out the word "deaf" and inserting in lieu thereof "handicapped" each time it occu: therein. SEC. 159. Section 4 of such Act is amended l)y striking out `~5.000.000" and in- serting "$6000000" in lieu thereof, and by striking out `$7000000" and inserting "$8000000" in lieu thereof. AUTHORIzING CONTRACTS, AS wELL AS GRANTS. FOR IIF:sEAlicII IN EUUCATION OF THE hAN DICAPPED Sicc. 160. (a) The first sentence of section 302(a) of Public Law 88-164 is amended by inserting ", and to make contracts with States. State or local educa- tional agencies, public and private institutions of higher learning, and other public or private educational research agencies and organizations," ilnnlc(Iiately before "for research or demonstration projects". b) The second sentence of such section 302(a) is amended by striking out "Such grants shall be niade" and inserting in lieu thereof "Payments pursuant to grants or contracts under this section may be made". TITLE IT-AMENDMENTS TO VOCATIONAL EDUCATION ACT OF 1063 PART A-EXEMPLARY ANI) INNOVATIVE PROGRAMS OR I'ROJECTS IN VOCATIONAL EDUCAT ION SPECIAL PROGR ~M S OR PROJECTS SEC. 201. Section 4 of the Vocational Education Act of 1963 (Public Law 88- 210, 20 U.S.C. 35c), is amended by inserting at the end thereof the follow-ing new subsection: "(d) (1) There are authorized to be appropriated $30,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1968, and such sums as may be necessary for the four PAGENO="0022" 16 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS succeeding fiscal years. to he used by the Commissioner for making grants to or contracts with State boards or local educational agencies for the purpose of stimulating and assisting, through programs or projects referred to in para- graph (3), the development, establishment, and operation of exemplary and innovative occupational education programs or projects designed to serve as models for use in vocational education programs. The Commissioner also may make grants to other public or nonprofit private agencies, organizations, or insti- tutions, or contracts with public or private agencies, organizations, or institu- tions, when such grants or contracts will make an especially significant contribu- tion to attaining the objectives of this subsection. "(2) (A) From the sums appropriated pursuant to this subsection for each fiscal year, the Commissioner shall reserve such amount, but not in excess of 2 per centum thereof, as he may determine and shall apportion such amount among Puerto Rico. the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Trust Terri- tory of the Pacific Islands, according to their respective needs for assistance under this subsection. "(B) From the remainder of such sinus the Commissioner shall apportion $150,000 to each State, and he shall in addition apportion to each State an amount which bears the same ratio to any residue of such remainder as the population aged fifteen to nineteen, both Inclusive, in the State bears to the popu- lation of such ages in all the States. "(C) Any amount apportioned to a State under this subsection for any fiscal year which the Commissioner determines will not be required for grants for programs or projects in that State during the period for which such apportion- ment is available shall be available for reapportionment by him from time to time to other States in accordance with their respective needs. "(D) For the purposes of paragraph (2) (A) and (B) of this subsection, the term `State' does not include Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands. "(E) The population of particular age groups of a State or of all the States shall be determined by the Commissioner on the basis of the latest available estimates furnished by the Department of Commerce. "(F) The amount apportioned under this section to any State for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1968, shall be available for obligation for grants pursuant to applications approved during that year and the succeeding fiscal year. "(3) Grants or contracts pursuant to this subsection may be made by the Commissioner, upon such terms and conditions consistent with the provisions of this section as he determines will most effectively carry out the purposes of paragraph (1), to pay part of the cost of- "(A) planning and developing exemplary and innovative programs or projects such as those described in subparagraph (B), or "(B) establishing, operating, or evaluating exemplary and innovative vocational education programs or projects designed to broaden occupational aspirations and opportunities for youths, with special emphasis given to youths who have academic, socioeconomic, or other handicaps, which pro- grams or projects may. among others, include- "(i) those designed to familiarize postelementary school students with the broad range of occupations for which special skills are required and the requisites for careers in such occupations; "(ii) programs or projects for students providing educational experi- ences through work; "(iii) programs or projects for intensive occupational guidance and counseling during the last years of school and for initial job placement; or "(iv) programs or projects designed to broaden or improve vocational education curriculums. "(4) (A) Programs or projects referred to in clause (ii) of paragraph (3) (B) may include cooperative work-study arrangements, other educationally related public or private employment, or volunteer work. Preference in compensated work under such programs or projects shall be given to students from low-income families. "(B) No grant or contract shall be made by the Commissioner under this sub- section with respect to any such program or project unless- "(I) such program or project will not involve the construction, operation, or maintenance of so much of any facility as is used or to be used for sectarian instruction or as a place for religious worship; PAGENO="0023" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 17 "(ii) such program or project will not result in the displacement of em- ployed workers or impair existing contracts for services. "(C) Funds appropriated under this subsection shall not be available to pay any part of the compensation of a student involved in a program or project re- ferred to in clause (ii) of paragraph (3) (B) if the work is performed for any em- ployer other than a public or private nonprofit agency, organization, or institution. "(5) (A) In determining the cost of a program or project under this subsection, the Commissioner may include the reasonable value (as determined by him) of any goods or services provided from non-Federal sources. "(B) Financial assistance may not be given under this subsection to any pro- gram or project for a period exceeding three years. "(6) In administering the provisions of this subsection, the Commissioner shall consult with other Federal departments and agencies administering pro- grams which may be effectively coordinated with the program carried out pursu- ant to this subsection, and to the extent practicable shall- "(i) coordinate such program on the Federal level with the programs being administered by such other departments and agencies; and "(ii) require that effective procedures be adopted by grantees and con- tractors to coordinate the development and operation of programs and proj- ects carried out under grants or contracts pursuant to this subsection with other public and private programs having the same or similar purposes." CONFORMING AMENDMENTS SEC. 202. (a) (1) Section 4(a) of such Act (describing permitted uses of Federal funds under approved State plans) is amended by changing the period at the end of paragraph (6) to a semicolon and inserting immediately after para- graph (6) the following new paragraph: "(7) The planning, establishment, operation, and evaluation of programs or projects of the kind described in subsection (d), whether or not previously assisted by a grant or contract under such subsection." (2) Section 5(a) (2) and section 6(b) of such Act are each amended by strik- ing out "and (6)" and inserting in lieu thereof "(6), and (7)". (b) The second sentence of paragraph (1) of section 8 of such Act (defining the term "vocational education") is amended by inserting "(individually or through group instruction)" immediately after "counseling", and by inserting "or for the purpose of facilitating occupational choices" immediately after the word "training" the first time such word appears in that sentence. (c) The first sentence of section 5(a) of such Act is amended by striking out "this part" and inserting in lieu thereof "section 3". (d) The heading of section (6) of such Act is amended to read "PAYMENTS", and the following sentence is added at the end of subsection (d) of such section: "Other payments pursuant to this Act may be made in installments, in advance or by way of reimbursement, with necessary adjustments on account of over- payments or underpayments." PART B-AMENDING SECTION 4(c) To ALLOW CONTRACTING AND DISSEMINATION OF INFORMATION SEc. 211. Section 4(e) of such Act is amended by inserting ", or to make contracts with private agencies, organizations, or institutions for, (1)" ImmedI- ately after "cost of"; by striking out "and of" immediately preceding "experi- mental" and inserting in lieu thereof ", (2)"; and by inserting immediately prior to the period the following: ", or (3) for the dissemination of information derived from the foregoing programs or from research and demonstrations in the field of vocational education". PART C-INCLUDING THE TRUST TERRITORY OF THE PACIFIC ISLANDS UNDER THE Ac~ SEC. 221. Paragraph (6) of section 8 of such Act is amended by striking out "and American Samoa" and by inserting in lieu thereof "American Samoa, and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands". SEC. 222. Paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of section 3(d) of such Act are amended by striking out the words "and the Virgin Islands" each time they occur and by inserting in lieu thereof "the Virgin Islands, and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands". PAGENO="0024" I S ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDFCATION AMENDMENTS TITLE 111-FEDEIlALLY AFFECTET) AREAS P~~liT A-ASSISTANCE FOR SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION AND CUIuIr~N'l' EXPENI)ITUIIES IN IMPACTED AREAS CLARIFYING DEFINITIONS OF "FEI)ERAI PROPERTY" SEC. 3(~1. Section 15 1) of the Act of September 2%. 193() Public Law 815, Ei~hty-tirst Congress 1, and section 303 (1 ) of the Act of September 30. 1050 i Public Law 874, Ei~hty-first Congress j. are each amended by- a striking out te second sentence thereof 11) striking out "also' in the penultimate sentence thereof and c insert lug immediately l)ef( re the last setitence thereof the following new sentence : ``Such term also includes any interest in Federal property (as defined in the foregoing provisions of this ~)aragra1)1I ) un(ler an easement, lease. license. permit. or other arranirennnt. as well as ally improvements Of any nature other than pipelines or utility hues ) on such property even though such interests or improvements are subject to taxation by a State or political subdivision of a State or by the District of (`olumlia.'' PART B-ASSISTANCE FOR Sciiooi. CONSTRUCTION AND CURRENT EXPENDITURES IN MAJOR T)IsXsTEB AREAS ASSISTANCE TO DISASTEF.S OCCURRING AFTER JULY 1. 1967 SEC. 311. (a) Section 10(a) (1) (A) of the Act of September 2%, 1950 (Public Law 81~. Eighty-first Congress). as added by Public Law 59-313. is amended by striking out "July 1, 1907," an(l inserting in lieu thereof `july 1. 1972,". 1) Section 7 a ) 1 ) (A) of the Act of September 30. 1050 (Public Law 874, Eighty-first Congress). as added by Public Law 89-31%, is amended by striking out `July 1, 1907,"and inserting in lieu thereof "July 1. 1972,". AUTHORIZING, IN (`ASEs IN WIITCII TIlE DISASTER TIAS NOT DESTROYED OR DAMAGED t'FF,LIC SCHOOLS. ASSISTANCE FOR CONSTRUCTION OF PUBLIC SChOOL FACILITIES NEEDEI) la:CAU5E OF DESTRUCTION OF PRIVATE FACILITIES \VHICII WILL NOT BE REPLACED SEc. 312. a) Section 10~ a) (2i of the Act of September 23, 1930 Public Law 815, Eighty-first (`ongressi. is amended to read as follows: "(2) as a result of this major disaster. (A) public elementary or secondary school facilities of such agency have been destroyed or seriously damaged. or (B) pril-ate elementary or secondary school facilities serving children who reside in the area served by such agency have been destroyed afld will not be replaced, thereby inc'r('asing the need of such agency for school facilities :". bI Section 10 ( a ) (4) of such Act is amended by inserting " (A) " after "needed". inserting "of such agency" after "the school facilities". and inserting the fol- lowinr before tile semuicolon after the word "damaged": "or (B) to serve, in facilities of such agency, children who but for the destruction of the private facilities referred to ill clause (2) (B) would be served l)y such private facilities". MODIFYING CONDITIONS OF ELIGIBILITY WITH RESPECT TO LOCAL EFFORT AND MINIMUM DAMAGE REQUIRF.D SEC. 313, (a) Section 10(a) (3) of the Act of September 23, 1950 (Public Law 815, Eighty-first Congress), is amended to read as follows: "(3) such agency is utilizing or will utilize all State and other financial assistance available for the replacement or restoration of such school facilities :". (b) Section 10(a) (4) of such Act is amended by inserting "and requires an amount of additional assistance equal to at least $1,000 or one-half of 1 per centum of such agency's current operating expenditures during the fiscal year preceding the one in which such disaster occurred, w'hichever is less," immedi- ately before "to provide the minimum school facilities needed". (c) Section 7(a) (2) of tile Act of September 30, 1950 (Public Law 874, Eighty- first Congress), is amended to read as follows: "(2) such agency is utilizing or will utilize all State and other financial assistance available to it for the purpose of meeting the cost of providing free PAGENO="0025" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 19 public education for the children attending the schools of such agency, but as a result of such major disaster it is unable to obtain sufficient funds for such purpose and requires an amount of additional assistance equal to at least $1,000 or one-half of 1 per centum of such agency's current operating expenditures during the fiscal year preceding the one in which such disaster occurred, whichever is less, and". DETERMINING LEVEL OF EDUCATION TO BE RESTORED ACCORDING TO LEVEL OF TIME OF DISASTER INSTEAD OF LEVEL DURING A BASE YEAR SEc. 314. The penultimate sentence of section 7(a) of the Act of September 30, 1050 (Public Law 874, Eighty-first Congress) is amended by striking out "during the last full fiscal year". AUTHORIZING DISASTER RELIEF ASSISTANCE FOR TECHNICAL, VOCATIONAL, AND OTHER SPECIAL SCHOOLS SEC. 315. (a) Section 16(a) of the Act of September 23. 1950 (Public Law 815, Eighty-first Congress), and section 7(a) of the Act of September 30. 1950 (Pub- lic Law 874, Eighty-first Congress), are each amended (1) by inserting "or any other pu,blic agency which operates schools providing technical, vocational, or other special education to children of elementary or secondary school age)" immediately after "If the Director of the Office of Emergency Planning deter- mines with respect to any local educational agency", and (2) by striking out "if the Commissioner determines with respect to such local educational agency" and inserting in lieu thereof "if the Commissioner determines with respect to such agency". (b) Clause (2) of section 16(a), as amended by this Act, is further amended by inserting "(or, in the case of a public agency other than a local educational agency, school facilities providing technical, vocational, or other special educa- tion to children of elementary or secondary school age)" after "public elementary or secondary school facilities". CLARIFYING AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE FUNDS FOR MINOR REPAIRS UNDER PUBLIC LAW 874 SEc. 316. Section 7(b) of the Act of September 30, 1950 (Public Law 874, Eighty-first Congress), is amended by inserting "to make minor repairs." imme- diately after "destroyed or seriously damaged as a result of such major disaster,". Mr. PERKINS. The President's message on education and health in America will be placed in the hearings at this point. TIlE WHITE HOUSE. MESSAGE ON EDUCATION AND HEALTH IN AMERICA To the Congress of the United States: In Edmonds, Washington, three new evening classes today are helping 150 high school dropouts finish school and gain new job skiPs. In Detroit, a month ago, 52.000 children were immunized against measles, during a campaign assisted by Federal funds. In 25 states. Federal funds are helping improve medical care for 6.4 million citizens who get public assistance. Over S million poor children are now getting a better education because of funds provided under Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Nineteen million older citizens enjoy the protection of Medicare. Three years ago, not one of these programs existed. Today, they are flourishing-beeau~e a concerned people and the creative 80th Congress acted. They are the result of twenty-four new health laws and eighteen new education laws. But even the best new programs are not enough. Today, we face major challenges of organization and evaluation. If our new projects are to he effective, we must have the iwople to run them, and the facilities to support them. We must encourage states and localities to plan more effectively and comprehensively for their growing needs and to measure theii' progress towards meeting those needs. PAGENO="0026" 20 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDIJCATION AMENDMENTS Above all, each community, each state, must generate a spirit of creative change: a willingness to experiment. In this, my fourth message to Congress on Health and Education, I do not recommend more of the same-but more that is better: to solve old problems, to create new institutions, to fulfill the potential of each individual in our land. Nothing is more fundamental to all we seek than our programs in health and education: Education-because it not only overcomes ignorance, but arms the citizen against the other evils which afflict him. Health-because disease l,S the cruelest enemy of individual promise and be- cause medical progress makes less and less tolerable that illness still should blight so many lives. I. EDUCATION I believe that future historians, when they point to the extraordinary changes which have marked the 1960's, will identify a major movement forward in American education. This movement, spurred by the laws of the last 3 years, seeks to provide equality of educational opportunity to all Ameicans-to give every child education of the highest quality, no matter how poor his family, how great his handicap, what color his skin, or where he lives. We cannot yet fully measure the results of this great movement in American education. Our progress can be traced partially by listing some of the extraor. dinary bills I have signed into law: The Higher Education Act of 1965. The Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1964. The Higher Education Facilities Act of 1963. The Vocational Education Act of 1963. The scale of our efforts can be partially measured by the fact that today appro- priations for the Office of Education are nearly seven time,s greater than 4 years ago. Today we can point to at least 1 million college students who might not be in college except for Government loans, grants and work-study programs, and to more than 17.500 school districts helping disadvantaged children under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. This breakthrough is not the work of Washington alone. The ideas for these programs come from educational leaders all over the country. Many different communities must supply the energy to make these programs work. Yet they are national programs, shaped by national needs. Congress has played a vital role in reviewing these needs and setting these priorities. The new- Federal role in education is, in reality, a new alliance with America's State,s and local communities. In this alliance, the Federal Government continues to be a junior partner: Local school districts will submit, and State governments will approve, the plans for spending more than Si billion this year to improve the education of poor children. Federal funds for vocational education are administered through State plans controlled by State. not Federal, officials. The recommendations of the states have been sought and followed in more than 95 percent of the projects for centers and services which are funded by the IJ.S. Office of Education. The education programs I recommend this year have three major aims: To strengthen the foundations we have laid in recent years, by revising, improving, and consolidating existing programs. To provide special help to those groups in our society with special needs: the poor. the handicapped, victims of discrimination or neglect. To build for the future by exploiting the new opportunities presented by science, technology and the world beyond our borders. The budget proposals I am making for 1968 will carry forward our efforts at a new level. The total Federal dollar expenditures for educational purposes, in- cluding health training, which I have proposed for Fiscal 1968 will amount to $11 billion-an increase of $1 billion, or 10 percent, over 1907 and $7 billion, or 175 percent, over 1963. STRENGTHENING EDUCATION PROGRAMS State and community education leaders have shouldered heavy new burdens as a result of recent increases in Federal programs. If these officials are to develop wise and long-range plans for education, they must have more help. PAGENO="0027" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 21 The Elementary and Secondary Education Act has provided funds to strengthen state departments of education. But additional funds are needed-money to im- prove community, state, and regional educational planning. Nothing can do more to ensure the effective use of Federal dollars. I recommend legislation authorizing $15 million to help state and local governments evaluate their education programs and plan for the future. A better education timetable One condition which severely hampers educational planning is the Congres- sional schedule for authorizations and appropriations. When Congress enacts and funds programs near the end of a session, the Nation's schools and colleges must plan their programs without knowing what Federal resources will be available to them to meet their needs. As so many Governors have said, the Federal legislative calendar often proves incompatible with the academic calendar. I urge that the Congress enact education appropriations early enough to allow the Nation's schools and colleges to plan effectively. I have directed the Secre- tary of Health, Education, and Welfare to work with the Congress toward the end. Another way to ease this problem is to seek the earliest practical renewal of authorization for major education measures. I recommend that Congress this year extend three major education measures now scheduled to expire in June 1968: The National Defense Education Act of 1958. The Higher Education Act of 1965. The National Vocational Student Loan Insurance Act of 1965. Improving program evaluation Most of our education programs have been operating too short a time to provide conclusive judgments about their effectiveness. But we should be heartened by the evaluations so far. Recently, the National Advisory Council on the Education of Disadvantaged Children reported: "The morale of teachers and administrators in schools with many poor children-their will to succeed and their belief in the possibility of succeed- ing-is perceptibly on the rise in many of the schools visited. More teachers than ever are involved in an active search for paths to success. The paths are not all clearly visible as yet, but decidedly the search has taken on a new vigor." The council did identify problems and weaknesses in the school districts. Our efforts to identify shortcomings and to assess our progress can never be fully effective until we provide sufficient resources for program evaluation. I have requested $2.5 million to assure careful analysis of new programs so -that we can provide a full accounting to the Congress and the American people of our successes and shortcomings. The Education Professions Act of 1967 Our work to enrich education finds its focus in a single person: the classroom teacher, who inspires each student to achieve his best. Next year, more than 170,000 new teachers will be needed to replace un- certified teachers, to fill vacancies and to meet rising student enrollments. Moreover: There are severe shortages of English, Mathematics, Science and e1e~. mentary school teachers. More teachers are needed for our colleges and junior colleges. Well trained administrators at all levels are critically needed. New kinds of school personnel-such as teachers aides-are needed to help in the schools. By 1975, the nation's schools will need nearly two million more new teachers. To help meet this growing demand, the Federal government has sponsored a number of programs to train and improve teachers. These programs, though they have been effective, have been too fragmented to achieve their full potential and too limited to reach many essential sectors of the teaching profession. Teacher aides and school administrators have not been eligible to participate. We must develop a broader approach to training for the education profes- sions. At the state and local level, education authorities must have greater flexibility to plan for their educational manpower needs. PAGENO="0028" 22 ELEMEXTAHY AND SECONDARY EDFCATIOY AMENDMENTS I recommend the Education Profess ions Act of 1967 to: Combine and c.rpand many of the scattered statutory authorities for teacher train intl as4stance Pro tide ncn' authority for the training of sc/tool administrators, teacher aides, and other education workers for schools and colleges. Impro ring .studen t loan programs In the Higher Education Act of 1965, Congress authorized a program to support state guarantees for student loans made by banks and other lending institutions. For students of modest means, the Federal Government also sub- sidizes the interest cost. The program has become an example of creative cooperation between the Federal Government. the states, private financial institutions and the aca- demic community. Though it began in a time of tight credit, the program is off to a promising start. This year. it is expected that loans totalling ~400 million will be made to nearly 4Sft000 students. By 1972. outstanding loans are expected to total $6.5 billion. I have a~1~ed nil of the government officials concerned with the program- the secretary of Health. Education, and Welfare, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Director of the Budget, and the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisor~z_-to review its operations in consultation with state and private orga- iiizations concerned. If administrative changes iii the program are necessary. we will make them. If any amendments to the legislation are in order, we will submit appropriate receniineiidations to the Congress. SPECIAl. PROGRAMS FOR SPECIAL NEEDS Eilucatinq poor children (~ver the past two years, we have invested more than $2.6 billion in improving educational opportunities for more than ten million poor children. This has been an ambitious venture, for no textbook offers precise methods for dealing with the disadvnntaged. It has also been rewarding: we have generated new energy, gained new workers and developed new skills in our effort to help the least fortunate. Dollars alone cannot do the job-hut the job cannot be done without dollars. So let us continue the programs we have begun under Head Start and the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Let us begin new efforts-like the Head Start Follow Through program w'hich can carry forward into the early grades the gains made under Head Start. The Teacher Corps Young as it is. the Teacher Corps has become a symbol of new hope for America's poor children and their parents-and for hard pressed school admin- istrators. More than 1200 interns and veteran teachers have volunteered for demanding assignments in city and rural slums. Teacher Corps volunteers are at work in 275 schools throughout the country: helping children in 20 of our 25 largest citucs. in Appainhia. in the Ozarks. in Spanish-speaking communities. The impact of these specialists goes far beyond their number. For they represcnt an important idea : that the schools in our Nation's slums deserve a fair share of our Nation's best teachers. Mayors and school officials across the country cite the competence, the energy, and the devotion which Teacher Corps memher.s are bringing to these tasks. Perhaps the best measure of the vitality of the Teacher Corps is the demand by school districts for volunteers and the number of young Americans who want to jdn. Requests from local schools exceed by far the number of volunteers we can now train. Ten times as many young Americans as we can presently accept-among them, some of our hrirhtest college graduates-have applied for Teacher Corps service. The Teacher Corps, which I recommended and which the 89th Congress estab- lished. deserves the strong support of the 90th Congress. I recommend that flue Teacher Corps he expanded to a total of 5,500 volunteers by the sc/tool year he!linning in September 1968. I propose amendments to enhance the role of the states in trai'ning and assign- ing Teacher Corps inember.s. PAGENO="0029" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDFCATIOX AMENDMENTS 23 Finally, to finance next summer's training program, I strongly recommend early action on a supplemental appropriation request of $12.5 million for the Teacher Corps in fiscal year 1967. Educating the handicapped One child in ten in our country is afflicted with a handicap which, if left untreated, severely cripples his chance to become a productive adult. In my Message on Children and Youth, I proposed measures to bring better health care to these children-the mentally retarded, the crippled, the chronically ill. We must also give attention to their special educational needs. We must more precisely identify the techniques that will be effective in helping handi- capped children to learn. We need many niore teachers who have the training essential to help these children. There as now only 70,000 specially trained teachers of the hand!- capped-a small fraction of the number the Nation requires. In the next decade, five times that number must be trained and put to work. I recommend legislation. to: Establish regional resource centers to identify the educational needs of handicapped children and help their parents and teachers meet those needs. Recruit more men and women for careers in educating the handicapped. Extend the service providing captioned films and other ins~tructional mate- rials for the deaf to all ha'ndicapped people. Ending discrimination Giving every American an equal chance for education requires that we put an end once and for all to racial segregation in our schools. In the Civil Right Act of 1964, this Nation committed itself to eliminating segregation. Yet patterns of discrimination are still entrenched in many com- munities, North and South, East and West. If equal opportunity is to be more than a slogan in our society every state and community must be encouraged to face up to this legal and moral respon- sibility. I have requested $30 million-'nearly a four-fold increase over this year's appro- priation~to provide the needed resources under Title IV of the Civil Rights Act to help states and communities face the problems of school desegregation. Education for the world of work Three out of ten students in America drop out before completing high school. Only two out of ten of our Nation's young men and women receive college degrees. Too few of these young people get the training and guidance they need to find good jobs. I recommend legislation to aid secondary schools and colleges to deveiop new programs in vocational education, to make work part of the learning experi~ ence and to provide career-counseling for their students. A number of our colleges have highly successful programs of cooperative education which permit students to vary periods of study with periods of employment. This is an important educational innovation that has demon- strated its effectiveness. It should be applied more widely in our schools and universities. I recommend an amendment of the College Work-Study Program which will for the first time permit us to support cooperative education projects. I am also requesting the Director of the Ojice of Economic Opportunity and the Secretary of Labor to use Neighborhood Youth Corps funds at the high school level for this purpose. Combating adult illiteracy At least three million adults in America cannot read or write. Another 13 million have less than an eighth grade education. Many of these citizens lack the basic learning to cope with the routine business of daily life. This is a national tragedy and an economic loss for which each one of us must pay. The Adult Education Act, enacted last year, is our pledge to help eliminate this needless loss of human talent. T/via year, I am requesting $44 million.-an increase of nearly fifty percent- for adult basic education programs. PAGENO="0030" 24 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS These funds will help new projects, sponsored by both public agencies and non-profit private groups. to train volunteers for work in adult literacy pro- grams and to establish neighborhood education programs reaching beyond the formal classroom. IiTJILDING FOR TOMORROW Public television In 1951, the Federal Communications Commission set aside the first 242 tele- vision cliaimels for non-commercial broadcasting, declaring: "The public interest will be clearly served if these stations contribute sig- nificantly to the educational process of the Nation." The first educational television station went on the air in May 1953. Today. there are 178 non-commercial television stations on the air or under con- struction. Since 1963 the Federal Government has provided $32 million under the Educational Television Facilities Act to help build towers, transmitters and other facilities. These funds have helped stations with an estimated potential audience of close to 150 million citizens. Yet we have only begun to grasp the great promise of this medium, which, in the words of one critic, has tl1e power to "arouse our dreams, satisfy our hunger for beauty, take us on journeys, enable us to participate in events, present great drama and music, explore the sea and the sky and the winds- and the hills." Non-commercial television can bring its audience the excitement of excel- lence in every field. I am convinced that a vital and self-sufficient non-com- mercial television system will not only instruct, but inspire and uplift our people. Practically all non-commercial stations have serious shortages of the facill- ties, equipment. money and staff they need to present programs of high quality. There are not enough stations. Intereonflec'tiolis between stations are inade- quate and seldom permit the timely scheduling of current programs. Non-commercial television today is reaching only a fraction of its potential audience-and achieving only a fraction of its potential worth. Clearly, the time has come to build on the experience of the past fourteen years, the important studies that have been made, and the beginnings we have made. I recommend that Congress e-nact the Public Television Act of 1967 to: Increase federal funds for television and radio facility construction to 810.5 million in fiscal 1968, more than three times this ijear's appropriations. Create a Corporation for Public Television authorized to provide support to non-commercial television and radio. Proride $9 million in fiscal 1968 as initial funding for the Corporation. Next year. after careful review, I will make further proposals for the Cor-- poration's long-term financing. Non-commercial television and radio in America, even though supported by federal funds. must he absolutely free from any federal government inter- ference over programming. As I said in the State of the Union Message, "we- should insist that the public interest be fully served through the public's airwaves". The board of directors of the Corporation for public television should include American leaders in education, communications and the creative arts. I rec- onimend that the hoard be comprised of fifteen members, appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. The Csrporation would provide support to establish production centers and. to help local stations improve their proficiency. It would be authorized to- accept funds from other sources, public and private. The strength of public television should lie in its diversity. Every region. and every community should be challenged to contribute its best. Other opportunities for the Corporation exist to support vocational train- ing for young people who desire careers in public television, to foster research and development, and to explore new ways to serve the viewing public. One of the Corporation's first tasks should be to study the practicality and the economic advantages of using communication satellites to establish an. educational television and radio network. To assist the Corporation, I am- directing the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Adminis- tration and the Secretary of Healtb, education, and Welfare to conduct expert- PAGENO="0031" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 25 ments on the requirements for such a system, and for instructional television, in cooperation with other interested agencies of the government and the private sector. Formulation of long-range policies concerning the future of satellite com- munications requires the most detailed and comprehensive study by the Execu- tive Branch and the Congress. I anticipate that the appropriate committees of Congress will hold hearings to consider these complex issues of public policy. The Executive Branch will carefully study these hearings as we shape our recommendations. Instructional television I recommend legislation to authorize the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare to launch a major study of the value and the promise of instruc- tional television which is being used more and more widely in our classrooms, but whose potential has not been full developed. Computers in education In my 1~68 Budget, I propose that the National Science Foundation be given new resources to advance man's knowledge and serve the nation. Its endeavors will help our scholars better to understand the atmosphere, exploit the ocean's riches, probe the behavior and the nature of man. The Founuation will also step up its pioneer work to develop new teaching materials for our schools and colleges. The "new math" and the "new science" are only the first fruits of this innovative work. One educational resource holds exciting promise for America's classrooms: the electronic computer. Computers are already at work in educational in- stitutions, primarily to assist the most advanced research. The computer can serve other educational purposes-if we find wnys to employ it effectively and economically and if we develop practical courses to teach students how to use it. I have directed the National Science Foundation working with the U.S. Of- /lee of Education to establish an experimental progranv for developing the p0- tent iai of computers in education. Enriching the arts and the humanities Our progress will not be limited to scientific advances. The National Founda- tion on the Arts and the Humanities, established in 1965, has already begun to bring new cultural and scholarly spirit to our schools and communities. State arts councils, museums, theaters, and orchestras have received not only new funds but new energy and enthusiasm through the National Endowment for the Arts. The National Endowment for the Humanities has made grants to support new historical studies of our Nation's heritage, to encourage creative teaching in our colleges, to offer outstanding young scholars opportunities for advancement. I reeonimen~ that Congress appropriate for the National Foundation on the Arts and Humanities $16 million-an increase of nearly one-third. Higher education for international understanding For many years, America's colleges and universities have prepared men and women for careers involving travel, trade and service abroad. Today, when our world responsibilities are greater than ever before, our domestic institutions of higher learning need more support for their programs of international studies. The 89th Congress, in its closing days, passed the International Education Act-an historic measure recognizing this Nation's enduring belief that learning~ must transcend geographic boundaries. Through a program of grants under the Act, America's schools, colleges, and universities can add a world dimension to their students' learning experience. I urge the Congress to approve promptly my forthcoming request for a supple- mental appropriation of $350,000 for the International Education Act, to permit necessary planning for next year's program, as well as an appropriation of $20 million for fiscal 1968. II. HEALTH No great age of discovery in history can match our own time. Today, our wealth, our knowledge, our scientific genius give us the power to prolong man's life-and to prevent the erosion of life by illness. In 1900, an American could expect to live only 49 years. Today, his life ex- pectancy has been increased to 70 years. PAGENO="0032" 26 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDtCATION AMENDMENTS These alvances are the result of spectacular progress in research, in public health. in the medical arts. We have developed: Sufficient knowledge to end nearly all of the hazards of childbirth and pregli a ncy. Modern nutrition to wipe out such ailments as rickets, goiter, and pellagra. Vaccines, antibiotics and modern drugs to control many of the killers and cripplers of yesterday: polio, diphtheria, pneumonia. New medical and surgical techniques to combat cancer and cardiovascular disease. Life-saving devices: plastic heart valves, and artificial artery transplants. In 1967. to pursue this vital work, the Federal Government is investing more than $440 million in the construction of health facilities, $620 million for health manpower education and training, $1.3 billion in biomedical research, $7.8 billion to provide medical care. But each gain, each victory, should focus our attention more sharply on the unfinished business facing this Nation in the field of health: Infant mortality is far higher than it need be. Handicaps afflicting many children are discovered too late or left untreated. Grave deficiencies remain in health care for the poor, the handicapped and the chronically ill. American nien between the ages of 45 and 54-which should be the most productive years of their lives-have a death rate twice that of men of the same age in a number of advanced countries. We still search in vain for ways to prevent and treat many forms of cancer. Many types of mental illness, retardation, arthritis and heart disease are still largely beyond our control. Our national resources for health have grown, but our national aspirations have grown faster. Today we expect what yesterday we could not have envisioned- adequate medical care for every citizen. My health proposals to the 90th Congress have four basic aims: To expand our knowledge of disease and our research and development of better ways to deliver health care to every American; To build our health resources. by stepped lip training of health workers and by improved planning of health facilities; To remove barriers to good medical care for those who most need care; To strengthen our Partnership for Health by encouraging regional, state, and local efforts-public and private-to develop comprehensive programs serving all our citizens. HEALTh RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT: THE FOUNDATION OF OUR EFFORTS Supporting biomedical research Our progress in health grows out of a research effort unparalleled anywhere in the world. The scientists of the National Institutes of Health have shaped an alliance throughout the nation to find the causes and the cures of disease. We must build on the strong base of past research achievements, exchange ideas with scholars and students fr~m all parts of the world, and apply our knowledge more swiftly and effectively. We must take advantage of our progress in trageted research as we have done in our vaccine development program. in the heart drug study, in artificial kidney and kidney transplant research, and in the treatment of specific types of cancer. In the 1968 budget. I am recommending an increase of $65 million-to an annual total of almost $1.5 hi.ltion-to support biomedical research. I am seeking funds to establish an International Center for Advanced Study in the Health Sciences and, to provide scholarships and fellowships in the Center. I am directing the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare to appoint immediately a lung cancer task force, to supplement the continuing work of ej'isting task forces on. leukemia, cancer chemotherapy, uterine cancer, solid tumor and breast cancer. Health. sert'ices research and development America's annual spending for health and medical care is more than $43 bil- lion. But despite this investment, our system of providing health servi~ is not operating as efficiently and effectively as it should. PAGENO="0033" ELEMENTARy AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 27 In some U.S. counties infant mortality rates, one yardstick of health-care, are 300 percent higher than the National average. Seventy percent of automobile accident deaths occur in communities of less than 2500 people, where medical facilities are often poorest. Even though we have good techniques for detecting and curing cervical cancer, eight thousand women die each year for lack of proper care. Emergency rooms in U.S. hospitals are seriously overcrowded, not with actual emergency cases, but with people who cannot find normal outpatient care anywhere else. Research and development could help eliminate these conditions by pointing the way to better delivery of health care. Yet the government-wide total invest- ment in health service research amounts to less than one-tenth of one percent of our total annual investment in health care. We have done very little to mobilize American universities, industry, private practitioners, and research institutions to seek new ways of providing medical services. There have been few experiments in applying advanced methods-systems analysis and automation, for example-to problems of health care. Our superior research techniques have brought us new knowledge in health and medicine. These same techniques must now be put to work in the effort to bring low cost, quality health care to our citizens. We must marshal the nation's best minds to: Design hospitals, nursing homes and group practice facilities which provide effective care with the most efficient use of funds and man- power; Develop new ways of assisting doctors to reach more people with good health services; Devise new patterns of health services. To begin this effort. I have directed the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare to establish a National Center for Health Services Research and Development. I recommend legislation to expand health 8crvices research and make pos- sible the fullest use of Federal hospitals as research centers to improve health care. I also recommend an appropriation of $20 million to the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare in 1968, for research and development in health services-nearly twice as much as in 1967. DEvELOpING MANPOWER AND FACrLITIES FOB HEALTH Health manpower The United States is facing a serious shortage of health manpower. Within the next decade this nation will need one million more health work- ers. If we are to meet this need, we must develop new skills and new types of health workers. We need short-term training programs for medical aides and other health workers; we need programs to develop physicians' assist- ants, and speed the training of health professions. We also need to make effective use of the thousands of medical corpsmen trained in the Armed Forces who return to civilian life each year. Last May, I appointed a National Advisory Commission on Health Man- power to recommend how we can: Speed the education of doctors and other health personnel without sacrificing the quality of training; Improve the use of health manpower both in and outside the govern- ment. Meanwbile, I directed members of my Cabinet to intensify their efforts to relieve health manpower shortages through Federal programs. This week they reported to me that federally-supported pro~rrams in 1967 will train 224,000 health workers-an increase of nearly 100,000 over 1966. Thirty thousand previously-inactive nurses and technicians will be given refresher training this year. Through the teamwork of Federal and state agencies, professional orga- nizations and educational institutions, we have launched a major effort to provide facilities and teachers for this immense training mission. 75-492---67------3 PAGENO="0034" 28 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS To maintain this stepped-up training already started in fiscal year 1967, 1 am recommending expenditures of $763 million-a 2? percent increase for fiscal year 1968-to expand our health manpower resources. Planning for future health facilities Over the past two decades, the Hill-Burton program has assisted more than 3.400 communities to build hospitals. nursing homes and other health care centers. 1-1111-Burton funds have helped to provide 350000 hospital and nursing honie beds. and to brin~ modern medical services to millions of Americans. The authorization for this program expires on June 30. 1969. The contribution of the Federal Government in financing construction of health facilities has clianred. especially with the beginning of Medicare, Medicaid. an(1 other new programs. It is timely, therefore, that we take a fresh look at this area. I a in. appoin tint, a Nut ion a 1 Advisory Corn ni ission on Health Facilities to stu(lu our needs br tic tot',! sy.ste;n. of health facilities-h ospitals, extended care facilities, nursing homes. Ion rj-terni care institutions, and clinics. In addition to considering the futurc of the Hili-ilurton Program, the Commis- sion will rnal:e recommendations for financing the construction and modern- ization of health facilities. ELIMINATING BARRIERS TO hEALTH CARE In previous niesstv.res to Congress this year, I have made recommendations to: Extend Medicare to 1.5 million seriously disabled Americans under agn (115. Establish new health services through broader maternal and child health pioarams : a stren~tIieiii~l Crippled Children's program, and new' pro ects in chi1d health and dental care. Im~rove me~1~'oI rvice~ for the needy under Medicaid. C ida fl15!IL ~1 letar(iation by sup~~orting construction of university and community centers for the mentally retarded, and for the first time, 1ielpin~ to staff the community centers. Guarantee the safety of medical devices and laboratory tests by requir- ing Food and Drur Administration pre-clearance of devices, and by requiring Iicensini~ of clinical laboratories in interstate commerce. We must act in other w-ays to overcome barriers to health care. The Office of Economic Opportunity has developed a program of Neighborhood Health Centers w-hich not only bring modern medical care to the poor but also train citizens for jobs in the health field. Last year. Congress endorsed this new approach and authorized funds for 24 such centers. More are needed. I am requesting the Director of the Office of Economic Opportunity to encour- age communities to establish additional centers. Our goal will be to double the number of centers in fiscal 1968. In the past four years. we have launched a new program to attack mental illness through community mental health centers. This program is now well underway. More centers are needed, and we must strengthen and expand existing services, I recommend, legislation to extend and im prove the Community Mental Health Centers .4ct. Among the most tragically neglected of our citizens are those who are both deaf and blind. More than 3.000 Americans today face life unable to see and hear. To help reach the deaf-blind with the best programs our experts can devise. I recommend legislation to establish a. National. Center for the Deaf and Blind. Endina ii o~'pital discri,n (nation With tb Iannching of the Medicare program last July. the Nation took a major step town rIl en] in a racial s~grezat ion in hospitals. More than i)~ percent of the Nation's hospitals have already complied with th~ anti-discrimination requirements of the Medicare legislation. They are guar- anteeing that there will be no `second-class patients" in our health-care institu- tmons: that nil citizens can enter the same door, enjoy the same facilities and the sonic quality of treatment. We will cofltiflflC to work for progress in this field-until equality of treatment is the rule not in som~ . . it in all of ni' hosj)itals and other health facilities. PAGENO="0035" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 29 Rising medical costs In 1950, the average cost per patient per day in a hospital was $14.40. In 1965, this cost more than tripled to over $45. Other health costs have also risen sharply in recent years. Last August, I asked the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare to initiate a study of medical costs. This study, now completed, indicates that medical costs will almost certainly continue to rise. It emphasizes the absolute necessity of using medical resources more efficiently if we are to moderate this increase in the cost of health care. This is a job for everyone who plays a part in providing or financing medical care-the medical profession, the hospital industry, insurance carriers, state and local governments and many other private and public groups. Federal programs must also play a role in promoting cost consciousness in medical care. The new National Center for Health Services Research and Development will develop ways to make our medical systems more efficient. The Center's first assignment will be to develop new ways to improve the use of professional and auxiliary health workers-a key factor in reducing hospital costs. We can take other steps. I am directing Secretary John Gardner to convene at tic Department of Health, Education, and Welfare a National Conference on Medica' Costs. Ti~ is con f:rence will bring together leaders of the ine~licai comm en itii and. mew bers of the public to discuss how we can lower the costs of medical .scri jeer without impu irinti the quality. In the weeks and months ahead, the Secretary Or Health, Education, antI V.e1- fare will consult with representatives of the medical profession. universities, business and labor to: find practical incentives for the effective operation of hospitals and other health facilities. ruduce the casts of construction and s~aed the modernization of hospitals, nursing homi-.~ and extended care facilities. support the-c inijovatioils in n~eUical educ~d (III v.±1(h `cut ic' to ha tter trauning p::aii~ and promctc tbo c~ccnt pract~cc OUR PARTNERShIP FOR HEALTh The Partnership for Health legislation, enacted by the 89th Congress, is designed to strengthen state and local programs and to encourage broad gauge planning in health. It gives the states new flexibility to use Federal funds by freeing them from tightly compartmentalized grant programs. It also allows the states to attack special health problems which have special regional or local impact. I recommend that Congress ewtend the Partnership for IIealt1~ legislation for four years; protddc supplemental appropriations for piannina in fiscal 19(37 and total appropriations of $161 miliion~-an increase of $41 million-.4.n fiscal year 1968. Our Regional Medical Programs for heart disease, cancer, and stroke depend on a second partnership, involving doctors, medical schools, hospitals, and State and local health departments. These programs will bring to every citizen the fruits of our Nation's research into the killer diseases. They will al.so promote the continuing education of the Nation's doctors, nurses and other health workers. To sustain these nationwide programs, I recommend an apJ)ropriatiofl of $64 million for fiscal 1968-an increase of 819 million over 1967. Occupational Health and Safety Occupational health and safety is another area in which we need to strengthen our partnership with labor, industry, medicine and government. In 1965, more than 14,000 job-connected deaths and 2 million disabling work injuries caused untold misery and privation to workers, 230 million lost mandays of pro(luction. antI billions of dollars in lost income. We must learn more about the nature of job-connected injuries, so we c-a set effective safety standards and develop better protective measures. I (im rccommcndinq in the 1998 budqet an appropriation for the Depart,neat of Health. Education, and TVelfare of $8.1 miCion-a 25% increase inca this year- to c:i~ea,ui research and training programs fl occupational health. cincl to .strenjf hen state an(l local public health pro~jiamr in this field. PAGENO="0036" 30 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDTCATION AMENDMENTS I am directiaq the 5' retary of Labor to improve and strei~gthen health pro- tect ion and safety standards for workers through cooperative Federal-State pro- gram ~. III. To FULFILL THE INDIVIDUAL As a people, we have wanted many things, achieved many things. We have become the richest, the mightiest, the most productive nation in the world. Yet a nation may accumulate dollars, grow in power, pile stone on stone-and still fall short of greatness. The measure of a people is not how much they achieve-but what they achieve. Which of our pursuits is most worthy of our devotion? If we were required to choose. I believe we would 1)10cc one item at the top of the list: fulfillment of the indivi(lual. If that is what we seek. mere wealth and power cannot help us. We must also act-in definable and practical ways-to liberate each individual from conditions which stunt his growth, assault his dignity, diminish his spirit. Those enemies we know: ignorance, illness, want, squalor, tyranny. injustice. To fulfill the individual-this is the purpose of my proposals. They present an opportunity-and an obligation-to the Ninetieth Congress. I hope and believe this Congress will live up to the high expectations of a progressive and humanitarian America. LYNDON B. JOHNSON. THE WHITE HoUsE. February 28. 1967. Mr. PERKINS. Will on proceed in any manner that you care to proceed, Mr. Howe? STATEMENT OF HON. HAROLD HOWE, U.S. COMMISSIO~R OP EDU- CATION; ACCOMPANIED BY 3~. GRAHAM SULLIVAN, DEPUTY COX- MISSIONER OF EDUCATION; R. LOUIS BRIGHT, ASSOCIATE COMMISSIONER FOR RESEARCH; NOLAN ESTES, ASSOCIATE COM- MISSIONER FO~R ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION; J. WILLIAM RIOUX. ACTING ASSOCIATE COMMISSIONER FOR EDU- CATION OF THE HANDICAPPED; RICHARD GRAHAM, DIRECTOR OF THE NATIONAL TEACHER CORPS; AND ALBERT L. ALFORD, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER FOR LEGISLATION Mr. Iinwr. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. I thank YOU partic'iinrly for your kind remaiks and I would like to say that this committee has macic a contribution to Amer- ican education which will ring down the corridors for years to come. The legislation this committee has p~cecl in being is only beginning to have it:z real effects. The evidence from the schools already is that these effects are benefiting children immeasurably. Mr. Chairman. I would like to introduce one or two of my asso- ciates who are here for the first time, and have them recognized by the committee. On my right is ~\[r. Nolan Estes, who has replaced Dr. Arthur I[arris as the \s~o'itte Commissioner for Elementary and Secondary Education. lie is a person with whom the committee will certainly he doing a great deal of business. On my left, way over here, is Mr. J. William Rioux, Acting Asso- ciate Commissioner for Education of the lIandicap~ed. We have established in the Office of Education since this committee last met a new Bureau of Education for the Handicapped, and Mr. Rioux is acting as the Associate Commissioner in charge of that Bureau. PAGENO="0037" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 3]. On my immediate left is Mr. Richard Graham, whom I am sure members of the committee have met, but. he has not. testified before the committee before. He is Director of the National Teacher Corps. I believe t.he committee has met all of the other people who are here from the Office of Education. Mr. Chairman, I have a little bit of dilemma in that the testimony we have to present to you numbers something over 5() pages, and it seems to me that were I to read this entire testimony, it might use too much of the committee's time. Chairman PERKINS. `Without objection, the prepared statement will be inserted in the record at this point and you can summarize it or ad lib from it in anyway you care to. (Mr. Howe's prepared statement follows:) STATEMEJ'~-T BY IIAIIOLD HOWE II, U.S. CoxflhISsIONEji OF EDt-cATIoN, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, one hundred years ago today, President Andrew Johnson signed into law `An Act to Establish a Department of Education," The functions of the Department were several: Collecting such statistics and facts as shall show the condition and progress of education in the several States and territories; Diffu~~ing such information respecting the organization and management of schools and school systems and methods of teaching as shall aid the people of the United States in the establishment and maintenance of efficient school systems; and Otherwise promoting the cause of education throughout the country. Ia the iast century, the Office of Education has indeed striven to `promote the cause of ~dueatjon." In so doing, it has grown considerably from the original Conimissjoner-u'h() earned the munillcent sum of 54.000 pc' annuin-and his three clerks. Today, the Office of Education has a staff of nearly 2,S00 and an annual budget of almost S4 billion for the administration of over 75 educational programs. As indicated by the dollar and staff growth, the functions and responsibilities assigned by law to the Office of Education have been increased significantly over the decades and particularly in the past few years. It is a pleasure for me to appear before you this morning to discuss and support the Administration's legislative proposals as embodied in the Elementary and Secondary Education Amendments of 1967, H.R. 6230, which represent a further broadening of functions as well as a renewal of some expiring existing authority. Before I detail these legislative proposals, however, I should like to highlight some of the accomplishments of the past year by State and local educational agencies under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. This important piece of legislation has had a profound impact on the educational system of this Nation. Programs conducted under Its authority have reached, directly or indirectly, nearly every schoolchild and teacher in the country. Last year, President Johnson noted that "Educational deprivation cannot be overcome In a year. And quality cannot be achieved overnight." But I feel we have come a long way in our efforts to provide high-quality educational opportunity for all. TITLE I-EDUCATION FOB THE DISADVANTAGED The first year of operation of Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Edu- cation Act of 1965 saw the beginning of major changes in the Nation's elementary arid secondary schools, to meet the special needs of the children of poverty. Nearly $1 billion-$987,596,171_was spent to provide special services and pro- grams for 8.3 million children who needed them most-the educationally de- prived. The greatest concentration of funds went into poor rural counties in the South and into the ghettoes of our major cities. In the past, thes'~ isolated areas and slums have too often had the most inadequate schools, when they needed the best schools we could provide. PAGENO="0038" 32 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDL'CATION AMENDMENTS We have recently cvmpleted a study of the first year~s operatitiI-a study drawn fr~ni the reports su( initted to the Office of Educatioli iv State educational ageilcies. These reports reveal both the scope and the prom~'e of the program. Of nearly 27.000 1 al cclutnti~nal Ilejesn thi' country aid utlyili~ terri- tories. almost 2~.00O were eligible to receive Title I funds: 17,481 participated (luring tLc sharI year. rintitteting some 22.173 projects. The proJects ranged from comprehensive preslI el programs to courses in mathematics and job skill ft r high school drop uts. Almost two-thirds of the projects were for language arts and remedial reading. Instructional services account for 51.6 percent of the funds ex- peiided iii Fiscal Year 11)00 and 57.6 1)erct'nt in Fiscal Year 1967. Children who had tiaver vicited a doctor or dentist were given medical ill'. In lath F~'~zi) ~eors ihOl aiiII i00~. fllOlC than 2 percent of the funds exiniidtd went for health services. F 1 -ervi'e ~ rcoiOF. ac*u~linn fo~ mire thtn 2 percent of the local `Pit `cc lao a' :q .iilUito t' r 01 1i~al y-ar. provided hot break- -~ ti Inc 0~ `ki llrta formerly ti liuii~ry ti learn. Children from 1tre-kindernartefl through the sixth grade accounted for neariy 70 perCent of the total number of participants. an indication of the li ~ i~t'ntII °ro do ate `-a dy the ~ripIliIiv effects of p verty. At `i cull A sh' v~ a I :-a lcd. cm if ill tI'-~ ni jr ci tegories f expenditure for Fis al "thiS 190' end louT. danv 5"llOOi Pt~ii1 were extremely t'iCittive iii their use f Title I funds. Lel me dye yin a lea' examples. gi'ailed from the State evaluation reports Tn V"a clii nato farm a iniauitity. two tlurces~ mm ides (one of whom spoke SI :i iii sli ) tic `ight health -are to the impoverished Spimnisli-speaking children `1 inicrant form wriier:~. New YcrI: City a ~ceatled rooms 1 c pecialistt-i'ea(lilIg ixpert~. coun- ~m'1or~. and poym-hmatrists--tor hit m'nsive ~vork with 1'eschooiers A Tenne~'-ee pr ject d\'eiolitd ~vireIcs.s auditory tralu! ug units for deaf -hilflr-'n A Luisimma seli ol taught English as a foreign 1angul~:e to children of `aba: : 0; an :1. resid a: all :-ns from South America. Au Iowa school provided evening classes for high school dropouts. But the most encouraging aspects of our evaluation are the changes in atti- tudes-on the part of both students arid teachers-that have been reported. Children taking l)art in a Title I l)rOject in Ohio. for example, who previously had exhibited great hostility to anything connected with school, openly admitted enjoying the program. The National Advisory Council on the Education of Disadvantaged Children. in its January ill report to the President and the Congress. stated "The atti- tudes of teachers are crucial in improving the education of disadvantaged chil- dren." It cited summer schools aided by Title I last summer. ~`the atmosphere of experimentation." and "fresh feelings of success with children" as instru- mental in changing traditional teacher attitudes. The State evaluation reports reflect such change. Teachers in a Chicago project were amazed at the rate of improvelllent in reading ability of a class of `~educational1y deprived" children once individualized remedial reading services were provided for the class. They and local school administrators learned that under-achievers, per learners, or whatever they had been called in the past. could be aided by tile proper educa- tional program. One of the potential problems with a program of this size is that of commnuni- cation with the teachers and administrators at the State and local levels. We have tried to meet this need through constant contact with State administrators and through a series of meetings with State and local educators concerned about compensatory education. Early in the first year of the Act, we began a series of meetings with State department of education people who were to administer the Title I program. These meetings provided an initial contact which helped get the program off to a good start and established a relationship that has continued into the second year. Representatives from the 21 largest cities, with their State department asso- ciates, met with Office of Education staff at three meetings in October 1966 to discuss Title I programs. The Federal-State-local dialogue set up by these meet- ings was clearly useful in helping us to serve the States better, and State and local reIlr~~ntatiV?S were unani~vus in their desire for a continuation of the PAGENO="0039" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 33 dialogue. The Office of Education learned much from these meetings, becoming better able to appreciate the problems of our Nation's major (ities, which ac- counted for over $200 million in Title I funds and almost 3 million of the chil- dremi served. The communication link-s developed at these meetings are being -continued as the present fiscal year progresses. and Title I field staff have recently visited each of the 21 cities to gain a first-hand irnderstaiiding of their programs. A conference was held in July 1906 for 500 local. State and Federal educators and administrators concerned about compensatory education for (l i sadva ntaged children in general and Title I in particular. This National Conference on Education of the Disadvantaged was the first such attempt to get these people together with USOE personnel and other related representatives from OEO, Department of Labor, Bureau of Indian Affairs, and Bureau of the Budget. Consultants from universities and independent groups were also brought in to discuss the philosophy of compensatory education. I am submitting for the record a report on this conference. Amendments Last year, Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1P65 was amended to include Indian children enrolled in schools operated by the Bureau of Indian Affairs of the Departnient of the Interior. These children- some of the most disadvantaged in the country-have been substantially aided by the inclusion of Title I funds in their school programs this fiscal year. We estimate that 37,000 Indian children will be reached by special programs to combat their educational deprivation this school year, at a total cost of more than $5 million. Provision for the participation of Indian children enrolled in lilA schools will expire at the end of this fiscal year. In order ti make this provision uniform with the rest of time Title I authorization, we are requesting its extension through Fiscal Year ~968. Aim interdepartmental task force is currently studying the entire field of Indian education and will make further recommendations to the Congress later this year. We are also proposing that the minimum amount allowed for State adminis- tration expenditures be increased from $75,000 to 3l~0,0O0. Past experience has shown that the current allowance is insufficient in States with sparsely scattered school Populations where program administration costs are high. TITLE `I-TEXTBOOKS, LIBRARY BOOKs, AND OTHER IN5TRTjC~flONAL MATERIALS Title II of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act made available to the States a total of $100 million in Fiscal Year 1966 amid $102 million in Fiscal Year 19(;7. Of the three types of materials eligible for acquisition under the Title- school library resources, textbooks, amid other instructional materials-library resources have been given highest priority by most approved State lilans. In fact, 45 States have authorized more than 50 percent of their allotments for this category. The State plans submitted indicate that an estimaed 49 million students and 1.9 million teachers in public and private elementary and secondary schools now have access to books and materials acquired under Title II. States have used a variety of patterns to allocate resources for the use of children and teachers according to relative need. In some States, materials are provided for the use of children and teachers in all elementary and secondary schools to meet minimum standards within the State, and additional materials are made available for children and teachers in specific categories. Categories of need have been established in some States by comparing available materials with established State standards. Other States have established priorities that include elementary schools which lack basic resources and schools with special program needs. Up to 5 percent of each State's allotment, or a minimum of $50,000, is available for administrative expenses. In addition to meeting administrative costs, State educational agencies are using administrative funds to conduct workshops, to provide consultative services, and to prepare publications for inservice teacher education in the selection and utilization of instructional materials. Thirteen States are developing instructional materials centers for demonstration and evaluation. Title II funds have also allowed States to strengthen their staffs by adding school library supervisors and other specialists with competencies In instructional materials. Nineteen States, six for the first time, have added school library supervisors to their staffs. PAGENO="0040" 34 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDtCATION AMENDMENTS The Office of Education is directing its efforts toward assuring continuity of Title II programs, disseminating information, and providing a meaningful dia- logue between the Office and those States receiving Federal assistance. There- fore, in November 1966, a conference was held for State coordinators and Office of Education staff. In addition, program personnel from the Office of Education are conducting program reviews in each State and are attending, as participants or consultants, numerous national and State education conferences. Amendments Last year, the Congress amended Title II to allow the participation of two new groups of children-Indian children enrolled in schools operated by the Bureau of Indian Affairs of the Department of the Interior and children enrolled in overseas dependent schools operated by the Department of Defense. During this fiscal year, more than ~125,000 will be spent in providing textbooks, library books. and other instructional materials for Indian children; more than $404000 will be spent for such books and materials for children in DOD schools. As enacted, the provisions of Title II will be extended to both groups of chil- dren only through the end of this fiscal year. Therefore, we recommend their extension through Fiscal Year 1968, in order to make this authorization con- sistent with that of the rest of the Title. TITLE rn-SUPPLEMENTARY EDUCATIONAL CENTERS AND SERVICES Since the enactment of Title III in April 1965, 4,435 proposals for Title III projects-Projects to Advance Creativity in Education (PACE), as we describe them-have been submitted by 9.000 school districts, requesting $509 million. To date, 1,202 proposals costing $89 million have been funded and 1,300 proposals requesting $198 million are being evaluated for funding. So far, about 39 per- cent of the proposals submitted and about 29 percent of the amounts requested are being funded. Over 10 million persons are being touched by Title III programs. They con- sist of nearly 10 million l)ublie and nonpublic elementary and secondary school pupils. 93,000 preschool children, 250,000 out-of-school youth, 355,000 classroom teachers, and 13L000 parents and other adults. Of the project-~ funded, approximately 59 percent are for planning activities an(1 41 percent for operational activities. They fall into the following general categories: 39 percent for multiple purpose programs; 36 percent for special programs, including remedial instruction and special education; 10 percent for administration and personnel programs, including inservice training of ad- ministrators and classroom teachers and planning and operating systems for data processing; and 15 percent for single subject matter programs, covering regular academic subjects such as science, mathematics, and language arts. Appendix B gives a graphic analysis of the first year of experience under Title III. School districts have truly been creative in planning PACE programs. In Altoona, Pennsylvania, a Title III project is focusing on the utilization of computer-assisted instruction to improve student achievement and faculty instruction in secondary school mathematics and science. The capa- city of an existing computer installation has been increased to allow addi- tional terminals for the program and to make the computer accessible to all public and private schools in the area. Teachers are learning to prepare their own course materials in a program instructed by an academic co- ordinator who teaches them simple computer language, rather than com- plicated programming techniques. Chicago, Illinois, public schools are developing a three-phased career development program for children in grades 4, 5, and 6. Teachers will be trained to integrate career development theory and occupational informa- tion into their regular classroom programs. Children will have an op- portunity to become familiar with various occupations and training ex- pectations before the traditional seventh grade careers program is offered. Parents will also be oriented to career development theory to foster early career guidance for their children. In Magnolia. Arkansas, a regional services center has been established as part of a program of diagnostic and remedial services for children in south- west Arkansas. The center provides diagnostic, counseling, remedial and special edn~ntnan~il s~orvice~ for iiupfls nncl in~ervice education for teachers. PAGENO="0041" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY LDUCAT1ON \MFNI)MENTS 35 The center staff will correlate all aspects of the program including clinical services for children, services and training programs for teachers, parents, and liaison personnel, and training programs for preservice teachers and other related disciplines. Several approaches have been used to assure program continuity, effective dissemination, and an exchange of ideas among Federal, State, and local edu- cation agencies and personnel. The Title III guidelines are revised periodically to incorporate evalua- tion results and suggestions of local and State educational agencies. Administrative memoranda are sent to project directors and State Co- ordinators periodically to explain identified l)olicy or i;rocedure changes. A filmstrip explaining Title III was provided free of charge to all State educational agencies. All approved projects are processed into the ERIC system, which I will describe later, for more effective program dissemination. In addition, abstracts of all projects are published periodically in a listing called PdCEsetters in In~novation.. Project personnel are invited to the Office of Education to work on special projects for 2-week periods in a new- program called Visiting PACE Fellows. Amendments Last year, Title III was amended to include participation of Indian children in BIA schools and children in DOD overseas schools. It is estimated that nearly $205,000 will be expended on supplementary educational centers and services for Indian children during this fiscal year, and approximately $527,000 for children in overseas dependents schools. Provision for participation in Title III of these children expires at the end of this fiscal year. We are there- fore recommending extension of these provision for one more year, through Fiscal Year 1968, in conformity with the authorization for the rest of the Title. TITLE IV-RESEARCH Title IV of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act amended the Co- operative Research Act of 1954, the Office of Education's basic authority to award grants or contracts for any research or related activities which promise to benefit education. By far the largest number of research activities receive project support-clearly delineated, limited-time research on subjects as varied as the questions educators seek to answer. The other form of research activity is called program support; this involves specifically announced problem areas in education where there is felt to be a need for continuous, intensive attention. Several types of program support are carried on by the Office of Education. Research Development Grants support the efforts of small or developing colleges to acquire sound research capacity. Research and Development Centers-of which there were 11 in operation at the end of Fiscal Year 1966-concentrate on a single problem area in education and conduct activities ranging from basic research through dissemination. Educational Laboratories, now numbering 20, bring together the resources of universities and schools to develop, demonstrate, and disseminate new curriculum and new methods to Improve education. A listing of the existing Research and Development Centers and Laboratories is attached as Appendix C. Programs for Training Educational Researchers, authorized by Title IV, support undergraduate. graduate, and postdoctoral training, training institutes, inservice programs, and special projects dealing witim educational research. Getting the results of educational research into use in the schools and colleges is as important as the research itself. Unless the findings of a laboratory or and R & D center are put to work in the classroom, their value is meaningless. To promote dissemination, the Educational Research Information Center (ERIC), of which I spoke earlier, has been established. ERIC is a commiprehen- sive national information system designed to serve American education by making available reliable, current educational resenrc'h and research-related materials. The system is made up of a network of imufornuation clearinghouses or documentation centers located throughout the country and coordinated through Central ERIC in the Office of Education. By the end of 1OW3. clearinghouses had heemi esti 11 ushed in 13 substantive areas : counseling and guidance c1isudvanta~red eliaational uidmninistration PAGENO="0042" 36 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS exceptional children: teaching of foreRrn languages; junior colleges: linguistics and the uncommonly taught languages; reading; school personnel; science education: small schools and rural compensatory education; vocational and technical education: and adult and continuing education. TITLE V-STEEN GTHi~NJNG STATE EDUCATIONAL AGENCIES State educational :igerlcies li:~ ye experienced rapid growth, hut that growth has not been a halaned one. It has occurred largely where Federal concern for education has been expressed in Federal funds. In 1950. out of the apnroximatelv 4,100 J)rofessiOllals working in State edu- cation agencies. about half were involved with federally subsidized programs. The imbalance continued: 10 years later. 57 percent of the professional staffs were so eii~;t~recl. iii a quarter of the States. 70 percent of tile professionals in the State agencies were a~~signed to Federal pro~rarns. It cole a lcp~:ld pictur. Let us leek. for example, it State supervisors for specific curriculum subjects. who were never very numerous. In mathematics, science. and foreirn langua~es. there were 15 supervisors in all Stu~e a~encies in 1955 : there were 20 in English and social studies. In I ~Id3. after 5 years' experi- ence with Title III of NDEA. the 15 meth. oience, and foreign languages super- visors in State agencies had increased to 17i. more than 1.100 percent. By con- trast, in English and social studies, for which there was no Federal support, the increase u-as only 00 l)er(eilt. to 32 supervisors. Iii all States. there were only three specialists in preschool education in it)SS : there were still three in lfdi3. Congress. thron~rh Title V. took steps to correct this imbalance. The provision of rrants to strengthen State departments of education gave these agencies the means to reinforce weak places in their structure, places not directly related to Federal concerns. The response was dramatic. Based on a first-year appropria- tion of 817 million, the States applied for funds to cover some 1.800 new positions, 1.000 of them professionals. to perform the following functions Study, planning, developing, and evaluating education programs and edu- cational rese;irch-24.5 percent of the funds and 27 percent of the positions; Exteiidiiig instructional aid to local school authorities--23 percent of the money and 26.5 percent of the jobs; General administration-17 percent of the funds and 16 percent of the positions Statistics and data processing-u.S percent of the funds and 9.5 percent of the jobs: Administrative aid to local educational agencies-6 percent of the funds and 7 percent of the positions. Unfortunately, of the 1.800 jobs State agencies sought to fill, they succeeded in filling only 1.000. Scarcity of trained personnel proved the bottle-neck. _4ni Cfl dm en ts Two amendments to Title V are proposed. The first would amend the allot- ment formula contained in Section 503 in order to provide for a more equitable distribution of funds. According to the present formula, 85 percent of the appro- priated funds are available for allotment under Section 503. Of these funds, 98 percent are allotted to the States first on the basis of $100,000 per State and the remainder on the basis of public school enrollment; the remaining 2 percent is allotted to the outlying areas. Smaller and less populous States have suffered from this distribution formula. Funds allotted to them have not gone far in meeting the pressing needs of their State educational agencies. In order to concentrate more Federal assistance on these often-needy States, we are recommending a change in the allotment formula. Forty percent of the amount available for apportionment among the States under Section 503 would be allotted to the States in equal amounts: the remain- ing 60 percent would he allotted on the basis of public school-age population. Our second proposal for amending Title V is designed to meet a vital need In the educational community and in our society-long-range educational planning. We are asking the Congress to authorize and appropriate $15 million to begin this program. Systematic. comprehensive, long-range educational planning at all levels is essential if our Nation's educational needs are to be met. If present programs are to be effectively coordinated and improved to fill the needs of each child, if new programs are to be developed to meet unmet needs, objective evaluation PAGENO="0043" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 37 of resources, goals, and methods of meeting goals must be carried out. Evalua- tion is impossible unless reliable information concerning the effectiveness of the education provided to our children is obtained and analyzed. Some State and local educational agencies are making a real effort to iniple- ment planning programs. For example. certain agencies have hired personnel whose primary job is to plan and develop projects assisted with Federal funds and to coordinate those projects with the State and local educational programs. Those agencies which have been able to hire personnel for this purpose are fortunate. All too often those areas which need independent planning and evalu- ation systems are the least likely to have them. Qualified personnel are not al- ways available. Few agencies have the funds to hire them. Federal funds are available for this purpose only in very limited circumstances. State educational agencies have been called upon for technical assistance for planning-assistance seldom available because the State agencies are overbur- dened with the responsibilities placed upon them by State and Federal education programs. Although most of the Federal programs do provide for payments to State agencies for administrative expenses, those payments ordinarily do not cover the cost of hiring or providing personnel for long-range planning. To be sure State departments of education have grown considerably in the last few years; but this growth h;is been affected by Federal education programs to the extent that most of the growth is directly related to growth of Federal pro- grams. State personnel lured to w-ork on Federal programs are almost entirely associated with the administrative and curriculum supervision functions of the agency. They are not in positions which w-ould provide the planning and tech- flic~ul competencies which are needed to mount a coordinated attack throughout the State on the uuiajor weaknesses of the schools as identified by detailed analysis and information-gathering. Aware of the lopsided growth of State agencies, as I have already stated, Con- gress enacted Title V of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, under w-hich the States are taking constructive steps to correct the imbalance. The pro- visions for grants to strengthen State departments of education gave these agen- cies the means to reinforce weak places in their structures, especially in those areas not related to Federal programs. In writing Title V, the Congress suggested 10 areas in which the State agencies might he strengthened. The very first is "educational planning on a statewide basis. including the identification of educational problems, issues, and needs in the State and the evaluation on a periodic or continuing basis of education pro- grams in the State." The response was dramatic. Based on a first-year appro- priation of $17 million, the States applied for funds to cover some 1,800 new positions. Twenty-five percent of the funds and 27 percent of the personnel were expected to work in the planning and evaluation areas. The States recognized the need and took steps to meet it. Ilout~ver, by the end of the fiscal year, the States had amended their applications to reduce the planning function to 19 percent of the funds and 20 percent of the positions. For Fiscal Year 1967, the applications have reduced this function still further: less than 18 percent of the funds requested, and 14 percent of the positions budgeted are to be used for planning. The State departments of education have not lost interest in planning. Far from it. Other concerns were more pressing. In order to secure funds author- ized by some 15 pieces of new Federal legislation before the end of the fiscal year. they had to mount new programs immediately. There were other pressures as well. Local education agencies had urgent needs for the improvement of instruction. The State agency had to improve its general administrative cdpac- ity. Capacity to deal with the masses of educational data emanating from all sources had to be developed. The growing responsibilities thrust on them by the growing Federal programs of aid to education require all their existing resources, and more. They cannot afford to plan. Yet, they cannot afford not to. Even if all local educational agencies could obtain the services necessary to carry out a systematic program of planning and evaluation, the effectiveness and efficiency of those programs would he limited by the fact that the scope of the jroject would be confined to one school in one area. The effectiveness of the planning and evaluation processes is improved by the comparison of a number of approaches to similar problems in an areawide or statewide context. At the same time, those processes must be carried out PAGENO="0044" 38 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS clove fa the people to be served. Our system of education, founded on the principle of State and local responsibility and control, is best adapted to plan- ning and evaluation at the State and local levels, with the primary focusat the State level. State educational agencies now set minimum standards in such areas as school accreditation and teacher certification, while local boards of education are directly responsible for the local school. State programs admin- istered in a nianner which will permit maximum local initiative and flexibility would best meet the need for comprehensive planning systems. If State and local educational agencies are to continue to carry out their present responsibilities, if Federal programs are to meet the needs Congress intends, and if the Nation's schools are to continue to meet the demands made of them, systematic planning must be encouraged. It is for this reason that we are proposing an amendment to Title V of the Elementary and Secondary Educa- tion Act of 1965. to authorize State agencies to establish and improve their programs for educational planning and evaluation. Our proposed amendnient would authorize 515 million for Fiscal Year 1968 to initiate a 5-year program of grants to the States to assist them in the estab- lishment of programs for comprehensive, systematic, and continuous planning and evaluation of education at all levels. These programs would be designed to assure the achievement of opportunities for high quality education for all segments of the population throughout the State. Seventy-five percent of the appropriation w-ould be allotted among the States to Support State programs. The other 25 percent of the appropriation would be held in reserve for special projects provided in Section 524. Any State desiring to participate in the program would designate or establish a State agency to submit an application to the Office of Education and to ad- minister the program within the State. Higher education programs may be included in the planning and evaluation system if the State includes higher education as a part of its application. If higher education is included in the program, the State may designate a separate agency to deal with higher educa- tion, but it must coordinate its planning in higher education with its precollege planning. State applications would include provisions for setting educational goals; es- tablishing priorities among and developing means of achieving those goals; im- proving present programs and planning new programs; the strengthening of the capacity of the State to conduct objective evaluations of the effectiveness of edu- cation programs; and maintaining a permanent system for obtaining the informa- tion necessary for the assessment of the State's progress in attaining its educa- tional goals. The agency would give assurance that the funds would be used primarily for strengthening the competency of its planning and evaluation staff. However, the agency would be permitted to employ consultants or, by contract, utilize the services of public or private institutions and organizations in certain specialized fields. State planning and evaluation systems would serve the State's education program by: Developing procedures for monitoring progress toward educational ob- jectives Evaluating the effects on equality of educational opportunity resulting from patterns of school district organization, State and local financing ar- rangements. and related factors such as the problems of districts too small to offer comprehensive or efficient educational programs, the disparities in educational expenditures per pupil, 1)0th among districts and among schools within the same di~trict. and th~ special problems of racial and socio-eco- nomic minorities: Evaluating the effectiveness of ongoing programs of compensatory edu- cation. wtih special attention to problems of coordination among programs oprnted by different agencies or funded from different sources, and to an analysis of pilot projects. model school programs, or other special efforts by local educational agencies which appear to offer promise of more effective education for disadvantaged groups: Surveying existin~ programs for occupational training, with an assess- ment of the odoquacy of these programs in the light of l)I'eseflt and pro- jected employment opportunities: Analyzing the relationships hetwen occupational training programs and other programs at the elementary. secondary and post-secendary level PAGENO="0045" ELEMENTARy AND SECONDARy EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 39 Assessing the technical, professional and cultural resources in the State; Examining the role played by private schools in tile State, and of rela- tions between public and private schools; Evaluating programs for the prevention, early diagnosis anti treatment of handicapping conditions, provisions for special education of the handi- capped, and programs for neglected and delinquent children; Examining existing State laws and regulations affecting education; and Establishing procedures to preserve opportunities for innovation at the local level, to facilitate future modification of educational plans as new evidence on accomplishments is obtained, and to insure as far as possible the preservation of a system which is flexible anti responsive to the chang- ing needs of a rapidly developing technological society. A number of recent activities supported by Title V of ESEA, and the develop- ment of several statewide systems designed to coordinate planning and supple- mentary programs under Title III of ESEA, provide indications that many States are increasingly assuming the major role in comprehensive planning. Particularly encouraging are indications of the growing readiness of States to undertake cooperative activities with other States. For example, a cooperative project has been established under the leadership of Iowa, to develoi) and im- plement a complete integrated educational information systeni aniong 13 mid- western States. A development with similar implications is the establishment, in a large majority of States, of Research Coordinating Units, which include: Coordinating occupational research activities conducted within the State, and, further, coordinating such research activities with those being coiiducted outside the State; Identifying and maintaining an inventory of available occupational re- search and development resources in light of anticipated needs and pro- grams within the State; Surveying available data on employment opportunities, emerging occupa- tional trends, and future job projections, as a base for planning vocational programs, curricula, and facilities within the State, and teacher training, recruitment and placement; and Identifying issues and problems relating to the nature and place of voca- tional education in the State school system, and determining the contribu- tions which occupational research and development could make in resolving them. This legislation does not envision the development of anything which could be characterized as a national plan. It does anticipate that as States increase their capability for identifying problems and for pinpointing needs, there will emerge some fairly systematic procedures for comparing findings, for ascer- taining the extent to which a national consensus exists on important issues of educational policy, and for assisting the States to develop increasingly more effective planning procedures. If adopted this legislation would: Encourage the collection and adequate analysis of far more precise and comprehensive information about the development of human resources than is now available; Stimulate efforts to develop greater support for education at the State and local levels; and Increase the visibility of accomplishments by individual school systems and encourage the spread of effective educational practices by encouraging healthy emulation, 1)0th within States and across State lines. One of the functions of the planning and evaluation program would be to extend technical assistance and services to local educational agencies to assist them in evaluation of their present school program, the study (If critical local educational needs, the assessment of the financial resources available to the school, the planning of new programs, and the coordination of Federal, State and local programs. Some States may elect to give local educational agencies financial assistance to help the local school district in the establishment of a planning arid evalua- tion system at the local level. It is expected that States in which there are large city school districts will prefer having the city school hoard carry out a program especially designed to deal with the problems of the cities. Section ~24 authorizes grants to and contracts with public anti private arencies, institutions, or organizations for special planning and evaluation projects such as: PAGENO="0046" 40 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS metropolitan planning in areas covering one or more States: the improvement and expansion of the planning and evaluation capacities of large city schools; comparat~ve and cooperative studies; conferences to promote educational plan- ninir: and the publication of materials to disseminate information concerning the p1ann~ng of better educational services and programs. Lie authority established in this Section will enable the Commissioner to briar the best resources of the Nation, in tile form of brainpower and tech- nci(ri~ al training, to focus on the solution of the stubborn and difficult problems related to the planning of educational programs for the future. The results of si~P ~rohing can then be made available to and shared with all States. Such a telI111(lue does away with unnecessary replication of the study in several dif- fcient States. The value of this kind of authority has been proven with the spec: at project provision contained in Section 505 of Title V. For example, we have supported a study wherein a group of eight Rocky Mountain States identi- fied the common problem of foreseeing the prospective changes in society by 1950. and then tried to draw the necessary implications froni their flndings to prvide guidance in the design of educational programs. Without this interstate authority for special developmental projects, this project would have been beyond the means of the interested States. and could not have come into being. The tnt liority riven to the Continissioner in thic proposed Section will provide tb-' op1iai'tflflity to utilize the technology and hrainpower of both profit and non- profit oi'gaiiizntiono capable of making a significant contribution to the solution of pretlelns. In addition, this arranrement would enable the Commissioner to develop and fund special projects with various commissions and professional as'~e(iatioIls. (me ~uch project is now being funded out of the salaries and evpenses appropriation of the Office of Education. In this study, the Council of (Thief State School Officers is completing a study giving thorough treatment to the historical development of State educational agencies, thus providing a basis for determining their needs and evaluating their progress. This Section would also enable the Commissioner to provide planning funds for the design of educational programs through a mechanism such as an inter- state eoiupOc t. The problems associated with educational planning for metropolitan areas are sufficiently alike to warrant some interstate activity. If the States and local agencies wish to align themselves in such a way that an educational planning proiect could he efficiently administered, the authority provided the Commis- sioner in Section 524 would enable him to fund such an activity : it would have an impact across a metropolitan area that could affect several States. Title V, while exemplary in its way, is too limited in scope for the job that needs to be done. Interstate grouping such as the Southern Regional Educatioiial Board, the Compact of the Western States. and the New England Board of Higher Educa- tion could receive grants under this program and be enabled to make a significant contrilution to their rerions in planning for educational programs. establishing ohjective~ arranging for sharing professional planning personnel, and making similar efforts. The Appalachian Commission on Education has expressed special interest in planning educational programs appropriate for the it-State Appalachian Region. The authority provided in Section 524 would enable the Commissioner to assist this group in their efforts toward planning programs and establishing educational objectives particularly appropriate for that hard- pressed region. Educational planning is going to have an enormous impact on the strength and vitality of the future of this Nation. Such planning cannot be done, or even ~eriously attacked, unless the resources of every level of government, educa- tion. antI private enterprise can be mobilized to supplement each other. The 25 percent portion of the funds provided by this amendment, made available for the Commissioner to use in the approval of special projects, will give assurance that the full potential of these resources can be realized. TITLE VI-EDTTCATION OF HANDICAPPED CHILDREN On several previous occasions I have discussed the many programs supported by the Office of Education which contribute directly and indirectly to the education of handicaped children. Today I would like to reiterate our com- mitment to continuing these programs, highlight some of our efforts up to the present, and point to our future plans. PAGENO="0047" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 41 Our present and long-range goals for the education of handicapped children- the mentally retarded, hearing and speech impaired, deaf, visually handicapped, seriously emotionally disturbed, crippled, and other health impaired-include: Early identification and educational evaluation of every handicapped child, at easily accessible centers throughout the Nation. Comprehensive diagnosis of every handicapped child followed by suitable school or other educational placement. A fully trained staff necessary to insure a comprehensive education for every handicapped child. Support of a nationwide, intensive recruitment program for all types of personnel to work in the field of education of handicaped children. Encouragement of expanded research and demonstration projects and the dissemination of information on proven methods and techniques. Coordination at the Federal level, and with State and local, public and private agencies, of all programs which provide educational and related benefits to handicaped children. I would like to describe our progress in assisting agencies at the State and local levels to provide educational services for meeting the special needs of handicapped children, so that these goals may be obtained. This assistance includes support of programs for research and demonstration, training of pro- fessional personnel, application of new educational media, and actual classroom instruction. The (`aptioned Films for the Deaf program, established in 1958 and twice amended, has been highly successful. A variety of activities-motion pictures, programmed instructional materials and related instructional and cultural nieuia-have been made available to deaf persons by a nationwide network of depositories and distribution libraries. Projection of attendance figures indicates that circulation of 16,500 I)rints of 220 educational film titles and 2,640 prints of 20 recreational film titles plus more than 50,000 filmstrips will reach an estimated total audience of 1.500,000 during the current fiscal year. Films and other visual media presently are being circulated to 1.525 groups certified as eligible to use the materials and services or this program. This figure includes over 600 schools and classes for the deaf, 500 clubs and other civic organizations, 250 religious groups, 55 teacher training centers, and the balance composed of miscellaneous small groups such as employers, parent organizations and the like. In addition, cap- tioned filmstrips are provided on an extended loan basis and are shipped directly to more than 300 schools and classes. The Captioned Films program recently became involved in lending equipment. Research and training activities con- ducted under this program focus upon programmed instruction for teaching reading to the deaf and field testing of language teaching materials. Studies are underway to identify new instructional devices to decrease communication problems for the deaf and to identify special needs for instructional media in the education of the deaf at the secondary and higher education levels. A po- tentially significant benefit from these efforts is the identification of new- occu- pational fields which may be opened for the deaf through the use of conirnunica- tion media. In addition to more than 40 special media workshops of 2-3 day duration conducted in schools for the deaf, six-week media institutes at the Universities of Massachusetts, Tennessee. arid Nebraska for the second year will provide special training for classroom teachers in the most advantageous use of a multi-media approach. Additional activities carried out on a year- around basis at the Regional Media Centers maintained at the above-named universities include dissemintion of training films and manuals to teachers, and area dissemination meeting for parents, teachers and the adult deaf. Film production activities this year include 60 filmstrips for primary reading, thirty cartridge type loop motion pictures for finger spelling instruction arid more than 70 loops for lipreading practice. The following are some examples of Captioned Films for the Deaf Projects currently underw-ay: Lipreading Program for Children w-ith Impaired hearing, Illinois School for the Deaf. This project will provide self instructional materiiis in speech, reading and language for hearing impaired children. Field ~~ti1Ig of materials is now being done. Cued Speech Workshop. Gaflaudet College. This project will provide a week of intensive training in the use of Cued Speech, a new system of rein- forcing and clarifying lipreading. One hundred teachers will be trained and will he provided w-ith special training filnis for continuing practice after conclusion of the formal training period. PAGENO="0048" 42 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS Project to Strengthen the Visual Perception of Deaf Children, New Mexico State University. This project is developing a multisensory body of ma- terials for preschool deaf children to help them overcome perceptual de- ficiencies. Demonstration Project for the Training of the Mentally Retarded Deaf. The Catholic University of America. The purpose of this project is to de- velop an instructional program heavily reinforced with educational media for instruction of the educable mentally retarded deaf. The research and demonstration activities administered by the Office, pri- marily supported under Title III of P.L. 88-104. have expanded from a Fiscal Year 1964 budget of $1,000,000 to a Fiscal Year 1906 budget of $6,000,000 and a Fiscal Year 1967 appropriation of $8,100,000. The Research Division is sup- porting a diversity of programs of basic research throughout the country. This Division also administers a program of demonstration grants designed to acceler- ate the acceptance and actual utilization of new ideas into educational practice. (Appendix D-1 and D-2). One of the most recent developments initiated by the Research Division which promises to be of inestimable benefit to the education of the handicapped corn- mmiity is the Instructional Materials Center program. This program was initi- ated as a means of encouraging the development and use of improved educational materials in the education of handicapped children. Ten centers have been estab- lislied to provide national coverage. All of these centers are tied into a com- munication network (which includes an ERIC clearinghouse for handicapped children) to minimize overlapping effort and to insure that any teacher in the country has access to materials located anywhere in the country. The Instruc- tional Materials Centers will identify existing materials, conduct research and evaluate these materials, and alert teachers to the availability and effective use of such materials. The Instructional Materials Centers are located at the following sites: University of Wisconsin. Madison, Wisconsin University of Sontheim California, Los Angeles, California Colorado State College. Greelcy, Colorado University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky University of Texas. Austin, Texas American Printing House for the Blind, Louisville, Kentucky TThiversity of Oregon. Eugene. Oregon Michigan State University. East Lansing, Michigan University of South Florida. Tampa. Florida State Educational Agency, Springfield, Illinois Four aditional centers have been approved but final negotiations have not been completed. The establishment of 14 centers in conjunction with the ERIC clearinghouse for the handicapped completes the initial stage of this operation. Next, the Centor~ will develop satellites or sub-centers to serve teachers within the regions. Funding for the sub-centers will probably he made available under Titles III and VI of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. The total cost of the Network will he approximately ~1.t~00.000 for this fiscal year. The Research Division is currently considering the site for a Research and Demonstration Center. authorized under P.L. 89-105. This center will help meet the crucial need for adequate facilities in w-hich to conduct research into the education of handicapped children. The flffice of Education has supported a greatly expanded training program for the preparation f personnel in the area of education of handicapped chil- dren. Since the initial legislative provision in 19~. over 32000 fellowships and traiiiinr grant~ have been awarded in all areas of education for the handicanned. Various training prorrams in all areas of handicapping conditions are currently 1cinr funded by an approl)l'iatiOil of $24tiOO.000. I am sure that you will be cnecuraccd. as J wa-. to learn the results of a pilot study survey conducted by the Division of Training Prorranis to determine the current employment status of 1O~-O0 academic year recipients of awards made under federally funded training prorrams. T1n' ~ii"VeV obtained information on the current employment status of 1.S~7 award rocinhflt~ ( rreater than tlirce-foiirths of the total number of academic year 19I~~-1~~ award recipients) from among 114 randomly sele('te(l. participatimir colleges and universities. (Appendix E-1. E-2, E-3). PAGENO="0049" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 43 Most impressive among the findings is that over 93 percent (1,736) of the award recipients are currently engaged in programs for the handicapped. Over 62 percent (1,152) of the award recipients are currently employed in special class teaching positions; oniy thirty-five persons, or less than 2 percent, are employed as regular class teachers. Among this latter group, seven indicated extenuating circumstances for their being in a regular classroom position; i.e., three were in school systems that require a minimum of two years teaching experience with "normal" children before special class teaching is permitted; three were married to military men who were stationed where there were no special classes; and one individual was awaiting the opening of a new building that would accommodate a new special class assigned for her to teach. A number of recipients-19 per- cent of the group studied-have entered graduate schools to advance their education. By combining the eighty-six persons under "other", who are currently in non- special education positions, with the thirty-five persons who are currently teach- ing in a regular classroom, we find that 121 recipients included in this pilot study are currently not active in the field of handicapped children. This number indi- cates that only 6~ percent of the total study population were reported in posi- tions not directly identified with programs for the handicapped. This report convinces me that the grant program authorized under P.L. 85-926, as amended, is providing the nation with professional personnel to help meet the needs of programs for the handicapped. The data indicate that more than 93 percent of aw-ard recipients surveyed are currently engaged in programs for the handicapped. Professional personnel enrolled in college or university training programs for the education of the handicapped throughout the nation and the graduates of these programs are accepting a wide variety of teaching and leader- ship positions directly or closely related to the handicapped. I have specifically mentioned our programs w-hich relate directly to the handi- capped. In addition to these activities, the Office administers education pro- grams under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act-particularly titles I and Ill-in which handicapped children are eligible participants. Title I was specifically amended, in fact, by P.L. S9-313 to provide earmarked funds for chil- dren in State-supported or -operated schools for the handicapped. This support amounted to almost $1.000.000 last year. Appendix F). The inclusion of Title IV-"Education of Handicapped Children" in the 19~6 amendments to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 reflects a serious Congressional concern. We share your concern that thousands of our estimated 5 million school age children limited by one or more handicapping con- ditions, have not been receiving special educational attention. Under Title VI, the Office of Education is authorized to grant earmarked funds to assist the States in initiating, expanding and improving education programs and projects for handicapped children at pre-school and elementary and secondary school levels. Title VI promises to be the most significant and far-reaching enactment directly affecting the education of handicapped children. It can fund a variety of projects such as: educational diagnostic services, Indi- vidual tutoring, mobile units to take services to children in rural areas, special transportation arrangements, professional personnel, small teacher-pupil ratio programs, libraries and materials centers, automated instructional devices and audio-visual aids, and the variety of specialized equipment necessary to the instruction of these children. Many projects will be designed to serve the educa- tional needs of handicapped children on a multi-district or regional basis. The addition of Title VI to existing legislation, especially P.L. 89-313 for State-supported or -operated schools for the handicapped, provides assurance that every handicapped child within every State will be eligible to receive the benefits of a federally assisted special education program. Title VI provides for the establishment of a National Advisory Committee on Handicapped Children. This Committee, eonskting of the (`onimissioner of Education and 12 other members, at least half of whoimi will he persolis connected w-ith educational, training or research programs for the handicapped, will review our programs for the handicapped and make recommendations concerning their administration and coordination. Also in accordance with specific provision of the new Title, a Bureau for Education of the Handicapped w-as established in the Office and officially an- nounced on January 12. I have every confidence that this new Bureau will admirably meet the leadership, guidance and coordinative demands niade upon it as the focal point of our ~du~ation programs far handicapped children. 75-492---67--4 PAGENO="0050" 44 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS The new Bureau consists of three divisions to supervise the existing programs of training support for teachers and other professional personnel in the area of education of the handicapped, grants for research in this area, and the operation of tile Captioned Films for the Deaf program. (Appendix U). The new pro- grain of assistance to the States authorized under Title VI will be an important responsibility of the Bureau. ~ ni en din en ts Since Title VI has not beea funded, we are requesting a supplemental appro- priation of 82.500.000 to enable the Office to make grants to the States to be used in dcvebilang plans for the administration of Title VI programs and for neces- sary staff ti administer the program. Lviii with the funding of Title VT. as approved last November, we are aware of needs that will not t)e met by existing legislation. For this reason we are pro- posing two amendments to Title VT, an expansion of the Captioned Films pro- grain and an additional authority under P.L. 88-164. These amendments and adi litions wjll allow us to accomplish the goals I set forth earlier. The first proposed amendment to Title VI is Regional Resource Centers for Improvement of the Education of Handi- capped Children B~i~ic to fori:tnlatiag an education program for a handicapped child is the identi fleat in and educate 11:11 eva i tati in if the handicapping eondit~on. Real i~ai Resource Centers would serve as focal points at which such diagnosis csiiild he provided and decisions made as how best to allocate available resources in a particular area for particular h~adicapped elnldren. The centers would 1 pr vide testing and evaluation services to determine the special educational needs of a handicapped child. 2~ develep ediic~ttica progr;iins to nicer these special acids, and 2 i a ~-2st school a ad other agencies in a particular region to pri ivide educational progra ias f i the ha i~dh a pped ilnld. Special eiaidiasi s would ic given to the use if instructional media, evaluation of available ma- terials a ad the devel pment of new media. teehtnqnes and procedures necessary I r the instruction of handicapped children. These centers would not Lie conaned to providing Ui;ignostie services : tins is only one step in prorram planning. I see the centers as developing individualized educational programs for handicapped children and following throtigli with seeinr that such programs are provided for the handicapped children referred to the centers. The second tin qosed a~nendment to Title VT is Recruitment if Personnel and I)isseminatien of Information on Education of the Handicapped Although the training programs authorized under P.L. 85-926, as amended, make it possible for colleges and universities throughout the Nation to develop, expand and improve their teacher-training programs in the various areas of edu- cation of handiapped children, there nevertheless remains a critical shortage of qualified personnel. There are, in fact, only about 300 institutions of higher education capable of providing training, many in only one area. Less thaii one half of the estimated 5 millh in handicatiped children are receiving special cdii- cational services because of this shortage : many existing positions in special education ronia in vacant because of the lack of qualified personnel : and a large number of special teaching positions are being filled by persons who are only partially trained in special education. The personnel shortages will not lie overcome until we are able to attract large nundiers of persons into the field of special education. And this can only be accomplished through a concentrated. nationw-ide recruitment effort for all levels and types of pers innel. utilizing all types of recruitment media. Included in a large scale recruitment program would be the dissemination of information about programs for the education of handicapped children aiid referral services to parents. teachers and other persons interested in the haiidicapped. This amendment would authorize grants to or contracts with public or private i geneles to encourage intensive recruitment programs and information-dissem- inntmon prorrams. These would be directed tow-ard encouraging students, professional and supportive personnel to work in the field of education of handicapped children. We also are proposing aa amendaient to the legislation authorizing the Captioned Films program: Expansion of Instructional Media Programs to Include all Handicapped Children PAGENO="0051" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 45 The potentialities of teaching physically handicapped children through new media have not been fully explored. Extension of the special media service as exemplified by the Captioned Films program, however, would provide a basis for the exploration of the potentialities in all areas of handicapping conditions. An expanded Captioned Films media program would provide a program of suc- cessive steps from the iliception of an idea th~'ough research, develol)nlent, testing and final dissemination of a finished product in an actual educational situation. The U.S. Office of Education may now support research regarding educational media. This is generally restricted to research concerning the effectiveness of existing media. With the exception of the specitic authority under the Captioned Films for the Deaf program there is no author~zat~on to enter into contracts for the development of new media. illiere is no authorizatmon which \voulcl permit siecia~ized training programs to train specialists in the usc of such nu~iia mior is there any authorization which would l)eruhit involvement in the production cf siiiIi mimaterials or nle(11a except for that under the Captioned Filnis progia iii. Although time Office of Education has no particular interest in the produetiuii and distribution of educational niaterials there are some ia;-tances where this can be lmportant. For example, there is sonic value in the support of sheltered workshops for adolescent-aged retarded or otlier'vise naildicaplied youngsters. Such support wouid indirectly or directly require support for production of ncmterizmls produce(l in the workshops. The support for the development of instructional media is particularly im- portalit at this time. Development costs run high, yet the future of education for the haiidicapped may well depend upon the availability of media not yet off the drawing boards. Finally, \Ve prn~ ose a change in P. S5--1fi4 to itaJ ude Authorization of Contracts under P.L. 88-i b4 At this time iii our ettorts to assist in time lump' venskut of educa thom fer the handicapped it is not reasonal;le to exclude from I he total efrort being mmmdc the p1~1~1te sector of time economy which caum make a significant comitributioum. The request for coatracting authority with profit-nmaknig organizations is la sed upoum the very real need to involve such organizations in the effort to improve the educatioui of these ehuluren-the benefactors of educational improvements. The addition of these two amendnients to Title VI and time changes in the Captioned Films legislation and P.L. SS-104 will provide a variety of necessary, expanded educational opportunities for all handicapped children. I am con- fident that our new Bureau of Education for the Flandicapped will ably continue to administer the programs authorized by previous Congresses and will be well equal to the task of administering new programs authorized by Title VI. includ- ing the amendments and other changes I proposed and which I consider essential to a comprehensive program of educational and related services for every handi- capped child-a primary goal of the Office of Education and of this Congress. Technical anmendmcnts to Public Lames 815 and S74 We are also proposing several technical amendments to Public Laws 815 and 874-legislation concerning federally affected areas. Summaries of the proposed amendments appear in Appendix H. I would like to turn now to the last item to be covered in my testimony. While last, it is certainly not least. It is one of the most promising programs ever placed upon the books and we deal with its future today. I speak. of course, of the Teacher Corps. TEACHER CORPS (Title I of the P1cm en tory and Secondary Ed mm cation :Inm en dam en ts of 1967) Mr. Chairman, last fall, during the early weeks of the school year. the Nation was faced with an unnrecedented shortage of almost 170,000 qualified teachers. Some of our niajor cities were short as many as 2,000 teachers on the opening day of school. As expected, the teacher shortage was most acute in the llrl)an slums and de- pressed rural areas. In Philadelphia, for example. a survey at the beginning of the school year showed the overall percentage of vacancies in the teaching staff to be nearly 11 percent. In the elementary schools of the city's ghettos the teacher vacancy rate was almost twice as high; approxinmately 20 percent of their teaching positions were unfilled. Various reports and studies have evaluated the problems of the ghetto school and have concluded that it is not enough to overcome the teacher shortage merely by getting people to fill the positions. hut new ways need to be explored and PAGENO="0052" 46 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS to train ic pie to work with the disadvantaged. The recent report of the ~iitioiiiti .\cvisry Council on the Education of Disadvantaged Children stressed the need for (1) Adapting academic content to the special problems of the disadvan- tagi'd child. (2) Improving alit) expanding in-service training of teachers. 3) Involving p;1i(nts and the communmty-at-Iarge in school programs. Tlie~e fun~iamenta1 points are embodied in the Teacher Corps training pro- gram which ernlines the following elements Graduate training aimed at preparing teacher-interns to develop academic materials and techniques relevant to the deprived student Suplile!neilttlry tein br-related responsibilities, in public school classrooms which constitute an unprecedente(l two-year in-service training periO(l Community participation through which the intern not only becomes fa- riiiliar with the sci logy of hloverty. but also becomes intimately acquainted with the community in which lie is serving. Tue Teacher Caps ~ra ntis is the only nationwide effort specifically designed to attract and r1r~pare men a 11(1 women for highly skilled professional perform- ance iii serving disadvantaged children in our urban and rural schools. From its inception, the Teacher Corps has appealed to men and women who con- scientiou~ly (leSiVi' p each yungsters for whoni education has often missed the mark. It has evke1 the triTe of men and women whi have committed them- selves to developing a skill in teaching disadvantaged children-many of whom have specifically sought the challenge of a difficult job most people shun. The ham'de~t teaching hositions to liP occur in the schools w-ith the poorest equipment. the least lsii'alle locations, and students with the greatest educa- tional handicaps. Even apart from these problems. however it is not easy to find highly qualified ersons who are willing to become members of the instruc- tional staff at deprived schools. This is one f the reasomis why I disagree with those who feel that our slum schools will he able to solve all of their problems if they are just given large sums of money. Simply making more money available to the schools of poverty will not by it'~clf en:ille them ti buy soluti as to all of the problems which years of neglect have wrought nor `an it assure the kind of educational programs which w-ill meet the need-~ of di'ad\'emitagial children. ( )f course, raising the quality of education 1 r sn h `hi idremi ri' pures a `~ul `-ta atm liy increased investment in their schools. While I i''cognize the great importance of the home environment nail influences ci hr thin the sehol itself. I tim nevertheless confident that, if schools in dis- advantaged areas hail received the same level of support through the years as the schools in more affluent areas, their educational programs would be in better shape and st udents ill these schools w'ould not be so far behind, But money alone cannot compensate for all of the educational deficiencies which plague disadvantaged eras, We are doing mnu'h to assist the l:cal schools to meet the needs of educationally deprived children, Under title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, the Federal C vrnment assists local educational agencies to meet the edu- cational needs of deprived children by special remedial and emiriehment l)rograms. local teachers find teacher aides jartjcipatimig in these programs are working in ways they have never been able to work before to improve educational oppor- tunities for disadvantaged children. So I think w'e are doing much to assist local school districts in the improved utilization of their educational resources- tf teaching sta ifs a mid a ides to teachers, The Teacher C ms coiiiplenients these efforts, because it taps a vast reservoir of talent frni all ever the country to be channeled to the areas of greatest need. The fact is that shads in ~OOi' areas have difficulty attracting and ri lining good teaching ~taff. As teachers originally assigned to schools in disadvantaged areas acquire seniority they all too often transfer to other schools. The' Ti him Ci'1s lv virtue of its nation~vide recruitment of `allege graduates fills nt'd ivlii'li ``a ne 1 will be met in other ways. Our young people are a grin t miami' mail ros uric. The Corps attracts talented voting people. It appeals to their id ii Ii ~ni a ni tb r ri'' d tI ``rn nil t themselves to offer service to the god (f' s)(ie~v, I think wi would he failing in cur responsibility to give (hisadvantaged children the best possible educattomin I opportunities if we turned our ha `Ps on these who are willing to give two yearS of service to assist local ~oe'hers by hi `~t leg ~he'm Ire\' de al me ill li vi dun Il zed a tt'ntion for children in the (`I ~roo:n. PAGENO="0053" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 47 by tut~ring @Utsid~ the classroom, ~intl by working with children in a variety of ways ihat can stimulate their interest in learning. And there are many who are willing and eager to volunteer. In fact, the number of high quality applicants for the Teacher Corps exceeded authorized po5itiuns l)y more than S to 1. Froni over 10,000 applicants, 1,213 Corps members were selected. They are teaching in 29 States, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. Nine hundred and forty-five of these Corps members are teacher-interns receiving teacher training at 50 colleges and universities. These interns are grouped into 277 Teacher Corps teams working under the guidance of 208 experienced teachers. They spend part of every week working in an elementary or secondary school and part at a nearby university working toward their Master's degree. The interns come from a wide variety of back-grounds-some volunteered iniinediarely after completing college-others worked for a few years first. They include former Peace Corps Volunteers, secretaries, VISTA workers, writ- ers, arri:~ts, and others. More than 75 percent majored in subject fields other than education. In answer to a questionnaire on their career goals, fifty-six percent of these interns stated that they did not consider a career in teaching the disadvantaged prior to their membership in the Corps. Now 83 percent have stated that they plan to continue teaching in the slum schools where they are assigned. They share a common goal-to become the very best teachers possible for the disadvan- taged children of our Nation. The team leaders represent a different facet of the Corps. For the most part, they were nominated for the Corps by their principals and superintendents be- cause they were the most talented teachers in their own schools. They are cer- tified, usually have a Master's degree, and have taught in slum schools for about 5 years. The responsibility for the Corps' steady progress depends on them. The team leaders' classrooms are often used as learning laboratories for interns and for any regular teachers who wish to observe. They supervise three to ten teacher-interns. During both pre-service and in-service training it is their job to share the lessons they have learned from previous years of teaching youngsters from c1eprived areas. These teacher-interns and team leaders are flow engaged in service in 275 schools in 111 school systems in the Nation. They are working with the children of migrant laborers, Indians, and Spanish-American immigrants. They are serving in deprived areas in 20 major cities, Appalachian towns, and the Ozarks. Sev- enty percent of the teams are engaged in preschool and elementary school projects; the remainder deal with secondary school children. The Teacher Corps is this country's first, full-scale teacher internship program. Although student-teaching has been a long-standing practice, Its structure has seldom provided trainees with a substantial, deeply-involved teaching experience; interuships have not ordinarily given trainees the opportunity to develop and practice new methods of instruction for reaching disadvantaged children. The two-year combined preservice and inservice program of the Teacher Corps in- corporates year round academic instruction with practical classroom experience. It develops a competency and interest on the part of trainees which gives them the incentive to continue teaching and reinforces the conviction that the disad- vantaged can be educated. The Teacher Corps program is also generating new insights into teacher prepa- ration. The university training centers have developed special programs, courses and curricula geared to the needs of neglected schools in their areas-courses which many have desired in the past but never could afford. Deans of education and presidents of the universities now look to their Teacher Corps programs as a means of testing new concepts for teacher training. The Corps training centers stimulate new thinking which leads to healthy changes in teacher preparation. Almost without exception, teacher training institutions that are working with the Corps have made changes in curriculum that will apply not only to Teacher Corps training programs but also to programs for other students preparing for teaching. These changes have been brought about because colleges and universities are introducing into the regular teacher education programs promising innovations learned in the Teacher Corps training centers. The diverse and flexible nature of the program enables local project directors and local teachers and principals to desigii programs to nieet the particular needs of their own communities. It is one of the important characteristics of the Teacher Corps that the resources of the community where Teacher Corps mem- PAGENO="0054" 48 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS bers serve are brought to bear on the kind of teacher training programs which our future teachers are receiving. The energetic, able men and women chosen by institutions of higher education to bead Teacher Corps training centers are enter- ing into meaningful cooperation with the local schools in developing improved teacher training programs. Let us emphasize that the distinctive characteristic of the Teacher Corps is that the training and service aspects are developed together so as to be truly responsive to local needs. Tn accord with this principle of diversity and local autonomy, the kinds of service which Teacher Corps members render in the educational programs of ele- mentary and secondary schools differ from school to school, depending upon the needs as local teachers and school administrators see them. The availability of Teacher Corps teams makes it possible for school principals to undertake fresh approaches to specific problems which have not been tackled because of the scarcity of teachers trained and committed to work with deprived youngsters. There are many ways the Teacher Corps can help communities provide better educational programs for disadvantaged children. In the area of early child- hood education. recent evaluations of experience in Head Start and other pre- school proarams seem to indicate that the benefits of such programs will be lost, particularly if not followed through in the primary grades. Many Teacher Corps members are now serving in elementary school projects. Keeping In mind that projects should be tailored t.o meet local needs. I believe that in many places we will find that schools will wish to use Teacher Corps members in programs designed particularly to improve the programs in the primary grades. It is In the first three grades that so many disadvantaged children fall behind and lose interest in learning because tl~e ~m'bocl environmoert is not stiniuliitir~g to them and teachers do not have time to give them the close attention and human under- standing they need. I have touched on seine of the educational reasons which I believe make the Teacher Corps a unique program worthy of expan~ien. Mr. Richard Graham, Director of the Teacher Corps. will clm~cuss the Corps in action and provide spe- cific examples of its impact across the Nation. We are proposing a number of amendments-based on I)ract~cal experience- which we believe will strengthen the program. First, we think it appropriate that the Teacher Corps pro~ram be placed In title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. The Teacher Corps was enacted with the mandate to supplement teaching staffs in poverty schools and to train new teachers for the disadvantaged. Only schools having concentra- tions of children from low-income families are eligible for Teacher Corps projects. In this respect the Teacher Corps is directed to the same schools as title I. Teacher ` rps teams have been at work this year in title I schools, pre- viding an added resource to assist teachers in poverty schools. Second. we have learned from thi~ first year of experience that service and training are motives for those interested in the Teacher Corps. The appeal Is not financial. Because teacher-interns are trainees and are not full-fledged members of the teachinr staff. we are requesting a change in the compensation rates for teacher-trainees. The present graduate fellowship programs of the Office of Edu- cation provide a weekly stipend plu~ an allowance for each dependent. The amendment would provide compensation to Teacher Corps interns on a similar basis. They would receive nayment of $75 ner week plus $15 per dependent or the lowest salary scale of a district, whichever is the lower. Inasmuch as teacher-interns are. in fact, trainees and are not carrying out the full responsi- bilities of regular teachers, it seems more appronriate to compensate them on the same basis as other students working toward their Master's degrees in education. Third. to reinforce the tradition of local control and, thus, to encourage further the diversity of projects that we feel is so vital to the Corps' success we are re- questinz that State approval he required for a local educational aguney's request for Corps members and for the tralnin~ program offered by an in~fitution or uni- ver~itv. We are also ~nipnciing the "Local Control" section to clarify the local school district's absolute rirht to decide what Corps members are assigned to their schools. Fourth. we have proposed amendments to allow Teachers Corps members to serve wherever they are needed. At present. Teacher Corps teams can only serve in schools administered by local educational agencies. The amendments would permit Teacher Corps members to he assigned to migrant 1-oups and to schools operated by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. PAGENO="0055" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDL'CATION AMENDMENTS 49 Fifth, we have requested authority to allow the Commissioner of Education to accept gifts on behalf of the Teacher Corps, in the same way that the Peace Corps and VISTA are authorized to accept gifts. Finally, we are asking that the program be extended three years with a tripl- ing of the program next school year. But even with the tripling of the prograni, the Teacher Corps will not solve the teacher shortage nor will it find all the solutions to the proble~ii of edncat- ing the disadvantaged. But, it will help. It is already having a healthy in- fluence on teacher education programs in our institutions of higher cducation. It will bring new people into poverty schools who otherwise would not have prepared for a career in education. It will offer these schools su~qdenientary personnel dnring the two-year training period, and many will be Pile rested in continuing to teach disadvantaged children who would not have inaffi' that miii- initment without the Teacher Corps experience. It will reduce the burden upon the regular classroom teacher. It will provide an apprentice teacher who can give yousigsters the individual instruction and attention they need. And, the Teacher Corps w-ill provide a new source of superbly trained teachers to those schools which need them the most but have the least. If it meets with the pleasure of the Committee, Mr. Chairman. ~ would like at this time to ask Mr. Richard Graham to elaborate upon the operation of the Teacher Corps. I will stand ready at the end of his statement to try to answer any questions you might have. flank you. APPENDIX A Estioioteel expenThtsires eoder title I, ESEA Amount J Percent Fiscal year 1966: Administration $31,813,850 3.28 Instruchon 500, 486, 317 51.60 Attendance Service 4,849, 674 .50 Health services 22. 31)8, 498 2.30 Pubhc transporiation service 50, 585, 584 1.71 Operation of plant 8,244.445 .85 Maintenance of plant 6,789,543 .70 Fixed charges 32,201,832 3.32 Food services 2)), 958, 59)) 2.16 Student hody activities 2,036, 86.3 .21 Community services 6,118,588 .63 Minor reinodeang 15, 518, 956 1.60 Initial or additional equipment 204, 686, 292 21.19 Construction 97,335,383 Total LEAS 969,934, 724 Handicapped 11, 165, 689 Administration 6,495,758 Total 987, 596, 17t I Fiscal year 1967: Administration 33,297,007 3.28 Instruction 584. 727,930 I 57.60 Attendance service 5,075,763 .50 STealth services 23, 348, 511 I 2.30 Pupil transportation service 17, 359, 110 1.71 Operation of planL.~ 8,628,798 .85 Maintenance of plant 7 106, 069 .70 Fixed services 43,854, 595 4.32 Food charges 21,927, 297 2.16 Student body activities I 2,131,821 .21 Community services 6,395,462 .63 Minor remodeling 16, 242, 443 1.60 Initial or additional equipment 164, 353, 215 16.19 Construction 80,704,6361 7.95 Total LEAS 1,015,152,657 Handicapped 15,078,410 Juvenile dennquents (institutions) 2,037, 344 Dependent and neglected (institutions) 224, 809 Migratory children 9, 737, 847 Administration (SEA) 11, 178,933 Total 1,053,410,000 PAGENO="0056" 50 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS APPENDIX B THE FIRST YEAR OF PACE ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION ACT (PL 89-10), TITLE UI, FISCAL YEAR 1966 In the first year of PACE- 2706 proposals were submitted costing $250 million 1055 proposals were approved costing $75.8 million 10 million persons benefiting ~i~R CF PACE, GJT OF 5 PROPOSALS SUB~TL.~ 4:~ APPROVED.~ IN THE HRS[ YEAR OVER OPERATION OF PACE, PLL~NG ~AS E~PHAS1ZED iooZ 25% SQZ 2706 PROPOSALS SU~MIT[ED [ PL 55 PERCENT I OP 45 PERCENT 10&5 PROPOSALS APPROVED I PL SI PERCENT OP 39 PERCENT I r~ ~--`.~tc~Z~ Ø~'J `iL~t)~ r~r~OL.J fl---r---------~. ~0PEkcE~TI 0P70 PERCEN I MI~LiUt~ GRANTED P PL45~ER~j~[ OP 55 PERCENr i__~--~ ~25O I4ILLION REQUESTED ~ur f~i~t ~acr ~ ,tlU o~ ~W. PAGENO="0057" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 51 In the first year of PACE, funds were granted for: Number Amount Multipurpose-type projects Special programs Administration and personnel Single subject matter projects Other Total 426 395 103 145 16 $33,639,900 27,419,200 6,293,000 7,525,800 928, 400 1,085 75,806,300 In the first year of PACE, every State submitted 2 or more proposals. Percent Appro ved Northern States submitted 823 37 Southern States submitted 404 44 Middle States submitted 758 37 Western States submitted 719 44 Other 2 100 Key: North-Connectlcut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Ver- mont, Delaware, District of Columbia, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania. South-Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia. Middle-Illinois, Ind1a~a, Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota. West-Arizona, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Alaska, California, Hawaii, Nevada, Oregon, Washington. Other-Guam, Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Trust Territory of Pacific. IN THE FIRST YEAR OF PACE, $250 MILLION WERE REQUESTED BUT $76 MILLION WEkE FUNDED ~o 7. 25 .1. 50 I .1 75 V. 100*/. ~1 $250 MILLION REQUESTED NORTH SOUTH MDULE WEST OflIER ~ L p- 29% 1 ~`~` J $76 MILLION ±~LL~ ~~PROVED 27X isX ~ NORTH SOUTH t4IL~ULE OThER PAGENO="0058" 52 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS IN THE FIRST YEAR OF PACE, 3~5 i~0POSALS FR0~ THE NORTH, 1T9 FROM THE SOUTH, 283 FROM MIDDLE STATES, 317 FRO~1 ~ESTERN STATES AND 2 FROM US TERPJTOR~ES WERE ~U~OEL1. In the first year of PACE- 479 proposals were submitted by small school districts. ~9% were approved. 1318 proposals were submitted by medium size school districts, 44% were approved. 909 proposals were submitted by large size school districts, 24% were approved. S~4ALL SCHOOL SYSTE~1S HAD A SHARE IN THE HRST YEAR OF PACE... OF THE 2706 PR0POS~LS SUBNIIIED OF THE 10a5 PROPOSALS NORTH SOUTH 2706 PROPOSIILS SU9M~TTED Mh)ULE *ES F OT1~ER NORTH SOUTH ~IDULE `*ESI OTHER APPROVED Key: Small School Dlstrlcth-1 to 2,999. Medium School DiBtrlcth-8,000 to 24,99*. Large School Dlstrlets-25,000 or more enrollment. PAGENO="0059" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDIJCATION AMENDMENTS 53 In the first year of PACE, over 10,798,000 persons are benefiting. 10,000,000 public and nonpublic elementary and secondary school pupils. 93.000 preschool children. 250,000 out-of-school youth. 355.000 classroom teachers. 131,000 adults. SMAL'_ SCHOOL SYSTEMS HAD A SHARE iN THE FiRST YEAR. OF PACE... OF THE $250 MILLION REQUESTED 16°AOF REQUESTS CA ti SMALL SCHOOL DISTRI F THE $76 MILLION GRANTED IN THE FIRST YEAR OF PACE, ALMOST TWICE AS MANY ELEIENTARY THAN SECONDARY SCHOOL PUPILS ARE BENEFITING SCHOOL SE PUPIL 10 MILUON PUPILS BENEFI IING PAGENO="0060" 54 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS N3~HJ~JC SC:-~LS HAD A SHARE IN THE F1P~SF YEAR OF PACE CF THE 10 MILLICN PUPILS P~EMEF luNG OF THE 355,000 TEACHERS RECEIVING INSERVICE ~0/ OR ORIEt4IAT ION Of the 1085 proposals funded in the first year of PACE- 518 proiects received extension of time and/or supplementary funds. 2J-t projects were terminated-207 planning and 27 operational. ~51 projects are active. A glitap~i of fl~:~! r 1907: Fewer number of proposals are submitted but larger atlioUlits :tI' 11i1tlestYd. t~t pirini 2') penn) Totni 0 pr jest s still ci liulu sn-I ins 516,000,000. 2 Still in process. Pr onsals submitted Number Amount Proposals approved Number Amount 420 ~59, 614. 000 157 1 ~16, 426, 2~'9 1,300 135, 000. 000 (2) 1.720 257, 614, 000 APPENDIX C. 1~ESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CENTERS The twelve R & D Centers in operation as of November 1966 are listed below by date of establishinent. Ten are supported by Cooperative Research Program funds and two by provisions of the Vocational Education Act. Fiscal year established Name of center, location, and area of inquiry 1964-Learning Research and Development Center, University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (Learning research and instructional practices) Center for the Advanced Study of Educational Administration, University of Oregon, Eugene (School organization and administration in the societal context) 1965-Center for Research and Development for Learning and Re-Education, University of Wisconsin, Madison (Learning efficiency for children and adults) Center for Research and Development on Educational Differences, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts (Effects of individual and cultural differences on the learning process) Center for Research and Leadership Thevelopmenf in VocaLlonal and Péch- nical Education, Ohio State University, Columbus (Research and develop- ment activities, including operation of ERIC clearinghou1se on adult and vocational education) PAGENO="0061" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 55 Fiscal year established Name of CCIItCI, location, and area of inquiry Center for Research, Development, and Training in Occupational Educa. tion, North Carolina State University, Raleigh (Research and development emphasizing southern needs in adult and vocational education) 1966-Research and Development Center in Educational Stimulation, University of Georgia, Athens (Programs of early and continuous stimulation, 3- to 12- year-olds) Research and Development Center in Teacher Education, University of Texas, Austin (Teacher education) Stanford Center for Research and Development in Teaching, Stanford University, Palo Alto, California (Theory and practice of teaching and its effects) Center for Research and Development in Higher Education, University of California, Berkeley (Organization, purposes, and outcomes of higher education) Center for the Study of the Evaluation of Instructional Programs, Unl~ versity of California, Los Angeles (Study of evaluation processes and techniques) 1967-Center for the Study of Social Organization of Schools and the Learning Proc~ss, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland (Influence of social and administrative organization of schools on learning of students from diverse backgrounds) REGIONAL EDUCATIONAL LABORATORIES AND PARTICIPATING STATES As of November 1966, the following Regional Educational Laboratories had been established to serve every section of the continental United States, and a feasibility contract had been negotiated to study need,s arid resources for a laboratory in the Hawaii-Pacific Basin area. Appalachia Regional Educational Laboratory, Charleston, West Virginia (West Virginia, the Appalachian counties of Virginia, Tennessee. Kentucky, Ohio, and Pennsylvania) Center for Urban Education, New York, New York (Metropolitan New York City and some neighboring cities, excluding Long Island) (Evolved from R & D (enter) Central Atlantic Regional Educational Laboratory, Inc., Alexandria, Virginia (Washington, D.C., and parts of Maryland, Virginia, Delaware, and West Virginia) Central Midwestern Regional Educational Laboratory, Inc., St. Ann, Missouri (eastern Missouri, southern Illinois. and western Tennessee and Kentucky) Cooperative Educational Research Laboratory, Inc., Winnetka, Illinois (Indiana, and parts of Illinois, Michigan, and Wisconsin) Eastern Regional Institute for Education, Syracuse, New York (western Penn- sylvania and New York State, excluding New York City) Far West Regional Educational Laboratory, San Francisco, California (northern California, all of Nevada except Clark County) Institute for Educational Innovation, Newton, Massachusetts (New England) Michigan-Ohio Regional Educational Laboratory, Detroit, Michigan (Michigan and Ohio) Mid-Continent Regional Educational Laboratory, Inc., Kansas City. Missouri (western Missouri, central Oklahoma, and parts of Kansas and Nebraska) Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory, Portland, Oregon (Alaska, Montana, Oregon, Washington, and northern Idaho) Regional Educational Laboratory for the Carolinas and Virginia, Rougemont, North Carolina (North Carolina, South Carolina, and southern Virginia) Research for Better Schools, Inc., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (eastern Penn- sylvania, much of New Jersey and Delaware) Rocky Mountain Regional Educational Laboratory, Denver, Colorado (all or portions of Colorado, Utah, Wyoming, Idaho, Montana, Arizona, Kansas, and Nebra~ska) South Central Region Educational Laboratory Corporation, Little Rock, Arkansas (Arkansas, Mississippi, and portions of Louisiana, Oklahoma Kansas, and Missouri) PAGENO="0062" 56 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS Southeastern Educational Laboratory, Atlanta, Georgia (Florida, Georgia, and Alabama) Southwest Educational Development Corporation, Austin, Texas (eastern and central Texas and southern Louisiana) Southwest Regional Educational Laboratory, Englewood. California (southern California, southern Nevada, and southwestern Arizona) Southwestern Cooperative Educational Laboratory. Albuquerque, New Mexico (all of New Mexico and portions of Arizona, Texas, and Oklahoma) Upper Midwest Regional Educational Laboratory, Inc., St. Paul, Minnesota (Iowa, Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, and part of Wisconsin) In February 1967, a National Laboratory in Early Childhood Education was established, with its national coordination center at the University of Illinois. The other participating institutions are George Peabody College and Chicago. Syracuse, Arizona. New York. and Cornell Universities. Although 20 regional educational laboratories have been established under the authority of Title IV, the Early Childhood Laboratory is the first national laboratory to be created. Among projects underway or planned are: Analysis of the e~iucational assets and deficits of Mexican-American children: Studies of two- and three-year-olds focused on language skills, concept formation, and physical coordination: Development of curriculum for preschool and early primary school pro- grams for disadvantaged Negro children; Analysis of home environments and their effect on learning in children from middle and lower economic groups: Examination of the extent to which social segregation exists in nominally integrated classrooms (of four-year-olds) and development of procedures aimed at eliminating the condition. As of the end of fiscal 1966, Instructional Material Centers had been estab- lished at the following locations to serve the educational neeO~ of handicapped children and youth. Aineric{ifl Printing House for the Blind, 18~ll) Fraiiktoit Avenue, Louisville, Kentucky. Colormio State College. Greeley. Department of Special Education, Superintendent of Public Instruction, 302 State Office Building. Springfield, Illinois. Michigan State University. East Lansing. The University of Kentucky. Lexington. The University of Oregon. Eugene. The University of South Florida, Tampa. The University of Southern California, Los Angeles. The University of Texas. Austin. The University of Wisconsin, Madison. APPENDIX P-i EXAMPLES OF DEVELOPMENTAL Ac'rIvITIEs FUNDED BY THE RESEABCH DIvIsmN A National prevalence study of speech and hearing disorders to determine how- many children in public schools have different kinds of speech or hearing problems. Data from this study will be helpful in planning for programs at both the Federal and local levels in the establishment of programs for speech and hearing impaired children. A grant to enable a private, nonprofit-making research organization with several regional offices to study the effects of the Instructional Materials Center program. This group will study the way in which teachers modify their be- haviors with reference to educational materials as a result of the development of the Instructional Materials Center Program. This particular project is a good example of the Divisions attempt to continually monitor and evaluate its own pragrams and impact. A rrant for the development of a conference to study ir(i~le~~1s in sparsely sctti~d ~iiea~ of the United States. This conference was held and many re~ea rch proicet~itre now- being formulated addressed to these irohle!iis. The Division ii w engared in the ilevelopniont of a grant application to hold a Paii- t~a anfor~nce to ~tn(!y t1~ problems of handicapped children in the United States t ,i.~t rics in the Pacific. The dvi~oi~ of Resanreb ,vorl~iiig with the YRA for the establishment of iiadel demonstration progra iiis of vocational education for the deaf. PAGENO="0063" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDIJCATION AMENDMENTS 57 APPENDIX D-2 Research and demonstration projects supported under sec. $02, title III, of Public Law 88-164, June 30, 1966 GRANTS AWARDED IN EACH AREA OF EXCEPTIONALITY New Fiscal New Fiscal New Fiscal New Area proj- year proj- year proj- year proj- Total ects 1964 ects 1965 ects 1966 ects Menta'llyretarded 11 $334, 032 10 $665, 141 28 $1, 319,998 49 $2, 319, 171 Emotionally disturbed 4 249,389 6 531,024 10 970967 20 1,751,380 Visually handicapped 5 53, 261 1 56, 747 5 136. 147 11 246, 155 Speech and hearing 3 64,340 6 210,703 9 609,333 18 884,373 Deaf 6 120,351 4 104,938 12 J 409,130 j 22 634,419 Crippled and other health impaired 1 19, 070 5 252,420 11 765, 245 17 1,036,735 Multiple 4 159, 296 0 179,027 17 11,781,274 21 2,119,597 Total 34~ 999,739 32 2, 000, 000~ 92 5,992~091~158~8,991,83O 1 Includes $1,202,425 for instructional materials centers. APPENDIX E-i Brief statistical summary of the current employment status of 1,857 academic year 1965-66 aware recipients included in this study APPENDIX E-2 Grant program in the education of the handicapped-Public Law 85-926, as amend- ed-Results of pilot study on job status of 1,857 award recipients-A cademic year 1965-66 C rippled and other health npaired - - Speech and hard of hearing_ Mental retardation Eniotioiiallv listtirhed Blind and partially siglitel Learning disabilities Deaf Adiuiiiistraliin Super - Direc- Special Regular visor of tar of College teach- tech- special special instruc-Studeni lug ing edtica- ednea- br tioji tion ~ O~ 6~ 3~ I~ 45 5S1 25 23 16 44 155 74 2 4 2~ 9 41 5S 1 3 1 4 26 7 (1 (I 1 1 5 254 34~ 1~ 2 45 35F 53 Award recipients who are teaching a special class for the handicapped Award recipients who arc culplcvc:l as directors. supervisors, and coneultants of special education programs for the handicapped Award recipients who are employed in special education positions at the college or university level - - Award recipients who are currently engaged in graduate study Award recipients who are in positions directly or closely related to the area of the handicapped (exclusive of the above "categories") Award recipients who are currently teaching in a regular classroom Award recipients who are currently in nonspecial education positions (exclu- sive or regular classroom teachers) Total Number Al-i)iroxil-n:lte percent age 1,lM ii 354 19 72 4 35 2 86 5 1,857 100 Area making award (411cr Total 17 152 25 183 71 915 12 147 11 104 1 15 330 10 Total 1,152 554 15 PAGENO="0064" - CD 01 (.3 0 01 (.3 APPENIMx E-3 Grant progra in for the preparation of professional personnel in the educulion of handicapped children under Puldic Law 8ô-92G, as a mended Summary of (i11'lfrd.S -Institutions of hi(JhCr ed(1(lltion aitd State education agencies, fiscal years 1 9f14-t17 ohli~1ations 01 01 01 H `~i1i,i)l'r if ii (IS iii III fit I ```5) ~ Ii it~il a iii iii lit. i)li(i5liti'~t Mentallyretarded I)eaf `.` .peech and hearing Visually handicapped tOniotionally disturbed Crippled (and other health impaired) Other health impaired Administrators Administrative costs (States) Conditional Contingency fond Total ~6iiiriher hf triiill'ei.l tillS and 1t~1 1u~vsI I IS 2, 506 i_is I 271 429 518 69 `l'lltiil 1IIIIIU it l)1)IiLiitl'' I $6, 569,815 2, (8)8, 3)0) 1, 706, 4)23 865, 850 1,475,911) l, 369, 035 2,357 $6,41t),332 431 11,496,3si( 616 1, 852, 780 363 657, 090 464 1, 330, 014 309 1,188,939 2 247 `18, 220 Nititiher nf tr,iii il'''ilI(S ii ii) h'(ln\S li_i 11(15 3,110 1181 1,214 487 919 1, 380 1 Public Law 87-276. 2 (Other) supervisors, etc. 1 ¶44)7 (esti I IliltIl) 11 Nijitiher if tihl(iiIIll. trailleesliipi ,&lIlohlIIt nhIi~tte I 111111 llhlIglte(l fi'I lO\VSI1IJ IS $7, 6511,1)1)2 4,1)113 $8, 815, 64(1 2, 552, I8)) 1, 1:17 2.822, 1)47 2, 723, 325 1, 682 3, 695, 955 1,281,780 690 1,512,809 2, 388, 050 882 2, 911, 620 1,956,213 736 1,659,062 2,002 1,369, 904 449,171 928 746,205 491,279 586,843 158,726 220,289 8, 320 19, 500, 000 12, 150 24, 500, 001) 4,910 12, 992, 758 242, 901) `322 20)1,961 5,015 14, 499,444 PAGENO="0065" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 59 APPENDiX F Public Law 89-313 fiscal year 1966 entitlements Type of handicap Number of Amount children Total 65,440 $15, 917, 101 Visually handicapped 6,662 1,524,688 Deaf - 15,097 3,524,978 Mentally retarded 25,570 8,354,003 Crippled and special health 2,023 522,666 Emotionally disturbed 7,074 1,987,484 APPENDIX G U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH. EDUCATION, AND WELFARE OFFICE OF EDUCATION \VASIIINGTON, D.C. Tb ursday, Jan vary 12, 1967. A Bureau of Education for the Handicapped has been established in the U.S. Office of Education to strengthen and Coordinate activities in behalf of the handicapped, U.S. (`ommissioner of Education harold Howe II announced today. The new bureau's suission is to assist States, colleges and universities, and other Institutions and agencies in meeting the educational needs of the Nation's S million haadicappeij children who require special services. These children are mentally retarded, hard of Isearing, deaf, speech impaired, visually handi. capped, seriously emotionally disturbed. crippled, or have other health prob. lenls or major learning difficulties that can be helped by special education and related services. The new bureati encompasses the existing programs which the OThce of Education conducts expressly for the handicapped, such as support of train. ing for teachers and other professional personnel to participate in the educa- tion of the handicapped, grants for research in this field of education, and operation of the Captioned Films for the Deaf project. In addition, the bureau \vill administer a new program of finasicial aid to help Stat~ initiate, expand, and improve their resources for the education of the handicapped. The Elementary and Secondary Educatioss Amendments of 1960 approved last November 3, authorized $50 million for grants in the 1967 fiscal year which ends next June 30 and an additional $150 million for the following 12- month period. However, appropriations to fund them have not been made. The same legislation also provided for the establishment of the Bureau of Education for the Handicapped and of a National Advisors- Committee on Handicapped Children. The new bureau will lie directed by an Associate Cominissiosmer of Education who will also serve as principal advisor to the Commissioner On matters relat- ing to the education of handicapped childresi and youth. Within the bureau. separate divisions ~vill be concerned with research, personnel training, and direct or indirect educational services to the handicapped. Dr. J, William Rioux, recently named acting director of planning and evalu- ;ttioa for the Bureau of Elementary and Secondary Education, is temporarily in charge of the new bureau. Acting chiefs of the divisions are: Dr. John Gough, educational services : I)r. Richard Schofer, personnel training: and Dr. James W. Moss, resenrch, APPENDIX I-I Anscn4ns cats to D isastcr A sit/i ority in Psi b/ic La scs 874 end 815 Public Laws 815 and 874 were amended by passage of Public Law; 89-313, approved November 1, 1965, to give the Commissioner authority until June 30. 1967, to provide assistance to repair or replace school facilities damaged or 775-492 O-07-----5 PAGENO="0066" 60 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS destroyed by natural disasters, to provide temporary facilities while damaged facilities were being repaired or rebuilt, and to provide operating assistance as might be needed in any area declared by the President to be a major disaster area. This was a new program for the Office of Education; prior to these amend- ments, such disaster assistance had been provided by the Office of Emergency Planning. For a new program. it has worked exceedingly well. The costs are relatively small, hut the needs are urgent for those districts that experience disaster damage. There were 11 disasters during fiscal year 1966 and 2 disasters thus far in fiscal year 1967 for which applications for aid have been received. The total cost of the disaster program for applications received, as of February 1967, exclusive of Hurricane Betsy. is estimated to be $375.000. The proposed amendments are as follows: Extend coverage to a few special public schools that now provide elemen- tary and secondary education. but are not covered by the Act because they are operated by a State rather t.han a local educational agency. Eliminate the burden and effort test now required before emergency assistance can be authorized. This change is necessary because most school districts do not have in their yearly budget funds to meet emergency dis- aster needs. and they cannot get such funds until a new budget is approved for the following year. At present. the Office of Education cannot give assurance of Federal assistance when the disaster occurs and repairs must be made; the change w-ould permit authorizing emergency aid when n~ded. A minimum amount of $1,000 or one-half of one percent of the agency's operating budget for the year would be established for any disaster claim. This would avoid handling requests for very small amounts of money. The phrase "during the last full fiscal year" would be eliminated from Section 7 of Public Law- 874. This section authorizes Federal assistance on a continuing basis to finance a school program equivalent to that main- tained the last full year prior to the disaster. This is not practical, because school programs are improving each year. A provision is proposed to be added to Section 7(b) of the Act to author- ize minor repair under P.L. 874. This amendment makes possible repair- ing minor disaster damage from operating funds in accordance with the normal practice of schools for making such repairs. The Commissioner of Education would be authorized to grant funds to a public agency in sufficient amount to house students who w-ere in a private school w-hich w-as destroyed by a disaster, if the private school is not to be rebuilt. Under present wording, this can be done only if there also is destruction of or damage to public schools; the amendment would permit granting such assistance to a public agency when a private school is destroyed and not to be rebuilt, although no public school has been destroyed or damaged. Authority to provide disaster assistance under Public Laws 815 and 874 would be extended until June 30, 1972. The five-year extension is neces- sary in order to give continuity to the program. Amendment to tl~e definition of Federal pi-operty in subsection 1 of section 303 of Public Law 874 A principal purpose of Public Law 874 w-as to provide, insofar as possible, a uniform basis for compensating school districts for burdens imposed on them through Federal activities, in place of the unrelated and inadequate programs that w-ere in existence prior to 1950. Until that time, the Federal Government Permitted local g~vernrnental units to tax leasehold interests and private improvements on Federal property, and it also made payments to local juris- dictions of earnings from various types of Federal properties such as National forests and game refuges. In order to avoid duplicate payments to school districts for the same purpose. Public Law 874 provided that tax payments and other Federal payments made to a school district on account of Federal property should be deducted from the gross entitlement computed under its provi- sion for any school district. This w-as consistent with the position that the Federal payments under Public Law- 874 adequately compensated the district for the financial burden imposed by Federal activities and, therefore, there should be no duplicating Federal payments. PAGENO="0067" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 61 The pertinent wording of Subsection 303(1) is as follows: The term "Federal property" means real Property which i~ owned by the United States or is leased by the United States, and which is not subject to taxation by or leased from the United States by any State or any political subdivision of a State or by the District of Cohunbia. Such term includes real property which is owned by the United States and leased therefrom and the improvements thereon, even though the lessee's interest, or any improvement on such property, is subject to taxation by a State or a political subdivision of a State or by the District of Columbia. Such term also includes, (A) except for the purposes of Section 6, real property held in trust by the United States for individual Indians or Indian tribes which is subject to restrictions on alienation imposed by the United States. In accordance with this provision, the Office of Education has deducted from the gross entitlement computed for any school district the shared revenue payments and taxes on private improvements on all property defined as Federal for the purposes of the Act, when such funds were received by a district and available for school purposes. While the wording of the statute may not have been entirely clear for all types of situations that existed, it was felt that such deductions were in accordance with the intent and purpose of the Act. In two recent court cases, United States v. Apache (Arizona) County High School District and United. States v. Paw/juska. (Oklahoma) School District, the U.S. District Court ruled that certain deductions should not have been made. Both cases arose because the school district did not intially report the receipt of other Federal payments as defined in the Act, and for specified years they were paid their full entitlement under Public Law 874 without making (leduc- tions. When a field review discovered that such Federal I)aymellts had been received by the district but not reported to the Office of Education, the applica- tions for the years in question were reprocessed and the amount that should have been deducted was determined to be an overpayment. Efforts to get the two school districts to repay the overpayment were unsuccessful, and the cases were turned over to the courts for collection. In each case, the over~)ayment resulted from receipt by the school (listrict of taxes on private improvements constructed under a lease on lands owned by an Indian tribe but subject to restrictions on alienation. In each ease, the court ruled that the wording of Section 303 ( 1 above, as it defines Federal property for the purpose of the Act, did not (`over taxes paid on private improve- inents constructed under a lease on land owned by an Indian tribe but subject to restrictions on alienation, because this was not a lease of property owned by the United States. The purpose of the amendment is to clarify this ambiguity by specifying that all taxes and other Federal payments made with respect to any property con- sidered to be Federal for the I)urposes of the Act should be (ledllcte(l from the gross entitlement of the school district. We feel that this amendment carries out the spirit and intent of Public Law 874, of not making duplicate payments from two different sources to the same school district for time sanie purpose. It will clarify the administrative problem and uncertainty that now exists in these situations. It. is expected that the amendment will save an estimated $2 million a year which has been deducted in the l)aSt in these situations. It is requested that the amendment lie made effective for the current fiscal year. .lntendn,ent to Public Law 815 The Office of Education, along with the Bureau of Indian Affiaii's of the De- partment of the Interior, is reviewing the operation of Section 14 of Public Law 81~, which deals with the problems of school districts which rovide free pub- lic education for Indian children who reside on Indian reservations. Specific amendments to this section w-ill be forw-arded to the Congress at a later (late. Mr. QL-IE. Could we also have the names of the people from the Office of Education in the record? Chairman PERKINS. Yes, sir. (The names referred to follow-:) The Commissioner was accompanied by : J. (~ra1mani sullivan, J)eputy Commissioner of Education: H. Louis Bright. Associate Com- missioner for Research: Nolan Estes, Associate Coiiiniissioner for PAGENO="0068" 62 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS Element arv aiid Secondary Eclucat ion ; J. William Rioux, Acting As- sociate Commissioner for Education of the Handicapped; Richard Graham. Director, National Teacher Corps; Albert L. Alford, As- sistant Commissioner for Legislation: John F. Hughes, Director, Division of Compensatory Education, Bureau of Elementary and Sec- ondary Education. Mr. BRADEMAS. Would it be appropriate to insert in the record the fact sheet describing the legislation which the Department. has I)1~epared? Chairman PERKINS. Without objection, that may be done. Mr. BRADEMAS. Could I also ask unanimous consent. that there be included the text of the President's Message on Welfare of Children ? Chairman PERKINS. That will be done. (The documents referred to follow:) DEPARTMENT OF HEALTh. EDUCATION, AND WELFARE I. FACT SHEET: NATIONAL TEACHER CORPS Background and nccd The National Teacher Corps offers new hope for blighted schools, both in urban slums and in remote rural areas. It offers hope of increased educational oppor- tunities for America's S million impoverished children, by training new manpower in the education of the disadvantaged. It offers new ways to tap idealism and motivation for public service, as a major factor in the national commitment to the elimination of educational deprivation through the partnership of govern- mental and voluntary action. Studies have shown that many of the economically deprived are also education- ally deprived. Their schools are more likely to be understaffed and overcrowded. Their teachers are more apt to be poorly qualified for the difficult tasks they face. Curricular materials are less likely to be available and up to date. The children themselves face other limitations: improverished family background and environment, lack of books and reading materials at home, absence of cul- tural experiences common to middle-class homes, low self-esteem. The problem must not be underestimated. Only one in four nonwhit.e children outside metropolitan areas is enrolled in school at age 5. compared with half the white children in the same parts of the country. In metropolitan areas, about three-fourths of all children, 1)0th white and nonwhite, are in school at age ~. Nearly a million Spanish-speaking children in Southwestern States are unlikely ever to get beyond the eighth grade. Many are only vaguely familiar with English and. since they attend schools where classes are taught in Eng. lish and speaking Spanish frequently forbidden, they fall behind in the first grade and progessively further behind thereafter. In the metropolitan Northeast, the average Negro student is about 1.6 years behind the average white student in scholastic achievement in the sixth grade, 2.4 years behind in the niflth grade, and 3.3 years behind in the twelfth grade. In the South. both white and Negro students score below their northern counterparts. Severe teacher shortages have plagued school districts across the Nation. A recent survey of 39 States showed that last September, 20 had substantial shoi~tages of applicants for teaching positions; elementary school teachers were most in demand. Shortages affected communities of every size: 37 States lacked teachers for rural areas; 33 lacked teachers for small cities, 22 for large central cities, and 19 for suburbs. Within a single system, however. t.he greatest demand for teachers occurs iii impoverished schools; in these areas, school officials experience great difficulty in recruiting both beginning and experienced teachers. In Philadelphia. for ex- ample, the overall teaching staff vacancy rate was nearly 11 percent at the beginning of this school year; in elementary schools in poverty areas of the city, the vacancy rate was almost 20 percent. On opening day, New York City had to mobilize a ~0O-man substitute teacher force for full-time duty. PAGENO="0069" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 63 The National Tcachcr Corps will hclp to mcct tlicsc needs. It has, at present. 262 veteran teachers and 965 college graduate interns who are working to build professional careers in teaching disadvantaged children. They serve in 275 schools in 111 school systems, with the cooperation of 50 university training cen- ters in 29 States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. There are Teacher Corps teams in 20 of the Nation's 25 largest cities, among theni: New- York. Chicago, Detroit, Houston, Cleveland, San Diego, Buffalo, and Memphis. There are Teacher Corps teams in Appalachian towns and in the Ozarks, in Spanish- speaking communities in New York, Florida, California, and the Southwest. Teacher Corps members serve at the request of the local schools in a program worked out by the State department of education, the school system, and a local university. They work in teams, with a veteran teacher serving as teaiii leader for 3-10 interns. Part of a Corps member's time is spent in and about the schools in which he teaches, and part in study at a nearby university. At the end of 2 years, the interns will have earned a master's degree and will be qualified as specialists in the education of the disadvantaged. The Corps has had no problem with recruitment of persons to teach in sluni schools and rural areas. On the contrary, 13,000 persons applied for member- ship in 1965. Those selected were all college graduates; they w-ere chosen on the basis of teaching experience (in the case of team leaders) and of academic achievement (in the case of interns). They are paid at the salary rates in effect in the school district in which they teach. Since 70 percent of the projects deal with elementary school children, the National Teacher Corps should have sub- stantial impact on a critical area of need-education of children of poverty in the early grades. Proposal The National Teacher Corps program would become a special part of Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 and w-ould be extended for three years, through fiscal year 1970, plus authority to enable a teacher- intern to continue his program of practical and academic training for a period of not more than one year, for those w-ho begin such training during fiscal year 1970. Teacher-interns would be compensated at the lowest rate for teaching full-time in the school system in which they teach, as they are under existing law-, or at the rate of $75 per week plus $15 per dependent, ~`hichever is less. State educational agency approval of the local educational agency's request for Corps members and of the training program offered by an institutiwi or uni- versity would be required. Teacher Corps members would be lermitted to be assigned to a niigrant group not in a regular school, who are taught by a public or other nonprofit agency. if the number of migrant children makes such an assignment feasible. The Commissioner of Education would be authorized to accept gifts on behalf of the Teacher Corps, in the same way as the Peace Corps is authorized to ac- cept gifts. Teacher Corps members would be permitted to be assigne(I to schools operated by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The "Local Control" section would he aniended to make it cleai' that no Teacher Corps member may be assigned to a local educational agency unless the agency finds the member acceptable. II. FACT SHEET : COMPREIIEN 5IVE EDUCATIONAl. PlANNING B(lekgi'o-un(l and necol Rational planning at all levels is essential if the Nation's educational needs are to he met. Reliable information concerning the effectiveness of existing educa- tion programs niust be obtained and objedtively evaluated in order to better co- ordinate and improve present programs and to develop new programs to fill unmet needs. Local educational agencies receive funds from three primary sources.-sthe local, State. and Federal Governments. Each school district must plan the use of those funds to meet local needs. How'ever, almost all Federal funds and some State fimds are earmarked for special purposes. The number of education pro- grains designed to meet special needs has increased to the point that some dis- triet.q have hired special coordinators to work the vai'ious programs together PAGENO="0070" 64 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS into a coml)rehensive plan adapted to local needs. How-ever, neither the local schools nor the S~.tes have the resources to extend this local coordination and short-range planning to a long-range project of regional or Statewide planning and coordination. During the 19~3-66 school year. S27 billion was spent on education by local education agencies. With expenditures of that magnitude. a program of sys- tetnatic Statewide planning and evaluation must be established if duplication is to be avoided and maximum efficiency is to be attained. If the evaluation and planning of education programs is to be effective, it must be carried out close to the people to be served by those programs. The Aiiierican system of education is founded on the principle of State and local control. The responsibilIty for educational planning, therefore, rests at the State and local levels. State educational agencies now set standards for our schools and qualifications for our teachers. Local schools are directly respon- sible to local school boards. The best planning-that which will be most re- sponsive to the needs of the persons to be served-must be carried out at the State and local levels. If State and local educational agencies are to continue to carry out their Present role in educational planning and if the administration of Federal educa- tional programs is to reflect the intent of Congress, the Federal Government must share some of the burden placed on those agencies. This can be done by assisting them in developing comprehensive syster's of planning and evaluation which will aid them in meeting educational goals ~.. all levels of education, from reschool programs through postgraduate education. Proposal Title V of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act would be amended to establish a 3-year program of grunts to States by the Commissioner of Educa- tioii for programs of comprehensive, systematic, and continuous planning, and for evaluation of education at all levels, excel)t that the inclusion of the fteld of higher education would he optional with the State. Any State desiring to receive a grant would designate or establish a State agency to be responsible for carry- ing out. or supervising the carrying out, of the comprehensive planning, except that. if the State so decided. the planning for higher education could be carried out by a separate agency. l)rovided that there was assurance of effe~tive Co. rdination between the two. To be eligible for a grant, the programs set forth in the State's application would in-lu(le : setting educational goals developing through analysis alternate means of achieving these goals; planning new and unproved programs on the basis of these analyses; developing and strengthen- ing the conipetencies of the States for conducting objective evaluations of edu- cational programs: and collecting. compiling, and analyzing significant data con- cerning education in the State. State applications would he submitted to the Governors for their review- and recommendations. Seventy-five percent of the funds appropriated would be apportioned among the States, the District of Columbia. and the outlying areas for grunts according to State plans. The remainder of the appropriation.would be reserved for grants to public and private nonprofit agencies. institutions, or organizations for special projects related to educational planning and evaluation on an interstate, re- gional, or metropolitan area basis. 515 million would he authorized for comprehensive planning for fiscal year 1 P65. III. FACT sTrEET: INNOVATION IN VOCATIONAl. EDICATION Rackqround and nec! The changing character of the American economy and the resulting change in manpower needs require that our schools anticipate the demands which will be made of their students in the future. In the next few years, employment opportunities in the professional. semi-professional. and technical fields will increase more than 40 percent. while .101) ol)portunities for unskilled workers and agricultural w-orkers ~vill actually decline. Opportunities in public srevice. in l)usiness. and in the professional and personal service fields are expected to increase at a much faster rate than in other areas. These shifts in the structure of the American labor market impose ever-increasing demands upon high school stu(lents. They must make decisions about schools w-hieh affect their entire lives, when they know very little about opportunities which will he available to them. PAGENO="0071" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 65 The job of our Nations schools is particularly critical in View- of the large number of workers under 2~ years of age who will be continuing to enter the labor force. From 100~ to 1970. the number of persons 20 to 24 years old in the job market will be increasing by close to 500,000 or 4.8 percent per year-2% tunes the rate for the labor force as a whole. By 1970 there may be close to 12 million of these young adult workers, representing about 14 percent of the total labor force, compared with 10 percent in 19430. Overall, the total number of teenage and young adult workers (aged 14 to 24) is expected to increase by almost 700,000 a year. constituting about 45 percent of the increase in the labor force between now and 1970. More than one million students drop out of school each year. Of the students now in the fifth grade, approximately 80 percent will not complete college. A large number of these students will not receive the education or training which will prepare them to adapt to the jobs available ten or twenty years from now. If they are to develop to their greatest potential as wage earners and as citizens, school programs must be designed to keep them in school, and these programs must prepare them to function in an increasingly complex society. Failure to meet the needs of students in high schools results in lessened employment opportunities. The unemployment rate for high school age youth is more than three times that of the public at large. The unemployment rate among those who fail to finish high school is 50 l~rcent greater than among those who complete high school-in spite of an expanding economy. The secondary school system of the United States must be strengthened to enable it to be more responsive to the needs, interests, abilities, and problems of all students and to the current and long-term demands of the world of work. This is especially true in the case of disadvantaged students. High school may be their last opportunit.y for formal education unless they are stimulated to continue on to college, and unless they receive training for employment they may be doomed to a life of unemployment. For students who do not plan to go to college, high school may be the last opportnnity to prepare for, or receive training for, a job. Proposal The Vocational Education Act of 1903 would be amended to establish a 5-year program of grants to State vocational boards, local educational agencies, and public and private agencies, organizations, and institutions to support the plan- ning, development, and operation of innovative occupational education programs which may serve as models for vocational education programs. Examples of the tyl)es of projects which might be supported are: Exploratory occupational education programs to provide practical and educational experiences essential to understanding the demands and com- plexities of our modern society and opportunities in the constantly-changing world of work. These progranis would be designed to fainiliari~e students with the broad range of occupations available to them and requisites for careers in the various occupations. Programs or projects to provide to students educational experience through part-time work to assist in their maximum development, and to hell) in linking school and employment. Such programs would assist needy stu- dents to continue their education ; promote a sense of achievement in school- related work experiences: enlarge educational opportunities: develop recog- nition of the value of work and establish communication channels between education and the world of work which are not now in existence. Guidance and counseling to assure that all students' interests and capa- bilities are develope(l in relation to their career objectives and to ease in the transition froni school to work by assisting them in initial job place- merit. Improvement of cum'ricula to stimulate broad-scale innovative changes to provide more realistic vocational education programs for youth amid adults at all skill levels. The (`urri('uluni changes w-ould involve new instructional media ; improved curriculum gui(les : and innovative techniques and services designed to met the needs of youth. and adults foi' entry into the \vOrl(1 of work or foi' continuing education at the lost-secondary level. The funds appropriated would l)e apportioned among the States amid outlying areas as follows : $150,000 would be apportioned to each State and outlying area, and the remainder would be apportioned according to populatioii aged 14 through $30 million would be authorized for fiscal year 1943$. PAGENO="0072" 66 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDI.CATION AMENDMENTS IV. FAC~T SHEET: EXPANDED EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES FOR HANDICAPPED CHILDREN Background and iVccd During the past decade, the foundation has been laid for a comprehensive pro- gram of support for educational programs and services for mentally retarded, hearing and speech impaired, deaf. visually handicapped, seriously emotionally disturbed. crippled, and other health impaired children. Beginning with the Cooperative Research Act in 1954. Congress has enacted legislation to provide assistance for research and demonstration projects and for personnel training programs in the education of handicapped children. Over 32,000 fellowships and training grants have been awarded in all areas of education for the handicapped. Last year 8.300 grants were awarded in the area of teaching programs for handi- capped children. The Captioned Films for the Deaf program, twice amended since 1958. now includes research, training, production and dissemination activi- ties which are reaching an annual audience of 1.5 million. The Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 offers direct educational benefits to handicapped children. In addition, it was amended to include State- operated or -supported schools which provide free public education to handi- capped children. Also enacted in 1965 w-as the National Technical Institute for the Deaf Act. This Institute will supplement the post-secondary educational opportunities for the deaf provided only by Gallaudet College. In the summer of 1966. an HEW Task Force on Handicapped Children and Child Development reviewed the Department's programs for the handicapped and suggested priori- ties of effort and means for improved coordination of programs. In the last days of the 89th Congress. two important pieces of legislation for handicapped children were enacted. One authorized the Model Secondary School for the Deaf at Gallaudet College. The other added Title VT-Education of Handicapped Children-to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. This title authorized earmarked funds for projects to develop education programs for the handicapped, and directed the Office of Education to establish a Bureau for the Education of the Handicapped. The establishment of the new Bureau was an- nounced by the Office of Education on January 12, 1967. Although these enactments provide an impressive foundation for research. professional training, and development of special education programs for handi- capped children, we must continue to expand their educational opportunities. Of the estimated 5 million children, or 10 percent of the school-age population, appreciably limited by one or more handicapping conditions, only about 40 per- cent are receiving the benefits of special education programs. Half of the public school systems in the Fnited States report that they do not provide educational services for even one type of handicapping condition. Little beyond verbal acknowledgement has been provided for the education of hundreds of multiply handicapped children. Some handicapped children must remain on residential school w-aiting lists 3 or 6 years before being accepted into an education program: this almost destroys a child's chance to prepare for his future and to prepare to contribute to our Nation's future. Early diagnosis and identification of a handicapping condition is essential and basic to formulating an education program for a handicapped child. There should he a focal point at which such diagnosis can be provided to help decide how- best to allocate available resources to meet the needs of all handicapped children. The great obstacle to developing and providing educational programs for handicapped children is the critical shortage of trained personnel-teachers, teachers of teachers, supportive personnel. Of the estimated 300,000 teachers and other personnel neéessary to provide educational opportunities to all handi- capped children w-ithin this decade. there are now only about 70,000. And at this time. there are only about 300 institutions of higher education capable of offering training for the preparation of professional personnel, often only in one area. If the 300.000 goal is to be attained, a nationwide personnel recruitment program, utilizing comprehensive and innovative information-dissemination methods, must he immediately initiated. Proposal The proposed amendments for improvement of the education of the handi- capped would provide a variety of expanded educational opportunities for all handicapped children. The proposed Regional Resource Centers, w-hich would PAGENO="0073" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDTCATIOX AMENDMENTS 67 be authorized by a separate part of title VT of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, would provide testing and evaluation services to determine the special educational needs of a handicapped child, would develop education programs to meet these special needs. and would assist schools and other agencies in their respective regions in providing these educational programs for the han- dicapped child. $7.5 million would l)e authorized for the Centers for fiscal year 1968. The proposal for Recruitment of Personnel and Dissemination of Information on Education of the Handicapped would provide grants to or contracts with public or private agencies or institutions to expand and encourage intensive na- tionwide recruitment programs and information dissemination programs aimed at encouraging students, professional and supportive personnel to work in the field of education of handicapped children. $1 million would he authorized to implement this program in fiscal year 1908. Schools for Indian children operated by the Departnient of the Interior and overseas dependents schools operated by the l)epartment of Defense would be made eligible for assistance under title VI of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. The proposal for Expansion of Instructional Media Programs To Include All handicapped Children would insure that all handicapped children would re- ceive the demonstrated benefits of the instructional media materials program established and successfully carried out under the Captioned Films for the Deaf program and would greatly help in shortening the time lag between new educational media discoveries and their actual applications. $1 million would be authorized in fiscal year 1968 for this expanded program. Existing authority to make grants for research in the education of the han- dicapped would be made more flexible by authorizing the Government to obtain such research through contracts with l)ublic or private educational research agencies and organizations. V. FACT ShEET: MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS TO THE ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION ACT AND TILE FEDERALLY IMPACTED AREAS PROGRAM Indian children in BLE schools and cli ildrcn in DOD orerseas (lcpcn dency sc/i ools Background On(l need Last year, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 19435 was amended to include two groups of children-Indian children in schools operated by the Bureau of Indian Affairs of the Department of the Interior and children in over- seas dependents Schools operated by the Department of Defense-who had not been afforded the educational benefits offered other children under the Act. Indian children in BIA schools were made eligible to particihate iii programs conducted under Titles I, II, and III of the Act; Department of I)efense schools were included in the l)rovisions of Titles II and III. The benefits to the tw-o groups of children have beeii substantial. It is ~sti- mated that 37.000 Indian children will be reached by special progi'ains for the educationally deprived under Title I of ESEA, at a total cost of miiore than $5 million. More than $123,000 will be spent in providing these children with text- books, library books, and other instructional materials (luring ths fiscal year. and nearly $205,000 will be expended on supplementary educational centers and services under Title III. Overseas schools will also reap the benefits of change during this fiscal year : imiore thami $404,000 for books and instructional materials tinder Title II. and $327000 for supplementary educational centers amm~1 services tinder Title III. Proposal Provisions for participation of Indian chulciremi eiirolled in BIA schools and of children in overseas dependents schools would be extended one year. through fiscal year 1968. These provisions would otherwise expire at the end of fiscal year 1967. Extension would make them uniform with the rest of the Act, which continues through fiscal year 1968. A study of the Provisions and further rec- ommendations will be submitted to the Congress later this year. Amendment to Title V of the Elementary and ~econdauij Education Act In order to provide for a more equitable distribution of Title V funds the allotment formula w-ould be amended. Forty percent of the amount available PAGENO="0074" 68 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDTJCATION AMENDMENTS for apportionment among the States would be allotted to the States in equal amounts and the remaining 64) percent would be allotted to the States on the basis of school age population. Amcndincnts to di'sastci' autlioi'ity in Public La cs 874 and 81J Background and nccd Public Law ~1-81~ and Title I of Public Law 81-874 were amended by P.L. 89-313, approved November 1. 1965, to give the Commissioner of Education authority, until June 30. 1967. to provide assistance to repair or replace school facilities damaged or destroyed by natural disasters, to provide temporary facil- ities while damaged facilities were being repaired or rebuilt, and to provide op- erating assistance as might be needed in any area declared by the Presdent to be i major disaster area. Prior to these amendments. such disaster assistance was provided by the office of Emergency Planning. Although this was a new program for the Office of Education, it has worked well in meeting the most urgent needs in disaster areas. There were 11 disasters during fiscal year 1966 and two disasters thus far in fiscal year 19437 for which applications for aid have been received. The iotal cost of the disaster program for applications received, as of February 19437. exclusive of hurricane Betsy, is estimated to be $37E000. Pi'oposa I Authority to provide disaster assistance under Public Laws 81~ and 874 would In extended five years. through fiscal year 1972. Coverage would be extended to a few special lubhic schools that now provide elementary and secondary edu- cation, hut are not covered by the Act because they are operated by a State rather i han a local educational agency. The burden and effort test now required before emergency assistance can be authorized would be eliminated. This change is necessary because most school districts d not have in their yearly budget funds to meet emergency disaster needs. and they cannot get such funds until a new budget is approved for the following year. At present. the Office of Education cannot give assurance of Federal assistance when the disaster occurs and emergency repairs must be made: the change would permit authorizing emergency aid when needed. A minimum amount of ~1.000 or one-half of one percent of the agency's opel'- ating budget for the year will be established for any disaster claim. This would avoid handling requests for very small amounts of money. The Commissioner of Education would be authorized to grant funds to a pub- lie agency in sufficient amount to house students who were in a private school which was (Iestroyed by ii disaster. if the private school is not to be rebuilt. Under hiresent wording, this can be done only if there also is destruction of or damage to public' schools: the amendment would permit granting such assistance to a pUt)lic agency when a private school is destroyed and not to be rebuilt. although moo public' school has been destroyed or damaged. I no en din cot to Pu blic' La or 874 The only amendment proposed to P.L. 874 is a technical change in the defini- tRoll of Federal property. This amendment is made necessary in order to re- move any question as to the deductibility of other Federal payments froni the gross entitlement of school districts in those cases where the other Federal pay- nient is made because of taxes on private improvements on land held in trust for individual Indians or Indian tribes. Two recent court cases have ruled against making deductions in these eases. The amendment would prevent duplicate pay- ments to some districts. PAGENO="0075" WELFARE OF CHILDREN ME S SAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES TRANSMITTING RECOMMENDATIONSFOR THE WELFARE OF CHILDREN FEBRUARY 8, 1967.-Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union and ordered to be printed To the Congress of the United States: In 1905, this Nation hummed with industrial growth-and Jane Addams discovered a boy of 5 working for a living by night in a cotton mill. Thirteen percent of the laborers then in the cotton trade were child laborers. All across the Nation, in glass factories, in mines, in canneries, and on the streets, more than 2 million children under 16 worked-full time. Slowly, what Theodore Roosevelt called "public sentiment, with its corrective power" stirred and raised a cry for action. "The interests of this Nation," President Roosevelt declared to Congress in 1909, "are involved in the welfare of children no less than in our great national affairs." By 1912, the Federal Children's Bureau was established. The long battle to end child labor moved toward victory. Congress had pledged its power to the care and protection of America's young people. Upon that pledge, the Congress, the executive branch and the States have built public policy-and public programs-ever since. In the past 3 years, I have recommended and you in the Congress have enacted legislation that has done more for our young people than in any other period in history: Headstart and other preschool programs are providing learning and health care to more than 2 million children. 69 PAGENO="0076" 70 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDTCATION AMENDMENTS The Elementary and Secondary Education Act is improving the education of more than 7 million poor children. Our higher education programs support more .than 1 million students in college-students who might otherwise not have been able to go. The Neighborhood Youth Corps, the Job Corps, and an expanded manpower development and training program are bringing skills to almost 1 million young Americans who only a few years ago would have been condemned to the ranks of the unemployed. The "medicaid" program is now extending better medical service to millions of poor children. In fiscal 1960, the Federal Government invested about $3.5 billion in America's children and youth. In fiscal 1965 that investment rose to $7.3 billion. In fiscal 1968 it will increase to over $11.5 billion-more than three times the amount the Government was spending 8 years ago. We are a young nation. Nearly half our people are 25 or under- and much of the courage and vitality that bless this land are the gift of young citizens. The Peace Corps volunteer in Bolivia, the Teacher Corps volunteer in a Chicago slum, the young Marine offering up his courage-and his life-in Vietnam: these are the Boy Scouts, the 4-H Club members, the high school athletes of only a few years ago. What they are able to offer the world as citizens depends on what their Nation offered them as youngsters. Knowing this, we seek to strengthen American families. We also seek to strengthen our affiance with State and local governments. The future of many of our children depends on the work of local public health services, school boards, the local child welfare agencies, and local community action agencies. Recent studies confirm what we have long suspected. In education, in health, in all of human development, the early years are the critical years. Ignorance, ill health, personality disorder-these are disabili- ties often contracted in childhood: afflictions which linger to cripple the man and damage the next generation. Our Nation must rid itself of this bitter inheritance. Our goal must be clear--to give every child the chance to fulfill his promise. Much remains to be done to move toward this goal. Today, no less than in the early years of this century, America has an urgent job to do for its young. Even during these years of unparalleled prosperity: 5.5 million children under 6, and 9 million more under 17, live in families too poor to feed and house them adequately. This year 1 million babies, 1 in every 4, will be born to mothers who receive little or no obstetric care. More than 4 million children will suffer physical handicaps and another 2 million will fall victim to preventable accidents or disease. One million young Americans, most of them from poor families, w-ill drop out of school this year-many to join the unhappy legion of the unemployed. One in every six young men under 18 will be taken to juvenile court for at least one offense this year. PAGENO="0077" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDTCATIOX AMENDMENTS 71 Our Nation can help to cure these social ills if once again, as in the past, we pledge our continuing stewardship of our greatest wealth- our young people. I recommend a 12-point program for the children and youth of America. With the help of the Congress, we can- 1. Preserve the hope and opportunity of Headstart by a "Follow-Through" program in the early grades. 2. Strengthen Headstart by extending its reach to younger children. 3. Begin a pilot lunch program to reach preschool children who now lack proper nourishment. 4. Create child and parent centers in areas of acute poverty to provide modern and comprehensive family and child develop- ment services. 5. Help the States train specialists-now in critically short supply-to deal with problems of children and youth. 6. Strengthen and modernize programs providing aid for children in poor families. 7. Increase social security payments for 3 mfflion children, whose support has been cut off by the death, disability, or retire- ment of their parents. 8. Expand our programs for early diagnosis and treatment of children with handicaps. 9. Carry forward our attack on mental retardation, which afflicts more than 125,000 children each year. 10. Launch a new pilot program of dental care for children. 11. Help States and communities across the Nation plan and operate programs to prevent juvenile delinquents from becoming adult delinquents. 12. Enrich the summer months for needy boys and girls. STRENGTHENING HEADSTART Headstart-a preschool program for poor children-has passed its first trials with flying colors. Tested in practice the past 2 years, it has proven worthy of its promise. Through this program, hope has entered the lives of hundreds of thousands of children and their parents who need it the most. The child whose only horizons were the crowded rooms of a tene- ment discovered new worlds of curiosity, of companionship, of creative effort. Volunteer workers gave thousands of hours to help launch poor children on the path toward self-discovery, stimulating them to enjoy books for the first time, watching them sense the excitement of learning. Today Headstart reaches into three out of every four counties where poverty is heavily concentrated and into every one of the 50 States. It is bringing more than education to childreii. Over half the youngsters are receiving needed dental and medical treatment. Hear- ing defects, poor vision, anemia, and damaged hearts are being dis- covered and treated. In short, for poor children and their parents, Headst.art has replaced the conviction of failure with the hope of success. The achievements of Headstart must not be allowed to fade. For we have learned another truth which should have been self-evident- that poverty's handicaps cannot be easily erased or ignored when the door of first grade opens to the Headstart child. PAGENO="0078" 72 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDLCATION AMENDMENTS Headstart occupies only part of a child's day and ends all too soon. He often returns home to conditions which breed despair. If these forces are not to engulf the child and wipe out the benefits of Head- start, more is required. Follow-Through is essential. To fulfil the rights of America's children to equal educational opportunity, the benefits of Headstart must be carried through to the early r~rades. We must make special efforts to overcome the handicap of poverty by more individual attention, by creative courses, by more teachers trained in child development. This will not be easy. It will require careful planning and the full support of our communities, our schools, and our teachers. I am requesting appropriations to launch a "Follow-Through" pro- gram during the first school grades for children in area~s of acute poverty. The present achievements of Headstart serve as a measure of the distance we must still go: Three out of four Headstart children participate only in a summer program. The summer months are far too brief to close the gap separating the disadvantaged child from his more for- tunate classmate. Only a small number of 3-year-olds are now being reached. The impact of Headstart will be far more beneficial if it is extended to the earlier years. Headst art has dramatically exposed the nutritional needs of poverty~. children. More than 1.5 million preschoolers are not getting the nourishing food vital to strong and healthy bodies. ici build on tl~e experience already gained through Headstart: I am request1ng funds from the congress and I am directing the Director of the Qffice of Economic Opportunity to- 1. Strengthen the full year Ileadstart progam. 2. Enlarge the number of 3-year-oldsc who participate in Headetort. :3. E.rplore. through pilot programs, the effectiveness of this progiam on e~'en younger children. I am. 1ecommuld?ng legislation to authorize a pilot program to 1~rocude school lunch benefits to needy preschoolers through Head- skirt and cim liar programs. CHILI) AND PARENT CENTERS There is increasing evidence that a child's potential is shaped in infincy-and even during the prenatal period. Early in life, a child may acqurre the scars that will damage his later years at great cost to himself and to society. No serious effort in child development can ignore this critical period. In every community, we must attack the conditions that dim life's promise. Today, the Federal Government and the States support a wide range of services for needy children and their parents. But we have fallen short. Many of these services are fragmented. Many do not provide imaginative and inventive programs to develop a childs f till polential. Others fail to enlist the adults of the community in enrichiiig t he lives of children and thereby enriching their own lives as ~vefl. PAGENO="0079" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDtTCATION AMENDMENTS 73 `F he task is to marshal these services-to develop within our compre- hensive neighborhood centers a single open door through \viiich child and parent can enter to obtain the help they need. I am instructing the Director of the Office of Economic Opportni~ity to begin a pilot program of child and parent centers through its coin munity action program in areas of acute poverty. I am also instructing the Secretaries of Health Education, and Welfare and Housing and Urban Development to support these certcrs with re- sources from related programs. These child and parent centers would provide a wide range of benefits-as wide as the needs of the children and parents they must serve: Health and welfare services, Nutritious meals for needy preschoolers. Counseling for parents in prenatal arid infant care and in- struction in household management, »=IACident prevention, and nutrition. Day care for children under 3 yeais old. A training base for specialists in child development. A typical center might serve a slum neighborhood or a large housing project. Where possible, the centers would he affiliated with uni- versities to provide greater research and experimentation in the fields of child development and education. TO WORK WITH CHILDREN A wealthy and abundant America lags behind other modern nations in training qualified persons to work with children. These workers are badly needed-not only for poor children but for all children. `We need experts and new professionals in child care. We need more preschool teachers, social workers, librarians, arid nurses. New training efforts must be supported-for day care counselors, parent advisers, and health visitors. We must train workers capable of helping children in neighborhood centers, in health clinics, in playgrounds, and in child ~velfare agencies. Others must be prepared to support the teacher in the school and the mother in the nome. These jobs promise excellent opportunities for high school and grade school graduates, and for citizens who are retired. l'hev (an j)I'oVide meaningful employment for persons who are themselves econ(.nhically deprived. In helping needy young children achieve their potential, they can also help to develop themselves. Two OEO programs, Foster Grandparents and Home Health Aids, have already proved the value of such services. To help provide the trained wor/cer,~ a ceded ,foi' ,.1in eiieu' /1 f" n, I recommend legislation to increase to 75 percent the Per/erof notchin~j fun ds for State child welfare personnel, znelud/nq tra~nu~ pi'1i'ofo.~. I am also directing the Secretaries of Labor and Healt h, Ed ~cation, and Welfare, and the Director of the Office of Ec"nomic Optort initv. to emphasize t hrough adult ediicatit in, vna tior,il re}~nbili ti i ri and other programs. traini rig for new careers' a c I dId Carc. PAGENO="0080" 74 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS SOCIAL SECURITY INCREASES FOR CHILDREN Two weeks ago, I proposed legislation to bring the greatest improve- ment in living standards for those covered under social security since that historic act was passed in 1935. While this program extends primarily to the older Americans, it also covers a child if the family breadwinner, who is under social security, dies, retires, or becomes disabled. Today, more than 3 million children receive social security pay- ments. Their average benefit is only $52 a month. To provide more adequate payments to these children, I recommend legislation to enlarge their benefits-with an average increase of at least 15 percent. IMPROVING CHILD ASSISTANCE Enacted during the 1930's, the "Aid to Families with Dependent Children" (AFDC) program is a major source of help for the poor child. Under AFDC, Federal financial aid is provided to States to help needy families with children under 21. There are serious shortcomings in this program: Only 3.2 million children received benefits last year. Twelve million children in families below the poverty line re- ceived no benefits. Thirty-three States do not even meet their own minimum standards for subsistence. Seven States offer a mother and three children $120 a month or less. Only 21 States have taken advantage of a 1962 law, expiring this year, allowing children with unemployed parents to receive financial assistance. Only 12 States have community work and training pro- grams for unemployed parents to give them the skills needed to pro- tect their family and earn a decent living. A number of States dis- courage parents from working by arbitrarily reducing welfare pay- ments when they earn their first dollar. To remedy these deficiencies and give the poorest children of America a fair chance, I recommend legislation to- Require each State to raise cash payments to the level the State itself sets as the minimum for subsistence, to bring these minimum standards up to date annually, and to maintain welfare standards at not less than two-thirds the level set for medical assistance. Provide special Federal financial assistance to help poorer States meet these new requirements. Make permanent the program for unemployed parents, which expires this year. Require each State receiving assistance to cooperate in making community work and training available. Require States to permit parents to earn $50 each month, with a maximum of $150 per family, without reduction in assistance payments. Even well-established State welfare programs lack adequate services to protect children where there is physical abuse or neglect. There should be protection for the child as well as help for the parent. Other State child welfare programs should expand day-care and homemaker services. New services must be tested, particularly for the mentally PAGENO="0081" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 75 retarded, for the child requiring emergency shelter, and for the child in the urban slum. I recommend le$slation to authorize a program of project grants to encourage States and local communities to develop new forms of child serrices. CHILD HEALTH Last year nearly 400,000 needy mothers received care through maternal and child health nursing services. About 3 million children received public health nursing services, including almost 20 percent of all infants under 1 year of age. But our public health record for children gives us little cause for complacency: At least 10 other nations have lower infant mortality rates than the United States. Nearly 40,000 babies in America die each year who would be saved if our infant mortality rate were as low as Sweden's. Nearly 1 million pregnant women receive little or no prenatal care. More than 3.5 million poor children under 5 who need medical help do not receive it under public medical care programs. Our whole society pays a toll for the unhealthy and crippled children who go without medical care: a toll of incalculable human suffering, unemployment, rising rates of disabling disease, and expenditures for special education and institutions for the handicapped. We have made hopeful beginnings toward reducing that toll. Under the "medicaid" program enacted in 1965, the 25 States now in partnership with the Federal Government will help pay hospital costs and doctors' bills for more than 3.5 million poor children this year. By next year, we expect 23 more States to join "medicaid." I am requesting increased funds for the "medicaid" program, including $221 million for medical care for needy children-an increase of some $100 million over last year. We must also move in another direction. Nearly 500,000 young- sters now receive treatment under the crippled children's program. But more than twice that number need help. The problem is to discover, as early as possible, the ills that handicap our children. There must be a continuing followup and treatment so that handicaps do not go neglected. We must enlarge our efforts to give proper eye care to a needy child. We must provide help to straighten a poor youngster's crippled limb before he becomes permanently disabled. We must stop tuberculosis in its first stages, before it causes serious harm. I recommend legislation to expand the timely examination and treatment of an additional 500,000 poor children in fiscal 1968. In 1965 I proposed and the Congress enacted a special program to provide comprehensive health care for the poor child. Today, through the work of the Children's Bureau and local public health agencies, thousands of preschool and school children in more than 20 communiti'es across America are being examined and treated The early success of this program justifies its further expansion. I am requesting the full authorization of $40 million for the corn- prehensive health service program for preschool and school children. 75-492 0 - 67 - 6 PAGENO="0082" 76 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDLTATION AMENDMENTS There are only 12,000 trained pediatricians and 13,000 obstetricians in the United States today-far too few to provide adequate medical care for all our children and mothers. Our health goals for children cannot be met unless ~ce develop new patterns of health care. This will require the great energy and skill of the American medical profession. New types of health workers must be trained to help our doctors do more. We must use more effectively the health manpower we have. Above all, the health profession should be encouraged to invent and innovate to give every child the medical care he needs. I recommend legislation to authorize 10 pilot centers this year to proc-ide research and decelopment in child health care, to train health workers, to test new methods and to provide care for 180,000 needy children and 10,000 mothers. These new centers will be associated, wherever possible, with medical universities or neighborhood health centers. They will- Train new types of health workers to assist the pediatrician and obstetrician. Design and develop more efficient methods and techniques of health care delivery. Provide needed maternal and child health care. In addition, I am directing the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare to allocate increased funds to help train more pediatricians, obstetricians, and family doctors. MENTAL RETARDATION Each year more than 125,000 infants are born mentally retarded. This dread disability strikes rich families and poor. The tragedy of mental retardation affects the child, the parents, and the entire community. In 1958, the late Congressman from Rhode Island, John E. Fogarty, introduced legislation which launched our attack on mental retardation. For the past 3 years we have intensified that attack on all fronts-- in prevention, treatment, rehabilitation, employment, recreation services. But today, America still lacks trained workers and community facilities to carry on the fight. I recommend legislation to- Provide, for the first time, Federal support to assist the staffing of comm unity mental retardation centers. Extend Federal support for the construction of university and community centers for the mentally retarded. DENTAL NEEDS Nearly two out of three disadvantaged children between the ages of 5 and 14 have never visited a dentist. They have five times more decayed teeth than their more fortunate classmates. To begin meeting the dental needs of poor children, I recommend legis- lation to- Authorize a pilot program of dental care for 100,000 children in areas of acute poverty. PAGENO="0083" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDLTCATIOX AMENDMENTS 77 Provide training for dental assistants to help bring care to schools and other community agencies. Explore better methods of furnishing care. THE JUVENILE DELINQUENCY PREVENTION ACT OF 1967 Youth can mean high spirits, great ambitions, wide intellectual interests, Constructive group activities, and the exciting tests of physical and mental power. But too often it means failure in school, dropouts, the emptiness of unplanned days, joblessness, flights from a broken home, and trouble with the police. The rapid urbanization of our Nation and the sharply growing numbers of young people can mean new vigor and opportunity for our society-or new crime problems and more wasted lives. This Nation has already committed itself to enrich the lives of our young people and to free the disadvantaged from the waste and bore- dom that would otherwise characterize their lives: The Elementary arid Secondary Education Act of 1965 and the Higher Education Act of 1965 are greatly expandiiiig educational opportunities. The Upward Bound program is preparing disadvantaged boys and girls for entry into college. Work-study programs, grants, loans, and scholarships are helping to provide an education for young people unable to afford it. The Manpower Training and Development Act, the Job Corps, and the Neighborhood Youth Corps are providing needed job skills. Despite these achievements, much remains to be done to fulfill our commitment to your Americans. In later messages, I will propose ad- ditional measures that will assist young Americans-in education, in health, and in special employment programs. But today, I propose to deal with the young American who is delinquent or potentially delinquent. Too many schools and agencies close their doors and minds to a young person with serious behavioral problems, and then pass him on to sterner but frequently less effective authorities. Most youth who commit delinquent acts ultimately grow into responsible adults. But if a youth behaves badly enough or is unlucky enough to enter the courts and correctional institutions, he is more likely to continue in criminal activity as an adult. The past 5 years of experience under the Juvenile Delinquency Act and the report of the National Crime Commission have shown the need for new approaches for dealing with delinquent and potentially delinquent youth: Special community-based diagnostic and treatment services for youth in trouble. The strengthening of ties between the community and the cor- rection and probation system. The construction of modern correctional facilities employing the most advanced methods of rehabilitation. We must pursue a course designed not merely to reduce tile number of delinquents. We must increase the chances for such young people to lead productive lives. PAGENO="0084" 78 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS For the delinquent and potentially delinquent youth, we must offer a New Start. We must insure that the special resources and skills essential for their treatment and rehabilitation are available. Because many of these young men and women live in broken families, burdened with financial and psychological problems, a successful rehabilitation program must include family counseling, vocational guidance, education and health services. It must strengthen the family and the schools. It must offer courts an alternative to placing young delinquents in penal institutions. I recommend the Juvenile Delinquency Prevention Act of 1967. This act would be administered by the Secretary of Health, Edu- cation, and Welfare. It would provide- Ninety percent Federal matching grants to assist States and local communities to develop plans to improve their juvenile courts and correction systems. Fifty percent Federal matching grants for the construction of short-term detention and treatment facilities for youthful offenders in or near their communities. Flexible Federal matching grants to assist local communities to operate special diagnostic and treatment programs for juvenile delinquents and potential delinquents. Federal support for research and experimental projects in juvenile delinquency. The problems of troubled youth do not yield to easy solution. They must be pursued on a broad front. Thus, States and cothmunities must be encouraged to develop comprehensive strategies for coping with these problems. The facilities they build should be modern and innovative, like the "halfway" houses already proven successful in practice. These facili- ties should provide a wide range of community-based treatment and rehabilitation services for youthful offenders. New methods of rehabilitation-establishing new ties between the correctional institution, the job market, and the supporting services a delinquent youth needs when he returns to the community-should be tested. Local agencies, public and private, should be assisted in providing special diagnostic and treatment services for youth with serious behavioral problems. Other Federal programs for medical care, education, and manpower training should be supplemented to provide the intensive services needed to assist delinquent and potentially delinquent youth to become productive citizens. These efforts must first be concentrated in poor neighborhoods where the risk of de- linquency is highest. These steps must be taken now. But at the same time we must continue and expand our research effort. We must learn why so many young people get into trouble and how best to help them avoid it. To do this, we will look to universities and individuals, Stat.e and local agencies, and other institutions capable of adding to our know!- edge and improving our methods and practices in this vital area. PAGENO="0085" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 79 SUMMER PROGRAMS FOR YOUNG AMERiCANS Last year, summer took on a new and brighter meaning for millions of needy young citizens: Headstart served 570,000 preschoolers. The Elementary and Secondary Education Act provided funds to bring remedial courses and day camps to 23~ million children. Upward Bound enabled 25,000 high school students to live on college campuses and gain new learning experiences. The Youth Opportunity Campaign found more than a million jobs for 16- to 21-year-olds. The Neighborhood Youth Corps offered summer work to 210,000 young people. Community Action and other OEO programs, such as Opera- tion Champ, offered recreation to nearly 1 million children. This summer we can do more. We can enable additional schools and playgrounds to remain open when vacation comes. We can, with the help of public-spirited local organizations, bring fresh air and cool streams to the slum child who has known only a sweltering tenement and who must sleep on a crowded fire escape to get relief from the heat. We can enlist the volunteer help of many citizens who want to give needy children a happy summer. To further these purposes, I will- Establish a Cabinet-level Council headed by the Vise President to promote Summer Youth Opportunities. Direct this Council to make public facilities available to provide camping opportunities for additional needy children this summer. Request the Council to call on public and private groups to sponsor and operate these camps and to enlist college students and others to work in them. Request the Council to call a national "Share Your Summer" conference to encourage more fortunate families to open their vacation homes to disadvantaged children for part of the summer. In addition, I recommend legislation to provide funds for the construc- tion of summer camp facilities for at least 100,000 children in 1968. These camps would be built only where there is an agreement with a private institution or local government agency to operate and finance them. I am directing every Federal agency to strengthen its programs which provide summer employment, education, recreation, and health services. These summer programs must become a permanent feature in the year-round effort to develop our children and teenagers for responsible citizenship. I call upon every city and local community to help make summers happy and productive for the youth of America. It should not take an act of Congress to turn on a fire hydrant sprinkler, to keep a swim- ming pooi open a little longer, or provide lights and supervision for a summer playground. A NEW PRIORITY No ventures hold more promise than these curing a sick child, helping a poor child through Headstart, giving a slum child a sum- PAGENO="0086" 80 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDFCATION AMENDMENTS iner of sunlight and pleasure, encouraging a teenager to seek higher learning. I believe that the Congress recognizes the urgency-and the great potential-of programs which open new opportunity to our children and young people. But beyond these beginnings, there is much to do. We look toward the day when every child, no matter what his color or his family's means, gets the medical care he needs, starts school on an equal footing with his classmates, seeks as much education as he can absorb-in short, goes as far as his talents will take him. We make this commitment to our youth not merely ~t the bidding of our conscience. It is practical wisdom. It is good economics. But, most important, as Franklin D. Roosevelt said 30 years ago, because "the destiny of American youth is the destiny of America." We can shape that destiny if we act now and if we bring to this task the energy and the vision it demands. LYNDON B. JOHNSON. THE WHITE HOUSE, February 8, 1967. PAGENO="0087" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 81 Mr. HOWE. I would like to do exactly as you suggest, Mr. Chairman, to run through the testimony, calling your attention to certain por- tions of it., reading certain portions of it, and as you say, ad libbing on others, to try to get the broa.d picture before you. It is a body of testimony which reviews the existing Elementary and Secondary Education Act. in all of its titles, and it has something to say about our operations in the Office of Education of the various portions of this act. It then connects lip our suggestions for legislation this year with the operation of the act up to this time. I commend the full body of the testimony to you and to others as perhaps one of the most comprehensive, statements that we have of Federal activity in elementary and secondary educat ion. I also want to comment very briefly, before going into time testimony, on our statement about. our celebration toclay-t he 100th anniversary of the Office of Education. This will take place on the plaza outside of the Office of Education Building outdoors. Loudspeakers will be set up and various activities will go on. I believe the Secretary will say a few words. I will try t.o say a few words. WTe hope to hear, although we are not. 100 percent sure, from a very famous former school teacher and other people. WTe hope that the members of the committee will be able to come and take part in these ceremonies with us. They won't take Tong. They will start about. 12 :3() or very short] thereafter. There will be some music and other activities. Mr. Chairman and members of the comnniittee, 100 years ago today, President Andrew- Johnson signed into law an act. to establish a De- partment. of Education. The. functions of the Department were sev- eral: Collecting such statistics and facts as shah show the condition and progress of education in the several States and territories: Diffusing such information respecting the organizat ion and mali- agerne.nt of schools and school systems and methods of teaching as shall aid the people of the Fnitecl States in the establishment and maintenance of efficient school systems; and Otherwise promoting the cause of education throughout the country. In the past century, t.he Office of Education has, indeed, striven to "promote the cause of education." In so doing, it has grown consider- ably from the original Commissioner-who earned the munificent. sum of $4-,000 per annum-and his three clerks. Today the Office of Edu- (at.ioml has a. staff of nearly 2,8(.)() and an annual budget of almost $4 billion for the administration of over Th educational programs. As indicated by the dollar and staff growth, the functions and responsibilities assigned by law to the Office of Eclucatiomi have been increased significantly over the decades and 1)articullar]y in the past few years, and, I might acid, particularly through the endeavors of this committee. It is a pleasure for me to appear before you this morning to discuss and support the administration's legislative 1)roposals as embodied in the Elementary and Secondary Education Amendments of 1967, H.R. 6230, which represent a further broadening of functions as well as a renewal of some expiring existing authority. Before .1 detail these legislative pi'oposals, however, I should like to highlight some of the accomplishments of the past year by State PAGENO="0088" 82 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDTJCATION AMENDMENTS and local educational agencies under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. This important piece of legislation has had a profound impact on the educational system of this Nation. Programs conducted under its authority have reached, directly or indirectly, nearly every school- child and teacher in the country. Last year, President Johnson noted that. "Educational deprivation cannot be overcome in a year. And quality cannot he achieved over- night." But I feel we have come a long way in our efforts to provide high quality educational opportunity for all. First. of all I would like to comment. on title I of the act. We have recently completed a study of the first year's operation of title I of the act-a study drawn from the reports from the several States-of each State~s experience. It is clear from this study that there has been very wide participation in the benefits available under that act. Some 25,0()0 local educational agencies were eligible to receive funds, and 17~481 of them actually participated. We have given you in the appendix A of this testimony a breakdown of all of the major cate- gories of expenditure for the fiscal years 1966 and 1967, so that you (an see exactly the kind of things to which this money is going. One of the potei~tia1 problems iii administering a ~)rogram of this size is that communication with teachers and administrators of the State and local level is a massive enterprise. in itself. Trying to get the prnper policies set forth by the Congress carried out has been a major job for us. We have worked hard on this. We have set up a number of special arrangements to communicate at the State level, to help the States communicate at the. local level. WTe have special arrangements hi being for interpreting the program in the 21 largest cities-working with the State departments when we do that. We held a conference last. July to which we invited some 500 edu- cators from all over the Lnited States to meet here in Washington to examine how the program was going. Mr. Perkins was able to give considerable time. at that conference himself. The President of the United States attended it, as did the Vice President. It was, I think, a most successful affair and resulted in a good deal of useful commu- nication about the operation of title I. We are submitting a copy of the report of that. conference for the record here in this committee. (The report referred to follows :) PAGENO="0089" Wational Confeiéhce on GEducation 7Jisadvantaged 83 PAGENO="0090" 84 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDFCATION AMENDMENTS DISCRIMINATION PROHIBITED-Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 states: "No person in the United 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 receiving Federal financial assistance." Therefore, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, title I program, like every program or activity receiving financial assistance from the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, must be operated in compliance with this law. The National Conference on Education of the Disadvantaged was sponsored b The Office of Education U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welf~ Harold Howe II, Commissioner of Education Arthur L. Harris, Associate Commissioner for Elementary and Secondary Education John F. hughes, Director Division. of Compensatory Education J. Rupert Picott Conference Director PAGENO="0091" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDt1~CATION AMENDMENTS 85 Title 1, Elementary and Secondar\ OE-37004 Education Act of 1q65 Wational Confeiêhce on GEducation oft~ ¶Jisadvantaged Report of a National Conference Held in Washington. D.C., July 18-20, 1966 l.~. Department of health. Education. and ~ elfare Uflice of Education John V~ Gardner. ~ecre!arv Ilarold Ilowe II. (omniis.cioni'r PAGENO="0092" 86 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDtCATION AMENDMENTS The /~resu!ent widresses the Conterence at the Second General Session. PAGENO="0093" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 87 The White House STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT I have asked the U.S. Commissioner of Education. Harold Howe II. to call a national planning conference in Washington. July 18-20. on education for disad- vantaged children. The program provided by Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 has been started and the funds for this fiscal year dispersed in an unusually brief span of time. Its value has been clearly demonstrated. There are 7 million children who are receiving a better education this year because our State and local school systems moved swiftly and with ingenuity to use these funds. We must now assure ourselves that progress is universal. The gains made in some schools can be duplicated throughout the Nation if sie exchange information and ideas quickly. To this end I have suggested to Commissioner Howe that he invite the chief education officer of each State to name a four-man delegation to the conference. This delegation would be comprised of the States Title I coordinator, a representative from a State college or university, and a representative each from an urban and a rural area. The conference will provide a working environment for exchanging ideas and exploring new methods of educating the children of povert~. It can concern itself with problems discussed in the report of the National Advisory Council on Education of the Disadvantaged. I have asked Commissioner Howe to make the results of the conference known to all State educational agencies. and I hope this meeting will be the forerunner of a series of similar conferences in each State before the fall school opening. We can- not rest until every boy and girl who needs special help in school receives it in the most effective, imaginative form that American ingenuity can devise. MAY 24. 1966. PAGENO="0094" 88 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS Thin report n the National Conference on Educa- tori 1 the Di-adsantined te-tiflee to the -pint of honest 5 Ui rc which inot rated t heco nference participants. It i-. in fact, a striking trihote to the candor and in- tegnitr ~f American educatore.e ngaged in a search for laetinn oolution- t the educational problems of our time. If the report appearS to for u- on ohortcomings in our -choole. this tn hecao'e u r educator- recognize that -elf-examinatin. rather thin eelf-cinnratulation. pro- ide- the ken to pronres-. I think it is clear. howeser. that throunhoot the Nati (jn. .American teacher- are naming neii insights into the educational proress and are neeking. dud finding. ii as to niake all our children more successful in the schools. The spirit of change and progress which marks uur schools today has been greatly stimulated by Federal irograins established under the Elementary and Sec- ondary Education Act of 1965. It is my hope and be- lief that this conference, and the printed summary of its proceedings, will be a provoratise and refreshing stimulus to further progress. I extend my heartfelt thanks and congratulations to the conference participants for their enthusiasm, their perceptiveness, and their productive deliberations. It uould be impossible for me in this short space to name all the others who gave so generously of their time. talent. and energies to this large undertaking. I can only sa~ that I am most grateful to all persons. both ssithin and outside the IS. Oflice of Education. siho contributed to the success of the conference. HAROLO HOWE II. U.S. Commiaaionec of Education FOREWORD JULY 28, 1966. PAGENO="0095" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 89 CONTENTS FOREWORD. INTRODUCTION...... Section I. SUMMARY OF PANEL DISCUSSIONS Using Title I To Produce Change The School Views the Child-and Vice Versa How Much Can Schools Really Do? Training and Reorientation of Teachers Getting Help for Teachers. What Approaches to Curriculum and Learning? involving Parents and the Community. Research and Evaluation . Section II. SPECIAL PROGRAMS Title 1 and School Desegregation V Title I and the Performing Arts: Some Possible Approac1ie~ 17 Section III. MAJOR ADDRESSES . . . 53 Opening General Session The Vice President ol tile United States. Dr. Ralph W. T~ier . Second General Session `[he President of tile United States. `[he t~ S Commissioner ol Educa. non 66 Section IV. COMMENTS 111 PANEI,ISTS 10 14 18 22 24 29 33 60 65 APPENDIX ES 81 &: Program Outline 83 37 13: Discussion Panels 84 vi' PAGENO="0096" PAGENO="0097" As any multimillionaire will testify. "Making the first million is the hardest:' As any educator concerned scith Title I of the Elementars and Secondar~ Education Act scill readily paraphrase it, "Spending the first bil- lion is the hardest." The National Conference on Education of the Disad- vantaged convened less than 365 days after America made its first Federal commitment-in cash-to start sciping out inequality of opportunity in the schools. More than 400 educators, us scell as professional al- lies and critics, gathered at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington. Among them scere the Title I coordina- tors from each of the States. a hardy group that stands in the eye of a national horricane. weathering conflict- ing demands and expectations, vet upon which the Na- tion depends to pilot it over an uncharted sea, Although Title I is regarded as an oction program, it is, like early phases of the space program, a huge under' taking in ceseocch of the totally unknown. Perhaps one day soon a conference on education of the disad- vantaged will be characterized by a competitive ex- change of success stories and answers. This year's con- ference, first in perhaps a long series, certainly was not. It was hardly even an exchange of questions. It was a scorch for questions. At this early stage. the main ttuestion that emerged was not. How do you proceed? hot. Where do you begin? If everyone agreed-as almost everyone did-that change is imperative and orgent. almost no one was sure of where change should properly start. Must change begin with the teacher, the principal, the superintendent, the school hoard? Do sou begin in the school lunchroom by insuring a good breakfast as fuel for a healthy mind? Do you begin with parents, teaching them to read stories to the young and to spur the ambitions of the nearly grown? Do you begin with community action. trying to restore the confidence of the alienated in a societs that claims to guarantee health care, police protection, a right to free choice of good housing. and equal opportonitv to work for a lit ing? Or is the question purely one of improving the skills of pedagogy? Do you begin with the mind of the child? About half of the conference tias coniposed of educa- tional professionals directly engaged in planning or ad- ministering title I projects. They numbered four from each State-usually the State Title I coordinator, a uni- versity education specialist, and too administrators or teachers directly engaged in a Title I project. site urbati and one rural. The remaining half of the cotifecence consisted of out- siders-Government officials in education and related fields. cominunits action specialists, civil rights leaders. and officials of naior educational srganizatiotts. At times the conference tias divided, as though in debate, by a loosely definable litte. Community action specialists and civil rights leaders pressed for dramatic change in the structure of schools. To them, the evi- dence clearly added up to a gross failure of the schools. and therefore gross change was mandatory Some of the school people present utiderstandably resisted this report card of blanket failure. If educational adjust- ments need to be nsade in keeping with new national expectations, they argued. experienced professionals are the most qualified to judge shat adjustments are necessary and how to make them. The ntamntoth in- stitution of public education, they said, cannot be up- rooted ovcrttight: old institotistis are capable of pro- ducing new kitids of behavior for new needs. When at times the words grew hot, the listening cor- respondingly gretc more alert. It was not a debate which anyone icon or lost. It sas an interpenetration of ideas front tllverse vantage Is sits. It is safe to say that no conferee went honte stithont a deeper nnder- standing of the coniplexities in o-hich lie is engaged. The spirit of the Conferences as effectively kesnotctl by Vice President Hubert H. Huntphrev in a stirring address at the opening tiight's banquet. He called upoit the delegates to help close the gajt between the real and the ideal iii edocation-"an educational sys- tem that will train. cather thait chain, the htninati mind that will uplift, rather tItan depress. the hmunman spirit: that m~ ill illumimiate. rather than oltscttrt'. tltm- path to wisdont : that sill help t'cecv ntemler if ~ot it'ts tim tlmc' fnll use of his natural talents.'' At the secottd night banquet, delegates- tcerc honored tcith a surprise twit lv tIme President of the I ttitcd State', uho emphasized the high priority of tlte work INTRODUCTION Dl 75-402 0 - 67 - 7 PAGENO="0098" 92 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS of the conference in the great range of national commitments. A final icr I about the structure of this report: Con- ferees "crc .iseigned to discuesion panels each panel to onsider ne if four topics: I. Diagmois of the Prob- leni: II. Strateniee for Action: Ill. tome Effective Ap- rae hes: IV. Alohilizino ()ur Resou rces. Each sub- ject had not ne. hut tis panels charged ith discus- sing it. The thought ii as that. hecau-e one mix of human beings is unlike anc other, two panele on any -object might produce t ousa luahie sets 0f s iewpoints and ideas. Each panel was enriched by six or seven uuest tianehisto o h presented short tiapers on experi- ences or theory o ith ohich thes ocre identified. Each is as served be con -ultanto froni the [ .S. Office of Edu- cation or come other (use rnnie nt agency. In aihihit in. t iso stied al pea p discussions ui-re ar ranged: Title I and .~chss / I)eoegrcgatzon. and Tit/e / and the Pcrtoeniing .1 cm. For a very good reason. section 1 of this report. schich summa rice- the debt panel discussions, does not foil oiv a panel-he-panel narrativi' forniat. The en- tliusiasni if thi' conferees. the freedom 0f disinssion. ,uul tI o' very iii terrelationship of all aspects of the suhs- ject matter caused the panels to exceed the confines of their titles and to touch on most aspects of educating the disadvantaged. To provide a logical grouping of related discussions. therefore. section 1 is divided into eight topics of prom- inent concern. Panel reports have been broken up and distributed within these eight topic reports. Under each topic. material is arranged in a sequence suggested by the flosc of information. It is believed that this for- mat svill enhance the report's usefulness both to the participants and to others seeking to discover the real spirit and substance of the discussions. If the discussion recorded in the subsequent pages alipears useful and lively. nsuch sif the credit is owed to the distinguished group of pauiel chairmen. And, rich as the discussion was, its usefulness to others would have been lost is ithoot the skilled lalsors of eight sum mare writers, each an experienced and professional craftsman, and of the conference's editorial director. Bernard Asbell. usho collated and edited their work. The chairmen. summary is riters. panelists, and con- sultants are identified in the panel lists appended tc this report. -a PAGENO="0099" Section 1. SUMMARY OF PANEL DISCUSSIONS Using Title I to Produce change Panel IVA Participants agreed that the poor of America, de- spite the potential of programs such as Title I of the Ele- mentary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 ESEA) - still have little reason to believe they matter as human beings. The disadvantaged, adults and chil- Iren, are failing in the educational system, and the educational system is failing them. Participants agreed that there are many roadblocks o educational reform. "If you're going to lead, you're going to have to cope with power." said panelist Mario D. Fantini. program associate, the Ford Foundation. `You need to be re- sponsive to other sources of poser and mobilize them. ~`ou have to be the internal agent of change. The edu- :ator needs power if he wants to lead, and he does not save power today." Dr. Fantini, who directed Ford's 1962-65 Madison ~rea Project in Syracuse, New York, public schools. `isserted that change can be effected through a "mutant ~roup" which can "carve out a piece of the bureauc' acv." \~ bile acknowledging that "we have no svs- ematic internal system for change in the big bureaucra- ies," he said programs like Title I can be used to `create a subsystem for change." He said that as a result of the Ford project, under ehich a much broader effort labeled "Crusade for Op. ortunity" has succeeded the original S160,000 pro- ram, "half of Syracuse, in 3 years. is radically differ- nt.' Educators, he said, could expect similar results n their own communities if they used their Title I allo- ations as a catalyst for change. "At the end of 5 to 10 ears," Fantini said, "we could have a different process for teaching children." He added: "I would like to see his money going into education serve as change money. lVe've built into our [educational] program a kind of remedial approach, a kind of strengthening what is. rhis is not going to be the payoff. I am hopeful that eople here can begin to use the new money not for strengthening what is, but for changing what is." Margaret G. Dabney, professor of adult education at Virginia State College, asked Dr. Fantini if the strategy he recommends would work "in different parts of the country where we are faced with total conservatism at all levels." He replied, "I look on every crisis situa. tjon as a chance for change. We should not just hang aid onto a system hut we should use aid as an agent for change." He emphasized that he believes Title I people are the only group capable of setting in motion a large. scale program for producing a "steady search machin- ery" to change the schools. Mrs. Dabney agreed that "we get hung up on a band' aid type of operation. We need to talk about a creative restructuring of the whole business," Panel chairman John L. Cleveland, Title I coordina- tor for the Berkeles I California I nified School Dis- trict, concurred. "Whatever goals sse have set for dis- advantaged kids, they have not reached them." he said. `If I said there's a bomb under us right now, you'd make it. baby. - . . Educationally, we do have a bomb under us, under our whole educational system. "The point is that we have no choice-whether we're going to lay the groundwork for change or sit around and be changed. We're failing. We don't have the answer. Eighty percent of these kids are going doscm the drain. `. . . We've got to do the job quick or the whole system is going to blow up on us," Panelist John J. O'Neill, dean of the Graduate School of Education at Rutgers 1. niversit~, said that "the ques' lion of the power structure is essential" in considering reform in the schools because "the schools always do s-hat the culture wants." He said he was hopeful that colleges and universities can come up with some an- swers. "I think we have a staging area." he said, "but we don't have a beachhead and sse don't have a perimeter." What is lacking, participants agreed. is a full'scale commitment to the poor which would not only serve to improve their education and lives but would also instill in them a conviction of self-worth that should be their birthright. Mrs. Dabnev reminded the group that "most of us could recite the psschological principles of poverty. So. sh~ are we here? It's because these facts and principles and concepts really haven't worked their say into our guts." Jule Sugarman. Deputy I)irector. Project Head Start. U.S. Office of Economic Opportunity OEO I. said much responsibility rests with the administrator. "It's 93 PAGENO="0100" 94 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS been my experience that the most critical element is the any at the top of the organization.' he said. "A lot can he done by fiat A lot can he done by incentive and encoaragenient. and recoenition of effort. `This says a lot for the process of getting leaders. If a e're coing to have any massive intervention into the problems of the poor. we've got to find ways to get good people into key spots in leadership roles, There is a tremendon~ premium on the character of the person who is leading. A program won't work unless the per- ~on at the top is receptive to it" Chairman Cleveland added that Title I presents op' portunities which have never before been available to the administrator and teacher on behalf of the children icho heretofore have simply been problem children. `A good thing aboat Title I." he said, "is that you ilon't have to wicceed. You just base to tn something new.' Panel IA Panelist Philip \Iisntez. State President, Association if \Iexican.American Education, Los Angeles, Calif., told of an experiment with a group of alienated Hebrew and Mexican.American children in Los Angeles. Money was made available under Title I for the teachers to involve themselves at the community level. here I saw a teacher sitting with three or four kids drinking a coke. . . . talking their jazz. talking their lingual . . . This teacher in this prngram has been allowed time to participate with individual kids on things that are important to them. being willing to accept the threat of maybe entering into a world that she or he doesn't really understand. I think this is crucial in education today," Another panelist. Arthar Pearl, Professor of Educa' tion. University of Oregon. said that the poor were "locked out" of our societs and Title I could be used to change this situation. "The fact of the matter is right now, today, a Negro with a college education makes less money than a white person with a 10th grade education in this countn." he said. "The unemployed rate sith Negroes iith less than high school education is just the sanie as if they had a high ~chool edacation. "Now, you have got 51 billion that can be used to start changing the world for people who are locked out. . . . The p iint is that out of . . . Title I you can hire poor people to teach. And you can start opening up the world for them." Panel lilA iilea is, the niore likely that it will do some good." The participants were confused as to what innova- tioii was supposed to mean and whether the ideas should be neic per se or simply new to their school districts. Consultant Nolan Estes. Director. Division of Supple' ineiitarv Plans and Services. Bureau of Elementary and Secondary Education. U.S. Office of Education 1OE1, outlined four essential steps for innovation: reseateh or inquiry. development, diffusion, and utilization. A question arose: Why concentrate on the innova- tive? Some contended that Title I presents an oppor' tunity to get funds for old ideas that have not been tried in a school system previously because the money has never before been available. Such ideas, while old to the field, would be new to such a system. Another contention was that innovative ideas usually eequire the kinds of specialized personnel that are hard to find and harder to train. In partial answer, it was suggested that. once Title I innovations are introduced. old parts of the curriculum that have not worked be eliminated, freeing the staff and equipment for the new programs. It was further advised that "our additive approach will run out. We need adaptive procedures because otherwise we'll run out of space, personnel, materials, and everything else." The similarity of Title I projects was discussed, and some effort made to trace hack tlThir source. In at least one instance a publishing house has sent out a model proposal which, in turn, has been widely copied. The Federal guidelines and model proposals sent out by some of the States have been taken as gospel by some school systems and have been followed like blueprints. One reason for this is that, in the early stages of Title I. time was short and personnel to write proposals scarce. The participants expressed a desire for help in working up proposals and advice from coordinators and from college faculty in developing ideas. This discussion got into the role of the Title I coordi- nator. Is the coordinator's function simply to see that the proposal is in order and pass it along for approval? Or is he to act as an innovator, encouraging superin' tendents and others to new ideas? There was no final agreement on the coordinator's role, although it was clear that some of the coordinators s'ere functioning as program developers with local school systems. A further, more basic question threaded its way through the meeting: Whether ideas that have failed in the past should be funded. An example was offered in the field of reading. Some 70 percent of all funded proposals are in the area of remedial reading, although remedial reading often has not been effective. Should the coordinator reject such proposals on the One participant advised that Title I money be spent on the radical and revolutionary, "for the wilder the PAGENO="0101" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 95 basis of past experience? One panelist likened it to "prescribing a larger dose of what we know doesn't cure." Another panelist concluded: "There has been stand- ardization of how to go about the job of writing pro- posals, but a lot of pedestrian stuff has been approved. What is needed now is encouragement and stimulation to get truly innovative ideas, because our old ways of educating fall a long way short.' Panel lB One delegate claimed that in his area teachers were using Title I remedial classes as a dumping ground for their problem students. Just as they had used vocational classes provided under the Smith.Hughes Act. Another delegate worried that it might not be possible to dislodge faulty crash programs if they were once established, Yet others were enthusiastic. Title I funds had enabled them to deal with elementary and obvious problems. "First things first" was the attitude of a rural Georgian school superintendent. We can see which children are suffering from malnutrition, he said, and feed them. We can find out who stay away from school because the~- lack warm clothes, and clothe them. We can provide glasses. Children are smart Con /erence Director Picott and HEW. Secretary Gardner greet the Vke President. PAGENO="0102" 96 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS and they can learn. There money now for hooks and libraries. Parents are a problem. but we are find- ing ways to iovolve them. cuch as recreational programs and visits from school people. His county. he said. was so back~~ ard the June bugo come in October:' but parents would be reached by oending a school visitor to homes. sitting on the back porch with them swatting flies, drinking buttermilk, and bragging on it. We'll have a change before se know it' Panelist Edmund \h', Gordon. professor of educa- tional psychology and guidance. Yeshiva University. agreed that many of the obvious but ordinary things that are being done are indeed good- He would not demean them. hut he would point out that they are di. rested at equalizing educational opportunity, and while that too is good. he suspected the crucial problem goes beyond that. Giving food and clothing, medical care, hooks, even little allowances permitting some to partici- pate who nmight not otherwise, does equalize educa- tional opportunity. It will make some difference. But it may not be sufficient to compensate fur the defi- ciences of the background from mihich the disadvan' taged child comes. Head Start, a tremendous innova- tion. may reduce the gap between the advantaged and the disadsantaged- But equalizing the opportunities. he ~aid. will not compensate for the differences. We Thould go Imevond equal opportunity to speciaJized op~ portunit~. Dr. Gordon was worried that current efforts mas prove to be both insufficient and inappropriate. "We did not cure the plague with blood letting. We did nut cure TB by drinking milk." Panel IHB A number of the participants felt that the first year of Title I has "produced money for action," and that it has already changed attitudes. \`ictor J. Podesta, saperintendent of schools. \`ineland. N.J.. said that prior to the paesage of the Elementars and Secondary Education Act "there u as little action in the classroom. TeacherS had been conditioned to expect failure, and had little outside contact u ith the problenis of the dis- ails antaued, Title I provided health care and food `-ervice: it lengthened the schooldas and decreased class size. Title I gase us mones to shake up programs and gave status to teaching the disadvantaged- You could always hire teachers for Evergreen School a middle- class school . but if s ou mentioned Lincoln School dis' advantaged . candidates would immediately become in- terested in the next town." Panelist Evans Clinchy. director of the Office of Pro- gram Development of the Boston Public Schools, de- scribed plans for a model demonstration subsystem within the Boston system. an attempt not at develop' ing scattered special programs for disadvantaged rhil' dren but at reshaping all aspects of a school, experi- menting with curriculum, differing teaching styles. and new- materials. The subsystem is now centered in one elementary and one junior school but will eventually be extended to the senior-high level, It includes trials with nongraded instruction, cultural enrichment, the development of close contact with parents and commu~ nitv, intensive work in language and arithmetic, and the provision of special resources and instruction in art, music. and dance leurythmicsl. Ultimately, it is hoped. the trials in the subsystem will influence prac' tices in other Boston schools and provide models for general change. Among other projects descnbed were- * Provision of mobile classrooms, each with separate living quarters for a teacher, to bring special services to the scattered rural areas of North Dakota, (Vivian Nurdby, county superintendent of schools, Amidon) * A special program in biology for ninth graders from rural schools conducted at a university in Puerto Bico. I Ismael Velez, director, Biology Department, San German * A demonstration project in Danbury, Conn., fo- cused on early childhood education, adult education, vocational training and special programs for the dis' advantaged, employing rented construction project trailers specially equipped by the school system, and using nonprofessionals as teacher aides. (Ernest E. Weeks, assistant superintendent of schools, Danbury) * An intensive remedial reading program at Virginia State College for the first-year students from disadvan- taged schools, using closed-circuit television and other media, reported to have raised reading levels 4 years in a year's duration. Barry Johnson, Virginia State Col- lege, Petersburg) * Provision of special equipment and study facilities for remote schools in Alaska; at the University of Alaska, anthropology courses to train teachers for work in such schools. I Mrs. Winifred D, Lande, assistant director for State-operated Schools, Juneau) * A cluster of 23 projects in Minneapolis, including free breakfast and lunch programs for disadvantaged children, the use of tracher aides and home visitors, and the institution of a special noncredit summer school in which teachers "don't have to cover any body of ma- terial, they just teach." Donald Bevis, director of special Federal projects, Minneapolis) * The institution of summer remedial reading and enrichment programs. and the use of a mobile dental unit which, in 1965-66, served 1,000 children in Little PAGENO="0103" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 97 Rock, Ark. Paul Fair, deputy superintendent of schools, Little Rock) * The Michigan State Department of Education has contracted with the State universities for consulting assistance in technical services for local districts, and is conducting an inservice program for its own staff. Louis Kocsis, chief, elementary and secondary educa' tion, State Department of Education, Lansing) * Use of private preparatory schools for summer enrichment programs. (Edward Yeonians, National Association of Independent Schools, Boston, Mass. * Establishment of ungraded programs, introduction of a variety of special services, and the enlistment of community involvement in a pilot elementary school project at the Cleveland School, Washington. D.C. The hope is that through the institution of ungraded groups the necessity for remedial reading programs will be eliminated since all children may progress at their own speed. Mrs. Lorraine F'. Bivins. supervisor of Cleveland Elementary School. D.C. Public Schools, Washington * The "lighted schools" of Rochester, N.Y., involv' ing afterschool and evening programs conducted in churches and other facilities outside school buildings. Participants include college students and other volun. teers. The program focuses on reading instruction for disadvantaged children and adults, including family reading programs in which parents are taught to read to their young children. (Mrs. Alice Young, adminis. trator, Title I. ESEA, City School District. Rochester~ A number of these programs derived support from several sources. Connecticut. for example, has pro. vided State funds that supplement Title I allocations. There appeared to be a feeling that Title I has pro. vided opportunities never before available, that neces- sary action can now be taken. 9 PAGENO="0104" 98 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS The School Views the Child-and Vice Versa Panel JIB Panelist Max Birnhaum. director of the Human Re- lations Laboratory. Boston University. put the overall problem in these terms: What we are now being asked to do is to find new and untried waco of inducing the disadvantaged sec- tions of the population to defer substantial gratification orer a lonc period of time-even'past college c grad- oate school-and to suh'titute the pleasures derived school achievement for those w filch correspond immediately to life needs. The crucial question really is: Hosc can we expect a lower class population to adopt-overnight--middle' class values which accept deferment of imniediate needs uratificath ii in order to achieve a delayed and profit- able reward? The absence of this middle-class pattern of behavior has led many teachers to conclude that these children are -ineducable: -- Mr. Rirnbauni added. "Our most difficult problem is that school principals teachers, and other education leaders confront situations which their previous train- ing has not equipped theni to handle confidently or constructively." Another panelist. Edward Ligler. professor of psy- chologv. Yale I nisersits. noted in the same vein: "Dis- advantaged children are not motivated by what the nsiddle class takes for granted. The lower class child needs immediate and tancible reward. We need a cadre of experts is ho understand the poor. 1 have been struck by the nunibers f co pie who think thes own the poor. not just understand them:' Civil rights leader James L. Eurmer. president of the Center for Community Action Education. Washington. D.C.. also spoke of the alienation of the disadvantaged child. "in the Negro ghettos." he mui. "you often heur the people sas of themselves. `The nigger ain't nuthin: The disadi artaged youngster can not identify with the scorld outside the ghetto." "We are dealingS Dr. /.igier said. "with the child scho expects to fail. ~ ho has no confidence. it is a reflection of hiow hole stance toward life:' Punel lIlA In his presentation. Edscard Ii. fort. Division of In~ struction. Detroit Public Schools, concentrated on what he called "attitudinal predeterminism." Teachers and administrators he contended, hold attitudes that work against disadvantaged children learning in school, One prevailing attitude, he said, is that many Negro children are intellectually inferior and therefore can- not compete. This becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy as the child lives up to the teacher's expectations. Another thesis is that children from the inner ctts need a different kind of education, They do not have the opportunity to behave as normal kids, They are given "social promotions" and scatered-down curricu- luni. The student. in turn, quickly learns the "poor child syndrome" and blames his environment for his inability to learn or even try. Dr. Fort suggested a variety of moves to change such attitudes: * Programs should be established with curriculums relevant to students' real interests. * Increased levels of expectation for children should be built into Title I projects. He cited the example of a class in San Francisco where the teacher was told that the students' IQs were much higher than they actually were. In the experiment, the students' IQs actually improved as much as 10-20 points.) * Administrators and teachers should learn more about the backgrounds of the children and treat them as individuals. * A control system should be set up to avoid weak- ness. overindulgence, mistrust, and hostility on the part of teachers toward disadvantaged students. One participant suggested that the issue raised by panelist Fort is hostility and no programmatic change is going to attack it. Another suggested that academic retardation of the disadvantaged is a fact. The teacher is put in the position of being either weak or punitive. "We have to face the fact and then get to the point of where we go from here." Others felt that some teachers expect far too much of children. For instance, seventh graders who cannot read primers stili use seventh'grade books. "The teacher should know the structure of what she teaches so that she can work with the rhild at whatever level of ability he presents." Another participant said: "We need help on how to think outside of stereotypes about the disadvantaged. 1 ii PAGENO="0105" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 99 There is an enormous range among homogeneous groups of kids. We need a better understanding of individual differences and of which differences don't make any difference." Panel lB Philip M. Hauser. professor of sociology. University of Chicago. included schools in his list of social and political handicaps boriie by the disadvantaged child. He traced the Negro's inadequate preparation for urban life, moved through the "civil disobedience of State legislatures' (malapportionment and most State hous' ing and civil rights legislation (. the political fragmenta- tion of metropolitan areas making the suburbs an es- cape hatch for whites, a widespread lack of interest more serious than bigotry. segregation, and unequal opportunity (adding that schools contribute to the stratification of society). inadequate resources given education (8500 per child instead of St.000 (. the "rigor mortis" of the school establishment, the "timidity" of the Federal Government in facing Northern segregation. the lack of resources ("and sometimes even the will" in the Office of Education, and finally, the child him- self. "If you focus on the child only." Dr. Hauser concluded, "you will still have the problem a generation from now." Just what the focus should be was a matter of con- cern to many. Msgr. Arthur J. Geoghegan. superin- tendent of schools, Diocese of Providence, RI.. felt the problems of the disadvantaged were primarily the schools' business. "It is an instructional problem." he said. "The children are scell motivated when they come." "We're not beginning right:' said a delegate from the Virgin Islands. "We're beginning with the child. We should begin with the parents." "\\e're starting too late," agreed another. who felt Title I will prove only a stopgap measure, a sseak band'aid, if nothing else is done. The Office of Econonoc Opportunity and the Welfare Administration, he felt, should be stepping in before the child comes to school. Just what the focus should be was a niatter of par- ticularly grave concern to panelist Gordon. lie had re- cently finished a study ( for the College Entrance Exam- ination Board, to be published in September ( of com- pensatory edacation for the disadvantaged that had left him "kind of troubled." He was afraid the thinking behind the problems of the disadsantaged was inappro- priate. It is true, he agreed, that their problems are related to the structure of society. "but if sce focus most on extra-educational problems. those we are least pee- pared to deal with, sonic of the more basic pedagogical problems niay be missed," If educators were to act too much as "amaetur sociologists' they would fail to do a good job in their real area of competence. We tend to talk about the characteristics of the disadvan- taged across the board, he said. as if there were no variations among them. Yet there are great variations. Some interfere with their education, some occur fre- quently enough to merit generalization. but few are really useful to planning. He spoke of rehabilitation hospitals schere the principal facilities are programs for diagnosis. Hy contrast. "sic have not yet begun to specify special programs for special children." Disorganization in the child's family and in his ssork at school seem to go together, he agreed, but there is little the schools can do about family disorganization. The focus should be on education, on reading level. "on the problems we should knoss- something about," Yet. although it is clear that ness kinds of learning ap- proaches mould be more appropriate for the disadvan- taged than the basic curriculum. "there have been few nesc approaches to basic learning." He wondered if pedagogy has let itself become too distracted by other things. He suspected it is not trying to find new approaches. Panel IA Panelist Pearl accused the schools of failure to define "tolerable deviance-all differences are deprecated" and of dealing with rule violators (behavior problems by "segregating them out of the system. Punishment is not an effective deterrent, but iie olserate in the schools as if this were the only basis for controlling behavior." "What we have engaged in is a massive self- delusionary system. part of which is the basis that we think we are doing something for kids. And niost of what the school does right now - . . doesn't prepare them for the world in which sic live today. doesis't even prepare theni for the world that existed 30 years ago . . . and certainly isn't preparing for the world of tomorrow." Panelist Philip Montez pointed out the particular problens that the bilingual child has in the school systeni saying that the schools refuse tim accept the reality that thssusands of Anierican children cannot speak English when they are is kindergarten or first grade. "To ignssrc this realits is to predssom these children to failure. And educational statistics prove this is exactis is hat we are doing." Wilson C. Riles, panel chairman, director of compen- satory education. California State Department of Edu' 11 PAGENO="0106" 100 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS cation. summed it up thio way: `Teachers do the kind of job society demands and expects and they have done that well. But for the disadvantaged, society has not demanded that anything he done. Panel IIIB Hvman H. Frankel. director. Special Project on Ho- man Development. Southern Illinois University, as- serted that until the last decade we could feel comfort- able ssith our middle-class values and attitudes. Now teachers and administrators are being asked to perceive cultural differences and are asked to understand that ~ld measures are ineffective indexes of learning abil- its. The burden of responsibility for the failure to learn has shifted from the child to the school. Teach- ers and administrators must bear the brunt of this change.' \cceptance of responsihilits for Title I proj- cets. he said. requires a ness set of attitudes reflecting the belief that `the ability of children to learn is limited only by our skills as teachers and administrators." If attitudes cannot be changed. he added. "then narrow middle-class professionalism will return.' Panel IIA Misconceptions of the children's abilities have re- sulted from false interpretations of standard tests, said Paul I. Clifford, professor of education, Atlanta Uni- versity. He advised delegates not to abandon the tests, but recommended "their proper and relevant use within the most demanding confines of professional compe- tence, ethics, and maturity.' He suggested that, in light of the knowledge that these children are likely to re- spond differently. results of standardized tests are likely to reveal not the child's maximum capabilities, but `what and how much the child has been able to learn in spite of an environmental handicap." They reflect the `pathology of the minority culture" and the "floors of the child's capabilities," he noted, while, in reality, the "child's capabilities are infinite." In a separate discussion, the panel considered the possible negative effects of segregation on the educa- tional process- Dr. John A. Morsell, associate director of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, said a recent study by OE in compliance with section 402 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 will ~` ~- ti 1a~-- ~ Paul 1. Ciiftord diacusaea a strategy for action u-Oh conferees at the hA group meeteng. Othera seated at the head table are I left to eight Barbara Kemp, Marnin C. Cfine, Don Daries, John A. Morsell, James K. Mooch, and Thomas ft . Pyles Chairman 12 PAGENO="0107" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 101 exert a profound effect upon the course of thought and planning for education of the disadvantaged. It may svell he the niost important piece of educational re- search of our lifetime:' he added, noting that the studs confirms the pervasiveness of segregated education in every region of the country. The report, he stated. makes it plain that segregated Negro schools are on the whole inferior instructional institutions, and that "if a minority pupil from a home without much educa- tional strength is put with schoolmates with strong educational backgrounds, his achievement is likely to increase." One pupil-attitude factor, he said, appears to have a stronger relationship to achievement than to all other school factors together. This is the extent to which an individual feels he has some control over his own destiny. Among Negroes. Dr. Morsell said. "this char. acteristic is related to the proportion of whites in the schools. Those Negroes in schools with a high pro' portion of whites have a greater sense of control." Marvin C. Cline, assistant director, Institute for Youth Studies. School of Medicine. Howard University. commented that without breaking up the ghetto school, the "child of the ghetto will never be sure that he is sen- ously expected to enter the wider society; that the real standards of the wider culture are being applied to him: and that Ins successes are true successes in the true world of the whites and not in the debilitating twilight world of the ghetto." Dr. Cline urged that the central task of Title I is the break-up of the ghetto. "Segre. gation is a form of miseducation," another panelist stated. Panel IVB Panelist Adron Doran. president. Morehead State College. pointed out that special aid for eilucation of di~advantagcd children was an issue at the time the Eco. nomic Opportunity Act was under consideration. Back in 196.1. attempts %sere made to extend school aid to federally affected areas to include children of families receiving aid to dependent children for unemployment compensation. He also pointed out that the pattern of behavior of economically disadvantaged families is oriented toward: 1) individualism rather than mutual- sm: (2~ traditionalism rather than innovation: (3) fatalism rather than creativity: and (4) being passive recipients rather than active agents. Dr. Doran went on to emphasize that "teachers and administrators must be trained in the colleges and uni- versities to: 1 understand the individuals and groups with whom they must work in the educational process: 2 discover and accept new ways of working with groups and teaching children: 3 ( seek new ways and means of involving the families of the disadvantaged children as resources in the educative process: asid (4) learii better how to utilize and train noncertified per. soniiel to assist in the affairs of the classroom." James Wilson. Director. Indian Branch, OEO, im~ plored the assembled educators to recognize that the children of poverty think differently, have different needs and experiences, and are essentially different people. But Dr. Wilson cautioned the group not to be too quick in their judgments. He recounted the events of his childhood on an Indian reservation. He noted that the dirt roof of the log cabin in wFich he was reared was adorned with flowers 25 years before the national beautification program was conceived. 13 PAGENO="0108" 102 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS How Much Can Schools Really Do? Panel JIB Panel chairman Austin Haddock. director of Public Law 89-10. Oregon State Department of Education, in his opening remarks noted that the problem is a horren- dous one now and is going to get worse. "By 1976. if the population projections are at all ac- curate." Dr. Haddock said, fj~ percent of our popula- tion will be 18 years of age or under. Some 50 to 60 percent of the population between 18 and 22 will be in colleges of one kind or another. This means roughly that some 75 to 80 percent of the population will be under the direct physical control of the Nation's educators, "Are we ready for this awesome responsibility?" Haddock asked. "Obviously not. If we thought we were, we wouldn't be here." Or, Zigler emphasized the need for much more pro- vision under Title I for the kind of experience that takes children out of the school so that they can have a good time and learn through the gratification of new experi- ences. "We need to think in terms of something in addition to what we are doing which does not put a heavy burden on the youngster. It should be indirectly related to the school so that he goes back to school feeling that the school is more than just being confined in the classroom and working for grades." According to Carl Ma-burger. Assistant Commis- sioner for Education. Bureau of Indian Affairs, a critical issue is that of institutional change. Unless the institution of the school is adaptable to innovative practices and new programs. we simply phase these children back into the system and the same kinds of things take place over and over again. Charles Benson, professor of education. University of California at Berkeles. stated that studies have been made which demonstrate that you do not move quickly from an expenditure to some observable change in pupil behavior. Outcomes are dependent upon a num- ber of variables and we must be able to determine which combinations of activities yield results. Possibly it is necessary to work on certain strategic community variables like housing and employment. Panelist Marburger noted the demise of Higher Horizons, the exemplary cumpensatory education proj' ect which is now defunct. "I think it is important for us to take a hard look at our compensatory education programs and examine precisely what we are doing. Unless we bring evaluation and research to bear upon what we are doing, our own programs can go down the drain the way Higher Horizons did." Panel IIIB There was fundamental disagreement within the room regarding the past performance of American education; and on the degree that change was necessary. Chairman P. J. Newell, Jr.. assistant commissioner, Division of Instruction, Missouri State Department of Education, asserted that "American school systems have been a great success." American education, he said, has lacked resources and some children have therefore "been shortchanged." But, he added, "we have a system that we can be proud of, that can take its place in the world." The entire Title I program, he pointed out, "provides specific funds for specific kids in specific areas. We cannot restructure all of edu- cation with those funds even if we wanted tu. We can hope to make great strides as more funds become available. Panelist Robert L. Green, director of education for the Southem Christian Leadership Conference, asserted that the educational system "has been a sorry failure." that it has been "set up systematically to make second- class citizens of Negro children." Dr. Green said that "we have created disadvantaged yuuth. Short-term solutions are a waste of time. The issue is not merely the attitudes of teachers and administrators, it is the American attitude." He proposed that teachers and sehool adminisrators begin to take leadership not merely in education, but in molding community atti' tudes on housing, employment, and other social issues affecting the life of the Negro. Panelist Marvin Rich, executive director of the Scholarship, Education, and Defense Fund for Racial Equality, asserted that most enrichment programs fail 14 PAGENO="0109" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDFCATION AMENDMENTS 103 because they are fragmentary and irrelevant, and that most of the pilot projects `attempt to make the Negro child like white America. That child has to make it in the context of his own identity. We have to modify the existing curriculum, not add to it. We need better guidance from the earliest grades. We need materials more geared to urban life, material on civil rights, Negro history, African culture. The disadvantaged children fail because there is no reason to succeed. Given those conditions, apathy is the only proper response." And, he added, American schools are fail- ing for the nondisadvantaged. too: "Both groups are disadvantaged by an outmoded educational system." Mrs. Marie Duke, director of the Coordinating Coun' dl on Education of the Disadvantaged, New York, as~ sorted further that all separate local and State efforts are insufficient. "We need a massive onslaught na- tionally," she said. "The problem has a horrible uni- formity throughout the country. We have to bridge the gap between local, State and national efforts. With the mobility of the population this is a national responsi- bility. Let's start now and go to the public and inform them that the schools have to prepare children for the society as it is changing. Let's not begin with our own little separate problems." Panel IA The conferees agreed that not enough is being done, yet views ranged from "We've done nothing" to "We are doing something right." At one extreme was panelist Pearl: "We've done nothing. Most of the things we have done are wrong. What we have is cholera. The only thing is. some people survive it. We have no basis for preparing pen- pie for the world in which we live. We think we're doing something for kids but we don't prepare them even for the world of 30 years ago." Dr. Pearl suggested four major goals of education: To guarantee ever\ citizen a wide range of career choice. 2 To provide every citizen with the skills necessary for them to fulfill the duties of a citizen in a complicated democratic society. 31 To provide every- one with the basis of being culture carriers. "When we take a look about us and recognize that Bat Man is the most important cultural contribution that took place in this country last year, we recognize how desperately education has failed in this respect.") (4) To pro. vide people with the psychological strength necessary to survive in a mass society. Dr. Pearl felt that in none of these four areas were the schools anywhere close to reaching a simple minimal standard. At the other extreme was Jack McIntosh, director of compensatory education for the Texas Education Agency: "The impression is being left that nothing good is being done. I think that something is being done today. we're making progress." Mr. McIntosh cited Texas programs in which an ef- fort is being made to instill an appreciation of Mexican culture and of those things in it that ought to be pre. served and in which bilingualism in children is held as an asset, not a liability. Similarly. William H. Moore, Title I coordinator for the Arkansas State Department of Education, pointed to imaginative use of Title I funds in an Arkansas school system to help overcome community resistance to school Integration. Significantly, the conferees rejected suggestions that separate schools or school systems be created to deal with the special problems of the disadvantaged. The poor already have experienced too much segregation, they concluded, and a separate system would do little or nothing to help them. "We have our schools," said Howard Heding, profes' soc of education, University of Missouri. "All we have to do is make them work for all." Suggestions included an adult basic education pro- gram that would help poverty families understand the educational needs of their children, programs of com- munity involvement in school planning. and use of Title I funds to aid school boards in gaining community ac- ceptance of programs for the disadvantaged. Educators, it was suggested. number some 2.3 mil' lion and represent a significant power potential in American society. "They will have to exercise that power." said one conferee. Panel lilA The degree to which the schools have the responsi- bility for breaking the cycle of poverty came in for dis- cussion on the final morning of the conference. It was generally agreed that it is not the sole responsibility of the schools, which must work with other agencies. This led to a discussion of the role of Title I in ac- complishing desegregation. One participant pointed to the danger present if projects are used to prolong racial segregation. "To what extent is it within the coordi- nators' prerogatives to see how projects address them- selves to segregation?" he asked. Several participants stated their belief that the act is for the disadvantaged who need help, no matter who they are. Another point of view, using Commissioner Howe's speech of the previous evening as evidence, felt 15 PAGENO="0110" 104 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS John Henri Martin. Mildred Fitzpatrick Chairman), A. Harry Passow, Peter G. Kontos, and Edward B. Fort. the intent of Title I should be to bring children of different backgrounds together. One participant said the Commissioner should `put his regulations where his speeches are. In support of that thesis, another par. ticipant noted the triple coincidence of educational dep' rivation. racial segregation. and economic deprivation. And further support came from another who said, There is good educational justification for projects that have built-in integration elements." Yet another noted a danger in Title I projects that create separate. but-equal' education in the cities by having "too much happening in the ghettos. Panel lB The discussion group was in partial agreement on the political and social causes that have produced the dis. advantaged child, It agreed on the administrative problems encountered in bringing him help, and in its identification of specific educational problems such as teacher attitudes and learning difficulties. But when it came to the heart of the matter-whether the new programs initiated were going to help-agreement fell away. "What troubles me most about the disadvantaged," said a panel member "is that 5 years from now, when we look back and have to account for all the money we have spent, we may discover we really haven't solved the problem. Some may conclude nothing can be done." "We're on the road," said a delegate from Wyoming. "I think in a few years we'll be there." Frank L. Stanley, Jr., associate director for educa- tion, National Urban League, felt that among all the major institutions of the country, only the schools "have not moved to apply equality of opportunity." Thus, he said, "they may be the major force for re- ser'egation in America." His associate, Mrs. Harriet Reynolds, assistant director, Education and Youth In- centives, National Urban League, felt the school system can not be changed from within. Only outside pres- sure, "conferences like this and Federal bribes to make them teach who they're supposed to teach anyway" will help. ("Isn't there something good about our educa- tional system?" delegates asked.) A delegate from rural Georgia thought there would Group 111.4 listen.s intently to a question from the floor. Seated at the panelists' table (I. to r.): Kay Earnhardt, 16 PAGENO="0111" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 105 he chaos in his country if the Title I program ssere stopped. He could see the benefits. He believed there would be change. Others were more pessimistic. "I'm not sure that U.S. education is as effective as we like to think," pan- elist Gorden said. `We may have erased illiteracy in good measure, hut we do not have a literate population. In terms of what has been needed for sucvival in the past. the schools have met their responsibility." For the future, however. Dr. Gordon thought. the kinds of liberal arts courses that seem to be a luxory today will be necessary simply for survival. 17 PAGENO="0112" 106 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS Training and Reorientation of Teachers Panel JIB How does a teacher teach a child is-hose basic reac- tion is to relect him? That questi n in all of it' ramtfications cropped Uli rcpeatedlv in panel 1113. Although there was some disagrcement as to details. thcrc was no qaestion that teachers must be especially prepared for the tasks they face in lealinu with alicnatcd children. The group called not oak fr letter original preparation. hat for continuous insenice training. A~ Larry Cuban. director of the Cardozo Project in Irhan Teaching. (ardozi High School. Washington. D.C.. pointed at. "Business has retraining programs goinicon all the time- hut teacher education doeant. Teacher internship, he said, must he a real marriage of academic work and classroom training. Panelist Farmer coniinented that teachers have the most diflicult and most critical jobs in our society at this time. "A teachers empathy for students is vitally ins- portant. he said. "A sense of contempt on the part of the teacher rubs off very easily on pupils. The students themselves u ill become more involved with learning. have more confidence in themselves, if they believe the teacher thinks that they are important ..~nd. the more identity there is betis een the teacher and the student. the easier it is for the teacher to teach." Farmer touched off a heated reaction svhen he told the panel: "We are in a war. In a war. generals can't alloss' lieutenants to decide is here they w ill fight. Teachers ought to be assigned to the places where they can do the best job." There was no argtament about the necessity of getting first'rate teachers into ghetto schools. There ss'as general disagreement. however, with Farmer's proposal that they be assigned there. whether they like it or not. Homer Cooper. director, Social Science Hesearch Institute. lniversitv of (~corgia. declared: "One of the fesv freedoms teachers have is that of niobihity. They must he free to come and co. they shouldn't be trapped. We must find ways to motivate teachers to scant difficult assignments. but we shouldn't let superintend' ents assign them there." David Selden, assistant tsi the president. American Federation f Teachers, said: "Teachers will be relue- tant to enter the profession or stay in it if they fear they'll be assigned where they can't succeed, You can't keep them schere they will be continually con- fronted by failure. Give them a decent school. where they can succeed, autd they'll stay there. This is a long' range problem which can't he solved with gimnicky arrangements." Panelist Zigler called the assignment of teachers to the slums, as proposed by Farmer, "self.defeating." "Psychologists have shown." he said, "that the most common reaction to frustration is aggression. In this case it would be aggression against the children, a most harmful thing to the youngsters in their charge. We've got to retrain teachers to have different goals for different children. America doesn't run on Harvard and Yale graduates but on high school graduates. I would like to see teachers flock to these schools because they understand the disadvantaged children and their problems, and then they will find success." Mr. Cuban pointed out. "The earlier you take the preservice student going into education and work with him. the better retention rate you will have." In the Cardozo project in the District of Columbia. Cuban said. "four interns are assigned to one master teacher. With a constant dialogue between the in~ terns and the master teachers. we are able to telescope some years of training." Charles Benson wondered whether, since teachers "must live on success," we might try to redefine the criteria of success toward the end that it is measured less in academic performance of college'bound students. less on getting a certain number in a good college, and more in taking a class of children who are not perforn' ing well and trying to raise them substantially from that point. Mr. Selden pointed out, "A basic problem of slum schools is the shortage of teachers, but there is a tend' envy to evade it. We can't substitute a collection of teacher aides." Mr. Cuban suggested making "the inner'city school attractive-not with just more money and small classes-but by making it a professional institution, make it attractive professionally. We should make 18 PAGENO="0113" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 107 the inner city school a curriculum center and inservice training area where teachers scould scant to go.' To this Mr. Farmer replied: "We can't afford to wait until the schools become attractive and the teachers volunteer to go to the ghetto schools. Some of those who volunteer nosy do so because they think they can relate to these alienated children-bitt they can't. A superintendent svho assigns teachers to those schools can watch them and learn from them. and then make other assignments if necessary." Mr. Birnbaum suggested that perhaps one solution might be to get teachers as a group to volunteer for servO ice in the inner city schools, and find success as a group where they ioight not as individuals. How should teachers of the disadvantaged be ~srepa red? Morris F. Epps. superintendent of schools. New Brunswick. N.J.. said, "The real training of these teachers has to take place inservice." Glyn Morris. director of Title I. Board of Coopera- tive Educational Services. Lyons Falls. N.Y.. agreed: "There has to be inservice training. The teachers don't get what they need in teachers college. They get these kids in the classroom and want them to talk-and the kids just don't know how to verbalize." There was general agreement when William L. Lewis. general supervisor of Federal programs in Gary Pub- lic Schools. Indiana, suggested that there needs to be inservice training i'or administrators, too, particularly with regard to title I. But on the general subject of inoervice training, pan- elist Selden warned: "For Heaven's sake, let's don't get into the rut we were in 20 to 30 years ago when in- service training was a kind of degree.credit mill." Panel lB Dr. Hauser asserted that teachers are too middle class to communicate with the disadvantaged "middle-class persons trained in middle-class institutions" . He felt the solution is to change their curriculum, give them enough social science, history, and psychology so they can understaud the background of the disadvantaged child, and train them in the disadvantaged areas with the disadvantaged children. A delegate from Con- necticut thought this oversimplified, that a few addi- tional courses would not help. "The problem is the teacher's motivation." he said, and that is formed be- fore their training begins. Teachers, he said, are too security conscious. The notion that teachers are middle class, said Mrs. Reynolds, is a myth. They are newly middle class. 19 not secure, afraid to look back, afraid to rock the boat. afraid to relate to the lower class from sihich they have just emerged. Yet the use of volunteer teachers who might relate is blocked by the educational system. She rebutted criticism from school authorities who com- plained that Title I came too late in the year for them to hire the people they scanted. "You limited your- selves to certified teachers.' she said, adding that in Indiana the school authorities hired retired teachers to help with dropouts. the ones whose very techniques had caused the schools to lose these students in the first place. "We have to stay svithiii the law." said a State delegate. "We have to change the laws." replied Mrs. Reynolds. One of the delegates. who felt with Kenneth B. Clark. professor of psychology. Cit., College of New York. that the teacher's attitude is "the critical factor" in reaching the disadvantaged child. ssanted to knosv what is being done about it. She was told of workshops in Indiana, sshere it is felt chaiiges in attitude are taking place. of programs in Yirginia. now in their second year. where teachers are learning to recognize their attitudes and discovering their effect on teaching, and of teachers in Fort Sill, OkIa., who themselves requested inservice training. A delegate from Indiana said counties there had stretched the guidelines a bit, working with the teachers first to develop understanding, and waiting until fall to start programs. One delegate drew a parallel. "We had this problem with teaching the mentally retarded for years. Now teachers of the mentally retarded have status. Ghetto teachers don't," Another held universities should share the blame. There were those who felt they have no problem with teacher motivation. One was in charge of disadvan- taged schools. Our teachers are scilling. he said, we're holding no gun in their back. "And the young ladies who come out of the colleges s ou criticize." he added, "are bringing many valuable ness techniques." But a superintendent from Mississippi felt that teacher orientation is a problem. "We don't change people overnight." he said, and disagreed with those who think the superintendents are responsible by not taking the lead. "I work for the school board, I don't knnis who you work for." he said to his critics. Change will come but it will have to be a matter of degree. "We cannot afford to disrupt the education program or oc o ill defeat the sery people sve are trying to help. We have to go slowly. I don't please the 75-492 0 - S7 - PAGENO="0114" ~O8 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS civil rights groups. I dsnt please the white group- either. A delegate from W's oming also felt it C a matter of ilegrre. and that they are on the road toward attitude chance. In one oroup of teachers, each had promised as ork this scar with the ssorst pupil in her rlasn. Next sear. 0 wonld bess ith the worst two csr three. But a nan who had taught for a sear in a Bnston vluni school as a~ pessimistic. "The teachers there are defeated, disappointed. hoth the young and the old: UnIv 4 out of 41) can be said to have enthusiasm. As result. he ssould not want to pick teachers at random to teach the shisadvantaged. "In Boston. we hare to h. se caref'allc where the money goes." Panelist (cordon felt the answer lies not so much in attitudcs as in providing the teacher with effective metk ols. "If one pots methodolgv in the hands of teachers. it prohah~ has a stronger impact than exhortation." he said. It is çosssible to talk to people and to touch them, he agreed. It is also possible that acquainting teachers ith the background lives ol the disadvantaged would have some effect. "When a teacher is helped to sue- cecil. she loses her negative attitude," On the other hand, if she is faced svith repeated failure, she will find it hard to retain ans positoe attitudes. The key question remained. "Who is going to teach the teacher~ of the disadvantaged, and what are they come to teach 7" Panelist Jacob Silverherg. chief psychologist. Slemoriai Cuidance Clinic, said it is clear lrom experience in Bichioond that there are not many people ssho km sc what to teach the teachers. Aside from courses in comparative culture, anthropology', and so on. `we still have t owo rk directly svith the child:' Panel lEt Don Dacie-, executise secretary .N ational Commit' tee on Teacher Education ansI Professional Standards. National Education Association, suggested that teacher preparation should he viewed as a whole, as a process which starts sometime in college, and continues through a period of supervised practice or internship, into the early and formative years. and throughout a teacher's career, He urged that teacher preparation he a joint responsibility of the school and the college. and that the concept of staff develcspment be a broad one. It shoulsl include more than courses for credit and sum- oser institutes: it should include a variety of planned activities i formal and informal . travel, independent study, iso rk experience, work on curriculum and teach' ing materials, and, eenerally. be tailored to the needs of the individual teacher. He noted that many teachers in disadvantaged schools are alienated not only from their children but also from other members of the pro- fession, and from the colleges and the community. "Vii u don't change these deep.seated attitudes by lectur- ing tss people about how they ought to love all the children." He urged that inservice programs be con- ducted within the community where the teacher works. Dr. Davies suggested putting all teachers in disad' vantaged schools on a 12-month contract and involving them heavily in developing strategy: setting aside 10 percent of Title I money for next year. and awarding it to individual teachers on the basis of proposals they submit for doing things in the classroom and commu- nity: supporting the concept of "the teacher and his staff" with the teacher as the central figure in a staff of supporting personnel, including teacher aides: limit- ing classroom activity of new teachers to no more than half time. the remaining time being devoted to study. and the observation and preparation of materials; and removing institutes for teachers of the disadvantaged from the university campus and putting them in slum schisols in slum communities. Panel IIIB A number of speakers pointed out that education of disadvantaged children has always suffered from a lack of personnel and from the teacher's perennial difficulty in dealing with 30 or 35 children, meeting all curricu- lar and administrative requirements, and simultane- ouslv attempting to give individual attention to all pu- pils. `Teachers need time to do things." said Vernon A. Staggers. director of Federal programs for the Mm' eral County W. Va.) public schools. "We need time to evaluate. I know that a teacher can do a better job with 20 kids than with 30." Although some of the panelists disagreed regarding optimum class size, there appeared to be no dissent from the ideas that teachers nerd extra help and that nonprofessionals can be used more widely and wisely. Panel IVA Jack W, Hanson. Title I administrator, Minnesota State Department of Education, said that until the job of teaching the disadvantaged is viewed in a mure posi- tive light the effort will continue to fail. "How in the world;' he asked, "can we teach teachers to like kids who stink and swear and spit and with whom they can't identify ?" Panelist Dabnry said that few undergraduate teacher' education programs stress anthropology courses to help teachers understand the disadvantaged. Instead, she said, teacher-education curricula help maintain so- ciety's overall rejection of the pour. "It's very impor- 20 PAGENO="0115" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 109 tant how the teacher perceives the child," she said, "because her perceptions are the facts out of which she operates." Panelist Fantini also criticized teacher preparation. "I find that curriculum stocks up on content that tells us about the disadvantaged." he said. "Teachers come out and say. `All right, I know that. Now, what do I do?' They still lack the technology of implementa. tion.' Alva H. Dittrick, deputy superintendent of Cleveland, Ohio, schools, was more hopeful. "We have seen in Cleveland that you can change the attitudes of teach- ers," he said. "The key to it is staff development." Howe Hadley, dean, University of South Alabama. added that administrators, too, should receive inservice training in this area. John W. Albertv, director of Title I. Missouri State Department of Education, said he isas unconvinced that teachers are doing a bad job. "As long as we keep emphasizing what we're not doing. we're going to get a bad job," he said. "I don't mean that we should over- look the failures. But we should get enough space in the paper for what we're doing right as for what we're doing wrong." Mrs. Dabney noted that "the whole teaching profes- sion is having role and status problems. . . . Now teachers find themselves embattled. Their failures are submitted to public view. We need to help teachers overcome this threat." She added that "there is a high risk value in teaching, but the risks are hidden. It is a question of opening up life or not." Panel uk Several of the participants suggested ways to change teacher attitudes toward the deprived. One such change would involve setting up demonstration Proj. ects in schools and districts so that other teachers could see disadvantaged children actually learning with a good teacher. Teachers who are successful could be employed as models to work with other teachers. Another way would be for teachers to tell one another what works for them. "Every teacher has a little hit that works in a particular class. We need to put those pieces together." Chairman John L. Cleveland 1.), John I. O'Neill, and Marw D. Fantini give attention to Jellow paneli.ct Margaret C. Dabne~y during the/VA discu.ssion. 