« PreviousContinue »
Could you go into a little more detail, or at least express yourself on the results of this proposed exchange in two regards.
First, the change in title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, where now there is no bypass available. As you know, this is the most sizable chunk of money there is in the field of elementary education. Second, in title III, which I understand will be over in the renewal centers. How will this new concept of the bypass be utilized in all of the programs, except Impact Aid? How will it affect your centers to give some assistance to the nonpublic schoolchildren?
Commissioner MARLAND. I would like to introduce Dr. Mattheis to answer that.
Mr. QUIE. I would like to introduce him too.
He is the former Commissioner of Education of Minnesota, and the best Commissioner of Education we have had in Minnesota.
Prior to that, he was the superintendent of schools in a fine community in Minnesota, and I am especially interested that he answer this question because the nonpublic schools do not like him very well. Dr. MATTHEIS. Mr. Chairman, Congressman Quie, members of the committee, I think that there is a new breakthrough in the legislation that we have before us with regard to the nonpublic schools.
You are correct in stating that under title I there is not very much involvement of nonpublic schools at present.
We recognize this as a great concern, and we are trying to improve that status.
There are several problems associated with it, one of which is identification of disadvantaged students in the nonpublic school who should be eligible.
There are not the kind of assessments made in the public schools or nonpublic schools to identify these children.
This identification would open up those funds to the kind of followthrough program by which the Secretary furnishes services to children in the nonpublic schools which were not being served.
This is a very great change indeed.
Under title III programs that you alluded to, in fact, our present stature is to move only 15 percent, the Commissioner's discretionary funds, to the renewal centers.
It has not been determined at this point to move into the program the 85 percent, which now is at the discretion of the States so we would not contemplate any change in that program, but, in fact, title III would be the basis for the relationship with the nonpublic schools in the legislation.
Mr. QUIE. In title I, there is a requirement that the public schools give equitable, I may not be using the right word, comparable assistance to the nonpublic school children. If they are not doing it, and there are many reasons for not doing it, would this authority allow the schools to come directly to the Secretary similar to the provisions in title II?
Commissioner MARLAND. It is not precisely that way.
It would be in the case where a review of the local state legal authorities demonstrated that they were unable within their laws to deal directly with nonpublic schools. Under those circumstances the Secretary would then set aside the proportionate amounts of money to which those schools would be eligible, and deal directly with those schools.
Only when the laws of the State would prohibit, as is the case with two or three States, the distribution of public funds to nonpublic schools
Mr. QUIE. Could I just make one statement.
If the school district can under its own laws provide the comparable services, for the nonpublic schools, you will require them to do that, as it is required now?"
Commissioner MARLAND. Well
Mr. QUIE. Only to the extent the attorneys say you are able to do it, you will bypass that.
Commissioner MARLAND. To modify your statement very slightly, you said provide for the schools, and we would say to provide for the eligible children in those schools.
Chairman PERKINS. Mrs. Green.
Mrs. GREEN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I listened with great interest to Doctor Kurzman and to Doctor Marland and I am very sympathetic to some of the general questions which you have outlined, because I think that the innumerable categorical programs cannot continue. We certainly cannot keep adding to the number of categorical mechanisms and expect any wise use of funds. You have stated that you would phase out, or would replace 33 of the categorical programs.
Since you speak so disrespectfully of the categorical approach, why do you propose to phase out 33 programs, and yet retain 67 programs? That does not, in my book, give you quite a passing grade.
Commissioner MARLAND. That needs more explanation, Congresswoman Green.
There are 33 programs in the Office of Education that relate to elementary and secondary formula grants.
The remaining 66 or more programs relate to other things in the Office of Education, as distinct from elementary and secondary formula grants, such as higher education and bilingual education. These are not affected. Those affected are formula grants that are customarily distributed in categorical terms, totaling in all 33 that relate to elementary and secondary.
