PAGENO="0001"
/ DEPcS~rORY
DEPART1~1ENT OF DEFENSE OVERSEAS SCHOOLS
/
JOINT HEARING
BEFORE TIlE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON LABOR STANT~ABDS
AND TEE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ELEMENTARY, SECONDARY,
AND VOCATIONAL EDUCATION
OF TEE
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
NINETY-FIFTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION.
ON
H.R. 9892
TO ESTABLISH A UNIFIED PROGRAM FOR THE EDUCATION
OF MINOR DEPENDENTS OF MILITAR~! AND CIVILIAN PER-
SONNEL OVERSEAS AND ON CERTAIN MILITARY BASES, TO
ESTABLISH AN OFFICE OF DEPENDENTS' EDUCATION IN THE
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE TO ADMINISTER `SUCH PROGRAMS,
AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
REARING HELD IN WASIXINGTON, D.C.
FEBRUARY 1, 1978
Printed Lot the COmmittee on Education a~id Labor
CARL D. PERKINS, Chairman
RUTGERS LAW SCHOOL UBRARY
CAMDEN, ~ 08102
GOVERN MEN~~CUMENT
TiM. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE ~% `~ , -
81-9410 WASHINGTON: 1978
PAGENO="0002"
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR
CARL D. PERKINS, Kentucky, Chairman
FRANK THOMPSON, JR., New Jersey
JOHN H. DENT, Pennsylvania
JOHN BRADEMAS, Indiana
AUGUSTUS F. HAWKINS, California
WILLIAM D. FORD, Michigan
PHILLIP BURTON, California
JOSEPH M. GAYDOS, Pennsylvania
WILLIAM "BILL" CLAY, Missouri
MARIO BIAGGI, New York
IKE ANDREWS, North Carolina
MICHAEL T. BLOUIN, Iowa
ROBERT 3. CORNELL, Wisconsin
PAUL SIMON, Illinois
EDWARD P. BEARD, Rhode Island
LEO C. ZEFERETTI, New York
GEORGE MILLER, California
RONALD M. MOTTL, Ohio
MICHAEL 0. MYERS, Pennsylvania
AUSTIN 3. MURPHY, Pennsylvania
JOSEPH A. La FANTE, New Jersey
TED WEISS, New York
CEC HEFTEL, Hawaii
BALTASAR CORRADA, Puerto Rico
DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan
PHILLIP BURTON, California
JOSEPH M. GAYDOS, Pennsylvania
WILLIAM "BILL" CLAY, Missouri
MARIO BIAGGI, New York
LEO C. ZEFERETTI, New York
MICHAEL 0. MYERS, Pennsylvania
AUSTIN 3. MURPHY, Pennsylvania
BALTASAR CORRADA, Puerto Rico
PAUL SIMON, Illinois
GEORGE MILLER, California
CARL D. PERKINS, Kentucky,
Es Officio
ALBERT H. QUIE, Minnesota
JOHN hi. ASHBROOK, Ohio
JOHN N. ERLENBORN, Illinois
RONALD A. SARASIN, Connecticut
JOHN BUCHANAN, Alabama
JAMES M. JEFFORDS, Vermont
LARRY PRESSLER, South Dakota
WILLIAM F. GOODLING, Pennsylvania
BUD SHUSTER, Pennsylvania
SHIRLEY N, PETTIS, California
CARL D. PURSELL, Michigan
MICKEY EDWARDS, Oklahoma
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ELEMENTARY, SECONDARY, AND VOCATIONAL EDUCATION
CARL D. PERKINS, Kentucky, Chairman
WILLIAM D. FORD, Michigan ALBERT H. QUIE, Minnesota
IKE ANDREWS, North Carolina JOHN BUCHANAN, Alabama
MICHAEL T. BLOUIN, Iowa LARRY PRESSLER, South Dakota
PAUL SIMON, Illinois WILLIAM F. GOODLING, Pennsylvania
LEO C. ZEFERETTI, New York SHIRLEY N. PETTIS, California
RONALD M. MOTTL, Ohio CARL D. PURSELL, Michigan
AUSTIN J. MURPHY, Pennsylvania
JOSEPH A. La FANTE, New Jersey
TED WEISS, New York
CEC HEFTEL, Hawaii
BALTASAR CORRADA, Puerto Rico
DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan
GEORGE MILLER, California
SUBCOMMITTEE ON LABOR STANDARDS
JOHN H. DENT, Pennsylvania, Chairman
JOHN N. ERLENBORN, Illinois
JOHN M. ASHBROOK, Ohio
RONALD A. SARASIN, Connecticut
MICKEY EDWARDS, Oklahoma
ALBERT H. QUIE, Minnesota,
Eo~ Officio
(II)
PAGENO="0003"
CONTENTS
Page
Hearing held in Washington, D.C. on February 1, 1978.. 1
Text of H.R. 9892 2
Statement of-
Cardinale, Anthony, Director, Department of Defense Dependent
Schools 29
Minter, Thomas D., Deputy Commissioner, Bureau of Elementary
and Secondary Education, accompanied by William Stormer, Di-
rector, Division of School Assistance in Federally Affected Areas,
and Al Alford, U.S. Office of Eçlucation 52
Stillman, G. L., president, European Congress of American Parents,
Teachers and Students Association, and Betty Gross, legislative
chairperson, Antilles Consolidated Education Association, accom-
panied by Linn Wallace, past president; Ernest Lehmann, president,
Overseas Federation of Teachers; and Carl Moore, executive direc-
tor, Overseas Education Association, a panel 126
Prepared statements, letters, supplemental materials, et cetera-
Bogart, Nathalie Joy, Santurce, P.R., letter to Chairman Perkins,
dated January 19, 1978 159
Cardinale, Anthony, Director, Department of Defense Dependents
Schools, statement of 26
Davis, Haywood, superintendent, Fort Bragg (N.C.) schools, state-
ment presented by 147
Ford, Hon. William D., a Representative in Congress from the State
of Michigan, letter to Chairman Perkins from William L. Stormer,
Director, School Assistance in Federally Affected Areas, Depart-
ment of Health, Education, and Welfare, with enclosures, dated
July 20, 1977 48
Gear, Barbara, president, Quantico Ec~ucation Association, Quantico,
Va., letter to Gen. Louis Wilson, Cothmandant, U.S. Marine Corps,
dated January 30, 1978 157
Gross, Betty, legislative chairperson, and Linn Wallace, past president,
Antilles Consolidated Education Association, statement of 101
Lebmann, Ernest J., president, Overseas Federation of Teachers,
American Federation of Teachers, AFL-CIO, testimony presented
by 104
Minter, Thomas K., Deputy Commissioner, Bureau of Elementary
and Secondary Education, U.S. Office of Education, Department
of Health, Education, and Welfare:
In-depth study of federally-owned school facilities provided under
section 10 of Public Law 81-815, report entitled 68
Statement by 52
Moore, Carl D., executive director and general counsel, Overseas
Education Association, statement of 107
Overseas Association of Dependent School Administrators, comments
by 161
Parents Organization for Quality Education, Antilles Consolidated
School System, Fort Buchanan, P.R., position paper of 140
Stillman, G. L., president, European Congress of American Parents,
Teachers and Students Association:
Letter to Subcommittee on Labor Standards, dated February 24,
197&.. 145
Testimony by 99
(III)
PAGENO="0004"
PAGENO="0005"
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE OVERSEAS SCHOOLS
WEDNESDAY, PEBRUARY 1, 1078
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON LABOR
STANDARDS AND SuBcoMMIrri~ ON ELEMENTARY, SEC-
ONDARY, AND VOCATIONAL EDUCATION OF THE COMMIT-
TEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR,
Washington, D.C.
The subcommittees met, pursuant to notice, at 9:30 a.m. in room
2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. William D. Ford pre-
siding.
Members present: Representatives Ford, Simon, Weiss, Corrada,
Kildee, Ashbrook, Erlenborn, Pressler, and Pettis.
Staff present: John F. Jennings, counsel Chris Cross, senior edu-
cation consultant; Nancy L. Kober, staff assistant; and Sharon
Leininger, research assistant.
Mr. FORD. At this point I call the hearing to order.
The Subcommittee on Elementary, Secondary, and Vocational
Education and the Subcommittee on Labor Standards are conduct-
ing a joint hearing today on H.R. 9892, a bill introduced by Con-
gressman John Erlenborn of Illinois to establish a unified program
for the education of dependents of military and civilian personnel
overseas and on certain military bases.
Let me say at the outset that Chairman Carl Perkins, this morn-
ing is before the House Administration Committee, having been
summoned there on a matter urgent to the operation of this com-
mittee.
Mr. ERLENBORN. Very important.
Mr. FORD. He will not be able to join us. Nor is Chairman John
Dent able to join us this morning.
This proposal would place all the Department of Defense Over-
seas Dependent Schools and all the schools presently operated under
section 6 of the impact aid legislation under the authority of a
single administrative unit in the Department of Defense. The legis-
lation would also place the construction authority under section 10
of Public Law 81-815 within this new office in DOD.
[Text of H.R. 9892 follows:]
(1)
PAGENO="0006"
2
9~'rii CONGRESS T T
1ST SESSION ri. R. 9892
IN THE HOUSE OF HEPRESENTATIVES
Novmrnnn 2,1977
Mr. ERLENBORN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Com-
mittee on Education and Labor
A BILL
To establish a unified program for the education Of minor de-
pendents of military and civilian personnel overseas and
on certain military bases, to establish an Office of Depend~
ents' Education in the Department of Defense to administer
such program, and for other purposes.
1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-
2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
3 SHORT TITLE
4 SECTION 1. This Act may be cited as the "Defense De-
.~i pendents' Education Act of 1978".
PAGENO="0007"
3
1 ESTABLISHMENT 0]? DEFENSE DEPENDENTS' EDUOATION
2 SYSTEM
3 SEO. 2. The Secretary of Defense shall establish and
4 operate a program (hereinafter in this Act referred to as
5 the "defense dependents' education system") to provide a
6 free public education through secondary school for-
7 (1) eligible dependents in overseas areas, and
8 (2) children eligible to have free public education
9 provided under arrangements made by the Secretary of
10 Defense under section 6 of the Act of September 30,
11 1950 (20 U.S.C. 241).
12 (b) (1) The Secretary shall ensure that individuals eli~
13 gible to receive a free public education under subsection (a)
14 receive an education of high quality.
15 (2) In establishing a defense dependents' education
16 system under subsection (a), the Secretary shall provide
17 programs designed to meet the special needs of-
18 (A) the handicapped,
19 (B) individuals in need of compensatory education
20 (C) individuals with an interest in vocational
21 education,
(D) gifted and talented indlividt~als, and
23 (E) individuals of limited English-speaking ability.
(3) The Secretary shall provide a preschool program
25 to individuals eligible to receive a free public education under
PAGENO="0008"
4
1 subsection (a) who are of preschool age if a preschool pro-
2 gram is not otherwise available for such individuals
3 OFFICE OF DEPENDENTS' EDUCATION
4 Si~o. 3. (a) (1) There is established within the Depart-
~ ment of Defense an office to be known as the Office of De-
6 pendents' Education.
7 (2) The Office of Dependents' Education shall be
8 headed by a Director of Dependents' Education (hereinafter
9 in this Act referred to as the "Director"), who shall be a
io civilian and who shall be appointed by the Secretary of
ii Defense and shall report to the Assistant Secretary of Defense
12 for Manpower and Reserve Affairs.
13 (b) Except with respect to the authority to prescribe
14 regulations, the Secretary of Defense may carry out his
15 functions under this Act through the Director.
16 (c) The Director shall-
17 (1) establish personnel policies, consistent with the
18 Defense Department Overseas Teachers Pay and Per-
19 sónnel Practices Act (20 U.S.C. 901-907), for em-
ployées in the defense dependents' education system.
21 (2) have authority to transfer employees in the
22 defense dependents' education system from one posi-
23 tion to another,
24 (3) prepare a unified budget for each fiscal year,
25 to include necessary funds for coüstruction and opera-
PAGENO="0009"
5
1 tiori and maintenance of facilities, for the defense de-
2 pendents' education system for inclusion in the Depart-
3 ment of Defense budget for that year,
4 (4) have authority to establish, in accordance with
5 section 13, local school advisory committees,
(5) have authority to arrange for inservice and
7 other training programs for employees in the defense
8 dependents' education system, and
9 (~) perform such other functions as may be re-
10 qiiired or delegated by the Secretary, of Defense or the
11 Assistant Secretary of Defense for Manpower and Re-
12 serve Affairs.
13 (il) (1) TIne Director shall establish appropriate re-
ii gional or area offices for the Office of Dependents' Education
15 in order to provide for thorough and efficient administration
16 of the defense dependents' education system.
17 (2) Not later than six months after the date of the
18 enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall submit
19 to the Congress a report (A) describing the organization of
20 the Office of Dependents' Education in accordance with para-
21 graph (1), (B) describing the assignment of personnel
22 to the central office of the Office of Dependents' Education
23 and to such regional or area offices as are established pur-
24 suant to paragraph (1), and (0) detailing the personnel
25 requirements of the defense dependents' education system.
PAGENO="0010"
6
i Whenever the Office of Dependents' Education is reorganized
2 after the submission of the report required under the pro-
3 ceding sentence, the Secretary of Defense shall submit an
4 additional report to the Congress describing the reorgani-
5 zation.
6 (3) The Office of Dependents' Education is authorized to
7 employ, in accordance with the civil service laws, a total of
8 not more than 400 civilian employees in its central office
9 and such regional or area offices as are established pursuant
id to paragraph (1).*
11 . TUITION-PAYiNG STUDENTS
12 SEc. 4. (a) Subject to subsection (b) and in accordance
13 with regulations issued under subsection (c), the Director
i 4 may authorize the enrollment in a school of the defense de-
15. pendents' education system ~of a child not otherwise eligible
16 to enroll in such a school if and to the extent that there is
17 space available for such child in the school.
18 (`b) (1) Except as otherwise provided under subsection
19 ~ any child permitted to enroll in a school of the
20 defense dependents' education system under this section shall
21 be required to pay tuition at a rate determined by the
22 Secretary of Defense, which shall not be less than the rate
23 necessary to defray the cost of the enrollment of such child
24 in the systems
PAGENO="0011"
7
1 (2) Amounts received under paragraph (1) shall be
2 available to the defense dependents' education system to
3 assist in defraying the cost of enrollment of the child in the
4 system.
5 (c) The Secretary of Defense may by regulation iden-
6 tify classes of children who shall be eligible to enroll in
7 schools of the defense dependents' education system under
8 this section if and to the extent that there is space available,
9 estai)lish priorities among such classes, waive the tuition
io requirement of subsection (b) (1) with respect to any such
11 class, and issue. such other regulations as may be necessary
12 tO carry out this section.
13 ANNUAL EDUCATIONAL ASSESSMENT
14 . SEc. 5. (a) The Director shall assess each year the
15 performance of the defense dependents' education system in
16 providing an education of high quality to children enrolled
17 in the system. Such assessment may include the use of
18 educational assessment measures and such other means as
19 the Director determines to be suitable for assessing student
20 performance.
21 (b) The results of each annual assessment under sub-
22 section (a) shall be made available to the sponsors of mdi-
23 `viduals enrolled in the defense dependents' education system
24 during the year for which the assessment is made.
PAGENO="0012"
8
j SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION, OPERATION, AND MAINTENANCE
2 SEC. 6. (a) Construction of schoil facilities on a mi1i~
3 tary installation in an overseas area, or under section 10
4 of the Act of September 23, 1950 (20 U.S.C. 640), and
5 operation and maintenance of such facilities, shall be carried
6 out through the military department having jurisdiction
7 over the installation on which such facilities are located,
8 (b) The President shall include in his budget for each
9 fiscal year a separate request for funds for construction of
10 school facilities by the military departments in overseas
11 areas an~d under such section 10.
12 DEPENDENTS' EDUCATION IN OVERSEAS AREAS
13 SEC. 7. (a) The Secretary of Defense shall establish
J4 and operate a school system for eligible dependents in over-
15 sea~s areas.
16 (b) Under such circumstances as he may by regulation
17 prescribe, the Secretary of Defense may provide tuition to
18 allow eligible dependents in an overseas area where a school
19 operated by the Secretary is not reasonably available to
20 attend schools other than schools established under subsec-
21 tion (a) on a tuition-fee basis. Any school to which tuition
22 is paid under this subsection to allow an eligible dependent
23 in an overseas area to attend such school shall provide an
24 educational program satisfactory to the Secretary.
PAGENO="0013"
9
ELIGIBILITY FOR SCHOOL LUNCH PROGRAMS
2 SEC. 8. (a) The National School Lunch Act (42 11.5.0.
~ 1751 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end thereof the
4 following new section:
"J~EPA1~TMENT OF DEF1~NSE OVERSEAS DEPENDENTS'
6 SCHOOLS
7 "SEC. 22. For the purposes of this Act, that portion of
8 the defense dependents' education system established under
9 the Defense Dependents' Education Act of 1977 which is
10 located in overseas areas (as such term is defined in section
~ 18 of such Act) shall be considered to be a State, and the
12 Office of Dependents' Education, Department of Defense,
i~ shall be considered to be the State educational agency
j~ thei~eof.".
(b) The Child Nutrition Act of 1960 (42 U.S.C. 1771
16 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end thereof th~
17 following new section.
18 "DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE OVERSEAS DEPENDENTS'
19 SCHOOLS
20 "SEc. 20. For the purposes of this Act, that portion of
21 the defense dependents' edñcation system established under
22 the Defense Dependents' Education Act of 1977 which
23 ~ located in overseas areas (as such term is defined in
24 section 18 of such Act) shall be considered to be a State,
25 and the Office of Dependents' Education, Department of
PAGENO="0014"
10
1 Defense, shall be considered to be the State educational
2 agency thereof.".
3 SCHOOLS ON DOMESTIC ~ILITARY INSTALLATIONS TRANS~
4 FERRED FROM COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
5 SEC. 9. There is hereby transferred to, and vested in,
6 the Secretary of Defense all authority of the Commissioner
7 of Education, Department of Health, Education, and Wel-
S fare, with respect to-
9 (1) any arrangement made by the Commissioner
10 under section 6 of the Act of September 30, 1950 (20
ii U.S.C. 241), to provide free public education for chil-
12 dren residing on an installation under the jurisdiction of
13 a military department, and
14 (2) any school facility constructed or otherwise
15 provided by the Commissioner under section 10 of the
16 Act of September 23, 1950 (20 U.S.C. 640), which
17 is located ~n an installation under the jurisdiction of
18 a military department.
19 AMENDMENTS TO PUBLIC LAW 874, RELATING TO THE
20 PROVISION OF EDUCATION IN AREAS AFFECTED BY
21 FEDERAL ACTIVITIES
22 SEC. 10. (a) (1) Subsection (a) of section 6 of the
23 Act of September 30, 1950 (20 U.S.C. 241), relating to
24 children for whom local agencies are unable to provide
25 education, is amended-
PAGENO="0015"
11
* (A) in the first sentence-
2 (1) by inserting "or of the Secretary of De-
3 fense, in the case of children of members of the
4 Armed Forces on active duty who reside on a mill-
5 tary installation" after "the Commissioner" the
6 first place it appears; and
7 (ii) by inserting "or the Secretary of Defense,
S as appropriate," after "the Commissioner" the sec-
9 ond plaée it appears;
10 (B) in the second sentence-
U (i) by inserting "by the Secretary of Defense"
12 after "may also be made"; and
(ii) by striking out "Commissioner" and insert-
14 ing in lieu thereof "Secretary of Defense";
15 (C) by illserting after the fourth sentence the fol-
16 lowing new sentence: "The Defense Department Over-
17 seas Teachers Pay and Personnel Practices Act (20
18 U.S.C. 901~-907) shall be applicable to any individual
19 employed by the Secretary of Defense under this sub-
20 section in a teaching position (as such term is defined
21 in section 2 (1) of such Act) ."; and
22 (D) in the last sentence, by striking out "Commis-
23 sioner and the Secretary of the military department con-
24 cerned jointly determine" and inserting in lieu thereof
25 "Secretary of Defense determines".
PAGENO="0016"
12
(2) Subsection (b) of such section is amended-
2 (A) by inserting "or the Secretary of Defense"
after "the Commissioner" the first and sixth places it
4 appears, and
(B) by inserting "or the Secretary of Defense, as
6 the case may be," after "the Commissioner" the second,
third, fourth, and fifth places it appears.
s (3) Subsection (c) of such section is amended-
(A) by inserting "or the Secretary of Defense"
after "the Commissioner" the first place it appears; and
ii (B) by inserting "or the Secretary of Defense, as
12 the case may be," after "the Commissioner" the second
13 time it appears.
14 (4) Subsection (d) of such section is amended to read
15 as follows:
16 "(d) (1) The Commissioner may make an arrangement
17 under this section with a local educational agency or with the
18 head of a Federal department or agency administering Fed-
19 eral property on which children reside who are to be pro-
20 vided education pursuant to such arrangement. An arrange-
21 ment may be made by the Commissioner under this section
22 only for the provision of education in facilities of a local
23 educational agency or in facilities situated on Federal
24 property.
PAGENO="0017"
13
"(2) The Secretary of Defense may make an arrange-
2 ment under the second sentence of subsection (a) only with
3 a local educational agency, the head of a Federal depart-
4 ment or agency administering Federal property on which
5 children reside who are to be provided education pursuant
6 to such arrangement, or with the head of any Federal depart-
7 ment or agency having jurisdiction over the parents of some
8 or all of such children.".
9 (5) Subsection (e) of such section is amended by in-
10 sertiiig ", or the Secretary of Defense, as appropriate,"
II after "the Commissioner" both places it appears.
12 (6) The second sentence of subsection (f) of such
13 `section is amended by inserting "or the Secretary of Defense,
14 as the ease may be," after "the Commissioner" both places
15 it appears.
16 (b) (1) Subsection (b) of section 401 of the Act of
17 September 30, 1950 (20 u.S.C. 242), is amended-
18 (A) by striking out "The" before "Commissioner
19 shall" and inserting in lieu thereof "(1) Except as
20 provided in paragraph (2), the"; and
21 (B) by adding at the end thereof the following
22 new paragraph:
23 "(2) The Secretary of Defense shall administer this
24 Act with respect to the provision~ of section 6 of this Act
25 applicable to the Secretary of Defense, and he may make
31-941 0 - 18 - 2
PAGENO="0018"
14
1 such regulations and perform such other functions as he finds
2 necessary to carry out the provisions of such section appli-
3 cable to the Secretary of Defense. The Secretary of Defense
4 shall carry out his functions under this Act through the Office
5 of Dependeiits' Education, Department of Defense, estab-
6 lished by section 3 of the Defense Dependents' Education
7 Act of 1977.".
8 (2) Subsection (c) of such section is amended-
9 (A) by inserting "(1)" before "The Commis-
10 sioner": and
11 (B) by inserting at the end thereof the following
12 new paragraph:
13 "(2) The Secretary of Defense shall include in his
14 annual report to the Congress ~ full report of the administra-
15 tion of his functions under this Act, including a statement
16 of receipts and disbursements.".
17 AMENDMENTS TO PUBLIC LAW 815, RELATING TO THE
18 CONSTRUCTION OF SCHOOL FACILITIES IN AREAS
19 AFFECTED BY FEDERAL ACTIVITIES
20 SEc. 11. (a) (1) Subsection (a) of section 10 of the
2~ Act of September 23, 1950 (20 U.S.C. 640), is amended-
22 (A) in the third sentence-
23 (i) by inserting "by the Secretary of Defense"
24 after "may also be made"; and
PAGENO="0019"
15
j (ii) by striking out "Commissioner" and insert-
ing in lieu thereof "Secretary of Defense"; and
3 (.B) in the sixth sentence, by inserting "or the See-
4 retary of Defense" after "the Commissioner".
5 (2) Subsection (b) of such section is amended-
6 (A) in the first sentence-
7 (i) by inserting "or the Secretary of Defense"
s after "the Commissioner"; and
9 (ii) by inserting "which are under his juris-
10 diction" before the period; and
ii (B) by inserting "or the Secretary of Defense, as
12 the case may be," after "the Commissioner" in the
~13 second sentence thereof.
14 (b) (1) Subsection (b) of section 12 of such Act is
15 imended-
16 (A) by striking out "The" before "Commissioner
17 shall" and inserting in lieu thereof "(1) Except as pro-
18 videcl in paragraph (2), the"; and
19 (B) by adding at the end thereof the following new
20 paragraph:
21 "(2) The Secretary of Defense shall administer this
22 Act with respect to the provisions of section 10 of this
23 Act applicable to the Secretary of Defense, and he may
24 make such regulations and perform such other functions
25 as he finds necessary to carry out the provisions of such
PAGENO="0020"
16
j seetkm applicable to the Secretary of Defense. The Secretary
2 of Defense shall carry out his functions under this Act
3 through the Office of Dependents' : Education, Department
~ of Defense, established by section 3 of the Defense De~
~ pendents' Education Act of 1977.".
6 (2) Subsection (e) of such section is amended-. *
(A) by inserting "(1 ~" before "The Commis~
8 sinner"; and
9 (B) by inserting at the end thereof the following
10 new paragraph:
ii "(2) The Secretary of Defense shall include in his
12 annual report to the Congress a full report of the adminis-.
13 tration of his functions under this Act, including a statement
14 of receipts and disbursements.".
15 AMENDMENTS TO DEFENSE DEPARTMENT OVERSEAS
16 TEACHERS PAY AND PERSONNEL PRACTICES ACT
17 SEc. 12. (a) Section 2 of the Defense Department
18 Overseas Teachers Pay and Personnel Practices Act (20
19 U.S.C. 901) is amended by inserting "or under section 6
20 of the Act of September 30, 1950 (20 U.S.C.. 241) ," in
21 paragraph (1) (A) after "in an overseas area".
22 (b) (*1) Subsection (a) of section .5 of such Act (20
23 U.S.C. 903) is amended.-
24 (A) by striking ou*t "secretary of each military
PAGENO="0021"
17
department" and inserting in lieu thereof "Director of
2 Defense EducatiGn" ;and `
* (B) by striking out "iii his military department";
4 (2) Subsection (b) of such section is amended `to `read
as follows:
6 "(b) `Subjec~t `to `seCti~ii 5103 of* title 5, `United States
`~ Code, th~ Director of Defense Education-
"(1) shall determine the applicability of ~aragraph
9 ` (22) of section 5102 of title 5, Unit~d States Code, to
10 positions and individuals in the Department of Defense,
and' `~ " `
12 ` "(2) shall: establish the appropriate' ann~ial salary
13 rate in accordance wi*~h'this Act for eacb such )osition
j4 and individual to which `~üch pará~raph (22.$ is deter.~
15 mined to be `applicable.". " ` `
16 (3) Subsection (c) Sf suCh `section is `amended-~
17 (A). by striking Sut "8ecreI~ary ~f each `military
18 * department" and inserting in lieu" thei~eOf "Director of
19 Defense Education"; ,` ` `
20 (B) by striking out "in his military `d~pai4inent" ~
21 and * * ` * .;~
22 `~ `. (C) `by ~athling at the ~n~thefollo~ing'ñew sen-'
23 tence: "With respect to te~ehèi's' a~nd teaching ~osi1~ions'
24 `in the United `States the Dire~tSr mr .Tary the rates (Yf
25 basic compensation established under the preceding sen-
PAGENO="0022"
18
1 tenc~ to reflect the prevailing rates of basic compensation
2 for similar positions in the local area of a comparable
3 level of duties and responsibilities.".
4 (4) Subsection (d) of such section is amended by
5 striking out "Secretary of each military department" and
6 inserting in lieu thereof "Director of Defense Education".
7 (5) The subsection (c) of such section appearing after
8 subsection (d) is redesignated as subsection (e) and is
9 amended by inserting "in overseas areas" in paragraph (1)
10 after "teaching positions".
11 (c) Sections 7 (a), 7 (b), 7 (c), and 8 (a) of such Act
12 (20 U.S.C. 905 (a), (b), (c), 906 (a)) are amended by
13 inserting "who is employed in a teaching position in an
14 overseas area" after "(other than a teacher employed in a
15 substitute capacity) ".
16 ALLOTMENT FORMULA
17 SEc. 13. (a) The Director `shall by regulation establish
18 a formula for determining .the minimum allotment ~f funds
19 necessary for the operation of each school in the defense
20 dependents' education system. In establishing such formula,
21 the Director shall take into consideration-
22 (1) the number of students served by a school and
23 the size of the school;
24 (2) special cost factors for a school, including-
25 (A) geographic isolation of the school,
PAGENO="0023"
19
1 (B) a need for special staffing, transportation,
2 or educational programs at the school, and
3 (0) unusual food and housing costs,
$ (3) the cost of providing academic services of a
5 high quality as required by section 2 (b) (1); and
6 (4) such other factors as the Director considers
7 appropriate.
8 (b) Any regulation under subsection (a) shall be
9 issued, and shall become effective, in accordance with the
10 procedures applicable to regulations required to be issued
11 by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare in
12 accordance with section 431 of the General Education Pro-
13 visions Act (20 U.S.C. 1232).
14 SCHOOL ADVISORY COMMITTEES
15 SEC. 14. (a) (1) The Director shall provide for the
16 establishment of an advisory committee for each school in
17 the defense dependents' education system. An advisory corn-
18 mittee for a school shall advise the principal of the school
19 with respect to the operation of the school, particularly in
20 the areas of personnel and budget matters, and shall have
21 authority to make recommendations with respect to the em-
22 ployment and discharge of personnel, and, except as pro-
23 vided under paragraph (2), shall advise the local military
24 commander with respect to problems concerning dependents'
25 education within the jurisdiction of the commander.
PAGENO="0024"
20
1 (2) In the case of any military installation or overseas
2 area where there is more than one school operated by the
3 Secretary of Defense, the Director shall provide for the estab-
4 lishment of an advisory committee for such military installa-
5 tion or overseas area to advise the local military commander
6 with respect to problems concerning dependents' education
7 within the jurisdiction of the commander.
8 (b) Members of a school advisory committee established
9 under this section shall be elected by individuals of voting
10 age residing in the area to be served by the advisory corn-
11 mittee. The Secretary of Defense shall by regulation pre-
12 scribe the qualifications for election to an advisory committee
13 and procedures for conducting elections of advisory com-
14 mittee members.
15 (c) Members of school advisory committees established
16 under this section shall serve without pay.
17 ADVISORY COUNCIL ON DEPENDENTS' EDUCATION
18 SEC. 15. (a) There is established in the Department of
19 Defense an Advisory Council on Dependents' Education
20 (hereinafter in this section referred to as the "Council").
21 The Council shall be composed of-
22 (1) the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Man-
23 power and Reserve Affairs (hereinafter in this section
24 referred to as the "Assistant Secretary"), who shall be
25 the chairman of the Council;
PAGENO="0025"
21
1 (2) 12 individuals appointed `by the Assistant See-
2 retary, who shall be individuals versed by training or
3 experience in `the field of primary or secondary educa~
4 tion and who shall include representatives of profes
5 sional employee organizations, parents of students en-
6 rolled in the defense dependents' education system, and
7 one student enrolled in such system; and
8 (3) a representative of each of-~
9 (A) the Commissioner of Education, Depart-
10 ment of Health, Education, and Welfare,
11 (B) the Director of the National Institute and
12 Education, Department of health, Education, and
13 Welfare, and
14 (C) the Director of the Educational Directorate
15 of the National Science Foundation.
16 The Director shall be the Executive Secretary of the Council.
17 (b) The term of office of each member of the Council
18 appointed under subsection (a) (2) shall be three years,
19 except that-
20 (1) of the members first appointed under such
21 paragraph, 4 shall serve for a term of one year, 4 shall
22 serve for a term of two years, and 4 shall serve for
23 a term of three years, as determined by the Assistant
24 Secretary at the time of their appointment, and
25 (2) any member appointed to fill a vacancy occur-
PAGENO="0026"
22
ring before. the expiration of the term for which his
2 predecessor was appointed shall be* appointed for the
3 remainder of such term. -
4 No meniber appointed under subsection (a) (2) shall serve
5 more than two full terms on the Council.
6 (c) The Council shall-.
7 (1) recommend* to the Director general policies
*8 for operation of the defense dependents' education sys-
9 tern with respect to personnel, curriculum selection,
10 administration, and operation of the system,
11 (2) provide information to the Director from other
12 Federal agencies concerned with primary and secondary
13 education with respect to education programs and prac-
14 tices which such agencies have found to be effective
15 . and which should be considered for inclusion in the
16 .. defense dependents' education system,
17 (3) advise the Director on the design of the study
is and the selection of the contractor referred to in section
19' 16 (a) (2) of this Act, and
20 (4) perform such other tasks as may be required by
21 the Assistant Secretary.
22 (d) Members Of the Council who are not in the regular
23 full-time employ of the United States shall, while attending
24 meetings or conferences of the Council or otherwise engaged
25 in the business of the Council, be entitled to receive comperl-
PAGENO="0027"
23
1 sation at the rate specified at the time of such `service for
2 grade GS-18 in section 5332 of title 5, including traveltime,
3 and while so `serving on the business of the Council away from
4 their homes or regular places of business, they may be
5 allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of sub-
6 sistence, as authorized by section 5703 of title 5 for persons
7 employed intermittently in the Government service.
8 (e) The Council shall continue in existence until
9 terminated by law.
10 STUDY OF DEFENSE DEPENDENTS' EDUCATION SYSTEM
11 SEC. 16. (a) (1) As soon as practicable after the date
12 of the enactment of this Act, the Director shall provide for
13 ~ comprehensive study of the entire defense dependents'
14 education system, which shall include a detailed analysis of
15 the education prOgrams and the facilities of the system.
16 (2) The study required by this `subsection shall be con-
17 ducted by a contractor selected by the Director `after an
18 open competition. After conducting such study, the con-
19 tractor shall submit a report to the Director describing the
20 results of the study and giving its assessment of the defense
21 dependents' education system.
22 (b) In designing the specifications for the study to be
23 conducted pursuant to subsection (a) (1), `and in selecting a
24 contractor to conduct ~ich study under subsection (a) (2),
PAGENO="0028"
24
1 the Director shall consult with the Advisory Council on
2 Dependents' Education establialied under section 15 of this
3 Act.
4 (c) The Director shall submit to the Congress not later
5 than one year after the date of the enactment of this Act the
6 report submitted to him under subsection (a) (2) describing
7 the results of the study carried out pursuant to subsection
8 (a) (1), together with the recommendations of the con-
9 tractor performing such study, for legislation and any in-
10 crease in funding needed to improve the defense dependents'
11 education system. Notwithstanding any law, rule, or regula-
12 tion to the contrary, such report shall not he submitted to any
13 review before its transmittal to the Congress, but the See-
14 reta.ry of Defense shall, at the time of the transmittal of such
15 report, submit to the Congress such recommendations as he
16 may have with respect to legislation and any increase in
17 funding needed to improve the defense dependents' education
18 system.
19 REGULATIONS
20 SEc. 17. Not later than the 180 days after the date of
21 enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall issue
22 regulations to carry out this Act. such regulations shall-
23 (1) prescribe the educational goals and objectives
24 of the defense dependents' education system,
PAGENO="0029"
25
i (2) establish standards for the developments of
2. curricula for the system and for the selection of in-
3 structional materials,
4 (3) prescribe ethical and professional standards
5 for professional personnel employed in the system,
6 (4) provide for arrangements between the Director
7 and commanders of military installations for necessary
8 logistic support for schools of the system located oil
9 military installations,
10 (5) provide for a recertification program for pro~
ii fessional personnel employed in the system~ and
12 (6) provide for such other matters as may be
13 necessary to ensure efficient organization and ojeration
14 of the defense dependents' education system.
15 DEFINITIONS
16 SEc. 18. For purposes of this Act:
17 (1). The term "eligible dependent" means an in~
18 dividua1-~-
19 (A) who has not completed secondary schoô1~
20 ing, and
21 (B) who is the child,, step~chiid, adopted child,
22 watd, or ~pouse of a sponsor or who is a r~sideñt
23 in the household of a sponsor who stands in bOo
24 parentis to such individual and who receives one:
25 ha~lf or more of his support from such sponsor.
PAGENO="0030"
26
(2) The term "sponsor" means-
(A) a member of the Armed Forces serving
3 on active duty, or
4 (B) a civilian officer or employee of the Dc-
5 partment of Defense paid from appropriated funds.
6 (3) The term "overseas area" means any area sit-
7 uated outside the United States.
8 (4) The term "United States", when used in a
9 geographical sense, means the several States, the Dis-
10 trict of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico,
11 and the possessions of the United States (excluding
12 the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands and Midway
13 island).
Mr. Foim. The DOD Overseas Dependent Schools have been in
existence since 1946 and enroll approximately 150,000 children of
military personnel around the world. The 25 section 6 schools enroll
about 38,500 children and are operated jointly by the Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare and the different branches of the
armed forces they serve.
in June of 1977 the Subcommittee on Elementary, Secondary, and
Vocational Education conducted a hearing on these section 6 schools
in conjunction with our review of the impact aid laws. At that time,
we heard testimony indicating that the facilities are very poor in
some of these schools, especially at places such as Fort Buchanan of
the Antilles Consolidated School System.
Today we will hear from representatives of the Department of
Defense, the U.S. Office of Education, and various parent and teacher
organizations involved with these two types of schools.
I would hike to first recognize a familiar face down there, Dr.
Anthony Cardinale, Director of the Department of Defense Schools.
Dr. Cardinale, we are happy to see you again before this commit-
tee. Without objection, Dr Cardinale's prepared statement will be
inserted in full at this point in the record.
You may proceed to add to it, amplify on it or comment on it as
you find necessary.
[The prepared statement of Anthony Cardinale follows:]
STATEMENT OF DR. L(NTHONY CA1WTNAUS, DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
DEPENDENTS ScHooLs
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before this Committee
regarding H.R. 9892, "Defense Dependents' Education Act of 1978."
PAGENO="0031"
27
This proposed legislation would establish within the Department of Defense
an Office of Dependents' Education. On July 1, 197~, the Department of De-
fense centralized its overseas dependents' education program within the Office
of Dependents Schools, a field activity of the Office of the Secretary of De-
fense. This centralization was mandated by Congress,
Currently, the authorization for operation of the overseas dependents schools'
program is contained in the General Provisions of the Annual Department of
Defense Appropriation Act. A sectional analysis of Sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7,
and 13 through 18, together with the views of the Department of Defense, are
included as an enclosure to this statement. The Department is of the opinion
that these provisions of H.R. 9892, if enacted, will assist in the continued
operation of the overseas dependents schools' program.
This proposed legislation provides for some major changes regarding the
education of dependent children residing on military installations in the United
States and Puerto Rico under the provisions of Public Laws 81-874 and 81-815.
Sections 6, 9, 10, 11, and 12 of ~R. 9892 would transfer from the Commis-
sioner of Education to the Secretary of Defense (1) complete responsibility
for the operation of schools on military installations, and (2) authorize the
Secretary of Defense to take title to existing school facilities and to construct
additional facilities as required. Because of the President's decision to recom-
mend creation of a new Department of Education and the efforts of the Presi-
dent's reorganization project to determine which programs should be included
hi the new department, the administration recommends that consideration of
these provisions be delayed.
Section 8 amends the National School Lunch Act and the Child Nutrition
Act of 1965 to include DoD overseas dependents' schools. The impact of this
proposed change has not been fully staffed within the Department of Defense
and with the Department of Agriculture. We expect to have the official views
to the Committee on this section within the next few weeks,
I will be pleased to answer any questions the Committee may have.
Enclosure.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE COMMENTS ON H.R. 9892 "A BILL To ESTABLISH A
UNIFIED PROGRAM ron THE EI)UOATI0N OF MINOR DEPENDENTS OF MILITARY
AND CIvILIAN PERsONNEL OVERSEAS ON CERTAIN MILITARY BAsEs, To ESTAB-
LISH AN Orricz OF DEPENDENTS' EDUCATION IN THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
To ADMINISTER SUCH PROGRAM, AND FOR OTHER PuRPosEs."
&3ction 1.-This Act is cited as the Defense Dependents' Education Act of
1978.
DoD Comrnent.-Concur with the title.
~cctio~i 2.-This section requires the Secretary of Defense to establish and
operate a dependents' education system that provides free public education for
children of military and. civilian personnel in overseas areas. In addition to
operating grades kindergarten through 12, thIs section authorizes the Secre-
tary of Defense to also operate a preschool program.
DoD (Yomment.-The stated mission of the current Department of Defense,
Office of Dependents Schools, is to provide a high quality educational program
for all minor dependents in overseas dependents schools. Included are special
programs for the handicapped, vocationally oriented student, and the gifted
and talented. Thus, the DoD concurs with the language as written. The De-
partment recommends that the provision for authorizing a preschool program
be delayed pending the results of the study of the entire dependents ~duca.-
tion system, as required by Section 16 of H.R. 9892.
,8ection 3.-(a) This section provides for the establishment and adminis-
tration of an Office of Dependents' Education within the Department of De-
fense. The director of the office will be a civilian, appointed by the Secretary
of Defense, and will report to the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Manpower,
Reserve Affairs and Logistics).
(b) The Secretary may carry out his functions under the act, except the
issuing of regulations, through the Director of the office.
(c) The duties of the Director will include establishing personnel policies
for system employees, preparing a budget for each fiscal year, and performing
other functions required or delegated by the Secretary or Assistant Secretary
of Manpower and Reserye Affairs. The Director will have authority to transfer
employees, establish local school advisory committees, and arrange inservice
or other training programs.
PAGENO="0032"
28
(d) The Director is required to establish regional or area offices and must,
within six months of this Act's enactment, file a report detailing the organi-
zational structure, assignment of personnel, and personnel requirements of the
Office of Dependents' EdUcation. The Director must submit a report to Con-
gress describing each subsequent reorganization of the Office. The Office is
limited to 400 civilian employees in its central and regional offices.
DoD Comrnent.-The DoD concurs with this section, except as follows:
Section 3(a) (1) should be changed to read, "There is established within
the Office of the Secretary of Defense a field office to be known as the Office
of Dependents' Education."
Section 3(a) (2) should be changed to read, "The Office of Dependents' Edu-
cation shall be headed by a Director of Dependents' Education . . . who shall
`be selected by the Assistant Secretary of Defense (MRA&L). . . ."
Section (3) (d) (3) should be `changed to read, "The Director of Dependents'
Education is authorized to employ an appropriate number of civilian em-
ployees in its central office and such regional and area offices as are established
to carry out the functions of this Act, subject to approval by the Secretary of
Defense."