21 PAGENO="0116" 110 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDLTATION AMENDMENTS Getting Help For Teachers Panel IIIB A major portion of the discussion centered on ways of opening schools not only to new ideas but to new people-teacher aides and other paraprofessionals-to relieve the regular staff of clerical and custodial duties. One participant urged that schools must stop acting as closed shops. fearful of community involvement and of the presence of nonprofessionals within academic arvis Barnes. assistant superintendent of the At- lanta public schools, said schools must come to accept the presence of subprofessionals as teacher aides and in other capacities. `We've been keeping them out:' he said. "We've been trying to do too much." Such people, it was felt, would not only relieve teachers of clerical and custodial duties, they would also bring to the schools new insights and ideas. The panelists .igreecl that the social and economic backgrounds of non- tofessionals cr paraprofessionals are not as important as a desire two rkw ith disadvantaged youngsters and a training program for preparing them. Panelist Frankel said subprofessionals should be recruited and trained with a career orientation, that they should be carefully screened and evaluated, and that their use requires the sustained involvement of administrative persotinel" Panel lIB Panelist Cuban said that next year 30 boys, poten- tial high school dropouts. will be trained as teacher aides at the elementary school level. They will be paid for their morning work, and their academic work in the afternoon will he related to their morning experience. Panel 1k Perhaps the most unusual proposal came from pan- elist Pearl: he proposed using students as young as 16 years old as teachers, giving them advanced and pro. fessional education as they teach. In this way, he said. education would cultivate more and better teaching talent and at the same time open opportunities hitherto unavailable to the disadvantaged. Education and the Nation's other "growth industries"-health and wel- fare-will have to open such opportunities, he added, if the cycle of poverty is to be broken in our modern society~ Panel IlA The group discussed whether it was best to recruit teacher aides from within the community or from the university. Most agreed it is sound to draw these people front the community. Participants were warned by several speakers, however, that these aides also must be exposed to a continuous program of inservice train- ing if they are to play an effective role. "We run the danger of extending the incompetency of an incom- petent teacher." one delegate warned. Speakers pointed out that one must deal with the fears of the teacher in accepting the aide into her classroom. One spokesman commented that teachers "have lived in splendid isolation most of their lives," Panel IVB R. C. Beemon, Title I coordinator. Georgia State Department of Education, told the group that para- professionals in the field of education lack adequate definition, The line between professional and para- professional activity seems unclear. Use of parapro- fessionals such as teacher aides is frequently precluded by State certification regulations and policies. This particular point was emphasized by Norman Brombacher. assistant superintendent of New York City public schools. Dr. Brombacher explained that the term "school aide" is used in New York to avoid possible conflict with the certification board. Even though New York's school aides do not engage in pro- fessional activity, there is fear that the certification board would claim jurisdiction if they were called teacher aides. E. B. Stanley. division superintendent of schools, Washington County, Va.. elaborated on his experience with teacher aides during the past year. In his school system, teacher aides were used to take care of bulletin boards, handle rental books, assist in recordkeeping. 22 PAGENO="0117" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDL~CATIOX AMENDMENTS 111 watch over the cafeteria, and supervise physical edu- cation as well as playground activities. Young women were employed because it was believed they could take directions more readily. Before undertaking their duties as regular teacher aides, the women were enrolled for an inservice training program . .~ccording to Mr. Stanley, the experience proved to be most satisfactory. The conclusion was reached that a good teacher can effectively utilize the services of a teacher aide, On the other hand, it was observed that a poor teacher won't benefit from an aide because such a teacher does not spend the necessary time planning to use the aide to good advantage. Mrs. Marilynn S. Scott. a classroom teacher from Alaska, told of the use of library aides to good ad- vantage. She emphasized that these aides are not used to process books but to help counsel children. When the use of aides was first suggested, the community action program people wanted to assign several aides to move tables and chairs and direct hall traffic. But the final program provided much more effective utili- zation of aides. Alexander J. Plante. Title I coordinator. Connecticut State Department of Education, suggested it would be a wise move to establish a formal structure for both professionals and paraprofessionals in education. Various levels of professional standing could be created for teachers, specialists, and aides similar to the struc- ture which now exists in the health professions. He suggested there might be a place for some sort of as- sistant teacher educated at the 2-year or associate degree level. He also suggested parents and other residents in the school neighborhood might contribute much as full- or part-time aides, performing such func- tions as would be compatible with their capabilities. Samuel A. Madden, director, field services, Virginia State College, seconded the move for training of teacher aides at the college level, whereupon panelist Wilson announced that San Francisco Junior College already has a teacher-aide course. In addition Dr. Wilson noted that under the Head Start program. Arizona State University. Utah State University, and the Uni- versity of South Dakota have been cooperating in a paraprofessional program including orientation, in- service training, and an advanced cycle. 23 PAGENO="0118" 112 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS What Approaches to Curriculum and Learning? Panel hA Planning for the educationally disadvantaged, ac- cording to Dr. lrvamae .Applegate. dean of education. St. Cloud State College. and president. National Edu- cation Association. "must not be thought of in terms f pro~ects. hut must he on a continuous basis if our irernise correct that these chilidren are having prob- (ems because of lacks in their environment outside the `chool. At this point" she continued. "it appears to me that we are not envouraging long-range planning nor a coordinated or totai attack on the problems of the educationally disadvantaged children. She also noted ~he was "very disturbed lv the emphasis on such terms as imaginative thinking and `innovation.' Far too many people have interpreted this to mean gimmick and there has grown u~. a vocabulary of magic words thought by many to be the Open Sesame' to getting project approval, not only under Title I of Public Law li9-lO but under other titles of the act, as well as other acts. Panel IIL% In the opening presentation. A. Harry Passow. chair- man. Committee on Urban Education. Columbia Uni- versity. identified some patterns that have emerged in educating the disadvantaged. He called them promis- ng provided their substance as well as their form is adopted. Among those he mentioned were- * Preschool and early childhood education aimed at compensating for deficits, especially those dealing with language and concepts. * Remedial programs in the basic skills (which have far kas chance of success, said the participants, than prc;e:itive or compensatory programs). * indicidual or small group programs using pro- lessional teachers. paraprofessionals. or volunteers. Often the most dramatic changes come in the teachers or volunteers themselves, which may be one reason these programs are always termed successful. * Broad exploration of the curricular values in those parts of a student's life outside the classroom. * Special programs to develop teaching materials. * Staff changes, including adding specialized person- nel and redeployment of present staff. * Special guidance and counseling for students and parents. * Reorganization of the school day and the school year, coupled with better school-community relations. * Preservice and inservice teacher training programs centered around strategies of working with the disadvantaged. * Techniques and procedures for correcting racial balance. Too often, pieces of such programs have been tried, with little effort made to fit the pieces together into a total program. Also, these programs have begun to bring to light a variety of gaps and lags in education, according to Dr. Passow. Some of the gaps and lags: * In the absence of any sociological or psychological theory of understanding the deprived, concentration has been on isolated factors rather than on their interaction. * Although few studies have been made and little is known about the effectiveness of early intervention programs, the tendency has I~een to put all our eggs in the preschool basket. * Our knowledge of parent education is based almost entirely on what we know about the middle.class home. * The relation of nonintellectual factors, such as parental pressure, is not known. * There is no knowledge of how lower class children use language for educational development. * There are no guides for the teacher in either the selection or evaluation of books and other materials. * Little is known about class size or about appropri- ate ways to prepare those who will teach the disadvan. taged. Repeatedly, the participants brought up examples of teaching or of Title I projects that illustrate the tendency toward the safe and sterile. One such example was called the Ming Dynasty approach. During the 1965 Cleveland riot, a social studies teacher was trying to interest her class in a lesson on the Ming Dynasty. The class, understandably, was more interested in the riot just outside the windows of the classroom. In a determined effort to stick to her guns, the teacher finally resorted to lowering the shades, thus successfully avoid' 24 PAGENO="0119" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDL~CATION AMENDMENTS 113 ing an opportunity to capitalize on the student interest in a topic that fitted into her own field. It was esen suggested that earlier concentration on such issues in Cleveland schools might base helped prevent such a There isas little argument that reading presents the basic educational problem of the disadvantaged and that learning to read is the key to the rest of the curriculum. Donald Cleland, professor of education, University of Pittsburgh, described the integrated experience ap- proach to communication at the University of Pitts- burgh. which concentrates on reading, listening, writing, speaking. perceiving, and understanding nonvocal sig- nals. Since the disadvantaged child has often acquired an aural-oral repertoire that is foreign to the materials given him in school, other steps must be taken before introducing him to books. Such steps could involve movies, tape recorders, field trips, conversations, dic- tating stories to the teacher. In the Pittsburgh experi- ment, trade books rather than basal readers are used since they better meet the interests of the children. The group agreed that there is no one method and no one group of materials that is best. The point is to get the child to read, whether textbooks, paperbacks. comic books, sports pages. or other printed material. In one experiment in Princeton, disadvantaged high school boys who could not read finally became inter- ested through discussing questions that interested them. One stumbling block to removing reading deficiencies is the lack of knowledgeable teachers, both for preven- tive and remedial programs. (There was agreement that remedial programs are seldom effective.) In discussing attempts to teach children to read, John Henry Martin, superintendent of Mount Vernon public schools, New York, suggested that the schools do not take advantage of the child's early curiosity, do not give children the chance to do things for themselves or to teach each other; teachers do too much of the talking. Mrs. Kay Earnhardt, coordinator of reading, Atlanta public schools, reporting an inservice training program in Atlanta, noted the following reasons teachers some- times teach over the heads of students: * Teachers are not aware that children do not learn things at the same rate. The teacher should be able to present her subject at whatever level the student is. * Teachers cannot diagnose reading deficiencies and so do not know what is holding back a child. * Materials for teaching reading to the disadvan- taged are not adequate. * If materials do not meet the requirements of the curriculum, the administrator is ill not let the teachers use them. In the Atlanta program. some teachers learn how to make their own materials, making use of such things as the Beatles records with their great emphasis on repetition. Fleets of "floating" teachers take the place of other teachers for a weeks program in teach. ing reading. Eleven promising elementary school teachers were encouraged to get their certification as reading specialists. In Colorado Springs, 14 teachers were given a 60. hour course in reading. They now are teaching other teachers. In eastern Kentucky. inservice courses are provided. giving teachers the opportunity to see demonstration classes in the teaching of reading. Seventeen college faculty experts give the courses in the region. Sub- experts then become available in each area. On the matter of reading materials. Mrs. Earnhardt said they found some Head Start materials useful for higher grades so they have simply taken the grade labels off all materials. In various ways, States are making use of college and university faculty to advise local districts on reading projects and to help with the training of teachers. Panel IIB Just as middle'class values do not apply in the ghetto schools, so instructional materials designed for middle. class children are out of place there. That was an area of general consensus in panel IIB. "I'm concerned by the large illiteracy rate of the Negroes in this country," said panelist Farmer. "Many are functionally illiterate, including some high school graduates. Some high school students are read. ing at the third and fourth grade levels. This is due to many factors, including the family structure of the Negro in the slums, as some authorities have pointed out. But it also is due to flaws in the educational struc- ture. I am convinced that a big factor in the inability of the deprived youngster to learn is the lack of rele- vance on the part of much of the instructional material to the lives of the people using it." Morris Epps concurred: "There is a paucity of good materials and will continue to he unless American edu- cators stand up to be counted. When I was teaching in the South, one thing that hurt me very much was that the materials were all designed for white children. There was nothing to indicate to the Negro child that he amounted to anything. 25 PAGENO="0120" 114 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDTCATION AMENDMENTS Both Epps and Farmer noted that some improve- nent has been made in providing multiethnic textbooks, and both urged that they be used in all schools, white, colored, and integrated. Farmer also said that text- books are needed which give full and honest treatment to the historical backgrounds of the Indians, Puerto Ricans, and Spanish-Americans. as well as the Negroes. And he added: "Despite the recent improvements in textbooks. `See Johnny Run' doesn't help at all," Dr. Glyn Morris told the group: "We must look out- side the school for those experiences which have made up the life of the disadvantaged child. We ought to help a deprived youngster verbalize his own experiences before we clobber him with Dick and Jane. Reading disability is a symptom of another problem. There has been too much emphasis on remedial reading as the sole solution. One extra month of reading in summer school isn't going to get the job done." Panelist Benson noted that, for the first time, "no longer do we have a monolithic concept of educational financing. Now there is an effort to relate resources available with the requirements of children. But it is possible to fritter this extra money away in the tradi. tional school system. Money spread out over many projects may not work. On the other hand, too rigid specialization may not work, either-for instance, in the case of remedial reading. Reading may be affected by hot breakfasts and field trips as much as by added time in the classroom with a reading specialist." Panel LB Perception difficulties of the disadvantaged child were discussed by the panel's psychologist, Jacob Silver- berg, but the discussion group had few systematic approaches to overcoming them. Silverberg said a program developed by Frostig in California is very good, but does not go far enough. A new one conning out by Ayers will be broader, a systematic 2.year ap- proach that will require no special materials and is psychologically sound. It was pointed out, however, that faulty perception habits have to be differentiated from perception disturbances that have a neurological basis. The Frostig system was a good system to use for the latter, but a different approach is needed for the for- mer. .Another delegate agreed that the most important thing to do is to develop programs for perception difli- culties, but felt that perception differences are not as marked as language differences-"the next step, where the gap is greatest." He, too, felt the schools cannot do much about the social, historical, and political causes that have produced the disadvantaged child, but they can do something about the language problem. "This is where we have the tools." But, again, this is where a systematic approach is needed and lacking. Panel IA Charles Cogen, president of the American Federa- tion of Teachers, criticized the trend in current Ped' eral and other programs for the disadvantaged. There is, Mr. Cogen said, too much emphasis on inno- vation and supplementary and remedial programs and not enough emphasis on "basic improvements in educa- tion." He added that money is being wasted on "use- less and excess equipment," and teachers are not being involved in the planning of programs. "What is needed," Mr. Cogen said, "is the expenditure of many more billions of dollars to reduce class size and to `saturate' the schools with special services aimed at helping the disadvantaged and at easing teacher loads." New York City's "More Effective Schools" program was held up as an example of what could be accomplished. If conferees agree that not enough is being done, what new things do they propose? Rodney Tillman, assistant superintendent in charge of elementary education, Minneapolis public schools, called for an individualized instructional program. To accomplish this, he said, both instructional group- ings and curriculum will have to be altered. But he cautioned against excessive dependence on new group- ing patterns and called for greater attention to adapta. tion of the curriculum. `The most important curricu- lum revision, he added, is one that will help the pupil develop "a positive and realistic picture of self. Every dropout has a negative image of self." in addition, he called for involvement of pupils in the setting of achieve- ment goals, programs that foster divergent thinking, and programs that increase the scope of tolerance of all individuals. The first point was elaborated on by Philip Montez who said that "we must begin to personalize educa- tion. I do not ~mean taking each child one at a time, but training teachers in sensitivity and the area of just being human." Roy McCanne, Coordinator for Migrant Education, Colorado State Department of Education, was con- cerned with the educational problems that migrant children face in our schools today. He cited six of these problems: (1) A penetrating experience enrich' ment program is needed that provides teaching that helps the children to become more curious, to ask questions, to do some independent and critical thinking on their own. (2) There is a need to provide inservice 26 PAGENO="0121" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 115 1ii~ I~. ~:j Panelists Jacob Sdverberg (I.), Frank L. Stanley, Jr., Edmund W. Gordon, Donald T. Donley Chairman, anti !lisgr. Arthur T. Geoghegan consult with Office of Education staff assistant. Ruthe Farmer, before group 18 convenes. training for teachers in teaching English as a second language and to motivate the child to learn English. 3 The migrant agricultural svorker is the lowest paid category of svsrker in the United States and paid work experience must he provided to get the older youth into schosl and education in consumer economics is needed to educate the migrant family in effective buying. (4) Since migrant families move so often, many parents feel it is not worthwhile to send their children to school. The school must do constant recruiting to get the chil- dren to the schools and must develop a system for the transfer of school records. 5 Cultural behavior panerns differ from group to group and the school curriculuns should include the study of cultural differ- ences. 6i Many school districts make no provision fsr the groups of migrant children that come through their districts every- year. Panel IHB The group was told of efforts in New Jersey to give children some of the experiences taken for granted among middle-class families How, for example. can a child comprehend the svsrd `picnic." someone asked. if he has never been on one?), and of similar efforts in siestern Alaska to prepare Eskimo boys and girls for readerS that assume a firsthand acquaintance ssith supermarkets and automobiles. Most of the projects described included remedial reading and other language arts actisities. some using the initial teaching alphabet. others employing the daily nessspaper. still others drawing en specially prepared materials relesant to economically deprived children and adults. The panel also heard of plans to provide cultural en- richment and recreational nppoetunities-sutdoor edu- cation. inschsnl performances by prefessional drama groups, trips to concerts and museums. These pro- grams, coupled with an increasing amount of counsel- ing, are designed ts broaden children's horizons and to preclude premature selection and rejection of social and vocational possibilities as well as to provide general cul' tural enrichment. "The point of elementary vocational counseling, beginning in the third grade:' said one speaker, "is to encourage students to keep their minds open and not to close doors." Panel IVA The subject of tests and measurements as they af' fect disadvantaged children s-as a topic of considerable debate. Panelist Dabney said that "society is `gung ho' on objective measurements. One problem is that we're ambivalent in society as to consmitment to humanistic values." She said that educators ought to be cnncerned ss ith this as tbey prepare tects. Chairman Cleseland noted that middle-class people have a greater motivation to pass a test. Per kids in the antipoverty. Title Ij target area there ii sery little in society that nsakes them want to pass a test. There are other tests they can pass. They can fight and steal. They knoss' boss' to make it.' if' H ~ a 27 PAGENO="0122" 116 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS Bert A. Goldman, associate professor of education, the l. niversity of North Carolina, said a major difficulty with measurements and tests is that teachers do not know how to use them or interpret them. "Few under- graduate courses at universities deal with tests and measurements," he said. Mrs. Dabney said there is also a continuing need for new textbooks that will stimulate the disadvantaged child. "Many 0f the multicultural books I have seen are Dick and Jane in technicolor," she said, referring to the new "integrated" approach. Panelist Leonard B Ambros, assistant director, American Textbook Pub- lishers Institute, assured her that "textbook publishers are spending more money on research than ever before" in order to produce sound educational books that are also nondiscriminatory. "We're waiting for help from the field-what will work and what will not work," he said. "We're waiting for help from the educational fraternity." Panelist James C. Banks, executive director, United Planning Organization, suggested that a good beginning is to ask the disadvantaged what they want in the prod- ucts designated for their use. 28 PAGENO="0123" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDIJCATION AMENDMENTS 117 Involving Parents and Community Panel lilA Panelist Martin noted that "our pedagogy has worked only when there has been parental concern. The greatest Negro revolution is that mothers are now de- termined that their children are to get an education. That will make everything we do work." Panelist Peter G. Kontos, professor of education. Princeton University. described a community action program in Cleveland that took place several years ago and in some ways was a forerunner of many of today's antipoverty projects. The idea stemmed from disad- vantaged teenagers themselves who did not like what people in the community thought of them. They or- ganized into a Youth Corps to do things in the inner city without pay. Of the 80 members of the Youth Corps, over 70 percent had never before been involved in any- thing, in or out of school. They developed their own projects, such as informing the community on how to get more police protection and better health services. Once it became known that they existed, they were booked solid for months in advance with projects that other community agencies wanted done. The youth became consultants to other clubs in town that wanted to reach the inner city community. The entire project cost $200 for 2 years. The significant change was in the youth themselves. A byproduct change was in the school curriculum which began to make use of the com- munity as a laboratory. Panel WA Panelist Donald P. Stone, assistant for education for the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee in Atlanta, Ga., argued that the poor themselves have re sources which should be brought to bear on their prob. lems. "We accept the logic that poor people have no answers to problems," he said. "If we didn't accept this logic some of those poor people would be here with us now." The fa~t that representatives of the poor are absent from the conference is a "demonstration of bankruptcy" in the meeting, Stone said. He urged that "power be redistributed along more realistic lines so that the people affected have a way to make some of the decisions." He said school people ought to involve themselves "intimately in the lives of the people in a spiritual, not a materialistic, way. I have seen teachers totally uninvolved socially or any other way outside of the classroom." he said. Asked by panelist Ambos, how educators can find the leaders of the poor, Stone said that when the schools become thoroughly involved they will see the people themselves come forth with leaders. Consultant Sugarman noted that the schools are ac- customed to dealing with groups which "gather together on a stable basis and have constant leadership," and that the poor have shifting allegiances to leaders among them. "It's most difficult to deal with groups that are here today and gone tomorrow," he said. Chairman Cleveland reminded the participants that "there is no group to represent all Negroes, just as there is no group to represent all whites." The only solution to finding the leaders of the poor is to "go out and get to know the people ourselves," he said. Panelist Stone added that the constitutional system per- mits enough flexibility to transfer power within groups, but those in power resist losing it. Panelist O'Neill said. "The time has come to educate a minority group so it can speak and exert intelligent power. The capacity to perform at a sophisticated level is what is needed." Cleveland noted that fre- quently the friends of the poor are the ones who be- come leaders rather than the poor themselves. Many participants urged that the schools make use of the resources of the poor. Cleveland said that in the rush of filing applications for the first year of Title I money, the poor were not consulted about the projects. While this is understandable, he said, `we're continuing the same programs next year." Panelist Banks said, "It is not difficult to involve the poor-if they can see how the involvement will help them. They will not learn this as long as the school system is isolated from the community, he said. There is a basic intelligence among people that we ought to tap.' Grant Venn. Associate Commissioner for Adult and Vocational Education, said the schools must devise some means to make education more palatable to the 29 PAGENO="0124" 118 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDLTCATION AMENDMENTS children of the poor. "We must find a way to report Success to their families instead of failures:' he said. \ot onl~ do the schools relsort failures on report cards evers few sveeks but they also make the parents sign them as true. He added. "\Ve're not going to reach anybody if we tell them theyre no good. The schools need to involve themselves in the process of telling them they are human beings-now. Dr. Venn continued: `Why tell them they cant go out for sports or band if they dont get good grades. when these are the only things they can do. some of them? The time for correcting this attitude is at hand, he said. because "the anxiety of parents about o hat's going to happen to these youngsters is higher than it's eser been:' Consultant Sugarman noted that OEO Director H. Sargent Shriver is confident of the resources of the poor and the community to help each other. "Shriver says that 90 percent of the time when you don't get people to help, it's because you haven't asked them," he said. "The problem resides in us. too said panelist Dabney. "We very seldom focus on the strength of the people. We need an attitude or approach in which we will see their strengths. There is a residue of in- volvement in the community. Everyone wants tu help the schools." Participants also expressed worry over whether they understand the disadvantaged. Ambos said. "We need more demonstrative evidence of what makes up the dis' advantaged child:' Throughout the sessions Hanks suggested that the gruup is unprepared to talk about mobilizing resources to help the disadvantaged until it is certain it kuows oho the disadvantaged are. Hanks also took issue with the role of the schools in providing the wide range of social services now under' taken through the new Federal programs. He said he was concerned that the school. with an essential mission of education, will so encumber itself that it will become "jack-of-all-trades and master of none." He contended that the problem of social work is one for the com- munity as a whole instead of for the school, and that it k the community that has failed. "The emphasis should be on improving educational content rather than social sen-ices." he said. "We need to concen- trate on kids who don't go to college." Mrs. Dabney and others disagreed. "You can't separate the two-education and social services," she said. `The schools should be social-work agencies." While thes should avoid the rigidities characteristic of the operations of such agencies, the schools should con- cern themselves with an "attitude of global planning" which could integrate these services into the school program. She noted that in rural areas the schools niust be social-work practitioners because of the un- availability of other resources. D'Neill agreed that while social work "impinges un the efficiency of the school to perform its operation, it does have to be done, The problem is how it is to be coordinated." Mrs. Dabney added that these services are necessary for the child and that "no one but the school has jumped into the gap so far." Fantiui said that if the schools limit themselves to "the three H's and subject matter mastery" the result will be simply an end product rather than an educated child with the capacity to live constructively. Venn suggested that school systems hereafter design schools which will accommodate the social welfare ac- tivities. "In the future," he said, "the schools will have to see their role not as judge and jury [sitting in judg- ment on the children] but as an instrument of society which assists other individuals." Coordination of these programs with the school sys- tem's operations is a big task which must be handled well, participants agreed. And this coordination must also be accomplished within the Federal Govemment. they said. Some participants reported difficulty in dealing with OEO and OE and their often similar pro- grams which can overlap if not planned properly. Close cooperation is also necessary between the De- partment of Health, Education, and Welfare and the Department of Housin~ and Urban Development so that urban development and de facto segregation can be considered simultaneously when schools are at the planning stage, one participant said. Dittrick urged "development of a coordinating con- cept in Washington, D.C., itself" as one remedy for "fragmentation of programs and competitioo for dol- lars" at the local level. An OE staff member said the Commissioner's office has established a liaison position which ought to help this coordination within the Federal Government's education programs. Sugarman said that citizens advisory committees have worked and can work, and discussions by various par- ticipants indicated generally that this is so. Mrs. Wil- liam J. Cooper, chairman. Committee on Volunteer Development, National Council of Jewish Women, urged school people to mobilize the resources of the volunteer woman, "She's not a do-gooder," said Mrs, Cooper. "but we think of her as a supplement to the teacher." Similarly, Sugarman said, "even young children can be used in a limited role" to help the schools, Venn said that citizens' committees will function with 30 PAGENO="0125" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDLTCATIOX AMENDMENTS 119 or without the sponsorship of the schools. `Does any. one here think he doesn't have a vocal citizens' com- mittee?" he said. "Then let him visit the tavern or the bridge club." Venn said the school can receive the services of its young people in a volunteer capacity only if it indicates that it feels the services are needed. `Why don't we make Young people an asset to so- ciety?" he said. One patricipani described a Title I program in which teenagers are going into homes to help families that need help. "We're using home eco- nomics girls to help mothers put up hems," he said. The school system must also call on the considerable resources of the college and university to help the disadvantaged, participants said, Panel IA Arthur Pearl asserted that generally the school and the parent engage in a "conspiracy" against the child. The parent only gets called into the school system when the child is in trouble. The neighborhood school of 30 years ago where the teacher lived in the neighbor' hood and the parent could easily consult with the teacher are gone, said Dr. Pearl. "Where are those teachers in East L.A.? They don't live in East L.A. Where are those teachers in Watts? They don't live in Watts," Panelist Montez emphasized the need to go into the communities saving: "There is going to be a point in this educational system . . . that if it is going to sur- vive e in this highly structured ivory tower - are going to have to get down there. We are going to have to get down to places like Watts . . . we are going to have to get a little dirts. We are going to have to be upset. . . - The only way we are going to find out how to deal with the disadvantaged . . . is in our own communities - Panel hA While the consensus of the discussion was in favor of the involvement of community people in the schools, íA panelists take a "ph.oto.break," Left to right, seated: Leander I. S/mu. Roy McCanne, ililson C. Riles Chair- man), Arthur Pearl, Standing: Plulip Montez, Harry L. Bowers, Rodney Tillman and Charles Cogen. 31 PAGENO="0126" 120 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS some warned that it was "rapidly becoming a panacea for almost even problem. hot is probably raising more problems than it is solving: University students. especially those who are coosidering careers in teach- ing. should certainly not he overlooked. Through a sound program devised by both the pohlic school system and the university, they can provide services desperately needed by the schools. Programs of family and community ins olvement were noted by several participants: 0 A classroom teacher from Knoxville. Tens.. re- ported that teachers go to the homes and involve the parents in sewing clubs, mothers' clubs, and a variety of activities that take place sot only during the eveS sing hours, but also on Saturdays and Sundays. Is her school. teachers `are willing to do more." The positive climate results is educational progress for the children, the teacher said. * At P.s. 192 in Harlem, 65 percent of whose pupils read at or above grade level, 75 percent of the parents are active in the P'I'A. * Several participants mentioned involvement of local business and industry. It can help overcome some of the severe personnel problems facing local schools; help provide youngsters with saleable skills; and in work'study programs. it can be a source of part-time jobs. * A Beloit, Wis,. district administrator related the successful experiences of his system since they turned to private enterprise and industry 4 years ago. Is' dustry and curriculum planners developed a program of study that lasts 12 months, Industry pays the stu' dents' salaries, and at the same time students are learning skills, 32 PAGENO="0127" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 121 Research and Evaluation Panel lIlA Panelist Passoii was particularly emphatic about the need for moce effective help in evaluation techniques. "Title I is the first Federal law with built-in evaluation," he said. "The schools need assistance in evaluating their title I proposals. We're trying new ideas, but sse are using old, inapplicable evaluating techniques." This point was referred to again and again during the meetings. There is no way to measure self-concept in a 4-year.old, for instance, although the building of self.concept is one of the archstones in Head Start projects. There is no way to measure the value of field trips for preliterates or other students unable to take paper-and-pencil tests. The questions Dr. Passow raised about the need for research were answered different scays in different cou- texts throughout the meetings. Opinion ranged from believing that present research is adequate hut not being used, to the belief that very little is known about even the most basic elements of education. If research does exist, the group would like to see it put into usable form and widely disseminated, Dr. Martin made the final panel presentation, "We are in considerable dangec," he said, "that Head Start and other preschool programs that appear to be so successful mask the fact that we know next to nothiiig about early education." He called for longitudinal research on the consequences of early education. There was unanimous agreement on the need for continued research. As one observec put it, "If iie don't go on with research, in 1976 we'll still be fighting the war on poverty scith the tactics of 1962." Panel fIB Dr. Zigler said that in his long experience with Operation Head Start, "I found not only reluctance but downright apathy to research. Too many educa- tors treat the researcher as an enemy. not as someone to work with in seeing how we cao all best serve chil- dren. We all want the best for these kids. but sse aren't going to find it unless we keep looking' Now we have a kind of numbers game-how many kids and how much money-but no real evaluation. That's because it is easier to count kids and dollars than to evaluate motivation and morale." 33 PAGENO="0128" PAGENO="0129" Section II. SPECIAL PROGRAMS Title I and School Desegregation Chairman: James E. Mauch, Chief, Programs Branch, Division of Compensatory Education, U.S. Office of Education We are her to discuss ways in which Title I proj. ects can contribute to solving problems of school segregation. We all know that this can be done, and is being done in some localities. We also know that funds can be used to preserve the status quo. Any such discussion must look back to the school desegregation decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court in 1954 and 1955. In those decisions, the Court ruled that racially separate educational facilities are inherently unequal, and there- fore unconstitutional. As part of the Supreme Court's decisions, lower courts were directed to require school districts to make a prompt and reasonable start toward desegregating the schools. In discharging that responsibility, the courts have in many cases felt it necessary to define what de- segregation really means. Thus, a recent court opinion stated: "It is not enough to open the previously all- white school to Negro students who desire to go there, while all-Negro schools continue to be maintained as such." In short, school authorities have been told by the courts that they may not remain passive, that, on the contrary, they must take definite affirmative action to eliminate the dual school system. But, although the dual system is no longer legal, it all too often exists in fact in every part of the Nation, and so does the racial discrimination prohibited by law. The position of the Office of Education in this situa- tion is, I think, clear. In case it is not, I quote from Commissioner Howe's speech to the Urban League earlier this year: Considering ihe auihority ihai we gentlemanly education officials hase at our command to correct racial injustice in our schools I feel we have accomplished very little so far. While we have gone on urging moderation, sweet reason, and bigger and better panel discussions, of which this is one, the schools throughout the Nation remain almost us segregated as they were in 1954. The Commissioner further stated: Our task obviously requires an activity more sophisticated than the gritting of our corporate teeth. School officials occupy 37 a curious position sontewbere between that of the educational leader and the political leader, but it is apparent that for many areas a necessary sensitivity to public opinion has tended to dilute their sense of responsibility for educational leadership and that they have exercised it only after the public parade has already decided which way itw ants to go. The men on this panel have chosen the substance of educational leadership rather than the shadow. They have been working on the issue of desegregation for some time, each in his own public and, I suspect, in his own private capacity. Whether or not they have met the success they hoped for, only they can say. But anyone who is familiar with them would, I believe, say that they have toiled long and hard in the vineyard. I would ask them now to tell you about their efforts, why their efforts are important to our goals, and what these efforts have to do with the aims and use of Title I funds. Wilson C. Riles, director of compensatory education, California State Department of Education I would like to state at the outset that we in Cali- fornia do not think that we have solved the problem of eliminating de facto school segregation. We think we have made a start. When Title I funds became available, we were faced with a program that might have been at variance with our State policy and laws. Back in 1962, the State Board of Education took a position on de facto segre- gation in the schools of California which became part of California law. The following is an excerpt from the Board's resolution: It is the declared policy of the State Board sf Education that persons~ or agencies responsible for the establishment of school attend ance cm tern sr the assignment of pupils thereto shall exert all effort to avoid and eliminate segregation of children on account of racy or color. The California Supreme Court backed up the State Board's policy in its decision in Jackson v. Pasadena School District. I will read one paragraph from its ruling in that case: So long as large numbers of Negroes live in segregated areas. school authorities will be confronted with difficult problems is 123 75-492 0 - 67 - PAGENO="0130" 124 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS prosiding Negro children with the kind of education they ate entitledtohase. Rrsidentialsegregatosnisinitoellane~il which teodo to frustrate the sooth in the area an d t ocaoor anti- social attitudes and behasioe. ~ here ouch segregation enists it not enough foraochonl board torrfeaio from aflfrmattoe sli-criminatorv conduct. The haemful mE aence on the children will be reflectrd and inteosiOed in the classroom if school at- teodancc is determined onaoeo ceaphic hart- without coerecttse measures. The right to an equal opportunity for education and the harmful conseqnenceo of seoregation require that school hoards take steps, insofar as reasonably feasihle. to allesiate racial imbalance in schoots regardless of its cause. That is the position and the policy of the State of California, as evidence fsy the Board resolution and the court ruling. Title I. as you know, speaks of concentrations of disadvantaged youngsters. and some of us were much concerned that it would pat us in a position of rein forcing segregation patterns. And. hs the way, there are people in California. as I suspect there are else- where. who would he perfectly willing to give you compensatory education if oou kept the children in the ghettos. For a year. sur Advisory Committee on Csimpensatorv Educatioti has been wrestling with this problem regarding Title I. In addition to the State Board's policy and the court's decision, which I hate already quoted. we have in Cali- fornia the Mc.Ateer Act isf 1965. This governs all cotttpensatorv education activities and therefore all programs for disadvantaged children. since in Cali- fornia all such programs are administered under the Division of Compensatory Education. Let me read von one key section in this State law: Nothing in thin chapter ohalt be construed tosanc tton, per- petuate or promote the racial or ethnic segregation of puptts in the public schools. Our first confrontation with the problem with regard to Title I of ESEA came by way of a school district whose administrator said. as we were tnformcd: "Now I am going to put Wilson Biles and the Department of Fducation and the f.S. Office of Education on the spot. I am going to ask for Title I funds for buses to integrate 250 youngsters in my district, and I am going to see what they will do about that." We welcomed this challenge, and let it he known that we would certainly hate to review such an application. But first we went into the question of how to deal with the problem of disadvantaged youngsters where there are no concentrations of poverty-tn other words, how to deal with scattered poverty. ~ e worked out a sys- tem whereby we would review a project on the bants of how it defined where the disadvantaged youngsters were, the problems they had, and the procesn the school had gone through to define the problem and arrive at ways of dealing with it. If a district decided to completely integrate its schools and seatter its poverty, we thought we could deal with this on the basis of the intent of the act. In the case of the busing project just mentioned, we simply said that if the district wished to really integrate and set up a situation where ii would have scattered poverty, we imould be willing to mmork out something with it. But. if it was just going to come up with a token plan to move 250 youngsters, we would raise some serious questions. In the end, a project was worked out which also relieved overcrowding and added personnel, special instructional equipment and materials, teacher inservice training, and curriculum development. ~mow. finally, as for the action we took on the overall problem. On Jutie 9 the State Board of Education adopted its present position with regard to Title I proj- ects. The State law provides, as we have seen, that programs should not sanction, perpetuate, or promote racial or ethnic segregation of pupils in the public sehools. In our guidelines for Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of f965. we prescribe cer- tain actions to comply with California State policy with regard to the integration of pupils in the public schools and to provide the maximum educational benefits to the children being served. In its application for funds for a prolect under Title I. we say the applying district shall include a statement as to the effect, if any. that the proposed project will have on pattems of segregation in its schools, It must explain the extent to which it has addressed itself to the problem of de facto segregation and what actions it proposes to alleviate this problem. The crucial test is whether the project sanctions or perpetuates segregation. We suggest a few examples. Some of these have been tried: others have not. In a newly integrated school district, funds under Public Law 89-10 may be used to facilitate preparations for the integration process. provided these funds focus on educationally de- prived children residing in the target area- After the integration process is operative, programs of com- pensatory education using Title I funds may follow, to help enhance the children's educational attainment and adjustment to the new situation. Funds may also be used for the purchase of inter- group relations materials. Let me preface that remark by saving this: We have somewhat structured what the State feels about desegregation, but we know that the local district must first identify what they consider the problem to be. 38 PAGENO="0131" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 125 Again, if a district says-and we are encouraging (ltstricts to say this-that one of the pressing needs, or the most pressing need, to which a project is addressed is the elimination of isolation and separation. we feel that this falls completely within Title I. [,et me add just two more examples: School districts which recognize that in the education of deprived chil- dren motivation for achiesement may he increased by racial integration. can deseloo a plan for using the funds to assist deprived pupils is ho a ill be involved in an integrated situation And in school situations where classroom space is available. Title I funds may be used to develop a program whereh\ children would be trans- ported from a target school and placed elsewhere in the district. This procedure should not only facilitate racial integration but also reduce the class size in the target school. We also feel very strongly that under the State's re- sponsibility to judge the size. scope. and quality of a project. we must help school districts to use Title I funds properly. With regard to construction: We have received a number of projects that contained a component for re- ducing class size, and had to make a judgment as to whether we would permit building permanent structures in ghettos. In the .574 million we have allocated we have not approved one permanent construction com- ponent. We have taken the position that the young. stern need help now, and not 2 or 3 years from now. after a building has been constructed. Thomas F. Pettigrew, associate professor of social psychology. Harvard University I think we can all agree that Title I establishes a great precedent for public education in the United States. But Title I also has one great danger. If. through its special programs. it acts to separate the poor and the disadvantaged from other children in the public schools, it may prove self-defeating. I am not talking merely about racial segregation now, but about the separation of disadvantaged children in general from advantaged children. In the recent study which the I)ulice of Education completed under title IV of the Civil Rights Act, one of the chief findings is that the aptitude and achievement scores of disadvantaged children are more related to the characteristics of the children with whom they go to school than to other school variables. That is. it is important for the education and the achievement scores of disadvantaged children that these children be in schools with advantaged children. If Title I funds should be used, directly or inadvertently, to separate the disadvantaged from the advantaged. we would be losing what the survey has shown, on the basis of very clear data, to be the most important means of raising the achievement of disadvantaged children. Frankly, this danger in Title I concerns me a great deal. And, to be blunt, most of the examples that we were given as we came in of Title I projects involving desegregation do not greatly reassure me. But two of them are, I think, reassuring-and it is about these that I will talk here. Many projects are really hashed-over examples of measures that have failed in the past. that is. special arrangements for the disadvantaged treated separately from others. The past record of education is literally crammed with the failures of such programs. But two programs among the samples we were given do reassure me, particularly because they have long. range potentials. These are the East Orange, N.J., pro- gram for an educational plaza and the Hartford plan for regional desegregation [see exhibits A and BI. It seems to me that these two commendable programs, taken together. contain the ingredients and show the di- rection for long-term solutions to the problems, solu- tions that must and, we hope. can he supported with Title I funds. The idea of an educational park for the entire school system is one ingredient that we will need. The other idea, contained in the Hartford plan. adds the suburban dimension. It is hardly a secret that in Washington, Philadelphia. Chicago, Cleveland, and other cities, we are simply running out of white children to desegregate in the inner city. We are not running out of whites in the United States. however. Whites are also coming to the metropolitan areas. just as Negroes are. But. before there can be any ultimate solutions to the desegregation of the public schools in our inner cities, we must involve the suburbs. These have been well called the white noose that surrounds the Negro neck: the~~i~ill have to become something more positive in educational terms than they are now. I would hope that Title I ivould he the source of funds for such a program as the Hartford plan. and that it and other similar plans for example. METCO in the Boston area might serve as experimental pilot models for us to watch. particularly a ith a view to combining such plans with the educational park idea. I accept the point Just made by the gentleman from California that we hase to (10 something immediately. But let us not fix our exclusive attention on short.rli(( 39 PAGENO="0132" 126 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS solutions that will institutionalize problems for the future. We should also he thioking of long-run solu- tions-of, fur example. ringing our large cities with educational parks in ishich half or more of the student bodies would be drawn from the suburbs. I urge this not just for reasons of desegregation but for many other educational reasons as well. This would. I think, really meet what the Congress had in mind in Title I-the raising of the achievement levels of disadvantaged American youth. If. on the contrary. the danger in Title I that I mentioned above comes about, if we separate the advantaged from the dis- advantaged. I am afraid that Title I will go down as an unfortunate precedent for American education. Alexander J. Plante, Title I coordinator and execu- tive director. Office of Program Development. Connecticut State Department sf Education. I agree with Dr. Pettigrew that maybe in the lsng-run planning we can develop quality education in the city. But for the immediate solution and for the generation we are dealing with, we must have the cooperation of all people and not just manifest our hatred and our disgust of the city and take the attitude: "You are responsible; we are not. Therefore. you live with your problem." In the Hartford plan [see exhibit B] we are saying that immediate solutions to the problem we are facing and discossing here today cannot be found in the city alone. The point of view that the plan embodies is based on two university studies. The first was a study. by the University of Connecticut. of 4.sear'old Negro children in low-cost housing in the city of Bartford. When the researchers compared the so.called native intelligence of these youngsters with their linguistic ability, they found that these 4-year-olds were very intelligent but that, as they prepared to enter the main- stream of society, thes~ would be increasingly handi- capped by their limited linguistic abilits. The second was a study made in Bartford by Harvard University. This study found that 52 percent of the elementarv.school children in the city of Hart- ford were nonwhite, that this number was rising at the rate of 5 percent a year. and that. if no counter- measures nere taken. Hartford woold in time become essentially an all-Negro ghetto. and any attempts to to find solutions in the cits scould therefore be self.defeating. The study concluded that the solution cannot be found within the city; there most be cooperation with the suburbs. In addition to this, we listened to the people. Any' one who has listened to the group of people we are talking about quickly gets a sense of their isolation from the mainstream of society. In such remarks as, "Aren't things better? Jobs are available; society is more a~uent." they would reply, "No, things are getting worse. ,At one time there were many poor people with all kinds of aspirations. But now you in the North. because of the pigmentation of our skin, keep us isolated from the mainstream of society by the subtle organizational ways in which you operate." So we felt a bold intervention was necessary. Let me now briefly tell you what our plan consista of. Moving on a pilot basis, we will arrange for 300 youiigsters from 1 through 5 to be accepted into schools in 5 suburban towns. Eight schools in Hartford have an attendance of more than 85 percent nonwhite; seven of these schools go to 95 percent or more nonwhite. From these B - schools we selected the 300 children from 2 kinder' gartens and 2 first, second, third, fourth, and fifth grades. We used a random basis of selection so as to get a cross-section of the entire nonwhite community. We asked 4 suburban communities just to let us use their vacant seats: for example, if they had 23 chil' dren in a class and could accommodate 25, to let us put 2 in there: or if they had 20 children and could accommodate 24, to let us put in 4. We were look' ing for places for 75 youngsters in 4 communities. One community Glastonbury 1 turned us down, but two other communities came to the fore and said they would participate. So we now have five communities participating with us to some degree. ~Te learned from the University of Connecticut study that deprivation starts early: that you cannot just pick out a group of these youngsters and leave it at that; that you must make sure that the deprivation already caused is qoicklv ameliorated, and that the education of these children proceeds rapidly. Therefore under the Hartford plan. with every 25 youngsters we will send a supportive team consisting of a teacher from the city of Hartford and educational aides who will work with these youngsters and other youngsters in the receiving com~ monitv with similar types of disabilities. We are looking very hard for answers, and I think we will get some from our strong research component. As this plan proceeds, we will observe the educational achievement of the white youngsters as compared with that of the nonwhite youngsters-and of the youngsters who remain in the ghetto compared with that of those who travel to the suburban towns. We will also ob' serve and seek for the kinds of things we can do to train 40 PAGENO="0133" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 127 people for desegregation progran:s, not just in Hart- ford but in other places--New Haven. Bridgeport. Waterbury-, and throughout the State of Connecticut. Requests have already come in from other Connecticut communities for a similar kind of program. What are our problems? I think you must know them, and I think we must face them and understand them. The subtle prejudices of the North. to me, are much more devastating than the open prejudices of the South. Make no mistake about it; we live in the same box. We've had meetings of 200 to 300 persons where we would have to have 15 policemen to guard us from physical harm. It was an experience I never thought would happen. So let's not feel proud of what we are or look askance at others; let's look to our own situation here, for, believe me, we have a long way to go. There also seems to have developed in this country the widespread belief that the suburban community has no relevance to the inner city. It is amazing to me how we can go into that city each day, earn our living, use the hospitals, use the cultural activities, use the sewage systems, and say, "The heck with you!" It just isn't possible, because disease in the city will bring disease to the -suburbs, and we will all perish from it. Make no mistake about it. Running throughout the United States is a suburban isolation from the city which needs to be broken down. It seems to us that we must secure the necessary financial support for the kinds of things we are trying in Hartford. I certainly hope the U.S. Congress will make it possible financially to move this kind of program forward. It seems to us, also, that we must go to our State legislatures immediately, to establish the legal basis for such programs. We expect to be in court a lot next year. I think we will win every time. But the statute should be clear and should provide for and encourage school desegration. I also want you to know there are carefully organized groups that will operate in your community and will distort everything you say. In other words, they will say that housing must come first; or that adopting Negro orphans will be the solution to everything; and so forth. This is only feinting. Or they will call your plan metropolitan, devastating, federalistic. socialistic, communistic, or any other bad word they can dream up. They are well organized. This sort of stuff will be broadcast in your communities just as fast as the mimeograph machines can turn it out. You have got to be aware of this. One other point which is extremely important for anyone undertaking a program of this kind. We picked the most affluent communities in the Hartford region and the communities where the educational level was the highest. The lower social classes feel threatened by the Negro. So, if you are going to make your move, make it where you can be successful. We hope to have some results for you in 2 years. We feel almost overwhelmed by the potential for success here. As I look at these youngsters and the response from the Negro community, I think we are all going to have a great deal of satisfaction from the Hartford plan. John Henry Martin, superintendent, Mount Vernon Public Schools, Mount Vernon, New York I make the following statement in PTA's, Lions Clubs, and similar important agencies of our com- munity life: "The time has come to say openly that the all-Negro school, or the nearly all.Negro school, in the American city is an educational curse. The evi- dence is in. It is indefensible as a continued institu. tion. The question is. what do you do about it?" I would hope that the school superintendents of America would individually and collectively make a similar flat statement. The U.S. Commissioner of Education made such a statement, and made it eloquently. But the question is not what he has said, but what he does about it. And the same question confronts the cities and the small towns of America. The answers are relatively easy in suburban areas where there may be, say, five all-white schools and one Negro ghetto school in a school district. Here the solution is relatively simple and has been achieved in many places, though not without turmoil, courage, and a great deal of difficulty. It is to close the ghetto school down, roll the buses in, take the children out, and distribute them among the other schools of the town. Some of us have done that. But that answer is not applicable in densely popu- lated urban areas such as Mount Vernon, which has a population of 20,000. There, more than 50 percent of the elementary school pupiis are Negro. Closing down 5 or 6 of the 11 schools won't do the job. The civil rights leadership has an answer: Use the same fleet of buses to take half of the Negro pupils out of these schools and to bring half of the whites in from the northern half of the city. That is a variant of the Princeton plan, with its instant desegregation. The 41 PAGENO="0134" 128 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS difficulty with this solution is that the board of educa- tion won't adopt it-and, at this point, no one is in a position to compel them to adopt it. Between those two answers lie others. There is. for example. the 4.-4-4 plan. This plan I rejected as an answer for our community on the grounds that while it effected a kind of solution for the middle school and the high school, it gave up on the solution for the fIrst 4 elementary years and allowed a permanent segregated pattern during these 4 years of education. Yet another answer is the educational park. In terms of its impact as a desegregation device. I have no argument against this answer, other than the fact that it is years and years of bond issues and construction away. But there is a second basis for criticism of the edu- cational park. This is the fact that the plan contains within itself no ingredient for educational reform or improvement. If you rebundle on one site thousands of children from a larger geographic area but do not envisage a reform and reorganization of the structure of education, once they are on that site, you may have the answer to the question of desegregation; but your answer has nothing to do with the reform of education as such. This criticism is not antagonistic to the desegregation intent of the plan. All I am saying is that the educa' tional heart of the program has yet to be evolved. I think I have a partial answer in the academy concept [see exhibit C] and I would marry both, one to the other. The plan we in Mount Vernon caine up with, in the idea of the academy as an interim measure, was based on the recognition of the importance of time in terms of months, not years. The establishment and operation of the academy would call for the purchase of a sizable piece of property and the utilization of buildings already there. On this site would be evolved and conducted a program for the academic review, the supervision, and the tutorial instruction of chil- dren from every elementary school in the city. These children would come to the academy every day for 2 hours of intensive remedial, advance, corrective, clini- cal work on an individual basis which had been diag* nosticallv established. That is the academic center of the plan. It would mean that within a period of 10 or 12 months initial steps could be taken with the first several hundred children. The operation could be programmatically in. creased in 30.day cycles, and we should expect that in about 18 months we would be in full swing, with 2,000 of the 6,000 children in the K to 5 program at the academy for each working day they were in school. But there is a growing hostility within the community to the accomplishment of this plan. The board voted it. The commissioner of the State of New York ap. proved it. Civil rights groups opposed it. At one time we had the distinction of having just about as remarkable a consensus as President Johnson might have dreamed of, all opposed to the plan. To me, the plan appears to offer a functional struc- tural reform in the nature of elementary education, a byproduct of which would be high.speed integration of the elementary schools. Title III would provide the planning and operational funds. Title I would provide the transportation funds. We have such money set aside for the beginning operation this coming year. John H. Fischer, president, Teachers College, Colum- bia University It seems to me that if we are to have the kind of comprehensive approach to the problem we are talking about here this afternoon, it is important to prepare first what the strategist calls an estimate of the situation. As we look at the situation we have to deal with, it would be well to take into account the facts that can't be talked away. One way or another, we will have to deal with them. First, we have to face the fact that we are dealing here with a form of social inertia which is particularly baffling. This is not to say it cannot be changed. But to act as though we were not confronting this social analogue of Newton's first law of motion seems to me unrealistic to the point of irresponsibility. Second, we need to face the fact that we are dealing, in this inertial condition, with apprehension, un- familiarity, and insecurity-if you will, with fear. We lump these together and call them prejudice. But it isn't as simple or as easy as that. We have to face the components of this prejudice if we are to deal with it. If we don't deal with it, I am afraid whatever plans we lay are likely to come to grief. In the third place, we are dealing with the hard fact of the ghetto. None of us here like ghettos. But we have them and we won't wish them away overnight. We will have to lay plans to deal with them. Unless they are taken into account in our planning, our plan. fling again is not likely to be very effective. In the fourth place, we are dealing with shifting residential patterns. We have not only the problem 42 PAGENO="0135" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 129 of the ghetto and the problem of desegregating our cities; we have, also, the problem of preventing resegre- gation. One of our saddest experiences these days is when we find ourselves, after we have taken brave, bold steps to desegregate schools, face to face with the fact that housing resegregation is bringing the water back as fast as we can pump it out. Again. we are dealing, as Tom Pettigrew has re- minded us, with the white suburban influence. Some- times this means also with a series of tripwires. There are all kinds of hazards here. Whatever words, what. ever figures, we use, the fact is that we do have this ring of white homogeneous, unresisting opposition to the integration of our population. Monsignor James C. Donohue of the National Cat/iolic Welfare Conference; Dr. John H. Fischer, Columbia Uni- versity; Commrssusner Howe; and Austin Haddock of i/ic Oregon State Department of Education, converse during the Conference. 43 PAGENO="0136" 130 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDL~CATION AMENDMENTS In addition, we have a great many small, independ- ent. and relatively homogeneous school systems. They are not only homogeneously white. Increasingly, we are getting school systems that are homogeneously Negro. I don't know which is worse, an all-white or an all-Negro school system. Neither says much about an open society. Until we find a way to come to grips with this problem. we are going to have shortages in our plans. Furthermore, we have the problem of the segregating effect of nonpublic schools. I doubt that anybody in this room would want to remove from the American sys- tem the option parents now have of choosing independ- ent schools for their children. But when you look at New York City and other cities, the fact of the matter is that the option of parents to choose nonpublic schools for their children means in many cases the option to choose a segregated white school. Of course, most of these schools now have their token enrollment. They have their demonstration Negro children placed in the places of high visibility, like the receptionists in corpo- rate offices on Madison Avenue. But we are still deal' ing with a difficult situation that must be taken into account. Over and above this, we have the fact of wide overlap in this country between minority racial status and eco- nomic povortv. Tom Pettigrew was getting at this point earlier, when he spoke of the hazard in Title I of segregating children in terms of poverty, only to dis- cover that we have at the same time segregated them in terms of race. Lastly, we have another fact which we don't talk about as much as we should, although schoolmen are coming to talk about it more and more often these days. This is the fact and tradition of the political isolation of our public schools in this country. There was a time when it seemed awfully smart and absolutely neces- sary to separate the schools from partisan and often corrupt political arrangemento, particularly in our large cities. But we have now separated them for something like 50 or 75 years, to the extent that they have become in many cases almost hermetically sealed. administra- tively and politically, from the ordinary decision-making and policv'forming practices of municipal and State government. So, as we plan our strategies, we had better remember Ihat they have to be something more than exhibitions of opportunistic ingenuity .Aswe select Title I projects to deal with the difficulties of segregation and to move toward desegregation and integration, we should choose our projects and plan them so that they will not only deal with the specific problems of culturally and edu- cati3nally disadvantaged children but also attack the broad problems that I have been trying to sketch out, We can't rely on the simply opportunistic approach. I think Henry Adams once called simplicity one of the most deceitful mysteries that ever betrayed mankind, and I suspect that we have a problem here in guarding against allowing the single target approach of Title Ito confuse us into thinking that, if we hit that target, everything else will be taken care of. We need, of course, to concentrate on the target. But we don't want to develop tunnel vision at the time we are keeping our eye on that one target. This won't be easy. It means, for one thing, that as we set up our Title I projects we shall need to make deliberate efforts to involve children of both races in every possible case. This doesn't mean that we would necessarily reject a project just because it happens to meet the needs of chil- dren of one race at the moment. But it does mean that wherever possible we will want to involve the children as well as the parents and teachers of more than one race. Second, we will need to work on the periphery of our ghettos as well as in the heart of the ghettos. It may be that in some instances we shall not be able to desegre- gate schools in the depth of the worst of the ghettos. As it appears to me now, about the only way to do that is to ask all of the Negro children to move, at their ex- pense of trouble and time and effort, to the places where the white children already are, Somehow, that strikes me as offensive. This is not to say that a bus is never a handy or useful instrument. There are, of course, times when it is good. But to rely on it as the sole means of dealing with the problem of the ghetto seems to me unjust and inequitable and in the final analysis unrealistic. But every one of our ghettos has a pe- riphery, and the larger this gets, the more opportunities it presents. Another thing we will need to do is set up joint proj- ects involving groups of schools and groups of school districts. You have already heard allusions to that kind of activity this afternoon, and many of you are involved in it. This is one of the ways of drawing a larger circle to include the smaller circles which we are trying to serve and ultimately to eliminate, We are going to have to find ways to bring together the new arrivals and the old arrivals in communities. We will have to find ways to ease the problems of transition as people move in and out of our neighbor- hoods. Another way of putting it is to say that we will try to make a virtue rather than an obstacle of the mobility of our population. 44 PAGENO="0137" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 131 We are going to have to make particular effort to bring together city and suburban children. You have heard references to that this afternoon. But it won't be easy. Here in Washington, the only way to bring together the city and suburbs is to bring together two sovereign States and the Federal Government. There are easier problems to deal with, I am told. Maybe this is where we need a State and Federal Government compact. Another thing we need to pay attention to are coop. erative projects that will pool the resources of small districts and so bring their people together. We have had entirely too much compartmentalization of our educational government in the name of local independ. ence. We had better recognize that localism in itself is not necessarily a virtue. It has virtues within it, but let's not confuse the virtues with the vices. We might very well move to demonstration projects under State or intermediate district leadership that would transcend the difficulties and in some cases the obstinacy of local school units. I would like to think of this as a display of leadership rather than a display of coercion; and I think the leadership might win out in the long run. But the run had better not be too long, or we will be dealing with another generation of children. We need joint activities to bring together on de- liberate, carefully arranged bases the children, parents, and teachers of public and nonpublic schools. We can't get into all kinds of arguments about the problems of church and state, the independence of independent schools, and all of that kind of thing. But here again we had better recognize that there is a broader circle to which all of the smaller circles relate, and I think part of it is a matter of drawing the broader circle that will take in the smaller ones, respecting their integrity but not insisting on their isolation. In addition, we ought to find ways to integrate across socioeconomic as well as racial lines. If we think of integration solely as a racial problem, we are likely to come to grief. It is more than a racial problem; it involves cultural differences, economic differences, many kinds of ethnic differences. But it is race that has made the biggest single difference for us in America, and therefore we had better not lose sight of race as we talk about the broader picture. In all of this I keep thinking of a line in the Brown [v. Board o/ Education, 347 U_S. 483] decision that might give us a clue. Indeed, I think this clue is going to give many of our courts and our States clues as we move on into another level of attack on the problem of de facto segregation. This line says that the opportunity to receive an education-and here I think I can quote the exact words-"where the State has undertaken to pro- vide it, is a right that must be made available to all on equal terms." We are going to have to come back to the problem Tom Pettigrew stated in his comments on Title I: How we are going to take care of the special problems of the disadvantaged child while at the same time we undertake to provide truly equalized educational op- portunities for all our children? This is not easy. But I don't think we dare put the problem on any lower plane. Exstarr A EAST ORANGE, N.J. Educational Plaza East Orange proposes to build its entire school system on one central school site, in a series of stages, ,tarting with a middle school for grades 5 through 8. While the school will be administratively cod physically concentrated, the plan calls for a major reformulation of the role of the school in an urban community in what might be characterized as a `swing" city. They are hoping to invert and expand the usual school-comniunity concept, believing that the community itself and all of its resources should become the school. The idea of an entire citywide school system on one central site is itoelf unique. It presents opportunities of curriculum development, personnel deployment, and the commitment of community resources, all in a variety of new patterns of interrelationships. Since there will be only one school site, total integration will be achieved. Planning is viewed in terms of both substantive needs and process goals. Commanicy participation, involvement, and commitment are viewed as essential to the uucceso of the pro- gram and will be an integral part of the planning process. A distinguished advisory group has been assembled for overall policy and program development advice, and a range of technical consultants will be sought on specific project needs. Planning funds were requested under Title Ill, ESEA. EXhIBIT B HARTFORD. CONN. Regional Desegregating Plan The Connecticut State Department of Education, in coopers. tinn with the Connecticut OEO, the cities of Hartford and West Hartford, the towns of Farmington, Manchester, South Windsor, and Simsbury will initiate, plan, and implement a regional desegregation program for elementary school children. Specifically, the ojeetives of this project are to-. 45 PAGENO="0138" 132 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS Ilieselop a corporati se strac tare between an inner city and saborbas commanities to help some the edacattosal prnb. lems related to racial desegregation Secore, analyze, and interpret data so attitades of white and nonwhite children, parents, edacators. and other appropriate pe~ooo whrrr nonwhite children are trans portrd from inner cities to suborban schools Secare. analyze, and toterpret data on the edacatiooal achiesement of white and oonwhite children participating its regional desegregation plan Establish and rcaloate he entracurricalar and soctal acticities to ohich oooahite children from in ncr cits schools can participate ohm transported to sabarban schools Orientate Connecticut communities toward regtonal solutions for edocatiosal problems related to ractal desegregation Train professional and nonprofessional personnel fur effec- tue operaticn of desegregation programs Determine effectise edacatisnal designs for rammanities insolsed in this type of desegregation plan. The proposed program icsolses the random selection of approximately 300 children in grades kindergarten throagh 5, from schools ol the city of Hartford with more than 85 percent nonwhite enrollment. Darisg the second year of thr project. these children will be enrolled is grades I through 6. With each 25 children identified for t ranspsrttn g, a professional teacher and a nasprofessional aide will be asstgued as a sap- partise team. In addition, a social worker will he assigned fur each 100 children to proside commansty serssrrs. .4. unisersitv team will esaluate findings secured from the project. The Children's Academy A new conce Pt in school organtzatsnn ts being planned, in- solsiug Federal. State, and lucaf partnership fur integration and educational refunn. The tripartite plan is based on excellence in education, eqaal- itp of opportunity, and sarsisal of the arbanrentee. An addition to the present high school wtlf he batlt to candact all 4 pears of high school an one site. This meann 100 percent integration on the high school lesel for 3,800 siadents and makes possible rigorous business and industrial training and an elite college preparatory sehaol. Housing of the srsrnth and eighth grades in one cnmplen possibly ninth geadef eliminates 4 racially unbalanced lamar high schools and achieses 100 percent integration fnr 1,800 children of sesen th and eighth grades. A new complex iscant'~ged incladiag the following centers: * Center far academic castrol, sapersisson, and papil aadit- * Educational and medical clinic center * Center foe the performing and ceeatsse arts * Children's library center * Farm fur city children * Centre for teacher traints g Appensimate total cost: $5 million. ExHsniT C MOUNT VERNON, N.Y. 46 PAGENO="0139" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 133 Title I and the Performing Arts: Some Possible Approaches Chairman: Kathryn Bloom, Director, Arts and Humanities Program, Office of Education In this special demonstration session, Miss Bloom introduced three groups of artists and arts administra- tors who have had extensive experience with perform- ing arts programs in schools enrolling large numbers of culturally handicapped children. Although demonstration formed an important part of the program, particularly in the case of the section on the dance, the explanatory remarks by the performers contained descriptions of their work in the schools. Excerpts from their comments, in a slightly edited form, appear below. The performers who gave these demon. strations have indicated their willingness to provide further information and/or materials about their ex- periences, on request. I. Dance Pearl Primus,1 the Primus-Borde Dance Studio, 17 West 24th Street, New York, N.Y. 10010 I understand that educators have reached the point where they realize that the word-spoken or written- is not enough to reach the whole being. We are talk- ing here especially about the deprived child. To me, the deprived child is one who has been socially and economically cut off from the visible and obvious benefits that can contribute to his personal growth. What has he done? He has taken the intangible essence which cannot be controlled by society and put it into his own world-and he has closed the doors. In many instances we cannot reach him with the obvious, with the visible and tangible. But through the arts. man's oldest and strongest means of communication, we can reach into the inner being of all children and all adults. Dance, like all arts, deals with an inner and invisible substance or essence which we cannot quite put our fingers on but must allow to speak for itself. Since MS.. ~ h, ~ ,,h,k ~ ~ Offi~, ~ p,~j~o ,.i~I.,i,g Af,i.~, ~ h.ip ~ ,h,Id ~ oh,, O.,,~o,d p~,pk,. L.ty,., p~~i h, P~,,,,,,-8od .oo~p~g, d.,o.,,d .ioyt,Ili,g p,,,,ooo,. h,~ 25 H,,!,,, ,I,,,,,,,.,,,,h,,I,. earliest times, dance has been used to teach the young the values in their society and to pass on values from generation to generation, even where there was no written word. The dance, sculpture, music, poetry, drama, painting-all of these have something today that has a value for society. And the child who is deprived has lived with dance and music-which often he has created for himself. Through dance and music and other forms of art, we can reach that child. As an example, this afternoon, I am going to demon- strate one of the most interesting and effective ways of subtly getting across what is right and what is wrong in a community. I believe that children, like all people, are essentially alike all over the world. Children especially are alike. When it is time to go to bed, they don't want to. And mothers are alike all over the world because they don't care for this-when it is time for the children to go to bed, they insist upon it. When the child stalls, he says, "Mommy, may I have a drink of water please?" or "Mommy, may I watch TV, please?" or "Hey Mom, will you read a story to me, please?" All over the world, it's the same thing. `ihe child will stall before going to bed. And so this has become the magic hour-the hour for story telling. In Africa, when a mother rises to tell a story, often through the dance, the story she tells has to do with certain things, either desirable or undesirable, in the society, in the culture. Now, as educators, we know that the legend, the story, is a powerful vehicle for transmitting values. And now we are going to see a story told in a way that gets these values across to the children without them even know. ing it. The story that will be told in my dance today is "How Mr. Spider Got Such a Small Waistline." Now, Mr. Spider, in west and central Africa, is a trickster; he is the vehicle for parents and teachers to portray those qualities which are not desirable in so- ciety. And, when you say to a child, "You're like Mr. Spider," it is indeed a terrible, terrible thing. Whether you like the story or not, notice the tech. nique of telling it. For it reaches the child-not only in Africa, not only in South America, not only among American Indians, not only among the people of Australia and the continent of Europe, but right here in our own big cities. For a story, told or danced, reaches 47 PAGENO="0140" 134 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS Miss Primus tells a "bedtime story" through the dance. can. II. Theater Marcelle Felser,~ The Vanguard Theater. Vanguard Projects Division. Pittsburgh Playhouse. 222 Craft Avenue, Pittsburgh. Pa. 15213 ~ 5i,,,,,@f5,Po~b~,gh ~ ~ 5, eis~b~~~gs ~, . ..~,k,g p,,,,.,,I~ .15 0, 17 p.blk ~ I,, PO'~b~~,g5. There is no mystery in the fact that Miss Primus has just been talking to you about "reaching," and that I have come up here to talk to you about "reaching." Because we arc all in the same business of trying to give an understanding of the contribution that the artist-the creative person-can make to the education of the human being. We in the Vanguard Theater believe strongly that classic theater, theater of content, has an enormous contribution to make to education. To bring theater into the schools is no revolutionary ... ~ ~J4 the child is ways that few other educational devices e3~~7 `~A~' 411 PAGENO="0141" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 135 idea. In many places in this country theater is already being brought into the schools, occasionally and in small amounts. We were not content with that. We said that the theater belongs in the schools as a co- curricular activity-not as an extraordinary, esoteric, and invited guest who can be brought to the table at 3:30 in the afternoon and kept very separate from everything else there was to learn. We asked that we might bring carefully designed theater into the high school auditorium to support the curriculum because the high school student has been studying theater as though it were a book, a record, or a film. The theater is none of these. The theater involves the impact of the performing human being-the reach, if you will. We have had our most magnificient, rewarding, and exciting impact when we have performed in the so-called culturally disadvantaged areas because the reach there is difficult. To reach across apathy, across distrust, across a kind of closing off and alienation, you need the kind of impact that makes the connection. The performing arts are interactive, and they do make that connection. The reaching that we talk about in the theater is the kind of reaching that connects the performance to the human being sitting out there in the audience. We all play roles; and somewhere along the line you must learn to use words in their natural form. We discovered when we performed in these culturally disadvantaged areas that many of the students had comes from homes where a kind of guttural exclamation took the place of words. Often too, their words were in no way connected with the emotion that was appro- priate to them. There was no way for these children in their day-to-day lives to come to understand the beauty and magnificence of words. Again, somewhere along the line,, as well as learning the ritual of the society out of which you come, you have got to understand what is the role of the human being, who you are, what connects you to-and what separates you from-every human being who has ever lived. And this is one of the things the theater can do for you. Because, when a man stands on the stage and talks to you about war and about war being the destruction of the human race, and you suddenly re- mind yourself that he is using words that were written in Greece two and a half millennia ago, it gives you a sense of the fact that there may be some continuity to life after all. We say that there have to be live actors performing this classic literature which educators have agreed belongs in the education of the human being. For the theater is the only art form where man stands on a stage and talks to man on behalf of man. And the theater is the art form devoted to, built on, and struc- tured around behavior-the role of the human being, the study of man, and the explanation of man. When we go into the high schools, we work in two ways. In the first, we put into the auditorium a stage set, complete with lighting and sound equipment, so that every performance can maintain the same high standard of excellence. Our performances run from an hour and 15 or 20 minutes to an hour and a half; they are designed to fit into two periods, back to back, not after school, not before school, not on Satur- day-but during the schoolday. Our performance may consist, for example, of some scenes from Richard Ill linked to some scenes from Shaw's St. Joan. The theme running through this is: There are assassins among us, and there are powerful people among us. How can we tell who they are? What makes the difference between a man like Richard III, who obviously went to hell, and a saint like Joan? They were both powerful. They both could use people. What was the difference? The second way we work is to take performers and bring them into the History and English classrooms. When I speak of bringing actors and actresses into the classrooms, I am speaking of people who are extraordinarily trained and educated, and who have this rare thing which is called talent, the talent to create while you watch them. They come into the classroom as specialists directly illuminating the educa- tional material which the student has to study. We do scenes from Shakespeare; we do dramas from all the dramatic poets; and we present the poet as a writer of direct communication, as a resource in the educational process. And we hope that what we are doing is illuminating for these students not just the moment that we are there, but that after we go, they look again into poetry because someone has come in and done something that has gotten them scared or happy or excited. They thought poetry was some- thing that a lot of jerks did, with long hair, sitting under a big apple tree, in the garden. They suddenly find masks in poetry-vigrous poetry, live poetry, re- flective poetry. Or they find that history is exciting and absorbing. There have been many history classes where the students have gone to the teacher after one of our performances and said such things as: "Now, listen, we've studied those Lincoln-Douglas debates, but we never got any of this. Could we read aloud some of Washington's speeches?" This is what happens when you perform the char- acters honestly. You make them come alive, and sud- 49 PAGENO="0142" 136 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS denlv the student understands that history is not full of faded figures in a book, or wax dummies, but people-people who coughed. and sneezed, and got scared, and cried, and stubbed their toes, and were human. Miriam Cherin, general manager. the Vanguard Theater We have a small company of nine people. The 3 actors and I actress are sometimes called upon to play 12 roles between them in I production. We also have three professional stagehands and two technical people who travel with the company. A scene designer. a voice and speech coach, a music consultant, and a sound consultant are on call. Our operation is not as tremendous and overwhelming a problem as you might think, particularly if there is a community theater or a resident theater or a university theater in your area that you can work with, as we have with the Pittsburgh Playhouse. We have worked primarily with the 17 public high schools in Pittsburgh. We have a budget of about $60,000. We charge $600 a performing day, and this includes the auditorium production and six classroom presentations. From these figures you can see that these things can be handled by school systems within existing budgetary limitations. III. Music Coleman Blumfield,' consultant, Residential Living and Counseling Branch. Office of Economic Op. portunitv, 1200 19th Street NW., Washington, D.C. 20506 I am well aware of the great performing arts centers that are springing up in the United States and of the millions of dollars that are being spent. But it seems to me that a great gap exists when it comes to bequeathing this cultural heritage, whether it be drama, dance, or music, to our young people. It is my contention that the performing arts can be presented to young children of even socioeconomic group. I don't care whether theyre "disadvantaged" or whether they're from the most sophisticated neighborhoods. They will respond. and respond spontaneously, if the work is presented properly. My first 2 years as artist-in-residence to the city of Flint were devoted to professional performances for the c~k,., BI~,5~fd h,,,,~l, ~ ~ .d,, oro f 25 f~b ~ .,,d ~ Pu,, ,~ hi. h~ 3 ~ ~ ,~h,,i,, sf Ftia. Mi,b. adult population and to workshops or master classes for the talented piano students of Flint and its surrounding areas. Toward the end of my second year of residence, however, I tried an experiment. Flint is, as you may know, the hometown of General Motors, The Greater Flint population is approxi' mately 4.00,000, and there are about 50 elementary schools, 3 senior high schools, and about 10 junior high schools, along with a junior college, and a University of Michigan extension, As an experiment, I scheduled myself into the three senior high schools, during school hours, to perform an assembly program. I played works of the same standard as those I have played in Carnegie Hall or here in Constitution Hall. And the kids stood up and yelled in a way the Flint public schools had never heard before. As a result, with the financial help of the city's busi- nessmen and cultural leaders and with the blessing and cooperation of the Flint Board of Education, we began a systematic series of classical concerts in all the Flint schools-public and parochial. We performed for chil' dren who ranged in age from prekindergarten to col- lege kids. An interesting thing about the 45,000 kids we reached the first year was that I personally received over 3,000 letters, and very few were written because "the teacher told me" to write them. And there were letters from parents, the school board, and from many of the civic leaders, too. These performances ~sere not just cold playing. I spoke to the children briefl~a of the merits of attending concerts, plays, art institutes, museums, going into the literary classics, and touched on some nontechnical in- formation concerning the work and the composer. I tried, where I could, to draw the teachers in so that they could lead from a performance of, say, a Prokofiev sonata, into an historical discussion of that particular era-1939--42-in the Soviet Union. The first year I began with a Schumann acabesque, a Chopin ballade.and then the entire Pictures at an Exhi' bition of Mussorgsky. This last work alone runs about 30 minutes. The second year we expanded. We did a Bach organ toccata and fugue, a large Chopin work, and an entire contemporary sonata. In the elementary schools, we did not lower the standard; we just chose classical works of shorter duration. Besides the per. sonal rewards that I received through letters and com- ments, there was a very marked increase in the number of young children going to the Art Institute of Flint and to concerts in Ann Arbor and Detroit. Flint is a bit deficient right now in theater, but they were attend' ing some of their own school performances and they 50 PAGENO="0143" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 137 were going to concerts. Little by little, we began to see the results of this unique program. Last sammer, I became very concerned about the young people in the poverty war, and within 3 weeks of my initial contact with the Office of Economic Op. portunity I was off on a first Job Corps tour. I went into areas that I don't think are even on the map, besides going into the large cities. And the reception was not just a polite acceptance; these Job Corps youngsters stood up and yelled as if somebody had hit a home run. Young corpsmen are writing to Mr. Shriver, and they are writing to me, asking. "When are we going to have more ?" And now Congress has legalized the performing arts in education, through passage of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of last year. And it is time now that we have a fruitful marriage. We wish, as performing artists, to build audiences that will fill to the brim the cultural centers that are coming up now. You, as educators, are in a unique position because you can make it possible for us to work together. There is nothing frightening about the performing arts; on the contrary, they provide education with marvelous re- source materials, and with a marvelous motivational force. I can see no more perfect union in this country, at the present time, than that now coming into existence between the performing arts and the educators. I only wish that we had had this opportunity when we were all going to school. When you are applying for artistic performances to be brought into the schools, however, please make sure that the experience will be of the highest professional excellence. Because it is very easy to introduce mediocrity in the arts, as in anything else. There is plenty of mediocrity around waiting to get a foothold and, once it does creep in. it's twice as hard to dislodge it as it would have been to provide excellence in the first encounter. You may have to do some negotiating as far as fees are concerned, but our great American artists are avail. able to the schools, if you want them, It seems to me that Title I of the new education act offers you the means to bring these people within reach of young people every. where. Through them, we can build a new and fantas' tically productive cultural era in the United States. 51 PAGENO="0144" PAGENO="0145" Section III. MAJOR ADDRESSES Education-The Ideal and the Reality Hubert H. Humphrey Vice President of the United States Throughout history, we seem to have revered and honored education-and almost in the same breath we have also seemed to be damning the schools. (It's remotely possible, of course, that some of you have ob- served this phenomenon yourselves.) Henry Adams-who thought well of education since he entitled his autobiography The Education 0/ Henry Adams-asserted nonetheless that "the chief wonder of education is that it does not ruin everybody connected with it-teachers and taught." Diogenes called education the foundation of every State. In fact, it was a truism among the ancient Greeks that only the educated are free. Yet Socrates was executed by the Athenians as a corrupter of youth- perhaps the first in a long line of martyrs to progressive education. Our own American scholars, such as Jefferson and Emerson, have been loud in their advocacy of educa- tion and merciless in their criticism of "the academies." You, as school officials, can undoubtedly call to mind a few other slings and arrows closer to your own time and circumstance. We should remember, however, that this seeming contradiction in attitudes does not spring entirely frotii some innate perversity in man. The truth is that edu- cational methods have never been good enough-and indeed may never be good enough-to feed man's in- satiable hunger for knowledge and wisdom and useful skills. The ideal, of course, is an educational system that will train, rather than chain, the human mind; that will uplift, rather than depress, the human spirit; that will illuminate, rather than obscure, the path to wisdom; that will help every member of society to the full use of his natural talents. The desire to bring the reality of education closer to the ideal is here-as it has always been. But the gap between the two is better perceived and defined, I believe, than ever before. 55 Educators are being called upon to find ways to close the gap-as they have always been. But we are closer to a true understanding of the methods than before. Most important, we today have the opportunity, and the means, to put those ways to work throughout the Nation. We see education, or the lack of it, as part of a larger social service system that has inadequacies-particularly for the poor in this affluent America. And so we have moved in numerous ways to improve those social services-in health, in welfare, in housing, in consumer protection, in urban development, in transportation. I need not tell you that a sick or a hungry child is never an eager or an alert learner. In the field of education for the disadvantaged, the sixties have brought new programs and major im- provements in old ones-Area Redevelopment Act training programs: Manpower development and train- ing, economic development, vocational education, li- brary services-and the whole range of antipoverty programs, including Head Start, Job Corps, Neighbor- hood Youth Corps, adult literacy, Upward Bound-and many more. And to climax it all, we enacted the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. Of course, the exciting thing about the Elementary and Secondary Education Act is not merely that it offers aid to education. Through Title I of that act- with which you are primarily concerned here-this Nation has begun to clarify and define the true role of education in America. It rejects the idea that the school is a mere facet of community life. It rejects the idea that education is but a reflection- and a delayed reflection at that-of American thought. It expresses, instead, an understanding-not new in American life, but sometimes obscured-that education must lead rather than lag; that it is an instrument of creation rather than a mirror only, of the American dream. 130 75-492 0 - 67 - 10 PAGENO="0146" 140 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS It offers to the schools the opportunity to strike at the roots of poverty by bringing intellectual awakening to millions of children who have in the past found only frustration and rejection in the classroom. If the Elementary and Secondary Education Act is sometimes referred to as a revolutionary step in Ameri- can education, it is because it present~ to the schools the magnificent opportunity of pla~ ing an active rather than a passive part in the continuing task of perfecting American democracy. The Commissioner of Education. Mr. Howe. has called you to this national conference, at President Johnsons request. so that you can help American educators make the most of that opportunity. This national program to aid the educationally dis. advantaged has been in actual operation only 10 short months. I think all of us here are probably agreed that, even in this short time, it has had a tremendous impact on our schools, and effected some substantial benefits for our children. Over 7 million deprived children have participated in projects funded under Title I this year. But it isn't just gross numbers that impress me. I'm impressed with the imaginativeness, the innova- tiveness. the simple brilliance of some of the projects I've been reading about. In Charleston. W. Va.. dinner is served 1 night a week in the school cafeteria to about 135 impoverished parents and children. Parents pay 35 cents, children nothing. Parents and children then go to separate study sessions. Subjects taken up by the parents were selected by them, and include the new math, foreign affairs, and homemaking. The program is creating a new, close relationship between the school and the community and improving education for whole families. In Tucson. Ariz., 200 college students are paired on a 1-to-i basis with first graders from a slum school. They spend 1 hour each week together in an activity of their own choosing. The young adults are students in educational psychology, trained to ask questions and elicit responses which sustain interest, promote further reaction, and stimulate linguistic effort. It is the high' light of the week for both college students and first graders. In New Mexico. Navajo children are going to sum- mer school this year in a mobile classroom as they follow the herds across the summer grazing lands. In Arizona. Papago children go to jail to learn English the tribal jail now houses a language laboratory center. Mentally retarded teenagers in Bloomington. Ind.. are being trained in a work-study project so they may continue a meaningful school curriculum and at the same time qualify for promised jobs in the community. Some children have gained as much as 5 pounds in the first week of hot breakfast projects. and their ability to stay alert and participate in class has cor- respondingly improved. In Rochester. N.Y.. art action centers funded under Title I caused much excitement among both teachers and pupils. One nonverbal second grader began to talk after the first day in the art center. lice President Hubert Humphrey delivers the keynote address at the opening general sesszon. Commi.ssroner Howe and Secretary Gardner on the left: Under Secretary Wilbur Cohen and Director of Welfare Ellen Winston on the right. 56 PAGENO="0147" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 141 What you are seeking here today are the ways to make every Title I project a quality project. You are asked to chart the way-or at least to find some of the guideposts-by which your colleagues throughout the Nation can steer their course during the coming year. You are dealing with a complicated set of social, psychological, and educational problems. There are no panaceas for instant healing of the cultural and psychological wounds which the disadvantaged child carries with him to school-or those which are, all too often, actually inflicted on him in the classroom. We all know, however, that these scars will not yield to the same old bromides that have failed in the past. We must find new and original approaches to educa. tion or we will go on condemning millions of Ameri- cans to generation after generation of intellectual and economic deprivation. In truth, what we are doing in our schools today simply does not work well enough for most of our children, and it does not work at all for millions of children whose values and experiences differ from the middle-class norm. This knowledge is profoundly disturbing, I know, to you and to educators all over the country. You and others are raising some basic questions about education which you will undoubtedly explore in depth at this meeting. May this ex-teacher raise some of the questions which he knows are of concern to America's educators and to your Government: * Are schools structured to suit the convenience of the teacher rather than the needs of the child? * Do some of our schools stifle initiative and the development of self-mastery? * Do we stamp some children with failure from the day they enter the first grade? * Are we actually reinforcing, in the classroom, the sense of inadequacy, of humiliation, of hopelessness, that begins in a deprived home environment? * Can it be that our schools actually contribute to nonlearning among the children of the poor? If any of these things are true, then it is time we re- examined some of the time-honored shibboleths of the profession and sought new insight into the educational process. You will not, of course, be able to find all the answers at this conference, but you will make progress toward that goal. America is determined to build a Great Society in which all her citizens can be full participants. You are here to help move us forward toward that goal. You are going back to your own States to hold similar conferences with your colleagues there. Yours will be the responsiliilitv of transmitting to them the fresh and invigorating ideas which are bound to come from your discussions here. Our goal of a Great Society is based, first and fore- most, upon our abiding faith that all levels of govern- ment and all social institutions in this great land are ready and anxious to play their full role in moving America forward. The Elementary and Secondary Education Act was perceived by the President and enacted by the Congress in the true spirit of a creative federalism which reflects that faith. It places, in fact, the principal areas of re- sponsibility right where responsibility for education has always been in America-at the State and local level. Local school superintendents and their staffs have the freedom to develop Title I projects tailored to the specific needs of the deprived children in their own communities. And they have the responsibility for seeing that the projects work toward that purpose. Theirs is the first, and the decisive, role in the three-way partnership. State officials have a responsibility to review care- fully the proposals of the local schools to make doubly sure that this great program is actually working to meet the needs of the children for whom it is intended. But their responsibility cannot end with merely approving or rejecting those proposals. Some schools in every State-usually those that need good Title I projects the most-lack the staff or the time or the originality to do effective planning on their own. Here is where State leadership can make itself felt. We have heard much-and appropriately so-about our urban problems. But let us not overlook the special problems of our rural areas. Here especially we must provide adequate technical assistance-on all levels. There is no room for apathy or pedestrianism at either State or local level. Enthusiasm, originality, and sound planning are the keys to making this program work. State and local superintendents must carry their full share in the partnership. If they do not, they are turning their backs not only on opportunity but on the children who look to them for help. The tragic loss will be all America's. I am sure that one of the problems for which you will be seeking solutions at your conference is one which has beset the schools for many years. And it is a prob- lem that new educational programs-for the time being, at least-tend to make worse rather than better. That 57 PAGENO="0148" 142 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS is the shortage of trained teachers and other skille~l school personnel. Over the years, through such new programs as the Teacher Corps and through special scholarship and training programs. I am sure that we will be able to attract many more people into the schools. I believe too that the new and invigorating climate of education in this country, the opportunity for doing challenging and worthwhile work, is already stimulating a new trend back into the educational professions. The problem. of course, is that today's children can- not wait for tomorrow's teachers. The shortage is going to persist for some years. but already we have begun. and particularly in the Title I projects. to find some new solutions to the problem. Commissioner Howe tells me that he has urged chief State school officers to take the lead in recruiting teacher aides, part-time staff, and volunteers to help out in the schools. I want to add my voice to his in urging you to explore this sensible, and typically American. solu- tion to the teacher shortage. It is typically American because it is based upon an American tradition that is at least as old as the "little red schoolhouse"-the tradi- tion of community involvement and participation in education. Our forefathers built their own schools with the help of their neighbors. They had box sup. pers and bazaars and hoe-downs to raise money to keep the schools going. They took turns providing bed and board for the "schoolmarm." That's part of the tra. dition I imagine most schoolteachers are glad to see is on the way out. In recent years. it seems to me, schools have too often tended to become aloof from the community. It is time we reversed this tendency. The problems we face in our schools today are too big for the schools alone. They require that all the resources of the community be put to work. Last year some 50,000 teacher aides were at work in our schools, freeing the teachers from routine duties to do a better job of teaching. When school opens this fall, many more will undoubtedly be on the job. I am sure that many homemakers who are qualified teachers would be willing to work part time if the need were known to them. And let us not forget the volunteers. If there is any doubt that community volunteers can make a willing contribution to education. I refer you to the experience of the Head Start program, which in its first year re- cruited nearly 100,000 volunteer helpers, as well as 46,000 paid neighborhood workers. The truth is that the American school, and particu. larly the school serving the poor, can no longer afford, for many reasons, to be an island cut off from com- munity life. There is a mutual need: The community needs the school, and the school needs to become a real part of the community. Here again, Head Start has made the point quite clear. In last summer's program alone, more than half a million disadvantaged kids were reached and given a short but wonderful experience. We know how dramatic and hopeful have been the im- mediate results of this experience. But many are asking-and I now ask: Will Head Start be a waste because the community does not do the necessary followthrough on the health and family prob- lems detected? Or because the schools to which the Head Starters go just are not good enough or resource~ ful enough? There are many ways we must employ to secure con- structive cooperation between the school and the com- munity. Let me cite just a few, Active involvement of parents-a hallmark of Head Start-must be stepped up at all levels of elementary and secondary schools. This is particularly true in districts where our disadvantaged children go to school. The children will benefit; the parents will benefit; the school will benefit; and the community will benefit, Our private organizations-labor, business, civil rights, fraternal, women's, and civic-are looking for a chance to serve. It is your responsibility and opportunity to add this important resource. Dedicated and talented students in nearby colleges and universities represent a rich source of tutors for dis- advantaged children-as the burgeoning student. tutorial movement attests. I have already referred to the need for educators to be concerned with the broad range of social services which must complement education as such. To all of this must also be added the need to face with increasing deter' mination the issue of segregation in our schools. I want to stress in the strongest possible terms, that we must press forward vigorously toward full integration of our schools. In our large cities particularly, economic factors and the movement to the suburbs are creating serious racial imbalance in the inner city schools. Many States and communities have developed ESEA projects which successfully aid the cause of school inte- gration. They are showing that we can have both quality and equality in our schools. It is unthinkable that compensatory education should be misused as an excuse to postpone integration. For the two are in reality effective and complementary allies 58 PAGENO="0149" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 143 in achieving our objective-an educational system in which every child can lift up his head and glimpse the true vision of America. For our goal is nothing less than the fulfillment of the American dream, It is the goal expressed a generation ago by the American author Thomas Wolfe: "To every man his chance, to every man, regardless of his birth, his shining, golden opportunity. To every man the right to live, to work, to be himself, and to be- come whatever thing his manhood and his vision can combine to make him. This . . . is the promise of America." 59 PAGENO="0150" 144 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS * The Task Ahead Dr. Ralph W. Tyler Director, Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences, Stanford, Calif. With the aid of Federal funds, the schools of America are now engaged in a concentrated attempt to improve the educational opportunities for disadvantaged chil- dren. The purpose of this intensified effort is to enable children who suffer from a variety of handicaps to ac- quire. through learning, the same educational objectives as other children so that all may participate construc- tively in our civil life, in our economic endeavors, in fulfilling and enjoying the responsibilities of family members, and in realizing as fully as possible their own individual potential. The aim is not to establish a sub- stitute program for those heretofore thought to be in- capable of learning but to provide means that will help the disadvantaged eventually to become full participants in our society. This endeavor precludes the provision of busywork and play to occupy the time of children who will be given no effective opportunities to learn those things that are essential to intelligent citizenship. occupational competence. constructive parenthood, and breadth and depth of personal enjoyment. That learning which is important for more fortunate children is the aim for those who are disadvantaged. The path to reach this goal and the rate of progress may be different, but we shall not be satisfied until we have devised ways by which all children may become lifelong learners. Educational disadvantages are of many sorts, and an individual child may suffer from one or more of them. Among the more common handicaps to learn- ing are: limited early experience in learning in the home and neighborhood: no encouragement given to learning; lack of confidence in one's ability to learn; limitations in early language development: lack of at- tractive examples of learning in the home or neigh. borhood that would serve to stimulate learning: lack of supporting materials and facilities in the home, neighborhood or school, such as places for study, books, art objects. musical performances. Further common handicaps are imposed when values instilled in the home are in conflict with values assumed in the school, when the content of school learning is perceived by the child as irrelevant to his life, interests, and needs, or when the child suffers from inadequate nutrition, ill health, or physical and mental disabilities. These edu- cational disadvantages may result from various condi- tions such poverty, a broken home, a low educational level in the home or neighborhood, or the fact that the English language is not used in the home. Or they may be caused by delinquency or neglect in the child's home or neighborhood, by family ill health, or by limited community services in the areas of educa- tion, health, recreation, and culture. Because of the range of possible educational handi- caps and the variety of contributing factors, disad- vantaged children are to be found in all States and in most localities. The patterns of problems are dif- ferent among different schools, but the tragic impact upon the child remains whenever he suffers serious educational limitations. The evidence obtained from current investigations indicates that for most disad- vantaged children the gap between their educational attainments and those of average children continues to widen with each school year. Children from a city or rural slum are commonly a year behind their more fortunate age-mates when 4 years old; by age 12 they are commonly 3 years or more behind. We face diffi- cult tasks in seeking to strengthen the educational en. vironment from early childhood throughout the years of schooling. Although the task of compensating for severe edu- cational handicaps is hard and complex, almost all communities have some resources on which they can draw to attack this problem. We have some knowledge that has already been obtained from the experience of school people and from research studies. I am confi- dent that additional helpful knowledge will be obtained from some of the programs recently instituted, and from the investigations undertaken by educational re- search and development centers and by regional lab- oratories. We now know that in early childhood, 60 PAGENO="0151" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 145 experience in discriminating sense impressions, par- ticularly those of sound and sight, provides a basis for language learning. We know that extensive oral language experience at ages 2 to 5 involving conven- tional vocabulary and syntax is an important basis for learning to read. We know that the attitude of parents and peers toward school learning is a factor influencing children's confidence and efforts. We know that early success in learning builds motivation for continued learning. These are only a few illustrations of knowl- edge which we can now use in guiding our planning and our work. More wiii be increasingly available. A second resource which many schools can use is the parents of the disadvantaged children. Most par- ents really care about the welfare and progress of their sons and daughters, but they lack understanding of how they can help, and they may be deficient in the skills required. Most of them need guidance and en- couragement. for they often lack confidence in their own ability to help their children. The sincerely dedicated teachers and administrators to be found in most schools provide another important source that is essential to a successful assault on the problem. The willingness of many professional edu- cators to take the time and effort to get to know each child in difficulty, to study the background information that may help in working with him, and to learn new ways of teaching and counseling should not be under- estimated. This provides us with a very worthwhile mission and a sense of pioneering on a major frontier. Many laymen, too, can be enlisted in the campaign. As loyal citizens and people who care about others, many of us are ready and able to use our time and our own selves, if we can be sure that we can be used con- structively. The contributions laymen can make will vary with the needs of the children and with the roles to be filled when the educational program is worked out. Generally, however, with careful attention to the necessary training and supervision, laymen will pro. vide an important resource in many schools. A fifth resource on which we can draw are the many aids to learning which are already available and which may be constructed and tested in these new programs. Blocks, pictures, games, movies, tapes, records, re- sponsive electronic devices, programed materials, type- writers, simple apparatus for experiments, new tools and instruments-these are among the more obvious aids that may be employed. However, there use should be guided by educational purpose and plan. Too fre- quently. we purchase aids before we have any clearcut use in mind. Instead, we need to work out the steps to be taken to aid the child's learning and to see which of these steps can be facilitated by appropriate use of learn- ing aids. A sixth kind of resource available in many localities is that of community agencies other than the school. Health and social services of various sorts, recreational opportunities, library services, museum offerings, musical performances. work opportunities and the like are sometimes available from community agencies and organizations. In some cases, these agencies are inter- ested in. and are able to develop, new services or will modify older ones to meet imperative needs of children. Where they can be obtained, services of this sort con- stitute a very helpful resource. Finally. but not least, we ought to recognize that a major resource in dealing with these difficult problems is the intelligence and ingenuity of the school leaders. In many communities there are no present blueprints or doctrines to guide them in the development of effec- tive programs. Fortunately, leaders in American schools are accustomed to striking out on new paths and solving new problems. The education of disadvantaged children represents an opportunity for imaginative ad- ministrator, and teachers to design new programs to meet our aspirations. The job of devising and instituting ways to enable disadvantaged children to become full participants in our society and to achieve their own self-realization is a hard one. We are fortunate to have a number of resources on which to draw as we undertake the task. How can we best proceed in developing an effective program in an individual school? Since the particular patterns of handicaps among children vary from school to school and since the re- sources available also vary, we cannot expect a single National, State. county, or even citywide program to be appropriate for any individual school. In significant respects the constructive means for aiding the disad- vantaged children in one school will not be identical with those in another. Hence the task we face is one of de- vising programs as well as implementing them. I emphasize the need for individual program designs because we are all anxious to get ahead with the job as soon as funds are available. But this can be unwise, wasteful, and disappointing unless we are embarked on a program appropriate for the problems in our school. I would urge that the first step undertaken in each school be a careful study of the kinds of handicaps found among the disadvantaged children in the school. Which children have deficiencies in language develop- ment? Which children find schoolwork irrelevant to their concerns? ~`hich children lack confidence in 61 PAGENO="0152" 146 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS their ability to learn? What are the inadequacies of the home and neighborhood environment for each child? With these and other relevant questions as a basis for searching inquiry, a list of the learning deficiencies and obstacles in the path of his educational development can be made for each disadvantaged child. Such a catalog serves to set the specific program tasks in helping each child to surmount his handicaps. A second step is to review what is now known about these obstacles to learning and the ways in which they can be attacked. This review fumishes initial leads about what needs to be done. Limitations in sensory perception of young children may be partly overcome through systematic practice in sensorY discrimination. A small English vocabulary and lack of conventional linguistic patterns among primary children may be at- tacked by active participation in listening, discussing, and reporting in oral English. The inclusion of learn- ing experiences in which reading, mathematics, science, and social studies are involved in problems with which the students are vitally concerned can help to reduce the alienation from schoolwork viewed as irrelevant by the pupils. A new selection and more careful grading of learning experiences will often help students to find that they can make progress in learning, and the teacher can aid by expressing approval and encouraging the child in his learning efforts. These are only a few examples illustrative of the sug- gestions emerging from experience and published re- ports about ways to attack the problems identified in the initial study of the disadvantaged children in one's own school. Once one has obtained ideas about ways of attacking these problems. it is useful to survey the resources avail- able in the school and community on which one can draw or which can be mobilized, organized, and trained for the implementation of the ideas suggested. Are there public or private health agencies that could work on the health problems? What social agencies might be able to meet the nutritional needs of the chronically undernourished? Are the parents from homes that are giving little aid to learning sufficiently interested in their children to be willing to undergo training and undertake some of the guidance and encouragement of their children's learning? Are there agencies or volun- teers that would be willing to read to young children and stimulate language usage? Which teachers have ex- perience in parent education that could be used in train- ing parents and laymen? Which are deeply interested In these children and have experience on which individ- ualized learning programs might be carried on? What consultants are available who have special competence relating to some of the problems? These are a few of the questions that one can ask in connection with a survey of the resources that might be drawn upon in de- vising and carrying on a program that could provide substantial help to disadvantaged children in their learning. Having identified the serious problems of the dis- advantaged children in one's own school, having brought together a number of ideas about the ways in which problems could be attacked, and having surveyed the resources that could be mobilized, one has the in- formation and suggestions from which a local program can be formulated systematically to furnish help on each problem and to provide individual guidance and graduated learning experiences from early childhood throughout the years of schooling. Such a program must meet several criteria. In the first place, within the program should be found all the provisions needed to attack the problems identi- fied. Usually these would include, when appropriate, a range of activities such as: parent training in helping young children with language learning and problem solving; special opportunities outside the home for young children to gain sensory discrimination, lan- guage habits, interest in learning, and confidence in their ability to learn; habits of punctuality and respon- sibility; opportunities in the school to continue these elementary learning experiences; revision of the school curriculum to give more attention to content relevant to the children's interests and needs, and a more gradual sequence of learning experiences; opportunities for older children to take partial responsibility for some of the learning activities of younger ones; individual prac- tice materials: utilization of a wider range of learning experiences such as games, audio-visual aids, work re- sponsibilities and the like; and extension of constructive learning opportunities and related features of a stimu- lating environment to the entire neighborhood, includ- ing recreation, community service, and the like. It is not enough to have a little change here and there. Sig- nificant impact on the education of disadvantaged chil- dren requires consistent efforts over the whole period of childhood and youth. This calls for a carefully planned comprehensive program. In the second place, the program must be sound and thoroughly worked out. There is no place here for superficiality. We are always tempted to boast of hav- ing adopted a popular practice without having carefully analyzed it and supported it with the necessary under- standing and training. The impediments in the way of learning encountered by disadvantaged children are so serious that we must understand them and spend the 62 PAGENO="0153" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDTTCATION AMENDMENTS 147 time and effort needed to become competent to work effectively on them. We must not expect that some attractise title or some simple principle can include all that we must do. Every step of the way we must try to see clearly what needs to be done and how to do it, and then get the training and the materials to do it well. In the third place, we must plan and work on a program that represents a big step forward. Minor adjustments, small contributions of time and energy are too little to do more than frustrate both teachers and pupils. Unless we invest enough time, thought. and energy to create a critical mass-to use a term often employed in science-we will get no return. When the plan for the program is being worked out, attention should also be given to the evaluative proc- ess that will furnish periodically evidence of how the program is succeeeding and where inadequacies are being encountered. This continuing appraisal is neces- sary to afford a basis for making necessary improve- ments in the program and for detecting weaknesses before it is too late to eliminate them. However, in many cases the instruments for appraisal will need to be devised or obtained from special projects now under way. Widely used achievement tests are focused on the educational performances of average children, since this affords the most efficient use of testing time where the purpose is to measure the mean or median achieve. rnent of class groups. Typically, 80 percent of all the test exercises lie within the band of 4.0 percent to 60 percent level of difficulty. There are so few exercises representative of the current achievement of disadvan- taged children that their scores on most of these tests are not greatly different from zero. This does not mean that they have learned nothing. The test has not sampled reliably the levels of learning with which they may have been involved. For this reason new tests are being constructed to aid in the evaluation. In addition to tests, we need accurate reports on the learning activities undertaken, on results of observa- tions and interviews with representative samples of disadvantaged children focused on their learning prac- tices. and on the development of attitudes, interests, and habits relevant to the educational objectives. Some schools are devising promising plans for evaluation that may be more widely useful. At least annually. but preferably more often, evaluation data should be reviewed and studied, and the implications for pro. gram modification carefully considered. in this wa~ we can hope to make constructive improvements in programs through experience. I think it is clear to all of us. but still worth reiterat- ing, that the handicaps of disadvantaged children are serious and will not be overcome in a short time. This problem calls for long-range plans. not for temporary makeshifts. Each individual child needs years of learn- ing experiences which are meaningful to him, which he can master at each stage of his development, from which he can gain confidence and competence. and from which he can emerge able to participate without serious limitations in all the important functions of modern life. So for him we must plan a program with which he can work for 14 or more years. To develop a program that is highly effective requires the further education of personnel, the devising of curricula, teaching procedures and materials of instruc- tion, and the testing and modification of plans and materials through evaluation experience. Hence, for a school to reach an adequate stage in its work with disadvantaged children will take several years. If we are seriously determined to raise the educational op. portunities for these pupils, we must think of this as part of the long-time responsibility of the school. It is not an ephemeral effort which can be forgotten in a few years. The conditions of life today require the education of everyone who would participate fully in it. At least 15 percent to 20 percent of our children are not now attaining the level of education required for em- ployment, for intelligent citizenship, for responsible parenthood, or for achieving their own individual potential. These disadvantaged children include those with one or more of various kinds of educational handi- caps arising from a corresponding variety of physical, educational, cultural, and emotional conditions. The children are distributed throughout our country, but the particular patterns of handicaps vary widely among the schools. The task for each of us is to study the disadvantaged children in our own school, seeking to understand their handicaps and then to work out a comprehensive program for the school, a program that is calulated to make an effective attack upon the problems these children face and that uses the resources available to the school. As the program is carried on. periodic appraisal should provide bases for improvements. Over a period of time, we can hope to develop paths by which the disadvantaged children in each school may learn to participate with their more fortunate companions more fully in American life. This is a difficult and long-time task, but it is sri essential to our political and social ideals and successful efforts will be so rewarding that this hard job is worth our big investment. 63 PAGENO="0154" 148 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS The Vice President greets conferees following his address. PAGENO="0155" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 149 Remarks Lyndon B. Johnson President of the United States When Secretary Gardner told me that he was plan. ing to visit with you, I asked him if I could come along. I have a very brief message to bring: No group any. where in this Nation is charged with a problem more urgent that yours. You are at work on the bedrock foundations of all we ever hope to build in America. You work along a lonely frontier-as exposed and, in some ways, as hazardous as the soldiers' outpost in Vietnam. On both battlefronts the future of free men will get its toughest testing. To reach the disadvantaged child's mind-to tear away the awful shrouds that dim the light of learning- to break barriers built by poverty and fear and racial injustice-this is the most exciting task of our times. We have not asked you to come to Washington be- cause the Federal Government has the an.swers. But we have the questions and we like to believe that is the beginning of wisdom. Our Federal program is based on a simple proposi. tion: that it costs more not less to educate a disad. vantaged child. It takes the best not the mediocre teachers. It calls for the three Is of education-- inspiration and innovation and ideas-if we are going to get anywhere with the three R's. That is why we made Title I the granddaddy of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act-over five times larger than all the other titles combined. That is why we have fought so hard to found and to fund the Teacher Corps. I believe the school bill now on the books is the most creative legislation passed by Congress since I came to Washington. But it will be a sterile piece of paper unless you breathe life into the programs that flow from it. Since I became President, we have increased the total funds for education and training from just under $5 billion to over $10 billion. But these billions will be wasted unless you have the vigor and the vision to spend them wisely. That is why we have invited you to Washington. We hope you will have an opportunity to review your plans, exchange your ideas, describe your prob. lems-and then go back home and work double time on your programs. I would like to add one word of caution: Some enthusiasts argue that if a $10 billion education pro- gram is good this year, $20 billion would be better. Your President cannot leap to easy conclusions like that. He must ask certain questions. He must ask his advisers whether a sudden, large increase of funds makes good sense in educational terms. Their answer is that it definitely does not. On the contrary, they argue that it could lead to waste and mismanagement which would bring discredit to the program. Your President must ask his advisers what would be the effect of a large deficit in the Federal budget. They reply that it could trigger inflationary pres. sores and undermine all that you are attempting to accomplish. And your President must ask his advisers whether he could justify such an increase by cutting back on other programs-for health, for Head Start, for mak' ing our cities a decent place to live. But our schools do not operate in a vacuum. And I don't believe edu' cators want us to cripple these other programs that are vital to their communities. Your President must get answers to all these ques. tions when he makes a judgment. But of one thing you can be sure: So long as I hold this office, educa- tion will continue to be the "first work of our time." And educators will occupy a place of honor at the banquet table. When you go back home, I hope you will pass the word to all your associates. Your President cares deeply about what you are doing. He has a lot of money and a lot of hope riding on you. 65 PAGENO="0156" 150 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS I am here tonight to thank you for your time, your interest and your creative contributions to this con- ference. I am also here to try to take an honest look at perhaps the most demanding challenge confronting American elementary and secondary education-the challenge of helping the schools do more for those students who come to the classroom with a built-in disadvantage. As we go about this exercise of looking at our prob- lems, it is important to keep a decent perspective, lest we seem to be saying that nothing is good about Ameri- can education. We all know that much of the activity in our schools is first rate. I think it is entirely accu- rate to say that the United States provides more edu- cation to more people than any other nation in the world. Remarkable advances are taking place in many of our schools. Some communities have taken positive and successful steps toward providing equal oppor- tunitv for all children and toward introducing promis- ing innovations in teaching methods and tools, Con- solidation of the schools in many States is providing a richer education for hundreds of thousands of chil- dren. The general public interest in improving edu- cation has reached unprecedented levels during the past 10 years. and the actions of our President and our Congress have made us an education-conscious Nation. But as we take pride in these achievements, we must recognize that innovative education and high quality education and equal educational opportunity are not available to many of America's children. And we must recognize also that the children who are least served by the new push of the last 10 years to improve the schools are those who are most in need of special help: the minority group children-the Negroes. the Puerto Ricans. the Mexican-Americans. Add to them the children of those we call `poor whites" and you have about 20 percent of America's school-age young peo- ple, those between 5 and 17. It is because of these children that we have Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. And it is because of them that you and I are here in Washington tonight to share our ideas on how to make better use of the magnificent opportunity this act gives us as educators. As we consider next steps to improve what we are doing with Title I funds in the service of disadvantaged children, we have the benefit of new insights into our problem of providing equal educational opportunity. These insights come from a scholarly study of the status of our efforts in desegregating the schools, in upgrading the education offered to disadvantaged children, in giv- ing these youngsters a sense of their own worth in the national community. The study I speak of is summarized in a 33-page book- let published by the Office of Education and entitled Equality of Educatmonal Opportunity. My feeling is that the data lying behind this publication will have- and most certainly should have-a deep and lasting effect on American education. I would like to discuss the report this evening because it bears on the subject of our conference, The booklet presents the preliminary findings of an undertaking instigated by the Congress in the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Congress directed the Com- missioner of Education to survey "the lack of equal educational opportunities for individuals by reason of race, color, religion, or national origin at all levels in the United States, its territories and possessions, and the District of Columbia." The full 700-page report is expected to be off the presses by the end of this month. The project ultimately involved some 60,000 teachers and 645,000 pupils in 4,000 schools across the Nation and in its territories. So far as I know, this is the largest, most comprehen- sive and most scientific look that has ever been given to the schools-and the schoolchildren-of the United States. We asked some straightforward questions, and we assume we got straightforward answers. I stress the fact that the findings I shall refer to to- night need further interpretation. It will be many A New Benchmark for Education Harold Howe II U.S. Commissioner of Education 66 PAGENO="0157" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 151 months before the data collected in a survey of this magnitude can be fully evaluated, so that firm recom- mendations for public policy can flow from them. I stress, too, the fact that the information on which the report is based was gathered last fall-before any title I projects really got launched. So, although the survey was not made with Title I in mind, I think it may provide a reliable baseline for measuring the impact of the s-sri- ous Title I programs now underway. The survey is in effect an effort to describe statistically the extent of educational opportunity which exists through the country for the minority groups as com- pared to the white majority. In the months and years ahead the Office of Educa- tion staff, aided by advisors from the educational com- munity throughout the country, will be studying how the survey findings can sharpen our current programs and what implications they have for future directions. But the study does not belong to the Office of Educa- tion. It belongs to the Nation, and I would encourage other groups, public and private, to explore it carefully. In particular, I invite the attention of those of you here tonight. Challenge the survey, hypothesize from it, learn from it. I especially ask for your cooperation because I think that in many ways the survey's implica- tions and the applications of title I are complementary. Now, let's take a look at what we have found so far- and what the survey might seem to suggest to the States and the local school systems most of you represent. We found that for all practical purposes, American education can be labeled as segregated. Over two.thirds of all Negro pupils in the first grade go to schools that are 90 to 100 percent Negro; only a handful of the Nation's Negro first graders are getting the benefit of desegregated education. in the light of the 1954 Supreme Court ruling, the requirements of the Civil Bights Act, and the further finding of this survey that segregated education is likely to be of lower quality for minority group children than for the majority, these facts should give us pause. Turning to the general characteristics of schools, in one part of the survey we measured such matters as the age of the school building, the average number of pupils per classroom, whether there was a library, a cafeteria, a chemistry laboratory. We asked about accreditation. accelerated curriculum, use of the track system. salaries of principals, debate teams and bands, teacher tenure. Next we turned to the classroom and asked questions of the students themselves. Some of the questions were designed to give us an index of socioeconomic factors: others, an academic achievement rate of verbal and mathematical results. Among other things we found that many of the ob- vious differences among schools do not have a major bearing on differences in student achievement. Within that finding, however, it was also clear that achievement of disadvantaged pupils does depend to a statistically significant degree on the schools they attend-consid- erably more than for children of the white majority. Put another way, advantaged students are less affected one way or the other by the quality of their schools. It is for the most disadvantaged children that improvements in school quality mean the most. This finding obviously has significant implications. It seems to say, for example. that a program like Title I can make a difference if we are skillful enough to use it effectively. But before I jump to this or any other con- clusion. I want to offer you the same caveat I offered my staff when we first discussed the survey. I think we must steadfastly refrain from reaching for quick, sim- plified conclusions. I believe we all need to spend con~ siderable time with the full report-all 700-odd pages of it-before we can make plans for special projects and programs based upon it. We have to insert a step be- tween implication and application, and that step should involve very careful study-not just speculation. Next, let's take a look at the teachers we surveyed- 60,000 of them. We sought information about how much they earn. what they majored in at college, years of teaching ex- perience, average scores on a verbal test, and so on. The results were not especially surprising. In some ways-though by no means all-they were reassuring. The figures indicate that the quality of teachers defined in terms of the factors I have just listed bears a much stronger relationship to student achievement than does the quality of the school. Furthermore, a good teach- er's impact on students appears to be greatest at the higher grades. And third, teacher quality seems to he significantly more important to the disadvantaged boy or girl than to the advantaged student. These facts have interesting implications too, par. ticularly when they are put against other information that emerged from the study-information which shows that disadvantaged students tend to wind up with the least capable teachers. We must, then, link this fact with the finding that it is the disadvantaged child who most needs a good teacher and who can gain the most from hiiu. Parenthetically, it seems to me worth noting that Congress wisely preguessed these survey findings by forming the National Teacher Corps. This new en- terprise is the only effort on a countrywide basis to train high quality teachers specifically for working with disadvantaged children. 67 PAGENO="0158" 152 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS Now that I have suggested some implications concern- ing schools and teachers, let us turn to the children. We asked 145.000 of them to take an achievement test. designed to measure verbal and mathematical skills that are most important in our society for getting a good job. moving up to a better one, and keeping on top of an increasingly technical world. We also touched upon such matters as student atti- tudes and aspirations in the survey. And in the process we came upon one pupil attitude that appears to affect achiesement more than all other school factors to' gether. I refer to the extent to which the individual student feels he has some control over his destiny-over the possibility of his own success or failure. Far more than the average youngster. the disadvantaged boy or girl feels that his future lies in the lap of the gods, that whether he succeeds or fails will be determined prt. manly by blind chance rather than by his own efforts. Such findings raise interesting questions about what schools can do to build confidence and self.assurance- qualities characteristically lacking in a great many dis' advantaged pupils. We must explore the implications here for counselors in the schools, for school organiza- tion, and for the human relationships which exist be- tween pupil and teacher. The survey also demonstrated that when the dis- advantaged child walks in the schoolhouse door for the first time, he scores lower on standard achievement tests than his advantaged peers. And by the time he reaches the 12th grade. the gap has widened considerably. Whatever may be the combination of nonschool factors which put minority children at a disadvantage when they enter first grade-poverty. community attitudes, low educational level of parents-the schools have not only failed to make up the diflierence. they have let these youngsters slip further away from the mainstream of our national life. This fact presents a sobering challenge to American education. The survey report is full of such challenges. And thus our schools have-for the first time, to my knowledge-a benchmark. Against that benchmark. in the next 2 or 3 years. we can measure the impact of programs like the Elementary and Secondary Educa. tion Act in the schools. One more item from the survey about students: The findings strongly suggest that perhaps the most signifi. cant element in creating opportunity for disadvantaged pupils is to put them in school with children who are iiot disadvantaged. I want to emphasize that the edu- cational effectiveness of a mixture of children from different backgrounds does not refer only to racial integration. It also refers to economic and social integration. It means that if you put a small group of disadvantaged Negro children in a class with a large group of white children from middle.class homes, the Negro children will profit appreciably by that associa- tion almost without regard to the quality of the school. And it means that if you put white children from an ur- ban slum in a classroom with middle.class children- white or Negro-the disadvantaged white children's schoolwork will also improve. On the other hand, if you took two groups of disadvantaged children-some Negro. some white--and put them in the same class- room, neither group would receive the kind of stimula- tion for added learning achievement that our survey findings reveal. Such integration would perhaps im- prove the social attitudes of both Negro and white children, but it would not necessarily produce intellec- tual stimulus. Finally-on this matter of students stimulating other students--our survey findings indicate that the inte- gration of children from different social and economic backgrounds helps the disadvantaged without harming the education of the advantaged. The major point to remember is that when we are talking about public policy and placing youngsters of varied backgrounds in school together to create the best learning situation, we are talking economic and social factors every bit as much as racial factors. The report also says this to us: that the neighborhood school concept is going to be subjected to considerably more study and debate, much of it doubtless heated. I think we must all agree that neighborhood schools have served us well and continue to do so in many areas of the Nation, But the extraordinary population shifts taking place in our country make it necessary that we take a close look at shat the meaning of the word "neighborhood" has come to include. To a disturbing degree it has come to mean the polarization of families according to the size of their split-level homes or the size of their welfare checks. We are faced with the fact that we are becoming a nation of plush suburbs on one hand and midcity slums on the other. Economically and socially, and in the ability of millions of American citizens to achieve their aspirations, the two show signs of becoming separate and even antagonistic continents. The schools in the suburbs teach children who live in a world of wall-to-wall carpeting, pleasant backyards, and summers at camp. The parents demand quality education, and they have the political muscle and the capacity to tax that make this demand stick. But they also have the capacity to forget that their neighbors in the central city have children who play in 68 PAGENO="0159" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 153 alleys and live six to a room. These people share the suburbanite's interest in qoality education, hut they can support it only with their spirit, not their pocketbooks. I..et me emphasize hece a fact that often gets lost in our discussions on civil rights: Deprived children come in assorted colors. When we talk about the "dis- advantaged" we are not speaking only of Negro chil- dren. Nor are poverty and want strictly urban afflic- tions. There are rural enclaves-in Appalachia and in the Ozarks, to mention just two-where Anglo-Saxon Americans still live in tarpaper shacks and cannot read or write or earn a decent living. And there are pockets of poor whites within the boundaries of our industrial cities. These are the reasons why we will have to reappraise where the boundary lines of neighborhoods should be drawn when we speak of "the neighborhood school." It is essential that we give youngsters a glimpse of American life as Americans of every stratum actually live it. Among other things, this means operating our school systems in a fashion that encompasses the rich social, economic, and cultural diversity that distin- guishes our Nation. None of us is sure what changes should be made in school policy and organization. But we are rapidly developing a useful shopping list of ideas for experi- mentation. States and local school boards will have to determine what approaches best fit their particular situations. Certainly they can be helped by Title I funds as they make changes of a variety of kinds. Learned Hand once observed that "it is well enough to put one's faith in education, but the kind makes a vast difference." I suspect that in the surge of faith in education that has characterized the last few years, too many Americans have neglected to pay enough at- tention to what kinds of education we are talking about-what standards of quality we have in mind and how universal we believe quality education should be. I congratulate all of those here tonight who have taken on the responsibility of leading the drive to give off our children the best education that money, talent, training, and initiative can provide. Your success in providing that leadership and mar- shaling the good will and resources of the American people toward the achievement of equal opportunity will provide the final comment on the survey I have been reviewing tonight. Your actions in the next 12 months and the next decade will determine whether the report on equal educational opportunity becomes a plan for progress, or whether it remains nothing more than an interesting, well-documented diagram of inequalities which exist in 1966 and will continue to exist in the years that follow. 69 PAGENO="0160" PAGENO="0161" Section IV. COMMENTS BY PANELISTS Comments by Panelists At the close of the conference, panelists were invited to submit brief comments relating to the work of the conference or expressing their own views on education of the disadvantaged. Regarding the conduct and accomplishments of the conference, most of the panelists commented favorably, and many offered generous praise. A number gave valuable suggestions for making future meetings more productive. A few expressed grave dissatisfaction with the makeup, conduct, and usefulness of the conference. The Office of Education, and the conference staff, are grateful for these candid expressions of opinion- both the "bouquets" and the "brickbats." Panelists' suggestions will be carefully studied and taken into account in the planning of future meetings. For inclusion in this section of the conference report. however, only statements bearing directly on the subject matter of the conference have been selected, and these are, of necessity, excerpts only. Not every panelist is represented. In the interest of brevity and to avoid unnecessary reiteration of the same or similar points of view, the comments quoted below were chosen to present to the reader a broad range of panelist opinion. In no sense should they be regarded as summarizing the views held by the panelists. On the contrary, this section of the con- ference report purports to do no more than offer a series of interesting vignettes which, it is hoped, will prove stimulating and thought provoking and serve as a use- ful supplement to the Summary of Panel Discussions (section I). Edward B. Fort, director, Division of Instruction, Detroit Public Schools The issue of school desegregation is the area wherein school leaders can really prove their leadership. Arthur Pearl, professor of education, University of Oregon There was anger expressed at the conference, anger at those who argued that this was not the best of all possible worlds, those who insisted that education is falling farther behind in meeting the needs of youth. 73 This is misplaced anger. The anger should be at those institutions which inhibit growth. Title I must be a beachhead for schools; it must (1) provide everyone freedom of life choice, (2) generate skills necessary to citizenship in a complicated democratic society, (3) develop capacity to be a culture carrier, and (4) foster the strength to thrive in a mass society. The confer- ence failed to crack through complacency. The con- ference did not provide a conceptual outlook for whole- sale educational change. Thus, this major job is still before us. At the present time we are too timid, too tired, too conservative. Adron Doran, president, Morehead State College College teachers today continue to teach those pre- paring to teach in elementary and secondary school in the same manner as they themselves were taught. We need to know far more about how the disadvan- taged children respond and learn, and then we need to modify the teacher education programs of prepara- tion accordingly. J. K. Haynes, executive secretary, Louisiana Educa- tion Association Today, we are in a face-to-face confrontation with another important challenge in the desegregation proc- ess-that of desegregation of faculties. This will re- quire a posture of leadership that this Nation cannot abdicate. A segregated faculty is discriminatory to all school children-thus, faculty desegregation becomes a vital component in desegregation of our public schools. Harriet Reynolds, assistant director, Education and Youth Incentives, National Urban League We must quickly develop new educational methods for reaching the so-called unmotivated student and his parents. Students will learn to the degree that edu- cation is made important to them, reasonable in terms of their value system, and rewarding. Parents will assist in motivation for education to the degree to which they are involved and understand both the process and the value which it holds for the child. These state- ments have been demonstrated, and what is now needed 1:;.-; 75-492 0 - 67 - 1 PAGENO="0162" 156 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDtJCATION AMENDMENTS is a refinement of the techniques and a determination by the Office of Education of how we duplicate and expand successful projects without svatering down the effect. May I suggest that the critical issue to be faced under Title I is how we develop new techniques rather than expand the old. James G. Banks, executive director. United Planning Organization The need for a sense of urgency among educators about this matter is so great that I would recommend that the Office of Education engage panels of evalu- ators for deployment throughout the country to study Title I programs. These panels should include parents of the disadvantaged, employers, social service people. poverty program officials as well as educators. One of the primary objectives of the panel should be to assist local school officials in recognizing the magnitude of the problem, their own role in its resolution, and the availability of a host of resources to assist in doing the job. Schools should be challenged to provide corn- munitv leadership in meeting the need. Margaret A. Dabnev, professor of adult education, Virginia State College This conference reiterated one of the first principles in programing: the need to involve the people for whom the programs are designed. However, even though all of this was enunciated time and time again I have some skepticism about the extent of its application; often when pressed. participants would admit that the people whom they were involving were really the friends of the poor who presumed to speak for the poor. Jacob Silverberg, chief psychologist. Memorial Guidance Clinic The key person who lives with the children everyday in the classroom is the teacher. Substantial enhance' ment of teacher training and of teacher acceptance and long-term work stability I see as very material provi- sions to cope with the problem of educating the dis- advantaged child. Let us not find ourselves when the smoke settles with "disadvantaged teachers." Marvin G. Olne, assistant director. Institute for Youth Studies. Howard University School of Medicine A skillful teacher might be able to use a variety of helpers, but this requires a very careful analysis of the events in the classroom and the problems of manage' ment. Indiscriminate use of aides without preparation of the master teacher and the rest of the school struc- tore may do more harm than good. Another danger in the use of aides comes from their restriction to cus- todial work in the classroom. While this may ease the teacher's burden, it also reinforces the child's view that poor people (if they are the source of aides) are typi- cally the custodians, even in the school situation. The notion of educational complexes or parks is an exciting and productive one. The large, flexible campus is the most attractive technique now available for reshaping the metropolitan school picture. Frank L. Stanley, Jr., associate director for educa- tion, National Urban League Excellence in public education in a democratic society must strive for academic, intellectual, and crea- tive growth in terms of human values and human relations. Public education must have a purpose germane to the ideals of our society. Therefore, academic skills should not be viewed as ends in themselves, but rather as tools for responsible, knowledgeable, and humane citizenship in a multiracial, pluralistic society. Rodney Tillman, assistant superintendent in charge of elementary education, Minneapolis Public Schools Teaching can no longer be considered as only work- ing in the classroom with pupils. It must include time for planning appropriate learning opportunities for learners. This will require a longer year for many educators, It seems very inconsistent that education (formal schooling aspect), now generally agreed to be America's most important business, is carried on by part-time workers. Robert L. Green, director of education, Southern Christian Leadership Conference Significant progress will not be made in elevating the general staus of the poor until educators begin to adopt the attitude that our society must achieve a com- mitment to being fully open in (1 housing, (2) em- ployment, (3) integrated education, and to the acceptance of all men without reservations. A fed- erally financed program of inservice training for both teachers and administrators is immediately necessary. The USOE should assume an aggressive leadership program both for schoolteachers and administrators, focusing on their responsibility in creating an atmo' 74 PAGENO="0163" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 157 sphere that will facilitate the type of democratic attitude that will lead to a fully open society. The components discussed above would also be relevant here. Educators have long voiced their concern about building a democratic society; however in building this society, we must move outside of the narrow defini- tion that has often been applied to the term "education." A. Harry Passow, chairman, Committee on Urban Education, Teachers College, Columbia University School systems have not dealt creatively with the technical aspects of evaluation of Title I programs- using the financial support as the means for diagnosis and differentiation as well as assessment and measure- ment. (In addition, we might use Title I evaluation as basis for a related cooperative research program to really study program effectiveness.) Far better assess- ment is needed. Our approaches to parent education have been gen. erally unimaginative. There is a "hidden curriculum" in the home of the achieving child. What elements of this can be or should be "taught" the parent of the disadvantaged child? Can we involve parents in the teaching process as a way of teaching them? Don Davies, executive secretary, National Commis- sion on Teacher Education and Professional Standards, National Education Association Other suggestions, briefly noted, were- * Set aside 10 percent of all Title I funds for small grants to individual teachers to enable them to carry out small projects and activities which they cannot or do not do because of lack of money. The grants might range from $500 to $2,000. * Have no teacher in a disadvantaged school during his first 2 years of teaching carry more than a half-time load. Provide supervision, help, support for beginning teachers. * Have institutes and workshops on the education of disadvantaged children in slum schools rather than on college campuses and hotels. * Include in the elementary school curriculum for disadvantaged children the study of human behavior and human relations. * Find a variety of ways to make the job of the teacher in the slum school more manageable and at- tractive-through teacher aides, help from other specialists, special preparation. * Put all teachers in disadvantaged schools on a 12-month contract. Dixon Bush, director, Antioch Interracial Education Program. Antioch College There is disagreement as to what education is for the disadvantaged. It can be cast as an urging to change and be like the dominant society. It could be an invitation to grow and become more extensive without rejecting antecedents. The first works only rarely, and then with questionable consequences; the second is a course which the schools are ill prepared to try. It will work, with effort. John A. Morsel, associate director, National Associa- tion for the Advancement of Colored People More work is needed to clarify our knowledge of the interaction between the child's state when entering school, what happens to him during his school years, and the nature of his nonschool environment. For example: I have known that the gap in achieve- ment of disadvantaged and advantaged children, sub- stantial at first grade, widens over the next several years. It is assumed that this represents a challenge solely to the school, which is responsible for overcoming it. My personal inclination is to accept this view. But I and those who share this view would be on firmer ground if research could determine to what extent the widening of the gap represents school inadequacies and to what extent it represents the continuing and cumula- tive effect of the elements which produced the initial disparity. In other words, how much can the schools accom- plish, under the wisest and most resourceful programs, so long as the nonschool environment of disadvantaged children remains essentially the same? The dictum that the segregated school is inherently inferior continues to stand, in some minds, as an in- hibitor of efforts to make effective learning instruments out of schools which, for the foreseeable future, cannot possibly be desegregated. Some thorough clarification of what is possible, without in any sense sacrificing the ultimate goals of truly democratic education (i.e., inte- grated education ) - is greatly needed. The junior high school contains all the problems of disadvantaged pupils in their most concentrated and virulent form. If we can hope for the end of the junior high school, there still remain the tens of thousands who will have to suffer through it until it is done away with. Attention paid to this area should also seek to determine whether, and to what extent, reorganization on a 4.-4---4 basis actually eliminates junior high school 75 PAGENO="0164" 158 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDLTATION AMENDMENTS proh~eme or merely lejve' them untouched under another name. Leander 3. Shaw, dean. Graduate School. Florida ~.. & \l. 1 on ersit~ This problem of the disadvantaged is ~erious enough to suggest that teacher training programs in colleges and unisersities become more specialized and directed toward training more teachers. counselors, and adminis- trators for isork with disadvantaged children. For its practical application, such a program should be inter- disciplinary. ishich isould permit the teachers who major in these specialized areas to integrate courses in many fields. Irvansae .tpplegate, president. National Education Association The use of the terms `innovation' and `imaginative thinking' should be played down and more emphasis given to meeting basic needs. Too many planners have interpreted innovation as being something completely new, and many man-hours have been wasted in seeking gimmicks which should have gone into a search for suc- cessful practices and how to adapt them to the local situation. In the development of curriculum to meet the needs of educationally disadvantaged, it would be useful to plan- ners if they could be helped to recognize that the prin. ciples of sound curriculum deselopment apply and that they are rea1I~ not dealing with anything so new or dif- ferent. that they are now only being asked to face up to providing for a group not previously reached. James L. Farmer, director. Center for Community Action Education A teacher can be effective in teaching the disadvan- taged only when he believes they can be taught. and be- lieves in them-not in a romantic way, ascribing to all of theni all of the virtues and none of the vices of man, hut in the realistic sense that there is among them a resers oir of submerged intelligence, talent, and ability. the discovery of which is an exciting adventure, worthy of the best in any teacher. If the teacher views them as worth1e~s, they sense it quickly. and this reinforces all that a hostile society has said to them in the past. In a is ord, the teacher must empathize. There i~ a growing awareness among educators that mans of the teacher's functions, especially nonteaching roles, can be performed b~ nonprofessionals working as teacher aides under the supervision of the teacher. Fuller, more creative use of the teacher aides not only frees the teacher to spend more time on teaching duties hut also opens up new careers for nonprofessionals. Instructional materials, including textbooks, need to be relevant to the lives, the experiences, and the frames of reference of the learners. Otherwise they cannot be meaningful aids to learning. Materials must deal with the things children know about-the kind of houses they live in, the kind of stores they shop in, the kind of streets they play in. Most importantly1 the materials should deal with themselves, black faces as well as white. And they must learn about their people and their history, as they learn about other peoples and their histories, Kay Earnhardt, coordinator of reading, Atlanta Pub' lic Schools I am suggesting that the primary cause of learning disability might be directly attributable to the fact that the teacher is so unaware of the overall structure of her subject matter that she is unable to match the level of her presentation to the capacities of students of dif' ferent abilities at different grades in school. I think there is sufficient evidence that much of what we already know to be sound educational practice is not taking place in many classrooms for the disadvantaged and that it might be a waste of time and energy to devise new pro- granis when many of the ones we have now have never been used properly. How can we design inservice training courses to help teachers meet the individual needs of their students? Are we going to continue to have facultywide inservice meetings where we all come together every other Tubs' day afternoon to get enlightened, from kindergarten through grade 7? After 4 years of lectures at the cob lege and university level I doubt that more of the same is going to bring about improved teaching. Inservice training needs to be as individualized as we scant the classroom teaching to become. Teachers need today's questions answered today within the confines of their own classrooms, not Tuesday week in front of the entire faculty. R. Lee Henney, director Adult and Literacy Educa' tion, Indianapolis Board of Fundamental Education A subject which was cut very short beacuse of lime was the evaluation of projects. We seem to have fallen in the trap in Title I projects of equating number of persons served with effectiveness of the program. It has been pointed out that in 10 months we served 7 mil- lion in Title I projects. However, what multiplier factor did we get in behavioral change? How different 76 PAGENO="0165" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 159 is the attitude of the participant? Does the teacher know how to use the new visual aids? Is the library being used by the target population? How do we measure change in the human being, especially from this population? The question was raised, in our group, of why more money cannot be put into Title I projects for evalua- tion, and the question was not answered. This is a critical area where objectivity needs to be developed. All Title I projects should have moneys for evaluation, not only self-evaluation but outside evaluation by ob- jective observers. Only can we increase our quality when we see the need for change. The greatest contribution to Title I projects which can be developed is inservice training programs for the teacher. We put more specialized duties on the teach- ers and expect them to keep up without helping them find out how. Also, there seems to be little communica- tion between staff in any given system or interchange of ideas between teachers at the local level. Title I proj- ects should develop inservice training programs for all teachers and mandatory preservice and inservice train- ing programs for litle I projects. Roy MeCanne, consultant, Education of Migrant Chil- dren, Colorado State Department of Education - It is a grave mistake to consider all disadvantaged children or even all migrant children as having the same culture. The cultural behavior patterns of one group, such as Mexican-Americans, are different in many re- spects from those of another group, such as Navajo Indians. Probably the most useful framework for studying cultural difference and for understanding how to adapt the school curriculum is the philosophical framework: What do the people believe is real? What do they think is true? Where do we get truth or knowledge? Where does man fit into the world? What is important, and what is not important? To whom or to what does a person owe his ultimate loyalty? Some research is available to help answer these questions about specific groups. More is needed. Edmund W. Gordon, professor and chairman, De- partment of Educational Psychology and Guid- ance, Yeshiva University The educational problems of the disadvantaged must be solved in the context of a concerted attack upon a wide variety of problems which go far beyond the school and involve aspects of society other than educa- tion. However, the tendency on the part of school people to focus on and blame these other problems for the school's problems and failures may serve to deter th: school from a systematic attack upon those problems which are primarily within the realm of pedagogy and are primarily the responsibility of educators. Robert E. Christin, director, Educational Projects Incorporated I think the report should mention a major need re- lated to all programs for the disadvantaged, that is, regional centers set up to bring together the better teachers from around the country to (1) develop teach- ing materials and approaches to help with the disadvan- taged, and 2) demonstrate these discoveries at the centers and at schools in the region. This seems to be a major problem in Title I, Upward Bound, the Job Corps, and in all schools serving the disadvantaged. If we fail to help those many teachers of good will, we will fail, regardless of how much money we have or how many programs. Leonard B. Ambos, assistant director, American Textbook Publishers Institute It is obvious to me that a great deal more needs to be done to make Title I effective. There is a need for us to (1) determine those forces which create an individ- ual's self-concept, (2) determine how we can upgrade the self-concept of individuals, 3 develop and test innovative methods and materials and also the old which prove valuable) to determine their effectiveness in changing and improving learning behavior. It may already be too late to salvage and make into productive citizens many of the children with whom we associate the term "disadvantaged." The times in which we live, however, insist that we aid each child to reach his maximum potential. Educators must stop talking about "meeting the needs of individuals" and do something about it. Evans Clinehy, director, Office of Program Develop. ment, Boston Public Schools What bugs slum kids is school, school as it is con- ceived of and operated by the people who inhabited Panel IIIB. No one talked about how to change school itself or even how we could go about changing it or what we should change it into. Most of the people in our room were simply taking Title I money and using it to add some sugar-coating to the same old bitter ineffectual pill. They were still planning to subject kids to the same basal readers (per- haps jazzed up with a few black faces). They were still 77 PAGENO="0166" 160 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS going to expect kids to run the conventional rat race of right answers and coverage of large quantities of stale obsolete bodies of knowledge or what one of the delegates referred to as the four R's of `rote, recall, regurgitation, and restraint". One thing is becoming increasingly clear to me. The money poured into Title I is largely going to be wasted if we continue to spend it on bolstering the present sys. tern of educating children. Somehow we have to devise a way of putting at least that much money every year into research and the development of new and better ways of doing things. Title I has to become much more directed toward breaking the established habits and patterns that have proved themselves totally incapable of even helping. much less educating, disadvantaged children. If thio requires Congress to rewrite the title, so be it. But simpls to assist the present system to do in a more ele. gant way what it is already doing so badly is to pervert the possibility of what American education should and could be. Peter G. Kontos, professor of education, Princeton University The major gaps in practices that were identified are: A lark of psychological and sociological theoretical frameworks from which an interactive effect of pro. grams can be demonstrated: an absence of data as to the effect of an educational policy of programming early intervention: no real understanding of language development: a lack in definitive programs in teacher preparation: and, finally, an absence of adequate evalu' ation techniques. Basically, the disadvantaged child, like all children, learns best in a child.centered. inductive, educational situation which is also racially integrated. Staff development and teacher training are keys to the successful educational process; guidelines should therefore not be so tightly drawn-as they are now-as to include staff training for ony specific Title I pro. grams. Changing the basic attitudes of teachers and administrators toss ard educational innovation and to- ward acceptance of disadvantaged children as learners should be a program which may be separately funded under Title I and should not he required to be part of any specific action program. There is a great danger that programs that closely approximate the familiar are too easily funded. Evi- clence is beginning to indicate that these programs are most susceptible to failure. Disadvantaged children must not be subjected to playing the remediation catch' up game in which educators institutionalize the child by laying out his life in nine daily 40.minute remedial periods. In the midst of an educational revolution we cannot afford to prolong the dull and advocate the pedestrian. Charles Benson, associate professor of education, University of California, Berkeley It seemed to be generally agreed that teaching talent is distributed unequally among the schools in large cities, with slum schools having a disproportionate number of less trained and provisionally certificated persons. One primary way to attack the problem is desegregation, but this cannot be a short-term answer, physically speaking, in the largest cities-or not a com- plete answer anyway. What would seem to be good is that the Office of Education encourage the National Edu- cation Association and the American Federation of Teachers to devise schemes, semivoluntary from the point of view of the teacher, to afford staffs in slum schools that are balanced with respect to age, sex, train- ing, and experience. It was suggested that teachers must work in a school setting in which they can be suc- cessful. Presently, criteria of success are mainly re- lated to the academic performance of the collegebound. It was hoped that it might be possible to broaden the definition of success to include helping the disacivan' taged to achieve at a higher level, starting from where the disadvantaged are. The analogy made was the satisfaction many teachers appear to gain from helping the physically handicapped to make progress. The suggestion was made in our panel that there be established in inner-city areas institutions called pro- fessional schools. These schools would be centers of inservice training and educational research. An anal- ogv would be the teaching hospital. Hopefully, teach' ers would regard it as a professional opportunity to be associated with these schools. One task of such schools could be to develop materials appropriate for the in- struction of the disadvantaged. This suggestion com- bines opportunity for relevant inservice training and the reallocation of high'grade teaching talent to the inner city. It might serve to restore the large cities to a posi. tion of educational leadership. I would also like to suggest that Title I programs em- phasize mathematics in the middle school years. For the disadvantaged there are fewer cultural blocks to excelling in mathematics than there appear to be in reading and verbal activities generally. Employment opportunities for persons who manage to acquire mathe- matical competence are good and seem likely to remain 78 PAGENO="0167" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 161 so. However, many elementary teachers, I believe, are themselves not attracted to mathematics, and the stand- ard materials do not do a great deal to help stimulate the mathematically gifted. John Henry Martin, superintendent, Mount Vernon Public Schools - From the urban centers of the country the achieve- ment test scores and IQ ratings show a progressive de- cline in the relative position of school children of the racial minorities as compared to the white children in the city or the Nation. Their early childhood environ- ment sends ghetto children to school handicapped, according to test scores, by 1 year. The radically unbal- anced ghetto school will increase the negative distance of these children from their white age peers by as much as 2 to 3 years. This is the single most widespread educational catastrophe of our times. It is the root cause of the academic deficiencies of the disadvantaged child with which the schools of the Nation must deal. Failure to see Title I moneys as an opportunity and a commitment to do something about this while only see- ing them as the source for remediating the consequen- ces is to persist in treating the victims of malaria while continuing to ignore the breeding areas of mosquitoes. Edward Zigler, professor of psychology, Yale Uni- versity A major issue in our discussions was whether the educators of the deprived should take a social work ap- proach or should expand their energies and resources in beefing up those practices that are basic to the ortho- dox educational effort. In my opinion, the dichotomy raised is a false one and stems from a failure to understand all the factors that are important in the determination of children's learn- ing. Until teachers and administrators become fully cognizant of the complex nature of the learning process in the culturally deprived child, many of the innovations that hold high promise will be met with apathy, if not actual hostility. The social work approach is not alien to successful teaching. What this approach does for the teacher is to make her sensitive to the socioeconomic plight, every- day experiences, and resulting motivational structure of the child she is to teach. This motivational structure accompanies every child to the classroom and is prob- ably just as important in determining the success of the teacher's efforts as are the formal cognitive character- istics of the child. 79 PAGENO="0168" PAGENO="0169" APPENDIXES APPENDIX A PROGRAM OUTLINE Monday, July 18 2:00 p.m. Registration. 5:30 p.m. "Meet the Conferees," Chinese Room. 6:30 p.m. OPENING GENERAL SESSON-Dinner in the Ballroom. Presiding: Hon. John W. Gardner, Secretary, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Statement: Ralph W. Tyler, National Advisory Council on the Education of Disadvantaged Children. Address: Vice President of the United States. 9:30 p.m. Chairmen, Panelists, Consultants, and Summary Writers-New York Suite. Tuesday, July 19 9:00-12 noon First Work Sesuion (Panels). 2:00-4:00 p.m. Second Work Session (Panels). 4:30-5:30 p.m. Special Programs. 6:30 p.m. SECOND GENERAL SESSION-Dinner in the Ballroom. Presiding: Arthur L. Hams, Associate Commissioner for Elementary and Secondary Edu. cation, U.S. Office of Education. Address: Harold Howe II, U.S. Commissioner of Education. Remarks: The Prenident of the United States. 8:30-10:30 p.m. Third Work Session. Panel Discussion: Techniques for Successful Follow-Through in State Conferences. Wednesday, July 20 7:30 am. Chairmen, Panelists, Consultants, and Summary Writers, Breakfast, North Room. 9:00-12 noon Fourth Work Session (Panels). 2:00-4:00 p.m. FINAL GENERAL SESSION-State Room. Presiding: Comnussioner Howe. Reports of Work Group Chairmen. 83 163 PAGENO="0170" 164 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS APPENDIX B DISCUSSION PANELS TOPIC I. DIAGNOSIS OF THE PROBLEM Panel A (:lia*~rt~~an: Wilson C. Riles. dire: mr nf cnmpensatnry educailno, State Del:antnien t nf Ed asatinn. Sacratnentn, Calif. Panelists Hares I.. tInner'. a.nintant snperint:'sdent. Prentnn Cnnnts °slsnsl.. K ingn osd. \. N a. DiarIes Cngen. t:residrnt. Ansecic an Fedeeatinn sf Teachers. (Ilsicago. Ill. R'.s MsCanne, s.:nssliant. Edncatssn nf Migrant Children. State lCyactn:ent il E:lncatinn, litensee, Csls. Pl::Jy Mnntes. *ate yees:dest. Asssctatinn s.f MesinanAtneri' an E:lnsat:sn. Lo~ Angeles. Calif. .\ethae Pearl. .enlesrnr :.l sdacatisn. C nis ernity of Ocegnn, Eugene. Oceg. l.,",ssdec J .Shan. dean. Cradna:c Sshsol. Flsrida A & M Uniner. ~:ts. Tallaha'-ee. Fla. Rome: Tillmas. a...istast .s:yeeintendeni in charge nf elemen. ace s'lacatinn. Minneapslis Pallic s'ehssls. Minoraynlin, NI inn. ( on rsltsints Willians F. Branaisl. Office sI E:lncatton 5tan J. Sals:t. Offices I Ec,:n:ntic Op psctan James I. \loe:iseaa. editnrial asosetate. Fdseatiooal Facilities Laboratories. New lock. N.Y. Panel B Chairman: Dnsald T. Dooley, directnr, Center far Research and Field Sersicei. State Uninrcsity of Albany, Albany, N.Y. Panelists Mngo. Arthar T. Ceoghegas. aaprrinteadent of nchools, Diocese, nfPcnsideocr.Prosidener, RI. Edmund W. Cordon. profesnoro f educational psychology and gaidaoce. Yenhina Untiersity. New York, N.Y. Philip M. H anser, professor of socinlogy, Uninernity of Chicago, Chicago. Ill. lIes. blarriet Reynolds. assistant director, Education and Ynath Inccntiies. National Urban League. New York. N.Y. Jacob Silierbecg. chief psychologint. Memorial Guidance Clinic, Richmond,Va. Frank L. Stanley. Jr., associate director fnr education, Notional Urban l.eagae, New lark. N.Y. Coosoliaota Lee C. Barchinal, Officr of Eilacation Martin W. Spickler. Office of Education Daiid S. Sceley. Office of Education Snmmaey writer Rarbaca Carter. Free Lance Associates, Inc., New York, N.Y. TOPIC II. STRATEGIES FOR ACTION Panel A Chairman: Thomas W. FOes. :lieectnr, Diii.. ins of Fedeeal State Programs. State Deyartntentnf Education, Raltinsore, Md. panelists Mrs. Irsamas Ayplcgste, dean of edocation. St. Cloasi State Cnllego. St. Clou:f. Mino.. and pccsi:fent. National Edncation Association PanI I. Clifford, professors I edncatio. Ntlanta Usisersity. Atlanta, Ca. Macsin C. f.Jine. assistant director. ln'titatc for `t ontli Ntndics. School sI Medicine, Howard Lnisecsits. Washington. D.C. Don Dasies. enecatise sesretan, National Cnmmittee on Teacher Ednoation and Professional Standards. Natisnal Edacatino Associates. Washington. D.C. H. Lee H nones, director, Adult and Literacy Edacation, Board for Fundamental Education, Indianapolis. lad. Jobs A. Macsell, ansociafr director, National Association for the Adianoemeot of Colored People, New York. N.Y. Consultants Barbara H. Kemp, Office of Education James E. Munch, Office of Education Janies K. Rocks. Office of Education Snmmacy weitec John Saunders, program specialist, Program Esalaatinn Branch, Office of Edacatios Panel B Chairman: Austio Haddock, director of Title I, ESEA. State Departmeot of Education. Salem, Oreg. 84 PAGENO="0171" Panelists ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 165 Charles Benson, associate professor of education, University of Hasen, Coon. California, Berkeley, Calif. c Man Birnbaum, director, Human Relations Laboratory, Boston University, Boston, Mass. Larry Cuban, director, Cardozo Project in Urban Teaching. Cardozo High School. Washington. D.C. James L. Farmer, president, Center for Community Action Edo. cation, Washington, D.C. Summary writer David Selden, asoistant to the president, American Federation of Teachers, Chicago, Ill. Panel A TOPIC III. SOME EFFECTIVE APPROACHES Panel B Chairman: Mildred Fitzpatrick, chairman, Title I, ESEA, State Department of Education, Santa Fe, N. Mex. Pandista Donald Cleland, professor of education, Unisersity of Pitts' burgh, Pittsburgh, Pa. Mrs. Kay Earnhardt, coordinator of reading, Atlanta Public Schols, Atlanta, Ga. Edinard B. Fort, director. Division of Instruction, Detroit Public Schools. Detroit, Mich. Peter K. Kontos, professor of education, Princeton University. Princeton. N.J. John Henry Martin, superintendent, Mount Vernon Public Schools. Mount Vernon, N.Y. A. Harry Passom, chairman, Committee on Urban Education, Teachers College, Columbia University, New York, N.Y. Consultants John T. Blue, Office of Education Nolan Estes, Office of Education James E. Steflensen, Office of Education Summary writer Gloria Dapper, Free Lance Asnociates, Inc., New York, N.Y. Chairman: P. J. Newell, Jr., assistant commissioner, Division of Iostruct:on, State Department of Education, Jefferson City. Mo. Panelists Mrs. Lorraine F. Bivins. supervisor, Cleveland Elementary School. Washington, D.C. Dinon Bush, director, Antioch Interracial Education Program. Antioch College. Yellow Springs, Ohio Evans Cliochy. director. Office of Program Development, Boston Public Schools. Boston. Mass. Hymun H. Frankel, Special Project on Human Development, Southern Illinois Uoivervity, Carbondalr, Ill. Robert L. Green, director of education, Southern Christian Leadership Coolerroce, Atlanta, Ga. Marvin Rich, esecutive director. Scholarship. Education, and Defense Fund for Racial Equality, New York, N.Y. Consultants Anita F. Allen, Office of Education Kathryn Bloom. Office of Education Summary writer Peter Schrag. associate editor, Saturday Review Education Supplement. Amherst, Mass. Chairman: John L. Cleveland, coordinator, Berkeley Unified School District, Berkeley, Calif. Panelists Panel A TOPIC IV. MOBILIZING OUR RESOURCES Leonard B. Ambos, assistant director, American Tentbook Pub. lishers Institute, New York, N.Y. James G. Banks, executine director. United Planning Organiza. tion, Washington, D.C. Mrs. Margaret G. Dahney, professor of adult education. `fir- ginia State College, Petershurg. Va. Mario D. Fantini. program associate, Ford Foundation, New York, N.Y. John J. O'Neill, dean, Graduate School of Education, Rutgers. The State Uoiveesity, New Brunswick, N.J. Donald P. Stone. assistant for education, Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee, Atlanta, Ga. Edward Zigler, professor of p~ychology, Yale University, New John T. Cicro, Office of Education Genevieve 0. Dane. Office of Education Carl L. Macburger, Bureau of Indian Affairs C. K. Hodenfield, special projects writer, Indiana University, Bloomington. Ind. Cons id tunis F. Peter Libassi, Department of Health. Education, and Wel. Jule Sugarman. Office of Economic Opportunity Grant Seen, Office of Education Summary writer Patricia Plait, editorial assoc iats'. National Schools Public Re. lations A'.-.oiatios, W.'a.ahington, D.C. Panel B Chairman: Irving Ratchick. coordinator. Title I. ESE.A, State Education Department. Albany. N.Y. 85 PAGENO="0172" 166 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS Panelists Norman Brombacher, assistant saperintendrnt, New York City Poblic Schools, New York. N.Y. Robert Christin, director, Edacatiosal Projects. Inc., Washtog- ton. D.C. Adroo Doras, president. Morehead State College. Morehrad, Ky. J. K. Haynes, esecotise secretars. Lonisiasa Edacation Assacia- tins, Baton Roage, La. Mrs. Cersnria D. Johnson, director, Washington Office. National Urban Leagae. Washington, D.C. James Wilson, director, Indian Branch, Office of Ecasamie Opportasity, Washisgtsn, D.C. Cossaltasts Regina Csff, Offire of Edacatios Samoel Halperis, Department of Health, Edacatian, and Wel' WilBam J. Holloway, Office af Edacatias Loam J. McGamsness, Office of Edacatiss Sammary writer Backmas Others, editorial cassaltast, Omnimedia Interna. tiasal, Washington, D.C. 86 PAGENO="0173" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 167 Mr. howE. Now, in connection \vith title I, we have a number of what you might describe as minor amendments to propose. Last year title I was amended to include Indian children admmistered by the Department. of the Interior. That amendment expires at the end of this year and we are asking that it be renewed. We are also proposing that as a change in title I, the minimum amount allowed for State administration expenses be increased from $75,000 to $150,000 per State. Experience has shown that the cur- rent allowance is insufficient for some States. Jumping to title II, we have had appropriations of $10() million in fiscal year 1966 and $102 million in fiscal year 1967. We have found that there has been very good cooperation from the States in using these funds to bring added materials in the form of textbooks and library materials for the benefit of youngsters in the schools, both public and private. The greatest area of expenditure has been in library resources, ac- counting for more than 50 percent of the expenditure by States. Thirteen of the States have set up instructional material centers, so that there are places where people can go to actually get material, special library-like resource centers. Nineteen States, six for the first time, have added school library supervisors to their staffs. We have again some minor amendments connected with title II. Last year the Congress amended this title to include two groups of children-Indian children and those children in overseas dependent schools operated by the Department of Defense. During this year about $125,000 will be spent for Indian children, and about $404,000 will be spent for Department of Defense schools. The arrangements for those expenditures go only through this fiscal year, and we are asking their extension through fiscal year 1968. Now I go to title III. Since the enactment of title III in April of 1965. 4,435 proposals for title III projects, which we call Projects to Advance Creativity in Education-that is w-here we get the abbreviation PACE-have been submitted by 9,000 school districts, requesting $509 million. Up to the present time, some 1,200 proposals costing $89 million have been funded, and 1,300 proposals requesting $198 million are being evaluated for funding. So far about 39 percent of the proposals submitted and about 29 per- cent of the amounts requested are being funded. WTe give you in appendix B an analysis of the first year of experience under title III. We would call to your attention that there is a great variety of ac- tivity under title III, just. as the Congress intended. It is an innova- tive enterprise, the schools have responded well, and we cite in this testimony examples from Altoona, Pa.; Chicago, Ill.; Magnolia, Ark.; and other places to give you the flavor of some of these proposals. Several approaches have been used to assure program contiiiuity, effective demonstration, and an exchange of ideas among Federal, State, and local education agencies and personnel in administering title III. The title III guidelines are revised periodically to incorporate an evaluatioii of results and suggestions of local and State agencies. PAGENO="0174" 168 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDCCATION AMENDMENTS Administrative memorandums are sent to project directors and St ate. coordinators periodically to explain policy or procedure changes. There is a filmstrip which explains title III. We will be happy to make it. available to this committee if the committee would be interested. All approved projects are processed into our so-called ERIC system, which is a system for handling information about educational re- search and demonstration. Through that system, any school sys- tem can find out what is going on in any other school system easily and conveniently. We have one or two amendments again in title III. Last year title III was amended to include participation of Indian children, and chulclren in the Department of Defense schools. WTe are asking in BIA schools, as we have, in the other titles of this act, for the extension of that authority through fiscal year 1968. I would like to read now some of the body of this testimony in regard to title. IV. our research activity in the Office of Education. Title IV of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act amended f lie Cooperative Research Act of 1954, the Office of Education's basic authority to award grants or contracts for any research or related ac- tivities which promise to benefit education. By far the largest number of research activities receive project sup- port-that is clearly delineated, limited-time research on subjects as varied as the questions educators seek to answer. The other form of research activity is called program support; this involves specifically announced problem areas in education where there is felt to be a need for continuous, intensive attention. Several types of program support. are carried on by the Office of Education. Research development grants support t.he efforts of small or developing colleges to acquire sound research capacity. Research and development, centers-of w-hich there were 11 in opera- tion at the end of fiscal year 1966-concentrate on a single problem area in education and conduct activities ranging from basic research through dissemination. Educational laboratories, now- numbering `20, bring together the re- sources of universities and schools to develop, demonstrate, and dis- seminate new curriculum and new methods t.o improve education. A listing of the e.xisting research and development centers and labora- tories is attached as appendix C. Programs for training educational researchers, authorized by title IV, support undergraduate, graduate, and postdoctoral traming, train- ing institutes, inservice programs, and special projects dealmg with educational research. Getting the results of educational research into use iii the schools and colleges is as important as the research itself. Unless the findings of a laboratory or an R. &. D. center are put to work in the classroom, their value is meaningless. To promote dissemination, the Educational Research Information Center (ERIC), of which I spoke earlier, has been established. It is a comprehensive, national information system designed to serve Amer- ican education by making available reliable, current educational re- search and research-related materials. PAGENO="0175" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 169 The system is made up of a network of information clearinghouses or documentation centers located throughout the country and coordi- nated through central ERIC in the Office of Education. By the end of 196&, clearinghouses had been established in 13 sub- stantive are.as and we list them for you in the testimony. We have no amendments in connection with title IV. Mr. QUTE. Could I ask what the Commissioner means by the clear- inghouses. I looked at the R. & D. centers, and the educational labs, and the supplemental centers of title III, but this is the first. I have heard of the clearinghouses, unless I misunderstand. You have 13 subject matters here. Is this run like the ID ceilters, that you have one of these subject matters in each geographical location. Mr. HOWE. Mr. Quie, it is simply a place that has the technical facility to send out information on research-related or demonstra- tion-related activiEies under one of these headings. The first is counseling and guidance, and so we. have a Place that collects, all in one place, all documentation about research on counseling and guidance. On your inquiry or that of a school superintendent about. any specialized aspects of counseling and guidance this clearinghouse can immediately send, through an elec- tronically arranged system, a summary of what has been clone in research on that subject, and then send further documentation if 1)eople want longer details. So it provides easy access to those who operate in education, to what has been discovered in the realm of research. It is in many ways like a very effective library service, each center specializing in some subject. iM:r. QtTIE. Could you give us the geographical location of these clearinghouses? Mr. HowE. We will submit. them for the record. (The information follows:) ERIC CLEARINGHOrSES During fiscal 1966, the first 13 of a network of ERIC clearinghouse,s were established. They will provide information on the subj~t areas listed below: ERIC' Claringhouse on Counseling and Guidance. University of Michigan. Ann Arbor, Mich. 48104. ERIC Clearinghouse on the 1)isadvantaged, Yeshiva University 5.'~ Fifth Avenue, New York, N.Y. 10003. ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Administration. University of Oregon. Eugene, Oreg. 97403. ERIC Clearinghouse on Exceptional Children. Council for Exceptional Chil- dren, National Education Association, 1201 16th Street. NW., Washington, D.C. 20036. ERIC Clearinghouse 011 the Teaching of Foreign Languages. Modern Language Association of America, 4 Washington Place. New York, N.Y. 10003. ERIC Clearinghouse on Junior Colleges, University of California. 405 Hilgard Ave.. Los Angeles, Calif. 90024. DRIC Clearinghouse op Linguistics and the Uncommonly Taught Languages, Center for Applied Linguistics. 175i Massachusetts Avenue NW.. Washington, I).C. 20036. ERIC Clearinghouse on Reading. Indiana University. 204 Pine Hall, Blnnniing- ton, md. 47401. ERIC Clearinghouse on School Personnel, City University of New York. 33 West 42d Street, New York. N.Y. 10036. ERIC Clearinghouse on Science Education, Ohio State University. 1314 Kin- near Rd., Columbus, Ohio. 43212. PAGENO="0176" 170 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS ERIC Clearinghouse on Small Schools and Rural Compensatory Education, New Mexico State University, University Park, N.Mex. 88070. ERIC Clearinghouse on Vocational and Technical Education, Ohio State Liu- versity, 980 Kinnear Rd.. Columbus. Ohio. 43212. Library for Adult and Continuing Education. Syracuse University. 107 Rone~ Lane. Syracuse. N.Y. 13110. Mr. HOWE. Title V of the Elementary and Secondary Education Xct addresses itself to the. strengthening of State educational agencies. State. educational agencies have experienced rapid growth, but that growth has not. been a balanced one. It has occurred largely where Federal concern for education has been expressed in Federal funds. One of our major new proposals here can be niterpreteci as an effort. to bring greate.r balance into the efforts of the States as they try to strengthen particularly their planning capacity which has not. been given as much emphasis as it might in connection with title V funds as they have developed over the past year or two. The amendments which we are proposing to title V are two: The first. would amend the. allotment formula. contained in seet.ion 503 in order to provide for a more &iuitable distribution of funds. According to the present formula, 85 percent of the appropriated funds are available for allotment, under section 503. Of these funds, 98 percent are allotted to the States first on the basis of S100,000 per State, and the remainder on the basis of public school enrollment.. The remaining ~ percent go to outlying areas. Smaller and less populous State.s have suffered from this distribution formula. We are suggesting a. new distributioii formula : 40 percent of the amount. available for apportionment among the States under sec- tion 503 would be allotted to the Stat.es in &jual amounts. The remaining 60 percent. would be allotted on the basis of public school population, thereby solving the. problem some of the smaller or less populous Si.ates have had. Our second proposal for amending title V is designed to meet a vital need in the educational community, and in our society-long- range educational planning. W~e are askmg the Congress to authorize an appropriation of ~15 million to begin this program. Systematic, comprehensive, long-range educational planning at all levels is essen- tial if our Xation~s educational needs are to be met. If present programs are to be effectively coordinated and approved to fill the needs of each child, if new `programs are to be developed to meet. unmet needs, objective evaluation of resources, goals, and methods of meeting goals must be carried out. Evaluation is impossible unless reliable informa.t iou concerning the effectiveness of the. education provided to our children is obtained and analyzed. In writing title V. the Congress suggested 10 a.reas in which the States agencies might. be strengthened. The very first is "educa- tional planning on a statewide basis, including the identification `of educational problems, issues, and needs in the States and the evalua- tion on a Periodic, or continuing basis of education programs in the State." PAGENO="0177" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 171 The response was drama tic. Based (>11 a first-year appropriation of $17 million, the States applied for funds to cover some 1,800 new positions. Twenty-five percent of the funds and 27 percent of the personnel were expected to work in the planning and evaluation areas. The States recognized the need and took stops to meet it. How- ever, by the end of the fiscal year, the States had amended their ap- plications to reduce the planning function to 19 percent. of the funds and 20 percent of the positions. For fiscal year 1967, the applications have reduced this function still further: less than 18 percent of the funds requested, and 14 per- cent of the positions budgete.d are to be used for planning. The State departments of education have not lost, interest, in plan- ning. Far from it. Other concerns were more pressing. In order to secure funds authorized by some 15 pieces of new- Federal legisla- tion before the end of the fiscal year, they had to mount. new programs immediately. There were other pressure.s as well. Local education agencies had urgent needs for the improvement of instruction. The State agency had to improve its general adminis- trative capacity. The capacity to deal with the masses of educa- tional data emanating from all sources had to be developed. The growing responsibilities thrust. on them by the growing Fed- eral programs of `aid to education require all their existing resources, and more. In a sense, t.he States cannot afford to plan under title V as it is now set up; yet, they cannot afford not. to. If State and local educational agencies are to continue to carry out their present responsibilities, if Federal programs are to meet the needs Congress intends, and if the Nation's schools are to continue to meet the demands made of them, systematic. planning must be encouraged. It is for this reason that. we are proposing an amendment. to title V of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. of 1965, to authorize State agencies to establish and improve their programs for educa- tional planning andi evaluation. Our proposed amendment would authorize $15 million for fiscal year 1968 to initiate a 5-year program of grants to the States to assist them in the establishment of programs for comprehensive, systematic, and continuous planning and evaluation of education at. all levels. These programs would be designed to assure the achievement of opportunities for high-quality education for all segments of the popii- lat.ion throughout. the State. Seventy-five percent of the appropriation would be allotted among the States to support. State programs. The other 25 percent. of the appropriation w-ould be held in reserve for special projects provided in section 524. Any State desiring to participate in the program would designate or establish a State agelicy to submit. an application to the Office of Education and to administer the program within the State. Higher education pro~rams may be included in the planning and evaluation system if the ~tate includes higher education as a part. of its applica- tion. If higher education is included in the program, t.he State may des- ignate a separate agency to deal with higher education, but. it. must 75-492 O-M7---12 PAGENO="0178" 172 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDtCATION AMENDMENTS coordinate its planning in higher education with its precollege plan- fling. State applications would include provisions for setting educational goals; establishing priorities among and developing means of achiev- ing those goals; improving present programs and planning new pro- grams; the strengthening of the capacity of the State to conduct objective evaluations of the effectiveness of education programs; and maintaining a perina.i~ei~t system for obtaining the infonnation neces- sary for the assessment of the State's progress in attaining its educa- tional goals. The agency would give assurance that the funds would be used primarily for strengthening the competency of its planning and eval- uation staff. However, the agency would be permitted to employ consultants or, by contract. utilize the services of public or private institutions and organizations in certain specialized fields. This legislation does not envision the development of anything which could be characterized a.s a national plan. It does anticipate that as States increase their capability for identifying problems and for pinpointing needs, there will emerge some fairly systematic procedures for comparing findings, for ascertaining the extent to which a. na- tional consensus exists on important. issues of educational policy, and for assisting the States to develop increasingly more effective planning procedures. One of the functions of the planning and evaluation program would be to extend technical assistance and services to local educational agencies to assist them in evaluation of their present school program, the study of critical local educational needs, the assessment of the financial resources available, to the school, the planning of new pro- grams. and the coordination of Federal, State, and local programs. Some States may elect to give local educational agencies financial assistance to help the local school district in the establishment of a planning and evaluation system at the local level. It is expected that States in which there are large city school districts will l)refer having the city school board carry out. a pro- gram especially designed to (Teal with the problems of the cities. Section 5~4 authorizes grants to and contracts with public and pri- vate agencies, institutions~ or organizations for special planning and evaluation projects such as : metropolitan planning in areas covering one or more States: the improvement and expansion of the planning and evaluation capacities of large city schools; comparative and cooperative studies: conferences to promote educational planning; and the publication of materials to disseminate information concern- ing the planning of better educational services and programs. The authority given to the Commissioner in this proposed section will provide the opportunity to utilize the technology and brain- po~ver of both profit and nonprofit. organizations capable of making a significant contribution to the solution of problems. In addition, this arrangement would enable the. Commissioner to develop and fund special projects w-ith various commissions and professional associations. One such project is now being funded out of the salaries and ex- Ienses appropriation of the Office. of Education. In this study, the PAGENO="0179" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDFCATION AMENDMENTS 173 Council of Chief State School Officers is completing a study giving thorough treatment to the historical development of State ecluca- tional agencies, thus providing a basis for determining their needs and evaluating their progress. There are various other possibilities for using these assigned funds available to the Commissioner, and certainly among them would be making contributions for planning activities to such organizations as the Compact of the Western States, the Southern Regional Educa- tion Board, and New England Board of Higher Education, Ap- palachian Commission, and other such organizations which can be very effective planning agencies and need support for those activities on a regional basis rather than just a. State basis. Mr. QL-IE. Could I ask one question in explanation? In section 524, you can use 25 percent. of the money for this purpose. Can grants be made to church-related schools or parochial schools? Mr. HOWE. I would like to give you an answer on that at a later time, because it is an important question and we would like to 1)e sure that we fully looked at it, Mr. Quie. May we do that ? Mr. QUIE. That is acceptable to me. Mr. HOWE. Thank you very much. (The information requested follows :) Section 524 authorizes grants and contracts for special projects related to the purposes of this part." The overall purpose of the part is to stI~engthen com- prehensive planning of a broad scale nature. Grants will not be made for in- dividual schools to carry out projects; but rather to agencies with broad re- sponsibilities for planning to meet educational needs. Therefore no grant would go directly or indirectly to either a public or private school. This program is designed to strengthen "planning and evaluation~ corn- petencies-not to provide services to students in the schools. Special projects would go to organizations which have special competencies to carry out projects for planning or for assessing resources on a broad basis--a large metropolitan area or an interstate regional study, for example. Private agencies would be eligible to carry out these special projects; in effect a project would be con- tracted out to a private agency just as public agencies can contract for other services, but the project would serve a public purpose-tn know what our edu- cational needs and resources are and to plan the best use of public resources to achieve our goals. Special project authority has the particular purpose (iii the language of Sec- tion 524) of improving comprehensive planning on an interstate, regional, or metropolitan area basis. No funds would be used to enable a prisate agency to plan for the construction of church-related schools, just as no public funds would be used to pay architects' fees for nonpublic schools. But in projecting future educational needs and resources, the private schools are a highly signif- icant part of the picture and .that would be taken into account in the planning. Total educational needs and goals cannot be set if the States do not have some idea of what the private schools are expected to do and what the special educa- tional needs of children who attend those schools may be. It should also be pointed out that both l)ubliC and private institutions of higher education would be appropriate agents to carry out special l)rOjects related to planning and evaluation. Section 524 would be covered by the limitation iii section 705: Nothing contained in this Act shall be construed to authorize the making of any payment under this Act, or under any Act amended by this Act. for religious worship or instruction." Mr. HOWE. This, then, Mr. Chairman, gives you a picture of this new- amendment to title V which has to do with comprehensive edu- cational planning. I would like to now- move to title VI of the Elementary and Second- a.ry Education Act, enacted in the last. session, and a program for the PAGENO="0180" 174 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS benefit of handicapped children, and bring to you both a review of our activities in support of the handicapped and some amendments we have to suggest. Our present activities in support of the education of the handi- capped fall into several iroad areas-research and demonstration, the training of professional personnel, the development of new educational media, and actual classroom instruction. The media program is exemplified by the captioned films for the deaf program. Here is a program which is providing very much needed services. We have some 220 educational film titles. We are actively engaged in sponsoring a lending of equipment to benefit the deaf. We. have film production going on at. a regular rate, including 60 filmstrips for primary reading, 30 cartridge type loop motion pic- tures for finger spelling instruction and more than 70 loops for lip- reading practice. This gives you an example of the kind of activity under that. rela- tively small but very important program. Our research and demonstration activities for the handicapped have moved from a budget. item of $100 million in 1964 to a budget item of some 58 million in the current year. Mr. CAREY. Would the Commissioner repeat those figures, from $100 to 58 million ? Mr. HOWE. Excuse me, Mr. Carey. It is $1 million in 1964. I misread the figures. Mr. CA~Y. I knew it was going downhill, but not tha.t fast. Mr. HOWE. Thank you, sir, and it is $8,100,000. Roughly, it is an eightfold increase. *We have established 10 instructional materials centers across the country, to distribute materials for the benefit of teachers of the handi- capped. so that they have quick and easy access to all kinds of instruc- tional materials, and we have four more such centers in the process of being established. We have a greatly expanded training program for the preparation of personnel in the area of education of handicapped children. Since the initial legislative provision in 1958, over 32,000 fellow- ~hips and training grants have been awarded in all areas of education f or the handicapped. I am sure that you will be encouraged, as I was, to learn the results of a pilot study survey conducted by the division of training programs to determine the current employment status of 1965-66 academic year recipients of awards made under federally funded training programs. That. is programs to bring new personm~e1 into education of the handi- (~apped. WThat that study shows, in summary, is that. we have a very high retention rate in the service of the handicapped of those people who receive this specialized training. You will find detailed figures on that in the testimony. The Elementary and Secondary Education Act in its titles I and 111 also provides possibilities for service t.o the handicapped, and the number of projects in both titles I and III are resulting in such services. Title I was specifically amended to provide earmarked funds for children in state supported or operated schools for the handicapped, PAGENO="0181" EUEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 175 and this support. amounted to about $16 million last ear. We have laid that out in detail for you in the appendix F. Title VI, which you added in the last year, promises in many ways to be the most significant and far-reaching enactment. directly affecting the education of handicapped children. It provides for the establishment of a National Advisory Committee on Handicapped Children. I can report. to you that the members of that Committee have been selected and I have sent. forward their nominations to the Secretary and we hope to announce the appoint- ment of that Committee shortly. Also, in connection with title VI which was passed in the last session, we have established in the. Office of Education the new Bureau for Education of the Handicapped, and we have organized all of our services for the handicapped within that. particular Bureau. Mr. R.ioux, whom I introduced earlier, is the acting head of that Bureau, and can give us further information on the organization of it if the committee so desires. We are suggesting several amendments to our broad program for he handicapped. The first. proposed amendment to title VI is an amendment which w-ill allow- us to establish regional resource centers for improvement of the education of handicapped children. These centers, of which we expect to have three in the first year-funding this program with $71/2 rnillioii-will provide testing and evaluation services and re- ferral services. They will assist schools and other agencies in a particular region. We see this first. development of these diagnostic and referral centers and resource centers for the handicapped as a demonstration effort, and we hope that. after developing experience with them in the years ahead, there will be a spread of these serving the entire countr\-. The second amendment we propose to title VI is an amendment to allow further recruitment of personnel, people to actually serve in schools, after having had specialized training for education of the handicapped. This will be recruitment to get people into those train- ing programs, and to disseminate information about the nature of handicapped, special services to the handicapped in education. We are asking for $1 million for those activities and for amendments which make them possible. The third amendment we are asking for is an aiiiendment to the. captioned films program whichi would allow us to extend the kind of technical services that program makes available to deaf children across the board to children from all categories of handicapped. l)liysical 01 otherwise. We are. including in our budget ~l million additional to develop that ~)rograni we authorized. Finally, we piopose a change to include authorization of contracts iindlei' Public Law- 88-164. At this time, in our effort to assist in the improvement of education for the handicapped, it is not reasonable to exclude from the total effort being made by the pri\~ate sector of the economy which can make a significant contribution. The request. for contracting authority with l)rofitmaking olganiza- tions is based upon the very real needs to involve such organizations PAGENO="0182" 176 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDLTATION AMENDMENTS in the effort to improve, the education of these children, the benefac- tors of educational improvements. The addition of these two amendments to title VI and the changes in the captioned films legislation in Public Law 88-164 will provide a variety of necessary expanded educational opportunities for all handicapped children. `We have then in addition, Mr. Chairman, some technical amend- ments in connectioii with Public Laws 815 and 874, and I will not go into those at this time, but when the committee wishes to go into those we will bring our expert. Mr. Lillvwhite, to explain the details of them. I would like to turn your attention to the Teacher Corps, and this is the. last of the several amendments or pieces of legislation on which I will be commenting. In connection with the Teacher Corps, I want to make a number of general l)o1l~ts, and then pI~eseiit to you the amendments we are sug- gesting. The general points I would make are as follows: First of all, that this is the program which fits in with and com- plements the very broad effort we are making under title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. The broad effort under title I is an effort to provide special educational services to deprived children, and the Teacher Corps is a program to train the people who (all do that job. Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Commissioner, this program used to be in another act. Why was it. transferred over here ? Mr. HOWE. We have some testimony on this, but I w-ill summarize it for you. Perhaps I can read the testimony and then comment fur- ther on it. First, we are proposing a number of amendments. First. of all, we think it. appropriate that the Teacher Corps program be placed in title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. The Teacher Corps was enacted with a mandate to supplement teaching staffs in poverty schools and to train new teachers for the disadvantaged. On schools having concentrations of children from low-income families are eligible for Teacher Corps projects. In this respect, the Teacher Corps is directed to the same schools as title I. Teacher Corps teams have been at work this year in title I schools providing an added resource to assist. teachers in poverty schools. It. is essentially an elementary-secondary school program. It. is di- rectlv involved with the elementary schools. Within the administra- tion of our Office it should have direct contact with and indeed, does have direct. contact with our administration of title I and title III. There are many complementary arrangements worked back and forth between these programs. It seems to us that it is more reason- able to include this as a portion of the elementary-secondary education amendments that we are bringing up and to handle it in the Congress in the way that we are handling it in the administration. Going ahead, then, with the points I wanted to make, broadly, about. the program. it addresses itself to a very real area of teacher shortage. There is just no question about this, although there are a number of teacher training institutions which are directing their attention to doing a better job of training people to go into the poverty schools. PAGENO="0183" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 177 We welcome their doing this and are encouraging them to do this. There isn't enough of this kind of activity in regular teacher training institutions. The Teacher Corps has stimulated some of this activity, and is clearly a useful enterprise in that respect. Thirdly, there is a clear demand for the peopie who work in the Teacher Corps by local school districts. Mr. Graham can give you, later, some figures on this. We are heavily oversubscribed. \Ve have many more requests than we can meet. Local school superintendents, indeed, want, and are using and are reporting enthusiastic results from the people in training in the Teacher Corps. It is a program which has a unique flexibility. It can adapt itself to whatever local conditions are. There is no single formula for the operation of the Teacher Corps. It is operating in places where the schools are largely Spanish-speaking schools and its members are go- ing to those places and doing a particular kind of job there, offering in many cases the first kind of regular instruction in English as a second language that the pupils in thoseschools have had. It is in 20 of our major cities and it is adapting itself to the particu- lar I)roblems of a major city, and the conditions which exist in the ghetto areas of some of those cities. Indeed, sonie of the Teacher Corps members have elected to live in those areas to come to under- stand them better. It is adapting itself to the particular problems of Appalachia, and the formulation which the Teacher Corps takes, the nature of the serv- ices, is determined by local school districts as these members of the corps are placed in the employ of local school districts. I would make another point, which although tenuous, seems to me worth making in regard to this piog~~m. It taps the i (lea I isni of the younger generation. it offers young people a chance to do ~oinetliiiig which is important in this society. It. brings them the opportunity to work on w-hat is really one of the frontiers of this society : TI lie 1)I'Ob- lenis of the people who can't fit into it and who have not been success- ful in it, and particularly the problems of the children of those j)eople. Mr. Qv-IE. May I ask a question there ? Do you think it w-oulcl be advantageous if we could put Federal corpsmen labels ün other teachers so the could have that same dedica- tion ? Mr. HOWE. I think there is no 1)roblem about labels here. These people are working in the schools, for the schools. There is iiothing Federal about them except that they have been brought ill I)v a Fed- eral recruiting program. But. their training programs are run by universities, they are employed by schools, and when you get into the schools you can't tell them from other people who might be in train- ing, except that they have greater flexibility in their assignments and can Provide adidlit jonah services. This is what. they do. They provide additional services over and above. what. has ordlinarily been there. Mr. Qv-IE. 1 have always felt that. there has been a host of teachers who never hadi Federal corpsmen labels 1)ut on them who had that same dedlicat.ion towardl the young people in socially and culturally cle- prived areas. Not. enough, I warrant. But it seems to nie you have. PAGENO="0184" 178 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS in effect, indicted all the other teachers of the Nation by saying that we need this program called the corpsmen in order to get that. dedica- tion. Mr. HOWE. No, I don't think we need the program as the only basis for that dedication. But the fact is, as von will recognize, that we have serious shortages of teachers and particularly serious shortages of teachers who are trained to do the job in the places where the Teacher Corpsmen are going. I certainly agree with you, Mr. Quie, that there are large numbers of teachers who have the same kind of dedication that Teacher Corps trainees have, and who are doing the jobs in the schools. But there are not enough. There isn't enough independent effort on the part of teacher training students to get this particular type of training to work in these places. W'hat we have here is indeed a small program but apparently from the feedback we are getting an effective program to meet those needs. Mr. BELL. May I ask a question at this point? Do you also involve the teaching or training of teachers to work in preschool education? Mr. HOWE. Some of these people w-ill be working in preschool education. Mr. BELL. I understand that is a great shortage today. Mr. HOWE. This is also a shortage area. But again, in preschool education, they are working with deprived children. I might go ahead and outline for you the amendments which we propose to the Teacher Corps program. I have already mentioned the point, of wanting to move this into the elementary and secondary amendments. Secondly, we have learned from the first year of experience that service and training are motives for those interested in the Teacher Corps. The appeal is not financial. Because teacher interns are trainees and are not. full-fledged members of the teaching staff we are requesting a change in the compensation rate for teacher trainees. The present graduate fellowship programs of the Office of Educa- tion provide a weekly stipend plus an allowance for each dependent. The amendment w-ould provide compensation to Teacher Corps interns on a similar basis. They would receive payment of $75 per week pl~is S15 per dependent or the lowest salary scale of the district, whichever is lower. Inasmuch as teacher interns are in fact trainees and are not carry- ing out the full responsibilities of regular teachers, it. seems more appropriate to compensate them on the same basis as other students working toward their master's degree in education. Some of you will recall that there has been some concern expressed about the fact that Teacher Corps trainees in the first year of the program were paid at the going rate for first year teachers in the school systems where they were. This changes that situation and puts them in most cases at a lower rate. although in a very few low-paid school districts, the $75 a week rate may be above what the local school district has and, therefore, we are asking them to take the lower rate in that case, which the school district offers. PAGENO="0185" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 179 Mr. QUIE. Then would it be accurate to say that the appeal was financial m many cases before and you want to reduce the financial appeal so that your statement would be accurate. in the future? Mr. HOWE. Our feedback from members of the Corps indicates that this is not true. Our feedback from members of the Corps indicates that this is something they want to do, and that. they are. steamed up about what they are doing. The financial incentives have not been a major portion of the program. Mr. Graham, who administers the program, I believe, has a good deal of evidence of this kind. Perhaps he can comment further on this. I am going to ask him to make a brief presentation on the Teacher Corps when my testimony is finished. Third, to reinforce the tradition of local control and thus to en- courage further to diversity of projects that we feel is so vital to t.he Corps success, we are requesting that State approval be required for a local educational agency's request for Corps members and for the t.raining program offered by an institution or university. We are also amending the local control section to clarify the local school dis- tricts absolute right to decide. what Corps members are assigned to their schools. Mr. BRADEMAS. Mr. Commissioner, may I ask, at that point, if you have had any complaints about Federal control which causes you to make such proposal? Mr. HOWE. I can't recall receiving complaint.s from school super- intendents. I may have had one or two from chief State school officers. It is in response to that kind of concern that we make these amend- ment.s. There w-as never any intention on our part in this program to make it a program which bypassed the usual arrangements for handling assignment of people to the schools, and which bypassed the authori- tie~ of the States. In administering it we have been to the States in every case, and particularly to the certification people in the States who control teacher certification and control who shall teach in the schools to get their authorizations, even though this was not required under the law. Now we are asking that it. be required under the law so that there will be no doubt about it. Mr. BRADEMAS. Thank you. Mr. HOWE. Fourth, we have proposed amendments to allow Teach- er Corps members to serve wherever they are needed. At. present, Teacher Corps teams can only serve in schools administered b local educational agencies. The amendments would permit. Teacher Corps members to be as- signed to migrant. groups and schools operated by the Bureau of In- dian Affairs. Fifth, we have requested authority to allow the Comimssioner of Education to accept gifts on behalf of the Teacher Corps in the same way that the Peace Corps and VISTA are authorized to accept. gifts. Finally, we are asking that the program be extended 3 years with a tripling of the program in our budget. for the next. school year. PAGENO="0186" 180 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS The budgetary situation is that we are asking for a supplemental appropriation for the Teacher Corps in this budget year of $1~.5 million, and for 1968 we are asking for $36 million for the Teacher Corps in the 1968 budget. Mr. Chairman, what I have presented to you brings together our existing programs and all of the amendments we are suggesting for action by this committee. Just to review very briefly, the Elementary and Secondary Educa- tion Amendments of 1968 include five items: The first of them is the "Teacher Corps." The second is the ~`Comprehensive educational planning, which we have discussed some this morning. The third is a sei-ies of innovations in vocational education which I have not bronght~ to this committee and which will be discussed sub- sequently. The fourth is the expansion of educational opportumties for handi- capl)edl children and the several amendments there; and the fifth, the series of miscellaneous amendments which we have outlined this inorm ng. Mr. Chairman. I don't know- how you wish to proceed, but if it is your wish, what I would request would be that you ask Mr. Graham to make a brief statement about the Teacher Corps since this is the first of these elementary and secondary education amendments. Chairman PERKINS. If there is no objection, Mi-. Graham w-ill pro- ceeci with his statement. The complete text of his prel)ared statement will appear at this point. STATEMENT OF RICHARD GRAHAM. 1)IREcroR. TEACHER CORPS, U.S. OFFIcE OF EDvCATION. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTh, EDFCATION, AND WELFARE Mr. Chairman an(l members of the Committee. It is a privilege to appear before you to tell of the first years work of the Teachers Corps. Commissioner Howe has described the Country's need for more teachers who are willing to work with disadvantaged children. I will Con- centrate on what the Teacher Corps is doing to help meet that need. The Teacher Corps actually is a series of local programs, each developed through mutual planning by a school district 81111 8 nearby university and the State Department of Education. The local school identifies children with special needs and-in partnership with the university-submits its proposal for use of Corpsmen to the State De- partment of Education. When approved by the State. the proposal is submitted to the Teacher Corps. Experienced teachers are nominated as team leaders by their school systems and are selected by the universities. Corps member interns are recruited locally and nationally. After screening by the Teacher Corps, intern applicants are selected for preservice training by the local schools and universities. Corpsmen are hired, fired and can he reassigned by officials in the schools where they work and learn. But special training for teachers in poverty neighborhoods is a job few local schools or colleges could do alone. In most cases. the schools who most need specially trained teachers can least afford to hire them, let alone establish train- ing programs of their own. A national base for recruiting produces more candidates of high quality and Federal funds make the program financially feasible for a poorer school. The Teacher Corps provides another important element-team spirit. A recent Harvard graduate told one of our staff members he would "never have gone it alone." He said he would have felt incapable of doing by himself what he can do and is doing as a member of the Corps. Commissioner Howe has made it very clear that teachers niust receive special training to work in inner city schools. Many teaching interns have served tours PAGENO="0187" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 181 of duty in the Peace Corps and come home to seek another area of public service. Many of them have told me that conditions in some Amnericaii schools are far worse than anything they saw in foreign countries. The Teacher Corps was created to help poor children in the big cities, in nearly dead mining towns, in trailer villages, and an Indian reservation. All of the money spent for education in this country depends, in the last analysis, on two people-the child and the teacher. That is where you find the Teacher Corps. Our job is to help universities train teachers who are dedicated to the job of making children not only learn but want to learn. In the past few days, we have received our first tangible progress reports from the field on how well we are doing that job. Copies of these reports will be given to the committee, but I would like to summarize what offi~ia1s of the schools and universities where Corpsmen are working have to say about the program: First, seventy-five ler cent of both the schools and universities say the Teacher Corps is a better program for teacher training than any other they have used. Second, the principals of the schools which now have corpsmen want more. The average request is for three times more Corpsmen than are now available. Third, the Teacher Corps already has inspired significant changes in curricula at colleges where Corpsmen are studying for their degrees. Among colleges reporting, an average 37% of the courses offered interns had never been offered before. An assistant principal in Detroit told a recent visitor: I really don't know how we would have survived this year without the Teacher Corps. They have really helped us out, especially in problem cases. When problems get tough, I fre- quently go to them for help." A Cincinnati principal wrote to us: "It is one of the greatest training pro- grams I have ever witnessed because it gives trainees experience they would never have gotten in a normal training program." The superintendent of schools in Rio Grande City, Texas, told us our Corps- men are "enthusiastic, prepared and willing to work w-ith underprivileged chil- dren and we are in dire need of their hell)." And the principal of a school in Chicago says the Corps has made at least one big difference in his school: `Our teachers see these Corps kids here until ~ :30 or 6 o'clock. Now, nobody runs out when the bell rings and we're all doing a better job." I am pleased to say that this sort of enthusiasm for the Teacher Corps is typical of the reports from the men and women who know the Corps best-the people in the schools u-here our Corpsmen are working. The Corps is making itself felt in the colleges as well. Dr. Evan Sorber, who teaches at Temple University, tells us: `If the Corps should end tomorrow, the College of Education at Temple would never be the same. We are constantly incorporating the new techniques we've learned with Teacher Corps into the regular curriculum for all education majors." And the assistant dean of Education at Temple said recently: "It's very safe to predict that the fringe benefits of the Teacher Corps money will be to revitalize teacher education throughout the United States." What makes the principals so enthusiastic about the Teacher Corps is the way it is able to focus on the problems of each student in the school. For example, in Ben Bolt, Texas. Corpsmen are tutoring small groups of Mexican-American children in elementary school who have trouble reading English. Local schoOl officials gave this higher priority. In Detroit, 43 students at Spain Junior High School with records of repeated failures u-ere selected by Principal Theodore Myer and classroom teachers for special instruction. A team of Corpsmen instructs this group every morning for three consecutive periods. In Canada, North Carolina, a town without newspapers or telephones, interns are working with alternate grade levels under the supervision of their team leader. Before the Corps arrived, there were only four teachers stretched over eight grades. The work of the interns goes beyond the classrooms to establish new relations between the school and the community. In Detroit, interns organized a "book fair" at which they sold lou--priced books to youngsters who had never ow-ned a book: perhaps had never wanted one. They sold 1000 books. PAGENO="0188" 182 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDLTCATION AMENDMENTS In Omaha, interns helped canvass the ghetto neighborhoods as part of tb mayor's survey on unemployment. In Milwaukee, Corpsmen lived in the heart of the ghetto during preservice training. None of these activities is an end in itself. But to the student-teacher, they are the keys to knowing and understanding the larger environment which shapes the lives and habits of their pupils. And from this understanding comes accept- ance and good teaching. This is how Kathleen Rosentretter, an intern and former Peace Corps volun- teer, explains its value: "When a boy falls asleep at his desk, I recall the visit I made to an apartment house without glass in the windows. At night, the nine children sleep curled around the only radiator. When the boy awakes in class, I merely inform him of what he has missed and will have to make up on his own time. "If the noise level rises during a class activity, I no longer become alarmed, because I know that noise is synonymous with city ghetto life and is more fre- quently an indication that learning is taking place. "But, when I catch a student's blank stare, I know that the same ghetto clamor has now created a different result. The student is practicing a technique of es- cape he has perfected after living in a three room apartment with ten people who shout, argue and cry a great deal. I attempt to change the tempo of class activity to draw- him back to the reality of the classroom." This kind of sensitivity we desperately need in the teacher of the ghetto. Why is such extensive and specialized preparation necessary for this job? One answer is that too many teachers on their first assignment are dropped into a classroom of students w-hose life is utterly strange to them; pupils whose exist- ence is inconceivable to the recent college graduate; whose behavior is condi- tioned by reward patterns incomprehensible to the campus coed; whose learning patterns are far removed from the book-centered university. The new teacher in such a situation undergoes a kind of cultural shock. So far, despite program uncertainties, the dropout rate among Teacher Corps interns in the first school year is half that of the national average. Because with the Teacher Corps the job shock comes before, and not after, graduation, far more of the Teacher Corps graduates are likely to stay with teaching than is generally the case-particularly among ghetto teachers. The Teacher Corps has built-in shock absorbers. Working as part of a team, the young intern's morale is more easily lifted. There is always someone to turn to when the going gets rough. There is a group commitment which keeps performance high. In the last analysis, no program is any better than the people w-ho make it work. Here is where the Teacher Corps offers a unique contribution. It is able to attract bright, dedicated, imaginative, w-arm young people to one of the tough- est jobs in the teaching profession. The reasons are many, but one is pervasive. The Teacher Corps represents a national commitment to improve education w-here it is starting to do its job. The Teacher Corps means a chance to work and study with others who really care and who are willing to forgo private advantage for the satisfaction of greater service. This opportunity attracts college graduates w-ho had not previously considered teaching. It is helping to raise the sights and stature of dedicated teachers who are already w-orking w-ith the disadvantaged. Assignment to a slum school has traditionally stigmatized a teacher as either a neophyte or a reject. The Teacher Corps is helping to change that-helping to show that teaching the disadvantaged child can attract our best. most respected and most dedicated soling men and women. And it is helping to show- these young people that nothing is more important or more rewarding than taking part in this national effort to eliminate poverty of the mind in the schools of the poor. PAGENO="0189" TEACIIER CORPS CONTENTS Page A. Teacher Corps in the schools 183 B. Interns 185 C. Experienced teachers 190 P. Teacher Corps training 192 E. Preservice training 192 F. Inservice training 193 G. Summaryofexpenditures fiscal year 1966and 196L 195 H Average cost per Corps member 196 I. Projected average cost per Corps member with legislative changes 197 J. Comments on Teacher tlYorpa 197 IC. List of Teacher Corps programs 20~ A. TEACHER CORPS IN THE SCHOOLS 1213 Teacher Corpsmea 945 interns and 268 experienced teachers are at work in 275 schools in 111 school districts in 29 states, Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia. Of the 111 school districts, 50 are in the cities and 61 are basically rural. (Attached in appendix is a complete list of participating universities and school districts by state.) Because of the local nature of the Teacher Corps the activities of Corpsmen vary widely from project to project depending on the desires of the local school district and the local university. For the purpose of this presentation we have drawn up reports of Corpsmen activities. These reports represent all of the 50 universities involved and 79 of the 11 school districts participating. From them we have drawn statistics for an "average" Teacher Coriss intern. The average Teacher Corps intern spends 25 hours working directly in the local school, 9 hours in university classes, 14 hours studying and preparing for school w-ork and 7 hours working in school related community work. Local schools report that on the average a Corpsman (intern and experienced teacher) teaches, tutors, or deals with professionally 35 youngsters per week. This would indicate that in a given week about 45.000 poverty children receive professional attention from Teacher Corpsmen. This does not include such activities as extra-curricular activities, recreation, sports, etc. If these criteria are added, local schools report that Teacher Corpsmen have "direct functional contact" with 78 children each week, hence about 100,000 children are reached by Corpsmen in any given week. The charts below demonstrate tile aaoount of time spent per week by our "average" Corpsmen in his in-school activities and community work. Any indi- vidual Corpsman will not participate in all these activities. For example an elementary teacher will spend more time on general communication skills and perhaps more on soical studies while the reverse might be true of a secondary teacher. 183 PAGENO="0190" tTl HOURS PER WEEK SPENT BY AN "AVERAGE' INTERN (I) AND EXPERIENCED TEACHER TEAM LEADER EXTRA CURRICULAR I TL 1 APPROACH )ne-to- one Small Group Tchr Assistant in Classroom Self Contained Classroom - Work Under TL Study Hall, Lunchroom Supervisor Pre and Post School Study Session TL I TL I TL I TL I TL I TL 2 4 2 6 4 3 2 2 2 ~ 1 1 `ield Trios Crafts Music Arts Sports I 1 TL I TL COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT I TL ½ 0 ½ 0 ½ 0 eadstart I TL I 1 PTA Home Visits School Club TL I 1 2 I ½ TL TL 1 1 -~ I ½ TL Neighborhood Youth Center 2 5 I TL ½ ½ Neighborhood Youth Corps I TL .~ PAGENO="0191" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 185 What do the local schools and universities who are utilizing and training Corpsmen think about the Teacher Corps? Of the 79 school districts replying 68 (86%) said they wanted more Corpsmen, 3 indicated they did not want more Corpsmen and S indicated they were un- decided about asking for more Corpsmen. These 68 school districts who asked for more Corpsmen now utilize 743 interns and experienced teachers. Thcy have asked for an additional 1400 Corpsmembers in thc next academic year. The fifty universities now training Teacher Corpsmen report that au additional 300 local schools not now utilizing Teacher Corps teams have approached them about developing proposals for such teams for the next acadensic year. Both groups were asked to rate the Teacher Corps in comparison to other teacher education programs. Below is a chart of their responses: Universities School districts Much better Percent Somewhat better Same as others Somewhat poorer Much poorer Total replying (74) 4 g 4 o so 39 (751 20 16 4 0 :79 1 Of 50. 2 Of 111. Distribution of corpsmen by grades taught Number of corpsmen Percent Preschool and kindergarten 61 1 to3 352 4to6 412 7to9 291 10 to 12 97 Total 1,213 5 29 34 24 5 100 B. INTERNs There are 1213 snembers of the Teacher Corps. Of these 268 are experienced teachers and 945 are "teacher interns", persons with a bachelors degree who are training to beeome fully qualified teachers of the nation's disadvantaged children. Of the 945 intern.s 474 are male and 471 female. 133 males are teaching at the elementary school level where male teachers are scarce. Educators have pointed out that a high percentage of slum clsildren lack a positive male figure at home and there is consequently a great need for male elementary teachers. 28% of Teacher Corps snen are working with elensentary children as opposed to the national average of 14.G'¼ of male teachers in elementary education. 288 interns are snarried and 657 are single. They lsave an average of 1.3 de- imndents per married intern. Of the 474 men in the Teacher Corps 119 of thens have a record of prior mili- tary service. Souse 311 interns have some previous teaching experience altlsough only 132 were fully certified teachers before entering the Teacher Cor~. All interns have a bachelor's degree. The chart below breaks down their undergraduate nsajors. PAGENO="0192" 186 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS Major Interns Liberal arts and social science 683 Business and law 43 Math and science Engineering and technical 42 Education 134 Total The average age of a Teachers Corps intern is 24 years. Below is a breakdown of Corpsmen by age groups: Number oJ Age interns 24 and under 623 25 to 29 132 30 to 49 143 50 to 59 60 and over 16 A significant number of interns have previous experience with the problems of poverty areas as 362 have worked in poverty communities and 335 have lived iii such areas prior to joining the Teacher Corps. Since the beginning of training last summer the Teacher Corps has lost 334 interns representing an attrition rate of 26.0% of the original contingent. This includes both resignations and dismissals from the Corps. The chart below demonstrates that greatest attrition took place during the period between completion of preservice training and interim assignment to schools. This was the period in which uncertainty about appropriations raised serious questions about the continuation of the Corps. Since that time attrition has been minimal. The 10% attrition during preservice was largely the result of quality control by universities and self deselection by interns. PAGENO="0193" .TERNS (100's) ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 187 1 6 5 11 Teacher Corps Intern Attrition 12 1,219 11 .151 I0~ 9 8 945 4 3 2 3-1 66 1-1 Ass 19 ~m.nt P's-S o~Ic. 8-20 9-16 In-S .,nIce 12-10 2-1 61 7~-492-6T-13 PAGENO="0194" 188 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS Compiled below is a list of the number of Teacher Corps interns from each state. Every state except Alaska and Wyoming is represented. Number of State interns Alabama 13 Arizona Arkansas 30 California 109 Colorado 14 Connecticut 11 Delaware 1 District of Columbia 11 Florida Georgia Hawaii 2 Ida ho 1 Illinois 70 Indiana 19 Iowa 6 Kansas Ke~~ucky 11 Loqisiana Inc Maryland 20 Massachusetts 43 Michigan 36 ~Iianesota Mississippi 27 Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada 1 New Hampshire New jersey 26 New Mexico New York North Carolina 38 North Dakota 1 Ohio Oklahoma 11 Oregon 19 Pennsylvania Rhode Island 11 South Carolina 19 South Dakota 2 TonnessP 14 Texas Vermont 2 Virginia Washington 3 West Virginia 9 w~isconsia 15 Puerto Rico 16 PAGENO="0195" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 189 Below is a list of the number of interns assigned to each state in which the Teacher Corps has programs. Number of in terms State assigned Arizona 7 Arkansas California 78 District of Columbia 43 Florida 28 Georgia 16 Hawaii Illinois 82 Indiana 30 Kentucky 48 Louisiana 14 Massachusetts 42 Michigan Minnesota 10 Mississippi 31 Nebraska New Jersey New Mexico 12 New York 91 North Carolina 20 Ohio Oklahoma 6 Oregon 18 Pennsylvania 56 Rhode Island 19 South Carolina 13 Tennessee 19 Texas Virginia 11 West Virginia 27 `ATisconsin Puerto Rico 15 Since local universities and school districts participate in selection of Corps- men many interns serve in their home state. Number Percent Nnmherservaig in State otorigin 401 42.4 Number serving in State other than State of origin 544 57.6 Total 945 100.0 PAGENO="0196" 190 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDTJCATION AMENDMENTS Three hundred and sixty-seven of the interns were enrolled as under- graduates at colleges and universities immediately prior to joining the Teacher Corps and an additional 120 were enrolled as graduate students. The remain- ing 458 come from all walks of life-from housewives to retired military personnel. C. EXPERIENCED T&&cnnas Of the Teacher Corps 268 experienced teachers 129 are men and 139 are women. 170 are married and 98 are single. These experienced teachers have an average of 2.2 dependents per married teacher. All of course have teaching experience as is indicated in the chart below: Number of E~vperience teacher8 Less than 5 years 36 5 to 7 years 45 Over 8 years 187 Next is shown the grades at which these team leaders have had experience: Number of Gro4es taught teachers 1 to 8 only 158 9 to 12 only 32 Experience in both 7~ 205 of these experienced teachers have had previous experience teaching in poverty areas. Most of the experienced teachers hold advanced degrees as demonstrated below: Number of Academia background teachers Bachelor's degree only 96 Master's degree 171 Higher degree 2 As is obvious from their background the experienced teachers tend to be older with their average age 34. Below is an age breakdown: Number of Age teachers 24 and under 5 25 to 29 35 30to49 186 50to59 35 60 and over 7 Of the 129 male experienced teachers 78 have a record of prior military service. 200 have previously worked in poverty areas and 141 have lived in poverty communities. Compiled below is a list of the number of experienced teachers from each state. Experien~eed teacher by ~St ate of origin Alabama 2 Arizona 3 Arkansas 7 California ____ 21 Colorado 2 Connecticut 1 District of Columbia 3 Florida 9 Georgia 4 Illinois 30 Indiana 6 Kansas 1 Kentucky 5 Louisiana 4 Maryland 2 Massachusetts 10 Michigan 7 Minnesota 2 PAGENO="0197" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 191 Experienced teacher by State of origin-Continued Mississippi 11 Missouri 2 Nebraska 4 New Jersey 2 New Mexico 1 New York 22 North Carolina 17 Ohio 8 Oklahoma 5 Oregon 4 Pennsylvania 11 Rhode Island 5 South Carolina 5 Tennessee 6 Texas 26 Virginia 4 Washington 1 West Virginia 5 Wisconsin 8 Puerto Rico 2 Total 268 In the future, experienced teachers will be nominated by the local school system to which they will be assigned. Even this year there was very little dislocation of experienced teachers, as can be seen below. Number Percent Number serving in State of origin 101 72 Number servine el~ewhere 75 28 Total 268 100 Since the beginning of training last summer, the Teacher Corps has lost 69 experienced teachers representing an attrition rate of 21% of the original con- tingent. This includes both resignations and dismissals from the Corps for all reasons. As was shown in the Intern Attrition chart, the period of greatest at- rition came during the period of uncertainty over appropriations last Fall. The negative attrition, shown in the chart below, demonstrates the fact that local school systems have replaced lost experienced teachers from their own staffs. EXPERI - EN C ED TEACHERS (100'.) Teacher Corps Experienced Teacher Attrition 322 268 3-1 66 1-1 ~ 8-20 9-16 12-10 ~ As~g~''~~ 2-1 61 PAGENO="0198" 192 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS P. NATIONAL TEACHER CORPS THE PROGRAM IN BRIEF Th~' Teacher Corps is 1)0th a supplemental educational service for disadvan- taged children and a practical process of educating new teachers. Under the supervision of experienced teachers, teams of interns engage in a two-year edu- `ational program that integrates study and practice. PRESERVICE EDUCATION Interns begin with a 10 to 12-week prcservice graduate program, typically a iiiajor introduction to the sociology of poverty and to the educative process. It includes practical observation and participation in schools, social work agencies, and neighborhood activities. Formal study, therefore, becomes the scholarly assessment of the practical laboratory experiences. Experienced teachers participate in the program both as students of supervision and as instructors and team leaders. Desirably at this stage there are formed the teams of interns and leaders who will work together in school and community situations for the ensuing two years. The major outcome of the preservice education is not, however, just the intro- duction of potential interns to the rudiments of education for the disadvantaged. More crucially it is the confrontation of the fact of poverty, the insight into doing something about it. and the necessity for making a personal decision to enter upon a career in the education of the disadvantaged. The remainder of the program is built upon such dedication. IN5ERVICE EDUCATION The next step for interns is part-time graduate study, coordinated with the internship, and leading in most cases to the master's degree. Most participating colleges and universities provide for individualized programming and most in- terns are assigned selected courses to nmeet their individual career needs, although those attending a particular institution do attend certain common courses. Integration of study and internship is essential. Typically the institution supervises the internship program and awards academic credit for it. It is an essential element of most inservice programs that course work must provide for the application of college resources to the scholarly analysis of the teaching ex- periences of the interns in school and community. INTEuNSIIIP5 IN TEACHING The intership is gradual and highly individualized. The act of teaching tests the intern alone. He progresses gradually fromn observing through helping, tutoring individuals, tutoring small groups. and teaching occasional lessons, to actually teaching extended units. He learns to plan his teaching by actual planning, by criticism from teachers and peers, and by criticizing the work of his fellow interns. He learns to know his children as real individuals within the setting in which they live. He learns to bring to them the counseling and instruc- tional resources of an enriched school effort that his additional time makes pos- sible. He learns to teach and he learns by teaching. E. PRE5ERvICE TnAINING Forty-two universities participated in the initial summer (preservice) train- ing of Teacher Corpsmen. Of these 42 universities 22 prepared Corpsmen exclusively for work in urban areas and 7 provided trnining exclusively for rnral situations. 13 institutions conducted training for both urban and rural poverty schools. The 42 universities offered 34 programs aimed at teaching in elementary schools. 18 high schools. 10 junior high, and one program exclusively for training pre-school teachers. Below- is a chart listing all preservice institutions and designating their pro- gram elnphnsis: PAGENO="0199" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 193 Teacher Corps prcservice training programs Urban Rural Total Elementary Secondary Junior Preschool Total 28 14 10 1 53 18 7 0 0 25 F. INTERSERVICE TRAINING Fifty universities are involved in the continuing (inservice) education of Teacher Corps interns. 27 deal exclusively with Corpsmen working in urban situations and S are exclusively rural in orientation. 15 provide training for both urban and rural situations. These fifty universities administer training for 42 elementary, 20 secondary, 17 junior high and one pre-school program as specified in the chart below: Institution Urban Rural Ele- men- tary Arkansas State College X N N California State College (Los Angeles) N San Diego State College N N N University of Southern California N N N Trinity College N University of Miami University of Georgia N Chicago Consortium N N Southern Illinois University N Indiana State University N Moorhead College N N University of Kentucky and Berea College N X N XavierUniversity N N noston College N N Springfield College N N Wayne State University N N N University of Southern Mississippk N N N University of Omaha N N N New Mexico State N N N Hunter College N New York University N State University of New York~~ N Syracuse University N North Carolina at Durham N N West Carolina College N N University of Akron N Ohio University N N N Oregon State University N N N University of Pittsburgh N N Temple University N N Rhode Island College N N South Carolina State College N East Tenoessee State University N N Memphis State University N N N Prairie View A.&M N N Uoiversityofllouston N Texas College A. & I N N N Hampton Institute N N Virginia State College N N Marshall N N University of Wisconsin N - N Inter-American University, Puerto Rico N X Queens College N N Total 36 20 35 See- Junior Pre- Interns, ondary high school July 1966 29 32 N 32 33 N N 21 N 30 N 27 N 116 28 N N 37 27 46 18 N 28 20 N N 34 28 N 27 28 N 22 N N 29 27 N 28 20 N 29 N 31 31 27 N 3i N N 42 N 29 22 N 24 N 26 N 28 X 33 28 N 24 15 22 N N 28 N 18 10 2 Experi- enced teaclsers 6 8 8 8 5 10 5 30 7 8 7 11 5 S 8 7 7 7 5 7 7 7 7 7 6 8 18 10 7 8 6 7 9 7 8 6 6 9 4 5 Summary chart-Number of presertice institutions training for various types of pro grams 46 21 10 PAGENO="0200" 194 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS Teacher Corps inservice training programs Summary chart-Number of inservice institutions training for various types of programs 54 23 17 Universities Urban Rural Elemen- tary Second- ary Junior high Pre- school Interns, Septem- best 1966 University of Arizona X X Arkansas State Teachers X X X San Diego State College X X X San Jose State College X X X University of Southern California X X Catholic University of America. X X Trinity College X X X University of Miatni X X X X University of Georgia X X X University of Hawaii X X Chicago Consortium X X X Southern Illinois University - - X X Moorhead State College X X University of Kentucky at Berea X X X Westerts Kentucky State Cohere X X Xavier University X X Boston College X X X Springileld College X X Wayne State University X X X X X University of Southern Mississippi X X X Municipal University of Omaha X X X X New Mexico State University - X X X Hunter College X X X Queens College X X Holfstra University N X X N University of Minnesota N N N X New York University N N X N State University of New York at Buffalo N N Western Carolina College N N N Antioeh College N N N Ohio University N N N University of Akron N N University of Cincinnati N N N East Central State College N N Oregon Slate University I N N N Temple University N N N N University of Pitsshssrgh N N N Inler-Atnericats University of Puerto Rico N N Rhode Island Colleee N N N South Carolina Stale Cohlege~ N N East Tetsnesseg State College N N N Memphis Slate University N X N X East Texas Slate University N Prairie View A. & M. College N N X Texas College A. & I N N N N University of Houston N x Hampton Inslitute N N N Marshall N N University of Wisconsin N N N N Total 40~ 23~ 42~ 20~ 17 7 25 20 21 33 17 14 28 20 3 65 17 15 29 17 14 28 18 32 24 21 21 23 20 8 12 29 21 21 19 18 23 10 7 26 38 23 16 19 16 17 13 7 18 19 17 11 18 24 Urban Rural Total Elementary Secondary Junior high Preschool Total 36 14 17 1 18 9 0 0 27 PAGENO="0201" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 195 G. SUMMARY OF EXPENDITURES, FISCAL Yr.~Rs 1966 AND 1967 Nat kin~al Teacher Corps, summary of e~rpcnditures 1966: Authorization $36, 100, 000 Appropriation 9, 500, 000 Actual expenditures 6,325, 000 Preservice training: Stipend and dependents' allowance for interns 1, 245, 000 Instructional costs to institutions 2, 544, 000 Total 3, 789, 000 Inserylce training (tuition) 2, 360. 000 Travel costs 176, 000 Total 6, 325, 000 1967: Authorization 64, 715, 000 Appropriation 7, 500, 000 Actual expenditure (estimate) 7, 500, 000 Supplemental appropriation requested 12, 500, 000 Interim funding costs 1, 260, 000 Local school contract costs (estimate) 6,094,000 Travel costs (estimate) 146. 000 Total 7, 500, 000 Inservice training (tuition for 2d academic year, summer, and stipend during summer-estimate) 3, 120, 000 Preservice training (new group-estimate) 5, 685, 000 Inservice training (new group-estimate) 3, 420, 000 Travel costs (new group-estimate) 275,000 Total 12, 500, 000 NOrz.-Preservice training costs are the amounts of the contracts. Actual expendi- tures, when adjusted for unexpended balances, will be slightly lower. Experienced teachers' salaries, included In instructional costs, averaged $170 per week during preservice training. N0TE.-Under the Interim funding corpsmen were paid as follows: Interns on the stipend basis used during the summer; experienced teachers at the rate they would be paid when actually assigned to the local school systems. Payments were made by the Inservice training institutions and Corps men were in a training status, not assigned to local school systems. The categories of expenditures which the contracts will include are shown in the following table. These data are based on the contracts as originally nego- tiated. There will be changes in some cases because of the cooperative project activity with Title III of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. The estimated use of the $12,500,000 supplemental appropriation requested is based on the present legislative authority. 1967 Contract Agreements with local school systems tentatively include the following: Percent of Felcral Category share C)orpsmember salaries 82. 1 Additional benefits 8. 1 Other costs: Administrative Salaries 6. 7 Travel 1. 1 Supplies 1.0 Equipment .3 Other . 1 Total 100.0 PAGENO="0202" 196 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDTTCATION AMENDMENTS 1O~ of Corpsmember salaries are paid from local funds. Expl:inat.ion of iteilis included iii the contracts (`orpsiocmbcr ~alaric.s are tS)ç~ of the salary costs for experienced teacher- team leaders and interns. Additiniiai Benefits include items such as the following and vary from school to school 1. Contribution to retirement funds ~. Flealth Insurance 3. Life Insurance 4. Workman s compensation 5. Agency Contribution to Social Security Other Costs include the following kinds of items: idwiinstrative ~S'alarics are those for local coordinators, usually part-time and clerical staff needed to provide the necessary support and liaison be- tween corpsmen and permanent staff. Travel costs when it is necessary for corpsmen to regularly travel from school to school in fulfillinu assignments. Travel is also provided for local coordination by program staff. kS~U~~ljCS necessary to operate the corpsmen's activities locally. These include paper, reproduction materials. etc. Equipment was provided in a few cases and includes items such as desks, chair. file cabinets, and in certain exceptional cases-typewriters. Other costs are for the rental space for the corps activities in one large school system where no public space was available. H. AVERAGE COST PER CORPS MEMBER Estimated cost per corpsman based on existing legislation Intern cost Experienced teacher cost Preservice training $2,300 $2,100 Salaries (90 percent): 1st year 2d year 4,122 4,252 8,770 9,800 Inservice training: 1st academic year (tuition) 2d summer 1,900 1.220 2d academic year (tuition) Local administrative costs (2 year) Travel 1,900 700 400 700 400 Total 16,794 21,770 Estimated annual cos 8,397 10,883 I Includes stipends and tuition. 2 Excludes Federal costs of administering the program. NOTE-This estimate of costs per corpsman is based on data included in the President's budget for 1968 and uses 1967 and 1968 estimates. Salaries shown are slightly lower than what preliminary data shows to be the aclual payments by school districts to be. Final data are not yet computed. PAGENO="0203" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDLCATION AMENDMENTS 197 I. PROJECTED AVERAGE (`/ist PER Ccitt's i\IESIBER Viiiit LEGISL OFIVE (`ii \Nt,LS Sot tonal lear/icr (`orps-Est is, ott (1 cost pci' corps/i on iss it q a poc/:oqr for tic ir ioq coil Pt! !,1t(l 0 sttpe-nd to tub I 1 ri rot E\peri'ls'i'd I `acli'r cost `l'ri. iog;rs' iii `iilitliIi;,l cisls__ - lutts':i: 1stacid'-ii,icvear~ - - - 1,250 2iI SOtIiiii't - - 51iO -- - - 26 acidciiic v'-ar_ - 1,250 - - - TutU - - 4,250 F- - F: s~s-rv'. cd I cl-cs' s-tories: `c s-me - - - - -- 0210/I 1st oral--s/c v-c -4// js-rc'ittL - ~,77O Sdac id--sc' v--sc ~o -rc'i1~ - - - 0,550 Iislt'rus' stin.-' ids: F l'ccss'rs'ic'' to oil/sir 12 sc'-''-c~ I loll arcs-nt) - - 1,0~s Is? yew 40 wi--ks 00t.-r,-~sl,_ - - l.24o 2i1,is'-O2sca-i,s sUps-rc-utF -- - - 4,21: Local ,sliiis/stril/vc c~s: v/crc - - - - - - - - I lot I 600 `I'rav'l - - 10 100 Told - - - 13,402 21,370 Esrsat--d as:.ot,: coat 6,541 10,685 F:~co~dn F'i-d.'r::l cost of adttuoisti-r/ig liii' program. NoTE----TFsi's- c/ala sir' -st iiscst.-d osi Ito' has/s of lcg/slal/v' cliaiigi-s oliscli would aulliocits joviug stipends to iilii'ros. Salaries for experienced teachers are those used in the Presidents budget. They include an estimate for additional benefits and it SG00 Ioiius in tile second year. From irelinlulary data they appear to be slightly under the actual ilIllOllIlts being Paid during the current year. By eliminating or reducing the bonus payments we will reduce somewhat our current costs. Local school sys- tellis will pay 10% of experienced tea/her salaries. The estimate of the ireservice salary for experienced teachers is based on $175 per week for 12 weeks. A shorter preservice training period would red/ice that amount. Intern stipends are based 011 $75 per week plus .S15 for each dependent (esti- mate on average of 1 dependellt per intern). During preservice training 100% of the stipend would be from Federal funds. Local school districts w'ill pay 10% of intern stipends during the time that interns are in the scilools. (During the second summer it is expected that some Coi'psnien will participate in corn- niunity service activities and will receive some salary froni till/se sources/. Travel cost estimates are very low on tile assumllptioll that assignment will be very Illtlch a local affair-including assignment to preservice training. J. Costni~crs ON TEAcHER CouPs COMMENTS ON T~E TEAChER coin's I believe that the National Teacher Corps is one of the very best of all the new programs in education. I an~ constantly observing tile fine fruits of this organization.-Jack J. Efurd, Superintendent, Gentry Public Schools. Gentry, Arkansas. There is no aspect of our society tllat needs iuiore serious attention than that of education. There is no aspect of education that needs more serious atten- tion than teacher training. There is n~ aspect of teacher trllihiillg that needs more atteiltioli than the encouragement of young people to enter the teaching Profession. The National Teacher Corps is an exciting new attenlit to provide the encouragement needed for young people tu enter teaching-William N. Mc- Gowan. Executive Secreta i'y. Californ hi Associa t ion ut' Set' nd:i ry Sehoul Ad- ministrators. Burlingante, California. PAGENO="0204" 198 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS For the past four years my principal assignment has been working with and developing projects that have either been funded through Federal or State sources. I have seen many projects in operation, but as far as I am concerned the Teacher Corps stands far in the forefront as an excellent example of a joint partnership between the local school district, the University and the Fed- eral government. The dedication and commitment on the part of the Corps members is truly outstanding. The Corps is a beacon light for those of us who have worked for many years in disadvantaged areas. Don't allow this light to burn out !-Don Hodes, Assistant Superintendent, Enterprise City School Dis- trict, Compton, California. Teachers and residents of the Willowbrook School District are requesting addi- tional teams of National Teacher Corpsmen. Their ability to work with teachers, parents and pupils has strengthened the total educational program. We have never witnessed such radical changes in a school district in such a short period of time.-Thurman C. Johnson, Assistant Superintendent, Special Projects, Wi!- lowbrook School District. Los Angeles, California. The program is an excellent one, for it has brought into the field of education people who are very much interested in the educational program for the disad- ~`antaged. In order to really evaluate the success or failure of the program, it should be extended. I would recommend that the school district be brought in to aid in the program of the interns' university work. There is a need for much closer communication with the university and also to strengthen the role of the team leader.-Robert L. Seaton, Director, Special Projects, Jurupa United School District, Riverside, California. The National Teacher Corps offers an outstanding opportunity to use a full year or more of intensive training or internship for potential teachers. This method of developing creative young people into professional educators to meet one of our country~s great needs is imperative. Unfortunately Colorado does not have a program operating by which direct comparison can be made-Carl E. Slatt, Director Special Services, Sheridan Public Schools. Fort Logan. Colorado. My major FCOSOfl for writing this letter is to suggest that as your program ex- pands you might find members of the Teacher Corps who might be interested in coming to Hartford. When and if this occurs we will cooperate in every way. Perhaps as people leave the Teacher Corps they may be looking for permanent positions. If they are. I hope you will place Hartford on your list, for we will be interested in people who have warmth, concern, and a special love for kids.- Medill Bair, Superintendent of Schools. Hartford. Connecticut. We believe the National Teacher Corps is serving several needs in education. 1. Many who would not otherwise enter teaching, are enrolled and are getting very fine training. 2. Children are receiving more individual help and direction which is already proving worthwhile in our schools here in Centralia. 3. The use of Corps teachers is causing services to he given to students and teachers which could not be given in the past for lack of personnel. The value is now obvious and Boards of Education will provide some of these services to their schools in the fu- ture. 4. By having 21 Corpsmembers in our schools, we have seen orientation and innovation really in operation. This is good. I believe, since we're prone to con- tinue exactly the same year after year. Teachers who hardly knew how to use assistance are definitely expanding their room programs, to the good of the young- sters.-W. E. McAllister, Superintendent, Centralia City Schools, Centralia, Illinois. The AFT is still keenly interested in the National Teacher Corps and we will do every thing possible to help make the NTC a vital force in American educa- tion Confusion regarding the purpose of the Teacher Corps has been responsible for much of the opposition to it. Teacher professionalists have feared that poorly trained youngsters trying to teach on enthusiasm alone will be put into positions which should be filled by fully certificated teachers . . . Other opponents have claimed that the Corps takes teachers out of the classroom instead of putting more teachers to work. The NTC should not be in the business of supplying "cannon fodder" for the high casualty sectors of the educational wars. Instead, the Corps should be a training ground for highly motivated and specially prepared new teachers who could not only survive but could also succeed in their educational missions . . PAGENO="0205" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 199 The NTC will begin to inject better prepared additional teachers into the nation's teaching force beginning with the 1968-69 school year, and the job cannot be done in any less time. Teacher Corps graduates can be expected to be more likely to make teaching their career than would teachers who have not had the benefit of such training. Thus teacher turnover would be reduced, and the total number of active teachers would be increased. Experience has shown that it is wasteful to send beginning teachers with only a term of practice teaching into the schools on a sink-or-swim basis. The Na- tional Teacher Corps can perform a function not now being done adequately by our teacher training institutions. Furthermore, this is the proper function of the Corps, a function which fills a great and pressing national need.-Charles Cogen, President, American Federation of Teachers, Chicago, Illinois. The Citizens Schools Committee voted at its board meeting of January 4 that it "affirm continuation of the National Teacher Corps," and that a committee be appointed to plan procedures toward this end.-Robert J. Ahrens, President, Chicago Citizens Schools Committee, Chicago, Illinois. As an administrator in charge of two (Teacher Corps) teams functioning in our school district. I am not just a casual observer. The work of the interns has been well accepted by the children and teachers in our schools. The head-teacher (team leader) constitutes a weak link in the program.- H. T. Peterson, Special Assistant to the Superintendent, Maywood Public Schools, Maywood, Illinois. Wolfe County School System was denied the N.T.C. for school year 1966-67 because of no housing. We are very sorry, for we need the program badly.- Frank Rose, Superintendent, Wolfe County Schools. Compton. Kentucky. It is a little program that is making a big difference in our system-John W. Ambrose, Acting Superintendent, Lexington City Schools. Lexington, Kentucky. The Teacher Corps has every mark of being an effective and efficient means of solving one of our most serious national problems. It brings the university, the local education agency, the teachers in service, and corpsmen to grips with the real situation. Things will never be the same once the Corps has been there. We are all growing because of the Teacher Corps.-Sister M. Loyola, Director, Teacher Education, Xavier University, New Orleans, Louisiana. There are no National Teacher Corps persons in the State of Maine. We had applied, but were refused because none were trained for this area. We feel that the National Teacher Corps could perform a definite service in our system and we hope that the program will be continued so that our children will bene- fit.-Raymond Brennich, Superintendent of Schools, Madawaska, Maine. I am writing this letter to you as a general plea for the continuation of the National Teacher Corps established under the Higher Education Act of 196fi. As a counselor to students in their senior year of college, I have an excellent op- portunity to discuss their career choices with them. As you may realize, a significant portion of them are interested in a teaching career. What may in- terest you even more is that many of these students want to be able to combine the teaching experience wit.h the more general aspect of social service to the people in underdeveloped and impoverished areas. As the federal programs stand presently, students interested in such a program are forced to go into the Peace Corps. However, many students feel that in addition to the opportunities provided by the Peace Corps, there are many places in the United States (E.G., Appalachia) which would provide just such an opportunity. At its inception, the National Teacher Corps satisfied the need for this type of program. It combined all the good aspects of the teaching profession with the needs of the impoverished areas in this country. Students were interested in the program when it was organized and, if anything, they are even more interested in it now. I hope that as the year progresses. the need for the continuation of this program will be realized and that it will receive the support from the Congress that it so rightly de- serves.-Lawrence F. Stevens, Assistant Director, Office for Graduate and Career Plans, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Our participation in a program with the National Teacher Corps has provided a new avenue in which we might mutually attack problems inherent In disad- vantaged areas. In the opinion of those of us working closely with these problems, Corpsmen have made a very vital contribution toward making life richer for the children of pov'rty PAGENO="0206" 200 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS I suggest 1 that during the two-year period, a well structured. formalized practice teaching perio(I be incorporated : and 2~ that a much closer working relati( nship between the local education agency and the participating college be effected.-J ohn E. Deady, Superintendent of Schools, Springfield Public Schools, SpringtIel(1. Massachusetts. We have seine great peo~de iii our Teacher Corps and I hope to find similar competence in Minneapolis.-Johii B. Davis, Jr.. Former Superintendent of Schools. Worchester Public Schieds. Worchester, Massachusetts; Superintend- out of ~fl mis. Minneapolis, Minnesota. We had the opportunity of having four members of the National Teachers Corps loin mit staff in September of IPtifi. We have found their services to be ex- I rena'! v helpful and beneficial to the students with whom they have been work- The members f our team have a sincere dedication to their work and their ml `Jitlil )Uti(1115 have been many. Tl~ev have WI rked with children with reading (1 isabilities. offered opportuni- ties in creative (tramatics, providel individual help to students in Language Arts. 1arti(ilated in an after school study center, cooperated with Head-Start teach- ers iii creative draniatics, worked with individuals and small groups in elemen- tary science prmm~e(ts an(l given help to students in creative writing activities. We have fund our Teacher Corps niembers to be very interested in this pro- rrani and have dev ted iia ny h urs over and above that normally expected in lielpii g students r hey service. As ~tatcd aim ye, their cm iitrihutions have been many. We ale proud to l)e a a it f the Nat! mial Teacher C rl)s program and have witnessed the progress 1ii~drm-ui can make under the guidance and influence of people in this program.- Fim ~bert F. Bailey. Assistant for Instruction. Oak Park School District, Oak Park. i\iichigan. The work if the three Teacher Corps teams in the Pontiac area has been out- ~randimir. As a method of teacher training and coiiimunity service it is one of he no st useful inmiovafions iniimleiiiented by the federal government-B. C. Va uT (I ughnett . i (i rector, Commumi ity Action Progra nis. Pontiac School I)istrict, l'oiutia . Michigan. I think the N.T.C. js a very fine progmum and can do lots of good in our schools. It will hell train people to go into the teaching profession that are needed so 1 acHy i w. The team we have in our county is doing a wonderful job. I hone ihere will be money appropriated to continue this worthy program.-Carl Loftin, Slulerilut emiclent. Marb in (flinty Scho Is. (`(1 ninhia. Mississippi. The National Teacher ( `orps is the brightest beani of hope the children on the Indian reservation have yet seen. Our reincte locale and the low salaries we pay have ilnueded our atteiiipts to get 1uitlifled teachers.--Alfred Gilpin. Presi- dent al' Tribal ( `ouncil. \Iemher of the School Board. Maey. Nebraska. The Teacher (`rps is one of the most practical ways of training teachers specifically for 1 overty and under-privileged children that 1 have encountered. It takes degreed people who desire to serve in this capacity and places them in -otuati(lIs where they ret practical experience in methods and further attitude ievelolmnient. The (`orps is essential to iiietropohitan school districts because no other agency is adequately facing this problem in this time of teacher shortage. This w irk, which supplements the work clone at the colleges and universitios. Imiust continue if we are to face the problem of educating children in poverty area schi is at this rime-Paul .J. Turnquist. -` ssistant Superintendent. Otmiaha Public Is. Oma ha. Nebraska. I am most pleased to endorse the concept of the National `reacher (`Otis. While we have had a number of problems with the program this fir~t year in Trenton. we have been generally pleased with the progress I)eing made. The inner city school I oda v needs a ssistti nce from the federal level in many ways. a nil the National Teacher ( `rims is a drama tic way of expressing federal concern for our prob- lems. The Teacher Corps team at our Jefferson School is beginning to make a sirmithait it ributieii. We have recently set imp a planning committee in 1-his school tm assist this team in learning better ways of meeting the needs of the mimer liv bill and in carrying omit a number of innovative programs. Mv mimly smirgestien is that there should he more participation in the early sta m~ ii' the 1 mublic sehio d personnel before a Tea elmer Corns tea iii is ~ee t to a ccnmnuimuitv.-TUchia r(l T. Beck. Superintendent if Shools. Trenton. New- Jersey T1 `l'e'icher Corps I cain a ssi med to our school district ha s 1 meen of out~tn nd - in ~ `ii i~m `v iking wi thu 1 ow-in come. Span shi-spcn king cliii dren w-h are in ii puil PAGENO="0207" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 201 of extra help and encouragement in school work. Additionally, we view the Corps as an exceptionally practical way to prepare teachers who have both the techniques and understanding needed to work with such children. We feel that the team leader's salary is set too high. For example, our team leader is paid more than the principal of the school in which he works. I~t me emphasize, however, that the program has been very worthwhile, and that our principal in this situation would not for one moment give up his team because of the compensation factors. It is my feeling that he is being dealt with un- fairly when he contributes freely so much time and effort on behalf of a group whose leader is being paid more than he is for doing a much smaller job. -James P. Miller, Assistant Superintendent, Gadsden Independent School Dis- trict. Anthony, New Mexico. We feel that the Teacher Corps team at Hatch Valley Municipal School, Hatch, New Mexico. is fulfilling the expectations we had in requesting it. In personal qualities and professional dedication the interns are the kind of prospective teachers we are happy to employ.-M. E. Linton, Superintendent, Hatch Valley Municipal School District #11, Hatch, New Mexico. I know an arithmetic teacher named Mr. Fenton Strickland, who is a Teacher Corps intern. He is a nice man. I like when he comes to get me to go with him. He never scolds me, so I am good with him. I am good all the time and also I do my homework. He only helps me with the problems. I do all the rest. I hope that I can go to arithmetic with him every day-Anthony Strickland (no relation), Sixth Grade, School 8, Buffalo. New York. Numerous Columbia students are inquiring at this office about the National Teacher Corps, but we have been able to give them little current information. They are interested in applying, but when I telephoned headquarters last week they said the future is uncertain. As far as Columbia University goes, the uncertainty of your future programs is a shame, since National Teacher Corps appeals to many here as a first-class introduction to teaching and service together. rrhere is so much enthusiasm for the program among some of our best students that we would hate to see it founder. With what they could offer the program and what the program could offer them, we hope the kinks get ironed out. Please keep us posted-Richard M. Gummere, Jr., Director, Career Planning Division, Columbia University, New York, New York. One of the most encouraging aspects of education today is the interest which both professional educators and enlightened members of the community are taking in finding better approaches to the solution of our problems. It is only natural, therefore, that we should be interested in the National Teacher Corps and what it is trying to do not only to increase the supply of competent teachers hut also to stimulate further improvement in those who are already teaching.- Harry N. Rivlin, Dean of the School of Education, Fordham University. New York, New York. We have been pleased and impressed with the manner in which the National Teacher Corps program is operating at the present time. Not only are the corps- imien being gradually inducted into the teaching profession. but they have been getting fine training in successful ways in which to teach disadvantage(l children. Moreover, they have been rendering valuable community service working directly with children from the schools to which they are assined. We feel confident that at the end of their training period the corpsmen will develop into outstand- ing teachers of disadvantaged youth. We suggest that the program be shortened to consist of an initial preservice summer program, a full school year of internship, and a second summer of course work. At the end of this full calendar year the corpsmen should be ready to take over full-time teaching assignments-Theodore IT. Lang. Deputy Superintendent of Schools. New' York City. New York. I should like to call your attention to the outstanding service the Teacher Corps is performing at our school. Not only are they doing very effective work in their small-group instruction. but they also help out in time of special need or emergency situations. They have been most helpful and (oUlOr;i five. They have become rod teachers and are l)erforming au ess~uitia1 ~orvice to the school-Joseph Strell. Principal. Public School l'~. New York. New York. W'luile it is too early to base support of the National Teacher Cor~ on actual performance. there is no doubt whatever as to the usefulness and the value of this program. Because of uncertainties over funding, difficulties were en- PAGENO="0208" 202 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDIJCATION AMENDMENTS countered in New York City last summer but those teachers who were trained and placed, according to preliminary reports, are living up to the high expecta- tions that accompanied the plan. NTC can make a tremeiiclous contribution to the improvement of the educa- tion and well-being of children in the disadvantaged areas of New York and other large cities and it is our fervent hope that Congress can be brought to under- stand the iniportanee of this project and to arrange for adequate long-term SUPI)( rt -Frederick C. McLaughlin, Director, Public Education Association, New York, New York. We have the Teacher Corps in our school system and it is doing a wonderful job for us. Corpsmen are helping the minority groups in our school develop a better self-image of themselves and also their work has improved immensely With the aid of the Corps. We have been able to offer many things for these stu- dents which we were unable to do before this time. I think it has been handled very well this year. The only thing wrong was the delay in funding the program which caused a delay in our plans. However, I realize that it was not your fault in this matter-Marvin Stokes, Superintendent of Shools. Byng School. Ada. Oklahoma. The team from the National Teacher Corps that has been working in our school during the 196(3-67 school year is doing fine work. Corpsmen have as- -essed the school situation here well and in most instances have cooperated in an excelbnt way with our school faculty, students, parents, and other citizens of this community. I feel that it is a very worthwhile program.-A. W. Barrett, Superintendent. Konawa Public Schools, Konawa, Oklahoma. What we are doing at the college is learning from National Teacher Corps. Oh. we are teaching. We have some very good teachers working with the Cornisnien. No doubt But more than that. we are learning. What Dr. Sorber said about the already visible effects of NTC upon our programming is truer thou even he knows. Truer, perhaps, than even I know, but I do know that we are even now planning to revise our total undergraduate and graduate teacher education program. The kinds of things we are learning through NTC about involving potential teachers with people in the community-the kinds of things we are learning about involving potential teachers with other teachers in the school in which these potential teachers are working, and with administrators and stu(lents in these schools, the kinds of things we are learning about giving these peoide an opportunity to use their own creative abilities and intelligences instea(l of constantly telling them precisely what it is that they ought to do so that they can be made in our mold. It is teaching us what we need to do in teacher education. I think it~s very safe to predict that the fringe benefit of the NTC money u-ill be to revitalize teacher education throughout the United States-Leon Osview. Assistant Dean, College of Education, Temple University, Philadelphia. Pennsylvania. I have had the pleasure of seeing several of our Teacher Corps teams in oper- ation during the past four months. I have been delighted with their services to the school, and especially their services to the community. I would very much like to see this program not only continued but expanded greatly because of what it is doing to help disadvantaged children.-Thomas C. Ro~ica. Director of Federal Programs, Board of Education, The School District of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. If the Corps should end tomorrow. the College of Education at Temple would never he the same. We are constantly incorporating the new techniques we've learned with Teacher Corps into the regular curriculum for all education majors-Dr. Evan Sorber, Assistant Professor of Early Childhood and Elemen- tary Education. Assistant Director, Teacher Corps Project, Temple University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. While the National Teacher Corps has been plagued with a variety of prob- lems, I am one who still stands strongly behind the program. It is a fine be- ginninz toward improved practices of recruiting and training of teaching per- sonnel for schools in our country serving substantial numbers of disadvantaged boys and girls. I still look for this program to change for the better but I think it would be a mistake to stop what we have begun. You might u-eli borrow the President's phrase which he used shortly after taking office, "Let us continue."-Philip Eb~ McPherson, Director of Develop- merit. Pittsburgh Public Schools, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. PAGENO="0209" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 203 The Teacher Corps has been a boon in the Moore Elementary School. Small groups working with the interns have been provided with individualized instruc- tion in art, science and reading. Teachers are delighted with their competence and cooperation. We hope that this innovative program will continue and that we can secure the services of more interns.-Wheler Matthews, Principal, Moore Elementary School, Sumter School District #17, Sumter, South Carolina. We are pleased to have a Teacher Corps program in operation in our school district and hope that the program will be continued and, if possible, cx- panded.-Morgan E. Evans, Superintendent, Galveston Independent School Dis- trict, Galveston, Texas. My school was fortunate in being able to secure the services of two teachers from the National Teacher Corps program. These two teachers are working in our elementary schools with children from low income families. Marked im- provement, after four months, is noted in the attitudes and learning processes of these children as a result of the work of these two Corps members. My school's finances could not have made possible the services of these teachers except for the Teacher Corps. I need one more teacher from the Teacher Corps for high school work, es- pecially in the field of choral music and speech.-F. C. Burnett, Superintendent, Fannindel Schools, Ladonia, Texas. Our school has one Corps teacher. He is working with seven teachers as a trainee which relieves them for a few minutes each day and helps over two hun- dred students from grades one to six. The Corps makes this possible. Just arrange for more.-John R. Meadows, Superintendent, Simms Common School District #6, Simms, Texas. Staff members from two school systems where the NTC members are employed have stated that these new employees have enriched their curriculum and ex- press the desire to continue the employment of Corps members.-Rex Smith, State Superintendent of Schools, West Virginia. The National Teacher Corps as I know it in my district has made a definite contribution to the education of educationally disadvantaged children. An in- vestment in education is certainly not money misused.-Henry A. Ray, Assistant Superintendent, Wayne County Schools, Wayne, West Virginia. As principal of an inner city elementary school, I have greatly appreciated our Teacher Corps team and their efforts this year. Being able to have greater in- dividualization of instruction, starting community school activities for our chil- dren, and enriching the experiences of disadvantaged youth are just a few of the present benefits. The greatest good will be realized when these specially trained personnel become inner city teaehers.-~Roger M. Jones, Principal, Harfield Elementary School, Racine, Wisconsin. The Corpsmen come prepared to accept the situation. They have a very realis- tic approach to teaching, and their work on a one-to-one basis has lessened the demand on the students who are beginning to think of the school in a new light-one of helpfulness. The Corps is very important to this school.-Kenneth Place, Principal, Vieau School, Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Our Teacher Corpsmen have made tremendous progress in remedial work and speech therapy. They are providing services in the community that could not have been accomplished through regular school finances.- T. 0. Adams, Super- intendent, Nemo Vista Public School, Center Ridge, Arkansas. Our district feels the National Teacher Corps is of great value to our students and to our community as a whole. This group is able to get to the heart of many problems-but better still-they are able to use preventive methods and pre- vent many things from even becoming problems. Our regular teaching staff have great praise for these people, as do our parents and community leaders. These programs should always be set up on a two year basis-giving both the school districts and National Teacher Corps a chance for better planning and removing the uncertainty attached.-Arlene M. Bitley, Member, Garvey Board of Education, Monterery Park, California. Should the Teacher Corps need affirmation of the continuing need for its ex- istence for endorsement of its merit and valuable assistance to local education agencies provided in the first year of operation, please do not he~itate to call on me at any time-Thomas J. Pollino, Director, Instructional Development, Montorery County, Mnntercy, California. 75-492-67-----14 PAGENO="0210" 204 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS The ten corpsmen and the three tealli leaders currently assigned to our school system ore relidering significant educational and community services to the high schools where they are assigned. The principals have expressed their iiitere~t in the coiltinuation of the lirosram and their appreciation of the services rendered. It would be helpful if the administrative and fiscal arrangements could be settled prior to the beginning of the program each year. We realize that there were many exigencies beyond the control of the Teacher Corps staff and that you did the best you could under difficult circumstances-George F. Ostheimer, General Superintendent. Indianapolis Public Schools, Indianapolis, Indiana. It is one of the greatest training programs I have ever witnessed because it gives the trainees experiences that they would never have gotten in a normal training program. The Teacher Corps has helped to interrelate the various communities. We have six distinct types who have only these things in corn- nion: one parent. distrust and aggressive behavior. Corpsmen have organized many additional after-school clubs (Corpsmen carry from two to three clubs per week) and taken over the noon lunch pro- gram where they have introduced a variety of activities to break the routine of that program.-Robert Wagner, Principal. Reinhold Junior High School, Cin- cinnati. Ohio. Lincoln Heights Local School District in Cincinnati should be saturated with Corpsmen-Dr. `William L. Carter. Dean. School of Education. Teacher Corps Program Director. University of Cincinnati. I wish that I had about 10 more Corps members just like the ones I have. Then I would have the most swinging program in the state-William Smith, Principal, Patrick Henry Junior High School. Cleveland. Ohio. The Corpsmen have exhibited "staying power" through very trying circum- stances and we hope to keep them in our system. Let us examine our school and community activities and see if we can broaden these. Let's make sure these interns get a chance to work in every area of a school day and become more involved in the comnmunity.-Principals. teachers and Corps team leaders in the Cleveland Public Schools. We are pleased to be a part of the efforts being made through the Teacher Corps and hope that we shall be able to continue in this outstanding endeavor. We are thoroughly convinced that it is a practical and effective type of program.- F. H. Gorman. Dean, College of Education. Municipal University of Omaha, Omaha, Nebraska. The five young people sent to me are exceptional. You have to realize that I had four classrooms from September to Christmas without qualified teachers. I placed Teacher Corpsnien in these schools to help with remedial work in Lan- guage Arts, to help with better relationship between the schools and the parents, and they have done a magnificent piece of work. I am writing to all the congressmen from this region to help make the Teacher Corps a broader and bigger project because the professional personnel problem is predicted to get much worse. These young people are enthusiastic, prepared, and willing to work with underprivileged children and we are in dire need of their help.-R. A. dela Garza. Superintendent of Schools. Rio Grande City Consolidated Independent School District, Rio Grande City. Texas. Phyllis Strick, the team leader. is helping me to get ready for my high school equivalency test. I didn't even know I could take a test.-Lydia Gonzales. Ben Bolt. Texas. Our teachers see these Teacher Corps kids here till 5 :30. 6 o'clock. . . They are beginning to get competitive, now nobody runs out when the bell rings, all doing a better job.-Principal. A Chicago Public School. There is no question. in our minds, that the National Teacher Corps is doing a fine job and will serve a real need in providing qualified teachers of a caliber never before equaled. Keep up the good work-we need more forw-ard-thinking people to get education to those who need it-to get education to them in a way that they will understand-Charles E. Skidmore, District Snperintendent, Santee School District. Santee. California. They (the Corpsmen) have an entirely different attitude-they are not always right-hut they bring us something we need-Miss Maude Carson. Principal. Jensen School. Chicago. Illinois. One Assistant Principal bluntly said. "I really don~t know how we would have survived this year without the National Teacher Corps. They have really helped PAGENO="0211" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 205 us out, especially in problem cases. When problems get tough I frequently go to them (the Teacher Corps) for help."