There is no decision as to which one stays or goes. All formula grants for elementary and secondary are included in this.
Mr. KURZMAN. That represents something like two-thirds of the funds expended by the Office of Education. These 33 programs are the big items.
Mrs. GREEN. You are saying that 33 represents the total number of categorical programs in elementary and secondary education?
Mr. KURZMAN. It is the total number of formula grants for elementary and secondary education which represents the bulk of OE's funding.
It excludes the project grants.
Mrs. GREEN. I will be interested in seeing the actual list.
It seems to me that the number is actually higher but I may be wrong.
Commissioner MARLAND. We will be glad to submit that list for the
Chairman PERKINS. Without objection, the list will be submitted for the record.
You send it to me, and I will see that it is included in the record.
Mr. QUIE. We will put it in at this point.
Mrs. GREEN. If you would also send me a copy, I would appreciate
Sometimes I never see items which have been requested by the committee and are subsequently sent up here.
(The list referred to follows:)
EXISTING EDUCATION PROGRAMS REPEALED BY EDUCATION REVENUE SHARING Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965
Title I-Education of the Disadvantaged
Title II-School Library Resources, Textbooks, and other Instructional
Title III—Supplementary Educational Centers and Services; Guidance, Counseling, and Testing
Title V-Strengthening State and Local Educational Agencies
Education of the Handicapped Act
Part B-Assistance to States for Education of Handicapped Children
The Smith Hughes Act (Vocational Education Act of 1917)
Public Law 81-874
Section 3 (a)-Children of persons who reside and work on Federal property Section 3(b)-Children of persons who reside or work on Federal property Section 4-Sudden and substantial increases in attendance
National Defense Education Act of 1958
Title III-Financial Assistance for Strengthening Instruction in Science, Mathematics, Modern Foreign Languages, and other Critical Subjects
Education Professions Development Act
Part A-General Provisions
Part B-State vocational education programs
Part C-Research and training in vocational education
Part D Exemplary programs and projects
Part E-Residential vocational education
Part F-Consumer and homemaking education
Part G-Cooperative vocational education programs
Part H-Work-study programs for vocational education students
Part I-Curriculum development in vocational and technical education
Adult Education Act (except for Sec. 309: Special Experimental Demonstration Projects and Teacher Training)
Public Law 81-815 (except for sections 9, 10, 14, and 16)
Child Nutrition Act of 1966
Section 5-Nonfood Assistance Program
National School Lunch Act
Section 4-Apportionments to States
Section 5-Nonfood Assistance
Section 7-Payments to States
Section 8-State Disbursement to Schools
Section 10-Nonprofit Private Schools
Mrs. GREEN. You also state that educational programs are administered through 26 other Federal agencies.
What will your proposal be with regard to those educational programs?
Commissioner MARLAND. At this stage, it does not embrace those other programs.
We only cite that as a condition equally difficult in terms of relationships that surround the local administrator, the State offices, as
they attempt to deal with these programs in the Department of Agriculture, the Department of the Interior, and so on. We are simply a part of the problem, and we are trying to solve our part.
It may be useful to you to know that the organization known as the Federal Inter-Agency Committee on Education, consisting of 24 different departments and agencies of Government, is considering this issue as one of its many topics. It is trying to bring simplistic and efficient solutions to some of these problems among us.
Mrs. GREEN. It seems to me that you are really misleading the public, if you talk about revenue sharing and elimination of categorical programs, while, at the same time, proposing nothing with regard to those educational programs administered in all of the other agencies. You would still have numerous categorical programs, and you will not solve the basic problem until you touch on those programs as well. Mr. KURZMAN. Mrs. Green, we have proposed in our bill to create a new Department of Human Resources, which is pending before the Government Operations Committees in both Houses to bring many of those special programs both in higher education and in elementary and secondary education under the umbrella of the Department of Human Resources.