Section ~.-Thls section allows for the enrollment of non-eligible children
where space is available in the education system overseas, and requires that
each child be charged tuition which is at least sufficient to cover the cost of
enrollment. The Secretary may establish regulations which identify classes
of children who shall be eligible to enroll in DOD schools, where space is avail-
able. The Secretary may also establish priorities among these classes or waive
tuitlon for the children in any such class.
DoD Comment.-Concur with the language as written.
Section 5.-This section requires the Director *to establish procedures to
assess the educational performance of the school system annually and make
the results available to sponsOrs Of children enrolled In the system.
DoD Comment.-Concur with the language as written.
Section 7.-This section authorizes the Secretary of Defense to purchase
educational services in overseas areas when/where DoD-operated schools are
not available.
DoD Comment.-The DoD concurs with the language as written.
Section 13.-This section gives the Director authority to establish by regu-
latlon a formula for determining the minimum allotment of funds to each
school in the DoD system.
DoD Comment.-The DoD concurs with the language as written.
Section 14.-ThIs section requires the Director to provide for the establish-
inent of advisory committees for each school and for central advisory com-
mittees where more than one school are operated on a federal installation.
Advisory committee members are elected and serve without pay.
`DoD Cornment.-The DoD concurs with the concept of school advisory com-
mittees. The Department is opposed to that portion of Section 14(a) (1) which
reads: ". . . and shall have authority to make recommendations with respect
to the employment and discharge of personneL" The Department believes that
the total authority and responsibility for employment practices, including
hiring and firing, must rest with the Director of Dependents' Education,
regional directors and principals. The role of the school advisory committee
should not include this management responsibility.
Section 15.-This section makes provision for the establishment of a twelve-
member Advisory Council on Dependents' Education within the Department
of Defense to be chaired by the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Manpower
and Reserve Affairs.
DoD Comment.-The Department of Defense does not concur with the con-
cept of establishing an Advisory Council on Dependents' Education. The De-
partment believes that `the current ,Department of Defense Dependents Educa-
`tion Council is working well, and sees no need to establish any advisory
council by statute. If the Committee insists that such a council should be es-
tablished by statute, the Department offers the following to change Section 15:
The DoD believes that included within the 12-member Advisory Council
should be a representative from each military department. The Department
opposes that part of the language contained in `Section 15(a) (2) ". . . who
shall include representatives of professional employee organizations." We do
not concur that professional employee organizations should have membership
on the committee unless that term is defined to exclude "Labor Organizations"
PAGENO="0033"
29
or any other profes~ional organization whose mernbetsbip is represented by a
Labor Organization. Within the DOD Dependents Schools system, labor orga-
nizations have been granted exclusive recognition under the provisions of
Executive Order 11491, as,amend~d. The O%rerseas Federation of Teachers, AFT
(AFL-CIO) has recognition in the European Region and represents appron-
mately 1,000 teachers. The Overseas Education Association, an affiliate of the
National Education Association, has recognition at the national level and rep~
resents approximately 6,500 teachers. The DoD Dependents Schools has ne-
gotiated two labor contracts with both of these unions. A continuing obliga-
tion exists. under E.O. 11491, as amended, to negotiate all changes in Person~
nel Policies, Practices, and Matters Affecting Workthg Conditions with these
two labor organizations. Providing membership for these two labor organlza~
tions on the committee,. as proposed by the legislation,. would seriously weaken
the Collective bargaifli~ig machinery established under E.O. 114~l.,
Section 16.-This section requires a study of the entire defen~e dependents'
education system. The Director, in consultation with the Advisory Council on
Dependents' Education, will design specifications for the study and select a
contractor. The analysis Is to be submitted directly to Congress within one
year from the enactment of this Act and is to Include comments and recom-
mendations of both the contractor and the Secretary of Defeñsé.
DoD Coniment.-~The DoD concurs with `the language as written,.
Section 17.-This section requires the issuing of regulatioxis within `180 days
from. enactment of the legislation. `
DoD Comment-The DoD concurs with this section, except for the pro-.
vision contained In Seç~tion 17(5): ". . provide for a recertification program
for professional personnel employed, in the system , `." The Department
recommends, instead, that a new section be added to the bill asio'llows
A~O) RECEliTIFIçiATIoN or ?ROFESSXONAL E~iPLO'YiZS"
"All professional personnel employed in the schools and regional ofiièes
overseas ~il1 be' required tQ be fully eei~tified ~in their areas ,of teaching o~
supervision by a state prior to their selection `for employment.
"Professional personhel `overseas will be governed `by Certification and `Re-,
certification regulations issued by the Director, Office of Dependents Educa~
tion. Effective with the 1978-79 school year, the Director will issue an Initial
Certificate,~valld for 6"years, to all "professional personnel then emplOyed,' A
Continuing Certificate, also valid for 6. years, will be issued' to professional
personnel who (I) possess a valid Dependents Schools Initial Certificate, and'
(2) provide, documentary evidence of satisfactpry teaching in' the schooLs under
the jurisdiction of the Department o~ Deferisu, and who have earned the
eqaivalent of 8 semester hours, `of graduate education~ courses related to their
field of teaching or supervision. In-service education, workshops, Individually
approved research, or other educationally related experieuce, may be. substi~
tuted for the equivalent of the 8 semester hours, as determined by the Di-
rector."
Section 18.-This section defines, for the purposes of the Act; "eligible de~
pendent", "sponsor", "overseas area", and "United S'tates."
hoD Comment.-Tbe DoD concurs with the definition of Terms, except as
follows:
The word "individual" should be changed to' "minor dependent."
STATEMENT OP ANTHONY CARDINALE, DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT
OP DEFENSE BEP~NDENT SC1~OOLS
Dr. CARDINALE. Thank you very much, Mr Chairman.
In order to save some time,. since the statement will be recorded,
I would like to just su~nmarize `the Departm~nt of Defense's posi-
tion on H.R. 9892. `
The Department concurs with sections 1, 2~ 3,;4, 5, 7 and 13 through
section 18. Certainly the Department a~grees `with the title of the bill.
Section 2 provides for a quality `education i~or all `dependents en-
rolled in overseas dependent schQols and' the provisions of' the free'
31-941-78-3
PAGENO="0034"
30
school program. The Department concurs with this. What we would
have to do with the military structure is to survey the overseas bases
to find out eligibility of the numbers of students for this preschool
education program if this bill is enacted. Certainly, within the Office
of the Secretary of Defense, we concur with the establishment of the
Office of Depende~its Education.
Section 4 where we would `be permitted to allow the non-DOD stu-
dents to enroll in the DOD school, we certainly would concur with
that, providing it is space available, tuition paying To establish pro
cedures for the annual assessment of DOD schoOl, there is no con~
flict within the Department of Defense.
Section 7 authorizes the Secretary to purchase educational services
in those locations where we~ do not have DOD schools.
Section 13 would establish a formula for determining the mini-
mi~m allotment of funds. for each school in the DOD system. We ba-
~ica~'lly do that now, and we do not object to this portion of the leg-
islation.
The section 14 requires the Director to establish advisory commit-
tees for each school or school complex. We certainly are in agree-
ment with that. When the Department of Defense became totally
responsible for the operation of the overseas pro~grafn, this was one
of the first provisions we made; that there be established at each
school a school advisory committee.
We alsO `have a regional advisory educational committee.
Section 15 requires establishment of* a 12-member advisory coun-
~ii On dependents education `within DOD. We concur with that. But
in the composition of the 12-member committee, we recommended
that there be at least 1 representative from each military depart-
ment.
Section 16 requires a study within 1 year of the entire Defense
school system by an outside contractor. We, of course, would have no
objections to that.
Section 17, we concur with those items th'at are listed, including
the recertification program for all professional personnel. As an at-
tachment to my statement, we have some suggestions that we would
offer the committee on the recertification program, The last section,
we certainly concur with the definitions. We recommended to the
committee `that the word "minor dependerit"~be inserted because we
want this to be a program for schoolage `children, kindergarten
through the 12th grade. The word "individual" might open it up
to the nonminor dependent. `
Other than those comments, Mr Chairman, and the information
c6nta~ned in my statement, I would be very happy to answer any
questions that you or the committee `members may have.
Mr. FORD. Thank you. very much, Dr. Cardinale.
It will be just about 14 years since Congressman Dent's subcom-
mittee on Labor Standards, of which I was then a member, made
the first trip around the world at the request of Dr. Lynn Bartlett
to take a look at the DOD school system. The committee has main-
tained an' interest in the' system since that time, During the sixties
`we saw some rather exciting changes take place in the DOD system.
A great deal of effort has gone into professionalizing a system that
is one of the most interesting phenomena in the Government. It is
PAGENO="0035"
31
something that has grown completely by a~cident, with no pre-
planning and no policy, but it seems to work. Anyone who attempts
to stud~y the history of the development of~ this s~rstem usually is
~surprised to discover that it has nO formal history. We started some
schools in Germany during the oecupation period at the end of the
war, and from those few schools that had sprung up, a system de-
veloped which' at ~fle point would have a student population of
200,000.
Dr. CAEDINALE. Yes.
Mr. Fono. It would have been at that time, about the fifth largest
5school district in the country, if it had been a single school ,distriàt.
It developed without any statnte on the bo'pk~ authorizing its exist-
~ence. It has existed - by executive fiat and appropriations, oversight
by Armed Services, Education and Labor, and~ Post Office and Civil
:Service has been in. the act. - S S
I think one of the events with the mbst- impact w~s a b~I1 spor~-
- sored by Congressm~an Morris XJdali, which we worked on in 1965.
It changed the status- of the teachers so that they had a pay and
work schedule *th~at more Closely. appro~dmat~d their peers in the
American public school system. S
V,hile' I have some reservations about the legislation before uS,
and I want to work~ those out, I know th~tt the author of this bill.
Mr.' EHenborn; has beeh interested in this `sohool system since `he
~amC to Congress 13 years ago. He has spent perhaps as much
time as anyone in the' Congress on an examination of this school
system and its exponents throughout the world; So I rcspec*t not only
his j~udgment, but hi~ motivation ~u intro4uchig this legislation.
Some of the `lang~age in heTe w~ has~e t~lke4 abOut many times
over the years. At least we ~rnw' have `before us ~pecific proposals that
-can be considered. So with that, I would like W recogni~ze the autho~'
of the legislation, M~r. Erlenborn. ` S
Mr. ERLENBORN. `Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Let me welcome you, Dr. Càrdinaie.
Dr. CARDINALE. `Thank you, sir.
Mr. ERLENBORN. Thank you for being `here and for your testi-
mony. - S
As~ the chairman has pointed out, and you pointed out in your tes-
timony, there is no statutory. basis ~or the present operation of the
overseas dependent s~hoo-ls. Just looking at that fact, the rather im-
permanent status of the program, do you , feel that a statutory au~
thorization for the program would be desirable? -
Dr. CARDINALE. Yes, sir, I believe that personally, and it is also
`the view of the Defense Department. It would give `us something
permanent, more ~o than' just the general provisions of the annual
Department of Defense appropriation item. I tould feel much more
comfortable with an authorization bill in order1 to operate the school
program.
`Mr. ERLENBORN. What advantages' would ~ow to the overseas
schools-as a result of statutory authorization?
Dr. CARDINALE. Tn preparing the budget for the dependent 5chool~,
I am sure that part ~f the budget would be h~ard also by the Edu-
`cation and Labor Committee, as well as the H~ouse and Senate Ap-
propriations. Committees, and the Subcommit'~ees on `Defense Ap~
propriations. S
PAGENO="0036"
32
I would say that it would give my offlce some concrete authority
in issuing regulations that would govern certain aspects of the pro-
gram. For an example, a point that comes to mind is that we are
~attempting to do a great deal in the area of child abuse. We want
our personnel, our teachers and administrators, to report cases, but
at the moment we are hesitant to require that because we. have no
immunity for the teachers or administrators being liable if the par-
ents want to press this issue. Through legislation I think we can
give this kind of a commitment to our teachers-you know, protect
them, so to speak, from the parents when the teacher is conscien-
tiously trying to do a good job in reporting child abuse cases.
I think the way the legislation would be written, many of the pro-
grams that now exist for students in the United States that are
funded by Federal programs would also extend to all of our stu-
dents overseas.
The thing uppermost in my mind is that if our students were back
in the United States in the local public schools, they would be eli-
gible for all of these benefits. Therefore, I see no reason why over-
seas they shouldn't have the same benefits extended to them.
* Mr. ERLENBORN. You are referring to such things as the school
lunch program?
Dr. CARD~TNALE. Yes, sir. That is one of the items.
* Mr.. ERLENBORN. What changes would this legislation, or some
similar authorizing legislation make in the way the overseas schools
are~ operated ~
Dr. CARDINALE. It would give us a little bit more permanent basis
to operate from, and we would be able to set up some programs that
.1 believe have to be in legislation; one is the ability or the authority
to authorize a teacher certification, recertification programs, to once
and for all outline what we mean by space available students and
tuition-paying stuñents coming to our program, who may come tu-
ition-free, who may come on a tuition-paying basis. We get many
complaints about our program now from civilian personnel residing
overseas who are not a part of the Defense Establishment.
We would be able to establish once and for all in legislation, who.
can and cannot attend our schools. I can see through working with
the various teacher organizations that we would be able to come up
with an agreement on the other kinds of administrathre and educa-
tional policies that we need fOr the total operation of the school
system.
Mr. ERLENBORN. I: realize from your statement that the Depart-
ment of Defense is not at this time endorsing the concept of folding
in the section 6 schools for this legislation, but would y.ou have a
personal view as to the ultimate desirability of this, and do yo'u
know how the various services feel about bringing section 6 schools
into the overall operation?
Dr. CARDINALE. Yes, sir. As I have mentioned on page 2 of my
statement, the administration's position is that during this period of
time since the President has come forth with the concept of thern De-
partment of Education, nothing ought to be transferred from one
department to another in the area of education. But my personal
views regarding the stateside, the so-called section 6 operation, is
that much can be done to bring together a more cohesive operation
o~f this school system.
PAGENO="0037"
33~
As you stated, M'r, Erienborii, the military departments now óper-
ate these schools on some 18 installations in the United States. The
funding for the maitLtenance~ operation and construction i.s the re-
sponsibility of the U.S. Commissioner of Education. This arrange-
ment has been `w&rking very well.
I have talked to the re~presentatiii~es from the military de?art-
merits, and they assured me that the' program is going well, that the
base commanders like the operation.
Mr. FORD. Excuse me for interruptng.
We are old friends, but did you ever talk `to a military commander
that didn't tell you everything was going well with the schools?
Dr. CARDINALE. Yes, sir. On many occasions.
Mr. FORD. In some of the inferior facilities we have seen around
the world, there were top people being assured by school officers that
there was no problem. But we. had piles of complaints from teachers
and parents when we arrived there. In the end we would face a five-~~
star general with a surprised look on his face who be1~eved there was
nothing wrong on his little island.
Dr. CARDINALE. I have seen some o~f the same things. I am sure that,
the committee has.
Mr. FORD. I felt compelled to react to that with the military, be-
cause we have seen and heard some horror stories~ ~bout these schools
that go across the bcittrd. One in particular which Mr. Corrada is
concerned about, shows the consistent ability of the Navy to mis-
manage the schools over which it has jurisdiction.'
As a former' Navy man I apologize out of loyalty to that serv-
ice, but in the' 14 years I have served in Congress, I have been con-
vinced that one of the first things we Ouo~ht to do is get `the Navy
out of the business of running schools.' Almost ~universálly we have
seen the chaos they have created. Sàhools enjoy such a low priority
on the average naval installation that when compared with the lesser
services like the Air Force and the Army, they jnst don't do the job.
One of the places where we are having' real problems, which Con-
gressman Corrada has brought to our attention, is Puerto Rico. As I
recall, the Navy runs `the school on an Army installation there, and
the majority of the students are nonmilitary dependents, or at least
not military dependents. It has no identity of any kind.
We would like to ezplore the section 6 problem because the corn-
mittee had hearings this summer indicating that even though there
are only a few schools, that there are serious complaints about the
section 6 schools.
Dr. CARDINALE. Well, Mr. Erlenborn, in my own personal opinion,
as I mentioned, there are some areas where greater cohesiveness could
exist between the section 6 schools, and some of 4he policies that are
set for the school operation. `. `
It is my understanding that one of the servi~es~ has all the teachers
under personal services contract. And the other services have them
under excepted appointments, that is an excepted appointment,
under the Civil Servic.e Commission.
It seemed to me if you were operating something nnder a specific
piece of, legislation, that all of this ought to be uniform, at least from
the standpoint' of the teachers. They ought to have one kind, either
all have a personal service contract or all he e~cepted appointments.
PAGENO="0038"
34
This is something I think that within the Departmei~t of Defense
we would have to sort out ourselves and look at that whole issue.
But, basically, in time I think that we would have to look at the
total operation of the section 6 program.
Mr. E1mENB0RN. You may have noted the bill requires or directs
that school facilities be brought up to health and safety codes; re-
quires that they be made accessible to the handicapped just as public
schools are required here in the United States.
What is the current condition of DOD overseas schools and sec-
tion 6 schools relative to these requirements, and what would you be
required to do to meet the directives of the bill?
Dr. CARDINALE. I believe that the bill does an excellent job in this
area, Mr. Erlenborn. Within the overseas program, the way the leg-.
islation normally is written, would indicate that `any school system
receiving its funds from the Federal Government would have to com-
ply with these standards. I know that we have been accused in the
overseas organization of our school program that we are not com-
plying with the new legislation for the handicapped. This isn't so.
1, would be very stupid not to try and comply with all Federal laws,
nt least those having to do with education. In the overseas area we
b~ave made a very concerted effort to bring our special education pro-
gram up to all of the requirements.
I have several' people on my staff now who afe spending full time
`with personnel in the Office of Education and other associations to
`be sure that what we are doing is in complete compliance with the
law on handicapped education. I have a very personal interest in
the whole area of special education, because for about 15 y~ars I
have been chairman of the board of St. Coletta School for Retarded
Children. I do this because I know something `about special educa-
tion. I greatly support any iegisl'ati'o; any program, that would
help these youngsters.,
Jn our program we are making movements in the area of the
gifted, the talented students and vocational oriented student. We
have some ou'tstanding career education programs going on in our
system. We have a'full-time person on my staff whose sole responsi-
:~ility is career and vocational educations We have been pushing our
-people overseas to do more in these areas.
I am not familiar with what the section 6 schools are doing, spe-
cifically, in this area. But I am sure that they are in compliance
with the various pieces of legislation.
Mr. ERLENBORN. I might say you would have one great advantage
in meeting the directives of the Congress re'lative to facilities for the
handicapped in that you also have your funding from the Congress.
I `think we would have some responsibility to give you the funding
to comply with the directives, which is not the practice in the public
school system here in the United States. As I recall we have been
very generous in issuing directives, but have not provided any fund-'
ing to complywith those directives.
Dr. CARDINALE. Tn- our school program, the Secretary of Defense
has been extremely supportive of our overseas operation. In this re-
gard I might mention at this moment, Mr. Chairman, that the Sec-
retary of Defense has approved, for fiscal year 1979, a total of $307
PAGENO="0039"
million for the operation and maintenance of our schools overseas.
That is $44 million more than we~ have approved for our fiscal year
1978 program.
The Secretary is lending strong support to this program, and in
the area of school construction we have requested, in fiscal year 1979,
$44.8 million. The Secretary has approved this amount in the defense
budget. As I recall, the combined total of all military departments
for construction, or major-minor construction during fiscal year 1978
wa~s $17 million.
In realizing this, we are trying to identify the programs where we
have to put more emphasis such as the special education program,
the gifted and talented, the vocational and career educational typo
programs.
Mr. ERLENUORN. Thank yOu again.,
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. FORD. Thank yon.
You mentioned yOur interest in the problems within your school
`of the retarded child. We discovered a few years ago a peculiar hand-
icap that you have i~ri dealing with this problem. Among the armed
services, there are diffnring attitudes' on how they deal with career
officers who have ret*rded or handicapped children;. It was possible
`for a serviceman to turn down a duty assignuiexit based on whether
services wOre available for his handicapped child.
There `was a specific directive that protected him to the extent
that such directives aDe able to do this-against any loss of progress
in his career status i~s a result of his inability `t~ accept that assign-
ment. `
At the same time, `another service viewed this as a parental dis-
ability and, said:
Sorry, if you can't take this overseaa i~ssignment because of that condition,
`we just have to write it down the same as if it were any other disability from
`performing a duty that we want you to perform."
It resulted in a rather strange mixture of attitudes among people
about how to deal with the problem. Should we send them all home
and try to institutionalize these children, separate them from their
brothers and sisters and parents, or do we have a different responsi~
-` bility? I am not at all sure that, we have worked that out very well,
`but it is `a dimension of trying to deal with the special problem of
having any child that needs special education; in a system that is
`fragmented and spread around, the world, lIke yours, where `you
`aren't necessarily gQing to he; in an area large enough to justify the
expense of a facility and a program that would accommodate the
Beeds of a very strong variety of disabilities, or any kind of hancli-
`cap.
Could you give; us some indication about what `the services are
doing to deal with this kind of problem?
Dr. CARDINALE. Yes, sir. We have' `been `woi~king pretty hard in
this area also, because we realize that it is `a sig~iifIcant problem. Mr,
Ferguson~ my Deputy Director, has been workiif~g. with the Surgeons
General of, the military;department's to develop fthe different formats
necessary to screen the military man prior to going overseas, This
will insure that if he does have a retarded or handicapped child, and
PAGENO="0040"
36
the, man is absolutely necessary for that particular military assign-
ment, he would be assigned to a location where we can adequately
take~care of his handicapped or his retarded child.
What we are attempting to do now is to set up regional centers
for handicapped and retarded children. We have a study under way
to find out how many Of these centers we would need, and where they
should be located, so that if a man arrives and he is assigned to
Heidelberg, as an example, we would be able to take care of his re-
tarded or handicapped youngster.
But if he is assigned to some base, a very small base 20 or 30 miles
away, and this may be the only child at the base, we ought to take
c~e of that child one way or the other as long as he is in our de-
pendent school: We either make arrangements to get a teacher into
that school to take care of the child part-time or part of the day, or
provide sime kind of transportation to~get the child up to this center
that we are proposing in each of our three geographical regions.
My point is that once the child gets to the overseas area regardless
of what the parents said about not having a retarded or handicapped
youngster, or whatever the reason, my belief is the child is there in
our school system so we ought to have the wherewithal to take care
of him completely. This is a significant problem, we are aware of it,
and as I have mentioned, I have several staff people who for the last
several weeks, have been devoting their entire time to coming up
with this type program package.
Mr. ERLENBORN. Mr. Chairman.
Mr. FORD. Yes.,
Mr. ERLENBORN. If you would indulge me just for a comment.,
In our travels I think my observation was the finest facilities for
the handicapped were in the schools in Panama. Now, of course that
was the school that was not operated by DOD, but, rather by the.
Panama Canal Company, and they just sOnt the bill at the end of
the year to DOD.
Dr. CARDINALE. That is right.
Mr. ERLENBORN. But they did have some very fine facilities down
there. Could you tell us what the difference in cost for educating
dependents overseas is between Panama and the other schools that
are operated by DOD?
Dr. CARDINALE. Well, sir, I know that the per-pupil cost for oper-
ation of DOD schools for fiscal year 1979 is $2,035. This is our over-
all average. I don't know that for the Panama Canal Zone. I can
get it and insert it in the record if you would like.
Mr. ERLENBORN. Not knowing what' it is, would you guess that it
is more?
Dr. CARDINALE. it is, yes, sir, because I pay the bills every October,
so I know what the bill is.
Mr. FORD. Something like twice what you pay for other children,
isn't it?
Dr. CARDINALE. I would think so, Mr. Chairman. For the educa-
tion of a handicapped or retarded youngster I am sure the cost is,
either double and sometimes triple the cost of other type education.
Mr. FORD. No; I am talking about the per-pupil education costs in
Panama.
PAGENO="0041"
37'
Dr. CARDINAL1~. It'is~ It `i~ more ~hah our $2,035.1 ki~o~v that `f~
~a fact, But I will `insert that exact amOunt in the record;
Mr. ERLENBOirN. Thank you.
[Data to be supplied fOllo~s ]
`Ilie basic per'pu~i1 cost in the Can tV~one is approi~imately $2 800 The per
:pvipil cost for mei1taity~ h~ed~ I appro~dm~te1y ~$5 iXc.;Fo~' st~errts in
~categ~ries ~~cli~ ~a `speech, ~ mui~Ip1h. ~
the per-pupil cost is approximat~1y $8,40Q~ . .
Mr. FORD. The gentleman .fr~m'.i~llitiois, Mr. Sirnoñ~.
Mr. SnioN. Yes; `I~Jt~ave' `t~o ~ue'stion's, aM I a 4i~t~ sur~~ I
~shonld direct~ them' to~ th~ ~itntt~s~r'to th~ ~ ,~
`First of `all,' I `would `like'to ~ ~ha~ii~g~ the
~bill, `because it does seeth~,to `m'e,~it~ ifils' a read void. äust' gla~cing
:through the bill on `~~ãges 18 `and 19, as I' read the school advisory
"committees which I `think' is a sound i'dea~ I' `note that thbre i's no re~
~quiremex~'tth~it `the ~cho'oI advisory committee meet.'
And I would not like' `to see a school advisory committee appointed
`that is~a paper thing'~nd' dOesn't ~neet. It wonid seem to me that th~t
ought to be amènde~d so that they would meet somethihg like `nine
times a year, or something like that.
I will defer, to my colleague from Illinois or' the Witness, either
one.' `
Mr. ERLENBORN. `I `would like Dr. Cardi~le to respond `as well,"but
my f~eling is probably soMe minimum number ought to be specified.
Mr.~ SIMoN. Yes;' I am not sure what that nUmber ought to be. I
don't thin'k what we want is a paper organization here.
Mr. ERLENBORN. My only fear, Mr. Simon, now that you "called
my attention to `this, i's this might "be another one `of these advisory
committees the President' could a~oiish and claim progress. I think
that is where he has. made his progress so far.'
Dr. CARDINALE. Well, if' it comes into being, Mr. $imon, this legis-
islation, as written, *oul'd make me executive secretary of that coun-
`cii and I would not oppose that.
Mr. SIMON. Well, you are talking about the, council. See there is a~
council and there are also school advisory committees.' `These are sep-
arate entities, as I read the bills.
Dr. CARDINALE. Right, sfr. But I would say not less than four times
a year, at least once quarterly, they, ought to meet, probably at the
local school le~~ei, local school' advisory committee, not less than once
a month.
Mr. Sn~toN. That is what I think ought to be~ written in there. The
school advisory committees are the local groups.
Dr. CARmNALE. Local.
Mr. SIMON. And it seems to me they ought to be meeting once a
month, atleast. That is why I suggested nine t'i~nes a year during the
term.
Dr. CARDINALE. During the course of the school `year.
Mr. SIMON. Right. `I just pass that along to my' colleague from
Illinois as a suggestion that he might want to amend that.
Now, this is a question directed both to the witness and to my col-
league: This bill, as I understand it, directs some 20 or 25 schools
PAGENO="0042"
38
that are now within the United States on bases. Have we checked
with local school districts for their reaction to. this legislation?
Dr. ~CABnENALE. I don't know if the military departments have
done that. I have not. as part of my operation. I do know that there
have been some newspaper articles written by the 4i~ere'nt superin-
tendents of these current, or so called section 6 schools in opposition
to any kind ofa transfer. But I have not made a study of that.
Mr. SIMON. What is the basis for this?
Mr. Foiu~. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. SIMON. Yes; I will yield to my colleague.
Mr. Fo~. We have covered this ~ubIeet in hearings on impact aid
legislation and also for the ~ilementary and Secondary Education
Act reauthorization tuh~t is being worked on now by the subcom-
mittee, and I think a fair look at it would indicate thnt superintend-
ents' opinions range from liking the status quo to the belief that
what they have are the worst possible conditions. But there are prob-
lems such as this:
There are local school districts that would be willing to take over
the section 6 school if it, ~ère first~modernized, all the handicap bar-
rier problems corrected, and put in A-i condition.
In other cases, frankly, there has been some suspicion over the
years that there have been at some times section 6 schools which ap-
peared to exist to prevent dependents from going to `integrated local
public schools, where the racial makeup of the integrated local public
~chools was different than the racial makeup of the dependents on
that military installation.
One of these situations existed for a period of years within sling-
slot distance from where we are sitting. But it was well known
among Members of Congress. I don't think it exists any `longer.
Mr. SIMON. You are better at slingshots than I am, but go ahead.
Mr. FORD. Great anomalies `did exist. Recently I spent some time
with the school' superintendent of a public school district at Fort
Sam Houston, Tex. The public school district,' which is part of the
whole Texas system, is coterminous with the boundaries of Fort' Sam'
Houston. To be residents of the school district you must be a resident
of Fort Sam Houston. But it is not a section 6 school, nor is it a
DOD school. It is a part of the Texas school system, and structured
like every other school district, in the State. It seems to work mar-
velously well with the category A funds that they get from impact
aid.
The more you look at this the more you discover that there is no~
consistent pattern. Mr. Erlenborn's bill reveals the fact that no one
really knows what's going on. There is a small number of section 6
schools.' There isn't anyone in the Federal Government that you can
refer to who can tell you what is currently going on with these
`schools.
Maybe no one has paid enough attention to' them. Even though
they have a statutory existence in the Impact Aid bill, this committee
has ignored their existence for all the, years I have been on it. And
we give them about $60 million annually.
Mr. FORD. This approximately $60 million gets into the Labor-
HEW appropriation every year, which the whole education corn-
PAGENO="0043"
39
munity fights for. Then it sort of disappeals out t1~ere~ Nob~dy
knows who administers it,
Mr. SIMoN. Well, t am not opposed to the bill. It does seem to me
that we ought to beasking loëal school districts, lii~e the Fort Sai~
`}uston thing, I dofl't know~anything ab~ut it, but maybe w~ ot~ght
to ~ask the people at'~Fort Sam H~uston; Qfl. thi~s bill, ai'e there prob-
lem~, are th~re way~ that it should ~e~amended.
It would ~seem to me that either the; co~~mittee staff or someone
from the Defense Department, or `the ch4ef sponsor, that we ought
to be checking with 4ho'se local sebool districts. I am not suggesting
that we just fall ovei1 and play dead if they don't like the thing, :but
they may liav~ some practical concrete suggestions that w,e ought to
be listening to~
Dr. CARDINALE. Yes. `
Mr. Sn~toN. I have no more questions, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you.
Mr.' FORD. The cowisel and I ,were just, discussing a speciai prob-
we ha'sre at~:For't ICn4x. For a rn iber~ of years, the `local
public school system: had the choice of whether or not they wanted
to take over the school. They have to' maintain a section 6 s'chqo'l be-
cause the public system won't taJ~e tJie stucle~ts who are generated
by the dependents at Fort Campbell and Fort Knox.
We assume that J~entu~k~y law, or `the, Kentucky system, `leads to
the situation, because we don't know of `~t lu~ppening elsewhere.
A few years ago the con~mittee built a new high school in Puerto
Rico because of complaints that the children who went off the base
at Ramey Air Force Base had to go to a school system where, all
the teachers were speaking Spanish~ and they' didn't speak `Spanish.
So there was a sudden flurry of activity, and a new high school was
built.' Teachers were, sent down there and they lived happily ever
after in their isolation, and' then came back without learning any
Spanish.
Congressman Ashbrookl
Mr. Asin3RooK. Yes; I noticed the AFT in `their upcoming testi-
mony indicate they would have your schools enroll children in the
host countries on a regular no-fee basis. What would be your posi-
tion on that'?
Dr. CARDINALL I would be opposed to that.' And I am sure that
the Department of Defense would be Opposed' to that also. We are
talking about the expenditures of Federal `dollars, and as I see it,
the mission of the overseas dependent schOols is to provide primary
and secondary education for the dependents of military and civilian
personnel on active duty and stationed overseas.
Now, we do permit some children in our schools. We are required
`to educate children of other U.S. `Government agencies; the State
Department, U.S.I.A., Treasury, AID, Internal Revenue, and so
forth, on a tuition-paying basis. We enroll children of private U.S.
citizens who are in the vicinity of a school when we have space
available.
A's I mentioned, we have some local nation~al and third country
national children in our schools on a tuition~paying basis. But 1
~don't think that should be the role of the Department of Defense
PAGENO="0044"
`0
`~v~th "respect to running this type `~educational program. Perhaps
some other Feçleral ,agenqy might be interested in that, but, I could
~`y' ~ ~ai~di'di~ that my pOsition,' `since we are expending Eederal
~dolla'~ would be ~pposed' tO the concept of the OFT.
`Mr. `ASBBROOK. Well, that brir~gs up' two questions,, of course. In
`my experience on the comi~iitte~, AFT has never really been worried
about. spending Federal `money. That has. nev~r `operated as. any re-
on ~their programs or .sugg~i~o~is. ` S
First, `what would it cost if you were to h~ve a regular no-fee
~basis f Or `those nOw eiiroiled'? And, sècthid,' in `addition td those who
now enrOlled, what ~vould you guess would be the long-term irn-
~ae~t' if y~u did. open. it-up to `a regular no-fee basis?
Dr. CAJ~DINALE. Well, based upon the question, you col ~,alrnost go
indefinitely' with the no-fee basis. I am sure there `would~ be, thou-
sands of-- ` ` ` -
Mr. ASHBROOK. How many do you have now in yours, or do you
kno,w?, ` "
Dr. OARDINALR. On `the tuition-paying basis?
`Mr.~ ASHBROOK. Yes. ` `
`Dr. CARDINALE. ApprOximately `4,000 children, These are `other
Federal agencies; private U.S.' citizens from. private' U.S. ôorpora-
tions.
Mr. ASHBnOOE. So that would cost roughly about $8 million to $1~
milli9n on the basis of your-~- `
Dr. C4RDINALE. Right, sir. Just about an estimated `$14 million..
This is the amount that we collect from these tuition-paying stu-
dents, roughly $14 million. ``
Mr.' FORD. Would you yield, John? .
Mr. ASHBROOK. Surely.
Mr. Foiw. Some idea can be gained of the ,resistance in the Dc-
`fense Department to letting. anybody in that `isn't technically cov~
ered from a bill that John and I cosponsored about 6 or 7 years
ago, during the Vietnam war. We~ were `o~~er ,ii~ J~apan and we di's-
`covered when a serviceman ~as `killed' in Vietnam he was no longer
~ Department ,of Defense eniployee; so that' `his' children We-re no
`longer Department o'f Defense' employee dependents and they' were
thrown out of school. An extraordinary set of circumstances was
brought to our attention by the equivalent of a PTA over there. At
a' time when you would think there. would be the greatest feeling
toward these dependenits, they said, "We are sorry."
There were a lot of them in Japan in particular, because there
were high school children age living over there `while the father
was serving in Vietnam. When he was killed,, the wife stayed on. It
took the threat of legislation. I think the item was tucked into one
`Of the armed services bills. It was a matter of hundreds of these
children that the schools wanted to serve., but the Defense Depart-
`ment would not let them' serve, because of the very strict interpreta-
tion they have always put on who may attend their school-s.
Mr. ASHBROOK. Well, that is one more example that justifies my
`cOntinuing `faith in the travel of Congressmen to faraway places. I
am certainly glad we brought that information back.
Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. Chairman, may I just ask a question following
that, if the gentleman would yield.
PAGENO="0045"
41~
In a case such as that, can an American family pay to have a child
`in a school? What are the rules? The only students there are those
who are dependents; is that right?
Dr. CARDINALE. -Y e~, sir; these are dependents of the military and
civilian personnel, DOD, stationed overseas on active duty.
Mr. PRESSLER. Is there ~anyone, that someone can pay for, from
the A~erican community?
* Dr. `CARDIN~LE. Yes, sir, they are admitted to~ our schools. We have
different priorities of enrQlh~nemt, .~a41d they may, if there is space
available in a school be enrolled grade by grade and pay the tuition
of $2,035,
Mr. PRESSLER. Thank you, Mr. Chab~man.
Mr. FORD. Would the gentleman yield ?
It works both ways. There are so-called AmericanS international
schools located in countries where we have problems with statutes
of forces agreements, and other things that ipake it difficult to run
a DOD school. In some of these schools, virtually all of the students
are DOD dependente, and they are paying that school tuition.. You
will also find the reverse of this situation wh&re you niay Shave 29
or 25 percent of the students in one of their schools who are' not
DOD dependents but are~there paying ~tuition to DOD.
Dr. CARDINALE, Not necessarily like £hat, Mr. Chairman.
In some of these so-called State Department-sponsored schools,
the ones that ~you me~itioned, we have just too few dependents in that
area.' We might have 5 or 6 or 10 or 20, not enough really, to opératé
a DOD school, so we will pay tuition to these tuition-fee schools.
The tuition can range anywhere from $1,000 to as high as $3,000 or
$4,000 in these so-called State Department-sponsored schools.
And, then, conversely, where we have a non-DOD person enrolled
in our dependent scl~ools, they have to pay our worldwide per-,pupil
cost, which for this year is $2,035. But we may, in the Panama Canal
Zone-I wonid insert' th~~e figures for the record-but I know that
we are p'aying more than $2,035 for ~econda~y an~E elementary edii-
cation in the Canal Zone.
Mr. FORD. If the treaties are ratified, does that school systéth ope~-
ate under the Department of Defense?
Dr. CARDINALE. Yes, sir, this is the intent of the proposed treaty,
that 6 months after' the treaty, if and `*hen the treaty is ratifle4,
and the ratification is exchanged between countries, 6 months froum
that date, the school systems there will be operated by the' Depart-
,ment of Defense. We have approximately tO percent of the total
enrollmemt,~ which is roughly about 5,500. DOD students for whom
we pay the Canal Zone Government. ` ` `
The-Department of Defense will operate schools in `the Canal ~ono
`under - the new treaty. * ` ` **,
Mr. FORD. Mr. Corrada.
Mr. CORRADA. Yes. * `
First of all, I would like to state my appreciation for the previous
words of Chairman Ford with respect to the problems that we have
been having recurrently inPuerto~ Rico with'respect to the sectIon 6
~sc'~ool,. th~ educ~tion given to children there. Later, we will have
sOme witnesses that come `from Pue~rt~ Rico who will eiab~rate~ per~
haps on this problem.,
PAGENO="0046"
42
But just to give you an idea. Last year ~t was, necessary for me to
get, as part of the Labor or HEW appropriation, some $400,000
specifically earmarked to build some portable rooms in the middle
schools in Puerto Rico because the students and the teachers there,
the parents, found themselves in some sort of dilemma' and inaction
from any of the co~erned agenéies.
As Mr. Ford was' stating before, the ~peeuliar situation was that
the school actually was in an Army post for dependents, but belong
ing to the Navy, and actually under the )urisdictlon of the Navy for
that reason and supposedly under terms of HEW providing for the
necessary educational services there, and they ~just found themselves
in this ,terrible position' of' n~,t getting appropriate answers~ from
nnyQne. , `
We therefore have a vei~y serious problem here I don't know if
the solution would be transferring this to POD as' the bill proposes,
`15u't certainly "soineth~ng `ought to `be `done. And I just wanted ,to
raise a number of questions with respect to this proposal
For instance, the Parents Orgamzation for Quality Education,
which ~s a local group in Puerto Rico for the parents of children
that go to' the, schools; raises the `question what provisions' or gu~r-
.antees would there be th~t somCon'e' with educational expertise will
review the proposed budget `for each school to assure that' the' basic
educational needs of all students, including the menta~y and physi
cally handicapped as well as the gifted are met
Will the DOD have the sensitivity for this kind of problem? What
5ncenttves are these to eneourage all' schools to, `pay stateside school
systems "to' acquire the new materials like" te~t'books, occupational
materials, provision to publish laboratory materials, and so forth?
Will the educational level be raised to kigher HEW stand~u ds, or
will they be lowered for lack of sufficient priority in terms of the
needs of' the IbOD? ` .
~.All these are serio~is. questions that have to be answered.
`In the specific case of Puerto Rico, about 60 percent of the ,stu-'
dents that attend this school are non-DOD' dependents. Now, if they
`are tr~nsfërred to a school system' of `the Department of Defense,
what would happen if the military installation is closed? Actu'Llly,
Tort `Buàhaiian very recently became' a subpost of Fort McPherson
land people there are certainly not very confident that Fort Bu-
`chanan is an installation that may exist as it is flow for decades to
come. Hopefully it may.,
So this problem is of particular concern in Puerto Rico due to the
`recent reductions in force at Fort Buchanan. I think these are some
,of the answers that we would hope' to find in `the hearings.
But, `Mr. Chairman, I am certainly very much concerned about
the present situation and, again, although I don't know that the bill
really is the answer to the problem, I hope that we will be able to
do something to improve the, situation.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Foim. Thank you. ,
Since this bill would traiisfer the Specific school that Mr. Corrada
`is `talking about here, could you tell us what role, if any, your office
`now plays in the operation of that" school?
PAGENO="0047"
43
Dr. Om~u~i, Right iiow, Mr. Chairman,, my office has no re-
sponsibility for any schools in the Tjnited States, under a~y of the
titles, under section 10, which I understand provides for the con-
struction of schools ~`on military insta1h~tions. It has nothing to do
with section 6 operation, these `18 on base, including the ones Mr.
Corrada referred to in Puerto Rico,
My office, as you know, has no responsibility directly. The legis-
lation, 81-874 and 8&-815, say that this is the responsibility of the
Secretaries ~xL~ milit~y departme~its an4 the Conimissioi~er of. Edu-
cation. So I have p'i~yed a `very low profiie in tMs, since~ it isn't my
responsibility, my charter doesn't c~vcr this school operation.
Mr. FORD. Mr. Corrada, have you ~`iiished'?, `
Mr. CORR4~AS Yes~ `Mr. Chairman~ Thank y'on~' `
Mr. FORD. Ms. Pettis, `
Ms. Pm~rxs, Thank you, Mr. Cb~,irn~an. " `
Dr. Cardmale, do, yOU hav& any reaction from the `indi~idüa1
services withixr the Department `Of. Defense, such, as the Marine
Coips, and the Army~ and `the Air Force `offiCes'?
Dr. CARDINA~L Yes; I do, `and the reaction :from the `niilita'~y. de-
partments is `that they are opposed `to transferring the responsibility
to the Offi'ce of th~ Secretary of `Defense.
