"The story I would like to tell this committee is short, but none too sweet. Simply stated, it is that we in the Baltimore City Public Schools know how to go about the job of educating our city's children, but we lack the funds to put our knowledge to work for our students. We know how to educate the middle-class child of average intelligence; we know how to educate the physically handicapped child; we know how to educate the gifted child; we know how to educate the mentally retarded child, and we know how to educate the economically disadvantaged child. I do not mean to give the impression that we think we know all the answers or that we think we need do nothing more in the fields of educational psychology and curriculum development. Educators still have much to learn about the learning process. By saying that we "know" how to educate Baltimore City's children, I mean that right now, today, we are capable of providing each child in our city's diverse student population with an education geared to his individual needs, with an education designed to make him an adult with the capacity of enjoying the benefits of our Nation's cultural, social, and economic resources and with the capacity of contributing to these resources.

"The conviction that we could do the job if the funds were available makes our impotency that much more frustrating not only to those of us who are committed as professionals and laymen to improving the quality of our children's education, but frustrating also to the citizens of our education-conscious city. Baltimore is fortunate in having a citizenry which passionately cares about the quality of its children's education; at budget time and at bond referendum time the citizens of Baltimore have strained their own fiscal resources to the breaking point. They see what must be done, they know it can be done, and their impatience and sense of futility grows as they find their schools still obsolete and overcrowded and their children still receiving an education as much by virtue of their own motivation and spirit as by virtues of anything our board or school commissioners can afford to supply.

"As usual, the people who needed to hear the sermon are not in the church; I am sure the members of the distinguished committee are thoroughly familiar with and sympathetic to the fiscal plight of the central city school districts and their needs for adequate financial support, which means their needs for massively increased Federal support. But it is difficult to speak of the good works that the historic Elementary and Secondary Education Act have done for the Baltimore City public schools without bemoaning what might be if the act were more adequately funded. For a hungry man, a nibble may be little better than starvation.

"In spite of my overwhelming concerns over the level of funding, which I am sure will not be misinterpreted as a lack of gratitude for what has in fact already been done, I would like to relate to this committee a small part of the story of ESEA in Baltimore City. My remarks will center on title I because this year title I is the source of almost all our ESEA funds and because for a central eity school district it provides by far the most significant programs. I hope my story will convince you that we do know how to educate our children in Baltimore City, that we are capable of spending ESEA funds in a cost effective and educationally effective way, and that the distinguished members of this committee should support not only a renewal of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, but also a full funding up to the authorized levels in this act.

"The National School Boards Association believes that the primary importance which American citiezns attach to elementary and secondary education is accurately reflected by their broad public support during recent years of rapid inCreases in local and state taxation rates for the support of public schools. USBA further believes that the unprecedented financial needs of public schools in general and the big cities with special crises situations in particular, demand vastly increased federal funds for education.

"The Association recommends that Congress substantially enlarge the amount federal funds allocated for elementary and secondary education purposes, including the assignment of a higher national priority. To achieve this objective NSBA stands ready to support, if necessary, an appropriate increase in existing federal tax rates for the support of education.

The National School Boards Association specifically recommends that ESEA title I allocations to local school districts be drastically increased so that fiscal year 1970 allocations are twice the fiscal year 1968 figure."

Mrs. G. Theodore Mitau, vice chairman, St. Paul Board of Education, Independent School District No. 625, St. Paul, Minn. (p. 615 EAEA I):

"The amount of funding is another critical problem. For large cities with an

urban-directed flow of families having low socioeconomic status moving into the inner-city areas, the need for funding aid is imperative if we are to carry the compounded burden of mounting costs of education and increased school enrollments.

"In this context, we in St. Paul view the degree of reduced funding for educational programs during the fiscal year 1969 with grave concern. We will receive for this year $162.37 per eligible child whereas last year we received $176.00. A reduction of this magnitude completely eliminates a significant array of educational programs and severely curtails an additional number of services now provided for both public and non-public schools. These include:

"Specialized inservice teacher training which provides valuable knowledge for better understanding and educating the disadvantaged child is sharply curtailed.

"Field trips which provide the disadvantaged child with added opportunities for enriching and educationally stimulating experiences ordinarily denied him is eliminated for public schools and curtailed for nonpublic school students.

