DOCUMENT RESUME. ED Q27 110 EA 005 853 Education Legislation

DOCUMENT RESUME.

ED Q27 110 EA 005 853 TITLE Education Legislation, 1973. Hearings Before the Subcommittee on Education of the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, United States Senate. Ninety-third Congress, First Session, on S.1539. To Amend and Extend Certain Acts Relating to Elementary and Secondary Education Programs, and for Other Purposes and Related Bills. Part 6. INSTITUTION Congress of the U.S., Washington, D.C. Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare. PUB DATE 73 NOTE 560p.; Related documents are EA 005 703-707 and EA 005 854

EDRS'PRICE MF-$0.65 HC-$19.74 DESCRIPTORS Bilingual Education; Dropout Prevention; Educational Innovation; *Educational Legislation; Educationally Disadvantaged; Elementary Schools; *Federal. Aid; *Federal Legislation; *Federal Programs; Libraries; Private Schools; Public Schools; Secondary Schools IDENTIFIERS *Elementary Secondary Education Act; ESEA

ABSTRACT This volume of hearings on categorical aid programs contains statements by federal and State legislators, educators, concerned citizens, and other groups affected by categorical aid programs. The speakers discuss proposed modifications of existing programs in the elementary and secondary education areas.(Pages 2,267 and 2,450-2,452 may reproduce poorly.) (JF) EDUCATION LEGISLATION, 1973

HEARINGS E TUE suBcommITTEE ON EDUCATION 01,"111E COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND PUBLIC WELFARE UNITED STATES SENATE NINETY-THIRD CONGRESS FIRST SESSION . ON S. 1539 TO AMEND AND EXTEND CERTAIN ACTS RELATING TO ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION PROGRAMS, AND FOR ()vim{ vviwosEs AND RELATED BILLS

PART 6

SEI"I'EAIBER 9, ANI) 10, 1973

U S OE PARTMENT OF HEALTH. EOUCATION & WELFARE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION 1415 DOCUMENT AS BEEN PEP.° DUCED *AC IL Y PECEIVED FPOM THE PEPSON OP OPC,ANIZ4TION ORIGIN :.TiNC. II POINTS Or VIE A' OR OPINIONS sr:. TED DO NOT NECESSAPTLY kEPPE SENT Orr iCIAL NATIONAL INSTITUTE Of: FOLIC:. ION POSITION OP POLICY

Printed for the use of the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 97-457 0 WASHINGTON 1978 CON! M 1.1.VE E ON TABORAND PULIC WELFARE

.%B 1? ISON A. WILLIAMS, New Jersey, Chairman JENNINGS RA NTIOLPII, West. V:rgInia J A('1)13 K. J.% V ITS. New York CI.. IDORNE PELL. Rhode Island PETER II. DOMINICK, Colorado EI)W.kl:D M. KENNEDY, Niassaelmsetts ICII.kIZI) S. SCHWEIKEIZ. Pennsylvania GAYLORD NELSON, NViseonsin' ut)ItEIPI"I'.rr, moo 1*.k LTER MoNDA LE. Minnesota I. GLENN Marylnii(1 Tlit 01AS E. EAGLETI IN,tissourt ReMERT T. STA EFORD, Vermont ALAN Cll.kNSToN, (7alliornla li.klIOLD E. HUGHES, Iowa kk'l L1.1 A NI IIATIIANVAY, sofnwAHT Nicel.tntr:, Chief Clerk ItonxaT E. NACI.E, Cvncrol Counsel 13,0v II.III.LENsoN, Minority 8tai1 oircetor ECW.:Nt: MITTELMAN, Minority Counmei

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EDLIcATION CLAIBORNE PELL, Ithode Island, Chairman JENNINGS liANI)01.191, West Virtdnia PETER II. 1)0NIINICI:, Colorado .k. WILLIAMS..Itt.. New Jersey K. JAVITS. New York I.:1)11*AR I ) KENNEDY, Mass:ichusetts It ItIIA RD S. Sell WEIEER, pennsylvanla WALTER E. MOND.ME, linnesota I. GI.ENN BE.% LI., J a., Maryland ritomAs F. AGLTON, Missouri ROBI:It'1"1*. STA ',FOR I), Vermont .k LAN CRANSTON. C'alifornla \VI ',LIAM D. HATHAWAY, NIaine Sli:PlIEN .1. WEN ism. COUtIPIel ((WHAM)D. Sum>, A sNociate Counsel Rob' II. NItt.LESsos, Minority Professional Staff Member CONTENTS

LIST OF WITNESSES

I'tau:cr, S Nt ItER 14. 1913 S:tho, Martin.speaker, Nlimie.sota House of Representatives, and Joseph C. Harder, majority leader. Kansas State Senate, Natiot.al Legislativerage Conference 1982 Harder, Dom Joseph 1'.. State Senator of the State of Kansas 200:1 Doh, lion. Itohert. 8/1.3.S. Senator from the State of Kansas 2019 Pearson, !hut. .litnies' 11..it11.S. Senator from the State of Kansas. 2020 Rorke, Dr. Fred l'ottunissioner, of Education.. Slate of Rhode Island and Providence rlatitut ions 2022 .Eldred. Lamson associate superintendent of the National City, Calif., Schools : Impacted Area Schools. 'Thomas E. Goodman, super- intenilontofOtt? SanI)iegoUnifiedSchoolDistrict andDean Fleischatiorsupolittendent of Fountain/Fort Carson. Colo School District. :i panel on impact. aid 2011 Goodman. Thomas 1,.. superintendent, San Itiego liniticxt 4ehoeil District, San Diego, ('alit' 2088 Eleiseliatter,Dr.Jean,superintendent.Fountain/Fort Carsonl'uhlic School District, El Paso County School District No, 8. Fountain, Colo 2104; Burdick. Iton. Quentin, it U.S. Senator front the State of North Dakota 2128 Tlictisn.v, Or:Tout:it 4. 1973 Berke, Joel. director, educational finance and governmental program. Pol- icy Institute of the Syracus University Itesearcl Corp 2175 11):t,i, Will S.. senior analyst. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations 2198 Itirplty, 1)r, .Terome 'I'., consultant on education. Cambridge, Mass 2211) TUE8r1A r, Ocroutat 9. 1973 Carlucci, lion. Frank. Under Secretary of Health. lilucatiott. and Welfare. accompanied by John °aim'. Commissioner of Education; Charles M. Deputy Assistant Secretary for Legislation (Education) : and Nlollie (..rshansey, Eciononlist. SoCial Security Administration 2230

WEB ESBAr. OCTOBER 10..1973 Latmhoru. Robert; L., executive director, Connell (*for Atneriean Private Blu- etit ion Ita hid Aaron Seidman. NationalSocietyfor 11ehrowI lay St2hools; Dr. A. 11. senske, 1,mhean C11111411, Missouri Synod. Hoard of itaish Education ; and Richard P. Thomsen. Washington representative of the National Association of Independent &Wails, a panel, representing; Council of American Private Education 2320 DAlessio, Dr. Edward. director, division of elementary and secondary education; Richard Duffy. assistant director: LOW:: DeFeo, general. counsel, Missouri Catholic Conference; Alan Davitt, executive secretary, Now York State Council of Catholic School Sumrintendents; and Father Frank Breileweg, director of special projects. National Catholic Eduea- tiotial Association, representing U.S. Catholic Conferences. a lend 2340 STATNMENTS Berke. .14.ad. director. I.:lineation:II Finanee goal GovernmentalProgram.Page Policy Institute of the Syracuse University Research Corp 2175 Prepared statement 184 Burdick. Ilan. Quentin. a U.S. Smeltr froin the. State of North Dakota__.. 2128 Burke; Dr. Past et., commissioner of education. State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations 2022. 20311 Prepared statement . Carlucci. lion. Frank, Under Secretary of Health. Education, and Welfare, accompanied by John ()Gina, Commissioner of Education ; Charles M. Cooke..1r.. Deputy Assistant. Secretary for Legislation (Education) ; and Mollie Orshansky, economist. Socia,1 Security Administration 2230 Prepared statement . 2254 Clark. Rev. Robert 11.. superintendent., Archdiocese of Chicago, Chicago, .III Is.fore the General Subcommittee on Education, Committee on Alucation ;tml Labor. U.K. House 14 Representatives, March 1. 1973, prepared statement (with at tachments) 2475 Coalition for Children. P.O. Box 9801.1.711evy Chaise, Md.. prepared 63tateinent2383 D'Alvssio, Dr. Edward. director, Division of Elementary and Secondary Ednea tion : Richard Duffy. assistant. director : Louis Dereo, general counsel. Missouri Catholic Cumference : Alan Da vitt. executive secretary, New York State Council of Cat hulk: School Superintendents :and Father Frank litdeweg; director of Special Projects, National Catholic Edit- eathmal Association. representing U.S. Catholic Conferences, it panel 2340 . Prepared statement 2348 DeFeo. Louis C.. jr general counsel, Missouri Catholic Conference, .letter-

. son City. Mo.. prepared statement (with attachments) 2397 Dole. Hon, Robert, a U.S. Senator from the State of Kansas 2019 Eldred. ',mason C.. associate superintendent of the National City. Calif Schools; president. Impacted Area Schools; Thomas 1...Goodman. superintendent of the San Diego Unithal School District.: and Dmn Fleischuuer, superintendent of Fountain/Fort Carson. Colo.. School District., it panel on Impact Aid 2041 Prepared statement 2045 Fleischauev. Dr. ,lean. superintendent. Fountain /1'F Carson Public School District. El Paso County School District. No. 5. Fountain. Colo 2110 Prepared statement 2111 Goodman. Thomas L.. superintendent. San Diego Unified School District, San Diego, Calif 2088 Prepared statement 20111 Harder. Hon. Joseph C.. State Senator of the State of Kansas 2003 Prepared statement (with attachments) 2005 Lamborn. Robert L., executive director, Conne.:4 for American Private Edu- eat ion : Rabid Aaron Seidman. National Society for Hebrew Day Schools : Dr. A. II. Senske, Lutheran Church. Missouri Synod. Board of Parish Ed- ucation. and Richard P. Thomsen, Washington Representative of the Na- tional Assoeiation of Independent Schools, a panel. representing Coun- cil of American Private Education 2320 McElligott. Joseph P.. director. Division of Education, California Catholic Conference. before the Subcommittee on Education of the Committee on Edw.:Mon and Labor. U.S. House of Representatives. March 1. 1973: pre - pared statement 2492 Murphy. Dr. Jormile '1'.. consultant on education, Cambridge, Mass 2219 Prepared statement 2222 Myers. WillS.,senior analyst. Advisory Commission on Intergovern- mental Relations , 2195 Prepared statement 2205 Pearson, Hon. James B.. a U.S. Senator from the State of Kansas _____ 2030 Riley. Rev. Thomas J.. assistant superintendent for planning and evaluation. Archdiocese of San Francisco, Calif., before the Committee on Edimition and Labor. House of Representatives, March 1. 1073 2470 Ritter. C. Fern. president, National Council of Administrative Women in Education. Arlington. Va.. prepared statement 2507 Sabo. Martin: speaker. Minnesota House of Representatives. and Joseph C. Harder, majority leader, Kansas State Senate, National Legislative Conference 1982 Schultz. Francis N., cfordinal 'Aural ion, Iliocest. of Sioux Faits.Sioux ill. glIi11.111111111111M! on E1ille:It jolt of fhe Committee Falls. S. "'Mk,. before Page On Education and Labor, Ilom+t! or Itepreseitta fives. Thursday. March I. 1973, prepared statement_ Senske, .11II..Ed.D.. ss 4:rt!t:i of'k and seconda ry schools, hoard of Education. 'Fhe Lutheran Church -W;guitriSynod 23:11 ADDITIONAL INPORNIATION .%rt it Io.. public:0 ions, etc, : "America's Educationally Neglected,:' a11r4:5gress Iteport on Com- pensatoy Education. published by NationalAdvisory Council on he Education of Dis5olvantaged Children 2:01 In Assissiiiviit of the liii.olveratait or sooviddioSchool 11111d/,11 in in Title III Proeets of the Elementary andSecondary Education hr tit:tries pallid; La fells, Q.S..%.(with Mt ) 2470: "CHI i11111' of Fourteen Years of Federal Fundingfor Elementary and Secondary Schoills and itProposal For An Improved 1141154541 Of Funding.- by T. Tollefson,Director,SecondaryEducation. Sioux Falls. S. Dal: "7527 "Educating theisadvantaged Child : 1l'here 11.4i excerpt front, published by National Adrisi.lry Council on the Education ofDisad- antaged children "197 -1,:dlienli" polies positions Adopted by the National Conference," annual meeting. Augle:t 10. 11173 199S "It. Takes A 1Vhole Child," published 15s theCoalition to Save Family and Neighborhood. Paras. 041 ing ellairtwin, Sam 1Vright,New York, N.Y. No(15)15:11 Legislative Conn...re:ice. (.'45iiimit tee on School Finance. report or: adopted by the Nat bum! legislativeConferenve on August

. 1972 Title I Reading and Niathematies Programs: A Compilationand Syn- . thosis ofAvailable Achievement. Expenditure. and Nbulel Project Informat but, excerpt. front : submitted 15y the Planar Corp 2230 1.t1111111111147111i1111K Burdick. Don, Quentin N.. a(.1,S. Senator front the State of North Dakota. from l'eter Muirhead, Acting 17.S. (;ommissionerof. F,4Itica- Nom August 29, .1973 4155tre15. Ilon. Frani:, a I',4. Senator from the State of Idaho. front .1:toi imies, miperintoient. school District. 193,lintittain 22:13: 111:5150, ()ctober 29 1973 Eastland. Ilun..1amec i).. a U.S. Senator from the State ofIississippi, fromErank B. Va mock. superintendent. Laurel city Schools. Laurel. Slay 1.1, 1973 2310 Hollings. Don. Ernest.. a Senator from the State of South Caro- lina. from II. 11. Corley. superintendentHerbert Tyler.P15.111., . assistantsuperintendent : Sidney '. (fold:ins. coordinator. Talented/ Cifted Project, School District No. 2. Itiehland Comity. Columbia. .S.e.. Chi:ober 11.1973 2521 Ron. Claihortio. 1*.4. Senator from the Slade of Rhode Island, hairtnan, Subcommittee tut Education of the Committee on Labor :1111i 1.11111i1! %Vol fa re. from Iterlam, Robert A.. cooniinntor, Eedera I tirograms. Department hf Eidocation. Providence. R.I.. May 25. 1973 (with enclosure) 2272 17*rils.54wptier, Ruth 41., chairman. '1'154. National Advisory Council of 11xtensioti and Continuing Education.. Washingt on. D.47,. October 31. 1973 252(1 Edelman. Ifarian Wright. IVashington Research Project Action Council. W-asilington, D.C.. October 29. 1973 27509 VI

Communications to.Coutinued Pell. lion. Ciaihorne--Continued (lotto mit, Victor, executive director, National Federation of State County & Munieipal Employees, AFL-CIO, New York, N.Y., No- Page vember 7, 1973 (with enclosure) 251.6 Houston!, Byron W,, executive secretary. Chief State School Officers, November 9.1.973 25.12 November 15, 1973 2505 Ito:4:01. Floyd K., 11 U.S. Senator from the State of Colorado, July 23. 1973 (with enclosure) 2316 Iliggins. E4.iward L., directom of guidance & school psychologist, School Detotinent, Town of West Warwiek.'11.1...111111! 15, 19732311 Humbles, Rithert, Jr.. president, anti Evelyn M. Murray, legislative chairman. National Capitol Personnel tluidonce Association, Washington. p.c., October 30, 1973,-. 2523 Kincaid,eraidine;president,School CounselorAssociation. Olathe, Kans., Octolocr 30. 1973 (telegram) 52,5 Mchan. Ruth. former tweshient, KausaS City Counselor Associa- tion. hake Quivers, Kansas City, Kans., October 28, 1973 2526 Pabst., Mary C.. ouniselor, Monroe Junior-Senior High School, Independent Scloibl District No. 625, The Sofia Paul Public Schools, St. Paul, Minn., October 22, 1973 2524 Roth, Joseph L.. jr., and Clarence M. Mitchell, legislative chairman. IA.adership Conference on Civil Rights, Washington,. D.C.. October 30. 1973_ 2514 w Edward F.. Iirofessor of publk.! tinance, State University of .Newforkat, Albany,Allmny,N.Y.,September13, 1973 (with enelosure) 2284 Thurmond, Hon. Strom. a U.S. Senator from the Stake of South Carolina, July 19, 1973 (with enclosure) 2-314 Mentor:m(1nm : "11t.81)1111Aihilities for Meeting Nonpublic Partidpation Requirements in Federal Programs." to chief state schools 'Anvers, administrators of nonputok, sehools, from Imam. .1. Mattheis. lieputy Commissioner for School Systems, (Alive of Education. Department of Health, Education. o'nd Welfare, December '15, 1979 2453 Miscellanef ins Appeals front the 17.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri : U.S. Court. of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. No. 72-1440 2412 Injunctbot and Judgment Issued in Compliance with Mandate: in the District Court. for the Western District of Missouri. Western Division. Number 18245-2 2.450 Letters. statements. and other pertinent matter submitted for the record for the hearing of September 14. 19;3 "143-2172 Selected tables: Enrollment statistics of out-of-school Catholic religious instruction, contented from the Official Catholic Directory, published annually by P. J. Kennedy & Sons, New York_ 2242 v 1 zonniro. worn,. runnellirtitiif titleVII bilingual program.S:111 Antonio,Tex.,Ati.xIiiitiI24IltY., 01111111111, liii,liiiitts.OVISOI'y 1.1.111110:481011 on Bilingual I:duration Flores. Belvedere Junior High school, East Los Angeler:. Calif.: and I'arnien 1:ledrignez,

superintendent, District7.Nt'v City. 1.101Si:tiligiii: 11;1111.1 INICe iSs'IRN StrtleIMY t(hit ion 2914 P111131441 Slatelitt.111 .;11S A1)1111.111N.1, INI0111;31ATI4l; Art iitilil'ii':il Iii, it i B."0111.'0401Iii31olivatiott. Bilingual-Vivid( UralI.:lino:Ilion. a. 1111.- 11os:11 submit fell gl.01110 NIO:le:111-A1111.111.:111 CIS I.cgislat ion on ISilingual 1.:4111(..ation.' report 1111; by till. N1101,11:11 ,%1104111.Y 4 'filincit loll the Elitirat it'llifI lis:olvaittaged I 'Itildrcu '5IN Exhibit 2.--1i.ttou.atultItti---14b.tititivatiott of I :MI Detlial Or .(ri(_( ti rho Ilf Nlii1111:11 ( originfruit .1. Stanll.3. l'ottingel....I 1i rector. (Mice rm. civil. flights, bcpartinent 111* 'RC., to SchoolDistricts %OIi num. than peri'cut National I Irigin-Nlinority 4,11,0up Children, 3103..2.3. 1!170 258.1 I low Equitahlsa reIli lingua 1-Iticul t ura 1Progra II1:-.:.ervieing.the Puerto Iticatt Students 3115.1 I IS kit. Ito I :et l it or (Nit of Classes, front the Daily Netts. New York, N.Y., March 12. 1K:1 15 I "I 1(.4i:oh at Tueson..'611 Ite3.totill.' sponsored 113.' the national viltica- INSI 611.11. hl II',.; 1:1111ItiNational .ASS1Wiali1011. Novetnhet. tecen11,1.1.I. 197:1__ .6107 Sonic Critic:11 ,\'ru'ill 1"sing V; Tests for Minorit 3. Children :11111 a l'ingction-Based Computerized 'Information t4..steiii :Is 'an .%Iter- tive.hy 1.:1%%.a rd IN. .% vita. Bilingual Children's 1(.1o.i.:ion. and !turban' Ilavassy. consultant .1011 . 1.tHigh ScItouls Just all .%:;ing Vut. reprinted from 1 114, 'National 011,4t.rver. lict.13. 11173, toy Michael T. :1151 (*harts: Comparison of Bilingual I.:due:dila' Bills. S, 2552 and S. ;1125 Conuntudeations to: 11,11. 1.:(1%%.:1 rd M.. a IS. Senator from the State of lassachu- setts, f nun : Bugg, John A.. Staff Illircetoi., (*.S. Commission on civil Washillgttm. 11.1'.. Nov. 14. 1)I1_ 26111' 1-4rozco. Cerilio, director. Bilingual Teacher and Teacher Trainer Institute. Nett' NIeNico Ilighlands Las Vegas, N. 31t.s.. Nov. 12. 1973I with onclosuroi_ )Snli ElmerIt.. 'otiipt roller (1'ner:11of thel'ilitedStates, Feb. 15.197:I(wit)' enclosures) :12(17 ()ile:4110ns and ans%.4.t.: Questions submitted liv non. 1.:1%varil M. I.:4.'1111'41y.aC.S. Senator (run the Stateit 11:1Sto..htietts 4orreiro..1 ohn 1,. directon 11th' VII IVilinvtal Project. Fall 1111 17 Martinez. tasl: force 111:1 II: 14Iinglial-hicultural education, :St:10if 4 .olitio.nioI hport if I:tiny:II iii,, Noiv, s, .1.0; Mazzoni.. Ernest- .1 director, Itureati of Transitional Ililing1731 I1iuliitt, NoV. 11.197:i 0S110 Alh:11* Ph. D. 41irellor,bicultural-Idling:milstudies. rniversity ii ti'' xas. son .ftlotlidi, T4X.: Nlo., 12. 197:1I with

on".lostire1 . :11-110 Spencer. Maria (1itierrez t%.1:11.repone lt'77" Zamora. 11oria: former director itttitle VII bilitignal .11rov.Tattl. Antonio. Tox.. Nov. I1.n.:173 .1):111 EDUCATION LEG IS LA Ti ON, 1973

Categorical Education Programs

FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 14, 1973

SENATE, SUBCOM NtITTEE ox iiio or Till: CONLMFITEE ON LA Bon Nol 1011,1 WELFARE, 11."(Wiln1ton, P.C. The committee met at 10:10 a.m., in room 5110. Diri:sen Senate Of- lice Building.. Senator Claiborne Pell, chairman of the subcommittee. presiding. Present: senators Hathaway. Beall. MOndale. and Stafford. Senator PELL. The Subcommittee On Education will come to order. The (.'hair is tinder pressure; this morning with meeting schedules and I will have to leave at.I I.:45. so we. unfortunately, will have to abbreviate the testimony of the witnesses this morning to expedite this hearine., In deferoule tSPII:ltOr MOI1 (hi Tv. W110 has to leave shortly himself, I am going. to ask that certain wit nesses he called out of order. I would ask to come forward at this time Martin Sabo. speaker of the Nihau,- sofa House of Representatives and Joseph Harder, majority leader of t he nsas State Senate. Senator lfondale. Senator Mosnm.E. Mr. Omirtnan,' T am most grateful to you for permitting this change in the, lineup. of this morning's testimony because of my schedule. You are very kind to make the change. I want to introduce the speaker of our 'State House of Represent7 atives, an old friend of mine, from Nfinnesota. Martin Sabo is only :15veil N Old butt he is one of our most seasoned legislators. Ire is one of the most thoughtful and able leaders in our State. '- Recently Time magazine discovered there was a State of Minnesota,. and listed t hirer or four young leaders who Were Coining along as out-' standing. examples of what Time said was one of tlie most remark- a pout *tea 1 systems in the country. Martin Sabo was listed as one of our most ablest legislators. lie has had a Ion!, standin.e. Interest in educational financing in Minnesota. The chairman might, he interested in knowing before the courts ap- pea red to be reiliiiring. through the llodrigyez ease and others, a minimum equal distribution of financing. Minnesota swung from a. system in which the State supported the operating expense of local systems at, a minimal level to a system where we now support. it, at, the level of TO percent.. We did that in I. year. .(1981) It, was IIgreat, net, of vision and also of courage. f believe we increased State pending this I,ierainm over tlti previous bieniunt.by $1.3 billion in 01'1101' ti) Set! (1141t, the. State did its part in minium financing of our substantial financing of tile local school districts. The speaker is,I think. primarily responsible. illong with the (io- "Tic)" 1.("'that. ""mtldisifffleul and I :km \Try pleased to introduce hint this morning. Thank Senator Afontlii le. Would you pleaseproceed, Air. Siam.

STATEMENT OF MARTIN SABO, SPEAKER. MINNESOTA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, AND JOSEPH C. HARDER, MAJORITY LEADER, KANSAS STATE SENATE, NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE CONFERENCE

Smio.. nk you, :-4enator Pell and Senator Afondale. Let. me express nit appreciation for the change in schedule so thut, we could appear today. I oiler my apolories that .1 could not be here. This 11:1st TiwsdaY when (;(1"'"1 lIalffIllon teas !wry beforeY011r sub- c ommittee. and appreciate your adjusting your schedule so Lye can be here today. SigIllt.01' !larde is with are today and will also be speaking to you Etter on the clua impact aid as it. applies to the State of Kan- sas and some of the work he has done in that area. On Tuesday of this week Governor .(...alvin apton of Utah appeared before this subcommittee repilsentitr the National (Inventors' Conference and the Edneation Commission of the States to 'fliscliss modifications of existing- retleral 441111:MIMI programs in the elemen- t:Iry and secondary education area. I appear before you today us vice president. of the National Legis- lative Con ference ;mil Chairman of the C'on ference's Education Task Fope. What. I1111.VV to say will be very brief for I would prefer to have some time to respond to specific questions vou nui Faye, about equalization efforts 10111!r on in the StatL!s and how future. Federal funding. can relate to and encourage those efforts. I W011.1(1 like to he!,111 by saying.- that. the National Legislative. Con- ference is in harmony Litthe principles stated by Governor 1Zamp- ton in his testimony. One of the fundaent'al points he made bears reenThasizingnamel v. that Federal aid to education. Lliether categorical in character with specific. guidelines or administered...with con - siderable State diserotion, must dovetail \\Int State school finance systems in order that Federal assistance does not distort opportunities and priorit. ies at. the State and local leyel. This isparticuliirlv true were a State has adopted a school finance ssytem which recognizes the.higher costs of meeting the educational needs of those students who are given special attention by 'Federal pro- gramsthe disadvantaged. handicapped. and those requiring vocational education. Present. proposals at. the Federal level seem to view equalization as a desirable goal to be achieved through the provision of a new Fed- cra1 program alongside existing- categorical programs rather than . the means for .developing a comprehensive and consolidated" fiscal relationship between the 'Federal Gi-ivernment, and the States which iS responsive to the educational needs of all children. 1.t1,1,111,1 uot luzquttliii tutstfol poitlopuf;( .V.k; .1.10(11 put: ,1,1out .soplit; Jo.i9pcp: pool 11).wst.A.11s1.11 lutun:Is(itts samputot Jo -o.),) .11113:ttiou pik;luittu.pustp 04 tutu i)..ut 1101.4umipit Jo usoti; ttimplor.) 111. Toottutitt,Loti ,imotiAt mut sou; puo.k.oki pu.;:muto.;: o; MI4 novo:zip:Rio opt.koaki Lut,okis Lut.Rtutt9 oDuvo.ssi: 04 pont .1110.11 ..10tt:J:400 .i.imustiodulo;) luattp,) Rot put: lutiods 5111.111014u;)tip.t 1;311,1 isnot pozot±to:tiu .(L ttt .u.R tu.t,opod ply st p0pt.to.R1 att:4,4 o:utuut; tiottim.stoolsA's 11104110J oi,..0114 1)pm:1r:simply ,)(1 ;RI; apolim Jo) 'Isom J! 4011 III: lu.topo,q : 1)11114s35 'pittotis .4111110 it5o:11 'to1.1111:4::11.1j1;),ii;) U ol i311 so.p:*; Ito 110 po.yot.t.9i):1tin '.qv 1 - .uutuat0u4;) t .i-1.v,-.); iloottuttio,) 11)1. wspl..fluttliou .411 110 ttor4ul,),),01t111 Jo iR14 lou.; pup 54.10.11).110:,-)upc;fr.: tio Joiltutigi 101111.1 ivuokui.mp.) so:mm.1.10(1)10 11;It1utt; suLtoJo.1 oluis toovs o.11:11 11o1(101 uim(1 ot itioptititt Jo so4111s; put; put; !H.1% oki potpsuolut ut.lnp J1j4 1xou ;mug . .ttt m.)ttosi).1(1 lit Rook' 1.111.11 1j aou,t).109 'uo.uitttuzi I ,plo.i.--ttitt 0.11:71 .11t0I0 1.1014111.13::.111 JO 1 S;1114 .11110 pH: upttuao..; .pitto.R 0)1! 15111 tt .Ni)J. sloomotti 0; ortatnittukt oimitutti(;) s.10(.11t1out 114!., 1:11.%% suit pin:at:1(1ml tit -IRK 1:405:111 1.1;1.\() 111 4s1u1 .aicluo.. Jo .s.tuo.' pi).%oot t00.10 ;)114 ii).tot JO alt:*:.; ;ItitputtJ tit otli ,to.R01 01, 4110mi1ok1 SO aoluto,c4 )'':pooh loom pattot U4 u s)ptAo.R1 -Ixo.11(11: 09 JO -,:111 .Laputt ittimaikki .);)1.11U1a.)1111Ult .),10(4111S ;)11') ..11:111017101) 1)1111 .\.11111110;1W 1101.4141111/0 010.1J. 011115 S1/1111J OM [))4(101)0 otil 000(1 tit )01 put; postAat 11; .1;2.64. 011 2t1)m lt1 uo sitkInd wind ltun stsukt atom .11.kuati .10J. ..1111.111000:4 1)0,11;(1010D 0) ..1.1:1110111010 'S.11101.M1S 1)41:11011,1, 1:111111.10J plf.u.10.1(1 / SS 1411111111 011.1 .111:10I 10,1 "'11P 1-P-1:'61 1001135 '..1111.1. 017,Si.; 511111111 0114 01111:S il1;101 1.101i) .10J 011) 100113S i.)A1 i).10. Jo ott4 utoLgold JO Luttoptrottpd ttop,1tikli1o.o 41n14 arati- outos tio.11)Ittio otiA 150) .3.10111 0; i)4t:..u1p,) 'sitotL40 putt .am pa)clopu upott.10J .10.4 Luttoptppu ptu 0; 1o111L35 s4Jr,11sw Ito Dti4 stsug JO aogtuttu JO jcidv sulapn4s ut 'pup Juin014.1t4.1 Locillos .4i,talstp 'atm, 1061 tuthals,.1k1 pull all; ..Rsuki Luttotilppu (1(1111 ei:49kkuttli au.; tpuo LII ja,iv otj4 lumps .4.)t.145tp posuo,;;:lit stll.l ut (it Ski ;Ittrznalo,)0.1 5411op1145 ; 0,1otp wog; su.R ttotpu4ttimktodv Jo Tuts .R)11:..).1.7e stuo1go.1:1 'po4stva put; paptAthal 40114 ,dtli atom Rug.; 04 .411).).Rul Jo ',ill; 54ttoptos kit a uitu,t4,11:k1 lumps 4._;!.14stp adom ,)(1...,1v sltiopit 40114 1 ittott 11:1101.uppt: 01 41:111 kls ;Judy Nit pitto. JIl 1111:1.1 1001105 ''.101,11S1.1) Slta S(11:0(I1 111 010 4110.1.100 .11:0A: Ut sup :41:) J.() stio(Ivintutly 094$ St pt.uki 04. lino Loollos .4.R.,14s1.1) .toJ ,.to.vo ittoptos 011.\ St 110 .judv 111 1-1-461 I..: 41014 111.1i OS141.10111 J1 1 '4110110 1)1/11 Ut SU.1.10.1 JO M011 OM 1111.1;/11.1.1S 3110 10011jS 1:111: 111.1.11.11.10J ut 0111 '). optAo.al iutpit:4:411ts u.skauJ :01111MUJ jo .tuulz'oad.otL4 0111 ,,;1(..,1 sopuloto. '111nkt1.Ioi itoJ ',up '1,4-1;461_ 1004:1S 6.11:J.1 .10J Oki) g.2.--.1,101. otL1 Lk:R.1.)u uptto.toJ .IUJ 92.-1;46I Si Jou ko. 'oti.; lug .11m Si t10.0.1. It tit i) song-Amu '4utlA1 o).ts 4511u1 op Ut 1 int .11:).1 91-(461 (1)011JS .1110A* U1 S01.10.1 JO Luotios os'iuutputti otL4 lumps s1Jt.11stp .otq no.t '4utLA% i)(1,34 J0 o1u46 E atm ix; .r;uttuod 0510 :111.:01) lotputt.t: tuoiquakl 11.1111.11 SI 0.1..11111011S 011j -110.0.1 )1:111111"01 05011.1 JO $311 111 okL4. so.luis dos su at so.ppit o; t: om.p: put( 11.11111erOlIS 111-141.11 411111-1111 11111Si:11C 01 .111111,'5111 ;1, :111(1 \11 prOidell t hat Cell:1111 111-11121 11111S ;ITC paid 10 10C111 SC111101 1114 1 HOS ;1111111111 CO11111(111 it Pall 01'.11C 100111 011.01 1.011 11111 S(luu)l aid formula. The basic law that we passed in I slith with t he. equalizat ion of the prOprt.V PIN 011011 AVC rintliged flint, in 197:1 :441I lull (iOr a tt-VI.:11' peri0(1 01 i 1Ille 1111 S11001 dist icts 111:11'. spending. below .1 he dale iulatc ;iver;.0 will he brought up to that a vcra!rt., , We sitiwed down the of thethe high speittlitur dist riots to inerease their I,upil aid so over a iwiod years WI, '.viii2111,1,1,311y hying.: the spenin,r levels of various school dist rick much closer together. A Iso the Bute passed the new itnitiieipa Iformula kV111(:11 all! 1111 :111(1111011111 hinds l'O 11111111Cip1 1 g(0111111erit in therereaS where intinicipa I co:as :ire

Ve \you'd think that the ,:chool 111111 formula t hat was adopted ill 'Alinnesot votild snhstnt inl compliance vit It any tpe of court tests thatnii,,11t.. he hrowda ohm!, t he lines of the 11' or? tie::: ht. Si:ii o of Texas.. Perhaps puma sieliiieant he innovations in education finance wit hin individual States is t he fact that the `,:ntional Legislative ('on- ference. I he n'rlt'st 111111 most hoadlv based organization representing 7,t;(10 111.4,110-hont till' 1'1111(41 States. has made a 'firm commit mi 'what 1 of Corm. Nfolit Its prior tohe Supremo'ourt decisior, on t he Rod p; rniez the Nat iona,1I ,e.wis.lat t, 'on ferYnce tool; flit' position that school finance re torniisa State reSpOltSitt1 111 y 111111 (111.1,1111 In he plIrSlled vig()rmisly.Inwst 3 k.,,rs wro 0111' int oriro1.ernmental relations cotr- nittec est ahlisholl specia I committee on school finance, chaired h Senator Thonins verne New Yroric. The I'll:1111reit;110 special 11211I11it1141 Wa'S 10 CS:1111111e the requirements, developed by the court. decisionF. to txplore. the ratiu.e of a a- i4..;i1)10 I V1':-:(110011111:111((SSiems perm undo,.I liosp iirsr 117)11 to 114.0111111111(ipolicy positions which oitIll assistthe1"4t ates toNvatd editent lonal. opport unities. for their children. The recoil,- mendat iunor t lie special committee on school linam.e were adopted unanimously byhe entire N;t1 ionit I ive Conference last year at its annual meet in,(r. With the.he Chairman's permission.I(void(' like to have the erttie Nut ,v(risint j VI% Om cortmcp, poljc\ $11 scli0111 11111111e(Iiii tro(Inred Pik) the record. 1 Igstieo the Ci")11111111tee has a copy of that. 1 Sonator Nondaas-mined the chair.1 .1enator MoNo.N1.1.:1 presiding pro tempore 1.1Vit 'tout obection, it will appear folloinr, yon r test 'ninny. Nfr. S.no. TIninl; you, Letrine just a few of those positions. The National Legiglat Ivo C011 feronre intends to serve. a catalytic. role on f or education finance 1.0101111. IVO belly ye there is no dearth of innovative. thinking and research on tit is subject: what is butl:iti.,r. however. is the effective. conininnicat Of n Itertinti ye taxing and spending solutions, consistent wit h .\-atiotio 1 Legislatie C'onferenee to the decisiontnnl:er the. St ate lovel who nlnst beat' the resp(m- itv Tor reform. . '1.111.S was prior to the Supremo. ConrCS (Well 11111111g the lower C011It'S .1114.1S1011 111 1110 il'(Hiri.f///edi e;ISCI lint 11 e wee ill haSIC at. re(11111111t With those court decisiais, and regardless of what, C011 rt action might bring, we believe. that, the basic principle involved is good public policy and should be the objective of all of our States. might indicate that, at, this year's convention we adopted another resolution that, said that we retained Our old position in support of additional Federal funding and the changes in the Federal system of financing elementary and secondary education ; that we were not, willing to accept a redact ion in Federal revenues for a change in form. It clearly must, be at, least, the same amount, or more revenues. As it relates to impact aid, there was a strong feeling that, clearly there is a need for State discretion as to how these funds should be used in determining local 'effort. 'Where a State has moved to a system of equalization, this restriction in Federal law can completely alter that intent at the State level. We would also Urge Congress to restructure its appropriatio process. School districts must know well in advance of the school year the exact amount, of their Federal aid. We think this makes sense in terms of having sensible planning at. the State level and at, the local district level on what to do with the moneys that are available. Clearly this is what we have to do at the State level. As I indicated in Minnesota we adopt our school aid for 2 years in the future, with a strong guideline to the third year so we, know what it will be actually 3 years in advance. To accomplish our objectives, the National Legislative Conference, assisted by the education commission of the States, has been pursuing . atinxlest, program of providing information to legislators about, developments in the field. However, we have become convinced that it more extensive effort is needed if interest in school finance, reform is to be harnessed for constructive legislation. We believe the time to begin this effort is in the next few months, prior to the opening of 1974 legislative sessions. The strategy for fulfilling these. commitments involves both a short- and long-term effort. The short-term process would primarily be one of information dissemination. It would involve a series of five or six regional seminars which would provide a forum at, which State officials (mostly State legislative leaders and education committee chairmen) and legislative and executive staff can engage in a dialog with experts in the-field of edneation, public finance, and law about, the process of transforming present, school finance structures into more acceptable systems wherein unreasonable disparities in taxing efforts and spending will no longer he tolerated and the goals of equal educational opportunities. and quality education can he enhanced. More specifically, the seminars will be designed to expose these key officials to much of the new thinking in this area, to acquaint them with some of the myths and unrealities of finance reform and to communicate the experiences of a number of States in coping with some of the impediments, both political and fiscal, to prodding an equalized school aid formula. The immediate goal is to initiate public, discussion and legislative debate on school finance, leading hopefully to the introduction and paSsage of legislative alternatives to present, school aid formulas witlun the State legislatures as they begin their 1974 sessions. On a more sustained basis funds would he used for the development of a number of followup activities t,o assure that the momentum created 1 9Sti

the.seinittars could not be dissipattil. For example. t he !wed for fill 1-t hoe stle If person to oversee act ivit it n ili educilt :oil linanre wit hilt th0 States is apparent. As 710W SPhOO1 fOr1111164 1111'.(;11`:ItPti, the 11444 1.01' tilt: %':11'1011S experiences of States in the implemental ion of this tittv legislation %vil Iincrease. The staff person conlil perform itsen0 function. as a broker for assuring that the primer kind of technical assistance and,'or information is provided hi the Ic..rislatures once diseussions. on education lin:ince are underway. In t his capacity, the, statr person would SPI'Vo. ;IA :1h u h bet WPPII 1 he 1111111014MS PillWati011 interest groups and. ()flier or,anizat hills which have provided and trill continue to provide iti va hiahleyesen yell and lluta on school finitnee.. AVe have. heel] pursing a rather modest. pro!rraiii.of bringing informat ion to all the States in terms of %vliitt has happened in school tinalw4%. reforms'in those States that. have dealt with t lie problem. NVe. are current ly plannin:, to expand that role. We hope to be shortly able to an- nounce thin or:ranizat ion of five or six regional seminars throughout this count ry which %ou'd involve bringing. in the educational leadership of the. various State lerislattovs and also some executive. representatives from the executive branch of Government, to enter into a. dialog as to what. has happened to school finance reform, Wiult, can he done. lio% SI;11PS Pan respond to the problem, and tot ry to increase thr. awareness of our members as legiSlaturs around this country in what.. they can do to deal \eith t his problem in their respective States. We NV1111111 duet we WOIthi able to get, fundirm. so we could develop a staff tvlii,11 could be on call to more front State to State as they he!..fsin. to deal leitll the problem. to provide some of the technical data that. so often is lacking as S;tates begin to re.form their s!..thool fundimrs.vstems. fir. (1iniratitn and Senator. t hank volt for this opportunity to appear today. Senator I larder IS Wit h 111P. :Ind he and I will' happy to respond to any quest ions that.1.1)11 1110,y 11111. 1,10(111111'iltiltilrred 10 ViVVIONSIY and SithSe(liientl Sii1)1)Iie(1 for 1141.1141 f(111(MS 1987 BEST COPYAVAILACLL

NA ili INA!. I.1:( ,N A (

ot II.I.1191E11 04,1 SI II' LA 110,41 IlittS1 V1,411,41'1 SIMIL1, S I11, I., coo I A/11/11 t ,11014 INCINI 1.61/1.0 I/I110/ 111141014.11 I, I tIIIKV 41151IS SIIACIAL,111.11,11,0 01. Nunt IN/ IV. DIIIAS.S1,11..11,1tItINS.

REPORT Or THE

NATIONAL Lllr,ISLATIVil CONN:IRE:ICS

SPECIALcomITTEr 1?:4 SCHOOLF1:1ANCE

Adopted by the National Legislative Conference on August 3, 1972

A.1004704 CHICAGO NEW YOGY SANI6ANCIWO 33P4 Peet mrw. ;cad. N f 1313 East 601Y S,.,. 36 W.,, ArIth Slew 711 Stow 5,,.., Arl6N6 Goevg.a 30376 C11.10.111.60. 60637 Now Yorl 10036 !11 94101 SPECIAL COMMITILE ON SCHOOL FINANCE

Brown v. Board of Education set the stage for anew era of

tttin,in:: asto the Availability of cortain fundamental rights to all citizens on equal terms.The case was based on two important assumptions:

(I) Education is perhaps the most important function of state and local government:

(2) Itis doubtful that any child may succeed in life if he is denied the opportunity of an education.

The decision made it plain that there is no compelling state interest which will justify any racially discriminatory policy in public education.

Today, almost twenty years later, anew challenge is before the public and the courts -- a challenge with ramifications as far reaching as those initiated by the Brown ruling. The courts are now being asked to consider the proposition that education is a

fundamental personal right, protected by the State, and being asked

to rule chat the present system of elementary and secondary educational financing, which is conditioned on the wealth of a child's parents and neighbors, is unlawful.

Two major forces have brought this issue to the Nation's attention

through the courts:

(1) The rising cost of public education, coupled to a growing resistance to further property tax increases, and

(2) The rising demand for equality in the distribution of public services.

In practically every State in the Nation, wide variations exist in

the amount of taxable wealth available to local school districts.

Because their taxing efforts have been limited to the availability of local revenues, the public. school systems have been unable to provide equal educational upbortunities to their children. ftforts bythe States to oli.iiinate, or at least reduce, these disparities

in the delivery of educational resources have simply not been Able

to keep pace with the demands.

Challenge; to the present school finance standards have shown

that taxpayers in a "poor" school district are forced to make substantially greater contributions to provide substantially less revenue for the operation and maintenance of their schools as compared with wnat is required of taxpayers ina :"rich" district, The

Supreme Court of California has ruled, in the now famous Serrano v.

Pyjyst cose, that the quality of a child's public education (as defined by :".he level of expenditures) must not depend on the wealth of the child's school district or family.

Since that August 1971 decision was handed down, similar challenges

to the inequitiesin public educational finance have been made in several state and federal courts. To date none of these court cases have suggested:

(1) That the use or tne property tax, as a tan source for public education, is unconsitutional; or

(2) Tha' the same amount of dollar; muss be spent on each child within the State; or

(3) That the State must adopt any specific school finance system.

Though tire parameters of this problem will only emerge on a case by case review of new State programs as they are enacted, the States still have a wide vange of alternative school finance systems from which to choose to effect the twin goals of quaHty education and equal educational opportunity. Nevertheless, one principle is fixed and unequivocal: local wealth can no longer be a major determinant in

providing educational opportunity to elementary and secondary school children, BEST COPYAVAILABLE

The National Legislative Conference. affirms the principle that all States nave an obligation to provide an equal educational opportunity and quality education to all children attending public schools within their jurisdiction. We are in agreement..with the principle established in Serrano v.Priest that the quality of a student's public elementary and secondary education should not be dependent on the affluence of his parents or school district. 2eDardless of future court actions, we believe the principle established by Serrano, so far as publit education is concerned,is essentially reasonable and equitable and ought Co serve asa policy objective for every

State.

We recugnie.e that varying Constitutional dictates and differing tax preferences within tne separate States make it impossible to suggest any Specific uniform school finance system that would meet the needs of allthe States. Each State, therefore, will have to develop that system which best responds to its individual cirr.um -. stances. Whatever general guidelines are agreed upon by the States. however, must be fair and equitable Co both the taxpayer and the public school student, and must, by definition, include:

(1) Equalization of property taxes, and

(2) Control of local expenditure levels.

In order Co accomplish these objectives, the National Legis- lative Conference makes the following recommendations:

I. Money alone will not cure allthe ills of our public education system but no improvements can be made untilthe manner in which educational funds are raised and distributed is altered.

The States, in line with their clear Constitutional jurisdiction over education, should assume full responsibility Q- regulating the collection and distribution of the revenue 1,ar public eluient.ary and secondary education. 1991

Ii. Evidence clearly shows that the mariner by which local property

Laces are levied for financing public education favors wealthy localities with dlarge non-residential Lax base and penalizes those jurisdictions with asmall non-residential base.

The States, in fulfilling their responsibility in the area of educational finance, should move toward stabilization and, where possible, a reduction in their reliance on the local property tax as a revenue source for public education.

States which continue to use the property tax as a source of educational revenue should initiate a review and, where necessary, a reformation of their property tax administration. Specifically, the States are urged to adopt a uniform system of assessment to assure an equalized property tax burden.

The method of taxation used to supplement or supplant the property tax should have a growth factor comparable to the increase of educational costs.

Local, non-educational public services are financed largely from the property tax, and although the central cities tend to have a relatively large property tax base, the total burden placed upon their tax base usually is heavier than it isin areas where the demand for such public services as sewage maintenance, street lighting, fire and policy protection is low.

In the attempt to equalize the costs of maintaining schools, States are urged to recognize those non-educational expenses, for example, municipal overburden, which affect local tax burdens.

IV. An equal educational opportunity implies an equalization of educational resources among school districts. Ili order to equalize resources among districts, two alternatives are available:

(1) Reduce educational funds from some districts to raise the resource level for others, or

(2) Provide substantially increased funds to raise the poorer districts' resources up toa level enjoyed by the more affluent systems.

The later is obviou'sly preferrable. 1999

No school district should be compeller; to reduce its level of eApenditure while aState moves toward a,suming its idll role in financing and distributing educational funds.

The equalization level isa matter to be determined ay each State. However, itis recommended that the 65th percentile level of per-pupil expenditures be the minimum standard guaranteed by each State.

V. Equality does not mean identical treatment. The crucial value to be fostered by a system of public education is the opportunity to succeed, not the uniformity of success. Wnile all are equal under

.ire law. nature and other circumstances yield advantages to some, while handicapping others. Hence, as the President's Commission suggested, "lo offer children only equal education, disregarding differences in their circumstances is merely to maintain or perhaps oven to wagniiy the relative effects of advantage and handicap.

Equal treatment of unequals does not produce equality."

A concept of equal educational opportunity should reflect a sensitivity to differentials in costs and variations in the interests aria needs of those to be educated, Attempts at relieving disparities by attending to their differences will prove fruitless, however, unless those needs and costs can be clearly identified and fully quantified.

We support the recommendation of the President's Commission on School Finance which calls upon the States to develop both a Cost-of-Education index and an Educational Need Index.

VI, Although itis an accepted principle that the responsibility for education is primarily reserved to the States, no level of government -- federal, state or local can escape involvement in the educational process, The acceleration of change in American society, the vast mobility of its people, and the extent to which gross disparities in education can reflect adversely on the-quality of an 1993

6 individual's life, have combined to make education a matter of concern extending beyond the boundaries of the several States. For the States to play afull role intire distribution of funds for elementary and secondary education, substantial tax increases will be necessary. Many surveys have concluded that the average State would be required to increase its revenue collections by more than thirty percent ifit wished to assume ninety percent of the cost of public elementary and secondary education. Yet, the federal tax structure severely impedes the capacity ofthe States to develop revenues at a rate sufficient to meet increasing educational costs.

The National Legislative Conference recommends that the several government substantially increase its level of financial assistance (presently at seven percent) for public elementary and secondary education.

Increased federal funding should serve the purpose of assisting the States toward greater equalization of resources.

Federal assistance should take the form of block grants for education, designed to promote equalization, but should remain otherwise unrestricted.

With respect to P.L. 874 funds, if they are not considered ih a school district's ability to pay, any attempt by the State to provide equalization may be distorted. Accordingly, we urge Congress to give consideration to allowing those funds to count as local school district contributions.

V11. Federal assistance is necessary to maintain certain operating programs in elementary and secondary education. However, even with federal assistance, many worthwhile educational programs are delayed or even eliminated because of the uncertainty surrounding the amount and timing of federal appropriations. Adequate foreknowledge of the amount of federal assistance is imperative if States arP to properly structure their own appropriations and tax policy. Many educators feel they would rather not have the funds than not be able to depend on their timely authorization. 1994 BESTCOPY AVAILABLE

In full endorsement of the recommendation of the Pres- ident's Commis'sion on School Finance, we urge the enactment of federal legislation tho would guarantee to state and local in lho tvonl nI dpiov,in tedoral outlay. eighty percont ol Iii , 1,1nd'; pilivid,d In Illy rrnwinn% yvor.

We strongly urge the Congress to restructure its appropriation process so that school districts know wellin advance of aschool year the exact amount of their federal aid.

VIII. If the States are to assume a more active role in public education, especially in the realm of funding, and if they are to expect the necessary flexibility in federal assistance, States must demonstrate their ability to appropriate additional funds in an efficient manner.

Each State should review its governance of education, the relationship of state departments and local districts, and the present and potential effectiveness and accountability. of the Department of Education, in order to insure the efficient flow of both State and federal revenue and to guarantee that funds, be they State or federal, are applied for the purposes intended.

IX. The argument is made that a greater assumption of school financ ing responsibilities by the State will undermine, or perhaps even destroy, the tradition of local control of education. We believe that local controlis not dependent on local tax raising ability.

Local school districts are the creation of and responsibility of the State. Their authority to raise funds for education comes as a result of delegation by the State of part of its own taxing authority.

There is a distinction between local fiscal control and local control over policy. Local fiscal control is no longer a possibility if financial discrimination is to be terminated in public education.

Insistence upon financial control over education by the State in order to eliminate fiscal discrimination in no way has to interfere with continued local administrative and policy u.zntrol of the schools.

On the contrary, the new standard of school finance encouraged by

Serrano suggests that for the first time "poor" school districts will enjoy significant local control over educational policy which the lack of resources has previously made impossible. 1995

Evidence fails to demonstrate any correlatiun between an increase

in the State a,sutvtion of educational costs and loss of local decision-making authority. If anything, the evidence suggests tnat

local decision-makiny power to shape the content of local educational programs is enhanced once local boards are freed of the burden of searching for the necessary resources.

Regardless of how the States decide to finance their system of public education, they can and should leave policy decisions and administrative control in the hands of local districts. It is the State's obligation to insure that a basic educational package is delivered to all children on an equalized basis; it should be the local district's prerogative to determine how that package will be delivered.

X. At least 75 percent of current operating expenditures in education go into teachers' salaries and salaries of other employees.

Because of the fiscal magnitude of this portion of educational costs,

increased State responsibility in this area will be necessary.

The National Legislative Conference recommendS that as an essential corollary to state assumption of the fiscal responsibility for public education, the State'should ,olay a larger role in the determination of teacher salary schedules.

X: The issue of school finance reform is only in the initial

stages of debate. It is certain that reform will not come overnight

-- and may not come at all unless there is an ongoing effort of

concerned organizations and interest groups to educate both the public

and ele(Aed officials about the crisis facing us.

In this regard, we wish to express our agreement with thy general policy statement on Educational Finance Reform adopted by the National Governors' Conference. In particular, we endorse its two major recommendations calling for immediate action 'from the States toward equalizing educational opportunities and urging assumption by the federal government of far greater responsibility for the financing of education. 1996

?;:l. bite net. session of Congress promises to be a critical one for the future of public education inthe United States. All of the major funding bills for elementary and secondary education will be up for review. The National Legislative Conference looks forward to working together with other concerned organizations, such as the

Governors' Conference and the Education Commission of the States, to press Congress for financial assistance to help States meet their responsibilities in public education.

The Special Committee on School Finance recognizes that its task is not completed upon submission of this Report. The Committee should continue to function in order to encourage the implementation of those recommendations agreed upon by the National Legislative Conference and to attend to the ongoing developments in the field of school finance reform. It should also expand its lobbying efforts with Congress and State Legislative Leaders and increase its public relations efforts to that end.

The National Legislative Conference has offered the preceding recommendations on school finance with an awareness that reform of the manner in which educational revenues are levied and spent is a necessary but not sufficient condition for the realization of the societal goals we have established. While there is much to commend in our education system, a great deal of work remains to be done before the promise of quality education is fulfilled. We are faced with a tremendous challenge and a great opportunity, for there is no more important business in an open, democratic society than the education of our young. CONFIPENCL SPECIAL COMMIITLE Oil SCHOOL FINANCE - 1972

Appointed by kepresenTativO hill Clayton. Chairman, IntergOvernMental PolatiCn,. ComTittev

StlkliOr inOWdS Laverne, NOW York - Chairman Assemblyman William Bagley, California Senator truest Dean, Utah Senator Allen Dines, Colorado Senator CarlF. Dodge, Nevada Senator Wayne Dumont, Jr., New Jersey Speaker Herbert Fineman, Pennsylvania Senator Joseph C. Harder. Kansas Senator Jack Hightower, i0XdS R,!prOSOntdtiVe lom Jensen, Tennessee Speaker Charles Kurfess, Ohio Senator Gene Mammenga, Minnesota Speaker William R. Ratchford, Connecticut Representative Martin Sabo, Minnesota Representative Ralph Turlington, Florida 199$

EDUCATION POLICY POSITIONS

ADOPTED BY THE

NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE CONFERENCE

Annual Meeting August 10, 1973

NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE CONFERENCE EDUCATION TASK FORCE MEMBERS:

- 1973 - Speaker Martin Sabo, Minnesota -- Chairman Representative Irvin Anderson, Minnesota Assemblyman William Bagley, California Representative John Bragg, Tennessee Senator Gilbert Bursley, Michigan Senator Ernest Dean, Utah Senator Carl F. Dodge, Nevada Senator Wayne Dumont, Jr., New Jersey Representative Anthony S. Earl, Wisconsin Representative Herbert Fineman, Pennsylvania Representative Joe C. Hanna, Texas Senator Joseph C. Harder, Kansas Senator Jack Hightower, Texas Representative Howard M. Rlebanoff, Connecticut Thomas Laverne, New York, Member Ex-officio Representative Norman A. Murdock, Ohio 1999 BEST COPYAVAILABLE

..* :o:I ';:o f'o,ica.11

o i on a tote o,fuol protoction gliarant000

A'aeh,::-:,:nr. tho S. Cchati.-

".;...., I' ; contiht.o.

vat, antiqua,. f.:i xa t.q.ca4 on ,for

t V14.t1:.:1,1:3 i 1ifthat tho,r,atet4,

1,2 no: i,:termincd 10,a1 wca t:th. an.1 that thfa

t 4 2Y 400.:4!'I' oqu c:qht. to ;wove aa the pc /icy ohjceLivo 2000

BESTCOPY t!1...m1) !ILJI)t(Al AVAILABLE

ill t 'C 1, I": 1,i 1101, 1,I n111,01 ;t, lit ill Sp,' LI I

,A,u.n ajondoed the Administration Itothe n)rd Congrvf.s, Nevertheless,

e,Idenee Indi.,tes that;n June, 1 1, the Administration will iund nuly Chose programs

it w oiled it ii under it Better :b'ols Act And will not fund programs which

...vie not incorporated under th.tt act. This could mean there todild be no federal lunds in support It dollego or punli, libraries, no funds to strengthen State Departments of i,ducation, and no tools for school diA(fiimS impacted by category "B" rhildron, i.e., thoso whoso parents an fedora; propert:J but live in private residences. 100Z;

- .1011111os -.11..1NolV I ili!!!! .1o0;11as 1 111 .101).; SI. :4111I0.if 01 55,110pl: (111l( l.111.11out.oli1a5 alw4 1011111111 31101411111 'AV 11:ILL11:1(111v1 s! lutio,,: -.11%11N:01v !!1.1% all .1113 011551 I al! .109» 1!(I WA% ;4 .ii114:4.),11!!)1! .5 1 I I((,;;1101{1 .11011111 I MHO.) 'SU!. 1SI: SI101 .l(V '0111:.; I: 1 1,1.1 ILI .11111:110.4 I I:I '.1.11g.1

I 00.1;11: 11.11. II 1x111 1 SI 11111 (1.111(11 1A..1.1.1,) 2111111 all J.110.101110) .21111.il:S 111:1(1 '11:11 I 1111011111100 0011.1.10.1W). .119 1:II .III1 1:.1110.1 311,2 a.(0111 1,111.11111 11) .1111 1:1.11) AI SI: I: 11:III 1 .1.1 JI) .6i1041 11111),) .11D 110m.s4:(10.1(( 11:1D alp swito.) rittploos 01 o.uoitto 10110.1q) alp 1:1 .5.11 I 1 11:II1 SI I: 1101 1 II 1 ) IlIgifill1.1a.1011 Olt 0.119 1 011 1.1110.) '111.1111g).%0III .i.1111.10111 .1.111111,14 0.11 111)110,MS I 14110.11 HI: 00.1;;I: 11:III .1110 Il1aS,I.1(1 I1:.1.11.1,1,4 NU 411 11171111) 01 (1,1V01 11: 01 0111111.100p .11011 at( -tot:Ails 1101111 1117/.111.10110111 11111 11011:11110:4110.1 0.1011.11 11 5011:111 OS11.1-1 A.It -Jill (ruin lllllllll!» Si 1121(1 1 0.1.111 SI 010 1:11111:1; ILI I:11111130J 11:1I1 OS Sal :M1551 .1.11 35111 10110 01 )5 1.1 111 .1.1.1.77I: 10;103 .1.111 0.1011.11 11:11110S110.1 1101 SI IISS011 'Op VIII: .1.1.11(11 1! Sl 'Io11 aS111:.10(1 0.10II1 s! U pa11:115 111:11(91111 53! 110.11 511 OIVIS (11112 11:0O1 SIS.1.1.)1111 1111(1 0.1% aA1:11 03 al!alloaa.1 'a..1(111 11.)1:::1 01111.3 I 021 .)11101( p11): :111:1 01 S.1011:0111.10 .11:011 1111: Wel

gINISI10(IS Ill i1,1111. 55,11;1310.) S.111:1.,14 .ig)1111111 AO) 'WWII:Mpg) .11011 1.101)11110111110,) .)111 10.1,1 .iIIIIIIISII011Sg1.1.11 10 'al[5 0.1111100X.) III ZIIII)11110(11111 .1,1110111

) 1( g1S.Ili0,1 1 all 3.111 1.10113 110.10 11,111.1 gly 51 Si/Op

I! I 1 .111111 all 111110.11 g(III:.%01) 1 Mt 11:41114) WI! .11:1101) 1:1 11,111.11 11 S01110.1 01 1101.11:0111).) g)5111:.101( 1I 1:1.1t1.11111 111 -.II: 50.1 '001 (04)11.1S .10111.1 11,1011 ,1:-:11 Jo 5119 1 01 11:.1011.11 II 5.10S 10 3J05 111(1 01111 II:11.11 MIS )10111 WI) SI11:15 .119 SiMI.9 110111.11 III:.) 027 I .1 111111:.S.111:st0,10ll atilt J11:1S VIM S.%0110111 .10J 1 'S..11111) S1.11,1, 5(1)10111 wit) au) .i.4110111 1011 1101)10(103(i 111(1 a1(5 .111.1% II! lial11.%% 0.11 op 51 5! .5.1y.i111 anp:.% jo A'atioiii Mop:onto .1110

1 JO 1 315 51 1511111 Sit .r1111.,1 3.1.11 Volioloi 1111.111(11) Jul 1111Slital 5.1311 o5 111() .11.1115 S5.1:1011(1 -05 1.)1) 1011 5011 )1:1(.%% 01 -.114.1 .n111.1%0W1 0.11:.1.)1(1 ;111!):ri ;at .101 (11.1apaJ 1111' 11 .1(.1111(11 111 ;l(.(111 Jo 1 '.)5011 So..9.)11.1(1 Os I aA1:11 0ll 1110.1 )11)11111:5.11: 1(11.1' 1: :711111).%.11 00110.10J11(),) S1:11 p!us :4%- jo Jae) sut[ tioaq .1.0u Hopi 05 a.topq j aAl:q Oil .$110i5sot11i paatipo.1510. j-ipq Ol12 u; uoilt:aiipa j aolia.lajood t.;30;--; II 000121(.1 l » ppio. ail) g1,11.1t).11110,) 01 .11.1311 41:1I1 011.1141.1 115IM 51115 1 WV 211111.10A( 110 12 1 11.1011111a a.ltisualli Rap 231111 a/itlialta Ill a1(1 .)1115 I 1:111111.10J a.1.111A( 1: 101 JO 1111.111.1 S(11.111I111111110,1 }111111151 {.1111(IIS Ilia 1111111111110) sa1 sl: 11.).%( 041: 211111.o1 11111)S(1tIS III S51111011L1: JO ..)11o1II m().1111111 ..44;;111:1(.) sill) 111111(1.10J 0(1 0.1I:11 I: u0150120.1 05 5119 11101(ju.1(1 11.) II 110.1 4SOilitlIS IUI 31[1 op .).lay 31'11 ;.yJ ' aiu lot:a.' )1. 1311 05 puu -qn :11C I .511: ,Aq5:15:!Acq wq Sip:ion:5s cud 1111!zli 31q5 pLiapad atou u! Zu!punj Suustlawaia puu 10912alpa t: a!st:41 witwo.) pout tI0 ay jo.4.5ud 0115 puupusi aAiveisari j .No14.'0.100 05 ailutl(1o.) silop1q) put: 1101SSILYSII) 11.(1. 11 411 111.1111),) 1101 -Jo aq) 11:11: S..1011.1009 0,11103111)1d 04 .i.14 0$ JA1.1.11: '4U SU01411aAlleJ 441 ,141 SSa.1;1110,) 111 alij 10:,111: SI: 04 .)51.10.1 1tu,t14.)3 4.1c41 114)141411.! 11! 110141:M1Pa ./..1,11111111J aAt lop) .1110 45.41111) 110141:.la4I00) III ;1111..14 04 J(I jupliati III 010 sat4tS, u! u.ttop )11:pp 001 14130 ..1t 1Wa1 p11a101) U/ 410 lupi!s 4411!SAI litm.1.1 tiotutuo.) oins sums!sod put: attiosIlit!.:pltlits 1101l1:111.10.1 aiillalM0111 11:11) .1. ,M1:11 IC ')110S 51'1'1'4 tn NSSAIZglit0 °At 04 ail111:11.) imp 1011: 31.10M 1).11:11 1: {4 :1 '$1 Ill ti1CJ.1 pump: put: ,)(101 01 .',.14 itiplioit -no.: .100:110.: kit .'1111114 ono I) up ;I J NV 4011 p111) ;1.1atua41.ls oil .10J I 11:1I 411711111 fuo!utoui ,)11).ptp 1aA.4 JO itudpadi .putItins -t:atipa Imp .iipu.nrt s! putiss.qt: ji un.i oat:(Vkin.) HA% 11 ittJoi -u.ta.tu.1 SO10111 tal J.t 01101) 111 all; 151:1 jet( aols S4UoLUUlam);1 ..).%Ett 'atm) .tt 1:11 10041 411a211171011 41 SIUJOS 01 'MI U1 alp aitu ul :1114..14 04 411a11 110.1 .1110.1a0111 *S31411.INSUOdSal '0:1V5 I 111111: .4.4110 10.%.11 jo ;gill:111I) SUll:111at ',9114S '41:114 lII If 0scoa.).1) adlisiu tools it Is .1911 :11115 11 1:111 osua0.)4 .).1ISIVUTA414) 5450 s%' r .1,),iinu Jo '4,)y) j! Ftwi put: up ouit:s on 4111 spat) up:w..1 tutuAud s! moo 1),)utu pup sunotu 4! s.).1t111i,u amps t:J01 I 'Mega Up4UltUl 11114 01111:14 11111.1;10.1d jui,):1 MI! 0; 1110A. 1(01450111) u! stu.104 Jo 41u!i)uuJ oq; a.elutata 1,).%,)1 .1.4stau .latiptim aACII 1a4d0p1: SAM 11:11.1,.9.11:di 40d 1140.4 buo!suz,111:410 J !plum .!ti juattittioo imp gut wattapatlxa tit )).luitis!.71,), s! imuj om ing jitd ell -111 S.)1 SL.lhI Sill 111 U0111:151itai 1! sotukko C poor; lud( J0 u01WILV,Ip III 1U.M)I 10011.1S SW1.10111 .10 .101110 1100I 5411111 JO plautu.i.).0.71 pip -11114 I .14 jou 'aiquitio.ou 11:univ A't:Jv i Iso.t pilot 114 110!s5a111, i.tuluttas lumios -.:pt!uo,tj -,,jv .11:14mvi sv a ii:)A*1 'uo!ump.it }utioun Jo lN4SdUoui n14 il:.1.1a.1 M).) Stair SIli pdp:I14101tidit ail Jill [(sops 11JUUI urtmilu.k1 suq umoi) outim Isod JO you; suij thrsp 'Siti1:44tnal ).%t iv; -.1aoul I .)su W'($ sit 1101.0LIJSUU1 JO 4011 Zillidoa.4 4.)11:d l(jr..tt ISLYJ sv it Iall1o5t14),) .),)1 Jo 110.) a,.1 )Atui 04 410:4411: $ osal( alp IS OW SI:11 )1.10;411:04 111.)11; still .111!t/11.1),) Spetiatuus titu tpost(t: -way austatt,: sv (110. A011:1 spu 44101:00.) F.:)01 4011 aA1:11

1101.1,9S1.1 J114.10.10 10011.,15 11,111111 11.111 :.li IUl lit 1340:V1f SJA :.1041111,I1 pap stit. Sit tilt uo!uulsuli1 -.rivosoiv .)..11t all: Sao.% pasSalt)1111 111 SItl4 aAt 1110110 4)4 OA it 11:11111:4StiliS WA 111 ..11 0:11:111 till .10J 01110S JO 0S0(14 .4900

.4111j4a121111. I elAIL:11 0.) 1:01 'OA aosuuds pouutssu Lipuuil lounias "1"1:4,1 1111:11, 110.i 014:1)110JVA041:Ilaslialitll.i.lat .I.K '.1al).11g.1 J.11 .1110S S11011i14So4 31111:1111:1:441:11.11( nu.t '4041:11.Is I NI:allid!: S1114 `,41U1410dd0 I 111:11S 40U peal 4o111ap:4s pup 1)0.411a5ai4$ 1 04 a%t .441.141 04 41Vfed 4110 MILOS .10 -0114 su4a(i0,01 4,11: I:II Zi111.1 III SVS111:)I III 04 '4M:111111 .1041:11as "11:1,1 .4:10A HUI Itlal1104:44 HIM .11:a1d1l 111 4114 11.10Jai Jt: utp Jo 2003 STATEMENT OF HON. JOSEPH C. HARDER, STATE SENATOR OF THE STATE OF KANSAS Mr.I humn.Kansas was under a court. mandate to change its method of fin:owing radii. education. .A joint committee composed of members of loth pinlical parties %corked diligently exploring about every avenue possible to keep with a formula that would equalize educational oirport unit ies iii the State of liansas to meet the t.2.aurt test of They finally after exploring all avenues inure adopted what we call the equalizing concept. It is working very %yell. statistics show about s9 percent of the school districts fall into this local effort, between 20 and :1 mills. and so we do think we have accomplished a very great deal in equalization. Every school district must make a. local minimum effort, and that is set by statute. toward raising its budget. When the budgets are set each school district must raise 11 e2 percent. of its local wealth in funding that budget. If that is not funded. the State makesup the difference. If 1i, percent of the local wealth is funded, then no State aid is received. Of course there are some dednetions that are involved. and one of them of course we did use under Public Law 874 which we considered to be a local resource in the computation of State aid. here is precisely what happened. f think 1 could best illustrate with this exa mple. Juno ion City. which educates the majority of children from t he military base at Fort Riley, has a budget. of a little over S2 million. It receives about i41.5 million from Public Law 874. and the local property tax generates about three-quarters of a 011ion, but if the Public 'Law 874 cannot. be considered as a local resource, Junction City would have no tax levy whatsoever. and they would indeed have S7cil.000 plus more than they can legally budget and extend. Then we have another district which. of course. is also a tnilitary base. Fort Leavenworth. and it is located on the military base. and it has approximately 2.000 students. If Public Law 871 funds are indeed withheld. the school cannot operate past December 1 of this year. Because there happens to be no property tax base which can be taxed, it being goernmeni propertymilitary property. So1 would submit toyou it. is absolutely impossible to have an equalization formula relating to school finances without taking into account and consideration theeffect ofPuddle Law 874. I would suggest to yon, Mr. Chairman, that the rules and guide - lines >af the statutes be changed so that. Public Law 874 funds could be considered a local resoutwe. Senator PELL. T am no sure that I fully understand that. In fact. I know that I do not. You share with North Dakota and some other states this same problem. but W us use this Junction City example which you haveon peel of your prepared statement. You say you have general aid in your budget that comes directly from the State in the amount of S2.334.152. What you are saying isthat has to Ile deducted from the general State aid ? Mr. ninon!. Itis not deductedfromthe general State aid. Senator PELL. It is added to it. tOOZ,

'AK 1 .3:11171V1 15 Si 111. 111)1111)1111 Us :4t .).0.1.10.) -1'1141 0?,; 110. .111:11 11()1111111 511(11 1" '110411111 110111 11RV 0.%1:11 A.).10(10.1ti N1:1 .6,11 JO .01PO6Z:S°1:1 1 "1110111V 11:11.1. 51 1:1,11,110.)

.10)1(310s 11.1,1 1110,1 SI 0111 111,11(10.111 1101111111 '.110 ":1:111:111 /11.1. 11101(10.1(1 SI .11 1. 110 1/10111111.%% 0111 uI IS 11101111111%% 114.111,)11111* .0111 .1.111 S.10.11.)114) V *S11101)11 i111.1(1 .1:4111'Iati JO .1115 .1111 1101.11:%111:1110 1111111110J SI 11.1111.1.\\ 411 :1 :5111 51 ,),tt 01101111 .6:1).101s.).%* pou 1 pocis.lopunt Si :lop!! 110111.Am .6:po1 pop ,\.1114 Jae to!piotpmm 4141 a!pin,1 s sporli j0 A'um 01(4 !pow(); Si tio.ii!a wtll.SIICJJq 0:111 um am 0511 s! totipap 1101 !plum JAI.100.11 SS.)( J41.11S .10 011 .111:1S II: RC 05111%).111 11:.1.1104 111110M .111 ;1111.11:4 `431.11(.1 511111)11(1 s! -asua si: 110.% (111.3 Jos tool) spli :No 0101o11 l4aZ wo outwit1 111 aluis 'Pit: 111(1 JM 0.1,11 ;71111q11: 04 0114 0111111,1 M11,1 t'18' 0) 111111J 1,1:;11)1141 putt 1111 ludo! 1.1o14,, tp!ti.s% s! two! Spado.ol N(1i .6111 ,i1;;(1151.111 00061:',S1 1110.1J 111114 ././.1110S 04 1)1111J Apt') atip11(1 110A oos 0.111 .1011 1111.1(1 i/J1111111(11.1.)sw )S11111:11: 1514 JS1114.1011 SO(1) .1.1(1 laz1 ;101 au(ind ry.\\Irl l sponj I )pogns ()I op jou 4111114 ,viiiunhaou.) 0111! .1111104)J1: 41:110S .1.) 141 .104410 51),IOM ,1111 M111 11111()115 0(1 1WA1111:11,1 OS 51111 1111101111: 111110M 1011 .1(1 .pa4an1)0p .:tic Il :1:1,1av s! muum al!! 01 JJS 1t 11,01111;11J OS 4u114 1171 41 UM) pi ,>t1 1h).101)1SUO4) S1: 111001 IOSILI I 601).1 OSIII:OtH Sip,titou J!!(!od I2,s ;OO.' OA: LTA llf no!! jo sas:u pun .t..)114 Noe('s 1)alap!suo..1 st: C a.uous .10 itiop:Aptba 111 -iut! C aduatilostio.) 4t saloodatj iuJoi a.),Inosa.t awls uo!luanpa ppm poluo!padol (ludo atii tilluam JO Slop Isl.!, 1.4.1 pot: I [plu ipolitis tio. i op Jou ,3.)!!'q atil Looti.ks s1o1,14511) poluopopasq, istquzu ip: jj plume.) 01) spl4 ['loom tai OA 011 111J01 1111.11 q.Aa! p(1 ',mato oar puo.as Lumps Is!p sop al!! ;1114 II! Ito) -aluis (Hip. Spouila.., -stp a.!1-.%.01,-;!:,1 04 (; itioalad JO alp pulps sH.Ilsw op pawn alum j1 lull .1!!io! ! 4.1(.111111 ' -sax aolellas Si U) 011141 oapto.ol pm: j ium JAIN dqj gujs ;JS spil 10.10j .luj oti; 5.1,,1111am jo alp aalipooloa OS OA% (IC.) III: Stilli 14.1.)1i11ll pill: 11 .10plias *.11'.M1:1141:11 (10S It; .10 'AV.1%%'11.1. 1 01) )11 JAIN' A111: SUOI)S,1116 4C 511(4 OU.)1) .1011111.1S -11:1,1 I ,111111) I WM 111:M 11)1111 0111 450.1 JO 09 1.1t1131 145.11 Sal.) 110 01311111 NI: III 11:.1.111.1:7 !min 1101'1 111aa am!!! omos ouoi, .stio! oAt '111:0 tupoils o1a1(1,o1 pm: JAN WM Op 41:1iM 04 -.110 1te.,:kt Sao.% 11Joto j i,iurpa.oldu 'mu .ii!uniluddo 1(1/1 A1 aaujo( s!til 27ttpuoto Aulutlas -Fria 11'' .1041 11.1011 .40.11111.1S 1110:1,11VIS 1111:11611 110.% .11 j sum. 40U alai( austi aqj sassatij!m .ioutapsaj us 11 !um Iu0 3t5u Sou -suopsanb .10;1:0as oo.i -.1a1>aqi anuA 4oatuajuv ii!M tog !!t pao.m.t you 41a.10 oat:.) !um aq paioAaj, oi spp Juitiximl tualtiold s! lot1 oe -susot,s Sojejs (Al ati; SI1'1101)1.111)ISO111:S 11111 JABS 110S all: "J.ILMI: 1%: '/1:111/1V11'J 'SJA 01111 1101)11(11.101111 1/J11(14111S S(.1 jt. I SMOI101 [: BEST COPYAVAltABLE

Edscation Sa.oa:dlittee Sarator CLi. r.o Pell. Cnair-lan

State Senator ,Iosepn :1;:rz.?r

;74 Fano:

: oncerely a?crociate ovr. 1.ne opts;rauniay to apnea.. or e .

we t:::.ty to ,nare my views. and to re;dta tc. yott.e problem; we hoe, a..aaantar_

..t' or.t fra ttattO and d::!"Ari;triszve regula1iora concur n-.:

f4nd,. Tne problem presonted in tnis inar is not only d

tree Ecucation Scmmiosion of one States onC tne 7:at4un:

Tne detals of test inny 4i:: focus on tne re'..anoas school fina%ca

moo.t familiar with it, but other states i.ave been or ursoubteCly 4i1". to

tne tame problem trat the KanSa; Legs;atdre encountered witnrOSDCCt to

7.eaIlzing that tie old Kansas scnool finance lov:s Cid rota for eoa...:oaa

zax effort or coaalized edacationol obnortanity, cocmittees of tre Kansas Lenisio..re saudied tree problem fdr a numer of years before true School District Equolizotan.

,ot wa.:. enacted in 1973. During tie course of :nese studies, sevcrol court cacti

roe state legislatures to provide for equalization of tax effort ano ecuoas*.ono.

o rtsnities. In Kansas, a case was filed and a district court judge ruleo :ho

no!saa i3W:i did rot conform with tne state or the federal constitstions. The 4'..no.s

:,ozorne;. Zeneral evidently agreed witn that ru:inc tince it was rot appesled to tna

:ansas S.ipreme Court. The judge ordered the Legislatsrc to restructure toe ;chop:

finance system by July, 1973. 2006

. t'.! t 7

l' sic Are r',.5ra liuc. ..!r :a co:';11 with lad ,n C*:r. as it ..ffe:ted tansas, thef:

67: fuHr., rust be tal,n intf)

Lv10,?T,:,1 of

did far. Jld is th,l. 1'373 Di.;trict tior st is ta%e,4 on power ccnci;pt. In geecral. the for:,,Jla in tI'e

Act is ore district lc-al effrt rate LUP. is prescribed ly law

Ice a s:'. 'j per psi 1CY;i, as deter on.Jur a s.:he4u1. which :Istr:cts iito enrIlr.eht catecrics s1f.Lttd through analysis o' costs p-, at ,Irious le.u7s cf onroll-".t. If the FN.' of a district is -:Cre :r les. than ir the e-rollr.mt-rrP SCbedulo, tro LER is orcinately r..tre or less than the prcscrited LER of LE)... The district's wealth is rraltitlied by its LER to determic, in part, how much the district will have to raise to finai.7e its general fund budget.Therefore, the hi2her a district's liPn relation to the specified or "norm" ETR in its 'enrollment

Lateg.Dry, the hi,he, its LER and the 'Jneater itsded!Action based on district wealth.

State aid is orcvid,d if the re4aircd local effort .(district wealth LEP plus

4oduL.tior.3 disus5,e1 telc.-4 does r,Qt pro16:e cr0, h revenue to finance a distric'.%

:Aure g,..ni,rel state aid for a district it cov:puted as, follows: tie dittiLt's authvt:A fund tu' ut rin', the so:,, of

a. district wealth timC't tho district LLR, 2007

BEST COPY AVAILABLE -3-

! (if d, in Cl': ;:re,:olin4 school ..ear

',J., tj.

0! c! ;f1line;thl,s :J dis- of V.11 td,).

,..!..11 is ruvide Stid. t2

'..:"1 r,, p,t!il than to district.; with high "wealth" re

ou;:11 ly addir3 the total egaalized asseosd valuation !ni

taable a district). !.lth 3C,.1

1.1`...t d ait;ur'A of it for,sic the.v.

of ledoral ted LT) 7,1300,1

totnet!". (iederal viiperty. heir: frcri the p.forertv.

If P,=7: Ide 87: e:i;:ts are net considered in the cor:,tation of state did

some schc.:,1 districts would nave no general fund tax levy and their reverse would

e4ceed the a cunt tit it is possible for the to legally budget or spend.1:e have

listed teilo three Kansas school districts which receive lar7e Sums of 874 funds and

the amount of the property tax levy for the 1973-74 budget.As you will notice, the

amoant of 874 fur.ds received by each school district the prior year. which is

considered in ccrouirg state aid. far .cceeds the amount of the property tax

levy. 1 would particularly call your attention to lines 5 and 6.Junction City

would receive o.er 9/4 of a million dollars in revenue that it would be unable

to spend if 874 fonds are not considered in the cor'putation of state aid. This

also roars it would have no rill lest, for the general °aeration of the ;;.,,01

district. The l:ashturn and Dory school districts would have eporoxill,.tcly

Sbr: "CYCPSS r(`Vie" rn fid.

Junttion

1. ral iuv! adPPtf fur 1979 44 $027.4O0 $11.C/1,_

7. 47 4, 74 .7 Juni i Ctty ;Jr?,

11. ''; 1 . a 1,51,,51"!

4. .n. al f1 1'/ 7p2 ,t.; 404;671;

;',,.part. lov;, PL ttrisi ti 0 0 0

6. in r.ce.,s ct 1;er,ral Ludic itPl.874 not didted 166.616 437,fi:6

Othhr districts enr911-ents and bat'n,ts per pupil, but little or r9 PL 074 funds. h,!! 'ttereral fL,nd tax rates

ri 1 Is.

The new sc3.1 ti on forrul 1pros i tel a cons id,rabl of

{,vorn:lty ta.repf for ,!:.,ry th il districts thia...ighout ci'sin

th e three s;::1 large surs of 4 f...rar...

also rO,Ej .1 a ri-A,.,:tc,on in property tat for cteneval operatinA purposes.

1972 143 "van..ral and Co..nty and Carty Ar,oant of loun.'aticrn P,te Fountat Junction City 2b.26 rills 21..43 is1 Is - 3.83mills 32.29 17.74

Washburn 35.91 23.71 -12.20 The iunc:ion City School District will receive V.: of its generallard tq,!/.,et fro!, state andL 87; aid,Washturn school district will receive an; City will mcieio. 72. frotha...e tio co..rceS.

The r ay.'s a no., y.-hoG1f indhc low whirl, is deSi,:red

to i ,,qua ul1:)( it,:. ef fort ...ndt'e:,.er:iture7, par pup'

certainly wts ,; is, I i'.1111., alaihr,t tIn I.,v..;iLti hair rncLiv..1

IL I.;74fur"ts, as irdi,,r.,-; ty tne figures. On.

wull rip ii 11 774 fi'I'. v"r.zr, ict tiLiinti ar 2(109 BEST COPY Ping ABLE

-5- aid icrruli. in ur* thy plun, t1Irci.tc i. oblivious 1.o theIL811 prcNrj.. !h- . lih. f'full .rJrr of 1 ly ...0c,ra 1 1 un..1 i.t.t hit bul;pt. Jp. ff)1,r,

Ilurinl the ht.:1rings cn the new Kuns;is suilcol finance law, no one reptc%entiv,, any of the districts which receive PL 874 ud; appeared before the cut-Httees to object to the wry such funds are trefted in the new law.

The district court judj2 who struck dmn the oTic Varsas school finawe laws revieweJ.Je1973 iqu.11i:ation Act ard rul1 that it v l',1ished a ccol:tit,Itionil finance systt!,9.

I cannot evil-chaie uret need to charle the federal law to as to permit states to to%e PL 574 f:,,,ds into account in an equa1i:,.tiun fort-flu.For exal,ple, ore Kansas school district which receive:, a very large st;:n under Public

Law 874 prcbably will run out of operating cash ty Decml,er 1if PL 874 funds for rY 1974 are not distributed by then.

Mr. Justice Powell, at the conclusion of the U. S. Suprctu Court's majority opinion inP7,1ft:2t7,said:

tl' 2010

!;.. ; 1., ; r,

L f:

;;::' no:;: Li; C;L:::.0.:o

" s added)

ID dch gro..ter equali!ation of lecal tar effort and eduatior.al oppor' unity, laaraers in Ka-.as and certain other states hay.2 concluded that Public Las 874 funds must to id ,n into account as part of the financial resources of school district.; whi(h such funds. Section S(d)(2) of It 81-874 is a serious

impediment to the current efforts of the stiites to achieve sweater equalization. the Convey-. vhjU Id in mind what Justice Po...ell said in the abnve Quoted ucerot

and should. tht,(:!0-v.Iocve federallYrn;Po'.ed rc..trictions cm the tal-.ing into account

of PL i7. funds in state school finance equalization lasc

I will to glad to try to ans60 any Guy:titans you may have concerning this `011 BEST COPYAVAILABLE

ST A Tr .;KANSAS

JOEPI C HAMICit CO1.17111t .111011..t ./01 /IOC.ap, .0.11.104 so ra 10,40 rt....0/.08.1.MM. 'Ill/ If C111.

orRA .04 kkkkkk fOo kkkkk MY I.,. kkkkk SENATE CHAMBER .411 .0

September 18. 1973

Senator Claiborne Pell Senate Office Building Room 325 Washington. D.C. 20510

Dear Senator Pell:

1 woulu like to thank your subtommittee on education for having given me the opportunity to appear before them to discuss the problems Kansas has encountered concerning Section 5(d)(2) of the Federal Impact Aid Law.

As you will recall, Kansas has been notified by HEW that we will not receive any P.L. 874 funds for fiscal 1974.

The Kansas Legislaturewasrequired under a (nowt mandate to enact a new School EqualizationLawby July 1.1973. The Legislature during the 1973 session adopted a new finance plan which increased the general state aid appropriation by approximately $67 million. The court has reviewed the new finance law and found it in compliance with the state constitution.

It was the intent of the Kansas Legislature to significantly equalize local tax effort and educational opportunity based on the general operating budget per pupil for all school districts. Listed below is an example of how state aid is computed for a Kansas school district.

I Adopted General Fund Budget $728,000

2. 1.5% X (Local Wealth') $10,000,600 $150,000

3. IntangibleTaxReceipts 10.000

4. County School Foundation Receipts 20.000

5. P.L. 874 Receipts (Prior Year) 58.000

6. Total 'amount of Local Receipts 238,000

7, Total State Aid $490.000

."Sum of equalized property valuation and taxable income 2012

Senator Claiborne Pull September 18, 1973

As you will notice from the eAample on the preceding page. if P.L. 874 receipts dre not considered as local revenue, districts'which receive such funds will have wore money to spend and lower Uno5 then comparable districts who do not receive these funds.

If Public Law 874 receipts are not considered in the computation of state aid, some school districts would have no general fund tax levy and their revenue would e,ceed the amount that itis possible for them to legally budget o spend.

I cannot overemphasize the urgent need to change the federal lad so as to permit states to take 1'. L. 874 funds into account in an equalization formula. For eAamole, one Kansas schucl district which receives a large sum under Public Law 874 probably will run out of operating cash by December I if P.L. 874 funds for FY 1974 are not distributed by that date.

Sincerely,

Joseph C. Harder Senator

JCH:DMD:sw 2013 BEST COPY AVAILABLE

JOC.CPH C. HAUDCR GGGGG 1. ,(1.

011010031110Gt. AIINSAY MO/ GGG C G 1".{1111 GGGGG ftto OG TOPCKA (On...... GO t004M SENATE CHAMBER .1. .voL wa July 19, 1973

-The Honorable Carl D. Perkins House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Mr. Perkins: /

Following the onslaught of Serrano, Rodriquez, Hatfield, Caldwell and numerous ocher court decisions, states became more aware of their riponsibility for financing public schools. Notwithstanding the United States Supreme Court's decision in the Rodriquez Case it still appears to be evident that states cannot abrogate their responsibility for providing the funds to assure equal et,.,cational opportunity among their public schools. To equalize educational opportunities and to make.available quality educational programs in each school district will almost without exception require a complete review of sac method of financing publi education.

Because Kansas recognized it had an obligation to improve the financing of puhlic schools even before the court mandated finance reform in (Caldwell vs. the State of Kansas), the Legislature appointed a special committee to study the problems. Tr attempzina to effect a solution the committee explored various metnods for financing public education. Invariably the committee was faced with the problem of how to deal with PI. 874 moneys.

If the states are to he "fiscally neutral" in order to comply with standards laid down in several court decisions including Caldwell as it :affected Kansas then the resources of school districts must 1:e ta::en into account.

The special committee that worked on a now school finance plan recognized tnat deduction of PL 874 receipts had been voided in 19E8 byte United States District Court in (Horgenreter vs. !ieyden). This case arose undc,r the old Kansas school foundation finance law which was repealed by the enactment of Sub. S.B. 92 in 1973. The committee 2014 designed the new law to be much more equalizing than the old law by requiring districts in specific enrollment categories to have a similar "local effort rate" in order to spend comparable amounts per pupil. To accomplish this purpose, the committee firmly believed that PL 874 funds had to be taken into account in order to avoid serious disequalizing effects in certain cases.

For example, it was estimated that three of the Kansas school districts which have received substantial amounts of PL 874 funds would have no, or possibly a very small, general fund tax levy under Sub. S.S. 92 if PL 874 funds were not considered as a district revenue resource. Other districts comparable in enrollment and in certain other ways would have general funds tax rates of 1.8 to 20 mills or more on an equalized valuation basis.

The old Kansas school finance system, i.e., before enactment of Sub. S.B. 92, was held unconstitutional on both federal and state constitutional grounds (Caldwell vs.. Kansas). Among other things, the court was critical of the wide disparities in tax rates among school districts. In its effort to fashion a new finance system, the-lecislators who die most of the work on Sub. S.S. 92 were convinced that they could not justify a situation where a district would have no general fund tax levy or a very small one, simply because the district received PL 874 funds, and still be entitled to spend as much or more per pupil as comparable districts not receiving such funds.

Kansas'. general state aid formula is designed to provide more state aid to districts with low "wealth" per pupil than to districts with high "wealth" per pupil (wealth is measured by adding the total ecualized assessed valuation and taxable income of a school district). Districts with low "wealth" per pupil include these wnich have rGceived relatively large- amounts of PL. 874 funds -- they have such low "wealth" mainly because of their number of federally-impacted pupils in relation to their taxable prooccy valuation (federal property being exempt from the property tax). To demonstrate the points made above, consider three school districts which have received relatively large amounts of PL 874 funds. Even with such funds considered as a district revenue resource under SUb. S. B. 92, the May 23 computer 115 corf ROME application of gun,:ral state aid fornula indicated the follOwing in state aid in 1973-74 over actual aid in 1972-73 under prezeut law:

Junction City $ 892,773 Derby $1,094,416 Washburn $ 434,429

The state-wide average ratio of total general state aid to the total general fund budgets of all districts is tentatively estimated at 43% for 1973-74, under Sub. S.B. 92. For the three districts, the estimated state aid-to-budget ratio is:

Junction City 54% Derby 60% Washburn 50%

These ratios are well above the state average, even with PL 874 funds considered. as a local resource.

The Kansas Legislature has enacted a new school finance law which is designed to improve equalization of local tax effort and of expenditures per pupil. :;_re certainly was no intention to discriminate against districts which nave received PL 874 funds, as indicated by the above figures. On the contrary, di---"minaton would result if PL 874 funds were not taken into account an the new general state aid formula. In one sense under the plan, the state is oblivious to the PL 874 program just as at is to the "wealth" of any individual district. T he plan provides for full funding of a schoel district'- legally adopted general fund budget. That budget, subject to certain contraints, is determined locally. To the extent that a district's resources for funding this ..1.1dget increase or decrease, the state would provide more or less aid, in the amount necessary for full funding of the district's budget.

During the hearings on Sub. S.B. 92, no one representing any of the districts which receive PL 874 funds appeared before the committees to ooject to the way such funds are treated in the new law.

Because of the guidelines and interpretations the Federal Government has used regarding PL 874 money, I am requesting that your committee review congressional policy concerning certain aspects of the PL 874 program. .!016

As 1 have indicated on :any occasions, present requirements and constraints of this program have the effect of impeding the efforts 3f some states in developing equitable school finance plans. As an example, state school finance plans Which propose a power equalizin concept involving some udxture of local taxing effort d 2tate aid clearly ar% distorted by the prevailing 1.. . reguletions, and jud,iciel decisions relative to PL 874.Let me explain. it vies the intent of Congress tnat PL 874 funds be provided to, school districts partly to offset:

1. The impact on the school district of childran of certain federal employees.

2. The revenues lost by virtue of property not being on the tax rolls. It seeced logical to impose a prohibition against reducing state aid in thooediatricts that received PL 874 funds. Put another way, the states were rot to be allowed to substitute federal aid for state aid. Such a requirement was particularly appropriate at a time when there was little effort being made by the states in school finance to equalize among districts both local tax efforts and spendIna levels.

The 1973 Xensas Legislature enacted a new school finance law which we refer to as a modified power equalization school finance plan. The principal element of power equalizing is to equate the taxing effort and spending authority of school districts having widely varying resources. The balancing element of such a plan is state aid.

Those who have examined the Xensas plan generally agree that if PL 874 funds of a district cannot be considered es a local resource the plan would be subject to severe distortion. In short if PL 874 had not been taken into account similar districts would be permitted to spend at similar levels but have widely varying taxing efforts.

Since PL 874 is generally considered as a kind of payment in lieu of taxes,' it seems reasonable to consider ouch aid as being of the same general character as locally generated taxes and therefore ar element of local resources. From experience in cur state and others' it is evident that Congress should continue PL 874 but under new guidelines. I submit the following suggestions for your consideration: *2017 BEST COPY AVAILABLE

Part A of PL 874:

1. The federal government should p\rovide payments in lieu of taxes to help compensate school districts for pro perty that is not on the tax rolls. Persons may both live and work on federal property and their children may attend a public school which is supported largely through property taxes generated locally.

2. The impact upon the school where large numbers of federal employees resdde is reflected it increased costs. One of the purposes of impact aid should be to help compensate for this added financial burden.

3. Added costs of operation to the school district occur in districts where there is considerable transience of federal employees. The costs resulting from this unique characteristic should be recognized by the federal government.

4. Some argue that aid for Part A students should be 100% reimbursable to the district because the state and/or school district patrons should not be responsible for the education costs of children for whom there.is contributed no property tax and perhaps very little income tax.

5. Since PL 874 aid has been provided in substantial amounts to me;:y school districts of this nation for a number of consecutive years, a termination of this program would have severe consequences for many school district budgets.

Part A of PL 874:

1. Even though families in which employment is with a.federal installation may live of the premises og such installation and contribute directly or indirectly to the local property tax base, federal impact aid may be justified by the fact that the place ofemployment, a federal installation, is not included in the local tax base. Generally valuations of residential property alone do not adequately support a school program.

2. The impact upon the school where large number of federal employees resi-le is reflected in increased costs. One of the purposes of impact aid should be to help compensate for this added financial burden. 20HS BEST COPYAV41/AREE

3. Added cobts of operation to the school occur in districts where there is considerable tranbiynce e:' federal employees. The costs resulting from this uniciu,.. characteristic should be recognized by the federal governm,..b%.

4. Aid for Part B students should be provic2(q; the extent that there is compen.:ation :or the proprty federal installation which is not on the tax roilj.

5. Even though Part B aid may be relatively less to some districts becc,uso of the small number of p..1,11 involved, yet it is important if, indeed, the state is rt,;10:.- sible for equalizing educ.tional opportunity and local

Part A of PL 874 should be continued at 100% of entit under the present formula.

Part B might be amended to lower the entitlement 1:4-: but should not be deletod. Whenever the Yederal acquires land for Federal projects the number of ea.:7o::J.: . substantial wnich Ieavez a taring district, primarily in the untenable position of having a diluted tax which to fund its "Luc:gut.

It has ba.en said that Federal Installations enhanc:, tho economy of a given area, but so long as real property iz the base from whict. revenue for financing schools is , it is incumbent upon the Federal Government to fill th.. it has created. The problems I have related are not 1:::J1 to Kansas because every state in attempting to solvc school finance problems must come to grips with PL S74.

Yours truly,

(/..ztWC, Joseph C. Harder Senator pl 2019

Senator PHI_ We will now reeive for the record a Mato:tient from the junior Senator frInti the State of Kansas. Sett:it or Ikle. Senator 1)ot.E. STATENFIT OF NON. ROBERT DOLE, A U.S. SENATOR flax THE STATE OF KANSAS Senator Doi.n :1I r. Chairman. I wish to add my support, to the. presentation made by Kansas State Senator Joseph !larder. chairman of the joint. committee on school finance. reg.tling the changes needed 'in Public Law 874. !hiing the last session. the Kansas Legislature enacted a general State school :kid formida designed to etputlike tine tax effort of the various school districts and also equalize the per pupil expenditores,. The old Kansas school finance system had Iteen declared uncont4itntional On both Federal and State grounds. and the new finance system was developed to minedy the Ileficienciec notol by the court, in the, old system. Everyone seems to agree that the new Kansas equalization law is sound. progressive and fa rsialited. In developing the IIPW law, every e !Tort was made to avoid discrimination against Public Law 874 funds, but at the mute time the statute had to take into consideration Puddle Law S7I in order for the. equalization formula to be applied otinitably. The General Counsel's office :It IIEW yestenitky informed me that the State of Kansas has been found not. in compliance with provision 5(1)(2) of Public Law S74 and will not be eligible for Federal impact funds during the coming year. This ruling is based on a finding that. the new State statute requires that the State take into consideration the level of Federal impact aid assistance in determining the level of State assistance which should he allocated to that jurisdiction. This is forbidden tinder 501) (2) of the existing law. Thus Kansas faces a dilemma. It has enacted progressive legislation to comply with a recent. court. decision. It has attempted in every way possible to avoid conflicts with the Federal law. Nit yet as a result, of its action ti Federal Government has announced intention to cut Federal impact aid to the State which last year exceeded S7 million. might, also add that. the State assistance program in no way was a colorable effort, to unload financial obligations on the Federal Gov- ernment, in the impacted school districts. The new Kansas law will increase the level of State assistance statewide to school districts by SW,' million (hiring the coming year. In the three largest, federally impacted school districts. the percentage of State financing will still remain well above the average percentage of State assistance to other districts across the State even though Public Law 874 hinds, are considered as a local resource. Everyone, seems to agree that it is the Federal law which isit of step in situations involving statutes site!' as the one enacted in Kansas. and I trust action will be taken (hiring your consideration of the comprehensive education legislation to remedy the problems which 11:1V0 41CVl0pCli as a result of section 5(1)(2) of Public Law 874. Iwould also ask that the members of the committee keep in mind he Kansas problem and a similar situation which I believe the State of North Dakokt faces. as eve consider other legislation in the conking weeks. The school district, located at. Fort. Leavenworth, Kam., is in 2020 desiurate need of Pcdcral assistance. and corrective action' must. lie taltat by \member or they will face sVvre fin:M.6d 111111111anS. 1 therefrrteinkaill 1 prniSV an Innen(' Innt In III:1St:II inn In IN' 4Th)- S1414'1141 in 11114' near future %%inch solye this problem in the immediate future limit compreheth.:iVe le_risl:ition can lw 1,11:104,41. 1-011r :IS!-zistalace and atiderstatidituf of this problem are appreciated. anti I trust the necessary action 11111 L. 1:11411 to 111116111' :1111'111441y for the 1 rldelOS which have deVeloptql aoWal I IdA particula lienti0n Of t he Public Law s71 pr.reani. I :MI sure you have found the remarks and information provided liv lir.I 1:1111`4. very helpful. :11141 PIP:Ise 1.44'1 free f" "II (In n'Yofliee if we can provide further information regarding the I:oils:is situation which might be helpful in considetat ion of the pending erlueatiott lgislat ion. ."41'11;Itur I 'Ku- Thank von very much. Senator I 'tole. will limy receive for the record a statement from the senior Sen- ator from the State of Kansas. SetiatOr l'earsll. Senator I 'earson.

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES B. PEARSON. A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF KANSAS Senator l'r..nist.N. Chairmlin. yesterday I learned that. the Often Of Education will terminate all Law S7 t funds for Kansas during fisal year 1971. This action is due to a ruling that t he weently Passed ICansas Sehool Dist ri(qEttualizat ion Act violates the provi- sitms. -.4t.ef ::(iijij) of 1,11idiv w sT-1 as amended. his sect ion seriously deters State efforts at aellieving equitable school financing. I believe that itis mandatory that we substantially alter or repeal the provisions of that SA'rtiotl. 1 :nn currently pre- paring legislation. as are. Senators from other Alerted States. %Yllich %void(' prevent the termination of Public Law S7.1 funds to StateS have enamel) e4111:1117.at ion for911111aS.I also %Vatit, to urge. however. that this snlrcrnnniittee eooSider inrlueliti a measure of relief in t lie general ethieat ion le.rislat ion now under review. S.:ti"" '101)(2) `v:is Pila0e41 in Public Law 10---:7(. essenre, it. terminates niipam aid to :ill dist ricts in any State which 11SS Federal isayments in detertolidtlg the level Of State afOiStallre foram dist rict, 'Hui; section was enacted with good intentions. Prior to its passage.. many States had reduced State aid by an amount equal to all or part. of Public Law s71 Th IS art Inn was INInnterprOdnet If) the PIIIP"Se Of the hiblic Law S71 : till' 111"011 Ily t he Federal (lov- erifillent.to compensate school districts with substantial Federal activity whirl' did not receive the benefits of the tax base associated with titat artivitv. Recent eVelltS. however. have placed section :(d) (2) in a totally new perspective. Pursuant to court eases mandat.111!.. school financing equal- zat ion. many States have passed laws which include l'111)lie Law 874 funds in computations intended to 'yield more equal State payments. for example. Caldwell v,,I6tioxfrx held that the State School Foandation Act violated the equal protection guarantees of both the Kansas Constitution and the 1-1th amendment to the I-iii))ed States Constittitinn. Iloldtnt that the Kansas SVSteti of school finance rained 10.rupa 001 01 .1/ At) 015:111110 0.1.140o. Jo toluas 30 11:001 xt:i .1:4:41 .-1.1.1 pno.) (41111:a4:44.1 Puy pli10111.1 1101 JU 110.5414 .41(1 NIX.) ;tit [(14)11;15 illip111:1111 41t1411.14 11).114 110111:.1,111:.41(1 Jo Spiiiij III) 1 at( S!SI:11 JO 11.,9NO tit! ..UVI 'J.51[4.111.4 alp *I/10j (4.11.T.11) 0Ift:1,S.)10 01 x1(4 ait:049114).1 spun) al91:1!0.tv 311} lgwuru11 41111111115 ji) 0111 1(4411.55 111,14S1S 111., a ..1.50411:01 44.141..% ply 4011 0901..1 *mu pailubal pribo td.)10.141 00! Jo .81(5 -.0( "'111;31511+ V1 S!1t4 -.)11100:10 susuuN (kwuti.) g loolPs '01.44s!(1 ItotiirZI .8%4 4 uI .4111 luau) Jo agoo..: -us (pi 7:6 2ttpill) '1:41111 11015.Sa3 JO 41(1 .10A 11:1411.1 111.1S.,111 S.1401131111 1 Olt 150411 410).wdoll 51114 1341151: Jo WA 51 11:I1 j! poug!sap.1:1111.11.1oJ us .)10.10.01 (1I:.5.40111 01 54.81a)5118 % 111111 1[ .1.111 11;1101 101.0 11 00.%...1.01.7!11 .,11 11o1 114 111:a.tt '11 ;Ja.vamot! Si opuJ J JO 10.011 1311(4.) : .440 litu st paptx:;a1 J! 18.1111110.1 (1004 1.1011.) 100p 4011 .1.401ki.01 10110114 .0111.1.1.1.1 .ot.:1:114 sypis!!) [mood:: 111111) 4001/1111 11.04111: '0[illtti0J po111li011115 .10J 411.45.4.441 '5.15(0.111d KIJ11511o.) 0!111:411 !ii. t r S141100.1.1 1! 1.11:11 Ilt.101 1.10.1111 ISO' .1.11: 1) 15! 1.9 8. MILS .10 alit 141011.,t8 N01-7. .141111(4.4 1110100$ WI X1:1 014 /4.81.14514) 5 wutis Jo) Ifl 14111: 1: .101,0:i .1191.11110I111 }MM./S.1.111.1.1 .1.41 111111.1.0 5a0114 1.81.445111 111.411 1.1010 ,4190,1 .01: 1t,,t t- .1.1 pt))11110.) tit: IWO! 00.10 451( tiPp [1:1;111:1Si(IO: 011(lita 1,..; I .4J.1J.11d 1 1 St010,1 Wong 3.5111111 Mt 10101185 :,-1,0!zqui51).) 01010.10J 141:11 .i.n! iplom 4110101m od.ii Jo -uutjuitoltuoa ./aptstio .5.1111 lumps isv sop !Hum agfiti :;111/00111: JO .)!Ntid mc.I 1-Is -sputtJ tio.vA q)!m 11.8115 51811111 (.44I11111104 S1: jopisq) 5.8.).11losol .01 311 -U1 101111 .1.40(1111W 110111:JUIlal: jo (10.4 ap:Is 10)1011)111 JI() oi 011 11111.t u! alt:js pu: JuJ (15114J0 !!! 3stM1 .11)1111 atf$ Jowl :mu! )31101. 1105 S10 [is :i.:1:000' puu iumitisum

11.1, ys 11.x111 JtO s!g.iimo: Jo 511(4 -tiopuru!s susuBN am4g1st:fa! 4.1edal, loom S.141:01Irsa '11:10 or:J113 otous sw!aps!! pinum 1111:10111).it Intlij (Itia of .01:I S1/101j 1113.0 3011 paavisuo.) Sit IST t.11.1 J11113.t4l so.oirqj .840..lint! pi! Ipttls 110!pat.; (p)t: (r.;) Si 1011 ZfUlati po11:10I.t J.1114.; 01114s jiLL 5! lot' ilutljalio pmapad 5.111.)111.1.141 15010:11; 181.0 Jo101'11 a SIi01.05 St 10011 04 1:.1010 011101 .013 11:1.)1111:119 14111.110 -0(111..) Jo Fool Loops ;51( 5).11! (m: 04 a.t.)1ii.0: ug alp:4!0 SUEMlI Jo 15II/ IMO MI! 4,; '4 *:+1,11I1j I (J).1 41:11I %I(I0I4(1 T.UI .41(4 !Pia tki 441:44 ;1111.1.103 tfill:lit1111().1 alp 5ilo151.to.ol JO 1101).4.8`; (18)1.1 '0-0 SI 44)11 0! 41 osii: 5a30141 4111 ap:is Ils111.n st ;f11148111,1a01: 04 SpillloJ 1I)1m MI) pima '3011.10 Ill 1111 41111:11011111 '1101415($I 1 i a.t..)11.14 SI:Silt:3i SIN 11.43011.8 1o0110s Ja111:111j fpiiLti Si .,D1 411; 4e7111 JO 10.)01 N114 5431114.1 1)110 JO -NJ 1)41.;1(514 4.10.1111111 :11110 i101 s,),Iill!!)11.1 3.)(1 aaat! sum Ott tiutplawt 114 Nutnint.List!) s4Jy4s!! o.t!o.hu tvl trs -spun; tom 03 pupa alto! -aampla )uott! Jo tio!pos (p).: (-6) pittom .irstio!aus aultu.taputt stay pop swil5.).1 tool; u./.)1!! plaw.).).otla JO pas not (p)(; (F,) ' JILL ,.1t.i lootps 4.)134510 s! valvooi 110 -pa..4 1 .).10 puo Spo(101(1 5,Luas 0.1.pa.1 V-1: '51.1(111(1 ,!,1.11111 Oil sp(111(1 lam 4.1.01j I1 ou Sad:11105.0 Oi 0011(IIIS 51114 45ip 11.)1,1 110IJI.Ialodo.i Jo s!IIJ 4,01J arli si:suuN Anipelsytol poplolovo ay lumps is!!) 41!.1 tow.; snit suu!s!Ao.ul Jo :mu !;-Ds loot ifulz!lutOo 614001auj pug 2022

provided itwith direct appropriation of i.4700.1101) front the State t"cues: fund. Nonetheless, because of the %%ovding If SeCi ion I(2), the entire State is precluded from receiving, State aid if l'uldte Law S.71 funds are included in the computation of the 1,,v,,1 llf state gill for any One(IIA ThIS :10 loll 1611 cause the!Ior.tI .A.avenwort district len11111:111* flpenit its reS0iireeS are totally inadequate without Public .","1 Illr. Chairman. as early as 10. the Batelle Memorial In-,t it me, in its Andy of school assistance in federally affected areas, found that the 'elleets of the prohibition a.rainst otrsettiior of Public Law payments tend to reduce I he Vireo! iVelleS of attempts by the States to provide relatively equal education opportunities %vitli limited State fund.4 and 14w 41i.wairalre States willimn 1111:11.17.111(1111.11111nd:1S frOn: helli." The I Irediet /011 has Conn' tine. ItIS e01111illeated by the 11111114'41i:11e te1111111:11.1011 Of reder31 aid in KanS:1S, North Dakota. and the potent ial terminat ion in other States. Ibelieve that an eniergeney exists. and that action must be taken How. ,!i. Chairman. ill December in; 1.I called for new approaches to Ow financing of edocat.on. This is an opportunity to start. In the process. we can avert potentially disastrous conseipiewps ill liansas and ot her States %dile!' have made :rood faith efforts to achieve sehool financing equalization. Senator Pri.L. Our next witness is Dr. Fred Burke who is commissione of education of the State of Rhode Island. 1)1.. Burke. please proceed.

STATEMENT OF DR. FRED G. `iiIURICIE. COMMISSIONER OF EDUCA- TION. STATE OF RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLAN- TATIONS

Tr. ItunKr. vou very much. Ir.C11:111111:11). Ir.eliairman. member,- of the committee. I am P14441 (1. Burke. commissioner of educat ion in I:luule speakher as education administrator. Itis my miderstandinwr that the committee wishes to enIfine its disen-:sions todstly to Public Law SI --s7 I.rinaneial .ssistatice for Local F.diwatioltal .ovticies in .reas Affected hy Federal .Vtivities An and I will so address my remarks.. I want to thank son for this Opp011111111 V to Share with roll some of my thou .-his on the flilemina being, faced by local school officials. municipal officers. and chief State sellooi officers in copin with the prospoetive alterat ions in Public w support funds. In 1950. passage of this far-le:whiter lee-ishition, the Federal (lovernment entered into a partnership 1Vith those local school districts a trected by Federal installations within their jitrisdict ions. Over the years. the commitment of the Federal Covet-mm.1d to support those burdened most has been fulfilled. Public Law S7 .Iis sign;ficant in that itis the second largest federally funded program for ele- mentarv/seeondary ed;tvai ion. This sharho of the suppoi atriong Federal. State. and loc0 entities has provided the basis 111)011 vrlljcll I he prOIIIIR. of equal educational opportnnity could be gitaranteed. If that sharing. of support were to he withdrawn now. lye would be transferring a burden to municipalities, ill-equipped in most cases. toraise the funds nccess:o.% to maintain the level Of 0,111(.:11 they I1:1,1 4,11.(4141 and ollivnt son ire whosv blid!ri.1 is Pred- ..:11(41111101) Feder:II suprmi funds. LA1 Inv tall: a 1111h. one State %%ill, %%161.11 1 atli f3miliar which ICES :1fairly clear understanding nmv of %1.11:na IV(111e1 Ion in impart ;lid could mean to sel era] of its school 'list ricts and to the State hudget as well. There is :1 parallel het %%44qi the situation %vhicli exists due to base closings and that ihich occurs \1'1111 :131 1111111I'diate 1V411/ctIOlt

IS1:11141 IS fevlilltr 411114`11 :11 1.:1(11* bee/411Se of the elosing of naval installations. Those four school districts attecte41.as Avell as several State offices. are analvzim, the etrect on educational programs beeause of the expected rollbacli of Public I.ov S71 funds in Epode 'Irliest. communities are anticipating a reduction of impart aid mones coupled %vith :111 antieipatrll 4114TV:1SC 111 10v:11 IJI'Operty YAM'S ;IS 0111 Of t111' Co1111111111ity :111(1 lend to c1050' down. AS reilreal S111)1)011 for education decreases. t111`11. there will he corn,potidiug shifts to State and local lax moneys 1(1 Hirt:up these educational costs. We van see this happening. The burden Ivillfall 1111 the loyal communities. .% stirvev conducted in one town in Rhode Island indicated that currently local tax revenue (*On- tribute :Iproxim:itel 10 peree111to 'the support of operating its sehook. while the Federal noernment shares :11 a level of 1 7 pereent and the Mate at alkmt10 percent. .%reduction ill Fedeil impact funds. and the estimate is ilmvulvard to : percent. Ivould force the loeal share up to 55 percent the State s share would be stabil- ized at about iercent accordimr to our formula. The real tragedy of this readjustment. forcing the local community to assume a treater share of eilu('nt ion expendit my. is that it occurs. at the same time that the community is feeling the most severe impact of the base closings. So t hese effects a re compounded. lu a 1970 study by John E. Lynch, entitled Local Economic 1)eel- opments .fter Nfilitary ltase Closures. it Ivas specifically pointed out that the "current l'ublic Law 871 standards are so structured that the atTei;ted community %rill activinv lose its Federal imart assist_ Mills at the very time in %vhicliI he conlnnitlitV is really receiving its most severe Federal impact --the loss of its principal enipltkyer." I cite this findine.becane Ifeel that whether a community loses its support because of the withdrawal of bases or because of cutbacks in proe.am flindilOr. it 1:1IVS 11:111 oat's for the tax structure in a community to re film) and to recover from the losses incurred. Economic recovery and revitalization are so often closely allied Ivith %-ialde educational system. .1.11a11 from decreases in svipport for operating thene is an ailditional burden placed on the community low:inst. of the 1)011(101 indebtedness for schools built to accommodate students due, loth(' niilitary presence. end IIolt of school housing. costs? In one community in Rhode Is- land, for example. One school Imilding was huilt expressly to provide spacss for students of Navy-related families; other schools are c- cupied iipAard to 51 percent of impact pupils. IVIiethe the pupils leave or not with the bases closing. the local taxpayer 1611 continue to be responsible for priline. thedebt service costs for the roust ruct ion of

447 41 74 2024 t hoSe school bill Ild eVell with Federal support funds. local school districts have assumed most of the costs of const Filet ion. and the factt hat the entire e():41:4 will he shifted is hit ter111)1N ffr (1111- 1111611es %%110 hare felt thatt heY had ("". 1111 P.'Slinikr- Writ ing the 1110,4 or ednratiou for impact :kid pupils. In the cow- cum- nitwit it.s that holis,. most (d. our Plihhe 1,6,1% S7.I pupils in liliode Is- land, tin(1mist andinir (h.1,1 alone is over X11: million. The continued handed lehtedness with 1111 1'ed1'1'aI :IS.41S1:111.1. IS (1110 of th.se 1,1,141(.111s that sthiNd administrators anti town fikials. to sn nothing or the t:1s1niy(.1-s. %yin ,6010,11,1 with unless own. is

1 add :it this point that as an edlicat ion administrator. I can see :1 variety of vont inning categorical support of 4411146:14 ion program %vhi4-11 (64114141 appear to distort the overall funditi Dirt larr, 'I'In re is no (1Iiht. t heceore. that t he entire process of Federal S111111011 S1111111(1161.(11:IIII 161.V1I'W.IMil 11011.:IS1.11 this is the case at 1111 present t imp. As an example. the elimination of type 1. pupils for support dolla hunder Public I. :1%1" s; I deul:nuls close SITIO Illy. i'erhaps even 1 he 111(151 ardent :1111'4)46:Ito of this 1III taut tiiitrht the possibil- it of the eliminat ion of 1; eatvgw.v 11.11:1i I %vtiii11 hope for in an. examination of Fedor:11 funding programs is thatit 1 rat effN' he ijk:yised eliminate any Polarization of t1146 0411146:14 ional bet %Veen those Nylio benefit hy maintaining the status quo and thosrwho ad.voraii, a 1114.111hoi.nts fi heir own interests. Solut ions should he son,rlit to alleviate t he problems that Nvill emerge from the ohriipt 4161.6-vont inuance or relluction s7 I aid. I odd Iv- onimend Chat if a decision is made to eliminate type H students. that the cuthaeks °cinr gradmillv over a 3- to 5-ear period. redwing. Per- haps the percentage of support for It students in average daily attendance. Iwapiti h,,pv. also. that amendioeots will be COnSiderell to provide for additional grants to aid t hose school dist fiefs Nlivh hay(' ttlellrred hi,:i 6)1141(41 indvillvdnr:;s, hilt' to const ruct ion and expansion of :4(.111),)TS to Meet the !ells of Seril.(-ehltell 16:1111.11.10S. In your considerations of those suggested amendments. I Nould hope that The committee will keep paramount the need for States to maintain a (rreat degree of flexibility in their ability to allocate education funds. A,s States are attempting. to equalize education in their States. the impart of 1114141ie.I,aNe ST-1 funds cannot be disregarded. With the impart girl f wok passimr direct ly to local school districts. as they do no%. the States' ability to equalize districtlevel expenditures is diminished. 'Therefore. your committee may %vatit to consider seriousl that channel ST-ii funds through the States. Sect ion 5(d ) (2) of t he existing. legislation may need alteration if the. State is to have the kind of flexibility necessary to assure equal educational opportunit ies the various school districts. As the edwaition deci,,,ininnakers in the Nation's Capital. you will be adjusting the impaet aid program as the variitl)le change and as you meet the needs of local school districts. your roust ituencies. your fiseal resourc.es. and the common \Veal. I have outlined for you some of the alternatives that, I see from my chair as I grapple daily with the prob- s111J( in.mp,) uot uk ,)to' .,)11:1; puo.oti osotp .s.m!Jutt.toJin ,motudii 'pup utto Jo mu 511 .14.4.nut Jo ..)!Igud .t%l1PJ St S11 SY-111:1111)111.11 1110.9 Jot(lo alit a.logtuu.ma ip!At 1:.) 1:111.1 1)01.1 .1()J (1:110141:011110 'S1101401111) 091.01(1S Jtl,l, 11111.111:1(5-41111.0%0.1 S4.0)(1SI: Ju 011(1141 III AS 11S S1:11 11 41110.1 01110S 401114S1I) ,06.M.),t1.400.10

, 1:11 110041 ;1111.11p,i S.11:[101)111(i1: so:11:11Ia.).1od Jo) 01( 4,1111 1.11:( si: .tl1:0111),) 1)111: atio 1)aZi..11:11.) 1t11.%1 ;1111.111SSI: 11:1I1 S,.10 5thh)11 ',ill! 'OM 111101.11 :q111111 p) 11:110111:0111,) VIM [1:1;)III:1111 I:4).1.1110S I: f '01(11:1 A11)1.1 .11Ij 010.1 JO I1:b.110.1,4 111a11111.1(1.109 111 -ILMIN 1iOi Sig 0110 Jo 1:0911.1o1S 411 '1.10(1t11 '0,At 111 :Tulin 1)111:1S1 mat.% INA% SnOt.li II.100110.) 0111 11:.1:X111ip s101 pun gplautuilan 1.1u!pu,) .1o) tstup a! suo!..p.tamu s!putpit.).to tit in.topad lu!duntui .1oddus 11111. 'al(IIJ(uu sio.toi Jo uottut.t,m0:1 poAlomit u! tiopnatipa otatuos lulu 5nul Jo ..inut!.1(1 .14tpfpsuodsal 51. i un: i1:i115 oz!prat 0.10111 Si U .11:1 11: mil :,x)(1:: to.tal t.4)I11.1111StiOS 04 11:30I Spdall p,)tuniti uati.t% suo!spap Atu uputu 111 .r.uplpi LaAal JO su otot 11:01: A.11.1:1) 1[11m JIIt Sol1IXo[411110.) Jo 111 .10 -1:)111),) II:11011 'Sooi.t.10S .10 UiI4SJ.1.11 tp!.st Jill JA! pun minJ Jo i :.1 -Eaudaul pti 111 WM 1! in J.IB 1.)1: 0.11:AA JO ail 0.)(11:.Viil!S JO Alm -st.loga put: I mi ...ointtu liu!tiAt SOP! 'S0A0111.1110 S 'S.10111.)111)J :).1t Nog isualt .Juti JO ;III!.1n5su tuoup.) It:not po(1& 5.)!J!ull (In Jo alio .su.ri,j,.) ualut SlIol11:.1)111: Jo) sal:110d all: ;1111,)(1 '1).).1Jp15110.) II0t111.)1I1.) tottoduio.: 01 tilit111.1 S.1o11:11111oiSlo041t 41:111 1S11.14 SJSO.1 ,t011 Sitio aye tplm .5.1oJumpo .asoti asolp AutJui spuotiop 110(111 .111; url!sop [pp 1)11 !L1.M401) SOO!SPIT 110.1 tiatilljtitkil 091111 titotin Imp no. u! 'pup saoiumipalutp-Jsu.14 pun sl011ris!;1.1 0111111 ONItait 11.1)111:(1 Jot 11 5.111:ili JJI j, 11u.l.ytnal ,.11.1 11:111.111:10 UI AuJutios "1.1:141 31111:111 .110.1" lI s! u om go 41p '.pakus lug alto umo .olus 0.1,up :).%% .logns 1110.1) asug .sttu!soi.) ppm Ion otp luatupuatuu I '110.1.1.110 pip ,)11:(1.)14 610,41101W IL) ;hill 11:401 .11015 411011;10.1.Pi II! -.111),1.1 t suo! u1 05'1)!1: pup alp .uttiouln 1)(110J (I paattpat .ig wow uutp 01 luad.tod ao.o n inpuuJsgus %pogo uo Slit) illOVIMS -AnziAti uut.quqj I `1111th pup St itudthd uoputisniit Jo oldpu!.u1 11)!9m puJsa:Lliks pun I }pup Jt OLD 01111:S :HAN 0.10A .q41(11: 01 III: 1111:o1,11II;IIS '14).11: 1011 .itito 1119 III 10 Slag SI: 'ttam tt 14:10A% I0ISI:a ul 1.41).114.1 1.1011.11 :Hp sMul(.) ;1:1!ull ot sit am o.111 ha.% pipplutIJ .10) pup u [mai tuout atunuot,,,; -1.1:1,1 ;Itt!luods Jou .ipto SU Jotio!ss!uttuo:) .ioj uoiluanpo ao; polE:1 1119 511 U put (um! ..tooditpa glutp Si .1lio.1 ilmo Mai.% tpim owindi 00 nt..i !put.) J! pplotis parualquu 1411t a)1l10 iS1111:.iriat(1 31t1:Itf -.4 I 11111( 0.11111 SI n ilu!titiptioa ',qui Jo; J auquatis SS V ti!liet1:11 .101not11),) J! .tis!m.o. a.loto 0.11: MVOS SEalt: 0.1411.1% 111.101' s! popaau .tod -apittlux,) uo.ta tonoto SztplJopstio.) ut opotill I punts 1110.1) po(I(Ins JO i)sotit .splopwes Tipp 1110.1) a tuuopvu ji, Si [Fultz; 01 ix! tuns .10) putpluil 'itto2u!sutpl wogs poppunut I 1(1911 us ;1110( 51: ,up 'Jantlut! JAVIL 11 StIOl.laS pogo uo JI($ 1 NV as::9 1111(1 1 !iii!1(1 St I: 11111111114110.) 110.1 .10.1 ).iodd JO 1 41:it .1(1.1)11p! .S.Jt.111;oll 2026

Senator Pra,1,. I have otw more rettera I question which still faces this subcommittee. Do you I WIVI' we ought, to continue the present categorical programs of ESA or adopt. adni in istration revenue sharing proposals, or have a mix to try to achieve a mix of both? \Ir.lituir.I think I wouldfavorflit.latter of the three alternatives. Senator limn. To try to achieve a mix, leaning in which direction? Mr. liit:. I think that the categorical support is an obvious response to the emergence of nee kinds Of problems in education. I think that the kind of revival of State agencieS with the improvement in capacity of State agencies to administer educational programs, I think with the gradual assumption of increasing the State level of historic responsibility for education. that increased flexibility has to be provided for the State at the.same time the Federal funds are urging die States to establish a master plan capability of equalized educational opportunities to the allocation of resources and developing complex management information systems, sometimes categorical aid them- is dropped in various districts. actually adversely affecting the very planning.. and sometimes Ow very attempts at, equal educational opportunity. If we strive to equalize the support behind each child and categorize children according to their need. and subsequently a. district receives a substantial grant from the Federal Government, sometitnes un- beknownst to us att he Slate level. our attemptg at equalizin!, have been distorted. Senator Ptaa,. One other reneral quest ion. as We. get into this question of regionalization. are. you for or opposed to the. regionalization of HEW? 11r. Brunt% I opposed it. and f have done it publicly andIhave done it before the Secretary. I am opposed to regionalization particularly from the point of view of education. Sena t or PELL. Tim nyou. Senator St a fiord.

nEstm:r rn nAs (1,0sINos Senator SArroan. Thank you, Mfr. Chairman. T will be very brief, NEI% Burke. The, fact. that. I may ask you one or two questions- does not. necessarily Olean that. T disagree with what you have said. but let, me just. ask you, does tlOt the closin`r of bases. whether they be in Rhode Island or Atlanta. result in fewer students in the schools of the. areas where the bases !lave been'? Mr, IltinaE, It. certainly does. Senator Stafford. The problem is that, the teachers that. we have, in order to maintain a quality-education prO(rralllthere is no direct correlation between the decrease, in costs and the number of students that disappear. IVe still have to maintain the schools. tile indebtedness is still there. the heating, and all the in- frastructure remains essentially the same. IIVhave a very tight. organized labor market for teachers in Rhode fsland, and to retrench teacivwrs is a very lengthy and diflicalt process, and one fraught, with considerable conflict. 2027 Senator Srm..1.140. This is why you would then support Senator Pell's bill for a st retchout in reduct ion in impacted aid ? Mr. lit.itKE. Ves. As the Senator knows. we have been very pleased this a Mendlnent, was brought forward. We are watching this very, very carefully. Sena or STA flymn. I111.1111: Vol 111:1Ve already :111SWe red V he'd, IlileS" it'll SOMe (le!ree. he:1111 Other 111`5:41'S front of this subcommittee suggest that since a State distributes its funds to its localities on an equitable basis so, far as it. can. and Federal aid is distributed as equitably as pwsible tinder the various rateporiva I grants. does not. impacted aid result. in effect. in a discrimination in favor of those areas which receive it, sitter this is additional money on top of the other which has been received. Mr. Ittlum In Rhode Island we have a reimbursable formula, that is we reimburse the school district for tlw funds they have spent in :L preViOns year. in Rhode Island before the State reitilbuses it. slices off the amount of Public w S74 moneys for that very reason.