You are talking'about a split operation, a~ currently exists, where
the military departments are operating schools; hiring the personnel,
purchasing' the materials,' all with the funds `provided by the Corn-
mi~siouer of Education.' ` ` `
`This is the *ay `they have been operating since inception back in
September 1950,. I `do know that the military departments. would be
opposed to' transferring `the responsibility to the Department of
Defense; that is,, the administration and supervision.
if along `the `way~--and this is my own personal guess and ñiy own
personal opinion-if the responsibility' for the' operation, as `well as
the funding ":`for these schools were to transfer to the Secretary of
Defense, I would a~ume the Departments `would, concur with that.
That is iny'own personal' opinion. "
it seems to me that `the operation and maintenance moneys to,
`these schools ~js sufficient. It is the' area of construction, of constructing
new and additional facilities and making major repairs, that seem to
be the major concern, of the military departmeiits,
Ms. PETTIS. It is interesting to me that a number of the key mili-
tary people,have come to `me and said `t'hat they did not want this,
and I was just wondering why, if it were to be such an advantage
for their children. , `
Thank' you `very much. ` ` `
`Mr. ,Foiw. I was just, looking at the list `of section 6 `schools still
in existence. They really have been slowly but' surely disappearing.
For example, there are none in the State of California, which is by
`far the largest recipient of impact aid funds in the country.
In your State, even at the big marine base there, the schools are
all' operated as `~public schools, and `the public school systems have
become impact aid' recipients.
California and other States have p~cke4 these students up and re-
moved the necessity `for section 6 `scho'ols. Some of `the other States
PAGENO="0048"
44
have jtTst been a little bit slower in accommodating the military de-
pendents. There are now, I think, only 18 such schools.
Dr. CARDINALE. That is 18; yes, sir.
Mr. FORD. There is no pattern, even among the 18, as. to who runa,
them. In some eases they even have 66 schools run by the local edu~~
cation agency. Isn't that correct?
Dr. CARDINALE. Right, sir.
Mr. FORD. I believe a lot of these schools would çlisapp-eã-r if some-~
one just took enough time to do .the paperwork on them, and put~
them in shape so the LEA could take them over.,
Mr. Weiss?
Mr. WEIss. Thank you, Mr. -Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I want to commend and compliment~ Mr. Erlenborn
for focusing our attention on this problem. We had some earlier
testimony some moments back when a parents' group from Puerto~
Rico had -come here under the auspices of Mr. Corrada.
At the same ti-me I have-I gues~ my question is whether we are~.
going in the direction that we ought to be going with the legislation.
Whether,- in' fact, there ought not be more. It would mob be more.
appropriate to take the military totally out of the operations of~
schools and transfer all of the administrative responsibilities to the~
Office of Education and to whatever may' or may not succeed that-,
Office of Education.
I wonder, Dr. Cardinale, if you had considered that as an -alter-~
native and if you have any comments or thoughts on that?
Dr. CARDINALE. I do not have' -any comments, or the Department--
of Defense position On that. But certainly under the - proposal, the
President's proposal for a new Department of Education, I am-
sure that this whole concept of education within the Defense Depart~.
ment, that is childhood education, and education. am~a~g the other-
Federal agencies is certainly being ~lo~ked at at - this poiiit as to-.
whether or not something like this ought to `be transferred to tho.
new Department of Education when it comes into beimg. -
Mr. WEIss. Assuming that in fact this concept were to be adopted;
would you have any thoughts to more direct involvement and control'
in the selection of personnel and the overseeing of the operations of~
the schools, the setting of curriculum, and so on, on the parts of' the.
parents rather than just the advisory committees that are referred~
to in this legislation?
Dr. CARDINALE. Right now, in --the operation of our schools since
my office became totally responsible, we have made- it our highest
priority to involve parents, teachers, students, and command iais~
in our curriculuni decisions-making process-our curricultiru review-
process, that is. Anything that we do where it is going to-have an im...
pact upon the students, we always get comments an& ideas from par~.
ents, the sponsors of the clientele we ar~serving. - -
Mrs' WEISS. Well, is that a - formal--legal respon~ibiIi1y- and right
that they have, or is it simply a matter of your- soliciting corninents~
and advice -and then doing as iou, or not you pers~naHy, but as the
Department thinks best? -
- Dr. CAnDU~ALE. Well, again, sir, we have no specific iegi'slations~
other `than the annual appropriation act of `the Department of' `De-.
fe-nse, for the operation of these schools. But 1~ing~ sçhool'.xpi'nded~
PAGENO="0049"
45
people, we have been in education, at least myself and members of
my staff, for ~5 to 30 years~ and we know the vahie of havjng par~
ents and 1thv1~ig people participate in the formulation of all i)oli('i(S.
how, it is true we may not accept everything that comes in for what-
ever reaSOn, but certainly in the past, this was the ease.
It has not been the case since the first of .Tuly 1976, whether we do
involve parents of students in command decisions, at least they will
have tlieii' say, awl at some 1)Oiflt ill time decisioiis have to be made
ami certainly decisions should take into consideration what is being
said out in the field.
Mr. WTmss. Now, you are talking about 1)01) schools rather than
straight military service schools?
Dr. CARDINALE. Yes, Sn, that is all I can really speak on.
Mr. WEiss. Right.
Dr. CARDINALE. 1 am not responsible for the section 6 schools in
the United States.
Mr. Wi~iss. The reason I ask the question is because I recall viv-
idly the testimony given to us by Mr. Corracla's constituents who
appeared before us and pomtecl out that the school board in the An~
tilles school system that was run by the Navy, I think, the Admiral,
and the Admiral, by himself, made all of the decisions which we here
in the United States, the mainland area in the civilian sector, wher-
ever, would think of beimig a parent body responsibility.
And I am )uSt expressing concern to you and 1 guess the commit-
tee that the direction that we are going may. in fact, take us away
from the direction which everybody else is going in. If, in fact, it is
appropriate to consider placing all of these schools within a new
Department of Education, I wonder why the title makes any differ-
ence, why you simply could not (10 that even within an Office of
Education, and then have it picked up if there is a new department
subsequently.
Mr. Comuii~r~. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. WEISS. I will be pleased to yield.
Mi. Comt~~ii~~. 1)efinitely I think that at such time as we cOJiSi(ler,
and hopefully it will come to us, the reorganization of the 1)epart-.
merit 0-f Education, if we were to assume that these functions are not
transferred to 1)01) as the bill wOuld intend to do, we, it woul(1 be
the I)ropel time, definitely, to see what we do to resolve the problem.
It is fundamentally under iiKW~ but it is not working right as a
result of the different notions of different agencies and dependents,
as you can see from the experience we have had in Puerto Rico.
Mr. \Viuss. Yes; absolutely, awl I am P1~'~~~1 that the gentleman
from Puerto Rico could have the opportunity to bring his constitu-
ents to tell us personally what conditions pie~~ai]e~L not just plmysi-
cally but from a school admnm~stration point of view.
rfliaiik you, Mr. Chairman. I have no further questions.
~ Iv. ERLENBORN. Woul (.1 the gentlemnan yield?
Mr. WEISS. I will be glad to yield.
Mr. ERLENBORN. Let miie 1ust raise a question wjth respect to oh-
servations the gentleman made about transferring to the Office of
Education. I am not certain about this, but my impressiohl is the
Office of Education pi'esentl~~ (Toes not operate any schools. rfh cy (li(l
administer programs that we have established for aid to local edmi-
cational agencies and state educational agencies.
:O--941--75---------i
PAGENO="0050"
46
I have been pleased ãer the course of years that this committee
and~ the Congress have been very careful to keep the Office of Edu
cation out of the business .of determining text books, course content,
required courses, the other things that rightfully in my opinion and
so far in the opinion of the Congress collectively have been the prov-
ince of local educational agencies.
And for one, I would be just a bit concerned if we began to have
the Office of Education operating as a school board and making these
course content, text book selections, and other decisions They would
tend, I fear, to then spill over into the private sector.
I felt and I continue to feel much more comfortable with the De-
partment of Defense doing this as an obligation for the educatioh of
their dependents. ratherthan having the Office of Education getting
into,a field that I think we have been careful to keep them out of.
Mr. W~siss. 1 appreciate the gentleman's concern.
I guess really it all depends on the matter of perspective. And
I am' not ~reall~ inclined `to intend to' have the' Office of Education
run those schools directly, but I guess if it were freezed in that kind
of stark polarization terms, I think that I might be more inclined to
have the' Office of Education do it then the admiral of any particular
naval installatiofl do it.
Mr. Foni~ Would the gentl~inan yield?
In my perfect piece of legislation, for the purpose of establishing
the `new Department of Education, I have solved this problem for
both of you, and you would both have what you want It is really a
relatively simple thing we have done in the past, so there is a prece
dent for it.
There would be a Secretary of Education who would have `the
overall responsibility for all education policy in the Federal Gov-
ernmeiit and all educational activities either through' funding or
operations in the Government.
But we would authorize for at least a period' of time for the oper-
ations of the DOD schools to remain in the Defense Department
Instead of the ultimate sign-off on policy being the Secretary of De-
fense, the ultimate sign-off on their operations would be the Depart-
ment of Education.
The same thing could be done in the Department of Agriculture,
where they believe that `no one can run the school lunch program un-
less they work in the agriculture building You could solve that whole
thing by letting the Secretary have temporary authority to oversee the
operation of the school lunch program Heaven forbid that we should
ever delegate the running of Indian schools back to the Interior De-
partment, where they have been poorly run for so many years that
~ver~bodyhàs become aCcustomed to it.
There are some problems about running the operations of these
schools through the Office of Education. A few years ago on this
side we had the initiative to dismantle poverty programs that were
being operated by the Government. We had to spin them off into
Labor and [JEW. We solved the problem of keeping them out of the
business of operating' things by letting them delegate the authority
to run things generally to the Department' of Labor.
The operational programs at OE ended up with HEW, out of the
`poverty program, and the operational authority ended up being del-
PAGENO="0051"
47
egáted to the Department of Labor, it could be done. You can both
~have what you want and I have heard that there are some~ people
who are deeply concerned that just a flat, sudden all-out transfer of
everything to the Office of Edttcatioil ~w~uld lead to chaos, because
you would have some new concepts with which to deal.
There is no reason why everybody operating any kind of a train-
ing program in this country could not ultimately go through the
Office of Education for administrative purppses and stay right in
the buildings and on the military ~ases whei~ they now exist.
Mr. WEiss. I believe that sou~d~ like an idea which has søthè merit.
Mr. FORD. As I mention~d, it' `is my idea Qf~ the per~ect solution to
~li of these problems. I ~will be g)~ad' to get~ i~ on, paper: s~oñ.
Mr. WEIsS. I as*1ne~ my ~i~tinguished ,co1leagi~e's. idea is not de~
`pendent on whether there is a Department of Education or Olifide of
Education, it would' work just a~ well either wayt
Mr. FORD. Well, let me say I was going to ask Dr. .Cardinale about
this a little while ago, but I figured it is not really his problem. But
let me just see if I can illustrate the mental. problem we have had
between the Department of Defense and the Office of Education.,
Do you participate in title II of the Elementary and Secondary
Educational Act~
Dr. CABDINALE. ~o, sir.
Mr. FORD. Did y~bu ever in y~tir years accept the title II moneys
That we authorized by law to be paid. through, thei~Department of
Education to you?
Dr. CARDINALE. ,~We hays not accepted the money. Once we were
about to until the follo~ving day when we received instructions that
we were not to accept funds `from another Federal agency. If we
needed funds, we'were' to program for them in our own budget.
Mr. Foiw. Let me recite the history of that. A decade ago; in gen-
~ros'ity, we amended the ~lemêntary and Secondary Education Act to
qualify Defense Departn~iènt' Dependent students. for a title II, title
III, and title IV.-~B and. C,: title VII~. and the NE ATII. Then we
`discovered after a .period ~ time that they. ~lid not, nnd would not
take any money from the Office of Educatio*i.
What they did instead was compute how much money they would
have received if they had accepted the money from `the Offide of Ed-
ucation and added' it to their budget. The budget was then submit-
ted through the Armed Services Coinmittee now on the Appropria-
tions Committee, and the, Appropriations Committee iaid OK, if
you are taking that taint~d money from the Office of Education, you
would have this much, so we will `give you this much so you do not
have to take a handout from them.
In the process they avoided having anybody, in the Office of Edu-
cation meddling around in policies with regard to all of these cate-
gorical programs as they do in other American public .schools.
Mr. Wi~iss. Do you .think Mr. Erlenborn, gave them the advice of
how to handle that situation?
Mr. FOnD. Well, it is a capital example. The traditLonal suspicion
between Defense and HEW is going to pre~ent them from ever get~
t'ing together. ,
Unfortunately you cannot assign blame. We have tried. The Sub-
oommitt-ee on Labor Standards' reports have~comninented on this year
~
PAGENO="0052"
48
after year, without trying to point the finger at anybody* but just;
mentally about this kind of confrontation.
If you think it is hard to get Israel and Egypt to .sit down at the
table, you ought to try to get these people to sit at the same table in
the same room. When they go to AASA conventions, they are care-
ful not to get caught at the same cocktail parties.
*W~~out ç~b~j~et~pn, at this point, I would like to re-insert in the
rec~~ p~rti~r from part 5:entitled "Impact Aid" of the hearings the~
subcommittee condñcted on reauthorizä~t!on of the E1em~nt~ry and
Secondary Education Act, which includes the letter to the Depart-
ment of Health, Education, and Welfare from Chairman Perkins on
page 960 of that report and the attachment, which is a series of some
21 questions that the Chair would address to the Office concernmg
the section 6 schools, their present statutes, and the responses that;
they made to him in their letter of July 20, 1977.
[The documents referred to follow:]
DEPARTMENT OS' HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE,
OFFICE OF EDUCATION,
Washington, D,U., July 20, 1977.
lion. CARL D. PERKINS,
Che%rrnf~ ~JJarnmittee on Education and Labor, House of Represent attves~
~ f~fl.
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for your letter of July 5 submitting addi-
tional questions to be answered for the record.
We have provided answers in the enclosures. I am sorry that we were un-~
able to respond by July 15 as you requested.
Sincerely yours,
WILLIAM L. STORMER,
Director, school assistance
in federally affected areas.
Enclosures.
qu~stio~.,,Tbe uncertainty of the amount and -timing of impact aid payments:
ap~ars to be one of~ the greatest problems of the program. What steps are~
being tak~n~to correel~ thjs situation'?
Answer. The `unce'rtáiiity' ot~thë ~amount of the payment has, e~ci~ted since
the begifining of the program but has become more of a problem' i'n recent
years because so many more school districts are suffering financial difficulties.
Similarly, the timing has become more .of a problem in recent years for the-
same reason. For a number of years, applications were not due to be filed in
the Office of Education until March 31. As now, some applications were filed~
steadily from the beginning of the school year with most being filed on the'
deadline date then wanting an immediate payment. We moved the deadline
date up to January 31 several years ago to allow for some earlier payments-
and more time for processing all initial payments before the close of the school
year. But because of increasing local school district financial difficulties, more-
and more districts have been requesting earlier payments. We have met our~
Ju4~"31Y `~~line for processing initial payments each year. When the per-~
con age ,tb~t'~our payment représënt~ - of tot4l budgets is so small i~i m~tny
school di thts, it is difficult to understand the increasing number of requests:
~or earlier and earlier SAFA paymemits.
Although some discussions have taken place, we need to devote more time
`in thd area of developing and evaluating possible alternatives to present pro-
cedures. To date, the following possibilities have been mentioned:
A.. On the basis of previous years' data, estimate by State the ratio of'
average daily attendance to membership for use in proce~sing the curfent
-year's ap~ffleations~ ~Uhus, a firm (although estimated) determination, of en-
titlement and payment would be made dñring:the~proeessing'of an, application'
(before the close of the school year) instead of changing when the `~choo'I dIi-
trict files a final report of actual average daily attendance after the close of'
`each school year. This would benefit districts by allowing them tO know:
PAGENO="0053"
4t)
~abs~lut~ amnunts they. can clep.end on ~f~' the etirrent year, ~QSsibly, ye also
might be able to provide the fuli.;paymeiit~ J~efore tile close of the ~hool year.
The Division would benefit by fewer processi~igs not only of regular entitle-
nients and payments but of hold harri4ess. payments as wefl. We are not cer-
~tain- at this time, but believe that ~this kind of firm (althqilgh estimated)
iletermination is ,pohsible because the law presei~tly p~ov,ides tile Commissioner
~autbority to determine `t'be~ average daily .atteiidance Of recletilhlS~-Cofln9cted
~c1tilflren. `
B. Determine ~eligibility~ and paypae~it on. the basis of membership' of fed-
erally-connected children oii `a single. ~survey' dat& jather' than on the ba~is
~ot average daily attth~idance. This would. aceoa~plish the same `beuefits as "A"
without the necessity to. determine a, ratio for each State. Thig `procedure
`would definitely réqui~e, a change in the law that presently calls fbr determi-
nations on the, basis of aye~ago daily atten4ance. The' local contrihution rate
~could be reduced (also . by cb~nging' tb~ law) to reflect the use of higher
~meabei~n1~ip ~,figure5' as compared to average daily attendance, or left un-
changed, it would somewhat inakè~up for the 4wo year old fiscal data on Which
rates are' based. . . ,
C. Upon the receipt' of applications, but without a~alymng ~them~'provide
an immediate payment based on some portion of the previotis year's payment.
`This would provide t~meller payrnents, a1t~ough perhaps smaller than usual
initial payments, but , would not meet the need for districts to know firm
amounts ~for the year, Inquiries might still be numqrous' frotii school districts
wanting to know how soon they would be receiving more funds and more ac-
curate payments. This method,, however, would provide . earlier, payments.
D. Appropriating funds for the program a year in advance of the `current
~year also would assist local school districts in anticipating the amottuts of
entitlement and payment which would be available, This would permit local
districts to more accurately reflect an~Vatefi receipts ftom ~.L. 574 in their
annual budgets.
Question. TO what e%tent do LEA~s `carry over impact aid funds?
`Answer. We have little information that would answer this question. P.L.
874 funds are deposited along with other resources, including State and local
funds, in a general operating account that is used to, pay for current expenses
in accordance with Stgte and local laws. Once funds have been commingled
in this fashion,, they tend to lose their identity. Even for those school districts
that m~gbt receive a P.L. 874 payment ju~t before school closes and carry over
an identical amount, it would be dlfficult to .say that the impact aid funds
were being carried over. Tile ~cpet~ses that ,n~ay `have been planned to be
covered by the impact aid payment may have been baid. from other fuiid~';.'tIie
impact aid payment si~inply reimbursed those other funds making them avail-
able for their intended purpo~e~
Most of our applicants lead us to believe that they have urgent need for the
payment to meet expenses for the `current year. Carry over balances of impact
aid or other funds they b~ cases of unpaid bills. Not all school districts are
required to settle their accounts by the close of the school year On the other
hand, a few school districts specifically request smaller payments to insure no
carry over balances. It is difficult to get a true financial picture of a school
district without individual analysis.
Question. What percentage of di~tricts receiving impact,aid* fun4~ use the
various methods of determining payments, e.g. comparable districts, group-
ings, and `State and national averages?
Answer. In 1975, 19% of school districts receiving, impact aid funds re-
ceived a local contribution rate higher than the minimums based on indi-
vidually selected comparable districts, 22% received a higher rate than the
minimums based on State groupings, 16% received one-half the State and
49% received one-half the national average. These p~rcentages were most likely
the same `or quite similar in 1976. In 1977, however, California and Nebraska
yequested the use of individually selected comparable districts instead of
State groupings, The effect is. not precisely known at this time but i~ estimated
to raise the percentage of districts receiving individually `selected comparable
district rates to 19% and lower the perce'ntage receiving rates higher than
minimums based On State groupings to 16%.
Question. What is the role of .the HEW regional offices regarding the . im-
pact aid program? Are they able to provide assistance in applications, ques-
tions of pupil eligibility, and computation of rates? Do you feel there is ade-
quate staff in the regional offices working on this program?
PAGENO="0054"
50
Answer. The role of the flEW. Regional Offices regarding the impact akil
program is one of providing the Head~uarthr's Office with information rela~
tive to determining entitlements ~ and payments made to local education agen-
des. rrhe Regional' Offices are. assigned specific functions necessary to the
processing of npplications for Federal aid under the provisions of P.L. 874
and P I 815, including disaster aid These include providing technical assn~t
ance to app'icants assuring compliance with the laws and regn1akQns and
ve~ifytn~ pupil thiarigial a~nd other data contained In applications These ac-
txv~ties af~e ~aeeonflillstsid primarily by on site visits to local education agen
des for' the purpose of reviewing the data supporting impact aid applicatious~
and reporting their 1~ndings to Headquarters Such reviews depending upon
the sect!oi~s of tJ~e Acts for which assistance is claimed, involve the examina--
tion and analysis of parent pupil survey forms attendance records educa
tional programs, school facilities, budgets, financial records, school board
minutes policies and procedures In addition the regional program officei s
provide liaiSon to and otherwise work closely with impact aid representatives-
in State Departments of Education.
With respeét to P.L. 874 in. those instances where SAFA Regional Program;
Officers have been able to visit local education agencies and make administra~-
tive reviews~ of the records, assistance haa been provided to the schOol per-
Sonnej relative to airPifelitions and pupil eligibility some assistance on rates
~an b~ide~.
The SA~'A staff has not been sufficient in number since 1967. Before then,
frOm 40 to 50 SAFA' Program Officers were able to keep current with the re-
quired workload under Public Laws 874 and 815. Since that time, the staff bash
-been.yedu~ed to 24 program officers who now report directly to Regional Corn-
missloners of Education sometimes duties other than impact aid require mom.
immediate attention. There has been an annual increase in the backlog of'
caaes to be reviewed and less assistance to State and local education agencies~
fri recent years.
Question. As I understand it, the supplemental appropriations bill earmarks;
17 new positions for the division administering the impact aid laws. Have you
hired the 17 individuals yet and to what responsibilities will you assign them ?
Answer. The 1977 Supplemental Appropriations Act identified 17 new posi--
tions for the impact aid division. Six positions were for the SAFA Head-
quarters staff, three for the Field Coordinator's Office and three for the
Malntenance and Operations Branch. Eleven positions were to be assigned to
the ten Regional Offices These eleven positions plus filling the 4 existing SAFA
regional vacancies would provide a regional staff of 39 Program Officers aiid~
11- secretarial-clerical support persons. Pending the identification of any addi-
tional requirements to service applicants under the disaster assistance pro-
grams., these numbers should be sufficient. None of the 17 positions has been
alloted to the Program at the present time.
Question. What percentage of impact aid funds are retained by LEAs to
cover administrative costs? How much is retained for administration at the-
State and Federal level?
Answer. No percentage is provided to LEAs specifically for administrative
costs. As. indicated earlier, P.L. 874 payments are deposited, with the possible
exception of those attributable to low rent housing children, in general operat-
ing accounts that are used to pay current expenses in accordance with State
and lOcal laws. Whatever administrative costs are associated with impact aid
would be paid from that account. No `impact aid funds are provided for ad-
ministration at the State and Federal levels. At the Federal level, expenses
for program personnel are provided in the Office of Education S&E account.
Question. What coordination is there between your division and the Oli..
`fltle I people for administration of the low rent public housing program?
Answer. We have worked closely with Title I people `to coordinate the pro--
~edures relative to the low rent housing program. A joint directive was pie-..
pared in October 1976 by our staff and representatives of the Division of Edu-
cation for the~ Disadvantaged, signed by the Deputy Commissioner of Edu-
cation and sent to Chief State School Officers. It explained the provisions ot
the law and how applicant districts should proceed in order to obtain funda
under this p~ovision of P.L. 874. The docurnent also provided State Title I
officials instructions as to procedures to follow in order to permit payments to.
be made to the local education agencies. Title I officials will monitor the LRH-
funded program when they do other reviews of Title I projects in that State
and will make reports as required to Title I Headquarter's office. Expendi-
PAGENO="0055"
51
tures of P.L. 874 LRH payments for the specific Lull Title I projects will he
reviewed by SAFA Regional Program Offices. In addition, we have met col-
lectively and separately with State and local directors of Title 1 programs on
a number of occasions.
Question. Do you feel it would be feasible to structure the low rent public
housing section of the law like the handicapped provision, where districts
would receive a base payment for all LRH children and an additional percen-
tage for ca~es where they aie pro'~i'dtng' Title I type: services for these chil-
*dren?
Answer. Although basic support payments were authorized previously for
LRH children, none were ever made because of limiting appropriations. Iii
view of the fact that basic support never occurred and that the Amendments
of 1974 changed payments frohi basic to categorical support, it would seem
that doubts remain as to the Federal responsibility for the basic educational
support of LRH children. Administratively, it would be considerably easier
to provide basic support the same as for other Federal children. It would
also be easier to provide an extra payment for those ~RH children being
served in an existing Title I or rfltle I-type program. One of the main differ-
ences between the presei~t two funds, the handicapped and LRH, is that the
extra payment for the handicapped child, is provided on the basis that the
particular handicapped child being claimed is enrolled and participating in
a special program while the LRH payment is provided for a special program
that does not yet exist; thus, the n.eces~ity `exists to require adequate docu-
mnentation on the planned use of the f unds. With the assurance that such pro-
grains already exist and that particular LRH children are participating in
them, there should be little difficulty in providing LRH payments the same
as for the handicapped. Separate or special accounting, the same as for the
handicapped, would be required to insure that the extra payment was used
for specialized purposes.
Question. Since the law does not permit funds to private non-profit educa-
tional institutions, handicapped in private facilities could not be counted for
handicapped funds. Does this create aiiy problems?
Answer. Under Section 3, we believe that handicapped in private facilities
can be counted if a local education agency is sending them to private schools
in order to provide them free public education. rflhis is consistent with the
Education of the Handicapped Act which requires handicapped children to be
provided a suitable education even if that means private schools. There is a
Problem however in sending handicapped children to private schools under
Section 6. Section 6 (d) contains specific prohibitions against furnishing edu-
cation to children in facilities other thami those located on a Federal installa-
tion or those of a local education agency. Although there is some possibility
that we may be able to resolve this conflict, we believe that amending lan-
guage to update Section 6 in this respect is preferable and would make it
compatible with other more recent laws concerning the handicapped. It would
also be preferable to amend Section 3 in this respect for the same reason.
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, because we have a number of other
witnesses, I will not ask questions at this time.
Mr. FORD: Thank you very much,
Dr. Cardmale, I want to thank you very much for your coopera-
tion with the committee, and we will look forward to discussing
further with you what is going on here after we have an opportunity
to hear from additional witnesses today and following on in the
hearing. I will look forward to talking to you some more about the
legislation now pending before Mrs. Speilman's committee.
Dr. CARLINALE. Yes, sir.
Mr. Foiw. It looks like something is going to happen with that
legislation.
Dr. CARDINALE. That is good.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
l~1r. Foiw. Fine. -
We have representing the Office of Education, from the Bureau
of Elementary and Secondary Education, Dr. Thomas K. Minter,
PAGENO="0056"
52
ep~ty~ Commissioner, Bureau of Elementary a;nd Secondary Edu-
cation He is accompan3ed by Mi William Stormer, Dii ectQr, Divi~
sion of School Assistance in Federally Affected Ax eas
TA~fl(ENT OF ThOMAS K MINTER, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
BUREAU OLE~MB1~AU £i~m SECO1qDA1~Z EDUCA~TION, ACCOM
PANIED,BY WILLI41VL STORMER, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OP SCHOOL
ASSISTANCE I~FZ~ERALZ~A~TECTED ARE~AS; AND AL ALPORD,,
tLS. OFFICE OF EDUCATION
:Mr. FoRD. Without objection, the prepared statement will be in-
eJuded in full at this point, in tl~e record.
[The statement of Mr. Minter follows:]
STAT$~RNT `BY T~si~5' K. M~Nr~R,~ DEPUTY OOMMISs~ONER, BuR1~A~ ~OJ?~ ~E-
HE~TAR~ AND SECONDARY EDUCATION, U.S. OFrICE OF EDUCATION, ~EPAtT~EI~J
OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, we thank you very much
for the opportunity to appear before you today to present our views on H.R.
t~892, a bill to establish a unified program for the education of students of
military and civilian personnel overseas and on certain military bases. We
defer to the Department of Defense on that portion of the bill dealing with
matters affecting DoD organization for purposes of carrying out an overseas
education program for dependent's of military parents. We do have a major
interest in that portion of the bill which transfers to the Department of De-
tense a. number of schools which have in the past been provided for by the
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.
`rihe U.S. O~ce of Education, DHEW, administers the School Assistance
In Federally Affected Areas Program which, among other things, authorizes
the Commissioner to make such* arrangements as are necessary to provide
~free public education to children who reside on Federal property if no State
or local public agency is able to provide a suitable education for such stu-
dents, or if no State or local revenues may be used to provide such education.
This portion of the program is authorized in Section 6 of P.L. 81-874. Also
there is a simil~r authority in the construction portion of our program which
authorizes the Commissioner to construct or otherwise provide minimum school
facilities necessary to house an instructional program for students under
those same. coilditions previously described for the P.L. 81-874 program. This
program is authorized under Section 10, P.L. 81-815. The major portions of
these two programs would be transferred to the Department of Defense by
the bill you are considering today.
In his State of the Union message, the President said that he would work
with the Congress toward the creation of a separate Department of Educa-
tion. The President's Reorganization Project is in the process of anal'y~ing
which programs might be included in such a Department. In the expectation
of a general Administration position on education reorganization in the coming
months, the Administration recommends that no major interdepartmental
reorganizations be planned in the interim.
It may be helpful to the Committee if we briefly review our experiences
with these programs over the 27 years of their existence. During the first
year of the Section 6, P.L. 81-874 program, we provided education for the
students on a number of Air Force bases in the unorganized territory portion
of Alaska. The Alaska project lasted only three years. In 1952, 14 projects
were acquired from the other Federal agencies that had been operating them
in 1951. Eight additional projects were started that year. All of these projects
were in the United States with the exception of two projects in Puerto Rico
and one in Alaska.
Because of the prominent role which State and local governments occupied
on the educational scene and strong Congressional interest; Section 6 was
amended in 1953 specifying that the Commissioner was always to "make ar-
rangements" with either a local educational agency or another Federal agency
for the operation' of Section 6 schools. Therefore, since 1953 the law clearly
requires the Commissioner to do three things:
PAGENO="0057"
53'
(1) He determines the need for a. Section 6 arran~emeflt (2) he requires
and distributes the necessary appropriations to meet the financial need; and,
(3) he provides sufficient funds to each project to insure that the educational
opportunity afforded students by Section 6 schools is comparable to that pro-
vided in similar communities in a particular State.
We have always administered the Section 6 prograqi on the premise that it
was established to assist in limited and unusual situations and that State
and local educational agencies should be encouraged to accept responsibility
to provide suitable free public education to children residing on Federal prop-
erty.
During the 27 years of this program's history there have been a total of
99 dIfferent Section 6 projects. We have reduced that number to 25 projects
which we have in operation today. Twenty-two of the projects are for mili-
tary children residing on bases. A listing of these projects is attached tO the
testimony for the information of the Committee.
In summary, the Section 6 program has provided educational opportunities
for many students who may otherwise hate been ~bortchanged in terms of
an adequate educationai program. Our current 25. $ectlon 6 projects provide
for approximately 38,000 students. Six of the 25 Se~tion 6 arrangements are
operated by local educational agencies. The remainder are operated b~ the
military services; hi most cases, high school students attend regular public
high schools. The vast majority of the students are dependents of military
personnel. The Fiscal Year 1978 cost for operating the 25 projects is ap-
proximately $57,700,000.
Budgetary and funding pOlicies of the Congress and the Administration
have always given Section 6 needs a high priority and we have had only
minor problems with the agency or military service' which have been actually
administering the day-to-day activities of the schools on the Federal in-
stallations across the Nation. Our contacts with local and State educational
systems afforded by. other parts of the Impact Aid Program and other educa-
tion programs have provided a vantage point from which ~we can effectively
negotiate on matters such as: establishing a Section 6 ai~rangement; per-
suading a local educational agency to assume the responsibility of taking
over a Section 6 arrangement or td retain responsibility for educating children
residing on Federal property; and in making comparisons of costs between
instructional programs afforded for Section 6 students and other quality
educational offerings.
Public Law 81-815 Activities
Section 10 of P. L. `81-815 authorizes the Commissioner to construct, or
otherwise provide, minimum school facilities for children living on Federa.l
property if there are no ` State or local revenues available and if i~o
local educational agency is' able to provide free public education for such
children. Under this program the Commissioner has constructed or acquired
several hundred facilities over the 27 years of program activity. The law
also authorizes the Commissioner to pass ownership of these facilities over
to local educational agencies. Currently we have about 160 separate school
buildings under the responsibility Of the Commis~ioper. Twenty-nine of this,
number are in the process of being turned over to local educational agencies
or being declared excess. The remaining 131 are located on 69 different
Federal installatiQns in 25 different States and in the Commonwealth of
Puerto Rico.
The' 1978 app~opriation for the entire P,L. 81-815 program is $30,000,000.
This' amount will althw an expenditure of $10.5 million for Section 10
projects.
We are now engaged in a process of assessing the responsibility of the
Commissioner and in modifying the administration of this program to achieve
more desirable results. Our completion of this study is, the necessary first
step toward paving the way to more completely fulfilling the policy that
local and State educational agencies should offer elementary and secondary
programs for the student dependents of military parents.
We believe there is a direct relationship betweei~ the quality of existing
facilities in the Section 10 program and our succe~s in achieving an agree~
ment between local and State educatienal autlio$~lties and the military
services for the transfer of operatiOnal responsibi'ity to local educational
agencies. No local educational agency is enthusiastic about taking over
school buildings in a poor state of repair.
PAGENO="0058"
54
In view of the conditions which this statement sets forth we believe that
the U.S. Office of Education should continue both of these programs pending
~ilecision~ on the new Department of Education.
Mr. Chairman, this completes my prepared statement. We shall be glad to
respond to any questions you or members of the committee may have.
SEC 6 SCHOOLS, PUBLIC LAW 81-874
All sec. 6 schools that have existed since program began, their termination date and those that are at present in
existence
Termination
~Project Number Name of school and/or installation Agency date
Existing
schools
-Alabama:
1 Craig Air Force Base Air Force X
2 Maxwell Air Force Base do X
3 Fort McClellan. Army x
4 Fort Rucker do X
~Alaska:
1 ` Adak Naval Station Navy 1953
Big Delta Army
Eielson Air Force Base Air Force
Elmendorf Air Force Base do
Ladd Air Force Base do
Fort Richardson Army
Kodiak Navy
Whittier Army
Arizona:
1 Fort Huachuca do 1953
Delaware:
1 Dover Air Force (Caesar Rodney) Local education X
agency.
District of Columbia:
1 ~Walter Reed Medical Center Army . 1971
tFlorida:
1.. McDill Air Force Base Air Force 1964
2 1~atrick Air Force Base do 1963
3 Eglin Air Force Base do 1964
4 Tyndall Air Force Base do 1973
5 do Local education 1968
agency.
`Georgia:
I Fort Benning Army X
2 Fort Stewart do X
3 RobjnsAjr Force Base Air Force X
Kentucky:
1 - Fort Knox Army X
2 Fort Campbell do X
3 Camp Breckinridge do 1964
4 Blue Grass Ordinance Depot do 1963
5 Fort Thomas Veterans Administration Hospital. VA 1965
6 Mammoth Cave National Park Interior 1968
8 Fort Thomas Veterans Administration Hospital. Veterans Adminis- 1971
tration.
9 Mammoth Cave National Park Local education 1971
agency.
Massachusetts:
4 Hanscom Air Force Base, Lincoln do X
6 Hanscorn Air Force Base, Bedford (transportation only) X
`Louisiana:
1 England Air Force. Base Air Force X
~Michlgan:
1 Fort Custer Army 1964
2 Selfridge Air Force Base Local education 1964..
agency
3 Fort Wayne Army 1966
5 Custer Air Force Station Air Force 1965
6 Selfridge Air Force Base Local education 1962
agency
7 Battle Creek Veterans Administration Hospital. Veterans Adminis- 1961
tration.
~Missouri:
1 Whiteman Air Force Base Air Force 1957
1 Fort Leonard Wood Army 1957
New Jersey:
Borough of Victory Gardens 1956
New York:~
1.. West Point Military Academy Army X
2 Fort Jay Army (transporta- 1967 -
tion only).
4. Coast Guard Base, Governors Island Transportation X
Department.
PAGENO="0059"
1956 -
1953
1970 -
1970
1965 -
1968
1970 -
1962
1967
1967
1964
1967
1967
1967
1970
1962
1965
1970
1970
1969
1961
1970
1970
1965
1965
1970_
1969
1970
1973
74~ 25
SEC. 6 SCHOOLS, PUBLIC LAW 81-874
All sec. 6 schools that have existed since program began, their termination date and those that are at present in
existence
Existing
IProject Number Name of school and/or
installation - Agency date
schools
*lorth Carolina:
1 Fort Bragg~~ Army X
2 Camp Lejeurle (Marine Corps)_ - _.~ Navy X
3 Fort Bragg Arfliy (transporta- 1967
Ohio: hon only).
1 Lockbourne AFB Air Force 1953
iOregon:
1 Tongue Point Naval Station Navy 1955
Chemawa Indian School Interior 1955
3 Crater Lake National Park do 1967
4 do Local education X
agency.
Pennsylvania:
5 Veterans Administration Hospital, Aspinwall., Veterans Adminis-
tion~
7. Carlisle Barracks Lotal education
agency.
8 Letterlienny Ordnance Depot do
9 Letterkenny Ordnance Susquehanna do
10 Coatesville Veterans Administration Hospital do
11 Marietta Air Force Base Veterans Administra- do
tien.
:12. Tobyhanna Sitnal Depot do
:13 Naval Air Station - do
14 Lebanon Veterans Administration Hospital do
:16. Letterkenny Ordnance Depot_ ~:_ ~_do
17 Olmstead Air Force Base do
18 New Cumberland General Depot do
19 do - do
:20 do. do
21 U.s. Penitentiary do
22 Naval Air Station do
.23 Coatesville S/eterahs Administration Hospital do
.24 Carlisle Banacks Army (transportation
only),
25 New CumbeHand ~eneraI Depot ~ ~__dO~- -_,~
26 Olmstead AEB _ - ocal education
agency.
:27 Lebanon Virginia Hospital _do
29 Naval Air Station-Willow Grove _do
S/alley Forge General Hospital.-.. do
.31 Coatesville Virginia Hospital
.22 Letterkenny Army Depot
.33 Mechanicsburg Naval Supply Depot Local education
agency.
.34 Olmstead AFB Air Force (trans-
portation only).
35 Coatesville Virginia Hospital Local education
agency.
36 New Cumberland Army Depot do 1970
37~ Erie Coast guard Station, Presque Island do
Puerto Rico:
1 Ramey AFB~.. -. Air Force. 1973
3 Antilles Consolidated Schools Navy
Nayal Air Station, S*nJuan ~. 1973'
Fort Allen Naval R~di~ Station 1978
Fort Buchanan 1970
Fort Brooke Navy 1970 X
Naval Air Station and Roosevelt Roads- - - 1973
Camp Losey 1956
Henry Barracks 1956
South Carolina:
1 Parris Island Marine Base Navy._.4 1972
2. Marine Corps Air Station, Beaufort_ - -- do X
3 Mrytle Beach Air Force Base Air Forc4 X
4 Fort Jackson Army x
:South Dakota: 1 Wind Cave National Park Interior 1970
Virginia:
1 Quantico Marine Base Navy X
2 Dahlgren Naval Base do X
5 Fort Belvoii Army 1970
6 Fort Meyer do 1964
7 Fort Monroe do 1964
8 Langley Air Force Base Air Force 1964
\Wake Island:
1 Wake Island FAA 1972
(Transportation).
2 do Air Force _____________________
Totals
PAGENO="0060"
56
Mr. FORD. You may proceed. The gentleman may amplify or high-
light the presentation in any way you feel most comfortable.
Mr. MINTER. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. I would like very
much if you would allow me to read our testimony. Our statement
is very short, and we believe it amplifies the major points that we
wish to express this morning.
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee:
`We thank you very mnch for the bpportunity to appear before
you today to present our views on IELR. 9892, a bill to establish a uni-
fled program for the education of students `of military and civilian
personnel overseas and on certain military bases. We defer to the
Department of Defense on that portion of the bill dealing with mat-
ters affecting DOD organization for purposes of carrying out an
overseas education program for dependents of military parents. We
do have a major interest in that portion of the bill which transfers
to the Department of Defense a number of schools which have in the
past been provided fQr by the Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare.
The U.S. Office of Education, DHEW, administeis the school as-
sistance in federally affected areas program which, among other
things, authorizes the Commissioner to make such arrangements as
are necessary to prGvide free public ed~ueation to children who reside
on Federal* property if no State or local public agency is able to
provide a suitable education for such students, or if no State or local
revenues may be used to provide such education. This portion of the
program is authorized in section 6 of Publié'Law 81-874.
Also there is a similar authority in the construction portion of our
program which authorizes the Commissioner to construct or other-
wise provide minimum school facilities necessary to house an in-
structional program for students under those same conditions previ-
ously described for the Public Law 81-~874 program. This program
is authored under section 10, Public Law 81-815. The major portions
of these two programs would be transferred to the Department of
Defense by the bill you are considering today.
In his state of the Union message, the President said that he would
work. with the Congress toward the creation of a separate Depart-
ment of Education. The President's reorganization project is in the
process of analyzing which programs might' be included in such a
Department. In the expectation of a general administration position
on education reorganization in the comilig months, the administra-
tion recommends that no major interdepartmental reorganizations be
planned in the'interim.
It may be helpful to the committee if we briefly review our expe-
riences with these programs over the 27 years of their existence.
During the first year of the section 6, Public Law 81-874 program,
we provided education for the students on a number of Air Force
bases in the unorganized territory portion of Alaska. The Alaska
project lasted only 3 years. `
In 1952, 14 projects were acquired from the other Federal agencies
that had been operating them in 151. Eight additional projects
were started that year. All of these projects were in the United
States with the exception of two projects in Puerto Rico and one
in Alaska.