-Assistant Principal. Northern High School. l)etroit. Michigan. K. Lis'r or TEACIII:mi Cones PROGIL~ us NATIONAL TEACHER CORPS PRoGnA~ts. 19fi6-67 ARIZONA The University of Arizona 120070. Director: Dr. Waldo K. Anderson, College of Education, Tucson, Arizona 85721, Phone (602) 884-1461. Tucson School District No. 1. Tucson, Arizona. Robert D. Morrow, Superin- tendent, Dr. Florence W. Birkemeyer, Project Coordinator. ARKANSAS Arkansas State Teachers College 130060. Director: W. 1-I. Osborne, Conway, Arkansas 72032, Phone (501) 329-2931 Ext. 294, Home (501) 327-7556. Conway Public Schools, Conway, Arkansas. H. L. Stanfill, Superintendent, Mrs. Miriam H. Scott, Project Coordinator. Gentry Public Schools, Gentry. Arkansas. Jack J. Efurd, Superintendent and Project Coordinator. Little Rock Public Schools, Little Rock. Arkansas. Dr. J. Harvey Walthahl, Jr., Superinten dent and Project Coordinator. East Side School District No. 5, Menifee, Arkansas. Frank W. Smith, Superin- tendent and Project Coordinator. \la yflower Public School, Mayflower, Arkansas. Arlie Metheney. Superintendent and Project Coordinator. Nemo Vista School District No. 8. Center Ridge, Arkansas. T. 0. Adams, Superintendent and Project Coordinator. Plum Bayou-Tucker School District ~1. Wright, Arkansas. James V. Anderson, Superintendent and Project Coordinator. St. Joe Public Schools. St. Joe. Arkansas. D. Blackwell. Superintendent; Mrs. Cleta Blackwell. Project Coordinator. Wander View School District No. 2. I-Iattiesville. Arkansas. Raymond Kinslow, S upemintend cut and Project Coordinator. CALIFORN IA Sami Diego State College 141200. Director: Dr. William II. Wetherill, 5402 (`ollege Avenue. San Diego, California 92115, Phone (714) 286-6235, Home 714) 553-020S or 2S6-2280. (hula Vista City School District, Chula Vista. California. Burton C. Tiffany, Superintendent, l)r. Leonard Servetter, Project Coordinator. Escondido Union School District, Escomidido. California. Edward V. Murphy, Superintendent. George B. Greenongh. Project Coordinator. Sniitee School District. Santee. California. Charles E. Skidmore, Superinten- (lout. Miss .Jiniiny Phelps. Project Coordinator. South Bay Union School District. Imperial Beach. California. Dr. Robert N. llmirress. Superintendent. Dr. A. W. Autio, Project Coordinator. San Jose State College 141260. Director: I)r. Paul Blake. San Jose, California 95114. Phone (405) 294-6414 Ext. 2595, Home (408) 169-9l(O. Berkeley Unified School District, Berkeley. California. Neil V. Sullivan, Su~ erintendent. Di'. Jay T. Ball, Project Coordinator. Monterey (~ounty Office of Education. Salinas. California. Edw-in C. Coffin, ounty Superintendent. Thomas J. Pollino, Project Coordinator. University of Southern California 171490. Director: Donald E. Wilson, 809 West Jefferson. Los Angeles. California 90007. Phone (213) 746-2931, Home (2131 323-0057. Enterprise (ity School District. Compton. California. Keith Martin, Superin- I ciidont. Mr. I )oiiald Hodes, Project Coordinator. Ga rvey School District. South San Gabriel. California. Mr. Eldridge N. Rice, Superintendent. Dr. John G. Gable, Project Coordinator. .Turupa Unified School District. Riverside, California. Dr. Ilohert E. Hummel, Siiperjnteiident. Dr. Robert B. Seaton. Project Coordinator. \Vi]lowhrook- School Disfrh't. Lo~ -~iigel I `alifrnia Lloyd D. Dickey, Super- tciideiit a mid Project C mrd I natoi. PAGENO="0212" 206 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Catholic University of America 180040. Director: John M. Higgins, School of Education. 620 Michigan Avenue, N.E., Washington, D.C., Phone LA 0-6000 Ext. 756, Home 942-2017. District of Columbia Public Schools. Dr. Carl F. Hansen, Superintendent, Mr. Norman Nickens, Project Coordinator. Trinity College. Director: J. B. Goddu, Michigan & Franklin Streets, N.E., Washington. D.C. 20017, Phone 269-2338 or 269-2221, Home, 262-9409. Same as above. FLORIDA University of Miami 190310, Director; Dr. Robert Hendricks, School of Educa- tion (Coral Gables, Florida 33124, Phone (305) 661-2511 Ext. 2203, Home (305) 226-0709. Broward County Board of Public Instruction, Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Dr. Myron L. Ashniore. Superintendent, Dr. Hary McComb, Project Coordinator. Dade County Public Schools, Miami, Florida. Dr. Joe Hall, Superintendent, Dr. Terence T. O~Connor, Project Coordinator. GEORGIA University of Georgia (Athens) 200450. Director: Dr. Rhoda S. Newman, NTC Instructional Services Center, 2930 Forrest Hills Drive, S.W., Atlanta, Georgia 30315. Phone (404) 761-5411. Home (404) 634-5008. Atlanta Public Schools. Atlanta, Georgia. Dr. John W. Letson, Superintendent and Project Coordinator. HAWAII Fniversity of Hawaii 210040. Director: Robert E. Potter, 2444 Dole Street, Honolulu, Hawaii. Phone (operator) 918-504, Home (operator) 78747. Hawaii State Department of Education. Honolulu, Hawaii. Dr. Lowell D. Jack- son. State Superintendent, S. Kando, District Superintendent, Dr. Clarence N. Masumotoya, Project Coordinator. ILLINOIS Chicago Consortium on Cultural Disadvantagement 230280. Director: Dr. Armin Hoeseh, 5500 N. St. Louis Avenue, Chicago, Illinois 60625, Phone (312) 447- 0121. Home (312) 383-7524. Chicago Public Schools, Chicago, Illinois. James Redmond, General Superin- tendent of Schools. Dr. Louise Dieterle, Project Coordinator. Maywood Public School District No. 89, Maywood, Illinois. John Prater, Super- intendent. H. T. Peterson, Project Coordinator. Southern Illinois University 230970-01. Director: Dr. Arthur L. Aikman, Car- bondale, Illinois 62901, Phone (618) 453-2427, Home (618) 549-2602. Centralia City Schools, Centralia, Illinois. W. E. McAllister, Superintendent and Project Coordinator. INDIANA Indiana State University 240190. Director: Dr. Donald M. Sharpe, School of Education, Terre Haute, Indiana 47809, Phone (812) Cr. 6311, Home (812) Li. 3~34. Gary I'ublic Schools. Gary, Indiana. Dr. Lee R. Gilbert, Superintendent, Dr. Ha ran J. Battle. Project coordinator. Indianapolis Public Schools, Indianapolis, Indiana. Dr. George F. Ostheimer, General Superintendent. Lewis W. Gilfoy, Project Coordinator. Lake Ridge Schools, Griffith, Indiana. Dr. Charles L. Sharp, Superintendent, W. A. Williams, Project Coordinator. Vigo County School Corporation, Terre Haute, Indiana. Mr. Max Gabbert, Su- perintendent, Dr. Carl S. Riddle, Project Coordinator. KENTUCKY Morehead State College 270230. Director: Lawerence E. Griesinger, Room 201, Rader Building. Morehead, Kentucky 40351, Phone (606) 784-4181 Ext. 246, Home (606) 784-5908. PAGENO="0213" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 207 Breathitt County Board of Education, Jackson, Kentucky. Mrs. Marie R. Tur- ner, Superintendent and Project Coordinator. University of Kentucky with Berea College 270350. Director: Dr. Harry Robin- son, 118-A Social Science Building, Lexington, Kentucky 40506, Phone (606) 258-9000 Ext. 2940, Home (606) 255-3581. Breathitt County Board of Education (see above). Harlan County Board of Education, Harlan, Kentucky. Dr. James A. Cawood, Suj~erintendent, Mr. Ervin B. Pack, Project Coordinator. Lexington Public School System, Lexington, Kentucky. John W. Ambrose, Act- ing Superintendent, Mrs. Edythe J. Hayes, Project Coordinator. Louisville Public School System, Louisville, Kentucky. Samuel V. Noe, Super- intendent, Mr. Eddie W. Beicher, Project Coordinator. Western Kentucky State College 2070390. Director: Dr. B. W. Broach, Bowling Green, Kentucky, Phone (502) 745-3593 Station 28, Home (502) 745-2115. Breckinricige County School System, Hardinsburg, Kentucky. Mr. 0. J. Allen, Superintendent and Project Coordinator. Hopkinsville City Schools, Hopkinsville, Kentucky. Dr. Gene C. Farley, Super- intendent and Project Coordinator. LOUISIANA Xavier University 280330. Director: Sister M. Loyola, 3912 Pine Street, Phone (504) 488-6646, Home (504) 482-0917. Orleans Parish School Board, New Orleans, Louisiana. Dr. Carl J. Dolce, Su- perintendent and Project Coordinator. MASSACHUSETTS Boston College 310100. Director: Dr. William M. Griffin. Campion Hall, Chest- nut Hill. Massachusetts 02167, Phone (617) 332-3200 Ext. 206, Home (617) 358-3870. Boston Public School System, Boston, Massachusetts. Dr. William H. Ohren- berger, Superintendent, Mr. Paul A. Kennedy, Project Coordinator. Lowell Public School System, Lowell, Massachusetts. Mr. Vincent M. McCartin, Superintendent, Mr. Daniel Leahy, Project Coordinator. Springfield College 310650. Director: Dr. Robert M. Markarian, Springfield, Massachusetts 01109, Phone (413) 781-2200 Ext. 284. Home (413) 739-6370. Springfield Public School System, Springfield, Massachusetts. Dr. Alice Beal, Acting Superintendent, Mr. Thomas Donahoe, Project Coordinator. Worcester Public School System, Worcester. Massachusetts. Dr. John B. Davis, Jr., Superintendent, Miss Mabel Wray, Project Coordinator. MICHIGAN Wayne State University 320570. Director: Richard Wisniewski, 331 College of Education, Detroit, Michigan 48202, Phone (313) 833-1400 Ext. 7525, Home (313) 961-3584. I)etroit Public Schools, Detroit, Michigan. Dr. Norman Drachler, Acting Super- intendent, George Owen, Project Coordinator. Lucas County, S.S. Local School District. Mr. Joseph W. Rutherford, Local Superintendent, Mr. William Mitchell, Project Coordinator. Oak Park School District, Oak Park, Michigan. Dr. Otis M. Dickey, Superin- tendent, Dr. Jack F. Zook, Project Coordinator. School District of the City of Pontiac, Pontiac, Michigan 48058. Dr. Dana P. Whitmer, Superintendent, Mr. B. C. Van Koughnatt, Project Coordinator. MINNESOTA University of Minnesota 330400. Director: Frank H. Wood, 103 Pattee Hall, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455, Phone (612) 373-5431, Home (612) 335-0272. Minneapolis Special School District No. 1, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Dr. Rufus A. Putnam, Superintendent, Mr. Donald D. Bevis, Project Coordinator. MISSISSIPPI University of Southern Mississippi. Director: Dr. John P. Van Deusen, Educa- tion & Psychology Building, Hattiesburg, Mississippi 39401,, Phone (601) 226-7149, Home (601) 582-5512. PAGENO="0214" 208 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS Ilattiesburg Municipal Separate School District. Hattiesburg, Mississippi. Dr. Sani L. Spinks. Superintendent and Project Coordinator. Laurel Municipal Separate School District, Laurel. Mississippi. Mr. M. J. Caughman. Superintendent and Project Coordinator. Marion County School System. Columbia, Mississippi. Carl Loftin. Superin- tefl(leflt and Project Coor(lillator. NI:BRAsKA Municipal University of Omaha 370130. Director: Dr. Floyd T. Wateritian, 217-A Administration Building, Omaha, Nebraska (50101, Phone (-102) 553- 470() Ext. 428, Home 402) 393-3186. Macy Public School District No. 16. Macy, Nebraska. Mr. David Dannen, Principal and Project Coordinator (There is no district superintendent). Omaha Public School District No. 1. Omaha. Nebraska. Dr. Paul A. Miller, Superintendent, Dr. Paul .1. Turnquist~. Project Coordtnator. NEW MF;xICO New \lexico State University 410060. 1)irector : Dr. Robert E. Wright. Box N, c un ~i itv P irk \cw Mexico ~079 I hone 505) b-46-2449 Home 50t 524- 23:i4. 1)einii~g Public School District No. 1. 1 )enhing. New Mexico. Dr. Eunmet Shockley, Sliperiulten(leulr. Mr. .Josehiil .J. Peters. Project Coordinator. El Paso Iuideiteildent Sum ol District. El Paso. Texas. Dr. H. E. Charles, Super- iuit titdeitt. Mrs. .Jeanne Massey. ProJect ( ordinator. Gadsdeii Independent School I)istriet No. 16. Anthony. New Mexico. ~\1 i'. Rex F. bell. Superintendent. Mr. .J~nies P. Miller. Project Coordinator. hatch Valley Municipal School I )istriut No. 11, Hatch. New Mexico. Mr. ~\I. E. Lint) 11. Siiperintendeiit aiicl I'reject (~` Ordii1at.Or. Ysletti Independent School District. El Paso. Texas. Dr. J. M. Ranks. t~upci'- jilt eiideiit a utd Project Coordiita tor. NEW YORK I miii er College I City Univ. of N.Y.). Director : Dr. Nathan Kravitz, 1)epart meat of Education. Bronx. New York 10468. Phone (212) WE-3-6000, Home (212) 549-1064. New Xork City Public Schools. New York City. New York. Dr. Beriiard E. I)ono- vail. Superintendent. Dr. Max S. Meiselman. Project Coordinator. Queens College (`ity Univ. of N.Y.) Director : Dr. Miriam Urdang. Department of Education. 65-70 Kissana Boulevard. Flushing. New York. Phone (212) 111-5-75(X). Home 212) WA-4--41S5. Ilofstra University 420500. Director : Charles J. Calitri. 1000 Fulton Avenue, Heimtpstead. New York. Phone (516) 4~i)-70O0. Home (516) NA-3-3850. New York University 240930. Director: Dr. Samuel Keys. South Building. Room 76. Washington Square. New York. New York 10003. Phone (212) SI). 7-9292. home (201) 277-0032. State University of New York at Buffalo 421370. Director : Dr. Caryl C. Hedden, 011cc of Student-Teaching. Buffalo. New York. Phone (716) TT-6--2320 Ext. 440 ~540. Home (71(5) 839-2612. Buffalo City Public Schools. Buffalo. New York. Dr. Joseph Manch. Superintend- ent and Project Coordinator. NORTH CAROLINA Western (`arolina College 4~t0570. Director : Dr. Ray B. Sizemore. Education I )epartntent. Cullowhee. North Carolina 25723. Phone (704) 293-1651. home (704) 293-4511. (`lierokee County Schools. Murphy. North Carolina. Lloyd W. Flendrix, Super- iuiteiident antI Project Coordinator. Graham County Schools. Robhinsville. North Carolina. Kenneth S. Barker, Superintendent. Mrs. Mary H. Crisp. Project Coordinator. Haywood County Consolidated Schools, Waynesville, North Carolina. Jerome II. Melton, Superintendent. C. H. Dale. Project Coordinator. Jackson County Schocds. Sylva. North Carolina. Mr. R. Paul Buchanan. Super- intendent. Mr. Earl F. Hooper, Project Coordinator. PAGENO="0215" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 209 Macon County Schools, Franklin. North Carolina. Mr. Hieronyinus Bueck, Superintendent, Mr. Berry Floyd, Project Coordinat 1. Murphy City School Systeni, Murphy, North Carolina. Mr. John Jordan, Super- intendent, Mr. William N. Hughes, Project Coordinator. OHIO Antioch College 430010. Director: Professor Francis 1). Silveinail, Yellow Springs, Ohio. Wa.s1~inqton Contract Addrcs~. Roper Junior IPgh School, 48th and Meade Street, N.E., Washington, D.C., Phone 202) 30ft-0~s6, home (202) 4U2-1179. D.C. Public Schools, Washington. D.C. Dr. Carl F. Hanson. Superintendent, Mr. Norman Nickens, Project Coordinator. Ohio University 450440. Director: Albert H. Sliuster. Room 202, McCracken Hall, Athens, Ohio 45701, Phone (614) 594-5407. Home (614) 593-3743. Wood County Board of Education, Parkersburg. West Virginia. Dr. Daniel B. Taylor. Superintendent, Mr. Henry Marocki e, Project Coordinator. Zanesville City Board of Education, Zanesville. Ohio. Mr. Wallace E. Blake, Superiiì tendent, Mrs. Hester Wickeiis. Pr )j ect C )or(l in: tor. The University of Akron 430550. Director: 1)r. John S. Watt. 302 East Bucheti Avenue, Akron, Ohio 44304, Phone (216) 762-24-11 Ext. 367, Home (216) 836-4632. Cleveland Board of Education, Cleveland, Ohio. Dr. Paul W. Briggs, Superin- tendent, Dr. William Hoffman. Project C ordi na tor. Massillon Public Schools, Massillon, Ohio. 1)r. James II. Fiy, Superintendent, I )r. Glen Hollingsworth, Project Coordinator. University of Cincinnato 430560. Director: Dr. William L. Carter, Cincinnati, Ohio 45221. Phone (513) 475-2334, Home (513) 681-5709. Cincinnati Public Schools, Cincinnati, Ohio. Dr. Wendell II. Pierce, Superin- ten(leflt (until Dec. 31), Dr. Paul A. Miller (after Jan. 1), Mr. Lawrence C. Hawkins. Project Coordinator. Lincoln Heights Local Board of Education, Cincinnati. Ohio. Mr. Willis Hollo- way, Superintendent, Mr. Ralph Douglas. Project Coordinator. OK LAH OH A East Central State College 460080. Director: Dr. E. W. James, Ada, Oklahoina~ Phone (403) FE-2-8000 Ext. 216. Home (405) FE-2-04S3. Bying School, Independent 16. Ada, Oklahoma. Mr. Marvin Stokes, Superin- tendent and Project Coordinator. Guthrie Independent School District No. I-i. Guthrie. Oklahoma. Mr. C. E. Crooks, Superintendent, Mr. Charles L. Weber. Project Coordinator. Konawa Public Schools District No. 1-4, Konawa, Oklahoma. Mr. A. W. Barrett, Superintendent and Project Coordinator. OREGON Oregon State University 470160. Director: Dr. Franklin R. Zeran, Dean. School Education, Corvallis, Oregon 97330. Phone (503) 731-1661. Home (503) 753- 5212. Coos Bay Unified School District No. 0. Mr. M. B. Winslow, Superintendent, Mr. Ted Walt, Project Coordinator. Hood River County School District No. 1-R. Hood River. Oregon. Mr. Arnold A. Bowers, Superintendent, Mr. Jack A. Jensen, Project Coordinator. School District No. 1, Multnomah County. Portland, Oregon. Dr. Melvin Barnes,. Superintendent, Mr. Willard Fletcher, Project Coordinator. PENNSYLVANIA Temple University. Director: Leon Ovsiew, 243 Ritter Hall, Philadelphia, Penn- sylvania, Phone (215) 787-8011. Home (213) Tu-706~. Philadelphia City Public School District. Philadelphia. Pennsylvania. Dr. C. Taylor Whittier, Superintendent. Mr. Raymond S. New-man. Project Coordi- nator. Trenton Public School System. Trenton. New Jersey. Dr. Richard T. Beck, Superintendent, Dr. Sarah C. Christie, Project Coordinator. PAGENO="0216" 210 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS University of Pittsburg 481110. Director: Dr. Bradley Seeger, 2804 Cathedral of Learning. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213, Phone (412) (321-3500, Ext. 533, Home (412) 683-2426. Pittsburgh Public School System. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Dr. Sydney P. Mar- land, Dr. Ralph Scott, Project Coordinator. PIJERTO RICO Inter-American University of Puerto Rico 640030. Director: Dr. Europa G. de Pinero, 409 Ponce de Leon Avenue. Hato Rey, Puerto Rico, Phone (809) 765-6054. 765-2350 or 767-1554. Home (809) 870-2640. School Region of Arecibo. Arecibo, Puerto Rico. Three School Districts: Morovis: Juan Otero. Superintendent. Cicle.s: Reginia de Colon, Supt., Orocovi~s: Miguel Pellicies, Superintendent, Carmen ~I. Molina de Aulet, Project Coordinator. RHODE ISLAND Rhode Island College 490060. Director: Dr. John Lindia. Alger Hall, Room 137, Providence. Rhode Island 02908, Phone (401) 831-6600. Home (401) 781-7950. Provi(1eflCe School Department. Providence. Rhode Island. Dr. Charles A. O'Connor, Jr.. Superintendent. Mr. Al Russo. Project Coordinator. SO~JTH CAROLINA South Carolina State College 500260. Director: Dr. Leroy F. Anderson, Orange- burg, South Carolina 29115. Phone (503) 534-6560, Ext. 240, Home (803) 543- 0485. Sumter School District. No. 17. Sumter, South Carolina. Dr. L. C. McArthur, Jr., Superintendent. Mr. Jack M. Summers, Project Coordinator. TENNESSEE East Tennessee State Fniversity. Director: George A. Finchum, University Sta- tion. Johnson City. Tennessee. Phone (615) 926-1112 Ext. 382, Home (615) Carter County Board of Education. Elizabethan, Tennessee. Mr. T. C. Estep, Superintendent and Project Coordinator. Memphis State Fniversity. Director: Milton Phillips, Jr., 400 Education Build- ing, Phone (901) 321-1356. Home (901) 683-7271. Hardeman County Schools. Bolivar. Tennessee. Mr. Mecoy Ross, Superinten- dent, Mr. John Oldham. Mr. Art Bro~vder. Project Coordinators. Shelby Co. Board of Education. Memphis. Tennessee. Mr. George H. Barnes, Superintendent. Mr. J. Carter Tarkington (as of January 1), Marshall C. Perritt (before January 1), Projector Coordinator. DeSoto County Schools. Ileruando, Mississippi. Mr. Walter S. Carter, Jr., Superintendent. Mr. Erlend Nichold. Project Coordinator. TEXAS East Texas State University 530210. Director: Dr. W. Ray Rucker, Commerce, Texas. Phone (214) 46S-2237, Home (214) 886-6870. Fannindel Independent School District. Ladonia, Texas. Mr. Floyd C. Burnett, Superintendent and Project Coordinator. De Kaib Independent School District, De Kalb, Texas. Mr. W. C. Woolridge, Superintendent and Project Coordinator. Simms Common School District No. 6. Simms, Texas. Mr. John R. Meadows, Superintendent and Project Coordinator. Prairie View Agricultural and Mechanical College 53520. Director: Dr. W. T. Dever. Box 2082. Prairie View, Texas 77445, Phone (713) UL7-3311 Ext. 267, Home (713) UL7-3459. Cypress-Fairbanks Independent School District, Houston, Texas. Mr. T. S. Hancock, Superintendent, Mr. Don Thornton, Project Coordinator. Rempsted Independent School District, Hempstead, Texas. Mr. John R. Hunt, Superintendent. Mr. Mervin D. Neutzler, Project Coordinator. Smithville School District, Smithville, Texas. Mr. G. M. Blackman, Superin- tendent, Mr. Leslie D. Hurta, Project Coordinator. PAGENO="0217" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 211 Wailer Independent School District, Wailer, Texas. Mr. I. T. Holleman, Super- intendent and Project Coordinator. Texas Oollege of Arts and Industries. Dr. William Floyd Elliot, Box 2528, Kingsville, Texas 78363, Phone (512) LY2-6401, Home (512) LY2-7614. Ben Bolt Palito Blanco Independent School District, Ben Bolt, Texas. Mr. Alfred Garcia, Superintendent, Mr. Palbo Lopez, Project Coordinator. Corpus Christi Independent School District, Corpus Christi. Texas. Dr. Dana Williams, Superintendent, Mr. Joe Parks, Project Coordinator. Rio Grande City Consolidated Independent School District, Rio Grande City, Texas. Mr. Rodolfo A. de in Garza, Superintendent, and Project Coordinator. San Benito Consolidated Independent School District, San Benito, Texas. Mr. John F. Barron, Superintendent, Mrs. Zora Cope, Project Coordinator. East Central School District, San Antonio, Texas. Mr. Pat L. Holmes, Superin- tendent, Mr. Charles Cox, Project Coordinator. University of Houston 530913. Director: Dr. V. J. Kennedy, 3801 Cullen Boule- vard, Houston, Texas 17004, Phone (713) CA5-4451, Home (713) JA4-0795. Cypress-Fairbanks Independent School District, Houston, Texas. Mr. T. S. Hancock, Superintendent. Mr. Don Thornton, Project Coordinator. Liberty Independent School District, Liberty, Texas. Mr. M. J. Leonard, Super- intendent, Mr. J. V. Shauberger, Project Coordinator. Galveston Independent School District, Galveston, Texas. Dr. Morgan E. Evans, Supreintendent, Mr. H. Steele Campbell, Project Coordinator. Dayton Independent School District, Dayton, Texas. Mr. Lloyd E. Gilbert, Superintendent and Project Coordinator. VIRGINIA Hampton Institute 560100. Director: Dr. William H. Robinson, Hampton, Vir- ginia 23368, Phone (703) 723-6581 Ext. 334. Home (703) PA2-7853. Chesapeake Public Schools. Chesapeake, Virginia. Mr. Edwin W. Chittum, Super- intendent, Dr. Franklin S. Kingdom, Project Coordinator. Gloucester County School Board, Gloucester, Virginia. Dr. Dennis D. Forrest, Superintendent, Mr. Fred B. Carr, Project Coordinator. WEST VIRGINIA Marshall University 580100. Director: Dr. Harold L. Willey, 16th Street & 3rd Avenue, Huntington, West Virginia 25701, Phone (304) 523-3411, Home (304) 523-8894. Cabell County Board of Education, Huntington, West Virginia. Mr. Olin C. Nutter, Superintendent, 1~Ir. Robert V. Griffis, Project Coordinator. Lincoln County Board of Education, Hamlin, West Virginia. Mr. W. B. Van Horn, Superintendent, Mr. Cline Adkins, Project Coordinator. Mason County Schools, Point Pleasant, West Virginia. Mr. N. P. Burdette, Superintendent and Project Coordinator. Wayne County Board of Education, Wayne. West Virginia. Mr. Ira Elliott, Jr., Superintendent, Mr. Henry A. Ray, Project Coordinator. WISCONSIN University of Wisconsin 590502. Director: Dr. Harvey Goldman, Pearse Hall (p4), Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53211, Phone (414) 228-4833, Home (414) 276- 5868. Milwaukee Public Schools, Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Mr. Harold S. Vincent, Superintendent, Mr. Alvin Schumacher, Project Coordinator. Unified ~choo1 District No. 1, Racine, Wisconsin. Mr. Harris Russell, Superin- tendent, Mr. Roger M. Jones, Project Coordinator. Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, if we might, could we turn off the lights and could I use the slide projector to explain how this system is now working and will work this coming year? Chairman PERKINS. How long do you think it will take you? Mr. GIIAHAM. About 41/2 minutes. Chairman PERKINS. You may proceed. Mr. GnAIrA~r. The intent of this presentation is to show how, with these new amendments, this Teacher Corps system will work. PAGENO="0218" 212 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS (X slide was shown.) Mr. GRAIL~M. The first slide will show that these programs begin at the local school. The local school superintendent, the local school pi'incipa.l, will get together with a local university to work out a program to serve the needs of that local community. (1 slide was shown.) Mr. GRAHAM. That program, then, designed to meet those local needs, will he submitted to the State department of education: the State department of education then must approve this program. must decide thia.t it. does effectively meet the needs of the. local school, that it provides a program for adequate teacher training, in fact a better method of teacher training. Mr. QFIE. You are speaking of the Teacher Corps program as you would hope it to he. with these. amendments rather than the way it operat cci last. year? Mr. GRAII\M. Last. year. most of these programs began at. the local im~~ersitv. The local Tmiversitv then worked out. a program with the local school system. Then after it. was really wrapped up most of them went. to the State for approval. The reason for that in large part. was that the program got. under- way very fast last, year. But. the proposal. and the way it is called for in this legislation, would be that. these programs are worked out. joiritlv by the local school system and the 1o~al institution and then submitted to the Sta.te for their approval. That. approved proposal then will come to the Teacher Corps and based upon the funds available, and the requests from other States, t.he programs will he distributed according to the law among the various States. Once approved, that program will go back through the State and to the local school and university. The local universities then will begin to hire the staff to prepare for its program. The local school system will then begin its program of seleetin~ the people that they want for this program. (A slide was shown.) Mr. GR\TT.\M. In this selection and recruitment, system, the selection is a local affair. The recruitment may i)e local or national as is de- sired by the local school systems and universities. But in general it is a series of local recruitment efforts. The ex- perienced teacher, almost without exception. will he nominated from the local school system. The experience of this past year has indi- cated that this is the preferable way, except. in those few cases where the local school system feels it does riot have a person presently on their staff that. is competent to serve in this leadership capacity. These nominees will then be presented to the local university, and the local university will determine that this is a person. an experienced teacher, generally a person with some 8 years of experience in the local school system who is capable of leadership, but also capable of serv- ing in a junior capacity on the staff of that local university. Once. they determine their people, these names will be submitted to the Teacher Corps merely to make certain that they meet legal re- qui re.ments. PAGENO="0219" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 213 (A slide was shown.) Mr. G~4HA~r. On the recruitment of the Corps members them- selves-these are college graduates who have not previously trained to be teachers, or who have had prior teache.r experience-these peo- ple will be recruited, either on a local or national basis, or both. Their names will come to the Teacher Corps here in Washington and will be entered on a computer. We will make certain that they (10 me.et~ the lega.l requirements. We will send for references for these people. We will try to get some 10 or 20 references, a selection sys- tem based upon the system that has proved very effective in the Peace Corps. Generally, that is a reference that says that this person is a solid person, you can count on him, he does his job, he has the commitment for this. Then the men and women at the local school systems, one of their number and one from the local university will come at our expense, that is the proposal, to Washington, to ask that~ computer to give them the names of the people they want. They may select on a geographical basis, on a scholastic average basis, on a background basis-that is to sav~ whe4ther they have studied English. science, math-or other auxiliary qualifications, whether they can help with the glee club or coach football, whatever they want in their schools. They will then go to the folders and check the references to make sure that these are the people they want. They will then take back some 200 or 300 percent of the number they want to a local committee hack in the school district and go over this with the local university to make certain that these are people they want. The State school system will participate in this if they elect. They will then invite for training at their local university those people they believe~ meet the qualifications both for this program of study leading to a inastei's degree and certification, and also people who they believe ~OiI (10 the job in their schools. (A slide was shown.) Mi'. GR~IIA~r. These l)eoPle will then be enrolled in a period of pre- service training, generally 2 to 3 months in length. l)uring this period they will be given some basic methodology. They will be given some of the sociology of the groups that they will 1)e working with. They will be getting the best instruction that is available locally, the l)est kind of instruction that the local school system says it wants to prepare people who are going to come to their system. During this period, the local school people, the principals, the super- intendents. as well as representatives from the State if they so elect, will look at these people and will select out early in this training pro- grain those who they feel do not have either the dedication or the aptitude for this job. Generally, then there will i)e another selection at the end of this pre- sem'vice training by the principals in combination with the advice of the men and women at the university who have been working closely with these people for 2 to o ears. based on this advice but based on the action of the local school people, and they will l)e assigned to the local ~ehoo]~. PAGENO="0220" 214 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS As we can't emphasize too strongly, this assignment and reassign- ment is made by the local schools. They may be fired if they don't cut the mustard in the classroom or outside, since a large part of their job, their responsibilities, will be to become active, working members in that community, doing a job that the school feels will help them to become better teachers for that school system. (A slide was shown.) Mr. GIiAHx~r. Let me repeat that during this period of 2 years while they are working in the local school system they have a responsibility to complete a 2-year program leading to a master's degree so that when they get out, when they finish this period of training, they will come to that school uniquely trained to do a job, persons who will be so com- petent that they will find the job satisfaction in this work and will want to remain in that school and continue in this work. That is the. end of the slides. If I may, sir, may I just leaf through, as the Commissioner did, his testimony? Chairman PERKINS. Congressman Scherle has a question. Mr. SCHERLE. Mr. Graham, is this an ideal situation that you are contemplating here with these teachers in regard to your Teacher Corps? Mr. GRAHAM. This is what we propose. This is not codified in any way. We have suggested this to the men and women, the superintend- ents, the school principals, the university people who worked with this program this past year. To them, it sounds like a workable program. To us, it appears to be a workab'e program. Mr. ScIIERLE. Would you yield for another question? Mr. GRAHAM. Yes, sir. Mr. SCHERLE. To try and estimate the cost of this in regard to the apparent longevity of these teachers, is this program justified under the present formula? Mr. GRAIL~M. Yes, sir. If I understand the question, are you ask- ing whether these people will stay on the job when they get through with their 2 years? Mr. SCHERLE. Yes, and also what the initial cost would be for their training, part.icuharly if they are on a part-time basis. Mr. GiL~ii~r. The cost of the training exceeds the cost of the pros- pective. teacher fellowships, which is perhaps the best comparison. r1~1iat, runs about. $5,300 per year. This program, if we can make the changes which we are proposing, which we would like to go into in quite some detail later, will run around S6.~50, which is more. But it is substantially less than the cost of comparable training plus the pay that. you would have to give these persons for the work that they are doing in the schools during this period of training. May I answer the second part of your question? We have recently surveyed these people to ask them what among your number are going to stick with teaching. what among your number are going to stick with teaching the disadvantaged? The reports are these: that 91 percent intend to stick with teaching. Eighty-one percent. intend to stick with teaching the disadvantaged. The only other survey of first-year teachers at a comparable time, in their first. year, indicates that you can place great confidence in what people say they are going to do. PAGENO="0221" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 215 In the most recent survey when a similar question was asked, 32 per- cent said they would change their jobs, first-year teachers, not in Teacher Corps, and 33 percent, in fact, did. Mr. QUJE. Would the gentleman yield? Have you made a comparable survey with similar types of training? There are some colleges, you know, that return a program similar to the Teacher Corps, bringing people into the profession for a master's degree who had not trained in teaching before. Have you seen if the percentages were any different when they did not have the Federal label as when they had the Federal label? Mr. GRAHAM. The results are comparably good. In fact, it is t.he results of these other private programs that give you great encourage- ment~ that this program is sound. A study made by Hunter College, and a similar study made by Temple University, indicate that persons receiving this type of training at the graduate level, directed toward a job in the inner city schools, have a much higher retention rate than others who have not been so trained but who are assigned jobs in the inner city or the poor rural schools really against their wishes. Mr. QUTE. So it is the training in the program rather than the Federal label that has great merit? Mr. GRAHAM. Yes. A number of these people say that there is an advantage, not what they call a Federal label but a feeling that there is a group here that is determined to do something about this great need. By feeling that they are doing it together there is an esprit and a dedication that you get beyond that dedication which is present in a great number of other people who are doing this in excellent private programs. Mrs. GREEN. Mr. Chairman, I have a question on that point. If I understand your proposal, taking Portland State College, for example, if P.S.C. entered into an arrangement with the Portland schools for the training of teachers, the interns would go on a half- time basis to the college and teach halftime? Mr. GRAHAM. Mrs. Green, it is not necessarily half time. It varies considerably from program to program. In some cases it has been half time. I believe in most cases the school systems say that half time is not enough, that they would like more. Mrs. GREEN. Let's not worry about whether it is half. It is at least part time. Mr. GRAHAM. That is correct. Mrs. GREEN. And would they be getting their master's degree while teaching in Portland schools? Mr. GRAHAM. Yes. Mrs. GREEN. The pay, as I read the bill, is different than last year. But it would be the lowest salary of a beginning teacher in the institutions, or $75 plus a dependency allowance. Mr. GRAHAM. Yes. Mrs. GREEN. Portland State, as a large number of colleges, has a teacher training program. These cadet-teachers also teach in the Portland school systems. They follow the practice t.eaching as in othe.r colleges in cities throughout the country. Have you given consideration to the impact the NTC has on the teachers under a practice teaching program already established in PAGENO="0222" 216 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS the colleges? Are we going to say to those teachers who are earn- ing their own way, or perhaps borrowing under the. NDEA loan to finance their education, their teaching full time in the Portland schools. but if von are a member of the Federal Teacher Corps and are pai(l the $75 a week plus the dependency allowance that. they are really the elite: they are the. ones who have dedication, who are dif- ferent~ thami ether teachers doing exactly the same thing? This is a llationwi(le. effort to get more teachers because there is such a terrible shortage. ~\Ve want to attract every good person that we can get. But we are going to divide them under your system. At Portland State College. there will be one group of teachers, and under the Nat ional Teacher Corps, there will be another group with (hifierent rules. Mr. GRAHAM. ~\Ve have asked that same question of a number of institutions that have had their own programs, Antioch is one, and Temple another. We say can this program be better, will it justify its existence in termus of other things you are doing, or would it be better if you wanted to enlarge your progra.m to put more money in what you are doing, to find some other way to do this? People at `lemI)le, notably, say that they believe that. this is bet- ter, that it gives them a~ certain freedom to do their job })etter, and they would like to keel) it. I asked them : "Are von sure there isn't some financial incentive that is causing von to say this, other than the feeling that you caii do a 1 etter j 01) ?" They say, "No." It isn't surprising to me. Mrs. GREEN. Will they drop their present. teacher training prognims ? Mr. GR~T[AM. No. they will continue., but they also propose to en- large it. They are proposing, if they can, to find other sources of funds, to put people in the same Teacher Corps training program, who will not he labeled Teache.r Corps but will be getting exactly the same kind of training. If they will (10 that, and if they will then multiply tins effort, we (lOilt care. really. whether it is called Teacher Corps or not, if it pro- duces the same result. It w-ouldn't be surprising to me that in Portland and other l)]~i(~S of time TThited States there are probably programs as good or mabe some better. If they are better, we would hope. to learn from theni. As time Commissioner suggested, there are many pla('es in the Inited States that (lout have programs as good as Portland State or some of these other institutions, and they can use this program to do something of this sort, to multiply that kind of effort. Mrs. GREEN. I don't think I understood your last. statement. Mr. (~TR.\1I.\M. I say there are a number of places in the TTn~ted States where~ they do not have, at~ their university, training programs that are directed towards preparing teachers for these tough schools, givii~ them the expertise that this program is designed to help create. It is those institutions, then, that Took to the Teacher Corps as a means of developing this kind of program. Mr. BELL. ~\Iavbe you answered my question, but I am not certain. Will t.here be an effort made to concentrate in schools and areas such as you mentioned in which there is no program? PAGENO="0223" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDITCATION AMENDMENTS 217 Have you maie any efiort. to concentrate in the schools that have such programs? Mr. Gn~~ii~r. Tl* is where the. State can be most effective, to help to see that. these programs go where the are most needed. Mr. GIBBoNs. Would tile gentleman yield at that point Miami and Fort Lauderdale school districts in Florida are probably tile wealthiest in the State. Is that where we will put the Teacher Corps? Mr. GRAII~r. No, as I say, sir, since these programs must. clear through the State department of education, that kind of a situation can be avoided. Mr. GIBBONS. In section K you list. Florida and list two programs. One of them is at. Fort Lauderdale. and tile other one is in Miami. These are pretty tough places to start in. I realize, for beachheads, but I assume you will expand out from that little enclave and get into some of the back country, or are you just going to go into Miami and Fort. Lauderdale? Mr. HOWE. Mr. Gibbons, I am not familiar with Fort. Lauderdale, but it. does seem to me that. in the Miami area you do have real con- centrations of disadvantaged youngsters who have, ver real problems and you have some signific.ent problems of gett.ing adequate numbers of teachers who want. to stay and do a career job for those particular children. Although I quite agree with you that. the Miami schools are in a well-financed system, which has been true for years, you have the prob- 1cm in a well-financed school system of getting service to these kinds of youngsters just as you do in New York City, in Harlem, which has a very w-ell-financed school system, too, but has a very high turnover, a lot, of junior teachers who are not~ trained to do this particular job being in tile schools in that section of the city. So there is a real need for providing these kinds of services in school districts of that kind. Mr. Esci. Will the gentlewoman yield? Mrs. GREEN. Yes. Mr. Escir. Thank you. Across the country there has been increasing emphasis upon collec.- t.ive bargaining by teachers associations, 1)0th professiona.l associations and by such groups as the. AFT. W~hat will be the likely impact upon the collective, bargaining agreements set up by the associations by the Teacher Corps ~\[r. I-Iowr. I (lont know that there will be OIIV l)arti(lilai' impact oii those agreements. I believe Mr. Graham cami ~ive us some information aI)ont the attit.u(le of teacher organizations towards I lie leacher Corps. Is this correct? ~\[r. GrmAIL~iu. Yes. We have talked with tile representatives of time AFT on just this question, but. bear iii rninch the teacher interns are not fully certified teachers. They won't, with few exceptions. become certified teachers until the end of their 2-year Period. They are not carrying a full teaching load in the local school. So it is almost at the request. of some of these people that time Teacher Corps intern pay be less than that of the entry rate of a teacher in that local system. PAGENO="0224" 218 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS Mrs. GREEN. I have one other question. How do you coordinate this program with the institutes for the training of teachers who work with the disadvantaged? Mr. GRAHAM. In this past year there was very little coordination, we will say, during that period of preservice training. It is proposed this year, by the institutions, that they feel they can do a better job with both programs if they work them together. Certainly we would hope that they will, and we will give them that encouragement. Mrs. GREEN. Are you planning for that coordination at the Federal level ~ Mr. GRAHAM. Certainly we have not yet done so, but it has been with the understanding, as we talked wit.h each of these institutions, that this is something that the felt wouki help improve their pro- grams, and it would certainly have our encouragement. Mrs. GREEN. Is the goal of both the institutes for the training of teachers for the disadvantaged and the Teacher Corps the same? Mr. GRAHAM. Yes, many of them are. Mrs. GREEN. Did you propose that the institutes for the training of teachers for the disadvantaged also be transferred to the Elemen- tarv and Secondary Education Act? Mr. Howr. No: we made no such proposal. Mrs. GREEN. Why? Mr. HOWE. Mrs. Green, we are bringing under the higher educa- tion amendments, which we haven't, discussed here in detail, a pro- posal which we call the Education Professions Development Act, as a title of the. higher education amendments. This proposal will pull together a fairly large proportion of our various teacher training and other professional training authorities in the Office of Education, make them broader and make them more flexible. We have left the major portion of our various teacher training au- thorities and special authorities for training librarians, counselors and so forth, as portions of that proposal. We are also suggesting that we get authority to train administrators, to train teacher aides and other kinds of personnel. That will come in our higher education amendments. We have seen the Teacher Corps as an enterprise which benefits greatly from the national recruiting aspect which it has. The very fact that we were able to get 10,000 applicants for the Teacher Corps as an initial series of applicants in a very short period of time a year ago indica.tes that this has real potential for bringing more people into education on a very active and important basis. So it seemed to us we ought to keep this as a discrete activity and that we ought. to relate it to elementary and secondary education. Mrs. GREEN. But in response to the question which Congressman Gibbons asked you as to why you transferred, you gave your answer `that these teachers are going to work in the elementary and secondary school. The Teachers Professions Act would provide differently, would it.? They will not. work in the elementary-secondary schools? Mr. HowE. I think the only difference wouTd be a difference in decree, perhaps not a difference in principle. 1~ut you have a kind of close and immediate involvement over a 2-year period in the career of a Teacher Corps member with exactly the kind of activity that title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act encourages. PAGENO="0225" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDTJCATION AMENDMENTS 219 It seemed to us that this represented a rational basis for making such a change. The argument you are making can be made, however. Mr. GURNEY. Mr. Chairman? Chairman PERKINS. Mr. Gurney. Mr. GURNEY. Let me sort of make a suggestion as part of my question. It is evident to many of us here that the Teacher Corps idea is not very popular on Capitol Hill. That was evident last year, and I doubt whether the popularity will increase very much this year. Admitting that there is a real need in this area of training teachers to teach the handicapped, as you point out., but also listening to some of the conversation and give a.nd take here, quite obviously there has been training and advance in this area and it has been done apparently rather well by some institutions. Why doesn't the Department. of Education come in here proposing to expand these already successful ventures into this field rather than sticking with this idea of a Teacher Corps which is not appealing t.o Congress? It would seem to me that that would be a much more simple approach to it, instead of taking the program from where it is now and shifting it over into the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. This is obviously a sort of dodge and will be regarded so by Congress. Why not approach it in a way that will be palatable to Congress and get on with your job? As I say, it is sort of a suggestion. If you care to answer it, that would be fine. Mr. HOWE. Let me make a couple of comments, Mr. Gurney. First of all, we~ are quite aware that the Teacher Corps has been a controversial issue in the Congress. It would be hard to be unaware of this. The fact is, though, t.hat it has been voted by the Congress and initially funded by the Congress on two occasions. Therefore, it has seemed to us that although there was controversy about it that there was also support for it. Secondly, we have a situation now which we have not, had before in discussing the Teacher Corps with the Congress. That is that the Teacher Corps is in operation by direction of the Congress and by appropriation of the Congress, and t.hat we have the results of actual work on the part of Teache.r Corps members in local school districts. It is our hope that the Congress will examine what is now going on in the Teacher Corps and the feelings, of superintendents of schools and State superintendents, Governors and others, who have had con- tact with the Teacher Corps and its actual operations. We believe that if we look at the merits of this in terms of wha.t is going on in the schools, many people in the Congress will be more interested in it than perhaps they have been when it was a theoreti- cal matter not yet in operation. It has begun to accumulate a very, very useful record. Mr. BRADEMAS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? I follow what my colleague from Florida has just. observ~l. I would like to say that there is at least. one member of this committee who very strongly supports the Teacher Corps. 75-492-07------15 PAGENO="0226" 220 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS One of the reasons, Mr. commissioner, that I asked you at the outset when you were indicating some of the proposed amendments that you were suggesting to the. Teacher Corps if you had any complaints, is directed to that very point.. I must say in all candor that I, as one of those who worked on this legislation last. year, have not. had a single letter from my local school superintendent, not. a single letter from a schoolteacher, not a single letter from a superintendent of public instruction at the State level, complaining about the operation of the Teacher Corps. Perhaps other members of our committee, the chairman of the com- mittee or other members, have had significant correspondence, a lot of letters, phone calls, or telegrams, complaining, for example, t.hat there was unwarranted Federal control, or that local school districts or State departments of education were in some way being pressured to accept rreac.I~er Corps personnel. If so, I hope very much that we will hear about it. I think it is very important t.ha.t. we take into account. such criticisms. One of the geniuses of the program, at least as Mr. Graham and you, Mr. Commissioner, have outlined by these charts, as I see it, is that you rigi(lly insist on locul control, that it would not be possible for a Teacher Corps tea.m to move into a local school district over the objec- tions of the local school board. Am I wrong in my understanding? I am somewhat puzzled by some of the suggestions that see.m implicit in some of the questions that somehow you are out. there trying to push these people on local school systems. Mr. HOWE. Mr. Brademas, I indicated in response to your earlier question that I had received some complaints. I think "complaints" is too strong a word. We have received a variety of suggest.ions from school people about feeling they have on the Teacher Corps, usually with a view to making it. serve them better rather than with a view of the ~`complaint," suggesting being antagonistic toward the enterprise. For example~ we ran into some problems with the city of Pittsburgh, where it wa.s clear that the salary policies we were pursuing made dif- ficulties for them. It is around suggestions of this kind that we have developed the various amendments we have brought. The expressions of concern that I have had from chief State school officers have not been in the form of letters which were complaining about the entire enterprise, but, rather. their desire to have a direct involvement guaranteed to them. We have tried to bring that about.. Their involvement has been there but it has not been guaranteed. So we thought the legislation should be amended to take care of this sort of a problem. I think that Mr. Graham can give you some further information along this same line.. Mr. BELL. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. BRADEMAS. Could I just hear Mr. Graham's response, please? Mr. GRAIiA~r. The question now relates to performance of the Teacher Corps. which was passed before, with some controversy. It. has been in operation this year. WTe asked the superintendents of schools a.nd universities participating in t.he program to say what. it PAGENO="0227" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 221 was, what they thought of it.. Out of the 111 school districts, some 79 replied. Seventy-six of these said this was the program that they wanted, and they wanted more Teacher Corps people in their schools. We are not so proud of that.. We wanted to know why the three didn't want it. We checked with one and they said, "We have only two schools in our district that. qualify. They both have teams." Another one said, "The selection procedure was not good this year, but if you select the way we will select next year, absolutely, it is a good program for our schools." And the t.hird one said, "I didn't say `No'." We asked the universities. Seventy-five percent of them said, "This is a better way of training teachers than we are training our other teachers." We went back to those who didn't say it was better. They said the program got underway too fast last year and they were not able to hire the staff that they wanted for the program. They said, "At our institution it takes more than a year t.o change our curriculum to do this job that we feel should be done in the schools." Chairman PERKINS. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Thompson. Mr. rrIIo~LPsoN Mr. Graham, it. is early in the season and our friends from Florida. have been in training, I guess, because they are. throwing curve balls already. I think although there is controversy with respect to the Teacher Corps. I am not at. all certain that. the controversy is so great that (a) it is unhealthy-I think it is healthy, and (b) that we should bury the Teacher Corps so early. It is innovative. As indicated in your colloquy with the gentlewoman from Oregon, there is some overlapping, dovetailing. I don't think necessarily this is evil, nor do I think it is particularly desirable. But I think it can be ironed out over a period of time, as Commissioner Howe indicated will be done. There is, at. least, in New Jersey, and I believe elsewhere, a constant reevaluation of teacher t.raining methods. In New Jersey, we are un- dertaking t.o separate elementary-secondary from our higher education institutions. We are changing the orientatiomi of our teacher training institutions from teachers colleges to broader base educational insti- tutions. I find that at Temple University in Philadelphia, where the rreacllel. Corpsmen, who work in Trenton, are trained, that they are extremely enthusiastic about. the new emphasis in teacher training. They tell me that they find a difference in motivation, which to them is significant, in the Teacher Corps person a.s contrasted with the other young person who is in the process of being educated to be a teacher. Not many or not all, by any means, of those entering tenH~m tran- ing or who are in teacher training now want to teach, where the Teacher Corps volunteer wants to teach. Any training' t1~t we ~ive them of this type, I think is in the long run goilIg to he iI(l ~~1!1t~I~0oU5. I would hope that. a. careful evaluation is clone of the possible conflicts, as indicated by Mrs. Green and some of the others. But. if that is done and ironed out., and if in the higher education amendments these distinctions are made, I think it will he very valuable. PAGENO="0228" 222 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS For myself, I think the Teacher Corps deserves more time, more money and expansion oil, if anything, let's call it an experimental basis, to give it the opportunities that it has not yet had to fully profit. I hope that that will he done. Mr. BELL. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. Tuo~ipsox. I yield. Mr. BELL. Could I ask you how many colleges and imiversities in the United States today have programs of their own? Do you have any figures on this? How many have programs for training of teachers in addition to the Teacher Corps? Mr. HowE. You are requesting this information about programs which focus particularly on training people to work with the disadvan- taged, I assume? Mr. BELL. For tile disadvantaged in the elementary and secondary school. Mr. HowE. We will have to supply this figure to you. (The information requested follows:) There is no comprehensive list of all institutions of higher education in the United States offering programs leading to teacher certification. The following list gives those institutions which have received accreditation of their pro- fessional schools of education from the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE). In the United States, no single agency, public or private, assumes responsibility for the control or supervision of educational institutions. The States exercise varying degrees of control, but permit institutions of higher education to operate with considerable autonomy. As a consequence, the institutions vary widely in the character and quality of their programs. A device know as accreditation has developed through which State, regional, and nationwide agencies have established criteria and evaluated institutions with a view to determining whether programs of educational quality are being maintained. The accrediting procedure consists of four steps: establishment of criteria, evaluation of institutions by competent authorities to determine whether they meet established criteria, publication of a list of institutions that meet the cri- teria, and periodic reviews to ascertain whether accredited institutions continue to meet the criteria. Institutions with liberal arts and general programs and, in some cases. those with special programs are accredited by six regional accrediting associations. Regional accreditation applies to the entire institution. It indicates that each constituent unit is achieving its own particular aims satisfactorily, although not necessarily all on the same level of quality. In addition, professional schools within an institution are often accredited by a national accrediting association. Since the Office of Education does not approve or accredit any educational institutions, accreditation by NCATE is accepted as professional teacher education accreditation for the purposes of the Education Directory. However, it must be emphasized that all teacher education programs that do not have XCATE accreditation are not necessarily unable to meet its standards. A number of regionally accredited programs do not yet have NCATE accredita- tiOn for a variety of reasons. Some institutions have not requested NCATE accreditation. INSTITUTIONS HAVING NCATE ACCREDITATION As of July 1965, the following 426 institutions, listed geographically, had NCATE-accredited teacher preparation programs. The key following the name of each indicates categories in which that institution is accredited (1-preparation of elementary school teachers; 2-preparation of secondary school teachers; 3-preparation of school service personnel: B-accredited only through the bachelor's level: M-accredited through the master's level; D-accredited through the doctor's level; 6-accredited only through the sixth collegiate year). PAGENO="0229" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 223 Alabama: Auburn University, 1, 2, 3, D; Birmingham-Southern College 1, 2, B; Florence State College, 1, 2, 1ff; Howard College, 1, 2, B; Jacksonville State Col- lege, 1, 2, B; Livingston State College, 1, 2, B; Troy State College, 1, 2, B; Uni- versity of Alabama, 1, 2, 3, D. Alaska: None. Arizona: Arizona State College, 1, 2. 3. 6; Arizona State University. 1, 2, 3, D; University of Arizona, 1, 2, 3, D. FIGURE V.-Boundaries of the six regional accrediting areas, number of NCATE and regionally accredited institutions offering 4-year or more degrees, and States that certify graduates of out-of-State, NCATE-accredited programs- October 1965 :1 os fd~sytiy,. 111boCit,1 tootilotihr.o oh wgs,, Etatatioc. P,bo.o,y 1955 celia,. Woohlygbsh, D.C.: the Ceoscil, 5965. An oscar. Isisorsities orO Coflrgeo. Wets ,4:tros. (tIded by Ahoy 9. CartS,,.: Washirgtcr, D.C.: tO, Cyshsil, 1964. -g 6. tert, srI Shrrs,r:. 1. 9. A Mascot os Cer4i6cot~oy Reqaiye,,eete to, Sebeol Poesayec I I, the USthd DO9~. 1964 ethtior. Washington, D.C.y hatio~.u: Cr-, onion or Teach,, Dr~ro1ior a rd P,o(,,siyral Sh.'rnrds thatiore I Caused, &snostatioh, 1654. U S. Drr::~-.r-.r rt 5cr:.,, tdccat:or, and we `try, Chico t' Cdeahs,. (fsoat:tt Directory, ItA4-15. P3,1 II1-Oighnr Clucatior. Woshirgtor, D.C.: Gotten. nrc C'c~i~~ C,se, lasS. Source : National Education Association. Teaching Career Fact Book, 1960. Arkansas: Agricultural, Mechanical, and Normal College, 1, 2, B; Arkansas Polytechnic Collcge, 1. 2, B; Arkansas State College, 1, 2. M; Arkansas State Teachers College, 1, 2, M; Harding College, 1. 2. B; Henderson State Teachers College, 1. 2, M; Ouachita Baptist College, 1. 2. B; Southern State College, 1. 2, B; University of Arkansas, 1, 2, 3. D. California : California State College it Long Beach, 1. 2. 3. M ; California State College at Los Angeles, 1, 2. 3. M; Chico State College, 1. 2. 3. M: (`ollt~ge of Notre Dame, 1, B; Fresno State College, 1. 2. 3, 3.1; Isaniaculate lleart College, 1, 2, 3, M; Sacramento State College, 1. 2, 3. M; San Diego State College. 1. 2, 3. Id; San Francisco State College, 1, 2, 3, 31: San Jose State College, 1. 2. 3. M; Stan- ford University. 1. 2. 3. 1); Universit.y of California, 1. 2, 3. 1): University of California at Los Angeles, 1. 2, 3, D; University of the Pacific, 1. 2, 3. M; Uni- versity of Southern California, 1, 2. 3. D. Colorado: Adams State College. 1. 2. M; Colorado State College. 1. 2, 3. D: Colorado State University, 2, 3, M; Loretto Heights College. 1, 2. B; University of Colorado. 1. 2. 3. D: University of Denver. 1. 2. 3. D; Western State College of Colorado. 1. 2. 3. M. Connecticut: Central Connecticut State College. 1. 2. M: Danbury State College, 1: 2, M; Southern Connecticut State College, 1. 2, 3. M; University of Bridgeport, 1, 2. B; University of Connecticut, 1, 2, 3. D; University of Hartford 1, 2, 3, M; Willim antic State College. 1. 2, B. e~rs then Crgland 1 Association -"I 15 `44 7 7 7 14 5 2 21 O Dtates that certify out-of-state tSCATE graduates O Statns that certity ort-o'-state OrATE g~aduates eTa sec iy~ocat basis oiriy o tdureber of tdCATE-accrndited isstitoticss O Nun,be' of negiorraI(yacc~edited four-year rostitutroso PAGENO="0230" 224 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS Delaware: None. District of Columbia: Gallaudet College, 1, 2, M; George Washington Uni- versity, 1. 2. 3. D. Florida: Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University, 1, 2, B; Florida State University, 1. 2. 3. D: Stetson University, 1, 2, 3, M; University of Florida, 1, 2. 3. D; University of Miami, 1, 2, 3, D. Georgia: Albany State College, 1, 2, B; Emory University, 1, 2, M; Georgia Southern College. 1, 2, 3. M; Mercer University, 1, 2, B; University of Georgia, 1, 2, 3, D: Valdosta State College, 1, 2, B; Wesleyan College, 1, 2, B; Woman's College of Georgia, 1, 2, B. Guam: None. Hawaii: None. Idaho: Idaho State University, 1, 2, 3, M; University of Idaho, 1, 2, 3, M. illinois: Augustana College, 1, 2, B; Bradley University, 1, 2, 3, M; Chicago Teachers College, 1. 2. 3. M: Concordia Teachers College, 1, 2, M; De Paul University. 1. 2, 3. M: Eastern Illinois University, 1, 2, 3, M; Greenville Col- lege. 1, B: Illinois State University, 1. 2, 3, M; Illinois Wesleyan University, 1, 2 B; Loyola University 1, 2, 3, D; Millikin University, 1, 2, 3, M; Mundelein College. 1. 2, B: National College of Education, 1, M; Northern Illinois Uni- versity, 1, 2. 3. 6,: Northwestern University, 1, 2, 3, D: Southern Illinois Uni- versity, 1, 2. 3, M; University of Chicago, 1, 2. 3, D; University of Illinois, 1. 2, 3, D; Western Illinois University, 1, 2, 3. M; Wheaton College 1, 2. B. Indiana: Anderson College. 1, 2. B; Ball State University, 1, 2. 3, D: Butler ITniversity. 1. 2, 3, 6: DePauw University, 1, 2, M: Eariham College, 1, 2, B; Evansville College, 1, 2. B; Goshen College, 1, 2, B; Indiana Central College, 1. 2. B; Indiana State College. 1. 2, 3. 6: Indiana University. 1. 2, 3, D; Man- chester College. 1, 2. B: Purdue University, 1. 2. 3. D; Saint Mary's College, 1. 2. B: Taylor University, 1, 2. B; Valparaiso University 1. 2. B. Iowa: Clarke College, 1. 2, B; Cornell College, 1. 2, B: Drake University, 1. 2. 3. M: Luther College. 1. 2, B: Marycrest College. 1, 2, B; Morningside Col- lege. 1. 2. B: State College of Iowa, 1, 2. 3. 6; University of Iowa, 1, 2, 3, D; University of Duhuque. 1. 2. B: Warthurg College 1, 2. B. Kansas: Baker University.1. 2. B: Bethany College. 1, 2, B: Bethel College, 1. 2. B; Fort Hays Kansas State College, 1, 2, 3, M; Friends University, 1, 2, B; Kansas State College of Pittsburg. 1, 2, 3. M: Kansas State Teachers College, 1. 2. 3. 6: Kansas State University, 1, 2. 3, M; Marymount College, 1, 2, B; MPherson College. 1. 2. B: Mount Saint Scholastica College, 1. B; Saint Mary College. 1. 2. M: University of Kansas, 1. 2, 3, D; Wichita State University, 1. 2. 3 M: Washburn University of Topeka 1, 2, 3, M. Kentucky: Asbury College 1. 2, B: Berea College. 1, 2. B; Eastern Kentucky State College. 1. 2. 3. M: Kentucky State College. 1. 2. B: Morehead State Col- lege. 1. 2. 3. M: Murray State College. 1. 2. 3. M: University of Kentucky, 1, 2, 3, D: University of Louisville. 1. 2. 3, 6: Western Kentucky State College, 1, 2. 3. M. Louisiana: Grambling College. 1. 2. B: Louisiana College. 1, 2. B; Louisiana Polytechnic Institute. 1. 2. B: Louisiana State Universtiy and Agricultural and Mechanical College. 1. 2. 3. D: Loyola University. 1, 2. 3. M; Northeast Louisiana State College. 1. 2, B: Northw-esterri State College of Louisiana. 1. 2, 3. M; Soiitleasterii Louisiana College. 1. 2. B: University of Southwestern Louisiana, 1. 2. 3. M. Maine: Farmington State Teachers College, 1, 2. B; Gorham States Teachers College. 1. 2. B : University of Maine. 1. 2. 3. i\l. Maryland : Coppin State College. 1. B : Frosthurg State College, 1. 2. B Salisbury State Colle'ze. ~, 0, B: Towson State College, 1, 2, M: University of Maryland. 1. 2. 3. D. Massaehusetts: Boston (`allege. 1. 2. .3. M: Boston University. 1, 2. 3, D; Harvard Uiiiveis~ty. 1. 2. 3. D: I.esley College. 1, 3. M: Springfield College, 1. 2. 3. II: State (`allege. Bridgewater. 1. 2. M : State College Fitchburg. 1, 2, M; State College. Fra:iiinghani. 1. 2. B: State College. Lowell. 1. 2. B: State College, North A(jaiiis, 1. 2. M: State (`allege. Salem. 1. 2. M; State College. Westfield, 1. B: State College. Worcester. 1. 2. M: University of Massachusetts 1, 2, 3, M: Wheeloek College. 1. M. Michigan: Alidon College. 1. 2. B: Alma College. 1. 2. B; Calvin College, 1, 2, B: Central Michigan University. 1, 2 3. El: Eastern Michigan University, 1, 2, 3. M: Hope College, 1. 2. B: Michigan State University, 1, 2, 3. D; Northern PAGENO="0231" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 225 Michigan University, 1, 2. 3, M; University of Michigan. 1, 2. 3, D; Wayne State University, 1, 2, 3, D; Western Michigan University, 1, 2, 3, 6. Minnesota: Augsburg College, 1, 2, B; Bemidji State College 1, 2, 3, M; Carleton College, 2, B; College of Saint Catherine, 1, 2, B; College of Saint Teresa, 1, 2, B; College of Saint Thomas, 2, B; Concordia College, 1, 2, B; Gustavus Adoiphus College, 1, 2, B; Hamline University, 1, 2, B; Macalester College, 1, 2, M; Mankato State College. 1, 2, 3, M; Moorhead State College, 1, 2, 3, M; Saint Cloud State College, 1, 2, 3, M; Saint Olaf College, 2, B; Uni. versity of Minnesota, Duluth, 1, 2, 3, M; University of Minnesota, Minneapolis. 1, 2, 3. D; Winona State College, 1, 2, 3, M. Mississippi: I)elta State College, 1. 2. B; Mississippi College. 1, 2. 3, M; Mississippi State Uni~ersity 1 2 3 M I ni~ersity of Mi-~'.i'.,.sippi 1 2 3 D University of Southern Mississippi, 1, 2, 3, M. Missouri: Central Missouri State College 1. 2. 3. 6; Drury College. 1, 2, M; Fontbonne College. 1, 2, B; Harris Teachers College, 1, B; Lindenwood College, 1, 2, B; Northeast Missouri State Teachers College, 1, 2, 3, M; Northwest Missouri State College, 1, 2, 3, M; Saint I~uis University, 1, 2, 3. D; Southeast Missouri State College, 1. 2. B; Southwest Miss~uri State College, 1, 2. B; University of Missouri, Columbia, 1, 2, 3, D; University of Missouri at Kansas City, 1. 2, 3, M; Washington University. 1. 2, 3, D. Montana: Eastern Montana College of Education. 1. 2. B: Montana State University, 1, 2, 3. M; Northern Montana College, 1, 2, B; University of Montana, 1, 2. 3. D; Western Montana College of Education. 1. 2, B. Nebraska: Chadron State College. 1, 2, B; Coneordia Teachers College, 1, B; Creighton University, 1, 2, M; Dana College, 1, 2, B; Hastings College, 1, 2, B: Kearney State College, 1, 2, B; Midland College, 1, 2, B; Municipal University of Omaha, 1. 2, 3, M; Nebraska Wesleyan University 1, 2, B; Peru State College. 1, 2. B: University of Nebraska, 1, 2, 3, D; Wayne State College, 1, 2, M. Nevada: University of Nevada, 1, 2, 3, M. New Hampshire: Keene State College. 1. 2. B; Plymouth State College. 1. 2. 3. M; University of New Hampshire, 1. 2, 3. M. New Jersey: Glasshoro State College, 1. 2. 3. M; Jersey City State College, 1, 2, B; Montclair State College, 1. 2. 3. M: Newark State College. 1. 2. B: Pater- son State College, 1, 2, 3 M; Rutgers The State University. 1. 2. 3. D; Trenton State College. 1. 2. M. New- Mexico: Eastern New Mexico University. 1. 2, 3, M; New Mexico State University. 1. 2. 3. M; University of New Mexico. 1. 2. 3. D; Western New Mexico University, 1. 2. 3. M. New York: City University of New York: Brooklyn College. 1. 2. 3. M; City College, 1. 2. 3. M: Hunter College, 1. 2. 3. M: Queens College. 1. 2. 3. M: Columhia University Teachers College. 1. 2. 3. D; Cornell University, 1. 2. 3. D: Hofstra University, 1. 2. 3. M: New York University. 1. 2. 3. 1): State University of New York: College at Albany. 2. 3. D; College at Brockport. 1. 2. M: College at Buffalo. 1. 2. 3, D; College at Cortland. 1. 2. M: College at Freclonia, 1, 2. M: College at Geneseo. 1, 2. M; College at New Paltz. 1. 2. M: College at Oneonta. 1. 2. M; College at Osw-ego. 1. 2. M: College at Plo ttshurgl~. 1. 2. M: College at Potsdam. 1, M. Syracuse University, 1. 2. 3. D: University of Rochester, 1. 2. 3. D. North Carolina Appalachian State Teachers College. 1. 2. 3. \r: T)iike Uni- versitv. 1. 2. 3. 1): East Carolina College. 1. 2. 3. Elizaliotli City State College. 1. B : Fayetteville State College. 1. B : High Point (`lIege. 1. 2. TI : T.enoir Rhvne College. 1. 2. B: North Carolina College at D1~rhani. 1. 2. 3. M: North Carolina State College at Baleigh. 2. 3. M ; Salem College. 1.2. Ti : Fniveisitv of North Carolina. Chapel Hill. 1. 2. 3. D: University of North Carolina at Greensboro, 1. 2. M: Western Carolina College. 1. 2. .3. M: Winston-Salem State College. 1. B. North Dakota : Minot State College. 1. 2. B: University of North Dakota, 1, 2, 3, M: Valley City State College. 1. 2. B. Ohio: Bowling Green State Univarsity. 1. 2. 3. M: Central State College. 1. 2, B ; Flirani College. 1. 2. B : John Carroll University. 2, M : Kent State University, 1. 2. 3. IT): Miami University. 1. 2. 3, ~: Ohio State University. 1. 2. 3. D; Ohio University. 1. 2. 3. D: Ohio University. 1. 2. 3. P: Otterhein College. 1. 2. B; University. 1, 2. 3. D: Otterhein College 1. 2. B: Saint John College of Cleveland, 1, B: University of Akron. 1, 2. 3. M: University of Cincinnati. 1. 2. 3, D: IJni- versity of Dayton, 1, 2, B: University of Toledo. 1. 2. 3, D: Wilmington College, 1, 2. B: Wittenherg University, 1, 2, B. PAGENO="0232" 226 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS Oklahoma: Bethany Nazarene College. 1. 2, B; Central State College, 1, 2, M; East Central State College. 1. 2. M; Northeastern State College, 1. 2, M; North- western State College, 1. 2. M; Oklahoma College for Women, 1, 2, B; Oklahoma State University, 1. 2. 3. D; Panhandle Agricultural and Meehanical College, 1. 2. B: Phillips University. 1, 2, B; Southeastern State College. 1, 2, M; South- \vesterll State College. 1. 2. M; University of Oklahoma, 1, 2, 3, D; University of Tulsa, 1. 2. 3. M. Oregon: Eastern Oregon College, 1, 2, M; Lewis and Clark College, 1, 2, B; Marylhurst College. 1. 2. B; Oregon College of Education, 1, 2, M; Oregon State University, 1. 2, 3, D; Portland State College, 1, 2, B; Southern Oregon College, 1. 2. M; University of Oregon. 1, 2. 3. D. Pennsylvania: Bloomsburg State College, 1, 2, B; California State College, 1. 2. B; Cheyney State College, 1, 2, B; Clarion State College, 1. 2, B; Duquesne University. 1. 2. 3. M: East Stroudshurg State ~llege, 1. 2. B; Edinboro State College. 1. 2, M; Indiana State College, 1, 2. B; King's College, 2, B; Kutztown State College, 1, 2. M: Lock Haven State College, 1, 2, B; Mansfield State College, 1. 2. B; Marywood College. 1, 2. B; Millersville State College. 1, 2, B; Pennsyl- vania State University. 1. 2. 3. D: Shippensburg State College. 1. 2. M; Slippery Rock State College, 1. 2. B; Temple University, 1, 2. 3, D; University of Penn- sylvania. 1. 2. 3. D: University of Pittsburgh. 1. 2, 3, 1); West Chester State Col- lege, 1. 2, B. Puerto Rico: University of Puerto Rico. 1, 2. 3, M. Rhode Island: Rhode Island College. 1, 2, 3, M. South Carolina; University of South Carolina, 1, 2, 3, 6. South Dakota: Augustana College. 1, 2. B; Black Hills State College. 1. 2, B; Northern State College. 1. 2. 3. M: South Dakota State University, 2, 3, M; Southern State College. 1. 2. B: State University of South Dakota, 1, 2, 3, M. Tennessee: Austin Peay State College, 1. 2, M; East Tennessee State Univer- sity, 1. 2. 3, M; George Peabody College for Teachers. 1, 2. 3. D; Memphis State University. 1. 2. B: Middle Tennessee State College, 1, 2. 3. M; Tennessee Agricul- tural and Industrial State University. 1, 2. B; Tennessee Technological Univer- sity. 1. 2. B; University of Tennessee, 1, 2, 3, D. Texas: Abilene Christian College, 1. 2, B; East Texas State University, 1. 2. 3. M: Hardin-Siinmons University, 1, 2. B; Incarnate Word College, 1, 2. B; North Texas State University, 1. 2. 3. D: Our Lady of the Lake College, 1, 2, 3, M; Prairie View Agricultural and Mechanical College, 1. 2, B; Sam Houston State Teachers College, 1. 2. M: Southern Methodist University, 1, 2, 3, M; Southwest Texas State College, 1, 2. 3; M: Stephen F. Austin State College. 1. 2, 3, M; Texas Christian University. 1. 2. 3. M: Texas College of Arts and Industries, 1. 2, 3, M; Texas Southern University. 1. 2. 3. M; Texas Technological College. 1. 2. 3, M; Texas Wesleyau College. 1. 2. B: Texas Woman's University. 1. 2. M: Trinity University. 1. 2. 3. M: University of Houston. 1. 2. 3. M: University of Texas, 1. 2. .3. P: West Texas State University. 1. 2. 3. M. Utah: Brigham Young University. 1. 2. 3. 6; College of Southern Utah, 1, B; University of Utah. 1, 2. 3. B: Utah State University, 1, 2, 3. B. Vermont: University of Vermont. 1. 2. 3. M. Virginia: Longwood College, 1. 2. M: Madison College. 1, 2. M; Radford Col- lege. 1. 2. B: University of Virginia. 1. 2. 3, D; Virginia State College, 1, 2, 3, M. Washington: Central Washington State College, 1. 2, 3. M: Eastern Washing- ton State College. 1. 2. 3. M: Fort Wright College of the Holy Names, 1, 2, B; Pacific T,ntlieran University. 1. 2. M: Seattle Pacific College. 1, 2, B; University of Puret Sound. 1. 2. 3. M: Washington State University, 1. 2, 3. D: Western Washington State College. 1. 2~ 3~ M. West Virginia: Blueficld State College. 1. 2. B: Concord College, 1. 2, B: Fair- mont State Collere. 1. 2. B: Glenville State College. 1. 2, B: Marshall TTniversity, 1. 2. 3. M: Shepherd College. 1. 2. B: West Liberty State College, 1, 2. B; West Virginia State College. 1. 2. B : West Virginia University. 1, 2, 3, D. Wisconsin: Alverno College. 1. 2. B: Cardinal Stritch College, 1, 2, B; Carroll rollege. 1. 2. B: Elgewood College of the Sacred Heart, 1, 2, B: Marquette Uni- versity. 1. 2. .3. M: Mount Mary College. 1. 2. B: Saint Norbert College, 1, 2, B; Stout State University. 2. 3. M: University of Wisconsin, Madison, 1, 2, 3, D; Fniver~ity of Wisconsin. Milwaukee. 1. 2. 3. M: Viterbo College. 1. 2. B; Wiscon- ~in State University. Ean Claire. 1. 2. B: Wisconsin State University, La Crosse, 1. 2. M: Wisconsin State University. Oshkosh. 1. 2. fl ; Wisconsin State University, Platteville. 1. 2. B: Wi~consin State University, River Falls, 1, 2, B; Wisconsin PAGENO="0233" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 227 State University, Stevens Point, 1, 2, B; Wisconsin State University, Superior, 1, 2, 3, M; Wisconsin State University, Whitewater, 1, 2, B. Wyoming: University of Wyoming, 1, 2, 3, P.1 Mr. BELL. I assume there is a relatively small number of colleges, nationwide, today that have this. Mr. HOWE. Nationwide there is a large number of higher education institutions preparing teachers for work in the schools, a very large number. Mr. Bflai. How does that compare with the need for teachers? Do you have any figures to show this? Mr. HoWE. You are addressing yourself to the overall need for teachers here? Mr. BErJ~. Yes. Mr. HowE. My view is that the issue is not one of major expansion in the numbers of institutions as much as it is the need for the expan- sion of programs which exist at those institutions. It is probably more economical to expand the numbers of programs at those institu- tions with the reservation that there may be areas of the country not as well served as they should be, in which case there may be a need for new institutions to emerge. W'e will try to bring you, Mr. Bell, some accurate figures on the actual number of teacher training institutions broken down by States, so that you can get a look at these figures. Mr. BELL. I am trying to help you. I am trying to find out what the need is and where the. Teacher Corps can best fill the gap, and what would happen without the Teacher Corps. Mr. HowE. In effect, the Teacher Corps is adding to the ability of existing institutions to train teachers. This is over and above what they would normally do. This is one of the points that Mr. Graham made, about having had difficulty in mounting the program in some institutions because they have had to get new staff members to do that. Mr. HAWKINS. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. BELL. I will yield. Chairman PERKINS. The Chair will have to start. recognizing mem- bers in order according to seniority. First., let me compliment you, Mr. Commissioner and Mr. Graham. I personally feel that your amendments are very constructive, as always. The only comment I want to make about the Teacher Corps under your proposed amendment is this: No teacher will be assigned to any local school district unless that local school district makes a special request for a teacher from the Teacher Corps. Am I correct? Mr. HOWE. r~ hat is correct, sir. Chairman PERKINS. There are a couple of other basic questions that give me considerable worry. First, under title I, what is your commitment for fiscal 19G~, the total commitment as far as you can read it up through June 30th of this year? Mr. HOWE. My recollection, which I will have to check, is $1,053 million. Mr. Estes tells me that is correct. 1 As reported by the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education, Aug. 31, 1965. PAGENO="0234" 225 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDT~'CATION AMENDMENTS (2liairnuui PERKINs. Last year we raised the income level limitation effective, I think, in fiscal 1968, including the migrant workers and dependent children of military personnel overseas, and the hanth- capped. If I read your estimates correct, title I for fiscal 196$ would take approximately $2,400 million. Here is a problem that faces us now. The school people over the counti'v will not be knocked over the heads with this. They may have to cut i)ack now and reduce their personnel. If I read the budget estimates correctly-and I know the President of the Lnited States is most interested because~ von would never be here today but for the great effort that he put out in behalf of the Elementary and See- onslarv Ediic~~tion Act-if I reacT the budget figures correctly, we only have ~l .24(1) miii ion, which is approximately 50 percent of the funds nece~sarv to carry on this pi'~gi~im during fiscal 1968, and esI)ecialiv (onsldering the great (leman(ls on fiscal 1967 when we spent ~1~053 million, as von just stated. Do von propose later on to recommend a supplemental, or to make a request of that kind, so that this program can be properly funded? i\!lr. i-IOWT. Mr. Chairman, let me comment on this. First of all, the history of the appropriation for title I is that in he first year of it we had appropriated $959 million. In the second year. ~l.05;~ million. We propose for fiscal 1968 $1,200 million, so that we have in tile funding of this particular title a slow but steady in- crease in the total amount of funding. in direct answer to the second portion of your question, we do not intend to bring up a supplemental for title I in fiscal 1967. It might help our interpretation of this if I were to ask Mr. Estes, on my right, to comment. on the (histril)ution among the States of the $1,053 million we have for fiscal 1967 and the effects of this on the program. Mr. ESTES. I would just add that the $1,200 million that will be requested for fiscal year 1968 represents approximately a 13-per- cent increase over fiscal yea.r 1967. We anticipate that~ this will pro- vide for approximately 700,000 additional disadvantaged children. We are convinced that this is an appropriate increase in our pro- gram. During the past year, fiscal yea.r 1966, 41 percent of our funds went for teaching personnel; perhaps more of it would have gone for teacher personnel if teachers had been available. So in answer to your original question, we would submit that the increase is appropriate, perhaps as much as can be absorbed by local educational a~eucies during fiscal year 1968. Chairman PERKINS. As you know, we set this program up in rather a hurry. We had difficulty getting many people to comment on the 1)l'opIaln. Now tcev aie in the pro~rain and they have gone to great trouble to provide compensatory quality educational programs. It has just started to take. hold. If we. in effect, cut this program back, we are going to frustrate and confuse the school svstem~ of this country, and set back Federal aid to education some 10 or 15 years. in my judgment. I make that observation because I have been working on this sub- ject for 19 years that I have been in Congress. I just don't see how we can afford to dilute and cut back our program at this time, notwith- PAGENO="0235" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 229 standing world conditions today. ~ is the point that really wor- ries me, and that is the point that the school people are. concerned about. I wish you could take my calls that I have received on this. Tleir statements to me are diametrically opposite froni what you just now stated to the committee. I think you will find that all the evidence that will come in throughout the Nation from the school people will be that opposite. You stated last year we only had sufficient money for program- ing purposes. In the extensive hearings that we conducted, it was learned that there is a great need for school construction in these deprived areas over the country today, as much as maybe $10 billion or $15 billion. I would think if we are going to even touch the. surface in doing something here, we really should completely fund title I. That is my humble judgment about it. I make that observation after the most careful study of all your reports and the great demand for these programs which have worked so wonderfully well. They are getting I)e.t.t.er all the time. But if we dilute them at this time, I am afraid that it is going to go a long way toward destroying confidence in a. great program. This program, when enacted, was to try to do something for the de- prived child. I want to make one further comment. I read in the papers the other day about. the reports of Tom, Dick, and Harry, and that perhaps compensatory education was not the answer. But if you t.ransport a child anywhere you want to trans- port. him and put him in a school system, the best school system in a city, it would appear to me that you still have, to have that quality education program for those. ext.ra youngsters. I say that. as a. country school teacher. one who taught school in a little school at $60.54 a month back in 1932. It, is just elementary that we cannot get away from the fact that quality compensatory educa- tion programs will cost money. There is nothing that will relieve that point. That is the only point I care. to make. I think it is the President's wish that. we go ahead with this commitment and do everything in our power to do something that would improve education at the elementary and secondary level. Mr. Howr. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to clarify the point. I dont. think we have had what von could call a cutback. We have had, certainly, an increase in funding, as I have outlined it over these 3 years. l~iit certainly not an increase which meets all expectations or what. peol)le would like to have. I think this is the reason for some of the calls on were receiving, and I can assure you I am probably receiving just as milany as you. Chairman PERKINS. I am sure von are. I admire your administra- tion. I think von are a great. administrator and a great Commis- sioimr, and von know ~vhat von are doing. Mr. REID. Mr. Chairman- Chairman PERKINS. The gentlema.n from New York. Mr. REID. May I first compliment Mr. howe on his testimony and say how delighted we are to have him here. PAGENO="0236" 230 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS On this point, am I correct in assuming that only 17,000 out of some 2~,000 school districts are being funded under title I, and that oniy some $200 million at the moment is scheduled to be spent in our major cities? My question would be this: Is it wise or privy to shortchange the youth of America because of the war in Vietnam, even indirectly, and isn't there a need for full funding of this program, particularly in the cities and in the ghetto areas where the need is clear and present? I would think $200 million would hardly fund this area in the cities, nor the amount that. you have of some $1.~ billion, where we have our most serious need for the disadvantaged throughout the United States. Is there a budgetary reason why you have to do this? Shouldn't there be strenuous efforts to fully fund it? Mr. Howv. I t.hink there is a need for the orderly expansion for this program in the light of the availability to local school districts of people to do the. kinds of things that the program commands. I think we can perhaps argue over whether the rate of expansion we have, proposed is the right rate of expansion. I presented testimony here last year to the effect that full funding of the, total authorization would create a situation which would mean, in all likelihood, unwise. expenditure of funds. I still believe that is the case. Were we to go to total authorization, we would find it impossible, in a local s(hool (histrict. to handle the focus on the deprived child whit the r~ht kind of people to do the job, and we need to expand the program on a basis which makes it possible to do that. The program has. never been seen by us, or as far as I know by its congressional sponsors. as a program designed primarily as a building program. i.t has been (lesigne.cl primarily as a program to provide additional immecTi~ ~e services, educational in nature, related to health activities and these kinds of things. It had building and equipment aspects where these might be directly related to services to deprived children. It seems to me that at some point the Federal Government ought to consider some form of major funding for construction in elemen- tary-secondary schools. But I don't. think any of us have conceived of this program as exactly that. Mr. RETD. I just have one fina.l comment. \Vhat troubles me is that the various CAP programs are being cut 50 percent. in the poverty program. Unless we do something more mean- ingful in elementary and secondary, particularly title I, I think many of the youth are going to be shortchanged and our cities shortchanged. I hope we don't. do that. Mr. HOWE. Le.t me add one comment, Mr. Reid, to this effect: I am sure most of the. committee members are aware that. we will be launching a new program in fiscal 1968 called operational follow- through. The appropriations on that will come via the Office of Econ- omic Opportunity. This will bring about $100 million additional into the activities of the. Office of Education for the benefit of deprived children in places where title I is operating. PAGENO="0237" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 231 So there will be an expansion of in excess of $100 million additional that does not come into the budget figures we have been discussing at the present time. Mr. REID. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman PERKINS. The gentleman from Ohio. Mr. AYRES. Mr. Commissioner, we thank you for coming before the committee this morning. I am sorry I was late, but there are some other activities on the Hill. In view of the fact that. I didnt get a chance to hear all of your testimony, I will yield to the gentleman from Minnesota. Mr. QUJE. I will yield to the gentlelady from Oregon. Mrs. GREEN. 1 have just two short. questions on the Teacher Corps. I-Tow many cities have applied for Teacher Corps? Mr. Gn~1-IA~r. I don't have the total number. A number of these requests are informal and have come directly to universities and other people now participating in the program. I can get an assessment for you. (The information requested follows:) For the academic year 19~G-19~7, 179 local educational agencies applied for Teacher Corps teams. Mrs. GREEN. There are 111 which are actually participating, re- gardless of how many applied; is that correct? Mr. GRAHAM. Yes; that is correct. Mrs. GREEN. And there are about 21,000 school districts in the country ? Mr. Gu~ii~r. Yes. Mrs. GREEN. When you speak of the 76 out. of the 79 who approved of it, don't. you think it is obvious that the 79 who applied would be in favor of it, but. if we place. it in its proper context we really don't have any true evaluation of the acceptability or the desirability of the program if there are only 111 out of 27,000? Mr. HOWE. I think this is a. very fair comment., Mrs. Green, but it is hard for us to a.sk people who don't have, a program about their feelings on its operation. They are not. intimately acquainte.d with it.. We could try to get some information for you about. the group that is interested, but that. doesn't. have program. Mrs. GREEN. I just wanted t.o make that one comment. I don't. think it is fair to say that everybody is for this, that this is a great. program, when there are oni that. number. Secondly, is it. fair to say that this is a big-cit.y program? I am not arguing whether this is good or l)ad. Certainly the problems of the big cities are most serious. Mr. GRAHAM. Some 20 to 25 of the large.r cities do have programs. Mrs. GREEN. I mean the new programs from your amendments as you outlined them. You showed tile cooperation between the. colleges, tile universities, and time local school dist.ricts, as an essential part of time Fearher Corps program. Therefore. I must conclude, and cor- rect. me if I am wrong, t.hat it would be a program that wouicl only operate. in those places where there wa.s a college or university. Mr. GRAIWI. At the present time. 60, I believe, of the 111 school districts are. rural school districts. It. is our expectation that about. that same percentage would be here. PAGENO="0238" 232 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS Mrs. GREEN. But your slides show the necessary elements of co- operation between the colleges and the districts. Mr. Gr~iix~r. Yes. In some cases the local school systems are 120 or 130 miles away from the local institution. The Corps members in such cases generally leave their schools on a Friday afternoon, come to the university, and take courses late Friday afternoon and all day Saturday. Mis. Gimri:x. Then you do not anticipate just this being a big-city pn)gram ~\Er. Gi~i~x~i. No. i\[rs. (~I1l:T:N. Let iie ~-av while I have not been friendly to the TrI `her (`crps. I do appreciate the effort von have niade in the amend- iiicIIN~ which On have oihu'ed. I WOUld hope that pei'~1ap5, on a co- (11)er0fi ye spirit 1)etween time executIve and the legislative branch, some other iiangt's might be made to supply teachers. 1 ~un not sure we ale Iclily looking at the total problem. For exam- plc. luiI ye yOu io~nle a study of why teachers leave the slum schools and ho'v many go? What is the exodus from your very disadvantaged area.? Mr. HOWE. This is a truly complex matter, Mrs. Green. Many school districts operate a system of preferential assignment in which teachers gain the opportunities for choosing their assignments on the basis of years of service and they tend to select themselves out of these difficult districts because of that arrangement. There are arrangements in existence between teacher organizations and school districts, and contracts which set up this preferential system. Mrs. GREEN. But isn't it true that there is a tremendous exodus of teachers from the very schools that we are trying to help with the Teacher Corps? Mr. HowE. This is true. These schools tend to have substandard staffs to a higher degree than other schools. Mrs. GREEN. I am just suggesting that I don't think this necessarily goes to the heart. of the problem. I don't think we have made enough of a study of the slum school to know how we can attract and retain teachers there. Maybe it is going to be by a big salary incre- ment. Maybe it is going to be. through the means of compensatory education, as the chairman suggested, with very small classes. There are a lot of alternatives that should be explored. I think to say that the Teacher Corps is the answer is perhaps a superficial answer. Mr. Howr. I would quite agree the Teacher Corps is not the sole answer. Title I in itself represents a vastly larger and more significant answer than the Teacher Corps. Chairman PERKINS. I would like to comment on that very point. The Teacher Corps in niv ]U(lgmellt is a 1)al't of it. You ought to come to my office and read my mall You ulont have to make. a study to show why there is an exodus of the best schoolteachers from eastern Ken- tucky. It is because o~ a lack of facilities and lack of resources in the area. Our best teachers go to Florida, Ohio, Detroit., and all over the country. It has been that way for years and years. PAGENO="0239" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 233 Mr. GIBBONS. Fort Lauderdale and Miami. Chairman PEIu~Ixs. I have received this month perhaps 100 letters from those teachers now in other States. It is so elementary why they go a.wa. rfhe.re have been so many studies of that made that I think it is time, sooner or later, that we have to enact the school construction program and make sure that~ we get the other facilities, adso doing something about improving time teacher salaries. Mrs. GREEN. This is really the only point. If we have an exodus of 20 teachers from the slum school for every Teacher Corps member who goes in, we are not really accomplishing very much. Again, in the overall program, is the Office. making any recommenda- tion about the transfer of the educational programs from the OEO to the Office of igducation? Mr. HOWE. We are making no recommendation to the Congress al)out this. We do have Operation Follow-Through as a new program which will constitute such a transfer, actually a delegation. so-called, from OEO to HEW, to be operated through the Office of Educat ion. This will be, again, a major program in the realm of $100 million a year. Mrs. GREEN. I am expressing a concern that I think it is the re- sponsibility of both the executive and the legislative branch to take an overall look at all the problems. I can cite as one example, and I am sure that there are thousands of others. When we were having hearings in Palo Alto recently the teacher said: I teach kindergarten. I have 30 youngsters in the morning and 30 youngsters in the afternoon. Many of them are the kids who were in Ileadstart the year before. Would you tell me what sense it makes for the Federal Government to have a program where they give me 30 youngsters in the morning and 30 in the after- noon, and a Headstart teacher has 20 youngsters during the entire day and two teacher aids and I have no teacher aid? Mr. HowE. This is the reason for Operation Follow-Through, to try to solve that kind of problem. Mrs. GREEN. But isn't it also an example of the failure on the part of the Government to take an overall look, rather than go about this on a patchwork basis. WTe have a program here for something where we don't know what the real problems may be? Mr. HOWE. I think we have tried, Mrs. Green, to take a rather com- prehensive look. We wouldn't want to get into the business of telling that school district what size its kindergarten or first grade classes should be. It ought to be deciding that. We ought to be in the business of providing resources so it has better options than it has now. Mrs. GREEN. So that they have the same option in kindergarten as in Headstart. Mr. HowE. That is correct. This is why we tried to move this Follow--Through program in, despite budget stringencies. Mrs. GREEN. Are you making any recommendations for changes in cooperative research in terms of the educational laboratories thir,ughi- out the country? Mr. 1-TowE. Not legislative changes. We are reviewing the entire program. Mrs. GREEN. One more question. PAGENO="0240" 234 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS The Civil Rights Commission recently came out with a recommenda- tion that in no school should there be more than 50 percent Negroes. I am asking if the newspaper report was accurate, that you endorsed this particular recommendation? Mr. HOWE. I didn't. endorse the recommendation in the sense of endorsing the legislation they propose. I did endorse the statement of the Civil Rights Commission in the sense t.hat I said that the Civil Rights Commission had identified for us, in a very good way, an issue that I believe they are right about : that ultimately, in order to provide quality education, we would have to provide desegregated education. Their report makes this very clear. But I have made no comment at. all on the idea of setting up specific percentages of youngsters, as their report suggests. Mis. GREEN. We know you are in favor of the present program, of course, to integrate, schools, but. how did their recommendation that ~:ou endorsed differ from the present situation? That is, if you were. not endorsing the 50 percent? Mr. HOWE. I was not. endorsing the suggested Federal legislation for required racial balancing which they suggested in their report. It seems to me, to elaborate on this a little bit, if the Federal Govern- ment is going to get into that kind of an activity, it probably ought to do so by creating the incentives so t.hat. people in local school dis- tricts can make their decisions about this sort of thing, rather than by actually legislating required percentages of change. We have school districts now, and we have States, which have in- terest in doing that sort of thing. The State of Massachusetts has passed a racial balancing ac.t through its legislature, and is about the business of doing the kind of thing that. the Civil Rights Commission suggests. Some cities have expressed interest in doing this kind of thing and are. using some of the programs that we make available to them to advance it, But it seems to me that there are many very practical problems about requiring racial balancing on a required basis with penalties attached to it if it is not done. This is the kind of issue, I think, we ought to walk very slowly on. Mrs. GREEN. Thank von. Chairman PERKINS. Mr. Bell? Mr. BELL. Mr. Commissioner. as I understand it from your t.esti- monv. there are 27.00(') school districts in the Nation, and 17,000, roughly, that. are being affected by title I. I want to retrace some figures `von gave me. I)id you say 115 school districts were being covered by the Teacher Corps? Mr. HowE. 110. Mr. BELL. If the figures you are going to give me on the number of school districts affected by the colleges that ha.ve their own pro- grams, if it is rather small or close, to that. figure, we are really not scratching the surface, are we.? Mr. hOWE. The Teacher Corps is really a demonstration operation wheh has, T think, one of its major advantages in encouraging insti- I i~ ~ to go ahead with training programs that. focus more on teachers wilt) will work with disadvantaged youngsters. PAGENO="0241" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 235 It sets up a series of different models around the country, wide- spread throughout the country, which has a useful effect of this kind. Mr. BELL. Mr. Commissioner, getting a little bit to Mr. Gurney's question, is this the only way we could do this, by expanding the Teach- er Corps? Could we do it by sending money into the different school districts, States, and so forth, and letting them evaluate their needs and set up the programs upon which basis they could operate? Woudn't that accomplish the same thing and allow the States to do it instead of the Federal Government? Mr. HOWE. I think you are quite correct tha.t this is not the only way we could do it. It is, apparently, a useful way for us to try. It seems to me that you could devise a half dozen patterns of en- couragement~s of teacher training under existing institute programs, under other new programs which might be mounted, which would have somewhat similar effects. Mr. BELL. Let me interrupt you to ask you: What is wrong with going m the direction which Mr. Gurney sug- gested, that we just send money into these different areas of the Sta.tes with the guideline that, they must expand their teacher programs to allow them to do it in the direction which they thought best suited their interests? Why is the Teacher Corps a better way to do this than the way Mr. Gurney suggested? Mr. HOWE. If you were to do that, I would assume the Congress would want to set into operation a requirement that the funds were indeed to be used to produce additional teachers who would serve disadvantaged areas. Mr. BELL. Yes. That can still be part of the package. Mr. HOWE. It might be possible to operate a program this way. But, in effect, this is what the amendments and the procedures that Mr. Graham has outlined to us do with the Teacher Corps. Mr. BELL. It is similar, except that there would be less likelihood of criticism of Federal control and Federal interference, and so on. I am not saying there necessarily is Federal interferences, but the criticism is often heard. Wouldn't this be a much less irritating way of doing the job? Mr. HoWE. Possibly. I think you have a very great gain here from the opportunity for national recruitment. There are areas of supply and areas of shortage. The national recruitment program brings an overall focus into getting people interested in this program and then making them available generally in very much the way you suggest. It seems to me that the possibility of tapping, very broadly, people who may be available without regard to State lines makes good sense. Mr. GURNEY. Will the gentleman yield for a question? Mr. BELL. Yes. Mr. GURNEY. Following this same line of questioning, would you produce for the committee, unless you have the figures here, what your administrative costs are in the Teacher Corps program, for the past year and what you propose it for the next year? Quite apart from the reluctance of Congress to go into the Teacher Corps, I think the point can also be made that you are setting up an- other bureaucracy to do the same thing that is being done already, 15-492-07----16 PAGENO="0242" 236 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS and apparently well, from the colloquy which has followed here, by another agency. That is important, too. Mr. HOWE. We will bring you that information. The Teacher Corps operates with a very small central staff. Mr. Graham can give you numbers now, if you want them. (The figures requested follows:) As of February 2S. 19~T. obligations for Federal administration of the Teacher Corps for fiscal year 19G7 totalled approximately ~495,OOO. Mr. GiL~IIA~r. We do have 44 people on board now. We are author- izeci ~. So it. is a small staff. Mr. BELL. Concerning this suggestion that Mr. Gurney and I are discussing, would von have any problem in recruitment ? For example, as the chairman indicated, Kentucky might have diffi- culty in getting teachers there, whereas, New York might not have 1ioi)le1~ms. Ts this correct? Would this be an argument for the Teacher Corps? Mr. ilowi:. I think the national recruitment brings probably a greater supply of Potential teachers to all States in time way it is set up in the Teacher Corps program. Mr. BELL. The national recruitment would then have to be an integral part of this suggestion? Mr. HOWE. I won't argue about it having to be, but I would say I would certainly prefer it as a device for bringing both quantity and quality into the picture. Mr. BELL. I wanted to ask some questions on a different tack. I have noted in the past, where title I is concerned, in some areas in California they have had some problems relative to schools getting approval from CAP agencies under the poverty program. This was supposedly eliminated under certain amendments to title I last year, although I still note in some areas of California the CAP agencies and the local school boards are considering it necessary for them to get the approval of poverty programs in their areas before they can go ahead on their particular programs. Is this still going on? I am hoping that we can clear this up. Mr. HOWE. Let me ask Mr. Estes to comment on this. Mr. Chairman, before lie does comment, could I say in case any of the committee members are going to this 12 :30 affair at the Office of Education, and I see some are having to leave- Chairman PERKINS. I promised Mr. Pucinski and Mr. Brademas an opportunity to question you, if you could remain a few minutes. Mr. hoWE. I only wanted to get across the information that special arrangements are. made for committee members. If they will go in the C street side of the Office of Education Building, they will not find themselves trapped as much in the crowd as if they went in the other sidle. Now 1 will ask Mr. Estes to go ahead. Mr. ESTES. Your point is well taken. As a matter of policy, we think there is a great deal of value of local school districts cooperating with local community agencies in formulating, developing, and oper- at in~ their pro~zrams. T)iiring the first year. there were some problems in this area through- out the country for several reasons. In the first place, title I was in PAGENO="0243" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 237 operation frequently before the communtiy action groups got under- way. Secondly, in the beginning of any new program as complex as title I, I think you have great room for misunderstanding. We feel, how- ever, at this point, that with the number of communities where there was a good relationship, where the community groups and the school groups did get along well together, that the value from this coopera- tion far outnumbered the groups where we did have difficulties. We think we have made improvements. We have worked with OEO in developing procedures that would eliminate the kinds of problems that you are mentioning at this point.. ~\1r. BELL. In some instances the loca.I school boards and OEO were interpreting this as a veto power on the part of the CAP agencies. That is what. is wrong. Mr. EsiTs. The local school board does have the responsibility for administering the program under title I, and it is the sole responsible agent for these funds. Mr. BELL. You are making that clear. Chairman PERKINS. Can you complete in one more question? Mr. BELL. I yield to Mr. Pucinski. Mr. PUcINsKI. Commissioner, I just wanted t.o ask you about one thing. We spent $987 million, almost $1 billion, in fiscal 1966, and another $1 billion in fiscal 1967, which amounts to a little more than $1,000 per child in compensatory education, the youngsters entitlements. How- is this program working? Do you have any tests, studies, or surveys to show that these youngsters in the culturally deprived schools are having some improvements in their academic achievements as a result of this kind of assistance over the last 2 years? ~r. HOWE. Yes, Mr. Pucinski; I think we do. Let me say, first of all, that because this operates as a highly decentralized program in which the essential program is at the local level and then to the State, that. our communications process takes time in getting some assess- ment. We are beginning to get that. We will deliver to the Congress within 2 weeks our first publication in this realm of assessment. It ~vil1 be a report of individual State re- ports just on the point you raise. Mr. PUCINSKI. Will there be some results of some testing and various other methods to show us completely, and show the country, that this has l)een a wise investment? Mr. Howr. There will be some examples of this from different States, not from all States. All States did not get their assessment procedures into line with the same efficiency. Mr. PUCINSKI. Commissioner, there has been a great. deal of dis- cussion here today about the inevitability of some sort of a construc- tion program. This apparently is the great problem that. our local communities are faced with. WTe passed a. school bond issue in Chicago ye~terdav for $~ million, and we passed a 15-percent increase in the levy, and various other things. But even that just. barely touches the surface. 1~Voulcl you consider amending the impacted areas bill to provide. one- half of the cost. of educating youngsters at the local level who live in public housing units? This is where the greatest need exists for con- PAGENO="0244" 238 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS struction, for improvement. These youngsters now are, to a great extent, being cared for by the Federal Government in terms of Federal assistance, aid to dependent children, and so on. These public housing units, of course, do not pay any local taxes. The whole concept of impacted areas is in lieu of taxes. Most of these structures were built by the Federal Government, or at least with sub- stantial Federal assistance. There~ are in t~s country today some 1 million youngsters who live ~n pul)lic housing units. in the city of Chicago, if we were to include these youngsters under impacted areas, 815 and 874, the city of Chi- cago would get approximately $25 million of immediate help for broad assistance in the community. This would be unmarked money. It is money that can be worked into the whole program. I think it would relieve the large cities of America and the small cities. In the 14 major cities of this country there are 275,000 young- sters who now live in public housing units. I think it is of interest, though, that~ the remaining 725,000 live in rural areas and smaller communities. It seems to me the program, as I had estimated it, would cost $300 million and would bring immediate direct assistance into the areas of greatest need. When we passed title I, when we passed the Ele- mentary and Secondary Education Act, the whole concept of this leg- islation was to provide Federal aid into areas of proven need. These are the areas of proven need. Would you, Mr. Commissioner, be willing to consider amending the impacted areas bill to give the communities this kind of direct assist- ance for construction and other needs? Mr. HowE. Let me say, Mr. Pucinski, first of all, that I think this is an interesting proposal. second. I would not want to try to comment on it in detail without examining its total effects. It is fairly clear that. there are a variety of building needs, and hitching this to public housing may or may not, in my view, handle the rather complex series of problems that exist. Mr. Perkins points to a series of building problems in areas which probably don't have much public~ housing as an index for providing such aids. Sonic of what von might describe as blue-collar suburban areas of the country, the lower cost housing suburban areas, have very low tax bases and have a real problem in providing adequate facili- ties there. I think any building program which we devise has to a(ldress itself to these various fronts. I hope we can examine that kind of a picture. If you would like us to. we will take a look at the suggestion you have outlined and give you a response on it. Mr. PFcIXsKI. Thank you very much, Commissioner. Cliai rman PERKINS. Mr. Bra demas. Mr. BRADEMAS. I have just a couple of questions, Mr. Chairman. First, it happens to be my birthday, too, today, Mr. Commissioner, so I wish von a happy birthday, too. Mr. howE. I think it is quite appropriate that you coincide with the Office of Education. Mr. BRADEMAS. I just want to make an observation on the Teacher Corps and ask you two quick questions on title III. PAGENO="0245" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 239 We spent a good deal of time on the Teacher Corps today. What strikes me is how much time we have given to what is a very modest effort, after all, only 1,200 or so people now, and you are proposing only 5,500 in fiscal 1968. I think you have not tried to argue that the implementation of your proposals, would begin to solve the very serious shortages of teachers in areas of poverty in the Unite.d States. You have argued that the Teacher Corps is in large measure an experimental program, designed not only to provide some needed teaching help in such areas, but to stimulate our colleges, school systems, universities generally, to give more attention to people for service in these areas, if I correctly under- stand it. Mr. T-TowE. This is correct. Mr. BRADEMAS. I am also impressed by the fact that we have really had almost rio concrete evidence of any significant degree of unhappi- ness or hostility from out in the States or the local school systems where, after all, they have to carry out such programs. At least I haven't heard of any. I may say, perhaps, my having made that observation on two or three occasions this morning, it may now trigger some mail. I will be interested to see if there is any, as I am sure you will be, but appar- ently nobody in the countryside is complaining bitterly or deeply about the Teacher Corps. Mr. HowE. It is quite clear we have been more successful in antag- onizing the Congress with the Teacher Corps than antagonizing the people~ who have been using it. Mr. BR~~DEMAS. As we say on the floor of the House., I would like to associate myself with your remarks. Another thing I wanted to ask von about is the statement, in the Presidents message of February 28 on education and health in Amer- ica, that- The total Federal dollar expenditures for educational l)urposes. including health training, which I propose for fiscal 196R will amount to ~11 billion, an increase of $1 billion, or 10 percent over 1067. It would be interesting for me to know, and you may not be pre- pared to answer this, how much the health training represents, and putting the health training to one side, how much really is the Presi- dent proposing in his budget for educational purposes for fiscal 1968? I am not impressed by the suggestion that he is proposing very much more. Mr. HowE. I~t me give you one or two overa]l flgure.s which will be only a partial answer and then we will get the health training figure for you. The overall budget of the Office of Education for existing programs which we administer will go up by $15;~ million from fiscal 1967 t.o fiscal 1968. The addition of new programs to the Office of Education, new programs being proposed by the President, will add some $67 million to that. Then you have to add the amount. of new programs which will be delegated to the Office of Education under OEO delegation, Operation Follow-Through, and add $100 million, approximately, for that. So PAGENO="0246" 240 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS if you add those three together, you get a very close approximation of the additional operating activity in the Office of Education in 1968 over 1967. The rest of the increase cited in that early portion of the President's message relates to educational activities in a variety of other agencies. lYe can get a 1)reakdown on that and give it to you. (The breakdown referred to follows:) TABLE G-1 -Federal fo rids for education, training, and reloted programs by ogency [In millions of dollarsl New obligational authority 1966 1967cc- 1968cc- actual titnate timate Expenditures 1967cc- 1968cc- timate timate 1966 actual 1,972 (1, 972) 558 84 (84) 43 9') 2 762 (2, 762) 3, 342 (3, 342) 200 (200) 28 4,479 (4, 479) 4.018 (3,918) 852 341 (341) 124 60 26 5, 421 (5, 321) 4,155 (4, 055) 897 433 (421) 151 64 104 5, 803 (5, 691) 3, 047 (2,947) 790 193 (193) 121 30 4, 238 (4,138) 3,556 (3,356) 804 285 (270) 146 66 50 4,906 (4, 691) Aeeney AOMJYISTRATIVE Bt:noET Department of Health, Education, and Welfare: Oilice of Education Ptibltc Health Service: Nat tonal Institutes of Ilealth Other Public Health Service Vocational Rehabilitation Acltninistration Welfare Adtninis:ration Other health, edtscat ioti, and welfare Total, Departtttent of health, Education, and Welfare Department of Defense: Military activities: Army 743 1,013 857 715 1,008 856 Navy 513 586 560 511 573 558 Air Force 645 711 695 625 707 701 Other 54 52 50 52 48 50 Civil activities 20 21 25 16 25 27 Total, Depauttent of Defense 1,975 2,384 2,188 1,918 2,361 2,191 Office of Econonuc Opportunhy 1 742 892 1,291 588 841 1,115 National Science Fotitidation 480 480 526 368 395 455 Veterans' Adminhtration 80 415 472 79 415 472 Department of 1,ahor 408 405 415 283 284 304 Departuseut of Housing and Urban Deve1optnenL~ 300 9 345 312 347 340 (390) (9) (345) (312) (-253) (-1,260) Depact:nent of the Interior 205 237 240 205 216 243 Economic assistance 1 137 160 225 82 108 158 Department of Agriculture 188 192 205 170 182 196 Ato:mc Energy Cotntuiseion 1118 119 1211 103 115 120 National Aeronaut ice and Space Adtuinist ration 143 117 111 119 141 136 Departeut of Ssate~ 67 62 64 69 66 66 Dbtrie: of Cotumbia 22 30 62 20 32 36 Peace Corps 57 s~ 55 47 47 50 Military assistance : 67 56 42 67 51 42 Library of Congress 26 32 38 25 31 37 Snthhsonian tnttitutiott 27 32 37 30 41 42 Department of Tranenortation 32 31 33 32 32 32 Department o(Cotnttsne 12 15 23 11 14 20 National Foundat inn ots the Art:; a:td tIme Itutuan- hies 6 11 16 1 8 15 Depantttent of Justice 8 9 13 4 9 12 L,S. tnfortnatioti Aeettey 8 10 11 8 10 11 General Services A:ttmttsstr:atotm 4 4 5 4 4 5 Tennessee Valley Authority 2 2 2 2 2 2 t.S. tovertinlent l'rinting Ottie 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 US. Arttts Coterni aol l)icartt:a:trtst Aoettey - - - - 1 1 : ~ I I Small Business Altoittietralion 1 1 1 1 1 1 Total hudeet ftsttds for education, training, and related ltrCaratOs 9,587 11,175 12,346 7,313 9,993 11,009 (9,187) (H,075)~(12,234) (7, 313) (~293) (9,194) See fooruote at end of table. PAGENO="0247" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDTTCATION AMENDMENTS 241 TABLE G-1.---Federal funds for eclication, training, and related programs by agency-Continuecl [In millions of dollars] I Funds appropriated to the President. 2 Less than ~50O,000. NoTE-Figures in parentheses represent amounts after proceeds from loan participation sales. Source: Special Analyses, Budget of the United States, Fiscal Year 1968. Special Analysis G. Mr. BRADEMAS. The point is, if you look at that in both dollars and percentage terms, there doesn't seem to be imieli of an increase. The message is rather substantial, but the money is not very much more than you have been talking about~ in education. Mr. HOWE. I think the Office of Education is the envy of some other agencies of the Government, however. Mr. BTiADEMAS. I understand. I am talking about national needs. On title III, can you give me any comment on this question: To what extent do you find that title I applications are similar to title III applications? Mr. HOWE. Let me ask Mr. Estes to comment on that. Mr. EsTEs. Our recent~ reports on all three of the titles, I, III, and V, indicate that there is a great deal of innovation in all three titles. Fifty-five percent of our title III projects during the first year related to programs for the (lisadvantageci. That does not mean tliat~ they had a central focus on the (li'.adlvan- tagech but they included p1og1an~~ for tIle dioaclvant aged cluldren. I would say that in a number of cases there are title I projects that are as innovative and as creative, as they are in title III. Likewise, in title III we have a number of programs that we call adoptive, which are trying to upgTade the quality of education in local districts. These progi~tms are siinila.r to those conducted under title I. Mr. BRADEMAS. Let inc ask one more question and then stop. Could you give me any comment on the question of the iole of the States, the State departments of public education, in passimig on title III projects? Asency TRUST FUNDS Department of Health- Education, and Welfare: Social security Department of housing and Urban Developmnent.. Department of Transportation Library of congress Smill:sonian Institution National Foundation on the Arts and the Humani- ties Department of I.ahor Department of State General Services Administration Total trust funds for education, training, and retited programs Total funds provided for education, training, and related progranis Participation sales Total net budget and trust funds for education, training, and related programs New oblicational ~ penditurcs authority tOt))) 1967 es- 190 e~- 106)) 1O( es- 1968 ~c- actual ti nate' tinat e actual t inate timate 1 15 15 1 15 15 -it) -37 2 4 6 2 4 6 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 (2) 2 2 (2) 2 2 (2) 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 (2) 1 1 (2) 1 1 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) 7 27 30~ 7 ic -7 9,595 11,202 12, 375 7. 320 10.1110 11,002 - - -1)5) -112 -7)0) -1,815 9,595 11. 102 12,263 7, 320 9,310 9,187 PAGENO="0248" 242 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDtCATION AMEND~NTS As you know, we require the States to Took at them, but do not pro- vide a veto. Have there been substantial complaints that there is no State veto over title III projects? Mr. HOWE. There are two or three points here. One, there are some State officials who feel that there should be such. Two, there is a very high correlation between State approvals and our approvals in the realm of 95 percent, so that we are acting in com- mon with the States. Three, we are developing with a growing number of States a plan for operation of title III on an informal, voluntary basis which, in effect, puts our planning and their planning on the same track and brings the coincidence of agreement about what title III projects shall be funded. I think we are developing through operations rather than through legislation, some of the things that States would like to see legislated. Mr. BRADEMAS. Thank you very much. Mr. SCHE~ER. Mr. Chairman- Chairman PERKINS. Let Mr. Reid ask a question and then Mr. Carey lies a couple of questions. Then I will call on you, Mr. Scheuer. Mr. REID. I have one additional question of the Commissioner, if I may. Tt is my understanding that the fiscal veer 19(~S formula will involve half the national average or half of the State average, whichever is highest. Mv query is thi~: W~hat steps are von plalln~n~ to take to prorate these funds? In the case of Mississippi versus New York. for exam- ple. half of New York state's average would be something on the order of S~i94 million and Mississippi. we will say, is now $121 million and nii~1it ~o to ~263 million. Does this not mean that proportionately New York would receive less, and does not this mean that. proportionately the cities would re- ceive less, unless you substantia `lv increase the fund? Mr. T-10WE. Let me ask Mr. Estes to comment. Mr. ESTES. That is a very technical question, as you well know. We met with about 200 representatives from ~tate departments of education in the Southea~f in Atlanta yesterday. These were the kinds of questions they were asking. If I might. twould like 1~o ask Jack Hughes, who is the Director of this pro~ram. who has a handle on these kinds of figures, if he might react to that. Mr. HITGHES. I can give you the comparable amounts, Mr. Reid, between the New York State allowances for fiscal 1967. our estimate for fiscal 196S. and the comparable figures for Mississippi. These will be total dollars. The amount for New York in fiscal year 1967 is $114,811,000. The estimate for fiscal 1968, based on the appropriation request, is $115,150,000. The. amount for Mississippi this year is $23,656,000, and for next year the amount. would be $40.591.000. Mr. How'. I would say, Mr. Reid. the answer to your question is "Yes." Mr. REm. My only followup, Mr. Commissioner, is if New York is not proportionately to receive less and if we have to do something more PAGENO="0249" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 243 about the cities, as I think John Lindsay would advocate, were he here today, how can we do it unless we expand the funding? I suspect further that if you were to ask Mayor Lindsay or, indeed, Governor Rockefeller or Jim Allen, in New York, they would say they could profitably and usefully spend substantially more funds; that. they have the teachers and there is the need. My query is, then, `Why don't you expand the fund ? Mr. HowE. I think a partial answer to this is in funds that will be- come available in many of the cities through Operation Follow- Through, but that is not a complete answer. I think we would hope over the years to do exactly what you suggest. Our 1968 budget is not set at this amount. But at least we have arrived at a position which in no way diminishes what is available to the States and, of course, we are operating under a principle here that. the Congress has approved in the form of law. Mr. REm. Thank you. Chairman PERKINS. Mr. Carey? Mr. CAREY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Commissioner, my ow'n impression of your presentation t.his morning is that I hope w'e can arrange. another day when you will come hack with your staff, and most. importantly, with Mr. Hughes, the Budget. Officer, on title I. As far as I am concerned, we are. placed in a predicament here. Sure, we have legislated a formula and you are now apportioning funds on that basis, but when we make the formula changes we en- vision an orderly progression of increased expenditures to accom- modate these formulas. Let me point out w'hat I mean. I have been conferring w'itli Mr. Hughes during the testimony. I want to emphasize that. by reason of the events of last evening, I serve as the senior New York member now' on this committee. The unclerfund in this year of New York City, based upon the rec- ommended change in the formula, recommended by the administra- tion, the up-to-date count of the AFDC children, in other words counting the children on AFDC in the latest available year, should have caused a funclin~ in Ne.w York State of $167 million. On the basis of this year's allocation of funds available,, you will be Tinderfunding New York State, on this basis alone, this recommended amendment, by over $~3 million. Is that correct? Mr. I-lOWE. I believe your first figiii'e was on the basis of full authorization? Mr. CAREY. Working on the basis of the. authorization which was, in turn, based upon your recommended amendment to include AFDC children, I lie latest available year. Mr. HOWE. That is correct: if w'e were funding at full aiithoriza- tion. Maybe Mr. Hugh es has further interpretation. Mr. J-TFGITES. The administration recommendation on AFDC, Mr. Carey, wa~ to postpone the addition of the 196S AFDC until fiscal 196g. It w'as the House committee's action on the bill which acce.l- eraterl that updating to fiscal year 1967. Mr. (~,nyy. Now, .Tohn, you know very well that that was your oriailial recommendation, hut in eonfe1'en~e after conference with PAGENO="0250" 244 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENT'S key administration officials it. was suggested and agreed with the com- mittee that we go ahead with the update this year because there was such a substantial case made for count.ing these kids on welfare, as recommended by the gentleman from Illinois, because the kids are here and now, and needed the money and needed the education. We did this in entire agreement with the administration. The administration, by reason of the prese.ntation today, is for all intents and purposes talking like Midas but funding like Oliver Twist. This law was designed to operate with progressively larger sums of money allocated to accommodate formula changes. Quite properly, my colleague from New York, Mr. Reid, is worried about what is go- ing to happen when the new amendment, the Quie-Perkins amend- ment, to take care of needy States below the national average, takes effect. What can happen, I will tell him, is that New York State, now un- derfunded by $52 million, will be. underfunded by $100 million. New York State is going backwards so fa.st that I wouldn't be surprised that Mayor Lindsay and Governor Rockefeller are worried, because I am worried. Just to draw a comparison, I want to thank the Commissioner and wish him happy birthday for the Department because you gave me a very nice gift.. You took the various subtitles I suggested in H.R. 14, my bill this year, for the handicapped, a.nd you have included them in this package. You are going to give resource centers, you are going to trive recruitment of personnel, wide and broadened instructional services, and do the whole thing for $21/2 million. On a very earnest. estimate, t.hat program we priced out last year on the basis of recommendations from the States and other agencies, and that program at a bare minimum will cost $50 million. I don't know how von are doing this. I suggest that. we need additional time, Mr. Chairman, to meet with the Commissioner on money day; not his birthday, but on money day. We have to talk over where these funds a.re coming from. We can't kid these big city school systems. They are making plans and planning programs based upon hard estimates that we have been able to give them over the years on how to allocate the.se moneys into the areas of great. need, the same areas the Teacher Corps is going into. But if we haven't the tools there for t.he teachers when they get there, even the Teacher Corps is not going to do any good. I suggest that. we have to keep up with the time. I don't know how you are going to do this. Perhaps you can use the same kind of device that. Secretary McNamara used. He had a wrong guess of ~thout ~l0 billion. This afternoon we are going t.o meet with the Congress and increase authorizations under the Defense appropriations t.o make up for that mistake. MnvI.)e ~-oii need to make a couple of mistakes and get to some hi~her fitrures. Mr. T-Towr. ~2.5 million doesn't cover all the items you suggested; S2.~ million is a supplemental for fiscal 1967 to begin the funding of title VI on a. planning basis. For fiscal 1968 we are bringing $15 million into the funding of title VI, and we have new programs which PAGENO="0251" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 245 total $9.5 million, $7.5 million for the centers, and $1 million each for the captioned films and for the new recruiting. So the fiscal picture is not quite as bleak as you suggested. But we would be happy, if the chairman wishes, to hold a session in which we explore this in much greater detail. I think it would be helpful to do so, myself. Mr. CAREY. Mr. Chairman, I am willing to abide by my suggestion that we have the Commissioner back. Chairman PERKINS. We will have to recess, by agreement, until 2 o'clock this afternoon. Can you return at that time ~ Mr. HOWE. Yes, sir. Chairman PERKINS. The committee will recess until 2 p.m. this afternoon. (Whereupon, at 12:20 p.m., the committee recessed, to reconvene at 2 p.m. the same day.) AFTER RECESS (The committee reconvened at 2 p.m., Hon. Carl D. Perkins, chair- man, presiding.) Chairman PERKINS. The committee will be in order. Please note for the record that a quorum is present. Mr. Hawkins, you may proceed. Mr. HAWKINS. Mr. Chairman, this morning when the discussion on the Teacher Corps was in progress, I was unfortunately before a closed committee. `While this is out of the context of what you intend to do this afternoon, I would like to have permission to insert into the record a statement that was prepared for me concerning the operation of the Teacher Corps program as it affects my particular district. I think it should be pointed out that there. is a remendous need of this program, particularly in slum ghettos throughout the country. I have been informed very reliably that my particular district., which is part of the Los Angeles Unified School District, has at, least 500 schoolteachers who have requested assignment outside of the district; that is, they are trying to get out of the district in my particula.r area. I think this indicates that in areas such as this, unless some innova- tive programs are supported, the quality of education will go down- hill rather than be upgraded. It seems to me that a Congress that had refused to tackle the prob- lem of de facto school segregation and closed other avenues of assist- ance certainly would be wise to consider such a program as this. If the Members of Congress reject this program, it seems to me they are contributing to destroying the schools in an area such as this at the same time. that they are not supporting the integration of the, schools as they should. In this particular instance, for example, there are some 37 trainees now being trained at the TTniversitv of Southern California. which is also within my district. Of this number, half of these teachers have been assigned to schools in this particular area. This is a very small percentage of the need which is being met by this program. It seems to me that unless we support this, or some comparable. pro- gram, we are denying to children in slum ghettos throughout the coun- PAGENO="0252" 246 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDI~WPS try the benefits that can be brought about by raising the quality of e du cation. This statement. was prepared for me and I believe it documents what I have been saying. Chairman PERKINS. Without objection, the statement will be in- serted into the record at t.his point. (The statement referred to follows:) REPORT ON THE TEACHER CORPS IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, PREPARED FOR CONGRESSMAN AUGrSTTJS F. HAWKINS, OF CALIFORNIA Eight schools in the Los Angeles area are participating with the Teacher Corps in a program of special assistance for children whose education has been handicapped by poverty. The program has been approved by the California Superintendent of Public Instruction, Dr. Max Rafferty. 90% of the corpsmen's salaries plus adminis- trative costs is supplied from Federal funds amounting to approximately $263,- 21~. The local school districts contribute the balance of the corpsmen's salaries, about S2~5.O97. These funds help the participating schools finance their own programs of spe- cial educational assistance. Thirty-seven intern teachers and eight experienced teachers compose the eight teams at work in the following schools: Pioneer School, Mark Twain School. and Ralph Bunche School in Enterprise City School District; Garvey School and Fern School in Garvey School District; Marion Anderson School in Willow- brook School District; Troth Street School and West Riverside School in Jurupa Unified School District. Some of the teams are concentrating on teaching the urban Negro child and others are focusing on the needs of the white and Mexican-American migrants recently settled in fringe areas. The two most characteristic activities are tutoring and home visitation. To- gether these are bringing the interns to a better understanding of the learning difficulties and the environmental handicaps of the students they will confront in a classroom. In addition to small group instruction for both remedial aid and enrichment within the school program, the Teacher Corpsmen have sought to expand their pupils' horizon of experience. Team Leader Ramon Moreno cut the red tape and set up a bus trip to the new Los Angeles Zoo and the planetarium for all participating Teacher Corps schools. This spring several teams want to visit the Pacific Ocean only twenty-five miles away. Over half of the pupils have never seen the Ocean and do not know what "foam" is. Rudolph Valdez. a veteran teacher of the Los Angeles area and team leader at Fern School. has sparked community interest in the problems of the South San Gabriel area. The last movie theater in the area was recently converted into a pentacostal church and no entertainment or recreation was open to the teen-agers. By rallying various small community groups in the area, Mr. Valdez helped establish a Teen Post. Teacher Corps interns are assisting in the program there. The action is an outgrowth of the activities of the Teacher Corps team during the summer when they acquainted themselves with the on- going agencies in the community and assessed some of the particularly acute needs of the area. Now an ad hoc group of community agencies and civic minded residents are working effectively together. The corpsmen and their team leaders are studying at the University of South- ern California. Under the direction of Dr. Donald E. Wilson. Director of Teacher Education programs, the interns are earning master's degrees in education. At the end of their internship all will qualify for certification in the State of California. Two other Teacher Corps programs are operated by San Jose State College in cooperation with Monterey County Schools aml by San Diera State College in conjunction with Santee, Escondido Union, South Bay and Chula Vistn City school districts. Fifty corpsmen are in these programs. Mr. HAWKINS. Thank i-on, Mr. Chairman. That is afi. Chairman PERKINS. Mr. Gurney? PAGENO="0253" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDTJCATION AMENDMENTS 247 Mr. GtRNEY. I would like to get back and shed a little more light on this Teacher Corps business. I realize it is a rather small part of the program, as was pointed out, personneiwise, but I don't think it is small as to what is intended to be done in the future. It is a pilot program now and probably is intended to be expanded much more. It seems to me there is a fairly l)ig issue in the pr~ nciple involved and the approach to education in this particular way, or the Federal aid to education, I should say. I don't think it is wise for us to brush off the. unpopularity of the program here in the Congress and, for that matter, perhaps elsewhere in the country. There was a good deal of discussion earlier this morn- ing by members of the other side who are not here, and your responses, that there were no complaints on the program. I don't think this cuts any ice. In the first. place, there are only 110 going out of 27,000 school dis- tricts, as you pointed out, and anyway, who is going to complain about needed money in any area of education? The need is so desperate everywhere that there is not any school district that will refuse any money that is coming to it from Uncle Sam. This business of no complaints really means nothing. What does mean a good deal is the direction the thing is going. A lot of us feel very strongly about Federal involvement, in educa- tion. I don't think this is necessarily a. feeling of negativism, or hold- ing back, or back in the Dark Ages, as many people would like to point out. But it is true that when you get things too big, you ge.t bureaucracy on bureaucracy, and a lot of times you are not as effec.- tive as you otherwise could be. We can cite many instances where that is true. The point I was trying to make earlier was simply this: that where you do have a need which is recognized by all of us, and you also have ways that this need is being met already, as you pointed out, and which the colloquy shows, by teacher training programs in many parts of the country. Why not get on with the job in a way that might be sold to Con- gress, and which might even be a better way? It seems to me that in recent years we have become obsessed with the idea of putt.ing labels on things-the Great Society. What does it mean It is like selling Ivory soap. It doesn't mean anything; it is a label. We have a Tea.cher Corps, a Peace Corps, all sorts of labels. I am sure there are all sorts of instances where teachers are being ably trained right now to meet. this very problem of dealing especially with the handicapped children. Why not build on those? We have all sorts of educational programs by government. My other committee, the, Science and Astronautics Committee, puts mil- lions of dollars in education every year and there is never a complaint from Congress at all. Mainly they are research programs, to be sure, at the university level, rather than this teaching at the elementary and secondary level that we have here. I am simply pointing out tha.t there are approaches to education, giv- ing grants of money to universities to go into the research~ which does not annoy Congress at all because it doesn't seem to be building lip the sort of central direction that a program of your sort would do. PAGENO="0254" 248 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS I don't necessarily say that that is bad. I simply say there is a great difference of opinion on it. So why not try another way of doing it that might be receptive to Congress and accomplish the same goals that you have in mind? Sometimes, you know, people, perhaps of the political bent or phi- losophy that I am, are labeled as uncompromising. But the more I am here in Washington t.he more I am convinced that people in the other spectrum are less compromising than we are, obsessed with the idea that they have to get on with their particular method of doing business, always under a central control of the Federal Government. I touch on this because I think this is the nub of your Teacher Corps problem. I think perhaps if you could come up with another solution, you may be able to realize your goals. Mr. HAWKINS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I would like to ask a question of him. Are you talking about- Mr. GURNEY. If you don't mind, I would rather hold this discus~ Siofl with the witness. I was generous this morning and yielded to the other side. But I would rather have the observations of the Commissioner of Education. Mr. HAWKINS. I will ask for an opportunity when the question has been answered. Mr. GFRXEY. I am sure there will be plenty of time for you. Mr. HOWE. If I could comment on Mr. Gurney's r~~neral points, Mr. Chairman, I do think what we have tried to do with the amend- ments that we have suggested to the Teacher Corps reach very much in the direction of doing exactly what Mr. Gurney suggests; to try to find an arrangement that will produce the benefits that this enterprise quite clearly produces, and at the same time meet many of the ob- jections that~ have been raised in the Congress. The really substantive objections that have been raised by Members of the Congress in the discusson about this teacher training program have been concerns about local control and State control of the pro- grams; have been concerns about overcentralizat.ion. I hope we demonstrated this morning that we are trying to build right into the legislation features which allow the program to continue a.s a valuable adjunct to our other teacher-training en- deavors and at the same time to give us clear legislation on the point that this is a totally locally controlled enterprise with ap- proval by the States before it is involved in t.he States, with control over the training by the universities and over the individuals by the local school districts. I think what we have suggested here in a series of amendments is, on the whole, a vastly more locally controlled enterprise than we have in other teacher-training activities, in which we don't con- sult with the States at all. It seems to me we have gone even further with this program to meet the concerns that have been expressed about it than we have with the institutes program that we have for training English or mathematics teachers, and so on. This is why I said this morning I hope that we could really get a good look at this program on its merits and on what its actual performance is. PAGENO="0255" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 249 I quite agree with you, sir, about this problem of complaints. I don't think that is a very significant matter. It got introduced into the conversation, so we talked about it. It seems to me much more significant than the lack of complaints is the expression of enthusiasm from local people. These are evident and we have good evidence on them from a variety of places, which we have submitted to yOU. These are genuine enthusiasms. I think one of the dangers in having so much conversation about such a small ent.erprise is that we, ourselves, tend to build it 1fltO more than it is or can be. I felt. that Mr. Bra.demas made a very useful point this morning when he summarized and sa.id that the Teacher Corps will have its greatest usefulness in stimulating other institutions not necessarily involved with the Teacher Corps at all to seek patterns of teacher tra.ining which direct themselves toward disadvantaged youngsters. In many ways, its demonstration value, when it is of t.he present size and only involving 100 dist.ricts, may be a great deal greater than its service value. I do t.hink we have to sa.y that teacher-training institutions in general have tended to conduct their practice teaching in places where the youngsters we are addressing ourselves to here are not in school; that. they have tended to use the suburban areas; that in the cities they have tended to use. the schools for the more fortu- nate for their teacher training; that nationally we don't have a-s yet a response from the teacher-training community which really brings a focus on a general effort to train teachers to work in schools where they are most needed. I think Mr. Brademas' point., that here is an example which will cause some new directions by teacher-training inst.itutions, is a very useful point.. I don't. know quite how to respond to your observations about t.he Grea.t Society and the Peace Corps. Perhaps I'd better not. Mr. GURNEY. I wasn't, of course, expecting such. Let me ask one further question, if I have more time. Why wouldn't it be possible to get at this business through your fellowship program? You do have programs like that.; don't you? Essentially, isn't this prett.y much the same thing? As I under- stand from previous testimony, the. Teacher Corps is mainly people in universit.ie.s training for master's degrees, and t.hen working part time, at least. during the training phase. of the program, in this area. Couldn't you do this through fellowship programs? Mr. Howr. It is conceivable. The feature that. is built. mt.0 the Teacher Corps, it seems to me, that is not built in by any legislation or any other regulatory element into the institute program or fellow-ship program, is the joint endeavor between t.he local school district and the university to get together in the training of teachers in a totally new way. It. is the cooperative endeavor between the university and the. local school district to 1)ro\ide a very high proportion of the training in the local school district on the job with the kinds of youngsters that these teachers will be teaching when they get on to full-time, work. Some universities have reached in this direction in what are called niaster of a.rts in teaching programs. There are a number of such PAGENO="0256" 250 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS programs at universities around the country. They have what they call internships which do involve their trainees in extensive work in the schools for half a year, sometimes for a full year. There have been none that have extended this to the. idea of 2 years of close to full-time work in the schools, such as you find in the Teacher Corps. The Teacher Corps really recognizes that the job of learning to teach these kinds of youngsters involves a long exposure and a change in the attitudes of the person who is going to take on this teaching job as he confronts young people whose assumptions about life and whose values are likely to be totally different from his. The 2-year exercise here seems to me an unusually strong feature, therefore, of the Teacher Corps arrangement. My own view would be that we need a mixed bag of tricks, of a variety of teacher training programs, sponsored by the Federal Government, some of them ex- ploratory and quite different from the others. It seems to me that. the Teacher Corps has added in a small and use- ful way to this mixed bag of tricks. Mr. GURNEY. Are you using any of your fellowships in the area of training teachers to teach handicapped children? Mr. HOWE. There. are some so-called institutes under NDEA, title XI, for training teachers of t.he disadvantaged. Mr. GURNEY. Did they get pretty much the same sort of training as your Teacher Corps people? Mr. ESTES. It varies from program to program. Basically, the Teacher Corps differs in that the interns are teaching in t.he school part time, as opposed to the institute where most of the time t.hey are on campus at a university or college. Mr. HOWE. I would add that there is a feature of the Teacher Corps which is not duplicated in any other training program we have, as far as I know-, and that is the presence of the so-called master teacher who becomes a part of the teaching team with the trainees in the local school district. This idea of team teaching is one that. has been on the educational scene for 8 or 10 years now and has seemed to pay off rather effectively. The Teacher Corps has picked up tha.t idea as a training device. This is not the kind of training device that we have in the NDEA institutes. Mr. GURNEY. I am sure I have used a good bit of time here. I will close off by saying this: It does seem to me, that. we ought to probe this idea of using the fellowships to accomplish the job instead of t.he Teacher Corps. I don~t care how long we argue here, or what opinion we may have on the one side or the other, I think it is still objectionable to many of us if we engage in the business of training a National Teacher Corps. It seems to me that there is a danger of losing the freshness of the approach of all sorts of different school systems and different schools units in the whole area. of education. That doesn't mean to say that the Federal Government shouldn't lend guidaiice~ direction, and thought in the field of educat.ion. Obviously, it should, does, and has for many, many years. But if we are embarked upon a course of trying to nationalize our educational system-and I know you would deny it and I know t.hat is not. what you intend to do-I also say perhaps you are providing a PAGENO="0257" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 251 vehicle for getting on that course by this sort of thing. I know that is one of the things that troubles the Members of the Congress. Thank you. Mr. HOWE. Certainly *the amendments we have suggested would move us in an opposite direction from that. Chairman PERKINS. I will call on Mr. Hawkins, and following him I will call on Mr. Scheurer. Mr. HAWKINS. Mr. Chairman, I merely wanted to comment on this rather vague suggestion that there is some other way of solving this problem. Conventional teaching institutions have been in existence for a long, long time. They haven't done t.he job of supplying teachers for these areas, the slum areas, in which disadvantaged children must be taught. Here is an innovative program that at least attempts to reach the problem. I think Mrs. Green last year had some legitimate criticism and a concern which all of us share. I think those criticisms are, to a large extent, overcome by the recommendations. It seems to me what we are simply doing is fumbling around for ways to oppose something that ideologically, or because we believe it has some Federal label attached to it, we want to oppose on that basis anyway. But then we ignore the basic fact that there are children in the slum areas of our country who today are receiving inferior education. A large part of that is because we cannot get competent teachers to go into those areas. I don't care how many institutes you have to train teachers to go into middle-class areas or the silk-stocking areas, you are not going to get them to go into areas such as mine under ordinary circumstances. I have already indicated that the evidence is that there are at least 500 schoolteachers there who are competent who don't want to be there now. If they don't want to be there, obviously, they are not going to teach the children what the children should be taught. This, the Teacher Corps, is at least one approach to the problem. I think that if we continue to ignore the 1954 Supreme Court decision we should not oppose this program. In other words, there are people who not only want separate schools, they don't want the separate schools to even be equal. This is at least one way of trying to equalize the schools even though they may be separate. I think that those who oppose this and other programs, and at the sa.me time oppose the spirit as well as the imple- mentation of the 1954 Supreme Court decision, are shortsighted and are creating the very problems that bring about the behavior of chil- dren and adults in slum ghettos that they always orate about. They are the ones who are creating the conditions. It just seems to me that if tins is riot the way, that those who criticize this method shouicl come up with some other way of doing it and not try to kill this program, at least, by some vague reference to the Great Society program. I think the gentleman, Mr. Scheuer, from New York, wanted me t.o yield to him for a question or a statement. I yield to him. Mr. SCHEUER. I am grateful for my colleague's courtesy. 75 492---G7-----17 PAGENO="0258" 252 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDLCATION AMENDMENTS ~\Ir. Comniissiouei. we have all enjoyed your testimony. Those of us who have seen you in action in former hearings have an enormous respect for your professionalism and your dedication. I must say, if I have any reaction at all to your prepared testimony and to the discussion here, it is not that we are doing too much, but it is that we aren't doing very much. I miss desperately that forward thrust, that. rea.1 evidence of meaningful commitment that the hearings of 2 years ago and a year ago held out. In our hearings in prior years we were probing and we were experimenting. We didn't know that we had the right answers, al- though we hoped that we did. But I think this year we know a great deal more than we knew a year ago or 2 years ago. \Ve. have had the very thoughtful contribution made by your Cole- man report on the education of disadvantaged children. We have had the benefit of three reports from your National Advisory Council on title I. I consider these three reports among the finest examples of governmental reporting I have ever seen. They were intelligent., com- passionate, and full of insight. They were highly worth while. We have had the report of the Civil Rights Commission. We have had the report that Max Wolf authored on Headstart and the implica- tions of Headstart. toward elementary school systems. We have ha.d the. benefit. of Dr. Conant's thinking in the last. week on the resources needed. I think the Coleman report gave us a lot of lessons, certainly one of which was the indispensable nature of a thrust into the home as con- comitant to what we did (luring the schoolday, and the radical change and the resources that we must invest, in the home in parent education. There are the National Advisory Council reports which, while encouraging. present a~ somewhat bleaker outlook than you have on the effects of the. operations of title I, and I think they indicate a tre- mendouis qualitative change tha.t is necessary in the school systems. I)i~. Conant has. I think, emphasized to us the level of resources that are necessary to reach some kind of threshold effect, the implication being that a certain minimum level of investment, is trivia and has no effect on the kids: that unless you reach some substantial impact that. results in a threshold explosion of reaction, you get no return at all on your investment. What. I would like to know is. in your message and in your legisla- tive proposals. have you considered the lessons t.hat we have learned from the Coleman reports. the National Advisory Council reports, the report on title I of Max Wolf, the Civil Rights Commission report, the report of Dr. Conant~ and where in t.his message of yours and where in the legislation do we get a real forward thrust, first into the basic changes in doing business tha.t we must effect in our school sys- tems, changes of all kinds~ in recruitment of teachers, the use of teacher aides, the use of educated or college-trained women and perhaps some non-college-trained women, in the whole reorientation of a basically middle-class school system'? Second. where is the answer that I believe we have all learned namely. that the investment of resources in preschool child develop- ment and the early elementary years has to be mastered? PAGENO="0259" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDFCATIOX AMENDMENTS 253 I refer to the kind of conditions you are talking about when you dis- cuss the investment we are making in these Indian children that amounted to about $150 per child per school year which, on the basis of our experience, cannot be an investment in those kids that results in much discernible, qualitative change. Where is the great leap forward that we are all looking for now that we have experience unde.r our belt, now that these approaches have been proven; that is, the thrust both as to the qualitative change in the school system and the Federal resources necessary to reach some kind of threshold effect.? Mr. HOWE. Mr. Scheuer, I will certainly have to give you credit for asking one of the most comprehensive questions. Let me try to address myself to it. I don't mean this lightly, but it is such a good quest.ion I would like to reexamine it in the record and try to give you a better answer than I can give you off the cuff. It is a very com- prehensive series of observations. Mr. SCHE~ER. They weren't observations. It was just a simple question. Mr. HOWE. Thank you, sir. First of all, let me make the point that actual change in childreii and change in institutions such as we find in our school system is neces- sarily a slow process. even with the investment of massive amounts of money. 1 believe we have had fairly massive amounts of money, when the budget in my office has doubled I don't know how many times over the last 3 or 4 years. Even with these kinds of investments, you are going to find a period of time has to go by in order to change an institution in which the people have well-developed habits-sometimes they could even l)e de- scribed as ruts-and in which you are going to have to retrain the people who work there and change. the institutions that train the people who work there. So there is a long chain of events that has to take place to bring recognizable, major change in the institution. In youngsters themselves, although we can produce evidence now which will show you by such simple devices as testing reading levels and that sort of thing. degrees of change which are larger than those we would have expected without the investments we have made, we are unable as yet to do this on a comprehensive basis. We will feel a lot better about it when we are able to do it over a 2-, 3-, or 4-year period because we will have some assurance ourselves that the changes we see are. persistent. We see some evidence of them now. Thinking about this matter which you raise of what must be the additional investment, per child in order to make. a difference, this is a very important. matter that. needs to be on our agenda. Right now, if my figures are correct, we are investing. through title I of the Elementary-Secondary Education Act, about $150 per child a(lditional for disadvantaged children in the target areas. This i~ the rough figure that. we have. Mr. SCHEUFE. Based on our experience, in the slums, with our more effective school programs, or in our Headstart program where we are spending 10 times that, $1,500 a child, wouldn't you say to spend $150 PAGENO="0260" 254 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS a child is to go elephant hunting with a peashooter? To me that is what we are doing in this program. Mr. HoWE. I am not sure whether quite that extreme analogy would apply, but I would say if you look at the Civil Rights Commission report, in which there is a chapter on compensatory education, and examine the enterprises which they examined in judging compensa- tory education in that report, you will find that most of those enter- prises-in fact, all of them-invested less than $80 per child, and most of them in the realm of $50 per child, as efforts at compensatory edu- cation. There is some evidence iii that report that that level of investment doesn't prove very much. We are beginning to get some evidence that the $150 investment which we are making can do something. But I would be inclined to agree with the general thrust of your argument that some larger investment. may be wise to bring about the kinds of changes we are seeking. This is one of the reasons that we have brought in Opera- tion Follow-Through this year. Mr. SCHEUER. How much will that involve in the expenditure per pupil? Mr. HowE. That will involve somewhere between $300 and $400- about $300 additional per child-which must be added to the $150 we already have in there from title I. So in the areas where Follow- Through comes into focus, you will find that the expenditure per child is almost doubled, on the average basis. The average national expenditure per child is now $550. If you total the. $300 and the $150, we will be adding $450 to that, close to doubling it on the average basis. That really doesn't mean anything because in New York you are spending now around $700 or $800 per child-I have forgotten the exact figure-and it certainly will not double that, but it will be a very considerable percentage increase even in a high-expenditure area like New York. We expect that Operation Follow-Through will help to show us something about the different effects that are involved here as you make different levels of investment., $150 versus $450, and we will begin to accumulate a basis for Federal policy here as well as actually serv- ing very well an additional group of youngsters I think we can say that we have some of the same concerns you are expressing, and we are trying to do something about them with a program of that kind. I quite agree with you that the many reports we have been receiving deserve attention and feedback, and we are trying to give this to them. For example, in our administration of title I-an enterprise in which we don't have complete control by any means of what school districts do, but in which we can influence what they do by suggestion and by making them aware of good practices and aware of ba.d practices. we are endeavoring to get school district.s to focus on more massive invest- ments in earlier years. We believe this makes sense. Mr. ScnEUER. When you say "more massive investments," the Head- start program did spend about $1,500 a child for a full-year program, with some health services. Mr. HowE. I thought it was $1,100 or $1,200, but we will not argue. Mr. SCHEUER. The average class size in Headstart may have been about 15, with two teacher aides per teacher. We have found out when you do that you really get a great explosion of progress. PAGENO="0261" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 255 The title I funds have added perhaps 2 or 3 percent to the budget of the average county or the average school system. What it has done is, it has reduced class sizes perhaps from 35 to 33. It seems to me per- haps you are spending about one-tenth per schoolchild that we are spending on the Headstart program. It seems to me that you might very well prove on a cost-benefit analysis that you don't get any result at all from reducing class sizes from 35 to 32 or 31. Unless you create the kind of class where you go from a situation of personal rapport and an intimate relationship, a meaningful relationship between the teacher and the kid, unless you achieve that qualitative change, any investment that you make pro- duces literally nothing, and von would have, a more predictable result and a more analyzable result if you operated this program on an impact basis, taking, perhaps, selected school districts, spending the $1,500 or $1,200, whatever it is, per schoolchild with Follow-Through, so that at the end of the year you could come to Congress with a yardstick. You could say with this investment per schoolchild you will have predictable, visible, dramatic, qualitative change. If you just piddle with the problem and add $150, $200, or $300 for the child, we don't see that it is really predictable that any change is going to result. We can't prove that. you are going to reach a threshold level that will pro- duce visible, provable, qualitative results. Let's assume for the next year we are prepared to invest $1,200 to $1,500 per schoolchild. In terms of the long run, wouldn't. it be more valuable for you to be in a position to come hack at. the e.nd of a ye.ar or 2 years to this comnniittee and this Congress amid say, ~`Iiere is the dimension of the national problem. It is up to you to find the answer. If von are willing to invest these re.sources to produce this kind of qualitative change, you will get a result.. Anything that falls far short of that., to our way of thinking, probably is not a judicious investment at all. On a cost-benefit basis the ret.urn per dollar of investment is trivial." Mr. HOWE. This is an interesting line of speculation and there are many assumptions in it.. W~e have no basis for giving you or ourselves a cost-benefit. analysis of this program yet.. We have in being the kinds of efforts which will produce a cost-benefit analysis of title I endeavors. Mr. SCHEUER. Flow soon will you have that. ? Mr. HOWE. I can't answer that, but I will try to get you an answer on it. Mr. SCIIEUER. It seems to me that t.hat would be an extremely help- ful piece of information. Mr. HOWE. I think this kind of information, reliably produced, is very important. to have. We have contracts on projects tha.t lead us in this direction. Let me make one or two other observations about your earlier re- marks. It seems to me that we are addressing ourselves to some of the issues you raise as we bring in this Education Professions Development Act under the Higher Education Amendments. There we have specific provision for the training of teacher aides with a Federal program for doing this. This, of course, may be done PAGENO="0262" 256 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDFCATION AMENDMENTS under title I and is bemg clone under title I at the present time. This adds to our arsenal of capabilities of accomplishing that. kind of thing. Mr. SCHEUER. Does that also include provision for orientation of the professionals who will use. the aides? I think one of the things we have learned from the Headst.art. program is that if you don't have some. kind of orientation for the professionals in the use of the aide, the aide just isn't in a position to be very useful. Mr. Howl:. That is not specifically mentioned in the amendment, but it is quite within the broad authority of the amendment a.nd would certainly be mentioned in any regulations or guidelines we would Put out after it was passed. What we are getting out of that particular amendment is a much inure flexible training authority. In citing these reports by the Civil Rights Commission and by Dr. Coleman. you immediately get into the whole problem of where. we ought. to be going in t.he c.ities with school desegregation. As of the present time, we have no authority which can take a school district, that is legally desegregated but de facto segregated, and require school desegregation. Both of these reports address themselves to the proposition that. some moves must be made in that. area if we are ultimately going to have quality education for these youngsters. I happen to agree with that conclusion. I don't see as clearly the way by which we. are going to do it. The. way we are doing it now is to provide backing for school districts through both title I and title III where they wish to make a move on this to develop projects which will have a desegregating effect. You may have seen in the newspaper recently in New York a very interesting proposal for the development, of a major, what was called, linear education chart. in a portion of Brookln. This proposal which was in the New York Times last Sunda , was a title III project funded by the Office of Education. Simila.r grants have been given to Philadelphia and Baltimore, and will be given to other cities, to think about their problems in that way. It. seems to me that that is a unique design that has come out of that particular New York proposal. It. seems to me we may have more effect by encouraging that kind of thinking and action on it than we will have by efforts, which are politically extremely difficult, to legislate racial balancing at the Fed- eral level. So this is the way we are addressing ourselves to the outcomes of reports of that kind at. the present time. Dr. Conant's report, in addition to citing a great variety of enter- prises for the improvement, of the high school internally, addresses itself in a portion to the overall financing of education, and addresses itself particularly to the great imbalance which exists among the vari- ous States. It seems to me that one area of broad public policy we have to begin to explore, and we have no solution t.o it here this year, is the business of building some sort. of a financial floor for education across State lines. As we begin to explore that, there are. two or t.hree elements that have to come into the conversation. One is some sort of a national equalization formula as among the States. PAGENO="0263" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 257 Another is some arrangement by which State effort can be measured and legislated into being continued at given levels. A third is the absolute necessity for continuation of categorical enterprises which reflect the national interest, such as school desegre- gation, such as education of the handicapped, such as a special focus on the deprived. But I believe if you are looking down the road, as your question im- plies, a period of 5 years or more, at some point we are going to come to a vastly more massive and better thought-through system of financ- ing education at the Federal level, that brings these considerations into being or into the conversation, and that reflects the kind of concern that Dr. Conant expressed. Mr. SCHEUER. You don't think that we are capable of designing such a program now? `fhat is, sort of as a yardstick to guide us. Mr. HowE. I think it is an extremely complex matter to design such a program. We have had internal conversations about what the na- ture of such a program would be, but we have no definitive answers on it. The business of devising an equalization formula among the States, with their different tax situations, with their varying supports for education, their varying efforts at support of education, with their different degrees of industrialization, with their special problems of minority groups of different kinds-this whole picture is an extremely complex one. That is, even without considering their difference in school govern- ment patterns. I b~'iieve this is an area that will take some extensive time to look at and come up with any major plan. I think we ought to do it, though, and your question implies it, which is the reason I am entering into this conversation. Mr. SCHEUFR. I appreciate your remarks very much. Chairman PERKINS. Mr. Quie. Mr. QurE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me first say, if I may, about the Teacher Corps, that I think you have made some good recommendations for change that are going to eliminate some of the difficulty I saw in the program before. I still have a few questions about the program. You have elimi- nated quite a number of them in these changes and I commend you for that. I also want to say that, I believe that the Federal Government should expend money to help train `the teachers to reach the socially and culturally deprived children. I have long felt that. I have questioned the way the Teacher Corps went about doing it. You mentioned, Commissioner Howe, that we have a shortage of almost 170,000 qualified teachers. The teachers who are qualified are not necessarily qualified to teach the deprived children, however; isn't that true? So there would be some different figure, would there not, of the teachers that are needed compared to what is available to reach this deprived child? Mr. HOWE. I think that would be correct; yes, sir. Mr. QUIE. Do you have an estimate of that number which would be needed if every school system in the country could have such quali- fied individuals? PAGENO="0264" 258 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMEND~NTS Mr. HOWE. I certainly haven't got it on the tip of my tongue. I believe we. might arrive at some such estimate and we will endeavor to do so, if it would be helpful. Mr. QrnE. Could you get within 100,000 of it? Mr. HoWE. I suppose one way to think about it would be that some 70 percent of our population lives in metropolitan areas. That is an approximately correct figure. Of `the population living in our metropolitan areas-well, I would really rather figure something out for you that makes sense rather t.han try to do it off the cuff here. My arithmetic is not terribly good. (Mr. Howe submitted the following:) It is impossible to estimate the number of teachers that would be necessary to assure that all teachers of the disadvantaged are properly trained and quali- fled for such a task. The number of variables and qualitative determinations involved makes even an "educated guess" impossible. Follow-up on some of the teacher shortages reported last fall with personnel officers of the involved school districts indicates a general feeling that the teacher supply is still critical. The major area of need is general elementary education; other areas are special education, mathematics, science, industrial arts, and vocational education. Teachers have been recruited from among housewives, retired teachers, college graduates without professional training in education, and, in some instances, from among college students without degrees. Salary schedules have been increased, and further increases are anticipated. Special training programs have been instituted. Special programs have been looked to for prospective teachers. Seine shortages still exist. and some new programs have therefore not been initiated. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania was reported in the Philadelphia Inquirer on Au- gust 14. 1~hU as having a probable shortage of 1,000 teachers. Reports in the Washington Post on September 1 indicated they would fill approximately 1100 vacancies with substitutes. In February 19(;7. Robert Perz, Assistant Superintendent reported they are still using 1100 to 1200 substitutes or about 101/2% of the teaching staff. About half of these have met full certification but have not yet passed the local com- petitive examination. The others are persons with college degrees but without the required professional courses. persons teaching outside their field, and some are part-time teachers who do not desire full employment. With a constantly expanding number of teachers and with a higher rate of turnover among the younger teachers, the school district must run to stand still in the area of teacher eIIlJ)loymellt. They have instituted a recruiting drive to attract those qualified Persons wanting only part-time employment and the new college graduates both in and out of the field of education. New- York City was reported in the New York World Journal Tribune on September 1~. 1943d as still being short about ~O0 teachers in spite of the special training given ill(S) to 2.15)0 potential teachers last summer. In February 19(11. Dr. Theodore H. Lang. Deputy Superintendent of Personnel, reported that. although the city is in l)etter shape than last fall there is still a problem in acquiring all the needed teachers. They have set up pools of extra teachers within the districts to fill vacancies as they occur. In this manner teachers can be appointed at an earlier date, even without knowledge of a specific vacancy, and can be held in reserve while serving as substitutes. E.lec- tronic data processing has been used for the assignment of teachers. They have instituted an internship program, employed substitutes on a part time basis, given substitutes credit on the salary schedule for teaching outside New York City, and permitted teachers on maternity leave to teach on a daily basis. A program of conferences and followup has been instituted for teachers resigning to help keep down the turnover. Beginning teachers are given reasonable assign- merits, after school clinics, and are furnished local manuals to help them. They are using the Teacher Corps. Peace Corps returnees, internship programs with local colleges, and other programs available. Operation Reclaim was instituted to help displaced southern teachers fit into the New York system and Operation PAGENO="0265" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 259 Prima was instituted to assist the Puerto Ricans to meet the city requirements. Their recruitment program is aimed at retired teachers, substitutes, and college seniors. They expect to need all of their programs to be able to properly staff the schools next fall. New Orleans, Louisiana was reported in the Wall Street Journal on September 6, 1966 as being short 100 teachers when school opened. In February 1967, Personnel Director Alfred Hebeison reported all except 3 or 4 of last fall's open positions have been fi,lled. They have hired 425 tem- porary teachers who do not fully meet the local requirements. Most of these have degrees and State certification but haven't passed the National Teacher Examina- tion. Some were hired without State certification. The areas of greatest need are general elementary, kindergarten, special education ~mentally retarded and brain damage classes), mathematics, science, girls' physical education, and industrial arts. They have increased the local salary schedule and are using an active recruitment campaign in areas outside the state of Louisiana. Minneapolis. Minnesota was reported in the Minneapolis Star on August 25, 1966 as having 112 unfilled teaching positions in the elementary, about 25 unfilled in special elementary education, and about 20 unfilled in junior high school. In February 1967, Director of Personnel, Loren L. (`ahlander reported the meeting of most of their needs by recruiting substitutes. housewives, and college graduates without all requirements satisfied for regular teaching certificates. Persons without full accreditation must take courses for (ertifieati(1I. There are anticipated shortages for next fall in the areas of mlmathen]atics, industrial arts, and general elementary. They have instituted an active recruitment cam- paign and have taken steps to shorten the tine between the interviewing and contracting. They hope to be able to offer contracts at the time of the interview. Los Angeles. California was reported in the Wall Street Journal on Septem- ber 6. 1906 as being faced with a teacher shortage and probably having to hire substitute teachers for full time duty. In February 1967, Associate Superintendent for Personnel. William B. Brown reported the shortages w-ere met last fall by bringing in 500 teachers on pro- visional certificates. These persons held college degrees but lacked the profes- sional courses in education. They were given an induction progralil covering problems and methods of teaching by the local school district. Use was also made of student teachers and interns from the colleges. The critical areas are mathematics and general elementary; also, not all specially funded programs have been activated. Other factors not intervening, it is expected it will be necessary to recruit about 500 liberal arts graduates next fall. The beginning salary for college graduates was raised to $6,220. An active. year around, recruitment program has been instituted, with emphasis on a talent search of June and summer graduates of liberal arts programs. Kansas City, Missouri, was reported in the Christian Science Monitor on October 24, 1966 as still having 52 positions remaining unfilled. In February, 1967, Robert Ward, Assistant Superintendent, reported 30 elemen- tary positions, including some in special education and 20 secondary positions (mostly in mathematics, general science, and special education) were filled with persons not meeting local standards even though they might have State certifica- tion. They used substitutes, persons whose age would put an excessive load on the retirement system (between 60 & 66). persons with 120 semester hours of college work but without a degree, and with persons too old to qualify for retire- ment. They have raised the salary schedule, beginning now at $5,550. They are offering new teachers a preference of school by zones, and are working with the university to help persons w-ithout professional training but with a college degree to work off their education requirements while teaching. Houston, Texas was reported in the Houston Post on August 2S. 1966 as still needing 150 teachers to fill all instructional positions. In February 1987, Richard H. Jones, Assistant Superintendent reported the need for teachers was met by calling in retirees, using college graduates lacking full certification, and using non-degree persons in kindergarten and some special areas. It is expected there will be need for similar action to staff for next fall. Major areas of need are general elementary, mathematics, and industrial arts. Detroit, Michigan was reported in the Christian Science Monitor on October 24, 1966 as having about 50 vacancies still existing of the 500 vacancies at the start of school. In February 1967, Dr. Schiff reported there has been no real easing of the teacher shortage. In the past it has been necessary to employ substitutes for PAGENO="0266" 260 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 3 to 4% of the teaching positions. With half day sessions being put on full day last fall it was necessary to staff I to 8% of the teaching positions with sub- stitutes. The local requirements for substitutes were relaxed to encompass persons qualifying for a State provisional certificate. This includes persons without professional education courses but with a college degree, and persons without a dgree. In sonic secondary courses, teachers were employed outside their regular field. Recruiting of housewives and other persons in the corn- nitinity was done. Recruiting of college students prior to graduation was in- stituteci. Five task forces are now at work to solve the problems of supplying the professional and para-professional personnel needed by the district. There has been arrangement made with the local colleges and universities to provide for the coml)letiOn of training of persons without professional courses and with- out degrees. Cleveland. Ohio was reported in the Cleveland Plain Dealer on August 11. 1966 as being short about 100 teachers. In February 1967, Darian H. Smith. Assistant Superintendent reported they have met the current shortage in elementary: however, they still have needs in secondary art, industrial arts, science, mathematics, and vocational education. They expect some problems in staffing for next fall. The salary schedule was increased as of January 30th to a beginning salary of $5,850. They have asked some secondary teachers to accept a seventh period assignment with a correspond- ing 1/6 increase in salary. They are using out-reach recruiting to try to attract the college graduates who have not had professional education courses, and have arranged with the local university for special courses to help these persons achieve full accreditation. Chicago. Illinois was reported in the Chicago Daily News on August Z~, 1966 as still needing about ~0 teachers. The Christian Science Monitor, on October 24. 1906, reported Chicago as having employed 500 teachers with provisional certificates. In February 1967, Dr. John F. Erzinger reported the teacher shortage is re- duced but not eliminated: 5.768 of the 21.206 teachers are on temporary certifi- cates, all have college degrees but about 500 do not meet the requirement of professional courses. the others qualify for State certification but do not meet all of Chicago's requirements one of which is a `written test. 89 teachers from the substitute roll are being used for regular teacher positions. There is a definite need for more qualified substitutes. The school district has increased teacher salaries $500, raising the beginning salary to $6,000. A recruitment campaign is underway for next fall. On February 21. 1907, the Chicago Tribune reported that 78 vacancies still existed. that 211 vacancies existed in special programs financed by Federal funds, and that the average class size had risen from 32.5 students to 33 students. Reports on teacher shortage City Shortase reported, fall 1966 Shortage, February 1967 Anticipated, fall 1967 Chicago, Ill Cleveland, Ohio 800 teachers needed. 100 teachers needed~ 89 part-time teachers; 500 without professional courses. Still need secondary, art, Industrial art, math, vocational education. Similar shortages. Do. Detroit, Mich ~ ~ 500 needed in August; 50 needed in October. Substitutes are being used to 1111 7 to 8 percent of positions. Do. Houston, Tea ~ 19) teachers needed - - Used college grads without profes. sional courses and persons without degree. Do. Kansas City, Mo Los Angeles, Calif - - - : 52 teachers needed 5415) teachers needed - - 30 elementary and 20 high schools are below local standards. 500 teachers are on provisional certifi- cation. Do. Do. Minneapolis, Minis. -- ~ ~ ~ Yew Orleans. La - ~. ~ New- York City ~ 112 elementary. 25 Used teachers below local standards special education, and substitutes, and 20 junior high teachers needed. 100 teachers needed - - Have 425 temporary teachers em- ployed. 500 teacher shortage.. Have 500-man substitute teacher force working. Shortage in math, industrial arts, and general ele- mentary. Similar shortages. Do. Philadelphia, Pa I 1,000 to 1,100 teachers Using 1,100 to 1,200 substitutes needed. Do. PAGENO="0267" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 261 Although most States require at least a bachelor's degree to obtain a regular teaching certificate at both the elementary and secondary levels, there is con- siderable variation in the other requirements. For this reason. the (lata on the number of teachers with substandard certificates have value mainly in calling attention to the situation in individual States but do not readily permit significant interstate comparisons. Also, since the current requirements relate to the issuing of new certificates. teachers who had obtained regular certificates when the requirements were lower are excluded from the county of teachers with substandard certificates. It should be noted that the total number of teachers with substandard cer- tificates does not represent the so-called "teacher shortage." To arrive at the size of the teacher shortage, it w-ould be necessary to include not only the mum- her of qualified teachers needed to replace those with substandard certificates, but also the number needed to reduce class size, eliminate multiple sessions, fill vacant positions, and expand and improve educational services. TEACHERS WITH LESS THAN STANDARD CREDENTIALS Because of the shortage of fully qualified teachers, the States have permitted the employment of teachers who do not have all the qualifications necessary to obtain regular teaching certificates. The emergency certificates issued to these teachers are usually for a period shorter than that for regular certificates. Many of these provisionally employed teachers, however, are working toward standard certificates. In the fall of 1966. State departments of education reported 90.500 full-time teachers with less than standard certificates. about 6,400 more than a year ago. These teachers constituted 5.1 percent of the total teaching staff in 1966, as compared with 4.9 percent a year earlier. The number of teachers with less than standard credentials increased 6.7 percent in elementary schools (from 52.900 to 56,500), and 9 percent in secondary schools (from 31.200 to 34,000). On the basis of 30 pupils per teacher in ele- nientary schools and 25 in secondary schools, it is estimated that 2. 4~i.0t$) pupils were taught by teachers with less than standard certificates. Sonic of these teachers meet the general education requirements of their respective States but may lack one or more of the ot.her prescribed reiuirements. Mr. QmE. It would be a huge number anyway, would it not? Mr. HOWE. It. would be a considerable number; yes. Mr. QUIE. 5,500 is the. number of Teacher Corpsmen that you would like to fund for the new program? Mr. HowE. Yes, through a supplemental that we are proposing of ~12.5 million and a fiscal 1968 budget. item of $36 million we would continue t.he pre.sent 1,200 or so and finish them up, a.nd then start another 5,000. Mr. QtIE. Tha.t. 5,000 would graduate at the end of 2 years and have a master's degree and be a so-called qualified teacher for the deprived children? Mr. HOWE. Most of them would; yes. Mr. QuiE. And you would plan to start another 5,000 the year after that, or are there 5,000 in t.he works at all times? Mr. HOWE. It is 5,000 in the works but 2,500 a year graduating. So you would bring out 2,500 each year and get down to a cycle. Chances are if we get through all of t.his, we will ask the Appropria- tion Committee for a larger appropriation for the Teacher Corps for another year. But these are the terms in which we are thinking for the coming year. Mr. Quiu. 2,500 per year is really a drop in the bucket compared to what is needed, though. Mr. HOWE. Yes that is correct.. Mr. QulE. This would be adding a drop in the bucket. PAGENO="0268" 262 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS Mr. HowE. I think you want to connect to the concept of a drop in the bucket the point which Mr. Brademas was ma.king this moriling, which I referred to earlier. There are ripple effects from this pro- gram-I am trying to stay in the bucket-and when the drop lands it may have a small effect. But it does, indeed, affect the whole universe there and private and public teacher training institutions will be in- fluenced by the Teacher Corps in their patterns of training. It will encourage them to take a look at what is going on in the Teacher Corps, to adapt some of their other programs that may be conducted right where Teacher Corps programs are so that. they have features somewhat. like. this. It may encourage them to address their attention more to the prob- lem of the deprived child than they are. There is some evidence that this sort. of thing is going on already. So to a degree. you can describe the Teacher Corps program as a demonstration effort which is trying to turn teacher training in the direction of a concern for the deprived child which teacher training has not. had up to now to the degree that it should. Mr. Q~IE. What would you expect. for the future, a continual ex- pansion of it? You said you may ask for additional appropriations. Or would you always want. it to be a limited program that would have the rippling effect on the rest of the teacher education? Mr. howE. Actually, I would see it as the latter. It. would be a limited program. I don~t ever see it as meeting the total need at all. Nor do I see our teacher-training programs that the Federal Govern- ment finances as ever being of a magnitude which will meet all the need. There is going to continue to be private and State support for teacher training. There are going to continue to be individuals who will pay their own bills for teacher training. But I expect that the Federal programs in this area will undergird what goes on through other resources. Mr. QUIE. How will this program differ from other fellowship pro- grams? I understand you are changing the remuneration for the corpsmen to one that is similar or identical to other fellowship pro- grams and, therefore, the fact that it tended to be lucrative this past year where a person could have a. salary of $5,600 a year and be going to school to receive his master's degree was a pretty good deal. I talked to one individual who was studying for the same thing, but because of the financial ease with which he could do it in the Teacher Corps he shifted over. I asked him what he would do if it was discontinued, and he said he would go back to t.he original program. So we would have lost that individual in training socially and cul- t.urally deprived children. I will grant that this is probably a rare instance, that most of them wouldn't have in that kind of graduath training. Other than that, aren't. the only two differences that you are going to establish a national recruiting program where you put all these people in a machine and then, as I understand, the local educator would come and look at the machine a.nd as they come out with the label branded on them they could pick the one they wanted? This is the only real difference, isn't it? In all the other fellowship programs they a.re selected and recruited within a higher education establishment.. PAGENO="0269" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 263 Mr. HOWE. I think there are a couple of other significant differences. One is the whole notion that is built right into the Teacher Corps enterprise, of having a group of so-called master teachers who are part of the teacher training process, who are in the schools along with trainees, who are considered by us to be members of the Teacher Corps in the sense that they are receiving some additional compensation from it for carrying out these training duties, and who are building on the teacher training concept which has been developed in recent years and which is quite clearly a very useful way to initiate new people to the teaching profession. Mr. QUIE. But it did not originate in the Teacher Corps? Mr. HOWE. No. It originated, actually, under various experimental programs started by the Ford Foundation in the late 1950's. It has been proven, I think, as a very useful training device. So this feature of the Teacher Corps is not found anywhere in our other institute programs. Mr. QUIE. Your institute programs, but it is found in some pro- grams that are not financed by the Federal Government. Mr. HOWE. In all likelihood; yes. A second feature that seems to me different from some of the other programs that we are sponsoring, and a unique feature of the Teacher Corps that you didn't mention, is the kind of alliance that the Teacher Corps develops between the university and the local school system. Although this, again-following your observation of a moment ago-has developed between some teacher training institutions and some local school systems, there hasmft. been as much of this as there might be. The Teacher Corps will encourage that kind of development because the Teacher Corps has this built in as a very significant feature of its operation. So through the Teacher Corps we are adding to the idea that the way to learn to teach is to do it. That is a pretty sound idea, in my view. It seems to me that a relatively large proportion of the so-called practice teaching arrangements which have typically beemi set up by universities or colleges of education with local school districts have not had the kind of opportunit for the t1~tinees to cilgage (lireotly in the regular affairs of the schools and to be responsible for pieces of ~ with students and getting themselves involve(-j with imi~en~ and other social service agencies in time community besides the schools tiiat~ the Teacher Corps provides. I think there are several unique elements here that this little exer- cise demonstrates as very useful enterprises in teacher training. I think that teacher education on the whole is going to be healthier to have had it around. Mr. Qur~. I have talked to people who have had programs that are not operated with Federal money who have done somewhat the same thing. The interesting feature about them is that their trainees do not receive any stipend from the institution, or the institution of higher learning, as these would. I understand you would pay the institution of higher learning who, in turn, would pay the $75, or would you pay this direct ? Mr. HowE. To the school district? PAGENO="0270" 264 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS Mr. QtIE. les. Mr. GRAHAM. The proposal is that, as is now the case, the pay would come from the local school system but it would come. at a rate equal to the stipend, so it is clear that they are employees of the local school. Mr. QmE. The program that I am familiar with, the local school pays for the portion of the day that the individual sJ)ends in the school system doing some services f or the school. The school is quite happy to pay that. I would judge from some of the comments that you have made here that the schools will be happy in this instance also to pay some of it themselves. If it is a great program I would think it would be happy to do so. Mr. GRAHAM. That is correct; and the pay would come from the schools. There is one thing I would like to add. Mr. QUT.E. It wouldn't come from the schools, but it would be channeled through the local schools. Mr. GRAHAM. That is correct. Referring to the question before, when you were trying to relate the size to what might be accomplished by t.he program, I think it is of interest to note that some 15 of the 50 demonstration programs of the National Commission on Teacher Education and Professional Stand- ards this year focused on Teacher Corps programs. That is a private organization, as you hiow, a very alert one. They believe that of all the things that. are going on in this country that show how you can better use teachers in the local school system, how you can better train teachers t.o do this job, they selected 15 out of their 50 programs around the United States as Teacher Corps programs. That. means that. they bring in people from all around that region or area to see what is being done so that you can expand and multiply this effort following the Commissioner's thought of the drop that may have the rare elements in it that, mixed with a lot of other water, pro- duces a lot of fruit. Mr. HOWE. Ripples. Mr. Q~IE. When you have this question going for a while, and I guess this would be pretty much the same as the question asked by Mrs. Green before noon, you will have an elite corps in the schools that utilize this program who have the. Federal label, and they will stand out differently and have special attention. People will be looking a.t them as Federal corpsmen. All the rest of the.m will be kind of lesser indiv~ duals. Isn't that right? Mr. Howr. The way you put it it sounds as though they were going to wear a uniform, but they are not. Mr. QmE. Everybody knows who they are. Mr. HOWE. The only identification that I know so far they have had is a tie clasp, which Mr. Graham has on. Seriously~ I think in a sense there is a meaning about the word "elite" which we would not want to place on these. people. At the same time. they will be the result of a. very careful selection Process. Some of them will be in school districts which have not been able to attrac.t persons of their caliber. PAGENO="0271" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 265 In this sense they will represent to those school districts an element of stimulation which has not been typical of the new people they have been able to hire. I think this may be more true in rural areas than in city areas because many city areas can command a wider spectrum of selection in staffing. I think Mr. Graham could give you examples right now of Teacher Corps members in rural areas who do stand out, not because they are identified in any way as being national in any aspect, but rather be- cause they represent a process of selection that makes them extremely capable people and an unusual resource in that school district. Mr. QUTE. Are you going to let them keep the tie clasp after they graduate? Mr. HOWE. I want to make it absolutely clear that the tie clasps are provided by private funds. Mr. QUIE. Whether the uniform is paid for by private funds or not, they are still wearing it. Mrs. GREEN. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. QuiE. Yes. Mrs. GREEN. Do we just have tie clasps in the Teacher Corps? Mr. HOWE. I was afraid of that. Mr. Alford informs me there is a pin for the ladies. Mr. QUIE. Now that we have taken care of the women, would you proceed? What would happen to the program if you continued to provide a recruiting method so that schools would find individuals from around the country, sort of like our employment service tries to do and could do more successfully than they have, and still they didn't carry that Federal label of being a corpsman? The reason I asked that is because if it is so successful for training the teachers of the deprived children, wouldn't it be good, also, since we are trying to train guidance counselors, that we have a guidance counselor corps? We want to train teachers for the handicapped, and it~ would be nice if the teachers for the mentally handicapped had some kind of a tie clasp they could wear. Mr. HowE. We haven't called it a corps, but we do have an amend- ment. before you, and the appropriation of $1 million to go with it, to pay for recruiting activities related to teachers of the handicapped. This will not be conducted in exactly the same way that the Teacher Corps recruiting is conducted, but the notion is here that it is a le- gitimate use of Federal resources to bring about recruiting for a particular profession that has a need in the realm of education. Therefore, it seems to me that it is legitimate to have such activities in a number of different areas. We don't need to call everything a corps, I guess. The notion of feeling a part of a larger enterprise when you are getting yourself involved in what is an extremely diffi- cult assignment, may be a good morale point. I think t.his is so with the Teacher Corps. Dick? Mr. GRAHAM. `We hear this more than once from some of the re- turned volunteers who, because of their experience, from teaching abroad, decide that they want to teach here where they are needed. Mr. QUTE. You are talking about the Peace Corps? PAGENO="0272" 266 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS Mr. G1~u~&M. Yes. They said, "I wouldn't have gone to Peru or Nigeria if there hadn't been a Peace Corps, though I could have found my way there. I wouldn't be here in Bedford-Stuyvesant teach- ing if it had not been for the Teacher Corps." We don't believe you have to be in a National Teacher Corps. We try not to use the term "National Teacher Corps." If you get this job done and you are getting it done now, we say it doesn't make a great deal of difference how else you get it done. I met a man yesterday from the State of Michigan who believes they can start a State program. I am meeting tomorrow with members from Massachusetts. If we can get people into the schools, I don't think you care about the label, as long as the label they wear is someone who wants to do the job, and who has decided from the various jobs open to them, `This is the one I want to take and be professional at it." As I say, it is going this way. If we can find another way of doing it, we are open to any suggestion. Mr. GURNEY. Will the gentleman yield briefly? Mr. QUIR. Yes. Mr. GURNEY. I just wanted to make this observation in reply to that. You observed that many of these young people said they wouldn't go to Peru or some place like that unless they were in the Peace Corps. This country has been in the business of Peace Corps work almost since the beginning of the country, and perhaps before that, t.hrough church groups and private organizations. They have done a tre- inendous job. I believe actually if -von compared what they have done and are doing with the Peace Corps, you would find that the scales were greatly weighted in favor of private organizations and doing it without a label. Mr. QUIE. I will go into another subject. We have been on the Teacher Corps for a long time. Let me also ask, if I ma, one other question, Mr Howe. You said if we turn our backs on those going to give 2 years of service to assist local teachers, and so forth. I get the impression that. you are looking at this as sort of a Peace Corps type of service as well as training for a master's degree and work later on with the deprived children, that you are giving this concept that they are volunteering service and for 2 years they are providing this kind of volunteer service. Mr. HowE. They are spending a portion of their time, more than half, actually working in the schools during this 2-year period, and they will continue, most of them, to work in these kinds of schools, at least for a considerable time, as professional teachers. No doubt there will he some attrition as there is in any teacher group, and no doubt. a higher attrition among the women than men. But there is some indication that a group of this sort is likely to have some less attrition than some other groups. It seems to me that there is an element of sacrifice, if you will, in the sense tha.t this is a very difficult job. The evidence of this is the fact that so many teachers who were regularly trained by the usual professional training processes are leav- PAGENO="0273" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDLTCATION AMENDMENTS 267 ing the job. The figures show that in the schools of the central city, for example, the high preponderance of inexperienced teachers, and of substandard teachers, and of noncertificated teachers, is found in these more difficult schools. The youngsters there are getting shortchanged in terms of experi- enced staff. So this element of motivation to continue with a tough job is an im- portant part of this little enterprise. Mr. QUJE. Let's go to title I of the act. You put grea.t emphasis on involving parents and the community at large in school programs and the Teacher Corps. I think this has great merit. OEO did this with Project Headstart as well. The studies that I have been able to read indicate that the Headstart programs are much more successful, and in fact in the long run really are the ones that are successful, where they involve the community and the parents in the program. In title I we have a huge expenditure of money, better than $1 billion. It can have a significant effect on community problems. What are your plans to involve the community and the parents in this same sense? I might elaborate even more that one of the criti- cisms that I have heard and that I feel about the traditional system of education is that the teachers have had a desire to keep their activities limited to the classroom and have the protection of the school building. It is as difficult for any of them to go out into the community and to the parents as it is for any of these corpsmen. Mr. HOWE. Like all generalizations about teachers there is some truth in that, and certainly there are many exceptions. We would quite agree with the implications of your observation, that it is important to enlist the parents, particularly the parents of youngsters who are educationally deprived, to enlist them somehow on at least the motivational side of the educational endeavor. Headstart has clone this. This will be built into the prescription for Operation Followthrough proj ects. In title I-and I would like Mr. Estes to comment on this after I make a general observation-we are not in a position as a policy matter to actually require this kind of involvement. In a sense, this would be regarded, I think, as undue interference by the Federal Government in the local school system. But we are in a position, through persuasion, through letting people know about good examples of what school districts are doing, through encouragement and publicity, through dealing with State personnel who are respon- sible for title I within the State, to encourage a great deal of pare1~t involvement. This is exactly what we are trying to do. Let me ask Mr. Estes to say a word or two more about this. Mr. EsiTs. I would take exception to your statement that Head- start programs are the only ones that have proven to be successful in the preschool field. In title I we have some 400,000 to 500,000 children enrolled in pre- school programs. We have some evidence that leads us to believe, especially from the State of California, that our title I preschool pro- 7 5-492-67------1 S PAGENO="0274" 268 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS grams are at least as effective, if not more effective, than the Headstart programs. I think it is difficult to generalize- Mr. QUIE. Let me say right. here I did not mean to indict you on title I. I used the example of the Teacher Corps as you have talked of it here, and the example of successful Headstart programs under OEO. I am sorry I gave that impression because I well agree with you there have been some great title I preschool programs, though not enough. Mr. HOWE. I believe title I is supporting more preschool activity than I-Ieadstart; isn't that true? Mr. EsiTs. That is correct. Mr. QUTE. How do you bring about the parental and community involvement, because you can do this in OEO doing it through a community action agency. The. school board is not necessarily repre- sent ative. of the people who are deprived, or their parents. Mr. ESTES. We have a real problem, as you well know. As educators, in the past. we have sort of a hands-off policy. We have attempted at times to isolate ourselves from the com- munity. This is an entirely new area. for us. We are, quite frankly, rather pleased with the success we have had thus far in attempting to get local school people to work with members of the community. We are in the process now, under section 205, of establishing criteria for the approval of projects under title I that will be used not. only by local agencies but also by State agencies criteria that will im- prove this interaction between the groups. Mr. QUIE. Have any States required the involvement of the com- munity and the parents in the development of a project for which they receive money under title I? Mr. Esr~s. All of our projects are encouraged to involve t.he. parents. I would have to ask Mr. Hughes whet.her or not this is a requirement in a.ny local or State unit. Mr. HUGHES. I think a number of States-in California, as a good example., have established criteria in which they involve this as a very high priority item in terms of approval of projects. They would insist that local districts in making application and in just filing their proposal involve t.he community and that there be parent involvement, certainly in those programs where preschool is a central part of the activity. Mr. QiTIE. Has there been an evaluation of this type of project com- pared to the ones where they are strictly developed within the school itself? Mr. HUGHES. A number of the city reports we have seen indicate that very definitely the early childhood educ.ation projects are much more successful as a result. of this parental involvement.. The Cali- fornia report. particularly, is indicative of this improvement. Mr. QrIE. Have you enough examples now so that if they were made available or publicized it could be utilized as an example of how such a program could be run well? Mr. HUGHES. Yes, I think we could, certainly from the individual reports we have gone through and ~lean out. those examples which do indicate parental involvement. We would be glad, for example, PAGENO="0275" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDFCATION AMENDMENTS 269 to put an insert, in the. committee record mdicating just how important tIle districts have felt this has been during the first year. Mr. QmE. I would like to see that. Perhaps an example or two at this point in the record would be good. But if you would, also give me a greater number than one or two to look at, I would appreciate that. Mr. HUGHES. Yes, sir. (Mr. Hughes submitted the following material:) BALTIMORE, MD. The Neighborhood School for Parents * * * was funded under title I ESEA as an activity augmenting the impact of the feading projecting for children at the Harlem Park Elementary School. The daily program had four prime elements: Family Life Education, Community Orientation, Basic Academic Education and Nutrition. Community Orientation brought in agency representatives from Housing. Health. Legal Aid, Sanitation. Welfare. Employment and Education. etc. Nutrition was developed through the balanced lunch serve(l each day. To reduce obstructive factors a bus service l)arallel to that offered children in the program at No. 3~. and nursery and kindergarten service at the 5(11001 location were provided. This summer program enrolled 159 parents and 102 children. General comment Of all the programs described, the Neighborhood School for Parents attracted the most comment as being novel, stemming from indigenous initiative and offer- ing a range of integrated educational services clearly recognized as meaningful by the participapts. The community service agencies used in the community orientation aspect of the program all expressed enthusiasm for the project and asked for, and received, permission to have a representative present periodically throughout the summer. All involved, participants, staff, planners and corn- rnu.nity agencies. strongly urged the continuation and extension of the program. This recommendation is fully endorsed. All other program aspects of these summer activities do have continuing or counterpart programs throughout the year. Subject to the approval of proposals for renewing this project under ESEA it will be resumed in the late fall or early winter. CINCINNATI, OHIO To a significant extent. the objectives of the various ESEA projects are directed toward achieving more active parent participation and interest in the school. The l~arent education project has this goal as its major objective. It is presmned that the motivation of students toward school is largely related to the interest and involvement of the parents in their child's education. The survey was not given with the intention of measuring the effectiveness of projects per se. In all probability, parents w-ould know little about the Education Act projects or serv- ices and certainly would not know projects by name. Instead, the strategy was to measure overall interest and involvement iii the school and obtain their reac- tions in terms of observable behaviors of their own children. The enrichment and remediation project sought to increase the involvement of both parents and community in the education of primary target school pupils. This involvement was promoted through the use of resident aides in making home contacts and conducting study-discussion group sessions. Community involve- ment was promoted through enrichment activities, especially after-school trips and excursions. The parent education project is aimed at securing greater parental involvement in stimulating the physical, cultural, and intellectual growth of disadvantaged children. Primary goals of the project are to have the parent. realize the im- portance of his role in rearing his children, to give him the understanding. edu- cation and belief in himself to do this and to bring him into closer contact with the school in the education of his children. Tt is hoped that the parents' partnership with the school will improve their attitude toward education and thereby increase the child's motivation to learn. Parents who recognize their importance in the education of their children and understand the school's program gain self-assurance in helping their children PAGENO="0276" 270 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS with school work. Through step-by-step success, both parents and children set successively higher goals, thereby building an improved self-image. While training parents to motivate their children and assist in their education, the project also attempts to encourage parents and parent figures to continue their own education under such programs as those of the Economic Opportunity Act, the Vocational ~lucation Act, and the Manpower Development and Training Act. Such interest in self-improvement is likely to have a beneficial eff~t not only on parents and children, but also on the rest of the community. The attempt to increase the involvement of parents in the education of their children and to encourage their own self-improvement is made chiefly through lairent leaders chosen from each school community. The use of residents of each project school area w-as aimed at bridging the communication gap that often exists between home and school. Chief responsibilities of these leaders are to make home contacts with parents and to work with them in study-discussion meetings. These meetings are devoted to various topics that concern family life and education. For the a number of years Cincinnati has conducted a parent study-discussion program through the use of such lay leaders. School administrators report that parents who have participated in the program show a more cooperative attitude toward the school. Most of this study-discussion work, however, has been con- ducted in the Sul)urhan areos. The parent education program is intended to expand the very limited exploratory efforts in this vein among disadvantaged families. ~IImnmar,, (lfl4 conclusions The parent education project was aimed at helping disadvantaged children through services to their parents. The chief focus of the project efforts was in helping parents to understand their children and themselves, and to become more involved in the education of their children through a realization of the impor- tance of their own parental role. To achieve these goals one paid leader was selected from the parents in each school area. These leaders were given inten- sive training that included general leadership developnient, instruction in plan- miiiig and conducting discussion programs, information on cultural and edu- cational opportunities offered by the community and training in the use of resources and agencies. In all, this training was given to parent leaders representing 32 of the 40 target public schools. By publicizing the project and contacting parents in their homes. these leaders involved a total of ~`.626 parents in one or more study-discussion lrograrns. Average attendance for each session included about half the parents who had been enrolled from the area. Responses on the parent participant survey and oral reports of parent leaders point to many worthwhile gains in parents' relationships with children and school and understanding of themselves and their role as parents. No comparisons of pre-post project gains were possible except for the teacher survey, where target teacher ratings indicate some improvement in parent-school relatiorishj PS. These signs of success suggest that the services of this project be continued in the same essential structure as before. Careful attention should be given to interpreting the project services to school staff and to community. Special efforts should be made to involve male parents and parents of nonpublic school children. Finally, gains made in the first project year should be built upon by extending the strengths of the program and providing follow-up contact w-ith the specific par- ents served. LOS ANGELES, CALIF. Parent Eviucation. Description Parent education (`lasses were offered to parents of secondary school pupils under the auspices of the area adult school. Participants studied home-school and parent-child relationships, the curriculum, and problems of adolescence. A specialist worked with teachers, interpreted the program to administrators, and con(lucted inservice education. Seventeen teachers assigned to the 22 classes devoted 2 hours per week to instruction and 1 hour to consultation with parents. Objectives To improve parental understanding of the educational program designed for the child. To develop parental support and involvement in the educational program. PAGENO="0277" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 271 To improve parental understanding of the social and emotional needs of the child and youth in general. To improve parent-child relationships in the home. To improve pupil attitudes by improvement of the parental attitudes. Implementation The project was conducted from January 31 through June 17, 1966, in 14 adult schools, 11 senior high schools, and 14 junior high schools. One junior high school held two classes, one in the afternoon and one in the evening. Participants included 810 women and 202 men of Negro, Mexican, Caucasian, and Oriental descent with a broad range of educational backgrounds. They were parents of children whose ability levels ranged from low achievers to the college capable. Classes for 20 parents were held in two nonpublic schools. Activities ~tf/ff actiuilie.s.----Tlie staff recruited pupils actively through publicity and by visiting community organizations. The staff attended five inservice education meetings to learn more about basic needs of children, secondary school cur- riculum, methods of instruction, family and community life in disadvantaged are~is, new services. rec'ruitmeiit problems. and methods of evaluation. Pupil activities-Parent discussion groups brought neighbors together for the first time. Some parents learned how ~o communicate openly and meaningfully with their families. Several newly arrived immigrants learned about local schools. ()utcomcs.-Twenty-two classes were conducted with a total semester attend- ance of 243 parents. Sixty-two percent of parents indicated a gain in better understanding of the educational program designed for their child. Sixty-five percent of the parents reported that they had visited their child's school in a 4-month period. Three out of four parents reported an improved understanding of the social and emotional needs of their children and of youth in general. The parent education classes discussed methods of improving parent-pupil rela- tions and how to change pupil attitudes by improving parent attitudes. Four out of five parents said they would attend a similar class next semester and would bring a friend. Conclusions A majority of the parents taking part in the project reported that they had gained a better understanding of their child's educational program and enjoyed the opportunity to discuss topics about pupil-parent relationships and attitudes. Parents indicated that they would support and attend this type of class in the future. Mr. Qun~. Here is one of the places where we have to look as to how the ~`ederal Government is going to assist. I know you are addressing yourself as to how far the Federal Gov- ernment should direct this. I know you are addressing that, Mr. Howe. But I think we, as Congressmen, must look at the success of these programs, also. Let me ask you a few more questions, if I may. If any of my colleagues feel I am taking too long and want to ques- tion, just ask me to yield. Mrs. GREEN. Before we depart entirely from the Teacher Corps, do you have the Higher Education Act before you? What does section 504 provide? Mr. HOWE. We will get it. Mrs. GREEN. It seems to me that it would give you the exact same thing as in the Teacher Corps. That is, without the label on it. Mr. HowE. I am sorry, I don't have that here. Mrs. GREEN. The Commissioner is authorized to make grants or contracts with State or local education agencies, institutions of higher PAGENO="0278" 272 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS education. or other public or nonprivate. agencies, organization, insti- tut ions, and to enter contracts with public or private institutions, agen- cies, organizations, et cetera, to identify capable youth in secondary schools being publicized for careers in the fields of education, en- couraging qualified personnel to enter or reenter the fields of education. Can't you do everything you want to do under the Teacher Corps in this as it appears in section 504 of the Higher Education Act? Mr. HOWE. It sounds like a rather broad authority. Is that under the talent search section? Mrs. GREEN. It is under the education professions part of the bill. Mr. HOWE. This is the new higher education amendments you are referring to. I misunderstood you. I t.hink that is a very comprehensive training authority, indeed. I would want to examine the details of the Teacher Corps operations to see whether we could. It is certainly an open question. Mrs. GREEN. Would you examine that. and tell me what. other au- thority you would need to carry on the Teacher Corps? Mr. HowE. I certainly will. Mrs. GREEN. Thank you. (Mr. Howe submitted the following letter:) MEMORANDUM DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE, March 6, 1967. To: Mr. Harold Howe II, Commissioner of Education. From: Theodore Ellenbogen, Assistant General Counsel. Subject: Could the provisions of proposed § 504 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (Attracting Qualified Persons to the Field of Education), in H.R. 6232 and S. 1126, be used to achieve all the purposes of the Teacher Corps program? I am advised that at a hearing on the administration's Elementary and Sec- ondary Education Amendments of 1967 (H.R. 6230) before the House Committee on Education and Labor, in a colloquy concerning the Teacher Corps provisions of that bill,' the question was raised whether the purposes of the Teacher Corps program could not be fully achieved under § 504 which is proposed to be inserted as part of the Education Professions Development Act in title V of the Higher Education Act of 1965 by § 502 of the Higher Education Amendments of 1967 (H.R. 6232, S. 1126. p. 51), I have been asked for an opinion on this question. The aanswer is clearly in the negative. The proposed § 504 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 provides: "Arri~A~rrvE QUALrFIED Prnsoxs TO THE FIELD OF EDUCATION "Sec. 504. The Commissioner is authorized to make grants to. or contracts with, State or local educational agencies. institutions of higher education, or other public or nonprofit agencies, organizations, or institutions, or to enter into contracts with public or private agencies, institutions, or organizations, for the purpose of- "(a) identifying capable youth in secondary schools who may be in- terested in careers in education and encouraging them to pursue post- secondary education in preparation for such careers: "(h) publicizing available opportunities for careers in the field of edu- cation; I IT R. fi2PO and its companion S. 112iS would transfer the Teacher Corps program from title V of the Richer Education Act of 1i~65 and insert It (with its sections appropriately rennmhe'edl as Part B in title I of the Elementary and Secondary Ediieatioii Act of 1~5. These hills would also amend the provisions of the Teachers Corps program In various substantive respects. PAGENO="0279" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 273 `(c) encouraging qualified persons to enter or reenter the field of edu- cation; or "(d) encouraging artists, craftsmen, artisans, scientists. and persons from other professions and vocations, and homemakers to undertake teach- ing or related assignments on a part-time basis or for temporary periods." The purpose of the National Teacher Corps program, as stated in ~ 511 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (w-hich under HR. 6230 and S. 1125 would become § 151 of title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965) "is to strengthen the education opportunities available to children in areas having con- centrations of low-income families and to encourage colleges and universities to broaden their programs of teacher preparation by- "(1) attracting and training qualified teachers who will be made avail- able to local educational agencies for teaching in such areas: and "(2) attracting and training inexperienced teacher-interns who will be made available for teaching and in-service training to local educational agencies in such areas in teams led by an experienced teacher." The principal means chosen by Congress for carrying out that purpose are- (1) establishment, in the Office of Education, of a National Teacher Corps: (2) recruitment, selection, and enrollment. in the Teacher Corps for up to 2 years. by the Commissioner of Education, of experienced teachers. and of inexperienced teachers w-ho have a bachelor degree or its equivalent: (3) arrangements (through grants or contracts) by the Commissioner with institutions of higher education, or with Stat.e or local educational agencies, to provide members of the Corps with training appropriate to carry out the purposes of the program. including up to 3 months of training before entering upon teaching service: (4) arrangements by the Commissioner with local educational agencies to assign. to them from t.he Corps at their request, for service under their control in schools in areas with large concentrations of children from low- income families, experienced teachers alone, or teaching teams consisting of an experienced teacher and of a number of teacher-interns (with the interns also. undergoing academic training, preferably leading to a graduate degree, under the guidance of the experienced teacher in cooperation with an institution of higher education). The basic law authorizes the Com- missioner to pay the local educational agency its full cost. hut the fiscal year 1967 appropriatIon and the fiscal year 1965 budget provide for paying only 90 percent of t.he cost, of compensation paid by the lecal educational agency t~ such teachers and teacher-interns. It will be noted that not a single one of the above-summarized authorizations of the Teacher C.orps program can be found in the proposed § 504 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 quoted above. Not only is there a complet.e absence of the central idea of a Teacher Corps in the proposed § 504 hut all that would be authorized under it-and this only through grants or contracts and not directly-is a talent search program which will hell) to identify persons inter- ested in entering or reentering the field of education and to `encourage" them to do so. Nothing in the proposed § 504 would authorIze the engagement and training of qualified teachers who w-ill he made available at Federal expense to local educational agencies, or the training of teacher-interns and making them available, again at Federal expense, for teaching and training in such agencies under the leadership of an experienced teacher. Even the general thrust of § 504 differs from that of the Teacher Corps program. Section 504 is a generalized talent search provision, broadly designed to help find persons interested in pursuing or reentering an educational career (or to teach part time) at any level (elementary or secondary, higher. etc.). and to "encourage" them to do so. whereas the specific thrust and objective of the Teacher Corps program is to motivate, enroll, train. and make available as members of the Corps teachers and prospective teachers for teaching in ui'han slum schools and rural poverty schools. Moreover, the central concept of the Teacher Corps is essentially that of a corps of volunteers, comparable to the concept of the Peace Corps and VISTA, appealing to and attracting those who have a high sense of mission and a desire to serve generally at a financial sacrifice.~ and who are to be available to slum TTnder the proposals for amendment enihodicl in 11.11. 0220. the compensation of teacher-interns would not exceed $75 per week plus ~l5 for each dependent. PAGENO="0280" 274 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS and poverty schools throughout the Nation through a central pool from which school districts may select for service those best suited to their special needs. This concept of a dedicated volunteer corps, explicitly stated by the President in his health and education message of February 28, 1967, has been inherent in the program from the beginning in the form of the proposals of Senators Gay- lord Nelson and Edward Kennedy, in the President's remarks of July 2, 1965, before the Convention of the National Educational Association, and in his letters of July 17. 1965 to the Speaker of the House and President of the Senate transmitting the proposal for a Teacher Corps (and a proposal for teacher fellowships). As said by him in those letters (see H. Doe. No. 245, 89th Con- gress), the "Teacher Corps draws on that spirit of dedication of Americans which has been demonstrated time and again in peace and war, by young and old, at home and abroad. It will provide a challenge and an opportunity for teachers with a sense of mission-those best suited to the momentous tasks this Nation faces in improving education." No such concept of a volunteer corps or of mission inheres in the proposed § 504. Nothing in this memorandum should be taken as any way intended to derogate from the potential usefulness of the proposed ~ a04 within its own terms. All that is intended is to point out that it would not lend iseif to use as a substitute for the Teacher Corp.s program. This opinion has been cleared with the Education Division of the General Counsel's Office. Mr. Qt~IE. When the Elementary-Secondary Act was passed, the 19~9 census data was not as outdated as it is today. Do you think we can justify continuing distribution of the funds based on that census data? With the mobility of the population so far out of line by 1969 and it would be 1970 by the time we have the results of the next census, it is really going to be a bad distribution. Mr. EsiTs. I would admit this does create some inequities. How- ever, as you remember in the last session of Congress, there was an amendment passed which provided for the use of the latest AFDC data. for calculating allocations to local and State districts. Mr. QUTE. That is for the AFDC part of it. But most of it comes on children in families of less than $3,000, as I recall. Mr. EsTEs. The act does make it possible for States to collect new census data if they so desire in order to achieve an equitable distribu- tioiI. Perhaps this is the answer in those States where this data is out of date. Mr. QUTE. You say perhaps it is the answer. What are the States doing? Do they have this information available? I don't know of any States that do this kind of a census job on their own behavior. Mr. EsTEs. There is no better data. Of course, they would have to ask the Census Bureau to do this job for them. Mr. QrniE. Has the Census Bureau been willing to go into that huge expenditure of money? Mr. ESTES. I am not sure whether any State to date has asked for this information or asked that this job be done. Of course, the States would have to pa.y for the service. Mr. QrnE. The State would have to pay for it. It would be a pretty expensive operation, wouldn't it? Mr. Es'rEs. That is right. Mr. QmE. I don't believe you can expect any State to ask for that. Wouldn't it be better if we could work out a system? We may have accurate figures in 1971, and then they would become more and more inaccurate as we go through the later years. PAGENO="0281" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 275 There is no reason why the Federal Government's expenditure for elementary and secondary education will reduce. If anything, it will increase. I will say, for one, that it ought to increase over the years. Wouldn't it be better if a formula could be devised to make it available to the State and the State then find an equitable way of distributing it through the years within the State as they have found with their own funds in State aid in so many States already? Mr. HowE. On this point, it would be necessary to have the State find some formula that addressed itself to concentrations of edu- cationally deprived children in order to carry out the intent of Con- gress. If you came up with 50 different approaches to this, you might not get, at least in some States, as good a basis for distribution as you get by having a national policy. I don't know. Certainly the basic purpose of this act is to reach, for special serv- ices, over and above the normal levels of expenditure, the deprived children, or this title of the act is. This being the case, it seems to me better to seek some acceptable national definition on the basis of data which is conveniently avail- able. Your question really has very broad implications. It has the implication of whether our 10-year census habit is a good habit in the computer age. To operate the States and the United States, it seems to me that we may need more accurate information more regularly than we get it. In the computer age, it may be possible to have it. Mr. QUIE. The State solved this in their own aid program and made it available to all the students. They figure out how many stu- dents there are on an average daily attendance. Mr. HOWE. And give no special assistance to deprived children at all. Mr. QUIE. That is right. I imagine we have some concern lest we identify them so clearly that it ends up in an economic segregation. Mr. HOWE. This is one of the unique features of the title I opera- tion. It doesn't place children in that position. It is one of the as- pect.s of the title I operations that in some ways avoids issues which the Headstart operation brings out. Mr. QuIE. Let's try it from another tack. I guess there are about 27,000 districts in the country and 25,000, I guess, are eligible for the funds. I understand that 17,000 have applied for funds, using round numbers. Mr. Esi~s. 17,000 were involved. Mr. QUIE. We then have built in an entitlement into this program which means that it actually isn't zeroing in on the areas with the greatest need. Some areas of great need are being reached, but money is being ex- pended in some school districts that can never be classified as having as great a need as, we will say, some of the depressed rural areas of the South or some of the center cities. Mr. HowE. In any broad view of the program, the operation of the formula does have the effect of bringing the focus of the major portion of the funds into the areas of greatest need. PAGENO="0282" 276 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS Because of data not being up to date or other such possibilities, there may be a few exceptions to this. I think you will find these relatively few. Chairman PERKINS. Will the gentleman yield tome? Mr. QUIE. Yes. Chairman PERKINS. I think the gentleman from Minnesota dis- cussed for a long time last year the inequities involved in the dis- tribution of the money. The record of 1965 and 1966 will disclose that we spent day in and day out trying to find a more equitable approach than using the income factor and the census data. Every time we would carefully study something, which at. first seemed to show prollilse, we realized it was not. as equitable as this approach. I know what the gentleman is driving at, or zeroing in, as he says, to the areas where we have the greatest need. Last year by amendment which he and I both agreed on, we brought the poorer States up and put a floor under the poorer States; we brought. per-pupil payments up to 50 percent. of t.he national average in those States where per-pupil expenditures were. below the. national average. It added an extra cost of about $400 million a year. There is no good argument, in my judgment, as to why we should not support the de.prived children in the areas wherever they are found. With respect to the formula, I think it. has been studied, studied, and studied. Until we can get some new census data, especially in view of t.he contribution t.he gentleman made last year, I just don't see how we could improve it. Mr. QUIE. I dont have a formula that I am going to advocate as a subst.itute. I am just groping to see if we can't find something better in the future. Mr. HowE. I don't. think we ought to say that this is the best one and we should never change it. Chairman PERKINS. I agree with you that we ought to study this all the time. Mr. QUIE. I have observed two problems. One is in the rural areas as different from a large city. A large city like Minneapolis has one school district. In the cit.y of Minneapolis, the superintendent ha.s the responsibility of really determining which schools in the system are in greatest need. The schools that are not. in that great a need don't receive a. cent, no matter how many poor kids are going to that school. They don't receive a cent of Federal money. It goes to the schools which have the. greatest need. I think this is the way the program ought to operate. But. out in the rural area because. of the entitlement tha.t judgment cannot be made. For instance, in one school district in my congressional district they had a very poor crop in 1959 and for that. reason most of the families appear to have an income of less than $2,000. It can easily happen on a farm. The crops were bet.ter in t.he years after that.. But because of tha.t they received a large amount of money. In talking about. deprivation of children, they are not any more deprived than another part of my dist.rict which ha.d good crops. PAGENO="0283" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDITCATION AMENDMENTS 277 In some way, we must permit the State to take this into considera- tioii. 1 recognize that there is also built into this formula the desire of a Congressman to get as much as he can for his district. IL is heresy for me to say that they need the money more in Kentucky, in our chairman's district, than they do iii mine.. But from what I have observed, I think this is true. We made one step with the formula last year, in order that Kemitucky could come up to the national average. But we have not done anything about this problem within a State of putting it to the areas of greatest need as we have done in cities of the first class. Mr. HOWE. We would be happy to work with you omi possible formula improvements. It is clear that we are never going to come to the absolutely perfect arrangement. Time act comes up for renewal next year. As we bring it up at that time, we ought to take a hard look at possible formula variations that will handle perhaps the kind of prob- lems you refer to. But as both you and the chairman well recognize, it is an extremely complex matter once you start tampering with it. Chairman PERKINS. In view of what you just stated, I hope we can put another year's duration on it this year. Of course, we can restudy every year. But then educators wouldn~t have to be under the gun all tile time. It is one of the things that brings about so many problems in the country, because they ~on't know whether they will get the financing. We want to try to get over that this year, if we can. Mr. QUIE. I didn~t realize from the comments of the Commissioner, Mr. Chairman, but evidently, the administration bill does not propose to extend the act beyond next year? Mr. HOWE. The act comes up, I believe, in the next session of this Congress for renewal. It wa.s extended for 2 years, so it w-i]l auto- niatically come up. I assume that we will propose a renewal of it, perhaps with amendments. We just haven't gotten to that yet. Mr. Quir~. I share tile views of the chairman on this that it would be mm fortunate to wait until next year to decide what we are going to do about extension of the act. I think it is unfair to the school systems of the country to live in fear and tremble whether they are going to receive this amount of money. If it were a small amount, I would agree with it, that it wouldn't be that really important. But when you have a billion dollars, where they start budgeting for it, I think this is a very important point. Mr. BELL. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. QmE. I yield to the gentleman. Mr. BELL. I agree on that point. Chairman PERKINS. Will the gentleman yield? Mrs. Green wants to leave very shortly. Mr. BELL. It was just a particular point that I wanted to cover. I will yield to Mrs. Green. Mrs. GREEN. I will yield back to the gentleman. PAGENO="0284" 278 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS Mr. BELL. I understand you were talking about the AFDC situa- tion. I noticed California's AFDC figures for 1965 were used. How- ever, California was able, willing and able, to prepare figures for 1966. The Welfare Administration said they had to use 1965 figures as a basis and couldn't use 1966. That cost California about $ 10 million. I am wondering why they established 1965 as the ironclad date for which we had to use AFDC figures. Mr. ESTES. This did happen in California. We did use the figures across the Nation based on the 1965 information. Mr. Hughes has looked into this very carefully and has an opinion from our legal counsel. I would like for him to comment specifically ~n this par- ticular instance as it relates to California. Mr. HUGHES. Yes, sir. Of course, the one point here, Mr. Bell, is that we did have to have a standard procedure, whereby all States would receive their entitlements in fiscal 1967 based on the same information. Mr. BELL. Couldn't it be an incentive for the States to get their figures ready for 1966? That would be an incentive and it would be an advantage. I wouldn't say it necessarily has to be the same date, does it? Mr. HUGHES. At the time the bill was going through the Congress last year. there was uncertainty as to whether the updated AFDC would be included in the final bill. The administration did not recommend it. There was also a ques- tion Df difference between the House and Senate bills a.s to the low income factor of $2,000 or $3,000. The original Senate bill would have boosted the low income factor to $3,000. So there was uncertainty as to how the formula was going to come out. The House report, however, on this fact was specific. It indi- cated that in terms of the House language, it was anticipated that calendar 1965 data would be computed for all States. That is the procedure we followed. Mr. BELL. I can appreciate your point. But to a degree, you have to admit. it places a burden of unfair restriction on States that are on the hail and are willing to get their figures together for the latest possible AFDC dates, which is what the bill itself says. Mr. HtGnES. The additional factor that we had to take into con- sideration, of course, was getting this information as rapidly as possi- ble so that we could make allocations to all districts. The fact of the matter was that we had already begun, that is, the welfare administration had already begun, to get information on 1965 calendar year based on the House language and then on the House report. It would have delayed considerably the pr~edures this year in the final allocations if we had actually gone to fiscal year l~)66 information. Mr. BELL. Then are you saying in effect at this time, or at the time this bill passes. we will use the latest AFDC figures provided they are no later than 1966? Mr. HUGHES. We will be using calendar 1966. Mr. B~L. Even though California may have 1967 figures available? Mr. HuGHEs. It has to be calendar or fiscal year. We are now PAGENO="0285" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 279 getting calendar 1966 data in order that we can make fiscal year 1968 allocations in advance of t.he fiscal year. If we were t.o do otherwise, we would have to wait until sometime this fall to get the fiscal year 1967 data in order to make fiscal year 1968 allocations. In ot.her words, we can speed up the process of making the next year's allocations by several months, possibly even 6 months, by going ahead and using calendar year 1966 information. Mr. BELL. Thank you. Chairman PERKINS. Mrs. Green? Mrs. GREEN. I have two questions. One is on the extension of the programs, both in terms of authorization and appropriation. While I lean to 1-year authorizations by this committee for a variety of rea- sons, it does seem to me both your Office and the committee might well give consideration to an authorization that is a year in advance. Per- haps there should be an authorization made for a 2-year period initial- ly, and then 1-year authorizations, so that we could meet the school budgets. If there is one universal complaint, it is the complaint that no school can plan because they don't know how much money they will have. When you said that you perhaps would come in with a recommenda- tion for the extension, it seems to me that this might well be taken into consideration this year so that we could get on that track. Mr. HOWE. Mrs. Green, if I could say just a word about that, we had this same line of thought in bringing up both NDEA and the Higher Education Act a year ahead of their expiration dates. Frankly, both because of the number of times ESEA has come up, one year after the other, and because of the loads of business involved if we brought three major pieces of legislation up in this session, we thought it better not to bring ESEA up this year for renewal. Mrs. GREEN. But you would not oppose it if the committee brought it up? Mr. Howi~. It may be worth exploring. Chairman PERKINS. If the gentlelady will yield at that point, last year the administration proposed a 4-year authorization of the exten- sion of the ESEA, and I did my darndest in the committee to sustain the 4 years. We had the time of our lives in getting the 2 years. It is most important, I feel, that we commence to think about at least a 3-year authorization and do what we can on this committee to bring it about. Mrs. GREEN. I would be glad to support a 3-year authorization if you will get the Appropriations Committee to support a 3-year appropriation. Chairman PERKINS. I agree with that as to the fact of it being difficult. Mr. HowE. I think there are very real problems here for school district.s as well as for higher education institutions in the appropria- tions pattern. You know the President addressed himself to this in his education message. He asked the Secretary in that message to explore ways by which we could make some progress on this problem, working with the Congress. I don't know at this point what action the. Secretary PAGENO="0286" 280 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDITCATION AMENDMENTS will take, but I am sure that he will seek some form of conference discussion about this whole broad problem. I would hope there would be such. Mrs. Gi~EN. I don't think there is any problem quite as urgent as this. The other question I have is in regard to the total amount of money involved. I am in agreement with the gentleman from New York on the total amount if we are going to make an impact on this. I am less than enthusiastic about the abundance of small programs. If I had my druthers, I might cut some of them out. Nevertheless, I am committed to the belief that we are going to have to spend vast amounts of money if we are going to change the quality of education ~jr the equality of opportunity. Therefore, my question, Mr. Commissioner, is this: You are request- ing only 55 percent, and we will discuss the higher education facilities which gets the lowest percentage of all at a later date, but may I ask you what did you originally request on the selected items of higher education, elementary and secondary, library, community services, vocational education, and so on? Mr. HOWE. By original request, do you mean the request that the Department made of the Bureau of the Budget? Mrs. GREEN. Yes. Mr. HowE. I just don't have t.hose with me, Mrs. Green. I will pro- vicle them to you. We can make them available very quickly. Would von like them for the record at this point? (The information requested follows:) PAGENO="0287" Bu(I 1jet requests of the I)eparlsnent of health, Education, and lVclfare, Office of Education SUMMARY Fiscal year 1967 .Authoriza- AJ)propria- tion I tion Activity Elementary and secondary educational activities School assistance in federally affected areas National teacher corps lfigher educational activities Expansion and improvement of vocational education Libraries and community services Educatioiial improvement for the han(Iicapped Research and training Educational research and training (special foreign currency program) Salariesatid expenses olleges for agriculture and the mechanic arts (pcrrnaiieiit) I'roinotioii of vocational education, act of Feb. 23, 1917 (pernianeiit~) Student, loan insurance fund Jligheredijca(jon loan fund (lvii riglitseiiucaflon~il activities Arts and hunianitieseducatjon~il activities Total See foot lint es st enil of table. Fiscal year 1968 2 Request to Budget 1)013 estimate $1, 973, 313, 947 491, 400, 000 64, 715, 000 1, 243, 950, 000 297, 516, 000 234, 315, 000 93, 000, 000 30, 000, 1)00 2, 550,000 7, 161,455 2000, 1)00, 000 1,000, 000 4, 638, 921, 402 $1, 464, 610,000 439, 137, 000 20, 000, 000 1, 177, 251, 000 268, 016, 000 146, 950, 000 37, 900, 000 91,050,000 1,001), 000 32, 836, 000 2, 550, 001) 7, 161, 455 3, 20(t, 001) 200, 659, 000 8, 028, 1)00 1,000,000 Authoriza- tion I $3, 376, 909, 876 488, 916, 000 1, 766, 950, 000 288,491, 000 281,770,000 205, 500, 000 29, 900, 000 2, 550, 000 7, 161, 455 400, 000, 000 1,000,0(10 $3, 315, 909, 876 466, 200, 000 46, 000, 000 1, 593, 350, 000 275, 591, 000 252, 020, 000 101, 000,000 199, 100, 000 4, 600, 000 47, 236, 000 2, 550, (101) 7, 161, 455 3, 200, ((00 37, 867, 000 1, 000,000 $1, 692, 000, 000 439, 137, 000 36, 000, 000 1,173,104, 000 259, 900, 000 165, 950, 000 53, 400, 000 99, 90)), OOtt 4, 1)00, 000 40, 253, 01(t) 2, 55tt, 1)00 7, 11)1, 455 2, 625, ((00 3(1, 000, 00)) 1, (8)0,000 1 3, 901, 348, 455 ti, 849, 148, 331 6, 352, 785, 331 4, 007, 670, 4 ~5 7)) to C) 52 5'l C-) H C to to H 00 :` PAGENO="0288" Budget requests of the I)epartinent of Health, E(lucuI-wn, and Welfare, ()JJiec of Educatwn-Continued. ELEMENTARY AND SECONI)ARY EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITIES Activity Fiscal year 1967 3"iscal year 1968 Educationally (leJ)riVed chiI(Irefl Local educational agencies handicapped C1ii1(lrCn --*- Juvenile diii iqucnts in institutions 1)ependent and ueglectedchildren ininstitutions Migratory children State administration Supplementary educational centers and services Guidance, counseling, and testing - -- - Stremigtheniiig State (lepartmnents of education: Grants 1-0 States Grants for special projects Statistical services NDEA supervisory services Equipnsent and minor remodeling: Grants to States Loans to nonprofit private schools - - State administration Library resources Teacher training Institutes: Institutes for advanced study Institutes for counseling personnel Authoriza- tioil $1, 430, 763, 947 (1,345, 820, 593) (20, 462, 448) (8, 451, 281) (932, 549) (40, 394, 401) (14, 702, 675) 180, 251), 000 30, 000, 000 25, 500, 000 4, 501), 000 2, 800, 000 8, 000, 000 88, 000, 000 12, 00)), 000 2, 000, 000 128,750,000 53, 500. 000 7,250,000 Appropria- tion $1, 053, 41)), 000 (1,015, 152, 657) (15, 078, 410) (2, 037, 344) (224, 809) (9, 737, 847) (11, 178,933) 135, 002, 000 24, 500, 000 18, 700, 000 3, 31)0, 000 2, 250, 000 5, 500, 000 79, 200, 000 1,500,000 2, 000, 000 102, 000, 000 30, 000, 000 7,250,000 1,464,610, 000 Request to 1101) $2,441,359,876 (2, 340, 574, 732) (22, 948, 1115) (9, 826, 642) (1, 135, 509) (42, 412, 973) (24, 461, 891) 487, 000, 00)) 30, 000, 000 42, 500, 000 7, 500, 000 2, 800, 000 6, 000, 000 88, 000, 000 1, 500,000 2, 1)00, 000 150,000, 000 Autlioriza- tion 52, 441, 359,876 (2, 34)). 574, 732) (22, 948, 1(15) (9, 826, 642) (1, 135, 509) (42, 412, 9:17) (24, 461, 891) 515, 000, 000 30, OUt), 000 42, 500, 000 7, 501), 000 2, 800, 000 8, 000, 000 96, 800. 000 13, 200. 000 2,000, 000 154, 500,000 56,000,000 7, 250, 000 3, 376, 909, 876 Iludget estimate $1, 200,0(10, 000 (1, 148, 461, 733) (11, 465, 299) (4, 902, 017) (561, 395) (22, 078, 765) (12, 530, 791) 240, 000, 000 24, 500, 000 25, 287, 500 4, 462, 500 47, 000, 000 1,000, 000 2, 000, 000 105, 000, 000 Total 1,973,313,947 P1 t'l 00 50, 000, 000 35, 500, 000 7,250,000 7,250,000 3,315,909,876 1,692,000,000 SCHOOL ASSISTANCE IN FEDERALLY AFFECTED AREAS $389,200,000 27,000,000 39,380,000 10,000,000 620,000 $389,200,000 27,000,000 10,109,000 12,208, 000 620,000 Maintenance and operations (Public Law 874): Payments to local educational agencies Payments to other Federal agencies Construction (Public Law 815): Assistance to local educational agencies Assistance for school construction on Federal properties Technical services Total $408,900,000 24,500,000 44,380,000 13,000,000 620,000 $391,700,000 24,500,000 12,317,000 10,000,000 620,000 $434,500,000 27,000,000 413,796,000 4 13,000,000 620,000 491,400,000 439,137,000 488,916,000 466,200,000 439,137,000 PAGENO="0289" NATiONAL TEAChER CORPS c~) -I National Teacher Corps $64,715,000 8 $20,000,000 (8) $46,000,000 $36,000,000 ~ - HIGHER EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITIES p~ ~ ~ 50 ~, -1 . Program assistance: Strengthening developing institutions $30,000,000 Colleges ofA. & Marts 11,950,000 Undergraduate instructional equipment and other resources: Television equipment 10,000,000 Otherequipnsent 50,000,000 Construction: Public community colleges and technical inshtutes 104,500,000 Otherundergraduatefacitlties 370,500,000 Graduate facilities 60,000,000 State administrative expenses 7,000,000 Technical services (7) Teacher education: Elementary and secondary teacher programs: Fellowships: Experienced teachers Prospective teachers 160,000,000 Strengthening graduate schools j College teacher fellowships (7) Institutes in use of equipment and other teaching aids 5,000,000 Student aid: Educational opportunity grants: Grants to higher education institutions (8) Encouragement of educational talent (7) I )irect loans: $30,000,000 11,950,000 1,500,000 13,000,000 99,660,000 353,340,000 60,000,000 7,000,000 2,744,000 ( 12,500,000 ] 12,500,000 5,000,000 J 80,842,000 2,500,000 112,000,000 2,500,000 $55,000,000 11,950,000 10,000,000 60,000,000 167,440,000 560,560,000 120,000,000 7,000,000 (7) 275,000,000 (7) 5,000, 000 (8) (7) $50,000,000 11,950,000 7,500,000 40,000,000 107,800,000 382,200,000 90,000,000 7,000,000 4,000,000 ( 41,500,000 41,500,000 1 7,500,000 107,300,000 5,000,000 180,000,000 4,000,000 $30,000,000 11,950,000 1,500,000 13,000,000 89,700,000 300,300,000 50,000,000 7,000,000 2,744,000 15,000,000 12,500,000 7,500,000 06,600,000 2,500,000 155,600,000 4,000,000 ,.,.i ` ~> ~ ~ ~ p~ ~ 0 1~ ~ ~ ~ ~ H P ~ 0 Contributions to loan funds Loans to institutions Teacher cammcellatinns Insnred loans: 190,000,000 (9) (7) 190,000,000 2,000,000 1,115, 000 225, 000,000 (9) (7) 195, 000,000 2,000,000 1,400,000 100,000,000 2,000,000 1,400, 000 ~4 ~ -~ Advance fnr reserve funds Interest payments Work-study prngranis is 10, 000, 000 (7) 165,000,000 10,000,000 33,000, 000 134,000,000 (") (7) 200,000,000 42,000,000 94,100, 000 171,600,000 40, 000,000 139,900,000 Z ~ Total 1,243,950,000 1,177,251,000 1,766,950,000 1,593,350,000 1,173, 194,000 See footnotes at end of table. - ~:i lx PAGENO="0290" Budget requests of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Office of Education-Continued Activity EXPANSION AND IMPROVEMENT OF VOCATIONAL EDUCATION Fiscal year 1967 Authoriza- tion 1 Appropria- tion Vocational Education Act of 1963: Grants to States Grunts to States under George-Burden and supplemental acts: George-Burden Act Supplemental acts Grants to States under Appalachian Regional i)evelopment Act of 1965.. Work-study program Residential vocational schools~ Vocational student luau assistance: Advances for reservefunds Interest payments~ 1)irect loans Total Fiscal year 1968 2 $202, 500, 000 49, 686,000 305,000 128,0(J(J,O(J(J 35,000,000 } $198, 225, 000 49,686,000 305,000 8,000,000 10,000,000 Request to BOll $202,500, 0(5) 49,686,000 305,000 7,0(X), 000 10,000, 000 Authoriza- tion 1 $202, 500,000 49, 686,000 305,000 (6) 35,000,000 (14) (7) 1,000,000 } Budget estimate $199,309,000 49, 686,000 305, 000 7,000,000 `~l 02500)) 1025000 (1) 775:000 1,000,000 297,516,000 LIBRARIES AND COMMUNITY SERVICES 268,016,000 288,491,000 2,000,000 3,600,000 3, 600,000 500,000 275, 591,000 259, 900, 000 00 00 (TI 00 (I) 00 0 00 ci C~-i H 0 00 Library services: Grants for public libraries (title I, LSCA) Interlibrary cooperation (tilte III, LSCA) State institutional library services title IV, pt. A, LSCA Library services to the physically handicapped (title IV, pt. A, LSCA) Construction of public libraries (title II, LSCA) $35,000,000 5,000,000 5,000,000 3,000,000 40, 000,000 $35,000,000 375,000 375, 000 250, 000 40,000,000 $45,000, 000 7,500, 000 7,500, 000 4,000,000 50,000,000 $40,000,000 5,000,000 4,875, 000 2,625,000 45,000,000 $35,000, 000 2,357, 000 2, 120, 000 1,320, 000 27, 185, 000 College library resources (title II, pt. A, HEA) Acquisition and cataloging by Library of Congress (title II, pt. C, flEA) Librarian training (title II, pt. B, HEA) University community services programs, title I, flEA 50,000,000 6,315,000 (15) 50,000,000 25,000,000 3,000,000 3,750,000 10,000,000 50,000,000 7,770,000 (16) 50,000,000 50,000,000 7,770,000 8,250,000 30,000,000 25, 000,000 4,000,000 8,250, 000 16,500,000 Adult basic education: Grants to States 1 Special projects 40,000,000 Teacher training J Total 234,315,000 f 26,280,000 1 1,720,000 1 1,200,000 J 60,000,000 43,500,000 13,500,000 [ 1,500,000 32,200,000 10,500,000 1,500,000 146,950,000 281,770,000 252,020,000 165,9000 50, PAGENO="0291" V EDUCATIONAL IMPROVEMENT FOR THE HANDICAPPED L~J Preschool and school programs (title VI, ESEA) Teacher education Reserach and demonstration Captioned films for the deaf Total $51, 500,000 ~, soo, ooo 9,000,000 17 3,000, 000 $2, 500,000 24,600,000 8,100,000 2,800,000 $154, 500,000 34, ooo, ooo 12,000,000 17 5,000, 000 $50, ~o, 1)00 ~, ooo, ooo 12,000,000 5, 000,000 $15,000,000 ~4, soo, ooo 11,100,000 2,800,000 93,000,000 1637,900,000 205,500,000 101,000,000 53,400,000 RESEARCH AND TRAINING Educational laboratories and research and development centers (title IV, ESEA): Operational assistance: Laboratories Centers Construction Research: General education. General education Evaluation studies National achievement study Demonstration and development Vocational education (Vocational Education Act, 1963) Foreign language education Educational niedia Library improvement Training Dissemination Total EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH AND TRAINING (SPECIAL Research in foreign education Training, research? and study grants: Highereducation Elementary and secondary education Total (18) (18) (18) (18) (18) (is) (18) $22,500,000 3,100,000 4400,000 (~2O) (18) (iS) $19,230,000 10,370,000 12,400,000 16,085,000 3,000,000 10,000,000 3,100,000 4,400,000 3,550,000 6,500,000 2,415,000 (18) (16) (16) (18) (18) (18) (18) $22,500,000 3,000,000 4400,000 (~2O) (II) (IS) 00,000 17, 500,000 27,600,000 25,850,000 36,000,000 22,500,000 3,000,000 4,400,000 3,550,000 20,000,000 3,200,000 $24,300,000 11,800,000 18,850,000 2,500,000 2,000, 000 3,000,000 17,100,000 3,000,000 4,400,000 3,550,000 7,000,000 2,400,000 30,000,000 91,050,000 29,900,000 199,100,000 99,900,000 FOREIGN CURRENCY PROGRAM) $1,800, 000 2,300,000 500, 000 $1,800, 000 2,300,000 500,000 (7) (7) (7) $500, 000 450,000 50,001) (7) (7) (7) i,ooo,ooo 4,600,000 4,600,000 See footnotes at end of table, 00 PAGENO="0292" 21 2, 450 21 $32, 836,000 P1 P1 00 z 00 Builqet requests of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Office of Education-Continued SALARIES AND EXPENSES Activity Number of positions Amount FIscal year 1967 Autlioriza- Appropria- tion I tion Fiscal year 1968 2 (7) ~7) COLLEGES FOR AGRICULTURE AND THE MECHANIC ARTS (PERMANENT) Authoriza- Request to Budget tion I BOB estimate (7) 2, 830 2,735 (7) $47, 236, 000 $40, 253,000 ci) P1 0 00 tn C) (~rants to States $2,550,000 $2,550,000 $2,550,000 $2,550,000 $2,550,000 PROMOTION OF VOCATIONAL EDUCATION-ACT OF FEB. 23, 1967 (PERMANENT) Grants to States $7,161,455 $7,161,455 $7,161,455 $7,361,455 $7,161,455 STUDENT LOAN INSURANCE FUND Higher education student loans Vocational student loans (7) $3,000,000 (7) (7) 200,000 (7) Total 3,200,000 PAGENO="0293" HIGHER EDUCATION LOAN FUND Participation sales insufficiencles: Appropriated funds Payments from revolving fund Total Other expenses: Appropriated funds Payments from revolving fund Total higher education construction loans: Appropriated funds Obligations from appropriated funds Participation sales Total, lending level Total, appropriated funds Institutes for school personnel Grants to school boards Administration Total P1 _________ 00 _________ P1 H 00 CI) _________ It C-) ________ 0 00 Ph $5, 500, 000 ~ 22, 600, 000 ci 1900000 C-) ___- 30, 000, 000 ____ 0 II (7) (7) $659, 000 1, 196, 000 (7) (7) $3, 192,000 2, 508,000 $2, 625, 000 1, 3M, 000 1,855,000 5,700,000 3,979,000 (~h (7) 4,000 (7) (7) 8 000 8,000 4,000 8,000 8,000 $200,000,000 (7) 200,000,000 $400,000,000 100,000,000 100, 000, 000 (7) 200,000,000 100,000,000 200, 000, 000 300,000,000 100,000,000 100, 000, 000 200,000,000 CIVIL RIGIITS EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITIES See footnotes at end of table. 200,659,000 3,200,000 2,625,000 (IS) (78) (18) $3, 385,000 3, 150, 000 22 1,493,000 (78) (78) (78) $11, 600,000 24, 367, 000 1,900,000 228,028,000 37, 867, 000 [t~1 PAGENO="0294" Instructional assistance: (]rants to States Loans to nonproht private schools `J'eacher training institutes Total 1 Excludes mdcli uite authorizations. 2 Excludes proposed legislation. Includes proposed supplements. `Without extension of temporary provisions. `Includes $12,500,000 proposed supplemental. 6 Authorization expires June 30, 1907; extension to be proposed. 7 Indefinite. 8 Continuation costs plus $70,000,000 for new awards. 9 Total of $25,000,000 authorized from fiscal year 1959 through duration of act. 10 Represents balance of $17,500,000 total authorization for fiscal years 1966 through 1968; $7,500,000 appropriated in 1966. 11 Total of $17,500,000 authorized for fiscal years 1966 through 1968; total authorization was appropriated in 1966. I' Represents balaoìee of $16,000,000 total authorization for fiscal years 1965 through 1967; $8,000,000 appropriated. `3 Represents balance of $1,875,000 total authorization for 1966 through 1968; $850,000 appropriated in 1966. 14 Total of $1,875,000 authorized for fiscal years 1966-63; total authorization was appro- priated in 1966 and 1967. Fiscal year 1968 2 Autitoriza- tion 1 Request to BOB Budget estimate 1, 000, 000 1, 000, 000 11), 000, 000 1, 000, 000 1, 000, 000 `~ An amount of $15,000,000 is authorized for l)t. B of title II, IIEA, Including library research which is Justilied under the appropriation "Research and training." Ii Includes $2,500,000 proposed supplemental. 17 Includes $200,000 for administration which is reflected under "Salaries and expenses" in appropriation and request. 18 Not specified. "$100,000,000 authorized over a 5-year period. 20 An amount of $15,000,000 is authorized for pt. B of title II, HEA, including librarian training which is justified under the appropriation "Lihraries and community services." 29 In order to reflect comparability with the 1968 estimate, the amount for 1967 includes adult basic education program which has been transferred from "Elementary and second- ary educational activities." The amount excludes activities which have been trans- ferred to "1{igher education for international understanding," "Salaries and expenses, Office of the Secretary," and "Educational Improvement for the handicapped." 22 Includes $28,000 proposed supplemental. N0TE.-1967 appropriation adjusted for comparability with 1968 new appropriation structure. Thu/1jet rcqncsls of the i)epartmenl of Health, Educution, and Welfare, Office of I~Jducation-Cotitinued ARTS AND hUMANITIES EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITIES Activii v Fiscal year 1967 Aiotliorisa- Appropria- tin,, 1 tints $440, 0(10 60, 000 500,000 $440, 000 60, 000 500, 000 $440, 000 60, 000 500, 000 $440, 000 60, 000 500, 000 $440, 000 60, 000 500, 000 LT.j A PAGENO="0295" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 289 Mrs. GREEN. Yes; I would. Did you request 100 percent? Mr. HowE. No; we did not request that. You are addressing your- self to title I? Mrs. GREEN. I am addressing myself to title I. I don't have it broken down in separate titles. On higher educational activities, for example, you requested only 52 percent. You have only requested ~0 percent of elementary and secondary in the authorization. You surely made a much larger request than that originally. Mr. HOWE. Our requests were larger than the amounts that have emerged from the total process, but I just haven't the figures here. We can give them to you. Mrs. GREEN. Were you given any suggestions to cut it to 80 or 90 percent? Mr. HOWE. No; no percentage suggestions. Within my office and within the Department, we went through the usual process that you go through in building a budget. We started with what I suppose we all know to be somewhat larger thinking than will ultimately work out. We honestly believe we have come up with a program that represents some progress and good support of commitments we have already made. This is part of a complex operation which also involves a number of new programs. Whereas I quite agree that you can zero in on one of the.se appropriations and be critical of it, I think we would want to defend the broad picture here. Mrs. GREEN. I guess I am really trying to make a defense for the Office of Education, with the keeper of education, so to speak, in this country. If the school people across the 50 States get the impression that the Office of Education is less than enthusiastic in asking for appropriations, the brunts of the criticism will fall upon the Com- missioner of Education and the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, and not on the Budget Bureau, which is where I think it might well fall. Perhaps, Mr. Chairman, we might someday get the Bureau of the Budget over here for questions, since they are making educational policy. Mr. HoWE. That would be an interesting exercise. Mrs. GREEN. I hope it would not be an exercise in futility. Mr. SCJTEUER. I think it would not be an exercise in futility if we had the costs-benefit study so we could prove to them in hard, cold, economic terms, from the points of view of the income statement that this investment is so rich and productive that we cannot afford as a financial matter not to make it. Mr. Howi~. I would like to say that the Bureau of the Budget is just as interested as you are in getting cost analysis figures of this kind, and are extremely anxious to have these for their decisionmak- ing as you are for yours. Mrs. GREEN. When I total a request that you have for five of the major programs, you have really a request for the year which is not much more than the cost of 1 month of the war in Vietnam. Chairman PERKINS. It seems to me if the Office of Education is going to represent the schools of the United States they could make PAGENO="0296" 290 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS the plea that would be as persuasive and effective as some of the Pentagon people. I have friends on the Armed Services Committee who tell me that the cost of the war is now up to the neighborhood of $3 billion a month. You make a request for all of the schools in the entire United States for $3,343 million, they are, I think, that maybe people who are vitally interested in education and war on poverty, and doing some- thing about future generations, might be entitled to say that the Office of Education is not as good a salesman as the Pentagon is for its part, not as persuasive in convincing the Nation that our future may rest as much upon the education of our children as it rests upon the bombs which we are exploding 8,000 miles away. Mr. HOWE. I will make two observations, one of which I made this morning. There are increases in the overall Office of Education budget. The $3.3 billion figure you just gave I don't quite recognize. Our total budget figure for the Office of Education is just under $4 billion. You must add to that the additional amounts that we will receive to operate. Operation Follow-Through. We will have very close to a 10-percent increase in the total expenditures for which the Office of Education will be responsible in fiscal 1968 as compared to fiscal 1967. Mrs. GREEN. Yes, but let us talk about the authorization for 1968. Your requests are 55 percent of the authorization. Mr. HOWE. In terms of authorization, I haven't worked out the percentages, but I presume that is correct. Mrs. GREEN. That is on these five major programs. Mr. HOWE. Our requests are somewhat below authorizations as they have been in earlier years, and may well continue to be. The authorizat ion, whereas it gives us something to shoot for, is not automatically a legislative piece of financial policy. Mrs. GREEN. But Yankee traders, too, recognize if they cut down their original request on appropriations they may not even end up with 55 percent. Mr. Howi~. I have to say also that I very much like your remarks about the needs for the Office of Education to provide leadership, and I believe it. should. It is also a part of the Government of the United States and has to very much be a part of the total budget planning process. I believe it should be. Its financing through that planning process that eventually makes up the President's budget will, in the long run, benefit from the inter- action of total planning that the Government must make. Mr. Es'rEs. I would point out also at this point, if I might, that to take the total figure and estimate the increase is somewhat misleading. I mentioned this morning that in title I we have about a 14-percent increase over last. year's appropriation, or request, not counting in ex- ce.ss of $100 million that. we will have for the Follow-Through pro- gram. This would bring it. up to a 19- or 20-percent increase over last year. In title ITT we have an 80-percent increase over fiscal year 1967. If our amendment to title V is approved there would be. an approximate 60-percent increase. PAGENO="0297" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 291 So as you look at individual programs within elementary and second- ary education, I think where you tind that we are purchasing services, we are purchasing people, we have a rather commendable record. Mr. HowE. Picking up Mr. Estes' remark here, what you find in our total budget is a heavier investment in what we call human resources or human investment programs, and a somewhat lower investment in fa- cilities and things programs, the purchase of materials and facilities. But the human-resource programs that run broadly through the Office of Education have been increased enough to bring out of the balance of the whole enterprise an increase of not quite 10 percent. Mrs. GREEN. I haven't studied your complete paper. If the in- formation in my head is correct, the amount you asked Congress to authorize last year is much greater than the appropriation you are asking Congress to make this year? Mr. HOWE. I don't think that is correct, Mrs. Green. The President's budget for the Office of Education last year? Mrs. GREEN. I am talking about these major programs. What did you reque~ last year, for instance, in elementary and secondary, for the authorization? Mr. HowE. The request for fiscal 1967? Mrs. GREEN. For fiscal 1968. Mr. HOWE. $1.2 billion for fiscal 1968. Mrs. GREEN. For the total Elementary and Secondary Education Act? Mr. HowE. No, excuse me. I don't have t.hat figure right here. Chairman PERKINS. $1.053 billion for title I. Mr. Es'rEs. That was the appropriation for fiscal 1967. Mr. HOWE. In fiscal 1967 the actual appropriation for the entire act wa.s $1.3 billion. Mr. Esms. But the actual authorization for title I was $1.4 billion. Mrs. GREEN. And for 1968 it is what? Mr. Esi~s. $2.4 billion is the authorization for title I. Mrs. GREEN. And this year you are asking us to appropriate $1.6 billion. You are doing this on all of your programs. You asked us last year to authorize a much larger amount for fiscal year 1968 and then you come to us this year and ask us to appropriate less than you asked us to authorize a year ago. Mr. HoWE. This is correct. We have not fully filled out the authorizations in appropriation requests. Chairman PERKINS. I think the greatest concern, I might say, is under title I where we have authorized $2.440 billion and we only have in there $1.200 billion, which, in reality, amounts to 50 percent. That is where the biggest complaint is as I see it. Mrs. GREEN. I just express disappointment that this is your area of responsibility and you don't come to the Congress with at least t.he equivalent of the authorization of last year. My experience with other departments and agencies is that they do. I realize your problems with the Budget Bureau. I would think it should be made as a serious request that we ask them to come up. . Mr. ERLENBORN. I wonder if some of us with lesser seniority might get. our 5 minutes. PAGENO="0298" 292 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS Chairman PERKINS. You may proceed. Let me. say to all the members that I will stay here as late as it takes. Mr. ERLENBORN. I notice we now have 20 regional educational labs; is that correct? Mr. HowE. Yes, sir. Mr. ERLENBORN. Does that now cover every area of the United St.ates or are there some areas not yet covered by regional labs? Mr. HOWE. The reason I am hesitating is that we are attempting to deemphasize somewhat the idea of regional coverage in the sense that although we have drawn boundary lines on some maps to indicate the areas where regional labs may be primarily in operation, we see these labs as organizations which, as they do good work, will certainly influence areas outside those we have defined. In a broad sense we want to draw on educational leadership in most portions of the country but we a.ren't trying to distribute these strictly on a. geographical basis. I realize that may not seem exact, and it isn't exact.. To answer your question directly, the area that is not, so to speak, directly involved at the present time would be Hawaii and some of the possessions. There. has just. recently been sta.rted a nucleus of a laboratory orga- nization in the Washington, D.C.-Maryland area. We have what you might describe as fairly effective coverage to the degree that coverage is a portion of this program. Mr. ERLENBORN. So tha.t you would say that at this time practically every place within the continental limits of the United States is served by some regional lab? Mr. HOWE. Yes. I would state further we do not int.end for the moment to launch additional regional laboratories. Mr. ERLENBORN. I notice, also, we have one national educational laboratory presently. Are there others that are contemplated? Mr. HOWE. This really isn't an exact definition, this idea of a re- gional versus a national laboratory because the so-called regional education laboratory in New York, working on the problems of educa- t.ion of deprived children, will have results that. will apply to Los Angeles and Chicago just. as welT. We have in this one national laboratory that you refer to an or- ganization concerned with a special topic, the education of children in their early years. It is made up in an unusual way, of a group of university people located in different parts of the country but co- ordinating their activities. In this sense it. is different.. It doesn't have as much regional con- cept about it.. This is why we call it. a national laboratory around a particular problem. At. the. present time we have no proposals for starting additional organizations of that. kind. I think over a period of years it may well be worth looking at additional enterprises of that. national laboratory variety. Mr. ERLENBORX. As I understand it, you have rather broad author- ity to contract with such agencies within the limitation of your author- ization and appropriation: is that correct. Mr. HOWE. Yes, we do. PAGENO="0299" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDFCXTION AMENDMENTS 293 We give what we call program grants to these laboratories and make an agreement with them about their responsibilities under such a grant. But they have considerable flexibility of authority for the use of these program grants within the broad purposes which they outline to us. Mr. ERLENBORN. Do most of these or all of them take the form of a not-for-profit corporation with whom you contract? Mr. HowE. Yes; they do. Mr. ERLENBORN. And was this required in the authorizing legisla- tion or was this a form that you suggested as a matter of administrative handling? Mr. HowE. I believe the latter, but I will check it. This is Dr. Louis Bright, Associate Commissioner of Education for Research. Mr. BRIGHT. The law is broad enough to permit contracting with any type of organization. In the legislative discussions of the re- gional laboratories the intention there. was, as I recall it, to contract either through universities or special nonprofit corporations. That is in the legislative history. Mr. ERLENBORN. The direction you have taken is exclusively for nonprofit organizations? Mr. HOWE. Yes. We do have a number of organizations which are very much like regional laboratories but somewhat narrower in scope called research and development centers. These receive pro- gram grants, also. These are located at the universities and there we are in the. business of working with the universities. Mr. ERLENBORN. Does your office suggest the form that they should use, the not-for-profit corporation? Do you suggest to them the structure? Most importantly do you suggest to them the salary scales that the employees of the lab should receive? Mr. HOWE. Ofll~ in a very broad sense. We say to them that we want to be assured that there is a responsible structure of govern- ment for the private corporation, that it has an appropriate board of directors that. is responsive, that is involved in its affairs. We want them to demonstrate that this is true before we give them major pro- gram grants. We have given what you might describe as planning or development grants to groups that are in the process of reaching that form of gov- eimment for their corporation. On the other part of your question. here, again, we provide what you call broad guidance. We say that the salaries particularly for the top-level personnel in the laboratories should be commensurate with top-level public salaries for similar kinds of work. This would be leadership personnel in colleges and universities, or other public en- deavors, in the vicinity where the laboratories are. We allow them reasonable flexibility in this area, but we call it to their attention when there seems to be a problem developing. We don't enter into their detailed salary negotiations. We sa t.o them, also, that persons who are being employed by the labs may, of course, receive salary increments in the process, but that these should be reasonable. Mr. ERLENBORN. Would you tell me what the average salary of the director of a regional lab is among these ~O ? PAGENO="0300" 294 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS Mr. HowE. No; I can't. I would guess it. is in the realm of between $25,000 and $30,000. I will ask Dr. Bright. Mr. BRIGHT. I can't tell you that. I can say that the average in- crease they received from their former positions was 19 percent. I cannot tell you the average dollar value at the moment. I can get it for you. Mr. HOWE. We can easily provide this. (The information requested follows:) The average salary of a director of a regional laboratory is $26,200. Mr. ERLENBORN. Can you tell me the average annual salary of the average chief State school officer? Mr. HOWE. Relatively low on the average. Chief State school officers' pay has not advanced as city superintendents, for example. I can't give you a figure on this, but if I were to take a guess, it would be in the realm of $19,000 or $20,000. Mr. ScnEU~. Will my colleague yield ? This is on your point. Mr. ERLENBORN. I will yield briefly. Mr. SCHEUER. Isn't it true that sonie. of the chief State planning officers for title I are paid substantially less than $10,000 per year, particularly in some of the Southern States? Mr. HOWE. Probably this is true, Mr. Scheuer. The salary sched- ules of the Southern States for chief State school officers, and, there- fore, below them, are really not competitive at all with higher educa- tion. with city systems in the Southern States. You find some of the chief State school officers of Southern States in the realm of $13.000. S14.000, $15,000. This, therefore, distributes people below them at still lower levels. Mr. SCHEUER. We have had several instances where the chief State planning officers for the planning program are being paid $8,000 to $10,000 a ye.ar. Mr. ERLENBORN. My next question is, What is the average income of the heads of the. regional office of the Office of Education? Mr. HoWE. He. is a GS-15 in the Government pay scale.. So this is $17,000 to $23,000, depending on how long he has been on board. He is in there somewhere. Mr. ERLENBORN. Just to reca.p this, the chief Stat.e school officers will get. a salary ranging from ~S.000 to $10,000 up to maybe $19,000 or $20,000? Mr. HowE. I would say they would average in the 19 to Q0 range. Mr. ERLENBORN. The director of the regional Office of Education will range between $17,000 and $23,000, but the director of the regional lab will range from $25,000 to $30,000, most of them receiving an in- crease of some considerable amount over their previous appointments. Does this really fit. in with the order of priorities which you think is proper? Do you think that the direct.or of the regional lab is that much more important to education tha.n your chief State school officers or your own director of the regional Office of Education, that you should pay him that much more, obviously enticing people who might otherwise be employed as the director of your regional office, as the chief State school officer, or in some other field of education? PAGENO="0301" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 295 Mr. HowE. I don't think the labs ought to have imposed upon them the salary lag to which the chief State school officers are subject. Their salaries are set in most cases by State legislatures. There is a definite lag in getting administrative salaries moved by State legislatures. It seems to me that the directors of the laboratories, if they are to be successful, that is, the laboratories, ought to be people for whom the top levels of the educational world are competing, who would be the kind of people who would be commanded by significant city superintendencies or really well paying chief State school jobs, or by colleges or universities which would be seeking maj or officers, deans, or college presidents. These are the kinds of comparisons that the lab should be making in seeking their top personnel if they are going to be the kind of outfits that they want them to be. This doesn't disturb me in the least. Mr. ERLENBORN. It doesn't dist.urb you at the level of the regionai lab and doesn't disturb you at the level of the competence of the people that you employ in the regional office or at the enticement there might be for them to leave your employ as regional office directors to go into more lucrative employment as directors of regional labs? Mr. HOWE. In a narrow way perhaps it does, but in a broad way whenever education has the opportunity to bring some first-rate execu- tive salaries into the picture, it is helping all of education because it is going to help education to move other executive salaries. This is important. Executive levels in education have been under- paid. They have kept a lid, therefore, on other endeavors in education. I think it is very poor economy to pay low levels for leadership positions. Mr. SCHEUER. Will my colleague yield? Mr. ERLENBORN. Let me make one further observation. One of our titles in our act is called strengthening State school administrations. It would seem to me that the regional labs, as set up, are working at cross purposes to the strengthening of our chief State school officers and their administration. I would be happy to yield. Mr. HOWE. Let me make an observation on that. I would worry if I felt this were the case. I would like to know what evidence there is for this. We are trying very hard to bring the regional labs into appropriate service to State education departments. You will find State officers of education departments, frequently the chief State school officer, on the board of directors of many of the regional laboratories, if not all of them. It seems to me that their endeavors ought to be not to duplicate, not to interfere with, but to offer additional possibilities to the State edu- cation departments. Mr. SCHEUER. I would like to reemphasize that point and say from our experience the problem is not trying to diminish salaries at the top and reduce excellence in these regional labs, but to improve the quality of the State education officers, particularly of the title I plan- fling officers in the States. They are the people through whom Congress and the Office of Edu- cation is working. When you have States in the South who pay $8,000 PAGENO="0302" 296 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS and $8,500 salary for the chief planning officers for this billion dollar title I program, it has obvious implications as to the quality, the excel- lence and the leadership you get. a.t the State level, as to the type of innovation, leadership or change that you are going to get when you are restricted to salary levels of that kind. I would say the thrust should be up from the bottom rather than clown from the top. Mr. ERLENBORN. I would agree if what we were talking about was establishing salary levels if we had any control over that. But I think we now have salary levels established and we are competing for the personnel available. I think it is just as true as night follows day that if you have a good man who is employed as a director of the regional office in t.he Office of Education, who is limited to $20,000 a year, who can get a. job for $30,000 a year with a regional lab, human nature is going to dictate that he will at. least be quite interested in leaving his present employment and seeking the higher paid employment. I take it we are talking about a field where there is a dearth of talent. If we had a surplus, there might not be a problem. Mr. SduEu~. If my colleague will yield, it seems to me there are two concent.ric circles of competition. There is the one circle of com- petition within t.he educational fraternity and there I think we might have, a prob'em. But we also have the problem of attracting able and dedicated, thoughtful, and creative people into the field of education. I think what we have to do, considering the long-term goals that the Commissioner has discussed, is to enlarge the pool of excellence from which we are going to staff all levels of education, Federal, State, county, and local. It seems to me unless we can raise the bottom level of these salaries at the county and St.ate levels to attract more people into the edu- cational arena, we are never going to solve our problem. We are. always going to be faced wit.h the problem that you rightly point to. of competition by the various levels for the present pool of talent that has been attracted into the field of education to begin wit.h. This is too small a pool of talent. I think we have to set our sights at vastly enlarging the attractions of a career in education at all levels. When we do that, we won't have to worry about the forms of corn- pet.ition within a particular area. Mr. ERLENBORN. So that some of my other colleagues may have an opportunity for their 5 minutes, I would like to yield at this time. Mr. ScI~uTR. Mr. Chairman, may I make one more comment? Chairman PERKINS. Yes. Mr. Sci ui~. I would like to emphasize and reemphasize the point my chairman has made, the points my colleague from Oregon made, and the point my colleague from Minnesota made, a.bout the neces- sity of extending the act so that we can encourage the school systems to have the confidence of continuity of our programs so that they will get with it.. so to speak. In connection with this. I would like to read three sentences on page 16 of your testimony, Mr. Commissioner: Systematic, comprehensive, long range educational planning at all levels is essential if our nation's educational needs are to be met. If present pro- ~-rom~ ore to he effectively coordinated and improved to fill the needs of each PAGENO="0303" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 297 child, if new programs are to be developed to meet unmet needs, objective evaluation of resources, goals and methods of meeting those must be carried out. Evaluation is impossible unless reliable information concerning the effec- tiveness of the education provided to our children is obtained and analyzed. It. seems to me that. if we are really serious about getting our local education agencies involved in this mutua.l partnership process of setting long-term educational goals and planning for change, to coordinate and improve these programs by objective evaluation of the resources, the goals and the methods, and if you want them emo- tionally and psychologically to involve themselves in the rather wrenching process of change, it seems to me that the one carrot you must hold forth to them is continuing assistance in designing this change. For that reason alone, I would say that it is almost an indispensable necessity to hold out a 2- or 3-year program to them so that they will be willing to make not only the investment in resources at the local level, but more than that-as I said, the emotional and psycho- logical investment, so that they know you will continue to provide them with the underpinnings, the support, the handholding, if you will, the technical planning and evaluation backup of all kinds, to help ease them through this agonizing reappraisal of their whole way of doing business and help them into this new world of effectiveness that will involve not only dollar resources that we have all spoken about, but which will involve their giving leadership at the State, county and local levels, and provide change, basic change, in the way of doing business. Mr. HowE. I would agree with your whole point of view. I think this is a direction in which we have to move. As I said to Mrs. Green earlier, our not bringing up the Elementary and Secondary Edu- cation Act this year was related to the recent., very recent, consideration in 2 successive years of this act by the Congress, our wanting to have the experience of a year of operation under the same principles. We quite clearly, in the programs we have brought up this year, are following on the general objective that you just stated so well. Chairman PERKINS. Mr. Dellenback. Mr. DELLENBACK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I noticed you didn't even wince when the chairman volunteered that you would continue to stay with us if we sa.t here. I must confess that I come to these hearings and to these questions without. some of the detailed knowledge and background that you gentlemen have and the members of the committee. I share the same concern, however. There are a few questions that, in part., reflect. a somewhat simila.r approach to the problems we are facing to some of those which have gone before. I would ask, relative to something that you said at. one place, when you said t.hat getting the results of educational research into the use of the schools and colleges is as important as the research itself. I think that can be expanded. It is not only the idea of research but plans. As you get certain projects pushed in certain areas and they come up with solutions which look desirable, I am very much interested in how effective the program ha.s been of implementing an interchange in this regard. PAGENO="0304" 298 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDTTCATION AMENDMENTS Mr. HOWE. Of im~)lemefltmg an interchange that will have one school district influence another and that sort of thing? Mr. DELLENBACK. So that a school district in Massachusetts can have some impact in my State of Oregon, or vice versa. Mr. HoWE. I would like to ask Mr. Estes to comment on our several efforts that cause this to happen. Mr. ESTES. That is a very good question. In fact, this is the intent of title III of the Elementary and Secondary Act, that is, to reduce the wide and perhaps widening gap between what we know and What we are doing in the classroom. It is to this end that our projects in title III have attempted to solve this problem. During the first year of the operation some 59 percent of theni were in the area of planning, attempting to assess needs, assign priorities, and then develop strategies for getting at this particular problem. I guess if we were honest we would have to say that we do not have the final answer on how to disseminate research information or new knowledge as we gain it. From some of the information we get from the private foundations, we find instances across the Nation where they have provided mil- lions of dollars to local school districts and after a 3- to 5-year period they simply are islands of isolation. You go to the local district next door and nothing has happened. We are attempting, t.hrough title III, as well as some of the other titles in the Elementary and Secondary Act, to find out how we can effectively inform, but not only inform them but. convince them, of the value of some of the new inventions that are being discovered in the fields of elementary and secondary education. Mr. DELLENBACK. I was interested in the fact that almost the first words that Commissione.r Howe led off with this morning as he re- ferred to the creation of the Department of Education 100 years ago- when you read the functions of the Department in their initial crea- tion-included cliffusin~ such information respecting, and so on. So from the very beginning this has been one of the principal tasks assigned to in the Department. Mr. Es~s. In section 505, if I might add this, we have several projects, interstate projects, using the 15-percent set.-aside money that we. have that are getting at this particular problem. Mr. I)ELLExB~~cic Do you need any more legislative tools or do you already have all that, you need? Mr. ESITs. If I am not mistaken we have broad authorities t.o disseminate. Commissioner, in our legislation are we not requesting additional authority ? Mr. DEr~Lrxw\cK. You make no request for amendments of title IV. I would think that in part title IV would be part of the route in which von would want. t.o disseminate. Mr. I-lOWE. There was an amendment last year that related to addi- tional authority a.nd funding for dissemination. It. came into oper- ation this year. a.s I recall. These activities are of the type that you would expect. They in- volve educational activities, conference activities, involve opport ii - nities for visits back and forth. PAGENO="0305" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 299 It is my observation that the face-to-face type of thing does a lot more than publication, although publication is a useful adjunct to it. We are trying in a whole variety of ways to get the word around as to what is successf iii, what seems to produce some payoff in schools. A major piece of this is the ERIC system, which was described m a pamphlet. Mr. DELLENBACK. You make reference to that in your testunony. Mr. HowE. This is a very convenient basis for a school district or anyone else concerned with education, to get summarized information about a research or demonstration project in which the Federal Gov- ernment has invested. Mr. DELLENBACK. But you do raise serious questions, I gather, as to the success of this program to date? Mr. HOWE. Let me observe that the nature of the government of America's education doesn't lend itself to rapid dissemination. We have to understand that. We have supported a system which is a sys- tem of local control of education, local financing in many places with some State support, school boards setting basic policies. It takes more time in such a system to disseminate than when you have a highly centralized system. So I think it is quite reasonable to expect that the processes of dissemination will take a period of time, and this is the exact experience which Mr. Estes cited organi- zations like the Ford Foundation which have been interested in edu- cational change over the years have had. It is a slow but steady process. Take a particular area of school curriculum in the sciences, like the PSSC physics program introduced in the late 1950's. This is still in the process of filtering down through the schools, through the retaining of teachers, through school districts, making the change to change their old-fashioned to newer physics. This is, again, the way it works. Mr. DELLENBACK. You are continuing to push this. Mr. HowE. Yes. Mr. DELLENBACK. You do not feel from the standpoint of legisla- tion that there is a ga~ that needs filling in this regard? Mr. HOWE. I don t think there is any need for us to have addi- tional authority to disseminate, and I don't think we ought to be given authority to require. I think we are well enough armed with authority. It is a question of our imagination in making things move. Mr. DELLENBACK. May I ask one question relative to the Teacher Corps which, again, shows my naIvete in this regard. What would happen to the Teacher Corps if the salaries were re- stricted? I notice in your breakdown or estimated cost of corpsmen that half of this is salary, half of a 2-year cost is about $8,000 plus, on a $17,000 total. You commented in your testimony that you have found that salary was not the point, and, therefore, you could bring about this reduction that you propose now. T was following very carefully, with interest, the questions of my colleague from Minnesota earlier as he was pushing along in the direction of the uniforms, the tie clasps, or what -von will. I wondered what would happen. Would von suddenly find there w-ould be no applicants for this? What if in effect. the program were 492-67--------2t) PAGENO="0306" 300 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS one of paying tuition, of carrying costs for those who truly wanted this program, without bringing them within the scope of complete coverage? Mr. HOWE. Let me make a brief coniment and Mr. Graham will comment further. These people do live in the United States, which costs a certain amount of money. Someone will have to pay those costs. The costs would devolve upon the school districts, I suppose, if you didn't pay them salaries that were transferred to them from Federal sources. School districts are pretty tight for funds. Therefore, school dis- tricts would be unlikely to enter into a teacher training pr~ess which would restrict the available funds that they have for hiring the regu- lar teachers in their school systems. If no provision were made here, you would very likely find a decline in numbers in the Teacher Corps. We think we can restrict the pro- vision here without having that effect. What we are doing is trying to set up a reasonable arrangement. Dick, do you want to comment on that? Mr. GRAIIA3I. I think we would want to run a program that will cost just as little as you can possibly pay, and still get people who want to do this job and will be first rate at it. In Chicago last week, when we had a meeting of the university people and the school people who are running these programs, this question was raised. They frankly said that we had made a mistake in supporting this idea of $75 a week. They thought that you might begin to lose the kind of person you wanted. So they felt that we were approaching the point at which we shouldn't go lower. I am not sure. If our experience would show tha.t you can get the kind of person you want to do this job at less incentive in the way of dollars, we would move that way. Mr. QuIE. Would the gentleman yield? Mr. DELLENBACK. Yes; I will yield. Mr. QUIE. I should remind the gentleman from Oregon and the Commissioner that last year when the Teacher Corps were proposed, the administration asked that the local school district pay the entire salary. You felt at that time that the program was going to work. I would also cite an example in St. Paul, where they are running a similar program, and the school system of St. Paul is happy to pay the salary for the amount of work that the students do in that local school system. Mr. HowE. I am not. sure about our having proposed this business of having the school districts pay the salary. I was not in on such a conversation. It may have been prior to my time. There have been various discussions about sharing arrangements, about a percentage being paid by the school district.. We have to make clear that the Teacher Corps members do not supplant the needs for a regular teacher by the school system. They are a supplementary serv- ice in the school system over and above the need for a regular staff in the schools. They are providing an enrichment service which adds to the enrich- ment service that the school district gets under title I. Therefore, it would be an additional cost to the school system as the Teacher Corps is now set up. PAGENO="0307" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDTJCATION AMENDMENTS 301 In the program you are describing, Mr. Quie, I am almost certain that they are not providing that kind of a service but rather are sub- stitutirig, probably on a part-time basis, as they do in many teacher training programs, such as the MAT programs, for regular teachers. Therefore, this makes it possible for the school district to pick up a portion of their salary. But Teacher Corpsmen are ~upplementary in nature, over and above the regular school system's needs for per- sonnel for regular levels of staffing. Mr. DELLENBACK. Do you feel, then, that the effect would be to dry up the source of these teachers or these interns? Mr. HOWE. If it were totally dependent on school district financing, I think it would be. Mr. DELLENBACK. Would these people be lost to teaching or would they be lost to the special program? What would they do? Mr. HowE. I honestly don't know the answer to that. I don't think we have confronted a group with the alternative to find out what would happen. But it is pretty clear that one of the ways we are going to get new personnel into education, and particularly into those aspects of it that are most difficult to serve is going to be by some investment in the training process, just as we do the same thing for people who are going into graduate work in science, in medicine or whatever. Most of the graduate students taking Ph. D.'s in science these days are paid by the Federal Government. This is the way we get our scientific personnel. Mr. DELLENBAGX. I am not talking about whether there would be investment. What we are really talking about is the degree of investment.. Mr. HOWE. Yes. Mr. DELLENBACK. You are saying that in addition to paying basic costs and paying all expenses in connection with the education itself, it is necessary also to put stipends over and above that? Mr. HowE. Because I don't believe the money is there in the local school districts, or would be made available by them to take care of a supplementary service of this kind. Mr. DtLLENBAOK. The persons involved would not be sufficiently in- terested were it not for this, to finance this themselves? Mr. Gi~&uA~r. You are going to reach a point where that- would be the case. The reason for that is that the average age of these interns i~ 24. These are young men and women who have graduated from the university. There are a number of other alternatives open to them because they are first-rate people. There are some retired Air Force colonels who might not. he under the same pressures. But we now sense that you are reaching the level at which you would dry up the source of the kind of person you want in the program. Mr. DELLENBACK. A figure. that von may well not have, Mr. Com- missioner, but as I was listening to the discussion of funds, do you have an offhand or horseback figure of the comparative total amounts i-hat are contributed to education, by, one, the Federal Government, i nd two, the State governments? Chairman PERKINS. Would you yield to your colleague from Cali- fornia., Mr. Bell, so he may leave? PAGENO="0308" 302 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS Mr. BELL. I don't want to interrupt the question he is asking right now. Would you conclude that? Mr. DELLENBACK. Do you have any total figures of contributions to education by the Federal Government, by the State governments, by the local governments? Mr. HOWE. One of my associates has just given me some figures which are in the form of percentages. Here I think we are talking about elementary-secondary education, not higher education. Fifty-three percent by local educational agencies, 39 percent by State agencies, and 8 percent by Federal agencies. I dont know where he got these but I would guess them to be ap- proximately right. Mr. Esms. This is the total outlay for elementary and secondary educat ion in fiscal year 1966 of some $25 billion. Mr. DELLENBACK. A total of $25 billion? Mr. Esms. Right. Mr. DELLENBACK. I yield to my good friend from California. Mr. Br~. Thank you. I have t.o leave shortly. Mr. Commissioner, I just have a couple of questions. I want to again reiterate the problem of AFDC data. The purpose of that amendment, which was a joint amendment, was to get the latest AFDC figures. Particularly in view of the fact that we could ge.t this bill out early, I don't thmk that would be a very effective approach, to have year-late figures, if we could possibly obt&in 1961 figures. I think we. should do it for next year. Maybe it is difficult, but in this case Ithink we ought. to try to do it.. Mr. Esms. As soon as we can get the figures, if at all possible we would like to use them. However, we would like to get the allocations out in the spring so that. school districts can plan for the next school year. It is my understanding that this information, that is, the 1967 fig- ures, would not be available until the fall. Certainly we wouldn't want local school districts to wait until then to know the precise amount of their allocation. Mr. BELL. I would concur, and I agree with you also, that we should get this bill out, if we can, by that time, at the time you suggested. But I think, also, we have to follow the purposes and intent of the. amendment. I want. to go to another topic relative to State and local jurisdic- tions. In California. there is some problem, I understand, developing between State and local jurisdictions, as to how far the States can go. for example, in interpreting our rulings, and whether or not the local school boards can get by interpreting what the. Federal Govern- ment. says in its guidelines. Are von playing a "hands off" policy on this matter? Is that the general approach to this proble.m? Mr. HOWE. The general relationship is that we take the basic. direc- tive from the Congress, develop more detailed regulations and guide- lines which direct. themselve.s to the details of operations of schools~ PAGENO="0309" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDFCATION AMENDMENTS 303 For purposes of title I, we place these broad directives in the hands of the State, which gives us an assurance it will operate its approval of projects sent by local school districts in accordance with these regulations and guidelines which have been set up under the act of Congress. The projects are developed at the local level, sometimes with con- siderable guidance from the title I coordinator in the State. But they are sent to the State for approval and the State has final approving authority. We may enter back into this, usually, on an ex post factor basis over such matters as audit. When it becomes necessary, either on a routine or a special basis, to audit the affairs of the school district, we will do it first by going to the State and conducting the audit at the State level. Usually that will take care of the problem. Sometimes we have to go into a local district for audit purposes. When we do that we will be accompanied by the State officials for that purpose. There are occasionally policy considerations which just seem to get us involved. One of these tricky policy areas is that which has to do with the service to private school pupils, and interpretations of what is within the intent of the Congress and what is not. We have tried in every case possible to have these matters flow, when there was a question about them, from the local school district to the State for determination by the State under the broad regula- tions we have provided. Because this is a new area, I think you will find the States calling us in for consultation in this area of services to private school pupils in the hope of getting further interpretations than we may have already provided about the details of the enterprise. That is an area where we do tend to get involved from time to time. Maybe Mr. Estes has a further comment. Mr. Esi~s. During the first 2 years of the operation of title I, we depended largely on regulations and guidelines, in addition to policy memoranda that have been sent out to the States from time to time. We see a definite need at this point to establish criteria that will be used in approving local projects. These criteria would be used by local districts and State units. We think this will assist us greatly in up- grading the quality and in insuring that local districts develop projects that are clearly within the intent of the act. Mr. BELL. Except in the broad guideline areas, however, you are more or less in a position of having to succumb to the wishes of the States, as to whether or not they want to upgrade, tighten or make tougher the programs they have. It is pretty well the State's juris- diction, providing they are within such guidelines as you have issued. Is that correct? Mr. Es'rEs. It is a State grant program. Mr. BELL. On the other hand, doing something about it might make things worse. Well, I see the point of that. This, of course, leads to the next question, and I am sure you have heaM enough of it, Mr. Commissioner, although I don't mean to belabor it. I just want to point out this cross-busing problem. For example, in our State you have to be very careful, it seems, because I under- PAGENO="0310" 304 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDLTCATION AMENDMENTS stand that there are some personnel who don't clearly understand the picture who may go into a school area and take a rather dogmatic stand encouraging, let~s say, cross-busing or encouraging the reverse of it. I wanted just. to mention a word of caution there. I think you have to be. very careful who you send out to the local school boards to see how they are doing. Sometimes they take a rather difficult, posi- tion on this issue. This has happened in California. There have, been some complaints raised. Mr. HoWE. I would guess whatever has occurred in Califoriii~t has not. been in connection with our civil rights activity. It may be in connection with planning other projects that are originated by the local school districts. We are certainly not in the business of requiring what might be described as cross busing. We are quite willing to have a local school district engage in such, at it.s own initiative, and use title I funds or title III funds for that purpose if it wishes to do so, but there is no requirement here. Mr. BELL. Suffice it. t.o say that. this did happen in California. There was one situation that. occurred. I have one other question. In some of the deprived areas you may have problems of preschool educa.tion and training, before grammar school. Sometimes it. isn't a very practical thing, but when you have preschool education for chil- dren in deprived areas and you have no followthrough in grammar school education, your preschool children are not getting much from it, a.s I understand was shown in t.he Wolf report that was made in New York. You could send a child for 3 or 4 months of preschool and then he goes on to grammar school in which the teachers are different, and not adequate, perhaps; the surroundings are not conducive to greater learning; and he loses everything. This can become, I c.an see, a very serious problem. What. can you do to meet this? Mr. HoWE. The situat.ion you describe is, I think, t.he basic reason for Operation Follow-Through, which we are trying to start, so that we have some reaction to this kind of problem in this year's program. Also, we would hope that we could help that school district., or the State coordinator could help that school district., to use title I funds in such a way that the situation you describe would not develop. In all likelihood that school district will have title I funds. It seems to me that the combination of these two things is perhaps only a partial answer, but. at least reaches in t.he. direction of solving t.he problem. Mr. BELL. Mv t.ime has run out. Thank you. Chairman PERKINS. Mr. Dellenback. Mr. DELLENBACK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. There. is just. one other area that I would like to ask a few questions about. This is to zero the area in. I come from a State which I think has a. good State department of education. I have been somewhat involved on the State legislative level. I am just not really sure where it is in the department of edu- cat.ion on the Federah level von visualize the role of State departments of education really to be. PAGENO="0311" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDTCATION AMENDMENTS 305 I am aware of what we have here about title V, improving State de- part.ments. But I see concerns in my mind in title I. disbursement of funds, that are involved where the Federal Goverrimemit, through its department., is dealmg directly with the school districts. Using my State as 1 in 50 as an example, I am not sure. that we are not in a better position at the State level to say how those funds should be used, how they should be concentrated, in which school districts, in which areas of concern; that~ we would not he in a better position at the State level to make this type of determination. I would appreciate your comments on this. Mr. HOWE. First of all, I think there is some misunderstanding about title I. This is a program which is farmed out to the State departments of education. It is really the responsible agent. It makes determination of the project grants approved by local school districts and is thoroughly involved in responsibility for effective operation of title I. I would say that title I really reflects a philosophy that we are trying to operate through our entire program. Mr. DELLENBACK. If you will excuse my interrupting, what if in the State of Oregon our State department were to decide that the area of greatest need was area X, whatever that may be, and it. wanted to use all of the funds, title I funds, that were available within the State of Oregon, within area X, and not use them in A, B, C, and so on, in the others. Would it be permitted to do so? Mr. HOWE. This would depend to some extent on what area X is. The Congress has said that the funds must be used for the benefit of concentrations of deprived children. If area. X did fit into the service of `deprived children in accordance with the formula the Congress has set up, then there is a great deal of discretion for the State and the local school district to support area X. I think what we might do in such a situath5n would be to point out to a State that was concentrating all its funds on one particular kind of service, let's say it wa~s counseling, that there are prob- lems with reading and that you might not answer all the needs of the children in the State by focusing on counseling; that. education is a kind of total enterprise which has a variety of facets, and that a single focus on one of these facets may not, serve all the children best, that is, the deprived children. What we would do, I think, also, is to let them go ahead, as you suggest, and finance area X, as long as it is within the rules of the game as set~ up by Congress, and ask for a responsible evaluation of it; and then t.o examine with interest, as the State would, the results of that. evaluation. There is great discretion in the State to decide what happens to title I funds on the basis of local proposals. The proposals have to come from t.he local school districts. Therefore, the State would have to persuade the local school districts that area X is what they should do. But the State could perhaps do that. Mr. T)ELLENBACK. Mr. Commissioner, might there not be advantage, since I am sure, having lived in about three or four of the other 49 States, that the needs will vary from State to State, would PAGENO="0312" 306 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS there be advantage to changing the legislation to give t.he States in certain 1nstances, at least, or in some areas, at least, greater discretion as to how to expend these funds? Do I not understand that title I is to be fragmentized so that there would not be complete control within any State department anyway? They could, within the guidelines set by the Federal legislation, say you could use so much money in this particular field and distribute it, if you handle the problem correctly of having started with the local and coming to the State for approval; you can reject all applications other than from this geographical area: or reject applications from all other areas other than area X. Still there is fragmentation, is there not? Mr. HOWE. There is fragmentation in the sense that there is an effort here to meet what local school districts think they need in their dis- tricts. I assume in Oregon there are probably local school districts that may have certain problems. They may have Indian populations. They may have some migrant workers. They may have concentra- tions of unemployed people with various kinds of problems that rep- resent concentrations of poverty. I would assume you would want t.hose districts to fit their use of these funds to the particular needs they have. In one case it might be learning English. In another case it might be something to do with vocational counseling at the high school level. I would seriously doubt whether there is any single very narrow ~eveI of expenditure that will serve, all the deprived students within a state as effectively as a diversified enterprise would. But that would be up the State. and it is the State's business. Mr. DELLENEACK. Do you mean if the fragmentation, under the law, is not particularly great. there is a high degree of flexibility within the State as to how it will move back and forth between areas of concentration? I must confess I will have to go back into the breakdown of title I funds to find out. where the lines are in t.ruth drawn on this. Mr. HOWE. The State has very considerable discretion in approving local proj ects, very considerable. Mr. ESTES. These are projects that are submitted to the State by the local or county school district. I would add here that title II of the Elementary and Secondary Act, the State does have this discretion. They are charged with the responsibility of establishing criteria based on relative need in the distribution of title II funds. Mr. DELLENBACK. What about amendment of title I to permit the same type of discretion by a Sta.te department? Mr. ESTES. Let me add that we find as a general rule across the Nation that there is geographical distribution of title I funds. The States are using these. There are very few distncts within a State that do not receive funds based on the fact that our ne&l is so great for instructional materials, teaching materials, library books, supplies, that all have a real need for this kind of service. I think the same might be true for title I. There are very few dis- tricts that do not have the need in some area for improving the quality of instruction for disadvantaged children. Mr. DELLENBACK. Let me ask one more question and I will quit, Mr. Chairman. PAGENO="0313" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDLCATION AMENDMENTS 307 Following Mr. Scheuer's line of questioning, as I read it some time ago, granted that we do not have enough money to solve all the prob- lems that are here, that are deep and grievous ofttimes, and granted that sometimes this very dispersal or fragmentation will just as well mean there will be inadequate funds going into a lot of different areas, geographical in nature, would we not do better, granted an absence of unlimited funds, to permit. a State to concentrate these funds ~n the problems that it. considered most grievous? Mr. HowE. This is what the Congress attempted to do, to concen- trate the funds when it developed the principle of focusing on areas of high concentration of deprived students. This notion of simply turning the money over to the State for any concentration the State wished to make without any congressional direction or I)01icY of any kind would change the total purpose and focus of title I, which is to get at a broad national problem, a national problem which really results from the fact that these students from deprived backgrounds tend to become educationally disadvantaged kids who drop out of school, who are unsuccessful, who are unemployable, who generally don't stay in the State but move about and go somewhere else, who become a charge on some other St.ate. The total philosophy of title I is to get at this national problem. It seems to me, if I read correctly wlia.t you are suggesting, which is simply giving the State the funds it is eligible for without. focus on this particular problem, you would change the whole purpose. of the act and the problem would in all likelihood go una.ttacked. The States have not tended to attack the problem with funds avail- able to them up until the time this act was placed in being. In all likelihood the pressures in the State would be very great to use these funds for purposes of raising teacher salaries generally, which is the largest financial problem the State has, and you would not, be bringing special services to deprived youngsters. So I think you are offering a very interesting suggestion about the Federal-State relationship and the funding arrangements for such a relationship, but totally changing the purpose in title I in doing so. Mr. DELLENBACK. I am not really suggesting this. I was asking for your reaction to it. Don't read into it any more than was there. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman PERKINS. Mr. Esch. Mr. ESCH. I want to express my appreciation to you and your staff for your extent of stay and participation today. I just have, one or two broad-base questions which I would like to discuss with you. In reference to title I, granted t.hat we need to work to improve the educational opportunity of the deprived children, I would like to discuss with you for a moment the Federal-State-local support rela- t.ionship in reference, for example, to title I. To what degree do we have information that. the local districts and/ or the State districts are deprived districts, if you will, that need sup- port, as opposed to districts which, by themselves, are not giving proper or adequate support to their local programs? To what degree are they financially or economically deprived? What information do we have? PAGENO="0314" 308 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS Mr. HowE. If I get your question correctly, it really concerns itself with financial capacities of individual districts that have groups of so- called deprived children. Mr. EscH. That is correct. Mr. Howi~. I am not sure whether we have studies that show where there are high concentrations of deprived children there tend to be lower levels of financing. Is that the case? Mr. Esl'Es. Yes. Generally, this is the case. Mr. ESCH. Generally but not completely. Mr. HoWE. Not entirely. A good example is New York City which is funding its schools at average per pupil expenditure somewhere in the realm of $800 per pupil, or maybe slightly higher than that. In that sense, you would regard it as a relatively fortunate district. On the other hand, it has unimaginable problems in providing the de- prived children with the kind of education with which they need to be rescued from what the schools have typically done for them or have been able to do for them. Therefore, all of title I addresses itself to services over and above those provided by the local school district. Mr. ESCH. If I may interrupt, the services which the local district has cared to up to this time provide, not that they were perhaps capable of providing in relationship to other districts throughout the country hut which they were, for economic reasons and for other reasons, un- willing or incapable of providing? Mr. HowE. I think that is correct. This is a supplementary service to bring something additional in in the way of enrichments, something over and above the normal program, special services that had not been there before. Mr. ESCH. But to the degree to which the service extends, it really does not raise the question of local support of funds. It skirts the issue of whether or not local districts and State districts are willing to sup- port to a common degree educational opportunity? Mr. HowE. This is correct. Mr. ESCH. And to this degree, then, it encourages local districts to look elsewhere for funds rather than develop local sources? Mr. HowE. You have to remember that it applies only to a pOrt1Ofl of the educational activities in a local district, where there is a con- centration of deprived pupils. In most school districts this is perhaps a relatively small percentage of the educational activities the district supports. Therefore, to reach for educational quality on a normal operating basis, a school district is going to have to use its own funds or State funds available to it. I think you are quite right, t.hough, in your observation that this skirts any influence on the district's willingness to augment its base program with additional local taxes or State funds. Mr. Escu. It. makes no value judgment on that.? Mr. HowE. It doesn't affect that particularly except that it says to the local school district, "You have to keep up the level of activity you have had. You can't use these funds to supplant some of it." PAGENO="0315" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDITCATTON AMENDMENTS 309 Mr. ESCH. One other question in the area of planning. You sug- gest on page 19 of your testimony t.he problem of statewide planrnng, suggesting they cannot afford to plan and yet they cannot afford not to. There has been, I believe, a growing feeling that States and, to some degree, local districts lack long-range planning. Has this prob- lem in recent years been the result of lack of statewide planning or lack of Federal planning? Mr. HowE. Possibly both in a way, although certainly the Federal Government should not plan for the States. Certainly the responsi- bility for the planning and the operation of education is a State function. I happen to think that State educational agencies have typically been starved by the States, with the levels of salary in them, the levels of support personnel of all kinds, specialists and so on. They have not been what they should be. I realize this is a generalization that will not apply absolutely everywhere, and that there are few States that have done a good job. But across the board, it is a pretty good generalization. Therefore, it seems to me useful for the Federal Government to come in and say, "If you want to do it," and that is what this amendment says, "We will pick up a part of the cost of your planning activities," thereby getting for that State, if it wishes to have it, the benefits of a long-range planning capacity. Mr. ESCH. We recognize the factor of need for predictability in planning. To what degree is the inconsistency in the Federal pro- grams in terms of funding brought into this picture? Mr. HoWE. By inconsistency, do you mean the calendar incon- sistency? Mr. ESCH. Both calendar inconsistency and internally, in the Federal-State-local relationships. Mr. HOWE. Certainly the calendar inefficiency in the Federal pro- gram, which is really related to the appropriations committees of the Congress, makes a real problem in what I would call short-range planning for States. It doesn't address itself to the long-range planning issue at all. I tkink we have a job to do in the Federal Government in bringing Federal-State-local relationships into alinement by planning at the Federal level more effectively than we have some of our educational activities. Mr. ESCH. But you suggested, Mr. Commissioner, you thought planning should be done at the State level earlier. Mr. HowE. Yes, but I am speaking of the programs for which we are responsible at the Federal level. It seems to me that the oper- ations related to education that exist now in several agencies of the Government need to be looked at together by the Federal Government. Let's take, for example, student support programs of all kinds, grants. loans, fellowships, of a bewildering variety of kinds. They are supported in the Federal Government. by different agen- cies. I think some common policies, if they ran through here, might be of help to the world of higher education. This kind of coordination isn't any effort to control education, but it is an effort to confront education with some consistent expect.ations. PAGENO="0316" 310 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS Mr. Escn. Isn't it true, as one last question, that the lack of de- ]ineation for responsibility for planning among Federal agencies and/or the Federal Government as opposed to the State government, is the major problem that. we face in the next decade? The con- fusion that results from a lack of ability to predict who will do or perform what function and what time, and to what degree of funding? Isn't this a major problem we face in the K through 12th and the higher education in the next decade? Mr. HOWE. Yes, and I think we have a better chance of bringing order to it. in the realm of K through 12, simply because higher eu- cation is a more diverse enterprise than our elementary-secondary. It is complicated by the fact that. some 35 percent of the baccalaure- ate, degrees come from private institutions. Pub}ic institutions don't want to be planned for by any State agency, and places like Harvard and Yale don't want. anybody to plan for them. Bringing order into the world of higher education is a difficult proc- ess and one I am not sure that anyone ought to try. Maybe we will be be.tter off in higher education by a healthy and competitive disorder. Mr. ESCH. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield to my colleague from Wiscon- sin. Chairman PERKINS. May I say first that in the future, perhaps, we will operate under the 5-minute rule until everyone has had at least one opportunity to interrogate the witnesses. Mr. STEIGER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Commissioner, I share my colleague's interest as well as wel- coIning Dick Graham, who is a constituent of mine in the Sixth Congressional District.. I am going to touch on the Teacher Corps a little bit, if I can, during my 5 minutes. This question was asked earlier but I w.ant t.o come back to it to indicate my desire that I hope the costs reflecting the Federal costs of administering the program will be made available to us. As I understood one of the questions sometime this morning, you indicat.ed that. you would make that available. Mr. GRAHAM. Indeed, yes. Mr. STEIGER. In your proposal in the legislation that we have before us on pa.ge 6, you are recruiting, selecting, and enrolling experienced teachers or inexperienced teacher interns who have a bachelor's degree or its equivalent in the Teacher Corps for periods up to 2 years. My question to the Commissioner or to you, Mr. Graham, would be what thought, if any, or what comment if any, would you have on a proposal which would expand that to, let's say, to include something like junior colleges~ or is the definition of a bachelor's degree and its equivalent, a part of the concept of the corps as you now understand it? Mr. HowE. I think one of the basic reasons for a bachelor's de- gree requirement. here is the fact that t.eaching profession is in- creasingly moving toward postgraduate requirements, perhaps not for certification yet though in some States tha.t has happened. PAGENO="0317" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDIJCATION AMENDMENTS 311 In some States, there is a postgraduate requirement for teacher certification, and the teaching profession generally regards the real professional training as coming in the postgraduate realm. I think this allies itself with what really has been progress in the requirements for becoming a teacher. Mr. STEIGER. But don't we in a sense almost work against our- selves? The Teacher Corps and its concept is aimed at trying to help the culturally deprived and the disadvantaged child by mak- ing available to him more professional training and yet more indi- vidual training. The higher the requirements, the longer it is for an individual to achieve that place in his training at which he can then go and help these people. This is my concern, to be honest with you, as to whether or not this kind of a requirement given the purpose of the corps would not be contradictory, or whether or not we should make some kind of a change to broaden the scope, to allow others, even though they don't achieve the professional level of a bachelor's degree or a master's degree. Can you involve more individuals in your program if you went that other direction? Mr. HOWE. I think there is a lot of appeal in this. One of the authorities we will have as a result of this new Higher Education amendments proposal which is coming along, will be to train teacher aides, for example. Teacher aides don't require 2 full years of train- ing, as we are suggesting in the Teacher Corps. But coming back to the Teacher Corps itself, it is addressed to find- ing those people who really want to stick with this through their lives. This isn't a quickie business for this group. We are looking for people who want to make that kind of commitment. Therefore, if they are going to be successful teachers in school systems that have high standards of employment, they will benefit in the long run by having postgraduate training. It seems to me that we ought to pick up your suggestion and hook together some of the teacher aid training that is being suggested in some of this other legislation with the Teacher Corps. This would be a very good thing to do, Dick. Mr. SrrnGI~. May I urge you to try working this out along those lines? I think there is merit to it. I was interested in a comment made this morning. The phrase, as I recall it, was that the corps is involved in a better way to train teach- ers. This is an interesting area. May I ask only for your comments on why you have indicated that this is a better way to train teachers? Let me give you just a very short background in terms of the reason for my question. I have criticized, as I am sure many have, the teacher training programs that exist at the University of Wisconsin. We lost Dean Stiles who was very active in attempting to reorient the teacher training program. You indicated that this is a purpose of t.he corps, that this is one of the underlying bases for the continu- ation of the corps as it is now. I would like your comments on what you are doing, Mr. Graham, to make it possible to break some of the standards. Why are you in- novating and how are you innovating? PAGENO="0318" 312 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS Mr. GRAIIAM. Mr. Steiger, it is not the Teacher Corps that is inno- vating, but it is a series of universities across the United States work- ing with the local school systems who are. The University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee, in part by virtue of the fact that for the first time, there is a person who is jointly employed. by the university and the locaJ school system, bringing that university and school system closer together so that the university can better train teachers for the needs of that community. Dr. Goldman there is paid half by the University of Wisconsin and half by the local school system. The universities working with this program say that on the average, they have changed their curriculum by 37 percent in order to better direct their training toward the needs of the local schools. But if you ask most of the corps members who are in the program, that 37 percent isn't nearly enough. If you ask many of the school superintendents, they say it. is a good start, but we have to go further. I think one of the comments-a.nd there are many of these-from the man who is the assistant dean at Temple University, from a sister at. Xavier, from Dr. Heddon from the New York State Uni- versity at Buffalo, they are all saying we have, through this program, made changes that we should have made, but which will now apply to other teachers going through their schools. Dr. Ozby said: What we are doing at the college is learning from National Teacher Corps. We are teaching, but more than that, we are learning. We are even now planning to revise our total undergraduate and graduate teacher education program. The kinds of things we are learning through National Teacher Corps about involving potential teachers with the people in the community, about involving potential teachers with other teachers, administrators, and students in these schools. the kinds of things we are learning about giving these people the op- portunities to use their own creative abilities and intelligences instead of con- stantly telling them precisely what it is they ought to do so that they can be made in our molds is teaching us what we need to teach in teacher education. I think it is safe to say that the fringe benefit of Teacher Corps money will be to revitalize teacher training throughout the United States. Mr. STEIGER. I appreciate that comment. I think there is a great deal of merit in trying to improve the teacher training program throughout the United States. I think there is then a justification in my mind for giving the Teacher Corps some consideration as you have presented it. Mr. Commissioner, if I can talk about the deprived child, the prob- lems of t.he disadvantaged, with 27,000 school districts that is a pretty fantastic number of school districts. The State of Wisconsin, as a result of action by the legislature, which was very hotly contested, reduced the number of school districts substantially by including all districts in a high school district and by the State aid formula, basi- cally, by providing an incentive for additional moneys through the consolidation processes. Has the. Office of Education undertaken any kind of evaluation of consolidating districts? Have you given any thought to the question of what. happens t.hrough t.he aid formula if you tried to provide some incentive to consolidate, or has this been a subject that you have not given that much thought to? PAGENO="0319" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 313 Mr. HOWE. Educators generally have given a great deal of thought to this. It is quite clear that those States that have moved on con- solidation have improved education by doing so. But it is also quite clear that this is a State matter and not a Federal matter. Internal organization within a State for education certainly ought to be the State's business. We would influence it only indirectly. By indirectly, I mean that the appropriations we might make under title V of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act would help a State bring to the State leadership additional people who would move into the realms of administration. That would encourage the devel- opment of State policy leading toward consolidation. Additional understandings within a State about the advantages of consolidation, may also be gained. If you have been through this in Wisconsin, you know that some pretty excited attitudes do get developed, mostly because somebody lose,s his basketball team. But just the same, these things matter. I think it would probably not be wise to think of a Federal program which attempted to require this by direct pressure. In fact, I don't think it would have a great deal of success in the Congress. Mr. STEIGER. I think that is a very wise answer. Let me ask, if I may, Mr. Chairman, a couple more questions. There was a presentation made to Mrs. Green's subcommittee of this committee by Mr. Archie Buchmiller of the State department of pub- lic instruction in December of last year. He made a number of suggestions insofar as the reaction of our State Department toward the operations of the Elementary and Sec- ondary Education Act. You indicated you had not made a proposal in terms of trying to bring Headstart, for example, under the Office of Education. Have you had any discussions with the Office of Economic Oppor- tunity in terms of trying to find a way to consolidate the agencies involved in education rather than proliferating? Mr. Howi~. I think it is easy to take an oversimplified approach in this area and say that anything with the word "education" in their name should be in the Office of Education. I don't think that is the approach we ought to take. Education has become the instrument for helping a great many dif- ferent kinds of programs to move ahead, some programs in the State Department, some programs in the Department of Defense, others in a variety of Government-sponsored areas or agencies. I think there is a more cogent argument for bringing under the Office of Education those endeavors which particularly relate to the operation of the schools and colleges. Of course, so far we have tended to do this with OEO by processes of coordiuation. Whereas we had some problems, discussed earlier in this testimony today, about those processes of coordination, they are working much better now. I have taken the posit.ion publicly that I think Headstart ought to be a part of the Office of Education at some time. Right now we are running a larger early childhood education operation than Head- start is. PAGENO="0320" 314 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS We know something about how to do it, how to encourage States and local school agencies to do it.. But I am very glad it started where it did, in the Office of Economic Opportunity, which is a freewheeling organization, uncluttered by educators. Perhaps that is an overstatement.. And which was able to launch a truly innovative program. I was very glad that it has been started there and still persists there. I think the time will come when States begin to develop St.ate policy in their education systems about early childhood education, when an operation like Headstart will more ap- propriately be in the Office of Education at the Federal level. But I don't think this argues for necessarily transferring every edu- cational activity in the Federal Government to our shop. We have plenty of things to worry about just the way it is. Mr. S1i~IGr~n. Operation Follow-Through, as it is being proposed, will come under the Office of Education, will it not? Mr. HowE. It will be an OEO progra.m. The money will be appro- priated to OEO, but it will be delegated to us for operating purposes. Mr. STErnER. One more statement. The statement was ma.de by Mr. Buchmiller that he supports per- mitting each State to administer its plan for supplementary services and centers imder title III of ESEA. Have you any comments on that kind of a proposal? Mr. howE. Yes, several. First of all, it seems to me that this is the direction in which we ought to lean at some time, although I think we are leaning in this direction now. I don't think we ought to make formal transfer of title IlL but we are beginning to develop practices with relation to par- ticular States which really result in the same thing, simply through administrative relationship. It seems to me that this is a question that ought t.o be continually examined. We have an advisory committee for title Ill made up of distinguished educators and some laymen. They have examined this question and have recommended t.o us that this change not be made at this time, although within that committee you will ftnd some sympathy for such a change. It seems to me that this will be a continuing question. It ought to be brought up and looked at realistically, and the ultimate resolution of it will come out of the strengthening of the State departments of education through title V. One of the effects of title V is going to be to build within all the States the ca.pacity to operat.e a program like title III, and to operate it with full responsibility. I think that that does not exist. in all States now, although it certainly exists within some of them. So it is a question that needs to be brought up and discussed. I would like t.o ask Mr. Estes if he has a further comment on this. Mr. EsTEs. No, I think you have handled it quite well. I will indi- cate that a.s we progress in the administration of title III, the differ- ences in opinion as relates to the evaluation of proposals becomes less and less. That. jS, as States developed understandings of the program, as they employed staff to handle title III, we found a grea.t deal of concur- PAGENO="0321" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDFCATION AMENDMENTS 315 renco in the evaluation of the proposals to the extent that in the third submission period there was complete agreement as it relates to the evaluation of the proposals. Mr. STEIGER. ITow many people in the Office of Education are in- volved in the title III program? Mr. Esi~s. `We have a staff of some 38 to 40 professionals on our staff in the Office of Education handling this program, plus addi- tional people in the regional offices who give part time to it. Mr. STEIGER. Can you give me any indication as to how many of the title III supplemental centers have been established w-ithout a favorable recommendation on the part of the State. education authority? Mr. EsTEs. We approved some 27 proposals last year out of 1,089 that did not have the approval of the chief State school officer. In each instance these 27 proposals received excellent, ratings from the consultants outside the Office of Education that reviewed the proposals. Mr. STEIGER. How many requests? Mr. Es'rEs. Twenty-seven hundred proposals but w'e funded 1,089. Mr. STEIGER. I will not take up any more of your time or the corn- mitte&s time to pursue that question further. I am not at all sure that I accept the belief that the State educational authority is strength- ened through title III. Mr. EsrEs. If I might interrupt., I think the State does play a. ver important role in title III. As you know, the Commissioner cannot approve a proposal until he receives a recomrnendatioii from the chief State school officer. Mr. STEIGER. Yet there w-ere 27 that were approved without that approval ? Mr. ESTES. That is right. In addition to that, a number of States are beginning to develop a* statewide system, a statewide plan or design, for implementation of this title. They are assisting local school dis- tricts in developing proposals, as well as sitting with the local districts as projects are negotiated. They a.re assisting in monitoring and evaluating, and, in effect, de- veloping an overall strategy for their State. Mr. STErnER. But doesn't that really turn it around? Isn't the whole concept here one that should become evolved out of a statewide plan? Mr. EsTEs. Yes. Mr. STEIGER. Aren't we getting the cart before the horse.? Mr. Es'rEs. Not exactly. `We have, I would say, a half-dozen States that, in effect, have virtually complete approval authority over title III because of their ability at the State level to provide this overall leader- ship. Mr. S'rEIo~n. Then would you agree that. really the desirable goal here is if the title III centers are to be established, that t.hey reflect an overall State plan relating to the most urgent educational problems of the State in some kind of a consistent., coordinated manner? Mr. HowE. Absolutely. Mr. STEIGER. This is the way it should go? Mr. ESTES. Without a doubt. Mr. HOWE. It seems to me there should always 1)een 100111 for the offbeat idea, that. title III, in calling for innovation, ought to support 7~5-492---E17-21 PAGENO="0322" 316 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS supplementary centers that have this planning concept that you out- lined so well, but that there should be room within the context of title III, whether operated by the Federal Government in the final signoff or operated by the States in the final signoff, for the unusual school district which crops up with something totally new that doesn't fit the plan. Education benefits from these kinds of little rockets that come up from time to time. I always like to have that window open for title III. Mr. STEIGER. Mr. Buchmiflers statement and his presentation, and I attach myself to it, really, says that the direct Federal to local ad- ministration of the existing title III program bypasses fundamental State responsibility and thereby sets a questionable precedent. I think that the Office of Education should give a great deal more thought to the way you go about approaching the problem that you are trying to get at in title III. I really do question whether or not it is appropriate as you now have done it. Let me get back to one further point. Mr. Commissioner, you made a reference to consolidation earlier in which you said-and I think I would agree-most States that have gone into the consolidation of school district programs have ended up perhaps with educationally and financially sounder districts. My question is whether or not the present operation of title I doesn't in some cases almost tend to discourage the State from getting at consolidations by the. moneys given to smaller school districts? Does that tend to go in another direction which may not be a terribly good one? Mr. hOWE. I would assume that the eligibilities for title I funds of school districts that consolidated would add up to what they had separately. Wouldn't that be~ true? Mr. EsTEs. That is right. Mr. HOWE. So there would be no question of financial losses. There might be a question that the small separate districts like so much to administer t.his money that they don't want to give up the chance to do so. That sort of prerogative question might be enhanced by the availability of Federal funds, but it seems to me that is a very slim distinction. I don't see that title I would have that effect, particularly. Mr. Es'rEs. In fact, the States have considerable discretion in this particular area. According to our annual evaluation report from the States, one of the main reasons for rejecting the proposals from local school districts was the fact that they did not meet the criterion of size, scope, and quality. So, in effect, some of the smaller districts with fewer pupils did not have projects funded. As a result, many of them consolidated or com- bined with other districts in order to provide these services. Mr. STEIGER. Thank you. Chairman PERKINs. Are there further quest.ions? Mr. Q~IE. Yes. I have further questions. I want to get back to the Teacher Corps. When I asked this question about who was going to pay the sal- aries of the corpsmen while they were in local public schools, as I re- PAGENO="0323" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 317 call in 1965 when the act was proposed the administration bill that was sent up recommended that all of the cost of the salaries of the local school system would be handled by the local school system. In the Senate, the change was made so that the Federal Government would pay 100 percent of the cost of the salaries, and this did not meet with the approval of the achninistration. They sent out to the Democratic Members of Congress a little memorandum with the argument as to why it was unwise. I would like to read it to you right now. Here is what was said: Local school districts should be required to give some support to the Corps as an indication of their belief in it. Otherwise, there will be a strong tendency for school districts to apply for the free ride, taking all the experienced Teacher Corps volunteers they can get, all paid for by Washington. It wasn't I who said that. We believe it is an unwise precedent for the Federal Government to begin pay. ing 100 percent of the salaries of local employees while the Administration is concerned with the improvement of teacher salaries wherever they are inade- quate, we question the wisdom of a precedent in which the Federal Government could ultimately be held responsible for 100 percent of the salaries of two million local employees. They also said: We also believe it would be better from a viewpoint of maternal control of personnel for the school district to be making a major payment of teachers' salaries. I thought that was a pretty wise statement, judging fruni the fact that some other pro~raIiis are. in operation very simile!- to th~e Teacher Corps and where the local schools are willing to pay the amount for the salary which reflects the amounts of work they get omit, of these sup- plemental individuals, that they should be willing to do it in this case, too. Mr. HOWE. One's predecessor's words come home t.o haunt. him. I don't know t.he status or nature of this statement, of course, but it does seem to me that when you are setting up a supplementary service in a school district, the Congress has recognized that you can't legislate that it shall happen and the school districts shall pay the bill. All of the supplementary services that the Congress has created in the school districts of the country, and there are a great many of them, through title I, title III and title V, all make some provision for pay- ment by Federal funds for the cost of these additional services over and above the regular costs of education. It would seem to me it would be preposterous for the Federal Gov- ernment. to try to say to local school districts that. they must provide a service that the Federal Government has decided it wanted at the local expense. Looking at the matter very practically, in tel-ms of a requirement it wouldn't make any sense, and in terms of simply getting them to volun- teer to do so, you wouldn't be able to mount a program. Had I been around here. I wouldn't have agreed w-ith that. parti-ular proposition, although someone might have defeated me before it got up to the Congress and I would have found myself presenting it. That occasionally happens let us recogmze it. But the fact is that. if the program of supplementary services is ~ ii~ to ~flOVe, jt 15 ~oiflg to littve to have sonic Federal support. PAGENO="0324" 31 S ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDTTCATIOX AMENDMENTS There has been a good deal of discussion about what the levels of Federal support ought to be. As I recall, the Teacher Corps did have a 10-percent contribution from local sources. Mr. QFIE. This came out of the Appropriations Committee. Mr. howE. 1t came out of the Appropriations Committee. I was consulted about this last year. I said I saw no objection to such a con- tribut ion, and I wouldn't, know where, arbitrarily, to draw a line here. ~\ mnetv-t en is a possibility for local school districts. Most of them are hard pressed for funds. The only point I would make is if there is going to be a line drawn about. a local contribution, it should never operate on a school district coming in in the first year, because then the planning cycle is such that its budget is likely to be solidified and it isn't likely to make its contribution. This is what I tiled to stick up for when this 10 l)ercellt matter canie up last year. It seems to me that if you are going to have programs of this sort move., there is going to have to be, however, a major Federal contribution to them. I will do a little detective work and find out where that thinking caine from. Mr. QiiE. it seenis that not only are the local school districts per- forming some servhe as you indicate in the education of these interns, but also the interns are providing quite a service to the schools as well judging from the comments that are in your report. Mr. I-hoWE. That is right, but a supplementary service. Mr. QLTIE. It is supplementary, but it is of value. Mr. hOWE. Of the nature of title I. That is 100 percent Federal funding. One of lily associates gave me a note pointing out the pro- posal you are discussing was designed to allow the payments of salaries through title I funds and assumed the title I funds would pick up the costs of the salaries. So it wasn't a proposal, evidently, from the Fed- eral Government for local tax funds picking them up, but, rather, for the use of other Federal funds. Mr. QFiE. This 1)OSSibly could be done presently~ is that true? On the 10 percent are they prevented from using Federal money, the. 10 percent `? Mr. howE. The 10 percent has to be from local funds. Mr. QUJE. If we see down the roads a. way that there are more pro- grams or more people receiving similar type training for the local scthool district paying the entire salary than is the case in the Teacher Corps, would you then think we ought to take another look at it? Mr. HOWE. Do you mean if Teacher Corps- Mr. QIJIE. Do you want me to repeat it ? Mr. HOWE. No. It does seem to me that their doing that is probably the result of stimulation of this pattern of training by the Teacher Corps. The fact that, there seemed to be a larger proportion of this through those sources than through a very small enterprise like the Teacher Corps would not argue to me for the abandonment of that enterprise. Mr. QUIE. Not the abandonment of the enterprise, but perhaps the local school district wOul(i be willing to pay a little bit more in the Teacher Corps since other ones are willing to do it privately who run I)r0~2TamS of a similar nature. PAGENO="0325" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDLCATION AMENDMENTS 319 Mr. HOWE. I know this committee will have some school superin- tendents testifying before it. I think that the best evidence on that. point you will get from school superintendents who have an even more immediate insight than I into the problems of the local school budget. These are difficult problems and for them to absorb new Federal programs isn't an easy matter. Mr. STEIGER. Would t.he gentleman yield? Mr. QUIE. Yes. Mr. STEIGER. Earlier in the day you were asked for infoi-mat.ion regarding, as I understand the question, the number of schools in- volved in training teachers. I don't want that. figure because that. is pretty substantial. I do won- der whether or not you can specify the number that are involved in specific programs aimed at encouraging people to go into deprived areas, to get involved in the Teacher Corps type of specific training. As an example: The State university at. Oshkosh is running a program going into the schools in Milwaukee with about 25 students. They want. t.o expand that program. Can you give us any informa- tion on that.? Mr. Howr. I can't give you any statistical information on this. I can say that. there are very few, if any, colleges or universities which are offering as rich a package of training as the Teacher Corps provides over a 2-year period. Most. of them giving students this kind of ex- perience are. doing it. on a one-semester basis. Therefore, again, I think it is worth catching in being as a demon- stration enterprise a new pattern of teacher training. Mr. STEIGER. But it would be possible., would it. not, to supply some information about. institutions of higher learning that are involved? Mr. Howr. Yes. We could give you some examples. Whether we could give von a statistical survey of the whole country, I am not sure. That might. involve a rather complex questionnaii-e process. Let us see what we can find in this area. We would be delighted to. Mi-. STEIGER. Thank you. Mr. QUIE. Let. me just ask one more question and then we have to go vote. I wish we had more time on title III. If I need more, I will talk to you privately. Looking now at. your operation of title III, are thei-e really two di- rections it is going, one for the supplemental centers, as it was original- ly anticipated, and the other side really just. scattered programs which the school district has developed and which appears to be beneficial to the Commissioner but wouldn't be in a sense a supplemental center to be of service to an area of other schools around it? Would that be correct.? Mr. HowE. Yes; although I wouldn't describe these other programs as scattered in the sense that w-e have endeavored to provide some guides as to the areas which may be most useful, and to subject all of the proposals that. are of this kind to a rather disciplined examination in the process of deciding about them. I think one of the important things foi- us to try to get. across to the Congress in this area of title III is the process which we use in in;iking title III awards. There are many problems for us and for Congress- PAGENO="0326" 320 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS men in the fact that we have to turn down over 50 percent of these title III awards. The process is one which we have designed to have integrity, to bring outside consultants into the picture, to make full use of a dis- tinguished advisory committee, and really to be as fair and sensible a process as you can devise. So any of these scattered projects, as you described them, which do survive this are, at least in terms of this sort of an examination, projects which clearly have a good deal of hope to offer to the school systems which make them. Mr. QUIE. Then in a supplemental center part of it, in California I understand California has set up 19 of them. It gives the impression they l)lanned it systematically so they could affect the entire State and the ~eographieal location of the 19. 1 doubt that that has happened in all of the other States. I don't know which other ones it. did happen in. But do von think this would be a good idea for a State to assume a responsibility in this development, as I understand they did in that State, and thereby bring about a good distribution within the State of their supplemental centers so as to affect the most number of students? Mr. HOWE. It is an excellent idea. We tried to encourage it.. Mr. Estes can give von more information about that.. Mr. Esi~s. We. consider this a model for other States to follow. As a. matter of fact, the representatives from the California State Depart- ment. of Education have visited other States, including Texas, Penn- sylvania, and New York. We see many States moving in this direction. New York has a similar system established: Pennsylvania through title III is doing a similar type of act.ivity. In this month, in fact, Texas is establishing a similar system, as is Sout.h Carolina. We do not think that the hi- novative part is separate from the supplementary services. As you know from your visit to California, the innovative part will take place within this system of centers, which I think is extremely important. Mr. QrnE. It. appeared to me to be an excellent arrangement. In our argument last. year whether the States should he involved more, I was surprised to find out it was possible for the State. to become in- volved directly as they did. I commend that encouragement to the other States. We are so proud of the way they did it. in California. we want. to make certain they do it in the other States. Chairman PERKINS. We. want. to thank you, Mr. Commissioner, for an untiring and very revealing discussion before the committee. We all appreciate it.. You have displayed great knowledge of your office and the whole country can be proud of the great. leader in the field of education that. you are. `We appreciate your comin~ in. As far as I know. w'e won't have to impose on your limited time by calling you again in t.he course of these hearings. I hope that is t.he case. Mr. HOWE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman PERKINS. The committee will stand in recess until 9:30 tomorrow morning. (`Whereupon, at 5 :55 p.m., the committee recessed, to reconvene at 9:30 a.m. Friday, March 3, 1967.) PAGENO="0327" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 FRIDAY, MARCH 3, 1967 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, C0MMI'rrEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR, Washington, D.C. The committee met at 9 :40 a.m., pursuant to call, in room 2175, Ray- burn House Office Building, Hon. Carl D. Perkins (chairman) presid- ing. Present: Representatives Perkins, Green, Brademas, Hawkins, Gib- bons, Scheuer, Burton, Quie, Goodefl, Bell, Erlenborn, Scherle, Del- lenback, and Escli. Staff menthers present: Robert E. Mc.Corcl. senior specialist; H. D. Reed, Jr., general counsel; Willia.m D. Gaul, associate general coun- sel; Louise M. Da.rgans, research assistant; and Charles W. Radcliffe, special education counsel for minority. Chairman PERKINS. The committee will come to order. A quorum is present. We have with us this morning several members representing the National Advisory Council on the Education of Disadvantaged Chil- dren. If it is agreeable with the members of the committee, we will have the group representing the Advisory Council take their seats. If you will please identify yourselves for the record, you may pro- ceed in any manner you wish. STATEMENTS OF DR. SIDNEY P. MARLAND, JR., SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS, PITTSBURGH, PA.; MRS. ELIZABETH D. KOONTZ, PRESIDENT, DEPARTMENT OF CLASSROOM TEACHERS, NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION; THOMAS W. CARR, STAFF DIRECTOR, NATIONAL ADVISORY COUNCIL ON THE EDUCATION OF DISAD- VANTAGED CHILDREN; AND MICHAEL KIRST, ASSISTANT STAFF DIRECTOR OF THE COUNCIL Mrs. Komcrz. I am Elizabeth Koontz, a teacher from North Caro- lina, in Salisbury, N.C. Chairman PERKINS. You are acting as Chairman of the Council? Mrs. KOONTZ. Indeed, I am not. Dr. MARLAND. My name is Sidney Marland, superintendent of schools in Pittsburgh, and a member of the Council for Disadvantaged Children. 321 PAGENO="0328" 222 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS We have in the membership at the table Mrs. Elizabeth Koontz, a member of the Council and a teacher. We have Mr. Thomas Carr, who is executive officer of the Council, and his associate, Mr. Michael Kirst. I will proceed, Mr. Chairman. My statement has been distributed and I will go through it quickly and be pleased to respond to ques- tions. I understand that my appearance before you is in the capacity of a member of the National Advisory Council on the Education of Dis- advantaged Children, as named by the President pursuant to Public Law 89-10. Accordingly, except that the members of the committee may wish me to depart from the role of reporter for the Council, my testimony will be confined to what I know to be the position of the Council. The Advisory Council, as chaired by Dr. 0. Meredith Wilson, con- sists of a broad cross-section of citizens, most of whom are distin- guished non-public-school observers as contrasted with my own role and Mrs. Koont.z role as members of school staffs. However, our judg- ments as reported here are a clear consensus of all members. During 1967 we have retained the part-time services of 27 consult- ants, expert. in the field of elementary and secondary education, to ex- amine "in the field" the impact of the Elementary and Secondary Edu- cation Act of 1965. Further, the members of the Council themselves have traveled about the country personally to visit the communities and classrooms where the message and money of Public Law 89-10 were being applied. The~e ~vstematic visits and observations have reached approximately one-third of those school systems offering title I programs in terms of the $1.05 billion appropriated for title I during fiscal 1966. Based upon our observations, we have as a Council subniitted three reports to the President. and Congress over the past. year. I will offer one or two highlights from each of these reports to express the gist of our recommendations. These reports, I believe, have been furnished to the members of the committee. The report of March 31, 1966~ about. a year ago: Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act has, for the first time. made available major resources to bring opportunity to those who until now have lacked even hope. It has directed the attention of educators toward the plight of the disadvantaged. It has provided to local boards of education the funds necessary to develop programs through which children can overcome the handicapping limitations of proverty-ridden environments. The record of re- sponse is already good. This was as of about. a. year ago. Further, I invite your attention to page 28 of our March 31. 1966 report noting 10 recommendations. Broadly. these recommendations strongly endorse the in- tent of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, urging a con- tinuation of massive educational assistance, focused on the special problems of the disadvantaged children of our country. A year ago we strongly urged the reconciliation of the timing of appropriations for Public Law 8D-1O to be con- sistent with the school year. I will mention this subject again later. Not the least of our 1966 recommendations was our message concerning the liberalization of Title I to permit the construction of facilities, especially in our big cities. t.o accommodate the newly created programs. This condition remains today a vital need. especially In our inner cities. PAGENO="0329" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 323 The report to the President of November 25, 1966: This report dealt primarily with the uses of Title I of ESEA during the sum- mer of 1966. About 2~/~ million children, at a cost of about $250 million, or about $100 each, were enrolled In voluntary summer programs. The implicit freedom and the voluntary and unstructured atmosphere of the summer sched- ule both for teachers and pupils provided significant favorable influences for the work of Title I. The six recommendations of the Council's November report appear on pages 2-4. The gist is as follows: `~The Council believes that future summer programs, besides being important in themselves, can have special beneficial effects on the year-round success of Title I programs which can be attained in no other way.~' The very existence of many of the summer programs may have been fortuitous for reason of delayed funding, and the fact that substantial programs could not be launched during the conventional school year. Lest the summer programs be set aside in the future in favor of school year programs. "The Council recommends an early decision by appropriate officials to reserve a substantial percentage of Title I funds for summer programs." Finally, our most recent report of January 31, 1967: The report contained the expression of warm affirmation of Public Law 89-10. It again reflected the views not only of the Council members, but the consultants in the field. As the effect of Title I begins to be felt in the deprived neighbor- hoods of America, a number of generalizations emerge: There must be inno- vative and fresh approaches to teaching techniques and curricultim for the de- prived: there must be a high order of selectivity in the assignment and train- ing of teachers and principals in the schools serving the deprived; there must be a larger and more effective involvement of deprived parents in the school affairs of their children; there must be ingenious regulatory measures to insure that the desegregation of children in deprived neighborhoods does not remove them from the advantages of new Federally supported programs, and there- fore retard the movement toward school integration. In sum, we find the content and theory of Public Law 89-10 to be sound and wise. It is far too early to provide objective scientific testi- mony that the deprived children of America have prospered to this degree or that degree. The signs are good, as school systems and teachers come face to face with the monumental tasks of social justice through education. But the installation of the evolutionary and innovative measures now emerging are extremely slow, and the fruit of these measures is still slower in ripening. We have really been engaged undei Public Law 89-10 only about a year, with many years of continued heavy investment of treasure, commitment, and creativity yet to come. No major changes are suggested at this time for the specific com- ponents of title I. With the exception of liberalizing the facilities- construction elements of the law, we urge its continued implementa- tion in its present, form. Larger sums of money are needed to make a significant impact on the poor children of America. Much as the present appropriation level shows promise and hope, it. still represents only a sum of roughly 5 percent of the costs of operating the elementary and secondary schools of the land. Given another year or two, major new dimensions in this law may be appropriate. For the present, we recommend vigorous pursuit of the course of action now in motion, with full funding, and with the funds delivered on time to the places where the children of the poor desparatelv need them. PAGENO="0330" 324 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS I am inserting data that only recently emerged for my use, that the authorization level in this law of $2,219 million now appears to be leveling off at a very disappointing $1.2 billion. If the proposed formula which was carried with this legislation to become effective in 1968 is applied and if it is applied under the terms of a substantially reduced appropriation, it will have an extremely shocking effect upon the big cities of the North. The redistribution of the limited money carried in this bill, of $1.~ billion, distributed in the new formula, for example, it will reduce such States as Pennsylvania, for example, from a level a year ago of $57 million to this year at $48 million, and no change for next year. Other States such as those in the South, where I am sure, indeed, the need is great, would move from $38 million a year ago to $35 million this year, and leaping to 846 million next year. The application of this formula apparently was intended to be compatible with the $2 billion level of appropriations, in which case it would have been splendid. If it is applied under the curtailed dimensions of a $1.2 billion amount, it will be devastating. Chairman PERKINS. Let me interrupt to suggest that you address a letter to me immediately setting forth this cutback and how it af- fects your area, in order that I can use it before the House Committee on Appropriations when I put in an appearance. Dr. MARLAND. I will be pleased to do that, Mr. Chairman, and I can offer additional illustrations of the impact of this revised formula. Chairman PERKINS. I think that I should make this statement here to all of the people that are affected. I hope you will get~ to me a personal letter with copies of the letter sent to Mr. George Mahon of the House Committee on Appropriations, on the effect this cutback will have on the schools. Dr. MARLAND. if you are going to go with the original level of funding, a.pproximate1y~ I urge that you stay with t.he original for- mula. Tf you move to a different formula, you will have new level of funding. In the words of John Hersey, writing in the Journal of the National Association for the Education of Young Children: The first battles . . . will not bring a sudden end to drop-outs, delinquency, narcotics addiction, street riots, and unemployment-the newsworthy aspects of destitution. To continue the war (for the education of deprived children) will be to fly in the face of apparent failure for years, perhaps decades~ perhaps generations. Yet still, bearing in mind the alternatives, the war must be fought. And this is one war that had better be fought well. Finally, I would note for t.he benefit of the Members of Congress, as an illustration of the difficulties confronting school systems and local boards of education in attempting to mount significant programs under the impetus of Public Law 89-10, our Federal financial ex- perience this year in the Pittsburgh public schools has been as fol- lows: (a) The fiscal year started July 1, 1966. (b) We had been planning some 30 different programs under title I for the opening of school September 1, 1966, for several months. (c) We engaged staff for these programs totaling some $3 million and obligated the board of education to these conditions. PAGENO="0331" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 325 (d) Schools have now been in session for the current academic year for 6 months; we have had varying estimates of the level of funding, most of them in the neighborhood of 85 percent of the 1966 level, and have curbed our programs to these terms. (e) We received $299,207 on December 19, 1966, out of a total ex- pected authorization of $3,450,000. (f) As of this date, with only 4 months remaining in the fiscal year, we still have received no major funding, have borrowed money to maintain the programs, and continue from day to day to attempt to reassure staff, the community, and the board of education that we are still in business for the Federal Government. (q) Among some of the misfortunes of reduced funding, we have just. been forced to announce the withdrawal of OEO funds in the amount of $300,000, thereby eliminating the summer school program for 1967. We had hoped to recover this program through ESEA, but. t.he 85 percent funding eliminated this alternative. The public schools of America must have reliable fiscal informa- tion by July 1 of each year in order to mount and sustain the pro- grams intended by Public Law 89-10. Firm dollar commitments and prompt delivery of funds are essential if we are to carry out the will of Congress. That concludes my prepared statement, Mr. Chairman. Chairman PERKINS. Who will next present a statement? Dr. MARLAND. I will introduce Mrs. Elizabeth Koontz. Chairman PERKINS. Will you proceed in any way you prefer. Mrs. KooNTz. I do not have a prepared statement but I would wish to insert in the record that the statement. prepared by Dr. Marland certainly conveys the consensus of this Council of which I am a party and I will be very happy to answer questions or make comments further. Dr. MARLAND. This concludes our prepared material, Mr. Chairman. We would be pleased to attempt to respond to questions. Chairman PERKINS. Let me thank you for your appearance here this morning. I certainly want to compliment, you, Dr. Marland, for bringing up and calling our attention to the problem of properly im- plementing the law insofar as funding is concerned, and the way your programs wi]l be curtailed in your area. unless the programs are properly funded. I agree heartily with your viewpoint. Mr. Goodell. Mr. GOODELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize for being a little late to hear all of your testimony, but I have before me the material which you submitted. I note that in the report you made with reference to the operation of the program during the last sum- mer, you make some criticisms that the projects are piecemeal, frag- mented efforts and that. it. is rare to find the teachers to plan comprehensive programs. I wonder if you had found any change since your original statements and reports were made along those lines? Dr. MARLAND. I would say we have, Mr. Goodell. I would say this change, however, is evolutionary and not revolutionary. I think it is important for the committee to appreciate tha.t. the innovations and, PAGENO="0332" 326 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDuCATION AMENDMENTS indeed. the fi.mcls that. derive from the spirit of Public Law 89-10 are new to school systems. Most school systems in America had not operated any summer pro- grams up until this time in their history. I would say, also that I would remind the committee. that my remarks said that some of these programs were fortuitous merely because the money came so late they had no other reasonable uses for it during the school year in some sit.uat~ons. We would theref ore say that the first summer; namely, the summer of 1966, was probably hastily put together. It was being constructed and conducted by people in many cases doing it for the first time. We reported this quite candidly. Our observers in the field found this to be true but they also found something else to be true, that the very nature and the freedom and the unstructured conditions of a sum- mer program are perhaps the secret. to some of the spirit and intent of title I, and that the teachers, themselves, as well as principals, central school staffs, found for the first time that they had some elbow room to have small classes, to try innovative teaching techniques, and that these do show promise. The first year we would probably say was less smooth, or less even than we would expect it to be in the future. Mr. GOODELL. I understand that you were fearful, Dr. Marland, that the summer programs initially begun might be dropped. Is this turning out to be true? Dr. MARLAND. I think not. Again, we are all in this hesitant position of not knowing about our funding. If we are speaking now of the summer of 1967, coming up as we have noted, we have had to drop the $300,000 program in Pittsburgh, which was desperately needed. We had budgeted under OEO, as it happened. We had to drop that. because of curtailment of OEO funds and furt.her curtail- ment of ESEA funds. I think that most. communities will endeavor to continue their sum- mer programs, if there could be some assurance of funding. Mr. GOODELL. What kind of programs are you referring to? Dr. MARLAND. These would be largely remedial, small classes, and they would have to do with reading and -arithmetic, intensive work, as well as opportunities for children, especially in our inner cities, to enjoy cultural activities, musical events and some camping activities, and some opportunities to get outside of their inner city and live in a more complete environment for their own growth. Mr. GOODELL. Ha.ve you applied directly to OEO for this grant or are you referring to community action programs? Dr. MARLAND. In this instance in our case, the elimination of sum- mer schools was a direct request to OEO through the community action program, but the large. reductions in all community action programs forced us and our local community action program to cut this back. Mr. (lOODELL. Well now, this was a resquest then to OEO, an ap- phicat ion from your Pittsburgh Community Action Agency? Dr. MARLAND. That is correct. Mr. GOODELL. And what involvement did you have in the prepara- tion of that? Dr. ~L~RT.~~xI). I and my staff had worked cheek and jowl with our local communit action program people in contriving this, and many PAGENO="0333" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDFCATION AMENDMENTS 327 other programs. I might say that out of a budget the. first. year with OEO at the level of about $3 million, we are down to well below half of that now. Yet every one of these programs launched the first year under OEO, before the existence of ESEA-1965----were. valid, strong, promising programs. They have been more than cut in half. Mr. GOODELL. Is the State educational department or are any agen- cies of State education involved in the applications that you have made? Dr. MARLAND. Yes. Once the program is substantially conceived at the local level, in all instances it flows through State authorities for review and approval. We have had no major difficulties on that score, and I recommend it as a sound procedure. Mr. GOODELL. You are referring now to the ESEA aiid the OEO? Dr. I~\L~RLAND. I think the OEO is regional as distinct from a strictly State level operation, but it is still valid and workable. Mr. GOODELL. To what extent have you in Pittsburgh, under the ESEA, been able to involve the private school youngsters? I)r. MARLAND. Rather well, I think, Mr. Goodell. In fact, the pro- grams constructed in Pittsburgh under ESEA have been constructed jointly with parochial school staffs and in many cases these programs are serving children from parochial schools. I would offer that this is somewhat. resting in a favorable situation because we have an ex- traordinarily good history of relations with the parochial schools of Pittsburgh-it goes back to 1911-with what we call shared time. As a quick illustration of the kind of things that. we have been de- veloping and planning and executing together, out of some 30 or 35 ESEX programs, roughly half extend the services of the public schools to certain categories of private school deals. For example, communication skills, which is an intensive program in reading, provides some remedial teachers from our public schools to reach out periodically on about a half-time or less basis, in the neighborhood of the public schools where they are working and pro- v 1(1mg similar services to parochial schools. As I say, about half of our 30 programs carry this type of liaison. It has nothing to do with provid1ng funds for the parochial schools. and it. does not. deal with employment or salaries of parochial school people. It extends the service of the public schools as we believe the Education Act. was intended to be. Mr. GOODELL. You have, as I recall, a very large share of your pupils in Pittsburgh in private schools. Is it close to half? l)r. MARLAND. It is about 40 percent. Mr. GOODELL. I am aware that there has been a good relationship between your public and your private school systems there.. But to what degree have we been able to pro\nide programs that are actually 1)eing administered by private school people? Dr. MAHLAND. I would say there is no program strictly being a(l- ministered by the private school people. under the act of 19(~. There are some OEO programs such as a limited Headstart. program which is administered under the administration of the parochial schools. Mr. GOODELL. Now, is there any reason under the Pennsylvania law that you in the public school system could not. make contracts with l)ri~~ate schools? PAGENO="0334" 328 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS Dr. MARLAND. ~one that I know of, sir. Mr.G000ELL. To administer a program? Dr. MARL~~ND. None that I know of, sir. Mr. GOODELL. We do operate under that disability in New York State, and there are very stringent requirements here that make it difficult for the public school officials under the ESEA to contract with private school officials to run programs. It is my understanding that the Federal law would permit this, but in at least some instances the State law bars it. You are stating that the State of Pennsylvania would not proscribe such a procedure? i)r. MARLAND. Indeed, I am sure it would not, because as I say, in a limited way this relationship has existed since 1911, what we call shared time, and we have been building upon this good relationship in the construction of these new programs, and I am sure that they would have been challenged over the years if there had been a fundamental difference. Mr. 000DELL. That is a little different concept than I am talking about. Your shared time, I presume, is to permit private school pupils to come to the public schools to obtain certain types of instruc- tion? Dr. MARLAND. Or in the instance of ESEA, to send public services to the parochial schools to be operated within those parochial schools. Mr. GOODELL. They are sending public school instructors over to the private schools to teach? Dr. MARLAND. We are, indeed, under ESEA. I want to make clear how this works, however. You stated it a little briefly, as to sending public school instructors over. A service is rendered by, indeed, a public school instructor. That teacher, let us say it is a teacher of remedial reading, primary grades, would be working at least half of his time in a public school, as a member of the staff of the public schools. By agreement here and within the terms and the budget of ESEA that teacher is assigned to a nearby parochial school to do the same thing. It is an extension of a new and anusual and heretofore un- budgeted service. Mr. SCHEUER. Could you give us a description of the various types of services which are performed in the situs of the private schools by public school instructors ?~ Dr. MARLAND. A description of the service, you mean? Mr. SCIIEUER. Of the various kinds of educational activities that have been carried on at the situs of the private schools. Dr. MARLAND. Yes; and again I am referring to my notes, a list of some 30-odd total programs which were constructed in joint planning with the leadership of the parochial schools. Many of these are use- ful for transmittal to the parochial schools, and some of them not. But for example communication skills, nearly half a million dollars and a greatly expanded program on intensified reading and speaking. Here we are training teachers intensively and in some instances training staff members of the parochial schools in the context of up- grading their qualifications for remedial reading exercises. Our members of our staff then come into a school situation in their own public schools and periodically, let us say every Tuesday and PAGENO="0335" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 329 Thursday, or at 1 o'clock every day, go over to a nearby parochial school and do the same thing. Mr. ScuEtrER. What do they do at the parochial school? Dr. MARLAND. They will go into a class or go into a special room where there are 12 children in grade 3, seriously handicapped in their reading and they will work with those children literally in the paro- chial school. This would apply also to a number of other topics. Chairman PERKINS. You consider that a special service over and beyond the ordinary work that goes on in the schools? Dr. MARLAND. We have had to justify these to ourselves as above and beyond what either school had heretofore been doing, and the new dimensions above and beyond parity as afforded by ESEA has given us this opportunity under the law to extend these new services to both institutions. This would include, for example, a complete approach to what we call speech pattern drill. That is another field. Safety education is another field. Instrumental music instruction for the poor, this is another field, and elementary counselors which we have never had before. Another is employment supervisors for high school level youngsters, both parochial and public schools, flowing through a central employ- ment office and supervising them in their jobs especially in work train- ing and work study. Another is adapted physical education for youngsters, especially \Vitl~ physical handicaps and other difficulties. Another is psychological services, extended for the first time beyond the level heretofore. I could go on with several of these. All of them are in the context, Mr. Scheuer, of an outreach of the public school program through the resources provided by 89-10. Mr. SCHE-LIER. We had a colloquy on the floor of the House between Congressman Frank Thompson and the distinguished chairman of this committee, in which legislative history was made, which fairly clearly delineated the kinds of services which Congress intended to be sup- plied at the private school. As I recall, it was Congress' intent, as established by that colloquy, to provide special services to the disadvantaged child, the mentally retarded, crippled, disabled, and the spastic child, the deaf, dumb, or blind child, and the child with deep emotional problems. These were in effect. welfare services, but I think it was made clear that the normal education services were not to be provided at the pri- vate schools. It was that these would be provided at the public school and made available to children from the private school. In other words, such courses as history and art and music, it was our understanding-normal school subjects-would not be taught by public school teachers at the private school. Dr. MARLAND. At this time, we are compatible with the description you have just given. We are not performing what might be ealled conventional academic programs because we have justified in our own ground rules that this must be something over and above what has ever been done before. They have been teaching history and mathematics so that would not qualify under our ground rules. PAGENO="0336" 330 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS Mr. SCHEUER. Thank you. Mr. GOODELL. I am interested in the testimony as to how you are utilizing the funds, Dr. Marland, in giving service to the private schools. This was a major point of debate in our deliberations here and in the floor debate. In addition to the colloquy mentioned by my cofleague,Mr. Scheuer, I asked the question of our present chairman whether this would per- 1flit public school teachers to teach in private schools, and his answer was There was a subsequent answer, I believe it was by our colleague, Mr. Carey, t.ha.t it would permit. it; yes. It appears that Mr. Carey won out in that particular instance. But I have great. question about this as to where you do draw the proper line. I wonder if it isn't preferable to have your public school officials contract with the private schools' officials, making money available to them to provide these services. You avoid, then, the problem, and I think it is a~ problem. of having public officials on the public payroll working and teaching in a private school, on the sit.us as Mr. Scheuer said. 1)r. MARLAND. Getting back to your earlier question concerning the legalities, I am not an attorney, but I think that our school solicitor has weighed this question in a different context froni that whicli you have, described. I think that I can report the parallel that contracting with and delivering public moneys to a private institution for the education of children would indeed be irregular under the law' in Pennsvl vania. Mr. GOODELL. I am wondering if perhaps I didn't make my earlier question clear. That was my question: "Can you, under the Pennsyl-. vania law, contract with the private schools to carry on a program un- der the ESEA or any other act?" Dr. MARLAND. I failed to perceive the contract aspect of your ques- tion, and I thought. you were speaking of the extension of the services as I had described them. That role appears to be perfectly proper. The contracting and delivery of public funds is another matter, in which I believe Pennsylvania law would forbid us. Mr. GOODELL. In other words, you feel that even though this isn't State funds, if the Federal Government gives you a grant and it is clear t.hat. under the Federal law and under the Federal Constitution you can contract with private schools with the money that is still purely Federal money, Pennsylvania law would bar you from doing that'? Dr. MARLAND. I believe that. is t.rue, sir. Mr. BRADEMAS. I was going to ask a question at this point on this public-parochial school relationship, Mr. Marland. It. is my observation that your report in 1966 on the relationship between the public and private schools, pointed up the need for watch- ing this relationship very carefully, and then expressing the concern that. early indications showed that disadvantaged children in private and parochial schools are receiving less help under title I than was intended for them, which I think may have surprised some of us. be- cause most. people might have anticipated that. the other would be the problem. PAGENO="0337" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 331 I wonder ii it is in order to sax to my colleague, if von can give us any comment as of your 196~i report on that. particular problem. Dr. MARLAND. Speaking only for the Council now, instead of as a school superintendent, I would say that the Council has not de- tected either any major concerns on the affirmative side or the negative side in this relationship. I account for this as being largely one of, again, time. I think that there is wide variation throughout the United States as to the application of the intent of 89-10, not because of any ill will or faulty discussion of the law, but simply because for many communities and in many States, this is such an unusual thing that it has taken time to find out where the doorknobs are. `We have sensed, and through our field studies, both by our con- sultants and by ourselves, wide variation. For example, people have pointe.d to Pittsburgh and said, "You folks are doing quite a lot with this, and we think that is fine," and they refer to X, Y, and Z towns where they are just beginning to visit and get. acquainted. I think this is purely a function of time, Mr. Brademas, and I think that there is high promise in this aspect of Public Law 89- 10 for the children of America. Fortunately, many of the poor chil- dren live in the same neighborhoods. and attend schools that are near- by, and, therefore, it is quite simple t.o arra.nge the outreach from the public school to the parochial school, because those same children in that poor neighborhood are nearby. Mr. SCHEUER. If my colleague will yield on that point, I was author of the amendment setting up the National Advisory Council, and it was clear from the. committee report, as well as the debates on the House floor, that a major purpose of the Council was to run a continuing scrutiny of the church-state relationship. As Congressman Brademas mentioned, we wanted to make sure that the disadvantage.d children in the private schools got their fair share of help under t.his program. We also wanted to make sure. that there was no abuse of congres- sional intent to maintain the majority of the services in the public schools and, hence, provide the shoulder-rubbing between the private school children and the public school children. Now, I have been tremendously impressed with all of your reports. They have been brilliant, and coflW{lSSioflate and full of insight. But t.here has been very little treatment of this primary subject, which was the original purpose of the National Advisory Council. I have. hear(l of t\V() major 1)1'OJ)lefl1~ from many ~rroups. I have lleal(l from a number of l)eol)le w'll() were eoncei'ned in some 1)~lPtS of the country. particularly in the Middle West. that the Private school children are getting far less than their share of the benefits, and there are large numbers of disa.dvanta.ge.d kids in private schools who aren't getting benefited. If this were true, it would be of concern to this committee. On the other hand, there have been a few c.ities, New York and Philadelphia among them, where allegations have been made that the intent of Congress has not been followed, and that. services have been performed at the private schools, which was contrary to the. intent of Congress. 7~i-492-67---22 PAGENO="0338" 332 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS This committee would be concerned if that were the case, too. We want to have an evenhanded distribution of these benefits to include all children, whether they are for disadvantaged kids in pub- lic schools or private schools. We also want to follow through on the congressional mandate, which was, except for these welfare services-- children who were disabled and retarded and troubled emotionally, and disturbed and crippled, and the like-that the vast bulk of the services be carried on in the public schools for the benefit of the private school kids. Now, I think that a. great deal of the problem is that we simply don't know what is going on. I get these complaints because I had originally taken the initiative in suggesting the Council as a means of solving the problem then perplexing us. We were trying t.o figure out where possible sources of future trouble could be. I suggested that rather than worrying about it., let us get on with passing the bill and let us set up a National Advisory Council that would scrutinize the operations of the bill from the point of view of the church-state relationships. I am concerned that more time and attention and resources of your committee have not been devoted to investigating exactly the question that Congressman Brademas and Congressman Goodell and I have discussed. I hope very much that you will make. a thoughtful and intensive national survey to find out if there are disadvantaged children in private schools who have not gotten the benefits of this program, arid if t.hat is true, what you think the remedy should he and whether congressional action is necessary. I also hope that you will investigate very thoroughly and in depth the allegations that we have had that in some cities these services and activities have been performed in private schools in the way that is contrary to the congressional intent. We would be just as concerned with that. So far, I think our problem has been a dearth of information and a dearth of analysis by your committee. I would like to know what plans you have for making a thoroughgoing, workmanlike survey that might find out what t.he facts are. Dr. MARLAND. This is well taken and I will respond very briefly, wit.hout attempting t.o rationalize our position, having stated it initially. The Council has been concerned with seeing programs emerge from zero, from a dead start up to where they are now, in about a year. We have been aware of the wide variations in the applications of the in- tent of the law to private schools. We therefore call attention t.o page 21 of our report. of March 31, where we say: We therefore recommend the Office of Education require on all title I applica- tions a clear statement of the extent to which a project will involve children of Private and parochial schools. I think that this has been adapted to the guidelines of the U.S. Office of Educ.ation and should be showing results. I might add that the Council is well aware of this concern, and it is thoroughly familiar with the intent of t.he law on this, as we under- stand it. We are compatible with the description you have just given, Mr. Scheuer. PAGENO="0339" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDTCATION AMENDMENTS 333 But I would say at this stage, while there is very limited evidence, we are conducting and we will continue to conduct specialized scrutiny on this subject, both in individual situations, cities or States, and in general during the year. Mr. Goo1)ELL. Well, l)oetor, I think that there i~ a problem with your recommendation. My experience is that the Office of Education has made it pretty clear in a number of instances that tile Federal law would permit contracting out to private schools. Now, if they give you a flat statement like that, that isnt going to help you in terms of Pennsylvania law, is it? Dr. MARLAND. Unless there are other ways to accomplish the intent of the law than by contracting out. We feel that there are. Mr. G00DELL. It seems to me a somewhat contradictory situation that you can send public school teachers on private school premises to teach and instruct under your State law, but you cannot contract for a service to be performed by the private schools themselves. I suppose everybody has a different value scale on this in terms of separation of church and state, but it bothers me more having public school teachers going into private premises to teach-and I am wonder- ing where you can draw that line-than it does to contract on a busi- nesslike basis between the public school officials and somebody who can do the job for them. Dr. MARLAND. I would agree the vagaries of the law do leave us with some lack of logic here. I would say, however, that there may be something else that is a plus factor, in what I call the extension of services from the public schools. Merely contracting out and passing money would not carry with it the spirit of joint creativity and joint responsibility on a citywide basis that now prevails. Mr. GOODELL. I don't think that would necessarily be true at all. You are the contractor. You are going to draw up the contract, and you obviously are going to have to sit down with the private school people and work out mutually agreeable terms. Presumably, it is to coordinate your programs. The difference is that you have faith at that stage that they are pretty good educators, too, and can administer a program and do a job. It doesn't have to be a question of public school teachers on private school premises, because we don't trust them to do the job. Dr. MARLAND. I understand the difference. I will hold as a school administrator that to me there is an element of joint creativity in a joint program, using a common staff to get a job done, that is something slightly better than two separate programs, even though jointly constructed initially. Mr. GOODELL. I don't want to go over my time because I know my colleagues have some questions. You embraced one point that is entirely different, that I think is extremely significant and important to us. It is this question of the funding. You have received somewhere around $300,000 of about. $31/2 million that you are supposed to receive. Do you know the reason why you haven't received this? We can give reasons in the poverty program because they have cut back some from the original authorization. PAGENO="0340" 334 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDICATIOX AMENDMENTS What. is the reason that you areift getting this money and do you anticipate it. is going to come on a delayed basis? Dr. MARLAND. I would like to pass to one. of my colleagues on this, Mr. Goodell. I do not know the reason for these delays. This is Mr. Thomas Carr. Mr. CARE. I am the staff director of the Council, and Dr. Michael Kirst, who has joined our staff recently from the Office of Education, can, I think, respond to at least a portion of that question. Mr. GOODELL. Are you speaking with a conflict, of interest now Mr. Kins'r. No. The major problem is one of the Office of Educa- tion be.ing able to make the allocations to the local districts. The formula was changed, as you know, radically, and there was a substitu- tion made in there for an update in AFDC data from the base of 1962 to, I think, the base of 1965. This data takes quite a while to collect. The data did not. exist before the law was passed. The Office of Education, as I understand it, has just now- been able t.o get hold of a recent. count of 1965 AFDC data. This has delayed, along with the other formula changes, for the numbers inserted in the bill last. year were Indians. migrants. neglected and dependent. chil- dren, and children from foster homes. So the Office of Education was faced in November w-ith getting data before they could make allocations to cities like Pittsburgh on mi- grants, on Indians, on neglected and dependent children, and children from foster homes and on 1965 AFDC data. That takes quite. a while. Dr. MARLAND. I would like to add a footnote to that exl)lanation. A bit of history is important. In fiscal year 1966 the appropriation bill was signed September 23d. That. is about. a month after the schools have been in session. It. was only at that. time. that. I assume the Office of Education knew how much money it had to allocate. It was already late in terms of the appropriation. We did not have our guidelines and our funds until well into April the following year, early 1967. In fiscal year 1967 the appropriation bill was signed in November of 1966. It was 21/2 months after the schools had been in session, and then again, from that starting point, the Office of Education has to start computing that money up. In other words, t.he appropriation was so late that the Offi~e of Education has not been able o get at its work until it knows what it is going to work with. The moneys have still not reached us as of March. That. is the amount of running time tha.t apparently is needed to compute the appropriation in order to tell the U.S. Office what they have to work wit.h. Mr. G00DELL. I take it. from your answer that you feel this is a na.- t.ionwide situation. Mr. KIEsT. Yes, the allocations, as I understand it. to the States w-ere just made in February. Dr. MARLAND. Using the. Pittsburgh illustration. I was- not calling at.tent.ion to Pittsburgh by any means alone. I w-as simply saying that. this illustrates the condition throughout, the country in every school system. Mr. GOODELL. I think that in fairness, we slioulci point out. that it is true that they did not have any final total figure in appropriaions be- PAGENO="0341" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 335 fore ~ovemJ)er. They did have notice considerably before that that we were going to add other factors to the formula, and there was no reason that they eoul(l not have been proceeding to collect data long before November that would be needed to get their allocation formula. I think that this delay is very important, and I am sure it is cre- ating problems at the local level. Perhaps we should not make radical changes in this formula if we don't make decisions until November. Mrs. GREEN. I wonder if I might~ ask for two things: First, the list of services from which you read a moment ago in response to Mr. Scheuer's question, the services provided in the private school. Dr. MARLAND. I wish I had known I would be asked these questions. I happen to have a bit of notes that I had in my briefcase. Mrs. Gi~N. Would you supply it? Dr. MARLAND. I would be pleased to, Mrs. Green. I listed about six or eight as illustrations in responding to Mr. Scheuer. I would go on. I mentioned elementary counselors, employment supervisors, adaptive physical education, eyeglasses for the poor, speech and hear- ing therapy, library aids-I might add this is a very effective one- teachers of unwed mothers, educationa.l camping-which, incidentally, is a remarkably and most satisfying response to ESEA. in that we bring together jointly Negro and white children through deliberately mixing a parochial school and a public school for 4 or 5 days in winter and fall camping, using local YMCA facilities. Family related education-this is for mothers-nongraded plan- ning, which is research work, and educational television. These are illustrations. I will supply the full list. (For the information requested see part 2.) Mrs. GREEN. Second, I wonder if I might ask the Executive Direc- tor to furnish the list of the 27 consultants and their background, with their immediate previous employment. Mr. CARR. Mrs. Green, that is included as an appendix to our sum- mer report, the buff-colored report. Mrs. GREEN. Thank you. The recommendations on the bottom of page 2 and the top of page 3, your last recommendation, would you explain that to me? I am having trouble interpreting what you mean. I am referring to the regulatory measures at the top of page 3. Dr. MARLAND. The one on integration? MrS. GREEN. Yes (reading) There must be ingenious regulatory Dr. MARLAND. Very well. That~ is a certain amount~ of persuasive verbalism that does not offer a solution. It says there must be in- genious regulatory measures. These are my words to say somebody had better get on the stick and find a~ way for the distribution of these funds to avoid segregating children by means of the compensatory education program. In other words, I do not know the answer, but I know that. if in my community we work out a way to integrate heretofore white elemen- tary schools, and there are 100 Negro youngsters brought from another part of time city for reasons of overcrowding, to that otherwise white school, those Negro youngsters brought from another part of the city have probably come from a heavily enriched program working under ESEA with counselors, with psychological services. with reme- PAGENO="0342" 336 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS dial services, with speech and hearing therapy, with new aild innova- tive programs and equipment that are not present in the. white school, in the white neighborhood. simply because we can't afford them in our budget, strain as we will, in the cit.y of Pittsburgh. The benefit of the ESEA moneys, therefore, has to be concentrated where the poor children are. `When you have now a 700-pupil school~ 600 white and 100 Negro, this is splendid. It is a good environment for both white and Negro children. By the time you spread those 100 Negro children among eight grades, you have about 10 to a grade, or about three to a classroom. You no longer have a workable context in which to pour out these additional services of ESEA. Therefore, the child comes to t.h~ favored school, presumably learning in an integrated environment, but. he is still hungry. Mrs. KOONTZ. May I interrupt. Mrs. Green, and make a comment here? You directed this question toward Dr. Marland, but. I do feel I can make a significant contribution. In contact with teachers all over the country for a year on leave from my job, I was able to see many programs in effect where the ulti- mate desire of the community was to effect a more productive school system. There was the recognition that there were schools that needed these services as total school units far more than others. But at the same time, they recognized the fact that there must be a change in attitudes of people to people, and that one of the best means of achieving this was to have what we call open school enrollment. This has been a. problem in many communities, certainly in the South. However, when one must make a decision between receiving certain kinds of services available in one school over a desired program of integrated education generally in another school, there would be a tendency to remain where the ESEA program is, especially if it con- tained a food element, as with many of these disadvantaged children. We are certain that this should not be a point of conflict. There- fore, it is important that children receive the services rather than schools. But the extent to which these children may be able to receive it must, of course, depend upon many of our older plans of operation that we put the money where there seems to be an operational proce- dure already set. This entire program is based on an idea that. this will be innovative. I don't like the term "innovative," I must say, Mrs. Green. I think it has connotations that were never intended. However, I know that more of the same will not relieve the problems that. we face among these children and in schools and education. Therefore, what we are looking for is not necessarily what even some people might term creative. I sa we are just dealing with what we have been saying for a number of years as our philosophy of educa- tion: that every child is worth something, and what he is worth will determine the future of this country. So we have overlooked the needs, because we didn't have the funds. Now we are saying if we really believe what we have been saying all this time, that children who come from poor backgrounds are not going to make the significant. contributions that they might. if they PAGENO="0343" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDLCATIOX AMENDMENTS 337 had the chance, then we arc going to have to provide the funds where the children are rather than providing the funds where they are most. easily managed. Consequently, I think the term "ingenious means" is placed here because we recognize that there are some barriers, whether we like them or not-many are personal barriers, many are. administrative barriers-that come outside educat.ion, but they must be dealt with just as firmly as if they were educational. Mrs. GREEN. Thank you for your explanation of the paragraph there. The part that. bothered me was "denied the advantages of the new Federal programs." That. really would be limited to title I. Dr. MARLAND. Largely title I. That is where the large. sums of money are. Mrs. GREEN. They would still be eligible for all other Federal programs. Dr. MA1iLAND. They would, indeed. Mr. QUTE. Will the gentleladv yield on that point? Listening to the colloquy, I have conic to the conclusion tha.t "in- genious regulatory" iiieasures mean you dont know what ought to be done. Dr. MARLAND. If you are pressing me that far, I will give you a suggestion, sir. Mr. QUIE. All right. Dr. MARLAND. This is not the Council speaking. This is a. school superintendent. If a school system is able to work out a valid, rational, nonthieatcii- ing form of bringing about integration in a heretofore nonintegrated situation for the good of children, tha.t the funds that normally would have been available to serve those children in their segregated school apply to the school to which they go in the same measure. If we have a 25-percent dollar advantage in the heart of the ghetto, if we remove children from that situation to an integrated situation,. that makes sense and holds up, the same 25-percent differential applies to that whole school. I can't put a counselor in a school to work with t.hree children in each grade, rationally. You can't begin to segregate once you get them there and provide certain programs for the Negro children, certain other programs for the white children. "All the Negro chil- dren gather in here now and we will have a counseling session." This would defeat. what. we. are trying to do through integration. The ingenious regulatory measure may suggest, in other words, that incentive money be established in ESEA to insure that if new in- tegration situations occur, the same degree of fiscal support would surround the whole school in which those children a.re integrated. Mrs. GREEN. As long as I can talk to you as a superintendent of schools, you are wearing that hat for the moment. I am sorry I don't know the complete situation in Pittsburgh. How many schools do you have where there would be, for lack of better words, t.oken inte- gration, or small integration? How many schools do you have more than 75 percent nonwhite? Dr. MARLAND. Three out of eighteen high schools; about 2T out of 80 elementary schools. PAGENO="0344" 338 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDFCATION AMENDMENTS Mrs. GREEN. They have more than 75 percent nonwhite ? Dr. MARLAND. ~es. Mrs. GREEN. Do you operate. by freedom of choice in Pittsburgh? Dr. MARLAND. Yes, we do; wherever there is space. \Ve have been on what we. call the open enrollment or pupil assignment policy since 1903. Curreiitly. about 2,000 Negro children who otherwise would have remained in segregated schools have taken advantage of this, sometimes by busing provided by the board of education, sometimes by their own initiative. depending on distance and situations. About 2,000 out of roughly 28,00() segregated children have been able to profit from this arrangement. But the have, exhausted the space we have. Mrs. GREEN. Do von have any schools where there would be 9() per- cent. or more nonwhite pupils Dr. ~L~RLAND. Yes: we have. Mrs. GREEN. How many? Dr. ~\L~RLAND. \Ve have two high schools that would l)e 90 percent or more nonwhite, and we have 22 schools that woul(l he elemeiitary, more than 90 percent nonwhite. Mrs. GREEN. There are two high schools in the 22? Dr. MARLAND. They are part of the 22. Mrs. GREEN. Would they also be in areas of low economic status? Dr. MARLAND. They would, indeed. Mrs. GREEN. Now. I would like to go to the probleni of recruiting and maintaining teachers in these schools. Dr. MARLAND. We work very hard at this, Mrs. Green. Mrs. GREEN. What. is the sit.uat ion? What is the t.urnover, for example, in a high school that. is 90 percent nonwhite? What would be the teacher turnover compared to a. school that is 90 percent or more white? Dr. MARLAND. You are asking for a larger generalization than exists because there are. some schools t.hat are almost entirely segregated Negro-serving schools, where the holding power of faculty is very good. There are other schools where it is not so good. Mrs. GREEN. This is exactly the point. I would like to make. What makes it. good, the retaining power in some schools and what makes it poor in other schools? Dr. MARLAND. The. degree of pride. self-esteem, self-satisfaction, and fulfillment that. comes to the faculty of that school which often rests in the leadership and in the parent environment of that school. If there is hostility, if there is strife, if there is argumentation and constant. tension in the community surrounding the school, whether white or Negro, it will tend to discourage teachers from finding ful- fillment. there. If there is compatibility with the community, if the community is supportive. concerned, participating, not merely accept- ing but. constructively involved in the schools, it. will Tend to encour- age. a. stable faculty. I would say you ma he implying that there is an excessively large turnover in all such schools. We do not find it. so. We are merely talking about a matter of degree. Our turnover, citywide, is about. 15 percent in Pittsburgh. which is not. a great deal different from most industries. and it~ is better than many school systems. I would say that I ~ percent iS not categorically pertinent to ~egrP~flted schools. PAGENO="0345" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 339 I would say that broadly speaking there is no larger turnover in our schools that are de facto segregated Negro than there is in the de facto segregated whites. Other factors, merely, than race affect this con- dition, and I have mentioned those factors. Mrs. GREEN. I)oes the teacher with the greatest seniority have the right of choice in which lie or she will teach? Dr. MARLAND. Almost. every teacher in Pittsburgh has a right of choice where he or she will teach. We like it that way. We tend to keep it that way. We feel teachers should teach where they want to teach. Fortunately, we have no school in Pittsburgh that has more than 50 percent Negro teachers, including those that are 100 percent Negro children. Unfortunately, we don't have enough Negro teachers to go around and to have all of our schools represented by integrated faculties. We search desperately for more Negro teachers. We recruited widely for this, and we are making some progress. But there are not enough people coming into the teaching profession to serve all the needs if we are to have integrated schools throughout the country. \[i~. Sciiin~u. Will mY colleague yield on tins point Mrs. GREEN. Yes. Mr. SCIIEUER. On page 3 of your testimony you say: There must he a high order of selectivity ifl tile assignment and training of teachers and principals in the schools serving the deprived. Isn't there something of a contradiction here between the right of the teacher who accrues seniority to select their schools and the high priority that you properly place on the flexibility of the. school system to assign the most talented and experienced teachers in schools where their skills are most needed? Dr. MARLAND. I think talent takes many forms. Mr. Sclieuer. The teacher who might be most skillful in working with Negro boys and girls is not necessarily the one who would be most skillful in working with white, and conversely. When we say ~most~ talented," we have to say "most~ talented for what." We have many splendid white teachers who choose to teach in segregated schools. This is part of what I call the National Teachers Corps spirit. It is what the Na- tional Teacher Corps means, I think. This is a new dimension in the teaching profession, and it is good. We have been involved in this kind of thing before it was called the National Teacher Corps. We would develop and discover in their undergraduate years young men and young women who wanted to work in this kind of circumstance. We would train them finitely in the conditions of the ghetto. They would come to us and accept our invitation to begin to teach there. This could be a superior teacher. But~ that teacher might not have the motivation or in(leed the style to work in a very favored, exclusive suburb. There are different kinds of people. So the freedom of choice, while it is largely applied in Pittsburgh, I think gives us a distribution of people who want to go where they are working and, broadly speaking, are effective there. Mr. SCTIEUER. Aren~t there many teachers with the understanding and experience to deal with disadvantaged children who, for under- PAGENO="0346" 340 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDIJCATION AMENDMENI'S standable human reasons, would rather opt to serve in middle-class schools with kids who will go to Harvard, Yale, and Princeton, where from the point of view of the school system it would be best to channel that wonderful experience and understanding into the educa- tion of the deprived kids in less-attractive neighborhoods, perhaps in old and deteriorated buildings, but where, with their wisdom and experience, they are needed the most? How do you reconcile that apparent conflict to me between the need for this wisdom and talent in the slum areas with the deprived chil- dren and the understandable human desire of these teachers to serve in more attractive surroundings with kids who come from homes that are educational factories themselves? Perhaps the teacher, from her point of view, would have more satis- faction in knowing they are going right on to college and graduate schools, and so forth. Dr. MARLAND. Mrs. Koontz will answer that a.nd I will try to, also, if you wish. Mrs. KO0NTZ. We must admit that we have not always admitted to the fact that there was any difference with these children who lived in the ghetto or the disadvantaged. I think perhaps we, as educators, have said that there were some greater needs, but we were not able to identify them because we have not really given attention to the nature of poverty, if you will. I think we were so willing to say all children are alike that we were ~almost defensive about it. We have come to realize that there are cul- tural conditions that alter whatever performance there may be, as well as the attitudes. To have, the understanding of these children demands from teachers an additional skill. We don't have it, and I will admit that we as teachers don't have it, generally. I will say that we have an under- standing of children, but as to the peculiar needs of children in a peculiar setting, this must be taught because it demands opening up a completely new arena of discussion. We haven't discussed in our American democracy, the differences among children that are native, that are racial, that are ethnic, to the extent that we could be open and honest. Now we are beginning to do this I)ecause title T is making funds available, and we should give services to these children. So we have, by force, needed to look at the understanding that we have of the children to whom these services mean the most, and in so doing it has demanded a retraining. Mr. SCHEUER. My point is that. there are plenty of teachers who have this understanding and this wisdom and experience, but unfortunately, due to the fact that they have the choice of where they are going to serve, frequently don't wish to serve where the need is the most desperate. Mrs. KOONTZ. If you would allow me, as teachers, we have discussed this. Our own national teachers organizations have, looked at it. and discussed it. We know there must be incentives given to teachers who already have this in order to make even an initial impact. This does not mean that we are going to make a separate salary schedule. But we offer incentives of many types to people in all aspects of life and living. PAGENO="0347" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 341 Then why not offer this kind of incentive if we can bring to a faculty the skills of a teacher who may be the instrument through which that entire faculty learns? So we are not talking about putting a person in to whom we attach a label of "I am great. I am better than all of you on the scene, and you have done nothing." Of course, that is not the idea. But it is a rec- ogriition of the fact that if, as teachers, we need help in art, we bring in a person who has this talent. This is to be likened to any other skill or talent. Mrs. GREEN. When I asked you about the transfer of tFachers and turnover, do you include transfer when you say there is no difference? Dr. MARLAND. Transfer between schools within the city? Mrs. GREEN. In a school which is over 91) percent. nonwhite. Dr. MARLAND. Yes, I include that. I would say that there are satis- factions in teaching in segregated schools that appear to be rewarding to some teachers that make them want to teach there, and that the transfer rate is not any higher, broadly speaking, across the board, in segregated Negro-populated schools than in white. In certain schools, yes, but not classified by Negro or white. Mrs. GREEN. In certain schools, then, there is a remarkable differ- ence in the number of transfers or turnover? Dr. MARLAND. Yes, there is some difference. It might be 15 or 10 percent. Mrs. GREEN. Then there is no appreciable difference. Dr. MARLAND. I would say this is not. a serious problem, nor is it a serious problem, to respond to Mr. Seheuer's companion question, to find able, dedicated teachers that will teach in either situation. I don't think this is a major factor. I think I could name von now, in some. of our segregated Negro high schools, teachers whom I would match against any teacher in the most favored of our city schools. Mrs. GREEN. Tf I understand von correctly, then, in Pittsburgh first, and then if you will generalize, you do iiot, as a superintendent, face any problems in securing adequate staff for, let me term them, the most difficult school situations than you do iii staffing your regular schools? Dr. MARLAND. That. is a correct statement. We should be certain, however. t.o note that we always find difficulty in getting adequate staff; yes. Mrs. GREEN. But there is no difference. Dr. MARLAND. No si~nifieant difference. Mrs. GREEN. I)o you think the situation in Pittsburgh is unique, or do von think this is the common experienc.e of superintendents of large city schools across the country? Dr. M~\RLAND. I am sorry I can't answer that. Mv impression would be that it is not unirnie. Mr. ScHEp~R. Will my colleague yield on that point? Mrs. GREEN. Yes. I will yield in a moment. Tn the Advisory Committee, has any study been made of this? Dr. MARLAND. In what committee? Mrs. GREEN. Has any study of the difficulty of obtaining adequate staff been made? PAGENO="0348" 342 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDTCATION AMENDMENTS Dr. M~\RI~~xn. My intent was to indicate that. Negro-populated schools, in general, serving deprived children, both Negro and white, were the issue. Schools serving deprived children, whatever t.heir race, are a cause of excessive teacher turnover. I would also add that Negro teachers in general are in short. supply. Mrs. GREEN. Your point, is that you do not, have difficulty staffing a school that is in a. low economic-socio situation? Dr. MARLAND. That is correct. But I would add that we. work at it 12 months a year, including the induction of people into this kind of teaching in their undergraduate years, through our relations with teacher-training institutions. Mrs. GREEN. Then let's turn to the Teacher Corps. Do you have the Teacher Corps in Pittsburgh? Dr. MARLAND. We do. Mrs. GREEN. If your statements you have just made are true, t.hen what. is the basis for the Teacher Corps t.o work in the disadvantaged areas? Why shouldn~t we try to get good teachers across the. board in ever school and not. concentrate in the special schools? T)r. MARLAND. Because what we are doing is not sufficient to solve the. problem. We don't have enough good teachers net. The. fa~t of the Teacher Corps providing a specialized training, a specialized experience~ and in the first place a specialized identification of the kind person who possibly otherwise would not. have entered teaching at all-and I refer now to the young man or young woman at about the senior year in college who suddenly discovers social responsibility and says, "What shall T do with my life ?"-this chap has never gone through the routines of teacher education. He is coming out with an AB degree and has suddenly found it. important to serve man. This now opens up a new door for him to come into te;ic1~ I wi. Very 1 kalv, otheiwise lie wouldu ~t have. Mrs. Gnvrx. I (lont think I made my point clear. `We do need in- genious ways of attracting teachers. There is no disagreement here at all. It. seems to me you have exploded the reason for the establishment of the Teacher Corps: that we must concentrate on a national program to recruit teachers to work in the disadvantaged schools, because you have said that there is no greater problem in getting teachers in these schools than there is in general. Dr. MARLAND. The difference is in the qualifications that. they bring to their job. These people, through the Teacher Corps, would be far better trained, far better inducted to do their work, and would begin to make a real difference immediately. Mrs. GREEN. Wouldn't tins l)e true in any subject, in any school, or at. any level ? If von gave them 2 years they would be a better quali- fied teacher for the job. Dr. MARLAND. Yes: except. that the need is far more desperate in the. inner city for specialized training and specialized activities. As I have said, we get people to go to those schools, but they are not well-enough trained, well-enough inducted, well-enough inducted t.o the trauma of working in some ghetto situations. Mrs. GREEN. This is different, then, than in other schools. This is the point I have, been trying to explore. I thought. you said it was PAGENO="0349" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDFCATION AMENDMENTS 343 no more difficult than it was to get. math teachers or science teachers, but what. you are saying is you just. need more good teachers at all levels. Dr. MARLAND. In terms of numbers. Mrs. GnrEx. Then why don't we have, a Teacher Corps to recruit teachers, period? Dr. MARLAND. I would welcome. this, but. I don't think we. can spread ourselves that thin. The. Teacher Corps, to recruit. teachers in gen- eral, would be good, but the desperate need for special competency, special training, special sensitivity, special approaches t.o the class- room task are more. discrete and, therefore, call for a different order of training than for conventional teaching. Mrs. GREEN. Well, I guess I will drop that. Mrs. KooxTz. Mrs. Green, I would like very much, if you will per- mit me, to make. a comment.. I think Dr. Marland is right.. I think lie thinks that Pittsburgh is typical. But. I assure you that.. people in other school systems do have a pi'ollem of recruiting teachers to go into these schools serving disadvantaged children. One of the first. problems is that. they are dealing with something they (lont. know how to handle. It. is a lack of security on the part of the teacher. They don't. have in every school system the procedure they have in Pittsburgh for involving community and teachers, ad- ministrators, et cetera, in the planning and approach to many of their problems. They do not, have it.. Consequently, there is a special problem of the teacher for these areas. There are teachers whose hearts are willing but. they feel in- adequate to serving the needs of these. children because we. have not properly identified them in even the. prese.i'vice training. Mrs. GREEN. Let. nu' ask ou. then: Do you feel that there is a larger turnover, transfer, or exodus from the. schools that. have a high per- centage of nonwhite an(l who are in the low economic group than there is in the. average school? Mrs. Koox~rz. From what. we have, heard teachers say, there appears to he a large turnover or request for it. But I would sul)flhit. to you that there is an additional factor that. perhaps if we examined the qualifications, there are more temporary teachers working in those schools, or teachers working on conditional certificates. Consequently, they remain in many of those situations because it. j~ rather difficult, to transfer out. without permanent. certificates. This is, a~zain, bound up in a. different krnd of problem. Mi's. GREEN. You have articulated the problem we. have in Port- land. It has been my impression that this is true.. That there is a much greater transfer and grea.ter turnover in what. I would call "diffi- cult teaching situations." You said "incentives." You said you would not give them a salary increment. What. kind of incentive would you give the teacher? Mrs. Icoo~rz. Smaller numbers of children to work with, which can in itself affect the success of a. classroom effort, shorter hours, auxiliary personnel available to them at. the time when it is most needed, the kind of social agency help that. is available ofttime.s but. because of the large numbers of schoolchildren is not, available when the child needs it most. PAGENO="0350" 344 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS Reducing the number of hours of actual confrontation with a class: can, in itself, allow the teacher to have more time to plan adequately for the children. But in addition to this, I think there also must be taken into consideration the fact that these teachers come from other sections of the city or town to the disadvantaged section. It requires moving. It requires their breaking off, oftimes, with their family. There must be some kind of incentive that makes it pos- sible for them to make this kind of move if the same effort is available at home. Mrs. GREEN. Why do you exclude salary? Mrs. KOONTZ. I don't exclude salary. Mrs. Giu~N. I thought you did. Mrs. Koowrz. No. If I gave that impression, indeed, I did not mean to, because salaries generally are a part of the problem. Mrs. GREEN. Mr. Chairman, this is a concern of mine, the Teacher Corps. If I may refer back to Mr. Howe's testimony yesterday, that the Teacher Corps is a drop with ripples going out, it seems to me that there is something that this committee ought to look at. And I would hope we would this year, and this is the hole in the bottom of the bucket. If we put in one drop at the top and there are major holes and major leaks in the bucket we really are not accomplishing the job that we think we are. We ought to turn our attent.ion to those big holes in the bottom. I had hoped that the advisory committee had (lone this. T can't em- phasize enough; we have to find the incentives to retain them there. As you said, we should keep the highly qualified person and not have the teachers on an emergency certificate. This, to me, is of much greater urgency and importance than some of the other things that we have been discussing. I have been using too much time. I only justify it on the basis that I have yielded to others. If there is time this afternoon, I will come back to a couple of other points. Chairman PERKINS. There will be plenty of time this afternoon. After I call on Mr. Brademas and give him as much latitude as we have given the previous members, then I want to invoke the 5-minute rule in order that everybody may have the opportunity to question, since some may want to leave early. Mr. R~wKINs. Mr. Chairman, are you instituting the 5-minute rule? Chairman PERKINS. Yes, after Mr. Brademas. But it is only for the purpose of getting around. Mr. BRADEMAS. Mr. Chairman, I ask for no special privileges. Chairman PERKINS. I was trying to even the time up. Mr. BRADEMAS. Well, I talk fast and I will ask the witnesses to speak equally rapidly and as much to the point as possible. I have several questions and I will put them to you as quickly as I can. First of all, on the matter of the Teacher Corps, if I understand the English language correctly, and I am quite prepared to be told that I c1on't what~ von said. Mr. Marlanci and Mrs. Koontz. seems to me to he quite eloquent te~tiniony in support of time wisdom of this extraordinarily modest effort to provide some expansion, to iis~ the PAGENO="0351" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 345 language of your own report, of the capacity of teachers of the disadvantaged. I appreciate the metaphor of my distinguished colleague, Mrs. Green, about water in the bucket. But I am not really willing to turn over one little modest, terribly, extraordinarily modest, spigot from which there may issue at least a few teachers to help in meeting this enormously serious problem. I just cannot get all that exercised and outraged about this terribly modest effort. That is just an observation. You may want to com~ ment on it.. Let me turn to a question which has been touched upon. I judge~, with respect to Projects Headstart and Follow-Through, that one of the principal reasons for the Follow-Through recommendation was. the report of Max Wolf, of Yeshiva University, to the effect that benefits of Headstart would be lost if there were no Follow-Through. Then I saw more recently another report from a doctor at Cornell University suggesting that Dr. Wolf was wrong. ilave you a com- ment on that? Dr. MARLAND. I will try to respond to both of your points, the first as to the validity of the concert of the Teacher Corps. I cannot applaud it enthusiastically enough. As I say, we made some faltering starts on that in Pittsburgh, with our voluntary rela- tionships with other institutions, before the Teacher Corps came into- being, but only very modestly, six or eight teachers here and there. I think the present level of support j~rovides around 1,500 teachers this year, advancing presumably 5,000 in the proposed legislation for a year. Again I say this is very, very few, but it is terribly important. I refer again to my written testimony, page 2, where I say the number of generalizations emerge. There must be innovative and fresh ap- proaches to teacher techniques and curriculum for the deprived. That is what we are talking about-attitudes, skills, sensitivities, and the heart and the stomach for working in the deprived areas. This is what the Teacher Corps say to me, and it is terribly important. It is not so much training teachers for the total suppiy, although this is very important, too, but it is training teachers for a very, very discrete aspect of our problem for which we have very few people especially trained. I say again this is terribly important and I hope it prospers. The second part of your question, having to do with the-would you repeat that, please? Mr. BRADEMAS. That was on the Headstart and Follow-Through. Dr. MARLAND. On that, I agree, without necessarily dealing in all of the research and statistics, because as a school administrator I feel and believe that the good things happening for 3- and 4-year-olds in small groups have `to be continued for a period of time or they will hideed be lost. Research tends to support that. assertion. There would be, however, in my judgment, an important aspect of this experiment. whic.h is sug- gested, I believe, in the President's new progra.m of fairly limited sums to approach kindergarten, grades 1, 2, and 3, on `thie Follow- through. PAGENO="0352" 346 ELEMENTARY AND SECON[)ARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS This, to me, is clearly and specif-ically an education program, not an Office of Economic Opportunity pI'ogl'am. It is very hard to separate them and tell where one begins and the other ends. It would puzzle me as to why grades 1. 2. and 3 aren't fundamental to the total spirit of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, Title I. It happens that we in Pittsburgh have had the Headstart program in the. public schools 11 months a ear for 3-year-olds and 4-yea.r-olds, moving on into the conventional kindergarten. Three- and 4-year-old classes average about 12 to i~ children present each day. This is a splendid learning environment, children coming into a loving, con- stru(t.ive. and helpful situation for about 2 hours a. day for 2 years. Then to put them into a 40-pupil kindergarten with the tensions and pressures of a schoolhouse where very limited facilities are at hand for them, the class size, the environment for learning suddenly changing, we can't be. surprised if they begin to lose some of the advantages they gained in the small and intimate situation, and so on, through grades 1, 2, and 3. 1 urge favoral le a1~ eat ion to what is now called Followthrough, b~~t I would urge that it be part of education. Mr. BRADEM~s. Let me. ask another question with respect to rec- ommendation Xo. 5 of your January 1967 report, in which you ex- I)ie~ concern about the apparent difficult.y in disseminating the results of the local experience of title. I programs around the country. Woublnt title IV. the research title., offer some opportunity for do- ing a more effective job in that? It. apparently hasn't l)een very effec- tive in that respect. Dr. MMiLAND. I think it will. I think you will also get some effect on that through title V. with the State departments of education mak- ing thienis,elves felt. Again. I think we are talking about. a function of time. The regional laboratories are hardly in business now, and I think that it is too early to expect this dissemination to have flowed vigor- ously from that. I think it will. Mr. huRST. Congressman. if I may respond to that, I think one of the findings our consultants come back w-itli is that dissemination is especially effective if it ~ I)erson to person. If some of these school people from other areas of the country could move about and actually see. projects that. are very good, it would have., we think, maybe more impact. than dissemination of printed literature which talks in generalities hut does not provide a consultant who comes in and analyzes the specific local situation. Mr. BRADEMAS. I noticed in your general observations, Mr. Marlaiid, if I am not. incorrect, you address yourself to two principal problems: One is the problem of producing more teachers with special capabili- ties for teaching the disadvantaged, and we have been discussing that, Mrs. Green's observations, my observations, and your observations. The other problem. major problem, that you address yourself to is the importance of money for facilities. Is it possible for us really to make any significant headway-and on this one point. I think Mrs. Green and I are in full agreement; that the Teacher Corps program, whatever it is, is modest-will we make significant headway in these two problems without full funding of the Elementary-Secondary Education Act! PAGENO="0353" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 347 Dr. MARLAND. At the present funding or even at the 1967 level of funding, I would say there would not be any progression that would be significant in the direction of capital programs. I would say if it were funded at the level originally authorized, there would be signifi- cant beginnings toward capital support. Mr. BRADEMAS. What can we do about another recommendation or concern expressed, the problem of cranking up the school principals to be deeply concerned about the problem of teaching the disadvan- taged? Dr. MARLAND. The logical subject that comes to my mind is more and better selection of people for the disadvantaged schools and, secondly, in the spirit of the Teacher Corps message, opportunities for a separate kind of inservice training for such people. We, for example, will be conducting this coming summer an intensive program for principals and for principal aspirants in this very field of human relations and the education of the deprived. This is now going on. Mr. BRADEMAS. What comments can you give us on the debate that is in the country right now on the question of the evaluation and assessment of these programs? We on this committee authorize billions of dollars for, let's say, elementary and secondary education, not to speak of all the other pro- grams, and we are responsible for answering to the taxpayers. Ought we not, therefore, have some intelligent judgments on whether or not the programs that we authorize are really producing the results to which they are devoted? Dr. MARLAND. Would you like me to respond as a member of the Council or superintendent of schools in Pittsburgh? Mr. BRADEMAS. Either or both. If you have a different opinion in either situation, please tell me in which guise you are responding. Dr. MARLAND. The Council has not studied the subject. I think it will; I think it must. As superintendent of schools in Pittsburgh, I am sure I am in the minority, and I am not saying that in any kind of blatancy. I think it is essential t.hat if Congress appropriates large sums of money to put into education, just like any other businesslike establishment, it has to find out how it is working. I believe that some kind of rational and scholarly assessment is important. I do not think it should identify individuals, school sys- tems, or communities, but I think that broadly Congress can find out how its money is working through scholarly work of an evaluative and assessment nature. I think it is inevitable and I support it~. Mr. BRADEMAS. I would be interested in whether your Coi~mcil is intending to address yourselves to this next point, and I don't judge that you have from your first two reports, but we hear all of this talk about new technology and we know new technology in teacher techniques have come into the teaching in our country, but to what extent are we making effective and operative use of these techniques out in the field to solve the tough problems? Obviously you can use teaching machines and all the rest of it in suburban white schools in wealthy districts outside big cities and come up with great results. But what about using these techniques to solve 75-492-67-----2~ PAGENO="0354" 34S ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDFCATION AMENDMENTS the problems of integrating our schools and the problem of improving the learning of children in very poor districts, both of which problems are, of course, related ? Dr. MARLAND. I am going to defer to Mrs. Koontz on that.. Mrs. KoOxTz. Mr. Braclemas, I believe that really the questions here are pointing up what teachers generally have been feeling. These problems are so interwoven that when we attempt to pick one thing out and say, "Show me results yesterday," what we are doing is isolating a factor of education when it is not this kind of thing. The question you are asking has to do with attitudes of admin- istrators as well as teachers. We are suggesting. too, that as teachers we need this inservice training. But also the people under whom we work as coordinators, as administrators, must have t.he same under- standing that we as teachers are getting if we are to effect new programs. These, in turn, demand that we take a look at all ways we have been doing things, such as scheduling. It demands sometimes a com- plete. turnabout in order to use old facilities. But at. the same time, it. may also demand that a part of old facilities go, so walls no longer become sacred, that they can be removed, tha.t when we find the techniques that. work, that we have the flexibility within policy as well as in school functions to make the changes. Mr. BRADEMAS. Let me interrupt to say perhaps I haven't made my question quite clear. I don't know if my rhetorical question is accurate or not, in fact. I call well see how the people who make audiovisual equipment would have an easy time in selling such equipment. to very wealthy school distric.ts. My question is, To what extent are the audiovisual people, teachers, and school administrators like yourselves, who run school systems where you do have a lot of problems in integration and cultural disadvantage-to what extent are you getting together to say, "Look, these are. really the tough, thorny, mean, difficult, 1)Olit ically controversial problems in American education. What can we do to use all of your equipment to solve the tough problems, not the easy problems?' Dr. MARLAND. I will try to give you a short. answer to that., Mr. Brademas. I would say that the state of the art. is still quite young on the so-called teaching technology. Even television has ye.t some (listarI(e to ~o before it becomes a lively and viable tool of teaching. Those of us in the administration of teaching, I think, look for ways very honestly to improve, to expedite and increase the productivity of teaching through these means. For eXaIfll)le, to be specific to your question. we ui Pittsburgh have recently engaged ourselves with WTest_ inghouse Corp., with General Learning Corp., General Electric, and Time-Life, for experimental work in Pittsburgh, with children, using the computer to teach. The schools iii wl'iieh these installations will he installed are good, clear examples of integrated urban schools, the poor and the favored, the Nea~ro and the white, the swift and the slow, and so on. These schools are at. the leading edge, if you will, of experimenting with com- puter-assisted instruction. Yothing useful will come for this for at least 4 years, maybe 5 years, maybe 6 years. It is this kind ~f pace that we are facing? PAGENO="0355" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 349 I think there is a. liveliness and an alertness on the part of school ad- ministrators, boards of education, and teachers to go this way, but. if the uses of television that have been at hand for 10 or 1~ years is an in- dication, it will take time. Mr. BRADEMAS. Would you like to add something? Mr. CARR. I would like to say this: that some of the daily reports that we are getting in from the field indicate, surprisingly almost, an inverse correlation between the cost of the equipilient. and its effective- ness in the classroom. In those classrooms where there is a warmth and a warm, human contact and an understanding and commoness of purpose, and perhaps a few simple devices, such as a. shoebox and some stones, but the direct contact with the teacher, we are finding the results, in our opinon, to be much more outstanding than tho~e ~vlncli rely on the machines. Mr. BRADEMAS. Tha.t is in the findings in the report.. Mr. CARR. I don't mean by that to indict, the machines because we have also found some very successful programs using the niacilines. Mr. BRADEMAS. I would like to see theni put. to use more effectively. Thank you very much. Mr. Marland and your colleagues. I would like t.o say, speaking for myself, I always regard it as re- freshing to hear you. You have a. school system that l)resents all the problems in American education, but I think it a.lso gives us hope. I want to congratulate the members of the National Advisory Coun- cil. I always look forward to reading your reports because I don't see you as in anybody's pocket and you speak your mind from the standpoint outside Government that is most helpful to us on this com- mittee. Dr. MARLAND. May I respond briefly to that? There has been furnished to the members of the committee a two-page brief memoran- dum describing the workings of this Council which I should have re- ferred to in my opening remarks. I do call your attention to it. It was prepared by Mr. Carr. It does establish what I think Mr. Brademas has noted, the independ- ence, the autonomy, and the presui~ied objectivity of this group in facing the tasks assigned to it. Mr. Bw~DE~L~s. I hope that that document will be included in the record. Mr. Chairman. Chairman PERI~Ixs. Without objection. it is so ordered. The (L')cnlnent referred to appeal-s in part L Mrs. KooxTz. I would like to make a response to the. statement concerning the machines : That is i he fact that no machines can op- erate themselves unless teachers are trained in the use of them before they are presented in the. classrooms. Tf not, we cannot expect maxi- mum use. Tn school sstems where time training of teachers precedes the buy- big of mnaterj:ils or the insistence that materials be used, we have more evilences. of success. This is from teachers themselves, this evidence.. Chairman PERKINS At. this point I will invoke the 5-minute rule. Mr. QUTE. As a first question, I would like to go to the earlier report. I believe that was put out March 31, 19G6. ~ou talk there of t.he universe of educationally disadvantaged chil- dren. PAGENO="0356" 350 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS The other day we had reference to the universe of education. You indicate that there are 13 million disadvantaged children. Is that correct Dr. MARLAND. Yes. Mr. QFIE. What criteria did ~ou use and how did you identify them? Dr. MARLAND. I will pass this to one of my colleagues. Mr. CARR. This information was provided at our request by the Office of Education. If you will note the footnote 2, it states that the disadvantaged a.re defined as those whose educational achievement is substantially below that normally expected of children of their age and grade. Dr. MARLAND. This is not necessarily a poverty-related definition. It has to do with underachievement by young people. Mr. QFJE. I recognize that. We are distributing money based on a poverty definition, but you are supposed to reach the educationally deprived children. I think we~ would all admit that it would be a more accurate distribution of the funds if we distributed it. on the basis of education deprivation. Then you wouldn't have the problem you referred to earlier of some. schools being left out. and the others being included in the. large cities to the extent you have now. I wondered, since you did use that figure, if you believe there is any way of determining who they are. I have heard it said by some that it could not be determined, except that they knew pretty well in the administration of certain programs who were educationally deprived and who were not. Dr. MARLAND. You will find a high correlation between the educa- tionally deprived and the economically deprived. I think that was contained in the original formula.. I am sure there are educationally disadvantaged children, however, who are not touched by the present formula. Mr. QuIE. Evidently, since there are about twice a.s many edu- cationally deprived than those who are counted by the formula. Dr. MARLAND. I think that is very likely true. For example, there would be up to 8 percent of our population in favored as well as ill- favored circumstances, who are emotionally disturbed, for whom vir- tually nothing is being done in our society. These would be educationally disadvantaged children, in my opinion. Mr. QuIE. Nothing is being done under title I for these children? Dr. MARLAND. Very little. Not for reason of intent but for reason of lack of resources. Mr. QUIE. I don't see the lack of resources when the school is re- ceiving half of the normal cost of educating the child. Dr. MARLAND. This returns, again, to the supply of professional people, the numbers of psychiatric social workers, the numbers of psychiatrists, the numbers of psychologists, the numbers of guidance people, who are all still in short supply. To mount a program that would reach all of the emotionally dis- turbed children to profit from specialized help would call for at least tripling or quadrupling the numbers in the schools right this minute, to say nothing of the supply of psychiatrists, which is almost nil in terms of the needs of society. Mr. GOODELL. Will the gentleman yield? PAGENO="0357" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 351 Mr. QujE. Yes. Mr. GOODELL. Do you think that full funding of the total authori- zation would create a situation which would mean, in all likelihood unwise expenditure of funds? Dr. MARLAND. Would you please repeat that question? Mr. GOODELL. I think you said the present allocation formula would mean $2.3 billion full funding. Do you think this would lead to unwise expenditure of funds in the present circumstances? Dr. T%IARLAND. Speaking as t.he superintendent from Pittsburgh, I do not, really, Mr. Goodell. I think the experience we have had over 2 years of judicious expenditures of relatively modest levels of Federal support have given us the know-how to increase this judiciously. Mr. GOODELL. If I may, Mr. Chairman, I would just quote the Com- missioner of Education from yesterday in his statement as follows: I presented testimony here last year to the effect that full funding of the total authorization would create a situation which would mean in all likelihood unwise expenditure of funds. I still believe that is the case. This was in response to a question as to why they had not. asked for the full authorization of funds. The question implied was, is this for budget reasons, and Commis- sioner Howe said no; he felt that the expansion was aI)out what could be clone in view of the human resource. pioblein and the other problems, and that if we went to $2.3 billion now there would be unwise expend- itures of funds. I take it you disagree. Dr. MARLAND. I would have to disagree with my good friend Com- missioner iTo\ve. I think there is a sufficient procedure now, and 100 years of the utmost. monetary caution on the part of boards of educa.- tion and school a(lministrat ors has made the ]u(licioiIS use. of money a pa~t of our life, and I do not think they would he abused. Mr. QUTE. When title. I is administered in our s(hools now you determine where the greatest incidence of educational deprjvation exists in various schools and assign the money to those schools? Dr. M~RL1xD. According to the. formula. yes, sii~. We make that determination and certainly that those schools have, met the criteria and the guidelines. Mr. QUIE. The criteria, and the guidelines are not limited to the income of the parents in the neighborhood around that school, are they ? Is there an attempt to determine, what educational depriva- tion really is'? Dr. M~\RI.~~xD. Tile measure has been largely structured by t.he eco- nomic circumstances of that area. It doesn~t mean that all the people served by that school have to he poor. bi~t. in our case the formula works out that something like 20 percent. have to meet tile economic criteria in order for that school to receive the services. Mr. QuIIE. What if the requirement of income was removed from your administering of the funds, and you had the responsibility to see that the funds went to the areas where the greatest educational deprivation existed. PAGENO="0358" 352 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDuCATION AMENDMENTS Would you approve of such guidelines and do you think you could do it.? Dr. MARLAND. Speaking now as a member of the Council in replying to that. question. which 1 think is my I)rirnalY role here, the. Council would say that. this is a tendency toward general aid, and they would teiid to say that. the. present categorical restraints on ESEA are valid and a Ic 1)1oduct ive, and are. efficient anti should be retained. I believe that as a superintendent of schools, if it. were just I alone that were collcerlle(l with this. I \voulcl like, to see a little more fluidity in the use of the funds. but not absolute freedom of general aid at this stage. Mr. QFIL. It would not necessarily be general aid. You still have the category that it. ~voulci have to be for the educationally deprived. 1)r. MARLAND. But. you are saving that the jucignient would rest at. the local level as to how it would be used. Tht tends to he in the direction of general aid. I think that. our Council would hold that at. this stage. of our evolution on this subject they would recommend Congress hold to the present. restraints to assure that that money is spent where the law meant. it. to be and have universa.l guidelines that. tell how to do it. Mr. QUTE. Do you think we. have reached a point along the road where we could move another step closer to genera.l aid, but still make certain that the Federal money went for the education of the deprived children? I)o you think school superintendents could make that (lecision wisely? Dr. MARLAND. I do. I think over time. much of this will happen. I hope. that over a period of years there will be a gradual increasing of the liberalization of local l)oard of education authority to spend these moneys wisely, just as they do other mone s, local !nonevs, tax moneys deprived locally. State moneys. foundation moneys, the in- come coming to l)oards of education, broadly speaking, not. being categorical. exce.pt for these Federal programs. I think over an evolutionary period of 4 or 5 years there should be a relaxation of the categorical nature, yes, sir. Mr. QFIE. Do von suppose that all t.he school superjntendents of a State could help a State commissioner of education to also make that. determination so that the. Federal money will be based on edu- cat ionallv deprived children? Or do you think you would still have to use an income formula to get the money to the State for distribution among the schools accomplished on educationally deprived guidelines by themselves? Dr. MARLAND. T think von still have to have some kind of a uni- versal formula. Probably the best one at the moment. on w-hich we have information is the economic level. Mr. QFIE. So the money would have to come from the State based on an economic level, and von could not distribute it. within the States without iisin~ the economic, level. but von say von could administer 1t withm your school system without. the economic level ? Dr. ~ If it were distributed to the States on that basis, es- pec~ally on the basis of increased rathe.r than decreased resources, it could be done judiciously within the States, yes. PAGENO="0359" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDFCATION AMENDMENTS 353 Mr. QIITIE. I wish you would give for the record all example. of how this could be. done in your relationship with the State. 1 know the difficulty now in providing State aid. The legislatures go through qUite, a turmoil to decide what is eqiutable and fair. In your opinion to make certain that the State would give the fair aniount to the schools which had the educationally deprived children problem, how would you suggest they do that? Dr. MARLAND. I dont think it would necessarily call for legislation. I think it could be an administrative action by the superintendent of public instruction in any State to assemble a panel of representative school administrators and board of education members. Through resources of the State as well as some of the cities they could contrive a very workable formula for that State, which might be different from the State next door, for reasons of different circum- stances, rural vis-a-vis urban, for example. I think this could be done. I have not thought about it a great deal, but I like it at. first. glance. I think there tends to be such vast differences, for example., in the cost of living between one State and another. So the level of what you measure as economic deprivation is quite different in one State from another, I am sure. Yet, those standards now are being used universally. I am not sure they are at. all valid. Mr. QtTIE. The next point I would like to raise is the involvement. of the parents in the communities. You make a point of this briefly in your comments or in your paper. You say: There must be larger and more effective involvement of the deprived parents in the school affairs of their children. The summer education of the children of poverty st.resses this greatly. I think it is something we must address ourselves to very seriously. In the full year program, how do you believe we could bring a greater involvement of the parents and the children? It is most necessary in the preschool and early years with the title I money. We see it built into OEO's program, where the money is administered through a community action agency. Dr. MARLAND. This is a very tough question you are asking. There are no quick answers or easy solutions to it. The generalization is easy to make that there oughl to be more involvement of parents. If I could back up a little bit and say why we say that, we know vast differences-and I will suggest Mrs. Koontz may want. to com- ment on this before I am through-vast differences in what the chil- dren come to school with, as between the favored home and the ill- favored home. The circumstances of motivation and aspiration are vastly different. It is not necessarily t.he difference between Negro and white because there are some splendidly motivated Negro youngsters coming from some very lovely and supportive homes. But broadly speaking, the economically deprived, many of whom are Negroes, come from circum- stances that are very unsupportive of the child. They can come in with a. good mind, creative problems, and good health but vegetate for lack of environment to which to return at. the end of the day and find support. We must discover ways to take those pa.rents along with their chil- dren in an upward bound course. Many of these parents are single. PAGENO="0360" 354 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS Many of them are of very limited education themselves. Many of them aren't working. Sometimes the home is without an adult. The child is living in a very, very handicapped situation, no matter what his talents may be. I am describing the problem. I am not describing solutions. One of the solutions lies in the piece of legislation called the basic education, the program of basic education for adults. We have been able in our circumstances to educate a great many adults in this pro- gram in this past year. There should be much more of that. There should be, probably, some kind of a correlated program be- tween the school and the home much more than would be implicit in the once-a-week kind of a parent meeting. `We have tried to start such programs under OEO with only modest success. It is very difficult, to engage the interest and enthusiasm of parents of this kind. Many do have to work. We have accommo- (kited our programs to nights, Saturdays, and other days to catch these pai~ents. It is still a very difficult process. The parents, in my judgment, are key to this, if we are not. going to have to go through a full generation of uplift before anything really happens. Mr. Qv'ir. You are administering two programs in Pittsburgh, one by OE() and one from the Ofhice of Education. How do you feel about transferring the lleadstart or preschool programs of OEO over to the Office of Education and therefore have them funded in one program T)r. ~ Speaking in my cai)acity as superintendent from Pitt sbur~1i. I 1 )ela'v I hey shouki I ie under the Office of Education. I think they are fiiul~unent cliv e(luear ion programs. T have served as a member ut IIC AdvHorv Coniniittee of OEO, not greatly dif- ferent fro~n tLi~ Council under ESEA. So I am not saying any- thing that I have not said there. I think these are fundamentally educational programs. I think the Lreakrhrou~h was made by the. imaginative political leadership that surrounds OEO. This is good. including its administration. But I think once the breakthrough is made and once the facts are known, once the validity is established, it should become an ongoing part (if the eclucati~nal instrument, whether it is Headstart, Fpward Briun(l. or whatever. It is an educational instrument and belongs in education. Mr. QtTE. Since there. w-a~ a political breakthrough, as you put. it, through OEO. and von feel it. is good and I feel it is good. it. would be of great benefit, then, to have this change made in the Office of Education. Dr. MARLAND. This is true.. Mr. QUIE. One of the most important parts to Project Headstart and OEO is the Community Action Agency and the people on the local levels. This, to me. is the key ingredient. of the poverty pro- gram. This is what I would like to protect most for the poverty program. whether we retain it in OEO or whether it is t.ra.nferred to existing agencies. How do you think this could be implemented if we transferred Headstart. for example. to the Office of Education, assuming you agree that it. should be? PAGENO="0361" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 355 Dr. MARLAND. Philosophically, I agree completely with the com- munity action program idea. It is tough to work with, and painful to work with, but it is right. Don't get me wrong, it is right, abso- lutely right, because it does give for the first time the responsibility and authority to people who have never known it before. They don't know how to use it yet, always, and there is a lashing out against the established oi~ders of all kinds, whether it is law, schools, or whatever. The very process, itself, is essential to the. nltimate~ recovery of all our people, in my judgment. I think there could be easily con- structed a. narallel instrument working as part of the Ileadstart defini- tion, a. law that says this kind of an instrument accompanies it, not with authority to overrule a board of education, because then you are making nonsense, but responsibility to help, to assist, to work with, to criticize, to evaluate. These are the things that make sense in the community action pro- gram. There cannot, however, be a divorcement, of ultimate. authority and responsibility from some kind of a. governmental agency that is in charge of the store. Mr. QUIE. The Heacistart program or OEO's program is funded through the. Community Action Agency and the preschool title I pro- grams, and I limit my comments to preschool right now, need the cooperation of the Community Action Agency. It was for awhile felt that they needed also the approval of the. Community Action Agency, but. I underStan(l from the amendments of last year that is no longer necessary. At least, there must be the cooperation. Would you then approve of having all preschool money, if it were transferred to the. Office of Education. funded through a Community Action Agency so that the. agency would be required to give more than just approval or disapproval, and be invol~~ed, in the same sense that they are in the Office of Economic Opportunity's program'? Dr. MARLAND. That is a tough one. I have, to speak from the view- point of a school superintendent and not the Council because the Coun- cil has not weighed this subject. I would say that. there should he constructed a different, mechanism so that you don't. have to use one Government. agency to arrange. to flow its moneys through another Government agency to reach some child down in a. ghetto. I think if it is an education program the money should go to educa- tion, with such strings as you want to attach to it having to do with a construction of a counterpart of the community action program. But. I think this should be something in which the leadership of the board of e.ducation undertakes the responsibility of serving the law. I think when you have two conflicting governmental agencies trying to administer and evaluate something you have. chaos. You have communities who will `ay, "W~ehl, we just don't want to play." Mr. Q.UIE. I wanted to refer to my own experiences in the rural areas. My colleagues have heard of this before but I will recite them again for you. We have in the rural areas a number of programs of the Federal Government, such as the Soil Conservation Service, and many others. PAGENO="0362" 356 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDTICATION AMENDMENTS In each of these, the money goes through to the locally affected farmers and people affected by the program. Dr. MARLAND. This is like the board of education. Mr. QUIE. Just like the board of education. Dr. MARLAND. That is what I recommend. Mr. QL~ir. I-Iere. the board of education, especially in a large city school, is not necessarily representative of those l)arents you want. to t.ry to reach. In the past, these people have not even \ oteci in an election. Because of the few individuals who are on the school board, compared to the large number in a city the size of Pittsburgh, Minneapolis, or St. Paul, this is a very small group. In the neighborhood centers you have individuals in the community action setup who are related right to the needs of that school and that communit. Do you feel that such individuals ought to i~e involved in the develop- ment of the programs so that they have responsibility as parents and then have one of their number elected to the school board so that he can get. through to the~ school board and get a program for their children? Mv own beIieve~ is that this is the way you are going to get this total mix of community, I)arelits, and teachers, so von can develop the rap- port that is necessary not only between the child and the teachers but the child and the whole community. Dr. MARLAND. Yes, I believe this can be (lone and should be done, painful though it. sometimes is, painful because superintendents, in- cluding people like me and board of education members, have to adjust to a new set of ground rules. But I still think the money can flow to the responsible agency and not through some. other agency to confuse the authority and lines of responsil )il itv. I think von can establish what~ I would call aclv~sorv conimittees. or something equivalent to that., where you don't get into who ultimately is responsible. but. those advisory committees ought. to have, the re- sponsibilit-v and worth and validity and specific duties to perform. I think this cc' ~l ci be clone. Mr. Quiv. Mv collea~ne wants me to yield for a moment. Mr. GOODELL. I \voulci like to pursue this question. You said you think Heacistart funds should now be handled through the Office of Education and through the school system. I basically agree with that ob~eetive. In Pittsburgh von have a very active, or have had a very active. Headstart program. both in the pri- vate schools and in the public schools. I-low would von continue Hoacistart in the private schools if all the money came to von as a hoard of education? Dr. M.uiL.\xD. That is an interesting question which I have not et thought about. Indeed, the law of OEO permits direct. funding and it does not, in this instance, in the question that has been raised here. I would think that the laws affecting Heacistart could be so con- structed as to provide direct~ funding to nonpublic schools which have already started such programs. Mr. G000ELL. Tn othe.r words, you would permit direct funding to the private schools and have the other money allocated through the State and clown to the local public schools? PAGENO="0363" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 357 Dr. MAJILAXU. 1, personally, would see no objection to it. I am sure you all have to weigh tile implications this raises over church-state and those things. I, personally, could see no problem. Mr. GooDF:LI~. Of course, the other way of handling that. is what both Mr. Quie and I have proposel, to fund through the Community Action Board. The Community Action Board is free. to contract both with time public and private schools, as they are now doing under the poverty program. You would not be. free., as I understand your testimony, under State law, to contract wit Ii the. private schools. rIhS is true ill a good many other State~'. L~ut time Cuimnunity Action Agency would be fi'ee to contract either wit Ii publi. cv private, or some other group if they wanted to. if they wanted to run their own program, presumably they would be able to (10 SO. But judging from the experience thus far, most of the I-Ieadstart p grams ame contracted with I)ublic or private schools. Dr. MARr~xD. I would think that there could be. direct funding for nonpublic schools to operate Headstart programs just as they are doing now, without necessarily having to go through the local board of education. Mr. Goom~I~L. I would worry a little bit about this. Are you sug- gesting the Office of Education would make the direct funding to the private schools? Mr. MARLAND. I don't know whether that is within your legal limits or not, but that is the way I am inclined, yes. Mr. GOODFLc. Of course, that goes back to this whole question we had tile first time around. in efiect, what we did was we debated very, very intensively the problem with relationship to I)rivate and public schools, and how much public money should go t.o pri~ate schools in tiie. Elementary amid Secondary Education Act. We did not debate it. intensively in the poverty program. As a result. the. poverty program is able to make these direct grants, while the Office of Education and the Elementary and Secondary Education Act cannot do it. Mr. SCHEUFR. Will my colleague yield on that point ? Mr. GOODELL. Yes. Mr. Qr~i'IE. I will yield. Mr. SClIE~F~. Under the po~~eity program, a private school can run a I-Ieadstart program that is O~Cfl to all of time children in the neighbor- 1100(1, that is not restricted to children m the. private, school. Iii the Elementary and SeCon'!arv Education Act there is a clear prohil)ition against such contracting in the rules and regulations. The regulations provide that. funds provided under title I will at all times he under the control of and be. admmnistered by a public agency. So comitractin~ b a public agency with a private school is clearly pro}ilii ted. Mr. GOODELL. If the gentleman will yield, that is your interpreta- tion, hut I (lont believe it'. is the interpret at ion of the Office of Education. Mr. SCTTEt'FR. Yes. T spoke to counsel this morning and he. said such a contract would be clearly prohibited under the. terms of the act. Mi. GOODELL. riIlle1~1 he gave von a contrary ailswel to what they gave inc. They have in (1 nat ((1 1 ii mt 1 pub] n school ~nim cont lint out PAGENO="0364" 358 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS with private agencies and private schools the Federal money under the ESEA, if it. so desired. This has been indicated to me in a couple of instances in mv own district, where New York State law forbids this, where it. would not permit the School authorities to make such a con- tract, as I understand is the case in Pennsylvania. But the Federal officials in the Office of Education have indicated there is no Federal prohibition, either by law or regulation, of that kind of a contract. We may be quibbling over the kind of contract or the arrangement, but they have contemplated that this is possible and they are doing it in some instances, I understand. Mr. ScIIEUER. I spoke to the office of counsel this morning, and he told me that any person going to a private school paid for by funds out of ESEA would have, to be. an employee of a public school agency and his or her activities would have to be at all times under the control of, and the program would have to be administered by, the public agency. Mr. MEEDS. Would the gentleman yield? Mr. QUIE. I would like, to have my colleagues quibble on their time instead of my time. I will yield if it is on the question we are on. Mr. MEEDS. On the same one; yes. Maybe we can put it. in proper perspective. I think what the gen- tleman from New York is saying is that while the Office of Education might not be allowed to deal directly with a private school, if the money were availabie ti~~'ough a CAP agency, that CAP agency could dea.l with a private school. Isn't. that what you are saying? Mr. GOODELL. The Office of Education would not. make the money available under the present circumstances to a CAP agency. It would make it available to the local public school system. The local public school system indicated it could contract. with private schools, if the State law permits it to do it. Mr. MEEDS. As long as the local public school agency is the con- trolling agency. Mr. GOODELL. That is correct. They make the contra.ct and control the funds being allocated. I don~t. have any not.ion how many States permit this. Mr. QrrIE. As a last question. what. if there is a disagreement be- tween a local school board and the CAP agency? Who do you think ought to have the. control? Dr. MARLAND. We have such disagreements regularly as any good institution would within its structure. We iron them out and come up with a. mutual agreement. on any issue we confront. This is the nature of institutions. A member of our board of education, normally the president of the board, sits on the board of the community action programs. This is quite proper. I a.m a. member of their advisory committee. There is a lively and viable relationship in which we disagree, and settle the disagreements and go on with the show. Mr. Qun~. Then you find that even though the contracting agency is difficult at times, it is acceptable for them to have the final say since the money comes from them? PAGENO="0365" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDICATION AMENDMENTS 359 Dr. MARLAND. That is right, difficult and painful. Mr. QUIE. I~tme ask one other question. I refer to the inservice training of teachers. I have a little problem with the amount. of money we are expending on the Teacher Corps. You also raise the fact that under title I we are not spending enough money for the inservice training of teachers. The Teacher Corps has two purposes, not oniy to get teachers into the areas where there are educationally and culturally deprived chil- dren, but it also brings people into the teaching profession who other- wise would not come. We need a tremendous number of individuals who are qualified to reach these children who are culturally and educationally deprived. Don't you think with the amount of money available, that you will get more education for the dollar if we do it through inservice train- ing for the teachers? Dr. MARLAND. Exclusive of the Teacher Corps? Mr. QuIE. Exclusive of the Teacher Corps. Dr. MARLAND. I think the Teacher Corps, by its very uniqueness, and by the nature of its autonomy, in a sense, as distinguished from the universal inservice t.raining that is a big, gray blur, the Teacher Corps in itself should be autonomous, should be different, should be sharply focused on the problems and specialize in those problems. I don't think most school systems are competent to mount programs of inservice education all by themselves without the thrust that comes from the specialization of the Teacher Corps definition. Mr. QuiE. Then may I argue with you that we talk in the Teacher Corps of 5,000 individuals, 2,500 a year. You have a. large number of people who have chosen, who have already dedicated themselves, to teach in an area of deprived children. They want to do it. But after a year of it, they are frustrated, they are up to their neck in all the problems, and nobody is there to help them find a way out. WTith all of those people already dedicated and with the educa- tional training-they wanted to be teachers when they got their bac- calaureate degrees it seems to me it would be a much wiser expenditure of Federal money to equip them so that we can have those same letters of sat.isfaction coming back as we have been reading the Teacher Corps receives. Dr. MARLAND. I would defer to Mrs. Koontz. Mrs. KOONTZ. Sir, I would also agree that this might be better, but the very facts of life do not seem to support that we can afford to do just this alone. I agree with you that the inservice training of the bulk of teachers who have been doing a good job under the circumstances must be recognized, but at the same time. what we have said is that the usual old approaches to the problems of education of children generally sometimes do not work with children in these special areas. Therefore, special techniques. special approaches, must be used and developed, in addition to teacher attitudes. Therefore, with many of us who have been teaching perhaps in areas for awhile, there seems to be no hope. Salaries are not keeping up with other general oc- cupational groups. The conditions under which we work are not changing. Yet, we are being employed to do something about the new problems. PAGENO="0366" 360 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDITCATION AMENDMENTS It means tha.t there is a frustration level for the old teacher. and I do not, mean old in age. necessarily. The. experienced teacher within a community. What we do know is that there are. some experiences we can give to some teachers who have base creativity: who have a willingness to tackle hard proi)lems as a challenge. Maybe through them the person-to-person reaction on the 101) with other teachers will radiate in improved techniques. methods, and solutions to problems that suit individual communities as well as making a general impact. So you see, we are not talking about two distinct, things, either/or~ we are not talking about alternatives, I hope. I hope we are talk- in~ about the. fact that those. teachers who have been on the job must receive training to equip them more adequately for doing this special- ized job we have, before us. It isn't only in the large urban ure.as. it is in many communities of the Nation. But at the same time, in order to touch more than ~ million teachers we are going to have to do what we have done in every other area: we are going to have to train some specialists and we are going to have to put them out there on the job to have the success in my hometown, let's say, so that the teachers there find out it can he done: from these whom we have trained we get this. You see, we will touch both in two different ways. r[hev become a part of the inservice training. Mr. QrIE. I have seen two differences in that and other training programs. where it. is possible for a. relationship between the local school system. One is that you can recruit nationally, putting them through a machine, and they will come out with a label on them. They will wear a tie clasp or a button on their dress showing they are Teacher Corps and they are elite. If this is so good. why don't we issue tie clasps and buttons for tile dresses for all the. ones who go through the Federal inservice training so they could feel elite as well? Mrs. Kocx'rz. Believe me, I think T am as ~roocl a teacher as the next one. but I would be willing to become a Teacher Corps trainee because I admit there have, been some techniques that have been produced more recently than produced when I did my last. training, to go into a new area. Mr. QFIE. Those. techniques are availability of funds to w-ork out a program between an institution of higher learning and a local school. You wouldn't. have to put the Teacher Corps brand on people to bring this about. Mrs. KooxTz. I think you are really pulling my leg, you know, with that. business of putting a brand on them. Mr. QFTE. The tie clasp. Mr~. KooxTz. IVe have supervisors, we have helping teachers, we have ~pecialists in other areas. W~hy not admit that this is a special area, too, in whjch we need sonic specialists with spe(ial talents. Pr. M\TiT~\ND. I applaud what Mrs. Koontz has just said. I do debate your assumption about the generalization of inservice work. lVe are not skilled enough in the normal conventions of city school administration and organization to give broadlv the kind of inservice work she is sneaking of here. PAGENO="0367" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDFCATION AMENDMENTS 361 You do need specialists in this, this or this. `We are now talking about specialists in the needs of the deprived. `We have only begun to scratch the surface of how to respond to those needs. It is a rare and an uncommon person that goes into this field and qualifies for it. It is narrowly sharpened to these needs. I feel strongly on this. It. could not be done in a broadcast way. Mr. QUJE. Do you mean there is such a rare individual who goes into the area of the culturally and socially deprived and works with them with dedication? Dr. MARLAND. Yes. Mr. QUJE. I have talked to many who have done it. and who wanted to do it. This is their purpose, before there ever was a Teacher Corps. Dr. MARLAND. This is what brought. them there. This is good. This is what I tried to explain to Mrs. Green. Mr. Q.UTE. And there are many more who will never go through the Teacher Corps. Dr. MARLAND. Then enlarge the Teacher Corps. That. is my point. The skills and university arrangements, and this is a university-cen- tered activity, the resources of the university, combined w'ith the re- sources of a school system, creates a setting for this kind of specialized learning that you couldn't do in a more general way across a broad front, in my judgment. It is relatively narrow. I say they are uncommon people in the fact that first of all they have discovered late that they want to teach at all, but mostly they want to teach because they have discovered that there is a new, great need that they have suddenly uncovered for their lives. `We wouldn't get them into teaching otherwise. Mr. QUJE. They have to belong to the Corps in order to teach them? Dr. MARLAND. I don't care what you call it. WTe called it the urban teaching program before there was a Teacher Corps. Mr. QUJE. The Corps is an elite group. If it. is as good as you say, then all the. othiet specialties ought to he l)lIt into a corps, too. Dr. MARLAND. You are implying an elite quality here that I don't feel we see. These are just different kinds of teachers. As was said, some are trained in the needs of the gifted, some are trained in the. needs of the hard of hearing and so on and so forth. `We. say we are now dealing with a new breed that is for the needs of the economically deprived, many of them Negro. That. is what we are saying. They come from severely limited backgrounds so that they can barely communicate. They are a different kind of person coming to our schools and it calls for a different kind of teaching than that which is conventional. I don't call them elite, at. all. They are just specialists in this problem. Mr. QUIE. `What about the person who has the same dedication who come.s in from a background that was not. the Teacher (2orps. like St. Thomas College in St. Paul who has a problem just like the rfeflchei. Corps? They cannot wear a tie clasp, they are not. members of the Corps, they are not w'ritten about in the P~'P~'~. and others (lon't have the same attitudes t.ow'ard them. Wouldn't it l)e good if they had as close or identical a program? They are paying for the cost themselves. The schools are. pavin~' for the salaries. PAGENO="0368" 362 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS If this is good, wouldn~t it be good if we could give them a t.ie clasp? Dr. MARLAND. I would just call it an expansion of the Teacher Corps and that would be fine. I do quarrel with your implication of the tie clasp. We don't see that. distinction in our situation. Mr. GOODELL. Would the gentleman yield? Mi. QUIE. ~1es. ~\[r. Uoom:LL. Your comment troubles me that this is a new kind of student. a new kind of prohileiii. Are you saying on the basis of your experience in Pittsburgh that we have not had these students for a long time and we have not lia.d teachers who were dedicated to helping that kind ot a stu(lent I am very much for expanding special programs and finding new in- sights, but I doni. think we serve the cause by overstating it, that these ale new kinds of students who have all these problems. I think one of the reasons we are. probing this subject is that we feel in many of these areas they have been there and we haven't been reco~iiizing them and doing anythinir about it. I)r. MA1lL~\xn. I (ouldilt agree with von more. Therefore, all I am saing ~s that we need a specialized kind of pe~~oii, but that we have always h;icl nmnnv (ledicate(l teachers. We have had teachers all over this land who would Ii~ive gone to work in the deprived neighbor- hoods. Now we. are saying we are finally discovering that there are dif- ferent tecimiques. different approaches to children of these deeply deprived neighborhoods. We must train people not in the conventional teacher training pro- gram that applies to the normal, middle-class child, but to the special- ized needs of deprived children. Mr. ScIIELER. Will the witness yield? Dr. MAIiLAXD. Please. Mr. SCHEUEIi. Isn't it also true that. the Teacher Corps is having a new cadre of talents. naniely that there are going into the educational system young people - who did not take the normal teacher training courses at the universities, that it has attracted people who have their B.A.~s in other fields of specialization, but who now want to commit themselve~ to teaching in the urban corps schools, who would be ex- chided from teaching because they don't have the accreditation from the teacher normal schools, the traditional training schools. If there weieni such a vehicle as the Teacher Corps they would be excluded from participating in these public school programs. Dr. XL~nLAND. This is precisely the point that I was t.rying to make with Mrs. Green, that we have unearthed a whole new dimension of manpower through this program that otherwise would never have thought. of coming into teaching. This. I am sure, is true. This is the young liberal arts graduate who suddenly discovers the poor and discovers his own commitment, late in his college career, long afte.r he should have taken those edu- cation courses. who now has an opportunity to turn his talents in that direction. It opens up a whole new supply of manpower. Mr. Qrm~. If the witness will yield to me, too, I disagree with you that suddenly this became apparent to people. WThat happened is PAGENO="0369" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 363 that there are 1,200 more of them now than there were before. One of them was in exactly the same kind of a program in New Mexico, doing graduate work to accomplish the same thing. He came into the program and went to New York because he got more money out of it. I asked him what he would do if Congress didn't appropriate the money. He said he would go back to New Mexico and finish the pro- gram. He would become a teacher for the ones who had a special need. He came from the Peace Corps and had his motivation from that. Again, they were running this program l)efore anybody thought of the Teacher Corps in St. Thomas College in St. Paul. Here were dedicated individuals. Some of them realized, when they went into engineering, whatever it was, they decided they wanted to get a master's degree to teach in this type of a job. I think there are 1,200 more now, and there will be 5,000 more in the Teacher Corps program, but I don't see why we have to put the identification or a Federal label on them. Mr. BURTON. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. QIJIE. Yes. Mr. BURTON. I want to change the subject to find out very quickly what problems you find in developing the information necessary to claim under the aid to families with dependent children part of this formula. Do you have a unified school district that takes in Allegheny County entirely? Dr. MARLAND. Ours is the city of Pittsburgh. The formula applies to county units because I believe that is where the data are gathered. That is how the funds reaching the State have to be distributed. I believe that is the way the law reads, at the county level. We have had to reconcile by general agreement within the county what proportion of poverty prevails in the city vis-a-vis the county sur- rounding the city. Wherever you have that condition, I am sure it is equitably worked out as to the distribution of those funds within the county. WT0 have reasonably good measures for that in terms of local aid to dependent children. Mr. BURTON. Do you do an actual count? I)r. MARLAND. We use our ADC data. Mr. BURTON. Do you do an actual count of students in school, a head count? Dr. MARLAND. Yes. Mr. BURTON. How do you do a count in September and October 1966 when they ask you who was there in December 19(35? Dr. MARLAND. I think the law permits us to use data as of a certain date behind the current date. There is at least a year's leeway in establishing these criteria. Mr. BURTON. My point is you are told after the fact to report how many children were in your county or school system S months earlier, which would presuppose nobody entered or moved from the school. Dr. MARLAND. That is probably as close as the data can be reliably used. You have to have a breaking point somewhere. There are bound to be changes following that breaking point, but it is probably equitable. 7~-492-G7--- 24 PAGENO="0370" 364 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDICATION AMENDMENTS Mr. BER1'ox. Mv point is not understood. If you were told in Sep- tember of this year to get a count as of ~ months later, you could do it. I don't think you can be. told in September this year, "Tell us how many students you had in December of last year." I don't think you can have a head count that is meaningful. Dr. MARLAND. We would have such a head count in the schools of children and their residences. The data to residences are prinicpally the data which we draw upon for aid to dependent children in making this formula application. Mr. BITRTON. Mr. Chairman, I would hope that the Chair might, in consultation with the other side, have two or three of us pull together someone from education, someone from welfare, and then someone who represents some of the national agencies, to look into this. I happen to know the way this number formula. is being adminis- tered is very cumbersome. and very costly. at least in our State. The data probably, in addition to all of that, is inaccurate. Chairman PERKINs. I forget the exact terminology of the bill that would be within this formula change. We looked into it very carefully last year. Gathering the data, as I recall, places no restrictions upon the latest AFDC data. Of course, the welfare departments from the various States report that to the Office of Education when the data is available. Mr. BIJRTON. The point I want to make is either we have to alter the statute or have some language in the committee report, or both. This is a problem. I have found that the local school agencies and welfare people are spending a lot of money, part of which we also match, arriving at figures that may or may not be accurate. We should find a simplified way. Chairman PERKINS. That is true. But the only restriction I recall in the statute was they have to use the uniform year, whether 1967, 1965, or 1966. Mr. GOODELL. I agree with the point the gentleman from California is making. I think the same experience has been had around the country. Some of us tried to point, out we thought it was a little cumbersone in the beginning. I do think we. should give, some very careful consideration to what wasted energy may be involved in this kind of compiling of figures. You could have some simplified rules, perhaps. that would give basically the same apportionment. I would hope we could go into that. I do have one other point that Mr. Scheuer touched on. Dr. Marland, are you saying that under the Teacher Corps you can and are using uncertificat.ed teachers? Dr. MARLAND. Yes. They are not certificated. Mr. GOODELL. They are on a practice basis, comparable to the way you use practice teachers who are uncertificated? Dr. MARLAND. Yes, except the training is much more intensive. Mr. GOODELL. But are they on the same basis as practice teachers generally? Dr. M~~RLAND. Yes. I would say their period of service is longer. We call them an intern as distinct from a student teacher. I would say there is a slightly higher order. PAGENO="0371" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 365 Mr. GOODELL. To put it another way, are they immune from your State requirements for certification? Dr. MARLAND. Yes. During the period of internship they n~d not be. certified. l1liev are much like student teachers. Mr. GOODELL. To put it another way, you have people now coming through your school system who are practice teachers. Do they have a special status? 1)r. MARL~ND. They have about the same status of immunity. I would say again, Mr. Goodell, there is a difference in them in that the student teacher has a much shorter period of training in the school, is not paid, and does not have the intensive supervision and teamwork surrounding them that the intern (loes. Mr. G0ODELL. I understand the ditlerence. I am one who believes that our school systems are much too rigid in their certification pro- cedures, that they do not utilize uncertificated people who could, in many instances, reach this very distinctive, type of educationally de- pmvecl youngster. It wa.s not, my concept that the Teacher Corps, however, introduced this kind of flexibility, being immune to State laws and State require- ments. As a matter of fact, they have been arguing just the. opposite; that they are. going through the States, the States will have to approve everything, and everyone must be either certificated or seeking certi- fication. along with the same type of program that the State has, per- haps built up, as you indicated, with more training, and so forth. I would hope that we could begin a movement at the State level to set. imp a little more flexibility in this area of teacher aids, for teachers who (10 not meet precise, rigid requirements of so much graduate work in teaching methods, or whatever else. I have, seen, for instance, in some areas of New York State, the pro- grams outside the school systems, where they have involved t.he people themselves, the parents and those who are somewhat deprived, moti- vated, and involviiig tile students in a way that the normal school system has failed to accomplish. Pr. MATILAND. I woUl(i agree with these things you are saying. Mr. 000DELL. T don't see how we. at the Federal level can change the ~.tate reouiremiients. The Commissioner made it very clear in defend- ing the Teacher Corps that he doesn't have, it in his mind that he is ~roing to send ~n a corps of Federal teachers who are completely immune from the State requirements of certification. Dr. ~\I.~ii~ .\XD. T will comment briefly and T am sure Mrs. Koont.z cami. too. I am sure that the point you are making about overrigidity n S~-ates has been true on this matter of certification. I think t.he whole thrust of the Federal programs, including OFO. has tended to loosen this rigidity. Tam sure it is changing. Tn Pennsylvania right now, there. is a commission now at work, newly appointed, revising and liberalizing State certification stand- a rd We have, and I think this is universal throughout the country, brought. in many more people that. we call paraprofessionals in our pubbe schools, the kind of person you describe, who may be able to do something for a child that. intuitively he knows how to do and doesn't need a certificate to do it. I recognize this. We support it.. PAGENO="0372" 366 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS Substantial sums of ESEA money right now are going to the salaries of paraprofessional people in Pittsburgh, teacher aids, assistants of all types. This makes the teacher more productive, by and large. I think it is difficult for the Federal Government, however, as you have noted, to say to all States, "Liberalize your certification standards," nor should I think they should be totally set aside. I think they should be made more liberal. I think the Teachers Corps arrangements are not at this time running into any major diffi- culty on that issue. I think the Teachers Corps program with a mas- ter's degree easily fulfills most State requirements and is not a major obstacle. Mr. GOODELL. That is the point I wanted to make. We have in- serted here the idea that the Teachers Corps was a factor in avoiding certain certifications and it doesn't seem to me that was the objective and certainly isn't what the Commissioner is talking about now. I applaud the objective, but I think it gives too much credit to the Teachers Corps to say that that is what it is trying to accomplish or is acco1flpliShing. Mrs. KooxTz. Mr. Goodell, certainly I could agree with you in some aspects but I think we would be remiss, as people in education, if we fail to say that we believe that some form of certification, whether we call it by this name or not, is absolutely necessary to safeguard the interests of the American public. If the importance of educators in training the minds of our young people has not been overestimated, then I think as a profession we owe it. to the American people to assure that at least there have been some basic training before a person is employed to do this big job. However, what constitutes that training I am willing to change my mind about. What I am suggesting is that because we have held to this view of certification for what certification is now is no reason that it will be this, because we are changing a great deal. This is what we have needed. I would ask, as a Government, that money be funded to programs that. will allow us to experiment with plans over a time long enough to actually evaluate the results, and that it not be considered the per- manency that apparently people feel must be attached to everything in order to allocate, funds for it. ~`Iayhe the Teacher Corps is not the answer, but give us a chance to try it to see. Mr. GOODELL. I come hack to the point. I understand what you are saying but I am not at all sure that the Teacher Corps is trying to do or'ex~eriment in the area we have mentioned here, on the much greater flexibility in certification. In view of what the Commissioner and Dr. Marland have said, these Teacher Corps participants are going to get certificates, t.hey will be better qualified than most others, perhaps, to get certificates. Then to sax that this is a program that will help loosen up the cer- tification req~iirements and experiment in this stage, I think is con- tra dictorv. . . Mrs. KOONTZ. No, Mr. Goodell. this iS not. contradictory. I wish everybody understood these problems as much as you apparently do. But ~we have a problem of convincing people where the local decisions are being made. PAGENO="0373" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDLTCATION AMENDMENTS 367 Consequently, we have to have the successes of this kind of national Teacher Corps before many areas will open up to even the possibility that certification could be changed. Mr. GOODELL. You put me on the defensive being so sweetly compli- mentary. Mrs. KOONTZ. No, believe me, I am not complimentary. But this must be understood. Mr. GOODELL. I understand what you are talking about, but I think we also must understand that the Teacher Corps is not doing that nor is it intended to do that. I don't think we have any disagreement on the need for revising certification concepts aiid getting more flexibility into it. It doesn't seem to me that the Teac.her Corps is the vehicle for doing that. I do feel that it seems to me that the problem of increased flexi- bility is primarily one of State law. I don't know how we can fund the program at the Federal level unless the State is going to let. you go ahead and have that flexibility. Mrs. KOONTZ. This is exactly what I was trying to convey. Dr. MARLAND. I don't. t.hink there is any problem. Mrs. KooNTz. We have the funds at the Federal level to give evi- dence of what can be done, which means at the State level, then, there is a greater willingness to even attempt it. This is the same as demonstrations and experimentation in other fields. Mr. GOODELL. You keep coming back to this. I think it confuses t.he two points. Maybe I am the one that is confused. But how is Teacher Corps going to bring more flexibility in certification if participants already far exceed in quality and background the present certification re.qinrement.s, or aie. well on the way to (10mg so Mrs. KOONTZ. I think I must answer that. and say I believe there is a great. deal more going on now to change certification requirements than perhaps we can specifically give here on the top of our heads. Mr. GOODELL. I agree with that.. Dr. MARLAND. I don't think t.here is any problem, Mr. Goodell. One of my associates here, Dr. McPherson, is one of the people responsible for the Teacher Corps administration. We don't see any problem here at all. If the assertion is being made that. the Teacher Corps is somehow or other inadvertently liberalizing teacher certification we don't see. it as an issue in Pennsylvania.. If it is, it is fortuitous. Mr. 000DELL. I agree with you completely. I think this confuses the issue, to say that the Teacher Corps is doing something it appar- ently is not doing and is not intended to do. As a practical imuter, I am sure the Commissioner of Education wouldn't like anybody to say that this was the intention because then he will really have opposition. Mrs. KOONTZ. Then I would submit to you, sir, that there are many instances in which the student-teacher program is still 40 years behind in some spots that might need just this kind of evidence that is going on in the national Teacher Corps. But it can be done without creating a major disturbance in t.he whole education field. Some of what we have required for teaching can best be done at the intern level. This is the kind of revision I am talking about. PAGENO="0374" 368 ELEMEXTAHY AND SECONDARY EDICATION AMENDMENTS Mr. GOODELL. But in this respect, ~çou see, some of us get a little bit unhappy. 1 have expressed my great. belief in this concept It seems to me that the place you should be. going is to the legislature and State education I)e~P~ in North Carolina because they are the chief problem. The place you should be going is Harrisburg. In our State, too often, I have found, frankly, that we have tre- niendously greater flexibility with most of the Federal programs avail- able. an(l the State just has to begin to loosen up on the use of its own funds in these areas. It doesn~t do much good to have the Federal money there, unless the ~tate. will let you spend it that way. Mrs. KOUNTZ. The Federal has too much more than we have. Mr. GOODELL. The Federal has more than North Carolina, but as has been pointed out, we now reach 5 percent of the funding. Ninety- bye. 1)~ne11t of the eduicat ion tunds at elementary and secondary levels is still state and local, and it will stay that way predominantly. My colleague tells me 92 percent is the correct figure. Chairman PERKINS. The committee will recess until 1: 15. Mrs. KooxTz. \Vould the chairman have any estimate as to the duratjon of the meeting this afternoon Chairman PERKINS. I would think about an hour and a half or so. (W~hereupon, at 12 :30 p.m.. the committee recessed, to reconvene at 1 : 15 p.m. the same clay.) AFTER RECESS (The committee reconvened at 1: 15 p.m., Hon. Carl D. Perkins, chairnmn of the committee, presiding.) Chairman 1~ERKINS. The committee will he in order. STATEMENTS OF DR. SIDNEY P. MARLAND, FR., SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS OF PITTSBURGH, PA.; MRS. ELIZABETH D. KOONTZ, PRESIDENT OF THE DEPARTIVIENT OF CLASSROOM TEACIEERS OF THE NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION; THOMAS W. CARR, STAFF DIRECTOR OF THE NATIONAL ADVISORY COUNCIL ON THE EDUCATION OF DISADVANTAGED CHILDREN; AND MICHAEL KIRST, ASSISTANT STAFF DIRECTOR OF THE COUNCIL-Resumed Chairman PERKINS. Let the record show that a quorum is present. Mr. Dellenback. you may proceed. Mr. DELLfNBACK. In order that we may shorten your time here, and perhaps break you free for some other things later on, as I did indi- cate to Mr. Marland earlier when we were talking briefly before we reconvened this afternoon, I would be interested in any broad-scale observations that you might. have. I will throw 111) some comments along the. line on which Mrs. Green was questioning this morning. You made comment at one time about some of the inducements that might be put forth to help improve t.he retentlon, the lack of tut'nover. Is there anything that you would say in this area. beyond what you have already said as to (what we could be doing on a Federal level PAGENO="0375" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 369 to improve not just, the preparing and training of teachers, but to really supplement and illiprove the work of those who are. already teaching? Mrs. kOoNTz. Mr. Dellenback, I suppose this kind of question evokes the kind of answer that many people cannot, really accept simply because it is so involved. Yet, if I were to be as direct. as I think I possibly can be, I would suggest that. the kind of Federal payments that are initiated to care for tlìe l)rOblems of children are essential, but that the problems of those who would teach them must be considered at the same time. Many young people are not entering the profession because they cannot afford to teach. The inducements of business and industry compel them to be rational, to be reasonable. and to forgo their heartfelt desires, perhaps, until such time as they can financially afford. Our shortage of teachers, you see, is not due to the fact that we don't have young people interested in teaching. But it is clue to the fact that they don't see much chance of competing with salaries of other industries, business, government., the professions. as long as the ceilings in most States for salaries remains at. such a low level. Mr. DELLENBACK. has this not improved a considerable amount in recent years? Mrs. KOONTZ. Yes; but not as compared with others. When a youngster can start with a salary of $5,000 in one field, but within a period of 8 years he can reach $10,000, there isn't much inducement in entering a profession in which he. is willing to accept employment beginning at $4,500, but whose ceiling in 8 years offers him no more than $6,000. You see, Mr. Dellenback, what I am talking about would be con- strued perhaps by him as saying money is the total answer. But we have already eliminated from what has been said here that which is essential. So I am talking about the kind of sit.uation that offers appeal to people to come into the profession, as well as the first-year teachers who leave after the first year and those who leave before the first. five. This would be one. But the conditions under which they teach that iiiakes it possi- ble so that there is satisfaction from the work for which they have been trained is just as essential. This involves interpersonal relation- ships, it involves flexibility within a school system, as Dr. Marland has indicated, which is not true of a lot of schools: the involvement of the l)eopie who must. implement programs, as well as the. time. to do the thinking about. where education is going, what. the. school system is trying to do, what. should l)e. our role in this whole effort. These are three essentials. If you raise tile salary and get thcni there but make conditions so that the job cannot be clone, they will leave. If there is an open- mindedness toward the involvement that the will have ill seeking solutions there is the likelihood they will i'e.ma in because they want to be a part of it. Mr. DELLENBACK. To keep it on the most relevant track in this par- ticular format, what is it that should be clone in the way of Federal legislation to assist? PAGENO="0376" 370 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS Mrs. KOOXTz. I believe the Federal Government has as much obliga- tion to offer subsidies in the teaching profession, especially to bring the salaries of teachers to the kind of minimum, at least, that we can attract teachers into all States. into all sections of States, as much as it has to offer subsidies to the program. Programs without t.rained personnel to carry them out will indeed he ineffective. Mr. DELLENBACK. Recognizing that dollars are limited, even on the Federal level, would ~ou put this as a top priority? Mrs. KooNrz. Recognizing that dollars are limited, I think we have to place priorities. I think the programs we offer to children are our priority. This is essential. But the degree to which we show a willingness, you see, is going to be lust as important as the degree to which we accomplish the highest objective in the area of subsidy to teachers that I am think- jug of. ~There was introduced a bill by Mrs. Mink on sabbatical leave for teachers. I think what this would do, if every 5 to 7 years a teacher in a location having given satisfactory service, or an educator, would have time to renew himself. to observe what is going on, to study, to think, and to work. Think what this does to advancement. Mr. DELLE~;BAcIc That is a good example. Let me ask you a ques- tion along that line. Xs I recall Mrs. Mink's bill, it asks for $50 million. Say that it did. Is this the top priority for the $~O million? Let's remember that the premise from which we proceed is that there is a limitation and something is going to have to give. Is this the thing, then, that you really are saying to us, that teach- ing supplements. salary subsidies, sabbaticals, this type of thing should be at the very top of the list of priorities? Mrs. KO0NTZ. If you will pardon me, Mr. Dellenback, I think this is what education is suffering from today. We have established education as the priority agency through which this Nation shall achieve its purposes. But immediately when we begin talking about how we correct what has been wrong with the situation for so very long in the face of change, immediately we force the educators to place a priority rating within the whole scope when we know that it is a big, total problem, and we can't piecemeal it. I am not naive by any means, Mr. Dellenback, and I know that the total Federal budget cannot be diverted to education alone. But I must ask that the priorities for education not be considered perhaps quite as much within education as in comparison with a number of other projects that we seem to be giving priority to over the amounts. True, we spend a great deal of our budget on education. True, a large percentage does go for education. But then I would ask where is the greatest need to effect the kind of change in other areas? Mr. DELLENBACK. I am not really sure whether we are proceeding from the same premise or whether you are avoiding the premise that there must be limitations. Mrs. KOONTZ. Yes: there must be limitations. But I still would not feel that I should have to place a priorit.y on a specific one in edu- cation when at the same time this priority may intend to mean that the investment of funds in title I programs is not as essential as a PAGENO="0377" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 371 substantial increase in salaries of teachers so that there will be a base minimum in every State. I certainly would not want them put even on a comparative basis. Yet, this is exactly what happens when we begin to estal)lish state- ments, though in questioning, I think your intent is different. But when heard or read it is assumed to be something else. I do not attempt to evade the question that you have placed, but we have not been placed in this position as educators sufficiently for me to feel that I speak for all educators. Yet, we have the means through which we, as educators, study these problems. Perhaps it is a matter of establishing priority, but I would rather think that it is a matter of submitting five priorities that have equal status. I am not sure that I would be willing off the top of my head to assess those priorities for educators. Mr. DELLENBACK. Yet you realize that this is, in the final essence, what those of us who sit temporarily at this side of the table are forced to do by virtue of the role that we fill. We must balance off not only the priorities within eduction but priorities between fields, and then the complications that are involved in raising funds versus the ease of spending funds, and out of this must come a decision which finally boils down to an intraeducatioiial priority establishment. Mrs. KOONTZ. Indeed, sir, and I do recognize this, it was for this reason that I said I am not naive because I think we establish priori- ties at all times in most of our activities. However, as we look at this, what are the programs that we are con- sidering from which we will select priorities? Are we considering programs of essential interest to the welfare of teachers? Are we considering priorities of activities or programs that would relieve the conditions under which the urban schools are suffering mainly? Are we considering the a.gencies that are already established and various titles? What are these things that we are. sprea(ling out, that we are look- ing at for priorities? This must be a part of the answer. Mr. DELLENBACK. ~An(i vet we must exj)e(t from you. not as a teacher in an individual district, but wearing the various hats that. Dr. Marland has stated you wear, tied to teachers in the hroad-arid we look to Dr. Marlancl not. as superintendent of a given area, of a given city's program, but as part. of a. study group, as part of a council-we expect from you broader scale evaluation on a compara- tive basis thaii we would if we were talking to you as a. teacher in school X in district. Y~ Mrs. KOONTZ. But as we speak there about the Advisory Council of title I funds, is this t.he limitation that we place on it? Mr. DELLENBACK. Your role is broader than that, I would surmise? Mrs. KOONTZ. It. is. This is what. I am saving. If I am speaking in cont.ext of this. I look at the inservice training program of teachers as being very vital here in this particular program. I would establish it. Mr. DELLENBACK. AlT right. Mrs. Koow'vz. If we are talking of general Federal aid to education, speaking in terms of wha.t? What educators generally have said? PAGENO="0378" 372 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDTTCATION AMENDMENTS The piecemeal approach to these problems is fine but the Federal Government must come in and put in a general floor under the educa- tion process throughout the country. This is a kind of financial aid to education that is generaL Perhaps I)r. Marland can better answer your question than I. Mr. I)ET~nxu.n'K. I think von have given me a. partial answer to the question. I thought von trembled for awhile on the verge of the answer that soinetinies we in this role get, that all of this has top 1)rioritv aiicl w~ cant cut any of it. But we must. Therefore, tIle. question is iiot really whether, but the question, to a degree. is where. But you veered away from whether, at least in theory, and approached the where, although I am still left not quite certain where you would draw the line on where, even where you would put the five programs or 10 programs which you would consider the essentials beyond which we should not cut. This is at. least one of those that. you would establish, I read you to say. Mrs. KooxTz. Yes. I am caught. between whether or not you are talking about what has already been, in a sense, funded to some extent, or whether we. are talking about revisions, or whether we are talking about new programs. Mr. DELLENBACK. I sit. here as a freshman on this committee, I haven't gone through the creation of that which is. Therefore, I am not. hound by that which is. I am prepared to either add to or sub- tract. from, or replace, or do anything that. is in order. These are not my children. Therefore. I am not. wedded to any of the title I pro- grams or any of the other programs. It was in this context. really. that I say to you in the broad, where would von put. the essentials? Well, so much for that. Dr. Marland, I read in your testimony this morning such things as "larger sums of money are needed to make a significant impact," "a sum of roughly 5 percent. at the present. level," "major new dimensions may be appropriate." Is there anything you would say in the broa.d sweep of where do we go on this, not, in t.he. minutia. but in the broad, so far as Federal in- volvement, either programwise or dollarwise, in the future of education is concerned? Dr. MARLAND. I would say as we look down the road ahead, Mr. Dellenback. one of the things is that I would hope there would be a gradual relaxation of constraints upon categorical support. into a more general support. I think this in part responded to your earlier question to Mrs. Koontz. I would also say that we are thinking of major changes ahead. It. would be premature to say what. they might be because the very fact of title. I. itself, establishes a period of invention and discovery. It is out of these inventions and discoveries that. things should emerge. For example, the Headsta.rt program which was mentioned today, is an example of a breakthrough. When such a. breakthrough has occurred under the present dimensions of title I, these kinds of breakthroughs should he capitalized upon in legislation, and general- ized, or, if you will, institutionalized., for others. PAGENO="0379" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDT~TCATION AMENDMENTS 373 This is part of the dissemination question. Dissemination can hap- pen through legislation as well as through inservice education. That is where you need the resources. I suppose people like us and the Office of Education find out what the breakthroughs are. That is when capitalization finally pays off. For example, under the activities in Pittsburgh we have something called a "transition room." It is a. fourth grade that doesn't have a label. It is a grade that comes after grade three through which chil- dren pass if they cannot read. It is a. very small class, very intensive instruction. We think it is a breakthrough, an extra grade for an elementary school youngster with highly specialized specific services a.nd instruction. It. is paying out. handsomely. It may be. that this is something on which there can be generalization. Mr. DELLENBACK. Some youngsters pass through it. and go imme- diately onward? Dr. MARLAND. You graduate immediately out. of it, or within 2. weeks or 2 years. Mr. DELLENBACK. Within that grade there is specialized instruct.ion in t.he areas of weakness? Dr. MARLAND. Yes. Mr. DELLENBACK. And, of course, you know the areas of strength. Dr. MARLAND. We assume the child has come to that. grade still Un- ready for the rigors of education beyond: he doesnt leave it until he is ready for the rigors of grade four. This, we hope., is going to make major significance in terms of our nonreading, our dropouts, our underachieving youngsters in high school. It is already showing very good signs. It has been in motion for 2 years. I use that. merely as an illustration, not to elaborate, nec- essarily, and to say this is the sort of thing that could turn into legislation for universal application 2 or 3 years from now. Mr. KIRsT. If I may make a response to your query to Mrs. Koontz, I think something the Coumicil has said in all the. reports-Mrs. Koontz is having trouble and I would agree-specifying exactly what the mix is of the key components. One thing we have said is t.hat. you must. put enough money behind each child so that it will make a difference. Headstart. is pegged at. around $100 a month or $1,000 per pupil. Title I nationally spends about $140 per pupil. So you have to get. enough resources behind each child to get to a sort of threshold where it is going t.o have impact. Mr. DELLENBACK. Would this tie to what you said, Dr. Marland? Would we do better to shift very swiftly from a categorical aid to a broad-scale aid where the individual administering this could de- termine where those funds should be concentrated and used in the area of greatest need? rFhIe area of greatest need in Pittsburgh may not be the area of greatest need in Portland, Oreg. Dr. MARLAND. No, I don't think so. I think there is already sufficient flexibility already in title I for each community to contrive their own programs for their peculiar needs. The.re is great flexibility PAGENO="0380" 374 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS in developing a program and submitting it for approval. Broadly they are approved, if they are responsible. So, so long as t.he target is the deprived child, the disadvantaged child, there is great freedom. I am not suggesting a move toward general aid on that subject.. The deprived child is the great concern of this country. of the Congress and of our schools. It is still important to concentrate our energies on him. Mr. DELLENBACK. Do you feel that flexibility within the area of the deprived child is sufficiently great to permit this concentration to which Dr. Kirst was just speaking? Dr. I~L~RLAND. I do. Mr. DELLENBACK. There can be massive enough aid given in any given district? Dr. MARLAND. Well, there is not enough money to make a large difference. To make a large difference for all yellow-haired children 4 years old in fourth grade studying English let's say. But that doesn't solve the problem. The level of funding is not significant enough at this stage to have the high expectations that, for example, occurred in Headst.ar~ when they were spending relatively four times as much perc hild, when you figure the Hea.dstart children are in there a half day, at around $1,000 per child, and the public schools are spending $500 for a full day. So it. is four times as much per teaching hour for Headstart. And it made a diffeernce. We are not, beginning to do that in the ESEA programs. Even at the level of funding, you would have such a narrow concen- t~ation of those funds, if you used it all on one narrow subject, such as our transition room. While the freedom is there to do that, I don't think it would be a sensible approach. Mr. DELLENBACK. I think you are really talking about many more dollars. How many? Dr. MARLAND. At least at. the level of the original authorization, at roughly twice the present level. Mr. DELLENBACK. In reply to one question asked by Mr. Goodell this morning, von feel that. we are ready for the expenditure of those funds, were they to be made available? Dr. MARLAND. I do. Mr. DEI~LExnAcK. ~nd you realize this is a different, answer from ~\Ir. Howe's test imonv of yesterday, as I recall it? Dr. MARLAND. I do. Mr. DELLENBACK. Would you see both the total number of dollars contributed on the Federal level increasing and also the percentage of dollars? ~\oiir paper mentioned Federal contribution as .~ percent of the total. The rough fi~ure we were given yesterday was about 8 percent, I think, based on the 1966 year. Do you see this rising materially in the indefinite future? Dr. MARLAND. I would hope so. I would hope so, especially as I speak of big cities. I would offer more elaborate testimony on the subject. of big cities if the committee wished to hear it. I think that a unique condition pervades our big cities right now throughout America. I am not saying this exclusively of other parts PAGENO="0381" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 375 of the country, including the rural areas, but I am intimate with the problems of the big cities. I think there must be a much, much larger investment of public funds, particularly Federal funds, in the big cities than there has ever been at this point or yet contemplated. Mr. DELLENBACK. Could you give me any estimate of a percentage or dollars, or would this be an unfair question? Dr. MARLAND. It is a reasonable question. I would like to give you a little background to it, if I may have 3 or 4 minutes more to respond to this without abusing your time. Mr. DELLENBACK. It is fine with me, if the chairman does not object. Chairman PERKINS. You will not get away as early as I told you, so you can take all t.he time you want. Mr. DELLENBACK. I will not go on indefinitely, but if you would touch on this point, I would appreciate it. Dr. MARLAND. I would hope I might have more listeners for this information, Mr. Chairman, and that is the reason I hesitated a little bit. If the chairman wishes, I will be pleased to submit a statement of what I am about to suggest in describing some of the problems of the cities. Chairman PERKINS. Is that satisfactory if he submits it for the record? Mr. DELLENBACK. Yes. Chairman PERKINS. Without objection, it may be submitted for the record. (The information appears in part 2 of the hearings.) Mr. DELLENBACK. May I ask if you would have any comment you would make of a general or specific nature relative to the change in control that would come with the increase of Federal involvement dollarwise? Should this be done with increased direction from the Federal level? I am recognizing what you said about categorical versus general aid. Does this mean really in the long run for education a change of control from the Pittsburgh district to the Pennsylvania district to Federal in anywise? I am not attaching moral values to it. I am just asking you. Dr. MARLAND. At this sta~e, I see no threat to what I see as a work- able balance of governments in the arrangements on education. I think that the involvement of the Federal Government so far has been sufficiently judicious and flexible, and has not substantially damaged what I think to be the essence and the genius of American education, the local board of education. It has not so far. I think there have been controls and cautions built in to avoid that. I think that the power of education must rest very close to the people. I think it is important that boards of education, as conceived his- torically in America, do perform the function I am speaking of and perform it well, broadly speaking. I think the increased Federal funding could, if it were allowed to fall into less responsible hands, damage the authority and responsibility of boards of education. But I see no sign of it yet. PAGENO="0382" 376 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS I do think that the effect of title V has begun to strengthen the worth at the State level. While it is still early for that to be assessed, I think that the signs are good. The research efforts, the leadership efforts at the State level, show promise. All three make up the governments of education, the primary govern- ments for decisionmaking being at the local level, the boards of educa- tion, close to the people, and I think that is where it should stay. i~Ir. T)I:~LvNn~\u1i. I have appreciated this very much. We could go on and it. would be. very helpful t.o me. But I realize there are other pressures and other members of the committee. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Pr~nKIxs. Mr. Gibbons, the gentleman from Florida. Mr. GIBBONS. First of all, I have supported the Teacher Corps. I want to get. a better concept, though, of how the program is actually working. Could you tell me how many Teacher Corps people you have in your schools? Dr. MARLAND. We have. approximately 30 interns, corpsmen, and six or seven team leaders, as we call them. Mr. GIBBONS. How long have, they been in training ? Dr. MARLAND. They started early last summer and have cont.inued through this winter, this season. I would be pleased, if you wish, Mr. Gibbons, to invite one of my associates, Mr. McPherson, who has been close to this, and join us at the table. Mr. GIBBoNs. If he. would, please. Dr. MARLAND. Dr. Philip McPherson, director of development, for the Pittsburgh public schools. Mr. GIBBONS. These may not. be exclusively addressed to you, Dr. McPherson, as there may be some ideas that both of you will want to exchange. First of all, what is the size of your schools, how many pupils have von? Dr. M~\RLAND. About 80,000. Mr. GIBBONS. That is about the same size as the school system in my congressional district. Ideally, how many Teacher Corps men do you think you could use in a system the size of yours? Dr. MARLAND. We have estimated about 50 to 60 a year could be easily trained and accommodated and digested in our system. Mr. GTBBONS. That leads to the next. question. How large do you think the Teacher Corps ought to be? What. is an out imum size for the corps? Dr. 1\L~nLAxD. I am not equipped quickly to give you an answer to that, sir. Mr. GTBBONS. Maybe we can talk in terms of percentage. Dr. MARL\xn. If you go on percentages. let me try that. I would say that year in and year out we could train and absorb at least. 50 Teacher Corps members. Mr. MCPTTERSON. I would add one point, tha.t the number in Pitts- burgh is determined by the. capacity of the institutions of higher edu- cation as well as t.he size and capacity of our schools to handle Teacher Corps men. PAGENO="0383" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDTCATION AMENDMENTS 377 This would vary from city to city. You couldift just use a per- centage based on the number of schoolchildren in the district. It would often depend on what existed in terms of higher education in a given city or State. Mr. GIBBoNs. In a school setting, how do these Teacher Corps men actually function? Do they come in and take over a class? How do they actually function? Mr. MCPHERSON. There is constant supervision in the early stages of their training, which would be right now for people. in the first of their 2-year program. There wouldn't be a great deal of time in their work in the school where they would be taking over a teaching respon- sibility, particularly of a. large group of children. But next year, those in their second year, there would be a significant amount of prac.tice teaching where they would be teaching in a class- room much the same as a practice teacher out of a college or university. Mr. GIBBONS. Really, that this is, is sort of an intensified on-the-job training that we are talking about. Mr. MCPHERSON. Yes. Mr. GIBBONS. Is that right? Mr. MCPHERSON. That is right. You are aware, of course, of some of the other elements of the program are. a little different than some practice teaching experiences such as the community work, and some of the work at the university is a little different from a conventional practice teaching arrangement. Mr. GIBBONS. Describe the type of community work you are talking about.. Mr. MCPHERSON. In our situation, and in most. programs, I assume, they will spend a certain amount of time each week in the community, often working with the school personnel, such as home school visitors or school social workers, acquainting themselves with community problems related to time school. They might also at times be related to community workers from other community agencies, such as programs related to the economic opportunity program in a community. Mr. GIBBONS. Let me ask you a hypothetical question: Don't you think this would be a pretty good type of training for all teachers, to have some experience with the community as you have for these corpsmen? Mr. MCPHERSON. I certainly do. I think this is providing a. model for changes in conventional teacher-training programs. Mr. GIBBONS. WTould von say that apparent lv 1~eause of the lack of university facilities or perhaps lack of money. ~d) is all von can have ? It looks to me with 80,000 students and the needs that von have dc- scribed, you could use a lot more than that number. Dr. MARLAND. I could agree we could train mome and absorb more, as far as our public schools are concerned. I think T)r. McPherson's point was how much can the local training institutions operate and this would vary widely. I think, also, we have to preserve a fairly strong selective bias as to who comes into it, and not just have anybody who wants to drop in. There is an implication there about people qualifying for entry, hut in terms of numbers, and I thought about this since von first asked the PAGENO="0384" 378 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS question. We have roughly 5,000 professional people in the Pitts- burgh public schools, and I would say easily up to 1,000 could level off sometime in the distant future who would have come. in teaching this year. and could be extremely advantageous to us. I also agree with you that all teachers, conceivably, could profit from this kind of experience. It is like the illustration we used this morn- ing of this being a specialty. The degree to which you have everyone specialized, this would he somewhat wasteful. Mr. GIBBONS. I imagine you have about 4,000 teachers in your sys- is that right Dr. MARLAND. About 5.000, counting everybody. That includes paraprofessionals. Mr. GIBBONS. That would be about a 1-to-5 ratio, roughly, you feel that can be absorbed in your school system; is that right? I)r. MARLAND. That is right. Mr. GTBBONS. Do you have any comments as to the relationship or the effect. of these Teacher Corps people upon the other staff, the other instructional staff, at the school ? Dr. MARLAND. I find it. very comfortable. I fail to perceive the im- p1icat~on that. one of the members of the committee drew this morning, that there was some kind of an aura attached to this that made the Teacher Corps people different. I (To not. find this whatsoever. I find that conventional teachers welcome these young people as new colleagues, treating them very much as they would with beginning teachers joining our system, and profiting from their presence. These are exciting young people who bring a new and lively con- cern to their schools. It is a very compatible relationship. I see no hitches. Do ou wish to comment., Dr. McPherson? Mr. MCPHERSON. No, I would agree with that substantially. Mr. GIBBONS. Thank you for the information on the Teacher Corps. I am a little more assured about how it works now. Next I would go to the phenomei~on we keep seeing, about 30 percent of our people who enter the fifth grade never graduating from the 12th grade. You can't generalize or put. it all on one specific point. I now want to relate that to early identification and early childhood (level opinent, te aching child development, really. What would you say about the wisdom of placing much more emphasis from the Federal categorical level in early childhood teach- inc? Would the~e he dollars well spent? Dr. MARLAND. Yes, it. would, and there would be those social scien- tists and psychologists-_we are getting back to Mr. Dellenback's point of priorities-who would put this on priorities. T-1i~h emphasis should be given to the early child education. I in- clude here preprimary. or the. Headstart level, on up through grades ~i or 4. That is where the difference, can be made. It doesn't. mean that we sacrifice, the needs of the other children, but that~ is where the. big difference can be made. Mr. GTBBONS. T~oughly, in any school situation, half of the children will succeed, and the dropout rate doesn't exceed a half on a national average. What would you think are the tools tha.t you need to work PAGENO="0385" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 379 with at this early level? `What are the types of services that you need at this early level? Dr. MARLAND. To begin with, we need fresh, new schools, not neces- sarily built in the heart of the ghetto, but schools that can be so placed and so conceived as to give promise of some kind of integration of the races, and also to be happy places for children to go to, rather than the bleak towers of melancholy that are now the schools in most of our inner cities. This is very important. I would say that is one of the tools. Mr. GIBBONS. How large are these institutions that you are talking about? Dr. MARLAND. If we are speaking of elementary schools in big cities, I would hope that they could be limited to 700 or 800 youngsters, the grades of kindergarten or preprimary through grades 5 or 6. Mr. GIBBONS. You said not particularly within the ghetto. Would you explain what you mean there? Dr. MARLAND. There is a concept that we call Education Park. It is defined in different ways in different parts of the country, but it does suggest that they can be articulated with great, powerful centers of instruction that would be at the high-school level and that would go on up through the technical institute level, large enough in their influence that in the service area they serve they reach across the traditional boundaries that have separated people within cities. This automatically creates a mix, which is good, social, economic, as well as racial. Flowing out from these schools and into the various parts of the city, being served in the concept of education park, as we define it, would be radial connectors, streets of lovely walkways, regenerated city, a displacement of the ugliness by regeneration and replacement. These can be so located, if they a.re permitted to be reconstructed along the lines that we are describing, and not incompatibly, with the theories of HUD, to locate those schools where there will be a maximum opportunity for natural integration. It has t.o be done broadly sweeping. It can't be done spottily here and there. It calls for massive capital funds. But. that is the begin- ning point of regenerating the city, regenerating the city through education and through a new committ.ment to the schools on the part of teachers. Mr. GIBBONS. Perhaps you are already doing something that I am going to describe in your school system but. it is not being done in mine, and in a lot of other places in the United Sta.tes. I so often see the school where it operates 180 days a year, it ope.rates from S :30 in t.he morning until 3 or 4 in the afternoon, and it is closed, and its play- grounds and facilities closed to any kind of public use after that.. There is a great waste of facilities which has always struck me.. I found in one city that I visited a year or so ago that. the city fathers ha.d taken their schools and had built into them gymnasiums, fine auditoriums, swimming pools, and, in effect, turned them into com- munity centers for rendering all kinds of t.hings from emergency health care arid day care to using their school system for tutorial services in the afternoons and evenings, integrating the community functions into the school. 75-492-67------25 PAGENO="0386" 380 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDL'CATION AMENDMENTS They told us one of the very fine side effects of all this activity was the fact that the schools were much more closely accepted in the community than they had been in the past. Do you think that this can be done? Do you think it should be done? Dr. MARLAND. I do. I understand what you are saying. The term for it in our profession is the "community center school" or the "community school." It. is, in my judgment, a very desirable and a very promising innovation. It is going on to a degree, nationally. It is still very limited. as you imply. Mr. SCHEUER. Will my colleague yield on this point? Mr. GIBBONS. Yes. Mr. ScnEtrn. Last year this committee amended the administra- tion proposal for title ITT. supplementary education centers, by pro- viding that all new supplementary education centers must be so de- signed that any one of the particular ingredients, like the auditorium, the craft. shop, and so forth, could be. made available to the community at night. The rest of the school could he. closed off. but each of these elements could be used separately. These institutions would be available for use e.venin~s. weekends, and summers. I couldn~t agree more with the thrust that. my colleague, is making. I hope that in any bill for new school construction, whether it be ele- rnent~ry. secondary. or even university construction, will have the re- quirement of desi~n so that these individual elements are easily, con- veniently, and economically available, for neighborhood community use. I really can't applaud highly enough, sir the thrust. you are mak- ing here. Dr. M.~im.~xn. May I respond a bi.t to Mr. Scheuer's point? The title ITT act., as I am sure Mr. Schener knows, is not sufficiently funded to afford the kind of facilities you are talking about.. So far it is only a planning level. Mr. SCITErER. I understand that. It happened to be my amendment. I wanted to establish the point Congressman Gibbons is making. But, we know how to desi~u schools that, can he used a.s centers of community activities. I hope we will have, that kind of language in all of our construction titles from now on. Dr. MARLAND. I would welcome that. Mr. Ginnoxs. Let's get back a little more to the early identification and the prevention of some of these problems. I think we have talked so much about cure that we have been sort of cure-oriented. We mani- fest that in the Youth Corps, the Job Corps, vocational rehabilitation and some of these other things. Don't you think we can. in the early years of school, do a lot of pre- vention of this social failure, this educational failure? What are your ideas on that ? ~r. M.\RLAND. The theory. of course. would be that we can and we must. That. is why I applaud the. implications of the preprimary and early child education programs t.hat this committee is considering. Part. of this rests in a more rational approach to what. follows, how- ever. I don't think that the high schools of America have eve.r been truly relevant to some of our young people. We have geared our PAGENO="0387" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDTCATION AMENDMENTS 381 society and mores to the expectation of the I)resti e of college entrance. We have said that if you are not in a college preparatory program, there must be something wrong and you are discarded. I think there is a completely new approach needed, and it is in mo- tion in some places, to bring dignity and importance to vocational and technical courses in our high schools. This calls, again, for very large sums of money. It calls for the kind of support that this committee has given in the past in terms of the Vocational Education Act, and others. But t.here also has to be a change in the attitude of our society toward these programs. It is just as worldly for a young person to be training to become a good auto mechanic as it is to be prepared to go to college. Part of it is that, because the salvage operation which you are suggesting here has to continue on and not just settle at the age of 3 or 4. Mrs. K00N'rz. If I may, Mr. Gibbons, I am very pleased that you have asked this particular question, because I think this is one that really holds a key to what I think Mr. Dellenback was asking me. It makes a great deal of difference if we are talking about continu- ing remediation, or whether we are saying that the American public is committed to getting a.t prevention and dealing with it so that the school system that progresses does not need a remedial and corrective program at these successive levels, because we had promised the chil- then that the education here will be designed for what we lmow of their needs, but we will continue corrective measures for those for whom it is too late. This is an essential. I think this is what gives the hope that is the key to continuing support of education back in the States where it must be assumed. Mr. GIBBONS. This problem of developing a child is really a part- nership in which the parent or somebody standing in place of the parent plays a really major role and the school the supportive role. I guess that is about the way it is. \Tery few of us know much about raising or educating children other than what we happened to learn from our own environment, from our own parents. Don't you think in this process of early childhood development there is some way that we can get. to the parent and work with the parent and get them involved in the educational process a little more: get. them really better equipped to reinforce what you are doing in school? Dr. MARLAND. I do, indeed, sir. As I said this morning, in response to a question from Mr. Goodell or Mr. Quie, I know of no quick~ simple answer to offer you. But I would say that there aie agencies in this country that should put themselves to work on discovering methods that could be another one of these breakthroughs that we have talked about, carefully conceived by social scientists, as to ways to construct an institution for the restoration of homes, especially the homes of deprived children. If we don't restore that generation. if we keep reproducing genera- tion after generation of despair, if we have to wait for the present 3-year-old coming through Headstart, we are going to wait for generations. it is very, ver important. to contrive something that will bring families into the atmosphere of responsibility and education. I am PAGENO="0388" 382 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS not able quickly to say what that might be, but I would urge that there are agencies in health, education, and welfare that could put themselves to work at such a task and come up with something con- st ructive. Mr. GIBBONS. One of the problems that worries me is the great proliferation-and maybe this is a mistake on my part, but you can correct me if it is-on the numbers of school districts. I find as I go around the United States that there are some extremely small school districts and some extremely large school districts. How many school districts are in the city of Pittsburgh? Dr. MARLAND. .Just one, sir. I might add that what you say is true, but I would also say that there is a splendid movement afoot, and it has been going on now for about 5 years, in which virtually every State is moving firmly in the direction of reducing its number of school districts. This is a~ State-level operation, as a rule. For example, in Pennsyl- vania we reduced from 670 school districts 3 years ago to something in t.he neighborhood of 190. Mr. SCHEUER. New York City is one school district. Dr. MARLAND. Yes. Mr. GIBBONS. But Los Angeles is some 75 school districts, I think. I have forgotten how many are in Mr. Quie's State. We found in Maine one that didn't have any schools in it. What prompted that observation on my part was this: Do you detect anything in the operation of this act that. would tend to en- coura~e ~eein~ ~in end to these small school ~stricts? Dr. MARL~\ND. At quick glance, I do not, sir. I think it would be wrong, for example, to withhold moneys from needy rural areas be- cause they are too small to be efficient. I think they need money. In other words, you could not., in my judgment. justify having a coercive effect on putting them out of business. I think that is the State's responsibility. I think ~ou could, however, through title V, perhaps. see to it that States get about their business of insuring effi- cient school organization in their State. The truth of it is that most of them are. You may have to encourage some States. You could, I would thinks with built-in guidelines, if not laws, say that over a period of time States must show good intent on becoming efficient in terms of school district organization. They have a long history and a large collection of research in all States on this subject. It would be something with which they were all familiar. Mr. GIBBONS. You mentioned the program Upward Bound, or you mentioned the words Upward Bound, a number of times in your testi- mony. I am familiar with the program Upward Bound. I want to ask you a question about Upward Bound. Upward Bound, of course, is now administered by t.he Office of Economic Opportunity. You testified earlier that you thought Head- start should he incorporated in the office of Economic Opportunity and also the Followthrough. Am I correct in that? Dr. MARLAND. Yes. Mr. GIBBONS. ITow about Upward Bound? What do you think should be done. with it? PAGENO="0389" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 383 Dr. MARLAND. I think it is also an educational instrument and belongs in education. Mr. GIBBONS. Is it a program, though, that should be controlled by the elementary school people or is it one that should be controlled by the higher education people? Dr. MARLAND. I wouldn't care. It could be either way, 1ust so it is managed by educators. We happen in our situation to have a very good relationship with the three institutions that we work with in Pittsburgh-Carnegie Tech, the University of Pittsburgh, and Mount Mercy College-all equal participants, and each training up- ward of 50 youngsters a year, coming in at the sophomore level, going to junior level and graduating. The authority, the responsibility, t.he initiative in our case happens to rest pretty much with the public schools, but by agreement with the colleges, the man who directs it, for example, is our man, and it could be just as good and just as workable if the man who runs it is their mail. But there has to be freedom to exercise initiative. The institution that is to run this program ought to be the institution that receives the money. We have had no major difficulties with the community action program on Upward Bound. It is a good process. It is corn- pat ible. But it is not particularly relevant. TJpward Bound is an education program and deals with youngsters who are underachievement, who are poor, who are three-time losers and wouldni get into college without this program. It happens that last year's graduating class of 40 at Carnegie Tech has 39 now in col- lege and succeeding. It is paying off. It is a good investment. It is sound and it is 100 percent educational. Mr. GIBBoNs. Let me ask you about the Neighborhood Youth Corps program now. This is operated by the Labor Department. Some of them operate within your schools and some operate without your schools. What do you think the Congress should do about the Neighborhood Youth Corps program? Dr. MARLAND. I think it should maintain it. It is somewhat differ- ent from education and, therefore, I say it is logical, if Congress so views it, to leave it where it is, legislatively, in the Department of Labor and OEO, the combination. It is essentially an opportunity for relevant work experience for young people. We try to make it for those in our schools also an educational experience. `We built in quite a bit of counseling. We built in quite a bit of work related to the teaching and learning of the child. For example, one going through t.he vocational program will go to work in that and work in a print shop, if we are going to be printers, or work at typing if they are going to be stenographers, or they will work at custodial work or painting if they are in that field. But we don't think it is primarily an educational program. It is essentially an opportunity for young people to earn money, do rele- vant work, and stay in school. It, I think, could be funded in the way it is now being funded and remain perfectly right. Mr. GIBBONS. I don't want to monopolize this discussion from other members of the committee. PAGENO="0390" ~4 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS I may never get to talk to you again and I was interested in what you had to say about the big cities. Would you mind discussing some of those iden~ that. von have talked about? Dr. MARLAND. Thank you, I will. Since I have been asked twice. Mr. Chairman, I will offer this testi- mony for the record and still send you a copy of it, if you like. I do think it is siinificant. I will take 2 or 3 minutes to review a paper that I think is very important. It is a piec.e of recent research and it. is extremely disturb- ing. Foriive me for reading. The quality of education in a particular city depends more on what can be. locally afforded and on what is locally demanded than on what is ne.eded or desired ideally. T~Tntil the means are found to reverse that. equation and let. social policy for education determine the reve- nues to be allocated to education the continuing decline of the cities is certain. Declining financial ability to support education and increasing re- quirements for educational services have placed t.he public schools of America's great cities in a double bind so serious that only drastic increases in State and Federal aid can permit. city schools to meet the educational needs of their pupils. With that generalization. I would offer you a few stat.istics. Mr. GIBBONS. May I ask you a question there? Why is it different for the cities than for the rural areas? Dr. MARLAND. This paper deals solely with t.he cities. But I think t.he evidence that I will show shortly will indicate that is where most of the people are going to be in the next few years. They tell us that 80 percent of the people of America will be living in t.he metropolitan areas by 1975, a.nd the cities are t.he reason for metropolitan areas to be. There is something very serious happening to our cities. For exam- ple. while pupil expenditures. or expenditures per pupil in the Nation as a whole have risen 331 percent from 1930 to 1960, the per capita value of taxable property in our large cities during the same period rose 97 percent.. In other words, t.he support for education in our cities is not in- creasing nearly as fast as the average cost of educating children. To continue to show you what. is happening, again, over t.he past 30 ye.ars: We have in each State what might be called parity, the average per pupil cost for that. State. Typically, let's say in Pennsylvania, it is around $550 per child, and it will vary a.round the country. Here is what has happened over the past 30 years: The money used to be in the cities. That is where the t.reasure was, t.hat. is where the people were, that is where the favored people were, by and large. That is where schools could be readily supported. New York City was 110 perc.ent of State parity 30 years ago. It is now 90 nercent. of State parity. Los Angeles was 115 percent of State parity and now it is 95 percent. Philadelphia was 130 percent and it is now 80 percent. Baltimore used to be 115 percent and it is now 82 percent. Cleveland, 130, and now it is 94 percent. Down in my own city of Pittsburgh, in 1930, we were 132 percent of State parity and we are now at 80 percent of State parity. PAGENO="0391" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDTJCATION AMENDMENTS 385 The loss of taxable resources to the city and the fear of taxing our industries and our residents out of the cities has put the cities in the double bind of having greatly increasing educational responsibilities, especially for the changing character of the city's population, and at the same time losing the very resources upon which it was able to pro- vide a viable and rich program of education. This is further complicated by the fact that the reapportionment circumstances surrounding most of our cities, instead of restoring in- creased State legislative influence to the cities, is still further remov- ing that into the suburban areas. Mr. QuIE. Would the gentleman yield for a moment? Mr. GIBBONS. Yes. Mr. QLIB. Are the suburbs now way above parity? Dr. MARLAND. Yes. The suburbs surrounding most cities will be significantly above parity. Mr. QmE. The suburbs, judging from our colleague, Congressman O'Hara, of Michigan, in amending title III last year, seemed to me in big trouble, too. I was wondering if everybody was in trouble or if they were in as bad trouble as they seemed to be, or have the people with the political power expressed it better? Dr. MARLAND. I think that is a factor. I could go on and talk more about the cities. I will, if you will permit, Mr. Chairman, send this complete report from which I have been quoting, which I think was a significant st.udy, which shows the rather desperate circumstances now surrounding all of our big cities as they lose people in the net. No substantial city, with one or two exceptions on the west coast, gained in population in the last 10 years. Most of the cities are losing what might be called the favored white. Some of the favored Negro families are leaving the ill-favored Negro and white. Mr. GIBBONS. What you are really saying is about a city being some- thing with a clearly defined legal boundary. You are not talking about a city being in terms of great masses of population. You are talking about the downtown part of the city starting to rot out and the suburbs get.ting all the support. Is that what you are talking about? Dr. MARLAND. No, I am talking about the political entity of the city, the tota.l political entity, as it is bounded by the cit.y limits, and as it is supported by the resources of city funds within it. Mr. GIBBONS. Let's say in Metropolitan Pittsburgh, how many school districts do you have? Dr. MARLAND. In Metropolitan Pittsburgh? About 50. Mr. GIBBONS. And you are one, and have 80,000. Then you have 50 little satellites around you; is that it? Dr. MARLAND. That is correct. Mr. GIBBONS. That is exactly what I was talking about a while ago. Dr. MARLAND. You asked me about Pittsburgh. Pittsburgh is a city surrounded by suburban communities. But the city of Pitts- burgh is quite autonomous politically and educationally. Almost every city, I am sure, has the surrounding areas. Mr. GIBBONS. But really, aren't the only people who pay any atten- tion to these city boundaries t.he city officials and tax collectors? The PAGENO="0392" 386 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS rest. of the people just go back and forth across them and never pay much attention except when they have to go to police court. Dr. MARLAND. This may be the unfortunate truth. It certainly is a distinction as between tax collections. The resources of the suburbs in terms of what they ca.n do with their money are considerably more favorable to the schools than they are to the city. Mr. GIBBONS. Really, it is a matter of the distribution of the assets in t.he metropolitan area as much a.s anything else. Is t.hat true? Dr. MARLAND. This is true. Mrs. KooxTz. I would like to reinforce what Dr. Marland is say- ing about the city. As a matte.r of fact, I would suspect t.hat from the area in which I come, next year we are going to send them about 8,000 people. from this rural area. because machines have displaced the last jobs in the agricultural belt. These people are coming up from rural areas. They have not been prepared for urban life. They have no skills. They have had no reason to have any. Their work has demanded of them only being early risers, lon~ laboring, and ~oocl backs. They are going to be his problem and they are going to bring large families with them. What we can do to prepare them before they get there, since we know that the urban areas will have the most of our population within the next. 8 or 10 years, is another problem that must. be considered, to prevent the remediation, t.he total remedia- tion, when it. gets to Pittsburgh. This is going t.o be a matter of adapting. These children are not going to be prepared for formal education. For this reason, I said remediation will continue to be needed. But this is no excuse for not. starting at the heart of the problem and building the kind of program that is necessary. What kind of program. then, do these children need, do t.hese fam- ilies need, whom we know will find no employment in a line with their previous employment, and whose pasts will carry them to relatives already located in the. cities? This is the kind of program that must. allow for diversity and yet there must be some control and some criteria, to be sure that funds made available reach the people for who those funds are intended. So as much as I clamor for a lack of controls, I must insist t.hat until conditions become such that we believe they will be used gen- era liv, that. there be some control. Mr. GIBBONS. Then, as I understand the problem, what has hap- pened is because of our political ort~anization-I am talking about school districts, cities, and things of that sort-we find that where our biggest. challenges are, our biggest problems are, we have the least resources to handle the.m. Dr. MARLAND. Precisely. Mr. GIBBONS. Really what you are asking for is some kind of equalization of resources t.o work wit.h, to solve your problem. Pr. MARLAND. This is absolutely correct, Mr. Gibbons. Given the opportunity by Mr. Dellenback's earlier que.stion and your pursuit of it, I opened this subject hopefully, as he said in his question, on what. are some of the very large issues that you perceive on the horizon. PAGENO="0393" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 387 You asked about the big cities. Tl1is is the largest single issue that I see in America. What will happen with the resources of the cities? That is where the great social injustice is concentrated. That is where the moneyed and the favored people are draining away by the thousands. I wish I could quote you the numbers of white families that move out of Cleveland every week and are displaced by the people that Mrs. Koontz has referred to. Mr. DELLENBACK. Will you yield for a moment, Mr. Gibbons? Mr. GIBBONS. Yes. Mr. DELLENBACK. Although you talk as a schoolman on this particu- lar point, aren't you really prepared as a citizen of Pittsburgh to go beyond that and say that many of the real broad-range problems of America beyond education really reside in the urban areas? Dr. MARLAND. Indeed they do. This includes health and social jus- tice of all kinds. For example, I think these figures will be useful to the committee. I will only quote one or two and furnish the others later, Mr. Chair- man. There is a difference from what its costs to run a city from what it costs to run another kind of community. Very few people perceive, understand, and accept that difference, and especially it is not under- stood, perceived, or accepted in State legislatures. This research shows that there is a parity in every State of the amount of money average that a community can use for services other tha.n education, talking about. police, welfare, health, streets, lights, sewers, and so on. These are the data: In Boston-well, let's take a better illustration to start; with. In Buffalo, N.Y., 76 percent of the city's income is required to run t.he city. That leaves 24 percent for t.he schools. In Ne.w York State throughout, only 49 percent is required to run all the average for the Stat.e, leaving 51 percent for the schools. In Chicago, 60 percent of the income of the city is required to run the city. For the State of Illinois, only 44 percent.. It leaves 56 per- cent for the schools. I am speaking now of all the costs of running a city except educa- t.ion, in terms of local resources. In Detroit, it is 57 percent against 48 percent for the State of Michi- gan. Milwaukee, 66 percent for the cost of the city, leaving only 34 percent for the schools, against 47 percent for the State of Wisconsin, leaving 53 percent for the schools. New York, 77 percent against 49 percent. Pittsburgh, 61 percent against~ 22 percent. Sixty-one percent. of our local dollars in Pitts- burgh have to go to run the city, leaving 39 percent. for the schools. In the State of Pennsylvania, 22 percent is the cost of running the communities, the average for the State, leaving 78 percent for the schools. These are marked disparities and they have changed swiftly over the last 10 or 15 years as our resources continue to flow out, both in- dustria.l a.nd residential. This is a. grave problem. I invite it to the serious attention of this committee, realizing it. is not solely a concern of this committee, but a PAGENO="0394" 388 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS part of the solution must. lie in education. The draining away of funds and the increasing obligation to do an educational job far greater than the favored suburbs, is just working at cross-purposes. We are in a two-way bind, as this paper states. Mr. 000DELL. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. GIBBONS. yes. Mr. GnoDEr~I~. I wonder if your figure on Buffalo includes the income of the city of Buffalo from the sales tax. The city of Buffalo has uti- lized the. imposition of a sales tax, and the entire sales tax goes for education. I believe it is 3 percent in the county of Erie. Dr. MARLAND. These data presumably include all local resources. I would assume that they do include that. Mr. GOODELL. It would be very surprising, if they do have the sales tax: and they also have the~ real property tax. Dr. MARLAND. I am just rechecking my table. It is property tax data. It does not include the sales tax. Mr. GOODELL. Then this is out of joint as far as your example of Buffalo is concerned, because the city of Buffalo does have exclusive rig-lit to the sales tax for education, and it has been increased in recent years. Dr. MARLAND. Broadly, the point I was making was a little bit dif- ferent from that, Mr. Goodell; namely, it was that the only point I was making or trying to make was that it costs a great deal more to run a city than it does a nonurban area. Mr. GOODELL. I have another problem with that. You are speaking to us in terms of possible Federal approaches to ameliorate this prob- lem. In New York State we are close to the position of 50 percent of State aid going for education. It would seem that the first instru- mentality to try to equalize in terms of the problem of outflow of people and revenue from the city is the State. Anything we do in this respect is going to have a nominal impact unless the State has done something. Mv understanding was in Pitts- burgh there is considerable resentment that the State of Pennsylvania doesn't bear a greater burden here on State aid. Sometimes we come in with the Federal Government and we have a great problem of maybe we are just covering over a problem that ought to be resolved locally and at the State level because we cannot really do the job with Federal funds. Dr. MARLAND. There is much in what you say. I can accept that as a valid criticism of my position. But I have to return to the facts of the conventional construction of our State legislatures throughout the country, which, in spite of the reapportionment scheme, have not resolved the problems of representing big city needs and, indeed, are working the other way. This paper which I will send you is of sober research by competent scholars, and it shows that legislative organizations have largely been constructed of a rurally biased membership. We, for example, in Pittsburgh, have a saTes tax. It raises roughly $22 million a year in Pittsburgh. It is aimed for the support of education in Pennsylvania. In spite of these needs, in spite of this disparity, in spite of the munic- ipal overburden costs, only $8 million of that $22 million comes back to the city for education. This is legislation. PAGENO="0395" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 359 I suppose what I am saying, Mr. Goodell, is that this is, indeed, a problem that ought to be solve.d ioeailv and in the State legislatures, but it is not being solved there. Therefore, the eonditioii is so des- perate that I call it to the attention of this committee as something that may have to he done on the basis of a cate~orical concern with the big cities of America who are not receiving equitable shares of State concern. Mr. GOODELL. Would you like to suggest a formula of some type? Dr. MARLAND. No. I am saying that. you may have to get into some kind of categorical assistance to cities. Mr. GOODELL. I am well aware of the problems of cities, and I think every one of us would like to help them. But I am also extremely aware of the problem in the rural areas. I don't think this is true anymore in New York State, certainly, in terms of control of the legislature, if you add in the representatives from Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse, Albany. You have a heavy pre- ponderance of big city representation in the legislature. But in cop- ing with this problem of elementary and secondary education, and in coping with the problem of poverty, we are very well aware that the rural areas don't find it as easy to make their applications and to get the money coming through to their interest. They don't have the personnel, professional or otherwise, to make all these applications, to conform to all the specifications that go into these categorical programs. We found after the first year and a half of the poverty program, for instance, with 45 percent of the poor. or somewhere in t.hat area, in rural areas, something like 5 percent of the community action money was going to rural areas. That has certainly come a little more into balance this last year. The rural areas were slower in getting underway. I am not speaking just from the standpoint of the rural areas. I am interested in Buf- falo, N.Y., and so on, and all of their problems, too. Speaking from the viewpoint of a legislator and a public official who runs for election, it is pretty difficult to just buy a program that goes to a single area. You have all the other areas with their distinc- tive problems coming in and saying, "Why isn't there some money for us?" Mr. HAWKINS (presiding). If I may interrupt, I understand Mrs. Koontz has a problem in catching a 3 :30 plane, if she has not already missed it. May I ask at this time if it. would be satisfactory with the rncnibers, if you have no further questions of Mrs. Koontz, that we excuse her? Thank you very much, Mrs. Koontz. Mrs. KOONTZ. Thank you very much. May I say that I am being very realistic when I say we are sending the problems along to the urban areas, but they are stopping off in the much smaller towns and cities than Pittsburgh on their way there. Mr. HAWKINS. Mrs. Koontz, I wish to thank you for the testimony you have given the committee today. I am sure that yours, with Mr. Marland's and the other associates of the National Advisory Council, will be very helpful to this committee. I think I should take this opportunity to thank the members who are present here. Mrs. KOONTZ. Thank you, sir. It has been a pleasure to appear be- fore this committee. PAGENO="0396" 390 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS Mr. GIBBONS. I want to thank the witnesses of today. I think they have been extremely helpful. Mr. HAWKINS. I think you were interrupted, Mr. Marland, before responding to Mr. Goodell's question. Dr. MARLAND. I tried as well as I could to respond to it. I know he has a valid point in saying that these problems of State representa- tion. State needs, ought to be solved at State levels. I simply have to add that they are not being solved there. Mr. GIBBONS. You wouldn't mind if we gave them a little encour- agement to do it, would you? Dr. MARLAND. I would hope that there could be conceived , not neces- sarily in the 1968 legislation, but very soon, a dimension that would focus squarely on urban problems. I have one small suggestion to put before you very briefly. It gets back to my earlier generalized sug- gestion on the subject of capital programs. Broadly speaking. in America the construction problems of the non- urban areas have been worked out now since World War II and have been pretty well met. This is a generalization. The areas outside the bi~ cities have been building schools, many and frequently. The big cities and the inner cities especally have not been. They have not had the money to do it. If there were to be developed soon construction aid that would have certain criteria having to do with improved circles of the economically and educationally deprived, wherever they might be, and where the criteria could clearly show that there was a large social purpose being served as well as simple instruction, and tha.t oppor- tunities for integration and opportunities for the uplift of the poor would result from the establishment of a new school, especially in big cities, such built-in criteria could be a massive stroke for improv- ing the problems of big cities. It is clean money because it does not get into the complications of proposals and issues of a value-oriented nature as to whether it is church-related and whether it has this or that overtone of controversy to it. It is bricks and steel. And provided the construction proposed would meet certain criteria of racial integration, economic and social uplift, opportunities to ful- fill t.he expectations of the Vocational Education Act, comprehensive- ness, it could he a major boon to the problems of big cities. Mr. HAWKINS. The Chair recognizes Mr. Erlenborn. Mr. ERLENBORN. Dr. Marland, I want to say that I have enjoyed very much being here today and listening to not only your prepared statement but also the answers to the questions that have been pro- pounded to you. I have one particular area that I would like to go into with you and that is raised in your statement on page 4 concerning late funding. You also made reference to this in your first report, the problems of not knowing how much you are going to get or when. Let me just go hack with you over the history of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. That was passed, the authorization was passed, April 11. 1965 as I understand it, the first appropriation was not passed until September 25, 1965. Can you tell me when, thereafter, the State allocations were made and when, as an example, your school district was advised of the amount of funds that you might have coming to you? PAGENO="0397" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 391 Dr. MARLAND. We are speaking of the first year, 1965? Mr. ERLENBORN. That is right. Dr. MARLAND. The authorization was in October. The preliminary ~uide1ines from the Office of Education were immediately received in October. The final guidelines were received in December. The project approval, which we have to motivate and process up to State level was received in February. The money was received in April. Mr. ERLENBORN. When, under this timetable, were you able to actually say that you had a plan, that you had a program, and you could hire personnel? Dr. MARLAND. We have been a little more daring, perhaps is the word, than some in Pittsburgh, because we have had faith in this program and we have gone out and hired people with limited assur- ance that the program would be in motion. We have had the ap- proval of our boards of education that they would somehow find ways to protect the program. As I mentioned, we borrowed money this year, locally, to maintain these programs. I would say that typically we have been able, in anticipation of the likelihood of legislation to hire people, but gen- erally at about 50 percent of the ultimate level of expectation so as to be cautious. Many school systems have not moved an inch until they had the money in their pocket. Mr. ERLENBORN. Many cannot afford to; is that right? Dr. MARLAND. We can't afford to. If we don't get the 85-percent funding that we are now expecting to get, we will just have to ~o into a deficit condition this year. So we don't have the money. But I would say that we are moving on faith more than many communities will. Many boards of education would not think it prudent to launch a program and hire people until they had the money in the bank. Mr. ERLENBORN. When you say you might go into a deficit situation, what. this really means, then, is that you are taking funds from your regular educational program and using them in title I projects. Dr. MARLAND. Exactly. And we have even run out of those funds now in terms of our income rate, the tax collection rate, so we have had to go out and borrow money to maintain these Federal programs above and beyond what we could borrow from ourselves. Mr. ERLENBORN. Did you have such a surplus in your regular edu- cational program that you could afford to do this? Dr. MARLAND. No. I say we have to go out and borrow money to do it. We don't have any kind of a surplus. We have a ~50 million budget in our local appropriation, of which less than $200,000 would be in an unallocated category. Mr. ERLENBORN. Now let's get into t.he second year, or the first full year of operation, into 1966. At what time were you notified of the approval of your project and the amount of funds that you might expect? Dr. MARLAND. The appropriation bill was signed in November. The tentative allocations to the States were made in February from the U.S. Office of Education. By the time we worked our programs through the State, and we had our programs tentat.ivey approved in the State so we were ready to go subject to funding-and this is the PAGENO="0398" 392 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS second year-then the details are described in the last page of my memorandum, which describes we still don't have the money. We have received 10 percent of a $3 million obligation. We still don't have it. We got the approval of our programs in good order from the State; that. is, authorizing us to do these things within the dollars, the 85-percent level of the previous year. So to the extent that the mechanics are working on approvals, it is pretty good. It is the money and the assurance of how much money that is hanging over us. Mr. ERLENBORN. How much longer do you think these circumstances can continue to exist and ou can continue to say that you are really doing anything meaningful under title I. How long do you think school districts can continue to live with this situation? Dr. MARLAND. My judgment is that the majority of boards of educa- tion will throw up their hands in disgust if this goes on another year. Mr. ERLENBORN. Now let me ask you this: What have you in your capacity as a member of the Council, or I should say what has the Council, itself, recommended to be done in this area? Dr. MARLAND. We have put t.his in our report at least twice, this report, of course, going to Congress, to the President, and to the U.S. Office of Education. I would say that we have had many side bar discussions with appropriate officers in the U.S. Office of Education. Mr. ERLENHORN. Do you know of any legislative proposal that has been made by the Office of Education or by your Council? Dr. MA AND. No, sir; there is none that I know of. Mr. CARR. There has not been a legislative proposal suggested by this Council and I don't believe there has been one by the Office of Education. I think perhaps we may be acting in somewhat of a too simplistic fashion by our urging now three times the Congress to move faster and get the appropriations out. I think we recognize that it is not all that simple. Yet all we have heard urged so far, and strongly so, is, please, if you can, act with greater urgency in getting the appropriations out. As far as I know, no one has suggested that legislation was needed to improve what we see as simply the internal functioning of the Congress. Mr. ERLENBORN. Let me ask you this: At the present time the title I authorizations extend to fiscal 1968: that is, they will extend until July 1, 1968. As I understand it from the testimony received yester- day from Commissioner Howe. there. is no intention on the part of the Office of Education to come in this year. during this first session of the Congress, to ask for an extension of that authorization. Olviouslv. then. they must he waiting until the second session, which means a bill might then he introduced in January, and our authoriza- tion probably will not complete its process until again in September, after the beginning of the school year, and again the appropriations will he even later than that. Don't you think that something in the way of a legislative proposal now to extend the authorization hevond fiscal 1968 would be in order? Dr. ~\L~RLAND. I don't know that it is our role as the Council to ini- tiate legislation. Mr. ERLENBORN. I am not suggesting that you initiate, it. Dr. MARLAND. What we are trying to do is convey a note of urgency to this committee and to the Office of Education that this is a very PAGENO="0399" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDIJCATION AMENDMENTS 393 serious subject. The legislation. I would assume, would originate elsewhere. Mr. DELLENBACK. Will the gentleman yield ? Mr. ERLENBORN. I will be happy to yield. Mr. DELLENBACK. I think the question, really, in effect, which Mr. Erlenborn is throwing out is, If there be not only no funds actually appropriated but if there be no authorization for continuation of title I programs which will he on the books until the fall of 1968, will the Pittsburgh district be moving forward with programs knowing that the Federal law has nothing on the books authorizing such pro- grams? Dr. MARLAND. W~e wouldn't have that much faith; no, sir. Mr. DELLENBACK. So at the present time you have moved forward knowing that there was authorization and expectation of funds, but the danger that Congressman Erlenborn has just pointed out is if the Department of Education doesn't come in, in this year, in the next few months, with a program or a proposal, there will be, possibly, a very real delay that could cause the killing of programs, we would sur- mise, in the individual districts next year. Mr. KIEsT. I might add, also, that the word our consultants get is that this uncertainty about funding affects the type of programs that are formulated. If you have to think up a program that you might have to jettison at the end of 2 years, you tend to get a program that is not well integrated into your regular school program or one that adds equipment or facilities which, of course, if the program ends, you still have the facilities. In other words, this discourages making long-term commitments to people. In this way, the uncertainty mitigates against the sound programs. Mr. DELLENBACK. We would urge you to recognize the congressional distinction between authorization and funding. You are now facing a failure to have funds actually made available. The danger that is being pointed out here is the critical step behind that, that not only would there be no funds actually appropriated but no programs au- thorized. Dr. MARLAND. I agree with you. I am just trying to give another dimension. Not only is there an uncertainty about the funds, hut the impact of this uncertainty affects the quality of the program. I am just underlining what you are saying. Do I understand the Congressman is implying that the council should initiate measures to persuade the Office of Education to move in this direction? Mr. ERLENBORN. I would wonder if it might not be in your province to recommend that the authorization extends for a period of 2, 3, 4 years, whatever you think is reasonable, or at this point you should have recommended to the Office of Education that the authorization for title I should be considered by Congress this year. that the Office of Education should have a legislative proposal ready this year so that we can consider it before the second session of the 90th Congress. I am wondering if this isn't within your province. Dr. MARLAND. I think it is within our province on a very formal basis to make this recommendation. We don't feel we have any more authority to do any more than that. PAGENO="0400" 394 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS Mr. ERLENBORN. You were talking about the quality of programs. `What is your experience with the quality of programs in the first year of operation, and, as part. of this question. how much did you find in your examination of these programs that they were loaded up for equipment in that first year because there wasn't time to get real programs started? They would use the funds before the.y were no longer available. Dr. MARLAND. Mr. Kirst's comment was appropriate there. There was such uncertainty that first year that people spent the money they could for things other than programs, in many cases-equipment, tools, in some cases demountable buildings, even. These were neces- sary and desirable. and worthy expenditures but they were not pro- grams in the. sense that. the spirit of title I suggests. In the second year, this has clearly been different, both in the ob- servation of our observers and consultants as well as the Council mem- bers. There has been a much more. orderly construction of programs, still precarious, still less firm than we would like to see them, but far better than the first year. Mr. ERLENBORN. To your knowledge, are there places where there is a good deal of this equipment. t.hat was acquired in the first year in haste that is not. now being used because of, again, late funding the second year? They didn't get their programs underway or have the personnel hired? Dr. MARLAND. I would pass this to Mr. Carr. Mr. CARR. We have found around the country some examples which would h:~ve to be described as "shocking" of the stockpiling of equip- ment. This is not to indiet this as wasted money, but I would say it was probably not the item of highest priority for t.hat. part.icular school district, at that time. The unfortunate part about. this whole dialog we have had in the last 5 minutes. as we talk about the disadvantages of late funding, is that late funding traditionally seems to mean lower grade personnel. The top people are committed long ahead of the people who are mediocre.. When you come around to firiafly having money, the people that you can then hire are not the ones that you would have desired if you had the money when they were available. This is an unfortunate thing. I might add further that we made what we felt was a very strong plea in this document for a continuation of what we thought were ex- ce.ptionally useful summer programs. Now we are finding as we go around the country that in many cases, I should say in most cases, there will not. be a. summer program this year. It is very unfortunate. Mr. QrrIE. Will the. gentleman yield? Mr. ERLENBORN. I will be glad to yield. Mr. QUIE. Where are the high-qualit.y individuals you referred to? Mr. CA1~. I should start a brief comment by saying for these in- dividuals there is always intense competition. There are always consulting firms, foundations, industrial jobs, and so on. The com- petition is even the more intense among specialized skills. Frequently these. are people who do not remain in a single job for more than several years. Late in the spring normally they are com- mitted for the following fall. PAGENO="0401" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 395 Dr. Marland, I am sure, can speak further to this point. Dr. MARLAND. It has been pretty well covered. One other location would be that these people would be taken off by universities and colleges. Mr. QUIE. That is serving quite a worthwhile purpose.; isn't it? Dr. MARLAND. It is a worthwhile purpose, but the competition is still very keen. We are concerned with title I and we are losing people to other institutions. Mr. 000DELL. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. ERLENBORN. I will be glad to. Mr. GOODELL. For the record, I think it is important. that you have funding as early as you possibly can. We are well aware of the ap- prehension at local levels about this. But we. didn't authorize in 1966 in the House until in September. You, in Pittsburgh, in effect, went ahead in 1966 without authorization. Dr. MARLAND. That is right. Mr. GOODELL. We have the problem of debating legislation and considering amendments at that late stage because changes made at that time, when t.he school year ha.s already started and everyt.hing has mounted, personnel and otherwise, can be de.structive rather than con- structive. The other aspect that ha.s to be considere.d in this, however, and I would like you to comment on it, is that we have authorized distribu- tion of money on a straight formula. The Office of Education has, to my knowledge, never funded 100 percent of that.. I don't know what the percentage is now. Last year it was 85 percent. I believe it is lower now. Dr. MARLAND. They talk about 83 percent. Mr. G0ODELL. When do you get notice of the percent.age funding you are going to have aft.er appropriations are available ? Dr. MARLAND. We received informal information starting as early as December that it might be about such and such, 85 being the first figure, then 90, then 83, then 85, and back to 83. This is no discredit to the U.S. Office of Education. They appear to have had variable problems confronting them as they tried to reconcile this. But we have never known up t.o today what the funding would be for fiscal 1967. Mr. GOODELL. You are just hoping it is going to be about $3.5 million? Dr. MARLAND. I am committed, but I have also provided a con- tract with each of the employees that says, "This is subject to being withdrawn at any time." That is unfortunate, too, because this, again, makes the employment situation extremely difficult. Mr. ERLENBORN. The tit.le III supplemental centers, as I under- stand it, are not in the same process as title I. They don't flow through the State agencies; is that correct? Dr. MARLAND. That is correct. Mr. ERLENBORN. Do you consider that t.he.re is good rationale for this, or would you prefer that they be treated in the. same fashion as title I in going through the State? Mr. SCHEUER. A point of clarification is in order there. Mr. HAWKINS. Do you yield? 75-402-67-26 PAGENO="0402" 396 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS Mr. ERLExw~nN. I will be glad to yield. I think von will say that the States do comment. Mr. SCTIEvER. Yes. I had the first supplementary center on the eastern seaboard. We sent our application to the State. The title III consultant took hold of it. came down here and had lunch with me, and said. "I think we can improve this radically if you let me assign a couple of my people to work with Bernard Donovan in New York." I said. "By all means. Be my guest." The went. to work with Donovan and completely redid the title III proposal. I think it. will be one of the most outstanding centers in the country. There couldn't have been a mere cooperative effort between the Albany office and the New York City school system where it. just. went to Albany for a. comment, and here came back this beau- tiful thrust, and we are going to have such a perfect center as a result of it. Mr. ERLENBORN. Perhaps you could comment. as to what. rationale there is to this. Dr. M~\RLAND. I would say what Mr. Scheuer has said, that this has worked reasonably well in what. might be called a voluntary as- sociation with the State authorities. I would say, however, that if it evolves over time, if Con~ress sees it wise to have all programs flow through the State. I would see no objection to this. I think as our States become. more skillful through the processes of title V in managing and stimulating programs, there might be a real gain here. Mr. ERLENBORN. Would it he. desirable to coordinate title III and title I projects through the device of having them both flow through the same process? Dr. MARLAND. I would say t.his is quite reasonable. Substantially that is what. is happening now. Mr. ERLEXP,ORX. One last question, Dr. Marlancl. You mentioned the lack of facilities in title I. Do you t.hink the schools now fully utilize the facilities t.hey now have? I have reference to the proposals for a 12-month school year. proposals I know you are familiar with. Dr. MARLAND. I understand the question. One could easily say that schools are not. very productive or efficient instruments in terms of the time, the hours and months that they are used. Many experiments have been undertaken without success to develop a year-round school system. There are many reasons for this. It is not. the fault. of the schools. Mostly it is rejected by society. However, there are other forces at work which are important. Many of our schools can easily be and are used year round, particularly wit.h a viable and supportive summer school program. lTirt.uallv half of the schools in Pittsburgh. if we ha.d the money we hoped for under ESEA. would be operated this summer, and into the evening. The extended school day was a program thrown out. And Saturday classes. It. is lar~elv a matter of staffing money. It is not a matter of the will or lack of will on the part of local author- ities. It is money to maintain and operat.e these programs. So the. schools are there. It. is a matter of budgeting for staff to make them more productive. PAGENO="0403" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDTJCATION AMENDMENTS 397 Mr. ERLENBORN. Let me interrupt for a moment. The question is either providing more facilities or better use of facilities, but both come down to the use of money, don't they? I)r. MARLAND. Yes. Mr. ERLENBORN. Which would have produced the more goods for the educational system, funds for staff and greater utilization of your facilities, or the construction of new facilities? Dr. MARLAND. Immediately, more funds for staff. That is the spirit of title I. But I also add quickly that by the very nature of the way our cities have grown, the ugliness of the inner cities from which people have gradually moved out to the periphery, remains there. That is where the poorer people are. They are attending ugly, ill-equipped, substandard schools to do the very things we are hoping to do under title I. It is not either/or. The first priority should go for operating money for staff. But a second priority on this subject, close behind it, is to restore dignity to the school buildings where these things happen. Mr. ERLENBORN. Thank you very much. Mr. HAWKINS. On the question of availability of competent teach- ers in the disadvantaged areas, this morning I think you responded to Mrs. Green's questions in such a way that it at. least gave the impression to me that this was not in some way related to the problem of the difficulties of getting competent teachers to go into disadvan- taged areas. I think you were giving the Pittsburgh experience and perhaps relative to that. experience throughout the country. There were some factors, I believe you indicated, other than race that seemed to operate in this particular problem. I think you spoke of the difficulties of getting teachers to go into some areas in which there was instability, hostility, tensions. I believe you mentioned, and so forth, which almost defined the. slum ghettos. I don't know of any in which there are not, such tensions, hostility, and so forth, b~ised piimaril on unemployment, family disorganiza- tion. and so forth. But it (lid lead me to believe, that there was no problem that could not be met by the ordinary teacher. This is not, to speak with disfavor on the. profession as such, because I have a very high regard for the teaching profession. It seems to me we need a little clarification of how it is that. your response was what it was, in view of the fact. that. we are experiencing in a lot of areas a very difficult problem of getting competent teachers to go to these. areas. I think this needs to be clarified. You did make a very glowing tribute to the Teacher Corps. I think you spoke of a spirit that they possessed with which it. is very difficult to build this case if at. the same. time we are going to say that another teacher does not have such spirit. I think we must distinguish between that type of spirit that we attach to the Teacher Corps as distinguished from. I think, a dedica- tion tha.t all teachers may have. But this seems to he not just a dedi- cation to a pro1-essioi~al approach but a desire. on the part of some individuals to want to go to a particular area, as distinguished from those who merely want to go into the teaching l)l'ofession. I WoUld like to have. your comments on this. I have stated the impression that \vas given to Inc. I just want you to either correct PAGENO="0404" 398 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS this impression or to amplify the remarks made this morning that led me to gain such an impression. Dr. MARLAND. I will try to do that, sir. The question was couched in the first place, from Mrs. Green, I believe, on the. basis of segregated Negro schools as distinguished from schools serving deprived children. I make that distinction only to make the point that I was trying to make this morning, and obviously did not, make as clearly as I should. What I wanted to say was that the very fact that a segregated Negro school may be difficult to staff does not mean that it is just because it is a segregated Negro school. There are other situations equally forbidding to some teachers, often in other pa.rts of the com- munity that may be white, that would also be depressed and deprived and equally forbidding. I was simply recalling from my own catalog of schools in my community where there are schools that are all white serving depressed neighborhoods that are more difficult in some cases to sustain a good faculty than those in which there are substantially Negro segregated youngsters. I may be. making more of a. point than I need to, to clear it. up. I merely wanted to advise Mrs. Green that the presence of Negroes wasn't in and of itself forbidding necessarily to the staffing of a school. Chairman PERKINS. You made the point, as I understand it, that it. is difficult to get competent. teachers to go to depressed areas, whether they are Negro or white. Dr. MARLAND. In many cities I am sure it is. She had asked me specifically about Pittsburgh and I said because we work at this in- tensively it is not as severe as it is in some cities. The truth of it is, as I said to her this morning, it is always difficult to get good teachers for any school system, and we never have enough. Detroit opened its schools last September. I believe, with 1,000 teachers short of its needs; Philadelphia with 1,200. These are things that we have to face as fact.s. There is a shortage of good teachers. There is especially a shortage of teachers trained in the theories that are supported by the National Teachers Corps. Mr. HAWKINS. From that point, let's get to the next phase of it. How is it that the Teachers Corps is able to att.ract and recruit in- dividuals to go into the teaching profession and to accept. these assign- ments when conventional institutions apparently cannot do this? Dr. MARLAND. I will try to answer that one very clearly. I have tried that twice before today but. I don't think I have made it as I should. Our young people coming up through college all over this country by and large are enrolled in liberal arts situations. A great majority of them have not yet decided when they go to college what they are going to do afterward, or at least they are openminded on it. Very often the young person, as a freshman or a sophomore in college, has no in- terest whatsoever in being a teacher. He does not want to take the conventional teacher training courses or those offered in a teacher college, the education courses that are often considered dull. They disdain teaching. PAGENO="0405" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDTTCATION AMENDMENTS 399 Then all of a sudden something happens as a product of their ma- turity, as a product of their increasing sense of values, their increasing development of a personal philosphy. They suddenly say, "Why didn't I qualify for teaching back there 2 or 3 years ago when I had a chance to choose those courses?" I say this with the utmost feeling of absoluteness because I have experienced this myself hundreds and hundreds of times with young people I have worked with, who have been through the schools with which I am associated, both in the favored suburbs and in Pittsburgh. They suddenly become aroused to the fact that they want to be a teacher. They also become aroused to the fact that they want to do something to change the world, and this is good. For this reason, the National Teacher Corps has a unique and specific response to the desires of those young people. It provides them a clear track at very little cost to themselves to acquire a profession after they have already thought it was too late. They had already spent 3 or 4 years in college and they couldn't go back and start over again. It gives them immediate income, ade- quate for subsistence, as they continue to learn. Many of these people could not immediately go to graduate school in the conven- tional master of arts in teaching programs, for example, at $2,000 or $3,000 a year. They spent their money on their first 4 years of college. There is a substantial proportion of the young people in our col- leges who are ripe and ready to turn their wisdom and talents to the teaching of children, particularly because of the motivations implied in the whole spirit of social justice. They see there is some- thing that they can do. They see there is something to which they can turn their hands to make it a better world. Believe me, there are surprisingly large numbers of our young people who believe this way. We have opened the door a little way in the Teacher Corps in providing a road for them to follow. It brings in somebody who never otherwise would have been a. teacher. He might have been an accountant, a perfectly fine architect, or something else, but not a teacher. Mr. HAWKINS. Do you know of any alternatives to the Teacher Corps to attract such individuals? Would a differential in pay, for example, offered to the teacher who teaches in the conventional sense, attract a sufficient number to make the Teacher Corps unnecessary? Dr. MARLAND. Not unless it occurs after the undergraduate years. I think the very fact that you have to allow for this period of matu- rity to have aroused in this Young person the will to become a teacher. While it was said this morning that. there can he inservice programs after someone becomes a teacher qualifying him better for the de- prived, the important thing is to discover a person with that kind of commitment in the first place. He discovers himself at about the junior or senior year, and says, "I am going into the Teacher Corps." Mr. HAWKINS. Has the Advisory Council given attention to any other method of attracting such individuals to go into the disadvan- taged areas? Mr. CARR. No; I don't think the Council has considered this ques- tion, Mr. Chairman. PAGENO="0406" 400 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS Dr. MARL AND. I believe the Council has assumed the ongoing existence. of the Teacher Corps and has accepted it as a promising new development. in our whole governmental structure, and would endorse it. It does not look for alternatives. Mr. QtTIE. Would the gentleman yield? Mr. HAwKINs. Yes. Mr. QUTE. How many such individuals do we need? Dr. MARLAND. I tried to answer that this afternoon with Mr. Gibbons by projecting percentages, as nearly as I could, using Pitts- burgh as the base. Whereas we have 5,000 total professional people in Pittsburgh, I would say we could use up to 1,000 such people just in Pittsburgh. We project that around the country and it could mean as many as 20 or 25 percent of our total faculties, I suppose, when we include rural areas and other deprived neighborhoods. This is an ideal. You ask how many we can use. I think in reality we have t.o figure how many we can use in relation to the number we can adequately train in our training institutions and absorb. Our rate that we think we can absorb effectively in Pitt sburg is about 50 a year. Mr. QUIE. Do you think it would be preferable if all the training were to be done by the Teacher Corps? Dr. MARLAND. I somehow detect. a feeling in the committee, and if I could understand it. it would help me to answer the questions better, that there seems to be a more finite attachment of training to the Teacher Corps and making a different kind of person in more ways than I perceive it. This is specialized training in something that we are only now be- coming sophisticated enough to know what his task is. I don't look at if as sornethin~ so different. We ha.ve been training specialized people for a long time in education, art. teachers, music teachers, teach- ers of the deaf, teachers of the gifted, and so on. This is just, another category only on an intensive, heavily supported basis to fill a void of specia.lized people. I think your question implies that there. are other ways to do t.his, but this is the best way I know of so far. That is to concentrate the uni- versity and a practical school system, to team them up, and say, "Train these people. Here is the dough." That is because t.hey have a job to do that is different, a job that requires specialized training, a job that has attracted to it. very unique people who don't want to just be an ordinary teacher of history or third grade. They want to be a teacher of the poor. To this degree, it is special, it. is different. But I don't see it. as exalting them in any way. Mr. QUTE. I would like to go back and give you my feelings on what bothers me. We had the same thing occur a long time ago when we realized that we had very few guidance counselors and there was a despera.te ne.ed for them. Then we changed the law to provide that they would be working in t.he lower grades. We accomplished sub- stantial improvement with the Federal help and willingness in the bipartisan support to provide that help. I think that same feeling is for Federal assistance and training of people who ca.n especially reach culturally and socially deprived. But we didn't. set up a guidance counseling corps. PAGENO="0407" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 401 This is what disturbs me and many others', and why you need the elite system. Really, it is the old Peace Corps idea when they aren't volunteering anything. This is the most lucrative program for a mas- ter's degree yet devised. Dr. MARLAND. I would agree with what you are savin~. I suppose that the only thing that. is different about it as distinguished from guidance counselors under the National Defense Education Act is the feeling of very grave urgency to train more people for the deprived at a higher feeling of urgency than was surrounding the need for, let. us say, counselors or French teachers. Mr. QmE. And I have that same feeling of urgency. But I don't think this drop in the bucket is going to do it. The way it. is set up, it will never be more than a drop in the bucket. I recognize. what Mrs.. Koontz said, which I thought was a pretty valid poin1t., when she said she hoped it would be long enough so that local people would recog- nize the need for such individuals. That is something the. national attention is doing. I still question whether we need a corps to do it.. I surely would like to reach more than 2,500 a year. Dr. MARLAND. I would say it would be very fitting to reconstruct this and get away from the name corps, which ha.s the thought of a desert brigade atmosphere about it, perhaps, that we don't. intend, but simply call it another arm of the NDEA kind of thing, only equally specific and equally heavily supported as it is now. I don't think we will get the additional people into education unless. we provide the incentives of a subsistence salary for those 2 years. The counselor was already in teaching. He was already a successful teacher. He was already earning money. He was out of college. He had already decided to be a teacher. He was being retooled to be a counselor. This way you are bringing in additional people who never had come int.o the teaching profession. They are bright and able people, and have the heart for the innercity. Mr. QUIE. I feel that t.hose who are presently in teaching or are planning on teaching and are just finishing the baccalaureate degree, necessarily don't have that heart. I still say that those who have the biggest heart. are those who wanted to go into teaching, have gone into teaching, and already have the qualifications to do just as good a job. Dr. MARLAND. The 50 teachers that I say we could absorb would not readily solve it.. And there are other equally qualified people who are coming into teaching. This is another way of getting still more. Mr. CARE. I wonder if I migh expand slightly on that last comment. That is to say this: We really are not speaking from much council information now, but we will be shortly. We have obse.rvers in the field right now taking a look at at least 12 Teacher Corps sites. A single site might consist of as many as seven schools in which there are Teachers Corps volunteers. It seems to me that one of the things we may have already be.gun to find out is tha.t it is this very esprit that is making a cohesive entity out of what might. otherwise have been just a plugging of a loophole, a plugging of a hole, or sending bright people to a place they don't really want to go. The fact is that t.he kind of thing I think we are beginning to find is that these people consider themselves a part of a very vital team.. PAGENO="0408" 402 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDLTATION AMENDMENTS I would submit that it is this feeling that has probably encouraged the productivity of these people way beyond what they would be capable of if they were handled any other way. I think what you are criticiz- ing is what I am praising. It is this bright-eyed, spirited intervention in something they were not much concerned about as a group, that is identifiable as a group~ that is probably the most remarkable thing that we are beginning to find out about the Teachers Corps. Mr. QUIE. This is what antagonizes me. If it could be proven that that is a necessary ingredient, then I would like to carry on from that and set up a number of other national corps so that we could establish something else elsewhere. Mr. C~uui. I assure you whatever we find out about the Teachers Corps, good or bad, will be in that report for your perusal. Mr. iI-IAwKINs. In view of the acceptance of this program locally and in the context of a shortage of teachers generally, and particu- larly those available to go into disadvantaged areas, what explanation can you offer as to why local school district or even St.ate programs have not thought of it before this? Is it~ merely the attraction of Fed- eral money, or is it the opportunity for an individual to travel from one~ State to another? What is the explanation of why it hasn't been done at the local levels? Dr. MARLAND. I think Mr. Quie pointed out in his experience in Minnesota there had been some experience of this kind in a given in- stitution. I would say that we have had experience of this kind at the university in Pittsburgh. Before there was a Teachers Corps we had some of these things on a very modest scale going, Mr. Hawkins. But it is, again, and I re- gret to say this, getting back to money. These young people would not be able to go on. many of them, into graduate school, unless there this kind of incentive offered to them, in addition to the opportunity to serve. It is money pure and simple. The degree to which we could do this in Pittsburgh was something on the order of 1~ people a year, largely through the largesse of the university and our teachers working voluntarily with them an super- visors and master teachers to groom them into t.his program. It is not that this has not been going on before, but it has been going on so modestly as not to make much of an impact. Mr. DELLENBACK. Would the gentleman yield? Mr. HAwKINs. Yes. Mr. DELLENBACK. I was going to stay away from the Teachers Corps. but I now gather a new element. I recognized all along the great values of the Teachers Corps in helping to recruit on an national basis. I recognize the value of the dollar in making some things pos- sible which otherwise might not have been possible. But do I read you as here saying we are get.ting a better quality of teacher than those coming through other roads? The training may be exceptionally good, because we have the community service, the educational institu- tion a.nd the local district working closely together. But if we remove that element. are you saying that the average teacher produced by the Teachers Corps is superior to the average teacher produced by the st.andardly accepted methods of training the teacher if he decides while still an undergraduate to go into this role? PAGENO="0409" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 403 Dr. MARLAND. I would have no evidence so that I can say that is either true or false.. I would say it is my own judgment that many very able people come into teaching by this road who would not other- wise come into teaching. I am not saying that they are better or worse than the others. They are certainly as good as .the average, as I would perceive them. In terms of the potentia.l they bring to their task, they are better than Ihe average. That is so particularly because they have selected, themselves, to work with the deprived. That is an important key factor. There is an element of the missionary spirit that says, "I want to work with those limited children." This, in itself, tells me something as I hire teachers. They have chosen to do `this as an added element of concern and commitment above and beyond what is expected in the normal run of our total population. Mr. DELLENBACK. Getting back along the lines to my earlier ques- tion, do you think another way of recognizing this would be to recog- nize that we have only so many dollars? Would you use these dol- lars any other way to achieve this goal? Dr. MARLAND. You could probably reduce some of the dollars if you arbitrarily cut back the amounts of salaries paid such people. I do not recommend this. As you weigh your priorities, and I know you must, I would counsel that ultimately the teacher is at the heart of what happens in the classroom. The more we can do to improve that teacher, the more good things are going to happen to children. It starts with the teacher. Therefore, I would place one of the high priorities on the Teacher Corps. You are providing more people to go into the classroom and make a difference. Mr. HAWKINS. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York, Mr. Scheuer. Mr. SCHEUER. One very brief question before I get to some substan- tive questions. On the question of the information we ought to have, I believe that we ought to have some know-how from the point of view of the church-state problem, how the title I programs are func- tioning. I would very much like to urge you to get us information during this legislative session, in the next couple of months, before we start marking up this bill, t.hat would give us the answer to the questions that repeatedly have been asked of us. No. 1: Are children in the private schools, the disadvantaged children in the private schools, getting the help they are entitled to on an equal basis with public school kids? That was the intent of Con- gress. We heard that in some areas of the country, particularly the Middle West, that has not happened, and that private, disadvantaged private school kids had not received equal treatment. No. 2: How has the functioning of the title I program oc- curred from the point of view of the services we are rendering? We have heard in some cities, notably in New York City and Philadel- phia, title I services that should have been offered only in the public schools and made fully available to private school students were, in fact, offered in private schools. That was contrary to the congres- sional intent. I think this committee is determined to have the congressional in- tent followed in these regards, and also to make sure that `the services PAGENO="0410" 404 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS that may be performed in private schools are performed there, and that the others are performed properly in the public schools. We are very concerned about getting that information promptly in order to take whatever action we deem necessary and hopefully whatever action you would advise us is necessary and appropriate, because this is the key, overriding purpose which your National Advisory Council was established to serve. Can you give me some enlightenment as to when we can hope to get it, both the information as to what has gone on or is going on now and some recommendations from you? Dr. MARLAND. I will tr to answer that important question as well as I can as one member of the Council. I think we have not seen yet in the private school issue substantial evidence to cause us to be con- cerned eithe.r way vet. There are exceptions, as you noted, in New York City and Philadelphia. We have not yet collected enough evi- dence of the lack or the existence of good programs, to say that this is working and that is not working. I think this is part of our job. Mr. SCHEtTR. You collected a lot of other very interesting and stimulating evidence, and you have made some extremely thoughtful and creative, highly intelligent analyses of that data. Why can't you do that in this area we are speaking of? Dr. MARLAND. If you are implying that we are evading it, I have no reason to believe that we are, Mr. Scheuer. We are not.. Mr. ScIIELTE. No sir. I think you have done a marvelous job in the area that you have covered, but you certainly have given very little thought. to this particular area. In all of your reports, I wouldn't say that. 2 percent. of the sheer wordage has been involved in the ques- t.ion of how this program is functioning from the point of view of church-state. You used the word "evade." I didn't. But it seems to me. that. there is clear evidence that you certainly have given very little thought to this question. I think there is enough evidence from complaints we have received on both sides of this fence that it ought to be investi- gated, scrutinized, and we. ought to get. your judgments. This is what your Council was primarily to do. Dr. i~Luu~~xn. This I did not realize. You told me today for the first time that the Council-and you must remember that we are 12 people who have full-time jobs elsewhere and we are very diligent of our responsibilities in this Council-we are not evading anything, and I have not heard before that one of our principal reasons for being was to investigate the church-state. If this is true, it is a very important piece of information for us to have. My impression was that we were designed t.otally to evaluate the progress of the title I. To the degree that this is a very important part of title I. I think we should be doing something about it. Mr. SCHEtER. To evaluate the operations of title I and scrutinize the church-state implications to make sure that no problems were being developed that were not. being solved. Dr. MARLAND. I would presume, knowing what we know about the gat.hering of competent people to go out and perceive what is happen- ing in the field, knowing the present limitations on our resources for hiring such persons. that such an evaluation could be made, but prob- PAGENO="0411" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 405 ably not short of 4 or 5 months, as I would guess. This is something that we ought. to be doing and ought to get to you. We meet about every 3 months or so. We could meet more often. Mr. SCHEUER. I would very much hope that. you would make an effort to do that before 4 or 5 months, because later than that prob- ably would make it difficult, if not impossible, for us to act on your recommendations in this legislative session. Dr. MARLAND. You say it is something essential to your present leg- islative cycle? Mr. SciiEuER. Yes. rrI~is is from the debate on the floor of the House on March 25, 1965, and this is Congressman Scheuer speaking, who proposed the amend- ment to the bill setting up the National Advisory Council: We feel that the bill is constitutional on its face. We are also well aware that many thoughtful people share a common concern over the possibility that the bill may be administered in an unconstitutional fashion in some local pro- grams. We believe we can reasonably assume that local public officials will carry out their public duties, to administer the shared time and other programs contemplated under Title I in conformity with the clear intent of the Congress. We thoroughly expect that the Council will scrutinize the operation of the pro- grams under Title I, in communities across the country, to make sure, among other things, that local community programs are not carried out in such a fashion so as to violate the intents of the Congress, and to maintain the proper relation- ship between the public and the non-public schools. If Council members find any evidence of abuse. they will be in a position to recommend additional administra- tive safeguards, and if necessary, demedial legislation to halt any such practices and to insure that they will not be repeated in other communitis in the future. I don't. know how the King's English could possibly he any clearer than that. That is on page 5796 of the Congressional Record. Let me make one thing clear. I think your reports have been magnificent. I think t.hey are about as fine an example of govern- mental reporting on highly sensitive, sophisticated, perplexing and challenging programs as I have ever seen. I can't congratulate you too highly for the remarkable job you have done. I frankly don't want to spend the rest of this time talking about this rather minor point. I would like to get on to the substance of your report. Dr. MARLAND. Let. me assure you, sir, we will get a. report to you as soon as possible on this subject. Mr. SCHEUER. Will that be in the next couple. of months ? Dr. MARLAND. I just can't. guarantee that. Mr. SCHEtTER. I don't think we should wait for us to report com- plaints to you and then for you to investigate them in the particular community. `We want to nip this problem in the bud if there is a problem. `We have enough evidence to feel it warrants scrutiny. I can't tell you how many communications I have had on the New York and Philadelphia situation. I can't tell you how many times I have heard from people in the Middle `West., that the disadvantaged kids in private school are not getting the benefits of these programs. I don't want the situation to fester. I think we should get the facts on the table, look at them and do the necessary. We want this title I program to work. We want it. to achieve broad-gage public support. We want it to achieve the broadest kind of support in the Congress and to nip any problem in the bud. I think PAGENO="0412" 406 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDt~CATION AMENDMENTS what you ought to do is use t.he same terrific, searching-out techniques that you have used here. Find out what the situation is on any possible abuse and let us know. Give us your advice so that we can nip any problem in the bud. It may he that the problem is far less serious than some of the corn- pla.int.s would lead us to think. But whatever it is, if it is a problem, we can cure. it.. Let's get on wit.h finding out what it is and creating solutions. Mr. CARR. Let me say that we have now a group of consultants in the field who are looking at about 85 cities. Each of them has been given instructions to look specifically into this private-public school issue. Furthermore. we are taking a look in some depth in a single location to try to e~tablish sort. of a pilot model for future studies. I think by May of this year-and maybe that is too strong a promise- I would hope that by May of this year we will have some early results. Mr. SCHEnrR. We will probably be marking up this bill in April. If von could get. us some kind of an indication of what the problem is within 60 dos. what we want. to do is dampen the fires and put them out. We want. to solve. the problem that exists. We don't want it to continue to smolder. Dr. MARLAND. We will make every effort to meet your requirements within our very limited means. Mr. SCHErER. Now let's get to the substance of your report.. I can only say I think you people did an absolutely terrific job. There are many of us here in the Congress who feel that. we. are doing far less than what we have to do to make a meaningful impact. on the prob- lem of the disadvantaged child. I must confess that I believe, look- ing at your various reports and looking a.t some of your individual recommendations, that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. You have stressed how in some of these problems virtually all of the funds were used for food and health services. I don't t.hink any of us expected that, yet it is obvious from your facts that the food and health services were an absolutely necessary precondition for ge.tting those kids involved in an educational experience. So I take it you would agree that. adequate nutrition and health services are a must. Dr. MARLAND. Yes. Mr. SCHEETR. I can't resist this. I know I should, but I can't. Here is a quotation in today's New York Times on page 35: Study indicates new proper diet causes brain injury to children. Youngsters who were gravely under-nourished from birth have smaller heads. lower in- telligence quotients and less coordination between brain and body than the control. Even when the children are given better living conditions, there is cumulative and oppressive evidence that injury has caused permanent retarda- tion of the brain growth and defective developments. Dr. MARLAND. We had to cut out a breakfast program in Pitts- hur~h with the. cutting off of OEO funds. Mr. ScITEETE. To my mind that. is a crime. Dr. MARLAND. We are cutting it off where it is needed most. Mr. KIRST. I might add in the South, Congressman, in many cases they have to spend so much money on welfare programs, food, health, and clothing, that there is almost. flO money left. over. PAGENO="0413" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 407 Mr. SCHEIJER. There was an example of a program in rural Ken- tucky where they examined 97 kids, disadvantaged kids, 95 of whom had intestinal tapeworms. How can a kid function with a physical condition of that kind? So I take it that comprehensive health services and adequate nutri- tion is an indispensable base which, if not present, makes it impossible for them to function. Dr. MARLAND. I agree. Mr. SCHEtJER. I take it from the emphasis that you have placed throughout your report that the business of parent outreach is indis- pensable, if the kid can't receive some kind of encouragement in the home, if the parents can't be enabled to understand the importance of education, nothing really can be done with that child in school, and the parents' own problems of employment, literacy skills, are critical to t.he child's development. Dr. MAiu~&ND. I agree. Mr. SCHEtJER. I also take it that you feel that the complementary social services, social service and remedial services of all kinds are indispensable. Dr. MARLAND. Yes. Mr. SCHEUER. I was tremendously impressed with Mrs. Koontz' statement this morning when she said that in order to attract teachers to the slum schools and to keep them committed, hopefully there must be the social services, the provision of teacher aids, the possibility of parent averages, there must be the improvements in the health and nutrition of the kids. The very conditions that are indispensable to make the kid function better are also indispensable to keep the teachers involved so that their efforts will produce something. Dr. MARLAND. And satisfactory. Mr. SCHEUER. And satisfactory, of course. Chairman PERKINS. Mr. Scheuer, I don't want to be disagreeable at this time, but we have a time problem. I see that Dr. Marland is possibly up against some time difficulty. Dr. MARLAND. As long as I can be usedful I can remain. Mr. SCHEUER. I have just another 5 minutes. I take it then from your stress on the necessity of creating the total environment, the total educational environment, that what you are saying here is that you must create a package of health, of nutrition, of home, of complementary social services of small classes of teacher aids so that you have a total environment for education. Dr. MARLAND. Exactly. Mr. ScIIEtn~R. If any important one of these elements is missing, the whole thing fails. Dr. MARLAND. Or is far less effective. Mr. SCHEUER. The one thing I have missed this year in the recom- mendations of the Commissioner of Education is a comprehensive package that sets the yardstick of what our national goals should be in a parent average program, in a child health and nutrition program, in the supplementary and social program. If what you say is true, and I deeply believe it is, aren't we engaged in an exercise in futility if we do less than the whole job with any one child? Isn't there a certain threshold of investment and resources that we have to make PAGENO="0414" 40S ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS in that kid's health, his nutrition, in his home, in his teaching in order for there to be a spark lit, in order for that explosion of progress to take place, in order for that. door to open at all? If we do less than that, aren't we kidding ourselves that any basic change is going to take place in that child? Dr. MARLAND. You are absolutely right and the efforts show, sincere as they have been, have been so modest in their scope that very little can be proven from 2 or 3 years of compensatory education that any- thing is happening. These functions are not the same, they are differ- ent. They are making a difference but the differences have to be bigger and they have to last longer before something great will happen to these young people. Mr. ScnFu~R. Some of us have been thinking exactly about the point you are making and have been thinking we might set. up demonstration programs, perhaps a child development center, that we would use as a model. Some of them would be attached to an elementary school and some perhaps attached to a university where we would have this concentration of services and resources aimed at. the child's health, aimed at his nutrition, aimed at his home, at. a. total program of parent average, aimed at giving the teacher for that child the small class sizes and the teacher aide, support as well as the other social services, support. that. would really test whether this principle of yours and mine is valid so that. we could prove that there is a threshold level that we must reach before which if we. fail to reach it, very little happens, even with a fairly substantial investment, but which once we do reach it. there is a tremendous cost benefit resulting from that point on. What would your reaction be to a program that. would set. up a num- ber of such child development centers, many of them associated with an elementary school? Dr. ~\LtRLAND. I would welcome it and it. is probably feasible under title III as well as I. It is the sort. of thing that. could be done well in cities around the country in collaboration with the school system. Mr. KrR5T. This has been a problem. There has been not enough money concentrated on any one child in order to get this total impact that. you are talking about. ~\[r. Sc~rr~vn. There has been a di~persion, a buckshot. effect. typi- fied by the Commissioner of Education's statement that. they were spending on the Indian children ~r million (lollars for x thousands of kids and it came out to about ~l .