Page images

are full Federal funding. I think the minor remodeling aspects of this bill would be difficult to handle on a direct-grant basis rather than on a loan basis. If you got into a direct-grant basis for remodeling, permanently building things into private schools, we would have this situation.

Mr. QUIE. No; I don't mean that. I mean limited to the mobile type of equipment.

Mr. Howe. I think that actually the movable equipment kind of teaching and learning apparatus and so on might be a possibility here. It does seem to me that the loan arrangement, as an added option for the private school that really wants to control materials and count on them and not have them owned by a public authority as would be necessary under the other legislation, is a useful option to have in being. It has not been used a great deal. It has been used some. It may be used more.

So I think I would prefer simply to keep the flexibility that we have here by having different options available to those schools through a couple of different programs.

Mr. QUIE. Well, they don't have different options now.

Mr. Howe. They have a loan program in which they can, by taking on a loan, eventually come to own materials that are theirs. That is one kind of option.

Under the Elementary and Secondary Act, private schools may not come to own materials that are theirs. They get the temporary use of materials of certain kinds.

Mr. QUIE. But they are different materials, and that is what I am driving at. They don't have the option with the same materials. Mr. Howe. Well, there are certain items of equipment I imagine they would get under both programs; wouldn't that be true?

Mr. ESTES. Not equivalent but library books and teaching materials. Mr. Howe. Some of the books.

Mr. ESTES. That is right.

Mr. QUIE. You mean library books are now available as grants under title III of ESEA to public schools?

Mr. ESTES. Title II.

Mr. QUIE. I mean title II.

Mr. ESTES. That is right; library books.

Mr. QUIE. So title II of ESEA really was not necessary, then, for public schools? You could have done the same thing for them with a grant in title III of NDEA?

Mr. Howe. On the contrary, with a 50-50 matching program and without-well, the whole spirit of NDEA when it was started, was a focus on some limited subject areas, a focus more on the gifted student and programs for him than on any other group of students and NDEA has continued, by and large, to have that focus and to influence the opportunities of that group of students. That is the whole spirt of the


Mr. QUIE. But we have shifted away from it now. When you look at all of the equipment the schools have acquired under title III of NDEA, it can't be limited to the gifted children because they must have only gifted children in school. They have projectors coming out of their ears.

Mr. Howe. They are not limited to gifteds, but the whole thrust of NDEA has been to pay more attention to, let us say, the top half than the bottom half of the classes in the schools. I think what we have gained by ESEA is a major thrust which addresses itself to the students who were neglected by NDEA, the whole curriculum side of NDEA as it operated in its early years being pointed toward the opportunity of college-bound more than to the non-college-bound and potential dropouts. I think we have complementary pieces of legislation, speaking in the broad sense.

Mrs. GREEN. Wouldn't it be better from an administrative standpoint if title III of NDEA was transferred to elementary and secondary since it is designed for the same purposes?

Mr. Howe. From the administrative standpoint, it makes no difference. We administer this as part of our elementary and secondary activities, so, from our point of view, continuing this legislation serves the purpose.

Mrs. GREEN. Are the ground rules different?

Mr. Howe. There are different ground rules necessarily in a Stateplanned matching program versus a State-planned nonmatching program.

Mrs. GREEN. I mean for equipment and books. Why wouldn't it be well to coordinate it since it applies entirely to elementary and secondary students.

Mr. Howe. Well, they are operated by the same people in the Office of Education, same branch under Mr. Estes. I think we have good coordination among them.

Mrs. GREEN. But a school in making application has to have different ground rules applied, doesn't it?

Mr. Howe. They are both State-planned operations and the States do submit separate plans, that is true.

Mrs. GREEN. Well, if X school wanted equipment and books and only had one bill to go through and one set of ground rules, wouldn't it be easier?

Mr. Howe. Perhaps it might. I think that really we are in a historical situation in a way in having a 50-50 grant program on the one hand and a full-funding program on the other. There is language in title II of ESCA which asks that the State plan direct itself to providing educational opportunity to youngsters who have the greatest need and you don't have quite this thrust in title III.