PAGENO="0061"
57
Because of the prominent role' which State and. local governments
occupied~ on the educational scene and strong Congressional interest,
section 6 was amended in 1953 specifying that the Commissioner was
always to "make arrangements" with either a local educational
agency or another Federal agency for the operation of section 6
schools. Therefore, since 1953 `the law clearly requires the Commis-
sioner to do three things
(1) He determines the need for a section 6 arrangement; (2) he
acquires and distributes the necessary appropriations to meet the
financial need; and (3) he' provides sufficient funds to each proj,ect
to insure that the educational opportunity afforded students by sec-
tion 6 schools is `comparable to that provided in similar communities
in a particular state.
`We have always administered the section 6 program on the prem-
ise that it was established to assist in limited and unusual situations
and that State and l~ocai `educational agencies `should be encouraged
to accept responsibility to provide Suitable free public education to
children residing on Federal property.
`During the 27 years of this program's history there has been a.
total of 99 different section 6 projects. We have reduced that number
to 25 projects which ~we have in operation today. Twenty-two of the
projects are for military children residing on `bases. A listing of
these projects is attached to the testimony for the'informati~n of the
committee. " .
In summary, the section 6 program has provided educational op-
portunities for `many students who may otherwise have been short-
changed in terms of an adequate educational program. Our current
25 section 6 projects provide for approximately `38,000 students. Six
of the 25 seótion 6 arrangements are operated by local educational
agencies. The remainder are operated by the military services; in most
case~, high `school students attend regular public high schoo'ls. The
vast majority of the students are dependents of military personnel.
The fiscal year 1978 cost for operating the 25 projeQts is approximately
$57,700,000~ . ,
Budgetary and funding policies of the Congress and the adminis-
tration have always given section, 6 needs a high priority and we
have had only minor problems with the Agency or military service
which has been actually administering the day-to-day activities of'
the schools on the Federal installations `aáross the Nation. Our con-
tacts with local and, State educational systems afforded by other
parts of the impact aid program and other education programs have
provided a vantage point from which we can effectively negotiate
on matters such as: Establishing a section 6 arrangement; persuad-
ing a local educational agency to assume responsibility of taking
over a section 6 arrangement or to retain responsibility' ,for educat-
ing children residing ,on Federal property; and in making compari-
sons, of costs between instructional programs ~fforded for section 6
students and other quality educational offerings.'
Section 10 . of Public Law 81-8~5 authorizes~ the Commissioner to
construct, or otherwise provide, minimum `sch~ol facilities for chil-
dren living on Federal property if `there are no State or local revé-
nues available and if no (local) educational' agcncy is able `to provide
PAGENO="0062"
58
free public education for such children. Under this program the
Commissioner has constructed or acquired several hundred facilities
over the 27 years of program activity. The law also authorized the
Commissioner to pass ownership of these facilities over to local edu-
cational agencies. Currently we have about 160 separate school
buildings under the responsibility of the Commissioner. Twenty-
nine of this number are in the process of being turned over to local
educational agencies or being declared excess. The remaining 131
are located on 69 different Federal installations in 25 different States~
and in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
The 1978 appropriation for the. entire Public Law 81-815 progrant
is $30 million. This amount will allow an expenditure of $10.5 mu-
lion for section 10 projects.
We are now engaged in a process of assessing the responsibility
of the Commissioner and in modifying the administration of this
program to achieve more desirable results. Our completion of this
study is the necessary first step toward paving the way to more com-
pletely fulfilling the policy that local and State educational agencies
should offer elementary and secondary programs for `the student
dependents of military parents.
We believe there is a direct relationship between the quality of
existing facilities in the* section 10 program and our success in
achieving an agreement between local and State educational authori-
ties and the military services for the transfer of operational respon-
sibility to local educational agencies. No local educational agency is
enthusiastic about taking over school buildings in a poor state of
repair.
In view of the conditions which this statement sets forth we be~-
lieve `that the TJ.S. Office of Education should `continue both of these
progmms pending decisions on the new Department of Education.
Mr. `Chairman, `this completes my `prepared statement. We shall he
glad to respond to any questions you or members of `the committee
have have.
Mr. FORD. Thank you very much. I would like to start with the
little bit of confusion that exists here between your statement of to-
day and your letter of last July to the chairman of the committee..
In today's statement you say the vast majority of students are de-
penderits of military personnel. In the letter it seems to indicate that
it used to be 75 percent, and now it is only 50 percent. Are those in-
consistent, or is it just a difference in what the vast majority means t
Mr. STORMER. Are you referring to the Nation as a whole, Mr,
Chairman, or in Puerto Rico?
Mr. FORD. In the Nation as a whole, yes. This is in the response by
your office to Mr. Perkins, where the statement is made that at the
program's beginning it was estimated that DOD activities account-
ed for 75 percent of the program. The present rough estimates indi-
cate that DOD activities account for close to 50 percent of the chil-
dren in the program. That was in response to a question about how
many Federal agencies were contributing Federal dependents to the
section 6 schools. Before originating the present program, Federal
agencies had authority to provide some different assistance to school
districts affected by their activities. The adoption of section 6 was;
PAGENO="0063"
59
intended to bring that all together in your shop, having you and~
your predecessors administer the program. Nevertheless the children
who were generated by the FAA or whatever other Federal activity
like the Canal Zone Qompa~uy continued~ to exist. Then the Office of
Education went on to say that the current make-up of the Federai~
children involved was about 50 percent from, the Department of
Defense.
Your statement today inclic'ates that the overwhelming majority
of the students in th~ section 6 schools are Department of Defense~
dependents. It appears as though most of the remaining 18 schooIs~
are located on military installations,
Mr. MINTER. Mr. Chairman, may we check that and supply that.
material for the record, please?
[The material to be furnished follows:]
Presentll, Defense Department activities aCct~uiat for about ~O percent of'
the children under the e~4i.re 1~ublic Law 874 program. Detense Department
activities account for .95 ~percent of tl~e cliiJ4ren ~c1ucated under section 6 of'
I~ublic Law 874.
Mr. FORD. J?ine. Then you mention a "catch-22" situation at the'
very end of that communication, that perhaps you would like to
comment on in ~respect to Mr. Erlenboru's bill. In a number of. pres~
ent cases the orig1na~ `reason for establishing section 6 schools no
longer e~'ists, Howeve; such arrangements may `be terminated only
when the Commissioner of. Ethication and the Secretary of the con~
earned military department jointly, determine in äonsultation with
State and local authorities that a local educatio~a1 agency is able to
provide suitable free public education for the children residing on
the military' instaflatipn.
Now~, the "catch~-22" is that you eau't ~ii~e the ~choól away. until
they want it, and they don't wan't it until you meet their recj,uire~
ments. So there is ~ kind of ~stand-oft that prevents the Commissioner
of Education and the Secretaries from getting together, as long as
the State and local authorities are not willing to volunteer to take
it over.
Your statement today indicates that 6 of the 25 seøtion 6 arranie-
ments are operated by. local educational agencies. . What would ~be
the' explanation for the fact that a local educational agenóy would
come on a military base and operate a section 6 school receiving its
money that way, rather than operating the sch9ol as a part of the
local educational agency.
Mr. MINPER. Mr. Stormer will ~answer.
Mr. STORMER. One of these situations is in Delaware for the edu~~
cation, of children residing `on military housing on Federal property.
The determination at the outset was whether to service the Dover
Air Force base through the local educational ~agency. Would the
school district be willing, with 100-percent Federal `funding, to ed'u~
cate those children, rather than the Department of the Air Force
operating a separate school system. And that arrangement was cre~
ated, I believe, in the late fifties and continues' until the present day~
`A similar situation-
Mr~ FORD. But the majorit~y of the existing section 6 schools on
military bases are in fact being operated under your direction by
the respective departments of the military.
PAGENO="0064"
60
Mr. ST6RMER. That is correct.
Mr. Foiw. So you don't have to reinvent the wheel to have the Air
Force operate that school. Presumably they have policies at other
bases that they could use. Are there other States that prohibit the
use of State aid for the education of these children?
Mr. STORMER. There is one other specific property in the State of
Oregon, where the State and local funds may not be expended. This
is a situation where the school district services the on-base or on
Federal property children. Additionally in the State of Massachu-
setts, the local education agency has the right to educate children
residing on Federal property or it has the right th refuse to educate
them. We. have the situation there, where the local education agency
serves as the unit providing education for the children on Hancom
Air Force Base. But those principally are the only ones where the
total educational operation is with the local educational agency.
Mr. FORD. It just seems to me that as far back as I can remember
being acquainted with section 6 schools, the amount of money has
hovered around $60 million. Time has changed, dollars have changed,
and the number of schools has come down from 99 to 25, and the
figure stays right around the same.
It sticks in my mind because of the number of times during my
14 years on this committee that I have pointed to the $60 million that
remained there while we had to go to the floor and fight, the Defense
Department seemed to be able to get aiiything else they wantect while
it was in their budget. It always seemed a little silly for the Ediica-
tion Committee to be lobbying to get money for education in the
Defense Department instead of the other way around, since they
always seem to do so. much better than we do. Is it possible to devise
a poliCy that would lead .to the extinguishing of these hybri& sitna-
tioñs within some reasonable period of time? Is there any reason
ivhy we couldn't follow alOng the lines suggested by this legislation?
Mr. STORMER. It is. It has been the history of the Office, in situa-
tions of section 6 arrangements, to negotiate with the local educa-
tional agencies and with the State educational agencies and with the
military departments that are affected, to terminate these situations
as rapidly as such negotiations can achieve termination. The last
ones that I am aware of took place in 1973, in terms of terminating
the section 6 arrangements.
There are negotiations carried on periodically with the State,
local education agency, and military department, but until you get
the concurrence of all three, the section 6 arrangement continues to
exist.
Mr. FORD. With the pressures that are building up at the State and
local level on educational resources, and the attitudes changing to-
ward our military forces, isn't there some danger that State legisla-
tors are going to decidethat one way to husband their resources for
their own schoo1s~ would be ~to follow the Delaware example, on the
assumption that we would not let those kids go without school, and
we would pick it up?
Mr. MINTER. That is a possibility, but I don't think we have seen
a trend in that direction, ~ir. It has not happened in any State that
we know of up to this point.
PAGENO="0065"
61
Mr. FORD. Well, as long as we have this program there is a temp-
tation. It is possible that it could be seized upon and you don't have
any question that Congress would respond by putting more money
into section 6 to take care of the problem. We aren't going to sit still
and see kids without school. Local attitudes about whether or not
local taxpayers should be maintaining a school system are changing.
Impact aid doesn't pay the full cost by any stretch of the imagina-
tion. For example, is there any question that if we were to cut the
impact in half, as has been suggested by every administration since
President Johnson, that States would be tempted to say "If you are
not giving us the impact aid, you educate the people on the military
bases?
Mr. MINTER. That is a possibility. At the moment, we don't seem
to be facing that kind of a dramatic change, but if we had the kind
of a reduction that has been sought for many years, and money for
impact, there was a serious threat, and I believe that it is the case
of Hawaii, they discussed a few years ago, in 1974, when we had the
longest battle over maintaining the program, they actually had
legislation, specific legislation being discussed to simply say we are
not going to take out of our State funds the resources to maintain
the school system for the on-base or on-military property children.
Mr. STORMER. Mr. Chairman, in some situations, the financial bur-
dens imposed upon schools could create at least the idea of adjust-
ing State laws. In most situations it would require change of State
law. In other instances it would require changes in State constitu-
tions. So you would have to look at every State's situation to see to
what extent they would have to go in order to place themselves le-
gally in a position to force upon us the creation of section 6 arrange-
ments. As Dr. Minter has indicated, we have not seen that trend in
recent years. We have seen the trend to the contrary that the local
and State educational agencies are willing to assume the responsi-
bility. Under section 10, there have been a number of situations
where we have been able to transfer the ownership of federally
owned school buildings to the local educational agencies, and they
have willingly then maintained those facilities after they received
ownership of them.
Mr. FORD. Well, Mrs. Pettis indicated a few moments ago that she
had been contacted in anticipation of these hearings by military
commanders who indicated that they would prefer the present oper-
ational system of reporting to or receiving the money from you
than becoming a part of the DOD system. Why would that be the
option that they would prefer?
Mr. MINTER. Well, in this case, of course, the budget is an hEW
budget.
Mr. FORD. Oniy they think we are.
Mr. MINTER. Pardon me.
Mr. FORD. They think we are going to have more luck getting the
money than they have.
Mr. MINTER. Well, the money then certainly does not add to the
military budget. It adds to our Department's budget and not to
theirs. That might be a possible reason.
Mr. ALFORD. Mr. Chairman, there are some advantages sometimes
in using funds from other Federal agencies even if you are a Fed-
31-941 0 - 78 - 5
PAGENO="0066"
62
eral agency. They come to you somewhat more uncluttered than they
frequently do if they are coming to you from your own hierachy.
There may be some other elements to this, but you don't know any
clear-cut reason other than being satisfied.
Mr. Foi~n. If the on-base school became part of defense budget, the
commander would then have to include in his budget any construc-
tion or maintenance of the school buildings.
Mr. ALFORD. Right.
Mr. Foiu. As it is now, it is a contractual arrangement which pro-
vides reimbursement.
Mr. Ai~oiu~. That is right.
Mr. Foiu~. And it is not part of his budget.
Mr. ALFORD. And we pay a full cost of this. It is a fairly simple~
kind of arrangement.
Mr. Foiw. I thought for a moment there we were about to stumble
on some great policy discovery. I see now that it is the honorable
profession of self-preservation for the military.
Mr. Erlenborn.
Mr. ERLENBORN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Minter, so that
we might understand the relationship of OE to the section 10, sec-
tion 6 schools and have it clear for the record, you have a contractual
relationship with either the Department of Defense, or with local
educational agencies for the operation of the school, but OE does
not itself operate any of these schools, does it?
Mr. MINTER. That is true, sir, and as you know in the Genoral
Education Provisions Act we are prohibited from operating schools
and school programs, determining curricula, and so forth.
Mr. ERLENBORN. I have raised that because there has been from
Mr. Weiss the suggestion t.hat we put you in the business of operat-
ing the overseas dependent schools, as well as section 6 schools. I
presume he meant to put you in the operational business. But at
least for the overseas schools, if that were tranferred you would be
in the business of operating schools. How do you personally feel?
I know you can't state anything for HEW or OE, or the admin-
istration, but how do you personally feel about the Office of Educa-
tion or HEW being in the business of operating schools?
Mr. MINTER. Well, I don't believe that we should be in the busi-
ness of operating schools, certainly. I don't think that it is our func-
tion and I don't think that it is the intent of Congress.
Mr. ERLENBORN. Well, I am pleased to hear you say that. I think
it is quite clear from what is in the law today, and I am pleased that
you do agree with that. In your attempt to negotiate the return to
local educational agencies the full function of operating these sec-
tion 6 schools, would it be your intention, or would it be required in
your opinion, for you to bring these schools up to health and fire
codes, and to comply with the Federal mandate relative to facilities
for the handicapped, before you return these schools to a local edu-
cational agency?
Mr. MINTER. Yes, sir, it is now our intent to meet the health an~1
safety requirements for all of the schools before they are turned
over to local educational agencies.
Mr. ERLENBORN. How about the facilities for the handicapped?
Mr. MINTER. Under the 504, yes, sir.
PAGENO="0067"
6a
Mr. STORMER. Only if alternative means are not available for pro-
vision for the handicapped. If it is found that a section 10 facility
would not serve any handicapped child or child with special learn-
ing disabilities, there won't be the necessity of altering the building
per Se. Although in many situations it will be necessary to alter the
building in order to accomplish 504 requirements.
Mr. ERLENBORN. You are saying it is not your intention to per-
form a useless act?
Mr. STORMER. That is right, sir.
Mr. ERLENBORN. Glad to hear that. In exercising your authority
over the section 6 schools, how often, Dr. Minter, do you have a
member of your staff visit these schools?
Mr. MINTER. I will have to ask Mr. Stormer to answer that, please.
Mr. STORMER. There is usually a program officer visiting the school
sites, the section 6 sites on an annual basis, and when I say program
officer this is generally a representative serving the Office of Educa-
tion out of the regional offices.
Frequently, or let me say occasionally, personnel from our head-
quarters office also visit the section 6 operations. But it is not the
procedure that they be visited on an annual basis by personnel from
the Washington Office.
Mr. ERLENBORN. How many of these section 6 schools are operated
by the service itself?
Mr. STORMER. 18 operated by the military.
Mr. ERLENBORN. 18. What are the personnel practices in these 18?
How do they compare? Are they Civil Service, or are they under
the same personnel code as the overseas DOD schools?
Mr. STORMER. It would depend on the individual branch of the
service that was operating, and I believe Dr. Cardinale alluded to
this earlier, that each operating Department had a different ar-
rangement with the teaching personnel.
Mr. ERLENBORN. What, if anything, would section 6 schools lose if
they were transferred to the Department of Defense?
Mr. MINTER. We have indicated in our testimony that we believe
the schools should be transferred to the local education authority.
And we believe that State governments do have the constitutional
right, of course., to operate schools, and they do have standards. And it
is our feeling that the schools should be as closely allied to the local
standards and situations as is possible.
We believe that we through our office also maintain that relation-
ship.
Mr. ERLENBORN. I read you as saying you think it is more likely
that you would move toward turning the schools over to local educa-
tional agencies than the individual services or the Department of
Defense might be inclined to do?
Mr. MINTER. That is what I have said, sir.
Mr. ERLENBORN. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. FORD. To follow up on what Mr. Erlenborn was talking about,
I was looking at the st~atement of the Education Association from
Puerto Rico. They point out the unique characteristics of the sys-
tem of some four, five or six schools operated there. It would ap-
pear that they are in fact unique, when you look at the purpose of
the section 6 school in every other place.
PAGENO="0068"
64
It is not likely that you would ever be able, so long as our mili-
tary presence there is as great as it is, to transfer that system into
an existing school system, primarily because of the language, bar-
rier. Is there any ongoing program to study the existing schools
and determine whether the Puerto Rican schools ought to become
DOD schools?
Mr. STORMER. There have been a series of studies going on in
Puerto Rico, as you may know and as Mr. Corrada already knows.
We do intend to, and I say "we" being the Office of Education, col-
laborate with the Navy in an onsite visit in the Puerto Rican schools
in the next couple of months.
During the course of the past year, there has been an outside firm
employed by the Navy to evaluate the administration and opera-
tions of the schools in Puerto Rico. Additionally, the Navy audit
agency sent a team to Puerto Rico and spent several months evalu-
ating from their perception the implementation of both section (3
and section 10, and most recently the GAO sent a team into Puerto
Rico to examine some of the alleged problems that had been brought
before the committee during the June hearings. And as a conse-
quence of that, all of these studies going on, we have agreed to meet
with the Navy and meet at the sites of the section 6 operation, to see
if there are problems which we mutually can work out. But princi-
pally the operation of the four schools that exist in Puerto Rico is
the Navy's responsibility.
Mr. Four). Yes, except that here is the disturbing part about that.
You have the Navy running the schools, but Mr. Cardinale's shop is
not operating. You contract directly with the Navy, the Army, the
Marine Corps, the Air Force, and you don't contract with the De-
fense Department. The administrative policymaking for educational
purposes and the status of the professional staff is established at the
department level over there. You bypass the agency which has been
dealing on a full-time basis with the ownership and operation of a
very large and excellent school system since 1946, to go directly to
the Navy. When the Navy's administering the school in Puerto Rico,
it need not follow any of the recruiting or other regulations that
they have established for teachers and personnel. Isn't that correct?
Mr. STORMER. They follow the Navy requirements, yes, that is
correct.
Mr. Foim. This permits a rather strange situation in which the
Navy or the Army or whoever can bypass the existing system in
the Department of Defense which is given the responsibility for
education. Now, what assurances do you get that they meet the mini-
mum standards that the Defense Department has established for
the DOD schools? For example, there are very specific requirements
as to teacher experience and qualifications. And there is transfer-
ability, and a lot of other things, coupled with collective bargaining
agreements that have a whole raft of very definite agreements for
the protection of the system and for the protection of the profes-
sional people in the system.
Is there a parallel to that in a place like the Puerto Rican sys-
tem? Do you require that the Navy come up to their standards in
any way as a condition for contracting with?
PAGENO="0069"
65
Mr. STORMER. The educational offerings in Puerto Rico in terms
of comparability by our statute must be comparable to those offered
in the District of Columbia. That doesn't wholly answer your ques-
tion in the sense that we do have, and .1 am sure the Navy does have,
an alliance with Dr. Cardinale's shop in part in terms of educational
procedure and polcy.
Mr. FORD. Well, all right, is this a hunch or is there a procedure,
or a policy? Is there something written down that says you will
run by the Department of Defense regulations?
Mr. STORMER. No, Mr. Chairman. Our arrangements are with the
Secretaries of the individual departments of the Department.
Mr. FORD. For example, all of the teachers in the DOD system
are paid on the basis of a wage scale that we established back in
1965 or 1966. It is an automatic system basing the wage payments
for professionals on their counterparts in the 100 largest school dis-
tricts of the country. You take them all, put them in the computer,
and come up with a figure so that the Civil Service Commission
doesn't set the wages. There is no comparable application of that
system, as I take it, on any organized basis?
Mr. STORMER. tTniformly? No, not uniformly. To use that same
example, teachers' salary for the teachers in the Puerto Rico section
6 arrangement would be comparable to those teachers' salaries that
are paid in the District of Columbia. In using the illustration be-
fore Fort Rucker, Ala., the comparability in terms of salary there
would be, to five school districts that existed in Alabama.
Mr. FORD. You said that the education must be comparable. There
is no language requirement to be a teacher unless, you are going to
be a teacher of language other than English in the District of Co-
lumbia. There presumably is not a problem of culture-shock, but the
Education Association indicates without using the word shock that
there are some cultural problems to deal with, because you have
school systems functioning in and totally surrounded by cultures
speaking a different language.
The DOD in responding to this over the years has required a
minimum amount of experience. I don't believe, Tony, anybody
starts fresh out of college in your system, do they? They have to
have at least 1 year teaching experience. I doubt that the District
of Columbia could have such a requirement. It wouldn't make sense
for that system. Is it possible to take a teacher with no previous
experience and shoot him or her down there to that system, or for that
matter to Alabama with no experience.
Mr. STORMER, Very possible.
Mr. MINTER. Mr. Chairman, I think we have to agree that this is
a unique situation, and operating under the current law as we have,
perhaps that we have not been able to address the situation in the
way that you suggest.
Mr. FORD. Except that we are providing the resources to create
this situation, and to keep it alive. While all this progress is being
made in a professional way, the other things we do with Federal
money in education are being ignored here.
Mr. MINTER. I am saying though that this is something we can
look at specifically now and see in what ways that we can address
the concerns that you have expressed this morning.
PAGENO="0070"
66
Mr. Foiu~. What I am suggesting is for you to recommend to us
how we can get out of the section 6 school business and reduce that
previous 99, now down to 25, to zero. I can't find in looking at the
characteristics of these schools any reasons why the Federal Gov-
ernment should be funding these hybrid operations. Except the ex-
treme case that you have mentioned in which the state prohibits
the use of state money for educating these children.
Mr. MINTER. In Delaware.
Mr. Foiw. Now, what is the situation at Fort Knox? What is the
peculiarity there? Is that a State law?
Mr. SToRMER. The State of Kentucky indicates it may provide
free public education for the children, and expend State and local
moneys, for the children who reside on Fort Knox or Fort Camp-
bell, if those children enroll in a local educational agency. You have
had for years these two large bases operating a school system unto
themselves.
They are not part of a local educational agency within the State
of Kentucky. In fact, there are probably several local educational
agencies surrounding their individual borders. So you would have a
problem, one, of identifying that local educational agency that was
willing and able to assume that responsibility for all the children
that reside on, let us say, Fort Knox. Secondly, there is a prohibition,
as I understand, within the Kentucky law of utilizing the State and
local moneys to provide that education on the Federal property, in
buildings located on the Federal property.
So, in essence, those youngsters would have to come off the Federal
property and be enrolled in the public schools of that local educa-
tional agency. Ultimately that might be a solution, but it would be
a costly solution, because you would have to duplicate the capacity
of facilities that existed on Fort Knox, some place in that local
educational agency that would take on this burden. The other alter-
native might be that Fort Knox be identified under State law as a
local educational agency unto itself. That aspect, to the best of my
knowledge, has not been explored in depth in recent years.
The problem with Fort Campbell is somewhat different, because
a third of the base is sited in Kentucky and two-thirds is situated
in the State of Tennessee. And so you have a more unique problem
there in trying to identify what local educational agency can as-
sume this responsibility.
Mr. Foiw. We had that called to our attention in 1974 when we
had to give in during the impact aid debate on the out-of-State
account problem. It is now coming to us again with the administra-
tion's proposal for an out-of-county exemption, where we have
county lines that cross through military bases. Mr. Erienborn asked
you about the barrier to eliminating these systems with respect to
the natural reluctance of a local school agency to take over a sub-
standard building, and then assume the responsibility for the re-
pairs and refurbishing of that building.
Anything that would be done to put the building in shape under
the present circumstances would have to come under section 10 of
Public Law 815, would it not?
Mr. STORMER. That is right.
Mr~ MmTER. Yes.
PAGENO="0071"
67
Mr. FORD. Is there anything in the current budget that we have
just received, or was there any budget request to get some 815
money for that purpose.
Mr. STORMER. Yes, there is $10.5 million for section 10 in the 1978
budget and $13 million has been requested of the total for 815 for
section-
Mr. Foi~n. Well, that is the total.
Mr. STORMER. This is strictly section 10.
Mr. FORD. That is to be shared by everybody in section 10?
Mr. STORMER. Everybody in section 10.
Mr. FORD. Right.
Mr. STORMER. There are several sections. The appropriation for
1978 for Public Law 815 is $30 million, of which 10.5 is for section 10.
Mr. FORD. All right.
Mr. STORMER. And in 1979 the figure requested is $33 million, $13
million of which would be section 10.
Mr. FORD. If we get the $13 million for you to use in section 10,
doesn't it seem logical that this is a time to sit down with local
people where the substandard condition of buildings is a major
factor in their unwillingness to take over the schools, and use this
money for that particular purpose?
Mr. STOEMER. Under present law, and more particularly under the
present regulations, applications are grouped into four groups, first
to take care of major repairs, and secondly to take care of transfers.
There is consideration being given at the present time to the cor-
rection of life safety problems and problems of meeting the handi-
capped requirements which might take precedence over the trans-
free group as it is presently being established in regulation. But,
yes, we can use the $10 and $13 million to achieve the upgrading of
existing school facilities in terms of eliminating life safety stand-
ards, and eliminating where there are 504 violations and in some
instances, this will bring a~ building to the status that it is acceptable
to a local educational agency.
Mr. ERLENBORN. Would you yield, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Foiu. Yes.
Mr. ERLENBORN. I am advised that you have examined these
schools, their present condition, and have an internal memorandum
or report that estimates the cost of bringing these buildings into
conformity with the codes and the provisions for the handicapped,
is that true?
Mr. MINTER. Yes, that is true.
Mr. ERLENBORN. Could you make that available for this commit-
tee, for the record? I think it would be quite pertinent to the ques-
tions that have been raised in this hearing.
Mr. MINTER. We expect to have that memorandum ready for the
committee within 2 weeks.
Mr. 1~RLENBORN. And we can expect it then?
Mr. MINTER. Yes, sir.
Mr. ERLENBORN. Well, Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask unani-
mous consent that that report be made a part of the record and be
furnished by the Office of Education for that purpose.
Mr. FORD. And entered into the record.
Mr. ERLENBORN. That is right.
PAGENO="0072"
68
Mr. Foiw. I am sure the gentleman would be happy to meet the
Congressman's request. Within 2 weeks can we have it up here and
put it in the book?
Mr. MINTER. Yes, sir.
[The report referred to follows:]
/ 1N-DEPTH STUDY OF FEDERALLY-OWNED SChOOL
FACILITIES PROVIDED UNDER SECTION 10
OF PUBLIC LAW 81-815
Chapter I. Background
A. Leg~s1ative Authority
P.L. 81-815 was enacted in 1950 to provide Federal assistance to
LEA's to help them construct urgently needed school facilities in
order to house the influx of Federally-connected children which
impacted on school districts during and subsequent to World War II and
during the ICorean and Cold War period. Under P.L. 81-815, "Federally-
connected" children are those who reside on Federal property or
whose parents work on Federal property or serve in the U.S. uniformed
services. Though the original immediate needs for this
assistance have been met, there have been continuing needs for similar
assistance over the years occasioned1 among other things, by the
Vietnam War, the relocation of military installations, troop
reassignments within and to the continental U.S., and the increase
of concentrated on-base housing. Thus, althó~igh originally
enacted to meet the immediate needs, the legislation has been
utilized continually over the last 27 years with some modifications.
P.L. 81-874, passed as a companion bill to P.L. 81-815, provides
for maintenance and operation assistance to LEA's educating
Federally-connected children.
A basic assumption under P.L. 81-815 is that the provision of free
public education to Federally-connected childre~n, including the
provision of school facilities, is a State and local responsibility.
Section 10 of P.L. 81-815 was adopted to serve two situations
where Congress decided that the Commissioner of Education should
undertake the responsibility for providing school facilities for
those children who reside on Federal property. Those two situations
are outlined below:
Section lO(a)(l):
The Commissioner's obligation arises, as a result of State
law when State law precludes the use of tax revenues of the
State or any political subdivision for the free public
education of children who reside on Federal property. Our
Office of General Counsel has surveyed existing State law
to determine the extent of Section 10(a) (1) responsibility.
PAGENO="0073"
69
Delaware appears to be the only State where this
situation presently applies.
Section lO(a)(2~i:
The existence of an obligation under this second situation
depends upon the Commissioner's determination that no LEA
is able to provide a suitable free public education. The
Conunissioner is authorized, in fact mandated, to provide
the necessary school facilities for children residing on
Federal property when (1) the Commissioner has determined
after consulting with the appropriate State educational
agency, that no LEA is able to provide "suitable" free
public education to children who reside on Federal property
and (2) these situations are found to exist for any Federal
property. In these instances, the Commissioner ma~r (1)
pay the entire cost of providing the facilities, or (2)
may arrange to share the cost with local or State agencies.
The Commissioner may (1) construct facilities, (2) lease
existing facilities, (3) make a grant to an LEA for the
construction of facilities, or (4) employ other methods of
providing the facilities.
Section 10 authority may be used where an LEA is eligible
under sections 5 or 14 but~ where, even with funds under
those sections or funds provided for school operation
under P.L. 8l.~874, the LEA is unable to provide a
"suitable" education.
Transfers:
Under section 10(b), the Commissioner is authorized to
transfer title to school facilities constructed and
owned by OE under section 10 to LEA's. The transfer
of schools became a basic policy objective of the U.S.
Office of Education when section 10(b) authority was
granted in the 1966 amendments.
3. Review of Program History
From the program's beginnings in 1950, section 10 entitlements
were funded as they were approved. Until 1965, when the major
disaster provision was authorized by section 16, section 10
was given funding priority within P.L. 8l-~8l5. Full funding
of section 10 projects was not restricted, however, until
1968.
PAGENO="0074"
70
Most of the need to initiate projects under section 10 on
separate installations occurred prior to 1965.
Nearly 70 percent of the new initiations occurred
between 1951-55, the Korean conflict period.
Almost 87 percent of the section 10 initiations
were begun betwee:A 1951-60.
- All new inititiations occurred prior to the end of
FT 1965.
Since the program began in 1950, school facilities have been
provided on 115 Federal installations. Since 1967, when
transfers of facilities to LEA ownership were authorized,
facilities on more than 40 installations have been transferred,
or have been declared excess to OE needs.
Other than Dover Air Force Base, built under section 10(a) (1),
all other school facilities were constructed~ under section 10(a) (2).
Several considerations prompted construction of facilities
under the issues of suitability:
- The provision of school facilities for desegregated
education, primarily for children in the elementary
school grades;
- The maintenance of the neighborhood school concept,
including reduced transportation costs;
- The inability of school districts to construct school
facilities on school sites they do not own;
- The lack of sufficient schoolhousing in areas
surrounding the installation to accommodate pupil
enrollment increases resulting from increased
on-base military housing, whose needs could not
be met with other funds;
Beginning in FT 1967, appropriations for ?.L. 81-815 fell short
of funding all eligible projects under the various sections of
the law. Appropriations were allocated in accord with the
priorities established in the Act:
- section 16, major disaster assistance, administratively
determined to be the first order of priority;
- section 10, construction on Federal installations
- section 9, temporary construction.
PAGENO="0075"
71
This procedure was followed until the Act was amended in 1970
to provide that section 14 assistance to school districts
serviüg children residing on Indian lands be given equal
priority status with section 10 proJects.
Local school districts, eligible for assistance under section 5
of the Act because of military impact, did not receive
consideration for funding in appropriations requests for approx-
imately five years (1968-i.972). Consequently, through
appropriations language beginning about 1972, the Office of
Education advocated that funds be set aside for section 5 and
14 applicants. No funds were made available fot section 10
in 1973 and 1974. One million dollars was allocated for
section 10 emergency repairs in 1975 and 1976. Appropriations
language authorized the expenditure of $5 million for repairs
and improvements to school facilities on one specific instal~-
lation - Eielson Air Force Base, Alaska. Appropriations
requests for P.L. 81-815 during these periods ranged from
$10 to $20 million annually and the backlog of eligible, unfunded
applications under all sections grew.
During this period, the Department of Defense increased its
program for constructing on-base military housing, often in
locations where section 10 school facilities had been provided
earlier under the suitability provisions of P.L. 81-815. While
there have not been any new initiations under section 10 since
1965, the Office of Education has taken the responsibility for
expanding and/or improving school facilities at those locations
where they already existed in order to meet the Commissioner's
responsibilities to keep facilities up to life-safe standards
or where the application clearly met the statutory conditions.
Some requests to establish section 10 facilities have been
denied on the basis that an LEA was able to provide suitable
free public education without further assistance under section 10.
In addition, we have been able to transfer several Federally-owned
school facilities to local education agency ownership either
on an "as is, where is" basis or by upgrading to meet State and
local standards. Although no new initiations have been made
since 1965, the program cost to take care of existing situations
has risen rapidly since 1968. There are several reasons for
the dramatic cost increase:
- the age of existing buildings increases and their
frequency of major repair needs increases correspondingly;
- major repair costs have risen steadily due to inflation;
- higher educational program standa~ds have been developed,
including new and expanded curricular offerings, special
programs for disadvantaged or handicapped children;
PAGENO="0076"
72
due to wartime constraints, a number of earlier facilities
were constructed of inferior materials, allowing for
initial low cost, but leading to early deterioration;
- there has been a consistent lack of comprehensive plan-
fling in connection with military housing appropriations;
that is, as the military program was funded from year
to year, there was no concerted effort to coordinate
school facility needs associated with the expanded
housing program;
C. Priority Ranking
When funds became inadequate to fund all eligible applications
under Section 10 of Public Law 81-815, a mechanism for prioritizing,
classifying and funding Section 10 applications was published
in Regulation. The four classification groups used are:
Group I: Repairs to existing federally-owned school
facilities for children's safety,
Group II: Upgrading to provide for facility transfer in
those situations where a local educational
agency has assured the Coimnissioner that it
will apply for and accept ownership of the
federally-owned facilities once the agreed upon
project is completed.
Group III: Upgrading. and/or new construction to provide
facilities for unhoused students.
Group IV: New construction, remodeling or rehabilitation
necessary to permit the implementation of a
contemporary education program.
D. Authority to Initiate Stu4y
On October 8, 1974, former Deputy Secretary of Defense Clements
wrote former HEW Secretary Weinberger that the absence of
adequate funding levels for P.L. 81-815, particularly for
section 10, was impacting adversely on the morale of uniformed
service members and was depriving student dependents on Federal
installations adequate educational opportunities due to the
existence of inadequate and antiquated school facilities.
In his response of December 2, 1974, to former Deputy Secretary
Clements, former Secretary Weinberger stated that it the
Office of Education, in cooperation with the Department of
PAGENO="0077"
73
Defense, the Office of Facilities Engineering and Property
Management (HEW), and appropriate State and local education
agency representatives would make an up-to-date analysis of
school construction needs on government installations. In
his letter, Secretary Weinberger stated that the policy of
the Department was that State and local educational agencies
should assume the administration of education programs for
on-base children. The Secretary added, however, that the
study would provide a basis for consideration for a change
in Departmental policy for this issue.
On March 20, 1975, the Commissioner of Education directed
initiation of the in-depth study suggested by former Secretary
Weinberger.
The study is comprised of three phases of analysis. The first
phase is a cost analysis of construction needs on Federal
installations where there are existing section 10 facilities.
The first phase is complete and the results are enclosed in
the report. The second phase is a legal analysis to determine
the possible extent of Departmental legal obligation under
the first precondition of section 10 in the States included
in this report: "(...] no tax revenues of the State or
any political subdivision thereof may be expended for the
free public education of (children residing on Federal
property]". The second phase also has been completed and
the results have been incorporated into this report. The
third phase consists of an analysis on a project-by-project
basis to determine whether any local educational agency
is able to provide suitable free public education for the
children residing on the Federal property involved. The
analysis will be conducted in stages in anticipation of the
availability of funds.
E. Scope of the Study
At the outset of this in-depth study of school facilities on
government installations, the Commissioner of Education had under
his cognizance 180 separate school facilities (school buildings)
on Federal properties (see TAB A). These facilities were located
on 78 different government installations in 27 States and the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
The in-depth study was conducted by a survey team comprised
of one or more representatives of (1) the Division of School
Assistance in Federally Affected Areas (DSAFA) in the Office
of Education, (2) the Office of Facilities Engineering and
Property Management (OFEPM) in the Department of HEW, (3)
the local educational agency or the vederal agency operating
PAGENO="0078"
74
each of the school facilities, (4) the government installation
involved, (5) the State education agency, in some instances,
and (6) other personnel in various related administrative
capacities, either Federal, State or local.
The purpose of the survey was fourfold:
a. To identify and describe major repairs needed to bring
existing Federally*.owned school facilities into con-
formity with existing Federal and State building codes,
including life safety and handicapped access require-
ments, and those required to bring about better energy
conservation which was not a factor when most were
built, as well as those repairs necessitated by simple
wear and tear attributable to use.
b. To identify construction work needed to obtain the transfer
of existing facilities from Federal to local educational
agency ownership in those instances where such transfer
is possible and where the responsible local educational
agency has agreed in advance to apply for and accept
transfer of ownership once the agreed upon work is
completed.
c. To determine the backlog of new school construction needs
to acconmiodate student enrollment increases brought
about by continuous construction of additional on-post
military family housing units over the past several years.
d. To identify and describe such new construction, remodel-
ing and/or rehabilitation of existing Federally-owned
school facilities as may be necessary to implement
a contemporary educatio~ml program.
School Facilities Visited and Evaluated and for which Construction
Costs are Included in this Report.
During the course of the study, 130 exIsting Federally-owned
school facilities were visited for which construction cost
needs are included in this report. The Acting Chief, School
Construction Branch, DSAFA, was the team leader of the various
survey teams which visited and evaluated ninety-eight (98)
of the one-hundred eighty (180) school facilities under the
co~xtizance of the Commissioner as of March 20, 1975. Regional
Program Officers evaluated twenty-five (25) additional school
facilities. Seven (7) school facilities were neither visited
nor evaluated by any representative of DSAFA although they
are expected to be continued in use for the foreseeable future.
However, they were visited and evaluated from an engineering
viewpoint by representatives of the Office of Facilities
Engineering and Property Management, DHEW. In these seven
PAGENO="0079"
75
instances, the scope of the work needed had been determined
previously (i.e., Edwards Air Force Base and Mather Air Force
Base, California, as well as Plattsburgh Air Force Base,
New York), or a school construction project recently had
been completed and it was known that no further educational
needs had developed at these installations (i.e., Governor's
Island Coast Guard Base, New York; and Garrison Darn and
Reservoir, North Dakota).
Federally-Owned School Facilities for which Constrnc~ion Costs
aie not included in this Repor~~.
Either prior to the beginning of the in~-depth study, or during
the intervening period since it was authorized on March 20,
1975, 42 Federally-owned school buildings located on 21
different government installations in 14 States and the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico either have been: (a) transferred
to local educational agency ownership under the provisions of
subsection 10(b) of P.L. 81-815; (b) declared excess to
needs of the Office of Education and turned oVer to the General
Services Administration for disposal in `accordance with that
agency's procedures; (c) placed itt the transfer process for
local educational agency ownership; (d) determined to be
declarable as excess to the needs of the Office of Education;
or Ce) discontinued due to base closure. These forty-two (42)
school buildings are identified by a single asteri~jc in TAB A
and were not considered in this in-depth study. (In the case
of school facilities located on Elmendorf Air Force Base,
Alaska; Loring Air Force Base, Maine; and Barney Air Force Base,
Puerto Rico; the figures shown in parentheses indicate the
number of school facilities on those installations which were
:under the cognizance of the Commissioner when the study began,
and which remain under his cognizance pending formal disposal
by the General Services Administration. Construction needs
for the remaining school facilities on those installations
have been included in this report.)
Projects already are funded and under construction to meet pre-
viously identified needs at Eielson Air Force Base, Alaska.
Work is also in progress to repair the only school facility at
Kodiak Coast Guard Base, Alaska. Once these projects are
completed, the five school buildings on those installations
will conform to applicable Federal and State codes. It is then
expected that those facilities will be transferred to the State
of Alaska, thereby terminating further Office of Education
responsibility for them. In addition, the Bureau of Indian
Affairs, Department of the Interior, recently awatded a contract
for the construction of a new elementary school on the Color~do
River Indian Reservation, Poston, Arizona, under the provisions
PAGENO="0080"
76
of P.L. 93-638. Once that project is completed, the single
school building now under the Commissioner's cognizance at that
location will be declared excess to the needs of the Office of
Education. The six school facilities discussed above are
identified by a double asterisk in TAB A and construction costs
are not included in this report.
With respect to the facility at Fort Devens, Massachusets, all
codes and educational needs are being met. Therefore, no construction
costs for this facility are included in this report. This school
facility is identified by a triple asterisk in TAB A.
Activities at Fort Allen, Puerto Rico gradually are being
absorbed into Roosevelt Roads Naval Station, Puerto Rico.
Fort Allen will be closed relatively soon or greatly reduced
in manpower strength. Information provided to the Office of
Education by the Department of the Navy, the Federal agency
currently responsible for operating all Federally-owned schools in
Puerto Rico, indicates that there will not be a need for a
school on Fort Allen after the 1978-79 school ~year. Existing
facilities at that installation are considered adequate until
that time. The single school facility involved is indicated
by a quadruple asterisk in TAB A.
