1 Based upon annual reports received to date. Source: Improvement of Statistical Services Programs Status Report, March 1966. PREPARED STATEMENT OF AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF SCHOOL ADMINISTRATORS WASHINGTON, D.C. Committee on Federal Policy and Legislation and the Executive Committee of the American Association of School Administrators FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 1966, WASHINGTON, D.C., The Committee on Federal Policy and Legislation and the Executive Committee of the American Association of School Administrators, after careful consideration of a rather comprehensive list of items relating to federal policy and legislation, developments in the administration of various federally related school programs, and the needs and problems reported from school systems throughout the country, make the following recommendations for legislative action in 1966: 1. That the renewal of Titles I, II, III, and V of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (P.L. 89-10) be made a matter of urgent priority by the Congress of the United States; that the authorization be for at least four years in order to assure continuity and continued progress in the improvement of the educational program; that the appropriations within each of these Titles be increased substantially to insure growth and extension of the program; and that the appropriations for funding of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act be made before June 1, 1966, in order to facilitate budgeting and employment of personnel in local school systems and efficiency in the use of such funds. 2. That there be a sizable additional appropriation of monies under Title I or through other means to provide capital outlay funds for buildings. From reports from school systems throughout the country, it is apparent that there is a tremendous need for additional classrooms and other facilities to carry out projects under Title I. Many communities have reached their debt ceiling and cannot provide these facilities. A sizable proportion of the funds now available under Title I to improve the educational program cannot be used by local school systems unless some way is found to provide additional facilities. 3. That additional funds be provided in Title V to be allocated to state departments of education which could be dispensed to local school systems for financial assistance in planning programs under Titles I and III. At the present time local school systems must finance a substantial cost in the planning of programs and writing proposals. These costs must be borne by other parts of the regular school program to the detriment of the program in general. 4. That the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 be amended to allow local school systems to recover their indirect costs in connection with programs under Titles I, II, and III. At the present time no allowance is made for indirect costs associated with federally funded projects under these Titles. School systems throughout this country are finding that these indirect costs constitute a substantial burden on the regular school budget and that, as in the case of planning costs, monies to finance these costs must be taken away from other parts of the school program to the detriment of the education of children not touched by the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Precedent for paying such costs has been established in the percentage for overhead allowance which is made to colleges and universities under Title IV of the Act. It has been demonstrated by competent accountants that these indirect costs can be pinpointed with modern and generally accepted auditing principles. 5. (a) That the Adult Education and Head Start Programs which are presently a part of the Economic Opportunity Act under the jurisdiction of the Office of Economic Opportunity be transferred to the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. (b) That the Manpower Retraining Act be transferred from the Department of Labor to the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare as a part of the Vocational Act. These three programs are primarily educational programs and should be administered under the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Education. 6. That appropriations for P.L. 874 and for the distribution of surplus commodity foods not be discontinued, diminished, or eliminated. 7. Our Association reiterate its original position that jurisdiction over supplemental educational services under Title III shall rest in the state educational agency rather than in the federal office of education. GEORGE B. BRAIN, President, AASA. Chairman, Committee on Federal Policy and Legislation. FORREST E. CONNER, Executive Secretary. NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF STATE BOARDS OF EDUCATION, RESOLUTION No. 66-12 A RESOLUTION REQUESTING TRANSFER OF HEAD START PROGRAMS TO THE Whereas, Head Start Programs in the field of education have been attached to the Economic Opportunity Agency. Now therefore, Be It Resolved: SECTION 1. That the National Association of State Boards of Education go on record as favoring the transfer of the Head Start educational program from the Economic Opportunity Agency to the Department of Health, Education and Welfare so that this program may be integrated into our regular school program providing continuity of education of children from preparatory classes into the first grade. SECTION 2. That future educational programs or current amendments of programs now in effect be channeled through educational agencies for a more efficient operation without diffusion of effort. SECTION 3. That the Secretary be and hereby is directed to deliver a copy of this resolution to the President of the United States, the Vice-President of the United States, and the