~() per child. I say if you analyze that from a co~ benefit point of view, you will get a. small return on your money. Perhaps if we. spent ~7OO or ~1.5OO a year as we. tb on the ITead~tart programs. very comprehensive programs, you will get a move vi~ihle. iTI)re provable, more demonstrable return on that in- vestment. per dollar than you will spending one-tenth of that and having a trivial effect. Dr. M.\RTAND. If von take the. situation in Scarsdale with tax- payers willing to pay ~l.2OO to ~ a year for their schoolchildren and realize that those children come from the most~ favorable en- vironment and need the. least, and down the road they are spending ~OO for the child who needs it most. You need at least double now the amount of money spent on the deprived child in the innercit.y. Mr. SCHEUER. You would favor a. reasonable number of such dem- onstration programs that would do the full job in each of these areas PAGENO="0415" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDICATION AMENDMENTS 409 you have outlined so brilliantly, to see whether in a couple of years the results couldn't. prove on a balance sheet and iliconie statement analysis by the most cold-nosed financial analyst that. this is the best way to invest. dollars and if von do it this way, the financial return, let alone the huinaii return, is irreplaceable. Dr. MATiLAND. I could make a good case. for that and I would be happy to try for it. Mr. ScilEuru. Thank you very much for your splendid te~tiinony. Mr. DEL.I~Ex1v\cK. WTithout going into great. detail oii this, relative to what this committee should do, we dont mean to be asking you to go into a legal analysis of whether there is a violation of any constitu- tiona.l requirement.. Rather yours is an evaluative committee and we. assume what you will be doing will be evaluating and looking at. the effectiveness of the program and coming forth with fact. but. I clon~t believe Mr. Scheuer is asking a factual, evaluative committee to come back to us with a congressional or judicial decision oii something. Mr. SCHEUER. No, absolutely not. Dr. MARLAND. We see ourselves as your observers and the. arms and eyes and ears of your committee. We would not see ourselves as an operational agent. Mr. DELLENBACK. We don't ask you to look and judge and say this is or is not constitutional. Mr. SeTTEr-ER. Let. me sa.y we do ask for your judgment. and we have gott.en brilliant judgments and brilliant insights. Mr. DELLENBACK. On effectiveness and facts rather than saying this is constitutional or unconstitutional. Mr. SellEr-ER. That is correct. Chairman PERKINS. I think this is a good time to end. Dr. Marland, may we again thank you and your associates for the testimony you have given today. You have, been most valuable and helpful and we certainly want to express the appreciation of the committee for the work that the Advisory Council is doing. Dr. MARLAND. It has been a pleasure to be here. Chairman PERKINS. We will stand adjourned until Monday, 9:30 a.m. (Whereupon, at 4:05 p.m., the coimnittee recessed, to reconvene at 9:30 a.m., Monday, March 6, 1967.) PAGENO="0416" PAGENO="0417" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDIJCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 MONDAY, MARCH 6, 1967 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, CoMMIrr~E ON EDUCATION AND LABOR, TVa.shington, D.C. The committee met at 9 :50 a.m., pursuant to recess, in room 2175, Ra.yburn House Office Building, Hon. Carl D. Perkins (chairman) presiding. Present.: Representatives Perkins, 1)auiels. Brademas, Hawkins, Gibbons, Ford, Scheuer, Meeds, Burton. Goodell, Bell, Gurney, Erlen- born, and Dellenback. Staff members present: Robert E. McCord, senior specialist; H. D. Reed, Jr., general counsel; William D. Gaul, associate general counsel; Benjamin F. Reeves, editor; Louise M. Dargans, research assistant; and Charles \V. Radcliffe, special education counsel for minority. Chairman PERKINS. The committee will come to order. The record will note a quorum is present. We are delighted to welcome before the committee again Dr. Edgar Fuller, executive director of the National Association of Chief State School Officers. Dr. Fuller has made numerous appearances before the Committee on Education and Labor, and several of the subcommittees on educa- tion and labor. It is a great pleasure this morning, Dr. Fuller, to welcome you. I un(lerstand you have by your side several distinguished educators. I will call upon you at this time to make the introductions. STATEMENTS OF EDGAR FULLER, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, COUN. CIL OF CHIEF STATE SCHOOL OFFICERS: HARRY SPARKS, SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, KENTUCKY; FLOYD T. CHRISTIAN, SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUC- TION, FLORIDA; RAY PAGE, SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, ILLINOIS; AND PAUL F. JOHNSTON, SUPERIN- TENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, IOWA Mr. FULLER. Mr. Chairman and members of the coininittee~ my name is Edgar Fuller. These statements will he gi\e]l later as execu- tive secretary-treasurer of the Council of State ~clioo1 Officers. The council is composed of the State superintendents or (O1fl1fllSsiuflels of each of the 50 States and the chief school officers of Puerto Rico. the Virgin Islands. the Canal Zone, Guam, American Samoa, and the Trust Territory of the Pacific T~1ands. 411 7 -492--67-----2 7 PAGENO="0418" 412 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS The chief State school officers are present from Kentucky, Illinois, Iowa, and Florida. At. this time. I would like to introduce them, going from where I sit to my right. The. first is Dr. Harry Sparks, superintendent of public instruction of Kentucky. Chairman PEnKINS. I am delighted that he is here. Dr. Sparks has brought forward, in my judgments one of the outstanding title I programs of the whole country. It is doing so much to provide edu- cational opportunities throughout Kentucky. I am delighted that Dr. Sparks is here this morning and I cer- tainly appreciate his program in Kentucky. Mi*. FULLER. Mr. Chairman, the. gentleman next to Dr. Sparks is Dr. Ra.y Page, the superintendent of public instruction of Illinois. Next t.o Dr. Page is I)r. Floyd T. Christian, superintendent of public. instruction of Florida. Playing right end this morning is Dr. Paul F. Johnston, superin- tendent of public instruction of the great State of Iowa. We would like to have the talks in about the order of this intro- duction, if it is agreeable. Chairman PERKINS. If there is no objection from the committee this morning, I think we. will proceed a little differently this morn- ing. Let the. distinguished educators make their statements in ac- cordance with the way ou have introduced them and we will re- frairi from questioning the witnesses until they have completed their statements, unless there is some urgent. and important. point that should be brought up during the statement. Commencing today, we. will operate under the. 5-minute rule in order to give all members a reasonable opportunity to interrogate the witnesses within a reasonable period of time. After we get. around under the ~-minute rule, then there will he no limit on the time, and the members who want to star can interrogate the witnesses as long as the care to interrogate them. On sonic days we mar run into the evening. I do not feel that a liiiiitation of i ime should he put upon members where they want to prol)e deeply in (eltain areas of the adnunistration of the act. But. for the first time around, I think I should make the point, since some of our lunior melul)ers did not have the opportunity last week, that we will operate ull(ler the ~-minute rule and strictly adhere to the 5- minute rule the tirst time around. That includes, of course, ridding your time to others. Von may proceed. Mr. Sp.uu~s. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am Harry M. Sparks, sul)erinten(lent. of public instruction, Common- wealth of Kentucky. I am grateful for this opportunity to appear before the Committee on Education and Labor because of your honored chairman, of whom we in Kentucky are extremely proud. I want to report. on the progress made in the first full year of opera- tion of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. of 1965. Further. it is a pleasure to appe.ar in behalf of the Council of Chief State School Officers as well as the Kentucky Department of Edu- cation. PAGENO="0419" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDtCATIOX AMENDMENTS 413 It. is my belief, Mr. Chairman, that the combine(l experience of the 50 States provides the most. valid source of evidence at the present time for evaluating the efficiency and effectiveness of the new Federal pro- grains in elementary and secondary education. Today, State. school systems, working cooperatively through the Council and interstate pIg~~ims, are increasin&~lv better informed, better staffed, and better organized to provide insightful leadership in education. In addition, title V funds have contributed materially to the expansion and improvement, of the planning and evaluating functions of most. State departments of education. Particularly, I feel this is true in the States with limited resources and many high priority needs at the local level. My first. general observation of most new legislation is that the timing of authorizations, appropriations, and finally allocations are "out. of joint." In addition to the need for advanced notice of fund- ing of projects, the State and local school (listricts are concerned with the necessary personnel and facilities to operate the programs-with bot Ii in short supply. Mv second observation is that even intermediate-range planning is discouraged and the ultimate success or failure of new programs rests heavily on State and local school systems. To insure reasonable stability, it is recommended that legislation carry a minimum exten- sion of -1 years and that general safeguards be established to insure finiding of projects i'~'°' to the beginning of each academic year. Eveii with what. must. be labeled "emergency plannil'lg," the several tit les of Public Law ~9-lU have progressed extremely well in Ken- tuckv. In niv test iiiionv before the subcommittee on Mardi 10, 1966, I (lealt at. some length with the planning and organizing phases of p1~u~an1s and the early problems encountered. Today, in this second report to I lie coniiiiittee, I shall review briefly (1) the 1966 anieitdinents incorporated in Public Law S~)-750 : (2) react. to the l)ropose(l aiiiendmeimts in HR. (~() and (~) l)rovide. for the record, if I may, a progress report on the basic titles of the original I e~ i slat ion. By the way, I shall not. uo into this detailed analysis of the. achieve- niemits, but they are. attached to my statement for the record. TilE 1966 AMENDMENTS TO PFBLIC LAW S9-10-TImE VI-P[-BJJc LAw S9-T.~() The Congress is to be commended highly for correcting a "blind spot" in the original legislation with the addition of title VI and its incorporation in the Elementary and Secondary Educat ion Act of 1966. This title provides a vehicle for States to improve the quality and quantity of educational programs for handicapped children. It is a highly desirable expansion of the basic law. It. is estimated that. Kentucky is only meeting the educational needs of approximatel 20 percent of it~ handicapped cliii dreti and youth. From the authorization of ~5() million, Kentucky was reported to be eligible for an estimated ~9()5,442. From the fimial appropriation of ~2.5 million, Kentucky may receive an estimated allocat mail of ~45,2TO, or approximately 1 percent of the. Stat&s current budget for special a(lllent ion. PAGENO="0420" 414 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS Title VI is directed toward critical unmet needs and has great po- tential for meeting these needs. It' is hoped that the Appropriations Oominittee and administrative agencies can come to see more nearly eye to eve with the Committee on Education and Labor on realistic Support levels for fiscal year 1968 and future years. Adult EducationAct. of 1966-Public Law 89-750: highly impor- tant to the Kentucky Department of Education is the new amend- inent-t.itle III of Public Law 89-750-which helps the States to broaden and improve general adult education which is so imperatively needed in breaking tile cycle of poverty. Placing the administration of adult education in the U.S. Office of Education helps to provide unity and direction to a program now reporting to two separate agencies. In Kentucky, exemplary coopera- tive working relationships have been established with other State and Federal agencies in the administration of adult education programs. Inasmuch as the p1 grams have been operational for several years, it is strongly reconìine.ndecl tha.t the program be financed at or near the authorization level. I am particularly concerned wit.h the advancement of adult educa- tion in Kentucky in that the 1960 census showed us to be tied with South Carolina for the low end of average educational achievement throughout the State for our adults 25 years of age and older. I hope that at some time. the concepts of basic education can be extended to include high school training so that our adults may be trained for the passage of the general education development test or the equivalency program which will enable these men to secure jobs in modern industry. A program which is restricted to merely basic education takes a fellow about half away across the creek, Mr. Chair- man, and lets him drown when he tries to apply for a position in modern industry. Amendments to tit.le I-Public Law 89-750: Two amendments are especially helpful to Kentucky in the administration of title I. They are (1) "clarifying the definition of average per pupil expenditure"; and (2) raising the low income factor after June 30, 1967, to $3,000. The revised 50-percent clause: This amendment penalizes no State in terms of the existing formula and at the same time assists low- income States with higher concentrations of economically disadvan- taged youth to provide a higher level of education. Percenta.ge for- mulas, in general, tend to produce inequities. While the new for- mula is a significant step forward, it. is recommended that. further study be given to various methods for determining an even more equitable basic grant formula for distributing title I funds. The new low-income factor of $3,000: The adoption of a more real- istic family subsistence level will make it possible for many States to improve administrative and instructional practices for the di sadva.n- taged child. Further, it will include many borderline children that are now excluded by the ~~000 cutoff formula. In areas of heavy concentration of poverty, such as some counties in Kentucky, it will be possible to gear the total school program to the needy child. Judicial review: It is recommended t.hat Federal acts providing aid to education should provide for judicial review by local citizens through t.heir courts. PAGENO="0421" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDLTATION AMENDMENTS 415 THE 1967 AMEXDMENTS-H.R. 6230 1. NATIONAL TEACHER CORPS The reactions I have received in the way of evaluation of the National Teacher Corps have been most commendable of the overall program. It is an important addition to title I and has the added potential for helping to alleviate the problems of social isolation in remote areas. Kentucky has had seven programs in full or partial operation for fiscal year 1967. Four teacher training institutions in the. State have worked closely with the program. An essential ingredient for suc- cess is tha.t the program must. identify with regular programs and be under the same general administrative direction. I submit. two reports from local school systems that give strong mdi- wittion that the Teacher Corps can make a significant contribution to e(lueat ion in Kentucky. (The reports follow:) HOPKINSVILLE PUBLIC SchooLs, IIopl~'in.s'rille. Ky., Fcbruar!/ 24, 1967. I)r. hARRY M. SPARKS. State Sup(rintcndCnt of Public Instrnctioii. ~`1tat(' 1)epartinen t of Education. Fran/~1ort. Ky. 1)EAIt 1\Iii. SPAlixs : I would like to recommend to you the National Teacher Corps program, which we have had in our system since November 1. 1966. At tir~t. wlc'n the program was explained to me, I was very niucli concerned that the tea('liers assigned would lu' mis-fits and cast-offs from other school systiiiis. I have found this not to be the case. We have thirteen Teacher Corps members who are working in our school system and they ale all conscientious, hard-working, dependable people. They take their work seriously and actually have been an immense help to our educational pro- grail. The men anti women w-e have assigned to us seem to be deeply Interested in the culturally disadvantaged children. They spend time. (`Veil beyond the re- quired hours, trying to help these children raise their educational and siial levels. 1 wish we could double the number of teachers that have been assig~ied to Us. As y ~u are very w-ehl aware, w-e have a high percentage of culturally disadvan- taged pupils in our st'ntul system. Of course, it is too soomi to evaluate the work of tlin~e I ~eopl e effieieiitl y by test. I ut I 1 ehieve this is the lust Federal program iii operation to help the culturally (lisadvantilged. I would place the National Teacher Corps I)I'ogralhl (111 the same level \vil ii head Start. This is one program that I hope you will urge Congress to expand and continue. Sincerely, GENE C. PARLEY, 5upcrifltefl(l(n t of Scltool.~. BREC'KINRIDGE COUNTY BOARD OF EOUcA'iIoN, Hardinsbnrg, Ky., February 24, 1967. Re National Teachers' Corps. Dr. HARRY M. SPARKS, Superintendent of Public Destruction, State Department of Education, Frankfort, Ky. DEAR Da. SPARKS: The National Teachers' Corps has been a tremendous asset to our school system this year. We are very grateful to have it and deem our- selves fortunate to be one of the recipients of this service. By utilizing the corpsmen to the fullest, we have expanded our program to the extent of four teaching units plus several other services not school connected. These courses have been greatly expanded by the Corps: 1. Remedial reading is taught full time at Irvington Elementary. The under- privileged are given most of the time. PAGENO="0422" 416 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDFCATIOX AMENDMENTS 2. Our science. remedial, and industrial art departments at the high school have been expanded. For the first time we have been able to care for those who are in need of extra help. 3. Our elementary art is now covered more thoroughly due to one of these teacher's art preparation. 4. These teachers, three being colored, have had a tremendous influence on the colored children in guidance and disciplinary matters. 5. Clubs, churches. and civic groups have utilized the services of the Corps to the fullest extent. I recommend this program very highly to any system who will take the time to work with these people the same as with any beginning teacher. Sincerely, 0. J. ALLEN, So perintenden t, Breckinridge County Schools. Mr. SPARKS. I wish to make the following comments or recommencla~ tions in reacting to the p~'oposed amendment First the 4-year extension clause through fiscal year 1911 should be accompanied by a realistic authorization and spelled out for a minimum of 3 years. Minimum anticipated funds at all levels of the budget i1'ocess will, at least, contribute to a sound planning base. Second, I strongly support sections 113 and 114 requiring (1) "ap- proval of the State educational agency"; and (~) "clarifying authority of local educational agency." An administrative impasse through multiadministrative direction is always possible in divided authority. You may see the two quotes from T3reckenridge County and the city of Ilopkinsvillc. 2. COMPREhENSIVE EDUCATIONAL PLANNING In my way of thinking, the most unique "package" of educational legislation that has been formulated and enacted into law in behalf of American education is incorporated in Public Law 89-10-the Ele- mentary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. I hasten to add that it is not the ultimate Federal aid to education measure that I should like to see eiiacted. However, it c~ontains so many fine qualities, including mutual reinforcement of its several parts, that I will continue to support it as is, and without what I consider eripplnìg amendments, until a better total ~`package" can be produced. As I see it. the scope and breadth of educational pTanning that is required to strengthen State departments of education and to support quality programs in education, nicluding ~comprehensive educational planning are now included in title V. Further amendments to title V, such as is proposed in ~Part. B-Comprehensive Educational Plan- ning," is not a desirable reinforcement of title V and should be re- quested through some othet' more appropriate channel. A careful reading of title V as now written, and part Ii as proposed, would seem to indicate 1. Planning and l)rojedtions for higher education programs are now covered undet' title V. State administering higher educatiomi may do so under existing le~islation. ~. It may be infei'red from part B that planning grants may l)e administered through the Governor's office or other designated State agency. This could result in two agencies carrying out the functions of the department of education. 3. Present efforts to strengthìeii State departments of educat ion may be impaired in propoi'tion to the extent that the original authorization for title V is reduced by special amendments. PAGENO="0423" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 417 3. INNOVATION IN VOCATIONAL EDUCATION Education is the bridge between man and work. Therefore, work exi)e.rience must become an integral part. of our education program at an early age to our schoolchildren. rlitle TI ameiidinents to the Voca- tional Education Act as proposed in II.IR. (~23O would afford the States an opportu1utv to provide, model I~ ~granis at the ~uiiior high level to acquaint students with tile world of work. Also, it would provide a work experience prog1'~~ni for high school youth that would give many young people an opportunity to combine theory and practice. With passage of these amendments, the program would definitely have a favorable impact on both vocational and nonvocational pro- grams. The formula for distributing the ~) niihlion to the States appearS to be a. sound and workable method. It is estimated that Kentucky would receive about. $600,000 if the amendments should pass. 4. EXPANDED EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES FOR HANDICA I'PED ChILDREN Kentucky has been i)eset by many of the obstacles that retard the development, of quality educational programs for handicapped chil- dren. In addition to inadequate financing of special education pro- grams, Kentucky has experienced a critical shortage. of trained per- 501 mel-teachers, ~ peI'~~jso~'5, and other supportive 1)ersonnel. `The beginning of all "adequate" program dates from 156 with founda- tion program units included in the State's minimum foundation program. As stated earlier iii my testimony, title VI, Public Law S9-T50, will help to fill in some~ of the gaps ni Kentucky's expanding program. It. is in the area of tile multiple handicapped that the. proposed regional resource centers can serve our needs to greatest. advantage. First, tile limited number of special needs cannot be served through tile normal program; and second, tile cost would be Prohibitive. The proposals for recruitment of personiiel, dissemination of in- formation, and expansion of instructional media programs appear to be equally sound. Tile initial authorization of $7.5 million should be extended for a minimum of 4 years. Tile authorizations for tile supplemental pro- grains appear to be unduly limited for the breadtii of programs cle- scril)ed. 5. MiSCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS TO TIlE ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION ACT AND TIlE FEDERALLY IMI'ACTEI) AREAS PROGRAM 1. Authorization and distribution of title V funds: It is strongly recommended that. title V authorizations be niade for fiscal year 1969 and extended through fiscal year 1971 an(l that tile authorized amount of ~s() million be appropriated for fiscal year 1968. 2. Part D-Amendments to title V : It is recommended that the allotment formula. for title V be. amended to provide (1) 40 percent to States allotted in e(Iual amounts; and (2) 60 Percent to be distributed on the basis of school age population. :L Public. Law S75 should be amended to provide that dependent schools would continue, to be operated by tile U.S. Office of Education, provided that tile federally connected school has au average daily attendance of 2,000 or more. PAGENO="0424" 418 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS Mr. Cairmain this particular hardship caused by the present amendment in Fort Knox and Camp Breckenridge would almost destroy those school systems. Chairmaii PERKINS. How much money does it take away from the counties surroimdi ng Fort. Knox? Mr. SPARKS. At present it would take away $1.8 million from the foundation program without any local base t.o meet the local support level of the foundation programs. We do not see how the local sup- port. funds can be made available. If they are made available, Fort Knox would be divided into three different, school districts which would almost destroy the pleselit tine program that they have at Fort Knox. I wish to correct that. I said Camp Breckenridge. I meant Fort Campbell. Fort Campbell would likewise face a number of handi- caps if it were. transferred into the Christian County school system. I ha.rdh- see how we could maintain the present fine level that they have in those two (lependent school systems which are now in existence. Chairman Pr:riKTxs. Let me say. l)oetor, that that is one area of Ken- tuckv where I am inipresseci with these funds. When we were writing the act, we took evidence back in 1949 in the field. We went. to the city of Louisville. and Hardin and Meade Counties in Kentucky. At that rime they were operating in the counties around Fort Knox in old NYA buildings, similar to some of the buildings we have today in east Kentucky, which were completely unfit and unsuitable. To- day von have so many modern buildings in that area that have been constructed with 815 funds. It is a. different, picture altogether. Would von proceed Mr. SPAm~s. I will not go into a detailed analysis of the progress report. on the utilization of title I funds, title 11, and title III. I would like, however, to submit. this information for the record. Chairman Prnnixs. Without objection. it. is so orderech (The balance of Mr. Sparks' statement follows :) PROGRESS REPORT ON FTILIZATION OF TITLE I FuNDs As of March 1. 1967. 190 Title I project applications have been received at the Stare Department of Education. Exhil)it 1 indicates that time 187 project appli- cations which have been approve(l represent grants amounting to $24.1 million or 95.3 per cent of Kentucky's tentative allocation. When this figure is com- bined with the $298.5 thousand representing 3 projects that have not been finally approved, it caii be seen that approved projects aiicl plans that have been made will utilize 824.4 million of Kentucky's tentative allocation of $25.3 million for the fiscal year of 1967. Exhibit 2, which will be referred to later. identifies the areas of instruction receiving the greatest attention. Of the total amount approved, $13.1 million or 51.7 per cent of Kentucky's allocation is specifically earmarked to upgrade the instructional program. Construction of permanent facilities, a dire need in countless districts, accounts for a total expenditure of approximately $2.6 mil- lion or 10.3 per cent of the total amount approved. It is estimated that 80 per cent of Kentucky's 197 eligible districts will conduct surnnier school programs of a remedial, enrichment and/or recreational nature. Now that the eligible districts have been notified concerning the total final amounts of the grant, the eligible districts are being urged to conduct summer school programs with their remaining funds. In the development of summer school programs. the districts will not be confronted with personnel shortages or a lack of classroom sl.)ace or a lack of time for appropriate planning. Further- more. those youngsters who were able to get a "Head Start" last summer will be provided an opportunity to have their experiences strengthened and increased. Piograni and project participation A study of the 157 project allocations approved as of March 1, 1967, indicates that a majority of the Title I funds are being used to develop remedial classes PAGENO="0425" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 419 in reading. Exhibit 2 shows that 162 local school systems have developed reading programs while an additional 20 school systems have made provisions to include developmental reading in their total progranis. Expenditures for individual projects range from $4,763.50 for a project designed to alleviate psychiatric and psychological problems of 34 students and to pro- vide tutorial services in reading and speech therapy to SO students in Ft. Thomas to $1,419,554.73 for one project in Louisville which will serve 10.375 public and 2,148 non-public students. This latter project includes remedial instructional programs, classes for the handicapped, and an intensive summer school program. Exhibit 2 reflects a total involvement of 250,108 public and non-public students actively participating in projects approved as of March 1. Considering the total amount approved, this figure represents a per-pupil expenditure of $96.46. Since different approaches are being made to break the cycle of poverty with the help of Title I funds, public and non-public children will benefit from these 187 approved programs through: 1. Remedial instruction, reduction of class size, and classes for handi- capped children; 2. Related educational services including guidance and counseling, psy- chological services, and social w-ork programs: 3. Supplementary health and food services and recreational programs: 4. The addition of professional and non-professional staff members such as teachers, counselors, librarians, aides, and clerks. Exhibit 3 shows the involvement of 1,642 teachers, 146 counselors, 117 librarians, 1,578 aides, and 349 clerks in the aI)proved progran1S 5. In-service training programs for all staff members: 6. Increased use of supplies, equipment, supplementary readers, and library books through media centers and libraries. Compliance with act as it relates to non-public-student participation and coordina- tion with community actioa proqra~ns To assure compliance w-ith the Act as it relates to the involvement of non- public students and Community Action Programs, each application normally contains letters from local comniuiiity and non-public school leaders indicating their involvement in the planning. Sixty-eight of 120 county school systems, or 57 per cent of coutity systems have no non-public students; 32 of the SO in- dependent school systems, or 40 per cent. have no non-public students. Conse- quently, 100 of Kentucky's 200 school districts do not have to consider this pro- vision of the Act. Eight school systems in four counties have 68.6 per cent of the total non-public enrollment in Kentucky. These eight school systems have developed projects with 11,833 nonpublic students participating. To further substantiate the degree of cooperation that exists between local school leaders representing public and non-public schools, I refer to a letter included within a submitted project in which a spokesman for the non-public school system stated: "As official spokesman for all of the Parochial Schools in your school dis- trict. I am happy to report to you that I find it satisfactory. The members of our staff have been pleased with the spirit of cooperation manifested by the various members of your staff." There has been and there will continue to be a climate of cooperation between local school leaders and leaders of Community Action Programs. TITLE fl-SCHOOL LIBRARY RESOURCES AND INSTRUCTIONAL MATERIALS Due to the late timing of Federal authorizations, appropriations, receipt of administrative regulations, and approval of state plan, the school library pro- gram was actually in operation only three months in fiscal year 1966. For fiscal year 1967, Kentucky has received a total allocation of $1.557,122. With these funds, and in addition to program support, Kentucky has conducted workshops, provided consultative services, and prepared publications and other in-service educational materials designed to strengthen school libraries and the instructional process. The administration of the Title II program has been strengthened by an additional school library supervisor to assist in the super- vision and evaluation of the Title II program and the revision of the state's standards for the school library program. Of 200 school districts, 199 are participating in the program which serves more than 700,000 students and 29,651 teachers in public and iiou-public elemen- tary and secondary schools across the state. PAGENO="0426" 420 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS The program has been well received by all groups concerned. It is felt that Title II funds have strengthened materially the library program in both public and non-public schools. Moreover, teachers have had made available to tiseni more resources for the enrichment of the instructional program. TITLE iii: SUPPLEMENTARY EDUCATION CENTERS AND SERVICES In the fall of 1966, A Stu4i~ Con ferenee on Fcdero11i~ Supported Educational Projects in Kentucky was sponsored by the Central Midwestern Regional Educa- tiollal Laboratory and held at Murray State University. Certain findings of this select committee in the nature of recommendations are as follows: We recommend to the U.S. Office of Education that funds not be restricted from the adaptive step of innovation. If `innovation" is equated with "change", then the implantation and implementation of an innovative prac- tice locally is essential in bringing about educational change. "Demonstra- tion" is not alone the display of an innovation in a pilot situation, but should be pursued through a variety of procedures with high priority given to providing active support for the school or district seeking to implant the innovation. Unless this task is taken, we shall continue to know more about innovations but only chance and rare initiative will overcome the familiar educational "lag." We also recommend to all Kentucky educational leaders that the develop- ment of future Title III projects should be carefully designed to include a broader base of participation in the formative stages of proposal develop- ment. In part, many of our communications problems are due to the fact that we have rushed to get a proposal developed and have by-passed too many people who might have made considerable difference in the quality of our projects and now must somehow be brought up-to-date concerning the project. We further recommend that the "regional concept" be retained as the principal design for the development of future proposals. Though some realignment of regions may be desirable from time to time, we stand to gain more in the long run from concerted action. Piecemeal, single district proposals, while in some instances desirable, nevertheless, should have ele- ments for the dissemination and diffusion of outcomes. Through February 9. 1967. the U.S. Office of Education had approved six planning and ten operational grants. Through the above date, all eight regional groups with the exception of one have participated in the Title III program. The region not included has a planning grant under consideration by the U. S. Office of Education at the present time. The listing of projects approved, by region, title, type, and funds allocated are as follows: Listing of projects approved, by region, title, type, and funds allocated Region Project Type Funds Allocated Through- I I II II II II III III TV-B TV-B IV-B V VI VII V VII Inservice training of personnel and curriculum Development and implementation of innovative curriculum programs. Multidiscipline education center and services Physical fitness project Generalsurvey &rea natural science mobile projects Student dramaticenrichment program Educationaldiagnostic and treatment center Regional cooperative supplementary services Supplementaryeducationalservices Implementation of nongraded elementary schools. - - Supplementary educational center Generalsurvey Regionaleducational service programs Regional supplementary educational center Foundation for educational innovations P 0 0 0 P 0 0 0 P 0 0 P P P 0 0 8,968 509,585 222,030 32,804 17,592 65,822 66,525 227,985 18, 056 30,000 44,207 20,372 36,488 50.924 180,679 (2) May 9, 1966 Sept. 30, 1967 Aug. 31,1967 Do. July 31, 1966 June 30,1967 May 31,1967 June 30, 1967 Jan. 30, 1967 `Nov. 1,1966 June 30, 1967 Aug. 24, 1966 Dec. 31,1966 Feb. 28,1967 Dec. 31,1967 (2) I Extended from Feb. 1, 1967, to Feb. 1, 1968. Amount of grant has not been received from U.s. Offi~e of Education. 2 Contracts being negotiated. PAGENO="0427" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDTJCATION AMENDMENTS 421 EXHIBIT 1 Summary of utilization of title I funds, fiscal year 1967, by counties I Project submitted but not approved. NOTES Agencies for handicapped: Central State Hospital, Frankfort State Hospital, Kentucky School for the Deaf, Kentucky School for the Blind, and Outwood State Hospital, $89,672.41. 1. Total tentative available funds based on 83.99 percent of 1966 grant factor, $25,307,303.67. 2. Total amount approved as of Mar. 1, 1967, 824,149,743.03 (95.3 perceist of total amount available). 3. Total amount represented in projects submitted, but not finally approved, $298,495.91 (1.2 percent of total amount available). County (as geograpinc unit) Adair Allen Anderson Ballard Barren Bath Bell Boone Bourbon Boyd Boyle Bracken Breatliitt Breckinridge.. - Bullitt Butler Caldwell Calloway Campbell Carlisle Carroll Carter Casey Christian Clark Clay Clinton Crittenden Cumberland~ Daviess Edmonson Elliott Estill Fayette Fleming Floyd Franklin Fulton Gallatin Garrard Grant Graves Grayson Green Greenup Hancock Hardin Harlan Harrison Hart Henderson Henry Hickman Hopkins Jackson Jefferson Jessamine Johnson Kenton Kloott Available furuls $265. 300. 60 155. 740. 05 50. 6Th. 37 52. 398. 52 337,414.73 130, 070. 07 654, 452. 25 41,680. 64 128, 217.60 224. 678. 51 131, 260.94 43, 003. 84 432,684.77 158,518.76 70, 393. 97 167, 119.53 107, 840. 39 102, 812. 25 178, 102.05 30,962.76 54,383.31 283, 825. 33 329,872.51 276,944. 71 120,940.02 509,694.71 188, 422.97 88,786.38 141, 846. 50 326, 035. 25 130,863.99 113, 794. 77 183,659. 47 396, 958. 50 101,621.38 729, 874. 36 93, 285. 25 114, 853.33 13,496. 59 94, 343. 80 64, 704. 24 173. 206. 23 234. 867.11 109. 295.91 257, 758. 39 45. 253. 27 228,780.42 831,231.10 78,994.74 193,054.15 167, 251.85 89,977. 26 77, 406. 91 246. 643. 55 248, 363. 70 1,552,901. 65 62,984.08 331,063.39 239,233.66 412, 969. 16 Approved funds (as of Mar. 1) Per- County (as cent ap- geographic proved unit) Available funds $262, 148.20 153, 859. 48 50,076.19 51,775.90 333,405.44 128, 524. 53 646, 675.82 35,694.00 126,338.70 222,008.79 129,701.22 42, 386.12 427,543.45 156,635.18 69,557.53 165, 133.76 106,558.99 101,590.60 170, 755.88 30, 594.85 23,213.00 280,452.81 249, 128.83 212, 584.49 95, 080.02 503,638.34 127,533.36 87, 731.39 140, 161.03 322,161.17 129,309.01 98.8 98.8 98.8 98. S 98.8 98.8 98.8 85.6 98.5 98.8 98.8 98.6 98.8 98.8 98.8 98.8 98.8 98.8 95.9 98.8 42.7 98.8 75.5 76.8 78.6 98.8 67.7 98.8 98.8 98.8 98.8 Knox Larue Laurel Lawrence Lee Leslie Letcher Lewis Lincoln Livingston Logan Lyon Madison Magoffin Marion Marshall Martin Mason McCracken.... -- McCreary McLean Meade I Menifee Mercer Metcalfe Monroe MontgOmery.... Morgan Muh1enberg.~.. Nelson Nicholas $575, 592.87 89. 550. 30 396,429.22 211,843.52 148,594.80 244,688. 75 533,644.54 183,394.83 289,779.70 64,836. 55 307,873.93 21,303.44 272,578. 18 292,293.77 168, 178.08 80,847.21 202,845.79 133,245.74 281,708.21 283,031.41 72,511.09 62,687.12 92,094.37 118,690.60 122,263. 22 223,752.27 148,991.76 188,687.61 293,881.62 132,848.78 57, 558.98 112,442.62 181,477. 16 08.8 98.8 Ohio Oldham 209,064.81 37,181.75 390,829.63 100,413.87 669,874.39 50,337. 68 113, 488. 60 9,999.32 93,222.78 60,330.47 98.5 98.8 91.8 54. 0 98.8 74. 1 98.8 93.2 Owen Owsley. Pendletong -- Perry Pike Powell Pulaski Robertson 58,485.22 157,857.16 47,238.06 617, 799. 7a 1,232,820.78 100,430.50 498,844.52 41,019.05 171, 148. 12 232,000. 15 107,997.00 254,695.61 44,715.55 98.8 98.8 98.8 98.8 98.8 Rockcastle Rowan Russell Scott Shelby 214,225. 27 126, 232.80 252,862.56 75,157.48 104,797.05 226,061.97 821,354. 11 58,684. 10 190,760.21 166,372.70 98.8 98.8 74.3 98.8 99.5 Simpson Spencer Taylor Todd Trigg 124,512.65 40,225.13 124, 380.33 139,597.07 144,625.21 88,908.12 76,481.13 98.8 98.8 Trimble Union 21,038.80 101,224.42 243,712.84 245,412. 55 1,534,449.53 62,235.68 98.8 98. 8 98.8 98.8 Warren Washington...... Wayne Webster 322,197.98 125, 306. 57 334,371.38 101,886.01 135,125. 02 230. 570.12 40.8 96.3 Whitley Wolfe 428,970.82 168,707.36 408,062.11 98.8 Woodford 62,057.85 Approved funds (as of Mar. 1) $568, 375. 82 88,515.87 332,732.33 137, 721.36 82, 295. 43 241,751.63 527, 303. 59 160, 3S6. 19 286, 336. 44 64, 066. 14 205, 403. 90 21, 050. 30 220, 538.66 288, 820.62 166, 179. 73 79,886.56 194,039.85 131,662. 71 278, 368. 56 279,668.33 72, 511.09 91, 000.07 117,280. 27 120, 810. 44 221, 093. 57 147, 221.39 186, 445. 55 290, 389. 60 131, 270. 22 56,875. 05 206, 580. 62 36. 719. 97 57,790.27 155,981.45 45,864. 28 610, 458. 83 1,218, 171.97 99,237. 15 472, 703. 42 40, 531. 64 207, 255. 00 124,732. 26 249, 857. 96 74, 264. 69 75, 128. 00 123, 033. 14 122,902. 40 137, 938. 33 83, 972. 50 20,788.81 100, 021. 63 318, 369. 51 123,817. 63 330, 398. 25 95, 454. 58 423, 988. 59 166, 702. 77 61,320. 45 Per- cent ap- proved 98. 8 98. 8 83. 9 65. 0 55. 4 98. 8 98. 8 87. 5 98. 8 98. 8 98. 8 98.8 80.9 98.8 98.8 98. 8 95. 7 98. 8 98. 8 98. 8 100. I) 0 98. 8 98. 8 98. 8 98. 8 98.8 98.8 98. 8 98. 8 98. 8 98. 8 98. 8 98. 8 98. 8 97. 1 98. 8 98. 8 98. 8 94. 8 98. 8 96. 7 98.8 98. 8 98. 8 71. 7 98. 8 98.8 98. 8 58.1 98. 8 98. 8 98. 8 98.8 98. 8 93. 7 98. 8 98. 8 98.8 PAGENO="0428" Exnins'i' 2 Summary of diytr,et utilization of title I funds, 11)67, and student parucipatton Student particil)al ion Distribution of funds-Major categories Adruinistra- Instruction tion School district Adair County Alien County_ Scottsvill Anderson County Ballard County~. Barren County (`averna -- Glasgow haiti County hell County Middleshoro l'ineville Boone County Walton-Verona I - - - - Bourbon County Paris Boyd County Ashland Catlettshurg Fairview Boyle County Danville Bracken Couiity Augusta Breathitt County Jackson Breckinridge County Cloverport Bullitt County Butler County Caidwell County Galloway County Murray Major emphasis of project Reading, physical ediicatioii Reading ~do -- -. do Reading, library Reading Reading, library Reading Reading, library Reading, physical education Guidance, physical education, language, art Reading, library Current enrichment Reading do Reading, niathienmatics Reading Reading, physical education Reading -- do Reading, library Reading Music, physical education, Library Reading, music Reading, physical educatiomi Library, physical education Reading Reading, physical education do Reading, library Art, reading, physical education An 10111 it ~il(l)rOve(l $262, 148.20 114, 665.32 39,224. 16 50,076.19 51,775.9(1 226, 584. 95 43, 146.59 63,673.9(1 128, 524. 53 455, 000. 37 159.380. 88 32,294. 57 35,694. 00 73, 087.70 53,251. 0(1 80,801.78 92,0(11.28 22, 750. 02 25,495.71 81,847.77 47, 853. 45 34, 386. 52 8, 000. 00 398, 779. (16 28, 764. 39 139,899.54 16, 735.64 69, 557. 53 165, 133. 76 1(8), 558. 99 74, 918. 16 26,672.44 Public 3, 035 1,925 272 200 451 1,579 373 551 1,2(10 4,720 1,491 657 1,996 450 415 1, 184 773 200 234 641 425 269 45 4, 022 205 947 21)3 574 2, 067 1,050 573 298 Notipublic 29 13 15 50 15 53 95 10 20 170 119 23 64 24 00 00 P1 H 06 (I) hi (3 99 00 (3 H 0 ITt 121 z H 0) $12,680.00 13, il). 60 1,300. 1(0 4, (175. 00 4,881.1(0 13, 350. 1)1) 4,366.00 338.24 11, 425, 1)0 14, 120. (10 13,5(1(1.01) 1,8011.00 150.00 6, 133.00 4, 550. 00 10, 133. 00 9, 585. 1)0 2,31(11.00 2,417.90 3, 950. 00 4, 474. 59 3,481). 00 500. 00 10, 445. 00 2, 800. 00 12,083. 00 11)0.00 3, 660. 0)) 12,4181. ((1) 9, 706. 00 6, 913. 00 950. 00 Construc- tion $56, 380. 39 120,5(12. 00 40, 0(10. 00 2(1, 358. 00 203,445,44 41,364.00 $146, ((06.98 70,351.41 32, 480. (81 34, 386. 92 41,096.75 134, 621. 17 36,206. 44 60,22(1. ((0 89,140.17 241, 124. 0(1 75,182.110 2S, 735. 00 35, 973. 32 62,275. (10 38,992.00 44, 063. 00 67,1)55. (10 15, 987. 00 19, 749.66 65, 731. 81 40, 885. 00 25, 264. 9 4,500.00 84, 829. 00 17, 9(51. 00 101, 320.0:) 14, 974. 10 39, 144. 00 93, 1)73. 63 72,971.39 47, 434. 70 24,297.00 PAGENO="0429" 4,573.23 43, 252.10 o75. 00 8,560.00 806.90 1,000.00 7,445.00 44,607.00 30.00 7,905.00 2,995.00 19,642.71 250.00 15,519.00 17,200.00 150,071.33 70,956.33 11,850.00 140,943.31 80,000.00 5,371.00 34,405.05 5, 820. 00 97, 987. 00 33, 600. 00 3,695. 00 41, 959. 00 21, 006. 00 2,850.00 62,110. 15 25,860.90 25, 6tYL 00 302,099(8) 19, 679. 72 68,500.00 7,990.00 65,194.00 12,600.00 34,015.96 68. 000.00 15,193.15 132,274.40 15, 218. 00 139,456.00 9,44(100 92,435.00 1,357. 00 28, 500. 00 73, 464. 00 13, 364. 00 46, 759.00 80, 425. 00 (12,000.00 15,40(1(8) 11,500.00 101,476.00 26, 420.00 181, orn. 00 9,322.00 71,200.00 57,555.00 486, 625.00 420. 00 42,116.00 4,835.00 53, .526. ~ 1,313.00 11,435.00 1,175.00 10, 672.18 4,747.66 70, 532,00 1,135,00 41,375.00 233.00 7,434.00 3,074.90 65,534,41 j 4,600.00 33, 804.11 11,600.00 124,004.75 4,794.00 24,463.00 9,275.00 51,4(1). 00 $1277000 $117,884.50 $21,700.00 50.00 10,175.00 448.00 13,848.00 2,700.00 21,716.00 3,390.00 38,483.98 Campbell County Specialeducatlon 68,903.79 464 295 Bellevue' Dayton Reading, physical education 12,943.97 I 99 Fort Thomas Reading, health 4,706.90 70 Newport Reading, preschpol 73,610.69 319 240 Silver Grove Reading, special education 10,590.53 100 Southgage (no grant) Carlisle County Iteadhig,llhrary 30,594.85 ~4 Carroll County Reading 23,213.00 60 Carter County Reading,guidance 280,452.81 324 Casey County Rending, mathematics 187, 285.39 1,996 24 Liberty Art, reading 61,843.44 538 Christian County Industrialart,language.,~ i99,sc,o.oo 2,457 1{opkinsville - Reading 83,024.49 2,298 10 Clark County Library, reading, physical education 95,080.02 350 15 Clay County Reading 503,63834 5,683 Clinton County Reading, physical education 127,533.36 1,424 Crittenden County Language, arts, library 87. 731 39 746 Cnsnhcrland County Readisig, library 140, 161 1)3 1,254 Davisos County Reading, gnidance~ .~ 158,857.88 1,707 365 Uwensboro Reading, physical cducation 163,303.29 889 414 Edsnonson (`ounty - Reading,lihrary 129,309 111 1,01)3 14 Elliolt County Reading, physical education 112,442.62 429 Estill County Library, reading l6P~ 133.76 1,260 Irvine Reading, gnidasice 16,343.40 133 Fayelte County Reading, special cdncation 135,454.13 1,1)67 8 Lexsiogton Reading, issusic 255,375.50 ~ 479 5) Flennng Connty Readiisg, physical educatioss 11)0, 413.87 768 Floyd County do 669,874.39 1,491 Franklin Connty Reading 5033768 568 Frankfort 2 Fultoss County Reading, library 98, 452 67 835 5 Fnllon...~ Rcwling 15, 1)35, 93 104 (lalbitiso County Cultural enriclusiuent 9, ¶199.32 211 Garrard County Reading, library 93,222.78 748 2 Grant County Reading, anisic 51, 701 15 1,768 23 Williamstow,u Reading, physical educatiosi 8,629.32 73 2 Graves County Reading 123,163.89 1,045 Mayficid .do 47,984.23 370 Gruysoui (`onn(v (10 182(1)01 550 60 Leitchileld Reading, art, pltvsiu'al education 50, (8)1), 00 413 54 Green Cnnuuty Reading 107, 997. 00 ~,6 Greeuun1u ouiudy~ Reading, juluysiu~u( education -. 198,343.55 1,517 Greeuuusp Reading 11,375.1)1 87 ItacelainI IAmgnagc arts 17, 127.89 127 ltnssell do 27,849.16 375 Jlauuc,uck Connty Reading 44,715.51 302 42 ~i'e footnotes at call of table. NI NI NI 4 H NI 4 ci) NI C.) C 4 NI H NI C) ,~ H 0 4 NI 4 NI 4 H cli a PAGENO="0430" ~Surnn(ary of district -o/.ilizat ion of title I Jo nil, i1iC~, o nil at 1(11 ,,I purini p(!tw/) (nt Ii i loll SI 11(111 (ri ((131) ni I (0) rout) inn ni [tintls-- 51 ujnr (`alr)'uIr s'3 - School district Major niipliunis of prjn'l all)rov('(l ~nl1))Ulu)i(' Adtiiiutisi ru- I Instruction ( `ntis) rue'- 11(11 ,~ -`-( llardiii (~o~1~~ty- Elizahetlitown- West l'oint - -- - - (10- Language art-n - -- - $1701139.51 55 42,023.1(1) 14 (1,798.86 717,14(1 57 5l2,05ft0) 3, 1.11.15) 2(1,3(18.0) *ll(,,5711.0) 3ytSIrOt( e, 253. ((0 3)05, 170.01) - - $90,139.15) 3larlan (~oui~~y- (10- - - harlan I0uadiiig, home t'ducalion - 89:00.36 I.ymmchm - Reading - -- - - 1-1,1515.1% harrison County mio - - - 78,091. in hart County - Reading, physical cdtieatioim 11)11,700.21 lleiideison County hle1uiiilg 1)3,285)5) h1*.'nslersoii (10 -- `~~p henry County Reading, tousle -- 1), 05.21) Eminence Reading, library 19,7-12.93 hlicknian (`ounty - -- Reading - 7)1,4(11.13 h1O})kiiis County (10~ -- 2)17,757.35 I)awson Springs Reading, eounseling~ -. 17,1)12.37 Eimrlmglon Readiig, library - 19,01:1.12 Jai'ksnii (2ouiity Rctidiiig 245,412.55 Jelicroon County Re mdiiig physic ii cdn( mOm mm 34 lb 1 Anchorage3 Louisville Reading, library 1, 192,2(14.02 Jessamnine County Reading 62,235.6(1 Johnson County' Language arts I'amtsvihle Reading 34, 125.02 Van Lear -- Kenton County Reading - 02,75~hi7 ileechwood (110 grail).) Covington (`nrrent cenlcr, library ItO, 1)97.82 Erlanger RIulIling 11830.0)) Ludlow (10 5,883.63 Knott (`ounty Art, music, reading 408,1)1)2. 11 Knox (`ounty Reading, library ` 523, 119.6% Itarbourvihle Reading 45,23(1.14 Larue County Reading, ~)hySiCal education (1(1,515.87 Laurel County Reading 2(19,455.1)0 East Bernstadt Reading, physical educatiom' 19,612.08 London Reading 23,665.25 Lawrence County do 137,721.36 3)) 2)) 21 1(1 1)1(1 00 2, 14(1 - - 0 20)) ~ 7,920.00 21)0.)))) 2. 19(1.1)11 3, 12%.)))) 11,31(0.15) 5,~-l0.)l0 0,77.11(1 705.0(1 7,1.15.15) 3,550.00 1,75(1.14 11.900)1)) 13 1)01 (11) 54,47(1.)))) 4,580.0)) 15,2.50.)))) .t,a~0.0)) 40,962.0)) 22, lulL(s) 13, 125.11(1 - 5(1, 157 (5) 134, 1211.0)) 76,349.)))) -- 1,34)0)5) - - 16,020 I))) l%,OIIIL))ll - 5.1,401 0) 145,808.15) 1.1,945.57 1,2(0(S) 111-1,77(1.01) 1)5)390.0)) 3(14 001) 00 l,0())),6(15.)()) 40,73)).)))) 13)1,533.)))) 101,000.00 26,31)1.)))) 51,6(11)1(0 0)2,71.1.30 8(1-10.0)) -- 5, 3)tL 00 74, 971. (I)) 25)), 00)). 00 15%, 271. 0)) :132, 700. 0)) .17, 1)22 (5) 71, 717. 1))) 153, 270)10 73,600.)))) 7,144.56 22, :1:1)1. 1))) - 97,342.1)0 74, 121.00 -`f. ~ ~ C "~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ , , ~ ~ ~ ~ H ~ `(do 801) :1):)) 10,15 (:1-I 5)0 2,900 9:11) 17(1 illS 3, 5(7 151) 151) 2.5(S) 14, 1)110 01,375 415 340 5)3) 115 1,96:1 3, 1)12 2)11) 895) 2, 600 24 1, 269 390 35 20 19 I 5, s:t:t. 00 13, 01)).)))) 250. 0)) 10. 00 14, 975. 0)) 1%, 1190. 15) 2, 600. 0)) 8,271.0)) 14, 515.00 1,845. 86 50. 00 13, 895. 00 PAGENO="0431" Leo (`ounty - I -- ~ - - - C 1,008 42 II, :~. 00 OR 182. 04 Leslie County Art,readitig_ - - - -. - 241, 751.03 2, (82 -- - 1)1,90)), (8) 03,345, 1)11 hotelier (`oinity Reading - - -- 401,929.07 R318 21,001.0)) 3I~008.n0 22,087.00 Jenkins do 0,~373.02 404 .~ 4,08R00 39,352.00 -- - Lewis County Reading, library 100,380.10 1,222 5,438 00 03, 447.00 Lincoln County do 286,330.44 4,073 15,319.00 138, 002.00 7~ 000.00 Livingston County Reading, physical education 04,006.14 400 0,400.00 45, 175. 18) -- Logan (`ounty Reading, art, niusic 147,875.12 1,000 15 13,401.00 61,93)1.00 - -- Russeliville Reading, enusic 57,528.78 430 17 5,570.00 44,021,00 Lyon County Reading, physical edncatinn 21, 050.30 214 2,130.00 14,008.00 4 Madison County Readhig 157,257.00 4,402 4,451100 135,021.00 - - S llerea 3 - - - Ricinnond Readhig 03,281.06 500 7,145.00 41,785.00 -- - Magollin County do 288,820.02 2,0)11 18,050.00 13,0)11.00 -- - Marion t'ounty Reading, physical education 100,179.73 2,255 1,248 11,882.00 104, 480.00 - -- Marshall County Library, physical education 04,19)080 3,450 40 4,738.0)) 44,050.00 Benton Guidance, library 15,089.67 110 1,305.00 11,002 00 -- -- Martin (`ounty Reading 104,030.85 1,770 15,38)1.00 110,804. (8) 20,489.00 Mason County Reading, arting, library 78,971.58 005 30 7,033.0)) 00, 870. (11) Ma~sville Reading 52,091. 13 205 52 5,057.00 24,902. (5) o McCrackeii County Physical education, hhrary 101,508.11) 800 45 2,775.0)) 83,554.00 - -- - C Padncah Library, physical education 170,770.20 1,281 71 5,37)1.0)) 142,253.00 McCrcary County Readhig, library~ 270,008.33 3,5(8) 16, 455.18) 118,1)75. (8) 45, 73)) (8) McLean County Reading, physical education 72,511.00 508 8 1,951.10) 5.4, 205.10) - Meade t'nunty 3 -- -- -- - Menifee Connty Art, reading, ninsic 01,1)18)00 1,1)22 8,288th) 23,814.00 20, 2)8). 0) ~ Mercer County . Reading 77, 14)t 87 504 1,025.10) 28, 124.82 -- - Burgin (10 11,113.51 80 p 1)88).)))) 8,01)1.18) -- - 00 Ilarrodshnrg Reading, special therapy 20,025.80 342 1 1,480.18) 15, 405.10) - - - Metcalfo (`ounty Reading, physical education 12)), CUt 44 1, 779 - 7, 8) 73, 0)8. 5) - Monroe (`onnty do 221,1)93.57 1,547 - 3, 2)5)10) 14)1,18)7. IS) 34, 42.18) 0 Montgonierv County Reading, gnidance - hO), 090. 03 2, 585 ii, 025. 8) 72, 1)8) (8) 4, 1102. IS) Monnl Sterling Re~idnig 37,524.41; 284 5 3,234,182 3)1,310CC) - . - Mnrgan t'onnty l'liysical edncatioii, health . - 18)1,445.55 1,421; II) 13,1851 III) 84, 5181 (8) Mnlilenherg Conisty . Reailing, physical edncatinn . . 231,035.30 1,5)8) - 13, 044. (8) 148, 141.18) y Central City .. Reading, library 21), 1)71). 02 5:14 7 5,1(7)) (8) I)), 5.51 (8) Greenville Readiiig 20,070.02 227 875.8) 27, 0:1)1 (8) Nelson Cnnnhy IL ulni), lit r ii', I 8) 4 4 I 4 I 51 I I I (II) llardstnwn .- do 25,452.5)) 0:2 171 :;,:;s; (81 27 8(8) 18) . 00 Nicholas t'onnty Reading, naisic . 511,875.1(5 45(1 . 5,757 (5) (7 (II'- SI) (lion t'nnnly Ri'adnig, physical cdncalinii 20)1 580.1)2 1,720 hI, dO) 5) 72055 15) ,,. 0)ldhiain County Reading, library. - - - :01750,97 245 :1,718 0)) 59 185) (5) Goon t'nnii(y Reading, an 57, 7)8). 27 50; . :1,5(8) IL':", 77) (0) Unsley Cnwty , lihySi'al e)ln('annti - 55,051.45 1.270 (1180 011 21, ~`) 78 082 00 H Pendhiton County Reading :10,00)1, 2:1 212 . 5,75)) 110 27, 570 II) ., - - -I Falnionth I do 0, 255. 05 02 1, 100.00 8,0)1 35 See footnotes at end of table. PAGENO="0432" Perry County- i157ard -~ Pike County Pi1~esville.. .- Powell County Pulaski County Ferguson Science 11111 Somerset Robertson County Rockcastle County Rowan County Russell County Scott County Georgetown Shelby County Shelbyville3 Simpson County Reading, health Reading Preschool reading Art, guidance Reading do Library do Language arts Reading, library Reading do Reading, guidance Reading, physical education Reading Reading, mathematics 021 0 $20, 660.00 $283, 587.00 $12, 800.00 5,730.00 45, 227.00 45,102.00 663,413.00 - 1,305.00 36,215.00 8,490.00 65,544.00 11,280.00 242,291.00 1,300.00 10, 295. 18 300.00 12,124.00 10140.00 95, 981.00 4,154.00 32,346.00 17. 250.00 130,150.00 10,605.00 80,697.00 17,430.00 128,389.00 60,687. 00 4, 896. 00 39, 042. 00 325. 00 10, 333. 37 4, 350. 00 58, 888. 00 2,800.00 83,534.00 Construc- tion School district Summary of district utilization of title I funds, 1962, and student participatwn-Coiitiiiiied Major eniph'asis of project Amount ILpprove(l Student participation Distribution of funds-Major categories Public Nonpublic Administra- tion Instruction $517, 759. 04 92, 699. 79 1,166,003.82 52, 168. 15 99. 237. 15 349, 095. 11 13, 074. 72 13, 074. 72 97, 458. 87 40, 531. 64 207, 255. 00 124,732.26 249, 857. 96 61, 712.69 12, 552. 00 75,128.00 $4, 8.38 688. 9,918 399 610 2, 430 152 86 731 316 2,104 913 1,604 472 250 604 16 20 11) 021 C~) 0 t.T.i z Reading 123,033.14 1,470 PAGENO="0433" Spencer County 2 Taylor County~ ~ Carnphellsviile c~ Todd County ,~ Trigg County rc Trimble County t~3 Union County Warren County f~ Bowling Green Washington County Wayne County Monticello ~ Webster County Providence Whitley County Corbin Williamsburg Wolfe County Woodford County Total Reading, art, lthrary Reading do Art, music, physical education Reading, music Reading ~do Reading, guidance do Reading Reading, physical education Reading Reading, guidance Reading Reading, library Reading Guidance, library Reading 55, 200. 00 140,000.00 13,089,692. 36 2,603,703. 16 55, 870. 00 25, 512.00 100,209.00 116, 779. 00 17, 240.00 64, 751. 00 129, 151. 01) 99, 833. 43 101, 224. 00 114,342.00 44, 976. 00 38, 385. 00 11,210.00 173, 467. 00 30,441. 84 20,621.00 24,647.00 54,739.00 01 ci C C LI 01 LI 01 z H CI) 88,908.12 33,994.28 137, 938. 33 83,972.50 20, 788. 81 100, 021. 63 177, SM. 74 140,814.77 123, 817. 63 271, 562.00 58, 836. 25 61, 713.58 33,741.00 356,784.51 35,824.74 31,379.34 166, 702. 72 61, 320.45 24, 126, 141. 17 645 339 3 778 1,950 159 MS 226 1,333 30 1,062 15 486 275 1,616 820 504 250 2,005 555 15 562 1,359 105 550 16 233, 967 16, 141 6,970. 00 3, 330. 00 11,979.00 10, 510. 00 2, 103. 00 6, 872. 00 13,438.00 13,007. 43 11,277.00 14, 612. 00 5, 954. 00 8, 720. 00 22, 740.00 3,595.00 2, 990. 00 2,110.00 3,050.00 1, 577, 466. 33 01 01 01 z H CD 01 C C I Project submitted but not approved. 3. The total amount approved for instruction represents 54.2 percentof the total amount 2 Project being developed, approved. 5 Status unknown. 4. The total amount approved for construction represents 10.8 percent of the total NOTES amount approved. S. Of the total number of students participating in the projects approved as of Mar. 1, 1. The total amount approved represents 94.3 percent of Kentucky's 1967 allocation 1967, 6.9 percent represents nonpublic students. of title I funds. 2. The total asnount approved for admlnistrarion represents 6.5 percent of the total amount approved. a -4 PAGENO="0434" Exit tuir ~ Total professional and nonprofessional personnel parlielpalinLI in li/li I pioji cli (is of ~Iai. 1, I~7 (~(IiIt y (list net; independent district `leacliers Coordi- ustors Coun- selors Noi I)r(ll(ss!uI i:iI his I I clvi rs Ait~iir (`onitty_ - AIkii (`unlity i(Ott14\ilh( _iiiltrsoii (`siiity - lt~ill~ird (`ouiity ltarreu (`oiiiilv C~iveriia lt~IIi (`ollilly lull (`oiiiity -. l\lohlhshoro i'itieville llooiie (`outity \\~iIltii-\eroii~i iIotirt~>ii (`outity l'uris 1lo11(l County ~\stiltiiid (`atlettslurg Fairview Boyle County 1)anvill Bracken County Aut'usta Breatliitt County Jackson Breckinrlilge County (`loverjiort TIullitt County Butler County Caidwell County Calloway County Murray Campbell County itellevue 1 I)ayton 1'rofessioti~il persotitiel Visit jug Nurses teachers 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 114 1 3 1 2 3 1 l~ 1 2 13 1 1 7 1 2 2 4 7 1 1 7 5 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 S I 5 1 4 7 1 1 11 13 1 1 1 1 5 6 1 3 1 1 3 I 2 1 2 Super- labrar- visors lass -- --_ 4 1 2 1 :1 I 1 1 )i sr 2' Ails Ii hi II It' 2)) I) 4) 114 3)) 4 `Ic-;) Ii- Si III C lirks II .1 17 N k-I N N H N -1 `I' N N N C) H C 51 N H 5!)) PAGENO="0435" Fort Thomas- Newport - - - Silver Grove. - Son thgate (no grant) Carlisle County Carroll County Carter County Casey County Liberty (tiristiaii County llopkiiisville Clark County (lay Cotuity Clinton County - . (`ritteinlen totuily (`nnaberland (`ounty L)aviess County Owenshoro Edmonson County Elliott County Estill County 1rviiae_~ . . Fayette County. Lexington - . - - Flenung County Floyd t'oonty Franklin County Frnnkfort a Foltota County Fulton (hillatin County arrard t'ounty (rant County Witlhunstosvn Graves County Itlaylield (raysoii (`ounty Leitvtitield Green County (.reennp County Itacelaint ItusselL . Hancock County Ilarilin County Elizaheltilown \Vest Point See footnotes at inil of 101)11'. 31 12 14 3 27 41 it) 9 9 11 1~ 13 14 9 38 6 21 7 2 3 3 33 4 it) 13 14 I I - 1 3 1 - - 1 1 1 1 1 1 *I~ -- - -- . I 1 1 - I 1 1 12 4 1 - - - 2 1 I 2 1 - 1 2 1 2 1 1 4 1 3 1 2 1 1 --- - .- - -- 1 1 1 1 2 - -- 2 1 3 -- 4 I - 1 6 2 - 3 I I 1 2 1 1 I I - -- 1 -. -- -- 1~ 1~ 2)) 2 24 1 - I -- - 1- 1_ 1 - .__ 1 4 . . 25 3 17 - 28 it.) I - 45) 12 1 11 4 25 4 - 2 . - 13 35 21 1. 4 1 ____ I 5 U 2 3 - 5 13 - 3 . - -- - 14 4. - 4 1 -. -- - - - :ti 3~ 4 - - I 2 7 r N H ci) N C) C N N C) ~a. H C N >1 N k H cia Co 3,. -- -- 1 r I 1 PAGENO="0436" Total professional and nonprofessional personnel participaliny in hue I projeefs as of Mar. 1, 1967----Coiitiniied Nonprofessional (`otlitty (list rid; independent district Harlan County 1larIaii~.. Lynch_.~ 11 irrison County Hart County l1end~rson County ftenderson Henry County E. niinence hickman County hopkins County l)awson Springs F~arlington - Jackson County Jefferson County ~nchorage3 Louisville Jessautine County Johnson County 1'aintsville Van Lear Kenton County Beechwood (no grant) Covingtoii Erlanger Ludlow Knott County Knox County Ilarbourville Larue County Laurel County Yast Bernstadt london Lawrenee County Lee County Leslie County Letalier County Jenkins Lewis County Teachers Coordi- nators 35 1 1 1 l~ 1 5 1 24 - -- - 4 149 3 9 1 61 1 6 1 30 27 1 59 1 7 1 5 9 1 15 1 25 1 () I 4 1 :ti 1 16 1 (`oun- Visiting selors teachers 3 5 1 1 1 1 2 2 Itt 6 4 2 3 3 - 1 1 1 5 2 l'rofessional personnel Nurses Super- Lil)rar- visors ians 5 1 3 1 - 2 8 11 8 4 4 9 13 8 8 8 1 2 8 Other 6 1 2 4 30 1 45 1 2 3 Aids 32 lit 21) 20 9 11 25 2 4 148 37 12 3 31 6 12 58 11 24 18 14 Clerks Cooks Bus Custo- drivers (hans 11 1 1 3 2 40 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 11 2 1 1 4 I 1 PAGENO="0437" 2 2 1 28 2 1 1 7 1 -- 8 2 1 - 2 I 1 9 - -- 1 - I 5 2 --- I - 6 1 3 I 3 11 29 1 1 1 - - - - - - 2 1 5 8 28 - 8 8 1 8 - 1 4 2 9 Lincoln County Livingston County -- Logan County Russellville Lyon County M-adtson County Berea ~ Richmond Magollin County 51 anon County Marshall County - Benton Martin County Mason County Maysville McCracken County PaducalL McCreary County McLean County 1\Ieade County Munifee County - Mercer County Burgiii Ttarrodsburg - - Metcalfe County Monroe County - Montgouicry County Monut Stirling Morgun County Muhlenberg County Central City Greenville Nelson County llnrdstown Nicholas County -- ohio County Olclhasn County Owen County Owsley County Pendleton County Falmouth Perry County hazard Pike County Pikeville Powell County Pulaski County Ferguson Science Hill Somerset See footnotes at end of table. Sti 7 7 16 5 iti 2 11 2 4 19 4 9 a 8 6 13 4 2 6 2 7 I ti 3 5 2 11 51) 5 15 17 5 3 31 1 I I - 1 1 1 I I - 1 1 5 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 - 1 2 I 1 - 1 1 1 -l 6 1 1 1 - I 1 1 - 1 3 I -~ 1 1 1 I I I -- -- - 1 1 1 6 4 I 1 I I 1 1 1 i 1 I a 5 1 1 ~- 5 48 2 I 1 4 N r 1'l N z H z 0) N C C z N N ci C H C N N `-3 Cl) 36 24 16 2 17 4 6 22 7 3 27 132 4 5 54 8 1 1 ~. 3 1 3 I 2 I 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 4 2 4 1 26 2 1 1 PAGENO="0438" Total profc8xional an~t nonprofcssioJtal pors~nncl participating in tttlc I prOjCet8 as of Mar. 1, 1i~67-Coiitinned (`ninty district; independent (listriCt Teachers Coordi- nators Professional personnel Coun- selors Nonprofessional Visiting Nurses Super- visors Librar- bins teachers 2 1 Other Aids Robertson County 2 I Itocheustle County - 14 1 I 28 Rowali (`iinty~ 1 1 1 8 Russell (`ount~y 8 1 3 22 5(011 County 14 Georgetown 12 1 Shelby (`utility 6 1 11 Slielbyville ~--- -~- -- Sililsori County 14 I Spencer County2 Taylor County 5 1 I Ctunpbellsvill -- 3 3 `l'odd (`ounty 10 1 1 - Trigg County 13 1 1 4 TrOuble County I I 7 Union County 21 1 __~ 1 1 5 Warren County 14 1 2 1 3 6 1 Howling Green Washington County 8 1 3 I 17 Wayne County 10 1 1 2 3 1 18 Monticello 7 1 1 4 Webster County 1 13 Providence 2 Whitley County 16 1 2 1 1 1 5 1 18 (orbin 1 1 Williamsburg 3 1 1 Wolfe County 1 1 1 1 3 Woo(Iford 1 State agencies: Central State hospital Frankfort State Hospital 1 1 Kentucky School for Blind 2 1 1 Kentucky School for I)eaf 1 1 1 2 Outwood State hospital 2 1 2 Total 1,642 110 146 75 38 117~ 234 252 1,578 Clerks Cooks Bus (`oslo- drivers (11:115 3 1 1 1 I 1 1 349 26 0 1 t,1 1-~ Si H r:i~ SI (-a 0 H C 1 Project submitted, hut not finally approved. 2 Project being developed. 3 Status unknown. PAGENO="0439" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDLTATION AMENDMENTS 433 Mr. Psci~. Mr. Chairman and members of the. committee. I am Ray Page, superinte.iident. of public instruction, State of Illinois. 1 am delighted to express our concern for the education of our most precious resource-our children-and provide information to better point the way toward realization of equal educational opportunity for all of our children. We in Illinois are concerned with the proposed amendments to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act in the same way we are concerned with the general law. Our concern is one that. I am sure the drafters of this legislation had and perhaps still have; that is, how do you insure Performance of of the dilatory without thwarting the efforts of the competent ? There has been only one successful program to give tile kind of ad- ministrative flexibility to accomplish this. It perceived the States presenting plans for progress. Those plans were reviewed and, if proper, were approved. We. have administered tile National Defense Education Act. successfully by that. method. In administering the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, however, we have gone in a different direction. Tile laws were written and tile Commissioner required States to file assurances that they would follow tile laws. Witil every good intention, we, like other States, filed our assurances. We found, however, that regulations were subsequently changed and on some occasions interfered with State law. WTe were theii faced witii either negating our own assurances or our State law. This problem was evident in the amendments of the section on the Teacher Corps. I believe it to provide on page 1-6 that the Commis- sioner has tile aut.hority to contract. with local agencies without first gaining approval at. the State level. If you can, envision in your State an analogous situation where the State a.gency of education would arrange a contract. with a principal of one of the attendance centers and agree to pay for some of those services without. talking with or obtaining tile approval of tile local board of education. Tile board of education in this case has the responsibility for and must face the liabilities of the actions in all attendance centers but has no authority to restrict in this ease the activity of them. The amendment.s to the Teacher Corps section prevent circumven- tion of the State agency. We believe that. the law must say "State agency approval" rather than olily permitting consultation as pointed out, in section 153(A), paragraph 3, and I support this amendment. Change in heading for title I: "PART A-ASSISTANCE FOR EDTCATION OF CITILDREN IN AREAS HAVING CONCENTRATIONS OF CIuLDREN FROM LOW-INCOME FAMILIES." On page 1-7, paragraph (B), tile amendment.s change tile heading of the act and make other substantive changes. This change ill tile wording would remove the restriction that currently exists to restrict reimbursements only to local educational agencies. I believe it. is unwise to create a number of educational systems to do tile same task. The majority of schools in the Nation follow the tradition of having 9 months of school. During the summer, schools are not being used to capacity. PAGENO="0440" 434 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS The teachers and the buildings could be used to greater advantage than by funding separate agencies to do the work that schools were originally developed to do. Project Headstart and all programs concerning education that are administered by agencies other than public schools are administered without. regard for approval by the educational agencies. it is remarkable, then, that the educational agency must consult with the community action programs prior to the implementation of programs for the public, schools under title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. I think it oniy reasonable that. the State education agency be shown the same consideration and similar requirements we offered for pro- grams of community action groups, and in particular Project Head- start. We do not know where Headstart programs or education for migratory workers are being conduct.e.d in Illinois. We have millions of dollars worth of physical structures already owned by the taxpayers f or the purpose of education. We believe it is more efficient to operate education programs through the public schools. In view of the cost and coordinated administration, we believe the program should be restricted to assistance to the elementary and secondary schools. This change as proposed would remove any exist- ing restriction and allow reimbursement to any agency. The act was written in such a way to avoid supplanting local funds and requires the local district to maintain at least. the same financial effort in any program. I would point out, however, that when a grant i~ given to any agency other than the public school, which does, in fact, duplicate what the. public school is doing. the entire grant supplants local funds. The problem of accounting for financial assistance is impossible if all payments and approval are not done through the State educational agency. As an examl)le: The State department of education in Illinois has devoted 4 years of work and $150,000 of Illinois taxpayers' money on research and development, of a plan for educational television. You can imagine my surprise and concern when another State agency in Illinois re- ceiveci a grant for $66,000 plus from the U.S. Office of Education to stu dv educational television. This is justification for the inclusion in this legislation the require- ment that all grants be recorded and preferably approved by the State education agency. I can see this $66,000 grant after we have spent our $150,000 on research a.nd planning being used as a justification for a veto of a $3,941,000 piece of legislation in our State legislature for the estab- lishment. of phase 1 of a statewide network of educational television, for the sole. pllI'pose that. we are now studying it with a Federal grant, when we have completed the studies in the State of Illinois. I think this is unfortunate, that a piece of legislation and an admin- istration of this nature can possibly impair the State doing the job in its own right. The late funding of the programs to carry out the intent of Con- gress has interfered with the administration of them. We urge you to consider earlier funding so schools may plan and progress with plans already made. PAGENO="0441" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 435 In Illinois, we were prudent. with approvals and disbursed money when we were confident it could bring about educational achievement. We have insisted that the programs have quality aiicl we did not disburse the money on a wholesale basis. Illinois is being penalized for using good judgment because the U.S. Office of Education requested that. we return any money that could not be used effectively by the local agencies according to the early guidelines. ~`e have now been advised that our allocation will be based on t.he amount of money disbursed for the first. year. We are administering in Illinois $1,200 million of Stat.e and Federal money, and are responsible for the proper expenditure of $5 billion of local funds every 2 years. It is remarkable that the U.S. Office of Education cannot. respect our judgment on an allotment of $41 million under the programs for Title I: Elementary and Secondary Educa- tion Act. In conclusion, I would ask the members of this Committee for your consideration of these items. I would further welcome your analysis of our programs in Tllinois. WTe are currently under some unnecessary duress concernmg this program and hope t.hat there will be an oppor- tunity afforded us to provide for members of this committee t.he specific information concerning a prelimimimiry audit report of the title I program in the city of C'luicago. This report is a masterpiece of confusion. It. may provide for you time specifics that are alluded to m my testimony. Chai iman Pm~i~ixs. Thank von, Dr. Page. Mr. FULLER. Mr. Chairman, I am going to be very brief and sum- marize the nine pages of material which I have prep~ied. There is entered into the record a report from six major national educational associations. Mr. MEEDS. ~\[r. Chairman, for the record. may we have the gentle- man's name? Mr. FULLER. Edgar Fuller. * That group met. in Chicago for 2 days last XovenThe.r and had a leg- islative workshop in this city in January, which formulated 17 prior- ity point.s of Federal legislation recommended for 1967. This re.- port wa.s taken to the WThlte House. where they met with White house officials, HEWT officials, with the, U.S. Commissioner of Education, and with the Bureau of the Budget representatives. `llmose 17 pointS are in the sumniary attached to the formal statement which you have. Among those 17 points, the Council of Chief State School Officers' Board of Directors considered them for a half day in Atlantic City last~ month, and formulated some priorities among them for 1967 rec- ommendations. These priorities, which were approved, and I am sure without any dissent, by the representatives of 23 States when reported on behalf of the board of directors last. month in Atlantic City were: 1. Amendments to title V of the Elementary and Secondary Edu- cation Act of 1965-grants to strengthen State departments of edu- cation. The second priority was amendments to title TTI of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act-supplement ary educational centers. PAGENO="0442" 436 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDFCATION AMENDMENTS The third was transfer of Iieadstart. to the Office. of Education for administration at the Federal level. The fourth was a statement. that the regional offices of the U.S Office of E(lueation 5110111(1 not be expanded for the l)iiI'poses of ele- mentarv and secondary education at the State and local levels. The fifth, which really is first in importance, but which has been emphasized so much that the board of directors placed it fifth here. is the timing of Federal authorizations, appropriations, and the pres- entation of the Federal regulations, knowledge about the. allocations, and timing of the payments and reports, which have caused great hardship to the State educational agencies and the local educational agencies. because this is 6- or s-month process. Last. year's amendments to Public Law 10 were signed by the Presi- dent. on November :~, 1966. 4 full months after the beginning of the year to which they apply. By the time von make amendments of that kind, and then the appropriations have to go through and be approved, then the regulations which often require several weeks in the Office of Education to write, have to be written, and then the allocations have to he made~-hy that. time sometimes we find ourselves starting in January or February. I believe Prince Georges County reported the other (lay that. it didn't st.a.rt the first year of ESEA administration until March following the Jul 1 of the previous year when it should have been started. We want. t.o emphasize these five points. On title I, we want to express appreciation for the administration's recommended amendment to increase the minimum State administra- tion allowance froni ~75.000 a year to $150,000 as an annual minimum for each state. The smaller States, especially the large in area but sparsel settled ones, will be helped greatly by this amendment. On the amendments to the Teacher Corps which come in as an amendment to t.itle I of ESEA. we appreciate t.he t.hree or four amend- ments which have been made by t.he administration in its suggested bill. We have one additional one to suggest.. There are, in section 153 (A) (2) the words, in re.gard to the training program for corpsmen at the local level, `Was the Commissioner may deem appropriate." We don't believe the U.S. Commissioner of Education should prescribe the teacher training program on each individual project. at the local level which has Federal funds along with State and local funds to train corpsmen or any other teachers. So we would like to substitute language there that would leave the specific courses of training for corpsmen to be. agreed upon by t.he local educational agencies and the institutions of higher education con- cerned there., in the same way that they will agree under these amend- ments to all the other terms of the project. \Ve appreciate the amendment that. will cause the approval of the State department to be required before the approval of the Commis- sioner of Education is made. With all of those things, we. will support the Teacher Corps. We would not. have supported! it without these amendments. It would have been almost universally opposed. in niv judgment, if it. had gone on the same way as before, where the Commissioner would tailorinake and prescribe the training program on each project. PAGENO="0443" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 437 This is a violation of State and local autonomy in the preparation of teachers. These are all college graduates. They are going ilito 1)ublic. schools. They need to take cognizance of the. requirements of the States and local conimunities, and the teacher training programs of the higher institutions that. train teachers in the States. On the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, title V. there are two major omissions in the proposed amendments to title V. both of which are extremely important to the State educational agencies. The first. is that the bill has no provision for extension of the current title V beyond June 30, 1968. That means that at this time next year, when the Congress is finally organized and the first bills are going in, there will be just. 4 months `before the fiscal year begins in which the new bill would take effect. That is not long enough. Last year it took until November 3 to get. the signature of the Presi- dent. on the amencinients to the act. Time school year was almost over before the funds could be used. After this act. is effective, the appropriations are usually the last thing Congress does before it. goes home, or almost the last. rrllen there are the regulations, with several weeks of delay on regulations. and then t.he allocations. Then on top of all of this there is supposed to be State planning. if you want State planning, von can't send it to the State with all of the Federal (letails worked out 3 months after the fiscal year has already started and e.xpect to have State planning. This is very, very serious. Chairman PERKINS. Mr. Fuller, I think the committee is pretty well in accord that we must place a reasonable tenure here, that would give some stability to the program insofar as eail funding is con- cerimeci. I think we all recognize that, fact. W~e have had so many obstacles in the Past. I personally thought last. year we should go 4 years. But I think experience has taught. us that we have to put a reasonable tenure period in this legislation because of the fund requirements. Mr. FTJLLER. All of it. needs a leadtime of 1 full year more than it has in order to solve this problem. Title V as it exists today would go out of existence unless it is extended for at least one more year. it ought to have that. headtime. Otherwise, as .June approaches next. year, \vitll no actiomi from the Congress, because. if it. would act. by then it would act faster than it has any year yet by far, then the people in the States who are employed will seek other emplovmeiit, without a chance for State j)lanflmg because. they won't know the Federal basis 111)011 which t.o plan. We should move this leadtime ahead 1 year for all of these laws. That includes title I. Title I expires next June 30. To amend and extend title I next year instead of this year will cause several months of waiting next year. Chairman PERKINS. We hope to have that problem eliminated this year. Mr. FULLER. Sections 523 and 524 of title V. part (B), a proposed amendment, are, as far as I am able. t.o find out, unanimously opposed by the chief S.tate. school officers. There may be a few chief State school officers that believe otherwise who I liaveii't heard express themselves. PAGENO="0444" 438 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION A~NDMENTS But these things are not right for the States. Section 523(A) (1) require.s a State educational planning agency~a new creature. That would be the sole agency for State administration except that special arrangements can be made for dual administration if the State elects to include, higher education and organizes a State higher education planning agency as well. The law also, in section 5~4, imposes a planning program budget system upon the applicant, leaving the identity of the applicant State agency vague. This is set up for political interference, for delay, for all other things that make State and local programs difficult. This is made to order. Applications must, in any event, be submitted to the Governor for review and recommendation. The applicant under this part B, Mr. Chairman. ha.s to make provisions for setting statewide goals with priorities, make thorough analyses of alternative means of achieving these goals. plan new programs and improvements of existing pro- grams on the basis of these anal ses, develop State-conducted evalua- tions on a continuous basis, and develop and maintain a pet~manent system of information for assessment of educational progress. Each State has to do all of these under these specific Federal regulations. It puts evaluation of elementary, secondary, and higher education progress in the States in a Federal mold of uniformity. Mr. Chairman. many persons experienced in education would ap- prove of such system analyses for the Pentagon in spending billions of (loUars for defense: determining between supersonic bombers or more nuclear submarines : or otherwise how to get the biggest bang for a buck. It. is quite different, from making the educational judg- ine.nts necessary to evaluate thousands of programs for the education of cli ilciren and youth. The conclusion of systems analysis evaluations will depend on these educational judgments. The rnput is educational judgment. These cannot be made in the way that this contemplates making them. Many citizens will be doubtful that part B should be enacted. On this point I cannot speak for the Council of Chief State School Officers. What I say now is personal because the council has no specific policy as of today on this specific propos~u1. All the chiefs I know are opposed to it. But I am of the opinion that part B objectives are already author- ize.d by the currently effective title V, considering section 5O~(A) (1), (~) , (3) . and -l ) authorizes grants to the State educational agencies for making plans and operating evaluation systems in any way they could do under the new pait B. except that. they now have no authority to contract for their responsibilities to be performed by other agencies or organizations, or commercial developers, or operators of systems of the PPBS type. The addition of part B to title V seems necessary only to l)r0\~de Federal controls of the specifics of these. processes and to include Federal financial incentives to enforce these. controls. Both carrots and sticks for enforcemeiit are. present, including authority to make the allotment, of an nonparticipating State's share available to others that. agree to participate. Amendments to title III of the Elementary and Secondary Educa- tion Act: Mr. Chairman, the administration's bill before this com- mittee carries no suggestion that there should be amendments to PAGENO="0445" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 439 title III of ESEA this year except in two minor details. The Council of Chief State School Officers differs strongly on this point. Although we do not propose to consume a great deal of the time of the committee here today, we hope there will be amendments to title III of ESEA at this session of Congress. In the annual business meeting of the crnmcil in New Orleans on November 18, 1966, the following resolution was passed unanimously by the membership: The Council approves of the purposes of Title III. It 1)rovides for the development of supplementary centers and services to improve the quality and quantity of education, to increase the use of results of educational experimenta- tion, resulting in creativeness in teaching and learning, and to stimulate broad, local State and Federal cooperation in providing exceptional educational oppor- tunities for all children and youth. An analysis of the first year's Title III results shows that States in which the State Department of Education has assumed responsibility for organization and direction of Title III projects on a statewide basis has produced projects (l~ of higher quality, (2) more exemplary and innovative in content and serv- ices, (3) more in accord with the educational needs of the states, and (4) involv- ing wiser use of Federal funds. I quote from a report of the U.S. Office of Education administrators in that pragraph, gentlemen. It was given to us on November 9, 1966, without restrictions on its use. It was the. basis for this resolu- tion. In view of this experience, the Council urges that Title III he amended to authorize the use of State plans for its future administration. Such plans should be developed according to criteria established by the JT5* Office of Educa- timi in cooperation with the State Departments of Education. Within the re- quirements of these criteria, the State education agencies should he authorized to evaluate and approve Title III projects proposed by local educational agencies. It is imperative that all State educational agencies actively coordinate the administration of Title III with reference to their potential or existing local and regional educational service units. With such coordination exer('ise(l in full co- operation with the vast reservoir of leadership in local educational agencies, many conditions that now restrict general educational iniprovement can be removed. That is the end of the resolution. Mr. Chairman, w-e have been encouraged to believe that the U.S. Office of Education would cooperate w-ith the council in transferring more involvement, in its administration to State departments of edu- cat ion. In this connection, and I have already mentione.d the Office of Edu- cation memorandum from which the resolution was drawn last Novem- ber, on January 5, 1967, we inquired of all c.hief State school officei-s what their opinion was on title III amendments for congressional action in 1967. There were replies from 42 States and terrilories, all of which favored State plans, making local project a~)plications and proposals for supplementary centers subject. to approval by State departments of educalion. A large minority would be. willing to set. aside 15 percent of t.he funds for spe('ial projects to be approved b the U.S. Commissioner of Education, and a very few would support. up to a 25-percent set.- aside. At meetings of the board of directors and the general meeting of the. 23 States in Atlantic City last month, there was strong sentiment that an amendment to autlioiize State plans and State project ap- proval should be enacted as soon as possible, with the percentage of PAGENO="0446" 440 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDTCATION AMENDMENTS funds to be. set aside for special projects to be approved by the TT.S. Commissioner of Education either omitted or kept low. Omitted was the majority view: kept low the view of all others. Mr. Chairman, there is no mistaking the position of the chief State school officers on this title ITT issue. Point 8 of the report. of the Legis- lative Conference of National Organizations also shows that this pro- posed change has widespread support throughout. the country. We. believe fundamental issues are involved in what is done about t.itle ITT in 196T. There are emerging systems of modern regional service center units developing within many of the States under State and local auspices. There is great need for coordination of these emerging regional service centers within States, with all supple- mentary service centers established under title III. We believe the. new title III centers should not, be allowed to develop in ways that. will establish a. Federal system of supplementary service centers supported primarily by Federal funds, paralleling and some- times duplicating systems of similar centers established and supported by the States. Continuation of the current title III program, with expan~ion to supplementary centers, may deny great benefits of title III to the States most. in need of it. In a few selected States the. T~.S. Office of Education encourages informal State planning for title III centers. These States enjoy the special advantages that. pilot. St.ates usually have., hut. with minimum or even negative, results to others. A majority of the States are exhorted to note what their stronger neighbors are doing, hut are denied the means to experience progress of their own by a denial of the responsibility that. is necessary for their progress. As the neglected States stand by observmg progress but. remaining unsupported for engaging in it. themselves, they are denied the. ad- ministrative. psychological, and public reinforcement, that they need. The neglected States lose ground in full view of their constituencies of citizens and State and local governments. The Federal Government refuses, in substance, to use educational methods in education. It helps the strong, but denies it in title ITT. to the weak the things that would enable the weak to become. strong. It is as though a ela~si'ooni teacher overemphasized demonstrations by brilliant pupils while the disadvanta~ecl pupils looked on without being given practice in and responsibility for improving themselves. There need not he parallel State supported and federally supported service agencies for education within the. States. It would be. far better to combine State and Federal efforts and have comprehensive planning on a State. basis. Such would enal)le the Federal Government to i'o- vide financial support on condition that. the Federal objectives for which the Federal funds could be used would be. carefully served. A system of regional service centers administered on the State and local levels, supported by the Federal Government. for its own defined purposes. and constituting a true partnership in the service of modern education. would pi~ovide a desirable 5 stem for the future. Mr. Chairman. we have had access to the text of these amenclmenl-s for only a. few days. Tt is incomplete. There are probabl errors and omissions. We will welcome further inquiries from the members of the committee. PAGENO="0447" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 441 We offer also to supply supportilig data for any of the statements we. have made. I believe I)r. Johnson of Iowa, and l)r. Christian of Florida, have no prepared statements, but they probably will want to make an im- promptu statement after which we will all join in answering your questions. (Mr. Fuller's full statement follows:) STATEMENT OF EIx;AIi FULLER, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, COUNCIL 01' CHIEF STATE SCHOOL (JFFIcEuis Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, my name is Edgar Fuller, These statements are made as Executive Secretary-Treasurer of the Council of Chief State School Officers. The Council is composed of the State Superintendents or Commissioners of each of the 50 states and the chief school officers of Puerto Rico. Virgin Islands, Canal Zone, Guam, American Samoa and the Trust Terri- tory of the Pacific Islands. The chief state school officers present are froni Kentucky, Illinois, iowa and Florida. We appreciate very much the Opportunity to appear here today. With your permission, we will first list positions taken on priority items under Council policies as determined by the Board of Directors. Then the distinguished chief state school officers present will report on the programs in their states and iìiake recommendations in regard to them. If you agree. we would all like to join in informal discussion with the committee on major issues involved in the legis- lation during any remaining time that may be available. We desire very much. Mr. Chairman, to be of the utmost assistance to you and your committee. At this time I would like to enter in the record a report from six major na- tional organizations on seventeen priority items of legislation. Each iiiember of the committee has a copy of this, with a brief foreword on the cover.5 The Council's Board of Directors, of which Chief State School Officers Johnston of Iowa and Page of Illinois are members and who are present, have set some priorities for the Council among these items as follows: A. (No. 2) Amendments to Title V of the Elementary and Secondard Edu('a- tion Act of 1965-Grants to Strengthen State Departments of Education. B. (No. 8) Amendnients to Title III of the Elenientary and Secondary Edu- cation Act-Supplementary Educational Centers. C. (No. 3) Transfer of Head Start to the Office of Education. I). (No. 17) Regional Offices of the U.S. Office of Education. E. (No. 1) Timing of Federal Authorizations, Appropriations. Regulations, Allocations, Payments and Reports. These opening remarks will be on the bill before us. with emphasis on A, B and E above. This is not to infer that others among the seventeen items are not important-they are merely not within the agenda for this hearing. TITLE I, ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION ACT (TITLE II OF P.L. 874) We support Section 102, raising the dollar limitation for state administrative expenses from $75,000 to $150,000 as an annual minimum for each state. The states have been greatly overburdened by their Central role in the administra- tion of new federally supported programs. These additional functions and the shortage of competent administrative personnel have been especially serious in some of the smaller state departments of education. They will be especially benefited by this amendment. All of us are grateful to the Administration for proposing it, and we will appreciate your recommendations for enactment. In terms of educational results, Section 102 will prove to be an economy measure. subpart 2-Teacher Corps It should be advantageous to make the federal administration of this program a part of Title I of ESEA as proposed. Several of the aimiendments suggested by the six national educational organizations under item No. 6 of their Report have been incorporated. The federal administratoi's have been very cooperative in mutual efforts to improve the administration of the Corps as it affects state and local education. *4ttached to this statement. PAGENO="0448" 442 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS We have one additional suggestion-to amend new Section 153(a) (2) to elim- inate the words `as the Commissioner may deem appropriate" and to substitute language that would leave the specific courses of training for Corpsmen to be agreed upon by the local educational agencies and institutions of higher educa- tion, in the same way as they will agree on the other details of each project. This should fit tile courses of training to the needs of the particular community much better than courses of training prescribed for all local projects by the U.S. Corn- missioner of Education as the present law provides. State and local freedom in educational decision-making is deeply involved here, and should be regarded as a critical issue in connection this legislation. The amendments to include services to Indian children under the jurisdiction of the ITS. I)epartnient of time Interior, to children of migratory agricultural workers, and to extend statutory provisions relating to schools for Indian chil- dren and to overseas dependent schools are laudable. TITLE V-ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION ACT There are two major omissions in the proposed amendments to Title V, both of which are extremely important to the state educational agencies. TIme first is that the bill has no provision for extension of the current Title V beyond June 30. PiGS, even though the proposed new Part B (Relating to planning grants for coinprehoimsivo omlu(atiollal planning) carries an authorization extend- ing four years beyond the fiscal year ending June 30. 1968. It is difficult to grasp why the current Title V should be left until next year for extension. This involves lack of federal-state-local coordination of tinling, as called for by the President in Ins message last Tuesday. It would bring the greatest of all deterrents to effective federal, state and local administration of federal educa- tion programs. postponed until next year. it will be impossil)le to prevent severe disruption of the Title V program for strengthening state departments of education under a law expiring on June 30. 1965. The time Congress consumes in extending the authorization and making appropriations niust be followed by federal regulations, allocations and payments. All consume time, so state and local agencies are un- able to develop their own program plans until far into the next fiscal year. The continuing authorization of an obsolete appropriation under an expired law does little to support state and local planning under a nonexistent new law with specu- lat.ive authorizations and appropriations. State and local personnel cannot be retained or new imersonnel employed, state planning will be months in arrears. and local frustration about the delays will be detrimental to all federal-state-local programs. We ask that Part A of Title V be extended for the same period of time proposed for Part B. t seond s(l'iOuS omission is that although the authorization is $50,000,000 for fiscal year 1968. tile Administration proposes an appropriation of only $22.000,000, the same as for the current year. The transfers of $5 million from Title X and $2,750,000 from Title III of the National Defense Education Act would carry con- tinuing responsibilities for expenditures to continue the functions of a major part of these NDEA programs. We believe that the appropriation should be $50,000,- 000. or at the very least 840.000.000. and that there should be appropriations au- thorized for the three fiscal years after June 30. 1968. The proposal in S~cetion 142 for revision of time Title V formula for apportion- ment of funds for strengthening state departments of education is perhaps as satisfactory as can be devised. It is fixed at the point of nearest consensus ex- pressed by Council members from 47 states and three territories. Within a range of perhaps $20 million to about $50 million for allocations among the states, it should operate with substantial, but necessarily never with exact, justice to all states an(l territories concerned. The way the proposel formula will affect each state necessarily varies accord- ing to the amount appropriated. Mr. Chairman. I would like your permission to place these materials in the record of the hearings at this point. There was a decline iii the use of Title V funds for state planning from 19% of the funds in 1966 to 14~ in 1967. As Comniissioner Howe told you on March 2: "The state departments of Education have not lost interest in planning. Far from it. Other (~oncerns w-ere more pressing . . . The growing responsibilities thrust upon them by the growing Federal programs . . . requires all their exist- ing resources, and more. They cannot afford to plan. Yet, they cannot afford to do so. Additional funds under the current Title V would enable them to do so. PAGENO="0449" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 443 Let us assume that $36 million were to be allocated to the states under Section 502 of Title V after 15% for Section 505 and 2% for territories have been deducted from an appropriation of $43.4 million. I-low would the reconimended 40%-60% formula work out? The arithmetic is something like the following, with numbers rounded ol~ and based on estimated enrollments. 40% of $36 million is $14.4 million, which is a flat grant of about $282,350 for each of the 50 states and the District of Colunibia. This would leave $21.6 million to be distributed on the basis of relative public school pupil population among the states. On estimated enrollment statistics for Fall, 1966 (NEA), the dollar amounts are approximately as follows on a national total enrollment of 43,000 pupils. State Estimated Distribution 1966 public --____________ school enroll- ment Flat grant Population Total Alaska Montana Arkansas Sissouri New York California $61, 600 169,000 454, 000 968,000 3,250, 000 4,379,000 $282, 350+ 282,350+ 282, 350+ 282, 350+ 282, 350+ 282, 350+ $30, 940 84,890 228, 050 486, 200 1,632,550 2,199, 750 =$313, 290 =367,240 =510,400 =768,550 =1,914,900 =2,482, 100 NorE-The 40-60 percent formula appears to be fair to large States wheti the total appropriations are between $20,000,000 and $50,000,000 annually. Comparison of State apportionment amounts under the provisions of sec. 502, title V, Public Law 89-10, of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 for fiscal years 1966 and 1967 State Amount allocated Per- cent of in- State Amount allocated Per- cent of in- 1966 1967 1 crease 1966 1967 l crease United States and outlying areas ~0 States and the District ofCo- lumbia Alabama Alaska $14,410,000 14,161,000 279,560 112,295 $18, 700,000 18,326,000 -~ 361,015 118,744 ` 29 6 Nebraska Nevada New Ilampshire - - New Jersey New Mexico New York~ North Carolha.,~ North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma $169,432 121, 835 127, 428 374,621 156,933 784,668 357,833 132,298 587,904 231,267 $200,033 133, 251 140, 440 503, 589 184,013 1,101,390 470,811 146, 721 812,434 283,311 18 9 10 34 17 40 32 11 38 23 Arizona 180,006 217, 266 21 Oregon 196, 453 240, 762 23 Arkansas California 198,097 1,005.831 241,611 1,437,553 22 43 Pennsylvania Rhode Island 584,002 132,970 787,239 148,487 35 12 Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho 204,123 222,533 122.897 359,113 327,963 134,487 137, 740 252,769 280,390 134,006 483,058 431,120 150,904 154, 511 24 26 9 35 31 12 12 South Carolina~ South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah vermont Virginia 238,401 135,890 289, 119 639,131 161,834 117,932 311,987 300,222 151,982 373, 661 890,024 189,883 126,442 409, 477 26 12 29 39 17 7 31 Illinois Indiana 547,040 340,696 755, 185 452,975 38 33 Washington \Vest Virginia 257,209 195,376 327,026 234,491 27 20 Iowa 235, 737 296, 258 26 Wisconsin 281,896 369,614 31 Kansas Kentucky 210,803 245, 145 229, 100 308, 713 23 26 Wyoming District of Co- 119,258 127,086 7 Louisiana 272. 012 351.879 29 lumbia 130,934 145, 197 11 Maine 147.726 169,830 15 - -~-- Maryland Massachusetts 260, 971 317. 262 339, 343 420, 266 30 32 Outlyino areas (total) 289, 000 374, 000 29 Michigan 519, 753 719, 819 38 Minnesota 272,402 353,642 30 American Samoa~ 4l,339~ 51,837 25 Mississippi Missouri Montana 226,641 307, 470 136, 086 283, 476 402,685 152, 336 25 31 12 Guam Puerto Rico Virgin Islands 43, 220 162, 621 41, S20~ 54, 471 215, 192, 52, 5O0~ 26 32 26 1 Distribution of $18,700,000, with 2 percent ($374,000) reserved for dtstrihution to the outlying areas and the balance distributed on the basis of the total public school enrollment, fall 1965. The (leOrihu tion to the outlying areas of Puerto Rico. Guans, American Samoa, and the Virgin hianis is on tic leisis of let apportioning $50,000 to each and tne balance distributed on the basis of public school enrolliicnt, fall 1965. 75-492--437-----29 PAGENO="0450" 444 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS TITLE V, PART B This new Part B would authorize $15 million for fiscal year 1968 and such sums Os necessary for the next four fiscal years for educational planning and evaluation. After a 25% "set aside" to finance special projects to be approved by the Commissioner, the new formula of Part A would be applied in allocating ap- proximately 73% of the funds to the states. Section 523(a) (1) then requires a State edacational planning agency as the sole agency for state administration, except that special arrangements can be made for dual administration if the state elects to include higher education and organizes a State higher edvcationai planning agency as well. The law imposes a planning-program-budget-system upon the applicant, leav- ing the identity of the applicant state agency vague. Applications must in any event be submitted to the Governor for review and recommendation. Under Section 523(a) (3), the applicant must make provisions for setting Statewide educational goals, with priorities; make through analyses alternative means of achieving these goals: plan new programs and improvements of existing pr~ granis on the basis of these analyses; develop state conducted evaluation on a continuous basis: and develop and maintain a permanent system of information for as~essment of educational progress. Under Section 523(b) the State plan- ning agency can do these things itself or contract to have them done by public or private agencies, institutions or organizations. Mr. Chairman. many persons experienced in education would approve such systems analyses for the Pentagon in spending billions of dollars for defense. Determining between supersonic bombers or more nuclear submarines, or other- wise how to get "the biggest bang for a buck." is quite different from making the educational judgments necessary to evaluate thousands of programs for the education of children and youth. The conclusions of systems analysis evalua- tions will depeiid on these educational judgments, and many citizens will be doubtful that Part B should be enacted. on this point. I cannot speak for the Council of Chief State School Officers. What I say now is personal. because the Council has no specific policy as of today on this specific proposal. But I am of the opinion that Part B objectives are already authorized by the currently effective Title V, considering that Sec- tion 503(a) (1) (2) (3) (4) authorizes grants to the State educational agencies for making plans and operating evaluation systems in any ways they could under the new Part B. except that they now have no authority to contract for their responsibilities to he performed by other agencies or organizations or commercial developers or operators of systems of the PPBS type. The addition of Part B to Title V seems necessary only to provide federal controls of the specifics of these processes and to use federal financial incentives to enforce these controls. Both carrots and sticks for enforcement are present, including authority to make the allotment of any non-participating state avail- able to others which agree to participate. AMENDMENTS TO TITLE III OF THE ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION ACT- SL~PPLEMENTARY ~UCATIONAL CENTERS Mr. Chairman, the Administration's bill before this committee carries no suggestion that there should be amendments to Title III of ESEA this year. The Council of Chief State School Officers differs strongly oii this point, and although we do not propose to consume a great deal of the time of the corn- mittee on this today. we hope there will be amendments of Title III of ESEA in this session of Congress. In the annual business meeting of the Council in New Orleans on November 1~. 1960. the following resolution was passed unanimously by the membership: `STATE RESPONSIBILITY FOR ADMINISTRATION OF TITLE III OF THE ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION ACT OF 1965 `The Council approves the purposes of Title III. It provides for the develop- ment of supplemetary centers and services to improve the quality and quantity of education; to increase the use of results of educational experimentation, re- search and creativeness in teaching and learning: and to stimuliate broad local, state and federal cooperation in providing exceptional edui~ationa1 opportunities for all children and youth. PAGENO="0451" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDFCATION AMENDMENTS 445 "An analysis of the first year's Title III results shows that states in which the state departments of education have assumed responsibility for organiza- tion and direction of Title III projects on a statewide basis have produced proj- ects, (1) of higher quality, (2) more exemplary and innovative iii content and services, (3) more in accord with the educational needs of the states, and (4) involving wiser use of federal funds. "In view of this experience, the Council urges that Title III be amended to authorize the use of state plans for its future administration. Such plans Should be developed according to criteria established by the L.S. Office of Education, in cooperation with the state departments of education. Within the require- ments of these criteria, the state education agencies should be authorized to evaluate and approve Title III projects proposed by local educational agencies. "It is imperative that all state education agencies actively coordinate the ad- ministration of Title III with reference to their potential or existing local and regional educational service units. With such coordination, exercised in full cooperation with the vast reservoir of leadership in local education agencies, many conditions that now restrict general educational improvement can be removed." Mr. Chairman, we have been encouraged to believe that the F.S. Office of Edu- cation would cooperate with the Council in transferring more involvement in its administration to state departments of education. In this connection, an Office of Education memorandum was the basis for the action of the Council in its New Orleans meeting, specifically authorized to be used by the Council as desired. On January 5. 1967, we inquired of all chief state school officers what their opinion was on Title III amendments for Congressional action in 1967. There w-ere replies from 42 states and territories, all of which favored state plans making local project applications and proposals for supplementary centers sub- ject to approval by state departments of education. A large minority would be willing to "set aside" 15% for special projects to be approved by the IT.S. Commissioner of Education and a very few would support up to a 25% "set aside." At meetings of the Board of Directors and a general meeting in which 23 state departments of education were represented in Atlantic City last month. there was strong sentiment that an amendment to authorize state plans and state project approval should be enacted as soon as possible, with the percent- age of funds to be set aside for special projects approved by the F. S. Commis- sioner of Education either omitted or kept low. Most of these conferees pre- ferred beginning the state plan arrangements not later than July 1, 1968, and many said they were ready for it now. Mr. Chairman, there is no mistaking the position of the chief state school officers on the Title III issue. Point S of the Report of the Legislative Con- ference of National Organizations also shows that this proposed change has widespread support throughout the country. We believe fundamental issues are involved in what is done about Title III in 1967. There are emerging systems of midern regional service cuter units developing within many of the states under state and local auspices. There is great need for coordination of these emerging regional service centers with- in states with all supplementary service centers e~tah1ishpd nuder Title III. We believe the new Title III centers should not be allowed to develop in ways that will establish a federal system of supplementary service centers, supported primarily by federal funds, paralleling and sometimes duplicating systems of similar centers established and supported by the states. Continuation of the current Title III program with expansion to supplementary centers may deny great benefits of Title III to the states most in need of it. In a few selected states, the F.S. Office of Education encourages informal state planning for Title III centers. These states enjoy the special advantages that PilOt states usually have, but with minimum or even negative results to others. A majority of the states are exhorted to note w-hat their stronger neighbors are doing but are denied the means to experience progress of their own by a denial of the responsibility that is necessary for progress. As the neglected states stand by. observing progress hut remaining unsupported for engaging in it themselves, they are denied the administrative, psychological and public reinforcement they need. The neglected states lose ground in full view of their constituencies of citizens and state and local governments. The federal government refuses, in PAGENO="0452" 446 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS substance, to use educational methods in education. It helps the strong, but it denies to the weak the things that would enable the weak to become strong. It is as though a classroom teacher overemphasized demonstrations by brilliant pupils whle the disadvantaged pupils looked on without being given practice in and responsibility for improving themselves. There need not be parallel state supported and federally supported service agencies for education within the states. It would be far better to combine state and federal efforts and have comprehensive planning on a state basis. Such would enable the federal government to provide financial support on condition that the federal objectives for which the federal funds could be used would be carefully served. A system of regional service centers, administered on the state and local levels, supported by the federal government for its own defined purposes. and constituting a true partnership in the service of modern education, would provide a desirable system for the future. Mr. Chairman, we have had access to the text of these proposed amendments less than three days before this testimony had to be finished for multilithing last Friday. It is incomplete and there are certain to be errors and omissions. We will welcome any further inquiries from any members of the Committee. We are grateful for the opportunity to appear here today. Thank you. [Foreword to Report] LEGISLATIVE CON FERENCE OF NATIONAL ORGANIzATIoNs, WASHINGTON, D.C., JANUARY 16-18, 1967 Organizations Delegations of four persons designated by each of the following organizations: 1. American Association of School Administrators 2. Council of Chief State School Officers 3. National Association of State Boards of Education 4. National Congress of Parents and Teachers 5. National Education Association 6. National School Boards Association Ground rules 1. Each organization was responsible for three priority items. 2. All positions adopted were required to be within the policies of all six organizations; otherwise, they were not considered. 3. Each of the organizations will sponsor its own educational program, in addi- tion to its support of the joint statement. 4. Each organization will support the joint program in its own way. Results Eighteen topics were suggested. Three were dropped for policy reasons ex- pressed by one or more delegations during the discussions. Two new items were added to the agenda and approved. The statements on the seventeen items are not necessarily listed in order of importance in the Report that follows. It was presented to White House. Health, Education, and Welfare, U.S. Office of Education and Bureau of the Budget officials at the White House on January 18, 1967 by a committee of six persons representing the six organizations. PROPOSALS ON EDITcATIONAL LEGISLATION RECOMMENDED FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE PRESIDENT AND THE CONGRESS IN 1907 BY A LEGISLATIVE CONFERENCE OF NATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS A legislative conference of national organizations, representing the following groups: American Association of School Administrators Council of Chief State School Officers National Association of State Boards of Education National Congress of Parents and Teachers National Education Association National School Boards Association met in Washington, D.C., on January 16-17, 1967. The Conference considered a comprehensive agenda of items relating to federal policy and legislation, de- velopments in the administration of various federally related school programs, PAGENO="0453" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 447 and the needs and problems reported from school systems throughout the country. As a result of its deliberations the Ccaferenc~e unanimously itiakes the following recommendations for the consideration of the President and the Congress. 1. TIMING OF FEDERAL AUTHORIZATIONS, APPROPRIATIONS. REGuLA'iIoNS. ALLOCATIONS, PAYMENTS AND REPORTS (inc of the most crucial probleimis rc'ulting from the increased participation of the federal government in the financing of education is the incompatibility of the legislative year and the school year as it affects planning and financing of school programs. The problem results primarily from the fact that federal funds be- come available beyond the time when planning for their use can be effective. We propose that Congress study this problem and recommend a solution which would provide local school districts with the information on available funds at a time when they can use it most effectively. 2. AMENDMENTS TO TITLE V OF THE ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION ACT OF 1965-GRANTS TO STRENGTHEN STATE DEPARTMENTS OF EDUCATION We recommend amendment of the present formula for the aflocation of all federal funds to the states under Section 502 to provide for distribution of 40% cii a flat grant basis and 60% on a relative pupil population basis. 3. TRANSFER OF HEAD START TO THE OFFICE OF EDUCATION We recommend the transfer of the Head Start program from the Office of Economic Opportunity to the Office of Education, retaining the elements of the program which emphasize health, social services, parent education, and parent participation. 4. EDUCATIONAL TELEVISION The Ford Foundation proposed to the Federal Communications Commission in August. 1900 that the use of domestic satellites could provide more television channels than now are available for commercial use at considerably less cost, with other channels available for educational and instructional television, and proposed further that the savings to commercial stations be set aside for opera- tion and programming of lion-commercial television in the public interest. Since then, proposals have been made by other individuals and organizations. We support in principle the objectives of a domestic satellite system which could provide more television channels for educational use. We further recom- mend the extension of the ETV Facilities Act during the current session of Congress. 5. JUDICIAL REVIEW We support the passage of Senate Bill 3 of 19437, to provide effective pro- cedures for the enforcement of the establishment and free exercise clauses of the First Amendment to the Constitution. 6. AMENDMENTS TO TEACHER CORPS LAW We recommend that the National Teacher Corps be continued as a pilot pro- gram for a period of three (3) years with an appropriation level of approxi- mately: a. $10 million for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1968; b. $20 million for the fiscal year ending June 30, 19439; c. $30 million for the fiscal year ending June 30. 1970. We further recommend that the National Teacher Corp Act be amended to: a. Provide for the allocation of funds through state departments of education, and for state approval of Corps members and their training; h. Provide grant authority for contracts with local school districts and universities for a two-year period of service: c. Set the compensation for teacher-interns at the prevailing rate for graduate students of $75 per week plus tSlS per week for each dependent; d. Provide that initiative for project proposals shall rest with the local school districts and cooperating institutions of higher education with ap- proval of the state department of education. PAGENO="0454" 448 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 7. FEDERAL FUNDS FOR LARGE CITY EDUCATIONAL PLANNING We reomiiiend that substantial earmark'-'d funds to be provided through Title V of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 or some other appro- priate channel to the state educational agencies for comprehensive planning for the 1,rovisin of quality education in metropolitan areas including cities of 196.000 or mere. S. AMENDMENTS TO TITLE III or THE ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION ACT- sUPPLEMENTARY EDUCATIONAL CENTERS We recommend amendments to Title III of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act to provide that local project applications and proposals for sup- plenmentary centers shall be subject to final approval by the state departments of education under provisions of state plans, with the exception that approxi- mately i~c~ of federal funds available shall be "set aside" for projects to be approved by the I `nited States Commissioner of Education. 9. GENERAL FEDERAL SUPPORT OF PUBLIC EDUCATION We recommend federal participation in the financing of public education through substantial general support, with minimum limitations on its use, rather than through fragmentary categorical grants. 10, FEDERAL FINANCING OF OVERSEAS DEPENDENT SCHOOLS We recommend the financing of overseas dependent schools at a level which svill provide a quality of education equal to that of the better schools in the United States. im. MANPOIvER DEVELOPMENT AND TRAINING ACT We reconunend that the administration of the Manpower Development and Traininlr prcgrams be transferred from time Department of Labor to the Depart- meat of Health. Education, and Welfare. 1~. PROPOSALS REGARDING THE ADULT EDUCATION ACT OF 1966 We recomnmemmd the following legislative action 1. A supplemental appropriation to provide financing at the maximum level authorized for the current fiscal year. 2. An appropriation at the immaximum level authorized for adult basic edu- cation in Fiscal 1968. and such funds in fiscal years thereafter as Congress Inay authorize. 3. Establish a consistent definition of "adult basic education" to be used throughout the Act and fix the minimum age of eligibility at sixteen years. 13. PROPOSALS REGARDING CHILD NUTRITION ACT OF 1966 We recommend the full funding of programs under the Child Nutrition Act and the appropriation of additional funds for state administration of programs under this ACt. 14. AMENDMENTS TO THE NATIONAL DEFENSE EDUCATION ACT We recommend that Titles III and XI of the National Defense Education Act be ~unended to include health education and physical education. 15. FEDERAL FINANCING OF SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION We reCommend the inclusion of substantial capital outlay funds for public school buildings under Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act or some other appropriate channel. 16. TAX CREDITS FOR EDUCATION We recommend the extension of scholarship funds for higher education and oppose enactimient of legislation to allow tax credits for school or college tuition and/or expenses. PAGENO="0455" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 449 17. REGIONAL OFFICES OF TIlE L.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION We oppose expansion of the regional offices of the U.S. Office of Education and recommend that wherever possible educational functions and authority be vested in state departments of education. CONFERENCE PARTICIPANTS American Association of Schools A dirnini~trators William H. Curtis, President-elect; Superintendent of Schools, Manchester, Connecticut G. Warren Phillips, Chairman, Committee on Federal Policy and Legislation; Superintendent of Schools, Valparaiso, Indiana Forrest E. Conner, Executive Secretary, 1201 16th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. Council of chief State school officers Owen B. Kiernan. President; State Commissioner of Education, Boston, Mas- sachusetts M. F. Peterson, President-elect; State uperintendent of Public Instruction, Bis- mark, North 1)akota Byron W. Hansford, Committee on Policy: State Commissioner of Education, Denver, Colorado Janies A. Sensenbaugh, Committee on Policy: State Superintendent of Schools, Baltimore, Maryland Edgar Fuller, Executive Secretary, 1201 16th Street, N.W.. Washington. D.C. National A8sociation of State Boards of Education Mrs. Bernice S. Frieder, President, 75 South Forest Street. Denver, Colorado Perce J. Ross, President-elect, 11 West Lincoln, Buckhannon, West Virginia Frederic G. Conistock, Vice President, 729 San Mateo, N.E.. Albuquerque, New Mexico E,iiil A. Koehn, Treasurer, P.O. Box 278, Parker, South Dakota National Congress of Parents and Teachers Mrs. Irvin E. Hendryson, First Vice President, 1250 Humboldt Street, Denver, Colorado Mrs. Edward F. Ryan, Legislative chairman, 110 Bridge Street, Manchester, Massachusetts. Mrs. Fritz Kohn, Legislative Information Chairman, 9202 Ponce Place, Fair- fax, Virginia. Miss Mary A. Mimer, Administrative Assistant, 700 North Rush Street, Chicago, Illinois National Education Association William G. Carr, Executive Secretary, 1201 16th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. William H. Hebert, Chairman, Legislative Commission; Executive Secretary, Massachusetts Teachers Association, 14 Beacon Street, Boston, Massachusetts James L. MeCaskill, Assistant Executive Secretary, 1201 16th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. John M. Lumley, Director, Federal Relations Division, 1201 16th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. National School Boards Association Joseph Ackerman, President, 399 Poplar Avenue, Elmhurst, Illinois Harold V. Webb, Executive Director, 1233 Central Street, Evanston, Illinois Paul N. Carlin. Washington Representative, 1616 H. Street, N.W., Washing- ton, D.C. Mr. CHRISTIAN. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am Floyd Christian, supervisor of public instruction in the Sunshine State of Florida. I am very grateful for this opportunity to appear before the com- mittee, and I shall attempt, in this brief presentation, not to cover point.s that have been made by my distinguished colleagues. I would like to mention some of the titles and some of the amend- ments that I think need more clarification, and the titles and amend- ments that we in Florida are especially interested in. PAGENO="0456" 450 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDTJCATION AMENDMENTS Chairman PERKINS. I am sure you are cognizant that a distin- guished Member from Florida is on this committee. Mr. CnRIsrnx. Yes, sir; I know he is from the Sunshine State and a very able representative of Florida, too, I might say, Mr. Perkins.. We are very proud of him. First I would like to mention title I. Florida has used very wisely all of its funds under the allocation of title I. However, I believe this title will expire on June 30, 1968. In order for the State agen- cies to make continuous plans and to insure stability, I, with my col- leagues here, would strongly recommend that Congress consider an extension for this, at least for 2 years, to 1970. I, like Superintendent Sparks, approve of a more realistic formula under this title. The new low-income factor of $3,000 will certainly help to meet and serve the needs of the poor and to better serve the needy child. But. I still think there can be a better formula devised and would like to see Congress give consideration to further study of a more equitable basis for distributing the funds under this title.. I think this can he done. I agree, too, that section 102 raising the State administrative ex- pense from $75,000 to $150,000 is necessary. I know our State could use it. and I am sure the other States can use this amount. The one that I am strongly interested in is the support of the Teachers Corps being a part of title I. I approve of this being added as an amendment., but under the following conditions: First, that we maintain in this amendment that it must be approved by the State. educational agencies. Second, that the curriculum for the corpsmen be agreed upon by the local educational agencies and the institutions of higher educa- tion. To say it more simply, we do not feel that the Commissioner or his agency should have anything to do with the approval of the curriculum. We think this is an agency that does not have to be involved and that the program would best be served by the local school agency arid' the institution of higher learning, and approved by the State agency. Here, again, we. hope that this program will be extended, as I said, for the 2-year period. Title III, as has already been mentioned, has been used very success- fully in Florida, and we have a State plan. I think it needs more clarification, perhaps. than any other title discussed here this morning. I would like to join with my colleagues and urge that this commit- tee consider amendments to title III. This is one point that the chief State school officers of America stand strongly together upon. We recommend that the State agencies be. given the responsibility for the administration of title III. I believe our State educational agencies are capable of directing projects on a statewide basis, and I believe it will give you wiser use of your Federal funds if they do so. I would not object, as one State officer, in seeing that a small por- tion, not to exceed 1~ l)er(e1~t, be set aside by the US. Office of Edu- cation for special projects. But if the States can administer title I successfully, and they have, title II and title V, there is no earthly reason that they cannot administer title III. PAGENO="0457" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 451 May I cite this example: III our State plan we reviewed the projects that came to ~\Vashington. in most. of the cases, I should say, they approved the projects we recommended. in some instances they (lid not. In the instance where they exceeded our recommendations and went to the local agency and approved pmojects that we had not recommended, they were overlapping projects which alreatlv existed, and this is why I think this authority should be in tile hands of the local State agency anti not left up to Washington to approve, because they do not. irnow all of the planning that goes on in the local agencies. On title V, as has been mentioned, there are two very important items that I think need your consideration under title V. I will men- tion again that this title expires on June oO, 1968. It should i~e ex- tended until 1970. Of course, the appropriation of $22 million, to my way of thinking. is only a drop in the bucket as to what is needed of the allocation of the $50 million which was what we think we need and what we should have for this title. Speaking on the amendment of part 13 of title V for educational planning, I join with my colleagues in saying this is very important, but I think the State agencies here are competent to early out and be responsible for educational planning. Should the present a men(lment as it now exists be passed, I think it would lead to chaos and confusion. The amendment, as I understand it, would allow the Governor to select either an institution of higher learning, a private, agency or the State agency. I think this would be wrong and would not lead to educational harmony, but would, as I said, lead to chaos and confusion. It would be much simpler to put this into title V. which already has the responsibility for educational planning. I join with my col- leagues in hoping that this committee will leave it where it belongs and not set up a section B or a part B and set up a confusion among the State depai~tments and with the Governor's office as to w-ho ad- ministers this title. On section VI, I agree with t.he previous speakers that. adding title 171 to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act could be one of the most important steps for American education. But there are two serious omissions, in my opinion : ()ne, an ap- propriation of $2.5 million is very small an(l meager to meet the needs of Florida or the other States. We ill }lori(Ta aie only serving about 50 percent of the handicapped children. The S2.5 mill ion, or our share of approximately $50 million, is really not eIlolILrhI ho do the job. The proposal to establish regional resources centers at $T~500,000 is an important step, but I do not think it takes priority over adequate financing of the States for assistance in the education of handicapped children. Finally, the Vocational Education Act.. here I would think that Congress is to be commended for the farsightedness in the amend- ments to title II of the Vocational Education Act. In Florida we are planning vocational, technical, and adult centers to reach 95 percent of all the population in our State. We will have 29 centers that are to be completed within the next 2 years. More than half of these centers will open in September 1961 and the balance in 1968 and 1969. PAGENO="0458" 452 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS The passage of these amendment.s would have a favorable impact upon Florida, and the $30 million to be used for innovation in vo- cational education would greatly benefit the entire Nation, and cer- ta.irily Florida. Florida would receive approximately $1 million under this act1 and we urge you to look favorably upon t.he Vocational Education Act as you have submitted it for innovation in this program. Finally, I want to thank you for this opportunity of appearing. It. is my first time before the committee. It is my first time before any committee in Congress. I hope that. you look favorably upon the suggestions made by our colleagues today. Thank you. Chairman PERKINS. Mr. Johnston, you may proceed. Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee1 thank you very much. Being last, I think you have had your attention called to most of the points that concern us in this legislation. Briefly, I would touch upon title I, with the comments that were ma de. I will make my statements quite brief, Mr. Chairman, since you have heard many of the same things that I would say with regard to this legislation. I would also agree. that the administration fund for title I should be increased, and on the Teacher Corps, the comments made in rela- tion to the Teacher Corps are appropriate so far as my statement is concerned. I would like to briefly touch upon title III which is the supplemen- tary resource center. In our State we have taken the approach of using an area concept for the improvement of education. This means the necessity of co- ordinating funds for vocational education, vocational rehabilitation, the. Element arv-Secondary Education Act, title I, II, and III, and also the utilization of title V: also the use of cooperative re.search programs; the basic acli~lt education program. This requires a. State department of education to do a tremendous job of planning. to coordinate the various aspects of the program. With title ITT. which touches upon the supplementary centers, we tli ink this is a very vital adjunct for providing and improving services back to the local school di~triets. It should he developed on an area concept hc~is. To do this, we would like to see the framework for this under the framework of a State plan. the same as we do in many other aspect.s of our program. Getting to title V. and this I will stop on so that we can have time for discussion, title V as now in the law provides, of course, 10 particu- lar items that need to he covered, arid these we have covered in our title V approach. strengthening the services of State departments. The. very first item in title. V. of course, is educational planning on a long-range basis. For example. in our State when we developed our statewide plan. or our State plan. for title V. we projected it ona ~-vear basis coverin~ the different aspects that were pointed out. in the statute, to provide this type of a program. PAGENO="0459" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDTCATION AMENDMENTS 453 We believe that what is proposed under title B can just as well be carried out under the provisions of the statute as it is at the present time. If the F.S. Office of Education feels, as they annually review our budgets and projections for activities for the coming year. that edu- cational planning is iiot being developed as it should be on a long-range basis, they have the opportunity each year, annually, as they review our programs, review our budgets and our projections of activity, the opportunity to give~ us more insight into w-hat they feel should be done in this regard. Basically, as we projected this 5-year project, speaking of the State of Iowa, we had something like S~96,000 of Federal funds involved in this. Again, if we were to carry out the total concepts actually needed to improve the statewide system, our projection was somewhere in the neighborhood of $600,000. Basically, I think I am also urging the improvement of the funding, and, as the chairman indicated, you arc well aware of this problem. It is very serious as you provide and attempt to keep and attract pro- fessional PeOl)le. If the authorization is taken up next year, this means in all fairness we have to advise the professional peo~de that we are not sure what our position will be after June 30, 19(5S. All of these people have families and obligations and naturally are going to do the same as most people would under these circumstances. WTe believe that if the appropriations were developed as the authoriza- tion indicates for title V, that we could carry out the major purposes. I am sure that all the States would work to this end if they had the kind of funds that are indicated in the authorization. Mr. Chairman, I will close, because you have heard many of the itenis covered, the amendments. I think it would be l)etter if we had use of the time to have discussion. Chairman PERKINs. Let me thank all of you for coming here and making very constructive statements, which I am sure will be most helpful to the members of the committee. I notice that some of the members have come in since I first con- vened the committee with an announeenient. W~e will proceed around tl~e committee members under the 5-minute rule. The second time. around, however, there will be no limitation of time. I know that some members may want to probe deeply and cannot do it in 5 or 10 minutes. For that reason, on the second time around no one will be limited. To start out with, however, there will be a limitation. Mr. Goodell. Mr. GOODELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. T want to express my appreciation to the witnesses this morning. With reference to the recognition of the State of Florida, I am sure Mr. Page is aware that we have a distinguished Representative p'~- ent from the State of Illinois, Mr. Erleiiborn. .`\lr. P~or. Thank you. Mr. GooDELJ~. I would like to first ask von about title III. Your experience thus far under title III is that the applications inc referred to the State agency for comment: is that correct? PAGENO="0460" 454 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS Mr. ChRIsTIAN. For review and recommendation. Mr. G000ELL. What has been your experience on the action of the Office of Education following your State recommendation? Mr. CHRISTIAN. I mentioned in my testimony that in the majority of the cases they approved the recommendation of our agency, but in some c.ases they went beyond our recommendation and approved proj - ects that we had not recommended with local agencies. Here, in our judgment, this was not good, because we felt that there were projects that exceeded what they had approved, and, further, we thought there were further plans in the local agencies and the State agency that would take care of this innovation rather than the one that was approved. Mr. GOODELL. To what degree do the States initiate applications under title III? Mr. CHRISTIAN. We have helped plan in our States nearly all of the. projects that have come up, with the local agencies, and then reviewed them and submitted them up. Mr. GOODELL. I mean to what degree has your State tried to initiate projects under title III for application? Mr. CHRISTIAN. We can't initiate them. Mr. GOODELL. Why can't you? Mr. CHRISTIAN. The local agency must. initiate them. We are to review them. Mr. 000DELL. Do von say you are isolated from your local agency? Why can't you talk with them about the possibility of what you would like to see done and help them develop applications? Mr. CHRISTIAN. This is the. very point we are making. If you will invest authority in the local agency, we can, with some certaint.y, carry out what you are trying to state, to be sure that the local agencies work with us in planning for the overall State. That is what we are asking. Mr. GOODELL. I understand that. you would like to have it required that they do that., but. why can't you do it under present circumstances? Mr. CHRISTIAN. I just mentioned if we did, and then they have the authority to exceed our recommendations and pick out a project. Mr. (i-O0DELL, I understand that problem, hut. my question was to what~ degree do you work with the local agencies to help them develop applications on their own for title III funds? Mr. PAGE. I would like to say that even though there. are no admin- istrative. funds available for title III in Illinois, we have employed a director of title III with a statewide advisory committee for title III, and we do work with local agencies in preparing plans. On the first. cutoff date there were six out of eight. projects recom- mended by the State department. of the State of Illinois approved. Some of those approved were those that. we said were not good projects that. should be rejected by the F.S. Office of Education, and others that we. did recommend were approved. lYe have found that ~n rianv instance~ our recommendations have not been effective. Mr. GoonfT,L. Tn this first go-around. I will stay at the general level. Tt appears to me, looking down the various recommendations von have rip,ck'. ~niong other things von would like to have overall increases in the State fiexihil itv and discretionary power. PAGENO="0461" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 455 Mr. PAGE. That is right. Mr. GOODELL. This is reflected in your urging of more financing through general grants rather than categorical grants. I wonder if you don't find yourself contradictory here in your recommendation, for instance, on title V, where you have urged earmarking of funds for metropolitan problems. You are here arguing for a new categorical grant, in effect, in title V. Mr. PAGE. I don't think we mentioned that today, did we, Congress- man? Mr. GOODELL. It is one of the recommendations listed at the end of Mr. Fuller's testimony, which apparently was approved by your organization. Mr. FULLER. Is that one of the six points? Mr. GOODELL. No. Mr. FULLER. That was promoted primarily by the American Asso- ciation of School Administrators, and it. is intended that those funds for planning would be in the States. Is that the one you are talking about.? Mr. 000DELL. With unanimous consent, I will ask a further question on what I am referring to. It is on page 2 of your recommended legis- lation, No. 7, where you recommend that substantial earmarked funds be provided in title V of the Elementary and Secondary Act of 1965, to State educational agencies for coml)reheflsive planning, the provi- sion of quality education in mctropolitaii areas. including cities of 100,000 or more. Mr. FULLER. Yes, I believe that in accord with what the council approved. Mr. GOODELL. I am interested in your coming to ask for approval of general grants and among your recommendations is an earmarked categorical grant.. Chairman PERKINS. Mr. Daniels. Mr. I)AxIEi~. Mr. Chairman, I would like to compliment the meiri- bers of the panel for bringing their views and recommendations to us this morning. I note particularly you make two specific recommendations. I think all the members of the panel agree with them. One is that the act should be extended for a period of at least 2 years, to 1970, in order that the State school boards and local boards of education may do the proper planning, and, secondly, that State agencies should be con- suited in the administration of the act. I think these views are well taken, and I wholeheartedly agree wifli you. My colleague, Mr. Brademas, I know has a Tong series of questions. lie has given more time and attention to this study of the at tliaii I have. With the consent of the chairman, I will yiel(l the balance of my time to the gentleman. Chairman PERKINS. Is there Ol)jeCtioli to the gentleiiiai yielding the balance of his time to Mr. Brademas? The Chair hears none. Mr. BRADEMAS. I thank my colleague from New Jersey. Because time is short, we will get right down to business. On page 7, Dr. Fuller, of your statement, you make reference. to a resolution PAGENO="0462" 456 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS adopted by the board of directors of your council on the 18th of No- vember, in which you say an analysis of the first year title III results show the States in which the State departments of education have as- sumed responsibility for title III projects, et cetera, have produced, in general, better projects. That rather astonished me, that statement, because I think you said it was based on a November 9 document. We really weren't in business very long in title III programs. Indeed, most of the programs under ESEA were not in being very long. I wondered if you could submit to the committee the analysis to which you referred. Mr. FULLER. Yes. (The following documents were subsequently submitted for the record.) INTRODUCTORY No'rE TTSOE MEMORANDUM OF NOVEMBER 9, 1966 The USOE Memorandum of November 9, 1966 makes it clear that its conclu- sions on II. State Leadership came from "* * * an analysis of the first year of operation of PACE * * ~" and not from a single state. Approximately 15 states had active state participation and 35 did not have the state agencies so com- pletely involved. We have confidence in the conclusions as stated in the Memorandum by the responsible administrators of the program, especially since we checked carefully and ascertained before it was used in New Orleans that it had been approved by the U.S. Commissioner of Eduation. NOVEmBER 9, 1966. MEMORANDUM TO DR. EDGAR FUlLER, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, COUNCIL OF CHIEF STATE SCHOOL OVEIcERs. Through: Arthur L. Harris, Associate Commissioner, BE SE. From: Nolan Estes, Deputy Associate Commissioner, BESE. Subject: Title III resolution-Organization at State level. You will find attached information regarding ways that States might effectively organize for title III. ORGANIZING FOR TITLE III AT THE STATE LEVEL I. PACE philosophy The title III program of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, called PACE (Projects to Advance Creativity in Education), is designed to develop imaginative solutions to educational problems; to more effectively utilize re- search findings; and to create, design, and make intelligent use of supplementary centers and services. Primary objectives are to translate the latest knowledge al)out teaching and learning into widespread educational practice and to create an awareness of new programs and services of high quality that can ~e incor- porated in school programs. Therefore. PACE seeks to (1) encourage the devel- opment of innovations, (2) demonstrate worthwhile innovations in educational practice through exemplary programs, (3) supplement existing programs and facilities. The heart of the PACE programs is in these provisions for bringing a creative force to the improvement of schools and for demonstrating that better practices can be applied. In 19(~7. the PAUE program will he particiularly concerned with the following items related t iiati'nal interests (1) Equalizing educational opportunities; (2) Planning for metropolitan areas; (3) Meeting needs for rural communities; (4) Curdinating all community resources-political, social, cultural. and industrial-in the establishment and achievement of goals in and through education. PAGENO="0463" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 457 Projects related to the national interest and designed to invent or demonstrate solutions to problems in the areas listed below will receive priority funding. These areas are: (1) Curriculum improvement; (2) Organization and administration; (3) Personnel (selection, education, and use) (4) Pupil personnel services; and (5) Planning of facilities. We should not lose sight of the ultimate goal of Title III, that being to enhance the quantity and quality of education for all youth. II. ~State leadership An analysis of the first year of operation of PACE reveals some very important facts. States in which the departments of education have taken the responsi- bility to organize for and give direction to title Ill at the State level have sub- mitted projects which (1) are of higher quality, (2) more exemplary and innova- tive in content and service, (3) significantly relate the State's assessment of educational needs of problems at the local level to solutions in the national, State, and local interest, and (4) have apparently made full and wise use of funds available to that State. III. Kinds of strategies States are encouraged to develop models o~ strategies which will result in better utilization of title III funds. As indicated l)reviouSly, many of our States have excellent organizational and functional patterns for administering PACE. Following are a few suggestions for kinds of l)rocedures which might be ex- panded upon by State departments of education to organize for title III. (1) Regional organization.-Local school superintendents niight assemble under the auspices of the State education agency and divide the State into an appro- priate iiumber of regions. Policy statements would be formulated for such a plan and presented to the State board of education for adoption. A legal body to act as fiscal agent for the region would be established. Each region would be entitled to an available rro rata share of title Ill funds. depending upon (a) the educational needs and (b) the number of children in each region. Local school superintendents within the region and the State title III coordinator could decide on a priority basis what kinds of programs and/or services should be proposed. It is conceivable that one or more title III projects might originate from within a region. This strategy would provide systemization of PACE programs within the State. (2) Political grouping-Several school units or LEA's may decide to cooperate in the submission of a title III project. In such a case it \V0UI(l be wise to send a letter of intent to the State department of education title III coordinator to get an opinion on the feasibility of such a program in that area and the prob- ability of receiving funding. This not only provides a type of samictiomi for the project, but helps the State in its efforts to coordinate title III activities. Should this kind of grouping occur it would be necessary to select an LEA as fiscal agent for the project. 3. Local education agcncy.-An exemplary or innovative idea for a PACE project may emanate from a single school unit. In such a case it would again seem feasible to write a letter of intent to the State education agency receiving sanction and providing system to the funding of projects in the State. This letter should convey a project estimate of benefit's to the LEA and other LEA's in the area. Officials from these localities would need to become involved in the project at some state of its development. 4. Interstate coo peration.-If local education agencies from adjoining States feel a coalition of efforts is desirable the follow-ing `steps may be taken: 1. Decide which LEA from each State is to be the fiscal agent. 2. Obtain information, sanction, and leadership from the title III State coordinators of the respective States. 3. LEA's from each State will submit duplicate proposals to the States and FSOE for review and possible funding. In such an arrangein at the total project budget would he the same. hut State budgets for the said project w-ould perhaps read differently. For example, one State mar w-ish to pay the director's salary, another may take care of consultants fees, travel, etc. 5. (`on tent groups.-This might be an alliance between two or more local school agencies, formed to work on a common I)rOblcIn. Again. State department per- PAGENO="0464" 45S ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS sonnel should be asked for sanction and leadership. Such a project might be written for two school districts at opposite ends of the State, each working toward the solution of a migrant problem. The project would probably be tied very closely to planning, evaluation, and dissemination. IV. Statewide service A further posibility for title III organization within States is the provision of statewide services through local or regional projects. One project might provide statewide evaluation services, a second statewide dissemination services, and a third statewide planning services. This strategy may be particularly do- sirable in States that have insufficient funds for providing these services ade- quately at the State level. Perhaps the most significant strategy among strategies is for the State agency to become actively involved iii title III. Policy should be carefully formulated at the State level to assure involvement in title III activity and which will in- crease the State agency's capacity to provide the necessary educational leader- ship in the State's total educational effort. SFPPLEMENTAL STATEMENT ON NECESSARY STATE PLANNING IN EDUCATION (By Edgar Fuller)1 Achievement of first-rate supplementary services to pupils, teachers, and school systems urgently requires State planning and coordination of services to local educational agencies. Most programs in most attendance units of most loc;d educational agencies stand more in need of stimulation and supplementa- tion than their operators and sponsors realize. Local programs vary widely in scope and quality ia every State. and good regional services can improve them everywhere. The problem is how to make special services universally avaflable and to encourage their use iii such areas as curriculum development, pupil and tea elmer pers mmmcl, adult and vocational education, remedial instruction, adminis- tratiun. data processing. new media and methods. and others. Several uncoordinated amid partial solutions to this problem are evident. Strong suburban school systems spend their own money to command better teachers and to develop excellent progranis and faclities, but often turn away when the needs of their rural or urban ghetto neighbors are mentioned. A few county units l)r~vide excellent services with fine leadership under favorable conditions in several States, but these States often continue to support other county school offices of the kind that were more adequate in simpler times. There are several emerging State patterns of regional centers that are being planned to serve all local educational agencies. but State legislatures are implementing these patterns slowly: The time has arrived for comprehensive planning. During the first 2 years of title III operation, Federal funds have been ap- proved for local educational agencies on the basis of local promises to provide new or different services iii education. These 1-year grants have not required coordination of local projects in statewide patterns of prospective intermediate service agencies on a continuing basis. The title III requirement for state agency revie~v and recommendation on these locally initiated and federally approved ~rojects often has been meaningless. and quite frequently embarrassing. Many State agencies found themselves unable to cope with personal and political pressures on Washington generated among local districts competing for favor- aide federal decisions. Too often, Federal decisions have overruled carefully made State department recommendations. Title III has given the State agencies responsibility without suitable authority regarding local projects, and under circumstances inevitably creating conflicts the State agencies are powerless to resolve. Beginning in 1961, the Federal Government will become an important if not dominant factor in this area of education. With increased funds, it will em- phasize establishment of new supplementary service centers under title III of the `Edgar Fuller. Executive Secretary, Council of Chief State Schooi Officers, Washing- ton. D.C. 2 See Regional 2cr rice Agency Prototypes, prepared for the U.S. Office of Education by Deparirnent at Rural Education. NEA. January, 1967; An Intermediate Unit for Pennsyl- tunic, State Board of Education, January. 1967. PAGENO="0465" I ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 459 Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. All States should now plan these centers and coordinate them with similar State and local regional service arrangements. Both experience and policy considerations support State plans for title III. After all, approximately 15 States voluntarily coordinated the local projects on a statewide basis during the first 2 years of title III operation, and earned high praise from the U.S. Office of Education. In a memorandum of November 9, 1966, USOE made the following evaluation: "II. STATE LEADERSHIP "An analysis of the first year of operation of PACE reveals some very ha- portant facts. States in which the departments of education have taken the responsibility to organize for and give direction to title 111 at the State level have submitted projects which (1) are of higher quality, (2) more exemplary and innovative in content and service, (3) significantly relate the State's as- sessment of educational needs of problems at the local level to solutions in the National, State, and local interest, and (4) have apparently made full and wise use of funds available to that State." With this encouragement, the Council of Chief State School Officers passed a resolution on November 18, 1966 including the following: "In view of this experience, the council urges that title III be amended to authorize the use of State plans for its future administration. Such plans should be developed according to criteria established by the U.S. Office of Education, in cooperation with the State departments of education. Within the requiren~ents of these criteria, the State education agencies should be authorized to evaluate and approve title III projects proposed by local educational agencies. "It is imperative that all State education agencies actively coordinate the ad- ministration of title III with reference to their potential or existing local auil regional educational service units. With such coordination, exercised in full cooperation with the vast reservoir of leadership in local education agencies, many conditions that now restrict general educational improvement can be re- moved." This position was approved on January 18, 196~', by a Legislative Conference of the American Association of School Administrators, the Council of Chief State School Officers, the National Association of State Boards of Education, the Na- tional Congress of Parents and Teachers, the National Education Association, and the National School Boards Association. There were no objections to State plans. There were some objections to a Federal "set aside" of approximately 15 percent for special projects to be approved by the U.S. Commissioner of Edu- cation without reference to State plans. Expressions generally favored post- poning for a year or two if necessary the date the State plans would become effective. These positions have been communicated to the administration. Thus far, it has not recommended that title III be amended to authorize such State respon- sibility under State plans, or even that title III be extended so States and local agencies may have time to plan their programs for another year. Without these changes, Federal administration of title III supplementary cen- ters may deny great benefits to 35 or more States without State plans. ln these States there would be growth of systenis of supplementary centers but no real State responsibility for their number and location. Such denial of State respon- sibility would be far more serious than it has been for purely local a.nnual projects. As the U.S. Commissioner of Education makes the decisions on a local basis, these 35 disadvantaged States will lack the administrative. psychological, and public reinforcement they need. They u-ill be weakened in full view of their constituencies of citizens and their State and local governments. The Federal Government refuses, in substance, to use educational methods in education. It helps the strong, but in title III it denies to the weak the things that would enable the weak to become strong. It is as though a classroom teaclmer overemphasized demonstrations by brilliant pupils while the disad~-antaged PUPIlS looked on without being given practice in and responsibility for improving themselves. On the basis of Federal. State. and local policy coiis-idor:ttioiis, title Iii should not be allou-ecl to develop a federally financed system of supplementa i'y service PAGENO="0466" 460 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDME~S centers paralleling and sometimes duplicating systems of similar centers estab- lished and supported by the States. Title III should be amended in 1967 to require State plans in every State. State systems of regional service centers, administered and financed by State and local agencies with financial assistance from the Federal Government for its own defined purposes, would provide the coordinated services needed in all States. Mr. BRADEMAS. Also, because I was skeptical of the statement, I would ask that an inquiry be made of the Office of Education. This inquiry brings me the answer that this analysis was based on the work of only one State. Have you a comment to make? Mr. FULLER. This was based on an analysis of the entire experience which ran at that time, I believe, to about 1,500 projects. It was on official USOE stationery and it was a memorandum. I received per- mission from the pei~on who signed it to use in any way desired. Mr. BRADEMAS. Would you comment on my first observation; namely, that in view of the purpose of title III programs to provide supple- mentary, innovative, and qualitative programs, how could you possibly come up with so sweeping a conclusion as is represented by that state- ment, whether it came from the Office of Education or the man on the moon? It sounds to me almost impossible to come up with so sweeping a conclusion. Mr. FULLER. This is the conclusion of the evaluation by the Office of Education of all of the projects, running into four figures, up to that time. Mr. BRADEMAS. If you could get me the document, I would be grate- fiil. I guess what I am saying is I don't believe it. it is bogus, as far as I am concerned. I don't believe you can come up with the conclu- sions that say they are higher quality, more in accord with the educa- tional needs of the States, wiser use of Federal funds. How can you possibly say that in early November of a program that has been funded for only a few months? Mr. FULLER. This was in the second year, last November. Mr. BRADEMAS. I understand that. Mr. FULLER. This is the statement. of the Office of Education. I will be glad to make it available for the record. Mr. BRADEMAS. I wish you would. I guess I want to go on record and say I don't believe it. The second point I would make is on the same page of your state- ment. I refer to your inquiry of chief State school officers about title III amendments. I would be glad if you could submit for the record a copy of your questionnaire. I would also find it interesting to send a similar inquiry to local school superintendents all over the country. I dare say you might get a different answer. I have talked to school superintendents in my own district and they like the situation as it is very much indeed. Just as you may be fearful of unwarranted Federal control they are fearful of unwarranted State control. I say that as one, who, as you know, Dr. Fuller, was a strong supporter of increased funding for title V. I wonder, Dr. Sparks, if you would make a comment on title III PAGENO="0467" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 461 projects in your own State. or from your vantage point. I think you are a member of the Title. III Advisory Committee. Mr. SPARKS. Yes. (The questionnaire referred to follows:) INTRODT~cTORY NOTE ON SEN TIGRAM No. 145 OF JANF ARY 5, 1967 Sentigram No. 145 of January 5. 1967, was formulated to follow up on some of the details of State administration approved by the New Orleans resolution on title III of ESEA. The "State plan' policy was not iiivolved in the sentigrani questions. It had been approved unanimously by the membership in the annual meeting at New Orleans. It is worth noting that i~ was again approved by the board of directors and by the representatives of 23 States in the Atlantic City meetings of February 10-li, 1967. There is no question about the position of the chief State school officeis in regard to a State plan. The sentigram involved the following questions: 1. Should there be a Federal set-aside of 15 percent for projects to be approved by the U.S. Commissioner of Education outside the State plans? There was room for individual comments or suggestions on a larger or smaller Federal set-aside. 2. Should the State plan be authorized by the Congress in 1967 to take effect July 1, 1969? There was room for alternative suggestions on timing and the 100 percent State approval of local projects assumed in this question. The returns were accurately summarized in the testimony before the House Committee on Eudcation and Labor on Monday, March 6. 1967. CCSSO SENTIGRAM No. 145 JANUARY 5, 1967. POSITION ON TITLE III AMENDMENTS FOR CONGRESSIONAL ACTION IN 19(~7 Amendments to title III to give the State educational agencies more authority and influence in its future administration are among the most important legisla- tive items affecting education that Congress will consider this year. Such amendments are likely to pass in one form or another. I have been working closely with the Office of Education on major details falling within the principles expressed in the USOE memorandum to this office dated November 9, 1966, and the resolution passed by the council in New Orleans after full consideration of this memorandum on November 18, 1966. (Both these statements are in your copy of the record of the annual meeting in New Orleans, on pp. 2-4 and 15-16, respectively.) The purpose of this sentigram is to check with you on major questions involved in the talks with FSOE and in forthcoming contacts during a w-orkshop with representatives of AASA, NEA, YSBA, the National Congress of Parents and Teachers, and the National Association of State Boards of Education. The united support of all these and the USOE for title III amendments generally favorable to the council's position may depend on the resolution of only a few points. A State plan for title III has to be coordinated with its current status. TJSOE has about 1.000 local projects under title III which it is under a moral (but not legal) obligation to carry on for from 1 to 3 years. USOE needs some funds set-aside and a period before a State plan would take effect to make its adjust- ments. Some sort of Federal set-aside (comparable to the 15 percent in sec. 505 of title V) may also be necessary to maintain a little of the original title III rationale. We know it was authorized as a program that would escape the allegedly dead hand of regular State and local school systems and thus to stimu- late innovations. Whether we like this or not, some congressional and Federal administrative sentiment of this kind persists. A second element is to postpone the date the first state plans would become effective long enough to permit thorough State-local coordination in planning the supplementary centers to be covered in the State plans. It would also give State departments time to coordinate emerging patterns of regional or intermediate State and local service centers with the State patterns of title III centers. PAGENO="0468" 462 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS President Kiernan says we should have elbow room within the terms of our New Orleans resolution to agree to reasonable arrangements of this kind. In view of these circumstances, please indicate on the attached page. ~ Favor set-aside (f approximately 15 percent of title III funds for projects that would require Federal approval. E Oppose above. fl Other ~ Favor State plan type of title III administration, to be worked out carefully under 1967 legislation to take effect July 1, 1969. ~ Oppose above. fl Other ~ Keep confidential as to particular State. State D Useasdesired. Date Signature of chief State school officer Mr. Bn.\DEi~L~s. I clont really know, because I haven't seen any re- sults of your advisory committee published, but has this been a really serious problem ? Has there been great turmoil? Maybe there has been and I am not. aware of it. Mr. SPARKS. Our own State experience is given on page 15. Mr. BRADEMAS. I saw that. Chairman PERKINS. The time of the gentleman from New Jersey has expired. Mr. BRADEMAS. Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I might ask unanimous consent to take my 5 minutes now? Chairman PERKINS. Is there objection to tile gentleman's request? Tile Chair hears none. Mr. SPARKS. Ill our experience in the Advisory Committee, of course, we have~ had great difficulty in getting t.he programs reviewed because there have been myriads of them. `We have found that tile States, as Dr. Fuller mentioned, that have really moved into this, such as has Florida, Illinois, and Kentucky, where we have worked very closely with tile local applicants, that we have had better programs. This is just as reported by Dr. Fuller. This statement was read in our meeting in New Orleans in November. Mr. BRADEMAS. I understand what you are telling me, but that is not the same tiling as the point made by your resolution. I think everybody here, and I followed the questioning of Mr. Goodell, is anxious tose e the State departments of education work closely, to use your phrase, with local departments. But as Mr. Goodell's question was directed toward you, does this mean that there must be a veto power, a legal veto power? Mr. SPARKS. I wouldn't say we need a complete veto power. I think our recommendations ought to be considered more seriously than they are. `We had some difficulty, admittedly so, with some of the early ap- plications in that some of the State departments did not take a strong stand against certain projects and gave all projects high priority. ~[r. BRADEMAS. I understand. Mr. SPARKS. However, more recently they have stood in a better relationship by being willing to evaluate these. We feel that if they were given a more responsible position, that their evaluations would be handled more responsibly. As it is now, they are afraid of being overridden and so many of them will not take a responsible stand, because they fear that it would prove embarrassing to them. PAGENO="0469" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDTJCATION AMENDMENTS 463 Mr. BRADEMAS. I might just observe at this point, in respect to title III, my own feeling. You will recall that in title III there is an amendment which I sponsored, which required that in the shaping, the planning, and the operation of these title III programs they should participate with the local public school people representatives of the cultural and educational resources of the area to be served, including State departments of education-I would take this oppor- tunity to point out-as well as universities and other groups in the area, the whole point being to build some innovation into the system and not. simply because a dialog, an internal dialog, between local pub- lic school officials. One of the reasons that some of us, I t.hink, have been skeptical about giving the States a veto power might be that you would cut off innovation because of the role of State departments of education that are not nearly as strong as all those represented here this morning. Let me ask one other question. Dr. Fuller, you express skepticism on page 5 of your statement about the proposed amendment t.o title V which would authorize some evaluation of the effectiveness of the Federal aid program, and you make an analysis with the defense programs. What do you say to people like us who have to go home and defend to our constit.uents voting billions of dollars for Federal aid when people say, "How do you know the works? How do you know you are really producing better education?" You wouldn~t, I take it, say von were opposed to evaluation. Could von give us any comment, or any of von ~ent1emen. on that issue ? Mr. FTJLLER. \Vhat I said there was. and I J)elieve it is the opinion of the State officers, that. a federally molded requirement for each State based on Mr. Mc.Namara's PPBS systems analysis with all the hard- ~v~re does not, fit education. Mr. BRADEMAS. Is there anything in the proposed amendment. that requires a. f~derallv molded evaluation alon~r the lines of your sug- zest ion? Mr. FT~LLER. Yes, definitely. ~\Ir. Br~~nriu~s. Would von show us where that is Mr. FuwR. Mr. Brademas, it. is on 1-iS of the bill. That is in the mimeographed copy that. I have. It. is subpart. 2. about two pages over, where it. says. "Comprehensive planning grants~" `~Section 523(a) (1)." Mr. BRADEMAS. WThere is the federally molded language? Mr. FT~LLER. The federally molded language begins there l)ecause under 523(a) (2). "A grant. to a. State may be made under this section only upon approval of an application" and so forth, and then over on the next. page, and I read from the text: The requirements shall provide for, first. (a) settinu Statewide educational ~onls and (`~ta1)lJshing priorities aiiion~ those uonls : 1 developing through analyses alternative means of achieving these goals- and so forth-- taking into account- and so forth- (c) planning improvements in existing programs based on results of these analyses. (d) developing and strengthening the capabilities of the State to con- PAGENO="0470" 464 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS: duct on a continuous basis objective evaluations of the effectiveness of educa- tional programs; (e) developing and maintaining a permanent system fGr main- tainthg- and so forth. Mr. BRADEMAS. My time. has expired. I see. the. point. t.o which you refer. I do not. agree with your interpretation of it. I oppose. Federal molding as much as you. Chairman PERKINS. The gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Erlenborn. Mr. EItLENBORX. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to welcome these State school officers and in particular my good friend Mr. Page.. ~If you were asked to ident.ify the one outstanding problem that you have in administering programs under title. I, would you tell me what that. one most difficult problem is? I will direc.t that to any one of you who is prepared to answer the quest ion. Mr. ~PARIcs. Ours has been the date of the final allocation. That has heeii the most diffi(ult problem we have had. Mr. ERI.ExnoRx. Hie other (lay we had the superintendent of schools of the city of Pittsburgh who said that in his opinion unless we changed the time schedule, for aI)propriation and authorization, he felt in a year or two the schools would no longer want to operate title I projects because they just couldnt afford to continue under the present. circumstances. Would on agree with that Mr. ~ I wouldn't go that far. If von could see from my report. what. it has meant. to our State and the number of ~ we have employed, I certainly would not go that far. But it is hurtin~ the effectiveness of the programs which we have., and it. has certainly limited our planning to the extent that. we can't. begin to do what we would like to do. Mr. ERLEXB ox. Would you say it has also caused a great deal of waste and inefficiency? Mr. SPABKS. `Xes. We are unable to get our personnel. the types of ~ we would like to have. l)ec~luse at that late date they have been picked over. Mr. l~AciE. I would say in supuort of that. point, of view that in Tihinois we have had seven school districts no~ ifv us that they were dismissing their director of title T because of the lateness of the notice of the allocation of funds. Not knowing for sure how much money they would get for this year, we received our notification a week ago today as to the final. allocation of funds for the State Illinois for this year. Of course, the school year is p1~etty well underway, as you well know, having started in September. This makes it quite difficult. We have had. I would say, 7~ school districts in our State that. have filed complaints, and there is a great deal of concern in cutting hack on their programs in title I because they are not sure l)ut what. they might have to pick i~p sonic of these costs with their existlng budgets which could not stand it. Mr. ERLF~NBORN. In other words, you do have presently problems conducting your regular school program with your State and local PAGENO="0471" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 465 funds. If you are forced to use these for title I projects because you are not getting the funds, you are really hampering the already over- burdened regular school program, are you not. ? Mr. PAGE. This is true. Mr. CHRISTIAN. The emphasis on title I is on services and personnel in tile categories, and if you do this the school systems try t.o comply by employing competent personnel, then find themselves at tile tail end of the year not knowing whether they have a continumg appro- priation. They move those people into other categories in order to save them, or else dismiss them entirely. It. makes it impossible to try to operate this program at tile end of the year. I think this is one of our basic needs, to have a continuing appro- priation. Mr. ERLENBORN. There are. two parts to this problem. One is the authorization and t.he other is the appropriation. The appropriation is, of course, an annual process. Some people have suggested tile au- thorization should be 3, 4 or 5 years. Some Members of Congress do not want. to give up that amount of coiitrol, to authorize a program for that extensive a period of time. Let me suggest this to you and ask for your comment. %Ve understand the 1)1e~se1it authorizat ion will expire at the end of June 196S. If we were. this year to consider a. 2-year authorization for the 2 next succeeding ye.ars-ln other words ri~ht how work on the authorization for fiscal 1669 and 1910-if we were to approve that this year we would then have a -vear authorization which would give us closer control and vet. do it sufficiently ill advance so that you would know ahead of time. W~ouId this fit. your assessment of the problem? Mr. JoHNsToN. Basically this is our problem, because school dis- tricts need to know what. they have. This year they should have known in Xpril and Ma. what they could have counted on, to pla.n for, to get the personnel and get the prograluis planned. There is another basic facet to this. that. in title. I each local school district, and each State department, by statute, have to make an evalua.- tioii of these ~rog1alm1S. Basically, when you get a program where ou don't know what. you will have until January, and you attempt to staff it to carry it. out, and then 4 or 5 months later have t.o attempt to make an evaluation is simply an impossibility that you nie asking tile school districts to do. Mr. ERLENBORN. The second problem as I suggested- Chairman PrIIKINS. The time. of the gentleman has expired. Mr. EruLExBolmx. Thank `von, Mr. Chairman. Chainnan Prru~ixs. Mr. Gibbons. Mr. GTIuBOXS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Christian, when, ideally, would it. be best to get tile Federal funds in there. under title I of ESEA'? Mr. CHRIsTIAN. Rel)reSe.nt.ative Gil)l)ofls, we. of course, would like a continuous appropriation of :2 years. \Ve must, in order to make plans on the 1st. of January. with the fiscal year ending Oil June 30, make commitnuerits in order to continue these people. Near the end of April and May these people will be lost to other States or services if they are not notified at that time. The way this PAGENO="0472" 466 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS tliin~ was handled, last. year all the school systems of the Nation suf- fered. along with Florida. which is perhaps in the market for more teachers than any other State. I can think of. Mr. Gumaxs, Let us talk a little, about. I he specifics of education planning. `on have, a fiscal year that. starts the 1st of July of this year. Tn order to make the maximum appropriate use of Federal funds that will become available to vou on July 1, when do you have to know exactly how much money that, will be ? Mr. ChRISTIAN. I just, mentioned we would like to have that. knowl- edge rhzht. after the first. of the. year. which would be January, to make 1)1 ~ Mr. GIBBONS. You start preparing a budget. in October for the following July 1? Mr. CHRI5TL~X. That is rhrht. We. have a. whole year of planning. Mr. (`~Ir,noxs. So von need to know almost a whole year in advance? Mr. CTIRTSTIAX. That is right. Mr. Ginnoxs. Tdeallv, the Federal funds would have a greater im- pact arid perhaps would really get to the target. if we told you a year in advance von would have a certain amount. of dollars, not. an au thor i z at ion. In other words. if we could get the Congress to appropriate, for this particular pi'ograiri a year in advance instead of on a type, of crash basis, it would he better. Mr. CTTRISTL\X. The final date, of course, is not your planning date. You begin a year ill advance on all education planning. and in our te. von are considering ~1 billion education appropriation, which takes a whole year to plan in advance. Von can manage after Christmas or Januar 1, but we are scram- bhii~ then. Mr. GTBBONS. But if we wanted the Federal money to be cut.ting the 1)attel'n for the cloth~, we would put it. in a year in advance? Mr. CinusTIAx. That is right. Mi'. Giunoxs. Tf we just want the Federal money to stretch around and try to button up over the fat spots, then we put it. in late. Actually, we need it. about. a year in advance to make any plans. Mr. C1IrTsI-T.~x. That is rii2ht. This is the substance of our report here today, to request that they collsi(ler advancing 2 years, approxi- matelv. Mr. GTBIuONS. That is 2 years' authorization, I think, that you are talkin~ about. i\[r. CIIRTSTTAN. We would like to know the. actual amount. 1 year in advance, too, if that is l)os~il)le. Mr. Ginnoxs. I don't know how we will ever accomplish that, but I think we wouid save money if we did. ~~oine of von iientlemen talked about transferring Headstart. to the O~}icc of Education. TTeadsta~'t is being run not, of course, in every school district. but in sort of selected school districts around the State. 1,Vould von have to run it. in every school district ill your State if we transferred Headstart entirely? Mr. FFLLrR. I think I was the one who mentioned that in connection with one of these principles. I will read tile six organizations: PAGENO="0473" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 467 We recoiiiiiiend the transfer of the Head Start Program from the Office of Economic Opportunity to the Office of Education, retaining the eleiiients of the program which emphasize health, social services, parents education, and parent participation. The answer is not every district would need to have it. merely because it were. under the State. There are many State programs where that is not true. Mr. GIBBONS. rllhen let me ask you, Mr. Cliristuimi, since I am very familiar with your situation: Could we put. Ileadstart entirely under your Department. of Education and not be. under some. kind of very rigid requirement that we run it in every school district in Florida? Mr. CiIrds'rL~x. There would be needed changes in the law, which von are perhaps almost familiar with, in the State law. Mr. GIBBoNs. So if we transferred ijeadstart this year to you, to be operated by you, you would have to have some lead. We couldn't possibly do it before July or August. I would imagine. Mr. Goodell, is that right? Mr. ChRISTIAN. `We. need some Ieadtime because the facilities for changing State laws and moving into a program where they have had them in buildings and churches, it would not be adequate in school setups. Mr. FULLER. May I suggest that this called for transfer of the Federal administration to the U.S. Office of Education. That. would not affect the Sta.te office in this respect. Chairman PERKINS. Mr. Dellenbach, the gentleman from Oregon. Mr. DELLENBACK. Mr. Chairman, I will listen to the questions of the other members and get to my questions later in the day. Chairman PERKINS. Mr. Ford. Mr. FORD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. To pursue that point, for a moment, the gentleman from Illinois, in a short but very hard-hitting statenient-which makes at least one thing apparent to me, that he doesn't like the program-says that "We do not know where Headstart programs or education for migra- tory workers are being conducted in Illinois." I find that a startling revelation, that the principal school officer in Illinois doesn't know if Illinois has a. migratory program or where it is or who is conducting it. If the superintendent of public instruction in my State sa.id that, I would be constrained to ask the superintendent of education if he was doing his job. Who have you asked about the location of Tleadstart programs in your State who has been reluctant to tell you who is running them Mr. PAGE. We have sought it and asked that it be supplied to us in writing. Mr. Fo~. `Would you be surprised if I told you every Member of Congress has in his office data on the exact dollar volume a.nd the head of every Headstart program in his State, and lie gets that on a quar- terly ba.sis from the Office of Economic Opportunity? Anyone who calls me from my district need only ask a girl in my office, never mind to talk to me, and she can supply it.. Have you talked to any Member of Congress from your Sta.te. about this? Mr. PAGE. No. I am not surprised that the Congressmen know the Headstart programs in their districts. PAGENO="0474" 468 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS Mr. Foiw. Have you written the Office of Economic Opportunity or the Chicago regional office asking for a breakdown of where the programs are conducted? Mr. PAGE. I would think it would be reasonable to expect that the chief school officer of the State be informed of this without having to seek it, when we seek out the advice of tile community action pro- grams on the administration of our programs. It seems to me reasonable that we would expect the same to be in this act for Headstart. Mr. Foiw. On page 2, you say: It is remarkable then that the educational agency must consult with com- munity action programs prior to the implementation of programs for the public schools, under title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Isn't that beca.use of the coordination between the CAP programs and title I programs for the conduct of Headstart? Mr. PAGE. Mr. Ford, tile idea is that we are trying to put out here that it should not be a. one-way street leading to a dead end; that it should be equally done in Headstart, that we should have the same consideration. Mr. FORD. Do you know of any public school agency in your State that has ever carried on a special program for migrant workers' children? Mr. PAGE. Not at this point. Mr. Foiw. Would you be. surprised if I told you that. out of the- Mr. PAGE. We have one in Cairo, Ill. Mr. FORD. Out of the first ~15 million in grants awarded under that ~)Fog1an1 wheii we started a couple of years ago, every single one of them went to an agency that was in no way directly connected with the public school agency. As a matter of fact, over 90 percent of the ntoiiev went to church-connected organizations. For example, in Michigan, we financed a corporation made up of tile Michigan Council of Churches' Women, and the Michigan Catholic Welfare Conference. When we started that program, we didn't. find a single public school agency in condition to accept responsibility for or to conduct a pro- gram for migrant workers. Would you disagree with that? Mr. I~AGE. I would disagree if you a.re saying t.hat we are not in condition ill Illinois to conduct it; yes. Mr. Foiw. Are you conducting any program now? Mr. PAGE. No, sir. Mr. Foiw. You have used no State money for this purpose? Mr. PAGE. No, sir. Mr. FORD. Then you are not asking us to finance any ongoing State program, but you are asking us to turn t.he federally conceived and privately executed programs over to you because even though you don't spend your own money on this you think you could spend our money better than we do? Mr. PAGE. I don't know what you mean by "our money." I felt Federal money was our money. Mr. FORD. I am responsible for appropriating money for this pro- grain, but I am not responsible for the appropriations made by your State legislature. or my State legislature. There is a great deal of PAGENO="0475" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 469 merit in your suggestion that there ought to be a partnership between the Federal Government and the States in this program. I notice you want to come into the partnership, but I don't notice in any testimony given here this morning any suggestion that the part- nership would include a contribution to the pot by State legislatures. Mr. PAGE. Mr. Ford, I would suggest that you look at the records of Illinois on the entire act. We have $1,500,000 moved out in the State of Illinois that is dominated by the political party opposite to my own faith, by which I am elected, $885,000 to supplement the administration of title I so that we can get into the districts, and $500,000 for title II, and $100,000 for title III, where the question was raised a month ago, so that we can provide leadership even though none is provided at the Federal level for this title. I think Illinois has shown their concern for this act to make it work in all areas, and I think we are willing to invest our dollars in the State of Illinois to support it. Mr. Fo~. Mr. Fuller, calling your attention to your prepared text, I notice that you included for us in an appendix the proposals on legislation recommended for consideration at the legislative confer- ence., and you made reference to the number participating in the conference. I notice from the appendix that the recommendations were adopted unanimously. Do you subscribe to all the recoinmendat ions attached to your testimony on behalf of your organization? Is that statement that this is unanimous accurate? Mr. FULLER. The statement here is the statement of the delegatioii which did represent these six organizations and the personnel listed on the insert. Mr. FORD. Do you subscribe without reservation to the recommenda- tions that you have attached to your testimony? Mr. FULLER. No, I wouldn't. say that I would personally subscribe to all of them without reservation. Mr. FORD. Are those reservations set forth in your testimony? Or are we to guess at those ? Mr. FULLER. What my own personal reservations arc Mr. FORD. On behalf of your organization. I am not asking you for personal opinions. I woulclnt. be that unfair to you. You are representing an organization. On behalf of your organization, do you have reservations with respect to these recommendations that are not contained in your testimony ? Mr. FULLER. I haven't, gone through all of them because we have emphasized only five of these. Chairman PERKINS. The time of the gentleman has expired. Mr. FORD. Is it fair to consider you bound by the recommendations made in your testimony, or your organization to be bound by them? Mr. FULLER. The representations that I made in my testimony are the opinions of a majority of the chief State school officers except where otherwise stated. Chairman PERKINS. Mr. Scheuer. Mr. SCHEUER. I yield 2 minutes of my time to the gentleman from Michigan. Chairman PERKINS. Is there objection? Proceed. PAGENO="0476" 470 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS Mr. FORD. On page ~ of the resolution, recommendation 15, Federal tiinancing school construction: We recommend the inclusion of substantial capital outlay of funds for public school buildings under title I of the Elementary-Secondary Education Act or some other appropriate channel. If you were following this legislation last year, you ~iow that some of us fought. long and hard to increase the authorization in title 111 of this act for fiscal year 1968 by the amount of $500 million. To this authorization was added section 134, which specifically pro- vides that in parceling out this money the Office of Education will give special consideration to overcrowded schools, to local school districts that have demonstrated ability or willingness to sup- port their schools, and inability to meet the needs of education, and to those schools that are suffering from antiquated and archaic bui Id ings. It is the first direct recognition in the Elementary and Secondary Echication Act, that Mr. Perkins long fought for, of the principle of Sill) port for school roflstflictiofl. Whe.n I go back to your testimony, however, I find that you want to take title III and change this new thrust we have given it. You propose that the States allocate their funds on a statewide basis r~itlier than on the basis of the specifics that we have written into the at. How far do you want to go at t.he State level in deciding what kinds of projects should be financed under title III? Mr. FULLER. Instead of the review and recommendation which has led to have almost disastrous results so far, we would have a State plan which would cause local educational agencies to transmit their projects, arid the projects for supplementary centers to the State agency for approval. That has not been clone. That is as far as we would go. Chairman PERKINS. The gentleman from New York, Mr. Scheuer. Mr. SCHEtTER. Mr. Page, how long have you had Headstart pro- grams that were directed by nonpublic agencies in the State of Illinois? Mr. PAGE. Would you repeat your question? Mr. SCHE[TER. My time is very brief. Mr. PAGE. Since the origin of this act. Mr. SCHEUER. A couple of years? Mr. PAGE. Yes. I might say tha.t a task force on education in the State. of Illinois has recommended experimental programs that will be established by the State of Illinois to establish Headsta.rt programs for all children, not. just those in educationally deprived areas. Mr. SCIIEUER. The purpose of the act nationally was to provide this extra aid? Mr. PACE. This is true. Mr. ScITEFER. You have, had these projects, then, for a couple of years? Mr. PAGE. That is right. Mr. ScIIEiER. W~a~ I co~iect. in uncl~r~tanding your testimony before that von have never phoned or written the OEO either in Washington or your regional headquarters to ask them the nature and extent of these prcgrams? Mr. PAGE. We have requested it in the State of Illinois, y as. Mr. SCEIEUER. Have von gotten it? PAGENO="0477" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 471 Mr. Psor. We have not received it. We have received periodic in- formation but not a comprehensive report on where the 1-Ieadstart. program was being conducted and by whom. Mr. SCTIT~UER. I would be very distressed to believe that the partner- ship concept had broken down that. badly between the Federal Govern- ment and the State. I would like you to submit for the record any letters that you have, written OEO, even to their `Washington oflice or to their regconal office in Chicago, iequesting that inforn'a~tion, ~iving us the results that were forthcoming from that request. Mr. PAGE. Very good. (The information appears in part ~.) Mr. SCI-TEFER. You Inentiofle(l that you have had millions of dollars worth of physical structures built, by the taxpayers for the purpose of education. You are talking about summer Headstart programs there. Do you have programs of your own initiated by the State department of education or for the local education agency to use your facilities in the summers? Mr. PAGE. We are initiating that in this session of the assembly in the State of Illinois. Mr. SCHEUER. Up to now you haven't used those facilities in the summer? Mr. PAGE. Not other than some local districts have done it on their own. Mr. SCHEFER. Do you consider that very good leadership on the State level? In New York City, I guarantee you we don't have 1 inch of unused space in the summer. Mr. PAGE. We are talking about the entire State of Illinois. There are 1,350 school districts in the State of Illinois, and we are thinking in terms of many of the districts in downstate Illinois that are not using space. I\Ir. SCHEUER. Don't you think this is a challenge to the local school leadership to find ways under title I of using those facilities, equip- ment, and space in the summer? Mr. PAGE. This is my point. Mr. SCHEFER. You don't have to take over title I programs and eliminate all nonpublic agency programs in order to use school facilities effectively over the summer. Mr. PAGE. We are not asking to take it over. We are asking that it be administered through the HEW so there will be articulation between the community action program and the State department of educa- tion so we can take advantage of this, to give us authority to do so. Mr. SCHEIJER. You have all the authority in the world to use your school facilities to the maximum extent over the summer. You don't have to create a monopoly of Headstart programs in the public school s'v stem. Mr. Fuller, may I ask you one question? My time is running short.. You mentioned that the review and recommendation formula that we have, whereby the States can contribute to title III programs, has produced disastrous results. In the State of New York. we have had a very good product from the review and recommendation formula. In my own district, where PAGENO="0478" 472 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS I stimulated the first supplementary resources center in the East, the State intervened to provide the staff, know-how, and professionalism and approved the proposal. There was a highly effective partnership in the work there. Would you say that there has been broadscale. significant experience to the contrary in cities outside of New York State? Mr. FULLER. T am not so well acquainted with the cities specifically. I know that St~ii~~ by State there have been some very, very disastrous and unfortunate results. Mr. SCHEUER. Would you do us the courtesy of giving us a report for the record, an item-by-item description of those disastrous in- cidents? Mr. FULLER. Yes: I would be glad to do that. flu' rel)ort al)pears in part 2. Chairman PERKINS. Mr. Meeds. Mr. MEEDS. Mr. Fuller, as I understood your testimony, and correct me if I am wrong. your observation was that section B of title V would cause a proliferation of agencies in the oversight area, in the area of State planning, is that correct ? Mr. FULLER. It could. Mr. MEEDS. Do you feel that it would? Mr. FULLER. It could and probably would. It might not be in ~i majority of the States. but. it would be in several States. Mr. MEEDS. Do you feel that agencies other than perhaps tile State sul)erintendent's office or the chief State school officer might be (lesiQnated as this planning agency Is that your objection? Mr. FULLER. According to the law they would be authorized to do SO. Mr. ~\ftEDs. When you say "they." who do you mean? Mr. FULLER. They could be authorized to do so. Mr. M1:EDs. Who do you mean by `~they"? Mr. }ULLER. May I answer your question by reading from the press conference report of Commissioner Howe? Mr. MEEDS. No. I would just like you to answer my question by telling me who you mean when you sax "they"? Mr. C1IRIsTL~x. The Governor has the power to appoint. Mr. FULLER. An(T any a~encv that the Governor sets up. Mr. MEEDS. You are afraid that the Governor of a State might (lesi~1iate an agency other than tNe State superintendent or chief State school officer, is that correct Mr. FFLLFTm. W~hich would separate evaluation from the program or the responsibility to (10 amivtliing about the program after the eva]- nation is made, yes. Mr. MEEDS. Would you recommend, then, that. the title might. be amended or changed so that the chief State school officer or the. depart- ment of education, or superintendent-in other words, the State dlc- partment of education-in that State be the designated agency for this? Mr. FULLER. Title V already authorizes these evaluations, but it cloesnt compel them. It doesnt put them in a Federal mold. It (k,esnt make a proliferation of agencies at the State level. Mr. MEEDS. Do you think there should be. then, in each State. the superintendent? PAGENO="0479" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 473 Mr. FULLER. It has worked very well. That is the way it. is now. Mr. MEEDS. WTe seem to have some trouble he.re. You feel it should be the chief State school officer in each State? Mr. FULLER. The chief State school officer has the general super- vision of elementary and secondary education in the State.. To re- move the responsibility for education and the responsibility for im- proving education from that agency and putting it in one that has no other connection except to evaluate, would be contrary to good educa- tional practices. Mr. MEEDS. Your fear of this title, really, revolves around whom the Governor might appoint or se.lect as that agency, does it not? Mr. FULLER. It could. Mr. MEEDS. And this is a State problem, is it not? Mr. FULLER. No. When the Federal Government requires a. new agency or two agencies- Mr. MEEDS. The Federal Government does not require any new agency, sir. Mr. FULLER. Yes, it does, in the statute, itself. It requires a State educational planning agency. Mr. MEEDS. I have no reason to believe that this wouldn't be the State department of education in my State, for instance. I would think that all of you gentlemen shouldn't have any fear of this in your own States. Mr. FULLER. Then there should be no objection to just saying State departments of education. Mr. M~s. I have no objection. That is why I was trying to ask you if this would be all right. Mr. FULLER. Sure. Mr. MEEDS. Do you find any problem with any of the recommenda- tions and the suggestions that are made? In other words, what the applications should contain, on what `the plan or purview of this sec- tion B is? Do you think any of these t.hings ought not to be done? Mr. FULLER. I think section B is a repetition of what is already the law under title \T, with the exception that the Federal Govern- ment makes prescriptions which must. be followed by every State. This is Federal control of education, in addition to the proliferation of agencies at the will of the Governor of each State. Mr. MEEDS. Do you see any objection for a State to set statewide educational goals anti establish priorities among these goals? Mr. FULLER. Title V alreachv authorizes that. Mr. MEEDS. Do you see objection to any of the other things under this section, which are suggested things that ought to be done? Mr. FULLER. Yes. I see objections to compelling ever State to do these mechanical analyses and PBBS systems through Federal fiat. or "You don't get the Federal money." Mr. MEEDS. Do you have objection to the use of mechanical data processing? Mr. FULLER. Not at. all. It is used in almost. all tl'ie States, but it is not. compelled imder Federal prescriptions. Mr. MELDS. Do you think any State department of education that. is really doing a good job is not utilizing these new methods of accounting? PAGENO="0480" 474 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS Mr. FI:LLEIi. I am sure the couldn't meet those requirements in many states that are doing a good jOl). Mr. M1:rDs. And do von think they are capable, and have their state- wide g(~~1ls. that. they are p~o~ramed~ and that. they are able to look hack and see how the are doing under these plans, without utilizing these up-to-date methods? Mr. FULLEr. They have used 20 percent of all the funds under title V for planning already under title V. The have used all of those facilities. Mr. MELDS. Thank you. (`lie irman PERKTx~ The gentleman from Oregon, Mr. Dellenback. Mr. I)IujExruwlc Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. ~parks. may I ask von one brief question, please? You make a statement on page 5 dealing with the 1967 amendments to the National Teacher Corps. You have one sentence that. says `~Xn essential ingredient for success is that the program must identify with regular programs and be under the same general administrative direct ion." Would YOU tell me just what von mean b that ? Mr. SPARKS. There needs to be a correlation with the regular pro- grams of the school and identify with them, not that it be similar but that it be correlated with these programs. This we have done, where they are working with disadvantaged youth they are going into the homes but they are coming back and correlating this with the schools. Many of them are working as social workers. Some of them are working in the classrooms during the day and then going to the children's homes in the evening and contacting par- ents, this type of thing. But. it is all correlated. As far as we are working with it now, ours is working successfully. But we want to continue this kind of relation- ship. Mr. DELLENBACK. Would you sa.y with the amendments that are proposed to the Teacher Corps, as you point out under point 2 you strongly support sections 113 and 114, that this gives sufficient authority to the. States to do the coordinating? Mr. SPARKS. Yes, sir; we have had this. In fact, they can't work in our schools, public schools in the State of Kentucky. unless they are certificated under our law. They are. And the University of Kentucky and these other universities in our State have, worked closely with the certification department. Mr. DELLENT.iACK. But on these particular amendments that are proposed, your objection implied in this sentence would be gone? Mr. SPARKS. I think it. would disappear; yes, sir. Mr. DELLENBACK. Mr. Fuller. may I ask you a question, please, rela- tive to close to the end, when you are dealing with title III. I am not quite sure. what you mean, and it seems to me of importance. You said, "There needs not be parallel, State supported, federally supported. service agencies in the States." and so on. Can you tell me exactly what you mean by that? Mr. FUw~n. In this study made by the Office of Education and by a professional association of the. emergency intermediate units, regional units, within States, which are being developed as Dr. Johnson said for PAGENO="0481" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 475 Iowa, and in other States, there are 11 States here in which they are illustrated. These are service centers of the same general type as title III centers. It is our view that specially in sparsely settled areas and probably generally, that title 111 centers supported l)y Federal funds, and hav- ing purposes which fall within the SCope of the services of a service center, a regional service center, within the States, ought to be co- ordinated so that there wouldn't be parallel systems of centers. Mr. DELLENBACK. How would you work this coordination? How would you get~ away from a Federal regional service center? Mr. FULLER. You wouldn't get away from it at all. You would have a Federal-State-local agreement in which the requirements of title III of the Federal law would be carried out from that center, and also any other services. The much larger proportion of funds from State and local sources would be coordinated. Mr. DELLENBACK. Are you talking about service centers, then, strict- ly within a State? Mr. FULLER. Within a State. Mr. DELLENBAc.K. What about regional centers as such ? Do you have any other comments to make on a regional center which would, in fact, embrace more than a Sta.te? Mr. FULLER. No. Regional here is used in the sense of more than one school district~ within a State, except possibly for a very large city. Mr. D1~LLExBAcIi. \Ve have interniediate districts in my particular State which are intrastate in operation. I am interested in any com- ments you have to make on regional service centers in the broader sense, interstate centers rather than intrastate. Mr. FULLER. These are emerging in time States. The old county superintendencies, except in a few States where they have become centers of this type, have gone out of existence. The regional centers are intermediate units, 16 in Iowa, 17 in Florida, 20 in Texas develop- ing, 19 in Wisconsin; these are developing very rapidly under State and local auspices. Mr. DELLENBACK. If I may go to this question, and if it is beyond this particular point in your testimony, I would he interested in any comments von might~ have to make on behalf of your group about regional centers as such. Do you see these as an advancing aid in education? I am now de- fining regional as being inter- rather than intrastate. Mr. FULLER. Interstate? Mr. I)ELLENBACK. Interstate. Mr. FULLER. For service to local school agencies, the intermediate center is regional within States, not interstate. Mr. DELLENBACK. Would you object to any regional operation which became interstate? Would you feel this a bad move? Mr. FULLER. A regional operation like under title IV, the develop- ment centers, the research centers. I think there is no objection to those. I think there is room for a larger regional unit for research. But when it comes to the purpose of providing services to local school districts, I believe that should be intrastate regional. Mr. DELLENBACK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 75-492-67-31 PAGENO="0482" 476 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS Chairman PERKINs. I notice in the committee room a distinguished nleml)er from the State of Florida. Claude Pepper, who has been so hel1)f iil to the committee in its consideration of education legislation. Mr. Pepper is a distinguished member of the House Committee on 1~ule* Congressman Pepper, I understand you are going to introduce Dr. Gortjon. a member of the advisory committee on title V in Dade County. Fla. in introducing him, ou may make any other appro- priate remarks you desire.. Mr. PEPPER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. STATEMENT OF HON. CLAUDE PEPPER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA i~fr. PEPPER. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I thank you ver much for allowing me to appear here today. It. has been interesting hearing the testimony which has already been produced. When 1 ran for the Senate the first time in 1934, the first plank in my platform was Federal aid for education. You can imagine with what pleasimre I have come to live in a time and be a Member of a Congress which has done so much to promote that old dream that we all had for so long. I welcome every opportunity to assure this distinguished committee of all the support I can possibly give to your great e~orts in progress- ing the cause of educat ion in this country. I caine toda partictiharly. and I appreciate your allowing me to do so. to present to this distinguished committee a gentleman who is here to(lay to give you the benefit of the large experience and broad knowl- edge that. he possesses in this field of secondary education. In the first place, ~\[r. Jack Gordon is an outstanding and very sue- cessful businessman in Florida. He is head of an institution that has about $14() million in assets. I have been privileged to be associated with him in that institution for many years and to see the excellence of his mind, to see what. an excellent man I~e is. in the performance of his duties in private business. But his heart has very much been in the cause of pulhic education. or education. For G years he has been a member of the Board of Public Instructors of Dade County. That is the seventh largest school system in the Tn~te(l stales. Mr. Gordon is recognized, T think, as one of the outsta.nding authori- ties in the country in the field of secondary education. That w-as rec- ognize(l in his appointment to the National Advisory Council on Stat.e T)epartments of Education. I am sure that the committee will find of jut crest the information Mr. Gordon will be able to bring to you. I am pleased to present him to you today. Chairman PERKINS. Thank you very much. STATEMENT OF DR. ~ACX D. GORDON, MEMBER, ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON TITLE V, DADE COUNTY, FLA. Mr. GORDON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think I would like to confine myself to talk1ng about title V and the particular adcUtional planning grants which seem to disturb some of the chief State school officers. PAGENO="0483" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 477 First, a minor point on the title V an~endnieiit that changes the dis- tribution formula. I might say that the advisory council would agree in the recommendations with tile change in foiiiiula piovided it (toes not penalize any States, aiid the. agreellielit on the part of all the States to the changed formula was based on time full appropriation of the authorization. In the current proposed authorization, sonic of the larger States would receive considerably lesser sums. It would seem while they wouldn't object to a change, they ought not to be penalized for the change and have t.o step backward in time application of these matters. Chairman PERKINS. I must observe that I agree with you on that point of view. Mr. GORDON. Tile other point, generally, on time quest ion of planning is that I think rather than put this in the context of an argument be- tween Federal control and local control, which seems to be the burden of some of the testimony this morning, what the real problem is, is whether laymen can actually control education, whether they are sit.- ting at the Federal, the State or tile local level. The only way that laymen can control education is to have the thing presented to them in an understandable framework. Tile goals of education have to be spelled out, specified, they can't just be general goals. This whole concept of planning implies that goals have to be tied to performance standards. We have to look at the performance and we have to get school administrators to look at performance standards as a framework within which to judge their pro~rams. For example, we have a system now, speaking very generally, in time country that rejects 30 percent of the students who enter it, that is, 30 percent of the kids who enter school do not graduate from high school. I personally feel that that is a rejection rate far beyond per- niissible limitation and if von are talking about the performance stand- ards of school systems one of the thin~rs von ought to consider as a ~oal is cutting that rejection i'ate down to the ~. 3, or i l)ercellt that would seem more reasonable, and that we ought to understand our educational system in those. terms. If we think that literacy is necessary, and I aiim sure we do, then we ought to set some standards, it seems to me, and base our judgment of performance upon the reading achievement. for example. of kids in elementary school. Why can't we say, as we tried to iii one way or another, in a school system, that you w-ant second graders to read above second grade level. so that we raise tile national norms in reading ? lVh\- can't we use. that as a method of judgment ? Mv pei'sonal feel- iin~ is that the. opposition to the idea of stated programs that are goal- oriented and budgeting on f lie basis of those programs are simply ways of stating opposition to letting laymen get at the real questions and make the real policy decisions. To put it another way, in our school system, we are. proceeding to implement a prograni budget. We have already installed a research and development unit ~n our instructional services. We are applying both under title TV and title III for different, as- pects of additional funds to implement. a program budget and a plan- PAGENO="0484" 478 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS fling system. It seems to me that I read t.hat the New York City schools had contracted to do the same thing. I think that any intelligent layman who sit.s on a board of education or any intelligent layman who sits in any position where he is passing judgment on t.he expenditure of funds for education, needs better analytic tools than he has now. At the State level, it seems to me it is quite necessary to have total planning. The only thing objectionable I would see in this legislation, and I understand why, is the optional character of bringing higher education into a State plan. I don't think you can do a decent job of resource allocation in a State unless you take into account higher education and vocational educa- tion, in our State the junior colleges which are not under higher educa- tion but under the local sc.hool system, and local elementary and secondary education, a.nd for that matter, preschool education under Headst art.. They are all an educational resource. The manpower training pro- grams under the Department of Labor, also. AU of these items have to be looked at as some kind of goal and some kind of priority assigned. It seems t.o me that we all recognize this, for example, t.hat you can't watch something at a distance through a magnifying glass and you can't. read a piece of paper with a pair of binoculars. Unless we. do some long-range planning with some people set aside to look out. fou 10, l~ years in the States, and decide what that State is going to he `ike and ~hat. their needs are going to be, we are not going t.o get much of an educational enterprise and we will not get much t.hat. we can measure. After all, we now assume that children will go through school for 12 years and we are talking about 14 to 16 years of education as being the right of an individual. It would seem to me that the planning ought not. t.o be on a year-to-year basis if we are talking about a 12-, 14-, or 16-year process: that we at least ought to be planning through to the independence, of the process and use our budgeting as a means of checking every ye.ar on some type of self-correcting basis of: Are we getting where we want t.o go? All of these things are involved in planning~ and in setting up a planning unit and looking at long-range planning. Chairman PERKINS. Dr. Gordon, are you suggesting an authoriza- tion of some 10 or 12 years here? Mr. GORDON. It is not Dr. Gordon. I appreciate the honorary degree. Chairman PERKINS. I appreciate the point you are making. Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, the point is that you don't need 12- rear authorization to make a 12-year plan. You do need, and I quite agree and we have seen the effects of this many times in our local school system, the necessity for being able to plan beyond an individual year or individual 2 years, as we do in Florida with biennial appropriations; that. we need 4 and 5 years at. least in terms of financial planning to have the framework within which we can operate. But it seems to me that we also need to be able to look out and observe the kind of changes that are going on in the world of work, for ex- PAGENO="0485" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDTCATION AMENDMENTS 479 ample, that dictate the kind of legislation that you are talking about, the innovations under vocational education. In a State like Florida, there is the tremendous population growth, and the simple problems of the physical facilities that we will need 10 years from now have to be dealt with now. We can't build a school building in Dade County immediately. We consider that we need some 2 years of leadtime between the au- thorization of the school and the time we can expect it. For a high school, we need 3 years. We want to put enough time and effort into the plan to make sure that the school isn't obsolete by the time it gets built. That simply requires planning. We go ahead and plan on the as- sumption that funds will become available, which sometimes happens and sometimes doesn't. It would be very nice, and I am sure every- body in the school structure at any level would like to see, to have longer leadtime. I think the same thing is true in personnel planning, or manpower planning, which is a much neglected field in education. I note under the Higher Education Act amendment. it is bringing together the training programs in one place and under one act. It is certainly a step forward in identifying the manpower needs that all the country's schools are going to need 5, 10, and 15 years from now, and to se.e whether we can't make the changes in training that will be responsive to these needs. To summarize, I think in a world which is changing rapidly, where we can see some of the changes as they will appear over a period of time, we are going to have to build and change, I should say, our institutions to be more responsive to those changes, and one name for that process is planning. People who oppose looking at planning in the terms of the bill, of saying ~WThat, do you want to do?" that. is setting goals, "What differ- ent was can you get. there?" which is the alternative methods, and "low do you know you got there?" which is what evaluation is. seems to me to be in the absence of a substitute advocating iiotliing but on- faith kind of behavior which is not responsive to the natural world. It may be responsive to the supernatural. hut we are not talkmg about that. I think it. is a most important piece. of legislation, and it is most important to see that it. gets funded. I might add one thing. That is, that I am the secretary-treasurer of the National Committee for the Support of the Public Schools. I was chairman of a conference here in Washington last December of legislative leaders from the 50 States who came to Washington under our sponsorship. This was funded by t.he Ford Foundation. They came to talk about what we consider to be. a neglected area in schools. That is, the State legislatures, which appropriate the money and set the. rules, and that. nobody has really spent the. time to explain to them fully the dins of planning and management techniques that are now avail- able for them to observe how money is being spent. We spent a lot of time talking about the settmg up of State plan- ning for education, a.nd I would hope that there would be-I am quite sure there will be from what I have heard sinc&-considerable support PAGENO="0486" 480 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDTCATION AMENDMENTS within State legislatures for State departments of education to take the ball on this appropriation when it comes and do an adequate job of ninnning for the ~tat.e. Thank you. (1i~~iirman PERKINS. Thank you very much, Mr. Gordon, for an excellent statnnent. I have always felt that one of the problems which has brought about SO much frustration has been the. lack of a longer ie.riocl of a.uthoriza.- tion. for instance, for a period of 4 years, and then get the appropria- tions out by March or April before the fiscal year closes on June 30, that ~hould be our goal and I think it can l)e attained. Let me thank you. Con~ressman, for coming before the committee. The committee will now stand in recess until 1:15. Mr. Gordon will return at that time. (Whereupon. at P2 ::~O p.m.. the committee recessed to reconvene at 1 :15 p.m. the same clay.) AFTER RECESS The committee reconvened at 1 :15 p.m.. 1-Ion. Carl D. Perkins chau~niaii of the cnuniittee) ~)resi(ling.) Chairman PERKINS. The committee will come to order. A quorum ~s pre~ent. \Vill the witnesses who were here this morning come around ? Mr. Goodell. Mr. GocDEJ~r. Thank you. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Page. you were questioned in a. rather acerbic if not astringent fashion this morning. I think one of your comments was perhaps taken out of context by the inquisitors. were pointing (nit that von felt, as I understand it, that the l)~~e~ty program should be coordinated with education groups and agencies locally where they were. (lealing in education. Although you did not quote it, I presume. you were referring to the specific re- (PmiremleI)t in title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act that ~The program and J)rojects have been developed in cooperation with the public or p1~i\ate nonprofit. agencies responsible for the. Corn- mnunitv Act ion Program." You were pointing out that there is no such provision iii the Pov- erty law. ~\Ir. Pun-:. Exactly. Mc. (~ftmvTi.. T~equiring such coordination with education agencies wheie the edueatjon proglilil) is financed under poverty law. \lr. P\GE. Exactly. My thought \va~ again, we can guarantee the maintenance of effort in the 8tate by avoiding duplication if we do have this consideration at the State level. I did not mean to make It a poInt that I felt that the State agency should be taking over Head- start for example. The 1)OlIlt we have made is that TTeadstart should be under the direction f 11E\V and, therefore, we could articulate the programs much better with the educational agencies of the State and local -districts. Chairman PERKINS. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. GOODELL. Yes. PAGENO="0487" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDLCATION AMENDMENTS 481 Chairmaii PERKINS. I was thinking last year in Congress we did something about that when we were considering the OEO legisla- tion. If we. did not do it. in language, we made it clear in the report. Perhaps I am mistaken. That is what I recall. Mr. GOODELL. I know we discussed it. I think v~e ii~ade. it clear that we want the cooperation to be two ways. Chairman PERKINS. That is correct. Mr. GOODELL. I am not sure whether we implemellte(l it effectively. it is my understanding of your statement you do not know where the Headstart. programs are located in the. State. There was an at- tempt to make, it appear that every Congressman had advance notice and knows full well where everything is going in the poverty program and that you could very easily get all this information by just con- sulting a single Congressmnami. In the first place, we have had great difficulty getting information of that nature, particularly current information, we in Congress. In the second phace~ I presume. that you were. emphasizing the im- portance of having the information well iii advance so that there can be coordination of plans and not being told by people that there has been a grant of $3O~OOO made. Mr. PAGE. This is one of the major areas of concern. There is a followup that I feel is equally important. We have in particular, in the city of Chicago. sought out the centers and students that are participating in I-Ieadstart because we believe by knowing those youngsters that have participated in Ileadstart we can then, through the public schools, conduct a followup as to the effectiveness of head- sta.rt in the school programs once they hit the public schools. Mr. GOODELL. I am glad you raised that point because I think it is not only important that there he a followup to determine the effec- tiveness, but it. is important that there be a followthrough to carry on some of these programs with youngsters who have had the oppor- tunity of Headstart. It seems t.o me the only way we are going to have effective, follow- through of the 5-year-old, 6-year-old, and 7-year-old, even, is to have the educational agencies involved and the educators involved in the process. I take it that. you agree with this basic view. Mr. PAGE. There is no question about it. I certainly do. Mr. GOODELL. There is one problem that is presented by your recom- mendation, as I see it, that Headstart go under HEW. The. amend- ment which Mr. Quie and I offered last year as a substitute would transfer to the Office of Education the He.adstart program. But there are many present I-ieadstart. programs run by the private schools. If we are to transfer the entire Headsta.rt program to the Office of Education and require it. to go through the. State school sys- tems, are we not going to cut. off the funds that presently flow to pri- vate Headstart programs? Mr. PAGE. I think I stated in m prepared statement this morn- ing that the recordings of these programs by all means should be with the State agency and if at all possible the approval. Of course, I believe that the maul point that I have tried to make here, that there is the coordination with the State department.. I do not believe that. the. State educational agency necessarily has to oper- ate all of them or has to he the dominating force in all of them. PAGENO="0488" 482 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS Mr. GOODELL. Of course, if we transfer Federal fimds to the State for allocation within the State, then the money frequently if not always becomes subject to State constitutional requirements and State legal requirements. Mr. P~cE. We have that problem now in title II. My legal counsel tells me I am operating illegally when the regulations state that you will make the funds available and the services available to the stu- dents and teachers of the church-related schools. The constitution and laws of Illinois say you can give no financial assistance to the church-related schools. Our legal counsel interprets that when you help the teacher and student you are giving financial assistance to the schools. So we are in conflict there with the State I a w. Mr. G~ODELL. May I ask you if you feel this kind of procedure would be workable ? With the objective of coordinating the State school system and local school system with the He.adstart program, could we allocate money through the State agency, giving the State agency the power of allocation of Federal funds to the local corn- n~nnitv action ~ l)oveI'ty boards, who could, in turn, contract with public or p1~ivate. or both, agencies on a local basis for Headstart.? Mr. PAGE. Mr. Goodell. I am not a lawyer and I am not certain that would be within the framework of the law of the State of Illi- Mr. GOODELL. I would not ask your opinion on a constitutional question or legal question as much as whether you think this would- Mr. P~GE. I think this would be very much of an improvement over what we have. Personally, I would be in favor of it. Mr. GOODELL. If le~ral, you would be in favor of it? Mr. PAGE. Right. Mr. CHRISTIAN. Mr. Gooclell. I could testify to that particular point since the Dade County pul)lic schools are the party with whom our local poverty board has contracted to operate the Headstart pro- ~ram. I happen to represent the school board on the poverty board, and here is a situation where public schools are operating a major size I-Ieadsf art program as a delegated agency of the poverty program and with some joint control. It just seems to me. looking at this from a school point of view, that some means of bringing the }Teadstart program within the school system is pretty much necessary if we are going to get the kind of changes that are required to do an adequate job of educating disad- vantaged kids. It might work that OEO would push for this kind of delegation, forgetting about whether you have to necessarily put it under the Office of Education or not, by having some showing as to why the public schools cnn~t perform. There are some places where the public school~ simply don't have the facilities or they may not wish to accept a total T-Ieadstart program. But it would seem to me that if in some fashion OEO should have the burden of showing that the public schools could not operate or did not wish to operate or were not properly set up to operate a Headstart program. In the absence of any such showing, you would get the PAGENO="0489" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 483 public school system involved in Headstart and they need to be in order to look at the problem of these kids in a different way than they have normally looked at the problem of all children. Mr. GOODELL. I agree with what you have said, Mr. Christian, that we do need to have some introduction of a new approach. This is why Mr. Quie and I have devised the scheme of having it go through common ity action boards. In addition, the community action board presumably would be free to contract as they do now, probably in the majority of the cases, in the poverty program. They could contract with private agencies or with ~ p:ihlic srho9l system in combination. In many of t.he communities, for instance, in Pittsburgh, we had the superintendent here this last week, they have Headstart running about 40 percent in the private schools under contract with the community action agency and 60 percent of it in the public schools. I am sure there would be a different mix in different communities. You would have a different proportion of private school students in different communities. Mr. PAGE. We do contract under the veterans' approval agency. Mr. GOODELL. Under which? Mr. PAGE. Under the veterans' approval agency we contract with nonpublic schools, as it is bein~ done in other areas. It seems to iiie that we could approach it from the same standpoint. Mr. GOODELL. This is an objection that the committee raised from the outset in the way that they were implementing the Headstart. pro- gram. There should he a way of, yes, introducing change, a new approach, but also involving the existing educational agency. We have had the problem across the country with Headstart. Not only did the State school superintendents not know the proportion of the Hea.dstart programs in the State, but the local school boards did not know what was going on with reference to the Ileadstart programs locally. As a result, the local school board presumably preparing an applica- tion for funds under title I. could find that they have applied for something t.hat overlaps completely what they are doing in the poverty program in the same community. Do you find this true? Mr. SPARKS. We have been very fortunate in our State to have the privilege of recommending to the Office of Economic Opportunity within our State a man who was a former school board-well, he was chairman of the State school board association and is qualified to be a superintendent as far as that is concerned. He has been assigned to our office and works in close relationship with us. We know where every agency is. We have, been able to work with him very successfully. We have had no problem at all. Now, this is because we have had a coordination. However, we would still feel that. it. would be more appropriate and the program could be made to operate more. effectivel . since it is an educational program, if it were handled through HKW. We are not anxious to take over the control of it. We want to coordinate the program so that it can fit right into the other part of our educational effort. However, we have been able to do this even under existing circum- stances. But still I believe it could get better leadership from HEW. PAGENO="0490" 484 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDLTCATION AMENDMENTS Mr. G-0ODELL. As you describe it, in terms of the iiational situation, experience. I think that is excej)tional. Mr. SPARKS. Yes, sir. Mr. GOODELL. Let me change to another topic. for a moment. Many of us have been troubled at the cumbersome nature of the allocation formula. particularly as it applies to allocation down at the count level and subsequent distribution to the school district level under title I. How would you feel about a provision that gave the States the au- thority to allocate within the State itself, to the school districts? In other words, pennit the. State to apply whatever equalization it. wishes to in the allocation of funds under title I, eliminate the present alloca- tion to counties on the basis of the number of p~°' children, under the ADC formula and all the rest of it? Mr. SPARKS. We could do this and I think do it. more effectively on the basis of need. We can do it. more effectively on the basis of need. ~ we would have to follow- a formula similar to what has been applied. WTe haven't objected to the formula that you have applied at the na- t.ional level, but we could, we might be able to meet need to some ex- tent but. as far as we are concerned it has worked very satisfactorily. Mr. SPARKS. I think, too, some of the statistica.l data, especially in metropolitan areas such as Chicago, are confusing. For example, in Chicago alone, as far as the eligibility of children are concerned, the figures are based on 1960 data. Now there are more children in the Puerto Rico wards on ADC now than there were children in those wards in 1960. This, is, in my opin- ion, important. Mr. GOODELL. This point was ra.ised in our original hearings on the act. Actually Census Bureau's latest data is 1959 data. It is the 1960 census data collected in 1959. This has been a problem that w-as pointed out originally in the al- location formula. That is part of the reason some of us are still seek- ing to introduce a greater flexibility int.o this. Chairman PERKINS. If the gentleman will yield to me on that. point, the gentlema.n from New York helped us work out. a formula that I personally feel is equitable. Now, if there. is not flexibility at the State level from the guidelines received from Washington, that is in connection with coming up with ways a.nd means of determining need in the local school districts, isn't that left up to the State educational agencies to make that determination under present law under the guidelines established in Washington? Mr. PAGE. Mr. Chairman, that is the thing that. is bothering us at the moment. Chairman PERKINS. I am not talking about the 1960 data. Mr. P~~GE. You are talking about this question of flexibility and guidance. \Ve. too, want to compliment the Congress on title VI for the special education program. I think you can search this Na- tion from State to State and you will find no State with more special eduicat ion than the State of Illinois. Our appropriation for special education is ~45 million. We have a compulsory law requiring every district in Illinois in 1959 to pro- vide programs for the handicapped children of our State. PAGENO="0491" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDFCATION AMENDMENTS 485 We have State regulations for this prograili. but ~ve also recugiiize the p~irpose of the program is to educate children. When it is neces- ~arv to make those regulations flexible to better p1o\~iTe for boys and girls, we do it on our State programs. We feQl we should have. the same right of flexibility on Federal regu- lations in the interest, of boys and girls. For example, a regulation in the State is this: that no mother, no parent, may teach in a class or be a. teacher's aid in a class where her child is in attendance. That might be all right for 90 percent of the cases. Chairman PERKINs. Let me ask you a question. From your experience as a State school superintendent, as long as we have this categorical program, how could you more equitably, on the basis of need, reach the needy youngster than we are reaching the needy youngster at the preser~t time, as long as we have this categorical approach. That. is my question. Mr. PAGE. 1 am afraid that I could not give you a formula at this moment. that would do that. I do believe, however, under Mr. Goodell's questioning in regard to the States allocating funds to the counties and to the dist.rict.s within the c.oiuities, I believe we would be in a better position to require quality in relationship to the pro- grams and prolects implemented under this act than we might other- wise. Mr. GOODELL. I would like to point, out for the record that I was talking about the. terms of equalization, with the State having discre- tion to allocate money locally on the basis of need in contrast with the present law which specifically allocates it to the school district, if it. is available, and if not available to the county, on the basis of the nurnbe.r of youngsters from poor families plus additional factors such as ADC and other things that we have added since. But. again, the data in most cases, the number of poor youngsters, is based on 1959 situations. ~ou have a. double inflexibility : One, the. law is very specific on the formula distributing to the count.y at. mini- mum and, if possible, to the school district the specific amount of money; a.nd secondly, the inflexibility is based largely on data of 1959 origin which does produce a great many distortions in our society today where we have so much mobility and changing popula- ti on. Let. me make a. brief cornineiit with reference to the considerable discussion about this problem of early allocation or early money. I think all of us are concerned al)out this problem. W'e would like to work out a way to give you adequate information in advance as to how much money von are going to have. When we are talking about a veai or I wo n(l vaiue notice I a each State, I think we must do it in the context of the realities here in Congress. I think it. is very unlikely that we will ever reach the stage where the appropriation process will be comiiiitted t.o a period longer than 1 year. I think in all likelihood, you are going to have to run through the appropriation process at ]east every year. Now, there is a problem for a legislative committee handing over a program simply t.o the appropriations subcommittee involved. PAGENO="0492" 486 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDIJCATION AMENDMENTS We feel we are here to exercise an evaluation process, to change the law and refocus if we can do a better job. The Appropriations Corn- irnttees tend to be dominated by the problem of the total budget. Now, if you are going to turn your fate over to the Appropriations Committees without benefit of hearings or support from the legisla- tive committee, you may find your case is rather disabled in terms of the amount of money you need or want. To put it another way, having come before our committee, having justified the present ex- penditure of money and urged a program, having had our committee act to improve the law, you are in a much better position, then, to go before the Appropriations Committee and say, "Now here we have made these improvements. We think there have been discrepancies and problems in the past. We urge early appropriation of the money that is needed." You have, in a sense, advocates from our committee before the Appropriations Committee for the same objective. I say this to you not that I do not welcome your response, but simply as information to you. first of all, as to what the realities are in the House of Representatives particularly, which is jealous of its appro- priations power, and secondly, to make a balance of the comments made about how it would be good if we had a 2-year advance. Chairman PERKINS. I agree with the statement made by the gentle- man from New York. You have to face this thing from the stand- point of reality. We are hopeful that we will he able to see the Appropriations Committee act early in the year, in Februar or March. or by mid- April under all circumstances. That would he, to my way of think- ing, considering our legislative process, an ideal situation if we could extend an authorization here so that the Appropriations Committee would always have the authority to come along with an early appro- priation. I think that is what we are all working toward here. That is fore- most in our minds. Mr. PAGE. I think in our State. on a common school fund, we are having a problem right now in getting a commitment as to what the foundation level will be for the State of Illinois, with budgets being prepared and teachers negotiating coiitracts. But~ it is important. whether jt he the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, or your State programs, to know in March and April when these contracts are being negotiated. Teachers' salaries going up means von have to cut hack in some other areas on the allocations which are paving the same salaries in the Federal programs as von do in the State programs. Mr. ERLENBORN. I~t me suggest at this point that I am aware of the fact~ that this committee should take periodic looks at this pro- gram in relation to the authorization. `Would it not, however, be within this context proper for us this year to he considering the ex- tension of the authorization for the fiscal year 1969? We are re- viewing it now under a bill to authorize the extension beyond fiscal year 1968. Chairman PERKINS. I am hopeful that the committee will approve an amendment extending the legislation to June 30, 1970. I expect PAGENO="0493" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 487 this year to take a good look at the programs authorized and where appropriate to strengthen them, enact amendments to the legislation even though the authorization does not expire. I think we can amend the act more effectively if the authorization extends into the future. We are not under pressure. Mr. EaLEXHOEX. My suggestion is that we extend it 1 year at a time, but. do it a year in advance instead of doing it at the time the authori- zation is expiring and, therefore, withholding action by the Appro- priations Conimittee on the. appr( i1)riat ion. Chairman PERKINS. Last year we were able to get. an extension of 2 years, which got us until June 30, 1908, although I sponsored and worked hard for a 4-year extension. Mr. SPARKS. Mr. Chairman, if we could get this 1 year of lead- time, we would be able to plan more effectively and achieve some of the things you ask for. Chairman PERKINS. You have a year's leadtime this year. Mr. SPARKS. Yes, sir. Chairman PERKINS. We hope to keep it that way. Mr. SPARKS. H we can keep it this way, we. can move in and operate our program much more effectively. Mr. ERLENBORN. As I understand, the Office of Education, the ad- ministration, does not propose in the first session of the 90th Con- gress to come in with a bill extending the authorization. Chairman PERKINS. Let me answer you by stating: First, when the bill was brought in here I stated publicly I intended to offer amend- ments extending the authorization. Mr. GOODELL. I might point out that it is not going to do us very much good or you very much good if we authorize a year in advance and then pass a change in the law in Sept.embe.r so that. we have author- ized funds for a year in advance and we change the allocation formula, as we did last year, change the rules of the game after your school year has started, which then requires the Office of Education t.o go back and redo all of the formulas and von may not hear until February or March again what. your funds are going to be because of the changes made by Congress in the fall perhaps, in a continuing authorization here. Mr. ERLENBORN. It would seem to me that if, when we did adopt those amendments last fall, we had made them applicable to fiscal year 1968 rather than fiscal year 1967, everybody would have been advised in advance. There would have, been timile. to draft new rules and reg- ulations. This was our trOfll)le. niakimig them applicable, in the school year a I ready underway. Mr. GoorwLr~. We would have some difficulty limiting the effect of all amendments to a year hence. Let me raise another side. point here. I think the ultimate solution to your problem, lead time, flexibility and all the other aspects that have been raised here, would be if we could reach a stage where we allocate a specific amount. of money back to the. States for you to use as you deem appropriate either through a form of tax sharing or block grants. Once it was authorized, it would doubtlessly be authorized on a permanent or semipermanent basis. There wouhd develop an obliga- PAGENO="0494" 488 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDFCATIOX AMENDMENTS tion on the Appropriations Committee to make the money available and the tax-sharing proposal that I have iiientioned would not go to the. Appropriations Committee. You would know, based on a. figure well in advance, the money going to your State. The State would, in turn, allocate between education and municipal functions, and you would know again the allocation for vaur own State. Am ither aspect that troubles me: It has come to m attention from a nuinlor of areas of the countrv-I will give you a specific instance. Under a title III application, a county was given a $300,000 grant for t 3-year pei~od which involved remedial work in the early elemen- nay giades. ~300,000 for 3 years. Of that amount, $60,000 a year was for salaries of personnel that were a(lded to administer the grant. They had to buy a truck. They had a. truckdriver. They had to rent quarters. It was a small county. When they got all through, more than petcent of the money. TO percent of the ~300,OOQ had been eaten up ni salaiies an(l overhead expenses. I had a great many of the school people in that particular area, when I was talking with them, tell me if they could have 11(1(1 the ~100.00I) a year distributed to them, they had a large number of high-priority items they could have spent it on in terms of helping the youngster at the early elementary level who needed special care and special help. They resented very much the fact. that TO percent of the mone was t~one before they saw any of the new materials or other things that they wanted to help these Youngsters. ~s I say, I have heard this from a variety of sources, every area of lie country, each example somewhat different. It seems to me a rather Renelal commentary. 1 would like to hear your comments. Mr. Ji LINSTON. sir, I would like t.o comment. on this. I think this Points ~ basically one of the ft ings that. we are all concerned about the same as von a ic. The allocat ion of funds under title III is not xtrenielv large. Tf we want to give these. supplementary services, tlieii we ought to go to a long-range basis. Service to flies t of the shiool ilist lots outsi(le the largei ilt ies really (lepends upon setting up an 1 lea ncel a i o ~)r )\ (he serv j(~5 for I o(al school (list riots. To do this on the basis that von ll~i\e expressed is one thlii1R~ hut to take t Ii ese fuiu iii a fl( st ~i it to (he Vel Oj) a long-range app l(al(t I t I ia I will serVe nianv sHio~l (list Il(tS 011 011 area (oilcel)t l)i1515, VOll (10 not have to repeat sonic of tl~e same things that von have indicated tune and tuite n~ain that you can make l)atter iiti I zatioii of the funds. I think tli is L~oe~ right liak to one of the things that we were (lisussnig on t lie atewide planning approach to this thing. The coordiiiatioii of these finals I etween t lie various titles, in a part 1(111 at a iea, is a little over ,~(iU.M~~) this year which an he utilized in many ways or wasted in iiiauiv \\ av~. But much of this, if it is used in conjunction with the other plo- grams on can really build a service, area for services back to local school districts on a pernianei~t basis. Or you can set it uii on IIIi individual application where von can waste a lot of this money over ii period of time also. This is one of the things that we are all (i1i(etnecl with, that as these funds become available, we do not do it oui a ha~is of 1. ~, oi 3 years. We can take a look at a broad concept. PAGENO="0495" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 489 of services back to school districts and build on it, using these funds constructively over a period of time. Mr. GOODELL. Of course, in the instanc.e I cited we could continue ~100,000 per year appropriation for a number of years further and pre.suniably the 00 or 70 percent for overhead will continue in this particular size county throughout the period. I doii~t know that extending the length of time would help much. I think extending the area might help. Mr. JOHNSTON. I think this is right. Mr. GOODELL. You wouldn't have to have as many administrators for a small aiiiount of money that is being 1)Ut into it. Mr. JOHNSTON. I think you not only have to take into consideration this, but also the area and how many children it could serve economi- cally and efficiently. Mr. SPARKS. Title III, its purpose for innovative and exemplary services, there should not be prolonged continuation of this kind of effort. It certainly ought to be a practical type. There ought to be sonie promise. of success, although I hope that some of the things we try out, when they do not prove to be effective, we will discontinue them. But to evaluate any project in a ver cursory manner would be very dangerous because it may need this extensive, or more exten- sive employment of personnel and planning before such a project is initiated. I would hesitate to evaluate any project that way without. a thorough investigation of its purposes. It is easy for any individual to sit by and say, "We could use this more effectively if it were placed over here." But t.hen it. would not serve the. purpose of title III. of going in here and trying out something that. would prove quite effective if it were extended to a wider area and may prove more successful tl'ian some of the things we have practiced in the l)ast. We certainly need to initiate change someway or other. I think this is an excellent, way to do it. if we do it thoughtfully `and carefully, rather than just. bulling our way ahead. I think that. this type of thing may prove advan- tageous, although I will say some of the things we are trying under title TTT. as soon as we can we ought to get out of. Mr. Go0DELL. I will end with one more question. Do any of you have any suggestions as to how we can simplify or improve the process of application for funds under title I ~ Mr. CTRISTIAN. There is one simple way that you pointed out. which is to have a census every 5 years instead of every 10. It would probably do more to speed up responsiveness to c.l'iangi ng popiila.t ion characteristics all over the country and all kinds of things beyond education. by simply making the funds available to the Census Bu- reau to do a census every S veais. `We wool d autoiiuit ically 1w i hi iii a better look. Mr. GOODELL. This would affect the total funds available to time community, but. I was more concerned here. with the aliocat~on of funds that you know the community is going to get, the allocation process for receiving those. fiu~ds. Mr. JoHNSToN. I think this ~)1~ogram. like man other programs, von ~o through the first ear or two of strmig~rle: I think all States `and the `U.S. office require more I hI1ll~5 1)robablv in applications than we PAGENO="0496" 490 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS basically need. I think one of the main features of this program is good. It has made school districts one way or the other lay out on the table the education of deprived children, the programs they are not carrying on. I think, as a matter of experience I would hope we would eliminate some of the paperwork that is actually involved in the applications. I think the second year's experience has been better than the first year's experience. Nevertheless, we all agree that this is a major problem. But; to identify the educationAlly deprived and make them take a look at the tv1)e of education program that is going to meet the needs of these children, I think, is one of the more beneficial parts of this. Now to get rid of some of the paper and some of the reporting fitiuls js one that I think will take some time to work on. We need to dilni iliate them. Mr. GOODELL. You all smiled and hesitated when I asked the ques- tion. I am sure you did so because you have heard many complaints such as we have heard from the local level that you people operating at the State level would not pei'lmPs feel as strongly about as the local people do who have to fill out. those forms. Chairman PERKINS. The gentleman from New York has asked a most interesting question. I am certainly hopeful to hear some more encouraging comment and response to the gentleman's question than I have heard this far. He simply has asked the question, as I under- stood it. you had any ideas, if you knew of any ways that title I appli- cations could be simplified, and t.hat embodies the guidelines from the Office of Education to the State office. Mr. GOODELL. That is correct. Chairman PERKINS. Now I would like to hear your comments. If there are no comments on t.hat, no suggestions, I would assume that the administration of it is just about perfect. Mr. GOODELL. Now the gauntlet is down. Chairman PERKINS. So let us hear your comments on that in re- sponse to the question from the gentleman from New York. Mr. G00DELL. May the record at least indicate the wincing of the witnesses when you said "almost perfect." Mr. JOhNSTON. Then I will reply a little more deffiiitely, if this is what. you want. It i~. of course, included in the guidelines. I think we all wish frankly that the rcactioll to some of the reports we have to make could 1 )P l)ettei. The local districts have the same type of responsibility. I think ba~ica1ly if the applicatIons could get down to the point of I )eheving and trusting that local education officials and State. officials are just as concerned with wanting to help the educationally deprived as any one else in the IThited States is, then what we would need in this is to identify the children that need the programs. and identification of the programs. And this could he done a. lot simplier than we do at the present time. I think I have in my briefcase in the back of the room some 15 pages of commentS from my staff on the reporting forms that are required by the US. Office of Education and embraced in the guidelines, in- c1udin~ the financial reporting. I think there are a lot of materials aRkedi for that it is nice t.o know, if you have the time and expenditure PAGENO="0497" ELEMENTARY A~D SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 491 of funds to carry on. We get in our State $155,000 for administering this program. We spend better than $250,000. Basically it is to supply information that in the long run, in my judgment, will make no difference on the improvement of the educational program of the children in my particular State. I am talking now personally for Iowa. This can be done by the school districts identifying the program, t.he children, making applications and outlining the program, tile objectives that they want to meet, without. a lot of the~ other charac- teristics and information that we ~iave to collect. Mr. GOODELL. The chairman indicated his belief in the importance of the answer to this question. The chairman and this committee sit here trying to get information on which we can improve the present law. We are not going to be able to hear at any great length certainly from a variety of local school superintendents. In effect, you gentle- men will have to be spokesmen for them to a degree in reference to the question I asked. Now you referred to 15 pages of suggestions from your staff as to how this whole process of guidelines, application forms could be im- proved. I think it would be very helpful to this committee if you gentlemen individually or as a group could submit suggestions in detail, specifically as to how this could be improved. We can there- after take your case to the Commissioner of Education to see if we can't implement some of your suggestions. I agree basically, Mr. Johnston, with your assessment that if we had more faith in the local school districts in identifying the children who are there, who are poor and who could be helped, that we could eliminate a good deal of the other information that is required in these forms. But we need specific help on this. Mr. JoHNsToN. Mr. Chairman, I will see that you get the transcript of what we believe can be done so far as title I, improving the applica- tions, and so forth. I am not prepared to go down through them item by item. Chairman PERKINS. Without objection, the statement will be sub- mitted. I think all of you should comment on the. question. Go ahead. Mr. PAGE. Mr. Chairman, first of all, if we could assume, which we. can't, that every State educational agency is equally effective or equally ineffective, I think it would be Very simple to answer your question. I refer to a statement. I made earlier in the day in the development, of these plans and drafting of this act. how do you insure performance of the dilatory without thwarting the efforts of the competent, without~ jeopardizing the efforts in the State? Mr. GOODELL. At the outset, would you not he better off if the Office of Education had State plans and have, tile State take the responsi- bility and the Office of Education could take a more general oversight `? Mr. PAGE. This is the reference I made to the I)efense Education Act which is much more effective in our opinion where we filed the State plans for improvement in education. The answer to that. is unqualified, so far as I am concerned. Now I feel strongly that when I file my assurances th~it I would administer title I in accordance with theY law- and regulations of the 75-492--67-------32 PAGENO="0498" 492 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDICATION AMENDMENTS U.S. Office of Education, that this then, in a sense, makes regulations law, because this is what I said I would administer the act. by. Now when they come along with a telegram or memorandum in the middle of the school year changing the rules in the middle of the ball game, I would like someone. to answer for me, Does this become a regulation? Maybe I would not have filed those assurances if I had known they were going to be changed. Therefore, I feel it is improper to change regulations in the middle of a school year uiider which we started the operation of the school under this act. I refer, of course, to the telegram cutting off construction under title I which states precisely that you can have construction for the imple- mentation of programs that qualify for the culturally educationally deprived youngst.er from the concentrated low-income, families, if that instruction is for a specific program for those children. Mr. G0ODELL. I might say to the gentleman that we probed that. situation at some length in the hearings we held originally and made it very clear that. construction money under the. circumstances where there was an area of concentration of poverty was authorized under the act. Mr. PAGE. It. did authorize it, vet. because of moving the cutoff date. up 30 days or whatever it was, it made it impossible for Illinois to participate because of the time factor. Mv question, Does that become a regulation when these cutoff dates are changed in the middle of the school year? I do not believe it does. Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. Chairman, could I be. excused? I am going to catch a plane. I will file a statement in regard to the specific question you asked. Chairman PERKINS. WTithout objection. Mr. PAGE. 1 would like to make one other comment., if I might, be- fore I turn this over to Dr. Sparks in regard to your question. Our program on a State level involved several agencies of social services. They have been instructed to identify, t.o classify, to refer to agencies for service, to place pupils into programs. WTe also follow their achievement. In other w-ords, we involve public aid, we involve time public health, as well as the public schools in the development of our plans. I think through the involvement of the many agencies that. sur- round the social services in the public. schools we. can improve these programs at the State level. Mr. SPARKS. Mr. Goodehl, ne.xt. Monday. a. w-eek from today, we will bring before you a group of Kentucky superintendents. We have al- ready made arrangements for this with your chairman. They will give you their specific answers t.o these questions. I think you will `be able to interrogate them and get it much better; it would be much more meaningful than coming from us who are in the State depart- ment.s of education. You will have this opportunity then. But we have had much coni- plaint about having to do so much paperwork. Of course, we re- quire a lot of paperwork in addition to this at. the State level. Prob- ably we are as guilty sometimes as the U.S. Office in sonic of our re- quirements. I am not trying to hide. behin(l this, but I think it would be much bettdr if ou got it from these People directly. PAGENO="0499" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 493 Mr. GOODELL. I am fraiikly amazed among all your resolutions for changes in this act that none, of the incessant complaints that have been coming to Congressmen. and niost. of them coming from the local level regarding the. complicated forms, do not. conie through as a form of resolution someplace iii your organization. I think this is a P~'~ ticularlv acute problem in smaller school districts. It is less of a problem in a metropolitan area with a large school board where they have a professional staff. They are used to making out applications in large numbers, large numbers of copies, and they have a sizable enough application to cut down the a(lministlative overhead to a reasonable i)e.rcellt age for filing that a Pl~1 ica t.irni. You get into a smaller area, they iiiav l)e making five or six appli- cations for a very limited sum of money in each case, sometimes $5,000 or $10,000 for an application. They are. filing ~t) copies and in many instances have to put on a full-time man in charge of Federal appli- cations. The. overhead involved for that kind of school operation runs into a 5ubstantial percentage of the mone the are going to receive. I think this is probably why we hear the complamts so strongly expressed froni some of your smaller school districts. Chairman PERKINS. I think what the gentleman from New York has just stated points up some of the greatest criticism that the press has made. in the operation of the act in the poorer areas of the country. The poor school districts lust do not have the funds to make the necessary plans and to get programs jnto operation like other cit.y districts that had the deprived children throughout the country. Where the resources were lacking those were the school districts that were the slowest in taking advantage of the pIog~~lm. I think that is one of the things that the gentleman from New York has in mind, seeing if the. expenditures under title V at the present tinme-T think you should take. that into consideration-whether the assisfalice that the States are receiving, how much of those funds are diverted to help the. local school superintendents and tile local school 1)001(15 in the preparation of plans under title 1. I think this is a question that. von l)eople should be able t.o give us some suggestions on. Mr. CIIRTSTrxx. Some run (Town as low as ~OO students. `\Ye have this problem with 60 counties, 6T counties. You are bound to have some. systems that (To not have the help you speak of to prepare their applications for projects. I think this is a service that. most of tue States have rendered. W'e recognized this from our study of our school systems in Florida and sent our State consultaiits under title. I mmcl also the. ones we had under title V into these communities to help l)T~ePilre these applications iii cooperation with these smaller counties or smaller units, and revised them whemm thi~ were wrong or helped them revise them until we were able to take advantage of every single Illume available. ~() it can be. (lone if von want to concern rate. Time flexibility of this ut mickes it so that the State De1)artnlent of Fducat ion can do this. That ~5 what we are talking about under title ITT. That is the reason I tlmimik tIme State can adinimmister undei title III as it has under title I. ~o it is a muati er of deterni minur w'iIeIe v~ iii \veakllesses are and your rcmi~thm. We woithi flflt heuin to Lfl ) 11) 1 1l(le ( `imntv THuT tell them PAGENO="0500" 494 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS how to prepare an application, because they have a competent staff and they can prepare their applications and revise t.hem, amend them, SO that. they come into the State department for approval. But, in the smaller sections, you had better have someone at the State level that can go in there and give them this kind of help. Mr. GOODELL. I am sure, however, we encumber the process. The State people can go in and help the local people. Our concern here is that we disencumber the process to an optimum degree because we feel, whether the State is doing it or the local people are doing it, that there is a lot of wasted effort here in filling out forms for infor- mation that is not entirely necessary to get this kind of application through the process. Mr. GoRDoN. We need to simplify our applications and also the ap- proval of them. I think this can be done through some study be- tween the U.S. Office of Education and the chiefs. Mr. SPARKS. In this type of assistance in our Department of Edu- cation we have been working in the local districts and poor districts particularly, but our staff worked weekends to achieve this. Certain other needs are left unmet because of much of this unnecessary paper- ~vork. Mr. GOODELL. Not only that, but let us face it, gentlemen, some years ahead the amount of total money available in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act is going to be insufficient from your viewpoint. We have illustrated that here. In this context, we cer- tainly should see to it that as little money is wasted and encumbered as possible. Mr. PAGE. I would like to make one final comment in regard to the formula. I did not come here with t.he idea that we were about to change the formula. We believe that the formula for distributing funds was not about to be changed, but if there is a possibility of changing the formula substantially, we will gladly submit an alterna- tive plan for distribution for your consideration. We would like to do it.. Mr. GOODELL. I don't know whether the Congress in its wisdom will determine that we want to make further alterations in the formula, but I think we would be delighted to receive such an alternative plan. I personally would. We are going to have, I am sure, some amend- ments offered along that line. I think most of us would like to con- tinue to improve t.he formula where improvement can be made, keep- ing in mind the suggestion of Mr. Erlenborn. If it. is late in the year perhaps w-e. could delay the impact of changes until a year hence, and you could continue to make your plans based on the present formula. Mr. ERLENBORN. I would like to ask this question as far as the d~strihution of title I funds are concerned. WTe are all aware of the difficulty of operating with the facts that are of 1959 vintage given to us in the 1960 census. Would it be possible in the States to identify, year by year, where the children who are underachieving are located by school district.? Could this be a factor in statewide distribution if the funds are allocated to the States and then let the States, on the basis of the actual facts, year by year as to where the underachieving children are located, make the allocation within the State or is this too farfetched? PAGENO="0501" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDTJCATION AMENDMENTS 495 Mr. PAGE. I think we could make that identification, but I am not certain that the underachievers would always qualify under the act. Mr. FORD. In that regard, there has been no comment from this panel on the formula on title I. Last year we put language in the report to considerably broaden the criteria that could be used within the State for distribution of funds. One of the things that might be used that was discussed on the floor of the House when the bill was passed was this kind of measurement. We might take into con- sideration distribution within a county, for example, of the relative achievement if there was in that State some way of measuring this. Mr. GOODELL. I will state to the gentleman before you came I had asked about the title I allocation formula. They did make some considerable comment on it, but as indicated by Mr. Page, they did not come with the idea. that we might change the formula this year. Mr. ERLENBORN. Let me ask just one further questions and I thank you for yielding. One comment was made in the hearing last week that under the title I programs we are developing additional help for the students in t.he school districts where there is a heavy con- centration of the culturally and economically disadvantaged. They have special enriching programs in their schools where the nearby school district-and usually this is related in many areas to the segre- gated Negro schools and the segregated white schools-does not have these. enriching programs and this tends then, even if there. is freedom of choice between the school districts, to continue the concentration of Negro children in those school districts where they can get the enrich- ing program. They do not want to move to the all-white school district, even though they have the opportunity. Now is this a fair assessment of what. we may be doing under title I? Are we perpetuating de facto segregation? Mr. PAGE. I think it is. Mr. GORDON. I would say so. You have overlapping hounds in any of these districts, but when you get a concentration of them and you start to, the remedial programs start to work, and if they are successful you can see why they would not want to ch~u~e.. Mr. ERLENBORN. If this is true, should this not be taken into con- sideration when we so often hear complaints about. de facto segre- gation, that this is not completely within the control of the school district., even if they threw the boundaries wide open and allowed freedom of choice? We are going to continue do facto segregation t.o a great degree. Mr. GORDON. I would comment in a large city you could plan your special programs by utilizing secondary schools particularly that would tend to do away with the segregation pattern. That is, using a New York illustration, if you take a high school of performing arts or a science high school a.nd you make it ope.n to the community and you do an adequate job of counseling, particularly in the dis- advantaged areas, and you get the students in there who can benefit most from the program, you will work against the de facto se.grega- t.ion that is essentially a housing pattern and not a school pattern. If the extra programs for the disadvantaged are so attractive that the people won't move it would seem to me that they would be siiffi- cientlv attractive so that some whites would be attracted to those PAGENO="0502" 496 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS schools. That happens on occasion. So I dont. think you can go wrong making schools better. I dont think you are necessarily im- posing a segregation pattern. What may he happening in the set of circu~nstances von described is that an inadequate job is bemg done in the so-called upperciass white school. It. probaHv would lead us to the conclusion which I think would be borne out, that generally speaking we are really not satisfied with what (;lir schools are. doing. It is just that. we are much more dissatisfied in the areas of so-called economic disadvantaged. If we turn around. and look at these things on a performance standard and measure schools against performance and such as you are talking about, and plan on the basis of raising to the standard, then I think we tend to tind a way with the segregation quetion and we are focusing on educa- non, and we would not, be. I dont believe, perpetuating de facto segregation. This is a specific. basic problem that our board is dealing with where we have rapidly changing neighborhood patterns in the Miami area and where we are concerned about the kinds of programs being offered in order to maintain the balance that exists within the community. There is no simple answer. Mr. SrAiu~s. The. studies that have been made on the equalization of educational opportunitY would not support his testimony in the fact that the specialized school with higher standards would create a de facto segregation more extensive than we have at. present. it means the possibility of wide comprehensive offerings would tend to eliminate this much more than specialized programs in certain schools. Mr. GoI~Dox. If I could expand, if you had a school of teciniology that. had 1-me technical training programs in a comprehensive high school that was located in what is now a disadvantaged area so that its programs would be designed to attract. white students and advan- taged students l)ecause this is where. the best. program wa.s taking I)laCe in border areas and in areas that are tending to become segregated, one race or the other. you would tend to provide a. mixture in a secon- darv school that could perhaps alter the housing patterns. I personally am very much involved in the housing business and think it. is an undue burden on schools t.o expect. them to do all of the chiamige in housing patterns that are necessary to provide for integrated neihborhoods. But they can imaginatively assist. I am not suggesting that you put these schools out in advantaged areas and ask the few disadvantaged kids who can qualify to travel to get. here. I am sa ing let us put those in the disadvantaged areas and change the. character of the neighborhood that way. Mr. G000ELL. The trouble with your argument, Mr. Gordon, is that ou get school A with 55 pei'cent of the students disacivant aged in a relatively concentrated area of 1)ovelty. Nearby is school B with S percemit. Now under this act, you are unclem an obligation to allocate the bulk of the nionev to the school that has 55 percent. You are not talking about specialized services at a level that is going to attract the 95 percent in school B. You are talking about remedial type. programs that. are (lesigned especially to help the 55 percent disadvantaged in school A. So. by putting this money in school A you have a specialized pro- gram aimed at the 55 percent disadvantaged at a relatively low level. PAGENO="0503" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDTJCATION AMENDMENTS 497 It. is not, to attract people from the middle-income ~-uIiooi nearby. In that situation, it seenis to inc the point iiiade by several of the witnesses and raised by Mr. Erlenborn has vali(litv. You ale then encourag- ing the 55 percent disadvantaged to stay iii school A where they have. a fairly well mounted program aimed at their distinctive problems~ while if they move over and beconie l)a1~t of the G or 7 or 8 percent of the school B that. now has S pei~ceiit. they are. ~on1g to find a much less adequate program to meet their specialized need. Mr. FORD. You left out the fact that it is essential to have a proper interpretation of this formula. Are. schools A and B in the same school district? Mr. GOODELL. It could be in the same 5(11001 district or different. Mr. FORD. Within the school district the requirement placed upon the local authority for administration of funds is merely that they con- centrate on programs which are calculated to improve the, quality of education for the educationally deprived children. Educationally deprived is not defined iii this act in any way that \volIld put a stricture on tile local people and say that means a person with a family income of $2,000 or on public welfare or other factors. Once the money goes in the school district, the local authority, in conjunction with your title I committee at the State level tinder your state plan, determines what the educational deprivation is in that school district and then tailors the program. The program might be entirely in the school with 55 percent low income families. It. might. not even be located in the school. It might be located in the public library or an educational center or it. might. be a traveling teacher who goes to every school, even to schools with 1 percent poor. In making this record I think we ought to niake clear that we are not further complicating or confusing the picture facing the local school people in trying to administer that title. And there is no tie between the $3,000 income, and education deprivation within the school district. Mr. GOODELL. The. gentleman has made a laigelv irrelevant argu- ment.. It is right. We do make the allegation purely on the l)asis of economic deprivation hut the testimony of evenv witness we have heard on this point is that. there is a high correlation l)etween educa- tional deprivation and economic deprivation in the areas. I am sure every one of the witnesses here would agree with that. I also point~ out to the gentleman we (10 specifically, under the law~ require programs to meet special educational needs for educationally deprived children in school attendance areas having a high concemi- tration of children from low-incoiuie families. This is~'~~ specific re.luirement. of the law and is not in a general sense that. von have t.o set it up on a. citywide basis. We are requiring them to go into the high attendance areas of those from low income families. rfhis is the law they have to operat.e under whatever the theory we would like to press here. Mr. FORD. I disagree with you. The history of this legislation will show we did not mean to tie the hands of the school district, so that they had to pinpoint, the program in a specific school or school attend- ance area.. We meant rather, that they would give, priority consiclera- tion to the problems of the children in the school attendance area with a relatively high number of educationally deprived children. In most PAGENO="0504" 498 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS cases, the programs will undoubtedly be carried on in the school normally attended by those educationally deprived children, but not necessarily so. One of the prime examples was the Greater Cleveland school system which was building a center which we used as a model not only for broadening the original proposal in title I, but also title III that was written into the 1965 act. A number of programs are contemplated where children will be bused from all over Greater Cleveland to a central science laboratory. Mr. P~~GE. Mr. Chairman, this might clarify it a bit as to confusion so far as the State is concerned. Might I read from a draft copy of an audit report of the Chicago funds under title I? We had our con- ference last Friday with them and challenged this as you have chal- lenged it. They have challenged the wisdom and the right of Chicago to ii~e the~e fuiid~ and I read from their report: The schools were neither ranked as to the degree of concentration of poverty, nor identified to the projects comprising the two programs. rflierefore, they said Chicago did not have the right to locate these projects as they did unless they located them in the highest priority of high concentration on down the line. Mr. FORD. I have to respectfully disagree with you. We are more than passively acquainted w'itli the Chicago situation on this com- in it tee. Mr. P,\GE. ~O am I. Mr. FORD. Because when it came up last year we had a very serious complaint. I think most of the committee agreed that Chicago may have, on the basis of testimony we had last year, gone a little too far in the direction of turning this into general aid to the Chicago school system. There was some difficulty on the part of ~ome groups to trace the effect of this Fe(ieral money into programs that were targeted for identifiably educationaflv deprived children. You picked perhaps the only city in the country, as a matter of fact the only one in the country I can remember, where this charge has been made. On examination we find that in administering the program for the second year they were more careful in using these funds for a specific program and met the criteria that were set up. Here we have a situation where the city perhaps st.retched in one direction further than we wanted them to go. I want to caution you that Mr. Goodell is probably more opposed to Federal control and Federal aid to education than anybody on this committee. If you agree too quickly with him- Mr. GOODELL. That is a high compliment of a kind that comes to me very seldom from the gentleman from Michigan. Mr. FoRD. If you agree too quickly with him you are liable to find legislative history on this bill that will do more to put Federal strings on this money. Mr. GOODELL. The way the law is written and the way the regula- tions are written and the guidelines they specifically require it to be in areas of concentration of poor families. I will listen as long as you want as to what you say the law should say, and maybe what we said in the off-the-record discussion it would mean, but the regulations are pretty specific on this point. PAGENO="0505" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDTJCATION AMENDMENTS 49~ I don't think we serve the purpose, of this hearing by arguing it any further. It seems to me that the witnesses have indicated their view on this. We are in effect concentrating funds in areas where there is a special need. It does not seem to me that very many Members of Congress are going to dispute that that was our purpose. Mr. Erlenborn simplified the point which I think is a very valid point that we should consider. In concentrating in areas of special- ized need what is the ultimate impact on this whole question of trying to desegregate and balance, not just racially but in terms of education generally so that we are not having some schools in poor areas offer- ing poor curriculum, poor opportunities for white or black students. Obviously if we are concentrating programs in those areas where they have poor schools now, we may be setting up specialized prognin~ that will hold those students there. It is a legitimate area for us to inquire into, without having to argue about the very obvious provisions of the law as they now stand. I have concluded, Mr. Chairman. I thank the witness very much. I think your statements have been most illumiii~iting and helpful to this committee. Mr. FORD. Thank you. The gentleman has consumed, I under- stand, an hour and 5 minutes. I am sure he has contributed a great deal. Mr. GOODELL. If the gentleman raises any point about it, the chair- man made it clear at. the outset we were going in depth. \Ve had 5-minute questioning the first time around and thereafter there was no limitation. I think any snide reference to what, time I took is un- called for. Mr. Foim. The paiiel~ te-~timnonv has been directed pretty much toward the bjll that is before us whieh presents one view of the things in the Elenientarv a11(l Secondary Educatio~i Xct that demand atteii- tion this year in the way of amen(lnlelmt. There will be oilier bills introduced before we ire tlirouuh, af- fecting a number of other sections of the act. part i'ularlv the formula I would like to ask you as repre~entatives here of state school agencies if you have given any thought to the effect of the changes in the formula that go into operation with the next fiscal year beginning July 1 unless we change them. paiticimlarly the opt urn of allocating ap- propriated funds on the basis of one-half of the national average per pupil expenditure rather than cue-half of the avera~e cost within the State. Now I know from where I am sitting that there are two of von rho are from States which are very suJ)~tantial 1 ~eIieluiaries fi~omn this change and one is from a State that lost a lot of mimoiiev as a result of this change. Perhaps you would like to comment, hearing in mind that although we have authorized for this year, in title I. ~ billion the admninis- tration has only asked for in its budget S1.~ billion and therefore we are dealing for all practical purposes with a fixed amount of money. Maybe it. is an unfair question to Mr. Sparks. Mr. SPARKS. It is not unfair at all because I would have to answer directly that we much prefer that the national average l)e used as a PAGENO="0506" .500 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDAnY EDLTATION AMENDMENTS basis for compiling the grants. Our reason, of course-you could llfldeIStafl(l readily it would he quite advantageous to us. Our people ~ro to your State and to other States and in competition over the ~ation \Vithi children ivho have-young people who have an excellent eduetion basis. We need to do everything we can to im- prove ours. We are d~sa(lvantaged as far as the average income is coneerne(l staving on the same basis. We feel that this type of ap- proach would he near the same type of approach we use in distributing our own state funds. It would be near"r on an equalization basis, on the basis of effort plus capability. We feel that if we could draw funds on the basis of the national capability, it would help us tremendously. The same equalization principle wouh(l apply that we tried to apply to our own State foundation program. Mr. FORD. That is on the assumption that the only reason that some States fall below the national average is because they have a. willing- iie~s to support their schools at the. local level, but are totally without the resources to do it. and it presumes that the extra large expenditure by the States such as New York. Illinois, California, which are the leaders, is base(l on fact as other than a willinguiess to suport educa- tion at the local or State level. Mr. SPARKS. I would say on the basis of our willingness I)llls as we apply to our local district, l)asis of the willingness in terms of our capability. Mr. FORD. Does anybody else wish to comment on that? Mr. PAGE. We will be one of the States that will get less of course. T do not know how much hut we have no great concern with this formula because Illinois has demonstrated its willingness to support education and I do not think it is a major factor. Mr. CHRTSTL~N. Florida reaches almost to the average. It would make very little difference to us. We would favor a national average. Mr. FORD. You are just below the breaking point.. Mr. CuuiIsTixx. Just slightly below. Mr. FORD. You have a slight advantage now but in 2 or 3 years~ Mr. ChRIsTIAN. I expect we will go over the national average so it would not matter. Mr. FtLLER. Speaking for the background of the entire group it has long been the policy of the council that there ought. to he dis- tribut.i on of intergovernmental funds for education with equalization at all levels. In other words. the State officers generally approve of the equaliza- tion features of State systems of school finance which now distribute more than $10 billion a year to local school districts. According to the. policy of the chief State school officers, these sys- tems would have an equalization factor in them, a fairly substantial one I believe. It has always been the policy, and I know of very few chief State school officers from any States that have opposed the. policy to have the national funds also exhibit an element of equalization quite substantial as among the States. Mr. FORD. Did I understand you to say that your formula accepted that principle with respect to all intergovernmental funds for the support. of education? PAGENO="0507" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDLTATION AMENDMENTS 501 Mr. FULLER. On Federal assistance to education and on State sys- t ems of educational finance. Mr. Form. Would you support that principle in the distribution of funds under title V of this act to the State school agencies instead of using a straight per capita distribution as we are using now? Would you entertain the thought of using an equalization formula that would ~live money to the States on tile basis of their sui)port for the State sihool agency rather than on a p~ capita l)asis ~\[r. FUu~F~R. This formula does, the one in this 1)111 and the one which is the concensus of the. opinion of ~() chief State school officers. If von drew the vectors of all 50 von would come out almost. exactly at 40 percent flat grant and 60 percent on pupil population. Now the consensus there is based on tl~e assunipt ion that every State has one State (lepartnlent of educatioii and that in tile very small States, and particularly in small States with large geographical areas, scattered population, the State deiJartinent in Montana, say, with 600,000 people, 623 districts and a. State so large that if you flattened it out it would probably be third instead of fourth in size in the cotuitrv. ~\VIiat is required is a strong State agency that deals with a number, a considerable number, of school (listriets. Now there is only one State agency in New York or in California. After you get past what- Mr. Form. There is only one State per pupil average in New York and California, also. Mr. FULLER. Yes, but the.re is only one State department of educa- tion. When you look at the one State department of education in California and in New York after you get past this basic minimum under which you can support a minimumly decent State department of education, then the formula takes off on school population, 60 per- cent on school population. So that if von were to distribute on an appropriation of $43,400,000 total, von would be distributing the ~3 pei~ent to the State agencies which would be $36 million. If von distribute $3G million then you have about $255.()0O, approxi - matelv, on a fiat grant. After that. Alaska moves up at. a rate of 6- p~~~1Jt increase over its base grant whereas California moves up at a rate of 40-percent increase over its flat grant. If you distribute $36 million instead of ~1S million as at. present, to the States, California runs up to al)out ~21 niillion whereas Alaska remains at only S40,000 above its flat grant. This formula replaces one which at I)I'ese1~t url(ler present 1967 fiscal appropriations averages about. 29 percent flat grants. ~ or 29 percent, and 71 or 72 percent on population. This is regarded by all of the inembership practically as an unfair thing to the small State which has to maintain a State department. Take North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, most of the Rocky Mountain States and States with large rural populations. they need a passal)lv good State department, of education regardless of their total population in relationship to that. of California and New York. I might tell von that in this sentigrain return on this point, and I have said that the consensus was 40-percent-flat grant and 60 percent, PAGENO="0508" 502 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS there is almost no difference in the voting between the large States and the small States. In the membership of the council of superintendents and comimssioners in the large States, recognize these problems. I might tell you that California and New York both voted for an increase in the flat grant, very close to the consensus, as a matter of fact. Mr. FORD. You said they would support an equalization factor and then von proceeded to defend this on a per capita distribution beyond the basic grant. That is not what most of the States consider an equalization formula within the States. Normally equalization takes into account the rela- tive al)ility of the respective districts within the States to distribute the money and they distribute a portion of their money on some per capita basis and the balance of their money taking these other factors into consideration. What we have here is a flat grant with everybody getting a mini- mum guarantee(l amount of money and then we have a straight per cal)ita distribution. What we are talking about. in title I is not that sort of distribution at all. We are saying notwithstanding the fact that you have the large number, that you have the expense, t.hat we will take into account the relative, costs of education in your State per pupil except that we will allow von the option of considering to your benefit the national aver- age which results from the high-cost States being thrown into a com- mon fund. If we did that with title V do you think your people would approve of that? Mr. FTLLER. I think they would. I know of no instance in the past 20 years in which the~ States, as a group and the chief State school officers as a group, would iiot approve an equalization formula based on the equalization grounds. I might say that this title V formula that is in the bill and that is the consensus of opinion of the chief State school officers does have, when it is figured out, a great deal of equalization. There are. two or three exceptions in it, very small State.s which have limited geographical areas and not~ very many school districts. They provide the excepticn~z. But after these returns were in, the Office of Education spent a couple of weeks trying out empirically a large num- ber of formulas. They ran one formula after another. When this report and recommendation of 40 percent, 60 percent in title V was presented at a White House conference with Mr. Cater, Mr. Howe. and with Mr. Ralph Huitt, of HEW, and Sam Ha.lperin and a member of the Bureau of the Budget, the immediate reaction from those gentlemen was that that moves too far favoring the smaller St ates. We left it for consideration and they went ahead and spent a con- ple of weeks as I say and ran all kinds of empirical tables testing it out. The next thing that happened after 2 or 3 weeks and two or three visits was that t.hey said, well, we can't do any better than this, con- sidering all of the States and considering their real needs. here there was a consensus of the chief State school officers of which the Office of Education said they could not improve on so they adopted PAGENO="0509" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDTJCATION AMENDMENTS 503 it. They not only adopted it for title V as it is now but they also adopted that formula for prol)osecl part B. Mr. Fo~. The second formula change that kicks into action in the coming fiscal year is the change of the $2,000 figure to $3,000. Again assuming a fixed amount of money, in this case a recommendation of $1.2 billion or one-half of what we authorized last year, (10 you have any comments on the reallocation of funds that will result from this change? I might say some of us believe that we allocate money in exactly the same pockets and in the same direction as the amendment we are just talking about. Does anybody disagree with that? Mr. CHRISTIAN. I think you would reallocate in the same pattern you have.. In my testimony I said we restudy `this and continue the study to frnd a better method of allocating the funds. Someone men- tioned-one of the Congressmen mentioned the possibility of deter- mining by low-achievement areas plus low-income areas where you could make a better concentration of this and determine this is a factor. I don't think we have arrived at any formula yet that is foolproof. This seems to be about as able as we have at the present time. I think we should continue to work toward a study of improvement.. I think this can be done. Mr. Foiw. Theoretically when you go from a $2,000 figure to a S3,000 figure you add more children whose heads are counted for the purpose of deterniining the distribution of money. But if you don't at the same time add more money what you do is not reallocate it back into the same neighborhoods but you allocate it to different neighborhoods unless you are willing to assume that the ratio of people earning less than $3,000 is the same throughout the country. In your State, for example, you find a very dramatic thing happens to Florida as compared to other Southern States because people either make nothing or next to nothing or they are making more than $3,000, but there are States in the country where that is just about the aver- age in agricultural wage and you actually pick up a lot of employed people. People employed in Illinois, Florida, and other States would now be counted. If you take a look at the tables that the Office of Educa- tion has developed you will discover there is a very great difference when you go from $2,000 to $3,000 in the proportionate number of people within the State. When you add the children it is true that you add more children to New York than you do in Alabama but on time percentage of the total children in the school district you add almost~ 10 times as many children in Alabama as you do in New York. Once again we have a formula change that is going to reallocate the distribution of a fixed amount of money. As I indicated and other members have indicated we did not come here prepared to deal with that subject today. I hope before you close these hearings you will take a~ look to see how your State fares on this and give us the benefit of your thoughts in this regard because I will say very honestly that, Soifl~ of us are PAGENO="0510" 504 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS going to try to reopen that question, at least keep it open until such time as the Budget Bureau starts spending the money or advocating spending the money we are asking for. To get back to the I-Ieadstart program, there are two kinds of rec- ommendations for transferring Headstart. to the Office of Educatiom I hope we can make it clear on the re.c.ord which form of this the people appearing before the committee are advocating. Spokesmen for the administration are talking about the shifting of Project lleadstart from the Office of Economic Opportunity to the Office of Education while retaining all of the features of Headstart that make it something other than a straight educational program in the traditional sen~e. However, Mr. Page, as I read your testimony you are suggesting that He.adstart should be administered entirely within the public. school system. Mr. PAGE. Mr. Chairman, that is not what. I intended to leave you with. We went into t hi~ in great detail after lunch. I think we have set. the record straight on the posit ion in this regard. I basically agreed with the concept that. Headstart be under the Office of Education which would give us more articulation between the State department. and the community action groups that are oper- ating the program. We are not. ~uid I am not recommending that the eclucatioiial agency of the State administer this program completely and solely if this is your interpretation. I did not mean to leave it that way. Mr. FORD. This morning I did not get to the. statement a.t the bot- tom of page 2 where you say. in referring to the Headstart program: In view of the cost and coordinated administration, we believe the program ~hou.Id be restricted to assistance to the elementary and secondary schools. This change as proposed would remove any existing restrictions and allow reimburse- ments to any agency. That left me with the impression that you were saying Headstart should he strictly a school program. Mr. PA(;E. I received the mmiendments Thursday and they were w-orked on Saturday. Mv point was that through the cooperation of the local school district facilities available with the community action group these facilities could he used to greater advantage rather thami renovating buildings in the community and spending more sums of money than necessary. Mr. TURD. I took time this morning to look at Chicago. For the current S-mouth program. S~.00.000 is going into Chicago for 5,128 children. Only 2.121) of those children are in the public schools in programs admillistere(l by public schools, 1,000 in the Catholic schools. and 16 other CAP agencies. most. of them religiously connected like. the YWCA, Presbyterian Church, and St. John's Methodist. Church, hiav~ programs. 2.( )~ lnldren. You have a ratio of 3 to 2 non-public-school children or nonpuhib agencies administering Headst.art in Chic.ago at the present time. I think from that. you will see the concerns that many people have over our taking precipitous action at this point that would shift the program away from people already conductiiig it by the simple act of making it a public school program. PAGENO="0511" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDTCATION AMENDMENTS 5(3~ r~ is an additional consideration and I know Mr. Fuller is an expert on it the restraints and restrictions that we have in a nuni- ber of States on these fuiids once they get into the poci~etbook, even if for oiily a moment, for redistribution with that State as public school funds. We have some. constitutional prohibitions in some States and where we donUt have contitutional prohibitions we have statutory prohibi- tions which would lock those funds out of these agencies the minute they got into a public school agency. No matter how willing the public school agency might be to fund these ~,000 kids in the 10 programs and 1,000 Catholic, parochial schools in Chicago they could not do it. if this State had a restriction against using public school funds in a program carried on in a non- public school. These are things that we certainly hope you will hear in mind in advocating too strongly to the Congress that it jump at changing this program in its administration to that great an extent.. I am very happy hat you have cleared that up. Is that consistent with your view, Mr. Fuller? Mr. FIJLLER. Yes, I think t.he constitutional limitations under State constitutions however are the same out of OEO as they would be out of the Office of Education. I don't see any necessary shift in the ad- ministration out. of the Office of Education and the administration out of OEO for legal or constitutional reasons. I think there is one other element here that I would like with your permission to comment. on just a little. This is a differentiation which to me makes a difference. There are two ways, there are two results t.hat might be obtained by shifting the Federal administration of Headstart from OEO to the Office of Education. One is to shift. the program administration over there and still leave on the l)asis of agreement between OEO a.nd IJSOE, or on the basis of regulations which were written by OEO and which are car- ried along with the program, the same regulations that were had before. Now if the shift. were made in the way that the six nat.iona.l educa- tion association want. they would sa that this is an educational pro- gram and it. belongs in the edu~ational agency and they would shift it with the. responsibility for the regulations to the Office ot Ldtucatioui. This would not necessarily make any difference so far as the private children and teachers are concerned. TI 5~X O1ganizatjofls in this third recommendation down there reconinientl the transfer of the T-Teaclstart. program from the. Office of Economic Oppoi~unity to the Office of Education. Then we were unanimously-there, are ~5 people there from the six ~TOUl)S in favor of "retaining the elements of the program which emphasize health, soc i il service, ~iI rent e(lucatioui, an(l paiei~t participation.' We flu ink it does have mnovat ing l)r~1ct ices as it is which should be continued. Mr. FORD. That is something I would like to clear lip with you now. PAGENO="0512" 506 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDtCATION AMENDMENTS I think we are in complete agreement on the two theories that you have expressed. One, stated in this language at the beginning of the appendix to your testimony this morning, is the recommendation No. :~i. to ti;iiisfer Ileadstait to the Office of Education. But by enumer- ating in that recommendation some things you want to retain, you seem to eliminate or maybe omit others. You have stated that, whether or not you wanted Headstart to be- come a part of the Office of Eclucat ion, you wanted it to be adminis- tered directly to a public or public school agency as distinguished from the flexibility in the Office of Economic Opportunity which finances some programs through public agencies and some through quasi- public or in fact private agencies. The entire Headstart program in Mississippi, for example, was financed outside of the public school agency. There is some doubt in some people's mind that there would be any Headstart at all in Mis- sissippi if it had to be financed exclusively through a public school agency. Now are you recommending that in the shiftover that this legisla- tion ought to spell out language that would allow the funding outside of public, school agencies Mr. FrrLLER. Do you mean the agency immediately below the Office of Education which would be dealt with by the Office of Educa- tion? Mr. FORD. Perhaps I did not make it clear. It is my understanding that. in every piece of legislation that we have 1)assed authorizing the Office of Education to, disburse funds for ele- mentary and secondary school programs or for anybody below higher education level, let us put it that way, there is a very specific restric- tion requiring that the funds must go to a public agency. I)o you recall in 196~i you gave special testimony and were one of those people who urged that this was an essential part of the Ele- mentary and Secondary Education Act. Now if, we as an amendment to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of this year, add to the duties of the Office of Education under that ac.t the administra- tion of l-Teadstart I want to know whether you want that restraint that is placed on the other funds in that act, the restraint being that only public school agencies will receive grants, to apply as well to Headstart funds. Do you want the nonpublic schools to be eligible and other nonpublic agencies other than schools to be eligible for grants for Headstart programs after this transfer or not? Mr. FR~LLER. I think those would be unconstitutional and I would ~0t want them. Mr. FORD. No one has said they are unconstitutional now before we transfer. Mr. FFLLER. I know- Mr. FORD. You say the transfer would make them unconstitutional? Mr. FFLLER. No one has said that they are unconstitutional now? What difference is there in the constitutionality when it comes from one Federal agency than from another Federal agency? Mr. FORD. I don't see any constitutional problem but I see a statutory problem because we specifically in order to avoid having a PAGENO="0513" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 507 fight with a lot of people about the constitutionality of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act went along with putting in these restraints. Now we are faced with a program, with 500,000 kids in it already and another 125,000 in the on-going program and we are talking about transferring it. What I want to know is whether in your recomendations for the transfer you do not contemplate that the transfer will have the result of putting the nonpublic school and nonpublic agencies out of the Headstart business? Mr. FULLER. I would say that the Office of Education should operate under the same rules that it operates under in its other educational business. Mr. FORD. Then you agree with me it would not be proper for the Office of Education to fund the program to the archdiocese for the operation of project Headstart? Mr. FULLER. I think it would be fully as proper and fully as con- stitutional as it is for any other Federal agency. I am not avoiding the question. Mr. GURNEY. If I may make this comment, I don't think it is fair to ask these State school superintendents how they think the constitu- tionality of operating a Headstart program under any contemp'ated change of the law would be. I think what they have recommended is that they agree with the fact that it is a good idea to change the operation of the program from the Office of Economic Opportunity to the Office of Education. Be- yond this I don't think it is incumbent upon them to comment on whether private agencies should still stay in the business or not. This is what you want them to say. I don't think it is appropriate that you ask them that. Certainly we here in Congress will have to decide that. Maybe it is a good idea, maybe it is not. But this is not testimony that you ought to elicit from these State school superintendents, with a leading ques- tion such as you are doing. Mr. FORD. I appreciate the gentleman's concern but I think I ought to tell you that in 1965 when we wrote this act the gentleman to whom my question is now addressed was one of those who appeared before this committee and was as responsible as any other man in the country for the specific language going into this act that concerns me. I am not asking for a constitutional opinion. I know what his constitutional opinion is. He has been involved in sufficient litiga- tion to make that clear. I am asking him as a recognized expert on the fine lines that are drawn throughout the country in this regard if 11e believes that the language we put into this act in 1965 would pre- vent a Hearstart program from being administered under the Elemen- tary and Secondary Education Act by anyone other than a public school agency. It is that simple. Mr. CHRISTIAN. Would that. not be more appropriate for the U.S. Office of Education to answer? The way the language is in the act would they not be the ones to say whether they could make the con- tract with the private or parochial agency for Headstart. 