have become an integral part of the total educational environ

ment. Better communication with the Federal educational establishment can only serve to enhance their importance.

of a

In conclusion, Chief State School Officers support the creation separate Department of Education because we believe that our jobs will be easier in the long run and because we want to demonstrate that the level of commitment we have in our own states carries over into our relationships on the Federal level.

Now, it is time for the Federal Government to make an equally positive statement of commitment to and support for delivering quality educational services to our Nation's children, youth, and adults.

Thank you for this opportunity to express our views.

Mr. BROOKS. At this time I would call Dr. Margaret Buvinger, president of the National School Boards Association.

She has been a member of the Enid, Okla., School Board since 1963. Dr. Buvinger has a B.A. and law degree from the University of Cincinnati and received an honorary LL.D. from Phillips University in 1973.

She is past president of the Oklahoma State School Boards Association and past chairwoman of the Policies and Resolutions Committee and the Constitution and Bylaws Committee of the National School Boards Association.

Dr. Buvinger is married to Dr. Wilson Buvinger and has one son and five daughters.

You are accompanied by whom?

STATEMENT OF DR. MARGARET BUVINGER, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL SCHOOL BOARDS ASSOCIATION; ACCOMPANIED BY THOMAS A. SHANNON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: AND AUGUST W. STEINHILBER, ASSOCIATE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR FEDERAL RELATIONS

Dr. BUVINGER. Dr. Thomas Shannon and Dr. August W. Steinhilber.

Mr. BROOKS. We are very pleased to have your statement.
Dr. BUVINGER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

In the interest of conserving time, I will not read my entire statement. I know you have it before you. I hope that you will look through it.

The National School Boards Association, which represents 90,000 school board members across the Nation, nearly all of whom are elected governmental officials, is very much concerned about the Department of Education.

We have supported for several years a movement to develop a separate Department of Education. Many of the reasons for which

we have taken the stance have already been brought before you by other groups. Our testimony will reinforce these desires.

I would like to call your attention very briefly to the organization of the advisory council. The National School Boards Association is particularly concerned that local school board members be designated specifically, rather than as parts of categories within the listing of people who would serve on the advisory council. We feel it is very vital, since State constitution and statute law prescribe that local school boards will make the basic governance determinations for local school systems, that school board members be represented on that council.

There are two different places in the proposed legislation in which school board members probably fall, categorically. We would like to see this made more specific-one category which includes elected State, local, and tribal officials, in section C(1) of 212; the other which says representatives of public and nonpublic preschool, elementary and secondary education, including board members, administrators and teachers.

This covers a very broad grouping of persons in many different kinds of groups for the four spots which are prescribed there. We would like to ask that your attention be given to listing local school board members specifically for some of the seats on this committee, because it is quite possible that they might be left out entirely in the present constitution.

I think I will not dwell any more on our testimony. I would rather respond to questions which you might have.

Mr. BROOKS. Thank you very much, Doctor. You have answered one of my questions already.

Some controversy has developed over the transfer of child nutrition programs from the Department of Agriculture to the new Department of Education. What has your experience been with the school lunch program and should it remain where it is now?

Dr. BUVINGER. We feel that it should be included in the Department. It is so integrally tied up with local school operation that it makes better sense to have it go through the same funding mechanisms that other Federal programs do.

Dealing with the Department of Agriculture is not particularly a problem, but it makes one more reporting mechanism which has to be set up for local schools.

All the child nutrition programs are administered through institutions of education, and it makes sense for them to be a part of it, even though they are not educational in its very narrow sense. Mr. BROOKS. You have heard the discussions about the inclusion of Indian schools and overseas schools in the new Department. Do you see any adverse consequences if they are brought in?

Dr. BUVINGER. No. I would think it would be appropriate. I think since they are administered in different ways, and federally funded in their entirety rather than partially, as other kinds of school systems are, that there might need to be particular mechanisms for containing them.

The content of what happens in schools, regardless of whether they are overseas or on Indian reservations, needs to be tied in with the educational program which is being given to students generally.

I think it is highly important that all education be considered as a whole, and that children who are being educated in elementary and secondary schools outside of the usual public school framework not be penalized because they are in an isolated system which is responsible only to a very limited thing.

Were we to have a separate Department of Education, it would contain, obviously, many people who were knowledgeable about education in general, and about the kinds of programs which should be put in these schools.

I think that it would be important that they be part of the Department of Education.

Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Horton?

Mr. HORTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am interested in the question of whether or not the establishment of a new Department of Education will bring about more Federal control of education.

What is your reaction to that?

Dr. BUVINGER. I don't think it is likely to bring about more or less. I think, as has already been pointed out, that when we long ago accepted Federal funding we accepted the obligation of a certain amount of Federal control.

