"Local and State leaders, as they pause to consider the future course and direction of title I, raise serious questions about the sincerity of Congress when the declaration of policy was written in 1965 as an introduction to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965.”

Louis A. Dughi, assistant coordinator, Federal assistant programs, State Department of Education, Trenton, N.J. (p. 2597, ESEA IV) :

"Title I funds have been the means of providing educational experiences services, and opportunities to disadvantaged children which would not have been possible in the absence of these Federal funds.

"New Jersey is faced with a crisis in its title I program. The attached chart will provide some indications of the problem. In the first year of the program. local districts had available to them $287.79 per eligible child based on a total of $5.309 children. In the current year the local districts received $106.75 per child based on 137,857 eligible children. The increase in eligible children is attributable to an increase from 25.464 to 71,813 children in the AFDC category. More than a "250 percent increase in a 4-year period.

"We have tried desperately to concentrate the title I money so as to provide maximum service to each child. The 1967 title I statistical report indicates that New Jersey and Alaska have the highest per pupil expenditure in the country based on the expenditure of approximately 99 percent of the funds available. We are now faced with the reality of restricting participation even further because of title I fund reduction for fiscal year 1969 and an anticipated substantial reduction for fiscal year 1970. We are in the process of altering our allocation procedures to further concentrate funds. One hundred thirty districts will no longer be eligible to participate in the program. Even those districts that remain eligible will be confronted with problems. Since over 90 percent of the local allocations are in personnel costs, reduction in services for children or personnel will occur.

Irving Ratchick, coordinator of title I ESEA, New York State Education Department (p. 2609, 11-12, ESEA IV):

"However, although there is evidence that a national commitment on education of the disadvantaged and urban education is of the greatest priority, this commitment must be translated into action with exended legislation and funds since presently many States and local school districts are being squeezed financially.

"For example, the data presented in table I indicates what is happening in New York State. The State allocation is being reduced; the proration factor between the State allocation and the maximum basic grant is being reduced: the average net current expense is going up; the prorated amount of title I, ESEA funds for each poverty child is dropping while the number of poverty eligibles is increasing. Also revealing are the data about the current ratio of disadvantagement. Of the fiscal year 1969 allocation for New York State of $113,600,524, the big six of the State, New York City, Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse, Yonkers, and Albany, constitutes 75 percent of the allocation. New York City alone represents about 66 percent of the total State allocation. Out of 746 local educational agencies in the State which received allocations for fiscal year 1969, 658 or 88.2 percent received lower allocations than in fiscal year 1968. Of the total number of poverty eligibles of 567,706, for fiscal year 1969, New York City alone has 376,944 or about 66 percent.

11 TABLE I.-COMPARATIVE BASIC DATA ON TITLE I ESEA ALLOCATIONS IN NEW YORK STATE, FISCAL YEAR

"Sample comments which I have received from superintendents which are most relevant to providing continuity of programs either during the school year or the summer are as follows:

"Under the terms of the New York State constitutional tax limit it is fiscally impossible for us to sponsor a summer program. In fact, very substantial cuts must be made in personnel for us to comply with the constitutional requirements. Naturally, this means that dimunition of personnel presents a fiscal impossibility for the local district to support summer programs and other anticipated ongoing programs during the school year 1969-70.

"We have always used ESEA funds and other federally or State funded projects as strictly supplemental to our broad program offerings sponsored by and financed through our general budget, and it is only due to the severe restrictions placed upon us by the constitutional tax limit that we filed this request with you. We stress the fact that services will be lost to children unless approval is received. It is evident to all that the constitutional restrictions are extremely severe in our special case since we are at the 2 percent tax level and are one of the very few districts in the State who supplements income by way of a utility tax. "'We would like to apply for additional title I funds for 1969 under the reallocation program. In support of our application we offer the following: (1) since 1965-66 our allocation of title I funds has been drastically reduced to a point where the allocation is now less than 60 percent of the original (2) during the same years, the cost of operation of our title I project has risen dramatically. This is especially true since the entire budget is taken up with salaries which have risen more sharply than other costs during the past few years (3) in addition to rising costs and reduced allocation, we are as a district at a period of rapid expansion. The recent pupil growth rate has been approximately 10 percent per year. In spite of these factors, we have in the past maintained our title I project which each year goes deeper into the red. For this school year, title I will show a budget deficit of approximately 35 percent of our allocation. This deficit would have been even higher had the district not absorbed into its regular budget the cost of teacher aides which were previously funded under title I and absorbed the cost of retirement fringe benefits for personnel and provided a space for equipment and materials used in the program. For this school year, we have had a budget defeat which results in budget cuts. With proposed reductions of State aid and this large reduction of title I funds, we are unable to absorb the approximate deficit. Hence, we will have to cut services.'

