NATIONAL ACHIEVEMENT STUDY

Mr. SHRIVER. What is the status now of the national achievement study which you mention on page 14? What are a few things you have learned so far from this study, and how have these ideas been used by the Office of Education?

Dr. MARLAND. Three subject areas were measured nationwide in 1969-70, two additional areas in 1970-71, and two more in 1971-72. Eight analytical reports of the results have been published, each containing detailed information of value to teachers, curriculum builders, and textbook writers. Each exercise is written to measure performance in relation to one of the specific objectives of instruction in the particular field, as identified by educators, subject matter specialists and representatives of the public. The attainment of the population group is reported in terms of the percentage giving correct answers or succeeding in the test of skill, or giving alternative points of view on each exercise. Analyses of the discrepancies in results between groups-by sex, different sizes of community, regions of the country, levels of parental education-pinpoint areas needing special attention. For example, males and females showed about equal competence at age 9 for both writing and science, but discrepancies were obvious in both the 13- and 17-year-old groups, and the gap widened for young adults. These findings suggest designing new teaching approaches to sustain interest and improve performance by the lagging groups. Reassessment of subject areas, which is scheduled at about 5 year intervals in the testing cycle, will enable educators to determine how well they have been able to decrease such gaps.

The Office of Education is systematically reviewing the findings which have begun to come out over the past several months, for appropriate next steps. The timing of reading analyses has been stepped up to be most useful to the right to read staff, which is studying the working materials in anticipation of the release of first results in May 1972. The career education program staff is working with the education commission of the States on measurement of career and occupational development, which is scheduled for testing in 1973-74. The national achievement study is serving as a model, and provides a basis for comparison, for those States and large city systems that are beginning to make similar assessments for themselves. ECS is providing materials and sharing their experience with several States.

TRANSFER OF RESEARCH ACTIVITIES TO NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF

EDUCATION

Mr. SHRIVER. On page 9 you mention the transition of current research activities from the Office of Education to the National Institute of Education, if it is authorized. Would this include all education research activities of the Office?

Dr. MARLAND. This would include all discretionary research activities previously funded under research and development, education for the handicapped, and vocational research. There will still be some minor research being done in our special foreign currency program and in the language training areas.

QUESTION OF VALUE-ADDED TAX

Mr. SHRIVER. In your opinion, what are some of the alternatives to a value-added tax as a substitute for the property tax?

Since the President is holding his recommendation on this matter pending a review of the Commission on School Finance and the Advisory Committee on Intergovernmental Relations, would you recommend that Congress also hold up on education revenue sharing until these reports are analyzed?

Dr. MARLAND. In answering your question, Mr. Shriver, I want to make it clear that I don't consider myself an expert on taxes. My concern has been and continues to be with the educational expenditure side; that is, with working out an educationally sound distribution method or formula which redresses the problems of insolvency and inequity in our public schools. The tax expertise lies, as you know, in the Treasury Department; and it is they, with input from the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations as well as other governmental and citizen groups, who will recommend to the President how any educational initiative would be best financed. The valueadded tax is one alternative which is being considered. One of the main considerations in fixing on a new or additional source of revenue is that it should be progressive in nature, and I'm told that it is possible to make a value-added tax as or even more progressive than our present income tax.

I would definitely not recommend that Congress hold up action on revenue sharing until the educational finance issues have been analyzed and resolved. This would amount to a delay that I don't think will serve any useful purpose. Quite the contrary. I'm sure that the revenue-sharing legislation can be made to interface with any later educational finance legislation without any great difficulties.

TARGETING OF HIGHER EDUCATION PROGRAMS TO MEET NATIONAL NEEDS

Mr. SHRIVER. Many of our recent college graduates have had great difficulty finding suitable and satisfying employment following their graduation, due partly to the economic slowdown and also to the changing nature of our economy. On page 19 you said you were supporting legislation which would enable you to target student assistance to the more seriously disadvantaged students. What efforts are being made to target this and other higher education programs to more accurately reflect national needs at this time?

Mr. MARLAND. Nearly all of our higher education programs are targeting all or some of their funds on high priority areas reflecting important national need. As we mentioned in our budget presentation, we are planning to target student financial aid funds on those students with the greatest need.

In the cooperative education program, funds will be targeted on programs in such new career fields as allied health technologies, computer technologies, and public service occupations such as urban planning, housing, law enforcement, and ecology. Funds will also be used to increase and strengthen cooperative education programs at 2-year colleges.

In the special programs for the disadvantaged, talent search, upward bound, and special services in colleges, funds will be targeted

on programs in black colleges and on programs relating to veterans, American Indians, and Spanish-surnamed Americans. Programs relating to 2-year colleges and drug abuse will also be emphasized.

Under the developing institutions program, funds are being targeted on black colleges, 2-year colleges, and programs for training minority group students for the professions, the physical and biological sciences, and careers not requiring traditional academic preparation.

The interest subsidy program for facilities loans will target funds on public community colleges and technical institutes, developing institutions and institutions with enrollments of 20 percent or more disadvantaged.

The personnel training programs under part E of EPDA will target funds on projects to train junior college faculty and instructors in the areas of remedial reading, environmental education, drug abuse education, and veterans' education.

CLARIFICATION OF $288 MILLION REQUEST FOR NDEA LOANS

Mr. SHRIVER. I would like to have more explanation on this $288 million for NDEA loans, which is not in the President's budget because the money will actually come from private capital. This is not customary budget request procedure, is it?