It seems to me we have a couple of youthful programs in being that are being operated by us on a very complementary and closely coordinated basis.



Mr. QUIE. May I ask another question about title III, if I just received a telegram this morning from Mr. Breidenstine, deputy superintendent of Pennsylvania Department of Public Instruction. (The telegram referred to follows:)


HARRISBURG, Pa., April 17, 1967.


House Office Building, Washington, D.C.:

Your immediate attention is drawn to proposed legislation now before Congress involving a 41 percent reduction of title III-A, NDEA funds for fiscal year 1968. An additional reduction is proposed for administrative and supervisory money

at the State level and the elimination of title III-B supervisory and related programs for NDEA. These important programs are under consideration for transfer to title V of ESEA. If this legislation is enacted, the State departments of education may need to reduce drastically their advisory personnel which could result in internal confusion and possible elimination of expanding worthy, and successful programs. It is apparent that these legislative proposals were not discussed with State department of education administrative personnel. Accordingly, we urge that this problem be brought to the attention of the Members of Congress and urge them to support the existing program and is full appropriation for the 1968 fiscal year and consider these suggested amendments in 1969 with a phasingout period. A. G. BREIDENSTINE,

Deputy Superintendent, Pennsylvania Department of Public Instruction. Mr. QUIE. Are you familiar with this objection?

Mr. HowE. Yes.

Mr. QUIE. What would the answer be?

Mr. Howe. Let me say a word and let Mr. Estes comment further on it. First of all, we have reduced-and I was not aware it was 41 percent but that is approximately correct, I am sure-the request in 1968 budget for equipment funds under title III. It goes along with the general policy in 1968 budget of investing more heavily in personal services, additional teachers, and additional, or direct opportunities for schools outside of the equipment and building routes. They are being cut in both of those items in the 1968 budget.

We would continue to support the budget arrangement we have set up as really of more direct and immediate assistance to the schools and the expansion of our budget; the total budget in 1968 reflects this philosophy.

In regard to the transfer of the supervisory positions to title V, it seemed to us that was very directly an effort to do exactly what title V is about-to build the strength of State departments of education in a particular regard; and although in doing so we do drop the matching feature and the required matching feature, it seems to us that these departments which have been in the habit of matching these funds will continue to match them as they have them under title V if they are interested in having the service.

So it seems to us a useful consolidation. Perhaps Mr. Estes would like to comment on it further.

Mr. ESTES. I have two points. As you know, about 21 percent of our title I funds this last year went for equipment and facilities. This year it appears as though about 16 percent will go into equipment and facilities. Therefore, the total impact of this is not as great as it would appear in the telegram.

Local school districts will have available to them through the various programs we administer funds for equipment and facilities.

Secondly, we have talked with the State department of education people and we have talked to them in Harrisburg and in title V of the Elementary and Secondary Act we are spending throughout the States about 20 percent of our money to assist them in strengthening their leadership ability in these various areas. This same kind of service is available under title III of NDEA.

We think it makes more sense to give the States a control of these funds and let them assess their needs and assign priorities accordingly so they can coordinate the use of these funds rather than segment and fragment in one.

80-155-67-pt. 1- -6

For instance, if I might give an example, we have a staff at the State department of education level that is responsible for curriculum and instruction and report to one assistant superintendent. They are paid out of State funds, out of title V funds. We have another staff for curriculum and instruction for supervision, for strengthening instruction in that State, that is paid out of NDEA III funds and reports to another assistant superintendent. This simply gives the State department of education more flexibility to assess and assign priorities. It does not necessarily mean they will receive less money next year from Federal


Mr. QUIE. Could I also ask you, then, a question I asked Secretary Gardner and you said you would answer, Mr. Howe? In regard to the concern that teachers of English have on a transfer of title XI NDEA to title V of the Higher Education Act, will it in some way endanger the training of teachers of English.

I understood from Secretary Gardner that you would make assurances for the record that there would not be any reduction in the effort of training these teachers of English.