VIEWS ON nEVENCTI: SHARING Senator STArottn. Finally, let, me ask you, Mr. Burke. do you prefer the present categorical system plus impacted aid over a program of special revenue sharing for education ? Mr. Brium. There are many aspects of revenue sharing for education that Ifind attractive.I think it. provides the kind of leeway, flexibility, that the estate needs in order to bring about. transformation of public education that is yeyvitally needed. On the other hand, the various proposals that. I Ytwse.. seen for revenue sharing, while providing increased flexibility, would lead to such a diminution of the funds that, were available that our capacity to improve, education would be even more seriously affected than if we retained the present setup. Senator STArt-onn. My last question had to do with that. I assume the more money that might be available for special revenue sharing for educat ion, the more attractive the concept. nttghtbe. Mr. Bun:. I think so. i think the more, thought that, is given to the various areas of 'responsibility of various level: of government,, for example, T think that. the Senate and the House and the National Gov- enment. generally have it very vital role to play. and I think they should retain the effect of what happens in education. So I think the total revenue sharing would be to disclaim too much of the accountability that we have from the national point of view.

. Senator STAEFOlt1). Tf revenue sharing were to be adopted by the Congress, to be successful it. probably should not at least result in a reduction of Federal support, for the school systems across the country. Would that, be a fair statement? Mr. titiliKE. Essentially even with continuing resolution and double funding. the Federal contribution to aid is declining significantly, and this is of course of great, concern: We just, for example, finished our budget, process in Rhode. Island, and we. went. through the painful process of attempting to cross transfer to State accounts funds that were previously covered by Federal funds. 2028

I :WI !Mt liuW 111111g0t. IS ;11)111g to fair because the increase is rat her stargering for that. reason.

FEDERAL CONTRIBUTION Senator BEALL. Mr. chai "H. 1just wanted to ask one qnestion. Do von not, mean t he Federal cont rihut ion in gross dollars is declining? lir. !Wm: E. : as a percent of tot al cost. Senator BEALL. Thank you. Senator PELL. SenatorIhith:l%y:ty. Senator I EATII A W.11% Tha Ilk von. Mr. Chairman. I have just one question. 1 thank vou. Mr. Ittirke. for your testimony. I just wanted to ask you if there is 311 illStifieat ion whatsoever for category B impart. aid : I mean today. Mr. Itt7ItiiVivre was. The more I look at it, I think the justification certainly is in sow degree of decline. The point,I would make is that if any change in the support of category li is contemplated that it. should be phased over a period of tinw Ileennse the system which exists has been ccustructed around the ex istence.o of those Rends. Senator hl.yrl L. wAv. They have relied on it for so long? Mr. ItniKE.-PS. There may beas in Rhode Island some instances where one could build justification .for it, but I would agree with von there is less justification for it than when it. was originally enacted. Senator I f.yrilAwAY. Thank you. Senator PELL. Senator Beall. Senator BEALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Bunkr.. I gather from what. ycii said abOut categorical aid programs as presently COBStitIlled rend to he overy restrictive to State. and local administrations in responding to the very needs in their own States and distr:cts: is that correct? Mr. Bent E. Yes.

IMPACT OF "roLrrtcAL FACTORS" ON STATE nEctstoss Senator BEALL. As we con6nue these. discussions, as far as categorical ahi versus reyenue sharing or block grant. or the mix of the two, we have been hearillg from different groups who come hereguidance counselors. librariansall saying. if you move away front categorical aid grants at the local level. we will be subjected to political pressures, which mean that we will get down to the bottom of the heap and we will be the last one considered. I wonder if as a State administrator you would like to comment. on the effect or the impact. that "political factors" have on the decision- making process in the State educational program. Mr. BURKE. I think it. varies from State to State. That. is one of the reasons I urged flexibility. I think increasingly as our ability to manage complex educational systems improves. the extent to which we can mesure output as input, we find out how well we are doing in terms of what we can accomplish, then I think the kinds of decisions which lead to putting so 2029

111 eh looney into libraries. books. classroom space and other kinds of input variai)Ies. can he decreased. IVe. hold local systems ac, (mutable on the basis of Nrhat they can accomplish. Then It Bind: thy decision as to het her funds shot4 floNv into libraries. as opposed to other aids can be nook a: a local level. Senator 1Z:011w:than at the Statelevel'. Air. Yos. Senator Thank you. Senator PEL. you very much indeed. 1)r. 13tirl:t-.Itis al- Nvays a pleasn re to have you here. ;Te prepared .ezt at (Intuit by 1)r. Burke follows BEST, conUMIABLE

CL'7%;:IIT r 07.`: 1,A5(7R i'u1.10 i:LA./..RE

EN!'

} ..7;()1Z.:,:tii. C77 .1!;\-Vn:

Si:i'fi:VAIER 14, 11;73

k.11'

DR. 1R1D G. BURKE

or iDue.....vrint,:

1:;!.;:.,:i) AND Pit()VIIENCI:PIA,:TATIoNs

AvrEcTED

FLDERAI, At:7TiVITIES

1.\\V ai -b7.1) FLV,MIABLE '2031 BESTCOT(

r.11adlts In, rlembyrs the committc:.:I am

Tied C. Burke, (..::tissistticaer of riucation in l'ht...,do

speadng as an education alt:dnistrator.

It is my unJorstandine that the Committe wishes to

confine its discussion :, t.aday to P.L. 81-874 Alssistancc

fpr Loc,0 Pt22ncitts in Areas Affectod12:LErrk.ral

and I will so address my ternatts.

I want to thant you for this opportunity to share with you

some of my thoughts on the dilemtila being faced by local school

officials, municipal officers, and Chief State School Officers in

coping :pith the prospective alterations in P.L. 871 support funds.

In 1950, with pirt..;age t)f this far-roaelnatr Ic:girdath,n, the

Federal goy:In-talent enterotl into a partnership with local

school districts affar.tted 111 federal inslalL3tions within their

rho years, thr: contrnilm-st of the federal 21132 BEST COFt' ''''''"ti

nupE,

P.I., 974 ts sittnif:c. int in Chit it in the sec 1.1:tient feirily-

un fr i.1,niontatylt--tecon-!ary (t-itIcruttt;t,Tiut:tring of tl-to aupport tr.to.vj ft-!, xtl te l:t o;t ee ;to.; providrA the bald:: tip:tn the pronitso nf equal t.t.lihnttional (.9;)ortunity

uon1.1 tju..nantieii, 111.it :lupport 1.vt-trrt t) now, witula lie tran.q...;:rion a bui,A !n to nitinicipalijo,es. in mast t:tart-zs, tp raist, thy fun in n,trn.ssari to rnaintain tha level of oclueation they hail provi.rasly rtfir.titd--an educational stn budget fet.;etal support funds,

Lot n:e tall: a litth? air.tut nrit-t State with In ritnitiar

v.nuch ii nj fairly citl.ar und,trstanchng now of wlit . t,Int-itatt

aii: ttl sev,..trat of iLsein,o1 di:tri^t:, and to

statt' ii viii. Thro i:;,1 sttititicm whiehxi tn due to ii no closint:a and that wloich with an

tunds, 24)33 BEST CCrli

feeling tie crunch ali-eauli because of

Cho closing of ria,.eal truitallattemi. Those fc,ur school districts

at! (...ted, as well a:: several state offices, are analyzing the affect

on erlu,7atienal programs because of the expected roll back of

874 funds.

These communities are anticipating a reduction of impact

aid monies coupled with an anticipated decrease in local property

values as families transfer out of the community and businesses

close. As federal suppor for education decreases, then, there

will be corresponding shifts to state and local tax monies to pick

up these educational costs. The burden will fall most heavily on

the local communities. A survey conducted in one town in Rhode

Ls land indicated that currently local tax revenues contribute

opproinnmtely 407, to the support of operating its schooln, wiiiic

the federal governineW sharer at a level of lTA and the state at

about regii,7tion in f..hieral impact fonds, and the eatimatr. 2034 BEST Can rMABLE

5.., local s'.lar: un t.o while tb, :Mate would b... staluii?.-..d at about 35 -4(m. Tire real

,,f this rca.ljustmcnt, forcing the local community to assume

greatcl !I-1,1r,, of il..icatian exp(.ndituie, is that it occurs at the

same time that th coirlmunity is fet.4ing the most. severe impact

In a 1.170 study by John E. Lynch, entitled Local Economic

11rr,'trents After Military 113:-..! Closures ,it was specifically

pointed out that the "currant P.L. 1174 standards are so structured

that the affected community will actually lose its federal react

a.ssiMance at the very time in which the community is really

ro;,-7eivi:,-) its mo:-.t sc!vc,re federal impact...the loss of its principal

1 cit this finding bocaue I feel that whether a community

loses its support because of the withdrawal of liasos or because of

cojt ha,%:: in program funding, it t-ii:eN many y`-:11n, for the tax 11%r,.. rig rnir

stru..te:-- . re-f.,:r;-: and to rccr..0 from t11,2

1.:-,.riornic roc .v..ry and revitalization are so

often clo.tely with a vLibla r-lucation,i1 system. Apart

from ,lecre.ises ir. support for operating there is an additional

burden plaited nn community because. of the bonded indebtedness

for r;c1c1(1!:, built to accomodate tiudents due to the military

prc:;ene.

And what of school housing costs? In one community in

Rhode Island, for example, one school building was built expressly

to provide spaces for students of Navy-related families: other

schools are occupied by upwards to 51% of impact pupils. Whether

the pupils leave or not with the bases closing, the kcal taxpayer

will continue to he responsible for paying the debt service posts

for the cormtruction of those school buildings. And even with federal

support funds, loal school districts have assumed most of

CO3 tg of construction, anal the fict that the entire costs will be *2036 DEST CUi`t

6 shiftedis bitter irony Ur communities who have fAt that t1_ had been, over the years, underwriting the cost of education for impact aid pupils.In the four communities that house most of our '.L. 874 pupils in Rhode Island, the outstanding debt alone is over $16 million. The continued bonded indebtedness with no federal aiiiitance is one of those long-range problems that school administrators and town officials, to say nothing of the tax payers, will have to contend with unless there is relief.

I might add at this point that as an education administrator,

I can see a variety of problems involved in continuing categorical support of education programs which could appear to distort the overall funding picture.There is no doubt, therefore, that the entire procxiss of federal support should remain under review.

As an example, the elimination of Type B pupils for support dollars under P.L. 874 demands close scrutiny...perhaps even the most ardent advocate of this program might somodly concede the 1121-:bLE BEST

th,! cateq....ry

v.I woul,.: tor :n oxanun.tii.A1 ft.d,sal funding

is ti iItrat,...sly b. (:,7vised which would oliroinate a:1y

c' bc.t.Neen those whn benefit

by the :;taus Lity) and those who advocat9 amendments

1...r II:Hi o.vn

Sul itnt vutd lw L.Iji!t to alleviate the problems that

will emerge front thabriAlt discontinuance or roduction of 874 aid,

I w-P.Ild rocemmend that if a decision is made in eliminate typo

students, the cutbacks occur gradually over a throe to five year

perid, reducing, perhaps the percentage of support for "B" students

in uverJr3r daily attendance.

I would irve, also, that amanclnumts will be considorod

to puw.ide. for grants to aid those school disIrictL which

have im-urred a hi.a,:y bcncied indebtedness due to construction

and o::p.-,1nsion of built to moot the ri,..eds of scrvice-related 203S

LET COPYAMIABLE

1;1 I 11i ,,t sugoestiiqd ziinervirsooln,

:bat the Committc.ii will keep paramount the need for st.c...-'s to maintain a cir.iat cieciroe oi floxinility in their ability to aatoealcation fund.3.As. states ate attempting to equalize

in their i.taies, the impact of P. L. 874 funds cannot be

With the impact funds passing ciirectly to local

districts ay. they di' no-..;te :;tnt,:!:;' ability to equalize distlist level oxpendituro,-; is diminished. Therefore, your

rr:a7 want ti: consider seriously r.pecific revisions that

channel federal 874 funds through the states.Section 5(6)(2) of the exii..t.ing nice; neealteration if the state if; to the 1;:r1,1. offkLxibillty r.N.:es:;,:ry to EisrAlrc r.xittiunal oppor- tuniti-iii among scilia,i1 districts.

As the e ucation docision-eialiors in the nation's capitol, vou VI IilX. adjusting iiuriact aid program as the variables rils.ange REST COPYP.MIBLE

coni:tititonuips ,....our fiscal c':r,rr , and thii c,nittiin weal

I have rnitlined for you sornr of the altarnatives that I ace from

my chair as 1 grapple daily with the prohlems of educathm, in

genrTal.But beyond those alt,..Triatives,I believa that one of

the majcw titrengthi; of P.L. 874 is its uniqueness from other

catcmorical programa which are encumbered with funds earmarked

for specifi&educational functions. The revenue-sharing aspect

of P.L. 874 has given it io distinot effectiveneso..

I've been talking about dollars and percentages for the

must part.But as art educator, and as one charged with ciFnuarirty

that every learrtz oeeiis nO met, within the I iara of udnualional

and finri-,1 . csnurcctVei tahi I vif,w the role of the fodurittl

governtrzartt in edili:,71i.i.;)r1 or: one o; sintilfic:ant mport We in

Rhoda Island view with sorioi:: concern tim delibt.lations

Find arguments ;jillin; far dr3stic alieratietts 'ir yutha.t.::-.:; in foil;:ra1

0: 57 r ) 4- 2040

BEST COPYAVAILABLE

mit;Liplo luvul3 of (-1,,./(!rnmont Ion

so:nE:tim. thd lind:: pri:no.r., ror,ponr.ihilit,..,, A::I Lon suro

ycni dii r!.-01;'.O, !Awe,: CIIotIll local

to lut nood:: dro arc.! ICC cl at o

of l!;; d;`11 1:110 r:ohlplo:Litie:', of the

10ca1i0nd1 of 7,7..!:C. nq ti Iii Ilia giva au .1Ldl:o. of Iludgo'.. proparatinn and allo,::ation, Ciro acutohi

L-f the siunificcdr.co of our oifrLrts and Llu: :Luiclun

our othicators, hold a trot-I, th-LI b(111- eational uppL)rtunitio:i for all of our citizr.".L.,.Wilon altorationu of poli;:ios aro 1).nuLt f.qhtcation ddro.luir,traiorn cou:p=llo.:1 /LL.,!:::L.3 that. Cho tru,ct. roLIL!: 111:1 only

..1r:I.0rf..iindcl by the voLL thal. yOLI sivitiL: in tCOO.

-,f 01011:1106 -113,1 0'..)N °sit: 110 oti4 Jol.),q(pis pool:(1.1111. pp: 110 1001105 6). 11!M I:II OA I: 'MUNI JO 'ijC 110:1111:1 .p.L11)1:1 NUp013Sli JO %)!D 1.10(111S Illapill;V ;r. II.uor '.%)!L) 1:,1) ::410IPS iUaNgt).1(1 -tut 1.,)1;(1 V VOA 1.01.4 1,1t./:' SI:M011,1 .F1 .uutupoou lu,Iptioituaatins Jo uq.) uus; patpui.1 pops ..0,a4si.tl ! pplom us[1 .lu uvau -.1.)nutiat.90)1A 11101))1.)pu.),HIns Ju lllioa au1/u!):) uosato -um) loom)); r.49) o! ..X11)).) paumao; s!tp ututl irstaud.x! sit1 !.).1*(pis st au; inires aupulos )taputilua !glum% im pa)!!! .t.h).% iptuu 0.! a.tm! uaaq 'away 011 sla.c.raa auto at' :a opp: 4)4 -))! irsti(.ou JO u Joy(' -Immo.) ltiotu coi.imut! .).tuai II! un ming .10 'us .ilLtt op oat Jou mi povia

ao NOSINVI *3 vaaala azviaossv -aiammaans aria ao 3HZ ivrioiavti 'Liao "inva :S100113S Imaaisava 03.1.3VIPLI ValIV :S100113S SVPL0111 IVW1000 -1111134111S INVIII31 30 3111 NYS OtYlIa U313'1111 100110S :10IVISIII 0.IIV toraa aa.aviloSlala maaitaatuulans ao iblIVLIII103 LI03 110SIIV3 "0103 100110S lanasia V 13111rd NO J3Y&XI QIY

*(1:.1:1:114 ..1111:111 '110.1 ".11K 111;111.111110 %qv ap:9j :11 111 pm: saoquiatil JO at!! 0444!un110.) J ip.n Sal O. -tuns .1.)11 .614luai palutlaul lu.luainap:!s aapau cr.) atop ay S.:01110 011114 .1oJ .1110:f .0091:411)Sd.1(1 111 I_ *tn.:6 sso.1.11110) 1)./1.1011W pill: papa.up lug! ot!) puopi),4 -u.au.too .01010 pinum untiz'o.).).1 s4! tpystluds'a.1 . 0) ls!ssu puotpatipo sot.: lit si:0611: po4,0010: vadp.),4 I SapIAlyt: j, spf Jo pLiapael .0lp(psilodsa.1 .10J 11Liop,),4 511014.)1: 001111 Sli 4I14 SISI:(1 .10J 1110111SUd 40J 4.).t!!) 1).)!).ttui p)sucliu A.)! 54inot1dupba.1 an} #ueatipa thuppip 01:1!)o.u! u! Iu.J01 niutuu.) sa!!!(I tu.tapa.,1 put: papaw) 0. dif illoolloo Jo s111.1111.611 auJ gaJt.t.ias ya.101)11,1,1 0.11:11 lia,x1 14:M1(4110J S)F:1:411: wad in!! untilload auAo pm: )...tiot!soz'zos auJ .110!0).)9!putu 91 4111 mut) ati.! luasoad spisocload oat: Iwo .)(1; v put: 11 pug.) pptolis S1Iulj.iJd tutuu.).) pti ay -us ponu.) J 11p1.) au :)!ppitt .7tursnui! 'pulp pitiolis ix! papuiptup) unui og; atui aaJljl s! rap Jo plums :41upnystal Joj luti4 ppqa .)ti,L .4.1)))1.ai Ju sa!)!!!..)us vat! au: .aptxl 11)1.11 luatutuaAuti -cfats 4.1od ppoS..1J1(40111:-(11,4110.1(1 .11Jp10.1(1 Jtll so!!!!!.n); Sum oulo.) .11:011 Thlti.loddlis JO 11Joi SWIAJos h).1 po.11tit On! osititooq Jo )IjJ X1:4 JSell AtoliN 4s.lotimumuuti 1nuusa,)(1 .1..x1u.n1 saxt:.! uu.) JOAall .).%attial: alp A'aussadou a.).0101) Jo 2tup.w.ul USJID as)) Jo ppaaiutuo.) xn; .asix! saps 'Xu; Spaduatt xt:.! Attu OS 'uo .1.)114utiv psuduad pplu op Sumt: 111!a1 int.! paltua-us pump-JO-0u 11 pj(ti.) sl s! K pplid osoip S31.10. t1U u Siluaapai papalluua .i4.10(10.1(1 lug! Si pop:.x.)! inu.sinu 1: foolidS S,4,11.1.011) S.11:pUllOg Stijl -0.1(1 1,:sod s! io fst Bud saw) mu! punuat: alp puma J0 111(pillikoj 'J1: alp rid Ju spli 11oulap4s WE ay swisaa JO a.quituu!!soul, 1 tias (II uu J,)4.1u1 sa9s110 .110010u 111:X1: opp: 11101J dif4 ',).)tij() JO oo!polipa 110.1 111.11 440U lulu! u114 aJ s)suuds. pop.tu.).).t spij .:111!paA% loops s.!atals!!) 2042 the country represent, a good-sized so,mple. I shall quote from these figures during my testimony on the '11" out-of-district issue and later as well. The attacks on the neighboring counties of the District. of Columbia Seem to stem from the idea that these are. rich counties and therefore should receive no money for -11-children from out-of-district. First of all. I would point out that all counties in this country probably have their rich residential area~ as we in San Diego County, Calif.. have our La and Mount !lens. but that. does not. make all in a county wealthy. hiblie Law S74 was never intended to be an equalization law., but a law to pay for services performed. Senator Pta.L. Excuse me. Even in die so-called rich counties around Washington the amount. of title I for poor children has increased in the last. few years. While impact aid has grown also. Mr. ELonoo That is true. Senator: yes. A study of the three counties in question will indicate that there are 43,000 for 1972273. Not all of these children can he eounted against property within the Dist net of Columbia, but to a lame extent. result. from an exchange of parent. vorking location laa wren these very counties. The more significant statistics show that the D.C. school' system has 5.231 "11"--ont children for the same lwrioil from these very counties under attack. 1t appears that there is a great exchange across your lomd bridges every school morning. For every Montgomery County, which detractors of impact. aid love to cite. there are 100 Richland school districts that would be hurt. Meld:old is a somewhat less %vealthy are:1 in the State of Washington impacted by the Atomic Energy Commission. For every Prince Georges. Count.: :lien. are 100 North Kitsap districts, again an example from Washington Aronnd Puget Sound-. For every Fairfax. there are 10n Chinn Mikes. as the one in California. Payment. for service rendered is the basic premise of iimpact aid and not the wealth of small groups of people. A review or tthe column "civilian out on the attached statistics will indicate to goal the drastic effect of such a proposal on most of the districts listed. The large city districts are particularly hard flit but one should be aware that. a small loss to a small school district can be just as hard a blow to their promra ms. Yet another proposalould require school districts to reduce by pereent of their total aver:tire daily attendance their total qualifying 91" st IONA. count- This is referred to as a means of showing local effort before the Federal Government would mcognize its responsibility. submit that local effort has always existed before Federal tends are aPOlicil to 64, cost. of educating the federally connected child. Take a look at the rates used to pay loeal districts. These, rates provide current payments based on costs that are 2 rears old. That is a pretty good absorption factor alone. The impact tiepins with the first child, be that child federally connected or not, so why shouldn't payment begin for the first federally connected child as it does for the first nonfederally connected child from local sources? The attached statistics will indicate to you that this proposal would prove the most fatal of all to large and small districts alike. The last .colu tun of figures gives you the percent of loss of "11" funds by district. and there are far too many 100 percent losses listed, to say nothing of 2043 those lessor !moven, aoe losses to other districts which Ayould hurt them drastically. This PropOS:11 is V01111(1 with the idea of 'whoring the "A" rate to just last, year instead of 2 years ago as a means of making Hp this loss of so-called "Jr absorpt it ap,ars to me that the "II" losses are in one (list Het while the "A-- gains appear in other districts. 'lids "II- absorption proposal is quoted as moving anywhere up to $190 million. or one-third of the program as we now know it. Before such a move should even he contemplated, adequate statistics must Inc secured from the U.S. Office of Education or i fear the results may prove more than most districts ran endure. Proposals exist to exclude payments for the 13th and loth grade. and would appear to exist because the funding of these grade levels is not uniformly the local tax base throughout the States. The junior college (13th and 14th grades) is still supported, however, at least in California. by the very same taxing system used to suppott the first or second grades. So long as the tax on residential and commercial prop- ertv is the major source of revenue to finance public education. and so long as the Federal Government enjoys the tax-exempt status for its properties. and so long as other employers pity taxes on commercial property, the Federal Government. as the Nation's largest em- ploye and largest owner of tax-exemt prop erty. should continue the imact aid program regadless of the grade level in question. f would have to submit that the basic provisions of the °resent law are excellent. and these provisions are many. I would change. my !Arts- vocation slightly in order to cover some that are not often mentioned and Ow re fore. upon occasion. neglected. Take. for instanee. that section of the law dealing with a reduction in local revelme by reason of acquisition of-real property by the United States in slid' quantities as to impose it more intense and lasting burden on local school districts. This is section 2 of the law and presently affects 147 school districts; in 2 of our States. Section 2 is sometimes credited as !wing a double payment to school distr.-J(4.A. This is far from the ease. as local districts must demonstrate a substantial loss of real property from the tax role as well as apply a "loss-need" ratio which is further covered by a built-in local effort test. As if this is not etiouizil. all Federal and State revenues. inclinling other sections of Public Law S74 are taken into consideration hefore entitlement is established and a continuing titianpial Imden proved to exist because of Federal activities within the dist Het. The approximately $4 million spent last. VP:Ir on this section of the law was most earnestly needed by those districts concerned. and over one-third of those districts would not have (piali tied under any other section of the law. Another section of flue present law provides for payments to dis- ticts that experience a decline in Federal impact due to either a cutback or a total closing of a local government facility. Local ednea- ional agencies have geared up with assets. be they material items or people, in order to snip] v services .''Marl 10 the demand. The rapid cut- ack or elimination of Federal installations can leave a local school district with eNcess assets. not so easily disposed °L In this ease. once again. a Federal action can place an undue burden on a local community which must Is recognized as to a reaAonable time for the local ,,overnment to vet once more ad inst. their activities becanse of an action beyond theircapalility to cont HOZ

11,)01,11111,)9 1 .).11111 ihu.).t0.r.1:10J1:41 isx.4 11:10 11 14,..4.1:4t4t .1111 4,11).)1M0111 .JIISS.).).)11 01 Ja.t0.1, 11.1: JO illosoJa / 0p oirl imp ,)s(ll) /),),)amio.) JO a:Ani) sincazio.sa omos suldfa: sava.i pelt t: )tire!soloi JO) ii.e.qm o Nitwit.; al Situ) inJolea 1 Iqu(. :pm Jeo. -tues-speaad Ja.10.) ,m0 uop)as .).)01,)(1 -21111.sop

.1!1(10,1 4 me/ is sJZl.untlur. le.11,021 leptivou ).)11els!ssa: -Ilatuo00.).10.) .i11110;;;.111 pop.t.,11 milm!upo loolps apipe; II! lootps so!Jo!)) -A1:11 ;tin Ilier,kins let doisaagolom sasea.i.m! an!) 0) ou Jo posua.m! it:Joya1 sollut).0: I oJal 10!)n!Joillel o) opp0.01 leJ01),),,1 )!il104,J 101 ;J(; ,111 S.11:4111111 .V111:411011 )!un JO Isuf aleaaimmi ozis ou.) al111103 .111.11(1111o.) Moll 10011.)S '.1:1111..O:j aali 01 alp spun.) .10) !His .m10.) oloa; ; aJJ111 sr moo mm1 o14tese4 Isn't' ititeins Imo atitied etin se a ;sow alquuostif t:1 tlJlttat 4stitti pamatiaJ !Hu ',sum tiaA1.7,7 Is .1'11;!11 ;!.101.1(1 .i el 11011uudo.01(1): a.tuti paJtia!Ja(Ixa ,)11) )sui ma; -sai:a. -0,m1Jouao I o.tuti ;pi s!114 tkul: 0streJaq JO ,Lzum )01:Jtmu.rtts Jude! .141 .)q; 111;111412t1.171 01 .110110j '.)111 Sit °II sue.m1 lis o) 11/71!is :99) Isom 401:).10(111! 1a.x1su JO 1.)IltitU 'NC '11J111.1111.1.)0 Jilloll 1 1)10o ;mutt 04 Init:)s I)JOI qj ieJ01 i)100:is )0t:(1)11r )q pout:).10.) .10 -1).41:1100!1.) /mu Jomstic s!!!) itops,m1) : pinotis 1 .6(1 ,moor looms sJxvi k11f OS SI; 01 JAI.; 01110111:J11N 11.1.1111111.) JO J011 s;111.1.111(1 .o.i01(lin) :Itoyou ut pool s,.)x pie -ai))1.1 J! .topu.tot: Ii! aols ;,axe; aglAXIS.LI mil I UL.) M01141.110[) p1110114 VHS 1; I11111 '.111JJO I 1)1110 0(1011 111111 .110)1110:4 Hood JIII JoS111: 1)11: 4S11111 ..1(1 101111011X4 1111111 S11 111.10j Si1,1111JUI.14 ill 1111.16J.III spu. to:. tit: 111111111.111.111 FlolF;1111 PII: 1111:4;10.1(1 01 -1::)111)-) -Ito!) Leu, un;J:10.01 s! .q.),.)(10.1(1 pa.u.,,Jtioa put: a1U9 pals'; put: -woe( anu S)!Rt!!-.4tIoils.m Jo luJavad )tiatutua.0/) aloi.)11 Mit.solo / pinup; aylt ol ).),)J!/) ..)a))91110(l.) noptiolIt: 01 I o Jora(1 -spod.).1 e mai sL).7.1tal Ju tiapim Jae patiJip g tie mu III .ilittJ :tutimeisaJlein oil' lue!;1!Jo 40a)tir Jo .s-s,11:410o,) asLeid, spot10.1 (/) 1.10(lazi 1;;; -04:61 put: (470 tmoll JO sa.t9H))1Js)mlau 4.10(1,,a 'OX 'Isi".Z.; j *SSJ.1.1110 JU1 '0Z.; '01:61 1)[110m 0411 01 SSJJ(IX.) ant 11091:1,).01t1e .101 aq) S1004.0)(1(10 04 JJ0J,)(1.1):a(l41i: 110. J.1 oil Jo pH.) .1J11 amuistssu 04 -11o3: 1 Ileum at )sont -pasuald put: I Awl .1 tieJ Josue Jno.i suousan'0 31tiutu, -not .10111:11,1S "veld no.' t/Jntu )ualualt:)s Jo *.iiv pa.ipm 4 atui paletkid [..smollos UZI COPYAVAIthitte

Before the Pret:untation made by

Senate Subcommittee on Education Lantson C. Eldred September 14, 1973 Associate Zuperintendentci Schaal,. National City. Calif. ;:pv4ing as Nitionil President. Impacted Area :4.hool::

Mr. 01.i MAO and rembers tla. Committee, 1 atu.reelatet b. uppatt unity to appear before you today to testify on portion of the bill no., nndet consideration by thi s Co,mittee. 1 tulle appreciate the in 1'-''t Poed for the renewal of all those fdi.ral ptogrAm:: facinA extinction for con4res-

sienal aufiforiatlen: however, I shall out tin my tomalks to tha:a, laws effeeting icpacf aid, ..07,:,nlv t. red to aA V. L. Bl% seal P.L. :04.

In 19',0 Congress authorized and dire:fed that Ow h.deralCover:12,ot would reco6ni;e its responsibility to assist educational agencies inmess eft-Viftc! by federal activities. This principal of federal te!,pon,ibility to:- federal derion4 e,AV, tinlih basi, tor paym,nt for the direct burden liapaned by the requirements for educatin.:: children hrwl,:ht to lava] communities by the Federal Coverttent And carried with Itthe concept of payments for services rendered.

Twice during the 2i years since the programs' inception, the Departruult of Health. Education and We! tote resorted to outside independent firmsto study and report en the impact ald programs. Both the Stanford and tio. Ratt,Ile

reports concluded that the impact aid progra:ns wel'e in fit jugtified.

The Stanford Report concluded that, "P. L. 874 I a defensible, though somewhat unusual. piece of federal loninlotionf thatIt is properly conceived

in term,: of rolieeing burdens 44.,0,;pd upon school di%tricts that educate

federal pupils; and that permanent paymonts to impacted areas under P. L. F.N. can be justified."

The Battelle Report. concluded. "that. the Federal Covernment haLt imposed

a financial burden on school districts" and further that, "the boic' features 21)46 BEST COPY itItiT

Cant nn Yldred oage of the current program are sound."

got h the report.; r oni uded ttrt, th.ttthe l',deral Co ernment should continuo to provide a program of school a,:sirance in federally effected area as the burden of the federal presence is not rstricted to the project's

Initial impact on a conmrnity.

Continued attacks on the program haw stimulated all type.; of suggestions for its ;ndificafion. Let cle take these sug,*.estious as a bait., for proving the soundness of the pte,ent program.

One proposal would have the effect of routinnin:1 the authorieatinn for both the "A" and "h" thild, but repeals the se.:tion "C" child or Public Punning section. The iwvorumtlit, by attempting to solve one social problem, tends to develop yet AuAher problem. The vet, nature of hon.,iug provided gives rise

to a deep taxation ptoblem In thrt the ::ervices tequi red. becau..ie of the housing presence, cannot be support ed by base'of the units In question.

Even under the hest of conditions. hoeot,uor personal property taxes cannel support education or otlwr neces,:tty goveln7..ntal services. Section "C' is a

justifiable section of the law and should remain, with the hope that funding

will yet.one day he provided.

Another proposal would do away with the so called out -or- district

child. This is a child whose parent works on a federally connected propetty

that is located out-rid? as school di Jaiet's boundary. This proposal is

obviously aimed at those ...untie: that are around the District of Columbia,

Attached at the end at this st,7,Avrent are the tesulto of a questionnaire 1

sent out in an effort to gain ::tatisties not now available (rota the V. S. Office

of Educi!tion. You wW 'note responses recorded at this writing from 742 school

districts throughout the country and represents a good-L.ized sample. I shall

quote from these figures during my testimony on the "n" out-of-district issue

and later as well. O47

AVAILAIKE BEST COPY Llnt-.n C. illdreu. Page Three

The attacks on the neichhoring corn,tieq of the DitAriet ot Columbia seem to stem trIm the3 dvA ti; at hoe Ate and at, oh ,old teceiv, no money tor "R" children from Fit%t of all.I would point out that all counties in thi, country prol,al.lv have theil rich residenti. areas as we in San DI, -e0 County. California have out La Jolla and Haunt but that does not mai., all in 4 county wealtiv... P. 1_ F74 wit.; never intended to be an equalization lao but a al to pay ter services pertotred.

het et. hick 'again to the taaford Report and you will tind

d.'.r th, sLator,ent that rarden tend, to be greater in rich than i;a poor di,tricts. A,t hitt by the Federal Covern7,-a: awa :.from it,; responsibility just bee-.utse riclt people 0. A ecnnty vAn well ad!erd to pay to edueate thoir own ,hildten will tc,allt in heitw raised on Ow cAlled rich, 'but will al,,o effect to perhaps a tar oerter extent. th0,0 in the same

comities that are not hi' well off titiancially.

There is another aspect to the local problem thaa has never been covered to my knowlce,:e. lhi, nation is b1,4s,d by modern techoologv whiLh allows

the individual to both work where he wi:hes and at the ;:ame time live Otero he wishes. You will note that the attached statistics show Montgomery, Prince

Ceorge's and Fairfax Counties with out-ot-distriet "II" children totaling

43,456 for 1472-73. Not all ot these children can be counted against property within the District of Columbia, but to a large extent re,ult Horn na exchange

of parent working location between these very counties. The rore significant

statistics show that the D. C. School system has 5,243 "3"-reat children for

the same period from tin,se very La-antic', under attack. It appe:drs that there

is 3 great 7.xchange across your 100:11 hlidi!OS ovary Slill101 morning.

For every Montgomery Count!, whiet detractors of impact aid love to cite,

there are 100 Richland school districts that would be hurt. Richland is a 11-1S EEST

lato,ion C. Eldred, rage Four

at..is the .,..t.tti,0 iry.,,-ted ho the Atomic

4., . 10a NotI, rit.'ardII i.-t a11 For

at.In.! (hi... I tt.,

A ia I 011!...1....t 1 11, Ill t1t.i i ut

ev 1101 t "c viion out n'' ...I 1;,1, A

..t ia k ill:i,lI I lie r ; ,110,1 it oath h

1,op tb, Add t ict li,ted. TLe 1dt City t icts Are pall ti-

iii n,r,t it oue d be ire OA::4 t 0 A !.MA school

; . r pro;dt outs. di di t , i he i d itt dti low to t bo

Yet AllCLApi WctO Irogdi r'ti hool dist r ie, 1.1 edu.-o by 47. th,jr1,,t ,iat .it It.t iwo !twit total9.1:11 II "h" 01 tidetit count.

, h-t oret he Fedi; ra I Ill I I, 0 c:!it t

h Is tot wo,10 to 0 ',a im i t , r.,,pol.. i b t to. I submi t tlwuc locdl of l o f t

t he cos; of .0duoatio;.t ho I i WAy 1 ,t be ' r, 1 od to

tod,ral 'rt,- .1 ratt...;ud to pa.: local dita riot

kA.1."11, eit co.:It. that ato two year., old.

it t1t iia-t or imp.wtl,oginti with the first

hi Id, h,tilt .11 i II toutii Iycatim.,tt,d or not ,t.0 why nhoitl,In't payment

it doos for the t hc,tliu for the I I rst f vdcro I .-tuubu t cd chi Id d trot oon-

fv,tor illy LlifId IIio leoa I--;our at tar bodr ot lot les will

lititto yott that;Ail!: la iiwould proV, tho MOSt. I.At A of alltolarge

ct'; '111, off et;ttivos you the per coot

it1o:;1 aod th,ro atm far toa many 10..ot,; t.:ty taoltimg.o toit dint ti.-t:; whioh would

1 1 , 1 r : I C.111 y. [iii; ,,,opl1t1 with Ow idea of bratigirig th,, "A" rat.' to jot lust your .11t,t,,,1,1 of twa year:, ago ti; a m...ang If makint; BL:11 AVAIIABLE,J Lantson C. Eldred, Page rive up this loss of so-called "K" absorption, It appears: to to that the "K"

losses are in one di,triet while the "A" Aplwilin other AI,.(tIoIs.

This "11" absorption proposal is quoted .e. MoVinp, MiyMb.10 up 10 $1911 milliondollArtt, or one -third of the ptogran as we now know it. Kefore such a move should even be contemplated, adeWlite ,tAtttties rmst he sernt,d ftom the

U. Office of Education of I frr the result, may prove more than most

di,LrIcts can ends e.

Proposals exist to exclude payments for the Ilth and 14th grade and would :Ippt Mtto tu.; ist boe.11,A the funding oi hot:, grade lvols is pot itnitotmly

the local t ax t hroughout the i .rtes. Tho junior c011,..-g (11th atd 14th

grades) is still t.uported, however. at111st. in California, by the vety ,ame

taxing syst n luO.to support the 1st or 2113 A.,rAd,,. Si, long s, the tax 011

residential and (stn....n.1.11 proprty is the IrAior !attire, of revenue to lintnce

public edueatIon, and so long A5 the Federal Government enjoys the taxexempt

status for its propert los, andan Itutg :is otitor employer; pay taros on

commercial property, the Federal Coverument, as the nation's larj:es employer

and largest owner of tan exempt property. should continue the impact aid

program regardless of the grad, levelIn question.

would have to sutsilitthat the basic provisions of the present law

are excellent, and these provi:Aow: are MAUy. I would change my pi:vsaulIAII011

slightly in order to cover that are not WAvn menthned and thrctot,

upon occasion, neglected.

Take for instance that: rrtion of the law dealing with a reduction in

local ievenue by reason of acquisition of real propwrly by the United Staten

in such quint it it, a, to impose A r,Arc it and lasting burden on.loca 1

school districts.. This is Section Two of the law and pI,Hutiy effects 147

school districts in 22 of our states. Section Two is som,time, credited a, MIlLABLE, .2o5o BEST COPY

Lint son t:.

d0111 parilntt :41.114.1..1 Thin. it'Lit'ir,ntihe 1tsc. as

1. , 0 1 . 1 1. i t r i c t 4 : 4 . 4 , . . 4. 4 1 o , . . . 0 : t. 4 , 4 1I. t 1 I t 4 : : of .'.i1pi op; t t t rom t Ito

role Wel 1 apply a in,..1" o witi. ItjJ, t t'cove:v..1 by a hnil - in 1.' 11.it t: tt itt .enit, .11 l1..lera I e

revenuc,,, it r 1.. t ak..01i tit o eon, iott

oto it it 1..r.tit. i..he.1 And a conn ithin..1.11lotr:.14n4IT ''v, .1t o

1 4,14 I; .tct i itc.4. It hio .4liii II . Tho ..4;4;444:...ita.tt 17:

1I .to I Lit .:nnt y..44 onI otI II.'Ii.,

eat '1,1;1 I,:11..1,1,4110. c.-ncet .in.1 over (11..-I Iii td p11110'w

.1 1..41 I lc.:1141 111-:1,1y ..11r ti,i olthe 1141.

An.,4 hO 1,,n ho prv, IJI p 7,1 ;11,

. I 11d.1ii i ICI I. j liii .1 tit ,,.kr

ot.11lllli',i'. I I t L14e.01 ii..iL,1.0101;,.itoi-; hive

tid uith .t. 64,II ,V r.! j.II it. kJ!1,..oP It'.lii "rkivrI Jalppl

%.1.1 0 ICC.: III1I,.d..,.11JI. ill, rip id CItt or el imitint ion 01fc.leral

1t i : : t a lIt i n n : , I, t Y , . a1 oeu hc.h dill 1,with not

ul.In Col, ,.t,' Ioal.r.11 i 1 1 ptCAU pIneo an

;indite burden t,it 10..11 y 4.4,44P0.t In, ,4.44ini I ,4141.IV to 0

t or the 14ii4;0'14'4 14.01 144IL tic ad 11411 their .1rt lvii ion 1/ocaton,

of014;lc t 14,111w:ion/II I.:, i Ii tyt cont. rol

I It (tent oil I iart.ly covvret ti,,1,1,0,1 err,t hat 1,0 . 1 doubt

Civic I 1:11WI.,1... y al I.11;1.,4,t,

I ..1, kn.:: thatI 'i)(` c,11., i Vod of pronr.irn; 4:41(444 :13-p 1 op a4,4)

I(Pr.`,; I j;IitI. or WI, j 1 W, I t:h I1-,,o I v grat til Wt,t1 Id, with your

'1141' It1 j.,t1 JAW:J(1r,

815III 102 7...4". o..1...1.11I 11,111.la I:1,:1:41:1:1,4.1 or ..011,:t rut- t mitp,

ut.444.11t 1 y nini"nnti srlsoolInI lit nehool 411,:t ktv i q4.114,-.1.zint ht. BEST COPY AV:11111BIE

Lent sun Eldred, Page Seven

momberbhip increases doe to new or increased federal activities. Here again

.itithori...itioo to provide fe.lotal te. tedetal aet A new

military hnsiog unit ofjust moderato ,'All require a c(uvltoly new

school fa...fifty. However, where do the trindl for such .s facility come from?

Thete'u no now t...ahlo property. 1 tlict sulmit that I'. L. 815 in a most

jw,titiable law Which count be renewed and whichra Is' given a hi;;hi priority

in appropriation than we hive expolieuced in tho la,t few Contlemen.

I have hit this; area liOttly hecaa:a. 1 auraro et input by the

gentlemen to follow cw, but I by no ronn wkh to slight thin mo,t rportant

a,pect ofimpa.t aid.

Centlen.ni, back ho:co 1 would hive to stand before the local tax payer,

sh,uld itwact aid he curtailed or climloated, and annw,..r

::Ito II I a'Ipay more school taxes 50 1-0 give a free edu...tt11,1 children

whoNe parent:; or ,mployer pay n-thin:1 in lo:al tat -.e,; and little,it anythinl.

in Slate taxes The only response 1.11a; 1 Carl "1 dr'a'tlato why."

Should such a thing occur, I would hope that.:....one could give c, in ati,wr.

Impact did must he extend,4 and principally in its pro:cnt This

can be cai'vfidered J.: a tnininess financial aid program to education. The program

is properly con,:eived arid time te,.ted and a justifiable re,,ponsibility of

the Federal

Before closing I should like to direct the Coft.mittee's attention to

two print report, A tow page:: of which A70 3liACIled as an aid in fully

understanding the original intent of Congress. These reports are (1) Srtato

Report No. 24',.t, 81st Congress, Atigu:A, 29, 1950 and (2) howw of Representatives

Report No. 2281, 81st Con4res-i, done 20,19'01.

1 would like to again xpross mY appreciation for the opportunity to

appear before you, If 1 may he of further auNI:;tance to you, I would be most

pjca-xd. and I hope I answPr your quegtions, Thank you. 21 ) r'-'9 CO P! P1 E

t 117::

cv, v 'of 111 i-;

Coao,1,7o 157n 9?7. 101 53 Lic1J 11:1 7,18 331 '194 17 Pootol k 437.., 1013. 1;',37 73 BEST CU./ 21153

Gnc.n.11 15'3 2(.15.1 BEST COPY AVAILASLE

! I /

. I ! 11 1..3 ::'" ._....._ .

1 1", 1'19,0 10 LII 431'; 11;'4. 7,0 f.:' 170 73 V .11.:, .,2.:- , 19 ci..r 77:". . 56 1/ 33 41 Sc 100

1. 1' 1 3 vl 3 137 1C0 0.1 t 1, 3,3 114E). 7 106 17C, 1; 7q. 20 710 629 73'% o 07 t - 112 103 17 rt ?1.. 6C4 136 09 7,1 22 167 92 14 , 6 /5 92 4 101;(.71 1' 13n? 14 13r,Int. 'ri 135 5 11 227 1 66 74': 1276 7.7 31 3,317 1', 6 120 :i92 121 23 rt12. 148 ^ ; 102 41 1 c:11T!. 1 12 711 101 F-1 572 43/ 43 1? 1. gr,1. - 96 7 2/1 t'fIl 3 37 1. 69 . 17 1 -)6 1 53 i,.!('.,1:1;,i 1 5,1,29 % 111 513 8 23 775. 1 7:25 - 171 1') ?7 Ht. 1"7,6, 3 126 737 7,.12 6'.,*.. - 6" 3 7241 10 LW-J:1,1.11 1112. 16 7 10 10 7,272 449 - 323 11, Li 1,712 013 Lo3 (... 1r.7,' , 1.-1 662° 5 1(1 31 1.7Isn.rn 1 101:1. 10 91q - 4.13 - 221 19 rro,I C111, 71:3. '1 56 f."ore..2. 11 - CI? 29 278 25 20 11 1'.,',n 3;,f1 :31 11urc, t i 2777 41 15 I 4,713 759. 1031. . - 09 1;,,%72 905. 423 31139 16 t./ ,229 129 1111 f 11,1,33 f.n 31,9 ;751 366 27 n.f6rd-o,n1, vic, 6:71 151 71 104 175 10 13 nrcutt 3,655 911. 5 6?1039 09 rkn-,rd 16,35C 1216. 293 3r.)0 1 r;13 644 17

701- 4,flOr! 533. 1 6;7 12 6,51 153 1-11 M:4 64 -7 20 C 1,343 217 '23 100 Ii 1,225 654. 152 BEST COPY AVAILABCE,

111'.",`.! !1'.,1`;;.:1!", i'173 California

CAlflOe'e 71 57 of "6" SCiiIPL 91e1'::C.T Pn;; oTt I. !, ! '.4!4.t

95!.

P41.. Sunsot 10 1 190 1,977 165, 20 215 29 25

Riveedale 436 1230. 15 11 . SAN Antonio '2nion 100 110, 15 29 10 San 8,enar.Iivo 31 .I'33 061, 47q 501 CO4 428 1394 60.9 29 SmDin ;o ri 129.333 114 ti 3216 6,395 76 18

Sr Juan 46 7:021 af,47 406 . 151 25 Santa 'Iaeia fleet. 4,319 1169. 17 747 9 It I,40o 10,1. 71 59 SantaYrez 660 12 68 10 23 Santee 7.141 387 1055 - 15 Srcrrd 11 21 55 .S,r ri 245 1770. 32 100 0ay 5.759 rq3. 1 2951 44 717 05 Q Sout' cri. 169 7"1. 33 C 15 Scat' !tier, 1,09). 551. 21 255 15 363 12,72'5. 20 342 111 03 tacaville 6.01 731. 3 210 77? 212 09 Iinntur 31 324 10 81 '.5.,etura .5 lii 17,242 7 03 326 56 190 1;51 hm;t6n 723 671, 94 In 16 ;:v:nlvr ion 5? 14(.stcide Unm 2,117 R77, 7 21? 19 25 17 ?,547 S52. 2174 7 7 40 Onton 99 213 27 12

Sweetwater 72,550 1777 71 18

Oakland 57,343 1077. 173 47C 107 265S 1399 1067 37 2537 :.11.-,1; LEST p07,, 1, r 5

4171I

-11

'11'1

4:1 1337

71 17 :20:is CJ71

1',A00

1.`

7i ric4nF4115 1 107 34 50 10 dory ql 11 11 111 11 11 Mock 3.675 11 14 (lake 1,41^. 1 72 13 31 i;our,; ,ry 1,r 1,, 791 1F, 79 53 2,11 1 1q

C k 771 47 17 7f crt.,11 47v 771. I 15 e'r.lvv. . 1;1 ino 71. IY3 /.2 13 ill 12;124 7 V, 771,1 3 r, 75 PP!, 27 0, 110.4, ,; 71, 74' 33 114 1 4 f 11 61 t-11. 3 In 1:' (.9 73,; 7r co. - 12 550. 137 7131 12

173, Q5 701 15

12 1407 Luisc 77 717 10 17, 9,13 `,1 3 3. 31 5.". 77^. 3 to 371 771. 31 33 574. 3 (3- 534 7^ 5,0;3 51. `,79 31 31n 3 17 74

.11 j 3 11/ 43 5/1.1 101 74 4 - 1 I., 14 771 - 41 35 41 Irr 51 r 177: 41.. 14 71 PC7 13 1? (7/ 11 551,1 11 PEST CONIWAIIABLL

124,71

171 IT:

rerat-11,i 11 - 10; f-41 144. 3 54 1,0Y 3 32 n? 74 ricie L.st. 1.1 17 cdl 221 17 235 71 ?7 44 277 It 4 37!1 18 71

25 41 41

3 5 1 Inl 77 74 5 311 41 y 17 18 7? *)41(ill CCIPt iiMititELE 2061 DEST '2012 UST COF1 Elfii3LE

_ BEST COPY itt:LABLE

. 21

7' 1

1". I' ' (6 2064 P7cl F')1 .

...

1,771 1*: 1;1 ok. BEST CC:FiliLiiLL '20415

"tifl inn - 141 C, nt; BEST CO;"i

(13 2067 BEST COPYAVAII.E1E

Purt.1.!, h 5 33Z Litt;e, 206S 6E1 COPY 10:.:".:111.31.E

SC i'.."';;IP.; '.r'.. ,, r;'..; I CA.:,',- .::.; _-- I

1;,.. v ; i,.,....:1 ;.',:; f .1';;'.1. C.', .:-.:'.r. 17,,Y Ill, /.',' 51:.

I;",!.!, 1,;;') 177. 51

!'m ,..z. + ,), I; 1.1..; 1..,....; 91 3 IG.....9.1.,.0 1"...!-,,.; r...r3Len . re, UV.; 20(0 icr.c."0 1J;0..:.

Irr

'011. - . v:; I 70

11 ! 11

10,1 1 ! I 10 '12 247%;

i 11' ;i: 177 9,, 1: 1120.i ! .1

11: .1 3/ '11:H ',11Cr

r;',1 112, 10; 74± 1":":!' - I 11

)25ni fair- 1 irt _ 1:;,; 1107 ;1 .1dd ! 170, 10 1:.:i1 - III !..."..r!..i'1.1.1 1 4.'7 , 17' . 1 Ir.' 1.:1.' 1 ),!..:r.'o.1 1 ..-1 11, 11`.:1 30 12,12! . 1:,-1 C. - l ,'t.. '; -.1 1r .. r.111 ,r i IS,";'..'i .,.1,..1 - i IC, 0

47..);, 1 1- 1:.,',,,,1 !:z.,1

1.....,r, 1 1 ! . 1 i:...... 7 1, 11 7.78 I 1;..!,..: 11,7 141,; II r. 11111 r .! r )67j1 1.1S, 1!.'r; . . : /!,.;r; 11 , '.1.:!.1 !;'.,(.1 1'1.; ! S31. i 1(4.1, lib4 : - 1 -- 1.1`.:::;,' 1190! . 451 r i l' . So. C',1r.r.nlp 3, - I .;',11 I. ; So. i'.4,I 1' ':1' 1 - 1,,, , So. F..!. 1 1.',111! ' /1 t 25,I.,i 135.; FT', - I 2,:)I 7. - i ,,,rs1 7P ll.; 9,.,,,,, I ' o.; ;;:'1, 17.1r.,, 1:;',/H 1:'.7'.:, I 7.1 1 IC ,;'I 1.t 1 ,7.;1 i',:::'' - 151;') ;1 I C, IC:: ', - 1 I 1,' lil',:)` 4.',',.: 1,1

1! '.

)2'ij ! 11' /r.

I r!..',. I 15r: 1/019 1 " 1

' I PEST CDPY. CAI ABLE, 2117()

If";

5811(1.`,. i IT.P.1 ; .1.,I';;;11.7: .!?',;

1.1 ' ! . . ,

'5: !

1i) LL, 11'; 't.'

? :!..1.(:0. 7'1 13,

r . 10.0

o?!:'s ?!! ? 5;1

11,1 I I .1CO

3't 7 (!),,.;

219 Ili un. 1.L i,:, 'L

1CO i.131.1! 33, lit ?t,.! 501 123 110 ho?! NO2 '100 !c.1!:.%.? 5!? 8 2?; 19 ).6 11 15 6 ho

! 4) 59 i 12 23 3.00 Fro??? 729 Ci Vt12,.? 755: 5931. 19 !turn?: F) 1.0,36 :17`.?! 1;11. 29 Eutlic.r 143'. 11 05' .3?yr,t 13:05 2; 211 9!.;

(?Ltelly (.1% . 617 76 33 002 9 530 3 3.09 Culw:rat. 821 33 173 C4:1v1:1', '15 39 50'; 10 010 :18 23 11?

c?...trt? 218 Jo 70 -;'; 2071

BEST COPY AllAiLABLE I

t.I. 1 .3

("41IT II;II 3 1, 1. . .1". ; IT/ / 1. 1., .

v1:1

.;;.! :10::.;

fit. I` 9 ri 11-1

I-1111 10

1,5Y 21; 2, I;

214 3 7

.11;1 Id; 1.1.9 26 ion '131 19

97157 C) '71 BEST COPY: Aid (1.1iit I,* DESK copy 2073

1:1P1(1,iruli! 111/3

01:;1111-: i'd'A i'l'(: int ti;;;,,r,;;;Ptl,,; 1,17?- 73 1,0 I In 0,11or r o3.,

J, !1.111 :1(A1

:1IJ:1

1"(

200

100

:10

I I. :11/0

0;0 270 10

: !1.onnr, Jb 30(3 100

:*. 3'. 1, hi; 101,, 1(Y3)

09 7 JU

13 2074 BEST COPTTiVaii_NLE

:11 /WI 1,1!,c:.

CA FC71'.!

SE'X'1.lr1' 11 CPC CAi c..11.' 1 k71,11i'l :] cc 19;" 01 I 4n LILILc;.: 1 :1

I I,

1.1'

CC : 9 1,ccoit

: P.1. !

11,,1. 1 ]CO (c4

100

J c BEST COPY

t,t

7. 207(i 1-111-""r PrIPII ...pl.' ',ILI:71U

I 10,' I, BEST CO.?' N U LE BEST COPYAVAILABLE BEST COPY mitldifigtt BEST COPYAVAILARE

I ,

1 t !I.:CI 1,',..t;,.

i.C,

'3...,11') 16'

1 ''

01 11".C.:". .../''' ?. (I ?.1.' 1 2.1..1

- 1 VI, i - ?.11. .1,t,

I . ,0t,

-.1.:. iii 726. 11') ?1,

'41(11 1 ,. ,,lr.'.1 W7; on

, - '..1.1:t51 ,N

. 1 In I 1?:q I

11'9111 live n rot,,,r;1

776. COPY0I--

Ain 3,111 IL ILI I !I , A090.,. 1173 A: i

r.ATEr.o(r( e SMOOT OISICICI 'ADA PPC: CATEGORY 'filTi---C117:1:ITIF Ail5o1P1 1972-71 Out In, Do. in flu]I)!C p'5!, 1",

iU It 3c. t. 11' :11

::_.33 I : 1,1 20

1 t;.; 1I 1IO2

, 31. ton 11 Mt . r h '32 320 20

. TC1' i'r(,11.!!! 1710% 195 71;1;0 . .

.00 L:1 t 20 (6. 7:1 21. : 3 1'7,1:1 :In 7 1.0 36 123 03 114', 7 77 Gl i 22 :21.1S1 14YES T. CC) P1' 4i.i LIA LE

IMPACI AID SCHOOL DISIRICIS August, 1973

5iiINGTON

CATEGOPY "Ii", 56001 oisi-RIer ADA CAUCOR MILITARY CIVIIIAN -CIVILIANABSORPTIM 1972:73 A Out. In Out' In Otat'of Co,Loss 9

District of 126,974 558. 350 5243 15779 5243 18 Columbia 2082

BEST, COPY, ill1fi11113LE IMPACI AID SCHOOL DISTRICTS,

August, 1973 .

14YOMINC, CATEGORY B SCHOOL DISTRICT ADA PPC CATEGORY FiTITTTOT-MViiTA7777/TETATIAiiStiCPTM1 1972.73 A Out In Out In Dot of Co. out 0 Y.'.

Cheyenne 13.172 877, 1062 76 904 - 1876 76 14 81wr CoNotir-ss i HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ( Itypotrr Sessionf 1 No. 2287

OPERATING EXPENSES OE SCHOCH., DTSTRICT5. AFFECTED BY FEDERAL ACTIVITIS

Aim: 20, 1950.Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union and ordered to be printed

'Mi. BARDEN, from the Committee on Education and Labor, submitted the following REPORT ITo accompany H. U. 70.101

The Committee on Education and Labor, to whom was referred the bill (IL K. 790) to provide financial assistance for local educational agencies in areas affected' by Federal activities, and for other plc-. poses, having consitlerd the sane, report favorably thereon with an am.endment, and recommend that the bill'aS 'amended do pati:4. The amendment strikes out all of the text; of the hilt as introduced and inserts in lieu thereofsubstitute.whiCh appears in the reported

bill in italic type. . INTROI)UCTIOZ.: In the prosecution of programs essential to the general welfare or defenSc ofourNation, the FederalGovernmentconducts many ,kindsof ...activitiesinwally different ken tions.Itbuilds ships, planes,Alinks. .and has built,.stillowns,'and. is to build hundreds of thousands of dwelling units for military personnel or ci WorkerS. Large Arniy. comps. naval bases, and airfieldS are being operated for the training of military personnel and for deferie purposes.Iiiindreds of thousands of acres of land have been acquired for 'national' parks, no ional forests, or reclamation and IlOod-control projects.' ':Eperimental Work With guided missiles and atomic energy requirw;:extensive Operations; in sonic areas.In short, theUnitedStates haS become an.Industrialist, a landlord,.ora busi- neSsman in many comintinities 'of' the :Nation without. accepting the responsibility of the normal citizen in a community, because property.-: under Federal ownership or control generally is not subject to local taxation. H.Itepts.;81-72, vol. 4-77.74 NM!' PEST COPY AVAILABLE

SCHOOL DISTIIICIS AFFECTED I1Y FEDERAI. ACTIVITIES 111 addition to the fact that no local tox income is derived from these federally 'owned properties, some communities also are seriously oifeeted by very large inereaser. iii populal ion resulting from Federal activities.Some Federal projects employ tens of thousand!, of some of whom live on Federal property and others live in adjacent c""1"initU,'s. Iwor Pasemployonly handhil of people or none at all.inI n Sulk cases tins pOpnlialon 1114:1111.8(.: haS been very sudden and substantial, while in others it has been gradual over a period of years.As a result, problems varying in extent Midcom- plexity are created by these Federal activities for, local governmental arTneies in the provision of public-school facilities and services. This situation has existed to sonic extent since the early days of the Nation,' but the number and extent of the problems were not great in the early part of the. Nation's ldstor.World War I resulted in a hcaVy expansion of Federal activity in many, areas, and serious problems! were created for some local School districts.They were, however, largely adjusted within a short, time after the war, and pob- lems of this type were neither widpread nor critical following that period.Circumstances were quite different during and after %Vorld War II.The United States was engaged in a Global War hi which the country not only mobilized and equipped over 16,000,000 men hut, in addition, supplied a very substantial part of the'mnee.rialS of war used by its Allies.This all-out Global War effort required the greatest expansion of military caul prolltaltion activities ever, undertaken in the Realizing the serious impact of military andindustialactivi- ties on small cOmmunities; the Congress, early in 19.11, authorized the apprcipriation of funds' to assist cennnunities in' these!ar'as in proVid- hug necessary community facilities and services, including, public schools. Under this authorization, known as the Lanham Act, program, assistance was providedfor construction of schoolfacilities and maintenance and operation of schoelS in overbOdened areas from 10.11until the end of hostilities.Since the bilsis for this program was to aid in prosecution of the war effort, the. Eldininigt.mtive ftgoncy lumen:wen the intention to discontinue assistance of all types as soon as possible after the surrender of Japan.It was anticipated in taking thisaction that rapid demobilization of the Armed Forces, discontinuance or curtailment of production for war purposes, and the readjustment to peacetime conditions would eliminate the need for, this type of ! assustanee.'This readjustment, however, took place much more slowly than Was anticipated and in ,some cases did not occur. ' use se of the!shertage of housing generally, ! war. housing projects have remained occupied lit capacity levels.Many people did not return to their homeS but have remained in the areas to which they were sent for war, production or military training.'.'. A substantial amount of property still remains under Fedral ownership, thus deprivingainniumties of local real-estate As the result of .these conditions, many school districts have con, tinned to be just as mono overburdened and in as great a need of 'Federal aid since the end of the war period as at any time during the war.Realiling that these problems remained, the Congress has continued this assistance' program for maintenance and operation of schools each year from the 1046-47 school year to the present time, `)0s5 BEST COPYP,12,1-.11,1'1...11,

SCI10014 DISTRICT8 AFFECTED BY FEDERAL ACTIVITIES _ 3 and, in addiion,lins authorized a number of difTerent Federal agencies to provide assistance of certain types to sebum ilktrietq affected ley their activities.LegiSlation continuation Of this assist.. twee program each year made it. clear tlmt it:was the intent. of (!ongress torestrict the program with the intention of %'itlahm% jug- Federal aid entirely as soon as 'pos;ible.At. the same time, however,. it was evident that. a number of the Federal activities which had caused their severe problems were continning andwere being. ek- pandedHin .some 'eases, and that the affected communities would require Federal assistance fora considerable period in the future if.. they were to 'provide normal school .services... ThiS 'entire mat ter was broil:dd. to the at tention of this committee. at, the tirst session of the Eighty-first. Congress, 111)(1 several bills Were.. introduced to prOvide additional school plant :facilities in these fe4.1- entity alfeeted areas and also to provide, for Federal assistancefor current operrititig expenses on a uniform and permanent. basis.The committee eonsidered these various bills, and the results of these inv,stigations convinced the eommittee members that therewas not, sufficient information available on the nature 'and extent of the problemS that exited for the committee to take definite actionon an over-all permanent proposal.As a result., the committee authorized temporary continuation for one more year of the maintenance and operation assistanee and appointed two subcommittees to 'Study. this

. entire matter and mnahe their reeoMmendations'. to the full committee early in the second session. These subeonunitteeS held hearings in Washington, D. C.,.With the .int crested. Federal agencies and with the school oflieialS in 'the politan area givin g. test irony. during the week of October 10, 1910. tiubsequently, the subcommittees conducted field investigations in 23 kwations in 16 State:;, receiving .testithony from approximiit.ely.'690 witnesses .from .12 States.'Flat witnesses included. representatives .. from the local offices of the Federal agencies concerned, local officials whose school districts were affected,' representatives of the State departmentS of education, and representatives of other interested organizations.Factual datawere. presented by these witnesses.c.n Very substantial sample of the affeeted school districts and included all types of problems created by-the various activities of the Federal

GOvertinient. - . . . in order to.obtaintOtals.cin the'fiumber of schooldistricts affected,'.' the number of children' involved, and the extent of the need, the Sub- eotitmittees, supplemented their field investigations by a statistical study' conducted .throtigh the State -departments of education, with the data being supplied by the local officials in the school districts affected these The data 'obtained in this manner have beCn tabulated and analyzed and included .in a joint report 'of " the subcommittees to the' full committee......

TYPES .OF i'nOlsiI MS THAT EXIST The subcotinnittees found that, basically, .Federal. activities phi. co a financial burden on adjacent school districts for the following principal. reasons: 1. Federal owriership of property. reduces local tix income for school pUrposes. !' .. 2086 BESTCesriHUM E

Ca lcular No. 2489 81s.r Cowcanss ) SENATE REroirr "d Session r 1 No. 2.15S

PROVIDING FINANCIAL 'ASSISTANCE FOR LOCAL ED11. CATIONAL AG ENCT ES IN AREAS AFFECTED BY FEDERAL ACTIVITIES, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

Annus? 29 (legislative day, JULY 20), 1950.Ordered to be printed

Mr. HILL, from the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, sub mated the following, REPORT [To accompany H. R. 7910J

The. Committee on Labor, and Public Welfare. to whom was ro- , ferred the bill (U. R. 7010) to provide financial assistance for local educational agencies in areas effected by Federal 'activities, and for other purposes, having considered the same, report. favorably thereon with an amendment and recommend that the bill, as amended do pass. 'rlie amendment strikes out all of the text of the bill as passed by the House and inserts in lieu thereof a substitute which appears in the reported bill in italic type.

INTRODUCTION During World War II, the Federn1 Government found it necessary to carry out mobilization and war-Production programs of unprece- dented extent. : These Federal activities, involving as they did the ' removal of real property from the local tax And a, siultkn! and `substantial increase in the population of ratan. areas, placed n:tre7 mentlouS financial burden on ninny America!) communities, with the result that many of those Communities .found it extreMely, difficult, if not impoSsible, to maintain and provide the necessary facilities and services for public education. To aid in meeting these problems., the Congress, early m 1911, approved the Lanham Act, which, among other things, provided Federal assistance for the construction of school facilities and the maintenance and operation of schools, in areas overburdened by reason of increased Federal activities, 'While the program authorizedbythe Lanhatia Act was designed ms a war measure only, the situation' in many of these affected areas was ZEST, COPY AVAILABLE

2 ..viNAN:IAL iissfsTANc Fon LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCIES such that continued Federal aid wr.cs enIial.Accordingly, Congress has continued the assistance program for the maintenance and open:- tioit of schools each yearup to the int:stmt. time. In nnuiy areas problems arising.oitt of these increased activities of the Federal Government:still exist, andthe.necd for continued Federal: fissistance in those areas cannot be q.uestioned.Accordingly, your committee has: favorably reported this bill.The: bill, as reported, provides for a 3-year program of Federal .assistance to those area:, which are or may become overburdened by reason of increased Federal activities.. Your committee has limited .this bill to a 3 -year period because it is of the opinion that further study is necessary befor:J any permanent program earl be establiE,hed which will effectively deal with tiff: numerous and varying probhms involved.

EXPLANATION OF THE BILL.

SECTION 1. DECLARATION OP POLICY This section declares it to be the policy of the United States to provide financial assistance with respect to the operating expenses of those local school agencies upon which Federal activities have placed an ndue financial

SECTION 2, CUILDREN RESIDING O\ FEDERAL PROPERTY This section provides that the Federal Government shall nay to each local educational agency which furnishes education to children resiiiing 'on Federal :property an amount per child roughly equivalent to the amount, per child which other property owners in comparable 'communities pay toward the cost of educating children. Under this section, payments for any year are limited to school districts in which the number of children residing on Federal property is not less than 10 or not less than 3 percent of the total number of children in average daily attendance during the year in question :tt the schools of such al,oney, whichever is the htrger.'Payments are to be Made only on the number of Federal children in excess of or in excess of 3 percent of the total of children in avcrar ;o daily attendance. The iftiyinent per 'child residing on Federal property i. e.,f.te local Contribution rate7-7is an amount equal to the current expem.:i. tures:per child made from revenues from loCal sources in comparable school districts withinthe State.. The contribution rateis derived by dividing the aggregate current expenditures (during t.fe second preceding fiscal year) which local educational agencies in 6:m- 1114,111)1c school districts made out of revenues derived: from local sources, bY:the 'aggregate number of children in average daily attendance at schools :of shch 'agency during the same precedingliscal year. The effeet of the payments provided for in this section is to compensate the loeal educational agency for loss in its local revenues. The Committee's attention has been called to the situation in the Territery.of Hawaii which, because it seems to have a single integrated. school system, would probably constitute a single' local education agency as defined in the bill.If such be the ease there would be ro other. school districts within the State.However, the intent to in- * OUST COI AVP: 2(V,S

\\0\v itlienriint )1. HIV/1111 M.

STATEMENT OF THOMAS L. GOODMAN, SUPERINTENDENT, SAN DIEGO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT. SAN DIEGO, CALIF.

;,110 11 \ :\11. 'It:thin:In. 1 al-t) appreciate the opportunity to he lion. to soffit. inpin into (1)r tout ter or l'111)1ic \v sl lfluids. l'on ve toy (0.-4 int)nv. printed. and Iwill not read. Senator PELL. It \yin he included in IIle record in it:entirety lit the conclw,,ion or your Cwon:,.\ N.I \oid,' like to rail tlite1111011 to I Ht. 1)11111,1111 of ult st:Itowent \1li1'h the tvpon't 1111. 'otottlittee on I.:ducal ion and 1.411),)1.1/1 die 1 1":,.1,1.1..-.0nt:11\'(:4()I. 11101.11i/011 nl'01/1111):111.11.1iILI:.71110. or which becniue lAiv..s71 backin 1970 t stateil: Th, rioted shit;: tias beeffilie an 111.10st rititist. tataiturit. nr 1111Sill1'!,:,Ml111 in 1.111111111Wil ofthe Notion Whiten' urciptittLtHP,respensthitily Ti') Twit rifiz,ain the hec:111,t tortiper' wider Vetter:II ownershipertlin t r,1 :4011er:111y 11,,t In.Vntj4111.

T11:11 41110 .11171 ilil.:111(111in 1111.i'nhlil1.a\\ :'471.I\voillt1 lo'fro \\in ;mother 110;iitfor di,,tf,sion on le!rislation such as 1,;1\\-"7 1. and dolt special kind of edneal iooal needs 1 hat all' 10.0.tIght :11)ont.1)v Federal ift=tallat \\-liellterot. not they he military, delons.o 1 . 1 : 1 1( , ( 1 1)1 Ot hers:. Where 011 ittie high t ronscionc.v factor' of yf )1111.criZt 11r' recent Iv ;lid a study itt San)10!,11 SeVel'al :1!r11 111 \\*111(.'11,\V('

1 4 1 1 ) 1 ; 1 ' 1 1 1 1 ; 11 I V : 1 1 1 1 V : ; 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 ; 1 1 11 0 1 11 M ICS n i l l I C 0 1 1 1 11 1 1 S "I II "g"(14. ytil1110:i 'H....4.\Vt.1.1/111111 n (111.1'1'tODITI'Int11).11\Vi111t he ,stithilit v the roote'dit(ss or I heyonnirsters in the community ns'opposed to :1 11111::1011(..%. factor. In other \von's. ;1 yoninrster \\-In) had liven t here in :IIIt in his performance in dist riot. Shit(' and. national achie,vemtnt shmved t hat he \V l.; inI lie upper perirnl ilr in terms or noilioyomont. butt he y(111114rSi \VIM 111111 111'1V ()111y y0:11%-; 00, 111111 tilt' V01111!r- tit 1`1* \VIII) 11;111 1 e('11 t111.'1` 0111 I.1.1'111*11111/1* t t:11111:1 t111'.."4. 0X:1111111M ions 1(11 in i he toel. PH.(1'111.110. \VC)11111 like Ill 11(! San 1)11'_(1/ City 1,011001S. If I may, as a valid case . , study. As testinton show. San)I(''r() IS 0 \1111(1 1'11SP St 11(1V for 1)1111111,' ;:z7.1 voininniiity lieu \;1. committed to the (1(:lense. taellios t count ry 111111: at. the S111111. t 11110. 11 1:117C 110)1111area in- i 1111111) th,, sproloi or I 11,. 1461)1(from rich to poor. \it 11 representat lye proportions of t he Inn jorit v and minority populations:San I )it,,,o's pol)kiny, ;t n. not nnifoir. an(j nithi )ijip (I) thinii t hat the public editeaticinal response has heen the hest possible \ithin the limitations of communit y rosourves and the ehallenges of a diverse 011(1 11101)11(' 7411..101V. 1.11(' SCh001 (11:411'irt.'S SIW1111111:2*for pul)lic education is very close'to tlw national averavze. andIli, district's propext y tax baseis relatively ko fur its size need. The hiss of impact. aid benefits to San Diego \void(' mean t hat, chi hlren served I)V scht)ol district would be severely penalized. Impact aid is tl basic component ,to theschool tlistriet.'s financial needs kit. vliile it represents asmall percentageof general income. t he lossor inwitet aid could only brecovered by increasing, 1S3E1 Ad03 7.31EVRTIV

mei 0.4).1101 10) 0'11 111.101 II) otp -vmpa .61.1.),010.1(1 .1i).i:(1x 110!..014);1..1 'Jo 3 1(1110! o111:.!.10.1(1 tii:s ..).%101 I I:1 0.1,13.),4 I .1,3A01.110.1.1 saopori.)!(.1 110111:111(10(1 .ii111.1111S0.1 11 .600.11.01 sot.,:m! tipil!A% 0013 100(1.)5 :'so!.11:10110.01 ti4!A% '0110111 11111111.\ 111 0 .1.1.\ (102:;.; alp 1101.11161 Xt1 .00110.) S.110).\ 0111 11!111 011111 [MS1:0.10111 110 11 ;M11115111.)111S'S.i5511.1.1.1,1(10,01 11.)1MA.11.) '3110;0101 '1)1111 101A1 -10100 09 6314,000.1".0\ sop.r.0load wing.) .'.,11:.1.)poi 1),01.%0 spurt tom og Ai.).10:.\.mstio.) i)a10311i:.\.) .4(: aoAo 1:4; '11°!IIN

.3. 3 oil .411a.I.I11.! ll,utl,is x!:3 6.)311.1 (I (1.'411101 0091t10011:4) POIIIMP 3Uti4 1116101,1),.1 id A.4.10(1)1 1)1110M .%)1)P0601 111 t 0.111 J () 001.11101 0A061 0110 04 I0011.)14 4S,1.1) Ji.1 4 0111%10.'0.mill 0.111:49 51 s,801.1fiquvoiti oDiqs Joplin -.HID 1110.1 o.)11101!1 vt:p101.0.)4 ;Hp tio!)!ppl: Jo x1:3 1(111.)x.) tuopael 00. ,511.).1.x11 J11.1 x(1) ostui 1)111: 01)!A11m1 II iSqusI11r41L -atipaa 11013 II! ..)11.) viol xi.63 'op:61 1 01.10(1 J.\ will irl S.\\ 1.1s !MG .10130 II .10410(1 110111110S 1111111 .\.[S1101.\0.1(1 1i0S0(10.1(1 1110111.\.1:(1 III 11011 JO S;)X1:.) postai on .011 .i.).100p! 1011: 6.01.11 Jo A11.),)p)4 papoulay.) tiaappli.) po.uos 1001105 -301,13511) 110 s,)0!,\.10.:.; 0114 11111.st:1i 1140111.1:(1 poim.\0Id ul uto :41 o1ql:41t1ba 04 51.)16115!1) '.)3011 10uop0,4 saoSoidLuo 6.1A11 sopp0.1(1 10114 10.1.)pm 5.1cilop .koiloJ alp pipio poi: lioddtis .011 11:111011:,011,0 op:.1.110.01 oti 6somo.).).1 6ip:1116,1 kill!(10;))1p.t0,),3.1 1)110 0111 410130.1)sp!popi: 40 .011 up:.1.0.1(1 oat: tpoto aoidliqs Soli.) an: 1).),st:41 Ili, od.ipip1.).11(1!4(1110.) 1:1[ .Z111!4urtp.to pia! a4134.s.) 1.10110 4t014 %\oliois (1) (3- sop:owl!! .011 A'.1035p1 JO oto 1.11:6 o.71.)K1 1).01p111 lumps Ism. s..):0.4 loit:dtu! pill illazmos o!s0c1 VA.10S110 S1101 Iwo 'act :i40:111 61 1.06.1351.1) mpu.1;1 .\*I1) still ti.km zio!(1.1oscp: aril s4soz, Jo uopiatli).) .\*I.I.H.11.10J p4.'0(1(106,4 to! 4;o01 61-0 11uop.),..1 S.3!!!(.1!suodsa.1 smi lou patipalb.).! 441i)451stioa toim olp anq 1101) (10E13,11:1d .11[4 11:;)0[ 1001[3S 'WJI5.1.5 0.S 1111.111114A111S S110141E1)11 IA1 OA 110J(1 '11111.11 114 111J01 X114 S110.1 AC1 tam lu d {4.1o1)d .1.toklo.1(1 saassot:.14 oi .spaaa4tq141:.!.o1 I. OS 111.10.\ 111.1011,1 51101411111135111 ',1A111i 00.4(1 pappi; 04 -N1;411011

.11111.\.11(1 11:.111h)d .1).10(10.1(1 '54s1I 211111)111ati! (306 sl!ott Jo uti Et:A 6411aptioclop II1)011.1111!5110(1 fi t 10)!Iipti 11:414.1soli5110u.34.). 04111 .14,1:411 :(11111 '4.1 pp: s! pop!.\!4) ',hug) so!,1o;l1(111.) 044 Sliii;ps Jo oii) s'ipuop.)1 po.);).,,,,a).) 6411o1)o 41lasoad 01{4 o'sua 1t11.1oJ put: 04 opm)soip. 511! ti p!1:131:(1 oil) S,I111url0.1(1 611o111uodo o111101.1101 -41t 110110;111) 'S1'4411,111(la3.c.10.110,411,) .\..10:7;041:o V 45 ',.-111114)11 11S011.\\ 5411,1.1141 114011 .1.111 [11111 31.10.\1. 110 11:.1.)1).),A 6s!!0!)01114).stulthnuo.1.).09 .).11! 111: sno!Ailo ost:.) .10J 1.)11(11(11 1111: ox -01(( 115401 5101 !wog opytti o4 031:111.01!!,i puopoei Rd )0.011.\ .10.3 S.1071041:.) A.- sittopt! 0.s111(da11 s! pozro.;10.3a.1 411(14 11:poi:11!) pow 011 .41111)110(1S0.1.10.) ...1.10t10.1(1 N1:1 '5J1111).10.1 J1 0111 4011(11111 1)1: ''10-11..)40') IIII!1)1Itt3 "11`). PIP" '')(1 ("I '`).)'11111''' "1"3.1 .101111.) 0111 111.):01)0,1 50).k.0i(11110 SS.)111till(1 01 0.)111t10.1 11:.)01 0111011111.11,111100 1101411.)111)0 j 1110.1 .k.4.1.11.10.111 '14JX111 Mil '110141:.11S1111111111: tiI .71119.1114 oil) .114.1q1 stomps 40v sl.iuddus 11111 .10.1 'S )111 - '411,1111.%.14.1 v 41104)11S 4)1111101.11 111410.1d 0.1d r311.10.\ ,,t1130),331ssi:(1,, s)11.11\0/10 0) 10001 pcnios :406.1)51.1) 41 s! -111! 100410d 04 000 '.1.3,to.(1 (1.3.t.)101{ 31 ..)1 11,0(1.0:(1 Jo v 4.oulco! pp: s.)01) 'pm11 '40.3111 ,014 1s0.) JO 10.)!.p:ailp.) .104 SPI111113s 110.\11).\111 BEST COPYAIT.P1113i,E 200(1

ks :in example, in tinii1)1("r0 lite :Ivo :tee cost of education per

sl intents %v:is ::!i('tl1 :1!) in 1972 .7:1(.%vlii.c.iI .s r,oseI to t lie not ion:il aver- afire). (he payment for onsdi category A student %vas $:99.6u. As you ran see. pproximately 11 percent of the cost Of education for ,eaf egory st inlents covered hy import :dd. In It summary of (Mr A sit tun %%c. nn S;IV: S111)11011 11111S :'4t:lit. (1)11111111e.d (I() not (t)Vet' II(' (.0;:t ;hi,lit, (.:1(c,r()I.v A si intent. .2. 'HI, i;;,.11,01I)Itit rill has to draw from other sources. mah11). local proi pert v taxes. to VIIIT the difference bet %%Teti Fodor:II :111.1 titate aid and t cost per st udent. :1. The number Of cotegory .k students in tian 1)0'20 is eSedllated to IllerettSe ;IS 1.200 111(111 iotitI tutVa I will hart' been coin- 'doted tenth( th,(intp a our 1117:2-7:, census. .1. Most importont. C:Ii(701.\* A inipnet :Cal funds replarement \vould require publio npprovnl n measure to increase local property taxes 1))- pt') 1:..,1(1n assessed vn hat ion. 'ntegory represents those students %Yliose parents %vorl;. on Fed- eral install:it ions 11111NVIIII 11.141(10 011 private. tasna.-ing property.Pith - lie 874 provides Hutt the entitlement shall be 50 percent. of the iA" rate, since 0111.) the oulpfonamt does not coot libido. to t he loonl tax base. The :in-percent time(' Inis roll rally been 'accepted as fair itt major st tidies of impact aid. In California. Alan l'(lsto the legislative amil,vst.131)011(.41that. approximatel !fervent. of the. ot:il property tax income was f nun nonresidential propert.Y. state I he problem direct Iv. t he parent's business does not pity its half of the local property Inx bill. Funding for catt.g.orY F students his hero tin' o.rentest source of controversy in the impact aid prooTatii. The administration has not budgeted ''Ufunds for the current rear or to pay for category 111 under the continuing resolution. lieeentl. various. proposals and different methods bare been advnoved to eliminate or reduce. category B payments. Congress lins m'en aut lwrized separate st tidies by two major private research organizations. Both studies generally concluded that. categor. y II payments \very juf4titied. . consider:tide controversy exists over vlitither llivr children whir live in privately mvned delling should ever give rise to Public 1.av R7.1 payments. Al- Ilnotigh the proposal \vas rejected by the congress. the administration did rec- offintiqui 111110:lelaid to :1(a) students in its fiscal 1970 Midget. proposals. * * * (;in find flit logic to exclude payments for all (if tbe (0) pupils. The analysis of (icomitnic lairden developed in Chapter 2 \\mid indicate that cirumstartees exkt \\mre :1(1) pupils alone do place a burden upon a school system. The Stanford iiepOrt It:ISM:11(4( the same premise in similar \vords: Iiinny noted HMI 11(I1' Ihe hurden principle is aceepted, there is no reason to exclude Section :1(b) pupils from eligibility: these are pupils \vim live with parents \\Ito either live Or work on federal propert'. hat not both. They 'are almost entirely the hitter. i.e.. pupils \\oose parents work on fethiral property. Their eligibility rests upon the fact that school distriets :ire generally unable to maintain. \\ilt reasenalde effort. levels or expenditito derived only from residential property taxes. The hurtle?' is created by the absetwe of taxes on maces of work. The burden in each (list Het depends 11P(1 the fonitillee of iesidential nnd business property in the 'list rict. and may be negligible for it predominantly bedrfian eommindly. Nevertheless. there is no justification in principle for excluding the 3(ii) pupil from payment. BEST: COPY 2091 follows the 11' 1)1n challenged because the incinev culid" rather than stayim, Nvit It the dist riet that has tile installation. SanI /leg() \You'd benefit hat 1,;(.(1-, the money in the district Nyhere an installation is located. IloNvever. such l'vgillat loll Nvould not be fair to solmol, dist ricts hat actually art, ea 1.1.y_ ing the hurtle!' or pthicatin,, stildents (v(.11 111011.2.1i iii-taihitimi outsidesuchdistricts.' IfFederal installations \yore not located within commuting range of school districts. students probably \vould not. even be in flit' 1:111:1 11.1*,it. !Well poposed that school districts absorb a cetain percentage of eategory U student costs. This is on the grounds that districts should he expected to (11 50)1111' of flit' 14.0(1(1:11 111111%1NI. liattrlle til II(IV flint Snell ;11/SOI'lli 10/1 is proposed to reduce. the total Federal butii_ret: ontlays i)\ remoNin,r districts that, get, only a small percentage of their income f rom it tpact aitl. SonteluiNv. absorp- t ion does not seem to be an honorable course of act ion for our Govern- ment to tal;e in meet ing its obli!rat ions. As Battelle conclittleg: The ori tan ry ilitlivulty with ahsorpt 401 Ileolopeit tayrel Itrimlace total budget olitlays for iinpavt. aid is thatit. has no partieular ration:110 in terms of an impart aid prov.Tani. s;11} tot ho.t. impart. aid dislios. is Not re/l /rig II windfall from cuiti.gwy B students. As shoNvn in the chart on imp act aid payments. the deelitle of It payment front nearly 100 percent. to 5 percent, of Public 14;i 87.1 entitlement has rettnityl our sclmol district to absorb) more of the cost. of educat nor child.ut trims notitaxpayino Fedor:II property. Impact aid income has decreased f rom percent to 1.04 percent of the school district's litidtret. Although the loss bias keen 1.fralltiti I. the eontiuntlity is hecotuin g efface that ,ft*? h,"1 ,1"1".1,-I taxpayer is sithsidiv.imr the Federal Government. fecal attempts to replace lost- category U f unds \you'd require asking the electorate to assullit' :I II illelT;ISP(1 properly tax harden. In San I)iego. the 21.53:1 cate!rory B students are dependents of military and civilian personnel vhio work at the large 11111111wr ofFed- eial installations in the city :Ind surroundimr communities. 1)uring tilf, I D72-7:1 50'11(5)1 vvar. the actual dollar n111011101.041'.1 VP, I:Ind availal.de for use the district- was $119.90 per B 'student. or only 12 percent, of the eost. of his ethic:It ion. In conclusion': 1. San I)iego is not, receiv-ing payment. ftir category B students proportional tt he total cost of $600.3.9 for editcating.catel_rory B st tidents 2. f'ategtiry It is a nocessorN- component of the school dist riot's g(417 era] educational financial support. Cate,trory It payments pet e1 during 1973-7.1 amounted to only half of t he f rate of cat etrory . Most. imp ortant. replacement of category -11 impact. aidfunds Nvould require a !addl.-vote approving an increase of property taxes $0.1.19 per $100 assessed valuation. Since the passage Of Public I;iw S7.1 in 1950. the Federal Crovern- !tient has einktrlied on(idler,po!rrains \dell have increased the burden of local educational systems. Nrhile rettioing the taxable property t hat would meet this Inulien.' 1n 1 t)09. st ntlents residing in public 1Rnis- in!, tyre made eli!rible for impact aid pament and designated as "eateo.ory C" students. "stNt- 2092 BEST COPY

Once again. I he need to provide :tdequatP 011111:11ionll resources %vas considered essent in I W011-111:1111., Mr A ndents.n t he piddle hi:,- ing program. I l i'' 1 ) 1 0 1 ) 1 ( ' 1 1 1 ,oni.cntrotion or iiir!r, nunowrs or low- ineonle r;nnilips substantially di,. need for addit iona I educa 1 iona 1resources. ..1s in t he case of a military base. decish)ns regarding location. size. and type of public housing. Nvere not shared 101:11 (11111';1114111 1.11111ffi'ltit.S. :1111101.11'11I in"; \\Cry 1101 yVtIi consulted. 'rho IZeseareliI )i vision of t Council of (Treat City Scluol Distriets estimate t hat nat i(inally 1.1 million selio()I-aged children :In) living in tax-exempt public housing. and 1 hat provisions for payment in lien (f taxes under Ilse various liilhlir. lionsiti, laws provide reinthusement, of onl $20 to per student ill some school districts, l'he public housing burden is spread over the entire Nation in every size community in 10 congressional districts.I n San I >iego. our number of public lous- ing students is very low since %Ye aro a relat ively nev urban ;ire:: that. ll'as not eti(raged in extensive shim clearance prorrains. 1 Imvever.we believe t Itat t he tineven impact of Federal policy supports the nee(1 for furnishing relict' prop)rtionate. to 1 he burden of that policy. impact aid to provide facilities for the cducat i()11 of federally connected children has provided minimal funds in recent, years. However, t he need does exist. and a tremendous bac1;1(1!, develope(1. Estimates sugrest, that- as notch as $301) ndll ion is neede(1 for educational :facilities ill impacted arens. Each Year school (list riots prepare 1-4:1.%v S15 a 1)1)1 icntions hopiIl1 I mt. (!otigress will become aware of the school construct ion crisis and its on children oft he F'edera I employee. The public generally is 1101, IINV:111' t11at. flit' C10%1..1'111111110"1111S been Military priorities and 1)(1ses. :111(1 t hat a program of const tate- tion for military (lopendent honsing has been pursued, In early Febru- Airy t hean 1)i(s(ro city schools ident *died -IS school districts which had Federal cemst ruct ion programs of over 200 units of military (le-

- pendent- lionsimr in :1 single project. Tito Ii!ritre 9.00 %vas chosen to pro Ville. 1111 adequate number of students nevessitatin(r.a school facilities construction propTam. Elc%-en (list ricts ill lZhode Island, Alabama. 1)ela ware. South Carolina. A riz(unt. Nebras1;:t. Georgia, and I[:Iivaii respon(lell with letters outlining serious' facilities prt)llems in providing for the federally connected children. Ill San Die(ro %ye ,have just received a t(bntat ve%Yard of :1.5 million to 1)r()%ille f:WiliPs for 1,377 or 2,23:1 students that, Nvill house(1 in a 1 (16yelop11lent located ill ail isolated area of the cit%-. Our only' n hermit ive to t his fundine: Nv001(1 11:1%-e !wen inclusion of funds for these faci Iies ill ;I school 1)011(1 elect 1011..1.110all Diego city schools \\j slim' wake ,1 fourth 11 tempt, ;.iince. 1901 10 111(Y1 (.011111111111ty gro%vt 11 and eart lapin Ice let- school construction needs. It \vi II be- very (11111 ('lilt to sell %-oters cut pa yin... propert- taxes to 1)161(1 educational facili- ti(, for st lo lent %1'11051v p1111111 1111(1 10111911S. t01010VerS. pa V110 propert,y taxes NvIntts()ever. part icularly at aimp in %vhicli pri%.ate (Ievelopet-s ore required t() po.y r01*1 IleI or0V1S1011 of element :try school facilities ill. Holy developments. 011r problem 1S e01111101111ded %V11011 .1011 realize that- approval or lb whorl hond T.,,inires a t,vo-thirds "yes" vote. Even 'Imre dra mat ic 111;111 theSa11 Diego rase is t he unresolved problem of t he F:1111)11101;Iition School I/ist rict which serves the large .Nlaine Corps Imse Of 1.:11111) Pet1(11(10O. Ott t he base's northern ;mils 11101r :In. 1100 Ii011SIlltr 111111S c111'11,01:1y 1111(1er VOI1S1 ruvtion for t? Err".-cII.- I 2093

marine: families. The litnisinir isl';11.1.0111,,ed front aii of the school (list riet's existitn, elementary school:-;.I Imvever. it. is only 2 orntiles froin t AN'estern \\*hitt,I louse ;it. Son l'leinetite. Children front this housing unit \yin have an excellent vie%v of t Nvestern NVIlito !louse. as hey evt on he bus to rids D! miles to selmol. .\If investii4at ion. of t 'tie impact (if military e(.....st ruction 11(1 ot.hor Federa Iactivityrevealth:1titis easy to run( many comparal)le stories. Vol. example. an Indian school adiniiiist rator in Iltintitna told its of Inslian students !oin to school In 1):1111. Irealize that, these may ext retie situations. hut. the need for .schoolfacilities is sc.) obvious and clear-cut in many cases the. rat ionalizat ions of

lon.(er needed'. Or "it's 1 local problem simply (l() not stunt!''. in the fuse or I Vi'llern ( / l'eptIllS11111 it V Io the l!'edtra I employee's child. In eonellision....1.11(, operat ion (if in wart aid lit \vs prtiltably has 10511 this1110:41 i V('Fl`(101.:11:1:4:41:41;111il`Ilr(T:1111for kcal school ricts./vet. the .vears, sch()ol administrators timi Itoar(1 ineml)ers have repeatedly. mode the follmving posit i points 111 SO1)1/011 Or, 11111)aet

:11(1: I. Vlore is an absence of complex or, ri:rid. restricting Federal uidelines; 2. There. is an ext reinelv suitill Federal stair. \vide]] is ellicient, responsive. antl helpfill t(i.hieti1. :,(..lio()1 (list riots: :1.There, are nu rt;(ffiireinents to establish more t litnite(I atIminist rat ion for clearly (lelined elt.rien Itas1;s at the. local level; -I. l'here is local deterinimit ion of priorities for the list; of tile fun(ls: It contains thHinost effect arid lowest cost. very systeln in t lie F.ederal-locii I overninent reint ionsltip regardin!..r. ethic:it ion : Above, all. payment is ba:-ted. on serviee provitletl and truly represents an equitable..formula for revenue slut ritt!.r this lie, the (lir(ct ion of Federal support for eductititai in the future. S.tontt or 1)1:1.1, 1110111i roil 11111(.11 Settf61' .011 !,I 141 t Init. ytuir real' pr(tp(;:t\. Is ass(sse(1 2.) percent of !iii' art mil assessed value? WItat, is you r tax rate $1.89. 1,1.1(ared :-..tateinent of11..(fooitt,tiaiii follows: 2(19.1 HOEST C21,

Snheor,mLtie on EducitieO

Si:nate '''' rAiLee of. Labor and public Welfare

Testimony on Impacr Aid

public Law 67' and Public Law S15

Thomas L, COodman Superintendent Son'Diego Unified nrhuol District San Diego, California Impact. "id'a provided Pohlic Law 81.5 and Public Law 876 representsthe federal govornment's:aceptonce of the responsibility imposed at, the local level by f.!orl activities which reqeire local educational setvices.

The federal governmen: is the nation's largest property owner and employer, yet the effects of.the presence of a federal installation upon a:community differ from those of other installations, The:report of the Committee on Education:and Labor to the 'louse of Representatives accompanying P.R. 7940, which become P.. 874 in 1950, states "the United States has become an industrialist, a landlord, or a businessman fn many communities of the nation without accepting the responsibility of the normal citizen in a community, because property under federal ownership or control Is generally not subject' to local taxation. P.L. 874 and 815 were designed to correct this condition with regard to the financial burdens imposed upon local school districts.'

In the 23 years since the passage of impact aid in PeLlic Law 874 and Public Law 815

basic premise semmarized above by the Stanford Research Institute in the federally commissioned report to tire office of Education has not changed. Originally created after World War Ti in recognition of the increasing federal activities, Impact aid has become a basic support to the general education program of school districts that receive large numbers of children brought into their communities by federal act,eity. The federal government, through its shifting of priorities, changing levels of activity, and in some areas continued maintenance of high levels of federal'activity, has made the need for a dvonmix response such as the impact aid program essential to the financial stability of local school districts. The basic premise of the program cannot he avoided: School districts will continue to require assistance in providing educational services to children when local property tan revenues are notavailable for support of education.

Again in 1973, Congress is considering authorizing legislation for impactaid.

Today it is my purposeto present the case for impact aid: The focus of my testimony

Entitlements for Federally Affected School Districts under Public Laws 874 and 815 prepared for: U.S. Dept. of Health, Education and Welfare, Office of Education. Washington, D.C., Contract 0E75-99.046, Volume I. Stanford Research Institute, Menlo Park, California, May 1965. will he on my district - -both because I know the facts and because the

Sari Diego City Schools can serve ..1:;a representative model for illustrating the importance .f impact aid to local school districts.

San Diego is a valid case study fOr P.1;. 874 as a community heavily committed to the defense facilities of this country and, at the same time, a large urban area including the wide spread of the AMericer people from rich to poor, with representative proportions of the majority and minority populations, aan Diego's problems are not, unique and we would like to think that the public educational response has, been the best possible within the limitations of community resources and the challenges of a diverse and mobile society. The school district's' spending for public education is very close to the national average, and the district's property tax. base is relatively low for its size and need. The lots of impact atd leuefits to an Diego would mean that, children served by the school district would he severely penalized.

Impact aid is a basic component to the school district's financial needs hut, while it represents a small percentage of general incomC the loss of impact aid could only he recovered by increasng the burden on the local property taxpayer or reduction of the educational program:

San Diego does have a large federal population, resulting from over 15 military bases within the school district's boundaries, with land alone valued at over

8700 million by the County Assessor two years ago. Since that time property assessments have increased on a city-wide average by over 257. and, with other government properties included, federally owned lands can be conservatively evaluated at over one billion dollars.

At the current school tax rate, a rough calcUlation indicates that federal property would ,:rovide a minimum of $10 million revenue Lo our 'school dist:Ict.

[however, the figure is meaningless since under current school financeformulas the addition of tax exempt federal properties would increase the tax base and only provide a $ubstaocial reduction in the local tax rate. 2097

I believe the:. Public Laws 874 and 815 offer a better solution than previously prvposed payoewin lieu of taxes since payment is based on the number and type of federally connected children served by a school district. Basing payment on services provide"b to the children of federal employees is equitahle to districts where federal employees live, and provides that federal dollars follow the child and support the educational program lie receives. Finally, the record keeping and the administration of the program are much aimpler becaulle they are based on counting children rather than evaluating real estate.

The chart that follows (Page 4) indi he recent history of the

San Diego Unified School District's impact aid receipt.. Several beaic obigervations can he Made:

1.. The district gradually has been absorbing the costs of education

formerly supported by impact aid.

2. Federal responsibility has not remained coneistent with the burden

placed on the local school system.

3. No substantial additions have been made to focal tax rolls Iy way

of federal property transfers to private interests.

4. Several major federal installation(' have been added to non-taxpaying

federal property lists, including 900 units of Naval dependent

housing and a $44 million veterans hospital.

Impact aid is divide' into three major categories representing the status of the federally connected students. To present the CIO. for impact aid and to illustrate the program's operation, it is logical to handle each category separately. FFDFFAL IMPACT AID TO SAS '1E( cln SCHOOLS, 1966.t67 to 1972-73 Percent of Percent of Inn1966-E7 (Actual' forFederal 303's ADA 5,376 Federalfor 3(b)'s ADA26,010 3(a)'sProration : 98.7% $305.66Rate $5,529,918ReceiptsTotal AOADistrict 25.30% C.F.District Budget 1967-68 (Actual 5,579 26,484 3(b).s3ta1's300's '7i 98.0% 98.0198.71 5157.515$315.03$152.83 $5,810,595 25.13% 4.33% 1969-701968-t9 (Actual) 6,0835,804 25,23926,432 3(b)'s3(a)'s .7: 0 @84.71, 91.7184.7 91.71 $182.145$173.01$346.02$364.69 $5,777,148$6,035,052 23.62125.05% 5.7415.801 EiIv 1970-711971-72 (Actual)_ (Actual) 6,0766,010 22,16423,531 3(a)'93(b)'s3(a)'s @ 90.0%7(.5190.0; $208,74$417.49$450.32 $6,105,555$5,917,539 21.42):22.21% 5.08%5.37% 1972-73 (Estimated) 5,620 21,553 3(b)'s3(a)'s @@ 73.07.90.01 54.0% $246.70$493.41$225.16 $5,366,914 21.03% 4.04% Receipts(Example: may not be included in the fiscal year indicated due to payment in a subsequent ficcal 1972-73 receipt of $5,2.66,914 will be partially received in 1973-74 fiscal year) 2099 Bc:ST COPYfomoila

Category A Students

caterory 4 stodentr. whoar ;.arenas both live and work on. federal government:

ire I view. rA: For impact aid..No rroposad has been rade tti elimiqate federal payment for Category A students because ft is recognized that there

is a financial burden created with no corresponding property tax revenues. Irthe

impact add Category A funding were removed, there could be no source from either the federal employee's residence or ..business" to replace' the local contribution to education from property taxes.

The Administration, in drafting The Better Schools Act, 'supports the payment for Category A students, and includes a program providing "pans through" payments to local school districts. It is important to note, however, that even the payment of Category A impact aid does not meet the cost of education for students involved.

As an example, in San Diego the average cost of education per student was $966.39 in 1972-71 (which ft/ close to the national average), while the payment fru' each

Categnry A student vas $399.6.2 As you can see, approximately 417, of the cost of education for Category A students was covered by impact aid.

In a stmwery -f our Category A situatior, we can say:

1, Category A support plus State, general aid combined >KI not cover

the cost of educating the Category A student.

The San Diego Unified School District has to drew from other sources,

mainly local property taxes, to cover the difference between federal

and State aid and the crst per student.

3 The number of Category A students in San Diego is estimated to

increase an 1.2n0 additional Naval Housing units will have been

2. The chart on Page 4 shows n 100% entitlement rate of $493.41 with an appropriated ,payment of 90%, or S444.H0% A. Jill inceit available for uue by the district dur-

itf. the 1972-73 school yemt was $399,66 Per Category A student. The remaining la% 10f the entitlement may be received chiIttg the 1973-74 srbool year, although pest history has proved that' school dletricts have no guarantee of the date or payment. 2100

completed from the late ofettr 147?-71 census.

Most impertant, Category A impact +lid funds replacement would require

public approval of o sasure to increase local property taxes by

.120 per one hundred dollars assessed! valuation.

CategoryIi Students

Catecry C represents those students whose parents work on federal installations

hut who reside on private. taxpaying property. P, I.. 874 provides that the entitlemeni

shall hp percent of the "A" rate. .since only the place of employment does not con-

. tribute to the local tax has.. The 5(1 percent figure has generally been accepted as

fair in major studies of impact aid. In California, Alan Post, the Legislative

Analyst, reported that approximately.527. of the total property tax income was from

non-residential property. To state the problem directly, the parent's "business"

does not pay its half ef the local property tax bill.'

Funding for Category B students has been 'the greatest .source of controversy. in

the impact aid program. The Administration has not budgeted "B" funds' for the current

year or to pay for enteeory B under the Continuing Resolution. Recently, various'',

proposals and different methods have'been advanced to eliminate or reduce Category. B

payments. Congress has ever authorizedseparate studies by two major private research

organizations. Both studies geneinily concluded that Category B payments were justi-.

fied.

Considerable controversy exists over whether the children who live in privately owned dwelling should ever give rise to Public Law 874 payments. Although the proposal was rejected by the Congress, the administration . did recommend confining impact Rid to 3(a) students in its fiscal 1970 Budeerroposals. Battelle can find no logic to exclude payments fnr all of the (b) Lpi:s. The analysis .nr economic burden developed in chapter 2 would indicate that circures do exist where 3(b) pupils alone do place a burden upon a school system". p.68

.'final Report: HSchool Assistance in Federally Affected Areas, A Study of Public Laws 81-5124 and NI -815 to Office, of Education, Department of Health, Education and Welfare iu_Harold A. Hovey. Victor P. Carter, Linda R, Brown. John A. Bowman," Seymour ColdariaE, and Frederick, D. Stocker. Battelle Mernrial Instirute, Columbus Ohio, December ,1969., -6 BEST 1:0'1'' 2101

The Stanford Report has stated the same premise in similar words:

it may he noted that once the burden principle is accepted, there is no reason to exclude Section 3(h) pupils from eligibility; these are pupils who live with parents who either live nr work on federal property,, but not both. They are almnst entirely the latter, i.e., pupils whnse'parents work on federal property. Their eligibility rests upon the fact that school districts are generally unable tn maintain, with reasonable, effort, levels of expenditure derived only from residential property taxes: The burden is created by the absence of taxes nn placel of work. The burden in each district depends upon the balance of resi4ential and business property in the district, and may be negligible for a predominantly bed- room community. Nevertheless, there is no justification in principle for excluding the lib) pupil from pavment.4

Category 3 has been challenged because the money "follows the child" rather than

staying with the district that has the installation,San Diego would benefit from any

regulation that would keep the money in the district where an installation is located.

however, such regulation would not be fair tn school districts that actuallr are

carrying the burden of educating students even though an.installation is nutside such

districts. :f federal installations were not located within commuting range of

school districts, students probably would not even be living in the area.

Finally, it,ias been prnposed that school districts "absorb" a certain percentage

of Catey,ory student cnsts. This is on the grounds :That districts should be expected

to carry some of the federal burden. The Battelle study reports that such absorptinn

is proposed to reduce the total federal budget outlays by removing districts that get

only a small percentage of their income from impact aid. Somehow, absorption does

notseem to be an honorable course of action for our government to take in meeting its

obligations. As Battelle concludes:

The primary difficulty with absorption developed merely to reduce total budget outlays for impact aid is that it has no particular rationale in terms of an impact aid program. p.112

Sni Diego. like other Impact aid districts; is not getting a windfall from

;.:ntenory n students. As 'shown in the chart on impact aid payments, the decline of

. 1Stanford Report, p.8 !'11.! rayment fmsm nearly 100 ;,.trrntto ',.'percent of I. s74 etitlement has required 01.r school !diti:!t ibsor', more of the cost ,,i 'echiratine children front

,-1-tiv7a,,-feAer:11 property. Impact aid income has Or,rossr.d from 6.60'; to 4.94'4 ot ,the schooldistricts budret. Although the loss has been gradual, the commeity

Is becorine aware that the local property taxpayer is subsidizing the federal government. Local attempts to replace lost Category B funds would require asking the

11,ctorate to assume an increased property tax burden.

In San Diego. the 21,513 Category B students are dependents of military and civilian personnel who work at the large number of federal installations in the city. and surrounding communities. During the 1972-73 school year. the actual dollar amount received and available for use by the district was $119.90 per "8" student, or only

1.27.. of the cost of his education.5

In conclusion:

I. San Diego is net receiving payment for Category B students propor-

tional to the total cost of $966,,9 for educating Category B

co/dents.

2, Category B is a necessary component of the school district's

general educational financial support.

1. Category B payments received during 1972-73 amounted to only

"half of the half rate of Category A."

Most important, replacement of Category B. impact aid funds

would require a public vote approving an increase of property

taxes by $.149 per one hundred dollars assessed valuation.

which 5. Our 1972-71 payment was 90 percent of 54 percent as originally designated, subsequently has been increased to the 68 percent originally appropriated. To date, however, the school district has'not received the second payment, The additional funds appropriated will only increase the payment per "8" student by $31.08. srp1:7f1 Al s' I 111,1i'litalb..t

Category C Students

nre the passage oc',Iie Law 876 in 1950. the federal government him embarked

ther prni:r1-s which bay., ;urreaxed the burden of Inciel educational nystemn, while removing the taxable property that would meet this burden, In 1969, students residing in public hnusinp%tere made eligible for impact aid payment and designated as

"Category C" student,. Once again, the need 'to provide adequate educational resources wax rAnaidered essential to the ::ell -being of students., In as public housing. program. the problem of concentration of large numbers of low-income families increased sub - stantially the need for additional educational resources. As in the case of a military base, decisions regarding location, size, and type of public housing were not shared with local education authorities, and often they were not even consulted.

The Research Division of The Council of Great City School Districts estimates that nationally 1.1 million school aged children are living in tax-exempt public housing and that provisions for payMent in lieu oftaxc:.'under the various public housing laws Provides reimbursement of only $20 to $25 per student in some school districts.

The public housing burden is spread over the entire nation in every site community in 410 congressional districts. In San Diego, our number of public housing students is very low since we are a relatively new urban area that has not engaged in extensive slum clearance programs, However, we believe that the uneven impact of federal policy supports the need for furnishing relief proportionate to the burden of that policy.

Public Lew 815

Impact aid to provide facilities fur the education of federally tad chil-

Arse ^9s provided minimal funds 4n reLent years. However, the need does @stet. and a tremendous backlog has developed. Estimatessuggest that as much Amp $300 million

is needed for educational facilitiesin impacted . each year school districts prepare P.L. 815 applications hopingthat Congress milli became ware of the school construction crisis and its effect on children of the federal employee.

The ;anhlic generally is noi aware that the government has heen shifting military prtoririos And hason, And that a program of constriction for military dependent honsin,7 !,an !,,en r'ir,,d. In early Fehruary 1473, SAn Diegority tichnols identified eighteen :chum districts which had federal construction programs of over 200 units of military, dependent honsing in a single project.The figure 200 was chosen to provide an adequate number of students necessitating a school facilities construction program. Eleven districts in Texas. Kansas. Rhode Island. Alabama. Delaware,

South Carolina. Arizona. Nebraska, Ceorgia. and Hawaii responded with letters outlining serious facilities problems in providing for the federally connected children.

In San Diego we have just received a tentative award of $3.5 million to provide facilities for 1.177 of 2.lil students that will be housed in a 1.500-yoit development located in an isolated area of the city. Our only alternative to this funding wonidhavehcr.1 inclusion of funds for these facilities in a school bond election.

The San Diego City Schools will soon make a fourth attempt since 1966 to meet com7 munity growth and earthquake safety school construction needs. It will be very diffirdlt to'sell voters on paying property taxes to build' educational facilities for students whOse parents and parents'. employers pay no properly taxes whatsoever. particularly at a time in which private. develerers ate required to pay for the provision of elementary school facilities in new developments. Our problem is compounded when you realize that approval of a school bond issue requires a two-thirds "yes" vote.

Even more di'ar.iatic than the San Diego case is the unresolved problem of the

Fallbrook Union School Distri<.which serves the large U.S. Marine Corps base of

Camp Pendleton.. On the base's northern limits there are 600 housing units currently under construction for Marine families.The housing is far removed from any of the school districts existing elementary schools. 'However, it is only two or three miles from the Western White House at San Clemente.Children from this housing unit will have an excellent view of Western White House as they get on the bus to ride

20 mile. to school.

An investigation of rho impact of military construction and other federal sctiv7 itv reveals that it is easy to find many comparable stories. For example, an

Indian school administrator in Montana told us of Indian students going to high school in barn. I realize that these may be extreme situations, hut the need for school facilities is so obvious and clear-cut in many cases that the rationalizations of

"no longer needed" or "it's a local problem" simply do not stand in face of the federal government's responsibility to the federal employee's child.

In conclusion. the operation of impact aid laws probably has been the moat effective federal assistance program for local school districts. Over the years, school administrators and board members repeatedly have made the following positive points in support of impact aid:

1. There is an absence of complex or rigid, rertricting federal guidelines;

2. There is an extremely small federal staff, which is efficient, respon-

sive, and helpful to local school districts;

3. There are no requirements to establish more than a limited adminis-

tration for clearly defined clerical tasks at the local level;

4. There is local determination of priorities for the use of the

funds;

5. It contains the most effective and lowest cost delivery system

in the federal-local government relationstip regarding education;

6. Above all, v..ayent is based on service provided and truly

represents an equitable formula for revemesharing should

thin be the direction of federal suppoA for education in

the future. 2106

Senator Fleischauer. BEST COPYAVAILIIM. STATEMENT OF DR. DEAN FLEISCHAUER, SUPERINTENDENT FOUNTAIN/FORT CARSON PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT, EL PASO COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 8. FOUNTAIN. COLO. Mr. Finscimunt. Mr. Chairman.if I may, I was accomphmed here by Howard II. Dunning, superintendent., Air Academy School Dis- t rict No..20 of Ilre.S. A i r F'oree Academy. Senator Pia.A.. We are more than glad to have hit!) appear. I would appreciate it. Dr. Dunning. if you would lake a seat at. the table. ,: Mr. Fixiscimi-cit. :AlsoI have submitted printed testimony and I will simply point out some of the high points. Ihthink something for the commilb`V Illelliberti to MalerStalal relative to Public. Law S7.t is the degree of impaction that crones about to various districts across the eountry. As I understand there are some 4.200 districts that are federally impacted districts. but basically there are only about 35 or .10 that are really highly impaeled. Mr. Dunning andifrepresent districts that go up to SO percent of impaction, so %Ye are certainly very. very much concerted with

the continual ion of Federal impact legislatimr. ' " In my own dist net because of the degree of land that' is owned by the Federal Government. we only have $.2.100 of assessed evaluation per studentWhen you. are putting this,back in mil levies you ate, only talkingallont, for each mil we raise for the Public schools about $2. per

mil per student. : We all realize that with the cost of education it. is not very !midi coming from the local effort. We siMply .410 not have the ability to

'do so. : . Also districts. that arehighly imparted.such as Mr.: Dun- thing's andan)I my own, we are talking about up to 50 pement from 33 percent- to 50, percent of our. total budget which comes to ns from Federal impaction, and when we, are talking about any type of proration such as we have, had for the last several years. it means a tie cut in the amount of money that is coming to us which is of real concern to ns. So we are certainly concerned when any type. of pro-

rat ion conies to us. : :

. When. you are talking of up to 50 percent;eoming ,froM Federal..

funding, it really concerns yo).1. : h :: -: I:think :also something that the committee needs to 'Understand is the -variations, within the -1.200 districts that, receive Federal ingiact "!..funding in regard to the various tYpes of B cetegory students. Within oly 'district the: majority of. my 11 category students are military de-

pendents. They live in mobile homes most of the time. " In. the. State. of Colormilo mobile homes' provide nothing as far as taxes :ire concerned, alsO state its the gentlemen from fornia stated. these peofple (10 actually nothing foe the henefit of the local coriuminity. Everything is purchased from the post.. from the PX and the cenunissary, They receive all their health and dental aid there. SO actually they are deficits to the community as far as tax ..

purpose. : . , , certainly urge die matter of the B ,student' that. there be some consideration given to the type of individual that you are talk-. in g about in iefcrenctrlto the B category... 2107

As I look at 'Federal impact legislation.' I wouldsay it has been good. legislat ion. That. money comes back to he districts, and it is provided, to the boardsof education as they see tit in providing for edtication of the youngsters, butIrealize also that we cannot follow a liard- headed aproach. We have to be political, practical, an(1 realistic, and consequent ly for this reason I do hack my own Senator from the State. of Colorado, and also a member of vour committee. Senator Dominick.. in his proposalon legislation or pending legislation for ini act aid. That is:the matter of the eventually cutting back on some of the

uses under Tullis Law S74. : I realize that we have had critics of Public Law, 574 for a number.: of years. The past- four Presidents have attempted at some time or other to make some cutbacks in Public Law S7, so 1 know there are many (Titles of this legislation. One of the things that, I think is reallY gmul about. Senator Domi7! nick's proposal is that it is not going to be any drastic cutback at one but we be able to prepare'"Soniewhat for it if this type of h4rislatioo does go through.rough. . 7I also. as,a prior witness stated, feel that it, is of real importance for your committm to consider that you allow anything, to be written into the law to take away froM any State aid that comes about. With- in own State of (:olorado77and I thitik'we can go nationwide oil this I am certain the other gentlemen will back me up on this-7in almost, all eases the highly impacted districts spend considerably less per stn- dent than what you find in the normal district. In the Air Force Academy distri, each district spends less Per child then the Stateaverage.r. and we are over $600. less than the city. of Denver which is the biggest school distriet in ourState.' We spend over $600 less per child than in the city of Denver. I certainly urge that, you not allow anything to come up in the legis-

lation to subtract from anything we iret, from State aid, H I go back then. When you only obtain 2 per child. you do not, have

anything tobeffin with. . . I also would put. in a real plea for the continuation of Public 148 S74: funds.. again within: the highly impacted distrietS, within the States such as my own. where you do pot, have any State funding for schoo construction. and it is impossible to provide the needed hinds..

, . for construction. .:: :. . think one thing that, t. certainly needed is continuity and funding, and' we certainly have had problems over the last. few yeark in having.. fundsI. provided that we can do anything With bildgetWise.on a norifuil type of basis. :Wheneer 'se have proation of funding it certainlY,H.-

hurts.. ! -: , 1 certainly do Want to take this opportunity to thank the coMmtt-

1 tee for listening:to lily testinniny, and ift." rimming and I will cer- lainlv answer any .questions that you may have concerningour testi-,

. H: , " Senator IbuAwAv.! Thank you very'. much. I just. -.want, to ask few questions in regard to categories C and B in particular. It seems to me in regard to "C's" that in the first place public lions-

: ingis making some 'kind:Of contribution in lieu of taxes, and title I of ' H the Elementary and Secondary .Edueation Act says all these chidden SOIL

1:1110.%% 0:1 .10.1 81! SOS0(1.It11) )11.111:111 1.)1.11S11:

..;111111.);'f no 1 ;1~1111 s111'JI)11.1ti 11 i1(111:4001) III)) 01 ;:l11 0,L01j1 SI 001 1101011 110tii:0111.1:411r 01:10.rf alp SA.1 1110.10.1111) 11:91:11.11.:4 '.1:1A0.\\011 $i: uI liquo(10,11,:1v 1101.7111.11:0:Al, 0.1.111.%% 0.1i: 111 UU .10.1111 11So:11:1.) 100.1.1 ..111: rip() .1 s1(15.:0(1 oti fouipS s1Ji,11s11) 111 I j'10;1 .0110111 14) mu .1o1110 1111101 0.1011.1 S1101.11:111lS Ik1/1".141 °3')IIA111" "."14 .1.10-70)1:.) "1(10"11 al" TfulA',"1 II" .1!mli 0:0 0,101 pot: .0114 1111::).4 op .4011 010:111 ,011: 110141:4pa4u0a 04 0111 Il:,rul ..;1110,10,,i) I at:0,Jan:: 111 .41,111 osca 0.10111 s! 1.1014110u1.04 .10j I .101)II1," ;I! v121110114 P"110111,Plios 11;)!IP pint" .1(101,s inoof will01010.) so! 01 vol ilmapi)6,1 A1x)(10.1(1 110 ,1111:11.11100 s!sof I iri1(1'0.1 Jo 'as.iiio.) um. 0A01 imp -09 °sum' 1)1110.,1 10.4 ot smut) 31! si: 10E4 thnlia;-; ,on I "I' 10" '111."1,1 ""13 I4119.\' 'I 4119 1. 311.11.114 ;)a°111 Isom 4i:t!)stsmi pitto. or! ;)1,11:4tobt) sow! t.tp!Ao.ol 11::)o! -woo ounto 11.%% 9 ,qiulipl:;),II:A0114411111.011010 Is:1t000!) o.1J111 Si X[110 0:10 '0ialtio.Ri Ii i011.10..111w,-) 011:1,,,4 .1() 4.)1.1.10:10.01 'poxi:i OS I op loll mom' .4401 0.` 1,1"u:, "1;109 011.);11"x").(1 1"3,)10:1 liwilltuom)9 limo\ o.\\' 4(111,01) xv) -so.q0s.1111) .\\0111 luip% 1 It '4° J11.1 110.1 gall sl )S0(1.110.1 31) al1(1141 0S01::109-S10111.1 .).\\ xl:; ayj 11:,i0p0d 1000111.10A00 110.. 01) mit011 pa.1.10;) 110141:A.1os(10 1101i i).%1:11.01):).tt °I1:'3 I A""°'" .1":1 °11.4 8.10-1s.11"'). PIO°.\\ °"4.11-01-1 JO -'1"(1 :HA .:rttosttot! otu, .quo I pi .4t1 st: :\*It.p:(10,1(1: motiN ,t.t.v1:11 toIttood :It!) aoj illattoj-auo Jo ;Hu saoo:dotioA (Alm oat: °I(1121!1° 4..)!.10:1',.to ).t mints 000.011: poullut)p! st: inno,,,t_A401 s.1;44sinin0.4 saollappca 0014;40 1 p1110,) , .X,4111:111.1 tios .104l *A"VILLY11 Vitt. J1 jIi!i 1 1)al)O°J '..1.11'1.11°10 pitto.t Sou Al 'a !AMI011i 111110.11 .O.1;111.1, PIIIOM lull 011 .ioj .0:1:10.1:11 :Lou, .411.4p.11 aq spi4;04 .4:1,)4x0 41:114 009 I sSotioul 1.11: you po)1.1 .10j R1.1o.) otal(load siNut: put: am: 'Jolt ..uotelim0t.10 pin: mu -a:into:owl stAinj st: J11J H S.,6001.11 07,...r.C.i) 010,0404 l)111,1 01 %.:109(11Va4 oll4 lituatlial sl IuJ 1:10 Iv.) 'Do f;,- umupoof papotottl 'jou 149 I s! J1u111 po,qp uo!..ptkuipa putt sitihm p pa.w.t! 01114.it( 111.11)0.4 1.011.1001)

, .1941:u0S 0(1 ttit.i nit :it!!! Sjil;)111110:: ..tjv y -TALI J iioitiatinuoJ Animas ..'AvAtv!!t.vj moll 0114 e,i,pat10.1(1, :1;1.1V11:.)s1;.1121 'it() pillom .1I11.i11111 JO 7411 -op mom! mot! pplom Jattiy 'dn .1!1:j 401.,1:to ottp:. jo tio.11:.p1O,1 ptjostt S 1-..)ty sp.1oj "osodmitl lot! ! .1! st poi pastl oti.! .10to.1.1i:do(1 Jo 'osti1ja(1 1 op lot! '.1ett.11..oti)! pop!' jo ssoutsittl pploo ortp4:1 -pill) plooto it:1!) pittotis t.)1 41101111:!Lp5 apt:ot out it 7.1D!.Ils!!) ..11 *IIO.\ J.11U1 onr II:)!.1,.1.10.% pun I 110(1.\% 410.1 .4! ..-4s0F)10,1q.1.1p!!.\*Ill'ill(i pli,Avs(i atril 111: OSO4.1 Si1111111119 VIM 0.:1 pin 30 SSOulialq 2109

Senator I ',Via 1 .%v . . lint if an industry moved into your arctl mr. Et.onm It is to this extent. In ( ;11it'ornia. perci,nt of fhe tax_ able bast. is industry and cminnercia II v raised money. The State in- conak t;IN, property tax. other local rota riDutions, are partially returned tti (4111c:111011 and to 01 her TIVVIIS Ill(' Stale has &OMNI IlereSSary, itIstill Sit the needs. Senator 11.if.%v,1.. , . not possiniv,to devise a f()111111h1 %Owne y ( I I I could ( 6 0 1 1 1 1 ) 1 1 t e in a llI 1'art4)N hot llSt 111101 taxes re3tiltOf the Federal installations in theale:t Mr. EI,Dim). Possibly. yes: probably. not beetiuse of t he differences in'tlie 50' St :OS. A sior1(.. (ormolu would become a monster. to adniinis- ter. Titt, prpspnt. sysl,(411 is ,,,,r. Tin,rt, at, very bcri, in IVasliiiDrt on to administer that program. The service. .is for the child. and not a great stun i3lwit Drspent. to administer it. fir. FLEiscinst'Ett. We believe if is very _rood lerislat ion. EL0NI.:1). hr people typo thntl!rlit of this, not only in the 1950's, had forvsitrhi. hot this was a takeoff Iron, 19.11. If simply into nid as we now knoss. itI see very little difference today in the situation than that which existed if) '1950. The basic promise is still found. payment for service rendered to a child. Now. tittb impact beirins on our discretion with the very first. child. Of course. it is minor. but t he impact. is t !wry. The State money should slow iii somewhat etitial proportion. but as we pointed out, the unit', rate used in Public Lasv 57.1 formulas is 2 years Old at. best. and the amounts of money come from supplyinirthe total edueationa I needs of that, child.'here is still .c.reat input by the States in the local communities. 1 put t hiS in ins. testimony on patre T. Sometimes at, a Ivl'A a person will stand up anti say. why should I pay more SCII001 taxes just to give a free edwation to children whose parents or employer .are paying nothing in. local taxes and little if anythil-nr in State taxes? That is difficult to answer. It just cannot he (lone. Mr. FIXISell.WEIL I can verify that. too. We had an open hearing on a howl iSsue.aml questions; of a. 511111l :t r nit 'tree:tine up. I think in so many of our districts ss-e have to keep a close cooperative, spirit. bt.,,yeco civilian and military or we are (lead. I wonitl surely hack tip ssitat, y(ni have to say there.. senatorff.yriLssy,$)-. This does happen with 'alot. of the. civilian moneys. anti it seems to hilt' .V011 11;111l to have an equitabh... distribution of foods. sow difrer.entiation hehveen the two areas %viten you are talking about. A's or Tfr. -.ELDRED. There is ditTerentiation to the cletrree of hit- paction. That. perhaps would he a reasonable mot.lificat ion that. could he looked at. andworkedtoward. Iwouldthink that. the proposals, now which are aimed tit. getting at. tills problem t hat is proposed would he far worse than the present illness. Senator I 1.vni.w.%)-. Von'mean just eliruinating I's? Mr. ELDRED. 1 think you are hurtintr 9S percent. to gt t.at. a small percenta!re l of the prohlem. Even in the richer counties .as pointed' Out. there is smile just ifiahle impact. In fact I %v0ill(1 have to twopos.e. that. should the Federal GOvernment not have. h)cated hereI do not mean to insult our good local communitiesI .would find very little need for those to exist, in their present size today. Senator I I.viam V. V. That is t rue. Thank yon very much. Senator PELL Senator St a itord.' Senator SvAtromt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.. I want to express appreciation from the minority for the presence of all four of the witnesses who are. in front of us at. the present (line, and I have no particular questions. I think all the statenient:.1 have been very helpful to us. and they have been an 'education. I do have some questions from Senator Dominick who very much regrets that he was unavoidably absent today and would not be able to be here and put these questions personally. I will turn these questions over to the committee. and I. understand Dr. Fleischauer and Mr. Dunning al ready:Iinhave copies:o t he questions. I would request. for the committee and for Senator Dominick that you supply your answers in writing for the record. If you will do that? Mr. FLEtscitA Olt. We certainly will.

[The prepared statementofDFleischatier. questonsir. and answers referred to, and other. material subsequently supplied for the record, followsl 2111 BESICO?:1

TESTIMONY ON PROPOSED LEGISLATION

FOR PUBLIC LAWS 815 AND 874

Fresented by

DEAN FLEISCHAUER, SUPERINTENDENT FOUNTAIN-FORT CARSON PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT EL PASO COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT NUMBER EIGHT 400 WEST ALABAMA AVENUE FOUNTAIN, COLORADO 80817

THE UNITED STATES SENATE COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND PUBLIC WELFARE EDUCATION SUBCOMMITTEE TO THE FULL COMMITTEE SENATOR CLAIBORNE PELL

September 14, 1973 BEST COT1

My nam, :s ard.: n the I:uperintendent e: the

Fo,.ntain-rsrt. Carson Distrx;:tin the titate of

Colorado, Th.,s. I reptesentcnc the apprcxv,ttely 4.2.0 school distt t:7 in the:nisei?-:,IAIOS -federal impact fund-

ino-. dcwever. I disc.. represent school district which is truly.

"heavily'. inpacted one .,f approximately 30 to V> such school systems located in the c:;!Intry - so "heavily" impacted that every phase of :T.2ratIonar.and construction piodramsare seriously curtailed whtnever ther.s:is any "proration" of federal impact funds.

It,s interstihti ti note that the 30-5 school districts which can 1.e classi!id as 'heavily" impacted systems are not large or even reratively so when compared to large city school districts.