Total School Facilities Considered
The total number of Federally-owned school facilities considered by
the in-depth study, and for which construction costs are either
included or excluded in this report, is as follows:
a. Facilities visited and evaluated by a
survey team, including a DSAFA Repre-
sentative, and for which construction
cost needs are included 123
b. Facilities visited and evaluated by a
DHEW Engineer, but not visited by a
DSAFA Representative, and for which
construction cost needs are included 7
c. Facilities for which construction cost
needs are excluded. 50
Total School Facilities 180
F. Study Methodology
Actual site visits by DREW personnel, and evaluations for
which construction cost estimates are included in this report
involved 130 separate school facilities located on 55 govern-
ment installations.
PAGENO="0081"
77
Memorandum for the Record
The DSAFA Representative who participated in the site visits
assumed the responsibility for preparing a Memorandum for
the Record summarizing the findings and recommendations of
the study team regarding both educational and facility needs
established with respect to school facilities at the specific
installation involved. The memorandum then was transmitted
to the appropriate survey team members for their concurrence
in the educational and/or engineering recommendations.
Some memoranda were more comprehensive and detailed than others,
reflecting the magnitude of the problems the survey team found,
the number of school facilities involved, and other pertinent
factors. Copies of the Memoranda for the Record are enclosed
in the Appendix Volumes I through VI, to this report.
Eng~,neering Reports
In conjunction with each site visit, an Engineering Report
was prepared by a representative of the Office of Facilities
Engineering and Property Management, DREW, who was sometimes
accompanied by other engineers, or who sometimes acted alone,
depending on the scope of the problem at the installation
involved. Copies of these Engineering Reports are also
enclosed in the Appendix. Some Engineering Reports are more
comprehensive and explanatory than others. They do not always
follow the same format, although the majority.are relatively
similar. Engineering Reports are submitted for eight instal-'
lations for which there is no accompanying Memorandum for the
Record, that document not being deemed necessary because of
previous educational analyses that had been made.
Project Description, Request for Cost Estimates, and Responses
Following the receipt of concurrences with the Memorandum for
the Record, or on the basis of the Engineering Report when no
Memorandum was prepared, DSAFA prepared, in accordance with
past procedures, a Project Description and Request for Cost
Estimate for each construction project for which a need had
been developed. The project Description and Request for
Cost Estimate then was submitted to the Director, Office of
Architectural and Engineering Services, Office of Facilities
Construction and Property Management, DREW, who formally was
requested to prepare and submit an estimate of the cost to
construct or otherwise provide the facilIties described. A
total of 74 Project Description and Request for Cost Estimates
31.941 0 78 . 6
PAGENO="0082"
78
was prepared. The response to 71 of these requests, plus two
estimates (i.e., Garrison Dam and Reservior, North Dakota and
Governor's Island Coast Guard Base, New York) for which no
official request was made, constitute the findings of the study.
Copies of responses for most projects are included in the
Appendix. These responses cover the construction cost
needs for all of the school facilities visited and evaluated
and for which needs are included in this report. Three cost
estimates have not been included in this report: one (Port
Richardson, Alaska) represents a project which is already approved
and funded; one represents a government installation (McGuire
Air Force Base, New Jersey) wherein the operating local
educational agency, North Hanover Township Board of Education,
subsequently has requested transfer of ownership of the on~~base
schools on an "as is, where is" basis, thereby relieving the
Office of Education from further construction responsibility;
and one (Craig Air Force Base, Alabama) represents construction
cost needs for a school facility located on a military instal-~
lation which recently has been deactivated. In addition,
detailed responses were not provided by ROFEC for several facilities.
In these cases, only total construction cost estimates were
coimnunicated to DSAPA. Detailed cost breakdowns have been
requested and will be provided to the Congress as an addendum
to the Appendix by March 1, 1978.
PAGENO="0083"
79
Chapter II. Findings & Recommendations
A. ~ndings
The findings of the in.~depth study document a total cost estimate
of $198,231,641 ($200 million) in F! 1976 dollars. This estimate
includes all costs to upgrade or construct school facilities
in order to meet the following conditions:
a. Adherance to existing Federal and State building
codes, including life, safety, and handicapped
access requirements.
b. Efficiency in energy conservation.
c. Full implementation of a contemporary educational
program as defined by current State standards
and practice.
d. Level of quality to obtain the transfeI ~f existing
facilities when the responsible LEA has agreed to
apply for and accept transfer when such work is
completed.
For the purposes of this estimate, it is assumed that the re~
sponsible LEA is unable to provide a suitable free public
education for the children concerned. A determination to this
effect, of course, will be required prior to the initiation of
any extensive remodeling or new construction. As indicated
earlier, such determinations will be made as funds become
available. In this manner, suitability determinations are
timely and reflect the current level of LEA ability. To the
extent that current applications are found to be ineligible
for funding on the basis of suitability determinations, the
estimated costs will decrease accordingly.
The estimated costs, by project, are presented in tabular form
on the following pages. The information is arranged by State
and includes in addition to the cost estimate, the Application
Project number, location, type of construction activity proposed,
date of cost estimate, and priority category in which the
application currently falls. That portion of each application
which relates to repairs for the safety of children will be
funded as a Group I priority. The total figure for all such
costs is currently estimated at $10.6 million. The in-depth
study did not attempt to isolate costs specifically and the
costs therefore are included under the total per project appli-
cation costs. Estimates for construction costs for replacement
facilities where upgrading is not sufficient to meet life safety
standards total approximately $60 million.
PAGENO="0084"
Suuary of Findings in Tabular Form
Estimated Type of Construction
Project Cost Activity Proposed --
Repair and improvement of one
existing school facility
Repair and improvement of one
existing school facility
Repair and improvement of one
existing, school facility
13,759,700 Mew elementary school and repair
and Improvement of one existing
school facility
2,227,700 Repair and remodeling of four
existing school facilities
1,902,340 Repair and improvement of one
existing school facility
1,068,485 Repair and improvement of three
existing school facilities
702,200 Repair and improvement cf one
existing school (acuity
Priority Date of
Croup Estimate
TI! May 2, 1977
IV April 12. 1977
III March 31. 1977
II hay 10. 1977
Application
5,-,, 5~r H..~.hor
$ 1,243,700
471,000
1,091,600
Ala. Al. 77-C-FED-2A27
AL 77-C-FED-3A27
AL 77-C-FFi)-4A27
Alaska AK 77-C-FED-6827
AK 77-C-FED-3A27
AK 77-C-FEb-11A27
AK 77-C-FED-5A27
AK 77-C-FED-13A27
Fort McClellan
Fort Rucker
Maxwell Air Force Base
Adak Mavsi Station
tlmendorf Air Force Base
Fort Creely
Fort 1s'ainwright
Mt. Edgeceimbe
II March 16. 1977
IT February 25, 1977
II December 1. 1976
II ?4sv 6. 1977
PAGENO="0085"
CA 77-C-FED-3A27
CA 77-C-FED-9A27
CA 77-C-FIB-3A27
CA 77-C-FED-12A27
CA 77-C-FED4A27
CA 77.-c-FED-1A27
CA 77-C-FED-14A27
Parker Darn
Sierra Ordance Depot
Travis Air Force Base
Yosernite National Park
Dover Air Force Base
II August 51, 1977
IV .lulv 26. 5977
IT .Tune IS, 5077
II August 51, 1977
IV February 8. 1977
IV May 26. 1977
IV March 4, 1977
III July 29. 1977
State
Aria.
Calif.
Application
Project Nuaber
AZ 77C-FED-10A27
AZ 77-C-FED-1B27
Lotation
Fort iluachuca
Wt11i~a Air Force Base
Edwards Air Force Base
Mare Island Naval Shipyard
Hstber Air Force lisse
Prolect Coat
Activity Proposed
Group
Estirnate
$
832.400
Repair and iuprovernent of three
exiating school facilities
III
April 22.
29,
1977
1977
2.381.700
Repair and isprovernent of one
existing school facility
III
~
April
1.079.000 RepaIr and laprovernent of two
existing school facilities
54,600 Repair and iieprovenent of one
existing school facility
365.000 RepaIr aol issprovenwnt of one
exist lug schewl facility
60,000 Repair and ~irnprovernent of one
existing a~hool facility
191.900 Repair and isprovesseent of one
existing school facility
229,000 Repair and ixprovesnent of one
existing school facility
335,600 Repair and isprovernent of two
existing school facilities
5,992,000 New Junior-Senior High School and
repair sd irnprovernent of two
existing scion) facilities
Del. Dl 77-C-FED-5A27
:*
PAGENO="0086"
Estimated Type of Construction
J~ypjept Coat ActivitY Proposed
$. 4,512,000 11am Middle School
3.690,700 Repair and improvement of five
existing school facilities
2,930.500 New Elementary School
416,400 RepaIr and improvement of one
existing school lacility
1,268,100 RepaIr and improvement of two
existing school facilities
l's',..
Priority
Croup
pi June 1, 1977
IV July ii, 1977
tans. KA 76C'FED'1A26
KA 76-C-FED-1826
KA 76-C-FED-1C26
KA 76-C-FfD-1Ei26
ty. KY 76-C-FED-11i26
KY 76-C-FCD-1C26
KY 76-C-FED-1D26
Fort Riley
Fort Riley
Fort Riley
Fort Riley
Fort Campbell
Fort Campbell
Fort Campbell
11ev Junior High School
New Elementary School
Mew Elementary School
Repair and Improvement of five
existing school facilities
5,526,600 New Senior High School
1,863,160 Hew Elementary School
6,900,000 Repair and improvement of six
existing school facilities
13,264,000 Repair and improvement of ten
existing school facilities
III February 4, 1977
III February 4, 1977
III February 4, 1977
IV February 4, 1977
Application
-
Ga. GA 77-C-FID'1A27
GA 77-C-FED-l827
Fort Benning
Fort Benning
GA 76-CFED-3A26 Fort Stewart
GA 76-C-FED-3E26 Fort Stewart
GA 77-C-FED-2A27 Robins Air Force Base
Date of
"pa,,.
UI
IV
III
April 7. 1977
April 21. 1977
Hay 2, 1977
6,559,Q00
4,933,000
2,358.000
2,791,000
In
III
IV
March 22, 1977
March 21, 1977
April 25, 1977
KY 77-C-FID-2A27 Fort Knox
III May 24, 1977
PAGENO="0087"
Rcpsir and improvement of one
existing school facility
Repair and improvement of one
existing school facility
Repair and improvemet of one
existing school facility
~ew Middle School and repair and
iu*provcme~t of one existing
school iacilitv
New Junior lliEh School
Repair and improvement of seven
existing school facilities
Repair and irprovmsent of one
existing school facility
Repair awl improvement of two
exisi I in: school facilities
Repair ~n.i inproverietit of one
txlsi inc scinissi fatuity
Priority Date of
_~Creup Estimate
Application
Estimated
Type of
Construction
State Prolect Numb~i Lncatinn
Prnliwt (~meC
Aelicirs
Peoooae.i
La.
lit 77-C-FED-3A27
England Air Force liase
$ 60,000
Me.
ME 77-C-FED-lA2l
Luring Air Force Race
403,000
Nd.
lID 77-CFED-lA27
Andrews Air Forte Ilase
1,312,500
Mass.
HA 17-C-FED-5A27
F. (.. ilanston Field
S,7Sf),fIOi)
Ho.
HO 77-C-FEi)-iA27
Fort Leonarl Wool
`~,86l,l00
HO 77-C-FED-i1127
fort Leonari Wool
~,O37.00fl
NO 77C-F1.D2A27
iIhiier.tan Air Force Iiase
1,732.000
:r.a,
r;uu 77-c-Fth-1A27
Pease Air force Ease
f.95.000
N.J.
hi 77-C-FED~iA27
Fort Hix
27'i,700
June 1. 1977
June 24. 1977
Jtsls' 29. 1977
IV
IV
TV
111
111 lone 15. 1977
IV infle 24. 1977
111 June 24. 1977
JV June 20. 1977
IV May 3. 1977
PAGENO="0088"
Application
Pfolact Nuuabq~ location
NM 77-C-FED-2A27 White Sands Missile Proving
Grounds
Priority Date of
~ Estimate
IV March 28. 1977
NY 77-C-FI.D-7A27
NC 77-C-FED-2A27
IIC 77-C-FID-2B27
MC 77-C-FED-2C27
NC 77-C-FED-2D27
NC 76-C-FED-1A26
NC 76-C-FED-1B26
NC 76-C-FEii-1C26
NC 76-C-FID-1D26
Camp Lajeune Marine Corps Base
Camp Lejeune Marine Corps Base
Camp Lejeune Marine Corps Base
Camp Lejeune Marine Coils Base
Fort Bragg
Fort Bragg
Fort Bragg
Fort Bragg
10.000 Repair and improvement of one
existing school facility
3.030.000 RepaIr end improvenent of two
existing school facilities
4.836.000 New Middle School and repair and
improvement of one existing
school facility
New Senior 111gb School
New Middle School
New Elementsry School
Rapeir and improvement of five
existing school facilities
New Elementary School
New Middle School
New Elementary School
Repair and improvement of six
existing acht'ol facilities
In April 25. 1977
III April 28. 1977
III May 4. 1977
IV April 29, 1977
HI January ii. 1977
III January 12. 1977
III January 17. 1977
III January 14. 1977
Stats
N.M.
N.Y. NY 77-C-FID2427
Estimated Type of Construction
t'...e L~.Ph.4P'~ P~maA
$ 78~,271 Repair and improvenent of one
existing school facility
Governor's Island Coast Guard
Base
Plattaburgh Air Force Base
NY 77-C-FW-lA27 U.S. Military Academy. West Point
IV
11 June 20. 1977
III June 20. 1977
6.746,500
3.523.000
2,200.000
5,332.000
1.918.000
6.297.810
2,26S.360
6,997.500
PAGENO="0089"
Nil.
Application
Project Num~g~
MI 77-C'FED-1A27
Garrison Dam and Reaervior
Estimated Type of Construction
~jjct Cost Activity Proposed
$ 1.200 Repair and improvement of one
existing school facility
Priority Date of
Group Estimate
Iv
Repair and improvement of two
existing school facilities
Hey Elementary School
Repair and improvement of two
existing school facilities
New Middle School
Repair and improvement of one
existing school facility
Repair and improvement of one
existing school facility
Repair and improvement of one
existing school facility
Repair end improvement of one
existing school facility
*e,air and improvement of one
existing school facility
Repair and improvement of one
existing school facility
Repair and improvement of one
existing school facility
S.C.
SC 77-C-FED-3A27
Reaufort Marine Corps Air
Station
1.202,000
SC 76-C-FED-4A26
Fort Jackson
1,694,000
SC 76-C-FID-4B26
Fort Jackson
343,400
Sc 76-C-FED-5A26
Myrtle Beach Air Force Base
2,140,800
SC 76-C-FED-5128
Myrtle Beach Air Force Base
1,192,500
Texas
TX 77-C-FED-3A27
Fort Hood
1,171.100
TX 77-C-FEU-2A27
Fort Sam houston
1.883.000
TX 77-C-FBD'2B27
Fort Sam Houaton
2,370,200
TX 77-C-FED-4A27
Lackland Air Force Base
4,O1B,235
TX 76-C-FED-1A26
Randolph Air Force Race
1.175,666
TX 76-C-Fth-l126
Randolph Air force Bane
1,838.014
IV ~av 4. 1977
III February 1, 1977
IV March 1, 1977
III January 14, 1977
IV January 28. 1977
II July 13. 1917
111 April 2$. 1977
III April 28. 1977
III tiny 10. 1977
Ill Hay 10. 1977
III May 10. 1977
PAGENO="0090"
AppUcatiolt
~ P,',...her Location
list.
Vs.
Estimated Type of Construction
..t~..e t.~.e Aeti.,itv Pronoasd
VA 77-C-FED-2B27
VA 77-C-FED-7A27
VA 77-C-FED-6A27
VA 77-C-F0l-1A27
VA 77-C-FED-1B27
Fort Belvoir
Fort Monroe
Langley Air Force Bess
Quantico Marine Corps Ease
Quantico Marine Corps Bais
$ 2.858.000 Repair and isiproveisent of three
existing school facilities
360.000 Repair and improvement of ens
existing school facility
1.041.000 Repair and iisprovenent of one
existing school facility
2,023,000 New Elementary School
1.954.000 Repair and improvement of three.
existing school facilities
3,142,000 Repair and improvement of seven
existing school facilities
9.557.000 lIeu junior-Senior high School,
repair sod improvement of two
existing school lacilities, and
new central administrative unit
113,000 Repair and improvement of one
existing school facility
2.067,000 Repair and improvement of two
existing school facilities
$198,231 .641
l:ash. WA 77-C-FED-5A27 Fort Lewis/NcCitord Air Force Base
PR 77-C-FID-2A27 Fort Buchanan
PR 77-C-FED-lA27 Rastey Air Force Base
Pit 77-C-FED-3A27 Roosevelt Roads Naval Air
Station
Total
Priority Bats of
Group Estimate
11 May 27, 1977
IV hey 26. 3977
III flay 26, 1977
III jult~ 29. 1977
IV May 26, 1977
II March 4, 1977
Ill May 2, 1977
IV March 7, 1977
IV April 13, 1977
PAGENO="0091"
87
While not applicable to many of the existing section 10 schools,
some of the conditions discovered, such as those at Fort Bragg,
North Carolina and at Fort Buchanan, Puerto Rico, represent
serious health and life safety problems. Generally, most
of the older school facilities visited do not meet the require-
ments of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, P.L. 93-112,
as amended, nor the requirements of the Life Safety Code (NFPA
Code 101) which officially has been adopted by DREW. Costs to
provide the appropriate improvements.are included in the cost
estimates developed by the study.
The in.-depth study disclosed many instances where existing school
facilities are simply inadequate to house the total numbers of
pupils enrolled. Large numbers of children are required to be
housed in makeshift facilities, such as those that have been
abandoned from the use they originally served. Some of the
pupil membership increases have resulted from Department of
Defense programs to construct additional on-post military
family housing units at an accelerated pace over the past several
years, or from a change in the basic mission. the installation
serves. At times, this additional home construction has occurred
at government installations where the Commissioner of Education
perpetuated the use of existing school.buildings or originally had~
initiated section 10 facilities (e.g., Fort Campbell, Kentucky;
Fort Riley, Kansas; Fort Bragg, North Carolina). Many of the
school facilities constructed on government installations in
the earlier years of the P.L. 81-815 program were built under
a more restrictive definition of minimum school facilities
than prevails today. (The law was amended in 1967 to provide
a broader definition of minimum school facilities.) Consequently,
most of those schools lack space for instruction in specialized
learning areas (.e.g., art, music, kindergarten, special
education, vocational education, etc.). They also were found
to lack adequate space for storage or for administrative use.
Facilities for use as instructional media centers (libraries)
were found often to be meager, and in some.cases~, non-existent.
On the other hand, several of the section 10 facilities
illustrate exemplary school construction activities.
a. The Primary School at Fort Rucker, Alabama was
completed in 1973. Its construction involved
extensive collaboration between the Division of
School Assistance in Federally Affected Areas, the
Office of Facilities Engineering and Property
Management, DREW, the Alabama State Education Agency,
local military and school officials, the project
architect, an educational consultant, classroom
PAGENO="0092"
88
teachers, and coimnunity citizens. Educational
specifications were developed and followed during
the project's construction. We believe this is an
appropriate school plant planning approach.
b. An addition to the existing Fort Devens Elementary
School also was completed in 1973. Its construction
also involved a close working relationship among
the various Federal, State, and local agencies which
had an interest in the project. In this instance
the new construction represented a "wrap around"
design wherein the original school, constructed in
1952, was completely incorporated into the new and
larger facility created by the new construction
project.
B. Recommendations
1. Due to the types of needs reflected in the in-.depth study,
the Commissioner has determined that certain aspects of
the study warrant further attention.
A number of construction needs established in the report
reflect the serious nature of life safety conditions in
many section 10 school facilities. The safety of children
being educated in buildings under the Commissioner's
cognizance is a first priority. Most of the construction
needed to bring existing facilities up to life safety
standards requires only repairs or upgrading activities.
Construction activities can be effected to meet life safety
standards and to accomplish the section 504 handicapped
access standards under the first priority category: repairs
to facilities for the safety of children.
Certain section 10 facilities, however, cannot be made
life safe (ex., old wooden buildings) and, therefore,
construction of replacement facilities is required.
However, under the present level of funding the current
priority system precludes the Commissioner from targeting
funds toward these major renovation or new construction
efforts.
The Commissioner recommends considering a modification in
the current r~gulations to fund new construction and major
renovation to meet life safety and handicapped access
standards iimnediately after funding for "emergency" repairs.
PAGENO="0093"
89
2. R*fi.ected in the program history is the fact that criteria
to be used for suitability determinations have never been
articulated in regulation. Without established criteria,
applicants cannot be sure about their eligibility status
until funds finally become available and suitability
standards then are imposed. The Coimnissioner reconmiends
that suitability criteria be developed and published as
regulation. He further recommends that the following general
principles be used in developing those criteria:
- Determination of responsibility for the construction
of children residing on Federal property;
A suitability determination first should be made of
the LEA in which the installation is located (or
the SEA where it functions as the LEA). The
Commissioner may look to a nearby LEA in the event
immediate LEA's suitability is determined to be
less than the established standard.
Since the statute speaks to "able to provide", the second
factor which contributes to the suitability criteria is
a judgment of the LEA's or SEA's fiscal ability to pro-
vide a suitable free public education.
Local and State sources should document reasonable
lack of financial resources to provide facilities
for children residing on the Federal property in
question before Federal funding under section 10
is triggered. Any State law limitations on an
LEA's ability should be recognized;
Operational indicators are currently being discussed
and could include a percentage of bonded indebted-
ness, the present level of debt service, ... as well
as some allowance for the Commissioner's discretion.
The third aspect of suitability criteria concerns an
administrative definition of "suitable free public education".
In this regard, suitability should be measured against the
following standards.
- The primary standard should be the established State
standard for minimal educational requirements.
- If there is no established State standard, the
standard should be that which is established by the
appropriate educational accrediting agency for
that State.
PAGENO="0094"
90
TAB A
Status of ~nersIiip of Schoc,1 Faciiitic~ located
,o (overnment ln~tai]ations, by State, as ol
Mardi 20, 1975
Goveri~cnt No. OE-Owried
State Inalollaticu School Buildings
Alabama Craig Air Force Base 1*
Fort McClellan 1
Fort Rucker 2
Maxwell Air Force Base 3.
Alaska Adak Naval Station 1
Army Arctic Center, Fort Greely 1
Eielson Air Force Base 4**
Elniendorf Air Force Base 5*(l)
*rort Richardson 5*
Fort Wainwright 4
Kodiak Coast Guard Base l**
Mt. Edgecumbe (U.S. Public Health
Service 1
Arizona Fort Huachuca 4
Navajo Indian Reservation, Ganado 1*
Colorado River Indian Reservation,
Poston i**
Williams Air Force 3.-me I
PAGENO="0095"
91
Government No. OE~Qwned
State Installation School Buildi~g!
California Camp Pendleton Marine Corps Base 1*
Edwards Air Force Base 2
Fort Irwin 1*
Naval Weapons Training Center, China 5*
Lake
Mare Island Naval Shipyard 1
Mather Air Force Base 1
Parker Dam 1
Sierra Ordnance Depot 1
Travis Air Force Base 1
Yosemite National Park 2
Delaware Dover Air Force Base 2
Florida Eglin Air Force Base 2*
MacDill Air Force Base 1*
Patrick Air Force Base 1*
Georgia Fort Banning 7
Fort Stewart 1
Robins Air Force 2
Kansas Fort ?iley 5
Kentucky Fort Campbell 6
Fort Knox 10
PAGENO="0096"
State
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Missouri
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
1
4*
3*
1*
7
1
2
1
4*
1
1
2
2
1~
2*(l)
1
Base
No. OE-Owned
11(i~
92
Government
Installat ton
EnglandAir Force Base
Loring Air Force Base
Andrews Air Foece Base
L.G. Haascom Fleid
Port Devens
Otis Air Force Base
Westover Air Force Base
Selfridge Air National Guard
Fort Leonard Wood
Whitetnan Air Force Base
Pease Air Force 3ase
Fort Dix
McGuire Air Ft~r~e Base
White Sands ~LLsfrfl.ie Proving Ground
Goverr.~r's 1~'~d Coast Guard Base
Plattsburgh Air Force Base
U.S. Mi1:tt~ry A~ac~ny, West Point
PAGENO="0097"
93
CoverLlmertt No. 0C'Owncd
or o13'it1ding~
North Carol.ina Camp L~joiine Ma~{nc Corps B~e 7
Fort Bragg 7
North Dakota Garrison Dam and Reservoir
South Carolina Beaufort Marine Cocps Air Station 2
Fort Jackson 2
Myrtle Beach Air Force Base 1
Parris Island Marine Corps Recruit
Depot 1*
South Dakota Lake Francis Case 1*
Texas Fort Hood 1
Fort Sam }touston 2
Lackland Air Force Base 1.
Randolph Air Force Base 2
Utah Dugway Proving Ground 2*
Virginia Fort Belvoir 3
Fort Myer 1*
Fort Monroe 1
Langley Air Force Base 1
Quancico Marine Co. ~s Base 4
31.941 O~ 78 - 7
PAGENO="0098"
94
Government No. OE-Owned
Installation School Building~
Washington Fairchild Air Force Base 2*
Fort Lewis 5
?4cChord Air Force Base 2
Puerto Rico Fort Allen
Port Buchanan 2
Ramey Air Force Base 4*(3)
Roosevelt Roads Naval Station 2
Total 180
*Federally-owned school facilities which either have been:
a. Transferred to local education agency ownership,
b. Declared excess to the needs of the Office of Education,
c. In process of being transferred to local education agency ownership
d. Determined to be declarable as excess to the needs of the Office of
Education,
e. Discontinued by reason of closure of a military in'tallation.
**Federally-owned school facilities where p~o~ects are under way vh~ch.
when completed, will permit the discontinuance of Federal ownership.
***Federally-owfled school where no construction cost needs exist.
****Federally-owned school not considered to be necessary beyond the
1978-79 school year.
Mr. Foiw. While we are on that same subject, could you submit
anything else that would give us an indication of what the Office
of Education is doing or has done to answer the questions that have
been raised here about what our policy is going to be for each and
every school.
As it stands now, I suppose you are held in limbo waiting to see
what the new Office of EducatioD. proposal is likely to be, just as Dr.
Cardinale was. And in considering legislation at this time, I suppose
we,are held in limbo the same way. But one of the compelling argu-
ments for an overall Federal policy comes to me from seeing differ-
ent Federal agencies trying to do the same thing.
When you come together, it is only by accident, instead of by any
grand design that is centralized anyplace in the Federal Govern-
ment. If you had any studies about how to deal with phenomena of
OE's involvement in the section 6 schools, it would be very helpful
for us to try to understand the relative value of spinning off schools
to Defense. Six of these are now run by the Department of Defense,
aren't they?
Mr. MINTER. Yes, 6. We will submit whatever materials that we
have.
Mr. Foi~n. Thank you very much. Mr. Corrada.
Mr. CORRADA. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
PAGENO="0099"
95
As you know, the Antilles consolidated school system in Puerto
Rico had very serious problems in terms of where to put about 700
middle school children, because the post commander rightly decided
that the schoolrooms where they were located were totally unsuit-
able. They were closed down, or were to be closed down.
Then the possible interim solution was found to be some portable
schools, and as you know in the Labor-HEW appropriations, an
amount close to $360,000 was appropriated for these purposes. Can
you tell us what the status of that is?
Mr. STORM1~R. Yes, Mr. Corrada. We did not feel at ease with re-
spect to the $360,000 which was set aside until such time as we got
a continuing resolution that in effect turns out to be the appropria-
tion for the year. We have asked our regional program officer to
supply us a report as to the number and kinds of temporary school
facilities that would be necessary to house the 600 to 700 youngsters
who were formerly in the middle school.
We have asked the engineers to give us an estimate as to how far
the $360,000 will spread in order to provide relocatable or portable
school facilities. We are convinced it may not take care of the total
situation. We have asked them to evaluate in terms of three loca-
tions, either putting the relocatables on the existing elementary, the
existing junior-senior high school, or on the proposed site for the
new senior high school that exists at Fort Buchanan, and once we
have that report we would be in a position then to ask for the ~c-
quisition of the relocatables that could be accommodated within the
amount of money which has been set aside.
There is a question still in our minds resulting from informal
conversations with the General Accounting Office as to what the
ultimate decision will be with respect to the eligibility criterion per-
taining to certain numbers of children.
And this may have a bearing upon the total number of facilities
which would be provided or could be provided under that $360,000.
Mr. CORRADA. As you know, the solution of the portables is a tem-
porary, interim solution, and basically it has been felt that there is
a need for a new junior-senior high school facility there, at which
time then the students who would be in the portables, the middle
school students, could use the old high school that is now being used
when the high school students are transferred to another facility.
But seeing the figures that you are talking about here with re-
spect to the funds available for fiscal year 1978 and fiscal year 1979
for section 10, it would appear to me that very little consideration,
if any, has been given to the solution of these problems. Do you
know what is being considered at this time with respect to the per-
manent solution to the problem?
Mr. ST0RMER. I believe we alluded to the permanent solution in
part by saying that there is under consideration at the present time
the alteration of the existing priority system, which would, in es-
sence, lead more toward meeting the emergency repair situation as
well as the safety requirements that are necessary at existing school
facilities and existing locations.
In changing regulations it would also encompass those youngsters
who were in unsatisfactory or in unsafe life safety conditions in
temporary types of situations.
PAGENO="0100"
96
So there is consideration being given to an aspect which will, as its
ultimate goal, service this Fort Buchanan situation. We are, as you
are well aware, in a number of the base buildings as a result of the
former buildings which the base commander razed-those were un-
safe buildings in terms of life safety code and that is principally
the reason he razed the facilities which had formerly been used as
the middle school-and so with the proposed alterations, this will
lead toward meeting this problem.
Mr. CORRADA. Thank you. You will be, in the near future, assess-
ing the entire situation with respect to the future of section 6 and
section 10; and, of course, the general statement was made that the
general inclination is to transfer this to the local school systems when-
ever this is feasible.
As you know, because of statements previously made here, Puerto
Rico provides a public school system where Spanish is the language
or the vehicle for instruction. In the case of Puerto Rico, I don't
think it would be possible to enter into any satisfactory arrange-
ments at this time whereby the local public school system could take
care of the educational needs of most of these children who don't
even know Spanish. Have you given consideration to that peculiar
situation of Puerto Rican schools?
Mr. STORMER. Not formally. We have had informal conversations
as to what the ultimate might be with respect to the sections 6 and
10 arrangements. As we understand the situation, even presently in
the Antilles Consolidated School System there is a bilingual educa-
tion program being offered for the children enrolled there, because
some of the present children are more oriented in the Spanish Puerto
Rican language than in English.
Ultimately, the only thing that can be done would be the absorp-
tion by the local educational agency, which would be the Common-
wealth; and the provision of either English or bilingual educational
opportunities within that section, what would have been a formerly
section 6 arrangement-whether that can be accomplished in the
long haul is unknown.
Mr. CORRADA. In the long run-and we don't know exactly how
long that means-I am sure that we could. But one of the problems
that we have is that Puerto Rico isn't even included, our children
are not even counted under the title VII program of bilingual edu-
cation to begin with. Second, we have restrictions under title I of the
law that hopefully this year ESEA or my colleagues here will be
looking into, because of these limitations and the fact that title I
for Puerto Ricans is related to per capita expense of students.
There is no question that the kind of transfer that you are talk-
ing about would proyide substandard, I would say, education for
those who are currently studying at the Antilles Consolidated Sys-
tem, and this situation is of considerable distress to Federal em-
ployees who go to Puerto Rico and work there, send their children
to the school, as well as military personnel stationed there.
I would only hope that since this, in terms of the overall, entire
growth of the Nation, would seem to be a small p~oblem, there
might be just a little priority or attention given to it.
Mr. MINTER. Mr. Corrada, we are looking at the title I situation
now. I think you know something of that, certainly in the reauthor-
PAGENO="0101"
97
ization, to see what kinds of exceptions can be made for Puerto Rico
as a distinct entity and somewhat unique.
And certainly under the present section 6 the questions that you
have raised we will be looking at to see what we can do under this
law. But both laws are being examined independently for whatever
help we can give to relieve the situation that you have described.
Mr. CORRADA. Mr. Chairman, in our times, I wonder when, from
the standpoint of Congress, we will look at the unique situation of
Puerto Rico, that the uniqueness is that we don't spend as much,
even though we spend one-third of our budget, over $23 million of
our own State budget, one-third of the entire budget, for primary
and secondary education, and when we tie up or relate the title I
funds to Puerto Rico on the basis of the local limitations in terms
of a per capita expenditure for students and then relate that situa-
`tion to the title I formula, that we are just keeping the conditions
that make it unique.; and, by "unique," I am referring to substand-
ard.
Mr. Foiw. I appreciate the gentleman's concern, and he has been
very forceful in making that point. I think probably we can coalesce
when we get to the Title I formula and see what we can put to-
gether between parts of the country to deal with some of the unique
characteristics of the present formula and apparent inequities.
The statement makes it clear that the Section 6 schools do not re-
ceive the same per-pupil allocation. The allocation formula for im-
pact generally has become exceedingly complex.
Counsel now points out to me that we are now at the point where
we have 32 calculations to determine who gets the~ money and 32
calculations to determine how much.
How do you determine how much money you give to each of the
Section 6 schools per pupil? What establishes a per-pupil expendi-
ture? The variation on the chart runs from $954 at Fort McClellan
to 2,400 in Massachusetts.
Mr. STORMER. It is dependent, Mr. Chairman, on No. 1, what
grade structure schooling is being offered on that particular base.
In some instances, we have schools which are operating K to 6, some
are 1 to 6, some K to 12, some 1 to 8, some K to 8 and some K to 12.
And so, dependent on the educational organization that exists on
that particular base, the figure will rise and fall.
Additionally, the per-pupil expenditure is principally on the basis
of comparison with five comparable school districts-or "school or-
ganizations" maybe is a better term-within the individual State.
Two of those would be the local educational agency immediately
adjacent to the base and the capital city and any other three that the
school system would select.
And principally it is trying to keep it as comparable in Alabama
with other expenditures for, say, K to 6 in Alabama as comparable
in Kentucky as expenditures may be for K to 12 in Kentucky; and,
in each instance, their individual applications are reviewed in those
terms and approved or altered.
Mr. FORD. You disregard the national average for the State aver-
age?
Mr. STORMER. That is correct: we are taking 100 percent of the
educational costs for those children on those particular section 6
PAGENO="0102"
9$
installations. And I say "100 percent;" for example, in Kentucky,
Fort Campbell, this would be a K to 12 operation. If I remember
correctly, in Fort Bucker or Fort Jackson it would be a K to 6 or
K to 8 operation. And the high school children would have been
assisted and educated in the local educational agency.
Section 6 schools in a particular State should be similar to schools
in five comparable districts within the State. To the maximum ex-
tent practicable, the total payment for a project is limited to an
amount per pupil that does not exceed the per pupil cost of free
public education expended in comparable communities in the State.
However, in a particular situation it may be necessary to provide a
higher per pupil cost. For example, if comparable district libraries
were substandard or teacher qualifications below professional stand-
ards in comparison to minimum State requirements, a section 6 per
pupil cost adequate to achieve the standards could be approved.
Since actual per pupil cost data of comparable districts are not usu-
ally available for some time after a current year, latest available
data are increased the same as State average per pupil costs are ex-
pected to increase in the current year. Every effort is made to fund
sufficiently to provide quality education for children attending sec-
tion 6 schools.
Thus, under section 6, the entire per pupil cost for the current
year is provided for each child.
Under section 3, the rate of payment per child is based on fiscal
data of the second preceding fiscal year and is intended to be the
amount expended from local revenues. This amount is determined
on the basis of the average amount per pupil expended from local
revenues by comparable school districts in the same State. However,
every school district is entitled to the minimum rate of payment
per pupil of one-half the State average per pupil cost or one-half
the national average per pupil cost, whichever is greater. Both such
costs are based on fiscal data of the second preceding fiscal year. This
rate of payment per pupil applies to an "A" child whose value is
100 percent. The rate is reduced for other children according to
their value. For example, the value of a "B" military child is 50
percent. Thus, the rate of payment determined for a school district
is multiplied by 50 percent for paying a "B" military child. The
difference between our payment per child under section 3, and the
entire per pupil cost necessary to educate the child, must come from
State and local revenues. A notable exception to this statement is
the low-rent public housing child. The entire per pupil cost for basic
education must come from State and local revenues. Our payment
for a low-rent housing child may be used only for special programs
for the disadvantaged.
Mr. FORD. Thank you very much. We are going to have to move
along. But I wish you would follow up on this question of the deter-
mination of the per-pupil expenditure and how it tliffers from what
you do with the rest of the impact aid money.
I would like to thank you very much for your cooperation. And,
I would like to make the observation that you proved that those of
us who have been trying to keep impact aid have been right about
this being one of the best-operated programs we have.
PAGENO="0103"
I was just looking at the figures, and it indicates that the number
of people you have in your snop over there has dropped since 1966
from 106 to approximately 50. ~`ou have administered twice as much
money as you administered in 1966, while we ha~ve consistently made
the program more and more complex;
If the President and the people over in the Bureau of the Budget
with their sharp pencils were looking for an example of a success
story in efficient administration, this is it. When you measure the
cost of the administration against the amount of dollars served and
the amount that actually ends up in the educational product, this
shop stands out head and shoulders above anything that is being
done at the State or Federal level.
I would challenge anybody to show the dollar ratio for admin-
istrative costs that you people are able to accomplish it with.
We understand that you are operating with reductions in staff
and reductions in professional personnel that make it particularly
difficult to be responsive to the variety of things we are throwing
at you and, for that reason, we especially appreciate your coopera-
tion. Thank you very much.
Mr. MINTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Foim. We are gOing to try to accommodate all of the other
witnesses who have been so patient this morning by calling you to-
gether as a panel to testify so that the questioning will be directed
at the members of the panel all at one time.
G. L. Stiliman, president, European Congress of American Par-
ents, Teachers, and Students Association; Ms. Betty Gross, legisla-
tive chairperson, Antilles Consolidated Education Association, ac-
companied by Mr. Linn Wallace, Past president, Antilles Consoli-
dated Education Association; Ernest Lehmann, president, Overseas
Federation of Teachers; and Carl Moore, Executive Director, Over-
seas Education Association.
Without objection, the prepared testimony of the members of the
panel will be inserted in full at this time in the record.
[The prepared statements of the panel members follow:]
TESTIMONY ON H.R. 9892, PREPARED BY TIlE EUROPEAN CONGRESS or AMERICAN
P~RENTS, TEACHERS, AND STUDENTS
Mr. Chairman, Members of Congress, Ladies and Gentlemen. It is indeed a
privilege for me to appear before this committee on behalf of the 30,000
members of the European Congress of American Parents, Teachers, and Stu-
dents.
House Report 9892, cited as the "Defense Dependents' Education Act of
1978", addresses many of the problems that have prevailed within our over-
seas dependent schools for many years. The majority of these problems re-
sults from the fact that ours is a temporary school system, and thus not
eligible for several of the more important programs that fail under the aus-
pices of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, and the Depart-
ment of Agriculture. Through the establishment of a permanent, state level
school system, as provided for by this Bill, we will acquire eligibility for
these programs.
Perhaps the most pertinent example of what I refer to, is what we like
to call the school "Hot Lunch" program. In our European overseas schools.
only approximately 46 percent. of the schools have a hot lunch program. Of
these, 43 percent have what we call a junk food or short order menu. One-
half pint of milk will cost the child anywhere from 10 to 35 cents, depending
on the supplier. Organizations providing these lunches vary from the Army/
Air Force and Navy Exchange System, to Dependent Youth Activities, and
Parent, Teacher groups. Total meal prices range from a low of 30 cents to a
PAGENO="0104"
100
high of $1.35. While we are very grateful for what we have, our children
deserve better. We believe this Bill will help us achieve this end.
Ladies and Gentlemen, for many years a large number of our students have
been attending schools in classrooms that are less than substandard. Ware-
houses, trailers, and many other inadequate facilities have been and still are
being used. We have seen an increase in school construction in the last few
years and would very much like to see this progress continue, until we have
facilities designed as classrooms for all of our students. We believe SectIon 6
of this Bill titled, "School Construction, Operation, and Maintenance", and
particularly paragraph (b), which establishes a separate budget request for
school construction, will permit this progress to continue. However, as there
are three Military Departments having jurisdiction over some part of the total
school facilities, we believe that the final construction request should be de-
veloped through the Office of the Director of Dependents' Education, in co-
operation with the Military Departments, rather than through the Military
Departments. Specifically, priorities should be established by the people run-
ning the system.
Section 4 of the Bill, addresses tuition-paying students. We are particu-
larly pleased with paragraph (b) (2), which states that funds received from
tuition-paying students shall be available to the Defense Dependents' Educa-
tion System to assist in defraying the cost of enrollment of the children In
the system. While tuition funds are made available to our school system,
under current policies the originally budgeted funds are reduced by the amount
of tuition funds received. Ladies and Gentlemen, such a policy does not take
into account the additional staffing requirements, special educational mate-
rial, and logistical support needed for these students. We believe that these
tuition paying students* should be permitted to attend the dependent schools
where space permits, but funds received must offset the expenses associated
with these students. This Bill provides for such procedures and has our sup-
port.
* In 1976 and again in 1977 during our annual convention, our membership
passed resolutions calling for equal benefits for local-hire teachers. These
sometimes called tourist-teachers fulfill a vital role in our schools, and should
receive the same compensation as those teachers hired stateside. In reviewing
Section 12 of this Bill, I was unable to determine whether or not equal com-
pensation was provided. Reference is made to a number of United States
Codes which I did not have available. We hope the Bill does address this
problem, and If it does not, we recommend that it should. We recognize the
justice of a probation period that permits the system to evaluate the quality
of the local-hire teacher, however, once quality has been established equal
compensation should be awarded. That is what equality is all about.
The "Defense Dependents' Education Act of 1978", establishes local School
Advisory Committees and an Advisory Council of Dependents' Education. I
would like to make several comments to this aspect of the Bill. In my dis-
cussions with parents during the past two years, I have found the most pre-
vailing concern to be a feeling of being unable to influence the system. When
the local administration is not responsive to the desires and needs of the
parents and the students then parents doubt their own ability to bring about
change. Perhaps, the centralized nature of our system inhibits local commia-
iiity influence. However, there are many policies and curriculum decisions
made locally. Such policies and, in particular, local curriculum decision-mak-
ing, should fall under the authority of the School Advisory Committee. There-
fore, we would like to recommend that the word curriculum be included in the
advisory authority of the local School Advisory Committee.