“Over and over again, the requests for additional funds are basically the same. Allocations have been cut year by year, school districts are finding it very difficult to maintain programs and services; they are in a financial squeeze by starting projects and not being able to carry them through, especially since most school districts indicate they do not have local funds to maintain the support level necessary for absorbing the program.

"I realize that, in making financial commitments, it is essential to consider the overall needs of the country both domestically and internationally, but school districts that have the desire and the opportunity to help the disadvantaged boys and girls are finding it more and more difficult in finding funds to maintain the programs. The will is there but the resources are limited."

ATTACHMENT B

Statements relating to the financing of Federal aid to education programs from responses of local school superintendents to Committee on Education and Labor questionnaire relating to Federal legislation furnishing support for elementary and secondary schools.

Each statement is identified according to school district and number of pupils enrolled.

Albion, Pa. (2,576).-"Funds for our programs have been cut about 35 percent. Consequently, we have had to cut back in some of the particular things we were going even for our underprivileged and poverty-sticken students." Quarryville, Pa. (3,888).—"Recent decreases in the funding of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act has particularly hurt our district in relation to the programs designed to help the underprivileged. In order to keep abreast with increasing teaching salaries the school district found it necessary to enact a large tax increase during this past year and probably will increase taxes again next year. Considering these tax increases, we can only cut programs when Federal funds are cut from our entitlement."

Boyertown, Pa. (6,204).-"Elementary and Secondary Education Act moneys are underfunded in our school district, largely because since its inception we have received cuts. We have tried to operate a significant summer program and we now feel that it is necessary the summer program be continued with some ramifications all year long. This would take double the money that we are currently getting."

Cawker City, Kans. (997).-"ESEA funds become underfunded in our particular district when the reduction at the Federal level requires a cutback to the local school district (an estimated 20 percent this year) at a time when it is impossible for the local school district to make up this reduction."

Louisburg, Kans. (765).—“Funds are continually being cut. We start needed programs with Federal funds and then have to drop them. They cannot be picked up locally because of a Kansas law limiting school budget increase to 4 percent per year."

Grinnell, Iowa (2,657).—“Our local school budget totals approximately $2 million. Originally, we were allotted approximately $53,000 from ESEA funds. That represents a negligible 22 percent of our annual costs for education. Already our original ESEA allotment has been reduced approximately 37 percent caused by underfunding. In my opinion, the Federal Government should contribute somewhere between 25 and 50 percent of total local educational costs. Washington, Iowa (2,300). "For the 1968-69 school year, our ESEA project was cut 15 percent even before the project was submitted for approval. At one time, an allocation amount was sent to us, then notice of the 15-percent cut, and when the project was finally approved, an additional 3-percent cut was made. Our project is an on-going one, one which has been used to supplement an existing program and to make it more effective and worthwhile. With funds being cut 18 percent or so, the project support must be cut in accordance and thus, a less effective project and program."

Angleton, Tex. (4,285).-"It has been necessary for us to curtail our title I program because of a reduction in funds. The children who need the help the most, the disadvantaged, have suffered as a result."

Harrisonville, Pa. (619).-"Our entitlement has been cut approximately 30 percent in the past 3 years. We have salaries to meet and this is becoming very difficult to do with the lowered entitlements. Therefore we must decrease the effectiveness of our programs in order to keep financially stable."