Rather, they are prmAtily small districts located in "fringe" areas where alrost the entire center .of activity is based upon the federal installatins located within. their boundaries ,These school systems are also. pr,mati,y the s::re schco, districts where the Department of

Defense is currently ih.vc.:ved. in providing msreon-base" housing fur military perssonci which in t.rn will help to create even more

'federal 'impaction'

Federal impact legislation is very vital to the continued opera- trOn of heavily" impacted school districts -- such as the One)

I Certa:nly da not have any "qualms" with the existing

legiziation. AS I believe it has been A true attempt by the Federal Covernment !w11.7!,o districts wnicn. are unable

to tax the federal within tne,r

The ieisla!itn a160 permits tLe funds receive3 tc beadministered"

by the locaily with;,Jt anv real. ''hano..ipsH

created by 'federal (verser;. the only problem with the existing

legislation has been the 'proration" of funding For the last several

years, the "B' portion of.this legislation has.beer funded atHonly a

partial rate of 'entitlement"(I e. hopefully GRA for 1)72-73

73X. for 1971.72: 70%tor 1970-7l, Thts"proration" of funding has

placed a tremendous 'strain", upon the highly impacted school districts

(such as my own, and nas made it impossible to'have a "n'aningful"

budget, Without this 'anticipated" revenue, ny school distritt.has

operated on 'deficit funding'. for the last two'budget years:

The logical 'reasoning is to assure that this matter then becomes

the "resp,:nsihility of the local taxpayer This isn't easily ac-

Compltshed in a highly impacted school district Theassessed

valuation" as so Acw ;due to the preponderance of federal property)

that it amounts to only $2,00.0 per enrolled student : Consequently.

for each additional mill levied, only $2 per student is received.

With educational costs apprcximatinq $900. it is easy to ascertain

that. it is impossible tc !"tap this source" for additional revenue,,.

The problem is further COrpounded (with current legislation) when a study is made of the last differences in the "makeup" of. the

4200 federally impacted schcol districts: Some of the federal impact BEST COPYPaig-T.P3LE districts cnrcl_ onlycivi.lan stuuentA, The vast mAjority live

in above Average hZite5 And the occupant.,ate rea. benefit* to the

local government and school program On the 'ether side of the coin"

are tne nignly impacted scnool districts Aucn as my cn Tne majority

Of our students 1S5-60'x1 at "A' category pupils Another 20.25% are

category pilpils whc ate primarlly the dependents Ofmilitary

personnel For the most part. these individuals live in mobile homes

source which provides no tax source for the schooldistrict), in

tiny apartments. or In 'cheap" housing These military people conduct

almost all of their 'business' at the "PX" and "Commissary" on Fort

Carson. Thus, they are contributing little if any tax to the school

district .from their place ct residenceyand since almost all "business"

is conducted or. Fort Carson, the "normal type of businessoperations"

in Fountain are atmcst "nil" Consequently, this also must be re-

garded as anc".her 'tax loss' to our "community' and -state"

Therefore, the -federal impact students" residing in a highly

impacted district sucn as my own, carries with it o much different

"meaning" from a school district described above. Thus. when ','pro-

ration" of funding comes to a highly impacted district, it is almost

impossible to replace it with other funds.

Your "Committee" has the responsibility of considering some

authorizing legislation for "federal impact funding"_,My on Colorado

Senator tHcnorable Peter H Dominick) -- and a member of your Com-,

mitiee -- has Introduced legislation directed to this subject. MIA BEST.. copy, 11VAII.A3LE '211:

proposed legislation is geared tOwari ccntinulus. t, pay IOC%of en-

titlementfor the 'A Categi:typupils A school district would re-

ceive 100% of entitlement for, the first year that a "8" catuory

pupil wra, enrolled in the system with a decrease 01 entitlement of

20% for each succeeding year that that student remained. Cone-

quently. after a five year period. a "B" category student would not

be "funded' For each "new" student classified in the "B' catecory.

his status would he initiated at the date of his school entry.

To be truly honest on the matter, I would support a continuation

of existing legislation. I do believe that It has been very instru-

mental in aiding seriously impacted school districts to be able to

Continue an educational program. However, as a Public School Super-

intendent,I must also be "practical". I well realize that the last

four Presidents (equally representsng both political parties) have

attempted to make serious cutbacks in the total federal impact pro-

gram. I also realize that the existing legislation has not been

"funded" to its full entitlement -- and this has created serous

problems for the highly impacted districts.Additionally. 11 an

positive that all members of Congress do not realize the "vast

differences" that exist in the school disttrts currently covered by

federal impact legislation tas I have attempted to describe in am

earlier portion of my testimony).

Consequently, by following this "realistic approach".. I(andmy

Board of Education) are wholeheartedlyIn support of Senator Dominick's prcpcse.1 .egislation However, I sincerely utgeithar it this

leg'islaticn is enacted, tnat Congress makes certai:itnat sufficient

funds are appropriated to ascertain complete funding of all aspects

of the This would mean that the category pupils would

he funded at 10o% of entitlement The "B' category students would

be funded et the "percentage level' so listed in the proposed legis-

lation. 1 am positive that my school district could ,realistically

"live' with this type of situation because we wouldH'know" whatour

"entitlement" wound be (And we would not have to attempt to "ouess"

what tlie proration" would be as under existing legislation),

dr also "realistic" enough to realize that Senator Dominick's pro-

posed legisl4tIon will quiet" many critics of federal impact funding

an: alb, enable school districts to "plan ahead" knowing "full well"

what the federal funning will he. Thus, federal funding will not

come as a complete surpriseas is now the case) and alternative

measures can he adopted (more than a year in advance) Additionally.

I have to fully agree ....)1.th Senator Dominick that if a family lives

in a schocl district fcr five consecutive year\\, that they should

start to become 'contributing members" to that community,.

Consequently.I offer this "testimony" in complete support of

Senator Dominick's proposal. Federal impact legislation will always

have some 'critics" and it will be an utter impossibilityfor you to be able to appease all participants in all fifty states. I urge you

to keep one item foremostIn mint Almost without exception, the truly highly impacted districts spend considerabiy less lotsstuaent than other scriocl districts In my own State or Colorado. tre -state average" is over $1,000 -- the Denver Scnool District is over $1,400 --

while my 0,,n is about 5900 Consequently. I would sundest that you not incorporate any measure in the new legislation which would

"subtract' any portion of the 'federal impact monies" from those that the school district is receiving from its 'state government".

Give us a "chance" to 'pull .t to the state average" -- at least.

The only exception to this,, of course, would be if the :state" was underwriting the entire cost of the educational program

1 would also urge that you seriously consider the "extension" of legislation for Public Law 815 Actain -- a heavily impacted school district such as my own -- simply cannot provide the needed construction funds to cope with the increased number of students coming to us Fort Carson continues to build "on -post" family housing units 1200 are currently under construction with

300 more to start in Decemberi' Thus, the "dilemma' confronting my district is very acute When you must educate 3,600+ students and provide school facilities for new students residing in housing on a military reservation from an assessed school district valuation of only $7,017,760 7 you have 'problems' To complicate the matter even more, the State of Colorado does not provide-any financial aid. for the'ccnstruction of school facilities and, the State Constitution'y limits "bonged indebtednessto 15% of the assessed valuation. my school district needs additionalschooi bulidinus My school diStrict needs federal impact funding to provrde daily operation of; the school system It is a 'must' to create as strong a

"cooperative spirit" between the civilian and military components

oi the school district as possible. Thus, when the Board of Edu- cation 'requests" that the civilian component of the school dis-

trict approve another -hond issue". (next one on September 18th).

they must also be assured that the Federal Government Is providing

"federal impact funds' for the "military component" of the district.

In conclusion.I hope that my testimony has established for you

the Importance of federal impact legislation upon a highly impacted

school district. This problem is being further compounded with' each

additional "federal Impact" student we enroll as more housing on

Fort Carson and adjacent private property becomes avarlablel.

Therefore, 1 request your sincere) consideration of Senator

Dominick's proposal and a plea to also continue Public Law 815.

Thank youvery much for allowing me the opportunity to present

this testimony to your Czmmittee, 119 OEST COPY AVAILABLE

SC1001 Dist riel .No. l'ago Good, Nt, 6,luvos, .4,41 1^, ',11^47i :September 17, 1973

The Honorable Peter H. nominick the Csited States Senate Washington. D. C. 23510

Dear Senator Dominick:

Following my testimony before the Education Subcommittee on September 14th,I was requested to answer (in writing), the below listed questions so that this information could be added to my "testimony". The questions arc as follows:

1. Is your situation typical of other high impaction districts and would they agree with your testimony?

There:are only appzeximately :!:5 school districts in the entire nation that arc classified as real high impaction districts (over 70%). Basically, these:school districts are very similar to my own (Fountain-Fort Carson) and they would be in agreement with my testimony. However, to be truly honest and objective on the matter, I must:also report that the difference in "state" and "local" funding procedures makes it an impossibility to:get complete agreement from each of those districts. I am certain that most of the districts would rather see a continuation of current legislation. However, if changes need to be made. the high impaction districts would most like to see full entitlement for "A" category students, a priority of funding for the "13" category students, giving preference to the high impaction districts.' Preferential:treatment for military "B's" over civilian "B's", or a systematic decrease in funding for "B" category students based on the length of their residency within that school district.

2. Is the key to your problem really consistency of funding rather than degree of impaction?

The questions 6te "degree:of impaction" and "consistency of funding" are interlocked. For a highly impacted district (such as ours, with over:80% impactio),.any type of "proration of funding" presents:a very serious probleUl. For

Acr:,rt.c:tr,Trqv ,uFort,7N,ortt AFsic:ATTN C't ccunfS :1!' t.EGF Page Two Senator Dominick, September 17, 1973

the last three years, funding has ranged (fer the "3" students; from 68%-78%. It would be most logical to assume that if we could be assured "consistency of funding" (without anypro- rations), it would make the tank of creating a budget and then interpreting the school program by use of the budget, a much sir-plertask.

3. Why is prorationing such a problem? ;.re your budgets based on full fuvtding in spite of past experiences with the program?

when federal impact funds arc prorated, it creates a much more serious problea to the highly impacted districts. As indicated previously, only about 39-35 school districts in the entire country are what you would classify as highly impacted eistricts. In almost all of the others, federal impact funds provide only. a minor portion of the total amount needed to fund a budget. However, in a school district such as my own (Fountain-Fort. Carson) from 33%-50% of the total school budget is obtained from Public Law 874. It is thus easy to see why the prorating of funds presents a problem. It immediately creates a financial situation whereby it is impossible for a school district to have any means to make up the i.1zt. revenue.Again, in 'my school district, an increase of one '),131'In school levy means only $2.00 per pupil. This is true because the majority of the school district is owned by the federal.government and is not On the tax roll. Consequently, any eroration of federal impact funds (for a highly impacted school district) presents a very. serious problem. This could be alleviated by providing some moans of funding which would give "priority" to the highly impacted districts.

4. Is the distinction between 13" in's (students whose parents live and work in the same district) and "3" outs (students whose parents lire in one school district and work 'in another) significant to your school districts?

For the just completed 1972-73 school year, over 9074,of our '3" category students (both military and civilian) worked on federal property which is located in the confines of our school district.: 'I would feel quite positive that this same story would be true in the majority. of the highly impacted school districts.

Any; data on the frequencyof moves betweendistrictsby student families? (If notanyguesses?):

The .frequency of moves" of the civilian "I3" students is urdeelvz- edly quite mini-al. i:owever, the majority of ocr "7,7 cete7osy Page Three Senator Dominick, September 17, 1973

pupils are military and these very seldom remain in the district for over a 2-3 year period.

What would be the minimum time required for your d:"-4cts to adjust to a loss of impact aid funds?

There is "no way" that this highly impacted school district (Fountain-Fort Carson) can "adjust" to a .loss of federal impact funds. This is simply true because of the degree of impaction (over'80%).and the low assessed valuation'per. student (approximately $2,000). This means that for each 52.00 (!per-rdtadei:t) that is lost, due to either:a proration or loss of federal impact funds; it would take a property tax increase of one mill. Therefore, the only way that this school district can continue to survive ts through funding provided by the State of Colorado (through its H Public School Foundation Program) and the Federal Government (through Public Laws 815 and 874).

7. For districts receiving impact aid currently, even with five years to adjust, how will you replace any losses in the program?

This question is very similar to "#6". The only response; that can be provided are that the State of Colorado will have to increase its funding level for our district or educatiwial

services currently provided will have to be curtailed. .

I hope this information will be incorporated into the remaining portions of the testimony I presented on September 14th. Additional. information will be supplied upon request.

Siricerely, (7r, Dr. Dean ?leischauer Superintendent

DF.17/1,4 2122 BEST COPY 11111111.11P1,,

I , p. f .Se/ 0010.1.....q.irrier hf011brr UNITED STATES AIR FORCE ACADE,MY, COLORADO Serving the Block Forest, The U. S. Air Force Academy; the Woodmen Volley HOWARD DUNNING, SuaalIlotaldaat of ScIoaats U, S Ai, Fore., Academy, ColuwdoB0140

...Septemben 1?, 1073

Cues tons from Senator Peter E. Dosftnick to Eoward.P:. Dunnirg.and r.mn Eleicc.hnuer at a hearinc, on 57L and 3i3 Cr . SePtember 1913. A'al.1n4 conducted by Education fut-committe of the Committee on Lo.bcr and .1,utlie '::clfare, Senator Clalborr4 Pell,.'Chal:=1, presiding;

Question: Is your situation typical of other hlt]h 127pactIon dlstrIcts and would they agree wit testisrny?

Answer: I believe that my sltuation is very typical of other :-i ImpactIon d1w.rIcts and they would agree that o4v. sudden withdrawal of PI, 87t funds would to disastrous to all of us..

'Question: is the key ;o your problem really consistency of fundingrather , thandegree of !..:cpaction?

, ...... Answer: "..his Is certainly a big part of the problem. At budget 'making time, ...,e.ever know just %hat to expect in.,the way of funding. and can mlkeno provisions for replacement of any.cut in funds froM ?L 874.that has:not been anticiPated. '

0uesti:n: '...hy is prorationing such a problem? Are your budgets based on fUll.funding in:spite of past experiences with the program?

. . . . .

, Answer: .Althol.:gh our budgets are rot based .Onfull funding, we do rot lclow what to expect and in most' Cases, p:category students have teen funded less than we 'expect.,'...Ith 374 money amounting to

buatdget,. even a scnli decrease illthe expected ameunt of ., . 25'" of our f..ids is impossiblo to. aboorb. ,'...econtinue, to operate on a deficit budget and this:year ,...11 see our budget end with a deficit of. $200,000.

. . ues:Ion: is the 'distinctionbetween "3"ins (students whore parents live anl',:ork in the same district) and ":37 outs 0;:::dent:s.whose parents live in one school:district and work in a.04-1,,er') signifi-,

. . . . . cant to yourdistrict? . . . . .

...... :Answeau Not,verysignifleant If we know a .few years.In advance that we. are :notgoingto get paid for them. nave proxi mately 150.

"out :' .students and .could probably absorb them. :

, .

, cuest'on: Any"data outhefreqUency of moves .tetwocn dlstrictsby ":..!," ., student familles? . .

. , ...... , . At'lswer: Perhaps 155 of our 3 students cave each year.. Yany bf our 7.3 military:families retire'.in ota::'school-eomccinityand i:.h.e fathers Work atothor occupations.. BEST 'CopyP.I!!!!111PLE

. - Question: Whatwould:he the minimum time required for your districts-to

adjust to a loss of impact. aid funds? .

Answer: District TWenty 'could not absorb any sisnificant loss of Impact aid funds but of course, with a phase-v,:t of B'studentssuch as your bill sugge,sts we couldmov rxxu.11y acl,:=thnn we could with the sudden-death" approach.

. . . Question: For districts receiving impact aid currently, even with five years to adjust, how will you replace any 'losses in the program?

. .

...... : . . . Answer:: ahe state of Colorado har. s', been atte:Tting to provide more financing for schools and we would look to the State for this replacement: '124 BEsT to 1 11

School District A't).8 1

".4.'1-.4411 . El I 't t so' is1tot ti

S .,,10 Ar.f 414NAM4 it111,141N roll, 41)11: 4111N1n11 0; October 17, 1,03

The HOnurable Claiborne Pell., Chairman Education Subcommittee The United 'State Senate Washington; D. C. 20519

Dear Senalne P.A1:

/ testified hofore. the Senate Education Subcommittee on behalf of Public Laws 815 and 874 'on Friday;. September 14th. As Chairman of, this very. important SubcommittPe,I would like to provide some additional information for your consideration (and thaiof your committee).

Thisconcerns the efforts of some Congressmen to count all P.L. 874 monies as"lor41 revenue". Please note a copy of a letter: Isubmitted to Peter H. Dominick (a member of your Subcommittee) exhibiting the drastic effect that such a. provision would have upon a highly Impacted school district, such asPountain-Fort CarSon.

Consequently,I certainly request that you add this- letter (and the, attached letter to SenatOr Dominick) as part of my testimony to help illustrate "why" P.L. 874 revenue should not count 'as "local revenue". :Thank you.

Sincerely,

Di. Dean Fleischauei Superintendent

ACCREDITED HY THE NORTH CENTRAL ASSOCIATION OF SECONDARY SCHOOLS AND COLLEGES 97 -;5y : oot Dist ict VI 'asu l 'ott nig

.1'.:Lt.r h. ...411n:CK Ur.:Leti states Senate ",,,nitoP. D. L'.

Dear senator Dominick.

on atTtem....er suLti,tted a letter to'youurimi you nut (primarily Ueing' supported uy senators and representatives: trom the Stage of 1:anaas) .hich ,uuld mean that federal impact districts '.ould have to count Public La. 874 money as money from local sources" (0:to have this money submitted erectly to the "state" rather than the individual school district).

1 think thatI can best illustrate for you ,..hyI am urginy that you tl.,t support this legislation la; moe,i, a stmple study of :he Founta:o-Furl Carson Sclh.01 District's l:.74 General Fund Budget. Please Keep in mini .sat Colorado rch,Aal'budgets. are basei upon the 'eal,:naar year '. For 1.74, .e expect to 'receive the fello.lny revenue:

tkneral Fund 1.s.dyet Expected 'Revenues

l',cal Sources

' Delinquent Tares $ 1,0h) ownership haxes! Property taxes 24a.T.3 ton 5.)JJ M:scellaneous $ 261.JhJ ii. l',OU

,f aources ,:rat ional Eadcatir,n ,tate hqualizat:,-)n 17371,1t.atlon 50,1 's 2121; BEST CO 1.Vici1ABLI,

Page No. September 25. 1473 Senator Dominick

Federal Government Sources Mineral Leases 20 Forest Lands 2J P.L. u74 e85,370 ESEA 2 cud ail7,J1u 25.LJ1k,

$ 3,469,660 1JJ.JJ%

.e currently have enrolled 3,622 pupils. During tne course of the coming year, .0 can easily increase by another 75J - 1000 students because of these leasons:

200 housing units on Fort Carson are currently being completed and families are moving into them on a daily basis. Additionally, 300 more units will be placed under construction in December.

2.A 240 unit "Mobile home village" was recently completed on the Rock Creek Mesa. Families are beginning to move trailers into this Park at the present time.

3.' hour, gis being completed on the Fou::tain Mesa and other housingolapartments, trailers, etc.) are also icing added Ito other parts of the City of Mountain. Consequently, the le74 General Fund Budget of $3.469,66D will be a very "sparse" oudget depending upon the number of new students received.

To illustrate for you what a "predicament" we .ould have ben if the policy supported by the Kansas legislators .ould no. be law, please note the following:

1774 ueneral Fund Budget Expected Revenues

alSources Delinquent Taxes IJUO (,.nership T.:xcJ J!,003 !roperty Taxes 24),JJJ ;e.tion 5,UJO xiscellrneous 5,000 P.L. b74 885,370 $1,166,370 45.14% BEST COPY inlY211

es,:e T;.reoo, s;eptelt...er zv...1tof 7,aer.oa,ck

- ;

State of Colo:{aao'S.Jurces v,.eat:onal E.-Jac:at ..t ate E4ua:ization :ransportati ,n N.,LA

Fedora: 6.,vernmeni $,:erces Mineral Leases Forest Lands 23

$ $ 2.5e4,29J

"..'heSdoV,17Jin P.L.o74 funds would De 'tledUCte:1" from tne amount to be received from the State of Colorado..Thus, :he overall budget would be "reduced" by $685,310.

Th:s nave meant that our budget for ly74 would nave seen $2.:34,2)7., rather than the $3,46Y,660. The immediate expeutaticn for this amont tD be "made tip" from the taxpayers in tt:rH. dtstrtot. :iris is an utter 1MPOS$I5ILI7Y. we have an azsoe..:,valuatien of $7,:)17,70.). To ma._ up the seb5,370-'-:t....:Ld' mean t.:t we .s-uLd have to have an 'Inc.eised mill levy of Dyer 1:6 Of course you real..ze that th.s is not practical or pDra;.ble.

I cannot help but believe that he ne. federal 'impart le:ilz:at.:.>n enacted ::vi Congress must provide some 'Io.Jpholes7 deren.itr-E.. upon t'ne porc.Titage of a:d prv'..ded from the state gcvernments. I that the best means to fo11c' Jvuld be that all high impact distr:cts snouldl,e "guaranteed" an amount of :money wA:ld equal than of the' :'average" for the state In .hach it is Impac: dis',.r:ctsalmcst al.ays cDrIsideraly les* r:an tLe state a-..erage. You can 'easlly:.determ;i:e frcm the illustration that'I have prev. -:ed a:.:. 141n.:rubtCY boduet :f tae m.uld i,e enacea.

f atto,!'tirvl or,p!.:,tic

.t .17 .J.T.rtaw:e rty s all other 'r:ease ie,!1troe to ou ,,e0dHadd:tional e;:p:anati'Dnrcuardin,) this matter. 11-1ou. Sincerely,.

Dr. 3gan'Ffelsul..iue'r Superintendent tp)s REST C(I1.);r6.4..ro.1 rA1.11.1,: Ir.i.onco./it behalf of all of 11,: %vo t hank yon for this oppor-. t unity to appear before von t his mornin z. Senator 11villAw.v. We xvill nov .reeeive for the record a statement f rout Senator littrdicl; of North Dal:ota. Senator Burdick. STATEMENT OF HON. QUENTIN N. BURDICK, A U.S. SENATOR' FROM THE STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

St'11:1101.1;11:111k-li. (11:111111:111. fur the Statt, of NOrtil 1);11:01:1. I Itt'St'6;11'111:2'S art, tXIIVIlltly ( /1110t, of Education has declared North Dakota to receive any Federal impaet aid this fiscal vent.. creatiti, a trne educational crisis for the. State. Ineli.ribility is said to result front a conflict het veen sect ion :)(d) (2) of Piddle Law .-1-,,71 and a197:1 North Doliota1:1 \C--knon as Senate 1).111 202II. This measure completely re%vorked t lie Nort ItI htliota I'm Foundation l'ro,rrant. One seri ion provided: In fortunate,: the ;minim( of pasulent ane scieHit districts for per-pupil aid under this .4011 iitil1101'01111111a Siliop.rtIn lenionthry :Ind secondary education in1110Slat4.1.!h. 1%1111.0 .hill)be frfuu the attimintofsuch aid: .1.),, litti iliire of the state :.:1-uup rale for 1 of I'nhlit Lem ski repre,..411ted by the 1%%eTtly-one mill onInty etnializa lbw levy in the iletellitinntiom the state group rale multiplied tinn thy number or '411.1011s for u tio;rho etiarict received Public 1411v inismotits.

1 4 1I )11iIV of Education. I hi:: North 1):11;ota,provision runs counter to section 4112) of Public I,:tw S7-1. because it has the of sot:4111m from I liv aniumit of assistance provided II) a Meal (4111Cal aZtqWV by a State. a port ion of Hit, m000nt 'mid that school district ',odor Public liav s'T I. Section :,(d) (2) then operate: to malie North 1):11;ota inerorible to receive l'ublie Bill' S71 payments. 1 otter fur Ill(' record vt)py Of the .kteotst 29. 197:1. letkr to me from Peter litirltead... et in!,..S. Commissioner of F.docat ion. %%Advil summarizes the position of the ( 1flirt of Education on this iii:itQpr. nu' lit, more specific. I:or the 1973-71 school yett. North Dalmta has re9tiested a State rtoc of per pupil to be paid districts int%'ilttr students abuse parents but It live and xvork on Federal 1)1'01)- .11y. The ne%v North Dakota. 1:1%v provides that portion of the Fed- eral payment \yin he considered in allocatin,r State funds. North Dal;ola has a mandatory 21 mill levy which is included in 4111111)min., the State rate per pupil. This :tumult's to nhont one -fifth of the State rah.. sint, allocate: from In min ',v,. as a part. of its S'tate aid program. t he (Mice of Education dictates that impacted districts reeeive a Federal payment whielt includes an amount equal to the 21 mill levy and also receive a State aid allocation foin t he 21 mill levy. Thus. the aid is received t %vieeone from t he Ftsderal Government and once from I he State. 'Flit' Nurth Dakota law specifies that the amount which the school districts !let1.111111 the 21 mill levy shall Ire sulAracted front the State aid allocat ion. The `tale :lid allocation' to a 1Federal itipaet sellool is red», nil hx- an :mama cfpial to about (me-fifth of the Fed- eral impart payment. .'1411""x.' s! Or11 I Pm"! s1-1":1 .".1411"1 (1I.1s10 Is!!) 1.9 11.".11A% =';! Siti.uroti ..4111.)pti spioard 1.10.11 00 .)111 imina ,.)sluptv 1.191s1.1) Spotka 1110111: 11(11).1111.1 SI: I: 1141.110:1 1.11:t11111 1110)111.1111 I %I.M.I.1101 °SUR."' "/"PS -(A1(1 1111t1:1 SOP:111111p OJE .111:./1111/11) 1110111.1.1:11 JO .nit"'" 110.1i:ii-o. 411 IMP 'SW 'I.11.1 110.? 1101 10.: JO I .1111111, .%11:' '%4 !um .tioir alp ItiotiL1:41 Jo in.1,11)..,1 1)!I: 01 '1.1.INT.p.nil I 1:31114 HP% mom nr.113 t:S 10)!111.111 tit 1."!(1'"! MR s!ii '.1%:0. l 11111:11.u.piin s'ustit:Ni ntiozpv .11:11111114 -90.10 111.11 mu Itioillito.) 11011 1149010s 0$ sly "1141(th1 II111 swl 1-111 ;111111!"."1 """J 311"S .71!"":4-11" 1.)"(11!! 1)10 "LI"J" ;41.10110 .10.1,,A,01 a11$ 110!11:1111: II! qmox 1:101v/I .piti.tulx.)s! .:411!ssoad Inn: 1st: atIo.i Itiarirmt 11:3.9)!stio.) 1101 J0 pi: situ!, Imp pin.,t 1p.1,14 iiwox """110I 01 .).%!"'" sl! 111J J"."11Is MR S!II$ 11111!.1t: 1.rrrltnr 04 .t.) i MIAs, 11OIS 1411.)1S1 111/101IS '09 I 1:.11 .1.1 0,).r; 0s11./0(Ix0 II! ',wilds -rtliplirlIN .10,1,).tioi imp 1! ium .)}tvl oto,: otiql oi 1io10.101) lin In stInt.u1(thlf hot o1ripiultito.1 iii!.%t tin -tlitk ionduit ..)!rol Is.);Irins ..)ixonaditw $1:1III:i1.11 1101 -1111.1&11!: 1011 1109./.1-4----11:0110.1 1)14,: ( 7.) 1 114)!Sii.14-41.4 1)111011S :XI OIVIIIMpl: /Mini) 110! 01 11i1.10(1 sso.t.ritio,) 03 o.topi.l.t: tioptilos 01 .)11:1.4 Iriu tiot1.4.)ttl pm: .10.1 011 awls so.inlnis!rtai Apti) III!m 1"1":1 aTIL 114.91:Milq 001111111111.14111:4 11 .f,11041 (I01)$.nti (); .turf Autil 11:1 01 INiquIso A1,)11 1luoio.,1 110110041 ttuttlacttto 1 oit:1.1,1.11(11: wasoml still aannitt t: 01 ma !HA, 100.) 0111...1,)4 Ill .1110. Ittititio.mitks 01:41011.) rut{ , apri.10 I 1,100,,, .101 alp i1.t0.403 n ,10110.01,11: tio.tj It!pv .1.11otsslitiffio) Jo 111)!Inoi1ir..1 Jo '110w:on1y:I pun %).11:ji.)At .101V11.).: '.lVAV 11 111.11 all 1/01/111.014 u1 .11I 1410.).1.1 JI: SI11$ '11110l1 .10J ,01.1.1 JO 110,1.1.1J0.1 01 WIC .1.01 41.0004111- . 1/011111114 .)1 I).un).1.i [:..110110,{ 1all BESTCOavaitaa

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH. EDUC.ATION, AND WELFARE OFFICE OF EDUCATION orAANNaoTON. 0 C. 2010

atiG 991973

Honorable Quentin N. Burdick United State Senate washington,

Bear Senator Burdick:

Thank you for your letters of July 30 and August13 on behalf of H. J. Snortland, Assistant Superintendent, Department ofPublic Instruction, North Dakota, regarding the newly enacted Stateaid program which mmy affect payments to local educational agencies inthe State prsmaat to Public Law 81874.

Section 5(d)(2) of Public Law 874 provides as follows:

"No payments may be madeduring any fiscal year to any local educational agency in any State which has takeninto consideration payments under. . . (P.L. 874) in determining the eligibility of any Local educationalagency in that State for State aid (as defined by regulation),, or the amountof that aid, with respect to free public education duringthat year or the preceding fiscal year, or which makes such aid available to local education4 agencies in such a manneras to result is less State aid to auy local educationalagency which is eligible for payments under. . (P.L. 874) than such local educational agency would receive if itwere non So eligible." (Section 5(d)(2); 20 U.S.C. 240(d)(2)).

The pertinent portion of the recently enacted North Dakota statute(formerly. Senate Bill No. 2026) provides:

In determining the amount ei'payment due schooldistrict, for per-pupil aid under this section (providingsupport to elementary and :secondary educatiOn in the State), the followingVail be subtracted from theamount of such aid:

. .'That amount in dollars of the state grouprate for Title I or Public Law 81-874, East.Congress, represented by the twenty one mill county equalization levy in the determinationof the: ,state group rate multipliedtimes the number of students for vies the district received PublicLaw 474 payment" (emphasis supplied) BEST COPYAVAILABLE

Page 2 Honorable Quentin N. 'Burdick

It is our understanding' that the above State law would have the effect of subtracting from the amount of assistance provided to a local educational agency by a State, a portion of the amount paid under the provisions of P.L. 874. Thus a school district receiving no P.L. 874 payment would receive the full proceeds from a twenty-one mill equalization levy, while a distrett receiving a P.L. 874 payment would receive a lesser portion of the equalization levy.Under these circumstances, Section 5(d)(2) of P.L. 874 would permit no payments to be made under that Act to any local educational agency in the State of North Dakota.

Of course, the ultimate responsibility for the interpretation and application of the State provision in question is vested in officer, of the State of North Dakota. There may exist, for example, other provisions of State law which could lead Suite officers to interpret or apply the statute in a manner different from that described above.However, we are not currently aware of any basis for such interpretation or applicatios.

I hote been informed that in September 1972, Mr. Snortland, in replying to a routine request from the Office of Education for State aid information, inquired about the effects a certain proposed State statute, Senate Bill No. 2026, might have Upon P.L. 874 payments in the State. The Division of School Assistance, which is responsible within the Office of Education for the impact aid program, received copies of the proposed legtelallort from several local school district superintendents from North Dakota, ,A10 also expressed concern about its possible effects.

A preliminary review of the bill indicated that its passage would result in Section 5(d)(2) requiring that no payments be made to local educational agencies in the State.Mr. Snortland, in telephone conversations in September, October and December with Ht. Jack Thomas of the ;Leitrim of School Assistance, was so informed.

The final review of the proposed legislation, confirming the conclusions of the preliminary review, was completed on March 12. On the same date, Mr. Snortland was informed of this fact in a telephone conversation with Mr. Thomas: Mr. Snortland indicated that the bill had not yet been passed by th. legislature. The substance of the oral commueicatiee was also repented in a letter to Mr. Snortland dated March 15e,

Tile current pertinent State law provision was passed and app.oved. by the: GoVernor on Herrin "Li. 1973. There appears rn be no change in the teat of

the provision from thr'4 reviewed prior to March 12.. Cosseguestly, ' Page 3 7 honorable Quentin N. Burdick.,

Mr. Soortland has been informed that, if the State, legislation is interpreted and implemented in such a way that it has the effects described above. no payments may be made pursuant to P.L. 874 im Fiscal Year 1974 to any local ed4cational agencies in the State of North Dakota.

Since the Senate Bill was merely a proposed statute, which might have boca 0,4v114(Q or abandoned in the legislative process and since many, oihor probIems were pressing upon our limited staff at the time, we weer uaahle to make a final formal determination with regard to the promotly as we would have wished.Apologies have, however, been conveyed to Mr. Snortland for the delay between the date of hie inquirr and that of our final response.

In his Lotter to you of August 3, 1973, Mr. Snortland indicates his belief that the U.S. Office of Education may not understand that "we are not planning to deduct payments from 874 applicants.!'The Director of the Division of School Assistance, Mr. Gerald Cherry.' would be happy to discuss further with Mr. Snortland his understanding of the effects of tin e bill.

Sincerely,

/AL: 0_434 Acting U.S. Commissioner of Education BESTCarl /111r,',11BLE

. ,t11

0,1.,A A % ,,,, 041 V, latco Ziettale 1,.1 »1.\11 111 t1M1 1111,11,111. 1,11,1 '. 1 w.r LINVILAI W 4,111N4101.1. D.C. 20510

October 24,'1973

The onorable Claiborne Pell Chairman Education Subcommittee Labor &"Public Welfare Committee United States Senate Washington,.D. C.

Dear, Mr. Chairman:

Faclosed is correspondence furnishedme bythe Superintendent of the Grand Forks PublicSchoo1 District'outliningLthe 'principles he feelsshould be followed in amending our impact aidlegislation. Dr. Hill's District isone of the very heavily impaCted districts ,within N.orth Dakota. be- lievt his experiences might be valuableto your Subcommittee as it grapples with impact aidreform legislation..

With kind regards, I am

011:hkg

, Cnclosure I .. t Ai,e1

Congrc55 of On Einittb ":--qatc.5 r., f O.* :))1115r 3Arprc5rittatillt5 4,131 I ,Rf VAA0ington.TAC20:15 sssss .111, 1,1Z-7:S..146u o:t,ber' Paid

r Richard Rill, Superinton..:nt. Grand Forks Public School, Grand Forks, Forth Dakota 5j201

Dear Xr. hill:

Thank you for your letter of October 3 t-,!,:ardin PL. a1 -M74. 'toe'

Sobc,,-littoe Of the f:d:watioa mid Libor Cortmittoe, of which I erq Moillterhis ddalita:, only with Guesiions rCAated tO 'an.ldiog Section 51)2. otIra;!.tct A:d %nd with the c;.,:lideratiuo of queAt!eus rolatin,; to tho treatmeitt.oi Indian childrn nod haoliCapp,:d chil- droll-. Earlier action by the full Committee' to deletv the Aid :ofurrot included in the Subc:ralitteo bill his closed door on ,any serious recon..ildo:n!don or Lilo durini., this sesoicnof Cooresa.

With that as a bac;..;r0.,:od: tat r..es.,y that Ido apPr:..einte yaur thou6htful iouihavt raisedmsoy interestins roints, s.naeral

of.which I agree uith.' Or.: of our oils oust be lo reform 1:1pact Aid so that schdol districts like -Jouro whore th.!coAs a ricer Fed,t-ral rosponsiL:lityct- nntfisebject 16 the tu7ertainties and dislocations suftar:d by the entire p:. an 1,0eaus..1 of the failure

ofthe CoktrcLis to afleihl controversial secion,:. 1 do Mice, that Section 51/2 heeds rodificatita.

rolso ttat. A'!.:od. military daarve priorit... I. would uls6 agree that the premise that mudh. of the. responsibility futimpact Aid lies not with IlEtibut with the Department of Defense. arie4 is also supported ThoA:es.7man 1.111 iam Stalcr of Wiszuos1n'who introduced an ameadMont Lrdnofer- rind financial responsibility for D.O.D. connected childrao to that' Departmvot. Thatc.mon.dment wati'acCepted.by one voCebut.was reseindedby a lopsided 'yotv'two days later. 1 supported the Ster amendment: in hop,?., ba'n step in sAvini: 50.;!,. of the problems

-You may be intera-sted ttaknow that under CO taunter Aid nA7orm,; .adopta byth.., General Education Subcorlmittoet:te eotiticunt for veur district i.uuld h vo, risen from $1,619,000 to $Z:229,000.. Those amendments would have fully funded A children, :Aminated non-military 3- outs, and imposed a 3 percent absorption factor for B's. The effect of those reforms would have been to aid heavily i.mpacted districts such as yours. f regret that that amendment failed to gain the support of the full Committee.,

I hope that the foregoing information has been of some assitane. With kind regards, I remain

Sincerely yours,

7 t. 1 . LAL!ESTH. "QUIE

. .:ember of Congress

AHQ:cck

cc: The Hon. Carl D. Perkins, Chairman Education and Labor Committee

The Hon. Mark Andrews Representative, North Dakota

The Hon. Milton R. Young Senator, North Dakota

The Ron. Quentin Burdick Senator, North Dakota

Wiascon Grand Forks School Board

Colunel harry Erickson, Comander Grand Forks Air Force Base

Mr. Curaid Cherry, Director Divsien of School Assistance, HEW

Major General Oliver Lewis, Director Personnel Program, DOD

Dr. Anthony Cardinale Director Dependents.gducation,DOD.

7-457o- -.II co: Jr. Alj,11. A! t ord

( it.,:wr for la; Hn,

:;nort land, Superiut,.:1&_qtc Norl:t 11,...)artm,aL- l,l Pulif

Or. .ich.s.rd Tv iolv.tt !-;uporiiltoncni bi Nohrlska, r(BLE 1rQT 2i37

GRAND FORKS PUBLIC SCHOOLS CIP141:1 ICRICIII, N1.01.1H DAKOTA OrICII 01411 minimDewy'

October 3, 1973

l'he Honorable Albert H. Ou le Representative for Minnesota U.S. House of Representatives U.S.. House Building Washington, D.C.

D'ar Congressman, 011ie:

I am informer' that you are a member of a sub croup of the House Educa- tion and Labor committee and that you are currently considering possible modification in P.L. 61-874.

The need for a consensus within Congress and between' Congress and the Executive is very great. As an administrator in a "heavily impacted district" (26% A's, 7% B's) I can attest to - more I can see and feel the consequences of erratic support.

Every year since 1968, we have experienced one, and sometimes two or three, crises relating to support. We have witnessed teacher "termina- tions," air base boycotts, angry parents, nervous professionals, negotiated "provisional" contracts, less well served students.In a country which prides itself on business acumen, that's no way-to run a business. We understarrd your problems are complex. So are ours. We reason that if our service is to be regular (a circumstance we assume to be desired), support should be regular.

All we want to know is how much we're going to get, from whom, when Be lore we accept the. burden of educational cost-.

Our School Board recently resolved that unless support could be regularized, it wished to effect a "divorce" - this through an annexation (dissolution) process.Butin my Judgment, we really don't want a divorce. We want a responsible partner.

We think both partners benefit from a continuing relationship.For the Mr Force we believe we have provided an educational service of a quality which they have appreciated; we provide that service at lower cost than would he true (than is true) of.alternatives; relationships have been generally good between community and base - the schools are part of the reason. For the community - our planning and building assumes an economy of scale which we don't care to lose; the presence of Air Force dependents in our midst gives our student body a cosmopolitan flavor it would otherwise be denied; we have some old fashioned notions about loyalty which sees our service as a duty and as a contribution. At the same time, our ideal taxpayers cannot tolerate an unconscion- able burden imposed by a malfunctioning or non functioning 874. This I have a plea: please get this support regularized; please make H74 function properly. 1 do have some points of view about the legislation; - 5d2 should he modified to permit states to build equalization programs in the spirit of Serrano vs. Priest, et.al. - As and "uniformed" B's should have a priority ( the heavily impacted districts have been unfortunate pawns in a larger argument - the original and persuasive reasoning for 874 seems to have been lost or, ignored in the resulting crossfire ) modify 302(d) to permit direct contracting by the school district with the primary service or agency served; where and when arguments broil over entitlements or allocations, school districts should have the opportunity to cut through the red tape by making an independent arrangement in order to maintain the educational service. - or, consider two pieces of legislation: one for A's, one for B's, the former to be administered by D.O.D., the lamer by 11.1:.W. Argue about B's while ensuring support for A's. You can deduce our desire for a problem resolution and a funding regu- larization in one of many possible forms. The consequences of continuing failure to achieve resolution and regu- larization are enormously unhappy to contemplate. The recent history has been mischievous in the extreme. I am enclosing a statement from Richard Triplett, Stiierintendent:' of Schools in Bellevue,. Nebraska, His district'is similarly Circumstanced and similarly distressed, Sincerely / (//a/ Richard 11111 Superintendent of Schools mil cc: Honorable Carl D. Perkins , Chairman, Educationlabor Representative for Kentucky

Honorable Mark Andrews Representative for Ncrth Dakota

Honorable Milton R. Young nPnator for North Dakota

Honorable Quentin Burdick enattxr for North Dakota Mr. Winston Register President, (rand Forks School Board Colronel Harry rrickson Commander, (rand Forks Air Force Base Mr. Gerald 'Cherry, Director Division of SchoolAssistance, H.E.W. Major General Oliver Lewis Director of Personnel Program, D.O.D. Anthony',Cardinale Director for Dependents Education, D.O.D. Dr. Albert Alford Assistant Commissioner for. Legislation, Il.F.W. Mr. Howard Snortland, Assistant Superintendent North Dakota Department of Public Instruction

Dr. Richard Triplett, Superintendent of Schools Bellevue. Nebraska STATEMENT ON IMPACT AID Richard Triplett, Superintendent of Schools Bellevue, Nebraska

The major criticism of P. L. 874 has been that impact fundsoften go to

"wealthy" districts which have little real need for them. The authorization legislation currently in effect is written under the assumption that need accompanies impaction; that federal responsibility exists regardless of financial ability of the school district that is affected. If funds Should, in fact, go only to districts which have financial need, that intent shouldbe esp d in the authorization language. This has never been done.Thii is very difficult to accomplish because of the great variation in state and local support plans for education throughout the United States. A provision that impart funds be distributed on a need basis was incorporated into the Battelle report but was given little consideration by the Congress.

Various other proposals have been made which, it ,is claimed, would reduce the amount of funds required and/or would divert them to the needy districts.

Among them are:

1. Discontinue "b" funding entirely. This would accomplish a reduction to the amount of funds required. However, every study of consequence that has been made of P. L. 874 concludes that many "b" districts ate in desperate need of the funds. The half-rate established for "b" pupils is based upon sound economic theory.

2. pterst4 funding among less impacted districts. This has been the practice for the past several years with tne 100%, 90% and 73% provision. While this has averted disaster for most highly impacted districts, it has no rational from the standpoint of economic theory or equity. It is purely a political compromise.

3. Priority of funding for dependents of those in uniformed services. Tais was proposed by the administration in the budget message a few years ego. Such action could conceivably reduce to zero the funding for non- militarypupils, regardless of the degree of impact or of the financial ability of the district. Some distinction should be made between "b" civilian and "b" military if funds must be reduced. 4, Raising the eligibility provisions. This is a logical approach for reducing the funding requirement but has no relationshipto need. There seems to be little logic in establishing the qualifying percentageat three' percent. It was, at one time, six percent. The 450 pupil minimum also has little to support it in terms of logic. It could as well be almost 'any other number. The effect of the 450 pupil minimum has been to qualifymay districts with a very low percentage of impaction.

S. Absorption of a specified percentage of pupils (perhilpc thenational average impaction) before any payment is made for the rerAinder. This is a logical approach since it can be assumed that payments shouldbe made only for pupils in excess of the average degree of impaction. Again, this has little connection with financial need but it does reducepayments to alt districts, with the greater reduction in lightly impacted districts.

6. Phase-out of "b" pupils. Senator Dominick's bill to phase-out "b" pupils over four consecutive years of attendance would providesome protection for "b" military pupils since the military families are a mobile group. It would reduce the funds required, would bearno relation to need and could cause an accounting nightmare. It would force reduction of some part of the "b" military funding.

7. Eliminate payments for b-outs or for b-out civilians. This has little justification in equity or economics. 8 -outs have the same impact...pan a district as the b-ins. There is no relation to need.. It would reduce the amount of funds required.

O. Make payments to states rather than districts. This would not affect the amount of funding required. It is based on the assumption that state aid plans treat the districts equitably within a state. This is contrary to established fact as evidenced by court decisions throughout the nationwhich indicate that state aid plans do discriminate among districts.

11. Allow the states to take P.L. 874 funds into consideration in the various state aid plans. In cases where wholly adequate and fully funded state aid plans exist, this may be equitable provision. Such plans are a distinct minority at the present time. In many states, the federal rate decreases as the amount of state aid increases, so that, in effect, the rate formula takes into consideration the state aid in determining the federal payment. If, for example, Nebraska were to take the federal P. L. 874 payment into account in determining the state aid payment, this would bank rupt our district under the preeest state aid formula.

Is summary:

If, in distributing federal impact funds, financial need should be the ?rime consideration, then this should be so stated in the author- /motion language. This would lead to some sort of an equalization formula similar to many state aid plans, a very complex process.

The provisions of the Soldier end Sailors Relief Act and the practice of tax-free teas exchanges for military personnel establish without question that distinction between military dependents and civilian dependents rust be made in the "b" category when fundsarc reduced below current authorigotion levels.

(3) If the amount of funding provided arnuallymust be reduced, provision for full funding for dependents of those in the uniformedservices should be rade, regardless of whether "a"or "b" pupils are involved.

Senator HATIIAWAY. I now order printed in the recordstatements from interested persons and organizations and allpertinent material supplied for inclusion in the record. [The information, referred to follows:] BEST CONAVAIIIRE

OR. WILLIAM R, ROY RADIstigict. Kokffe.

as«,... two expo,. 1110 1...... wowtso Wsoffoff.prdoD C.:fats ::Opigitirthg of the Unita *Matto 7,0.... 'ZOO 2.17..e...,1 joust of ittpustn tat ibtO 1.1%. 7. PENffiff0057 1....1.07watffre Wastington. D.C. 20313 Septerbyr 17, 1973

. Dear Chairman Pell: .

It has come to my attention that, the Senate Subca:mrittee on Education is in the process of holdfo4 bearings on the impart: aid progrnm. In your

capacity as Chairman of thiS Subcommittee, I respectful1.: brine to your attvntion a very critical 'problem slich has arisen in the state ofFansas rylativeta the payment of g.74,impact aid. funds.

Ilricfly stated, the Eansls Legislature, recognizing its responsibility to improve the financing of tLe public schaol system., enacted' a now school finance plan in 1973. in sun, thti'plan determincs,.to the extent possible, the :wealth of each school district, requires 'that this wealth he utilized,. and provides tOr the' distributionof state aid when that wealth is not 7,sufficient to finance an appropriate scheol budget.

,n developing this plan, the Legislature found it necessary to deduct'certain I..ms of wealth of particular school. districts, including 874 funds, in determining the amount of state aid to be granted each individual school district. however, there is 'a question raised as to whether or not this provision in the Kansas plan is in compliance with 20 1.15C 24(1, which in effect states that no 874 monies will Sc given by thefederal government to a school district in a state, should that state consider 874,funds in determining how much money each school district will receive. late last' week the U.S. Office of Education ruled that Kansas was out of compliance with the existing law,' and would, therefore, receive no federal impact aid funds.

!Ir. Chairman, the situation for Yansas is a critical one, and demands immediate action. The problems at hand can only he resolved with the enactment of legislation. A repeal of Section 5 (d)(2) of P.L. 874 is needed to remove

the statutory harrier now prohibiting states like Kansns,'rom equalizing . school 'financing within that state.' ! urge theJidoption of.such legislation by the Senate Subcommittee on Education.' .;

To help you more fully understand the Kansas,situation,1 am enclosing some material for your reading:

Cee William R.Royll . Memberof 'Congress 144 GEST COPY f niii1BLE

HIGHLAND PARK HIGH SCHOOL HIGHLAND PANIC NEW CCCCC Y 011011

14.:. O 24C:* c...Nst

,IL',..,, A. September 18, 1973

The Honorable Claiborne Pell United States Senate 325 Old Senate Office Building Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Senator Pell:

I am writing to you to request your support for funds to support guidance, counseling, and testing throughout the United States. These activities are extremely important to all pupils, their parents, and the general welfare of the country.

In the late fifties and sixties federal legislation and funding helped many counselors assist youth, parents, and the.teaching staff in areas such as drop-out prevention, motivation, achievement placement and curriculum improvement.The time has come to again show our commitment to all the youth of our country.

I am asking for your support of legislation which will finance' these activities and specifically to have such legislation written so that the funds will go directly to guidance and counseling. I am concerned that federal laws be written in specifics; I hope you will not support block funding which permits those individuals in each state with power and influence to divert the national funds as they see fit.

ncerely,

Richard W. Evans p-,Ivy EEci uur: ''145

te to R. 1.,1 f11.4% tiOift ill %r 41101f 1,11,,1,11 e t R rtmerft %,040tte 110 ,hu, ,,,,, 4, .6 4.,7,1

! 241,1 ttfq({,te, IAl 41 If f II RNW, ,,,, .I!..; I,. 7,- M1:;201 I'.14 1,41 ati National Employment Counselors Association 1607 NEW HAMPSiiiilE AVENUE N W KASNINGION 0 C 70009 AC 7074113 461.3

September 19. 1973

The Honorable Claiborne Pell Prated States Senate 325 Old Senate Office Building Wai.hington. D. C. 20510

Dear Senator Pell:

.This letter is in reference to congressional action relating to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act Extension.:

The undersigned fully support the positions taken in testimony before the Subcommittee of Education of the Committee on Labor and. Public Welfare given by the representative of the American Personnel and Guidance Association and State Supervisors of iklidance.

We represent the thinking and desires of the counseling position in the State of Nevada.

Very truly yours,

'rlaVI'ftYrd.).4,1Vrisultant. Guidance and Pupil Personnel Services Nevada State Department of Education

/c' Drank R. Coleman, Member 'Board of Directors American Personnel and GuidanceAssociation

1972 Convonlion Doviston Anterlcas Pontine&SIN/Illarldence Association ch.c000.111.... of tke March 26-30 BEST. COPY AV:11114BLE

Bitai Brit?' CareerandCounseling Sermes ol kk.,11 II %AI 111111141 41. -A I IllNA:4'545 k.

U."/MOP 1N1..4N N NAN/I'm:My./I.(':ono: leo::351 :11:

4. 41'5 /4. 41...41411SkIl, .5411154N Irttk,/ K 1141...,11i ST September 21. 1973

IMM.11101111 111111MEN IIr A.fn.!411.Iw..h

The Honorably Claiborne Pell United States Seuate Pr I 325 Old S.nate Office Building : 4.5 K I 1141541E5 Washington, D. C. 20510 lk n I.I k Nm 1Mmkwen 1.. W.I., koflk.k Dear Senator Pell: 1k111,4I PER As President-Elect of the American Personnel and Guidance Associa- tion.I wish to let you know that I firmly Support testimony offer.- ed by Dr. Judy H. Lombana on behalf. of aid fur guidance, counseling Ilavrld I.11114.. and testing contained in Title Elementary and Secondary. Educa- rlIRS ME. 1,1,1, tion Act. Dr. Lombana, Consultant for Middle and Secondary School 041;4..4,44/II EN '.7.Widance, State of Florida Department of Education, representing t.. I. 11,11111,1 the American Personnel and Guidance Association, appeared before the Senate Subcommittee of Education of the Committee on Labor and

Mr. Nothrl Public Welfare on September 11, 1973. . Il.kk,11.40.1.11k 41 k e. m n. x Through my continual. widespread contact with personnel guidance : 11.11., Harlknkk workers and counselors, the concenaus would appear to confirm that Ik Sena. Fewikkan the passage in 1958 of the National Defense Education Act. Title 11 Gunn V-A. allocating federal funds for guidance services, resulted in 1k. Peak, k 11,1e Y. great improvement And progress in education and the number of students receiving guidance and counseling services. The positive re- Milk.. 5 1..4..0 sults from 1958-1968, enumerated by Dr. Lombana, support this con- Nk tention. However, through the merger in 1970 of the National Defense Her, km.1 Act, Titl. V-A with ESEA III. guidance and counseling services did Ilmk:Ak., not fare as well, apparently because of misinterpretation of the xln J k ,,,,, 507, floor which resulted in some state-level funding reductions. M. 101/1,11,! 1. In view of my studied judgement. I join my American Personnel and Mr. Ally?' 41 .441.4 0 Guidance colleagues in strongly urging federal support via a fund- Mt. Nom M11, ing package fashioned along the lines of the National Defense Edu- 41,mok 41.1es cation Act. Title V-A, with autonomy and specified funds over a f.nr. Pank, long-range period.Along with my professional colleagues. I do not Mkt 6,1.404 re support a consolidation which does not provide: for specific funds 5 557514k51 allocated to guidance and counseling. As a secondary consideration, Site A 1.111. I do advocate the continued categorical funding as a special section CEr1.4 of ESA, Title with renewed guidelines spelling out the intent lle kkT;te tetkikloll of the law. kmm..

WM- INK 1,,,k1.1FS ,Alht:S1, VII LA le,;KST JEK MN SERVICE ORGANlinION oUSDA IA IS TNIC, eNnAfoSTATKS 00 AMK RICA 15 1+4, BEST COPYAVA.IRTILE

The Honorable Claiborne Pell September 21, 1973

My life has been spent in the career and counseling field. I feel that, speak with first-hand knowledge of the tremendous impact theseservices have made upon our youth. Funds, for guidance and counseling services should be made available, but not in amanner which could compound exist - ing problems or impair effectiveness.

Your studied consideration and support of the foregoing positionwill be very much appreciated. If you need further supporting information, please let me know.

Since71),ours,

'../T/17/40-1..A....a.,.....

S.:Norman Feingold 1.1741Y President-Elect, AMA 2323 Twelfth Avenue Watervliet, New York12189 September 24. 1973

The Honorable Claiborne Pell United States Senate 325 Old Senate Office building Washington, D. C. 20510

Dear Senator P111:

I write to you to request that you seriously consider as a high priority item the support of funds to be allocated for guidance,counseling. and testing in the schools thro ughout the Nation.

These services in Vte schools are necessary if students are to receive guidance in areas such as communication skills, career development. decision making, interpersonal relations.These services are also essential in the schools to provide students opportunitie for growth and for the serious development of talents for their own satisfaction and for the welfare of the comaualty itnd the Nation.

To insure that Federal funds will be available specifically for guidance. counseling. and testing I urge you to support legislation calling for categorical aid for guidance, counseling, and testingas op. posed to consolidated or block grants which would permit individuals in the States to dissesinate funds as they determine.

sincerely y=tre. 44m7

(Miss) Patricia A. Opar 11.1s nmu suNNYLANI: ROM) oty (WI. (ruY.01:1...%1IONIA 7311s 01-u ck 24; cotrNst1.1N(. AND oill)kNYE 1'1 a )NI 677.5777

September 212, 1973

The Honorable Claiborne Fell United Stites Senate 325 Old Senate Office Building Washington, D. C. 20510 Dear Senator Pell: I an A practicing public school counselor writing to you in surport of the American Personnel and Guidance Associationls position on categorical aid for guidance, counseling and testia; as found in ESF.A III.My concern is that counseling .services: in the nation:; public schools will decrease when funds are cer.solidated with those Of other More powerful, pressuring grcuns. As criticisms are iocressingly levelled at the counseling profession by national, state,' and lucal interest groups, the counselor is caught in a very unique and frustrating. position..On theone hand he/she is criticized by. concerned citizer:ry and by students themselves for rendering inadequate. guidance services. .the other hand he/she is severely criticized 'by the. local adrinistrative .staff for his/her reluctance' to ass:IT:ie:sore of the clerical and administrative responsibilities within the school.The one gleam'of hope for relief in this dilemma of the Public school counselor is anadeivate program of accountability based on o needs assessment, programmed activities, and A measurable evaluation of the outcomes.Such a program becomes unrealistic when funds are not specified'' for eounselirg services.'

I sincerely feel that block or consolidated funding guidance services., would serve to reduce an already .inAdequate program, ary, th,st on1through continued and increased categorical Aid can the public school counseling service become the heloing professi.cn that it was originall3rintended to he. Very truly yours,

Evelyn Thomason Counselor BEST CONPillfEfkr.11,

4W,)

°",of ...... ;;.0° STATE Or LOUISIANA DEP/APIA/16:NT OCT EDUCA11C.1N Loussammocrr SIr Alt: SUIIEN17111501N1 P O. BOA 44064 BATON ROUGE, LOUISIANA 70804

'September 26, 1973

The HonOrale Claiborne Pell' United states Senator 325 Old Senate Office BUilding Washington, D., C. 20510

'Dear Senator Pell

'I =4,1 writing to call your attention, to the existing potential that exists forcuts in budgets, programs and autonomy ih guidance:services as .a result of consolidation efforts. .Hopefully, your assistance can: be engendered in behalf of firm:financial supportat a Federal level 'for gUidance services.

,Specifically, I wish to align with the members of the American Personnel and Guidance:Association and join other State SuperVisorsof Guidance in expressing a desire for categorical funding with autonomy andspecified funds over a long period of time, to be used by eachstate according to its specific needs and plans. Barring this possibility, the continued categorical funding as a special section of ESEA TitleIll is advocated. The danger appears to exist that without specificifundsallocated to guidance and counseling services, the support services essential to fostering student acadGmic and personal success in an' edncatiohal setting will be impaired.

Leon L. Borne, :Jr., P .D. Director; BureaU of Studitst Services WI: COPY IIITILABLE::'

111111 11;4'r).+i Oklahoma State Universit y 1''',[,!,r II. AITULL1 S1 t..4.7g1S I. V.11.A. Ivo

October 10, 1923

The Honorable Claiborne Pell United States Senate 325 Old Senate Office Building :Washington, D,C. 20510

honorable Claiborne Pell:

The purpose of this letter is tosupport the recommendation of the 'American Personnel and Guidance Association thatthe guidance and counseling aspect of Title 111, ESEA be allowed to exist and hestrengthened. Continued categorical finding as a special section of ESEA,Title Ill is vital to the counseling and guidance profession.

Counselors are concerned with the improvement ofinterpersonnel relationships among people in our society and inour social institution. The growth and personal benefits of students who havdbeen served by school counselors is well documented.

It is my professional opinion that any move towardconsolidation of funding programs would create a real threat to thecounseling and guidance functions presently being offered in our schools. For this reason,I genuinely appreciate your support for continued categorical funding,

Sincerely,

James M. Seals, Ph.D. Associate Professor Applied Behavioral Studies in Education n nesot a School Counselors' Association, Inc.

Central Junior high School 634l. Walker Street Sc. Ludis lark, Minnesota

October 17, 1973

The nonuraole Clai.urne lell United States Senator 325 Ole Senate Office dullcing Washington, 1,, C. 2U511,

hear. Senator fell:

I am concerned over the legislation now aboOtto come to a conclusion regarding propused icceral consoliation of tunus, .incluoIng LSLA 111 (Guluance anu Counseling) v.s. categorical

aid tur Guidance and Counseling. I am optoseu to the turm,r, in favor of the latter.

As counselor for some 20 years, 1h...ve seen the positive results of NUIA, Title V-A bringing an infant guluance anu counseling movetent to a place of prominence un the eouca- clonal scene.

The nmryer with ESEA 111 in 197O Still allowed categorical allocation to Guidance and Counseling.

What shame ,ic would De fur tine legislature to set usj,ack- ward in cite through any consolivateu package! We must. have categorlial aid to umet:the increasing uemanus on csin the field to meet the netos,ut scucents. l'uun't have to cell you about the caw scene, career education, crop-out rates, : the increasing societal pressures, am: the urgency of uev,icp- ing every oft of numaa potential we can nationally.1 hope 1' reai/y neLc to convince you on the nceu tur categorical laid to Guivance and Counseling.

We who are in contact with thousanus of stucents ua.ly are counting on you to keep uur proiram moving forward.

hopefully yours,

1 ' Lyle L. Williams, counselor last president, M.S.C.A..' t,,''ti BEST COPY N3LE

. Shepherd Road Splingheni Ithoon 67708 Ohre 01 Acatiems AtiJUN. 711 /780.0600

Servs-tor Claiborne Pell Unifed States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510

lk,ar Senator Pell:

This letter is seeking your support for the categorical aid for Guidance, Counseling and Testing now found in ESEA Title Ill. This facet of the legislatin needs to he funded and continued in the new legislative package.

Recently we have undertaken a review of guidance activities in schools in several states. These accountability evaluations were extremely positive in support of the job heing done. The greatest negative was lack of funds Jot sufficient. personnel and materials,. Federal funds can assist in alleviating this need for, our children.

Your active support is appreciated.

Sincerely,

1 / fLA. "a Robert H. Zeller, Coordinator Human Development Counseling program,' Kg COPY 111111IME

National Governors' Conference T.C. Or r THAL .; NOS 111,1,110ft111M111041.111. WASHINGTON 0 C 20036, d:.,ryL WI, , 111 CMNOAPI CA401, 103 )11%1500

August 2, 1971

Ti. HonorableClaihorn Pell

',Chairman ' Senate fAucation Subcommittee .125 teid Senate 011ie,. Building Washington,' 1).C. 1:0505

Dear Senator Pell,

1 appreciatv the opportunity extended to testify before the Sonate Education Subcommittee on the Better Schools Act of 1973. Unfortunately, the Natien'S Governors have 00L, at this point, addressed themselves specifically to the prop,seC: iugislation; hence, the National Governors' Conference has no official policy regarding the special revenue sharing' approach to:education. Nevertheless, the Human Resources Committeestaff of the Covernors''Conivrence did discuss the Bettor Schools Act atHome. length during a session last:spring. At that time, the following questions and objectionswere registered:

. . 1. According to House Education and Labor Committee. estimates, the States wonld.reeeive between $300 to $500 million less ,under the Better Schools Act as opposed to what they would ,receive if the categorical programs continued to be funded at their present levels. Under these conditions, the States '.cannot be expected to support a change in form when itmay mean less revenue.

2. The Act seeks to promote greater State responsibility in deciding how federal educatiOn funds. are to be. used, yet:the legislation provides no funds for developing'and enhanciug state administrative capabilities In this area.

, . . . . . 3. While the Better Schools Act will require less. federal "red tape'," how can the S.'.ates be certain Lt will notincrease bureaucracy atthe State level?

4. Although the amount of money spent on each disadvantaged student would increase, would not the concentratiOn.requirements in:the legislation, plus a change:In the definition of what constitutes 'a poverty family, cause a substantial reduction In the number of!students'served7 BEST COPYNM IABLE

Page Two August 2,1973

.. lo. Its deliberations over new authorizing legislation for elvimutary'and secondary education 1 hope the Committee will take into consideration the zeCepted policy oftheNational Governors' Conference with regard to the il,!lIvery Of fedoral grants7inHaidin,,Iucation. Specifically, the National Covernors' Conference has adopted the:following related policy statements:

AssumptIon'by the Il.;deral Government of far greater responsibility for the financing of education. Such increased federal financial participation should take the form of general grants to the States for educational purposes. r'th 14 legislation and federal regulations for such a program should leave maximum ilextbIlity to States and localities to develop programs to meet. their most urgent needs. The "aasic purpose of such a program would be to help meet time rapidly rising basic cost of education, not to stimulate new 4 supplemantary programs. Such programs should not mandate the creation ofany new state or local administrative mechanisms.

Adequate advance fUnding of existing federal programs commensurate wlth critical educational needs.

Consolidation of existing federal grant-in-aid programs for education into broad functional categories,' thereby increasing the ability of StateS and localities to design programs' within broad federal policy guidelines to meet critical needs in individual States and localitieS., including needs of . . the handicapped. Such consolidation of grant-in-aid programs should recognize. the need for comprThensive planning' on the State level and'should discourage a fragmented, overlapping program of development, Federal grant-in-aid pro-. grams should also encourage new:and innovative solotions to the serious pro-' blems that face our vincational Systems.

. . . . .

, . Maximum admInislratiVe. simplification of planning,.appliCation, allocation, J : acdounting'and reporling,procedures for all Consolidation Of. grants Is not sub... versed through detailed administrative requirements. Every effort. should be made to:develop the 'necessary fiscal and administrative 'capacity in the States to effectively assume responsibility for conSolidateclgrant-in-aitg programs.

. . . . . , . . . . . , , . . . , Finally, as your. CoMmIttee.will alsO be dealing with the entire impact aid situation, I hope you will examine clOsely Scction 5(d)(2) of Ml-874. This section prohibits Slates from considering inniacCaId payments in determining the. 'eligibility of a local school. district forState education aid. The Governors believe that this provision .inthe law is an impediment to State efforts on behalf of providing greater equalization of education ,expenditures. We urge Congress, therefore, to repeal. this. SeCtion and thereby permit PL -874 funds to be counted as local school conlributions.,.

...... I understand that the Education Subcommillee.will hear testimony on school ,finance.s6melime. during SeptemberThe Governors' Conference has devoted con- Three August 2. l'f73

hider-able time to the quostioir ofeducalionlinanc re:form and Would'appreciate an opp,ljtunity to appeal.' before your Committee to discust; this important subject.'

I would be grateful if you would inform us once the hearing dates have been., set so 1 .%tn arrange to hove a Governor testify.

Molit. sincerely,

Charles A. Burley Director BEST COP, '?', P'? '31.c

STATEMENT ON IMPACT AID Richard Triplett, Superintendent of Schools Bellevue, Nebraska

The major criticism of P.L. 874 has been that impact funds often go to

"wealthy" districts which have little real need for them. The authorization

legislation currently in effect is written under the assumption that need

accompanies impaction; that a federal responsibility exists regardless of

financial ability of the school district that is affected. If funds rhould,

in fact, go only to districts which have financial need, that intent should be

expressed in thi authorization language. This has never been done. This is

very difficult to accomplish because of the great variation in state and local

support plans for educai:ion throughout the United States. A provision that

impact funds be distributed on a need basis VAS incorporated into the Battelle

report but was given little consideration by the Congress.

Various other proposals have been made which, it is claimed, would reduce

the amount of funds required and/or would divert them to the needy districts.

Among them are:

This would accomplish a reduction 1. Discontinue "b" funding entirely: in the amount -->ffunds required. However, every study of consequence that has been made of P.L. 874 concludes that many "b" districts are in desperate need of the funds. The half-rate established for "b" pupils is based upon' sound economic theory.

2. Prorate funding among less impacted districts. This has been the practice for the past several years with the 100%, 907, and 73% provision, While this has averted disaster for most highly impacted districts, it has no rational from the standpoint of economic theory orequity. It is purely political compromise.

3. Priority of funding for dependents of those in uniformed services. This was proposed by the administration in the budget message afew years ago. Such action could conceivably reduce to zero the funding for non- military pupils, regardless of the degree of impact u,of the financial ability of the district. Some distinction should be made between "b" civilian'and "b" military If funds must be reduced. , 4, Raising the ,-11Lihilitv pinvisicos. This:is 'a .logical-approach for

reducing the tundin, requirement hut has no relationship to need. There '

Iseems to b,. little Ingic in establiql:n the qualifying percentage at three . percent, It;.1S, at one time. mx minimum also has littte to support itin terms o: logic. It could as well be Almost any other number, The effect of the 450 pupil Oninam: has been to qualify many districts ,.,Ath a- very low percentage ofimpactinn.

Absorption of a specified percentage of pupils (perhaps. the national average impaction) bet')re any payment is made forthe remaindet:-.. This is a logical approach sinee it can he assumed that payments should be madt) for pupils in excess 1.1. the Average degree of immaction. Again, this has little connection with financial need but it does reduce payments. to all districts, with the greater reduction in lightly dmpacted districts.

6. Phase-oet of "h" pupils, Senator Dolainick'S hill to phase-out "b" pupils over four consecutive years of attendance woold provide some protection for "b" military pupils since the military families ate A mobile group. It would reduce the funds required, would bear no relation to need and could cause an accounting nightmare. It would force reduction of some part of the "b military funding.

7. Eliminate payments for b-outs or for b-out civilians, This has little justification in equity or economics. 13-outs have the same impact upon a district as the b-ins. There is no relation to need. It would reduce the amount of funds required.

B. Hake payments to states rather than districts. This would not affect the amount of funding required. It is based on the assumption that state aid plans treat the districts equitably 'within a state. This, is contrary to established fact as evidenced by court decisions throughout the nation which indicate that state aid plans do discriminate among districts.'

9. Allow the states to take P.L. 874 funds into consideration in the vartous state aid plans. In cases where wholly adequate and fully funded state aid plans exist, this may be equitable provision. Such plans are a distinct minority at the present time. In many states, the federal rate decreases as the amount of state aid increases, so that, in effect, the rate formul: takes intc consideration the state aid'in determining the federal paymeut. If, for example, Nebraska were to take the federal P. L. 874 payment into acc'unt in determining the state aid payment, this would bank- rupt our district finder the present state aid formula.

In summary:

(1) If, in distributing federal impact funds, financial need should be the prime consideration, then this should be so stated in the author- isstiou language. This would lead to some sort of an equalisation formula similar to many state aid plans,,a very complex process.

(2) The provisions of the Soldier and Sailors Relief Act and the practice of tax-free base exchanges for military personnel establish without BEST COPYPARABLE

question that a distinction between military dependents and civilian dependents must be made in the "b" category when funds arc reduced below current authorization levels.

(3) If the amount of funding provided annually must be reduced, provision for full funding for depeldents of those in the uniformed services should be made, regardles4 of whether "a" or "b" pupils are involved. TESTIMONY ON LEGISLATION FOR PUBLIC LAWS 874 AND 815

Presented by

HOWARD R. DUNNI.ND, SUPERLNTENDENT AIR ACADEMY SCHOOL DISIRICT !MI ER 11111f1i mom sum An't POKE ACADEMY COLORADO

5.6

THE UNITED STATES SOME COMMTITEE ON LABOR AND PUBLIC WELFARE SUI3-00IMMITTEE CHAIRMAN SENATOR CLAIBORNE !EST coFt.f.;LA1.,r;r4Lr'c:-.

Air Academy School District 020, United States Air Force Academy,

Colorado, was created on July ', 1957, encompassingallof the tUnited

States Air Force Academy as ,.11 as an additional 100 square miles

of area surrounding the Acader'. One of the reasons for the creation

of this new School District was to provide for theedation of children

of Military personnel assigned to the Air Force Academy.During the

sixteen years of its' existence, an excellent relationship has existed

among the patrons of the District, both civilian and military.Py

combining resources from Public Law 874 and 815 with those from local

taxes and state sources, the School District has been able to provide

an educational program that has been acceptable to the majority of the

patrons.

The School District is presently comprisedof 1,260 federally

owned housing units on the Air Force Academy and approximately 2200

single family homes outside it rear the Air Forte Academy.A large

portion of the families livli,g off base are either military, retired

military, or civilian employees at the Air Force Academy. At present

the is no industrial or commercial property within the School District:

and the prospects for any industry or sizable business coming into the

District are rather remote because much effort has been made to keep

zoning at the residential and agricultural level.The Air Force Academy

complex adequately serves the commercial needs Of over half of the

School District patrons.

The under' appropriating of PL 874 fUnd:7, that hos taken place in

recent years (along with the elimination of PL 8151funds) has created

financial problems for the District.The fact that the District rust

jbuild a budget and levy a local tax several months before the definite authorization iiiierPL 874 is established. Creates a hardshi p in a

"highly ipacted" district. When the PL 874 authorization level decreases without sufficient notice, :lit creates an impossible situation.

If there is sufficient information available, adjustments to either expenditures or to the local property tax Can be atteapted in order to balance the budget. Otherwise the oe:,' recourse is to operate

a deficit budget and of course this situatior s compounded each year.

Air Academy School District has eXperienced this situation in recent

years and at present is facing a deficit of over $200,000 an a budget

of 4 million dollars.

The following table shows that during the 1972-73 sellsol year 58.8%

of the student enrollment of the District was federally connected while

federal revenue made up 26.0% of the total revenue.This is not necessarily

to infer that these two percentages need to be at the same level, but the relationship between the two is changing each year with the difference

becoming greater.'

Sources of Revenue $ of Tbtal

Federal $ 958,888.00 26.0% State $1,857.585.00 50.5% Local $ 859,302.00 5;5%

No. of 'St<11;YP ra c.:12214.1

(Livintr, on Academy) 17'til 38.1% (Uniformed Service) 660 14.1% (Civilian Erplirles) 308 6.6% All Other 1930 41.2%

The School District's assessed valuation is 20 million dollars. One

mill of tax will raise less than 5 dollars per pupil. The district has

been and will continu, to be bonded to the legal limit in an attempt to

construct the necessary school buildings. BEST COPY 210

iie have attracted and maintained a gOod teaching staff, however

our salaries are dropping sIgnificantly below the salaries in the

. neighboring districts and we are losing some good teachers to' other

schools.

The annual threat of suddenly eliminating payments for B Category

students is a constant. concern to Ochool. District TWenty. It would

certainly be catastrophic to the District's budget, should the Federal

Government decide to totally de'..eie these payments all in one year.

. Any revision in Public Latin's' /U riusi provide sufficient advanceinfoms-

tion regarding any rediction in payments, toallow the various States

and School Districts every possible opportunity to search for sources

of revenue to replaca-these funds,m,In.other words, any reduction in

funds for B students, must be gradually achieved over a period of time '

involving several budget years.' .AS expressed by Senator Peter H.

Dominick from Colorado, "Many of our highly impacted school districts

cannot stand the 'cold-turkey' withdrawal of federal funil,ulor Public

Law 874 and continue to operate ". Air Academy School District TWenty

is one of those districts he was describing.. 2164, crIPv ri1;11'11r ;1;11

U(7'N EA 11_ !ftbIlet.....?"11111.rS.A.A14/6011 1!1 'Doan 0671.11.LE CAL C1L,... Vitt 1-,,J,c,. 2137 N Lletwtt tit1.1 I' tt C 47,3 C %v... .1,13 ". '11/21 NAME L. Orville Calhoun , C 1 C. 66." Associate Superintendent oCt ree J ... let. ORGANIZATION: Duval County School Board Jacksonville. Florida 1.. 0 SUBJECT: P.I.. 874 AUTHORIZATION oo . Z:ts0 LEGISLATION 0.CoC D s ..I. soo Ds:: wan:September 14, 1973 n. Pout . 1, I 40.Co 1. C M R. CHAIRMAN AN D .1 lc., DISTINGUISHEDMEMBERS or' THE COMMITTEE: H I am I.. Orville Calhoun. Associate Superintendent, Duval County Do so s.a 0. DapsCa' NISI SCh(I1118,Jacksonville, Florida.I am also Vice-President of the

.1c.e..c... : Federal Impact School Group.I appreciate. the opportunity to EGIC6.1 J...., c.,: present testimony in support of-authorizing legislation to extend the L. 874 Impact Education Program for five Years.' .4c.c%) ,,,,, , Members of this Committee, I am sure, will remember that ap-, proximately twenty-three years ago (1950), many months were devoted to public hearings in an effort to develop equitable legis G C : lation for the Federal Governmentto diseha'rge its responsibility sloe, S through payment in lieu of taxes on tax exempt federal property in partially financing a program for the children of its employees both military 'Und civilian,In recent years in considering appropriations for Public Law 874, the Administration has recommended reductions in payments for category "B" pilpils and particularly those of civilian employees.Itis difficult to understanl the Ad- ministration's proposals to eliminate civilian employee dependents.' These dependents have the same entitlement to educational 0010. opportunities as the military. Co :011 AEGICINILowJ IR 'et... As you know, the basic reason for federal Payments to school dis- Stile.Ds oi Ca tricts under Public Law 874 is that federal property is tax exempt DC SSW and school districts receive no financial support from this prop- , erty otherthan through the subject legislation. Past research has tt, r tip ecr uul.

CII:\111AIAN ANI) 1)ISTINGUISIII.11) 'AIL:11111E11S or E (.::ommirrEE September 14, 1073 Page.- 2 -

revealed that local tax revenues from privately-owned propertyare on an op-. proximate 50750 basis, between the property where the parents live and where: they worI:, tothe par ::ts of children who both work and live on federally- owned property provide n' school revenue.Those parents who work on fecicr-1, al property and live in privately-owned homes do pay taxeson their homes. Thus the rationale lot. the Pederal Government to makeper pupil payments on the local contribution rate of comparable school districts,or on the basis of die average national local contribution rate for Section 3(a) pupils and one-half othe local contribution rate for Section 3(h) pupils. Several studies have been made on the impact Education Aid Program. The Battelle Memorial Institute. Final Ilt,pM.t on School Systems in PederzllyAf- fected Arens, December 1989, contains the following major conclusions:

The federal government should continue to providea program of school assistance in federally affected areas.

The basic features of the current program are sound.The basic me.: hanisth of the current program, namely counting the federally connected students in a district, calculathig a per pupil!payment for the district and multiplying tlm number of students by the rate of payment, is sound.It isCapa- ble of providing a reasonable approximation of the federal impact upon a district, and is relatively simple to administer by comparison to alternative methods considered. Members of this Committee, I am sure, are well aware that public education' and most other services are experiencing increases in costs, NOT decreases. The school district of Duval County and others in Florida are depending on the Cyngress for the continuation of impact legislation.This program is essential for the support of public education in hundreds of, districts throughout the nation. The criticism of the program seemsto be centered around the school districts in the Washington, D. C. area.This opposition, we believe, is unfounded as these school districts:are faced with thesalTIL: financial problems as in other parts of the nation where employment property is federally-owned and tax exempt.

The Duval CoUrity District Board of Education strives to maintain the highest educational program possible, however, even under the present level of funding from Public Law 874 and with additional local and state funds made available for, CHAIIIINIAN AND DISTINGUISHED :NIEMHERS OF THE ONIMITTEE September 14, 1073 Page - 3-

1073-74, we M.:perk-acing financial difficulties because of inflationary costs in almoSt e:,Cry area in the onduet of the schoolograms such as the increases in: a fey of the following. it ems: fuel oil, electric power, paper goods, school lunch milk, pupil tranSportation, labor costs, As mentioned previously, since 1050 school impact legislation has been and still is one of our important sources of VOVC.Illte.You, of course, know that, this is a pro gram that IS inexpensive to administer,it has been free of red tape and restrictions and its long life with only a few minor changes is an example of the Congress rec ogni.,:ing the federal responsibility in providing financial assistancewhich is otherwise not available to local school districts. We urge your favorable consideration for the reenactment of this program for of least a five-year period of time. 1 sincerely thank you for the Opportunity to present these statements on behalf of the . school district of Duval .County, FlOrida and on behalf of the students who will re, eeive the educational benefits therefrom. BEST COPY MUTABLE

SCHOOL DISTRICT OF kINC9SIER 225 WEST GRANGE STREET LANCASTER, PENNSYLVANIA 17604 (717) 393.3871 February 1 7J ADULT ENRICHNENT CENTER Eugene L. Madeira, Director Tho :ionorable Ulairbc.ne Chainnan of the Education :Jubco=ittee ne ',:nited States :-;enrite ,ashincten, D.C.

Dear r

I was happy to note an item in the newspaperwhere you had made a statement to the effect -that _resident ',axon's glans to combine fund:7, for major feuerai coL:cation-aid 'arorrams into one bid*evenue-snar4.ft::' rant has little chance of 'oefore the start of. the -fiscal Year.

. . A am quAte -concerned about.tne 'effect' Revenue :;harinr will haveon Adult liasic ducatiOn. :At. 1::e present time the D.S. .dice OIL .-Aucation operates' AdUlt Basic Education throu,7h t;:e State ;Jo: artment of ::dueation to the local sc,lool districts. Tnis Porram has been exceedinly effectiveonthe local level. Idon't know, of any 11roL:m w:.ere more dollars are spent on' e,.iucatiOn at e. locallovei, with a minimdm ofoverheadthan t:ledult BasLI Ancation Act of i 6e.. In i'ennsylvania GOneole -,.ea,rn(*to ead and write and ad op:.ertunities tocontinue their ed,cation up to .i,rh :,chool Equivalency on.a buf.0,7et of only ,4,0U0,000.

here in '.cute.: ter, ..._venue' ring has always been used to educe taxes and spenuinF by local povernments.The conservatives ::ere will not se revenue to continue pror,rams that help- the!.:lizadvanta?:-ed.

. I would like to plet,d wit:: you that every efi'ort be u.ade in the. united States Senate to supprt Ault Basic Lducation and to keep the learnint; Uenterl., operating all over t, -,e country, tilat -allow adults to 'attend day or eveninr and receive instruction froM

In LancaSter w:'lere we nave a lartte l'uerto Rican population, 10Y., of the s7.eakin.r. :population nave learned 02tten Anotiler 1C0 nave Paused tnei e:iamination and been able to drive to better jobs. About SOL, of our (ork zrorz..,) students have ,-,e.tteh better, joos; ;,one on tu L!.nu P.Ottc: Off of welfare'. TLe n!,s nraetically destroyed he pro.Tam! to ta,.:e doadond .t:,at will lea: ter.:. 'back to elf:':re.

47.457 4 , 13 Our country still has a lot of disadvantaged peonle.; and Adult Btsic ,.2ducatien has done more to help them help themselves than any-other pro,-ram that came out of the_ 1960's.

I have a set of slides on.the Adult .Enrichment Center which in 25 minutes'tells the story of now a ABB. proFram works in a middle sized American city. 6hould you over need testimony from the local leval'about the. pesitive results of Adult Basic ;.:du.7ation, please let no know.

You know r* brother, the Rev. 'David L. Madeira, .who is pastor r-cf the Barrinpton Baptist Church in Barrinp.ton,' Rhode Island. I am confident that you are interested in supPortinr those programs started durim7 the Johnson Administration that have been highly successful.

Sincerely yours,

Ea, ENE D. MADEIRA

Director . Adult Basic Education

f)ur learnirv,' CenterYr ware 'awarded an award as (lie of the 20 hest in the United States. LA FAaL:D GEL ItLlfrari Co re VARA ki;ULIK)S PatrickSusanaAdauie Cintron Cleaverilazatons -Hanner -Daie1:orisHelenGerardo Mace PaRivera Miylantounan BIENVENIDO AL INSTITUTO :CUTCG_O-S -GE ESTUDI 1 _escrictrAlfatetinacion su propic - in pe,sona ue no mace leer y tendra man dificultai de:2611esconStasesen aprender visa it, dede ciudadanta vrenldenciacisco escribir anon - deInples.pueden residencia. solicitar cuidadania Los extranjeros cue viven -Conseios' Educacionalescapacidadesaprenzer. - AdiatosPara poder no dejanconseguir de su diploma Juan Landis to ayudara ricer sun _del cuarto ano. estudiadoyManual:as de de Chore:pasadA 50 personas deel- Penna. examen ban L E E T I-2 A C I 0 N _de- levee de TransitoIngles:enemas y de las!precuntanEspanol. Pa. en DIPLOMA-DELEDCACIONCONSEJOSCi.AZiZ GE-CU BI-LINlUEEGUCACIONALHS CJk-T0 :DA:AMA ANCon EspanolEspanol -- Ingles HADLAR INGLES ManualHatlar,-Escritir.Hablar,'Excribir, del Chafer.Distrito (teoria) yEzcolar7 Leer,InglesLeer Espanolde Lancaster - -procede-(1) Etchuchar segunLeer Ingles anIngles. propia y (4)(2) capacidad EscribirHablarEa metodo Ingles,o Ingles.-interes. de (3)ensenar Ingles tiene 4 pasos - Cada adulto ' Hand cE:emo rkai Av.n.To SE P.1,31-r. ESPANOLJUIli or- High School-. ,A SI; I/ I AS A F; 1. - ACI COW.SEL.E.C,-.;;;/;!,s41;St12/1_,.1 tt.,IISES EGCE:ATI.r.-PA _pe,pic 11,v ,S I ,vet0 Ii; .,lid -.00; I. 1;.0o,h I ..;:;;E.,:-.; h 141(-,..E.:E.,.t:I!..E.P.5 ;;;I, II{ E Si'EFC0 SE CC1,-0 -;.4( ti;44., . 10011,0 0; SCOf.::1_ ha,the t .hoot:c.0 ps,:Jr :LedItqd SpAi0II-.;,-.0,1.- 44,:t.,;;;;,.;;, 1. .!:.0 -;;;,/-rt,E-E4:11/CIE I,Cter, -ems 1 1 4 1 1 srl IC 10.1)111 \RIM; III! I(.111 DO YOU I ;ma, h.nE IEt t I (I( II II II.00.1 III Al Ery Irmo!,:., :11E PeraInI0:1 NEED. HELP? ,,:rie.r110:1011.140; I-dn.:4;00; I tot !;e0 0,00.toti/E...!Icc.!, LE, t;o0s. h.ros 10.1,1 =.I .;:1 1151; Sneo Arponittten!, .shd,.s....1 :ad 4 .1,1 ,I0A..-;; II J.LitI ; 1E Adult Enrichment Center r;G- SC0.0r.0.. Vt t!r: . p.- TRY THIS . . ;ass OPEN Ca:,t Infrrr...1,. s: s. sr. if I . arrate f,rarrenr4,1Tr.nsfPr ^bi:ci atrare. En. -.re..nee.: Referrs: f..'er-..is p. DOOR! Ti!': - yc,:- 3-5 year--s.: 41.; - 11: "i4i ye .. exam. G.E.D. .the pass successfully who Center Ajult the to College. for ready you get to materials and in enrolled those diplomas School High EcCaskey awari teachers of kind the have we luck, your to voted Directors School of board the 1972 Angus: Lusi tostretch want and afraid a-- vas If READ:NESS COLLFGE ALENCY :ZUI7 E SCHOOL. IGH H

. - -Bi-lingsal-counselcr . Counselor

. . . . . _ Landis john Ridley . Secretary. and Receptionist Registrar, Selby, Stella college. to go or -job, a or get :o get diploma, school high that order in study Reading. Studies, Social of Teacher Sansham, David Er. to need you what you show and abilities yoti- know you - two help chid__ -car. who. counselors have We ability. : of-Mathematics Teacher Kresge, Marian -Err. readine.:. and knowledge in have_alsoarown adults Nos: mature. more are Tney school. to k. bac cone :hey when Grammar Encltsh of Teacher Carter, blicateth Mrs._ advantage an have school of out been have who 'Adults Counselor Ridley, Earl Er. NSEL1N CO!j EDUCATIONAL .. SCHOOL ..t,REE TEE CF STAFF THE

THERAPY. HEWHING

. ANL; SPEECH AND EDCCATION 131?F.DUCATION, jUSTI:S. OF. DEPT. STATES UNITED THE BY APPRO7ED CITIZI::- EDUCATION, REMEDIAL Spanish), and `sb,,itsh (in EDT2CATION ,iH7A1 BI-Li allriv;=;cy, SCHCOL -HIJE years. :ht.?? Citzen_for American an to -married EDUCATION, BASIC providing ajulto4ky .jisajvantaged are wan foreirners any Likewise course. the take all of needs the meet to programs of variety wide asp citizenship for to'apply are years five' a inc1udes It District. School Lancaster :he ty here lived have whc visas resident have veto Foreigners sponsored adults for education continuing fro*, of program a is Center Enrichment Adult The - .used_. of Department S. U. the of Service

- Naturalization- Immigration-and the by examinaticnt-gives CENTER bniCHP= ADULT THE .IS ,HAT toe passed surcessfully have week-citicenshipslass a tne those of cent per hundred One taking English. learhisz

- 20 Ext. 393-3E71 or trainina', more 'sib, a whether -- goal his __ Teachti Sanjham, meet- in adult each assist whics materials and staff U-CATION S IT.EHSB:P cI7 providing by helps Center Enrichment Tne.Adult von ;et to 'deserve. raise :ha: and goal. his achieve him ehable succtec to you allow to materials nigh: the just has that study of program a clans and counsels: a with Enricnment Adult The eikuivalency. school hign to go or A=TICNL and GOALS his over talks a-ult schscl. jos Setter 6 get to wants wno toanyone essential are of ost is who older anj ycars IjUlt:sixteen any to arithmetic tasic do and write and read to ability Tne instruction individsal provides schosl free Tne

N BASIC -D A SCHCOL-: FFEE THE A DU::: provide,:The Ci t 75Office of I...al:power has :viol to full RICAN :.IADUATES - to :h Punt f rom- r-Joa.r.OPti Class for orthken7wer.:y-four Puerto Ficans Save tte :n-eii::er.Er-,:lioh - torats ono'. proridef: mony refreo:-erto trainint: tor:. to work. - .372-324. Fe.s, hh,e . Cluns funda.entalore of 1570 :.aria ty-piag. Coro:. ::c:.1tIter.o.ao . . . . Class.lass ofof J,tly Ma:: erra Carter owor of ju.oe 1.arrair.eRayr.ar.,-. Perez cc Claro of July 17..-7.1- Toren% 'Et - _Tarr -of ..enter,ter Lai al:iawr:-.tra ::oraier Antal:11a TeremNiever: . (GEDAS ears guto:wttes1 11,4" 32; aqtnt.,:s Nave ai,:thed at the A:rolc Critter. AMGEN ' Lapei. Luis Ruti,Iguei ;Aube, t3E,G:UZ.7, CANADA Oveha 0- COLO,46in REPUBLICS,FRANCE,A:caho Brraim. WEST UNI1 BRAZIL GE ED :MANY. ARA3 Role*: '-',ELECE,Ferret: f reit.% INDi/ CONGO. IRAN. ITALV, CURACAO,AWA PANANiA, Dom iNICAN REPUBLIC, EL SALVADOR, .P0:1:CS. PE FP_: k.25: FLO KINGDOM. UNITt'D STATES OF AV-ERICA. VENEZUELA POE H ft) h JAPAN, SOntlASOUTH KO:if. L IA VAIN, UNION Otr SOVIET MEXICO. NETHERLANDS, EST COPY* E1

Sott;tt (Iv11.\.1..\ \v.\ )'. tty itovadj(m li)j(!et, c) t Ito :1:11 of r.

I .1.11(T0111 t011 :ItI :710 :1.111.. 1 Ill'W:1 l'i %V:I:4 :I dill:11'11N.I BEST COPYMAILABLE

EPti('ArrioN LE(;INLATIoN. (1373

Elementary andet.tlitliry Amentlinenis or !!)7 3 and Reuter Selools Ael of 1973

THURSDAY. OCTOBER , 107:1

1.T.S. SENATE. StT.c4o1 Ent.c.vrios or Tut: ComAi Pcia.ic 11r.o.31(1 naiop. 1).0. Tho suhconitilitte met, pursuant to ice. in room G...?0:2. Dirlsen :"('mill' Office linildin.u..-Sonator. Claiborne Pell 1.-..uhcommillec chair- maid presiding. Present : Senator:-, 1 'ell ant ll'od. enator subcommit tee on Edw.:it-ion wiii come to order. Our lirst witness today on i he subjeci of elementary and :,(.01111:11'y S1'110011.111:111('(' is .D1'. ,111.0(.101'.l':(1111.:111011:11r1.11:11111' :111(1 (i0S01'11:111C(' l'Or111111, 1)()1.14:.\-111.'-'4:111110 t :'4,rtieuse Uniersity sett reit Corp.

STATEMENT OF JOEL BERKE, DIRECTOR, EDUCATIONAL FINANCE AND GOVERNANCE PROGRAM, POLICY INSTITUTE OF THE SYRA- CUSE UNIVERSITY RESEARCH CORP. (11:1.111M111..1 :tin Dr..loel lierl;e from I he Syraeuse University Hese:trek Corp. f ant here this morninc- On illy own Ilehalf and that or my researh col learue, Prot', IV, Kirst of stattod.ITnicersity. 11-e. 01,...ased to h;I ve youl. 'invitation to come to tzilk to von t his 1110111111" :11/010 till reStIltS Of our es0:ic11 and lm they relate to the. Vedernirole. particularly inreu-ard to intrastate equalization of school tires:m(1 financial :11T:1114,('11100is. I wont to emphasize that, the simnsors or our researeli.,the various foundations. State (oVV1'11111P111S. :111(1 the OrliPe Or E(111(.:111011, :11*(` '111 110 'VII'' responsible for 4mt. statements today. 11"e speak- as private

individuals. . \-( st:Areinent,' which 1 Nill lea 1.111volt:11i and siiiiimarize.. but 1 0111(I haveitinserted the record initentirety with

V0111' 1)0FIl11SS1011. ' Se11;IfOr PE LL. The statement: Nill be. inserted in hill in the record iti the conclusion of -your test imony. 31.r. 1170 111:1V ha ve :11A :11/1111(11X 01' t.wo , which t he commit tee Illay find useful NV11.11111 contain some previous articles of ours. (2175) St`11:1101 I'ELI IV. 111:.:(TICIIin tile record, lvhei herhe \ernmeni will 2,4sist,,,Stntes' olisninate the inoilltitahlo. inellii(,t1t. and irrational tiletho(is 1)y which most of thew litionco piddle ;.;c1,(,..)Is (,,,hiis. ill r the IIIntiL (.1.;(1(.81.0(111,(11.(00;(1 (011,st (oils c(It.(11(r tllh Collitgess. tilt' Inst v,.:11.s. court onsos and reimrts ha V(' ITS h.-) a ):)ItsrSIII.d. ;1 nj Vhifdi there 1:4I.,11..irreater iml)lie tinder- standinir or the problems (d' St:Itp sysiems of 51.1101,1 at ally

(1(111.1' 11111' Ititit4 \'. AS i um sure yon reoll, oven ill the ).(q11(..1. ettse. it)\vitioll tllll uprotite (..ottn. said then is no constitilti()11:11ri!litto inequitable, 1101.0 :4(.1100111110 5y51,111. ((ll'le:iIcffioloinnut ion r Ilit \\o tilat. shifts ,lro (heir schools int he 'niajbrity ol)inions. 11,1-,/. statos (00.k. nil the (.111111(s0.1.50 ('Mich the olirt. 1,11((0 own,. , (Is tt,e- r01.111 thos, sstoos. lotirketi oroo.oss 111 softly. (1,,, to(vord opitort tinily. and t()(varcl 14111:11iznt 'mil or 1 TIN hurtlens, hove not move(1. 1111(51; i,,ii,.111 :1H !he larlre 'twins( rio Itirl)tti Stoles, the impetus to reft)rm is stymied in. sla..wed by iniorostst hot benefit, 1!11)111PSIS:A in lo \vs and h inii ,0.4ts II sill It, ;IrII.H.0,.sys1,,,. so h(.1;(.vo I11.1 :",t Or a Intl 17i;, 11:11 (10\'(9.111111111 plays enti ht. the critical hici«r. 1 l' t'ong-ross desitrtis lid t,,,serve its lis\,,rs1'1,1 luseded (.11:111,,,s,it (:in, \vitt) relutiel 111(11Ics.1. re:4)111.cos shift the entire ba lanci,, in .11noricati scluml finance. Ti ;lid the 1,,1,\ Scads 11,01 seek i 5(.11001 fllnclili, t()\\.:111 more 0lost IIond ognitilhle toN haSos and to distribute ::chool funds in communities .tr11,:tt prop()rtion t(I ,the e(lu('ati011:11 nee(ls 01' ittdiddual otn1 individu:11 senctols. intorj(4.1. Sonai.,,r; t hat, t he `t ;it e. (-)1' .1;liode timv (yell 1,0 Ono 01 t host' States (iem the conimi!.-tsioner: 17r. li.'tvd 11111:1;0, (VIII)I5 eloorly 011C Of (110:41;11111111!r i'01111111tiSlOal'I'S till' NO 1011:- 11(1:11011 o pr....gram tills sort II year ()I' I (VC) agt) :111(1 111121lt 1)(' :1110 :1111)1a it(VitlltlaSi 111111111s (If P.tsdel'a 111.0.!2Y:1111. "t-ont. let t.or il),;(:(1.1011 (0 Cy today lisl:e(1 115 In idra(v 1111o11 the. research that (e have done ,ond indie;ito lit(- i,relates to the:,T'oderol rQ10. Ill.reponsc Professor Icirst :id I have (.11.11(VII on Iltroo of

studies \e been (loin!, over the lost :"") years. ()no set of st tidies deolt wit h Fodor:11 'oid to odneat ion a lid!!h,,,role ((I the Federal (;'ove_ninentl..\ 5t'eta111 Itur(4,4,31.,11(10(Itt 9j. Shop illF.;(.1101)1 linnnep. \hich (e 11(1t 11 c(111dlichs(1. The I (ilo t)1. reset' rell' Hint (i. (11 touch on is our ciirrent work ill' \hieli N(' all' 0X:1111.6CM." *Hifi,: that 11 :1' 1011 .1110111 11S in HI('1):1:44:1;..',1` Of ;.:H11/01. I'l4(111 1a (\':,,;IIl SOVIsTa .StalOS. 1.1'1Int. (VIII It' itrior (4111111wir of our \\*(k 011 re(lvi:11 nifi od0wutic)11. , First. (vp +11:111111,)N 111)111:,. 11111)11SIIPl1 death l'arlisr this yl`:1 "FP(Ii'ra I.\ 01 r(111Cai : \\'11(01011efliS? ClOY01.11.S?I'

Si/H.1111:r 1:17.(41 11 i?-%'co !pain rpsearh l)()ject examittell Fedorol :11(111,)\v5, to linntlrods of sclu,o1 (list ri.ts ill siN St a tea. and the Stoteltul :Federal political aml odniinistrotie 2177

''t' itStt)iiIhIt IUUut''tflhiIiiI) \VlIutkiii(lStul t'luntI ulistut uuliiiutuuttuiiui ut tuuituls ituuiltui:ijttil't'uli'iul lt't'iuit'it iuiiltssiltltitt Siiiuiiiiiii?.t'iii!itI'\\i'iiit'iitt'liii'('ttii tltiSit)ii4 ollititt'Xt('tii\u't iitl\.itiullit't:; it' \\t' Ill it'\t't lit' iittuiiltti4 uItliiSiilut'(tiiilliittt't'uii:i\. Itt'utitt'!t'4t('(l iii it.\\tlit'ittut'liiiii. I iiititiiut f liii \\tiItiutti ilit' (t'ttlt'ltt\\ii lt ut .lutit'i III ittt'ii tIittilittitt'iiit'uitIiit.i tututttiiittt' ('thuittttttl:u\- tutluit'Iiil\.l)( iit t'( I iii it'!,t iii l1. lttst juuuItturthuit.u'!'liult.\\ittutu' ii ilitiitliut thut't'lutivphv stu:uhl

I tTttl titit lOt t huti i't't It'i'u I1(1t'tttiSt liii ('4 i tr(tliii I t'lv liii l I tt'tt'i!ii itillt'tluuu':uuiuutiult'Nhtt'uitlit uuit'S---:tt.'tS ttuilt iS :1 tuittLlfllliitt'('ti1t'lit ((ii titi it'ritit':ihiulluuut'tItuit':iuhtutulii'. \\luilu'titlt' Iut! i'i:.ttvit:u'l I't'ttuultlt'i't't' 4 1 uutttlt'Iut' S(li(tOl liii 11(1'r'toruui ril1iuiu.. Iutittl4tttiutultn\tuislut'tItist iiut, hiu'l'ujrut'ui'ul(('lit t;,l'it o'. 111(11 UMVt4t('015WIt Iit lit'Iiitllisti 'i tit It)itSt tilow uiu'UIF1(' 111(1 lOW ulPluit\i!ii!uttht.-_t ('(tuiSIttuitt -ttttt Slut11 1 lti'(tlt1t iutui(tioil pthit'u- (ittitul u'xhuu'uuthituu!'t ttt htlt)vi(lu'(loutt lin liiuiio'uhlSiSt:uTir(' t(tuuiulit. ott' tb' listuit'ts ituiI. lttut'ouut't'. tuitli lt'LLu!(I tu-t'littttllitiuuit'i'.t lit' \uT'inuiS t)thu(i1"'lt'i;il t'utou.ttt'ii'stt'uiih it('ittSSltiii'ltitSt'__o)ftt'iihui'litin_ttt'ti It luuulistulits \Vithil(t\t ltutuluo'Tt\ tix itt'S tuuttlutlutuui (in'u tit tutotitIitiit'tsuvitlu Iuiirli Itrotlttrt\' tix iitt's. titus tilsuttiTi tutt'ii it'iiutsit tthui:ulizit liii. .tIl this. of ('ututusi,Is uutfitt'ujtiu'lzutIntuu'hulti't'tsof' thuu'!'t'luiil

('alt'2Ti('S.hit' I lOt tLr(t!iu'S\\(i t'tttitt 'filth t)itt uth(lu 5rhiOO liTi:uiut'(itrthtli'uii i'('('t iv.

't't'ouuulitotli C.! Ii lii \'i' I lIT't'( tu'tl$1 ii(It'4(tiSt0t1S011(Htiliii ii(.'t' 1tnhoitut. h)u'. l?t'ik' vis roIiutotu ttftuuhl ut lu Svu:uruisu' ITtulvcu_ sitv hist'i iii (tthu. fur itt' Nt'uv Vouu'l4 Stitu' (ttfuiflisSit0 tutu flu' u'ot uuuuliiu-, iuutl Iiuuiuut'iuu.rtttt'(Ilitit.ittui.''h''iiu:uiut'iiigl't1uiil h'(1ll&Oi- tiouuil ()iuitttutuiuuii\.''io'ul4o'l t',u: 1t( uutu'hi;uuihiultIlsluiui1 ('oul.. I971. ottiuutliruttuItujili .'\. h (':utuultitt'lh:uuilh. .1.(ot'tit'I:ti! ;i tui1v .iuullu1thio)huiO suhittul fiii;utitt': itiulti II xuus sthittttIfiiuiuit'o'itSt'.xl)eli uiu Itti' t ho' Iuli it ill's iiibit' /uou1ui1uie: 1st'. h)i,liut u\':us i(u''iuti\' 1IliOltuittttisuiituuittotthut',i'htuiioIi (Iou'uuittts ('ouiuiiuittt't' tutituuluhir Iuhuut'uttu! \\hiuth4('iO'OOtutliui('TitItti(tTiS \'t!'t' iuitotittrutt'(l ituttu't;uttliut' tios ltut shui'iuiu' :uiuti uttistituut' tuhiut us tunu'uul lv cnuusiilt'iu'uit lit'utitttlulso'luottltutu ott'l:i w iii(lit Nt ion tuitlut' tuuti uvu hiuu'' htttthituuuihui.tttltuuuhitslout'tt!iUT('SSittTi;hl ('0)10- nulltt'o iiitl (hit' I S4. ( )lhjtt' ttl!'.tlnu:it ittui Whti('li iii to' Sit ivt'vt'tl htittithit' hit' stlutooi liii tutu' (itul uht'uiu i lit' u( 4t:ot c'so)I tlit' Nutlotuu.

i'hut'suit.uuuhit's hi:u vu' hItus uvit hi isitu il usunsu' nt I lit'tiso':i I('rISIS flint. huts hupu huuulhchlttu'utuut\u'u u ohu'u:uolp. W hut vust'oui sturiiutduit'i(louiuh tcttu. l(';ttl tot totlut iuiuiu Iiuitro1505jut itrnhot'itv lix tilts intl huiuiuiu'tus nut] tto utt'ttuol it'jtot lotus otl' su'hiutnlt tx hou'lt'nuuti ltuund551105. \\htib'' iuuSt S('but)ouhtlist itt i\u'iu't'Oiufu't:uiSi!ui_ is t1 iiitt'ulit.v soituut'Ijt rittis bunthuotl to btt'ut 1 liihuoniu'itr htiuidtii thuuti uttluous. hI:outhu'ulull .utuu'it5 ittItt' (1) iuri.rutoil huuruu tutunuitluu'tstiurui ruth oil it's uvitlu luputtulO uiu;uiuulliii thutir fox hOstI'otr otlut'ipuihhie itt's:intl iiiill ituriutuis tuf thuu't)uuuutl'\ () tttitldht' lno'onit u1niib wit hihidhu''ttluiflu.ti(ju Ituoptut vuuuul uiih)o\'t'iishit'oI111111 (t'('tiS. 'l'tuui. thuuuuri'uhitit'jSSuui ilunt full! si tRIOS hive 1'o''P110(1 iSthit'. :urluitrniv tiutuuto rut' niost St ;iiu'/hut'ul sluittuhtiuu;iuueusvfo'iuus, (luiruic.- t'rjsfitihhu'. tlitvui'stult.iiiiuiu.rhuu'i fu,vttu.S intout!' thisttit (t1uos 217S 1 least able: to support high tax rates). :Ind a distribution of revenues for e;diteat ;oil that, is lit, hest unrelated and often inversely related to t he Ire(' for educ:It irm:11 services. Thils communities with liirli pro- p(-)rt i(ms of children from minority groups or iiiiiit)erislied homes pupils 1.1lose education' typically requires hill costresource 9110- cid ions to compensate for et)\.i l'oninetilit Idisiith.antii!_retend to lie located in the poorest (list Huts or in t hose. lil;e large cities with corn- pet nigr demands for olunic.iilisrvirits. which rind it exceeditigl difficult to devote resources to education. Tit short. our studies of State/local :4(.111)(11 finance prol.dents reveal 0 crisis in the tquit and t he ellicienc of resource raisins :Ind allOcation in puhlic education. TIN'loud eil of our research whirl, is rele\atit today is a projec.t, eurrent lv underway in wine', we and our eon" eltes at the Syracuse liesearch Corp.. Robert ,L. Goett el, Debra N. Diener ittul )tos1;owity.. are invest i:rating the factors which liav led to recent. 'enact monis (if school finance reform laws in six :desNtaine, Florida. 1 -t l(intiesotti) and to the passage 1w the. .legislatitre tali defeat by referendum of such legislation in Oregon. Vhiletho lows in voch.of these States vary. there are eettlin Pin- Hides %vhich they shore in whole or in part : greater State a.ssitnip- ion of school costs and. shi ft ii%\.:). from the local property tax:(1i)a lessening in therii lent of expenditure ariafion anmng dist rims: (o) tirettter Ninnliznt ion of ION lairdens from district to dis- t rict :(a') the retention of ;t drvree of local choice in sett ing. tax rates: (c) uppo limits on local proi iert v tax rates: (f) allocat ions of v(111011- ti()11:11 tyst)iirros 111relation ti) p(Ilicutional need: (g) adjustments of State aid in proport ion to Cost. of hying: (J) ;;F,tattt assumption or some or all Construction costs: and (,) reform of property tax assessment 1.1' firstlino' Provisions Were common to all laws: the II Ve \\Tr(' 111T:4011i' ill Iraq one. Till'. 111111)0Se' of this roseate}). howevor. is not focused oti the stll't- sin nee of the la ws themselves. Rather, the emphasis of the invest ig.a_ t ion is to examine the events and factors \vIticli are associated with successful passage. As a result We have spent the last several months le(iislat ors, journalists.. interest grout) headers. awl stair Of Corve-cors. legi;:littlints'and education departments in, those seven

Stides. While :1fasinittio. variety exists.in the course of events in , each o ft he Stati s. some common themes emerge. First. %Ye hove folititi the role of le:rislittorsediteation committee chairmen in some States. ,Dealers of f he :louse. and Sletiate major- ily lenders in ol hers---loha ye liven I Ill' most. critical factor providing. leadership in most of the st ales t hat passed strong. "form g. Thoir :111111,ty to 11111101;111k1the.. prohlems and the pc)ssildp. solutions; and. their %\illin.(ness to assemble the coalitions. of support, hive been a primary inyTc(lient for success in inost of our States. iito\eritors played' '; major role in talc State that passed an effect i1"('. reform law, hilt leadership;I:4 prim ril- leLrishit i \-e in most. fecund. \e have. looked intensively iit the paci:oge. of IlleaSlieS which had to he conil'i tied to secure passage of school finance reform: liropert y to N relief ajal insome, status; a Monta* of related education nicasnres.in others: 'support or !vival of measures only tani.rentialle related in still others. In virtual!ever" case, however. the SC11011111n:1111T4'4401'1111111'llS111'1'(1111 not 1111 4110116'11 S111111ffit to !MSS in 111111 or itscif.

Third, ;111d SOIlli't hat S1111111(1 IR. Of SOIlle 10!eiS.1:11 i011. NV('1*(11111(1I 1111I, tilt! i11111141W4( Of 1;10 ON ON101'11:11 to 1404111;114.(1111'111 1011:11pOliC,y111:1king in t he State played a keN. role. The. most. obvious c.xkrnal factorIt the be0.innin0. of our investi aot wns t h" iml);tvlof ...Ill+ (.tises..s'f'rotno al'llor"Ii" or Pm : tictilar.State castk: In NI itinesota ;old Kansas. But t here 'are other external factors operat ing IS %Yell. role or the 0111c:11 im) vommissioll tho, Stales. sump of the Nvoll_knowo vd111.:dion1d fin:Inco studies. Of foundations which supporicil research and eon ferences---all Nvere re- Ported h key letrishnors, le!rislat ;Ye staff. and executiveofficials as 11:1Villg played Si:0611411111 rule in helping them to understand their problems and 10> shape si,1111ions. Fowl h. i1.4 01'('I'y Mate where t here was significant rtform. the. existence of a surplus in t he Stvto, t reasurv. frequent ly imexpeetetl. or the 1454 of redern I roventv_siariir sinners 0V15 (41Sid(Nt1 critical to 111SS:1reoft he 1401111 Ill NVS.'')-4111 1.:111 on1y 011410 lizo on a rising tide.

11.11511P. 11:1.1" 11:111 114' Sp(':11:01' of t he I louse in one State put it While 'under Soule of !he eg44 ;1 liznt ion1;1 ws some. WenItily 1001 districts will rovjvc, no ;4,1 nte ;CHI winitsovvi.i., :old some other~ face :1 reduct ion. such justurnes a re 1 and inrolre0l Only :1 tiny percent are of tit, hates districts and violins. in most (.:iSeSit liaS 1)0011 IleeeS- sary to "leAel op: so t hat while the advanta:re that Ally districts have had in the past. is lessened. and the !rains of poorer districts may be substantial, no dist riot ivally 'loses in rerard to spending levels. exce.i,t its relative 10sit ion in t lie eXpenditite range. Local tax burdens. however, while decreasing overall. Ito Ve in 51)fiO4 Wen Ithivi. syluvol systems, The point, is. hoeover, that simple redistribut ion of cNoctiiiit.tic iccis which 0yould, balance cah whet, not and o'snit. in llo Ilet, addition to Stitt. CNI1V11(lil 1111's has nowhere been either soll;_rbt144 ocrom !dished. Insteadthe. .1,\,,ting pronch has hvelllothwed. and there. 11;110.therefore 110491 VOSIS lISSOCillled With the arl011IpliS11111('111 of greater '(inn ization. 1110140' COSI-S have been met largely by callitor upon surpluses or by t IleIlse of Federal ;1'01101.:1 I 1'01'01111 sharing funds to cushion tnnisition or pay t he first year costs of. the prO.rranY. For 5(1111e of larger States NeW 1 York, P01111S\'1 10 or Illinois costs 4'011111 be subst a nt 1111116114r over 7I 11;11r-billion dollars each. halve stated t hose cotteitisiorn; from our current-. work v..ith as !Intel1 confidence as we contd. yet ve must warn that 0111. project is only halfway throngh., that wi are in month ::).or a 9- 1(101111)stmly schedule. and t hat we lin ve not vet. systematically an the seven States on t heir many tferinu.elta ies. 1-et when NVe were inyitect to nppear lien, the implieationS 0l theShull'for Federal policy toward infra -Mate igiuu 1.17.M ion of ex_ pendit tires seemed so clear that t hotprlitit. would he approprate. to have this tIseo8sion with h you t ciday. lIrliat are those implieat ions? First. 00' believe thatt videspread ilefeets in A !net-lean 50.11...01 financing, are not likely to clear III) by themselves. rede.ra I aid categories. with ilie exception of ESE:\ title T. do little to rectify flee situation. Most proposals. such 11S those. for 21.SO

variants of gettera Iaid, special reenue sharing:. or the assumPt ion of nil ucr;lll1)11`1'11"11 of sr11111 costs 11" 1)1''tthird) I'Y the Federal Goaernment. Will not necessarilyencourage shool reform. For the Slane helm vior liaNl' t' NA'11In the fl'NV Atl'S Metre Sio.r11.11.111111t 01111;1[1Z:11 10h 11A5 I IN' oet'1111141. Slltrgl'AS I hat ;lie impact of vNieniii forcesncll as etltlrt casi,s ;Hui a national \N:1r of :(form agitation Was, a central rai.tor irl1/1.111,6110.change. Judicial intervention IIIt II IIAS (*lead: SIONN't`II. and if there is to by a national lin tot its for vivo or 4401;11;1V of (4111(.1r:inn:Li opportunity. itWill groat l\sprctimi rYtottrements attached to AIll!N prOgra Ill of Pederti If mitts: requirements to insurehat State finance systems do not. ct int imte in thy patterns of the pastfunds to help pay III' the initial costs of leelin:, up. Some :tates. of course, \\'.111MON' tONVA 117.0 lOo on I 'wit' oNvo livrs. hoNrever. \VIII !wed Fedeal rt'S011r('I'S Mill A F04101'0 I .111(A111 hull' At111111 Such a Vleral program Wort:? First ofall. we roust accommodate r:Ingl' Of State polit Ira Iand fiscal traditions and preferences. The enormous and fundamental diversity ofthe :11111,Hr:tit St atys results in one specific formula being optimal for(mo State but biter nonsenserm.:11,011ot. This argues for flexible Federal standards. Ender such a plan 1 he Federal (overtintent. \ild monitor expendi- t two tlisparitins caused 1,v differences in school district Nealth rat ht,r III:111 11.1.11(A'5 11111:401.1 by free local choices of tax rates or differential funding for disadvantaged pupils. 'i't, qualify, a:-.;tait, must rrdnre \\Tait h_based dispiuiiiis. f...tm,ii a plan Nould permit States to choosyan effective reform approach, frill State assumpt (list rict. poNor equa I izinr, increased foundation pco.Tams. oh,comhinat ion of those hasie plans. Iu addition. the Fed- eral (;overnment craild reNard provisions for recognizing cost. Of lit into different ittIS Or for provid *ow NNvjght iwrs for (14(91.0.mledn- catittiud 1114418Nliwat joltof hatuTicapped children. the disadvantaged. et. ceterawhere effective educational practices re(pdre higher limn erage reson rces. loVenlge concept St MISfrom a preill t Shat(' IS the ern vial factor in c(itutlizimr school resources. and itassumes that itis the \ye:11th of t he entire State that. should be the basis for each child's school expenditures. C'onsequentiv. the Federal incentive IS directed at. an increased 'fate role in compensation for the N-ariat ions in local dis- t rit \yeah 11 and retitient!r intrastate expenditure disparit ieS. This does not imply Mitt.. increased State emit rot of local curriculum, teachers, and educat lona I pract ices \rill necessarilyfollow. voters :111t1 It'gISI:ItOrtiof eachtateNOUld he fro' to det'l'IMII14`.. 11011' hest 10 I iZIAI etlneational opportunity given their par- t ;cilia r traditions and eiretimstances. The plan Would preserve the diversity- of met hod thatis the 11:111::larl; of American federalism \\*hill'itre(ltices the diversity in educational opportunity thatis its shame. This program to arhieve greater equalizrIt ion of expenditures does not in itself ial:e accountIfI he fact that some pupils need "more. t Nola I- amounts spent on t hei r education. II is critical that, a new Federal role in finance. reform should not come at theexpense of the 91SI plif.pocs ti(II.or and spe,ial cducat ion categorical Programs are intended to serve.

1 !Hived. t it Ii 1 should he expanded because or its itiii.otint fut. tiviint, ;11.t.as ;Hid ponr t.tinti dist ii,) nnd for its Ill !:rittgirtg It dis:1,11.11,1igio. intwil tit,t1 lygitint ittiis ,I /ri)j(lplinos 1,1() 1):Ivv impact 011 t111k a1111 100:11 1)11111 iii. 11111 such 11111)1C1c1)1111,5 through an incremental process of several years 111.,11 guidelines and re.rultti ions are not chan.,,ed frequently. Tit It1. for t;Nample. adheres much more closely to Federal intent in 197:1 than inI 9GT. In short. it is important that the focus on ecoutli- zat ion does not lead towaling i he severe ethical lona] probfems itt the disadvantaged as :to a 1'1,91 hourlit by usin,r only %di:never 11111111'y is left 11111*S1 'iC1C1111:1111 iS :11 -10 1)1061111 eNt I'a 111 Sf}1111TS 101'1 he11iS:111 0'011:W-1'11. The nionoy t lint is Ivrt over will Theraorv.:1 provision %void,' Frderid bonuses for Stnly prorrofils1 lint give added litioncin!r for hard to etbicatc * * 1, the ilisativan- taged and handicapped. This allocat ion vould. 11:4 already noted. have a concomitantbenefitof convent rating statteNN-liat: more funds in cities and rin'al areas than Stare school .0(ionlizat ;oil1.,401.11, would do. Ni't' should not forget that our prime etmeern iswith the redistrilint ion of ethienticutal opportunity amml ,.chiltlren and imt just the retlist ribut ion of dollars among. dist ricts. Hind ion of money:11one does not neces'sarilv lend to a rNlist H11111-1011 of P(1110:1t1011:11 Old-COMPS. COITSP(1111911 Iv, /11'141:ISI/LSI:11d1:11 F1111cral COMMit111(d11 to 111SP:1 to 110111011Si 111 11-111. 1111(1 111)000 :Illfit11111/1P1110111 1011of new etinent ional approaches and techniques. Earlierinour statementwe stig-gstedthatthe program we ;ire urging today is consistent with flit' low:establishedtradition of t Fedoral role in education. 11.11 Sat hat because the history of Federal assistanee to educat ion has been liklihi.rlitttl by numerous insi tutees %viten comrress and t he exeent ice ident died pressiner efluent ional needs, national in scope. and have provided the stimulus for Si ate :Ind local responses, 1 II precisely that manner, Fetleral aid helped to begin school lunch Programs tita time of widespread economicdislocation. Then in the late1 9:O's inresponse to substantial nit ieism()I'flit' quality of .1m('ric1n (,(111(at ion. NI )F,.\ Yas passed to help upgrade curriculum and inst met i(m. The widespread convert, of the 114;(1sist les for eradicating the lasting effeets of povert v broughtt be. largest of Federal entegt)rical prop-rants to date. ESE A. V111C1111:1S sI 111111111tPd a 111'011i1 l'1111CatiO11:11CO114*(1111 %Vit 11Itt 1101'00 fOl'e ttoolected national pr(tl)lem. t lie I eachim, of la, poor anti cducat disadvantr,ged. 1-11 the 1i1tt of that history, a program of aid te, encourage States to undertake school thin tint' rvforn, Seems to 11S 7111:111111'01111.1at 11('W itrit)rity on the Federal Nine:Oita:al agenda. States in every part of t))c Nat ion are wrest ling- ivitli flit' tasks of Nola educational opport U- nities and financial responsibilities. The idea that the totality of a ehtilds eduratiim shoult1 not depend on so arbitrary a factor as the availal)ilit.v of -valuable 11 al property or the absence of substantial 11111111elp111OVerblIrdell 1.. itW.1(1c11. allpreClated :SIMI of interested cif 17.011S, parents. public ollic1111S.1111(1 edlleatOS. Sho forum his:t a :1 j1;11,(1(for' file 11e00111111iS111111'111 Of 1 110c. 1 )111'1/0A'S in 1'11 6Ni, yet effective. ways. 11That has delayed widespread pissave or eireetive equalization ln \vs has been the age-old difficult y of overcoming or reconciling those vdto heneflt, from current school finance systems. To do that States need help, help inI he wa or additiond resources to level till nod to case she burden of transition 1'0;1 l'S. 110111 in 1111' 1111.1' Of 11'11S01111111(' Federal 1111111`111(.111S to 10'01'410 11lever 10 SC 1111111;111' t'11:1114r0 in I'Xisting State policy. T11 1 /1'01M1'1 i011 to 101111(1111(`;11 1011:11 spending, the costs wottld not he high. T11 most Stales the bill for thoroo,h-goio!, equalization with substantial 191 \yould probably 001 exceed 1)(111'llt of 1'111'1'01A eXpl'Ildil 1111(1 the 1..(1101:11 511111'('111111(1 111'0(1 to bear only o proportion of that. The history of Federal educational finance in Thee los,t, decode :Ind a ha provide ample precedent for a commitment of that mognit tide. From 19:1S to 19(iI Federal expenditures doubled: in10611 they more than doubled in single year. (1111111111111.0111111:4. Ihen 1111 11' C11111%1OtP1'17.111 the11 recentfiscal lliStOty till' 1' ell(T111 role. Tt is our l'i1.0111111011(1111i011 10(111 V. 11:1S0(1 51111:4111111 1;111 1' 111)00 till' VieWS we have developed in 1h, course (If our ITS('1111'11 011 school 101:1111'. 1111(1 FI1101'111 1-11111!:11i(11111 11)01i0V, flint this eommittee adopt a j)rogram, to help States to reform t heir systems of school finance. The goal ofthe. ItTislot ion would be to :ISsurelint the quality of education a receives does not vary simply because of the 11'1)itt'ary distribution of the local eopacit v to support oducitt i011 withineach fitnh'. AV( believe that a policy of that 1:ind 1.0111(1 hen \vorthy.oPproPrinie, and NVidolV 111)pl'eei:11 NI component of the Federal role. in American school finance. Thank you, mr. chairman an(1 senator statromr. I will by NIPPY to take whatever quest ions you have. Senotmr r think rrankiv you have given a !rood statement. Tt is fairly tom,. 1-nit covered most or the questions we had in mind. at, least those that T had in mind. Thereisonepointfliow,11. Y011 111011ti011141 thefact that. 7 percent of the educational costs of the Notion are 1)ortio by the Federal Government. 1V fiat do you t would be the f.ost of the program you are swrgestin!r? 1-on sny it \You'd not exceed '20 percent of C111Tellt l ' N 1 W 1 1 ( 1 1 1 I f we did timve in the direction you suggest, that would almost triple Federal expenditures. would it 'not, which at this point in thie laid.ret, with all trond 11'i 11 in till` 1V01'1(1. T do not. think we would be able to override flint kind of veto. Mfr. I :MI 1101 proposing that the Federal government pick tip the entire cost of such it1) fn. I thin]; ;1 variety of approaches would lie possible that could come in at figures \vhicli could be adjusted, to meet the forimibts Iluttvvere. devised. T think \ye ore, lio\vever, talldivr about seveol billions of dollars. T have seen estimates that. $1 billion (»S billion could curry !rood share of the. pograrn. Senat PELL, Thatis not 20 percent of current. exj)endittires, Mr. T 11S5.11111e the States themselves should Iwor a portion of 2153 the 1)11111011.Ith, ti(4 believe that the Federal goVertttiellt needpick up the entire rest of leveling up. Ibelieve the States are in a position at. the present bolo to bear notch of t he costthemselves. \\*hat %ye need. however. is an incentive. some. help in picking up initial eosts. and that is where INvould see a Federal program fitting in. Senator Thank you very ((melt. oNsiniaLelos rypoirr :41.11:1101. S.wrotiu. Thank you. Mr. Chairman. I am sorry1 was not able to In here fla allt Nvit flosses' test imonv. I underst:tml that you have ve test i lied will) respect toleveling- up I effort of the St :11 t t'S.

I%V1)11111.1* if under t hat theory any Federal effort to help the States level lilt should take into consideration each State's individual financial e trort or slum 1(1 lie a 1)1a nket formilla for t count ry as a whole! Mr. Brizio:, Senator.Ihire :111(11'0S:4Pd niVS01f today not to the question of allocations to States. Ina to the intrastate gaestion. In h.rtns of developing- a formula vhiell %von Id determinetotal artmunt. a vailahle to each State.Iwould fission() its tax ell'ort%multi lsk an appropriate factor and a State like Vermont. Nwhich mmakes av. ery strong- tax effort, should ha Vt.t 11:It l'aOt re Warded. I think most of t he formulas I have seen I hat deal with t ht) Statedistributions %you'd t :die t hat into account. yes sir. Senator ST.FPotto. Thanl: you. 11r. Chairman. St)nat(or you very lunch. \I. lierl:e. [Statement referred to follmvs [The. prepared statement of 1I r. lierke foll()%vs;1

4 , 0' 14 21S-I BEST :IJA.ABLE.

. A RULE THE FEDkAL GOVER:1MET REUORMANC SCULILU.FINACE

Statement Presented Lo The U.S. Senate Committee on Labor and Public. Welfare Subcommittee on Education Claiborne Pell, Chairman

Joel S. Berke DirP.ccor, EducationalFinance and. Governance Program Policy institute of the Syracuse University ReSearcb Corporation

Michael W. Kirst Assistant Professor of Business Administration and Education Stanford University

October 4, 1973 2185 BEST affirff!li,BLE

OVERVIEW

Whether the federal government will assist states to eliminate the

inequitable, inefficient, and irrational methods by which most of them

finance public schools today is one of the most critical educational

questions facing the Congress. During the last two years, court cases

and commission reports have led us to a watershed, a point at which there

is far greater public understanding of the problems of state systems of

school finance than at any other time in American history.Even the

majority of the U.S. Supreme Court in holding that there is no Consti-

tutional guarantee to an equitable school finance system in the

Rodriguez case readily admitted that "the need is apparent for'reform in.

tax systems which may well have relied too long and too heavily on the

local property tax. And certainly innovative thinking as to public edu-

r,ation, its methods and its funding, is necessary..." Justice Stewart,

who cast the deciding vote by concurring with the Powell opinion, was

even stronger in his criticism: "the method of financing public schools

in Texas, as in almost every other state, has resulted in a system of

public education that can fairly be described as chaotic, and unjust."

In the weeks that followed the.reversal of the Rodriguez case last

March, several states shouldered the burden of reforming their school

finance systems by passing landmark laws to bring vastly greater fairness

to school taxpayers and greater equality of opportunity to school children.

Bdt in most other states, the impetus towardreform was slowed or stymied

by interests that benefit from existing laws and by the initial costs of

shifting to a fairer, more efficient method of raising and distributing

revenues for public education. This is particularly true of the largest

urban states. 21S6 ABLE BEST COP1 inn 2.

In this state of affairs the role played by the federal government

can be the critical factor. If Congress designs aid programs to serve

as levers for needed change, it can, with relatively modest resoirces,

shift the balance in American school finance. It can aid the many states

that seek to moveschool funding toward more elastic and equitable tax

bases; and to distribute school funds in greater relationship to the dif-

fering educational needs of individual communities and schools. Our

statement today is designed to suggest the broad outlines of a federal

program to accomplish those purposes; a program that provides broad dis-

cretion for state and local policymaking in the design of state finance

systems but which furnishes adequate incentives for change, an approach

that is well within the traditional federal role of providing aid to

states to help them deal with educational problems that are national in

scope.