Mrs. GREEN. I am not sure that legislative proposal has much future so I suggest you look at another kind of reorganization that would accomplish the purpose.
May I ask you if you think that the material you have presented to the committee this morning will represent your views come next March, when the task force has completed its study? Surely the Office of Education is giving great consideration to the Serrano decision in California, which is now under appeal, the Minnesota case, and a case in Oregon, all having tremendous impact on the financial support of elementary and secondary education. In other words, if I understand your response to the chairman's question, and also to Mr. Quie's, your statements this morning do not envision going beyond the 7 percent contribution of the Federal Government?
You are saying you are going to reorganize the existing programs, making up 7 percent of the Federal contribution to education. In your proposal for revenue sharing, do you intend to go beyond 7 percent? Mr. KURZMAN. Mrs. Green, we have already gone beyond 7 percent in respect to general revenue sharing, which, as you know, would provide aid to State and local governments in the original proposal.
Mrs. GREEN. But in terms of special revenue sharing for education? Mr. KURZMAN. In addition we have proposed $5 billion in consideration of how much State and local governments now contribute to local education agencies.
Mrs. GREEN. General revenue sharing is $5 billion?
Mr. KURZMAN. That is correct.
Mrs. GREEN. In my judgment, to meet the desperate needs of the school districts of the country, that are closing early and turning kids out on the street, $5 billion really would be required just for elementary and secondary education. It seems to me, until the administration is ready to reevaluate their recommendations, we are not going to find any cooperation between the legislative and the executive branch.
I cannot vote for a bill that continues the 7 percent contribution to the cost of education at the elementary and secondary level, with the
excuse that there is more in a $5 billion general revenue sharing bill because such a response just does not begin to touch the crisis.
Mr. Quie said that we cannot write general aid legislation until we have solved the problems connected with categorical aid.
In my judgment, there is only one approach which will really work; you must simultaneously phase in general aid and phase out all categorical programs. Therefore, one must go a great deal further than is recommended in your proposal.
Mr. KURZMAN. I understand the point you have made. However, we believe the two subjects are separable. They have been presented separately, the general revenue sharing bill to deal with the financing problem, and the special revenue sharing bill to deal with the effectiveness of existing financial aid.
Mrs. GREEN. I might say again I am very sympathetic. We absolutely must decentralize the Federal educational programs. We have to stop this categorical nonsense, and I would be willing to work with those in the Congress and the administration who want to move in that direction, but not when we retain a 7-percent limitation on the total Federal contribution.
It seems to me this is a farce.
Commissioner MARLAND. I hope we can keep them separate, Mrs. Green, and I assure you we are trying to deal with them separately, but I do think Mr. Quie's position is a good one.
The sooner we can get the system for delivering new money, such as revenue sharing, the more likely there will be efficient use for the funds when they get there.
Chairman PERKINS. Mr. Bell.
Mr. BELL. Thank you.
I also want to welcome all of you to the committee, and to compliment you for a very good statement.
I think the program you are proposing is an excellent one. I think it will answer the problem to a large extent, especially in areas like California, where we have a great need for State responsibility.
I have heard frequently that categorical programs are overlapping and people are employed merely to straighten out the areas in which they are involved.
I wanted to point out in relation to Mrs. Green's comments, that you were rather disrespectful concerning the categorical aid method. I think that you have made it quite clear in both of your statements that you felt that the categorical aid method was good, up to a point, and now we have reached the stage where we need to reorganize and streamline and try to make it work a little more effectively and efficiently.
The Congresswoman from Oregon also talked about other agencies and their categorical aid programs.
I noted that the Higher Education Act had a rule on the floor that limits our becoming involved in other agencies or in other committee jurisdictions, and I wonder how you would possibly accomplish that under your present limitations.
I have some questions here that I would like to ask you, of which I am quite sure of the answers, but nevertheless, I think they bring out some important points.
Revenue sharing will not increase bureaucracy at the State level, will it?