The Commander of each of our local military communities must be concerned
with the overall operation of the local schools. The quality of education af-
forded dependent children impacts on the morale of the families for whom
the community commander has a great amount of responsibility. Therefore,
we believe that the community commander, or his designated representative,
should be the chairman of the School Advisory Committee and provide the
administrative support essential to make the committee functionaL
The school advisory council system should be expanded to include an ad-
visory council at each major level of decision-making. Council organization
should parallel the school administrative organization. If there are school
districts and regions a council should be established at each of these levels.
Problems that cannot be resolved at local level may well have a solution at
district level, and so on.
PAGENO="0105"
101
My last comment on Section 14 and 15 that addresses advisory councils
pertains to our own. organizations' participation in the operation of such
councils. During the 1975-76 school year, the local units of the European
Congress of American Parents, Teachers, and Students provided more than
$800,000 to assist our schools in varied ways such as, educational supplement
material, band instruments, recording equipment, and many other special
projects. Based on the minimum wage at that time, if we had been required
to pay our volunteers, their wages would have exceeded two and one-half
million dollars worth of classroom help, administrative assistance, and count-
less other services performed for our schools. These figures do not include
contributions from a substantial number of other organizations involving
parents that help our schools. For these many years of service and dedicated
support to our schools, we deserve to have a voice in the operation of the
schools. This Bill should provide for representation of established parent,
teacher, and student organizations at each level of advisory council.
Section 16, requires that a comprehensive study of the Defense Dependents'
Educational System be completed within one year after the enactment of the
BilL We know that there is an ongoing study on the reorganization of our
current school system. We would recommend that any actual reorganization
be delayed until such time as the comprehensive study, directed by this Act
is completed.
Ladles and Gentlemen, if I were asked whether our overseas schools have
a school board, I would have to reply yes, the Congress of the United States.
It is through Congress that we obtain funds and staffing authority, and the
basic policies that permit our children to receive a public education. This Bill
provides the basic tools required to enhance the quality of education our
students receive. The foundation has already been established for a fine school
system. This Bill will clear the way for the structure to be completed.
~ur sincere thanks to Congressman Erlenborn for introducing this Bill,
and my personal thanks to you Mister Chairman and the members of your
committee for allowing our organization to be represented before you today.
STATEMENT OF BETTY Guoss (LEGISLATIVE CHAIRPERSON) AND LINN WALLACE
(PAST PRESIDENT) OF THE ANTILLES CONSOLIDATED EDUCATION AssoCIA-
TION
THE POSITION OF ANTILLES CONSOLIDATED EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, ON H.R. 9892
(95TH CONGRESS)
The Antilles Consolidated Education Association (ACEA) is exclusive rep-
resentative of all teachers employed by the Antilles Consolidated School Sys-
tem (ACSS). The ACSS consists of seven schools located at four geographical
locations in Puerto Rico. ACSS provides English-language elementary and
secondary education for dependents of federal employees under Section 6 of
Public Law 81-874 (20 U.S.C. 241).
The Association welcomes this opportunity to support passage of H.R. 9892
with the inclusion of certain amendments necessary to maintain quality Eng-
lish-language instruction for dependents in Puerto Rico and, as needed, in
other U.S.-flag areas outside the continental United States.
The bill warrants support for the following reasons:
1. Consolidation of the schools funded by HEW under Section 6 of Public
l~aw 81-874 (such as our school system in Puerto Rico) with the schools
operated in overseas areas by the Department of Defense Dependent School
System seems both practical and overdue, as the two systems exist to answer
the same need: provision of quality education for federal dependent children
where such education is not otherwise available on a tuition-free basis.
* 2. Passage of the bill should result in a more consistent educational pro-
gram for federal dependents, and more efficient administration of that pro-
gram wherever such schools are established.
* 3. H.R. 9892 provides formal structures not available under current law-
the advisory committees and the Advisory Council-through which parties
legitimately concerned with the schools-students, parents, teachers, and ad-
ininistrators-can participate in the formulation of ~d*icational programs and
policy. We commend Mr. Erlenborn for proposing this farsighted and long-
needed reform.
However, because of the unique situation in Puerto Rico, passage of the bill
as written could be devastating to the educational welfare of some 3,350 chil-
PAGENO="0106"
102
dren of federal employees currently enrolled in the federal dependent schools
on the island.
Consider the ways in which Puerto Rico is unique among dependent school
locations:
1. The ACSS in Puerto Rico is currently the only Sectiop 6 school system
located outside the continental United `States. Puerto Rico is not defined as
an overseas area under current law, but `it is a de facto overseas area in its
impact on federal employees and their dependents. The Island is located 1,600
miles across the ocean from New York City, at the end of a long supply line.
Federal employees and dependents assigned from the U.S. to Puerto Rico or
from the island to the States must cope with serious cultural-adjustment
problems.
2. English is a second-language in Puerto Rico. The vernacular is Spanish,
and Spanish is the language of instruction in all public schools on the island.
Whereas continental Section 6 schools exist because the federal government
impacts an area beyond the ability of the local district to absorb the ac-
companying children, the dependent schools in Puerto Rico serve also a more
fundamental and permanent function: they provide the only public English-
language instruction available on the island.
3. The public schools in Puerto Rico are so overcrowded and under-financed
that there is virtually no likelihood they will be in a position to educate
federal dependents within the foreseeable future. Per-pupil expenditures in
Puerto Rico are $400 compared, for example, with $2000 per student in the
Public Schools of the District of Columbia. Authorities in Puerto Rico state
that one-quarter of the students of high-school age do not attend school, and
the public school system lacks classroom space to accommodate them if they
did wish to attend.
4. As far as we have been able to determine, there Is a larger presence of
non-military federal agencies in Puerto Rico than in any geographical area
In the world outside the fifty states, and these agencies transfer sizeable
numbers of English-speaking families to and from the island. The result is
that 62 percent of the children attending the Fort Buchanan schools in Puerto
Rico (the largest complex of schools in the ACSS) are dependents of civilian
agencies.
As the result of the unique situation described above, it is clear that the
dependent schools in Puerto Rico need separate consideration in drafting this
legislation. Under the bill as proposed, Section 6 schools would be operated
under the personnel and pay practices established in the Defense Department
Overseas Teachers Pay and Personnel Practices Act (20 U.S.C. 901-905).
However, the bill also proposes to amend this latter statute to allow the Di-
rector of Dependents Education to vary the rates of compensation for teach-
ers in Section 6 schools (including the schools in Puerto Rico) to reflect
salaries paid by schools in the local area (See page 16, lines 22-25, page 17,
lines 1-3 of H.R. 9892). In the case of Puerto Rico, this provision contradicts
the requirement in Section 6(a) of P.L. 874 that the schools in Puerto Rico
provide education comparable to that provided in the Public Schools of the
District of Columbia. In order to accomplish this purpose, ACSS educators
have been paid at rates equal to salaries in the D.C. public schools, which
average about $15,000 annually. Teachers in the public schools of Puerto
Rico, however, earn an average salary of around $6,000. Such a drastic
lowering of salaries would make it virtually impossible to provide education
comparable to the District because it would make it impossible for ACSS to
obtain a quality teaching staff. We strongly urge the inclusion of specific
language in the proposed amendments that would clearly fix salaries in
Puerto Rico at rates equal to the prevailing salaries in the District of Coluni-
bia schools. This would not only ensure high-quality instruction as mandated
by law, but it would end the current wasteful drain on administrative and
teacher energies, as well as federal funds, resulting from the current need to
negotiate, grieve, and arbitrate salary matters.
Student eligibility is the other major problem presented by the uniquei~ess
of the situation in Puerto Rico. Under Sections 6(a) and 6(b) of Public Law
81-874, eligibility in the continental United States is limited to the children
of employees living or working on the federal property where the schools are
located. Since most schools are located on military bases, eligibility has been
confined in practice to the dependents of active duty personnel and of some
civilian employees of the military. The lack of public English-language hi-
struction in Puerto Rico coupled with a large influx of English-speaking em-
ployees of non-military federal agencies has made, it necessary to extend
PAGENO="0107"
103
eligibility in Puerto Rico to federal dependents whose parents neither live
nor work on military installations where the schools are located. This is ac-
coniplished by Section 6(c) of Public Law 81-874, but the language used is so
vague and ambiguous that the schools in Puerto Rico are in constant turmoil
over who is eligible and who is not.
H.R. 9892 transfers authority to the Secretary of Defense for most arrange-
ments under Section 6(c), but leaves intact the vague language on student
eligibility (page 11, lines 8-13). Our Association urges the addition of stronger
and more specific language assuring quality English-language instruction in
federal dependent schools for children of all federal employees subject to
transfer to the continental United States or other English-speaking areas.
This is the standard currently prescribed by the Commissioner of Education
for eligibility in Puerto Rico, and we think it should be written into law.
Finally, we would like to make a few suggestions regarding the advisory
committees and the Advisory Council proposed by H.R. 9892. These bodies
are welcomed, for they should inject a strong dose of democratic process and
local accountability into the operation of dependent schools. We recommend
however, that the advisory committee electorate be more specifically defined
to include those with a legitimate Interest in the operation of the schools.
Instead of allowing anyone "residing in the area" to vote, we suggest that the
electorate be defined as parents of children attending the school(s) and pro-
fessionals employed by the school(s). We also recommend that all members
of the electorate be made eligible for election to an advisory committee (See
page 19, line 8-14).
The respective jurisdictions of the school principals and the local military
commanders should be delineated in greater detail so that the advisory com-
mittees clearly understand the responsibilities assigned to each position.' We
recommend assigning logistical support matters to the local military coin-
mander and all educational matters, including curriculum and personnel
practices, to the principal or superintendent of the schools. (See Section 14,
pages 18-19).
As to the Advisory Council, our only suggestion is that a permanent seat
on the Council be granted to a representative of the National Foundation of
the Arts and the Humanities (page 20, lines 8-15).
In closing, the Antilles Consolidated Education Association fully supports
and endorses the concept of a separate Department of Education as proposed
by the National Education Association and President Carter. Upon the estab-
lishment of this Department, we would support consolidation of all federally-
operated schools under its gdministration. Until that time, however, we feel
that passage of KR. 9892 with the inclusion of the amendments suggested
herein, will significantly improve the operation of federal dependent schools.
PRoPosED AMENDMENTS TO .H.R. 9892 (95TH CoNGREsS), SUBMITTED FOR CON-
SIDERATION BY ANTILLES CONSOLIDATED EDUCATION 4~SSOCIATION, FEBRUAE~ 1,
1978
* 1. Line 21, page 8: Insert "professional" between "transfer" and "em-
ployees."
2. Page 11, after line 13, add the following new section:
(C) By striking out all language after "United States," and adding, in lieu
thereof, "in a grade, position and/or classification subject by policy and prac-
tice to transfer or reassignment to areas where English is the language of
instruction in the schools normally attended by children of federal employees.
In any case where education is being provided under an arrangement made
under this subsection It shall be presumed that no local educational agency
Is able to provide suitable free public education for the children of eligible
parents employed by the United States until the Secretary of Defense deter-
m~iines after consultation with the appropriate state educational agency, that
a local educational agency is able to do so."
3. Page 16, lines 20 to 21; change to read-by striking out "In his military
department" and adding "in an overseas area"
4. Page 16, lines 22-25 and Page 17, lInes 1-3: Add the following new sen-
tences "With respect to teachers and teaching positions in the continental
iJnited States, Alaska, Hawaii, the Director may vary the basic compensation
to reflect the prevailing rates for similar positions in the local area of a coni-
parable level of duties and responsibilities. With respect to teachers and
teaching positions in Puerto Rico, Wake Island, Guam, American Samoa, or
the Virgin Islands, the Director shall fix the basic compensation at the rates
PAGENO="0108"
104
equal to the prevailing rates of basic compensation for similar positions in
the public schools in the District of Columbia of a comparable level of duties
and responsibilities."
5. Page 18, lines 15-17: Change to read "The Director shall provide for the
establishment of an advisory committee for each group of schools under the
jurisdiction of a local superintendent. In the case of schools not organized
under the jurisdiction of a local superintendent, the director shall provide
for the establishment of an advisory committee for each school."
0. Page 18, Lines 18-19: Change after "advise the" to "principal/superin-
tendent of such schools(s) with respect to the operation of such school(s) ."
7. Page 18, Line 20: Change to read "the areas of curriculum, personnel
and budget matters"
8. Page 18, Line 24: Change to specify: "with respect to logistical problems"
9. Page 19, Lines 1-7: Delete.
10. Page 19, Line 10: Strike "residing in the area". Add: "who are parents
of children attending the school(s) or professional employees employed by the
school(s)".
11. Page 19, Line 11: Add before The Secretary of Defense "Subject to the
provisions of this sub-section, the Secretary of Defense."
12. Page 19, Line 14: Add "Members of the electorate shall qualify for
election to an advisory committee."
13. Page 20, Line 15: Add "3 (D) the National Foundation of the Arts and
the Humanities."
ALTERNATIVE AMENDMENTS TO H.R. 9892 REDEFINING PUERTO RICo AS "AN
* OVERSEAS AREA"-SUBMITTED FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE ANTILLES CONSOLI-
DATED EDUCATION ASSOCIATION
Proposed amendments number 2 and 4 suggest revision of Section 6 of Public
Law 81-874 on eligibility and Public Law 86-91 on teachers' salaries for
schools in Puerto Rico.
An alternative approach that might provide an equally satisfactory solu-
tion to the special needs of the schools for federal dependents in Puerto Rico
would be to remove these schools from the Section 9 format and redefine
"overseas area" in H.R. 9802 to include Puerto Rico.
This could be done by a few simple amendments to the final section on
definitions in H.R. 9892:
Page 25-Insert after line 5 the following additional definition of "Sponsor":
(C) an employee of the United States in Puerto Rico occupying a grade,
posItion and/or classification subject by policy and practice to transfer or
reassignment to areas where English is the language of instruction in the
schools normally attended by children of federal employees.
Page 25-Strike all the language after "the several states * * *" line 9 and
add, in lieu thereof, "and the District of Columbia."
Note: These amendments would have to be accompanied by amendments
striking all reference to Puerto Rico contained in Section 6 of Public Law 81-
874. Additionally, the definition of "overseas area" contained in Public Law 86-.
91 would have to be changed to be consistent with the above redefinition.
TESTIMONY OF THE OVERSEAS FEDERATION OF TEACHERS, AMERICAN FEDERATION
OF TEACHERS, AFL-CIO, BEFORE THE HQUsE SUBCOMMITTEE ON LABOR STAND-
ARDS REGARDING THE DEFENSE DEPENDENTS EDUCATION ACT OF 1978, PRE-
SENTED BY ERNEST J. LEIIMANN, PRESIDENT, OVERSEAS FEDERATION OF
TEACHERS
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee. I want to thank you for
the opportunity to present the views of the Overseas Federation of Teachers
on your Bill, ]ELR.. 9892, to establish a unified program for the education of
minor dependents of military and civilian personnel overseas and on certain
military bases in the United States. Our members have a great concern for
the quality of education the dependents receive in the schools administered
by the Department of Defense.
The school system created by this legislation would have a substantial size.
It would enroll almost 200,000 students in approximately 350. schools In 28
natioTis around the world. The work force would be about 12,000 IndivIduals.
The larger part of this system, the Department of Defense Dependents Schools,
PAGENO="0109"
105
has been in existence for over 30 years and enrolls 150,000 students in 27
countries around the world. Most of the teachers we represent have taught in
these schools for many of these years.
This legislation at first glance has many appealing qualities. It will unify
a number of different school systems which are performing the same functions,
educating the dependents of military and civilian personnel.
It will also establish a statutory base for their existance. Presently these
schools must rely upon the annual Department of Defense appropriation bill.
Further, it would require an annual report to the Congress regarding the
activities of the system, giving the Congress a regular oversight function which
it presently does not enjoy.
As written, we believe the bill lacks specificity. Understanding that the man-
agement of the program requires a reasonable amount of flexibility we Still
are concerned about the vagueness of the statutory direction. The OFT be-
lieves a set of goals shOuld be incorporated in the statute We recommend the
Director of Dependent's Education, as part of the higher duties in Section 3c,
be required to assure that the ten goals listed below are met.
1. Mastery of the basic skills of communication and reasoning essential to
live a full and productive life.
2. Ability to sustain lifetime learning in order to adapt to the new demands,
opportunities and values of a changing world.
3. Ability to maintain one's mental, physical and emotional health.
4 Understanding of human relations-respect for an ability to relate to
other people in our own and other nations-including those of different sex,
origins, cultures, and aspirations.
5. Competence in the processes of developing values-particularly in the
formation of spiritual, ethical, religious, and moral values which are essential
to individual dignity and a humane civilization.
6. Knowledge of the humanities, social sciences and natural sciences at a
level required to participate in an evermore complex world.
7. Occupational competence necessary to secure employment commensurate
with ability and aspiration and to perform work in a manner that is gratifying
to the individual and to those served.
8. Knowledge and appreciation of our culture and capacity for creativity,
recreation and self-renewal.
* 9. Understanding of the processes of effective citizenship in order to partici-
pate in and contribute to the government of our society.
10. Knowledge of the environment and the relationship between one's own
acts and the quality of the environment.
We believe these goals would foster an educational program which would
be equal to or superior to the best systems in the United States. The children
of the military deserve this.
Section 4, the authority to enroll students on a space available basis should
be more clearly spelled-out. Presently, approximately 2,800 space available
students are enrolled in the European Region of the Department of Defense
schools. The funds generated by the tuition from these students, approximately
$5.6 million, is not applied to these students' education but to offsetting the
eosts of space required students. This $5.6 million supplants funds appro-
priated by Congress and creates an immediate financial shortage. Further, no
staffing, supplies, maintenance or texts are provided for these students. This
means 110 teaching positions are unfilled and because of this, many teachers
have one (1) to five (5) more students in their classrooms. The result of this
is that the Department of Defense Schools is accepting money for services it
noes not provide. This Bill should be written to eliminate this practice.
Making the Dependents Schools eligible for school lunches has considerable
merit. This is a problem of concern to the parents, students, teachers, and
administrators.
Section 10(b) and 12 should be changed .so that the teachers are paid on a
uniform, easily administered system. Currently, salary data is obtained from
205 school jurisdictions of 100,000 or more population. This is compiled and
a new salary scale Is issued. Usually, statistics from all 205 school districts
are not obtained in a timely manner and the resultant salary increase is in-
accurate and delayed. To make this aspect of employment easier to administer
the OFT recommends that the salary schedule for the Washington D.C.
teachers be applied. The Bill authorizes the director to set the rates of com-
pensation and then to vary them. We believe this authority is much too broad
and could easily be abused. We forsee enormous morale problems developing
PAGENO="0110"
106
because one teacher in the same school system is earning substantially less
than another.
We must also point out that the teachers currently covered by the Defense
Department Pay and Personnel Policies Act are dissatisfied by the manner in
which this Act is applied.
We have compiled a listing of the more serious problem areas. The listing
is by no means comprehensive. It does point out, we believe, that if the cur-
rent policies are adopted system-wide, we will be legislating problems instead
of solutions.
1. Overseas Local hires.-Under the current Act these local hires do not
receive the same benefits regarding quarters allowance and transportation
agreements as teachers hired in the United States. This problem has received
considerable attention by the Congress and is currently being addressed by
the House Subcommittee on Compensation and Employee Benefits.
2. Length of the School year.-Currently the 190-day-school-year overseas
is ten days longer than the average in the United States. In "A Study of the
State Legal Standards for the Provision of Public Education" by the Lawyers
Committee for Civil Rights Under the Law, it was determined that an average
minimum school year was 180 days.
3. Class size.-Too frequently, class sizes well over 30 students are estab.
lished. This Bill should require staffing which would correct this.
4. Pupil-Teacher ratio.-Though acceptable ratios vary from 150 students
for high-school English teachers to 600 for counselors we can provide examples
where these ratios are exceeded substantially. The specialists in the Ram-
stein-Kaiserslautern complex in Germany are required to deal with twice as
many students as is considered educationally sound; one qualified, experienced
counselor for over 2,000 elementary students instead of one to 600 as the De-
partment of Defense Program Guidance establishes.
5. Education for the Handicapped.-This program, in existence for at least
two years has been a paper program. Little or no resources, supplies or train-
ing has been made available to the individual teacher or student. Even though
the programs directly impact on every teacher in the Overseas schools. In
Europe, this means 5,500 teachers, training is just now being provided this
summer for only 50 teachers.
We have not discussed sabbatical leave, there is none, nor level of fund-
ing, it is too low, admission requirements, attendance requirement curriculum,
extracurricular activities, guidance and counseling programs, preparation time
for all teachers, duty-free lunch periods for teachers, graduation requirements,
In-service training, promotion requirements, safety and health requirements,
and many other topics. These topics impact both on the educational program
and the personnel policies currently being applied.
Definite standards on all of the above must be set to insure a high quality
educational program.
Section 14 establishes advisory committees for each school. The establish-
ment of these committees has merit. They are currently in existence in most
overseas areas. We see two areas of concern in the present arrangement. The
first is that these committees need not be involved in employment and dis-
charge of personnel. This would best be left to competent managers. The sec-
ond is that teacher unions should be clearly represented on these committees.
Under Section 15. We recommend that the military departments be repre-
sented on this Council as well as teacher unions. The Committee should ex-
amine the value of an appointed, non-partisan school board. Under the cur-
rent Bill, this Director has too much authority.
The Bill could establish a superior school system. One could be used as a
model for the states as well as many countries around the world. It could
enhance our image abroad, it could enroll children of the host countries on
a regular, no-fee basis. It could provide for an international clearing house
for educational research and planning. The opportunities for excellence are
available, but so far little action, little motion has taken place to develop
them. For over thirty years we have ignored a chance to develop an out-
standing school system and introduce and involve children from around the
world to an outstanding educational experience. We have had an opportunity
to make an impact on the youth of the world and unfortunately have not
done so. This Bill also does not encourage this opportunity.
Because of what we have stated above, because this Bill would continue and
encourage the oppressive personnel policies currently in effect and because this
Bill would not enhance or improve the educational program now being offered
we oppose it in its present form.
PAGENO="0111"
107
= 1~
1956
STATEMENT
of
the
OVERSEAS EDUCATION ASSOCIATION
on
H.R. 9892
Presented
by
CARL D. MOORE
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
AND
GENERAL COUNSEL
February 1, 1978
~ For Professionals with Dual Goals-Quality Education and Teacher Rights
0. E. A. Is a unified state affiliate of the National Education Association representing American educators overseas
PAGENO="0112"
108
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am Carl D. Moore,
Executive Director and General Counsel for the Overseas Education
Association, a state affiliate of the National Education Association.
The OEA holds national exclusive recognition with the Department of
Defense Dependents Schools and represents approximately 6,500 of the
7,500 teachers in overseas dependents schools around the world.
With me this morni.ng are Ms. Lynne Holland, President of the Overseas
Education Association, and Mr. James Green, Government Relations
Specialist from the National Education Association.
Let me thank you on behalf of the Association for this opportunity
to appear before the Subcommittee to testify with regard to H.R. 9892.
Let me state from the outset that the Association is not opposed to the
idea of having all Department of Defense schools, whether in the United
States or outside the United States, under the administrative control
of one central office. Generally speaking, this should lead to a better
coordinated, better funded educational program for the children of
military personnel. We do have some concerns about certain provisions
of this legislation as it affects both the overseas educational program
and the "section 6" schools. My remarks this morning, of necessity,
will relate primarily to the overseas program. Through the National
Education Association, we have contacted the Association leaders in
most of the "section 6" schools and are presently communicating with
them regarding this legislation and its impact on their local situa-
tion. We, therefore, expect to be able to provide you with further
information on these schools in the coming weeks. It is, therefore,
respectfully requested that the record remain open for a few more
PAGENO="0113"
109
weeks after the close of this hearing for this purpose.
Now if I may address some of the specific reservations which the
Association has regarding H.R. 9892. Section 14 of the proposed
legislation provides for the establishment of a School Advisory
Committee at each school location In order to advise the principal
of the school with respect to the school, particularly in the areas
of personnel and budget matters, and shall have authority to make
recommendations with respect to the employment and discharge of
personnel, and, except as provided in paragraph (2), shall advise
the local military commander with respect to problems concerning
dependents' education within the jurisdiction of the commander."
(emphasis added). Another subparagraph of this section provides
for the election of the members of this committee "by individuals
of voting age residing in the area to be served by the advisory
committee." The intention of this provision appears to be to en-
courage participation of parents In the activities of the school
program. As a professional association for teachers, we recognize
the Indispensable role which all parents play in the education of
their children. However, advisory committees made up of interested
parents and command representatives already exist at most military
Installations. Legislation which, in effect, requires that a "PTA"
be formed at each school will not mean that uninterested parents
will become involved in the educational process. Interested parents
who are already involved do not require a legislative mandate to par-
ticipate in the educational program for their children.
31-941 0-78 -8
PAGENO="0114"
110
The second basis for our objection to these committees is that they
may infringe upon rights accorded to the Association as the exclu-
sive representative for the teachers. If the Subcommittee Members
decide to retain this provision, it is recommended that language
be incorporated which would make it clear that this legislative
mandate does not interfere with the provisions of Executive Order
11491, as amended.
The Association applauds the Subcommittee's recognition of the need
for a recertification program as set out in section (5). However,
since the Association and DODDS have already initiated negotiations
on the creation of a recertification program and since both parties
have acknowledged the need and desirability of such a program, it is
strongly urged that this legislative requirement is unnecessary.
Creating a recertification program for an entity which has in the
past recognized 50 different certification programs will be extremely
difficult. It will be important to insure that none of the current
teachers are disadvantaged nor subjected to a discriminatory program.
Therefore, the negotiation process between the Office of Dependents
Schools and the Association with regard to recertification will be
paramount.
If the Subcommittee sees fit to include reference to a recertification
program in the legislation, it should also include provision for a
proper education/training program in conjunction with the recertifi-
cation program. One of the primary concerns which we and the Office
PAGENO="0115"
111
of Dependents Schools have regarding such a program is the difficulty
which American teachers stationed overseas have in gaining access to
appropriate, advanced degree programs for their specialty areas.
Without substantial inservice education and sabbatical leave programs,
a ~ecertlfication program would be ineffectual and inappropriate.
Unlike their cot~nterparts in the United States, overseas teachers
cannot gain access to appropriate post~graduate courses by traveling
across town or a few hours from their home. Overseas teachers must
literally travel half-way around the world in order to continue their
studies. We must, therefore, urge that any recertification program
authorized by this Subcommi~ttee be. accompanied by authorization for
a proper sabbatical program.
The Association also urges that this Subcommittee take the opportunity
to provide for needed adjustments and improvements with regard to cer-
tain policies in the overseas dependents schools system.
Provision should be made in this legislation
to establish a school year not to exceed the
average school year of sc oldistr4~cts included
in the salary survey under 2OUSC~9O2(a)(2).
The above cited statute establishes the salary for overseas teachers
on a basis equal to the average salaries for teachers in the largest
school districts in the United States. Until school year 1976-77,
the Department of Defense required a. school year of 185 to 187 working
days. This conforms to exactly what is used by the overwhelming majority
PAGENO="0116"
112
of large school districts'in the United States (see attached charts).
Last school year and this school year, the Department of Defense de-
cided unilaterally that teachers should work more than 187 days each
year. In short, the teachers in this system are now being required
to work more than the average number of working days per school year
In return for an average salary. Stated another way, these teachers
are being required to donate 3 to 5 salary free ~ to the Department
of Defense. The Association has tried through every means available
to persuade the Department of Defense to return to its previous policy
which was clearly in closer harmony with the intent of the salary
survey legislation. It is beginning to appear that the only place
from which the teachers can expect just treatment on this issue is'
from the Congress. We, therefore, urge that H.R. 9892 include a provi-
sion to correct this injustice.
Provision should be made in this legislation
to provide for additional intermediate pay
lanes for BA+15 and BA+30.
Teachers in U. S. public school systems have traditionally been given
pay increases based upon the number of years they have been teaching
and upon the amount of post-graduate work which they have completed.
Therefore, when a teacher acquires a Master 0f Arts degree, he or she
can expect an increase in salary over what he or she was receiving with
a Bachelor of Arts degree. For overseas teachers, four such pay lanes
exist: Bachelors; Masters; Masters plus 30; and Doctorate. These
pay lanes are derived by using the same salary survey as referred to
PAGENO="0117"
113
above. It has for many years appeared strange to teachers in the
overseas system that there were no intermediate pay lanes between
the Bachelors degree and the Masters degree. It is common knowledge
among teachers that almost every school district in the United States
has not only one, but frequently, two, three, or more intermediate pay
lanes between the Bachelors degree and the Masters degree. Officials
with the Department of Defense who are responsible for establishing
salary schedules for the overseas teachers maintain that a majority
of the school districts included in the survey do not have an inter-
mediate pay lane between the Bachelors and the Masters pay lanes.
Research by the National Education Association in 1976 clearly demon-
strated that intermediate pay lanes between `the Bachelors and the
Masters begin at BA+3 and run consecutively through BA+45. Due to
this extremely wide variety of intermediate pay lanes between the
Bachelors degree and the Masters degree, it Is true that a majority
of the school districts in the survey do not have any one of the par-
ticular intermediate pay lanes. For example, one of the most common
intermediate pay lanes, BA+30, exists in less than 40 percent of the
school districts included in the survey. Therefore, the Department
of Defense reasons that no intermediate pay lane is justified between
the Bachelors and the Masters. The Department chooses to ignore the
fact that almost every school district in the survey has at least one
intermediate pay lane between the Bachelors and the Masters and that
67 percent of the school districts in the survey have a BA+30 or some
other intermediate pay lane less rigorous (BA+25, BA+20, BA+18, BA+15,
etc.).
PAGENO="0118"
114
During contract negotiations during 1976 with the Department of
Defense, the Association attempted to negotiate the additional
intermediate pay lanes between the Bachelors and the Masters using
the above rationale. The Office of Dependents Schools declared the
proposal to be non-negotiable. The decision as to the negotiability
of this proposal is due from the Federal Labor Relations Council in
the coming weeks. If the Council finds the proposal to be non-nego-
tiable, then only the Congress of the United States can rectify this
unfortunate interpretation by the Department of Defense.
Provision should be made in this legislation
to set an entrance age requirement of 6 years
(as of September 1) for first grade students
and of 5 years (as of September 1) for kinder
garten students.
Some States do not provide kindergarten programs. However, according
to a recent study by the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law,
all States provide that a child must reach a minimum age of 6 years
before entereing first grade. There is a range of cut-off dates be-
tween September 1 and January 1. States which provide kindergarten
programs utilize a similar age restriction based upon 5 years of age.
The study indicated that there "is a greater tendency for states to
grant exceptions for children entering first grade than for those enter-
ing kindergarten." This type of rule recognizes the tremendous differ-
ence in maturity which is generally present among children of these
young years.
PAGENO="0119"
115
The Department of Defense admits children who attain the age of 5
by December 31 into kindergarten and children who attain the age of
6 by December 31 into the first grade. This places the Department
among a minority of States which allow the youngest children into
kindergarten and the first grade. This Is unfair to the teacher, to
the educational system, and, most important of all, to the children
in the classroom. A nursery program may be necessary and desirable.
If so, then funds should be made available for such a program and It
should run separately from the kindergarten classes. If the funds
are not available, then the kindergarten program and the first grade
classes should not be made to suffer the intrusion of younger, less
mature children. When this is allowed to occur, the entire educational
program suffers. This negative effect in the kindergarten and first
grade reverberates throughout the system. Imperical data have proven
the worth of a kindergarten program, yet these young people are being
robbed in order to provide a "pre-school" or nursery program for their
Juniors in age and maturity.
Therefore, the Association urges that the above provision be instituted
In ord.er to put the DODDS system more in line with the majority of
State laws and regulations.
Provision should be made in this legislation
to allow overtime pay for teachers who are
~e~quired to work on weekends and holidy~
Currently there is a group of approximately 60 P.L. 86-91 educators
PAGENO="0120"
116
in Europe assigned to positions In a dormitory. These teachers work
varying schedules depending on whether they are assigned to a 5, 6,
or 7 day dorm operation and depending on the number of students,
counselors, paraprofessionals, etc., located at the dormitory. How-
ever, their positions require unique working conditions such as a tour
of duty during what for other teachers would be off-duty hours; work-
ing on weekends and holidays; and either working or being on call
during the night when students may need assistance (e.g., due to ill-
ness). At present, DODDS does notrecognize dormitory personnel for
pay purposes to include premium pay, differential pay and/or overtime
pay. Tn other words, teachers in Bahrain receive premium pay because
they work on Sunday due to the Moslem calendar. Dormitory personnel
in Bahrain receive no additional pay for also working on Sunday. Like-
wise, dormitory personnel frequently work on federal holidays without
additional compensation. DODDS has taken the position that ~ 40
hours in a work week or ~ 80 hours In a pay period may be assigned
without regard to weekends or holidays.
Additional time beyond assigned tour of duty goes unremunerated. These
hours are usually during the sleeping time when many things can happen
to youngsters (for ten dormitories in 1976-77 the median number of
students was 81). There may also be necessary follow-up the next
morning with parents, school, medical, or law enforcement officials.
This is all time beyond the 40 hour tour of duty for which the counsellor
may not receive additional compensation.
PAGENO="0121"
117
Provision should be made `In `thl's'l'eplsl'ation
to amend Public Law `94-142', Education of Handi
capped Children, so' tha't the Department of
Defense Dependents' `School's shall be considered
to be a State, and the Office of Dependents
Schools be considered a State education agency
thereof.
The National Education Association is on record as regarding P.L.
94-142 as a good law, if it Is properly implemented. As It presently
stands, P.L. 94-142 does not officially apply to overseas schools.
However, the Office of Dependents Schools has decided to implement
the spirit and intent of P.L. 94-142. Thus far, the implementation
has amounted to placing additional burdens on the classroom teacher
without providing additional support and assistance either in the
form of teacher training, teacher aides, or reduced pupil-teacher
ratios. Without proper and adequate funding, implementation of the
provisions of P.L. 94-142 will severely damage the quality of the
overseas educational program.
Provision should be made in this legislation
to amend 20 USC 904(a) in order to remove the
limit of 75 days accumulation of teacher leave
and to increase the number of cumulative days
of leave per year from 10 to 13.
There Is no distinction in this' system between annual and sick leave.
Presently overseas teachers receive 10 days of teacher leave" per
year. They may not accumulate more than 75 days of teacher leave.
PAGENO="0122"
118
Management has discretionary control over how much of this `teacher
leave" may be used for purposes other than sick leave. Therefore,
It is not at all unusual for teachers who have been in the system
for ten or more years to lose leave days unless they use them for
illness. We have earlier provided the Subcommittee with a statement
from a Civilian Personnel Office advising the teacher that he must
use 12 days of leave or lose it. We should note that even the CPO
erroneously lists this leave as "annual leave" rather than "sick
leave".. This ceiling on leave accumulation encourages teachers to
call in sick rather than lose the days and Personnel Officers active-
ly encouragethis abuse of sick leave. No professional enjoys being
placed in such a predicament. Even worse, there have been instances
of teachers with 15 or 20 years service who have become ill for a pro-
longed period. After 75 days they must be carried in a leave without
pay status. But for this unusual ceiling on sick leave, they would
have had sufficient sick leave to carry them through. This policy
must obviously be revised.
In closing let me note that the National Education Association has
gone on record favoring the centralization of all federal teaching
programs under one agency within the proposed Department of Education.
The Overseas Education Association is still examining this particular
proposal and its potential impact on DODDS and other federal teachers.
H.R. 9892 can be an important step for Department of Defense teachers.
After a thorough examination, if the OEA decides to support the move
to total consolidation of all federal teachers under the Department
then this legislation can be seen as an important first step in that
consolidation process.
PAGENO="0123"
STATUS CF THE AMERICAN PUBLIC SCHOOL TEACHER 1975-76 09/09/76
TABLE 27.
U. HOW MANY DAYS ARE SCHEDULED FOR YOUR REGULAR SCHOOL YEAA iN 1975-76?
(EXCLUDE SUMMER SCHOOL.)
TEACHING DAYS
HZCHCSTDEGREE GEUGRAPHI~AL REGION
TOTAL BACHELCA MASTEA ~R N~iAT.+ SOUTH- SIZE OF SCHOOL SYSTEM
SAMPLE )R LESS HIGHER EAST EAST MIDDLE WEST LARGE MEDIUM SMALL
1 2 3. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
LESSTHAM176OAYS 118 72 46 4 59 24 . 31 17 67 34
9.2 9.1 9.4 1.4 .~ 20.5 6.4 9.4 5.6 10.8 9.5
176-177 129 82 4? 5 23 46 55 26 62 41
10.1 .10.3 9.4 1.7 8.0 12.3 16.7 8.6 10.0 11.4
178-179 53 35 18 3 5' 20 25 17 21 15 ~-`
4.1 4~.4 3.7 1.0 1.7 5.3 7.6 * 5.6 3.4 4.2 ~Q
180 181 72) 469 253 165 176 214 165 149 352 199
56.2 59.1 51.2 56.7 61.1 57.2 * 50.2 . 55~8 56.8 55.4
182-183 71 42 29 42 5 15 9 15' 37 19
5.5 5.3 5.9 14.4 . 1.7 4.0 . 2.? 5.0 6.0 5.3
184 DAYS CRMORE 191 93 9~3 72 20 .55 . 44 * 5) 81 51
14.9 11.7 20.1 24.7 6.9 14.7 13.4 19. 13.1 14.2
TOTAL 1,282 793 438 291 288 374 3~9 3)3 623 359
103.) 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 100.0 100.1 100.1 100.0
140 180 131 1~2 179 180 1u0 111 163 183
MEOIAN 133 1d3 1~) IUO 180 180 180 180 180 180
L3W 158 158 160 loG 165 158 160 160 165 158
HIGH 230 205 230 210 230 209 205 209 230 235
510.0EV 4.4 3.8 5.2 3.8 4.9 4.2 4.5 4.9 4.4 . 3.9
HORESP(O) 92 .65 27 13 18 18 33 29 44 19
PAGENO="0124"
STATUS OF THE A!4ERICAN PUBLIC SCI4OCL TEACHER 1975-76 09/09176
TABLE 28.
. 17. HOW MA?~Y DAYS ARE SCHEDULED FOR YOUR REGULAR SCHOOL YEAR IN 1975-76?
(EXCLUDE SUMMER SCHOOL.)
OTHER DAYS OF COHTRACT (E.G.. INSERVICE. ORIENT.~T1ON
HIGHEST DEGREE GE U 6 R A P H I CA L R 86 I ON
TOTAL BACHELCR MASTER UR NURIH- SOUTH- SIZE OF SCHOOL SYSTEM
SAMPLE ~R LESS HiGHER EAST EAST MIDDLE WEST LARGE MEDIUM SMALL
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
239
149
112
60
. 105
112
112
188
89
NO'~E
28.3
27.9
28.9
36.8
19.6.
26.1
30.9
45
33.7
33
28.3
66
23.5
53
1-2
152
.11.1
93
10.8
59
. 11.5
59
19.4
9
2.9
39
9.7
107
12.4
68
18.8
9.9
47.
9.9
121
14.0
85
3-4
253
18.4
152
17.7
101
19.6
63
20.7
15
4,9
26.6
14.2
18.2
22.5
~2
42
75
38
31
105
71
5-6
207
15.1
122
14.2
85
16.5
.
17.1
13.7
18.7
10.5
9.3 *
15.8
18.8
.
25
17
22
27
18
7-8
67
4.9
49
5.7
18
3.5
12
3.9
4.2
* 6.2
4.7 *
6.6
52
4.1
96
4.8
41
9-10
189
13.3
123
14.3
66
.12.8
4
1.3
82
26.8
34
8.5
b9
19.1
13'
15.7
35
14.5
61
10.8
21
11 DAYS OR Mc'RE
117'
a.~
80
9.3
37
7.2
2
.1
35
27.8
17
4.2
3.6
10.5
9.2
5.6
B~8
515
30*
306
402
362
332
66~
378
TOTAL
1,374
103.1
99.9
100.0
99.9
99.9
100.0
100.0
99.9
100.0
100.0
MEA'4
5
4
4
` 4
3
2
2
9
10
4
4
4
3
5
3
4
4
?%EDIAH
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
LOW
36
36
30
20
30
29
36
25
30
36
NIGH
STD.DEV
-
5.2
5.4
4.9
----
2.7
-
6.9
--
3.1
4.1
5.4
~-----
5.5
4.6
-
PAGENO="0125"
121
A STUDY OF STATE LEGAL STANDARDS
FOR THE PROVISION OF PUBLIC EDUCATION
Prepared for
THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION
By
THE LAWYERS' COMM1~I'TEE FOR
CWIL RIGHTS UNDER LAW
October 1974 ..
New ed. will be out in another 6
months. If there is any questions
please call. Daniel Schember or
James Klimaski. Tele. 628-.6700
~/l6/77 CT
[NATiONAL EDUCATtOtI AS~L1
LIBRAP~Y
L_MAR24I975_~~~J
PAGENO="0126"
122
ADMISSION REQUIREMENTS
In most states admission requirements are dealt with by statute rather than by regulation.
Most states require that a child reach the age of five by a certain date before he may attend
kindergarten classes. Both Kansas and Minnesota require that a child have his fifth birthday by
September 1; in several states he may be admitted if he will be five by January 1. Connecticut and
Michigan permit their local boards discretion in granting exceptions to this minimum age requirement.
California and Alabansa allow exceptions based on criteria formulated by the state education agency.
Although some states do not provide for kindergarten programs, all provide that a child
must reach a minimum age of 6 years before entering first grade. The range is aimillar to the
different dates for kindergarten: From September 1, at the earliest, to January 1. Some states
allow pupils previously enrolled in another state to transfer regardless of age. Delaware admits
students less than 6 years old who indicate their maturity upon examination. As with the kindergarten
programs, several states allow their local boards to grant exceptions to the minimum age requirements:
otherspernhit their state education agency to promulgate guidelines for granting exceptions. Discretion
to admit younger pupils is recognized in Missouri; however only those who have reached the eligible
age are counted for state aid purposes. What these variouS alternatives Illustrate is a greater
tendenóy for states to grant exceptions for children entering first grade than for those entering
kindergarten.