LESSONS DRAWN FROM OUR RELEVANT RESEARCH

Since your invitation to us to testify 'today asked that we share the

requizs of our research with you, we shall bri,?fly describe the studies we have been conducting for nearly five years and the lessons we believe they

contain for our topic today.

On Feder,d Aid

First, we, are co-authors of a book, published by D.C. Heath earlier this year, Federal Aid to Education: Who,Benefits? Who *Governs?, which

summarized a two year team research project that examined federal aid flows BEST COPY. MILABLE

to hundreds of school districts in six states, and whichdescribed the

state and federal political and administrative practicesresponsible for

determining what kinds of school districts got what amounts offunds

from major federal programs. Because it is impossible to summarize in

a few sentences the conclusions of that extensivestudy, and because we

believe the members of this subcommittee may be interested in it, we are

attaching a summary of that work from the Georgetown Law Journal as an

'appendix to this statement. But a few points relevant to today's topic

may be stated rather simply.Most important, perhaps, was our finding

that the relatively small proportion that total federal aid constitutes

(approximately 7% of all educational expenditures) acts only as a mar-

ginal increment laid on top of a critically flawed state and local base.

While Title I of ESEA by itself could, serve as a model for school finance

reform - - rifling funds to impoverished districts, beleaguered central

cities, !;nd to systems with the highest proportions of low income and low

achieving pupils - - it constitutes too small a proportion of all edu-

cational: expenditures to provide more than limited assistance to many of

the districts It aids. Moreover, with regard to school finance, the

various other federal categories work at cross purposes - - often helping

wealthy districts with low property tax rates more than they assist poor

districts with high property tax rates, thus offsetting stateattempts

at equalization. All this, of'course, is not to criticize the architects

of the federal categories. Their categories were never intended to attack

the school finance problem directly.

On problems of State Finance Systems

Second, both of us have directed studies of state school finance

problems. Dr. Berke was co-director of studies at the Syracuse University Research Corporation for the New York State Commission on the Cost,

Quality and Financing of Education (Financing Equal Educational 2ppor-

tunity, Berkeley: McCutchan Publishing Corporation, 1972, co-authored with A.K. Campbell and R.J. Coettel.);.of a study of SOuth:Carolina

school :inane; and of Texas school finance as expert witness for the

plaintiffs in the Rodriguez case. Dr. Kirst was recently principal

consultant for the Florida Governor's Committee on Public Education

whose recommendations were incorporated into state law this past spring

and constitute what is generally considered the model school finance

law in the nation today. And we have both conducted studies for Congres-

'tonal committees and the United States Office of Education which have

surveyed broadly the school finance problems in the fifty states of the

nation. These studies have left us with a sharp sense of the fiscal

crisis that has been building for over a decade. We have seen soaring educational costs lead to continual Increases in property tax rates and

burdens and to record rejections of school tax levies and bond issues.!

While most school districts perceive revenue raising as a problem,

in reality some distrizts have had to bear a far heavier burden than others. Hardest hit appear to be (1) large Northern and Midwestern central cities with heavy demands on:their tax tease for other public services; and in all regions of the country (2) middle income suburbs with little commercial property and (3) impoverished rural areas.

To us, the overriding issue that our studies have revealed is the arbitrary nature of most state/local school finance systems. Char- icteristically, they result in higher tax rates in poor districts (those least able to support high tax rates), and a distribution of revenues for education that is at best unrelated and often inversely related to 218!) BESTCOP;

the need for educational services. Thus communities with high propor-

tions of children from minority groups or impoverished homes -- pupils

whose education typically requires high cost resource allocations to

compensate for environmental disadvantage -- tend to be located in the

poorest districts or in those, like large cities with competing demands

for other municipal services which find it exceedingly difficult to

devote resources to education. In short', our studies of state /local

school finance problems reveal a crisis in the equity and the efficiency

of resource raising and allocation in public education.

C. On Current State Finance Reform Efforts

The third area of our research which is relevant today is'a project

currently underway in which we and our colleagues at the Syracuse Univer-

sity Research Corporation, Robert J. Goettei and Debra N. Diener, are

investigating the factors which have led to recent enactments of school

finance reform laws in six states (Maine, Florida, Utah, Kansas, Cali-

fornia, and Minnesota) and to the passage by the legislature but defeat

by referendum of such legislation in Oregon. While the laws in each of

these states vary, there are certain principles which they share In whole

or in part: a. greater state assumption of school costs and, therefore,

a' shift away from the local property tax; b. a lessening in the range of

"expenditure variation among districts; c, greater equalization of tax

burdens from district to district; d. the, retention of a degree of local

choice in setting tax rates; e. upper limits on local property tax rates;

f. allocations of educational resources in relation to educational need;

g. adjustments of state aid in proportion to cost of living; h. state

assumption of some or all construction costs; and i. reform of property 2100 EST' .COPY: AVA1LABLE.

tax assessment procedures. The first four provisions were common to all

laws; the last five were, present in at lea:.? one.

The purpose of this research, however, is not focutsed on the sub-

stance of the laws themselves. Rather, the emphasis of the investigation

is to examine the events aid factors which-are associated with successful passage. As a result we have spent the last several months interviewing

legislators, journalists, interest group.leaders, and staffs of-governors, legislatures and education departments in those seven states.While a

fascinating variety exists. in the course of events in each of thestates, some common themes emerge.

First, we have found the role of key legislators -- education committee chairmen in some states, Speakers of the House and 'Senate majority leaders in others -- to have been the most critical factor providing, leadership. Their ability to understand the problems and the possible solutions, and their willingness to assemble the coalitions of support have been a primary ingredient for success in most of our states.Gover- nors played a major role in two states, but leadership was primarily legislative in most.

Second, we have looked intensively at the package of measures which had to be combined to secure passage of school finance reform:property, tax relief and reform in some states, a number of related education measures in others; support or repeal of measures only taagentially related instill others. In virtually every case, however, the school finance reform measure did not have enough support to pass in and of itself.

Third, and here we touch on something that should be ofsome inter est in the development of federal legislation, we found that the inflUence 2W1 BEST CopyAVAILABLE

of: factors external to.normal educational policy-making in the stateplayed

a key role. The most obvious external factor at the beginning of our inves-

tigation was the impact of court cases, Serrano et algenerally or partic-

ular state cases in Minnesota and Kansas. But there are other external

factors operating as well. The role of the Education Commission of the

States, some of the well-known educational finance studies,of foundations

which supported research and conferences -- all were reported bykey

legislators, legislative staff and executive officials as having played

a significant role in helping them to understandtheir probleMs and to

shape solutions.

Fourth, in every state where there was significant reform, the exis-

tence of a surplus in the state treasury, frequently an unexpectedone,

or the use offederal revenue sharing monies was considered critical to

passage of the reform laws. "You can only equalize on a rising tide,"

was the way that the Speaker of the.House in one put ".it. While under

some of the equalization laws some wealthy school districtswill receive

no state aid whatsoever, and some others face a reduction, such instances

are unusual and involve only a tiny:percentage of the states,' districts

and pupils. In most cases it ,has been necessary to "level up," so that

'while the advantage that wealthy districts have had'in the past 'is

sened, and the gains of poorer districts may be substantial,no district

really loses anything except its 'relative position in the expenditure 1,

range.' Local tax burdens, hoWever, while decreasing overall: have increased'

in some wealthier' school systems. The point ishowever, that simple

redistribution of expenditure levels which would balance each other and result in no net addition to state expenditures has nowhere been

either sought or accomplished. Instead, the "leveling up" approach has

been followed, and there have therefore been costs associated with the

accomplishment of greater equalization. Those costs have been met

largely by calling upon surpluses or by the use of federal general revenue

sharing funds to cushion the transition or pay the first year costs of the

program. For some of the larger states like New York, Pennsylvania, or

Illinois such costs could be substantial, running over a half-billion dol-

!ars each.

We have stated these conclusions from our current work with as much

confidence as we could, yet we must warn that our project is Only half-

way through, that we are in month five of a nine month study schedule,

and that we have not yet systematically analyzed our data or undertaken

rigorous comparisons among the seven states on their many differing char-

acteristics. Yet when we were invited to appear here today, the impli-

cations of the study for federal policy toward intrastate equalization of

expenditures seemed so clear that we thought it would be appropriate to

'have this discussion with you today.

IMPLICATIONS FOR FEDERAL POLICY TOWARD INTRASTATE EQUALIZATION

Yhat c,,e those implications? First, we believe that the wideSpread

defects in American school financing are not likely to clear up by them

selves. Federal aid categories th: exception of ESEA I, do little'

to rectify the situation. Most proposals, such as those for variants of

general aid, special revenue sharing, or the assumption of an overall 2193

BEST. UV? 9.

proportion of schoOl costs (say a.quarter or athird) by the federal govern- For the state ment will not neceszarlly encourageschool financti reform. significant etitial- behavior we have observed, even in thefew states

ization has recently occurred, suggeststhat the impact of external forces

such as court cases and a national waveof reform' agitation was a central clearly Iactor in bringing change. Judicial intervention' in this area has

slowed, and if there is to be a nationalimpetus for greater equality of

educational opportunity, it will be greatlyspeeded by requirements attached

rcqu;rements to insure that state fi- to a new program of federal fv..7da: help nance systems do not continue inthe patterns of the past; funds to Some states, of course, will pay for the initial cos Ls ofleveling up.

move toward greater equalization ontheir own; others, however, will need

Fedetal resources and a federal incentive.

How would such a federalprogramwork? First, we must accommodate a'

The, vide range of state politicaland fiscal traditions and preferences.

enormous and fundamentaldiversity of the American states results in one

specific formula being optimal for onestate but utter nonsense for another.

This argues for flexible federal standards.Under such a plan the federal

eXpenditure disparities caused by differences in government ;would monitor

school district wealth rather, thandifferences caused by free local' choices

To qualify, of tax rates or differential funding fordisadvantaged pupils.

Such's plan would permit, a state must reduce wealth-baseddisparities.

states to choose anv effective reformapproach, Full State Assumption, Dis-

trict Power Equalizing, increased foundationpLog,tams, or a combination of reward pro- these basic plans. In addition, the federal government could

visions for recognizing cost of living differentials or forproviding 2 14 3EST CO??MIME 10. weightings for differential educational needs (education of handicapped children, the disadvantaged, etc.) where effective educational practices require higher than average resources.

This leverage concept starts from a premise that the state is the crucial actor' in equalizing school resources, And it assumes that it is the wealth of the entire state that should be the basis for each child's school expenditures. Consequently, the federal incentive is directed at an increased state role in compensating for the variations in local dis trict wealth and reducing intrastate expenditure disparities. This does not imply that increased state control of local curriculum, teachers, and educational pracrires will necessarily follow. The voters and legislators of each state would be free to determine how best to achieve equalized educational opportunity given their particular traditions and tircumstances.

The plan would preserve the diversity of method that is the hallmark of

American Federalism while it reduces the diversity .14i educational opportunity that is its shame.

THE ROLE OF CATEGORICAL PROGRAMS

This program to achieve greater equalization of expenditures does not in itself take account of the fact that some pupils need "more than equal" amounts spent on thair:cdtication. It is critical that a new federal role in finance reform should not come at the expense of the purposes Title

of ESEA and special education categorical programs are intended to serve.

Indeed, Title I should be expanded because of its Important fiscal benefits

(for urban areas and poor rural districts) and for its role in bringing emphasis and concern to education of, the rOsadvantaged.We have found that reguiati and guideiins do have impact un state and local pra.:.tice, but sti:th imp:ict comes Litr,ugh An ita.:rcmeatil process of sov- oral years when guidelines and regulations are not changed frequently.

Title I, for example. .'idlieres much more closely to federal intent in

1973 than in 1967. In short,it, is, important that the focus on equal - izatlon does not lead to treating the severe educational problems of the disadvantaged as an afterthought by using only whatever money is left over -- after strict equality is attained -- to provide extra resources for the disadvo,Itaged. The money that Is left over will be insuilizient. Therefore, a desirable provision would provide federal bonuses for state programs that give added financing for hard to educate

Pupils . . the disadvantaged and handicapped. This allocation would, as already noted, have a concommitant benefit of concentrating somewhat more funds in cities and rural areas than state schooi equalizatton reform alone would do.

Finally, we should not forget that our prime concern is with the redistribution of educational opportunity among children and not just the redistribution of dollars among districts. Redistribution of money alone does not necessarily lead to a redistribution of educational outcomes.

Consequently, we need a substantial federal commitment to research, to demonstration, and above all to implementation of new educational approaches and te,:hniques. in ItAntC cvr rr7=".:

12.

Earlier in our st o d that irogram we ar, uf.gin4 todAy ooa,:ititout with the long eAtahlisned tradition of the t.l!deral

rote in ..:bwation. We say that because the history of (Wei .1 .assistance

to 'education ha n been highlighted by numerous instances, when Congress and

the Executive identified pressing educational needs, national in scope, and have provided the stimulus for state and local responses. ln pre-

cisely that manner, federal aid helped to begin school lunch programs at a time of widespread economic dislocation. Then in the late 1950's in

response to subs:anti:A criticism of the quality of American education,

ND A was passed to help upgrade curriculum and instruction: The wide-

spread concern of the mid-sixties for eradicating the lasting effects of

poverty brought the largest of federal categorical programs to date, MA,

which has stimulated a broad educational conce'a with a theretofore neglected

nationai problem. the teaching of the poor and educationally disadvantaged.

In the light of that history, a program of aid to encourage states to

undertake school finance reform seems to us an appropriate new priority on

the fcderal educational agenda. States in every part of the nation are

wr..stling with the tasks of equalizing educational opportunities and ii-

nan,lal responsibilities. The idea tharthe quality of achilds. education

should not depend on 5o arbitrary a factor as file availability of valuable

real property or the absence of substantial monicipal overburden is a widely

appteciated goal. of interested :itizens, parents, public officials, and

educators. And a variety of existing state formulas are available for the

ac,:ompLishaiont of th3se p,Irposes in varied, yvt effective:, ways.: What has

do ay.1 widespreii p",Azc of effective equalization Laws ha:: been the 2H7 EFT trt?,'r.-1.rol "1 r 13.

ge-old difticuity ot everoming qr reconciling those who benefit from

nurr. : 1 systi.ra-- ao da that states need help. help in the

way of addir.ional resources to up an.; io :2Aso the burden lot tran-

sition years; help the way of rasoable fthaal requirements to pro-

vide a lever to stimulate change in existing stt,. policy.

In proportion to total educational spending. the costs would not be

high. In most states the bill for thoroughgoing equalization with sub -,

stancial levelliag up would probably not exceed 20Z of current expen-

!tures. the federal share would need to bear onl,.1 proportion of

that. The history of federal educational finance in the lastdecade and

a half provide ample precedent, for a cowmitment of that magnitude.

From 1958 to 1964 federal expenditures doubled; in 1966 they more than

doubled again in c. single year. Periodic quantum jumps, then, have char-

acterized the recent fiscal history of the federal role.

It i our recommendation today. based substantially upon the views

we have developed in the course of our research on school finance and

federal educational policy, that this committee adopt a program to help

states to reform their systems of school finance.The gull of the legis

lation would be to assure that the quality of education a child receives

does not vary Simply because of the arbitrary distribution of the local

capacity to suNf,rt education within P.,,b state. We believe that a policy

of that kind would be a worthy.' appropriate, and widely apps-eeiated com-

ponent of the federal rule in American school finance. -113,E .111( l\,40 ss1)0)1 s1 iirAt .14)111.):4 p111: 11:0111),) 4)4)) ,),)111:1qi 1411:!.1.4415 A.14)si.%1) 114) -41.1.).1ort.1,1(111 11:111,1111 a.11:41 Am.) IIoI 11114)1 Is 111.1111.41t: 1p111.%% S411:113041 114).c pillo 0)1 "');'ll) 1"1" " 1411" 11.1'411 .1111 11111 11;."11.'1"15 ."11 11.100.1.1 1" .111) It4)lS111.4(14).) 1141111!1.4.)1.1111).,10

1113N7IVIS 10 THAI 'S 'MAK HOIK3S ISAWKIT AVOSIACIV KOISSIKNOO KO IIIIK3KKIMA00113INI S1;OI1V1311

*s:r.t.1 I. (1:11 )41 'AK 11:111.111:11.*, I 1)1110).1t 10:1.4 0) 01) ) lug .4u11:11 SI iirAt s.).).iiV 1 1111: oil; .144plat: 114) jpis: .14) mu \ .11445!.11) 0)44145110)11114) 110 1 111.44h141.1.).1(4i1.1.)111 111.)11 'SU441 p11r.11 4)) alp - .y11:11) 110.1 III) Jo ti(spiiitto.) .ioj .41))1(4111144' .1114440 0)j pitunkin :(101::1ptiiii()) 6.11.41.1 (14) 0(11 Oil:1St:AIM 10011.)S .1.)1I1:11; lir/W:0M 1101 110P1.,t11) I 0)) .411) )1:t.11 p..:11.4.1.1 II: still )11110(1 I.)v :1 1144 11:11101110.1t).±.07.t.:,))11 silo!) si:%% s.)( Nu Flogs' ss.);1110).61 011;.0 .it:41 11090,)10:;100.01!),00.) (4) .411I suuts0,)) nI .1110) 11u.)1),).) lud(s.%'s 1)111: (4) 011:(11 -111)tiallituoth)4 44141!) 4)) ft: ,))):,%.)! 111.)411 Jj 4p514114).) S.10:11:111.611011 '111:11)Jel .)1"(S 14"" 11.)0)1 1')A./1 97: 'S3'411141" II! 1111 ith!4"aSa"1" 11(4)41' 1"391.1(1(1

' *s.)!1.11:41 :().1$N11114114).) .11)111.)1t1 Jo .111 alintos 14111: ..),411(1 oti s.tott.i.mot) opus 8.1o.1cut 1,1.1.),)1,) sp:!./His, put: .).111 011%9.1d ....ahr/111.) OEM JO AIM 11(!::91fIllill %III,: 1.1011111 *:,1 1111:1A.I.% JO .1111 .1.141141.111V 11014,411111110,) MI( 111111 I: ;11111111[1110d .1S111:00(1 IM)Ii.): 0.4(111(11) 1001p5 .7;111.111141g suil ,1011:111 (.)1:(11111 III) AIR) 11U11.)11111.l.).%0.71.1.11Iii rdSII 111'/P^S5 Ill t: 4.14)(10.1 ,)111)11.41) :).... ,))I 1)1A. 0) 111.)0,1 -sruluto.);)11).,:s10,0110.1a.(0!) 1.1t( poplop)I sit sit .,)(10(1 1:10101111110.).).( uor 111 p.m) ).1t)1ta.c -tu(4.),).1 stioritpu.)01 riuriumiu J0 S.I101,4S11111110) 110111:11l1,11111111).).1.1 sl S1: :S.)110.1

(I) 1.4(4114 .41 1131.1111:1M 0.11.)11p1b).) I4( t0)att1111134,0 jn J. 11:140!11:0111ho SII1111114111.10 (44(44 )11 .411111.11 VW: UZI ilPf tiSSLiti NO.1 JO I MI 1111 sJoitA, J., ILL.)! .011 pimiltio ..tuts 44,pv .4(50) Jo agutu-2tioL -J44is 1;:..1 imk.0 11.)0(11:Itir:SI:.:q; Sol .i.1111:111111:1Sqtts 1114)s1( Sung 1.1 l!:.)01 1111m SIIIttiOnlili) 1.rj (1:I.H11:11!I 111.1111110p11.1 ..1)1 ow) 4.014:144sss: p. 111,1111.11.11 p1 011:P04.1.11: si1.14111111: mu, ilotsspilliu) snip patipp .411) soluis ti! ail) -ulti!m oottutiu it1 ostio(lsod et, q.utox!x Isatilma JIIJ poppituxo .411) j! ti! oti; sap:is . apti) loops .).)tiuttu 'sot applitio.) 11(T4sputilo) .q)11j..; suit itio.)o.i (wag patiswitifl Japan .)411 '0119 s14)011.)..: 1)111: .A).1,11.1.o' .1 X1:1 V-40)11.):[ .).11,11s I itid: .111.1, .111,411 .10111M S.7111111119 11011:10.1 01 .).)in:01110011.'s '1Votsm 411.1.S.11IV3

v .1of p:.1.)pod patoomnipa tuttatoad 01 tipni solvis a.niutlu sp,o.) Jo ...-ftqzput1),) p(Ittd-add ittt!pit.)& iidno ams joutu.) pomoi1 to ay. tett; saitts 4Itujuod .1(ittitutotutts10 ittosu ) .114 sts.1 %.1.1 sit:a itip ,1110 ,Ij . 5.111:14z.; 111111).0% d.)11J1.1.01X.1 sd.ilittittidtko (1) dip .11.).III:10.1 1011 1)01)0011 ot .q011110.1 1111.0% dip 011,. 11111td .T11.011;1(1 -1.011111d 15.1 111 dip (pfity,,,,s

011,1. 11101;-; sd11:11,..1 011 dtp 11041111:11111 Nit! 00tx to.011.10 ram "iitstilldstAk vittqs mit s.1)!:).; imp 11110 uosu I A.)111.'1.1111) I5114411 Jo I .11.)11 )110.1.111.1 os:i 11!: .11:11..; pm: root .sox s)..)(Iso.!,[ 4o) 7;insuo so.11:4:44-141 .10.1 nipu [taw! (4m1:)5 .rt!!intods Aw:; .1).1.11:041111: 14,011.).; pr(111.11). it!. 01 ,y.) If. .)((1 ...min.! sr. .11j1 11.1 11011ptip.).1 ti! all 110).)0110.1 il! [001101:J4%mi "matilivutia .01.1. poilliptiod jo 11:.101).1,4 11!p111:119 .1.)111:1SISSA:

011110,%,..1 ".11111..it:t1S Soli:).; !Mt: 11.111.411 SI/1101.1101 1.11Ij Jog .1-111151:,) litdsu 11ot:0.111s:40.11i "5011:1.4 "s1111.1, ditip% .0.0p .1:111 dti 10 .1,111 s11u1t:.1.1 Juj 11ud1td..1 plc oi soli:),; Iu .11!!!.)111).).1 primps riti!ptiods 's.)!Itairtls!!) 9.)tis s! linnim) Ill) 5011114.1.71 II:III oil) .i.11:0111m1 siso.) posodui! .1,(1 4.1114).) stio!-;!.1.90 .101 .61 011) sitotos1lo.1 ..)11041 19sno.) onl nu -Junnnunsin 011111 oop,Oili .10J 0.10111 111:11) C aj "Salrtt:

:1411.

Opp:4 .01111.A% 1101.11.1.1111 11) t1Sp011 Jallj)1111.1 11;111 WA% L.i.1.1S 0111 It4 S.01: 111111 .11(1 ;Sal JO SOS01.11111 SS1:04 1.1111).) S1101S1./.111 t110 10011.1S ip,S114).) ;/11:111)pil 1111.1. ;;111A1:1 I )11,10S.1.4 11 10111:11 S.11 1:11 OA ;011 10.111,11/ MI NI11 1:11(911)1.4..."1("1111 I 11..11:114111 i).1.1110311 .1011 111/.1.11 0011:.)11!!1{ )1 S! 111: 11[111:)111..:1111 .1.11(;:.\ 1.%1:1( IMMO SU01:41.hp (IA1111101 11:111/0 .11:1101) )11/11.14 .1011 11.1(1111 Mil '41.11110 MI it,tztli Imp sol1p1t1:!;101 dA1:11 .711luitmtiti ot ;asp° .1,1111j otit 111 ittoui 1111. S.ittuoit sit,911.11:A irosu .4.01 .111117111:111)o otitts 011ti1l-144 Z'111101.tils SI ups; II: I51:01 0.9%1 SI: 11:0.1.71 III dip 11(1111(1 10.01 st: tit 0A; 1:4,uo1 1.).01 ut 0:11 j jo 1 stt 011:1,. S 1.1011 jo dip t11.10.10.1 jo 1sixo .11111 loolids 0.010119 '111,11SAS 010.1.11100.6:111 .1010111 Awn pldsit 10101111) : jo ;1111;1:111.11111.) 111:,). 11 sit tittITILIdtop jo 11:d0i 11(1101-.1.01 00.1111;11tt11ttiodS jo dip .1110j romi sdtioutkilltly ul loops 1111-10.1.).01.,-1.11.10.10.1 110W:1)1110)j -0.1(1 . "1111:45 I .1dA40 ;711!.7.111:iiita Witt dip illij dtt:Js MI11)1111.1 0.111-11. .101![ Ott lItutild riloptipt: 11111.10111.1 ot 0.111550 411p 011 1111.1./10.1(1 SI tit.) :.,101:1t . 011.11, 10011.rs-1p.inej ;.0.11Silt 111:Itio 11 4111:1:310d Sdi...11:1011001 1101;1:11111 4119 jo it; .t.ids.t.1(11 .1.011 WIWI Ott It.; t: I 101.011:111j "S1:1 Vz;.; ot .1111 ruptio.).1,)%1, i1to.111 Jo ,111; ird01 Ittd511 t1.10115tit sal soul) jou moon 011,;1:1 1.l(.%% RoJ ,too,).,u mdioll 119 Jo mu SaII:Is St 0.1.)1)Ist!o., ..borr fOlOntlittli dad [Rind ,LinItivOodx.) 0) MI; 11 p111/./.1011 10.101 1/1111).M r..4).) (1: 0101 fj(Ji5 put: .1,1:11) 11.%44) 1"1,7; I Iltdd.1.0 jo .)1(1 .) ;1:1111115 00 10(1dt:11111 111..0.11-011:1S X11 -StidlItit:.) Sso( dlitoS ts sow ptit: .1.10111 's.i.tipty.t.; JO "dS.1110.) 11.1, 11:11t./4: t50d 11.,Im Itt:)11.) SSO1 tit t11.111111 tt:I(.%witioS .%:.)110111 dsitudot( alt:;...; suit 10.103.4s 'Stiolp10 ;111110110111 11)011.» Iitftprz potaltsoi, 4s.).111x,) .1 II; itid ttu a.tolii p:111).) indot (udsll zti!jooj .61,),109 osi:,) ud59 flu (t .I 'iv 0111 .hull .1.1()A Out: ost!:.! .1.4 Etta. itutituotls iptw, ditIttodidtt i.mot .ic1 :1050 1115

- 224W BEST COPY MftABLE

t:iiiti:Ii Ii-..'t!i.ii, thi'irllit irtlllit:1111)4.lItI:iti'tt:I\ r:IIi:lritv. lIl( 4LIIIItiit'ii'l:It4 iiiiiilii;t Ii)lL-' :ili lIttIiti :Ijlj:ll4t11 lt:ii IiliV_

t.,itii:i!itItti()lt'tu ltvri I ;1 1II .il Ii ii jl%.ll1 lit ill.I'4tivit iit :iiItItI'll f tiii:iI

-I.itk I I )tIt' 4IIIti III 't:iti ti.:lil:iitlIII ii1liltii. I llIIr:li lvllJl- lliI'il :i Iilj liii lii - Ii ''l :it i'.-I ii Ia 4r 4X:tliliIl. \v 'rL1:ivi,,it jIl.rII iii Ill t l.lpli:ll lii 11114

I iii'rt't at haI 'ii i :1 jI :1 lh :1III I1111' II('I i11 Iht . tI N:11 lI:LI

*Il'Il1iii&tiI;lllll)IhI iii IlilIlil :4-Si,I:llII':iti'Ill4lII.IlIlIIlhtS.:t ('1i ii:iTI'.IlTIiIIJllIiIllIIIit:. rlil(hl't 4111 11t1.iiIt( Il),:li(lItptl- lljttit. t:lti;llItI144:11 L')Vttll!Itlll1Iii\&'v 'l4,r1 V4lIdlI!l( (I4'I' ii)I,iiti,j Ii :11ll')itf. (Ill 't iti IhIi?IiilIiI1111l_ihIl 1(1 :li'Ilillir l('V(' 11111' in II)I.')'t)'iItillllI4lIi:llIIl 11:1- tilr i)lIiti')'Il'tlil(IfIlhtbilIg t;ltttil lilIjI tiiiii lJl Ii-';hIilhhlls(ill lhIII'rill tIllI:I(' Ill(hIl4I:%t11,11. II)I('fIlrlllhthIll'I't\ I :1 \ l'''"1lit'tltiiiiiiiiiitj;it ''IItitiilIII lJl;lI4 I I)()-

IIri:lt' 4Il:ltlyl's iiiiii:iI !4vllilliu'lI1 IFilet1111'to tiiliiIlI:itp lIeIhIIit :tt lug I 1:1itl1iliI it ii

lhi111:l'IhiV 11111111 1f II, I.\ih1:Lill liii' llle iIluIlI)' IIt1I.'l't t:u :iIlhiiili-.tl:ltilhtl 11)11 :11-hliii11I11.tIlhll I! tIll' illttllI't(If l(I':li Ilh4I1 111)111:11)1)111 I4t'.).11)ill eIl00I I:.lt illtlei'1911 J vl':Ll Ill:iI'i.iit I hi iii I I .7 I 72.eIlIhlhi 4':l F. II 4ilIIIi Il liii ull(l!1 tit:iiilIl('Il I1t1'-I.11I -Iu:ii& iii tIll'lhll(li_4'iiii iii"-tt:ltes lii hit next ilre:lIii.I hey rali tbtiuliril to ?ll:lI'Iu.'r t'\i'-t 1tI. iiz:ut 14111('ii(llt ill'11('rtIi'et jvoI'vei t:lt(S (ItLrl(PVtJl lii -rl (Pill eli it1 Iuiiitilvj Ii ftiiii srI 1(1111 11111(15 fillit'il st Iii Put 1011IIId tltllli,'iil. fl'IlIIll1. l'lh'I:l.lil iil.1t .u.ii:

Itt 15:'tof IIII itlStltl' (iiSI):lIii ii'III5I'iilI()Iliti:itit'e st:tii'is hlI1fiS 0111' 1h11dl'tl) (IIfellel:LIislll I lu:itvill 1(1111 Ill :111:111' latil('l tilaliV0t4(ll :u'I 11111'.(I4'IIV. lulls I ill' IulI"t i(IIl ((IuI1llhilt iiIi.! ItIit ir:ul I(:lhI('riIt :uli

1pt'1- (ii!(lV(tlltli('lIt 1 jllt il0V i0il! siiiiiii1 till' lefllrtul I)ihhi'hS 1lkl. lV(h flIt'ri.s:&r(':11 Wlrk trli(IltIL! toI'I:I\''t;lt'iitit l:Itj'P (Illtin' 5(11(1(11 fiIl:ltlel iIij PI nt ui.s lll('. .1iii'I(iiI (II tin 1is(':lII lls(.(Iln'Illl. i,f iIllp1 Ibroihosell 5(11111 lotus III tifl' iii1i:iritits ial4' fill' j)II1lI JI.rljlOIlse Il) :u pi'i1 fatt' jilil i:uf jv' on .eIl(,(II fiii:itire IS Ill()le likily 1(1 Ill('l'tVII Ii I)l'It IlSistaIlC(' I IUIII 1)aSSiV(' ;Ir('4.lt;ulll-e.1111' (I(fl11 (If (iveuilor ( ':uiiiIIill('OIIII' t:x PI01o)iLl ill

%(' I1'l(SIIIld(lilt:Ia (:ll' (If Ol'II II'SflIl('(' II) :i u l)pos:uI ruliiiig fIll11 lilht (Ieih:Il'( hile 1144114 I In' &t:tt Il'ijIihi.I1iI shift 1111111 1(4481 Sl'i(l)hii IIIlilI Vt:t('- 1(1:1 -t:ltl'i(Il 1I.% flitI illS 11l1ti' alI i:uiri's :lll(4hll'r 'ill (If 14111t l'Iv('ISja I t;i.x iIulIiii':ut 1(1115,. Ii iiui4 111111(hltlllt (41 I JIeSI' (IilJIi Is'I hI' 4i('IIHIuIII 1)1:11liii''"t:I('s (.911:1117.4' IuII)l't1V tax 8SSl5,hlllllIS 11(41 Ii jIhuiti :11111ll18)Ilg 1,iiiuI a'Sl'SS- Illeiltili:t tiltS Wit Ii :1 r(ltll'(1ltllllSill ftiii1Itlr(i('llS :ululoIg Ptl)ln'IIY I) V. (1) I' 15. iijftt(lV:h1II(lilt FiuIjY((i fi1n1tlrit)j(If 5i'Il(I(l1lii Vil'h'41 ill 1t1811\

:15:1 tiir1':ut to Ior:lI ('1)111 nhroth toi of fuiti'ls lI:uviilg tt:l(li- iui;uIk SI'1''4i;l till.iiit rlllfl(tltfoiiu:u1jitg tiiilr:tt 1011:11j(hIi('V. lllii( 111(151 1)t014445:1i44 1(11 SrIl(HII Ittl;Illr(' r4'f(,til) mu v' s(iuIgllI Ii) :u"oiui- 1114)41814' till' llIIlI(IIt (f Ioi':ul iiiiI iiii II I)1'nIuujtt111r Il)e:I1 51111141 nieiuta- ti(4ll si11uiri luitils. '(ll'kS H1'lSellilllItIll (0IIuIlhi Sl Ill I4('(IIlllll('iilll('4l 2'201

aintinSt:1111 notifyI'm. 6.:11 siippivnivnlot ion on, i he 2-T1)11414i thatit Vollid Irad ullinlat1`It 141 t hi.iv ervnt i1)71 OfIll'SehIP 61II rit ;It(' ili1.11111intr 11:1V0 rOnteli.,111'd that Al 111011 1.3 liZ(.11 SC111101 financing syslon should 1101 prechith 104.11vontrolIIVIT 1071: The l'iniir()VerSy ))ter 11)C:11 COW MI ;rive, 111)1W1 11:11141III the slat us quo position on school finance because of the hick of cvidetwe to support :m ot her posit ion. Several forces at work on State gm-ernthents pfulnd a gradual

lessening: of itittrdist rid school finance disparit . By their past act loll. Statcshave 11 St rune. Precedent. for vont imusly improving the operat ion of their school finance systems.''rlie.. improvements have resulted in part from school district consolidation' and from States assuming- a largyr share or stat,..ineni costs. States are not likely to st op or reverset his t rend. The education commission of the States keeps a .scorecard oil the. major school finance chawres. .kceordimr to their records. 1n Mates launched significant new equalizat ion programs in l94to reduee the disparit les in financial support behind pupils in various parts of a State. Wit !Mut any 41 i roct Federal intervent ion. Star es have made progress in reducing disparities in school spending-. The t rend to improve(' St atedocal finance. )rograms is firmly established. and t here is no reason tabeliee it w111 he I :11'0111111. The I'V111141 in till' .111111111T of 10c111 54'11001 SySt1`111S accounts for now]) of the state progress in reducing disparities in local school: spendimr. Both the opportunity to improve educational programs by school consolidat ion an,' 111e inve to get the most out of the educational. dollar have led States to exert vont rol over school dist 6(4 Iwoundaries.-:. State :lot ion on I minda ries promotes elliciencv Yet permits flexibility to reflect vital local interests in school district organization.. Taxpayer pressure to slow the rise in aggregate propert y tax levies and, in sonie instances. to obtain outright propert y ax relief as'llad and will continue to have an eqUalizing impact on the school finance system. To the e,:tent t hat the taxpayer pressure is soceessfilha larger pro- portim of State,7,1:41cal school 'costs will be snpnorted by State non-

: propertY I a xes. t hereby reducing the significance of int erdist rid school finance disparities.1, Federal aid to St ates..and localities has 'beenII-n(1444z upward. revPsiti sharing being. the most :recent. manifest-ation. goy.ernment s alone repitirted they 'ill:M10 put ti:4123 n1111101: of their general revetine-sharing paYments into the field of education: the money commitment represents' moil. than :half of the State's third period ent it lenient. In addit ion. one-third of the States anticipated that their use of general reyenue-sharing funds would stem the. trend 'toward. ever - higher' State local taxes.. -Recent. amendments to the Social Seetirit%- Art shifted more of the responsibility for welfare financing from the States to the Federal Government. Federal funds free-up State funds for 'user. on other

State functions. . Pan of the money probably will be channeled Into school support to relieve; pressum: on the local school:property tax. At ainnnitim.i tt notsuntixo JO itiopo..1 I 111x. 01 s,11n11 1op1111.101 llI (Itoti atil soluls III loom 111 1i los loot '.1500 a no.% Omni} .1111 ottioltint.; ono..) sin! pou.011.1.).%0 0111 zditbfapoll tto!spoi) 11091u1s!:,-1.4 sing os poz111tik61.111 alp oonols!xo JO in! op:4st%! 100110s ootintift so!i!.11:11stp 11:111 '.11:)5 111011!11,11 I461,)1)101 11!At no.loti .101J og Jortm 1111:N110,) 0.111t4s03(1 01 11111 0.111.11 0111 -11(11.u!:;:,) J0110(1 100Ipti Splitlj

.X01.1.111V11.1. VZ1:111:16.1 1,.'I ..1.40SONV1

100 01 0111 o.%tinio.1 110,) 66o.11 snit tio.%E.77; polidx.) umIft1;10.).).1 imountitj S1.11.1 111.11 1101 . JO 1K.)01 10011.1S 1S1.11 111.110..1 H19101110 1111S111,11 SI: 11 111.1.1110.ri '111.1 111: 11;111011 11 111:11 10111.10(1.10.1111. S1101141.10.111 0) .1%11111110 ;11.101111: S.11111,.: MOOS 111.11 *S1111:.610.111 0.1.111.tt ituopo..,1 loogos ittn.1;10.1(1 1)0100111: lootids oontniu if.tudstI) 'sof .1111 ootionittn. sing nooti 11: Nog A..0:1,110.)os 11.10,v1oto pointolittun )oolto otu. Ittom1Jo.%09 snit o.10Jo1o.tot1 po.%%0110.; t: ...00 -1011 ItA% 9 loods.).1 01 0111 notst.)11) Jo !nosy .i4111.q!suodso.1 1.1(1 % 11.)1.% pun SI1 111,101 1:411) S111.1, 11011 .i11.111.1 .%.)110(1 S1:11 1101,40.1 110 .A1) J011.1(1 11:111 .111 7111;101111111111 1110 Jo .111 S11101) JO 1 .111 1.4 11001-0111 111p11111111

111 1 011 100110S ,0111:1111 10311 sl 1111 ..1110.1,11111. .1.1111:111 111111 11111..1.111{..11:11 111110,11. 041 10A10:40.1 11.1110 .11111.4

NOIS.11.1,N10

111 1101SS11161110,) 11.1fr1110110.1 11011 .1111 u0.1.1n11.l.I j1, 11:os11 $!.1):(6.:11) so! 1.11.1 S 1111111.11 I1 011:16 tit 11 011:14 11 i0011111 10011.1S 1S11) .%.11.111f1S110118.1.1 .;:t111101:061 sir '1101S111011(,,) '.1,V.t.).M011 011) 110ISS11111110.) 1S1111 1010 01 -111111110 %1S 0 111.10.%0S :S111101t 1101.SSZ1111110.) SI 1011 ;1111S:401)1M 01 ./111 10.1 .1111 111.110.4 111.)11(1110A09 111110115 .111111 III 1.10(11111s .i:111 ./11111111 ..0:111.1111,11.) -1100.1,1s 001u:ont1.1 ing 01 alp .1.).%%0.1.11:11 Isola) t10! JO .1.nisotp% pm: 0I )11:(1.t% inoixo ituoi).):1 19n s! .%*.Inssodon 0I Inosfi )1.Inds!!) sof ;111000: l.k.; low :41.9.11AI) 1.1!.%% liono tt.i. notssminto o..91.mi ;(0111 st poioti 01 ssosst: son(11111 JO -.o.1 .1!t110 1.0:41 ,nii molvo 04 11.9q.%% itt..%% off.itmo s.)11:4.; 01 auto.) 01 111.121 1111.11 0111 all:1st:3;111 10011)s .1011111111 b ,11 111111 ma 'Infs.:mm(10.) soAnitog .1110pu110.ia11s SS,O1 .10 5.11111011 11111.110 11,1.1 .10J '1101)101110 1411 11 SI 1110S.1.1(1 '10.1.1.1101) 1S111 11:.1 SO 1 011 10,111 .10.1 11,4 0111 IS.%S S111,1 01 .1.111Si:0111 MI) 1.0110 SS.111,01 JO "1101 1001100 ring/11011S 111111 111 1)11.11(10,1 %111.,11,1 .m1101)9110.1 111 011111111 1101110 1111, 1,40111 11111.)11111;11s 1)111; 1.11.S0(1 0.1 .010.10.1M. 1 111011111 oil 11M11.111 1110.1J all s1101ssooloo..) .i.)110I 1111)11001010,0.1 1101 SI 1 11--S1.11 SI. 1011 A.111SS,1.011 0) )1.11111 1111110.1(1 till ) 110).7111111s111,11 .10.1 11110:0.1 1101 ).; 0110.1 1011011 .i(1 01111.00.1 ;1111.11:114 1H11V )1At 11 09 IS ;1110.1 f.011:40.111 .10J 111S 1111 1111,M 0.1 0.111 ;1111.S1:0.1.111! 0.11111S JO 011) 111111.111X.1 1111.11111 0) :S 111110111 '111.)111111').")9 1 MI S11:I!: 111 111111 1)111011S ,111 14011 .IOJ 3!,)11 111/11.1) 11:1101 S1.10(10.111 NI!) 1/1111 1.0011../S .0111:111.) "S01.111.1111S11011S0.1 111$1 ornio.w.1 ;10!.0:11s pun ituopo...1 .1.)mol1:1 JO o.m.11.).t oat: lott -11.Thtutio J soit:).; oat: 01 .%):1(1 ;1110.11s .404 (I! .010 sso.1.71001 pinta isiso.1 au) mn1s00.) tinf 01 oAlos stnoittml !Timis oil im poi in oil I.; 01 -1.1.1 110.1110:111. limos .10 is p.10.1.0: 22.03

la.:VEN SII.NRING Squit or ST.1 rroun (),residing pro tempore). Thank won very mut), for your test iniony. r. 11 vers. vc1,1'.,19 to ill your St M1'1110111 ,:111(1 you do a number of t inies. are %11 talking about gene al revenueshoring that nmv exists or are .V011 tiittilii" 04)0 revenue sharing for edueal ion ! Nlynts. Iain talkiwz :11,4ngeneral 1.,,venni. sharing 115 it, now exists. Revently the ()nice 1:evenue :-itarim, in the. U.S. 'reasitry published a study or tin. piano,' use reports for the third ent it le:ntqlt period of revenue sharimx,, and they noted that f he States liavi;, planned to al10(.:11('se,nte $th)t)1111111(111it,:;11111)(111Of l'lllICat 'MI. M 11(11 of this W111111 1611 1.1111:111. 11111111111111.1iy tux fluids, results 111"r14111\i ""t'SS II) P(1111.311(111:11re:4°111%1'S on this part of the local school dirt riots and t his is %Vil:it Mil ring to..VeS sir. TATE NI, I. Senalw STAFI.1110). )III, pointill to II propos al 1.0 the States taking ,. t or assuming responsibility for ii':ii cfluent ion. hut the local .rovernmental entities to retain ant horit . Biel I under-4:1nd volt correct iv 011 t hat Mr. Ilvrns. Yes sir. Senator ST.rna:n. I%yonder holy you eon keep some authority in local government. entity if it does not have also some or the resPon-, sibility for raising funds to go with that. authority? \\*hen you spend s()Htlimly else's money. you are not quite as careful as you are if you spend .your own. \fr. NlyEtt::.1%."e. have a long tradition of local control in the schools. In the case of education. we also have a long t radii ion of piddle SUN Vvillallro. Iii this (.m111(411°11, at, least. we have the hope that 11,01)ht will In' to get t he mist bang for t hr huck. That happens to be at. stake here. .is a parent. I have often heard the general thesis that ve never have enough timney for edueat ion. and It !link as a nation we tend to believe that. Edneal ionis one of Our favorite public expenditure areas. Therefore. vt. would waist to makethe most efficient use of that 11'e lun.c never tried a system of loyal control with outside. financing.. StmatorStattord. SO we really do not know. and it is a hope to a latge extent. lilt ve think the strong tradition of 10e,1 control that. presently exists, it\will no be sacrificed simply by having the States assumeslll,stantiallyall the respossibility for t lie financing. Senator S.rriato. you. Mr. Ilyers. 1 apin.eriate your being here.1 am stint the chairman does. lie had to leave Inn, will return shorty. 1Trs. :issoeilte counsel to the suboommit tee will present some oT Snator Yeti's guest ions to tin. Nfs. Fnontorntat. Thank von. Senator. 1-on suggost that if the Federal Government Assumes all the cost of soething!. \\-el faro. this will free up State money to equalize educationa(ex.! um.4es. I low are you guaranteedthat they will use the money'on 'PR/titration rather than (nl publi safety, or other competing social serviees? 2294

N11.. NI yEns. t here is no guarantee other t lian t he fact that the educators along Nith all oilier competitors for State expenditures would of course be competing. for funds. and education (loci+ get, a substantial port ion of State expenditures at. t 1w present t inic. One :an only speculate t woubhrt-tenst. hold their own, and therefore a substantial amount ut. frof...A.m.pfunds would go into education. Certainly there is ilo Oneto-olle transfer t hat :1111011e NV0111(1 eolltenl- !date t here. hut. the 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 : 1 S i S already 011 ethleat ion in t heSt ate 'midgets Wont(' certainly Prevail and he a printo consideration for getting som,, or I his 111(,...A. NErs. Famil.n 1-011 said that. study Was to determine the Federal role. if any. in education. The hulk of your statement. goes to the fact thatitreally is a State responsibility. What. does AC1It see as it Federal role! is their a Federal role? Mr. Mns. Yes. I tried to emphasize the, fact that. in this particular instance we Nvere looking into intrastate school linance problems. and quest ionin.o. whether, if 11I1, there was a Federal role in that connect ion. The Commission has never st ate(' a general pol;cy in this connection. law:tin:4. it huts not St lld iv(' trio (endt Federal role iii fina tie- ing element ary and secondar education. Certainly, t he Commission would agreet hat. t he Federal Government t.vpicalIN- carries out. its responsibi lit les when it equalizeS resources a mong the States. The Commission also huts recommended in previous studies that the Federal Government take note :111(1 supp()rt education for those who are (ducat ionall N. handicapped in otw way or another. The Commission recommended tnd tin' Federal Government. tali(' into account the higher costs of educating pupils in cent rai cities situations and in an earlier irtGS st udy it recommen(10(1 that States recognize these (hirer- eneeS costs ofeducating people. Where 'the Federal Government recognizes these as in the national interest, that. is an appropriate Vedera I function. do not think von should reln; into this statement. any aversion the Commission to have the Federal Government participate in financing of elementary an(1 secondary education. lint insofar as the. question of intrastate school finance disparities are concerned. t hat. is a polilent that, the States can and should deal Nvit h. Senator ST.% rt,otio. Thank von very iiiiieli.11..P.lfyers. We appreciate v(iti being here today. ['nue prepare(' st Amnon! of 31`i.."'Alyers follows : 2205

ADVISORY COMMISSION ON INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20575

Statement by Will S. Myers, Senior Analyst Advisory Commission on.IntergOvernmental Relations Betore the Senate Subcommittee on Education October 4, 1973

ACIR POSITION ON INTRASTATE SCHOOL FINANCE EQUALIZATION

Mr. Chairman:

My name is Will Myers. I am ore Senior Analyst on the staff of the Advisory CoMmission on Intergovernmental

Relations. Thank you on behalf of the Commission for ,the opportunity to acquaint your committee with the Commission's views on the intrastate school finance equalization question. The Commission undertook in February 1972 astudy of a proposal calling for a major Federal program of residential property tax relief conditioned on expanded State financing for public education and underpinned by a new or expanded

Federal tax such as the value-added tax. In accepting the study assignment from the President, the Commission decided as a first stage of its study to consider "whether and to what extent additional Federal assistance is needed

for: public education in order to reduce residential' property

taxes and to meet problems of sChool finance which may ,stem

from recent court decisions." At that time, February 1972, the disposition of the Rodriguez casewas unknown but its possible consequences were much on the mind of policymakers at all governmental levels.

ACIR consists mainly of policymakers at the Federal,

State, and local level-26 members in all representing both

political parties. Commission members include members of

the Senate and the House, the Cabinet, Governors,State

legislators, mayors, elected county officials' and three

proVate citizens--one of whom is the Chairman, RobertE. Merriam.

The Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Rela-

tions recognizes that school financing hasa major impact on the intergovernmental fiscal system. In its report on State Aid to Local Government, the Commission's first policy, recommendation called for State assumption of, responsibility, for financing public schools in the following terms:

In order to create a financial environment

more conducive to:attainment of equality of

educational opportunity and to remove the

massive and growing presSure of the school

tax on owners of local property, thC. Commission

recommends that each State adoptas a basic ob jective.of its long-range State-local fiscal

policy the assumption by the State of 2207

- 3 -

stantially all fiscal responsibility for

financing local schools with opportunity for

financial enrichment at the local level and

assurance of retention of appropriate local

policymaking authority. The Commission thus defined the role of the States in the intrastate school finance issue. In response to

President Nixon's request, the Commission examined the

Federal role, if eny, in helping the States discharge their school finance responsibilities. The complete

Commission study has recently been published under the title, Financing Schools and Property Tax Relief--A

State Responsibility. The study resulted in four major findings related to school finance.

No Fiscal Exhaustion A major Federal educational aid program to help

States finance the costs of equalizing per pupil spending

Within each State cannot be justified on the grOundS that

States confront insurmountable fiscal burdens. Our analysis reveals that only a few States would experience fiscal difficulty'in bringing per-pupil expenditures to the relatively ,high levels needed to comply with the"no wealth" principle enunciated first in the Serrano case. 220S

The great majority of States havethe necessary untapped

relative tax potential. New York, Vermont and Wisconsin,

however, stand out as the States thatwould experience

greatest fiscal difficult because oftheir current heavy use of all State and Steal taxes.

Prospects for easing pressures foradditional school spending have now appeared. School workload will tend to ease in the future as the rapid reduction inthe birthrate

is reflected in lower school enrollment. The continued expansion of Federal financial assistance,including revenue sharing, to States and localitiesportends a further easing of fiscalpressures on States.

Thus, while there may be otherreasons for Federal aid to help States in reducing schoolspending disparities, such support is difficultto justify on the grounds that the monetary costs imposedby the court decisions or by conscious public policyconstitute an insurmountable fiscal burden for more thana few States.

Wide State Policy Discretion

State legislatures retain wide discretionto devise a school funding system that will bothserve the State's purposes and Pass the test of constitutionality. The court decsions outlawing persistentschool finance disparities have not declared theproperty tax unconstitu- - 5-

tional nor even indicted it as an unsuitable tax.Neither have court decisions required equal dollar expenditures

per pupil. The courts have recognized that State legisla-

tures have been unwilling to offset fully the variations

in local fiscal capacity with equalizing State aid dollars.

Per-pupil spending is still at least twice as great at the

90th pupil percentile level as at the lowest level in half of the States.

As part of the reform of its existing school finance system, a State may confront a major new fiscal demand: that of eliminating wealth as a determinant of local per- pupil spending. Three of the four broad approaches to school finance reform--"beefed-up" foundation program, power equalizing, and the full State funding approach--are likely to entail additional funding to assure that no existing program is cut back. The fourth--school district reorganization- -would entail a constant adjustment of boundaries to preserve equal per-pupil valuation but no State financial outlay.

The cost to the States of overcoming a great portion of the impact of local fiscal disparities'does not seem large when the full revenue potential of the'States is considered. Raising the minimum per-pupil expenditure to the 90th percentile level would cost about $6.9 2210

billion and draw down 27.4 percent of the estimated untapped

State-local tax capacity--less in some States and more in

others, of course.

The actual cost in each State might entail somewhat

less money because a State has several options, including

school district reorganization, designed 'expressly to put

districts on a more equal local fiscal footing and thereby

ease the fiscal pressure on the State.

All but three States (New York, Vermont, and Wiscon-

sin) could raise per-pupil spending to the 90th percentile

level by using substantially less than their entire un-

tapped relative tax capacity. The same three States would

have to use all of their apparent fiscal elbow room-and more-to level up to the 90th percentile even with the

addition of general revenue sharing.

One specific source of State fiscal pain to which

the Federal government can minister with good effects for

the States is the welfare area. For example, New York

lays out 2.34 percent of its personal income to meet

State-local public assistance and medicaid costs. If the

National government assumed all public assistance and medicaid costs, as ACIR has recommended in its report on

State Aid to Local Government, State and local governments in New York would get over $2 billion of fiscal relief.

Pressure on State political leadership to raise more revenue in response to expenditure demands haft the positive virtue of forcing States to keep their own fiscal house in order--in the case of education, to reform property tax assessment administration and to make appropriate changes in local government structure to eliminate debilitating fragmentation. Fiscal pressure probably explains much of the move to improve property tax administration and also the reduction in the number of local school districts from about 109,000 in the

1941-42 school year to about 16,000 in the 1971-72 school year. If schools get no more than their present share of

the'budget in most States over the next decade, they can do much to make their existing equalization efforts more effective. Lower rates of growth in school enrollment will free-up school funds for redistribution in an

equalizing fashion.

ProblemThat Will Abate The issue of intrastate disparities in school fi-

nance stands out as one problem of federalismthat will

tend to abate rather than worsen as time goes by. Thus the question confronting political leaders at all levels 2212

f overnment is ust how lon should the reform rocess

take.

Two forces are at work'tending to delay State

-initiative on the school finance-disparities issue.

Mindful of the fiscal consequences of most proposed

solutions to the disparities issue the public response to

a proposed State initiative on school finance is more

likely to meet with overt resistance than passive accept-

ance. The defeat of Governor Cahill's income tax proposal'

in New Jersey stands out as a case of overt resistance to a proposal calling for a major departure from the status

quo. The shift from local school property taxes to a statewide levy for this purpose also carries another set

of controversial tax implications. The most important of

these would be the demand that the States equalize proper

ty tax assessments both within and 'among local assessment

districts with a consequent shift in burdens among property

owners.

A shift toward centralized financing of schools is

viewed in many quarters as a threat to local control--con-

trol of funds having traditionally served as the instrument

for making educational policy. While most proposals for

school finance reform have sought to accommodate the con-

cept of local control by permitting local supplementation

within limits, New York's Fleischmann Commission recom- 2213

- 9 -

mended against authority for local supplementation on the

ground that it would lead ultimately to the re-creation

of the school disparities State financing was designed to

correct. Others,. including ACIR, have contended that a more centralized school financing system should not pre-

clude local control over major aspects of education.The

controversy over local control gives the upper hand to the

status quo position on school finance because of the lack

of evidence to support any other position. Several forces at work on State governments portend

a gradual lessening of inter-district school finance dis-

parities. By their past action, States have set a strong

precedent for continuously improving the operation of their

school finance systems. The improvements have resulted in part from school district consolidation and from States

assuming a larger share of State-local costs. States are

not likely to stop or reverse this trend. The Education Commission of the States keeps a score

card on the major school finance changes. :According to

their recozds, 10 States launched significant newequaliza-

tion programs in 1973 to reduce the disparities *n finan-

cial support behind pupils in various parts of a State. 2214

- 10

Without any direct Federal intervention, States have made progress in reducing disparities in school spending.

The trend to improved State-local finance programs is firmly established, and there is no reason to believe it will be turned around.

The reduct ;on in the number of local school systems accounts for much of the State progress in reducing disparities in local school spending. Both the opportunity to improve educational programs by school consolidation and the urge to get the most out of the educational dollar have led States to exert control over school district boundaries. State action on boundaries promotes efficiency yet permits flexibility to reflect vital local interests in school district organization.

Taxpayer pressure to slow the rise in aggregate property tax levies and, in some instances, to obtain outright property tax relief has had and will continue to have an equalizing impact on the school finance system. To the extent that, the taxpayer pressure is successful, a larger proportion of State-local school costs will be supported by

State non-property taxes thereby reducing the significance of inter-district school finance disparities. 22V,

Federal aid to States and localities has been trend- ing upward, revenue sharing being the most recent manifes- tation. State governments alone reported they plan to put $623 million of their general revenue sharing payments into the field of education; the money commitment represents more than half of the States' third period entitlement. In addition, one-third of the States anticipated that their use of general revenue sharing funds would stem the trend toward. ever-higher State-local taxes. Recent amendments to the Social Security Act shifted more of the responsibility for welfare financing from the

States to the Federal government. Federal funds free-up

State funds for:use on other State functions. Part of the money probably will be channeled into school support to relieve pressure' on the local school property tax. At a minimum, the expansion of Federal aid to States and localities will help the States in meeting school costs.

Even though the Supreme Court has overturned the

Rodriguez decision, Serrano-type litigation has so dramatized the existence of intrastate school finance disparities that

State political leaders will hereafter be under constant pressure to improve the State's distribution of schoolfunds. 2216

- 12 -

Tradition of Federal "Hands Off"

Congress has not given explicit recognition to the relative financial ability of local school districts in

Federal education aid legislationas a general rule, althou h it has ir.cor orated rovisions to equalize amon

States in some aid programs. Where a Federal school aid program has affected intrastate school finance disparities, the influence has been at besta secondary concern or an unintended effect.

The Federal government has heretofore followeda

"hands off" policy with respect to the divisionof fiscal responsibility between a State and its localschool districts. This neutrality policy has restedon the belief that the hammering out of the details ofthe State - local, financial Partnership in the school:financearea is an

"internal" matter that should be resolved byeach'State.

Conclusion

The Commission concluded that the reductionof fiscal disparities among school districts withina State is a State responsibility. In reaching its conclusion, however, the Commission hastened to emphasizeseveral points:

The Commission is not addressing itselfto the

role the Federal government should playin

supporting public elementary andsecondary - 13-

education but to the narrower question of

whether and to what extent Federal aid is

necessary to encourage States to reduce

fiscal disparities, among school districts

within each State.

The Commission believes time is needed to

assess the impact of revenue sharing, par-

ticularly the extent to which it will enable

the States to come to grips with the intrastate school finance question.

The Commission believes the uncertainty

surrounding the effectiveness of dollars earmarked for education, as it is presently

delivered, illustrates the need for State

'systems to measure the effectiveness of school

spending and to rebuild citizen co2;fidence in

public education.

The ;post significant and positive inference that can be drawn from the Commission's policy recommendation is this--it is not necessary to buck every problem up to

Washington for reselution. Strengthened by revenue sharing and with the strong prospect for shifting an increasing share of the welfare expenditure burden to the National government; the States can and should be held accountable for their traditional property tax and school fianance responsi- ools

- 14 -

bilitics.

But revenue sharing and Federal takeover of welfare are not enough. If States arc to play a strong role in our Federal system, Congress must resist the constant temptation

to solve problems that should be handled at the State level. St'llat ST.W1,111:1).The ( '111111111t PP Will ask Dr. :Jerome T. "Afinpliy, consultant ('Ti('Illicat ( 'attihrif bre. Mass., to please come forward. Dr. Murphy. %ye %%Thome you here on bided f of theSubcommittee 011 Etilleatl"II.)° You lilt"e a lott'l)aroti st:Itt'llwIlt. or gning to speak (N tympora neously ?

STATEMENT OF DR. JEROME T. MURPHY, CONSULTANT ON EDUCATION, CAMBRIDGE, MASS. Mr. Ift.urttv. Thank. you very much. Senator Sthltorcl. 'I do not have a prepa red statement. submit; for the What would like to do, with your permission. is record :I summary if some research which INVI 111to trill; :Wont this mortiimr. it is in the form of an article. 1 then would like to summarizy very briefly my fill( :11111 Vt. t hat11111(1 in' %ry happy to alISNVV1' :111% 1111('St hMS. Senator S'rrFout). Your summary willIIIincluded in the record and you may proceed any \vay \oli wish. NIr. Mt.urii v. Itis a pleasure to by here this mornin,._, to talk about some research thatItwent Iv completed on the implementation or Title V oft he Elementary and Secondary Eductit ion Act for strong( boning ofState dep:Itmoits of i'l)vidysfunds t lit' Nt research focti:40(1 011 t hat :^1.4111111 Of the 1:11V prov j(1 ns basic grants to State depart !limits of educat ion. The st describes hove the Federal money was spent in nine S+tate eduat ionagenciesColor:1(1o. Iatisas. Kentucky, Nlassitchnsetts, 'Maryland. New York. South Carolina. Tennessee and 'I'exas. [ spoof. most or effort, hoNoer. at the pro;;T:ini's implementation in Massachusetts. NeNv Yorl;, and South Carolina. The bull: Of My .135 page report talks about t hese three States. The study examines the ways in which SEA'S ha VP beenaffected by title V. ineluding a hoped-for increase in staff and budget levels. HMI, improvements in ninnzuronn,a. sericos and Ivlidership. lint, rift, was also by its 1,,:risiative arrilitoos in 19thi asti 'stinulns for basic rhange. t hat is. as a vehicle to foster piano', for. to bring new t \les of people into State education agencies and to initiate sonie fundamental changes inthese agencies. Therefore. the study also examines \diethyr title ilid help promote a rethinking ,of. SEA,

T found\vast lintState departments (if education were, strengthened in sonic \va ys by tit le V 'and not. strengthened in other ways. SE. bud..Ms and staffs romrldv doubled mitionwide, 1)et.ween 196 and 1970. Nlore than half of this budget .y.rowth \vas futule(1 through Federal dollars. with the Federal contribution to SEA. administrative expendit tires risiny from 1.1.:; percent in 19(15 to 0 percent in 1970. One-fith of these 1970 Federal dollars came fronttitle V. In my judgment. this ^rotyflt hasallowed.State departments of education to provide more services aml generally to be more \-isible than \vas t rue in the past. More specifically as to the, impact of title V in t hose States that, I spent the nur;,,t, t ime found That. in NeNN- -1-orl: and Nrassacluisetts title V inoe- was budgeted rue first, year mainly to meet it series of small pressing. problems across t lie agency, and to 5111)10)11, preexisting priorities with those aoncies, The projects were largely expansioos of ongoing art ivities. rather than significant, htinres IIIroles., pro- cetittres, or activities. ()nee bee -un, tlit projects tended to be funded from year to )etir. In short. rat her than 'initialing basic structural reform. title V became a continuant; source of general operat ional snpi)ort. In south (`aildina on tother hand, marlied cluwges did tali), place over the years, largely funded through tit le.'Flit.. rt :ism' for this. I believe. derives from the fact t hat. the South t'arol Ina State Depart- ment, of Education was an a!rettCy Which was ready cbange_fululs got there. at, a time NIten the State was undergoing political and vebnotitie reform. 1ithin this context, and climate, title V actedas a faoflitator for some rat her important changes ioI hatparticultir. State depart motif Of ,ii.vat .As to the ot her. six States that I looked at in less depth, the patte.rn more close] v resembled the one in New York and Nlassachosetts.. 111 short. title \5 ilupact varied rat her significant ly from State to State. 1111y don't I stop at point. Senator. Titanic you for your attention. and I will be ilappV t 0 illISWvi any 1111(511011$. SellutOr I)E1.1.. 1 l'eLrIVII. was ont, of the room. Senator Stafford, do you have quest ions? Senator S.rroci). NEr. Chairman. I have, listened with great. interest to Mr. Altipliv's test iniony and his impressions of title V in the States that. he St tidied.lila.I belieVe I have no particular questions at this point. Senator I just want to !ret one hit. of oversimplification in my mind. Does your st ittly find that. genernlly title ..1" has been a. failure, \vould that Incorrect? Mr. :11111eity. That. point. has been made, Senator.'in some of the preS.S eOeel'age of the Stiffly. It Was 110t, illy intent. however, to declare, t hat. t it le V, was a failure. Let me explain in son W., (feta i 1. Title. V was designed in 194;5 to SerVe several different, purposes. I think to talk abont whether it is a failure or not. vou have to examine. these different purposes. One purpose in 1965 \vas to ene011rage, the chief State school officers to support, the entire Elementary and See- ondary, 1.',dneat ion Act. I think on that purpose the progran) certainly

Iii s been a success. 'I'he prooTam is well liked by the chiefs. .' .t not her Purpose was to provide more money for State departments of educatiOn so they could huild up their budgets and 1)161(1 np their staffs. Certainly. on that, criterion. title \T Iilwell a success. As I described in my statement, education agencies budgets and staffs doubled bet ».0en 194;5 and 1970. .tnother pnroose of title V was siniPly to provide funds for general. operational support and for filling 51,,t) raps in existing services and management. In injudgment. titie V also lids tended to he a success on this measure. H What i also looked at in the study, however, was svhether or not title V really acted as a stimulus for reform, .a goal I would argue t hat. some people held. in' 1965, toy judgment title V was not very successful in meeting that. particula criterion. But, as' I argue in the full report, the reasons why this did not, happen probal)ly have ,more, to do with unrealistic expectations abont the way organizations VO1 change.aliengiven' tree money than %vitli things you can blame on 1 he St atdepart mous 1)1*(4111P:111011. TO snnuuarirt, !HY irrtcnt in (1111!1 ill(' stttdr :told reportingit was not, to imply that. tith V had been :tfailure. I thin!: :a strong az.:gu- meta can he made that itis a le...him:Ile function for the Vetleral (Iov- eminenttoo provide funds for thegeneral operational support, of State' departments of education, Ou t lie of her hand. ift he objeetive of the legislation. or itContimmtiour is viewed as the p01110t.1011. of innovation in State depart na9its of education.I 11111 1110Ve(i111)1011S about title V fulfilling , . senatorPELL. Von titbit: the Nation is betteroil'111V1Ilt: .title v than spendin_r money in other ? Ijnst want. to know. Would you knoik mow, if you there us or would you ]cafe it hi? \1r. NIcitetiv.Iwould linoeli it I say this. hmever, if 1 had additional money that could be. put into Statedepartments of education,I11)111(1 )1 I I.:itinto planning. rather than basic grants. provision. Senator PELL. Nobody is talking about more money in education t hese do VS. I 1is ;I 411It'SI loll of whet her t here will be less money. Mr.rizcitY..That st tidy does not lead to t he- conclusion t hat. t it le \ funds ought II) InrellIOVed from I he budget: tttaTrurrtoS uN eggnog Senator SAront::. Would von put more Federal strings onthe title V money to restriet what. it might. he used for Mr. .Y11'1:1'111 Ithink it makes sense to continue title V at about. the current level.I f in fact additiotcq funds did become available, I would put rings 001 (11(.111 11Stql for planning, along the lines of part. C of title V. \\ile!' has not yet beenimplemented. Senator FELL \\loaf would you) think about consolidating Title V with some ot her State prorrams ? Mr. MURPHY. I1.fileSS I WOitill have to know more about what.those , other particular programs are.I think that if Title \`' were consolidated with other programs. and if all the funds were funneledthrough. the State departments of todivcation, thew the chief Stateschool of- fitorg who believe st ronl 1'in t Ile Title V pt.o!rr:tin. voidd continue to Ilse it for flioe kind of pi rposes that they are nowusing it, for. if you are talking about consolidating part C of Title V.which is that section de:ding, '' itlt planning. I would be opposed to that.In my judgment ifTitle.V. part C was consolidated with other programs. that there would be a telldelleVfur t Ile 11101ley to he d :tined away front planning activities and put in other.activities. Senator T thank you very (such. 1)r. NIurphy. [The prepared statement of :11-urphy follows:] VOIABLE 1.).),) BESTCON

HARVARD uNivFizsITY GRADUATE .SCI WU. OF EDUCATION

CENTER FOR EDUCATII)V.41. POLIC). RI SE.11,Y:11 01.77M tti LIbRAPY AprRs WAY N1,$,,,nustr1 02133 61 7-4 1..5-4675

GREASE THE SQUEAKY WHEEL

A Report on the Implementation of Title V tEe Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, Grants to StrenIthen Stnte Pepartm nt's or Education

Jerome T. Murphy

'The full report (43S pares) is available at cast ($9.50) from the above:address, BEST COPYfallIBLE StV,MARY

This study explores the impact of unrestricted federal aid on . state bureaucracies. Thespecific program under scrutiny is. Title V of the 1965 Elemantary and Secondary Education Act,which provides free money to state cdot,Ition agencies (SEA's). Title V is an eight-year- old illustration of one variety of reventw: sharing withthe.statcs.

The study describes how the federal money was spentin nine SEA's (particularly in tlassachusetts, New York and SouthCarolina), It examines the ways in which these SEA's have beenaffected by Title V, including .:apad-for growth in staff and budlet levels, and improvements in SEA management, servicesand.lcadership.

Title V was also vlewed by its legislativearchitects as A stimulus for basic institutional change. they assumed that Title V decisions would grew out of a "rational" planning processand, in

turn,STA's would change in a flexible fashion. . The study therefore examines whether Title V promoted a rethinking ofSEA priorities and led to a 'thorough ovorhaul" of SEAactivities.

Title V's Irriact

SEA budgets and staffs roughly doublednationwide between 1965 tt,ndcd through and 1970. !.:ore than half of this budget r.rowth was federal dollars, with the fedcraicontribution to SEA administrative expcnditurcsric4elg from 23 percent in 1965to 40 percent in 1970. Onc.4ifth of these 1970 federal dollars camefrom Tit'c V. This growth has allowed tdiA's to provide roteAcrvices and generally to be rorc visible than was true inthe past (p. 183). sirnificantly Title V's irnPct and ,tr^netheni77 tnc Title V out- In Neu for!: and nissacusetts, from state to state... rather than come was mainly marginaladaptl,tions of ongoing activities activities or. roles. In South Caro- significant chances in procedures, through lina, marled change too ?: place overthe years, largely funded orcover, an exarination ofthe influence of SEA's with Title V. assachusetts was weak in 1916and their legislatures revealed that influential remained weak in 1971, that NewYork wns among Cie rost by 1971,' and that South SEA's in 19GS bUtSepredto have grown weaker and appeared to have grown stronger(p. 187), CatOlinn however, did Title V stimulate are- In none of these states, thorough overhaul of activities. Even in thinking of priorities or a but rather acted SoUth Crolina, Title Vdid not promote basic change as a facilitator for a SEA that was "ready to go". Consequently, Title V funds ray have been neceSsarr, but they were not sufficient. They certainly were not--- the change agiint that some reformers had hoped (p. 187).

An Explanation

Title V's failure to promote a thornnnh overhaul of CFA's was explored. The study found that Title V was used mainly to grease squeaky wheels, or to support pre-existing priorities, and was distributed in an ad hoc fashion largely on the basis of intra-organiza-. . tional competitia, not plannin. Projects were considered not because the SLA's searched everrehere for the best alternatives, but largely because different SEA subunits were already- -prior to Title V--predis- posed toward certain additional activities: and thought they fit within the vague notion of "strenrthening" the agency. lieavy emphasis was'' placed on activities which the state lcgitlotures had not funded, or probably would not fund. In many cases, projecti were simply take:'`. "off the shelf" when Title V became available (p. 206),

Once begun, the flow of new funds 'as mainly used for the ton'. .'tinuing!subsidy of the projects first estthlished. The original. . flexibility of Title V to meet cmeretne priorities was short-lived p. 210).

Basic organizational change (youth Carolina) resulted from extraorganizational pressure, not the free voney. Also, those .external pressures promoting change (6'.17., a shift in state politicsor a breakdown in traditions) arc largely beyond manipulation by the federal government (p. 214).

. The study concludes that the conventional explanations of

.. Title V'sperformance (toed; ch:!ressional appropriations, 1nSEA 'salaries, inadeoua, time for Preplanning. ineptitude of .SEA.offleials,, etc.) eo not fully explain,thyTitle V fellshort o1'.some.'hOpeS. An explanation of the TitleV outeeMes must take inte..Loont the endur7 ing.attributcs of cr,reanizationsi'traditions, norms and standard oper-. atin proccdiarc:;; 'soh:nits tsitk eonflictiae goals and expansionary. tendencies; ',:ev;,ecueation with 'shcirt7tcrm pressing problems; search procedures that atcont:"good.enouch" solutions rather than optimal ones; and.activitiesthat eontiruc from year to year, outliving their,. Indeed,',the nrukrlein- rer.ons why. Title V did not promote bsic institutimal CF1:7:1,!'z PrIC as :.11:n to do eitn the way c...-.:nlex orcnni::::tions r.navf: t'rt-c as witn -'articular in_ stfiutialai or .ftolvicual snom:ooln7s (p. 214. Implications

The study suggests that a major problem in 1965 was the way the reformers thought about complex organizations and how they work. Their assumption that .Title V decisions would Prow out of a "rational" process and, in turn, the SEA's would change in a flexible fashion, led to unrealistic expectations (p. 215).

This assumption seems particularly relevant today, in view of rrowing support for various programs of unrestricted federal assistance, such as revenue sharing and general aid to the schools. Behind this approach lies the notion that public institutions arc not "working"' because of rigid categorical' programs, red tare, and the absence of local flexibility.The hope for reform rests on the same .basic as-. sumptions as Title V: 'institutions proviCed the freedom to plan for .their needs, will develop "rational" and flexible strategics for institutional reform. Not only is thd assumption the same, but the outcome 'might be similar as well. General aid will liLely eel: it in "more of the same" ritl not in much addltirul %Jun n:taic chanrc resultin7 trr,1 local u-,essurn.fluncli,just as the hopes of Title V rctarrers were .somewhat cashed by the realities oforganizational behavior, 33.9..too might be the hopes of the current exponents of institu-

tit,nal reform through general assistance (p. 221). ,

Notes on Alternative Courses of Action

The last chapter explores, various approaches forfurther strengtheninSEA's They range from conventional option's .(financial assistance, federal regulations and technicalassistance) to approaches . that arc more controversial (differential treatment andgovernmental accountability). Various conceptions of planning were also examinelL The major coilclusions are:.

Firnncial asSist:.nca: Neither general aid norcategtrical aid uric the w.,y uncle propanents say they workand,!! in fadt: these seemingly different approaches turn out to be each more alike than sore people seen to think. .Thecurrent federal penchant to ma";c:summnry jud7:rnts among palicies onthe hacis or whether they arc:"ge;:tial"or."categorical".sceMs semcwhat myopic (p. 240).

. ! . Governmentalaccountability: The limited accountability of the statesto 11:::0 and to intended recipients or federal: program's, and the closed.,nnture. of SEA's togroups'uther than professional schoolnen stilesst the need for extra-af!encysources of independent information ::ad theinStitutionalizatinnof PcTformaace an:lits, a new use of advisory countervailing eouncils,:and ind..pendtnt 'research/actionalencies should be '..explored (p..263). ii\l".:1111311 BESTCON

. Planning: If the purpose of SEA comprehensive planning (Part C Title V) is to. significantly affect the allocation of educational resources. then this about-to-be-fundedprogram will prob:bly be a failure.The study suggests that more emphasis tc given to another version of planning--"policy analysis" (p. 2S1).

After examining, political and organizational barriersto a variety of federally-initiated change efforts, the studyconcludes by stressing tuc extreme difficulty in reforming complex organizations ItReSEA's. While somo approaches seem better than others ?Or making gradual progress. there orc ro sin..11c way for the fedcralgovernment: to promote rapid governmental reform in the states (p. 289).. . 'N BEST COPYfl:..r1/-ABI . . C.A 4.1

:41`11:110r PL. N (1WsI'Will iVeeSS I lie 01111111t14. We Win 111Pet ar! :1111 t hitie4)11:111g TileSihi V al1410(101'1i. Ihank IIii1,VIt Itess,s fear here today %ery much indeed. The Wait ing is reeessed. 1 'Whereupon atIIo'rIncli tht snhonniniiltee %V15 recessed sidject loth call of he rini Ir. EllITATION LEGISLATION. 1973

Elementary and Secondary Education Amendments of 1973

TUESDAY. OCTOBER 9, 1973

17.$. SEN.1TE.. SCHOONIMITTIV, EIT.1TI0N or THEE ('o3tmirrr.r. ox .%N.n Pt-mar, WI:LT.1HE. 11.a.qh;tigtail, Thr !4111wolillilitlei` HIM. pursuant. to notice. at. 2:05 pan. in room 4:12. 1 )iv!..;seliI Wire Building. Senator Claiborne Pell. subcommittee chairman. presiding. Present :Senators Pell and Stafford. Senator The Sul)committee on Education will come to order. Todt,y's %e-ill be devoted to a dismission of the administration's new initiative; in elementary and secondary education. About 2 Avolis ago I%vas vont:toted by administration representa- t ices who requested a meet ing to %limits:4 elementary and seconda edit- cat ion. This meeting. at tended bv Under Secretary Carlucci and C0111- illiSSIOIHT of Education Ott inn. and others. was most. frank. 1)itriti, that session I was informed that the administration has stepped back front its reliance on t he so-called Better Schools Act and is now supporting a program. which while. it generally extends the Elementary. and Secondary Education Act.: contains sow c:-.msolidat ion and some eoncent rat ion of the title. I funds: it was also stated that. there Nvotilld' be a willingness to increase the budget request for fiscal year 1975 by a total of $.)l million over the fiscal year 197.1 mines,. as well as a; commit meta to support forward funding's. I complimented the administ ration on this approach and suggesteci t hat. we. have this hearin!r to make this offer both public. anti official. I. also suggested that, in preparation for todav's hearings. the staffs of the subcommittee and the administration sliould discuss the :edema.- fives facing. us so that we have a full understanding' of the ration:" positions, fur %ve realize 11;m it. is only witli a bill that. all agree upon that there will he a solid chance of meaningful legislation on elementary and secondary education enacted this year. The puri,se of today's hearing %vill 'be to sketch in the details of t 1w general specilicat ions which I previously stated. For example : flow do we convent rate titleI funds? if do utilize some type, of concentration mechanism. do we not. lase the theory of eligibility on which titleIis based 'oncerning con:solid:awn. what. programs are to Ix% consolidated. and upon what. basis are they to be chosen for consolidation?' 111.7:7.

LI. Sp I :4.1t110.),N I .q.mitt.o13.11:4 litt;ollful mazy c io.,9vis001 0110 limp s,z!ia.1 imp JO otp ao.:Aptiitiod4itu.; :11 0.) .11,91 11.%%() .011 (1 lad s1ilim;10.1(1 li,)!tp ii...;!.%% a31:ti :1110.1 tu1 st: imo1.10;1,)11:.) tit ;MI *Ain I3.1111 00011 110001 lIO!SSII,WS11) JO alp 141)X.) 1.1111: I! '41)1111i11 .1q1! 11 31)1 J(1 i! tottiolis kootitt101110.1 II si1[3 .0.111;19 s! ssal 11x111 0tI 1111b: (1.)!11.11 vl thoi1!1:010.) It! iv.)su t swot 11!9 ti.111.%% 'pm1 110sA31 oil) ti! 01101as osiv ittot.sti.ls!lo JO p.tu.w..toj pittom 11TO Itto 11:(1 ottli.%% .t%1:1 sozpotipit: 1:.%%.10.1 1).! ..7it0qloti(j oop, suit 1(111 sattba.1 Loo1 Nst: otil 0;111m10 Jo ;poor!! 'Imp% o.m.).10.911.1 sEl saquit! 111 uul01) I ''I 1)!11 1m:(111t! .1.1.p.m.110.!(1 .111111130X 411[1 Sr:J.17:110) snit .,,,)11:.41)111 pm; thhm .10j -culupiled,l) 11011 Jo :1111:4:40.1,1 suit pooLostioull) I 11111 1131.11 0. d,,(H)1110.,, in: ,,voxolltil 3(1(1 1)o1(it)pi: 1..1:dill pp: 03 0,1 110.111:100.1)Ii, !Hip% )(i) lug s.loptinoj .10 [(1.1314.) 111.11 4! oj oti A41 11.1410:1. lupt: if 1u! 11111.4)1kt nut 30 pu.lopul.): :11 1:4.),I13 IpAk at!) s1[)o41.)4 3(1 poluottaq .11) ipm .0([$ ).1,41tts 11:11.tk :pot; col ti.moi st :milk) out !!! oil S1C1011.):: IllAt .11! .i(11),)).1.1.1111 A.((i) '11:Si)(10.1(1 55.111111 0A91:111.111)1: .100.141 SI 1).).011t) I 1)1111)11 )(11101) )1:11) 14).10.110111S0(10.11101111111)111111!.%%.1.)))11111110.1(111)1S111) tic .1S11,11(1"!.).)111.11:.) !),)0,)().fli IN3W3IVIS 30 'NOR XNVILI lo)naliva 113(INII ARVI31103S 30 .11.11V3H *Noiivanaa (INV '31I113731Y1 a3INVcI140031( AS NHOZ 'VNILLO II3NOISSIWAIO3 30 :Noiivana3 S3TIIVH0 '3N003 -111' Aina3a itivisissv AH741311335 Nal NOILVISI031 -vonav (NOLL (INV 3ITION 'ANSNVHSII0 ISIWON033 IVIDOS ALINI133S NOILVIIISININOV

..tiv 1.J.J.VIIIV,) TWILL 110.f. 11.11111I I 1)..11-)1(111111 .111 .01[1010.1aq ()3 SS11.):4!1) 11)!II:N.ii.11 1)) !M.O.) p111: 11.114 .,!!) S.111)11.1111.11a 1101)1:019.).! ).) XIS ')41[3111)111 aft: .1.);1.1.1111110.tt 1(14110s.).1(i 111). -pu $.11010:.!)-;!Iluu lusudu.ul (I) ,,opilusuuo. iii.luja.1 .1.1na11 0111 ittlopad p:u.wri.)111. suut.1711).ut lit ..tuukaualo PM: .,typtio.hr:; ttot;tattlh) 0Jii1.; ;MD 011111 OM lloott ;Ituodul gum :war4000.).1 saA!1t Ju ;up 1101,i:011p sti11o.1;1 01 mol.w.i alp .1 a).)1[ stiou;;;as papHulupo itr 1: pow :du! jsig if J .111 Viaps.).1,1 JAI([ .1,11 uSii: 1100(i pith) [Mu stiopt:Wdoi! put: -sip suovsu.1 ii)tm S.lJtltllalll put: pus Jo Sup liom SI: Olij OS11011 110)1:.101):.1 .10111:'1 th);1101010.) 0; il:)(10 !SW! supiptuml paApi.uu lit ,11u) ..11:molliato put: .1.11:p11o.)04 (1091:0i1) I )(UN) ;! ti) 0:111 MiN pop:10;110111p oi(pLiop!silu.) Sit1ppX01J tutu 11 ()I q.111m Sti.).17110k) 11 01)1).1 li.)11.1.111) lilt 1.101A11111.1111)111111(1.).11: till; 01 004914.01-a PIONSLkid 5101 11411:300.)Ii.) till Oj .01 Oj 10.14(1.0 M JO 4ID 001 PIS !WI ) Sp[ 110!SSOS I 0.'.1110(1 j1:1[) j! Si 1: 1:j q1111:11I OM: I t: 11:0;": to.),R1 )1: nu. i!.%% .ssa(ciltql tup:10 i); am:11 pr. ititt pit pa t sass0ImAt .o0;1!tulli0.kpos.utu..).1040(1.11;.)(Idi;._.1 2231

This afternoMi I would like to discuss with .you the basin principles. which we feel must form the basis for an acceptable conipromise Firs4. Federal funds for education of the disadvantaged should be. concentrated on those riima in need of assistalwe and should spent. priniarilv on instruction in the basic Second. more (Imisiots- ma king autlutrity should be shifted a way from the Federal Government to State and heal officials. Third. narrow categorical programs should he consolidated. ,Fourth. the impact aid !program should be refOrmed.. .1 Would like to discuss each of these principles:

CONCENTRATION 1111100011 REEAilM OF` TITLE I FAF:A One of oar principal concerns with the present, law is that it. does not insure an eqitilable allocation of aid for compensatory education of the disadvantaged. We have worked hard to develop a title 1 formula that will overcome these inequities and insure that funds are focused on those children most in need of compensatory education. We believe that we have developed a formula that will clothe job. To insure as accurate a count of disadvantaged children as available data permits. we pmose that eligible children 1w defined as those from families !slow the Orshansky or census poverty level. and from families with annual AFDC payments alsw the $3.700 income level. A State's title i allocation would be equal to the number of its eligible children multiplied by .8percent of a State's average per -pupil expenditure.. in no event. however, would the average per-pupil ex penditure used be less than S5 percent or more than 125 percent. of the national average tier-pupil expendittire. States would le required to s(4 aside funds needed for programs for handicapped children, children of migratory workers and neglected and delinquent children. The amount of thew payments per child must be equal to. but could not exceed. the, highest. payment per disadvantaged child in the State. To determine what, share each local educational agency would receive, we would require a State to allocate 70 periwig, of its title funds among all eligible distrietK based on their proportion of dis - advantaged children. The remaining 30 percent' would be allocated to school districts heavily impacted with the disadvantaged. Specifically. these priority districts would lw defined as any district, with either 5.000 disadvantaged children, or a percentage in excess of the State average. We believe this new 1 allocation formula satisfies objections to our original proposal and at the same time maintains the 'administration's commitment to provide additional funds to those school districts with the highest, concentrations of IA::: dvantaged children. tinder this new allocation scheme. all eligible districts would receive some title 1 fluids but priority districts would' receive an extra payment.. recognizing that districts with heavy enrollments of disadvantaged students face speeial educational priobVenis. One feature of S. 1319 which we, feel must. he retained in corn ' promise legislation is the reqiiiminctit that at least 75 percent, of a dis trict's title 1 funds he nwl for instruction in reading and mathematics.

. Research evidence shows that. conapensatory:education projects with a 2232

strong focus on basic. skills are able to impact and improve the performance of disadvantamd pupils. that 'compensatory eduCat ion which stresses reading and mathematics do.'s work. Date , from the Belmont, surveys 'indicate that between 1967 and 1970. about :IS isircent of title I 'funds went. for instruction in basic skills. More recent. data shows that in many States the amount'of title I funds spent .'oti basic skills exceeds our proixwed n percent.. Hut there are a significant number of States that. have not,. focused their title I progranis and it is our opinion that. they should lie required by law to do so.

WERENGTHENING STATE AND LOCAL DIFAISIONMAKINE We should develop legislation which encourages State and local governments to make decisions and to supply those services for which : their closeness to the people best. qualifies them. In order to do this we should eliniinate the requirement. for Federal review and approval of nrany separate. detailed State and local plans. Many of. thewitnesses who have come before, your subcommittee in.the past few' months have reinforced our contention that the delivery system for the existing maze of programs, involving separate plans, mgulations,application forms and evaluations, is so complex that State and local educational . agencies find it extremely difficult or impossible to cOordinite and concentrate Federal funds effect

CONSOLIDATH 04: Another principle we believe must be embodied in a new education bill is consolidation of categorical education programs. We are encouraged by the action of the House Committee on Education and Labor in consolidating a number, of existing categorical programs. In marking up an elementary and secondary education bill, the committee has approved the consolidation of title`IL ESEA (school libraries), title III, NI/EA (eqUipment and minor remodeling), and the guidance and counseling section of title III, ESEA, into a library and instruc- t iona I resources program. The committee has als6 agreed to a consolidation of title III, ESEA :(Innovation), title V. ESEA (Strengthening State Departments of Education), and , title VIII. ESEA (School health and NutritiOn and Dropout Prevention), into an education! innovation and support program. We feel that still more consolidation of program authorities

is both feasible and necesssry. : For example, we urge consolidation of parts AII of the. Vocational Education 'Act and the permanent appropriation under the Smith- : Hughes Act. into a block grant, toStates for the broad purposes of these programs. Funds provided under this new authority would be divided among the States in proportion to their schoolage population. The set -aside for the handicapped now in the Vocational Education Act

would be retained in its current form. . Such a consolidation in the field of vocational education has been urged in recent. weeks , by the National Education Association. the Education Commission of the States, the American Association of School Administrators, and the Advisory Commission of Intergov- ernmental Relations. 2233 ucroust or. ImrAor Ain While the jlonse General Eductition Sv.hcommittec had recommended substantial reforms in the Impact Aid program, these changes were unfortunately not .approved by the full Education and Labor " Committee. The reform would have provided fora phaseout of pay-

:.meets for civilian "Ir children whose parents. work outside the school district, and requiring school districts to "absorb" 3 percent of their "B" children be forebeing reimbursed for n any additional "B" children. Unfortunately, these reforms were not accepted by the full committee. We would hope that the momentum for reforming this program cold

. be recaptured in the Senate. The administrathin's. position on reform of Tpad, Aid is well known.. Vi feel it is essential to support r.this pmgram.to. pupils whose parents reside on Federal property and we are prepared:.. to accept a phaseout of ftinding for category "Tr' children.

CONC1,17SION In my discussions with representatives of the education groUps, I. told them that if a bill en:bodying the principleshav, just out ^ ^d to you is approved by the Congress, the administration is prepared to supixt the legislation. : If an acceptable compromise' isenacted,the

. Denartment would seek a 1974 supplemental appropriation for an additional anlOunt of $550.milliare-real forward funding authority for the 1974-75 school year. Every. State would then know how much. Federal aid it could expect to receile in time to develop more effective plans for its use. in this connection 'on forward funding, i recognize that this has always been a possibility, but. this is the first time in the field of education that i am aware of. and I could stand corrected by my colleagues, that the administration bas indicated a .willinness to take the five in this area, and i am glad to note from my discussions with MeM- hers of Congress that it is generally acceptable to the Congress to do

this. . . . I recognize. Mr. Chairman, that we will have ditkrences of opinion over the significance of .the .4050 minim,. Our points .of.departure, as indicated in .youroPening statement. Mr.' Mirman, may he different. We have a different, interpretation of hat swndituz is required .under the continuimf irsolution..than many,.guess it is fair to say most.. of the Members of Congress. But we believe our interpretation is a proper one and the. matternoe..hefore the courts as far. as the .1973 spending level is concerned. As you are. awire.' Mr. Chairman. we are still on thecontinuing resolutionfor.fiscal year 1974. Sothink it, would be fruitless for .Us to .argue over the 1974 budoNt. i would say it.. is a very significant departure for the adm inistratiiin to make a funding commitment of this matznitude in advance of the 1975 budget. the first time the President has on his own initiative acreed.to make such a commitment, ..Mr. Chairman. I neglected .to introduce' my colleagues.here and I apologize for that....The Commissioner of Education is on my Dr. John.Ottina..On my left is Deputy Assistant Secretary of HEW,..

Charles Cooke. . 2234 I will now. he !prepared to answer any specific. questions you or the members. of the slibeammittee May have, Mr. Chairman.. Senator l'Ett. Thank von very lunch. 1. appreciate the statement and its general tenor and hope that we, can work together to retiort out

. bill that will. generally be agreed on. We may well have to:agree .to. disagree on pomts Of it and let-. theforttines of the political processes decide the issues. .. In connection : with title 1, wage .yon say :"specifically, these

priority districts would be defined:as any district . wtili either 5,000 disadvantaged children. or a percentage in excess of the State average." What, percent. were you thinking of ? Mr. CARLUCCI.. It .W0111 d be the.percentage in excess of the State aver- , age iwrcentage of disadvantaged children, as .defined by and here isan issue quite frankly. Mr. Chairnian, that e have not settled firmly on, as defined be smite criteria. There, are several options.:We could use the same criteria. that we have used for the interstate distribution of title I funds or we could allow the States additional. flexibility' in determining criteriafor, the intrastate distribution. But whatever . criteria we would uSe, we wpuldhave 70 percent. ge for all thedistricts who have disadvantaged children', and then concentrate. 30. percent on

:top of that. . Senator I )1.:Lt. Do Von think there should be a holdhartnleSs provision.

in it or not? . ., . Mr. Cmiturci. Mr. Chairman, we have run various tables, and we find that. with the addition of the funds. that 1 mentioned earlier; if we add $550 million far elementary- and secondary education in 1975 then: we can allocate sonic $300 million more to title I funding, and this . Would enable, every State to at le::st reach its fiscal year 1973 Spending....

. . . level. .

The concentration aspect, may well create problems .at the local . level. We.are still waiting for computer :ruins on what kind of !mob- lems mightexactly he createdat the local level. ;

, Senator 14:13,. What von are saying then is that if we follo this formula, noStatewill -get; less than it, gets now, however,someindi-: vidmil schooldistricts maydependingon themovements Of:poplin- tiOn ? . Mr.C curs( That, is correct, depending. No. ..1 on movements of., population,.. mid depending. on the change. . in actual distribution as a.

result of the formula change. : ' Mr. Oi-riNA.r.There, is. one'State. Mr;.:Chairman, that tinder the formula we ' re suggesting might :obtain funds slightly below the

level, a MI ,t hat, is,North Carolina. : , . Mr. CARLUCCI. I apologize: yes. North Carolina.'would go from.,$57 million to $5.1. million. Al I the - r-est.' of the States ,7,1..i:Ad either t,7itin

or'stay leVe. : : , Senator PELL. Neither Vermont nar.RhodeTsland Mr. CAlitt7CCI; Rhode Island..Won 41 go from .155.655.000 to $6.235.000. and Vermont. would 'go from .53.132.000 te 53.273.000. Senator PEtt. T congratulate you on the ingenuity of this forniula. , Tinder the original cancept of. titlefunds, they were to lx! funds available, to local edneaters .to "do what,.,they will for the disad-: .yantaged,..vonldn't your emphasis on instruction of reading and mathematics perhapSIkait this initiative? 2235

Mr. CAM.trect. We think there ought to be sonic constraints. Senator 143.1.I must say I agree with you personally onthat. Mr. CARLUCCI.' 1will ask Dr. (Mina to speak specifically tothe point. But if we are going to help the, disadvantaged, wesurely do not want: money going into football uniforms and such otheractivities, and the studies that we haVe conducted indicate that thereis a very high payoff in reading and math for the disadvantaged students. Let me ask Dr. Ott ina to elaborate on that. Mr. OrrisA. Mr. Chairman, our thought: very muck inasking that the schools spend their money this Way is that when we talkedabout educational disadvantage, we are generally talking about.performance in the areas of reading literacy and computation. Therefore, webelieve that' funds for the editeationally disadvantaged directedin this area would indeed be supportive of the national purpOse. I would like to call to your attention also. Mr. Chairman, to sonic studies wehavedone On a very limited basis. Many States spend in excess of 75 percent of their title:I moneyin language arts, mathematics, and reading. We do have a survey of some 28 States which showsthat they spend somewhere between 30 and 40 percentand 89 percent. of their funds in this particitlar area, and we would be pleased tosupply that. for your information. Senator We would appreciate that. We will put these tables in the record, too. [The following information was substantially suppliedfor the record :1 2 236

BEST CC: ;1'1ri:

Excerpt', from:

TITLE I READING AND MATHEMATICS PROGRAMS: A COMPILATION AND SYNTHESIS OF AVAILABLE ACHIEVEMENT, EXPENDITURE, AND MODEL PROJECT INFORMATION

Submitted by the Planar Corporation

STATE EXPENDITURE PATTERNS

To determine the amounts and proportions of Title :1 money spent on

reading and mathomatics,we searched the Title 1 annual reports and then telephoned those SLA, which did not present these data in their annual report,. In addition, we examined the expenditure data reported in the 1970 CPIR (Delmont) Survey.

'labia 29 contains the expenditure data from twenty-eight of the fifty SEAs surveyed. The figures presented in Table 29 are All for FY 72.wIth the exception of Minnesota which reported ry 73 Information.In all instances, the percentages reported are the result of dividing the reading and/or mathematics expenditures by the local educational agency portion of the Part A allocation or expenditure. Thus, we did not include migrant. N & D, etc., In the Part A figures. Siaalarty. the reading and mathematics expenditures liaude only LEA figures. Our assumption in limiting tie report to only SEA and LEA basic skill projects was that the other components, M & D, Handicapped, etc.. although important. are somewhat peripheral to thu basic skill issues.

According to the Information provided to us, there are two general conclusions to be drawn. First, the districts spend far more money on readirg and language arts than they do on mathematics.Although mathematics expenditures are greater than other curriculum areas such as science, they Dale In comparison lo the amounts expended upon reading.Ten of the twenty eight states spend over 50% of their allocation on reading, whereas only six spend more than 20% on mathematics. Across all twenty eight, !States, 43% of the budget is devoted to reading as contrasted to 12% for mathematics.When the expenditures for the two subjects are combined, the pattern of expenditures on basic skill subjectsis quite favorable.' Twelve states report expenditures In excess of 50% of the budget, and twenty of the states have bask Skill expenditures greater than 40%. Nevertheless, over half of thesample spends less than 50% on basic skills; so there is a need for improvement.

The socond observation Is that there Is a considerable range of',expendl- fury patterns among the states: In reading, the range is from IBS in Idaho. to a high of BO% in Nebraska and Washington state. Although there are ton states, that spent more than 5o0 of their budget on reading, there are also Six status that spent less than )O% on that subject. In total basic skill 2237 T COPY AVAILABLE

TA101: Sisfu Tile I Dpenditeres for ReadIn9/LaoguJgo rTts and Malh6matic

LEA PART A READ1hC/LANO.ARTS MA111EPATICS 10TAL6 EKP, % 04% FOI(WSTAIE Alt0O/C)P. IW. %

REGtiN 68. 21 525.092,159 89 'assat:sellt: 9 10,845,172 318,:'54,665 85,637,476 593,500 36 41. Hamayhira 1,658,341 550,365 33 45,135 3 ',ode 10and 3,971,226 1,70,,628 43 130,692 3 1,838,320 46

RECI:::: 111 48 ernsylvDnia 58,200,000 24,600,000 42 3,400,000 6 28,000,000 12,738,211 43 .irgInla 29,716,770 10,955,70') 37 1,783,006 6 A1 Viroinia 20,524,496 4,870,866 24 135;454 1 5,006,320 25 4,351,500 23 14,670,000 77 wy1Jtd 18,740,347 10,153,89`) 54 ,1r.1;:1. IY 37 ,Id6ama 40,257,134 14,182,574 35 4,372,027 II 18,554,601 48 lorida 26,904,152 11,480,258 43 1,723,734 5 12,703,992 36 12 20,739,171 48 `1!.5issippi ! 42,214,626 15,204,443 50024,683 oath Carolina 50,561,852 8,911,699 79 1,959,793 6 10,671,492 35 arnesSec 51,273,191 18,763,915 60 4,690,979 IS 23,454,894 75 rEGION V 98 tioe,ola 19,200,000 13,342,000 69 5,606,000 79 16,949,000 ,io 42,128,491 23,997,056 51 1,823,005 4 25,820,121 61 ,isconsin 15,879,506 4,452,879 28 491,075 . 4,94},954 31 76 'IchigAn 45,097,729 24,417,592 53 10,404,68223 7.4,862,214 11(0101, VI xkanSas 21,685,447 6,000,001 28 1,025.476 5 7,025;477 33 .6wIsiv14 29,371,025 8,920.977 31 3,236,247 II 17,157,224 42 Alahoma 17,970,653 6,0870774 34 360,506 2 6,448,280 36 1e4ds 55,371,389 31,182,250 56 992,499 2 32,174,748 58 AMON VII 53 ,Jinsal, 9,807,137 4,528,431 43 602,614 6 5,131,045 'issour1 25,579,100 7,473,387 29 1,340,822 5 8,814,709 34 :e5raska 5,773,600 4,639,329 80 513,067 9 5,152,396 89 REGION VIII 44 south Dakota 6,341,674 2,447,399 39 348,290 5 2,795,669 }tat 3,280,968 1,585,818 42 32006 10: 1,707,004 52 73 '1olnqh nalsota 4,191,000 2,544,016 61 524,782 13 3,058,798 4(600N IX 7411fornia 122,028,439 60,690,408 50 34,282,88775 94,973,293 78 REGION X Idahq ?mil .n Ii'71;i'lla 8 9)72'R9.9 IA ILM.Na...

54% TOTALS 5769,545,374 1531,237,969 43% 391,520,716 12% $427,558,705 223S BEST COY 41217

a.bendltures, lha raeg.I., trim 19( in Idiho to 16(1 in The state of WcAti ingtoe. Ire is,pOirs to fr a slight regional inlia,,Ice in these expendl-

tp,IfICIrn Ic flcr teued in the Northei'.St.. North Central and far wer states. lower patterns of expenditures are found In ';41 j:LnIr;; 'Mis is a less thin cO,sisttn't pattern, for in every region at least ono state can be found' not cur tort. Ono irlat1e that is perfia. very important is the rural-urban dimension, Within our samhle of states, the TT-Ps that report the tower expnditure percentages are the rural states. This obsnrvation holcl, true wit! in lice also. Mt.., ii appars that a handful of

htare-J, tlieeo,010, Ma,olcntt, '.'ichigan, North Oaholo, Wishih.j1on state, NeLhahLii.California, and Ternessec, have mode significant stridrO In bring-

ing their rill:, 1 Programs inta foou,. The basic skills emphasis tound in states exceed:, the legislative proposals now being considered by Comte s. In contrast, 90 majority of the states would apr:., to need more

definitive leqlslative gaidance, if h1ieir Title treading and ratherwliCs prolrhms are to he concentrated effectively.

Thor c'e several major problemS with these e,penditure data that should be e,plihald bfsge one draws any firm conclusion.Accounting st.stms vary Irs.m state to state. Although all slates follow the USN,

accounting handhook fliandhook ill.it is not compulsory and each state taTIMmS the account!; to lit its unique situation. Thus, compariSOns across slates are not c(mpletely accurate. Turthermuro, there is a fundamental conceptual weakness to the N.:brow! 1.ystem and in particular :the MR. the major DC Pro- gram reportirg system. ElasiCallv, the CPI cc survey requests m.rendiure data by objective (e.n., reading, math) end by tunctiOnal category fn r,r testing, fixed changes, etc./. The problem with this mixture of accounts 15 that some of Inc oxicnditures attributed to the functional accounts can, and should, be

attributed:C,a a pro-rata basis to the instructional ojecttves accounts. It is quite obvious, for example, that too fixed charges account category, which usually constitutes teacher fringe benefits, and testing, which includes :loading tests, are accounts that in whole or in part are subsumed by the reading project account. Yet, for several years now the Cliti t,las gathered this hedge -podge of expenditure data and researehorS have rather slavishly analyzed

it withoUt questioning the conco;Ts upon which Mu data categories were based. BEST COPY 1:17..PALE If str,e time 4, in dedlyzieb Mu 010 ht,C...wi cl,t6orie, ratn,,/ thaarw,relv tree rapenditur, data, some irtcrestin-1 observations can be rude.

1"h0 CP1R Title. I rddinniliw;eaje drt, er.:,erdilures

m:.ft ntic, ar,it

b% c:total titre 1 _,,,( endHcros, :i,e1). e-w.er, oat., ystem-

dflralty der,.:, the drk..ant of movv u1.011 t..1.115 in

Ittv lint. 1 .r,tr.;r..m: ta! cotAir, the per,.rntaas doer-mimed by the ft 72 LPIR report aloe.: won rwponaeJ perrentage: that we derived from rewrking thi 1I111

1!htLLx13; , 01 CPIP TitIo I Program Urpenditurer. with fr-jram lxienciturr-.. es % of Curwrt Oper- ating Ikpen',.'s. TY 70.

' 14:)P.G VAToiV4114'.. . TOTAL

crlk Data 3b$ b% 41% ixpanded GPO', 10% 4.8%

Our pre,:edure in determining the expanded CPIk program percentages was., ,TrWly to tl.o a pro-rale share of Other line 11eM accounts and apply them to reading and mdthemafics. TO do fhis,, we first determined what percentage' of the it'll: basic Skills instruction budget went'fo reading and math. Accord- ing to Inc CPIlf 1940 e,peeditur data for basic Sidlls, reading and language arts programs. represented 6:1 of all basic skills expenditures and math programs represented 10/. thus, supperlive CeSt5 directly attributable to the. programs can be allocated to each program on an equivalent percentage basis' resulting in a more precise total Title1 expenditure for reading and math. Those Suppohlser.viceex4,enditures identified as directly related are: General Administration, Instructional AdMinIstration,' Program Development, Pupil Services, Fixed Charges.: Audio-Visual andInsItuctional Eauipment.. included ji a "part of Capital Outlay, could be allocated on a percentage basis to each program.

' .The first row in Table 30 presents comparable expenditure data,'1116- straling'total reading and math program costs as a pehcent of the total operating expenditure as reported by the GP1R. The stcond root in Table 39 presents reading and math program costs inclusive of the pro -rota share of Suppoting and capital expenditure; as a percent of the total operating opeeditures.: The alloeation of supporting service and equipment costs' to REST CO?Y

total program expenditures increased total reading and languagearts expen from ditut trom 1545,b54,000 to $577,01,000 and total math expenditures repro- S'4/.112,000 to 594,7".0,c01. Iotal reading prrgram expenditures then

I it le I an incr.r.e of 23.2%. with total

! .ent in of Vie total

math program cnpundlfure.,s 9.:1 of tha total title I wprrditure, thelt percontag,s, althoujh based on generalized cost an increase of!..et. allot:atiens: not only present a more realistic picture ofthe. Federal dollar investment in rnading and math programs Ica children tromlow-incomo areas but also present a much more positive picture as to the degreeof :etfort being e.pended for Muse programs.

As we all know, there is more to a budget than meets the eye.; and this Is particularly true of school district budgets,The legislative proposals that call for a certain percentage to be spent upon Wisic skills all pre- suppose that districts maintain a program or instructional objectives budget system. In fact, nothing could be farther from the truth. The vast majority of the districts in this country maintain a tunctional budget, where expenditures are classified by the material or service purchased and not according to the odacielonal objectives being taught. As we have ettuerted to demonstrate with the CPIR data reworking, if districts or states were required to, they would simply pro-rate expenditures that are presently seperete line-Items to reading or mathematics program objectives.

This Is not to say that stipulating an expenditure percentage would not be effective in making some districts seriously attend to the basic skill needs of their students. However, it would be unreasonable to expect much more than that rather limited outcome. For most of the districts and states, a 7:4 expenditure requirement could easily be satisfied by simply changing

reporting procedures. ItIs our opinion that much of the difference In expenditure patterns between the states that spend a high percentage on basic ski.ils and those that spend about the average percentage can be attributed to differences in accounting procedures and not to difterences In the carpe or intensIty'ot the states' programs. In addition, therralls a possIT bflitythat such a requirement could also be satisfied by simply changing the name,and hence the budget classification, of the local Title / projects. For exempla, lase a district that has been operating a PreK-1 Title 1 project 2241 BEST COPY

based upon tive so-called open olassriacon tlayary.More likely tnan not, the name of the project is "The Free Learning Projlect" or something similar and it IS eldssilied in the district Uodget as an early childhood education account. In tact, upon examination, one would find that 7Y: ht the time In that project is dootud to ri.a.ling ct o,e rat er Jeltkr. Const:aently, it the new law requires that 751 of the money be spent upon reading.: it. Is iroba5le that the name will become "The free Reading Project" and the accounting classification

will he changed to iadIng. Again, we would have aecomplisho. the appearance of change.

In summary, we have attempted to hOir.ttalt some ea the problems tt, could be raised when expectations or assumptions in Washington aro not congruent with realities in the school districts.Furthermore, we have attempted to Illustrate how we thivik expenditure figures as collected and reported by USCi- probably understate the true amounts being spent upon basic skill instruction in the

Title I program, Despite our pessimism ebout the overall impact of these legislative proposals, we believe that they would be effective in prodding some states and districts to pay attention to basic instruction. As the data in Table 23 indicate, there are a significant number of states that appear not to have responded to Federal administrative exhortations to focus their Title 1 programs. Because theca exhortations have been delivered with considerable urgency since !969,it would appear that these states are simply not going to respond .unless the legislation fells them to do so. We are of the opinion that this is a desirable outcome. 2242 REST COP?. ONELE :

EW:011.!;!...NT STATISTICS. Oet-of-School Catha:i.: Relinious Instruction

School Year El ementary Secondary Total

1962-63 2,909,424 1,119,800 ,1 29 ,224

1963-64 3,067,794 1.249,137 4,316,921

1954-65 3,285,899 1,304,328 4,590,227

196S-66 3,486,902 1 ,309,751 4,656,653

1965-67 3,6(31.070 1.380,756 5,044,826

1967-63 3,856,625 1,499,715 5,356,340

1968-69, 3,995,692 1,462,741 5,458,433

1969-70 4,081,929 1,368,617 5,450,746

1970-71 4,181,466 1,303,032 5,484,498

1971-72 4,251,729 1 ,327 ,331 5,579.060

Computed from The Official Catholic Directory published annually by P.J. Kenedy 6 Sons, New York quo -maul 'TEM .i1:s i 311111 slswidulo su 11 Amor mil saw! JO a.41 Jo .1111 ins 0.11111111110:m ilinom 1.11)41(1115 ! sa0:41 Stu 1 ',Mini ;111105 -1110:) 1).111m01'ip1:0.141411! .i1111111) 11! '110Iltr.m1),) 11111.i.1 110111 S.1011:111111011.4) JO .0.1/./(p.r.VO .10J HI: J110 S.1100IN 'sloops .1110 .m4.1(1 ,11.).%% Alum, -rittiluoj Attu iatuo vlpwis , . f. 3.5114u.) 11:11 pinotis poiu.)11! II! )1 101 0111 IN111 .7:110 1.10.0.1 t; 1 31..11119 .1i.1.3.1 ; .q.noop .1)011:15 0111.tt 51 51c ) .1()J 11.1410.1.1 10:rin1,) mi.; 5! 110!.1 .11411111ai,-; -113,11 :it1111) .1 .1094111 30 )111 Num()) 031112no -oaaa pozric 111 1 aff ..1)111.11:dif 111110M 110.i i).1I2 .t.111 ?MORO 1,',0:1,1)1v,-) JAI MUM) SI 'Sri ft% au .01511;1115.10 pplu ;xi se,1 .oAt:IE 11110.).1.111 1110f 511 )1(4'10 0.11 141110(i5' 3A1t( Joietws. -71:4,1 I 111111) 1101 1)1114).0 dot 144k11. 11tu111 5111) 111 .10.1.1.1 no.A Y1.10.%1 11! mil 1111..m..; 119!111.1.151.1111111)VS11.11Lot; II! 51c: -.msx11(511() saA II st. 1! Jill!) 1111:11.1111 01 .0I 01 004.11154m um Ion .0;05030i A01191011105 511 paltr.niattio.) se .19 .1^10(1 .i3J 'N011111 I 0.1115 lutim Pinom .141 JO 03 .1114 0.) .).)111111111 '011111) 15.1.1.11111 u!.(0,4 110!)u.1151111111pv aoj 111101 011114 sug puti sL 4JE41 JO SIC VS.1.1 ITI11:1.11 JII1OS 11.1.01100 JOAO 010 .10 S11 '111.1.111111' p1111 11;11101011! lUIDOS .11111011 1105 J0 11000111110d 'S11110.1;1 PM If 11f4 .1°J '.111105 Jo Sit (litiitip .1.11.110 SII1OOS 041.0) SI10111.1/011SS 140.111: 'All! -.1.11).10111 1:411,9 sr 11114140111! 511 .101(114 .44144041 .104 ant .093 OA% SI! I! t1.1.1141S.1.1 11109 U /104.104I04 (ks; s.) 0:41: 11.141014.W1 110 010 ;HttIOUO3,) 11111111.101 .10 1! a11111.115 IONA 111110.0. (11.111 4111 41110d co sa!ipinu 111..% '.11101 -11)Ak ;111,m1 Jo 5,491111:J su 1)05041(10 1[11M J.10111 1111[1 1.4 1111 5.11111111:J. 911m .1110 Pulp 51: 1)450(1410 (,3 5JI(10114

0.1am 1.1 A1.1111001 11011: oti1 5114190.141 30 all Vipao.% aAt 141 p.14.)..10.) . 0.10(m .114.1 ono nosua.1 .10 oud pm! 150111 .1111111) 5,11'11114 ti)!A t! 4011 .11111 .1111 UJ 11/ %if .1.I0O1511 J11) S.N111'.1.)1(I0111 '1011 .11).n .10 sv 110.1 Spit:goad 1.Atoull 0.109 am 01l Slicia11011 .)11103:e 5011111135 Jo .1°J 111.).1.)vp 5 JO ,11111.ui:S(puu.) mi 11az111; p.m al.144:41011:0 mu 1 pawl_ swis 0.1,110% 110 JO 511 LIU .10 14110m al!) `ago; 51 41131.1111 01 110 1p115 -amigo:: 1 011 1,mai.a.111.)15!5(ins 11 141 .10.1711: 'sp.iiptiv.is 1.1111, iidof .1110 Tai(1.).1.11: Iii Ise.)! OF 4111 i1S11.1S J0 lfut.lrl( .1110.111,1111( 11,),441 pasn 11).1 -.1111!) Jo 1m444.1 .11)5.150.4 1Nm) 51110

1 sett .10J 1! JO '150.1 1(.)111M .191 1 ).1131.4 -MOW Jo .1.110111.)071V 41111 $110 pup Io% 51:11 11.,x1 pasn lupus sar.:111,trIu .1511 1t14 (om 01(1-.% 05.11[ 1104.J 51140:) ...ill) 0) 11111:-oplin11f I II. $I 10411 JO 11111 S1S11101.11.1 IIUti 54:49001.0S '100(111 414-10N1 110topttotiitilo.1 v4 III CH0 Jo 1/00J .10J I! 1/011 '1111) !MC 11(10,111 ;)I1 4411,1 11/111A1 SI 4011 4)9 allIUS pi) II I Jo ,E1 51109c1111,111111144.) imm.11111114).)0.1 saPatiumoill: Sq .0u II° aq.) 51.5e( .0q4 1t1111)!Ius (!.,uno,) .10J 511111411111; JO s111,)!.111111 411111 ail: ppooti 11: Itbuoipp sartu -sax&.; pm! rtuppoi 0114 so:)110.140.111 JO 0.%;111 .1(mo 1IIr:11.1a111v 5,i1111vJ o1r..).1 111 11111.111111115110.( so!pnls [)001 .10 'Wm)) 11; S.l 'gps )0.0 .11 S11111(1 S1J7i1111

1110.10.1)111 SI.I.W1 JO IS0.) 011 11110 41110 st '1113, V4`)"1 A`1( 30 iMl} iptI' S1110110.0 'IMO -(10.111

1104.1 111!. A[(0! e ,).1):411,HIN,)11) In! .11;,1.11! SI: allo '111(1 .1J110401 .11114 101M '010 11110M 0.1 .t.'1!.11 11510111 111!.0111 S4..!11.1.1.1.1,14111 -0.11116.1.11 S11/41111 JO au .)1111,1401a: 'ow 2244

Senator Prat. Would that be about. the same, less or more than my colleague Senator Tummy lived on the last 2 weeks? Ms.ORSIIANSKV. It. is.I would say, considerily more than that, although it. is not. generous. Senator PELL. lie was very emaciated afterward. Ms. OnsoAxsay. T think 1 saw in the newspaper that, he was living OA $1.25day. Senator. PF.I.L. Yes. Ms. OnsoAxsa-v. %Yell Ithink I brought. with me, as of now. T will have to divide this rintlicatingli cannot divide in Inv IteadI have to take $38 and take SO percent of thatlet me see, divide this by 4, and you get a little hit less than S. It is probably not, very different from that. level. But. T think it. is a little bit, above. In any e:154', if you used that plan and :nade average choices and were as knowledgeable and as intelligent as the home economist ladies who thought. it. up. you stand al !out one chance in two of haying what. would he considered a fair diet, if you family's needs are average, and about. 1 chance in 1 of getting a good diet, if your family's needs are above average. Although I :on not plugging it, T might say these amounts are consiaembly higher than' what as used for emergency diets or relief in other countries, but that. is neither here nor there. Anyway, using that food cost level for the base year T was working with, which was the year 1963, and observing that on the average, families in the rnited States spend for food at a considerably higher level than that plan We spend $1 out. of every $.3 for food. We used average family !multiplied h 3 for families of two or more, and by somewhat, higher amount for two and one person families, beCause they have hi:rlier overhead costs. that such a scale, could represent. the relative needs for income of families of different sizes and composition in the rnited States at a possible, acceptable level. We also put a level which was 2:i percent, higher, calling it the near poor. which is probably more realistic, bat that has not generally been used. The important thing I think to note in any standard. since standards are always arbitrary. is that you cannot po-ssily fix it so that you make it. work or be sensible for every individual family. SOme families have higher than average needs and obviously you cannot fit them into any average scale: Some families. because they are smarter or luckier or have access to other avenues for other esources, are able to do 4)etter and might. need less. Bun We cannot putt those into an overate formula. The important, thing is to try to use the one that von nick, the scale that you pick; in such a way, that it is egnallY reasonable or as close to eonally reasonable as you can make it for familiek of different size and composition. I think that. the poverty line which is based on fond needs probably does: We did this wt' back, as a 'matter of fact.' in 1963 even before there was an ant iooverty program. The a nt inoverty pro rion you may remember was announced in January 19(4, in the President's economic repoft at that time. and they used there as a simplistic approach to a. poverty line for a ra:nily C3.000 for a family of two or more persons regardless Of size. We did not feel that that.: was fair to the large families, relatively speak i It was giving, more weight to the needs of aged people in small families than it was the larger ones: 2245

Ire went forward with (mr work with what we then called the SocialSeCUrity Administration poverty index, as I 'Fa y, as our own re- , search pool. and for good or for ill, it has heenpicked up and used ' first on a voluntary basis.'and nowonmore or less prescribed basis by Federal statistical agencies. No agency isrequi red to use it unlessit.is in legislation for running its programs, but agencies are suppostsl to use this in making, budget plans and estimates. . Since. unfortunately most people would rather pick irp something somebody else has done than gtr, through the processing of working their own, these numbers' haye been used. It is the base line which was desigtled for 196.8 income in food relationships. and itis'adjusted each year to conform to the change, in the Consumer Price; Index published by the of Labor Statistics. Senator PELi. Thank you very much. Now one further question here that has always concerned me is that one level which is accurate foe. one part, oftale,country may ta4 in anothrer; For instance.: in New England. it. is cold in the winter, so you, need more , food, more fuel, ' more clothes, and hence more money than you 'world inn great. part of the southern port ion of the country. DO you Crank in a geographical difference or is this a national grid for the whole country ? Ms. OusioAsssv. This poverty line is a national average and it does: not make gradients for regions of thewountry. It does have it farm and nonfarm grading. At. the time we did this, we said we believedI think at this time 1 can. say: We probably know that the, differencesin living costs which :peOple think of as they think of one part of the country versus another are not nearly so great asthe low level of living evetire about as they are at higher levels of living. Many of the things which we assume cost. less in parts of the country are really not lower priced. for. the'sa me thing, there are different. choices and lower levels of living enforced by generally low incomes. We do know that there, are special.cimumstances difference'from place toplace. Housing is a very :important one. That defends on the city's supply, of piiblic housing, construction costs, a whole lot of other things. But,' the variations in honking as a matter of fact or in rent are often as great, within 'a State or even within a city, in different parts of the city, as ..they are from one part of the country to the other. 'the Bureau of Labor Statistiek .issues three standard budgets at, differentlevelsofliving for 'four persons, a city family. The lowest' level. I..think now for 1972. a four person family. is about $7;046. which is about' 170 is;reelit. of our pOverty line. The highest one, what BLS ealls the liberal level. is almost. $17.(100.. . Theyhavebeen- issning.tbese scales for-the United States, and for ... about. 39 different. cities and.Standard metropolitan areas in four regions for perhaps 7 years now. Each year you find that. the range: of differenceincosts from t loW to the high. and there is one, drops very much from the liberal level, which as 1 say. is nOW, at. about. $17,000, to the low, which in 1972 was $7.400. :.:. ifyon recognize that, the poverty line is much lower thin that. it , gives. us reassurance that. the actual differences,in living costs to ,a' familyare considerablyless at the low level we are talking about. than what one might have assumed. du ]u lir .1o4 0: )51 tiO! 10,.411! :401011 11011.11 .1.011 014 .1[011) S141)1111 )1:11) I 111.1.114 3111:100.1. J1101 Jo 1 011 00110610.11111 51511,1 1110.1.1 .411(4 03 dauld ato 31..011 Slip-tutu tut! ulas,tufo.1 sooltdidwp ut so.1.1(1 jo oti awes .ittittil put: 3110(10 jut! s! 3 ati a.411,430131p II! dip sad!otio dpIoad wpm! atom-dog' 30 3 oil Si:two:pi:Au put: astleadq JO .11010 011103111 011.1.1ti 11111 .10 )011 1 !!IS I ,'0:111 .1,1:111 010:11S.1011 '100.i til:3 Sus Situ) 1101) log aso: 1)111: '11:111 14! .1.1111.10110r: riflp1I1HIS 0511110011 0.11 01) 001 ..1101 1141111 0311111.10 50 011 ZIS 0 JO 0111 .\ .10 1 011 .i111011111110J S00;1 '11.1011 01100.11 1 .1111V1 535(53 Vii!ori timoi) -1)03 stip gum of!, 1p;,3.1 -awl!) .1!up311 553551: 0113 spdou 111111 419 W1311111 110111111115 )0 111.111.1 15110 11111115 .1113 '50l1111111) ,15110.14(1 0.1% 1111 011 I ;lupin op!! lutto.hu: 1: us .0!!!qtri! 1)111; o1111 outi1111 50,)!.1.105 51)91 II! lootps ji I Sulu us ut um.) sat 03 u siumlli pull I: tut:atom! pm: pug su!p.xtupSatio z.410 S-sql -paatt 11 aqSum lull "0.101110.11:.1011.) 00.111111L) 111:111ti S11.110j, .10 111.111.1 5110.11: osull .93 3 losua S.las .1u) 03 lat 3 dam! pin: dog; s! 3111t Stu: Sum je .71titmutol mut! poor,' u :41 51.11.1, .111.9 10.1!10111 '5.).11.1.105 31 !opt Sat!) 332 141 j0 '00) st mu; Jo Suutil 111113 5i us j! ast (11110,1 31111.11 ,10 3 all szititti3 11.)!11s opluml u! 411 ;mu 11typtIo.3 'smut: ippl as illlUII.tull TIN; Jo se ouo-ilif!ti 511.5.1 11119 11 alqi:1111.1 01 '111019 1)1111 11:111 .114004(1 111 111.111.1 111111 1113115 'S11.1101 III 511,11n 1)1111 1101115 511m(); 019 111111,, 301111113 300 Ol S11s0a .31 JII 3 wq OM 1411100 411.11 J10 3503 JO 1111 1110 jt 11411 A11151411(1 Mill J311.1.11111) 111311 i JasNutist 3! .s! s! 30(1 tiatitti Aaduatio tiuS Op '3011 3.1111 Sawmill 03 dAti u! attu daupl :1[3.1011311.1 111 Juoulas -113,1 35.1!4 1 p!p atuus !plum! 3!.10 *J1.00111 I 10,)901.1 31119 3113 154.1101 .10.10(1 .).141 31:0 951:*1,:,:;*51 11 110.i .1 10.10) SlltuR) .siv V11,01( 11,0: 'A 0:111 St !manta Jutpri -s.)!;souls .1u3uuds 0111 s! ill!! .1010 111:11 opptup 'u 311050.1(1 -011!111 tuttui alum us 31 s! 4.105 ju I: IS 7:111.11.1 '0.1117:9 5J "AMSXV11,01() I WE JOU 3.1115 3! s! .dignup -1031:u4s s! 31(3 .1.11;19 Jo; 2,61 Spasod ',ma! .1o) 1105.1.141-.1110,1 A.1111111.1 111. I .1031111os 5! 11119 0113 .111011-of '10.).11 "Itid Sic 111i0t1 11111111I111.111 Wi11.1% pitto Aulittuqu jou! JO 311[1 0111 ..1astx1 lasal s! I 3 lull! 3! s! ilma 3 .3t1rfuoti p pudi pt.; ItiVitutp 'Sul:nor iptiudas 31 pinu ludas 03 ow 3 rut atm 1)11103 3111E.13 03111 o113 eitutuoj Vu!tuatuus 03 up to!.. 311.1.x1010 am ascii pad9uu 111111 1101801.1 141:11 0110 JO 0111 4500 ju Vu!.!! JO Suu Su.) Ill po31.11:1 .souls uu.i 301111113 Sestu mai) 0111 409 11:111 .11:011 5001) '003 11111; 110.i 0.11111 01 0011 III 0111 11.1011.1.1011 1:11 3.1 JO 0113 3111103 aq 3! ti! -.11111ti51:At 1101 .10 of! tquid,dipptic :31136 .10 sox puulittla tto_k istto!sqo ull 03 asut! 3(14.1dp! .7t11!t3013 su 110.0 liast '.110111 110.i 01411: 1/0011 0.10111 501.101 01 0.E11 0113 0111115 psi!! JO -q!! duopmatu pinugs Jun aaato 041 paTie.IJ upt! AttuS EintuJuj tin t: 1121111.1 .5151:41 agletti 'damp 311al.),y!p -01 &LI:ta1) satuutid III 3u.i.xIttiq dm' Ut0i i ssulJt: atI3 3tittua S.1 u! sat!!! jo apt1391:1 .siv mssusno -A mows um 3011 Ix!: 3.14(1):d 110 -supttuau) Joinuas -nail 110A Sitqui.o.) -all: -Amsxvusuo Sisnu!sqo 1 ',mutt uu!ti!do 110 Atittp.i.ta.ta lug I pptum al!! 03 tiu!ulatti au° :Ituti3 3539 tp!ti 5.114X1 110 11111.1% I SEA -Sus 111 'i ji ttuS 00S 4113 tiudkinti j0 .logul! sd959u3s tptli ast asut1 tia!tim splithmu 03 autsuatti a113 Atit.tti -0V1111.1.1 SJUJUI puu sou.) ut iu,uaii!p sa..mid 3! sdup 1011 atuoJ 1110 .3u113 uuvoit .010.%,9 4V 1 011 '.1)4111.11.011.1.1111 VIII: :1 .11,0171111 t".! .q111.1491.11ti oItti s! 01! !11 150.) 3V qatip 0.10 it; nowt pot: '11'3 nov011-7000. 45.19; 3,411)11(1 11111p .1110 .1114 1,Mal t1:11.11m s! Alqu.tap!srloa .taipitt! .0.1a.%01 : ,1101:4011 50011 4011 011100 1110 1q oq aq jsaq.dtq 04 :q.tm 41111 21011100105 .11)3 41111.11 : sliq soop ti! .1lo11 840.11111111 ms pun 111110.11 01 10111410 04 .114 150. ju ion; .011 110 00.1;11) 111) 110111.11 'am a.%1!!! opaq .111 1 we ply.lje inq !al jou 04 q :E00!1 SArati %I-101.111010 u! pi! aqj .1011;0 %%cm .imnob loja.ma .111 0/(0(11)14.011 siliaopsof 114 aq ioo.) da01.1001: sattipaolos Sileria .1450.) A*110111;0 jl1(a94!I !hop% '4! Si se 4! s! oj (luau( uuem oalim ..iple50.0150.1 (map pop. qsaAj s! iqua I:.%% JI uj ((0.) tooqj 5.10.10113 0.1.)11.1, 0.10 e jut "rio!iesuatilloaj. 3! (10.i II, 0.1.11.%% 1 0.(e11 .10.1o11 411(1400,9 .1.11 011 4011 1:11 0.1 pant 54.500 94tm 1. 1104.401 OS 1 01) (0.1 1 4101 110.110100 ,Tlea 0.niapi.%a pull ataq ;mu saatiatap!p III Fool! s;50. .10) taboo.) p: uup!ppu J jo .;t11!.%q 010.4 04.01111( 0.091 op wtt 1-.%1001 mug 40!! 1,*!.10m 00 s!!!) 1---oupils!:101 op juu muol 11:911,1.1;q4q) ..toqjatim 01p leptta.topq : .10 0a1T1-0j-o..)ITI nu.i ,1 :d11!:lool .13 pplom .ipldle 0; .1109 1111.% aupipaja' aatuaqm 01p tompilqa ant partepte.%pusq) m(q automajapoo.i .muq us 1 up 4011 moult II! jetim 11.11W! aq V114.1'00001 110.\ 1)4.W:0011C atu Ills .0 1rera..0.%% :Isom e.%,qat .5!1p 4.1101 30 dip 190111.10; Sp110 114 10) '41:114 -011 ..11v 1...voir,j 31 1 1011 1 0111:11110M :%10141 1111 111011 a.1.11,1 s! ippis a5111:0 0.10tp 0.114 sao.TI 30 ;op up101.103 jutp aa,TI s! jug., soutio.10 oil); .4!!!!!!.4qa jo tioapptio laq tioom r...10(soje4s wolf) oa,mI 01a110% satutit.owp aiu ,sap:js O111111.1401) 8114 0.11 11110.11 0511 .i1S111:11S,1() $1111 V ',..)(1e1 04'0(12:1: 0114 51101.111.1 '5.44114S OAt 11.1(14 1! ,y(!;1110 110.111ilt10 .7111101111: I)1110.%% SpIde 011:.1 jo joa.).10,1 Jo alp 0.711/1,me ojejs .a.u4tp11,11No VA 11.191. 0.1% :1004 It 1001 4)1 4 011 450.1 J4) ',Ill) 45(11 4:1111 1101 (Ii 014 soup .sapejs 31 duittssi: $4001 (1.0041 01)0m .1111:11111m; 04 mil aapittoo.) I"' 'jou 0.1% 114 Hem: ,Ty 04 11: (1.49.%%,jaatis smells ay -.IA oum piggy 01001 110.% -450.1 JO 15111 4011.1 11141 51101.10.1 'SO41:4S 411 41100 JO 50.1111111100lx.) .10 :4001110 .01,0.100 jo pot 10(10! .0.00.10.%1! tiu.t ptql pito oil poottal; j1 stop ilaamjaq juxud .1)111SII('..) .011105 jutu x111 11:(111 aAt 0.00 111::1,01 04 j to7ittitiit.y): .1110 '11111111.10J J(L1V "0:41'. '111:11 .101 '0111111111N..) .101)1111 44111 Spuliq Ham ,Kj pajonoa .0a!m III 1011 v :)(1,4 juattLie(1 JJU$ 4q.7i!1.o lotioqjiy .%(1 olosuoa 0011 .ilsuutl5.14 oj1:11111.103 s! pajsilpu aqj ,aapa Napui 04 41: )I4 ,SJiltiS OS v ,j(1.4 .i.leJs) smoqs 0j4 SO11.11)11a) OA 1111 '1101010 0.1I:11 0.10114 St it 01111101 pit 0.71114110.1 40114 11;!11;)1.(1 V j(1:1 5011:4s :5,('11)1'1111

