Mr. BOBO. We had been anticipating the public housing portion for a long time. In 1975 and 1976 this did become a reality, and we did begin to receive funds for the low rent housing children. At that time there was some confusion as to the funding of this, and I believe in our state that perhaps there is still some confusion concerning the low rent housing funding portion of P.L. 874. According to the existing regulations concerning the public housing portion, we have to submit an application to the State Department of Education. That application, after it is approved by the State Department of Education then must be considered by the office of Education. All this must take place before we can ever begin to receive P.L. 874 public housing funds into the local school system. In our case, it is the Montgomery public school system. I believe the regulations state that any funds coming through because of the low rent housing must be for special programs and projects designed to meet the special education needs of educationally deprived children from low income families. This being the case, then we have some recommendations that we wish the committee would consider considering the low rent public housing portion of P.L. 874. Number one, the recommendation would be that low rent housing funds come to us like all other P.L. 874 funds that we receive. There are many categories of this, and we get them directly from the Office of Education, and we would like to recommend that the public housing portion be considered as all other of these funds. If that can't be the case, then we would like to recommend that the public housing funds be considered and administered in the same way as the special ed funds, or the handicapped funds by the Office of Education in that particular category. The special ed funds and the handicapped funds seem to be working very well. It would be most helpful if the public housing portion could function accordingly and by the same regulations in the funding area as the handicapped funds are now operating. The third recommendation would be that they would like very strongly to recommend that the public housing students be funded at a higher level, perhaps as B civilians, which is 57 percent in tiers 1 and 2. Then perhaps the fourth recommendation we would like to suggest for consideration would be that the State Department be eliminated from the approval of the application of the public housing funds, and that we apply directly to the Office of Education. This is also the recommendation of our own State Department of Education, that they be eliminated from the approval of the application, and also from the responsibility of the supervision of the application once it is approved. We are very appreciative of all of P.L. 874, not only the low rent housing of which we do have a substantial number in our county. We have over 3,000 low rent housing students that are enrolled in our public school system. We have a population of approximately 36,000 students in all in Montgomery, in the city and county system. We are very appreciative of this, of all of the P.L. 874 funds, but particularly the low rent housing. I want to thank the committee and you, Congressman Buchanan, for allowing us to appear here today and share our thoughts. Mr. BUCHANAN. Mr. Chairman, as Dr. Bobo has indicated, he did bring a statement from our own Birmingham Board of Education, which I ask be included at this point in the record. Mr. HEFTEL. It will be included in the record. [The statement referred to follows:] BIRMINGHAM BOARD OF EDUCATION POST OFFICE DRAWER 10007 BIRMINGHAM, ALABAMA 35202 (205) 252-1800 United States House of Representatives Sub-Committee Elementary, Secondary, and Vocational Education June 28, 1977 Statement of Henry Sparks, Assistant Superintendent Birmingham Board of Education Public Law 81-874 Impact Aid Low-Rent Public Housing BIRMINGHAM BOARD OF EDUCATION POST OFFICE DRAWER 10007 BIRMINGHAM, ALABAMA 35202 Mr. Chairman: June 16, 1977 Concentrations of federally subsidized low-rent housing projects in urban areas create many additional demands for services. However, the ability of the urban areas to provide the additional services is reduced due to the fact that these projects are exempt from taxation. School districts receive a large portion of their local revenue from community property taxes. Thus, families who reside and/or work in low-rent housing projects deprive the local community and, more importantly, the schools of much needed income. If we are to have equal educational opportunities, then those property owners whose property is not exempt from taxation must bear the burden of extra services rendered by having their taxes increased. The alternative is fewer dollars per pupil for education. In Birmingham, Alabama, there are fourteen (14) federally funded low-rent housing projects. These projects have 6,566 units from which 5,237 students attend the Birmingham Public Schools, which had a total pupil enrollment of 50,311 as of May 20, 1977. This means that 10.4 percent (5,237 50,311) of the school system's total enrollment is located in federally subsidized housing projects. During the 1976-77 school year, the Birmingham School System had a total general fund budget of $44,054,103. With an enrollment of 50,311 students, this amounted to $875.64 per student per year ($44,054,103 + 50,311). Of the $44,054,103 general fund budget, $15,609,799 came from local effort, which amounted to 35.4 percent of the budget ($15,609,799 $44,054,103). This means that local tax efforts amounted to $309.98 per child in the 1976-77 school year ($875.64 x 35.4%). As previously stated, the Birmingham School System had 5,237 school children, or 10.4 percent of its pupils, from federally subsidized housing projects. The local tax revenue expended by the school system on these children amounted to $1,623,365.26 ($309.98 x 5,237). If and when payment is approved, our school system will receive only $368,340.03 of 874 Funds for the fiscal year 1977 based upon the formula. The system will receive $59,905.11 from the housing project in lieu of taxes. This when added to the $368,340.03 totals $428,245.14. This amounts to $81.77 per pupil ($428,245.14 + 5,237). This leaves a deficit of $228.21 per pupil in housing projects ($309.98 minus $81.77). To sum up the situation, local tax revenue expended by the school system for educating the children from federally subsidized housing projects was $1,623,365.26 for this school year, 1976-77. The system will receive $428,245.14 in the 1977-78 school year. This means that the local extra burden amounts to $1,195,120.12 ($1,623,365.26 minus $428,245.14). This presents a real problem. Amounts discussed do not include costs of constructing school facilities. In addition, we ask if it is equitable for the parents who share in the tax burden of educating the children in these housing projects for their children not to derive benefits from the money received, because this money must be used to continue and to augment programs assisted under Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Act of 1965. These suggestions are offered for consideration: 1. That the program be funded at the one hundred percent level. 2. That these funds not be tied to Title I, which purposes. 3. That there be a general aid program weighted to recognize factors such as: (a) Comparative local wealth. (b) Local cost of operating. (c) A heavy incidence of poverty level students. |