A further prerequisite to admission in some states is that the child undergo a medical
c,~mlnatlon or immunization against contagious diseases. New York and Alaska let their local boards
determine whether to institute this requirement.
The difference between an admission and an attendance requirement should be noted. An
attendance statute usually places the responsibility on the parent or guardian; that is, tile parent
must cause his child to attend school if he is between? and 16. By contrast, the responsibility
for carrying out the admission stabile is with the state, or in sonic cases, delegated to the local
board. Thus, the schools must, with certain well-specified exceptions, admit 5 year old students to
kindergarten and 6 year olds to first grade. Where the age for compulsory attendance is greater
than for admission, a Ixtrent could not send his child to school and suffer no legal consequences.
But the common admission stalute vests no such discretion to the state agency, local board or school;
a child who reaches the minimum age must be admitted if his parent decides to send him.
PAGENO="0127"
123
Descriptions of Head rigs for Charts on Admission
Statute or Regulation - All admission requirements specified on this chart are covered by statutes (S)
iiidlbr regulations (R).
Kindergarten -
"Ti) Ago - A child must reach a certain minimum age before he can enroll in a first grade class.
2) ~What Date - A child must meet the minimum age requirement by a certain date within the
~he school year.
3) Exceptions - The district board may make exceptions to the age requirements based on state
or local criteria specified in a footnote.
First Grade -
"l) Age - A child must reach a certain minimum age before he can enroll in a kindergarten class.
2) Tii~Vhat Date - A child must meet the minimum age requirements by a certain date within the
ich~ol year.
3) Exceptions - The district board may make exceptions to the age requirement based on state or
local criteria as specified in a footnote.
Medical Examination and/or Immunization - The, state either requires (M) or grants the district'board
the discretion to require (D) that a child be examined and/or Immunized before he can gnroll in school,
Admissions Re~uiroments - footnotes
a) exceptions allowed for transfers from another state and mid-year entrance.
b) Alaska - transfer from other state allowed upon local board approval.
c) local board may establish an early admissions policy.
d) Delaware - upon examination which indicates maturity.
e) exceptions based on criteria established by the state department of education.
~ Illinois - subject to rules and regulations of the state department of public instruction.
g) date determined by local school board.
h) exception allowed for any pupil who has completed kindergarten.
i) Louisiana - entrance at mid-year allowed if age requirement net.
j) Missouri - local board discretion; however, only pupils who have reached eligible age are counted
for state aid.
k) New Mexico - local board may admit pupil whose birthday falls between September 1 and
January 1.
1) Ohio - statute says only that schools are free to all residents 5 ~to 21.
in) Oregon - statute says only that schools are open to all residents 6 to 21.
in) Washington - at beginning of school year.
PAGENO="0128"
124
ADMISS1ONREOUIREMENTS
- - £$NDUGMUN - FIRSIGRADE - MRD$CRt
RXAMINAIION
STARES STATUTR REGREAURN
RES SyMaRRUR EACSRRSSS Ags RyWbitRaRs Exceptions RMMUNIZASION
PAGENO="0129"
GA FOAM 4536 (TEST) 1 AUG 76,
A
PRIOR YR SAL CU HOURS
CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES EARNINGS AND LEAVE STATEMENT
ACRD YTD
ACRDYTD
80
HOURS
JSED THIS PP
USED THIS PP
CD
HOURS
USED YTD
USED YTD
CD
HOURS
CURR. SAL
``~`~
CURR. SAL
612
~r. HRS. SAL
~
BOND SAL
E
A
A
N
N
6
S
HEM.TH ItISURANCE
14.801 259.91
A
V
E ________ ________ ______
-I 1WOP-CURR. AWO~YTD
~~i2~1___
LV. L - SERVICE COMP. DAVE
00 600 08/09/62 `~
PAY PLAN GRADE STEP IHRLY RATE ANNUAL RATE
JO 13 01 11)6474 13855
SSN PCN STATUS
163-~2&-3966 23 1.
0
E
D
U
C
T
0
N
S
HOURS
BASE
80.4
OVERTIME
NIGHT DIFF.
HAZ/ED
CD HRS.
I
CD HRS.
CD HRS.
CD HRS.
CD HRS.
AMOUNT
647.4
173. 0
SAY. ALLOT. 1
SAY. ALLOT. 2
FEDERAL TAX
102.921 1846.11
REG. LIFE INS.
OPT LIFE INS.
YEAR TO DATE
STATE TAX
CURRENT
RETIRE
45.321 795.06
CITY/LOCAL TAX
FICA
CHARITY
66
OTHER
UNION DUES'
CD
-
OTHER
1
TAXABLE EARNINGS
647.401 11358.0~
*M
S
C
E
L
L
A
N
E
0
U
S
A
E
M
A
A
L. .~.- -
FLSA CODE
E
cUM. RET. *
5530. 80'
U.S. TAX
ALEX
~
~.STATEThX!
E)L 1ADDf1
CURRENT CITY NAME
ORGAN/ACTIVITY I
000000000
CD
OTHER
:~
~73.041~ 3749.71
CD
OTHER
I
NET PAY PAY PEHIOU
ENDING DATE
657.401 10/15/71
JOHN C ROUSSOS
~ DEPENDENT SCHOOLS
~ BOX 147
~ APO 09021
0151. COOt
-
PAGENO="0130"
1243
Mr. Foim. If we can start down at the end. First identify your-
selves for the court reporter in order from the chairman's left to the
right. You may proceed to add to or amplify the material that has
been put in the record and then, after all of the members of the panel
have had an opportunity to comment, we will have questions.
Before you start I would like to recognize Mr. Corrada, who, I
believe, wants to make a comment.
Mr. Coiut~nA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to welcome
Ms. Betty Gross, legislative chairperson of the Antilles Consolidated
Education Association, and Mr. Linn Wallace, past president of the
association, who testified last year on the critical situation in Puerto
Rico section 6 schools.
I wish to assure you that I will do everything within my power
as a member of this committee to redress the situation they have had
to endure for many years. I think it is time we look at the legislative
and administrative modifications to insure that section 6 doesn't con-
tinue to be everybody's stepchild and that we address ourselves to
this problem in a manner that is more responsive to the needs of
these children and parents. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Foiw. Thank you, Mr. Corrada.
You may proceed.
Mr. Moom~i. My name is Carl Moore; I am executive director and
general counsel for the Overseas Education Association. We are a
State affiliate of the National Education Association.
STATEMENT OP G. L. STILLMAN, PRESIDENT, EUROPEAN CONGRESS
OP AMERICAN PARENTS, TEACHERS, AND STUDENTS ASSOCIA-
TION; BETTY GROSS, LEGISLATIVE CHAIRPERSON, ANTILLES
CONSOLIDATED EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, ACCOMPANIED BY
LINN WALLACE, PAST PRESIDENT; ERNEST LEHMANN, PRESI-
DENT, OVERSEAS FEDERATION OP TEACHERS; AND CARL MOORE,
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, OVERSEAS EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, A
PANEL
Mr. STILLMAN. I am Geoffrey Stillman, president of the European
Congress of American Parents, Teachers and Students Association.
Mr. LEHMANN. I am Ernest Lehinann, president of American
Overseas Federation of Teachers, affiliated with AFT and AFL-CIO.
Ms. GROSS. I am Betty Gross, legislative chairperson of the An-
tilles Consolidated Education Association, an affiliate of National
Education Association.
Mr. WALLACE. Linn Wallace, past president of the Antilles Con-
solidated Education Association, OEA, NEA.
Mr. Foiw. You may proceed.
Mr. Mooiu~. Let me first of all comment that we are in the process
of gathering opinions and information from teachers who are in the
other section 6 schools which we hope to be providing to this com-
mittee in the coming few weeks.
We are pleased that the committee saw fit to invite representatives
from the Antilles to testify, primarily because, as we see it, there are
three systems that are being put together under this legislation, not
two.
PAGENO="0131"
127
Those three systems are the overseas system, the section 6 systems
in the United States and the section 6 systems in Antilles, because
they are sufficiently different to be treated as different systems under
this legislation.
I would also note that the representatives here are members of the
local association of the OEA and NEA. Some of our concerns I
will cite very briefly. *
We object to the legislative framework that would create the local
advisory committees. Very briefly, our objection is that, for the over-
seas system at least, these advisory committees already exist and
they are accomplishing, we believe, what this committee intends that
they accomplish. Our concern is that, by putting them into the leg-
islation and particularly the language that has been used in this
legislation, a different animal from what this committee wants to
create may be created, and an animal which none of us are interested
in creating may be created.
So we think that the better course is to leave any reference out at
all and allow Dr. Cardinale's efforts, which have already begun to
encourage local advisory committees, to continue because we think
his office is moving in the right direction there.
We also urge that the reference to a recertification program be
omitted from the legislation. Our concern here is that we are already
in the process of negotiating with Dr. Cardinale's office a recertifi-
cation program. Both parties-the Overseas Education Association
and Dr. Cardinale's office-agree that some form of recertification
program is necessary for the system. We feel that putting any ref-
érence into this legislation will not advance the goal of all of the
parties and may, in fact, cloud the negotiations that are currently
going on.
Again, we feel that the purpose that the committee is interested in
is certainly worthwhile and we are in favor of it; we simply don't
think that it is necessary to legislate it at this time.
With regard to the council that is going to be created under this
legislation, we feel only that there needs to be some clarification as
to the membership on that council. It is our understanding that the
professional employee representatives are to be from an organiza-
tion such as the Overseas Education Association but we are not sure
that it is completely clear from the legislation. If this is the intent,
it needs to be clarified.
Finally, we think there is another very important piece of legis-
lation which should be incorporated into this law, and that is Public
Law 94-14~, Education of Handicapped Children. Dr. Cardinale's
office has already made the Commitment to put into effect the spirit
~tnd intent of that law.
Our concern is what we already see happening in the field, and
that is that there is no money, no facilities being provided to assist
teachers in putting this law into effect. As a result, the teachers are
Carrying a burden at the moment but they are not receiving any as-
sistance.
* So, as the school lunch program is incorporated into this pro-
gram, and the other pieces of legislation, we think the Department
of Defense Dependent Schools System should be made a State edu-
Cation system under interpretation of Public Law 94-142. I thank
you for your time and interest.
PAGENO="0132"
128
Mr. Foiw. Mr. Stiliman.
Mr. STILLMAN. Sir, rather than going through my complete state-
ment, I thought maybe I would paraphrase certain parts to show our
key points of interest.
I think the thing that we like most about the bill is the fact that
it does establish a permanent system where we have lived with a
temporary system for some 32 years. And the establishment of this
system does provide us with certain of the things that we had not
had in the past, and I want to address one specifically, the hot lunch
program.
European PTSA has been concerned for many years with the hot
lunch program. Only about 46 percent of our schools have a lunch
program of any type, and 43 percent of the 46 percent have what we
call a junk food program.
We need the legislation not only to provide us a means to get into
the system for the school lunch programs but we need the capability
or the requirement placed upon the system to develop these pro-
grams for all of our schools.
We do believe that in that part of the bill which addresses the con-
struction, operation, and maintenance of schools-specifically section
6 of the bill-that acknowledging the fact that we have three mili-
tary departments, each of which has control over some of our facili-
ties in the European theater, that the school system itself-in other
words, the Director of the system through his channels-should es-
tablish the priority for any construction that is made.
By bringing them out through military channels, we perhaps could
find some competition among the services, and we do think that the
school system is best qualified to determine the priorities for con-
struction of schools.
Section 4 of the bill addresses the tuition-paying students. Under
the current system, our schools receive the moneys for the tuition-
paying students, but those moneys are built in, in theory, to the ini-
tial budget request; so, in effect-and I will just use some figures-
if $200 million were approved, it smeans we get, in fact, part of that
$200 million, the bill suggests to us that tuition moneys should be
made available to offset and defray the expenses of those tuition-
paying students. We agree very much with this procedure because
there are staffing requirements for these students, there are special
education requirements for these students, so those funds that are
received from tuition-paying students should, in fact, be supple-
menting the total funds being received by the schools and not be
made part of it.
Several times during our annual conventions, we have passed reso-
lutions addressing the problem of equal benefits-let me use that
term-for locally hired teachers. I studied this bill very closely to
see if it specifically addressed this problem and, however, because it
made reference to the numbers of U.S. codes that I did not have
available, I was not really able to determine if this subject was ad-
dressed.
But I would like to state that we are very concerned that after
some period of testing of locally hired teachers, and determining
that they have qualities or qualifications that we expect of the rest
of our teachers, that they should be provided those benefits that
stateside hired teachers arc provided.
PAGENO="0133"
129
As I say, I am not able to determine whether that is really part of
this bill or not; but if it is not, we would certainly like to see that
made part of this bill.
On the school advisory committees, I would like to make just a
couple of quick comments. We would like to see the word "curricu-
lum" entered into that part of the wording for the local school ad-
visory committee for the following reasons:
In my many discussions with parents, probably the one thing that
they feel that they have the least amount of influence on is a devel-
opment of curriculum at the local level. Now curriculum is basically
outlined by the centralized structure within which our schools op-
erate. But there are many local curriculum decisions made. There are
many policy decisions made. They are specifically local in nature.
And we would like to see that advisory committee have some advis-
ory capacity over those areas.
I am concerned that there is no verbiage in the local advisory com-
mittees permitting the community commander to play an active role
within the committees. Within Europe we rely a great deal upon the
community commander to support our schools. He is concerned with
the welfare and morale of his soldiers, and the schools are a very,
very large part of the basic morale of the married soldiers in Europe.
We feel he is a key figure, and just as we made the director of the
system in the Department of Defense council for these schools, the
ôhairman, of the higher council, we would like to see the local com-
munity commander be the convening authority of this council. We
don't want him to have the final say but we do want him to be the
Ôonvening authority.
We also believe that the councils that are established should par-
állel the system of authority of the various hierarchies of the school
system. Specifically we currently have districts, we currently have a
region, the European region. We have a school council or advisory
committee at each of these levels.
Many of the local problems that really aren't solvable locally can
be solved at the next-highest level without coming clear up to the
top of the system, and I don't believe that the verbiage of the bill
prohibits application of such advisory council at perhaps district or
regional level. We think that they should be established and main-
tained.
One last major item that I am concerned with for our own or-
ganization: The European PTSA and the other parent groups that
have affiliated with our schools in Europe provided during the 1975-.
76 school year more than $800,000 in actual funds for special pro-
grams for our schools. If we tried to equate the number of volunteer
hours spent in our schools to basic wage at that time, more than $2112
million additional of voluntary service were provided.
While I don't take the wording of this bill to exclude representa-
tion by parent-teacher organizations on the various levels of the ad-
visory committees, I think, based upon the long service that we have
provided to our school system in Europe that we should not be
excluded.
If we can use such terminology to direct certain representatives to
be on the councils, I think we should include established parent-
PAGENO="0134"
130
teacher organizations on the councils, both at the local level and at
the highest level. Thank you.
Mr. FORD. Thank you very much, Mr. Lehmann.
Mr. LEHMAN. Thank you very much for the invitation, Mr. Chair-
man. Let me say that the Overseas Federation of Teachers agrees
with the concept that is embodied in the bill. And Mr. Erlenborn is
to be commended for his interest in this matter. The number of con-
cerns that we have about the bill is that we believe it requires more
direction.
Before we go into concerns, I would like to say that a bill of this
nature would give the school system jj~restige that it deserves, also
permanence, and also it would establish a direct responsibility to
Congress which now and then we are concerned about. However, I
think it needs more direction, and it needs more specific goals, and
we have introduced those in our testimony.
Section 4 should be addressed very carefully. That is space avail-
able students. Right now the Department of Defense is supplanting
funds with the funds that they gather by the space available stu-
dents. Now, Dr. Cardinale testified that 4,000 students are enrolled,
which comes out he claimed to be about $14 million. Those 4,000 stu-
dents are not staffed. We have no staff for these students; we have
no facilities for these students; we have no texts for these students,
no materials, et cetera. That means that in some schools the average
teacher has five more students in the classroom, without any addi-
tional assistance. It also means that these people who are paying for
an education really aren't getting it. The teachers are gettino' short-
changed, the students who are paying for it are oetting shortchanged,
and the students that the schools are designed For are getting short-
changed.
This should be definitely corrected. We talked about establishing
a no-fee basis for host nation students. Now, we do encourage host
nation students to attend. I was surprised at Dr. Cardinale's testimony,
because two of the priorities of the DOD are directed toward that, one
is multiethnic studies and the other is an intercultural organization.
Yet, he seemed to be reluctant to take the next step forward and
say let these students come in on an active basis, in a small percent,
not to overwhelm the schools. Now, this would have a profound affect,
I think, on many, many things.
First of all, it could impact on our relations with the host nation
governments. If you look back, we have had schools in these coun-
tries for 30 years. Now, if some of the leaders of these countries at-
tended our schools, which could well have happened, they would
have a much better understanding of democracy, much better under-
standing of our Government, much better understanding of our cul-
ture and our ideas.
Right now we are ghettoizing these schools because of this idea.
I can call three countries to mind where I have either worked or I
have traveled extensively-Libya, Greece, and Spain. Current lead-
ers of these countries could very well have been students in the
schools that we maintained there, if we had authorized that, or if we
had encouraged it.
Our premise is that education is a major underpinning of democ-
racy. And we have been remiss in authorizing these people to witness
PAGENO="0135"
131
education in the classrooms. I am certainly proud of the schools that
we have, and I think we should be proud enough to show them off
this way.
Another that I think the committee should address is the overseas
hires. Right now we have had a discriminatory policy thatwith respect
to the benefits these people do not receive, and I know it is being ad-
dressed in another committee, but I think that that should be focused
in here also. The length of the school year is another area. Currently,
our school year is longer than almost every school in the United
States, I think.
We view this as a punitive act by the directors of the school system
for winning the backpay suit, and we are in the process of taking
action to correct this. I think it is something you should look into
also.
Congressman Simon spoke of Panama. Their school year is 180
days. Ours was extended to 180 days about 3 years ago. Class size is
too high in many schools. We have that from the Director of the
European region, in minutes of Council meetings that are held in
Europe.
There are a number of-there are too many classrooms with over
30 students in a class. We spent a lot of time on handicapped in Dr.
Cardinale's testimony. The mainstream concept is very, very current
overseas, but I can say personally that there has been little or no
training for teachers, active training for teachers, there. There have
been few supplies, and mainstreaming could best be described by a
single word, "dumping."
Teachers are threatened by a tremendous amount of anxiety which
are recorded in the minutes of our meetings overseas. Something
really has to be done about that. We have in a great respect a very
fine school system. I would say we have it in spite of what our man-
agers are doing to us.
I think this should be encouraged. I think if we encourage through
this bill a superior school system, encourage volunteer services, it
can serve as a model for the host nation, it can enhance' our image
abroad. It never would hurt us to have more public relations, good
public relations.
Also, including the host nations will encourage students to under-
stand on a person-to-person basis, across national lines. I have seen
it in a number of cases personally where a student came in and said
rather a few expletive deletives about some host nation, either about
the host nation culture, or about some of the nationalities that they
encountered.
Within about a year that changed, and by the end of the time they
realized that it was really a lot of fun being there and they learned
quite a bit.
I would like to see a lot of these things included, and I think with
these things included we would have an outstanding school system.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. FORD. Ms. Betty Gross.
Ms. GROSS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I feel compelled this morning to call to your attention as the rep-
resentative of the teachers of the Antilles Consolidated School Sys-
PAGENO="0136"
132
tern in Puerto Rico, the unique situation in which the section 6
schools there exist and the potential impact of certain aspects of
H.R. 9892 on those schools, because of that uniqueness.
We are different from all other section 6 schools in several ways.
We are the oniy section 6 school which cannot be turned over to a
local school district instructing in English. Now, there is no such
school district in Puerto Rico. The language in the local schools is
Spanish.
The other section 6 schools and all of the Department of Defense
schools exist overwhelmingly to serve dependent children of the
Armed Forces. But the section 6 school in Puerto Rico is the only
system anywhere in the world serving Federal dependent children
in which a majority of the student population are dependents of
civilian agencies.
The language of the local community in Puerto Rico and the
makeup of the student population in section 6 schools there create a
uniqueness which we request that you consider.
For many years problems have existed in our school system.
Teacher compensation is one of those problems. Section 6-A of
Public Law 81-874 charges us with providing free public education
comparable to free public education provided for the children in the
District of Columbia. But the law does not spell out clear-cut lan-
guage on salaries. Traditionally we have been paid on the Washing-
ton, D.C. teacher's salary scale, but raises for the District teachers
don't come automatically to us.
We have been forced to carry many pay raises to grievance and
arbitration. These long hours spent in negotiating salary, and ardu-
ous effort to enforce those negotiations in arbitration procedures
represent wasteful uses of both taxpayers' dollars and the energies
of teachers and administrators.
A clear-cut provision on salary in the law could abolish this waste.
Besides salary concerns, a long existing problem has been that of
student eligibility.
Who is eligible to attend Federal dependent schools in Puerto
Rico 9 Fluctuating eligibility policy has created unrest and insecurity
among the civilian Federal employees who are currently eligible to
send their children to these schools. These people know they cannot
allow their children to attend the local schools, so they become
greatly concerned that a change in eligibility policy would disallow
their dependents.
If this occurs, the Federal civilian agencies in Puerto Rico would
have great difficulty in recruiting employees to maintain their pro-
grams on the island. This lack of security in eligibility for many of
our 3,400 children has been a recurring sore spot in our schools
t.hroughout the years.
I have outlined a few of the outstanding problems we have encoun-
tered while sitting out there 1,500 miles from the mainland.
H.R. 9892 proposes to place us along with other section 6 schools
under the Department of Defense dependent system. DOD's and all
other section 6 schools, except ours, have a common eligibility to de-
termine it. They educate dependents of military duty personnel. We
would be the only Federal dependent school system with our heavy
civilian population still to remain with vague eligibility determina-
PAGENO="0137"
133
tions subject to interpretation by the Department and the Secretary
of Defense.
We urge the inclusion of an amendment to insure the eligibility
of dependent children of Federal employees subject to transfer to
and from the continent United States and overseas. This should set
the eligibility question at rest.
H.R. 9892 proposes provisions for teacher compensation. Section 6
teachers would not be covered by the DODs' teachers pay act, Public
Law 96-91, but they would be covered by the provision that the Di-
rector may vary the rates of basic compensation to reflect that of the
rates in the local area.
This seems reasonable for section 6 schools in the States. However,
with the Director given the power to vary our salary to local rates,
our salary could drop from $15,000 to $6,000, since $6,000 is the aver-
age salary paid to local school educators in Puerto Rico.
It would become impossible to recruit and keep high quality teach-
ers using this pay scale. Educational programs would suffer, and
educational comparability to Washington, D.C. would fall far short.
The Defense Dependents Overseas Teachers have their own salary
law; section 6 schools within the States are tied to the adequate fund-
ing structures which traditionally have existed throughout the
United States. Only Federal teachers in Puerto Rico would suffer
any grievous salary loss under this bill.
The needs are clear: Legislation to define student eligibility and
teacher pay. This bill should improve the Federal dependent educa-
tion system throughout the world. It could, at the same time, solve
depressing eligibility and compensation problems which have been
long-standing in the schools of Puerto Rico and protect their unique
function.
Thank you.
Mr. FORD. Do you want to make a statement?
Mr. WALLACE. No; Mr. Chairman.
Mr. FORD. You give us a lot to think about.
Ms. Gross, I want to compliment you, first of all, for a really com-
prehensive and concise statement, one of the best I have heard here
in a long, long time. What did you mean when you said that your
transfer to DOD would cause this drastic pay decrease? Is it be-
cause the District of Columbia stayed above the hundred large school
average, or is there some other reason why you think it would be
unfair?
Ms. GROSS. The bill provides that local area can be used by the
Director to determine the salary. If Puerto Rico is our local area,
and the average salary of the local Puerto Rican educator is $6,000,
then that apparently could be used to be the basis for our salary
scale not what we commonly consider our local area to be now, which
is W~àshington, D.C.
Mr. FORD. The Defense Department's effort is covered by a very
complex salary law that would not permit that. We would not, I
think, try to accomplish it inadvertently. If it were that kind ot a
conflict here, it would have to be deleted from this bill.
My own view is that the existing salary bill is as good as we are
going to get from this Congress or any other Congress, even though
PAGENO="0138"
134
it needs tuning up from time to time. It would be better if we stayed
with it.
The only difference I could see in the pay scales that would occur
if you went under the DOD pay scale, is that instead of being linked
to the average of the 100 largest school districts, you would be linked
only to the District of Columbia. As long a~ the District of Colum-
bia leads the 100 average, it would be advantageous, but in the event
that it switched the other way, it would be to your detriment.
I do not know what the comparison would be with the District of
Columbia. Would you have any idea?
Mr. LEHMANN. Yes; I can tell you.
With the same step, it is about $2,000 different, $2,000 more.
Mr. Foiu~. The District of Columbia is?
Mr. LEHMANN. Over half the school districts have 100,000 or more
population.
Ms. GRoss. Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Foiw. Yes?
Ms. GRoss. If I could comment on that. At the same time the
DOD's teachers receive a housing allowance, which is tax free, which
we do not receive, they receive medical benefits, post exchange and
commissary privileges which we do not receive, that while their base
salary might be lower than our salary, the benefits which they re-
ceive are also added to that salary and would probably make them
comparable to the Washington, D.C. teacher's salary scale.
Mr. FORD. I see. Well, I think you are very ably pointing out a
deficiency in lumping this particular section 6 package in with the
rest of the section 6 schools.
Counsel advises me that Mr. Erlenborn has in mind the fact that
you won't be paying housing in the rest of the section 6 schools for
fairly obvious reasons, and you won't necessarily link them to the
other benefits that DOD teachers have elsewhere.
But that same reasoning won't apply to Puerto Rico. If you trans-
planted the situation to the District of Columbia, where you have
the Federal Government maintaining a parallel school system be-
cause of cultural differences between the dependents of Federal em-
ployees who come here and the majority of the students in the Dis-
trict system, there would be a serious problem. Everybody in the
country would rise up and say, "What are you doing, you are revers-
ing history beyond the Civil War. Yet we sit in Puerto Rico and we
continuously ~Lo this.
I remember when I helped participate in a record passage of a bill
that built the high school that is at Ramey Air Force Base. There
was great anxiety over the issue of dependents on that ba~se going to
school with Spanish-speaking students.
When the Department of Defense or a Federal Government agency
sends a family somewhere, I think there is a legitimate right to ex-
pect to have a parallel system there for them, because they are in no
sense residents of that part of the country any more than they are
when they go to a foreign country.
But if, as you are describing, the practice has now grown so that
English-speaking people who are not connected with the Govern-
ment are using the system, we are in effect subsidizing a separate
system, aren't we?
PAGENO="0139"
135
What percentage of students, would you say, are not Federal Gov-
ernment employee dependents?
Ms. GROSS. As far as I know, we have few who are not Federal.
Mr. Foiw. They are not?
Ms. GROSS. ~ es; most of our children are a combination of mili-
tary-
Mr. Foiw. Oh, Defense Department, but they are Federal Govern-
ment?
Ms. GROSS. Yes; they are children of Federal dependents, they are
Federal dependents who are sponsored by civilian agencies, Federal
civilian agencies, such as Federal Aviation Administration, U.S.
Customs, et cetera.
- Mr. Foiw. Does the school system also accept the children of Eng-
lish-speaking parents who are there working for an oil company or
automobile company or something else?
Ms. GROSS. I do not believe that is the policy. Mr. Wallace would
like to speak.
Mr. WALLACE. Mr. Chairman, in the school you spoke of earlier,
Ramey, where the Air Force discontinued its services, they take in
105, I believe, tuition-paying students. That is 105 students of 3,200
students.
The reason, the justification for that, was to create a semIefficient
peration. In our smallest system the costs zoomed in one closing base
to almost $8,000 a student. By taking in 105 tuition-paying students
at Ramey, it dropped the overall cost to about $3,000, which is just
a few hundred over the systemwide costs. The other schools have no
significant numbers of non-Federal dependent children. There are
three tuition-paying students in the rest of the entire school system
besides Ramey.
Mr. Foiw. I might mention to you that point raised by both Mr.
Moore and Mr. Lehmann, with respect to the local hires is coming
toward some solution in the Post Office and Civil Service Committee
on which I also serve.
I would like to believe that our efforts over a period of years have
had some effect in trying to deter the local hire practice. I know, Mr.
Stiliman, that in your statement you used the expression "tourist
teacher." Now, we did that once a number of years ago in a report,
and it caused quite a furor.
You were using it in a kind sense, because you were making a plea
in effect for the legislation that they are now asking us for. I might
observe that you are likely to come in contact with some really fine
people who were "tourist teachers," who have now shown that they
have the qualifications and so on.
~~We discovered that the administration of the DOD system had
permitted a combination patronage system to develop. It was pos-
~ible to bypass the system and get to the more desirable places and
become plugged into the system. There are three tuition-paying stu-
dents in the rest of the entire school system besides Ramey. The re-
sult being that transfer opportunities for people who patriotically
served in Iceland, waiting for that transfer to the more desirable
place, would sit there indefinitely.
* So this committee for more than a dozen years has been pressur-
ing the administration of the system to do away with that.
PAGENO="0140"
1g~
Back in the sixties, as a matter of fact, it was frequently alleged
that one of the original problems that the National Education As-
sociation and American Federation of Teachers was having with
teachers was the fact that this available percentage of patronizing
was always there for use by a local administrator. It was thought,
at least by some people who were officers of those two organizations,
that it was sometimes used to reward and punish in a way that got
in the way of meaningful collective bargaining.
And that brings me to another question.
Ms. Gross, do you have a collective-bargaining agreement with the
Navy?
Ms. GRoss. Yes, we do.
Mr. Foiw. Now, what kind of a set of rules is there by which you
operate? Do you come under the executive order?
Ms. GRoss. Yes, we do, 11-491.
Mr. Foiu~. Is your collective bargaining agreement with the section
6 system comparable to the Overseas Education Association's agree-
ment?
Ms. GROSS. I really cannot comment.
Mr. Fom~. I don't mean comparable in dollars and specifications,
but is it comparable in its dimensions? Does it cover the same sub-
jects, for example?
Ms. GROSS. I believe we have a similar accommodation.
Mr. Foiw. So you negotiate for everything that they negotiate for,
or approximately the same?
Ms. GROSS. Approximately the same thing, yes.
Mr. Foiw. I am kind of interested, who do you negotiate with in
the Navy and at what level? How is this done?
Ms. GRoss. We negotiate with representatives of the Navy. The
contract, the negotiated agreement, must be signed after it's been
reviewed in the Florida Legal Department of the Navy to make sure
that it meets the qualifications.
Mr. Foiw. Does the Navy have a school officer there, or a person
that-
Ms. GRoss. We have, the school board is the admiral of the Navy
installation. It is a one-man school board. We have an advisory
council made up of the military and a few civilians.
Mr. Fonr. Well, what is the capacity of this one-man school board,
when he is not being a school board?
Ms. GRoss. He is responsible for-
Mr. FORD. What is his rank?
Ms.. GRoss. He is a rear admiral.
Mr. FORD. He is a rear admiral?
Ms. Gnoss. Yes; he is responsible for all of the Caribbean.
Mr. Foiu. And he serves as a chairman of the board?
Ms. GRoss. He is the school board. We have a one-man school
board.
Mr. FORD. Well, that is an improvement, because what we found
usually to be the pattern with the Navy around the world is that
they take the newest lieutenant J.G. who arrives aboard, and give
him five jobs starting with supply officer and entertainment officer
and you name it, and then they say, "In your spare time you are also
going to be the school's officer."
PAGENO="0141"
137
That is one of the explanations we found for the variation in the
way the Navy, the Army, and the Air Force operated their schools.
You would never bump into anybody much below a colonel with that
kind of a job with the other officers. He was some place with access
to the brass.
Now, this guy is being harassed by everybody on the base and in
his spare time he tries to find out where the school is. Does the rear
admiral have time to spend dealing with you fully on school prob-
lems, or does his advisory committee sort of really run things, put
it together ançi run it by him?
Ms. GROSS. They only make recommendations to the admiral. He
is a very busy man.
Mr. FORD. How is the advisory committee made up and selected?
Ms. GROSS. They are apparently appointed and the representation
is about 9 or 10 military to 3 Federal civilian agency representatives.
Mr. FORD. They are appointed by the Chairman of the Board to
advise him?
Ms. GROSS. Yes.
Mr. Foiw. Does it work?
Ms. GROSS. Not extremely well.
Mr. Foim. Do you have a PTA?
Ms. GROSS. We have recently organized Parent's Organization for
Quality Education. I believe they submitted testimony to you today.
Mr. FORD. Oh, yes, we do have that.
Ms. GROSS. They are organized only f~r Fort Buchanan, for three
of seven locations. They drew your attention to these problems in the
June hearings on impact aid. We are very pleased that they endorse
our unique situation and call attention to eligibility and salary.
Mr. FORD. I have had presented to me now by Mr. Corrada's office
a position paper of Parents Organization for Quality Education,
Antilles Consolidated School System, Fort Buchanan, Puerto Rico.
Without objections, we will insert that in full at this point in the
record. You described them as being concerned with a particular part
of the problem of running a school concentrating on facilities.
Primarily, they do not function in the broader sense, the way Mr.
Stillman's organization does in Europe.
Ms. GROSS. It is becoming a difficult question of how you function
as a primarily civilian organized Federal sponsored system, when
the military is in control of the system itself. The parents of this
organization would like to advise in curriculum and budget, and so
forth.
They have a great deal of difficulty, I believe, in having a strong
input into the system. Fort Buchanan is a 2-hour drive from those
front row military installations where an admiral is in charge and
he is a very busy man and not always on the island, so I do not
know how the communications are between the parents and the
school board.
Mr. FORD. The Congress literally had to force the Defense Depart-
ment into the present situation of hosting Nation culture and lan-
guage courses.
When we discovered in 1965 that not only were we not trying to
take advantage of an opportunity to have cultural interchanging
31-941 0 - 78 - 10
PAGENO="0142"
138
and, experiences, but as a matter of fact those opportunities were
not even offered as an option.
In 1965 we had a naval captain describe to us his complete satis-
faction with the lack of such a program at the elementary school in
Yokahama. It did not make a great impression on Mrs. Mink, who
is a first generation Japanese-American that the deficiency was more
than made up by the Japanese servants they had around the house
and that their ohildren, were in fact becoming more efficient in the
Japanese language than the captain and his wife.
Mrs. Mink was not at all satisfied that she wanted those DOD
dependents to come back here and be the resident. experts for other
children. They would be going to school with either the language or
the culture that they had encountered through the yardman and the
upstairs maid.
Now, that has been turned around for sometime. What do we do in
this situation, particularly considering the dynamics of what is hap-
pening in the rest of this country right now? Where, for example,
our largest, overwhelmingly largest, expenditures to deal with the
bilingual problems is in Spanish, what do we do to take advantage
of American kids being in Puerto Rico, so that they will be helpful
in explaining the Spanish culture and language when they come
back? Do we capitalize on that in any organized way in that school
down there?
Ms. GROSS. From third grade onward, our children are given a
class in Spanish, and depending, of course, on how long the children
remain in that system, since it is a system whereby many military
and many civilian children transfer to the continent United States
within 2 to 3 years, depending on how long they stay there they
acquire different degrees of bilingual education.
If they continue on for a few years, they can become completely
bilingual. I do not know what the system is. able to take advantage
of when they return to the States.
Mr. Foiu~. Well, almost everyone recognizes that our great diffi-
culty as a nation of many races and cultures is trying to deal with
anyone who is not English speaking and white, and for the most part
of a single religion. We do a very poor job of equipping the young
people in our school system to cope with the role of being an "Amer-
ican" in a complicated world that is getting very small.
We see the Defense Department doing things that encourages us
to believe that they finally recognize a resource potential. Anyone
living in this area has to be cognizant of this potential. My own
children went to school here. I recall once talking to my daughter's
high school class, and I asked how many of them had spent part of
their time in school outside of the United States.
More than half of the children raised their hands. It was the kind
of neighborhood we were living in. They were all for the most part
military or State Department dependents. But then when I asked
them how many thought that they had learned to speak the lan-
guage in the country where they were going to school well enough
to get ah~ng if they had to go out on the economy and do such things
as find an apartment, ask for a job, and so on, I found that there
were only three or four of them who raised their hands.
PAGENO="0143"
19
On further examination the fact was established that those who
did raise their hands were probably talking about going to school
in Germany with a native German mother who had taught them to
speak German, not our school system. That is stimulating, and it is
one of the things that re-enforces my concern about our inability
to deal with this.
Perhaps you are not the one we ought to be asking about this, but
as this whole unique system down there has been described to me,
it is leading me to the suspicion that we may not be taking advan-
tage of a really great opportunity to utilize the temporary locati9n
of American students in a part of America where English is not the
primary language.
Do any of you have anything you would like to add before we
close the hearing?
Mr. ALFoRD. No, sir.
Mr. MINTER. No, sir.
Mr. Foju. Dr. Carclinaie, do you have any rebuttal?
Dr. CARDINALE. No, sir, I would like to have-
Mr. FORD. John Burton, I might say is kind of puzzled to see
management and labor on the same side supporting his bill. He is
surprised.
Dr. CARDINALE. In response to the Chairman's question, I said
that I think it would be well if we meet, this group, because I think
they have a lot of misconceptions as to how things are operated.
I think it would be-
Mr. FORD. That would be very helpful if we can be the instrument
to bring you together to talk to each other.
I want to thank you very much for your participation in the hearing
and for the preparation you made for it, particularly for your patience
with us this morning, since we got started late and did take more time
with the early witnesses than we had expected.
T1,~ committee will stand in recess to the call of the Chair.
[Whereupon at 1:10 p.m. the meeting was adjourned.]
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
PAGENO="0144"
140
PosmoN PAPER OF PARENTS ORGANIZATION FOR QuALIn~ EDUCATION,
ANTILLES CONSOLIDATED SCHOOL SYSTEM, FORT BUCHANAN, PUERTO
Rico OO~)34
We represent the Parents Organization for Quality Hducation at
Buchanan Schools. The three Ft. Buchanan Schools along with schools
located at Roosevelt Roads Naval Station, Ft. Allen, and Ramey Field
comprise the Antilles Consolidated School System (ACSS) in Puerto F~ico,
ACSS is created and funded by FL 81~87L1. Section 6 and FL 81-815. These
funds are allocated by the Office of Education in the L~partment of
Health, Education, and 1'~slfare (HE~i), and are administered locally by
the Commander Naval Forces Caribbean, Roosevelt Roads Naval Station.
The ACSS fills a definite educational need for federal dependents
in Puerto Rico. A good school system makes it possible for us to
happily live and work in Puerto Rico. It also prepares our children
for transfer at the same grade level into another school system at the
family's next assignment. ACSS has long enjoyed the reputation of
offering a varied and challenging curriculum tempered with electives
and extracurricular activities that have provided a quality education
for our children, ACSS has been in a position to recruit and retain
highly qualified teachers, thus ensuring continued excellence of
academic programs.
As the Honorable 1~r. Erlenborn noted in his introduction of H. P.
9892,~ :we keow only too well how in the recent past both HE~1 Offico of
Education and the Naval administrators have shirked their responsibilities
for our children' s education * ]h recent years the ACSS has faced several
problems. Two of these problems: the need for a now physical plant
for the Antilles 1~iddle School on Ft. Buchanan and the systemvtide lack of
communication were fully discussed before the !~embers of the S~ibco~i~nittee
PAGENO="0145"
141
on I~lenientary, Secondary, and Vocational !~ducation on 23 June 1977,
The following example amply illustrates our problem. During the
summer of 1977 the Army planned to raze the condemned barracks that had
housed the Middle School for several years. The planned new school has
not been funded or constructed. For The school year 1977~'78 grades 5~8
at Ft. Buchanan are dispersed and scattered about Ft. Buchanan in vacant
krniy buildings. Although These classes have classroom book sets, there
are no library facilities to research a paper and to reinforce library
skills developed at the elementary level. Fortunately, this demoralizing
situation is only for the present school year. Through the doligent
work of concerned parents, the Parent Organization for Quality gducaticn,
and Resident CommissIoner J3altasar Corrada del Rio ~36O,OOO. for portable
classrooms was approprtated and approved in the 1978 H~W budget. Plans
are for these portable buildings to be installed and ready to operate
at the opening of school year 1978~.79.
]~ discussing the problems we have experienced with ACSS, we want
to note that since implementation of Chief of ilaval gducation and
Thaining (CN1~T) Management Survey of ACSS, the June 1977 hearings before
this committee, and The regular publication of a Parents Organization
newsletter we are beginning to se~ improvement in communication at the
local level. 1~any of the CNI~T recommendations aimed at improving
communication, curriculum and system orr~anization have been initiated
by the Commander Naval Forces Caribboa~ ~ are gratified to witness
this improvement and only regret that the improved communication so far
is only visable at the local level.
PAGENO="0146"
142
The proposed transfer of section 6 schools from H2'~1 Office of
1~ducation to a "defense departments' education system" as described in
H.R. 9892 will not completely meet the needs of ACSS, particularly of
civilian federal dependents ~io are now in Puerto Rico or ~ho will be
transferred to the island. ACSS in Puerto Rico has been and is in a
unique situation. ACSS is not a stateside school system. H.R. 9892
specifically defines in the geographic sense the Cormnon~oalth of Puerto
Rico as part of the ~hited States. Although Puerto Rico cannot be
considered an overseas area, neither can it be considered a part of the
continental thited States. Problems of language, geographic isolation,
and unique political status create a situation that requires special
consideration.
The "defense dependents' education system", as proposed apparently
could adequately meet the needs of overseas schools, However, if ACSS
is to be included in H.R. 9892 care must be taken to clarify definitions
and provide for the specific needs of federal emplo~iees in Puerto ~dco.
We request that the following items be clarified or that such provisions
be incorporated into H.R. 9892.
Defir4~2p~2f~J?2~2r. The ACSS at Ft. Buchanan provides dependent
education for 52 federal agencios in the motropolitian San Juan area.