11 0.1 111 10.10110A) .01 4.10X 11.1011 7$04114S 0! u 52, .A 1)01)1.)01) '111:11111 011 .1ajoq 04 411(1 .latjApi ap onto illoa.10,1 ..iijoanbasto.; aolea P.% 'I 0:8 04 I tri; 0.11 11I1M 0114 (14!.%% aqj 11.1I11011 1,103 .i1(11111111).):41(:01) its,Tiuml agejueApe juqj ,011 sajejs 'Aufti) _)(1.47:01!i s! 131 .1.)tim113ti,ies;Xititi '1)..i0A tit rititlitml 01144): 1:111111.103 lfJ110i1i1) -(0 .qsttotA oj 11 t: (I! ,op :Isom 01Lo1aa1 puma 0.%% uea, ju 'aplvtqa 711auppila 111 JO .51101 ,)111, Awn Si imi) 1101 011.) 11110.10 It 01011.11 01110.1 ii:11.111SA a:uni u iquct.to; pito s! .:111Vul lo;s1suu;:.u! put: ',Type.% put; pup St tio ,)(1.4v .10J SO1111119 41.11 11 OIL10.-4111. JO JOAO 541 11.110 110 '0007.S S110.1111 11:11 It 0404S 1100. 411111041M 1:01 011111110 11.10 111.1.) .111 '.1.411111121 111111114 . . :11111411U .sjuatoged 'aluttuatij.ind wail) si aim A.:0141:A II! v Epp 'pop sjpisa4 uI 'pits s.lopuJ su .sluatualpilo.f pm: liokolnp itiatiLiEd io:spaupilos not.dulloa;u JO leiadds Spall 21101111: 011) '10)1:4S Ali 0.11:11 O./1101)1.1a 11:111 mil V, ;)(J,,1 sII04 pot Sumiatia2 -a4 du pay situ! toupa.)*Iutij ja :ion! siltioaxl itirlaiiim of 3!.4.1Ed to 4V ,nil i a.% ;1411:a1% JO aptilt ,)tj lutij )uuudttithi 1: apus fiamiattlitit otdpil.iud v R1ura;10.1(1 ata .1apti11 Jo op ttip! pa.lamo D(idy R.d.11:.1 pill: Sum .I() Sulu 4011 ituoititni UI alp 0.1 a! I !!!4:3 'Jatijoilu tualgoad am orou atiptuapp t: s! imp titupdo iiialtio.ol am ate Jo a*.....1n03 MINE(' ado ujup tio sostia.) you s! 5.18.1Ba01to jj( pant9natti .10!!aua apiim .4E9 ...tsvg aittritj Sulu pia.; of 11011 4111:4soo;) 1)110 ';)(.Id J! apjsat 4! 0) on»,4; pile: Alalp1 ul o-wn: :1111 .1(.1 utiujo 04 mal.tat Hog owes JO atij aatijo upaj1.13 pagool 41: SR E .i!pcpssod .10J all!) J E1i11i.10.1 pot: awes Jo Ji(l -quid

Slaw( 11011:1;.)OSSI: 11:111.1O11.11.1% .10 1 'aS,1111

'kit" X1.1.10 1J 1101)11111: 0) V ,..)(.1d 11:11.11.11 sull tool 'patio!) alool pLia.tas Jaye sd.t!juti.tajp: 04 Saj Si!jilapt 141:11 S.)! +minim' Jo ti.uppil.) tij at! bpa.t.las ipua Jo ti.dqm HMO .11:11411.1.11:41 S1101.1,1.1.4.4 1)111: SaSSJ1111:..1% 'WI am moos JO sassailluam rItito.4 opi! 11 it:.).4r intiotio: Jo tioissilastp (tlotp: tuailj aAt paloo! lU 4saj ;Iiiijsal suil owes luadttt: 4titi .4! sow opi! 1piapp .tualt1o4t1 watt riti!qp4 '111(x(1: 1: as.111115f11 loam ttio.1.1 limapad ojltiatouta.too sa.p.:js lutpros ppiom Spim! atij , E.10.1 polo! ittolsaj aAt op '$m 0.10I1O4.1 1:114 Sutlasa,id aNtiti a4u1atio.Iddu spa.; aii440 .ij!!!iledva of ilopmap tuatij 111 Jtnl oj asti U Intioijuti 4sai polio imetti sjuatoripill loop: suidjuomi: JO rai49 spun; ttO ajujs Sti ajujs sisuti pajsailtiet.:atioattios E upito.10.4 posim 110 Ej!(iu.).1ad -atimu! asiituag 4! sum leo e apicia tpoim sum omit.) Sitio II! ay (Jj sostia.) log sum ..)41isuceti:papp(Ili suti 41:a.0 Jo tio!jm:441: j! s! sirltia am pal(x)1 it: a114 ej!dua attioati! 1111 allima.t 'along pou al!! au anuaa.tu. ;0.111.0!! '4! 1)11104 :111 1)1111111 Jo I: .qiitit:J t(j:m 0006$ aillooto 0001: .10J atp.i.mt: Jo 'am; .10 0.11 '101111111:j 11,1110 Ju 110111.11 0.11:11 00(168 'S,H110./111 tio!tim ptom uasaid joil 411a.lapp tualgoid to. slum Jo ay luilo!juatipa ujuu.tpus!p 4uto aiti j toS.1 .0 04 uj .11:pka!4.11:d .10J atij.apitutma j.d.14sR.1 Jo wiptiiiioj: suti ujide. you ..4a.: j! suit atuos Jut ant) ikiaAas JO 4IULL sI11J1(IUd(t wij 11:1104vatip.) aille.pit:Apus!p a.to4p oj s.iem 04 aqj OS 0.11 41: 111ijOS *S..14111.111.1 J)2 mope; '0.11111,10.11: 1)01001 ckti: paptituo..) toot; sum14o.1 paw Ati'Slaaj.noib s.iaSopitu lial Jill tualtitud .iat:a!suti s! pop ring( otiAt att: 4uu pa.ioplula op oti Et! .).% puU op 4011 aLy Lupus apto 04 ami4dio asoti4 'aitioati A% 1)1110M 0.11;11 04 .110.1 110 moos Amu° s!suti -am ul 'ildi4 pa:1oo1 4u sal sal tv.ip Sattatsutj sct! ;nous pop! Jo stoapto.id alayy 0.11? JOAO 6 uompti .altioad .a.ta!laq otim op jou ow sai :sumiku OS0111 '11:114 putt a.it; ou 3.11.'(1 io )I(4 upalv asay aploatl ant a111.:11.11 jsotti pajsa.lajto ti1 palluj E .444 Jullop 4utiotou ,000?;$ 0001;$ 0001$ 'Hato 04 Jo asatij titootij aphids put: )1, SO01) ',.,\1:11 '41'114 S.1a.t lewd 0.71114t1eApu ..tamiduipti. ',mutt Sau.isti to:Timid JO .4011 zi111tp:4 oju! 4t111oam: sr au') 37,15 .10 1.1) soolso.hols 04! u.),)M 11101.111 Inn: tutu sou.) ), Einnuo.) coop Si ;iu ,i(111:0 .1110 1(11A II!' .1110 s!s.ipun: Icy tvInotiou s! 1: 011100 s,91,1;)10.1) 11)1 .ils111:11:4.4) .iipm11!.141 iou aisuani mil am III.., appti )Ini)---.iipmuut: 01: 1: asug 0110(1 .)1 sa.:t sn Ann I03II opp:)1111),) ,unsvoin 1p1.1% 1.11:100) .111) 101as Jo) -rrA, j, In( rh11.09 10) puo.)as 0)'11011 poputful! 1(1110. 1110 '1111M 410 11:31Sl111.1.11111:1101 111110 11111.1210.11 11(1.1. OA% 1)1110.11 pplon 1-.141(.1.)J1: 1111: 1011 :(1111.64-; '11:11.11 )11:11.1---1413)01: Hot Jo Jo .10.) ua.ippq i ate- not 1(13331: to no!E (ulu) a:n:41410)s spun) Jo oil) ua.ip(nio 1110.1) uu!1!.11a 11141.1 Vuppini) o Flo) aitu(glo)s s!!! s! 0) a.1:1( isatinuni sv no.% '.1(0(1)1 .ilal!!" (ua!)!I041 tins 31 pug 110 $1001 111 nip .,:,s0.1;i110D I sum 7:411.11,110. 110.1 Stu: spillumil

,N10 mu sum uoil -11:)noni) 'pupil pin: I pinom OA: aleme UN; uo 01. "1 orl pt.1 jo mf$ S.)stoil; oAt 0.$e 0,1011411: 1! .10J wou)sli! 111 omo.i(i so:twat) pile S.14111oilooK 'salon:0.) !pu% .11.1.011 a;tuvia.).1ad pa.001111! ppt -ualpipp 110 at!) put spun; pap sl almi .611: )0 Auponl 711!!!!).) paputtun 41011 1110.4 nu auloaut 0) 1,01 0114101 atu0:n11 un0)1.11 no!si.to.ul soppittia 0.0.)410 at() Illuo!)uu pluo aso( 110(1 i.i0.11.4pitia %qv -(.).).1.1:11) uni pinto op 11:11) iuuuluto .10 110.i Nilo.) asu 1: mu ludo! pino.%1 ;mug 11 J(13015(11: 110! 11.11:0.11 Stla.h111.1 S.punuutioa 01 0 01 Ii.r.fomp: at') ..1071a1u.) uaapinio an in.u)Jaa aituluaaiad 1151.(im pplom 4(laa.n: ava.i-t; inos01p1 Jo alp S,I0Aave.) dap 0) 310);x1 num) au) I 110!)!s0t 0:11) ail) pagpsa) 3.t011 01 0 a.)oui .1110.1 ihmuunio., I:a -.1,)!(.1 sv 1 papp!p11! pap) 4(lopu paaput II1 ails oppxou 1s0(1 Auri.!!1;10.),)3 101(1 sn!) Si inaltio.n1

.ssaa,buo.) . lapisq) ut An() inoasuild Iusodo.uI aa)ut.nulit lug) on lumps ,n14 pino aso! .1.10111 um! ina..1a41 Jo sit :tin)tuado laApt(i U1 III alp 1)1110.1% al 1)(100,1S 1:(1S. `.1 )11,13.1.3(1 put pp') 1 mu 01 apaauoa titp 01 0.1a st. u: 0i(.111:) rsci b)noasinpl panulai(l 11 1110 11 11.)!11.11 s! a1110.) 1!.n ofq.:$ uo!i(nti I Op .111) et (In 4.11 -a.in;19 1 ssaltA alx() 01tI .1100 loaiVI: 0$ $: uompli a.10.19 $1 .10pnassa ,micas W.$0).1.1 Jo aq$ S.10.7100,) .11010 all; 4401110a Op Aupp.iiii: .1a1po ur.IO Oil -10041 01 Isu ) not su aq) priputi .a.na!) !()nim s! )01) am ;mu pamuaul 6 .t2 au) 04;th:5 001111111 .10)uus "run(' slim poo jou I: tla)s II! ail) pi:4p 110!).hu!p aq au() 111(1(11: h"2.:01) Jou se an) 1)(1IoM tut: u111 if i 'I( 0;1 ito.i )11: pinom b3111 LIED antes Jo sit 1)LI10. .15uo( i)1110./111 'S1:.11 .10) 3111 (141:S ostleomiloo.) 1110alv JI MI; .1.141 11(11:. (1.14.10 1:110l11:11 1 1: 11111 (1,111) a.1,111) It *111(11111111.1 LI4 111(1./.1(11i .)I( '&11:.1(1. plo og 1111 'aSe.)x0 cal .10J at') isp!I 1 0) I: tool )1: j! ' 1.3 1.)..101 pplom ale) 'pull j tylnu inallanni,.) put: iso:) It In° puu as !In., j .10) sill O( 110111rtu 1 lootias -1.1:14 1 oAeli iou palso.) jt 010 ..1a1111a 11 sum 0) 3.111,11) al!) &mufti: ipp(m 1no LIt pupil at{) Sum Jo null.,oul 4110 picaluo .;1111 t at{ ollieS atilt) pinolis 0(1 pala111 Inu 111 1101) 4)1110(imop apqm -!laal aaati s! Tatman I 41 Ill af(i ,ft:.10.1 aulo.n11-moi A.F.unmuloa ')r )011 Jounlas olim 1 mu ants smi tut 1:11 0.1 pal(0) )11091: 01'111 (1!.0 II )saaa011 in 701(1 .1.1.4.4411v-k) I (1plotAs, 011 .4'..1,4.% pasitapt 415 loot 51: 5 wai 1.11 3131 03 .514.12.4S11:10:3110 imp joad.is RititiLioj :11as,..1031 -11:14 1 '.11:11 111 1).)1.).)11.) 11 014) 11..1% 11 '.111:1:.1111 :41111.111.)(1.4 '31104)510141 1111.11 p.ii:;:o.4 U1 alp stioas;:titl Itiompliaom :113 31 a)utios 1: 51441 paidoio: a)j oil Awn' 114:115 m.4.4.14(1-01 Jo :,1h13'1411111 11!1 51 11.1,'N.11 alp 41:tp 5.41.1 palaavi: .441 4:41:(1 hu:4(0p 0:11 %tic a.tt p1114).44 5.1144111111 sa..:111141 pin a soico4.4 .1031:1as -ma spil 11 mi (14 ,4:41141 .7totsop 71 51:11 .iltopou 4)5 tip.m palm:4111p pp: Ino itiatoptioom joillopi: St( .14(3 vtlutio.: 71111.11.0.)110,) Ot4 110111 oa11.44 .i11.13:30).11: 4111(.1 st 11,):401,) 11110 11,)31)101.) am: o.N4)111.).1 )1113 :114'1j1. 3.41.13 11.)01m III1 01)11111 14 4X1 11:0.1;1 SO.11'411)11O4INO 01111 10.1.111.)111 34)11) 4311N!14114)4154N1 P1110115 0.41.11: 141 .111.1 Ili.) 104) 031: '011111.01:11,) 3414)S 1101 'AK '4,).).301 .)( 415.11141.) SI! 114).1 .11V (oh: S4101) 4)01.0E141 .10.1 .411105 11:00)001)i: 1)11: 03 3S1.11 S3.g..1 3 )1:11 I:11 O.% a1l3 .0) 110.)5m1il Ju '1O11:41 4).t 0111 1O0.1 31:11 1111.14 14013 3.).144 1101 MI; 104)11.15 311.11 01114)..) 41...1(, 01) 110: 3S11c111: 1111.44 .11111 .11:4).1-1 0;11)1141 '411.1.1.) 1(10 1t 31 poi wry ,1.491:11t,1,)/ 111)404.0.01 ..1.11:SSO.011 S1 3011 31111 1: -4. 00 14 .1114).\ N,I)1:151.44)1 11:S4)410.1d ,,1.01sS4)..)00 om 111:3 31140111 3 041.0:iv 030 ;110 alp .11131:5 '.4111.11 1 0A% '0.11: 110.11, 0.111 4110411: os1:41 .100:43,)s -IT14 ,so.k ..711M11113 VX1.1.14) 1 )00344.1,11)1111 110.1 4)3 09 :411111113 000111 .11l3 i14).) ,1'111'141'14 1111141 ssolli).)34101))0 :4)N' 11:113 SI:.%% 4110 Jo 3 4)11 31:111S1111.041 1 11.1111 SI:.%% I: 101)(1.11 SI 3.414 ;1104%1 )1019 0) 011011:11 .)..41.11:1 .log1111111 S.10:,-;.10...5 .1.10;,-100%) \ SI)pi 1)111! :4,4upinj Jo thupipia -Oa 04)N4)10 111 .1100011111m) 11115 SI:11 03 .114I 3 all 00041 S:40111014101111! III) 31111 111011.1S 31:11.1, .Z!11:0.1 30111111.1 01I pa4141.%01 tio." %mom' 11! mil apwas 51:1..4114:A(1v suoi -aapoinilu) sc..t4 a.4.441 aolot; wad 311ait111.1 itioaapt Ropi.44 Hilo.) .10 11111.11 0.4.1a1 11:301 Avg 4)5 .1111: uotpritimilitaaop 9.41: 51.4 .sat p1l4).44 .44a0.4 p.n.;10.t ol soil inatviptiatio: '.11K. 4%) .1.).1.11:4 ppio.44 01m..0.1(1:11: orimoddo Si! loamoloa of) pup aAnmaii a.m. 1)1111).44 a54)41414) 111: 5tioutpoaoo: .A1.4(10.1 o_tt :pip' imp 1)1111).44 p(ippp sa,l1a 4.41 jo sootagoall ..pmaliat pplom '.!I 0; aNinit I: om.3aups!p oti 11,),).44 alp 514aoop : 011 11!41 pull 0.44 An: :5 11 OM .14111.1. 111 4110(11t.;1o..111 .1:1)o5 IA 3114,411: poi .it Jo os.1110.4 pitlo.%% .4.%!:rt a.10111 apos piii: 11:.101 140.11) 51 4411:114) 1-111 0!..1.01) Hopi:7.111U 1 .1.11.11 03 .1.)01111 ;;11(311X.) IIII:.1.7t0.141 14 .10 .11)1111 11.)11S S11:11.1.710.01 SI: .1401.3 1111 3111 .1(1 1).)91.1)0111 4)3 .141110 0.10111 .).111.h).1),) ,S.).)1.4.1.)s 1110.1j .41(3 of osuis pm: it:)01 .ittailitu.mi.4 j! 34).7i 111.1'113 1101.51:1s1.71,41 mu 4.44 a.o: 'Mop:amyl: ito.%. :fit!o..1 0; 41Am1 03 41.1 imios p:11p!a.1 p:.11p.a.1 stiotjatmj ,41413, oploo:x0 5tptti: '11001111.1 .4113 [A 11.11..) S111.41.1 tiotsaimj alp p:apiqaa; .4.111114s!ssi: 0)101111J =I' 4113 S11111.1.40.141 -541.1(1 )114) 151.X41 '.1%()11 ON% .).%1:11 I: 0:41.1.7t 4.10111 '51109.11I11.1 .1105 11401.%1 `111:1 111091: 3114).)4)1) '1101.0V/4111.1 1 111013 11 141 1.10)1011 41111 03 .11135 11.31m -.NOS 111.10 1)III: .I - "SOS0I1O.0.1 11411.W O.11: .ilitnyiast4o .1113 S.1...11110.1OOS 15110(I5 '.11111.41 4).%1111 01 11511 111111 .1.14 41140:411:.).).%):11 4111.10011 U! )111 1114.111 4,1,1 ,)A1;11 0.) a.111510 0111.) Jot 4/.%11111 1)00.:1 31:JI11111111110.1 St101 11)!..11 111, 1/14.4) 111/3 1)3 14111:!,0141111, ivy% ,41(3 14! 11111: dkui: 1).4.31:41.4.01 it...403.9,(1011 IS.411 ',1!14)(1 3!9 Imp .).%% 101.4111 111.1113 03 .44( ams0041g.4.1 .iost ,4,1411 oil pou1s.1,114301 .4.S1( 03 por3s.3.9400 oi 0414041,111,0113 ,; 41153 1405 root 4.q14:0!.,1 A:do 441 3 011 .1.11101SSI11111110) Ju 110131:.141);1 3(:111 .4.11 11111 $311.1 ;1111 .1141 1414.4.4.45 .1 .1.51 11.1.1.t1 01113 .1011411414111111141 11115 11:1S Aim %11 ;111! 101111 .1.1.11:1 WI( JO 11111 1/.4114111 11111A% .4.11 : 0.11 111)(43141 011105 111.111111.1.4A41.71 ;i1111111 i 0(4 N.) 3 4511 V.), sis/ iv .5( IN poi .411 1144.i 311;11111 it `3! 37.1a1ufs5.,tt 113., .ip -1J1)I) 1111 11 II! 019 111.11.1 191M 11P11:11111111)+1,1,11) '.)41.101(1(15 1.1.,11 11150 1 ;7119 11 .11(1 101.41x.) 3 359 ,11111.111w101.s A:11.1019M: 11111 .1.(111 10111 I (111.) -5111111M soo)!Iolo, 03 plis.)11:44 (:.N,1.14)sj1/011111.1.1.texit .i0I1 MI:141Na 0111 414 151(1 911111.141 411 1.4 4115 11111: 111001 14051.4(11) lig101;t4U .1.141 S11111.1.7i0.111 .11 'S411 14i15.11(34) JAM( 11111111111.1;144.r1 111111;7011111S.1.1 1r1; i4111 I .1S.111 It 11.1111 141110014 111114.1011111! 141.10.411 '...4.1S1111.1.111 11! ,311 .4.11130) JO) .1110 11 1 Mr 5 11,,1/1 019 .1(11.1 .11 0095.11114.4 .010310, ISoli Jo J11(11 smods 41 001 159 0.111 0.15 .Th11111111.1 I: 01011.%% SIIII:.1.110,1(1 5 .4110 ,11) In) 35.41111a 'pill (11.101)0...1 1.1A.11 151(1 1.41:411111 .1.11.1t .101j31)1111 1-1101 4.1.1113 01110.111 4)1 Mow '401 0At .1.1 1111114;9 IH 'A14111 S.)11.111)1111.11) 0.11. 0.111 11) 1141At 014114111 11-1111.1 ;111111 111.)1114:.1:314,141 '11111.1110.141 .)11.11 '11111.1;111.111 1114 11 3.111 .4.t1 .S11111.1:10.14, 1 011 44440.1;7110, III S.1.1.% 0117111111(, .W.1111411111111 ((14( 4)1 Fop 11.tt .114011 (4111: 1.10.1 141:1111.41.illi 'S11111.1.311.111 JO 14).11: JO .1/3 p9 111. 314.61.) .11(3 (/111:'.1.).104(111:111 11111101( 11111:011 ,.%t .111in1u3 1114511: .1A11ti.).%.1.111 10011.114 1 011 SU II S.13111.1.1 01 .1110 1,114414SS Si 11,11, .441. .1.i0a11 ;111.111 111111.1:150.141 '111111.74)111111 *do(' 011.1. 111.1.)Ii.lel s11uts1.1.1O .14) 011 111.1.114.1.1 S.41W(.1111 11:11 11(1 .441 00o)1) '311 0114 .1411 1141 HI: Jo 0S0I11 SIM:Ai:Old II:III 1 mom 00! .4.30.1.1.1,411 30 145 .111,3 mu Ihm.ia.)00.) 03 11:1101;141.1 1.1.A411 11 141, 133.10,103! S1111 sy 0311.14)A1)11 111: 1.111141A11.1 .),11114111. pop .9 110(111.1111)0 .%:3111111111110.1 141114 '10.t.41 1 11111 .11 S1111 Si! ..1112'1011V 111 :1(1 SAW11 1 111:11 ,1111 14.101.11111 1110111: 111111 ,141190.71L1 11.1)11 11 I31 3111.11 IR 311111111 .11119.710.111 1111A1 IL) 11 0.71 03111 4041 4i,11 11101111: 3111113 11 1)3 .30111,4 10011.414 .10.4114) Ji/111.9./14 11(.4111.111.' 4: I 11 alp "Ms SI: SI: 1101 III '0111 st3091.4.3 Op .711.10 '1111:.1;104.1 M.,' .111101 ditiOall 1411 to: Aotil op 4011 ...11111 3011 .).153/41 .41(3 inn .iii.1401 03 11111 sio9s!.4,9 .7t11441 41.411(A% 1 idol a.ta! 11 1 .411 141/111 Ju I(31.)1 .1).11(3. solpis11011111".1 s'.)43:15.41(0.) III Mosso HI '1 I :Mill.) 114/II( 14V;411:, unI 1.1041410 03 01111:Il1;.9.111:11 )1111111 1111 PH13 11111 "Ill aatltj -11' Jo .1..1., :111)41111 soil:410.01 4.1E111111 Jo);101,49 111)i SI 1011 3.1.1.1.111.)03 Sno,1110.1.1.1 -u1143S .4 4 .4113 11:0.71 J1 10.4.01) 111%.1i -A11011'4).11 I 11 Sl 3 41 0.10111 3.1110 11119 31:11 .1.11111 VINO 111;11.1 :.%14111 41104111;1111.111 J4111.1.1.101111 JO A.1.1 .11) (1.1.111"3 SI1111.1;70.111 11.tt, 11149 III 01j3 Sa.t1,31:1;41.1.).141 4114.4 1)1111 11.41 1 111.111111.10A0:1 31:111 SI t: .1.1.4.1 3S 310111NC JO 0111 1101111,131sp1(1111)11 s .1411111..4 11)01.ii I "All 1.10.).1.1 F1111.).1% A101(14 otttos Jo so II! atij -001J 1111011.11.01.1 1111111 30.4.).9) tio!orx!(5.1 s115003 ssa.121 pplom ..4.4.1:15s!p 351Lit pasod'oml All 3s!.33!119,5 11095.1 s! .393 0093.4140! )0 04111: .101 )0 lua010.1a.i341 001:10!9.145,kt s,434:1s 1 p(14.%% 4,10!)Ez!p:.413.4.).314.3.30414141s 111111 )1! 3! 351( 3 aputu 35 .441 353s .0 put; 11 .11 3111:,)111 at( suo!sl.).) 0111 01163S 11111 311.41. 111411JS.1.111.11.1 S".1,/ 10 I "11 ,411"4111'111.141).).4 41.11 1(1,3141111. 11011At ,,S011 ".1 141.1011 .4011;14,1 'S".111131.1 311111M ill.HJIS111(1 tutu) atil 511110411 03 1461.01 SI 11:1(1 .493 :119154000!spop s! uatij p.mong A.111 aq3 atiotrt jo:s...thssimoi alp g .331:3 put: osp: tuo.4) aijuat somoss.m Jo .ssa14-3333,0 It. is not that. we seek vxta work, but I just want. to ;zee the States' Interests represented. and that. is why I suptioct decentralization to the State level and oppose it at the Federal: regional level. In this regard. would you agree. that if this amendment survives- and I recognize the problemsthe conferenceprocess, that you would then be inl4ibited from moving further in this direction withont the authorization of Congess? Mr. Cmcruci, Mr: Chairman. that invokes comiae legal issues regarding the interpretation of the Continuing resolution. I think it would he improper for me to comment.on it at this point. Senator NALL.Iam not sore we ought to quite let that. stand. Would Mr. Smith. the subcommittee associate counsel. read the text ? Mr. SMITH [reading] whenever the almond which would 14e made available (or the authority which would Is' granted under au act. listed in this subsection as imssed by the House is different from that which would Is' available or granted under vianet as passed by the Senate. the pertinent project or activity shall be continued under the lesser a no mid ur the more rest Heti ve authorit3. Mr. CAtemcct. Is that the contiiming resolution which is not yet. passed? Senator Prim.. This is present, law. I was talking algior the anti- decentralization anietititnetit,. I can read that. It. says: "None of the funds contained in this act shall be utilized to pay compensation of liesons in :try ofthe department'sregional offices for carrying out duties ofthe'Office of Education carried out in Washington, District of Columbia. prior to June 1.1973, unless, prior approval is obtained by the authorization and Appropriation CoMmittees of hot It 1Iouses of CongreSs." 'that is very dear and specific. I would think. Mr. C'HiLucct. Mr. Chaintoui. I think in all candor. I must, tell you that that kind of provision raises constitutional problems. Senator V.a.t.- I am aware of that. lint from the viewpoint, of the law. yOu would he inhibited. Mr. C.uni.t742(.1. I think I world have to consult the lawyers before I would make a cateoorieal statement lung those lines. Senator Edme say for the:record as one having' had sonic' responsibility for this I:mg:nage, it was intended to prevent decent rid-! I realize its chances for survival are notrosy. The Senator from Vermont: Senator ST. rronn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I really have questions. but.Ienjoyed the hearing. 1 am very pleased,Mr.Secretary,' that you and ylM cOnellg111.14 litre tip here, 111111 1 1)1111k yon have placed some meaningful proposals in front 'of this subcommittee.' Like the rest of the members of the cOmmittee, I believe in getting things done. and I commend the fact that 'I think that isthe attitude the adminisation is taking in the field of ESEA legislation. On the basis of your proposals to the committee, and assuming thatpm- iildy both the committee and the administ rationcan go a little further here and there in compromising. I think wecan work out. a bill and develop something that will be acceptable to this conneittee to the Congress, and a bill that, can la signed by the President. 1 am very glad that you are hene and thatwe can work together in this spirit. Mr. C.Hu.ucci. Thank you very melt, Senator Stafford. \dilator I'I:r.i..;of 14 It yon yuTy murk indeed. Are there, any other minority questions or views that should be presented f I t hank you. I also really want to Ve011gratillate soil on the efforts you have made to try to get a working trintionShip going, Becausethings were really at an impasse, no coorersat for a long t lino.I think theobjective here is to try to get better Murat ion for our Nat km's children, and I would hope that we ean move ahead fairly fast on 11131: Thee, "ill,,. a Ilea Hips' lomorrow at 10 :30 011111e110111111111.3',schools, and a hearing Thursday fi the basic grants, 311(1 t he excellent, job in- eidental ty in that regard tliat the ( dice of Education is doing. We sent, a member of our sithcommit tee staff, Richard Smit h. out to Iowa and he came Imek very impressed with t lie excellent job that the net waS doing in implementiAg t legislation. Mr. C.% ata-cct 11'e are very to licar that. Senator PELL My own inability to fill out this application font' apparent ly is not shared by the Nat ion's high sdiool students. I 'Ile prepared statement of Mr. Ca rifled and other material subsequently supplied for t he record. follow :1 2254

FOR RELEASE UPON DELIVERY

THE UNDER SECRUARY OF HEALTH. EDUCATION, AND WELFARE WASHINGTON, D.C. 2041

STATEMENT

THE HONORABLE FRANK CARLIICCI

UNDER SECRETARY OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EDUCATION

COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND PUBLIC WELFARE

UNITED STATES SENATE

Tuesday, October 9, 1973 Mr. Chairman, Distinguished Members of the Subcommittee

I am pleased to be here today to discuss legislatiOn to extend andreform the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.

Lix months ago. Secretary Weinberger pre:',ited to you the

Administration's proposal to consolidate and reform many of the

Federal categorical aid programs in elementary and secondary education.

Since that time we have been meeting with representatives of the education interest groups to review the legislation. These sessions culminated in a meeting last Thursday with the President.

We have also been in continuing and fruitful negotiations and discussions with Members and staff of this Subcommittee as well as the

House Education and Labor Committee to obtain the basic principles

involved in our elementary and secondary education initiative.

I think it is fair to say that we have demonstrated considerable

flexibility and a willingness to work closely with the Congress in an

effort to reach an accommodation on the legislation.

The President has encouraged us to try to obtain passage of the

legislation this session. I believe that is an attainable goal and I

appreciate your willingness. Mr. Chairman. to have Administration

witnesses reappear before your Subcommittee.

This afternoon I would like to discuss with you the basic

principles which we feel must form the basis for an acceptable,

ocompromise bill:

First. Federal funds for education of the disadvantaged should be

concentrated on those most in need of assistance and should be spent

primarily on instructIon in the basic skills. Page 2

SeOnd, more decision- making authority should beshifted away

from the Federal government to State and localoffidals.

Third, narrow ciZegorical programs shouldbe consolidated.

Fourth, the impact aid program should be reformed.

I would like to discuss each) ,of these principles.

Concentratkin Through Reform of Title I ESEA

One of our principal concerns with the present lawis that it does

not ensure an equitable allocation of Aid forcompensatory education of the disadvantaged.

We have worked hard to developa Title I formula that will overcome

these inequities and ensure that funds are focusedon those children

most in need of compensatory education. We believe that we have

developed a formula that will do the job.

To ensure as accurate a count of disadvantaged childrenas available

data permits, we propose that eligible children be definedas those from

families below the Orshansky or Census poverty level, andfrom families

with annual AFDC payments above the 53.100 income level. A State's

Title I allocation would be equal to the number of itseligible children multiplied by 35 percent of a State's average per-pupilexpenditure.

In no event, however, would the average per-pupil expenditureused be

less than 85 percent or more than 125 percent of the nationalaverage per-pupil expend'ture.

States would be required to set aside funds needed forprograws for handicapped children; children of migratory workersand neglected 2257

Page 3 and delinquent children. The amount of these payments per child must be equal to. but could not exceed, the highest payment per disadvantaged child in the State.

To determine what share each local educational agency would receive. we would require a State to allocate 70 percent of its Title 1funds among all eligible districts based uo their proportion of disadvantaged children. The remaining thirty percent would be allocated to school districts heavily impacted with the disadvantaged. Specifically. these priority districts would be'defined as any district with either 5.000 disadvantaged children, or a percentage in excess of the State average.

We believe this new allocation formula satisfies objections to our original propoSe and at the same time maintains the. Administration's commitment to provide additional funds to those school districts with the highest concentrations of disadvantaged chiildren.

Under this new allocation scheme, all elligible districts would receive smme Title d funds but priority districts would receive an extra payment, recognizing that districts with heavy enrollments of disadvantaged students face special educational problems.

One feature of S. 1319 which we feel must be retained ins compromise

legislation is the requirement that at least 75 percent of a district's

Title d funds be used for instruction in reading and mathematics.

Research evidence shows that compensatory education projects with strong focus Mn basic skills are able to impact and improve the performance of disadvantaged pupils, that compensatory education which

stresses reading and mathematics does3vork. Page 4

Data from the Belmont Surveys indicate that between 1967 and 1970.

about 38 percent of Title I funds went for instruction in basic skills.

More recent data shows that in many States the amount of Title Ifunds

spent on basic skills exceeds our proposed 75 percent. But there are

a significant number of States that have not focused their Title I

programs and it is our opinion that they should be required by law to do so.

Strengthening State and Local necision-Making

We should develop legislation which encourages State and local

governments to make decisions and to supply those services for which

their closeness to the people best qualifies, them. Id order to do

this we should eliminate the requirement for Federal review and

approval of many separate, detailed State and local plans.Many of

the witnesses who have come before your Subcommittee in the past few

montns have reinforced our contention that the delivery system for

the existing maze of programs, involving separate plans, regulations,

application forms and evaluations, is so complex that State and local

educational agencies find it extremely difficult or impossible to

coordinate and concentrat! Federal funds effectively.

Consolidation

Anothqr principle we believe must be embodied in a new education

bill is consolidation of categorical education programs. We are encouraged by the action of the House Committee, on Education and Labor

in consolidating a number of, existing categorical programs. In

marking up an elementary and secondary education bill, the Committee Page 5

has approved the consolidation of Title 11, ESEA (School Libraries).

'Title III, NDEA (Equipment and Minor Remodeling) and the Guidance and

Counseling Section of Title III, ESEA into e Library and Instructional

Resources Program. The Committee has also agreed to a consolidation

of Title III, ESEA (Innovation), Title V, ESEA (Strengthening State

Departments of Education), and Title VIII, ESEA (School HeaUh and

Nutrition and Dropout Prevention) into an Educational Innovation and

Support Program. We feel that still more consolidation of program

authorities is both feasible and necessary.

For example, we urge consolidation of Parts A-M of the Vocational

Education Act and the permanent appropriation under the Siztth-hughes

Act into a block grant to States for the broad purposes of these

programs. Funds provided under this new authority would be divided

among the States in proportion to their school age population.The

set-aside for the handicapped now in the Vocational Education Act

would be retained in its current form. Such a consolidation in the

field of vocational education has been urged in recent weeks by the

National Education Association, the Education CommiSSion of the States.

the American Association of School Administrators. and the Advisory

Commission of Intergovernmental Relations.

Reform of Impact Aid

While the Mouse General Education Subcommittee had recommended

substantial reforms in the Impact Aid Program, these changes were

unfortunately not approved by the full Education and Labor Committee.

The reform would have provided for a phase-out of payments for Page 6 civilian "b" childrel whose parents work outside the school district and requiring school districts to "absorb" 3 percent of their "b" children before being reimbursed for amy additional "b" children.

Unfortunately, these reforms were not accepted by the full Committee.

We would hope that the momentum for reforming this program could be recaptured in the Senate.

The Administration's position on reform of Impact Aid is well, known. We feel it is essential to limit suppport under this program to pupils whose parents reside on Federal property and we are prepared to accert a phase-out of funding for category "b" children.

Conclusion

In my discussions with representatives of the education groups,

I told them that if a bill embodying the principles I have just outlined to you is approved by the Congress, the Administration is prepared to support the legislation. If an acceptable compromise is enacted. the

Department would seek a 1974 supplemental appropriation for an additional amount of $550 million and forward funding authority for the 1974-75 school year Every State would then know how much aic it cad expect to receive in time to 1,17,;04 V.*!!;ive Orli for its use.

I recogotie tka, have the differenzes of opinion over the significance.of tMi,amoupt. Our points of departure may be different, but I think it would be futile to enter into a discUssion of FY 73 spending levels since that year has passed and we are still under a continuing resolution for 1974. For those of us in the Administration Page 7 responsible for education this amolint represents a positive gain of

$550 million -- the first time the President, on his own initiative. has agreed to make a commitment of a substantial increase in funding well in advance of the presentation.of the budget to Congress.

I would be pleased to answer any questions you might have about the Administrattun's position on aid to elementary and secondary education. 2262 BEST CGI'l L:1.1:;;LE

Perparod 9/24/73

TNUC 1

:DISADVANTAGED AiA.OrATION FORMULA -- E.R. 69 AMENDED

11.113111.1111IllaitTlit.IIIII__ %China,III St:Rel.., Title I L A 2,1csala,al. Illut...cton Pisni r73 016144 5109' (60 ..70111 fsselitures 11) 121 1 f'. (4) (5)

417,. 1749. 5.4 0. ILE 15,4.1 16045.- 16.1 * 11.1 ;5511. 7.7 h .9 e1,16., 27.0 175.1 17077. 25.0 2500. 19.6 1124.1 41,6. 22.9 1101.9 5S 119 L 11.1 10.1 452f4i 16.4 . 410.0

5110. 21.7 3444. 1105.1 44,, 6.9 4.0.3 103214. ,10.2 10150 26/29. 11.4 .51.0 1.551. 168/4, 2.4 3.2 1,,, 1445:. 15093. 6.0 5400 514),. 52400. 11.9 012.0 1'.,. 64'1. 670d. 2.S '511.. '8.0 31056. 26.5 1014.0

17,s, 10.5 1,'N 4,11% 13.4 4444 7057% 26756. 11.5 ..,"" 7790,5. 4.)16?.. I.% 41Senpay 74140. 4-.5. 30376. 0.1 51.5. 5244. 2.9 91 4'. 9451.. 10.191. 5.1 1114. '099. 2196. 71.3 ' 554. 1711. 21.5 Orr I "111. 6411.. 67086. 10.2 44 1?14. 1110. vms. '11141. 6.8 777!7(1. 2209%1. I 41,44. 11.5 5551. 43'1. 5020 41659. 4144'. 62990. 9.7 19944. :1211. 22040. 9.9 16121. 10.2 141n, 95955. f4S. 4.2 7115. 10.5 ,,n. 31615.

,1'. 0154. -2.1 10.0 9'901. 1,144'. 399". 7.04.1 1019;?. 16.9 7,7.1 4960. 40.9. 7112. 1*",. 18.9 775.7 14.1 a'0.1. V19'4-1' 619. 34022. 71"h. 17.2 9.e.1":,n 24913. 19.5 11411. 19114. 71455, -6.2 757.1 20%15. 11.0 117,.1 ..v71%, 2021. 111.0 11991. 1.7 1 4112_ -1.0 1114.1 1544694. NA 71(19.1 , 1446039 13.3 l'o 7

A State's allotlent IS basal on the product of its miter of lift therm children and tir flideral mtge.& rate perlow =Frchild. H.R. 69anerle defines:

LaeIII inVe ethildrer.as those from a family of increm less than 8)000 in the 1970 Census or 2/3 of cftildren (men f imilies on welfare retain/fry over 5)000 inAMCpayments.

Pe/rantrate per la+ childis 404 ofState (.4feral exfseitures with limits of the national avoralo or 1.207; ofthe nntIon.,1,,verace e,pfull ture per pupil

/1hold harnless tirovisi^n Boots ranctinn9 in State pa5rents to 954 of their FR 7) 14A payment.

1/ Statistical abstract of, United States, 1971, p. 13. 2263

0051.3 It

'01SACNANTACED ALLOCATION FORMULA 1M511ANSKT AND ?IOC OVER. $3,700

Title1 Otshaneav PlusAtilt. over_31.700 Stmt. VY 71 .35 and1.15 1 .75 and 1.254 Rat lamte3 SIOri OSSSNI SinIUP1 118,4513

, .

. . .

. 44701. 46647.' , :42741. 42410. 41.1e.14t. 11421: 1943. 61..1$5, . 1671; 3825. 170. 1556.. 15550. 16611. ",'497111! 110E0. 15.71. 16114. 2.1;4u. 27242. .'1610. 26566. oueLN,!: !7;04....:1, CIA 14S71.1. 134330. 153110.- 159662. 1FC:NI : 12 1607e. 331.04..01 '14174. 15555. 15417. 11160. 16760. 17038. :..r.coNrotc.JT' 14.!45. l517U. 16527. . 9073. 081.;104E 1545. 4921. .4422. 51311.. 60225. 59611. 62093. Flzeica .11114. 44119.. 65961. ...ffc4nit 41r65. .45516. 50537.

. . . . ,se t 1 415., .. 4:!5: ..' 4716.7 ,46e67 4661. icaml 3444. 4417. 4602. 4019, 4166. -itAINol: 71252.- 961q6. .100078. gacei. 103169. INCI5N4 . 22737. 24201. 25279, 25043._ 26070. --10715 : 16441. 15323.. 15551. .15796. 16651.

. __L13250.. .1171 i 11261. 12111. 12853. 12722. ---pith1111:.6,----- 3407.. '`1.6511. 36014. -7.314-c37 32759. 1.011151t'/A 35757. 5170. 14970. 54412, 56667. 6517. 6850. -. 7030. ellN . 6135. 6751. . mtaVLIND ,,,,42r. :24137, 30153.. 1.3241, 11456._

. . . 65SACM.Sf:. 29114. 3.011. 40636. .3224.- 61990.. 1Cm113.4 65715 15412. 73556. 77719. 80991. 764i5,r3-7-- 24444. "v0410: 25814. --!55167.7- 26635. elrl''.'lt`Pl 1564. 42974. 44755. 20141._ 40708. 0I559941 .2!!42. 21111... 31052. '30711. 32011. 4433. 41,2. 5170. .. 5125. :5338. *Cpee91 :

?1,0..,., 21611 91301 . -Si.a...,.(.,' . gc!?. :9412.

%2OLOt . , Z1;7. 2241. _.__225.11_ 2359. NEW weir f i7r.r ---12;11Z.- .25..1; 2567. 7916.. .-3059.

6441'1. 67424.: . 69712. NEW 1F4 ;Er 57171. . .56118._

. . - 14177. 8711 ...4673..4673. . . 13513. 14.21. : ! 11124: 14251: :232267. %ie..m. 214140. . 223145. 216156. 225310. 49904. NOelm 7.6,711. 57162. 32511. 54863. 47914.. ., 5159, NOPTm n:ac,: ' 5013.. 5243. 6951. . 57644. : . 0410' . . 55917. 15350. i 5.:354. ---315V. re 1 V1041. 15;44. 10166. 19960. . 11111. 21744. 15199: --CPfre% 1271'. , : 1414.!. 54518. 14136. eiNN.V.11511. 18755. 102999. 71421. :. 15a15. : 99917. e.CC: 1,1 t,17 5t5; 55°7. 6235. 6173. 6429. _.:,.-1274 ;210.1_ 32109, .] lio?n. :. 14E3/, 35959. 31401,

. . . .

. " . 5970.. 6128. 5t25.- . 3121 ''or 71 311... 38322. 406O5. 42351., 16173. 75.46221Ee .,:13. 1030)5. 112410. : 111176. :' 111965. Set: 924011 5931. sn... 5536. 0785 4540. . 5615. : . 3273. 3141. ))74. VErta2%7 1131. : 3143. 3741.' , '11659. 31755. 96451911 35:59. !.,:4041 22616. .:23626. 23!)6. e:51,11,C3'..: 17113. 1712). . le1562. 111)1. W651 wl0f.1K1 : 11°14. ",254;1. 24956. 24246. 27376. '. : , wISCQ.1514' . 2483. 7165., , 2439.' 231%. : 2311. w1,CvIN'T. . ; 1679. . : 116501 1U451.' H 11311. i.1 CF f CI.U'' ... 11231 , 5412C. '56550, LI.11!/.. 56559. 11 t 3..:1' 47,.:Cl. ..1486ocio. . 141.116. .18a4999,

. III*1q1. li.W,.4. . - -

111Stet' Ilotanolt I. detrwined by the number of ite low mom. children multiplied by theraaaaa 1 payeeut per low Moe. child. . .taw Incatr children are those Iron [sell lime under the Orshanoky poverty line plu thcw (roe feetlie on welfare receiving Ant: paywente 051.0 33,700-poverty Itn forfamily of four in 19711Spiels' category children r included.

.aspirant per low incase child I. 352 of State ...... capendtture per pupil Halted to e inieue rat* of 851 and a ...Maus of 1251 of the national ge expnditure.

, 2Low imam remain& Orshanaky plu AM over 53,700.The, pywarnt per lee income child I. the me a above except that tha Itrett are between 757. and 1251 of the national average per pupil eapenditura.

3 AFDC children und ..... &mated for Connecticut. .2264

Prepred 4/34/73

TABLE; III

DISADVANTAGED ALLOCATION rooettiLA 44-ONSHANSKV

oesl,evo. it 1..?..,1Mlarrt7111114 1011 6 c11717);)Th State 1)er Titlet slum 5184514 State 15491 1Y71 (1960-1970) IkTmediture (1) (m) 11) (II (5) . .

11.4.144 414 :). I4128. 56340. 602.0 ILA..' 1756. 4410. 5116. I4 412.0 lot 2'7N1 11340. 14044. 12/42. el/o 4044N545 21626. 31'04. 10/14. 40.1 CALW551,1 121401. 32/1125. 137642. 976.0 COLC5404 13354. 1561/. 16141. 41.0 10.6. CChNECTI(L" 14245. 1444%. 15562. 1124.0 4545. )91.24441 44,9. 5015. .21,11 'tto,.n FLO11DA 31514. es/92. 64519. 542.0 49C,.514 41462. ieem. 61135. 16.4 1%0.0 .48111 .256. y%31. 4511. 21.7 %105.0 1014.0 3144. 5453. 5.1.5 ILLINOIF 11292. 14400. 1515.0 I401454 22411. 26929. 28044. , 11.4 150.3 1004 16443. 15325. 15454. 2.4 445.0 .ANtsc 11263. 11413. 14441. 3.2 444.3 4E4%1(54 34J5/. 41IC6. 43514. 349.0 1515/. 6.0 LOUISIANA 62242. 64421. 11.9 417.0 2214E /415. 6/36. 8135. 2.5 /85.0 29221. 545,1144 22621. 30414. 26.5 10/4.9

545S4r6VSETTS 2921.4. 15/34. 26426. 10.5 52..9 6;765. 55221. 5/51/.

", 5110611344 . 11.4 5145E541i 24444. 24333. 25342. 1064.0 52114. '.511S1',1211 '11466. 54214. 1.11 544.0 445.4 51510441 26442. '5/24. 412)4. 11.1 4434. S5/3. 5439. 2.9 444.0 5O14454 9473. '44454F51 4141. 91'9. 5.1 464.1 2310. .5148404 1314. 2464. 71.1 44.0 141406r1RE %595. 374/. 1142. 444.4 44139. 21.5 J4641 .115564 52/21. 45176. 18.2 II12.0

5165 6.41cc 9409. 166C1. 11219. 6.8 669.0 4E8 yo' 214140. 142544. 200522. 8.7 1544.1 %nu,. ceectAN4 51162. 43941. 66531. 11.5 544.1 454.0 Nco-oo 0126/3 5331. 5911. 62254 - 2.3 cw: 50555. 54310. 61/15. 9.7 440.0 oct.tHolA 14444. 29299. 2634/. 9.9 606.0 C553CH 11232. 14216. 14526. 10.2 255.16S4.71614 /3424. inct. 15351. 4.2 56COE 14L492 5655. 6C214 10.5 1141.1 SOu,4 (.44cLty, 31020. 41444. 43614. 1.7 545.0.

!MPH 0440,6 4217. 6012. 1312 - 2.1 74).0 TENNES"J 34115. 49134. 511/8. 10.0 536.4 /6423. 42401. 11/133. 142/06. 16.9 541.0 4143. 6424. 6500. 10.1 415.0 342239' 1132. 'Cl,. 5205.' 14.1 123.0 VIA(11413 15041. 44054. sse/9. . 17.2 5150,146T.71. 414.1 11412. 14445. 14427. 14Th 445.3 EST 71.515116 14%14. 21/34. 22640. 611.0 81!,05:15 21436. 21251. 262031 w v06ING 11.8 1424. 2385. ,2936. 1.7 757.0 OIST 11f SCLu6.11 .11991. 10151. 10572. 9uE6TU 51'0' 1144.4 O. O. 56550. 1111.0 ALL CToros' 46921. 14:01. 1444116. NA ,041 154vp,4. 14)5114. I 11.1

AState's allotrent is detenminni by its liar inane children multiplied by the Federal parvent rate per kw More child.This formula defines)

. tar income children as dose tram families below tie Orshansky is:warty lire. Parent rate is current 1.4 - State avetaire eaperatiture par pupil with minimum rate of a naticrel averaw exierditures per TABLE IV

AIissdventaged Allocation Formula $2,000 and AFDC Over $2,000 (Current tem 1970 Census).

Title 1 )2(000 and AFDC Over $2,000 State FY 73 $tsto.m $1885.N (I) 131

37421. 24530: 25i.e. AL AWAMA 4441, ALASKA_ 3956. 44,U9. -14144. ARIZONA itbau. 13049. ARKANAti__ CALIFORNIA i274G7. 197152. 105561. __137bG._ _17024. EOLURADO--- 23134. CONNECTICUT 14245. 22262. _OELAWARE---. --3545.- -4153. 38331. 40440. FLORIDA 37534. -GEORGIA .20444,_

MARAII 4251. 5o33. 5918 6062.1 _"".IDAHO --11252. 0540?.. 110275. INDIANA_ 22317. 25483. 14254. idii 15443. 13637. KANW I 2/2,A KENTUCKY 34057. 25343. 26343. 34322,_ 154511- LOUISIANA__ _45157.. 3286. MAINE 1/35. 7956 _.mARVLANO 22627. _3153,3 _32310.

_ . mAssAcmusE77 29314. 43460. _0165 -- _ igOJd t_ MINNESOTA 24444. 23535. 2.510. ,MISSISSIPPI_ 25729. MISSOURI 26692. 26277. MONTANA - NEBRASKA 5143. /._ 8516. 1171.8 --NEVADA... _31 NEW NAMI;SNI 2sa s 3228. 3354. --_NER.JfRSEN.. 527.71. 75545...

NEW MEXICO 9409. 11003. 11459. NEW YORK 219140. -339.9133.- North, CARfII .0162. 7 36293. 37332. N.QP:rt_P OHIO 50559. 64612. 67239. OKLAHOMA 16944. _18_514.a- OREGON 1iii2. 15292. PENNSYLVANIA 73428t_ 99626. _103754,_ RHODE si.7NO ,655. . souN CAROL! 33olp. ._111766..

SOUTH DAKOTA ' 6217. 4621e 4512, TENNESSEE____ t63as.'_ 22095._ -83334. TEXAS' . 92801. 50013. 49.!IO 6313,_ vERMONT 3132. 3C33. 31932. WASHINGT-ON 11915. 24371). WEST lti14._. j7;. WISCONSIN 21450. 77 24751. 25717. WYOMING 1629. 1735. 61s7 OF Cali --ildil. 11067. 11115. au..01nER5' 4/101,--. 545,19, TOTAL i$84494. 1409948. 4.534i44.

frA State', allotment is based on the product of its number of low ineme children and he Federal payment rate per low Income child.Current law define.:

Low income children as those from i family of income less than 52.000 in the 1970 Census or children from families on welfare receiving over 52.000 in AFDC payments.

. Payment rate per low income child is 501 of the higher of the Stele ge or National Average Expenditure per pupil. 2266

Background Information

ELIGIBLE 5 - 17 TITLE I PoPOLNTION IN FY65 and FY72

FY 65. -17-772 Children Alir Children . AFDC State Under Civer thder .0ver $2000 $2000 $2000 $2000

. (21 (31 (41 : (51

SO States 6 D.C. 4.948.140 592.578 4.948.119 2.921.631

Alabama 242.522 242,522 1.078 Alaska 4.796 919 4,796 4.444 Arizona 38.851 5,603 38.851 17.717 Arkansas 148.159 148,158 California 206.572 102.097 206,572 566.387

Colorado 33.581 7.322 33.581 32.509 Connecticut 20.731 7,595 20,731 42.253 Delaware 7.422 7.422 5.228 lorida 142.533 142.533 19,292 Georgia 239,789 239.789

'8,872 2,413 8,832 11.356 Idaho X2.257 2,411. 12,257; 5.587 Illinois 147.518 82,499 147,518 211.327 Indiana 76.386 3,515 76,386 31.760 Lows 71,783 9.265 71,789, 27,270 lamas . 40.263 5,49 40,263 27.933 Sentucky 193.559 193,559 29.527 Louisiana. 201.090 192 201.090-- 12.006 Maine 18.408 2,725 13,403 17.329 Maryland 53.714 9,420 53.716 53,908

Massadhwetts 47.065 16,817 47.065 104.790 Michigan 124.712 21,029 124,712 148,837 Minnesota 77.280 11,678 77,210 39.624 Mississippi 254.903 254.903 Missouri 125.159 11,297 125.159 35.433

Montana 14.106 1.484 14.106 5.610 Nebraska 34,417 672 34,411 14.487 Nevada 3,238 675 3,222 2.369 New Hampshire 5,932 .1.052 5.932 5.414 New Jersey 59,845 25,496 59,845 165.912

New Mexico 37,554 4,715 37.554 15.190 Hew York 200,060 99,390 200,060 553,315 Worth Carolina 323.096 3.515 323.096 24.386 tamMdY Dakota 23.346 1,773 23.346. 4.849 Ohio 151.895 25,472 151.895 113.416

Oklahoma 84,779 11,169 84.779 26.836 Oregon 23.933 6.295 23.933 27.737 Pennsylvania 175.394 60,253 175.394 223.225 Rorie Island 12.083 4,007 12.083 17.032 South Carolina 206,639 '206.638 3.980

South Dakota 30.712 1.528 30.712 7.134 Tennessee 220.049 220.048 Texas 398.224 398.210 65.250 Utah 11,660 2.109 11.680 11.591 Vermont 7.208' 580 7.208 5.821

Virginia 167.874 13,028 167,674 42.991 Washington 33.012 9,665 33.072 37.692 hest Virginia 106.406 82 106.406 14.634 Wisconsin 58.445 10,445 58,446 35.410 Wyanng 5,408 661 5,408 1.791 District of Columbia 14.854 5.900 14.854 30.621 2267 BEST COPY AVAILABLE

SELECTED MEASURES OF SCHOOL AGE CHILDREN.. BY STATE

Age 5-17 OrshInsky AFDC Over 1/ State (000) (000) 51700 54000

(11 (2) : (3) (41

' .. 44394.4 9310 272.1 0.1 0.0 ____. JJ. 4 ALAS91 99.0 12,4 %.7 . -' 1(4110:41 ...... 35.0 64.0 1.5 A3.1 0,C. .445.1545 . 497.0 159.1 0.0 CtItFC1N1: 44)30 595.1 136.6 794.,7 ,:., 2.1 ; : cctc44;13 sj8:6- iGTH . :.fl 0.0 ..;rc!el.s.cric..!? 764.3 5,4.1 i..d _...... ,a.t oitawc. : 144.3 17.4 0,0 o.: t40RtV4 1601.1 701.5.: (1.: C5CR313 1223.3 292.9: ...... , rawill 204.1 19.5 Gs -1.01:1 1:4 . ,.. te4i.o loo.o- -23;7 -. t g5.4 III MC1 2359., 102.3 Ait) 1 in0t.f0,3 1)950 121.5 i _ .2*? _...1_7i.e- 2.4 742.0 72.0 : 10w/ _ ._...... wescas 571.1 t4.: 2.0 1.1 wEATuCtv 543:0 201.5 0.7 0.5 1:01115ii14 1131.0 ---.1.I1W..' ...L0.1 ______0.1 )0.:1.E 259.1 35.1 e.n C:f .441.1.4N3 ---7-11370 7417.0 _ 4._5_ - 1.1 .9595.*.w.,9...-T'I 1476.2 116.9 71.2 5t.! 44Em10:Ni .R.):4 II1.NE:0-: f'17.?-003 ..0..41.?A IC1.55.5 40 0.1 0.1 9153SS 1 '(1--! 634.1 251:1 a.? mIssr.1441 1132.0 173.0 1.2. 0.3 34)4T.-15 . 196.1 25.1 __'...'...4 POE91!.9 157.1. : .5.0 1.1 -0'.7 . 0.0 NEV.Z.!. - 124.0 1%9 , 0.0 ...... ____ P42,_.0'"5E 139.0 _____14.3 ____ 3.7 0.5 41i 1Ei-3..ri 17e5,1 1 .7 3991 et.1 0.3 NEi. 9.E.XIC.1 310.0. 10.5 0.'C .. NSW YcR: .355.0 525.4 321,0 270.3 _NC:',4 r.t=1:11%:. ._J122.0 T17.5 0.7 NOTm 0.;.-cT! .1750 27.-4 ..1.f 0.1 oHic /irT.c- 27." 5-- 97.4 0.4 '0«1':.1044 639.0 -__ 11/.5 ..1.3 09100; 534. r. .n 2.5 1.7 PFS9Sylv,P9: 2927.0 304.6 __122.5 100.2 OHCOE I'L=N: 774.0 1.4 1.2 SOUTH Ct;CLINt. 1.9.0 207.0 3.0 u..0 -0.4 !loom I.:vI7..._ 1C.0 33.9 3.6 --11F.I7? -----0317677 244.2 0.: _ oo

rFire.s , 2994.0 43r...2 1.4 ', '.' . _. t.c H

UTAH 312.: : vF=Yvre. 117.3 31-1:81 .7--i. t .o

3.9 . ' .: v[Pcm! 1141.4 , 214.4 .17.2 4.5!1,..-.'0.: 10.7 23.9 8790 ' wESTVI=-;lNIe 442.0: 135 .4 0.1 1.0: 4.3 , 9.'2 L.Its-7.nsisi ' 1231.0: 101.1 L _ ..._ ...... 0.1 wVOMIN,1 12.0 11.1 0.0 A-1:4 -A, 11..-E U:S1 C., rni....,(a _ .164.0 : . 31.2 ILL C7...,r' 151'.1 5,1.7 1.1 1.3 7071. ' 5147.0 )22.0 j" 1011.1 : 3450

AFDC counts based On'estimates: made by SRS. Data were unavailable for :small population States, particularly 'Conne.xticet'!and.Rhede Island, and AilDC children may he H under-estimated; AVtIAGE SALANY OF 124STKOCliONAL STAFF, 1972-1973

State Dollars . % of National Average

Alabama 8,262 . 78 Alaska 15,176 141 Arizona 10,863 , 102 Arkansas 7.611 72 California 12,700, 119

Colorado 10,2a0 97 Connecticut 11,200 105 Delaware 11,100 104 District of Columbia -,.. Florida 9,740 92

Georgia 8,644 61 Hawaii 10,900 102 Idaho 8.058 76 Illinois 11,564 109 Indiana 10,300 97

Iowa 10,564. 99 Karim 8,839 83 Kentucky 6.150 77 Louisiana 9,388 66 Maine 9,277 67

Maryland 11,787 111 massachumetto 11,200 105 Michigan 12,400 117 Minnesota 11.115 104, Mississippi 7,145 67

Missouri 9,329 es Montana 8,908 64 Nebraskan 9,080 65 Nevada 11,472 106 New Hampshire 9.313 66

New Jersey 11,750 110 New Mexico 6,600 61 New York 14,300* 134 North Carolina 9.314 88 North Dakota 8,362 79

Ohio 9,800 92 Oklahoma 8,200 77 Oregon 9,949 91 Pennsylvania 11,000 103 Rhode Island 10,600 101

South Carolina 6,310 76 South Dakota 8,034 75 Tennessee 8,450 i 79 Texas 9,029 65 Utah 6,990 64

Vermont 9,110 86 Virginia 9.842 92 Wamhington 11,100 104 wemt Virginia 8.505 80 Wisconsin 10,812 Wyoming 9,900 93

' Source: NEA Eattmates The riLln-,..alaey (p.22) has replaced the median salary reported in the ::rA table for comparability ulth the other Stares. 2269

PER PUPIL EXTEMMTURES AT ALTERNATIVE PAYMENT LIMITS .AROUND THE NATIONAL AVERAGE

Selected ss Expenditures Limits Per Pupil

75% 9:697

801 743

85% 790--

120% 1150

125% 1161

130% .1207

National Average 929 DISADVANTAGED ro1972 riation no riationif 1973 ratin 2 Bud t Pro sal House Pass- Bill 1974 Senate Passed Bill -AdministrationCompromise (FY 75) (SEA,Handicapped Title I Set - Asides 1.597.500 1.810.000 1,585,185 1.585.185 1.810.000 1.810.000 1,805.000 - 2. HANDICAPPED. EHA SpecialState Grant Target Program Programs (Part B) 37.500 50 .000 37.500 37,500 50,000 50.000- 10.000 (c)(b)(a) DeafSpecificEarly Blind Childhood Learning Centers Projects Disabilities 2,2507,5007.500 - 16,2221/15,79521 16.222--/15.795343.250 12,00010.000 3,250 12.00010.000 12.00015.795 5.000 OVERNOINCREASE TechnologyInnovation and andCommunications Development(a)(d) MediaRegional Services Resource and CentersCaptioned 6.1053.550 ;:;5439.916 9,9167.243 9.9167,243 9.916;:225413 9,9167.243 BUDGETPRESIDENT'S Special Educationrent 11 Manpower(b) Recruitment Develop- and Innovation Films .10.500 34.5p5 SOO 442612/13,1322/ 500 111E12( 13,a2/ 37,70013.000 500 3,7700 13,000 500 45,61513,000 500 1..1+ ' 3. VOCATIONAL EDUCATION ACT. PARTS: TOTAL (ENA) 110-0e7: 157.319 TI 131.109 Trr.g 159,069 '8 - State GrantsA - National Advisory Council 102State (b) Advisory Special CouncilsNeeds 376,682 20.000 2,690 330 426.682 29.8)8 3.204 330 376,682 20,000 2,690 330 376,682 20.000 2.690 330 426.682 20.000 3.204 330 450,000 20.000 3.204 330 ...4 D-C - InnovationResearch Grants (1/2 ofto total)States (1/2 of total) 8,0009.000 9.0008,000 8,0009,000 B.0009.000 9,0008.000 8.0009.000 CONSOLIDATED. $37.I000 F CD(1.2''"Ci SmithMG -- F MorkCooperativeHughes- Consiaver/Homemaker Study Act Education 19.50025.625 6.000 10,52419,50038,322 7.161 19,50025,625 6,000 19,50025,625 7.1616.000 25,625-6,00019.500 10,52440.00019,500 :2:5 /1/ 112.11 Congressional Interpretation Interpretation of Continuing of Continuingeesolutionnesolutien TOTAL (VEA) 474.988 552.6212/ obligatedAmounts include until FYfunds 1974. appropriated in Second Supplemental ($13.800.000) but not -1,161474.988 474.988 525.502 567.719 7.161 511.000 1972 1973 1974 4. SAFA- A 180,500 tattoo 195,665 Hatton!" 195,665 ratin2 Bud 232,000 t P -.sal House Passed 323,680217,620 Senate Passed 347.480217,820 AdministrationCom romise ADO FY AS . Disaster Other 6 331,380 35.000 8,000 390,330 8,000 0 322,330 68,000 8,000 O00 0 8,000 0 PHASEOUT:211(10 PUBLICSection HOUSING 6 37.700 0 41,50010,000 41,500 0 - 41,500 O 41,500 0 41,500 0 5. INNOVATION TOTAL (SAFA) 592705 645.495 635.495 273.500 591,000146.393 E147110-6146.393 ADD NutritionOropESEA,ESEA; OutTitle (ESEA(ESEA IIIV VIII)VIII) TOTAL (INNOV) T91.393 __LL221146,393 10,00033,000 136;593171,393 10,00053.000 2,500 144:057146,393 37,9642.0008,500 150.393146,393 4,000 0 O 196,393 38,000 2,0004,000 191,393 45,000 2,0004.000 T90,393SOEIDATIONFOR40,000._ ON- 6. SUPPORT SERVICES ESEA, Title 11 90,000 100.000 90.000 2,000 O 25.00090.000 100,000 42.500 CONSOLIDATIONADD 115,000 FOR TOTAL ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY PROGRAMSEDUCATION NDEA, Title III TOTAL (SUP SER) 3,106,461 140;000 3,327,513 510000150600 3,175,344 -9T/ONDET 2,616.175 O 3,375.504 115,000 3,491,481 142300 3,156.002 7. OTHER EDUCATION PROGRAMSAdult Education' 51,300 60,000 EnvironmentalDrug Abuse Education Education TeacherSpecialState G Projects_Training _ (Section 304) 12,40051,300 3,1803,0007,000 12,40075,0004.0003.0007,000 12,40051,300 3,180,3.0007,000 51,300 3,0007,000 O 12,400 4,0003,0007.000 2,0007,0003,0C°3.000 I/J CongressionalHEW Interpretation Interpretation of Continuing of Con- Resolutiontinuing Resolution 2272 KST

..... STATE Of RfiODI ISLAND AND PROVIDI NCI PLANTATIONS :DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION PP, IT:oilier-We Street, Providence, Rhode Island 02908 .....of

f red C. Burke. Commissioner

fvl.y 25, 1973

The Honorable Claiborne Pell 325 Old Senate Office Building Washington, D. C. 20510

Dear Senator Pell

Presently there are three Bills proposed for the extension. and/or revision of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, which expires on June.30, 1973. A most important provision of the Act, and one which has received a weal deal of controversy is Title I.

I thought this report might be of interest to you.It attempts to place some objective research in support of the program.I hope it proves to be of some value.

Sincerely,

Robert A. Berlam Coordinator Federal Programs 2273 REST COPY TITLE CATALYST FOR CHANGE

by James H. Dissland

Assigned by a newapat,or to research an article on the 'effects of Title .1 ofthe Elementary and SecOndary EducationAct in Rhode :eland, an out-of-state writer found more than he had expected: notonly ins Titlel.helping die advantaged children directly, it Wasalso having significant secondary effects on the otate's entir-a educational system:, This is hio'repOrt oz the "spin-off" effect's of Title

444

In what may be the most influential current of educational change ,to sweep

across the state since the days of Horace Mann, a quiet revolution is

taking place in Rhode Island schools.

The revolution is quiet--and far, from fully appreciated--because it is

taking place in a dozen different ways; many of them on the local level,

and under the guise of something people often regard simply as another

poverty program: Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.

Title I. a visitor finds on touring the schools and talking with teachers.

administrators and parents, may have been seen, initially as compensatory

education foi, poor children when it was p'assed back in 1965, but in the

years since it has evolved into a,pedagogical watershed.

It did so because for the first time in Rhode Island history substantial

,"punts of extra money was pumped into the schoorsystems. enabling them

to Innovate, improve themselves, and put theory to the toughest test

available, the problems posed by disadvaniaged children. In so doing. rillehe II afl'en tat If tfle nOltatiikirr.ce cltilitioni air

'Il toodktl nay that Mee. II has condensed! into, tirttlemore'.ttthn ammo awns whoa wealth prohabIV, have. Wien, Z0 or 30, yea' rs othermite;!. mammas Mr.. Edward! Wel:Iiiinj;, Th.., of Elotthn Ilininer solemn uuporiir- "PO" "Ow' "I"'Aitg' an on consultant to the' Prqe,ii Innen ...adluni: lie lie a alPflaullt nhenumenJn measure. ,jartiarinyl stondardrzece time deem from the many, *nacii'mj, grogram funtlacl one, Rhode

Dellentti trIneentrione nh Etlilelt inn 4110, show each .0111'11111t1:11111151/10111. thenathers, who had arov ;ousts" been fat tine furTher and further behind' *milt ialthra ill homdinuh, have been "caught" amt. unt welt, on than' nay. tfe aatataing) bet haw On Mau nammunel the. that that an ESEA cumnarabill ty ream; resent: Swath a setheell depentmann to, erase, Ibrerstamilog imiquit ins, between saw mit0100anbeaa eaboons and, ones. in, better rtninhborhoods?Qr that awn now, get warm,. onottledyeatilu help any 'tree they' mthab iitt that Om counselor assigned to the i r scholar!Or that

muff; Sthen''t once. on the, d0V1119fedl., is fast tecneiht a. lieviallabb elf ilmeamettiUn??

Lentil man* OW- thnge.-.^can. he termed; "aortin-off". effoots of Trtht that foal; ffe5firce,b moneu.., diisbursak under strict and often IfyliftIliinoo,, no) aeuceelq,sh.. TOWN* then might never, have hemeemialemetusaa they seemed( tow aepensi've,, or. rod.:.-.31., or inconvenient., 111b4040 Mega el* baton* tli. ;Miner* stated, goal's crf Title v., BEST COPY111115,11.111311

Spin-off takes place in several ways.One can be seen in Newport,

where two target schools are served by fulltime guidancecounselors.

"Back then, we had nothing-.:zero," says Principal John Caswellof

Sullivan School in describing the kind of on-the-spot guidance services

available four years ago. If a child's personal or academic problem

was beyond the capacity of his teacher orprincipal, an appointment

had to be made days or weeks in advance with a specialistlocated

elsewhere.

But Sullivan Elementary School serves a military-civilian housing

project with a large number of children troubled by low-income, un-

stable family situations.At Caswell's request, a guidance counselor

was assigned to Sullivan fours ago...under Title I monis,.

Soon, however, the city was able to shift the cost to state compen-

satory money, and now Newport pays theSullivan counselor itself to

serve the entire school population of 465 youngsters. Meanwhile,

grant money has been used to introduce a counselor at asecond

Newport elementary school.

And so, according to Assistant Superintendent of Schools Sydney0.

Williams, there is hope--provided local money can be found--of leap-

frogging fulltime guidance services into all 12 of the city's elementary

schools. But it all started with Title I.

OuldInce counseling is not the only example of the spin-off effect at

work in Newport. Part of the city's Corrective Reading Program,

launched under. Title l is expanding to all schools in the city, with

grades I to 3 now supported by local funds. 2276

The expansion of, reading and guidance services in Newport exemplify a state-wide phenomenon. More often than cv,t, school departments

that Introduced Title I reading programs have gone on to fund them locally," says URI reading expert Dr. Marion L. McGuire, noting there were only nine reading specialists in the state in 1965--and now there are hundreds. Simil;:rly,in 1965-66 only two of the state's school systems had elementary guidance counselors; now, thanks to Title I.

ESEA, and Title V, NDEA, 23 do.

What a school system learns from conducting Title I programs can affect it profoundly. Our main thrust for educational change came from

Title f," says Dr. Charles E. Shea, Jr., superintendent of schools in

Pawtucket. "We've been able to begin a real "turn - around in our approach to education."

Title I came as a shot in the arm to Pawtucket, which in 1965 was suffering from a desultory local economy and an obsolete school plant.

Now, says Shea, "we're well advanced in open schools, open classrooms. team teaching and indi.idualized instruction.And it grew out of our experience with GRASP."

GRASP reflects Pawtucket's "teamed" use of Title1 money: through the years it has coordinated such features as guidance, reading, physical education, bi-lingual education and English as a Second Language, computer-assisted math, and supportive services including health, physical therapy, tutoring, and social service.Audio-visual has played

an important role; with Title I funds Pawtucket developed a mobile 2277 REST COPY AVAILABLE. 5

Instructional Resources Laboratory, a kind of traveling treasurehouse

of films and other materials which visits 15 schoolstwice each week.

That in itself is innovative.

Dr. Shea points to Pawtucket's handsome new Anna BurnsClementary School

as an example of a 'modified open school." Non-graded, it enrolls

children on levels equivalent to kindergarten throughsixth grade.

it Is divided Instead of the traditional self-contained classrcoms,

Into a number of larcx, well-lighted and carpeted areaswith such names

as Cobblestone Comm", Woodlawn Terrace andPleas4nt Valley. At the

heart of the building is what once would have been krrowl as alibrary,

but is now called aeolti-media center. Among the children, however,

It is known as The Village Greed.

In any ore area several teachers can he seen workingwith a number of

groups of varying cites;in addition sore children will he doing inde-

In all; there may be as many as 150 children in a room, pendent work.

but a sense of crowdinn or of noise is lacking.

In even education, explains Henry Cote, Pawtucket'sTitle I coordinator,

the teacher serves as a resource personrather than as a traditional

instructor:. the youngsters work individually and in small groupswith

encouragement and advice from the teacher, andthe emnhasis is on problem

solving and decision making. The value of this approach was demonstrated

to Pawtucket by its Title I projects.

has seen the one hiy opportunity fcr the schools to try some- "Title I

thing new," says Cote. 'These things, like Burns, just don't happen

in a vacuum." In fact, Miss Beatrice Donovan, the city's first Title 2278 BEST COPY IllinfIBLE

coordinator and now Its director of elementary education, has made

almost every schoolin the system non - graded on levels k-3..As Cote

explains, "She used ARASP as 'c'e change agent."

Worth watching for future spin-off effect is Providence's new corrective -

preventive reading program, which Is implicitly designed as a change

,agent. Dissatisfied with the conventional reading program funded by

Title I, the city revamped its approach and now uses reading specialists

as resource persons...part of whose job. is to give classroom teachers

more reading skills. The long-term result should be a vastly larger

number of reading-skilled teachers serving all children with reading

problems, not just those in Title I programs. "The idea is to move it

gradually into the main bloodstream of the school department, freeing

.up federal money to rove into other areas," Dr. Welling says.

In the course of things the state's colleges have been influenced as

well.

Title l's insatiable eemand for evaluative eata has helped create two

agencies expected tc play im:reasing roles in shaping Phode Island

education: the Curriculum Research and Development Center at the Uni-

versity of Rhode Island and the Center for Evaluation and Research at

Rhode Island College.

Both centers may hold the key to meeting one of ed',K:ation's nagging

problems: the lack of objective data about what itis doing. Itis

this lack of hard data which has made convincing evaluation of education 2279 BEST COPYAtiaiLARLE

so elusive, leaving it vulnerable to opinionand sometimes unsubstan-

tiated criticism. By coordinating teams of experts versed in the latest

methods of analysis, the bureau approach may welllay the groundwork for

greater public accountability by the schools.

As well as the CRDC, URI has introduced its "AlternateCurriculum" for

teacher education, in pert the result, says Dr.Robert MacMillan, of

Title I's clear demonstration that student teachers were notdeveloping

adequate sensitivity to the special needs of pupils.

"Me found that we should get the students back intothe schools, even

though they'd just gotton out of them," says Dr.MacMillan, chairman of

UR1's Department of Education.

"Row they start in their freshman year (as studentaides, one day a

week) instead of waiting for student teaching intheir junior or senior

schools, but to hospi- Years. Every year we send them out, not only to

tals, state institutions--avyplace that will helpthem understand what

a kid is."

Students, faculty members and local schools are "mostenthused" over

the program, now in its second year, MacMillan says,adding, "We could

place four times as many students as we have."

Helping prospective teachers to "understand what akid is" is a key

phrase, for it epitomizes Title I's influence inhumanizing education,

in moving meny educators from a traditional andsimplistic view of a

child as "someone to be taught at" to a recognition that everychild is

a Complex needs and capabilities, and Iswholly unique. 2280 BEST COTIETAILIV..11.E

Says Dr. Lenore DeLucia, professor of psychologyat Rhode .Island College:

The idea of the school dealing with the childas a whole organism, of

recognizing such needs as psychological, medical, dental,social work

on the home front, even food and clothing - -of even recognizingthat

value structures differ, has come largely from TitleI."

This growing recognition that schools should "measureup to the kids"

rather than the other way around has manifested itselfin rang ways,

some of them rooted in psychology, others in humanism, hut' allworking

to make schools better. For example:.

--The widening use of teacher aides and other'paraprofessionals, reflecting

one of Title Is nest important lessons: individual attention, and

individualized programs, are critical tosuccess in school, particularly

when the children are disadvantaged. Paraprofessionals in, some cases

relieve teachers of routine chores, freeing them forwork with the

children; in other cases, aides even serveas assistants to teachers.

"Back in '65, there was nobody doing this kind ofthing," says Dr.

Eleanor McMahon,P.hode Island College's dean of educationalstudies.

"My impression now is that they're quite widespread."

--A substantially, increased variety of learningmaterials, produced by

publishers and manufacturers in response to the immensemarket created by Title I. Schools, in turn, have learned 'that there isno one kind of

ret.ding material that can he used with equalsuccess with all children;

instead, says URI's Dr. McGuire, 'many schools use a variety of materials.

The teachers are getting used to it--it's openedtheir minds to diversity.

It used to be, you know, that if a child failedonce, he had to do, the same book all over again." BEST COPY ANALLABLE 2281

has had other derivative effects as well. One has been a height- Title I

ening of a sense of cooperation and mutual purpose between publicand

non-public schools. Cy bringing both systems under the same umbrella,

Sister Therese Cornellier, PM,director of federal and state programs,of

the Diocese of Providence's school department believesTitle I has

"definitely brought the two administrations together. It's meant a much

greater appreciation by each side of what the otherdoes."

have been developed Many of the guidelines concerning use of Title I

in the years after EFEA's original passage in 1965; two Importantrulings

have been those governing parent involvement and comparability.

program is supposed to have a parent advisorycommittee: Each Title I

too often either parent apathy or professionalresistance has thwarted

true involvement. Out slowly--as demonstrated by Providence's PACT

group, for exampleparents may be playing a greaterrole in planning

and monitoring school programs. George Marks, principal of Providence's

Fogarty Elementary School, notes, "Parents are getting a piece of the

action, finally.They're getting much more sophisticated, too. 1

find that they ask some good, pointed questions- - questions thatSHOULD

be asked," And Mrs. Constance Comes, chairman of PACT, declares, "No one

alone can educate the kid. It's everybody's job."

Comparability obliges a school system tc demonstrate that it is giving

each of its schools, a fair share of local funding andstaffing. Intended

money to meet what are to pre'rfrot a school system from using Title 1

fundamentalrj4ccai obligations, the comparability requirement has caused

headaches for local administrators, but it has awakened many to inequities; It.ST COPY AVAILABLE

inequities that meant children were not being given equality of educational

opportunity. An official of one of the state's city school systems, says,

"We hadn't realized what we were doing. For example, in staffing, some

schools were getting more experienced people than others."And other

factors, such as pupil-teacher ratios and per-pupil expenditures, were

found to be unfair as well.

Educators agree that the need for seed money will continue for a long

time to come. "It took us 10 years'to put a man or the moon, and we

spent more money than we ever did on Title I," says Dr. Welling. "To say

It's all over for Title I in seven or eight years is rather myopic."

And Robert Stearns, acting Title I coordinator in Providence, says,

"If we're ever going to change education here, the key is federal money.

. There's no way we can ever get enough money locally."

"A great deal of the progress we've made wouldn't have been possible without

Title 1," observes one Rhode Island educator."What it did was give people

in the school systems a chance to set programs in action. It planted the

seed." COALIY1014,11111 CHILONEN P. 0.00x NM Clary MAIL MAIMAND RIM

C111116011 tell C11.0-40.11I 'COWIN CSIO fatikir, Ph.D. O..* Lee".. Lefifttne ayponnin COlAfIllenfr 0M04.0 Of TM LIN." fame.. Rep Ash W. 1.,11M Off U.11110 I., Pr Ipcasiby tamps. Non IMO.. lamb% Downer mtemerw

STAMEN/ TS OPPOSITION TO THE EXTENSION OF THE ELMONTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION ACT OF 1965

The Coalition for Children is OPPOSED to the extension of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act for the following reasons:

1. the documented failure of. Title I funds to significantly raise the learning achievement of disadvantaged children. (See article attached) Educe . tionists oust be held ACCOUNTABLE for the ISEA funds they have expended in the past.

2. Cuts in federal funding bring anguished cries from vested interests (e.g., the National Education Association) that Congress is ignoring the "needs of children." In fact, federal funds for education have gone primarily not "to the children" but to educationists! Rep. Edith 'Green writing in the Public interest (Sumner, 1972), documents case histories of Office of Education funding to "educational entrepreneurs" who have enriched themselves and not the children at our expense!

3. In flagrant violation of the intent of Congress Title III of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act has been used to fund experimeetal programs in which children and teachers have been subjected to violations ofpriftVi, attitude and value indoctrination, sensitivity training, and a host of other assaults on the dignity and individuality of the human personality in the nerve of social engineering. These grants ere SOCINCIPTED in Pacesetters in innovation (available from RIM, order number:OE 20103-69), which lists all -projects- funded under Title III through 1969.

Parents In increasing numbers are questioning the policies and the philos- phies of thy education establishment. We question educationists who have presided over the continuous decline In achievement in the basic shills. their standard alibi that "learning problems stem from the home" is difficult te swallow in slaw of the evidence that disadvantaged children CAE be taught to reed lr they are taught by competent teachers using /WORICS reading methods. Cf., George Weber, "Inner-City Children Can Re Taught to Read: Four SuccessfulSchools, Council for basic Education, 1972.

We wonder at those who say that history' Is obsolete and them obtain federal greats to develop programs called "future studies." We object to programs that subject children to erperImental psychological techniques such as role.Plerlag, sensory oweresese sold eelf-emalyele, and gwestiommaire* that invade rosily privacy. We note that PO EVIDEPCE has been produced that demonstrates that this "mental health" approach to education leads to greater learning. We ask our Comerseserm to reflect: Is this what INN mean by QUALIIT IMOCSTION?

We are appalled that Catherine Verret, President of the National Meatier Association has said that teachers must be "agents of chomp" and ow weal& lite .to *mow how many teachers have been formed into this social engineering Mem* of education against their will. We wander if most Congressmen are aware that the. VOA views schools as "clinics" where children receive "psyche-facial treatment."

The question et intending the elesomtery awlIkeeMaryIllecatiem Aet will seen booms* a matter it debate is emerges. As sweets, our may vested interest In this bill Is oar children and all the children of this 1004. We ergs yes to 'erode* with care the claims if the educationists and to redirect sad oversee the Evade they easel I. your moms. The record will speak for itself. What is at stake is nothing less than the raters of our sou try:suer young people. 2284 BEST COP

,1A1t UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK AT ALBANY 1400 WashIngion Anenu Albany. New Yoll. 12272

3ept..T.LKT 13, l'13

Som.tor Claiborne Pell, Chaltrdan .;e Su'.1co:L. ittee on :due S. 3enatu Washington, D. C. 20510 Le..r ii,nater Pull:'. I nolosin, for your own info:z.:.Lion and the b_nufit of your staff a piper I hive r eently u-ritten on the 1,robleu. of equalizing ddud. t i nul oprOntudity.It has dace: red to me that Ltd: r might be suitable to incluie in your Subcommittee hedrings

en thc.tt r School ..ct Or th.. record. .

The !art of Lid; paper provides a brief r. view of rec.nt court (Joel sie 00.On pugs 12 1 discuss ti.c cenc.:::t. of "power equalizeticn" which been adopted to scd..e extent &j your 0%..m st...te of Rhode Isloni and then go on to discuss the ramie of fiscal alt.rnttiTtr. thuL are avallz.ble to stubs to help ir.pdove the equality of °duel-Lie:Lill opportunity. In designing a bett.r system of Fe d-rul aid, your subcom: ittee might consider the possibility of aid formulas will ch provide the std.tes with an economic incentive to utilize fr,ch ulternuti.es as school district consolidation or a minims. school tux rate with the iroceods above the state's "faun eti n level d' school support" being returned to the state for distribution to poorer school distri is as mezns to improve the ' equality of oduc.tiuntil opportunity. Since, clyA

Lcht.rd F. P.cnshaw Professor of Public Finance 2285 REST COPY IIVIT ABLE Equalizing Educational Opportunity

Edward F. Renshaw, Director Municipal Finance Study:Group St'",! University of New York at Albany

Recent court decisions nave focused public attention on the inequality of educational opportunity wnicn' results from an unequal distribution of taxable wealth. While some of tne momentum for greater equality may nave been lost as a result of tne recent U. S. Supreme Court decision, tnere is reason to believe teat competitive economic system might nelp to bring about a revolution in scnool finance similar to tne cnanges wnicn tne U. S. Supreme Court refused to impose on our federal system.

' in tau paper we will briefly review recent court decisions. analyze tnerange of fiscal alternatives tnat are available to states from tne perspective of "power equalization." and tnen consider some of tne issues wnicn might be addressed in future court decisions.

It seems clear tnat most states could do a mucn better job of: promoting equality of educational opportunity without sizable increases' in State budgets, massive reorganization of local scnooldistricts, or a major abrogation of eicisting systems of financing public education. Incremental improvements in the equality of educational opportunity may not be as feasible from a political point of view in some instances. newewer, as a more neroic assumption by tne state of most of tne cost of financing elementary and secondary education. 2286 BEST COPY 3i -2 - A brVf Review of Recent Court Decisions

Article XI, Section 1 of tne Constitution of tne State of New York reads, Tne Legislature snall provide for the maintenance and support of a system of free common schools. wherein alltne enildren of tnis state may be educated.

Article VIII. section IV. paragraph 1 of the 1947 Constitutionof the State of New Jersey goes even furtner in affirmingthe state's responsibility to provide free education, Toe Legislature shell provide for the maintenance andsupport of a thoroukn and efficient, system of free public schoolsfor the instruction of-all the children in the State betweenLIM ages of five and Id years.,

In toe now famous Supreme Court, decision involving Brownv. Board of Education It was observed that, Today. educatiomis pernspe the most important function ofstate and local governments. . . . In these days.jt is doubtful that any wild may reasonably be expected to succeed in life if he is denied the opporunity of an education.Such en opportunity. afters NO state has undertaken t o p rovide it. is right which must be available to all on equal term.'

Tne 14th Amendment to the U. S. Constitution says . . nor shall any State . . . deny to any person within its jurisdiction tme equal protection of tne laws.' In concluding that the statutes'of New Jersey donot provide tne equality of educational opPortunity'vnich is demanded bythe State Constitution. Superior Court Judge Theodore I. getter hasobserved. Mere is no compelling justification for making a taxpayer in one district pay a tax at a nigher rate than a taxapyer in another district. so long as tne revenue serves the common State educational, purpose.Moreover. education is too important to the State as well 'as the children of the State to;be largely controlledby the napoasard distribution of Veal property wealth. The State and its courts have a Special solicitude for the welfare of children since theyhave little control over their own destinies. 'Children may become wards of the court simply to insure that tney:be provided with 'proper protection. maintenance and education."N.J.S.A. 9,2-91 N.J.S. 2A.4.2, ace State v. Perricone. 37 N.J. 463,`476(1962). Education is,not left S. 4S3. 493 (1954). This was tne case which outlawed aggregated public scnools. 2287 BEST COPYAValibrii3LE

to the discretion of a parent.By statute every parent is compelled to nave nis child between ages sixawl, 16 attend schools. Tne public scnool tnat ne attends is entirely tne creation of State,laws. As was said in Van Dusartz, supra. "What isimportant to note is that tne objection to classification by wealth ,i6in tots case aggravated by tne fact tnat tee variattons'in wealth ceState created. This is not the simple initanca in which a poor manisinjured by his lack of funds.: Here the poverty is that of a governmentalunit tnat the State itself nas defined and commissioned. . . ." The present system of financing public elementary andsecondary scnools in New Jersey violates the requirements forequality contained in tne State and Federal Constitutions. Toe system discriminates against pupils in districts with low real property wealtn.and it discriminates against taxpayers by imposing unequal burdensfor a. common State purpose.I

Tne equal protection tnesis was first advancedin 1965 by Artnur Wise, Associate Dean of tne Graduate Scnool Of Education. University of Chicago 2 in, "Is Denial of Equal Educational Opportunity Constitutional?" He later elaborated upon it in Bien Schools. PoorScnools.3 A similar tnesis has been advanced by Coons. Clune and Sugarman. in "Educational OpportunitYs A Workable Constitutional Test for State Financial Structures."4 And 5 private Wealth and Public Education.

Early court cases originating in Illinois. WestVirginia and Florida did not find unequal support for education to be aviolation of tne '14th amendment. in the Illinois case. the Supreme Court affirmed without comment a ruling by tne Federal District Court tnat theIllinois school financing system was "rational" because it was designed to"allow individual localities to determine tneir own tax burdenaccording to the importance .6 tney placed on public scnools. Docket. 1. Superior Court of New Jersey Law Division - Hudson County 10. No. L-18704-69. Reprinted in The Daily Bond Duver. February 7. 1972, p. 2. 'XIII Administrator's Notebook. No. 6. University of Chicago. February. 1965.

3. university of Chicago Press. 196g.

4. 57 Cal. L. Rev. 305 (1969).

5. Belknap press of Harvard University Press, 1970.

6. paul Heffernan. "The Editor's Corner," The Daily Bond Buyer, October 16. 1972, pp.1 and 24. In New York. State Supreme Court JusticeJoseph F, Hawkins last year dismissed a case cnallenging relianceon the local property tax to finance public scnools,He neld tnat tne Supreme Court had already affirmed the constitutionalityof traditional scnool financing in 1969 and in 197U by upholdingtne decisions of Illinois and Virginia courts to tne effect that thecourts could not determine whether tnere had been a constitutionalviolation of equal protection because the "needs" of studen's interms of equal educational opportunity was too nebulous a concept.1,

The now historic decision of the California'Supreme Court in Serrano v. Priest appears to n4e shifted the focusof concern. however, from a determination of "need" to the idea thatdifferences in the quality of education snould not be a function ofdifferences in taxable wealth per pupil. In 1963-69. Beverly Hills had a tax rateof $2A8 and an expenditure of $1,232 per pupils neignboringBaldwin Parks' tax load was $5.43, but it could spend only$573 per pupil. Tne'California holding would forbid !tnislinking of affluence and spending, buttnat is all itwould do. It, would not proscribe tne use of a real property tax; nor wouldit require (though it would permit) tne,legislatuee toimpose'uniform spending statewide. In fact, the legislature could continueto delegate to existing district autnorities tne cnoice of spending level,so long us earn district was given equal capacity to raise money.'

Courts in Minnesota. New Jersy. Wyomingand Texas followed California in affirming that,tne existing system ofschool finance in their respective states was in violation of the 14thamendment. (The New Jersey deciSion went even farther in contendingthat tne existing system also violated the State's own constitution.) One tabulation published in january. 1972. listed 23 court cases in 17states and noted that additional' suits are reputed to be pending which wouldbring to 20 tne number'of states involved.

In April. 1972. the U. S. Supreme Court announcedthat it'would hear inH appeal by the State of. Texas over theruling by a special panel of three federal judges in Rodriguez v. San AntonioIndependent School District p. 24.

2. Jonn 'E. Coons. "Equal Dollars for ScnoolDistricts," Tne New York Times.,, November 1. 1971. p. 41.

3. The Lawyers' Committee for Civil RightsUnder Law. "Law Suits Challenging State School Finance Systems." January. 1972, 733 15th St., N. W.. Room 520. Washington. U. C.. 20005. 2289 BEST. CO?'( MABLE.

. 5..

declaring tnat tne State's system of edUcational finance violates tne 14tn amendment. Thirty states joined' Texas in a friend of tne court action to urge a reversal arguing tnat tne judges nave limited tne freedom of states to govern tnemselves. Minnesota. Maine. Soutn Dakota. Wisconsin and Micnigan filed a brief supporting the lower court decision..

In tne majority opinion aanded down in the Rodriguez Case by the U. S. Supreme Court it was noted: We must decide. first. wnetner tne Texas system of financing public education operates to tne disadvantage of some suspect class or impinges upon a ft.indamental right explicitly or implicitly protected by t40 Constitution. tnereby requiring strict judicial scrutiny. If so. tne judgment of tne District Court snould be affirmed. If note the Texas scneme must be examined to determine wnetner it rationally furtners some legitimatei articulated state purpose and tnerefore does not constitute an invidioUs discrimination in violation of tne equal protection clauSe of tne 14tn Amendment.

In a five to four decision. tne conservative majority on tne U. S. Supreme Court concluded tnat education "is not witnin tne limited ';category of rignts guaranteed by tne (U. S.) Constitution." tnat the Tcx4is system nas "not been snown to discriminate against any 02finable class of 'poor' people or to occasion discriminations depending on tne relative wealtn of tne families in any district." and .tnat "tne Texas system dims not violate tne equal protection clause of tae 14tn Amendment." Tne majority noted: Tnougn concededly imperfect. tne system bears a rational relationsalp to a legitimate state purpose. While assuring basic education for every child in the State. it permits and encourages participation in tne significant control ofeach', district's scnools at tne local level.

In arriving at their decision. the majority appear to nave been more apprehensive abodt tne larger issue of wny equalizationsnould be iimited to state boundaries and why education should be considered more important than otner kinds of government services tnan about evidence in support of an invidious discrimination, tnat mignt be in violation of the 14tn Amendment.L.

1. Tne majority cite a Connecticut study wnicn found tnat ."poor families" were clustered around industrial and commercial areas. wnica is notsurprisind in an industrial state. but did not try to determine wnetner a similar mttern would be discovered in Texas. wnicn is a low income state and nas far more rural poverty. BEST COPY. FIVAUBLE

If local taxation for lockl expenditure is an unconstitutional metnod of providing for education. tnen it may be an equally impermissible means of providing other necessary services customarily financed largely from property taxes, including local police and fire protection. public nealtn and nospitals and public utility facilities of various kinds. We perceiVe no justification for such a severe denegration of local property taxation and control as would follow from tne appellees' contentions.. It nas siAnly never bean witnin tne constitutional perogatives of tni3 Court to nullify statewide measures for financing public services merely because tne burdens or benefits tnereof fall unevenly depending upon tne relative wealth of tne

political subdivisions in wnicn citizens live. . . . No scneme of taxation. wnetner tne tax is imposed on property, income. or purcnases of goods and services. nas yet been devised wnicn is free of all discriminatory impact. In ellen a complex arena in wnicn no perfect alternatives exist. tne Court does well not to impose too rigorous a standard of scrutiny lest all local fiscal scnemes become subjects of criticism under, tne equal protection ciause;

In 1970-71. property rich Alamo Heights received $491 in state aid per pupil from tne basic Foundation Program administered by tne,State of Texas. wnile tne Edgewood School District. with less taan one-eigntn as much taxable wealtn per pupil. received only $356 per pupil. Iii his dissenting opinion. Associate Justice Tnurgood Marshall noted: WiYit tne Court fails to emphasize is tne cruel irony of how much more State aid is being given to property rice' Texas scnool districts on top of tneir already substantial local property tax revenues.

It snould be empnasized tnat the U. S.' Supreme Court did not condone tne existing system. In nis concurring opinion. Associate Justice Potter Stewart notes: The method of financing public scnools in Texas. as in, almost every otner state. nas resulted in a system of public education tnat can fairly be described as chaotic and unjust.

Writing for the majority. Associate Justice, Lewis E. Powell. Jr. concluded:: We nardly need to add mit tnis Court's action today is not to be viewed as placing its imprimatur on tne status quo. The need is apparent for reform in tax systems wnicnmay well nave relied too long and too neavily on tne localproperty tax. And certainly innovative new tninking as to public education.its methods and its funding. is necessary to assure 'botna higner level 2291 BEST COPY/11111113tE

of Atoolity and greater uniformity of opportunity. These matters medic toe continued attention of tne scholars whoalready nave co5ttributed much by tneir coallenges. but tne ultimate solution!, must come from tne democratic pressures of tnosewno elect tnem.

In 4i of our 50 states tne provision ofpublic education is mandated by state constitutions. "No otner state function," according to JUStiC2 Marsnall, "is so uniforml!, recognized as anessential element of out society's well-being." Two weeks after tne U. S. Supreme Court failed to uphold tne Rodriguez Case, tne New Jersey StateSupreme Court upneld Witn some modification tne judgment of JudgeTheodore I. Better that tne existing statutes for tinancingelementary and secondary education in New Jersey violate tne State', own constitutionbecause tney discriminate against students in districtswith low real property ratables and also discriminate against taxpayers by imposingunequal burdens.

This ruling followed tne U. S. Supreme Court byrejecting Judge Botter's decision tnat tnere was a violation of tne14th Amendment, but upheld nim in nis ruling tnat toere was aviolation of tne State's own constitution: In light of the foregoing, it cannot be said toe1375 amendments were intended to insure statewide equality among taxpayers. but we do not doubt toot an equal educational opportunity for children was precisely in mind. Toe mandate toat toere be maintained and supported "a toorougnand efficient system of free public scnools for tneinstruction of all tne cnildren in tne State between tne ages of 5 and 13years" can, nave no otner import. Wnetner toe State acts directly or imposes therole upon local government. toe end product must be wnattne Constitution of tae State commands. A system of instruction in any district wniCn is:not taorougn and efficient falls shortof tne constitutional obligation command. Wnatever tne reason for tne violation, tne is tne StXte's to rectify it. if local government fails, tne State government must compel it to act, and if thelocal government cannot carry toe burden, tne State mustitself' meet its continuing obligation. brown v. Beard of 1. prior to tne.'1. S. Supreme Court's decision 'in Education, every'state.nad a constitutionalprovision directing the establisnmentof a system nf, public schools,but after Brown. South Carolina repealed its constitutional provisionand Mississippi made its constitutional provision discretionary with the StateLegislature. BEST COP? AVAILABLE

The New Jersey decision. wnicn cannot be appealed to tne W. S. Supreme Court. opcnu up tne possibility hilt tne scnool finance laws in otnentates will be found to violate provisions wnicn.arecootained in tneir own state constitutlons.lWaite it i5 not clear now tne courts in otner states will react to tne decisions of tne U. S. and New Jersey 2 Supreme Courts. it:is quite clear tAdt many state legislatures nave not been living up to tneir respensibility to provide or insure equal: :. educational opportunity.

In tne State of New Jersey. for example. tne tax resources per pupil are reported to vary from $10.000 of equalized property value for tne community of Lakenurst to over $400.000 per pupil for tne community of Mantoloking. mantoloking spends $1.493 per pupil and taxes its property at a rate of 0.3%; Lakehurst upends only $733 per pupil and nas a scnool tax rate of 6.3%.Great Neck and Levittown. N.Y.. are two Long island communities anly 10 miles &part. Each levies a scnool tat of $2.72 per $100. Yet Great Neck raises four times as much money as Levittown. In Wyoming. one scnool ditrict raises $14.554 3er pupil wale' anetner raises only $6.3 per pupil - a disparity of 2.255%. 1. In Michigan. Gov. William G. talliken is suing in state courts to get Michigan's system of financing declared unconstitutional under tne equal protection clauses of botn tne State and tne Federal Constitutions. Tne hicniean Supreme Court on Dec. 29. 1972. upneld Gov. Milliken's position in a 4 to 3 decision. Subsequently, nowevcr.0;:.!O new justice:, were appointed to toe bencn, and tee newly reeonstituted court granted m renearing. It nas been reported tnat as of early oflril 1973 tnere were 25 cases before various state conrts wnicn are base; on provisions contained in state coustitutions. Jonn A PLUrt..S*Or at tne University of California at Berkeley. wno neads tne team of lawyers for tne Plaintiffs in tne Serrano case says "Serrano is alive and nealtny and will remain so barring some kind of cataclysm." since the suit is based on toe principle of equal protection guaranteed by tne California Constitution. "It stands like last year's ruling on capital punishment. vitas or without tne agreement of the U. S. Supreme Court."See. Jonn Winders. "Rodriguez Ruling Aftermetnt Wnat Did It Really Settle?" Tne Daily Bond Buyer. Marco 23, 1973. p. 30. 2. Tne arguments that were used by toe Court in tne New Jersey Case to declare tne present system ,af school finance were rooted in nistory and bolstered by very strong constitutional mandate in benalf of a "tnorough and efficient'' system of free public scnools. It is questionable wnetner tne Courts th otner states. with weaker constitutional provisions. will overturn existing systems of financing elementary a...1 secondary educ:11.0. 3. "Tne Coming Change in the Property Tax." Business Week. February 12 1972. pp. 50-56. 2293 BEST COPYAVARABII - 9 -

Une solution to tne problem of unequal resources for tne support of elementary and secondary education would be to nave tae state take over the entire burden of financing local education. a solution which was recommended in a recent report of tne Fleiscnmann Commission In the State of New York.' Tnis could be 4.s ratner costly solution. nowever. In answer to tne question. if Rodrigues; is upheld. now much Will iS cost. James McUrew, Executive Director of tne Texas Research League has suggested: Theoretically. it could cost no Using. for tne principle of fiscal neutrality could be invoked by naving tne state tatie over tne full cost of poNlic education and provide Gnat tne current average expendinre be applied uniformly tnrougnout tne state. This. of course. would mean tnat tne per pupil expenditure in some districts would be greatly increased. while in otner districts it would be greatly decreased. It is tnerefore. only a tneory. In practice. many. if not all, of tnc nigh expenditure districts are vo1:18 to incise roar their corrent level of expenditure be maintained. Tne level of equalization finally roo4en tnrougn tne political process would determine tne total cost. Some estimates indicate that tnis might amount to $3 billion nationwide. but work in Tcxas seems to indicate that this might be a conservative figure.4

A Complete takeoverof scnoot financing by tne state would probably make it very difficult for communities tnat value education highly to spend more on tne education of tne6r children than otmer districts. pis Volution would appear to go beyond tne principle f;f "fiscal neutrality" advanced in tne Rodriguez decisions'Briefly suitWrited. this standard requires tnat tne quality of:education may not be a function of wealth. otner tnan tne wealtn of tne state as a whole." Tne state. said tne court. "may adopt tne financial scneme desired so long as the variation in wealth among tne governmentally cnosen units do not affect spending for tne education of any enild.

1. Report of tne New York State Commission on theQuality. Cost and Financing of Elementary and Secondary Education. January. 1972.

2. James McGrew. "Scnool Financing Decision Now Up to Supreme Courts Can Problems be Solved by Simple Declarative Decree?" The Bond Buyer. First S1A Public Finance Conference Issue. September ys. 1971. p, 19.

3. Ibid.. pp. 17 and li. 2294 CUTCOPY AVAILABLE

- 10 -

In tne New Jersey case Justice !Hitter noted:"If monies are supplied to local districts from general state revenues sufficient for 'tnorougn' education. some districts may still desire to add to thht sum from local property taxes. This may reintroduce inequities of various sorts: however. the issue was not eigurd. and my decision is not intended to reflerr upon it."

Anotnec disturbing feature of a complete takeover of scmool financing by state governments is tnat it mignt make it ratner difticult for central cities with migner living costs end an unfavorable educational environment to effectively compete for competent teacnerm. Ynile fiscal disparities move been a problem. educational finances nave become more balanced between cities and tneir suburbs over time. In 1962 toe central cities in tne 37 largest metropolitan areas spent less than 3S% as much, on toe average. per pupil as their suburbs. In trust year only a few central cities spent more per pupil. In 1970. however, only 20 central cities in tne 72 largest metropolitan areas spent less per pupil on education than heir surrounding suburbs. Average spending per pupil in tne larger central cities is now about ten per cent greater, on tne average. train in tne suburbs.' Many educators would regard tnis as a desirable turnabout since our central cities usually nave a much nigher percentage of children from law income families vivre educational nandicaps are more apt to be present. Considering tne &renter cost of educating sucn children. it would be ironical. indeed, if concern over equal protection were to nave tne effect of Forcing some central' cities vita a nigh proportion of blacks and otner disadvantaged groups to lower tneir per pupil expenditures to suburban levels.

in tne majority opinion ef tne U. S. Supreme Court it was noted: Toe complexity of tnese problems is demonstrated by the lack of consensus vita respect to vnetner it may be said vita any assurance tort toe poor. toe racial minorities, or the enildren in overburdened core.g.ty scnool distrietc would be benefited by ahregetlen. of traditional n'ides of financing education.Unless cnere is to be as substantial increase in state expenditntes on education across I. See Seymour Sacks, City Scnools/Suburban Scnoolss A History of Fiscal Conflict.Syracuse University Press. 197Z and subsequent statistical analysis for the ACIR. 2295 ar COPY - 11 - tne board - an event tne likelihood of Which is on to considerable question - tnese groups stand to realize gains in terms of increased per pupil expenditures only if tney reside in districts teat presently spend' at relatively low levels. i.e., in tnose districts tnat would benefit from tne redistribution of existing resources. Yet recent studies nave indicated that the poorest families are not invariably clustered in tne most impecunious

scnool districts. . . Several tesearcn projects nave concluded that any financing. alternative designed to acnieve a greater equality of expenditures is likely to 1a iv higher taxation and lower educational expenditures in the major urban centers. a result that would exacerbate ratner than ameliorate existing conditions in those areas. These practical considerations of course. play no role in rtne adjudication of the constitutional issues presented nere. But they serve to nighlignt tne wisdom of the traditional limitations on tnis Court's function. Tne consideration and initiation of fundamental reforms with respect to state taxation and education are matters reserved for tne legislative processes of tne various states, and we do no violence to tne values of federalism and separation of powers by staying our nand.

It snould be emphasized tnat full funding of education' by the state is only one of several ways to acnieve equalization. In nis dissenting opinion. Justice harsnall notes: Tne District Court struck down notning more tnan the continued interdistrict wealth discrimination innerent in tne present property tax. both centralized and decentralized plans for educational fending not involving such interdistrict discrimination nave been put forward. Tne cnoice among theSe or otner alternatives remains with tne State.

In the New Jersey case. Justice Better noted, "Nothing herin shall be construed as requiring the Legislature to adopt a specific system of financing or taxation.Tne Legislature may approach the goal required by the education clause by any metnods teasonably calculated to accomplish tnat purpose consistent witn urze protection requirements of law."

87.451 0 -14 21 22U no,111311 12 - PCT

rower tqualization

rower equalization. in .its purl:standmerst general term, can be described by toe following equationr 1 DAR 1.0 - kWL/WS (1) Woerer -DAR a local sr000l district's state aid ratioor the' proportion ca its expenditure toat will be financed by tne state. . WL tne district's taxable wealth per weightedpupil. WS tne average wealth per weigoted pupil for as a woole. tne state

a local cost snare factor or. tne snare ofaidable expenditure toat must be born by localtaxpayers in a district woere local wealthper pupil equals. the average wealtn per pupil. for toe stateas a wnole.

Under tois system each sc000l districtwould receive a fixed amount of revenue per pupil for any particularlevel of tax effort regardless of toe amount of local propertyper pupil. To provide tne reader with better understanding of tois concept letus assume trait a state oas adopted power equalization and 4-hat itdesires to snare about half of the cost of providing elementary And rp-condati education. This objective can be furthered. to a firstapproximation. by setting toe local cost snare factor, it.in equati= (1) equal to .5. DAR 1.0 - .5WL/WS (2)

1. mete 40eNn't appear to be a clear recognitionin the school finance literature that "district power equalization."in its 'purest and most general form, is essentially identAcalto toe "percentage equalization formula" toat is partially used insome states to distribute aid. hickrod and nit; colleagues at IllinoisState University woo have written one of tne better, more recent and most comprehensivediscussions of toe. "Definition. Neasurement,' and Application ofthe Concept of Lqualization: in School Finance," for toe U. S. officeof Education treat toe two concepts 'as being separate and distinct. Tniu is unfortuneux since it tends to cause toe profession to focus itsattention on puristic solutions to toe problem of educational inequalitywoen a combination of alternatives might be less costly and more feasible insome states. 2297 BPI Cal

Suppose a scnool district nas no taxable wealtn of its own. lne state aid ratio would then equal 1.0. or 100 ser cent of total expenditure. If local wealtn is only half as large As tne average wealth per pupil for tnc state as a whole, tne district aid ratio will equal (1.0 - .5 x .75) or 75 per cent. A district witn per pupil wealtn equal to tne state average will nave an aid ratio of .5 wnile a district with a per pupil tax base twice as large as tne state average will nave An aid ratio of .0 and receive no state aid.

Suppose that d scnool district nas a tax base per pupil tnat is tnree times as great as tAC State average, Its aid ratio will equal

(1.0 - .5 x 5 .= -.5). Ine implication is tint tnis district soould tax itself at a rate equal to 1.50 times its own expenditure and turn tne unexpended balance over to tne state. If tnis requitement is satisfied, all scaool districts will be able to spend tnc same amount for a given tax rate.

To further illustrate tnis point, let us assume that all districts desire to spend $1,000 per pupil and tnat tne average wealtn for tne stave as a wnile is $25,000 per pupil. A district with an amount of wealtn per pupil equal to tne state average will receive $500 in state aid and tax itself at a rate of (500/25.000 .02).or at a two per cent rate. A district witn per pupil wealtn equal to twice tne state average: will not receive any state aid and will tax itself at a rate of: (1,000 /50,000) whicn is also equal to two per cent. A district with per pupil wealtn equal to tnrec times the state average will be required to finance its own expenditure and also pay a tax (or negative aid ratio) to tne state equal to $500 per pupil. If tnis is done, tne local tax tate will equal (1,500/.75,000) or two per cent.

Tne convetaional equalization model for state scnool aid which provides:toeacn scnool district an amount sometimes known as a "foundation program,7Hwnicn is a specified number of dollars per pupil. times tne number of pUpil units, less a rate on local property valuation, can be considered a special case of power equalization It differs from BEST COPY AVARABLE - 14 - tne general case in tnat scnool districts are usually required to tax tneir property at a specified minimum rate to receive aid but are not required to pay taxes to tne state if tneir implicit direct aid ratio is negative. Cost snaring by tne state, moreovcL. is generally limited to tne foundation amount.

In the last decade or So a r,:mber of states such as New York. Wisconsin. anooe island and PcnnSylvania, nave moved away from tne concept of a "foundation program" to aid formulas walcn are basically power equalizing.and of tne form suggested by equation (1). None of tnese states. nowever, AdS required wealtny scnool districts witn negative direct aid ratios to pay taxes to tne state. lnis can result in unequal tax burdens.

Consider our previous example. If the senool district witn per pupil wealtn equal to tnree times tne state average does not pay $500 to tne state. its local tat,. rate will equal (1.000/75.000 .0133) or I and 1/3 per cent compared to a local tax rate of 2 per cent for the scnool districts witn aid ratios tnat are eitner positive or zero. Some of tne most glaring inequities in existing modes of financing elementar4, and secondeal'education are related to tae fact tnat srnOol districts .;Itn aid ratios tnat are eitner explicitly or implcitly negative do Pot pay taxes to tne state.

Tne Range of Fiscal alternatives:

In nis dissenting opinion witn regard to tne Rodriguez Case. U. S. Supreme Court Justice Inurgood Marsnall nas noted tnat tnere are at least four Ways in wnicn tie interdistrict wealtn discrimination 'innerent in tee presentproperty tax system of financing education could be eliminated.Centralized educational financing is one metnod. A second possibility is tne much discussed theory of district power equalization put fcrtn by Proiessees Codas, Clune, and Sugarman in tirdiinal work "Private Wealth and Public Education...,

District wealtn reapportionment is y.*:A another alternative wnicn would accomplisn directly essentially what district power equalization would seek to do artificially.,. . BEST COPY AVNLAitt. - 15-

A fou=tn possibility would be to remove c6mmercial. industrial.. and mineral property from local tax rolls, to eta,' tnis property on a State-Wide basis. and to return tae resulting revenues to tne local districts in a fasnion tnat would compensate for

remaining variations in tne local. tax bases. . . .

None of tnree particular alternatives are necessarily constitutionally et:impelled; ratner tney indicate tne brcadtn of cnoice wnicn remains to tne State if tne present interdistrict disparities were eliminated.

In New York State wealtniest scnool district /las A little over five and one nalf times as mucn wealth as tne average scnool district. By lowering tnc local cost share factor in its basic aid formula from .51 to aboot .13 New Yodk could promote equalization vitnout resort to district reorganization or tne imposition of special taxes on property witnin wealtny school districts. This would be an expensive alternative, nowever. since tnc state would nave to increase its share of local scnool expenditures from a present snare of 41.3 per cent to about i2 per cent, on the average.

it seems probable, nowever. tnat tnc variation in per pupil wealth may not be as great in states witn fewer scnool districts and tnat some states witn low wealtn variability or a nigner level of state support mignt he able to "save" money by moving to a more equalized system of scnool financing. In 1969-70. for example, tnere were tnree states watch provided more tnan 70 per cent of tne financing for elementary and secondary education and a total of 12 r.tates wnicn snared over nalf of tne expense of providing public education, Several states nave fewer tnan 50 scnool districts compared to over 700 scnool districts for tne State of New York.

In 1942 tnere were 103,579 scnonl districts in tne United States. By 1957 tnis figure mid been reduced to 50,446 districts and by 1967 nad slumped to .21.712 districts. In 1972 tnerc were only 15.730 scnool districts in tnc entire United States. Tne latter figure is substantially loss tnan tne 11.516 municipalities in existence at tnat time - 16 - one of tne simplest metnods of acnieving greater equalization witnout a large increase in state expenditures would be to require wealtny scnool districts to merge with adjacent districts tnat are less affluent. In New York State tnerc arc only 30 senool districts out ed. a total of approximately 750 school districts with negative (zero) aid ratios. Many of tnese scnool districts arc quite small. nave relatively few students, and could reasonably expect to support a richer and more varied curriculum as a result of district consolidation.

Since many State Departments of Education nave been given tne autnority to eitner encourage or impel local scnool districts to consolidate, it may be possible in some instances to greatly improve tne equality of educational opportunity by administrative actions. If a state's aid formula is basically "power equalizing" and if tne state is willing to finance nalf tne cost of elementary and secondary education. only tnose districts with twice tne average wealth per pupil for toe state as a wnole will need to merge with lesS affluent districts to eliminate districts with negative aid ratios and acnieve perfect equalization, without resort to tne imposition of special taxes on tne porperty of wealthy districts. If the state is only willing to finance one-tnird of tne cost of elementary and secondary education, all districts witn one and a mil!: times as much wealth as tne average district would be merger candidates.

In nis dissenting opinion, Justice Marsnall suggests tnat it mignt be possible to acnieve equalization by removing commercial, industrial. and mineral property from local tax rolls, nave the stave tax this property on a state-wide basis, and return the resulting revenues to tne local districts in afasnion tnat would compensate for remaining variations in tee legal tax bases. While commercial, industrial. and mineral property does seem to be distributed in a ratner unequal fasnion, it is doubtful whether twin alternative, by itself, would be sufficient to insure perfect equalization in most states. Manyof; the more affluent scnool, districts in New York and otner states are confined to exclusive neighborhoods tnat are composed primarily of very wealthy estates.:fo be Sure tnat tne residents of tneSe scnool districts pay a fair snare of tne coSt of providing public education, most state:: would probably nave to tax otner kinds of property besides commercial, industrial and mineral property. One solution to tnis problem would be for tne state to adopt a power equalizing aid formula and require districts witn negative aid ratios to raise tne Implied sum and turn tne unexpended balance over to tne state. Tne proolem wit., power equalization in its purest form is tnat tae residents of somewealthy districts would nave an economic incentive to send tneir cnildren to private schools and only support public education in a minimum sort of way, if at all. Tne wealtniest scnool district in New York. for instance, nas an implied negative aid ratio equal to -1.i7. If power equalization were fully in effect, tnis district would nave to pay to tne state about 65 cents of every dollar raised in suplort of local education. A system of private schools with partial or complete tuition waivers for cnildren from less affluent: families would probably be MUM cneaper for tne residents of most wealthy districts tnan a public scnool system, if the private system enabled tnem to avoid scnoel taxes altogether.

WnIle power equalization, in irs most general and purest form, mignt lead to a deterioration in botn tne amount and quality of public education provided in some scnool districts, tnere is a possibility tnat tnis defect could be overcome in a manner tnat is reasonably consistent with the equalization objective by simply requiring all scnool districts to tax their property at a minimum. state imposed rate tnat is about equal to the average scnool tax rate for the state as a urno1e. Proceeds wnicn are eitner above a "foundation level of scnool support" or above tne state average expenditure per pupil would be returned to tne state.

inis metnod of grappling with tne problem of scnool districts with negative aidratios.na% an adyantage of providing a strong fiscal incentive for maintaining public scnools. Those districts witn relatively few cnildren enrolled in public scnools would still nave to pay a miniq.um scnool tax regardless of tne number of students enrolled in public scnools. For earn cnild enrolled in nonpublic scnools, tne district would. in effect, be losing a financial sum equal to the foundation level of support for tnat child; tnis, of course. could be a ratner substantial sup if the foundation level of support:equalled tne average expenditure per pupil for tne state as a whole, wnicn in New York State new amounts to about $1,300 per weighted pupil. Tne idea of a !.!inimum. state imposed school' tax rate is not new. In ttle state of Utan local scnool districts wnose mandated millage returns more tnan tne amount neces:uary for tne basic foundation program are required to give the excess to :tne state to be distributed to poorer districts.

Toe range of basic alternatives tnat are available to states and tne many combinations of aid levels, scnool district reorganization. and minimum taxationtnat might be employed to acnieve equalization strongly suggosts tnat most states could do a better job of promoting equality witnout sizable increases in state budgets. massive reorganization of local scnool districts or a major abrogation of existing systems of financtng public education.

Issues tolbe Addressed in Future Court Decisions

the present aid :law in tne State of New Jersey no an objective of establishing a basic foundation program of $400 per pupil when fully funded. In partially upholding Judge Botter'h decision, tne State Supreme Court of New Jersey nas. held:* We see no basih for a finding that the 1970 act even if'

fully funded. satsified constitutional. obligations of.tne State. . . .

Tnc state: must define in some discernable .way educational obligations and' must compel local.scnool: districts to raise tne

money necessary to provide that opportunity. . . .

It is doubted 'tnat a tnorough and efficient system of scnools . required by tne 1375 amendment can realistically be . met by.

reliance on local: taxation. .

.Although we nave dealt witn tae constitutional problem in .terms of dollar input per pupil', we snould not be understood to 'mean.tnat 'toe State may not reognize differences in area,costs, or a need for additional dollar'input to equip,classes of ,disadvantagod cnileren for tne education opportunities. or do we say tnat if tne State assumes the cost of providingtoe constitutionally mandated- education, it may not autnorize: local governments to go further and to tax to :tnat, furtner. end. provided that such authorization does not become aidevice:for dilitirg.tne. State's. mandated responsibility. 2303 WEST COPYAVAILABLE

- 19

From tne foregoing discussion it is clear that one of.tne key questions yet to be resolved in tne controversy concerning equality of educational opportiinity is tne question, wnat is an adequate level of scniiol financing. The old fashioned answer to tilt!) question is tnat tne state snould eitner Provide or insure a level of support that can be considered minimumly adequate.WritinginWe late 1950's Paul Mort defined equality of opportunity as follows: Equality of educational opportunity is a principle tnat is fundamental in American education - a principle based upon tne assumption tnat our democracy is best served by extending to all cnildren an equal minimum opportunity to attend scnools adequate for tne acnievement of self-realization, economic efficiency, civil' efficiency and efficiency in numan relacionsnips.

Equality of educational opportunity means not an identical education for all cnildren, but tne provision by state and local means of at least certain minimum essentials of financial support. The acceptance of education as a function of the state and tne insistence tnat, in tne main, certain minimum educational standards are tne concern of all tne people in toe $tate ratner tnan tnat of certain minorities make it incumbent upon tne state to provide tne machinery tnrough wnicn tne principle may be effectively realized. The classical statement of tnc implications of the principle of equality of educational opportunity, as in by the Educational Finance Inquiry Commission in 1923. recognized tne obligation of the state to require at least minimum scnooling for all tne coildren, to place tne support of this minimum scnooling squarely on toe resources of tne state. and to make supervision an important element in the state's program.'

The motivation and tnrust of recent court cases would appear to go beyond tne objective of "minimum adequacy.". nowcver. In his dissenting opinion in the Rodriguez Case. Associate Justice Marshall :noted: Autnorities conecrned with educational quality no doubt disagree as to the significance of variations in per pupirspending. Indeed conflictingexpert:cestimony was presented to tne District Court in tnis case concerning tae effect of spending variations on educational achievement, We sit. nowever, not to resolve disputes. over, educational tncory but to enforce our Constitution. It 'is an inescapablel'acttnat if one district nas more funds available per pupil than anotnerdistrict..the former will nave greater cnotce in ed6cational :planning tnan -will tne latter. In tnis regard. I. believe.tnequestion of discrimination:in educational quality must

: be an objective one thatlooks to wnat tne state provides its children not to whattne: cnildren.are able to do with wnat trey receive. .

. 1. P. Mort. W. C. Rensser. and J. W. Polley. Public School Finance. McGraw Hill,. 1960.. - 20 -

fnis Court nas never suggested tnat bccause snme "adequate": level of benefits is provided to all, discrimination intne provision of services is rnerefore constitutionally excusable..Tae equal 'protection clause is not addressed to me minimal sufficiencybut tatner to tne unjustifiable Ousnialities of state action. It mandates othing leas taan tnatall persons similarly circumstanced ,snall he treated alike."

Even if tne equal protection clause encompassed some theory of constitutional adequacy, discrimination inCAC provision of educational opportunity would certainly be apoor candidate for its pplication. Neither tne majority nor appellants informs us now judicially manageable standards are to be derived for determining now much education is "enough" to excuse constitutional discrimination. . . .

Indeed,. the majority's apparent reliance upon CAC adequacy of tne educational opportunity assured by tne Texas Minimum Foundation School Program seems fundamentally inconsistent with itsown recognition tnat educational authorities are unableto agree upon. wnat makes.for educational quality.

If. as tne majority stresses. such authorities are uncertain as to tne impact of vari,nus levels of funding on educational quality. I fail to see wnere it finds tne expertise to devinethat tne particular levels of funding provided by tieprogram assure an adequate educational opportunity much less an educationsubstantially equivalent in quality to tnat wnicn a nigher level of fundingmight provide, . .

In my view. tnen. it is inequality not some notion of gross inadequacy - of educational opportunity tnat raisesa question of denial or equal protection of tne laws. I find any otner approach to tne issue unintelligible and witnout directing principle. Here appellees nave made a substantial snowine of wide variations in educational funding and tne resulting educational opportunityafforded to tne scaool cnildrpn of Texas. Tnis discrimination is. in large . . measure, attributable to significant disparities in the taxable wealth of local Texas sc000l districts. This is'a sufficient snowing to raise a substantial question of discriminatorystate action in *gelation of tne equal. protectionclause.