75-492-67-----33 PAGENO="0514" 508 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS Mr. Foru~. They ultimately will have to do that.. Maybe the At- torney General will have to render an opinion. I think we ought to lay the cards on the table and be honest. If we. are simply talking about the transfer for the sake. of operating the program more. effi- ciently, fine. But if we are not willing at the same time to admit that the transfer carried with it a secondary purpose of taking out of the business of operating Headstart people who are already in it., why don't we say so. Mr. CHRISTIAN. I don't think any chief State school officers want t.o take away from the parochial or private organizations this oppor- tunity of Headstart. Our interest is furthering the education but it ought to be in the educational age.ncy. The OEO does more than just. education. The U.S. Office of Educa- tion is an educational agency. We consider Headstart an educational agency. For that. reason it ought to be in the U.S. Office of Education. Someday we are going to grow into a program nationwide where we recognize the kindergarten and preschool youth, that we can prepare program right now. This has moved into the various States in t.he Nation. They were not prepared for it. Consequently we had to do the best we could. Mr. GURNEY. Let me ask this question if I may. Mr. FORD. I will yield to the gentleman as soon as I respond to the gentleman. Mr. GURNEY. I had the floor before you did. Mr. MEEDS. A point of order. The gentleman is out of order. Mr. FORD. I will yield to the gentleman as soon as I respond. I will say I don't disagree with what you have said but you are not saying what Mr. Fuller has said. Mr. Fuller will not go so far as to say that the State school officers do not want. to change the administration of Headstart with respect to nonpublic school agencies operating Headstart. program. Mr. CHRISTIAN. I go back to my question. This is the question you should ask the U.S. Office of Education. Mr. GURNEY. Perhaps this will settle this ball game right now. Do you gentleman have any nefarious schemes to take away the operation of Headstart from any of the organizations that are now in the program. other than public school organizations by your recom- mending that it be placed under the Office of Education? Mr. ChRISTIAN. I want to speak for Florida, absolutely not.. Mr. PAGE. No. Mr. GUR~c~Y. I think that answers the question, Mr. Chairman. Mr. FULLER. I would say "No," too. ~\Ir. Fonn. I want to make. it very clear that. no one on this committee has suggested that. Mr. Fuller or anyone else had a nefarious scheme. But Mr. Fuller and members of this committee have been consulting on this subiect so long that I don't. think we are ruffling his feathers or surprising him with any of these questions. This is not. a new question before the committee or a question with Mr. Fuller. We re- speflt very fully his expertise in the field we are dealing with. Mr. ~\[EEu~. Perhaps this would put it in context, Mr. Chairman. Would if be fair to ask you gentlemen that if you knew that by a `iiallge in the pi'ogram from the Office of Economic Opportunity to PAGENO="0515" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 509 the Office of Education that approxiniately one-third of the young people who are now undergoing educational experience in Headstart would be deprived, would you still make. the suggestion ? Mr. ChRIsTIAN. I would like to ask the Congressman where. does he have the information they are deprived. The U.S. Office of Educa- tion can enter in a contract for use of such funds. Mr. MEEDs. Not under present. legislation. We have specifically ex- cluded this type of operation. Mr. CHRISTIAN. Are you talking about changing the law ? It could be changed could it not? Mr. PAGE. Don't we enter in private contract with veteran-approved agencies for private schools? Mr. MEEDS. You think in your State of Illinois there would be no constitutional problem? Mr. PAGE. I think there probably would be no greater constitutional problem t.han we now have with title II. My lawyer tells me, under title II, I am operating illegally by a.biding by the regulations of the Federal Government. We are going to try to find out. Mr. MEEDS. Do you think there would be any more. problem than what. we have now under the Office of Economic. Opportunity? Mr. PAGE. Not being a lawyer I am not sure I can respond. My per- sonal judgment. is that there would be. some possible trouble. Mr. MEEDS. Do you contemplate that. some children might. be de- prived, some children in nonpublic schools might be deprived of this OI)portUflitv ? Mr. I~AGE. I believe that the mechanics could be set up in such a manner that we could have this articulation that. in the. State agency where we would not deprive youngsters of the opportunity of partici- pating in this enterprise or in this endeavor. One of the things that I think I failed to bring out, that I did bring out after lunch, it is of con- cern to me and of many chief State. school officers I believe tha.t the Headstart is a good program and I personally believe it has great po- tential, that there should be enough articulation with the State depart.- ment of education that we could conduct a followup when these young- sters leave Headstart in t.he public schools which we do not. have now. I think this is extremely important in this act. Mr. MEEDS. We are hopeful this can be done. May I finish address- ing my quest.ion to Mr. Christian? Could you speak for the State of Florida in this regard? Mr. CHRISTIAN. As I understand the question, do you think there would be any constitutional prohibition ? I don't think there is. I be- lieve we could handle this with private a.nd parochial schools. To my knowledge we have. I t.hink it would work just as well under t.he U.s. Office of Education as under OEO. Mr. MEEDS. The gentleman from Kentucky, Mr. Sparks. Mr. SPARKS. I don't know. If it were to be done by the U.S. Office of Education-we would have no problem if it were done through them. However, if the funds were to come to us and then to the local district we might have some difficulty. ~\[r. ~ftni~s. This is the state constitution? Mr. ~i~nKs. Yes. From my understanding the talk has been all along thot this should be handled by HEW and it did not. mean with PAGENO="0516" 510 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS no intention of our States dominating or ultimately vetoing or ap- proving these programs. As it was an educational function then it ought to be handled through an educational agency. Of course, you would have to modify your law. Mr. MEEDS. That is my next question. You feel the best way to handle it would be to handle it through the Office of Education here nationally? Mr. SPARKS. Yes, sir. Mr. MEEDS. The next question is to Mr. Fuller. Mr. Fuller, would you agree with and support a change in our law which would allow this to happen? Speaking for your organ- ization? Mr. FULLER. I can't speak for the whole organization on that point except that they believe in the policy of separation of church and state, and so forth, and in obeying the State constitutions as well as the Federal. I do believe, however, that it would be possible to have it in the Office of Education and I don't think it is necessarily a part of ESEA in the Office of Education which I believe Mr. Ford has assumed. It might be set. up separately in the Office of Education. Mr. FORD. I have been looking at the act with the help of counsel. WTe do have in several ways individual titles. We have the general language entitled `I)efinition of local educational agency" because in every title we provide for funds to go to a local education agency. W~e define it in such a way that an agency that is not administrating some kind of public school program is not an educational agency. Under the Economic Opportunity Act the agency to whom we send money for a community action program may or may not be a public agency and it may then allocate its money to a. public school agency to administer which it does in 70 percent. of the programs. But in 30 per- cent of the programs the funds are not administered by a. public agency. That is the group we are concerned about. Recognizing it, it may or may not be a part of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Would you agree with me that. what these groups. in recommendiiig the transfer, are saying here is that they are advocating that the same restraint be put on these funds that we have on the other elementary fund which in legal effect would clearly P~'~- l~ibit funding outside a public school agency? Mr. Fuu~rii. As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, this was not dis- cussed at all. The items here were proposed, three from each of the six national organizations. They were discussed in Chicago at some length in November. They were discussed here at some length in January. But this question did not arise. I believe, however, that if the Congress wants to take the title II format that it might utilize the individual benefit theory in the same way that it is being utilized in title II of the ESEA. I think some adjustment could be made. I do believe that if it is an institutional grant to institutions that you do raise the questions under a number of State constitutions. Mr. Foim. Let us take a specific example. The Office of Economic. Opportunity, and this is distressing to some peop~. and not to others, found in Harlem that the Headstart program PAGENO="0517" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDLTATION AMENDMENTS 511 as a continuing program would be out of business when they looked for space for it. Talking about using schoolrooms in summer is one thing but as in all other cities as soon as September comes around every nook and cranny is full. In order to get a second year of Headstart and I don~t know whether this is being done anywhere else-they started using, a number of small churches in the neighborhood where these children are found to conduct Headstart programs. They didn't have sanitary facilities for the children. They put a hot water tap in, a washbasin and commode, and authorized $500 or $600 expenditure of OEO money for this purpose. Clearly this was an improvement to church-owned property as distinguished from pub- lic property. It was justified on the basis they were actually giving the funds to a community action program which sought this piece of equipment in the same way they sought a projector or something else. Now this kind of expenditure would, I am sure, be clearly prohibited under any of the existing legislation authorizing the Office of Educa- tion to disburse funds. I think you have answered me by stating that since it wasn't dis- cussed it is not fair to assume that they either were in favor of or opposed to the continuance of Headstart programs in other than pub- lic school agencies; is that a fair question? Mr. FULLER. I think that is a fair question. Mr. PAGE. I think you have pointed this in your discussion. We are asking, at least I am speaking for myself, that this program be placed under HEW. They may continue the contract with the com- munity action program and as you stated they contract back with the public schools but I would like to again emphasize the point that I think it is extremely important that these contracts at least be recorded with the State educational agency if we are expected and going to be able to carry out any followup in such a manner to see how successful the program might be. Now why not write it in the law that there will be, it at least will be recorded as to the location of these programs. Mr. FORD. We do have a requirement that the community action program application go to the State community action officer. He is the fellow appointed by the Governor of your State, whatever State you are from, and every program before it is funded has to clear his office. As a matter of fact, he has a veto power. Mr. PAGE. We run in a little different problem when you have the State superintendent being elected and Governor being elected. Mr. FORD. You have some agency in the State capitol where all this information about Federal programs is being given. It would simply be easier to ask them to forward t.his information t.o you as they receive it. They see the program before it is funded. They go into it in great detail as a matter of fact. They have the right to recommend. If they recommend against it there has to be a specific hearing before the funds can be granted. It is not quite a~ veto. Mr. PAGE. I think we all agree as public servants to operate in good faith with each other. I think we can agree that we can rea~onal)1y expect that this information ~s made flvfLilfll)le. PAGENO="0518" 512 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS When you find a situation where it is not, then where do you go. Do you let the followup go? Is there some means by which we can correct this situation? This is my question. We agree with the regu- lation in title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act tha.t those programs should be planned in cooperation with the com- munity action groups. WTe also agree that Headstart should at least be recorded with the educational agencies so that we know what is going oii in the educa- tional agencies of the States. Mr. ~pAIiKs. Mr. Ford, in your absence I discussed our liaison with the lleadstart program. We do not have the difficulty that they have in Illinois. WTe have ha.d close cooperation. Mr. (>uRrsTI~x. Tn Florida they send us a copy of ever Headstart pi~ogI~~iii where it originates, the amount expended. It is recorded in my office. Mr. FORD. \Vhat we are saving herewith is that von are already tell- mg one office in your State in another bill that they have the power to and must pass on all the programs at the State level. If we come back and tell another State agency that, we are contributing to a separation of State cooperation. Perhaps what we really need to do is remind these folks of their responsibility under the Economic Opportunity Act because clearly that act does plae the responsil)ility on the State Office of Eco- nomic Opportunity to be the clearinghouse of all so-caTled poverty prnirams of the. State. You have the other t.ypes of programs like, the Neighborhood Youth Corps, the out of school program. Mr. ERLENBORN? Mr. Gurney? Mr. MEEDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am sorry I was absent. Did we get. l)ack into title V? Did Mr. Gordon testify at length on title V? Were you questioned on title V? Mr. GORDON. Not after lunch. Mr. MEEDS. You were a member of the advisory committee on title V. were you not? Mr. GORDON. Yes. Mr. MEEDS. You have been engaged in a comprehensive examination of the entire program under title V. is that correct? Mr. GORDON. We looked at. the program. Mr. MEEDS. You have written one report which was presented to the Office of Education, and as I understand it you have prepared another report? Mr. GORDON. The counsel has just prepared another report on the program which is being forwarded to the President a.t the end of t.his month. Mr. MEEDS. It is not available yet to us or to the Office of Education, is that correct? Mr. GORDoN. That is correct. Mr. M~r~s. Can you tell us, Mr. Gordon, without being real spe- cific. I don't want. to violate your report or anything, whether or not you found any difficulties with forward planning in the State depart- ments of education? Mr. GORDON. The recommendations of a yea.r ago suggested, as I recalL encouraging planning and evaluation activities within the State PAGENO="0519" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 513 department and recommendations this year will also urge that the State departments forward studies and do forward planning. One of the most interesting projects funded under title `V is an aid State project in the West by Colorado. They call it Project 1980 which has made an extensive study of what the region will be like in 13 years, and how they might respond and plan the change that will be necessary within those State education agencies, and the educational establishment throughout those States to be responsive to the future needs. I presume the same type of information will be compiled in other States. Mr. MEEDS. I have some statistics here somewhere with regard t.o the amount of money being utilized by the State departments. Mr. CHRISTIAN. They are in Mr. Fuller's statement., aren't they, Ed? Mr. FULLER. Yes, there is on title V but there are other allowances in title I and title II. Mr. MEEDS. Certainly this is understandable and I like to have your comments on it because this is right in your domain. My recollection of the figures showed that approximately 25 percent of the funds and about, ~7 Percent of the positions created were from funds under title V in the first year of the operation of title V and thereafter about 18 per- cent and some 20 percent of additions in the second year. I guess the submission of applications showed a furt.her decline in the request of State educational agencies for, one, funds under title I and, two, positions under title I for planning. Am I correct on that? Mr. GORDON. Under title I? Mr. MEEDS. Under title V. Mr. GrnwoN. I believe that is true. Essentially the first year, and these gentlemen would know that better than I, we spent recruiting personnel to be able to carry on the added responsibilities that were given to State departments by the other titles if no other and the addi- tional expenditures in other areas. Mr. FULLER. I think I can give you those. statistics. This was in Commissioner Howe's testimony last Tuesday, found on page 18 and a little bit before that I guess. It says that in writing title V that Congress suggested 10 areas in which State agencies might be strengthened. Of course, the first four of those 10 areas in section 503(a) (1), (2), (3), and (4), I mentioned in my testimony this morning. Those do take in the whole range of planning and evaluation and certainly do allow a State to make a project to iinlucle an thin at all that is in- cluded iii proposed part (b) These figures were based on a first-year appropriation of $17 mil- lion. The States applied for funds to cover some 1,800 new positions. Incidentally they were able to employ only about a thousand of them as it appears later in the testimony. They said 25 percent of the funds and 27 percent of the personnel were expected to work in the planning and evaluation areas. The States recognized the need and took steps to meet it. However, by the end of the fiscal year the States had amended their applications to reduce the planning function in 19 percent of the PAGENO="0520" 514 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMEND~NTS funds and 20 percent of the positions and for fiscal year 1967 the appli- cations had reduced the personnel for planning function to 14 percent and 18 percent of the funds. The only thing that amazes me in the testimony of the Commis- sioner is that the planning function has received as much attention in the States as it has. My secondary surprise is almost as great. That the States would maintain that pace after building up a planning agency and doing planning with a fifth of all of the money for the first 2 years. Mr. MEEDS. I think it would be fair to assume that the heavy end, so to speak, of the planning would be in the first year. Mr. FtTLLER. That is right. Mr. MELDS. Because that is when we attempted to get some of these innovative programs off the ground. Mr. SPARKS. In line with that in our organizational plans we had permanent arrangements for permanent groups to continue in plan- ning but when we finally received our allocation we were rc~uced approximately one-third; we had to operate and we even had to roll back vacancy credit under which we could continue to operate the programs because we had planned in terms of-in conducting in terms of a $450,000 appropriation, and we finally had to operate under a $308,000 allocation. So we had to eliminate this from our plan and had to revise our own plan with the U.S. Office. So, we would have spent more on planning but we had to maintain our existence. Planning had to go. If it were incorporated under title V without title B, I think we could do an excellent job there. Mr. MELDS. If I might ask a couple more questions of Mr. Gordon. In line with your testimony this morning of, one, finding some long- range objectives or a goal to attempting these things and, two, then evaluate what. you are doing, do you think enough of this is being done by State education agencies at. this time, Mr. Gordon? Mr. Go~ox. No, I think very few if any have developed any long- range planning. The money, that has been spent for the reasons pointed out I am sure are urgent but just planning consists of a lot of different things. There is a considerable amount of simple short-range planning necessary, for example, to get the Federal programs going as Mr. Christian pointed out; they needed to plan in the State educational agency in Florida to provide assistance to small counties to get the. money they were entitled to get under title I, and I presume, under title II, and I presume, even under title III. It is the setting of a long-range goal over a longer period of time and trying to fit program objectives into the long-range goal that seemed to me to be the emphasis. Mr. MEEDS. The comprehensive goal for education in the State, is that correct? Mr. GORDON. In terms of our own planning we had instituted such a study. We had come out with an overall purpose of continuous plan- ning but we were unable to institute it with the shortage of funds. Now our feeling is that planning ought to be closely related to operation. If they are divorced you are going to have academic excrcFe out~de the area of education. PAGENO="0521" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDTJCATION AMENDMENTS 515 In our experience in the past ~O years we had numerous studies and evaluations of our own State department. functions and our overall State efforts but they have never been successful when they were dis- associated with the State agency. We have completed this internal study which was done cooperatively to a great extent. We call it a cooperative study and practically in- stituted. The advances are moving on with the exception really we have eliminated to some extent our planning function because of not being able to finance it at this time. Mr. MEEDS. I don't think there is any disagreement. with anyone at the table that a comprehensive planning, State planning of education is a laudable role. Is there any disagreement with this? Mr. FULLER. This has been done in so many States and from St.ate to State the last few years that I am surprised and amazed that any- one would raise the question. It seems to me that the States have gone overboard if anything on long-range planning, middle-range planning and short -range plan- ning. Mr. MEEDS. Enough comprehensive planning has been done by the State educational agencies at this time. Mr. FULLER. Yes, and even in this third year considering the amount of money to be expended a larger percentage was expended for plan- ning. Mr. MEEDS. Then you disagree with the gentleman from Kentucky when he says he needs more funds? Mr. FULLER. I don't disagree with that at all. I say that the States want to do planning and have been doing planning to the extent of their capacities. Mr. MEEDS. My next question is, do you think enough has been done ~ Mr. FULLER. No. I think it is a continuous process. Mr. MEEDS. Are we agreed more needs to be done? Mr. FULLER. Yes. Mr. MEEDS. Then it is just a question of methodology, is it not? Mr. FULLER. Largely, and administration. Mr. MEEDS. Would you have objection-and we are just talking here-would you have objection to a plan under which the so-called section (b) of title V were incorporated in title V, the additional money given under title V, and earmarked for the specific purpose of planning on this comprehensive basis! Mr. SPARES. No objection unless it is put under a different agency that has nothing to do with the operation of educat.ion. This is our concern. I am afraid ou won't achieve your ends if you put it under an agency that may have conflict with the Stat.e department of edu- cation. Mr. MEEDS. I don't. know that I entirely agree with you. You know, if I can by analogy~ I don't. know that Congress would be the best one t.o determine what makes Congress tick sometimes either. You know, we hire. outside consultants to tell us how to modernize our effectiveness or how to make ourselves more effective. Sometimes it is good t.o have a shot from the outside. I understand your concern with this. I was trying t.o bring out that I didn't think you had any objection to the allocation or authori- PAGENO="0522" 516 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS zation of more funds for planning and recognized the need for long- range planning. It was just. a matter of who does it. Mr. li~vn. I am sure all chief Sta.te school officers would welcome, as they have already said without an objection from anyone. increased funds in title. V and they would not resist it if it were earmarked there for planning t.o some extent. However, there. are two fundamental objections to part (b). One fundamental objection is tha.t this is going to cause untold trouble in at. least 10 or 12 States. It probably will not be implemented at all in those States as a result of these troubles which we can predict, knowing the situation. The second thing is this. Mr. MEEDS. May you stop right there. Is there any indication that the Governor would authorize someone other tha.n the State educa- tional agency as the agency unde.r section (b) of title V? Mr. FELLER. We think it would be entirely possible and probable in some States. Mr. Foiw. Where in the bill do you find the suggestion that it would be the Governor who would submit the Sta.te plan? Mr. FFLLER. May I read the statement of the Commissioner on that given at the White House press conference? Mr. Forw. Yes. Mr. FvLLER. He said and this is on title V, part. (b), a.nd I take his word for it because. he is a good friend of ours, we spent a great deal of time with him, we are on very good terms, we cooperate as completely as we possibly can. Now I am going to quote, "The second title of the elementary and secondary amendments is this proposed comprehensive educational planning which will be an amendment to title V of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. It. proposes to give to States funds for comprehensive planning activities. "I would call to your attention the fact that. when we say `to the States' we mean the Governors of the States who will then decide what. agency of the State is to conduct this comprehensive plan- fling activity. "When it. is conducted by the educational agency selected by the Governor the proposal for grants from us will flow back through the Governor. Then we will make grant.s to the agency the Governor ha.s designated. "The inclusion of the Governor in this results from our brie.f that. any long-range forward-looking planning at the State level has to include those who have responsibility for the planning of State budget.~ Politically, we know where t.his came from. I would like to ask not to have to describe the situation but we know where it came from. Mr. FORD. Let me say that I am surprised and very much concerned that that. is Mr. Howe's view of how this would be administered be- cause that is not, the way I read the Perkins bill which is before the committee. It seems to me we have left it completely to the initiative of some- one in the St.ate t.o submit a State plan in the same way as we have in other cases. I would presume in my own Sta.te t.he most appro- PAGENO="0523" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 517 priate person if our State was to submit any application for educa- tional funds would be the superintendent of public instruction. The politics of tying us down either way it seems t.o me gets the Congress in a real mess. I think the bill is very carefully drawn so that the people out in any individual State will have to fight it out as to who is the appropriate person under the constitutional statutes of their State to submit a State plan. Also, Mr. Gordon this morning expressed some concern about the ability to have one planning agency for the elementary and secondary schools and a separate one for higher education. Tins recognizes a political fact of life that. in some States we have a constitutional separation for higher education. In my own Stale of Michigan, for example, the regents of the University of Michigan, Michigan State and our other State constitutionally created institutions would h~t the ceiling if we said their planning was to be clone by an agency that threw them all into the pot.. They have managed to get excellent separation by virtue of con- stitutional provisions that have recently been rewritten and strength- ened. In order to keep them happy we have to have the possibility of one group doing the planning for them and one for elementary schools. I can see that if we put into the statute what Mr. I-lowe had said in a press conference in my State we would have a real howl because we have a Republican Governor and a Democratic board of education that appoints the superintendent of public instruction and we would be injecting ourselves into a local political fight.. In Illinois as has already been indicated t.oday we have a Governor and superintendent of public instruction from different part.ies. Good- ness knows what would happen when they fight. in Illinois if anybody wants t.o take sides in that argument. I hope that we won't have to. What you have just read here, from Mr. Howe is the first suggestion I have heard of a directive f.rom Washington as to who in the State will submit the application. It is their assumption it would be safe. for Congress to leave it to the inch- vidual States to determine either by local statute that might. have to be passed or by existing laws that already confer certain powers and duties on people. As a matter of fact, I have had oc.casion in recent years to review the educational provisions of the constitution of a number of States when we were writing our own in Michigan. There were a number of States that were very careful to circumscribe the duties of the Gov- ernor with respect to the educational agencies of the State. The powers a.re really limited in a. large number of the States, the theory being that the Governor is always political and the office of education of the State is not. I would think that there is already existing law in the States that pretty well directs you to hav.e the aut.hority to submit t.he application. Do von have ally pragmatic type of suggestions oh the language that is in this bill? I am inviting in efFect a suggestion from you as to how we can avoid stirring up confiitt. Mr. GoRDoN. It is a question of what you want to do. I happen to be a graduate from the University of Michigan. I remember the PAGENO="0524" 518 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY ED~JCATION AMENDMENTS political situation of Michigan fairly well. If you want to have a total plan of some sort. in the State whether there is some interaction between the political body and the school system in the State then in some fashion, they have to be brought to bear upon each other. What happens now, if I recall the situation, is, generally speaking, a fight within the appropriations committee of the legislature. That is really where the relationships are worked out. To an extent t.hat is our situation in Florida where we have an independent board of regents who are concerned with higher educa- tion. Yet the junior colleges are under the county school systems. So, I am in a position of being on a local school board which oper- ates the largest institution of higher education in the State of Florida because we have some 20,000 students in a community college. Out in Colorado we have a situation where there is not only a board of higher education and elementary and secondary education, but the vocational education has a separate board. I am sure that is true in other States. So in some way, we have to bring these things that relate t.o each other. I assume whoever you toss the ball to in the State is going to be involved in a heck of an argument. I would see no objection to the requirement that the chief State school officer prepare a plan that not only takes into account his specific responsibilities but parcels out in some fashion a way for the other agencies to interact. Somebody has to coordinate this. We have this situation, for ex- ample, in many Sta.tes where State education agencies are involved in curriculum support. They have supervisors who are working in mathematics in a number of school districts but they have no particu- lar relationship with the State universities that are training the new teachers of mathematics. You have very little feedback between what is actually happemng in schools, what is happening in colleges of education and what is happening in the inservice training of existing teachers. This is a highly inefficient way to get curriculum change unless you are forcing them to get together. In many States there is no op- portunitv to do that. It seems to me in some fashion as we move along in education, we are going t.o have to bring these factors to bear on each other without necessarily saying who is in control. Let us see that everybody knows what everybody else is doing. That is very much in favor of focusing on some type of comprehen- sive long-range plan for education through the States. Mr. MEEDS. Mr. Chairman, I have just one question, if I may. I will ask the question of Mr. Fuller. If some language could be de- vised to take care of this problem which would make it primarily the object. or t.he duty of the St.ate educational agency, then would you suggest that that. same agency be required to give approval or dis- approval in the exercising of the. veto power which you are suggesting under title. III? Mr. FULLER. I don't. quite understand as applying to title V. Mr. MEEDS. This morning your objection to title III was that the State ought. t.o be able t.o say whether a program was going to be in- stituted and it should come under a State plan rather than the action between the Federal ftvernment and the locality. PAGENO="0525" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 519 Wasn't that the effect of your testimony this morning? Mr. FULLER. Yes. Mr. MEEDS. When you say the State, to whom are you referring in the State, the Governor of the State or the agency which we are talking about here? Mr. FULLER. That is the difficulty. That way this is wriften and as a practical matter when you say the State, you throw up a whole series of roadblocks. Some of these roadblocks are in the fact of timing again. If a legislature is in session as in Florida, there may be an appropriate committee to go to. Ordinarily, however, the legislature is not in session and the general government. of the State is under a Governor. It seems to me that in most instances at most times in most States, it would be the Governor. Now, you have all kinds of educational complications also. There has been a gradual development for the past 15 or 20 years toward using the State educational agencies as the focal point for the admin- istration of Federal aids, at least to public education. This would be a reversal of 15 or 20 years of experience, doubt, confusion, political battles. I agree with the chairman that this would raise all kinds of political hackles in a good many States. If I had the time, I could name the States and name the way the political hackles will arise; they are already there. When you raise anything more that can be used as a roadblock for the smooth, care- fully planned administration of intergovernmental funds in education, you are doing a real disservice. So, I think this ought not to be in any organization except the State education agency. Now, I would go this far and I realize the political promises that have been made in regard to this. I would say this is my personal viewpoint-I would say that the review and recom- mendations by the Governor which would give the Governor as much as the States now have under title III would be all right, just a review and recommendation. Mr. MEEDS. To the State department of education? Mr. FULLER. To the State department. I would go that far to satisfy the promises that have been made. But let me say again that there is no confusion in the Office of Education about this. I have had personally several conferences during the last month or so as it was being developed. There is no misunderstanding there about the role of the Governor in this, almost always the Governor. It has to be practically. Mr. MEEDS. This is the problem we are faced with, as members of this committee, in writing legislation. With whom should we deal in the State when you speak of the State. That is why I asked for clarification. As I understand your testimony, your testimony is that under title III, the veto power should be exercised by the State department of education or State educational agency. Mr. FULLER. The service and approval and the time and place and number and the coordination with the intermediate units already operated by the State and local resources with title III supplementary centers. PAGENO="0526" 520 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS Mr. MEEIs. It is pi~eseiitly being coordinated but what I am asking you is. let us assume that the State department of education did not approve of a supplementary center in Chicago which was proposed? Mr. FULLER. I can't imagine that. Mr. MEEDS. As I understand your testimony this morning you would want the State of Illinois to be able to disapprove of this plan. Is that correct? Mr. FuLr~ER. You would have a cooperative State plan developed with the full participation of the local people in the State. The State department does not sit up there and just take a guess and impose something. Mr. MEEDS. I am not trying to trap you or anything, Mr. Fuller. I am ~ust. trying to get a straight answer about who on the State level should approve or disapprove of this proposal between the Federal Government and the local government. Mr. FULLER. The State educational agency. I think there is no exception to that. where it involves the elementary and secondary public schools. Mr. GURNEY. Mr. Chairman, may I ask the floor? Mr. FORD. Go ahead. Mr. GURNEY. May I ask a question here of the three school super- intendents? How much planning have you done in recent years. fr~r example. such as provided under t.he grants in title V? How much has been done? In Florida, for example, have we done anything in this field in recent years? Mr. CHrnsTIAN. Yes. We have had extensive planning. As you perhaps know, we have conducted several statewide educational plan- ning conferences and only recently concluded another one and have planned four more of which we are trying to establish our objectives and goals in education for the State of Florida. We are like so many other States. When we were caught with this appropriation after it was reduced, we had to reduce our planning and go ahead with already existing employees on the payroll. We could not cut those people off in the middle of the year when we found out our allocation but Florida has done extensive planning, it will do more as I indicated to you, with additional conferences, with professional and lay citizens, I might say, in this field. Mr. GURNEY. How much money have you spent in this area of planning? Mr. CmnsTIAN. We had an appropriation of something over $300,- 000. I know we have spent close to $75,000 in the area of planning already. Mr. GURNEY. What I am really getting at, of course, while planning is important, I am trying to find out if the States are doing consider- able planTling-aS you point out, we have done much in Florida in fairly substantial fashion. Mr. CHRISTIAN. Yes. I think the major point that Mr. Ford was trying to mention how can you write a bill to insure educational plan- ning which needs to encompass not only the regular school program in the junior college but institutions of higher learning, the whole thing, to be sure it is comprehensive in nature and not leave anyone out. PAGENO="0527" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDTJCATION AMENDMENTS 521 I think it can be done by designating some local agency and review by the Government and write in the bill that all these various institu- tions have to be included. I don't. think this is a. complicated thing to write. I say here we can do this. It is included now in title V. We want this additional money. Let us not leave here thinking it is not needed for educational planning. This money is needed: This $15,000 pro- posed is needed, wanted and can be used. Our question is who is the agency best to serve this purpose? We think the State department of education. I think our Republican Governor would designate our agency to do it in our State. At the same time, I think the law ought to spell it out to keep other States from having to wonder who would do it. Mr. GURNEY. What about the State of Illinois? What comment do you have? Mr. PAGE. Two years ago our general assembly appropriated I be- lieve it is $210,000 for a jointly sponsored task force on education in the State of Illinois, sponsored by the Governor, the superintendent of public instruction and chairman of the school problems com- mission. That report has been released. The report encompasses all facets of education, method of finance, school district reorganization, State department reorganization, county reorganization. It encompassed curriculum development, vocational education. All agencies have been studied and a comprehensive planning program has been developed in the State of Illinois. The school problems com- mission has now in the State of Illinois a. bipartisan legislative com- mission with five lay citizens on it plus the superintendent of public instruction, director of finance, are now giving priorities to the recom- mendation of the task force as to what can be implemented in this session of the general assembly as opposed to what can be put off until the next session. So we are doing a great deal of planning in the State of Illinois. Mr. GURNEY. In other words, then in your case, this would be a duplication. Mr. PAGE. I think in some respect it might be but, I think, more important it would supplement our planning because we have the plans but we do not have the resources to implement many of the programs that are now recommended. Mr. GURNEY. What about Kentucky? Mr. SPARKS. In the past 6 to 8 years we have spent almost $300,000 in planning in the State of Kentucky. We have made a curriculum study. We have had three different stu dies of the department of edu- cation and one is just being-it just has been completed on the founda- tion program of service which sets out for it the priorities through about 1974 right now. The last study we made, we just completed a final study on the department of education which reviewed the other studies made for the past 10 years. It. was done by the way with title V funds. We need additional funds for continued planning. We have the base now from which to move. We feel we can do this continued planning much less expen- PAGENO="0528" 522 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS sively than we could if you put in another agency now to have to begin all over. Mr. FoRD. By observing the section we have made quite a contribu- tion here because it seems we have identified a possible problem. But also we should start to identify what Mr. Perkins has in mind here for this whole concept. For example, in flhinois, a very logical and easy way to move quickly would be simply to take the group that they have, the task force on education, and designate that in the application as their planning group. If you look at. this we are not suggesting that the planning group should have any power except to examine your resources, evaluate the resources and, taking into account your potential and your future needs, make a recommendation as to the priorities with respect to all of these resources bringing them to bear on the educational problem of that State as they see it. There might be some value as a matter of fact in, for example, making the superintendent of public instruction the State chairman of such a commission and putting him in a position to be fully aware of what he was examining. But it would seem to me to make good sense in my own State to have someone representing the appropriat- ing committees of the legislature and someone representing the other agencies of Government that are obliquely connected with the educa- tional institution so that you have a contribution from all of these sources in the planning. The worst that can happen is that somebody can get up on the floor of the legislature and say the planning group financed by the Federal Government says that we ought to spend more money on higher education than we are spending. I think we should bear in mind that this legislation is not an attempt to confer on this planning group, whether it is your office of educa- tion or an entirely new group made up of part of the Office of Educa- tion and someone else, any power to dictate to or direct the educational program hut merely to evaluate and suggest. This could be bothersome but out of irritation comes a pearl. With no attempt to be unduly harsh with any segment of the educational community~ there are some parts of it that could well stand to he irri- tated a little bit because there is a certain amount of inertia that we are still finding at various levels and in particular areas that have to be overcome in some way. The great Senator Barkley from your State tells the story about the fellow with a mule and how he would talk to the mule and get it t.o do anything he. wanted it to do but first he had to hit it across the snout with a two-by-four to get its attention. That is something that the agency might come up with. All of us who are charged with the duty of administering a limited amount of moneyS all people in American Government, have the constant prob- lem of big spenders who are suggesting things but are not getting the Con~ress to give them the. money to carry them out. We sit uphere in Congress and we tell you to innovate and to use your imagination and so on. Then we are talking about giving you an amount of money here that is not very innovative in its impact. PAGENO="0529" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 523 I don't think there is a Member certainly on this side who is satis- fied that we are getting enough money. We have always appropriated more money or asked for more money on this committee than the administration has asked for. Whether we will get it or not is an entirely different consideration. But in asking people to do all these things at the local level, we may be putting a block in the road but if you don't do it, who will? It would seem to me that the Governor would be taking an awful great risk if he tried to bypass his established State educational agency and create something outside and then expected any State legislature to appro- priate money to carry out the recommendations of that planning board. As a former legislator, I know we have a great deal of respect for the recommendations and requests that come from their elected and appointed school administrators. It just is not good political sense to try to ignore you folk. Mr. SPARKS. As it is with many of the Governors, some of them are in for 2 years, or 4 without the privilege of succeeding themselves. The same thing with some of our chief State school officers. There is in our offices and in our Department the possibility of a continuing professional staff which rarely changes with the changing of the leader. This type of thing is necessary that we might have long-term planning. I am just in office for 10 more months and can't succeed myself but this is not worrying me at all. What does worry me is maybe the same kind of leadership will be in the Governor's office and the professional staff will not get to really study the plans and to participate in the long- term and long-range plans and the same thing I feel about the legisla- ture may be prohibited from taking part in this and we need to have representatives from all segments of Government participate in this. Higher education necessarily so, you see. Now, they will probably have a continuing force much more than we have in the political side. Mr. Fom~. Doesn't that contemplate what you might call a little Hoover Commission on Education? Recalling the experience we had with t.he Hoover Commission, there was not a great rush down here to enact a whole slew of recommenda- tions but it (lid focus public attention on a number of needs in Govern- ment which little by little are finding their way to the surface and becoming an accepted concept in improving the legislative and execu- tive branch in every part of Government. Isn't that really what we are trying to do here, giving you the assist- ance of having a prestigeous group of people with tools to work with and money to work with who can be a little Hoover Commission on the educational establishment and needs of your State? Mr. FULLER. This may be, this is one concept of it. Another thing is that the part B is set up for 5 years. It is more or less like a con- tinuing agency, not an evaluating agency but a continuing agency. Now, suppose this agency is outside the State department of educa- tion and other groups like the Commission on Higher Education and the agency evaluates and it finds out something and it has some rec- oinmendations, it has 4 more years to go, and it is not in a position to make the reforms. 73-492---67----34 PAGENO="0530" 524 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS It. is not in a position when it. comes in there as an outside agency that. is very much different, than the four or five or six outside surveys that. Harry Sparks had in Kentucky over a 10-year period. Mr. Foan. Here you might have this agency recommending, for example, that higher education be tuition-free. You might have the member recommending tuition. You might have a recommendation from a member fighting tuition. The end result. will be a weighing of the relative merits of the proposals made by the several people who have differences of opinion on whether this is good for the future of education. In the final analysis, it is going to be the legislature that has to take action on it. So really these people aren't going to be the last word. You might find as a matter of fa.ct. that you have a planning board with the superintendent, of public instruction from the State as chair- man and the majority of his planning board disagreed with him. He can't suppress their public statement.. He might. find himself facing in the legislature a committee that says. "This is what you tell us but the people out here in the committee have, been saying you are wrong. This ca.n happen any time. There is no way that. we can in this act guarantee t.ha.t you will have, the continue.d and undivided atten- tion and/or confidence of your State legislature in your recommenda- tions with regard t.o education. Mr. FULLER. It seems t.o me that this is not intended in a harsh way either, it. seems to me that. if the purpose of title V is to strengthen State departments of education, that part B of title V would be mak- ing a. good start. in the other direction in a number of States if it is enacted. Mr. FORD. I hope t.hat is not what happens. On behalf of the com- mittee, I want to thank you gentlemen for t.his marathon session. We have kept. you an awfully long time. We had a very genuine and direct contribution in the writing of this legislation in the 3 years now that. I have been privileged to work on it and we are very grate- ful for t.he contribution that the chief State school officers have made to its c.onc.eption, its birth and now its development. We may not agree wit.h all you have brought to us today but we certainly will be enriched. So will other Members of Congress, who will take the time to read this record. I thank von on behalf of Chairman Perkins who I might say had to leave because he discovered during the lunch hour-he went to a doctor-that. he had a dislocated shoulder. When he was sitting here this afternoon, he could not lift up this gavel because his arm was in pain. Mr. FULLER. We thank you very much, sir. Mr. FORD. The committe.e will stand in recess until 9:30 tomorrow morning and we will have Secretary Gardner of the Health, Educa- tion, and Welfare.. (Whereupon, at 4 :15 p.m., the committee recessed, to reconvene at 9 :30 a.m., Tuesday. March 7, 1967.) PAGENO="0531" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 TUESDAY, MARCH 7, 1967 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATiVES, COMMITrEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR, Washington, D.C. The committee met at 9 :30 a.rn., pursuant to recess, in room 2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Carl D. Perkins (chairman of the committee), presiding. Present : Representatives Perkins, Green. Holland, Dent, l)aniels, Bra.demas, Hawkins, Gibbons, Ford, Hathaway, Miiik, Scheuer. Meeds, Burton, Ayres, Quie, Goodell, Bell, Reid, Gurney, Erlenborn, Scherle, 1)ellenback, Esch, Eshlema n, Gardner, and Steiger. Staff members present : Robert E. Mc.Cord. senior specialist, H. D. Reed, Jr., general counsel, William I). Gaul, associate general counsel, Louise M. Dargans, research assistant, and Charles W. Radcliffe, spe- cial education counsel for minority. Chairman PERKINS. The committee will come to order. A quorum is present. We are delighted to have with us this morning the Sec- retary of Health, Education, and Welf are. John Gardner has done an excellent and skillful job as Secretary. Considering the mag- iiitude of new education legislation and the diverse prol)lellls with which the Department must deal, the Nation has just grouiids to be tremendously pleased in the needed services and aid which are flow- ing in efficient manner to meet effectively many of our problems. Yesterday the chief State school officers presented their testimony and it was suggested that they tell us how the administration of the programs, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, particularly title I, could be improved. We welcomed any suggestions they could offer us in simplifying the application that must come from the local education agencies. There were so few suggestions which to my way of thinking clearly pointed up that the administration of the act was being carried on in an excellent manner. It is a great pleasu1~e for me to welcome you here this morning, Mr. Secret arv. I understand that you do not have available copies of your pre- pared statement but that copies will be available in approximately 30 minutes. Until those copies arrive we will let you just continue to read your statement. You may proceed. STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN W. GARDNER, SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, ANi) WELFARE Secretary GARDNER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. ~\ir. Chairman, members of the committee : For the. members of this distinguished committee there is no need to elaborate on the increasing 525 PAGENO="0532" 526 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS significance of education for our time. By your actions in the past decade you have amply demonstrated your commitment to American education. Suffice it to say that the fulfillment of each citizen's hopes and the solution of our society's most crucial problems demand that we con- tinue to improve our Nation's educational opportunities. Improvement, however, can only come through careful assessment of what has proven successful in the past and careful planning for what appears to be needed in the future. I feel strongly that these hearings, early in the first session of a new Congress, provide a useful opportunity to carry out this assessment and planning. Thus, I am pleased to appear before you today to discuss certain key measures of our 1967 legislative proposals for education. The Elementary and Secondary Education Amendments of 1967 contained in H.R. 6~3O build upon a number of our most successful existing programs and, also, call for the establishment of several vitally needed new ~ogi'~~ms. All of these amendments are worthy of your support. At this time, however, I would like to restrict my re- marks to two proposals which I feel are especially deserving of com- ment-the Teacher (.~`orps and comprehensive educational planning. I do not. wish to discuss the. Teacher Corps in detail. I understand that my colleagues, Commissioner Howe and Director Graham, ful- filled that task most admirably in their testimony last week. Chairman PERKINS. Excuse me, Mr. Secretary. I forgot to recog- nize our distinguished Commissioner of Education, Mr. Harold Howe, also Assistant Secretary, Mr. Ralph Hewitt. Secretary GARDNER. And Nolan Estes, head of the Bureau of Ele- mentary and Secondary Education. Chairman PERKINS. Yes; he was here the other day. Secretary GARDNER. I do wish to make clear, however, what I con- sider to he the most outstanding feature of the Teacher Corps. First, the Teachers Corps is designed to help in alleviating one of the most crucial problems of our time: the education of disadvantaged youth. All too often children raised in city ghettos, in underdeveloped rural areas, on Indian reservations, or in migrant labor camps are faced with a life almost devoid of the opportunity to gain individual and material success. Teacher Corps volunteers carry with them or develop skills spe- cifically geared to the problems of underprivileged youth. Perhaps more important, however, they carry with them an intense personal concern for the children they teach. If a child is deprived and alien- ated, neither money, buildings, nor books can in themselves make him interested in learning. Most. often, the crucial ingredient is an inspired, considerate, and concerned teacher who is able. to respond to the needs of each child. We have many such teachers regularly employed in our schools today. But we need many more, especially in economically disadvantaged areas. The Teacher Corps is helping to provide such de(licated teach- ers with the opportunity to serve where they are needed most. We must. continue this effort. A second feature of the Teacher Corps is the positive influence it is having upon educational practices. Many Teacher Corps vr~lijfl- PAGENO="0533" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 527 teers, both interns and master teachers, bring a refreshing vigor to their work. Often their breadth of outlook and innovative spirit serve as a breath of fresh air to both the pupils they instruct and the teach- ers with whom they work. Moreover, corpsmen act as a direct link between the colleges and universities in which many of our new educational ideas are created and the practical world of the school where those ideas are needed. This is a kind of link which has too often been lacking or has been too fragile in the past. It is a link which deserves to be strengthened and continued in the future. The positive influence of corpsmen is not limited to their pupils and schools. There is increasing evidence that the freshness of outlook and the practical teaching experiences of corps members are also bringing about changes in teacher training practices. Schools of education are coming to see the advantages in providing trainees with more exten- sive field experiences. And the Teacher Corps is making a marked contribution to this movement. A third significant feature of the Teacher Corps is that it, at least partially, offsets our crucial shortage of educators. Our many new educational programs have brought great benefits, but our supply of capable educators has not kept pace with the increased demands. In time, training programs will help to redress the balance, but for the interim, programs such a.s the Teacher Corps are of value in meet- ing the personnel needs of our schools. The Teacher Corps is particularly helpful in this regard because it places teachers where they are in greatest. demand, in our urban ghettos and rural areas. Fourth, the corps embodies one of our culture's most strongly held values: a desire to help other people. Genuine service to the disad- vantaged is demanding work and often takes place in unpleasant sur- roundings. It calls for a form of selflessness and individual sacrifice which our society has always valued and must continue to foster and reward. The. Teacher Corps provides an outlet for the expression of personal idealism and concern for one's fellow man. The young people of our society have given ample evidence of their desire to create a better wor'd. The highly successful programs of the Peace Corps and VISTA have proved that idealism can be a powerful force for individual and societal improvement. In the short time it has existed, the Teacher Corps has proven that it too can serve as a positive instrument for channeling idealism into programs of practical benefit to our society. Many of our best young people today wonder whether they have any place in this vast and complicated society of ours. They feel anonymous and ruthless and alienated. The.y are op- pressed by the impersonality of our institutions. In my judgment there isn't any quicker cure for that ailment than evidence that their society needs them. I don't think there could be anything better for a great many of our young people than a period of hard voluntary service in a venture surrounded by a spirit of (leclication. The idea of a corps, as in the Peace Corps. considerably enhances the atmosphere of service. We are proposing several amendments to the origina.l Teacher Corps legislatioii wh~e1i stem from our expori- PAGENO="0534" 528 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS eiice to date. We will. perhaps. need to make other adjustments in. the future. Nevertheless. I am convinced that the Teacher Corps is deservmg of extension iullcl expansion. I now would like to turn froni the rFcache,r Corps and concentrate the remainder of my formal comments upon what I consider to be one of the most significant of our proposed new programs-Compre- hensive Educational Planning. There has never been a greater need for educational planning. The fulfillment of our citizens and the survival of our society now depend to an increasing degree upon the quality of our Nation's schools. Tlms, it is imperative that we give more attention at all levels-local. State. and Federal-to the cliiection in which this Nation's education is an(T should be liea ding. The. proposed Comprehensive Planning amendment would enable States, local school districts, and metropolitan areas to strengthen their educational planning capabilities. The Comprehensive Planning proposal would authorize ~1 5 million, the major 1)ortion of which would he allotted to State educational planning a~iencies. A portion of the funds would be allotted at the discretion of the Commission of Education so as to foste.r planning in metropolitan areas or among ~TOU~S of States in a region. These funds could be used to hire the trained personnel needed to organize and carry out a major planning effort. The funds could also he used I o provide technical assistance to lo- cal school (listricts requesting it. Planning for higher education would not he !!landatorv but would be left to the discretion of the States. If a State chose to. it could establish a separate agency for higher education planning. A~ it is ~urreiitlv conducted, statewide educational planning is too wholly inadeqiutte. Many States lack any unit whose responsibility is cornprehen~v~ planning for the best use of the State's educational resou rces. States have periodically created special committees and commis- sions to draw up State plans-sometimes a master plan, sometimes a. plan for a particular activity, such as vocational education. Such ad hoc planning activities have their uses but they are no substitute for the continuous reassessment of progress. Social and economic conditions change rapidly, and new Federal programs become available. There should be a. mechanism for inte- grat.ing these. changes into a State's educational plan. Such planning as the States have done has often been stimulated by the FederaT Government and has tended to deal with particular a.spec.ts of education. States are stimulated by Federal programs to devise plans for vocational education, higher education facilities, for improving science and language instruction, or ot.her facets of edu- cation. These plans are often developed by different agencies and are not brought together into an overall plan. It is extremely difficult to plan sensibly for preschool eduration by itself, remedial education by itself, or vocational education by itself. This is especially the case now that it is becoming more and more clea.r to educators that it is the whole school experience of the child, PAGENO="0535" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDTJCATION AMENDMENTS 529 not so much a particular course or curriculum, which has the greatest and longest impact. Much State planning in the past has been of the following sort: A standard for some particular educational component, such as class- rooms, has been defined. For example, it is specified that there should be one classroom for every 30 pupils and the classrooms should have certain physical dimensions, so many windows, so many square feet of floorspace. and so forth. The number of classroonis which do not me.et~ these stall(lar(ls are then coinp~ied into a state ~need" for new classrooiiis. Jo take another example. it may be (leci(le(l that teachers must have (elta in educational qualifiat ions an(l there should be one teacher for a s~l)e(ifie(l mmnhl)er of 1)111)115. An assessment is then made to see how many teachers are meeting the qualifications and how many more qualified teachers would be needed to bring the ratio of students to teachers into t.he desired pro- portion. The State plan may then consist. of a statement that so many classrooms and so many teachers are needed to fulfill the State's educational objectives. This kind of information is useful, but more significant kinds of planning are possible. With the funds that would be made available under the 1)roposed amendments, the States will be able to engage in the kind of e(lucat ional planning tint t forward-look ilig e(l ucators HOW consider essential. Such experts believe, for example. that the States should engage in a continuous process of defining the goals of education, not just in terms of classroom characteristics and teacher qualifications, but in terms of what they want children to learn, and to be able to do, when they complete. their schooling. The States may wish to examine the relationship between a child's achievement, attitude, and other characteristics as he completes school and the various components which went into his schooling. They would then he able to assess the relative importance of different stages in the educational process. Moreover, they would be able to measure the potential impact of such innovations as new school designs, teach- ing methods, a.nd arrangements of teachers. As these relationships become clear, it will be possible for the States to make better judg- ments about the best use of their resources to achieve their educational objectives. Comprehensive planning would enable States and local school dis- tricts to fulfill more adequately their responsibilities for education. In recent~ years we have witnessed a remarkable growth in the num- ber of Federal educational programs. These programs have been care- fully designed to meet important educational needs, but these needs vary in their intensity from State to State and school district to school district. What best fits the needs of Montana may not always apply to Indiana, and vice versa. The problem, however, is that too few States and local school systems have had the resources or the opportunity to plan adequately their educational objectives and establish priorities among them. And this lack of objectives and plans places States and local govern- ments on the defensive in many ways. They are constantly having to PAGENO="0536" 530 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS react rather than act. They too seldom have the opportunity to assume the initiative. Thus the proposed planning measures would strengthen the hand of the States and local school systems. Having the resources to plan, they would be able to formulate their own educational goals and de- cide upon those they want to meet first: Then they would be in a position to choose among the many Federal programs available to them. Moreover, once developed, State and local educational plans would have the added advantage of allowing for a coordinated use of resources. Comprehensive plans would readily reveal where resources were most available, where local funds should best be used, where State funds would be most applicable and where Federal programs might be appropriate. We are rightfully concerned today with building a more effective Federal-State-local system. I believe that the concept of creative fed- era.lism is of very great importance to the future of this Nation. But to create the new relationships envisaged in that concept is an exacting task. The comprehensive educational planning proposal before you is a major step toward making "creative federalism" a working reality. Another major advantage which could result from passage of these provisions is more adequate coordination between the various educa- tional levels and agencies existing within the States and metropolitan areas. Currently there exist within most States preschool and elementary and secondary education programs, vocational educational schools, junior colleges, colleges and universities and business schools and technical institutes, adult education programs and assorted other edu- cationally related endeavors. This variety has both advantages and disadvantages. One advantage is the diverse educational and train- ing programs which offer opportunities in keeping with the varied needs of our population. But such diversity sometimes leads to duplication of effort and waste of resources. An attempt to identify the purposes of each of the various educational programs and coordinate their functions would simultaneously preserve the benefits and reduce the disadvantages of diversity. This bill seeks to strengthen the planning function where the major legal responsibilities for education reside-in the States and local school districts. Our tradition of State control and local responsibil- ity has many advantages upon which we wish to capitalize. This bill contains nothing which would require a State or local school district to participate. It is a program which provides for voluntary State cooperation. It would enable these agencies traditionally responsible for education to plot better the course of their educational programs, to allocate their resources more effectively. and to assess their progress more accurately. Mr. Chairman. in addition to myself, Commissioner Howe and my other associates are available to the committee for any questions which you or your colleagues may care to pose. Chairman Prmuxs. Thank you. Mr. Secretary. Mr. Daniels. PAGENO="0537" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 531 Mr. DANIELS. Mr. Secretary, in discussing the program of educa- tion and planning, you mentioned the concept that Federal, State, and local systems are developing into what you refer to as Federal effort. Now is there any idea in that concept of any Federal control over local or State educational planning ? Secretary GAR1NER. No, sir, the whole thrust of this effort is t.o throw the challenge back to the States and local school districts and enable them to take greater initiative in this relationship. Mr. DANIELS. Would the Federal Government set forth any stand- ard to be complied with by the State and local educational entities? Secretary GARDNER. No, sir. Mr. DANIELS. Each State and each school district would exercise its own judgment as to what would be appropriate for its particular area. Secretary GARDNER. That is right. Well, the major thrust of this is toward the States rather than the local school district. Mr. DANIELS. You mentioned what might be good for some regions may not necessarily be an advantage to another State located in an en- tirely different region. Secretary GARm~nuI. That is right. Mr. DANIELS. Does not the Federal Office of Education propose to coordinate these various plans and to make recommendations to States and local agencies as to what would be preferable? Secretary GARDNER. No, sir. I would like to ask Commissioner Howe to comment on this. Commissioner HOWE. One comment I will make on your question, sir, is that we would expect that plans be truly comprehensive in nature, that they address themelves to the full range of educational issues within the State. What we are seeking here is the develop- ment of a capacity within a State to look ahead in terms of all of its educational problems over a 5-year period, let us say, to use that capacity on a regular basis each year, to update its plans, and to do a complete job of looking at all the areas of education such as the needs of handicapped children within the State. the special needs of vocational education, whatever they might be in that State, the types of curriculum required by the State and how these indeed seem to be working out in terms of success for the pupils, the organization of education within the State, the need for buildings. the whole variety of components which make up the total e(lueat~onal enterprise. I wanted to make it clear that whereas there is no Federal control assumed here we would be asking States to do a comprehensive job of planning. Mr. DANIELS. And in so doing would it be confined to elementary and secondary education or the whole gamut of education from the elementary side all the way up to the college level? Commissioner HOWE. It will be up to the State. The State may include higher education in its planning effort and receive funds for that purpose but the minimal coverage must be across the board in elementary and secondary education. Mr. DANIELS. Now with respect to the Teacher Corps, the Secre- tary mentioned that certain amendments were proposed but you did not discuss your propose.d amendments. Would you care to state what you would recommend? PAGENO="0538" 532 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS Secretary GARDNER. Yes, sir; I would like to ask Commissioner howe to describe those. Commissioner HOWE. The proposed amendments to the Teacher Corps, sir, you were asking about? Mr. DANIELS. Yes. Commissioner HOWE. There are several proposed amendments to the Teacher Corps. The major one, is first of all, an amendment which adjusts the rate of pay for Teacher Corps tra.inees, lowering that rate of pay to make it similar to the rate of pay we award in teacher train- ing institutes, both in the Office of Education and in the National Science Foundation. There has been some criticism of the Teacher Corps on the grounds that by using the beginning salary of appointed school teachers in the school system we were over compensating the trainees in the Teacher Corps who in fact are not quite full-time teachers. This is an effort to meet the criticism and to operate th~ Teacher Corps on a more economical basis. I think it will succeed on both counts. There are two other amendments which are perhaps significant. One makes clear the matter of local control of the trainees in the Teacher Corps, whereas there has not been in our minds any doubt about this it. is not spelled out in legislation because there have been. concerns about it. We are spelling out in legislation through this amendment the fact that the local school (listrict has full control over the accepthnce, the routines, and the discharge of these Teacher Corps trainees who work in that local school district. A third amendment is of the same nature but addresses itself to the prerogatives of the State. Here again there have been concerns about the Teacher Corps and the fact that it might be introduced in a State without that State's approval. Our practice has been to consult the State education au- thorities hut here again we wish to spell it out in legislation and in effect to give the State a sign off on the introduction of Teacher Corps trainees in the Teacher Corps system of the State. This will guarantee for instance such matters as teacher certifica- tion over which the State has authority will be checked with that State prior to the introchic.tion of this teacher training program in the State. There are. one or two other minor amendments. ~\[r. DANIELS. My five minutes are up. I will be back later. Chairman PERKINS. We will give everybody a chance to go around. Mr. Xvres. Mr. AYRE5. I have no questions. Chairman PERKINS. Mr. Quic. Mr. QUTE. Mr. Secretary, I apj)reciate your coming up here today. I was interested in your comments on the Teachers Corps. I wonder how this relates to the proposal that ou made for the education pro- fession development program. I understand that in this program you provide not only for the training of teachers in an institute program but also encourage qualified persons to enter the field of education. Aren't you really running two programs here? Won't. you be doing the same thing in the Teacher Corps with that program ? Secretary GARDNER. We are running two programs. The education profession assistance program is the same sort of program that we PAGENO="0539" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 533 have in almost all of our other fields, all of the fields in my Depart- ment. Manpower, the training of professional manpower, is of central concern and we are going about it on a very broad basis and trying to recruit for all of these professional fields and move them along. The Teacher Corps is a much niore specialized, and in many ways more interesting, effort. and a imich more limited effort. It involves these very special arrangements which I consider very important. The one that interests me the most personally is the one that it shares with the Peace Corps and that is being a corps in which individuals elect, to take on very difficult assignments at an early period in their lives and get an opportunity not only to learn but to serve the society in this period. In the normal 1)rofessioliltl training there is no focus on disadvan- taged areas, you don't send the youngsters necessarily into the slum areas. Mr. QuIE. Let me interrupt, right here. Suppose that a college or university has a program under the education profession development. There would be a fellowship program and the. trainees would receive the same tyl)e of stipend as 1 iiiiderstand in the Teacher Corps they would receive as inservice trainees iii the local school and as some edu- cation programs are doing now. Then the only difference is that one is called a corps and the other one is not. You say that the corps inspires other teachers. I can't understand why one will inspire teachers more than the other except that one wears a tie clasp or pin. Secretar (~~TiDxm:mm. I (lout know bow many teacher programs you have looked at but they have far less intensive field experience and are much more likely to have that experience in the better schools near the teacher training institution. There certainly has not been a focus on the poorer schools `lou could (10 it time, other way, but you woul(l lose tile kind of advan- tage that. you get. in the Peace Corps of individuals who are self-select- ed for committed service in the toughest teaching assignments that~ you can handle. Mr. Quii. `VVh liave.n't `von focused the fellowship program on training J)eople for the poorer school district `? ~\Ve have focused pro- grams for guidance. counseling and a iiumber of other specialized training. Secretary GAJUNER. If you wish to take the fellowship programs in the conventional professional training and create a few which are focussed on disadvantaged areas and which have much more intensive field experience afl(i which then have the advantage of national recruit- ment. and the esprit die cori~s that von get with a group, you would get the same results and you would end up with something very much like the Feacher Corps. Mr. QFJE. You have a second difference between the Teacher Corps and a regular fellowship p10g1ilmmm. To imie I can only see one-you put a label on the corps. The other one, you run them through this machine and you have national recruitment. I understand educational institutions come and pick from that machine. Now you will have the same trouble I would PAGENO="0540" 534 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS think as we are having in the Job Corps program where people from all over the country come to one education institution and there is again no feeling of community which we should have. Secretary GARDNER. I really believe there are not only differences that I have described but additional differences. I would put a lot of emphasis on the ties between schools and the university they are getting in the case of Teacher Corps groups. I think there is a lot of feedback from the Teacher Corps experience in the teacher train- ing institutions. That is very effective. Mr. QmE. That is being done in other programs, is it not, other than the Teacher Corps? Secretary GARDNER. That is true. Chairman PERKINS. Mrs. Green. Mrs. GREEN. I am sorry, I was not. here, Mr. Secretary, to hear your statement. I am anxious to know what the views of t.he Department are in regard to strengthening the State departments of education. Is that a matter of high priority or is it becoming one of overpriority? Secretary GARDNER. I am sorry, I missed your question. I was read- ing a note. Mrs. GREEN. In terms of the State departments of education, title V, what. is the Department. attitude? Is this a matter of high priority to strengthen State departments of education? Secretary GARDNER. Yes; it is. Mrs. GREEN. The reason I asked this question is that it seems to me that in this bill there is a conflict, of interest. For example, we say we want. to strengthen the State departments but we have added part B in title V which is for comprehensive edu- cational planning and evaluation. Then we have over on page 30 plans for metropolitan planning in education. Again just. limiting it to this bill I notice we rea.11y bypass the State departments of education. We bypass them in terms of the handicapped. we bypass them in terms of vocational education and we bypass them in even strengthening the State departments if we are going to have the comprehensive planning. At another time I would like, to discuss the educational laboratories around the country which it. seems to me deserves this same review. Limiting it to this bill will you comment on that? Is there a conflict? Secretary GARDNER. I think we a.re in a transitional stage now. I don't know how long it will last or where it will come out. The plain truth is that there may always be some things in which you bypass the St.ate department of education. If we had some representatives of the leading universities here I think they would argue very strongly that in certain matters such as curriculum development. they would wish to deal directly with the Federal Government. and cooperate with the State government but not necessarily have all curriculum developments grants go through the State capitals. I think in many other respects in the present state of development of St.ate educational agencies there are reasons why you may wish to move directly to deal with the problems of the cities or directly to deal with some other problems. PAGENO="0541" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 535 But our long-term objectives are certainly to strengthen the State departments of education. I feel very strongly about title V. In fact, if we mean what we say about it-about the new Federal-State- local relationship we simply must strengthen these agencies to play their role in the partnership. Now some States are already very well prepared to play that role. Others need a grea.t deal of strengthening before they can do so. Mrs. Gn~Ex. Why. for instance, in vocational education or in regard to the handicapped if we want to strengthen the State depart- ments why then should congress grant. the authority for the Commis- sioner to enter into contracts with public or private agencies, institu- tions or organizations, both profit and nonprofit? It would seem to me if we channel all the funds to them and then let them contract if they so desire. with such an agency. Secretary GARDNER. WTould you like to respond to that, Mr. Howe? Commissioner HowE. Mrs. Green, the proposed amendment for vocational education will involve in its administration the vocational education authorities of the States and the arrangements we will make for the administering of those funds under that proposed appropria- tion of $30 million in that amendment will be handled in such a way that the vocational education representatives in the States whether they are in the regular State department of education or a separate agency, will be part of the decision making process about grants. In regard to your specific issue about private profit or nonprofit or- ganizations, I think what. we are trying to do here is simply to bring into the. field of vocational education, as an additional stimulant to it, the possibility that people concerned with business and industry who have a great deal to say about what constitutes training for business and industry try, and have a great deal, to acid to the. eonservatjon of planning in this area and ou~iht to have the pos~ibilit of taking part in the development, of new trainmg pio~eciures. I would call to your attention that the suggested amendment sets up a base for creating demonstration activities, new departures in vocational education somewhat. analagous to what we have had in title III of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Mrs. GREEN. If I may interrupt, you say grants to organizations and institutions would be made in consultation with State depart- ments? Commissioner HOWE. In consultation with the State vocational edu- cation authorities which may not. be the. State department of education. Mrs. GREEN. Blanket. authority to give the Commissioner the right to make grants without consultation if he wishes? Commissioner HOWE. That. is right.. Mrs. GREEN. If that is your intent why is it not written in the bill that the Commissioner will, after consulting with St.ate department, be allowed to do this? Why do you want blanket authority? Commissioner HOWE. What you have is similar to what you have in title III. You have the Commissione.r engaging in advice and consultation in title III with State agencies on a very effective basis, about 95 or 97 percent. of the awards in title III of the Elementary and Secondary Act are awards made by approval of the State depart- ment as well as the Commissioner. PAGENO="0542" 536 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS Mrs. GREEN. Does title III bypass the State departments? Commissioner HOWE. I would not say that title III does bypass the State departments. I would say we are bringing title III in closer and closer alinement with State department interest and activity in those funds and the administration of it. has shown that States have more and more participation over the past years. Chairman PERKINS. Mr. Reid. Mr. REID. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I certainly would like to thank the Secretary for coming up here for a visit this morning. Mr. Secretary, I would like to add one philosophical and perhaps a practical question as well. I am increasingly concerned about the danger that some of the youth of America may feel or in fact may be shortchanged in the ghettos in our big cities. I am concerned about cutback in variable CAP funds of about. 50 percent. That. leads me to this question. The committee worked out some approximate figures on the comparison of the 1968 authoriza- tion in the budget request, iii the legislation you are testifying on this morning. The authorization for title I. according to our figure, is approxi- mately fully funded. ~.441 million whereas there is a budget request. of $1,~00 million. To put it another way, the budget. request is ap- proximately 49 percent of the authorization that the Congress would permit.. The total under this bill that you are requesting from the budget standpoint is $1,673 million versus a potential authorization of $3,141 million. My question, against, this background, why are we not trying to fully fund title I in those States that might be prepared to have the capacity and teachers to move toward-forward and is the budget re- quest a flat figure or can you raise it? Secretary GARDNER. It is a fiat. figure. We would not be able to fully fund this in certain States without doing it in all. We would have to go the whole hog. I mean we would have to decide to dq it totally as a formula process. But basically this goes back to the long and difficult, painfull process of making U~ a budget and examin- ing it and the kind of tradeoffs you have to face if you have budgetary constraints and a. great. many worthy programs and the figure which we came out with was the result. of this long and very conscientiously pursued process. Mr. REID. Mr. Secretary, I appreciate the candor of your response. I have noted your comments about. creative federalism in the sense of priorities. Is it not. speakin~ in your capacity as an educator, possible to consider cutbacks in forei~n subsidies or possibly a. stretchout. in ~pace as being of lesser national imperative, than a cutback in title. I in our schools and would it nor be reasonable to suppose that the Congress and the. administration-possibly your department-should fight. much harder for the fiuids because I think a cutback in this area would be a SeriOuS mistake if we are to move, forward `? Secretary GARDNER. This is a hard question for me to answer. You know me well enough to know what my ow-n commitments and con- victions are. I cannot. regard myself as an objective judge of national needs when I am so deeply involved in one aspect. of it. I do believe that the process works with reasonable fairness. PAGENO="0543" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 537 I believe that I got a good hearing. Mr. REID. Could I ask one final question? If the funds were avail- able in the budget is there any reason why the educational systems or educational agencies could not take advantage wisely and soundly of a full authorization? Secretary GARDNER. As you have indicated, this does vary some with the States. I believe that our conception of how much States could absorb and the rapidity with which they could absorb it has become more cautious in the last year as we have watched this process of absorption. But I think it would be foolish for me to argue that they could not absorb more than they are getting. Many States could. Mr. REID. And a significant increase? Secretary GARDNER. That I think is possible. Mr. REID. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Chairman PERKINS. The gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Dent. Mr. DENT. Mr. Secretary. I want to get back to the situation that was discussed when the gentleman from Minnesota, Mr. Quie, was interroga.t ing you-the Teachers Corps relationship l)et ween local, State, and Federal. We all know that the Teachers Corps program is one of our toughest. hurdles to clear cluriiig this session in this legisla- tion. Are we iii a sense offering some kind of (olnprolnise to get. away from the basic principles behind the. whole. thing? Are we deciding that in order to pass it we compromise with the State, we will take over from ~n in, we provide the money, you do all the rest of it? WTe will go on with the expense of recruitment; we will go on with the expense of setting it up. The State will then say all right, we will tell you where to put. them, we will control the teachers, we will handle the mobility, and we will now establish the salary base which in some instanc.e.s could be lower in some States than in others-the the starting wage is higher in some States and lower in others? I always thought the starting salary was pretty much of a fair guideline since we have no two local units that have the same starting salaries in many instances. They are different from one school board to another. Are we in a sense saying here we want to pass this bill even though we compromise on any Federal control? If the States demand the right to veto it, they can veto any project we ma.y establish in a local district. WTasn't that basically the reason we went to the local district Was it. the idea that States would not set them up in certain areas, that they needed Teachers Corps trainees, that they needed Teachers Corps personnel more than the others? Are we saying to the States, `~We don't want you to set up a project in Tuscaloosa in some places, we will set it up here." The idea behind all of this was that we had neglected areas where we had children who were not getting p1~opei~ attention from the states. The St ates have always had the right to set up special train- ing but here we are saving we are going to compromise that right out of the bill because of the fact we have to pass the bill. \Vhv pass it if it does not meet what we started to do, unless I am completely wrong with what I am talking about, and I would like to be ( I~0(~ 0(1 f I ani wrong. PAGENO="0544" 538 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS Secretary GARDNER. To my mind it does not affect the heart of the program. Mr. DENT. What is the heart of the program other than setting up the local areas that need this particular kind of training? What else is there to it? The other things are just limbs on a tree. Training at universities and setting up programs, that just has to be done in order that the one prime obj ective that we have is met. Certainly the Federal Government has to state its position in say- ing where these projects go unless I am completely wrong. Secretary GARDNER. I have been familiar with the Teacher Corps since it was a piece of conversation among a few people. There is not any question in my mind what the basic purposes of it were. We have a very serious problem of getting good teachers of any kind for any assignment. We have a particular problem of getting able teachers in the disadvantaged areas. We have at the same time in this generation of young people, a great many young- sters, who have a deep interest in these disadvantaged areas who would be willing to serve, willing to devote themselves to this kind of thing under appropriate circumstances. We talked a long time about what those appropriate circumstances were. It seemed to us that one of them was that they must con- tiniie to he close to the universities because the best youngsters now just want to get their training and they dont want to be professionally lost. They want to continue on the career ladder. We felt also that they needed some kind of atmosphere, the kind of atmosphere that a corps would provide~ a common service and a common cause. One major purpose was the purpose of getting good people into these dis- advantaged areas. Another major purpose was to get first-class young people into the teaching profession, youngsters who would be drawn by the atmosphere of dedication. We believe that the States will not frustrate either of those ob- jectives and we believe that the present amendments are perfectly compatible with what we set out to do. Mr. DENT. Mr. Secretary, what happens when the State does frus- trate them since we have no veto power over a State veto? Let me read from your own testimony. You say that the Teachers Corps provides an outlet for the expression of personal idealism and concern for on&s fellow man. You also discuss in your testimony the children of city ghettos and underdeveloped areas, rural areas, and Indian reservations or migrant camps. Can you picture a State organization allowing a youth who feels very deeply about migrant labor being allowed to go to that particular school districts? I can't see it. Chairman PERKINS. Mr. Erlenborn. Mr. ERLENBORN. Mr. Secretary, let me apologize for not being here at the time you gave us your original presentation. A good deal of our discussion in the last few days in these hearings has been about the Teachers Corps. As you can see this is the most interesting topic. Tt seems to me most of the arguments that are given for the Teachers Corps come down to the idea that an esprit de corps is developed through this sort of program. PAGENO="0545" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 539 So at the risk of being accused of making a fast pun it seems to me what you ale saying is that you can't have esprit without "de corps." That seems to be the sum and substance of the argument. My deep concern is about late funding of the educational p1og1~lm. Now I don't sit here as an original advocate or even today as an advocate of Federal aid to education. I would like to see block grants or tax sharing as the vehicle. As long as we do have these programs I think we ought to get a dollar's worth for a dollar spent. It. seems to me. that after 2 years of opera- tion no one in the educational community will say that we have gotten this. One of the principal reasons is the fact that we have late funding. The school districts have not known until well after the school year- until well after the beginning of the school year-how much money they will have, of title I funds. Now we presently have an authorization that will extend until the end of the fiscal year 1968. I understand that the Department has no intention of coming in this year, this session, with a request for an ex- tension of this authorization which means that it will have then to come in the second session. We will be considering the authorization for fiscal year 1969 proba- bl~- on into the beginning of fisca.l year 1969 or if not. that late at least. close to it since the appropriation i ocess wi1l extend into fiscal year 1969. Again we will have this late funding problem. Will you explain to me why it is you have no intention of asking for extension of the au- thorization in this session rather than waiting until the second ses- sion? Secretary GARDNER. This is something we have discussed a.t some length. May I ask Commissioner Howe to respond? Commissioner HowE. I was asked this question the other day here, Mr. Erlenborn, and respoiided that our reasons for not bringing up the Elementary and Secondary Education Act for renewal were really two: One, the ~ of business we created for this (olnmittee and for the Congress by bringing up the Higher Education Act. and the Na- tional Defense Education Act a year earlier for the same reasons you considered we ought to consider the Elementary and Secondary Act and secondly, the fact we had just been through the second year of having brought. it up 2 years in a row and all of us were perhaps looking for a vacation from the process of examining that complicated formula and allowing it to operate for a 2-year l)eriod on a consistent basis. At this point I am going to make it clear that we are not unfriendly to the idea of 1ookin~ at the Elementary and ~econ(lary Educat ion Act this year. ~We would like to discuss with your chairinnn this possibil- ity. Because if there is a. possibility, in the crush of all the other busi- ness we have, of accomplishing what you suggest we lyolild elcarly like to make arrangements to work on that. ~ that it seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that this is somethiiinr that we mi~ht consult about. Mr. EnLExiloux. Let me ask this. Tn the event I hat von do not ask for an extensioii of the aiitiu rizaricn until the next year, until the he- Tx-49~ ~ PAGENO="0546" 540 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDtCATION AMENDMENTS ginning of the next session, do you think it will be at all possible or probable, in view of the past experience that we have, that fiscal year 1969 could be. funded before the beginning of the fiscal year? Secretary GARDNER. Of course bringing up of the act and settling the authorization in this current year would not handle the appropria- tions problem. Mr. ERLENBORN. It would compound it if we don't bring it up. Secretary GARDNER. Quite correct, it would compound the thing because the appropriations this year would then be on the table at the same time that the rules of the road for appropriations were on the table. It seems to me that it is well worth thinking about the pos- sibility of getting the authorization settled and I hope you appreciate our reasons for not bringing this up. There is no great issue of principle here. It is simply a matter of pacing and convenience for both ourselves and the Congress and we have to look at that. I do not know how to handle the appropriations question as easily. It is certainly true. that the President and the administration as a whole. is going to want. to consider this large item in the light of all the rest of the budget. and not consider it a year ahead of time without considering it. in the total context of the budget but perhaps we can move more rapidly somehow in the appropriations process. Chairman PERKINS. Mr. Bradernas. Mr. BIL\Dr~uas. Mr. ~ecretarv, 1 have just. two or three questions but first let me make an observation with respect to the Teachers Corps. 1 have. said several times in the committee. hearings that I have been lnlzzle(l by the fact that there has been almost no criticism of the Teachers Corps comm in. at. least 11 have not heard any, from State or local ediiaat ionah officials. [ ant still waiting expectantly that my question might trigger some- thing, some genuine solid evidence of trouble. I am assuming that the reason is that. the program is still so very modest and that there has been in fact no violation of State and local control. I don't know if you have, any rapid comment on t.hat or not.. Secret~irv ft\RDXER. No, sir. I share your experience of lack of criticism of the program. In fact. we get very warm and enthusiastic comments. Mr. BRADEMAS. The second question I want. to raise is with respect to the role of the States under the title III programs. Yesterday we had State school superintendents in here along with the executive di- rector of the Chief State. School Officers Association. Tile was very much upset about the absence of a mandatory statutory veto by the State department over title III projects but the Sta.te superintendents seemed not. to l)e very much upset about the absence of such a man- datorv veto. T was a little surprised that, while the director of the State edu- cation departments was so exercised. none of the men who actually run the State departments seeflw(l to have any great complaints. Do von have any comment about that ? ~~cietarv (`~.~t:j~'c~it. T would like to emphasize. I would like to make 1 coinluent that bears on all these questions of State control nih tlii~ come~ mink to Mrs. Green's point, and that is that it is a real PAGENO="0547" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 541 point of debate as to how much control the State should have over the local school districts. Many local school people whom I see make a very strong point to me that in our eagerness to share Federal power and initiative with the States we not forget that the local school district is presumably the home and the base of decision in our system of education. Many of them are at least as concerned about control by the State capitals as they are by any control from the Federal Government. I think we have to debate. very seriously in each of these instances the extent to which we help the local schools preserve their role. Mr. BRADEMAS. Your experience has been similar to mine. In this respect, I thought it was significant that while we have been talking about the tax payback or tax sharing of Federal dollars with the States, the mayors the other clay said that if such Federal money is to come along they would like to get in the act because they too are in business as well as the State governments. I have another question on title V. It was contended in our hear- ings yesterday that the title V arnendliTlelits you proposed were aimed at providing for the use, in the language of one witness, of federally molded evaluation and planning of education on a mandatory basis. Do you have any comment on that? Secretary GARDNER. You are speaking of the comprehensive plan- ning amenclineiits. Mr. BRADEMAS. Yes, sir. Secretary GARDNER. Yes; I would describe that as a very inac- curate phrase as far as any objectives that we have. Our concern in the comprehensive planning amendments seems to stem from our concern for the Federal-State relationship and the awareness that the States never can play their role, their full role, in education unless they have ihe kind of fimds that will permit them to plan, permit them to set their own objectives and order their own priorities. Mr. B1~ADE~i~~s. 1. also would like to ask you a related question. Criticism was voued yesterday about the utilization of computer and system analysis techniques for evaluating the effectiveness of educa- tional programs. I was in Seatle, Wash., last week and noticed out there a local new-s- paper article entit.lecL ~Seattle Schools Adopt Computer Age Mana~e- ment.," a. story indicating in the Seattle school system they are mov~n~ in the direction of using systems planning for improving their sclio~l systems. Could ou give us a general comment. on the siIl)ject with which I think most of us are not very familiar but which is ma ised by yrJu:~ title V planning amendment; namely. utiliza~ ion of such techniques I am very ignorant in this field. Any light von can shed on it wiJ~ be helpful. Secretary GARDNER. The use of computers in education can be at several levels. Mr. BR.~DEMAs. I refer to especially to the. evaluation of e1Te~tiveness because I think that is what is involved in part of our title V amend- ment.. Is that. not true? Secretary GARDNER. Evaluation is certainly involved. There was no discussion of the use of computers but pre~umablv if they get very far into evaluation they will find some use for computer ifiethodi PAGENO="0548" 542 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDFCATION AMENDMENTS But this a long, slow process of experimentation. We have a long way to go before we get into precise evaluation of educational conditions. Mr. BRADEMAS. Thank you. Chairman PERKINS. Mr. Scherle. Mr. SCIIERLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also would like to apologize, Mr. Secretary, for not being here earlier this morning. As a new Member, I have found out that there are not enough hours in a day. May I say that I am very compli- mented to have been appointed to this committee. I have a high regard for eclucat ion. Mv State of Iowa has the highest literacy rate in the Lnion. \Ve are moving in the. field of eclucatioii like we have never moved forward before. I feel very complimented to be acquainted with our I )epartment and to serve with my experienced and learned colleagues on both sides of the aisle. Along that same line, it will probably be more of an expression of sentiment than it will of questioning. That is, I am having bill iI.R. 0230 completely researched, analyzed, and appraised. Perhaps some of my questions will come at a later date rather than during the portion of the hearings. So with that, Mr. Chairman, I will yield back the rest of my time. Thank you. Chairman PERKINS. Mr. Hawkins. Mr. I-L~wKTxS. Mr. Secretary. under the operation of title I in Cali- fornia I believe great accomplishments have resulted. However, I notice that in the Civil Rights Commission report that they concluded tha~: compensatory programs have not proved themselves. I am won- dering whether or not you have had an opportunity to evaluate their study: because they did, as I understand it, include Philadelphia, Seattle. Syracuse and, I believe, Berkeley in their studies in which they concluded that these programs had not been very effective. I am wondering whether or not this conclusion is shared by you. Why would there he such a difference of opinion based on two separate agencies or l)O(iieS in reference to this program? Secretary G.\RDNER. I would like to ask Commissioner Howe to answer that question. Mr. Howr. In response to that, sir, let me say that the Civil Rights Commission report says expressly in its text that it made no effort to evaluate or examine the large Federal enterprises in compensatory education, and is making no judgment about these. Then, in the vari- ous coml)ensatory education proects which it does examine it points out that in all of these pro1e(~ts the efforts at compensatory education amount, in no case, to more than $80 per child and in most cases less than that. All of these are relatively small enterprises restricted in nature to a few schools. So that we are vet to have a really good evaluation of a much larger effort which runs around S150 per child for title I of t.he Elementary and Secondary Education Act and which will have added to it with Operation Fol1o\v-ThFO1T~h this ear about S300 per child for those (hil(lren mci mided in Operation Follow-Through. I think we have not only hopes. hut some reason to believe that the nature of compensatory education and time mas~iveness of it caused Lv this new Federal ac- tivity will ~ndeed prove successful. PAGENO="0549" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDFCATION AMENDMENTS 543 Mr. HAWKINS. In view of that. answer, it seems to me somewhat strange that the actual funding of the program has been reduced so drastically, which seems to negate to some extent the effort to make the program adequate. I have, for example, from the Califorma Advisory Compensatory Comirnssion their statement that in Cali- fornia for fiscal 1967 the program is only 67 percent of authorization, t.hat it has been necessary to reduce the amount per child from $252 down to $180, and that even at that they face other reductions as a result of the fact that they have been required to advert children, that is, children of migrant farmworkers, and delinquent and handicapped youth, and also the income level has been increased. My question is, In view of the limited funding apparently that is available, why would it not be more than desirable to concentrate on a fewer number of children and to stop liberalizing the program if the funding is not available? Why offer the prospect of reaching a large number of individuals, a large number of children, at the same time that more liberal features are being required of local agencies? Mr. HOWE. I see your point. I will say in response to it. that we have increased the total dollar amount available for the program by over $150 million. This does not fully support exactly the same level of per pupil expenditure that we had in the previous year, but this comes very close to it. *When you a.dd to this the $110 million which we will be putting into Operation Follow-Through, you have a major expansion of dollars and for a good many children, a major advance in per child funding in fiscal 1968. But. this does iiot deny, sir, that your point about some decrease per child in some places is going to occur. Mr. H~~wKINs. Do you think a reduction from $252 for each eligible child to $180 is a disaster? Do you think that this is sufficient. t.o actually make the program successful so that the same conclusion will not be reached that was reached by the U.S. Civil Rights Commis- sion, that. in those cities not. enough is actually being expended, that the program has not proved to be successful? Mr. IlowE. I certainly agree with the implication that we ought to hold the levels up here as best. we can. I do not want to question those figures, because I am not familiar with the basis on which they are arranged. It does seem to me tha.t it is extraordinary the way they have been computed to create that much reduction. We would like to look at them. Mr. Estes would like to make a brief comment on this. Mr. Es~s. I simply want to point out. that. your observations are basically correct. We certainly concur in your conclusions. Our orig- inal request this yea.r for $1,070 million of the authorization amount would have resulted in very little, if any. decrease in the States. However, as a result of the amendments which moved the AFDC data up from 1962 to 1965 and in addition, when we added the foster and neglected and delinquent, children, this resulted in a decreased a.mount. Chairman PERKINS. The gentleman from Oregon. Mr. Dellenback. Mr. DELLENBACK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, it is good to see you again. May I ask one specific general question first? I don't mean to put. you on the. spot, but I PAGENO="0550" 544 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMEWI'S recognize. that. we do. So far as the difference, particularly in title I, is concerned between the 1968 authorization and the 1968 budget re- quest, I recognize that the figure of $1,200 million is in part an over- all project beyond the reach of your office. But if it were iiot for the very vital need to do some budget balancing or to pare expenditures, would you see the 1968 budget appropriation matching the 1968 authorization? Secretary GARDNER. I find that is a very hard question to answer. It is so outside the frame in which I have had to think these things through that it is very difficult. Mr. DELLENBACK. Let me phrase it a different way. Is there a present capacity in the educational system in America to handle a full appropriation of ~2.441 million, if these dollars were to be deemed to be available? Secretary GARDNER. I think that even if we were perfectly free, we would not go to that figure. Mr. DELLENBACTc. Would you give me any estimate of where, or would you give the committee any estimate of where the capacity stands at the present time to utilize appropriated funds? Secretary GARDNER. I just would not be able to do it. I would have to pick a figure out of the air. The hudgetmaking process is 3 months of long, hard struggling, negotiation and discussion, and it is very hard at this late date to go back and suggest what might have been, had we not had so many considerations to face. Mr. DELLENBACK. Despite all these considerations, you would see the appropriation at something less than the 1968 authorization? Secretary GARDNER. Yes. Mr. DELLENBACK. May I ask you a question in the field of relation- ship between the Federal, State, and local districts? In general, do you see in the future an increasing amount of Federal-local district in- volvement? I am talking about. direct involvement between the Fed- eral and local districts. Or do you see an increasing Federal-State level involvement, in the field of education? Secretary GARDNER. As I said, I think we are in a period of transi- tion. and none of us know how it will come out. You talk to big city superintendents and they feel very strongly that the day when all money flows through the State capitol will be a very difficult day for them, and they would like very much to have some capacity to come to the Federal Government directly. I talked with one big city superintendent quite recently who was talking about a program that was to go through the State capitol. He said. "All right, let it go through the State capitol, but don't let them get their grimy hands on it." Mr. DELLENBACK. Would you say that is the general philosophy in many large cities? Secretary GARDNER. No~ sir. Well, the large cities, I think, have characteristically tended to chafe under any control by the States. This has been a very common thing in education and in other problems. But we have taken the position that the States must be strengthened and must be given a substantially increased role. I would be ex- tremely hesitant to suggest that that role should eventually squeeze out all other routes and all other ways of dealing with the cities. PAGENO="0551" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 545 Mr. DELLENBACK. But you would see, so far as your own philosophy is concerned-and I am staying away from specifics and trivia-you would see a constant increase in the relationship between the Federal office and the State departments? As the State departments under title 17 are strengthened, you would see an increased role for the State departments? Secretary GARDNER. Yes, indeed. Mr. DELLENBACK. Let me ask you one more even more general ques- tion, if time permits. Beyond these titles, beyond the amendments of 1967, can you in brief give us a roadmap of where you think we are going in education? Secretary GARDNER. Sir, I have been so deeply involved in getting this far along the road, getting this program ready to put before you, that I would find it very difficult to predict our next steps. I know the points of debate. I don't know where we will come out. The main point of debate, perhaps, is the question of whether or not we take seriously the possibility of block grants or the ileller plan or some other such thing. This is bound to be discussed very seriously in the executive branch and in Congress. I believe that we will continue down the path of more emphasis on enabling the States and the cities to do better planning. We will certainly live with the manpower question the rest of our lives-pro- fessional manpower question. And we will live with continued efforts to refine the Federal-State-Local relationships so that each partner keeps its own integrity and autonomy, but there is better communica- tion and better coordination of effort. Mr. DELLENBACK. Recognizing that you might not want to answer this one, I relieve you from any obligation to do so. Would you have any stand that you would put forward at this time on the debate on the block grant or Heller plan? Is this a desirable plan? This again is presuming our State departments are capable of handling the tasks handed to them. Would this be a good idea or bad one? Secretary GARDNER. I will simply have to say that we are studying this, not just in our Department, hut in the administration as a~ whole, and it would not be possible to make a comment until we come out with some better appraisal than we have now. Mr. DELLENBACK. Thank you. Chairman PERKINS. Mr. Gibbons. Mr. GIBBoNs. Mr. Secretary~ I realize that the Teacher Corps is just in the beginning stage and, assuming that the legislation that you sub- mitted this year passes, what should be the ultimate size of the Teacher Corps? Secretary GARDNER. I can't honestly give you an answer to that. We have discussed it. It would never be a large corps in relation to the size of the profession. It would always be small. We think of it as a relatively small corps which will continue to pump a good many teachers into this system who have had experience, excellent training. Mr. (`TIBBONS. When you say "relatively small," do you mean a hundred thousand, or what? Secretary GARDNER. I would have thought much lower than that, perhaps in the are.a of 10.000, 12.000, 15,000, 20,000. Perhaps the Com- miSsioner would like to pick a number. Mr. HOWE. I said 10,000 the other day. I had better stick with it. PAGENO="0552" 546 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDtCATION AMENDMENTS But. really we don't have a good answer to your question, Mr. Gibbons. We are having enough trouble getting 5,000. We thought we would stick with that figure for a while. Mr. Ginuoxs. In the 10,000 answer, Mr. Howe, when are you pro- jecting that? What stage of development.? Mr. Howr. It seems to me that this would be 2 or 3 years down the road. The justification for a small exercise. like a. 5,000-member corps is really the effect and stimulation that it has, t.he demonstra- tion endeavor, on other patterns of teacher training around the coun- try, that as it exists in universitie.s it. will come to control what. they do with the rest of their teacher training, will focus interest on train- ing peol)le to w-ork in these difficult, schools; and it will be through these ripple effects turning out mole people to do the hard teaching job. The result of it will be more than its numbers. Mr. Giimoxs. Mr. Secretary. State educational planning agencies that I will call SEPA from now on. who is going to designate them? Jilow are they cle~cgnated Seeretarv ft~nDxrR. As I understand it, under our proposal the Governors will be free to designate the agency to do this planning. Mr. GIBBoNs. It does not say the. Governor. It. leaves it up in the air and says the State shall designate. Is that to be by legislative act, or how do they do it? You can recognize anybody under this law, Mr. Secretary. Secretary GARDNER. It. was our intention that the Governor would do it. I would like the Commissioner to comment. Mr. Howr. Mr. Gibbons, I am told by legal associates that when you designate the State, as we have in this legislation, that that in effect means the State chief executive officer. Our intention here, and hope, is that~ the Governor will designate the. chief State educational agency and that the executive of that, the chief State school officer, would have the major responsibility for setting up this planning activity. On the other hand, there may be some States which have in being comprehensive planning agencies already, which have moved in dif- ferent fashions from the rest. of the States and for whic.h it may make sense to have the. Governor designate some other agency. It was our behef in placing the Governor in this position that long-range for- ward planning implied such commitments for the total State that the Governor ought to have some role in such activity. ~~nd we thought that the role of designating the agency and then having the project for planning pass through the Governor for his comment. would be an appropriate role. ~rr. GTBBONS. T am going to ask von a real practical problem now, a. problem that will influence how I vote on this. In Florida we have a state hoard of education composed of the Governor and five other elected officials. The Governor is the chairman of this board. Tt. does the. educational planning. whatever is done in Florida now, for both higher education and for tho elementary and secondary levels. In fa~f. it is the Bucl~et Commission of Florida. Would this he the agency or could the Governor set up a special a~encv ~ Sec'retary GARDNER. The way this legislation is now written, he could set up a special agency. Not knowing the details of your State, PAGENO="0553" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDTJCATIOX AMENDMENTS 547 I hesitate to comment on this; but it sounds to me, from what you say, as if it would be wise to set up a professional staff using these funds, which would report through that agency you mentioned. Mr. GIBBONS. lour answer, as I understand it, is that this State Board of Education of Florida, the Governor could ignore that. and could appoint his own special agency. Am I correct in that,? Secretary GARDNER. I think in the legal sense the way the legisla- tion is now written you are correct. Mr. GIBBONS. Thank von, sir. Chairman PERKINS. Mr. Bell. Mr. BELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. \tr. Secretaiv, it is III ple~suie to see on here and to rea(l the very fine statement whicli you made. Mr. Secretary. I was concerned at. the end of last year's session with the action of the appropriation bill. Xs `von know, we transferred Ad~ilt Basic E(lucation from the \.miti-Povertv Act. to the Commissioner of Education. Whemi we made that transfer, however, the Appropriations Coimimittee di(i not allot additional fumicis. So, the Office of Education was left with. I believe, something like a defwit. of S~ million. Secretary GARDNER. $30 million. Mr. BELL. Yes. That was supposed to be transferred with the adult education to the Commissioner of Education's jurisdiction, hut it was not. Now what happened in that case? Are you suffering from that. situation? Are you having to rob Peter to pay Paul to (TO that job adequately? Secretary GARDNER. I would like to ask Nolan Estes to tell you that story. Mr. ESTES. I must say we are not without our problem because of this. The end result was that we took $16 million from title I. We took ~ million from title III of the ~ETemnentary and Secondary E'duca t i oil" appropriation. Mr. BELL. How much from 1? Mr. Es'rrs. $16 million. And we took $3 or S4 million from title II of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act ap~)ropriation. Each of these amounts appropriated was subtracted by that. amount. i\Ir. BELL. Then in effect what happened there, as I see it, there really was no adult educatjon Iro~i'~'~1n at all. ~o von were left with ~30 million von had to take from otl~er p1a(~es, OE VOli could not take care of the imimportant adult. basic education program from the stand- point. of what. was pro perly allotted to it. Now what happened was that you then. in effect, cut hack, had to cut hack some very important progranis under title I that you are now sa.ing are short of money. and title 111 which you are saving are short. of nionev. But. von robbed ~1G niilhion from the. very important title I, which you could very well have used. Then you took another amount as you sai(l froni title 111. from that project. That seems to me a. rather unfortunate pn)ceclllre `von should have to follow. Do you not. believe this? Mr. Es~n~s. This, of course, is riot the only area which resulted in a (lecrease of funds. The amendments, as you know, using the latest. AFDC data. 196~ data, resulted in a decrease of funds, also including PAGENO="0554" ~548 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDL~CATION AMENDMENTS neglected iuul delinquent children, resulted in a decrease of funds that was available. ~s1r. BELL. The thing that disturbs me is that I don't think we received much help from the administration on this particular issue. They didn't bring this out. They didn't. come to our aid on this situation. For example. supposing. Mr. Secretary, we transferred Headstart from the Poverty Act. Supposing that that is done. Supposing we transferred T-Teadstart out of the Poverty Act to the Office of Educa- tion where. it belongs, is your organization going to give us some sup- port so that we can fret the money there too, so that it will not be short changed there Secretary GARDNER. I think we should stand together on that, Mr. Bell. Mr. BELL. I assume from that you also would like to see it trans- ferred. would you not? Secretary GARDNER. Yes, sir. Mr. BELL. You would like to see Iieadstart transferred out of the Poverty Act? Secretary GARDNER. That is a question of timing on which we really are not prepared to express ourselves. We have always taken the view that eventually, its eventua' home is HEW. But when it comes is a matter of ti'ming. Mr. BELL. I think that. there we are talking about the money that we need very badly for our educational programs. I think that was one spot there where we could have acted and we could have saved ourselves ~16 million in one. case. and $12 million in the other. Now I will yield to my friend, Mr. Burton. Mr. BFRTOX. I concur in the remarks and the observations of my colleague from California, Mr. Bell. With reference to the use of AFDC data, Mr. Secretary, I want to know why HEWT did not even seek in the supplemental, nor appar- ently this year either, the. funding for that change in the formula. The Subcommittee on Appropriations in our House was unaware that. the policy change took place. The Department refused in the face of a decision of this committee and the Congress t.o fund that additional policy consideration in terms of matching. This worked to the disadvantage of the States which relied on your estimates as to what. additional funds this would bring to them. I wonder if you have aiiy reason. One. you refused to seek funding of this policy, and, two, are. you this year in addition to the other authorizations going to seek funding for this AFDC policy? Secretary GARDNER. I would like to ask Commissioner Howe to comment. Mr. Howr. We have no plans at. the present time for bringing the supplemental appropriation before. the Congress to handle this problem. Mr. BFRTON. Will you repeat that, please? Mr. Howr. We have no plans at the present time for bringing a supplemental before the Congress to handle this problem. We ar~ increasingly aware of the problem and looking into any possibilities there may be for a solution. We do believe that we made considerable PAGENO="0555" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS M9 progress in funding in the total support of the schools in the current fiscal year. Mr. BURTON. In other words, if I might. terminate this dialog now, you are telling this committee despite the fact. the. Congress changed the formula, because you ignored our mandate a few years ago, you are refusing to seek to get funding for it Mr. BELL. Mr. Chairman, may I clarify this point? This question was asked yesterday. Mr. Burton, yesterday, I believe, this question, or the day before yesterday this question was asked. They are going to try to, accord- ing to the gentlemen here, they are going to try to get that AFDC data brought up to date. But t.he problem was that we passed the bill out too late last year, as I recall it. Isn't that accurate? Mr. Esi~s. Yes. Mr. BURTON. They are going to bring the data up to date but no money to implement the policy. Commissioner Howe said they have no funds to fund this policy. The data will be up to date, but there will be no money to back it up. Mr. HOWE. As I stated, Mr. Bell, we have no present plans for a supplemental appropriation. Chairman PERKINS Mr. Ford. Mr. FoRD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am happy to see you here, Mr. Secretary. I think I should tell you, however, that as a person who considers himself a st.rong friend of this legislation that I am terribly disappointed in your recommen- dations from the Department and from the administration. For education this year, I find it extremely difficult to get excited about. what looks to me t.o be a very, very pale view of the future of education in this country in view of the very growing promises that some of us made in selling this legislation on the floor in 1965 and 1966. In line with what Mr. Burton has just raised, I call your attention to the fact that last year we appropriated out of the authorization of title I $1,042 million. This year the President's budget only asks for a total of $1,200 million, and if we got full funding of what he asked for it would be less than half of what we authorized last year in this bill for expenditure under Title I. Now here is what happens. On July 1. 1967~ the beginning of that fiscal year. several thin~s kick into ge~tr.~ The first is that you will have tb distribute this ~Iimited amount of money in some states on the optional basis of one-half the national average per-pupil expenditure. You will have t.o (listribute on the formula recognizing $3,000 as the low-income factor instead of $2,000. In addition to that., you will have the up-to-date AFDC data, the Indian schools, and other categories that we have. It is quite clear that if we are dealing with the same amount of money as we had last year that to put these things into effect-and you don't have much op- tion, it. seems to me-you are going to have to take some money away from people who got it last year in order to redistribute this fixed amount of money under this new formula. My question to you is, have you warned any of the school districts across the country that were get.ting money under title I to expect that they are going to get cuts commensurate with the reallocation of the funds under the new formula? PAGENO="0556" 550 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDLTATION AMENDMENTS Secretary GARDNER. Mr. Ford, we worry about this a good deal. I would like to ask Commissioner Howe to tell you about it. Mr. HOWE. I would like to make one or two comments, and then ask Mr. Estes to say a word on it.. First of all, in the differences be- tween fiscal 1966 and 1t67 we, I believe, can show quite clearly that we try to inform both chief State school officers and local superintend- ents reasonably about the funding they could expect. to have under the budget amounts that were benig 1auned. I think there have been Problems in this program. Mr. FORD. Beceu~c of the very limited time, let us stick to the dif- ference I ~etwecn fiscal 1~)0~ and I OdS. The formula was basically the same in l~tid and 19(Y1. h~it we have changed the substantive law so that the nioncv wil] ~a1lo:tt ed according to a new formula in fiscal ~ \Vhat a re von telling the people with respect to what the can expect. as of now, if we fully fund what the President has asked for in fiscal 1908? some of the bi~ S~ ates are ~in~ ta have to lose sonie money. Mr Howi:. That is coi rec sir. We will tell the school districts and the States this spring the amounts of money that the S1,~00 million will make available to the States, and give the school districts some percentage guidance, as we did last year on this same point. Mr. Fona. Now I would like to go back to title V-B for a moment.. ~ ~ that when we talk about the State that we are talking about ~on~e uroup in the State appoillte(l by tile respective Governors of the States. In light of what the Secretary and Mr. Howe said this morn- ing. it seems clear that in administering this ~)rOgra1n you would pre- sunie that noriiiahlv the (.iOvernor \VOfll(l, by assigiluig tills responsi- bility to the people who generally handle elementary and secon(lary education in that State. superintendent of public instruction or what- ever the agency might be. With that in mind, would you have any objection if this legisla- tion picked up from Public Law 80-10 under title VI this cleflutition in subsection (k) The term State educational agency" means the State board of education or other agency or officer primarily responsible for the State supervision of public elementary and secondary ~choo1, or. if there is no such officer or agency, then officer or agency designated by the Governor or by State law. you have any objection to that kind of provision in lieu of the very vague language that we presently have in the bill before us? Mr. J-Iowr. Listening to it, off time cuff, Mr. Ford. it seems to me a possibility. We would like to examine that. I think that the main reinon for our getting into this posture vis-a-vis the Governor is the fact that long-range planning automatically creates long-range com- mitments in svli 1dm both the Governor and the legislature become in- volved and it affects other activities in the State besides education. We would like to examine this possibility as an alternative to the one we propose. Mr. O'HARA. Mr. Secretary, in response to Mr. Ford's question the Commissioner indicated that they would be telling the school dis- tricts this sprilig 110w munch they might expect under the budget re- quest made for the operation for the next fiscal year. I wonder if you could inform the committee in the very near future just what the al- PAGENO="0557" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 551 location of title I funds would be, State by State and, if possible, county by county, under the budget request made for fiscal 1968, tak- ing into account the new formula considerations you are going to have to introduce. (The table referred to follows:) ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION ACT OF 1965, PUBLIC LAW 89-10, AS AMENDED, TITLE I: ASSISTANCE FOR EDUCATIONALLY DEPRIVED CHILDREN comparison of fiscal year 1967 allotments se/l/s estiasated 1068 allotments United States, outlying parts, and Department of the Interion sa States and the District of Columbia Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkans's California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia nawaii Idaho Illinois tndiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maise I4larylancl 5.Iassaclnisetts Nliclsigais.__ Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Itanspshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North l'acoliisa North Dakota Ohio S )klaI,oiiia (lre:.sri I'eis,ix. 135, - - lIbole island tloiiti I aroli,sa - Sotiti, Dakota `l'ennessee I Tess,' [`liii V,'rpi..nr Virginia \Vaslsiiscton W'e"t Virginia \\`iceon~in Wyoming ilietrict of Columbia American Samoa (luamo Pmieclo Rico Trmmst territories Virgin Islandc Departmnenl of the Interior 31. 013, 087 42, 002, 128 1, sS3, 19)) 1,883,190 8,971.597 8.971,597 25. 801. 373 26, 266, 364 74, 360, 293 74. 577, 136 8, 5o6, 375 8, 669, 709 S. 567. 812 S, 592, 933 2, 145, 235 2. 145. 235 28, 452, 341 33. 425. 297 35. 072, 317 45, 413, 018 2. 301, 425 2. 326, 303 2. 725, 895 3, 273. 805 47, 150, 934 47, 321;. 222 15. 377.1119 17. `1~2 542 15, 565, 711 15,565, 711 10, 092, 438 10, 092, 438 27, 6117, 634 34. 168, 587 29, 300. (iSO 37. 766, 872 3. 573. 204 4. 786. 071 14, 667, 376 I 14. 712. 753 14. 916, 771 14. 9110, 741 32. 407, 534 32. 407, 534 19.651,239 2)), 358, 351 23. 5112, 737 4(1. 591. 146 23, 919, 052 25. 571, 142 3. 291. 805 3.623,242 5.522. 165 7,827.352 985.1102 945. 9112 1.392.51.1 1.75s,896 24. 213. 3s3 24, 244, 233 10,1)27, U'? III. 027, Is? 114, 811. 439 115. 150, 179 46, 144. 1)79 70, 43N 914 4. 14;.. 357 .5 276. 647 35, l2'i, 941) 35. 126, 9411 iT, 527,133 7. 527. 202 1 7. 527, 202 -o. )*a4, sd i'.)?!, 003 3. `I.'T, 437 5. `155, 43'. 21. 514.1177 55, 77c, 515 7. Th2, (47 Ii. `41, 547 7's), 3(s) 4,', 451,1,57 (`N "1. 571 37 s53, (1)1)) SIb?. U'5 :2. `1' I. i 5 2.1)1)4.717 21, s:'. 741' 22, 15. 709. 524 15. 709. 524 11, `:3.3).' 1N)131,221 14, 931, 330 IC, 5)14, 347 1, 400, 944 1, 633,694 5. 717,)'a7 7.715.037 100, 1101) 567, 390 ~ ~ 29, 252, 1)0)1 295, 042 1, 000. 000 Actual 1957 allotments Eetioiated 1964 I allatin~nts Difference, cal (2) to cal (t) (1) (2) (3) $1,053,410,000 .81,200,000,000 1, 027. 906. 650 ~1, 170, 748, 000 $146, 590, 000 142, 841, 310 10,989, 041 1, 404, 991 216, 843 103,334 21, 121 4, 972, 956 10, 740,701 24, 878 547, 907 139, 258 1,705,523 8, 460, 953 8, 466, 192 1,212,871 44, 877 43, 974 707, 092 17,028,409 1,652, 060 331, 437 2,305, 187 366, 383 70, 850 338, 740 13, 251, s35 1. 130, 250 23s, 749 14, 24 1, s3', 551), 14)) 15, 0)15. 291 14. 007. 049 429, 755 8,967, 175 3, 707. 353 1, 573, 017 1)11, 75() 3. 74", 050 PAGENO="0558" 552 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDITCATION AMENDMENTS Mr. ItowE. I think we could give you information, Mr. O'Ilara, State by State. I don't think we could do this in a breakdown by local seliool (1 utrlcts. ~\e could give you State-by-State information. I would point out to von a point that Mr. Estes just passed on to me, that. the. so-called floor provision in the appropriations in fiscal year 1968 assures States of the amount allocated for fiscal year 1967, so that the floor provision would operate in a way to prevent any State's decrease from 1967 to 1968. Chairman PERKINs. Mr. Esch. Mr. ESCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, speaking on behalf of my new colleagues, I echo the sentiment of the challenge of being here and the honor of having you here. Let us stay with title V for a short tinie. First of all, von are asking for approximately $30 million in funds, or that ~29.700,000: is that. right ? You have authorized $50 million for title V. but you are asking for $29,700,000? Mr. HowE. We are asking for $29.7 million for the previously in- being positions in title V and other elements of State administration, und then an additional 15 for this planning exercise. Mr. Escti. The planning exercise and you use the phrase "exercise," the planning exercise would reflect and go to State educational plan- ning agencies. at least, a portion of it. However, what portion would go to the State agencies, what portion would go to metropolitan areas or other agencies? The emphasis in title V seems to be to strengthen State agencies. Is that the concept of title V? Secretary GARDNER. I believe 75 percent of it would go directly to the States and there would be a 25 percent set aside for projects that could go directly to cities or to other instrumentalities concerned with planning. Mr. Escxi. In effect. Mr. Secretary, what you are saying, if I under- stand it. correctly, is that three-fourths of your effort will be toward improving and developing and encouraging State agencies, one-fourth of your effort will he toward discouraging State agencies through direct grants locally and through regional planning? Secretary GARDNER. Well. I don't. believe that any more than I think you believe it, really. The quarter that will not go directly to the States will still he directed at problems with which the States will be deeply conceimed. Our tradition in this country has always been one of having lot of people in the. act, and there are a lot of people in the States who want to be in the act, and we who have a long tradi- tion of being in the act. It would be wrong to assume that 25 percent set aside is in any way to discourage the States. It can be spent in ways which will vastly simplify their task in educational planning. Mr. ESCH. Might we. assume that this proportion reflects the uncer- tainty of your grouP toward which direction we should take, whether it should he strengthening State agencies as opposed t.o direct Fed- eral local relationship or regional planning? Does this separation reflect, as on indicated earlier, you "don't know where we are going to come out"? That we are in a period of transition and von would not like to give any direction at this particular time. Am I assuming that. this is correct? Secretary G~umNER. The situation is that we see objectives which are riot mutually exclusive, need not be considered so. ~We can go both PAGENO="0559" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 553 paths at once without any lack of consistency or logic. We can pro- vide for regional planning effort or metropolitan area planning efforts at the sanie time we are strengthening the States, and it seemed a sen- sible thing to do. Mr. Escu. Mr. Secretary, I assume that you would not want to make any kind of value judgment as to the emphasis that the Federal Gov- ernment should make at this time in terms of to what degree we should strengthen the State government operation? Secretary GARDNER. I have made some judgment on that in saying that our primary emphasis is on strengthening the States and that we have held to ever since we developed title V, and will continue to do so. Mr. ESCH. Might we return to one other area briefly, and that is the question of planning by local districts and State agencies toward Fed- eral appropriations. It has been suggested- Chairman PERKINS. Would the gentleman yield to the gentlelady from Oregon? Mr. ESCH. Yes. Mrs. GREEN. Could I have a clarification on the amount you are ask- ing under title 1/? Are you asking for $29,700,000 under part A? Secretary GARDNER. Under part A. And 15 for part B. Mrs. GREEN. Twenty-five percent of the $29,700,000 would go for the commissioner's grant? Secretary GARDNER. Twenty-five percent of 15. Mrs. GREEN. Twenty-five percent of 15? And how much of the 29? Secretary GARDNER. Fifteen percent. Mrs. GREEN. I'ardon? Mr. HOWE. Fifteen percent of the 29, which has been the regular level of operation for that portion of title V up to now. Mrs. GREEN. Thank you. Mr. ESCH. I have just one more question. It has been suggested, and I assume erroneously, that the real reason we are not working a year ahead in terms of ap~)rOpriation is for the convenience of Con- gress and the Department. I assume the statement is not correct. It has been suggested that we are not working on appropriations for 1969 because it would not be convenient for us to work on it at this time. Secretary GARDNER. You mean working on the renewal of the ESEA? Mr. EscH. Right. Secretary GARDNER. I don't think that is an accurate summary. Mr. HowE. It seems to me on the appropriations side there is a need for some informal and planning conversations between representatives of Congress. The President, in his education message, asked the Sec- retary of Health, Education, and Welf are to initiate such conversa- tions. I assume that this will occur. Right now, we are all on a 1-year cycle on appropriations. Mr. Escii. If we might reflect on that, is it not the inherent problem that these discussions never reach or communicate to local districts and State boards? Perhaps herein lies the problem of planning, rather than inherent, within the State? Mr. HowE. If you are suggesting that. we ask them to take a dif- ferent cycle of planning, I really think that is more difficult to achieve than it. is for us in the Federal Government. PAGENO="0560" Northeast: Connecticut $8,567,812 $8,592,933 Delaware I 2.145,235 2,145,235 District of Coltunhia 5,717,037 5,717,037 Maine 3,573,204 4,786,075 Maryland 14,667,876 14,712,753 Massachusetts 14,916,771 14,960,745 New- Hampshire 1,392,513 1,758,896 New- Jersey 24,213,383 24,284,233 New York , 114,811,439 115,150,179 Pennsylvania 48. 634, 003 48, 634,003 Rhode Idand 3,655,835 3,655,835 Vermont F 1,664,962 2,094,717 Regional total 223,096,340 243,960,070 246,492,641 Alabama 30,644.707 31.013,087 42,002,128 Arkansas 20,645.220 F 20.861.373 26,266,364 Flotida 27, 203. 169 28, 452. 341 33.425,297 Ceocgia 34,745.390 F 35.072,317 45.813,018 Kentucky 27,378,019 27,607,634 34,068,587 Louisiana 24,347.694 29,300.680 37,766,872 Misdenupi 20,991,195 23,562.737 40,591.146 North Carolina 45.560,380 46,184,079 59,438,914 coutli Caroliir 21,308.692 F 21.514,677 35,756,515 Tennessee i 29.535.101 29,786.366 40,451,657 Vi:cinin 20.967. 118 24. 226. 740 33. 103, 924 West Virginia 14.788.530 14.023.368 18.631,221 Regional total F 318.115.215 332.505.408 447.405,643 F 1966 F expenditures $5, 592, 820 1, 474, 821 5, 635, 825 3, 517, 866 9, 550, 906 8, 451, 854 1, 115, 343 22, 433, 297 112, 167, 498 48, 175, 523 F 2, 982, 428 1. 508. 159 1967 allotments 1968 estimated allotments 554 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDFCATION AMENDMENTS Chairman PERKINS. The gentleman from Michigan. Mr. O'HARA. Mr. Secretary, to fnrther pursue the question that I raised earlier regarding how- State-by-State allocations will be under title I. assuming the budget request is the amount of appropriation, I would like a State-by-State breakdown of how you envision it will work out and compare it to the current fiscal year and previous fiscal year. Secondly, in response to that question some reference was made to the fact that the Appropriations Committee in making the appropria- tions for the current fiscal year inserted a limitation to the effect that no State shall receive less than received in the previous fiscal year. Might I inquire how, in your testimony before the Appropria- tions Committee, you intend to act with respect to title I? Will that same limitation be maintained? Secretary (TTARDNLR. With respect to the first part of your comments, we will supply for the record a State-by-State breakdown. With respect to the second part. I would like Nolan Estes to comment. (The breakdown requested follows:) Susosoorq of title I, ESE~4 funds for fiscal years 1966, 1967, and 1968 Midwest: IllinoiR I:uli:or Iowa Ka Sliclng:ui H Slinnesotn Missouri Nirask: Norlti D:lcota nub routi l)nkoi \Viseonsit 41. 587, 584 47.180,934 47, 320.222 14. 572. 330 15. 377, 019 17, 082, 542 15. 445. 609 15, 568, 711 15. 568, 711 9,000, 878 10,092,438 10.002, 438 31. 758. 510 32. 407, 534 32.407,534 18. 198. 578 19. 651. 289 20.358.381 53. MO. 170 23.910. on 25, 571. 142 5.0S3255 5.522.165 7.827,312 3. 147. 555 4. l4o, 397 5,276.647 34. `136. 15' as. 126. 949 35, 126,949 4,460.564 5.482.447 F 6. 041.587 13.277. 503 14. 031. 310 . 16. 504. 347 215. 717. 045 229. 406. 295 239, 177, 852 PAGENO="0561" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 555 Summary of title I, ESEA funds for fiscal years 1966, 1967, and 1968-Continued 1966 1967 1968 expenditures allotments estimated allotments West: Alaska $1529606 $t, ss3, 190 $1,883,190 Arizona 5.057.955 *\971.597 I 8.971.597 (`difonin 9 05 ,) 4310 93 4 a 136 Colorado 7.914,597 5.566,375 8. 669, 709 Hawaii 2,291)571 2.31(1,425 2,326,303 Idaho (4 (1 a 598 3 3505 Montana 3.172.448 3.291.805 3,623.242 Nevada 726.713 985,902 985.902 New Mexico 9,042.929 10.1127. 182 10.027,182 Oklahoma 17,070,840 17.288.784 17,527,533 Oregon 7.263,184 7.527.202 I 7,527,202 Texas 6,260.930 68,886,571 82,893,660 flats 2.996.925 3,1(42,185 3,042,155 W'ashinglon 10,421,297 111.71)9.524 10,709,524 Wyouun~ 1.281.956 1.466,944 I 1.633,694 Regional total 209.989.814 222.034.877 237, 671,864 Outlying areas: I American Samoa 100,000 Guam 536,514 567.390 Puerto Rico 19.166.185 18,814,659 ~ 959 000 Trust Territories 631. 365 726,259 - ` -, Virgin Islands 342. 793 295, 042 Departuient of Interior 5.000,000 Outlying areas 20. 676, s57 25. 503. 350 29,252, 000 Grand total 987,596.171 1.053,410.000 1,200,000,000 Mr. EsTEs. `We would expect to ask for the same provision to pro- tect the States from any decrease over the amount obligated this last year. `We will have in 1968 al)out 15 States that will be on the floor, which is a decrease from 27 this year that come under the floor provision. Mr. O'HARA. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Ford, who has a question in respect to title ITT. Mr. Foni. Mr. Secretary and Commissioner Howe, section 304 of Public Law 89-10 was amended last year to provide a new subsec- tion C in the granting of title ITT applications to a certain category of local school districts, and in the authorization we thought we were considering about $500 million to accommodate this new category of preferences. `We notice that again less thau half of that is being asked for. My concern is this In talking with local school people I find that they have been unable to get from the Office of Education any indication of w'llether you are going to havc guidelinco to help them to detcrmine that tlicv are a~ local educational agen('v making a rcasonable tax effort, that tlicv are, nevertheless, ulsahlc to mcct critical education needs, that they have problems because their schools are seriously over- crowded, and that thcse result from shifts, from rapid growth, or whatever the case might he. In other words, what (10 you consider a reasonable tax effort ? What do von consider critical education needs ? What would you consider ti criterion for ovcrcrowding In other words, there are a number of things that would be taken into consideration, but the school people across the country are not going to be able to prepare applications and see whether they come 75-492-67---36 PAGENO="0562" 556 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDFCATION AMENDMENTS in for this special consideration until you tell them how you define these terms with some guidelines. What. progress is being made toward having those ready so that their applications will be. prepared and filed before the fiscal year funding starts? Secretary GARDNER. I would like to ask Mr. Estes to answer that. Mr. ESTES. As you know, this amendment. becomes effective with the beginning of fiscal year ittisS. We are in the process of revising our guidelines to include all of the amendments that were made to title III within the next 2 or 3 weeks. Local school districts and State educational agencies will be receiving this information concern- ilig special consideration that will be. given projects. Mr. FoPJ). Thank you. Cha union l~rn,cix~. Mr. Eshleman. ~\1r. ESHLEMAN. Mr. Chairman. thank you. Mv first, question is directed to Commissioner Howe. In a reply to Mrs. Green you stated that the U.S. Department of Education is getting closer and closer in alinement with State departments of education. My question to you is: Why the U.S. Department's deal- ing 100 percent through the State departments of educat.ion is evi- dently impossible at this time? Mr. TI~\vE. 1 assume, Mr. Eslileman, this in the context of title III of the Elementary aiiil Secondary E(lucatioll Act. Actually. I think it is not a matter of lack of faith hut a matter of being realistic about the fact that some State departments are in different stages of develop- ment than others: that the opera.tlon of title V of the Elementary 011(1 secondary Education Act will, over a. period of time, help all of them to have the administrative capacity to do things which we would like to see them do. I think that. you would find from us no concern in principle that there 5110111(1 he S. tate department control, if ou will. We brought this matter before our advisory committee and our advisory committee, looking at the situation in St ate departments, suggested to us that this was not the year to bring such a proposal before you. But. I think you will find within that advisory committee t.he same feeling that I just. outlined, a feeling that at some point there ought to be such an adjustment. In the meantime, we are moving with quite a number of States to have them develop comprehensive plans which we accept from them as a basis for making title III awards. This is all arranged on an administrative basis without benefit of legisla- tion. Yet it shows a good faith move on our part to give more and more control to State departments which are interested in accepting responsil)ility. Mr. Es1IEL~[Ax. May I interpret your remarks, and I use your quote, "We are getting closer and closer in alinement with those Stat es"-and I would like to think of my own as one of them-"those S,ta.tes that have good departments of pul)lic. instruction," that you ire dealing 100 PerCent through the State department in those States in title III? Mr. HOWE. We are dealing on every single title III grant with the State department in every State, and must do so by law. WTe are receiving a recommendation from the State before we make any title III grant as to how that State feels about the grant. PAGENO="0563" ELEMENTAEY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 557 Mr. ESHLEMAN. In respect to the other titles Mr. HowE. In respect to the other titles, of course, title I is highly decentralized and is a matter of the State approvin~ the proJects en- tirely. We are not involved in project approval of title I at all. We simply draw up the broad regulations with the State department as its basis for approval and then the State makes individual project approvals. In title II there is a State plan which we approve and then the State makes the decisions about the use of the funds in title II. Title V is, of course, a project-grant arrangement from us to the States to strengthen the State departments. So that what you have in elementary and secondary education is in very large part a vote of confidence in the capacity of the States to do this job, and an actual operation in which the States are taking the prerogative in most cases. Mr. EsIIL1~L~x. Thank you. Chairman PERKINS. Mrs. Mink. Mrs. MINK. Tiank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I would like to associate myself with the remarks made by my col- league. Mr. Ford from Michigan, and join hun in my expression of great disappointment that the Department w-as unable to come up with a budget request that came anywhere near the amounts that we felt were needed for the support of education in the country. I want to address my few minutes that I have to questions relative to title V. I wonder if you could give us the number of educational agencies that did not submit grants under the existing law for pro- grams under title V. Mr. Esii~s. All of the States participated. Not all of the St.ates this year have planning projects, however. Mrs. MINK. In other words, the total amount that was appropriated by the last Congress for title V programs have actually been utilized for programs to strengthen the State departments of education? Mr. Esi~s. Except in a few cases. In one State they used two- thirds of the total amount. Maybe in a half-dozen cases they did not utilize all the amount allocated, mainly because of the lack of per- sonnel. Mrs. Mixic The committee in its wisdom in evaluating the total Public Law 89-10 program felt that title. V was an important provision and we authorized $50 million for the next~ fiscal year's pro- gram. Now taking the new recommendations that we find in t.he bill that has been presented to us and adding the new program which it envisions for ~15 million together with what you ale requesting for the existing programs, this still falls short, does it not, of the $50 million fluthorization? Mr. HowE. By about $5 million. Mrs. Mixi~. Now in recommending your new part Ti, under title V. was it a new poi icy decision of the T)epai'tment that there be a separate State planning agency to move into t]ìe areas of program development as (listinginshed from the current hill, which leaves the matter of pro~iin development all(l evaluation and strengthening of departments with the agencies that a.ctuall hiave~ the responsibility for administering it? Secretary GARDNER. We felt very strongly that t.here should be a ~epaiute section on planning. that this should be. a a specific a.mouiit PAGENO="0564" ,55S ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDTJCATION AMENDMENTS of money to be used for what. appeared to us to be an extremely high priority task if we wished to strengthen these State educational agen- cies. Mrs. MINK. Does not the existing title V already set out the general outlines of what was intended on requiring the State departments, or the State educational agencies to go into the matter of educational planning? Is there not. already sufficient guidelines under t.itje V for such plans to be. promulgated but depending upon the iniative of the. State agencies? Secretary GARDNER. It is possible under present title V. I would say that relatively few States, with the limited funds at their disposal, have gone into planning on a scale that we think would benefit them very much, and that many of them think, too. Mrs. Mixic. Borrowing from your comment regarding limited funds available under title V. would you not say that one of the major reasons the States have not gone into the program planning a.nd de- velopment idea wa.s the lack of funds and would not the full imple- mentation of title. V as envisioned by this committee in the $50 million program enable the State educational agencies to assume this respon- sihilit.y without set.ting aside another agency for t.he specific purposes of planning? Mr. Ilowr. Mrs. Mink. I think your observation is, in part, true. At the same time I think funds for planning when t.hey are placed in competition with funds for administration, no matter what the level of fitndin~t. are very likely to lose out in the touch decision States have to make a (lecision as to whether they are going to do something that demands a service right now, the administrative function of the State versus the longer ran~e payoff that comes with planning. Therefore, it seemed wise to us to try to sequester a portion of these funds for that very important purpose which is likely to get shortchanged. Mrs. MINK. Could you not accomplish the same purpose-and I quite agree with you that planning is an essential component for strengthening the departments-could you not accomplish the same goal by simply apportioning the S50 million fund that we authorized ~inder time existing provision~ of title V arid require that a. certain per- centage of these funds heretofore authorized must he used for planning pmu~ose~. ani ~tii 1 leave tip re~ponsjbilitv in th~ State educational l4renv mud not ~i 11 for tiC development of another agency that has 1.10 mlmu ni~trat~ve respon~ibi1ity in the State? Mr. FIow-r. I think here we are not really calling for the delineation of an acid itional agency. A~ I said in earlier testimony, it is our hope that existing planning agencies and, in fact, the existing responsible l)oard in elementary and secondary education will pick up these func- tions and, use these funds to get critical staff for the special purpose of planning. But I do believe that there is less likelihood of getting that accom- plished unle~s we make it a specialized and identified function as we are suggesting here. Chairman PERKINS. Mr. Steiger. Mr. STFTGER. Mr. Secretary, if I may touch briefly on the Teacher Corps, would von agree that one of the difficulties that. we have in teacher education is that most teacher education students who have PAGENO="0565" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 559 little difficulty in meeting typical university academic standards are not interested in teaching in schools where a high percentage of the children are culturally disadvantaged? Is that an appropriate com- mentary about teacher education programs to date in this country? Secretary GARDNER. I don't know whether we have systematic data on that point. Do you know, Commissioner? Commissioner HOWE. I really doii't, Mr. Secretary. I suspect that because of the motivation that many young people in college have, which the Secretar was speaking of earlier. that the grout) highly motivated toward social service at some time are likely to be superior students. I would guess you would find this true of members of the Peace Corps and similar agencies. I think the selection process that we will go through to get Teacher Corps people will guarantee this. Mr. STE1GER. I wonder whether or not. you have any available data on what kind of waiting lists exist in metropolitan areas, let us say, Chicago, Milwaukee, or any of the other urban areas, that come from the waiting list that. might exist from the transfer of teachers from inner core schools to what we will call a nice residential area? Secretary GARDNER. %Ve dont have any data. on that. We know that it is generally regarded as a privilege to make that move and many of the teachers' associations insist on this as one of the privileges of seniority that a teacher be given the choice. of move and then very frequently exercise it. Mr. STEIGER. I appreciate that. My concern here is really as to whether or not what you are doing in the Teacher Corps is going to be able to attract and maintain and hold in the inner city the dedi- cated teacher. I raised this point with Mr. Graham and Commissioner Howe on Thursday of last week. Are we not working at cross purposes here if we are pursuing excellence b mnakin~ it. a I-year bachelor de- gree as a prerequisite for going into teaching in these areas? What about the kid in school after school in this country who drops out of college because we live liv the God ~rade, \vhlo has the (ledication. who has the interest, but who \vill be foreclosed from pursuing that cle.dicat ion in the Teacher Corps. are in ii ic Pea e C' ~rps but hot in the leacher Corps, because you have set a iciclielois decree or its equivalent.. How do we continue to expand the operations in these types of areas if we put down these kinds of requirements or do you think this is necessary? Secretary GARDNER. It certainly is a very interesting question and a relevant one. Generally, the feeiin~ al)OUt the requirement of an A.B. for entry into even practice teaching is pretty strong, and it would be hard to think of a Government program which assumed that these youngsters needed less-prepared or less-educated teachers than other areas did. I think it is quite possible that there are youngsters at an earlier level who would profit by this and do a good job but I think it would be a hard line to break. Mr. STErnER. Let me touch on title III for just a moment. The underlying philosophy we would gather from title III as it is drafted PAGENO="0566" 560 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS and operated is that the State educational agencies are really not in too good a position to administer the purposes of the title. If that. is the case, then why are they strong enough to administer title I and II of ESSA and NDEA and a whole host of all kinds of other programs? Secretary GARDNER. T~t me break that. question in two parts and answer the part that I can answer. I will ask Commissioner Howe to answer the other part. I do hope that, I wish that we could get away from assuming that anything but. complete. lodging of responsibility in the State is a vote of no confidence in the. State. We have an educational system in which local school districts have had an honored place and an important place and they have some right to be heard when they insist that we not now move to a system in which everything is absolutely centralized in the. State. Commissioner HowE. I have just a brief comment. Taking up from the Secretary's general comment it does not seem to me that. the way title ITT is now set up is a vote of rio confidence in State educational agencies. Their opinions are very much considered: 95 percent of our determinations are in correlation with their determinations about grants. As I said earlier, there are a number of States in which we are moving really to a planning base by the State for title III and we are accepting tha.t. planning. So that. what we really are developing is a cooperative endeavor around the making of grants to local educa- tional agencies with the State and ours involved. As I implied a moment ago. I see down the road the possibility that responsibility ought to shift. I don't know how to shift a time limit on this, that ultimate responsibility ought to shift. *We ha.ve discussed this at some length among ourselves, with chief St.ate school officers, with advisory committees. We have had a num- ber of chief State school officers tell us that now is not. t.he time to make such a shift, that they are not ready to take on these responsibilities. So we are looking at this proposition in very much the same light that. your question implies you are, perhaps coming down with a slightly different judgment. but I don't think there is any difference in principle. Chairman PERKINS. Mr. Scheuer. Mr. Sc.uEryR. Mr. Secretary. I welcome you here today knowing of your conviction and your commitments. Now, it. is because of that knowledge that I join my colleagues in a deep sense of frustration at the coiir~c of the program and the lack of forward thrust, in it. I wish I could join my colleague from Iowa in describing the ediica- t.ional excellence in my district. Unfortunately in about. half of my district the average eighth grader is 3 years and 4 months behind grade' level in reading. With all of the efforts that I have made to bring some kind of re- sources into the district, the net result of the 2 years of our programs ha~ been trivial. I am desperately frii~trated. T feel that while we are creatin~r a pro- gram of comprehensive education planning on the. State and city levels we have not performed that function on the Federal level. I am even more frustrated from the excellent reports we have re- ceived from your agency, three reports from the National Advisory PAGENO="0567" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDtCATION AMENDMENTS 561 Council which were superb, plus the Coleman report on the educa- tionally disadvantaged which confirmed my view we are trying to fight a mass sophisticated all-out 20th-century war against educational dep- rivation with a slingshot and a peashooter. If we take these reports together, the four of them, the message that this is a total war and unless you achieve a total effect you have lost the war before you start, that the w-hole is greater than the sum of the parts. These four reports indicate clearly that if you do not make some changes in the home through a comprehensive parent-child program you have lost the battle. They iiidicate clearly that unless the child has adequate health, adequate nutrition you have lost the battle. They indicate clearly that if the child does not have adequate sup- portive services then, class sizes that are dramatically smaller than they are now with adequate teacher aids supporting the teachers, you have lost the battle. You can't even attract good teachers in the slum schools unless you create the total gestalt for educational excellence. I believe the arguments you have heard this morning and the frustration you have heard are basically on the question of a trivial program to which you add 5 or 10 percent. It is still trivial. In the question you have had over the follow- through program, you are still dealing with a small fraction of the kids who desperately need that followthrough. I would like to know when is the Government going to perform this indispensable function of long-range educational planning and come up with some kind of benchmark, some kind of yardstick, that will tell us the kind of re- sources, the kind of educational change that we are going to have to produce so that we won't be fixing our eyes on how to acid 5 or 10 percent to a program that is so utterly trivial, inconsequential, that we are faced with an exercise in futility and disillusionment, making modest percentage increases on a totally inadequate, program. When are we going to get from you the leadership and long-term program with which this Congress will have to wrestle, about which the American people will have to search their hearts and their souls to come up with the resources necessary? Secretary GARDNER. We certainly have been engaged in the kind of planning that you talk about, and in fact, well, two of the reports you quoted from were reports which we were responsible for. Mr. SCHEUER. All of the re.ports, sir, the three reports, the National Advisory Council on title I plus your report on educationally disad- vantaged, the Coleman report.? Secretary GARDNER. Yes. We will continue this and we will pay attention to what. is in the reports. I hope as much attention as you do. But I think that no matter how good our planning effort, we will always live in a world of some resource constraints and at that point we will have to shift our thinking to something other than, we will have to a.dd something that. is not in the reports and that is how much money we have and how we best distribute it among the various very serious needs facing us on many fronts. Mr. SCHEtTER. I understand your point, and your regret~ that you cannot go the whole hog and that you must engage in these. tradeoffs as you characterize it.. PAGENO="0568" 562 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDFCATION AMENDMENTS I think what we also need is some view of the total program gains so that when we may be able to extricate ourselves from the Vietnam commitment and its heavy burden we can transfer massive resources llit() these educatjonal programs. I am concerned that unless we have some kind of national discourse on the level of resources that should be channeled into the total educa- tion programS and antipoverty programs that at that point in time the public, will be ready for some kind of tax reduction programs or massive highway programs and they will not have gone through what I consider a necessary process of soul searchin.g to come to a national commitment for educational excellence with all that that implies. I think the time is over clue when you should make available to us a. synthesis of your conclusions stemming from these four reports so that the Congress can begin to engage in this agonizing appraisal and so that the American public can too. .Tii~t take the question of manpower. \Ve know we are going to have to have a massive increase in educational manpower. If you have. ~ or ~lO billion extra to inject, in the strea.m of commerce, so to speak, in education today you could not do it because we don't have the manpower. What I am concerned is we are not even thinking about the pro- grams for (levelopin~ manpower both on the professional level and in the aide cate~orv. the teacher aide, the social worker, and the family plaimnig aide. There, has to be a pipeliiie, several years of development of man- i~\~r programs to service us in this period when the resources are available. If we don't start planning now when the funds are avail- able our agencies will not be ready to use them. Chairman PERKINs. Mr. Gurney. Mr. GFRNEY. Let me ask you a question about the planning grant. What i~i'o~s~c~n have you made for flexibility? Yesterday one of the State commissioners of education pointed out that his Sta.te has just i'ecentlv completed a comprehensive educational study and planning for his whole school system. Assuming this is t.he last word perhaps in this sort of field. how are we going to handle that sort of State under this part of the act? Secretary GARDNI:a. First. I think planning is a more or less con- tinuous 1)ro~~ which involves appraisal and reappraisal of objec- tives. I literally don't know of any State that ha.s done the kind of educational planning it ought. to do or might (To and in fact in many cases our basis of data and test knowledge in the educational field is so inadequate that it will take years of development of just. the statis- tical materials that. will permit effective planning. So. I believe that what we are really going to launch the States on is a learning period in which they learn how to do effective planning, they build the data basis for effective planning and it is going to be sometime before one of them can come up and say we have an effective, we have a really comprehensive plan. Mr. G~JRNEY. Of course. I really am at a loss to discuss it too intelli- gently because I (lout know enough about education in that particular State. Yet assuming that they did have the benefit. of the latest meth- ocis in studying planning it. would appear to me that there is a po~si- PAGENO="0569" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 563 bility of duplication in the act, or to put it another way, suppose you have a State that. has completed its study and has come up with a plan, it would occur to me that they would not need the. money half as much as many other States who have not. made any comprehensive study or planning at all I am sure there are such States. Again I wonder if you have provided some flexibility. That. is all I am asking. Not that the idea is good or bad. Have we flexibility? After all you are providing for only $15 million the first year. That is not a great deal of money. My question again is directed to t.he question, how can you get the most use out of it. I would not think you would be getting the most use out. of it. if you put money into a State that. ha(l recently completed a pretty good study and come up with some sort of plaii. As one of the State super- intendents said, what we need right now is not planning money but implementation money to implement, the plan we have got. I think the.re might be some point to that. Secretary GARDNER. I think we have, a more ambitious conception of what. this planning involves than the State superintendent whom you quoted. In my opinion he must. have again had a fairly shallow view of what educational planning amounts to. I do not. know where he could have gotten the information to have an effective plan. The plain truth is we have. enormous aspirations, the American leo- pie have enormous aspirations for so many things, health and educa- tion and housing and all kinds of things that put. heavy burdens on our resources and in many of these fields heavy burdens on our man- power, and if we are going to do the job that needs to be done we can't any longer do it in a helter-skelter way, everybody dashing down the road doing what. comes naturally. We are. going to have to ask ourselves, for example. in the field of higher education, what are the most economical and effective patterns of institutional development in higher education? What is the sensible thing to do if you want. to get the most educa- tion for the youngster out of every dollar you spend? Do you scatter junior colleges around the State? Do you put all your resources into a central campus? How do you spend your money so that. you get the most. out of it.? This is the kind of judgment for which we have laid a basis in many other fields of human endeavor. WTe have not in education. We spend our money fairly blindly, even today. Mr. GURNEY. I~t. me. ask this other question with regard to com- prehensive study and planning. Again I wish I knew what. study they had done so that I could speak l)etter to it. But von did say, Mr. Secretary, that on doubted if they really made the sort of study they should have made. and come up with the sort of plan they should have. I don't know anything about that but let me. ask you this. What makes you think that if a State seriously undertook a study would not be able to get the sort of input in it that you want or to put it another way, where. is expertise going to come from that is not available to them now? This incidentally was the State of Illinois which is one of the wealth- ier and richer States and as I understand it has at least some of the best educational systems in the country. PAGENO="0570" 564 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS Is there a magic here in Washington that is not available to them? I ask that in all seriousness. Secretary GARDNER. There is quite a lot of magic in Illinois if the money were available to bring it to bear on this problem. You have in the universities, the great universities of your State, ample Mr. GURNEY. This is not my State by the way. Secretary GARDNER. Well, I am sorry. That is right. It is Florida. Mr. GURNEY. I wonder if the Secretary could answer that question for the record, not now. Could you put some material in the record for us? Secretary GARDNER. Yes, sir: I will answer it for the record. (The document referred to follows:) STATEMENT ON THE NEED FOR STAFF RESOURCES FOR EDUCATIONAL PLANNING IN STATE DEPARTMENTS OF EDUCATION A review of the professional staff resources of State education agencies shows that relatively little attention is being given to educational planning. There is a iraitical explanation for this: operational responsibilities of State agencies have increased tremendously in recent years, and these responsibilities have inevitably taken precedence over planning needs. While large infusions of Federal grants have forced State agencies to use all their available resources to carry out funded programs. para(loxi('ally these very infusions have made planning all the more important and necessary. Moreover. State agencies have been caught in a period of gargantuan expansion of educational horizons, and this also has made planning a vital matter. If planning is to result in more effective educational programs and to help develop new directions for the schools of the future, State agencies must have a highly professional stnff whose expertise covers a wide spectrum of concerns. The fact of the matter is that the composite of resources needed to conduct comprehensive planning is not available in State education agencies. The funds anticipated with the proposed amendment to title V, ESEA would encourage States to hire the people who can give this much neglected function of planning the attention it should have. It is true that State education agencies with the existing authority of title V could devote some of their funds to planning. and the record indicates that they have done so. However, not nearly enough is being done, and the objective of the amendnient is to encourage the States to do more. Without the amend- ment, the States will 1)rohlbly continue to emphasize staff needs in operational areas and planning will continue to be ignored. Mr. GURNEY. Thank you. Chairman PERKINS. Mr. Meeds. Mr. MEED5. Mr. Secretary, I would like to welcome you here and also compliment you on the testimony particularly that dealing with the Teacher Corps in which you state the purpose of the Teacher Corps is to draw out the idealism of younger people. I think we need a lot more of this approach. I hope it is successful. Second, I also complinient you on the idea of part B of title V, which is to channel educational planning through the State. I think there is no question but that our statement that States do not react is because they have not been able to l)lan, particularly on a comprehensive basis. Now after having said those things, I must say that I have to join my colleagues, particularly Mr. Ford and Mrs. Mink, in expressing concern that the request of the Office of Education this year does not seem to me to reflect the forward thrust that the Department had last year and particularly 2 years ago. I point particularly a~ain now to title V in which as I recall the rec- ornmendntion of the Department or the Office of Education was $50 PAGENO="0571" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 565 million for fiscal 1968 and which we wrote into the bill. Now if I understand correctly you are asking at this particular time for $44.75 million; is that right? Secretary GARDNER. Yes. Mr. MEEDS. Yet you are asking that a portion of this, exactly $15 million, be apportioned to the planning function or the comprehensive planning. Am I correct in this? Secretary GARDNER. Yes. Mr. MEEDS. Would it not make as much sense to in effect incorporate the purposes of section B into title V that now exists and earmark a portion of that money for the planning function? We get away from the problem that has been expressed all along this row and that row with regard to who is going to do this planning function in the State. Also, we get away from the problem of writ- ing in a new agency situation. Would your office have any great objection if this were done by the committee? Is this something you feel very strongly about? Secretary GARDNER. I would like to ask the Commissioner to com- ment on that. Mr. hOWE. I can't comment in detail. I would want to examine the actual language that addresses itself to planning and refresh my mem- ory on it. before giving you a positive or negative answer about it. We did examine it carefully of course when we came up with this suggestion. The important objective to achieve here is one of getting a definite amount of money into the planning function on a truly comprehensive and long-range basis in such fashion that this plan- fling activity continues year in and year out, has a specialized staff, is protected from invasion by administrative activities so that the State can o~uarantee itself the benefit of such a function over the years. As the ~ecretary said earlier, there is no quick and easy way to get at this problem of forward planning. It will be a kind of kinder- garten operation in the. beginning and is going to have to build by building a base of information which will then be used in subsequent years. But we would be happy to take your suggestion and take another look at this possibility. Mr. MEEDS. As much as I hate to do so I am afraid I will have to disagree with the earlier statement of the Commissioner that there would be more continuity in this planning function if it were delegated to the Governor of the State. It. is my feeling it would be the opposite. There would be more continuity if this planning function were delegated to the State agency, the superintendent of schools or the chief State school officer. Mr. HOWE. I would like to call your attention to two points: One, there is a variety of arrangements in the several States for which allow- ance must be made and beginning with the backing resources of Fed- eral planning: second, higher education involves a complex element in the planning of the State-chiefly the State school officers and the board of education of the State have not had, been re-ponsible. for higher edu- cation although that is not universally true. In New York State you have a board of regents that is across the. whole picture of education. :So, you have a mixed picture for which allowance must be made. PAGENO="0572" 566 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDLCATION AMENDMENTS Mr. MEEDS. I am certain this would be a portion of your reservation to my original question: in other words, what kind of arrangements were made for this comprehensive planning and was, for instance, higher education included and, if so, how? Incorporating the entire intent and perhaps language of section B it seems to me we can work out this problem and get the thrust and planning which I am sure we agree is needed and which the chief State school officers yesterday agreed we needed. Mr. llowr. I think the problem would come down to whether or not we, iiv regulatirn 011(1 guidelines, could require that the planning func- tiolls he (~arrie(l tlinwgh under existing legislation or whether we really ought t( lr~ve (1 )ng1es~ional authorization to make this kind of require- ment. It was our earlier determination that it was wise to get congressional authori zat on to make this kind of requirement. Mr. Mrims. I agree with you there. Chairman PrEKINs. Mr. Burton. Mr. BFRTON. Commissioner, have you requested this in this year's budget, the funds to implement the AFDC policy? Mr. J-Tcwr. In the 1i)(~ l)udl~et Mr. BrnTox. Yes. Mr. 1hav~. We have. t1~rnu~'h the appropriations process. we havb re([lle5te~l funds suthcent to implement it so that no State will receive less than it reeived in 1ih~'. Mr. BFI1TOX. That is not really responsive. If we had no AFDC iiolic~' at all von could make that statement, could you not? As I understood, we constructed this supplemental method of de- terminin~ the needs of the State because the income formula just. was not relevant to the high-income States that find themselves with a high incidence of welfare families. Mi'. TI avr. T~ ~FD(' polO will have the general effect. I believe. of in'ovhiin~ ~i'tieulir help to larger (aPes and that effect is already operatin~r in the clirent year and will continue, to operate in fiscal 1 t)GS under the funds we have appropriated. Chairman PERKINS. If von-if the gentleman will yield to me at this point, if I understand correctly, and I tried to listen to the testi- mony the best I could this morning, if your request before the Bureau of the Budget ~ sufficient to see that no State rece.ived less funding than it received last year. that simply means that the formula adopted in the 1t)I~ legislation which cover the States with the least resources up to the national average would not go into effect, am I correct, under the funding presently included in the amount by the Bureau of the Budget? i\Ir. lion-v. T think only partially colTect. May I ask Mr. Estes to comment on this? Mr. ESTES. You are correct: it will not go into complete or full effect. However, in some States it means they would receive a 30- percent increase because of the change from the State average to the national. Chairman Pvrn~jxs. Do von have authority of that nature. to so interpret the legislation in that r~snect ? That is the question in my mind beca use iii at is defying the members on this committee in writ- PAGENO="0573" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDFCATION AMENDMENTS 567 ing legislation. In other words, you woul(l really never know the true intent of legislation that. would I )e. enacted if it were enacted- interpreted or construed b tile Office of Educatioii or any other de- partment in the manner that the 1)~esei1t legislation as 1 understand is being construed. I may be all wrong but I sat here this morning trying to listen to the testimony the best I could. Mr. 11uwi~. Mr. Perkins, I think the aPl)ropriations pro~ss being a separate one really traps you and us in the point von raised here because whatever the appropriation we have to find some logica.l way to fit it into the formula which the. authorization has created and that is wha.t we have endeavored to do with the appropriations t.ha.t we have. We may not fully meet your intentions but this comes back again to the fact that the appropriations process is a separate one, a matter on which you should be instructing me, not I you. Chairman PERKINS. I hardly see any way you could fund except to follow the law in the distribution of funds. That. is the puzzling point to me. Were we not to include this floor provision for no loss of funds by a State from 1967 to 1968, t.here would, I believe, be a few States that would suffer considerably. iMir. Esi~s. That is correct. But you do raise a good point.. It is appropriate to include tile floor provisions. Mr. BURTON. Mr. Chairman. Chairman PERKINS. Mr. Burton. Mr. BURTON. When we act on this legislation as a whole. it reflects a balancing out as best we are able to determine of where we think our resources should go. When von ignore portions of the clear inten- tion of ours you then thoroughly distort and totally frustrate our will. We may not be especially gifted in terms of judgment but. it is our will for better or for worse. Now the large cities were. under the impression that. they would be able to obtain additional support. finan- cially and the fact of the matter is it was, as one of my colleagues stated with reference to this whole matter, an exercise in futility. A lot of us spent a good deal of time and effort on this provision and found out we may as well not have embodied it at all. I am really dumfounded that our view in this particular ha.s been to all intents and purposes completely ignored. Commissioner HOWE. I think we have to agree with you that there is a problem of funding in terms of your expectations. Mr. BURTON. To make it worse the Appropriations Subcommittee dos not. even have the benefit of deciding if they want to reject your request for the funding of these various policies because the issue is not even raised wit.h them. Your request.s are such-so much lower than that which was authorized and also not. reflecting these new policy considerations that they have not turned you down, you have not given them a.n opportunity to turn you (Town fln1ch less adopt what we have recommended as the policy couimittee. I find that very difficult. to understand or justify. Chairman PERKINS. Mrs. Green. Mrs. GREEN. What is the intent of the chairman? Chairman PERKINS. it is my plan to recess until approximately a quarter of or 2 o'clock. I thought if you wanted to ask some ques- PAGENO="0574" 568 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS tions we would run 15 or 20 minutes and then come back at quarter after 2. Would that meet with your convenience, Mr. Secretary, a quarter after 2 this afternoon? Secretary GARDNER. To reconvene at quarter after 2? Chairman PERKIXS. Yes, sir. Secretary GARDNER. Yes, sir. I am at your convenience. Mrs. GREEN. I have a couple of questions then if I may then I will. wait until this afternoon. In the implementation of policy and long- range plans von utilize consultants, do you not? Secretary GARDNER. We have many advisory committees. Some- times there is more than one formulating policy with respect to the same question but we listen very seriously to these. I would like the Commissioner to comment. Mrs. GREEN. I wanted to lead up to this. With a. very large part of the budget committed to your elementary and secondary edu- cation and with elementary and secondary education very important, and I think I am correct on this, that of all of the entire panels of consultants only 18 positions or 9 percent are held by individuals iden- tified as representing elementary and secondary levels of education, and of the 18 six are affiliated with schools for the deaf and blind, three are concerned with education of the handicapped at the State department educational leveL there. is one chief State school officer,. one board of education member and five members of an educational agency. Then in terms of just. taking tiie Bureau of Research that has a total of 822 field readers and they define readers as experts a little bit differently. By occupation or affiliation we find that only 41 readers are iden- tified as representing elementary and secondary level of education.. Now also the traditional jealousy or rivalry or dissatisfaction with each other in higher education between elementary and secondary and. competition in the educational community. Do you think that this kind of representation of people identified with the elementary and secondary level gives you the right balance in making 1udgment either in implementation of programs or long- range planning if you consider them important ? Secretary GARDNER. I am less concerned about the research con- sultants and because they do tend to cluster in the universities and around the universities even though they may have very deep identi- fication with elementary and secondary education. But. your first Point is one I think we must look into very seriously. T would 1e grateful if we could have those figures and reexamine our rern' )resentat ion of elementary and secondary education. Mis. Gnrrx. \Vhien people are applying for grants or whatever it i~ li a. person who has l)een identified with elementary and secondary education why firing in an entirely different kind of understanding to the ap1)licOtiOfl that is made? T would think this would he almost as important. as consultant in of interpreting. Secretary GARDNER. The people who can judge research the best. are usually researchers. People of deep practical experience may have PAGENO="0575" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDTJCATION AMENDMENTS 569 their own insights into the problems involved but they do not have a very good record of being effective critics and judges of research programs. Many of the people in the universities who are doing this kind of judging and are in research, have again had a period of their careers in the elementary and secondary schools. Mrs. GREEN. Let. me turn to one other item. Whether this deserves more interest by this committee, Mr. Secretary, I am not prepared to say, but the recommendation in regard to the draft and I refer to that part of it which has t.o do with deferment of college students. W~e have a budget of a. little over ~3 million, I believe, for education. The Department of Defense has a budget of $~,3G1 million. Have your Department and your planners and programers, and so on, given considerat ion to the educational impact that. these recommendations might have-and I am specifically concerned and, I must say, that I do not always agree with the 1)epartment of Education, HEW, but I have more love for the Office. of Education and HEW than I have for the Pentagon, but if we do not. defer college students have we given any consideration to what role the Department of Defense may play in education now? %\Y~11 it increase their role a.nd the number of stude.nts whom they will then be sending to college themselves or they will be sending for advanced education in a specific area'? Secretary G,~i~n~cER. There are a good many questions there which remain to he stud ieci that they ought to have. Mrs. GREEN. Have you ever been consulted? Secretary GAInNEII. Yes. In fact, the. Assistant Secretary for Pro- gram Coordination, WTiIliam Gorliam, came to us from the manpower section of the Pentagon and, in fact, did oiie of these studies of the draft. that just caine out about a year ago and was the occasion for appointing this--i am sorry, it. was not the occasion but it was one of the st.eps in this process that led to t.he present recommendations. We have been consulted. WTe. thought a good deal about it. I don't, think we have explored all the issues nearly as fully as we might. Mrs. GREEN. Would this committee be able to have the benefit. of that thinking and study before we are called upon to vote. on the recommendations? Secretary GAIWNER. I think the best thing would be for us to try to prepare some material for you, Mrs. Green, and show you what we do have in the way of thinking on this and what issues still scent opeii to us. Would that be appropriate? Mrs. GREEN. Personally. I would like to have it. I would make tlic suggestion if I understand the chairman's plans we will start on tlw higher e(lucat ion bill immediately after the Easter recess. Chairman Pnn~ixs. That is right. Mrs. GrEEN. Depending on when the Armed Services Coninmittec makes their recommendations, if it is prior to that time it seems tO me the full committee might want to study the educational implica- tions of that provision. Another reflection I would make and lust make it in terms of thinking, I hope that some. day we w-ill have thio Secretary return to have one session on guidelines. It. does not seem tc me we can approve legislation thiS year without at. least looking into hat. and takin2 a Stall(l one way or the other. PAGENO="0576" 570 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS Chairman Priu~rxs. I insisted with the chief State school officers that they come up with more suggestions. I want to say to Mrs. Green tlia the Com;ni~sioner will collie back at another date when we will have additional questions to ask the Commissioner. Commis~ioner iHowr. Mr. Chairnian, if I could say just a word on Mrs. Green's remark about the changes in the draft. We have a number of programs in the Office of Education which will certainly be affected by major changes in the draft law, among them the various student aid program for loans and grants and work study. We would want to take a look at these in the light of the suggestions of the possible undergraduate deferments and see what the effect would be. It is even possible that our projections related to higher education facilities might be affected in the short run, not certainly in the long run, perhaps not in the long i'un-by the deferment policies so that. when the conversation von suggest takes place I hope that we can have some harder information than we have now about the possible effects on those programs and the need for future funding planning for those programs related to this deferment. It seems to me that the President has given us an opportunity to look at this deferment question in the context of the effects it will have by suggesting that there be an open discussion of this rather than an immediate decision. Chairman PERKINS. I will cooperate with the gentlelady. The committee will recess until 2 :15. (W~hereupon, at 12 :30 p.m.. the committee recessed to reconvene at ~:l5 p.m.) AI~rrRNoON SESSION Chairman PERKINS. The commitee will come to order. Mrs. Green? Mrs. GREEN. If I may go back to the title V~ and to its specific purport. on page 26. where you spell out that this is under the com- prehensive planning grants, do on spell out what the statewide pro- gram is to do? Is this a part of what has been referred to as the PPBS system? Secretary GARDNER. \Ve have assumed that in the process of de- veloping a modern planning system. they would attempt a good many of the things that we are attempting under PPBS, and this is a helpful and useful way to go about some of these things. Mrs. GREEN. Is this mandatory Secretary GARDNER. That that system as such be set up? No. Mrs. GREEN. \Vill there be an effort made to persuade States that they should come in under this ? Will there be any cai'rot on a string? Secretary GARDNER. No: not that I know of. Commissioner, would von comment ? Mr. HOWE. I would think not. Really, Mrs. Green, there probably, and I have to introduce this by saying I am not an expert in these mat- ters at all. hut there are certainly a number of ways to attack the prob- 1cm of comprehensive planning, and we would want. a State to demon- strate that its efforts were to he analytical in nature. and to constitute a genuine look ahead in all phases of education, but not try at all to incorporate the activities of the state into some system that we had going in the Federal Government. PAGENO="0577" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDICATION AMENDMENTS 571 Mrs. GREEN. I understood you to say you thought this would be desirable, perhaps, if they would do it on a vohintary basis. Secretary GARDNER. I distinguished between the kind of efforts that we are engaged in and the system itself. The progra11iin~. ~1anning, budgeting system is something that anybody can do, anybody can try, and in their own way. If the people would do it in different ways, different States might do it in different ways, collie at it with different categories, and different measures and dillerent ways of analyzing the data, and I would find it hard to believe that most of them would not at some time want to try some kind of things that would be rather similar to what we have called the programing planning budget- ing system, but there would be no pressure at all for them to adopt the categories we are using, and the system that we happen to be using in HEW. Mrs. GREEN. That originated, as I recall, in the Department of Defense? Secretary GARDNER. It was fairly highly developed in the Depart- ment of Defense, although it has come up as a part of modern man- agement in industry and other areas. It got its greater public atten- tion in Defense. Mrs. GREEN. Do you think you have had enough experience with it in HEW to make a judgment that this is the way that school systems should go, when you are dealing with children, human beings, rather than hardware? Secretary GARDNER. I believe, and I have expressed this belief a good many times in the Department., that it is difficult to use this sys- tem in the educational area. Interestingly enough, it happens to be easier in the health area, because in the health area, you have some pretty clear outcomes, such as death, or illness-countable outcomes, that you can use in your analysis. It is very much harder to appraise the outcomes of education. What you do in a fellowship year for someone may not show up until years later, in the total pattern of his development, and it. is not easy. But the kind of approach, the systematic approach, the willingness to be analytical about what you hope to do, to he clear about your goals, is also useful in education, and even more difficult, I think that sooner or later, most large-scale systems will be using parts of this approach, just because it is useful. Mrs. GREEN. Let me go back to the strengtlieiim~ of the State de- partments of education. One, I am not absolutely sure that I under- stand what you are asking for in the way of appropriations. You are cutting the $50 million down to S29 million, and asking for an appropriation for fiscal year 1968. and of that. 15 percent of these funds will be at the discretion of the Commissioner. Secretary GARDNER. That is correct. Mrs. GREEN. Which would be about four and a half million dollars. And then you would ask for an additional SIS million, and you are asking for 25 percent of that. Secretary GARDNER. That is correct. Mrs. GREEN. Which would he Chairman PERKINS. If the gentlelacly will yield to me., I think I am correct in assuming that the 15 percent. expenditure. I mean the re- 75-492----67-37 PAGENO="0578" 572 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS maining 15 percent to be expended in discretion of the Commissioner, hasn't that been in the bill since we enacted it in 1965? That is my recollection, is the reason I raise that question. Mr. HowE. That is correct, sir. Could I clarify one matter in connection with these authorizations, Mrs. Green? Chairman PERKINS. Yes. Mrs. GREEN. Yes. Mr. HOWE. The authorization for title V is $50 million. The $15 mi]lion we are suggesting is over, would add to that authorization, and make the total authorization for title B $65 million, so that this morn- ing, as we were discussing this, we made an error in suggesting that the ~15 million was within the $50 million authorization. Mrs. GREEN. No: I think I understood that. Well, then, you are asking for the Commissioner of Education to have about $8.2 or SS.25 million, to be used at his discretion for plan- ning and programing. Mr. HowE. Well, it would be 25 percent of the- Secretary GARDNER. Yes. About $4 million out of the $15, and about. S4 million out of the $29 million. Mrs. GREEN. Then in effect you have asked for more. millions for the Office of Education, and you have reduced the States by a decided amount. Mr. HowE. I don't see how you would conclude that. We are build- ing up the amounts for the States. and for the Office both. The amount that the Office would have would go up by this percentage, but the 75 percent that goes to the States under this new proposal would add to the amounts that the State woul(l be using. Mrs. GREEN. Yes, but last year, you came to us and you asked for an authorization of $50 million. And of that, 75 percent. was to stay with the States. This year, you come. up and you want. an appropriation of only S29-pomt-something million, less than $30 million. Mr. howE. Well, you are comparing an authorization with an ap- I)ropriation. I guess. in your earlier observation. Mrs. GREEN. Well, you asked us last year for an authorization of that, and now von are coming back and asking really for an appro- priat ion or an authorization of less. Isn't. that right? Mr. ESTES. No. Mrs. Green, the authorization for 1967 is $30 mu- Uoi~, of which we have p22.5 million. i\Irs. GREEN. I am talking about fiscal year 1968. Mr. ESTES. Yes: now in 1968 the authorization is $50 million. Mrs. GREEN. Right. Mr. ESTES. And we are requesting slightly in excess of $29 million, under part A of title V. Mrs. GREEN. Right. Anyway you add anti subtract, it. would seem to me that von are asking more for the Office of Education to use in a free way and less for the States. Mr. Es'rrs. No. what we are asking in part B would allocate ~l I 250.000 to the States, reserving $3,750,000 to be used for interstate projects and other kinds of activities at. the discretion of the Corn- nus~ioner. PAGENO="0579" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDt~CATION AMENDMENTS 573 Mrs. GREEN. Well, that is still, compared to the $50 million, the States are not going to get anywhere near what you asked for last year. The~- are going to get 75 percent of $29 million, plus part of the $15 million. Approximately; $11 something of the $15 iiiillion. Isn't that right ? Mr. ESTES. In terms of the authorization, you are correct. Mrs. GREEN. Well, you asked for what levels of authorization last year? Mr. HOWE. We didn't ask for the $50 million authorization last year. We asked for such sums as would be necessary, and I believe the comrnittee-isn't~ that correct-put in the $50 million authorization, and I think our authorization, our only authorization request was for the current year, which was in the realm of $22 million, so that we did not~ request the $50 million amount, but it does seem to me, Mrs. Green, that we ought to compare appropriations, rather thami authorizations with appropriations, in making the kind of comparison you are sug- gesting. Mrs. GREEN. Well, I think we ought to make the comparison to what you asked for, what your ideas were as of last year, and what they are this year? and why the change in direction ? It seems to me that I see in this not any great desire to strengthen the State de- partments of education when you let contracts to private agencies, or to profitmaking agencies. Is that~ on a negotiated-contract basis ? Mr. HOWE. I believe that in most~ cases, in which we would make contracts with a private profitmaking agency, we would have a nego- tiated basis. Let me ask Nolan whether we would have to have a com- petitive bid in some of these situations; do you know ? Mr. Esi~s. W~e would have to have a competitive bid, if more than one agency could provide this type of service. Mrs. GREEN. Whiere does the Office of Econoiiiic Opportunity fit in? Secretary GARDNER. That is beyond our jurisdiction. Mrs. GREEN. Beyond ours, too, apparently. Let me turn now to some specific language that you have. In sec- tion 524, you make contracts with puml)lic. or l)1i\~Ite 11011 1)1oht agencies, this is on your planning. And then on page 39, this is the p~~t I referred to tins morning, but I didn't have time to follow through. You give to the States part of the money, and then you contract out with 1)11 vote ~1ue1nies amid orga- nizations ? Mr. HOWE. This is simply an authorization to make coiitracts with private agencies for research activity in connection with the handi- capped, with the education of the handicapped. There are, of course, a great many private agencies which develop materials or apparatus of use in the education of the handicapped, and this is directed toward (levelopmeflt enterprises, in connection- Mrs. GREEN. For demonstration projects, too, as well as research? Mr. HowE. For research or demonstration projects. Mrs. GREEN. And then you do the same. nn(ler vocational education on section 201. lVhen on add these three up. and tlii~ is just within this one~ hill-and if I took other hills. I would find t he 51l11I(~ t hiiin~. PAGENO="0580" 574 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS What does this do to strengthen the State departments of educatIon, when you consistently make arrangements so that you can bypass them? Mr. HOWE. Well, this certainly isn't thought of by us as an effort to bypass State departments of education, but rather as an effort to bring into the development of materials or curriculum or the service of the schools agencies which do have specific bodies of knowledge or experience that they should be making available to the schools. The schools have been served for many years by profitmaking or- ganizations. Most commonly known are textbook companies, but now we have a wide variety of business enterprises, which are developing some very valuable teaching and learning materials for the schools, and development activities Lv these organizations, when carefully re- ferred by educators. it seems to me, can help the processes of education. This kind of help would serve the States as much as the individual school systems in the States, probably lead to greater efficiency in edu- cation of the handicapped or any other specific group for whom the enterprise was carried out. And this is the broad position taken here in relation to education of the handicapped, vocational education, or in authorization of planning activities that the Commissioner might conduct under that 25 percent setaside. Mrs. G1u~EN. If we cut down the 25 percent, wouldn't the State Departments do just as well as the Office in Washington? Secretary GARI)xEn. I think we have to face the fact that there are a number of things which will be of great benefit to the States, which don't need to be done in 50 States. They just need to be done once, or twice, or three times. You don't need 50 physics curriculums. You need two or three or four, so that people can choose. You don't need 50 different. versions of remedial reading programs. You need a few people working on these things. Much the same thing is true of various parts of educational plan- ning. Some of the studies that we are going to need to do on the consequences of educational effort of various kinds could be done once or twice or three times for the entire country by a well-staffed research unit, and in effect, a report such as the Coleman re.port is of interest to the whole country. Mrs. Gnrrx. I would 1)e in complete agreement with that, but aren't the States well aware of that.? And aren't they operating on that basis at the present, time? We have a Western State compact for Higher Education, we have Terry Sanford's group now. I think tha.t I could compile reports thet would document the fact that. the Federal Government has duplicated programs in the research projects in more places than the States have, if it were left to them. There is untold evidence that this is the procedure that has been fol- lowecl by the Federal Government. Mr. HOWE. Could I say. Mrs. Green, that some of the exact same enterprises that you have been naming are the enterprises we would like to contribute to. through the 25 percent. set-aside, an organization like the Southern Regional Education Board, an organization like the compact. among the States. the one of Terry Sanford's you referred to. PAGENO="0581" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDTJCATION AMENDMENTS 575 These kinds of agencies would be eligible for planning activities under that. 25 peiceiit set-aside, and it is those that we would support in part. Mrs. GREEN. Isn't. it true that these States enter into these compacts, without funds coming from your Office They could use their State funds for this. Mr. HOWE. Absolutely, and they do. For instance, the Southern Regional Education Board is funded by an equal contribution from 17 States, as I recall, that. cliii) iii to make. that a viable enterprise. The States are not in a position to do heavy funding of planning exercises, or at least don't seem to have been, because they have cer- tainly been slow to mount major long-range planning efforts for the e]ementary-secondary schools, and many of them have done very little at the level of higher education. Secretary GARDNER. Mr. Estes wanted to comment. Mr. ESTES. Mrs. Green. I think a good example of what you are ta1kin~ about is the Appalachian Commission. We have been work- img with them for the past 8 to 12 months, attempting to get their established Education Committee funded and in operation. It repre- sents 11 States. We did not find any one of the chief State school officers in the 11 States that was willing to reduce his allocation under 503 to partially fund the organization, which would run about $200,000 or $300,000 a year. We attempted to fund this interstate group, using title III funds. However, we found that was very cumbersome, because a local school district, that is the only eligible applicant under title III, would have had to agree in each of the 11 States to submit companion proposals. These, in turn, would have gone through our rigorous review proc- ess, making it very cumbersome. The representatives from these States are supporting this kind of authority that would make it pos- sible for them mutually to come together and in an 11-State compact to do some overall long-range planning for the 11-State area. Mrs. GREEN. Mr. Secretary, did you have a chance to look at the regional education labs? Would you want to discuss that. today, or do you want to discuss that at a future time? Secretary GARDNER. I would be glad to discuss it, particularly with Harold Howe here. We have been through this reexamination of the labs together, and he has been particularly close to it. I think it would be useful to do it now. Mrs. Gnrrx. Well, the reason I bring it up, I think this seems to be a trend to weaken State. departments of educa~ ion. If there are good reasons for doing this, then I think the committee ought to know, and at least. know the direction in which we. are going. In addition to the parts here in this legislation, as I understand it, there are 10 II. & D. labs, across the country. L it nine or 10? Mr. HOWE. Eleven, Mrs. Green. And four more in the process of being developed. Mrs. GREEN. And then on the regional ediicatini~ laiw. there are 20? Mr. HOWE. Yes. Mrs. GREEN. And then in each State, there ale supplementary centers? PAGENO="0582" 576 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS Mr. I-lowE. So-called supplementary centers which are funded un- der tithe Ill of the Llenient arv and ~e(ondarv Education Act. Mrs. GREEN. Now, none of the 11 IlL & D. 1~bs are iii any way connected with the State department of education. They are funded by the Federal Goveniiiieiit. Is. that right Mr. HOWE. Well, they are located at major universities, and they are really agencies of those. universities for research on or development on special education problems. Mrs. GREEN. Right. And now the 20 regional education labs, which are primarily for the purpose of development and implementing the research, rather t.han research itself, they have nothing to do with the State del)artlnents of education ? Is that right.? Mr. HOWE. Not in the official sense. but in a very important informal sense, they will have a great deal to do with it. Most of t]ienl will have members on their 1)oards of directors who are eit~ier ~t~ite school othi(ers, 01 nienibers of State hoards of educa- tion, or employees of thìe state department of education. The States have been (leeplv involved in the. planning of the development of these regional education laboratories, State officials have been directly iiivol ve(i. There is a. direct connection to the public school systems of the States concerned, through the laboratories, and this is why the State officials have been involved in their planning. so that although the grants of funding to the private nonprofit agency is the regional edu- cotion laboratory, the use of those funds has a direct policy feed-in from State (filcials. Mrs. Gnvr~. I)o von ihiiik it is fair to say there could be a debate on whether or not that is a pitper 1)1011, or whether it. is one. that is ~ictuoliv (arlied out ? T ieallv would have to say that it reminds me of the original juvenile delin(1uency and comnulnity action. Ihiat if we have this great consensus, if we have everybody as a member of the board, then evelvbo(lv is going to be for it, and nobody is going to criticize it. Is that at least debatable? Secretary GARDNER. I think t.hat you have to see the regional labs and this whole subject in the perspective of time, and where the field was before we got into this. Educational research was the property of the universities. They are the ones who did it. They were solely concerned with it, and very little went on outside of the universities or university-affiliated institutions. In the regional labs, for the first. time, and very deliberately, and with- Mrs. GREEN. Is this the regional education lab or the research lab? Secretary GARDNER. The regional education lab. The ones of which there are about 20- Mrs. GREEN. The 20. Secretary GARDNER. Yes. Very deliberately, and after great discus- sion, discussion and examination of the merits of this, we concluded that. we had to move educational research out into the community, into the schools, and relate it to t.he State. PAGENO="0583" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 577 And there was a deliberate and serious effort there to deal the State and the community in on a field with which they had had relatively little to do before that time. So that although the sit.uation is not one of participation and so on, at the moment, it is a good deal better than what existed before, and we feel pretty good about the trend of events. Mrs. GREEN. Would you be specific on what you think the regional education labs are to do What (10 you see them doing? What do you see them doing in the northwest area, for example? Secretary GARDNER. Well, we have been through such a long and thorough discussion of that, and Harold Howe has sat in on the com- mittee review of it, the Advisory Committee on the Regional Educa- tion Labs that. has just gone over this whole thing, and I would like him to tell you their views as well as his own. Mr. JIOWE. Mrs. Green, first of all, each of these laboratories ad- dresses itself to some broad problem area of education, and it defines ±or itself its mission. We give approval to that mission when we be- gin to give plaiiiiing grants to the lahorator. }or exaiiiple, one of the laboratories in the Southwest is particularly concerned with the bilingual problems that come with the Mexican-American children, or Spanish-speaking children. The laboratory in Los Angeles is particularly concerned with the development of new ways of teaching reading and with getting this teaching of reading by new and more efficient methods adopted iii the schools. There are other misSions for other laboratories. The one in New York City, obviously, has a mission of being concerned with problems of education of disadvantaged children in a very broad way. Now each laboratory has a major purpose of either developing re- search or taking advantage of already-developed research activity, and getting the results of that research, be it on curriculum or teach- ing methods, or some combination of these things, or use of new ap- paratus in the schools, getting that. activity demonstrated well, and used in the schools, in a way to brin~ about, not just iii the region where it is, but perhaps across the country, major changes in educa- tion and changes which have been proved to be workable. This is the main push of these organizations, to act as the bridge between the development of new ide.as in education and the actual use of these ideas on an effective basis in the schools. Is this helpful as an analysis of their mission? Mrs. GREEN. It fits in with what we were told as we held hearings across the country. My question to them, and to von is: `\Vliat, among all of these things, could not. a State. department of education do ? \Vli (0111(1 not a State department of education in (~alifornia do something as far as the two languages are eomlcelne(l, or as far as reading or as far as working with the disadvantaged What is there in a regional education lab that a State department of education can't do, if we charged them with that responsibility, and if we gave them the funds instead of the regional education lab? Mr. HowE. I think that-I doubt that we ca.n make an argument that a State department of education couldn't do it. Because, prop- PAGENO="0584" 57S ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS erly stimulated and led, and with enough funds, the State department of education can do a great many things; but I think we can make an argument that a State department of education, with its many operational responsibilities, is unlikely to be able to move quickly on problems of bringing about change when it is bogged down in prob- lems of contending with the present. It has problems related to increasing numbers of children, to build- ing, planning, to salary policies, to all the mix of things that make up the administration of education in the State, teacher certification, and so on, and a State department of education doesn't have a convenient arrangement for building this bridge from university activities and research developments in universities to the public schools. Now some State departments of educaton may have an easy way to do that.. Others probably don't. And I don't want to present a black and white argument about this, because I would be inclined to agree with the implementation of what you say; that. you might get a State department of education so financed and involved that this same kind of work could be carried out, but looking at the problem of the United States as a whole, and having the desire to move significantly in many portions of the country to bring the results of research into activity in the schools, why I think I can argue strongly that an independent agency with that particular purpose is likely to move more quickly and wit.h more imagination than the State departments as now con- stituted. Chairman PERKINS. I think, if the gentle lady would yield, it is important to this point to observe that when we wrote the original act in 1965, the State de.parrne.nts were not derelict in their responsibility, but they had not moved into this area, and in order to improve the quality of education at the elementary and secondary education level that we found that the Government should, through the cooperative research title, provide regional laboratories, so that they could dis- seminate and get the information at the elementary and secondary level, within a reasonable period of time. I think that reasonable period time, to expedite improving the quality, I feel, is the reason that we enacted the title IV in the bill the way we did, and it was intended all the way along that the closest cooperation take place between the laboratories and State institutions. If we have not had that type of cooperation, I certainly feel disap- poiited and 1 have been laboring under a false impression that we have ha(l that type of cooperation all the way along. Secretary GARDNER. I would say that we have good beginnings of such cooperation in most of the laboratories. But I would return to the point that this kind of activity has not been done in the States, in the State agencies. Most. of them are utterly unfamiliar with it. They \vouldn't have the personnel or the tradition or the background of interest or motivation to do it. And it is in many instances fairly at. odds with the present day- to-day responsibilities of the State agencies. So \vllat we did was to start with the institutions which have tradi- tionally done this, but require as strongly as we could that they move out, toward the schools, toward the State, and to create a link, but beginning at the base of where the tradition of research and develop- PAGENO="0585" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 579 ment actually existed, and we are hopeful that the link will be built, and that there will be effective collaboration with the States. Mrs. GREEN. I don't want to monopolize the time. Let me ask maybe one other question. Mr. Secretary, you have spoken several times very eloquently about decentralization, that you want to strengthen regional offices of educa- tion. Do you see in this decentralization that they will be dec.isionmaking offices? For instance, on contracts, that they will be making the deci- sion on the awarding of contracts? How far will this decentraliza- tion go? Secretary GARDNER. Well, I would like to ask Harold Howe to com- ment on that. I would just like to say two or three sentences about my own philosophy. We have discovered that the kinds of coordination in the field that are so essential, for example, in the cities today, where you have health, education, housing, employment, poverty programs, all requiring a degree of relationship and interlock, it is exceedingly difficult to obtain that kind of coordination and putting together pieces at the local level, if our representatives at the local level have no delegation of authority. If they are simply people at the end of a telephone, it is very hard for theni to sit around with other people and arrive at some mutually agreed-upon result for that city, that community, whatever it is. Mrs. GREEN. Let me stop you there, Mr. Secretary, and let me give you two examples. I agree with what you have just said. That it would be very dif- ficult for a regional man in charge of a regional office. The staff subcommittee went to San Francisco to set up the field hearings. The person who was the head of the regional education lab did not know that there was a regional office of education in San Francisco until the staff arrived. Now, what do you think it would do to the person who heads your regional office of education, if the regional education lab man has a higher authority and has made no contact with the regional office of education that you want to strengthen? And the second example is when we were holding public hearings we asked the chairman of the board of the regional education lab, "What are you doing?" Awl she sal(l, "We are doing great innovative things. `We started a kindergarten here, held a teachers' conference and collected some bilingual material." And I said, "How do you coordinate your work with the regional office of education?" She said, "What ?" And I said, "Mr. Freeman Beets." "Who is he ?" "He is the head of the regional office of education." "I have never heard of him. I didn't know anything about. this." And I said, "My question w'as, How can you start out on these great innovative programs for the Regional Education Lab, if you haven't even made an inventory of what. the regional office of education is doing?" PAGENO="0586" 550 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS How (To VOU say to us that von really want to stren~then the State offices of education, and you want. to strengthen your regional offices of education and decentralize it, when the regional education labs ate set up as private institutions? I think there was admission in several places that they were set. up as private institutions, so that they could bypass the State tax limitations and allow greater freedom in their operation. In each case, these people are getting much higher salaries than your regional associate commissioner or the State super- intenclent of schools. It. seems to me that all of these. things point that we are constantly doing things not to strengthen the State department. of education at all, but to bypass it awl to set up other organizations that will have more money. That is where you will siphon off personnel, that. is where the educational people will look, if they are paid the highest salary, because salary is a status symbol. Tl~ese things, it se~ms to me, ar~ in conflict. Secretary GARDNER. Well. the failure to know the regional head of education is a very good example, I mean a good indication that. we have a great deal of work yet to do, and we have just begun this movement toward decentralization. The salary thing is another question. I am sorry to say that I dont see. a. way around this, if we are going to get effective people into this extremely important business of educational research and development. We face exactly the same thing in our health activities. People in these fields who are really good, who are capable of mak- ing major or national contributions, command very high salaries, and they are operating in a community which provides those salaries; namely, the university community, and it would be very difficult for us t.o (10 other than operate in terms of that. market and those require- ment s. i~1rs. Gnrrx. On the salary matter von have never asked us to subsidize or set up a fund to have a higher salary for a State superin- tendent. of schools. Doe~n't that again say to the committee, that it. is more important in your jucl~ment, to have a really qualified person a.t. the. regional education lab, with a higher salary, than it would be to have the State department people or regional office of education? Is it more immiportant to pay high salaries for these people than it is to pay high salaries to the chief State. school officer? Secretary GARDNER. No. I don't think it. is. Mrs. GREEN. Aren't. we then, by our actions- Mr. HOWE. I certainly agree with von, Mrs. Green, that. there is a need for change in the salaries of the chief State school officers. This is one of the real problems. I referred to this in a speech not long ago to the assembly and State legislators, and gave them some specific recommendations about the amounts of salary they ought to pay. Many of them find themselves tied up with the level of Governors' salaries in States, and part of a salary ladder; you have to move the entire ladder in order to move any person on it. So this is a difficult, problem for States, but I thoroughly agree rnth you about the need for the change in those salaries, and perhaps even for Federal salaries, although you didn't mention them. Let me comment- I PAGENO="0587" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 581 Mrs. GREEN. I have this in mind, when we i11~' tile regional educa- tion lab directors almost in all cases more than we pay you, Mr. Com- missioner, I am in agreement. But I just wondered whether we as a Federal Government have a right to offer higher salaries to the re- gional education lab personnel than tile State can? This is my point. When you have a priv~tte agency, you bypass the State limitation. Commissioner HOWE. I want you to know that I thoroughly support this idea of paying the regional lab directors substantial salaries. I think that ultimately, this will help the leadership element in educa- tion, that it moves because it has some precedents to move on. This helps to create some of those precedents, and therefore, when- ever any educational administrator is provided with good salary, ulti- mately the benefits of this get around. But let me comment briefly on some of your questions about the regional aspect of the office, because I think we ought to present some more detail here about that. First of all, the regional offices of the Office of Education, I think, have been less well developed than other aspects of a regional activity in HEW. Time (lecentralization in public health and in other areas has gone farther earlier than it has in education. We have had a person called a regional representative in education, who has had a. sort. of ambassadorial role-no control over programs, relatively little effectiveness, except as a consulting kind of person in the regional office to represent education. `We are now rapidly about. the business of changing that person's title and his functions, and we have changed his title to the regional assistant commissioners. We are now identifying those programs among our some 60 programs in the Office of Education, which can be transferred over to his administration. Just. last. week in Atlanta, for tile first. time, we moved four pro- grams-I believe it was four, wasn't it, ~o1an, to the administra- tion of the regional assistant commissioner. He is the fiuial sigiioff authority on these. He will be approving the handling of funds for particular programs in those seven States that that office serves. May 1, we will do the same thing in Dallas. We have a date set up for San Francisco, Kansas City~ and so on. I can't recall what the dates are, but we are moving directly to transfer, to decentralize the administration of certain of our pro~rams. and to give the regional assistant. commissioners a direct responsibility for them. lYe have already moved the small grants program in research to, I believe, the Chicago office, haven't we. Nolan. and to the Atlant.a office as well ? So that we are in a. stage of change with this. The civil rights program, or the whole Office of Equal Education Oppor- tunity program. is one I am very anxious to move in this decentralized way, because I happen to feel that we will get more acceptance of our purposes and our requirements if the decentralization of this brings on to the scene a negotiation with local school people. people who come from the place where the local school people are, so that we are moving before July 1 to deceiitiiilize our cctivitv in civil rights. All of this will build the position of tile regional assistant com- missioner, and give him a real responsibility, and will put us in closer touch with the States, not more distant from the States. PAGENO="0588" 582 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS The whole plan here relates directly to the States, not to the local school districts. The concerns that have been expressed about this regional move have been concerns which I would agree with, if we were going to do the things that worry those concerned. The concerns have been that we might move now into regional offices and then bypass the States, and deal directly with local school districts. We have set up a system of organization which prevents that, which brings the State into the picture at every point where we have a dealing over matters involving a local school district, and passes us through the States for these purposes. I think that part of this picture that does not get talked about enough is the fact that we have many relationships to individual institutions, is higher education particularly. In all of our student support programs-loans, grants, scholarships-we have direct insti- tutional relationships. `~Srhen conducted from Washington, on a back-and-forth basis, we don't get the kind of personal element into these that we can get by having a staff in the regional office which calls directly on the institu- tion in the region more frequently than it can if that staff is located here centrally, so I believe that there are real possibilities for better administration and better services through this regional enterprise. I have been somewha.t concerned that it has come up as much of an issue as it has, and it. is for that reason that. I am holding a meet- ing this week with the organizations and representatives of the organization which have been expressing criticism of the regional plan of the office, in an effort to get across to them in greater detail what we plan to do in dealing with the States and how we plan to avoid the problems that would come up if we dealt directly with local school districts. I did not mean to deliver a real lecture on this subject, but now that I have, I am glad I did. [Laughter.] Mrs. GREEN. Mr. Chairman. I don't want to take any more time. I will close this conversation, except. ask the Secretary and the Com- missioner, what other comments they might. make. Chairman PERKINS. Mr. Quie ? Mr. QUTE. Thank you. I would like to follow up, Mr. Secretary- and Commissioner Howe. von might want. to answer this, too-on the method of financing title I under the new formula. As you well know, we increased the benchmark for poor families from $2,000 to $3,000, and even more significant to the poor States, we increased- changed the. formula-so that they can utilize the. national average, rather than their own State average of expenditures on education. So using last year's fi~iires. this would mean in Mississippi, the poor State would i~e moved from S121. if I recall correctly, to about ~263. It would mean for the chairman's State of Kentucky, something like $1~ to ~3. Now if von utilized that new formula, I would expect, with an ap- propriation of only ~ million, compared to an authorization of ~,441 million, you w-ould have something like 49-percent funding of the program. But. von indicated this morning. Mr. Secretary, that you would utilize the same language that the Appropriations Committee put into PAGENO="0589" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDtCATION AMENDMENTS 583 their bill last year, that no State shall receive less than they did the year before. To me, if this is correct, you would completely Ignore then or virtually ignore, the new formula.. These poor States could not be brought up anywhere near the level that it seems to me is necessary to give them the quality of education, whether they have poor chil- dren or not. What is your reasoning behind this It is unfair to those States, even though I must admit Minnesota is slightly above the national average, in their expenditure per child, so it is nothing that I am asking for Minnesota. Secretary GARDNER. Well, as you can imagine, we have gone over and over this problem. I would like Nolan Estes to comment on it. Mr. Es'ITs. Actually, it is somewhat just opposite as you have dis- cussed it. In fiscal year 1968, there will only be 15 States that are on the floor. In effect, there will be 15 States in which the new formula will not be operative as irnich as it would in the other States. As it turns out- Mr. QUJE. Let's see if I understand that. You mean there are 15 States that have a State expendhture P~ child less than the national average? Is that what you are saying? Mr. ESTES. No, what I am saying is that based on our allocation or our appropriation for fiscal year 1968~ and with the floor provisions in the language, there would be 15 States that would receive only as much as they received in 1967. fiscal veal 1967. Mr. Quir. So this would be the 15 States with the highest, expend- iture. Mr. ESTES. Yes. That is right. This would be the 15 States with the highest expenditure. The States with the lowest expenditure would profit from the use of the national average in fiscal year 1968. This means that in those States where the State. average per pupil expenditure is less than t.he national average, they would ge.t larger increases next year than those. States where the State per pupil ex- penditure is more than the national average. This means that in some of our States, particularly the Southeast, there. will be a 30-percent increase iii the allocation, because of the use of the new formula. Mr. QUIE. What percentage would New York receive of her author- ization? Mr. ESTES. We don't have that figure. Mr. QUTE. Or even entitlement I guess is probably the better way of saying it. Mr. EsTEs. New York would receive roughly-we don't have those figures. 49 to 51 percent. Mr. QUIE. How could she receive 49 to 51 percent of her entitlement and still receive as much as she did the year before? Mr. E5TES. We have these figures that we could submit for the record, if you like. Mr. QUIE. This year, I believe, she is receiving more than the 83 percent, is she not ? A slight bit more than 83 percelit Commissioner HowE. Not of entitlement. Mr. QmE. Not entitlement. Commissioner HowE. The average is 83 percent.. is it not? PAGENO="0590" 584 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS Mr. Esi~s. No. the national average this year, we estimated would be 85 percent actually, the appropriation provides about 74 percent of the total amount. authorized, nationwide. Mr. QiJIE. So New York, however, if I recall correctly, spent all of her entitlement in the first year. Mr. ESTE5. I am not sure about those figures. It was possible, be- cause of the language that. was adopted during fiscal year 1966, for a State to spend up to its full entitlement, l)asecl on the maximum basic grant. Mr. QtIE. Right. Mr. ESTES. And it would be possible for a local school district for instance, in 1066, to spend up to its full entitlement. Mr. Qrnr. Right. and if I remember correctly, New York did expend her full entitlement., which would mean in 1967 she would still have to receive that same amount, even though the national percentage. now was considerably less. I did not realize it was as low as the Commis- sioner indicates. New York would not receive the national percentage payment as a percentage of her entitlement, because she spent the full amount be- fore. Minnesota, I understand, spent $6 million less than their en- titlement in 1966 and therefore, is receiving not a percentage of her entitlement, but. less than that amount, because the States who on the previous year in 1966 had spent the full amount of their entitlement took a part of those other States share away from them, by the lan- guage in the. law. Mr. ESTES. That. is exactly right. Mr. QUTE. Now you say you are going t.o use that same language, that no State shall receive less. How then, does New York come to 50 percent of her entitlement? Mr. ESTES. Well, actually, New York would be on the floor for next year. That is, New York would receive the amount that she received in fiscal year 1967. It may be less than 49 percent. It may be somewhere between 45 and 49. Mr. QETE. It could not be. Mr. ESTES. I am talking about 49 percent. of the total entitlement. rfhat is 40 percent of the basic amount, the. maximum basic amount. Mr. Qvir. But the maximum basic grant for New York has not changed, won't. change very much, it will only change because of the $3.000 figure. Mr. ESTES. It will change because of the $3,000 figure. It will also change because. of using the latest. AFDC information, which in fiscal year ~06S will he l91~6 data, instead of 1965, so these. figures would change.. In addition- Mr. QFIE. Assuming of course, that the 1966 figure showed a. sub- stanti ally larger number of c.h ildren. Mr. EsTES. Right~ assuming there is a larger number-we won't an- ticipate that there will be a. significant. increase in any one given Stat.e. In addition to that- Mr. Fram. Woubi the. gentleman yield for a question? Mr. Q'riv. Let me just finish this, and I will be glad to. PAGENO="0591" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDLCATION AMENDMENTS 585 Mr. ESTES. [n addition to that, the amount to which New York is entitled in their maximum basic grant would change, based on their average per pupil expenditure, so these three factors would, could conceivably change the maximum basic entitlement in New York State. Mr. QrnE. Yet you make the statement that they will receive in fiscal year 1968 something like 49 percent of their entitlement. Mr. EsiTs. Yes; I am in error there. It would be somewhat less thaii that, because of the $146 million increase in our appropriation from 1967 to fiscal year 1968, approximately $114 million will go to those States whose State average per pupil expenditure is less than the national average per pupil expenditure. Mr. QUIE. Right. I understand that. But last year, New York received something in excess. Mr. ESTES. Yes, in excess- Mr. QuIE. Of the national average. Mr. Esi~s. That is right. Mr. QUIE. Well, I think the best way to answer this is for you to submit for the record the amount that you expec.t each State to receive next year, if the full $1,200 million is appropriated. Mr. ESTES. We can do this. (See table on p. 587.) Mr. QFJE. And how do you plan to allocate it, if the Congress goes along with your proposal? Commissioner I-lOWE. \Ve have this at the presei~t time, don't we, Nolan? Mr. Esi'r.s. ~\Te have this information based on our statements con- cerning 1966 AFDC data, and also on estimates based on national and State average per pupil expenditures. Mr. QUTE. And how about the $3,000 figure? You still use those ancient 1959 census figures? Mr. ESTES. That is right. Mr. QUTE. Do you have that available, so that I could look at it this afternoon, before we come back? Mr. ESTES. I have a copy here that we can make available for you. Mr. Quir. I would appreciate it. if you would, and I would yield to my colleague from Michigan, if he wanted to ask a question right now. Mr. FORD. Thank you. I joined the gentleman from Minnesota on the floor in attempting to amend this $3,000 figure, and spent consid- erable time looking at the figures as we projected them. I thought I understood you to suggest a moment ago that the up-to-date AFDC data and the change to $3,000 would reflect an increase in both instances for the State of New York. I respectfully suggest that if that is your impression, you had bet- ter take a look at the figures. The S3,000 figimre does exactly the same thing in the State of New York, where you provide a fixed simm of money-and here we are talking about a fixed sum of money-as adding the national average does it, it moves it in exactly the same direction, and it almost invariably moves in an opposite diretion, when you use the imp-to-date ~AFDC data, so tlia.t time two States that PAGENO="0592" 5S6 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDTJCATION AMENDMENTS get. the hulk of the up-to-date AFDC data money are now New York and California : the two States that, given a fixed amount of money woul(l lose the most by the. S3.000 figures are also New York and California. Also, you suggested in answer to Mr. Quie that out of the $146 million additional money you would anticipate if we got 100 percent funding of the Sl.~ billion you are asking for, you have already com- nutted ~l 14 million of that to that one. amendment, the Quie-Perkins amen(lment. By what kind of priority system do you determine that von will first fund that, and then fund the other amendments that begin this f-is~al year 1~)GS Mr. ES~ES. Well, we don't take those amendments separately. They are. all figured into- Mr. FORD. But S146 million won't pay for all of them. lit won't even pay for Quie-Perkins. I don't know where you got the figure on that. but by usimr the national average per-pupil expendi- ture closer to ~341) million would have to be added to last year's money to maintain the level of support that we provided la.st year. Mr. Quie could give me an exact fi~rure, it was well over $300 million; wasn't it? Mr. QTIE. I don't recall. Mr. Fono. I don't see how von can now tell Mr. Q,uie that his amend- nuent would be paid for by the first $114 million of additional money we are asking for over actual expenditures last year, when even that amendment would not be pair for by the. total increase. The Carey AFI) amen(lment. which in the XFI)C was estima.te.d as something in the neighborhood of S1O() millir~n, and the number of children that would be added by going to ~3.00() is a very substantia.l figure, which I a.ni sorry 1 can't put iiiv fiw~er on. but. it. is much in excess of Mr. (~arev~s amendment. ~\ow if von don't ad(l nionev. and von 1)Ut. all three of these things into effect, what von have to do is readjust, and I think Mr. Quie has got his finger right on the point. How can you say that New York would possil)ly get the saiiie amount of money? I have some confusion as to whether von are talking dollars or talking percentage of entitle- ment. There is a difference, it seems to me. It seems like a little nicety that. can make it. sound like you are talking about the same amount. How can you assert. that. this kind of massive adjustment will take place in New York, and they will still get the amount of money the got last. :vear or even the same percentage of it.s total entitlement. that it got. last year, unless von take. the total entitlement that they would have through all the amendments and the.n say tha.t since they are getting only ~5 l)eI'cent. of what their entitlement should be, that the ~ pei'ce.nt is equal to 7~ percent of w-hat their entitlement was last year? If von are talking about dollars, they can't possibly be getting the same number of dollars they got last year. Mr. ESTES. As you know, this is a very complicated process. We would be delighted to submit this for the record, and then have further discussions with ou. if you like. Perhaps our figures are incorrect. The table referred to follows :) PAGENO="0593" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 587 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITIES, ESTIMATED ENTITLEMENTS AND ALLOTMENTS, FISCAL XEAI{ 1968 Title I: Assistance for educationally deprived children Total estimated entitlements Total estimated allotments United States, outlying areas, and Departnsent of the Interior $2, 441, 150, 876 $1, 200, 000, 000 50 States and District of Colwnbia 2,381, 321. 658 1,170,748,000 Alabama 89, 2ti9, SOS 42,002, 128 Alaska 3.698,025 1,883,190 Arizona 58. 123, 771 8,971, 597 Arkansas 55, 825, 587 26, 266,364 California 138, 530,306 74, 577, 136 Colorado I 18, 426, 286 S, 669, 709 Connecticut 15,785.810 8,592,933 Delaware 4,273,418 2,145,235 Florida 71,040,924 33,425, 297 Georgia 97,369,339 45,813,018 Hasvail 4,859,866 2,326,303 Idaho 6,873,650 3,273,805 Illinois 86, 580, 633 47, 320, 222 Indiana 36, 306, 622 17, 082, 542 Iowa 32, 929, 023 15, 568, 711 Kansas 20, 728. 355 10, 092, 438 Kentucky 72, 408, 151 34,068, 587 Louisiana 8(1,268,352 37,766,872 Maine 10.112,9(10 4,786,075 Maryland 28,728,875 14,712,753 Massachusetts 29, 776, 412 14, 960, 745 Michigan 61, 576. 074 32, 407, 534 Minnesota 43,268,972 20,358,381 Mississippi 86, 276, 962 40, 591, 146 Missouri 54, 347,983 25, 571, 142 Montana 7,616,744 3,623,242 Nebraska 16,635,971 7,827, 352 Nevada 1,966, 776 985,962 New llampshire 3,693,917 1,758,896 New Jersey 45, 439, 457 24, 284, 233 New Mexico 16,994,388 10,027, 182 New York 216, 532, 645 315, 150, 179 North Carolina 126, 329, 326 59,438,914 North Dakota 11, 165,974 5,276, 647 Ohio 70,732,583 35,126,949 Oklahoma 37,252,388 17,527,533 Oregon 15,269, 755 7,527,202 Pennsylvania 97, 462, 567 48,634,003 Rhode Island 7,170,338 3,655,835 South Carolina 76, 150, 741 35, 756, 515 South Dakota 12,868,007 6,041,587 Tennessee 85,974,498 40,451,657 Texas 176, 179,204 82,893,660 Utah 6,207.863 3,042, 185 Vermont 4,367,660 2.094.717 Virginia 70.549, 173 33, 193,924 Washington 20.493.564 10,709,124 West Virginia 39. 598. 127 18.631, 221 Wisconsin 3.5,007,745 16,504,347 Wyoming 3.387.815 1.633,604 District of Columbia 9.424,520 5,717,037 American Samoa tiuain Puerto Rico ,,) Trust territories 55.~8. _18 .61, _5_,060 \`irgin Islands Department of the Interior I Mr. FORD. Well, your Office supported at `east two of these three amendments at every stage in the game here last year, and I woukl suspect that you knew what you were doing over there, when you told Members of this Congress on this committee that it was not going to hurt anybody to go along with it. Your people were here every day we considered this, and supported fully what was done., and I don't think that we should, at this late stage of the game, at 3 :20 in the afternoon, this far now into tile 90th Congress, be in any doubt at all about what effect this is going to have on the money. 75-492-67----35 PAGENO="0594" 588 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDtCATIOX AMENDMENTh We have got the big city superintendents coming in here tomorrow, we had better have a better answer than that when they come be.fore us. Mr. QUIE. Could you give, us the amount? Are those the only copies you have there.? Could von give us the amount that you expect. New York is going to receive for fiscal year 1968, and the total amount that she will receive or did receive in fiscal year 1967? Mr. ESTES. Yes: New York in 1966 received an entitlement of $113,- 501,000. New York actually used of that total, according to our preliminary figures. S112,567,000. Now in 1967 New York received an authorization, a. total of $116,210,000. Mr. QuIE. Is this entitlement? Mr. Esi~s. Yes: this is the entitlement, for New York. New York's allocation for fiscal year 1967 was $114,811,000. Now for 1968, New York's entitlement, will be-the entitlement using the new formula, of course, will be $216,532,000. Actually. according to our figures that we have now, New York will be allocated-this is an estimate- $115,150,000. Mr. QUIE. In order to take one that is near the national average and then one that is in the bottom, how about taking Minnesota and Ken- tucky and give us a comparison? Minnesota is close to the national average. Mr. Esi~s. All right. Minnesota in 1966 received an entitlement of ~25,3S8,000, and actually expended-this is a bit different than the allocation-actually expended $18,198,000. You were mentioning this a moment ago. Mr. QuIE. Correct.. Mr. Es'r~s. In 1967 Minnesota was actually allocated or entitled to $19,651,000. Pardon me. that is the allotment of the allocation, the authorization-do you have that? Mr. QvTIE. That is the- Mr. EsrEs. That is the allocation. Mr. QmE. The allocation. What is the entitlement? Mr. Esi-rs. The entitlement for Minnesot.a wa.s $28,439,000. Now in 1968, Minnesota, using the new formula would be entitled t.o $43,268,- 000. According to the new formula based on the estimates that we have next year, Minnesota would be allocated $20,358,000. Mr. QuIE. Now take Kentucky. Mr. Es'rrs. Kentucky? Mr. Qvrr. Yes, use Kentucky. which is about second from the bot- tom. Mr. ESTE5. All right. Kentucky fiscal year 1966 received an entitle- ment of S30,539.000. Kentucky actually expende.d $27,378,000. In 1967 Kentucky received an authorization of $32,250,000. Kentucky received an allotment, in fiscal year 1967 of $27,607,000. Mr. QuiE. In the authorization you use, t.hat really means entitle- ment. Mr. Es~s. That is right. I use the word interchangeably. In 1968 Kentucky will receive an entitlement using the new formula of $72,- 408.000. They will receive an allocation based on our rough estimates of $34,068,000. Mr. QFIE. In other words. New York will receive more than half of her entitlement. Minnesota will receive, which is down toward the middle, less than half of her entitlement, and Kentucky will receive also less than half; we are talking about. the same percentage? Mr. EsiTs. Yes. PAGENO="0595" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 589 Mr. Q'IJTIE. It still turns out that the wealthier States are receiving a higher percentage of their entitlement in future years than at the present time. The only way you are going to bring it up is to increase the funds for the act? Mr. Esms. Yes. (The table referred to follows:) ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY ACT OF 1965 TITLE I Comparison of fiscal year 1967 actual allotment (less juvenile delinquents, dependent and neglected, and migratory children) with fiscal year 1967 allotments without regard to the floor provisions of individual States; administrative funds are included in both amounts Estimated allotnsent prior to floor provisions Actual allot- ment after applying floor provisions Difference, cal. (2) to col. (1) (1) (2) (3) 50 States and the District of Columbia Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Conneoticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshize New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Versnont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming District of Columbia $1 015,906,650 27, 393, 515 1,975, 747 8,745,980 16, 164, 658 78, 805, 557 8, 962, 581 9, 186, 297 2, 210, 723 24, 012, 042 30, 483, 430 2, 146, 682 2, 061, 834 50,916, 718 16, 521, 756 15, 363, 593 9,365, 595 24,070,716 31,553,396 3,297,814 15, 761, 159 16, 075, 706 32, 617, 911 21, 198, 816 25,368, 474 25, 022, 606 3, 298, 048 5, 908, 699 976, 048 1,436, 166 25, 910, 523 8, 356, 645 123, 830, 352 41, 180, 457 4.315.903 33, 327, 489 14, 707,461 7, 330, 572 50, 156, 561 3, 904, 632 22, 734, 725 5, 906, 528 25, 660, 347 61, 239, 526 2, 683, 210 1,683,960 26, 101,821 9, 957, 882 13, 471, 231 16. 034, 031 1,413.815 5, 096, 712 $1,015,906,650 30, 889, 037 1,880, 503 8, 668, 923 20, 737, 053 72, 736,366 8, 272, 330 8, 478, 817 2,094,763 27, 216, 549 34, 937, 815 2, 297, 155 2, 596, 177 46, 995, 380 15, 249, 337 15, 522, 084 9, 960, 886 27, 518, 589 29, 123, 319 3, 558, 352 14, 547, 317 14, 837, 639 31, 816, 647 19, 566, 195 23,414, 727 23, 775, 231 3, 172, 730 5, 474, 170 966, 769 1, 387, 385 23,915, 031 9. 876, 239 114,293,591 45, 910, 054 4, 017, 801 34, 829, 406 17, 120, 752 7, 286, 645 48, 505, 320 3,643, 110 21,389, 290 5, 472, 563 29, 685, 632 66, 395, 681 3, 002, 273 1, 655, 669 24, 091, 596 10, 418, 695 14. 889, 596 14, 799, 174 1.366. 011 5, 310, 276 $3, 495, 522 -95, 244 -77,057 4, 572, 395 -6, 069, 191 -690,251 -707,480 -115,960 3, 204, 507 4, 454, 385 150, 473 534, 343 -3, 921, 338 -1,272, 419 158,491 595, 291 3, 447,873 -2, 430, 077 260,538 -1,213,842 -1,238,067 -801,264 -1, 631,621 -1,953,747 -1,247,375 -125,318 -434, 529 -9,279 -48,781 -1,995,492 1, 519, 594 -9, 536, 761 4, 729, 597 -298, 102 1, 501,917 2,413,291 -43, 927 -1,651,241 -261, 522 -1,345,435 -433,965 4, 025, 285 5, 156, 155 319,063 -28,291 -2,010,225 460, 813 1, 418, 365 -1,234,857 -47,804 553, 564 Mr. QD'IE. Unless you use the same percentage of entitlement for all States. Now what if we required that the States received the same percentage of entiflement rather than the requirement that they re- ceive not less than they did the previous year? PAGENO="0596" 590 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS Mr. Esi~s. Instead of the floor provision? Mr. QUIE. Yes. Mr. ESTES. This would mean that some States would receive con- siderably less than they received in fiscal year 1967. They would have to reduce their programs. Mr. QUTE. Then could you give me the figure of how much this would be for each of those States in the event we use the same per- centage of entitlement for all of them and then the change in each State that this would bring about? Mr. ESTEs. Yes. Mr. QUIE. Secondly, what the appropriation would have to be if you used the same percentage of entitlement for all States so that no States would receive less than they did in a previous year? Mr. ESTES. We can do that. Mr. GOODELL. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. QUIE. Yes. Mr. GOODELL. I have supported this amendment because from the outset we felt. that the allocation formula was giving more to the rich States than to the poor States. But I would point out setting aside the indubitable fact that we are increasing the expenditure per pupil faster than most of the other States, New York has gone up to $300,- 000 by the. figures that I have heard, last year in fiscal 1968, Kent.ucky has gone up ~7 million. Minnesota almost a million dollars. ~1ou have had an impact sort. of freezing New York out. Your formulas obviously have an impact. on States that are progressing and moving forward, increasing t.heir per pupil expenditure. I don't know how far you want to go penalizing the States that are moving to meet their own problems. Mr. QUIE. I think our greatest need is in the poorer States. It is clear] evident that the problems the Northern States are having in the cities are that the children move into the suburbs, from the south- eastern part of the country particularly. I would like to see better education in the breeding ground of educa- tional problems. Mr. GOODELL. I agree with the equalization principle. Then after we get through distributing the fund we find ourselves with special assignments that will meet just the needs of the cit.y areas, leaving out the rural areas. We end up giving back with the right hand what we took away with the left. I don't know how it ends other t.han it will do much good switching the formula around. I think every State that is below the national average should have a bigger allotment. I dont.' think we ought to go to the point of dis- courage the States from meeting their own problem. Mr. QUJE. Is it possible to secure from the Bureau of the Census any estimate of the number of children with families of income less than $3.000 in the States now as compared to 1959, 1960? You can secure estimates of the change in population. Can you find estimates broken down to the number of families with low income? Mr. ESTES. We can certainly ask and provide that information for the record, if you like. Secretary GARINER. I am certain that. such estimates exist. (Secretary Gardner submitted the following table:) PAGENO="0597" TABLE E.-Fa?nilies by total money income in 1953-65, in constant dollars, for the United States, by regions Total ilioney inCome (1965 dollars) NORT lIE OaT Total (percent) Under $3,000 $3,000 to $4,999 $5,000 to $6,999 $700) to $9,999 $10,000 to $14,999 $15,000 and over_ -- M~diait litcollip Index (1953 100) NORTh (`EN') Rat. Total (percent) 1965 100 12 14 19 26 9 $7, 467 137 100 14 15 1c~ 7 $7, 267 134 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1(X) 100 100 100 100 1(X) 100 100 12 12 14 13 14 14 14 16 16 16 18 18 19 20 21 26 22 24 22 24 25 28 27 27 26 25 24 24 23 23 23 2)) 17 16 15 15 14 11 11 9 7 7 7 6 5 4 4 2 $7, 098 -- $6, 860 $6, 602 $6, 512 $6, 398 $6, 121) $6,155 $5, 581 131 126 121 120 118 113 113 103 1954 1953 1964 100 12 14 14 21 20 27 26 23 2(( 11 8 4 ---~_~- 6 -~- 100 100 100 10() 100 100 100 15 16 16 18 19 19 19 15 15 17 18 18 19 23 2)) 22 22 23 23 24 25 26 25 24 23 24 23 21 18 17 15 13 12 11 9 6 5 6 5 4 4 3 $6, 949 $6, 784 $6, 535 $6, 176 $6, 181 $5, 985 $5, 614 128 125 120 114 114 110 103 Under $30)))) - 83)00) to $499)) - - - $500)) to $699)) - - $7010) to $9,999 - $10,000 to $14,999 - - $lS,B8) and over ~1El)U(l IllC((Tl(('_ - Index (1953 IOn) 100 18 27 25 19 8 3 $5, 390 99 02 02 02 H 02 z 100 ~ 00 16 02 28 ~ 27 ~ 19 Z 8 ~ 2 ~z 02 $5, 436 ~ 02 c-I H 0 02 z 02 CI) 10)) 100 100 100 1(8) 19 18 2(1 23 2)) 21 21 22 25 24 25 25 25 24 26 22 22 21 17 18 10 10 9 8 9 3 4 3 3 3 $5, 762 $5, 926 $5, 586 $5, 139 $5. 432 106 109 103 95 1)0) I. PAGENO="0598" 00 TA OLE E.-Paincl.es by total nione income in I9ô3-6.~, in constant dollars, for the (Inited States, by re(/iOfls~CO11ti1lll('u1 `I'olal noiie~ iitr~tn ((905 dollars) 1901 l9~ 1958 1957 1955 1954 1953 00 SOITTIL Total (lerent) - 101) lOll 100 100 100 1(10 101) 100 10(1 100 100 100 100 Under 9)1,00))- 25 25 28 30 32 31 31 34 34 34 35 39 39 ~ $3,001) t~ $1,999 19 21 21 22 22 22 22 23 23 24 24 25 25 rjs .915,00)) to 9)6,999W .. ~. - . .~ - - 19 1)) 20 20 18 20 20 20 21 20 19 18 19 00 $7,000to$9,999.~ 21) 19 17 16 16 16 17 15 14 14 14 11 Ii ~ $10,001) to $14,999 12 12 10 8 8 8 7 6 6 6 6 5 4 ~ $15,000 and over 5 4 4 4 4 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 ~ Ii leo 9) 1) 9 40) 9)5 II) 9)4 8 7 $4 150 $4 75 94 09 $4 474 9)4 404 9)4 152 9)4 24)' 9)4 907 $1 90) ~ lIes (1953:100) 142 128 131 124 119 12)) 121 115 113 111 109 100 100 00 ---_=.--=~ ...-~ ~ WEST 00 Total (percent) 100 100 100 100 100 10)) 100 100 - -. 100 100 100 100 100 Un Ier$.4 000 1 14 1414131314 16 16 16 20 22 2)) $3,000to$4,999 15 15 16 16 15 15 17 19 19 20 22 24 24 $5,001) to $6,999 17 18 18 20 19 22 23 25 25 25 24 24 25 ~ $7,000 to $9,999 25 25 25 24 27 25 25 24 25 23 21 19 1)) ~ $10,000 to $14,999 21 19 11) 19 18 18 15 12 11 12 9 8 9 4 9)15,1)00 a1(1over~ 10 10 8 7 8 7 (1 4 4 4 4 3 3 Median income $7, 580 $7, 405 $7, 241 $7, 024 $7, 268 $6, 978 $6, 669 $6, 208 $6, 132 $6, 052 $5, 679 $5, 268 $5, 422 Il1(ICX (1953=100) 140 137 1:14 130 134 129 123 114 113 112 105 97 100 NOTE-This is the only census breakdown on tallies of income less than $3,000. PAGENO="0599" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 593 Mr. GOODELL. I think it. would be good to receive it now when we are looking to some kind of extension of this act, or we plan if this Federal Government is going to expend this amount of money or who are in the future, the whole thing will expire in 1968. If it was extended in its present form, the same formula, I imagine 1971 or 1972 when you have the figures there would be a shocking adjustment around the country, would there not, beca.use of the in- crease in an influence in some areas. I meiitioned the farm counties where if they have a bumper crop in 1969 and 1970 when the census was taken it would be different~ than if they had a crop failure in 1959 or 1960 for one or the mobility of the population. We seem to have a little difficulty here with the change in formula. Perhaps the change would be even more drastic when the census fig- ures came out maybe we could make some plans for it if we had those figures. Let me ask another question along the~ line that a number of my colleagues have asked, more on the philosophy of strengthening State responsibility in education. Do you think that the State department of education as such can be strengthened in order to be the overall State agency through which Federal programs of elementary and sec- ondary schools can be administered or do you think there needs to be developed an alternative method of reaching all the school districts other than the State departments of education? Secretary GARDNER. I would like to get Commissioner Howe's view on that. I also would like to express my own feeling on it. I have pressed very hard for a number of years now for a strength- ening of the State departments of education, whatever they happen to be called in each State. I am quite convinced that this is essential, whatever else we do. This must be a major part of our strategy. In my view it is one of the essential ingredients of any Federal-State- local relationship. You cannot carry on this relationship in the healthy fashion you want it carried on unless you strengthen the States so that they can play their role as independent parties. But many people in the course of these years that I have been press- ing this view, many people have made 1)e1suasi\~e arguments to me that the local school districts have always had their own integrity and independence and that that must not be lost either and that in our eagerness to establish an effective relationship with the States we must keep in mind the independence of the local school districts and particularly big city school superintendents feel quite strongly that they have kinds of problems on which they have a right to talk di- rectly with the Federal Government. that they have kinds of prob- lems which are not always recognized or dealt with effectively in the State capitol. The universities feel, particularly in the educational field, that they have a role which must not be subordinated to the State capitol. I am talking here of State universities. In summar then I think that the strengthening of the State department of education must be a primary part of our strategy but that we have to bear in mind the requirements and arguments of these other constituents who feel that they too have a role to play. Mr. QL-TE. Do you feel then that. the local school districts have developed an autonomy which should permit them to really be sepa- PAGENO="0600" 594 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDT5CATIOX AMENDMENTS rate from the State to a certain extent in order to maintain that autonomy? I go back to the origin of the school districts, that they exist at the sufference of the States. They were set up by State law. The State could abolish them all if they wanted to, change the boundaries any way they want to, although most States have tried to develop some kind of local evolvement when they do bring about a reorganization. I recognize that many school boards have not as great a fear of the State department of education as they have of the U.S. Office of Education, but practically as much. They talk about State control when they are through condemning Federal control. Secretary GARDNER. I would say a number of big city superin- tendents of my acquaintance have more concern about State control than Federal control. Mr. QUTE. You anticipate then that we will see an evolution where the State department. of education would be the supervising agency over the smaller school districts in the large city, but would have separate but. equal authority as the State department of education. We have seen in many counties where the county superintendent of schools once was the administrative officer supervising all of the schools in a county. Then a large city or large school district, had ob- tained their own superintendent and the county superintendent of schools would just have authority and responsibility over the small elementary schools of the county. Secretary GARDNER. I think the primacy of the State education de.- partment. is well lodged in law and wilT not really change. But I think the pressure of the big cities will always be towa.rd a generous inter- pretat ion of that and an insistence on their own capacity to make some of their decisions. I would like to keep the situation sufficiently loose so that the local school districts could expect the same kind of generous attitude toward their capacity to initiate and decide that I would hope the states could expect from the Federal Government. Mr. QuiE. Is this the reason then that. you are proposing that new planning money so that you can work toward so-called flexibility? There is a possibility as I see it of developing another State planning agency out. of it instead of funding title V to its full authorization. I might. just say that. my colleague from Indiana, Mr. Brademas, never indicated that the States are capable now of running their own State department. of education, which to me is an indication of In- dia.nas strength. But he. did offer the amendment last year to bring the authorization from ~3O million up to ~5O million indicating to me that. he would like to see them strengthened at last.. I hope that. is an accurate explanation of my colleague from Indi- an a's position on it.. Secret nrv GARDNER. Harold. would you comment? Mr. HOWE. Mr. Ouie. it seems to me that. the relationship of the States to local school districts is going to he different than the relation of the Federal Government to the States, that. the powers and preroga- tives which the State has in law for se.tting the organization of the schools or certifying teachers, or setting the curriculum of the schools, these. three areas. are powers and prerogatives which the Federal Gov- ernment does not, have. PAGENO="0601" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDtCATION AMENDMENTS 595 It is forbidden by Congress to exercise, and it sliouldnt. So that. there are broad areas of educational responsibility that the Federal Government does not exercise iii relationship with the States but the- States do exercise in relationship to localities within the State. I think the nature of those relationships between State and local and between Federal and State ought to continue in very much the same way as they are. But the problem we have in that. series of relationships is that State governments by and large haven't supported their State educational agencies as strongly as they need to support them in order to bring the capacities for guidance to local school districts, capacity for plan- ning, the capacity to do the type of things in title V. Going to the ~arious areas of educational activity that involve these three levels with each other, I think the Federal Government, the ar- rangements created by the Federal Government to increase the capac- ity of the States have to allow for different arrangements in different States. For instance, some States divorce their educational activity from their chief State school officers. That. may be the situation in your case, I am not. sure. Mr. QUTE. No, it is not. Mr. HowE. It is true in a number of States. It is true in Colorado, it is true in Wisconsin. \Vhere that happens our arrangements have to allow for that. We should not try to tell the State how it is to or- ganize for purposes of vocational education. The higher education picture in terms of planning is much less clear. I think we simply have to make allowance for whatever has emerged in the States for liigher education ~laiming and for carrying through the various Fed- eral programs a.s they relate to the States. We have called for the special organizations in higher education- the planning organizations that exist for the 1-uglier Educational Facilities Act. As far as I know this has not been a great concern to the States and it has not been objected to by them as a Federal enterprise asking them to set up a new form of activity in higher edu- cation. So that where the Federal Govermiient can do that sort of thing for a special purpose without objection from the State it seems to me an appropriate thing to do. I would second the Secreta.rys view of the cities. It seems to me that the cities have a tendency to pull away from the States, that many cities have stronger educational planning anti administrative organizations than the States do. The chief officials of many cities are more highly paid than the chief officials of States. What we have to do is build the States so that the States can embrace city concerns which now they are iiot well equipped to do. Even in a State so w-ell served by its educational organizations as New York, I think the commissioner there. recently commented it was very difficult for his organization to (10 a good job with the. affairs of New York City. Chairman Pn~KINs. It is my information that the Secretary has an appointment with the National Coal Policy Group at 4 p.m. this after- noon. In view of that I am wondering if we have some questions, direct the questions to the Secretary in the next 4 or ~ minutes and the Commissioner, you can stay with us this afternoon, Mr. Howe. PAGENO="0602" 596 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS Mr. QUJE. I will yield the floor. Chairman PEru~Ixs. Do you have, a question of the Secretary? Mr. FORD. Thank von, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, to go back to title III for a moment, I recall that, in 1965. when we were holding hearings on the legislation, there was a great (leal of concern by spokesmen for some of the outstanding pri- vate institutions of higher education that had been sort of frontrun- ners in educational research, in trying to develop innovation programs with found at ion grants and other resources. We. had the president of MIT, who came in and gave very eloquent testimony about his concern that if we ph~cecl title III, a program to develop educational experimentation. and title IV, a broader labora- tory-type prograni. under the respectIve offices of education, that in- stitutions like. MIT would find it extremely difficult to compete with State institutions within their own State. I believe that. Dr. Moore echoed this same sort of concern with respect to the two projects that he had underway on his talking type- writer program. I had the impression that we were following that concern in deliberately constructing legislation so that the educational establishment of the State might not be under compulsion from the political structure of the State. Chairman PERKINS. I answered the question previously. I think we ought. to let the Secretary go. You can continue your questioning of Mr. Howe. Mr. FORD. I would like to ask you if you do not believe that we might run into some danger, if we transferred administration of title III and title IV to existing State agencies of stirring these. people up who have I)een out in front in educational research and perhaps putting a dmnipor oil tht~i r eiitlsic~nì. Secretary GARDNER. I have expressed the view fairly consistently that we ought to have some flexibility in the approach to these things, that we should not try to move everything through the State capitol. It is not only the private institutions that feel t.his way. When we set up a State higher educational facilities planning com- mission a number of my friends in the leading State universities objected bitterly to me that we had placed, that we had run a function through the State capitol which they felt could have been better handled directly with the Federal Government. I do believe that title III, because it is experimental, is one that we should think a good deal about before we run it completely through the States. I know that the Commissioner has his own views on this and I think perhaps they are more relevant than mine. Mr. FORD. Before he comments, I would like to thank you and I will deal with him after you have, started speeding to your appointed rounds. Secretary GARDNER. Thank you. Chairman PERKINS. Go ahead with the Commissioner, Mr. Ford. Mr. Howr. Did you want me to comment on this title III matter, Mr. Ford? Mr. FORD. Yes. Mr. T-TowE. It seems to me that looking down the road 2 or 3 or 5 years there is a good argument for moving some of title III responsi- PAGENO="0603" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 597 bility in the signofi sense where the Commissioner now has a signoff to the State signoff, that IS tile State final decision on the giving of the grant. It seems to me also tiiere is a~ very good argument for maintaining some of the title 111 type activity iii the Office of Education. And that if and when we come t.o a move on this I would certainly speak in favor of having a percentage set aside of titie Ill kept In tile hands of the Commissioner for project grants of an innovative type en- couraged from the Office of Education while at the same time trans- ferring a major percentage to final State authority. Of course, the transfer of a major percentage to final State authority will also involve the Commissioner at that time developing certain guidelines, if you will, for the States to use in exercising that authority. We would want those guideiines to reflect primarily the idea that title III type grants shouid not be divided up ainoiig the State's school districts but should be focused in such a way that they represent good bets on significant supplenieiitary activities within a State. hopefully of an innovative kind. Mr. FORD. This matter has been raised most forcibly as a result of the testimony of Mr. Fuller and other members of the Panel yesterday speaking as State school administrators and Mr. Fuller as executive director of their organization. Iii 1965 he raised exactly the same suggestion on behalf of his organization. The superintendent of public instruction from the State of Michi- gan, then I)r. Lynn Bartlett, appeared before the coninuttee following Mr. Fuller's testimony and disassociated himself from that position of the association. He felt that in his own experience of some several years standing in our own State of Michigan his office was neither equipped nor likely to be equipped in the near future to stand as inter- mediary between our State colleges and iuiiversities and others who are showing interest in this program, and the people (Town here, the Commissioner, who would he examining the applications and approv- ing the grants. I have some feeling that. if there was any strong suggestion that we might be changing the thrust that the committee took or folio\ve.d at that time, we might say that the committee was aware of this expres- sion of concern on the part of the State school officers when we went ahead and wrote the bill as we did. I feel if there was a genuine concern that we might now be con- templating a change in the title III and title IV applications of han- dling so that they had to be approved or were subject to a Sta.te veto we could fill this committee room in a couple of clays with people around the country who would be far more upset. than Mr. Fuller was yesterday. Mr. hOWE. From our point of view we are discussing it but we are proposing no action. I will tell you we seriously considered such a proposal and decided not to make it. It would he against the recom- mendation of our advisory committee in title III. We can reveal that this was not the time to make such a move. Mr. FORD. I will take that one chance to agree with you. This is the first. time I have been up here. I would like to be very clear in the form of the question so that I understand what you contemplate as the mitet hod of di~t ributin~ funds. PAGENO="0604" 598 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS Do I understand that what you have outlined to us is a pattern where if the appropriations bill is properly worded so that no State would receive less than it received last year that you would first meet that requirement and then take the. balance of the increase, however much it might. be over the last year, and reapportion that out to those States that would reflect an increase as a result of the change in for- mula ? Mr. ESTES. Yes: that. is right. Mr. Forn. What is the method of apportioning it out beyond the floor? Is it a percentage? Mr. ESTES. Using t.he ratable reduction. It would simply be an amount that would be distributed among the States based on that for- mul a. Mr. Fom. Now, the thing that disturbs me is that. for New York, for example, you did not. show that they would get the floor, period. You show them as hitting $300,000 more than the floor. How did you decide that New York would get $300,000 more than that? Does that S300.000 represent part of the increase? Mr. ESTES. That is part. of the amount that is available after we sub- tract the amount from the. total amount available to make sure that. the 15 States do not receive less than they received during fiscal year 1967. As you can tell. I am no expert as it relates to this formula. Mr. FORD. OnLy 15 States received less. Mr. EsTEs. No: no State will receive less in fiscal year 1968. Mr. FORD. Regardless of all of the factors they can all start off with what they had in fiscal year 1068 regardless of the percentage of funding? Mr. ESTES. That is right. Mr. FORD. Supposing instead of $1.~ billion we give exactly the amount of money you spent. last year, would this give them what they had last. year? Mr. ESTES. That is right.. Mr. FORD. I don't understand how you can do that. Mr. ESTES. The appropriation language builds in the floor provision which requires us to allocate the funds in such a way that no States will receive less in fiscal year 1968 than they received in 1967. Mr. FORD. Last ear you did this to my amendments that changed the impact-aid formula. For a. few short weeks we had a para.de in ~he streets of New York. Detroit, and other streets because they were going to get impact funds. Then a sentence was put in the appropriation bill and we have had 11 commitment from the people that that would be changed this year. That said that under this on-going program no program shall receive more than it had been receiving before the additional people were added. Now. T see a little difference here because what we did in 1967 was rewrite the formula. I think the chairman raised this point this morn- ing. It would certaini be. shocking if when we go to the extent of rewriting the formula arid redesignatiug the method of distributing funds if the Appropriations Committee could go on indefinitely thwarting our attempts to rewrite the formula by simply saying we will always keel) everybody at the level they were. Perhaps I a.m wrong. PAGENO="0605" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 599 Mr. ESTES. This is a point of order and your argument is well taken. Mr. Foim. Assuming that we are talking about $146 million in- crease for title I, you have now worked out the entitlements that you would have with full funding for fiscal year 1968. Mr. ESTES. That is right; total authorization. Mr. Foim. Have you determined the difference between what you are asking for and the take-in? rflie figure I have is ~2,400 million. Mr. ESTES. What the additional amount would be required for full funding of the entitlement? Mr. FORD. ~es. Mr. Esi~vs. ~2,441 million. Mr. FORD. So we are asking for half of what our formula calls for? Mr. ESTES. About 49 percent. Mr. FORD. This is what leads some of us to have difficulty in trying to understand how you are going to pay everybody what they had last year and still have an increase reflected in every State, including New York. Mr. ESTES. What we would like to do, if it is all right with you, is to submit our calculations for the record so that you can see exactly how we arrived at the allocation and the entitlement for fiscal year 1968. Mr. FORD. Now, as a final question I just want to ask again-as I ask each year when you folks are here-whether you anticipate recog- nizing as educationally deprived those children who have the greater part of their education in half-day sessions, those children who suffer a major part of their education in overcrowded, antiquated, obsolete classrooms with the absence of anything approaching usable teaching laboratory facilities and those children who go to school during the major part of their career on what we call double sessions which are so common in our State that nobody ever raises an eyebrow. It is most common, incidentally, in the suburbs; not in the core cities or the farms. All these people are moving to the suburbs who are looking for the great advantage of living there only to find that there are no classrooms for their kids. Do you have in the hopper now a plan for meeting the problem of this group of educationally disadvantaged people? Mr. HOWE. This group of educationally disadvantaged I agree with you about in the sense that they certainly do have an educational dis- advantage. They, of course, frequently do not qualify for funds under title I because of the $2,000 to $3,000 eligibility arrangements and the necessity for concentrations of children from backgrounds of t.hat kind. We don't have such suggested legislation in the hop- per as you suggest. We are addressing ourselves to the problem. The problem, it seems to me is, more than anything else, a problem of funds for construction on a rather broad basis. The school dis- tricts that have the problem you are talking about tend to have low assessments. Mr. Foim. I just looked at some figures recently that show me that 86 percent of the bond issues that were proposed in special elections across the country in calendar year 1966 were passed by the people. This really amazed me because we heard last year there was a tax- payers' revolt going on. PAGENO="0606" 600 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDFCATION AMENDMENTS They were not passing that percentage in my State. There is one place where we have almost a hundred percent turndown at the local level. That is a special assessment for operation. And the attempts by local people to meet the operating costs of the increased school capacity are being met with rejection at the voting booth. This is where the intense need is. If it is bad enough you can do some- thing about con~fruction because ou can get people to borrow money to build schools. But having voted the extra millions to build the schools they are then reluctant to vote you the extra millions to try to run them. We find ourselves in the very difficult position of defending this legisla- tion in Wayne County. for example, against a constant barrage of television editorials pointing out the fact that Grosse Pointe. Mich., is getting as much as Inkster. Mich.. and the Inkster School District has ~0 percent Negroes in the elementary school and 85 percent Ne- groes in the high school. It has the. second lowest rate of taxable property base behind each pupil in the entire country and we are sending money to the allegedly disadvantaged people of Grosse Pointe which has the highest per capita income of any community except Governor Romney's Birmingham in the entire State of Michigan, and which has a very desirable tax base that ranges in the top 10 of the counties in the country. We fought that off for a year by saving this was going to change. in addition, I brought to the committee last year a very sad story from the front pages of the Detroit papers that a Detroit suburban school was considering closing its doors because 40 of the 42 teachers that had been in that school the year before did not return. We had the pockets of the worst disadvantaged we could imagine hut they were not identifiable on the basis of the 1959 census because they were not there then. Not- everyone who flees from the South goes to the center city. We are not (10mg anything to reach out to these people at all. I certainly hope you have some ideas. I am very dis- appointed that we have nothing in this present legislation that sug- uests we are going in that. direction. If anything, we are going in the opposite direction. Mr. hOWE. Some of the problems you cite are internal problems of the State and demand that the State put its house in order in deter- mination of development of State pro2rarns of equalization and pay- ment-. from State sources. Other problems, I am sure, are appropri- atelv related to Federal solutions. It seems to me that here we are getting to the realm that the Secre- tary was talking about: of the possibility of new Federal programs to equalize to some degree among the States educational opportunities through equalizing the funds available for this purpose. To do this on have to assume two things: that we will be clever enough to work out some kind of Federal formula for equalization payment to States to support their elementary and secondary school systems and in doing so you have to assume, secondly, that payments that are made to States will be made on the basis which assumes the state will pay its fair share through a combination of State and local taxes. This is a very complex thing to do. We are engaged in studies of these problems. I would hope that we find some resolution of these PAGENO="0607" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 601 and eventually have broad Federal support for, as you suggest, the operating expenses or as 1 suggested the capital expenses of the schools. Actually, these are, to some degree, interchangeable items in the school budget and if you help one you help the other. But it is not a simple situation to develop either a workable across-the-board equalization formula that is politically viable or to develop a system by which the Federal Government can require a fair share of con- tribution from individual States to education and determine what their fair shares will be. But these are problems on which the debate ought to be taking place. It seems to me, we ought to have a very active study going on possible solutions here. Mr. FORD. You have just put your finger on something else. You see, we took out of this bill in 1966 the incentive grants on the ground they were too ambitious and we could not afford them. We did not replace them with something that put a similar encouragement in front of the States to do a better job. As a matter of fact, we warned those States that were doing the least. You have a lot or argument on this committee how you should go about measuring who is doing the most and who is doing the least but in one study I just saw one of the States that. increased by the next to the largest percentage under this amendment sold some $6 million worth of bonds in the entire State for school construction while it sold something in the magnitude of $85 million for other kinds of public works. This indicates in that State the people either are confident they were getting the money for bonds or they don't care whether they get it or not. They were willing to vote money for other public utilities but not to build schools. My State of Michigan is one of the four largest in the country in the number of bonds its people voted and gained not one penny out of the new direction that this formula. takes. In other words, we are, as Mr. Goodeil said, not trying to encourage the States to do a better job. We are saying we are going to spend Federal money to help those who won't help themselves. Gentlemen, I don't think that philosophy is going to sell around here for very much longer. It ha.s worn pretty thin with some of the friends of this legislation. Mr. Howr. I will say most of the States in the South which are being heavily supported under the Elem cut ary and Secondar Educe t ion Act. under title I by and large, with some. exceptions, are making a comparatively heavy effort in the expenditure of State funds than some other States in other parts of the country. Mr. DENT. Mr. Howe, how much do you expect to spend in all the areas of research? Mr. HowE. I believe our tota~l appropriation or request for research is about $99.9 million. If you add the foreign currency progi~ims, it is around $103 million. Mr. DENT. Do you have, any figure on the total amount of research money being expended by the departments themselves in all the. areas of research? Mr. HowE. No, I haven't. We. can provide it. Mr. DENT. Is there any overlapping research and development pro- grams from other departments that. cross over into the areas of edu- cation? PAGENO="0608" 602 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS Mr. HOWE. Yes. The Office of Economic Opportunity is conduct- ing research in the realm of early childhood education. WTe are co- ordinating our activities with them. I don't know that you would consider them duplicative. They are in the same area. For example, we joined with the Office of Economic Opportunity in planning a nLlmber of research endeavors in early childhood education. Within the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, you have the Children's Bureau doing research in problems of children related to learning. You have the National Institutes of Health within the Department of health, Education, and Welfare doing basic research on problems of young people. again related to learning, par- ticularly through the National Institute of Childhood Health and Development. So you have several agencies which are doing a combination of psychological research, medically related research, learning related research which are to a degree in the same broad area. We try to pull together these activities and have them aware of each other and not. have them du1)licatecl. I think, iw 111(1 large, we are ~iiccessful at that. Mr. DENT. I have been talking to Members of Congress on other committees who are looking into the total research problem. If their story has any truth at all we may be getting into a very serious situa- tion on the question of overall expenditures in research. Inevitably we reach down into discussions affecting your departments. Mr. I-lowE. By overall expenditures you mean too much or too little? Mr. DENT. I would say that $16 billion a year for research might be construed by some people to be a little too much. It is more than all the poverty programs, all of the aid to education in every field, all manpower training, it is the largest single expenditure of our Government today next to military defense and war appropriations which is something that has crept up on us. Very frankly I was shocked when the figures were revealed in the last 2 weeks that we have in Virginia a 30,000-square-foot building wiJh 15-foot-high stacks of reports, 500,000 reports, single file copies are in there now and they have to build another building. I don't know what is going to happen. I would like, before we get too far in giving any more money here I would like to know the types of research now being pursued in the Office of Education, how much it is costing. because that is in our sphere of operation, and what hap- P~ iii NASA and the rest of them is in their sphere, but. I know there will be questions soon because it has not. become almost a. public scandal, the amount of money we are spending for research. Do you research the research program before you start it and does somebody come in with an idea and say we will have a research on the child before the age of 6 and the child between the age of 6 and 12 or do you try to find out what the research will develop? Mr. I-Iowr. Let me respond to this broadly and then get to your specific questions. First of all, I will say in the realm of education as a whole in the Fnited States entirely too little is being spent on re- search in education. If von add imp what the Federal Government is puttm~ into this, what State and local agencies are putting into this and what private industry is putting into this, I would guess that it does not come to S200 million a year. PAGENO="0609" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 603 Mr. DENT. Out of a total of $16 billion spent by the Government, itself? Mr. HOWE. I am talking about research in education. Mr. DENT. Yes, I understand. Mr. HOWE. The total expenses for research in education from all agencies, public and private, in the United States would not come to as much as $200 million a year. This is education research ielated to a $50 billion enterprise, which is about the amount spent on all aspects of elementary a.nd secondary and higher education in the country. So that whereas we have in defense and in health, to pick two broad areas, perhaps space a third, major investments in research from Fed- eral sources and from some other sources, we have not made compara- ble investment from Federal or other sources in research in education. So in looking at the broad picture I think research in education has not been as good in quality as the other and is not a~ well financed as the other. It seems to me that the 1)roblern of quality has to go along with the financing so that~ we have to develop quality to justify the financing in research in education. Now, looking at the specific issues you raised, I don't have the exact figures in my mind, but of the roughly $100 million a year we now have for research in education we are spending-I will give you ac- curate figures on this, let me just give you some categories now-we are spending in the realm of $25 to $30 million a year on regional edu- cation centers and development centers at universities. We are spending some $8 million a year on research for developing better teaching materials and methods for handicapped children. We are spending about $10 to $12 million a year on research in curriculum and teaching methods having to do with vocational education. We are spending a considerable amount, and I won't try to give you the figure 110w, on the training of people to do research in education. This in turn comes from research funds, hoping to build a backlog of competent people so that as we get further funding for research we have more competent people to do this. Then we give a series of grants for research activities in education some of which are both the kinds you cite, some represent requests to us by people who have ideas which they think are worth pursuing. They don't know always how these ideas are going to turn out just as anybody starting out on a research project is never sure whether his notions of what he is going to research will be productive. But we try by a combination of careful examination of proposals made t.o us, through our own staff and tlirouirh expert consultants whom we bring in, some of the people Mrs. Green was referring earlier today, to examine carefully the proposals made to us and to fund those that we think have the competence because of the quality of the people *doing the job and the nature of the proposal. We do ourselves from time to time make suggestions that specific areas need to be researched. The kind of things we are doing either on proposals made to us or on suggestions we make breakdown into a whole bread area of categories. I have mentioned one way of cate- gorizing these as among the handicapped, vocational, and so forth. In addition to that you will find us snoTI~orino research in how to improve the teaching of physicians, the teaching at the level of 75-492-(37----39 PAGENO="0610" 604 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS the medical school where we are doing a very significant project at the present time. We are. sponsoring research in the development of cur- riculum for the college. We are sponsoring research in the high school physics course. This happens to be done at the Harvard University. We are sponsoring research in the development of reading materials. We could give you a whole variety of projects. Some of the research we ~po~s~ at the present time is to turn out specific kinds of materials. For example, under our research funds we are providing the diction- aries that are made available in certain languages which have not had dictionaries at all available to people. There is a long list of activities. Mrs. GREEN. I don't have the figures with me but someone called to my attention the other day that a* very large amount of curricu- hun development funds were for improvement of physics curricu- lum, I indicated at that time what. I thought was not. enough in the so(ial sciences. Do you coordinate with NSF? NSF does a tremendous job in this area. I don't understand why such a heavy proportion of the funds were used in the. same area where NSF concentrates? Mr. HOWE. We do coordinate with NSF, Mrs. Green, and have regu- la.r consultations with their people so that there won't be duplications in this. There has been a tendency over the pa.st several years for NSF to pick up the research activities in the sciences and mathematics, for us to do more in the realm of the humanities and social sciences, and the arts. We have a special program as you know in the arts. Right now, the message we get from NSF is that they may be going less particularly into elementary school things than they have before so that we co- ordinate with them in terms of broad areas of policy as well as on specific projects. Mrs. GREEN. ~re you devoting a high percentage to the physics? Mr. I[Towr. We are not devoting a high percentage to this. Mrs. GErrY. Does anybody here have those fi~nres? Mr. Ilowi:. I am soirv. Dr. Brhrht is not here but we will give you, if you like, a complete listing of research grants that are currently in operation. There ale a great many of them. Chairman Prmncjxs. \Vitliout objection, that will be submitted for the. information of time committee. Mr. DENT. We want to know when they started, whether when you give contracts do they have termination dates or do they continue in the budget year after year after year. and the project started is never ended. These are charges made before other committees. In order that this committee may have its answers ready when the clouds start pouring out the rain we would like to know the answer first. Is it. true that some 40.001) top-graded educational personalities, professors and cn up. have left the school systems to take up Govern- ment research projects? Mr. Howr. I have no idea. I really don't know. Mr. DENT. The charge is also made that the lesser colleges are not able to staff their faculty because of the fac.t that the attractiveness of Federal projects for research is taking out of the school system persons trained by us. by former programs who were supposed to upgrade the educational system and they have moved over from the PAGENO="0611" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 605 educational system into research to upgrade more people to get back into research. These are things that we have to answer. We will have to answer them soon. So any information you can give us, find out if it is true that 40,000 educators have left the system in order to become research operators. Mr. HOWE. I can't promise you that we can get accurate informa- tion on that. Mr. DENT. Someone has to get it. That is the complaint over there. We can't find how many research programs there are. WTe only know by adding up the budget $16 billion was spent last year for research, that there will be this year 63,000 more research projects completed and filed away. Now, I don't know how we can possibly have 500,- 000 filed copies of separate and distinct research 1J1'Ojects. Chairman PERKINS. I agree with the gentleman fi'om Pennsylvania but I think we ought not leave the whole broad field wide open but to make a limitation of how much data, how niany researchers, how far back in the field of education you want to go. Mr. DENT. Other department~ are doing research in the educational field. They are doing it iii such a way that they title it something dif- ferent but they are actually researching certain specific educational projects; NASA, for instance, and a big one. This committee is faced with tile (~eneral Education Act. We a.re faced with other educational acts. There is a great demand on the part of the people to cut (town Oil tue poverty program, cut down on general education. Yet people who are ieceivi1i~ these grants, many of them-do you know that some schools, and I can name two or three of them offhand; I won't because I would rather see your report-in some institutions of higher learning. 40 percent. of their entire budget comes from research programs. WThen you get a large university with 55,000 students in it and 40 percent of its entire i)udget collies from Federal projects for research, we are somewhere out of line. Mr. HowE. I think it IS necessary to point out that a very important part of the business of a university is research. A ml ~cie~itific re- search particularly is ext menielv expensive. Ha `a 1'- H~h1e source of support for scientific research at the university level iii the Inited States right now in any major way is the Federal Government : many, many aspects of our society, our economy, and our Defense Establish- nieiit, as well as a variety of other things, are dependent upon the advance of scientific research. I think we ought to look rather carefully at the question of whether 40 percent of a university's budget coining from Federal sources for research purposes is indeed so serious a matter. Mrs. GREEN. I would ask permission that they furnish one copy of the research contracts for tile committee files amid then, if we want more, we can request it. Chairman PERKINS. Without objection. it is so ordered. Mr. GOODELL. I would just like to ask you, Commissioner Howe, you now operate title V at a level of about $22 million, is that. correct? Mr. HOWE. Yes, sir. Mr. GooD]mri~. You are requesting in addition to that somewhere in the neighborhood of $29 and ~30 million for the new planning? PAGENO="0612" 606 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS Mr. HowE. No, $15 million. Mr. GOODELL. $15 million. Mr. HowE. Right. Mr. GOODELL. In addition to the $22 million? Then the $22 million is moving to $29 million and you are asking $15 million for the plan- ning and programing budget? Mr. HowE. Yes; the $29 million includes the operation of title V and a number of other small items that go over into the State educa- tion departments. The $15 million is the amount for the planning activity that we are suggesting. Mr. GOODELL. I think most of us look with sympathy on the idea of getting more information and data analysis in terms of the im- plementation of our goals but as I understand your comment; Secre- tary Gardner and others in the field of education have indicated con- siderable reservation about the applicability of PPBS to education. I wonder if we are wise to move the first year into a program in- volvin~z S15 million and in effect trying to induce our States all to move in the direction when we are not sure exactly what the value will be and the applicability will be. Mr. HOWE. All we are suggesting here is the development within each State of a capacity to look ahead on an organized basis through a system which that State will decide upon for itself. Our only re- quirement, if you will, being that the look-ahead be comprehensive and address itself to all the educational problems and issues that exist in that. Stntc. There is no imposition or necessarily a use of the so- called PPB~ system, and I think describing that system in this way probably makes it seem as more of a system than it really is. The PPBS, in turn, is simply a discipline way the Federal Govern- ment is using to look at. the forward planning affairs of the adminis- tration. Mr. 000DELL. The course you state is unarguable. Our problem is that you are asking us to adopt general language that throughout pro- vides that "as the Commissioner shall approve," and "as t.he Commis- sioner shall prescribe~" and so forth. It would appear to be ample authority for the Commissioner to prescribe a rather detailed specific approach by the States, including a PPBS approach as dreamed up by someone in your Department asking the States to set up programs looking down the road and analyze how far you are going to go in accomplishing your goal. It certainly is a very worthy objective. The language you have suggested in section 524 of the bill leaves many of us with some con- cern just how far we are going to go in pressing the States in an area where virtually every expert. says there is considerable doubt as to the applicability. Now, if it is as broad as you have indicated and you are simply telling the State if you want some money to look at the long-term problems and set up a system for analyzing how you are moving to accomplish your objective, that is one thing. The description that I ~have read in other areas and which we had described in some detail by the witnesses here yesterday is quite another thing. Have you had an opportunity to review or be briefed on the objec- tions of the State school superintendents yesterday to this proposal in titleV? PAGENO="0613" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 607 Mr. HOWE. No; I haven't. I have talked with a number of State superintendents about this proposal. Of course, I talked to a number of them prior to our ever refining this proposal and bringing it be- fore you. I would say, it seems to me, the essence of the matter is in items A through E that you find on pages 2G and 2'i of H.R.. 6230. The areas to which the State project should pay attention, A, B, C, D, E there seem to me universally agreed on, significant areas of concern about forward planning. They do not address themselves to any particular system. They instead are concerned with such matters as goals, priorities, new pro- grams, to reach for goals and priorities, assessment of when those pro- grams are doing so, and the clevelopmeiit of the capacity of the State to do this kind of thing on a regular basis. There is almost universal agreement among the chief State school officers, so far as I know, that these are worthwhile things to do. Mr. GOODELL. I think if you will review the testimony yesterday from the State school officers you will find they have very great reser- vations and apprehensions about the language proposed here. It would appear that the A through E, which, I agree, as you refer to on pages 26 and 27 is the essence of it, and this can be broad authority for implementing a rather specific approach to planning programing and budget system. That is what. they are fearful of. I think our problem in this committee often is that we approve general language and we have the general description as to what you intend to do and we proceed almost blindly because we don't know what regulations or guidelines you are going to issue for the implementation of those programs. I say to you flatly that I can conceive, under this language you are issuing, some very detailed guidelines to the States insisting that they proceed well down the road to PPBS. I can also well concede your point that the broad language here could simply he implemented by saying `~Now, you people put together a plan looking (lown the road to the long-term objective and you have to have some system for ana- Tvzing this and improvements in your existing programs," and so forth, give them a wide. c'e~ree of latitude which would be far cry from the specific PPBS one. Your assurance. is be~j;ful, I think, that you dont have in mind any- thing quite along the lines referred to by the superintendents yes- terday. Mr. Huwr. I didn't have the benefit of that conversation. My im- pression from talking with Mr. Ford this morning was that a number of their concerns centered around the relationship of tlie Government to this whole program. Tile. and I had a conversation about this this morning. Tile made an alternative siitrgeston. We will, at least, ex- amine this and see what the. possihil~t~es are. I do want to make it clear that in terms of the nature of this planning activity by the States we would want to ~et forth enough stipulations and guidelines to guarantee that this he a careful and disciplinary exercise, that it not be a simple process of projecting numbers of pupils and then project.