Mr. Howe. We don't foresee the reduction in any of the categories that have typically been listed in this legislation. What we see in the years ahead with this legislation is an expansion of the funds we will be putting into it. Certainly a continuance that the levels to which we are now accustomed will be held for training programs for categories that are listed in the legislation. Yet with the addition of funds we will have the opportunity to focus new investments in those areas of greatest shortage resulting from the studies that the legislation requires us to make.

What I have just said is a brief summary of a longer statement that we might enter for the record. I don't know if Mr. Alford has made it available.

Mr. ALFORD. I can.

Mr. HowE. We have a statement on this point if the chairman would like it.

Mr. QUIE. I would like it as part of the record.

Mrs. GREEN. It will be made a part of the record, without objection. (The statement referred to follows:)


Some persons and groups have expressed fears that the consolidation of programs under the Education Professions Development Act will result in reduced Federal support of a number of critical areas specifically mentioned in our current patchwork of laws. May I say this is not the purpose of the proposed legislation. On the contrary, we expect increased support in future years in a program larger than the composite of current programs. Furthermore basic subject areas such as English, history, etc., will undoubtedly receive greater assistance than they now enjoy. Take for example institutes for study of early childhood education or elementary education. These institutes not currently eligible for assistance could be funded and basic subject areas will be included because teachers at this level teach all or nearly all subjects.

As indicated in my testimony, basic to any attempt to solve our education manpower needs is detailed knowledge of specific areas of need. The law will require an appraisal of these needs and an annual report on the state of the profession. If warranted by these studies and reports, shifts in emphasis will occur, but this would not be in the immediate future. As the needs for various types of educational personnel vary, the flexibility of this new training authority would allow us to meet these needs on an orderly planned basis.

Mr. BRADEMAS. Will you yield? I apologize first of all for having been late, but I just got off of an airplane from Indiana. My colleague from Minnesota, Mr. Quie, and I worked together very hard in 1963 to try to diminish some of the very rigid categories in the Vocational Education Act, which, in effect, made it difficult to respond to the needs of the changing, more urbanized economy.

Is it fair to suggest that what you are observing right now is analogous to that problem? You are not asking us to decrease or do away with the support you give to English or mathematics or other categories, just as in 1963 we were not trying to do in farm occupations or farm-related occupations, but rather to open the door to important new subjects? That is a rhetorical question, but I asked it in order to try to understand what you are proposing.

Mr. Howe. I think this is a fair statement of our purposes. I think the same line of thought runs through a number of suggestions we are making here. In the equipment and remodeling titles of both NDEA and Higher Education Act we are suggesting that categories be removed.

Mr. BRADEMAS. If my colleague will yield for a further question which is not related to the particular matter under discussion but to a general concept that runs through both NDEA categories and vocational education. It also touches upon your proposed Educational Professions Development Act.

As I understand it, you want to do away with patchwork, to use your word, of existing authority in the field of teacher training, just as you want to do away with the patchwork in the NDEA categories. But I am not quite so persuaded in the field of teacher training as I am by your argument on vocational education. I am open minded, but I will make a rhetorical attack and ask you to respond. Would it be unfair to argue that what you are really doing is sending up a kind of smokescreen here for the fact that you have not put up much money for existing teacher education programs? I think you now have $15 million for the experienced and prospective teacher fellowship programs. I am not sure of what you are recommending for the coming year, but if we are concerned about teacher education programs and bringing more people into teaching, shouldn't more funds be the first order of priority? Then we can talk about resolving the patchwork problem.

Mr. Howe. Let me say a couple of things about amounts of money. First of all, for all training authority in the Office of Education, and there is quite a mix or patchwork of authorities, we had in fiscal 1967, in appropriations, a total of $323 million.

Mr. BRADEMAS. I am addressing myself to authority that is aimed at providing training for people planning to pursue careers in elementary and secondary education.

Mr. Howe. Well, I can't pick that out from these figures as they are. Mrs. GREEN. If the gentleman will yield. On those authorized funds, $275 million for 1968, if my figures are correct you are asking for only 12 percent, or $35 million, and the additional $240 million available in authorized funds you are not requesting.

Mr. Howe. Yes, we have slowly built this program up: We started at a lower level than the authorization by a good deal, as you suggest,

« PreviousContinue »