If Marshall's view is accepted.' states snould adopt aidformulas and/or comPennating systems for redistributinglocal property taxes which are basically 'power equalizing. at least up toa level of expenditUre wnich is approximately equalto the average expenditure per "weignted pupil" for tne state as a wnole. Power equalization 2305 BEST COPY AVAILABLE

- 21 -

need not preclude tne possibility of "extra weignt" for some classes of pupils if it can be snown tnat it is more costly to provide equal educational opportunity for nign scnool students. cnildren in sparsely populated Scnool districts. cnildren with mental or physical nandicaps.1 and cnildren Liszt in otner ways may be more difficult and costly to educate.

Toere is some doubt. nowever. as to wnetner power equalization snould be carried to toe point Where it provides aid and encouragement for "above average" expenditures tnat are not related to toe increased cost of educating particular groups since tnat might oave toe paradoxical effect of nelping to promote inequality of educational opportunity by making it easier for middle income scnool districts that value education nignly to spend a great deal of money on tneir scnool systems. Many surburban communities with residents tnat are primarily college graduates nave relatively little property per pupil but may enjoy per capita incomes WAICA are far signer tnan tne incomes of persons in rural scnool districts witn considerable amounts of undeveloped land. if twit is tne case a hign tax rate might not be nearly so burdensome for tnem as for rural school districts.

It snould also be empnasized that a large amount of taxable property does not necessarily connote a willingness to spend more on educations James H. Frenck. writing in "Central Ideas." a montnly publication of tne Central Scnool Boards Committee for Educational Research of tie New York State Scnool Boards Association. Inc..

describes a study wniti attempted to simulate wnat might occur : if financing equalizing became a reality and scnool districts. possessed. in effect. equal financial resources.

1. Courts in peonsylvanta. Micnigan and tme District mf Columbia nave ruled tnat states have an obligation to provide public educatior, for nandicapped and emotionally disturbed cnildren even if tne cost per pupil is more. In tne last year. 22 cases in 16 states were filed or completed on tne right to education for namdicapped cnildren. In at least four more states. cases are being prepared. See. Albert L. Kraus. "Public Education for handicapped Seen Threatening to Erode State- Local. Surplus." The )ally bond buyer. January 29. 1973. pp. 1 and 13. BEST COPYTilt:C:11181.E

- 22

The study rook data over a five year period and attempted to determine wnetner leor'scnool districts in New Tork State experiencing a sizable .increaSe in wealto in tne form of a rise in tne value of tieir taxable property would employ Lie additional' resources to increase tne level of spending for educational services. . . .

"Ine.data from Me :ample snow Liat (poor scnool districts) arc nolding taeir own.. The mean percentege of increase in approved operating expenditures for toe 25-district sample .15 42.45, while toe moan percentage of increase for all major

school districts 15 43.72. . .

"This study clearly refutes tne assumption that a sizable inCrase in a poor. scnool district's, ability to spend will directly revolt in nIgner per pupil expenditures and an improved educational program.",

Tne unwillingness of some property rica districts to spend money on education is no doubt one of tne reasOis wny 46 of toe 50 states have defined a minimum program wnica local scnool districts must provide. It is also a reason for suggesting that, power equalization snould not be regarded as an end in itself but ..!:!,Ja mio for encouraging poorer scnool districts to raise tneir expenditure level closer to tne state 'average. lo insure tnat tots is toe case it mignt be nceusary to stipulate trat poor scnool districts wilco receive a large amount of additional state aid snould not be allowed to cut local taxes unless tneir expenditures are equal to, say, not less tnan ten per cent of the median expenditure per pupil for all scnool districts in tne state. power equalization. wnere educational costs are presumed to be the same, would tnen be contributing to tne nigner order objective of expenditure equalization,

In tne majority opinion wnica was rendered by tie U. S. Supreme Court in tne Rodriguez Case it was noted, "This is not toe place to weigh tne arguments for and against 'district power equalizing,' beyond noting triat commentators are in disagreement as to wnetner it is feasible. now it would work, and indeed sinetner it would violate tne equal protection tneory underlying appellees' case."

1. John J. Winders, :"Would Poor Scnool Districts Spend More if Funds' Were Made Available?" Tne Pally bond Puver. tiRY IZ. 1972, pp. 1 ond 24. BEST Copy fiVAILABLE - 23 -

While tnere to uncertainty as to woetaer tne courts will ever endorse the concept of power equalization in its purest form. it dors nave tae advantage of providing an objective standard with WAiCA' to appraise features of existing aid law, wnicA are atvly suspect au bring discriminatory and not promoting equality of educational opportunity. In tne near future toe New Jersey Supreme Court will near arguments, as to wetaer moneys appropriated by tie Legislature to provide "minimum support aid" to all senool ditriCts and to "save harmiesS" aid wnten was received prior to tn 1970 act. mould not be distributed to sennol districts on terms otner titan tne legislated ones. Other features of existing aid laws: are equally suspect. A study by tne New York itducation Department nas concluded tit Successive amendments and revisions of tne Diefendorf Formula related to tne size correction nave i.ertously compromised tne thVAC concept of t4i5 equalized, cost-soaring program. 4i0

Tne size correction in tne formula for tae distribution of operating expenses aid nay little relationsnip to cost differentials in sc000l districts in New York State, arising out of local 'social and economic conditions. except possibly in toe very largest

. districts.J

Suppose tolat. Lie courts in one or more states were to decide tnat aid distributed in tne form of "flat grant" aid to all districts. regardless of local wealth. is not sufficiently equalizing:unless it is sufficient to cover tne full cost of the state4s basic foundation program. Let us furtner assume taut tae courts will require tne state

legislature and/or ene state education department to redistribute . lesser amounts of aid in a manner tnat is more nearly ,:onsistent,wito 'power equalization. Wutt would be tne consequences?

1. Pais would suggest' toat future court decisions may be much more concerned with Lie nitty,griity, specifics of now aid is distributed tnan with tne grand and glorious issues as to voetaer education is a ...fundamental ouman right and waetaer toe over-all system of state support for education can be considered constitutional.

2. one feature of -the New York law waico appears to be aignly discriminatory is a constraint wnica restricts tae amount of state aid to not more tnan 90 per cent of approved operating expenditures. Only a very few sc000l districts, are affected by this constraint.but toey oappen to be tne.- poorest i L1Q state. :

3.. 4.1! Summit). Report nn An Analysis of Nev York State Sc.iool Aid Correction." loe University of tail state of Nev.York. lne State education Department, December. 1966.' p. 47. - 24 - nEST E:C71

A lhls of flat grant aid would force may scnonl districts to increase property taxes and in some cases by fairly substantial amounts. In several states, were tie burden on lOcal property is now considered excessive or is unfairly administrated. trifs mignt be sufficient to precipitate a financial crisis wnicn would lead tae legislature to raise otner taxes in order to fund most of tne state's basic foundation prograttt. hickrod And ills colleaguesat Illinois State University nave noted trait a "rapid :.rift to more state aid may be caused. not by any great desire to achieve equal educational opportunity. whetter court mandated or not, but by tne desire of much of toe electorate to movesome of tne tax burden from toe local property tax to tine state sales tax and the state income tax. Inc judicial demand for equal educational opporZunity may simply provide toe ec;cape valve for a property taxpressure tnat nas been buildingin for some time."'

Farmers, homeowners, older persons and businessmen that aave accumulated significant amounts of real property are politically important groups tnat might reasonably expect to benefit from a major unlit of scnool financing from local property taxes to sales and income taxes.

If several of cur more industrialized states were to assume most of tne responsibility for financing education, either asa result of Court decisions or as a result of tne-unpopularitylof localproperty . taxes. taut wit be sufficient to force all industrial states that wisned to remain competitive to do tne same. For tiler° nal; already been a rather marked shift of industrial activity in tne post World War 11 period from tne Nortneast and Midwest. wnere schoolsare financed to a large extent from local property taxes, to tne South. weremuch of tea financing for public education is from state sources and local scnool taxes are relatively small.

1. t., Alan Id ckrod and otners.. "Definition. Measurement, and Application of tne Concept of Equalization in School Finance." U. S. Office of education. LA 1)04 112, 14 060544. '2309

g -,ot-*--' -Z'5.

With much of our industry quite mobile and fa(ing increasing competition from aboad. an economic climate may have been created in wnica tne decision of tne New Jersey Supreme Court mignr be a sufficient catalyst to bring about a much broader revolution in school finance comparable to tne cnanges WAG, tne U. S. Supreme Court refused to impose in tne Rodriguez Case. rats. in any event. io an aspect of tne concern for equality of eduCational opportunity wnicn our Municipal Finance Study Group at SUNYA is now in the process of examining. 310 BEST COPYR1711LIBLE LAUREL CITY SCHOOLS 700 CON STREET P 0. DOA ISO 1-4.utiEL. MISSISSIPPI 39440 FRANK O WARNOCK, P. O. May 14, 1973 sisol..77ENDER,

Honorable Janes 3. Eastland United States Senate dashington. D. C.

Dear Senator Eastland:

Our school district is operating under a rederal court mandate, and the linancial dilenna we face as a result of reduction in funds to operate essential instructional services is serious and staggering. : earnestly a,jeal to your sense of justice and fair play to restore and stabilize rederal funds that Mississippi schools have been receiving since 1965. I solicit your interest and active support in getting involved in writing a continuing resolution to help us make the transition under new legislation which will be passed after July 1, 1973. In the resolution, please incorporate the following components:

1. Set poverty level at 54,000 per family. 2. The Title I allocation should provide 3300 per eligible child to be distributed first before other programs are funded. 3. The resolution should provide that no state should receive less than it received under the 1972 appropriation which is the level of funding for 1973 under the continuing resolution. 4.The resolution should be sure to provide for (1) impacted aid funds. (2) Title I ESEA as outlined above, (3) ESE); Title V. parts A and C. at sere level as 1972. and (4) vocational education funds at level of 1972 at least, but an increase if at all possible.

The great concern now is to initiate immediate action on a continuing resolution as a stopgap and emergency measure. It is assumed that, after this is done, a compromise bill will be worked out on putting together the best elements of the Quie Bill, the Better School Acts of 1973 and Perkins Bill ii.R. i69. At the moment, we need emergency action to extend ESEA to give time to work out these other problems. It is not an understatement to say that school finance is the greatest problem school superintendents in this area face in planning for the 1973-74 school session.

I thank you for any assistance that you can provide.

Fran P`3, Warnock Superintendent rB4:gdm 2311 BEST COPY MUM). fAmt at lint illarimirk Tto.0ftt Au..4.141,440tNT 0. C.,04%. *hoot Orpartntrut ADMINISTRATION BUILDING 4014121.1160 DWIh 1. LUTHER 300 PROVIDENCE STREET 0141214 Is:

FLORENCE ZABORSAi Ar.menRTRTsva ASS, WEST WAPWICk. 44mODE ISLAND 0 2 6 9 9

June 15, /973

Senator Claiborne Pell Senate Office Room 325 washington, D.C.

Dear Senator Pell:

It is a pleasure to expand my views on Title I and III of the ESEA for you, What follows are first, broad overall concerns and then, more specific concerns with Titles I and III ESEA.

Basically the fact that both programs deal specifically with written objectives and evaluation insures proper utilization of funds. Categorical aid with its built in safeguards prevents monies from be/v.; tilized in all but the Appropriate area. This than points to a distinct advantage over general aid where money is spread, thereby decreasing any obeervable effect on programa. Additionally with specific proposals written and needing approval insures that programs are thought out and planned rather than being operated intuitively.

Relative to the Quie bill mentioned in my first letter (May 24, 1973) my major concern would be that it would dictate the specific programs (reading and arithmetie) in all but large school districts. Us- ing Rhode Island as an example this is what could happen based on current spending levels: West Warwick's ratably reduced grant under Title I for FY 1973 was $69,631. Twenty -nine communities had less. The non directed 10 for West Warwick would mean 010,444. This is not enough to hire one professional who has significant experience and an advanced degree.About seventy-five per cent of Rhode Island's school districts would be in this same position relative to "other" programs.

14 74 22 As previously stated in my first letter the concept of gettine the money to where it is needed ie fine. The where, however, should include areas of deprivation ae well as localities. The problem of stating the areas are two (ie. reading and arithmetic) implies a degree of import to the two areas. I do not quibble with their importance, but issue ie taken with areas that could lose visibility due to the identification of them as need areas.What seems to happen in edUration is that individuals concentrate concerns on specific areas so that descriptions of educational needs take the form of the blind men from India describing the elephant. Education must be involved with the total individual (educators have "talked" this line for some years).When an area of concern has visibility through funding and clearly defined goals it is less likely to be ignored by, an LEA or state department.The school's concern for mental health has been a victim of this in too many communities. It is fairly evident that all the cognitive skills in the world without mental health produces a "cripple". This area as well as others could be lost with the thrust of the quie Bill unless other programs were developed.

A way of summing this portion would be to state that and major concern is that educational problems and federal involvement should keep educational goals in perspective.

What now follows are specific views on Title I and III ESEA. Most of what is contained here is due to personal experiences within the state of Rhode Island and reading.

Title I ESEA

1. Before we can really get started meeting the needs of educationally disadvantaged children full funding is necessary. 2. Success with Title I programs have been proven (at least in Phn

Title III ESEA

Basically the concept of the act is fine. There is need and room for such a program in education.My major concern here is that when Title V NDEA phased out supposedly counseling and guidance services received a piece of the "pie". What has happened does not bear this out. First, there has teen a disappear- ante of statesupervisorypeople in this arc:; Secondly, there 2313 BEST COPY AMUIRET

has been, from mg point of view, decrease in federal funding to assist in improving services in this area. What has happened to counseling and guidance service's might be due to the loss of visibility within the act. If these 'services were to stay within the Title III umbrella some effort should be cede to increAse *visibility" not only in terms of LEA programs but also relative to state department leadership positions.

Pip concern is partly a vested one since this is my specific field. I do however feel that beyond a professional short changing, students in many schools are in the sane position due to lack of funds, staff, and leadership on both local and state levels. This effects service's they should receive.

In closing I thank you for this opportunity. But wishes and good health to you.Your performance as senator has been for me, one which places our state in a happy position where both senators not only are influential but utilize their positions.

Sinomeely,

-rowan! L, niggins Director of Ouidance & dfm School Psychologist BEST CO ?Y IMILT311 sum c ovum. wee .0.1.euw

. um.. del*,000.04. . : SOU WWW fti ...uomunu,na ...as...nu 01 ItNitcb.StaicslAmisalle

000.013.0"... CAMP YR... IMO INMAN gueneD Onnt.(11 IONOn00,04. 0 C. 20510 June 19, 1973

Senator Claiborne Pell, Chairman Subcommittee on Education Senate Office Building Washington, D.C.

Dear Claiborne:

I am writing yon, with much concern, relativeto the funding of Title Iof the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. My concern results from the fact that the ESEA legislation expireson June 30. 1973, and at this point, it appears that the legislationwill be continued during 1974 on the basis of an automaticone-year statutory extension.

Under existing legislation, the counts of eligiblechildren would be taken from the 1970 census data as opposedto the 1960 census data. Attached you will find a chart which reflects,for each county in South Carolina: (1) the present funding level of Title Ibased on 1960 census data; (2) the estimate of 1974 funding under a continuing resolution using 1970census data; (3) the amount of funding change that would result. A review of this chart will clearly substantiate my concern for the 1974 Title I funding situation for South Carolina. It is my understanding that a number of other states would bg similarly affected unlesssome remedial action is taken.

I submit these facts for your careful consideration, andI urge your support for a bill which would provide South Carolina and otherstates with a Title I funding level commensurate with that received in, previous years. In the alternative, Ilurge you to supporta "protective floor provision", assuring that no state willreceive less funds in Fiscal Year 1974 than in Fiscal Year 1973,in any continuation of Title. I.

Thank you for your attention to this matter, and withkindest regards and best wishes,

Very truly, 2315

13Esir hi-116,J,-Li1Lilrj SENT(1973) ANDESTIMATOR ED(1974) E.S.A. --ATLE 1 FUNDINGLEVELS F SOUTHCAROLINA

PRESENT FUNDING ESTIMATE OF FY 74 AMOUNT LEVEL FUNDING LEVEL OF FIRST CONG. DIST. BY COUNTY 1960 CENSUS 1/ 1970 CENSUS g CHAFE Allendale 20,980.0 109,905.00 -153:975.00 Beaufort 441,581.00 354,580.00 87,00l.ao Berkeley 682,723.00 643.862.00 - 38,1161.00 Charleston 2,067.822.00 1,689.190.00 -370,637.00 Clarendon 866.855.00 440,188.00 -426,667.00 Colletiol 596.302.00 247,902.00 -348.400.00 Dorchester 377.463,00 21%837.00 -165.1,76.h0 Hampton 393,911,00 152.2'34.00 -241,671 on Jasper 237 239.00 128,697.00 -108,542.00 Total 5,932,776.00 3,978,395.00 -170t1.311)766- SU= CONG. DIST. BY COUNTY 8! berg 347,216.00 108,196.00 -239.020:00 Bat:Nell 349,446.00 126.609.00 -222.837.00 Calhoun 104,780.00 -302.930.00 Orangeburg 1,411,73;22 711.628.00 -679.744.00 Lexington 386,941.00 270,301.00 -116,640.00 Richland 1,354.295.00 949 469.00 -404,815,00 total 4.236.980.00 2.270.983.00 -1.965:997:00 THIRD CONG. DIST. BY COUNTY

Abbeville . 230,966.00 79,913.00 -151,053.00 Aiken 787,264.00 399,187.00 -388,07/.00 Anderson 697,498.00 235,754:00 -461.744.00 Edgefield 301,915.00 124,521.00 -1/7.394.00 Greenwood 358,506.00 107,247.00 -251,799.00 McCormick 149,563.00 90,163.00 - 59.400.00 Newberry 347,355.00 92,821.00 -254.534.00 Oconee 327,841.00 130.215.00 -197,626.00 Pickens 205,737.00 105.349.00 - 100,388.00 Saluda 208,106.00 54 857.00 -153,749,00 Total 3.614.751.00 1.420.027.00 .2,191,124,65 FOUR111 CONG. DIST. BY COUNTY Grocall e 1,000,667.00 608,746.00 -391.921.N Laurens 417,328.00 96,807.00 -320.971.00 Spartanburg 1,061,404,00 491 439.00 -559..965,00 Total 2.469,399.00 1,196,992.00 -1.272:40/.66 FIFTH CONG. DIST. BY COUNTY Cherokee 372,445.00 100,034.00 -272,111.00 Chester 381.923.00 147,868.00 -234,095.00 Chesterfield 707.952.00 197,411.00 -510.541.00 Fairfield 375,651.00 117,497.00 -250.154.00 Kershaw 540,965.00 195.323.00 -345.647.00 Lancaster 299,824.00 137,618.00 -167,706.00 Sumter 1,236,233.00 678,979.00 557:254.00 Union 292,715.00 113.132.00 -179.533.00 York 640210.00 254.546.00 -3135.1,64.00 Total 4.847,918.00 1,942.408.00 -2:905.51076 SIXTH CONG. DIST. BY COUNTY Darlington 444.174.00 -538.094.00 Dillon 3N:W:2 352.682.00 -44'3.774.00 Floecnce ..1,485,593.00 683.280.00 49/.318.00 Georgetown 699,310.00 286,625.00 17,685.00 .591,177.00 Norry 1,133.922.00 552.750.00 Lee 673,802.00 298,773.00 -375,071.00 'Marion 743,357.00 253,026.00 .400,311.00 275,.616.00 486.333.00 l'arlboro 661,954.00 4130,3,00 Williamsburg 1.415,765.00 541!.310.00 Total 8121412.212 1,694 236.00 -41,0.7.,6346765 .16,190.665.00 Grand Total ..... 29.693.706.00 14,503.041.00

1/ This column reflects the current funding level of Title 1 and is based on the 1960 census data. v This column reflects the estimated,*nnding level of Title 1 if thy' program operates under a Continuing Resolution in Fiscal Year 1974 and the 1970 census data is used. Funding levels are based onan assumedappropriation of $1.5 billion with no protective floor. WAMMOOtC101. DC.rile

July 23, 1973

The Honorable Claiborne Pell Chairman Subcommittee on Education Committee on Labor and Public Welfare United States Senate Washington. D.C. 20510

Dear Mr. Chairman:

Enclosed is a copy of a letter that I have received from Leo Valdez of the Colorado Springs, Colorado, Public Schools. Mr. Valdez is concerned about the legislation affecting the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.

I would appreciate any information that you could give me concerning the future of these bills which would help Mr. Valdez and the school administration.

Thank you for your consideration in this matter.

Sincerely,

FKH/rd

Enclosure 931?),31,rjtt co?y.AVAILABLE- .

COLORADO SPRINGS PUBLIC SCHOOLS_ it PASO COUNT!' SLLHOC: DSTRICT NO :1 trIOMAS 3 DOniPIP, Spoo.n.ndnt

s,2E:c6.,:. pno.Acrs AOM.N.11LAILDN NOP1h IA PASO St LAL,(0. M LiMSSLY Coo,n,ear COLORADOSPRINGS, CO1ORADO

July 18, 1973

The Honorable Floyd Haskel:. Senatc.Office Washington, D. C. 20510

Dear Senator Haskell:

We're taking the liberty of writing ag..ia because we need your support in getting the Elementary and Secondary Education Act out of committee and onto the House and Senate floor for passage. We apologize for any bother we might cause yot,, but these Title I children are Coloradoans, and as a duly elected representative of this state, we know that you, too, are deeply interested in the welfare of all Colorado citizens. El Paso School District #11 boasts of an enrollment of 35,000 and nearly. 10Z are Title I youngsters. We have some well rounded and balanced projects in 11 schools, but the future of ESEA Title I presents serious fiscal implications for our district. Furthermore, nearly 109 DISTAR and Corrective Reading aides, etc., don't know where to turn. We can't write new contracts' until we know for certain about the funding for school year 1973-1974.'and there is a strong possibility that we will lOse,these qualified persons if we can't give them some assurance that funds will be forthcoming.

Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act provides financial assistance to local school districts in planning and operating special programs for educationally deprived children. In general, Title I has an excellent track record and our evaluations in School District #11 reflect continued academic growth in the supplementary projects.

We reiterate our petition for your assistance.

Best personal wishes,

Leo J: Vildei, Jr. Assistant, Special Projects4.) Office

LJV:gw

Senator NIA,. The subcommittee will 'it 1's until tomorrow. 'Whereupon at :OToclock p.m., thesUbcommittee was recessed to reconvene We4 I nes4 lay, October10, 1973, at 10 a.nL) is31 M03 -.1-1tVillifiAl

alma out 'souvrismari t:Lin

Snowman put: Satpuoaas uomanri sluatupuatuy 10 um

`Avaszrzaani 11380100 '01 CLOT

IS 11:0.1/1: \033J.1.1 ):11.rel V :KOLL i(4 tc :43.141 VF1 HOU v orn!:Ido.s "JuvAtiAt uoinuryttoAt 49a 0100.1 oNututuomitis 01 Jutats.111d 04 issaaa.! ov:ot "01.0 Ill 4.101.111"10.3(1115 t 1; 11's31.1!(1 ').)!IJO 1111!1)1In$1 I 11°1 ""(K1!9:...) (up !mum! iuso.ol lertil! '11,10111US s.lootioc; t101,11.7i1rA 1)110 11!Ja JOiI:iiatti. 111 7111:at:ail Jo :p imiptuuloolu,4 ilo uo9ww,tipa ',Hilo.) 01 ..1,112.10 )0 J411.1 11111J111J0 puu -a.)s jj 111111,1S,L1(1,1,1 Sd.i1 !Ad S.uptio 1109t!on1),) s! poo.laatioa (()!t at() uo!;s4111) Jo tiolp.!:?..npa pen: ((lm ii!aapoj amiurs!ss(! S.114i1.111111) put; .i.uaripaas oi u.n:a! smiu.% Jo spi.) uri .iwittood(lo .uoimanpa put: Thitmoai. .411,11urtas Jo S.ultioulal.) ..uptumas litut sr!! !wag Tutu! uo!ss11,-)tup ziu!ii.b).)uo.) alp autsop Jo itutpo.tul siootios oauputuo,) stui paw!! atuos tiptoizi et! alp Naosuou .utu.1 'lumps s! Sul Aug .4tup -03 iimau,01 ;.rfigioluou - sassall)!A% !!!At ss!!..):sit 4011 .quo smal.1. (II) ono% Sag; .X( 1101 piltogs I o.t.)!! ati4 (i:Jothu a10.! 11t aw111(111011 )uou1a ,I4 0510 IIJI(; soduat.iadx.) ti N) is! :gut .stutLiVo.ol 1 as alati oti. pap(l1oti.11:ti III II 450lIl 1)111!:1111)Saiditli -.punuoaqns ilual141 uo!ssitas!!) 110 sup i.lawati !pup 3,13 Nati I:.IJSO 11 Oil JO 111.tt t011 11,1113 0.1 J110 1S.11.1 V[1911iYgiulai i1(3 Va01103 . .110!pa1103 ,4.1,Hlo8 'u.logoori .ati) amyt.)oso -tp A, so! "11 I ..10J mod.' !gum 110.1(:, 1ii!4(los.).1(1.11 ji: 1 1 I i)11 -111 .110.1(1,111 SINII 'S10011.)S It 1)1.1 .1(1 V I ..11S11,15 111,36,1.11iaj rill JO 1151.11141 "11091141111:4' 1 111:.1,11i IL.) 1.1110SSIJI( '1)011.15 p.111011 (ouz) 2320

STATEMENT OF ROBEAT L. LAMBORN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, COUNCIL FOR AMERICAN PRIVATE EDUCATION: RABBI AARON SEIDMAN, NATIONAL SOCIETY FOR HEBREW DAY SCHOOLS; DR. A. H. SENSXE. LUTHERAN CHURCH. MISSOURk SYNOD, BOARD OF PARISH EDUCATION; AND RICHARD P. THOMSEN, WASHINGTON REPRESENTATIVE OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF INDE- PENDENT SCHOOLS, A PANEL. REPRESENTING COUNCIL OF AMERICAN PRIVATE EDUCATION Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman and members of the subconmiittee, am Robert L. Lamborn, executive director of the Council for Ameri- can Private Education. The munch] has in its membership 10 national private school organizations whose menil)er MINAS enroll approximately 10 percent of all 1T.S. elementary and sccOndary school densome 12,000 schools educating. about 5 million students. The member associations of the council 'are: American Lutheran Church. Division of Parish Education: Friends Council on Education: Luther- anChurch. Missouri Synod, Board of Parish Education: National Association of Christian Sehoo ls: National A,ssociation. -of Episcopal Sehools: National Association of Independent Schools: National Catholic Educational Association: National Soviet v for Hebrew Day Schools: National Cnion of Christian Schools: and the C.S. Catholic ( 'on ference. Membership. in the council is open only to national organizations' representing, servinr, or operatinfr nonprofit schools which snbserilie: to a. nondiseriminatory admissions poi My statement AVM be followed by those of two representatives of organizations which are members of the council: Rabbi Aaron Seid man, representing the National Society for itebrew Day Schools: and Dr. Al 11. Seiiske. secretary of elenientary and secondary sehooii. board of parish education. Lutheran Church, :Missouri Synod. Mr. Richard P. Thomsen, Washington representative of the National As- soriaticin of Independent School. also is present. 1k, as well as those of the council's representatives who are making presentations. will be pleased. lo respond to questions which you ma,YllaYe following those presentgions. We. request the opportnnity to present a more. detailed statement later if this seems appropriate. The Council for American Private Education is firmly committed to the full and efficient utilization of all of the existing and potential educational resources of the Nationpublic and Private, Professional. and et7:porate, church and lay assoCiational :end individualin the support of excellence in both public, and pri.ote education. It is simiH lady committed to efforts to assure excellence in the educational pro:;: visions made fOr all Amerieans and to a broader participation by vote SehOols it:, the Nation's educat Iona] tasks. In our judgment. the purposes of the Elementary and Secondary Education Ani and onrs are consonant. and we are pleased that this is so. We Nvelennit. the opportunity to diseusS this lelrislation' with von, indicating what. we. see as Its stremrths and suggesting Kt,ils which might be taken for its im prominent . :flail. I

0.411:3s0.,,st: ,11,1 -titurs!p uots!.tid Ju 11:13001s Sumiopir..oi0 111 J110 !woo inin 0.141 poulmittomia 1:1 P' st suallatiolf Ii:t.xis.10)1 J.0 1 01/ 4.),..00 4!4 .1( I slitini no mil puot1r311110 p/au 54.10,10.1 .7iniu.i.)0110., jo slo01/05 .1.1110 I os,9 am: 1.1om S0.11101.101X0 JO 110.1111I110 111 .11o) slow) -11.).11)/plo (1holopood vim u! /111101.41:onim 0.11( :J. 51111 .14)4 350114 .).t Jam 110111.11 Sproll 1111 40) 1.10010(115 :J911171IS 11:1111010(4 414 1 1 1 -slumps 49.)u09 ;111! s111,T11 :.11.1(1041 imp ii! 011105 so.o11:4511! oij4 itioulatitutl 1101411 Jo 1 SC 41 114 511 04 044 ss0i saitmu 0)1 aritri!(,) 1nojlti1 11! 011t.11.1(1 slumps sauadifi: outil 0q.1, 3I) 0/19 (glom p00111upi: -N0(1,1111110 53500Ltml u! 3.or (Jut (1,11o1 01! 4!iiiitiooqu,-; 004 (1(110.) ale 04 035 pup U! vuo.)..og Jo oil 431i an: 1.,,,m.,)4stuitlip1: III 1111 J1111t11n11a. Se !it!** -tio!Igs!;10/ .ut pos:40.1(Euii `.ilaullia!4,1 Jo (woos put: ptiattotio.) 1.1.n118 ,i41 omit:04)(11ot .ssuti.q suotsmoati 110! l41.11 1 '0(4(4511{1 .gitoist.w.141 0)4 .1110.i lit.taiusito.) t Ito to poututo

:4.1.11 11 ipl V ile:it ml(VE '5! Sir 511[1 .)(111 II! 4.0.40 izass0 J 1110.1 .1110 Sri/I[J8 111 1: poori 10011.11 11101111.1% '11011(111)N0 81.10110.1 311!.)11)1// 1I0[ .1p111 [J pi! !IA/ 11019.1:1J:i A.11(11:35I(InIS 1110.1J 0113 -tut gtrii -uu.) vo.to.4,1 slio!F!Ai.141 avi!st:col 414 0:1.111 sin! 1' Juala rliinllil l)!1; sloximi.);; 1.11ioltliv; Ju siliv ipp(At 1{)01( JO JO .4110 pm: 4113IA0 4.oNliu! 11(1 ruotimiii(), 503.111050.1 A:III:III '5[(X)1105 :41.1.11 111 Atoti 110100111h) SJ0RJ 811101(10.1(1 110111.11 !Ica .103 a.t11L't1t2u1111 34) 0/3!4 1j st .1110 co.111,11; 5311 so ,o/4 isu.111 sawarini! aausi!radx0 11:111 OS 04111 IfS11(11:1St) I: 1 no( 41 3,)!suas! 0 1/1114S.101)1111 5I111 SI :1(1 IIIII.120.111 gons tom 0.1.!;i:0.1.-) I[.111(At 50[4.t0.111 :1:1/011W1100 .101)1111 04 .1.111511! 1 41:11 01(3 sost40..)o.ol II! 01:3 011:4 ,)01:1(1 !ow spool:dos JO) (n1touu.)111)0 .3!un1oit3 0A1:11 ay:dimwit! .ilip31111,0 11 St t1:4S1) .1)0115!i1 110115 I: 1111:.17/0.111 00110 Jt.) 01(3 s!til 5.11,R1(14: 04 a,/ ,o/4 oso. u! 11091:3thotialilor4 0.1.11.135 111 10 51114 I J sit sJsod.111(1 0.1 3((04 siiins!Auml '')l414 rirapauc.)!.10tt1v 51st/11J JII1 JApikki..) spia(oil j0 mu op:Apt pioto.110s Jo uot p 041 itiainz'os Si 111 W14.11:11 )4110I guAt :.%1.11 03 .t.u! Tins .a.t!limottu! 5.i1up/1:4.1oputt ampuisiti!u!!)1: sag.o:o.1(1(11: 01(4 p;;;111 ;;It Ji44 %TM it? 140,11:411.003101 JO 0111 0I1I1 3.10111 118011 S1)41:7:04 %).;;;:t Ili autos st:0.11: tit %mu av:uti .9;1(;)11 'ismi

3111.1. A

1:0IS3 Si/1111J :311(11Illa S.1011111,1c JO 0111 110111100 11111:111(11: 01[1 A0.111 JO 1/111S 4.1 smolt' 3i, no!iii.o11),) 04 ,m0.1(1!!1! .s0J!.i.i.is..1!,)11 Sow(ls0 111 0113 Sc/J1.1.11/8 limp so tit: uddi: 1110.1 111180.1 0.10114 St III: 11101110.1.0.1111111 tom )114 1)01o.to.of 31it.t1.111 [10141:3110I oAt Irazioactootio Si( .101/1111-8011:1S .10-V011:11A11 JO-0119 11101111111011(111 III .111:111 2322 of services for. private, or .nonpublic, schools. We are particularly pleaW. when the {YerSOOS !MORA to such offices are: (1).MtOwledgreable in the field of private education: (2) 'Reasonably sympathetic. to the purposes and needs of private school ehildren; {3) Given this assi !runient as their primary rest onsibility; and (4) Granted a staff position on the polio v level. We urge the subcommittee to exert its influence so that increasingly persons so qualified are appointed to poSitions of such significance,

In the same vein, but . digressing to the Federd level, we. urge. the subcommittee to work for the creation of a similar post in the office of the Assistant Secretary for Edw.:06n. When it is recognized that. some 11) percent of alrelementary and secondary school children in the country attend schools operated under private auspices. such a proposal appears to ha ve.conSiderable justification. We are appreciative, of the attention to the needs of private schools which led to the creation of the position of Coordinator for Nonpublic Educational Services iii the VS. Office of Education, and we. are grateful for the Coonlinator's sulitantial efforts to he of assistance topri- vate educationstill we believe that consideration might well be given to our present mcommendat ion. Continuing this digression on the. Federal level, we wish to express to the subcominittee our concern over the inadequacy of present, pro-, cedures for gathering national data on private education. Public school statistics are gat hered annually; private school statistics. by practice. rather than by policy, are gathered every 5 yea rs.

. This provision for data collection is, we feel, inadequate. We recognize that the matter is under consideration as part of the "Common, Core of Data for the Seventies" projectour council has suggested, in fact.. that Private education be responsible for gathering data on private education under grant from the Office. of Education-but to our knowledge no decision has been reached on this subject. We urge the subcommittee's attention to provisions for an adequate. system for collecting, national data on private education. - Trim: VII There is a real and pressing need for special educational services fot :. tin' coma rv's low-ineome biltingual students. There are .significant numbers of such students in private schools, but very few benefit under . the provisions of title VII. The reported experience of private. schools in this mgard indieates that in many cases the. provisions of the title with regaid to private school participation arebeing:disregarded in

' practice. . . We urge the subcommittee to take. such action as it, feels wise to see:. that in the future the provisions of the act are administered in an equi-

table way. ., : Wethank you, Mr. Chairman,- for the. Opportunity to discuss these matters with the members of the subcommittee. After statements by Rabbi Seidman and Mr. Senske, they, Mr. Thomsen, and I will wel;

conic. questions. . Senator PELL. Thank you very much. Rabbi Seidman ? Rabbi SEIDMAN. Mr. Chairman. members of the Senate: The privi- lege and responsibility; of extending (Ile views of citizens of this coon- try to its highe4 legislative. councils is highly esteemed by Torah 17mesorali and is herewith presented. 1. am Rabbi Aaron eidinan. speaking on behalf of Torah 1.1mosorah, the 'National Society for I lehrew Day Schools. Our organization was founded in 1944 to initiateencourage, and enhance the development of Ilebrew dayAmerica.in' At. pies-. ent there are 413 Hebrew day schools in the Vnited States. '2,76 of these ate on the elementary level, and 137 are secondary schools. These educational institutions are located in 160 cities and 34 States, in the disturibut ion curve parallel to that of Jewish population density. The total student enrollment of these schools is over 81.000. Torah:. i7mesorah, thte flebe for learning and tradition, was directly 41- strumental in founding approximately 3(k) of these schools.' We con-.

timie to serve them on an ongoing basis. . lowever. our facilities and services are available and used by all the schools in the movement. These services include supplying administrative and teaching personnel. sulervisory services, curricula program- ing, text books, loans. grants, educational aids. and literature. In addition. the live tearther training institutes in New York, Chi- 4ago, Boston. Baltimore, and Cleveland.; as well as the Association of Hebrew Day School Principals, and the National ASsociation of He- 'brew Day School l'arent-Teacher Associations that we sponsor si,,,`eve the entire spectrum of the Hebrew day school movement. Our national body is acknowledged to be the representative agency of the I Iebrew day school movement in America. 11y way of general definition. the Hebrew day school provides inten-

. sive and extensive instniction in secular general education .areas and in adding depth to religious educationIt seeks to accomplish Nth

goals effect i rely and exactingly. , It communicates to its pupils a wide knowledge and fervent love of their American heritage. a deep sense of civic responsibility and an enduring commitment to high standards for academic performance in the sienees and the humanities. This is enhanced by a high' regard for the ethical 1101111 and the principles as well as the precepts of the Jewish religious tradition. In essence, the Hebrew day school is dedicated to synthesis of values of Judaim and the hest of American culture. Truly. a life slyk of nnine cultural diversity.... ,: Let, me explain. that while 'almost, the entire movementis united on basic principles. Hebrew day se. hools are most, properly classified as private schools, since they function individually and autonomously. Thcii fdieg if; also autonomous. They are maintained in part, by payment of tuition fees by the parents or pupils and in part by volun-.

, tarycontribUtions. . On the average. approximately 40 percent of the day school budgets. are covered by tuition. The tuition rates are in the vicinity of$750 to ...$600 per year per student. This, however, does not operate in the larger :metropolitan communities where the majority of these schools are

found. Very . substantial Percentage of parents have .very .limited economic earnings. and this makes them dependent. on.- tuition grants.' When they seek the traditional religious education for their childrm in a day school, they can only find it in areas where they can get an intensive educational,. experience and they .,.must be assisted 2324

Day school parents:4.4)11:441er Isith (Iv school relioions instruction and tiie quality of secular education ovially as vital 'or their children. This places the economically. underprivileged among then' before the agonizing choice of either failing to provide adequately for the religions education of their children or beilig forced into rfesperatefi- nancialst raits whentheyseek to send their children to Hebrew day schools. Further. the standards of the day schools are themselves jeopardized by the inability to meet the continuous rise in budgetary requirements imposed by. the constantly increasing expenses endemic. in our current economic sit nation. This conflu. ence of obvious need for adequate funding of educational programs and the equally obvious rising curve of expenditures leads ns to the following conclusion.. One. there can be no doubt to the pressing need or the full funding of the. Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Two.allprovisions of the legislation should encompass all school- 'children, without discrimination as to nonpublic school children. Further. wherever 'States prohibit such involvement there should be a bypass provision. Three. as a matter of overall. principle. there should is' clear guideline; from the Office of Education as to what Hconstit 'Res' remedial and therapeutic services. For example. one local educational district rules out music. library, health. and related services as not being remedial or therapeutic, whereas other districts may wept it. These discrepancies should he obviated by the enactment or establishment of overall guidelines and criteria.. Four, the Office of &location should also posit the concept that ...

adherence to a specific, program is not sacrosanct. Mat is more 7' portant is comprehension of the problem involved. even if the solution does not necessarily fall within the classic program outlined. Thus, the disadvantaged in our schools in som neighborhoods of New York., such as Williamsburg and Crown Heights where we find nigny tam- ilies inneedof funds. we have poor families. not only from a financial standpoint butt. also from the standpoint of preparation for living or . adjusting to the world. This. too. is a remedial program for the disadVantaged. Yet, thus far, hive not heen'able to get the local .edtwational agencies to compre- bend this. concept. Instead.. it program that is designed fOr a public school is transferred over into mien( our schools. whereas our remedial and therapeutic needs for the disadvantagedare. diametrically

different. . . Five. the Office of &bleat ion should take necessary steps to upgrade the scope of its responsibilities and to reorient its personnel in the non-

public, school sector. There, cannot be and should not be a Sentiment. of . secondary priorities where the ontcome will be ineusumi in forgotten children., Tn conclusien., the specific titles of the bill under diScussion should be

commented on. Let me address myself to title T. . We favor the designation of special educational arrangement where-

in children who require such services can participate .'without full-time ... public school attendance. Such snecial programs might subsume educii tional radio and television, mobile educational services, remedial (Au- tittpc ptotiasa.011 Jo I: mni.s-.1au p stur.t.110.01 putoptppt: putototuott! .putttos.taa utatutlutha put: it..9 5.)1 IMO .il:111 041 1)0:11)111 .1104 .71111A0.11i1111 11091301111.1 p 1)11S1 park:111RA pulp 110.1 1 .101)11... 141 I I OM 1011114:.) .ili1611.)101ti 55.4.145 .4114 Milli:A .110 SO.U110Sal 11111: yfu1:111:ar..11.1114 .i 0; ita.tputi.gotias ploputut, -utu p:po Jo pxotios sptutiti pin: mit apt..% JO d11101 Nip:wind -II! itutoplIJ45 sp:pattuit slotsitx.); put: iutst.totput: spp: ittassa o; amkultiu .)1f4 itutoprottpa .imuttl) JO 21utimi oploatl ittotpluottil j4 a uo!;ux. pitiom 0,1!1 01 0; 04) i0aa.1 Su uzittt.to.tuj Itypl tpTim pptom aspa potiwt Joj :attpputt squog .siu.)!popad stuatutwu tutu..)!tau iiodut tpleXdottotpl snutploaaa pm; .101140 poluf.Ill appllimu .104 ago 0:411 jo flu tt.tputilootos III ho.to alutt.; atm suotp:Jont: Jo ail; Sup slumps pun tiotStAtUil .10j Nciampl: lumps so.quos.).1 pug 1utu)!4.m.145111 !tow saxei ;Kato i)110.itNitii0lia5 .i)1.1111111.).11,111 aAk 'a.tokuati; .iirapstqstitlitta 45 40111 01[3 IES0(10.111 Ill OM) II uhualim II In S11:1.1.44 till* 041 pas1111.1.uut !u4% ituapod "sputki :4.104"04 s1 441 'um Jou ,x; post Arj ptvas tu onl uotptu stto!.:tua.1 tItipuom ptom at; optutt 'avii.v.y: J01 5i11.1)1115 11! 1111114111011 1001j.114 11 ti1.41.1 110 4 011 .111115 di4011 1/014111 JO IN)A0.14141 .104 510(,11.r.4 Jo 0111 .141:45 III ,16011 $441113S 1.1021 111110 014 0 I 01)1A0.14 51t:pa11:1H S40J11114S.104 III lit011 09111( siootidS 010 -14100 .101101t,51111 Jo 411.)11110 1101 1.11110117I 14014111110 01 VIII 01 011tuipLur 04 galls pug.) tt,u mit p:pop:Itt .i1.0:uttit.tt 01 ,psoti; pasn tit j0

01144 11110S% "Jag .150u1.1 ;Neil s,:mituttlasa.1,10. j0 aq; 1S10011.16'a4eApti Nt1(11J13.1 41.1% 11 ay output pxotas V49410114111: tit att) ogpods ttop,huas jo sluotioat,:otil put: ituto14o11.14st1 Jo; ant, mmt.t :I1141uvzia.1 a1414 '111 ajt.) 01(4 WO JO mittu su.ut: tit mos 1.10A aaatim ,oti; a.ntastp: Jo Atle.touttt Paa!pu.ol put& Ins .i.tuptatuaptt s.tattia.) .10J tisrma ttaJpittialootis tt1 .iu stoops :mg paq.tom 04 oti; azuptt:At:stp jo ati; aJtjtia Situtttutuoa Ill Away; 31,1oA oti. p.:J.)0 J0 ati; tis.tmaj tia.tipla uouu: .1Ramiajj Attp rove SiJuax oi".1 40 :)114 Est 10011.A4 14 Ill spit Jocults :tip parr.pui Ul Siramod 1111; 1110111: 00011:1; 111 511.4.)1: S11(1 1)1104111 tots sittotps JO1ld inflt 0114144111 - :1J 551 's-141.1 4lAt 11 1111 111'.)111k1 1111101 4144411! 1101 11./IIS Si! 0114 Avtigail Sup paws ottpq knit :40.4111 11 49SII 411 1101 III 45 444 111SlItar 64.i.attUtibOa JI pptotis .); hall(( tutu al('; .Mall{)(( Sep spotpts III Tuts *mom: imam. ou app: apuott a.0:.tout1! gallittralaa; d!gsrugietp.-; put: -!ppt 's.i.tito.) i)p)It: IiiinMito A 111At all Tau:Do:amp alma iipt 11:10; tmlitu.if!tu jo martial' Sup Lumps pile ruis ttowtatttu ut; josl! ipm asnua tit: p.titatplit ti! 0114 .iu!tua cluatotup "SiliMuillioJ 41 51 su 0114.1.0. so: Sup smulio) lti21it wit u mt.) uanfil attutbapuul ivuu!pwnim Stpuloothlo 5! paptap u J!sui uu.)!Jauty J!suo.) t! Siitnba u!up,,, 1! snupt!iat *braid *mot putt o.,!tJuad math!!t y utrapatu studu 0) 111104 pfugJs11f 01 V 6111,11.1d s pulp watim at[ sl uamit ail; ittaitt.t!ttba Jo aggliti temps aupiturk) Othopt tilpt sttotgtiaa ttowtuistit uati; aq; apItaupd Ju Smettba semlua lett) ppqa a.t!aJai ou ssai paJoAt:J luatumu3 Suu luatuu,simuo modt part 'tow:J[1p uuti; Sue Jaq)o tatapaury ppqa uvuututixajii`ttof Senator I'm- Thank von very much indeed. Our final witnesson the panel is Dr. Senske, who has previously testified. Dr. SENSKE. Thank you. Arr. Chairman. I appreciate this(ppr- tilt* to be with you again and to testify in regard to the Elementary and Secondary Act. We are grateful] to be able to bea NIA of the Council for American l'rirate Education in prewnting this testimony. I am Al II. Senske secretary of elementary and secondary schools :which are operated by congregations of the Lutheran Church-Mis- souri Synod. Of this international school system, approximately 1,300 schools are located in the United States servingover 105,000 students. Approximately 10 percent of these pupilsare nonwhite, nearly one-third are not members of our church body. The parents who support these sclnols are very grateful for the help which ESEA has provided toward the education of their children. Many children : have received specific help. especially through title IL ESEA. ,which has provided necestary school libraryprintand /imprint resounrs and also from title I, ESEA, in the form of remedial services.' Because of the values of ESEA inn the past for nonpublic and public education, and because of its luotential to be of even greater benefit Aeriean chihiren and youth, we are concerned about the future of ESEA programs, their availability and regulations. The following positive comments have been shared with me by Lutheran educators from across the country in regard to their ESEA experiences. tow.% The children who are eligible am being helped, receiving sonic real laments. It allowed us to place remedial etaihasis at the junior high school level as well as at the lower levels.

WISCONSIN The programs have had a beneficial effect upon ike eligible chit dren, especially in the area of remedial. reading. Ti e services in read- Mg and Psychology have been provided by well qualified people

MINNESOTA The schools that have been able to avail themselves of the programs have received definite 01110 Our basic assistance besides through title II, ESEA, has been through remedial reading persemriel.

MISSOURI Title. ESEA,' has been the difference between having some materials. and services and not having them. Individualized learning op-' port unit ies was one of the results. The teachers in the inner city schools were helped much by inservice education courses. The reguilar teach-' ers gained mulch experience in evaluating pupil achievement and in assessing a student's need for special education. We foUnd it to be much more helpful when remedial teachers came directly to the non- 2327 public schools rather than having t1 Send the clii)dren to the public school location. 41. e need to111141e1.7433/11in Mikarillei there is as pre- and post -Ilarrera factor. Since the llarreraea Se things 11:1V0improved. We also need to un(lerstaml that the tople in Missouri have learned to be thankful for litthe things. and that is part of the basis of these comments.

INDIANA OUr experiences have been excellent. especially with remedial tn- di vidualized reading. NEW i'1{K The title II materials and the title I. ESE.% . services have been very eneficial. They 'are providing some help we must continue to receive.

CALIFORNIA' These programs are having some minimal effect. espeCially title I,

ESEA. 'rifle II. ESEA. has been the most helpful. . . The ESE.t. programs11:1Vealso created some problems and (rostra- tions.I wish to relate what school administrators and officials are reporting cotuvrtting these problems.

INDIANA The redtape wins to be. excessive. It is difficult with children living in five or more piiblic school districts to know what, is and what is not available. what, call and what cannot be done. There is the constant need and demand to do it their way requiring many extra hours of administration time. IOWA Communication with local public school and Federal officialsis often skiw 'and uncertain. The actual help is limited. So many more children ought, to be benefiting from: the. programs tint they do not live in the right, section of the community. Thr, State leveldirectives hive born extremeldictator-lid. !lo one from Che.I1ublie, school sector seems to be interested in listening.

MISSOURI The paperwork is excessive. This aspect. of the a(Imittistrator's task shoil(I be reduced. WISCONSIN .Where direct, subsidy is involved there is so much borikwOrk that some schools have had to hire extrapersonnel.' The improvement on the part, of the pupils has tfeendiffiellitto measure. Trio few children are eligible kir title 1. ESEA.' So manyrestrictions often actually cripple the program for nonpublic schools. Only the extremely low pupils are usually eligible...... Too many below-average pupils get no help at aii. The tavet areas exclude many of the tieeclv pupils and families. Some of the - eligibility lines are questionable. They get. changed without our input. It does

47.457 q74 - 23 3011 111005 .1111) 11,H(.11 OM) 11,101411( 01)!S aq `011,1s (ism 1111101141.1 Vii!(h)00 ((toll 1010 .ill1 0110.11(4 s! ap191!ia asttraan Jo Ataiim ail `sant to:1m It! snit Swim.; a .tawa.17t ausou! 1111114 app.:luau! ssatinti.m. s! 41:n4 II! alp sip!till 0t1a1mi: a149 I -1101 suct.t.71 :Ituptio.t put: s.111:111ailiou1 app;tuo au) so!Aoas .10 .togio in,0-10(011.).v.4,1 tati no 110.11p 1(11.11 ltd.! +1)0011 .1',u11111 IS11041'1V0 1

.111:jc 00.1 4nO paau Suva./ (Ilan Op 4011 .0.111 tiu0!.44 all .011E1 sitaat: oiLL a!pittAt a.ui 010 S!ptustiodsa., plIA: SaAll.M.111) 1.110.1) olt:),.; put: ituazi ALA: 0011 Alipioas 100 quill-Awl& sal 04 It! uiptlitiou 51Amia5 ssoptil 0114 -nott aipilid loops sailio.mq siituaJ Snt:atibs aatim s! -pa-mug! :Quo a1LL dian S! aptiui 41 s! .4i11oupp °I itivai Lutim S! :Hum: any put: alp Naming-A-m(10ml .10J aati4s!sst: am :s!oLui woos 04 ou a14 pia Jo mil au!( ti! asatu a stut:.1210.01 smas.utt (11.1.1 ;:ituttpatias tualutud asuti 04 a.tual itootias II! Lapin u!trplooi 'titan ii.Vitoalo au!) I yHsa sa.)!A.Las :1:40saiit1!lc t: 'du Lou :101a1 pa41.1u! u! :tutu *JS -situ a4rtip!31:41 pa(t)id -10114.1 .%t.)X :31.10A osaiu, sitiapputi II! Hari Vii! pa.10011! u! Viutitund satin 11p.% it; (tiJ4.) 1101411.111p0 aolus awn) sl ou 04 Smuitood(1ko (lian s)1101.(11.0.1 0.1010 S11100. 01 04( 0illOS (10911,00411 ti! ,1411upity,4 ii! .1111 itrool loops pacts( 11)1.) a.:110:1(.) mu sato.: VII!liArZu SIM(Erg!to 001 "Sosva ils:Li 11! 449 I I Vas' gitual arty l(UtilE spoli.4 past:((( 04111 ir 01f) sloops 0A99.(11110.) 110!)!sod sioro(ai 0:1-tei mip 0) 0114 .4(laatioa Ju 011) 'wall 01 0it:Jitiaatioa -AAA s-\J! 01L1 tis!plita st: pucaost: oVitivIto:/ Joji stn (9s3) aplitiuxa poRist sittapputl Sutnaottsa Ai! max 3.I0A ortuopia out Jaw sarm asuraati tuu0.71oLd 'Jou apptuti tuittuitnut -s, .Cup It 4a.tt sao!_uas col slot ittrti4 01, -tiaapptia laA paoilas ut Atax qv:3300A 11)!N0 (l; aiii!V!io pup .ibti tia.ta tpliumil Sag) Siisatputratil 041:-Latia: irsolt: .04,091.4i gup% ppiom .tlUJ .10J 7/11 Ji0 aal.taas LI: 01.* 1:.10) naim-O4. sir' 100110s 4.1110S '40UUV3 10.10 0A1000.1 01U 11101 MOM -0..10.ias 'matt aLcouttu ,arty tiot.unauta.i sa!4t.09(1 SA/ 0!pitttlutni loogaw ital!attpul sattsucott u all s! 40ti 1lin Siliott; 110.tyl v paupatis `1;: 10gs saiipp111.4 Air baplivati! put: Alan) s! ou atuutissie pito mil ipm aa.ta tutu:tom' ,ri!ppoptui 10J S111: 1109,10(1 JO SIII 1V 010, ',AIMS 000,4 'an "S(11.1111.1 sa.t!.its 04 luttLuttlut 4111"3 0) APISH! 511ffly:pc-1,u )11111.1011 Spliquavtlitioa 111 0wilitl putt 0!pituluou mupptia IN.% Tutus aqi Lug) Sisttoatitri Vuuliontitt swim1qm ',utistu .0114 ail; u41s0 us tiolpipia put: anvils' -lumps 11 y JO s!tu suit pa.iainuti AtittatoLAI 0aias uc!1 puuIlututiviAl -panto-40.w! magi, an ou os spat:talcs 11110 u,upl!tl.)1H0 :111!Aii it! I: vary oq.a Alt: mil sistsi Jo; la.1.1114 :40!ilittuaLap an; lagtiti .I0J vA 091...lads 0149 1'3s',4 tu.v.420.1(1 SUV1111: Antis 0) wailaq tutu) 11 v ALS/Tsui' utuatipt," lootias pull L9 aplytua ttaappy vie; pnyautat sa!outatoutu aLotti ituti4 .toj a "O itnpaiibu tur..gloatt sSup mutt:tutu -aaio,Jos -Anti 0; wipatn 0) Hu !1ititluoti slumps 1344 ioonas 14 slut uom.1 j Sup u 3144.1 ":,311.1.1aS Gra

511.00 VW:4.11111 01 0) all) ampa.1.10) .1.011S Ja.X1.),S1111 401.1.145 1)111.;14111'1114 JO 10011.15 sp.)01) mu 1 su(118 alp 'hilt:8180p .qa.11 aajA.),)s ligkIsal 0111 .109 Jo 111111,.1111 11(10!!,) 0A0.1. .iup 10,im I 011 asoli) sum .i11cu111a.%0 pappo.ul .10!1:111 rou 11! 41111) 2.9 nil si81 .1111.1!).).10011) p0.0kpo8d n ).,:srtpu ;Iwo pa 1111; I :40.8,.0.1as .80J 1 5111 -10011o14 0011,) I( 01 :.1.111.\\ 4111 14.).0.0.11 sSup 1: 15!14.1,'011.1. )11.11poll:1 11:(() 14.111001 51 1011 u.) 1.1 n pal.) .10j 0:40ti1 eq 41 111111 .10J 111011. 1114 1111:J;10.01 111 *.i.104114 SI We pal .i! -pap!.0.81 SII(J (IL max 1.10A .%)1,) 111 4111 5111.11: JO) 11:.1)11.) 1.111)1) 1 )41.14811 awl 1)111; 3,)1111111114 .)!I 80.1414.110040s 0.1u 411.1011.1. 14 )911.1 '61:.0s0-jss rtil4K104.nv 1 )114S1101 51.0.1.145 111111 1,),)40.1([ '81101 011) 114 awns 110,1puti.) 1!. 0.%!,).)0.1 .i1110 01)s.l):;4 410.01 if JO -s)0!.mas 1 s! ano 8(11111 imp alp 118m0110J 4.41.:17111s 141101 1111) pa.14115110.) 111J 11 .1.1 1-14):',1 411S) )1:1S17141 '1101 ( swim:taw JO au) ys'l ;Ai) 1S11111 01111!)110.) 04 -)SIX.( Ill lac; oil Jtatj) X',01) 1,11111 o111:(1.0 .i1081148: ptinj 11218011 04 a8() 111101 1111.1411111'1 4ig,)01).) .1.1.11) 111: )1111111 51114 11,)4o1 !pus a.111111110.). 1 11.104 S,) -14,011111.1014( )110.41,)4 Jo Mil 11)0) 4:41111.4 S11144 ju diall, 11.).11)1!)).101 [MI: ) If sn pawl 4800 -aim! .10; 05111 apnimi! 0q) ;18!!!!8:1,1 'pus slut:J:10.111 41411111 alppuluou 101.111.15 1411 011 Al osiu 01 p0.40.% u! 0014.14 1ue.1210.81 -uoileriatuapitui st -4).1.18 40J mil )9011,s4 Jo .111) 41140; -mu:10A Joj au) Amu) ;)!p0811108 l(Moi(ds -418111! Jrt Hu pm: pariunuu :) (1 41 pplo.n 1uJ01Jq j! 1 ine...00.0 ;11,pluupl sus()) pie Pilkom ;pupil. 1: .1!1111011(1(1 plog.)s 7108.21!s pptoAt Sp))!0901) 014 1101)na)011181800 1811: II! 001p011.81 35.1.10.81 411 8y1 111J01 -811.1a1 (t.) !Iv siumaloml ;sum aplibm! 11 ssed.i(i 8o!s!..kul 01 mut) 04 -U0) 008!) 0) pit:wiles 01(4 SI!!!quilyAn Jo timis 4ul114210.81 -a4u)s (4..0 0.84f )1FItioti) pploils 1.:1 0) 11:11.1% II:001)1111M 1:1411 pap -Wirl ;11191, 11.).111s, .10; 81448 stut410.81 um) imp.le.) 010 a11 alviS u 1.).%0E 111(4 .111; 41.21.11:1 111:j1t0do.lou1 ant) S110p4SO4 luau! pu!.0809 s111al(10.81 181u altp 1 alp 41114.4110.) au-Imp jo pivot/ sJa(pumu pm: 0.%!inaj11.1411110: s! S.10.t 41).flo Jo; iv0o1 lotps WO S(111 04 1.81.0 u! 4.1a..810; 'opt 0111 pool awitul jumps '111141W0 0,40111 s11091:11.1).14 a4))44 5.1li1J11411 .11:J pam00).1 41: apt)s jaAaj 4.1411.11. a.1.111 SI1144s 04 u 00010 snouivs 81040: J11 0) .11)18110;) all; -gaup.) limo!) suJa.810,) jo lir Stull J.% puatull10j4.1 CID 1101)11.1apts00.) all .1.) 4aati.s 04 A11!111!181 ,a)u)s-11! u!.10)!J0 Jatiou ptaol upal1 -,)144!suai u!aadsa Su (It :AIN (11101.1(1 -s.taplaa (9) ima111 I: 81101/114111.01i 1)008 04 008!)18,0 am; 1111 v,ls:4 9411141 sap1o.v.1 .101 01j; juauuloia.vap pun 801)u.1auo JO mail =s441..1.14S.81111t.a101t1 pull ;JI: so!11.11. pow .19 itp,sis spa»! JO 114.11)11113 S.111JS JO 4111 aA1111011.1A Ils!171t1.3 Aupjuads wig Sp. ausmolot tuo4J -11011.4 84(1.811 1,s1.% .)It; iuuumlop 0,1,0089 s! .i0ou ismAwel U1 -uplay'isuf 04 weal molt otuo)0q u! .1)0A pull molt iplagpi) 4! s! auloaaq 'pamo.tut tu !pus o.84 stunJ3 112180.1114 014'4 luJoi 110!))100pa -Sauatu 541 aat1v4.0)(101! sl zu!suahni! .)At 0q4 Iliudiljwi 'stomps pull Joy° .8.11181008 stomps su 140 1))JU 'town dim! u! .ii4lU11141)11 SULU:1V 11111: ;111911.1111114 114p11111 r111311141IS-11s10111',4 1111114 U4.1 }MU "W11111)11 osuaki Ii! .0j) JO 110 411) JO (2,) (11)11 Ise) illi!oopmaj) sapttlpit: 1.1E11 111 a.N d1(10411 po.momi! a!pit81 put: augt8fuou 41110'11(.914)01,4 aiv -spialKx1do (i Jo sit 'plum ualpitip 0A.1431).1 1111 uo9v311114.)1141144X4 in the schools of their choke. Help provide programs that can be offered and coordinated by public and nonpublic, officials so. wecan eliminate the distasteful and discriminatory 1S)sition of legging and pleading for the rights of American children who have chosen to at. tend a nonpublic school.. When a budget is determined on the basis of a head count of children which includes some of those in nonpublic' schools, their receiving of benefits from this budget, should not, begrudgingly liad(' available as though it were forced charity. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for granting me this opportunity to share our appreciation, frustrations, and hopes regarding the Elementary. . and Secondary Education Act with this committee. [The prepared statement of Dr. Senske follows:] BEST tinIIVAILRBLE Statement of

Al H. Senske: Ed:D. Secretary of Elementary and Secondary Schools Board of Parish Education The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod

Before the Subcommittee on Education of the COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND PUBLIC WELFAREH United States Senate

October 10: 197? 2332 BEST C011Y WI'. Chairman and Members of the Committee:

This opportunity to testify beforeyou in regard to the Elementary,

and Secondary Education Act is certainly appreciated. We are grateful to',

be able to be a part of the Council forAmerican Private Education in presenting this testimony.

I am Al H. Senske, Secretary of Elementary and Secondary Schools which are operated by congregations of The Lutheran Church-MissouriSynod. Of this international school system, approximate]y 1300 schools are located in the United States serving over 165,000 students.Approximately 10% of these pupils are non-white, nearly one-third are not members ofour i church body.

Appreciation

The parents who support these schoolsare grateful for the help which ESEA has provided, toward the education of their children. Many

children have received specific help,especially through Title II ESEA, which has provided necessary school library print and nonprintresources,

and also from Title I ESEA in theform of remedial services.

because of the values of ESEA in thepast for nonpublic and public

educaticn,.and because of its potentialto be of even greater benefit to

American children and youth,we are concerned about the future of ESEA

programs, their availability and regulations.

Positive Experiences

The following positivecomments have been shared with me by Lutheran

educators from across' the country in regardto their iSEAexperiences.

Iowa: The children who are eligible are beinghelped, receiving some, real benefits. It allowed us to place remedial emphasisat the junior

well as 'at the lower levels.

. . . nnil 2333 CI4° ..111311

Wisconsin: The programs brave had a beneficial effect upon the eligible children, especially in the area of remedial reading. The services in reading and pschology have been provided by well qualified people.

Minnesota: The schools that have been able to avail tknmselves of the programs have received definite help.

Ohio: Our basic assistance besides through Title II ESEA has been through remedial reodine, personnel.

Missouri:Title I ESEA has been the difference between having some materials and services and not having them. Individualized learning oppor-

tunities was one of the results. The teachers in the inner city schools were helped much by inservice education courses. The regular teachers

gained much experience in evaluating pupil achievement and in assessing a

student's need for special education. We found it to be much more help-

ful when remedial teachers came directly to the nonpublic schools rather

than having to send the children to the public school location.

Indiana: Out experiences have been excellent, especially with re-

medial individualized reading.

New York; The Title II materials and the Title I ESEA services

have been very beneficial.? They are providing some help we must continue

to receive.

California: These programs are having some minimal effect, espe-

cially Title I ESEA. Title II ESEA has been the most helpful.

Problerz

The ESEA programs have also crested some problens and frustrations.

I wish to relate what school administrators and officials are reporting

concerning these problems.

Indiana: The red tape seems to be excessive. It is difficult with'

children living in five or more public school districts to know what is and 2334 BEST COPY AVAILABLE

what is not available, what can and what can not be done.There is the

constant need and demand to do it their way requiring many extra hours of

administration time.

Iowa: Communication with local public school and federal officials

is often slow and uncertain. The actual help is limited. So many more

children ought to be benefitingfrom the programs but they don't live in

the right section of the community. The state level directives have been

extremely dictatorial, no one from the public school sector seems to be

interested in listening.

Missouri: The paper work is excessive. This aspect of the aide-

istrator's task should be reduced.

Wisconsin: Where direct subsidy is involved there is so much book

work that some schools have had to hire extra personnel.The improvement

on the part of the pupils has been hard to measure. Too few children are

eligible for Title I ESEA.So many restrictions often actually cripple

the program for nonpublic schools. Only the very extremely low pupils are

visually eligible. Too many below average pupils get no help at all. The

target areas exclude many of the needy pupils and families. Some of the

eligibility !lees are questionable. They get changed without our input.

It doesn't seem fair when two children sitting side by side, both needing

remedial help, that only the one is eligible because of where he lives, when in reality his family has a greater income than the ineligible pupil.

Another weakness is that only pupils in the academic Title I programs

like reading and matheatics are eligible for psychological services or other physical help. This eliminates many children with real needs.

California: Many children that really need help do sot live withia

the target areas. The public school superintendents, vho have the respos- aibility and directives from state and federal &genii's, are not seeking BEST COPY AVAILABLE 2335

out oppOrtunities to help children in nonpublic schools. Unless the non-

public school becomes a "vociferous squeeky wheel" it is ignored.

Ohio: The help is limited. It is too difficult to learn what is

available and the proper channels for obtaining assistance.

Illinois: We seen to be at the end of the line in these programa.

It presents a teal scheduling problem when children have to leave theschool

in order to obtain help through Title 1 ESEA services.

Minnesota: We are not being invited to participate !in project plan-

ning sessions.

New York: There are problems in getting involved in the planning

stages with the local education agency. Since there is no opportunity to

help establish target recipients. there seems to be some inequities.Equi-

table distribution is very difficult, especially in the largecities. The

local school board can change the rules regarding eligibility tooeasily.

The present cutbacks in Title II ESEA have really hurt.

The small schools are placed into a competitive position in rela-

tion to the large schools due to 'the concept of the need to concentrate

services.The English as Second Language (E.S.L.) program. for example.

has posed prdblems,especially in New York. Chicago. and othercities be-

cause the program will not provide the minimum twoday a week services to

less than forty children. Yet a school in New York City, with twenty eli-

gible ESL children. even though they theoretically generate atotal of

$4.160.40. which would pay for 111 days of service at $70.00 day for a

forty week school year. can not even receive the 21111/M4M service.

The seed to indicate remediation priorities by the nonpublic school

principal becomes nightmare of Agility. lie is at gives specified

budget, the guidelines am indefinite, and there is no assurancethat the

prelim' will ever materialise for any portion of his pupils.At the sant

time he strives to maintain theregulatiottsiiiiiattempt to insure .2336

comparability to psblic And nonpublic children while simultaneously uphold-

ing the safeguards that insure that the aid goes to the children and not

the school. All of this has hindered program selection, planning, and involvement.

There are no safeivards so that the children living in a target area who are the basis for determining the budget for a specific Title I ESEA prograa will, actually be able to benefit from it.

A Brooklyn Lutheran school had sixty-seven eligible children for a

remedial mathematics program, more than enough for two days of minimum re-

medial service. Due to the overall budget to all nonpublic schools this

school was given a one day a week service.Since this type of service was

unjust and unrealistic to the corrective needs of the pupils the school

eliminated the service entirely and protested the lack of adequate eligible

service. Two day a week service was eventually provided. The major in-

equity lies in the fact that those sixty-seven pupils theoretically produced

budget of $13,937.57 for Central Title I services for this school, enough

to warrant services four days a week.This is clear evidence that the

budget is not earmarked for those children who generate it and for whom the

program, in theory,is actually provided.

This year, in hew York Cit,?, in the areas of Central Title I, District

Title I, and SummL/ Title I, Lutheran school children are generating

584,080.19. According to present services and projected calculations, these

same children will receive only $37,800.00 worth of 'services.

Suggestions

It is our hope that the following suggestions can be considered im

future ESEA type legislation.

1) Programs of the ESEA type must continue to exist. In fact, they:

vest be expanded and adequately funded.Even though their overall input has been small compared to the total Lutheran education expenditures, .4Z of the total budget, they have been of help to children and thus must continue.

2) Planning for such programs must also include the nonpublic, school personnel who are also involved in program implementation.There is a definite need, for the benefit of the total program, for far more nonpublic school input.

3) It would he helpful if all program planning and finalized plans would include a nonpublic school sign-off. This would definitely aid the communication and information process at the local levels.

4) All programs must include a by-pass provision in order to continue to safeguard the availability of such programs in every state.

5) More thought should be given to what additional detailed planning, especially for urban programs, can be carried out at the state level rather

than locally. In the large metropolitan areas, due to serious' local financial

problems and also due to the constant change of board members and administra-

, tive personnel, it is very difficult for local school officials to work in

concert with the local public school officials.In those situations better hearings are received at the state level where there seess to be a more

serious attempt to consider the educational concerns of all.Thus we mess-

send that consideration be given to buildine'in state criteria rather than

only Iocal criteria where feasible, especially in the large urban, centers.

6) There is a tremendous need to continue Title VII ESEA which pro -

vides for the development and operation of new peograms, services, and

activities which meet the special needs of children 3 - 18 years of age who

have limited Zrglish-speaking ability and who cock from environments where

the docInamt language is not English. We are just beginning to learn how

to,becoce involved, and hew difficult it is to become involved, in such

programs through the local education agency. Its importance is increasing 233$ LT-Virati Bl',S1CON daily. We, the Lutheran schools, and other nonpublic schools as well, need, much help in adequately serving and educating limited English-speaking children and adults.

7) Please help' in the task of developing attitudes on the part of people involved in public and nonpublic education that we are not opponents.

All of us want all children to receive an excellent education, ' schools of their choice.Help provide programs that can be offered and chest. sated by public and nonpublic officials so we can eliminate the distasteful and discriminatory position of begging and pleading for the rights of American children who have .Chosen to attend a nonpublic school. When a budget is determined on the basis of a head count of chi)dren which includes Some of those in nonpublic schools, their receiving of benefits from this budget should not be grudgingly made available as though it were forced charity.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for granting me this opportunity to share our appreciation. frustrations, and hopes regarding the Elementary and

Secondary Education Act with this committee. Senator PE. Thank you Very much indeed.11 haye great sympathy. for the cause of nonpublic. education. It,would be a tragedy if they were bowed out existence In this regard. it, should be pointed out that.we have writtenthe legislat ion in It manner ti0 that Many of theGovernment, programs are omen to nonpublic school paiciat ion. Then, are problems, either the local authorities are not rery enthusiastic.them are other delaying; mechanisms, or the private Snol is not awarethat they are eligible. I have great respect for Mr..Thomsen.who has .workedr closely with :! the subcMmittre in making peopleaare of this. Your organization might in its newsletter make them more awareof their rights in the present. Federal programs, because I am not surethat they are getting.. all they should, and the squeaky wheeldoes .get, the grease very often: in some of these programs.. 1r.think sometimeseties there is an inhibition on the part.of some of the richer private schools to apply, for example,for title lf funds, but if they are eligible for it, they have everyright, to apply, and even the richest schools are having tlieir problems aswell. So I think that part of the problem of government,participation: rests with the schools. in general !would gather from your testimony, maybe Mr. Themsn could cominent, yOubasically support categorical programs as opposed toconsolidation, would that, he corrector not! Mr. InonsEs. I think that we would besupportive of the principle of grant consolidation, but are simplysomewhat concerned about the resultS that. might come the elimination of categorical programs.. H In other words, we see, manyemblems at. the local level which might develop under a policy of grant consolidation, Senator PEEL. You are not. answeringdirectly. Would you prefer consolidation or would You prefer Mr: TuousEs. I thilik we would probably prefercategorical grants simply berallge we do not. want to lose the smallshare that we already- ' have. .... SenatOr PELL. The committee hopes to develop someconsolidation of some of the programs, that, we hope to work out someform of compromise- in this.. !. Mr. TimmsEs. incidentally.Mr.Potter, who is president of the Na- t ional:.tssociat ion 'of independentSchools, asks me. to convey- his regrets that, lie could not be here and to expresshis appr. eciation for the continuing efforts of t his'subeommittee. on ourbehalf. . Senator PELL. In connect ion with the Hebrewday schools, are those mostly ime schoOls or classes after reeular school ?: Rabbi SEIMAN; Its definition they are full -timeschools. There are in addition. quite an umber -of part titheafter ill:Id:11.1,10)1kt! Senator PELL. For religious edueation ? ! Rahi SEIMAN. Hoe the study of the law orstudy of tradition.: , Senator Pi:LiHow many st ',dents.do You have in religions schools'

: after public schools? H ..- ' : : RabbiSEtomax. Tha is a little hard to aseertaitLbut. T.can .find .! that out. !! ! Senator frier.. PerhapS you could 'submit that, for the-record... Are there any other religious- sects t hat .have classes after_ : schools where they. give irlieions instruction,besides the- Roman Catholics ? 11.4 the Lutherans. do you have religiousinstruction after the public schools?-', I '..1( .o.%% Hu.) .)1j1 111 aoltolot.,; -1.1:4,1 I 14 110.1 111:11 SO11.0.1111[0 .10 0I) 110S 0.%1:1[ SS..1001: 01 tp% got oi ,).%!: 11

SI1101 110 .0.111 111 61 1SX:10.4 II III!) alp 011:IS A:01i11 4.1)11M 111111.01 VIM 0.101tA1 11 sl '1011 rSOlt J10 1t sl 011111) 1 0111 'S011.1.1111(0 0.101LL 0.11: 4110y: (10o'09 1),)A1omi! it: 'up itio6o,1(1 -atop aoluth.) "rcid woo.; .10 1.4 voil aujimos .401o.mv.1.s I sum pm oty: 111 arati sassatil!m Pm: 011 tilIOlIS.)111) '111:111.19,11,) I S1W pp:11.71111:1(s 11. J1110.1 1.101( .11 1(4 .)1.11111,1 S1.11)At Oa(lt1111111)) 1)111! 1)1:11 111 WI .).1.)111 jti.11.1 .1011:11)S "I'13,11 11111111 110A' 11011111 1001)111 .14)J .11111011 1111A1 511 111 dAt 31111:1111 :111 1,401 !M.\ .).1.10J 11110110.0K 'A.1101111 ..11V, I 'N:10511iVr 1111:11.1, -110.i lowilas au() ;xotl ',mud os,m(1. 6111 alp -1103 %).)ti.o.1,1 pm: 1! spm.stIo., Jo pa 1 .144.,u!i).4s.)iv.( tle!s!.%!(1 J 1)111! .i.teptitmos vtim:1 pa I ''.11.1111( 11111:11SISSI: -000,111) :.101 511119 I '00.1.( I1:101101`" 0:4111100 t.1110SSIlt 011(1111:) 1100 0011,k10J : 111q I 14 11A '1 111.0060 I 0.1 A..11:10.105 MON 1.10A .)11:1S H011110 jo pulps :siovoosupatittis pou .101[41:6.1 .;tam,p0.111 aoldo.q1) jo int..).)ds looo.ol ):4 poopuoti1 ttotimpossv jo asotil sl000mool) ium .Ht apostit III Ho.; 111 otu '10.10.00.1 1113XVIVIS ao .va avvoiaz 'oissaiv.a .voaovvia moisisia ao auvamaxvia atv avvamons ..moiavoaav aivuoiv 'Lama auvasissv ..voaavvia slam vaava lvvaszo lassaoo -slx 11110S 3110111V3 33N31133NO3 NV1V 'LLIAVO 3AI11133X3 '/I1V1311 MX IVO/ VIVLS liortaoo 10 3110111V3 '100113$ ..samvaivasivaans asv vatiava vla vaan Trato -avvia 101 30 1V13341S 'SL33101141 IVNOILV/I 311013 IVIOILV311413 VOILVI3OSSV 01111.113S3113311 3110111V3 '11331131131NO3 V 13KV41

VAI 'MSS:11 I 1111: 10.11:A1r6.1 1.1 ^4m.ssaivou dol.huti) Jo all no!s!.tm jo A..11:111amoia S.,opowas uoi.o:onird jo tij ootiatoj 11011i.11 sl MO OA 0I1011 .p) IIIJON0 .1.../110.31: JO j stlotism pojttl_i .salt:is I 311:011S .10J ) )1:, J11011 100110S 2u1p1ipt1t uompo g.111.11111111110.) moy: jo popv.t simitoa.;qami I ILIA% Joatoapjs !um ati japi loot oi )9 '11(11011 00JA.1 usit: wpm pugs -platilap:Is Iv sp. tmstitotio.) Napasow- 1)111: 1 lEm aomstIt: B".% wonl) -sue)! I itit: °sit: tuotu pouRop wo1ld/14; 41.1pim I S.1111J1100(ISAI 4St.0117.61 .141 110.1011110 IU 01111 '10.10JA1 '111:111.111:1D .10111:110S "11:1,1 1111011)1At -.1101)..)0f110 S111101110414S '.111 1.10111J111 111 01IJ 11.10.W.1 )1I 1)11) JO ..i1101111JSil.111(.i ".1(1 .1.01SS:V1 0.10k11 .11111111111110 .1110 SAW11 110 010 1101:U1000 JO aqi t000toota Ali inn: .i.IU itowootri lay 101111 .1.1100 11:111 'SAN I 11110.11 .0111 011 1: At0J Sp.10.tt )110111: M011 .1010 S1001(J4 11.111111110 A:1:S 0.111 III J1111 111131.1.1 SI:aa oti) itoi.jus Lgiotioo stootios .a.%1:1( )soul S(nottotio., a41:Joi to Inman Shall 111 all) 451:11 10111: 5110 SI111:1110.1 MU) '.1:100; Jsomi 04; lood.od JO [iv papooi 111 Ill:1011 WIC .11)1111G Sip 1: *5110.1 (1! siootias .4.11:0X (1:11 1: 11III 1101( ::1(1,11/114:4 .0.10 iL(III.) 'a!lottivi Ui lat1111 '0.1.111.\\ I:01) 0.1 4110.118 51109141 JO OIL) uctiollvmpo JO '1111110J s.1101)I:x 'satl!.) Spiratt 1)4111:1III:Aint 11104(t: os 10i(.,s 0.).11)1[., AIR th)110.10.) soolps JO iiimp 40..hiad tt! otioti)u) siout(ds 0.001103 mow 01 ,4lltit)00J }mu .)!(01(4):) saapiro) posy..).0fx.) at!) iouys splapiw .10Aimptio 0) puu(lx.) 0).1.0{1:0.135 otign(1000 .p.-411(4 11tt.)!.1.)0t Ito ..!lott pugs :Suti.ma.l .1.(1 011.1.siomp5 sdotislti .1111110011.1s a14l:111:.1111 04 ato iood 11.0111411i11:.1 s1 1: DISIN pant .00001 4.01.1005 OS .00 opsJ l0 Atht S -411po0ft st -.0118001,1mi .)% 4.01110:.) III .0110 1111010J1Ip4 11104S5 1411Unt) Si.r.i.tod 553111u .0.0t ,i.idigat: lPftlalt(Ol00m.01 014.t .i.(113111011110:11 -J1-% 1101 J,J JR1 .:00(1 pm: .illtilaxlso J0,1 ..4014)10t1IIII .0.0% 3.1;' t/1 %MO SII4.11/(1111 arlsima. s1/111 .11041:1111111.1.1*111.10 S 11:J0111 amp:J.0ml j 1011W.) 1111011.15 lu 111 tqa.al .1.111HII.) I 11 r. ,1.),)11.. 1:1111011 .0111:111 al sitiosS:: J.1 1ittp05 501.+1101 pm! andsap 1..quit 01411040j limn :41.1011.1 III mil a.m.) :311r110:11.... 111,),J0.) spr.r.) 11.000.0...)11) 0011111111 0.,111 dql ii:pos III s!1!) uo.n: -Imp !),) tutio!luoti 1)11 pos!..uox.)(Illis.wpoo( 11:11.1.1l1.:10 WO: .11) SU)) .104)1.11111100LIIS o4saIrt 0) S11.10.01: )!.11 If .1110 1:01)1 :41 JO) aoI.1.10:4 1011: p/011l4l1111110.) -.10d(10J44110.ai (Immo.; 0.9sti): 11131091:dllpa 'SW1:41041(10 to) .4)1)).111j ) .15.01 1(.1/11. J. pal aAk .1.1.01 S.1:1)0) III ll11 Wok) S)11:0:4 -11/110.),IS 1101111110.) 11)1.t0 alp jo all) .1%1E)Ilal11.11:1 puc JO og) iuu09Eti 11:011i9 WI( 11.) still us! )titt.)utitIfts putt tio!ivistitoi 0) ati) polio 0) p!!! .1.(it:00!)c.)01),) po;1140trApt:s!!) juitpodt!!! :s s..:0!)! .1.10)0j 01,x1-11.) (001 off .10.1 .1.10(11 11(1!1)(1(1.1 .10j J(i) ral: 1).11:A10) 'ali) alp lot 1.191109.1 .10J a:011) SO(1j) poIpall1) Siii:009umtpo JILL i1:,10110.4 ()) oppomt (11111).) 41(10 Tor:Ron:Aim mu -.10 piirt) .10j 011 of( Town:(ix.) 11)71:0.:Apus!!) .10J Silt) (1091:X .%.11100,))s 001p:001rd ly Si !iv pow .1.0 OtI :oilllplA0.111 0:4.0)1.10J 'tilloball )1 041 I:M.10.1 ILI put: )! ppnis pJ 0.10111 1.111:111/111: 11111011S :ppm.) ihniapt:wq 0) opuidt!! dolt:ALT': 14.1,90100 JO Si(uu0t)uottpo p ! p 1:4111:.% L '06 alp '../110I1)1:j .710!A*J!Is.)) a.wjaq stip .)0)0.00110.)904 II! ;TO It1.11.10.1.1 10tH -(111S 110,) od0.).1.).) (MMUS p0)./0t1(111S A.1:1)tol 11 Aix(ttniti .pod )v ) oti ow .)It!!) p1uosa.01 .toj 001)!Liap!s110.) 110 um JO smoi(10.1(i Itt00.1,),)00.) .)ti) 1101)1:dp!).it31 opp)!itlx) sismi jo a!plud0011 ibmplltialootps Ul asmi) 'slunaPtAid j0 a1)(1l.gli) -.1.1:1)0) SV all: I:Mt: ',Li 'AN '111:111.1p:(0 .411105 S)))9 JO alp 1101)11(Sliii0) 'ant 1111.1 -s!u!!!!pi: ihkia)sii!!!!!)!.: 010.1.1 .)111 opus pool sto.i pint attior; 1.".1!1' "'di ''".11() ""(1!0"tilq..1" 5.11 ').":11 4.19!std ) Jo aAt Pm: ssoi somio!ao(lx.) iiltm 'twit s.)(k ui:A.40.01 .!)!sod Niols Putt -inti ).%!:ti th)lio. .cistioptio!ostio) Spuo.)!!!s II)!At -pout .10j 1 .111 (1:1101.) siumuo mid tutm .il!(!q!sliodso.i -Jidtu! 110111:11km! Jo) 01i) JO mu *S1111t.I.Vo.1(1 . JII 5tn.)111.11.1MO IHIp oAt et( to)(101a)p: 01 .11).0110.1 )1: ,/S011) Sio)A01 1(N)11a8 nali/HIU) 110 poqllaal(1 110I)1:dt.)9.1141 JO 11011)1:.) IIC St9I) JO mil A1 oati Ill: apil:W11).) SIralt) .4)10:11 si:A% ati) powt 10 at() ii)!A% 1 .)I( 710!put:)s.lopt!!! )nip giacJi.) paihmoomi ti! sso,i.Zuoj )cif) osoti) apti!.)!).1141 .1;ia.%!).).)11.) inO sitituiltutl .1110 am: :40!).10(1,L1 .1110 s.)910.w1) 0) tio.i putt :109tiasaul At .%%OU s110!)u(Io1000.1.1.1 os0111 00.1a.) sitout:tmoull a:11 114.)41 po.!.1.11: 2.342

through our experience in attempting to facilitate the implementation, ofthe.Elementary and Secondary Education Act for Catholic school 'children at the national level anti through consultation with a broad- based group of Catholic school adniinistrators who are attempting to facilitate this participation at the State and local levels. I will now direct my reinaki; to individual titles of ESEA. I will addresS specific problems with respect, to these programs and give recommendations for legislative remedies. Title. I. aimed at correcting the injustices of educational disadvantage. has been of great value to children in Catholic schools. Congress should not, permit. any departure of effort from this area. More adequate fmuling is needed. The conditions which prompted the enactment. of this title have not, changed significantly. At its present level of funding. title 1 Inis nutde a beginning and has proven its value. We should cont nine in tins direction. Serious problems exist. for Catholic school children in many parts of the country who are eligible to participate in these programs but, are unable to participate or linable to participate effectively. With due consideration for the main- excellent. experiences Catholic s1m)1 administrators. have had in working with their public school counterparts. the following problem areas have surfaced 1. Programs for Catholic school children and teachers in some areas of the country are not comparable in quality. scope. and opportunity for participation to programs for pulilie 'school children. 2. Catholic school officials in sonic areas of the country are not involved in the total planning process. a. Programs for Cathode school children and teachers in sonic areas of the country are not comparable in per pupil expenditnre to pupil school children. 4. Local educational agencies in many areas of the country are ineffective in assuring that Catholic sly,of :ciildren are keeeivingeqnita- ble benefits tinder title These !mildew represent serious obstacles to the effective and equitable participation of (Catholie sehoolchldren in title 1 programs. We have been unable to resolve these issues tulministrativelv. Congress has clearly indicated its intention that nonpublic children share (41114:4)1y in programs tinder this legislation..1f,' this mandate us to have its fill] effect, we recommend that a bypt,,ss added to title I. This Wonld provide the.. Federal Goverinnent with an adequate mechanisni to remedy situations which cannot 1 e restAved la ally If the State educational agency is either linable or unwilling to provide services to nonpublic. school :children and teachers on an equitable basis, the law should grant the Federal Government the necessary, bylss ,authority : to provide :those services directly' or through some intenneditiry agency. An example of a provision that. would accomplish this objective is the bypass language incorporated in sections 132 (h) (1). 132 (b) (2). and 132 (b) (3) of 11.11. 69. as improved; recently by the General Subcommittee on Education of the IT.S. House of Representatives.

The 191'2 and 1973 reports of the National Advisory Council on . the 'Education of Disadvantaged Children have recommended the addition of a bypass provision to title I. 11 e urge you to consider this 5011 5.1.11.1.1.45 au: .1110 .1111 50.1(5.) INAN uri asalp Art111:11. rtitpw:lit 111:5111 1:1111U y01)1.10.1(1 01 1 .14 111:111110 .i111:1111 1141 JO 1111101 11 .1.1051.1 0510 .1111:111 I: J./111111111 -0.111 JILL 111.c 1( 11.1111(.) 51.11 1101 05 i1.1115111 .111 papa I OA 101101 511:5011 .10J 151111111111: 111.1 .1.1! 111111. 502 1.11111 1001105 kb/Al/111p III J111111 HO III: .V11:11111 5151441 JO .911111011011 11111.1.110.111 J spi 1 011! 1).11 .115.4110 imm. 0509 .snotinim,nowoo,L, 111X 11:1101 )1111 !$.1.11 11lal1 511011.1.15 JO ,1111 J0 ''I$ S.10....ITV ,.I5,11111 I SIM/ILIA 11;11111n) .)4( 1.11111.111 III .1111 11.10.1.1.1 110111.111:11 11110 ()At .1111 1N.1 1101511.1 JO awl II Jo 115 S.1111.1111,113 .0110.1 1.1041111S 1 11.10111 504 ;Tutu S.11111110,)ais 11:.11111:,1 1101 'WV 511(1. 51 .011: 10 '.1)1( .10j .1111 mud Ji:(1l.)!uot JO -.411o4510 11,1.1141110 tio!s!Atud pluiltak, lootps pug ..43,),10,) artiuom: 11u a Jo uoputii.)!),o:(1 JO a!plild000 .1.4015 1;;161 6,1:11 11.1.111 111.1.1.1.111 JO 1 45011 '0111171114 1O.11111-S1J11IS .1114 1:4 tue.LI Tim° 111.1.1.14d JO 4111 1-1:1 .11101t;1:. II:05.1.)0111 11.1.6,1.1115 111 1.1.)11 JO mina.tall 041:11 10011.)S Jo 111.011):1 114; 50010.111 II.. 10 110 ma_ nii!.imis IOW '1.101H 51110.19 III) nopit.ntirA papti 011 polouv)op.) -fint (1.1nto ond Jo owl .10 todNa., 11111(4 s';f11!41:3 5.111.5.1,11151.1.10J 1 .10 11 .1 S1:11 1)01)0.).).11114 .10J .(111111011 (0011.)5 110.11111.11. a5111:0041 110 111: 5110151A01( 01 .1.1115111 1.1.111.1 1:11 1.1 110141111p! a111:311160 .111:111) I .1110 1.1 U01 U1 5151:11 .1.1,4.11 11.1.11 OM um! imittpo -tioul:Lsviat J1 111i it.411.11 .1.1.1M .1111J 11110 1S1101111 11.1).111,1 SI: 11 51 111 al41.5 511111.1.741.111 Se '511111.1:10.1(1 .1110 11.111.%0 II 15.4 11411111 .i9)0 !plum pom(:0)1111.14( 3..(t:iiimit,)13 pug 5J1 dvilmp!stio,j ssa.ago.oI u,),x1 opuni '1111 JIj1 )1SUI Si ).11: put II) .1 num; aoldoso.) 11.1.11)1110 Ail: 2o11l11m.1 nq slots( 'pa4!1111.1 04 0114 14,10041 0.11: Wit; 'Hu .).)11.155a JO n ..41111:1:0.1 1111Lato.o.1 riolp.io,ov jo oo9nni):1 1:9 itio.uad Jo ;11191:(1t.)9.11:(1 151(1 110110.1 Jilt/1.411115111 ,)ILL .105.),m!1 Jo too(ps Rmi!I say JO asaJowp.iv Jo Emdiaingtild 95,14 pa9 .ioj ,)(1; 5E3 .1!fo(1 oopc!Arssv ,n(j ichmiao -qn$ aalipoino.) 110 oopeoutrA Ju .ou aStiol JO sa.uptplasallIall Jaye.) 5p14 atis pap:js juti) atis loot' Svititis Ii! Juoitiv:_) sloops o.iatti lo poi: !mom snoo(i s! Slue 09 lna.uotIl Jo alp 1 OI1 1111 1E110! 11.1111111115 ..141:5s V191111:15 111111 111040 1111,10.1011 JO 11,10.1.1./11 51114 51 11.11; '510011.IS ammo 11.140do1 J1 Ill: 11.1.1.111 42 '.1.1112111 111 .nij jsmood OA 5501 oult; x15 14o1oi .11(4 J001111/1111) 0(491 aril, 'sr," ;11101111:.) 11(0 0411.1.1.1 5s.l01/11,1 ',111111/1.11/1: 111 &)6 11011111(( .10j ji s! pa1u1195,) 41:114 j! 51111 011!4 ..10.1A pal/1111J pun mops -no 10059 .1114.1 1 01; .10.10 st no!litm S.11:411ainap S.11:1mo.)as 98' 11,1p1IIS gloop ignom 411.11.111 '41: ,6111'.1.1.111 .1.111111111.RINJ JO J.xI JO 1101 galls 111: a :1111111.10.1.V 01 I: S.111 4.1111() 111.111K.1 airupso 11111,141 'aaatiosal ma)! Ally 111110.11 41115.1.1 1111 ...rsua.i.m! Jo in-, 110!wol .) !111u pint.k1 511:1.1Ni:111 11 .1111111111.% 04 Pu1 *S10011.1S.3l11111(1111011.7111l1111J111: JO 11.015 1111 119./11.111 1101.411./11h) till.111.)11 aitiinjouadlx,) 0du12 .thmini! opm, 111 st otot( Jo tuoinossootdas Vootin: 'auottjej lumps mom qv dllotunj.lo9da.ni! oaippyiotps pan:101011 s.io4c..a JO .)1414 pulps -tip.upu g1(11:1111)1 II! MO 5111014111 sun.thaid atioyto Kio4Iu;s1 Ida.; 0114 mil u.ni,u1 11 01,otio,) Jo innotwatipa 1 U01411301111! 1)111f 111 Jllpl SJ.1911111:.1.410.111 IIC .%11.11'11: 1)01(10(11.11.)110141!)11J1111.14d:Va -JOdUll 1111:1 Hopoltrs jo snopos 1:11014cdord -Loops 4111 p.)11:111..), :40.1,)11,9 4) op!) I] Hi; .!Iotip,) om:11 Iuu (1,,H1 oz!paa J. s! ooipu IIi owns sopsours o!lotit:L).loj -oopucip!.).m1.)!Iquili;ou ill oil) 11,61 131!.%.11:11 poIlo FOO141:.)111).) 01:411111 Jo ,'(III I I I Sc .140%0 JIM( JO I I I -OW Sat;,,) lilitp110(1:4).1 0111:11-.)-11111, .111 11:1101110111),) ,J.O:(11111 JO 010 ,61)00.7rt,. [)II )1100.10(1 11101140X0.. V 111.11IM OM 1),)).[Mo.) poIlL)11)111 iet11 Vo(l: -oOIII1 S.IO).11:11 JO i1114 )11011410 100II);; Ill all) 11091:S 11:10 .11010 110141:411O1).11:41 tll 0119 III

SUM . si:(1 110og a.)1101.1,Rix,) dim.; ll l stomato.ol pittcjsiiltmloti ;Ito oil) 6961 Ill0111)11o1111: Sp14.01 010 110111M I1i1110M1 -IA0.141 uois pttqi! tijtm spI) tiots!mmtl p,,Intaut1 juti1 otigtO111011 110.1(/1111.)1011.0S 011:1110111111 ,IS.1111 SIM:A:ill/Ail 11111 S1114 1111.1 OS1111.011 0111 -1111,1 110111:(11111.11:(1 Seth 1h*A0.1111111 SA 111() 110111:0 SR1( 110041 11111101110.1 010.11 5111) .19 4111 '.W111 Jo 0A1 00%1:11 poutijuo otuos stitopioatl :rfututia.1 atij tioutult..).s.ottl outittatiott !mops ut )!).oputt got .111 JAI mat..w.1 osati) stuaitio.ol st: .p.outo.ol ',).%!ut.ust.tipttpt: ut ctt(11tt ;Ho ['mai jo *S'il 0.4110 11:.)1111:,1 not Sc (10M I: III 0111 ,11111S WIC 111,41/1 11:1101111.1110,1 .%.)11,7111 'sla).91 10110114ir spi) A-.1t,tp;91,4 totti tioatt ttam.tm los!Aaa tij!m Hij ttot,11:tIptAtittl jo dtitpultiou IuutlOS it,pti.) apt.u.pti! ..t PO.; 11:11 PI! 1110 JO g)li '! 1 'SP ILI SI:11 4011 I tithM Int nu S5A17:1(10j Itriall S paIllattla 0.,11 0.VI:11 OIL 11:1SGIOI OM. SI10!)1:1)(1O1111110JI 410.1 4 S!li I )! .{)1 1 lilt J1 ..W.1 S I: Oat {S114 ..)A% U111100)I1114 .tit th40(100141 Si S111.1410.1(1 o41 post:id o) 11.1on ,TILL 61.1A putifutpii tiot.wourA 9 att.) 4s,t)Itto.n JO saw) II! .4-111w!Attul ,10.1 otu ttoptaim4.1141 jo )pp.rgq,) tioapplid tit :14u1uotr 0) 110w:111.10.1u! oo!upio !Lo.IJ 0114 ".".1i0 JO Yj 6110!)UJII Atm!), A.liti.uno 133 :44.).40.111 1/.111111J 11111 01111 '111.A. 0110 I/J.11)11119 11(rip-.1)110.11S Ju 050111 Sl.)40.11I SO2'.61:01 .)111111(1 1.0011.IS 11,.11111110 .1.1Al5111XJ 1111101111/1/11 S4040.111 11)111.1111 1:441; 011.11 [W.1[111110 1)110111! .1111111111011 S100I1JS Jo "Ll. 0S, .11(11.711:1111)./S11) ut .1101.% jo soo!p:Awio .wootssoomoj jo uot(u.)opa )t11 pool s0i;g)711i: t, quosto. oopt:(109.11:o jo ,outitoloou lootps z.05 Kj -Iii ,Lituoitioq Jo tij sawo 11041 otitiod000 loo sicpwo soto ih.%I0A ut ti) :411i!tomitl fu spoioul ll sit: 5011:4s imp -tuoj .lituotssitti Snot gt.w.ithit.: sp40.141 .quo j! tuistAtuad sit,' Haag ,)utti Joj ,)II} tutit.)!).ottl 'tot Jo prtl(a .liquotiou lootps Jo oti) ulturd stiow.)!pl(Itt posit .:41 s1 owo -Nova 'two oat: pojs-oobal ul op!Ao.k1 itoj lio!pouojot -o.w000d ,)III ti.t,xlutnu put: popotix tiowl!oljacti Jo pool owiliduou temps 'o,uputi.) Jo Ai.) suotjt:a!plit: a.w.uldtt Jo.; poCo.ut siut:JA Japutt Aq 111 '1 .s aagjo jo 6110!)ttottpa op jou 1111:11.10,/ dI11 as paIsottl, tit '10114i:owl o);citit,Ittpu uott put dt autpuluott 10011d5 1.I0.%10.%111 it! ate; -1110 ;Itutt jo ;rt() swlo.al putt j pinom ax1t1t: pup tij ittoot ptuoti:Jupo soptio-o: tut ).% flu tio!Itiolt Jo Itnp!Aottl ati).toj tumytIp.itul Jo ,ott01i4 .1d4/1111110 spu, .tuolo .toj suos!Ao.id jo owl jjA uo 1,11:(1 L;.w( 11410111:3111J SJI311,01 1)1111 )I(. 0011110 JO 110111110111):4 as 1101 110 1),)itIO.W.Ill )3010 1 311(1pip11) 515111101(11:iim .1i11111.10.1 -11i)11.1 simus JO) oil(111(illoti 10)1101-; 11,)31)11.1C) 011.1, 111,11111 J() ss,),iiiii()) (I) -0.1(1 01)!.t Jul 0113 okti.3013,) 01(111p11),) 14)1.311(11..)!3.10(1 J() lumps ilikli)Hip II! osoill .1mi:41.011:S1:11 110,)41 .i15114)1.1.1s 1aluanwidun .41 11:001 imiolwottpo 'S.)!.)11,);11: .1011 .%.1(inii0:41:0.i p03.010.1(1 *.,;il ;):1110 Jo 110111%)111):1 -J111111 0A1 1111 11:11.1 1101111 141 i1JU111J (1) ..).%0Ii).1 Slit) .,).)(0.,)) (I) .111(111(1110u :11.1 poss4).141x.) um .30 I a.1 pap11,11111110;10.1 ')11 55o.1;11103 011i, ."41II!.%%0110; 5a.;1111:tp Iu all!) A I it f.rjA 110)..1[011.11:0 : c111,j, Atlq UM'S ..11."),)(I5 1 11:11 ;HO lit)9t:(1!.)9.11:41 J0 01/101,) -11011 :)!piltd !mops tlimpipp) put: saati.,1:,)1 II! am; IA I sloolo.of .110 to: 0101114!ula .stsmi 6 'mil .111:1 pinov .311111 oil:1.1(1(11(N1: ..mvitiduou 100113s .wo 51111;) o1r.(1!.)!;.11:(1 II! alit iti011111s1141111s.) pm: il0onliiimial(1111! JO ')1414 11.1A g3Jac01(1 'OIL', .1,1110155l111111))j Jo 11011._111[1:4 1)11101[5 all 10.1111110.1 of al[11111 1111 IMMO!! 111110.1,01 01 O11.1 111?1.1110.01(1 1110010,) 5,),)4 Jo 1 ,it1 S;0.1;11100 110 111 '):411 Jo 1 0[11 11A st)1111J Slip 211141100.01: 1)111011S 01)11(;)11! 1: -lltIOS opLI '41.1J)X0 JO 11011 111,1111,)11!1S Jo oils MI 110111Nilall.1 10 al(II.21110 51.1(10(1 11.),11)11.11.) Iu 51.1alo,O1 1)01)1111J .(1 Sill) .4.1!) 1)111: Jo) ,01$ 01l11i Jul Jo spun.; i)almodx0 uo gaits ,gotij, suo!suptiat9ttio..),u poploop.a.u.: ii! alto 11:11013111)1: 1.1111 osiu spun.; suiluri0.lt1 Onomis 1.),).1!1) 1101411;)!Iddi: 0; aq; o.9110 Jo 110juallir4 ;)..401(1 0.1I: 10.11)011) .m(N uo!;11:).o.ol uo!; uo!pujsuoluoi) iOnotuiv a.t% op: ..3011 au:it sa.m...11; ,111.1.1oj 110!;11(11..d1.111(1 jo oti(indium sum.I.Voad plum spis .01.0 im% poi IN; opsmi; 'bump ,minti 3011 'wog Slaymbapi: Papt.to.1(1 .1oj II! )I 11001u1ouloitluil Jo .)Ill 5111r.L;10.1(1 0.A% aap!slu).) 11! sttii ;4i.1! 0) .111 01)!A .10.1 011.1 0.t90.)110 -cdpv4.1u(.1 110!3, 110 till 01(11;$!01,0 J0 a1I(it14111()11 144011:4s 11,).1puti0 to osalo

, ."40.1(1 .suic.1 pail saimipt10.) 11011111t1.)saml JO .1114) sa.)110!.10(Ix,) 011.1 Jo silo sa1l:J.7103(1 oqj .i.11:$110!1141;.1 1)11I: .i.1111)110aos 110!$1:041)A y 111111 .1110 sliouipmommoz1,1 .10J i)A14111141;71.4 10I.1.)11 I 1)1110M Mill 01 LIIIit111104.1 .1110 ;)!smi p1111 o1.14 $404.1411is .10J J 311 1111!II:nii!$0():: aq3Jo 011 Onoitily .1110, 11010:(1!.)1.1.11:(1 i:t! 110041 ..10.1;0:js!psmi Iii 'i.ituos Imam: .100(1 III II Aw 1.),)(1sA1 ii.)11111 11:110!ii:.)111).) '.watiaq 'twat) .iiii:!0041,) 'tia.ipipp slut imjitts0.1 wo.ij siiii -s!.."101 stiu, 5! 111: 0ii:I.1(10.01(1 3110iim.usli! .10j spii 11401:x U.1 0stt ti!..Aits joatilos :4.3! i*.;0111 misosavillt).1 smovio.R1 : .41 1)01011s paniqiim.),:xi 1! 041.1)0mi:4 Sia.41101)ap1: traptinj Jit() sliolopu.)011110,),),I 11.10(1 ,)10:01 !IJ!.%t II .).1!sop 03 Allis'', 31181 mu 390tiaq im.tpaps! sum.i."410.1(1 J ia0.1 -x4(10.11104100 s.).%1 oi SIlti '3.)11 IaUJnlu pm: 41:4(1 as,ou sumjsa."41:41fts .4s!ssi: .110!..)1:411a11101(1m! JO -11; t4tualgo.ol i o.t1:11 :mug .;/.1s,1) 044010 imjualp: 1IJ.tLi tuatti ssa.u1110,) 110 iit.to.vas it.).)0su015 Suottills.)),11! 0.10.1.4 stti$ 11111: .101i1u 1c11o!ssa.121[10.) sa)j1(11m110.) Itiatualcii;) 1mmatuiti0001 011 411)1141t!0(1(111 10.vai-S0!10(1 011(11011011 loops iumuo J0 t4 OLj 0;90 11001:.-.)111)'.1 y .11:1!m!ti 1,10!ormatullui.)..).1 s1:9 lia441 01>r111 Sci 011,4 s.liwp!saad IaUCJ ' nO 0!1,(Ituluox 110!.)1::)tipa Dm: 019.4({, itnith:jux ipuno:).i.sos!..ti)y 110 09 911:7,

1101411.111H J1/ I 14).-41:1111:.11/1:S1( ) 110.11/111i, 111 511 V.1.61 11011S 111: [1:1,4140 111110.1k A.,11(011 '1111/111110(0,Wil '.411I11111:111 111111 110S.111:1[ ati 11J..1M 'OW1111111011 Si001pS IMI: 0114 [11.11/0.4 .411o11111.1).09 AI plow% 115((((1:45.0 t: Jo tomsA's riopootioto outitoluou pulps 4.iu(1 11:111,m not Ill luaopo.1 lull ()Loom 04 11541411.4.so ludtipo suou,7,10.1(1 pm: dioti .'.l11ssodou .0.1115111 '41 .o1i4 pooptiltio: outtoi.) ol :1(4 1109u11!.)!4,1):11 jo otopolt1011 uoappipioot(os II! pao1)o.4 potipo 110! stouarithol s! pogo oA1 pot: -I:111110 'ON .1/N1111110X 100110S 541104/1141 pillOM 001(1 JA1:11 11191M [1:.11/IWA 4/11.1 0.111 1)1(1 Op 011 M011 JAIN .1 041(iS)(, .0111 41:[ pt) 4 Sltill1911111 jo lomias.o.ppoluoti 5411,0011 aoj put' 1:111,4 out III .itnou .stut:az'oad ,,nu, (woo .10J ((.01114 4540 s! 4stup par:a .iti ano .711opoo.uol 1s.04 I/1(4 SI1114110.10 4a11(1 .qaulttol ti4tm pau;loa 04 , ).11:1( pa4.1.0(loa -11.1o.moo )111 s')W4 1 I 1 1m" '1I_ 111 i1110,/,/(11 .11/t 7/61 MD o.4410 jo 11(Y111:mire' ()Joss! u South! 40oukt41:414 04 4:111,) ,t4u4s lootias sao)!Ilo J11(0111100 Lumps -s!tipopt: s.lolua .11111.ilatt 511.045 04 oansto 'o1ip:4!ti1.)o laud tioputl!o! Jo oppoltuott loops 5411,40114s II! luaopoA son:A:load ,IOJ !pop Solo n .,,p4!;1!lo ()(U )iii( 04 4!oulos 511(4 40,1111ov:45 aoj oil pao.ma '1111111.111110 41 to 4.141 ug* .01(4 .s.ii oolljo Jo :4 41:oo0 uo! -!suotisoa 41(1(1 A' 04 oausst: 411(1 mil 549o11o0 jo aoj 'lotto% .14141111two tioappii.gootps oat: opprluo oat: opuut .iiinj ,)plupt:At: 04 tidos ...tioapp14.: oikt 1110:111(11: 4.10410 ..toAomoti -worm' oikt olloti 4 luti sr ,ou0 jo to!ludnivel 10.11 t1t:4 .qsto!aos li uopuloiiaoop :;5041:4s 1).041 to x11(4 04 JO 111ttpituaotoato oAottiou 4util oo.utop 011.9mA Hui Jo 4196111,) o!plutluou soloptos ti,)!Iim Si pootthaa .iti :mut s! U .0.%14(5(x1 moo uo!otota 04 1: ;Itossoall tooploall jo 4sootopt: tio!0.1 4ui1 Hos sot:Au: oAtstiotioadt000 .sotioututlilt: llj o4A'tioti1115 oaujoil 5!ti4 4potuo.Hitts oo4 ut .1.0.6t 'S' .4101[11:3 O./110.11110j pO55./.111X1) 1441. 415011(k) (WI ,)1(4.04 W011101:110 JO .)1(1 4S111101 5 .11010,1 110111:MI10 11:1./t115 1/11110.0.1 ;1111.11:11S 11111 55.0(11(1 11 /a/411111111 Jo 1-10.4111:1[./ 0.1c/A1 0441:.1011.10./III 0111 .104111 14100110S 4.)%. .1:2,6 pooptuitts 4 oti lua4s!totopt: .110! pp J011 'pupil! .)t(4 -1110oo.1 stio9uptiolo oputo oouoaojoto pm: alio osod uo sou luistnoi 110! suti '4011 porhiutio luau ol14 001115011 11:4 (l to 12,61 dlAt 0.11:1[ 11041:1 011 110III50l1 110 .0t(1 S41./0111 JO 11011upt1OS110.) Jo oosoall luo4.10,1a4uo ti1:A.7;0m1 110!4upio5l0o ao.w.tu)14 'quoits 'pivot olunbopt: otos!.wall .140.4 o.t14oam0 4.1 ito!.;talto! 110 to: opluottho sist:11 Jo .1(tin1111oll 11,1.11)ptioproti5 (iv opluluxo Jo u iotspoao pop pitom opp:4111h1 4.tud utlia! to!4 s! 1100,,,11 ills jo 69 1" q)! sum Auti000a 0o4a1011oa tuoaj 1iuotio.:1 oa4loottiootitts 110 uo!luottpri JO mil .s.11 ,)5110.1 Jo -lotuasaa(lou .s,..).%! 41 Si .1110 .ntopouls.loptin .oni4 alp 4sootopt: 11014u.1 sasodoad oi -two ,qupios ptto.41:JoA (low:Jura 4.)v st: 4.1u(1 Jo to: iituaAo kpuostioo 110!4 JO .c.irolotoolo pot: .i.optio.hts -soluazo.ol 1101stAoad ,suti 'wog oputo .IOJ tio!0:11!.9.1t:(1 jo u,kwittpiootids pot: :o4 S.,11(.) to 1 ooat! Jo s!til .ii.11111111 sotal j tio9oas (u)R-.1 (t) v) ( (I .i.luidoloxo slut:4710ml put: 9 o44u,1,1(100o putio!41wo.t -umtp,) 4 ton 'sun:A.7;0ml tat osati4 .stimaloa(1 4.10.4 o,1010.1,(4 001 Itio.moti luaopod s!;ItoputIJ -o.id 1op!A ut 1/10 4111/S0.111 110111:LS12101 11J/111" SI I: Stial)11 1301.11111110,) .110J 2347

. . lic svoOIt lchildrett , stiriur 1111' 1`11111t111111' 11111 !VIVA 1011 of clig.ible nonpub and teachers. AVe do not, take any position, on the merits of consolidating theVo- eational I.:duration Art. Any :ronsolidation, however, should retam the existing provisions to insure the p:trtiripat ion of 'eligible uoneuh- and t1.:,(.19.s. Tiws. lo. rnons should :11 50 1'010 111111 to I'Vr1,1V1 10 1lrrrent Fel Ivnil funding. In any legislation 10'06111114r L..1401'1111 :1111 10 I'lementary and SeV01111:111-y 4`111118t 1011 :15 cell as any legislation providitor for the equalization of school timince, the U.S. Cat hol iv Con ferenee feels t hat. such legislation should reflect the following prineiples with l'eg'11 111 to 11001011)111' SeI1001 part 11'111:It 1011. 1. All elementary and seronday sehooleltilden should 1)e. counted equally in determining the amount Of I.'ederal aid to he provided. .2. The amount of Federal aid provided for nonpublie s4.14t)olchildtvn should he proportional to the number Of such eltildn.ti in the school populat ion as a whole. The kinds of services provided slmuld be limited to tlitose which are enlist it iit ionally permissible. 4. A bypass provision should be 1111'1101Pd to 11161111V :11111'111)116111 of nottplililie sehoolehildre» in those States %%1601 are. prohibited by law or where there has been a substantial failure toprovide these services and to insure nonpublic school participation in those school districts w1...11 for some reason 414) not. particiate in the Federal program. inally. Mr. Chairman. we have often pointed out that. the. issue. of equal 441110:1t 1011111 0111)101 111111y is a moral one, closely related to the larger issue. of racial equality. In securing the right. of all children to equal edurat i4)11:1 I opport unity. tensing, 111 1401111. 111Stalleeti. is an essential tool. AVe, are ollposed t4) any legislation which %vould rest riet. tIxest rights. The use of busing as an inst roment to achieve those goals and to secure enactment. of such legislation %v4)11141 10e a s4.ions setback to the quest. for racial just lee and equal educational opportunity. Mr. ('hairman. I thank you very much fOr providing this opportunity to testify before the sit committee., At. the conclusion of Mr. 1)efeos statement. my colleagues and I will be happt:. to answer 11 Ily questions that. either you Or the members of the subcommittee have. Senatt. 'Iltank you for an excellent and it good strong statement. . (The prepared and suilettlental :404.1114.1as of Nfr. 1)'Alessio follow ] ni CLST %,. ht..

Statement of

Edward R. D'AlesSio,.Ph,D. Director Division of Elementary and Secoidary Education United States Catholic Conference

Before the Subcommittee on Education Committee on Labur and Public Welfare United States Senate

Wednesday. October 10, 1973 10:00 a.m.

Accompanied by:

Mr. Richard E. Duffy Assistant Director, Governmental Programs Division of Elementary and Secondary Education United States Catholic Conference

Mr. Louis C. DeFeo, General Counsel Missouri Catholic Conference

Rev. Frank Bredeweg Director, Special Projects National Catholic Educational Association

Mr. J. Alan Davitt Executive Secretary New York State Council of Catholic School Superintendents Mr. Chairman aid Memberg, of:the Subcommittee:

I am &Nara R. D'Alessio, Director of the Division of Elementary and Secondary Education of the United States Catholic Conference which is the executive agency of the Catholic Bishops of the United

States. I speak for the Catholic school community, including about four million children of widely varied backgrounds.My statement will be brief and to the point. Mr. DeFeo will also make e short statement.

At its conclusion, my colleagues and I will be glad to answer your questions. I am also submitting a more detailed statement which I respectfully request be entered in the Record, Mr. Chairman.

Before nuffining our views on the extension of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and other matters,I would like, to say a few words about how our schools are serving children in the urban areas of the nation.

Catholic schools have been most commonly located in urban areas in the past and this remains largely true today. Almbst fifty percent of all Cathol'c schools are located in urban and inner city areas.

Nearly half a million students are enrolled in Catholic schools in inner city areas where heavy incentrations of the educationally disadvantaged are found. In the nation's twenty latlest cities, nearly 2 of 5 school, children are enrolled in nonpublic Schools, of whom about eighty percent

&rein Catholic schools. '2350 UST COPY AVAILABLE:

Catholic leaders have expressed a commitment to continue

and endeavor to expand the service to nonpublic school students provided

by these schools. The American Catholic Bishops said recently,

Education is a basic need in our society, yet the schooling available to the poor is pitifully inadequate. We cannot breakthevicious cycle of poverty producing poverty unless we achieve a bi'eakthrough in our educational system. Quality education for the poor, and especially for minorities who are traditionally victims of discrimination, is a moral imperative if we are to give millions a realistic chance to achieve basic human dignity. Catholic school systems, at all levels, must redouble their efforts. in the face of charging social patterns and despite their own multiple problcms, to meet the current social crisis.

The educational and moral leadership exercised in this area by

Congress and by this Subcommittee under your guidance, Mr. Chairman. accords with our ideals of service and commitment to a greater opportunity for social justice throu0 equal educational opportunity.

We are here today in an effort to further these goals whichwe feel have much in common with the goals of the Elementary and Secondary

Education Act. This legislation is a significant part of the national. effort to aid the educationally disadvantaged And important to the nation's future well-being.

We feel deeply the necessity for more adequate funding for the

Act. particularly for those jitles directed toward the educationally disadvantaged. The federal effort to provide equal, educational opportunity for the disadvantaged should be expanded.: The Elementary and Secondary

Education Act is an effective instrument for this nation in providing for these needs.: It should be continued; it should be funded more adequately; it should be forward funded; and it should be broadened to effectively. include greater numbers of the educationally disadvantaged. . In testifyingbefore this Subcommittee in 1969. the United States

Catholic Conference strongly supported this Act. Today we reOfirm that

support. At the same time we presented for your consideration a number

of problems concerning the effective participation on an equitable

basis of nonpublic school children in these programs.Many of these

difficulties remain today.

As you are aware, Mr. Chairman, some Titles of the legislation

are administered from the state and local levels and some are administered

directly from the U.S. Office of Education. We have had positive and

less than positive experiences with both types of programs. We have

worked conscientiously and sincerely with local, state and national

officials who are charged with responsibility for the implementation

of the provisions of the programs. We have attempted to, remedy at these

levels the difficulties which have prevented effective participation of

Catholic school children on an equitable basis in programs under, all

Titles of. Act. We have proceeded with the understanding that it was clearly the intent of the Congress that these childrenparticipate

effectively in the programs.

We are now reporting our difficulties to you and presenting our

recommendations. These recommendations have been arrived at through

our experience in attempting to facilitate the implementation of the

Elementary and Secondary Education Act for Catholic school children at

the national level and through consultation with a broad-based group of,

Catholic school administrators who are attempting to facilitate this

participation at the state and :local levels. I will now direct my remarks to individual Titles of ESEA. 1 will address specific problems with respect to theseprograms and give recommendations for legislative remedies.

Title 1, aimed at correcting the injustices of educational disadvantage, has been of great value to children in Catholic schools.

Congress should not permit any departure of effort from thisarea. More adequate funding is needed. The conditions which prompted the enactment of this Title have not changed significantly.At its present level of funding, Title I Mai made a beginning and has proven its value.We should continue in this direction.

Serious problems exist for Catholic school children in many parts of the country who are eligible to participate in these programs but are unable to participate or are unable to participate effectively.

With due consideration for the many excellent experiences Catholic school administrators have had in working with their public school counterparts, the following problem areas have surfaced.

1. Programs for Catholic school children and teachers in some

areas of the country are not comparable in quality, scope

and opportunity for participation to programs for public school

children,

2. Catholic school officials in some areas, of the country are

not involved in the total planning process.

Programs for Catholic school children and teachers in some

areas of the country are not comparable in per pupil expenditure

to per pupil expenditure for public school children. 4. lccal educational agencies in many areas of the country

art Ineffective in assuring that Catholic school children

are receiving equitable benefits under Title

These problems represent serious obstacles to the effective

and ,equitable participation of Catholic school children in Title I

programs. Thus'ar, we have been unable to resolve these Issues

administratively.

Congress has clearly indicated its lotention that nonpublic school

children share equitably in programs under this legislation. If this

mandate is to have its full effect, we recommend that a bypass be added

to Title I. This would provide the federal government with an adequate

mechanism to remedy situations which cannot be resolved locally. If the

state educational agency or local educational agency is either unable or

unwilling to provide services to nonpublic school children and teachers

on an equitable basis, the law should grant the federal government the

necessary bypass authority to provide those services directly or through

some intermediary agency. An example of a provision that would accomplish

this objective is the bypass language incorporated in Sections 132 (b)(1).

132 (b)(2), and 132 (b)(3) of H.R. 69 as approved recently by the General

Subcommittee on Education of the United States House.of Representatives.

The 1972 and 1973 Reports of the National Advisory Council on the Education

of Disadvantaged Children have recommended the addition of a bypass

provision to Title I, We urge you to consider this change for the effect

it will have in ensuring that these services are provided to the educationally

disadvantaged. The National Advisory Council has also made a number of proposals: for administrative changes to ensure the effective participation on an equitable basis of nonpublic school children in programs under this

Title. We concur with thew recommendations. I respectfully request that pertinent sections of the Reports of the National Advisory Council be included in the Record. Mr. Chairman.

We strongly support the extension of Title II of the Elementary and

Secondary Education Act. Phis Title, more than any other, has made provision for the equitable participation of Catholic school children and teachers. The average rate of participation of nonpublic school children since 1965 has been 96.5 percent of those eligible.Ninety-three percent of the 132 Catholic dioceses surveyed by the Harvard Graduate School of

Education project in 1970 of The Effects of Revenue Sharing and Block

Grants op _Education rated the educational impact of Title II as "good" or "excellent" mwch higher than either Titles I or III.

Title 10 has succeeded for nonpublic school children because adequate provisions to ensure effective participation on an equitable basis were written into the original legislation. If our participation in other programs' were as fair and unobstructed as it is in Title II programs,.

Our overall testimony today would be unqualified praise for the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.

Considerable progress has been made by this Title, but the task is far from complete Children are reading but books are limited, and books are still the essence of a reading program. According to the U.S. Office of Education, 65% of participating districts report insufficient library resources. The Director of School Libraries of the Archdiocese of

Philadelphia testified fat' the Catholic Library Association before the

General Subcommittee on Education of the U.S. House of Representatives

earlier this years She stated that the present library book supply in

Catholic schools there, including old and worn books, is only 60% of

the state standard and about 25t of the accepted national standard. If

this is an averace figure, then many schools, probably,thoselocated in

the poorest areas, have less than six books per child.

The U.S. Catholic Conference endorses the adequate funding of

Title II. It is estimated that if this Title were funded at $90 million

for. Fiscal Year 1973, over 48 million elementary and secondary school

students would benefit at an average expenditure of 51.86 per student.

According to a U.S. Office of Education estimate, swch an expenditure

would result in an increase of 2.5 million library resources and related

materials available to children attending nonpUblic schools. The practical

'educational benefits of such an expenditure are very great indeed.'

Title III is a point very serious concern among Catholic school

educators. From its inception, Catholic school children have not shared

equitably in the benefits of Title III programs. Catholic school

administrators feel that the general concept of educational innovation,

creativity and experimentation embodied in this program gives an important

thrust toward solution of many serious educational problems. However,

the anticipated, benefits of Title III for Catholic school children have not

:been adequately realized. This is reflected in some statistics for

Catholic and nonpubliC participation. In the 1970 Harvard study cited previously, the educational impact' of Title III was,charbcterized as "poor" by over half of the III dioceses responding. Thirty -nine percent judged the educational' impact of this

Title "good" and only five percent "excellent."A survey which we conducted recently indicated that about three-quvters of the Catholic school s; stems in the nation felt that their participation in Title III was unsatisfactory.

This has been our experience with Title III programs notwithstanding tn. 1969 amendment to this Title which included a Lypas: provision.

Congress indicated clearly with this provision that it intepded that nonpublic school children should participate in these programs but this participation has improved very little since the U.S. Office of Education has been reluctent to invoke this provision of the Law.

We have outlined Some problems relating to the participation of nonpublic school children in programs under Title III. We view these problems as primarily administrative in nature at the level of-the

U.S. Office of Education as well as at the state and local educational agency levels. Although this legislation has been written and revised with the participation of nonpublic school children clearly indicated. we feel that the intent of the Congress in this regard has not been fully implemented. We have no legislative recommendations for this Title. but if the Subcommittee has any proposals to remedy these pohblems.' we would be please to work with you. `'357t

Title VII, the Bilingua'i Education Act, is the weakest of the

Titles in providing for the participation of eligi.We children in nonpublic schools. According to informal: on obtained from the U.S. Office of

Education, there are currently 213 projects funded under Title VII.

One hundred seventy-eight of these projects serve 105,708 public school children exclusively. The thirty-five ditional projects include

3,755 children who attend nonpublic sc'als.

These figures are discouraging in view of the clear obligations of the Commissioner of Education and the local educational agencies to er,sure the participation of eligible nonpublic school children.The language of the Act states that nonpublic school officials must be involved

in the planning of the projects. It also states that the Commissioner may approve projocts only if provision has been made for the participation of eligible nonpublic school children.

In the project grant applications used by the U.S. Office of

Education, applicants are requested to provide full information concerning' the numbers and expected participation of local nonpublic school children.:

Of the 213 applications approved for project grRlts '4%!--'''Title VII

by the U.S. Office of Education, 178 do 'RiinYafn -Vrp c_quested

information relating to nonpublic vzliool children. Clearly, nonpublic school officials .mt!re 14.7 :":441ved in the planning of these projects and

it would appear that the local educational agencies have no intention of

providing for the participation of these children. 2358

This clear disregard for-s.pecific.rovisions of Title VII on the

part of local educational agencies and the U.S. Office of Education has

prevented effective participation on an equitable basis for many thousands of nonpublic school children. The intent of Congress to provide for the effective and equitable participation of nonpublic school children in

these projects has neither been seriously implemented by local

educational agencies, nor reasonably protected by the U,S. Office of

Education.

We as that Congressional action be taken to relieve this indifference

to nonpoDlic school children and to the expressed will of Congress.

The following changes in Title VII are recommended by the U.S. Catholic

Conference.

1. The law shouIJ specify that the participation of eligible

nonpublic school children and teachers in Title VII projects

be on an equitable basis.

2. The law should Specify that appropriate nn4Aiblic school

officials participate in the planning, establishment and

implementation of Title VII projects.

14 Commissioner of Education should be required to make an

annual accounting to the, appropriate Committees of the

Congress on the use. of Title VII funds, and this accounting

should include a separate statement of the extent of participation,

of eligible nonpublic school children in projects funded by

this ;Title and of the amount of funds expended on such children.

These recommendations are detailed in our additional testimony. Title VIII also funds programs through direct application

to the U.S. Office. of Education. These are the Dropout Prevention and

Nutrition and Health Demorstration Projects.AlthoUgh we do not have figures for the participation of nonpublic school children in programs

under this Title, we feel that these children have not been adequately

provided for in the implementation of the programs. We request that

you consider changes in this Title to provide for the effective

participation on an equitable basis of nonpublic school children in

these programs.

That concludes My presentation of our experiences with the various

programs of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and our recommendations

for legislative action. I would like to reemphasize our basic and 'firm

support for the continuation of the Act. Althogh our participation has

been unsatisfactory in some areas and very, poor in a few respects, much

educational'benefit for children, especially disadvantaged children,

has resulted from this legislation. This is an appropriate instrument

for this nation to use in solving some of its most troublesome problems.

It should be continued and it should be adequately funded. Our

recommendations have been made with a desire to ensure that the maximum

benefit is derived from these programs. I feel that our objective's

with respect to .this Act are mutual and that these suggestions will

assist its effective implementation.