- ing the same kind of education data we have always had to serve those pupils, but rather address ourselves to how that education can be im- proved, as to wliethei' or not those pupils have not been well served by PAGENO="0614" 608 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDTCATIOX AMENDMENTS the State education system, how they might be served, set up an ar- rangement for checking year by year as to whether objectives have been reached. This arrangement would let the State find out for itself if it has not reached objectives, where it. had failed to do so or where it. had more than met them, so that it. could readjust its plan periodically. But the ways by which this is done can be numerous. It seems to me that the States ought to have very considerable. freedom to design those ways. I think it is useful to have this kind of con- versation about this planning endeavor because it begins to create a kind of legislative history which we in turn will refer to when we do (Iraw up gui(leimes. Mr. GOODELL. As von recall, we have $50 million authorized in title V and the total indicated here would be $44 million for fiscal 1968, of which you are going to devote a third to this kind of system analysis or whatever you wish to call it. There are other programs you can utilize to strengthen the State education department, which are the most important in the long run. Mr. }Iowr. Could I make a correction? There was an error in the testimony this morning and I don't believe you were here when we corrected it. The. $15 million we are proposing for this amendment to title V is over and above the authorization. It is not included within the $50 million authorization. Therefore, the total authorization that title V would have. after this amendment would be $65 million. Mr. GO0DELL. That makes it even more difficult from our viewpoint because the total authorization of S65 million might not-am I not correct von are actually requesting funds of $44 million in the budget? Mr. ITowE. In the budget we are, that is correct, $44.7 million, some- thing like that. Mr. G00DELL. The S44 or ~45 million includes $15 million for the planning operation? Mr. Hown. That is right.. Mr. GOODELL. The additional authorization really is another factor. You are spending one-third of the money you are requesting, or plan- fling to spend one-third of the money you are requesting, under title V for the planning aspect? Mr. HOWE. Approximately. Mr. GOODELL. I would like to ask another brief question that has been raised. Will you tell me if under title I, in your opinion, a public school system, a local public school, has authority to contract with pri- vate. schools for the provision of various programs or services? Mr. I-lowE. The reason I am hesitating is that I am not sure about th~ matter of contract.. They certainly may provide certain services. Mr. G0ODELL. They can provide it in their own school system. They can provide it. with their own teachers? Mr. HowE. Yes. Mr. GOUDELL. shared time or whatever outlet. The question ,is, under the Federal law can the local school board make a cont.ract. with a private school to provide. say, a remedial rea(ling program, some- thing of this nature? Now, there are, a variety of standards that could be applied if your answer is "Yes, es. they could meet certain stand- ards," but I would like the broad question answered first. Wit.h certain standards met, can the public school board implement title I through a. contract. with a. private facility? PAGENO="0615" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDTJCATION AMENDMENTS 609 Mr. HOWE. They can certainly provide services. Mr. Esris. A local educational agency can contract with a private university to provide inservice training activities, to provide consulta- tive services, this type. You are mainly, however, referring to a pri- vate elementary or secondary school? Mr. GOODELL. It could be a private elementary or secondary school. I am referring to a couple of instances which have come to my atten- tion in which there is a private nonreligious remedial reading program operating in the community. They were under poverty funds. The question has been raised whether they qualified for title I funds if the school board makes a contract with them to continue to provide this kind of program. Mr. Esi~s. Mr. Hughes, who is Director of this program, is here. STATEMENT OF JOHN F. HUGBIS, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Mr. HUGHES. I think I did answer one of your questions by letter, Mr. Goodeli, on this point. The answer we have had thus far from our counsel is that contracts with private schools per se for rendering title I services would not be legal, because that would be tantamount to paying the salaries of private school teachers, which is precluded by the. act. Mr. GOODELL. That is a very contradictory situation, then, because we are saying that we have written the Elementary and Secondary Education Act in very tight form to be sure that we stay within the Constitution, and, therefore, you cannot do a variety of things that clearly are being done now under the Federal Constitution by the poverty program. This is basically the way I must understand your answer. Mr. SCHEUER. Will you yield? Mr. GOODELL. Yes. Chairman PERKINS. Before~ you get on that, I missed the answer. Did you say that there was such a contract? M~. GOObELL. He said "No." Mr. SCHEFER. I have a letter here from Mr. Hughes on exactly this point. I would like to read a sentence or two: In the absence of State laws to the contrary, a state or local educational agency may enter into a contract with a private agency for services provided: 1. The private agency is not an agency which operates a private school- And there are several other conditions. I ask unanimous consent to insert this letter in the record at this point. Chairman PERKINS. Without objection, it is so ordered. (The letter referred to follows:) DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE, February 27, 1967. Hon. CHARLES E. GOODELL, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR Mn. GOODELL: This is in reply to your letter of February 14, asking whether Title I funds might be used by the Dunkirk Public School in contracting with the Boorady Memorial Reading Center if it were not for the specific situa- tion involving New York State law. PAGENO="0616" 610 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS In the absence of State laws to the contrary, a State or local educational agency may enter into a contract with a private agency for services provided: 1. The private agency is not an agency which operates a private school; 2. Any instructional services furnished by the private agency will be under the active supervision of the State or local educational agency conducting the project; 3. The State or local educational agency will continue to be responsible for the activities being carried out through the private organization. It is our opinion that the Boorady Memorial Institute is not a school, but rather an institution that provides a remedial instructional service. Thus, inso- far as Federal regulations are concerned a local public school district could contract with the institution. If I can be of further assistance please call upon me. Sincerely yours, JOHN F. HUGHES, Director, Division of Compensatory Education. Mr. GOODI:LL. I made inquiry to the Office of Education. We got a somewhat (`out rarv reply with reference to the eligibility for contract with a private operaUon of this nature. This is a rather critical mat- ter. It Uoes not seem to me that we make very much sense, especially when it is the same committee writing both laws and saying the Fed- em] Coiistitution prohibits granting of money or contracting of money for a private operation uhi(ier the Elementary and Secondary Act but the Federal Consi iti~t ion iloes not ])rohlibit it under the poverty law. Mr. JIFGIIES. The cont racting with a private agency that is not a school is a permissil)ie arrangement. Mr. Goonl:LL. 11ev can you make such a constitutional distinction, or a distinction nuclei the law as far as that is concerned? Mr. IIFGIILS. There are criteria whereby you can establish whether an agency m:1 rent a shod within the meanmg of the State law or not. In the specific insl ance that von cited, the. agency as we see it would not be ~l1dge(T ~o be a school. it is an agency providing services. Mr. (ho DELL. I w oulci like this clarified. In both instances I am talking about the peisonnel rumiing the remedial program are all qual~fled un(ler tIle State certification procedure, and you have no prol)iem in that respect. It is just a question that they have an ongoing pro~ruani arid tIle local board of education would be willing to contract with them to pI'ovi(le this kind of service. It. is a service that has been on~oin~ wjth poverty money. The answer that I get from yen now is that it cannot continue under Elementary and Secondary Education Act funds. Mi. TInGIIES. As to the authority of OEO arid availability of pov- city funds, we could not, answer on that point, ~\[r. G-oodeh1. ~\Iis. GIIELX. I (lout understand this. Are you saying, "The pri- vate agency is not au agency which operates a private school"? The gentleman from New York is a lawyer. It seems to me that this just invites evasion. If somebody runs a private school and they want to be financed, whir could they not set up another nonprofit group and disassociate themselves from the school itself but in fact be the same people? Mr. HETGIIES. Of course, the public school would have the option of whether it felt that there were legitimate arrangements that it would prefer to make with such an agency, so I doubt that an agency would simply adopt. a new name and in effect be operating the school to qualify for such contract. PAGENO="0617" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 611 Mrs. GREEN. We see a great change in higher education these days on the control of certain institutions, such as the board of trustees. Ilsn't this primarily so that they can qualify? Mr. HUGHES. I wish to make clear the point that in neither case is the private agency or the private school qualifying for funds in its own name. It is the question of whether the local public educat1on agoncy chooses to use its allocation and its eligibility in a given man- ner. In the specific case the question was, Could they contract with a public agency which is rendering a service which the local public agency wishes to avail itself of? Mr. DrNT. I tl~ink what Mrs. Green is bringing out is very im- portant.. I remember once when we had a Sta.te aid program for hospitals in our State they could not make the appropriation to pri- vate institutions. So we started to write some kind of formula where- by they could receive State aid in the private hospitals. All we decreed was that they had to take. members of the board of trustees that did not belong to the same denomination that ran the hospital. 1 am afraid that is what you are getting into here. I am not afraid; I don't care. Mr. 000DELL. From my observation, the house of education has been extremely conservative about its guidelines and the. administra- tion of this particular program in terms of the private schools. If anything, they have made their lines considerably more narrow- than most of us anticipated. This raises a very serious question. There are many areas of the country where the private schools are not being utilized to a profitable degree and I think we have to settle this issue one way or another. It seems ridiculous that the poverty program can go ahead, in effect, without any limitation, making grants to private schools, private agencies for a variety of purposes~ while under the education program there are very narrow limits. In the two instances that I refer to, as a matter of fact, the children in the program are accepted from all denominations. They are accepted from any source. It is not a denominational program in terms of children, it is not a denomina- tional program in terms of name, it is not a denominational program in terq~s of the teachers. One of the teachers is a Catholic nun who is a certified teacher in New York State in one program and is perfectly willing to take off her religious habit and teach on the basis of t.he New York State schoolteacher. There are a variety of adjustments that might he made, but the nondenominational program has been declared ineligible for title I funds. I might say that up to this point it has been declared ineligible because the State of New York refused to permit this. But the answer 1 had from the Office of Education was that under the broad terms of title I this kind of situation would be eligible if it were eligible at the State level, it would be eligible if the State law would permit it. Mr. HOWE. Let me make a broad comment, and then let Mr. Hughes say some more about this. You are quite correct, sir. We have walked very carefully in the administration of the private school pro- visions of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and not tried to push these provisions beyond what was a very careful series of definitions by the Congress and a meticulously defined legislative history. PAGENO="0618" 612 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDIJCATION AMENDMENTS In spite of all this guidance it has been difficult for us to administer these provisions of this act. There are vigorous parties interested from both directions, you might say. in having us offer broader services in private schools and, on the other hand, in having us offer narrower services in private schools. We are always walking a tight rope in developing what can be clone in the context of a private school as well as what can be done for a private school pupil in the context of a public school, although that is a less difficult matter to work with. We have had innumerable issues of the detail raised by this and tried wherever we could to have them settled by State authorities working with local levels. We occasionally find the Commissioner's Office pulled in to try to work out these problems, but we are talking here in an area which has, although a great deal of definition from the. Congress. still not enough definition to settle all the issues and 1 suspect in the detailed case you are raising here this may be one of those rather exceptional ones where we are having to make policy as we decide the issues. This is what. makes it. hard for us. I would like Mr. Hughes to comment further on your specific question. Mr. IILGIIES. I think the specific that. we encountered in the New York State law was a prohibition that the. State law contains against the rendering of any instructional service by a person in the religious garb. Mr. GOODELL. J~et me separate the question. I am trying to get into this question and inve~tigate it and I found that there were State Problems and there appeared to he no Federal problem. Your tes- timony today would appear to raise Federal problems as well as State problems. If we could establish that there is rio Federal problem, then I think we can move at the State level to see if we can solve whatever problem there is there. Mr. HLGHES. As we understand this institution. Mr. Gooclell, this memorial institute, it does not appear to me to he the criteria of beng a school. If that i~ so. it i~ an a~encv that could legally, in our judg- ment. contract with a local public agency which has a grant under title I to render services to that a~ency provided tho~e instructional services remain under the supervision and control of the local agency. ~rr. GOODELL. I think New York State has taken a varying view as to whether it is a school. I go back to what Mrs. Green referred to earlier, it is a rather tenuous clistmction to make whether it is a. school or not. Mr. }Trrc4i~rEs. We certainly have had to make very close decisions in terms of the legality of participation of nonpublic schools in the program. I think this is prol)ably one of those close cases. In the cases that have come to us thus fa.r in terms of contracting with schools which are obviously clesi~nated a.s schools and qualify as schools within the laws of the State, we. have ruled that t.he participa- tion by suc.h schools under a. contrac.t with the local education agency would represent the payment. of salaries by the local educational agency and therefore would not be legal. Mr. 000DELL. I do not mean to pursue this alone, although I am very interested in the individual case. I raise it, because I think it il- lustrates the problem that we have here in drawing the line as to what PAGENO="0619" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 613 kind of operations are eligible. My own view is that I would look with a great deal more favor on a contract made by a public school agency with private agencies than I do on your apparent present practice of having public school teachers teach a private, school. This is just a view that I have, and we raised this in a debate originally. I won't go back to that question. It does seem to me that when you have a contract by a public school board to provide a service, to pro- vide training, teaching, you might determine the conditions under which this would be eligible. I don't see that drawing the line on whether it is a school or not is a very rational decision. You might want to say that the private agency has to be open to all children re- gardless of denomination. You might say that it has to teach no religion of any nature in the course of its instructions. You might say that there be nobody teaching in a. religious habit. I think all of those are reasonable standards, but they are not the standards that you at the. Federal level are applying. Mr. I~TuGIiEs. The problem we encounter is the one of the payment of salaries of teachers of private schools, and it. has been determined that if we did this by contract we would be doing indirectly what we are precluded from doing by regulation, that is, the payment of such salaries. Mr. GOoDELL. That just bypasses the question. If a private school teacher teaches all day long in a private religious school and in the evening wants to perform a service under contract in the public school system, do von think this would be barred? Mr. ~ Xo that would not be l.)RlTe(.l. That would be per- misSil)le, if under those circumstances the private school teacher was clearly on the pulilic payroll and under pni~iic supervision and con- trol. The extra services of such private teacher under those circum- stances has been allowed. Mr. GOODELL. Supposing they made a contract with somebody. i'[r. Jones went out and got some public school teachers to teach at ni'rht. Your contract. between the public school board and Mr. .Tones who has the agency, the. XBC board or something. And he has private school teachers teaching at ni~ht, part time, mind some public school teachers teaching at night. Is this eligible? Mr. IIUGHT:S. This could pos~ib1v be so. I think the pi~obiem is paving the salary of a teacher who is in the employ of the school per se and therefore is an employee of that school. Mr. GOODELL. If that. is the pmol~1em, the individual case I refer to should l)e clearly eligible; because the teachers in this particiTlar institution are not part of a parochial or private school system. They are teaching in a. remedial reading school, remedial reading program, which has been largely supported by charitable donations and finally a poverty grant. It. is an interesting contradiction that the poverty grant is never questioned. Then when we go for title I funds they say "WTell, there are. real questions of the separation of church and state. Mrs. GREEN. I heard reference made to the legislative history of this act which was so meticulously done. Mv recollection is that if anybody recolleets legislative history they continue saying yes or no to the same question. PAGENO="0620" 614 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS Mr. HOWE. Maybe that is an overstatement. Mrs. GREEN. To get this thing settled once and for all and quit arguing about it, what is the Department's attitude toward judicial review? Mr. HowE. We had a meeting to discuss that at 4 o'clock tins after- noon, but we had to call it off. Our position remains the same as it has been. Our position is essentially not to support the proposals. I believe it is Senator Ervin who brought proposals for judicial review in the Senate and initiated a bill there. Mrs. GREEN. On what. basis? Mr. HOWE. You are getting me out of my depth because this is a long and legal argument. It includes-and we can give you a memo- randum on this, if you would like to see it-but it includes some feeling that the proposals themselves may not be constitutional. It is our belief that we can get experience in the administration of this program that~ will help us handle most of these issues as they come along and that there will be eventually, peihars under the normal processes of judicial challenge, some cases that will be of assistance. But it seems to me persoiiallv, riot, speaking for the Department, that if such cases do come along they may be helpful with some of the more difficult issues, but that we could run dangers of overturn- ing-not overturnrn2, but providing a roadblock to administration of the pro~ram through excessive judicial review activities. Mrs. GREEN. Would you support ~ome other kind of judicial review bill for instance on one articular act ? I had one that the Depart- ment of Education drew up for me a few years ago. Would you sup- port it? Mr. HOWE. I would like to see it before saving so. Mrs. GREEN. This i~ why I suggest that legislative history is not deE either there or here. Mr. HOWE. It. is a very difficult area especially in regard to this bill. Mr. GOODELL. May I ~ust conclude with reference to the one specific program which is in my district. T would appreciate it if you would provide me with a men~oran'lmnu or a letter in which von outline the reasons why this is or is not eligible and what guidelines you are using in this kind of situation. It. would be helpful to me in te~ms. of answering people back home, first of all, and second I think it would provide some perspective on how we might want to revise this law to make it a little more con- sistent with the poverty law, or perhaps revise the poverty law to make it more consistent with the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. I do think that in this very anomolous situation we did debate at great length the issue of separation of church and state with reference to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, and we did write some very carefully defined limitations, even though there were con- tradictory statements made with reference to what those. limitations meant. in debate. In the poverty law we did none of those things. OEO is merrily giving grants wherever they wish with no reference to separation of church and state, while you people are very carefully confined and, if you will, disabled. Mr. HOWE. Except in the realm of higher education. PAGENO="0621" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 615 Mr. 000DELL. In the realm of higher education we took an entirely different view, so we now have something that goes back, I suppose, to the old Kennedy memorandum you will recall that distinguished between higher and lower education on a constitutional basis. Mrs. GREEN. That is the one they drew up for judicial review that they were in favor of. Mr. HowE. Perhaps consistency is not a virtue. Chairman PERKINS. The gentleman from New York, Mr. Scheuer. The Commissioner has an appointment with Phil Landrum at 5:30. Mr. SCHEUER. I will be through long before that, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Commissioner, we heard yesterday from the representative of the Association of State School Superintendents that they had a disas- trous, and he used that expression, experience under title III, because the State officers had only the right of advising and consulting on title III projects and did not in effect stand in a veto position vis-a-vis cities. Now my experience in New York has been that the present formula works very well. I have the first title III supplementary education service program in the city in my district. The city board of educa- tion prepared the project and then they consulted with the State. The person in charge of tIns title III ~)rOgrCrn in the State asked t.he city and asked me whether they would be eventually welcomed because they thought they could make a great contribution to program. We gladly consented. They made several staff people available full time. After a period of 60 days of constant work they came up with a com- pletely redone program for this title III supplementary services center that was superior in quality to the one that the city approved. Bernard Donovan, superintendent of the city, and I could not have been more pleased with the quality of cooperation we got from the State. Has it been your experience across the country that States that have wanted to make a constructive and creative contribution to the title III programs projects were able to under the formula that permitted them to advise and consult or, on the contrary, has the ex- perience been, as represented to us yesterday, of a disastrous qu~dity because they for some reason that I don't qmte understand felt they were not able to make a contribution of which they were capable? Mr. howE. I would say first of all that the description of this relationQhip under title ITT as disastrous is a great. exaggeration and an exaggeration of anything I have heard from the chief State school officers. I met with them on at least three or four ocassions during the past year in formal meetings. to discuss, among other matters, this title III question. There is some feeling among the chief State ~chool officers that title ITT ought to he (tifferently orga- nized and that they should have the prerogative of controlling it. This is not a umniver~a1 feeling. There is some very reali~fic recognition among the chief State school officers that the current system of administration brings some strength and avoids Some problems as far as they are conceimed. You do not always get the same answer when talkin~ nffic~flll~ in a group. as you do when talking privately with some people who have these concerns. Specifically on your question we have en- deavored to extend more and more prerogatives to States willing to pick if- up. This has been true of New York State, true of California, PAGENO="0622" 616 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDFCATION AMENDMENTS true of Texas. Mr. Estes could name some other States where this type of cooperation has developed where a resourceful person has helped local districts in the design of projects in the same way you suggest happened in New York City. I haven't felt that there was any overriding need to make a change although I felt it was right to have a debate about the matter. This is exactly what we had with the chief State school officers. Mr. SCHEETR. I understand their problem where the State wanted to stop something, but where the State wanted to make a contribution in New ~ork state they said they were able to do so very effectively. Do von know of any State where the. State school officer said "I had a positive contribution to make and nobody would listen"? Mr. I-lowE. Not that I am aware of. It would seem to me that this would be most unlikely. Mr. SCHEFER. Thank you. Now on the question of research. We are all familiar with the typical government report that ends up gath- ering dust in the files. We maintain them for a few generations and all too frequently nothing happens beyond its gathering dust. Now the Office of Education has produced four remarkably interesting reports I menti(med this morning: three produced by the National Advisory Council on title I and the one report on the educationally dmsadvantaged. so-called Coleman report. I would like to ask a few questions about those reports. punning through these reports. particularly through the National Advisory Council's report, is their conviction from experience that the school districts that effect a basic change in the attitude of teachers, in the rapport the teachers establish with kids, in the feelings and beliefs of the teachers about their role, about the integrity of the kids, about their relationships and responsibilities to the disadvantaged kids, it was these teachers in these schools that made the progress. Can you tell us what you have done as a result of these reports com- ing from cities across the. country to promote. change in the quality of teacher-pupil relationshil) to promote that. rapport which seems to be an indispensable element of real progress of the disadvantaged kids? Mr. HOWE. Let. me make a couple of general observations and see if the two gentlemen on my left cannot augment this. First of all, the Teacher Corps itself is addressed in the direction that we are discuss- ing here. Second. we have encouraged local school districts very broadly to use a portion of their title I allocations for personnel improvement activities, for training and retraining not only teachers but teacher aides, for helping teachers and teacher aides to be sensitized to the problems of the kind of youngsters we are trying to help under title I. Mr. SCETFrER. Have you put out any information in t.he form of brouchure or memorandum or any publications that contain the thought that. runs throughout these reports so that you are able to reach the 1.6O1~.OOO teachers involved? Mr. TTowr. I know we have sent out a major mailing in the way of teacher aides. Mr. IFftcrjrs. In the case of the specific report that you refer to, Mr. Scheuer, the November report dealing with the summer program con- ducted last year. we. certainly agree with your conclusions about the PAGENO="0623" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 617 worthwhileness of the report, and we have made excellent pains to distribute that report widely throughout tile country. Every school system ill tile country will receive a copy of the report, ill fact every- one has. Mr. SCEIEUER. Tile January 1967 Report is extraordinarily- Mr. HuGilEs. rilliat is right. Our supply of those have not arrived, but the November report has been sent out. Mr. ScIIEUER. I would be glad to lend you my copy if it will help the dissemination progress. Mr. HUGHES. There will be a distribution of the January report as well. I think another point that is worth mentioning in this regard is the conference we held last summer in which we called representa- tives from all the States. We did ask for four representatives from each State representing both tile State office, higher eduction within the State, and urban and rural districts. We. also called in a group of experts and consultants to form panels to discuss problems such as those you are relating to in terms of children and teacher relationships. The report of that collterence has also been given extra wide dissemi- nation. We have asked each State to conduct followup conferences comparable to the national conference. Practically every State that agreed to do so has completed those. Mr. SCIIEUER. Would it be feasible to get together a roomful of addressograph plates that would really represent tile people involved in the teaching profession across tile country? I suppose it would be about a million of them, audi a couple of times a ear get out to every single one. of them these terrificall significant and thoughtful and sen- sitive reports? That might involve a sul.)Stantial amount. of money. It seems to me that the reports I have discussed are so full of precedent shattering implications, are so constructive and thoughtful that they deserve the widest conceivable distribution. Mr. HOWE. Yes, sir. Another step we are planning in connection with the. teacher is a distribution of tile publication of our Advisory Council on the followup program. We will be issuing within the next month an extensive supply of these brochures and we will be specif- ically aiming them at schoolteachers. Mr. SCITEFER. Call you get them to every teacher in tile elementary and secondary system ? Mr. HUGhEs. As von can well iina~ine, Mr. Scheuer, we don't have any addressograph list of all the schoolteachers in the country. It would be. quite a job to keep such a list, up. But we do plan a. series of bulletins the first of which will be this bulletin I mentioned on the summer programs which will be sent. to the states ill such quantities as to permit distribution to the schoolteachers. We do think that. such should go particularly to the teachers of the disadvantaged. WTe do think that reac1iin~ schoolteachers with these special publications arid messa~es such as that contained in the Advis- or'.- Council report is a worthwhile effort. We plan to do so. Mr. ScTIrFnm. Let me get to your further I hiou~iits on the reports. The reports also describe at. great length the ne(essit for adequate nutrition and health services. They descril)e the. fact that extreme hunger was a key element in educationahl (hisa(lvantage across the country. They describe time indispensable nature of impact in tile PAGENO="0624" 618 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS home, the Coleman report was particularly strong on this and bring- ing the parents in the teaching process. They describe the indispens- able nature of the complementary social service in the creation of aids to help teachers in smaller class situations. I would like, to quote one sentence: For the most part we have not yet learned to group projects in the total pro- grams and to spread such programs throughout the whole school areas where disadvantaged children are concentrated. Aiiahi and again they have made the point that it. is the totality of effort that counts. Now if any link is left out of this chain, the whole suffers drastically. Apparently we are in a.n actual bind and cannot do the whole job for the whole country, but also these reports make. clear that in their view unless we do the whole job we don't achieve a threshold effect, we don't really achieve qualitative change with the kids. Do von think it would be worthwhile to have some. kind of demon- strstion program. an impact program that would include 25 cities, and set up a (lemonstration program in some of the schools, perhaps in an elementary school or perhaps associated with a university where we would give a certain control group of kids, in a dozen or two dozen (`ities. the full length and breadth and depth of these re- sour'e~. the parent average, the nutrition, the health services, the small classes, the complementary and social services, so that at the end of a. year or two or three we might. be able to prove on a. cost-benefit theory that anything less than the. full investment really does not pay off, and that in order to achieve a threshold effect and in order to get this explosion of commitment and identification with the education process and to make the kid an effective participant in the school pro- gram and to prevent him from being handled in the Job Corps when he is a high school dropout, that. it pays now to spend 15 or 16 or 17 hundred dollars on these disadvantaged schools which the good suburb and districts do spend for schools hut for kids that come from home- do von think such a demonstration program on a control basis might give us predictable and analyzahle information that would make sense? Mr. T-Towr. This is exactly what we are planning in connection with Follow-Through. T think the idea of demonstration more broadly conceived than Follow-Through in the sense it might extend through other ~rades than Follow-Through is a useful way to test out corn- pensatorv education and this kind of te.st would be well worth making. I (lout know whether any States have themselves moved in this direction. Mr. ItsTEs. I don't know of any States. The Southeastern Regional Laboratory however has identified 24 schools, in Georgia~ Alabama, and Florida. working through t.he regional office in title III and State departments. They are going to attempt over the next 3 to 5 years to demonstrate this very thing. They have selected some of the worst schools in those Southeastern States and want to show what quality intervention, as von discussed it, will do if we concentrate on them. Mr. SCIIEuEE. When you speak of followthrough, as I understand the. fi~iires. you are talking about several hundred dollars investment. per child. WThat is the average figure you contemplate spending per child? PAGENO="0625" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDLTCATION AMENDMENTS 619 Mr. HOWE. Title I is now spending somewhere around $150, per- haps a little less. Followthrough will spend in excess of $300 per child. You have to add these two together to think of the. difference it would be making. Roughly, for the average school district that comes very close to doubling what would be expended per child. It does not reach the level Headstart has reached, but comes close to it. Mr. SCHEUTER. Would it include all these elements I have discussed in nutrition, the full health services, the parent average ? Mr. HowE. We have been writing these into the arrangement we are setting up for the delegation of authority from OEO to us as part of the arrangement required for Operation Followthrough. The fam- ily connection, the health services, and so on. Mr. SCHEUER. How can you do that for $450, if it. costs somewhere between 12 and 14 hundred dollars for a full year Headstart program? Mr. HOWE. You can make a pretty good start. on it for close to double what is being spent on pupils. You may not come to an exact per-pupil level of 15 per teacher, which is approximately what Head- start has, but I would question whether that is an absolute necessity. It seems to me as you reach class sizes of the range of 20 to 25 and as you put teacher aides in a class you would give the services that would make sense. So I think the economics of what we are talking about in demon- stration projects through Follow--Through can work out to provide significantly larger services. Mr. EsrEs. There would be some 5,000 or so of these demonstra- tion projects. In addition to that, there would be a 20-percent. stipend that would make it possible for the Commissioner to explore all sorts of acceptable alternatives to this process. Mr. HUGHES. I think one interesting contribution to the Operation Followthrough, Mr. Scheuer, will be a report that we will soon have from a group of 12 consultants that are to meet in the Office of Edu- cation and study intensively just the point you are making, the kind of quality instruction of all t.he services-sociaL nutrition, health, and welfare-that should be available. I am sure we w-ill have a very significant report from these consultants as to quality features that should be built in, including class size, including parental involve- ment. It is intended to follow up on all the quality features in Headstart. Mr. SCHEUER. When will that begin? Mr. HUGHES. The committee has already met for 4 days in which they extensively studied problems of criteria.. They have divided into subgroups. They are going to meet. again at the end of this week to try to finalize their report. We will probably have their report possibly next week. Mr. ~CHEUTER. Very good. On the question of school superintend- ents and principals, the reports also emphasize the leadership roles that the school principals, the superintendents, play in energizing teachers who want to do the job as well as working effectively in one way or another with the teachers who weren't responding as they might. Do you have a.ny kind of orientation program worked out for school principals and school superintendents, either by means of conferences 75-492----~37---4O PAGENO="0626" 620 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS or by means of distribution of literature which will be a much smaller, more manageable group than the 6,000 or 7,000 teachers? Mr. I-Iowr. Title I coordinators are continually conducting this kind of activity in the States. Maybe you gentlemen know of specific pub- lications, and so on, that have been useful here. Mr. Esi~s. I know of no specific publication. I would think proba- bly one step better than that, is to team up and have a group of teachers with the principal and a superintendent and perhaps a board member in an institute. We are increasingly moving in this direction in our teacher trailllinr programs. Sending a teacher without the. prin- cipal is not as effective as it is if we send the principal along. We are moving in this approach in our teacher training program. Mr. Sci-u~vi:i~. The model von have developed of consultant advisers under the title I program. I think, is a very exciting innovation. I can't tell von how impressed I was with those three reports and with the apparent stimulating effect that these ~roving troubadours" seem to have had on effeetinQ quality change in school districts and in com- ing hack with reports of the kind of elements that produce qualitative chance. That is a~ great contribution. I appreciate your testimony. It has been most interesting. Chairman PEP~KTXS. Thank von very much. You certainly have made a great contribution here to the committee. I think there is no question it has been very detailed. Your answers have gone a long w~av to help expedite the final consideration and discussion in execu- tive session. I think all the committee members appreciate the way you have responded to our need for information and a better insight into your thinkin~ concerning needs and effective ways that we might in this legislation approach them. WTe appreciate your being here. Mr. I-lowE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. CWhereupon, at ~ :30 p.m., the committee recessed to reconvene at 9 :30 a.m., Wednesday, March 8, 1967.) PAGENO="0627" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EIIITCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 WEDNESDAY, MARCH 8, 1967 HorrsE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Co~L~11'rrEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR, Washington, D.C. The committee met at 10 a.m., pursuant to recess, in room 2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Carl 1). Perkins (chairman of the committee) presiding. Present: Representatives Perkins, Green, Bradernas, Hawkins, Gib- boils, Ford, Hathaway, Scheuer, Meeds, Burton, Quie, Bell, Erlen- born, Scherle, Dellenback, Esch, Eslilernan, Gardner, and Steiger. Staff members present: Robert E. McCorcl, senior specialist, H. D. Reed, Jr., general counsel, William D. Gaul, associate general counsel, Benjamin F. Reeves, editor, Louise M. Dargans, research assistant, and Charles W. Radcliffe, special education counsel for minority. Chairman PERKINS. Tile committee will come to order. A quorum is present. First, I want to make the announcement that a distinguished mem- ber of tile committee, Roman Pucinski, regrets very much that he is unable to be here today hi connection with the presentation of the Greater Cities Superintendents Association because of the sudden death of his nephew. He has to be present in Chicago on this date. He called to express his great interest in the testilTlOny of the representative of tile Chicago School District, and to commend to the committee the administration of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act in the great city of Chicago. We have with us several Congressmen who cannot remain any length of time-the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Reuss, the gen- tleman from CievelancL Mr. Fannin, and Mr. Multer of New York City-and it is my plan this morning to start off with Dr. Bernard 1)onovan who has appeared before this committee before.. Congressman Reuss. STATEMENT OF HON. HENRY S. REUSS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WISCONSIN Mr. Rruss. Mr. Chairman and members of tlie~ committee, I wanted to tell you how proud I am that there is among this array of dis- tinguished witnesses a warm personal friend of mine and the super- intendent for many, many years of our fine Milwaukee school system. 621 PAGENO="0628" 622 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS I had the great. honor of serving with Mr. Harold Vincent as a mem- ber of the ~sIilwaukee School Board before I came here. He is one of the great educators of this Nation. I know that his testimony and that of his colleagues will be most valuable to you. I tha.nk you for the courtesy in inviting me here this morning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman PERKINS. Thank you very much. There has been no Member of the Congress who has been more enthusiastic in supporting all of the educational legislation than the gentleman from Wisconsin I wish to call on Mr. Multer at this time. STATEMENT OF TEE HON. ABRAHAM MULTER, A REPRESENTA- TIVE IN CONGRESS YROM TEE STATE OP NEW YORK Mr. MULTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was hoping that my distinguished colleagues, Mr. Car and Mr. Scheuer could be here, but unfortunately they have been delayed. I am sure had they been here they would be happy to present Dr. Bernard Donovan, superintendent of our New York City schools, who is highly respected at home. I commend him and his testimony to the favorable consideration of this committee. Thank you, sir. Chairman PERKINS. Dr. Donovan, it is a pleasure to welcome you back before the committee. You may proceed. STATEMENTS OF TIlE REPRESENTATIVES OF GREATER CITIES SUPERINTENDENTS ASSOCIATION; DR. BERNARD DONOVAN, SUPERINTENDENT, NEW YORK CITY; DR. LAURENCE PAQUIN, SUPERINTENDENT, BALTIMORE; DR. WILLIAM ORRENBERGER, SUPERINTENDENT, BOSTON; DR. PAUL BRIGGS, SUPERINTEND- ENT, CLEVELAND; DR. NORMAN DRACKLER, SUPERINTENDENT, DETROIT; DR. HAROLD VINCENT, SUPERINTENDENT, MILWAU- KEE; DR. TAYLOR WHITTIER, SUPERINTENDENT, PHILADEL- PHIA; AND DR. RALPH DAILARD, SUPERINTENDENT, SAN DIEGO Dr. DONOVAN. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, may I first express to the committee the deep appreciation of t.he city super- intendents gathered here today to present testimony. It is most en- couraging to have this opportunity for the great cities to be heard by Congress as it considers its future actions on the provision of Federal aid to education. `We w~ sh to compliment the members of the committee and the Mem- bers of Congress in general for the educational statesmanship which has been shown in the development of effective Federal aid to educa- tion. Although we know that. the Members of Congress have many respon- sibilitie~ ~n a variety of areas, we. feel that the members of this commit- tee. and their congressional colleagues have made history within the past several years by their recognition of the urgent need for raising PAGENO="0629" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 623 ~the educational level of this entire Nation with the. assistance of Fed- eral funding. Our appearance here today is designed to help the mem- bers of this committee and the Members of Congress in their search for the types of legislation which will really meet the critical educational needs of the Nation. The great cities of the country are represented here today by eight superintendents of schools. A ninth superintendent, Dr. Marland, of Pittsburgh, testified before you last Friday. In addition, we are pre- pared to submit to t.he committee, statements prepared by eight other great city superintendents whose official duties within their own school systems prevented their being with us today but who are keenly con- cerned with the work of the committee. Chairman PERKINS. Without objection, those statements will be in- cluded in the record. (The documents referred to follow:) STATEMENT OF E. C. STIMBERT, SUPERINTENDENT, MEMPHIS Cn'y SCHOOLS MEMPHIS, TENN. Mr. Chairman-Distinguished Members of the House Education and Labor Committee. In concert with my colleagues of The Research Council of The Great Cities Program for School Improvement, it is a pleasure and an honor to be afforded the opportunity to present this statement in support of H.R. 6230, The Elementary and Secondary Education Amendments of 1967. TITLE I Within a tentative basic allocation of $2,550,000, we are providing instruction, guidance and/or psychological services to 23,892 educationally disadvantaged school children; 518 of whom are from non-public schools. 411 teachers have received (or will receive) In-Service Training. A total of 476 personnel have been employed in administrative or instructional positions. Forty-one vacancies exist. We continue to experience difficulty in obtaining qualified personnel in the areas of Special Education, Reading, School Psychology and Elementary Guidance. For a detailed analysis of the eight projects which comprise our Title I Program, I respectfully refer you to a summary which is attached. A tally of all costs indicates that 6.8% of funds are budgeted for Administration; 84.23% for Instruction; 1.12% for Capital Outlay; 6.38~ for Other Costs (exclud- ing food) and 1.47% for Food Service. It becomes readily apparent that the Memphis City School System is placing emphasis upon Imstruction to school children. We believe this to be the primary purpose of Title I as enacted, and the intent of Congress. With Title I funds we are providing instruction and services to children, teachers and parents that we simply could not provide otherwise. Daily we observe evidence of the fact that educational thought has been triggered and the results, in part, are qualitative improvement in curriculum and teaching processes attuned to the capabilities of disadvantaged students. We are utilizing in excess of a quarter million dollars for a Comprehensive Special Education project which benefits 735 children in six areas of excep- tionality-Educable Mentally Retarded; Trainable Mentally Retarded; Percept- ually Handicapped; Speech, Deaf and Visually Limited. Additionally, with our own Board of Education funds, we are serving approximately 2.300 children- yet some 600 remain on waiting lists. We appreciate the fact that this Com- mittee is not responsible for appropriations; however, we should like to be counted among those who strongly support and urge the full funding of Title VI, Education of Handicapped Children. Although not a unique project but one that is very exciting to the Memphis City Schools is our Elementary Guidance and Psychological Services Project funded with $454,641.00 under Title I. The services provided by this project constitute a new dimension in our guidance and psychological services program which previously was limited to the secondary level. Many of the children referred to the project staff by teachers and prinicpals are, after appropriate testing, diagnosis and evaluation recommended for special education classes. PAGENO="0630" 624 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMEND~NTS This project will serve approximately 3,500 children during the current school year-only one-half of those in need of such services. Last summer we operated a "free" Summer School Project for 4912 elementary and secondary children at a cost of $625,000.00. The prospects for a similar proj- ect this summer are dim indeed. However with $72.408.00, we will operate a Basic Swimming Instruction Project for 10,000 children in grades 5 and 6, utilizing 12 portable pools. Details of the project are contained in the attached summary. TITLE II Based upon 133.094 children enrolled in Public and Private Schools-October 1, 1966, the Memphis City Schools allotment is $257,233.00. We plan to utilize all funds for the purchase of library books only. We will share proportionately ($1.93 per child) with the children enrolled in the local Catholic Schools. Harding Academy Schools (Church of Christ) and the Hebrew Academy-the only pri- vate schools in Memphis in compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. We experienced no difficulty in the administration of Title II last year and anticipate none this year. TITLE III We are currently implementing a ~44.243.00 Planning Grant awarded Novem- ber 15. 1966 by FSOE under Title III. A multi-million dollar "Mid-South Re- gional Science Center" is being planned to serve students, teachers, and the general public in 13 West Tennessee counties. The primary objective of the Mid-South Regional Science Center is to provide innovative and exemplary sci- ence programs and services for the improvement of science education. We will submit our application for an operational grant on July 1, 1967. PUBLIC LAW 874 Memphis City Schools became eligible for P.L. 874 funds when the percentage of eligible children was lowered from 5% to 3% of the total pupil membership. For the 1005-6G school year. a survey was taken iii September and again in May. In September we found 4.7S2 eligible out of 120,110 children, and in May we had 4.892 out of 11S.661 children. We received $531,190-4.05% of our children have l~arents or guardians working on, but not living on, federal prop- erty in Memphis. A base allotment of 5230.72 X .50 per child w-a~ granted. The law w-as again liberalized for the l066-~67 school year. All personnel in the uniformed services regardless of location were declared eligible. Our Sep- tember count has requested payment for 5.898 out of 120.312 or 4.9%. Estimated revenue for 1066-MT from P.L. 874 w-ould be greater than $650,000 based on an allotment of 823S.00 x .50. SUMMARY Although we did not address specifically all areas under consideration for amendment, a review of our P.L. 89-10 Projects indicates that we have a vested interest in practically all areas. We strongly support amendments relative to Comprehensive Educational Planning: Innovation in Vocational Education; Ex- panded Educational Opportunities for Handicapped Children and the Federally Impacted Areas Program. In conclusion your attention is invited to the fact that we are, as of this date. operating on a tentative basic allocation under Title I. We still do not know the amount of our firm allocation for the current school year. The thnely funding of programs at authorized levels continues as a significant problem. School people base their plans upon authorizations. Accordingly. if sound. well planned programs are to be operated. full funding of the various educational acts is essential. SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAl. SIBMTTTED BY MR. STIMBERT. BOARD OF EDITCATTON. MEMPHIS CITY ScHoor~s Tbe Elementary and Secondary Education Act 1.065, Title I, Public Law 89-10 TENTATIVE BASIC FEDERAL FUNDS AVAILABLE $2,550,000 General-The Title I Program for the school year 1966-67 includes the follow- ing projects: PAGENO="0631" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDITCATION AMENDMENTS 625 Title Amount Project No.: 67-01 Master project-Reading improvement and achievement emphasis. $1, 161,425 67-02 Teacher training in improving reading skills (September session). 78, 691 67-03 67-04 67-05 Kindergarten Elementary guidance and psychological services Vocational education 254,953 454,641 195,289 67-06 67-07 Specialeducation Teacher training in improving reading skills (February session). 289,817 11,881 Total 2, 456, 732 BRIEF OF APPROVED PROJECTS 67-01 Reading improvement and achievement emphasis 1. Rcadinq Improvement-Senior high (a) Purpose: This project is designed to improve the reading ability of selected Senior High School students with the view of improving the students' reading rate, comprehension, self-image and academic achievement in all sub- ject areas. (b) Amount: $335,000. (a) Children benefiting front the project Public Nonpublic Grades: 10 11 12 Total 2,572 2.572 P2 7,716 0 0 0 0 (d) Special features of the project: The library in each project high school will be open for student use from 7 :00 P.M. to 9 :00 1'.M. three nights a w-eek and on Saturday morning from 9 :00 A.M. to 12 :00 A.M. Each library will be staffed with one librarian and two aides. The library feature will primarily serve the students participating in the project, but will not be limited to their use. All students will be encouraged to utilize the services antI facilities of the libraries involved in this project. (e) Personnel required: Teachers 1 Teacher aids 60 Librarians 8 Librarian aids 16 2. Reading improvement-Elernen tar?, (a) Purpose: This project is designed to improve the reading ability of selected elementary pupils with the view of improving the students' self-image, reading rate, comprehension, and academic achievement in all subject areas. (b) Amount: $351,825. (a) Children benefiting from the project Grades: 4 6 Total PAGENO="0632" 626 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS (d) Special features of this project: The reading teacher will schedule small group (3-6 students) and individual instruction periods according to the needs of participating students. Instruction will begin at the child's reading level using interesting materials different from those used in the regular classroom. Methods of instruction will be varied to meet the individual needs of the students. Special materials include reading laboratories, listening centers, instructional games, texts at various grade levels, and high interest materials. Students in this project will be referred to the proper source for guidance services and visual and auditory examinations. (e) Personnel required: Teachers Teacher aids Librarians 17 Librarian aids 0 3. Achievement Emphasis-Junior High (a) Purpose: The project is designed to provide under-achievers in Grades 7. 8, and 9 with the opportunity to improve their individual achievement in the basic subject matter flehls. (b) Amount: ~175,S72. (c) Children benefiting from the project Public Nonpublic Gr~1es: 1,500 0 1,000 0 900 0 Total 3,400 (d) Special features of this project: 11 Libraries w-ill be open on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday nights from 7 :00 P.M. to 9 :00 P.M. in the project Junior High Schools. 2~ Emphasis in this project exists in four areas-language arts and reading, social studies, science, and mathematics. Schedules for the student are flexible so that the teacher may concentrate on individual needs rather thou adhering to the traditionally structured hour time block. There are plans to broaden the educationally deprived child's environment by field trips to local businesse~. cultural centers, and other points of interest throughout the city, audio-visual aids (e.g. movies, overhead and slide pr~ jectors. tape recorders. etc.) and a variety of other learning activities. (`~) ~ mobile science laboratories have been J)urchased which will aid in teaching of general science, biology, chemistry, and physics. The Space/ Science van is equipped w-ith a planetarium, science lab area, complete weather bureau station, all types of audio-visual aids, and a display area. The biology, chemistry, and physics van is equipped to conduct laboratory exl)ernnents in any of the three major science areas. Two science teachers compose the staff of each of the traveling laboratories. (e) Personnel required: Teachers Teacher aids 11 Librarians 0 Librarian aids 0 4. Achievement emphasis-Elementary (a) Purpose: This project is designed to provide underachievers in Grades 4, 5. and 6 with the opportunity to improve their individual achievement in the basic subject matter fields. (b) Amount: $298,728. PAGENO="0633" Public Nonpublic Grades: 3 200 4 1,200 5 750 6 569 Total 2.719 0 (d) Special features of the project: The program is flexible so that the students are able to spend more time on subjects in which they are deficient. The classes are similar to an ungraded class and for this reason, it is hoped that each pupil can progress rapidly enough to return to the regular school program. (e) Personnel required: Teachers 38 Teacher aids 0 Librarians 18 Librarian aids 0 67-02 Teacher training in improving reading skills (a) Purpose: This project is designed to give special training in improving reading skills to teachers of educationally disadvantaged elementary and junior high children. (b) Amount: $78,691. (c) Children benefiting from the project Public Nonpublic Grades: 4 to 6 340 0 7 to 9 340 0 Total oso 0 (d) Special features of the project: An intensive ten (10) week course for eleven elementary and eleven junior high teachers conducted by Doctors Sawyer and Taylor in the Reading Laboratory of the School of Education at Memphis State University. Substitute teachers were hired to replace these twenty-two teachers while they were attending the Laboratory. Each teacher transported three students from their regular classes to the Reading Laboratory and used the new techniques on these students. (e) Personnel required: Reading consultants 2 Graduate assistants 3 Substitute teachers 22 67-03 Kindergarten (a) Purpose: The purpose of this project is to take children of pre-school age (eligible for first grade 1967) who show a marked deficiency in readiness, and attempt to increase their expectations in school. Priority w-as given to the chil- dren who showed the greatest deficiency in readiness for learning. (b) Amount: $251,638. (e) Children benefiting from this project _______~ Public Nonpublic Grade: Kindergarten 625 0 Total 625 0 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 627 (c) Children benefiting from the project 0 0 0 0 PAGENO="0634" 628 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS (d) Special features of this project: Teachers and aids for this project were given a one week training period prior to the inception of the project. In-Service meetings are to be held throughout the year with emphasis on guidance in under- standing the child's growth and development and ways to improve the self-image of the child. The curriculum provides for inter-related and interdependent ac- tivities which will be implemented by the child's work and play and teachers led experiences. e.g. discussing, listening, field trips, investigating, experimenting, constructing and observing. (e) Personnel required: Teachers Teacher aids 25 67-04 Elementary guidance and psychological services (a) Purpose: This project was designed to provide for the development of a program of elementary guidance and psychological services for educationally deprived children in the geographical areas of twenty-seven elementary schools, ten secondary schools and seveis Catholic schools. These services will be closely coordinated with the regular school program. There are three centers, Kiondike, LaRose. and Prospect. (b) Amount: $454,641. (c) Children benefiting from the project Public Nonpublic Nonschool Grades: Kindergarten 1-3 7-9 10-12 1Jngraded 43 1,296 1,168 197 ~ 5 33 32 27 6 40 ~ 10 5 10 Total 2,747 98 125 (d) Special features of the project: The staff members, in working with the referred youngster, will go to the child either in his school and/or visit the child in his home environment. Efforts are to be made to improve the physical and mental health of the child. (e) Personnel required: Director 1 Supervisors Psychological interns 2 School psychological service workers 9 Elementary guidance counselors 18 School psychologists 5 G7-05 Vocutiosml edncation (a) Purpose: This project is designed to help the student to improve his achievement in the occupational skills areas of Distributive Education, Office Occupations, Home Economics, Industrial Arts, and Trade and Industrial. Ui) Amount: $195289. (c) Children benefiting from the project Public Nonpublic Grades: 8 10 11 12 Total 2 42 102 266 782 0 0 0 0 0 PAGENO="0635" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 629 (d) Special features of the project: (1) The special feature of the Distributive Education area is that the stu- dents are giveil the opportunity of obtaining knowledge, competency and skills in marketing and distribution by combining the classroom activities with actual work experience in stores and markets. (2 The special feature of the Office Occupations section is that the classroom is set up just as one would find in any business department of any company throughout the city or area. This allows the StU(lent upon completion of the course to go into any business and begin work without feeling lost. (3) The special features of the Trade and Industrial portion is that the students are gaining a valuable experience in the areas of cosmetology, printing, and auto mechanics by attending classroom lectures, discussions, and demonstrations in the morning. The afternoon is utilized by the stu- dents actually being inc'olved in work experience projects. (4) The special feature of Industrial Arts section is that it offers the student exploratory experiences in the areas of (1) mechanical drawing, (2) electricity, (3) wood, (4) metal, and (5) electronics. 5) The special feature of the Home Economics area is to try to instill in the girls concepts which are accepted as desirable for satisfactory living within their home and their community. One emphasis will be on good manners, good grooming, poise and self confidence. Another emphasis will be on the student gaining an understanding of good basic nutrition. (e) Persounel required: Area specialists supervisor 1 Distributive education teacher 5 Home economics 1 Office occupations 10 Industrial arts 2 Trade and industrial 4 67-06 S'pccial education (a) Purpose: The purpose of this project is to provide educational experi- ences and work activities to ortilopedically and/or mentally handicapped chil- dren in the following areas of exceptionality-Educable Mentally Retarded, Trainable Mentally Retarded, Perceptually Handicapped, Speech, Deaf, Visually Limited, and Social Adjustment in Vocational Education. (b) Amount: ~2S9,81i. (c) Children to benefit from the project Public Nonpublic Grade: Handicapped ungraded 600 135 Total 600 135 (d) Special features of the project: The utilization of multi-sensory ap- proaches, equipment and devices in accomplishing. Over 314,000.00 will be ex- pended on such equipment as Auditory Training Systems. Auditory Trainerettes, Language Masters, Tape Recorders. Copy Machines, Filrnstripo and Overhead Projectors. In addition, there will be twenty pairs of special glasses furnished. Another special feature of this project is that it provides for teachers of the Deaf to attend the University of Tennessee for special training. In additioii, the Memphis City Schools in conjunction with the University of Tennessee School of Education, have set up two seminars-one iii Knoxville and one in 3lemphis-to study the problems of the deaf. The Elementary Guidance and Psychological Services Project has identified four hundred twenty-seven children ranging in age from 13-li in twenty-seven elementary schools. Although these children are not mentally retarded, they are not academically talented and lack self-motivation. They are not eligible for the regular vocational program. Therefore, the Special Education Division of the Memphis City Schools has devised a vocational-occupational program which will help the over age child overcome his dilemma. The program is to be called Social Adjustment in Vocational Education or SAVE. PAGENO="0636" 630 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS (e) Personnel required: Supervisor 1 Teachers: EMR 12 SMR 1 Perceptually handicapped 8 Visually handicapped 1 Deaf Speech correction 4 Perceptually handicapped transition 2 Social adjustment 5 Area specialist 3 Consultants 12 Braille specialists 2 Special educational attendants 67-07 Teacher training in improving reading skills (a) Purpose: This project is to begin on February 13, 1967 and is a sequel to Project 67-02 which took place in September. The program will be ten weeks in dura~on. (b) Amount: $11,881. (C) Children benefiting from the project Grades: 4-43 Total (di Special features of the project: Provisions have been made for one Read- ing Teacher from St. Thomas and Blessed Sacrament to attend the Reading Laboratory headed by Drs. Sawyer and Taylor. Substitute teachers will be hired by the M4'rnphis City Schools and placed in the Catholic Schools for the ten \veek period. (ci Personnel Required: Funds for the twenty-two substitute teachers' salaries in this project were obtained in 67-02. 67-OS Operation Head First Due to the fact that the nlans for this project have not been finalized, an appli- cation has not been w-ritten. However, there is enough information available at this time to allow a close approximation of the formation of the project. a) Purpose: Swiming instructions w-ill be given to children in the poverty areas (luring the summer months. Not only will this involve learning to swim, hut it will also help the deprived child's muscular development along with teach- in~ them good health habits. (b) Amount: $FiO,000 estimated. (c) Children. benefiting from. the project Nonpublic Public Grades: 5 6 Total 5,416 5,073 10,489 1175 1210 385 1 Estimated. (d) Special features of the project: Twelve portable swimming pools were purchased in August, 1966 and were delivered in January, 1967. These pools can he moved from location to location. Present plans call for the pools to be used at twelve junior and senior high schools to utilize the shower facilities~ PAGENO="0637" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 631 This program is designed to reach children of the fifth and sixth grade with the possibility of going down to the fourth grade. If any of the original twelve loca- tions do not have enough participants, the pools can be moved to other junior or senior high locations. (e) Personnel required: Director 1 Pool manager 12 Instructor 12 Instructor aids 24 Title I-Summer school Operation of a summer school project is dependent upon receipt of additional funds. PUBLIc LAw 89-10, TITLE I PRoJEers Personnel summary (as of Feb. 7, 1967) Position Number authorized Number requisitioned Number filled Present vacancies Elementary teacher Teacher aid Special education teacher Special education aid School psychologist School psychological service worker Personnel assistant School psychological intern Elementary guidance counselor Director Supervisor/area specialist SpecIal education consultant Testing specialist Graphic arts specialist Audiovisual specialist communication assistant Research assistant Librarian, elementary Librarian, secretary Vocational teacher Science teachers, secretary Reading teacher, secretary Kindergarten teacher Reading consultant Substitute teachers Secretary/clerk-typist Accounting clerk Accountspayableclerk Warehouse clerk Buyer Payroll/insurance clerk Testingclerk Braille specialist Librarian aid Accountant 90 111 33 15 5 9 3 2 18 1 15 10 2 1 1 1 1 35 8 22 4 1 25 5 44 33 1 2 1 2 1 2 2 16 1 84 111 16 15 2 9 3 1 18 1 15 10 2 0 0 0 0 35 8 21 4 0 25 5 44 32 1 1 1 1 1 0 2 11 1 84 111 16 15 2 9 3 1 18 1 15 10 2 0 0 0 0 35 8 21 2 0 25 5 44 30 1 1 1 1 1 0 2 ~ 1 6 0 17 0 3 0 o 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 0 o 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 ~ 0 Summary of approved projects Title of project Amount cumula- tive Balance Project No: 67-01 67-02 67-03 67-04 67-05 67-06 67-07 67-08 Reading improvement and achievement $1, 161, 425 emphasis. Teacher training in improving reading 78, 691 skills. Kindergarten 264, 988 Elementary guidance and psychological 454, 641 services. Vocational education 195. 289 Specialeducation 289,817 Teacher training in improving reading 11, 881 skills. nasic swimming instruction 72, 408 $1, 161, 425 1, 240, 116 1,105,104 1,959, 745 2, 155, 034 2,444,851 2, 456, 732 2,529, 140 $1,388,575 1, 309, 884 1,044,896 590, 255 394, 966 105,149 93, 268 20,860 Nor~.-Tentative basic allocation, $2,550,000. PAGENO="0638" 632 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 1967-Accumulated totals and percentages for Public Law 89-10, title I Amount Percentage (a) Administration $171,888 6.80 (6) Instruction 2,130,265 84.23 (C) Capital outlay 28,360 1.12 (d) Othercosts (excluding food) 161,442 6.38 (e) Food service 37, 185 1.47 Total 2,529,140 100.00 NOTE-This includes projects 67-01 through 67-08. 67-01 Achievement emphasis and reading improvement Amount Percentage (a) Adniinistra tion: 1. Salaries $l12,0~4 9.05 2. Contracted services .01 1 Supplies and materials 4,435 30 Total 116. illS 10.00 (6 Instruction 1. Teacher salaries 41, `1St) 3.60 2. Supervisor salarIes. - 135. 620 37. 3(1 3. Other sahries 483. 134 41 65 4. Co:itracted services t. oi's . .5. Supplies and materials - - - - 5. 370 . 44 Total 964844 8300 (e) Capital outlay: 1. F.juipment for admmistratio:i 3, 841 . 33 2. Equipment for instruction 3 100 . 27 Total 6.941 .6(1 (d) Other costs 73.020 6 49 Total L161,425~ 100.00 67-02 Teacher training in improving reading skills Amount Percentage (a) Administration: 1. Salaries. 0 0 2. Contracted services 0 0 3. Supplies and materials 0 0 Total 0 0 (6) Instruction: 1. Teacher salaries. $36. 740 46.7 2. Supervisorsalaries 0 0 3. Otliersalaries 1.725 2.2 4. Contracted services 9.640 12.3 5. Suppliesand materials (books) 1 30,462 38.7 Total 78.567 (C) Capital outlay: 1. Equipment for administration 0 0 2. Equipment for instrurtion 0 0 Total 0 0 (d) Othercosts ,__~_________~~_ .1 Total 78,691 100.0 PAGENO="0639" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 633 67-03 Kindergarten (8) Instruction: 1. Salaries, guidance personnel 2. Salaries, psycholosical personnel 3. Othersalaries 4. Contracted services 5. Supplies and materials Amount Percentage (a) Administration: I. Salaries 300 3.13 2. Contracted services 200 .08 (8) 3. Supplies and materials Total Instruction: 0 0 8.aOO 3.21 1. Teacher salaries 130. 680 49.32 2. Supervisorcitaries 3. Other salaries 4. Contracted services 0 72, 600 0 0 27.40 0 5. Supplies and materials Total.~ 1.910 .71 205, 190 77.43 (c) Capital outlay: 1. Equipment for administration 0 2. Equipment for instruction 0 0 0 (d) Total 0 Other costs (excluding food services) 14. 113 0 5.33 tel Food services 185 Total 2t)4, 988 14.03 100.00 67-04 Elementary gwidanee and psych ologieol serriees (a) Total Amount Percentage Administration: 1. Salaries $25,600 5.63 2. Contractedservices 500 . It 3. Supplies and materials 430 . 10 26,530 5.84 193,000 42.45 150,250 33.05 29,700 6.53 9,640 2.12 6,36t 1.40 Total 388, 951 85.55 (r) Capital outlay: 1. Equipment for administration 420 .10 2. Equipment for instruction 3,55(1 .69 3. Remodeling buildings 1,999 .44 Total 5,569 1.53 (d) Other costs 33, 591 738 454,641 I 500. CO Total PAGENO="0640" 634 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 67-05 Vocational education Amount Percentage (a) Administration: 1. Salaries $9,150 4.69 2. Contracted services.. ~. 120 .05 3. Supplies and materials 225 .12 Total 9,495 4.86 (8) Instruction: 1. Teacher salaries 140,650 72.02 2. Supervisor salaries 0 0 3. Other salaries 0 0 4. Contracted services 3,500 1-79 5. Supplies and materials (textbooks included) 28,755 14-73 Total 172,905 88.54 (c) Capital outlay: 1. Equipment for administration 0 0 2. Equipment for instruction 0 0 Total 0 0 (d) Other costs 12,889 6.60 Total 195,289 100.00 67-06 Special education Amount Percentage (a) Administration: 1. Salaries $8,333 2.88 2. (`ontracted services 120 .04 3. Supplies and materials 275 .09 Total 8,728 3.01 (5) tnetruction: 1. Teacher salaries 150,100 51.78 2. Supervisor salaries 24, 156 8.35 3. Othersalaries 45,000 15.52 4. (`ontracted services 9,207 3.18 5. Supplies and materials 19,100 6.59 Total 247,563 85.42 (r) Capital outlay: 1. Equipment for adnunistration 1,495 .52 2. Equipment forinatruction 14,355 4.95 Total 15,850 5.47 (d) Other costs 17,676 6.10 Total 289.817 100.00 PAGENO="0641" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDFCATION AMENDMENTS 635 67-07 Teacher training in. improving reading skills Amount Percentage (a) Administration: 1. Salaries 0 0 2. Contracted services 0 0 3. Suppliesandmaterials 0 0 Total 0 0 (5) Instruction: 1. Teachersalaries 0 0 2. Supervisor salaries 0 0 3. Other salaries 51,900 15.99 4. Contracted services 9,640 8L14 5. Supplies and materials 200 L68 Total 11,740 98.81 (c) Capital outlay: 1. Equipment for administration 0 0 2. Equipment for instruction 0 0 Total 0 0 (d) Other costs - 141 1.19 Total 11,881 100.00 67-08 Basic sleinh;ning instruction Amount Percentage (a) Administration: 1. Salaries $1,800 2.49 2. Contractedservices 120 .16 3. Supplies andmaterials 100 .14 Total 2,020 -- 2.79 (ti) Instruction: 1. Teacher salaries 0 0 2. Supervisor salaries 0 0 3. Other salaries 54,000 74.57 4. Contracted services 0 0 5. Supplies and materials 6,500 8.98 Total 60,500 83,55 (c) Capital outlay: 1. Equipment for administration 0 0 2. Equipment for instruction 0 0 Total 0 o 01) Other costs 9,888 13.66 Total 72.408 100.00 75-492 O-67-----41 PAGENO="0642" 636 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS STATEMENT OF WILLIAM Korr~izv~z, SvPERTNTENDENT OF INSTRLTTION, Sr. I~vIs PtnLIc SCHOOLS There is little question that education in St. Louis has been considerably strengthened by the help we have received from Congress. We are particularly grateful to this Committee and to its counterpart in the Senate. Without your dedication and hard work the educational legislation would have been far less workable than it proved to be. Our schools are truly in your debt. The children in St. Louis have begun to realize great benefits from this legis- lation and we expect even greater benefits to spring from it ill the future as we in the schools and Congress work to accomplish its laudable purposes. In the St. Louis Public Schools we enroll about 118,000 students from Kinder- garten through the fourth year of our Harris Teachers College. There are in addition another 40.300 lrivate and parochial students attending school in the City of St. Louis. In company with the other great cities of the Nation, St. Louis is gaining large numbers of poor, unskilled, and undereducated persons and losing middle-class taxpayers to the surrounding suburbs. The effects of these conditions have already been well docuniented and so I will not repeat them today. The need, however, not only continues but grows more acute each day it is not met. Let me discuss the items included in the Elementary and Secondary Education Amendments of 1961. Xationai Teacher Corps The St. Louis Public Schools are not now participating in this program. We are. however, very favorable toward it and might have been able to persuade a local university to cooperate with us in establishing a National Teacher Corps in our city if there had been more time last year. At the present time we are working closely with the University of Missouri in St. Louis for this purpose. Certainly any program which can develop dedicated, perceptive, trained teachers to work in the inner city will be completely welcome. Coin preli en.s'i cc educational pie an jag There seems to be little question that long-range and comprehensive planning is a necessity at both state and local levels. Without such planning imbalances and waste of funds will surely result. We are now developing the means by which we can pinpoint instructional difficulties in our schools. We have in- terpreted the evaluation requirements of the Federal educational programs as feedback of information to individual schools as well as feedback to State and Federal authorities. We feel that only when the schools themselves are provided this information can really important changes in pupil achievement occur. Since funding of education is also a state responsibility, information on the condition of education in the state must also be provided. We hope that this information will encourage state legislators to join with the Federal government and the cities in more adequately supporting the schools. Long-range planning at the state level w-ill certainly strengthen the states' hand in the local, state, and Federal partnership to improve education. In noration in rocat tonal education Under this amendment to the Vocational Education Act of 1963 public school systems can establish model vocational education programs. We in St. Louis have the need to increase the quantity and range of vocational training oppor- tunity in our city. Thousands of technically trained workers are needed to serve the burgeoning industry in the St. Louis area. The types of jobs require more specialization than we have ever been able to provide. Another problem also troubles us. The racial pattern in St. Louis fits that of the other major cities. Rapid increases in Negro population and a flight of white, middle-class residents to the suburbs or to private schools. In the last decade the St. Louis Public Schools have lost about 11,000 white pupils and have gained about 33,000 Negro pupils. Today about two out of three of our elementary pupils are Negro. The secondary schools are almost evenly divided betweenu Negro and white pupils. The O'Fallon Technical High School, the only vocational high school in the city had approximately even numbers of white and Negro pupils (48.6~) four years ago. Last year PAGENO="0643" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 637 almost three out of four (71.8%) were Negro. Despite the great need for vocationally trained employees, the total enrollment at the school is dropping as white pupils leave at an accelerated rate. The provisions of this amendment may be able to provide us with the opportunity to change this trend and further implement the St. Louis Board of Education's policy of maximum feasible integration in the school. E.rpandcd educational opportunities for 11 andicapped. children Each year the schools of St. Louis enroll more handicapped children thati ever before. Even with about 7000 pupils enrolled in our special education classes, about 6% of our total enrollment, there are many thousands more who need these services. We estimate that the pupils now served are less than one half the number who should be served if we had the personnel to diagnose their problems and to teach them, the space for classrooms, and the necessary funds. Our costs for such programs are high: Annual cost per pupil Handicapped pupils: Partially sighted $1, 234 Deaf-hard of hearing 1, 758 Crippled 1,619 Emotionally disturbed 958 Mentally retarded 652 Socially maladjusted 75~ The annual per pupil cost for regular classes is $520. When the additional services of personnel to test, evaluate and provide psychological counseling and other supporting services for handicapped children are provided, the costs become almost prohibitive. Thus it is impossible for us to provide the appro- priate educational opportunity for all the children we have a mandate to serve. I should like to make three other points. These relate to the cutback on funds, the date when funds are available, and the need for more flexible and better coordinated use of Federal fu~ds. Last year the St. Louis Public Schools began a series of projects under rfltle I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. We believe that they were well conceived and well administered. We involved many different people-citizens, parents, private school administrators. Community Action Agency personnel and we received enthusiastic reactions to our programs. People began to raise their sights and when the projects were severely curtailed last summer it was a bitter pill for them to swallow. To be specific, last year from December to August we spent $5,191,000 or about $650,000 per month. This year under the continuing resolution, under which we are still operating, we are allowed $3,900,000 or about $32~,000 per month. This reduction was apparently caused by the failure of a number of Missouri school systems to participate in the Title I program last year. Because these districts did not use available funds the entire state is penalized and districts like the City of St. Louis which used their entire allocation last year have their Title I funds proportionately cut. Construction contracts and commitments to professional l)ersonnel allowed us little choice where the reductions had to be made. Our teacher aide prograni was reduced from 476 to 200, and our extensive summer school program which last year enrolled almost 12,000 pupils will, unless additional funds are found, enroll only about 900 pupils. A second problem which I know you are addressing yourselves to is that of providing the funds for operational programs well in advance of the time the money is to be used. Recruiting of personnel is heaviest in January and Feb- ruary. It is virtually impossible to find competent personnel in adequate num- bers later in the year. The budget for the St. Louis Public Schools is made in November and I)ecember and this budget cannot anticipate Federal programs which are funded later in the year. It usually costs a school system extra money to participate iii Federal programs. Some programs require local matching funds: others require indirect cost which perha~s cannot he shown by direct audit trail. It is impossible to budget the costs to participate unless the Board of Education knows what programs will later be available. This I believe has kept some school systems out of much needed Federal programs. PAGENO="0644" 638 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS The date on which funds are appropriated is not too important for the reim- 1)ursable programs like NDEA Title III and the Vocational Education Act. But the ESEA provides funds before the programs start. Any program involving teachers and other personnel must be planned months in advance of the starting (late. We therefore desperately need a firm commitment for program and funds as early as possible. but certainly no later than April if the projects are to start in the Fall. The final problem I would like you to consider is that of greater flexibility in the use of Federal funds. Frequently funds are available but the language of the guidelines is so restrictive that we cannot make use of the Federal program. I would hope that some means could be found that the Commissioner of Educa- tion would be allowed to dispense some funds for problems which are presently unanticipated. The categorical nature of virtually all Federal funding for edu (`ation iiiay well l)e exaniined if we are to use these funds in the most meaning- ful, helpful. and creative ways. Of course there are many other problems-some large, some small, which must be solved. Most of these are administrative details which the U.S. Office has already begun to work out for us. Probably more serious than these are the problems whi(h must be worked out in our own school districts which I sincerely hope we too have the wisdom to solve. In conclusion, I do not want to leave any inlI)resslon that we are dissatisfied with the purposes of the ESEA. The benefits far overbalance the defects in this legislation. It is in a spirit of trying to improve it that these comments are offered. STATEMENT OF DR. JAMES F. REDMOND, GENERAL SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS, BOARD OF EDI~cATIOx. ChIcAGo. ILL. Congressman Perkins and members of the committee, I am James F. Red- mond. General Superintendent of Schools. Chicago. Illinois. I deeply appreciate the priviledge of appearing before you at this time to discuss HR 6230, the Elementary and Secondary Education Amendments of 1967. It is most gratifying to know of the interest of this Committee. the Congress of the United States, and the President in expanding educational opportunities for all citizens of the United States. Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 196~ has provided many educational benefits for American school children from low income families. In Chicago two proJects which have some 41 related activities, funded under Title I, are operational. They include, among others, Child-Parent Edu- cation Centers. Smaller Class Size, Health Services. Speech Improvement. Teaching English as a Second Language, School Beautification, Education and Vocational Guidance Centers, Closed Circuit Television, Demonstration Reading Classes. High School Saturation of Services. In-Service Education Center, Read- ing Labmobile. Science on Wheels. Filmobile and Consultant Center, Art on Wheels. Family Living Center. Outdoor Education and Camping. Cultural Field Experiences. Instrumental Music Instruction. Music Appreciation Concerts, De- velopmental and Remedial Reading. Developmental and Remedial Arithmetic. Library Opportunities and Homework Help. Group Guidance. Teen Tips for Girls, Shop Skills for Boys. Typing for Teens, Program for the Potentially Talented. and Self-Starting Activities for Maladjusted Children and Youth. The acquisition of library materials under Title II is proceeding well and three highly innovative projects under Title III are just being instituted. It is recommended that proposals for supplemental educational centers as such under Title III be given priority during the coming year. Unfortunately Title VI. which would have provided so many benefits for the handicapped, has not yet been funded so that nothing but hopeful plans have been made thus far. As you can see. the Chicago PubIic~ Schools have a large number of staff involved in these programs funded by Federal money. To insure an effective continuance of this program, we must recruit personnel and hire teachers early. It is therefore imperative that we know the amount of Federal funds available for the coming school year as soon as possible. but no later than April. For these reasons I urge that the Congress appropriate funds for fiscal 1968 at the earliest possible date and. preferably. for more than one year. A supple- PAGENO="0645" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 639 mental appropriation for fiscal 1967 for Title VI is essential to get this vital program for the handicapped under way as soon as possible. Another area in which a supplemental appropriation for fiscal 1967 is indi- cated is in connection with Public Laws 81-874 and 81-815 as amended by the Elementary and Secondary Education Amendments of 1966. Under the 1966 amendments, many additional school districts became eligible for Federal grants for Federally connected children but the appropriation bill excluded all those with eligibiilty based on legislation enacted after June 30, 1966. Chicago is one of the districts in this category and a survey currently under way indicates that Chicago will probably be eligible for grants of approximately $3 million. This revenue is desperately needed and has been included in the 1967 budget of the Chicago Board of Education. I urge the Congress to enact a supplemental appro- Priation bill for fiscal 1967 to completely fund Pb 81-874 and Pb 81-815 as amended by the Elementary and Secretary Education Act of 1966. In accordance w-ith the amendments proposed in HR 6230. I strongly support the following: 1. The transfer of the Teacher Corps to Title I of ESEA and the adjustment of the compensation for teacher-interns. This is an excellent proposal which should correct some present difficulties. I would also urge that the compensation of the experienced teacher leading the teaching team be limited to that of other teachers in the school with similar training and experience to avoid a breakdown of teacher morale. 2. Uom~prchcnsivc educational planning, especially the provisions of Sec. 524 (b) (2) for the improvement and expansion of educational planning of large cities. In Chicago we are currently working closely with HEW to establish intelligent dialog on educational planning designed to improve the integration of our schools. This is being done under Title IV of the Civil Rights Act and we would welcome the additional assistance authorized under the "Special Projects" section of Title V. 3. Innovation in vocational education. In Chicago we are very concerned about seeking ways that will help equip boys and girls to live in this very rapidly changing technological age. We view, as you do, the critical need to assist our boys and girls in developing careers and in developing salable skills. We endorse the proposal to add an additional $30 million to the Vocational Educa- tion Act of 1963 to establish a program of grants to the state vocational boards and to local agencies to assist them in the planning, development and operation of innovative occupational education programs. We feel that we have done much in the last several years to move in this direction, but the availability of money has been so limited that this has constituted one of our niost serious handicaps. Chicago has the organization, as does the State of Illinois through its Research Coordinating Unit, to maximize the returns from education funds used for this purpose. 4, The amendments to Title VI of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. The regional resource centers, improvement of recruitment of edu- cational personnel, expansion of instructional media programs to include all handicapped children, and the provision for research in the education of the handicapped should be a great step forw-ard in providing for the needs of the estimated S milliomi handicapped children. At this point I would also recom- mend the addition of provisions in HR. 6230 to improve the recruitment and training of regular classroom teachers for the disadvantaged areas of urban conimunities where the shortage of qualified teachers is so great at present. Programs such as the ACM "urban semester," financed by Federal funds, coukl (10 much to alleviate the critical teacher shortage in Chicago and elsewhere. 5. The changes in PL 81-815 and P11 81-874. In addition to the changes in these two public laws proposed in hR 6230. it is strongly reconiniended that the definition of Federal property be extended to cover Federally assisted housing projects. In Chicago alone there are some 60.000 children who reside in Federal housing projects and attend the public schools. The housing authority makes an annual payment in lieu of taxes which amounts to only $11.61 per l)UPiI as con- trasted to the $455 provided for each nonpublic housing pupil by property taxes. This low level of financial support for the thousands of pupils residing in Fed- eral housing is a tremendous and unfair burden on the I)Ublic school system which definitely reduces the possibility of providing a quality program of educa- tion for all children. PAGENO="0646" 640 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS HR. 6558, introduced on March 2. 1967, by the Hoiiorable Roman C. Puciuski, provides that children residing in Federally assisted public housing be consid- ered Federally-connected under PL 81-815 and PL 81-874. I urge that the pro- ViC)fl5 of HR 6558 be incorporated as an amendment in the Elementary and Secondary Education Amendments of 1967, HR 6230. In addition to the proposed amendments in HR 6230, I urge that Federal funds be made available for school construction and modernization. Efforts to effec- tively use Federal money now availa1ble for programs of a compensatory or inno- vative nature are severely hampered by the lack of space or type of space Currently available. In statements to the Board of Education last year, I esti- mated that the building needs of Chicago would cost more than $750 million. Funds of this magnitude are beyond the present resources of Chicago, and Fed- eral assistance is essential if the required school buildings are to be provided. The Federal role in education is still one of partnership. As a partner, the Federal government should assume its responsibility for a share of the cost of eonstruction of school buildings as well as the operation of educational programs. Although the reasons for and principles behind categorical aid programs are well known. the high administrative and overhead costs and inflexibility of such programs leads me to recommend a shift by the Federal government from cate- gorical to general aid to education as soon as practicable. In conclusion. may I take this opportunity to thank you for the iavitation to present this testimony and to express the appreciation of the people of Chicago for your efforts on behalf of American education. ABSTRACT OF STATEMENT BY DR. JAMES F. REDMOND. GENERAL SUPERINTENDENT OF SchooLs. CHICAGO. ILL. I. Statement. on ESEA programs in Chicago and need for early appropriation. Request for priority for supplementary educational centers under Title III. II. Plea for a supplemental appropriation for P.L. 813 and 874 based on current eligibility of Chicago and other large cities. III. Support indicated for various sections of H.R. 6230: A. Transfer of Teacher Corps to ESEA and suggestions for improvement B. Comprehensive educational planning with comments on educational planning of large cities and Chicago's current educational planning under Title IV of the Civil Rights Act C. Innovations in Vocational Education with comments on the existing city and state organization which could utilize the funds D. Title VI of ESDA. especially the improvement of recruitment of teachers of handicapped children, with the recommendation that this be extended to include the recruitment and training of regular teachers fot- the disadvantaged areas of urban communities E. Changes in PL 81-813 and 81-874 with recommendation that the Pucinski Bill (HR 635S) to consider pupils from Federally assisted public housing projects as Federally-connected under 815 and 874 be included as an amendment to HR 6230. IV. Recommendation for Federal funds for school construction. V. Plea for general aid to education. STATEMENT OF JOSEPH MANCII. SUPERINTENDENT. BUFFALO PUBLIC SCHOOLS. BUFFALO, N.Y. The Buffalo Public Schools have taken full advantage of the many oppor- tunities made available to them by Congressional pa~age of the Elementary and Secondary Act of 1963 and its amendments of 1966. We look forward confidently to an increase in the School Departments efforts next year as more funds become available under this Act. We wish to thank the Congress at this time for its interest and action to help the children in Buffalo by means of this act and other appropriate legislation. PAGENO="0647" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 641 We would also like to take this opportunity to request that the Congress insure a larger appropriation for Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Edu- cation Act which would allow Buffalo and othe areas vitally effected by the problems of educating the disadvantaged to proceed with their programs to solve these problems. We also urge that the Congress act earlier to appro- priate funds to the states so that planning can be carried out with knowledge of the available funds. The amendments to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act which we are concerned with today fall into five categories: (1) The first category concerns the Nationl Teacher Corps. Buffalo, in cooperation w-ith State University of New- York College at Buffalo. has had an N.T.C. program operating since the summer of 196G. At present there are five teams of interns each headed by a master teacher, twenty-five Corps members in all, working in the core area schools of Buffalo. We have been pleased with the efforts of each of these teams and we are in favor of those amendments w-hich would allow us to improve the use of Corps personnel in our schools. We feel that our control over the placement of personnel, although not at present a problem, would be better served by the proposed amendment stipulating local control over the placement of N.T.C. members. We are also in agreement with the proposed amendments concerning changes in compensation, State educa- tional agency approval, and the use of X.T.C. members in migrant schools and schools operated by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. (2) The amendments w'hich promote planning and evaluation at the state level appear to be in the interests of our local efforts. Therefore we wish to be noted as being in favor of these amendments. (3) Buffalo Public Schools have long been leaders in vocational education. The institution of innovative vocational programs would be in accord with our long established program of providing new- vocational opportunities as the economic and technological features of our society change. We applaud any efforts made to assist the states in establishing at a local level innovative voca- tional programs designed to bring vocational education into accord with the rapidly changing modern industrial world. I have attached to this statement a recent interview- I have given for Urban School Notes published by `Western Reserve University. This presents a summary of my present thinking on the subject of innovation in vocational education. (4) In the area of education of the handicapped. Buffalo has long been in the forefront in providing increasingly greater educational opportunities for both physically and mentally handicapped children. We take great interest in any effort which would be of value in this important educational area. The establishment of Regional Resource Centers to aid in the education of the handicapped should irove to be of value to local educational agencies. We an- ticipate that our staff would find such a Center in our area of New York of great value. We have already, under Title III of the E.S.E.A. established an inno- vative Demonstration Center for Teachers of the Mentally Retarded. This serves our geographic area as a Resource Center for Inservice Education. Pro- viding such Centers for this purpose and for planning would, on the basis of our experience, be of great value. The amendments dealing with Recruitment and J)isseiiiination of Information should also help us. How-ever the authorization of only one million dollars for this purpose in 1968 appears to be too small to be very effective iii achieving the stated goals. (5) The remaining amendments do not directly concern Buffalo and therefore w-e are not making any statement regarding these. In conclusion I w-ould like to thank the Committee for inviting me here today. I trust that my statements, based as they are on the experiences and needs of Buffalo, will lrove helpful in the development of appropriate legislation. Again w-e wish to urge the early appropriation and funding to the limits of authorization in order to improve the use of ESEA monies. PAGENO="0648" r~1 H H C) 0 H t~1 Cl C) H 0 ~T1 H (J) 4~L~ PAGENO="0649" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 643 THE IMPACT OF E.SIEIA ON THE BUFFALO SCHOOLS 33,353 pupils participated in one or more programs 2.03 I teachers were involved full or part time in public schools 60 teachers were employed in private schools 34 public schools operated programs 26 private schools' pupils were assisted $5,000,000 spent on programs 200,000 books added to libraries 550 inner-city teachers attended in-service classes 227 teacher aides assigned to inner-city schools Needed supplies and equipment were made available PAGENO="0650" BUFFALO PUBLIC SCHOOLS BOARD OF EDUCATION BUFFALO. NEW YORK BUFFALO SCHOOLS MEET THE CHALLENGE EDITORS Mrs. Nancy Gorman Ronald Banks William Fairlie Layout and Art Work Contributed by Phyllis Foster Dressier Anthony J. Nitkowski Dr. Lydia T. Wright Mrs. Richard A. Slominski Carmelo A. Parlato George F. Goodyear Dr. Bernard S. Rosenblat Joseph E. Murphy Dr. Joseph Manch Dr. Dwight E. Beecher Dr. Frank J. Dressier Dr. J. Norman Hayes Mr. Jack L. Migliore Dr. Bernard J. Rooney Dr. Lillian A. Wilcox Finance and Research Curriculum Evaluation and Development Instructional Services Personnel Plant Services and School Planning School.Community Co-ordination President SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS t~1 H -i 11) t~1 C ..~ H C z (J~ ASSOCIATE SUPERINTENDENTS PAGENO="0651" THE NEEDS OF THE INNER CITY In recent years large and 9rowing numbers of people seeking a better life for themselves and their children have crowded into inner-city areas. (P Traditionally these areas have received the newcomers; the culturally dif- ferent, the uneducated; in effect, the minority groups. But, the initial security found in these areas soon yields to the bitter frustration of minority group Z status. High hopes and levels of aspiration slowly diminish because of a lack of necessary skills needed to compete in our highly complex society. Just as the immigrants of the past looked to the schools for help, so do the in-migrants of the present. Today, there is an urgent need for schools to offer children from our Target Area a new kind of education which is committed to the goal of developing the experience of equality. An assessment of the needs of the children of the inner-city schools has revealed the necessity for special programs and compen- satory services to facilitate this goal. Intensive remedial education programs C in reading and mathematics must be initiated. Vast enrichment programs in art, music, industrial arts and athletics must be designed to raise the level of aspirations and broaden the horizons of these young people. A concentrated effort on the part of all school personnel must be directed toward helping each child realize his full potential and worth. To do this more teachers who understand the problems and needs of inner-city childen must be secured, guidance and social work personnel must be increased, school facilities must be improved and modern equipment purchased, the supply of textbooks and library books must be augmented, and the length of time the schools are open and of service to children must be increased. The needs of the child from the inner city are great. To provide adequate- ly for these needs is the educational challenge of today. PAGENO="0652" t~1 H (1) (-) C tnt C) C tnt (12 "WE ACCEPT THE CHALLENGE" DR. JOSEPH MANCH Superintendent of Schools "It is recognized that the child who has the misfortune to grow up in a disadvantaged neighborhood of a great city has little chance of taking his normal place in the mainstream of American life." This statement, which made before the Senate Subcommittee on Educa- tion in April 966, epitomizes the challenge faced by the schools in the great cities of the United States today. The way must be found to give every child, irrespective of race or socio-economic background, his full opportunity to learn and prepare himself for the challenges of life. The Buffalo Public Schools sought for years to distribute its resources to provide for the needs of all children with special concern for the additional needs of the inner-city child. Available resources, however, were not adequate to the task. Passage of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act provided a new source of financial support. This support was quickly translated into new services and new opportunities for children. During 965-66 sixteen programs were developed and made operational in the schools. They provided remedial instruction, enrichment experiences, and encouragement for thousands of children. These programs are described in this booklet. They represent one way in which Buffalo is meeting the challenge and is helping each child to prepare to take his rightful place in the mainstream of American life. Many persons contributed to the success of these ESEA programs. wish to thank the Board of Education for its encouragement and support. I also wish to express thanks to the teachers, principals and staff members who spent many hours in planning and implementing these programs, and to the com- munity representatives, who gave freely of their time and advice. PAGENO="0653" THE ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION ACT t~1 z rj~ t~1 0 -i t~1 0 (p BUFFALO PUBLIC SCHOOLS esea The Elementary and Secondary Education Act was signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson on April II, 1965. This new law authorized more than 1.3 billion of Federal monies to be spent strengthening and improving educational opportunities in the elementary and secondary schools throughout the United States. The E. S. E. A. was designed to accomplish specific educa- tional goals. These objectives are embodied in the titles which comprise the new law. Provisions of each title are as follows: TITLE I provides financial assistance to local educational agencies for special educational programs in areas having high concentrations of children of low income families. TITLE II provides school library resources, textbooks, and other instructional material. TITLE Ill provides grants for supplementary educational centers and services which are innovative and experimental. The law provided for the administration of Titles I and II by State Departments of Education. Title Ill was implemented direct- ly by the USOE. At the local level public school districts were the operating agencies. However, the benefits of the law were to be extended to all qualified children attending both public and non-profit private schools. The Buffalo Public Schools began to prepare proposals that would be applicable under Titles I, II, and Ill in the fall of 1965. Suggestions were solicited from teachers, administrators and interested citizens concerning the best possible programs that could be advanced to meet the educational and cultural needs of students. These proposals were submitted to the State Education Department for approval during the months of December, 1965 and January, 1966. As soon as a proposal was approved and funds were allotted by the State Education Department, it was placed into operation. By June 1966 sixteen programs were in operation. These programs are reviewed on the following pages. -1 PAGENO="0654" ESEA PROGRAMS OPERATING IN BUFFALO SCHOOLS REMEDIAL PROGRAMS PLUS - A program of remedial instruction in reading and arithmetic and related enrichment activities for elementary grade children. 7 SPAN - The extension of the Plus program info the summer months. Children from junior and senior high schools were included. 9 LANGUAGE ARTS - A program designed to improve the oral and written English of pupils in inner-city high schools. 12 PHYSICALLY HANDICAPPED - A summer program of remedial instruction and enrichment activities for handicapped children. 14 HELP - A summer program of continuing education for girls medically exempted from regular schools. 15 EVENING HIGH SCHOOL-A certified high school program for day school dropouts. 16 (I) TEACHER ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS (-) IN-SERVICE EDUCATION - Saturday morning and summer classes to help teachers gain skill in teaching culturally different children. 19 TEACHER AIDES - Non-professional personnel enable teachers to devote more time to teaching the individual child. 20 CURRICULUM GUIDES - Teacher Specialists work during July and August to prepare special curriculum and teacher guides. 22 PRE-SCHOOL PROGRAM EARLY PUSH - A pre.school program of enrichment activities and experiences to prepare children for regular school achievement. 24 CULTURAL ENRICHMENT PROGRAMS OPPORTUNITY-An experimental project to improve learning by saturating selected schools with audio-visual materials and equipment. 28 CURTAIN CALL - A project developed with the Studio Arena Theatre to present plays in the schools and at the Theatre. 30 HORIZON - A project developed with WNED-TV to prepare and broadcast a series of educational programs for inner-city children. 31 CONCERTS AND RECITALS - The Buffalo Philharmonic Orchestra and Young Audiences, Inc. present concerts and recitals. 32 LIBRARIES AND FILM STRIPS - Title II ESEA provided for the purchase of books and films. The book collection was increased in Target Area Schools. 33 DEMONSTRATION CENTER - Title III Buffalo developed in cooperation with neighboring schools, a Demonstration Center for Teachers of Mentally Retarded Children. 34 PAGENO="0655" BUFFALO PUBLIC SCHOOLS esea THE REMEDIAL PROGRAMS Many children experience difficulties in learning when they enter school. This is especially true of inner-city children who may lack many of the experiences which would prepare them for school and provide motivation for good achievement. These children need extra help. If they do not make satisfac- tory progress in the basic skills of communications in the early years, their retardation will increase as they grow older. To provide this extra help, or compensatory education, the Buffalo Schools developed a number of programs. In keeping with current educational thought, the greatest emphasis was placed on helping children in the primary and intermediate grades. Extra professional staff was provided so that teachers could work with individuals and with small groups of children. Great stress was placed upon locating and removing difficulties in speech and understanding which were blocking development in reading skill. The school program was reorganized to provide time for cultural enrichment activities which would broaden the child's contact with life and help him acquire thoughts and ideas which would compliment and strengthen his regular class work. Since the regular school day did not allow enough time, tutoring, study activities and recreational experiences were pro- vided for in after school hours and during the summer. Although the emphasis was concentrated on the elementary grades, remedial work also was carried into the junior and senior high schools. (p C -~1 t,1 H C t~j H (p PAGENO="0656" PLUS COMPENSATORY EDUCATION PROGRAM Plus implies addition. In this program it means added know- ledge, added skills, and added experiences for the twenty-eight 8 thousand public and private school children living in the inner city or so-called Target Area of Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. The Plus program provided over 160 extra specialized reading and arithmetic teachers to help children in Grades 1-6. These additional persons worked with the regular classroom teachers. They identified pupils in need of special help and pro- vided tutoring for individuals and for small groups. Extra supplies and instructional materials were provided for their use. Addition- al teachers in art, music, and physical education were furnished so as to provide instruction in these areas in the primary grades. The Plus program also extended into after-school and evening hours. Each afternoon trained experts conducted individual tutor- ing sessions and helped children overcome difficulties in learning. School libraries were kept open for use after school and in the evening. School gymnasiums also were kept open and supervised recreatiànal activities were available to the children. Enrichment activities were conducted during the evening sessions. These areas Z included art, music, industrial arts, home economics and physical education. Plus also added many pupil personnel services. Guidance services were established in the elementary schools for the first PAGENO="0657" z time. The services of visiting teachers, social workers, and psy- chologists were provided in an effort to correct problems before they could become more serious. Plus was the largest E.S.E.A. program organized in the Buffalo Schools. By providing compensatory education for children need. ing this service, the program made it possible for teachers to work more efficiently and to provide better education. The Plus program greatly expanded the experiences of the children in the Target Area by taking them on numerous field trips during and after school hours. The children and teachers were aided in their preparation for the field trips with materials supplied by the Plus staff and community agencies. Plus teachers were requested to submit written evaluations for each trip they accompanied. Follow up activities were incorp. F orated into their lessons. Many art and music activities were based on field trips as well as activities involving written reports and oral expression. In three months, 1400 bus trips were made and over 70,000 pupils visited such places of interest as the Aibright-Knox Art Gallery, the Buffalo Museum of Science, the Buffalo Evening News printing plan+, Fort Niagara, the Robert Moses Power Vista and the new Aquarium at Niagara Falls. (P Of special value were visits to neighboring farms where, for the first time, many children saw farm animals and learned about some of the many activities carried on by the farmer. PAGENO="0658" SPAN SUMMER PROGRAM ADAPTED TO NEEDS SPAN was conducted during the months of July and August. The purpose of the program was to continue the remedial and enrichment work started under the Plus program. Thirty public elementary schools, two junior high schools and two general high schools located in the Target Area conducted remedial classes in regular school subjects and offered opportun- ities for enrichment in the areas of art, music, industrial arts, and home economics. In addition, school gymnasiums and swimming pools were kept open for instruction and recreation. In Grades 1.6 children attended for three hours each morning. One period was spent in remedial work in reading and one in arithmetic. The third period was spent in home economics, music or craft activities. In the junior high schools, pupils were registered in remedial work in science, mathematics, social studies and read- ing, according to their needs, as well as in enrichment and recrea- tional activities. In the two senior high schools classes were offered in re- medial reading, and instruction was given in such regular school subjects as English, social studies, mathematics and science on a basic or siow learning level. Pupils were recommended for these classes in order to overcome failure or to gain extra instruction. Art, music, home economics, industrial arts, swimming, and physi- cal education also were available. An important project was conducted at the Reading Center for six weeks, Its purpose was to train superior teachers as read- ing specialists to work in Target Area schools. Fifteen teachers t:1 t~1 r,1 H ~j) r~i C t~1 H C z (ft PAGENO="0659" were selected for this intensive training program. During the morning hours the candidates worked with SPAN children in the participating schools, and the remainder of their day was spent at the Reading Center. Field trips were also an important part of the SPAN program. Over ten thousand pupils were taken to such widely different places as Buffalo Police Headquarters, the Buffalo and Erie County Public Library, the South Park Conservatory and local radio -1 (J~ 0 z (J) C.n PAGENO="0660" stations. Older pupils went as far as Niagara Falls, Old Fort Ni- agara, Letchworth State Park and Rochester to visit a camera company. High School English students were given the opportun- ity to see such live drama as My Fair Lady at Melody Fair, Twelfth Night at Stratford, Ont., and the Barber of Seville at Chautauqua. More than thirty-one thousand public and private school pupils participated in this summer extension of the school program. t~1 0 ~T1 C-) C (p PAGENO="0661" LANGUAGE ARTS PROGRAM The E. S. E. A. Language Arts Program was developed to effect an improvement in the oral and written language skills of children. Each language arts classroom was converted info a virtual laboratory for the teaching of writing. An improved teacher-pupil ratio in language arts classes was accomplished through the addition. of teachers to each school faculty. Close supervision of the program was provided. A supply of modern audio-visual equipment went with the staff of additional teachers. Each of these teachers was provided with a tape recorder, a record player, and an overhead projector. Each was given a projection s~reen, a portable equipment table and a listening unit complete with eight headsets. In addition, classroom teachers in the six participating schools were supplied with these same mechanical aids for effective teaching, not only in language arts, but in other related areas such as foreign languages and social studies. Additionally, both sound film and filmstrip projectors were installed in each of the six participating schools, plus a complete audio-visual library as well as a professional library unit intended for the use of the entire faculty. New dictionaries and reference books, including the Thesaurus, Familiar Quotations, and a composition handbook were made available to students. The program was initiated by three day-long, orientation meetings for the newly employed teaching force. The primary purpose was a general description of the project, delineation of its aims, and outlining of specific guidelines for subject matter content. The new staff members then moved directly into their assigned schools to take over their newly formed classes. Pupils (J-~ C -1 I-f C ci) PAGENO="0662" C) ings films, and filmstrips presented with a view toward improving their written work as well as their oral expression. Ni Ni Ni Ni k H Ni -1 (Ii Ni C C Ni Ni C H C Ni z Ni rJ) received the benefit of added hours of individual attention from their new teachers. They concentrated on expository writing for the most part, to achieve the clear-cut clarity of written eupres- The E S. E. A Language Arts Program has had a successful sion so essential to modern communication. The new overhead start. The confidence of principals, teachers, and pupils in the projectors were used to point out individual errors in writing, project's potential to benefit the total school program has been Students listened to and watched classic literature from record- established. PAGENO="0663" PHYSICALLY HANDICAPPED PROGRAM A special program for physically handicapped children in the Target Area was conducted at Public School No. 84 during the summer of 966. The main objective of the program was to compensate for the dual handicaps of cultural and physical deficiencies. It aimed at the language disability common among inner-city school children. It concentrated on helping them to make the best pos- sible use of the faculties they possess. It steered them toward those fields in which they can excel in spite of their handicaps. An extensive program of field trips offered them a broader spectrum of experiences than they ever before had found available. Special audio-visual aids to learning, designed to compensate for their physical weaknesses, were provided for them. The project was geared to meet the particular needs of youngsters with such handicaps as muscular dystrophy, cerebral palsy, cardiac complications, congenital deformities, epilepsy, hydrocephalus, and orthopedic disabilities. The students were offered remedial training in speech, lan- guage, and reading by a skilled staff of specialists. In addition they had access to medical services offered by the adjacent E. J. k H CI) C-) 0 C-) H 0 H (I) PAGENO="0664" Meyer Memorial Hospital. These included medical examinations, clinical services and physical therapy if necessary. A unique feature of the project was the inclusion of a group of pre.school, physically handicapped children who would not have been capable of participating in normal, neighborhood kinder- garten programs because of their disabilities. This early learning experience was one of the first in-school programs in the country designed to meet the special adjustment requirements of very young children. This program proved to be extremely valuable irs many ways. Teachers were given an opportunity to study and observe pre- school children on an individual basis. Special techniques were developed in the handling of the students. Staff members were provided time to investigate the factors leading to the retarda- tion of the children. An important outgrowth of the program was that the knowledge gained about these students aided in their proper school placement for the regular school year. Another important aspect of the program was the assign. ment of a guidance counselor. The counseling involved the under- standing and acceptance of the inherent problems by the children and their parents. The program was operated for six weeks during July and August. It had a budget of more than seventeen thousand dollars, part of which was used for transporting Target Area children to the school by bus. This program illustrates the concern of the Buffalo Public Schools for all of ifs children. Perhaps the best testimonial to the need for this program was its capacity registration of one hundred and twenty children. program was so successful during the 1965-66 school year that it was decided to continue its operation during the summer with E.S.E.A. Title I funds. So far, Project Help has served nearly two hundred girls, offering them fully accredited courses in English, social studies, mathematics, and business education. This comprehensive aca- demic program was supplemented by special classes in home. making aimed at the health care of both girls and babies. Complete clinical services were available at the Center through a pre.natal clinic operated by the Erie County Health Department. Cn 00 t~1 t~1 t~1 .,~. t~1 C-) 0 C-) C (J) PROJECT HELP In January of 1966, a new concept in education was started at the St. Augustine Center under the auspices of the Buffalo Public Schools and the Erie County Health Department: a pro. gram to help pregnant girls continue their normal junior and senior high school courses without excessive interruption. The PAGENO="0665" (1) t~1 C t~1 C-) C y (J~ EAST HIGH EVENING SCHOOL PROGRAM The Evening Program at East High School offered a full academic secondary education for young people who, for varied reasons have had to leave their neighborhood high schools before graduation. It also provided special vocational training in its Em- ployment Preparation course. This program offered a final oppor- tunity for these young adults to finish their secondary education within the usual high school age span. Students were treated as adults. They paid neither registra- tion fees nor tuition. They were supplied with textbooks, work- books, study kits, and review books. They were encouraged to take these materials home with them so that they could study and learn at their own rates. Pupils who felt they were ready took either Regents or departmental examinations on regularly sched- uled dates, regardless of the number of sessions they had spent in classrooms. Every effort was expended to make each pupil feel that he was important as an individual. A staff of three guidance coun- selors advised the students and administered aptitude tests to help them choose appropriate programs. A visiting counselor followed up consistent absences, and a visiting teacher went to the homes in an effort to help students overcome their difficulties. As a result of these efforts, pupil attendance was maintained at a high level. East Evening High School had an enrollment of two hundred and eighty-five students in its spring semester. Its first senior class numbered twenty-eight, and twenty-five of those young people proudly received their high school diplomas last June. The venture PAGENO="0666" was so successful that it was funded again under E. S. E. A. Title I for a complete, five.night.a.week summer program. This summer session enrolled nearly three hundred pupils and eighty of them were presented with diplomas in an August graduation ceremony. A curriculum innovation at East Evening High School was called Employment Preparation. If prepared students to gain entrance to community businesses through studies of employment opportunities in heavy industry, manufacturing plants, distributive agencies, and transportation companies. A teacher was assigned to each of these four categories, and fifteen students were enrolled in each group. The teachers arranged two field trips a week to local industries related to their particular category. The students met with personnel managers in these plants. They learned what was required to gain employment. They toured the factories or stores and saw how they actually operated. They talked to people employed in all levels of job classifications. Regular classes were held at East on the three remaining nights of each week. Here the students discussed what they had learned from their trips about occupations and what preparation was needed. Academic courses were then modified to these needs. English courses, for instance, were directed toward report writing, composing effective business letters, interpreting bulletins, and improving speaking skills, all of which would be useful to future office employees, secretaries, foremen or salesmen. History classes concentrated on studying the labor union movement, social legislation, and voting laws. The operation of cash registers was taught, along with the mathematits of making change, computing sales tax, and figuring single costs of items priced in multiples. Every effort was expended to make tbe instruction offered meaningful to the individual student in his quest for a place in the world of work. r,i H -1 (1) t~1 C C-) H C til H ~J) PAGENO="0667" BUFFALO PUBLIC SCHOOLS esea IN-SERVICE EDUCATION TEACHER ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS The key to good education is the teacher. Any effort to improve the qualify of education in the inner city must concern itself with teachers. Three programs developed in Buffalo under Title I were designed to assist the teacher to do a better job of helping children. These programs provided for a series of in- service education courses for public and private school teachers, for the assignment of teacher aides to all Target Area schools, and for the preparation of a number of curriculum guides related to the problems of the educationally disadvantaged child. These programs gave an opportunity for many teachers to gain new understanding of the challenges and responsibilities of teaching in the schools of a large city. The Teacher Aide program made it possible for teachers to devote more time to individu- alized instruction. Under Title I the Buffalo Public Schools initiated a program for the in-service education of teachers of educationally dis- advantaged children in the Target Area of Buffalo. Traditional teacher training programs do not usually adequately prepare prospective teachers to meet the specific needs of multi-ethnic children in inner-city schools. A lack of understanding and aware- ness of the problems faced by children seriously impedes the learning process. The middle class values possessed by most teachers produce attitudes which may limit the development of satisfactory teacher-pupil relationships. If these teachers are to become more effective and to make mauimum use of the children's learning potential, they need to know more about the behavioral characteristics of children and the social and economic factors which have caused these charac- teristics to develop. They also need to have a better understand- ing of those techniques and methods of instruction which are effective. To achieve these objectives, three series of in-service courses were offered to teachers from the public and private schools in the Target Area. The first series of ten courses was held on five successive Saturday mornings during March and April 1966. Each session was three hours long. The instructional program consisted of intensive studies of the complex social, economic and psychological factors affecting the learning process. Courses focused on the teaching of handwriting, reading, mathematics, social studies and science. Particular attention was given to ways of developing the art of creative writing. Each course enrolled 25 teachers. NI NI NI i-f i-i Ci) NI C) 0 z NI C) i-f C NI NI Ci) The second series of ten courses, initiated in April, acquainted inner-city teachers with new materials and equipment especially PAGENO="0668" suitable for teaching Target Area children. New methods of teaching social studies, problem solving, spelling, and chemistry were introduced. Other courses concentrated on ways to improve the language expression, speech, and basic reading skills of these children. and his environment, the child and the learning situation, and implications for teachers in classrooms of culturally different children. Classes were held in a Buffalo Public School building located in the Target Area. As a result of this intensive program of in-service education, Two workshops, starting early in July and lasting twenty days over 550 Buffalo teachers were given the opportunity to evaluate each, made up the third series of the teacher in-service education and develop their teaching skills and re-euamine their attitudes program. Instruction centered around three themes: the child toward teaching the inner-city child. i-~ H -i (I) i~) C H H C z H C)) PAGENO="0669" TEACHER AIDE PROGRAM The Teacher Aide program was isitiated on February 16, 1966, with a total of 241 aides being assigned to six secondary and fifty-four elementary inner-city schools. Prior to the assign- ment of the aides, meetings were held with the principals of the 8 public and non-public schools in the Target Area to acquaint them with the program. One hundred eighty-eight of the aides were assigned to thirty-four public schools that had an enrollment of nearly 27,000 pupils. The other fifty-four aides were assigned to twenty-six non-public schools with an enrollment of over 8000 pupils. Work began for the teacher aides with an in-service meet- ing held on the morning of the first day. The primary objective of the Teacher Aide program was to `~ improve the teaching-learning situation in schools located in the Target Area by employing teaching assistants to take care of some of the time-consuming and non-instructional duties per- formed by teachers. The use of these aides allowed more time for the teacher to spend on teaching and in the preparation of specialized materials, It also provided for a more creative use of y teacher competencies. The broader objective of the project was to increase the amount of individual attention that a classroom teacher could expend on each pupil. Positions for the program were set up in three categories or major areas of assistance - clerical, monitor-proctor and kinder- garten. The major task of the first group was the typing of tests, and review sheets, and preparing other duplicated materials. Attendance taking, fund collecting, distribution and collection of PAGENO="0670" instructional material, and record keeping were other helpful services rendered by the clerical aides. A most valuable service was their assistance in the reorganization of the libraries. Monitor-proctors ably assisted in the classrooms by supervis- ing small work groups, correcting papers, recording grades, work- ing on reports, and preparing bulletin boards and other displays. Another major activity was corridor supervision at arrival, dismis- sal, recess, and during the change of classes. They escorted groups to and from special classes, assisted with the supervision of study halls, locker rooms, cafeterias and play areas. They also assisted the classroom teachers in the classroom by setting up and operat. ing visual aids which gave the teacher an opportunity to be at th0 front of the room to point out and interpret the subject matter projected by these visual aids and to use them more effectively. Kindergarten aides were of particular help in assisting with the supervision of children in the many different activities that the children engage in each day, in preparing and setting up mater- ials, in taking care of the physical environment and general house- keeping. They have added another pair of hands, ears, and eyes to the classroom. They were especially helpful at arrival and dis- missal times in lending a hand with the knotty problems of shoes, sneakers, boots, buttons, zippers, and other clothing. Many of the kindergarten aides had the opportunity to share their special talents in art and music. The Teacher Aide program was well received by the admin- istrators and cooperating teachers. All expressed a desire to have the program continued, "5..- t~1 H -1 `~1) r~i 0 H C rut 0) 1~ ~__ PAGENO="0671" PREPARATION OF z CURRICULUM GUIDES t~1 C Teachers in inner-city schools need guidance in the modifica- tion of established courses of study to meet the needs of children wills educational disadvantages. The work required must be demanding enough to challenge the child and bring about desired t~1 growth. On the other hand it must not be so difficult that the child fails repeatedly and is discouraged in his efforts to learn. During the summer of 1966 committees of teachers from Target Area schools were created to review various parts of the school curriculum and to develop Teacher Guides in elementary science and mathematics, in health and safety education, in music education and in home economics. In addition four special committees were organized. One committee was to prepare a Teachers Guide for the concerts performed by the Buffalo Philharmonic Orchestra for children in Target Area schools under an E. S. E. A. Project. A second corn- miftee was to review films and filmstrips and prepare a list of materials which would be the most effective in teaching educa- tionally disadvantaged children. The third committee was to re- view library materials and reference books and to prepare a list of materials which would prove helpful in teaching about the c.y~ PAGENO="0672" history and contributions to our society of minority groups. The fourth committee was to review the great volume 0f literature on the teaching of culturally disadvantaged children and to prepare a guide for teachers. This guide was to describe the character. istics of culturally disadvantaged children, to explain the factors which contributed to the development of these characteristics and to offer suggestions to teachers on how to improve the learning of such children. The entire project provided an opportunity for an exhaustive search and evaluation of current literature related to educafionall disadvantaged children and gave about 100 teachers a new loo at the work in which they are engaged. The guides, which are the product of this project, provide detailed and essential infor- mation for teaching inner-city children. The first steps have been taken, but the task remains only half done. The true test will take place when these guides are put into use by classroom teachers. The usefulness of the production of these curriculum committees will be measured by teachers in day-to-day teaching.learning situations in Target Area schools. This evaluation will provide a measure of the guides' utility and possibilities for revision to meet the needs of children. t,1 H -1 (1) t:1 C tTl H C t~1 H (1) PAGENO="0673" 0 BUFFALO PUBLIC SCHOOLS esea PRE -SCHOOL PROGRAM EARLY PUSH The Early Push Program for pre-school children was estab- lished in April 1966 and continued throughout the spring and summer months. The program was designed to bridge the gap between the culturally different environment of the children and the requirements of the school experience they would encounter in the primary grade classroom. Inner-city children are limited in the enriching experiences needed to progress and achieve at grade level. Reading retarda- tion is inevitably revealed as a basic educational handicap to these pupils. Since the factors which prevent them from learning to read successfully are determined at a very early age, this project was designed to provide pre-school children with a variety of experiences which are vital to tater reading and educational success. Suitable readiness activities were introduced including rote counting, color recognition exercises, recognizing objects and pictures, building with blocks, dramatic plays, and listening to frequent story hours. The children were given the opportunity to t~j t~1 -1 z ~J) t:1 0 -i t~1 0 (J) PAGENO="0674" oc t~1 H -i (1) r~i experiment with finger painting and to listen to music and to learn the familiar songs of childhood. The classes were limited to small numbers of pupils so that teachers could recognize the strengths and needs of their children. Additional experiences were provided when children were taken on extensive field trips. They visited the Science Museum, the Albright-Knox Art Gallery, the South Park Conservatory and the new children's Zoo. Historic Fort Niagara was viewed by the children, as well as the recently completed Aquarium in Niagara Falls. The children were delighted with the Arcade-Attica train H ride and the boat trip around Buffalo Harbor. Local industries and markets were toured, including the Boulevard Mall. They were taken to the Buffalo International Airport and also toured the entire city. Nei9hboring farmers opened their gates to show them a sample of life in the country. To many, these field trips offered the fkst opportunity in their young lives to see anything beyond their own home neighborhoods. Various community agencies were closely associated with the Early Push Program. Social workers visited parents of pupils en- rolled in this project in order to establish a cooperative relation- ship between the home and school. They also made needed CI) contacts with suitable community services. The Buffalo Parks Department furnished receational facilities and the Erie County Health Department scheduled medical and dental examinations PAGENO="0675" t~1 tTl (1) C-) C 7 t~1 C) C 7 7 7 (J~ for all the children. Other community facilities offered were those of the Buffalo Police Department, the Buffalo and Erie County Public Library, and numerous local service clubs. Early Push was operated on a budget of five hundred thousand dollars and served fifteen hundred pre-kindergarten children, three to five years of age. The city's Public and Diocesan schools cooperated to make classroom space available for the children who were scheduled for half-day sessions. The Buffalo Public School System, through the Early Push Program, has attempted to provide emotional, cultural and remedial experiences specifically designed to facilitate successful learning for the pre-school child. PAGENO="0676" BUFFALO PUBLIC SCHOOLS esea CULTURAL ENRICHMENT PROGRAMS -1 A great metropolitan area such as Buffalo offers many desirable educational experiences for children. There are art galleries, museums, parks, theaters, orchestras, television stations, and many other organizations which introduce children to the numerous facets of modern life. However many children who live in the inner city have little or no opportunity to profit from these opportunities. In a complex society which now demands the development of the potential of all of its people, the schools need to draw upon these available resources to supplement the traditional program of education. Exposure to non.academic activities in the form of cultural enrichment programs is the key to the development of a richer pattern of learning. Under Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act the Buffalo Schools developed a number of programs designed to accomplish the above purpose. These programs assumed a wide variety. Some involved the acquisition of audio.visual equipment and materials and the introduction into the classroom of teaching methods which made full use of these materials. Other projects brought live actors and musicians into the schools so that children could see, hear and appreciate this type of direct experience. Still other programs arranged for taking the children from the school environment out into the community so they could gain the knowledge and stimulation of participation. The Plus Program and the Summer SPAN Program provided for field trips to many places and agencies. In addition, Projects Opportunity, Horizon, Curtain Call-and Concerts and Recitals greatly expand. ed the children's experience and concepts. (-) C c-i C-) ,~;. H C ~rj H C)) PAGENO="0677" PROJECT OPPORTUNITY AUDIOVISUAL MATERIALS Project Opportunity is an innovative program irs the field of audio-visual education. This program is an experiment to ascer- fain whether a saturation of audio-visual aids, films, filmstrips, projectors, listening stations, and screens will have an impact upon the academic achievement of elementary school children. Inaugurated by the Buffalo Public Schools in March of 1966, it will encompass 6,000 inner.cify children in seven Target Area schools. This project is based on the philosophy of the visual and audio concept of learning as a supplement to the elementary school curriculum. Through the use of audio-visual aids and equip- ment, the teacher will provide an integration of learning experi- ences for the children in a new and creative way. Project Oppor- tunity offers the inner~city child an opportunity to progress and achieve in all areas of learning. Each project school will have the services of an Educational Audio-Visual Specialist who will help teachers use and integrate the curriculum oriented films into their teaching. These helping t~1 t~1 r~i H (J~~ C) C H C) C (J) PAGENO="0678" `I) teachers are experienced classroom teachers who themselves have used these aids effectively and who have a desire to aid others 8 in their use. In addition to the helping teachers, three maintenance people will be employed to carry out a continuous program of preventive maintenance. One hundred and fifty-eight teachers will participate in this program. Committees of teachers from each school met with audio-visual experts, supervisors, and principals prior to the pro- gram's inception to select the films and filmstrips which would be most beneficial to the children. Each school will have its own film library where teachers may preview films and children may pursue individual study. Over 400 films and 600 filmstrips will be available for use by students and teachers in each school. Every classroom in the project will be equipped with modern autoload film and filmstrip projectors, projector tables, listening stations, previewers, and screens. In-service programs have been held and will continue to be ~eld to acquaint teachers with the most effective method of ufil- izing the resources available to them. Individual aid will be given to teachers to acquaint them with materials available on their level of instruction. Catalogues and film guides of all the instruc- tional materials will be accessible to the teachers in the program. These services are being provided to aid teachers in the selection of visual aids for use in their daily classroom activities. PAGENO="0679" t~1 CURTAIN GALL LIVE THEATER Through Project Curtain Call, more than 3000 children in 53 Target Area schools will have the opportunity to view live dramatic productions. The Buffalo Schools will offer them the opportunity of watching two plays staged in their home schools and of being transported to the new Studio Theatre to enjoy a 2 third stage play all produced under professional conditions. The three plays selected for production will be mounted flexibly so that they can be accommodated in various inner-city school auditoriums. The plays are to be performed by Equity actors and actresses drawn from the Arenas resident acting corn- pany. Dramatic situations will be kept within the sphere of the childrens comprehension. They include an adaptation of The Indian Captive for its historical and psychological value, a new version of the classic Alice in Wonderland and a contemplated adaptation of Wind in the Willows. Cast members will visit informally with children in school classrooms to evaluate the plays impact on the young audience. Project Curtain Call aims at compensating for the education- al and cultural deprivation of pupils by exposing them to articulate language used by professional exponents of the spoken word in the exciting medium of live drama. If the children can gain, additionally from Curtain Call an artistic yardstick with which to judge the quality of future theatrical as well as television per- formances Buffalo will have met a most provocative challenge. -1 PAGENO="0680" ri-I H (I~ ti-I C) 0 ri-I C) H 0 Iii H (p HORIZON EDUCATIONAL TELEVISION The glamour and appeal of television will be utilized by Project Horizon to provide educational stimulation and motiva- tion to children in the Buffalo Schools. Over 40 per cent of all Target Area children will be directly affected by this project. in addition, all young children having access to WNED-TV through Channel 17 will find the Prolect Horizon programs a source of cultural enrichment. A series of 90 half-hour programs will be produced and tele- vised at the rate of three a week. Planning for these programs started in the spring of 1966 and was carried on during the summer. Actual production of programs began in September and will continue throughout the year. The subject matter of these broadcasts was selected by a committee of teachers, administrators and television specialists. It covers a wide range of subject areas among which are health, art, citizenship, and home economics. These enriching experiences are to be interwoven with story-telling interludes and filmed visits to sites of cultural, historical, industrial and civic significance irs the community. Puppets will be introduced by the host of the series, and special guests will be invited to transport young viewers behind the scenes at the city zoo, district police and fire stations, and backstage at music hall concerts. The project provides additional television receivers for each Target Area school, and every episode will be presented in the morning and repeated during the afternoon hours. Project Horizon has the power to open limitless new worlds of knowledge and culture in a highly entertaining fashion to thousands of youngsters. PAGENO="0681" CONCERTS AND RECITALS The Buffalo Philharmonic Orchestra and Young Audiences, Inc. joined with the Buffalo public and private schools in the pre- sentation of a series of concerts and recitals for children living in the Target Area. For many years the Buffalo schools and these musical organi- zations have cooperated in the presentation of school concerts and recitals. However, under this Title I E.S.E.A. Project, it was possible to increase this service for the inner-city children. A special series of concerts in the world renowned Kleinhans Music Hall was arranged by the Music Department and the con- ductors of the orchestra. The selections performed were at the children's level of comprehension. Prior to the concerts, prepara- tory teaching was carried on in the schools. These factors added greatly to the children's enjoyment and understanding of the music played. Seeing and hearing a live performance in the at- mosphere of a great music hall proved inspiring to large numbers of the pupils present. Junior and senior high school students were given an addi- tional personal contact with good music when the Philharmonic Orchestra went to the schools and presented works of a more advanced nature. Compositions by Mozart, Beethoven, Ravel and Bernstein were played. Children in the elementary grades enjoyed similar experiences when string, woodwind, bass and mixed trio ensembles performed in the schools under the direct supervision of Young Audiences, Inc. Through these activities many children were introduced to the pleasure and cultural value of listening to programs of good music. NI NI NI k H NI -i z CI~ NI C C NI H NI ci C -I C NI NI z H (I) PAGENO="0682" BUFFALO PUBLIC SCHOOLS esea LIBRARY BOOKS FILM STRIPS The children in Buffalo's elementary schools were the recipi. ents of more than 40000 new library books and a large number of carefully selected educational color sound films under a Title II grant of $198,000. In accordance with the needs of the children, twice as much money was allocated to the Target Area schools as was given to the other schools. Since the greatest need was shown to be at the elementary level, the greatest share of Federal funds was channeled into the public and non-public elementary schools. The resulting flood of books and films will accomplish several major objectives. Initially, the book collections in the elementary schools will be improved in both quality and quantity. The children will have more material for informational and leisure reading - an especially important factor in helping those who are culturally and educationally disadvantaged. Additionally, the increased library resources will improve and supplement existing instructional programs by making available more books in each subject matter area. Finally, it is expected that these library resources will pro- vide a sound base for further improvement of the elementary school library services to our children in all of the city's schools. Further use was made of funds from the Title II grant in conjunction with a Title Ill proposal. A special collection of library books adapted to the needs of educable mentally retarded children was provided. This collection was housed in a demon- stration center for the in-service training of potential teachers of the mentally retarded in one of Buffalo's Target Area schools. There is general agreement among authorities in the areas of language arts, reading, and library science that good library facilities, including adequate book collections, are significant factors in bridging the cultural and educational gap in the lives of disadvanta9ed children. We have taken an important and educationally functional step in that direction. -1 t,1 t!1 NI H -i (/) NI z NI NI C) H C NI NI H rj~ PAGENO="0683" BUFFALO PUBLIC SCHOOLS esea Title II of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act provided for Federal grants to establish innovative educational centers. The Buffalo Public Schools applied for a grant to create a Demonstration Center for Teachers of the Mentally Retarded. Buffalo has an extensive educational program for mentally retarded children. Classes for the educable are offered in many elementary and secondary school buildings. A special school for the children who are classified as trainable is in operation. In recent years extensive curricular work has been carried on to de. velop programs related to the vocational needs of MR children DEMONSTRATION CENTER FOR TEACHERS OF MENTALLY RETARDED CHILDREN ban school systems and local college personnel in developing the proposal for a Demonstration Center. Seventy children will be selected on the basis of results of psychological and physical examinations to attend this school. Consideration will be given to the racial, social, and economic backgrounds of the children in order to maintain a balanced cross- section of educational needs. The children will be organized into classes taught by skilled demonstration teachers. Starting in September 1966 all newly appointed teachers of MR classes and other teachers needing assistance will spend up to (J~ C) C t~1 ci C) H 0 t~1 til tTl H z til ~ and an experimental work-study program has been developed in a week in the Center observing and teaching under competent one high school. The administrative staff of the department of education for the Mentally Retarded cooperated with representatives of the New York State Education Department, representatives of subur- direction. A pool of trained substitutes is to provide the teacher time needed to release the teacher trainees. In addition to classrooms, the Demonstration Center facilities will include a psychological clinic, a speech and hearing laboratory, tii ~4 ~ ~ip PAGENO="0684" and a conference-curriculum resource room. This curriculum l~- brary will contain professional literature, equipment, and materi- als for use in classroom teaching. The curriculum librarian will be a specialist who can help both new and experienced teachers. The library will be used for curriculum committee meetings as well as for individual study. As soon as the grant was approved by the Federal contracting officer, work was started to develop the Center in Public School No. 28. During the summer the necessary modifications were made in the building and the Center was ready to operate shortly after the opening of school in September. This Center, unique in this region, will serve as an incentive for the improvement of the educational program for mentally retarded children in all of Western New `fork. Ni Ni i~A Ni k H ,`~- Ni -i i,i (Is Ni 0 C Ni -1 Ni b C H C Ni Ni (ft PAGENO="0685" txl H z C)) C) C ci C-) H C Cl Cl H C)) BUFFALO PUBLIC SCHOOLS esea EVALUATION OF E. S. E. A. PROJECTS An evaluation can supply only a limited indication of the impact of E. S. E. A. programs in Buffalo since their inception in the spring of 1966. Some aspects of these progiams can be measured directly by tests and interviews and observations by teachers and others. Many effects can never be measured such as the over-all improve- ment in outlook of the pupil and his family. Although the latter might have a greater effect in the long run than an improvement in reading, it can only be surmised, not directly measured. Some facts and figures are given. However the short time in which the programs have operated prevents a detailed picture of their effects on the pupils, their families and their +eachers. The infor- mation given here must be interpreted as only an estimate of the effects of E.S.E.A. on the Buffalo Schools. Another year of operation will make possible a more detailed evaluation. The Concerts and Recitals program, while offering a most important enrichment experience, also had the effect of acquaint. ing the children with musical and cultural history. A testing program carried on among a sample of pupils attending indicated a very high level of retention of background material. The Teachers Aides pro~ram was well received by pupils, teachers, administrators and aides. A comprehensive question. naire on the program indicated universal approval. Early Push was carefully evaluated both in the spring and summer of 1966. Increments of verbal reasoning ability show a very encouraging level of improvement in the children. The Language Arts project met its goal of reducing class size in secondary schools by an average reduction of 28.5 per cent. The additional equipment and supplies provided were widely utilized by pupils and teachers. The Evening High School provided an exceptional opportun- ity for secondary pupils in the Target Area to complete their education. Almost 100 pupils obtained a diploma by the end of the summer session. The In-Service Education program included over 550 teachers. They were enthusiastic in their expressions of profit from the workshops, lectures, demonstrations and discussion sessions. The Plus Program, because of its wide-ranging character, obviously has been of great importance in the Target Area. Initial testing reveals interesting and important results in reading and mathematics due to the remediation given by Plus teachers. The field trips and other cultural enrichment features met with approval from all concerned. The summer programs are now undergoing evaluation. How- ever, preliminary data indicates wide acceptance among parents and pupils of Project Help, the Physically Handicapped Program and Span. The Curriculum Guides project produced twelve references for teachers of inner-city children. This compilation of informa- tion should be of great value in the identification and education of these children. Comments from teachers who will use these guides will formulate the basis for a comprehensive evaluation. PAGENO="0686" ESEA DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Associate Superintendent for Curriculum Evaluation and D.v.lopm.n4 Deputy Superint.ndent Associat. Superintendent for Instructional Services Asu~stant Superintend.nt of Pupil P.ruonn.l Assistant Superintend.nt for Elem.ntary Education Assistant Sup.rintend.nt for Secondary Education Asuiutant Sup.rintend.nt for Instructional S.rvic.u Dr.ctor of Special Proj.ctu Ausistant Administrator of E. S. E. A. Proi.cts R.pr.u.ntativ. of th. Buffalo Dioc.uan Schools Representativ, of th. Community Action Organization Buffalo Mus.um of Science Buffalo and Erie County Historical Society Albright-Knos Art Gallery Buffalo Philharmonic Orcheutra Buffalo and En. County Public Library St. Augustine Center Urban Leagu. of Buffalo J. F. Kennedy Recreation C.nt.r Community Action Organization Community W.lfare Council Neighborhood Home Association Dioces, of Buffalo Elmwood.Franklin School Kadlmah School Nichols Schools Buffalo Seminary Stat. University of Buffalo Stat. University College Rosary Hill Collage DYouvill. College Caniuiu~ College St. Marys School For th. Deaf Erie County Health Department Erie County Welfare Department WNED - TV Buffalo Council P. 1. A. USIA COMMUNITY ADVISOIY COMMITTEE t~1 ti H -i CI, ti C.) C ti C-.) H C ti Lvi rj PAGENO="0687" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 681 PAGENO="0688" 682 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDTCATION AMENDMENTS Dr. Doxov~~x. The 16 great cities we represent contain within them a total population of ~5 million people. They have within them a public school enrollment of approximately 4,500,000 children, exclu- sive of higher education. It is apparent from these figures that the superintendents here today speak for a large segment of the school population of America. This segment has attempted to support its schools to the best of its ability on a local and State basis. Each of us has appeared on previous occasions before this committee as a separate superintendent telling the story of his own city in relation to Federal funding aiid in order to save the committee some time and to indicate the common interests of the great cities of this country in the Federal programs we have changed our approach for this hearing. As chairman of the committee to coordinate Federal legislation activities of the research council of the great cities improvement pro- gram, I have been designated to present to the committee the consensus of the thinking of the great cities of the country on certain important matters of Federal legislation. Each of the other city superintendents present will follow me with a brief presentation of Federal funding problems as they pertain to his particu1ai~ city. We each have different programs and we each react to Federal legislation in terms of our own local and State needs. Be- cause of our common problems however we have found through our research that we do have common interests in some of the problems of Federal legislation and it is these common concerns that I will present to you this morning. In previous testimony before this committee and other committees of the Congress. the superintendents of the cities of this Nation have indicated the great needs which are particular to those cities. I do not intend to belabor the matter of the needs of the cities but I must sum- marize them because they are at. the basis of any continuing or amended legislation which you have under consideration. The cities of this Nation have been and are now the melting pots of America. They have drawn to them those who seek social improve- inent. economic opportunity, political change, equality of opportunity, cultural uplift, and social acceptance. In the cauldron of the great cities, the poor, the handicapped, the illiterate, the foreign born, the I)olitical exile, rub elbows and share experiences with longer estab- lished residents whose forebears went through the same procedures. Tins constant shift of population and the attendant delicate comnpli- cated problems which it brings to the city reflect directly on the educa- tional program of these school districts. The development, of productive, educated citizens through these melting pots is welcomed by the cities as their contribution to national progress. It. does place upon each city, however, a tremendous finan- (ial burden for the amount of a public school system which must face these unique problems. The large cities have been faced, within the last. several ears, with this same melting-pot problem but now with an added ingredient.. The cities find themselves having shifted from a multinational origin problem to a multiracial problem. This has caused the large cities to adjust their educational programs to a~ considerable degree to meet the new problems. PAGENO="0689" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 683 Language and, social custom barriers have given way to considera- tions of human relations and equality of opportunity. In many of our large cities a sizable segment. of the former population has moved to the suburbs. This has increased our difficulty in mamtainmg racial balance in our schools and in handling our ethicational problems. The vocational education needs of the great cities need 110 descrip- tion. Changing job opportunities, the influx of thousands and thou- sands of students from rural areas of the colultry, the inability of large cities to keep up with changing techniques and equipment in voca- tional education has posed a tremendous problem in the effective vo- cational training of youth so that when they do graduate they are acceptable in industry. The cities have also become the mecca for children \vitll handicaps. Because tile cities have traditionally attempted to provide services for all types of handicapped children, there has been a concerted move- ment by people w-ith handicapped children to move to the city so as to avail themselves of these services. We now- find ourselves unable to support all of tile programs for the handicapped which we would like to support. These programs are extremely expensive but. they are necessary. We have a respon- sibility to every child and a particular one to tile visually, mentally, physically, socially, or emotionally llandlicappedl child. Iii addition to these great. needs facing the cities of the country, we are also bound by antiquated tax structures. In most cases the citys tax structure is based upomi real property which at this moment is taxed at the point where it is hardly likely to be able to absorb any further tax increases. We must compete within tile city for the tax dollar with every other metropolitall service tiiat must be provided. rFlle municipal overburden whicii is unique to cities pre\ents tile city from putting all tue tax money it would like to into its educational I)rogram. State aid to tile city varies throughout the Nation. In most. cases it is a minor part of tile financial structui'e of the local school system. In my own State of New York the city of New- York carries approxi- inately two-tllirds of. tue cost of their local school system. The declining ability of the city and the State to finance the educa- tional program reflects itself in a considerable construction backlog in our cities. The shifting of our populations and the increase in our size has made it most important for us to put mone into tile building of new buildings to accommodate our new population. This iias left us with a very large backlog of antiquated l)uildings which need either replacement or complete re.habilit at.ion. We are also faced witii a teacher shortage in the great cities at a tune w-hen it is so essential that we expand our services to children. Salaries are only one part. of the recruitment. of teachers. The adequacy of educational facilities and the adequacy of ma- terials of instruction are also important in the recruiting of teachers. The financing of our schools today on city and State levels with the very millimal hell) we are getting from the Federal Goveinmnent (Toes hot permit. us to attack this total problem on tile vast scale that is demanded. With these general needs of tile cities iii imnd. I would respectfully draw to your attention those aspects of continued or amended Federal 75-492 0-67-------44 PAGENO="0690" 684 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS legislation concerning education which are of particular importance to our school systems. 1. There is a need for increased Federal aid. While, for example, in my own city of New York such aid amounts to oniy approximately 7 percent of our total funding, in dollars and cents this amounted during the current year to approximately $70 million. Without these funds we would have had to curtail many of the special services we are giving particularly to the children in our disadvantaged areas under title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. 2. In order to permit the flexibility which is needed to solve the educational problems which v~try from State to State and city to city, we hope that the Congress will look more and more to the pro- vision of general Federal aid. There i~ no question but that the Fed- eral Government has the right to set broad limits w-ithin which this Federal aid would operate. We merely wish to point out that the continuance of a large variety of categorical aids makes it most difficult for the school administrator and the board of education to carry out programs of education in 1)riorities determined by local needs. 3. W~e do recognize that~ the Federal Government has certain gen- eral purposes in mind when it. funds education. It may be necessary for the Federal Government to continue to use categorical aids tem- porarily for special purposes in order to achieve the certain desirable outcomes. However, the basic provisions for the schools would be more desirable in the form of general aid, supplemented by any neces- sary special aids. 4. During the period when categorical aids must be maintained un- til such time as general aids can become acceptable, it would be ex- tremely helpful to the large city school systems if the prescriptiolis on each of the categorical aids would not be as excessive as they are at present. I am speaking not only of legislative prescriptions but of the guidelines as followed by the administrative sections of the Government as they seek to carry out the legislative intent. The paperwork involved in the application for funds and in the conduct of the program requires an inordinate amount of staff time which could be put to more productive uses. 5. The cities are greatly concerned with several aspects of the funding of the Federal programs, as follows: (a) There is need for a long-term funding of educational programs. It is difficult for a city to predicate a program upon an annual appro- priation without the knowledge that that appropriation will be con- tinued into a succeeding year. Almost every program involved in Federal legislation requires the appointment. of personnel. It. is impossible to employ personnel with- out a reasonable expectation of maintaining the appointment through- out more than the course of 1 year. Competent personnel are at a premium these da.ys in school systems and it is impossible to attract such personnel for Federal programs if they feel that their employ- ment. is simply on a year-to-year basis. Furthermore, the funding of Federal programs is tied inescapably to the funding of local pro- grams. Good financial planning for school systems requires that sources of funds be known in advance so that effective planning can take place. This cannot be done adequately on an annual basis. PAGENO="0691" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDTJCATION AMENDMENTS 685 (b) There is great need for Federal appropriations to match Fed- era.l authorizations. School systems build their planning and their hopes on authorizations adopted by Congress. They then find in the course of appropriations that the money forthcoming for these all- tliorizat.ions does not~ contemplate meeting the full program either in scope or in length of time. Just last Friday I was informed that the money for the National Teacher Corps had run out and that. something special had to be done for the 19 experienced teachers and 74 Teacher Corps trainees that we had in the c.it.y of New York or they would lose their jobs. We have made the necessary arrangements not to lose these valuable profession- al people but it is an example of what. happens when funding is not complete. Authorization indicated $151 million under title I for New York State. Appropriations provided $111 million which required a. inaj or readjustment. of contemplated programs. Chairman PERKINS. At this point are you talking about fiscal 1967? Mr. DONOVAN. Yes, sir. Chairman PERKINS. The present year? Mr. DONOVAN. Yes, sir; the present year. While I recognize that. this committee is not, the Appropriations Committee, I feel that to tell the whole story we must include this factor. That. is why I am in- cluding it.. Chairman P~iiKINs. I think it. would be helpful if your organiza- tion would make yourselves available if you wanted to go before the House Committee on Appropriations. I received a letter on the re- quest to put in a personal appearance, and they state that. that would be at some time in the future. Mr. DONOVAN. We would be happy to do so, sir. Chairman PERKINS. I think we ought to get. this picture before the Appropriations Committee. Mr. DONOVAN. We would `be pleased to present the full l)icture as to appropriations and authorizations. (c) We also would appeal to the Congress for earlier appropriations action. Writhin the past 2 years we have started Federal programs under authorizations but the funding has come considerably after the beginning of the school year. It is not possible for large city schools systems to gamble on funding nor is it possible to start, programs after the school year has begun because personnel are not. available. We would appeal to the Congress to try to make its educational appropriations for the succeeding year known at. least by late spring. School systems are organized on the basis of school years and, al- though we know that this is a new organization for the. Members of Congress to contemplate in their appropriations procedure, ~ e hope that through the good offices of your committee, Congress will become aware of this appropriation timing need. May I point out. that. when al)propriat ions come late they are gen- erally not for the full school year and very often they lead to unwise use of the funds because there is an attempt. to spend quickly what should be spent carefully over an entire school year. (d) There is also a critical need for constantly updating the eco- nomic basis upon which funds are allocated. The use of census data for determining low-income families and the number of children who PAGENO="0692" 686 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS shouki be counted in fund allocation works a hardship on the cities if the information is not as up to date as possible. I think your committee has taken steps in the past to try to update that as much as possible. We appreciate that. Chairman PERKINS. We did try to do that through AFDC. Our studies showed after we got the AFDC and so forth through there was very little change, however. Mr. DONOVAN. That is correct. Each year there is a tremendous influence of low-income families into the cities. If this is not re- flected in the. data that is immediately available to Congress the ap- portionment of funds to the cities for the purpose of overcoming the educational deficiencies of children in low-income areas is always lag- ~ing by several years. We hope that the Congress will take this matter into consideration in the allocation of fuiids. (6) We are very pleased with title II of the Elementary and Sec- onclarv Education Act because it has strengthened our ability to pro- vide library and audiovisual materials of instruction. However, we (10 believe that this title should be amended to include some funds for personnel and local administrative costs in the operation of the program. (7) Title III has been one of the most exciting and productive features of the new Federal legislation. It has stimulated thought and led to many creative and innovative ideas in the large cities. In the course of your committee's consideration of any changes in title III we would recommend that if the direction of title III is toward state or regional planning, each large city be considered as a regional center for title III purposes, and it would be well for the large city or regional center to have some funds for continuing plan- ning purposes. It i~also necessary, if we are to carry out the plan- ning of title III, to have money for site acquisition and construction of needed facilities. (8) Among the recommended legislative changes we note a sug- gestioli that the work study programs now in the high schools be funded but that the funds be shifted to the Neighborhood Youth Corps of the Office of Economic Opportunity. It is our belief that this shift is undesirable. The work study program has been an effective part of the public school systems now for many years. It has been one of the most important means of keeping children in school. There seems to be no valid reason for taking this valuable program out of the school system's control and giving it to the Office of Eco- nomi c 0 p~)ort Un ity. The Neighborhood Youth Corps undoubtedly iieeds funds to provide work study opportunities for young l)eO_Ple not in school. This is an entirely different program and unless adequate funds are granted may not l)e effective. \Ve would request, however, that tile work study programs now in effect in the public schools be funded fully as they were up to the close of 1966. (9) There is a recommendation that there be a cut in the funds available for title III of the National Defense Education Act. In the course of the past ear man school systems have utilized the Elemen- tarv and Secondary Education Act instead of the National Defense Education Act because no matching is needed undler ESSA. This was unfortunate, because ESEA was intended to be in addition to anything PAGENO="0693" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 687 already funded un(ler YDEA. We believe there should be full fund- ing for title III of the NDEA. 10) While not all of the. great cities of the country have engaged in the National Teacher Corps program, those of us who have are in favor of full funding for this pgI~n. It is unfortunate that a p'~~g'~'~ with such great promise for the inner core cities does not succeed because it is not completely funded and therefore does not get the wholehearted support of the agencies and institutions which should be working with it. (11) At the pieseiit time. prekindergaiten pio ams can be funded under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act or under the Economic Opportunity Act. This has led to considerable confusion and competition between the agencies of the I)o\eity program and those of the education program. It is our belief that prekmdergarteii ~) ogriuns are essentially edu- (ational in nature. They should he therefore retaine(l under the juris- diction of the l)uhilic school systems of the country. Of course, we wish to include the other components which come through the Economic Opportunity Act namely, social services, health services, I)alent in- ~-olvement, and other aspects of (hId development. ITowever. the prekindergarten program is essentially a first step in education and should be an integral part of the edlucative process W~e are in favor of taking these elements of the prekindergarten pro- gram and extending them up through the grades as rapidly as possible. 1~) At several points in my iemarks I have alluded to the great iieecl for educational facilities construct ion in the cities of the Nation. We feel that the Congress could make a great cofltril)litioIl to the un- provement of eclucat ion in the cities if it would provide for site acquisi- ion and construction money. W~e (10 not suggest under which sections of whichi act this should be done, but we do know that the many pm- grams envisioned under the legislative intent of Congress and the many idleas which w-e are. prepared to carry out for the betterment of children cannot be carried out if we do not have the facilities in which to l)lace these programs. I have attempted to be brief and 1xiiiited in my remarks. The other city superintendents with me today will each describe to you briefly the particular prol)lems of their cities and some of the special was in which they are using Federal funds. On behalf of myself for the city of New York and oii l)ehalf of all the superintendents w-ho either will testify today or who have sent statements for inclusion in the record. ma~ I indlicate that we and our staffs are at your constant disposal for any uecessaiv statistics. gram dle.scriptions. evaluations, or other information which the chair- man or any Member of the Congress may desire. We feel that the Members of Congress are sincerely concerned with the welfare of the childiren of this Nation. So are we. Therefore, we are willing to lend our every assistance to the development of the i roper legislation a mid t lie most eflect ive procedures for iovidiiig a quality-integrated education for every (hilci in this Nation, particu- larly for the cliildmemi under our supervision iii the large cities. Thank you. PAGENO="0694" 688 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY E~JCATION AMENDMENTS Chairman PER1~INs. Thank you very much for an excellent state- ment, Dr. Donovan. We will withhold our questioning until we hear from all of on distinguished educators today. Who will speak next? Mr. DoNov~~x. sir. because one of our superintendents has to catch an early plane and has to go back to a board meeting. I wonder if the superintendent fioni I)etroit. Mr. Drachler. might be next Chairman PERKINS. Mr. Ford. did you wish to be recognized? Mr. Fom~. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a great pleasure for me as member of this committee to see Mr. Drachler here representing the largest city in the State of Michigan and one with an outstanding record for a school system. The gentleman has been a friend of this legislation and has been with the T)etroit public school system in a very important and sensi- tive position for quite some time. Those of us who were privileged to read in yesterdavs paper that he has been changed from the acting superintendent to the superintendent of the schools for the city of I)etroit. were ver j)le.ased to see this acting position made permanent. W~e believe that the recor(l lie has made in the school system speaks well for what I believe to be one of the toughest jobs for anyone i~ public life today. superinendent of schools of the city of Detroit. Dr. Drachler. on behalf of the committee, and my colleagues who I know share my interest for your success in \~oitr new jOl), welcome you today. I have just committed a great faux pas before the committee. It is I)r. I)rachler. Wherever I used the identification of Mister, 1)lease change it to I)octor. I)i. I)Ii~c11i~R. Thank you, Mr. Ford. \oungsters have said I am the. kind of doctor who can~t do an~ goo(l. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. I deem it a great honor in my first official act as superintendent of I)etroit schools to have an opportunity to appear before this honorable committee. My colleagues will address themselves particularly to the Federal as- pects of the legislation. Permit me to just describe for a few min- utes the needs of I)etroit. Our formal testimony has been presei~ted to you. I want to indicate that I)etroit is a fiscally independent school sys- tem. W~e are a district completely independent of city government, and we li~ive 110 one but the voters to turn to for educational aid. There are approximately ~0O.(X)() registered voters, of whom 200,000 are citizens 6~ ears and over. It is a city with many contrasting values. You will recognize that frequent elections requesting addi- tional ~~ropei~y aid on propeity that is already taxed to the limit does not add to tlìe. life expectancy of any superintendent. I would like to simply make my remarks as they pertain to Detroit based on the issues before this committee. On the National Teachers Corps, let me briefly say that Detroit has a school enrollment of approximately 300,01)0 children with about 11,0(X) teachers. Our basic premise is that all children are educable, that lack of motivation, poverty, physical handicaps, and even lack of funds, must serve not as explanations for our shortcomings, but as guidelines for developing skills. attitudes, and programs necessary for the success of each student. PAGENO="0695" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 689 I constantly remind myself aiicl our staff that we can (10 and must do better with what we have. Nevertheless, I have to be fair with the community and the staff when I face the realities of our present situation. Of our 11,00 teachers, over 800 are emergency substitute teachers simply because we thave been unable to lure qualified certificated teachers. I)espite our in training many of our teachers are teaching subjects for which they are not adequately prepared. If we in Detroit were to have the same ratio of teachers to pupils as exists in the rest of the State we would need an additional 1,650 teachers in our school tomorrow, simply to even meet the State average. If we could have these 1,650 teachers we would need at least an addi- tional 1,000 classrooms iii order to house them. We have in Detroit over 4,000 elementary classrooms. These, over 51 percent. have t~ay between 35 and 49 youngsters per classroom. Each of our grades in the elementary school, particularly grades 3 to 6, operate on one basic textbook to two children. One. uses t.he book in the morning, while the others are in special rooms and then iii the afternoon they switch and the second group use.s the same text- book. Simply to make this possible for each child to be able t.o take a book home to study, his basic textbook, a reader, a speller, and arith- mnetic textbook, we iueed an additional $3 million next year in Detroit., which we do not have. Detroit is spending about $516 per child per school year. The sub- urban areas are spending $600 to $800 per year, and drawing many of our middle class families away. It is our job to produce quality education for city youngsters, most. of whom come from disadvantaged homes with less than neighboring schools have in services for their children who come from middle class envi roninents. Let me say a word about innovatioii and vocational education. The ratio of counselors to students as recommended by the North Central Ass~iat.ion should be 1 to 300. To achieve this ratio for all pupils in grades 7 through 12, Dtroit needs 90 more counselors to do the 1ob. Innovation of vocational education calls for adequate facilities, buildings, machinery, and teachers to do the job, as Mr. Donovan has pointed out. Out of approximately 315 school buildings now in use in 1)etroit. 30 were constructed between 1874 and 1912. Yesterday I attended a school which was dedicated during time administration of Presi- dent Grant. And 153 of our schools have been built between 1913 and 1930. Many of these buildings require renovation, modernization, and equip- ment~ in order to achieve, the ver worthy goals included in your Pro- posed legislation. Fifty-seven of our schools now have boilers in them that are 30 years or older. Safety and efficiency calls for replacement. Replace- ment costs for each of these 57 boilers is approximately $100,000. Now to conclude with some general observations relating to title VI and other aspects under discussion. Ten thousand pupils in Detroit. public schools need speech correc- tion help today. Our teachers serve both public and pri~~tte schools PAGENO="0696" 690 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS in T)etroit. They go to the priv~1te schools and offer the service. If the number of pri\~ate children who neeti speech correction were in- cluded, our needs would be even greater. W~e need today more than 10() speech correction teachers to enable these youngsters in school to do their work successfully. The accepted standard for visiting teacliers~ service to hell) young- sters with emotional problems is one teacher to 2,500 pupils. This is also provided for I)lll)lic and private schools. To do this job for I)e- troit would require a minimum of 100 additional visiting teachers. We have as of today. then TOO pupils, who are not receiving ade- (1uate schooling because they are simply waiting for testing by our ~)svchological clinic. \Ve need an additional 50 diagnosticians in or(ler to handle this basic service. W~e know that many teachers are working with youngsters in their classrooms who should have the services of specially trained teachers, but they are doing the best they can with them simpi because the schools know the waiting list is long. I)etroit is one of the few cities that has libraries in its elementary ~(l1ools. Yet the American Library Association recommends $18 per year per pupil to meet a standard of 10 library l)ooks for every pupil. This amounts approximately to ~.18 per child. Detroit is spe.ndmng SI .25 per pupil for library books each veal. In his message last week the President mefltione(l the need to ex- panci educational funds and opportunities for handicapped children. T)etroit has approximately 10,000 pupils in vai.ious special education classes. We. have at least another 5,000 who require similar services. Properly trained teachers, space and cost of the transportation, which we (10 not receive within the city, impede our efforts to enable these youngsters to become useful and procliicti~e citizens iii our corn- niunity. I stated at the outset in addition to funds we must do better with what we have. I would like to conclude with the followiiig Academic excellence, social development, and social responsibility still remain our objectives. But to succeed we must be sensitive to the implications that changes iii our society have upon children, a.nd we must clarify the relationship of the school to the community and involve the community. schools do not make. laws about housing, employment~ or discrimi- nation. Yet these acts are performed by individuals who are the pro(lucts of our schools. Therefore, along with the home, religious institutions, and other institutions: it becomes the. responsibility of the school, in a large city. not merely to achieve academic excellence but, also to see to it that the products of our school act. in a manner that is in harmony with our national heritage. and our Democratic value. Forgive the capital "I)." My secretary has indicated her party. In addition to recruitment of new teachers, we must think of new teaching resources, teaching aids, and interns and also tecimological ai(lS, such as teaching machines and educational television if the job is to be. (lone. If anyone, Mr. Chairman, ever invents a. machine that (all replace a teacher or a superintendent, then we should be replaced. Yet, iii the meantime. the dedlicatedi teacher and principal still re- iiiaiii the very heart of our school program. Emerson once wrote the truth of civilization is not the. census nor the size of cities nor the country, but the, kinds of man the country turns out. PAGENO="0697" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 691 Good education is an important ingredient for the fulfillment of Emerson's goaL It is our common objective that schools will con- tribute to the fulfillment of the individual in playing an important role in developing the kind of men and women who will forge and (letermine the future of our country. I hope tha.t when the citizens of the 1970s and in I)articular their children, will look back upon the 1960's, they will find that we, Mem- bers of Congress, citizens and educators, those responsible today for the education of our youngsters, will have left to them a bequest not of illiteracy and poverty, not a record of half fulfilled promises in education, and not lasting scars that will bear hatred and mjstrust. it i~ our hope that. our children will look back at these 1960's and will find 1)ersonmml fulfillment for the individual, equal opportunity, ex- cellence in education for every youngster, and human understanding and good will as our generation's heritage to them. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairmaii PERKINS. That was a great statement. (The documents ref erred to follow:) STATEMENT OF NORMAN DRACIILER. SUPERINTENI)ENT OF DETROIT PUBLIC Sciiooi.s Mr. Chairman : I have presented to you and to Members of the Committee our testimony and some materials expanding Ul)Ofl the issues before us today. I apprecjate the opportunity to express some facts concerning the status of our schools and their needs as these relate to the issues under discussion today. 1. Xational Tcac/icr Corps Detroit has a school enrollment of approxiniately 300,000 children w'ith about 11.000 teachers. Our basic premise is that all children are educable. Lack of motivation, poverty, physical handicaps. and even lack of funds-must serve not as explanations for our shortcomings. but as guidelines for developing skills. attitudes and programmis necessary for time success of each student. I constantly relmlmn(1 immyself and our staff that we can do better with what we have. Nevertheless, I have to be fair with the coimmniunity and the staff when I face the realities of our present situation (a) ever 500 of our 11.000 teachers are emergency substitutes on regular positions simply because we have been lJnal)le to hire qualified certificated teachers. (h) Despite our inservice training program, many of our teachers are teaching subject matters such as Math. Science and foreign languages-for whieh they are not adequately prepared. Ic) If we in Detroit were to have the same ratio of teachers to pupils as exists iii the rest of the state-we would need an additional 1.650 teachers iii our schools tomorrow morning. At an average salary of $5,000 ler year. this amounts to ~II)OUt $13 million. d ) If we could hire these 1,650 teachers we would iieed at least an addi- ioiial 1.0(X) (`lassrooms in order to house them. ci We have iii Detroit over 4.000 elementary mlassrooimms. Of these, 51 -imiore than half-have between 35 and 49 youngsters mer classroom. In junior high schools. 20% of our classrooms run between 35 and 49, and iii our senior high schools, over 32% have between 35 and 39 in a room. (f) Each of our grades in the elementary schools, particularly grades through 6. operate on one basic textbook to two children. ( )ne class uses these iii time morning, while others are in special rooms, and then in the afternoon the classes switch and the second group in the homeroom uses the same textbook. Simply to make it possible for each child to be able to take home to study his basic textbook. a reader, a speller or an arithmetic 1)00k. we need an additional $3 million next year in Detroit. g) 1)etroit is spending about $516 per child per school year. The sub- urban areas are s~)en(ling six to eight humidred dollars per year. It is our task to produce quality education for city youngsters. most of whonm come froni PAGENO="0698" 692 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS disadvantaged homes with less, than neighboring schools have, in services for their children who come from iiiiddle-class environments. It is quite obvious that a child from a lower socio-econoniic home, be he white or Negro. is much more dependent upon his school success, upon the quality of teacher services, facilities and educational program than is a youngster from a lower 50cm-economic situation. 2. Innoratioii in rocational education (a) The ratio of counselors to students as recommended by the North Central Association should be one to 300. To achieve this for all pupils in grades 7 through 12, Detroit needs 90 more counselors to do the job. b) Innovation in `socational Education calls for adequate facilities, buildings, machinery awl teachers to do the job. Out of approximately 315 school build- ings now in use in Detroit, 30 were constructed between 1874 and 1912; and 153 between 1913 and 1930. Many of these buildings require renovation, moderi~- ization and equipment in order to achieve the very worthy goals included in your Proposed legislation. Fifty-seven of our schools now have boilers 30 years or older. Safety and efficieiwy call for replacement. Replacement costs for each of these 57 boilers is approximately $100,000. .~. &cncrai obscrt'ation.s relating to title VI and other aspects under discussion (a) Ten thousand pupils in Detroit Public Schools need speech correction help. Our teachers serve both public and private schools. If the number of private children who need speech correction were included, our needs would be even greater. More than 100 speech correction teachers are necessary to enable these youngsters to do their work successfully. (b) The accepted standard for visiting teacher service to help youngsters with emotional problems is one teacher for each 2.500 pupils. To do this job for Detroit both for public and private schools which we service would require a minimum of 100 visiting teachers. Our present staff consists of 47 full-time and 13 part-time visiting teachers. (c) Nearly 700 pupils are not receiving adequate schooling while awaiting testing by the Psychological Clinic. We need an additional 50 diagnosticians in order to handle this basic service. And we know that many teachers are working with youngsters in their classrooms should have the services of specially trained teachers, but they are doing the best they can with them simply because schools know that the waiting list is long. (d) Detroit is one of the few cities that has libraries in its elementary schools. The American Library Association recommends $18 per year per pupil to meet its standard of 10 library books for every pupil. This amounts to ap- proximately $18 per child. I)etroit is spending $1.25 for each pupil for library books per year. (e) In his message, the President has mentioned the need to expand edu- cational opportunities for handicapped children. Detroit has approximately 10.000 children in special education classes. We have another 5,000 at least who require similar services. Properly trained teachers, space and cost of transportation impede our efforts to enable these youngsters to become useful and productive citizens in our community. I stated at the very outset that in addition to funds we must do better with what we have. In light of the subjects under discussion, I would like o con- clude with the following. Academic excellence, social development and social responsibility still re- main our major objectives. But to succeed w'e must be sensitive to the impli- cations that changes in our society have upon education, and we must clarify the relationship of school to community. Schools do not make laws about housing, employment, or discrimination. Yet these acts are performed l)y ifl- clividuals who are the products of our schools. Therefore, along with the home. religious institutions and other institutions-it becomes the responsibility of the school not merely to achieve academic excellence but also to see to it that the products of our schools act in a manner that is in harmony with our na- tional heritage and our Democratic values. In addition to recruitment of new teachers we must think of new teaching resources, teaching aids, interns, and also technological aids such as teaching machines and educational television if the jot) is to be done. If anyone ever invents a machine that can replace a teacher or a superintendent-than they should be. The dedicated teacher or principal still remain the very heart of our school program. PAGENO="0699" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDLTCATION AMENDMENTS 693 Emerson once wrote `~The truth of a civilization is not the census, nor the size of cities, nor the country; but the kind of man the country turns out." Good education is an important ingredient for the fulfillment of Emerson's goal. It is our common objective that schools will contribute to the fulfillment of the individual and play an important role in developing the kind of men and women who will forge and determine the future of our community. I hope that when the citizens of the 1970's, and particularly their children, will look back upon the 1960's they will find that we, those responsible today for the education of our youngsters, will have left unto them a bequest not of illiteracy and poverty, not a record of half-fulfilled promises in education, and not lasting scars bearing hatred and mistrust. It is our hope that our children ~vill look back at these 1960's and will find personal fulfillment for the individual, equal opportunity, excellence in education for every youngster and human understanding and good will as our generation's heritage unto them. TESTIMONY OF NORMAN DRACHLER, SUPERINTENDENT OF DETROIT PUBLIC SCHOOLS Mr. Chairman and ~nembers of the committee, I am Norman Drachier, Super- intendent of School~, Detroit, Michigan. I appreciate this opportunity to appear before your Committee to discuss the amendments to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 196,5. The Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 has made possible a direct thrust at the problems confronting the educationally and economically deprived child. Thousands of such children located in the great cities of this nation are now participating in compensatory educational programs. These programs, if continued and expanded, could provide thousands of children the opportunity to emerge from the environments in which they otherwise are forced to exist as a sort of substream in the total community. The expansion and extension of the aims and objectives of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act can do much toward bettering our society. Hope- fully, this law can be expanded in terms of authorizations that will provide massive expenditures of educational dollars in school districts where local and state support programs do little more than meet the ongoing costs of the regular school program. The large city school districts are faced with the almost impossible task of providing more services to more students with a decreasing local tax base. These changes that must be effected in large cities are extremely costly. The ~rograms can best be accomplished through individualized all(I specialized instruction. The schools must be refinanced to meet the needs of the child. The legislation that we are discussing here today has provided seed funds to put such programs in operation. While each of us here today could expand this general discussion, the time limitation suggests that I report to you only some of the specifics of what has happened in Detroit. I will also conunent on the specific amendments that are suggested in H.R. 6230. I would be remiss, however, if I did not, before proceeding further, say some- thing about appropriations. Recognizing that appropriations are necessary for the implementation of legislative enactments. I would make a strong plea that all authorizations be supported by full appropriations. New programs should not he funded from appropriations designed to maintain effective levels of opera- tions in established programs. The competition for appropriated federal funds to finance the miian~- newly-authorized, unfunded programs should not l)e per- nutted to diminish the financial support originally made available for the ex- cellent programs provided by the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Public Laws 815 and 874 should be fully funded at the earliest possible date. The Elementary and Secondary Education Act Amendments of 1967 are divided into five major divisions 1. National Teacher Corps. 2. (Toniprehensive Educational Planning. 3. Innovation in Vocational Education. 4. Expanded Educational Opportunities for Hamidica~qed Children. 5. Miscellaneous Amendments to the Elementary a mid Secondary Education Act and the Federally Impacted Areas Program. Since the (`ommnittee has heard much discussion au each of the points, may re- uumarks will be based on our evaluation of the proposals in ternis of how they would affect the Detroit Public Schools. PAGENO="0700" 694 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS The proposed legislation to continue and expand the National Teacher Corps is highly desirable. since it affords a new training program that should provide a(lditional manpower for the education of disadvantaged children. The involve- went of veteran teachers and college-graduate interns in professional training programs for the teaching of disadvantaged children could open the door to a rewarding professional career. It could also do much to fill the teaching void that exists in the schools of the core city. The program. since its inception, has been broaching a difficult new area with limited resources and, in many instances, questionable support. The Teacher Corps program is a direct, desirable service for the disadvantaged children of this nation. We would hope that our program of sixteen teachers iould he expanded to many times that number. While the amendments propose to eliminate any question of federal control. I w-ould assure the Committee that this has not been a problem in our program. The amendment to provide comprehensive educational planning recognizes the riced for rational planning at all levels of the educational process. Funds to carry out such a planning program will (10 much to provide the continuity that so often is missing from programs that require careful long-range planning. While the basic approach suggested, places the guiding responsibility in the hands of the state agency. the possibility for grants to a metropolitan area niakes possible studies arid the development of programs heretofore limited by the lack of funds. I would point out that the authorization of $15 million for this very important work does appear to be small if the objectives outlined are to be accomplished. The section amending the Vocational Education Act of 1963 will permit cx- ldoratory programs and projects that should do much to help students understand tIme current arid long-term demands of the world of work. Some of the type of programs suggested as being possible under this section have been part of the programs carried out iii the large city school districts: how-ever, the wherewithal to make possible extensive programs has not been available. I would point out that the trenmendous needs of the unemployed and underemployed youth cannot lie met with a single program, but niust be a combination of many efforts. The funds iii the several federal programs related to this type of training are all lim- ited. The appropriation of $34) million for this particular section might pos- sibly be review-ed in terms of the number of pupils that might he reached through- out the nation. The section pertaining to expanded educational opportunities for handicapped children is highly desirable, since it does recognize the needs of multiple-handi- capped children, along w-ith the shortage of trained personnel iii the special education field. The regional resource centers can provide a valuable service in those areas w-here there are presently limited or no facilities available. Pos- sibly. the expansion of such services could be hastened if the large city centers miow iii operation could be expanded to cover a broader service area. The en- largement of the recruitment arid dissemination aspect is important if more effective techniques arid procedures are to be developed. The miscellaneous amendments to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and the Federally Impacted program have been previously discussed and appear to be of a technical nature. I would endorse the amendments to the disaster assistance section arid w-ould hope that Public Law-s 874 and 815 could be expanded by additional amendments to provide much-needed funds for the large cities of the nation. Since these tw-o programs will be covered by specific testimony relating to the desirability of such expansions, I w-ill not go beyond an endorsement of such expansion. It is difficult to provide this Committee with new and unique testimony on each of the several programs that have provided so many benefits to the education- ally amid economically depru-ed child. In Detroit, the prograums that are proving to be so effective really are offered under a number of federal programs and have been reported to this Committee at other times. The Detroit Public Schools have been the initiators of mnny programs which have dealt with the unique educational problems of disadvantaged youth. The Detroit Job-Upgrading Program. the School-Community Behavior Project, and the Great Cities Project are primary examples of such endeavors. The Job- Upgrading Program and the School-Community Behavior Project w-ere initiated iii 1)etroit before the relatively current resurgence of concern for disadvantaged youth, and the Detroit Great Cities Program began prior to funding by the Ford Foundation and the federal government. PAGENO="0701" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 695 With the passage of the Economic Opportunity Act in 1964 and the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1905. the school system was able to develop a comprehensive educational program in depressed areas of the city to improve the academic and social competence of youth and adults and to promote healthy change in educational practices. With the advent of the Economic Oppor- tunity Act, the Great Cities Program w-as expanded to embrace 33 schools and to establish the Extended School Project for an additional 51 schools. Other programs funded under the Economic Opportunity Act reflected critical needs as they had been discovered and researched in the Great Cities Project. In- cluded among them were Pre-School Programs. School Health Consultant. Volunteer Services, Assistant Attendance Officers. Head Start. In-School Work-- Training Programs, and Adult Literacy Programs. Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 provided an opportunity to focus more directly on the problems encountered during the nine- to-three school day. Based on priorities established by parents, students, teach- ers, and administrators, a vast array of activities and services were provided to inner-city schools. In-service training, school camping, supplies and equip- inent, cultural enrichment, pre-school expansion, Great Cities expansion, edu- cational television, remedial reading, job-upgrading expansion, project for preg- nant girls, and junior high school work--training were components of the Title I program. To more fully cover the scope of these programs, there is attached to this testimony a report that indicates the funding of various federal and state proj- ects that have been carried on in Detroit from 1904 to the present time. With this report are a number of abstracts that detail the specifics of many programs successfully in operation. I thank the Conunittee for inviting me to appear. The opportunity to be some part of the tremendous work that this Committee has done and is doing is most gratifying. The beginning of the first solid approach to meeting the needs of our under-privileged children really started with this Committee, The funding of these programs that you have so successfully imt under way is our next big task. ABSTRACTS EDUcATIONAL TELEVISION FOR DI5ADVANTAOED SchooLs The specific objectives of this project are to continue to offer quality program- mning to students in educationally and culturally deprived areas and to provide in-service teacher training. Approximately 115.000 students will lie served by this project in the depris-ed areas of I )etroit. In order to carry on these activities, the follo\ving personnel are required Full-time television coordinators 2 Full-time secretary 1 Rental fees for telelessons from outside sources will be provided -for culturally and educationally deprived schools. This will insure students in the target area a complete range of television programming. This staff is to work in the culturally and educationally deprived schools in cooperation with parents, teachers. administrators, and supervisors in order to develop the proper use of ETV in these areas. Support of this type is essential to a worthwhile program. Provisions will have to be made for office space. supplies, travel expenses. and phone service in -order to carry out these activities. Finally, a workshop (3 days) involVing a key person from each of these schools is most essential. It should take place as early as isssilile iii the program. A summary and outline of these ser~-ices amid facilities is listed below Tape Rental: September 10, 1906. to May 25. 1907. In-Service Trainhig : Continuous During 1900-fiT School Year. IN-SERVICE TRAINING Iii order to develop maximum utilization of ETV in the classroom, two in- service training programs must be conducted. One progm-anm would concern itself with the skills and techniques required on the part of the classroom teacher in order to prepare key personnel with the adnmiimistratmve know-how necessary to conducting a successful program. PAGENO="0702" 696 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS The need for in-service training for teachers using ETV is obvious to those who visit classroonks where the TV set is not turned on until five minutes of the program have gone by. In other rooms the class is not properly prepared for the television: the set is turned on: the lesson viewed and then snapped off. The classroom teachers efforts before, during, and after the telelesson are most critical to the overall effectiveness of television as an aid to the educational pro- gram. Fnless c'lassroom teachers are trained to carry out these functions prop- erly. much of the effectiveness of the presentation is lost. Any attempt to use ETV without a thorough understanding of these aspects of preparation on the Part of the classroom teacher will result in minimal achievement. A key person in each school building should be trained to administer the ETV program within that building in a manner that will allow maximum benefit to every student and teacher. This person should have a thorough knowledge of such items as the following: proper set placement in the room: nature, location, and operation of components of the distribution system, how to report major breakdowns accurately, and be able to lirovide storage for equipment which will make it highly accessible to the classrooni and give it maximum security. In addition, this person must be able to work with the school princil)al in developing program schedules which will maximize television utilization without interfering with important phases of the entire school program. BENEFITS One of the major benefits of implementing an effective television program in a school system is the ill-service training received by the teachers viewing the lessons in the classroom. The majority of television teachers have been selected because of their mastery of accepted and proved teaching techniques and skills. Exposure to these teachers does an effective job of in-service training for the teacher in the classroom. In most instances, the classroom teacher is provided an opportunity of view- ing a master tea('her develop concepts, utilize a w-ide variety of visual aids and practice techniques that have proven to be effective teaching skills. As the classroom teacher views the responses of the students in the classroom, he learns to recognize effective teaching. (`lassroom teachers report that televisioii provides them with a kind of measuring stick with which they are able to rate their own performance. They feel that self-examination as a result (If viewing the television teacher often reveals areas where they mimight strengthen tenchiques. Such examination also provides assurance in areas where the television teacher employs techniques con- sidered effective by the classroom teacher. Perhaps the most outstanding contribution that ETV makes to the in-service education of teachers is in the implementation of important curriculum changes. An outstanding example of this took place in Detroit and concerns the develop- went of the modern math ~)rogran1. By presenting an outstanding teacher on TV at the grade level adopting the niodern math curriculum, hundreds of teachers were able to observe directly the techniques and methods considered effective in teaching modern math. Another excellent example of the rapid implementation of curriculum change as a result of television is found in the development of MPATI's sixth-grade science series. A year before the position paper was published in the professional journals. DIssE~fINATIoN PROJECT Inder Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, the I)etroit Public Schools have developed and implemented a variety of projects. These projects have been and will continue to be designed for the purpose of providing services to educationally and economically deprived children. The school system has initiated a multi-faceted program of compensatory education because it realized that deprivation cannot be eliminated or greatly reduced by short term, fragmented programs, and that the schools must continue indefinitely iii the neighborhoods as important community agencies to help children and youth work their way from poverty through self-improvement. Among the projects now operating under Title I funØs are the fo1lowin~: Communication Skills Centers, Basic Reading Demonstration and In-Service Training Project, Program to Continue Education of Girls Who Must Leave PAGENO="0703" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDTJCATION AMENDMENTS 697 School Because or Pregnancy, Cultural Enrichment Project, In-School Youth Work-Training Project (for Junior High School Students, 14 and 15 year-olds), Discretionary Development Fund for Disadvantaged Schools, Pre-School Child and Parent Education Project, Operation Go. As a part of our obligation under Title I, we are designing this proposal for the purpose of developing a system of communication and dissemination which will serve the interests of educators, students, citizens, and governmental agen- cies. Teachers, administrators, and community residents must be adequately informed if they are to be successful in effecting change and stimulating interest in programs that deal with the problems of the disadvantaged. Objcctivc8 1. Gathering and making available to teachers information on research and the results of research, demonstrations, and projects which are applicable to and may hold promise for the local school district. Providing citizens, both locally and nationally, with inforniation about ongoing federal projects. 3. Establishing lines of communication with the local Community Action Agency, the non-public schools, colleges and universities. and other public and non-public agencies. 4. Compiling and cataloguing data which will have relevance for ongoing and future projects. A federal projects communications specialist will be hired to handle matters related to report-making, publicity, and dissemination of information. Coor- dinating with project directors, he will produce materials which will facilitate federal projects. In providing any materials, consideration will be given to the iieeds and requirements of the Office of Education, the Detroit Public and Non- Public Schools, and the Department of Public Instruction. The communications specialist, working in cooperation with the public rela- tions staff of the Detroit Public Schools, will prepare a quarterly publication which will describe the progress on ongoing projects and provide other pertinent information relative to federal projects. In addition to the preparation of the quarterly document, other written material will l)e assembled and dispersed through appropriate channels. The communications specialist will work closely with the Program Develop- ment Office and project representatives who are responsible for designing and developing federal proposals. In preparing materials for dissemination, the communications specialist will respond to the needs of the non-public schools and the projects directors of federal programs operating in the school district. Evaluation The effectiveness of the total program comprised of all of the projects sub- mitted or to be submitted will be evaluated in one comprehensive effort. The design for this evaluation has been submitted. This evaluation will provide in depth information about all federal programs in the Detroit Public Schools. Cou MUNICATION SKILLS COMPONENT THE PROBLEM Large iiumbers of inner-city school children in Detroit experience difficulty in learning to read. When serious reading deficiencies develol) and persist, stu- dents often meet with failure in their school work. Complicating and perpetu- ating the problem of large numbers of students with deficient reading skills is the fact that many teachers have had little training in teaching remedial reading. Secondary teachers, especially, are unprepared to teach the reading skills neces- sary in their content areas. Even teachers trained to teach reading often cannot provide effective remedial help in the regular classroom situation. Consequently. an intensive and comprehensive program for the diagnosis and treatment of reading and other language problems for disadvantaged children and youth is a critical educational need in Detroit. GENERAL OBJECTIVES In an effort to meet this on-going need. it is recoiuiiiiended that. the Commu- iiication Skills Centers (CSC) Project. established in the past school year, be continued and exl)anded within the limits of the funds available. The general PAGENO="0704" 698 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS objectives of such a program are: (1) to reduce the extent of reading retardation of disadvantaged students, and (21 to gain further knowledge and skills for the effective operation of the Detroit Communication Skills Centers. spEclnc OaJEcTIVE5 1. To provide diagnostic service and remedial instruction iii reading and re- lated skills for students in grades 3 through 12 of Detroit schools. 2. To provide psychological. medical (including psychiatric), and counseling services for pupils who require such assistance. 3. To help parents understand the learning problenis of their children and to enlist their cooperation. 4. To gala additional knowledge about the effectiveness of various methods and materials for reniediation of reading deficiencies. 5. To work cooperatively with participating schools to strengthen their reading programmis through reports. workshops. seminars, and conferences. 6. To provide specialized iersonnel with the opportunity of developing new approaches to help pupils in understanding and overcoming their learning problems. 7. To increase the number of pupils who become effective learners and surcessfnl graduates. COMPONENT nE5CRIPTION F'ive Communication Skills Centers are presently lOcate(l in Regions 3. 8. and 9 of the I)etroit School District. Each of the three eleuientary-junior high school (enters utilizes four transportable units which are located at Berry. Campbell Annex, and \Vinterhalter Schools. One high school center is operating in four transportable units at Mackenzie High School. and another center is housed in Murray High School. Sub-centers operate in one high school and three ele~ iiientary schools. The sixth center is scheduled to begin operation in two transiiortables at Southeastern High School in September. 1966. Almost all elementary students attending a center ride project buses. Staff aides supervise students while traveling. Most high school students walk to their Communication Skills Center. On August 1. 1966, project buses replaced Chartered buses in transporting students to Communication Skills Centers. Arrangements have been made which allow non-public school children living within the regional areas of the centers to ParticiPate in project activities. The number of participating non-public school children is proportionate to that of the public schools. Each center is staffed by the following personnel Junior administrative assistant 1 Reading diagnostician 1 Remedial reading teachers 6 Social therapist 1 Psychologist (2½ days per week) 1 Clerk-typist 1 T.ay aide 1 In addition. the following personnel are available to each center on a contracted basis: Psychiatrist. Neurologist. Audiologist. Pediatrician. Reading and Language Consultants. Medical Technicians. 1.ANGUAGE RETARDATiON UNiT Located near one of the centers is a special unit devoted to the study of lan- guage retardation. Language therapy includes both receptive and expressive forms of concrete language. This language training is based uj~n various forms of perceptual and perceptual-motor training emphasizing the visual, auditory. mad kinesthetic modalities. Various language measures are administered to the children enrolled in order to guage the quality and quantity of the improvement effected. PAGENO="0705" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 699 PROGRAM EVALUATION The effectiveness of the project to improve the reading ability of the pupils will be evaluated in terms of its expected outcomes, the services provided, and the methods used. A project evaluator from the Department of Educational Research, Detroit Public Schools, has beea assigned to design the evaluation pro- cedures and collect the data necessary to complete them. A preliminary report of the findings is attached to this project proPosal. SUPPLEMENTARY cOMMUNIcATION SKILLS CENTER5 Inner-city schools enroll large numbers of students who are deficient in reading skills. Many factors contribute to their reading disabilities. floreuver, many classes contain a mnnjority of students who are underachieving in readmg. making it difficult for even a trained teacher to provide remedial help. The Communication Skills Centers. as they are presently organized. are limited iii the number of inner-city students whom they can help. Preliminary evalna- tion of the current project indicates that these students can make progress in small classes under the direction of competent remedial reading teachers. It is imperative that larger numbers of students be given the opportunity to profit from the Communication Skills remedial reading program. In order to reach students who are not currently being helped, it is proposed that additional Communication Skills teachers be hired and the existing class- rooms in project schools he utilized. These classrooms should be adequately equipped to offer effective remedial instruction. Teacher service would be dis- tributed iii the most efficient and equitable manner possible. Each additional teacher would mean that about eighty more students per w-eek would receive instruction. These students w-ould attend Communication Skills classes in their ow-n school or in one near by, eliminating trai-el time and expense. Students with severe reading problems w-ould he referred to the main Communication Skills Centers for more comprehensive diagnosis and remedia tion. READING PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT SPEcIALISTs The nature of the operation of the Communication Skills Centers makes it desirable to have an experimental or dei-elopmental program imm addition to the current operational phase. It is proposed, therefore. that some Reading Spe- cialists he assigned to the project to develop and test experimental techniques of teaching reading. to design and try new instructional materials, to involve instructional staff in researchable problems. and to encourage all project per- sonnel to seek new- methods of solving reading problems. GREAT CITIEs EXPANSION COMPONENT The Great Cities School Improvement Project and the Extended School Pro- gram have provided extensive programs in 27 and 31 schools respectively in recent years. In the summer of lOGO, it was possible through the Elementary and Secondary Education Act to provide a Great Cities Summer School Project for all of the remaining Detroit Public Schools designated as part of disadvan- taged communities. In view of the success of the six-week summer project and the enthusiasm of time school staff, the community, and the students in this program. it is recom- imiemicled that funds be made available to continue a program in the schools to follow up on the start made iii meeting the educational needs of the disadvantaged comnmun ities. The proposed program would be modeled after the major operations of the Great Cities Project and the Extended School Program. The actual extent of the pro- gram would be modest during the first year because of the need to establish clear understanding and commitment to project goals before launching programs of greater depth and scope. Somne of the purposes of the proposed continuation of the summer project are its follow-s 1. Expanding the concept of the comimmunity school 2. Working for community involi-emnent in assessing mmeeds, ~dammnimmg. oper- ating, and evaluating the school progranm and its relatiomi to the community 75-492 O-67-----15 PAGENO="0706" 700 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 3. Providing remedial education for students over a broad range of cur- riculum areas 4. Providing extended library service to the community ~. Providing adult educational opportunities ~i. Providing conirnunity involvement activities and experiences for youth an(I adults 7. Developing motivation and aspirations for improved skills and compe tenc'ies in education and socialization 8. Providing the insights and abilities to cope with urban living To nieet these goals of the project. it is proposed that systematic and consistent efforts be made to: Provide staff growth and in-service education for teachers, administrators, and non-professionals in the program Provide curriculuni modification, innovations, and developmental activities for a more extensive learning situation Provide additional materials, supplies, and instructional items to aid the program Cooperate with research and evaluation efforts to measure program and guide efforts for i niprovement It is also proposed that careful, thorough coordination be established with all related projects (Head Start, R.E.A.D., etc.) in order to make the best possible use of funds and to insure that duplication and overlapping of efforts and pro- grams occur only for reinforcement and strengthening and not merely repetition. PROGRAM OUTLINE Orientation Two orientation sessions will be provided to discuss Project goals, program outlines, school-community relations, techniques for community involvement, budget, administrative procedures, selection of personnel, records and reports, and related matters. The workshop will involve four representatives from each school (principal, assistant principal or program coordinator, and two teachers.) General progran~ outline Basic program elements will be as follows: Extended library service from 4 to 6 hours per week per school. Remedial and enrichment experience classes and activities for children ranging from 8 to 14 hours per week per school. Adult education activities ranging from 6 to 10 hours per week per school. Coordination time ranging from 6 to 10 hours per week per school. School-Community Assistant working 20 hours per week maximum for each assistant. In case of larger schools, 30 hours of time would be budgeted to be divided among two or more school community assistants. Secretarial service based on an approximate formula of one hour serv- ice for each day a program operates in a school. Cultural enrichment classes. Contracted services. School service assistants. Discretionary Development Fund. The range of hours and services is for purposes of adapting the program to the varied school enrollment. The general plan is for a 32-week program period for actual classes. However, it is anticipated that community use of the build- ing and various planning and evaluation sessions and informal activities will be ongoing throughout the 40-week school year. .4dniinistration and supervi8ion Overall administration of the Project would be under the direction of the Great Cities office and will become the major responsibility of one of the admin- istrat~rs in the office. The services of other staff members will be a basic part of the central administration. Four additional administrators will be assigned to the central staff to develop, coordinate, and implement project elements. One full-time secretary will be assigned for Project duties and ten part-time supervisors will agrinient. the central Project staff. Supervisors carefully se- lected for their c'ompetencies in curriculum, school-community relations, per- PAGENO="0707" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 701 sonnel matters, and general administrative areas will each work a maximum of six hours a week after school, evenings, and Saturdays. The 48 hours of w-eekly supervision will provide approximately a half-hour per week per school of direct action-oriented supervision. Supervision will be budgeted for 34 weeks providing pre- and post-time and weekly time for rec- ords and reports. Our experience has shown that adequate sapervision is in- valuable in supporting the efforts of school people as they enter new projects and depart from traditional programs and traditional patterns of operation in an attempt to reach disadvantaged youth and adults. The supervisor is a key person in maintaining an effective line of communication between the coordi- nator in the school and the Project staff. Contract services It is proposed to make available to the schools extensive contract services in educational resources, performing arts personnel, and a variety of cultural and professional services for staff, students, and community. Specific item.s will include artists, musicians, actors, lecturers, and demonstrators in curricular areas. These services will be arranged with individuals, semi-professionals, and professional clubs in the metropolitan area. The caliber and background of those whose services are hired will range from beginning professionals and semi-professionals to highly sophisticated performers and experts in their re- spective fields. Travel Travel expenses for the Project will consist of mileage for the supervisors and administrative staff and a modest mileage allotment for professional travel related to the Project. (To seminars, conventions, other cities to observe and study worthwhile programs.) Books and supplies and instructional materials To supplement existing projects, we will provide materials and supplies to dis- advantaged schools. It is proposed to provide a budget of $200 per school for the program throughout the school year. Part of this budget will operate within carefully develped guidelines, while part will be available to the schools through individual requisition procedures as needed. It is necessary that the schools have access to rapid procurement of items for their programs in order to capi- t.alize on the spontaneous development of needs and to insure best use of teacher time and pupil time. Experience has shown that it is impossible to anticipate all needs in advance: the flexibility and speed of the proposed arrangement con- tributes to creative and effective programs and high morale. JOB-UPGRADING PROJECT This proposal concerns an expansion of the existing Job-Upgrading Program which is in its seventeenth year of operation in the Detroit Public Schools. Job-Upgrading is a voluntary program designed to aid in the occupational adjustment of unemployed youth sixteen through twenty years of age who have left school before graduation. Its specific purposes are to provide instruction which will help those young people secure and keep a job and to assist those who need and want education or further training to obtain it. The existing Job-Upgrading Program has centers located in ten senior high schools and one junior high school. This proposal would allow the program to expand to four additional senior high schools during the day and open three more centers in the late afternoon and evening in three locations which would he operative during the day. Provision has been made to hire teacher-coordinators, remedial teachers, con- sultants. and specialists in the areas of employment counseling, labor organiza- tion, personnel work, psychological services, and social work. All staff members will participate in workshop sessions designed to acquaint the new members of the staff with the operation of the program as well as training the total staff in areas relating to the drop-out, the world of w-ork. personnel problems, labor organizations, etc. Enrollees in the prograiii will he out-of-school youth between the ages of 16 and 21. They will be non-graduates who are interested in either returning to the regular school program or in obtaining training and work experience necessary PAGENO="0708" 702 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDIJCATION AMENDMENTS to hell) them become self-sufficient workers. Funds received under this proposal will provide an extended work assignment for a large percentage of the enrollees in the program. They will be paid ~1.25 per hour for a maximum of 20 hours of work lii tax-supported institutions as well as non-profit organizations. Candi- dates for enrollment would be referred by: 1. School counselors and administrators. 2. VarIous school administrative departments. 3. TAP centers. 4. M.E.S.C. Youth Opportunity Center. 5. Former Job-Upgrading trainees. 6. Welfare and ADC workers. Juvenile, police, and parole workers. 8. Interested citizens. Students who have dropped out of non-public schools will be involved in this project. Referrals will be made by principals and teachers from the non-public schools. Overall coordination of the various elements of the program will be the responsibility of the project director and his staff. BASIC READING DEMoNSTRATION COMPONENT The Basic Reading Denionstration Project, funded in 1965 under Title 1 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, was designed to measure the effectiveness of six different methods for teaching beginning readers in inner-city schools. The original grant was for teli months. It is expected that refunding will permit a total three-year study. The project will serve 68 teachers aiicl approximately 2,200 children in 18 inner-city schools. Two of the six methods are termed sound-symbol approaches (uiicontrolled vocabulary) and four are termed developmental approaches (controlled vocabu- lary). The companies represented are I.T.A. Pitman (sound-symbol), Whit- man-Western (sound-symbol). Gina (developmental). Harper-Row (edevlop- mental). Lippineott (developmental) and McGraw-Hill (developmental). The goals of the project are to (1) teach the children in the experimental classrooms to become skillful readers. (2) validly test the six different approaches for teaching the begining reader. (3) investigate and measure the quality and quantity of services rendered by (sub-professional) classroom lay-teachers. These sub-professionals will work in classrooms under the direct guidance and supervision of a certified teacher. Additional services to project schools include: supplies and published materials, consultant services for classroom teachers, classroom lay aides. workshop and in-service training, inter-school visitations, library materials to individual classrooms, and other services and materials recommended by the experimenting teachers. The project is being evaluated by the Detroit Board of Education, Educa- tional Research Department. Six achievement tests will be administered in the thirty-month study. The first reading achievement test was administered in May. 1966. All sixty-eight teachers will participate in an evaluation of the materials being supplied by the six publishing houses. Calendar of events for time basic reading demonstration project (November 3, 1965, to June 24. 1966) September S-November 20. 1965: Eighteen schools, 68 teachers, and 2,200 children selected for the project. Project children given a reading readiness experience and introduced to the primary reading skills. November 3, 1965: Mr. Mark Mahar assigned as the Project Director. The first orientation meeting with project administrators and teachers. November 8-23, 1965: In-Service Workshop Training for the project teachers. The order for instructional materials was initiated and delivered. November 29. 1965: Instructional program in the six different methods acti- va ted - November 20-December 17. 1965: Classroom lay aides recruited, interviewed. trained, and assigned. January 31. 1966: Second In-Sen-ice Training Workshop for project teachers. February 2-June 14. 1966: A series of scheduled meetings for the project teachers established. In-Service and Evaluation meetings scheduled every three weeks for each medium being tested. PAGENO="0709" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 703 March-June, 1966: Monthly visitations to project classrooms by educational consultants arranged for by the sponsoring publishing companies. March 1966: Evaluation design constructed and submitted. April-June. 1966: Evaluation tools designed, refined, and employed. May 1966: First reading achievement test administered. June 1966: Data collection and first evaluation initiated. July-August, 1966: Compiling data for the interim report. The Basic Reading Demonstration Project has been well-received by teachers and administrators in the experimental schools. A great interest, enthusiasm, and spirit has been generated by the opportunity to work with new and different published materials. Often teachers, highly critical of the medium they were Many express a new feeling of freedom directly associated with the fact that they must learn with the children-day-by-day. The idea of moving away from the "lock-step approaches" dominated the independent discussions at the in- service w-orkshop meetings. A new form of classroom flexibility is in evidence. Teachers and administrators have lisited these as positive project factors: Improved attitudes, spirit, and cooperation of teachers resulting from closer contact w-ith other teachers sharing project responsibilities. Professional growth opportunities as a result of contacts with language arts experts and consultants. Professional status improvement associated with the experimental nature of the project. A real (or seeming) change in the responses of children because they sense their involvement in something different. An evolving partnership because "we are learning a new task-together. An opportunity to extend and improve educational and skill in the teaching of the language arts. Realization of the parallels in the different approaches and the possibility of developing dual-tracking techniques for re-teaching and re-enforcement. Insights into ways and means of greater employment of self-teaching and self-directing activities for children. Re-definition of the educational goals and l)url)oses of individual teachers as a result of intensive daily planning and evaluation. Greater insight into the fundamentals of our language as a result of a new teaching responsibility. The expected outcomes of the Basic Reading I)emonstration Project are: The extension and improvement of the ability of the children to skillfully master the oral and written language. The extension and improvement of the ability of individual teachers to teach the language. Identification of ways aiid means for better meeting the language needs of inner-city children. Development of valid systems for identifying and recording the individual progress of children in language arts skills. Development of diagnostic and remedial plans for meeting the needs of delayed, reluctant, and/or remedial readers. Identification of master teachers who are successful with inner-city chil- (Iren so that they may assume leadership roles in improvement of instruction. Demonstration of the values of flexibility in materials, methods, and staff utilization in creating improvement in instruction. There has been a substantial increase in the budget request for the 1966-67 school year. This increase is based upon the following considerations: Hiring a full-time reading consultant to extend service in supervision, coordination, in-service training, and evaluation. Purchase of materials revised within the calendar year. Increase the initial instructional materials budget to purchase enrichment and supplementary materials necessary for children as they begin to read in dependently. Fifty percent lay aide service ler teacher to compensate for the additional tasks associated with exl)erimentation. Extend teacher and lay aide skills through extensive workshop training. Substitute salaries to create released time to permit flexibility in staff utilizatioii : altering traditional classrooiii patterns : develop and illiprove audio-visual materials; experinientation in techniques and devices for cx- tending listening, speaking, and reading skills: inner-intra school visitations and attendance of meetings for professional improvement. PAGENO="0710" 704 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS In-depth experimentation with the sound-symbol approaches as diagnostic and remediation tools for delayed, reluctant, and remedial readers. Permit a key, master teacher (maintaining her regular classroom assign- nient) released-time periodically to act as a demonstration-teacher, teacher- consultant, and/or teacher-supervisor for inexperienced teachers or teachers experiencing classroom problems. Duplication and distribution of teacher-created materials. Encourage independent educational research. IN-Sc HOOL YOFTH WORK-TRAINING COMPONENT The purpose of this proposal is to allow for the continuation of the In-School Youth Work-Training Program. Certain changes will be suggested which, based on the past year's experience, are designed to make the program more efficient in its attempts to aid disadvantaged youth. FIRST-YEAR ACTIVITIES During the eight-month period from January 1, 1966, to August 31, 1966, over 1.000 work sites were developed for use by youths aged 14 and 15. These sites, found only in schools, have been sponsored by employees (primarily teachers) who have exchanged their "employer" supervision for the aid offered by the work-training enrollee. The students selected for these part-time jobs are all from an area labeled as disadvantaged and have been screened from an estimated 15,000 junior high students. Most of the students have never had a job other than "baby sitting". and for all, the holding of a social security card and the receipt of a paycheck was a glorious first. Case studies, along with aneedotal remarks submitted by enrollees, principals. teachers, and counselors, in lieu of the objective evidence to be gotten from the evaluation presently in progress, indicate the high degree of success initially hoped for, Although many of the desired changes will not be observable for possibly years to come, many of the attitudinal and scholastic changes affected indicate a highly successful prognosis. Youths are described who possessed such problems as poor or failing grades, Isor discipline (which in at least one case had led to expulsion from a school), inability to relate well with peer or adult groups, and near autistic behavior. In all of the cases studied thus far, marked improvements have been seen. The underlying reason for the changes appears to be a sense of security and worth not often felt previous to the in-school work experience. The rationale for this project. stated in last year's proposal, remains the same. The information and experience gathered during the first eight months indicate the strong need for continuance of this project during the 1966-67 s('hOOl year. SUGGESTED ChANGES It was observed that there were junior high school students who should have been involved in this program but were excluded because of their age. It is therefore suggested that the inclusive age range for this program be ages 14 through 18. In order to maintain work continuity for enrollees, it is suggested that the school prograni coordinator send an enrollee's work record with him as part of his file, should he transfer to another junior high. The program coordinator should also work with the high school coordinators in an attempt to place the enrollee in the high schooi work-training program in an attempt to make the junior high to senior high work transition as smooth as possible. It is also strongly recommended that no enrollees in this program be fired, but rather, that a job-site transfer plus additional counseling be utilized. The following Scholarship Project will be included as a component of the hi-School Youth Work-Training Program. `rilE PROBLEM Schools, especially those in the inner city, face complicating problems in getting scholarships and grants-in-aid for the maximum number of young people. Many sources of funds compete for the most able students on one hand PAGENO="0711" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDLTATION AMENDMENTS 705 and the most needy on the other. Yet, many students who could use help receive none. Each scholarship source has its own application forms, its own deadline dates. and its own processes. This leads to great duplication of effort, which is especially unfortunate in inner-city high schools where counselors must deal with a flood of problems. Because of this, many small funds go unused because they are overlooked, seem less promising, or the counselors time has l)een exhausted in preparing applications for the "big" funds. There is need for a thorough analysis of the situation with the objective of bringing order out of the chaos and increasing the probability that more students can be helped. As a first step, this w-ill require a know-ledgeable person to get in detail the facts as to exactly which students have not been aided and what changes could have brought them assistance. With detailed and specific infor- mnation at hand, the Detroit Public Schools can bring together the major sources of aid and help them develop a unified application process so that. counselors can develop and use the many smaller sources which, although each may seem rel- atively insignificant, yet in total amount to substantial figures. A new development is built on the assumption that many inner-city students would show higher motivation during the junior high and senior high school years if they had the incentive of being assured of the financial means of getting high education should their records warrant admission to college. There is n~, on the one hand, to interest more scholarship organization in this possibility; and on the other, to establish in the junior high schools procedures for identify- ing recipients for such incentive scholarships and bringing them to the attention of potential donors. A person will be selected who combines interest in the subject and familiarity with the administrative processes to conduct the project and give leadership to the necessary activities. One of the major discoveries during the summer of 19~G was that, when their interest was aroused in aid activities linked to professions. many of the junior high school work-study students showed both potential and interest for occupa- tions which ultimately will require college education. It therefore seems wise and necessary to cope with the present semi-chaotic situation involving scholar- ships. Because counselors in inner-city schools are under great pressure in con- nection with all their duties, they are hard pressed by the necessity, on the one hand, to prepare different applications for the same students to a number of sources so that if a boy or girl is turned dowmi by one he still has a chance w'ith others. Also, there are many minor sources, on the other hand, which go un- used. The objective of this follow-through would be to work out the following: 1. Develop a unified application form which could be filled out once and then mechanically duplicated to go to a number of sources. 2. Identify students of ability overlooked in the present process and de- velop means for calling them to the attention of scholarship organizations. 3. Expedite approaches to minor sources now unused because, although in cumulation they are substantial, each is small. 4. Interest sources of funds in aw-arding inventive scholarship at the junior high school level, and especially to work-study students, so that they can be assured of financial ability to go to college if their high school records warrant college admission. (One major donor, the Student Aid Foundation of Michigan, has a small pilot project of this nature at four inner-city high schools this year. 5. Work out procedures within junior high schools to make use of such possibilities as may eventuate. PROGRAM EvALuATIoN PROJECT PHASES OF TIlE EVALUATION PROGRAM There are two phases of the Title I evaluation program. One is the study of the effectiveness of each of the discrete projects which make up the program. The other is the evaluation of the effectiveness of the total educational program which all the projects comprise. These are considered separately in the evalua- tion plans. PAGENO="0712" 706 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS EVALUATION OF DISCRETE PROJECTS In each of the individual projects for which different goals have been set, the elements which work best must be identified so that efforts may be directed in ways that offer the litost promise for raising the competencies of the Children iflV( )lved. Systeina tic ol)servations must be made and objective evidences gathered to guide each project toward its goals while at the same time helping in ml(Ijusting instruction and services to the changing needs of individual pupils. I'lans for evaluating the discrete projects are described in separate statements of evaluation designs. I'URPOSES OF EVALUATION The gains in educational achievements of the pupils, as measured by tests, will iiot l)e the only criteria of program success. Improved curriculum offerings, iuilmroved attendance and holding IN)wer. improved discipline and relations with others will also be studied. It may be months, or years, before some of the desired outcomes of the program become evident, but as much relevant data as possible will be gathered along the way. ANALYSES OF I)ATA I)ue to the nature of the data collected for evaluation of the Title I projects mmn(I for the program, it will not he W)ssible to employ a single statistical design. Where pre and post data are available, analysis of variance-covariance designs will he eiiiployed. This will preclude the necessity of matching individuals or groups. In other instances, factorial designs will be appropriate. The responses to questionnaires and the data secured from interviews will he suiiimarized and reported using descriptive analysis and reportmg techniques. In general, the type of analysis used will be dependent upon the type of data collected. Tests of significance of differences 1)0th parametric and nonpara- imietric. will he applied where appropriate, but the analyses of 1)0th the program and of the project data will not be limited to statistical treatnient alone. MANAGING EVALUATION I)ATA The whole design of the program evaluation is dependent on the establishment of an electronic system of data recording and data retrieval. Without such a system, it would be impossible to record and subject to statistical analyses all of the different measures needed to assess the effects of the entire program on the 216,000 pupils comprising the universe of the study. RATIONALE FOR ORGANIZATION OF EVALUATION SERVICES Past experience has shown that assignment of evaluators to any project becomes inefficient if such an assignment places the evaluator under the super- vision and control of the project director. Conversely, the team approach, with all the evaluation responsibilities and the evaluators assigned to the Educational Research Department, eliminates these objections and provides for cooperative planning with project directors. This, therefore, is the organizational plan under which the program and the project evaluations will be conducted. STAFF FOR EVALUATION The evaluation program staff will be made up of a teani of evaluation spe- cialists who represent a diversity of training in other disciplines. While different team members will be responsible for and identified with each project, they will plan and work together so as to coordinate their efforts and have the benefits of the group thinking for evaluation in depth as well as in breadth. The team members will work under the direction of the program evaluation director, assisted by two assistant directors, who will have the overall responsi- bility for the program and project evaluations. All the evaluation team members will l)e supervised by trained and experienced personnel in the Educational Research Department in the Detroit Public Schools. PRE-SCHcoL (`11111) AND I'ARENT EDuc~'rIoN (`o~mPoNENm The I're-School Child and Parent Education Project is concerned with the child- hood of children whose patterns of social and emotional responses are influenced. to a greater or lesser degree. by a culture of physical poverty, family disorganiza- PAGENO="0713" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 707 tion, and life experiential deprivations. The program is guided and dependent upon a focus which takes into account the overall rapidly changing behavioral and developmental patterns of child life, encompassing the third and fourth years. Program content for the pre-school children who are enrolled in the program emphasizes a multi-sensory approach, real-life experiences, and specific language activities in order to provide a solid foundation for future educational experi- ences during the elementary school years. Because we believe that children and their families comprise an indivisible unit and because we believe that a child's growth and development is dependent upon his home environment, the parents of our children are included in the Pre-School Program through weekly meetings. These meetings are conceived as being essentially educational in nature, with the specific program emerging from the need and interests of the group. The overall objectives of these parent meetings can be considered as being: 1. To help the parent develop a more effective method for solving problems 2. To provide sufficient knowledge of resources which will enable the parent to function more effectively in her role as parent and homemaker 3. To help the parent develop a greater sense of self-worth as a result of developing new skills and more effective management techniques Also, as part of the regular in-service training program, the teachers and assistant teachers participate in bi-weekly workshops under the direction of the central staff. Each pre-school unit conducts two sessions, one in the morning and one in the afternoon. Each session consists of no more than twenty children, or a total of forty children per unit. The children attend their pre-school unit for four days a week, approximately three hours a day. The fifth day is utilized by the teaching staff for program planning, in-service training, home visits, and conferences with parents or the staff people. Each pre-school unit is headed by a certificated elementary school teacher. She is assisted by an assistant teacher, who must have at least two years of college; a full-time pre-school aide, and a clerk-typist who is employed through the Co-Op Clerical Program of the Detroit Public Schools. In addition to the above personnel, each unit is assisted by a reso~trce aide or resource teacher and an additicmal pre-sch 001 aide oive day a week, on the day when the parent meeting is held. One of the pre-school aides will also do home visits one day a week. The purpose of the home visit will be to assist with enrollment of children and mothers, to determine the causes of absence, and to coptact the home on appoint- ments for medical or other services. Additional responsibilities may be assigned as the role is developed. The success of the pre-school program depends heavily upon the teacher, who is called upon to perform many functions not traditionally considered a part of the elementary teacher's role. Among these are the planning and conducting of parent meetings, home visits, and the supervision of several personnel within her unit. To assist her in performing these new roles, a Language Development Specialist, Parent Education Specialist, Curriculum Development Coordinator, and other central staff members work closely with her throughout the year. PRE-SCHOOL UNIT Teacher Assistant Teacher Pre-School Aide1 --Family-- Crib-Toddler Aide Co-Op Clerk ________________ Aide __________________ _____________ IN-SERVICE EDUCATION The Detroit Public Schools proposed for the school year 1965-66 a very broad program in in-service education and staff development. This program was de- signed to be a complete in-service education effort. It included not only the in- service training projects which the school system had always conducted, but also PAGENO="0714" 708 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS a number of additional, different. approaches to in-service education. Many of these new approaches had never previously been put. into operation because of limitations on the amount of money a school system can budget for in-service education. The availability of federal funds make it possible, for the first time, tu launch a number of these new approaches. The result has been, over-all, an electrifying stimulus to the whole field of in-service education in the Detroit Public Schools. The Iroiect provided for careful and objective evaluation. To render this evaluation, two trained evaluators were hired. To insure objectivity, these evaluators were assigned to the Educational Research Department of the Detroit Public Schools, rather than to the Continuing Education Department. The efforts of the program for the school year 1966-67 have been grouped into six iliajor facets of in-service education which are as follows: Facet 1. Local School Projects. Facet 2. Projects to Continue the Present Program of the Detroit Public Schools. Facet 3. Projects to Improve the Instructional Program. Facet 4. Projects in Staff Development. Facet ~. Projects to Explore Attitudes of Teachers and Principals. Facet 6. Projects to Provide Variety of Experiences for Staff Members. FACET ONE LOCAL SCHOOL PROJECTS Project title: In~dividuai school projects oriented to a.ssessntent and planning of local school program.s for disadvantaged cli tidren Purpose-To provide an opportunity for the staffs of individual schools to* work together, under the leadership of the principal, to improve the quality of instruction offered by that school to its community, and to gain greater under- standing of the community's expectation of its school. Sc'hnols in urban areas tend to follow a curricular plan, organization structure, and administration and teacher styles which have been developed over many yea rs time. These patterns are applied universally and equally all over the city, in favored areas as well as deprived areas. It is increasingly clear that the pat- terns must be modified in deprived areas if effective learning of children in schools in these areas is to take iñace. This project would encourage each school staff to examine what it is doing, ask itself what it should be doing, and plan for a better educational program for the future. Procedure-The opportunity to conduct these in-service training programs will lie provided to all of the 178 schools in Detroit w-hich qualify for assistance under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Principals will submit proposals for review and approval by the Continuing Education Department no later than March 1, 1966. All programs will be completed by August 31, 1966. Sessions could be held on Saturdays. on two days after schools close in June. or on two (lays before schools open miext September. It would also be possil)le to schedule sessions in the late afternoon or evening. These sessions w-ould total an equivalent number of hours to the all-day sessions. FACET Two PROJECTS TO CONTINUE THE PRESENT PROGRAM OF THE DF~rROIT PUBLIC SCHOOLS Project title: Local school action projects to dense and demonstrate new teaching techniques or curriculum me tci-ia Is Purpose-This part of Facet~ 1 is intended to facilitate the work of a local school staff, or several cooperating schools, in the design of speciel instructional materials and ways of working with a particular school populatid~n of disadvan- tagecl children. Proposals trnder this facet would be tailored to meet local school needs and would be initiated by the princ'iial. lut would be submitted through the Field E.reeutire. Priority will he given to those proposals for action which grow directly out of the local school "Assessment and Planning" workshops funded under PROJECT FAST in the spring and summer of 1966. Two models which meet the above requirements are outlined below. The3' were submitted by individual sc-hools and are shossm here for illustrative purposes only, since the specific problems to be attacked will vary from school to school. PAGENO="0715" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 709 Model I Purpose.-To improve the teaching of reading skills in a junior high school. Procednre.-(1) Establishment of teams" of different subject matter spe- cialists to secure more emphasis on, and teaching of, reading in the subject areas. (2) Training for subject matter specialists in the teaching of reading skills. (3) Adaptation of subject matter materials to reading level of students (without watering down the material). (4) Experimentation with various methods of pupil grouping. (5) Evaluation of the techniques used. Model ` Purpose.-To develop and test in classrooms special Social Studies materials designed to improve work-study skills of pupils in grades one through three of five cooperating schools. Procedures.- (1) Formation of teacher teams representing first, second. and third grades of five schools in a junior high school complex. (2) After-school and Saturday sessions: (a) to establish goals in terms of specitic work-study skills appropri- ate for teaching in grades 1-3. (b) to design practical materials and experiences for supplementing social studies offerings in grades 1, 2, and 3: i.e., family. neighborhood, and broader community factors. (c) to agree on an appropriate vertical integration of these experi- ences to provide for concept expansion and reinforcement from grade one through grade three. (d) to build an accompanying guide for teaching work-study skills using all possible points at which the newly designed and meaningful social studies materials lend themselves to teaching such skill-(es- tablishing concepts of place and direction such as home, school, block, neighborhood and city; making and using maps. charts, and graphs: using dictionaries and directories, etc. (e) to share progress and ideas as they develop in action. (3) Evaluation to ascertain whether such an approach is reflected in standard tests of work-study skills. FACET THREE INSTRUCTIONAL IMPRovEMENT Project title: To inaugurate and demonstrate new instructional approaches Purpose-To bring the competence and creativity of our own staff more fully to bear on the quest for more improved materials and better ways of working with children. Procedure.-These projects will be designed and initiated in cooperation with staff departments and staff members who are specialists in research, in subject content, in instructional methodology, in cultural anthropology. in social psy- chology, and in related areas. The availability of the opportunity to conduct these in-service programs will be announced and staff members will be in- vited to submit proposals. The proposals w-ill be reviewed by a small commit- tee of Detroit Public School specialists assisted, where necessary, by consultants from university staffs, social agencies, industry, and the community. All proj- ects will be approved by March 1 and concluded l)y August 31, 19643. Project title: To develop and evaluate new approaches to in-~errice education Purpose and procedu re-Many modern instructional approaches require exten- sive equipment and supplies. Examples of such modern approaches are the language laboratories required for the audio-lingual teaching of foreign lan- guages, data processing equipment for modern business education instruction. audio-visual approaches to teaching subjects universally recognized as funda- mentally necessary such as American History and Civics) to students who do not read well enough to learn solely from a textbook. laboratory equipment for modern science instruction, and devices such as those developed by Montessori for early childhood education. The public schools often do not have available local funds to equip large numbers of buildings with this equipment, and they sometimes cannot even equip one experiment location to deteranne whether in fact, the instructional approach involved is effective. The continuing Edu- PAGENO="0716" 710 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS cation Department has right now, on file, a proposal to develop video tape tele- vision presentations for the in-service education of all of the school system's biology teachers in the Biological Sciences Curriculum Study (BSCS) approaches to teaching biology, a proposal to use the same techniques to train 2,300 ele- mentary teachers in the concepts of instructional approaches required by modern math at the elementary level, and a third proposal to develop a laboratory to teach American History by approaches. 90% of which would not require the student to be able to read fluently. Creative staff members have been dis- couraged from developing projects which require considerable funds for equip- ment, because such projects simply have not been launchable. If the availability of funds were known, a surge of very imaginative proposals would immediately come forth. The cost of the video tapes for in-service training of BSCS teachers is known to be in the range of $10000 to $12,000. Once developed, these tapes could be duplicated inexpensively and used nation-wide. The same potential is present for other research in instructional methodology and approaches which are proved to be effective in the reality situation of public school classrooms rather than in university laboratories or the editorial offices of commercial concerns. Therefore, any funds spent for this type of research and demonstration could well be the most productive and influential expenditure in this entire proposal. But it is difficult to estimate the exact amounts required. Therefore, it is proposed that the amounts known to be needed for the BSCS proposal be used as a basis for estimation, and an initial five projects to equip one facility for the testing of modern instructional approaches necessitating considerable equipment be authorized. The total amount required would be: Project title: To eatend educational experiences of teachers Purpose-To provide teachers with the opportunity of gaining new and dif- ferent experiences through an exchange teaching program connected in coopera- tion with neighboring school districts. Procedurc.-This project would entail eliciting the cooperation of the school districts in the tn-county area of Metropolitan Detroit: Macomb, Oakland, and Wayne. It would involve as many districts as would be willing to participate in an exchange teacher program. The length of the project would extend for one semester. At the conclusion, teachers would return to their original schools. Due to the need to establish contacts and guidelines, the project would be in effect for the second semester only. Experiences gained through such an exchange would afford teachers the opportunity of seeing other approaches to education through working with youngsters of various socio-economic back- grounds in school districts of differing educational philosophies. Project title: To pro ride advanced academic activities for e~perienced teachers Purpose-To encourage advanced academic study for teachers who have been away from the university for a minimum of five years. It is equally important for experien~d teachers to return to the university as it is for beginning teachers to complete graduate study requirenients. By freeing such teachers from the Pressures of a full teac-hing program while bearing personal and family reponsi- bilities. a higher level of excellence of academic activity may be insured with resultant improved quality of education. Procedure-Select nine interested teachers (one from each region) from the 118 deprived area schools to return to full-time graduate study on full salary for one school semester. Projeet title: (`lass,-oonm actions conducted by an individual teacher or team of teach ei-s to improve the quality and. effectiveness of teaching-learning patterns Purpose-More studies are needed which attack basic problems in teaching and learning. Classroom teachers very often possess insights and techniques which could improve the learning and instructional patterns. This part of Facet 3B would encourage and facilitate action studies initiated and conducted by indi- vidual teachers and teams of teachers at the local school level. Individual staff members or a cooperating team of staff members may submit proposals. Procedurc.-(1) These projects can be initiated by an individual teacher or preferably two or three teachers cooperating in one local school or in different schools. (2) There will be provision for consultative services from the areas of teacher concern and action (subject content, instructional methodology, and in the behavioral sdences). (3) Released time and/or Saturdays will be avail- able for the individual teacher or team of teachers to work with consultants in PAGENO="0717" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 711 the analysis of problems to be attacked and planning for new approaches. (4) Workshop time may be provided for cooperative action projects. (5) A trained evaluator will assess each project in an attempt to determine the viable ingre- dients in the study. FACET FOTJR STAFF DEVELOPMENT Project title: A project to train administrators for urban schools Purposc.-To give promising candidates for administrative positions in the Detroit Public Schools intensive training before promotion. The training pro- gram would be the final step in the selection procedure for beginning school administrators. Procedurc.-At the present time in Detroit, as in most school systems, teachers who seek administrative positions are required to complete several years as suc- cessful teachers, to take some courses in administration at the university, and to go through a selection procedure which consists of written examinations, satisfactory recommendations, and approval of an interviewing committee. Those who seem to possess the qualities of a good administrator are promoted. The real training as administrators which they receive is on-the-job training after they are promoted. Many learn well by experience and go on to positions of more and more responsibility. Some do not learn or on the job fail to dem~ onstrate the qualities required. These often remain in lower echelon adminis- trative positions for years since their inadequacy is not so absolute as to justify dismissal or demotion. The training program proposed here would be offered to candidates for pro- motion who had been selected through the regular promotion procedure. Suc- cessful completion of this procedure would gain them entry into the training program, not guarantee theni promotion. Only those who completed the train- ing program successfully would be placed on the eligibility list for promotion. The training program would consist of six months of rigorous training in the theory and principles of administration followed by a six-month internship under a carefully selected principal. During this training period, the candidate would be paid at his regular salary rate as a teacher and would return to the class- room following the year of training. Many would be on the eligibility list for promotion at this point and would be promoted when a suitable vacancy occurred. A few who would be deemed not to have completed the training program suc- cessfully would continue as teachers. The training in the theory and principles of administration would be provided by universities. Not all candidates would take exactly the same courses; each candidates program would be determined by the director of the project in con- sultation with the candidate. While the inclusion of some courses in school administration, finance and budgeting, personnel administration, public relations, and cultural understanding are obvious, careful attention would also be given to learning modern business management, the understanding of data processing. and the psychology of leadership. Courses might be selected in departments of the University other than education. No degrees would be sought to avoid the limitations of degree requirements, although it is likely that credit earned could he applied later to the candidate's advanced training. The theoretical training would last for six months, from July through I)ecember or from January through June. When the candidate had completed his theoretical training he w'ould be as- signed to an experienced, capable principal as an intern. He would be expected to function in much the same way as an assistant principal does, except that the emphasis would he on training and thorough evaluation. To achieve this evalua- tion, the director of the training program and university professors and the field executive would all participate in the evaluation of the candidate's work. The target date for the first class would be January, 1967, but the director would begin planning and selection of candidates as early as September, 1967. The program would not become fully operational (one class in training and one class in internship) until September, 1967. As an outgrowth of the Internship Experiences of Project FAST Facet 6. Internship Experiences to Pro-ride a Variety of "Cultural Exposures for Staff iIcm.bers"; a number of interns, counselors, have expressed an appreciation of the experience and knowledge they have received in the w-orld of work. Many of theni are now saying, "We were there! We know what the working world is like, and we now know what to sell to the youth today." PAGENO="0718" 712 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS With this kind of response, and from the recommendations received, the Department of Continuing Education is submitting this proposal for your consideration. Regional Workshop for Counselors of Disadvantaged and Low Academic- Oriented Children Purpose-To provide in each of the nine administrative regions an oppor- tunity for counselors to become (more) familiar with the role business and in- dustry are playing in providing jobs and apprenticeship programs for job place- ment in the world of work. To re-examine the counseling program and its role in preparing youth to func- tion in the working community. To explore ways and means in which counselors and representatives of busi- ness and industry might function more effectively as a team, with an end goal of quality education. Procedure-Counselors that are assigned to schools, approximately 24 senior high and 17 junior high, in disadvantaged neighborhoods would be invited to participate in a six-day (Saturday) workshop. Participants would be paid at the established rate of $15 per day. Knowledgeable consultants would be drawn from the school system, the community, business and industry, and the local universities. Counselors that participated in the internship program could function as directors of these workshops. Project title: Community relations workshops for secretarial personnel in schools serring disadvantaged neighborhood Purpose-To improve the school secretary's understandings of the children and adults of her school service area and improve her skills as an important human relations agent. Procedure.-One east side and one west side workshop for three days each to serve 50 secretaries. Participants will receive the standard stipend of $15 per day. The 100 participants will be selected from applicants from the 178 schools designated as disadvantaged. Project title: Workshop for sponsoring teachers Purpose-To provide necessary training and assistance for classroom teachers who sponsor university students in the directed teaching phase of their teacher training in preparation for professional careers with innercity children. Project title: Community and interpersonal relations workshops for school-based custodial personnel Purpose-To increase custodians' awareness of their Important role as a member of the school system team, and as a human relations agent in neigh- borhoods where the school's image is sometimes hurt by a lack of understanding and knowledge on the part of school personnel. Procedure-Two regional workshops to serve 100 custodians selected from ap- plicants in the 178 buildings serving disadvantaged children. Each workshop will be in session for three consecutive Saturdays. Participants will receive the regular stipend of $15 per day. i Follow-up of the 1966 ~uminer &ininar in Advanced Educational Administration The previously funded Summer Seminar was designed to assist 200 inner-city administrators and supervisors in coming to grips with current crucial problems in urban school administration. Fnderstanding gained in that intensive experi- ence will serve as a base for this proposal. Purpose-To enable selected teams of Summer Seminar participants to study urban administrative and teacher training needs as revealed in the Seminar for the purpose of 1. Preparing an administrators' guide to promising in-service teacher education practices for local schools 2. Recommending further staff development projects for intermediate administrative leadership 3. Recommending to Fniversities content and procedures for pre-service training for urban school administrators. Proeedu res.- 1. Each Regional Field Executive will invite three Summer Seminar par- ticil)allts to take part in this cooperative action 3 X 9 = 27 + 3 at large (could include F.E. `s ) = 30. PAGENO="0719" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 713 2. The group will meet on three Saturdays plus 10 successive school days on released time. An additional Saturday will be needed for a smaller group (perhaps 2-2 member editing teams) 3. A University expert will be provided each day as a consultant-sum- marizer. 4. Lunch period each day will be used for the feedback summarizing serv- ices of the University consultant 5. A nationally outstanding expert on Educational Administration and Teacher Education will be provided to react to conclusions and recommenda- tions in the final Saturday session. Project title: ~S'pecialized training for persons eligible to become inner-city principals A one-semester program designed to improve essential administrative under- standings and skills in the areas of- 1. Community relations and working with citizen groups. 2. Developing an administrative style appropriate to cooperative action with teachers, teacher organizations, pupils, parents. and lay citizen groups. 3. Methods of in-service education at the local school level. 4. The school system as a whole: The relationship of a school to the total system, functions of the Board of Education, central office and other service personnel. Procedures.-The top third (30) persons from the current eligibility list of elementary principals will be invited to participate. 1. With the approval of the appropriate Field Executive, each selected person (mainly assistant principals) will be given released time, in half- day modules, for (a) seminars staffed by interdisciplinary teams of uni- versity personnel, (b) school visitations, (c) an extended period of observa- tion and participation at the central offices. 2. Opportunities will be provided for some association w-ith active com- munity organizations, the Total Action Against Poverty Program, Citizens School Advisory Committees, and other youth-serving community agencies. 3. Nationally known "experts" in each of the four areas of purpose will be brought to the group at appropriate intervals during the semester. 4. Teacher substitutes will be provided to schools w-hen release of the par ticipant is deemed to impose an undue hardship. FACET FIVE ATTITUDE EXPLORATION Project title: Small group studies of values and attitudinal differenees in human beings and the effects of these differences on teaching and learning Purpose-To modify staff attitudes toward themselves, other staff members. students, their schools, and their communities, and improve the climate for effective pupil leariiings. Procedures-Since modification of attitudes is a most difficult objective to achieve. These projects would only aim at exploring ways in which this objective might be approached. The initiation of the projects would involve cooperation from departments in the Detroit Public Schools such as the Human Relations Department and the Guidance and Counseling Department, from university departments of psychology, sociology, and anthropology, and from perceptive individuals within the school system. The emphasis would be on creative ap- proaches, imaginative concepts, and controlled evaluation. Each group would be small, would meet regularly but informally for at least three months, would include a trained evaluator, and would seek understanding and knowledge about human beings and the forces that really motivate and control them with the hope that from this understanding would come change in attitude. During the sum- mer months, some groups might be sent to the National Training Laboratory at Bethel, Maine. VARIETIES OF EXPERIENCES Project title: A project to provide cultural enrichment experiences in music, art, home architecture, and similar fields for teachers Purpose.-To deepen teachers' awareness of and sensitivity to important aspects of the culture so that they, in turn, might better transmit such an aware- ness to children. Procedure (using "home architecture" as an example).-The project in cult- ural enrichment in home architecture is intended to be really enriching. The over-all aim would be: what makes a good building in which to live and how is PAGENO="0720" 714 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS this ideal achieved in some situations and not achieved in other. Participants in the project would study the history of home design and constructon over the past 50 years in Detroit; would visit homes and apartments in desirable neighborhoods. average neighborhoods, and slums; and would study zoning laws and building codes and the procedures for enforcing them. The outcome would be a sound understanding of. and acquaintance with, housing in Detroit and the impact that housing has on students, schools, and education. I'ro feet title: Intercity visitatioa program Purpose-To enable staff members to further their personal and professional (levelopment. Procedure-This project would enable teacher teams to travel to other urban school centers in eastern United States to study promising programs for dis- advantaged children. Upon returning, the teacher would assist in teacher-train- jug program development and information dissemination. In general, it is expected that teachers having such an experience would serve as catalytic agents in their local schools in effecting school organization and/or curriculum change. DEVELOPMENTAL CAREER GUIDANcE IN A~rIoN This program, to be carried out in cooperation with the Detroit Public schools. xviII focus on the aspirations and plans of the students themselves. The program is designed to involve the school staffs of selected inner-city Detroit schools in better helping their students, using occupation and career as a focus for integration. In many cases, inner-city students have unrealistic occupational goals due to inadequate information. Consequently, the program ~vilI focus on realistic information and realistic goal-setting. Inasmuch as the entire project is quite logically separated into two Phases: a training phase and a demonstration phase, the financing of the project may, consequentAy. be separated in the same fashion. In Phase I, the training phase of the project, the funds may be paid directly to Wayne State University both in the preliminary and continuing as~cts. In Phase II. the demonstration phase. professional guidance consultants will be placed in each participating school as the leader of a three-person team to hell) effect the program. The other two members of the teani will be sub-pro- fessional members of the community. The first sub-professional will be a needy, (leserving, qualified student from the senior high school in the project and will serve as a half-time clerical aide and school liaison person. The other niember of the team will be an unemployed adult drawn from the community and will serve in a liaison capacity with students, parents, employers, and agencies in the community. Since these individuals will be operating in the l)etroit Schools, their salaries may be paid through the Detroit Oommunity Ax'tion Program (Total Action Against Poverty) to the Detroit Public Schools. It is clearly understood that their actions will be governed by the creators, initia- tors, and organizers of the project: Wayne State University, as represented by the project director, in continuing consultation with the co-director from the Detroit Public Schools. During the past year the program, funded through the Economic Opportunity Act via the Office of Economic Opportunity, was operational in six Detroit inner-city schools. The schools involved were Kettering, Barbour, Burroughs, Rose. Stephens, and Hiliger. This coming year will see the program expanded to four `new" schools: Joyce, Cooper, Chandler, and A. L. Holmes. Based on a community recommendation that the program not be funded en- tirely through funds from the Office of Economic Opportunity, this year's pro- gram has been designed such that a portion of the budget will be funded through Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. This arrangement whereby funds from both OEO and ESEA are commingled is another fine ex- ;iniple of the cooperation of the Detroit Public Schools. Wayne State Univer- sity. and the various funding sources in carrying out program alterations based ii community recommendations. Moreover, this arrangement dramatizes the role played by our local community in modifying program activity. Since the demonstration phase is. hopefully, the first year in what is hoped will become an influential longitudinal proiect, evaluation will l)e carried out iii a thorough fashion throughout the course of the project. An evaluation team from Wayne State University, operating out of the Detroit Public Schools' Department of Educational Research. will perform this function. PAGENO="0721" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 715 PROGRAM TO CONTINUE EDUCATION OF GIRLS WHO MUST LEAVE SCHOOL BECAUSE OF PREGNANCY There is growing concern regarding very young girls who become pregnant. Iii Detroit, 3,8~33 illegitimate births were reported in 1964 and yearly scores more go unreported. A high proportion of these are the children of school- aged girls. The problem is dramatized at several levels: first, when the student must leave school, she, of course, loses the chance to earn credits and maintain her (lass standing. For a larger percentage, this means that she does not finish high school at all, or. if she does, it becomes a difficult, pert-time effort strung over a number of years. Second. the loss of school routine often leads to boredom which is demoralizing and destructive to intellectual interest and ef- fort. Third, the girl's isolation from her peers damages her feelings about her- self-feelings already assaulted by resentment and remorse over the pregnancy. Fourth, the pregnancy itself is fraught with fears an(l anxieties that are usual- ly compounded by ignorance and guilt. It is felt that if we are to curb this growing problem and meet the needs of these girls by intervening in the cycle, which for the most part has gone un- broken, a multi-service approach is needed. It is with this in mind that this proposal determines to provide comprehen- sive educational, medical, and social work services to meet the multi-needs of the school-aged pregnant girl. Specifically, the following services will be offered: 1. A classroom in the area but not in a school building, flexible enough to include blackboards, bathinettes. a library, a stove, mirrors, a sewing machine, etc. 2. The instructional prograni will include at least these elements: (a) Individualized academic instruction in non-graded classes to help each student continue her education for credit. (b) Instruction in the physical and emotional aspects of pregnancy. (c) Individual and group counseling for both the girl and her family. (ci) Provision of a referral to existing infant child day-care facilities. I'opulation The program w-ill be offered to both public and non-public school pregnant girls, and provisions w-ill also be made to accommodate cyesis cases in young girls not enrolled in any school. In the event that the fathers of the prospective (`hildren are know-n. counseling services will be made available to them if so needed or (lesired. Three centers will be established, each to serve twenty girls. Pcr~on n-el Graduate students from the Merrill-Palmer Institute and other local higher educational institutions will be involved in parctidum experience with the project. They will assist in the family life education program and gain experi- ence in counseling and related social work services. Ho-u sing Even if space were available in existing school facilities, it would be unde- sirable to house this project in schools, due to its nature. The centers will be located in three non-school facilities, such as church basements, in the inner-city area. Medical services Through a recent Public Health Office Grant, a Maternal and Infant Care Project is being established in several of Detroit's hospitals. Assurances, now on file, have been given that at least a part of the medical services needed by the school-aged pregnant girls can be offered through this Project. I) iSSCfl? in at iOfl Through the Division of School Relations awl Special Services, arrangements have l)een made to establish a publication to serve both internal and external interests. A separate project is being designed for submission also under Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act to implement such a publication. due to the w-ide range of projects in the school district of Detroit. Evaluation The effectiveness of the total program comprised of all of the projects sub- mitted or to be submitted will be evaluated in one comprehensive effort. This component will encompass in-depth evaluation of all federal programs in the Detroit Public Schools. 75-492 O-67---46 PAGENO="0722" 716 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS FEDERAL AND STATE ST~PPOWrED PR0JE~FS The following report indicates funding obtained by the Special Projects Division of the Detroit Board of Education for various federal and state sup- ported projects instituted in the Detroit Public Schools from 1964 to the present time. Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, Pnblic Law 88-452 1964-65 Federal Non- share Federal shale Total l)uration of funding `FIt Ic I `roject (leSCliptiOll I-B Inschool youth work train- ing (school year 1965). $587,486 $68,252 $655, 738 Jan. 1, 1965, to June 28, 1965. I-B Inschool youth work train- 577, 486 74, 219 651,705 June 28, 1965 to Aug. 20, 1965. ing (Summer, 1965). Il-n Project READ (remedial 247, 13.5 58,290 305,425 May 20, 1965 to Nov. 30, 1965. education for adults). It-A Extended schools (33 508.167 156,000 664,167 Nov. 24,1964 to Aug.30, 1965. schools). It-A School-community project 783, 326 156, 000 939, 326 Do. in disadvantaged areas (great cities project-20 schools). I I-A tI-A Preschool (10 schools) Child daycare studygrant. 193, 774 3,360 56, 100 249,874 3,360 Do. Do. IT-A Assistant attendance offi- 42,420 42,420 Do. cers (10). Il-A Intra-mural physical educa- 26, 577 26, 577 Do. t ion. It-A Project I{eadstart 812, 685 100,000 912,68.5 June 28,1965 to Aug. 30,1965. Total, EOA, 194-65.., 3,782,416 668,861 4,451,277 I II lnscliool youth work train- 6931.000 6103,852 $1, 034,856 Oct. 14,1965, to June 24,1966. ing school year 1965-6.) I-Il Inschool youth work train- June 27, 1966, to Aug. 19, 1966. ing (summer 1966.) lI-Il l'roject REAl) refunclingi~ July 1,1965. to June30, 1966. 11 A F xtended school summer. June 28, 1965, to June 30, 1966. andexpansionto5lschools.) lI-A Extended school (refunding Sept. 22,1965. to Aug.31, 1965 of original 33 schools and 18 for summer of 1966.) I I-.~ School-community project I)~. in disadvantaged are-as (great cities project-re- funding of2O schools.) Il-A It-A l'reschool refunding) Assistant attendance offi- Do. Do. c'ers ire funding. I I-A Intramural physical educa- Do. Il-A tion (refundingi Project Iteadstart (sumnier June 27, 1966, to Aug. 31, 1966. 1966). Il-A School health coordinator - - - June 28, 1965, to June 30, 1966. It-A School volunteer service Do. tI-A Il-A l'rograrn development 1)evelopmental career guid- Sept. 22, 1965, to Aug. 31, 1966. Oct. 14, 1965 to Aug. 31, 1966. ance (with Wayne Stale Sriiversity) - lI-A Administration 42,001 4,565 It-A Pilot project totrainteachers' 57, 177 aids. V Wayne County work experi- 38,304 357,873 726. 958 992. 004 47, 100 69,608 169. 720 198,440 424,680 407,481 896,678 1.190,444 824. 459 184.800 1.009,259 382.174 68.912 938, 470 24, 146 44, 658 62,084 89, 421 101, 124 12,901 382,174 63,912 1,039,594 24, 146 44, 658 62, 084 I 102,322 ence. 46,566 57, 177 38,304 Jan. 25, 1966, to Aug. 31, 1966. June 27, 1966, to Aug. 5, 1966. Oct. 18, 1965, to Mar. 4, 1966. Total, EOA, 196~6 - 5,957,002 892,110 6,849,112 PAGENO="0723" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 717 Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, Public Law 88-452--Continued 1966-67 Federal Non- Title Project description share Federal Total l)uration of funding share Presently operating: Inschool youth work $1, 394,260 $189, 380 $1, 583, 640 Sept. 6, 1966, to Aug. 31, 1967. training (refunding of school year 1966-67; I summer 1967). 11-B Project READ 755,821 87,314 843, 135 July 1, 1966, to June 30, 1967. H-A NEA Job Corps center_ 92,950 92,950 June 27, 1966, to June 26, 1967. Total, present EOA...... 2,243,031 276,694 2,519,725 Proposed: Administration and 106,958 106,958 Sept. 1.1966, to Aug. 31, 1967. program develop- ment. Il-A Great cities project 2,812,152 851, 200 3,663,352 Do. Il-A Pre-School child and 399,281 22, 280 421, 561 Do. parent education. Total, proposed EOA 3,318,391 873,480 4,191,871 Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, Public Law 89-10 1965-66 Project description Federal Duration of funding share TITLE I I Communication skills center $1,267,341 Oct. 1, 1965 to Aug. 31, 1966. Basic reading demonstration and inservice training 1,417,589 Oct. 15, 1965 to Aug. 31, 1966. Program to continue education of girls who must leave 103,406 Nov. 15, 1965 to Aug. 31, 1966. school because of pregnancy. Cultural enrichment 996,070 Do. Inschool youth work training (junior high) 578, 230 Dec. 8, 1965 to Aug. 31, 1966. Discretionary development fund for disadvantaged schools. 819,866 Jan. 1, 1966 to Aug. 31, 1966. School service assistants; program dissemination; program 1, 272, 137 Jan. 3, 1966 to Aug. 31, 1966. evaluation. Preschool child and parent education 365, 195 Feb. 1, 1966 to Aug. 31, 1966. Temple Baptist Church building 1,421,894 Operation GO 106,559 June 27, 1966 to Aug. 19, 1966. Job upgrading 244, 288 Apr. 1, 1966 to Aug. 31, 1966. Educational television 913,562 Do. Equipment, materials, and supplies 1,239, 323 May 2, 1966 to Aug. 31, 1966. Summer school 842, 137 June 27, 1966 to Aug. 31, 1966. Outdoor education and school camping experience 327, 387 May 16, 1966 to Aug. 31, 1966. TITLE II School library resources, textbooks, and other instructional 705, 476 Apr. 12, 1966 to Sept. 30, 1966. materials. -________ Total, ESEA, 1965-66 12,704,550 PAGENO="0724" 718 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, Public Law 89-10-Continued 1966-67 Project description Federal share Duration of funding TITLE I Presently operatmc: Great citieSexpansioii $3,535,982 Sept. 1,1966, to June 30. 1967. Staff development (in-service training) 898,803 Do. Preschool child and parent education 553,997 Do. Program to continue education of pregnant girls 235,428 Do. Educgtional television 255.853 Do. l)evelopmental career guidance in action 141, 707 Do. Job upgrading 201,906 Do. Inechool youth work training (junior high) 415,860 Do. Communication skills 1,149,555 Do. Basic reading demonstntion 328,118 Do. Outdoor education and school camping experience 43. 851 Do. Program evaluation 372,231 Do. I'rogram dissemination 26, 709 Do. Slipplenientaryservices 2.040,000 Do. TITLE III Cultural enrichment (planning grant) 31,152 September 1966, to February 1967. TITLE IV Michigan-Ohio Regional Educational Laboratory, 184,241 May 15, 1966, to Dec. 1,1966. Inc. (planning grant). Total, present ESEA 10,415,393 TITLE II Proposed: Materials centers grants: Materials and supplies, curriculum centers 138,610 Professional library 40,000 Total, proposed ESEA 178,610 State Aid Act, sec. 4 1966 Project description Funding Duration of funding 3-school integration (triarea) $1,000,000 Shared experiences 122,176 Instructional materials and supplies for disadvantaged 463,478 children. Rehabilitation project to upgrade instructional facilities in 1,052, 646 disadvantaged schools. Satellite lunch project for disadvantaged schools 325, 850 Total, State Aid Act, sec. 4(1966) 2,964,150 Jan. 3,1966, toAug. 31, 1966. Mar. 7,1966, to Aug.31, 1966. Do. Do. Do. 1966-67 Proposed: 3-school integration (triarea) $1,132,632 Sept. 1, 1966, to Aug. 31, 1967. Shared experiences 191,555 Do. Rehabilitation project to upgrade instructional facili- 304, 683 Do. ties in disadvantaged schools. Miller demonstration project 604,668 1)o. Mobile school adjustment relief teams 568, 634 Do. Satellite lunch project for disadvantaged schools 337,500 Do. Total, State Aid Act, sec. 4, proposed 3,139,672 PAGENO="0725" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 719 National Defense Education Act, 1965-67 Title and project description Funding Duration of funding VII. Effectiveness of instructional tapes for changing $72, 293 May 1, 1965, to Aug. 30, 1967. dialect patterns of urban primary school children. Total, NDEA, title VII 72,293 Higher Education Act of 1965, 1966-67 Federal Non- Title and project description share Federal I share Total Duration of funding V-B. National Teacher Corps $131,600 $8,625 Total, Higher Education Act. 131, 600 8, 625 $140,225 October 1966 to June 1967. 140, 225 Summary Act Economic Opportunity Act of 1964: 1964-65 1965-66 1966-67 Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965: 1965-66 1966-67 1967 State Aid Act, sec. 4: 1966 1966-67. National Defense Education Act, title VII: 1965-67 Ilisher Education Act of 1965: 1960-67... Total Funding received Proposed funding Federal share Non- federal share Total Federal share Non- federal share Total $3,782,416 5,957,002 2,243,031 12,704,550 10,415,393 2,964,150 72,293 131,600 $668,861 892,110 276,694 8,625 $4,451,277 6,849,112 2,519,725 12,704,550 10,415,393 2,964,150 72,293 140,225 $3,318,391 -178,610 3,139,672 $873,480 $4, 191,871 178,610 3,139,672 38,270,435 1,846,290 40,116,725 6,636,673 873,480 7,510,153 Chairman PERKINS. I will call on Congressman Vanik at this time to come forward and introduce Dr. Paul Briggs of the Cleveland City Schools. STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES A. VANIX, A MEMBER OF CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHiO Mr. \ANIK. I want to nitroduce Dr. Paul Briggs, superinteiiclent of the Cleveland public school system, who has been here many, many times. I again want to point out to this committee that I)r. Briggs has brought about a turnaround iii the Cleveland school system. He has utilized every Federal resource that has been developed in this committee. I think he will have a worthy report to make- a~ to how these programs have affected Cleveland. We certainly need these programs. They have brought new light to our Cleveland problems. PAGENO="0726" 720 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS I am sure Dr. Briggs will present tine testimony before this committee. I am anxious to hear his testimony along with that of the other superintendents. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman PERKINS. Dr. Briggs, Congressman Vanik, as you know, has been one of our most ardent. supporters of all educational programs that have come on the floor of the House for many years. I am glad lie was here to introduce von. Again let me welcome you before the committee this morning. You may proceed. STATEMENT OF DR. PAUL BRIGGS, SUPERINTENDENT, CLEVELAND PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM Mr. BRIGGS. I might say that we superintendents enjoy the oppor- runitv of coming to Washington, Mr. Chairman and Members, to come and testify before this committee, particularly when our Congressmen are present for introducing us to the committee. We don't always get these introductions at home. It is nice. to come to Washington and hear these nice things said about superintendents. I am very happy to appear before this committee and to speak briefly about the needs, the programs, and the progress that is being made in the Cleveland public schools. I am especially apprecia.tive of the efforts of this committee, which have been consistently made to im- lrove the quality of education in our great urban centers of America. I would like first to acknowledge briefly the benefits that. we have already derived from the provisions of tile Federal education laws. second, to react to tile Elementary and Secondary Education Amend- ments of 1967 and, three, to brino to the attention of tile committee certain problems that we face in education in the city of Cleveland. Since I last appeared here, much progress has been made in the quality and in the quantity of educational offerings in the city of Cleveland. The voters of Cleveland last November dramatically sup- ported the largest financial issue that our Cleveland public schools have ever placed Ofl the ballot. They approved increasing the bondage indebtedness of our Cleve- land school system by 110 percent. and at the same time increased by ~0 percent the local taxes for the operation of our schools. This voter support came at a time when other Ohio districts were rejecting school issues, and when tile city of Cleveland placed nine money issues on the l)ailot. and tile people turned five of those money issues down. At this time, the people of Cleveland with a 70-percent plurality vote, approved tile money issues for tile Cleveland public schools. I might say in Cleveland we raised 80 percent. of all tile funds used for education. The city overburden in Cleveland is a big one. I might add that in the most distressed areas of our city, areas where a few years ago we were eollstructing schools behind barbed wire with 24- hour armed guards. that. section of town approved our issue with a ~)0-percent plurality vote. Now I would like to recount some of tile benefits that we have re- cently derived from Federal legislation supporting education in Cleve- PAGENO="0727" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 721 land. I feel that a. new optimism prevails in Cleveland today. Much of this optimism is a result. of the various educational programs devel- oped under the provisions of Federal legislation supporting educ.ation. Many of the Cleveland success stories are resulting from the Federal programs, to include, first, the opening of the supplementary education center. This first center in the Nation was opened in a warehouse, a five- story warehouse, in downtow-n Cleveland, and on urban renewal prop- erty, in October 1966. The initial funding of this center came from a grant from the Edu- cational Facilities Laboratory prior to the passage of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and provided for planning and consul- tants. Later the center was funded under title III. Between October 1966 and February 1967 of this year nearly 19,000 different individual Cleveland children from public and nonpublic schools attended the center, in groups of 300 per day, for specially enriched instruction in science, music, art, and in the heritage of Cleve- land, the kinds of programs that w-e cannot provide in the neighbor- hood school. Each group includes children from all sections of the city who spend a day studying in an exciting new kind of educational facility. Help- ing in the school system plan has been the long list of distinguished consultants and continuing local communities representing the various cultural, educational, and scientific efforts of the city of Cleveland. This is a real success story, and this is the first supplementary educa- tion center established under title III. In the second place, I would point to the job placement. of inner city high school graduates which is another success story. As you know, in the city of Cleveland. unemployment is heavy. particularly among youth. However, in this new service headed by a full-time individual, Mr. Joseph Flemming, who is recognized as the dean of Cleveland industrial personnel officers, was successful in placing 88 percent of our January 1967 graduates in inner city high schools who desired jobs. In two of our six inner city high schools, West High School and East High School, every male. w-ho graduated in January w-as placed on a job. Others are being placed every day. Mr. Flemming is con- ducting extensive conferences with large numbers of business and industrial firms and providing new entry jobs for Cleveland's inner city high school graduates. During each of the past. 2 years, vocational offerings of the Cleve- land high schools have been doubled: 3 years ago vocational education was offered in two schools. Today there are vocational courses in every high school. More than 75 additional programs have been established. The program involving large numbers of vocational advisory committees has been expanded. Six hundred and fifty businessmen now- consult regularly with Cleve- land public schools. The boards of education will soon open a new girls' vocational high school it has authorized the drawing of plans for a new and unique kind of opportunity school for potential drop- outs. This present. school in its 27th year of history providing job training has yet to receive $1 of Federal funding. PAGENO="0728" 722 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS Both of these schools are being built with matcing funds made pos- sible by the vocational Education Act of 1963. During the past year, the administration of the Cleveland public high schools has strenu- ously protested to the Ohio State Vocational Education Department plan to allocate Federal vocational funds for the construction of five segregated area high schools, each located in a Cleveland suburb out- side the areas of heavy youth unemployment. The proposal of these~ five segregated schools would be under a program utilization with the utilization of Federal funding. New guidelines for teachers of disadvantaged children: this year 162 teachers work in a special inservice project developing 25 new curriculum guidebooks a i med at improving instruct ion for Cleve- land students. These guidebooks cover more than 2~3O0 pages. They guide teachers in the selection and use of textbooks and other teaching materials in order to deal more effectively with the racial problems that we have in the big cities. All new curriculum materials developed by the Cleveland public sciiools have emphasized the cul- tural and racial plurality of the American society. Massive increases are in summer ~)rograms. Enrollment in Cleveland public school sum- mer activities, exclusive of recreation. for the summer of 1966 in- volved over 50,000 children. This is one-third of our enrollment. This was a 600-percent in- crease over the past 3 years. This could riot have been done without Federal assistance. Several suburban school districts joined Cleveland and in the development of progranis located outside of the Cleveland school district, again with Federal funds. Other programs were developed at Oberlin College. Western Re- serve Academy, and several eastern colleges and universities where we house some of our students from the. inner city. In camping, approximately 4,000 boys and girls from inner city schools attended camp during the period from May to November of 1966. Approximately 1,800 attended 5-day overnight camps and 2,250 ~ittendecl day camps. These experiences resulted in biracial contacts for over 3,000 chil- (iren from public as well as nonpublic schools. Nearly all of this program was financed by Federal funds. Prekindergarten and child development centers: Since 1965, I might l)oflit out that we have had over 10,500 children of preschool age in- volvedi in various Headstart programs under the direction of the Cleveland public schools. At the present time we have 1,308 inner city children 4 years of age who are getting a Headstart program ii) 40 child development centers operated throughout. this year. Observers who are nationally outstanding in the field of various fields of education have been highly complimentary of this program in Cleveland, which is made possible with Federal assistance. On the lunch program, using Federal funds w-e are now equipping 16 inner city elementary schools so that we shall soon be able to offer hot. lunch programs in these schools. The regular Federal hot. lunch program has been expanded from servicing 6,000 children daily 3 years ago to over 14,000 now, and it will soon be 20,000 per day. At the same time, the price, of lunches in Cleveland has decreased from an average of 60 cents 3 years ago to 35 cents today. PAGENO="0729" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDLTCATION AMENDMENTS 723 On elementary school libraries, the Cleveland school system 3 years ago had no libraries in its elementary schools. Now it has libraries open and serving children in 120 of its 138 elementary schools. Under title II, new moneys were made available for the purchase of library material. This money was used to supplement a local effort which may well have been the Nation's largest single library project Last yea.r ~300,000 was donated by individuals in Cleveland to open libraries to Clevel and children. Last year over 800,000 volumes were withdrawn in the elementary school libraries. This year the circulation will exceed 1 million vol- umes. Three years ago there were none. Supplementing and supporting this program have been the services of more than 2,000 volunteers who daily come into the inner cit.y and serve the children in the library program. A reaction to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act amend- ments as proposed for 1067: On the whole, we endorse these amend- ments and urge their favorable consideration by this committee and by the Congress. Th~ National Teacher Corps: In Cleveland we have four teams of 20 members, five to a team, all located in the inner city schools under the direction of a university in Akron. This program, on the whole, is a good program and is an important program. WTe have~ as many 1)roblems in staffing Cleveland schools as prob- ably any city. I our number of professional staff members per thou- sand students were brought to the average of the metropolitan area of Cleveland, we would need to expend this year ~l3 million more on staffing than what we are now spending just to come to the average. We have only 37 professionals per thousand students. The median for our country is 50. It costs us $1 million for the addition of each professional per 1,000 students. Wre have several Teacher Corps teams functioning in some of our schools in the most disadvantaged sections of the city. This program, on the whole, is most satisfactory. W~e are worried about its funding, (ont inued funding. In the field of comprehensive educational ~)l~1111iing, the need for ~omprehensive educational planning is great if we are to carry out more effectively the necessary coordinated system in attacking the 1)roblems of education in our urban centers. Innovations in vocational education : \Ve like what the amendments say in the area of vocational education in the great urban centers, stricken as they are with massive youth unemployment, and despair. They feel keenly the need for developing new methods of vocational opportunities. ~\Ve must prepare youth not only for the jobs presently available, but~ the rapidly changing labor demands resulting from the rapid technological advances. On handicapped children : The hiaiidicapped chil(lren in the cities such as Cleveland often have their difficulties from physical and emotional hanclica pS conipouinded i ~v intense poverty and other social a 11(1 economic l)roI)lems. ~We have today in Cleveland an outstanding ~)rog1am for handi- capped children, but its expansion to meet the needs of the city are hampered because of poorly prepared 1)ersonnel, inadequate personnel, PAGENO="0730" 724 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDME~S or inability to hire enough teachers. Also, there is the lack of a iiietropolitaii asl)ect for the entire program. We look with hope. in this area to the proposed amendment, dealing with expande(l eclucat ional opportunities for handicapped children. Iii addition to the estal)lishmelmt of regional resource centers, it would enable more adequate diagnosis of the handicapped and more efficient educational planning for handicapped children in the Greater ( leveland area. You will note that my reactions to time proposed amendments are, on the whole, favorable. However, I must admit certain reservations regarding the provisions of the amendments that. would authorize the use of public moneys by private agencies and organizations. To (late, my exl)eriences have been varied. I would caution that adequate safeguards be develope(l to j)revent the injudicious use of )ui)li( funds by private organizations who might be more interested in promoting their own goals than in contributing substantially to the education of children and youth. some of the problems that we face immediately in the city of Cleve- land are these : Cleveland is a city with massive problems and chal- lenges. But education will not alone solve all these problems or meet all these challenges. None of the pi-o1)lems can be solved without improved education. As we attack these problems. it is urgent that we have the assurance and supl)ort of the full and prompt funding of authorized Federal ~)t'ograms, including especially all titles of the Elementary and Sec- ondarv Education Act, and the ilnl)acted ai-eas legislation. There are a number of key projects which we in Cleveland feel hold ~`reat promise for helping to sustain the forward movement and we I mel ieve they merit Fedei-al financial support. First, adult education programs which would enable our city school system to continue to operate and to expand the full-time day and evening high school program for adults is very important. We have a daytime high school I veal- old in operation enrolling about 1,600 pupils. but we have lost our funding as we have shifted between OEO and elementary and secondary education funding pro- ~tranis. Today, S75.000 is being contributed by businessmen in Cleveland to keep this school open. Fifty percent of the daytime enrollees are on relief. A large per- (enta~e of them that are graduating are getting jobs. The city of (`levelanci feels this is a great success story and they want to keep it moving. Second, the establishment of a large downtown metropolitan type high school as an attack on de facto segregation. W~e envision a high 5(11001 of the highest quality in every respect, with a student body se- lected by formula in such a way as to insure racial, economic, and class i iite~ration. This high school would be associated with the State university as well as with the public schools. This center would not oni develop nilot educational programs, hut it would also provide a realistic labo- latory for the traininQ- of teachers fom- scm-vice iii urban secondary schools. , We am-e comfortable with the new partnership which has developed between the Federal, State, and local levels of government. I am per- PAGENO="0731" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 725 sonally convinced that this partnership would strengthen education in Cleveland. `We urge further development of this Federal, State, and local partnership. The Federal programs have made a real difference in both quality and quantit.y of education in the city of Cleveland. I thank you for having the opportunity of testifying before this distinguished committee today. Thank you. Chairman PERKINS. Thank you very much for a very fine statement. Dr. DONOVAN. Mr. Chairman, I know' the time of the committee is limited, and I know you have other responsibilities. We have five other superintendents today. I am going to let a representative of the west coast talk so we don't think all the Federal money has been spent on the east. coast. We have three of our great cities-Los Angeles, San Diego, and San Francisco there-but. just one of the superintendents with us. I would like Dr. Ralph Dailard to speak at. this time. Each of the representatives who w-ill speak from now on will try to highlight their remarks so the committee will have an opportunity for questioning. Mr. HAWKINS. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to whether or not the superintendent from Los Angeles will testify? Chairman PERKINS. The superintendent. of TMs Angeles will testify before the committee, yes. He will be making a trip. I told him to come on in at. his convenience. He will be here 1 day next week. Mr. HAWKINS. May I inquire, as to whether or not the superintend- ent. from Los Angeles is presenting a statement.? Mr. DAILARD. May I respond, Mr. Chairman? I have with me the statement of that superintendent. As you know, he has just. returned from an extended sick leave and did not feel he wanted to make the trip. Mr. HAWKINS. I hope it. gets into the record somehow. Mr. DAILARD. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, in light of the passage of time, and hoping that there will be time to respond to questions, I w-ould like the privilege of submitting for the record the statement I had prepai-ed and the statement whici~ the superintendent of Los Angeles has submitted. Chairman PERKINS. Without. objection. it is so ordered. (The statements referred to follow :) STATEMENT BY RAIPII DAILARD. SUPERINTENDENT SAN DIEGO CITY SCHOOLS Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I appreciate this opportunity to appear before YOU and comment on the legislation under consideration. I hope the San I)iego experience with the various programs will he useful to you in ma king the decisioms YOU must make. San Diego is one of the rapidly growing cities of the nation and now has a population in excess of 6~0,00O. It is a port city and a "Navy town." The Miramar air base, the Marine Corps Recruit Depot. the Naval Training Center. the Headquarters of the Eleventh Naval District. and a flUmher of smaller Fed- eral installations are within the city. The programs of the San Diego City Schools extend from kindergarten through junior college. The current enrollment in all programs exceeds 140.000. The varents of 2~V/~ of the children enrolled in the day schools of the district live on and/or work on Federally owned property-are "Federally connected" under the definition of Public Law 874. Our interest in the continuance and full financing of that law' is substantial. Federal funds are also received froni 21 sections of PAGENO="0732" 726 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS tell other currently effective Federal acts. In total, the district will receive approximately Sb million, or 12% of tile operating budget of $52 million, from Federal sources this year. Submitted for your examination and record is a hrief report of the educational programs for which these funds are being used. Review of this report will indicate that the Federal funds available to San I )iego are used for three general purposes 1. Increase in scope of offerings. 2. Improvement of the quality of instruction. 3. Extension of equality of o~q)ortunity. All ~rogranis so far as content, emphasis. method of teaching use(l. materials or personnel selected, have been locally planned and directed. The report demon- strates that a ) National needs as debned in tile applicable statutes have been satisfied. ii Progress has been made toward meeting the full educational needs of the citizens of the local district. c Local control and direct i in of the educational progra in has not been weakened or compromised. The successful achievement of a constructive ``new alliance' between the Federal Government and one community for educational iuiproveuient is ffi cumented. To lie useful to the committee, some of the problems in this emerging rela- h inship with the Federal Government must be pointed out-and there are i irolilems. First, the newer categorical aid programs have generated a substantial ainoiiill if planning. admhlistrative. and evalnation costs which are not reimbursed. I i-er one ila if of the funds reed ved by Sa ii I)iego are from the ``inipacted area'' legislation authorized by P.L. 574. Fader tills act tile only requireilleilt is tim the eligible children be identified, the eligibility verified. ilnd the number reported. lace this is done, tile district entitlement is calculated and the money is paid into the General Fund of the district. There are no restrictions on the use of hese funds and no post audit of use. We must guarantee only that the oppor- tumiities available to the Federally connected children at-c equal to those available ti other children of the district. Only one application per year is necessary tlii(ler P.L. 574. By contrast, the San Diego district prepared and filed more than 150 applications last year for funds under the other ilcts. This alone required a til;i~or amount of adillimlistrative time. Tile task was further complicated by tile varied requiremeilts of the basic laws amId the guidelines issued by both Fed- i'rzml and State adulinistrative agencies. Further. the funds \vheml received must be expended tilrougb a special a('coilIlt so that assurance can be given that the funds were ill fact used for tile specific purpose of tile project. This has required special routines in the purchasing, accounting. and personnel services as well as I lie operating divisloils. Iii general. mlii fumlds have been allocated iii the project fi it' I his purleise. Since local funds have been restricted, it has ilot been possible ti add persomillel for these added duties. Tile m'esult has been a severe overload iii niany of the officers of the district ~ltld a loss of service to other activities of tue district. Two needs seem apparent 1. That tIle procedures for application, record keeping, :111(1 re~sirting lie siiiq ill fled through i'onsolidat ii in. standardization, and simitlil ification of both tile basic statutes and the administrative guidelines. 2. That provisions be mtiade ill lioth tile statutes and the administrative ruidel ines to l iei'iu it use of a fixeil percentage of each grant foi' planning. ;idministratioml. record keeping. project evaiua tiomi. a ad reporting III shoi't. for "overhead" costs. In this connection, I note President Johnson's recommendation for a $15 11111- lii in authorization to help states and local i'oiiimmiunities evaluate their educational 1 irograms and plan foi' tile future ilas been implemented ill Sections 52b-525 of I I.E. (1230. Enactment \vould meet an urgeilt mleed. Massive programs of cdii- cation have been inaugurated as a result of tile new Federal legislation. Many have been quickly. even ilastily, develolieil. Comprehensive aild sophisticated i'va luatiomi is mieeded so that the liest may lie continued and improved an(I w'eak im'ogra ins dropped. To do this, tile best of technical knowledge must lie applied. New strategies amId procedures of evaluation ileed to lie devised. While I would tim-ge approval of this illeasure. I would also urge that safeguards lie included to assure that projects of i'apable local districts or comliinatiomi of sucil districts lie eligible for support from these funds. Cooperative effort of these agencies is llighly desirable and is mleeded, The Great Cities Research Council represented PAGENO="0733" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 727 here today has been contemplating such a joint effort. I spent Monday of this week with the director of the council and representatives of the Southwest Re- gional Laboratory working on the design of the proposed program. I would hope that such an effort could receive support from this source and would be eligible under Section ~24(b) of the proposed act. We are working locally to develop a long-term master plan for the program of our high schools. In particular, w-e wish to develop a comprehensive program of career development and occupa- tional education. This l)rojecct is taxing our resources. A small amount of planning funds could vastly improve and speed up this effort. Second, delays in appropriatiOns have had a crippling effect on the operation of the authorized programs. I am aware that the President has called this to your attention in his recent message and urged "that Congress enact educational appropriations early enough to allow the nations schools and colleges to plan effectively." I would add emphasis to this by telling you that as of this moment I do not know the amount of money the San Diego City Schools will receive for this year for the program for deprived children being operated under Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Under California law-, the dis- trict budget had tc be enacted not later than the first week in August. No appro- priation had been made at that time for the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. On advice of the State Department of Education. we included a budget estimate for the purpose equal to 8~% of the amount we had received for the seven months of operation during fiscal `643. I do not yct hare firm information of the amount n-c will rccciuc, Information I (lid receive last week led me to believe that the 8~% estimate w-as optimistic and that our actual grant would be below that level. I am distressed to tell you that I issued instructions last week to cut back the project, freeze all vacancies, and cancel all unspent appropria- tions for materials. This will be destructive to the morale of the staff and parents in the neighborhoods being serve(l. The quality of the program will suffer. However, I had no alternative. The district does not have funds to replace the deficit that has apparently occurred in Federal funding. To plan and operate the authorized l)rograms adequately and efficiently, the local school districts need firm information on financing prior to final budget enactment which, in general. occurs in June or July. Funds must be disbursed early to permit districts to maintain a cash operation. The district I represent had to borrow $8 million- 10% of its anticipated revenue, early in the fiscal year to meet current operations. The normal district does not have adequate cash reserves to maintain these massive new programs when payments are delayed. This apparent reduction in funds for Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education ~4 leads me to believe that a supplementary appropriation is needed to support programs planned and authorized under the act. If such is con- sidered, it should also be recognized that the adult basic education program is funded at a reduced level this year and that funds are not available to pay enti- tlements created by the amendments of FL. ~T4. I do not have the data neces- sary to calculate the size of the supplement currently needed. I (10 know that it is very destructive to local programs and to public confidence iii the Federal support to cut hack programs after a promising start has been made. Neither can I evaluate the budget priorities with which the Congress and Administration are faced. I w-ould hope, however, that you would find it possible to request the proper agency to (1evelop an estimate of the supplement nee(led and would give committee support to a supplementary appropriation bill for this purpose, A third problem is very important to California (listricts. The basis for deriving entitlements for Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act is the lOGo census. The great west~vard migration of recent years has re- sulted in a 20% increase in California population since 1960-and that migra- tion has included a full quota of deprived and needy families. Current entitle- ments for California districts are significantly below need. We would urge that steps be taken to derive these entitlements from current data. Surely the tech- niques of survey and estimation are available to develop a reasonal)le current basis for calculating these entitlements. A fourth problem results from the assignment of responsibility for conduct of educational programs to agencies not normally responsible for education. Spe- (ifically. our local kinclergarteii program would be vastly improved if the full responsibility for its conduct were to lie assigned to the school district. If this is to be accomplished, time responsibility at the Federal level needs to lie idaced w-ith the U.S. Office of Education so that funds and directives w-ill flow normally through the educational offices of the states to the school districts. PAGENO="0734" 728 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS I note that the proposed amendment to the Teacher Corps legislation would require that all interns assigi~ed to a local district be approved by and acceptable to the district. This is most important. In areas where tenure laws grant life- time contracts after short probationary periods, we who are responsible for the program want to be in a position to select those most likely to succeed in the local community. I would doubt that the proiosecl Teacher Corps effort is adequate to meet the need for teachers now or in the imniediate future. We are near, or perhaps already in, a period of great shortage of teachers. I would urge that legislation be enacted to stimulate entrance into the teaching profession. Perhaps the enact- ment of the Education Professions Act recommended by President Johnson w-ould be a first step in meeting this need. Stimulation of an increased supply is es- sential if the nation's schools are to be staffed iii the years ahead. This statement of problems and suggestions is offered not in criticism but in the hope that solutions may be found by which the joint effort between the Fed- eral Government and the San Diego City Schools to improve education niay be furthered and made more efficient and effective. We have made a good start on the important task of developing fully the most important natural resource of our nation-the abilities of its people. The continued progress and greatness of this nation may well depend on the completion of this task. TESTIMONY BY JACK P. CR0wTIIER. Si-PERINTEcIWN'r Los ANGELES CITY SCHOOLS SU~~lMARY Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, the uncertainty of the avail- ability of federal funds for the variety of programs which have been PaSsed by (`ungress has beeii of great concern to educators. The recital by school admin- istrators of difficulties encountered in conducting federally funded programs should not be interpreted as mere complaints about inconveniences we are en- countering. Our real concern is the effect on children, youth, and adults and on the lost and impaired potential for developing and maintaining a continuity of effe-tive. meaningful programs for these pupils. Unless Congress can pro- vi(le some answers to these very real problems. we shall all fail. It seeniS to us, on the basis of our experience, that the following things must be (lone in order to mimake it possible for local school districts to mimake truly effective use of federal funds for education. 1. Congress should appropriate funds for educational programs early in the spring if progranis are to be implemented the following fall term. 2. Local school districts should be notified no later than March Ui of a firm coninuitment of funds for all federally supported activities to be undertaken by theni during the ensuing fiscal year. 3. Federal comnuitments must be lirmu. with iuuinimum possibility of reductions of funds during the year for whic-h the funding was provided. 4. If commitments for progranis designed to extend over a period of time can lie known to the lo-al school district during the initial implementation stage, it c-all plan a totally well-articulated program. If fiscal requirements for different items of legislation can be standardized. local districts will not be faced with a different set of rules for each federal activity in which they become involved. fi. When the use of government-furnished property is contemplated, as in the (USe of MDTA programs. the conimuiitnuent of this property should be firm and the ~roperty should he made available to the local districts in time to operate the program effectively. `1. Although the use of the continuing resolution for programs which have bee)) funded for more than one year is helpful. it is extremely difficult to plan a mean- imigful prograni around a conimitmuent that muuust be renewed from month to 111011 th - ~.4* Guidelines for determination of entitlenments under federally funded l)m'o grams should he written so that individual 5(11001 districts may plan a program extending over the total lwriodl of time authorized by the Congress in any act which provides financial assistance to the public schools. This means that the in in iiii urn level of funding would be the amount provided for the first year of any program. PAGENO="0735" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 729 I)uring the past several years I have had the privilege of appearing before you oii many occasions. On each of these occasions you have courteously listened to inc tell you about the unique problems confronting the Los Angeles City Schools. especially concerning the iroblenis of finance, of school construction to meet the growth needs of large metropolitan areas, and of federally funded programs. We are fortunate that several members of this committee represent important constituencies of Los Angeles and are extremely well versed in the needs of this grat urban poI)ulation. including its educational needs. At the same time I am sure all of us are keenly aware that the topic of consideration today has tre- inendous significance for school districts throughout the nation. While there are many unique applications of federal legislation to the Los Angeles area, most of what has concerned us iii Los Angeles has concerned school officials and cdii- cators in other parts of the nation as well. For the written record I should like to fit the Los Angeles City Schools into the national educational setting. The school district is unique in that there are two districts l)eing served l)y same Board of Education and the same Super- intendent. The Unified I)istrict serves grades kindergarten through twelve and the Junior College District, grades thirteen and fourteen. I am limiting my (liscUSsion today to the Unified School District which serves the elementary ~tiid secondary grad~es and adults enrolled iii high schools. This school system, second largest in the United States, has a total enrollment in kindergarten through grade twelve of close to 700,000 pupils, which includes 62,000 adults (enrollment in junior college day and evening classes is close to 67,000). It serves a total population of almost three and one-half million people. It accounts for approximately 13% of all of the elementary and secondary enrollment in the State of California. Our school system's enrollment is constantly increasing. This is perhaps a unique characteristic of Los Angeles, compared to most of the very large school systems of the nation. Our district is characterized not only by enrollment growth, but by great geographic size, covering an area of some 710 square miles (Junior College district~ is 882 square miles). The school (listrict boundaries exteiid considerably beyond the municipal boundaries of the City of Los Angeles and include large sections of unincorporated territory, as well as many smaller municipalities. Nearly 45% of the elementary and secondary pupils in all of Los Angeles County are served by the Los Angeles City Unified School District. Our school system serves large numbers of racial minorities. According to our most recent racial census the composition of our district is 18.5% Spanish surname, s7.1% other white, 20.2% Negro. 3.6c/~ oriental. 0.1% American Indian. and 0.5% other nonwhite. Los Angeles has a Spanish speaking Population larger than any city on the North American continent with the exception of Mexico City. Los Angeles is the (enter of the largest foreign population in the western United States. and is one of the fastest growing cities in foreign population in the entire nation. Much of the growth in Los Angeles population consists of non-English speaking Pd'ol)l(s. I am convinced that the special needs evidenced in large metropolitan school districts which are experiencing the impacts of urbanization. cannot l)e met without. ad(litional federal or state assistance. I believe the educational needs which have been the targets of the Vocational Education Act, Manpower 1)evelopment Training Act, and other very meaning- ful pieces of legislation have in ninny instances had their effectiveness blunted because school districts have not had sufficient time to plan and implement the programs. In other words, helpful as they have been, our federally aided ~rograms to (late have miot. heemi as effective as we know they can be. The day of the instant prograni and instant implementation of programs has passed. Education is a process and we cannot expect instant results, we must he willing to (-onimnit funds over a period of several years if programs are to he effective. For many years the Los Angeles School 1)istrict has been meeting many of the special educational needs of the citizens of our district utilizing local tax funds to provide ccupational training (-enters, adult job training programs. apprenticeship training, exploratory work experience programs, and one of the most advanced high school industrial arts programs in the nation. Under the junior college district's jurisdiction Los Angeles Trade and Technical College is Perhaps unique in the nation. In addition to these locally funded programs, the Los Angeles School District, under MDTA, has several skills centers located iii tilO muo~t (hisadvantaged areas of the district. The progrilmims of these centers PAGENO="0736" 730 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS are (lesigned to retrain adults so that they can be removed from the welfare roles and placed iii productive jOlts an(l become contributing members of the (onimunity. `IVhe program of the skill (`enter in Watts. as well as our other skills (`enters in East Los Angeles and Pacoima. have been unable to function as planned because the equipineiit for many of the areas of training has not been forthcoming. The district has received letters and telegrams from the federal agency in charge of the program assuring us that government-furnished equipment would soon be 11 its way to the (`enter. These programs were to have starte(l ill September. 1966. but today we are still waiting and the people who were to receive the training are still on the welfare roles. We know that niany of these people. who were at first eager to become involved in the program, have lost their interest as a result of the discouraging delays. Iii 1965 the Los Angeles Unified School T)istrict for the first time became eli- gible for funds from PL 574. This la\v, because of the flexibility it made pos- sible by virtue of (olning to us as general aid. has allowed the district to ml- deinent many meaningful programs for pupils who otherwise would not have been reached under the categorical aid type of legislation and who (`ould not have been served within the existing financial limitations of the district. The Los Angeles School Districts have been involved in federally funded cdii' `atiotlal programs for many years. beginning in the 1930's with the George P,arden and the Smith-Hughes programs. In 195~. with the passage of the Na- ioiial I )efense Edu('ation Act, the district became more involved in the process f federal aid. In 1964. under the provisions of the .Tuvenile I)elinquency and `\outh Offenses Control Act, the district s first preschool programs were initiated. With the advent of the Economic Opportunity Act, additional programs for the e~lu(itio1lally and economically deprived (`hild were implemented. The VEA of 1 ~i:~ allowed the district to provide iliore advanced programs of vocational edu- (`atioll. In 1965 the school district was, for the first time. l)rovided with suffi- (`iemlt fumids to make an initial impact in the area of serving the educationally disadvantaged child. We are presently able to provide saturation programs for cmlv ;5,000 of the -lose to 200.000 pupils needing these kinds of programs.) This lc('allie possible with the enactment of PL 59-10 (The Elementary and Secondary Ediic-itioii Act . Up to that time. programs providing special remedial and cor- lIt i ye (lasses for children with educational deficiencies were necessarily limiteti 1 e('alise available local funds were (-ompletely inadequate to support the kind of effort required. They became even less adequate each year in the face of relent- less gi'owth in enrolliiient. Additional exl)en(litureS for com~)eflsatory programs have beeii at the expense of a dilution of the overall e(lu('atiOflal program. The iccaintenance of substantial reserves to be drawn on in anticipation of a probable grant of financial support is no longer possible. Like other large school dis. trb-ts which mnust ol)erate within the restri('tions of their respective state (`Oil- st itutioiis and education codes. Los Angeles is iii no position to (`ommit personnel. supplies. equipilient. and facilities in substantial amounts ((ii the l)asis of (Ira] I (II cinise~. The probleni we face is that such (-c(mnnhitinents cannot he nia(Ie on the basis of a nything less than a 1 (inding legal contract between the school district and the federal g((vermlment. completed. and signed well in advance (If the commencement if a new program. This contract should include a (`onil)lete recital of all terms 111(1 conditions that will remain unchanged. ex(eI(t by imiutual consent, for the lerio(l of the contract. The Los Angeles Unified School 1)isti'ict. like every other school district in the nation, launched its Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Title I. programs (luring this current year on the basis (If a c((mltinuing resolution passed by Con- gress. auth((rizing expenditures up t(( S5~ of the first year's entitlement. This s(-1i((((l district, like many other school districts in the nation, designed programs ~vliicli would benefit the educationally deprived children of the district to the full extent of the funds we believed were (`onimnitted by Congress in the continuing i'esoliitioii. These programs l)egin ol(eration in September. 11516. Twenty-one (-(lilities iii the State (if California and an unknown number (If local school dis- trots within these (`(unties will receive au actual entitlement totalling less than the 55( figure that was seemingly guarantee(l in the commtinuiumg resolution. What will happen to these districts? Will they now l)e forced to (`ut back their icr (gramils. lay off teachers, cancel commitments for supplies and equipment, and face the very deli('ate task of exl)laiuling to the local community why this has to he lone? No organization caum operate effectively under sii('h conditions. Some- PAGENO="0737" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 731 thing must be done to insure that local school districts know well in advance the aniount and the source of funds that will be available to theni to operate their (`(luc'ational programs. This is not a probleiii which is unique to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. It is a serious weakness in all federal legislation affecting schols. The effectiveness of NDEA. which might he ioiisiclered the grandfather of modern federal aid, is hampered by this problem. For example. the Los Angeles Unified School 1)istrict submitted proposals under Title 111-A of the National Defense Education Act hi April, 1966. The district was notified that these proposals had been approved in .January. 1967. and that equipment (ailed for niust be purhased and delivered before June 30. 1967. This is a re- luirenlent that is inuiwssible to meet because (ertaili types of equi~(1nent siml)ly (ailnot be pro(luee(l and delivered by the vendors by that date. We are all concerned about the educationally deprived children, youth, and 1 dults (f our school districts awl of the nation. We are all roncerned about developing effective, meaningful programs to aid these pupils. However, unless `ongress takes the necessary steps to make it possible for lo(al school districts to receive early notification concerning approved projects. accoflhl)aliiPd by binding commitments, we will fail. Mr. DAILARD. San I)iego is one of the, smaller of these groups, al- though in talking for the three California cities that are members of the. group, we are talking for almost as man students as T)r. T)oiiovan brags about, so we feel it is imj)ortant. San Diego is a K-14 (listrict with an enrollment of approximately 140,()0O, 2.5 percent of which are. federally connected under the defini- tions of Public Law ~T4, so we have substantial interest in the con- tinuallc'e of that law. More than that, however, we are operating ~)l'ograms and using funds fi'om 21 sections of 1() other Federal statutes. In total, we re- ceive approximately ~l() million this year. or 12 i)ercent of its opel'- ating l)lldget. We have submitted for your examination and for the i'ecorcl a little booklet in which we have. tried to describe the use of these J)rograms. \Ve feel as you examine, it you will find that the.re has been pIog~~ made. in satisfying the national interest as defined ill the statutes: that there has been progress made toward meeting the educational needs of the citizens of the local community : and that local control and clirectioii of the educational ~)rog1'am has not beeui weakened or compromised. All the. programs, as far as content, emphasis, method of teaching. materials, and personnel, have been locally planned and directed. I would not serve you well, however, if I merely talked al )out this, al - though we think this (lemonStrates the successful a(llievelneflt of a constructive. alliance, between the Federal Government and one coni- munitv. I want to talk about sonic of the pI'ol)lems we have en- countered. First, there li;is (leveloped. out. of these 11 laws under wlii(li we are developing, a i'edtape syndrome that is J)ed'omilig serious. `[Thdei Pul)lir Law- 514, from which we receive about half of the ~1( million we. receive, oi' a. little nioi'e than half this year. we need to ideutfiv the eligible childreii. verify the eligibility, and file the nllml)el'. `We get the l110li~V 011(1 it goes into the general fund. `\Ve use it without. restriction or postaudit. For the othiei' half of the inone last veal', we filed 1(30 separate applications which were highly (letailedi, for \vhi('hi there was uio little common base and, further, when the funds were ~u'antecl, they must be expended through special a(connts, and we 110(1 to set uw special i'outines through 0111' operating di vision, our 7~I-492 O-67----47 PAGENO="0738" 732 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS purchasing division, our accounting division, so that we can supply the necessary reports. WTe think two things are indicated, since we are withdrawing so much administrative time from other areas: One, that the procedures for applications. recordkeepi ng. reporting, be simplified through con- solidation. standardization, and simplification of both the basic statutes and the administrative guidelines; and two, that provision be made in the statutes and administrative, guidelines to permit the use of a fixed percentage of each grant. for planning, administration, recordkeeping, project evaluation-in short, for the overhead costs. W~e note President Joimson's recommendation for $15 million authorizations to help States and local communities evaluate their educational programs, and note that this has been included in sections ~1 to 5~5 of House Resohition 6230. Enactment of this is urgent. We have inaugurated massive pro- grams of education quickly, even hastily, and we need comprehensive and sophisticated evaluation. To do this, the best of technical knowl- edge needs to he applied. WTe need to devise new strategies of evalua- tion. This group represented here today is contemplating a. joint project. ~ spend Monday of this week with the director of this council and representatives of the Southwestern Regional Laboratory working on a design for a proposed cooperative evaluation program. I would hope that such an effort could receive support from this source and would be eligible under section 5~4(b) of the. proposed act. It isn't quite clear whether or not it would be, but I think here is a worthwhile effort in which the resources of 16 of the, great cities and the sophistication they have could be joined and made very effective with a small amount of assistance. Secondly, the delays in appropriations have had a crippling effect on the operation of the programs. I am aware that the pre.sent Con- gress called this to your attention and the President a.sked the Appro- priations Committees to act early enough to help the. schools effectively. I would like to end by telling von that as of this moment I do not k-now how much we will receive this year for the operation of the title I program that has been functioning since. September 1. Under Cali- fornia law we had to enact our budget not later than the first w-eek in August. No appropriation was made. W~e wei'e advised to set up a program on 85 percent of what we had for the. T months in the prior year. The information I received last week through the superintendent of education in Los Angeles indicated we would receive below the 85 percent level. I am distressed to tell von that last. week I issued instructions to our staff to cut back the project, freeze all vacancies, and cut all unspent appropriations for materials. This will be destructive to the morale of the staff and to the parents in the neighborhood, which has just ~ufferecl a cutback in the funds for the Economic Opportunity Act. lo plaii and operate a program efficiently, we needi some firm infor- tHat ion on financing prior to the final budget enactment which occurs in itiost of these districts in June or July. The district I represent had to borrow- SB million in September to carry the program on a cash basis. The. normal district doesn't have the cash reserves to carry this without firm commitments. PAGENO="0739" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 733 We have within our budget. almost. ~1 million, as you will note from the table in the little booklet I gave you. from NDEA and we have been operating the program at. that level. Thus far this year we have received $96,000. We think your credit is good. but we would like to see the color of your money. This suggests to me that. some sort. of supplementary appropriation is needed this year. I was amazed to find that this was not. included in the legislation scheduled. ~\Ve. know, as was mentioned by Dr. Briggs, that the basic education act is short. W~e know that. the new amendments to Public Law 874 and the cities macic eligible for those amendments will receive no funds under the present appropriation. We know that ~ 1)eI~ce11t allocation is not being met. I do not have the data to tell you what these should be, what. the amount. of the supplementaries should be. I can tell you what. hap- pens in California. \Ve need $4,167,510 to bring the appropriation up to the ~-perce1it level. Further, we need authority to redistribute the funds among the counties and within the counties. This would bring the total grant of the State of California up to ~T4,856,000 for title I as compared with an entitlement authorized of $102,7~7,000. At the present time, then, we are receiving in Cali- fornia. less than 70 percent of what the original 1)111 would have pro- videci for title I. WTe feel strongly that the full amount authorized should be appro- priateci in future years and the appropriation for fiscal 1967 should be increased by a supplement to bring it to an 85-percent level, which was implied. A fourth problem results from the responsibility of educational i rogram s t hrougli agencies not normall responsible for education. I speak particularly of the prekinclergarten program. This has been commented 111)011 before and I will not. exten(l it. I note in the proposed amendment. to the Teachers Corps legislation, it requires that. all interns assigned to the district. be approv~1 and acceptable by the (iistrict. This is important. in areas w-here tenure laws grant lifetime contracts after a short period. ~We who are responsible want to be in ~ posit ion to select those most likely to succeed. I would doubt that the proposed Teachers Corps legislation will adequately nieet the teacher shortage that is facing us. W~e are either in or very nearly in one of the greatest teacher shortages this country has ever had. I would urge that. legislation 1)e eflacte(l to stimulate entrance into teaching. We need to increase the supply. Perhaps the Eciucatioii and Professions Act recommended by the President would be the first step. I am not familiar with the details of it, but movement in this direction is needed. We have a pai~ic.ular problem in California. The basis for de- riving entitlement, of title I is the 1960 census. The. flow-in popu- lat.ion in California. has increased the populatioi 20 percent since 1960, and that has contained its full quota of deprived children. We would urge that. steps be taken to update this legislation so that en- titlements can be clerk-ed from current. data. Surely the techniques of survey and estimation by w-hich a reliable estimate could be made can be found. PAGENO="0740" 734 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMEWPS It is not the purpose of mv statement to be critical but, rather, to seek something by which the joint effort. which we think is good, coi'- structive., positive, between the Federal Government and the San Diego city schools can be furthered. WTe. have made a good start in developing the most-in fact., the only-preferred national research we have, the abilities of people. The continued progress and greatness of this Nation may well depend upon the degree to which we carry out this task and fully provide the opport mu ties that are needed. Thank von, Mr. Chairman. Chairman PERKINS. Thank von very much. Mr. T)ailard submitted the following publication :) PAGENO="0741" A Preliminary Report on- (J) tel ci -i tel ci H C I-ri H (Ii THE USE OF FEDERAL FUNDS IN EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS In the San Diego City Schools Submitted by: Ralph Dailard, Superintendent San Diego City Schools San Diego, California March 1, 1961 Prepared by: William H. Stegeman, Curriculum Services Divisiuv Blufurd F. Minar, Business Divisiun PAGENO="0742" b1 F5 P1 H (12 P1 C-) C hi C) HI C hi hi z HI (12 1T EMF:llGll'~; FRAMEWORK OF FEI)ERAI All) Educational programs in large cities face critical financial problems. limited local resources are insufficient to maintain high quality basic education programs. At the same time, city school districts have been confronted with rapidly Increasing concentra- tions of children who are severely limited by econwuic and cultural deprivation, requiring the development of extensive special progra ms Recognizing the financial crises in many city school districts, the Federal government in recent years has begun b) supply needed funds through several different acts. Although these funds are not yet in amounts sufficient to solve the mounting problems of cities, the Federal government is beginning to give substantial help. Many citizens have feared that the arrival of Federal funds would mean the end of local control and a restriction of the role of the local district. Education, however, takes place in local classrooms with children whu live in local neighborhoods. In such a setting, quality control of the educational program can best he accomplished by local districts. As a matter of fact, the advent of Federal funds has necessitated strengthening the role of the local district. Funds from outside sources place the responsibility for effective and efficient use of these funds upon the local administration. This brief report indicates the use and effect of Federal funds in San Diego's educational programs. It is presented in order that the emerging framework of Federal financing and the emerging role of the local district may be observed. R lph Dailar , Superintendent San Diego City Schools PAGENO="0743" CONTENTS t~1 Funds Received from Major Federal Acts, 1951-1967 . 1 Public Law 64-347 - Smith-Hughes and George Barden Acts 2 Public Law 81-874 - Impact Aid for School Operation 3 Public Law 81-815 - Impact Aid for School Buildings 4 Public Law 85-864 - National Defense Education Act 5 Public Law 88-214 - Manpower and Development Act 6 8 Public Law 88-210 - Vocational Education Act 7 Public Laws 88-204 and 89-329 - Higher Education Acts 8 P1 Public Law 88-452 - Economic Opportunity Act 9 Public Law 89-10 - Elementa~' and Secondary Education Act 10 Public Law 89-136 - Public Works and Economic Development Act 11 C Public Law 89-209 - National Foundation on the Arts and Humanities 12 Major Problems 13 Immediate Needs 14 `-1 cI~ -1 ii PAGENO="0744" -1 c~ H 72 01 -i 01 ci c1 H C tel 7 tel 7 H (JO FUNDS RECEIVED FROM MAJOR FEDERAL ACTS, 1951-61 TOTAL MII.LION0 OF' DO1,1.A 188 (19S1-1967( 66-67 65-66 V.1_OS 62-64 62-63 61-62 60-61 `3-60 20-25 7-58 56-57 55-26 24-55 53-21 ,2-53 51-52 Public LaW 874 (general aid for operation) $52, 707,000 5.55 5.41 4.88 4.67 `I. 11 3.02 1.35 3.08 2.2) 2.2)) 2.20 1.01 1.99 1,96 1.52 I. 9)) I'ublic Law 810 (general aid for buildIngs) 22,021.000 .~,92.)2i 2.48 .13 6.20 2.07 4.36 .4), NDEA (categorLeal aid) `11)0, 000 .05 . 11 .07 - .04 .1)9 .0-1 - - - - MDTA )catcgcrical aid) I, 620, 000 . 98 .31 .29 .01 VEA (categorical aid) 1,400,000 .42 . 59 . 09 . 15 . 12 . Ii Higher Education Act (categorical aId) 37, 500 .04 EOA (categorical aId) 376,001) . 18 . 19 ESEA (categorical aid) 2,570,000 2.72 2.82 TO'I'AL FEDXRAL FUN~ RECEIVED 9,54 l). 46 5.33 4.90 4.35 1.07 3.35 3.00 3.20 4. 93 4.68 2.24 8.27 4.03 6.28 2. 35 T~AL DISTRICT EXPENDITURES AND OTHER ou'rcto 82.87 73.60 66.06 57.54 55. 56 90.81 47.41 42. 90 36.57 32.66 27.14 PER CE~ FEDERALISOF DISTRICT 12.0~8% 8.1% 8.5% 7.8% 8.0% 7.1% 7,2% 9.0%~.l% 17.2% 5th'ludes approximately $3, 000, 000 ia Laaham Act funds, not included in yearly subtotals shown here for 1951-59. #Budget estimates 1966-67. 14.77 15. 9% 24.08 9.3% 21.94 37.7% 20.14 20.0% 17.66 35. 6~ PAGENO="0745" (12 t,1 c~ C tvl rj~ P.L 64-341 - Smith-Hughes and George Barden Acts PURPOSE: To provide vocational education and teacher training in agriculture, trade, industry, and home economics. DISTRICT PRO~±M: The district for many years has provided a variety of courses with funds from these acts. They have provided the incentive for pilot programs extending vocational education into areas of training needed by the citizens of the community. Merchandising, distributive education, and cosmetology courses are recent examples. RESULTS: As new demands for vocational training have become known, the district has offered new programs. Many citi- zens of the community who enrolled in and completed programs supported by funds from these acts are now gainfully employed. CONCLUSION: These acts have shown that Federal funds can be adjusted to changing community needs for new skills. t~1 P1 The first of the vocational education acts has provided continuing support to vocational programs. 2 PAGENO="0746" P.1. 81-814 - Impact Aid for School Operation F~RFOSE: To provide funds for basic education programs for children whose parents live and/or work on Federal property. ~1~IRICT_PROGRAM: Children of Federally-connected families have been admitted to the nearest school prey icled the same educational program as for ill other district pupils, without separate identifica- Lion and without segregation. RESULTS: Education provided Federally-connected children on an equal basis to education provided local children by local tax funds has meant that all children can receive a better basic education program. H CONCLUSION: General aid for basic education programs is essential regardless of the source of funds. It Is the basic education program that assures all children an equal chance to learn. 30.800 children in grades K.12 whose parents live on and/or work on Federal (tox.exempt) property currently attend San Diego schools 25% OF SAN DIEGO CHILDREN ARE FEDERALLY CONNECTED 3 PAGENO="0747" Pt. 81-815 - Impact Aid for School Buildings PURPOSE: To provide classrooms for children whose parents work~ *~~n~or live on Federal property. P1 DISTRICT PROGRAM~ During a period of rapid Federal expansion, classrooms were provided in San Diego for children whose families do not pay property tunes for bond interest and redemption. Federally-connected children were not segregated into these classrooms but were free to attend classes in neighborhood schools with all other children. Federal classrooms were P1 likewise used by all other children. The compensatory space principle was followed. RESULTS: With the help of Federal P1 funds and local bond funds it was possible to provide a full day school for all children. Federal and locally shared efforts have successfully maintained schools in periods of P1 heavy Federal activity and rapid growth. CONCLUSION: It has been shown that Federal funds can he effectively used and ado: in istered to augment ioc:i I funds in time of need. The compensa~ tory space principle can he used to avoid iumcces 5:1 ry accounting for (lailV Use. C P1 P1 H In time of occelerated Federol activity, the local district provided needed classrooms from local and Federal funds. PAGENO="0748" P1. 85-864 - National Defense Education Act of 1958 (NDEA) PURPOSE: `in encourage changes in local educational programs iii keeping with national defense needs of the nation. (At ti i'st this was iii rcc ted towa r:l science, nathemn atics, and foreign language programs. Recently it has been broadened to provide nsire generalized support. ) DISTRICT PRI:IGRAM: `title II - Provided loan luummis iii jnni orco liege stuilents. `title UI-A - Pros' ided instructional materials and equipment for emiucatlonml programs In - M athen ati cs Reading II isto ry Science I"orelgn languages Civics ~ (`eograpluv l'cu (iii) Tics (1~ `l'ltie Ill-il - Consultants in ni athematics, science, foreign language and couimsel lug have been supplied to the (ii strict. 8 `i'itle V - toutiselluig ratios have iniprovcd owing to reduced loads. RESULTS: Many new materials and varieties of effective instruc- tional equipuum `mit have been introduced into use through F'e:leral funds. `l'h C (100 ination of the single teatisuok with its pressure for lock-step learning has been broken. An entirely new attitude of eagerness on time l)ulrt of the staff to use new niethods and techniques for individualized instruction has been created, loan funds have assisted college students to remain in school. CONCLUSION: I)raniatic changes can be made in programs when tools for specific Pu1~'P~S~ are provided the classroom teacher. When supported by modern mate- rials and equipment, instruction improves dramatically. Students are willing to work to repay loans if they can he given a chance to obtain an education. z Examples 0f new materials and equipment introduced into use by NDEA funds: overhead prolectors - single concept projectors - modern electronic equipment - television sets ` microprojectors ` transparencies - 8mm films in cartridges teaching kits - modern machines ` computers - mathematics models . modern maps and globes - modern science films and laboratories. PAGENO="0749" P1. 81-415 and P.1. 88-214 - Manpower and Development Act of 1963 (MDTA) PURPOSE: Occupational training for unemployed youth and adults who need train- ing and/or basic education in order to obtain full-time work. DISTRICT PROGRAM: The district has worked with employment departments and Federal agencies to provide a wide variety of programs. These programs have varied depending on local needs, length of training required, and number of unemployed persons referred to the programs. RESULTS: Results in many programs have been dramatic. Large numbers of unemployed persons have been retrained and successfully placed in productive employment. The number of replacement failures has been surprisingly small. C~USiO~: Although the total num- ber of programs has not been suffi- cient to solve major employment problems, the programs have served as pilots to illustrate need and effect of retraining. They have also illus- trated that Federal and state agencies can work effectively together to solve retraining problems. Electronics assembly Psychiatric technician Nurses' aide and orderly Machine shop Remedial education Food services Basic mechanical drafting Automotive general mechanic Laundry and dry cleaning Welding Aircraft assembly Licensed vocational nurse Basic education Automotive service .. Examples of programs provided: P1 tel frj H (/) tel C P1 H C i~ tel tel H PAGENO="0750" P.L. 88-210 A - Vocational Education Act of 1963 (VEA) PURPOSE To niamtain, extend, and improve vocatitinal education programs and to develop new programs. To provide pro- grants in industrial, technical, and business education, including work experience and vocational guidance programs. To consolidate previous legislation. Fl DISTRICT PROGRAM: The district has planned and preseiitcd a wide variety of vocational education courses at high school and H Jun or college levels. The district has a Iso pioneered in developing a new concept in the development of entrance level skills for non-college youth. RESULTS: Fe dc ia 1 lunds let cc e ic ou raged the ci ins butt re pia no ng and upgradi rig oi vocational education classes arid programs it both the ugh school and Junior college levels. As a result (I) i coot plcte revision of the home cconon:ics progmini in high schools has l.)een made, (2) :i pioneering program br high schools br has ic entrance-level occupational skills of non-college students has been established, (3) vocational programs in junior colleges have been modernized and (4) a study oi needs for an updating oi the program in business education, based on a continuing study of needs, has begun. Fl ci CONCLUSION: Federal funds have provided incentives to state and local agencies to ntaintain a strong basic vocational program in spite of pressures for overemphasis on science and engineering. Demands for even greater acceleration in development of these programs indicate the need for more Federal funds. Examples of programs provided: High School Junior College Business Occupations Coordination of Occupations Airline Pilot Training Turbine Engine Technician Fl Industrial Occupations Occupational Counseling Civil Engineering & Technology Vocational Business Z Nurses' Aid Program Home Economics Occupations Laboratory Animal Technician Education (Upgrading) Occupation Work Experience Ornamental Horticulture Vocational Trade Quality Control & Reliability Technician (Upgrading) Production Machine Technician PAGENO="0751" P.L. 89-329 and P.L. 88-204 - Higher Education Act and Higher Education Facilities Act PURPOSE: To assist the people of the United States in the solution of community problems such as housing, poverty, government, recreation, employment, youth opportunities, transportation, health, and land use through college and university community service programs. To provide buildings to house classrooms, libraries, and laboratories to expand enrollment capacity. To provide loans for construction of academic facilities. DISTRICT PROGRAMS: The district has provided limited community service programs such as Problems of Senior Citizens' and provided educational opportunity grants to needy students. Applications to build facilities for junior college programs have been submitted. The first two applications for facilities were of too low priority to receive funds. The district has applied for assistance to improve junior college libraries. RESULTS: To date there are no significant results; however, the outlook is optimistic concerning the use which could be made of funds if receIved in time to be used. Funds for library assistance to be used by June 30, 1966, were received on June 30, 1966, and had to be returned unspent. Funds to be used prior to June 30, 1967, were received February 27, 1967, and will be used. Funds for facilities were not obtained due to priorities and limited funds available. Three applications are on file for the current year. H Funds for student grants are not being accepted by students, since work study and loan programs under other acts seem to better meet the needs of students. CONCLUSION: Because of a system of priorities, shortage of funds, and lateness in receipt of available funds, the district has found it difficult to take full advantage of these acts. H Impact to dote on the district has been extremely limited, although the district junior college program is one of the largest and most rapidly growing in this nation and needs assistance from these acts. C.i (J) ml C -i 8 PAGENO="0752" P.1. 88-452 - Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 (EOA~ PURPOSE: to eli mtiiate the paradox of poverty in the midst of plenty in thisn atlon liv opening to everyone the opportunity for education and triotolig. the opportunity to work, and the opportunity to live in decency and dignity. lit Ic ill - Neighborhood Youth Corps: It> provide useful work experietice for yottttg men and women 16-2! veariiof age in pith! Ic agenc is :tnd nonprofit organizations. Title I,l. - Work Study Urogratnu: To provide part-time employment for students from tteedv families so they cati go to or remain in co liege H -Fl tIe It A -. C itm muttity Action l'rttgra ttis: To provide sti toul atVn and I ttcetit ye for urban and rural communities; to molti Ii ze their resources toco mhat poverty titrough commuttlty tctltttt programs. Title Itt! - Adult Ilasic Educallot>: To Initiate programs of instruction fttr Individuals who have attained tlte age of 18 and who are hattdlcapped by reading and writing deficiencies when seekitig or In retaltiltig employmettl. DISIpROGRAMS: title 1,11 - Sittce Jutie 1966 more than 800 studetits from the dIstrict ltave beet> enrolled for varying lengths of time In the Nelgltborho>td Youtit Corps administered by the San Diego Urban I .eague. Many in turn have worked ott jolts provided In district programs. C Title IC Work study oppor Ott> ties are curretttly being provided 225 college ~> .- students I Title l!,A - l'roject Head Start preschool experience has been provided f>tr 640 chIldren. Mct:y more will be enrolled it> the summer of 1967. Title 11,11 - Adult Basic Education classes have been provided for 2.291 adults. .~ :.`o . C rr tly 152 lIed I h I d tb I se ~ ~ H A proposal for a major research and development program to seek solutions to educationa ~ problems-of poverty-affected children was denied after extensive negotIations. ., ., , RESULTS: The community and the schools have agreed upon tasks which the schools can .."~ perform best. Categorical funds have resulted itt specific projects for specific educatiottal needs to combat poverty. Adults, atid students on marginal incomes have found help and employ metit which immediately raised their ntaitdard of living. Young children have begun titeir development at a formative age. Students are willing to work their way through school if given a chance; they also get valuable jolt experience. CONCLUSIONS: Although at first there seemed to be a strong community rejection of the schools part itt attempting to combat poverty, there now seems to be a growing faith and awarettess that special educational programs are needed If poverty Is to be reduced. PAGENO="0753" P.1. 89-10 - Elementary and Secondary Education Act ot 1965 (ESEA) PURPOSE: Title I - To strengthen elementary and secondary school programs for edacatiosally deprived chIldren in low Income areas, Title II - To provide additional school library resoarces, testhooks, and other instrac- C tion al materials, Title It! - `to finance sapplementary edacatlon centcrs and services and encoarage innovative cdacational programs, Title IV - To broaden areas of cooperative research. Title V - To strengthen State Departments of l':dacatinn. DISTRICT PROGRAMS: Title I fands have been ased in pnverty area schools to develop additional preschool programs, entend remedial and hanic skills programs, provide annillarl U) services, enrich caltnral and learning activities, provide special is-service edacalion programs, -and develop essential carricalnm materials. 8 Title II - look collections have been increased for slemenlary and secondary schools, inclading loans to libraries of private schools, I tthcr instractional aadio-visnal materials have been parchased. `iDle Ill - The district has cooperated mill: fifty other school districts to form a sapplementary edacation center. The district has taken primary responsibility for a 26-district television project and for an li-district pilot demonstration ``Fsglish As a Second l.angaage" program, Title IV - The district has received its first Federal-sponsored research project in foreign langaage instraclion at ninth grade. Title V - The district has served as vahcoatractor to the Stale Department of l7dacation to revise and simplify the instractional pro- H gram sec tioti IDivision 71 of the California Fdacatios Code, resnlting in a hill now before the State legislalare. RESULTS: Title I lands have made it posnible to enpand pilot compensatory edacaDos programs to most schools of the district serving ch i Idre:: of Ion' iocom e families. C acertai a, and finally sadden, arrival of fands made implementation of the program diffic alt. `Fhe staff hatove rco se the initial coafnsi on, and stadeats are responding to new programs. Development of pilot projects to improve new programs can nan a begi nn. t'ootivaed ancertainn lv of fands a nd late allocation of lands make it difficaD to plan ahead. `title II lands have began to relieve hook and materials deficiencies. `Fhe backlog is, still great, `Fitle Ill lands have started the trend toward dynamic thinking and innovative Improvemenis. 4 Title IV lands are still ancerlain and diflicalt to plan ase of: however, basic research needs to he encoaraged at the classroom level H I') CONCLUSION: Innlnsion of Federal lands for essential pnrposes has hngan to sncoarage badly needed changes in edacational programs This is only the beginning! 10 PAGENO="0754" P.L 89-136 - Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965 PUR_~Q~~: lu engage in educational progra ins _______________________ intended to train and retrain residents to enable them to qua! ify fur job opportunities, thereby enabling them to achieve full -time employment. DISTRICT PROGRAM: In cooperation with the department of commerce and department of labor the district has lmpleiiiented a program wherein unemployed persons receive training in both basic education uiish in a basic oc cups- tional skill. the person recei yes a salary as he learns. ThIs progra to is offered iii a ``skills center'' estahl ishsh for this purpose. RESULTS: First results were very good, with good progress on the part of participants en!- nilnating in almost total full-time employment. The center is now beginning work wit!) the ``hard core" unemployed. The degree of success which can he achieved with this group is yet to be determined. CONCLUSION: Concerted and coordinated effort is needed to provide training and placement of chronically uneiiiployed. Results today of the pilot "skills center" project are encouraging. It has been found that many of the chronically unemployed would like to work if they are given a chance to learn and earn. L,I1 hi hi H hi hi I-) C hi hi H C hi z hi z (is 11 PAGENO="0755" Pt. 89-209 - National Foundation on Arts and Humanities PURPOSE: To encourage interest in and understanding of the arts. DISTRICT PROGRAMS: An art-music laboratory for secondary schools was established in 1966 from funds supplied by this act. in 1967, art instructional materials have been planned to stimulate improved Instructional programs in elementary schools. High quality music equipment was purchased for college instruction. RESULTS: Funds to school districts have been too limited to encourage even pilot projects. CONCLUSION: Art, music, and other cultural programs of exemplary type have suffered as a result of recent concerns for science and mathe- matics; they need to be re-emphasized and vitalized in the school and in the community. (.f~ P1 C -1 P1 0 P1 P1 H Renewed and increasing community interest in art, music, and other cultural activities currently is creating demand for related educational programs. There must be o revival of exemplary educational offerings in the fine arts. 12 PAGENO="0756" Major Problems It is important to joint out that there has been no infringement or reduction of local control over educational programs. Although there were indications iii the beginning stages that the Economic Opportunity Act Administration might seriously infringe upon local control, these threats have gradually been overcome. There is, in fact, considerable evidence to indicate educational progra ns have been strengthened substantially through Federal funds. Nevertheless certain problems have occurred. 1. Each recent act ins been for a specific purpose, has required the development of an involved application and establishment of separate standards, and has required separate fiscal and quality controls. Categorical aid projects have proliferated the nuiiiber of budget accounts and evaluation reports. 2. Serious staff deficiencies have occurred in the need for personnel with specific types of training and experience. There has been a substantial Increase in the demands for in-service education programs not provided for In the specific purpose program funds. There has also been a great increase in administrative load without adequate increases in staff to handle the load, arid projects do not provide funds to relieve such extra loads. 8 3. There have beeti serious delays in Federal funding. Programs have been hastily organized without assurance that the Federal funds would in fact be available. This delay has resulted in serious problems in local administration and has not made possible sound fiscal or educatIonal planning. Bore recently partial funding has been provided with considerable delay and full funding prolonged beyond the period of reasonable and efficient use, if received at all. Funds are more effectively and efficiently used wben they are received In advance. Better plannIng, staffing, and operation of projects will occur when authorized projects are fully funded. 4. In sonic cases state plans and Federal administrative regulations have been extremely complex and beyond the basic requirements of the act. In other cases few understandable guidelines have been provided. Both have added to the F complexity of administration. More effective, efficient, and dynamic local programs will l)e possible when state plans and Federal regulations are less confusing and better coordinated. 5. Categorical aid funds may be useful as incentives to districts to develop projects to meet special needs but have made it difficult for them to maintain balanced and articulated educational programs. The result has been serious planning and organizational problems. Once incentive levels are achieved and special needs are being met, it would be better programming to appropriate and allocate funds on non-complex basic aid bases. 13 PAGENO="0757" Immediate Needs The Federal government should continue to participate in the support of education when the national interest requires it and when local and state resources are insufficient to provide necessary programs. 2. The increasing concentration in big cities of large numbers of children who are severely limited by economic and cultural deprivation requires the expenditure of effort and funds for more effective educational programs. Limited resources of cities to provide necessary funds require greater participa- tion from the Federal government through special legislation. Since the specific needs and unique characteristics of the large cities have not been adequately or fully understood, funds for research and development of effective educational programs are a first priority need. 3. Deficiency appropriations are needed immediately for the cur- rent year to complete programs already under way. Curtail- ment of programs is the formative stages will set back rather than accelerate educational changes and will result in sub- stantial deterioration of community efforts and morale. 4. Where there is authorization, there must he funding. Make full appropriations as soon as possible for all authorization for fiscal 1968. As soon as categorical programs become stable and basic programs, change categorical aid to general aid. 5. AdJust the Federal appropriations cycle to the school budget and operation cycle In order that programs may be more effectively and efficiently Implemented and staffed. 6. Transfer Project Head Start from the Office of Economic Opportunity to the Office of Education for better articulation and continuity In the total educational program. 7. Renew acts currently expiring. Do so sufficiently In advance to allow for staffing and continuances of programs already started. 8. Renew and finance the Educational Television Facilities Act to reflect the changes suggested in the Carnegie report. 9, Hold hearings to determine needed changes in existing acts. 10. BegIn support for school construction, since classrooms must be provided for programs. tO ace ~n t/1e beg !nn~ng stages Sf atte~spt:ng to noise sssne of the major edsoational problems in big Cities. It in apparent that progress is being mad,'. I/forts ,ssst (en t no,. and espand se neAr that the ,-hitdren `n tering n,,r .s,-hsols today sift he able to live productive and purposeful lives. 11. Begin to eliminate apparent duplication in existing acts. Dl Dl Dl H Dl -1 Dl (-3 C Dl Dl (-3 H C Dl Dl H 14 PAGENO="0758" 752 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS Chairman PERKINS. I am going to call on Congressman Hathaway. Mr. HATi-I~v\Y. Thank you. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman~ it gives me a great deal of pleasure to introduce to the chairman and the rest of the members of the committee a man whom I have known for the last 30 years. I attended the Boston High School and I had the distinction of being a member of the track team that this gentleman coached. Since that time he has distinguished himself in the field of educa- tion and now holds one of the most responsible positions in this coun- try, that of superintendent, of the Boston schools. Without further ado, I present to you Bill Ohrenberger of Boston. Mr. OHRENBERGER. Thank von, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman and members, it is an honor and privilege to present to you at this particular time some thoughts concerning the programs at the Boston public schools under the act of 1965. I have prepai'ed. however, a complete interrelation document on the activities of the Boston public schools under the ESEA which I would submit to von but not as part of my prepared statement. Chairman PERKINS. Without objection. it will be included in the record. (The document referred to follows:) THE INTERRELATION OF ACTIVITIES OF TIlE BosToN PUBLIC SCHOOLS INDER ESEA OF 1965 AND OTHER PUBLIC LAWS AFFECTING EDrCATION The Supermtendeiit of Bosti in Publ i Schools and the Boston Schoi 1 (`omniit- tee created the Office of Prograni Development on March 11, 19G~ for the cx- press iiri~se of coordinating educational experimentation within the Boston Schi si Systeni, The Office \V~ s origi iially funded by an Office of Economic Op- lertunity grant through Action for Bostoii ( `onimunity Development, Incor~ porated. Fol.lowing passage of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1i)d~i, the office was mainly suliporte(l by Title I funding. The main functions of the ( )ffice were considered to he The c ordination of educational research and development activities of the colleges and universities if the area and the school system as it whole. (;eiieral program development responsibility iii conjunction with Action fur Boston ( `onmniuiiity Development for the planning of any school programs funded liri ugh the ()ffice if Eci iii imic Opli irtuiii t y. The ire:! tii iii within the school svsteiii f model demonstration subsystem iii the Hi ixhury-Ni rth 1)orchester area ti serve as an a rena for educational in nova t i ii fri Ifl I iri-s(hi ii th ri ugh high s `hiol. Time lila mining a 11(1 ilesign of the edu'a ti na! ~irigrani and building specifk'a- I its fir the new central ~.OOO pupil high 5(110(11 ti serve eventually as the see- `li(l:trv art i if the mi)del siil system. Overall supervisli in i if the planning if specific innovative school buildings in ii ni lulctii ill wit ii ion sultaiits a 11(1 a I road range if representatives of the iiiiliIiiumI:tv. nuder Title III of the Eleuiiemita rv aial Secondary Education Act of 19i5. The overall planning and preparation of proposals for submission under Titles I .~d III of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. The eventual (levelolirnent of long-range plans for the improvement of the school -si eni as a whole. indeed, plans for making the Boston schools a model for urban iilie:itioli all across the country. The origitial staff of the office consisted of :1 consulting director, a program ealyst-('iiordinator. mind au administrative officer. These three staff members ma red the responsiliiiity for the preparation of the educational proposals for ~ulimnission under the various titles of ESEA of I96~. Prior to any request for federal grants, the Office of Program Development had iiiuuiched au experimental program, a segment of a project model demonstration ~:etisystem, in one elementary school in Roxhury. Inadequate funding limited PAGENO="0759" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 753 the extent of the program. From March, 1965 through January, 1966 the elemen- tary subsystem program and other experimental programs were conducted through voluntary commitments from university 1)eoPle and Boston School personnel. When the Elementary and Secondary Education Act was approved by Con- gress in April, 1965, it seemed to offer the 1)ossibility of federal funding for a fairly extensive experimental program. Although Title I seemed designed to support compensatory services of a rather traditional nature, nothing stated or even implicit in its wording discouraged imaginative, innovative approaches. On the other hand, Title III, which specifically encouraged innovation, seemed inadequately funded to provide financial support. for an operational program of substantial dimensions. The Office of Program Development, because of the foregoing considerations, submitted a proposal for the use of Title I funds concentrating on two major areas of emphasis: (1) a broad program of compensatory services for the majority of elementary schools in the target areas: and, (2) an innovative, model-demon- stration-subsystem at four educational levels; early childhood, elementary, junior high, and high school. Roughly, three-fourths of the funds requested were to be spent in the broad compensatory program; the remaining one-fourth was to be spent on the experimental subsystem program. This ratio has been maintained. Boston's original entitlement under Title I was estimated to be $3.6 million. Final accounting revealed that $3.1 million was actually awarded to the sch~ls. The Massachusetts Department of Education approved the experimental sub- system program without reservation. It approved the compensatory program in principle but requested several revisions. A sum in excess of $600,000 was authorized for implementation of the subsystem. Recruitment of staff was initiated immediately upon receipt of funds in January, 1966. The educational specialists at the four program levels were the first staff members selected since these were felt to be the key personnel of the subsystem. Desirable qualities looked for in these candidates were; imagination, flexibility, receptivity to innovation, superior teaching ability, and skill in coordination. The duties of the educational specialists were; (1) to identify, explore, and select promising educational ideas and materials: (2) to supervise and participate in the development of program design and the preparation of program reports; (3) to supervise the activities of curriculuni design specialists, the selection of materials, and the establishment of classroom procedures. To obtain persons qualified to assume this role, a superintendent's circular was distributed throughout the school system requesting voluntary applications from interested personnel. Letters of application were carefully evaluated, inter- view-s were scheduled for applicants, and, on the basis of these interviews and the considered judgment of cooperating administrators, four educational specialists were selected, one at each educational level. Educational specialists, in turn, were delegated the responsibility of selecting curriculum design specialists in specified subject areas from the same list of voluntary applicants. The same qualities of teaching competence. flexibility, and imagination were also felt desirable for these positions. The responsibility of curriculum design specialists w-ere: (1) to plan under the guidance of the educa- tional specialist the curriculum in their ow-n specialized subject areas; (2) to conduct classes in the model demonstration schools utilizing new materials and procedures; and, (3) to evaluate the merit of innovating procedures and mate- rials in cooperation with the research section of the OPD. The immediate task of these curriculum planning personnel was to prepare and organize a summer school program for each educational level. Personnel from the Harvard Graduate School of Education actively partiiipateil in the planning 011(1 implementation of this ~)rogram. A substantial corps if `visiting teachers'' from othei- school systems were also active in the program. The iiiodel demonstration program has now been phased int( t lie regular school situation. Educational specialists and curriculum (lesign specialists have as- suimied the continuing responsibility for educational programming in the sub' systeni sch~ls. At present the program extends from the presehioel level through the ninth grade. Next year the program will include the tenth grade, and an additional grade level will be added each year until the full pre-school through graile 12 educational span has beemi realized. At the same time that the Office of Program Development was preparing a pro- posal for submission under Title I of ESEA of 1965 exploratory sessions were lieing conducted with various groups looking toward the initiation of a Title III PAGENO="0760" 754 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDIJCATION AMENDMEWPS i~'oiosal. Title Jil seemed to offer interesting possibilities since it encouraged the development of innovative and exemplary programs. A substantial advisory miii ittee was assembled representing more than forty universities, schools, an(1 tultural and civi(' organizations. From this advisory committee stemmed an executive committee (harged with identifying and selecting program components After several meetings the executive committee identified five interrelated proj. ects which might foriii the basis of a proposal. These individual projects were A cooperative school planning effort involving the Boston Redevelopment Authority. Action for Boston Community Development, Incorporated, interested edu('ational amid cultural institutions in the area, as well as various community groups aiI(l outside consultants in the planning of approximately thirteen new eleiiiemitary schools in Boston in the near future. 2. A cooperative multi-service complex involving the plaiming of new schools and model school programs, urban renewal. the social service facilities of the John F. Kennedy Family Service Center. Inc.. the nofl-pUl)lid' schools and Boston College in the Charlestown area. ~3. A cooperative model school l)lanning effort involving the Boston schools. the non-public schools, and the Harvard Medical and Teaching Hospital Group in a proposed new hospital and housing center in the Fenway area. 4. A cooperative planning project involving the Tufts LTniversity Medical Cemi- ter. the Boston schools, and community agencies in creating special programs and facilities for handicapped children in the South Cove area in connection with the replacement of the Quincy School. 5. A cooperative planning project involving Boston Fniversity and the Public Schools of the City of Boston for the development of the Horace Mann Center for Communicative Disorders. Emphasis on the planning of new schools to meet a variety of educational needs seemed to bear a close relationship to the innovative educational planning already initiated within the subsystem. It is quite possible that the V.S. Office of Education appreciated the potential of this interrelationship for the Title III l)roPosal was approved for funding in the spring of 1966 for a sum of $203,000. The five inc1ividual projects have now l)een initiated under the supervision of a Title III Coordinator working under the Director of the Office of Program Development. A curriculum design specialist who had been w-orking at the high school level in the model subsystem program has been selected as edu- cational specialist in the planning of the high school complex and the "fringe area" schools. Some of the possibilities that will he further investigated during the course of this planning id~ase will be the utilization of other federal, state, and local statutes in the construction of facilities and the educational programming ~or the projected schools. For example, various federal statutes can provide special facilities for the physically handicapped. for the emotionally disturbed. and fr the mentally retarded. Local url)aii redevelopment grants and the Demon- stration Cities program seem to offer other operational possibilities. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts provi(les building funds for schools designed o relieve racial imbalance and for schools concentrating on vocational educa- tion. It will be the primary function of each of the Title III planning projects to explore and exploit funding possil)ilities of these kinds. The Office of Program Development of the Boston Public Schools is also actively involved in the planning of a New England Regional Education Labo- ratorv under Title IV of ESEA of 194i~. The consulting director of OPD has been an active participant in this planning since its inception. Boston has prol)osed that its involvement take the form of establishing a developmental partnership with REL. It is expected that three types of school might coni- prise the total partnership arrangement-an urban school (Boston), a suburban school 1 New-ton). and a rural school (to be selected). Each of the participating school systems would agree to set aside certain schools to serve as development centers. pre-school through the high school and perhaps beyond. (In the case of Boston. these schools would l)e the model ~u1)systemn and its schools under Title I). EEL would establish with these schools and their carefully selected and augmented staffs a close cooperative relationship. School staff and REL staff w-ould he thought of as complementary and often ititerchangeable. The various curriculum reforms would l)e thought out and PAGENO="0761" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 755 worked out and tested iii these (Ievelopnlental centers with the complete range of children normally attending. The REL staff would consist of a carefully selected, cross-disciplinary school curriculuni study group drawn from existing curriculuni development projects. such as those at ESI, Harvard. etc., as well as from other colleges, universities and especially school systems. An attempt would he made to create a balance between academic peoPle and people with experience in the schools. Thus the SCSG* would include teachers, curriculum experts. some subject matter special- ists. psychologists and technical support people (such as the ESI 1)esign Lab). The basic job of developing the inclusive reforms would be handled by the com- bined forces of the SCSG and the staffs of the cooperating developmental schools. 1)ISSEMINATION The job of spreading the desired curriculum reforms would fall into two inter- connected categories. The first would he the job of spreading the reforms to other schools w-ithin the selected school systems, including the creation of revised and more appropriate administrative arrangements which might assist the spread. The second ~ob would be the spreading of the reforms to other school systems. In both cases, a wide variety of methods and devices would have to be used. A materials display center would he most useful, but this would have to be coordinated with demonstration or example films, on-the-spot visits to the de- velopment centers (to the extent that the (enters could stand such traffic). visits of SCSG an(l school staff to other school systems and (`lose cooperation with teacher training institutions. Much of this might he accomplished by closed circuit television and computerized communication systems. There are many interesting 1)Ossibilities that could be explored here. The projected Demonstration Cities Program, still in the development stage, is also of great interest to the Office of Program Development of the Boston Public Schools. It is not clear at the moment just how the school system might participate, but close liaison is being maintained with the Boston Redevelopment Authority through the Title III planning proposal. The Bostoii Pul)lic Schools stand ready to cooperate and participate in any projected planning or operational activities. RELArIoNSHIp wITh COMMFNITY ACTION AGENCIES The Boston Public Schools have cooperated very closely with time local com- munity action agency, Action for Boston Community Development. Incorporated. from the time the latter agency was first incorporated. The Superintendent of Boston Public Schools has 1)een a member of the Board of Directors of ABCI) from its first beginnings. Boston Public School personnel have been assigned to ABCD on loan to develop experimental programs funded cooperatively by the school system, the Ford Foundation and HEW. Several of these experimental programs are still in operation. Another, the Work-Study Program has been entirely taken over by the Boston Public Schools under Title I of ESEA. In the case of other programs, e.g., the educational component of Head Start, the extension of the Educational Enrichment Program. and the summer opera- tion of the educational portion of the Neighborhood Youth Corps, the Boston Public Schools have in the past reserved funds under Title I to support these programs. At present the Boston Public Schools and Action for Boston (`ommnunity De- velopment, Incorporated have established a .Toint Educational Committee to maintain a continuing dialogue on the appropriateness of new programs and to avoid duplication of effort. Mr. OIIRENBERGER. I am gratefu) to this committee for allowing me to testify before the committee which visited New England in the past year. I also would attempt to indicate here that many of the problems that the other superintendents have expressed are found in Boston. The *SchOol Curriculuni Study Group. PAGENO="0762" 756 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS fact that I am not detailing them in my particular report does not indicate that. they do not exist here. I had this opportunity in testify- ing before your sul)committee. I feel that this short time I have gives me a chance to indicate to you the very excellent progian~ that we are allowed to start in the Boston public schools that tend toward innovation. This does not mean we (10 not have the solid, hard-core, ongoing programs that the act also l)I'o Vi des. When the Education Act was approved by Congress in April 1965, the Boston public schools (leterminedi to exploit, its resources as imagi- natively as possible. We had already estal)lished an office of program development for the express l)url)ose of coordinating educational exl)eriments within the school system. One of the functions of this office had been 1)re(letermined-t.he crea- tioli of a model deiiionstation suhs'vsteiii to serve as an arena for edu- (-at ional innovation from pres(-hlool through high school. The Educa- flon Act ofi'ered the possibility of Federal funding for a fairly extensive experimental program of this type. Although title I seemed designed mainly to support compensatory services of a rather traditional nature, nothing stated or even implicit in its wording discouraged imaginative approaches. On the other hand, title ITT, which specifically encouraged innova- ion, seemed inadequately funded to sup~)ort au operational program of substantial dimensions. Consequently, the Boston public schools requested authorization to initiate the sul)system idea under title I. The philosophy behind the subsystem experiment was favorably received by the ~\Iassachiusetts I)epartment of Education and the pro- grul iii was funded. The subsystem operates at four educational levels- early childhood, elementary, junior high. and senior high. The first two components are housed in all elementary school : the latter two in a junior high school. An educational specialist supervises each level. These specialists are the key staff members of the subsystem and have been carefully selected from Boston school persomiel for qualities of imagination. flexibility, receptivity to innovation, and superior teaching ability. `uii-i-iculuni design specialists with comparable I)rofessional attributes have also been selected to work in teams with the educational specialists oncentrating on various subject areas. The (oml)ined duties of these teams are to iclentfy. select and use nomimising educational ideas. teachiiur procedures, and materials in ;id-tua 1 school sit nat ions w i thi fu 11 j)ll p ii Pilit ici pat i oh. The schools are overstaffed to J)rovide ample time for specialists to discuss, plan. im- provise. and nuodifv program elements. )iie of the great strengths of the program lies in the opportunities for (-oopem-iltive interdisiplinarv planning iii an atmosphere of mutual 511 PP~ and stimuil at ion - A further strength of the program lies iii the inclusion of a strong research conipoiient focusing upon the de- velopment of techniques for the reseai-ching and evaluation of new kinds of educational ~ and instructional methods. PAGENO="0763" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDIJCATION AMENDMENTS 757 Since its inception the subs stem program has encouraged broad co- operative l)ai't i('ipation in the development of the program from colleges, universities. neighboring school systems, educational plan- ning organization. and civic an(l ~ommunitv-oriented groups. Teachers, school a(lnhinistrat ors. research specialists, psychologists, and both experts and interns in various fields have freely visited the developmeiita I schools and have mt rt icipated in planning and teaching activities, ex})erllnental programs. conferences, and summer work- shops. Ihe doors of the schools will continue to remain open to all who wish to and can make an effective contribution to the p~'~gi~m Mr. QFir. May I ask why you would call it a subsystem idea ? Mr. OURENBEIU;ER. It is a part of the. entire large group school system that encompasses the four areas of education in which we are providnig special innovative programs. This does not mean that we aren't doing imrnvation elsewhere. This is a special part of my system dedicate(l to this one purpose. I have indicated we have extra. staffing. we have, all the things that the other superintendents here would like. but cant afford citvwide~. Mr. QUTE. So that is what subsystem refers to Mr. OIIRENBERGEIT. That is correct. Another title I progi'am that we consider extremely successful and novel is our work study program. This program focuses upon the needs of potential droj)outs at the junior high and high school levels. Tt is, in effect, a rescue operation. Cui'rently. boys from age 15 to 17 not. achieving up to their estimated l)otential are placed under the guidance of a Syml)athetic and highly skillful teacher for basic subjects during a morning ~)rogram. A job coordinator p1aces each pupil in all unskilled or semiskilled position for ~ to 4 hours a day. Both ~ob coordinator and teacher maintain close contact with employers and students to pi'oinote mean- ingful life and work adjustment. The progi'am presenti serves five classes of boys. `It is our intention to extend this program to include eight, additional (lasses of boys and one of girls during the next school year. Mr. (imn:Ex. On what basis dlO yOU limit the work study to boys? Mr. OIrRExJn:RGF~iT. It w-asn't our idea to limit, it to boys, but original- Iv the prograni started under our own auspices with our owii funds and we (ailed this Opportunity second Chance where we attempted to attract young men who had at least ~ years lost in school either by repetition or by not being in a school svsteni. It. was perhaps the restrict ion of our budget that piei-eiitecl us from operating with the ~iris. Mrs. GREEN. Are you using Federal funds for it now Mr. OIIRENBERGER. On this particular progi'am. yes. `\Ve started in September of this year. Mrs. GREEN. T would think this would be a clear violation of the law on the basis of segi'egation. I ant not. being facetious about. it. At. least ~iO percent of the dropouts are gi ils. I cant understand your PAGENO="0764" 758 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS thinking that even with limited funds in the Boston schools alone you Would, have it. only for boys. Mr. OIIRENBERGER. Actually. I have indicated we hope to have a class for o'irls. Mrs. (IREEN. I noticed that. You want to extend the program to include eight additional classes for boys and one for girls. Mr. OIIRENIn:noER. That seemed to be the demand at that time, Mrs. Green. Mrs. GREEN. I must say I would consider it a clear violation and I would think the funds w'ould be withheld from the Boston schools on the basis of funds being withheld in other areas on the basis of segregation. Mr. OIIRENIIER;EII. It w'asn~t our intent to segregate or act in con- I radiction of the law. Mrs. GREEN. Your statement is pretty (lear. If it wasnt your in- ent. von did it very successfully w'ithout any effort. Mr. OHRENBERGER. May I continue? Chairman PERKINS. Certainly. The following material was received for the record TilE Scirool. (`OMMITTEE OF TilE CITY OF BosToN, Boston. Mass., March .31, 1967. lIon. (`ARL I). PERKINS. .i1( (It 11(1' of (`ongres-s. 1 ION/I ington. D. C. I )E.~R (`ONGRESSMAN PERKINS In compliance with your request at the hearing l1e1(l by your (`oflulIlittee 011 Milr('h 5. 1967, I am submitting herewith the follow- lug sunimary report 011 our title I. ESEA. funds for fiscal years 1966 and 1967 and an estimate of the fiscal needs of the Boston Public schools under title I ESEA fr 1965 and 1969. Disposition of title I E~EA funds for 1966 and 1967 Authorized Allotted Expended 19610 - - - 51, 619, 840 53, 619, 840 I xl, 818, 327 1967 - 5,150,000 3,720,000 23720000 \\e are unable to spend our full 1966 allotment for the following reasons which were beyond our control: (a) State approval was not forthconuuig until Jmntuarv 1966, 2 months after our project submission of Nov. 4, 1965. ((0 25 percent of the total allotment was originally ~s ithheld by the Massachusetts Department of t: sluc'a 11011. (c) ( )riginal ant horization to spend mm 11' Oil e lUiPullent and remodeling was refused, and the restriction was lot retnovel until June 1966, very late in our school year. - Iii is figure includes cx p'Ildit ure~ and commit ineiit Fhe estimated ttscal needs of the Boston public schools undem' title I ESEA tot' 1965 aul(l 1969. as described iii dent ii iii the attached statement are these : 196S. 56.464.000 1969. ~9.46.'i.OO0. May I thiauik you for your utlauly (`I tirtesies 1111(1 hope that this imifot'itiatiomi \\`il I be of assistance iii oh ta ining the mle(-essa ry ftiiitls 0 iou iota iii a uid expand muican- iuigful programs and servo-es for the disadvantaged children of our city. Sincerely yours. WILLIAM H. OIIRENIIERGER. .`- U pei'in ten (lent If Pu blie ~`(cli oolx. PAGENO="0765" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY LDFCATION AMENDMENTS 759 ESTIMATE!) FISCAL NEEI)S OF TIlE BOSTON PUBLIC SCIIOOI.S l~!)El~ PITIE 1. ESEA. FROM SEPTEMBER 1. 1967. TIIR0FGII ArGUST 31. 1966. I. Office of Prograiti I )evelopineiit iltciu(liIIg iiiiIJur l)Ol'tiOll central office expenses and the Model I)emonstratioii Sub-sys- tem). 1966-67 allo(-atioll : 8715.000. 1967-GS iieeds : To establish OPD at full operational capacity aIl(l to bring the present model (lemonstration subsysteni up to its full istential. including the creation of true C()nl- inunity schools, and including salary increases for title I personnel ~1. 200. 000 1968-69 needs : To continue previous operations and to ex- paiid operations of model demonstratioii subsysteni to include an additional 1.000 children. preschool through high school 2. 600, 000 To provide for the creation of 6 OPD research aiid develop- ment teams 1 for each of the U areas of the city) , includ- ing a minilnuni of 3 people plus funds for consultants and iiiaterials, at. approximately ~100.000 per team-to I)e used in conjunction with ~300.000 provided directly through the Office of Compensatory Services (see below) 600, 000 Office of Program Development iieeds for 1968-69 4, 400. 000 II. Office of Compensatory Services enrichment program. 1960-67 allocation, $2,800,000. 1967-08 mieeds : To continue 1967-65 programil and to expan(l enrichment program to 10 additional districts and serve 9,000 additional pupils. To provide for community liaison program and educational emirichmnetit summer programs with private schools 4. 400, 000 To absorb smilmirv increases for title I pei'sonnel 280, 000 4. OSO. 000 1968-69 needs To continue l)rograllis ~f 1967-US 4. 600, 000 To absorb salary increases for title I personnel 280, 000 To provide for tramisition of proveti programs from the model demonstration subsystem to regular enrichment schools 300.000 Office of Compensatory Services needs for 196~-196tL~ 9,860,000 III. WSrk study program 1966-67 allocation: S grade IX classes. $89,500. 1967-68 needs: 9 grade IX classes and S grade X (`lasses. Total 1968-69 needs : Increase from 9 to 12 the grade IX (-lasses. implement 4 additional grade N classes as well as 5 grade NI groups. Total : 26 classes comprised of 12 in grade IN. 9 in grade X and S in grade NI. Estimated budget 55.5, 000 Total 870,000 I V. 1966-67 allocation ( so far, these programs have been supported by w-hatever funds can be squeezed out of existing title I pro- graimis ) : None. 1967-68 needs 300.000 1968-69 mlee(ls 500. 000 Total 800, 000 Total. 1968-69 mieeds 16. 737. 500 PAGENO="0766" 760 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS Mr. ()IIREXBERGER. The Boston public schools have also initiated a hroa(l l)laflflin~~ ~)rogram under title III. There are. three. major schools of medicine in the Boston area and we attempt. under title ITT to cooperate with diem. Four projects are in well-advanced plaunin~ stages. They are: Facility planning and educational programing at Boston's Horace Mann School for the Deaf in cooperation with Boston ITniversity. Medical sel'vices for the total commuhi ity. inservice pediatric train- 11g. and educational aiid facility planning for normal children, PhYs- ally handicapped (llildren. tiid eniotionall disturbed children in a new Quincv school in cooperation with Tufts-N.E. Medical Center. Extended family and health services, educational TV. and ecluca- tioiial j)rograilllng for public 011(1 nonpublic schools in cooperation with the Kennedy Faniilv Service Ceiiter of Ciiarlestow-n. Curriculum development and facility planning for a new campus- type high school and for three "fringe area" schools to be located with the objective of achieving racial balance. Emphasis 111)011 general health needs of pupils and p~1re11ts in one project and upon the specific health and e(lucational needs of phys- ically handicapped and eniotioiiallv disturbed clIit(lreli in two other projects should indicate our (lee!) concern and interest iii the imple- meiitation of title VT of the Education Act. Title VI would seem to offer opportunities for operational activi- ties in these. areas of need all(l tile Boston public schools eagerly look lorward to the. full utilization of this title. Finally, I and members of my staff have been deeply involved in title TV planning since immediately after the Education Act was passed. When a consortium of New England educators was asseni- bled to gather data and prepare a proposal. the Boston public schools were represented. We have maintained! a continuing and efiective association with t his group and have actively I)arti(il)ate(l ill planning. A proposal has now l)een submitted in which tile Boston public schools assume a significant role. Our involvement. an urban school pilot program, will be closely related to our current innovative planning ill the 5111)- system experiment. The Education ~ct has done a great (leal for the Boston public schools. W~e, in turn, feel that we have done a great deal for the Education Act. We have not been satisfied with the usual solut ions to educational problems. W~e are seeking imaginative solutions and, iii a measure, we feel we are succeeding. \Ve i iltell(1 to continue iii these directions. I thank von for this opportunity to testify. Chairman P:m~ixs. Go ahead, T)r. T)onovan. Mr. T)oxovax. The remaining three superintendents have very brief statements to make, Mr. Chairman. and then we will be finished. I would like to introduce the superiilten(lent of Milwaukee; Dr. ilar- 01(1 Vincent, who also is president of this Research Council of the Great Cities. Mr. \INCRXT. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I am here this nioin imig as a represeiltat iye of a large city school system embracing lot) square miles of territory and enroll- PAGENO="0767" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDT.TCATION AMENDMENTS 761 ing 125,000 pupils in grades kindergarteii through 12. Ihese pupilS are housed in 154 elementary and secondary school buildings staffed by some 5,00() certified peisonnel. Tjnder State law, these pupils must remain in full-tinie attendance until 18 years of age~ 01 until graduation from high school. This age requirement~ I)resel~ts an opportunity and a challenge to the, schools: it also presents certain problems that are not present when the per- mitted leaving age~ is 16 or 17. Milwaukee is experiencing many of the changes evident in the large cities of this country. The central city has a disproportionate share of families who suffer disadvantage and deprivation of many kinds. This, of course, has implications for the schools as efforts have Ueeii made to provide compensatory educational services iii areas of great~ population density and mobility. More recently, these efforts have been vastly expanded through legislation providing Federal funds for such purposes. [`nder present guidelines, funds under title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act may be used for approximately 10 percent of our school population, enrolled in some 20 percent of the schools. Programs developed and in operation under this title include some 30 comnpomients such as remedial reading (enters, special teachers, elemen- tary summer schools, lay aids, smaller classes, language development programs, inst i'uetional resource (enters, and exl)anded supportive services. Milwaukee has also availed itself of the provisions of the other titles of this act. In cooperation with tIme Fniversitv of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, we are completing our first ear's program with the National Teacher Corps. This program offers excellent, possibilities for the selection and train- ing of au increased number of teachers for work with children in dis- advantaged areas of the city. It' is our hope that this program may be doubled in our city next year. ITntil recently, all funds iuider the \oeatioiial Education Act have l)eeu channeled to tIme Milwaukee ~cliool for \oca~t ional Technical and Adult Education, aim outstanding imistit lit ion operated under a separate board. In the last 3 years, however, some funds have been made avail- able to develop vocational education asa l)~Irt ~mf time offerings of the (omnprehensive high schools. - Although we would wish to expa umd tim is plogra in. especially the. co- operative work-study phase of it, we a ic I imim ite(l by reason of the re- (juirement that 50 I)el'ceimt of the cost imiuist be carried in time local budget. As is true in all cities, our bu(lget is extremely liniited. Wrhen adequate funds at the. local, State. and ~atioimah levels are available, great advances ~`an be made in this area. of preparing more etle('tively for time world of work, iii addition to that (lone by the vo(at ional schools. Presently sonic 10 percent of our pupils are enrol le(l I)arttime or fuiltime iu~ sonic phase of our special education program. These of- lerinos inclu(le provisiomi for the mmiemmtallv retarded, time physically hiauudicappech the emotionally disturbed, those wit ii speedi difficulties, and those w-ithi other handicaps. Time need for expansion of these services and for time training of uiiaii more I cachet's of the handi- `aj)ped is clearly evident. PAGENO="0768" 762 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS Our school system also has availed itself of the other Federal fund- ing under the Economic Opportunity Act and other acts through such programs as Headstart, the Neighborhood Youth Corps, an intensive casework project. and improvements in instructional ma- terials through NDEA. Our 1967 budget for all fully or partially federally funded pro- grams allticipate~s an amount of $7,157,092. To this should be added $500,000 under Public Law 874, as amended, but not yet funded. How-ever, we will l)e short. of this total by over $1 million because of insufficient funding under ESEA title I and Public Law 874. It is important, therefore, that these projects be fully funded if pupils are to receive full benefits. Thank you. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, for your courtesy. Chairman PERKINS. Thank you. Mr. DONOVAN. The next speaker w-ill be the superintendent of the Baltimore public schools. Dr. Laurence Paquin. Mr. PAQFIN. Dr. Donovan. in his initial statement, gave an excellent overview- of the problems of the. large cities. Consequently, in my statement. today I want. to comment briefly on four of the amendments being considered in connection with possible changes in the Elemen- t a ry and Secondary Education Act. First, I support the. idea of having the National Teacher Corps program become a. Iart. of title I of the Elementary a.nd Secondary Education Act. of 1965. I also support. the extension of this program for a 3-year period. Like most large urban centers. Baltimore is having difficulty in recruiting teachers. Not~ only are we having difficulty getting enough teachers, we also are having trouble getting teachers with the special personal qualifications and professional skills which it takes to func- tion effectively in inner city schools. Last fall, for example. the Baltimore City Public schools opened with a shortage of nearly 200 teachers. Furthermore, many of the individuals we had to assign to classrooms were substandard in terms of their preparation for teaching. In Baltimore, about. one out of every four teachers lacks the minimum requirements for State certifi- cation. They ale in classrooms simply because w-ithout these people, we. would have to close, down. At the. present time, the Balitnmore City public schools have no National Teacher Corps teams-even though we desperately need such help. I am told that the prmcipal problem is t.o secure univer- sit.v cooperation to provide, the necessary training program. I am hopeful that bringing the National Teacher Corps into the Inainstremun of the Federal aid program will do much to give this important program the status and support it needs. Second. I support completely and with great. enthusiasm the idea of amending title V of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act to provide for sstematic. comprehensive, and continuous plan- ning by State and local educational agencies. I see this proposed amendment as a way of increasing the responsibility of the Sta.te for what happens-or does not happen-in the large urban school systems. The. Baltimore City public schools enroll about 1 out of every 4 ~\ [a uvl and children en rolled in public schools. Furthermore, the Bal- PAGENO="0769" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 763 timore City public schools have a disproportionate share of those pupils with unique and complex educational problems-problems which in large measure reflect the great environmental disadvantages to which many of these children are subjected. Chairman PERKINS. Before you leave that point, are you stating that you are in favor of the proposed amendment to title V being proposed by the administration? Mr. PAQUIN. I am in favor of the amendment to title V which brings in more of this regional planxdng kind of thing. Chairman PERKINS. Where they can bypass the States, do you support that? Mr. PAQUIN. This, I think, might be advantageous. I think the comment that Mayor Collins of Boston made recently is one which I find myself becoming more and more sympathetic to. Chairman PIii~xINs. You may proceed. Mr. PAQUIN. Baltimore City alone cannot resolve this critical issue. We need and seek the assistance and talent not only of the State edu- cation department, but of our colleagues in neighboring school sys- tems. We feel, too, that we have information and experience which can be helpful to them. The proposed amendment to title V of the Elementary and Second- ary Education Act will, in my judgment, help State and local com- munities take some needed steps in the direction of joint educational planning and evaluation. Third, I endorse fully the proposal to establish a 5-year program of financial grants to support the planning, development and operation of new and more realistic programs of vocational education. The Baltimore City public schools, in cooperation with the Maryland State Department of Education, have already taken steps t.o move in the direction of doing a better job of providing vocational education for our students than we have in the past. We feel strongly that we can no longer be complacent about the thousands of boys and girls who leave school because the school has little to offer them. By the same token, we cannot overlook the fact that many of our students who do complete high school have not, in school, learned a skill which will insure at least their entry into the labor force. As I stated previously, the Baltimore City public schools have already begun to tackle this problem. With the assistance of a team from New York University, we are making a complete survey of our vocational education facilities, staff, and program. This survey will be completed by September 1967. By early in 1968. the Baltimore City public schools will be ready to implement what we expect will be a "bold, new program." The proposed amendments to the Elementary and Secondary Edu- cation Act-amendments which provide $30 million for vocational education-will be essential if what we come up with in our study is to become more than a superficial change of the present inadequate program. Fourth, I commend those who would amend the present legislation to provide ~reater educational opportunities for handicapped children. As superintendent in Baltimore City, one of the most difficult aspects of my job is to be confronted with hundreds of handicapped children 75-492-67-----49 PAGENO="0770" 764 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS and be unable to provide them with some kind of educational program. For example, we have in Baltimore City about 225 trainable children who are not in school at all, but are on what is euphemistically called a "waiting list." These children are not in school because we have no space or teachers for them. We have another 500 trainable children "farmed out" to private institutions, an arrangement which is better than nothing, but which makes a mockery of the term "free public education." These parents have to pay substantial funds to make up t.he difference paid by the city and the charges made by the private institution. The situation is equally critical when one looks at the situation for children who are educable mentally ret.arded. We lack teachers who are sensitive and competent to deal with the educational problems that these. children present. I urge your committe and the Congress to step in and help with t.his serious problem. In closing, I want to say again something I am sure you have all heard many times, something that. President. Johnson said in his mes- sage delivered to the Congress on February 28, 1967. In that mesage, he point.ed up the problems of the incompatability of the legislative calendar and the academic calendar. When the President said, "I urge. that the C.ongress e.nact education appropria- tions early enough to allow the Nation's schools and colleges to plan effectively." he was asking for somcthing which is critically important to us all. We in Baltimore City have. not. been able to make the best use of Federal funds for the simple. reason t.hat. we have not. had the staff and time to plan effectively for the use of this money. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, for giving me this chance to he he.ard. I sincerely hope the views which I have expressed will he useful in your deliberations. Chairman PEI~KTXS. Thank von. Mr. DoNovAN. .Tust before. introducing the last superintendent, Mr. Chairman. I would like to repeat. that statements from Los Angeles, Chicago, St. Louis. Buffalo. and Memphis have been made available to the committee from those superintendents who are not, here today. The last superintendent to be heard is t.he. superintendent, of schools of Philadelphia., Dr. C. Taylor Whittier. Mr. HAWKTNS. Do I understand. Mr. Chairman, those statements have been made available, to us? I do not see copies of them. I understand the statements ha.ve been made available to t.he mem- bers of the committee, including Los Angeles, but I do not see suc.h statements before me. Mr. D~~m~~iiD. May I comment. on the Los Angeles statement.? I received copies in the mail at the hotel this morning, with the. message~ that. ~S1) copies had been sent. to the committee. I imagine, they a.re in your mail room right now. Fifty copies of the Los Angeles super- intendents statement are on the way to the committee. Chairman PEnKIXS. Without O1)jectlOfl. all of the statements will be. ~`,hmit ted for the record. W~"nld ~ proceed. p'ease? ~ WEITTTwR. Mr. Chairman and rnembcrs of the committee, T am C. Taylor Whittier. ~uperintendent of schools, Philadelphia, Pa. I PAGENO="0771" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 765 appreciate the opportunity of presenting this brief statement this morning. As we had agreed, Dr. Donovan was going to present the common concerns of the great cities, and this has been presented to the com- mittee.. I am glad to make these observations on behalf of the 276,000 students in our public schools in Philadelhpia. Philadelphia schools, in common with those of other urban centers during the past two generations, have assumed increasing responsibil- ities of awesome complexity. These have not been accompanied by a corresponding allocation of the Nation's manpower and wealth. The range of pupil ability and motivation in a rapidly changing social and economic environment has precipitated the need for new programs, services, and facilities. Parents imcritic.ally, for the most part, have delegated many home responsibilities to the schools. The civic leaders and planners were absorbed, during the past 15 or 20 years. in concent.ratin~ on physical redevelopment and the improve- ment of physical servicing with water, roads, public housing, and redevelopment. Unfortunately, this surge of improvement, swept around the human service institutions. This was true of the Philadelphia school system. Years of neglect led to the pileup of critical and interrelative problems which now demand a massive infusion of human, financial, and governmental re- sources. Nothing short. of this will be enough if public education in Philadelphia is to meet its new challenges. The various forms of Federal aid to education have been of great benefit. to tens of t.housands of children in Philadelphia. Many new programs involving children from the age of 3 up through high school have been made possible during the past few years. These have been supplementary, remedial, therapeutic, movative, and th some extent experimental in nature a.nd have made available educational, cultural, recreational, and vocational activities. Children of all abilities on all levels of the school system have. bene- fited. A major impact was made on the. areas of the city designated as "pockets of poverty." Federal aid to education must assume a much larger share of t.he sul)port of the Philadelphia schools in the future. Increasing finan- cial needs cannot be met in sufficient amount from State and local sources. To be more effective, Federal aid should be more responsive to local needs. More time for planning, greater flexibility, and more. careful evaluation would improve the total effort. Fewer programs, focused on the most pressing educational needs would seem to provide a wiser and more efficient application of Federal funds. I strongly urge the consideration of a program that would provide general aid to education rather than earmarking a large number of separate appropriations for limited use and purposes. If general aid were provided. each school system could be called U~u)11 to develop a. short- and long-range plan and a rationale for rais- ing the quality of its educational offerings. The Philadelphia ~ schools, in common with other major cities, are beset by three maor problems: manpower shortage., inadequate f:iHlitie'~. :miu'l a lack of know-how to solve the tough problems of urban PAGENO="0772" 766 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS education. General Federal aid to education is therefore desperately needed. Mi of us can take encouragement from the message from the Pres- ident of the Fnited States delivered on February 28, 1967, on pro- posals for comprehensive programs in health and education. Recom- in en(lati ons on eva luati on, sufficient planning time, teacher training assistance, the Teacher Corps, programs for handicapped children, vo- cational education, adult basic education, television and radio facility and construction and instructional television, are especially note- worthy. The additional resources recommended under title IV of the Civil Rights Act would support the efforts being made in Philadelphia to achieve the goal of quality integrated education. The proposed increases in the 1967-68 budget for the implementa- tion of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act will make it possible for the schools of Philadelphia to continue and build upon the gains made from this source of funds. We must. not allow the dis- advantaged children of Philadelphia to be let down. There should he no retreat from the forward movement already in motion to provide all children with equality of educational opportunity. The Philadelphia public schools have a special interest in the Pres- ident's recommendations to extend the benefits of Project Headstart upward. We are already planning to take full advantage of this op- portunity as soon as enabling legislation and appropriations are enacted. America's slums have traditionally supplied the muscle power for the national economy. The technological revolution makes this tra.di- t.ion a liability. Optimum human development now makes this good economic as well as human sense. The schools are now being reco - nized a~ the central institutions to bring this about. Increased Fe - era.l aid to education must assume an increasing share of responsibility for helping the States and local school systems at this time of educa- tional crisis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to present my views today. Chairman PERKINS. Let me compliment all of the greater cities su- perint.endent.s for coming here this morning to give us the benefit of their views. We all appreciate the great emergency tha.t exists throughout the entire city school systems of this country for the reasons that the gen- tlemen have stated. Next week we will have a day for the rural school superintendents. I think it is altogether important that we get the picture from your viewpoint and the rural viewpoint. If I understand you gentlemen correctly today, the operation of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act has been very effective insofar as contributing to special education problems in your cities, so-called educationally deprived children, but that the program, by and large, is underfunded. Am I plac.in~ a correct evaluation on particularly title I of the Ele- mentary and Secondary Education Act that you gentlemen have all placed on the act? PAGENO="0773" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATWN AMENDMENTS 767 Mr. DONOVAN. Yes, sir, I believe YOU have. Mr. Wrnrrn~R. Yes. Chairman P1~iuuNs. You all agree that it has contributed to an im- provement of your school systems? Mr. DONOVAN. Yes, sir. Chairman PERKINS. And that the program is underfunded at the present time; is that correct? Mr. DONOVAN. That is right, sir. Chairman PERKINS. With the funds that you have available, you stress the great emergency that has existed in the absence of good teachers, the teacher emergency, and the great need for school con- struction, with the funds that you have available under title I, do you feel that those funds could be bett.er utilized for programing purposes the way you are presently utilizing those funds than to branch out the school construction and, likewise., do you feel that we must have a school construction bill involving in the end the expenditure of sev- eral billion dolars, but until we get that type of legislation, is it your suggestion that we continue to use these funds under title I for pro- graming purposes? I would like to hear your views on that. Mr. DONOVAN. I would like to speak on behalf of New York City here. The other gentlemen may speak for themselves. As far as we are concerned, the funds under title I are needed for programing purposes. I do not feel in my city I could divert them to construction. We would be robbing Peter to pay Paul by doing so. We feel that until such time as Congress can come to a construction bill, and I hope that is quickly, we would like to keep these funds for the purposes for which they are now being used. Chairman PERKINS. You can think of no better way that we can utilize the funds than you are now utilizing the funds? Mr. DONOVAN. I don't know of any better way that we could utilize the funds we have now. If additional funds come, we have another way of utilizing them. Chairman PERKINS. Is that the consensus among you gentlemen? Mr. DAILARI. Yes. Chairman PI~iuuNs. There has been a lot of controversy centered around part B of title V, where you can bypass the State educational agencies. I listened attentatively to the testimony of the city school superintendent from Baltimore who agreed with the proposed amend- ment. I am wondering whether the other superintendents are in accord with the statement made by the gentlemen from Baltimore. Mr. DONOVAN. I would like to make it clear on the part of New York City, and I think here each State and city must speak for itself because we find ourselves in a very delicate position-I think that in the State of New York the relationships between the State educa- tion department and t.he large cit.ies of the State have improved so much recently that I would be in favor of this amendment for giving State and regional planning funds, and I would not particularly be worried at this moment as to whether it was the State education de- partment or the New York City Board of Education that was going to do the planning. PAGENO="0774" 768 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS Our relationships happen to be good. I think that is important in the educational system, that the St.ate and city relationships be good. I cannot speak for other States. Chairman PERKINS. I would like to hear all of you address your- selves to this particular point. It is very much in controversy within the committee. Mr. WrnrrrliR. I would like to comment on that point, if I might. I think one of the concerns that we all have, as we move to a broader base, and I think this must be studied and plans must be moved in this direction, is that we also have to involve the other school districts and areas in our States. I can~t help but feel it would strengthen this relationship ultimately for the State to play a~ key part in it. I think that the issue is not at which point it is going to be done in terms of funding but, rather, that we do it in a way that will bring about maximum cooperation of the various segments in the area. I think that this can be done more effectively, probably, through the State relationship than otherwise. I think one of the problems that some of the great cities, at least in our case, have suffered at the State level is the feeling that it is not part of the total State. We would like to feel that we are a part of the total commonwealth of the State. I think to tie this into a meaningful total relationship in the long run would be more healthy than it would be to pull it out. Mr. VINCENT. I think my viewpoint would be very much the same. In our particular State we would be in favor of an increasing role on the part of the State department of public instruction. Mr. OHRENBERGER. The relationship in Boston with the State board of education has presented no difficulty in the preparing of these par- ticular titles, and I don't foresee any difficulty in the future. I would go along with greater State participation. Mr. D\TLARD. Our relationship in California has been good. We would favor the appropriation planning going through the State education department. `We have had problems under title III where there has been a direct district relationship, a relationshij) between each district and the Office of Education of the United States. I can illustrate the adequacy of our relationship in California. The State hoard of education farmed out. to our particular school district a part of the title VI funds to do research for the improvement of the State department of education. I think this is indicative of the sound and wholesome relationship. Mr. FORD. Would the chairman yield for a question? Chairman PERKINS. Yes. Mr. FORD. Yesterday we had testimony from the Commissioner of Education and from the Secretary of Health, Education, and `Welfare to the effect that their interpretation of title VB would be that the Governors of the respective States would designate the board or com- mission that w'e are talking about, and it might not necessarily be the State educational agency or superintendent~ of public instruction, or State school board, whatever it is called, that he designates. They said they presumed he generally would. How would you, as city superintendents, feel if the pattern became the appointment of an independent agency outside of the normal State agency? PAGENO="0775" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 769 Mr. DAILARD. Speaking for west coast cities, we would rather see it go through the established agency, rather than set up another agency to deal with one facet of education. Mr. DONOVAN. I wonder if I might respond, and I think I am responding for all the superintendents here. One of the difficulties we have had in the past couple of years is the proliferation of agencies dealing with education. I referred to it before when I talked about the prekindergarten program in the Office of Economic Opportunity, and so forth. We feel that the public school system of this country is strong enough and capable enough of handling educational problems and handling them well. We welcome the assistance of other agencies, but not that other agencies take over what public education should be doing. Therefore, I think what we are talking about here is that this plan- fling be done by State education departments and not by a new agency set up outside that department. Mr. PAQUIN. Mr. Chairman, may I comment on this? In my case this is rather an acute situation in the. sense that in the State of Maryland the city of Baltimore is the only large city. The feeling that we have, or at. least. I have, is the fact that we are, in a sense, isolated from the rest. of the State. I would be very much in accord with any type of program which would have the effect of bringing not. only State organizations, but other school systems in the State, in some kind of an effective work- ing relationship with the city. The problems that we are confronted wit.h aren't just. going to be resolved within the city limits. We are going to need the experience and the cooperation of these people. By the same token, I think there is much that we can contribute and help them with. Chairman PERKINS. Mr. Brademas. Mr. BRADEMAS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I regret, gentlemen, that I was not. able to be here for all your testi- mony, but I have been hastily reviewing it. Three points stand out in my mind. One is on the Teachers Corps. I was just making a listing of the comments made by those of you whose testimony I have had a. chance to review. I not.ice that in New York, Mr. Donovan asked for full funding of the corps, that Milwaukee wants to double the program next year, that St. Louis wants a Teachers Corps and is working on it, that Philadelphia lists it among the noteworthy proposals of the administration, that Balti- more has no Teachers Corps but you desperately need such help. I haven't gotten through the rest of the statements yet. I take it that. it would not be an unfair conclusion to assume that the school superintendents in the greatest urban centers of our country are strongly in favor of the Teachers Corps. Does anyone disagree with that conclusion? The reason I raise the point is because I have been puzzled, as I ~have said about six times during the hearings, by the fact that we hear a lot of criticism in Washington but we don't hear much criticism from you gentlemen who have, to deal with the problem of providing teachers for the disadvantaged at. the grassroots level. The second point I would like t.o raise is a question and not a con- clusion of my own: Would you make any comment with respect to PAGENO="0776" 770 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMEWFS your title III programs and your relationship as local school admin- istrators with the State departments of education? Would you ad- dress yourselves specifically to the question? Would you favor a statutory, mandatory veto power over title III programs on the part of the State departments of education? Mr. DONOVAN. As far as title III goes in the State of New York, we have had good relationships. Of course, we all know that title III is the one title where everybody has to fight for a small amount of money. There is really no allocation to anybody. You just have to go in and fight with hundreds of other projects as they come along. Fortunately, in our State we have a close working relationship. We have gotten some very fine projects throughout the State. I do not know that I would like just a. definite veto power. I don't know what proposal that might be, but I do know that the cooperative effort should be continued. Mr. BRADEMAS. Let me make the distinction. At the present time, the act calls for review and recommendations on the part of the State department of education. It has been proposed that the State now be given the right~ to disapprove title III recommendations by local school systems. It is to that question that I was addressing myself. Mr. DONOVAN. Here, again, I am only going to talk for New York Cit.y. If anybody has to veto us at all, I would prefer it to be the St.ate and not the Federal Government.. I think they know more about the operation of the city than does the Federal Government. Mr. BRADEMAS. Could we get some. comments on that question from the rest of you? Would you give me any comments on any difficulties you have had with your State departments of education? Mr. DAILARD. We have had no difficulty in California on this. There has been a procedure by which all projects are reviewed in the State department. This has been an effective and cooperative relationship. I think it is true that only those projects which have been recommended by the State department after this review have been approved. We think it is a healthly relationship. I think I would agree with Dr. Donovan that if anybody has to veto, we would rather it be those who are close enough at hand to see what is actually happening. Mr. BRADEMAS. Are there any ot.her comments? Mr. PAQUTN. Yes. My feeling on this is, in the first place, we have not had any difficulty as far as the State is concerned, but I would be inclined to take the point of view that I would rather be able to go beyond the State. At least it gives you some possibility of an appeal. Mr. BRADEMAS. Does anyone else have any comment? Mr. VJNc1~wr. We have had no problem in our State of Wisconsin. I would not fear any such type of legislation. I would agree with the others that if there is to be a veto, I would prefer to see it at the State department of education. Mr. WHIT1TER. I would say we fared very well imder title III and have no complaints at the present time. I think if we are going to do this, I think we need to work to strengthen the State program in the best interest, of keeping the control close to home so if it has to go in this direction I would say it would go in this direction, although I can't make any complaints at the present time. PAGENO="0777" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDLCATION AMENDMENTS 771 Mr. BRIGGS. I would like to think that there might be some appeal above the State level. The experience we have had in Ohio in the past, and I am sure it would not be repeated in the future because there are being some real improvements, mdicated an unfriendly State department of public instruction to urban areas. For example, the Vocational Education Act of 1963, as the State planned, was first established for the distribution of these funds in Ohio which would not have included a single dime to be spent in any one of the eight larger cities of the State. This was never the intent of this Congress. If it had not been for massive newspaper and news media support, that money would have all gone into rural areas and none of it into the areas of unemployment. I dislike having to use the weapon of the news media to force a State into putting the money where Congress originally intended it should go. I doubt that this situation will ever occur again. But it just seems to me that at the source of the appropriation there should also be perhaps an opportunity of appeal. Mr. BRADEMAS. I have just one other question: That is with respect to proposed amendments to title V that would provide funds for long- range comprehensive planning. One witness suggested this week that the various provisions set forth in that proposed amendment might result in Federal molding in a mandatory way of planning for education. I take it, however, that most of you favor the proposed amendment to title V. I wonder if you do see in that proposed amendment any such danger. If so, I would be interested in hearing it. Mr. DONOVAN. I have looked at that amendment and I don't exactly read that into it. I do know it is quite obvious that wherever Federal funds are appropriated, there will be some Federal aspect involved in it because the funds are not just donated without any strings attached. But in this particular case, it seems to leave the comprehensive plan- ning to the State or local agencies. While I am at the microphone, I would like to remind you that in our statements about the Teacher Corps, while we are all in favor of it, we did make other comment that we are in favor of it only if it is fully funded. Mr. BRADEMAS. Are. there any other comments on that or the title V question? Thank you, Madam Chairman. Mrs. G~EN (presiding). First, I am very glad that you gentle- men could be here this morniiig. I think it. would be. very helpful for us to hear more often from school superintendents. For years I have felt t.hat you are. given all of the problems that so'.ietv has created. and you are expected to solve them somehow during the 6 or 7 hours a day the youngsters are in school. I would like to turn to one specific question and then to a general question, if I may. The specific one grew out of the testimony of the superintendent from Boston. May I ask the. other city supe.riflten(leflts if the work-study program is geared for one particular group? Do von admit boys as PAGENO="0778" 772 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS easily as girls, or whites as easily as nonwhites, Catholics as easily as Protestants? What is the policy ? Mr. DONOVAN. In New York City, the work-study program, which has been in effect now for about 51 years, admits both boys and girls, it always has, admits children regardless of race, religious background, or anything else. We have about 5,000 children in the program at this time.. Mrs. GREEN. how many boys and girls are in your program? Mr. DONOVAN. In our city there are more girls in it, it just happens, than boys because most of the jobs are in stenography, typing, that type of work, and in the stores. I could not give you the figure today, but I could send it to you. Mrs. GREEN. To save time, is there any other school that has pro- grams in work study for boys only, or with any other discrimination? I (10 want. to read the Civil Rights Act, which says that to fail or to refuse to hire or to discharge any individual or otherwise to discrim- inate against any individual with respect. to his compensation, terms. conditions or privileges of employment., because of such individual's race, color, sex, religion, or national origin is an unlawful employment practice. It (loes seem to me that I would hope Boston would change. their goals at the moment. I am surprised that someone. has not brought this to the attention of the National Commission. Mr. FORD. Would the gentleladv yield for a question? Mrs. GREEN. Yes, but not out of my 5 minutes. Mr. FonD. I will take it from my time. I would like to ask if the gentlela.dy feels that. the same sort. of reason- ing would apply to the programs typified by the program in the Detroit school system which is exclusively for girls who must. leave schools because of a. particular problem they have; namely, that they get pregnant. If we follow that. kind of reasoning, we might very well destroy this very worthwhile program in a. numbe.r of the cit.ies represented by these gentlemen. Mrs. GREEN. No: I t.hink we should have a program, and have the unwed mothers and unwed fathers in the same class. Mr. DONOVAN. That is what. caused the problem originally. Mrs. GREEN. I would be delight.ed to join with my friend from Michigan in arranging such classes. I listened with interest to one of our witnesses who talked about classes for unwed mothers. It. seems to me that. this is an area, too, as I see it, that could stand some curriculum change.s. If I may go to a general question now, I am sure the members of this committee are fully aware of the problems tha.t. we create for you, by late funding. As we held hearings across the Nation, this was t.he No. 1 criticism, that you can't plan your programs wisely or intelligently. We are. also keenly aware, many of us. who come from the cities with the terrible tax problems and burdens on local voters. We also have heard frequently about categorical versus the general aid. I would suspect that everybody on this committee, on both sides of the aisle, will admit the benefits in the last. 9 years through the Federal aid programs, even though they have been categorical in nature. PAGENO="0779" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 773 I would like to ask a hypothetical question: If you gentlemen could go back to 1958, and could devise a kind of a Federal program to help not oiiiy the big cities, but also t.he other areas, what would you pro- pose? What kind of Federal legislation would you propose? Mr. DONOVAN. May I indicate that I think what we are talking about and what we might propose would be something similar to the method by which State aid is given to education in local school Sys- tems. State aid is usually given to us, I know, in varying amounts m different States, for general educational purposes. Some States have categorical aids on top of that. In the State of New York, we get general State aid. We are not told how to use it. It is a fundamental, basic part of the financing of our program. We can predict it ahead of time. We base our finances upon that State aid, plus city aid. I would envision the most effective type of Federal aid would be something similar to that in nature, as a foundation program. Mr. PAQUIN. May I add something to that? I thmk if we could rewrite this program I would also like to see, in addition to a founda- tion program, some type of weighting formula, or a formula of that type, which recognized some of the unique and distinctive, problems. I am thinking of the handicapped children and that sort of t.hrng. It would be a basic formula but with a supplemental appropriation or grant for children in those special education problem categories. Mrs. GREEN. You would have some of the funds earmarked; is that what you are saying? You would have categories? Mr. PAQUIN. For example, you might provide a double per-pupil- basis grant for the number of children that you had in that category. Yes, I suppose in a sense it would amount to earmarking for that because it would be an obligation to spend it. on those children. Mrs. GREEN. If you had your "druthers" today, would you support the extension of existing programs with all the categorical limitations as your first choice, or would you support the program that might be the modified Heller plan or the Helle.r plan with the. State's share of Federal funds going to that State either through the State department of education to be distributed to the local districts or to the State department with a particular sum earmarked for the. cities with no strings attached? Mr. DONOVAN. If I had my choice in the legislation, I would like to see the general funds going through the State to the cities earmarked on specific amounts. But I don't think we should continue all the cate- gorical aids. As was indicated, you might have handicapped chil- dren, but you don't have to have special legislation. They can be weighted in your formula, and they would still get the general aid. Mrs. GREEN. I beheve my 5 minutes are up. We are coming back this afternoon. Maybe we could turn to this in the afternoon. Mr. DONOVAN. I didn't know whether we were coming back or not. Chairman PERKINS. Yes, we are coming back this afternoon. Mrs. GREEN. Are the gentlemen coming back this afternoon? Chairman PERKINs. I hope they are, to accommodate the committee. Mr. DONOVAN. Most of us a.re coming back. Some might have to PAGENO="0780" 774 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS Chairman PERKINS. I think the committee will keep you here, as many of you as can possibly stay, perhaps until 5 o'clock. We will return about 1 :30 when we recess. Mrs. GREEN. I will pursue that question, if I may, this afternoon. Chairman PERKINS. Mr. Erlenborn? Mr. ERLENBORN. Mr. Chairman, I would just as soon pass at this point. Chairman PERKINS. Mr. Ford? Mr. Form. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to discuss with the panel, while you are here, the appropriations problem that we seem to be facing in this legislation. The administration representative testified before this committee, and we know that the budget request for title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act this year will be $1.2 billion, as con- trasted with the amount we authorized for fiscal year 1968 of $2.4 billion. A quick check with the pencil will show you that is a $146 million increase if we get 100 percent funding of the request for funds. I made a quick calculation on the States that you gentlemen represent. Taking, as an example, California, in 1966 California had $79 million as an entitlement and we actually gave you $67 million. In 1967 we had an $111 million authorization from this committee and you actually got $74 million. For fiscal 1968 we would have given you $138 million, but you will receive $74,577,000, or $217,000 more than you received last year. In the States of Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Ohio, you will receive not one penny more than you received in fiscal year 1967. In the State of New York, you will receive $339,000; in Maryland you will get $44,000; and in the State of Texas, out of that $146 million, they will get $14,007,000, and the State of Tennessee over $10 million. This indicates that not very much of the $146 million increase is going to several of you gentlemen present this morning. The ques- tion really is: Assuming that at this level of funding what we are really going to do is give you what you had in 1967, what does this mean to you in terms of carrying on the ongoing program that you have undertaken? Mr. DONOVAN. If we are merely going to be funded at the same amount that we were funded at for the past year, it does not mean that we are going to maintain status quo. It means we are going back. We are going to retrogress. In the first place, our costs go up each year a few percent. We can't help it. It is the automatic moving up of all the costs of pro- grams that we have. If you are going to take that amount of money and spread it over a number of other matters, it is not going to help us at all. I feel that that kind of an appropriation is going to be a bad blow to the conduct of these programs in the big cities. Mr. DAILARD. For the big cities and the smaller cities. There is a certain amount of disenchantment occurring now. In the first year there was a short operation and everybody accepted that it was going to be better next year. But it hasn't been better this year. It has been worse. If we go into another year in which we have retrogression. I think it would be very destructive to the program. PAGENO="0781" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 775 Mr. ERLENBORN. Obviously the big cities have moved ahead faster than the smaller school districts in taking advantage of these programs. Are there any of you who feel that looking at what you expended in 1967 is in any way a reasonable appraisal of the needs to carry out what we have stated to be the intention of the programs under title I? Mr. BRIGGS. I would like to react a little bit to that. Our problems are pyramiding faster than our solutions are bringing relief. In 10 years in the city of Children, our ADC children have gone up by 412 percent in public schools, and they are continuing to rise. Middle-class people are still leaving our big cities. The problems of the inner city are more intense today than they were 1 year ago. I do not think that we have begun to scratch the surface. I think this means that we will be watering down the program more than we have in the past. I just don't think we can have the same quality programs really relative to the quantity if those appropriations remain static, and our problems are not being washed out. The problems of the big cities are becoming greater each day. Mr. Foiw. Mr. Scheuer has asked me to yield, but before yielding I would like to observe that every Member of Congress likes to have at least one economic vote that he can talk about when he gets back home. It appears to me that if we fund this at the rate being asked for by the administration at the present time, this will be the economy vote I can cast, but I am not going to talk about it back home. Mr. BRIGGS. We are getting too many of those economy votes in the school business. Mr. SCHEIJER. There is a very deep sense of frustration here, as you may have detected from Congressman Ford's question, about the pau- city and the thinness of this program, dramatized by the fact that States like New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and California are getting absolutely no increase at all over what they had last year. The excuse and the justification for maintaining this trivial level of infusion into the city of resources that we get from HE'W is that we don't have the staff and the professional wherewithal to expand these programs radically. Could you give us an estimation of the percent- age increase in the resources that went to your State last year, the percentage increase over that level, which you could use effectively this year and next year, perhaps with training programs which you could get going promptly so you may develop not only t.he professional personnel but perhaps the subprofessional teacher aides and the like? What is your capability of using vastly greater resources than you now have? Can you give us a percentage figure? Mr. DAILARD. With leadtime and opportunity for planning. We are hiring teachers right now. Our budget report goes in next month. We don't know what the plan is. We can spend it-the full appro- priation that is authorized. Mr. BRIGGS. I would say a 50-percent increase in Cleveland in the next year, if the money were available. No one from HEW has asked us whether we are capable of amounting more. That. question has never come up. We have always been capable of mounting more than what we have mounted. PAGENO="0782" 776 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS Mr. SclIEUER. If you could use 50 percent the next year, how nsuch could you use the year after that, if you instituted training and devel- opment plans now for professionals and for nonprofessional aides. Mr. BnIc,Gs. I would like to think that in the city of Cleveland in the period of 3 to 5 percent. ahead we could reach a per-pupil expendi- ture equivalent, to the average of the Greater Cleveland neighborhood. This would call for a doubling of our total budget in the city of Cleveland. ihis is possible if the money were available. Mr. T)oNovAN. In the. first place., in New York we are prepared to mount the programs for the full appropriation. That is the first thing. We don't come anywhere near that at this point. That is a sizable amount in our city. Beyond that., because we are not always talking about teachers, but about assistant teachers, indigenous people and other people. the helpless we have not eve.n called upon yet, we say we can go at least. 50 percent over this-as can any other great city sittmg here. Wh~~t we could mount in future years, I would have to consider that carefully. We could go over these. because there is a vast reservoir of untapped resources we have not yet gotten to. Mr. SCHEUER. I would like you, Mr. Donovan, and any of the rest of you, to give us letters as to how much of a percentage increase you could use over this year's allocation, and for next year and the next 2 years. I would like unanimous consent to include in the record the entitle- ments and allotments to various areas in fiscal 1966 and fiscal 1968. Chairman PERKINS. Without. objection it is so ordered. (The document referred to, a letter to Chairman Perkins, follows:) Entitlements and allotments to selected States under title I, ESEA Act, fiscal years 1966-68 [In thousandsi State Fiscal year 1966 Fiscal year 1967 Fiscal year 1968 Fiscal year 1968 Increase Entitle- ment Allotment Entitle- meat Allotment Entitle- ment Allotment California Maryland Michigan Missouri New York Ohio Pennsylvanla~~~~ Tennessee Teans Wisconsin $79, 329 15.667 35,669 30,517 113,501 39,908 57,860 32.617 78,885 18,506 $67, 996 9,551 31,758 23,630 112. 567 34,656 48, 176 29,535 66,261 13, 278 $111, 199 21,384 45,685 33,751 166, 210 45,396 66, 983 34,415 91,561 21, 794 $74, 360 14,668 32,408 23,919 114, 811 35,127 48,634 29,786 68,887 14,931 $138,130 28,729 61,576 54,348 216, 533 70,733 97,463 85,974 176,179 35,078 $74, 577 14,712 32,408 25,571 115,150 35,127 48,634 40,452 82,894 16, 504 +$217 +44 0 +1,652 +339 0 0 +10,666 +14,007 +1. 573 Bo.&an OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, Brooklyn, N.Y., March 3, 1967. Hon. CARL D. PERKINS, Chairman, House Committee on Education and Labor, House Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN: During the current school year we have had the National Teacher Corps program operating in sixteen of our elementary and junior high schools which serve disadvantaged pupils. The program has involved seventy- five interns and twenty team leaders. These interns are being trained to work PAGENO="0783" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 777 effectively with disadvantaged children. In addition, they are spending a con- siderable portion of their time in community activities, afternoons, evenings and weekends, which directly affect children in their schools. Finally, in their college course work they are receiving the theoretical training which will sharpen their skills as teachers of disadvantaged youth. We, of the New York City Board of F1ducation, have been greatly impressed both with the quality of the training they are receiving and with the effectiveness of their work. We are most anxious that this National Teacher Corps program be continued for the coming school year and urge that you support Congres- sional action which will provide the necessary funds. Sincerely, BERNARD E. DONOVAN, Superintendent of Schools. Chairman PERKINS. Mr. Esch. Mr. ESCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Gentlemen, I just have the one or two areas of interest. First of all, there has been general discussion as to the. problems relating to the predictability of funding. You suggested part of this was from the appropriations aspect. Other parts may have been in terms of relationship with the Depart- ment. Would you care to comment on how we might develop better communications between hEW and your own (listricts on these matters? Mr. WTTIrrrIER. Let me make this one comment, if I might. I think one of the problems, the same one we have aihided to before, is that there needs to be as intense an underst.anding of the problems of the big cities as possible. We think this is not the case. I think this is a problem both as we have implied here at the State level as well as the Federal level. I think that we who live with this prolbem every day feel this intensity that one, more remote from the problem does not feel. Therefore, we are back to what is always a problem in our opera- tion. That is a matter of adequate communications, not only of facts but of the emotional responses necessary to make those facts a reality. I think this is one of the things at least I would-say is an important aspect of it. The mechanics of how to do it is a pretty difficult thing to come by. But I think this is part of the real problem that we face. Mr. DONOVAN. May I suggest, sir, that we have had discussions with the U.S. Commissioner of Education, as a result of which he has ap- pointed some large city superintendents to an advisory committee, so that the points of view of the large cities would be prevented. Sometimes it is not just that part that counts. That gets across at the top, but between there and the bottom layers it gets lost in inter- pretations at times. So we are working on that aspect. Mr. ESCH. I seemed to sense that there was somewhat a consensus that this is a problem but you don't want to discuss details at this time. Let's go to another area. The question was raised earlier as to the. nature of involving State planning. I just. want to reemphasize what. you have reemphasized: that there has been improvement generally in terms of State p1arr~ing in relationship t.ø large districts and that. you generally favor the further development, of this area~ that is, utilization of statewide planning in relationship to the large cities ~? PAGENO="0784" 778 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS Mr. DONOVAN. I think that is true. It has been different in different States, but we think progress is being made on all levels in all States. Mr. DAILARD. Prior to redistricting this year these cities I represent had four members in the California Senate and now they have 20 out of the 40. It is better. That is from redistricting. Mr. OHRENBERGER. I would say involving the State leadership gives the city a greater part in the community, as far as the State is con- cerned, to treat us as separate entities. Without being involved through the State department would only continue what happened prior to this. Mr. Escii. I have one other question. From reflecting on Mrs. Green's question in terms of categorization as opposed to broad- based aid or aid without categorization. Is it not true that histori- cally our school districts have not developed specific programs aimed at such things as impoverished children, and they have not done so because of the lack of local pressure to do these very things? If you did not have specific programs would you have developed these programs even if you had more funds? Mr. DONOVAN. I can only answer for New York City, but I am pretty sure I am answering for every other one at the same time. We did not wait for the Federal Government to come with funds for us to develop programs for children in impoverished areas. In New York City we have had these programs for years. What the Federal funds did was to help us to stimulate more opportunities. But we had a tremendous program in what we call our special serv- ice schools, of which we have about 350 in the city of New York, before Federal funds ever came. They only came in the last year or two in any sizable quantity. But the Federal funds gave that much more push, that much more opportunity and also helped to pinpoint the problem for us. I think this is true of all the big cities that are here today. Mr. ESCH. Would any of you care to comment on the amount of money spent on vocational training programs in your schools in rela- tionship to the other educational aspects, for example, as a measure of this? Mr. VINCENT. I would not want to comment on that because in our particular State this is handled by a separate board, both at the State level and at the local level. All the vocational funds have been chan- neled through these divisions. With respect to the other, I would point out that the great cities group organized about 11 years ago, and among one of the very early projects was specifically the thing you have referred to. Many of them were financed on an experimental basis by private foundations. In our own city, for example, the entire program in this area was funded by the Ford Foundation for a period of 3 years, and then was taken over by our own budget. It could not go any further because of the limitations that we had. Mr. Escn. Thank von, gentlemen. If you do go back to just the direct funding-would you be able to accept the responsibility of all the internal pressures toward con- tinuing on programs which you have started in the next 2 years? I think that is an interesting question that we might address ourselves to. Mr. Chairman. PAGENO="0785" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 779 Mr. DAILAIW. The Federal programs in these areas have given us the opportunities to accelerate somewhat in keeping with the growth of the problem. If we did not have the funds, we could not move nearly as fast. Chairman PERKINS. Mr. Hathaway. Mr. HATHAWAY. I would like to elaborate a little on Mrs. Green's questions as to the panel. Dr. Donovan, on page 4 of your statement your express the sentiments shared probably by a majority of the school superintendents in other States of let's stop this categorical aid in the next year or the year after and just give you the money because you know what to do with it. It seems to me that the Elementary and Secondary Education Act has more than just given money to the various States. It has stimu- lated innovations in education. I would think that we need continued stimulation and innovation in education, and we won't have to drop categorical aid next year or the year after or ever. I would like to have you and other members of the panel explain why we should drop categorical aid in the near future and go to general aid programs. Mr. DONOVAN. I think in the rest of the statement you might find the sentence that I think general aid is the basic aid that should be given. But I recognize the desirability of Congress stimulating the school districts now, and then, in certain directions, and therefore, the basic general aid is needed and certain categorical aid might be put on top of that. For example, title III. That is strictly innovative. Then it is not for anything else. There is not anything there very innovative about title I. We are pouring title I into programs that may have some- thing innovative in them, but they are essentially getting at the hard core that we knew existed and did not have the funds to deal with. Now we have the funds. So there is nothing wrong with general aid for the general conduct of a program, supplemented by occasional specific categorical aid. I think I made that statement before. You do stimulate some innovative approaches. But I must also say that innovation was not yet created by a congressional act. There must be some credit given for the fact that innovation has always proceeded even on a local level. Only now, with additional money, you are able to carry out some things you could not carry out before. I don't think title I is strictly an innovative provision. Title III is strictly innovative. Title I is an approach to disad- vantaged children, and it was the hope that new approaches would be made. Mr. HATHAWAY. As a result of title I money, many new ideas have come into play. Maybe that is not true in urban areas as much as in rural areas. Mr. OHRENBERGER. In our title I proposal, we did not feel that we could absorb all the funds for the disadvantaged. For example, in Boston, our enrichment program, I would say, which takes the bulk of the title I money is now in 16 districts. We feel they should be released to additional districts that should have it. But we did have to weigh effectively what our enrichment program should be 2, 3, 4, or 5 years from now. That is why we established 75-492-67-50 PAGENO="0786" 780 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDTJCATION AMENDMENTS what we term "subsystem," which would provide the arena for the type of experimentation we feel would have a decided impact on what our enrichment program would be x number of years from now. So we did not exclude this. As Dr. Donovan has indicated, this is not the oniy arena in which we do have innovative practices. I think the title III program, particularly the planning proposal that we have in Boston where we have involved the three major schools of medicine to provide in specific spots where we will be building a new facility for physically handicapped children to be studying and be treated simul- taneously with kids that are normal, is particularly important to me because I am the father of a disadvantaged child who many, many years ago was considered to be a cripple. This is a stigma just like many other stigmas that we see in minority groups. hopefully, in this particular project, we will set up a system whereby the physically lIan(hcapped child, the emotionally disturbed child, is working in a situation with normal children, and both sides of the coin will appreciate what the other has. In addition to this, in our Horace Mann proposal under title III we have a school that we feel is an excellent school. As far as they go, it isolates kids with this type of infirmity. It is our hope in this proposal to have not only a K-to-S situation in another part of the city in concert with the Boston Fniversit School of Medicine, where we will have a school situation tha.t will give the skills, that will hell) the hard of hearin~, for example, but inimediately allow them to assume a 1)OsitiOfl in a normal school. This is one of the things that we hope our title ITT proposal will show. We also have a health component in there through the Kennedy Fouiidation. This is with Harvard Medical School. So these are areas in title III where we have innovation in the spe- cific area for physically handicapped, emotionally disturbed, people with infirmities. Then again there is the subsystem which hopefully generates experimentation, some of which may be good and srnne which perhaps will fall by the wayside. But here, again, the problem that we find is that if we discover such an excellent innovative procedure which will help them in the future, we then are confronted with the expansion of the inner district. To complement. this, we have, which everyone here has, a division of com- pensatory services. We feel this particular vehicle rni~ht hell). To illustrate a further point, the experience we had with Headstart has caused us to etablish citywide, effective last September, not only kindergarten in every dis- trict but prekindergarten and in Boston we have a prekindergarten situation and a kindergarten situation in every school district of the city. Mrs. GREEN (presiding). Mr. Steiger. Mr. STETGER. Thank you. Madam Chairman. An underlying basis of the Teachers Corps is, I would judge, based on both what you have said and what the administration has said in its presentation. that the greatest need for the disadvantaged child is teachers, skilled professionals, to try and develop in them on a more individual basis some of the problems and some of their potential. My question is: Is the greatest need teachers in the deprived dis- advantaged child area, or it is for professional assistance to free the PAGENO="0787" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDLTCATION AMENDMENTS 781 ~teachers so that they can devote more individual attention to the child and give him some disciplinary help, give him some field trip help, try and take care of broadening the horizon of the child? I wonder if any of you might be willing to comment on really where is your greatest need, is it teachers or is it elsewhere? Mr. DONOVAN. I would like t.o comment for a moment from the point of view of New York. I don't think we can lose sight, wit.h all the paraprofessionals in the world, then of the fact that the most important thing in the world for the child is the teacher. Granted we can't find all the professional teachers that we need. When I say professional, I don't want to be misunderstood. The child in the deprived area needs more than a good teacher. He needs a teacher that is not only good but can relate to him where he is. A good teacher of mathematics is not necessarily a good teacher of deprived children. There is a certain element of human relations and rapport with the child that must be developed. In that development, the use of the paraprofessionals that you are talking about is probably extremely important as a kind of bridge be- tween this child and his community and the teacher who probably comes from a different community. I don't think we can really sit here and put one against the other. I just feel in my own case that the teacher is the most critically important, but I must place right ne.xt to that the importance of these additional helps to the teacher to get the job done. It sounds like begging the question, and, if so, that is what it is. Mrs. GREEN. Would the gentleman yield? Mr. STEIGER. Yes. Mrs. GREEN. May I ask these questions in line with your statements on categorical versus general aid? We have heard your testimony supporting the Teachers Corps. Do you support the Teachers Corps on the basis that there is no alternative? If you had a general aid bill, and were given the amount of money now given toward the Teacher Corps, or if the State were given the amount of money, which would you prefer? A nationally recruited, trained, and placed Teacher Corps or that you have those funds for inservice training programs for teachers? Which would you rather have, a given amount of money to train your teachers or a Federal Teacher Corps to help recruit desirable teachers for your system, or the money allocated directly to the State for teacher training? Which would rather have, if you had a given amount of money, a Federal Teachers Corps, the money to your city to train your teachers, to help recruit desirable teacher for your system, or the money to the State? Mr. PAQTTIX. I think I would prefer to have this done at the local level, if I had the choice. It seems to me that in the large city now we are going to have to get more and more into the training of our own teachers for our own particular situation. Mr. DAILLARD. I would agree with that. We have had an intern program locally operat.ed for a number of years. In the variation of that, we need support to develop the teachers within the community. We applauded the amendment which would make this necessary that `those assigned be acceptable to local districts. This would work better. PAGENO="0788" 782 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS One of the reasons we in San Diego did not enter the Teacher Corps is that we were told "Here are these people for you" and we told them that we did not want them. Mr. WHIrrrEn. It is important that they have enough flexibility at the local level to operate the programs, Mrs. Green. Mr. STEIGER. Would you yield for a moment? Mrs. GREEN. Yes. Mr. STEIGER. I would like to inquire of Dr. Vincent. Will you com- ment on the Wisconsin State University-Oshkosh program of intern- ship they now have on a semester basis? Mr. XINCENT. We have had for a good many years an intern pro- gram with several of the universities. In respect to Oshkosh, it is working very well. A certain number of their people come for limited periods of time. We have a more extensive program in the local University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee. We have had to carry the total cost of it, however. With limited budget, limited income, ceilings on tax rates and so forth, this has been a rather heavy responsibility. With the National Teacher Corps this gives us very much the same kind of approach to the development of teachers. We have used it and used it effectively. We would be very happy to have it increased next year. If, on the other hand, the decision had to be made whether or not we would have it in this fashion or have the money to be spent locally, I think I would have to answer that we would prefer to do it locally, as we have done for many years successfully. But we had to pay the total cost. It was a drain on our budget. It would be an increasing drain on our budget. We are saying that the National Teacher Corps should be continued and we would like to have it funded 100 percent. Mrs. GREEN. But you would continue it? Mr. VINCENT. If the money could be used without restriction; yes. Mrs. GREEN. Is there any disagreement on this panel? Mr. DONOVAN. I think we are all agreed on that point of view. Mr. STEIGER. Would any of the others wish to comment on the ques- tion of paraprofessional versus teachers and what are the needs? Mr. VINCENT. I don't think it is either/or. I think Dr. Donovan stated this very well. The basic system of any school system is a teacher and a group of pupils working together. They may do this in a classroom, in a gymnasium, in a kindergarten room, or most any kind of situation. But you cannot have a basic unit of a school system without having a teacher, a well-trained teacher. If any of her duties can be lightened and she can devote a greater amount of her professional skills to the teaching job, if she does have some of these paraprofessionals assist her, that is one thing. I think all of us have had this experience in greater or lesser degree. I would not want. to say it is one or the other. I suppose if I had to make a decision, I would have to say that we would prefer to have the well-trained teacher who has the qualifications for dealing with the problems incident to these areas of deprivation, as Dr. Donovan pointed out. Mr. `WHITTIER. I would like to comment, if I might. I think in our case, for example. we need about. L000 teachers. The b~ulk of PAGENO="0789" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 783 these are needed in our center city schools. I would have to say that need is a stronger need than it is for a supplemental kind of service. So if you are putting on a priority basis, we would need to meet that first. Having met that, then we would move in the next direction. Mr. BRIGGS. I wonder if I might comment on this? After all, I am the superintendent of schools that started this whole thing about 15 years ago with the first teacher aid program in the Nation. You were a very young boy then, Congressman. A lot has happened since then. But I don't think it was ever our thought that the para- professional would ever take the place of the teacher. He will make the load of the teacher easier. He will allow the teacher to become more effective. But we need in this country both, more teachers and more teacher aids or more teacher helpers, or more paraprofessionals. One cannot replace the other. We will never solve our teacher shortage problem in America by just providing, no matter how large a corps, the paraprofessionals. We have to have both. At the pres- ent time there is a great shortage of teachers. In the city of teachers we probably are using as many paraprofes- sionals as then nearly any great city in America. But they do not replace in any way. They do help, they do assist, they do improve the quality of education. But then it is not either/or. It is both. Mr. DAILARD. I think I would agree with the three statements made. But I would want to underline one thing. All of us are having difficulty keeping the most able, the most com- petent teachers within the target areas of deprivation. Requests for transfers out of those areas is, in our district, four or five times the numbers who request to transfer in. In fact., it is hard to get people to go into those areas. So there is a need for stimulating the preparation of people with those under- standings, attitudes, human relations, to go into those schools. I think the Teachers Corps does strike at a very specific need of the schools in deprived areas. We don't want to overlook that. It is not an either/or proposition. Mr. OHRENBERGER. I would think one of the tests of the Teacher Corps probably will be spelled out 2 or 3 years from now. The num- her of people we are now training in the Teacher Corps, will they then stay in the urban community or will they, like many others who receive training, go to the suburban community? This is the big test. The Teacher Corps has tapped for Boston a source of persons who were not originally interested in being teachers. But after acquiring their bachelor's degree have decided that they would like this experimentation. I think in the beginning of the Teacher Corps, because of the late funding, because of the selection of individuals started out perhaps limping. I see great need in Boston for it. We requested 17 teams and finally came up with four. Chairman PERKINS. Mr. Scheuer. Mr. SCHEUER. I would like to take this belated opporhmity to wel- come Dr. Donovan here today. PAGENO="0790" 784 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS The motto of the State of California is "Give. Us Men to ~1ateh Our Mountains." Perhaps in New York our motto ought to be "Give us school superintendents to match our educational problems." We are very proud we have a school superintendent with the quality of excellence, to meet that challenge. I have a number of questions for Dr. Donovan, but I want to turn for a moment to Dr. Ohrenberger' because he may not be here this afternoon. I was impressed with your description on page 3 of your testimony of the way you have used title III funds innovatively. I think we could all take some support for that point of view from the three re.ports of the National Advisory Council on title I, which stressed the importance. of using those. funds innovatively. You have done. this in a. remarkable way. Some of us here have' been thinking of setting lip a program very siinila.r to the one you' outlined; namely, a demonstration program that would perhaps oper- ate in 20 or 25 c.itie.s on an impact basis that would do the total job, that would provide, as the national Advisory Council reports urge, total health services to the child, total nutrition to the child-and' they emphasize the effect of extreme hunge.r, if you can imagine that in America today-the total parent outreach, the. total supporting' services. It. seems to me that for a long time that we have been going elephant hunting with a slingshot, and a peashooter. Until we do the total job' we are not going to know how we can invest our re.sources to get maxi- mum productivity and results. It seems to me that nationally we ought to be providing this kind' of a. demonstration program. What happens when you give then full blown t.reatnierit. when ou give them all the resources that the Nat ional Advisory Council advocates? Do you reach some kind of a threshhold when you give them major resources that you don't reach at all when you simply poke at the problem with a long stick? I would like to have your point of view, and I will a.sk the rest of the gentlemen later as to what would be your reaction to a new pro- gram in title I, a demonstration program, that would provide resources for demonstration projects, as you outlined from early childhood on through high school, perhaps, which would enable a couple dozen demonstration projects on what happens when you do the total job in all of these areas that the National Advisory Council on title I in- dic.ated were necessary? Mr. OHRENBERGER. I would favor t.his strongly. We see. another opportunity in the subsystem to work as a vehicle for experimenta- tion in regional laboratories. There are many of these in title IV. it is my hope that to have, the subsystem functioning in cooperatioil with the local schools and universities. In our particular area the regional lab extends throughout. New England. I think similar subsystems should be established in the other large cities in New En~land. I think this would produce some definite steps toward improve- ment of instruction for the urban community. Certainly the num- bers of dollars to go with this is great. But when you do discover the way to do this, you must be sure that you just don't find the cure without having the implementation. PAGENO="0791" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDLTATION AMENDMENTS 785 Mr. SclIE~'EI~. Tie followthrough program that the administra- tion is advocating would contemplate spending about $350 per child. How much does your model demonstration program contemplate spending per child? . Mr. (JHRENBERGER. At this particular time I am functioning in kindergarten through grade 10. We are phasing the high school into it year by year. Mr. SCHEUER. How much are you spending ? Mr. OHRENBERGER. $600,000 on the whole project. There are ap- proximately 1,200 kids in it. Mr. SCHEUER. That is about $500, 50 percent more than the ad- ministration contemplates. Mr. OHRENBERGER. Yes. Mr. SCHEDER. Taking into account the fact that on Headstart we will give total services for a full year's program and we are spendmg between $1,20() and $1,500, if you had the resources, how much do you think you could spend productively on these kids, on a per child basis? Mr. OHRENBERGER. Are you having afternoon- Mr. SCHEUER. I assume a full day's school on a 12-month basis with a full innovative summer program. Mr. OHRENBERGER. I w'ould say the $1,500 sounds reasonable to me. Mr. SdHE~n. You would advocate a figure like that for the. demon- stration project? Mr. OHRENBERGER. To do the complete job; yes. Mr. SCHEUER. How long do you think it will take before we can get some kind of analysis of the results? Mr. OHRENBERGER. This is one. of the difficulties in education. I heard discussed here on another occasion when the great cities met, when we were feeling the first impact of Federal funding, the ques- tion of when will you feel the impact of Federal funding and I heard the answer at that time which was hopefully in the next generation. I don't feel we have to wait that long. But it is not. something that I think you will apply the medicine in small areas and get complete results. Hopefully in our innovation we would discover some small steps toward this-some small steps forward. But in the health services, in the social services that you refer to, I th1nk you would get a reaction a heck of a lot faster than you would in the educational area. Mr. SCHEUER. Yes. Thank you ve.ry much. *Chairman PERKINS. The committee will recess at this point and we will reconvene at 1 :30 this afternoon. If you all can return, we would apprecite it. There are~ some members who were unable to be present this morning who I am certain will want to ask you questions. (Whereupon, at 12:40 p.m. the committee recessed, to reconvene at 1 :30 p.m. the same day.) AFFERNOON SESSION Chairman PERKINS. Let me say to all of you distinguished educa- tors that I feel that I speak for the entire membership of this com- mittee that we all appreciate your appearance here today, and that PAGENO="0792" 786 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDTJCATION AMENDMENTS we appreciate your firsthand knowledge as to how the Elementary and Secondary Education Act has affected education, and that is the way I understand your testimony. I have several questions, but I think inasmuch as Mr. Quie is here, I think I will ask him to go ahead. I think this: if some of the other members come in, it may be that we should proceed under a 20-minute rule, until we get around, and then nobody will be limited. I think we will proceed under a 20-minute rule. Mr. QUTE. Mr. Donovan, I get the indication from your statement, and I guess you are speaking with pretty much one voice from all your schools, that you would like two things to occur: one is transfer to, change to lump-sum grants for general aid to elementary and secondary schools, on the one hand; and the second, the same agency should handle all education programs, meaning in particular, Head- start, and the poverty program would be administered through both, the State departments of education and the local schools. Is that correct, sir? Mr. DONOVAN. That is correct, sir. Mr. QUTE. Let us talk about the change from categorical programs to lump-sum grants and general aid. I believe your answer to Mrs. Green was this morning that. you would have preferred t.o have taken this route from 1958 until now, if it would have been possible. Is that a correct understanding? Mr. DONOVAN. Yes, sir. Mr. QrIE. Now we have gotten into this dilemma of categorical aid programs that will continue into the future, unless something better is defined. Could you give us your ideas of how we ought to make that transition? I might preface it by citing the example that we had in the 1963 act of vocational education, where certain groups had ear- marked money, and they felt that they had an inherent right to con- tinue to receive it, and they would compete for the money. If you go to general aid, there are some groups in your system that are going to compete; it will be necessary for them to compete for that Federal money. So I would like to have your comments on this. Mr. DONOVAN. I think that in order for the Federal Government to get from categorical aid into general aid, if it chooses to, you would have to do something similar to what the State of New York did a couple of years ago, in State aid. We had State aid for a variety of special programs. In setting a top-level commission to review the matter, they com- bined all of these programs into general State aid, and obliterated the special ones, but maintained the same funding level. No, when you do that, you then do have competing efforts for the money within the school system. no question about it. But that's the business of a board of education. We. have had competing efforts ever since boards of education were established. The one job a ~ul)erintendent has and the board of educa- tion with him is to make. competent professional choices as to where the money goes. areordin~ to the needs of the district, and not to permit those within the. system, who have empires to build, to build them. regardless of the general needs. So t1~t if my system, which gets State aid on a general basis, and gets its city aid cm a general basis, should get some Federal aid on PAGENO="0793" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 787 a general basis, our choice of activities would be. the same as we do for local and State money right now. I recognize that this is different from State to State, and I recognize that Congress had certain desirable objectives in mind when it cate- gorizeci the aid. In many cases, I am sure it forced certain States and school systems into activities in which they had not engaged be- fore, but I believe that. as this matures, and as these thrusts have been made now, that the general aid would be of more benefit to us in the long rim, and give us more local freedom to accomplish the objectives we each have which are just a little bit different in each city. Mr. QUIE. How about the formula of the amount that you in the large cities would receive, particularly New York would receive? Do you have confidence that your State department of education would make the wise decision, or do you think it would be necessary for Congress to write some guidelines into the legislation to make certain that the large cities who still feel, I understand, that they are outvoted in the legislature, would get their equal treatment? Mr. DONOVAN. I would think in moving toward general aid, there could be some general guidelines set by Congress. I would trust the State of New York, the State education department, in its growing awareness of the problems of cities and the much better relationships we have had in the last few years, to do an honest job in the division of funds, but I know what the pressures are, and I Imow that while the cities are outvoted in the State legislatures, there are pressures upon the State education department that are hard to fight against, and I would think that Congress would be right in setting, as I indi- cated in my testimony, some broad limits within which this would have to be operated, and then leave the rest of it to the State department. This, I thmk, too, is is a matter of growing awareness in education, as we all work together, and have begun to work together more than we ever did in the past. There was a time when we never even talked to the U.S. Offic.e of Education. There was a time in New York City when we never heard of the U.S. Office of Education, and they never heard of us, apparently, and now we are talking regularly. Regu- larly we are talking, and talking on a better and better basis, all the time, more informed basis on both sides. I think this grows. Mr. Qu~. You would not have to talk as much, though if you had general aid, as you do now, with all these mvriads of categorical aid programs? Mr. DONOVAN. That is right., sir. Mr. QUIE. So it would cut down the conversation a little bit. W~mt about the rest of you other three gentlemen? Do you have the same confidence in your State department of education as Mr. Donovan does, recognizing that New York does have a pretty com- petent State department of education? Mr. WHITTIER. Well, I think we have to accept the premise that we are all interested in strengthening the State department, so I would say that again it is a matter of a preference of location, of where you are going to have some operational decisions, and I would think that also, because of the fact that it has got to tie into the other kinds of State aid you are going to get that it makes more sense to tie it together at this point. And it is true that there. will always be PAGENO="0794" 788 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS this concern, I think, but I think we can establish a better total work- ing relationship, and a greater sensitivity. This is a matter of spec- ulation, I would say, but I think so. Mr. QCIE. Mr. Briggs? Mr. Bnioos. I am sorry, but I am afraid I cannot agree to the ex- tent that perhaps my distinguished colleague from New York has described the New York situation. I am afraid that if title I moneys in Ohio had been given merely to the State to distribute, according to a formula that they might have devised, that the people who live in poverty and the children from poverty would not have profited from these moneys to the extent that they have. I am sorry, but I am sure that this is the case. We oniy have, to look to title II of the same act to see this. Title II allowed for the State to develop a program for distribution, a State program of dis- tribution of moneys. The only provision was that there should be devised by the State a formula that vcould take into consideration need. Therefore, in Ohio today, the children from the city of Cleveland, who are-and, by the way, one-fifth of our children are from ADC homes-the children from the city of Cleveland have less money per child under title II than the average child in the State of Ohio, and much less than those from the rural sections of the State. Mr. QFIE. Why is that? Mr. BI~iGGs. Because the State program, which the State estab- lished, approved by the State board of education, where they estab- lished their own criteria, of need, is quite different thaii what was estab- lished under title I by the Congress. Mr. Qtm. But need is not a basis of title II? Mr. BRIGGS. It was a basis of the distribution in time State of Ohio, and it. was a basis of the guidelines as established by HEW. Mr. FORD. Will the gentleman yield at that point? Mr. Qt~IE. Yes, I yield. Mr. FORD. I believe that almost every State, if not every State, has a double factor, and need is a factor written into the Stat.e plans of almost all the States. They distribute part of the money on a per capita basis and then have a. need factor that also kicks in. Is that pretty well true, across the country? We had occasion to look into this at the end of last year. Mr. Bnrnns. Yes, this is correct. Mr. QFIE. In that sense, Cleveland has greater need than the rest of the state. they receive less money? Mr. BRIGGS. No: according to the State plan, the State plan shows that. Cleveland has a lesser need. What. I am trying to say is that. if you had distributed title I moneys the way you did title II moneys, the children in the poverty areas, in the ghetto, would not have prof- ited the way they did. There is no question in my mind about that in the State of Ohio. Mr. QUIE. Yes; go ahead. You give an answer, if you are ready. Mr. BRIGGS. I finished my answer. Mr. Quir. No: I mean the next gentleman. Mr. VINCENT. I speak for the city of Milwaukee, Congressman. We would have no hesitancy about permitting the State department to PAGENO="0795" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDTSJCATION AMENDMENTS 789 administer the funds. It would seem to me, however, that there would need to be some broad guidelines set forth, providing for, in a sense, a foundation type of grant, and tlieii some provision for correcting that, in terms of areas that have density of i)OPulatiOfl, and high mobility. This, I think, could apply in areas likewise where there may be .a sparsity of population as well, but there must be some override, or there should be some override, if this plan is followed through, so that the large cities with the problems that have been outlined today would have some advantage with respect to a specific amount that might be allocated under a. foundation program. 1 think this should be pointed out also: that most of the large cities, and I speak specilkally for my own, at the piesent time are exhausting all the resources that are available at. the local level. W'e have presently in the State legislature a bill to increase our taxing power locally. This is not voted by the people. It is enacted by the State legislature in our State, for our school district. The moneys that come from categorical aids do not provide addi- tional funds for the general budget. There are constant increases that are made, arising from increasing costs, arising from upward adjustments of salary schelules, that apply throughout the entire city, obviously. And it is possible, as these times ~o up, and categorical aids can be used only for expansion or new programs, and specifically, where there is a matching feature, that you reach the place, ultimately, where out of your own local revenues that in terms of legislation have a ceil- ing, that you cannot any longer provide matching funds in order to accomplish the purposes set forth. Otherwise, you will run yourself into bankruptcy trying to avail yourself of some of these. categorical aids. This is a theoretical determination. So it seems to me that when we move to general aids, if we do- and I agree with the others that. this is an ultimate objective, as far as we. are concerned-that you then place it on some kind of founda- tion program with an override, or the large cities, and permit it to be handled through the State department of public instruction, as far as we are concerned. Mr. QUIE. Let me ask a question on three particular programs, then. The one will be title II of NDEA, the equipment title, which has been in operation for some time, and I imagine your schools have done a pretty good job of purchasing equipment. The other one will be title Ii of ESEA, which is in a way similar, but newer, limited to textbooks and library books and materials, and, the third will be title I, which is a program aimed at a specific group 0± young people. \\tould you feel that each of those three programs could move to be financed as you se.e fit under a general-aid program? And, if you do, what problems you would have with any one of them do you see in your administration? And perhaps Mr. Donovan could answer that, and Mr. Briggs could see if he. agrees. Mr. DONOVAN. Well, I think two of them, NDEA. which you are talking about. in title III in it, which is essentially equipnhent, there. is PAGENO="0796" 790 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCAT~0N AMENDMENTS really nothing different, in that from what t.here is in our ordinary purchase of equipment.. `We bought audiovisual equipment, and we bought other `things, before NDEA came along. This gave us addi- tional money for it. We were grateful. So that we would necessarily have to buy our equipment, and we got aid. That money would be aid for equipment, personnel, or anything else it goes for. The second one on library and textbooks, the purchase of library and textbooks is nothing new to us. We have been `buying library books and textbooks right along. What this did was direct a large flow of money particularly into the library book field, for which we were grateful. Now, of course, because of the element of the law that directed it to both public and nonpublic, I am not getting into that. I am just discussing the public schools at the moment. So those, two, to me, there would be no shift at all in our approach. That would be part of our approach to equipment and library and audiovisual materials. On the first. one, on title I, where you have directed your aid to the disadvantaged, again, as I indicated this morning, we had already di- rected our aid to the disadvantaged. You did give us more money, gave more thrust to it, and in certain cases, despite the fact that I don't think it is a very innovative title, it proved innovative, in some cases, as was talked about this morning here. I think there would be a matter of the judgment and the con- science of the school board, in the expenditure of its money, and I would not be able to stand here and say that everybody would con- tinue to do the ~ame thing, if the money were general aid. We are pouring so much these days into the disadvantaged, and we niust. that there are other segments of our school population that are saving, `~`What are von going to do for us, now, because we, too, need some things." So that if we had general aid, we would have to make the judgments again as to the way to spend the money, but. I am certain that with the inner cities being what they are, in this Nation today, all of the money coming to us in general aid would be spent for the very things we are spending it now, in categorical aid, essentially. We can't. give up pouring money into our disadvantaged areas. We must pour in services, and whether it comes in general aid or categorical aid, that's where it will go, only we will have a little more flexibility. This is the more important point to us. Chairman PERKINS. Would the gentleman yield to me? Mr. QuiR. Yes, I would like, to have Mr. Briggs' reaction, too. Would you like to have me yield to you first? Chairman PERKINS. Yes, I would like to probe just~ a little deeper here. If we move to general aid, now, Dr. Donovan. as a complete. substi- tute, without giving any Federal guidance, turning the money over to t.he States to spend as they see fit., do you still feel that the States could reach the disadvantaged groups? This is a complete substitute, I am talking about. Mr. DONOVAN. I think today that the problem of the disadvantaged is so very, very clearly and well recognized by both local and State PAGENO="0797" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 791 governments, as well as the Federal Government, that the funds would continue to be spent along these lines. That is my feeling, even though we went to a general aid formula. Chairman PEI~KINS. Well, what worries me in following t.hat pro- cedure, and in taking that risk, is the fact the most needy will not benefit because the States have never directe.d maximum resources in that direction before we enacted the general Federal aid bill. And that is what gives me grave concern, if we have no strings attached. - I am of the opinion that it would go for teacher salaries, and the way that the States spend their money, maybe some for construction, unless we gave it some Federal guidance, that the first things first goes to the disadvantaged areas. But it is my point of view, if we gave it that guidance, and could come along with additional funds, make funds available for salaries, and school construction, after we are making certain that the special educational programs for the disadvantaged in the Nation will be funded, then I think we can go in the direction of general aid. That is just my thinking. I am glad we are all thinking out loud here. I would like to hear Dr. Briggs' comment from a great city there, Cleveland. Mr. BRIGGS. All right, I would like to think that if the Federal aid came to Cleveland as general aid, that we would do exactly with it. what should be done with it, and perhaps what is being done now. I am afraid we would not, because with the pressures across town, where there are those groups they say it is totally unfair to give this kind of supplementary assistance to those in the poverty areas when those of us in a middle-class neighborhood yet in the city should have the same kinds of programs for our children. I am sure that there would be great pressures exerted for us to take this Federal money and to use it generally across the city. There would be heavy pressures. At the present time, we are unable to withstand many of these pres- sures by saying that this money is earmarked specifically for inner city, it is earmarked for specific programs in the public areas, and, therefore, we cannot use it across the city. You see, in our cities, we are so poor, as far as the amount of money we have t.o spend on children, that we have got to make every dollar stretch. What you have done with your Federal moneys~ under title I, you have told us the kind of child. You have identified the child that we can spend it on, and, therefore, we have spent the money on that child. You talk about giving it to the States, and allowing the States to distribute it to us. The wealthiest. school districts in the Sate of Ohio get more money per child from the State foundation program than does Cleveland per child. Mr. Qtims. May I interject that under the formula of title I, the wealthiest State of the Union got more money than the poorest State. Three times as much. Mr. BRIOGS. Well, the wealthiest State probably had the largest num- ber of disadvantaged children. Mr. QmE. No, three times as much per child. Mr. BRIoos. I don't know about that. It is not Ohio. But I do know this: The State of Ohio, for example, the State of Ohio is giving more per child, appropriating more per child to the PAGENO="0798" 792 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS weaTthiest, school district in Ohio than it is to the school district with the big population, where. one-fifth of our children are on ADC, so, therefore, as long as this kind of a formula exists for distributing money, I am fearful that merely making moneys available to the State to be distributed by them would create problems. Under title II. there have been problems in our State. The poorest school districts are not getting the money. The same amount per child. Chairman PERKINS. Now, before you leave title I, Dr. Briggs, be- fore you received this Federal assistance, under State laws, in your city, did you reach this disadvantaged group that you are now reaching on this, under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act? Mr. BRIGOS. No, sir, we did not. Chairman PERKINS. I think that is proof of the pudding. Mr. BRIGGS. We had several thousand children in the city of Cleve- land who were in the inner city, of kindergarten age, who were not in kindergarten. We do not have kindergarten programs for them. We had other, t.housands of children in the city of Cleveland who were in the inner city, because of crowded conditions, were on relay classes or half-day classes. We did not have reading clinics in the inner city, or any place else in the city. ~frs. GREEN. Would the gentleman yield? Mr. Qu~. I will yield. Mrs. GREEN. Why did von riot? Mr. BRIGGS. I think that this is a part. of America forgetting the big cities. Mrs. GI~N. If you had the money, you would have done all this? Mr. BMGGS. I would hope that they would have. I have only been in Cleveland two and a half years, but something has been happening to our cities, in the last 10 or 15 years. The population has changed. The kind of leadership that was vital and vigorous has shifted. The cities are in deep trouble, and it was not until recent attention, much of it through the civil rights, that the Nation has awakened to the fact tha we must do something about our cities. Maybe we are awake enough today, but there are some other over- riding factors. If you t.a.ke a look at the State of Ohio, for example, t.ake the suburban school districts of the State, the amount of percent of the total tax paid in suburban school districts, the total tax made available for schools is 7~ percent. When you take all school district.s in the State of Ohio, it is 60 per- cent available for schools. When you take the large cities, the eight largest cities, it is 50 percent., and when you take the larger and oldest city, which is Cleveland, it is 44 percent., and yet Cleveland's tax rate is higher t.han any of the rest. The override of t.he old cit.y of the need for police and for firemen and urban renewal, and so on, leaves less money in the city for the education of children, and, therefore, the cities, despite the fact that they may have a good tax base, the older and the larger cities have less money available for children, and that's why I feel that the assistance that came through each of the titles, of the Federal legi~lature, has made a real difference in the city of Cleveland. Mr. Qi~ir. I niic4 iiiteirupt here. Even though you say You have a djsparity between the suburbs and the rurai part of the State of Ohio, PAGENO="0799" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 793 yet the determination of whether you are going to give more adequate education to the poorer kids, the socially and culturally deprived chil- dren, is your problem and your school board~s problem, and not the suburbs or the rural people's problem. Mr. Bam~s. No, you misunderstand what I am trying t.o say. The point I was trying to make was not a matter of determination, but I was trying to say to you that in the big cities, there is less money available, eve.n though the tax rate is higher. There is going to be less money available for the education of children, therefore, per pupil, much less per pupil, and this is true in every big city in America. We use only one-half as much money to educate a child in the inner city of Cleveland as we do in the suburbs around Cleveland, yet the tax rates of Cleveland might be greater than the tax rate in the suburbs, where twice as much money is available per child. This is why I say it is important that we receive substantial moneys from both the State and the Federal Governments. The point I want to make is that the foundation program in the system on distributing State moneys is such that the wealthiest school district in Ohio gets more money from the State than does the urban school district. True, that what we have gotten from the Federal Government was properly earmarked for the real inner city problem, and if it had not been, the pressures for us to have spread that across our 154,000 chil- dren would have been so great tha.t we could not have withstood it, despite the fact that the decision would have been ours. Mr. QtTIE. Well, I judge from the other superintendents here that they have enough political strength with their boards so that what. they say goes as far as the distribution of general aid. They have the sensitivity to realize that the poorer kids should receive, the benefit, as the Federal Government and this Congress does, and you say that. there is something else. Now it either has to be Cleveland, or else there is a problem in the makeup of the urban centers where this cannot be accomplished. Mr. DONOVAN. I think if I may indicate here-and I know there are differences between cities and the.ir approach to this matter-it is not necessarily the political strength of the board or the super- intendent; I do not know what. it. has to do with, a. number of general things. In the city of New York, t.he public is not objecting to the spending of money in the ghetto areas. Not only are they not object- ing, they are saying that is where it should be spent. "How about us; we need some more." but they are not. complaining that they are spending, because I think we realize tha.t we have to raise the children in these areas to the level of opportunity where they can compete with other children who have ha.d a favored circumstance. I do not. think the Congress should predic.ate its action on the fraili- ties of one State, nor on the successes of another State. I think this is so delicate a matter that it is not easily resolved, and is going to require a lot of talking, a lot more study than we have had the opportunity to (10 up to now. What we really would like to see is general Federal aid, within some guidelines set by the. Federal Government. but. not 11 I~ details to the guideline that cause all the re(itape that has us choked at the moment, PAGENO="0800" 794 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION A~NDMENTS broad guidelines that will not permit a State to run away with its responsibility. Chairman PERKINS. Mr. Donovan, assuming that you had reason- able guidelines that were directed in the direction that the funds were now being expended, if you had general Federal aid, would you spend it in the same ways and manner that you are now spending it under this legislation. ESEA, title I? Mr. DONOVAN. We would not spend it in exactly the same ways, sir. It would go into the general areas. Chairman PERKINS. Assuming that you only had sufficient funds for the disadvantaged groups, would you spend those funds in the exact~ way that you are now spending them? Mr. DONOVAN. I don't think we would spend them in exactly the same way. no. sir; but I think we would spend them in methods to help the disadvantaged, but I would not say that every program we now have mounted we would continue to mount. Chairman PERKINS. I would like to hear the comments of all the gentlemen on that one. Would it change if you had only sufficient funds in a general Federal aid bill for the disadvantaged groups from Congress? Mr. Qri~. That is quite an assumption-that we would only make title I interrelated, not the other titles, and have nothing added t.o it. That's a pretty big assumption. Chairman PERKINS. I do not think so. You are just assuming here. It is a hypothetical statement, yes; but go ahead. I would like to hear your comments. Mr. WrnrrIER. Well, Mr. Chairman, I do not think, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee.. that we would spend it exactly the same way, if you had broader provisions and less specificity from the Federal Government. I do not think that- Chairman PERKINS. Do you think it would get away from the disadvantaged? Mr. WHITIIER. No, I think that that has already been pointed out. Chairman PERKINS. ~1ou do not. have the amount of money~ Mr. WHITTIER. Well, we have never been in a position where we have not, so you always have this kind of a situation anyway, and I think that the sensitivity is such today that you know that you are going to be spending a. higher percentage per pupil as you are now, but to say that you would do it in exactly this way would be, I think, unrealistic, because I do not. think you would, but you would concen- trate it in terms of meeting the needs of the children in these sections of the city. Chairman PERKINS. Well, you have got flexibility today to spend it for the disadvantaged in your school system, and any way that you want to spend it., have you not? Mr. WHrrrn~R. No, you do not, because there are certain prescrip- tions that you have to meet, and there are kinds of programs that you are precluaed from using these funds for, very definitely, so that the answer is no, you do not have complete latitude at all. Mrs. GREEN. Would the gentleman yield? Chairman PERKINS. Yes. Mrs. GREEN. Is not one of the requirements that you are required to do something above and beyond what you have done before? PAGENO="0801" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 795 Mr. WHITTIER. Well, that is the point. and you cannot underwrite any of our so-called basic programs. Mrs. GREEN. We have instances in Oregon where econoniically poor areas have started a program, and they did not have the funds to carry it through. Title I came along, and because this particular school district had started the program, they were precluded from using title I funds for it, while an adjoining school district had not started a program in the preceding year, they could use title I funds for exactly the same thing. We set up such artificial barriers, such tight guidelines, that. we can- not say the money is always spent wisely. WThen we were having hearings across the country, we ran into some districts that admitted they spent 40 percent of the funds for equipment. Was that the figure? Mr. OHRENBERGER. In the first year. Mrs. GREEN. Yes. Why? Because there is a magical deadline the Federal Government imposes; if you do not spend all of the money by a particular date, you lose it. This would not be t.rue if you had general aid and all that it implies. You would be able to spend it and get. a lot, more `~bang for the buck." Mr. WHITTIER. Well, you have another problem, as you know, and that is if you are spending it for personnel. you had a carryover fact.or, and we ha.d no assurance; and we could not buy in on that one, so that was one of the factors why you spend it on that. kind of a program. Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman, I have a question. Assuming the situation that Mrs. Green has described, the school district submitting under title I an application for a specific program, is tha.t not submit.ted to your State title I office? It does not come down here to Washington to get turned down, does it? Mrs. GREEN. It is in the law. Mr. FORD. We are not talking about one that. is clearly in the law. We are talking about. a situation where the people in a school district look at the law and feel in their opinion that. this would be the kind of program that. would be legal, or they obviously would not submit the application. But who makes the decision if a city school district wants to undertake a program under title I, after you have been given the guidelines, and then that program is kicked back to you, and they say, "No, you can't go a.head with the program." Isn't t.hat done at the State level? Mr. WHITTIER. Yes. This is screening. Mr. FORD. So we are not. here talking about a situation where after you have conceived the program and proceeded with it, you are thwarted in your efforts to carry it out by a decision made in Washing- ton aft.er the fact of the application. Mr. WHITTIER. No, what we are talking about really is the extensive detailed prescriptions that initiate in the first. place from the Federal. Mr. FORD. I understand that, but. there is a very important distinc- tion between the two, because the discussion this afternoon up until now has been on the role, I take it, of the State and local educators in devising and directing these programs. I would not. wa.nt the record to be left with the impression that these title I programs are being reviewed here in Washington, after they are devised. 75-492--67-------51 PAGENO="0802" 796 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS We have had difficulty in our State as well, but our real test is be- tween the local school districts and the State board of education, or the State education office, rather, on title I. That is where the friction has been. Chairman PERKINS. The gentlelady from Oregon. Mr. DAILARD. May I comment? Mrs. GREEN. Let me just make it clear, I think the gentleman from Michigan did not understand me. I said that the law prescribes that you cannot do things under title I funds that you have been doing before. The 1)1ogralus must be above and beyond present programs. The district to which I referred a moment ago had been carrying on a particular program. very inadequately, clue to limited finances. They were I)1'ecluded from using Federal funds, because we had written that provision in the. law, while the adjoining district could do it. This particular example was not. about. a State plan being turned down. It was a Federal restriction. Mr. FORD. I am sorry. I misunderstood. I understood you to state before that they made application, and their application was rejected because Mrs. GREEN. I did not say that. Mr. FORD. I am sorry. Chairman PERKINS. The gentleman from San Diego. Mr. DAILARD. May I comment on several points that have been under discussion here, and express an opinion? We did have in California what might be regarded as a pilot pro- gram for compensatory education. In fact, if you look to the hear- ings held before the passage of 89-10, you will find a presentation, that happens to use the same picture that I used on the face of this today, of the three children, reporting on what could be done. We were not precluded from the program. We could not replace those funds that we had had in the title program, but we were not precluded from extending that to all the rest of the area, and adding this above. Since the enactment of this, there was an additional program aimed at the target areas. We. referred to it as the Watts bill, for fairly ob- vious reasons, hut it has made money, in which you have State fnnds available which we can use for prekindergarten programs, or hous- ing, for class size reductions, within the target area. That is point No. 1. The second point.. I don't believe I could give you the firm assur- ance of being permitted from public pressure to continue the use of the funds if this were suddenly shifte.d to general aid. I would become aware within just. a couple of weeks of requests from some of the most favored areas of our community to add certain kinds of services there, using the argument. that this is what you are doing in the southeast areas, which happens to be our area, and I am sure those pressures would mount to spread this to get the reduced class size. We have a class size. in our target area now of seven pupils per teacher below the city average. The ot.he.r areas would ask for that, so it is my feeling, so far as we are concerned, if there were any sud- den turnover from this, we would not be permitted within the city to use them in the same way. PAGENO="0803" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 797 The third point that I question whether this is an either/or proposi- tion. I think the present programs have been very productive. We are developing a new framework of Federal-local cooperation and effort that is useful. I think it would be catastrophic if this were suddenly upset and we moved to an altogether different base. I think we will move to the time that the Congress will find it appropriate to build the Federal aid, but in watching our building a general Federal aid program, in watching California State programs, we have had a strong foundation program, but we still have built into that a number of categorical aids to give emphasis for the teaching of the handi- capped; to give emphasis even in this area, we had it. I cannot con- vince myself that there will not always be occasion and necessity for earmarking certain funds to accomplish certain purposes, even when we move in with Federal aid. Mr. OrnE. This is true. We have tried to accomplish certain na- tional purposes. We have gone along on the categorical aid program. The question is, Do we need that Federal direction forever? Is there such a lack of competence on the State and local level to pick up the ball and realize the necessity of it later on? I don't think you would ever find it if one year we had a full-blown title I p1~Og1~im, and the next year changed to a general aid program. It is niore a question of whether we could phase into it. Some of the men say that this sen- sitivity of the need is recognized. Now we are talking about title I, about a program that is directed tOwar(l a certain group of children. What of the other two 1 asked about, the textbooks and equipment ? Do you think we need Federal direction in both of those, in order for the schools to continue to spend the money that is needed? I would be interested in Mr. Briggs answering that, since he kind of t.ook the other approach on title I. Mr. BinGos. I wish that title II would be similar to the NDEA on a per pupil basis. Cleveland would come out better. We do not get the State average per pupil that you distribute in the State of Ohio. Mr. OUTE. How about title III? Do you think we still need the equipment title separate? Otherwise, you wouldn't be able to con- vince your board to buy the equipment. Mr. BRIGGS. No; we have no trouble convincing the board. You misunderstand this. We have no argument with title III. How- ever, it was attempting to do certain things, it was attempting, as I understood it, to better equip laboratories in this country, and you may be sure that the laboratories in this country are better equipped because of title III. There is no question about it. Mr. OUIE. And you need this special program for all time in the future? Mr. BRIGGS. No; I don't think so, and I am not- Mr. QmE. Would you be willing to give this one U~ to general aid, and, therefore, through general aid, be able to buy all the equipment that you could need, and also be able to set some priorities for use of the money Mr. BRIGGS. I have one reservation. I am not sure that the Con- gress of the United States is as enthusiastic about just giving general fund moneys to public schools across the country as it is in seeing that certain things are accomplished. PAGENO="0804" 798 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS Mr. QUIE. Don't worry about the Congress here. We will take care of that.. I would like to find out. from the school superintendents what would be. the wisest. expenditure of Federal money, how you could best use the money. We will take care of the politics here. Mr. BRIGGS. All right. Up to this time, the only moneys we have ever gotten from Congress have been those that have been earmarked; the only Federal money that we know is Federal money for certain national purposes. You have never given us any general aid for any- thing, except you have earmarked it for certain national purposes. We are not familiar with Federal money for general aid. I am not as optimistic as you might be about the generosity of Congress in this respect. I think it sees certain problems that are not being met; it saw the ~-ocational problem after World War I, and it moved in that direction. It. has seen the. problem under NDEA, and has moved in that direc- tion, and then the poverty problem. And I am certainly not against local autonomy, but I do not believe that you would have given as much, if it had been general. I am not. sure that we would have used it. I am sure we would not. have used it in the way that we have, if it had been general. I would like to have more money for the children of the big cities, and if there were unlimited amounts of money, where we could bring the cities up somewhere near t.he general expenditure in the Nation, we would not have to, perhaps. earmark as carefully as we have. I would like to see us facing in that direction. Chairman PERKINS. If you will excuse us, we have to cast a vote. In about 10 minutes, we will be right, back, and you can take a break in the meantime. (A short recess was taken.) Chairman PERKINS. The committee will come to order. A quorum is present. The gentlelady from Oregon. I made the. announcement when I caine in today that. every member would have 20 minutes until we got around the second time, and then the third crack would be unlimited. Mrs. Green? Mrs. GREEN. Yes. Dr. Briggs, I was under the impression that. this morning you said that you would prefer general aid to categorical. Mr. BRIOGS. Oh, I think that all of us would, but the question t.his afternoon, I think, came about to the point, that could we guarantee that we would be. doing the same. things with the money, if it became general aid. My answer was twofold: if it came through the Sta.te of the State that I am talking about, the State of Ohio, we would not get it. in the first place. We. would not have it. to do these things with. ~o. 2, the local pressures would be such that we would not be able locally to do exactly with it what we might. Mrs. GREEN. If there were a fund that went to the State, and the fornuila stays the same as under title I, and it. said : that this much \vill go to Ohio with this much to the. cit.y of Cleveland, you would get it. Mr. BRIGGs. As long as we are sure that there is a way of getting it. PAGENO="0805" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 799 Mrs. GREEN. There is nothin~r to pieveiit us from doing it that way. Mr. BRIGGS. You thought you were doing it with title II. Mrs. GREEN. 1 con~e from a big city in Oregon. Portlan(l. So I know exactly your problems, but 1 dont. tiiiiik it is'faii for you to ask the Congress to do what you ought to be asking tl~e Si ate legislat tire to do in Ohio, and what the. people in Portland ought to be asking the State legislature to do in Oregon. The basic school formula in Oregon, I think, is unfair to tile city, and from what. you say in Ohio it isnt fair to Cleveland, but. that isn't a congressional responsibility; that is a State. 1eSj)oflSibility. Mr. BRIGGS. You must. realize, I am sure, Mrs. Green, that my voice is being heard in Ohio relative to this on tills very subject. yes. Mrs. GREEN. Right, and I hope. von can get. the desired changes ma cle. Mr. BRIGGS. But this is a fact of life. Mrs. GREEN. Let me ask you, if there. were general aid, would it. be spent in equally good ways, as far as the quality and equality of educational opportunity in Clevelniid is conceriie(l Mr. BRIGGS. I am afraid that the money that is now going 100 percent into poverty areas, if we got exactly that ~anie amoumit of money in general aid, that it would not all go into poverty areas. Mrs. GREEN. That isn't. answering my quest ion. Mr. BRI~as. Well, tile answer is no, it would not. all. Mrs. GREEN. WTouid it. be equally well spent ? Mr. BRIGGS. No, it. would not be. Mrs. GREEN. That was my question. Mr. Bnrn~s. But it isn't an either/or thing. It would be spent. On children, but it would not. be spent on inner city children, to the same extent.. Mrs. GREEN. That. was not what I asked von. 1 ~nkcl would it. be equally well spent. I must. conclude front wind. von a ic saving that Congress or the people in WTashingtoii have better ludanlent and a better idea about. establishing priorities br editcat ion in (Tleveland than tile people of Cleveland. Mr. BRIGOS. No, no. I don't think so. Mrs. GREEN. That's the way your coninlelli stink inc. sir. Mr. BRIGGS. I know it. may sound that. way. The poInt I am trying to make is if the national purpose was To attack poverty, and to attack the inner city problem, by giving us iiioney that. we could oniy use for that, we budgeted it only for that, but. the pl01)lenls of tile city of Cleveland are so great that even tile best judgment of the city of Cleveland and tile board of education and tile superintendent of tile city of Cleveland would not have allowed us. to have made the con- centrated effort on the inner city that we have made. Mrs. GREEN. Well, I will just have to cut er a di 5(1 a iner. As a member of the National Congress of Parents and Teachers, I have a deep and abiding conviction that the people i~f m cIty of Portland, Oreg., have a much better undeistandnig of I lie cdiicat a tiiìh problems of Portland, a. much better under~taudiiig of how I solve those prob- lems, and a much better gras~) of tile priorit ies for the IV of Porthind than my colleagues here on the comiunittee, or uiiy eO leagues ill the Congress, White. House, or the flEW. PAGENO="0806" 800 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS I have a deep and abiding conviction that this is true. If we had a John Gardner in very single spot, at. every single level of the Fed- eral programs. I would have a great deal more confidence that. they wou1d be carried out wisely. Mr. BRIGG5. Yes. Mrs. GREEN. The regional office people come out to Portland for 2 days. and at the end of tile ~ days, tell how all of the problems of lk)rllan(l schools are to be solved. I get. a little l)it weary of saying that the local school people just cannot solve the problems and Wash- ingtoii has to (10 it. It w'oulcl seem that I am about to make a. speech on 01(1 myths and current realities. I think there are some old myths that need to be exploded. I have, heard it on this committee, and I have heard it from the Department, and I have heard it from high levels in my party, that the States have, never clone, that the local superintendents would not do it., that the schools cannot do it, that the teachers dont know how. I am of the conviction that the reason that von superintendents haven't, solved problems, and had so many dif- ferent kinds of problems. is, because. von really haven't had the money. I dont think it isa sufficient an~wer to say, well, before we gave the Federal funds, von never did do it. Before we had Federal funds and we had know-how, and never went into space, either. It seems to me just as ridiculou~ to say. well, let's have categorical aid, and let's have ti~1it restrictions, because the. States obviously haven't taken care of the probleni. I think I have heard that. a hundred t.imes this year. Forgive me my little lecture. Mr. BRIGGS. I don't. disagree with you. I think you and I are in total agreement. The point that I was trying to make was the fact that the question was asked, if we had genera.1 aid, would it be going for exactly the same thing that it is going for now, and my answer is no, it would not be. Mrs. GREEN. I don't. think that's really the quest.ion, though. Mr. BRIGG5. That was what was asked. Mrs. GREEN. I don't think tha.t here in `Washington, that we can decide what is best in every single State and every single city in the country, because the problems of Cleveland are not the same as Port- land's. Mr. BRIGGS. We won't quarrel with you on that. Mrs. GREEN. I am just. asking you. `Would funds be equally well spent in terms of (1ualitv education, and equality in education? I think this is all the Congress can ask. Beyond that, let me as you, how much title I money wa.s returned? Did von return any, or did you spend it. all? Mr. BRIGGS. We spent practically all of it. I think our records will show that we are just about No. 1 in the Nation as far as t.he amount that we spent., and any amounts that w'ere unspent., it was just a few dollars here and a few dollars there. Mrs. GREEN. Let. me ask von some other questions. Mr. BRIGGS. It. was ill tile top 90's, the 90 percent that we spent. Mrs. GREEN. What about you? Did you return any money? Mr. DAILARD. We didn't return any. Mrs. GREEN. New York'? PAGENO="0807" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDTJCATION AMENDMENTS 801 Mr. DONOVAN. Yes, we did return some. It came so late. in the year that we could not employ all the personnel we wanted to employ for the operation, and we had to return some the same year. Mrs. GREEN. Baltimore? Mr. PAQUIN. Yes, we returned money. Mr. WHITTIER. Very little, very little. Mrs. GREEN. Are you gentlemen both from Baltimore? Mr. WHITTIER. Philadelphia. Mr. PAQUIN. We returned about 50 percent. Mrs. GREEN. Was this because of Federal restrictions? Here you are crying for funds, hungry for them, and yet because of restrictions, you can't spend it. Mr. PAQUIN. I don't think it would be fair to say it would be en- tirely Federal restrictions. I think there were problems. As Mr. Donovan has said, the matter of getting late notification when the money was available, and I think probably a certain amount of it was inherent conservatism, afraid to make commitments until you knew you had money in the till. Mrs. GREEN. Let me turn to one other o~eneral question. I have fig- ures here for all of the cities in terms of white and nonwhite population. My figures show Baltimore, in 1954 had 86,611 white and 57,000 non- whites. You now have 76,000 white and 111,000 nonwhite. Philadelphia, in 1955 had 140,flflO white and 81,000 nonwhite, you now have 116,000 white and 153,000 nonwhite. Pittsburgh has not changed according to this publication. I am aware of the fact that tile exodus to the suburbs is a major factor. Are there Federal programs either in the field of education or other Federal programs that have accelerated t.his exodus from the city to the suburbs? Are there Federal programs in education that have ac- celerateci tile exodus from the public, schools of the white children to the private schools? Mr. DONOVAN. I don't think I could put my finger on a Federal program that has done this particularly. I am trying to think if there are any that stand out. I don~t. believe in our city we blame the flight of the whites on any Federal programs. I think we blame it on just the lack of desire on the part of a number of people to learn to live in a multiracial group. Secondly, I t.hink we find lack of confidence in the public schools which has been enge.ndered by a number of things that have happened one of which is the use of Office of Economic Opportunity money to help the poor people find themselves, bring themselves up and in their finding they seem t.o find the public school a.s a target. That has hurt us, I think. Mrs. GREEN. Will you elaborate on that point Mr. DONOVAN. I think we have found in practically all our cities that some of the funds used by the. Office of Economic Opportunity to instigate improvements for the poor and get the poor to raise their horizons socially and politically have turned themselves into simply complaint organizations against the public schools, that the public school is not. doing the job, it is no good and we have to do something else beside tile public school. PAGENO="0808" 802 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS That has engendered a certain lack of confidence. on the part of disadvantaged people as well as advantaged people. I think it is most unfortunate that one agency of the government should center its at- tack upoii another agency of the government. This is not, clone by everybody but. it is done enough to bother us. I see some hope in the Federal program for recapturing some of our white population. We hope in the city of New York shortly to go into an educational project which is a whole rehabilitation of a section of a city, not just putting the. schools together but putting housing in with it. different kinds of housing, community centers, shopping c.enter~, theaters, all in a great section of the city for rehal)ilitat.ion. Federal funds will help us, transportation funds, highway funds, we hope some fund for construction eventually of school buildings. A number of things will help us to build a. totality of community within the city where the schools will be an accepted and integrated part.. Mrs. GREEN. What about housing programs, Federal housing programs? Mr. Doxov~~x. The Federal housing program I don't think has- it has not harmed or hurt us except. as it. is directed by local authorities when they set. up that housing. Mrs. GREEN. Has it. accelerated the exodus? Has it placed burdens on the schools in terms of white and nonwhite? Mr. DoNov~~x. It. has placed burdens on the schools in terms of school construction but it has not particularly put burdens on us ex- cept where large segments of low-cost housing a.re put together without middle-income housing near this and then you get a segregated situ at ion. That kind of thing has hurt, us. Mr~. GREEN. Let. me quickly ask, do any of you feel there are any Federa.l programs that have accelerated this pace? Mr. BRIOGS. Except. housing. I think it is a little unfair for one agenev of the government to ask us to build schools that. will be totally integrated and then the other agency of the government, the Federal Housing Authority, coming in and building totally segregated housing iii those areas. This is happening every day. Now we will bulldoze as we are right now ;~() acres of homes, slum houses out and we will fill them with 50 acres of very very low-income housing, housing for very low-income people which means we are perpetuating the concentration of poverty people in the same areas of the city and we are doing it for the next 50 years. i\.Fis. GREEN. This is exactly the question I have in mind. lYe are attelnptilia to overcome segregation in the schools and vet another Lranh of the government, through housing. is really helping to create the problem : 1 ut we only blame education. Mr. BIiIGGS. Yes. One other facet of this is that in our Federal Housing Authority, at least in Cleveland. in lieu of ta.xes we get about ~ i~er child out of the housing projects. Tn other words, we have taken private housing out, taken them off the tax assessment rolls, We place public housing on those rolls. The PAGENO="0809" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 803 amount of money we get in lieu of taxation amounts to about $20 per child. This means that every time we build a big housing project of this nature we are compounding the tax problem of the private home owner relative to the education of children in public housing projects. Mrs. Giu~N. Let me turn to another subject, the Teacher Corps. If I remember correctly, everyone of you said if you had your "druth- ers" you would rather have your teacher training programs within your schools. Mr. BRIGGS. Yes. I didn't react. I would only have one reaction to this. I thing the teacher shortage is so great in this Nation that any new approach, any one approach, while it alone will not solve the prob- lem, it brings a certain degree of hope and this is why the first time around I think everybody said yes t.his morning to it and then when you gave us our druthers we changed positions a little bit. But, I think that actually most of us feel that this was a form or is a form that may bring some people into the teaching field that might not otherwise get there. Mrs. GREEN. Off the record. Mr. DONOVAN. Mr. Chairman, I am sorry that at this point I have to leave because I didn't know we were going to have a hearing this a.fternoon and I made an appointment that I have to keep. I would like, if I may, to say one thing: I don't think we have changed position at. all. What we said this morning was that the Teacher Corps is a good thing. We would like to see the project fully funded. Then we got to an entirely different question and that was: "If you ha.d your own way about it wouldn't you rather do your own teacher training V' The answer is "Yes, we would." But we don't have our own way about it. To talk practically about what may ha.ppen with the bill before you, it will happen to the Teacher Corps one way or other, it will not be a grant of money to us for teacher training apparently~ Therefore, we would like to see the Teacher Corps fully funded. If we ever get to general aid, then we would like to do our own teacher training at that point with the money. I would like to thank you and make sure that we are available to you at any other time. Chairman Pi~itKINs. Dr. Donovan, could you stay a few more moments? Mr. FORD. I have one question before you go ahead. One of the common presumptions is that the white people are running away from the city for only one reason and that. somehow the popidation mix of the cities is changing only because of the exodus of people from the city. Is the city of New York smaller or larger in population now than it was in 1960 when the census was taken? Mr. DONOVAN. The city of New York today is about the same size it was in 1960. Mr. FORD. All the people who have left the city have been replaced by someone else? Mr. DONOVAN. That is correct. Mr. FORD. Aren't these generally impoverished people, predomi- nant.ly nonwhites, from some of the less affluent States? 75-492-----67----52 PAGENO="0810" 804 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS Mr. DONOVAN. Yes. Mr. FORD. Doesn't this focus attention on the additional problem you have operating under the formula that counted those people in the Southern States in 1960 but now gives you money to educate them in New York in 1967? Mr. DONOVAN. Yes. Mr. DELLENBACK. Also before you leave, Dr. Donovan, may I ask this question: In what you have just said about teacher trainmg, are you here giving an example of what you feel would be a preferable handling of Federal funds that instead of establishing a Teacher Corps program we place a general guideline that x dollars wilT be used for teacher training and that then you would use these dollars for teacher training? Dr. DONOVAN. Yes, sir. If left to my own devices I would prefer that. Mr. DELLENBACK. If this were to happen, would this improve the quality of teacher training? Dr. DONOVAN. I think it would change the nature of the training and I trust improve the quality. If it didn't, I wouldn't want to spend t.he money on it. Last summer in New York City we trained 8,000 teachers in specially designed courses on the nature of teaching the child from the dis- advantage area. We took them in and put them through special courses, 8,000 of them, in one summer. Mr. DELLENBACK. Were they already teaching? Dr. DONOVAN. They were already teachers m our system teaching in schools for the disadvantaged. We wanted to broaaen and deepen their knowledge of what they were doing. Mr. DELLENBACK. Would there be a difference in the number of teachers who would be teaching the disadvantaged if we were to vote that kind of guideline instead of a whole specific corps program? Dr. DONOVAN. I couldn't tell you there would be a difference in the number of teachers. There would be a difference in the quality of teachers. Mr. DELLENBACK. You feel that measured in totality that there would be an improvement of the teaching in this area which is designed to be served by the Teacher Corps, in total there would be an improve- ment in this if the funds were to be granted for teacher training rather than throu~h a Teacher Corps program! Dr. DONOVAN. I believe that; yes, sir. Mr. DELLENBACK. Would there be a fast yes or no reaction from the other members of the panel? Mr. PAQtTIN. I would agree. Mr. DAILARD. I would agree. Mr. MEEDS. I have a question and I would like to start with Dr. Donovan and t.hen perhaps he would like to leave. Chairman PERKINS. Mrs. Green's time is not up yet. Mr. MEEDS. If the gentlelady will yield for that purpose. Mrs. GREEN. I will yield. Mr. MEEDS. Mr. Brademas asked the question this morning. Your answer, Dr. Donovan, was taken up by the rest of them. If you don't mind my saying so, I was not quite satisfied that the answer was directed to the question. PAGENO="0811" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDTJCATION AMENDMENTS 805 Mr. Brademas asked the question with regard to title III. The proposal has been made that the State be interposed and have what is called the veto power over title III projects. He asked you whether this was acceptable. The answer you gave and I am not quoting you exactly, was that if there was a veto power we would like it to reside in the States. Is that an accurate statement? Dr. DONOVAN. I think so; yes. Mr. MEEDS. I don't think it is that simple-that if there is a veto it must be exercised by the State. The question is that title III now does not have veto power. It has the consultation with the State De- partment of education and approval finally by the Commissioner of Education or Office of Education of the United States. We are agreed on that. Now, the question then becomes, do we in- terpose a further veto power or further power to approve or dis- approve this program and let it reside in the State. Dr. DONOVAN. I think I would have to answer you that-and the same general answer I give to everything elese on which I stand-I would rather do my business with the business education department of the State of New York than with the U.S. Office of Education for just one reason, that it is closer to my problem, I believe. Despite differences of opinion and the fact that they have a veto or Washington has a veto, I still think the closer we get to the local problem the better off we are. Mr. MEEDS. The way title III operates now you are dealing directly with the U.S. Office of Education. Dr. DONOVAN. No, sir, we are not. We are dealing through the State on title III. It goes through the State screening committee. If they send an approval to Washington it counts a little bit although Washington has the final say. Mr. MEEDS. I think we must assume that Washington, D.C. at least in regard to title III is still going to have the final say no matter what happens. My next question is: Would you then desire that State-in addi- tion to the situation that exists now under title 111-would you then desire that the State have the right to veto, let us say, to approve or dis- approve the State programs? That is the real question. Dr. DONOVAN. I think my answer to that would have to be yes. If I believe in the State department I believe in it. Mr. MEEDS. Now the rest of you gentlemen who responded this morning, do you have an answer to that question? Dr. WHITTLER. Are you imposing another decisionmaking level? Mrs. GREEN. Will you yield? I would like to direct a question to Dr. Donovan before he leaves. Three quick questions in three specific areas: One in regard to the handicapped. If I recall, originally we defined handicapped to in- clude the gifted. In the present section the handicapped does not include the gifted. What is the situation in New York? Dr. DONOVAN. The gifted are not handicapped with us. Mrs. GREEN. Do you think attention should be given to them as well as to the handicapped? Are their problems just as great? PAGENO="0812" 806 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS Dr. DONOVAN. I dont think their problems are as great. I think they have a problem and attention should be given to them but I don't tiunk I would change the handicapped bill. I think I would leave that to the handicapped, knowing that we and our local authorities still have to handle the gifted. Mrs. GREEN. In regard to the vocational education, do you have residential vocational schools? Dr. DONOVAN. No, we do not. Mrs. GREEN. Do you have vocational schools? Dr. DONOVAN. Yes, we do. Mrs. GREEN. What is the per-pupil cost? Dr. DONOVAN. The cost of a vocational school? Our college pre- paratory schools today are running us somewhere around $1,400 or $L500 per pupil and our education and vocational education is run- ning about $2,200. Now, we spent an average of $1,000 a year in our city on children. So you have to relate this to the average expenditure. We spend a lot of money on children in the city of New York. Vocational educa- tion is very expensive. The little money we received over the past years from Smith- Hughes and George-Barden was so small in the total picture but so binding in its prescriptions that the new Vocational Act of 1963 was really a blessing to us m its flexibility. Mrs. GREEN. Have you conducted any study on what it would cost to run a residential vocational school? Mr. DONOVAN. We have not because up to now we have not decided to run any so we have not calculated that cost, no. Mrs. GREEN. Would that be hard for you to conduct such a study? Dr. DONOVAN. No, we could do that. Mrs. GREEN. The third question is in regard of the OEO. Would you favor the transfer of all of the educational programs from OEO to the Office of Education? Dr. DONOVAN. Anything that has to do with schooling of children, I would favor the transfer. Mrs. GREEN. What about the Youth Corps? Dr. DONOVAN. The Youth Corps is not for children in school. It is for children out of school. There I don't believe is any argument because we do provide some places for them to learn. There I would not argue the case. But prekindergarten, upward bound~ any programs that are a normal part of the educational pro- gram should be in education. Mrs. GREEN. You would not transfer the Youth Corps? Dr. DONOVAN. I would not transfer it. Mrs. G1u~N. Thank you very much, Mr. Donovan. Mr. Qmr. Do you have to leave right now? Dr. DONOVAN. I am due over in the Senate at 3:30, sir. I fought for this appointment for a couple of weeks. Chairman PERKINS. I am going to call on Mr. Meeds. We will excuse Mr. Donovan. Dr. DONOVAN. Thank you, sir. Mr. M~ins. Dr. Donovan, could I ask you just one quick question: Do you contemplate any problems in the continuing at the present PAGENO="0813" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDITATION AMENDMENTS 807 level the number of people both public school children and parochial children that might be reached in the Headst.art program if it were transferred either to the Office of Education here or to another agency here through your State office in New York? In other words, do you have any parochial school problem in han- dling Headstart and reaching the same people that are presently being reached? Dr. DONOVAN. I don't see any trouble with it at all. Mr. ME~s. No legal problem? Dr. DONOVAN. No, sir. Mr. MEEDS. Thank you. Now I would like to ask questions about title III, if I might. Dr. Wiiirrir~u. What was that again? Mr. MEEDS. `With regard to title III and the imposition of a veto power. Dr. in'r'rirni. Ye.s, you were implying, if I uiiderstood it, that you would put another layer of decisionmaking. I would not favor this. I don't care where it would be. So if you are going to shift it entirely so that there still would be one layer, that would be one thing. If you are talking about inserting a second layer I really would not be in favor of it. Mr. MEEDS. I don't think that you are implying. sir, that you think t.he Federal Government ought not to have decision power in the ultimate, since it is furnishing the money, as to the type of program, do you? Dr. Wrnrr'EE. If you are going to keep it at that level then I would not add another one in the process. Mr. iMr~iiis. In other words, you would not be in favor of changing the law as it presently exists from straight consultation and coordina- tion with the State department to veto power by the State department. Dr. Wrnrriiiit Not if you are going to retain the final decision in the Federal Government. Mr. M~Erirs. Do you think we ought to do anything other than retain the final decision in the Federal Government? Dr. `WHErPIER. We were debating on this business of the State role. I would leave it alone, to answer your question from what I under- stand. Mr. FORD. Yesterday we heard from a number of State school officers and the spokesman for their organization, the executive di- rector of the Association of State School Administrators, who made the recommendation to us that the present., if you will, advice and con- sultation function of the State superintendent of public instruction be changed to an actual approval function. Now, if you went from your city to the State and they had sug- gestions for change you might or might not accept those but if we changed it according to their recommendation you would either ac- cept their changes or they would not let you conic on to Washington with your application. That is the suggestion as to the way of handling it. Dr. PAQIJIN. It seems to me that particular question I would prefer leaving it as is rather than giving the veto power to the State with- out really any right of appeal. PAGENO="0814" SOS ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDLTATION AMENDMENTS rflt is about what it amounts to. Mr. MEEDS. Mr. Briggs? Dr. BIUGGS. I would agree. Mr. MEEDS. The gentleman from California? Dr. DAII~~irn. I think if you ask a question of a group like this as to whether we would rather deal through our own State departments than with the U.S. Office of Education, we would be very much in- clined to answer the State departments. `We are 3,000 miles away. It is easier to get to Sacramento than it is here. This is a generality. No. 2, so far as the title III in California now, the coordination function, with the final authority lodging in TJSOE, it is working very well. We find no particular difficulty with it. If we are putting in an- other level of veto I would be unfavorable to it. I have to note that. there is a tendency on the part of our State de- partments and I think others that when they get an amount of money t.hey fall under the same pressure we were talking about a while ago and spread it evenly. The very essence of title III is that you do not spread it evenly. You give it to things that are truly creative. So it is a fallacy. There could be a tendency of the State department, with the pressures they have from all parts of the State, to spread it evenly and do some things that are not generally innovative and creative. Now, as a general tendency, yes, we would rather deal with the agency closer at home. Another layer of veto in this I don't think would serve any good function as it is now working and it is working very well so far as California is concerned. Mr. MEEDS. In regard to the Headstart program, if you had your druthers would you rather the Headstart program be under the Office of Education or the educational agency of the State? Dr. WmrrIER. I think we would answer it the same way as we did before. We favor putting educational functions under the Office of Education. As it worked out in Philadelphia, we have not had any problems. We are working it indirectly. We have no particu- lar problems at the moment. Mr. MEEDS. How are you working it? You say you are working it indirectly? Dr. WHITrIIER. We get the grant from the school system to operate our program. The way it has worked out we have no complaints. Mr. MEEDS. In other words, your relationship is such that you make your application, you don't have any problem, it works out well? Dr. WHITTIER. Yes. Mr. MEEDS. To follow this up there have been a lot of suggestions that Heacistart be put under title I, under the Elementary and Second- ary Education Act. Under all titles of the Elementary and Second- ary Education Act it. would be impossible for the Office of Education, that is the U.S. Office of Education t.o make grants which would be, for instance, used in a parochial school, even though there were nonparochial students attending. If it were used in a parochial school, this would be improper, illegal, under our law. Realizing that-I am not saying that maybe we could not change it but realizing it, does this make any difference in the PAGENO="0815" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDtCATION AMENDMENTS 809 wa~v you approach this if we have some legal problems attempting to put Headstart programs under the Office of Education here? Dr. DAILARD. The same thing applies to title II. In the case of title II the grant is made from the U.S. Office to the State agency and then under regulations in the State it is redistributed and the private schools do receive support under title II. Mr. MEEDS. Title remaining in the public education agency? Dr. DAILLuW. This has created no particular problems so far as we are concerned. We have an opinion from the legislative counsel in California that they would see nothing wrong with legislation that lets money follow the child. Mr. MEEDS. Maybe we can be very specific about this. I hope we can. So that if a grant was made to the public education agency in California, through the State superintendent's office, of $5 million for Headstart programs, you would have no legal problem in funding a Headstart program that is being carried on in a church basement with perhaps parochial teachers in some instances? Dr. DAILARD. If I read that opinion correctly, I think not. Mr. [Ei~s. Would the answers of all you other gentlemen be the same? Dr. PAQUIN. I am not so sure. I think we would be running into difficulty in Baltimore. Dr. BRIoas. I think this is a legal question that none of us would be competent to answer. However, if we are talking about HEW, OEO, we are talking about the Federal Government. Mr. MEEDS. That is correct. Dr. Biuoos. If the Federal Government has the power to do this, that or the other thing through one agency, I am sure the same Con- stitutional limitations of separation of church and State or coopera- tion between church and State would exist. I think if it can be done legally t.hrough one arm of the Federal Gov- ernment it can be done through another arm. Mr. MEEDS. I hope you are right. Dr. BRIGGS. I think that what we are. trying to say is that Headstart really deals with child growth and deve1opment~ it deals with the edu- cation of the children, and the public schools have been pretty much specialists in this area. As long as they are this might be more appropriate to them than to some other agency. However, in Ohio, our relationship with the Catholic organizations is a very good one. We might feel a little more comfortable if it ~rere completely in our shop. Mr. MEED5. By the same token none of you gentlemen would like to see any of the children who are presently in the group of people being served by this program be cut off. Is that. correct? Dr. P~~QuIN. That is correct. Mr. MEEDS. Those are all the questions I have. Mr. DELLENBACK. Dr. Briggs, I think my colleague from Oregon asked a question that I would like to push for an answer on because I dont feel that this was really answered. As I read it. the Federal goal that was involved in this. ~nd I was flI)f in the Congress when title I was established, the Federal goal wa-~ not to attack inner city problems. PAGENO="0816" 810 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS The Federal goal was to attack educational disadvantage. That has one. aspect of improving the quality and equality of education. The question that was put to you I would like to put to you again. If we went. to a genera.l grant system in the place of the program as we have had it, do you feel that. t.he funds could be equally well spent so far as quality and equality of education are concerned? I am not asking whether it would be. different. Would it. be as well spent so far as these two criteria are concerned ? I)r. Billons. In whose mind? Your mind or mine? Mr. DELLENBACK. You are the one that said it would be changed. Dr. BRIGGS. Yes, in my mind, ye.s. Remember, the question that. I was reacting to was one that. preceded the one of Mrs. Green. Mr. DELLENB~CK. I am not concerned ahout~ what the other question was. Dr. BRIGGS. No. but it. made it appear that I was inconsistent with my answer. But the question I had been reacting to was whether it would be spent in the same way for the same purpose. The answer to that was "No." As far as I am concerned given the same amount of money I could not help but say the way I would spend it. wou]d be better. Mr. DELLENBACK. I am not worried about whether you were con- sistent or inconsistent. I am willing to accept you were completely consistent.. As far as you as a. professional educator are concerned, knowing the problems of Cleveland, if these funds were to be made available to you on a general grant basis instead of this categorical basis, measured by the quality and equality of education within t.he district that you know best, would the funds be as well or better spent? I remember your answer as being "Yes." Dr. BRIGGS. In my mind it would not be. It would not be spent t.he same way. Mr. DELLENBACK. I am not, worried about. whether it would be spent the same way. Dr. BRIGGS. That is right.. Now, t.here. is a second phase of that. That. was relative to the fact. that if it. went the route of the State De- partment of pul)iie in'~truetion. if it went. through that route, the re- servation I was making was that unless happened in Ohio that has not, yet happened. it. would not come to Cleveland. Mr. DELLENBACK. I am not asking the position of the State office. That is not part of my question. If time were available I would like to push that further. The question I just put to Dr. Briggs I would like to put also to the other gentlemen who are here. Mr. Whittier, how do you feel about that.? I)r. WHITTTEII. There would be no question in my mind, we would spend our money equally well or better. Mr. DELLENBACK. Do you feel it would really be better spent so far a~ quality and equality are concerned? I)r. WTIrrTTEn. I hate to imply that what we are doing now is not etYe~tive. use of the funds. I would say it. would be equally well spent. Mr. DELLENBACK. Dr. Paquin? Dr. PAQFIN. I think the money would be equally well spent.. In fact, I am inclined to think even better. PAGENO="0817" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 811 Mr. DELLENBACK. Do you feel it would be better spent were this to be done? Dr. PAQUIN. Yes, I think this would be my position. It seems to me, for example, whenever we do draw up a general budget in the city for the school system w"e do have to make some value judgments re- garding specific programs and defend those decisions which are. made or recommendations which are made to the board. It seems to me this is what we would have to do w-ith general aid. Mr. DELLENBACK. If I read you correctly you are delighted to get Federal funds to help with critical problems but so far as priorities are concerned you feel that, knowing the problems of Baltimore better than any of us and perhaps better than anyone else in Baltimore, were these funds to be made available to you on a general grant basis instead of pinned down categorically, you could do a better job for education, measured by quality and equality, than is being done at the present time? Dr. PAQUIN. Yes, sir; I think we could. Mr. DELLENBACK. Dr. Dailard, what would you say about San Diego? Dr. DAILARD. I wi1l say several things. We have had the experi- ence in San Diego, first we had the experience of dealing with a situa- tion in which we were literally given Federal aid to the extent of unrestricted Federal aid under Public Law 874. In the early years of that law the combined support from 874 and 815 amounted to as much as 37 percent of our annual expenditure in 1 year. These were great years for us in that we could do innovation and were doing it, our handic.aped program dates hack to that time, some of the other programs, some of the compensatory programs. Then we were inundated with a wave of population that made this much less significant and strained our resources. When we come to the specific question, if the same money that is now coming through title I were distributed to the cities, I do not think it would be spent as well by any of us on the criteria that you set up because there would be the pressures from other parts of the city to put some of the money into lesser priorities that I don't think the boards of education could resist. If you are talking about enough additional general aid, yes, now I think it would be spent well. I think it would be spent for good pur- poses. But, in terms of the priorities that now exists, there is little question that the most critical prob~ern is that of dealing with some 20 percent of the population that is an economic drag on the whole Nation. This is more than just education. Our whole national economy is tied up with raising the level of productivity of this 20 percent. If that is the No. 1 priority, if the same money we are now getting were given to us unrestricted, I t.hink it would be pulled away from that purpose of general aid. If it does come for other reasons it should be more. massive. Mr. DELLENBACK. Then you take a different stand than some of your colleagues? Dr. DAILARD. Yes, I am. Mr. DELLENBACK. You say that assuming we were not talking about great additional massive infusions of Federal funds but we were PAGENO="0818" 812 ELEMEcTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION A~NDMENTS talking about roughly the amount we are now funding, if this were to be changed from the present methods of distribution and to be given to you as general aid, to say we lean on you to determine how best you can use this in your district, that you know best, you feel that the net result would be that the money would not be as well spent as if it were handled in the present way? Dr. DAn~uu). In terms of the existing priorities? Mr. DELLENBACK. So far as quality and equality of education are concerned. Dr. DAILARD. We do not think the same amount of money would be as well used in terms of quality and equality which are the priorities right now, the priority for this depressed area. Mr. DELLENBACK. The three of you feel it would be as well or better spent, one of you feels it would not be as well spent. Dr. DAILARD. It would be spent differently. Mr. DELLENBACK. I am not talking about differently. I am talking about reaching results. Dr. BRIGGS. Each of us feels in our own district it would be spent as well or better. But we feel naturally that it would not be spent in the same manner or in the same way and for the same purposes. Mr. DELLENBACK. In your districts you know best, the district of Baltimore, the district~ of Philadelphia, in Cleveland, you feel in your speeific districts it would be as well or better spent, not so in San Diego? Is that correct? Dr. PAQUIN. I think so. Mr. DELLENBACK. Thank you very much. Chairman PERKINS. Mr. Ford? Mr. BURTON. Will the gentlemen yield at this point for one question. Mr. Foi~. Yes. Mr. BURTON. For the record, Dr. Spears' office was informed mis- takenly by my own office that some members of the subcormnittee would be out to San Francisco. So I want the record to be perfectly clear that Dr. Spears intended to come and his failure to come in no way reflects his lack of interest in the subject matter before the committee. Chairman PERKINS. I am glad the gentleman made that observation. Dr. DAUAIW. Dr. Spears is president of the American Association of School Administrators and is scheduled to appear before your com- mittee in this capacity. Mr. BURTON. The point is that he thought he would have another opportunity at a more convenient time. I just wanted his absence not to be misconstrued as having a disinterest in the committee's deliberations. Chairman PERKINS. I think we got a statement today in the record from him. Mr. Ford. Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman, if I might have unanimous consent, Mr. Schener is under the gun for an appointment. He would like t.o go at this time for our side. Mr. SCHEUTER. I thank my colleague for his courtesy. Dr. Briggs and the rest of you. I would like to take up the question I wac~ s~iis~in~ this rnornin~ with Dr. Ohrenberger about whether we PAGENO="0819" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 813 could have a new program here that would give the total thrust, give the totality of the programs that all of us know are needed on some kind of demonstration grant basis similar to what Dr. Ohrenberger is apparently doing in Boston. If there was such a program it would make available to perhaps 20 or 25 cities the resources to spend perhaps $1,000 or $1,500 per child, with the health and nutrition service, with the parent average, with the community involvement, with the supplementary social service, with the reduced class sizes and augmentation of the professional teacher with the aids, with Headstart, do you think this would give us a laboratory so that we could prove in 3 or 4 years to the country and the administration that really what we needed was a program of this dimension and of this quality of totality for all of our disad- vantaged kids? Would such a program in your view be intelligent? Dr. BRIGGS. Yes. As one who has just been backed into a position of saying he was for general aid, or categorical aid, he finds himself in a position to react to another form of categorical aid. I would suggest, however, that possibly the avenue for this may already have been provided in some legislation for the demonstration city. I would hope that as we think in terms about the demonstration cities in this country that possibly the schools would be tied in very closely with all health services and a total approach, housing, urban renewal, cleaning up areas of the cit.y as well as the education of the children, as well as even volunteer efforts within the city, voluntary social agencies. Mr. SC1I1~UER. I could not agree with you more. As a matter of fact, I had lunch today with the head of the model cities program and several officials of the Department of Education with just exactly this long- term coordinated view in mind. As of now the model cities program does not have the funds. This looks like, so far as the current situation is concerned, our very best hope to find out what investment of dollars will give us a threshold effect in returning to us a demonstrable change in the kids. I would like to hear if we had a program like this for a couple of years in a testuig laboratory would give us some interesting results. Dr. DAII~rw. We have written up and for 2 years we had encourage- ment. to set up demonstration under the Economic Opportunity Act. We want to take an area of about 10 schools and give a massive serv- ice to that as a testing laboratory for the things that would go to the dissemination areas. We have not been able to fund it. We believe this is almost essen- tial because while all of us believe the things we are doing are good we haven't had sufficient testing of most of these to really know. Mr. SCHEIJTER. You haven't had sufficient resources to do the total job you wanted to do? Dr. DAILARD. That is right, even now we don't have it. But if we could get 15 schools out of our 150 in San Diego and do this kind of concentrated job, I think we would learn more, not in 2 years but more like 3 to 5 years, we would get answers to the things. This ties in with the other thinks that I mentioned in the testimony this morning about the desire of tiijS group of cities to join together PAGENO="0820" 814 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS in a cooperative effort in evaluating title I projects and get joint work here. We would hope that this would become eligible under V-b for some support. Dr. PAQ1JIN. I wouTd react favorably to that. I think the expecta- tion of most of us, I know in my own particular city I am directly involved with the developmei~t of the plans and the programs for model cities. I might say also in that connection this group which we represent, the great cities group, is having it.s conference in the early part of April. One of the times on that program is that we have invited Sec- retary Taylor to come to that conference because this is an area where we see a possibility of achieving exactly the kind of things we are talking about. Dr. WrnrrIER. Yes, we certainly support it. We are working on some projects right now in this very vein, even to designing the school in cooperation with the other governmental agencies to make this a complete community school. This involves a parochial school adjacent. and ot.her things. Yes, we want to get additional resources at the same time we get other serv- ices and make the school a community center. We have done this in four schools this fall in which we have intro- duced additional services but the lack of funds precludes our giving the massive attack you are talking about. Mr. SCHEUER. How do you feel about. amendments that would accomplish that perhaps in an alternative way of requiring that. no plan would be approved where there wa.s not at least a 50-percent increase in dollars per student that haven't been spent before., and requiring there be coordination of all existing government programs other than educational programs to make sure that the health and nutrition of the child were taken care of-t.ha.t type of approach? Dr. WHITTIER. It needs to be looked at just a little bit because the areas where you would provide it are already provided greater per pupil cost. It. should be. in citywide action, not. that particular location. Mr. SCHEUER. Let me ask one more question on the general grant versus the categorical grant.. It is obvious that as recognized leaders in your profession you have a high degree of knowledge, professional- ism. expertise, and also openmindedness and receptivity to change. Apparently from the report of the National Advisory Council in other school district.s there was not t.hat degree of receptivity to change. Let me read a couple of quotes from the November 1966 Report of the National Advisory Council: If appropriation of money alone could bring about the needed change it would now be safe to sit back with reasonable satisfaction that we are on our way. But provision of fund is only one step in an enormously complex task. Human beings must be changed, millions of children must be taught faith in their own accomplishments in face of their negative experience in school as well as out. Hundreds of thousands of teachers must be persuaded to revise fundamental notions of what the act of learning is, what the relationship of pupil to teacher should be. For the most part, projects are piecemeal, fragmented efforts at mediation or vaguely directed. It is extremely rare to find strategically planned com- prehensive programs for change. The Council continues to be stirred up by the PAGENO="0821" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 815 frequent lack of involvement of teachers in the formulation of programs they are expected to carry out. One of the most disappointing findings was the failure of most schools to identify the more seriously disadvantaged children. The Council advises more involvement. School officials on the one hand and neighborhood poverty groups on the other in a concerted attack to change the total environment of the dis- advantaged child. The act of local efforts do not yet reflect a widely accepted strategy for creat- Ing a new effectively creational climate for disadvantaged children. We have not yet learned to group projects in total programs and to spread such programs throughout the school areas where disadvantaged children are concentrated. Doesn't this give some indication that in the area of the leadership for change in teacher attitudes; to create a better involvement with the community, to create a better involvement of the teacher, that some direction and guidance by the Federal Government for some com- munities will help remedy some of these rather large-scale and dis- turbing deficits which the National Advisory Council has found? Dr. BRlcxs. Yes, I think I would agree. I would want to come back again and say that real change has been made. There is improvement. I am only speaking of my own city, a city that has and will have great troubles but there is an involvement of people in schools now that we never thought could happen. Thousands of people are involved. Mr. SCHEUER. Has that not come in part from the Federal Govern- ment's emphasis on the direction that some of these efforts should take? Dr. BRIGGS. That is correct. Without the assistance from the Federal Government- Mr. SCHEtIER. I am not talking about financial assistance but some the qualitative emphasis on direction that the Federal Government has given based on experience across the country-just like this report of the National Advisory Council. Dr. BRIGGS. Yes. I would also give encouragement to the fact that there is a lot of fragmentation. This sometimes is good because we all get around and look at each other's programs. Every one of us at the table today visits each other's programs, visits each other's cities; we exchange information. When something began working in San Diego that we didn't try in Cleveland or Philadelphia or someplace else, we got out to San Diego to see what was and what was making it work. So the early stages of our programs appear to be a lot of useless fragmentation but out of this comes a sifting and evaluation and a unification of that is good. The teacher aide program, for example, started in one location. Everyone uses it today. There is a certain form that it is taking. Yet in its early stages it was a more deplorable experience. Mr. SCHEPER. Take the teacher aid program. For some decades has there not been a great reluctance on the part of the school systems to engage in parent outreach and to use teacher aides effectively? Hasn't the Federal Government played a catalytic growth here? Dr. BRIGGS. In the first stages, no. The Federal Government was not involved for G or 8 years. That program came out of fundation money during the first years. But it has taken them and enecouraged them and given money to underwrite these kinds of programs and have involved lay citizens. PAGENO="0822" 816 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS Out. of this has come great improvements. While there are thou- sands of schoal ~vsteiris in this country, nevertheless there is surpris- ingly great uniformity where something works someplace if it. has promise it is not long until it is pretty general across the United States. However, the best example of a real forward thrust was Headstart. Mr. SCIIEFER. Would you not say the Federal Government provided the stimulus? Dr. BRTGGS. Yes. Mr. SCHEUER. There seems to he a useful and constructive role that the Federal Government plays apart from the. dollars that it provides. Tt seems to me that this does provide the justification for continuing the categorical grant system at least for a few more. years until some of these newer approaches have achieved the widespread acceptance that you gentlemen indicate they deserve to achieve and you hope they do achieve. Dr. DAILARD. The reason behind the answer I gave to the previous question was that if the same amount of money would be spread gen- erally it would be refused. As long as the amount of money is limited it would better be aimed at the No. 1 priority. That gives us the protection we need. Each community has the same kind of political pressures that you work in among the States. Mr. SCIJEUFE. That. it is a justification for the categorical approach. Dr. DAILARD. If the amount. of money is limited it is inadequate to do the job for which it is aimed; then we should keep it within the structure, rather than permitting it to he released. All of us would have pride in our own judgment to believe that we could make better use of some of it. particularly more money. Mr. SCnEFER. In other words, the categorical approach helps you to do what. you would like to do but which you might not be. free to do were you abandoned more or less to the local political pressure? Dr. DAILARD. When it comes to the level of financing, large amount of Federal funds coming into our district amounting to 37 percent of our expenditures for a year, we were moving on a number of fronts. When our financing tightened up it began to dry up our ability to innovate. Dr. PAQLTIN. Congressman, I think I have a little different point of view. I find it difficult to draw the distinction between money which I get from the Federal Government, which is categorical aid and to be spent for specific purposes, and the money I get from the city in terms of general funds for which I have to make some judgment along with the board and members of the staff as to how that money is to he spent. We do this with the bulk of the money we spend. We do exercise this kind of judgment. It is general aid. Personally, I don't see why this same formula can't work in terms of a total general-aid program even wit.h Federal money. Mr. SCHFUFR. Thank ou very much. T want. to thank my colleague for his courtesy iii yielding to me. Chairman PERKINS. Mr. Ford? Mr. FoRD. We got off the legislation here a bit today but we have touched on something rather important. It appears that somet-iine diirin~ this (~on~re~ we are ~oing to be confronted with a proposal PAGENO="0823" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 817 from quarters that have been in the past against any kind of Federal aid. We are now going to be advocating general Federal aid, what- ever that means. I thought before I came to this committee I knew what it meant but I find it is one of those things with a tremendous number of very fine niceties in it. You have to be extremely careful that we are talking about the same definitions when we extract opinions from one another. I hope you will keep in mind as you discuss this a little further what the total impact of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act represents in terms of a percentage of total cost of education in various parts of this country. Going to the very bottom of the scale, for example, if we were to fully fund this legislation as we had au- thorized in legislation in 1966 for fiscal year 1968, we would only be giving California 6 percent of its educational budget. As a matter of fact, we are giving California in this legislation something less than 3 percent of its budget. `I here are States that without the 40-percent limitation in this bill would be receiving a greater percentage than that of their total budget just from this legislation. When you couple that with some other form of Federal aid we have a number of States that at the present time are receiving niore thaii 50 cents on every dollar spent for education from the Federal Government. This is not true in any of the States, I believe, represented by the members of this panel here today. Recognizing that we have a very limited amount of money in terms of these percentages to spend in a number of places would you feel that, even if title I funds did not have, some guidelines directing them toward specific attendance areas or specifically identifiable educationally deprived children, this limited amount of money would add, if anything, to the already ongoing effort of the overtaxed local funds? I might add this factor also before you respond: For the purpose of this discussion I hope you would not confine yourselves in eval- uating general aid and categorical aid to the categories that we have thus far delineated. There are many opinions in the Congress that some of the more important categories have not yet been added. For example, Mr. Perkins and Mr. O'Hara and I have legislation which we held hear- ings on which designated as a category of educationally deprived children those in obsolete, overcrowded, or nonexistent classrooms, the rapidly growing school district, the school district faced with population shifts and the school district, with except iona I problems and the lack of local resources. These are categories that we might hope would be added as we go down the road and get more money. Would we be more likely to reach the pressing needs of the overcrowded classroom, the obsolete school, within the districts that you represent., by continuing the categorical approach or by simply adding more money without any definition assuming we are oniy going to add in the magnitude of maybe double what we are proposing to give you this year~ Dr. WmTTIER. I think it is a little speculative but I would think that to continue support. in a manner that will give us additional PAGENO="0824" 818 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMEND~~S funds until we really get a significant part of our budget would be the most expeditious way of going about it. I take it the level you are talking about, to continue what you are doing but giving it better support, would be both the more reason- able way and the more realistic possibility. I don't think we are getting at the level yet that we probably can make this kind of effective shift, that is what it amounts to. Mr. FORD. In other words, although we may reach the point where the partnership between the Federal Government and other tax re- sources for the schools would justify no strings type money we might not have reached the point where you would be free to continue targeting the money? This does not mean then, I take it, that your testimony would in any way be construed t.hat you are forever more against general aid or forever committed to categorical aid but merely in the terms of the kind of money we are spending and the problems we are now facing. Dr. BRIOGS. At this point with the limited amount of money that is appropriated for education in this country, it seems to me that there is wisdom in using the target approach in zeroing in on what you feel would be great national needs. When the time comes that this partnership between local, State, and Federal Government is such that there will be massive large amounts available., then the target approach may not be too important. This is what makes the answering of the question so difficult when they say, would you spend the money better if you had no strings attached. Each of us probably would think that we would spend it better but nevertheless the national target that you have in mind would be shifted by each of us. Chairman PERKINS. Just a moment, Mr. Ford. The school super- intendent from Baltimore wishes to be excused. We are delighted that you came here to help us today, we all appreciate it. Dr. PAQUIN. Thank you, sir. Mr. Foiw. Before leaving this point, I would just like to touch very briefly on this. We have chewed it over several times today. You pointed to the kind of pressures that would make it extremely difficult to avoid spreading the money so that. everybody would feel they were getting their fair share. It is still very difficult in the area that I serve to convince, the more affluent members of the committee that they have in fact an interest in the education of the less affluent members. I am not, familiar with San Diego but the other three cities who are represented he.re as cit.ies which I recognize as having a Negro popula- tion that is significantly large so that. it is a political factor in that city. If you have these doubt.s with that kind of potential political power within your city it. does not leave much doubt. in my mind as a member of this committe.e as to the fate. that might befall the members of the minority groups in a district, like mine where they never represent. a thing like a majority or close to a majority in the community in which they live. It is one thing to be a part of a minority that has no local recognition at all because it is a minority hut quite another to be in a city where PAGENO="0825" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 819 the minority has reached such proportions that it has to be reckoned with. Laying aside all Christian reasons and others why we should do it, the plain hard facts of life are that frequently people in public life don't do it until they have to. I think perhaps if we had some of the people from other cities we might be putting them on the spot with the questions we have asked you. In most of the communities I represent the superintendent would be hard pressed indeed to convince the general public who claim to be supporters of the school that any program ought to be put in one school and not all the schools in that district or focus on that. one group and not all of the groups. We have had some very modest success in doing this with crippled children, some very modest success with retarded children, but even in these programs everybody wants them to be in a school closest to them or else have them in every school so that everybody is treated fairly. It is almost impossible to identify a group or local or community and get everybody else in town to admit that they are less advantaged than we are. In discussing title I today there has been some suggestion that as superintendents you have had difficulty with the stringent require- ments of title I in devising programs that would satisfy the require- ments of the Federal act. My own experience has been that the only unhappiness expressed to me, and I do speak at a number of institutes in the State of Michi- gan on this, has been over t.he problem at the State level because we are a little bit slow on the State level in getting started with our State guidelines and getting paper shufilers even to handle the application. Have you found it, as a superintendent, difficult to devise programs within the restraints that. we have placed on the use of these funds? Dr. BRboos. Not. really. Remember, we are dealing with two legis- latures. One is the National Congress and the other is those who write the guidelines because they are legislating also. Many times interpretation of the guidelines has given us concern and trouble but guidelines change, as you know. Sometimes rather often. The guideline interpretat.i oils have given us some problems. I think the law as far as we are concerned has been clear and it has been difficult to live with. Sometimes guidelines have, been a little more restrictive tha.n the law. Dr. DAILARD. We have no difficulty. I think we have projects enough on the shelf now to spend twice as much as we are getting usefully and within the pui'pose of t.he law. Dr. WHITTIER. We have plenty of projects, t.oo. Mr. FORD. Thank you. Now, in evey hearing so far, we have also touched, although it is not in this particular piece of legislation, on the quest.ion of the trans- fer of Office of Economic Opportunity educational programs to the Office of Education. There is a slight difference of opinion. It may be just semantics when you get down to it, whether Head- start, for example, is truly an educational program or whether it is something more. You can argue that it. is an educational program e.ve.n with all the other things, and that should be part of education. But there are 75-492-(m7-----53 PAGENO="0826" 820 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDTTCATION AMENDMENTS two kinds of recommendations coming to us from witnesses with respect to the transfer. Almost. every witnes has said he would like to see-and every school principal or State school officer has sa.id he would like to see-Head- start, as an example. transferred for its administration to the Office of Education. I3ut there is something that underlies this that we found when we got into this with the State school officers. What appeared to be an agreement on their part was not when you asked them under what circumstances they would transfer. In the Elementary and Secondary Education Act we were restrained to carefully restrict the funding of all those programs to public edu- cational agencies. It could not he. funded to anyone but a public educational agency except for the new legislation that we are dis- cussing now. We have, not operared under similar restraint while Headstart has been under OEO. Asaresult. we have 30 percent of the Headstart progL~i~ and 10 peicent of the children involved not being operated by the public schools of the country. Perhaps some of you have this in your own cities. In favoring the transfer of the. educational functions of OEO, including Headstart, to the Office of Education, could it be fairly read that you would favor including the same kind of restraints so that after it gets to the Office of Education it would only then be operating through a public educa- t ion agency, thereby in effect terminating the contracts or the contacts with agencies other than public school agencies now opera.ting Head- si art ? Dr. WHITTIER. Yes, that would be the interpretation I would place on it. Without criticizing the ones that are done, I would interpret this to be a role of public education. If there was some kind of work- ing out. some kind of private support.. there are. two or three programs in our city that. we have nothing to do with, but they do involve a very small number of children. I think the bulk of them are going to be handled in the public school program. Of course, we do service at the present time children from any religious or racial group that wishes to come into the center. So that we have had a. very fine working relationship as far as parochial schools are concerned. I would say, Yes, that is what I would be talking about. Mr. FORD. Would you have any objec.tion to specifically authorizing the Office of Education to continue funding programs through other than the public schools where t.hat organization seems to be the one most likely to reach the people being served? I)r. ~IiITTIER. I think ou came up to another problem because actually the programs now go t.hrough our local CAP committees and therefore are supported at. the local level. Mr. FORD. But if we make the transfer they won't go through CAP any longer. Dr. WHITTIER. What you are. doing then is specifying what kind of group is going to evaluate the local program. You still have the program now in essence going through the local board in terms of the local antipoverty group. If that group is taken out I don't visualize PAGENO="0827" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 821 what part does not go through t.he State now, that you are going to have some kind of supervision at least for the quality of the program which is one of the concerns. Mr. FORD. I don't think I am making my point clear. We have Headstart programs being operated in church buildings. In Harlem they have a year around Headstart. They have no classrooms available in New York. So, t.hey have fixed up some rooms in church buildings, and people who are not employed in the public school system are employed in operating these Headst art programs. We are told by the Office of Economic Opportunity when they defend themselves in this regard that if it were not done there, there would be no room for them and they would not be able to carry out the program or at least not to that extent. As public school superin- tendents you would not have any objection to the continued funding of this type of organization even though in the same city you are operating a Headstart program in most of your schools. Dr. `~\ mTTIER. Our programs are all housed outside the public schools, the ones we are operating now. `What you describe is the programs we are operating. `We are using church facilities of various denominations throughout the city. Mr. FORD. Do you administer all He.adstart in Philadelphia? I)r. `\VHITTIER. Not all of it. There are two separate projects which are very small. We do the bulk of it, a $3 million program. Our program is housed in non-public-school buildings because we have no space. Mr. Fom. Would you be able to take over these two programs and make them a part of the public school w'ithout taking anybody out of the program? Dr. `WHITTIER. If they met the same criteria. I don't see any prob- lem doing that because we are using a large number of the people- Mr. Form. What if they are using fullS in teaching the Headstart programs? Dr. WhITTIER. I think that might iose a problem there, but. I don't think any of them are at the moment, that I recall, hut I think that would have to be looked at in the local situation whether they wanted to continue doing it that way or not. Mr. Form. In our area they are, as a matter of fact. Tn Chicago they are. We don't have either of those superintendents at the moment. The question that strikes some of us is the anxiety to take over this progranl in its entirety, thereby putting a Sul)Stafltial number of teachers really out of business at a time when we have a shortage. `Would you be able to replace those teachers if we say to the Detroit Archdiocese or Chicago Archdiocese, your program will now be merged with the public school, if both of the States have taken the trouble to provide that the nuns would not be allowed to teach in the schools. Dr. WmTTIER. You would have the same problem we do now. It is a pretty hectic problem to recruit enough qualified people so that von are only magnifying the problem more. That would be an addi- tional problem. . Any time you take on a service requiring more trained teachers you just niulti ply your problem. There is no question about that. Dr. Bmnoas. We have 40 centers in Cleveland at the present time. The indication in the testimony this morning we covered over 10,500 PAGENO="0828" 822 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMEND~NTS children in 1965. The majority of Headstart children are in public schools; some are not. I do think it is an educationally reiateà. pro- gram and one that t.he leadership in our town has come from our staff and there is no question about that. Most of the programs are out- side the public schools, renting facilities here, there, and elsewhere. There are a lot of things that determine where they are going to be. But I think we would be much more comfortable with funding through HEW than we are with funding through Economic Oppor- tunity programs, although we have no difficulty with the CAP program at the local level. Nevertheless we have another set of guidelines, we have another set of offices to go through in Chicago. We have another set of people who have ideas about how things should be done. Despite the fact that the Congress of the United States may enact, the fact that there will be as much money spent next year on Headst.art as last year, we find out that this means that while we will spend as much under the new OEO guidelines, only half as many children will be involved because of new guidelines that they have developed someplace. I think it would be simpler, it would be more comfortable for us. if they were in educational operation rather than OEO. Dr. DAILARD. I agree completely with that. I feel it is an educa- tional problem. The educat.iona.l institutions are the ones accustomed~ to dealing with the teaching of children. Mr. Fonn. Let me interrupt you for a minute. How much tradition did you have prior to the He.adstart program in dealing with a parent as an aid the way Headstart does? Dr. DAILARD. Rather a substantial amount. Mr. FORD. You have a tradition down through the kindergarten. level that deals with the child? Dr. DAILARD. In our own city we have had experience with a nursery school operation in which we were definitely involving the parents. We consider parent education to be a part of it. So we had experience prior to this in dealing with the parent not only as a helper. To answer the other question. I would have no reluctance if any legal barricade that exist can be hurdled, of seeing HEW support }T~adst art programs not only in other facilities but under other con- trol. It does not bother me. But I think we would be working under a. single set of guidelines helped by those people whose orientation is primarily educational. We have some difficulty in working through the CAP agency. Mr. FoRD. One other complaint we have heard in this regard from time to time is the comparison drawn between what you pay a kinder- garte.n teacher and what the Headst.art. teacher is paid and when the total cost of the program is divided out on a per-head basis and it comes out two or three times the amount of money you are spending on general education. Has this complaint been heard in your city? Dr. WInTrIER. Yes, it. is one. of the complaints. It is a more ex- pensive program. I think there is no argument about that at all. You are providing an entirely different staffing level than you are for- the rest of the school. That is where the money is. There have been some questions raised. Basically everyone is pretty well pleased with this program. It is one of our better programs ft5: PAGENO="0829" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 823 far as full support is concerned. I am reafly unaware that there has been any real criticism although everyone is aware of this problem. We have run nursery schools since World War II so we have a con- siderable amount of experience with the underage child in a program that we have operated. Actually, our Headstart program has easily fitted into this kind of program, provided for a significant extension of what we were already doing. So that it was not a completely new operation so far as Phila- delphia schools were concerned. Mr. Foiw. With respect to title II of this act, you have already been asked to give some thought to how much more money you could use under title I. The national library people feel that $18 per child is the amount that should be spent. I have heard testimony this morning about Detroit. They are spending less than $2 per child. Would you give some thought, based on the experience you now have had for 2 years on title II funds, to what we ought to be looking forward to as an ongoing need to bringing the school libraries up to what we were talking about in 1965. Dr. Bi~mos. I think none of us would have too much difficulty in a program 200 or 300 percent greater than the present one. There is a problem relative to title II, and that is the heavy administrative cost to the local district. Mr. FORD. I noticed in the formal testimony this morning one of you mentioned there should be funds for local administration. Last year this question came up. I thought we made the language clear that when we talk about 5 percent for State administration we didn't mean at the statehouse or in the State capitol. We meant within the State. We spelled it out in the report. Are you telling us that the State is keeping the 5 percent? Dr. BRIGGS. I am only speaking of Ohio. We calculated our cost the other day. The cost of administering the program in Cleveland in the different school districts, public, parochial, private schools, exceeded $100,000. In other words, this is operational money that we had to take out of the other programs in Cleveland to operate title II. Mr. Foim. What would that represent as a percentage of your total title II money? Dr. BRIcos. I can't answer that question. It would be pretty high because we do not get much title II money. By the time we got through administering the program for everyone- Mr. FoRD. Is the State taking all the allowable withholding for administration of title II and keeping it at the State level for admin- istration? Dr. BRIc~s. They are using it all to the extent that at least in Ohio, to the best of my knowledge. the.re is none available for the adininis- f ration of the program at the local level. Mr. Foim. How about California? Dr. DAILARD. So far as I know, if they are getting it they must be keeping it. It is not coming down to us. Mr. Foiw. We spelled out in the bill a limitation as to the amount of money that could be used for administration. Five percent, Mr. Chairman? PAGENO="0830" 824 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS Chairman PERKINS. I believe it is 5 percent. Mr. Foiw. Last year it was called to your attention that the State was not passing any of the 5 percent onto the local agencies. Chairman PERKINS. The people that were administering the library program, we did our best to see that the money ifitered down. Mr. Foiw. We ought to put in the act t.hat when we say the State it means within the State. Dr. WHITTIER. Of course, it is done differently in different States. Mr. Foiw. In Michigan they brought it down to the intermediate school level which is administering the program for the school district. Dr. WhInIER. Ours is at the State level. Mr. Foiw. They did that as a result of the report language. It was the representative of the intermediate schools that came into the com- mittee last year with this complaint. Thank you very much, gentlemen, for your patience and for your assistance on this legislation. Dr. DA1LARD. May I comment. on one thing? You opened a door a while ago that I wanted to comment on, addi- tional categories, and by implication you indicate acceptance of ad- ditional categories might be assistance for group housing, replacement housing and so fort.h. I just wanted to add a word of support to that. I think this is another one of the high priorities that is developing very rapidly for replacement of obsolete buildings, providing new housing and many, many districts in our State have already exceeded and are having to borrow from State funding for building. I think this would be a very high priority in all of the cities here represented. We would see the building category as a very important one. Mr. Foiw. Mr. Perkins had a bill that we will have hearings on in May. We will have to wait for the cessation of hostility in the Far East before we get that kind of money. It deals with the unhoused child, the definition of which would be a child in an overcrowded classroom, the child for whom there is no classroom, a child in the one- room country school, a child beyond x number in the classroom. This kind of formula would determine another category of educational deprivation which had to do with the school facility and ability of the school district to support that facility rather than the individual status in the community of the child himself. Chairman PERKINS. Mr. Bell Mr. BELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. A question was asked of a previous witness. I understand that one of you gentlemen stated that you would prefer a general aid than categorical. Is that correct? Dr. BRIGGS. Yes. Let me say this: At this moment in history when the amount of money coming from Congress is so small and you seem to have some targets you want us to hit, maybe the only way you can do it is to give us a rifle and a shot. If we had what we would like, we would like to have enough money to educate the children in our school districts. We feel that we would have the kind of judgment that would develop the best kind of programs. PAGENO="0831" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDTJCATION AMENDMENTS 825 It would appear that we just don't quite have our choice these days. Therefore, we as people here today may appear t.o be against what we are for really at times but we do need more money generally for education. We would like to have more freedom with that money. However, we have expressed an honest opinion that maybe it would not always be used for purposes that you might want it used for. So t.his is the argument for the categorical aid. All things being equal, I think we would all say if we could have enough t.o really educate the chil- dren in our school districts we would like to have a general no strings attached. We know that that is quite impossible. Mr. BELL. I also noted that you all indicated that it is very im- portant that the amouiits and the decisions so far as this committee is concerned and as far as the Congress is concerned be made early so that you can make your plans. Did you specifically indicate the time limit? What do you thmk is the time limit that this matter should be decided to place you in the position when you could use it in the most efficient manner. Dr. WHITTIER. As early as possible. We would like to have it known at the time we are forming our budget so that the whole process could be done at once. Mr. BELL. `What would be the latest time? Dr. WHIrrIER. For example, our budget will be published in the next couple of weeks. If we had our choice, we would have known about it in the last month and a half at the very latest. Chairman PERKINs. Mr. Quie tells me that he has a 4:30 appoint- ment. If you would yield, Mr. Bell. lie would like to ask a question. Mr. QUIE. I would like t.o ask you, now before you leave, your re- action to the change in Public Law 874 and a1~o some of the problems you are having in the Minneapolis School District., and how this could affect you. I think that would be helpful to us. Mr. BEVIS. Thank you. I am not sure how the others are affected by this particular part of the 874 but in Minneapolis we are not able to come in with a total of 3 percent. Currently we have one student over enough to bring us into 3 per- cent but we are assuming that by the time the regulators of the regil- lation get through with us we won't have our 3 percent. So, looking at the new regulations that allow us to come in with 400 students or more. At this point we will come in with somewhere around 2,000 students. We have currently lost a 16-mill referendum which left us in dire political straits as you might imagine. In addition to a change in the tax base, not an unuusal one. I think Cleveland had the same sort of thing, with a change in the base for industrial and business establishments and for homes~ one being at~ 40 percent, the other being altered to 33 percent, leaving us again with a serious deficit in the amount available. But this being a side issue, the issue is that if there is money avail- able, and I understand there is not, for those coming under the 400 PAGENO="0832" 826 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMEW~S part of 874, this would provide a great deal of help at this particular time, with around 2,000 students who are in the category recognized under 874 but not enough to bring us within a 3-percent part. Mr. Qtrii~. Last year, in an amendment, I had wanted to see 874 changed so that we would get away from the inequity where if you had less than 3 percent you had to absorb all the 3 percent, if you had more than 3 percent you get paid for the entire 3.1 percent or what you have above it. I would like to see it so that everybody would eventually absorb 3 percent-i percent the first year, 2 percent the second year, and 3 per- cent in the third year. I think it is significant for Miimeapolis schools especially now when we do have the problem of a loss referendum. Chairman PERKINS. Mr. Bell? Mr. BEIJ~. Referring t.o the last exchange in which I believe Dr. Whittier was saying that t.he money should be available or at least they should have knowledge to make their plans around this time, this particular period, to do the job effectively. So, we are running out of time right now. Now would you feel the way the operation worked last year, for example, that you should have had full authorization of the full amount of money. Dr. WHrrrrER. Naturally we feel we should have had the full amount; yes. Mr. BELL. Do you think you could have handled it if you had had the full amount? Dr. WHITTIER. Yes; we had our programs all set up. We have had to back up. as a matter of fact. after we got initial guidelines which we assumed on full percentage and then found we were to get 85 percent. We had to have a reappraisal of what. we were doing. Mr. BELL. This possibly would not work for your area, however, I notice t.hat the Commissioner of Education, Dr. Howe, stated that- I presented testimony last year to the effect that full funding of the total authorization would create a situation which would mean in all likelihood unwise expenditure of funds. I still believe that is the case. In other words, he does not. go along with you, that he feels for last year really t.he funding would not have been handled as expeditiously a.s they could nationwide. Dr. WHITTIER. I am talking a.bout our particular school district. Mr. BELL. I noticed here earlier there was considerable conversation about Headst.art program working better if it were to be moved over into the Office of Education under the Commissioner of Education rather than under t.he Poverty Act. I must say I fully concur in this. However, the adult basic educa- tion was removed from the Poverty Act this last year and moved under the Education Commission. Have you had any indication to show that it is working better as a result of the change Dr. BRIGGS. You will get a very good reaction to this. We had one of the big projects and a very successful one. But when it was moved over one little thing happened. It wasn't funded. I must confess it worked much better when it was funded even under OEO. But we, like our programs, seem to work so much smoother when they are funded. This one was not funded. It was moved over but PAGENO="0833" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 827 since it was not funded we have had to go out and we have raised our subscription from business and industry, interim amounts of money for an interim period to keep it operating. We have a full daytime high school for adults with nearly 1,600 adults with the age bracket running up to 77 years of age. Mr. BELL. I was the author of the amendment that moved it out of the Poverty Act to under the Education Commission. However, I did provide in my amendment for the funding. What happened was that the Appropriations Subcommittee did not choose to move the money over. That is basically what happened. I thought they should have firnded it but they didn't. One of the problems, as you know, is that a child who has his Headstart training for a few months and then goes in the kindergarten or first grade under the same circumstances that he was raised, that the school system is not adequate to follow up the Headstart program. There is no point having a Headstart program if it does not go on with an effective kindergarten at the primary school. Would you like to comment on that? Dr. BRIGGS. I agree with you because the kind of leadership we are getting on our Headstart program certainly is having its effect on the vitality of the entire school program of kindergarten on through. It also gives continuity of planning. it gives continuity of staffing, proper use of equipment, materials, even such mundane things as the prepara- tion of hot meals and all of these other things that are basically a part of the educational enterprise that allows this kind of utilization that when fragmented out and put under other jurisdictions these services, supportive services, are not there. The psychological service, even the services of the staff psychiat.rist, the service of our health officers, the service of trained visiting teachers, visiting therapists, all of these services are available to a school system. They are regularly available. When you segment this out and put it under another agency, another organization, you don't have this kind of teamwork that can be had. We will be the last to say that we have all been as wide awake as we should have but we feel more wide awake today than we used to. I think that the vitality of Headstart is moving on through. I think there is no question about it. Mr. BELL. For the record, gentlemen, I would like to take you on a slightly different track. You know, during the debate on the Ele- mentary and Secondary Education Act when it came out in 1964 you had the constant referral of certain groups opposing the bill to the dangers of Federal aid bringing Federal control. We still hear this in my own State. Do you see any real inherent danger of that? Dr. DAILARD. In my testimony this morning I made the statement that all programs so far as content, emphasis, teachers used, materials used and selected, have bee.n locally planned and directed. The report, referring to the report I made, demonstrates that: One, progress has been made toward satisfying the national need as defined in the statutes. Two, progress has been made fuiffihling the educational needs of the district. PAGENO="0834" 828 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS Three, local control and direction of the program has not been weakened or compromised. Mr. BELL. You are saying you don't believe there has been any control so far as you are concerned? Dr. DAILARD. There has been control to the extent we have dis- cussed here this afternoon, that. these funds were of limited applica- bility. It. was not general aid. It was specific aid. But we designed our own program and no one changed it. Mr. BELL. Dr. Dailard, you, of course, are from my home State, California. I welcome you here. What you have said is true, in the Los Angeles area as well. However, I have heard some complaints about the State making its guidelines beyond what the Federal guidelines were. Have you had any particular problems in this area? Dr. DAILARD. Not with reference to title I. There were some of the State guidelines under the National Defense Education Act which seemed to us to go beyond both the national guidelines and intent of the Act in restricting the use of the funds. This is particularly true in title V. So far as the SEA Act, we have no such complaint. I have not heard it in the State. So far as our district, the, districts in our area, we feel no added restraints. Mr. BELL. Dr. Briggs, would you like to comment on both those points? Dr. BRIGGS. Yes, I would essentially agree. However, I would not want to mislead you to think that there were no movements of dis- cussion at our conferences about interpretations. But as far as willful takeover of local programs and the kind of fears that all of us have had from time to time, I think that we would feel more comfortable t.oda.y in our relationship with the Federal Government than we have ever had before. I could not in good conscience complain to this committee. Mr. BELL. Have you felt that you have had adequate elbow room to move? Dr. BI~IGGs. Yes. Mr. BELL. Dr. `Whittier? Dr. WHITrIER. I think I can agree in general. I think the biggest problem we have is the amount of staff time that goes in getting Fed- eral funds. We think sometimes this is a hard way to get the money. There is a lot of staff time and effort that goes into meetings, dis- cussions and preparation of forms and other things which are not always too productive of the time and energy spent. Tinder our State, of course, the Federal part of it also entails con- siderable discussions at that level. So we have actually gone through the formality of State discussions, Federal discussions, Federal discus- sions wit.h State people. together on the same project. By the time you get through you have spent a lot, of staff time in dis- cus~n~ even though in the end it finally came out. Dr. DuL.~p~. I registered the sanie complaint this morning that there i~ an exoes~ive amount. of detail. We are dealing with 21 sec- tions of 11-X in our school di~trict. It seemed to us that there could be a great deal of simplification, standardization, and coordination of both the statute and guidelines. PAGENO="0835" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 829 It would simplify our task. We are spending a great deal of ad- ministrative time and costs to process the application. We processed 160 applications last year over and above our 874 survey and application. Each of those was approved, not all were approved but those ap- proved result in separate accountability, separate reporting and very often in delayed funding. I mentioned this morning that we have an NDEA program at cost of $1 million. We have received $96,000 so far. We have a substan- tial investment of our local funds. We know we will get it eventually but the shoe pinches every now and then. Dr. WrnrriER. Actually, the guidelines change every once in a while in this process which entails our redoing, our reevaluating. I realize it may not be anyone's fault, but it will certainly be part of the prob- lern of time involvement. Again, we have had to do this quite a number of times. Mr. BELL. As you know, last year there was an additional amend- ment made to the act which provided that the AFDC, latest available information on AFDC children could be used. It is my understand- ing that the Department provided that 1965 data would be most gen- erally acceptable data. It was my understanding that California, for example, was ready, willing, and able to have provided 1966 data, and this in fact lost Cali- fornia approximately $10 million. I am wondering about your State of Pennsylvania and your State of Ohio, could they have provided the 1966 data if they had been allowed to? Dr. WHITTIER. I really can't answer that. Mr. BELL. You don't know? Dr. WHITTIER. No. Dr. BRIGGS. I can't answer that either. However, I am embarrassed that our State made a very big error on its 1965 data. It has held up for California and all the other States for several days, maybe several weeks in the actual distribution of moneys. But this was a clerical error. I don't know that we could ha've given 1966 or not. Mr. BELL. We are going to try very hard to push the department here and bring this up to date for the next time if we can. Dr. DAILARD. I would also comment that we would like to see the 1960 census base updated. We have had a 20 percent increase in pop- ulation and enrollment which is not reflected at all in our entitlement. Mr. BELL. We hear frequently the classroom size is 30 per teacher. That, of course, is ideal. That is the very maximum, is that right? Dr. Bnioos. Ours is about 35 in Cleveland. Mr. BELL. 35? Dr. BRrnos. Yes. Mr. BELL. That is getting into the dangerous area. Dr. BRIGOS. Yes. Dr. DAILARD. Our average elementary schools of the city are 33. In the target area schools, which shows the impact of title I, it is 26. Mr. BELL. That should be getting down pretty good, 25, 26. Dr. DATLARD. ~es. PAGENO="0836" 830 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS Mr. BELL. One more question which is a sort of general one: I am wondering if you feel that the Teacher Corps program per se as pro- vided by the amendments to this bill is the right a.pproach to that problem? Do you feel that it is? Let me get more specific. Do you think the Teacher Corps program as set out in the amendment is the best approach to handling this problem or could the problem be handled better by financing the program through the States without the national Teachers Corps? Some problem would be worked out on the part of recruiting but basically do you think it could work better in that fashion or do you think it is better as it is? Dr. Wnirrn~. I think it might be better the other way of organiz- ing it actually. I think that there is a certain espirit de corps that can come from a national effort. of this kind than there is from that impetus which you can't deny but we have had a certain number of problems with the way both have been funded as you know. In the present year we happen to have one of the cooperative pro- grams and it has been a real headache because of the lack of funding and lack of availability of funds initially which caused considerable consternation. I suppose one of the biggest concerns I would have is, if we are go- ing t.o have it, to know that we are going to have it and have it funded rather than let us be in the position this year of not knowing where we were going, with having all the students and knowing we could not gracefully back out because we had the commitments and not the funds. `Whatever system is devised, if we can be fairly assured of what we are going to have when we make a commitment, then I think we would be much more comfortable about it. Dr. DAILARD. I agree with that. If the amount of money is limited the Teachers Corps program does zero in on a problem of providing needed staffing for the areas of deprived children. It is narrow. I think we would all answer and did answer earlier in the day that we would prefer to see the program come to us providing that, using the term you used, these was adequate funding. If there is a limited amount of money, this is probably the way to do it. There is an amendment on which I commented this morning. I would feel that the amendment to make sure that the people as- signed are from the local district is important. In a State with tenure as we have, we are responsible for it, we want to be sure that the people have a reasonable chance of succeed- ing in the community before we accept them. The present program of limited scope is hitting at the problem that we all have, of finding an adequate number of teachers to stay in the deprived area. We would like to build our intern programs into some of the other programs. Dr. BRrnG5. I agree. Mr. BELL. That i~ all. Mr. Chairman. Chairman Pii~KIxs. Let. me thank all of you distinguished educa- tors for coming before the committee and helping us write this bill. PAGENO="0837" ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS 831 You have been so generous of your time not only on this occasion but in the past, I imow the full committee appreciates your coming here to- today. You have made great contributions. We know that we are operat- ing today with more or less a limited budget but under the conditions it is the best we can do. However, I personally feel we should greatly expand the program. We have to face the reality and do the best job we can possibly do in the circumstances. Now we have to spend as best we can the amount of funds we have on the basis of need throughout the country to reach the most disad- vantaged groups. Your testimony has been most helpful to us. I look forward to your next appearance before this committee on some future date. Thank you all. Dr. DAuAlw. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We were honored to be permitted to testify. The CHAIRMAN. It is my plan after we write this bill to look further into the great need of the Federal aid to education on school construc- tion and other areas of Federal aid to education later on in the year. I expect to hold hearings. We will recess until 9:30 in the morning. (Whereupon, at 5 p.m., the hearing was recessed to reconvene at 9:30 a.m., Thursday, March 9, 1967.) 0