In H.R. 9892 page 25, lines 1-~3, the term "sponsor" should be clarified
and expanded to specifically include dependents of non~DOD federal
employees t.tho are eligible to enroll their children in ACSS under
20 U.S.C. ~
~a~a~lit, At present ACSS is "to provide free public education
in accordance with the curriculum, and related standards prescribed by the
PAGENO="0147"
143
Superintendent and Board of l~ducation of the city of Washington, District
of Columbia. Such action as may be necessary will be taken to ensure that
The education provided under the plan, will be comparable to the maximum
practicable to the free education which is provided the children residing
in the District of Columbia.' lie urge that the above statement or one
with identical intent be included in H. 2. 9892 to provide a minimum
standard of comparison * We also urge that provision be made so that
comparative data and standards are rapidly diseminated to local
administrators and principals so that current information is immediately
available, through channels, at the local level.
If Ft. Buchanan should close? Approximately 6o,~ of the Buchanan
school enrollment is composed of civilian dependents. The Commonwealth
`of Puerto Rico public school system does not provide &iglish language
instruction. ~von if such instruction were available, the system is
already over~crowded and could not accept end educate an influx of
1,100 additional students. Therefore, in the event that Ft. Buchanan
closes some provision needs to be included to ensure continued
operation of the ACSS at the same educational level for the civilian
dependents currently enrolled under 20 U.S.C. 241.
We have briefly outlined some of our concerns with the hope that
H.R. 9892 can be amended to fully meet the educational needs of the
federal dependents enrolled at ACSS. The Parents Organization for
Quality Education would like to endorse the efforts of the Antilles
Consolidated Education Association to ensure the high educational
standards at ACSS and their oun contract agreements. We feel it is of
the utmost importance that the system be in a position to recruit and
PAGENO="0148"
144'
retain the best qualified teachers available, using modern facilities,
equipmen~, and commensurate pay as incentives.
We appreciate this opportmmity to express our needs and concerns
for our children's education. We hope this committee ~zill favorably
consider and act on these suggestions so that education at Antilles
Consolidated School System can be strengthened and inproved.
PAGENO="0149"
145
Congress of the United States
House of Representatives 24 February 1978
Committee on Education and Labor
Subcommittee on Labor Standards
B-345A Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Gentlemen,
I sincerely appreciate the opportunity afforded me on 1 Feb.
1978, to appear before your Committee on Education and Labor, Sub-
committee on Labor Standards, to provide comments from the European
Congress of American Parents, Teachers, and Students on H.R. 9892.
Since that date we have had the opportunity to review H.R.
9892 in greater detail, as well as reveiw the comments submitted
by the Department of Defense, the Bureau of Elementary and Second-
ary Education, U.S. Office of Education, HEW, and the two Profess-
ional Teachers' Organizations associated with our overseas schools.
While all of the con~ments I submitted to your committee are valid,
I would like to amplify those comments and address several of the
statements made by other agencies/organizations that appeared before
the Committee.
H.R. 9892 creates a permanent school system for students in
our overseas schools. The "temporary" status o~ our 30 year old
school system has, in effect, deprived our students of participation
in some of the major educational programs sponsored and financed
by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. The Bill
provided for the overseas schools to be classified as a "state
level" system for purposes of the National School Lunch Act and
the Child Nutrition Act of 1966. The Bill should also provide
a state level system for other Federally financed programs such
as educational programs for the handicapped.
Section 2, of the Bill, also directs that the Secretary of
Defence "should provide a preschool program to individuals eli-
gible to receive a free public education under subsection (a) who
are of preschool age if a preschool program is not available for
such individuals". The Department of Defense in its statement
before the Committee stated, "The Department recommends that the
provision for authorizing a preschool program be delayed pending
the results of the study of the entire dependents education
system, as required by Section 16 of H.R.9892". While we do not
object `to a study of how best to implement a preschool program,
we do believe it most desirable to have such a program. Pre-
schools that currently exist within the overseas military
PAGENO="0150"
146
communities are normally sponsored by a local community organiz-
ation on a non-profit basis. The success of these programs rises
and falls with the amount of local interest, availability of funds,
and the number of volunteer parents who can be found. Unlike a
stateside community, there are few, if indeed any, off-post pro-
fessional preschools (english speaking) to which we may send our
children. In this way, we in the overseas area face a problem
different than a statesede parent. It is not a matter whether
we can afford the cost of preschool, it is a matter of availability
of this particular program. H.R. 9892 appropriately provides
for this needed program.
In my comments l5efore your Committee I emphasized that funds
received from tuition-paying students should be returned to the
system to defray the expenses associated with tuition-paying students.
In addition, authority must exist to increase staffing. I would
like to re-emphasize this point. There are approximately 3000
tuition-paying students currently enrolled in our European over-
seas schools. At a standard ratio of 1 teacher per 25 students,
120 additional teachers should be available to offset the tuition-
paying student enrollment. Current policies do not provide the
authority to hire these teachers. This creates a heavier student
load for our teachers than should exist. I would recommend that
H.R. 9892 establish a policy regarding this matter.
The School Advisory Committee as outlined in H.R. 9892 is a
concept we support. However, the Department of Defense, and the
overseas schools professional teacher organizations question,
perhaps for different reasons than we, the advisability of the
School Advisory Committee's authority to make recommendations
with respect to the employment and discharge of personnel. We
believe that to leave this provision in theBill would create
false expectations in the members of the committee regarding the
scope of their authority. The employment of and discharge of
personnel is closely controlled both by DOD policy and union
contractual agreement. Local committees could have little impact
on these policies. The School Advisory Committee should have
the authority to influence local school pol~cy and curriculum,
in other words, those policies that are at the discretion of
the local school administration. We have a centralized system,
however the schools must be responsive to the desires of the
local community.
The Department of Defense disagreed with the establishment
of the Advisory Council on Dependents' Education as outlined
in the Bill. We support the organization of this council.
A centralized system can lead to too much control being placed
in the hands of a few individuals. Creating a council having
representation from those served by the school system properly
balances the authority.
The European Congress of American Parents, Teachers, and
Students will support the passage of H.R. 9892. We sincerely
hope that this bill will receive the attention of Congress this
year.
Since ly
President
ECAPTS
PAGENO="0151"
147
STATEMENT PRESENTED BY
DR. HAYWOOD DAVIS, SUPERINTENDENT
FORT BRAGG (NORTH CAROLINA) SCHOOLS
ON BEHALF OF
SECTION 6 SCHOOL ADMINISTRATORS
TO
SUBCOMMITTEE ON LABOR STANDARDS
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR
REGARDING
HOUSE RESOLUTION 9892
MR. CHAIRMAN, I APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT THE VIEWS
OF THE ADMINISTRATORS OF DEPENDENTS (SECTION 6) SCHOOLS LOCATED IN
TEE UNITED STATES REGARDING HOUSE RESOLUTION 9892, `DEFENSE
DEPENDENTS' EDUCATION ACT OF 1978.'
WE SUPPORT AND ENDORSE THOSE PROVISIONS OF HR 9592 THAT RELATE TO
THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE OVERSEAS DEPENDENTS SCHOOLS, STUDENTS
ATTENDING THOSE SCHOOLS SHOULD BE INSURED THE SAME HIGH QUALITY
EDUCATION AND RELATED BENEFITS THAT THEY WOULD RECEIVE IF ATTENDING
SCHOOLS IN THE UNITED STATES, INCLUDING ELIGIBILITY FOR SUBSIDIZED
SCHOOL LUNCHES. WE ALSO SHARE THE CONCERN EXPRESSED OVER THE LACK
OF A STATUTORY BASE FOR THE EXISTENCE OF THE DOD OVERSEAS DEPENDENTS
SCHOOLS. THOSE SCHOOLS HAVE BEEN IN EXISTENCE FOR SOME THIRTY-ONE
YEARS AT THE SUFFERANCE OF EACH YEAR'S APPROPRIATION BILL, AND THEY
ARE DESERVING OF A GREATER DEGREE OF PERMANENCY.
PAGENO="0152"
148
WE BELIEVE, HOWEVER, THAT THE PROPOSED LEGISLATION CAN HAVE
A DELETERIOUS EFFECT ON THE QUALITY OF EDUCATION OFFERED CHILDREN
WHO ATTEND DEPENDENTS (SECTION 6) SCHOOLS IN THE UNITED STATES. THE
PURPOSES OF THIS PIECE OF LEGISLATION, AS IT RELATES TO DEPENDENTS
SCH9OLS IN THE UNITED STATES, THOUGH LAUDATORY IN INTENT, ARE
REDUNDANT IN THAT THESESCHOOLS ALREADY HAVE A STATUTORY BASE AND
STUDENTS WHO ATTEND THEM ARE CURRENTLY ELIGIBLE TO PARTICIPATE
IN FEDERAL LUNCH PROGRAMS UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE NATIONAL
SCHOOL LUNCH ACT. ALSO, LEGISLATION ALREADY EXISTS, AND HAS FOR 27
YEARS, WHICH INSURES THAT THOSE STUDENTS ELIGIBLE TO RECEIVE
A FREE PUBLIC EDUCATION UNDER SUB-SECTION (a) OF THIS BILL RECEIVE AN
EDUCATION OF HIGH QUALITY. IN ADDITION, PL 94-142 ALREADY MANDATES
THAT THOSE EXCEPTIONAL STUDENTS MENTIONED IN SECTION 2 OF THE
PROPOSED LEGISLATION BE PROVIDED FOR IN SPECIAL PROGRAMS. FURTHER-
MORE, VIRTUALLY ALL FIFTY STATES HAVE ENACTED LEGISLATION WHICH
REQUIRES THAT THESE AND OTHER CATEGORIES OF EXCEPTIONAL STUDENTS
BE PROVIDED FOR IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS. THUS, EXISTING COMPARABILITY
REQUIREMENTS MANDATE THAT DEPENDENTS (SECTION 6) SCHOOLS MAKE
SIMILAR PROVISIONS FOR EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN.
THE PROPOSED LEGISLATION WOULD, IN CREATING A TUITION-PAYING
ARRANGEMENT FOR OFF-POST STUDENTS, DISCRIMINATE AGAINST CHILDREN
OF PARENTS WHO, BECAUSE OF THE SPONSOR'S RANK (PAY-SCHEDULE), COULD
NOT AFFORD TO PAY TO SEND THEIR CHILDREN TO WHAT THEY MIGHT CONSIDER
PAGENO="0153"
149
TO BE A MORE DESIRABLE SCHOOL SITUATION IN A DEPENDENTS (SECTION 6)
SCHOOL.
THE OVERSEAS DEPENDENTS SCHOOLS CURRENTLY ENROLL APPROXI-
MATELY 150, 000 STUDENTS, A NUMBER SO LARGE THAT IT EQUATES TO THE
10TH LARGEST SCHOOL DISTRICT IN THE NATION. STILL, IT IS PROPOSED THAT
THIS SYSTEM BE FURTHER ENLARGED THROUGH CONSOLIDATION WITH THE
APPROXIMATELY 30, 000 STUDENTS ENROLLED IN DEPENDENTS (SECTION 6)
SCHOOLS IN THE UNITED STATES. THERE IS A POINT BEYOND WHICH LARGENESS
BECOMES DETRIMENTAL, RATHER THAN ADVANTAGEOUS, TO A SCHOOL SYSTEM'S
OPERATION AND, HENCE, TO THE EDUCATION OF THE CHILDREN.
THE DEPENDENTS (SECTION 6) SCHOOLS IN THE UNITED STATES CAME
INTO EXISTENCE PRIMARILY AS A RESULT OF SEGREGATED SCHOOLS LOCATED
AROUND MILITARY INSTALLATIONS. THEY INCREASED IN NUMBER TO
APPROXIMATELY 100 BEFORE THEY BEGAN TO DECLINE. TODAY, THERE ARE
SOME 25 SCHOOLS LOCATED ON MILITARY INSTALLATIONS AROUND THE COUNTRY,
OF WHICH 19 ARE OPERATED BY ONE OF THE MILITARY SERVICES UNDER AN
AGREEMENT WITH THE U. S. COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION, AS AUTHORIZED
BY SECTION 6 OF PUBLIC LAW 81-874. IN ITS INFINITE WISDOM, THE CONGRESS,
THROUGH THE LANGUAGE OF PUBLIC LAW 81-874, PROHIBITS THE OFFICE OF
EDUCATION FROM BECOMING INVOLVED IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE
DEPENDENTS (SECTION 6) SCHOOLS. IT ONLY AUTHORIZES THE COMMISSIONER
TO MAKE ARRANGEMENTS FOR THE FREE PUBLIC EDUCATION OF CHILDREN
RESIDING ON FEDERAL PROPERTY. WE FEEL THAT FUNDING OF THE OPERATION
PAGENO="0154"
150
OF THESE SCHOOLS BY THE UNITED STATES OFFICE OF EDUCATION HAS BEEN
ADEQUATE AND FAIRLY ADMINISTERED THROUGH THE YEARS, WITH
ADMINISTRATION OF THE SCHOOLS LEFT IN THE HANDS OF PROFESSIONAL
EDUCATORS SELECTED BY THE LOCAL SCHOOL BOARDS. IT IS THE EXPRESSED
INTENT OF THE U. S. COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION TO TURN OVER THE
OPERATION OF THESE SCHOOLS TO THE RESPECTIVE STATES AS SOON AS
THEY ARE ABLE TO PROVIDE A SUITABLE FREE PUBLIC EDUCATION FOR THE
CHILDREN ATTENDING THEM. TO CONSOLIDATE THESE SCHOOLS WITH THE
OVERSEAS DEPENDENTS SCHOOLS COULD CREATE A FEDERAL SYSTEM OF
EDUCATION WITHIN THE UNITED STATES AND DETER THE TURNOVER OF THESE
SCHOOLS TO THE STATES IN WHICH THEY ARE LOCATED.
PUBLIC EDUCATION IS A FUNCTION AND RESPONSIBILITY OF STATE
GOVERNMENT. THE TENTH AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION
RESERVES TO THE STATES, OR TO THE PEOPLE, THOSE POWERS NOT DELEGATED
TO THE UNITED STATES. THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION MAKES NO MENTION
OF EDUCATION; THEREFORE, THE ORGANIZATION AND OPERATION OF THE
PUBLIC SCHOOLS IS LEFT TO THE STATES AND THEIR POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS.
THE RECOGNITION OF STATE RESPONSIBILITY FOR EDUCATION IS REFLECTED
IN THE CONSTITUTIONS OF THE VARIOUS STATES. THE PEOPLE HAVE A RIGHT
TO THE PRIVILEGE OF EDUCATION, AND IT IS THE DUTY OF THE STATE TO
GUARD AND MAINTAIN THAT RIGHT. THUS, EDUCATION IS RECOGNIZED AS
THE FOUNDATION FOR A VIABLE DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY, AND A SERVICE THAT
THE STATE IS OBLIGATED TO PROMOTE AND PROTECT FOR ITS CITIZENS--
PAGENO="0155"
151
BUT AN OBLIGATION TO BE MET PRIMARILY AT THE LOCAL LEVEL.' AT THE
LOCAL LEVEL, A SCHOOL BOARD IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE GENERAL
CONTROL AND SUPERVISION OF ALL MATTERS PERTAINING TO THE LOCAL
PUBLIC SCHOOLS.
IT IS THIS LOSS OF LOCAL CONTROL THAT WE SO STRONGLY OBJECT TO
IN HR 9892. LOCAL CONTROL OF PUBLIC EDUCATION IS A BASIC TENET OF
OUR GREAT SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENF * EXISTING LAW PROVIDES FOR THE
U. S. COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION TO MAKE ARRANGEMENTS TO PROVIDE
FOR THE FREE PUBLIC EDUCATION OF CHILDREN RESIDING ON MILITARY
INSTALLATIONS. AUTHORITY TO ESTABLISH PERSONNEL POLICIES, HIRE AND
ASSIGN PERSONNEL, TO PREPARE A SCHOOL BUDGET, AND TO PROMULGATE ALL
RULES AND REGULATIONS NECESSARY TO GOVERN ENROLLMENT OF STUDENTS
RESTS WITH THE LOCAL SCHOOL BOARD. THE PROPOSED LEGISLATION
WOULD CENTRALIZE THE OPERATION OF THESE SCHOOLS AND TRANSFER ALL
OF THIS AUTHORITY TO THE OFFICE OF A DIRECTOR OF DEPENDENTS' EDUCATION
IN THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE. WE BELIEVE THAT THIS ACTION WOULD:
(1) REMOVE LOCAL CONTROL OF DEPENDENTS SCHOOLS,. WHICH IS
IN DIRECT OPPOSITION TO THE BASIC TENETS OF OUR AMERICAN SYSTEM OF
PUBLIC EDUCATION
(2) PLACE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF SELECTING AND PLACEMENT OF
STAFF MEMBERS IN THE HANDS OF A PERSON, OR PERSONS, WHO, BECAUSE
OF HIS/HER REMOVAL FROM THE SITUATION, LACKS ESSENTIAL UNDERSTANDING
OF LOCAL PERSONNEL NEEDS
PAGENO="0156"
152
(3) CREATE A MORALE PROBLEM AMONG STAFF MEMBERS WHO
PERCEIVE AN ABSENCE OF JOB STABILITY UNDER THE PROPOSED LEGISLATION
(4) CREATE ANOTHER LINK IN THE BUREAUCRATIC CHAIN OF NATIONAL
GOVERNMENT
(5) ESTABLISH POSITIONS OF QUESTIONABLE VALUE IN REGIONAL OR
AREA OFFICES.
WE, THE ADMINISTRATORS OF THE DEPENDENTS (SECTION 6) SCHOOLS,
ARE OF THE OPINION THAT A VIABLE SYSTEM OF PUBLIC EDUCATION FOR ALL
MILITARY DEPENDENT CHILDREN IN THE UNITED STATES CURRENTLY EXISTS
THROUGH THE PROVISIONS OF PUBLIC LAW 81-874 AND THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS
OF THE VARIOUS STATES. IN THOSE GEOGRAPHICAL AREAS WHERE THE STATES,
FOR WHATEVER REASON, HAVE NOT PROVIDED FOR THE EDUCATIONAL NEEDS
OF MILITARY DEPENDENT CHILDREN, THE U. S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION HAS
MADE SATISFACTORY ARRANGEMENTS FOR THEIR EDUCATION--MOST OFTEN
THROUGH FUNDING OF A DEPENDENTS (SECTION 6) SCHOOL OPERATION.
TODAY, THESE DEPENDENTS (SECTION 6) SCHOOLS ENJOY A REPUTATION
FOR BEING AMONG THE BETTER SCHOOL SYSTEMS IN THEIR RESPECTIVE
STATES. THIS REPUTATION HAS BEEN EARNED THROUGH YEARS OF HARD
WORK AND THE EFFORTS OF MANY DEDICATED EMPLOYEES. WE ARE CONCERNED
THAT THE INITIATIVE AND MORALE OF THESE EMPLOYEES WILL BE DESTROYED
IF THE ABILITY TO MAKE LOCAL DECISIONS REGARDING EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS
IS LOST. THERE EXISTS AMONG OUR TEACHERS, MUCH CONCERN OVER THE
POSSIBILITY THAT THE DEPENDENTS (SECTION 6) SCHOOLS WILL BE OVER-
PAGENO="0157"
153
WHELMED BY THE MAMMOTH SIZE OF THE OVERSEAS DEPENDENTS SCHOOLS
IF HR 9892 15 ENACTED.
FUNDING OF THE DEPENDENTS (SECTION 6) SCHOOLS IS BASED ON
COMPARABLE EDUCATIONAL COSTS IN THE STATE IN WHICH THE DEPENDENTS
(SECTION 6) SCHOOLS ARE LOCATED. THIS ARRANGEMENT HAS ENABLED THE
DEPENDENTS (SECTION 6) SCHOOLS TO PROVIDE A COMPARABLE EDUCATION,
AT A COST COMPARABLE TO THAT OF EDUCATION IN THE LOCAL COMMUI~IITY,
FOR THE SMALL PERCENTAGE OF MILITARY DEPENDENTS RESIDING ON FEDERAL
PROPERTY.
ALTHOUGH THE UNITED STATES OFFICE OF EDUCATION HAS PROVIDED
ADEQUATE FUNDS FOR OPERATION OF THE DEPENDENTS (SECTION 6) SCHOOLS,
THE LEVEL OF SUPPORT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF NEW FACILITIES, UNDER
PUBLIC LAW 81-815, HAS BEEN INADEQUATE. THERE IS, HOWEVER, NO
ASSURANCE THAT PLACING THE SCHOOLS UNDER DOD WILL CHANGE THAT
SITUATION. INSTEAD, WE COULD FIND~OURSELVE5 IN THE UNCOMFORTABLE
POSITION OF COMPETING WITH OUR NATIONAL DEFENSE STRUCTURE FOR FUNDS
WITH WHICH TO EDUCATE OUR CHILDREN. WE DO NOT FEEL THAT IT IS IN
OUR NATIONAL iNTEREST FOR US TO ALLOW OURSELVES TO GET INTO THE
POSITION OF HAVING TO CHOOSE BETWEEN MISSILES FOR NATIONAL SECURITY
AND SCHOOLS FOR OUR CHILDREN.
FURTHER, IT IS OUR BELIEF THAT THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS BELONG TO THE
PEOPLE--AND THE PEOPLE SHOULD CONTROL THEM. CONTROL OF THE PUBLIC
SCHOOLS, INCLUDING DEPENDENTS (SECTION 6) SCHOOLS, IS VESTED IN LOCAL
31-9410.78-11
PAGENO="0158"
154
SCHOOL BOARDS WHICH OVERSEE THE OPERATION OF THE SCHOOLS. HOUSE
RESOLUTION 9892 PROPOSES TO ELIMINATE SCHOOL BOARDS AND TRANSFER
THEIR POWER TO THE OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF DEPENDENTS' EDUCATION
IN WASHINGTON. WE VIEW THIS PROPOSAL AS A STEP BACKWARD--AND A
SERIOUS MISTAKE. LOCAL BOARDS OF EDUCATION ARE RESPONSIVE TO THE
PEOPLE. LOCALLY CONTROLLED AND LOCALLY ADMINISTERED PUBLIC
SCHOOL SYSTEMS ARE THE VERY HEART OF OUR SYSTEM OF PUBLIC EDUCATION
IN THIS GREAT NATION OF OURS.
CONTRARY TO WHAT APPEARS TO BE A MISCONCEPTION HELD BY SOME
MEMBERS OF CONGRESS, THE DEPENDENTS (SECTION 6) SCHOOLS ARE NOT
ADMINISTERED BY MILITARY COMMANDERS. WE REALIZE THAT AN ISOLATED
SITUATION MAY EXIST WHERE A SCHOOL IS BEING ADMINISTERED BY A MILITARY
COMMANDER, AND WE SHARE YOUR CONCERN OVER CIRCUMSTANCES THAT ALLOW
SUCH HOWEVER, THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE DEPENDENTS (SECTION 6)
SCHOOLS ARE ADMINISTERED BY PROFESSIONAL EDUCATORS IN ACCORDANCE
WITH POLICIES ESTABLISHED BY THE LOCAL SCHOOL BOARD. ALSO, IT SHOULD
BE NOTED THAT THESE SCHOOLS ARE ADMINISTERED IN ACCORDANCE WITH
THE PUBLIC SCHOOL LAWS AND STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION REGULATIONS
OF THE STATES IN WHICH THEY ARE LOCATED. WE DO NOT FEEL THAT THE
EFFECTIVE AND VIABLE SYSTEM OF EDUCATION, WHICH EXISTS AT THE VAST
MAJORITY OF DEPENDENTS (SECTION 6) SCHOOLS, SHOULD BE DESTROYED
BECAUSE OF A FEW UNDESIRABLE SITUATIONS. WE WOULD RECOMMEND,
INSTEAD, THAT ACTION BE TAKEN TO REMEDY THE CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH
PAGENO="0159"
155
PERMIT THESE UNDESIRABLE SITUATIONS TO OCCUR. ONE WAY TO ACCOMPLISH
THIS WOULD BE TO MANDATE FOR ALL DEPENDENTS (SECTION 6) SCHOOLS THAT
A LOCAL SCHOOL BOARD BE SELECTED IN A MANNER COMPARABLE TO THE
SELECTION OF OTHER SCHOOL BOARDS IN THE STATE IN WHICH THE DEPENDENTS
(SECTION 6) SCHOOLS ARE LOCATED. THE LOCAL SCHOOL BOARD SHOULD HAVE
FINAL AUTHORITY ON ALL MATTERS RELATED TO THE OPERATION OF THE LOCAL
SCHOOLS. THIS ACTION WOULD ALLOW THE SCHOOL BOARDS TO BE RESPONSIVE
TO LOCAL COMMANDERS; HOWEVER, IT WOULD PRECLUDE A MILITARY
COMMANDER FUNCTIONING AS THE SCHOOL BOARD.
THE PROPOSED LEGISLATION IS RATHER COMPLEX AND RAISES MANY
QUESTIONS* THE LANGUAGE OP HOUSE RESOLUTION 9892 1$ SUCH THAT MANY
RAMIFICATIONS OF THE BILL REMAIN UNADDRESSED AND, THUS, UNRESOLVED.
TOO MUCH EMPHASIS IS PLACED ON UNIFORMITY, WITH LITTLE OR NO CONCERN
FOR INDIVIDUALITY AND LOCAL INITIATIVE. IT IS OUR HOPE THAT AS YOU
EVALUATE THE PROVISIONS OF THE PROPOSED LEGISLATION, YOU WILL PUT
ALL SPECIAL INTEREST ISSUES ASIDE AND EVALUATE THE LEGISLATION SOLELY
ON THE BASIS OF WHETHER OR NOT OUR CHILDREN WILL HAVE A BETTER
OPPORTUNITY TO RECEIVE A QUALITY PUBLIC EDUCATION UNDER THE
PROVISIONS OF HOUSE RESOLUTION 9892, OR UNDER EXISTING LAW WHICH
MANDATES THE PROVISION OF AN EDUCATIONAL PROGRAM COMPARABLE TO
THAT OF THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS OF THE VARIOUS STATES. WE BELIEVE THAT
EDUCATION IS A STATE RESPONSIBILITY AND URGE YOU TO OPPOSE FURTHER
PROLIFERATION OF OUR FEDERAL BUREAUCRACY AND THE RESULTANT
PAGENO="0160"
156
EXPANSION OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S INVOLVEMENT IN THE OPERATION
OF PUBLIC SCHOOLS BY VOTING AGAINST THOSE PROVISIONS OF HOUSE
RESOLUTION 9892 THAT APPLY TO DEPENDENTS (SECTION 6) SCHOOLS IN THE
UNITED STATES. WE SEE ABSOLUTELY NO AREA OF OPERATION WITHIN THE
DEPENDENTS (SECTION 6) SCHOOLS THAT COULD BE BETTER ADDRESSED
THROUGH PASSAGE OF THIS PROPOSED LEGISLATION.
MR. CHAIRMAN, IF YOUR COMMITTEE, IN ITS INFINITE WISDOM, FEELS
THAT A CHANGE SHOULD BE MADE IN THE EXISTING ARRANGEMENTS FOR THE
EDUCATION OF CHILDREN RESIDING ON FEDERAL PROPERTY, WE REQUEST THAT
YOU CONSIDER DELAYING ANY PROPOSED CHANGE UNTIL SUCH TIME AS
DECISIONS RELATIVE TO THE NEW DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION ARE FORMULATED.
ANY CHANGE BROUGHT ABOUT PRIOR TO THAT TIME COULD BE FOLLOWED BY
FURTHER CHANGES AND, WE BELIEVE, THAT SUCH WOULD BE DETRIMENTAL
TO THE EDUCATION OF OUR CHILDREN.
LET ME CONCLUDE MY COMMENTS BY INVITING, EVEN ENCOURAGING,
COMMITTEE MEMBERS TO VISIT ANY OF OUR DEPENDENTS (SECTION 6) SCHOOLS
FOR A FIRST HAND LOOK AT THEIR OPERATION. THANK YOU.
PAGENO="0161"
157
QUANrICO EDUCATION ASSOCIATION
QUANTICO DEPENDENTS' SCHOOL SYSTEM'
QUANIICO, VIRGINIA 25134
- January 30, 1978
cer4 Z~da Wilson
~màd.t Waited Stetas Warm. Corps
~iad~ssxters Warts. Corps
Washington, D. C. 20310
Dear' Six, `
As Preeiden~ of the Quantico Ed tatiou Association, I an wrttis~g
to ~ee in bshelf of the toachere who wish to make yots aware of our
.asmasxas partef sing to the eanteat oS the Defense Dependents' Iducation
`Mt of~ 1978. (U 9102) and how ii, `feel it sill affect as at Qusutino.
Pron our point of yb, vs feel thOt U 9892 would drastically.
reduc, the calibre of iastructjou tMt vs have strived for so *ong here
at Qusnt$co Ds~mad.ate' School Syoten. We further feel that whet vs
have worked for so diligently, will be reduced to tokauben for yass ace
sir, vs have obtained `a high standard of uslity in our edsacatiossal
pvsgra for the dependent students..
The asic phi~loeophy for our school. is,' tO take all students on the
edu~atioual iev.i at which they `mama and' to help further develop them,
to `the best of their ability. Each year, we present as h~osd a csarr*culas
as can bIb efficie*tly offered, with the av$ilsblc teaCZIiag staff, to. meet
th voryins needs' of these students.'
T~,s QIs*I*ICO ccensaity is very supportive of-our schools. Washers
of the coesmuity are Involved Sn the schools by:
1, en active parast..taacbsr oxga~1saricn
.. strong parent volunteer programs
3. service on cosraitteee for' currbculna ic$sioe and devolopusant
4. ,assiitance with field trips
~. serving as !*souxce persona
6, particjpatisg In pls~aed group ~d iudivL4u~1 conference.
7. `psr'ticS.psUng in the principals advisory comaitteas
8., actiys on the SUPermUSSSI4SIItS Planning Council
They are kept avers of a~boO1 activities by bulletins, Parent
Ha~dI~o~k, CoeriOr (the school usimpaper) and the Sentry (the local military
paper). -
The aiI,Iioe of Qsssntico Dspsadáta' School Systen Sm to provide a `
coutinbous course of jaltructioss coemenciug with kindergarten sad proS'
``gravaing with a high degree of continuity through gredo'tvelve. Our
educational nrogreem' *x or~usnt*e4,' planned, LuspIamentesi and evaluated
by the adidnjssrstive' and instructional staff. Curriculum' Cuides whisk
cover' the `entire *astructiomal program are current. Theta pibdes are
`based en sound educational prpccimes and vest the needs of our students,
``Our reporting system r'sfLecta the objectives. -4eai~ed for each level
asid ashiest ares. Students needs axe further net with encollent media
s*r~faas, psapL2~ penveenei services which include a paycbslogis~, counselors,
PAGENO="0162"
158
~c* thorapiot, tv;rae an3 rasourcu p sons in mathematics, reading,
s~t~ zric and p!~yaica1 education. Adequate teaching supplie., teats
rcd ni~nt fully support the progr~.
O~r nc~tøo3.s have bean accredited by the Southern Association of
Collizgea aid Schools, and by the State of Virginia for a n~er of years.
The aco dLtatiou proccos is fully ieple~ted and requires annual eval-
uation at the local level. Tosas of professional educators from the
state evuluate àur schuola periodically. This evaluation is based on
an in-depth study usda by our staff.
Our st~adents corn to us with a variety of backgrounds end needs.
Therefore vs provide from a normal program to classes for Learning
Disabilities, tducable Wentally Retarded, Gifted, Talented, Vocational
end IPoruiga Languages. We sake provision. for the handicapped from age
tue through age twenty-one. We are relatively free from the prOblems
ahich exist in largnr aitnatioeq; vandalism, drugs and disruptive discipline
problems. We provide opportunities for each student to obtain em un4sr~
standing end appreciation for the value, worth and dignity of self and
others.
* Our school plants range from buildings constructed in 1940 1963
and all are structurally sound. They are given proper care and asintnsaoe.
They era equipped so a variety of progra can be provided.
We have a dedicat2d, professional, coapetent staff, who continua to
keep themselves abreast of ncr trends and techniques through ia-service
training and college courses. All of our teachers are certifipd in the
subject area they teach. There are a sinisem of staff transfers which
are nainly due to. marriages, huabands being transferred and retirement.
We have a supportive school board and Superintendent. This boa$ is
appointed by the Commanding Oon,ral in who's hand the achool system end
budget operates. Our local school board and Superintendent are quite
crave of the needs of our schools and therefore provide an adequate budget
as wall as direction.
Due to the fact that vs have bean ~vare of U 9892 for such a short
period of tine we have not had the opportunity to fully understand the
intent and romifications it may have on our schools, however, we do.hsve
concerns.
Should the bill pass, we fear for:
1. a drastic drop in funds, thus, reducing the capabilities of
providing quality education S
2. maintaining accrediation standards
3. lack of local ecbool~board control
4, lack of iupleaentiflg new programs qs the need arises
5. responsibility for qual~ty education not given to the Coandin$
General of this resorrat~on
6. losing our rights which is our agreement with MCouC
7. being requested .to teach out of a certified field
8. salary decreases
9. being transferred to any pert of the world
10. so~an of our teaching staff nay be cut
11. lack of adequate teaching supplies
12. reams of direct~vea
13. dictation of rules that may not apply to our local, situation
In closing, I hops that I have beam able to conpap that we axe prOud
of the progress we have made at Quantico Dependents' School System. Vs
are proud of our cosamaity d to be a part of the 11~IC family. J.St .
the Ravines want a few good ass, we want to i*taia four good schools.
Services provided for in bill U. 9892 we hive bed aweflthle for poems,
therefore, we feel the bill 1.0. stagnation rather th pesgeess for
- S
Thenk pow for Listesiag.
lambams leer, President.
- on ls.ssiatios
PAGENO="0163"
159
/9 ~fa,n4~aAs~/. /~8
1 C~, ~O5/~
J~L~ ~ ~ ~ ~Cd ~ /~d&~4 ~
%~4I~d~Q ~13J/~~ %~s 8/ U
JL ~s~&
I,' ~ZJ /~ ~
PAGENO="0164"
160
(i)~/z~ ~ ~e~4e~ L~1 ~&o1~
,QL~ ~ ~D1; 1'~7'~r 7~ ~ ~,
J44~6~t421c 07'~A~ ~ ,~
A~ndea4, £~V~ ~ ~
~JL~J~ `~!~4.
~`
PAGENO="0165"
161
Comments by
Overseas Association of Dependent School Administrators
regarding
H.R. 9892
Defense Dependents' Education Act of 1978
I. The OADSA Executive Board believe the striking of the
word "minor" in the first line under "A Bill" on page 1 will
remove a question of consistency between that line and the
definition of an "eligible dependent" at lines 17-25 on page 24.
This will also prevent problems of determining eligibility
in operational usage.
II. Establishment of Defense Dependents' Education System
(Section 2)
1. OADSA supports the provisions of subsections (a) and
(b), i.e., the establishment of this system and the requirement
of quality.
2. OADSA supports section 2, the provision of programs
for the special needs of individuals in categories (A) through
(E) and urges a provision that they be funded to a level that
will underwrite quality.
3. OADSA urges caution in requiring a pre-~school program
be operated until such time as facilities can be obtained and
funds budgeted to provide for the considerable expansion which
will result from this provision. We suggest a census of children
eligible for pre-schools be made and plans based on such
census be required prior to beginning any such pre-~school
program.
III. Office of Dependents' Education (Section 3)
OADSA concurs in the provisions of this Section ezce~t the
limitation of 400 civilian employees in the central and
regional offices. It is unrealistic to prescribe the number of
people assigned to the various levels of this school System
when the Bill itself requires provision of services which may
significantly expand the program. The need for flexibility is
greater for this school system due to the exigencies of over~
seas operations.
The Director will need flexibility in assigning personnel to
accomplish his mission. OADSA suggests that a total number of
personnel per 1,000 students enrolled is a more workable
PAGENO="0166"
162
approach, with the Director free to assign personnel within
that figure. If it is deemed essential to limit the number of
personnel assigned at the central and regional offices, OADSA
suggests the number of personnel so assigned per 1,000 students
in Defense Dependents' Schools not exceed the number of person-
nel assigned to similar positions per 1,000 students in the
schools of Washington, D.C.
OADSA believes that in order to offer high quality education
adequate supervision throughout the system is essential in any
school system. OADSA also believes that this need is not
diminished by the fact that these schools are overseas, but on
the contrary, that the vast geographical disperson of this
school system increases the need for good supervision to
sustain high quality education. The difficulties in providing
good supervision in overseas areas need also to be taken
into account before unnatural limitations are placed on
numbers of supervisory or support personnel.
IV. Annual Educational Assessment (Section 5)
OADSA supports annual assessment based on the objectives of
the school system.
V. School Construction, Operation and Maintenance (Section 6)
OADSA omits comment on this section.
VI. Dependents' Education in Overseas Areas ~Section 7)
OADSA supports these provisions.
VII. School Lunch Programs Eligibilj~y ($ection 8)
OADSA applauds this provision and strongly urges its inclusion.
VIII. Schools on Domestic Military Installations transferre4
from the Commissioner of Education (Section 9)
OADSA defers comment on the provisions of this section at this
time. While we generally support this idea we are not fully
informed as to the implications for our system of all its pro~
visions. The addition of these schools does support our
argument that rigid limits not be placed on the number of
supervisors or support personnel.
IX. Section 10 and Section 11
OADSA omits comment.
PAGENO="0167"
163
X. Section 12
OADSA omits comment on this section.
XI. Allotment Formula (Section 13)
OADSA supports the provision for the allotment of funds by
school as a step toward accountability. Since staff salaries
are such a large proportion of costs actual salary costs
should be included in any allotment formula. Some schools
have more senior, and therefore, more eXpensive staffs than
others, by a significant margin.
XII. School Advisory Committees (Section 14)
OADSA regards this provision with the greatest concern. We
believe it has great potential for the creatiOn of conflict
situations in the overseas school communities but does not
provide a process for the resolution of conflict. We believe
the provision is based on an underlying erroneous assumption
that parents overseas suffer a disenfranchisement regarding
their schools here relative to what they would enjoy when
living in the U.S. In truth, overseas parents have direct
and command channels which afford them more opportunities
to impact on their schools than they would have if they
lived in a city or suburb in the U.S.
Our overseas school communities are small towns by U.S.
standards. Parents who are interested have easy acc~ss to
all aspects of school functions and are continually involved
in influencing the school program-- curricular and extra-
curricular. All commands are required by the tn-service
regulations to have a Dependent Schools Advisory Council at
each level of command. Most communities have one or more
PTA, PTSA, or PTO groups in action. School personnel are
included in the weekly commander's staff meeting in many
commands. School personnel also sit regularly on community
health, dependent advisory, child study, and like committees.
Parents have long been regular members of the school curricu-
lum development committees, booster clubs, music support
groups, scholarship committees and many more. Through the
dependent preference provisions of personnel recruiting, many
of our teachers come from the local community. Parents regu~
larlybring concerns about the schools directly to the schools.
To establish a new channel for the community to the school
would be redundant and take away from the already effective
channels.
The election of the proposed local committees by all eligible
voters raises a number of questions. If the eligibility were
limited to people having children in the schools it would pro~
vide a much more meaningful electorate than to include all the
PAGENO="0168"
164
young unmarried GI's in a process in which they have little
interest and no stake.
We believe that parents and principals want the same things
from the schools but that these provisions are not the way
to get them.
We strongly recommend against inclusion of any phrase which
gives any suggestion that the local committees be involved
in any way in the process of employment or discharge of
personnel, for the following reasons:
(1) Recommendations for employment could only cause
conflict and discredit school officials since hiring at
the local level is governed very strictly by the qualifica-
tion standards and regulations of the Federal service. The
The principal must select from among a few names (sometimes
only one name) on a list (Form 2600) of qualified people
given him by the Civilian Personnel Office. The principal
selects the one best qualified to fill the specific vacancy
he has in terms of the long range needs of the total school
program. If the committee were to recommend someone and
the principal select someone else, either because the com-
mittee's recommendation was not on the list or were not the
best qualified candidate, friction would develop which would
work toward destroying the mutual respect and trust needed
between school and community. Local people often "feel"
they are well qualified to work in the schools when they are
not, but some are quite aggressive about pushing their cases.
(2) The employment of staff is quite complicated al-
ready in the overseas community. This provision would only
add conflict to an already difficult task. We seiously doubt
if the committee would want their children to attend schools
staffed by the whims of local politics, in a highly mobile
community, by a supine principal.
(3) People who want to work in the schools now can
and do come in and make themselves known. Often, if there
is not an opening for them they substitute for a year. If
they are good we want then. We have to live with the prob-
lems generated by poor staff selections. We strongly recom-
mend this provision be dropped. It gives people nothing
they do not now have and holds great potential for generat-
ing problems.
Similar but even more serious negative outcomes can result
from authorizing committees to recommend the discharge of
personnel. The basis for discharge of personnel from the
Federal service, with a few uncommon exceptions, must relate
to the inability to perform, or inefficiency in the perform-
ance of ones duties. Principals are bound by the same due
process rules as other Federal supervisors.
PAGENO="0169"
165
Most of the recommendations for teacher dismissal coming in
over the years have related to something extraneous to the
teacher's performance of duties. Of the few cases which
have related to job performance, most were based on a parent's
disagreement with a teacher's judgement about a problem with
a child. A major deficiency of this provision is that members
of a local committee do not have reliable and objective infor-
mat;Lon about teacher performance. Recommendations based on
misinformation can take on the aspects of witch hunting.
Principals are constrained by the Privacy Act from sharing
with local board members any steps they might be taking to
improve teacher performance or to separate unable or ineffi-~
cient personnel. The slow and elaborate steps of due process
which he could not discuss',' could easily make it appear that
a principal was not responsive to committee recommendations.
If the ain~ of the provision is to inspire principals to
action to correct marginal teaching, the provision is not
the effective way to get that result. It may, in fact,
frustrate eUorts of principals `trying to take such aôtion.
Teacher unior~ contracts, the Privacy Act and good profes~
sional practice definitely limit the audience with whom a
principal can discuss teacher performance. The way to get
principals to take action on marginal performers Is to teach
them th~e process in all its elaborations and let them know
they!ll be supported against the slings and arrows which
will surely `come when they do take such action.
In summary, we have `to ask, to whom does' the Congress want
the principal to be responsible, to the government and the
school system H.R. 9892 establishes', or to a few local activ~
ists of sincere but often personal motive?
XIII. Advisory Council on Dependent ~ducatior~
OAD$A believes' it can provide' valuable council to this group
if it, is represented therein.
Thank you for the opportunity to present our views on H.R.
9892.
Sincerely,
Frank D, Alt
President
OAIDSA
C
PAGENO="0170"