Albany, Calif. (2,434).—“Obviously, the continued reduction in funds from the Elementary and Secondary Education Act poses a serious problem to the local school district. Our allocations have been reduced by 50 percent and in order to maintain the original program local funds from property taxes must now be added in order to continue the program, thereby, increasing property taxes." Fairview, Ill. (795).—“I feel the extent to which the Elementary and Secondary Education Act is underfunded amounts to approximately $6,000 in this school district. This is the amount by which the project has been reduced over the past 2 years. Projects are begun then the funds for the projects are reduced after new projects are started. If projects are worthy of being continued, they should continue to be funded rather than reduced until only token amounts are received."

Glen Rose, Tex. (556).—“The Elementary and Secondary Educatiton Act has been underfunded about 10 percent for the Glen Rose ISD. This year we have been approved for about 30 percent less than for the first year ESEA was in operation. Our program has been cut drastically."

Mattoon, Ill. (5,400).—“During the 1968-69 school year we have received a cut of $17.000 ($81,000 to $64,000). Salaries continue to go up but our receipts from title I continue to go down. This makes planning very difficult and program suffer."

Peoria, Ill. (200).-"The Federal Government's share of funds has been substantial. I feel, however, that assurance of continued support of ESEA funds needs to be made. Dropping of different programs (or cutting back) after excellent programs have been established in our schools would be a disaster. State and local funds would not be able to continue the now federally supported programs."

Hammonton, N. J. (2,134).-"We have been quite disappointed in the Federal treatment of funds to the local districts under the Elementary and Secondary Act. Back in 1965 we were guaranteed by the State agency, that spoke for the Federal Government, that the total funds allotted at that time for the local district would continue for a period of 3 years. Therefore, we could plan with surety over that period of time. With their usual apologetic approach the State informed us, after the first year, that we would be cut 15 percent, thus pressing the local district with the immediate significant financial problem. But this was an omen of what was to follow. In the third year of the program, our district suffered a reduction of 40 percent, almost one-half of the financial aid. This type of Federal treatment is a far cry from assuring the district at the beginning of the program that it would guarantee funds for a stipulated period of time. Needless to say that, under conditions such as these, a continuing solid educational program is virtually impossible. We cannot help but conclude that the treatment is more a political expedient, rather than a solid interest by the Federal Government in providing for the youth of this Nation a substantive form of education."

Westside, Iowa (1,017).-"The ESEA funds in our school district have continually decreased each year. This year after our program had been started our funds are tentatively set at $4,000 less than last year. With the increased teacher salaries and expenses for the particular project which we are involved in, we should have had an increase in funds rather than a decrease of $4.000. We are at the present time supporting our ESEA project at close to 60 or 70 percent level from local funds. If funds decrease much more, our project should be thought of as a local project rather than an ESEA funded project."

Monongahela, Pa. (6,700),-"I feel that the Federal Government has made an admirable beginning. However, there seems to be some inclination to reduce appropriations, such as for NDEA and for ESEA, title III. And now, I cannot envision less participation by the Federal partner. Giant strides have been made which I cannot detail here-let us not turn backward."

Wayland, Iowa (52,654).—“Our first entitlement under title I, ESEA was $37.000. For the current year our entitlement is estimated at $19,900. Our enrollment has remained constant during that period. We have had to face the critical decision of either eliminating an effective part of our title I program, or funding it ourselves. We are now spending almost as much funding beneficial parts of the original program as we receive from title I."

Laton, Calif. (850).—“Our original entitlement 3 years ago amounted to about $60,000 which gave this district a 'shot in the arm.' Our current entitlement is $33.000 which is roughly one-half of the original. Excellent special programs which were established are now being cut back, and in a year or two, they will be eliminated."

Fair Haven, N.J. (1,138).—"For fiscal 1969, ESEA funds are about 75 percent adequate for this year's project, which has been reduced about 50 percent from our 1966 program."

Cresco, Iowa (2,200).-"It is underfunded approximately 30 percent or the amount that it has been cut since the original act was passed. Projects are set up ahead of time and it creates difficult problems when teachers have been released and orders canceled because of insufficient funds. Earlier funding and some type of inflationary growth factor should be included in future acts."

Medford, NJ. (2,900).—“The ESEA is underfunded at about 50 percent in our school district. We set up a program based on an initial grant. The program has grown and broadened in scope but the amount of money received from ESEA has been reduced substantially since then.