"Expenditures for educational supplies, materials, and equipment beyond those provided for all St. Paul schools is curtailed to the point of being negligible. Educational achievement in disadvantaged area schools is impeded by the lack of specialized instructional materials.

"Summer programs for more than 2,000 disadvantaged children from pre-school through high school will not be offered in 1969. These programs have included pre-school classes for disadvantaged children who will enter kindergarten the following fall; elementary compensatory education with its emphasis on reading for priority area children in grades one through five; special compensatory education for learning disabled, mentally retarded, hearing impaired, crippled and multiplehandicapped children; intensive diagnosis and remediation in language arts and mathematics for disadvantaged children; provision for disadvantaged junior and senior high school students to attend summer school classes; teacher training workshops for small-group remediation, minority curriculum development, and techniques for providing equal education opportunities to children with grossly unequal backgrounds. "While the direction of leadership provided through funds available under federal laws like the Elementary and Secondary Education Act is full of promise today, the gigantic strides that should be taken in these program areas areeven today-limited by present funding levels. The direction is right. The speed should be increased. Any change in direction brought about by reduced funding will seriously jeopardize the progress already made in providing improved educational opportunities for the disadvantaged children and youth of St. Paul. Rather, we in St. Paul would urge an increase in the funding levels of educational programs aided under the Elementary and Secondary Education Actparticularly those under Title I."

Dr. Edward Palmason, school board member, Seattle Public Schools, Seattle, Wash. (p. 625, ESEA I):

"A notable example of our special Title I effort was the 1966 summer school program for 3.000 disadvantaged students. Title I funds provided improvement classes in mathematics and reading, enrichment classes, and outdoor education. We had a ratio of one adult to every five students and provided a wide range of field trip experience. In cooperation with three institutions of higher learning, teachers spent the afternoons developing new teaching materials and procedures for disadvantaged students. An important part of this entire procedure was the emergence of a better understanding of these pupils and their special needs by the entire teaching staff. Through this summer program, students not only were given a vital educational experience but also were removed, in many cases, from an aimless summer of wandering the streets. This outstanding progra became a casualty of the 8% cut in Title I funds for the fiscal year 1969. It is unfortunate that the 8% reduction in funds for the fiscal year 1969 made necessary the elimination of some other excellent programs. Among these was in-service education for teachers, curriculum workshops, summer remedial reading programs and summer school scholarships."

Dr. Gary N. Pottorff, vice president, Board of Education, Wichita, Kans. (p. 656, 657, ESEA I):

"The dollar levels of the title I allocation have lessened and thus have created a serious local problem. We are encouraged through Federal guidelines to spend

more per child, to be sure the services follow the child, and to make services available in parochial schools. The difficulty and the unreasonableness of such a request is apparent. To complicate the financial picture, one notes inflationary costs, salary increments, and other costs have eroded the original impact of title I.

"The level of acquisition for this year has been reduced by 50 percent. Many schools were just beginning to establish libraries. Wichita was trying to maintain State standards and the Wichita demonstration centers were meeting American Library Association standards. The current reductions will soon cause these schools to lower their quality standards as local funds are not sufficient to maintain these standards. The increased costs to acquire materials and the increased processing of costs have eroded the effectiveness of the dollar impact of title II."

John Wagner, South Bend Community School Corp., South Bend, Ind. (p. 692, ESEA I):

"1. The cutback of funds have caused the elimination of the four adult-community leaders. These individuals provided a much needed rapport and liaison between the home and community.

"2. Provisions for aides to assist the kindergarten teacher with similar programs of individualized instruction is a highly desirable concept if funds were available.

"3. Expansion of programs for the disadvantaged, mentally handicapped child is needed. These students find little satisfaction in the regular classroom.

“4. Greater opportunity for inservice training of teachers interested in disadvantaged youth is an area of concern.

"5. Uncertainty of funding makes long-range planning difficult and the procurement of quality staff almost impossible.

"6. Late funding creates budget problems from local tax resources.

"7. Badly needed summer school programs are frequently delayed until late spring until final allotments are made.

"8. Opportunities for an interchange of ideas between other corporations with similar problems and similar projects would be helpful.

9. The need to keep pace with the increased cost of materials and salaries has caused certain needed services to be eliminated. In our program the elimination of certain art, music, and counseling staff has been necessary."