Dr. MARLAND. We are requesting an appropriation of $293 million for the national defense student loan program in fiscal year 1973, the same as the 1972 level. This includes $288 million for Federal capital contributions and loans to institutions, and $5 million for the teacher cancellation grants provision. In addition, the administration will later be submitting proposed legislation to Congress which would provide private financing for the loan portion-that is $288 million-of this program. It should be made clear, however, that this will in no way affect the program levels for student loans. I should also add that this is not a new concept in Federal budgeting. The President's budget for 1972 contained a similar proposal for off-the-budget financing of NDEA student loans. Moreover, private funds have successfully been a source of financing in other programs, such as higher education construction loans and insured student loans.

STATUS OF EDUCATION REVENUE SHARING FUNDS

Mr. SHRIVER. If the education revenue sharing proposal is not adopted for fiscal year 1973, what happens to the $224 million in the "hold harmless" category?

Dr. MARLAND. As you know, Mr. Shriver, the revenue sharing proposal, even though dependent upon pending legislation, is a most important and integral part of our budget. We in the administration, at this point in time, are vigorously supporting and anticipating its passage. If at such time it becomes evident that this proposal is not enacted, the administration will certainly reexamine its position and submit to Congress whatever action it deems most appropriate. Mr. SHRIVER. That is all, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. FLOOD. Mr. Hull?

Mr. HULL. Thank you for a wonderful statement, Mr. Marland.

CONTINUING EFFORTS AT REMEDIAL EDUCATION OF THE DISADVANTAGED

A study recently completed indicated that corporations were not having much more success than the public schools with traditional methods in educating the poor. Are there means which have not been emphasized which might be successful, or must we conclude that there are no effective means to teach the deprived?

Dr. MARLAND. It is quite true, Mr. Hull, as you note, that our success in dealing with this central educational problem-the problem of remediating the educational deficits of the disadvantaged-have met with only limited success. That has been true both of the large scale programs which have been mounted and, as you note, with the recent experiment with performance contracting carried out by the Office of Economic Opportunity. However, I'm most emphatically unwilling to conclude that there are no effective means to achieve this most important of educational goals. We are continuing with our experimental work in Follow Through, and I'm hopeful it will provide something of a breakthrough. We are making continuing efforts, and urging the States to do the same, to improve the content and management of title I. Perhaps, most importantly, we are, as you know, proposing a wholly new research approach to this and other major education problems through the establishment of the National Institute of Education.

REDUCTION IN PUBLIC LIBRARY SERVICES

Mr. HULL. A substantial cutback is proposed for public library services in fiscal year 1973. How do I explain or justify this to representatives of library organizations when they come to visit?

Dr. MARLAND. We are requesting $32,730,000 for public library services in fiscal year 1973-a reduction of $16,479,000 from the 1972 appropriation. The reduction from the appropriation level is predicated on State and local agencies assuming a greater share of support for public library services and the need to make hard decisions within the administration to allocate available funds to higher priority programs. LSCA funds over the years have served as a catalyst and have been successful in attracting State and local funds to support improvement of public library services.

IMPACT OF RICHMOND COURT BUSING DECISION

Mr. HULL. While I recognize that the dispute is not yet settled, it seems possible that the court decision affecting the Richmond schools may be upheld. Do you have any thoughts as to the ultimate impact of such a large scale busing scheme on the quality of educational services or student motivation?

Dr. MARLAND. Judge Merhige's order to consolidate the Henrico, Richmond, and Chesterfield school districts would necessitate the transportation of some 78,000 students. Although this may appear on the surface to be a large scale busing scheme, it is perhaps more helpful to consider that fully 68,000 students are currently being transported to school in these three districts. Thus, the desegregation order would result in less than a 15-percent increase in student transportation. Fur

ther, the traveltimes would be held to periods of 1 hour or less, that is, within the limits officially prescribed by the State of Virginia, and no additional buses would be needed.

TERMINATION OF EQUIPMENT AND MINOR REMODELING PROGRAM

Mr. HULL. It is said that when the title III program under NDEA is terminated other activities will pick up the slack. Will any school system get funds it is not now receiving under another program when, and if, title III is not funded?

Dr. MARLAND. NDEA title III has continued to provide funds for local school systems for the purchase of equipment since 1958. At that time an emergency existed and the purchase of the additional equipment was designed to help the schools meet the critical needs for instruction. During the 14 years this program has been in existence, the schools of the Nation have received more than $903 million. The crises which spurred the enactment of NDEA title III are over. The schools should now be able to consider the equipment problem as a regular ongoing activity to be supported by the basic funding for State and local school systems plus some Federal assistance from pertinent programs.

Since 1958, the Congress has enacted a number of pieces of legislation which make it possible to use funds for the purchase of equipment by local school systems. The Elementary and Secondary Education Act contains two titles which are particularly pertinent. Title I funds may be used for the purchase of equipment for the disadvantaged and title III provides for the purchase of books and audiovisual materials. In addition the Vocational Education Act and the Education for the Handicapped Act make provisions for the purchase of equipment. When NDEA III funding is discontinued, it will require local school systems to readjust their allocations for equipment. These adjustments will include obtaining necessary additional equipment with Federal funds from such sources as the Vocational Education Act, the Handicapped Act, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, and with State and local basic support funds. In addition, as stated on page 17 of my statement, funds previously appropriated for equipment and materials are a part of the $224 million which will be requested under the "hold harmless" concept included in the education revenue-sharing program.

Mr. HULL. I have no further questions.

Mr. FLOOD. Mr. Conte?

CONTROVERSY OVER MISSPENT TITLE I FUNDS

Mr. CONTE. Much controversy has been generated during the past year because of alleged misuses of title I, ESEA funds. Would you provide the committee with an update on this matter?

Dr. MARLAND. Program reviews conducted in all 50 States each year and the technical assistance given by program staff in the Office of Education have had a noticeable impact on the State administration of the title I program.

All States have made improvements in administration-some more than others, of course. Most States are now screening title I applications more carefully before approving them. They are monitoring