Lockney, Tex. (1,050).—“Since the program began in 1965, we have lost over $6.000 due to cutbacks in appropriations. We have cut back one employee and this year will be over $700 short in teacher salaries. We no longer have the money for supplies, audit, books, nor money for audiovisual aids and supplies. "Two years ago, we had to cut out the free milk and free lunches.

"To make this picture worse, we only qualified for 114 students, and recent surveys show that we have 47 percent minority groups in our school. In our ele

mentary school alone, we have more than 60 percent educationally deprived― where the program really is pointed. It is impossible to reach these under the present grant of $15,000."

New Virginia, Iowa (986).-"When the Elementary-Secondary Education Act was first initiated and administrators were called in to have it explained, we were told that our allocations would increase. Our district's first receipt was some over $44,000. Our allotment for 1968-69 school year is a little over $23,000. "Unless the Federal Government is willing to continue to support the programs that they sponsor, I feel it is a mistake to implement them."

Clay Center, Kans. (2180).—"Our county originally had approximately $48,000 in ESEA allocations, but for the current year, it is an approximately $30,000. We have improved our program, but have had to finance a portion of it at the local level, while the Federal Government retains the greater taxing power." Bethany, Ill. (500).-"Unfortunately we get very little ESEA funds (about $3.960 this year and $5,400 last year). Several programs that we conduct are only part time as funds are inadequate. We do appreciate ESEA funds as programs financed by them would be impossible without the Federal aid."

Greencastle, Pa. (2,757).—“Originally, we funder three programs in our district from ESEA funds. These were an afterschool study program, a program of upgraded classes for children from Headstart classes, and a program of teacher aides. The afterschool study program was discontinued because our evaluation indicated that it was of minimal value. Our upgraded class program was discontinued because the allocation was reduced. We now operate the teacher aide programs with only a partial financing from ESEA funds. The cost for this program for the 1968-69 school year, will be $26,620. Our ESEA allocation has tentatively been set at $21,635.72. A deficit of approximately $5,000 is now being supported from local funds. If we could restore the ungraded program we would need an additional $20,000. In other words, we feel that with an additional $25,000 we could do a much better job in meeting the objectives of the ESEA. To this extent we are under funded."

Beloit, Kans. (1,067).—“We developed a program based on our first year's allocation and are continuing it. The cost of this program has increased 9.5 percent; however, our Federal funding has decreased 20 percent. Our local resources will not allow us to maintain this program if Federal funding continues to decrease." Seymour, Tex. (1,150).-"The 'cutback' we are now experiencing has resulted in disrupted programs. We need long range financing with assurance of continuation to make sound planning and programing possible.

"ESEA-title I and II and NDEA titles III and V have been of most value." Rankin, Tex. (550).—“The ESEA is under funded in our district because of continued cutbacks. Once a program is established, it needs development-expansion-not steady cutbacks in funding. The local program has reached the point local funding exceeds the amount of Federal funds spent. Consequently the board of education is losing faith in Federal programs."

Dupo, Ill. (1,722).-"No, the Federal Government is not doing its share in providing funds for improving the quality of elementary and secondary education. The Federal Government through the Office of Education has encouraged schools to start an ongoing program under its title projects and then has cut back funds to the point that the local district must either abandon promising projects or pull already badly needed local district funds out of the basic educational program and put them into their special projects. The few who are part of these title projects need this special help but we are in fact sacrificing the majority. If local districts are to live up to their obligations, the Federal Government must also."

West Haven, Conn. (9,415).-"To service the 'deprived' areas adequately our local entitlement should be at least doubled. This year we were cut $21,000. We're going the wrong way."

O'Fallon, Ill. (1,650).—“When it started, we were able for the first time to offer a tuition free summer school program. Funds were then cut and we could not continue. Those students who need this most are usually those who cannot afford a tuition fee. Such families may not be very poor or destitute but still cannot afford tuition for their children. This project was funded under title I.

"As you know, title II funds were cut in half this year. We had a good start in rebuilding our libraries, but now it will take us longer.

"We got so little under title III it is not worthwhile considering a project under it."