Many of the problemsI have described have persisted despite close

attention given them by Congress. On several occasions in testimony

before this and other Congressional Committees, Mr. Chairman, we haVe

recommended the appointment of a'policy-level nonpublic school official in the U.S. Office of Education. A similar recommendation has

been made by the President's Panel on Nonpublic Education and by the

National Advisory Council on the Education of Disadvantaged Children

in its 1973 Report. Such an official would participate in policy

development, planning and liaison between nonpublic schools and the

federal governMent. He would establish a system of monitoring nonpublic

school participation in federal education programs and would help to

establish the necessary attitudinal climate to ensure that the

participation of nonpublic school children in federal education programs

is effective and equitable. Nonpublic school students would then have

an advocate within the federal structure which they do'not now have

despite the legis1;ited eligibility of; nonpublic school students for

'participation in many programs. The need for such a post is illustrated

by our preceeding testimony, particularly with regard to the problems

we'have reported concerning Titles III and VII.

In December, 1972, the U.S. Office of Education issued a policy

statement to Chief State School Officers and Nonpublic School Administrators

urging steps to ensure equitable participation of nOnpublic school

students in federal programs for which they are eligible. I would like

to submit this statement for the Record, Mr. Chairman.

It says in part that'the"U.S. Office of Education has a

responsibility to assure that the benefits of all programs for which

nonpublic school children are eligible are made fully available.to:such

children." We applaud' this effort,,howeyer modest. We:hope' that the U.S. Office

of Education will take seriously its determination, stated in this memorandum,

to achieve ,that degree of participation of eligible:nonpublic school

students which is required by law. This is a positive contribution

to a pressing problem of administration that still awaits more comprehensive

approaches.

In testimony before this Subcommittee in 1971, the United States

,Catholic Conference expressed its oppositton to the enactment of the

Administration's Education Special Revenue Sharing Bill unless a number

of significant changes were incorporated. The Better Schools Act of

1973, submitted by the Administration, did not include the recommendations

made by the U.S. Catholit Conference and our poiition on this legislation

has not changed from the position taken in 1971.

We have taken no position on the merits of consolidation of present

categorical programs. Any consolidation, however, should include adequate

provision for the effective participation bn an equitable basis of

nonpublic school children. An example of a provision that would ensure

equitable participation is Section 807 of H.R. 69 which was recently

reported from the General Subcommittee on Education of the U.S. House

of Representatives.

It is our understanding that the Administration proposes to

consolidate the Vocational Education Act as part of an overall consolidation,

of elementary and secondary education programs. Provision has beep made

for the participation of eligible nonpublic school children andteachers

in three Parts of this'Act. In these programs', furthermore, one hundred percent federal funding is prOVided in the present legislation uhich is, a necessary condition for ensuring the equitable participation of eligible nonpublic school children and teachers.

We do not take any position on the merits of consolidating the

Vocational Education Act. Any consolidation, however, should retain the existing provisions to ensure the participation of eligible nonpublic school children and teachers. These programs should also continue to receive one hundred percent federal funding.

In any legislation providing general aid to elementary and secondary education as well as any legislation providing for the equalization of school finance, the U.S. Catholic Conference feels that such legislation should reflect the following principles with regard to nonpublic school participation.

1. All elementary and secondary school children'should be counted

equally in determining the amount of federal aid to be provided.

2. The amount of federal aid provided for nonpublic school children

should be proportional to the number of such children in the'

school population as a whole.

3. The ,kinds of services provided should be limited to those

which are constitutionally permissable.

4. A bypass provison should be included to ensure participation

of 'nonpublic school children in those states which are prohibited

by law or where there has been a substantial failure to provide

these services and to ensure nonpublic school participation

in those school districts which for some reason do not

participate in the federal program. Finally, Mr. Chairman, we have often pointed out that the issue of eqUal educational opportunity is a moral one, closely related to the larger issue of racial equality. In securing the right of all children to equal educational opportunity, busing, in some instances, is an essential tool. We are opposed to any legislation which would restrict

the use of busing as an instrument to achieve these goals and to secure

these rights. Enactment of such legislation would be a serious setback to the quest for racial justice and equal educational opportunity.

Mr. ChairMan, I thank you very much for providing this opportunity to

testify before the Subcommittee: At the conclusion of Mr. DeFeo's

statement, my'colleagues and .I will be happy to answer any questions'

that either you or the Members of the Subcommittee may have. Statement of

Edward R. D'Alessio, Ph.D. Director Division of Elementary,and Secondary Education United States Catholic Conference

Submitted to the Subcommittee on Education Committee on Labor and PublicWelfare United States Senate

Wednesday, October 10, 1973 10:00 a.m. Title I

The Catholic school community strongly endorses the extension of

Title rot* the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Thousands of

educationally disadvantaged youngsters in nonpublic sc.400ils across the

country have been assisted through special educAtl'onalservices provided

by this Title, Although Catholic schools have experienced some serious

problems with several,' areas of this legislation, title Iis a proper

instrument for this nation to provide for the needs of educationally

disadvantaged children.

On the basis of our experiences in attempting to facilitatethe

implementation of Title I on the national level and throughbroad-based

consultation with a representative group of Catholic schooldiocesan and

state level administrators, who are attempting tofacilitate this

participation at the local and state levels, we have identifiedseveral

problem areas concerning the effective participation on an equitable basis

of nonpublic school children and teachers in, this Title.

The general consensus of these administrators is thatsignificant

progress has been made during the past seven yearstoward ensuring that

eligible nonpublic school children and teachers participateequitably

in the educational services provided by Title I. These administrators

feel, however, that despite its effectiveness and despitesignificant

progress, much improvement remains beforeoligible children attending

nonpublic schools can effectively participate on an equitablebasis

in Title I. The problems identified focused on the following generalareas.

1. Involvement in the Total Planning Process

2. ,Comparability of Services

3 Comparability of Expenditures'

Involvement in the Planning Process

The Elementary and Secondary Education Act is foundedupon the.

"child benefit" theory that all eligible, children, regardless of wherethey attend school, may receive special educational serviceF, to meet their needs. The Elementary and Secondary EduCation Act is also foundedupon the concept of mutual cooperation and collaboration betweenpublic and nonpublic educators working in partnership to helpovercome the educational deprivation of disadvantaged children. The Elementary and Secondary

Education Act, moreover, has been the strongest compelling force yetto joint collaboration between both sectors of education for attaining nationally specified objectives. Catholic school administrators strongly

feel that an essential aspect of insuring equitable participation in Title I programs is the involvement of appropriate 'nonpublic school officials in the total planning process. We define the total planning process as including the following activities.

1. Determination of Target Areas

2. Identification of Target Population

3. Participation in Needs Assessment

4. Selection of Eligible Children

5. Consultation in Program Uesign

Involvement in Program Evaluation If nonpublic school officials at any level(state, local, school are excluded from any stage of this planning process, it is probable that inequitable treatment will result. ,Where participation is poor,

it can nearly always be traced to a lack of involvement in one or all phases of the planning' process. Catholic school administrators feel that

there is a definite correlation between involvement in program planning and equitability in actual participation.

In varying degrees, appropriate nonpublic school administrators find

themselves invited by public school officials to cooperate and collaborate

in the planning of Title I programs. This mutual cooperation and collaboration

between both sectors of education occurs within parameters established'

by the public sector; it is they who determine at what stage of the planning

process they will seek the involvement of nonpublic school representatives.

Hence, nonpublic school administrators find themselves included in certain

aspects of, the planniing and excluded from other aspects, depending upon

the decision of the public school officials. The degree to which nonpublic

school administrators are involved in the total planning process cannot

definitely and accurately be measured.

Catholic school, administrators have expressed strong dissatisfaction

with i.ne level of consultation and participation in the total planning

process.,They concluded that although there is apparent involvement in

many cases of appropriate representatives of nonpublic schools in the

planning of Title I programs, this involvement isineffective and largely

pro forma in many instances. Comparability of Services

Are the special educational services for eligible nonpublic school children comparable to those services rendered eligible public school, children? Many Catholic school administrators identify one important stage of the planning process--participation in the needs assessment--from which many nonpublic school administrators are excluded. These.administrators feel that public school officials have a lack of knOwledge of the needs

of nonpublic school students; consequently. Title I programs are frequently not suited to meet the needs of nonpublic school children. Persons knowledgeable of these needs ought to be involved in assessment in the planning pr5cess. In cases where nonpublic school administrators were involved in needs assessment. programs were designed to meet such needs.

Programs can never be comparable in scope and quality if they are designed in a vacuum, or for a group of children without consulting persons responsible for and knowledgeable of the needs of such children.

Comparability of scope and quality also includes evaluating the delivery of services, that is, where was the service delivered, ,how was the service 'rendered and by whom? There are many delivery systems for services to nonpublic school children; for examplci, public school teachers teach special classes in nonpublic schools, nonpublic school children attend special.classes in public schools during the regular school day, and nonpubliC school children attend special classes in the public school after regular, school hour's and on Saturday morning. The least effective and clearly incomparable in scope, q6ality and opportunity for effective participation on an equitable basis is the after regular hours or

Saturday morning approach.. Catholic school administrators feel that one consideration Overrides' all others in determining where and how the nonpublic school children should be served; the effectiveness of the program.'

Other measures of comparability are the assignment of teacher-aides for TitleI activities conducted and supervised by Title I teachers.

Many Catholic school administrators'report that in certain Title I programs conducted and supervised by Title I teachers, the public school

assigns teacher-aides to assist the. Title I programs in the public school5,

but that no teacher-aides,are assigned to assist similar Title I programs

for nonpublic school children, even when requested.

Comparability of Expenditure

Measuring comparability of service vis -a -vis comparability of per

pupil expenditure shows a wide disparity among states and even within .

states. Some Catholic school administrators feel that a "comparable

or equitable" amount of their school district's Title I funds are not

allocated-to provide services to nonpublic school children.ESEA legislation

suggests an "ideal" per pupil expenditure for Title I services--one-half

of the local educational agency's normal. per pupil expenditure. in

some states, the state educational agency has established a perpupil

expenditure for ESEA programs, while in other states there is no established

policy or per pupil cost--it,is left to the discretion of the local

educational agency. In many such local educational anencies, moreover,

there are disparities of per pupil expenditures for public school programs

nonpublic school programs.H One large city. school district expends

$400 per pupil for Title I services For public s!:hool children; that is

One-half. of the local educational agency's normal per pupil cost;'while for

services to nonpublic school, children, the same district allocates $233

per eligible pupil which supposedlyis one-halfof the nonpublic school per pupil expenditure. , Is this comparability of scope, quality and

opportunity to participate? We realize that there is no requirement that j a' certainamount or percentage of money must be spenton each nonpublic

school child--or for that matter, on a public schoolchild--nor is thet

any formula or device as to the number or percentage, of children who must

be served. However, the pm' pupil expenditure' is an'indicator of comparability

of scope, quality and opportunity

Convergence of these types of problems at the local level combined

with various'indigenovs administrative problems often resultsin a lack of

'genuine upportunties for eligible nonpublic schoolstudent participation.

Summary

Catholic school administrators strongly support the extension and

amendment of ESEA Title I. Their rating of Title I programs ranges from

excellent to poor depending upon a variety if factors: restrictive

state constitutions or interpretations thereof, rapport with the

state or local educational aenc*,,, degree of'involvement in the planning

process, and comparability of services and expenditure and others. In

providing effective participation on an equitable basis to eligible children

innonpublic schools, TitleI cannot be supported wholeheartedly.

Basically, the Catholic school community feels that Title,: is renderinga

worthwhile service to nonpublic school children, but there is muchroo;':

for improveMent before the full intent of Title Iis realized.

Reasons for inequitable participation of nonpublic school students

1. Catholic school administrators in some areas of the country

are not involved in the fatal planning process. Programs for CatholiC school children and teachers in some

areas of the country are not comparable in quality, scope

and opportunity for participation 6,programs for public school

children.

Programs for Catholic school children and teachers in some

areas of the country are not comparable in 'per pupil

expenditure-to the per.pupil expenditure for public school children.

Local educational agencies in many areas of the, country have

been ineffective in assuring that Catholic school children are.

receiving equitable benefits under Title 1.

Recommendation

The United States Catholic. Conference Makes the following recommendation to insure equitable participation of eligible nonpublic school children and teachers in ESEA TitleI programs.

A bypass provision must be added to Title I which will provide the federal government with the necessary mechanism to remedy a situation which cannot be resolved locally. If the state educational agenOy or local educational agency is either unable or unwilling to provide

services to nonpublic school children and teachers on an Rquitable basis,

the law should grant the federal government, thenecessary bypass authority

to provide those services directly or through some intermediary agency.

An example of a provision that would accomplish this objective is the

bypaSs language incorporated in Section 132 (b)(1), 132 (b)(2), and

132 (b)(3) of H.R. 69 as approved recently by the General Subcommittee

on Edbcation of the United States HOUse ofRepesentativeS': The 1972 and 1973 Reports of the NationalAdvisory Council on the Education of Disadvantaged Children have recommended'thQ addition of

a bypass provision to Title 1. The National Advisory Council has

also made a number of proposals for administrative changes to ensure the effective participation on'an equitable basisof nonpublic school children

in programs under this Title. We concur with these recoMmeodations.

Pertinent sections of these reportshave been submitted for inclusion in the Record. 2373

Title II

The. U. S. Catholic Conference strongly supports the extention of

Title II of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.

The purpose of this Title is to provide school library resources, texthooks and other instructional materials for the use of children and teachers in public and nonpublic elementary and secondary schools.Since its inception in 1965 this Title, more than any other Title of the Act, has made provision for the equitable participation of nonpublic children and teachers.The average rate:of participation of nonpublic school children since 1965 has been 96.5 percent of those eligible.Ninety-three percent of the 132 Catholic dioceses surveyed by the Harvard Graduate School of

Education study of The Effects of Revenue Sharing and Block Grants on

Education in 1970 rated the educational impact of Title II as "excellent" or

"good,'' higher than either Titles I or III.

Title II has been a pogitive catalyst both for the establishment of libraries in nonpublic schools as well as for upgrading the quality of library resources available to children in these schools.The Director of School Libraries,

Archdiocese of Philadelphia, has appeared on bi hxif of the Catholic Library

Association before the General Subcommittee on Education of the United

States House of Representatives earlier this year. 2374

Her testimony stressed that in the Archdioce.se of Philadelphia,: IOC

schools relocated their libraries in Larger quarters.In some instances,

these new quarters were built by the parents themselves.Since 1966; 269 new libraries have been established in the diocese: these are especially

appreciated in the very poor urban schools of Philadelphia and ChesterCounty. The 'comparable ctfoctS'.' in these areas are often acts of real sacrifice and valor.

In the secondary schools of the Archdiocese of Philadelphia, Title 11' has strengthened the scholastic program by making it possible tomeet the needs of the non-reader7-byadding books of high interest and low reading

'level to libraries, especially those in the city's urban schools.Progress has been made by this program, but the task has just beg1111.Children are reading, but books are limited and books are still the essence of a reading program.

U. S. Catholic Conference endorses the adequate funding of ,Title

It is estimated that if this Title were funded at $90 million for FY 1973, over

48 million elementary and secondary school students would benefit at an average expenditure of $1.86 per student.About sixty-five percent of the school districts that participate in this program report continuing insufficient school library resources. About $8.3 million or 9.2 percent of the funds requ'ested for FY 1973 would be expended for eligible items for use by teachers and students in nonprofit schools.According to a U. S. Office of Education estimate, 2375

of 2.5 million library such an expenditurewould result in an increase nonpublic schools.This resources and relatedmaterials in the nation's well- demonstrated expenditure or an increasedexpenditure would meet a need. From the inception of Title III of the Elementary and Secondary Education

Act, nonpublic school children and teachers have not shared equitably in its benefits and We have consistently registered our complaints to the U. S. Office of Education, the President's National Advisory Council on Supplementary Centers and Services and to Congress.

In the 1970 Harvard study mentioned earlier, the educational impact of Title Ill was characterized as "poor" by over half of the III dioceses that responded to this item.Thirty-nine percent judged the educational impact of this Title "good" and five percent, "excellent." This data reflects the attitude of the Catholic school superintendents toward Title Ill.

Realizing the lack of equitable participation of nonpublic school children and teachers in Title Ill, the U. S. Catholic Conference independently surveyed

Catholic school superintendents to obtain direction concerning our posture toward this Title,Almost 77(7,, of 129 (73.39% of total) responc;nts stated that

Title Ill should be strengthened to provide for effective participation on an equitable basis for nonpublic school children and teachers. Twelve percent stated that Title III should be dropped outright.

Most of these Catholic school superintendents felt that the general ; concept of educational innovation, creativity and experimentation was given a forward and positive thrust by Title III.However, the anticipated benefits 2377 of this 'Title in terms of nonpublic school children and teachers never materialized.Catholic school superintendents felt that, although the intent of the legislation is sound,it has not been SAW l'tti s fully administered by the U. S. Office of Education, the state educational agencies or the local educational agencies to provide effective and equitable participation of nonpublic schOl children and teachers.

That nonpublic school children and teachers are not participating equitably in Title Ill can readily be attested.Father Charles Patrick

Lafcrty, O.S. A..: has completed a study commissioned by the President's

National Advisory Council on Supplementary Centers and Services in 1972 to assess the involvement of nonpublic school children in this Title.

Father Laferty's study supports two conclusions which nonpublic school educators have been aware of:

1. that the level of participation by nonpublic school

children is most inadequate, and

2. that proper participation by nonpublic school personnel

in the total planning process is almost non-existent.

The following statistics from Father 1:deny's study support these conclusions.

In 21.8% of the projects surveyed, project directors

"themselves" indicated that nonpublic school children

were not beihg treated equitably. . 237S

In 22. SI of the projects surveyed, projectdirectors

indicated that nonpublic school childrenwere not being

treated equitably because of extenuatingcircumstances.

a.:17% - no nonpublic school inarea served

b. restrictive type of project

state constitutional restriction

d. -.projets designed only for public

school children

e.17'; - little or no intereston the part of

nonpublic school officials

73`7 of nonpublic school administratorssurveyed.

indicated that they were nut consultedin the determination of needs for project participants.

itti'7, of nonpublic schooladministrators surveyed

indicated that they were not inany way involved

in project planning.

5 s0';', of nonpublic school administratorssurveyed

indicated that they were not involvedin the program design of the projects.

That Congress intended to provide foreffective participation on an equitable basis for nonpublic school children and teachers is evidenced by the fact thatthe law was amended in 1969 to provide a bypassprovision Section 307 (f)

This provision does assure equitableparticipation but the U. S. Commissioner of Education has been extremely reluctant toinvoke it.

The experience of Catholic schooladministrators in Missouri. illustrates the Commissioner's reluctance to implementhis legislative authority and responsibility for assuring justice and equity fornonpublic school children and teachers. The Title III bypass was firstinvoked in Missouri in October. 1972, after a lengthy history of reluctance.It was not implemented until February of this year more than three months later and atthe midpoint of the school year.

At present, Title III projects mut:t beheld on public premises whenever practicable, We feel that one considerationshould override all others in

determining where and how children should beserved: the effectiveness of the

program. Adequate provision for thishas been made in both ESEAtitle I and the Emergency School Aid Act.If it is more Imneficiai to the nonpublic school children to proYide the services on.Publie schoolpremises, then thg ought to be the determiningfactor.Conversely, if it is more beneficial to such children to provide those services onthe private school premises.

then that is where they should be provided, so long asthe administrative

control and supervision of theprograM remain with public school officials.

We have outlined several problems relating to theparticipation of nonpublic

school children in programs under Title HI, We viewthese problems as 23SO

primarily administrative in nature at the level of the U. S. Office ofEducation as Well as at the state :inn local educational agiley levels.Although this legislation has been written and revised with the participationof nonpublic school children clearly indicated, we feel that the intent ofthe Congress in this regard has not been fully implemented. We haveno legislative recommendation:3 for this Title but if the Subcommittee hasany proposals to remedy these problems, we would be pleased to work withyou.

Father Laferty's study has been submitted for inclusionin the Record. Title V11

The Bilingual Education Act. Title \T1, of the Elementary and

Secondary Ethication Act, is the weakest of all Titles of this legislation in providing effective participation on an equitable basis to eligible children in nonpublic schools.

According to information obtained from the U. S. Office of Education, there are 213 currently funded bilingual education programs supported under Title VII.One hundred seventy -eight of these programs serve

105.708 public school children exclusively:. 35 additional programs include participation by3.755 children wlho attend nonpublic schools.

In making application for a project grant under Title V11 -- Section

705 la) (8) provides ."that the applicant will utilize in programs assisted pursuant to this Title the assistance of persons with expertise in the educational problems of children of limited English-speaking ability and

make optimum use in such programs of the cultural and educational

resources of the area to be served: and for the purposes of this paragraph, the term 'cultural and educational resources' includes state education agencies. institutions of higher education, nonprofit private schools,

public and nonprofit private agencies such as libraries, museum's, musical

and artistic organizations, educational radio and television and other

cultural and educational resources." 23S2.

Section 705 (b) states:"Applications for grants under title may

be approved by the Commissioner only if --. (3) the Commissioner determines.

(A) that the prograM will utilize the best available' talents and resources

and will substantially increase the educational opportunities for children

of limited English- speaking ability in the area to be served by the applicant,

and (It) that, to the extent consistent with the number of children enrolled

in nonprofit private schools in the area to be served whose educational

'..needs arc of the type which this program is intended to meet, provision

has been made for participation of such children."

Nimpublic school officials, therefore, are to be involved in the

planning of Title VII projects; the participation of eligible nonpublic school

children is to beprOvided for by the local educational agency.

The Title VII grant application submitted by the local educational

agency to the U. S. Office of Education requests pupil population data.The

following information is requested by the Office of Education on the grant

application:

1. Total local educational agency enrollMent (both public

and nonpublic school).

2. Number of children in local educatiOnal agency whose

dominant language is NOT English (both public and

nonpublic school).

3. Enrollment of project area (both public and nonpublic school). Number, of children in project area whose dominant

language is NOT English (both public and nonpublic

school).

Number of children in project area whose dominant

language is NOT English who would participate in

project (both public and nonpublic school).

Number of children in project area whose dominant

language IS English who would participate in the

project (both public and nonpublic school).

7. Total number of children in project area who would

participate in project (both public and nonpublic

school).

Title VII provides that the Commissioner may approve a grantonly if provision has been made for the participation of eligible nonpublicschool children and teachers.(Section 705 (b) (3) (B)

In analyzing and evaluating the 213 applications approvedfor project grants under Title VII -- one hundred, and seventy-eightapplications do not

have complete pupil population data.Lacking on these applications arc the

data requested relative to the nonpublic schools.Clearly, this is an indication that nonpublic school officials were not involved in the planning ofthe projects

and that the local educational agency had no intention of providingfor the participation of such nonpublic schoolchildren. Why does the I!, S. Office of Education accept and approve project applications which have incomplete data, which give every indication that the total "cultural and educational" resources of the area to be servedwere

NOT involved in the planning of the project and which DO NOT make provision for participation of nonpublic school children according to the "extent consistent" provision (Section 705 (b) (3) (13) ) of the legislation?

We feel there has been obvious circumventing of specific provisions of Title VII on the part of the local educational agencies and negligence on the part of the Office of Education in enforcing compliance to all provisions of this Title.Clearly, the intent of Congress to provide for the effective participation on an equitable basis of eligible nonpublic school children and teachers in Title VII projects has neither been seriously implemented by the local educational agencies, nor reasonably protected by the Office of Education.

Recommendations:

We are requesting that Congressional action be taken to relieve this indifference and disregard for eligible nonpublic school children and the resulting injustice. We recommend the following changes in Title VII. legislation.

1. The law should specify that the participation of

eligible nonpublic school children and teachers

in Title VII projects be on an equitable basis. The :law should specify that appropriate nonpublic

school officials participate in the planning, establish-

ment and implementation of Title VII projects.

:I, The Commissioner of Education should be required

to make an annual accounting to the appropriate

Committees of the Congress on the use of Title VII

funds, and this accounting should include a separate

statement of the extent of participation of eligible

nonpublic school children in projects funded by

this Title and of the amount of funds expended on

such children, 23Sti

Title VIII

Title VIII of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, in addition to dealing with the General Provisions of the Act, also includes provisions

for Dropout Prevention Projects (Section 807) and Grants for Demonstration

Projects of Improved School Nutrition iind health Services for Children from

Low-Income Families (Section SO. Both of these progranis are demon-.

stration type projects..

There are no statuatory limitations prohibiting nonpublic school students from participating in dropout prevention projects; there has been a lack of administrative implementation'at the federal level.Section 807 of this

Title should be amended to provide for effective participation on an equitable basis Qf students attending nonpublic schools in such projects.

Section 808 (a) of this Title provides for making grantS to "local educational agencies and. where appropriate, nonprofit private educational organizations, to support demonstration projects designed to improve nutrition and health services in public and private schools serving areas with

high concentration of children from low-income families."Like Section 807 of Title VIII. Secti On 808, too, should be amended to provide for effective participation on an equitable basis of students attending nonpublic schools

in such proj:Aits. Federal Government 4iesponsibilities

On several occasions in testimony before this and other Congressional

Committees, we have recommended the appointment of a policy level nonpublic school official in the U.. S, Office of Fducatioit.A similar recommendation was made by the President's Panel on Nonpublic Education in:its Preliminary

Report in 1971.This recommendation was essentially repeated in the Panel's final report. Nonpublic Education :ind the Public Good, issued in 1972 which stated that "one of the panel's first recommendations called for creation of

3 new structure within the U. S. Office of Education to deal directly with nonpublic schools and to make effective recommendations to top officials in the

Department of Health. Education and Welfare." The recommendation has also been made in the 1972 Report of the National Advisory Council on the

Education of Disadvantaged Children.Pertinent sections of that Report have been submitted for inclusion in the Record.

'file U. S. Office', of Education responded to the initial recommendation of the President's Panel on Nonpublic Education by appointing a Coordinator of Nonpublic Educational Services late in 1971.The services of the Coordinator's office have been effectively utilized by nonpublic school officials.As a result of the relatively-, low level position of this official in the HEW/OE bureaucracy, hewever, the services offered have been characteristically informtional.This office, at thiS level, cannot do the job. A new post should be created in either the Ikpartment of Health,

Education and Welfare or the Office of Education - -a Ikuty Assistant

Secretary for Nonpublic Education in the Department of Health, Education. and Welfare, or a Deputy Commissioner for Nonpublic Education in the Office of Education.Such an official .would participate in policy deVelopment and planning and would provide liaison between the nonmblie schools and the federal government., Ile would be able to ensure that regulations are clearly written.He could establish a system of monitoring nonpublic school participation in federal education programs and help to create the necessary attitudinal climate to ensure that our opportunities to participate are adequate. The nonpublic schools would then have an advocate within the federal structure which they do not have cow despite the mandated eligibility of nonpublic school students for participation in many programs. The need for such a post is illustrated by our proceeding testimony. particularly with regard to the problems we have reported concerning Titles III and VII.

In December. 1972, the U. S. Office of Education issued a policy statement, "Responsibilities for Meeting Nonpublic Participation Re- quirements in Federal Programs," to Chief State School Officers and

Nonpublic School Administrators urging steps to ensure equitable participatiOn of nonpublic school' students in federal programs for which they are eligible.

A copy of this statement has been submitted. Accord:':ag to the statement. the "IT. S. Office of Education has a responsibility to 'assure that the benefits ofall prtvranis for which nonpublic school children are eligible art. made fully available to such children." please bole that according to the memorandum, theobligation incumbent on every federal program officer to implement legislation is clearly spelled out."Each federal program officer is expected to assess the implementation of this policy incarrying out the functions of review, approval, monitoring. and evaluation, and to takeappropriate action in situations where nonpublic participation isfound to be other than in accordance with the requirements of the law." At the statelevel, the Chief State School Officer. is charged with "assuringthat the level and quality of nonpublic participation fully andfairly meet the requirements of the applicable federal programs." Several states havedesignated officials in the state educational agencies to ensure effectiveparticipation of eligible nonpublic school students in federal programs.

We applaud this effort, however modest. With the issuanceof the

memorandum, the Office of Education has taken a step forward onthis

important Issue. We hope that the Office of Educationwill take seriously

its determination "to achieve that degree ofparticipation of eligible non-

public school students which is required bylaw." 2390

Education Special Revenue Sharing

In testimony before this Subcommittee in 1971, the United States

Catholic Conference expressed its opposition to the enactment of the

Administration's Education Special Revenue Sharing Bill, unless a number of Significant changes were incorporated. The Better Schools Act of

1973, submitted by the Administration, did not include the recommendations, made by the U.S. Catholic Conference and our position on this legislation has not changed from the position taken in 1971.

Consolidation of Categorical Programs

The U.S. Catholic Conference has taken no position on the merits of consolidation of present categorical programs. Any consolidation, however, should include adequate provision for the effective participation on an equitable basis of nonpublic school children. AO example of a provision that would ensure equitable participation is Section 807 of H.R. 69 whi4.1\ was recently reported from the General Subcommittee on

Education of the U.S. House of Representatives.

It is our understanding that the Administration proposes to consolidate the Vocational Education Act as part of an overall consolidation of elementary and secondary education programs. Provision has been made. for the participation of eligible nonpublic school children and teachers in three sections of this. Act. These are Part B, Section 122 (a)(!)(A),, establishing programs for low income communities and for areas with high concentrations of youth unemployment and school dropouts; Part 0, exemplary programs; and Part G, Cooperative Vocational Education Programs. 239 I

In all of these programs one hundred percent federal funding is provided in the present legislation which is a necessary condition in these programs for ensuring the equitable participation of eligible nonpublic school children and teachers.

We do not take any position on the merits of consolidating the

Vocational Education Act. Any consolidation, however, should retain the existing provisions to ensure the participation of eligible nonpublic school children and teachers. These three programs should also continue to receive one hundred percent federal funding.

School Finance

1. All elementary and secondary school children should counted

equally in determining the amount of federal aid to be provided.

2. The amount of federal aid provided for nonpublii: school children

should be proportional to the number of such children in the

school population as a whole.

The kinds of services provided should be limited to those which,

are constitutionally permissable.

A bypass provision should be included to ensure participation

of nonpublic school children in those states which are prohibited

by law or where there has been a substantial failure to provide these services and to ensure nonpublic school participation

in those school districts which for some reason do not

participate in the federal program.

Anti-busing Legislation

The United States Catholic Conference has often pointed out that

the issue of equal educational opportunity is a moral one, closely related

to the larger issue of racial equality. In securing the right of all children to equal educational opportunity, busing, in some instances,

is an essential tool. We are opposed to any legislation which would

restrict the use of busing as an instrument to achieve these goals

and to secure these rights. Enactment of such legislation would be a

serious setback to the quest for racial justice and equaleducational

opportunity.

This concludes the testimony of the United States Catholic

Conference. 2:393

Senator Eant.rros. Mr. Chairman, one of the panelists representing the I .S. CarthclitConferenee Mr. Louis Davin. general counsel of the Missouri Catholic Conference, is here. I not only know Mr. Dens:, inhis otlieial capacity in the Miss.inri Catholic. Conference. but. it is my happy tnivileg,..e that lie !.erved with. The in Jefferson City, Mo.,. in the attorney general's office. for close to years in the mid-1960'k is an individual of esteem and pmstige. and I know you as chair-: man of this 4mmittee will give his testimony great weight. Senator Pm.. Absolutely. Thank you very much indeed. Senator, Mr. IN14..44. I have a prepared statement winch has been submitted to the Committee. I will not belabor you by reading that.: would like to make a few brief comments. Senator l'Et.t...Vour statement will appear in full in the word at. the vonel usion of your test imony. Mr.Itavo. The intent of ESEA wvs clear thatit should help all children based upon their needs whether 43r not they attended a imblic school or nonpublic school. The act. 1 think, has been good. butun- fortunately In Missowi the intent of Congress has been frustrated. it has !we frusi rated for two reasons. First; of all; the failure of the State educational urgency to comply with the requirements of the law. and secondly. the fTtiltire oftheU.S. (Mice of Education to fully and promtplv enforce the requirements. Taking a look, first, at title 1: Directives of the State Department of Education in Missouri limited educationally deprived children in nonpublic schools to the receiot of equipmeni loans, materiels and. supplies and to certain after hour programs. Dual enrollment was prohibited. The title 1 personnel was not allowed to goon to nonpublic schcol premises. In other vonis. the pupil could not get to the teacher and the teacher could not. get. to the pupil in regular school hours.. Since almost 7'percent of title I fmuling goes into personnel,non pqblie schoolchildren in Missouri were effectively eliminated from 75 percent of title. I benefits. Senator PEU.. Could T interrupt. you there. The new proposal of the administration is that the majority of title 1 funds. 1 think it is 75 percent, should go just for Ow teaching of tnarlwmatics and reading. i am not sure whether this would go for the personnel teaching or how it would am Would this affect your testimony in any way ! Mr. Dt:Ft:o.. Not what ; have' prepared to say. 1. would comment. Senator. that at times there an.different:needs within the non-puhlie school than exist in the public. school system.' :1 know of a case., for example.. in Kansas City where the pon-public schools have an excellent remedial reading program. but were very deficient in science.: .

Senator Mai, When you concentrate in mathematics'. .. Mr. DEIrty. if were concentrated in. mathematics and .reading,. they would he deprived of a program, although theyhadverygreat. Fwd. ", , Senator Praa.. That is an exceptional MIN .1 think in generalthe. thrust is a corgi 0/14, because: there have been a good many abuses with the funshaving not been used for core studies. T see your par-. !loam. problem there; I am not sure if it could he taken care of in 'general legislation. ,.: Mt in general 1 would think that. it 'would make sense. Anyway, carry on. 23M

sir. DEFEO. In April1(.1.71 L non public, school representatives in Missouri Tiled a complaint With the I7.S. Commissioner of Education asking fora remedy to this misadministration of the title 1program. Also contemporaneously a law suit was tiled and in thisease children who attend predominantlya blaek :41100 in inner city Kansas City and others 'attending predominantly Mexican American schools in Kansas-City filed a suit against, the board of educationon a misadministration of 141(1 progr-ms. Regarding the complaint. with the r.S. Office of Education, despite the substantiation of these complaints by I7SOrsown investigation. no deli nit ire:action has heen taken on the complaint. I would like as an example and illustration to callyour attention to a finding from that. official report cited on page 3 of my prepared statement. where the I.S.7 Office of Education found that. the needs of the non-public school children were thesame as the needsof the piddle school children in the particular projeet being investigated. Services avail:dole to public simol childrenwere these : The services of a teacher, the services Ofa jteacher-aside,- use of equipment, and materials. speech therapyOn an aTerage of I to '21/4 hours lwr week, active participation in fine artsprograms, in addition his parents mild part wipate in intensified parents;program. and the approximate per pupil cost of these services would he $180,75. On the otherhared.the non-public schoolchildrenwith the saute identified needs eeeivedeould only participate in theuse of (veptip- rnent. and materials and the tine arts programs. An obvious inequity. The law snit of Bit ref. ra vs. W heeler. also 6m:ht. forth evidence of gross inequity in the administration Of the title I program. As an illustration of iliac. 1 Would like to callyour attention to a table set out. on page S of my prNspa red statement. particularly line item 3 in that table which sets forth the amount per pupil whichwas budgeted for title I pr?granis in three public Kelton! dist rWts of Missouri. You note in district No. 1 that the. public school children with educational deprivationthere wasa budget of $224) for services to hint. By comparison. non-public school children in thesame district, there was budgeted $10 per cilia. In district No. '2, $21-1per pubtic school child. and only S3(1 for non-public school child. District. No. 3, $214 lwr public school child and .525per nonpublic school child. '.: . H.. H . This is a representative sampling. This was nOt an isolated circumstance in the State of Missouri. The. Eighth Circuit Court, of APpeals. found there were flagrant violations of title I and its requirements by the State ethic:10mnd officials. They held that the limiting ofnon-.- public school children in equipment loans and afterhourprograms was indeed inequitahle and not in compliance-with title I ninirements. They mandated that personnel be made 'available.to non-public schools of children with needs, if such personnel was' availableto public school ehildien with edocational depriCation- An injunction was issued against, the State iSlwation officials in May .of thisyear. They have applied to the I7.S. Supreme Court. fora 'writ, of certiorari, and that application is presently pending. 1 have a Copy of thellarrera decision of the Eighth Circuit Court. of Appeals and alsoa copy of the injunction which was issued pursuant to the mandate of the fith Circuit. Also we have additional copies for the Senators and staffs... 2395 I would like to point out although I have used some per capita figures to demonstrate the inequities and these were in evidence in the /torrent case, we are riot taking the position that title I requires an equitable dollar amount of fials. Turnino now to the title Hi program in' Missouri. again we find non-public wins)] children with similar needs being excluded. As an example of the problem here.' I would like to use the project, operated by Lincoln University in Jefferson City. Mo. This was a reading clinic. There were three aspects to the program. Firsts was to diagnose the needs of the pupil, second, prescribe an educational remedy. and thitxL follow up with specialists from the clinic in the classroom with the pupil and the teacher to see that the prescription was effective, and if necessary. to modify it. By limitations of the State educational officials, non-public schools were limited to afterhour .participatioih They were also limited as to title III perSonnel not coming in on the school premise. What was the effect of these limitations? The diagnosis aspect of the program involved S' hours of testing. In order for a non-public school child to receive this testing, he had to make some five to eight trips to the clinic. The Project covered a radius of some 60 miles. Sonic of these schools were 30 to 35 miles from the clinic. So the non-public school parent. this child had traveled sometimes 3 to 400 miles to get this service, and in practical comparison he might as well have driven to Indianapolis, Ind., to receive the same service. You can see, I am sure, from the fatiguef travel, from the fatigue of having to go through a full school day Ar full school week before you could receive the service:from the obvious fragmentation of the testing program. it, was impossible to do any effective service to non - public school children except. for those who happened to live in the immediate vicinity of the clinic. They were de, facto excluding front participation in the diagnosis aspect. of the pmject. The final aspect. of the project which was' of course very important. was following up in the classroom with specialists from the clinic. Nonpublic. schoolchildren ..were totallydeprivedof this part of the program. We migmight cithipare this to going to the doctor and the doctor prescribes a remedy. but, the doctor never ties you again to see whether the remedy worked or whether you died. In March 1972. nonpublic representatives in Missouri requested invocation of the bypass authority under title III.. It was only after a persistent canipaign at. State and national levels that we iTere able to overcome buretincraG1 delays, and the bypass,was finally impNonented in mid-February 1973,11 months after the Complaint was made to the Office of EduCation. Following the thowerodecisioa in the spring. Of this rear, the State educational officials stated that they would not change in any waytheiradministration of title, The Rarrera case debt with title 1. Nonpublic school representatives then requested that. USOK not approve the State plan for title I II unless there. was

equitable part ici pat ion' for nonpublic schoolchildren. . Again after more 'Months of delay. TSOF, has finally invoked theby- pass provision in 14 pr Ojects in Missouri. During this whole time, nonpublic schoolchildren did not receive any benefits and even the children at Lincoln University that, received them for a brief time from Febni 2316 ary 1973, are not now receiving the prognon because USOE allowed the byassto la,; on July 1, 1973. On the other haml, public schoolchildren .receiVed full st. Tykes. The. situation in Missouri has been that children whowere in the first grade'. when this t::`ongil,.ss passed ESF,A had gone throughan entire ele-, molt a ry education and not receilvd the services that this congress had intended. In light of the Bo rre rd. decision and in light of the title III bypass. we can foresee improvement in the future. Basically my remarks,. I think, have been negative, but ke (4) e011d Ilde With h emhasiz- ing that, yes, ESEA is a good program.. Thereare problems within it that need the assistance Of this Senate. We would request that this committee take whatever action. it,can to assure that there is eqntiable participation in facthrneedy non- ;mid icschoolchildren thatt herelpe part ici pat km by nonpublic school representatives being totally involved in the identification of needy chi Wren, their special needs and the development ofprograms directea to Vheir needs, that there, by a bypass provision in titleI.as there is in title III, and that you urge the U.S. Office of Education to fully and without dela3. enforce the requirements of the law. Thank you. [The prepared statement of Mr. Defeo and other material supplied for the record follows d 2397

COI-7 AVAILABLE

iouis C. 11:4'en, Jr. General Countici Miswori Conference Jcffer:on City. Missouri

Submitted to the Subcurninittue utl Education CommittVe till Labor :1111.1r1/1.111.. f;lt* United States Senate

Wednesday, October 10, 1973 10:00 a. m.. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:

I am Louis C, DeFeo, Jr. ,General CotnseI of the Missouri Catholic

Conference.

The Congress of the United States, in .1965, passed the Elementary and Secondary Education Act with the intent '/.71 aiding educationally deprived children in low-income areas.It was an effort to break the cycle of poverty, to break the cycle cf educational deprivation,It was the clear intent of

Congress that all children'in need, whether attending public schools, non- imblic schools, or no school whatsoever, should be assisted.

Unhappily,I must state to you today that your intent has been obstructed and frustrated in the State of Nlissouri insofar as educationally deprived children in nonpublic schools arc concerned. The breakdown between intent and effect has been caused by the failure of the state educational agency to provide equitable benefits to eligible children in nonpublic schools, and further by the failure of the United States Office of Education to enforce the laws, regOations and guidelines adopted thereunder.

By virtue of the mandate of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, obtained, after three years of litigation (which is still not finalized) there has been in the last year a significant improvement in Title I benefits to nonpublic school children in Missouri.However, even if equitable benefits are immediately obtained, they .are coming almost eight years after the establishment of the program. 2399 BEST COPY AVAILABLE

In October, 1965.t1 issuiiri State Board of Etlueatio» adopted guidelines which prohibited both dual enrollment and the use ofTitle l personnel on nonpublic school prMuises during regular school hours.Eduerti kin:illy deprived children in nonpublic s6he.,4$ were relegated to the useof loaned equipment and after-hour priigratos.Appriedmately iiir;;; of Title l funds arc spent for personnel. Thus.educationally deprived children in Missouri were for years deprived of 75% of thebenefi's passed by Congress.

In Januar, 1970. the Attorney General of Missouri, in anofficial opinion, ruled that Title 1 personnel could be made available onnonpublic school premises during regular school hours.By arbitrary administrative..,

fiat based on an alleged interpretation of Stateconstitutional provisions (which interpretation was contrary to the Chief LegalOffice of the State)

the State Board of Education continued to refusenonpublic school "children

the benefit of Title I personnel. services.

In April of 1970, a letter of complaint was formallyfiled with the

then United States Commissioner of Education enumeratingthe acts of

state education officials in violation of Title I, ESEA.In October, 1911,

based on its own investigation, the United States Officeof Education issued

a report which substantiated thecomplaints of injustice to nonpublic s.thool

children.I would iihc to read into the Record one of thefindings and the 2400 BEST COPI summary anti conclusions of tins official report of the United States

Office of Edneatioa.Finding No. 11 relcv:int to the Kansas City

PUblie School District states:

"It is reported that the needs of children in private

sellouts are found to hi the same as those in public

schools.Inasmuch as Program Guide No. -11 points

out that the high priority needs of private school

children will be met with services that are comparable:

in scope and quality to those provided to meet the

high priority needs of public school children,it is

intr.resting to note that an educationally deprived

child with special educational needs who attends

a public school could receive the following benefits

from Title I funds:(a) the services of a teacher,

(b) the services of a teacher -aide. (e) use of equipment

and materials. (d) speech therapy on an average

of one to two an half hours per week, (e) activ.:

participation in Fine Arts program, (I) in addition

his parents could participate in intensified parents

program; :(g) the approximate, per pupil cost of these

services would be $180.75.

"All of these services (with the exceptionof,the Fine

Arts program) would be provided for the most part ,c',l..1\BLE EEs1t.u;

during th_ regular school day, on the Same premises

as the regular prograny.The educationally deprived

children attending private schools could participate in

only the use of equipment and materials and the Eine

Arts program. "

The conclusion of the United States Office of Education report states

as follows:

"While the special needs of the educationally deprived

private school children are basically the same as the

special needs of the educationally deprived public school children, the data reported indicates that the services

available to the private school children are not comparable

to the services available to the public school children.....

The conclusion goes on to state:

"The large discrepancy between per pupil expenditures

for private school children from Title l funds compared

to the per pupil expenditure for public school children,

while not an absolute criteria, does provide an indica-

tion that private school children are not receiving the

range and intensity of services which would amount to

genuine opportunities to participate." 2402 EEST MIME

Despite the clear violations of the law and regulations. to this date, the

United states Office of Education has taken no definitive action against the State

Board of Education for its misadministration of the Title I program in regards

to nonpublic school children.

In April, 1970, a suit was filed in the United States District Court for

the Western District of Missouri at Kansas City, against the Missouri

Commissioner of Education and State Board of Education by a class of .educa-

tionally deprived nonpublic school children eligible for ..benefits under TitleI. ESEA. At the time of the filing of the suit,it was estimated that these children had been deprived of $13 million of Title I benefits. The evidence

in the case brought out gross inequities and treatment of educationally deprived

children attending nonpublic schools.Several items will illustrate the point.

The State Department of Education had adopted a guide (known as

Policy No. 2) which.on paper stated that the per capita expenditure per public

school child and thke per capita expenditure per nonpublic school child should

not vary more than 10. On paper this sounds equitable.However, the evidence reveals that its application was highly inequitable. The Strte

Title 1 Director in calculating per pupil expenditutes in Title I programs

automatically excluded all expenditures for personnel. Since the program

is about 75% personnel, he was in effect, excluding 75% of Title I expenditures from his equation. The following is from the testimony of the State Title I Director concerning this suit. BEST COPY ANUIRE 2403

"Q.Would you exclude the amount of money expended foi-

personnel from your calculation of per c :q expenditure

because of this consti:utional thing mentioned?

"A. At the nonpublic Fchool. I don't follow.

"Q. IA.t's try sortw illustration.4,Let's assume that there'

is a remedial reading program that the public school pro -

grant includes teachers, teacher-aides, and equipment,

materials and supplies, and that the nonpublic school pro-

gram is operated by volunteers, not through Title Ifunds.

As far as Title I funds, they would have equipment,

materials and supplies,Let's say that the amount of equipment,

materials and supplies expended for public and nonpublic

were equal per capita, say $10 per child, nowthen, the

amount of personnc$ in the budget--

and the answer interrupting:'would be excluded'

'.Q. - -would be S200 per child forpublic school

children, would you exclude this $200?

. In figuring the variance, yes,

"Q.The equipment is equal, therefore complies with

' Policy No, 2.

"A. Right." 2404

Continuing at a later piiint in the testimony:

"Q. 1 et us go Lack to the hypuhetieal case we had a while

ago, where S.,..2730 was expiattiod per pupil in public schools

and .$50 was expnded per mill in nonpublic setools. but

the equipment was eqnaland $5u of equipment was in public

schools and $50 in nonpublic schools, and $200 Was for

personnel.You have earlier staled that you would just com-

pare the equipment since the personnel is excluded.

"A.That is correct.

"Q. Would you regard this situation as being in compliance

with federal regulations'and guidelines we have just discussed

regarding comparable. participation?

A sampling of Title I applications approved by the State Board of Education further substantiated that educationally deprived children attending nonpublic schools were denied equitable Title I benefits.The chart below is based on the approved applications of a small rural school district and two metropolitan school districts in the State of Missouri.All these applications were for fiscal year 1972.! Mis'IVNDLE 8tS1

Public ScItoI'Dist. 2Public School Dist. DESCRIPTION Public SchotA Dist. 1 PS NI'S I'S 1'S NI'S

1.Pereentago of edueatio:,:tity di pri vcd 91. children 9r't.

2.l'ercenttgeof total Ti Lie I 937 7q 99.570 it expenditures 99.5g

3. Amount budgeted $30 $250 $25 per pupil $224 $10 $214

4.! Percentage of full-time certified wori staff 93.7 .37c 1007. (r

In District No. 1. while 1, s9S educationallydeprived children attend

nonpublic schools were allocated $20,736. or 510 perchild, to Improve their

education. ttto people the Director of Federal Programsfor the District and

his Associate) were sharing $2s,596 in salaries!

The District Judge found there sere inequities butdenied injunctive relief

on the basis that a mathematically equitableshare of Title I funds for nonpublic

school pupils could be achieved through after -hour andSaturday instructional

programs.

On appeal. the United States Court of Appealsfor the Eighth Circuit,

reversed and remanded with instructions that aninjunction should be issued

against the State Board of Education immediately.In its opinion handed down

March 1G. 1973 (the case is styled Thirrera v. Wheeler. reported at 475F.

2d 133i) the Court of Appeals found that the StateBoard of Education had flagrantly BEST COPY. ftVrtAVI3tE

violated the provisions of Title I and the regulations adoptedthereunder.Pursuant

to the Appellate Court's mandate. an injunctionwas issued May 9, 197:1.The

State Iloard of Education has applied tot:lic United StatesSupreme Court for a Writ of Certiorari.

In summary, after long and trying effort, after threeyears of litigation

which is still not final, educationally deprived childrenattending nonpublic schools

in Missouri are just this year receiving a significant share of thebenefits which

Congress intended them to have in 1965. Althoughwe can anticipate needy nonpublic

school children receiving more equitable benefits in the futur'c,the fact is that

many educationally deprived children enrolled in the first grade of nonpublic

schools in Missouri in 1965 passed through their entire elementaryschool life

and graduated without any of the benefits which .his Congress authorizedand

for which this Congress has annually appropriated millionsof dollars.

Let us now take a look at the participation of nonpublic schoolchildren in Title III ESEA programs in Missouri.

The participation of nonpublic school children under Title IIIprograms in

Missouri has been worse than their participation in Title 1.Many TitleIII projects are totally designed around pubic school needs.Others arc designed so they are compatible with public senool curriculum, but not with nonpublic school ,tiirriculum.The involvement of nonpublic school representatives in the planning and development of projects has been minimalat best. In August, 1971, the Education Dcpartment of the MissouriCatholic Conference sumeyed participation of Cat'Iolic schools in Missouri in Title

III E.SEA programs. The conclusions of this survey were:(I) there was an extensive lack of knowledge by Catholicschool administrators of Title III. Eighty-four Nrecnt of those responding to the survey knew nothing or very little about Title 111.(2) There was a general lack of program flexibility.

Most prog-raras tvere too narrowly developed, focusing on publicschool needs to be effective. In a Catholic school curriculum, and 131 there are insufficient methods of accountability built into Title 111 to insure nonpublic school participation.

In December. 1972, the Conference began an inquiry intotwo

Title III proj:cts, one operated by Lincoln University at Jefferson City,

Missouri.This project was primarily designed to diagnose reading deficiencies, to prescribe remedies and to work with teachers andpupils in

overcoming the reading deficiencies. Participation of private school children wasrestricted to outside regular school hours, from 8 to 9 o'clock in the morning,from 3 to 4 o'clock

in the afternoon, or from 8 to noon on Saturdays. Manyof the children who would p_rticipate live in rural areas. Jefferson City is a community of only

35.000 people.One private z.'hool was 35 miles away from the project site.

Given such distances and the time restrictions imposed,nonpublic school children were de facto excluded from the project, excel): for thoseliving in

the immediate Jefferson City area. 2411S REST COPY 1Z!!!!:31E .

It tal:es approxim.i!clyhours of testing to complete the diagnosis part of the project. Since private school children were limited .to one hoer a day or four hours en S1 IAN'S. they were required to cinne as many itseittlit times to com:ilete the teil.For a child livingS miles away from the clinic, assuming tes.ing was completed in five days. he and his parents would hate had to travel a total of a.,n miles to complete the diagnosis which was available to the public school child during regular school hours and completed in a day and a half.Nonpublic school children were in effect required to travel a distance equal to the distance to Indianapolis, Indiana. in order to receive the same servic.Limiting private school children to after hour programs also reduced the efficiency of the clinic.By limiting private school children to services after they had completed a full school day, the child was exhausted and was not psychologically prepared to be properly diagnosed and to receive help from the clinic.Also, services for nonpublic school children were obviously fragmented and continuity in approaching the child and identifying his deficiencies was virtually impossible.Nonpublic school children were confined to this absurd time schedule because of regulations of the State' Tioard of Education.

After diagnosis of the need and prescription of the remedy, the project wovided follow-up in the classroom or if rinessary at the University Clinic by specially skilled project staff.Public school children received this service but nonpublic school children with the same needs were totally exclUded from this service by limitations imposed by the State Board of Education. BEST CON hnittSLE The project director at Lire', In Erivert,itv interested in the needs

of all children and 11,:-ired to help the nit p.thlic school children as well as

. the public school children.(The stalf of Lincoln University. a predominantly

black imt Hu:ion. were especially sendtive to the evils of discrimination, )

Thus. he rolueste(raivrItval from the State lIcpotment of Education to provide

nonpublic school children services during regular sehool hours,The State Title III Director stated that it was "not permisstble for project personnel

to work with nonpublic school student's during regular school hours at any

location. "

Thereafter in March, 1972, nonpublic school administrators in the Jefferson

City area...supported by the Title I:1 Director at Lincoln University, formally

requested the United States Commissioner of Education to invoke the bypass authority

of Title Ill,Nearly three months later, the United States Commissioner formally requested the State Commissioner of Education to investigate the situation and report.

When no apparent determitive action appeared to be occurring. nonpublic

school repreMIL'atives began a persistent campaign at state and nationallevels in

order to get resutts.:They undertook their own investigation and rt'llorted it to the

Commissioner.Finally, on October 30, 1972, the United States Commissioner

informed the State?,fiat he intended to invoke the bypass.However, it was not until mid-February, 1973, that Title m services were actually made available to

nonpublic school children.It took nearly twelve months of persistent effort by

nonpublic school representatives to overcome the bureaucratic delay and shuffling

which obstructed the participation of nonpublic school children in this project. BEET COT? 1131 IDISLE

In his notice to theStatv Commissioner of Etlieation. on October 30, 1972.

the United sit,iles Cenimissionvr indieattidtkit he was invol.ing the lipass in the 1.inveln Uniersity :,,t1 another ',royt in itstie and ":dl other similar projects."

Yet led ty. over ls months :liter the initial request for invoking the bypass,

nonputilic school children in 1issouri are still not receiving equitable Title benefits in ctilvr projects, and even in regards to the Lincoln University project,.

USOE allowed the bypass to expire on July 1,197:1, and the children are net now participating in that project.

Shortly after the Ilarrera decision which held that nonpublic school children wcre entitled to the services of Title I personnel during regular school hours

and on their regular school premises if such services were so provided to public

school children, nonpublic school representatives inquired of the State Corn-

missioncir of Education as to whether personnel under Title III would be made

available to nonpublic school children. The state responded that the State Plan

for Title III would continue to limit nonpublic school participation to outside of

regular school hours.Thereupon, in July. 1973. nonpublic school representatives

requested the U. S. Commissioner of Education to withhold approval of the

State's Title 111 Plan until eligible nonpublic school children were provided equitable benefits.

Finally, on September 7, this year, the U. S. Commissioner notified the

State that he intended to invoke the bypass provision of Title III in 14 Missouri

projects.However, eligible nonpublic school children even in these 14 projects

still have not received services although eligible public school children have received services without interruption. 2411 BEST COPYr7[A.E.11 We have heard unollicially that arrangements for services will be

toad: by the end of Octobci and we hope that there will not be further delays. nut even if the services v. ere pruvideJ today. the children have been

denied the Leaefits intended by C'ongress for some eight years since its

passage an] some IS months since the forMal request was made for in-

voking the bypass authority. Uaited States Court of Appeals P01 T NORTE CIRCUIT

No. 72-1440

Anna Barrer', et Appeal from the Appellants' v. United States Dian trict Court for the Western Districtof Hubert Wheeler, et el-, mason& Appellees.

Submitted: January 9, 1973r Filed: March 16, 1973.

Before LAT, HEANST and STIPSONSON, CircuitJudges.

LAT, Circuit Judge. We are presentedon this appeal with significant questions relating to the lawful programmingand proper allocation of funds to educationally deprivedbzthool children, both public and private, under TitleI of the Ele- mentary and Secondary Education Act of1965, 20 U.S.C. 44 241a-241m, 242-244 (1972)1

'Ti. declared parpeer This I is "to provide Ilaseis1 mamas. t. bled Must:ma ageseito earring arum with essastraties.et ands. true lewiseeme $ spud asd improve their sisestieedprograms by garbs. memo... shirk Iontailisie pertitedarty V ateatisj the ) edaestiseel rob et odestaissellg deprived daildres." SOAC. (1672). Tri The plaintiffs, suing individually and on behalf of their minor children, are parents of educationally deprived children who attend non-public schools in the state of Missouri. This class suit was commenced on April 6, 1970, in the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Missouri against the State Commissioner of Edu- cation and the eight members of the Missouri Board of Education. The plaintiffs claim that Title I funds are being arbitrarily denied to non-public school children in Missouri.In seeking injunctive relief plaintiffs assert violations of the First and Fourteenth Amendments and a denial of their civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiffs originally prayed for an injunction restrain- ing defendants from continued violations of the Act as well as for an accounting of misapplied funds totalling over $13 million received and expended from1966 through 1969. The trial court initially dismissed 1aintiffs' action because of their alleged failure to exhaust administrative remedies and because it believed the federal court should abstain from exercising jurisdiction since the case involved unsettled questions of state law. This court held these findings to be erroneous and reversed and remanded the case to the district court for trial. Barrera v. Wheeler, 441 F.2d 795 (8 Cir. 1971). Upon remand of the case plaintiffs filed an application for preliminary injunction on October 12, 1971. In a pretrial order on January18, 1972, the trial court ordered a separate trial as to issuance of the injunction and limited the issues as follows: 1. Whether Title I, ESEA, and the criteria est& fished thereunder by the United States Commissioner of Education, requires that educational benefits provided by Title I be made available to educationally deprived children attending private schools on a basis 2414 ?kgCONi.V[iiliCati tirt is equitable in quality, and cp:)ortrmity, to those r.vaikble to educationallydeprived children attending public schools and that theremust be an equitable sharing of educationalresources provided by Title I so that the amounterpended for each Title I projectas to an edueationary deprived child attending a private school beas nearly equal as possible to the amountso expended as tc each educationally deprived child attendinga public school; 2. Whether the defendantsmay be excused from complying with the requirementsof Title I, ESEA, and the criteria establishedthereunder by the United States Commissioner of Education,relating to the participation of educationally deprivedchildren attending private schools, byreliance upon any interpretation of Missouri stateconstitutional provisions, statutes, regulations or stag;court decisions; and 3. Whether it is lawfulto make public personnel, who are employed tc implementTitle I projects, available oil private schoolpremises during regular school hours in order to providespecial services to educationally deprived childrenattending private schools.

Upon trial of those issues thedistrict (Aurt, in anun- published opinion, denied injunctiverelief Ind held that whether Missouri state law"probibits the use ofany money" for teachers to beemployed in private Odur.la MIS not necessary to be decided inthe case. The court concluded that although thereundoubtedly bas been inequitable expenditures of Title.I funds between educationally deprived children in publicand non-public schools in some school districts, such inequitycould be recti- fied by private school authoritiesrequesting their "equal- BEST cof

table share of dollar r.id" for private ,-,z1.col pupli attc...1 aster - school and summer school irr.trvetinrrd pro- griurn.2 We conelnea tiiz.t tom^ astriet ceart's hold goes not properly meet plaitt:iTs' lawful nd fails to properly interpret Mae I in conformity with .he Act's intended purpose. We reverse and remand with dire tions to grant certain equitable

TITLE I AND ITS REGULATIONS In 1965 Congress recognized that there were over five million children living in families whose income was less than $2,000 a year." The adverse poverty of these children was found to lead directly to educational neglect resulting oftentimes in human frustration, delinquenc; and crime. Congress fnrther realized that the impact of poverty and financial hardship was not confined solely to public school children, Consequently, when Title I was dratted Congress expressly required the inclusion of non-public school children by conditioning any grant upon the proviso that:

2 The trial court further found: "Title Iclearly does not manlate the assignment of teachers paid by Title I funds to nonpublic sehoola The legislative history of the Act demonstrates that such an intention was complete], disavowed by every proponent of the bill.Itisalso clear that Wildcats is nog- public schools can receive their equitable mathematizal share of the funds available in aftersehool or sunnier school propane& Ia gall school districts the furnishing of visual aids and mobile equipment could very, easily furnish the equitable share of dollar aid. "There is no evidence in this ease that the local school boar4s have refused to consult with aonpublie school authorities is prepainz their artlications for Title I funds. Similarly, there is i4a evidence that aay applications for TitleIfusds 8a an equitab:e b pis for nonpublic se:veil students have bees denied at the Neal or state level eseept those requesting salaried teachers in the noapablie school" It has receat7f been projected that with the rail's of tie income wiling them are now over 20 million children qt.:ailed wader Title Bee note 12 infra. '2414;

" 'no the extent consi..:tent with the number 0'; educationally deprived children in the school district of the local educational agency who are enrolled in pri- Vate elementary and secondary schools, such agency has nuide provision for including special educational services and arrangements (such An dual enrollment, educltional radio and television, and mobile educational services and equipment) in which such children can partic :pi).te . . ." 20 U.S.C. §4241e(a)(2)

The Act tr.afie it the strict re8ponsibility of the local edu- e:ttional agency to plan atid administerprograms that would meet the partieularizd needs of all educationally disadvantaged children.' Thus. the undisputedpurpose of Title to benefit the educati-)nally deprived child whether atlnding a ptibiie. ora non-public school.5

TL t-.1 12.Q.C. re.ndr. in part: t (a) A 1eal edur:itional agency los leceice a grant ruder this part for any sisal year only upon, application therefor approrzi by tEc nppropriab :::at: .! u agercy upc.n itf determination (consittent with suet, critt.ia as the. Couiteisaioner may estab/fA) (1Thai pa: ttwett wider this part willbe. used for programs, p.-.);retb(nclu1;:g7,stet- requisition of equipment, and. where tiecess:;ry, the eontdroOicos of ictorl facilitica and plana made. or.' to u., made for such piogrion., pro -cts, and facilities) (A) villicth' are de,dipled to tr.eet the special (41:s-rational need' of rglaeationalta deprived elti;dren itaei.`roolattendanceSrllarn baring high eoneen tr:.tiona of cLdhlre.ii from Ids- income famIlles and (Ti) whichare of sudielent size, drop. and Cttalitx to Eire reaaonable proud* .of rub stantia) progtiss toward merling those suede ... " The pro..-eisr for deb rin;ning the fund,. payable to local *elml district Loth public and pri*atc school children and is presently ealeulated according to the following, formula: a/2 a b = Dollars payable to local school district a = Average espinditure per pupil is the state b = Number of children age 5.17 coming frost faiullies .47-manual iet0112tA of leas that 0,000 (114,099 tor Ewan year eadi'ag Jose ;1,1, 1973). Ste 20 U.S.C. I 241c(1 72); 11-1Litep. No, 143, nth C.asg., tatBata 3 (1943).. As both tho Smite and limier R4orts State, the Aet anticipates "becal- med issitnteviesal efferises under pabliely apaaaarai aampiems whichwill is available ta elesseatary sad seeeadary =ast stadesta loboare sat saredial COPYgai.tna, .417.

Upon passage of the Act the United States Commis- iiouer of Education provided by detailed regulxiion that educationally deprived children in private schools be af- forded "genuine opportunities" to participate in Title I programs "comparable" to the programs available in public schools! In March, 1966, the Commissioner set out revised criteria for the approval of Title. I applications based upon the law and the existing regulations which ;fated: "The applicant's assessment of needs of .children at various grade and age levels must include the children in the eligible public school attendance areas who are enrolled in private schools. This assessment is to be carried out in consultation with private school authorities and to provide the basis for (a)- deter- in public schools."S.liep. No, 146, 1+9th Cong., 1st Sew. 12 (1965). See also njulep. No. 143, wet 0;41g., 1st Sess. 7 (1965). This "child tene6t :hese y " was, therefore, one of the basic premises supporting the enaetrnent of Title I.See generally III Cong.Lec. 5743, 5756.5756, 7309 (1965)(re- marls of 'Representatives Perkins and Carey and &luster Morse). Similarly Title II of the ESEA provides all school children with test books sad other "nstructional services and materials. Other provisions of the Act, Titles 111, !V and V, provide direct aid to public school authorities for anode' programs, :*or rewards and for grants deoigraml to strengthea the state departments of (.141seatioa. Sorties 116.19 of the regulations states in part: " (a) Each local educationagt.neyobeliprovide specialeducational oerviros designed to meet the special educational Needs of educationally deprived children residing in its district who arc enrolled An private schools.t"-;uch educationally deprived children sl.alllie provided gamine opportasities to participate therein coasistent with the neater of such educatiosally deprived children and the nature and esteat of their educational deprivation. The special edueatioaal aeriece shall be presided through etch arrangements as dual enrollment, educatioual ratio sad teleribies. sad mobile educational s2rvices sad eatiptsest. ... " (b) The wets of educationally deprived elildrea enrolled in private melmoim the somber of oath diadem vibe will participate in the program and the types of special educational services to be provided for them shall be deteresis3d, after eestraltatis with permits ItnewlesIgrahle of the reds of thaw private wheel ehildrees basis esseparsble that end is providing for the partieipatiesi is the program by data- timely &prised Antos earshot is pebe sdisek " (e) The erpertsaities for partieipaties by edeselissallp deprived shades is prink shah is the wipes el a heel iesslissal @grog eater Title I of the Ad shall bs pewits/ these. rajah) el the had *)41S con AVA101.E.'

mining the special sc.:vices in which private sclicie.. children will have ..gecuine opportunities to partici pate,. and (b) selecting the private school childien for whom such services are to be provided.' "The needs of private school children the eligible areas may require different services andand uctivities.

Those services and activities. however,' nsust be coo; -, parable in qualify, scope,- and opportunity forpar -, iicipatio to those provided for public school children, trial needsof equallyhigh.PrioritY 4Cowparability' of services should be attained in terms of the numbers of educationally deprived children in the prOjectarea in both public and private schools and related to their needs, which in turn should producean equitable 'sharing of Title I resources by bothgroups of children.".Commission of :Education. Title I Pro- gram Guide No. 44, 4.5 (1968).7 (Emphasis ours.) _ educational agency tturnish special edueationsi aervires th:tt wet the epoeial nee "s of emit tylurationally deprived ebildrea rather than rue meth of the student body at large or of children in in a specified grace. .. "(d) Any irojeet to be carried outin,public facilities and ins Owing,'

a joint part:cipation of children carolled in private whistle and Andres , enrolic.: in public schools shall include suet provisions aw areSeeeMSff !t) avoii cksae' 'stile!' are separated by wheel utrolhaent or religions alib.:.tion of the children. " (c) Public school persooriel say be made available on other than public aehool facilities oily to the estent Weimar, to provide special services (such nt therapeutic, rtine,".ial, or welfare stiviene, broadened, tomlth sir ire:, school breakfasts for poor ehiliren, and tknidatiee 1'13'.7.neelior isTriecs) for toose educatiorstly deprived rhildren fo: whose needs me!: services %rare designed mad oily Sti:3 ..3e21 c..nices are not normally provided by the private rekol. The appliestion for a project jacketing earl special sarvieco shall provi.le azzarusce Ott svpheact wily =Mahan administrative direction and eouttrelovn serviees. . . . Prorisiem for epeeist educational suirviers for educatiesalty deprived ehildren enrolledispr:vate etboole shall DM include the r.yieg of ea:sties for teachers or other employees of private s.hoole, e-rcpt fur reviles performs: outaidz their regular Loam of duty and wider public aupervieim sad control, am shall they inclada the wing of ocuipiamt other this mobile or portab equips /letso private aciosol premises or the easstraetiag of private edema facilities." 4$ C.10.11 mei, (Ma). 7 Thia gaidelise is proimastob bred is part so @adios 114.11(a)of the regulations which teals: " (a) Each application by a elate or beat odaeatimal atom rem gnat (Mims than sae for a phial/ poled) sum propose rejects BEST COPYAVAILABLE

We think it clear that the Act and the repdations require a program for educationally deprived non-public school children that is comparable in quality, scope and opportunity, which may or may not necessarily be equal in dollar expenditures to that provided in the public schools. Although the district court originally phrased the issue in terms of "quality, scope and opportunity," it nevertheless based its opinion on an "equitable" funds :standard. We, therefore, find the district court's ruling to be erroneous in holding that the use e: Title I funds by the Missouri Board of Education meets proper standards and find that plaintiffs are entitled to equitable relief.

TITLE 'I IN MISSOURI In the Kansas City, Missouri, school flistrizt where the plaintiffsreside, approximately 11,000 elementary and secondary students are eligible for Title I programs. Be- cause of the limited funding and the wide dis!)ursement of children, only about 7,000 public school purilswere en- roll2d in Title I progratns. The number of educationally disadvantage4 childten in the five principal pi ivate schools in Kansas City was estimated at 355 (4.72 per cent of the 7,000 public school pupils receiving aid).. These figures for the non-public schools are only estimates because (1) tae income and personal records of private school parents were not readily available to the public schools; (2) the non-public schools were not centrally organized and had

of sulleientsize, vope and quality as to give reasonable promise of substantial progress toward meting the seeds of eibseatioasU,y deprived ekildrea for whoa the project* are iateaikd." 45 c.r.s. I 1111.15(a) (1072). See am 20 VAC 261e(s)(1; (107'2); 43 c.r.s. Slit ls (left). to be dealt with separately; and (3) the public and nonpublic scnool officials notoriously failed to cooperate among themselves. Almost the entire Title 1 program in Kansas City is devoted to remedial reading taught in the public schools during the regular school day for disadvantaged public school children only. Outside of equipment and materials provided to the private schools, the one program available under publicschool auspicesfor educationally disadvantaged non-public Scheel children wasa summer school remedial reading class. In the summer of 1971 approximately 112 private school children and 2,500 public school children participated- With this experience both the public school end private school officials admitted at trial that summer school was a poor substitute for regular day school classes. The Kansas City public schools hale setc (250 per pupil guideline flr Title I assistance wiaich tinder present funding wmild allow for rpprosiumtely 8,050 pr.rticipants. The krgest share of the Title I appropriations(r.ppro- mutely 65 yr cent) is' spent taachers red ter.e,S:.- aids. A bout twcn'ty teacEets *era 1 1 to ta) izce es 3.:(Nare prescatly aznployel in eichteen ekmentat:y rni fonr Gaarry sett- 21s. in Ki...,ns:13 City. On seve.ral r-.!_tc,s;_fmr; in rece.It yearE n!.-41-putlic nzhc...... !s Lave refit.-.:3",,cd teachers aLci teacLar ;lids to come to Car_ private .1.eac!, c!assas e,aring part Of V2.3 rcx.alar school day.All sr_ch requests have been deniad by tiepublic S'2Lool officials, and the private schools Wivenot, as yet, requested ary other assistance except equipmentand material& As a consequence the disparity inKansas City between erponditures for private and publicschool children in Title I has been $50as compared to PM. Recently REST COPY AMAMI 2421 the public school officials have given the non-publicschool children their "equitable" share of funds all in monies for equipment and materials. The practice in Missouri as a whole in prior years has been to give comparable equipment, materials and sup- pile:, to exigible private school euildren, but to exclude any shozing whatsoever of personnel services. Most Title I paldie school progrx.rs in :dissouri involve :em:xlial reading, speech therapy and spe?ial matharnaticc classes, thus the largest orcp3rti.iu of the cost of these projects la- volvcs salaries for teachers and teacher mic:s.After the first two years Title 1, expenditures ;n StlOrdri for instrnetion-.1 personnel have run from (5 i.er cent to 70 per cent of the total grant Theremaining fan& re used for equipment and materials, health and co:nseliag services, transPortation, and plant maintenance. One difficulty vrith providing only equipment and matJrials is that even minimal sharing of expenses for equipment and materials soon reaches a saturation point; in fact,the state guidelines permit only 15 per cent of any appropriation to be silent on equipment and instructional materials. The result of this plan for the deprived private school child has been to create a disparity in expenditures in many school dis tricts ranging from approximately *10 to $85 approved for the educationally disadvantaged private school child to approximately $210 to $275 allocated for the deprived public school child.° From the feats presented the trial

s Title I progranunias within arbsol 4ruriers garrulity beverbis the state assuniatioaer's owe ateeseat et polity as rewind is Ward at 1571 which reads is part (esplaseis their owe): "The followiag procedure should be lord is detesedsiss the private wheel participation is Title I activities: "I. Detemiae the speeial educational seeds of all edwatioaally deprived children reaidias is tfligible Title I atteadasee areas in the public wawa) district.At least sae objective meaner 2422 BEST COPY 117.1.10.311 court ittelf recognized (L.:. Missouri's "interpretc.tion of Title i has resulted in an undoubtedly inequitable expenditure of Title I funds between educationally deprived children in public and nonpublic scLools in some local school districts in the state." A few school districts in Missouri have attempted to remedy this disparity by providing, in addition to the projects con acted durinc regular szhool ho.:rs for deprived public retool children, Title I progrezns in the public ::cheek which are open to all educationally deprivci children r-Stercjuier schoc' hours cud in the sr.nuner. The opinion 'field by most educators v.,os that ilieSepro- grzens were not nearly as successful ithe proiroins conducted during the regular school hours for public school childrzit. The evaluation specialist &f the Kansas City School District, Edmund Downey, and the principal of a parochial school in Kansas City, Sister Agnes Marie

meat must be oiled in otakise this determinatios.fabjortive seasaremarts way also be used. "2. Determine the mom rasa, special *dimities& seeds of all oduratimally deprived ekildreu railing is eligible Title 1 &s- tadium areas in the seheol district&... "3. Desclop ;.program that ma meet the mat premiss special educational reeds of all edaeatisaalir daps wed chaos mil: isg isthe wheel Carla. This is the respoasibilifY of the Mail 'abbe easel distrietafter eassaltaisa with Pease tameleggesble of the muds of the private saws) pestle- The we keel of edsestional *privatise amid he used for de, terminiag eligible private school aligns as is wed fit de- leesiailif eligible public oche& &Odra. "4. Detausise the attest of pupil participatisa is the Title I, Barr, program that Title I, EISA. hob will ailem Private W esel pupils are entitled to naive the Gum imiliepstiss psblie school pupils.This Mao use minis that /eagle wheel mils will assmarily magi is the awe altivitios as psi& e asel peek This I Toted isialatiese mel Mimed SIMS Law restviet the activities he sloth Title I teed, ItsfIs 'a& Swims fat private eelsol pipit p rtiaitrtiag is the Talk 1 pagrats land he assaperable is emality tr. imp Go *so revals1 Imbibe wheel PIIPAB Pot1114.111 r et /missit Hagen, testified that in their opinion, even with these attempts at giving assistance, disadvantaged non-public school children in Kansas City were not receiving comparable educational services under Title L

COMPARABILITY There are practicri is well s legal considerations when nssesaing the qualitative scope of a "compaxo.ble" Title I prcgraaor deprived private schoel child:ea. For ex- ar-ap!e, in Kansab City the estimated 355 nonpublic school students -.7ho qualify for aid under Title I t.re scattered Ihroughout five elenieatary and smondazy schools.Ob- viously the same type of rec.:edit:1 help caznot be, pro- grrammed for an extremely small number of needy children located in a private school as can be irtstituted in a public school where a large number of children may be reached.

the nature andextent ofeducationaldeprivationandthe special edu:ational needs are the same. . . . "h. TitleI, LSEA, funds must be used to aup?lement and not supplant private school funds. . . . "11. Projects eoadueted in private schools must be of sullicient size, scope and quality. "12. The averzze cost per pupil carolled in s private school and participating in a TitleI, DMA, program And the average cost per pupil enrolled in a public school and participating in a Title I, I:SEA, program will be used as a guide in making State Department of Education approval.It the variamee is greater than 10 per cent (more or less) justileatios will be requested before making .approval."%fiasesri Department of Education.PolicyNo.2.ParticipationofPrivateSchool Chikires in Title 1Activities (1911). The variasee is average cost per pupil for peblie and private Title I recipients is Missouri tar exceeds the state's owe 10 per eent guidelines. 9 The Missouri State Coordinator of the Elementary and Secondary Educa- tion Aet referred in his testimony to a letter. Missouri received from the Called States Csmunissiocer of Education informing the agate that the St. Louis. Kassa, City and Cape Girardeau programs did sot comply with the regulatioaa regarding the participation of private school children in Title I projects. BEST CO' ril."Inf1731.E Furthermore, there aremany Title I programs which can be utilized in public schoolswhich would not be constitutionally permissibleon private school premises. Forex- ample, using Title I fundsto reduce the general pupil teacher ratio is permissible inc publiu school within. a low-income area but constitutionallyimpenr.issIble in a similarly situated privateschooL However, thisconcern misses the Ccnzrecsionalmark site.: Title I programming contemplates for th.: private pupilonly "special edam:- lona) servoo ; andarrangernects.. .in which such children ezz yir'cipate."" Thus,catrparability in size,scope and opportin ity eanuctnee.essarily he measured intevnis of totz.1 similarity. It is only in the area o: "specir.1.. services" where theprogram need be comparable,provided it is determined bythe local educationalagency that the needs of the childrenare similtr. Furthermore, it is inaccurate to attempttoequate.Title I prograt-s-on a

Jo 2;1 CSC. t 21Ie(a)(21(1972) of ILTresentatives Carey anti (Emphasis ours).taxi the remarks during }louse debates wher theyPerkins. the manager ot the Hare sin. "special:" eauphastize the impartamee of Mc word "ID. GOODELL.... It the publ.ie wheel officials with Federal mosey wile to put public oehool wetter is subject. I would like to have a private mime: to teach say is permitted is this bin. 'tear legislative history at to !whetherIt "Mr. CASEY. If the gentleman she answer would be 'No, Omni his ammtiom 'amy subject,' because that would inelude allambjeeta. "Wt. GOODELL. What tubject thenwould be pirmittodl "lir. CAREY. 'Special' is the key word. the word ' special' is is the bilL Thome The gestic:ma. hews that Those that are specialsee sot general.see spacial imatusetiomal smesisma. be deter:aired by pedagogy. ..What is special wend . ... "Mr. GOODELL 1 would like to sib the gmtinsea if that is his mower, just trim liestadty history. as a assater at getting the legidative "Mr. PERKINS. The gostiera dearly. has ammerei the gamilitavary .... " yr. ?EMUS& My smarm' is so as to re 'arils( say liathisearvises to a prima, imatitetios. The he here isthe animals et ogssisl timasiserviam to deprival rhiblres warpatio ergiire tor saptivisod sad asatrldied by /abbeaatherity. snags/ 1S1 Oserim. 111/-57111 (1946). BESTCOP' IWAILARII "fair-sharir.g" basis which requires an equivalent pro- rata distribution of funds amolg public and private school studetil,k Fair-sharing of funds is not the intent of Title L" When appraising what is equitable and comparable, the dollar amount allocated can serve only as an indicia of compliance or noncompliance. In fact, recent federal guidelines alloygreater amount of Title I funds to be spent on school areas with higher concentrations of children from low-inenme families in order to obtain the maximum effect." The grant of Title I funds is based solely upon the "need . .determind" of the individual child. Con-

It la 1969, the National Advisory CounciltA.the Education ofLis, advantaged Children, which reports to the President and Congress each year on the progress of Title I. found: "Blow of the nonpublic school officials interviewed, unhappy at Ibe relatively low level of participation by disadvantaged pupils carolled in their schools, spoke repeatedly of not receiving their 'fair shave" of the city's Titlefunds; occasionally they mentioned a 'fair share' "percentage eoincidir.g with the percentage of nonpublic school children in the city. Of course, the law intends no such 'sharing' or division of funds.Further, the number of disadvantaged nonpublic school children was not proportionate to the number of disadvantaged public school children in any city in the present study. The phrase 'fair share' as used above may be convenient shorthand, but such 1:-age is ineonsistemt with the intent of the law." National Advisory Council on the Educa- tion of Disadvantaged Children, Annual Report to the President and the Congress 38 (1969). 52 Ae the National Advisory Council on the Education of Disadvantaged Children stated inits letter to the President and the Congress on March 31, 1972: "The Council notes that title1is now serving 7.5 minion dins vantaged children, 1..5 million fewer than in 1969. This decrease is duc to the ameentraiion guideline, which directs Local Education Agencies (LEA 's) to spend more on fewer children for ioo.imium iszpaet. "The East ree,att study which reaped* the number of children living ma whiml attendance arena with high coseentratiens of children from low- income families (the determining factor of eligibility for title' 1 werice) owes that -V .1*.a:;;1 children are liciag in 'these attendance areas. "This would suggest that approsissately two-thirds of the children email the mini services of compensatory education are not receiving title I senders The Council asks that you carefully consider this fact. and that neither theEseentive nor the Legislative Branch of the Federal Government view with emnplaceoey the need to serve additional disadvantaged children." National Adsimry Council on the Education of Disadvantaged Children, Annual Report to the President sad the Comers its(1972). '2-1'24; sequenUy some childrenmay require speech therapy or special instruction in the English language"whereas others may demonstrate no particular need at all. This need factor may vary between educationallydisadvantaged public school children as wellas between deprived public and private school children." The analysis of whether theprogram within the private school is comparable to the public schoolprogram lends itself more to the definition of what isnot comparable rather than what, is."It is not icomparable program where the need for remedial serviceciof the educatiocally deprived private school pupil is at equal to that of, the edueatior:ally deprived public schoolstudent and the only sence provided to the private schoolchild is the furnishing of equipment. It is nota comparable program to provide only after-hour and summer remedialinstruc- tion on neutral sites whichare open to the net private school child while offering thesame services during regular school hours for deprived public schoolpupils, especially when the partial expense for transportationmust be borne by the private behool child whocomes from a. low-income

03 The record discloses this Our Lady of the Americasschool. a parotids' school in Kansas City. has a student body that is ty'Sper tent Mesienn- American withapproximately175students forTitle1.These children are confronted will a language and culturalproblem which most be oecreome before they can ever be, expected to understandand beeompliaL the preseribeil studies for each grade. Aprogram designed to meet the needs of these eligible nonpublic school students alightseeessarily require a different focus of attention reediting in Mss or ecru greater expeaditarea

Disparate allocations of funds way arise because theconcentration of eligible children is frequently oonfned to certain geographicseem Further- more, the need*, of qualified etudeata may differ because of satioaslityer, cultural back.groulads or became the local school diatrietaloe* has provided effecters remedial aid to: seedy *Andrea.Sessetieses disparity is &Westin say arise where the heal agesey has failed torequest snicked feeds or the irritate or public wheel has failed adequatelyto evileste sr report the eligible ehildres and their soda

06 The late Prefenter Cahn wrote that justice is bestdefined by estuidering what injustice is ado, Coefreetieg injustice 10 (ON). family." Of 'equal or greater significance ia the fact that educational authorities believe such programs do not provide equivalent Lenefits nor do they successfully reach a significant number oZ the eligible student& Once the need of all qualified students is determined, the state or local educational agency must then show some rezzonr.ble justification, within the defined purposes of the regulations and the Act, for denying comparable services to eligible private, school pupils. No showing has been made here.

APPLICABILITY OF STATE LAW UNDER TITLE I The gross justification presented by the defendants for the dissimi:arity of :Irograms under Title I is that Mis- souri state law does not allow any shared or dual-time programs whereby the non-public school s'..udent can be brought into the public school during regale:: school hours to receive specilized instruction.Furthennore, the de fenda.nts argue that Missouri constitution! law, as well as the Constitution of the United States, prohibit the use of public teachers on private school premises.The defendants urge additionally that Title I does not contemplate the assignment of Title I teachers to non-public schools during the regular school hours.It is, therefore, contended that the only means by which no:1-public school students can receive teacher services under Title Iis through the operation of some after-hour and summer instructional training. The trial court agreed with the defendants' contention that the Act does not permit the assignment of public

IS The Missouri Constitution preveisti the use of state funds for busing not-public school children, at least to ;he extent they are transported to, and from the private school. See Merey v. Harkins, 258 S.W.2d 927 (Mo. 1953). This objection cannot apply to children transported under Title I funds for instructional training. See diacnanion, infra at 26-29. school teachers to non-publicschools.17:1)SresCumabl':'''71 court's conclusionwas drawn from the Senate House Reports which declare that the Act doesnot authorize funds for, the payment of private school teachers.See &Rep. No. 146, 89th Cong, 1st Sess. 11 (1965);IILR.Rep. No. 143, 89th Cons., 1st SC38. 7 (1955).However, plain tiffs mal. :2 no clam Title I 'funds should be paid tc private school teachersnor do they argue that public school teachers should to us5ignedto non-public school:. for Cr.., ter chirs o genera! secular classf-o.They readily cc,ncec.le tb..t such applization of Title I funds would b. a violation of the First AmerAment. Sec generally Lento% v. Kn,:tzman, U.S. CO2 (1971); .4zu-Ticats United fat Separation of Church asd Statev. Oakey, 339 F.Supp. 545 (D.Vt. 1972) ; cf. Wolmenv. Essex, 342 F.Supp. 399 (S.D.Obio 1972), aCi'd, 93 C.Ct. 61 (1972);Johnson v. Sandirs, 319 F.Supp. 421 (D.Corm.1970), aff'd, 403 U.S. 955 (1971). And, of Course, Title Imust be read as com- porting with constitutional requirements.See generally Commu3ications Assn. v. Ponds, 339 U.S.382, 407 (1953). United States v. r.t.o., 335 U.S.105, 120-121 (1948); ci. Singer Sewing dfachine Corzpanyv. thicken, 233 U.S. 304, 313 (1914); Port Construction Co.v. Government of the Virgin islands, 359 F.2d 653 (3Cir. 1966). The district court overlooks, however, tbat the SenateReport does consider the use of public school teachersin the private school for restrictedpurposes: "It is anticipated, however, that publicschool teachers will be made available to other than publicschool facilities only to provide specializedservices which contribute particularly to meetingthe special educational needs of educationally deprivedchildren (such as therapeutic, remedial or welfare services) andonly where such specialized servicesare not normally pro- BEST COPY AMIABLE

vided by the nonpublic school." S.Rep. No. 146, 89th Cong., 1st Sess. 12 (1965). The Senate and House debates also demonstrate that this limited use of public school teachers for specialized services was foreseen and intended by the managers of the Bill 111 Cong. Rec. 5746-5748, 5758, 5979, 7309 (1965). Therefore, we find the district court's interpretation of Title I as involving a broad proscription of public teacher tervices in the pfivate schools to be in error. We come then to defendants' cantautien that this uce ;f public school teachers in privat3 selaoals is in violation :f ilissouri state law. In ..9,mcial District v. Wheeler, 408 1W.2.1 60 (1966) (Judges I 'inch cad llyde dissenting on the dual-time holding), the, _Missouri Supreme Ceurt sr2- ;Wally banned dual-tinye as a means of en,rrying out joint *astrestional programs for public and non-public school children." The °curt held ih3t the compulsory lttendance law requires each child to remain in his regu- arly assigned school for e. utinimum of six hours.46 In .he Wheekr ease the Missouri Supreme Court was also 7aced with the practice of public school teachers providiug ...0e3eL therapy for non-pul...!ie, sehez,1 children en pri- -ate cahool premise. The MiE.-3ouri cotes L foun e. this pro.e- 'ice violated tha Hissouri Constitution by using nnhlic school funds for the educcien a price,: sdlool 11.74116

'1 Compare Shafr es rel. Ft hoe Districtv. 'kb:efts Stage Rocrd of 1S5 N.W.23 161 (Neb. 1:72). eer.. denied, C2 r.,kni..2,2.0 (1972) (ear °Rieke, of justices Dot; 1:..s and 13renzt.n r, den!.:.1 e: ettint:L.0 IS I. the states ahem deal esrollssent pregnir have bees eas feeteet the Milted States Cowintiegoner of rdr....^tionlizza 1.1-nt teLtete, cerelci e.re provided seder Title I is a eoz:parablestd,equitable. imams. Tills I energleally °Cern this erethell as one of tae alternatives Itr oceeplyirg with the het. t VAC. 1 Nle(a)(2). wed es the thweiesioaer hr priisted sot. this is sae of the meat fusible was he eehicee ennI7Iiiree. Mee seaway Nem Chareht3tato Problems in New Jersey:The herleaftestaties of 'rifle I (ISM) is list, Cities. T2 ratzere L. Ler. 215. =2 (INS). I:4:g COPYfintLABLE is derogation of the comegitutisnol ropirommt that pins funds "belonging to or donated ISany stale head for pane school Impasse" be and for "astabnekag and maintaining free public schools, sad forso other urns or purposes whatsoever." Mo.Const art IX,5.1* Thus, dual ninth:sent is presently unlawful is Month by statutory interpretatien sad theuse of "public monies" for sending public teeezere into private sclools for specialized inatrcction has bees forbidden by statecementa- tions, provieione. After the Wheeer decision the Miami State Ord Education promulgated two regulatiosa relatingto programs to be administered by local agencies under Title I. They read as follows:

(a) ....Therefore, shared time or dual enrollment between public and conpublic sehoele would not be in conformity v.ith state law. Programs operated in the public school for all children after regular school hours, on Saturday, and during theswam after dose of the regular school term would be is conformity with state law." (b) "Special education& services and arrsAgeniesta, including broadened instructional offerings made available to children in private whools, shall be provided at public facilities: Public school persoaael shall Net be made available in private twenties. This does 'sot prevent the inclusion in a project of speeial educational arrangements to provide education' radio and television to students at private sehoolL" The state board has inteepreted the proscription of public monies in the Missouri Constitutes"' ienticr the Wheeler decision and kw thus osneluded that Title I fundsare also state public foods to be similarly proscribed. An a result BEST COPYrettiliLABLE

cf the board's regulations the local school districts have eznied requests of non-public cchools for the cervioes of public school teachers in providing remedial .treining to th sir educationally disadvantaged children. Although dual enrollment has been precluded oiler Missouri law, eseept for the state board's regulatioas, the racial question of whether ne Missouri Constitutica Fro- Ebits the ow, of all fnds, regnre.133 of theC3111ITO,for tezditg rublic school tenekr s into the private (thesis for cpecizlized programs has not been decided. The Missouri Attorney General for ens he3 disagreed with the 'agt Board of Ed::eatien's :-Iterprctatich of the 1"." Plaintiffs discount the applicability of *de law by as- rerting that since Title I is a federal net and since there c=istscotfliet bet-.7eer. fez:cr.:I and state law, the suprem- ..equirements dictate thki fcCeral controls, citing

13 lo es opislo2 tr?ittet w Jascs.r,-, 1978, Ott Attotsey Gene., "Irleilzral foods. est dote (am% or Mate PAH:. Sac*? Fella moseys,

sill p7 tEa ter here for G:rvieti orsec.-ed . tr.a!irg ezitet.1 ratriezo sada tie Title I Proxf-a crt ole:. ea t1.3 c: r.rt The sesaitinl eLtn-eter f=ads ill set etas ced fat= todee.1 Is state tto stn.: Iii timt t! a Lzt?ri lam; r:atzrs lerporiztes' than to tEe 1-csal of 1:C-c-itios. eppr.:pristioui. am= ROAN* rf..,ce=te' (an f:: it,s;zzatLer.3. ,_;;;,e GillNe. CeseIty-file. Gast: al iez...-?.) ter Irretn t.1:4) Gea3,1 1:oneys road' lc: isek..--cz 1 ill No. 1.1, Ccornly- CILN °mutt Alas.-atoty).' Cameo oa rn botii from mree..a.:roiCi.'

1,17e d. e4t tstlizre that as 55 Arc2ti.iien or ON type at.av:Ati sit ir-to side .1.4 13et-4.-7 =Lttz it 1je.-..1 the tidalMe=sa riervel toetas:- "It is Igo orioles of ilia Wks tt-1 117.3 atc.T r.:141 IMingItiosAd of 1135 pried 11d, mew' strtaffe..=rztrztes Go do talon adadon. 1st seaool paramae, 7-14 sin (!Moral Amin ponosot Is tills poem% moy bo az!, ave.'4".:. co Co wade= of peidio adrolo Is rails add) spot :Al lawlaraI344E4 ea !nu OM that Mond be soda oat proms ral.-ne Wadi oartaamet, MN ailsistol tore% boa pooddirg NMI oink= as Is pert ins of a /Mao ofillool.° OF Alt', Gas. Na 114, f-e (1230). Ls dm Is Be lhopood C, US 11.WA1 MIL MI). Townsend v. Swank, 404 U.S. 282, 285 (1971); Ivanhoe Irrigation Dist. v. McCracken, 357 U.S. 275, 295 (1933); Brow,: (C Bartlett v. Uuited States, 339 F.24 692 (6 Cir. 1934); Meteor -:di v. derlin, 134 17.23 635. (9 Cir. 1943). This cp;,1Gae::, however, schstantir.11y ignore:. the It.gisk- tive hi tort' c' Title I which establichez that state policy and kV ski! govern the administration of t'..ter.epre- grams.2'?le_ cover, Cengees3 he.s co.rActieDry dectlred in the net thc4. fet!eral central of progrmming, and curricaut_i prohibited,22 r.nd the Coramizzioaer or Ednection j his czatinurAly ree::gnized Ott thegrze.r.te under Title I !nest acc,onuneeate state lav7.23 Althersh cute ice is to be aceommerlatzd, the fame of whetkr Title I funds are stete moniesoz federal funds' must neees-scrily La decided by fcderd I:4. Cf. United States v. 93.9:0 Acres, 333 U.S. 323, 332 -333 (1159), and s cited tharein; Etocks v. 13:::th, 359 F.2! 924, 92, (5 Cir. lECS). Dirtztly involved Lem the into:ix:Action of the funt-lii:.; pre3esr,al..nlor federe! Tke Act itse1 malcz ii; reatlily ap:lartet Clot Title Itr.prepra-

ti II! tiVz,..173...t. 57e3-57t4, 57Pt. 37E7-575C, Crif`. 7:,21.CZ: 3 aka inc. ca B. 370 Ike Subaos... Eloe:tioa of CI Comte CO=7-L LI)e G PoN:le ":7^I:ore, CAN (Utz, 1st r tea. rt 1 tt 51f, ail (11ItZ). =2 ecc:io-, 404 C7 11.a LIrA, Pea. 4. ro. r..410 7C f: tr:. extez: "No11,:az, r7it.:Ioce: La rArli c.:aztretz.1 to aztLz.ra.-4.. r;.2y 21r2.e.Z.Zit. ettICC?. Or coirlOyCe ti.a U.3ird iteti: to tozein Csceir-t, or cootie* era 1.cluirtrzi.x.- Frzzt::: blissetiusk, e: per ;'a::1 c3 sty oleortic:::...! cr scsabc: Lit2=. r over tke i.,stica it 1+2077t"..7, trea:V.IT, or other priat*r ..... op rNrse-c..1 ire-TIKtit;=21 r-ttaig2 b &37 eeM2- Ursa iostittl: oem1 tryt:zas. Ett; t3 tYZAI KV:(t). as Tao Cismegime d CdarAidra's IlluAlsok ler Dataeat Leal 6t; al 02e:as re, he! the tattier dissaine: "SR.11 OseatZ::Lor4 ss41 ilskles ate ftsotimits adoraiss toast mstrislitas mr,set 5(be MM et =We= fast air impedes Slob wall fir BEST CUM mmuirRE tins are a federal grant made is irma to loud oebool agencies within a state for the direct benefit of the educationally disadvantaged child. 29 14 241e, f, g (1972). The funds are not to be commingled with other "public funds" (45 C.IP.11. 6 116.24), and they aro not to supplement fends that are shandy axed for edezational purposes in Cie state. IV U.S.C. ¢ 241e(e), 2:13(e) (1972). Sna also 111 Cons.PAs. 5734, 7293 (WM) (remarks of Reprcsentativo Perkins and Senator Morse). The or!, control the ztate kard has over etch funds in to ehoinaal them to the losel agenees and to review the programs of the kcal educitionzd :packs to make ceilain the programs ars conziztent with the Act and thus Commissioner's regulations. A state cannot pass a law or interpret its own laws to say that a Title I grant is to be considered state funds or public funds for the maintenance of free schools. TO do en would be to violate the spirit and tbe

andstatutes *Sewed themtopresidetoprivateschoolstudents, copecialh when these private schools were *weed and operated by re- Vibes groups. The following list illustrates the kind of prohibitions eaceantered when State eonstitutioes and Uwe are applied to Title I.The list is not exhaustive. Deal earollment ma? see be slimed- *Public school personae, may not perform cervices on private school premiers. Equipmeat nay not he lobed for ore on privet:: school premium Books may not be Maned for on on private school premises. Trareportation may not be provided to private semel student& Sometimes =eh prohibitions exist @laity is gives State. Often, the prohibitions exist in combinatiss. "When ESEA was pared in Ink bah State submitted as abbacies to the U. S. Mier of Edneatisa is which the Slate &portliest of abas hes stated its lobbies to amply with Title I sad ib regulatimet. sad the state attorney general declared that the State board of sinew tins hod the enthasity, loader Slate law, to perform the duties sad heehaw of Title I as required by the Pillsral kw and its pertistisem While State bastitutiesa laws, sad their i.tsrpslotst limit the op- time available to provide services to private etudenta Ws het, is Halt 41Iss set relieve the State eihmatisaal gooey se Me gieread- letter of Title I.It seems clear that Title I,as involved herein, does not provideany state aid or any school aid to the state2--it is an act to provideeducational services to those who qualify under the Actas educationally dis- advantaced children. Thi3 reasoning is in conflict v.ith the proposition that state law atd policy: St be accommodated unit: the admirgif.tratio:-. of Title I.A, state could conceivcblypass a law that riculd prohibit the rse ofa:4! Titlerunes in a private school. Assuming sucha IcAT could overea:ne equal prctectim argur,:euts,2rthe n-Lt efrezt v:eu!'.1 be that the stItti2 cot:!:1 rot comply withthe Title 1 requironett that comp:J.11'1e services be:,,d1u:..lisicred edue:Itiorally disn(11-4.2)14-ge-1. nos -pa) he schcol Ur- :'3r those eircunistanc.es, the stats-3 would not be entitle;.'t?, Title I grant 'o< v:c ildhave to make the"political" ea.:cis:en of whethe:: to re:Ical tE lawor (1z...rive all its edrcati,:mally

hility to ap;:ove only those Titlelapplicatiuns which sleet there. q-airementr r t forth in the ede:a1 law andre,-.72latians. "A numbe..- of school officials re:Jized thatthey could oat subunit the required r-ssurat:re bemuse of t'ae regrietioasapplying to pr:vnte rshool students i la h were e...erative in their Stales. irairsse was rat- awfully resolved in one catby a State attorney get-mi's which , held r.at mate rentrietionswere rot applielble to 100 patccat federally Sn:,aced progtr.n:s. t4ew Torii] "0:her .tea have proposed le:::lat:sa :A.m.- the ESA to administer TitleI r..e,..ordiar;to the Fecr..1 toculterecntoStill otl-mre have applied the testrietio, s of the Stateto Title I and nve relied nix, t:-.e initiative of school aiitninintratorsto develop'n proarra, that would rie.:t the Federal ro4uirc-zientr-"HEW. Office of ECItuk- tion. Title I ErirA P.;:rtLipz/iar of Private tiiel.f.ol Iliad- hnolt for Z.M.,,te ard Local echoed otiesrt. III. at 111-L0 (1071) iii-Lreittaft.zr tited az: Clc.'x of FA-it:Jim: P-antIL:-.-y:-.J. t4 Title I of the 1:ie...cr 3:duration Entilit:ez 11711 -721 (1954 ed. Act of 1961. 20 U.C.C. V), dce3 provide direct slit! foreoastrisctitth of buildings and &antics at eheroh-relatedsollecea. This settle@ Itai Luz' amid eloastitution:1 tuba s. 1:clare.m4 403 U.S.GIL (11171). Cf. I. le Prc;c:;o1 C 165 211.1712d at 27-30. 243.1 BEST COPY AV11111111tE Or-disadvantaged children of the economic benefits of the Act. Cf. Rosa° v. Wyman, 397 U.S. 397, 420-423 (1970).2s We conclude that although the administration of Title I must accommodate state law, Title I fundo are federal funds with which state and loml educational agencies cannot lawrully provie.e services for eli3ible public school children and a the seJne titre deny ecrzpa:-...ble programs, to eli:,-i!)13 pli7atseloc! chi! -Zion :ty simply ma:ming:Eng such funs with proscribed state "public .7unds." More r.proi,c3 to our diEzassiou ':era is the prcvisica within the 2,lissouri ecnotituti:J which re7.tis: "Money or property :nay also be received from the United States and be.redistributed :ogaher with public money of this State for any riblic purpose designated by the United States." Mc. Coast., art. III, § 38(a). (Emphasis ours.)

28 It wmld seem a! ionlatic that programming in the use of Title 1 funds must tornply with the Act and he consistcut with the Commissioner's regulations.The statute makes thisclear.Fee 20 11 2tle, 241f (1972).'Ne cutpliasi:e that if state law prevents ast:i.,e or local agency from compliance with Title I, then Title I espentlitures .7.7.nnot be munipu. late.' to conply with state law.This would clearly be rease. of the tail wagging the dog.Yet this is 1111 eLlsense what the state . locational age ary pro-Noes and has horn doing. Theremedy,provided for a state that will net or cannot under its own law allocate federal funds in compliance with the Act and the regulations is to have those funds withheld by the United States Corrmissioner of Education.See 30 U.S.C. 1211 j (1972) 45 C.F.E. 116.52 (1572) The 1972 National Advisory Council on the Education of. Disadvantaged Children has specifically recommended that the law benforced against Missouri: "In order to receive title I funds, the State Attoraey General must sign an assurance to the U.S. Commissioner of Edscatios stating that all title I regulations will be observed, eves if they emsdiet with State law. Yet with respect to three States--Ilissourk Nebraska, and °Mahe's* the Office of Education is aware of soscomplianee with the regsla. time, seetios 116.19, on service to &Aire^ . carolled is sonpoblic schools. and no enforcement adios has bees iaitiated. "The Council recommends that sap Stole which is sot as eomplissee wide ectios MO be deformed of the Commissione's Magenta/soto enforce the lose hp the rad of Peal pear 11172" National Advisory Council oat the Education of Disadvantaged Children, Missal Report t. the President sad the Congress 29 (1972).(Emphasis theirs.) BEST COPYMAME Thus, we find that when the needof educationally dis- advanto ged children requires it,Tito 1 authorizes special teaching services, s contemplatedwithin the Act and regulations, to be furnished bythe public agency on private as well cs pcblic schoolpremises. In other words, we think it clear that he Act demanes that ifsuch special services are furnishsd publicschool children, then cote parable programs, if needed,must ba provided the disadvantaged private school child.

FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONALPROBLEM Thiz then brings usto the defendants' final contention. They urgeall else iauing thatpublic teacher eervic: on private scharl premises would beunconstitutional undsr the Yirst Amendment. Thedefendants rely crs Letto:. v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S.02 (1971), which held the direct subsidization of privatescheol teachers in Pennsyl- vania and aliode Llzaidunccnstitntional. Perhaps carp closely related to this objectionare :7olmaa v. Essex, 342 F.Supp. 399 (S.D.Ohio 1972),aff'd, 93 S.Ct. 61 (1972); Americans United for Separationof Church State v. Oakey, 339 F.Supp. 515 (D.Vt.1972); and Jolussonv. Sac:ders, 319 F.Supp. 421 (aeonn.1970), aff'd, 402 U.S. 955 (1971). Although Oakey S.4aders wouldseemingly prohibit the use of public schoolteachers on privateprem- ises to teach general secularsubjects, they are net directly controlling 11.4 to the suggested teacher service programs under Title I. As we haveindicated, Title I contemplates public teacher serviceson private premises only for "specialized serviceswhich contribute particularly to meeting the special educationalneeds of educationally deprived children (suchas therapeutic, remedialor welfare services) and only where such specialized services are not normally provided by the nonpublic echooL"27 Although we find these cases not directly controlling, we determine that it would be improper for us to pass on the constitutionality of an abstract program of remedial teaching services which are not properly before us. In doing so, we appreciate the constitutional question remins, but as a reviewing court, we must refrain from passing upon important constitutienal questions on an abstract or hypothetical basis.Thorpe v. Housing AU- Amity of the City of Durham, 393 U.S. 26S, 284 (1969); Alabama State Federation of Labor v. McAdory, 325 U.S. 4,50, 4111 -4C2 (1945); Housing Authority of the City of Omaha v. U. S. Housing Authority, 468 F.2d 1, 10 (8 Cir. 1972), cert. denied, 41 U.S.L.W. 3447 (U.S. Feb. 20, 1973). This is what we would be doing if we decided this issue now. We further observe that. no particular program, cur riculum or service is mandatory under the Act.S.11.ep.

s.liep. No. 146, 89th Cong., let Sess. 12 (1965).Set. alto Cong.liec. 5747.5749. 5755. 5979 (1965) ;45 C.F.R. 1116.19(a),(e)(1972).The Commisidoner's Handbook for State and 'Leer..1 School Oricials reeogr.ires this when it obeenes: "!lost of the restrictions or prohibitions which apply toiverviecs for private school children refer to the manner in which the aert ices are delivered.... The restrictions or prohibitions arc: I. The services provided wit`. Title I funds taunt meet the needs of educationally deprived children and not the needs of the private mama 2.In any project where private school students participate along with public school students in public facilities, the classes may not ha separated according to school er religious affiliation. 3. Public school personnel may perform arnica; es private premises only to the rattail seminary to provide special serviette for the edseatiesally deprived for wham acedla the services were designed. 4. The menials abbeh may be provided are to special armies kitbag the regilatioes is Bettina 116(e), "melt as 'therapeutic. remeedial. or welfare services. broadweed health terms% wheel hreakfaatet for poor ehildrea. and guidasee sad emuireliag services.' The u r ii meant to be illustrative sad not ealaastive of the 24:is BEST COPYAVAILABLE

No. 146, 89th Cong., 1st Sess. 11 (1965); 111 Cong.Rec. 7298 (1965) (remarks by Senator Morse). A local educational agency may request Title I funds fora variety c uses,28 and none of these specific remedialprograms ark., now before us. For now we can only assume that the U. S. Commissicner of -Oducation will approve funds for only those local edecationalagency programs which comparL with Title I and the Constitution of the UnitedState:. When approval is given or withheldon a specific plab only then should a courtsurvey the precise program at falling within or without First Amendmentboundaries.'''

In conclusion, we find that plaintiffsare entitledi;) equitable relief in requiring the defendantsto compki with Title I through allocation of funds to educationany disadvantaged non-public students. The fact that Joey.'

possibilities.")normally not available in the private school.( service is special ifit responds to as identified, special used of the child.) 5. The services provided with TitleIfits& must always restai, under the administrative direction and control ofa pablie agemey. These services may not be administered by the private seheoL 6- Title I funds may not be used to pay the salaries of private sehc-I employees . . ..

12. No TitleIfunds way be used forreligious worthip car struclion. 13. Wort-study &alignments may not be made I. sucha way as w enhance the value of private premises or suppleaseot aetivitie, normally financed by the private seimioL 14. Teacher aids performing services on private minims,as well as those in public schools, must be involved directly isa Title' activity. 15. Title 1 feeds may not be used to contract with private srlecl to administer a Title 1 activity." Office of Education Handbook, supra note 23, at 12-14. zi flee III Cosg.Ree. 7298-7299 (1965)- (remarks of Senator- lute), as extensive list of possible Title I activities.

21 zany factors wouldbe important: whatisthepreciseprograii. of eyed; in what manner is the remedial program to be ofersd;does Cu: BEST COPYillf:1114,911

agencies have failed to request funds for, nn -public school children or that private schools have not stated their needs is not justification for denial of an equitable and csmparable program for eligible private school children. If the state is to parti^ipate in Title I programs, the state Las the responsibility to seek out t!ze disadvantaged child and disawer his needs. 45 C.F.R. 4116.19(b) (1972). The record here demonstrates that the banie problem in administering Title I in Missouri has ken the tenor .1f non-cooperation by boll. public aid non-public orScials. Title 1 is premised and-can ,:ork oily upon a firm founde- Lion of cooperation by both public and non-public officials. 21w regulations require thLt. the laeal educational agency Fete: mine the need of the educationally deprived children airolled in the private school, and this is to be done by .'consultation with persons knowledgeable 0: the needs of these private school children." 45 C.F.R. §l16.19(b) 1,1972). Implementation of this procedure is the primary responsibility of the state and local officials." The record ;Jefore us is barren of any evidence that non-public school

program fully eostemplate the restrictions set forth by the United States "..'ommiscioner (see note 27 supra) ;where and when in We program to be offered;what elaipment and materials are used; who administer. and .,..apervioes it; and who booths from it.Theme factors man be compiled :,More spptyiag the triparte anab-sis inLewes ofwhether the program .1) km a sonny pitmen; (2) penmen a principal or primary effect which neither advances nor inhibits religion; and (3) avoids "'an exesosive govern- --eat estaaglemest with "Lesbose.Ifertrabsa,403 U.S. at 612413. 30 The National Advissry Council on the Edseatios of Diaadvastaged Children has recammended I. the past entail' steps which seisebtealy meld help implemist as effective program for nossublie school &dirs. Long its ir."7:assamidetimos have bun: "[That the mean delliffnalel is their rioportmeaSofcaseation, .file betimes public end sompablie *easel etioSIA wremerisg the putioipstiss soapablie school dollars at the Sul lava sub as individual weld re nsin le oboe tested with the sees' worries that tweaks is the Oise el Eismaiss is Washisgten Sindartp, are reassumed lie bad public amid asapelie *MAIO WI tarp .,440 GE ST COPY UPILA131 I officials in Missouri have been active consultants in Title I planning or evaluation. This flagrantly violates the Act for the net result of this unauthorized conduct is to neglect the only intended beneficiary a the Acctthe disadvantaged child. The case is remanded to the district court with direc- tions to enjoin the defendants from further violation of Title I of ESKA, and it is further ordered that the court retain continuing jurisdiction of the litigation for the purpose of requiring, within jeasonable time limits, the imposition and application of guidelines which will com- port with Title I end its regulationl." Such guidelines must provide the lawful means ead machinery for effectively assuring educationally disadvantaged non-public school children in Missouri partieipatiaa in a meaningful

designate as audit-ideal with soffieient time arid resources t act Is liaises OR Title I participation. "[That] the Office of Rdueatios mid the states ... sostisse to urge the involeenient of nonpublic school officials is the plitasiso sod (talus- tics of Title I at" the local keel.. This effort could by, Cavell emPbogiv by providing space on planning and evaluation forms sot only for the signature of nonpublic school officials but also for their comments os various aspects of the. Title1program.Similarly, the comments of public school officials on the problems they have caeountered in eneourag- ing nonpublie participation should be invited. . . . "[TAW the Office of Educatiow sad the states review the was/ of identifyingeligiblechildrenand porticogorli of establishingI kW

" [ And that where Ieeetices to children' justifyit, there should be an increase in snared time programs, joining public and nonpublic school ci.ildrenin common learoinl experiences.Such minas( is a positive intent of TitleI.Yet few localities include shared times is Title I planning.it should_ be encouraged by dimeminating reports of successful programs which incorporate shared time." National Advisory Council on the Education of Disadvantaged Children, Auroral Illeport to the Prenident and the Congress 42-43 (1969). The National Connell singled out the TitleI Program isPittsburgh, Pennsylvania, as a model program of sumac We hare set out the report so the operation of this pbui 1.14 the Appendix. 31 TheMissouriDepartmentofEducationregulationsascurrently phrased will provide a sound basis for supplementatiou if, and Italyif, procedural machinery is provided to carry them out. See note 8 supra, CCPY 2441 program as contemplated within the Act which is parable in size, scope r.H opporttnity to that provided eligible public school children. Such guidelines shall be incorporated into an approwiate injunctive cecree by the 4istrict court." Reversed and remanded.

32 Although we du notra.eso..1the merits of plaintiffs' claim for ac.. counting and damages. the;;renting of tviitablerelief Lerenitb should .ot be construed es deterinininplaintiffs' damage claim.Plaintiffs must overcome other legal barriers if they are to prevail in their prayer ter ,:atuagea.One of the most important of whie.h is that Title 1 does not 1..."Ltumplz.te that privateschoo3s genii necessarily receive a pro rata shay: of Title I funds allocated to a stato for its clisadt.antaged children. (13e. 1:0 note11 supra.)We obset re that the continuing litigation over this i.sue is not apt to be productive can on17 revaitin further friction %..;!twoenthe parties.Determination of the present legal conflict now can &setter lead to a beneficial, and cooperative program. for allchildrenin Sissouri intended to be bcnefieiarieeunder,the Act...In any event, we direct that the injunctive relief granted herein shall be issut.tl and be effective forthwith.. 2442

APPENDIX

A COMMUNITY CASE, STUDY OF NON-PUBLIC SCHOOL CHILDREN AND TITLE I IN PITTSBURGH., PENNSYLVANIA' "Pittsburgh is a heavily industrialized city of 650,00 persons.Figures provided by the sehoOl systein shay- 122,000 children in the city, 76,CCO enrolled in pubik schools (62%) and 45.030 in nonpublic schools (38%). O-r these, 17,500 live in Title I projectareas; 13,000 are pub1i. school children (74%) and 4,500are private school chi:. siren (26%). There r.re no private schools, other than Catholic schools, in the city ':vith children eligible for Title .1 funds.

"Title i expenditures for City D have beenas follows: 1966-67 School year .2,509,000 1967 Summer 21,000 1967-68 School year 3,163,000 1968 Summer 53,000 "A, partial listing of programs for the 1966-67 school year are as follows

NationalAdvisory.Couneil on the Education of Disadvantaged Children, Annual Report to the President and the Congress 08--B-11 (1969). Number of Number of Public SchoolNoltpiablic School instructional Activity ParticipantsParticipants Art 1459 0 Euglish-Reading 655 563 English-Speech 377 712 English-Second Language 866 481 Music 6258 531 Recreation 118 0

er v ice Activity

Guidance-Counseling 2049 1031 Social Work 348 1086

Planning and Evaluation.,in Pittst.:rgh "Even before Title I alleeations were announced for the first year of the prc,rrarn's operatic; public selmel officials .4-ere meeting with Cathec school leaders to pl,ar.. joint programs. The lear:i.vs of systc:ns were not strangers 10 one another; Pittsbc.r1111 has !lad !onc.; history of bared-time progr2mo. F yc..ars 60100i All- :lents hatlin:.veled to n,,.ai-1:y cclicols to :1..rtieipate in hcme economics elzzses ccrEc:, is vne;..tiont.1 educ7.- lion. The plan agreed tponor Title I pro;:,ralaz was based on a mutual understamling o' Z:12 neals of diSr.d- vantaged child-a:en in the two school systems.

! "Title I project areas were selectedon a school-by- school basis in the public system usingcensus and AFDC information. Once an individual public schoolwas 'selected hildren in the parochial school in the same neighborhood also qualified, so long us Catholic officials verified theas- sumption that tlisadvantaged children attended the school in numbers roughly equivent to the companion public school. According to public school officials, this system was used because the nonpublic schoo leaders knew they would be responsible for their decision and would behave accordingly. At the same time, public school officials themselves had more than a passing understanding of the composition of Catholic school populations in Pittsburgh. "Once the project areas were agreedupon, prcgrams were established with services provided equally to the children in the paired public and parochial schools. Ap- proximately 30 percent of the disadvantaged students in Pittsburgh were enrolled in parochial schools and about 30 percent of the Title I fundswere expended on these students.In practical terms this has meant thatsome remedial teachers spend part of their day in thenonpublic school and part, in the public school. Fewprograms mix students from the two systems. "In the Communier,tion Skills program, for example, where intensive reading preparation is given, halfof the teachers spend half of their time in parochial schools. Thus 25 percent of the totalprogram takes place with nonpublic children. This program is concentratedin II public schools, but provides services to childrenin 20 Catholic schools. In other words, 75 percent of theteach- ers and equipment are located in a few public schools while 25 percent serve children innumerous parochial schools. This arrangeme.*t was pressed by Catholicschool officies; those public officials in charge of theprogram feel that students benefit most froma concentration of services. The U.S. Office of Education, in ic:s guidelines, is explicit in urging such concentration. "Certain programs, as seen in the listing above, serve only students in public schools, while others serve both in varying proportions. Funds for reducing class size, for exempla, are not expended for children in parochial schools. Some substitution takes place, however, so that more than 30 percent of the participants in some programs are nonpublic school children. "According to both Catholic and public schoolinen, (valuationis. an on-going process.The deputy gaper- intendent of the Diocese schools and the associate dire for of compensatory education for the Pittsburgh school system, call one another whenever necessary to discuss Title I programs.Decisions on the retention or expansion for the various components of Title I are discussed at regular joint meetings, occasionally with t'22 public school superintendent in attendance- In one example of what tran- ,;piree at such gatherings, it was recently proposed by the public school administraticn that a program involving mobile speech clinics be ended.Parochial officials saw this as undesirable for their children since it would have ended speech therapy in their schools. A compromise finally was reached where one laboratory would b3 kept to serve nonpublic pupils. "In part, this joint evaluation is encouraged by a State Department of Education regulation receiring the eigaa- tare of nonpublic officials on the state evaluation fortr.. This is to insure that coniultation with privet.. school leaders has, in fact, taken place. This is a recent regulation, however, and active cooperation was commonplace in Pittsburgh before its enactment. "Current planning in Pittsburgh includes the establishment of a position within the public school's Ace of compensatory education to represent the nonpublic schools on a half-time basis. Such a liaison would r.ssist in planning and evaluation and would assure full participation wherever possible. Fun& do not presently provide for such an individual, however, and it appears that this plan will not be activated in the immediate future because of the curtailment of Title I funds.

Discussion "Both public and nonpublic school officials take pride in the harmonious relationship between the two systems. A long history of such cooperation is present, enhanced by a state constitution which has long permitted shared- time programs. Title I is being administered in keeping with this spirit to the satisfaction of all the participants involved. "Programs in the 1967-68 school year, for which evalu ationt are not ready at the time of this writing, showed that nonpublic participation was occurring at approximately 30 percent, though probably ata slightly reduced level (one estimate was 27.3% total allocation). Individual program descriptions for 1967-68 demonstratei that disadvantaged nonpublic Ecbool children have been considered in the planning of each Title I program. "There is less inter-minglir.g of public and nonpnblic school children students in Title Iprograms than might be considered desirable by some observers, includingsome of the original sponsors of Title I legislation. Inpart this is the result of the convenience and theeesnamy in shifting teaching personnel from school to school,Tabor than students. Distance is sometimes a factor,as walking is not always possible. Also there are a number of problems associated with moving a large Way of students through crowded urban neighborhoods. Such an effort, however, would lead to a sharing of programs between Pittsburgh public schools, many with large nonwhiti° popu- lotions, and Catholic schools, which tend to be filled with mostly white students. "The nature of the Catholic school organization fosters cooperation. The Catholic Schools Office is highly centralized and has full support of the Bishop of Pittsburgh. The Schools Office has authority to speak for all parochial schools in the City and the Diocese.Thus, the public school officials haveonly,one person with whom they must communicate. This is a tremendous advantage and has contributed greatly to the public/nonpublic cooperation. It would be much more difficult to establish such rapport in cities with autonomous Catholic schools. "On the whole, the situation in Pittsburgh seems to follow closely the letter and spirit of Title I with regard to the provision of services to disadvantaged nonpublic school children. Nonpublic school officials contribute to both planning and evaluation. Aid is given to nonpublic school children but the nature of that aid is such that careful ivntrol seems to be exercised by the public school officials. At the same time, because participation in program formulation is invited and because of frequeut inter- communication, the non-public officials are in a position to both assist in, and observe, the operation of Title L Suchsituation would seem to provide a sound basis for informed judgment on the part of public officials with whom responsibility for Title I programs ultimately rests. The real benefactor would seem to be the disadvantaged child in Pittsburgh who is receiving aid regardless of the school he attends, as is the intent of Title L" BEST Cori HIT rim E 244s,

Seariancon, Circuit Judge, diroeitin3. I re:;:lectfully c'isocat.Notwithstanding the view ex- prezzal is the majority opinion, "niUre I or the Elementary aL.I Secondary Se.:ec; Ad of 155 elesrly cave permit:. ant does not ma:Qate the r.1.-.1ignr_ent of public .seihool ter.chera to private c; `z: dcrins regular 'sczool hours. That no suc.1 cznarwsional purpose ever prevailed is evidenced by the Act's legislative history: The bill's floor manager in the !louse initially exprecasd the view that a public school teacher could cot be assigned to a private school under the provisions of Title L' Following lengthy debate a compromise was carefully reached by which "Th.:: decision about the best arrangement for providing special educational assistance under Title I is left to the public education agency of the school distria, under the Con- stitution and laws of the State." 111 Cong. Rec. 5979 (1965).2 Since the Act 'a only permissive with respect to school teacher assignments, the Missouri State Board of Education, bound by its state constitution and court 'decisions, could properly determine not toapprove school district plans providing for the assignment of public school teachers to private schools during regular school hours. I therefore find myself in complete agreement with Judge Collinson's conclusion that "Title I clearly doc3 not mandate the assignment of teachers paid by Title I funds to nonpublic schools. The legislative history of the Act demOnstrates that such an intention was 'completely disavowed byevery proponent of the bill."

1 See IIICoat. nee. 5743.5 (1965) and G. UN.... sgalarea.stato, Problems is New Jersey:Th.Implemeetatios of Title I (IKEA) is Silty Cities," 22 lbstgers I. Rif. 214. 234 -235 (INS). s gee aim Sr.. R. No144, Nth Gag, 1st Om, INS U. S. Cads Ceeg. S Admin. News, 1456-1457. I would thereiore 'arm the trial cavrt's c:enicl o: Live relief. If, as the majlrity hoUs, Title I ona::detes the ust.i,-;:- went of public school teachers to private schools, I fail to see how the constitttional issue presented can be 'avoided. I share in the District Judge'sgrave concern that Title I, under such circumstances, could not withstand the constitutional challenge. See Lentosv. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971); Americans United for Separation of Church and State v. °key, 339 F.Supp. 545 (D. Vt. 1972) and Johnson v. Sanders, 319 F.Supp. 421 (D. Conn. 1970), ard 403 U.S. 955 (1971). The "entanglements" fosteredby Title I, as construed by the majority, appear quite indistinguish- able from the excessive entanglements proscribedby Lemon. See generally, 22 Rutgers IA. Rev.,supra. I join in the majority's concern with respectto the failure of the parties to negotiatea lawful program pursuant to the Act. Unfortunately, the victims of this lack of cooperation are the intended beneficiariesof Title I, the educationally deprived children. A true copy.

Attest: Clerk, U. S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit. 24 511

/N TEE SY::TED ST:1'ES -ISTAIC'r aim: row THE WESTER): DISTRICT 4F MI;SOUZI VESTESX DIVISION

AXNA SARRIAA, et el, ritiu Pletatiffs. ) sit1 VI vs. te.eve. el1 Manlier 111414 ,d thee, ',gni/. MU3ERT t:HEELEW, et ol.

Defendants.i

lyJUNCTIOv Ar: Tr:S:7.D IN CO!TLIANCE WITH MANDATI!

The J64:ent of the Enitod States Comet of Aroests far t :. Fie,th Circuit in the stove sty:edcause, having Leen rtereA and filed in the t;ited Ctitc: DistrictCaust for Ow District of Xissouri, 1;estern I. Ag73. urderin; that this caus he roman4ed to 'thiscourt for pro.

:eadings in accordance with the ma;orityopinion of the United

States Court of Appeals, and hi said majorityopinion orderiog

this court to ,enloin t'ie Defendants fro' furtherviolation of Title I of the Ele=cntary and SecondaryEducation Act of INS

(23tA) end ordering the court to retaincontinuing jurisdiCtiol Of this litigation.

IT IS THEkETOPE ORIVEUZ AND ADJUDGED that the

Defendants sod each of thee, theirscents, employes, and ell other persons act:ft; under thet:itectionor authority of thee, be aid they are hereby pi:I:tau:11y cnjoiLedsnd reatrained so Gyloks:

1. Ordered and enjoined that Soh.em the needs of eligible children tCc6ift it specisl porsonnol StrACI: shay be

f6roished under Tit:e I sy the publicagency on private as voll

as ;65lic school promt:ea,: and further if 'lac% specialporsoasol sayItaa are (uroishe.1 public s:hoolchildren during molar

school hoods and on Ito public school prOsesmotets tM imPli segalooly attosis, than vroparablo sadogoltaLlo porsoosol be provided eligible private school children during regular school Lours on the private school premises when the private school child regularly attends. Defend/tate ire ujoined Los disapproving ny application if s L.csl

Educational Agency (LEA) for the grativ of Federal Till. I

ESEA Fuds cm the basis that such application iscludes'the use of Title 1 personnel on private school premises during regular school hours.

2. Ordered and directed that based ea detersined need of the eligible private school pupil, ell Title I ESEA applications shall provide services and ectiviWo4 IihitN stet

the special need of such pupil and whiet are ceoparafle and

equitable .in quality, scope and opportunity for participation to those provided to eligible public school pupils similarly

situated.

S. Ordered and directed that where an application sakes

available free transportAion to eligible public school pupils

at Title 1: ecpense the said free transportation shall be

provided to eligible privet* school children slailarly situated.

4. Ordered and directed that each Applicatieo sluice

Title 1, ESEA, shall clearly evidence that persons knowledgeable

of the needs of the private school children have been consulted

in the planning end evaluation of such Title l projects it all stages.

S. Defendants are,eajoined fres approving any application by on LEA for a Title I Grant unless tech epplicatiel

fully complies with the provisions of this Order and the Maodete and majority opinion at the United States Court of Appeals Eer the Eighth Circuit.

G. Defendants are 'littered and directed is costars any regulations. guidelines, oolicies, instructioas (verbal sr, written), applications, and ether Titlel'forms previously el'

hereafter issued by Defendants. their agents, employees and

ell ether persons ectiag under their directien it authority, sod near practices or procedures used by thee, to the prevails.* of this Order sad the Mendez. and majority opiates of the Vatted. States Court of Appoiii for the Eighth Ciecsit. ?. The Defendants ere ordered and directed to -immediately notify all publicschool end private school

facials:raters of tine rights of eligible private school children under Title ! ESEA by distributing to each of thena copy of

this Injunction And Judgment Issued In Compliance With 'Mandate

and a copy of the majority opinion of the United States Court of

Appeali for the Eighth Circuit..

I. The Defer.dats Arc ordered and directed to dale

availeble on permanent and continuing basis. for convenient

inspection and copying by Plaintiffs or their Tepresentstives

during regular office hours. all records and documents regarding

ESEA end its implementation 1w:he State of ,!iiso-Jri.

9. It is C7dettd Injunction And lodgment Issued In Compliance With Mandate shall be effective forthwith

and that this court retains continuing jurisdiction of Ois

!'litigation to assure that eligible p.ipils attending private

schools participate is meaningful prOinWill as contemplated within ESEA. Costs be toted to Lefendants.