Mrs. Michael Spicer, member School Board, Lawrence Township, Mercer County, N.J. (p. 741, ESEA I):

"So Lawrence Township makes the choice of spending its ever-decreasing share of the Title I monies to teach its children how to read and to speak. To do this we start in April of the preceding year. At that time, the State makes its calculations, which they must base on outdated census figures and unsure welfare figures (the latter because they are unable to demand co-operation from the welfare agency and must depend on that agency's accuracy and good will) as well as indefinite allocations from the Federal Government.

"With this rather tentative figure in mind-last year it came to $24,510, this year it will be about $20,000-Lawrence Township's_ co-ordinator of Federal Funds prepares a proposal. For the last three years Lawrence has hired four part-time elementary teachers and a therapist to provide intensive, individualized instruction in speech and reading to those students who through tests and observation the special services team and the classroom teachers have determined will face likely failure. In addition, a part-time social worker has been hired to co-ordinate the efforts of community agencies in behalf of those 116 children who take part in this program and to facilitate the necessary communication between home and school. Then too, dental and nursing services are provided under the proposal in order to achieve an improvement in general good health.

"This year, although faced with a decrease in the available funds, Lawrence has uncovered another most important area. Like most public schools with Head Start programs, we have observed in kindergarten that the Head Start child suffers a regression in social and personal adjustment and interest and attitude toward school which adversely affects his learning capabilities. With a drastic decrease in the pupil-adult ratio in kindergarten (a change from about five to one in Head Start to about twenty to one in kindergarten) the promise of the Head Start child has often gone unfulfilled. Thus Lawrence has decided that a supplementary kindergarten teacher must be added to the school where our Head Start program takes place.

"In order to do all this under available funds, it has been necessary to cut the number of children involved. It has also meant, however, that the summer continuation of the reading and speech program is in jeopardy and that the carry over from one school year to another must be interrupted."

R. Winfield Smith, president, National Schools Boards Association, and director, Upper Perkiomen Board of School Directors (p. 751-2, ESEA I):

"Due to the reduction of Federal fund allocations the services of physical therapists in providing expert guidance in more critical areas, both the children and the training of parents has been curtailed by one-third. The reduction in funds for services of physicians has been made up by voluntary contribution of their services due to their interest in the program. Were funds available we could extend effective correctional therapists to the underdeveloped muscular cases where we are now able to do very little.

"Turning briefly to title II, within our limited financial resources our school district is and has been engaged vigorously in the pursuit of educational excellence. One phase of this is a major expansion of library services which was an urgent need in our district. Three years ago we had one small library with about 6,000 volumes serving six schools and nearly 3,000 students. We have now opened five more libraries, one in each of the four elementary schools, one in the middle school in addition to the original high school library. We have budgeted $30,000 for library books and visual instruction aids for this year which is a 2-mill tax effort locally. We had expected continued and, hopefully, increased title II aid to supplement our efforts, but it was cut almost in half. Additional aid in title II would be a help to our entire school program.

"Federal aid, limited though it is, has indeed been a catalyst in our school district to the undertaking of worthwhile programs. Were it expanded substantially, it would constitute a richly rewarding investment."

David Tankel, director of title I programs for the Board of Education, Trenton, N.J. (p. 791-2, ESEA II):

"We believe that there are three ways in which the Government can help: "First of all, Congress can help by providing for a 5-year extension of title I funds. Hopefully more funds will be available. By far the largest percentage of the title I allocation is used for salaries. Each year there are mandatory increases in teachers' salaries, but at the same time our title I allocation has been shrinking. This creates an impossible situation. It means that each year entire programs or sections of programs must be eliminated, regardless of the worth of the program.

"There is hope for the education of our disadvantaged children. There is a chance for change. However, only Congress has the ability to provide the money in the amounts needed. Most of our teachers and administrators are dedicated people; we do have parents who are anxious to help their children; we do have students who are more and more aware of their needs; we do have a concerned citizenry, and we do have in New Jersey an organized, helpful State department of education. What we desperately need are sufficient funds which are allocated on time in a manner that will best meet the requirements of the students most in need of the compensatory education that only Federal funds can provide." William Raymond, administrative assistant to Superintendent of schools, Tempe, Arizona (p. 802, ESEA II):

