« PreviousContinue »
its neighboring county. It is considered to be a working class county because of the way it has developed. We have Andrews Air Force Base and several other large military establishments within the county which have effectively divided the county up into two sectors: a southern sector and a northern sector.
Population has developed in certain specific areas which border on the District of Columbia as you go out into the county because of the location of Andrews Air Base. South of that point in the county is rural. North tends to be-the center, actually, is apartments and north is the population base in Bowie in that area there. Then we go on to the peripheral area of the county bordering right on the District of Columbia. So it has quite a mixed population which tends to reduce the median income.
A tax rise is really going to be a very detrimental-in my own opinion, I am sure-then to the taxpayer in the county. That is why I felt obliged to testify.
Mr. FORD. Does the air base along the river still operate elementary schools for their children?
Mr. PETRICCIONE. What is that? Patuxent?
Mr. PETRICCIONE. Bolling? I don't believe that school is operational. It was ended, I believe, during the Eisenhower administration.
Mr. Ford. But for a short time some years ago temporary buildings were put up on the field and they operated a school. Do you know if it is still operating?
Mr. PETRICCIONE. I don't know. But I can check it out, sir.
Mr. Ford. I wonder if you would do that and also see if you can find out what kind of school population is being generated from Prince Georges out of the tremendous buildup of military housing on Bolling? We have been pumping a great deal of money into building housing on Bolling. It has become almost exclusively that kind of function.
Mr. PETRICCIONE. Those figures are available.
(Whereupon, at 11:52 a.m., the subcommittee adjourned, to reconvene at the call of the Chair.) [Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
EIGHT MILE PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 6,
Trenton, N. Dak., April 14, 1975. Hon. QUENTIN N. BURDICK, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.
DEAB SENATOR BURDICK: The Trenton School Board and superintendent of schools are requesting your support for H. R. 5181 for the Trenton School district. Without Impact funds for the Trenton School, our financial position would be quite serious. What seems to be happening to our school district is that we have an increase in state funding and are experiencing a decrease in federal funding, so we are going to be left short on funds again if this happens.
Without the federal funds, our school will not be able to financially run the programs we are now running and we will have to make several cutbacks if this happens. We strongly urge you to support federal funding for education in our state. Thank you. Sincerely,
LEARY G. GETZ, Superintendent.
SOMERSWORTH, N.H., April 15, 1975. Re: Elementary-Secondary Vocational Education. Hon. CARL PERKINS, Education Subcommittee, Washington, D.C.
DEAR REPRESENTATIVE PERKINS: The Somersworth School Board has voted unanimously to urge passage of HR 5181 as proposed by you. Failure to pass promises cutback in teaching and other positions and diminished quality of education in a year when this community is faced with a parochial school closing along with the bad economy. Appreciate your help in this effort.
John H. POWERS, Superintendent of Schools.
PORTSMOUTH, N.H., April 14, 1975. Hon. CARL PERKINS, Chairman, House Education Committee, Washington, D.C.
DEAR CONGRESSMAN PERKINS: It is imperative that your bill to postpone until the fall of 1976 the taking effect of the damaging authorization bill passed last summer in regard to impact aid be voted on favorably.
The Portsmouth, New Hampshire school district as well as surrounding school districts will experience financial chaos if the cuts proposed by the U.S.O.E. are realized. Thanks for your help and support.
TIMOTHY MONAHAN, Superintendent of Schools.
OVERSIGHT HEARINGS ON THE IMPACT AID LAWS
AND TESTIMONY ON H.R. 5181
TUESDAY, APRIL 15, 1975
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON ELEMENTARY, SECONDARY AND VOCATIONAL EDUCATION, COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR,
Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met at 9:40 a.m., pursuant to call, in room 2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Carl D. Perkins (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Members present: Representatives Perkins, Lehman, Blouin, Mottl, Hall, Quie, Pressler, and Goodling.
Staff members present: John F. Jennings, subcommittee counsel; Christopher T. Cross, minority senior education specialist.
Chairman PERKINS. A quorum is present.
It is a great pleasure for me to welcome before the subcommittee this morning one of our most distinguished Members in the U.S. Congress, Mr. Sikes from Florida. Mr. Sikes has always supported our education legislation and especially has supported the expansion of the impact aid program which benefits so many school districts because of the defense and military installations in the country that have consumed a lot of taxable lands.
Several questions have arisen concerning the new amendments of Public Law 93–380. It is a great pleasure for me to welcome Mr. Sikes here on this occasion. He has with him
this morning Mr. Pledger Sullivan, the deputy assistant superintendent from his home county. We will hear these witnesses.
Congressman Sikes, you proceed in any manner you prefer.
STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT L. F. SIKES, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA, ACCOMPANIED BY PLEDGER SULLIVAN, DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT, OKALOOSA COUNTY, FLA.
Mr. Sikes. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
First let me express my great commendation for the outstanding and tireless efforts that you personally have made and that your committee has made for better education for America. We have gained greatly in this field under your chairmanship.
I appreciate your interest in allowing me to make this presentation. As you know. I visited with you several weeks ago in the company of the distinguished superintendent of schools of my home county of
Okaloosa in Florida about a subject of particular concern to him and to all of the school authorities of my State and to me. Following that meeting with you, I have ascertained that Governor Reubin Åskew of Florida also is apprehensive of the effect of language contained in the Education Amendments of 1974, Public Law 93-380. I have asked for this time in order to urge that the language in question be stricken from the law.
Section 5(d)3 of Public Law 81-874, as amended, provides that if a State has in effect a program of State aid—the Florida education finance program established by the 1973 legislature does provides for an equalization program-for free public education among the local educational agencies of that State, payments under the act-Public Law 87+may be taken into consideration by such State in determining (1) the relative financial resources available to local educational agencies in that State and (2) the relative financial need of such agencies for the provisions of free public education for children served by such agency subject to the provisions in this section.
The above amendment, Mr. Chairman, authorizes the Legislature of the State of Florida to utilize impact funds allocated to each eligible county in determining the amount of State funds to be received for education funding. This could result in the eventual loss of approximately $16,733,911.82 annually in State funds now available to certain counties in impact funds. I believe there are 21 counties in the State of Florida which could be adversely affected by this amendment. As many as eight other States may be similarly affected—I am told it is seven.
It is now proposed in the Florida Legislature that a measure be enacted into law which would count Federal impact funds as a part of total school revenue. This, in simple terms, means that the counties now receiving impact funds would no longer have the full amount of the funds which are specifically appropriated by Congress for their schools. The State does not propose to make up for this deficit to impact area counties. That means the impacted counties would have to endure lower school standards.
The facts of life being what they are, it must be assumed that the State legislators who represent the remaining 44 counties of the State would vote to take this money from the counties which now are receiving it in order to gain more money for their own counties. In simple terms, it looks like a stacked deck unless the language is taken from the Federal law. We simply don't have sources of revenue in the counties to replace that which would be lost to the students and the schools in the counties affected.
The State of Florida, with current provisions for funding public education, does not have a true equalization formula that guarantees an amount of money for every student, regardless of the county that he lives in.
This loss in Federal impact funds would violate the original intent of the concept of impact legislation, which was to guarantee school boards sufficient funds to provide adequate educational programs for dependents of federally connected employees—both military and civilian-who were moved into a county as a result of governmental defense activities, regardless of the financial resources of a county or State.