V. Cf ewe;

William R. Collinsen District Judge

OM II

Masts I saw ow. aim C. Sums, egos. Sera. "45:i

1)EPAHT41L::1 OF. HEALTH. F.DUCAT LLFARE ul I -:(:14,0I OtIL

16 f :l1107

DEC l 5 1972

rcaloRANnym TO: CHIEF STATE SCHOOL OFFICE;IS ADMINISTRATORS OF NONPUEL1C SCHOOLS

,SUBJECT Responsibilities for Meeting Nonpublic Participation kequIrements in Federal Programs

The eligibility of nonpublic elementary and secondary students to participate In Federal programs serving needs which they share in common with public school children ham been 1nsresningl,yrecognized in legislat'en since the principle was established in the Elementary and Seconda.y Education Act of 1965. It is the purpose of this memorandum to invite yOur particular attention to this matter which you:know has been implemented in applicable Federal regulations.

The U.S. Office of Education hn5 a responsibility to, assure that the benefits of n11 programs for which nonpublic school :,;:Izildren are eligible are made fully available to such children. This Includes the effective access, with advice and suggestions by persons knoxledgeable as to the needs of, such children, to policy making councils at the State and local levels where decisions on the use of Federal funds under the applicable programs are made.

Each Federal program officer 15 expected to assess the implementation of this policy in carrying out the functions of review, approval, monitoring, and evaluatic:: and to take appropriate action in situa tions 111C-7e W.'1,'4 participation is found to be other than in -;:16:. requirements of the law.

The Chief State .5chtiol Officers, as the principal education leaders in the States, are responsible foi- assuring. that the level and quality of nonpublic participation fully and fairly meet the requirements of the applicable Federal programs. About twenty State agencies have already designated ao °Meinl responsible for eru;uring the adequate partici pation in Federal programs of nonpublic school children.

It is my hope that all Chief State School Oalcers will move to provide, comprehensive services in State Departments of Education which will give representatives of nonpublic school children full access to Federal program information and planning. At a minimum, each State should designate a contact point for inquiries, program Information, and the gatheriLg of data on nonpublic participation, REST COPY AVAILABLE

For their part.I ask the administrators of nonpublic schools to play a more active rolelin assuring that students in those schools receive

the full benefits of Federal programs to which they are entitled. I encourage nonpublic school lezders to contact their State educational agency for further Info:L.:tion on all Federal programs which are available to children enrolled in her schools.

The U.S. Office of Education is determined to Achieve that degree of participation of eligible nonpublic school students which Is required by law Please do not hesitate to ask the assistance of our Office of Coordination ,ut Nonpublic school Activities as you seek to build the increasingly effective relationships between public amd nonpublic schools which,i11 be required to reach this obj ctive. , 4\) Duane J. Mattheis Deputy Commissioner for School systems 2455

Senator PELL.' Thank you for your testimony, which has beenvery helpful ',and solid. Mr. WA lessio. 'asIinterpret. what you said, yi!: support.' emit inuat ion of categorical programs as opposed to consolidation, that %milld be t he effect of yonr test imony. In your testimonyyou said you did not take a position on-it at the time, but the gist ofyour testimony seemed to the to lead us to that. conclusion. Mr. D'ALEssio. It !link I said in my testimony. Mr. Chairman, that we had not taken any position' On the consolidation of present, cate-; gorica I programs. I to wever. I also pointed out, that,any consolidation if there wouhl he one would ha Ve toassure the equitable participation of nonpublic sehool children. Senater PELL. It: would seem to me that for tlie protection 'of the rightS of your children. under consolidationyou Would fare well, better than average in my own State and in Ma&sitchusetts. Whileyou might nit, fare, as well in sonic of the ot her States. Therefore, t would think yeti wouhl be for cont in uat ion of t he categorical progra Mr. D'ALEssio.Iwould think the important consideration, Mr. Chairman. is that, regardless of theprograms. categorical or consoli7 dated. there:nnist he adequate safeguards to assure. the equitablepar- t ici pat ion of 011ellildrell in these programs. Senator PELL. 1Vould yon lie kind enough to furnish for the record for my own in fOrmat ion the latest figuresyou have. broken down into State level. of the number of children attending full-time parochial schools?: Mr. IYALcssio. Yes. we can furnish t hose for the record. Senate!. PELL. And if you Could giveus also the. same figures for 10 years or 12 years ago so we could see What the trend ison a State- by-St at e basis. Mr.IYALcssio. Yes, we do not. have t hem with us, butwe can furnish them for the record. Senator ['mu,. Good. If you have the adequate mathematical abilities. we would appreciate it. if you would put the percentages of total children in the column as well. Fat her IlmaiinvEc. 'I'ota I st 11(1(4gs attending?. Senator PELL: What, I would like to see isa column with the number of children in Catholic schools and what percentage that, is of the total number-- Fat her liarmEWco. Of all the children ? Senator Mi.:, In that. State. in any 'periodyou would like, 10, 12 yearsago,and I womler if Mr. Thomsen could furnish us thesame 'figures fort he non- Catholic nonPublic schools. Mr.TnomsEK. We would be' able to do: it. only for the National AssoCiation of Independent SchoolS, which would bea stnall sector of what is left Senator PELL That would include all the religious schools, would it not? Mr. TimmsEN. Not. the National Assiwiation of Independent, Schools figureS which would he my paiicular bailiwick: I believe, hoWelier, that we can gather the information that, you wish and coordinate the results with the figures which will be furnished for the Catholif, enrollment.. Senator PELL. Maybe if you could ask Rabbi Seidman and if they could supply this for the record.'

7-457 O 74 31 2456

.1. think it would be interesting to have in this hearing to see what the trend is and how strong it is, whether it is increasing or decreasing: in these di reetions, Father Da EuEwr.o. If I might. make 'a comment, the problem is a statistical one in gathering data. I think you could compare 1965-66 with 1970-71; and get a 5-year look, PosSil)ly you Could get 1960-61. Senate'. 1',u.. 'flint, would : be fine. I would hope Mr. Thomsen would coordinate his work with Mr. l)'Alessio so we, would have the saute tune fraMe beingused. In connection with religious instruction, are there more Catholic children going to religious instruction after SehOol now than there was 10 yearsago oris there leSS? Not full-time parochial schools. Mr. D'AlEssio. May I submit, that,' for the record, Mr. ChairmarL Senator PELL. Fine. I would be interested in that, for the record. I mentioned this to you before; ,that niy. Own house became a Catholic girls high school, and I saw enrollnmnt go up and drop down again. It is still a sdiool,.but, now inthe, public school system in my city. Senator Stn fiord. Senator STA iToun. Thank you. Mr. Chairman. Mr.' D'Ale§sio, Inoted on page 2 of your testimonythat you stated we feel deeply, the necessity for moreadequate funding of the act. CoUld You:give us Sonic!' thought, for what you wouldconsider to be adequate funding for this act? Mr. D'ALEssto. I think the only way'could answer that, Senator, would be to say that more adequate fimding would beessentially More funding than, a higher funding level, than wepresently have. Senator S'rArroun. Another billion dollars or halfa:billion?. Mr. D'ALEssin.' I think Mr. Duffy would like torespond to that, Mr. DUFF;Y. For 2 years I worked as the Stateand Federal Pro- grams coordinator in the diocese of Brooklyn.I will just use the ilhistratiOn for fiscal year 1973. New YorkCity, in 1973,. rezeived $125 million under ESEA title I. Thenonpublic school sector using the, criteria of residence in an attendance area,and also educational depriVatiOn, identified between 33.000 and 34,000eligible children. The funding level for each identified child was$262 and some-odd eents, so wewill round it, off and we will say $263per:Child. L, The State educational agency, in 1973,prescribed a critical mass, figure, for expenditure for. an adequate compensatoryeducation pro gram per child at a level of $400. Eachidentified child generated $262. So there was a significant differencebetween an adequate program and what each child identified generated. You could 'MS° see the ,33,000 children, eVeryoneof the identified children did net receive service because 'of thedifference in the fund- ink., I believe that the legislation statesthat the funding level should be within 50'percent of the Stateexpenditure:for each child. I.would say,that, would be adequate funding:, if you couldreach what the levisiation' suggests. In other Words, fullfundingof the program. P'ffere: we have 34,000 or 33.000 youngsters identified, their!Leeds are not even beingmet. Ivoilld say that less than 50 percent of those identified. j nonpublie school' children, did notreceive service. Now. these are just under the present criteriaof residence in a poverty area, and edUcatiOnal.deprivation. Senator SrArronn. Could that be translated into some kind of recom.7 niendation to this committee, whether we should have-try to add a billion dollars to the total funds or half a. billion or more? Mr. :num% Well, I do not, :know. I think your economists could come Up with it better figure than I can. Senator SrArronn.MD not sure: kit what educators in education can. do better than an economist. Mr. Pury..YoiknOW, I do not, want, to stick my neck out, and say $5 billion or $1 billion, I am not sure. T do not knew, Senator STArono., At, one point I thought your figures suggested maybe a 12.5qereent addition to the present contemplated funding, When you were discussing the New York children.. .[r. Durry. Yes, :I was. I do not, know total per pupil expenditure in New YOrk State, bOt, the State expenditure is quite. high, as you compare it with other States. If New York State would' receive for their eligible title "children one-half of what the State spends, would consider that adequate. funding in New York State. It might be the same type of adequate funding for the rest of the. States. Senator SrArron. Thank you very much. I have just one more question. That. was with respect, to Mr. D'Alessio's statement.'I got, the impression that, you were recommedning a bypass in connection with title T, bypass legislation. Possibly in your detailed statement or elsewhere in these document§ we have the :language which you have in mind, but if we do not haYe language, do. you haYe sonic in mind, something in mind to ,recommend here to the committee? liDai,Essio. Yes. There is language cited inour detailed state-, int, and I think that, the language thatis presently contained in H.R. 69 Would be adequate bypass language. Senator STAFFORD.- HAA'e you addressed the question of possible constitutional complications with respect to title I and the bypass? Mr. TYAUssio. We do not hai-e a counsel with us here this morning, but we would be happy to 'submit, a statement for the record concerning the constitutionality of title T and the bypass. Senator STAFFORD. I think that ,would be helpful to the committee if YOu would do that forthe record. Thank yon very much. I have appreciated your testimony. Senator Pin.L. Thank' you very much indeed for good testimony, think actuall : it haS been a:good. day of hearings. I congratulate both the non - Catholic and :Catholic' representatives here for excellent testimony. At this point I ordered printed in the record all statements of those who could not attend and Other pertinent inforMatinn submitted fm the record.. [The information referred to folloWs: AN ASSESSMENT OF THE INVOLVEMENT' OF NONPUBLIC SCHOOL CHILDREN IN TITLE III PROJECTS OF THE ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION ACT

Reverend Charles Patrick Laferty, Q.S.A.

A Research Project Sponsored by the National Advisory Council on Supplementary Centers and Services This study by the Reverend Charles P. Laferty,' Villanova Monastery.; Villanova, Pennsylvania 19085, a graduate student at:the Catholic University of America, l.:ashington, D.C., was developed under the sponsorship of the National Advisory Council on Supplementary Centers and Services. Points of vivw or opinions expressed herein do not necessarily represent the viewpo1nt of the National Advisory Council or the United States Office of Education. ESEA lugiSlatlon in 1965 climaxed:many yearn of dialogue directed toward the reform of the nation's achoe_s.' Title III, has the role, in this legislation, of tenerating innovative and exemplary prograMs, in a local context, for all school children.

The research reported here assesses the involvement of nonpublic: school children in the Title III venture.

Numerical Pronortion of Nonpublic School Children Participation

' During 1970,, the Tear for which this, research vas conducted, 49,924,745 children attended' the nation's elementary and secondary 'schools; of that number 5,729,166, or 11.5 per cent, attended nonpublic schools. Sixty-five per cent of all school children had' the opportunity to share in Title III projects in some' manner, 22 pur cent in a direct manner.

Table 1 STUDc..1 PARTICIPATION IN ELEA TITLE III NATIONALLY

Per Direct Indirect Total Cunt

Public School Children 10,160,724 18,936,037 29,096,761 89.7

Nonpublic School Children 1,186,794 2,180,371 3,367,165 10.3

All:School Children 11,347,518 21,116,408 32,463,926

To test thuse figure's a questionnaire was sent to 611:project directors of the 1,650 projects aCtive!in FY 1970.1 .Five hundred :and forty-four,' or 89 per cent, of the project directors responded.2 The basic information sought was a:comparison of participation by public school children and nonpublic school children. The replies received. represent 37 per cent, of 011 funded )970 Title III projects and 35 per c:mar of all school.,children directly involved in projects.

Participant ficolLes representing Title III projects obtained from 'questioanaire returns were compared with actual population ratios 'of public 'and nonpublic schnol children and are reported below in ter'z's of per! ceut deviation of the project directors' respenseS to the actual populat4on.3 f\t3tE C13'?71.

Table 2 PARTICIPATION OF NONPUBLIC SCHOOL cningtN IN TITLE 1,1IWURc:H DEVIAiT6: 55:71 ACTUAL STUDENT POPULATION 11_'.1 OS IN JUL PROJECT AREA (From 678 Pr9ject Samnle)

LEA LEA Under 50,000 Deviations :50,000 or Over All LEA

771X '4 %

None 21.7 26.4 23.4 0-, 52: belOw 13.2 18.4' 15.1

5-10% below ; 6.6 12.6 8.8 10-25% below 7.2 5.0 6.3

100% below .38.8 21.8 32.6 (No NPSC Par.)

No data given for PSC/NPSC 12,5 15.8 13.8 100.0% 7667E 100.0%

Discounting disproportions less than five per cent, 38.5 per, cent of the projects have proportionate participation by nonpublic school' children. 15.1 per cent of thc projects have significantly lower participation by nonpublic school children than student populations in the project area indicate as proportional. This figure is slightly (17.6%) higher in high density LEAs, wherein must nonpublic schools are located.

The absence of any nonpublic school children participation In Title III preect.was reported by 32.6 per cent of project directprs, while an additional 13.8 per cent gave no numerical data for either public school children or nonpublic school children, a combinedtotal of 46.4 per cent.of the returns. The reas?nn;icr the lack of any nonpublic school children participation is indicated by:the following table..

Table 3 REASONS YON LACE OF ANY PARTICIPAT1ONAN'TITLE Ili PROJ1CTS. EY NONPUBLIC SCHOOL CHILDIIEN

Number of Projects Per.Cent

NoNPS LI LEA 82 37 State Constitution estrictioas. 9 4 No NPS interest 38 17 Restrictive' type'of,pruj,:ct 44 20 Project designed for PS only 49 22

Tonal 222 100% 46% rt\I VESTCON

The first reason in no way involves a lack of participation. Legislative by-pass is a ready recourse for the restrictive state constitutions of the second reason. Reason three, while it raises questions of, equity and effectiveness, was accepted at face value.

Croup four (restrictive type of project) includes projects for which 'a separate count of public school children and nonpublic school children was not kept: some Special Education projects, Preschool projects, certain centers. Again, equity or effectiveness of participation may be questioned, but no clear evidence of exclusion of nonpublic school children is given.

Group fi've, however, does provide evidence of exclusion: projects designed for public schools only. Such.projects include: Technical' Education Pilot Studies, One-School Pilot Studies, Special Age-Group Programs and some Special Education Projects.

In summary, the number of projects which show a lack of proportionate participation of nonpublic school children include:

Table 4 PROJECTS WITH A LACK OF PROPORTIONATE PARTICIPATION BY NONPUBLIC SCHOOL CHILDREN OF 478 PROJECTS SAMPLED

LEA Under 50.000 LEA Over 50,000 All LEAs 1,No. of Per I I No. of Per I I No. of Per I Projects Cent Projects Cent Pro cots Cent

10-2,5% bal..: actual populLtion 42 13.6 30 17.6 rrojects designed for PS only. 35 11.5 14 8.0 49

Tutal 77 25.3 441 25.6 121

One project in four, involving some 841.791 nonpublic school childrem, stows a Significant lack of participation of these children. iiECOMMENDATION 1: Project proposals should indicate in clearer- detail the planning and operational involvement of the nonpublic school sector.

RECOMMENDATION 2: Pilot study type projects should include, in their proposal, details of applicability to all schools in the LEA involved. 2463

Analysis of project directors' datc by regions reveals the following:

Table S REGIONAL PARTICIPATION OF NONPUBLIC SCHOOL CHILDREN IN TITLE 111 EXPRESSED AS PER CENT DEVIATION FROM ACTUAL STUDENT POPULATION RATIOS

Per Cent

North Atlantic States - 7.3 Midwest and Plain States - 3.1 Southeast States + 2.7 Southwest and West States 0.7

Greater negative deviations occur in the'States with the highest number of nonpublic school children, the North Atlantic corridor and the midwest urban centers.

RECOMMEMATION 3: A conference of officials representing public and nonpublic schools and systems from selected ',metropolitan areas of high nonpublic school children density could yield a profile for'PNAC.to revise regulations and promote legislation for fuller nonpublic schnol children participation in, Title III.

Projects were classified into nine types:

Table 6 PROJECTS BY TYPES'WITH PER CENT OF TOTAL SAMPLE INDICATED

Per Cent of Total Sample

Institutional improvement 4.8 Personnel and instruction 5.2 Curriculum 20.8 Technology 3.9 Community Involvement 8.6 Service/Demonstration Centers 33.3 Special Education ,12.5

Research and planning ' 0.9 Pupil services 10.0 2464

BEST COPY AVP.11.14311:

The highest deviations for a proportionate participation of non-: public school children were in three types of projects:Technology ,(16,6%), Curriculum (14.6%) and Personnel and Instruction (12.0 %). Reasons for this dominance are: unavailability of technical equipment ,on nonpublic school .property; inability of nonpublic school children to share'in:Title III projects aCpublie,school locations during regu lar school hours; lack of source of compensation for nonpublic school staff for personnel training in terms of released:time compensation.

RECOMENDATION 4: The law should be amended to permit the storage and use 'of certain project equipment on nonpublic school property, in a manner analogous to Title II.

RECUMMATION 5: Theilaw should be amended to permit compensation for staff released time for nonpublic school pflronncl on the same basisas public school personnel. This would give a more, positive:thrust that the:funds promote ."innovations in a local context."

Nonpublic school officials, 'in response to a questionnaire sent to them offered no substantive data contrary to the data of the project directors. Their perceptions as a group are that nonpublic schools do not share proportionately in Title III. But few could offer direct numerical support except in cases where no nonpublic. School cbildren.participated. Their attitudes are reflected in response.to'a questionnaire sent to 109 nonpublic school officials.

:Table 7 OPINIONS OF:NONPUBLIC SCHOOL OFFICIALS FROM 9UESTIONNAIRE RETURNS

Per Cent No Yes No ItEAE91E

. Do projects provide for all children? 26.1 67.4 6.5

2. Is there schedule coordination with nonpublic school, personnel? 19.6 79.1 '- 4.3

3. Do youshare in project planning? 30.4 60.9, 8.7 Direct, numerical participation of nonpublic school children in Title III during 1970 has been presented in terms of a national survey, and' terms :of several subgroups; regional, project classificationhnd nonpublic school officials. The salient fact discovered is that:425.4 per, cent of the projects sampled did not haVe the participationof school children in proportion to their ratio in the population of all students.

-The Equity of the Participation of Nonrublic School. Children

Since three - fourths of the projects sampled show proportionate participation in Title III by nonpublic school children, the next question was dm '..th'py share as equal partners? To do this the children must not be exclude,: from any phase of an appropriate project and non - public school officials must be fully aware of the opportunities of participation.

The questionnaire sent project directors and nonpublic school officials sought a professional judgment about specific projects. Project directors responded in terms of their particular project. Non- public school officials, generelly,'did not respond in terms of specific projects, but offered 'their perceptions about equity.

Table 8 RESPONSE OF PROJECT DIRECTORS AND NONPUBLIC SCHOOL PERSONNEL ABOUT EQUITY OF NONPUBLIC SCHOCH. CHILDREN PARTICIPATION IN T2TLE III (By Percentage)

Project Direi:torg NF& Personnel Yes No. NR* Yes No NR* 777- 7r- Based on project design clidNPS participate on as equitable basis? 83.5 7.5 9.0 26.141.3 32.6

Was' ormal notice of project sent to .a S? 52.5 26.0 19.5 34.834.7 30.5

Was ,a reply from NFS personnel received? 53.0 36.0 11.0 17.428.3 54.3

In project operations were there' distinction of services between PS and NPS children? 7.0 84.0 9.0 Whil four-fifths of 1heproject diroctors felt their projects y7AVe designed for equity of participation,monpublic school personnel did not .feel this:way by a 3:1 ratio.' for the adverse opinion is that nonpublic school personnel !san° design featUres of projects in the planning stages to provide' later for operational success. Forty-three per cent saw this as an inherent ''problem of the Title III law whose wording,they felt, favored public school domi.. w:ance of Title III projects.' per cent saw this inequity as :a matter of poor communications, or indifference, at the planning level.

While many project directors are not familiar with the requirer ments7or mechanism of notifying nonpublic schools about projects, a high percentage (2S%) recognize:that:this was not done and a larger groUp (36%), received or knewof no acknowledgement of nonpublic school interest before submitting the propoSal to the state'leveh Yet state records show such notification as routinely given at the LEA level. The boundary problems between school territories, school districts, LEA:: and dioceses and private schools compound the notification problem; who to notify is a problem. The:poor per cent of response by e'npublic school,officials.to LEA notification (36%) reflect:: *heir double problem of iibt being notified in thefirst place or, if so, failing to respond for one of several reasons: poor structural correspondence to the LEA; poor internal organization; minimal interest in Title III.

REOOKMENDATION 6: Certain sections of the law should be rewritten to pfovide greater equity of participation by nonpublic school chil 'dren. Specifically:

Section 305 (a)(2)(A) --:The State Advisory Council, should have representation proportionate to the public school/ nonpublic 'school student' population as its first norm of compoiition.

The law should require that the wording of state manuals should reflect the exact cording of the lawland the Office 'of Education Administrative Nanual in providing for nonpublic school children."

Half the nonpublic school perSonnel sampled:(48.6%):indicated some effective way in which they were routinely notified about Title III projects. Only 13.5% indicated they received nonotice. But' almost all nonpublic school officials felt that a much better communications eystem!is needed to promote general interest in the Title III ideal. `2467

BEST Ccl'?MAILABLE

RECOMMENDATION 7: Direct mailing of apptopriate,literature and commur.ications about Title III should be made to all schools,' byHthe State Advisory Council for statewide notices, bythe LEA for all schools..in their district. Neither assumption's of awareness nor lack of interest on the part of nonpublic schools should be presumed.

RECOMMENDATION 8: State Title III manuals sh'ould.specify; to a greater degree than now exists the legal and'communication requirements of LEAs for project approval.

The'Effectiveness Of the Participation of Nonpublic School Children

Effective particip.Li,A. requires planning Title III projects based on the needs of all school children, and designing projectsfor full operational participation.

Table or rnc:tcT DIndTORS AND NONPUBLIC' SCHOOL PERSONNEL ABOUT EFFECTIMESS OF PARTICIPATION (13), Percentage)

Project Nonpublic Directors School Per:4onnel Yes No Yes. No NR* A % %. %

1. Were objectives of the'project planned to provide for all children? 79.5 17.5 23.9 30.4 45.7

2. Did nonpublic school participation include determination of needs? 54.5 45.5 22.078.0

Did nonpublic sehool participation include.planning of the project? 52.5 47.5 22.0 78.0

Did nonpublic schusl participation include designins thf,: project? 47.053.0 11.089.0

*No Response Among project directors, the higher exclusion rates for, nonpublin school personnel indicates the obvious fact that most project designs are the work of one or a few usually asociated with the public school system, which projects were designed with emphasis on unity of theme rather than diversity of objectives. Also indicated is the less obvious factor ofthat constitutes planning and the responsibility of including nonpublic scnool representatives. Nonpublic school personnel see planning as the provision that the public school will share its facilities equally'with,their pupils. LEA personnel sec planning with nonpublic school personnel as a matter of notification and inclusion on committees.

In dealing with factors promoting or impeding full nonpublic school children participation in Title III operations45 per cent saw good communications and a willingness of LEA officials to cooperate as the chief needs, while 29 per cent saw features of the law as creating an adverse situation. But while an average of one-third of the project direCtors:saw no eNclus:on factor:: hindering full nonpublic school children participation, yet could not indicate positive features of their own project promoting such participation.

RECOMMENDATION 9: Certain sections of the law should be rewritter to provide greater effectiveness of participation by nonpublic school children. Specifically:

Section 304(a) - To state that nonpublic school personnel should be included as Such from the time of need& determination onward.

Section 304(b)(1)(0 - To stress that nonpublic school children should be provided for in terms of needsand, hence, in project designs.

The criticism of Title III:norms and operationsin this report should.not obscure the fact that,ESEA Title Ill is an ideal 'and a hope for:quality education fOr the nation's nonpublic Sehow, children. Its twin features of creativity and exemplarism are the most urgent needs for our nonpublic schools.This principle was expressed!by the vast majority of project directors and nonpublic school officials contacted cud was always reinforced in my interviews.

Further, many cases of exemplary cooperation and participation. were evident to the researcher thtSulghoUt his research Enough examples to conclude with this recommendation:H RECO:01EpATI0N ip : An in-depth study should be made:Of a representative number of projects in Urban/suburban :areas whore public school and nonpublic school personnel agree that an equitable and effective cooperation in Title III projects exist, and the results of the study disseminated. BEST alii\111.11B11

Statement of

Rev. Thomas J. Riley Assistant.Superintendent for Planning and Evaluation Archdiocese of San Francisco San Francisco', California

Before the General Subcommittee on Education Committee on Education and Labor United States House of Representatives Rayburn Building Thursday, March 1, 1973 9:30 a.m. The Department of. Education' of the Archdiocese of San Francisco is responsible for 134 Catholic elementary and secondary schools in the four

Bay Area crunties of Marin, San Francisco, SanMateo, and SantaClara.

Among its duties is the responsibility of working with 43 local educational agencies in these four counties in cooperative program planning where there are common needs of both public and nonpublicschool students.

Although good relationships have existed between the Archdiocesan

Department of Education and the 43 local educational agencies for many years, the relationstdps have been informal.Only with Congress' enactment of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act - -with its provisions for the participation of nonpublic school students in federally fundededucation services--has the relationship between the public and nonpublic school sector become more formal and professional. In the City of San Francisco, a 1972 grant from the Ford Foundation

brought about the Joint Planning Council of San Francisco, a group repre-

senting public and nonpublic education.The purpose of the Ford grant was

to determine whether such a mechanism for discussingmutual problems and

developing common solutions would resutl in more effective instructional

programs for both public and nonpublic school students.The current efforts

in San Francisco for implementation of the Emergency School Aid Actfor

both public and nonpublic school students are a direct result of localeduca-

tional agency planning which involves the nonpublic school sector and its

representatives. 2.172

Page 2

When we look at the involvement of nonpublic school students in our four counties in ESEA Title VII programs, we see a bleak picture which is probably the result of inadequate program planning.In our area there are four bilingual projects currently in operation (San Francisco Unified School

District; Alum Rock Union Elementary School District, San Jose; Jefferson,

Elementary School District, Daly City; and Gilroy Unified School District).

Participation of Catholic school students is non-existent in these programs.

At the same time a genuine need exists among Catholic school children

for bilingual services.In the City of San Francisco alone, where our

schools serve 17,000 elementary school students, 44% of the students are

of minority group background.Of these minority group students, 75% are

Oriental, Filipino, or Spanish-surnamed.(5,621 students).Each year

since 1966, the minority group population of our, schools has increased.

Our students have a need in bilingual education - -but the federalbenefits

of ESEA Title, VII are not reaching them.

We do not Name this on bad will in the local educational agencies

but suggest that thcre may be an oversight in the law itself and in the process

whereby the U. S. Office of Education reviews proposals and awarth. grants,

We are hopeful that this Subcommittee will incorporate into the

BilingualF:ducaiion Act some of the language thai has resulted in effective

nonpublic school student participation in other fetioral programs. A provision

which charges local educational agencies to seek out knowledgeable nonpublic 2473

Page a

school personnel for cooperative programplanning would be helpful. A

charge to the U. S. Offic6 of Educationwhieh'would require review of non-

would be helpful, ,: publid school participation assurances

Your attention to this problem- -the relativefailure of the Bilingual

Education Act to reach needy nonpublicstudents--is appreciated. We in

San Francisco look forward to the daywhen Oese youngsters will 'receive

bilingual education services in a more equitable manner. $711. clsc- 106E elespegj pep im..17-.:?? .4 (fro) 19 1C1T. C'LLS2 MS1'..:31: 60617ten: JLi 6.:77.11 Z.-, EE, P.7 - vs!Ism - rs..n5 - . lo: -! - - Tz::::;7., .- . _ '..1 _ - i.l - , !.. ___ (0..: s,: ute.;z7.144'.9.,C' t, 2 _- P-,` : -wee -CE;41 1.4;..)gil'S '--,;e2 0:Z6Z .. c.:1!..-- v.: -z-,41.1 .79. OM.. 21:C2 '. In CI'S: ....cla.':e; E I 1.C-1 4.1'67 1 ,..: _1 s'l CV:. C::, 11 e4 C.:: 1 ;. ::1 L . tss 1 16.CI; Eft t ZS ;; : t7 t ; c Co't1 Jt, o L.1:117-E 2.EX ZI1:Z S' 4 117 Ss4 Ca 21 1 7: '.7.1 I 291_ o G.:Z Z2 .: t C'E 1.1L E 1..1' '.' 7. C:: CZ: . ,1 1.17. r S.5 -r 61 0.._ Z4-7 St1: L :"7 S Col 7oi I9 S Vt! EC7Z I 6,72 C:2: I 9 2_1 J 777' 1 n C: Sz SE 1: Z1' I g;.! Et: Cr CVtz: 7. E. l o - I 11 - L. WC; 1V:7: C OPL:.7CZ77:6 7.C: CCS7 11 :177 L'1 Clt: 111rv1 :111 OE Zit' E. I V6ZI r. cE V2 2: 69 1 J. E7. t.;:f ECC C2 21:1EC:5 SZ7£2 C:1E leCZC."S: 1:-C27:: 7:C2 C.::: eq :ee 7;1c7E ' vEey 77::7C 6;7ee 2:2 - 72 »CV :t EZ 3:: 3 t.:...71777. li t: pt: 3:: P :: II IVITSE, 6ESTCOPY

1-:tatc..lent of

ccw. H. PoLort Clark S;Jperint,:ndent. Archdiocese of Chicap Chicago, Illinois

Before the General SuLao.l.mittee on EducAtiOn -Cownittee on Education and Labor United States House of Represqntatives March 1, 1973 9:30 a.m. The Catholic School System of Chicago enrolls 250,000 students in km') L:ILmentary and secondatscLools.. The System includes the City of

Chicago, several smaller cities in Cook County and manysuburban communities. The students conic from all parts of themetropolitan area and live in wealthy, middle income or economically depressedcommunities.

About 15% of the school enrollment is black or spanish surname6.

All of the schools and each of the students have benefited enormously from the provisions of Title II of the Elementary and Secondary Education

Act, the school library program. Well over two million dollars havebeen

exl...:r-led for library materials: this money would not havebeen available

from private S011ree.i.,ts a result of this program, school libraries have

been established in each of the Nei elementary schools, an eventwhich

pro:lardy would not ha-rt occurred without this federalassistance. Although

it is difficult to evaluate in objective terms what impactthese librarieo

have had on the education -f children, it is a known fact thatthe richness

of the learning environment is a critical factor in students'achievement.

Any cutback in federal spending for school librcrieswould be a terrible blow

to education throughout the courtry

The remainder of my remarks today will concern Title I programs,

sometimes called CchLriensatory Education. Almost 30,009pupils in our

school systi;.:-. live in neighborhoods which could Lodescribed as economically

depressed.Each of these childrcn is educationally disadvantaged,although

many of them are achieving at gradelevel.Made:a-Liao community resources, Page 2 disrupted neighborhoods, inadequate physical facilities, overcrowding- - all of these are some of the components which make learning very difficult for them. Of these 30,000 youngsters, approximately 4,800 are the beneficiaries of programs funded by Title I of the Elementary and Secondary

Education Act of 1965.

Teachers and principals are the best witnesses to the success of these programs. They would literally throw their arms up in despair if any or all of them were dropped.For the first time in many years they see some real progress in meeting the extensive needs of these children. Allow me to describe some of the programs.

Five hundred and fifty primary grade pupils are enrolled in a program called Individualized Instruction for Continuous Development. They are taught in groups of siz to eight for 30 minutes each day. The program'. intent is to improve their reading ability, although the program itseU uses instructional materials from all academie areas. Reading and math skille, for example, may be strengthened at the same time.Sixteen public school teachers staff this program in thirteen Catholic schools.

A similar program called Corrective and Remedial Instruction provides services to 1, 855 upper grade students in Catholic schools.

Two other reading programs are operating in some of the schools.

One uses the Scott Foresman Individualized Learning System.' The other is a parallelistic reading program. This latter program is designed to remove linguistic barriers in non-standard and non-native English speakers.

The program presupposes that each student has a linguistic sophistication in his own culture; it builds on this skill as a means of providing a smooth transition to the mastery of standard English.

Two teachers and two teacher-aides serve 1,056 nonpublic students through the Learning Systems for Total Individualization of Remedial Reading and Mathematics Instruction.Prescription Learning Corporation operates this program.It diagnoses each student's needs and provides a computer print-out prescription for each student (updated every two tc three weeks) which identifies what materials from a number of reading systems and programs should be used to meet this student's needs. Prescription Learning then provides the necessary hardware and software as well as study carrels.

Eighteen teachers work with 900 nonpublic students in 18 nonpublic schools in the Activity for Non-English Speaking Children. Each teacher sees 50 students daily for 30 to 40 minutes in small groups of eight to ten to provide second language instruction for students whose first language is not English.

One teacher and one teacher-aide operate the Individualized Mathematics

Instruction Program at a nonpublic school, serving 50 students.This program is aimed at grades 4 through 8.It uses materials selected to complement the nonpublic school's own math program. 2479

Page 4

Three guidance counselors serve 240 students at four nonpublic schools.

These students are already being served by Title I reading programs. Each counselor sees 0 students each week in individual and group counseling sessions.

One day a week is set aside for conferences with parents.

Title I has also funded a cluster closed circut television network. One thousand three hundred and eighty-five students in our schools benefit from this activity.All of the programs are written and produced by teachers within the cluster.These programs focus on the student's own neighborhood and are geared specifically to their :lc:eclat needs.

Title I funds have also funded an excellent outerivr education program which takes fourth graders out of school for a week and gives them the experience of living together in the country. They go about many of their usual studies but use the resources of the out of doors for their instructional materials.

There are other programs too numerous to mention. All of them are tailored to the individual needs of youngsters with severe educational handicaps.

All of them have been extraordinarily buccessful.

The effort to obtain equitable participation of nonpublic students in

Title programs has been difficult.For the first three years of the program our participation was peripheral.Pupils went on field trips, received some health services, were eligible to attend the local public school after school for remedial reading programs. Not many were willing to do this. The result was very few nonpublic sciiool pupils received any of the aubstantial services no needed to overcome the effects of their disadvantages. '2480

. . Page 5

Finally the Chicago Board of Education agreed that many, f the same progr.uns which were being conducted in the public schools could also be conducted by public school personnel in the nonpublic school building.Facilities were set aside within the nonpublic schools and were designated public

school extensions. These facilities were staffed by teachers and teacher-aides and were equipped with necessary hardware and software, all of which was under the control of the local public school district.With that break7

Through in 1969, the benefits of Title I programs have begun to flow effectively to our pupils.In March of 1969 four Title I teachers began to conduct remedial reading programs in four nonpublic schools.That number has i;.reased to 01 Title I teachers for the present school year.It is not that the needs of the youngsters have increased that much but rather that the nonpublic pupils arc beginning to receive an equitable share of Chicago's

Title I services and materials.

Our successful experience in Chicago is directly attributable to two factors:(1)Title I prognuns arc operated within nonpublic schools and

...thin the school day so that youngsters are not inconvenienced and their education is not interrupted;(2)Effective involvement of nonpublic students

where there is included in the Tide I administrative staff of the local public school district an official who nas speci:ic responsibility for assuring

equitable nonpublic school partic.ipati..n.Tlie Chicago lloara of Education.

as two men, fulA-time; who are responsildP administcrirg the neardflic school side of the Title I pr"grams, 2451

Page 6

Involvement in the early stages of planning for Title I programs is critical for the effective involvement of nonpublic school pupils.This, participation leaves much to be desired, but in recent years we have been allowed to identify the needs of our youngsters and to choose those programs which best fit those needs.Attached as Exhibit A is a Needs Assessment instrument we use with our principals. Attached as Exhibit B are the list of activities from which schools may "buy" those programs which, In their opinion, will be most helpful for their students.

The Elementary and Secondary Education Act must be expanded, not diminished.Objective achievement results are difficult to obtain, but the effect of these programs has been enormous.The emphasis on individualization of instruction has resulted in happier children who are eager to learn and who arc enjoying the time in school more than ever.The elimination or reduction of ESEA would be an educational disaster. Exittur A tc1,1."7.4: 1 elm:h&c es.3 Gh:czzgo EckooToard . -4- , 430 N.:m.11J 6.1vr.1711C GhiCagO,V1i110/560611 . . gelcphonc: 527'3200

November 28. 1972

Dear Principal.

ESEA Title I staff personnel at the Chicago toard of Educationare beginning to assess program needs for next year's (73-74) Title Iprogram. If we' ore to have a voice in what programs will be available forour children next year. we have to get together soon and determine Whatate our special needs.

You and any other member of your school community (faculty. parent)are encoeraged to attend the needs assessment meeting for your area of the city (linted below). If you cannot aitendyaurself. please try to send a representative.

Your area meeting:

Area A: December 5th - 10:00 A.M. St. Martin 5838 S. Princeton Chicago. Illirtois 60621

If you cannot attend your area netting. please try to attend one of the other two area neetings.

Area B:December 6th - 2:00 P.M. Blessed Sacrament 2130 S. Central Park Chicago. Illinois 60623

Area C: December 7th - 10:00 A.M. Center for Urban EduCation 2401 West Walton Chicago. Illinois 60622

Sincerely your",

John P. Buckley Coordinator. Government Funded Programs/ 24S3 1LABLE

Date Name of School

Listed below are basic educational noodLI. Please rank your pupils' needs et your school. Place a "1" in the box to the left of your first choice. Place a "2" in the box to the left of your second choice and place a "3" in the box to the left of your third choice, etc.

Reading Skills 1---lArithmetic Skills

r---1Science Skills Understanding and Speaking English (TESL)

Guidance and Counseling Community Involvement and 1/ for Elementary Pupils Relations 4

Family Guidance Other (Specify)

After your needs havebeen determined, theseverity of need and the numher of Title I pupils `in your school must beindicated.

For Example: If you chose Reading Skills as oneof your needs, fill in the appropriate boxes with numberof pul6ls. If you in- dicatcd additional needs, fill inboxes for each specific need.

Number of children in need of Services:

Primary Intermediate Intermediate and Rg- 3 and Upper (Gr. Upper (Gr. 4 -3) 4-8) 1 yr. be- 2 or more yrs. low level below level

Reading Skills

Arithmetic Skills J Science Skills

Special. NeedS: Number of TESL Children Number of TESL.Children . who speak and write no who need reading and or little English writing'skilli '' Understanding-and Speaking English (TESL) 24S4

L.1%1111,114% ESEA, Title I Pupils' Needs - Page Two

Special Services:

Primary Intermecliate: tipper Grades I:q-3 4 - C 7 - 8

. Guidanco and Counseling ELI

Family Guidance (Sccial Adjustment Center) . Totalnumber of families who have a serious need.

Community Involvement Total pf Title / students in your school

Supportive Services:

Supportive Services can he offered only to children in Reading or Arithmetic Skills programs. 'Lou may indicate the need of one or all of the following supportive services: Place an "X" in the appropriate box.

Outdoor'Education and Camping

Field Experiences

Health Services

Mobile Inerructional Laboratories (Science, Heading, Art)

Computer Assi,:red Instruction

School Community Representative (Phase Cut Program)

Other .(Specifyl

President of the School Board or Advisory Council

Please return to:

Mr. Donald Jw Geary by February. 1,-1973 Principal. Board of Education-Rm.#1142 228 Vorth Lasalle Stteet Chicago, Illinois 60601 2485

Pro.0 oft, n:11 t i vat

Ea:F. Cin AVAILABLE

t ions for Now l'I oci rams

School Slenature 01 Prin,ipal 24S6 BEST COPY .!1),I.TUIBLE:::

EXIMIaT li PLASN1W. GUIDE FOR ESLA - TITLE I

N3NUBL1C SCHOOL PUBLIC SCI!OOL

Principal Date Arca District Pupils from Low Income Families (Elementary Schools) x 5350 /pupil = B Total Allotment As indicated below, we intend using our allocation of ESEA funds to provide the following programr. PROGRAM I

c-fr,v. 0 of Pupil. rt'.: per Unit Total of puoils to be servedsupil Cost Alloc,.

Individualized Instruction Pl. 6 35 5452 515,820 for essttryanns Develvrr,.ont P1 - 6 '35 636 22.260 (SA.) Cerrect.ivean.i Remedial P3 - 8 35 4)',2 15,820 Roading Instruction PI- 50 448 22 400

5 Pr,,grastried Reading Instruction P1 -P3 50 460 23.000 6 Skills to Felp Accelerate Reading Proress P1 - 8 50 467 23,350

7 Spacial Program to Upgrade Readino rl- 8 50 472 Reueing Systems for Primary Lev.'71s P1 2 50 464 10 Parallostic Reading P1 - 8 50 48 24,050

12 Svstem for Total P2 - 80 326 28.08 M individualization in - 8 112 244 27.328' Peadte, ;'rd :t!thom.t irs P2 160 237 37,920

. . 13 The Learning Caste Pz - 8 160 200_ 46,4001'

Sub Total- Program I5 PROGRAM II

Activity for Non-English Sne.iin erildon K - 8 50 $324 $16,200 _ . Individualized Mathematics Iostrurtins -8 50 650 77.500 Guidance for Elementary: Pueils P3 - B BO 154 15,920

Sub Teti). - Program'II 5 BEST COPY i\v"1.1c11.1

1;1 , v.: ..f I Cot: UntilTyt.0 r ,!...JP I.:, d1311{1_ t _ -

t 111t

S.tuc.Ifioo P1-0 114

g-G t,

Health vy - 59

Seto. .1 CI:mmtn:ity 35 93 1,255 - 70 93 6,510

*-1

Sub Total -Proi 111S

Gy.AND TOTAL 5

Siejnatufe of Princinai

ne 0, 1972 '24 SS

Statement of

Francis N. Scholiz Coordinator of Education Diocese of Sioux Falls Sioux Falls, South Dakota

Before the General Subcommittee on Education Committee on Education and Labor United States House of Representatives Rayburn Building Thursday, tlarch 1, 1973 9:30 a.m. '4,S9

As a member of the South Dakota Title III Advisory Council,

i represent the 85 nonpublic schools of South Dakota on that Council.

The nonpublic schools educate about 6% of the children in South Dakota.

I am grateful for this opportunity to submit a statement to the

Subcommittee on behalf both of South Dakota's nonpublic school children

and of Title III of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.

In my judgment, Title III is potentially the most effective

force for constructive educational innovation and change in South Dakota.

As a Title 1II State Advisory Council member for three years, I would make

the following doditional observations.

1. The potential qmpact of Title III is still to be realized.

Thousands of South DaOta children stand to benefit in

districts that would be adopting proven Title III projects

that have been validated as innovative, cost effective,

educationally productive and exportable.

2. The role of the Council in policy making, evaluating

proposals to be funded and, finally, viewing and evaluating

the project "on sitehas resulted in promoting financial

and educational accountability.

The uniqueness of the Council membership combined with

the Council's policy making role contributed greatly to

the improvement of the administration of Title III in

South Dakota. EXAMPLE: initially only large school

districts could afford to employ the "grantsmanship"

exr...ertise needed to write proposals. The South DakOta 241H I

Page 2

Title III Advisory Council, recognizing the inequity,

changed, the procedure for submitting proposals, enabling

all school districts, large or small, to compete

equally for Title III funding.

From the perspective of a nonpublic school representative on a Title III State Advisory Council,I would make these additional comments.

1. The participation of nonpublic school children in Title III

projects has gradually improved during my three years as

a member of the State Advisory Council. This was due to

the opportunity to participate in policy making as well as

the contacts made with public school dict.ricts as a

result of Council activities.

2. Nonpublic school representation on the Council also

resulted in a greater acceptance of the nonpublic school

as "partners" in attempting to improve education for all

South Dakota children.

3. A more positive relationship has developed between the

State Department of Public Instruction and the nonpublic

school sector.

4. A gradual awareness and a sensitivity to the needs and

rights of nonpublic school children was brought to the

State and particularly to the public school districts

funded for Title III projects as a result of Council

membership. BST CONr.':st.L'all Page 3

In closing,I would recommend:

1. The continuation of Title III in order to further promote

innovation, constructive educational change and accountability.

2 Precise language in the law regarding the participation of

nonpublic school children. This will result,in better

relations between public and nonpublic administrators at

the local level.

3. Provision in the law which would encourage initiation of

Title lir projects from the nonpublic sector.

4. Clear indication in the law which would mandate that a

nonpublic school representative be a bona fide member of

the Title III State Advisory Council. 9492

Statement of

Joseph P. McElligott 'Director Division of Education California Catholic Conference

Before the General Subcommittee on Education Committee on Education and Labor United States House of Representatives Rayburn Building Thursday, March 1, 1973 9:30 a.m. 24'1)3

The Division of Education of the California Catholic Conference is responsible for the coordination of various educational programs for students in the nine Catholic school systems of California (i. e. ,the 770 elementary and secondary schools operated by the Archdioceses of Ins Angeles and

San Francisco and the Dioceses of Fresno, Monterey, Oakland, Sacramento,

San Diego, Santa Rosa, and Stockton).One of the Division's areas of responsibility is that of assisting Catholic school personnel In obtaining needed educational services for eligible students under programs authorized by Congress and administered by local public school districts.

The Bilingual Education Act (Title VII, ESEA) has been a laudatory effort on the part of Congress to meet the special educational needs of children who have limited English speaking ability, who come from environments where the dominant language .is one other than English, and who come from low income families.The need for bilingual education services is particularly acute in California where 16% of the public school student population and 21% of the Catholic school student population are Spanish surnamed youngsters.

It is to, these unmet needs of eligible nonpublic school students that we respectfully call your attention.

Curratly in operation in California are some 60 Title VII Bilingual

Education projects whose combined annual budgets amount to 10 million dollars. These projects, administered by local educational agencies, provide bilingual services to some 20,000 California youngsters. Page 2

Our investigationof these California projects indicates that theremay

be some failure on the part of local educational agencies and/or the U. S.

Office of Education to make provisions for the participation of eligible children

attending nonprofit private schools in ESEA Title VII programs. Weuse

the words "may be" because we have experiencedsome difficulty in obtaining

specific information regarding nonpublic school student participation from

the U. S. Office of Education and local educational agencies.

From the information we have received, however, the picture looks

like this:

a) Only one out of every len California projects provide bilingual services to nonpublic school students.

h) :.0% of Caltiornia's Spanish surnamed students are mit:oiled in Catholic elementary and secondary senools, only 29; of Title VII project participants are nonpublic school .students.

c) While 21; of the State's Title VII project participantsare nonpublic school students, only 1% of the State'sESEA. Title VII federal funds are expended on services for these students.

From these figures, and after consultation with many of our local school administrators, we have concluded and wish to point out that :,. serious problem appears to exist in the matter of extending bilingual education services to eligible nonpublic school students.

It is our opinion that the problem is an administrative one and centers around three issues. 1) local needs assessment activities which overlook the needs of puential project participants in attendance at nonpublic schools

2) local project planninjactivitics which fail to involve.. persons knowledgeable about nonpublic. school students

3) federal grant approv-al processes which inadequately monitor the assurances of local educational agencies regarding the provisions for participation of nonuriblic school students,

In order to remedy the problem, we respectfully suggest that the Sub- committee consider some minor changes in the Bilingual Education Act-- changes which we believe will help direct the federal benefits to some students who are in need and have been overlooked or "short-changed" in the past . - four years.

I) We suggest that, as in other Titles of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, local educational agencies be advised to involve people knowledgeable about the needs of children attending nonprofit private schools in ESEA Title WI needs assessment and program planning activities. We suggest that this involvement be incorporated into assurances given by the local educational agency.

We suggest that the U. S. Office of Education more adequately investigate the nonpublic school student assurances given by local erlinationai agencies prier to the issuance of federal grams.

3) Above all, we respectfully ask that language be int-erted is the law to raise the quality of.service to eligible nonpublic school students above its present state oftokenism., su6g..st that local educational agencies be required to make provision for the effective participation of nonpublic school students on an equitable basis consistent with their numbers and with their educational needs.

On behalf of California's Catholic school students and their parents, we wish to express thanks to ti e Subcommatec for your concern for nonpublic 2-190

Page 4 school students in programs of th..: Elementary andSecondary Education

Act and for the opportunity to commenton federal iAliniational programs in the State of California. r '.497

Excerpted from

EDUCATING THE DISADVANTAGED CHILD: WHERE WE STAND

Annual Report to the President and the Congress. 1972

Published by National Advisory Council on the Education of Disadvantaged Children

Pales 27-29 PEST MP!it:1'111_113LE

I HE PR 1 VA I SCIMOLS'

In 191,9 this Council devoted a mann potion of amendedtoincorpotate a "bypass" mechanism, its Fourth Amid/ Report to the partiiipatvan ut similar to title Ill EST A, section 4417 nonpublic school, children intitleIprograma. The report highlighted seset al problems atthe Federal, it) its In AI, Y.ste who. h has ; State plan apprised State, and focallevelsand made seteral speeds and in which no Slate agent) If u:flowed t, L1,4 to to. side, or in w hi..sh there isa recomrnendatiofis that would insure that the Iltalldate cuboannal failure to ponble. tot effector patlimpation lotsuch participation (sectionI Ibis)) would be en an eciffilfhlff ff.f'd, in pies:tams authgrized by this title ad:runistered to a:ford equal opportunity for partict lochildren enrolled in ensone or more poste vie- rationtoeligiblechaidten enrolled in. nonpublic menta* is secondars ra hoots of sin h Slate an the area et schools. arras sensed by such ptortarns, the Cvransissiiinet snail attanye nu the pre, own, on an equitable basis, of such TheCouncilrev:easedthisregulation and its. mersams and 014 pat the ;oils thrteof fat anY final administtanon again this year, consuiting evtensneli seat out el that State's Allotment 1 he Commissioner may with public and nonpublic school officials,atall aliJnf. t' tar 'at fl ClifFranla 'through tint tars with instuu- levels. On the basis of this resiessthe Council has lt..to of loyhet edit, alien, or other ,omperent nimptofil inoituitonc of rovanitations concluded that While there has been MAI Fxd its- In &trimming the amount to he aithheld from proseinent m adininistiao(111 of this provision of the arc :tI the procision or soth porstrams, law -especiallyattheFederalleselthere len= ,he Corretacioner tale ono account the number of many administranse problems at the I. FA lese! et hisF .hildten and teacher, In the area 1,1 ateas wised by such still Impede proper compliance with thy law, and to rt-ea.uns who ate ekciakd ftom partrcipation thetein and a ht.. ef II"rffor ,111 dilution, might reasonably fat, reduce the s paincipation bit many it,, turn pected i ptetripate eltg Mr childien, solely because RiesAttend non, public %shoo's- The Council has studied the other bypass prow- The Councilemphasizes"adrninistrallv:: prob- slams already. available in FSFA and concurs with lems" because there appeals to he reindrIcatt1Pconsem. privates.hciolpractitioners thatthisisthe most sus that the congresrional mandate in the 1.1A goes inclusive and m ost sophisticated prosasion lotthis adequate direction and scope to adnunistratois at All purpose levels m both sectors, and that !Inutcd .h triers, inthe lepslation itself ispecif'-d helowl need he Planning and Evaluation recommended in order to improve the partictpatton of nonpublic school children. In its Fourth Annual Reihrt (1969) this Council emphasized the need for nonpublic school officials to IrgiJatise Provisions he invtilsed the planning and esaluatitm of titleI programs desi,ned to serve disadvantaged children While there is evidence of improsenient in most emolled in nonpilatc sshools The Office of Educa. States in the acceptance and implementation of this nun tegulations are now more explicit in requiring provtyion he tbe public education Agencies ' publicschool0:fiends to consult"with pelsons responSibrle for aditun 1st,. g it.uherc nes VI thele ss knoss ledgcable of the needs of these private school remain rimy 11:SIVIL vs in uhish pcovisions of State cluldien and assigned a consultative role to private cunstitutians ri" adnuntstransc policies of State or school *authort tics' and private school officials." The local agencies Cftectiselyoi compIctell,pievnt OL;t11. Officeof Education's recently released handbook 1:11.1t, prllC11111,11 Peetavation! .schoot chdarn includes a In vlev, in the. wide &Tams :turnip, States in this . section on the "Role of the Prisete School Adminis- regardand resulting Inequities in (41.6itunit y and tiatOr" uhicii states, in part., ... participation by nonpublic's...fiord Lt.:Siren, the The regulations regard consultation with proate leCOn111:C:ICIS that sc., itop 1.43. he sshool represen causes as something apart from meetings: withads ivory committees or parent councils. ,The consultationwith private, school .0n,,ert the rep:lame' 1,:t1 it 1;1,1 p itIttp.1(1:1 childan attending Ore pticat, ;, -101, it numC,ltt a.. teriesentatices would he of a detailed and tech-

notThe ....Nu -cosare Ana ' 1 ; ' . a r c IslC0 110,111 meal ?Law, getting into the areas of diagnwars, .1th Therfl..4.1,-,1Flu htIrl!: "prom,: needsasscssnterit; esaluationdesign, :etc, The c.h ; r results of thistype of consultation would be BEST COY AMISH

broughtto anadvisory committeeofpatent (!le Si it' who hase hem, ,1eleotimed in this, mannet council. consequently, the inclusion seta private jo he alcaisantage,1 schools. school representative on an advisory conmuttee of The Atchdlocese of Now l'ik has taken this one a parent council does not automatically insure step blither In 1975171 they sampled 25 percent of compliance. the children In New fork City who live in the sharply This stress on the involvement of nonpublic school delineated poverty :110:1 Based upon the PEP test officials in planning is an excellent addition to the results. 7 7 petcent :oftheseItettthI attended the (With' Federal .guidelines but the dtstegardit these thatrattla illNew YolkIles.Again nu institutions in a number of Stares leads the Council to I 1.72. theysinvey edallthestudentsihlire recommend a careful check on compliance. Ifis rverI1 area UStry the 1'1 I' scores, and had received' suggestedthatprojectapplications and so:anneal 75 percent response to date. Again, 7.7 percent ,11 the report forms he tensed so that the local education chphle children (according to this determination) are rgencies must demonstrate the involve:mutt of pulsar; enrolled m the lionpuhIL schools. sshool officials in the planning of prop.11115 In settle New York (its: gives 5.O percent or S7 million of disadvantaged children in nonpublic stirmols and in service to the nonpublic school eiigihie children. a lull the collection and repotting of data for evaluating $3 million less than 7 7 percent of the city funding programs. Itis also maim minded that the rojesi allotment would roll;IC An nictease of 5(1 percent application include a ptcisnaon by which devignated would enhance linmeasor'ablsthe oppottunits for nonpublic school authorities wall serif) and conour thetitle rlidilienattendingnonpublic the : data presented and the planning and program schools in Net l'otk City11w ,of the 1'3 million piosisions of the application. Ihe iequirctucm of this ri die city's tale I budget wmildieptsent a loss of "sone' prosision should greatly increase the par tic :.I ptoent and would hace an 'effect, but not as Ironton of nonpublic %Joust °Ili:Ws in plantung and dolman,: an etfret as the nonpublic schools envision. evaluation of projects. The N4C1.1)(.' recommends that all 11'4NhouLl, The Councilhelieses that:be participation of in their needr auscvvnivit. determine, according to the nonpublic school children would he improsed if the porertvirrinda and some other educational stand regulations encooraged in required the establishment aril, the (ducat:quill' dm:drainage' ehildren attend of State :advisors Onincils on which tepresentatives ire Mete norquiblic 5eint,,Is. from the nonpUblic schools would he included The NA Cr.PC recommends furthcrthatthese A further recommendation Cut unmoving. Stale statistics on nonpublic' win nil enrollnienti he applied and local compliance with the regulations and guide to the de/I'M:nation of the title / application Atm lines is to establish appropnale 'review and complaint the' pubis school district, so that nonpublic sehind proc:cdurCs when nonctimplruncii by a Coate or local children item's an eilintahle share of 3erl'Iret'S based education agency is allegedPresently. there n no I4Po'i the Prcilortion of nonpublic school children to recourse for the nonpublic school administrators who the total number ligthle children in the district.. allege noncompliance: !MN-ming practical Opportunity for State Allotments ,und Nonpublic School Eligible Participation Cltildren Insesetal cncumstances,itisdifficultif not A State ,cceives its title I allotment based upon the impossible to provide titleI sanices to chsadsantaged numberofchildren who qualifyundera Oven Link:hen enrolled ill nonpublic schools In some eases, legislated poverty fomrula. At this point, the State the cm:10.mm' of alocaleducation agency is education agency does not know how many elipble inadequate to support a substantial program. Also, children attend nonpublic schOols. eligible children are too few m Ilnnlba in any one After receiving its allotment, the Slide most then school citeto Itivtifa suhvIati11.11 "huge( school**. distribute the funds according to applications from Inogl..m17..1e one also cases in windy a significant LEA's which send it legal, qualifying proposals. It is number of eligible children attend nonpublic schools a1 rids runt that a determination of the number of outside the I oundancc of the local education agency. nonpublic whool eligible children should he made: The !VAG DC recommends that (WV implement For example, in New York State, all children are an equitable arid workable vln taw 10 this problem fo 'tested on the Pupil Evaluation Plograni (PE'''I testing he etkrtive at the start fiscal year 1973. instrument, and receive a swine rating to Ihz 3d. In Vitsu the ColIMII repotted that "private school 6th, and 9th grades. New York State determines that child, co often luauticip.ur m programs only a Iew an;child Wow the 4th stannicis educationally hoots each tra 'nth. and in programs not designed (or chasibaniaged.2 Ten to 14 percent in all children in their special needs." The mine comprehensive and systematic involsentent of nonpublic school officials 'Thee. would mean that the child lart behind ha class bt as it-commended above should wady impreve this 111 year; at avh.::ven.! situation. The N.4CEDC recommendsthatservicesro titleImoney turned overin nonpublic school disadvantaged children enrolled in nonpublic sr hm,is administrators. This isin direct observance of nu-. be provided in a manner and hwation most apropri- memos laws. including the constitutional amendment ateto the nature of she pnieram and tothe goseming separation of church and state. , population to be sen.ed. The Council %mild like to point out that many of the legal and constitutional obstacles to State admin- Reporting and Disemination istration of titleI for nonpublic school children have As pieviously noted. the Office of Education has been overcome. Many StateLandlocal education

. recently published a handbook for State and local agencies found sesere restnctions with respect to schoolofficialsentitledParticipation of Prtrige their respective State constitutions and statutes and School Children. This is a great step forward in the application of title Ito nonpublic school children. following the recommendation of this Council in Note that while State constitutions and statutes 1969 that "the Of flee of Education put into one restrict the options arrailable to provide services to updated :document regulations and requirements on eligible nonpublic school children; this, in fact, does the participation of nonpublic school children in the not relieve that agency of its legal responsibility to v.arious aspects of the title I program." approve titleI applications which meet requirements A related recommendation intheIntactreport setforthinFederal law, regulations, and guide "that the Office of Education disseminate examples. lines. of programs of successful participation of nonpublic In order to receive title I funds, the State Attorney school pupils" has not yet been implemented. The General Inns! sign all assurance to the U.S. Commis Council considers this an important was to focus snifter of Education stating that all title I regulations attentiononpromising practices ratherthanto will he observed, even if they conflict with State law. restrict concern to the formal requirements of the Vet with respect to three States -Missourt.Nehraska, law. To he MOM effective, this dissenunatieit should and Oklahoma -the Office of Education is aware of include seminars and woikhops as well as written noncompliance with the :regulations, section 116.19, descriptions of programs. on service to sluldren enrolled in nonpublic schools, This winild overcome the persistent problem faced and no enforcement 3:11011 has been initiated. bypublic schooladitunistiators hittled hltheir The Council recommends that arty State which is inability to plan useful titleIprojects for disadvan- not in compliance with sectionIM1.19 he inhumed taged childrenattending nonpublic. schools. Such of the Commissioner's intention to enforce the law, inability is often due not to incompetence, but to be the end of fiscal year 1972, confusion about the network of laws, and icgulations governing aid to children enrolled in private schools. As the. prefacestatesinthe new Office of Conclusion Education handbook: "The provision of services for children enrolled in pnsatc schools called for a whole The Councilbelievesthattheguidelines and new set of relationships,. both administrative and regulations as they affect the nonpublic school child programmatic,' to he established and maintained. At arc generally well-defined, win kahle, and meaningful. the outset, no one really knew a 'best way' to imple- The breakdown comes inthe noptetation m and merit the law as it affected private school children." enfoliellientofthe guidelines. This isthearea The handbook not only contains a compilation needing impios Men!. under one [user of the excerpts from the law relevant The Mani purpose of our effortIS to desglop to servmg disadvantaged children entolled in nimpub- implementation at the local and State levels in order lie schools, and the regulations and guidelines that to meet the xectimentents of the law and to enable the pertain to their participation (with a brief explana ehildlen In the nonpublic schools to get the services non of these prosisions), but alto outlines sonic of that 1114 need and that they are entitled to receive

. th.: problems encountered at State and local levels under tole I. : and some posAblesolutions including suggested pro... We hopethat the aboveieconunendations, cedures in project development to create opportU achievedinConeert with participation of private f,,r meaningful participation. If the Jistribution schoolpractitionersat a NAI DC conference in of this helpful handbook can be followed by seminars Chicago la earls January 1972, will beinn to remedy and workshops, the Council bilieves that the develop an rbvious weak link in the admit-natation of title I. ment of meaningful piogranis for nonpublic school We also hope that patticip'ation we hale encouraged children andtheirpartieipatiotiinthem will be . am algtheprivate shoal administrators will not greatly improved. Cease wishtheChicagomeeting, butcontinue throughout the year. so that it111,11, dlUillitie for us Constitutionality the diffismInes administrators fake in providing day f!:-st. the Council would like to begn this section toxlay services to disadvantaged children in a most

of the reik:rit with the statement that at no time is dedicated and appreciated way.. . 25411

REST C571 rit'FIIIIIBLE

Excerpted from

AMERICA'S EDUCATIONALLY NEGLECTED A Progress Report on Compensatory Education

Annual Report to the President and the Congress/1973

Published by National Advisory Council on the Education of Disadvantaged Children

Pages 35-37 trsTCarl mutsa

1.1111.10. EMII OILED ISralvAtE ,A)loots,

The Council has Consistently supported the taged children are provided to education- need fur Federal financial support to the edu- ally deprived children attending non,public cational Programs of disadvantaged children. schools. wherever they attend school. Fast Council re- Most leaders of the nonpublic &Iliad systems port; have ri.commended that special arrange. are cognizant e,f the above two guarantees, and men!, made to deliver remedial $N11.1C011 to have repegedly demonstrated their good faith title I eligible children who attend the nonpublic to observe these qualifiers. Experience has dem- mhools. as long' as the two longstanding guaran- onstrated that they have worked well within tees tire maintained: these guidelines, and that many outstanding 1. That 4.1-1.'1, Are eiV.11 to educationally projects have lawn provided to educationally deprived Aildren who attend nonpublic disadvantaged children who attend nonpublic schools whii(1 can mad the standards of schools.. the Rights .Act. and which are not The economic status of all family members.. deliberately segregated iondemies. ages 3 17, by family income and race, is found 2. That services which AN' secular and Ape. in the table below. and appears in Senator 31113.111y designed to intv the educational Waller Mondale'', Select Committee on Equal attainment of the eibeat tonally dtsadvan Educational Om iortun ity final report.' .4114.migti .4. wag.," mg., m It... gierUmpanto r "dd., From these figures it appears that one out of eirry nine children attends school in a non- "gegmwaml gmng...44,em mmi 114,4n mh.rhomm4Mv. .0% 1M, tea mg,. bow. 4.. en...WIWI. % public Retired. The implications for serving eligible children

TOO. 3 l'eonomie 4oltue of bandy Mprnlm.m. ing4 $ d7, hr family mean. 94 oleo :14.0nrame in Oxman.% ann prererWwl

1 ne ";111: E.:::" . . ' 0,894 All chtlelo0 .59,041 4 012 togre= 9,0'5 10.740 14.079 9,100 4.139 4.7 11 18.4 .410 18.1 24.3 15.4 7.0 Total rnllIrd, 11 01.43ols , 81 874 3.254 5,819 9.073 4,342 9200 12.909 0.574 9,549 11,2 17.5 101 18.0 25.0 10.5 70 Ton.; pyltht pre e.inl and 94.11n.10 . 45,770 0 144 5.156, 0 t700 7.0A7 0202 11054 0,985 5.114 (II 12 1 19.0 44.7 17.9 242 18.2 La Total na ,m,1100 ;9410014 ... 7.238 757 1.0 0 1,033 1,473 1.442 1.410 529 805 14.4 14 I 25.3 20.1 198 111.4 7.2 70 Taal 800311d privnne 200 373 055 1,094 1,005 1,509 475 Peroset 43 01 10.7 18.0 31.0 20.1 7.8 A 3 145 3. o$01dron 49.940 2,240 4.051 0.981 7,003 9,817 13.509 0,500 3.447 4.5 9.3 13.4 159 182 2741 17.1 0.9 Al! no04.81to 9,105 1,782 2243 4025 1.912 1.123 070 535 072 24 0 44.1 210 12.2 55 5. 7.3 All black 01ldron , 4,334 1.-41 2.153 3,900 1.754 1,000 739 303 572 2!0 25 It 40,0 21.11 12.1 0 it 4.3 ca

one grommgmim in AM. . el.a0tm mm nog .mi ...MA rmig4tmal meet. ...Ain.. og.35.. Mmr.4 6, BEST COPYIVP,11.11311".

wahin a large :sciriol system can be iiluStroted ohildrect In no,' The O. U 111(' bother rec. by Chicago Ti' }white systems en. ornmenl. Mc, certain atm.. In. 'alien to numb roils.VL:tri'l children Mire the partner -hip btueen Ilir postai.. and The: l'alhollc sehoot system of Chicagm ac- nonpublic achind in arming disailantaged cording to Reverend ii. Ito hrd 4:lark. superin arm Is, s tentlent of the A r.didilce.e of Chicaini, etire saiing'nonpislilis. ache., adminintralom :(1.1.er,ent .( tl.t,!at et:riding:tit inSi,.. .4111planning pear.. for compen both the public and nonput.ir, school systems. *P11.7", ediscaliun projeel (i.e., determining:: The publicwheat}at stem estimates that Israel rrrrr . istrn1ifiing lrget population,: Vtapno.or percent of their enrollment. are participating M nmala suaoment, scrIcet children from areas of high concentrations of ing eligible children, conculling daring the 1...i-income families. program simian. and patticipalina in pen The public schwls serve 37.200 children with grans ro alssatiom/ title 1 funds, and an additional 1).41 students ipos+ nsechNnient b itrmilleil in an enrolled in the Catholic ',hook for a total of rompers...atom obscation Irgialalion to per. aproxinitel 7.2.0011 1.1ghlren. nit the cmimmt.i llll cr of F:olocation In The publi mchxds are 4'r, ing what they con . email., nem:ice. prmisliug effeetiic partiri miler to In' le, percent of their liedle dinient pation eliailde isonmshlic ehool rbil 1..billatiem whereas, the Caileilwystm re arm uherrier 'bey attend nclund if ...tale cervices for If of their gragible lawn conflict witL Frsleral mandalm. or 41 student npulat :thrre in culntantial faillore1n provide cons The ('at sv.,.rn bon 1.,i1 a panda, nem ice+h. .aheal education the eta; tit! I tiilent.! atid nernm, II it'ral Ific total ,11:1ni !..oloiliittmlti,' 1.aboldiching x pocit in the flomartmen1 by !be admitivorlibrs efeaoh ly,111 10 al Ilic kid of Ilse 14ectetari la venl'has riwerty faet,r4 The 111.111'. cal .1. which i. reap...dole to the 3.perver! mean' at least .111.0(ti I onslonl.man for IlseIv mill' nom:nadir or !::o mene nerved in al I clteot.s hegchls if these chddcen were tiencd with '',.;ding comparadsilili of ariirea. a Iser State alimi31e of t2ciii hibl. and the Pr Ihr altend cci 1. if weer 'raid to allocate services Th State of Misi.oari. which we nientioneil funded by titleI..SEA. ina brat school Last year in regard to its special problems its. !dement:rig title I. F.SE.A. iii again having cilf Further. the city of Chicago was .11.11blki ;;4:,1011lng id-grion for children to rei, fl.7711.23(.; in !toot I farads for fiscal enrolled in the nonpublic schools. year 1171. the Catholic ,ivstem has II per. Missouri State law, as interpreted by the ',en. of the eiirible children. and if thr puhhe Stair ,1,,,,,..t.meutif sAtIcalioh, prohibits the perl'Ut of the for I 1p471(itltire 01 public funds far SPIT11.1.$ to C111! ..111,.ft:Inta111 hoth systems, so that II .11:rim enrolled in !hr chools. althengh PPP:. ntof the participantA15'01,nonpublic permit prmigion .01 :applies and Fehool children. they would he en.. ;lied to a ,aim' equipmnt., of V11113.715 left in am:Vice:1. A court challenge br Mrt. Anna Itarrera of The NatrEIN: recommend.. therefore. that Kansas City. Mo.. in behalf .1' the State's non-

caperialli in the st-Lan netting, the Federal. publiit. literl !enrollment has 'wen decided. ! Molmioral parthecalaip Amnia do irri:Mine le- /:,;"r, . /falsest 11,,, pros 7:1 11 VI. galls possible to peon ids remedial ...mice.. to Fighth tirititt iif Anio.ils,: Kansas childrm . charged the following . ,.pities to cchnol. disadvantaged children inir-lled in the The NAKIIC: states that the facts have lb! OW Statv: d..re11..traledthat.jcirtncr.111: between nom: I PM,. till,'Ilaw . regulations Hiblir and public.'Aclid adminiocators can. the fun't11,1 !c!11111Y and With i he tilt multi. Isinitg Si, :44, -r sc LESTCf3H-ft;:i111311.

qualitr, for children enrolled in the non- necessity of this suit could have Earn averted public schools. toe bypass mechanism which was offered by 2. That the defendant ithe State school coni the Council in the 1972 annual report as a rec- missioner and the State school board) are ommendation. The NACEDC recommended by. not exciii..ed from compliance by retying pass states: upon their oisii interpretation Of State law. ifi iii In any State witch 11111,11StAre plan ApproY11 3. Thatitis lawful and proper to provide I and in ne State agency is IlaiSS EY1feit. au/homed In law is prnnk, sr In which there is a t That the intention of 1-ongreSS was that substantial failute Is pros iikti:for effertivo partiripation the local education agencies provide the in an equitable WI01 th prNicrsnut authoriast by this program design, and not the State agency. title by etillitrtin enrolled In any ono or Mort iirlyato ode. mntary ni tosiindary wheels of such State in the arr.. r), That ESEA requirements are not satisfied Or areas wry...4 by nue), programa Or Conummtkoner in the after school and summer programs shut arrant. fit th... pr vivan, an an equitable basic of to nonfaililic school students. atioh programa and shalt pay the rout, thereof for any ot. That there have been noncomparahle ex- !swat year outif thus State's allotment. The Commit. .istos ma, arrange nn such grogram thritugh eon penditurs AM that the plaintiffs are en toils with inotituteins of higher «duration. or lr titbit to relief. sompetettt nonprofit institutions or organirattnna The NACKEW supports the po,,it ;on the ir.1 to iletermitilog the amount to be withheld from I Mice of Education to sulimit an ootiros rse;oc any Stab,. alliemnt for the provision of such pt.. brief in an instance like this. The coon's deci- urns.. ss /hall tali. int. ,sessasst the number of rhilittn and teoebera on tho arra or areas sion was in favor of Anna flarira. and also tinsul ...AA Iroltri0o, who are 'retailed from rani, that public school teachers can teach on the lad ion rhepiti at,.) xropt for snob orelusiott. might premise'n of la npuldie schools, if that is Ilseonly reuroinalily hove been I, 111011.11 to px rlvitab : way (,,IIIrandil. 1+OrOil,ti can ill' I movidmi. There

will lie TM retroactive damages awarded. The re SA1 ft 1 Ne..ember IS, l'13 f.' % ff N C.

honorable Claiborne. Pell 32S Old Senate [Mice Drilla:lig Washington, D.C.

Dear Senator Pelf: / V AK,, II I am writing you in reference to SI118, the Elementary School Rending Emphasis Act of 1°73, and of S.7049. the National Reading Improvement of 1473 We wish to indicate our lull support for the funding procedures described in Senator Lagleton's bill, S.2069.Also, we were eery favorably impressed with the substantive concepts advanced in Senator Ileall's bill. S1.118, but unfortunately cannot give our full endorsement to 5.1318 until the funding mechanisms have been clarified.

We agree witli Sena tot Beall, who in introducing 5.1318, exPlicstod the need for such ena.Ament:

...some 11$1, million adults are functional Illiterates; ...come 7 million elementary and secondary children are in severe need of special reading assistance; ...in large urban areas, 411 to SO percent of its children arc reading below grade level; ..,40 percent of the 700,000 students who drop.out.of school annually are classified as poor readers.

5.1318 is an improvemenr over similar hills which have been introduced since,it takes an Innovative approach to solving a critical need. The emphasis of the bill is on diagnostic and preventive action rather than on remedial, which research clearly indicates has nut done the Joh. In short., thelrill"...seeks to prevent reading problems from. developing, to identify them immediately when they do, and to provide for prompt remediation once such problems are identified"

. .

. . . In addition the bill calls not only for tlie development of curricUlum guides, but for the:pre-service and in-service training of teachers in using such guides. Reading specialists will he used 'as resource people to the leacher and public television would also be 'utilit'ed in providing such training. The development, of curriculum guides

.. r 1f . . ott,;Iwit (. Z... "9..' C. Pell page 2 11/15/73

without the incumbent training to u'tilize the guides would he folly. As the bill is formulated it is our opinion that it is more effective both in terms of eduedtional results and cost effectiveness than previous remedial endeavors.

Out main concern in reference to S.1318 deals with procedural mechanisms in getting the money to local school districts. Language in reference to the role of the State educational agency in the funding process is ambiguous but to all appearances one could assume that the United States Office of Education would deal directly with local education agencies. The Council is basically opposed to such a concept and feels strongly that the Office of Education should cooperate in an advisory capacity with state education agencies in the planning, implementation, and evaluation of the various state plats.Indeed, leadership in this area should come from the state agency and not USOE. A concerted effort should be made to assure redirection of funds for the implementation of state right-to-read plans. Each state should establish a "comparable state reading center" which would enable the U.S. Office of Education to coordinate state and federal efforts. We feel strongly that the state agency is in a much better position to know the needs of the state than the U.S. Office of Education.

noweser, Senator Eagleton's bill, 5.2069, dues provide the necessary funding procedures which would provide for greater state involvement in the implementation of a national reading program.We urge a consolidation of the funding mechanisms of 5.2069 with the program concepts in 5.1318, which would result in a state project grant program.

At this time I should also like to again take the opportunity to commend your leadership of the Senate Education Subcommittee. The Council of Chief State School Officers wishes to assist your Committee in every way as you deliberate on the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.

Sincerely

274.4,-Byron Hansford Executive Secretary BEST COP?AWAkti

NATIONAL COUNCIL Of ADMINISTRATIVE WOMEN IN EDUCATION 111115 FORT MYER OFIIVE NORTH, AFILINGTON, VIRGINIA 22209

Statement in support of 5 1539 submitted to the Subcommittee on Education of the Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare By C. Fern Ritter, President of the National Council of Administrative Women in Education

The National Council of Administrative Women in Education, which was organized some sixty years ago, has not taken legislative positions until recently. This change in policy has come about because we believe that in these times, and in the light of our experience as Administrators and as women we must accept responsibility for making ourselves heard on matters of public policy in areas in which we have a special competence.

As women whose days are occupied by administrative responsibilities the members of the NCAWE are in position to know that the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, and related education. Acts, have contributed very substantially to the well-being of the schools of the United States.

As administrators we also are quite aware of some of the shortcomines of the present ESEA. However we believe uninterrupted extension -- with such modifications as are necessary and easily agreed upon - - of the programs authorized under the ESEA is of the utmost importance not only to education but to the general welfare of the nation. We think that prolonged debate in the next session of the 93rd Congress over Title I formulae, over badly needed simplification of present procedures, over revenue sharing versus categorical grants, etc, could be very harmful to the Country's overall educational system if permitted to continue past the period when schools at all levels must go into their planning for another school year.

Although a simple extension now is the considered recommendation of the NCAWE we are very much interested in proposals of both the bill being drafted in the House Education and Labor Committee and in those carried in S 1539.

Several provisions under Titt2 IV of 5 1539 are particularly interesting to us. We recognize ttat collection of statistical data on a national basis is woefully in need of improvement. Several years ago a Commissioner of Education used to say the Federal Government knew more about the production and marketing 'Df pigs than it did about education of its children. Admitedly progress has been made in the intervening period but the need for better data remainn urgent. 0:Ir.)7 FIT ;r.714". C

There is some question in our minds about the separation of functions in an Education Division within the Department of Health, Education and Welfare, between the three agencies that would be set up under Sec. 401 (b) of S 1539. Unless the functions 1) of the Office of Education 2) the National Institute of Education and 3)the new National Center for Education Statistics are very clearly delineated we can see a danger of overlapping functions, conslaerable duplication of paper work, and a substantial confusion at the operational level of the schools. Not to mention a breakdown in communicarir,n: at all levels.

Since we believe education is not only the biggest, but the most important business of the nation we in NCATWE believe in the need for an advisory group which could study and make recommendations on the educational needs of the nation - - much as the Council of Economic Advisors has functioned in relation to the economy. It is our belief that such a Commission or Council should represent all segments of American Society, e. q. cultural, business, industry, 'cience, the arts, the humanities and the educational community.

We also can see a role for/joint House-Senate Committee, whit& could function in the manner of other Joint Congressional Committees, to take testimony on national educational needs; to assess current progress and make recommendations on the coordination into a meaningful whole of the diverse and separate educational programs of various Federal Agencies. It is not clear to us from S 1539 whether these are the purposes of the National Commission on Education Policy Planning and Evaluation proposed in S 1539.

We are delighted to hear that the goals of the Women's Equity Act have been incorporated into the draft bill S 1539. We earnestly hope these provisions will be included in the final version of the bill enacted by the Congress.

In conclusion we wish to compliment the Chairman Senator Pe11J and members of this Committee upon opening up these problems for discussion and solution and we urge you to continue your deliberations in depth after a simple extension of the ESEA has been effected. For we in NCAWE believe that in these days of mobile population, and rapidly shifting social and economic patternOnd in the interest of equalization of educational opportunity for all, the Federal Government's share of the cost of maintaining the nation's educational efforts will inevitably have to be raised in some fashion, e.g. revenue sharing or grants-in-aid. As we all know the individuals' need for more information and more education has increased dramatically in recent years and there are no signs of abatement in the demand for new knowledge. WASHINGTON RESEARCH PROJECT ACTION COUNCIL 1763 R STREET. N. W. WASHINGTON. D. C. 20009 (2021 483.1479

October 29, 1973

The Honorable Claiborne Pell Chairman,: Subcommittee on Education Committee on Labor and Public Welfare United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Mr.:Chairman:

As an organization concerned with equal educational opportunity and with the implementation of federal programs designed to promote that objective, the Washington Research Project Action Council appre- ciates this opportunity to provide you and the members of the Subcommittee with our views on pending legislation to extend the Elementary and Secondary Education,Act.We strongly support the extension of Title I with its unique and indispensible,requirements for parent participationi non-supplanting, comparability, and concentration. However, we are deeply disturbed by proposals which would shift the basis for determining educational disadvantage and distributing Title I funds from income criteria to performance of students as determined by test scores.Such proposals represent a fundamental alteration of Title I which would subvert the purposes of thm program and accelerate already dangerous trends, in the public scho!Is to label and classify children in a manner that denies them equal educational opportunity and virtually assures their failure.

The use of testing as the basis for distibuting Title 'I funds raises a number of problems, among them the following: 1.) It would dilute:the impact of Title I funds by spreading them broadly instead of focusing them, as they are now, on schools with high concentrations of educational disadvantage.

2.) It would utilize an unreliable method of measuring,educatioual disadvantage. :,There is no agreement withinthe education community on the validity of testing as a means of measuring actual achievement. F.7,3 C07f !TABLE

.3.) It could act as a disincentive to educational progress by rewarding schools for :poor performaneas determined. by low test scores. While these problems alone should provide sufficient reason fur rejecting the testing proposals, our principal concern is the adverse educational and social effects on the .children who would be labeled and categorized by any testing system.. Our, investigations of schools around the country dramatically' suggest that thestigma.: attached to a child by low test scores and the use of those scores ` as the sole justification for placing. students in special classes would subvert whatever additional margin of funds might be brought into his or her school:as a'result, of that. testing.

.The evidence which has been presented in a number of court cases dealing with educational financcand schooldesegregation has doeumented the extent to which low performance on tests is a factor of a student's being black, poor, non-English speaking, orother- wise culturally different, and not a measure of his or her ability

to learn. Tests and .the scores which result from them may seem to . offer a deceptively simpleassessment of a child's capacity, .but they are totally unreliable.At best, they measure only a very narrow set or information and skills and are validonly for a very ifie and' homogenous group of children.. A test which is developed to cempure :the performance of a group ofchildren, cannot diagnose:. the capacity of an individual: child. And neither criterion- referenced tests nor standardized tests van reflect the 'affective styles and adaptive behavior which may be.ust as important to educational . achievement as basic reading and math. skills.

, :: Given these limitatlons.ontests, .it is therefore inexcusable that they be'nsed to stigmatize children in a manner that affects their perceptions of themselves and the perceptions el' othersabout them, and that unjustifiably limits their educational opportunities.

Test scores place labels on children which become extremely difficult to shed. Teachers readily latch onto:such labels and translate them into expectations for low performance. Studies have shown tltat teachers' attitudes toward their students' capacities to perform directly affect the actual performance of thesestudents in the classroom.. Such stigmatization of the child, often wronglyand unnecessarily applied, has a damaging psychological impact on that ild that interferes with his or her self-concepts, motivation', and attitude :toward school.'- Once a.,label is attaohed to a child. lor whateverreason,it becomes Almost impossible:to remove, regardless cf anyattempts to validate the inaccuracy of the label in the first place orto demonstrate the progress :of Ole child which shouldwarrant the elimination of the label. With tin', advent of computerized record keeping, especially in large 'schoo/ systems, it will becomeincreasingly' VEST Ctin 2511

difficult to remove tin:label once it is made a part of the child's record. And without adequate safeguards to assure complete confi: dence for the student, already questionable test data may be used for purposes beyond the educational system.

It has been contended that some local education agencies already distribute their Title 1 funds on the basis of test scores. One can question whether that is valid under the current law, but it is critical to note that, in such situations, test scores are being used to compare and identify schools; not to categorize chil

' dren within schools.

. By basing distribution of Title I funds among states,'within states, and within school districts oa income-factors, Congress has establisheda mechanismc for channeling federaledeal compensatory educa tion money to the educationally disadvantaged without unnecessary:: and harmful stigmatizationor children. The unreliability of testing, the potential dilution of funds, the disincentive to educa tional progress, and above all, the damage to children argue against any .shift to testing as it method for allocating funds. We urge you to reject any Sault testing proposals that would alter the thrust .of the Title program and injure the children was designed to. assist.

Sincere L. .0,1, Marian Wrigbt Edelman Pr.10111 LEO% AND I['FLAY., Meut.t, Sopwrsn.notlynt Puttitt Intrueltn

Poet w PrnwIdenl wILI,IAM IsNmwxs I.mn.. nu 14lonawwittowt Rta atom

andt wo r.,Innl

: NAN MS W liSsrx Into PopAnondrul wAtIn4 Inwtencflon November 9, 1973 fluw, tort FRED G ftukkr. 1411.4* Iwiand Cornnusstunot of k.A.urnottn

1111WAND N( .ASMIA %now."). routwo Honorable Claiborne Pell 325 Old Senate Office Building 11 Y. ENI.KLIONL. Idnho !Wrenn...Wpm We.Lier4on, D.C. ul Public Inwtruclutn

11A1(. P PAPAI:1.1. Dear Mr. Chairman: Clivuon Sopw.rollnotIwni nf P0511, InwItut.tion I would like to express the views of the Council with regard ions N run (kit to recunt proposals in federal legislation to implement a program Ulluhlynn ttl1.111,114. In...1.m of testing students to determine educational needs, the test results to be used As a substitute for the present poverty criteria in Wt11111110W W 1411.14141SON V4tstnle Supwlinttoult,n1 federal legislation to aid educationally dispdvzntaged children. .1. 15110 InwIntelron We would oppose the implementation of any student testing program as a criteria for granting federal aid except in specifically 8.u11ww St. ratiatv 11111.0N W 11ASAF111.1% delimited expetimental programs.

We would note first that Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act specifically declares it to be the policy of the United States that children of low income families have special educational needs; to substitute any .other criteria to replace low income would be a basic change in the pmrpose of Title 1.

Secondly, we believe that there is no need to substitute other criteria since the best available research known to us specifically links low income with educational disadvantage.

It lb very clearly our understanding that no adequate tests are in existence which could serve the purposes of a national measurement of educational need. In addition, the present state of art in the administration of educational tests (if such tests exist) 'is not adequate for the equitable implementation of a federal program.

While there are obwiotly severe, legislative problems, in the design pf a distribution formula of Title I ESEA based on' income criteria, we believe that these problems are not the re- '- of inability td measure revels of income.Analyses by the Congress such as the repoTt of the Select. Committee. on Equal Educational Opportunity Lndeed show that Title I ESEA funds are reaching poor children. Tba dilemma facing the Congress is based upon inadequate budget requests and appropriations to gist all of the .low income students which can be idontified in'thrt various states.A substitution page 2 C. Pell 11/9/73

of new criteria for the selection of the target school population can only result in A dilution eflifOnds sway from those educationally disadvantaged children receiving bonetien.

For these reasons, we urge that the Congress go no further with testing proposals as criteria for Title t than a limited pilot study.

SincerelY,

on W. Hansford Executive Secreta '514 BEST COPY AVAILABL(

Cnaremmon WM" MMIM, Sec/etory 1011 L. 11111/11, /a., Counsel OOO USTI, tract/b. Comm tlee Chawrnn LEADERSHIP -=;+' CLAtuCt UTCOIELL. Lrt5141.we Ch4.,nen CONFERENCE Wlt11 umll.TON, Comyboncr F.nItmentent Ch4.,nsn ON avis CAPL, Onethu woshowton Mese CIVIL RIGHTS J. VISOICIS 01.11.0111US, Spv.41 Consultant avOl NICI, I.e./Inns Ass.stont

227 osashington,D. C. MXphnne f47.1110 or. Wan.. SS west 42nd Sl . Ness so.. WO* phone 510,300

October 30, 1973

Honorable Claiborne Pell Chairman, Subcommittee on Education Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare 4230 Dirksen Senate Office Building Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Claiborne:

As you know, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights and its 132 affiliated organizations have been strong supporters of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 and the programs it authorizes, particuLerly Title I to help meet the special educational needs of children from low income families. We are therefore very interested in the current deliberations of the Subcommittee on Education on legislation to extend this vital education program which means so much to the children of America.

We have followed the markup of H.R. 69 in the House Committee on Educa- tion and Labor with considerable apprehension. In our Judgment, the future of federal compensatory education activities under Title I could be jeopardized if certainprovisionsof the bill, as reported by the General Subcommittee on Education, were enacted into law. We have been in touch with members of the House Subcommittee to express our deep concern about proposals to permit the use of testing, with all the uncertainties and questions that raises, to be used as the basis for determining Title I eligibility. We hope those provisions will be stricken from the House bill, andwe,urge that you oppose any effort to incorporate similar Provisions into the bill reported by your Subcommittee.

There are several reasons for our strong opposition to the testing provisiorts of the bill before me Education and Labor Committee, inctuaing these:

(1)Distribution of Title I funds on the basis cf tests, insLead of poverty, would divert assistance away from schools with high concentrations of children from low income families. BEST COPY11111 ?ARE 515

(2)Unlike using poverty criteria for determining Title I eligibility, the use of tests could vesult in labeling a child so as to inhibit his future academic development.

(3)Distribution of lid on the basis of poor test scores could serve as a disincentive to encouragement of educational gains among children.

(4)Testing is an unreliable method of measuring educational disadvantage, especially among children from low income families. There arc other questions which could be raised against the use of testing as a substitute for poverty criteria in dete!..,..iningTitle I eligibility, but these should be sufficient to indicate our serous concern. We hope you will agree with our position on this important issue and oppose any efforts in your subcommittee to change the basis for determining Title I eligibility. Economic criteria should continuo o be used as the basis for distribution of Title Ifunds.. On behalf of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, we wish tothank you sincerely for your support on so many occasions inthe past. We look forward to working with you is: the future. We request that this communicationbe made a part of your hearing record on elementary and secondaryeducation. Sincerely,

r _ ...- Clarence M. Mitchell Jo eph L. Rauh, Jr. Legislative Chairman Ansericm Federation of State, County6Municipal Eno lovers. AFL-CIO .365'BROAD:AY NEW YORK, N, Y. 10013 *Orth 4-8700

district council

November 7, 1973

Honorable Claiborne Pell, Chairman Senate Subcommittee on Education New Senate Office Building washington, D.C. VICTOR GO/ SRO. Evaa.Vve avow Dear Senator Pell: JOPCS COME TT flovevvr As Executive Director of District Council 37, AFSCME, whicn includes 2000 Family Paraprofessionals in ORTORAT/RALEN Tmasow New York City schools among our membership of 100,000. I would like to record the following comments apropos of youc committee's deliberations on Title I of the Elemen- tary and Secondary Education Act.

Recently in a public meeting at the Board of Educa- tion in New York City, John House, New York State Director of Urban Education, stated that to his knowledge there has never been a successful special reading and math program without supportive services included.

In New York State, Commissioner of Education Ewald Nyquist recently advised all local school boards that Title I funds would be directed only to in-school reading and math programs. He subsequently recognized 'the irre- placeable value of the out-of-class workairFamily Para- professionals and their importance to the communities they serve and rescinded his initial directive.

However, we in New York were given dramatic evidence that the need for the inclusion of supportive services must be mandated by your committee in its description of the intent and manner:in which Title 1 funds are to be eseu locally.

I* 4s no longer possible to separate the physical. emotional and social well-beinief a child from his or her 2:317

Honorable Claiborne Pell - 2

ability to learn. If the special education needs of children from ..ow-income families are to be aided by Title funZ1', These funds must be clearly earmarked to take cognizance of the needs of the whole child.

Once this principle is established it would seem logical that the local district have the ability to determine what proportion of Title I funds should be devoted to supportive services. The needs of local districts will. of course, vary depending on the degree of local conditions affecting their children.

Thank you for your consideration of these points. I have, taken the liberty of enclosing a brochure which gives some indication of the wide range of vital supportive services performed by Family Paraprofessionals.

Sincerely.

11(44,61, rWetc..,

Victor Go aum. Executive Director

VGism Enclosure BEST CQF(VP3U3I Is

1.11., IS$*SrS by and aboat family paris:

i,'; :"" lhI1sweIli*h%,h..,I , he I'41,,al. tools ho.. 0.plooed t, the o.lent that po4.nt In 1971.1972as ..tn.ned,11 lOt 0.0*110,. $1101 I,... *0 hOf(flOII 01111 IS about In.,, Cflhldl.fl 7,0,., II,.,. e.,e 0,0,. ton S 000 P. 34 SPa. and Inlet? Prog.fl$01*9001* 10.11*1St0. 10.11$ .0101. 10 1Cn$10140.90?SopeboolOOt Cast. p.00flled I4?00. .fldtOtfldflflCO flat COnlI0000bIt

gn°o'° 9105? 005 S 1111,041 sonlItlOn.00(9tIl.d041I11 1140 CooblI II I? Oct 00410113, 000,wtllIWlOd WIth fl01?1t1045 p,0141,mn O'lfl,I,I405?IcaII$ *1900?? 111111 *10 owI,,spend041IflOnlel00,110, 10040 '0.01.?.'. aS 0$ lhOogfl 0, *0 III.tfl,ld,Pfl Cal? lenO 'n'fl.d toI 0111101, lImO to IOn0 0 t,.iIOntl'300,elV' 09 10,1*0*,1,0.0411J5* Ott.0l, fit OOnlO,I4000 SOil The motto's01 0'. 1.0111,CnlhpoOontIIItIle tile*S0.OoJ*IloalIoO lçaIn a ChIldII101410000n In4I0 (0900.1,.0 Pa.,ot P.Og..m ASsistant In uI?I40 Schools 140.10401I .11.1'oleThen bnng 5111.104 OllIttlest becauSe the l5m,I$001100 (I 0 DpkIn,I.,go.t,.n 0,og'.m 11.4,,a'.o,d Out $up,flflj and0,1? 1101,11'0114341,10001140. Tlw ,uch let tIe null 004* lou, o' we days a 0.145 0.0tn'ina'09 Outlet cc,..i.s.o10,10* 010 11004ethe 5414001 ,nd oIl., 0410004 tO fill011(0011141111 needs ho0.. 0041*0000Ilw000bolsocn1110InlIdlen lOP 0011(01000171101 1ep lOP pe'.pl..ndnlh..."So4$.,,,. esoOlIlS000 0*. 0400Ih009h 0 1,0 D.ol'..lend the,, 10(0,4,010tOo .cno.0l 01.ml.l,b, 0111,0'amy OlIn p,Ot000ml.Ial.d 144 men,t,.11 ClInt 114011$*0*.firhIlt 1100d1.010 And4t'1440'pbI,C 00 001.?? 00D.IpOltI'4I'flt 1,003409 ow.0.,.fOCI??flol404Ifl ,u.J901OH4 40lOtIlOIllIOg 114041 110mph and'0000,01.. .4' 4*00% III 110*4th etc .11.104009I'di,C011OO. Obld 000II,,0h,nit byetol *110,.a 44040n1 hOt been d,sobItOI tO!*011(01,1110. 411000In3IOI,d11*01141d4101 cOd11411111.0,11403 1409 SOd.0I101Ipefl,4n9111*40 0 fit P10001 *0 011.1h00 10aClOrn010t nIbtO the 0.a,00 *1111 .001151plOh?0,OflIn 005.4Oen41$ 110.414* In penc, ,.t0,al 50004.1$ Otto. to, dIosbIlIly 4,01101110 flouo.ng01.0(00 1100110end .d000l10nt Th,000??*071*14001Slid 14114$pISnl4Od and 'Who,0 housIng in a 0.004,1000ny $41 gel Ina.e ,,I,n00,odall' 01101.nnIt,.4.401and o,gtnoed undO' Ole l0&d.030.p 04 the F 140110 (.0*400(00mellOn10 11111 I*0$l 05,0111910 tI1S 111.4%111,1110.10111110011144501*4111.1101110h10044 C,,mponoelp7.ntI Iva4n ShOot140,11 .11,00? p11110? PobI.0 0' p'kl$c hOusIng t,i,n,.11,0StIlt I 114.0'losonod .011,71,01I,I, 00'00t*$I,rI'II5 IIloI' 10,0,00001sb 4401UI$ III 5111111 10.0$ 11,' "on b,co,on ,nnlOIO'.bIe" *0011111.4 elSOs03 014,10 o,Il '.11111414145,1,0,CII Ifli, 7 '0044. II 0000,1,10 441 '001114,,. tO SttlObd 11010Pflw.ntbInhP!p'l,.10101110014Sod1104,1 ChIt (ygboho.40.gh School 100I,lbOnC$ 1101110$ tlob.OlttlndItp'o,,dPd01010100,001*104111109 1114.1.14111..I,ll,V'hlIn$0,It Poe141.11. lId 2°,2 4 110.0 .4001,100 0110 1110IOc?11111440,?I and 'nO* ml rsm,Iy Co,010n.0l 0...nI..I000410s019.'d lOtln,n,,l ch.bd.en In0,0endp0011111.40aCll,01, In Ill.', *{hOIlI boa, 9114* 40940(0. flS,IlPnlnulflOd 5IS400I%10 pSth'.pOIOIn p.leOhSItOCISlIOlI Wt,l 14,001(11 have *14.114114. It 9144443lIt 9441*1P10010(*tO11,11, OIlS 00?, $01,001 010 1.0914,1 ,n l*0".00.01.end 000,o,00ltp* lh?009" 10010.09 louIn,too' se,nn? no d.d,,sled Ion. abOlO OIl! 10110,11 I p.1.1001110 I have.0.00 1100,0 .10,1, 1101 0150', CIII, fl_,,,n,oIa000.nl0PIP.fi.000,gIIblPfl' 1,11101100 tO If,; pea. Ifo' Fam,IyA$1101511?S 'CII ill a, thu 0071 ended. abOut ohildInC' II.,.d.40'OdOdOn? $001n.I.tlno. I4lJ900?l0fl* nO.0 als,*IS In If. plepOlOtIlo0?O'Sle,IllS 4 opwl when ep lea,h Intl flll,0n4Ii014(0114,? and dedgotlOn lo, 00*544.004*1,00, $0110011 '0the 1.m"$£0011104001 1,0141,0,11 1,,. 110*he,. wotsod hod In1110 1100'no I hsn 14010 0040.11040. 104 1,5l11b'j%'1 .099.0% 1.10*150? 01tIlls monnot) *,0 t000101VCflOflOP $131104 h1fl 0405'.1104nO.0 aI%IlOd1.0(01',

0111 110111 0,01110 I noD hot.0 11 nO. no,,s, ,0 14 OtItin 000d bob d ot Is 010.1 .0 d L Ill'0b. p qi PUS,? hdg 1'. 00 140 1100? d 0114 IIaII,Io,941 4,0 4.1,11111143.1411 h,,oIl,Il dig 'tOAl 00017 It II0,h,Id4.0"a,e p..., Ogh? lOQ4Oa 0000llunIt, you ho,, IIt,IOPtOd to place the school and In.$1011 0*. 000llIw. 01000 tIn ndh '0'11,40,0 00000,en 010 IInC SChOOl1,1,0 0'Pb. mInds01 bOO,pCte04* Snd ChIldren

II 1001,1,014' pws,.np,p,,00,otnorcmoycn,n III.40,11144 .4.4 f% .,

404III..1401(,*001051.004,PS ?0 1100 11.1111001? 0,4,,,I

P II 1111,5141.4 Fl9704 cII,IIIysodN.l.A00,I P*'ss 1 oon o° 00 In I ...t,nI.Is-it dl,, Vent, 0501.),StillnI4. : 1400, '. df 01 *'lq, , .c*1 .. . tssp cISdrsr Ir. 510,100I sloP dp00InP a guIld ,OlOtIOnitlIp SIll he d I'll " 00 14t , IC I OOhn,0 C,,Oc,,00,oI op.wat.ndav.ablo 0111001 p... F..SIp - US...t....d V P I 040915(0 *.?lbOu?lN'SO h$OnI.SI 1(00.0004? 0 Ia F:.t.n l'10 111.011 31111 r011,.'?. .unreh,$oIl0",. ''"° -- 0 - ______I'll,,, 11041 ('0 0* d p!CIffi9VaC*O51ld-CSSd to Sig F 7044* PS 163411 blld1011Iuli 011.10.0 11%. 10010 000b4'ln '0.40. *10 IS Use Volt City S.ed II tt#Stt, '10,0 lhl; sonuos ln'Ouqnoul Ito yea. tIll' 0.11400 1fl4.1,,,h', o,d,'d In. "4111011 0, 10014 commission., Upwlit (a10 II 1000$ says TIIOy no.,, '00110 hun'. 0,111*0415.01 ?oloe0004011lt 0.3.0,. £duc.tion. Mb.iIp) - p.... - II1, 111140'4OtwUlull 101010 001411011$ Intl ho d... Clip 11.IaSit tn.'.,.. 0'tIle, 'l'gule. 60140,11 10,01,0 0 0,90, to I d moOd ,ou. .cmos u. 10 1111. 0.0*10 00 bUS M&S 100ISIOd ChIId,l'e d,.eCIly on I 0Il0'lO'OIIO 1,001* toy,., $111441111,1111.1 11111(1111l'.4nII,4,4,0,111 and ,n SlIbalIgleupI I' 'Il'i AS S IPSoII 0' lIla,, noon9 00,sOd OIlh 14540011 and CnIId4on to14(00°c home end 311001 ad. Ropfloc (SlOt 10111 and Ion 0511.0*40.0040 l590's ''i" 11.11,1,1,4,0%?a,,t. 11,1 011nlnnt 'he ch,Id,en 0,0)009 nOv11 *1,0*0 $19 InC'S., 101010*. fly004441, 004 '-Sd II. hod On am.Iy 14411st.nt* I'. *1000111 whO Corn Inn1 oll,Csm lmp,o,cOIe0l In leadIng and 011,04 tub. .401 elI Sod tIn. 'cache, could 1110 0090',l.nd 01,11,011 10 nho dead hIm 5'o ,ln,.n 040d 10 0.30 1400' mc' a,000 I .5-9 0th flIt, I,, on. Oh,n'fl ,,mnQ In. UI .,nle, 11,114 o.q .l,00S.d In tlnd n900d Ct',Id'eO SIlondul0c,0.s000fltl end albeIt end Me,,,l *0 COn%tdn,1141,1, so,vcnsIn be all .*snntIOl loll In In,0 house all SIOn. - no ?l4? - 00 "04 1111, ChIldIen In I11.1,1, 00,0, etcSod "00 0?? hOe hi. 409.00010? In Ifs alduCatlOn 0' r - ClothIng all pot Vhey 04.110 14004It Who 114,13,14001 001010 '011411 0 050 04 the 1,050 01000 omr.gOnO$ 10101 1$ 1170 non0,,.'Tn,.. 111.1lItColotolltng 50*1*1.59ChIld *0l17109 *11110,0, 01.1, 00.04.11 1109.1 0111 need Sn 000'.' l's,,,,!, As.i.ta,,I. Ih.?nct9 lIon .o.. (.4.1,11.? "*0110.1 roost, deolotonlo. 10,101041 in thp SChOOl CII leaCh to. beloW 701, of p,eSonI at' toodanle, 11040 'lIst sIll 00* to, a IlmuIu* 041. 010. IllS 4,11,1001 ......

I',IOIJTIIII '1*' SOOT rOu"l' 0" 'i1l0Ibl0lII40lII 1140110* ?I,111'rn,IOOI Ia.. y.,OS,N.V. 110113, 4,' 'no 1111.110,0: SoS 0010*4 lEST CopyAVIlitARLE

Early on the poor., M thistwo Apatnat Ned n s ner Monona these tote%I jet up A isppoottntent abaut wan V Munn. tenor., sat not easy) I hr benadeyo In Mn classroom tdo moan, oat gone ::"Mtogerent about aellona -ash nennedat bllenet Ons. PrOtetogns. help tor V. the first ten 1401001 J no mathitty to do any etssroner wort 41101101 .1111 nor, but beans my

It takes a whole child. All teeoon,aed oponoton agrees that d [told, tapabotoyt o w arn bow skill, Cannot to. 101e0 born the ernohonai and UN,. al ex11.1...no 0t the :told Vat, and teadrna Cannot be duperta Jae band .rid, to troubled cnoldoen In Nee to, Citya, a...orate,, oe hate yearned thdt poems,dsl a tracheas may nese. ter tan onnode onto Inn cla,,toont dna ..troy the devotr anti noire,. 01 a child !titf dmay Parapottlesmnals ft< Oiled te,porhe to sot, Problem, Where omen, poor n.A..na undennopms ,ant and unemployment tearn and reo,h rho non pord homey anere lammes doe deter,eated and none ....Waned When. nours are treaded and symptom, may be vdenuosed and barn% ....w.f. en the01,4 Oat doloohovonat, Moe,OC the add...anal atm to thtlend between the who., tn..non,the roadthenthantotornoodthe 1.0(.011and ;Internment agencies that yen,. yyr gly001.114 Nre E cold 0/50000 10 'W. Stale C0111 1010001 01 t 00,0100 0.1014 to end all tan,!. Pat m prowarn, Set du.... too mar, Repot.* are anoam,e oPth the yd.. rhe lam.!, and hohonloorhoc.0 p.e.o.. Intl rt.,' so, on man, that., dal M ,,,,

theye presciently ao. ended .! tnyo, .nspalynt .1,, hit I 1.0.%1, 10,1,41111 .10 sof

Rau041.S.\( :1,4%11\1 I\..I:1,1 c %11,)

14111141 t'1;1,%11I II II; I;', snitI I %% 101%1 7:0 11)%1 Ala P All I 1.1 1% 1,111 lo I \1) 4 .2.-, October 31, 1973

Honoraile Claiborne Pell United States Senate Washington, D. C. 20510

Dear Senator Pell:

Our Council is the only advisory body concerned with higher continuing education. In addition to our concern with the whole range of over two hundred separate programs of higher continuing education, funded at over two billion dollars a year, we are currently involved in a Congressionally mandated study of thecffect- iveness of Title I of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended.

Under the provisions of Section 14 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (PL 14-463) our Council--to remain in existence-- must be reauthorized by law for a stipulated period of time. I understand that you and your committee are currently considering the matter of reauthorization of those Advisory Councils which you believe should continue to exist beyond the automatic termination provisions of S4ytion 14 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act.

With the unanimous support of our Council, at its meeting on October 26th, I am taking this opportunity to respectfully urge you to extend the existence of this Council beyond the date of its automatic expiration. In this regard, I would hope that our Council could continue in operation at least until the Congress can consider and decide on action needed to reauthorize the Higher Education Act, At that time, I believe it would be timely and appropriate to consider the role and future of this Coun!:11 within the context of the statute tinder which it was created.

li If it would be helpful to elaborate further on this request, please let me know and we shall respond accordingly.

Sincerely, -ri4a Ruth 0. Crassweller Chairman BEST COP? MAILABLE

School District No. 2 of Richland County hf1311 Ikuukfirid Komi

Ca Atm/4a, Smith Cam Um 7.92416

October 11, 1973.

The Honorable Ernest- F. Hollings U. S. Senate 437 Old Senate Office Nilding Washington, D. C. 20510

Dear Senator Hollings:

This school district is presently undertaking the challenge of fulfilling our obligation to identified talented and gifted students. In this changing world, with changing values and social structures, educational institutions have been forced to constantly reassess student needs, and make adjustments accordingly. Recently, a great deal of effort has been exerted in behalf of the handicapped child and the slow learner. In fact, as you know, the state of South Carolina now has legislation which mandates a state-wide program for the handicapped. For this, we are grateful. We think we are making great strides in thisarea.

However, our student needs assessment is calling for attention at'the other end of the spectrum. Talented and gifted students are often not identified until high school, and by that time; their creativity and giftedness can be stifled. It has been our regrettable experience to dlscover.that many of these, students have even.dropped out of school be- oacie of-an atmosphere that h)lds them.back.. We cannot take these students for granted and say, "they, will get it on their own": They are not greatly different from other children in their need to be encouraged, motivated, and directed.. Progressive educators must stop,the practice of shooting for the middle and ignoring the fringes. 'A democratic educational system will take care of the fringes also.

Rit.hland County School District No. Two is presently engagedin developing a program to be implemented during 1974-75 for talented and gifted students. We are able to do this with the assistanceof a planning grant throulaLL41a_ILL411211,j24Q(121000).A coordinator has been are investigated and applied to our needs.We; believe thatsuch federal assistance is the incentive we need to develop an exemplary program, which might influence other school districts to do the same., By plowing thisnew' ground in South Carnlina, we are certain we can encourage other school BEST COPYAVAILABLE 1.'wI.

Senator Hollings October,11, 1973 districts to jump on the bandwagon with us. The 111timate long-range goal would be to have a state-,funded program similar to that in Georgia' and -Florida.'

This background information will help you understand our dist2ess upon learning that Senator Claiborne Pell's bill does not earmark any money for talented and gifted programs, as opposed to Senator Jacob V, Javits!s bill. We strongly believe that this educational movement has great merit, and federal assistance has its greatest impact when used in the development of model. programs. We strongly urge your support forinclu- Sion of these monies.

Your assistance in expressing our point of view to your congressional colleagues would be greatly appreciated. Any information you could provide us concerning the status of this legislation would likewise benefit our effort.

We extend to you:a cordial invitation to visitourschool district and see our programs.We believe that we are utilizing fed4ral monies to the maximum advantage of students in our community.The honor of having you share this pride would be of inestimable value to us.

We anxiously anticipate your response.

Sincerely, 2/ ff. E. Corley, erintendent

, 4.1

Herbert Tyler, Ph. D. Assistan't Superinterden.

Sidney W. Hopkins, Coordinator Talented/Gifted Project BESTCOPy 11.11131.E

NatiOnal Capital Personnel Guidance Association 1607 New Hampshire Avenue, N. W. Washington, D. C.

October 30, 1973

Senator Claiborne Pell Labor and Public Welfare Committee United States Senate Washington, D. C. 20210

Dear Senator Pell: Guidance Association is an organization The District of Columbia Personnel and of over 500 guidance counselors-in areaschools, government and private of categorical social agencies. We are writing to you at this time in support aid funding for guidance and counseling. We believe that the interest of all students are best protected by suchfunding rather than general revenue Sharing or consolidated grants.

We urge your committee to supportcategorical funding for Guidance under Title III of the Elementary SecondaryEducation Act.

Sincerely,

1),41Attt

Robert Humble's, Jr. President

Evelyti M. Murray Legislative Chairman BLE

INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 625 THE SAINT PAUL PUBLIC SCHOOLS

SAINT MAUL, 2/558303 1,102

PLEASE ADDRESS SLPLY 701 COL...SE/0PS' OFFICE MOSPOE JUS100.SESIOP HIGH SCHOOL 010 PALACE AL (NUE ST. PAUL, MINNES011 53102 212.0731 October 22, 1973

The Honorable Claiborne Pell United States Senator 325 Old Senate Office Building liashIngton, D.C.20510

D ear Senator Pell:

As a high school counselor in St. Paul, Minnesota, and as n ember of the American Personnel sad Guidance Association. I have read with interest and real r,oncera the testimony on behalf of the APIA on Elementary and Secondary Act Extension before the United States Senate Subcommittee om Education.

I strongly support the AMA's position: that our desires in the fc.ra of federal support lie in a categorical funding package designed 4. was bDEA Title V-A, with autonomy and specified funds over long-range period. to be used by each State according to its specific needs and plans. Barring this'possibility. we advocate the continued categorical funding ae a special section of ESEA Title III, and cannot support any consolidated package which does sot provide for specific funds allocated to guidance and counseling.

I urge your careful consideration of this matter which bears

directly upon the welfare of youth. : .

Sincerely. yours,

& Val

N ary C. Pabst Counselor N OME JUNIOP.SSMION SIGN SCHOOL "1IC061112,5)1215,764E303)P0 10,30173 105 CAPITOL-PNS-SENATORICS IPNSNOL HILL-DC 9137622456-PONCLAIBORNE-PELL CSP TIM OLATHE KS IS 1040 1255P EST CATEGORICALSOUTHALL USE GRANT SERVICES AID OLATNE-KS FOR OF- GUIDANCEGERALDINE 66061 AND KINKAID COUNSELING PRESIDENT-SCHOOL COUNSELOR ASSOCIATION TRAINED.:PERSONNEL NANDATNY TO INSURE 700 BEST COPY rai:11111311 KANSAS SCHOOL COUNSELOR ...ASSOCIATION ADivision of the Kansas Personnel and Guidance Association c1 and the American School Counselor Association

Z94-4(""").41:. 44/eg St aee egc, 21; /973 s)4 47-4,A cr. IL 7 7

`ernedaolifeft,

4.4 4-4.it- .4...4/ -4-Aea f >447 AAA- ,---ta >4.tztl: 4ce. 4eGt.c.to )1Cacc z4it tal, ,tee tai4c `"Y' A.41 evt- e6.44Az 69.Pr4 ,41-4141 BEST WY

' A CRITIQUE OF FOURTEEN YEARS OF FEDERAL FUNDING FOR ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOLS AND A PROPOSAL FOR AN IMPROVED METHOD OF FUNDING

The title of this piece and what follows should not be interpreted as a

diatrtbe against Federal funding.I believe in Federal funding at a much larger scale than is now, or has been, practiced; but I also believe the thrust of Federal funding needs to be altered drastically to be effective. I wish in no way to detract from the many fine Federally funded projects that have been executed, but it is important to remember that the results ofthese projects !neve not entered the educational mainstream. Since 1959 the Federal government has helped fund elementary and secondary

education.

A.Because of certain historic events, legislation was enacted to improve the teaching of science, mathematics, and modern foreign languages.

B. Later legislation was enacted to provide funds for teaching "disadvantaged" children,both those in school and those not yet of traditional school age. Funds were made available to improve libraries,,, end classroom materials and equipment in certain academic areas. More funding was made available for "Innovat,':)e" projects and to help State Departments of Education hire additional staff to provide more "services' and to help decide which "innovative" proposals to

fund, More recently, the Congress has provided funds for such diverse Areas as: Career educa:ion

4. "Drug" education

5. Humanities

6.Etc., etc.

WHAT HAVE THESE FUNDINGS ACCOMPLISHED?

Do research data exist that demonstrate on a large scale:

A. Improved teaching?

B. Improved learning?

C.A more intelligent, humane, and informed citizenry?

D.More interest and higher achievement in science, mathematics, or

foreign languages?

ililore "innovative" approaches to teaching and learning throughout

the U.S. 7,

F.More attention to individual diffem,cez, especially to very talented,

highly motivated, and extremely intelligent young people?

G.A shift in teacher orientation from a "teaching" role toward a

"management" and/or "facilitator" role.

What improvements have been generated by fourteen years of accelerated federal funding? What changes are evident?If 1,000 randomly selected teachers ii1959 had been carefully observed for a period of one week and then observed again in 1973, is anyone willing to argue that the 19?3 reports would show

significant improvements of the 1959 reports?

There have been changes during the past fourteen years that are observable, measureable, and widespread:

A.Therm is an increase of audio-visual materials and equipment. B.There are more books in libraries. C.There are more and updated maps and globes.

D.There is more science equipment and furniture.

E.There are more language laboratories and accompanying soft ware.

F.There are many schools with fewer walls and more carpet.

G.More teachers have Masts degrees and Masters phis 30, especially in science, mathematics, and foreign languages.

H.More university and college professors receiveportion of their salaries from Federal funds, especially those in science, matheellitiCIP, and foreign languages. Many new jobs have been generated:

1.In H.E.W. 2.In regional offices 3.In State Departments of Education 4.In universities and colleges.

S.In school districts These new Jobs usually cluster around three major thrusts: .

1.Writing proposals

2.Reading proposals

3.Evaluating proposals There are more paraprofessionals (aides). There are more guidance counselors.

WHO HAS BENEFITTED FROM FEDERAL FUNDING DURING Tilt Atii57 FOURTEEN YEARS? Science and language laboratory furniture companies. Science equipment companies. BEST CDRII1ILI3Lt

Audio-Visual companies, in both hard and soft ware. Nlap and globe companies.

E. Book publishers

F.Teachers who received subsidized education.

G.Those who were added to the payrolls of fi.E.W., universities and colleges, and school systems to write, review, and evaluate proposals.

H.Those who were added to payrolls of school districts as aides, extra teachers, clerks, and those who worked on summer projects generated by Federal funds.

I.Even though schools are in existence for one purpose--to educate young people to the limit of their potentials, one is hard pressed (some say it is impossible) to demonstrate any lasting benefits to students because of Federal funding of elementary and secondary education.

WHERE DID WE GO WRONG?

A. Nothing has been done to radically change the curriculum! The same basic content is taught in ;973 that was taught in 1959 (or perhaps 1949, or even 1939).

B. The "teaching" process is basically unchanged from 1959? Pre-service teacher education, for the most part, still operates in the isolation of departments of education.

D.A secondary school student still chooses from a " men u" of from between 60-400 courses, depending on the size of his school.His education is fragmented,

E.For the most part the student is forced into a "hook" oriented process and an atmosphere of "middle class" values. F.Foreign language enrollments are dropping.

C.Fewer students choose science electives than in 1959. I submit we went wrong when the assumption was made that morebooks, more hardware, more soft ware, and more semester hours for teachers wouldimprove education.

WHAT DO WE DO NOW?

A. We look for a successful management model. We keep in mind that what transpires inschool between student find teacher, student and student, teacher and, teacher, and whatadatinis- . tration does is far more important than furniture, books,and equipment and thenumber of semester hours a teacher has earned.

C.We develop a new approach to pre-service andin-service education, so that results of research and successfulexperimental programs will exert a total and continuing effect on elementaryand secondary education.

A PROPOSAL TO IMPROVE ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARYEDUCATION BY: A: Establishment of university and college based

1.Research and development centers 2.Experimental elementary and secondary schools 3.Extension services to schools not included in A(2) Establishment of Pre-service teacher education teams involving arts and science faculty members, education departments, and fine artsfaculty members, and selected personnel from related elementaryand secondary experimental schools

. Pre-service teacher education centers in experimentalschools Establishment of lines of communication and operational procedures

sniong R and D centers, experimental schools, and extension service

schools.

. The existing model for such an organization, including Federal

involvement, already exists in the land grant colleges (R and D),

experimental stations, and extension service to the ultimate user (the lam family).

In this proposed model for improvement of 'elementary and secondary

education a university (R and D center) could be named to cover regions

on a student population basis.South Dakota, for example, might have

one R and D center, while California or New York might have many such centers.

These R and D centers would work with all other teacher training institutions in the region.

One rather large public school system per region would be an

experimental school and, teacher training center. Under this model

pre-service and ir oservice education would take place in the experimental

system.Selected university and college personnel would spend a large portion of their time in the experimental system. Also selected experi-

mental school teachers would have half (or more or less) time duties for pre-service and in-service education.

All other schools in the region will receive "extension service"

attention. .Teachers will be able to come to the experiment4 school, while student teachers and (in some cases) experimental school staff

members will assume short-time duties in these schools. REST COPY . 2533

E.This model has the following advantages: I Teacher training takes place in a school setting rather than in the isolation of an "education department."

2.The R and D centers and affiliated colleges will be able todevelop cross discipline teams and to work closely with ongoingprojects in the experimental school and be involved with allschools in

f.te region.

3.Innovations, improvements, and other experimental result* reach the entire field in a short time.

4.The model affords an ongoing in-service program.

5 The model affords opportunity for "master" teachers to exert leadership and be paid accordingly. as they accept duelresponsibilities with university and college faculties.

WHERE DOES FEDERAL FUNDING ENTER THIS MODEL? A. This would depend on planning, congressionalhearings, and regional needs. Experimental schools will need additional building,furniture, equipment, and supplies to house and operate pm-service centers.

C.Funding will be neededfor,extensive travel between it and D centers, experimental schools, and all other schools in theregion. Computer centers should be set up for managementand instruction. Funds will be needed for travel to national centersand to bring "experts" into the regional network for advice and In-service activities. Tlessare only examples. Funding should bebased largely on (A) above. potential for a mild revolution Inconclusion we have here a proposal that has the BEST COPY ilVillUIBLL

in use of Federal funding, teacher education, in-service activitos, and immediate implementation of experimental results. This will place emphasis on curriculum. methods, and quick implementation of research results. The overall effect will be to reach students with an improved educational experience instead of adding books, hardware, and materials and continuing the same curriculum and methods. BEST COPY'111%18 SCHOOL DISTRICT 193 Mane 201 5111:4441.1 P. 0. Dos SOD OUOIY101 HONE.I D140 SIIIPI7

October ?9, 1971

Hon. Frank Church United States Senator Senate Office Building Room 245 Washington, D. C. 20510

Dear Senator Church:

1 am concerned about the following amendments adopted by the House Education Committee:

1. Reduced Impact, authorization to two years

2. On page 67, insert between lines 9 and 10: Reimbursement of Commissioner of Education for Expenses Incurred from Activities of the Department of Defense

Sec. 310. The Act of September 30, 1950, (Public Law 874, Eighty-first Congress) is amended by adding at the end of Svc. 302 the Sollowing new subsection:

(e) for the purpose of enabli.g the Commissioner to make a payment under Title 1 of the Act in respect of a child of a parent (1) who is a member of the armed forces, as defined in 00 U.S.C. 101(4), or (2) is an officer or employee of the Department of Defense or a military department, as defined in 10 U.S.C. 101 (5), the Secretary of Defense shall pay to the Commissioner, in advance or by way of reimbursement, and upon such other terms and conditions as the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare may prescribe, for cr.'dit to the applicable appropriation and maintenance as fund without fiscal year limitation, such amounts as the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare may determine that the Commissioner requires for that purpose.

, Also, the House Committee hasagreed to consider an equalization amendment.

To date I have not received information on proposals under consideration by the Senate Sub-Committee on Education.What amendments are they considering?

In the event the Senate Education Committee is considering similar amendments or in a Senate-House Conference Committee, I solicit your opposition to them and seek your support for a.uniform authorization period (suggest 5 years) for all education programs. In my opinion to provide'varying periods of authorization will weaken the structure of all programs. Isolation of programs will result in greater confusion and prolong decisions. Effective legislation dictates that, education programs be reviewed at the same time, 5:i6 BEST CC;1-1 AVAiLABLE,

Hon. Frank Church -2-

With reference to an equalization amendment to e.1.. 874;I ask your opposition to an

amendment at this 'qr.:. When In Washington, D. C. during the early part of October.1 asked for statistics on the effect this amendment, under consideration by the House Education Committee, would ha* on a State by State basis and on a district by district basis within each State. I was informed this information was not available -it had not been compiled.Hence, my next' inquiry was: why not? In this age of computers and data processing it would be a iroutine task to obtain print-outs of the data.At this point,I was advised that thin information could not be obtained because the Secretary. Health Education and Welfare and the Commissioner of Education would be, delegated the authority and responsibility to develop the governing rules and regulations. The operating rules and regulations are not part of the legislation: therefore, it would be left to the discretion, of the Secretary and the Commissioner.

During the discussion l was repeatedly assured and reassured the proposed amendment would not have this affect and we would not lose funds: objective evidence (data processing print-outs) were not available to back up this assurance.

After the above discussion with Mr. Cross, Minority Consul, House Education Committee, 1. learned that the previous day the Senate had amended the School Lunch Bill to suspend certain sections of P.L: 874 in order to rescue eligible P.L. 874 school districts in Kansas and North Dakota. Eligible V.L. 874 school districts, in these states, were facing bankruptcy due to restrictive state statutes that had the same effect, in my opinion, that an amendment of this type will have on this district and many other districts. My opinion is not based on objective evidence either because there are no guidelines to follow in making computations..

I object to entrusting this vital issue,to the discretion of the Secretary of Health Education and Welfare and the Commissioner of Education. My objections are based on the interpretations of OMB, the Secretary of HEW and Commissioner of Education on such matters as the FY73 Continuing ResolutiOn; and decisions like, no entitlement for 3b students (incfdently, I have been adviSed by the USOE that preliminary payments for FY74 will not include entitlement for 3b students -- who's decision is this?)'

,believe you share my concern in this matter, therefore, I would be grateful if your office would request statistics on what the effect of an amendment of this type would have on each State and on individual districts within each state.' I am curious about the availability of such data!

I am aware that Congresi must review and analyze all aspects of the "equalization issue "., However, from the :viewpoint of on ..00king down the barrel of the gun,I trust that' Congress will not act impulsively and pass an amendment in haste which will create .financial havoc for Oarticf.t.,4ttng districts.

Caution and careful study are needed prior to enactment of legislation of the type under construction by the House Education Committee. It is my firm belief that PUBLIC SCHOOL ADMINISTRATORS should be involved.in any study concerning an equalization factor and/or other amendments.;I would welcome the opportunity for face to face input in developing recommendations; in .lieu of or in addition to testimony at a hearing. T,37 BEST COri 11.51311

Hon. Frank Church

In my opinion any equalization factor should accurately, document theaver-all effect and the effect on individual districts; such research must he prior to enactment. The proposal should provide for a gradual phase-in or phase-out.iactor. For example the time span should protect the fiscal integrity of each school district by allowing ample time for fiscal adjulatments; such as 10% a year for seven (7) years. This brings up another consideration; the total entitlement should not be subject to equalization.:The additional financial burden imposed by the Federal activity should be identified and 'these costs should not,be subject to equalization; they should be outside-the equalized portion.,

The Congressional Education Committees are confronted with the problem of imposing. financial hardships on school districts as a result of using the 1970 Census Data in the distribution of ESEA-Title 1funds. Several "save harmless" formulas have been , presented 85%, 90%, etc. and 110, 115, etc. ,(on the other end of the scale)..

:resolving this problem will not be easy. Regardless, I'm certain that Congress,' in its wisdom, will not penalize school districts at this date in the fiscal 74 school year. Contract obligations encumbered last spring cannot be cancelled because of population shifts, both intra and inter state and due to legal requirements governing contracts.

Since school districts start budget preparation, for the next fiscal year, during December oc the preceeding school year, they should be advised on the ESEA-Title 1 distribution formula for FY75 at the earliest possible date.

Early notification is important in authorization and appropriations legislation for all federal eduCation programs; such notification is not restricted to ESEA-Title I. Forward funding of appropriations would be a more suitable solution for local budget development' and financial planning.

1 will deeply appreciate your office keeping me up-to-date on developments'related to federal education programs; both authorization and appropriations legislation.

In closing I wish to extend my ihanks and aPpreciation to your office staff for the many, courtesies extended on my behal;'.1 during my recent visit to Washington.They were very gracious and volunteered, their services in any way they could to be of help.

Best wishes and kindest regards.'

JEJ:gs Senator The subcommittee will recess until 10 o'cloCk tomorrow When we will have a hearing on the implementation of the basic (rrants. [Whereupon at 12:0.3 a.m., the hearing was recessed, toreconvene Thursday, October 11, 1073, at 10 a.m.] 0