I think it would be much more orderly to have it all funneled through one process in which the people involved were familiar with education, and in which regulations, et cetera, could be correlated so that we are not dealing piecemeal with a whole lot of different programs.

I think that the day in which we could talk about no Federal control, or no State control, is long gone for nearly all the school systems of the country. I think we accepted that there is a multitiered level of control, beginning with many local decisions, with many State regulations and supervisions, and also with many Federal regulations and supervisions.

It is only logical to assume that we will have them. I would prefer to see it coming through one entity rather than in many bits and pieces.

Mr. HORTON. There is a great deal of money that goes into the education programs in this country. I am sure you are also aware of the fact that there is a great hue and cry among the people that we not create any more government, that we remove as much bureaucracy as we can.

This proposal seems to be contradictory to that idea, because it would increase the number of departments. Certainly it is going to grow. It is not going to get smaller.

This does give me some concern in view of the demand that we cut back on government rather than to increase it.

What is your comment with regard to that?

Dr. BUVINGER. I think it would be quite possible to handle all the things which a Department of Education would need to handle with the personnel presently involved in administering educational programs throughout the U.S. Office of Education and scattered throughout the programs that are in other departments.

I think it is entirely possible that some of this is overlap and that it could even be done with forebearance. But realizing that this

hardly ever happens, I would suppose that we could handle the programs which we are currently doing with the same personnel. They would be given greater visibility, and greater cohesion by being part of the department. But, there would not necessarily need to be more people.

Mr. HORTON. Thank you very much.

Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Moorhead?

Mr. MOORHEAD. No questions, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Fascell?

Mr. FASCELL. Just one, Mr. Chairman.

I have been trying to pursue the question of the Intergovernmental Advisory Council, with respect to the suggestion that the doctor made in clause D, on page 14, about school boards being specifically included.

Your point is, as I gather, that the language there is so broad that you could wind up not having a school board member on this council at all.

Dr. BUVINGER. That is correct.

Mr. FASCELL. What you are suggesting, then, is that specific language be provided so as to make it clear that a board member is to be included?

Dr. BUVINGER. That is correct. Either there or in section A, which deals with elected State, local and tribal officials, that local be defined to include mandatory inclusion of a school board member.

As it stands "local" could be a city councilman or a mayor or someone of that nature.

Mr. FASCELL. Thank you very much.
Mr. BROOKS. Thank you very much.

Mr. Corcoran?

Mr. CORCORAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, I appreciate your testimony on behalf of the National School Boards Association. I have already met with the Illinois School Boards Association. They are extremely concerned, but I think you have addressed that concern in your paragraph (d), commencing on page 5, and ending on page 6.

So, I won't ask the question, which you probably would expect me to ask, in view of my previous questions, but simply say I think you have stated the concern very, very well.

I think that we are quite worried about the erosion of local control over curriculum. I would hope in the same vein that I asked previous witnesses, to give us their specific suggestions as to how we might address that concern in the legislation before us, in order to win over supporters for this new Department of Education, that you would do the same, and your professional associates could work with our committee and certainly with me in trying to do that.

I think that is the major roadblock to passage of this new department. I think that particularly when we get to the floor, that is the kind of concern we are going to be facing.

We are going to have to have more than just good will and wishful thinking, and the intent of those who rather hurriedly, in my judgment, drafted this legislation. We need some specific safeguards in there, some specific setting of goals.

Perhaps you could make some suggestions now.

Dr. BUVINGER. Thank you. I think our association would be glad to deal with this. Many of us have tried to deal with it on the State level by seeking to have legislatures not mandate specific curriculum, but that this be handled through the State department of education.

Most of the Federal programs which have been funded have not been in the nature of specific curricula demands, but rather special help for particular needs in local districts.

Most of the curricula decisions that have gone in under title I programs, for instance, have been made at the State and local level.

I hope that this would be the kind of model that we would pursue, where funding is available to assist districts in doing a job, and that safeguards are built in so that the State department or some other entity can be sure that the curriculum which takes place under that program is appropriate, and fulfills the desire of the Federal program as well as the needs of the local district. I don't think that these decisions have to be made at the top level. But, I share your concern that they not be, and I hope that we can work out some ways in which that could be insured.

Dr. STEINHILBER. We are aware that the American Council on Education is going to be presenting to this committee this morning some recommendations with respect to language on the Federal control issue, and we think that is an equitable and good start along that line. We would support that language.

Mr. CORCORAN. Perhaps you could address the elementary and secondary portion of that concern.

Dr. STEINHILBER. I think what they have come up with and have asked us to help them with, does handle a lot of the elementary and secondary concerns. But we will be back to the committee with anything we find in addition.

Mr. CORCORAN. Thank you very much.

Mr. BROOKS. I want to thank you very much, Doctor, Dr. Shannon, and Dr. Steinhilber.

[Dr. Buvinger's prepared statement follows:]