Senators and Representatives in the United States Congress. R. A. MANCHESTER, Chairman, Resoluions Committee. This is to certify that the above Resolution was adopted at the 1966 convention of the National Association of State Boards of Education held at the St. Paul Hotel, St. Paul, Minnesota, on April 23, 1966. NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF STATE BOARDS OF EDUCATION, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE, U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION, OPERATIONS OF TITLE III, ESEA I. PROCESS OF DECISION MAKING 1. Flow of proposals from receipt to final action Copies of each Title III, ESEA, proposal are received by the Division of Plans and Supplementary Centers (PSC). They are logged in the central file, assigned an identification number, and receipt of the application is acknowledged. Copies are then forwarded to the appropriate Area Desk, of which there are five. At the Area Desk the application is checked for routine compliance and completeness, and necessary statistical information is recorded. Copies then are sent to the Program Advisory Branch (PAB) for two evaluations; to the Bureau of Research (BR) for one evaluation; and to specialists outside the Office of Education for two evaluations. PAB, BR, and the outside specialists review the application using the established criteria; recommend it for approval, resubmittal, or disapproval; and return it to the Area Desk. At the same time that a local educational agency submits its proposal to PSC, it also sends the application to its State department of education for review and recommendation. The State department forwards its rating and recommendation to PSC. When these evaluations are completed, the Area Desk reviews and evaluates the projects and summarizes all the evaluations, including strengths, weaknesses, and recommended action. Priorities are assigned to the projects by the Area Desk and an Internal Review Committee comprised of representatives of PSC, BR, and the Bureau of Elementary and Secondary Education (ESE). The final recommendations of the Division are presented for consideration to the Advisory Committee by the Office of the Associate Commissioner (ESE). After the Advisory Committee makes its recommendations to the Commissioner, the Office of the Associate Commissioner instructs the PSC Director to prepare for the applicant a letter of acceptance, resubmittal, or rejection, as directed. The letter is prepared by the Area Desk for the Commissioner's signature and is routed for approval to the PSC Director and the Office of the Associate Commissioner (ESE). The Office of the Associate Commissioner forwards a copy of the approved project with this letter to the Commissioner for his signature. The Area Desk sends eight copies of the approved project through the Office of Administration to the Office of Contracts and Construction Service (CCS) where fiscal arrangements are negotiated with the applicant. CCS prepares the Grant Acceptance letter to the applicant and forwards copies of the letter to the Area Desk. Copies of the approved project are returned to the applicant with the Commissioner's letter and to the Area Desk. The Area Desk provides the central file with copies of all official correspondence, evaluations, summaries of telephone conversations, approval letters, Grant Acceptance letters, and other pertinent documents to be placed in the official project file. 2. Decisionmakers At the Area Desk each proposal is reviewed for compliance and completeness and the applicant is asked to supply any missing documents. The evaluations and recommendations of the Program Advisory Branch, the Bureau of Research, and the outside specialists are summarized, including the strengths and weaknesses of each project. On the basis of these evaluations, the Area Desk recommends approval, resubmittal, or disapproval of the project and assigns it a priority in categories such as recommended approval or nonapproval; planning or operational grant, or a combination of both; area of concern (curriculum, cultural programs, pupil personnel services, mobile units, etc.); and geographic area (local, county, regional, bi-State, etc.). Recommendations are made relative to the geographic distribution of projects within a State, the population benefited, the balance of a State's allotment, and the future funding ability of the program. Also considered are requests for capital outlay and new construction. The recommendations of the Area Desk are presented to the Internal Review Committee which includes representatives of the Division of Plans and Supplementary Centers, the Bureau of Elementary and Secondary Education, and the Bureau of Research. This committee reviews the Area Desk recommendations, giving particular attention to those projects which have received conflicting evaluations. The committee then decides the Office of Education recommendations for approval, resubmittal, or disapproval. In cases where there is a wide difference between the recommendations of the State department of education and the other reviewers, the Area Desk contacts the State agency to seek clarification and understanding. The OE recommendations are then presented to the National Advisory Committee. The Committee reviews the projects, evaluations, and recommended actions, and recommends the proposals to the Commissioner in one of four categories: approve, hold for further consideration by the Commissioner, resubmit, or disapprove. The Commissioner makes the final decision for approval, resubmittal or disapproval. For those projects approved by the Commissioner, the Area Desk prepares a statement concerning the fiscal aspects of the project. This statement serves as a guide for the Office of Contracts and Construction Service in negotiating with the applicant the amount to be funded. |