"Past history of federal projects in other districts and states made people reluctant to accept a position due to lack of job security. The school districts also suffered financial loss because even though the project had been approved, funds were not received at the promised time and employees had to be paid with district funds. This necessitated cutting the district budget and offering less services to students in the regular school program. Some school districts in Arizona operating Title III programs did not elect to pay general salaries with district money and some employees went as long as two months without a pay check. This, of course, represented a high loss of employee morale"

Mrs. Bruce B. Benson, president, League of Women Voters of the United States (p. 967-8, ESEA II) :

"Although the matter of appropriations does not, of course, come before this committee, we would like to say that an extension of title I is of little value and in fact it is only a gesture unless the appropriations measure up to the needs and are made in advance to allow for good planning. Reporting H.R. 514 favorably will open the way for advance funding. When the time for funding comes, and pressures for appropriations come in from all areas of national and special

interest, we urge you to exert your leadership to encourage giving the priority it deserves to equality of opportunity in education.

"The domestic problems we face today have burgeoned to their astounding proportions because of a long backlog of neglect. The fruits of our belated current and our future efforts will take time to mature before we can appraise the harvest. We in the league believe you have a responsibility to work actively and in every way you can for a large investment in the future."

John W. Melcher, assistant State superintendent and director of the Bureau for Handicapped Children, State Department of Public Instruction, Madison, Wis. (pp. 974–975, ESEA II):

"For the fiscal year 1969, this committee authorized $162.5 million for Title VI, but only $29.25 million was appropriated, or 18% of the authority. For the fiscal year 1969 the budget requests hold Title VI at last year's level as opposed to a higher authorization of $200 million or less than 14% of the authority. Mr. Chairman, we realize that this is not the appropriate place to argue fiscal matters, but the success of your commitment to the handicapped through Title VI is in jeopardy. This year over one-half of the states received less than $500.000. Thirteen states received less than $150,000 and six states only $100,000. Such funding makes the necessary massive attack impossible to achieve. The amount requested by the Administration for fiscal year 1970 when divided among the five million for whom it was intended means that the federal government is providing $5.85 to help each handicapped child receive an education when reports indicate clearly that education for a handicapped child costs from 11⁄2 to three times the amount of education for an average child.

"Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, in conclusion, The Council for Exceptional Children is pleased with the authorities established by the Congress, we commend the Bureau of Education for the Handicapped for their leadership and efforts in administration. However, we are disappointed that little has been done to provide the resources to make the Title VI programs truly operable. We are afraid that in a few years the 1965 generation of handicapped children will have completed school with little more accomplished than recognition of the problem. We appreciate the long interest and activity for the handicapped on the part of the members of this committee and realize that this problem weighs as heavily on you as it does upon us."

William H. Moore, Associate Commissioner for Federal Programs, ESEA Department of Education, Little Rock, Ark. (pp. 1034!5, ESEA II):

"Without question, these data prove that the rural proverty in Arkansas makes the need for each child under Title I greater than the need in many states where the population is more urban.

"When Title I funds are cut back in Arkansas, it means children who are hungry must be cut off from Title I breakfasts and lunches, it means that some children must go without medical treatment and clothing, it means that other children will not have textbooks.

"Funding at the same level or at a reduced level means a significant reduction in the size and scope of Title I programs. To illustrate, last year and this year, we have a $500 salary increase for all teachers in the state made mandatory by State Legislative action. When teacher retirement matching and other benefits are added to this mandatory increase (certainly we would not think of not increasing the salaries of Title I people in keeping with the salaries paid regular staff members), we find that it requires approximately $1,200,000 more money each year just to hold our own. This is the amount of funds needed to upgrade the pay levels, benefits, etc. for the 1,678 professionals employed by local agencies using Title I funds. This money can only come from a reduction of services and programs when appropriations do not keep up with the increased costs of education as a whole.

"The fact that title I appropriations to date have only approximately 50% of the amount authorized means a substantial decrease in the services that can be rendered to educationally deprived children not only in Arkansas but throughout the nation. This deficiency in appropriations means that many programs and services so seriously needed in order to bridge the gap between the educationally deprived and the more affluent cannot be activated.

"Mr. Chairman, may I point out that many of the problems existing in the ghettos of our great cities originated in the cotton fields of my state and other southern states. The migration in the 1950's and 1960's resulted from an economical change in farming methods. This forced hundreds of thousands, yea, even