Mr. ANDREWS. A very good point, yes.

Dr. MCCLURE. Now the committee may have discussed this and have other ideas, and when you don't know what 12 intelligent people have been talking about, you are not always sure you are on safe ground, but this would be my feeling as an educator of the deaf, and thinking of what we feel the NTID will accomplish.

Mr. ANDREWS. Well, there have been several comments during this testimony, and that is a very good point. I like it.

Dr. MCCLURE. This will enhance the opportunity. It might be accomplished in a small community, but this would be more difficult, in my opinion.

Mr. CAREY. Thank you, Dr. McClure. Let me state that your recommedations which are extremely worthwhile with regard to future programs and particularly with regard to composition of the board at Gallaudet and its tuitional policy. These recommendations will be forwarded to President Elstad at Gallaudet, so that he will be in a position to comment upon these, when he comes before the subcommittee as a witness, as he will, hopefully, in the very near future. This is something which is of pressing concern to the subcommittee, and we do intend to look in full perspective at the present mission of Gallaudet, and its continuing mission, and of course, its increased enrollment, and how this will be effectuated in terms of the tuition policy.

Dr. McCLURE. Thank You.

I would like to point out that my comment regarding the scholarships at Gallaudet was not in the testimony that was printed for most. It was in the copy I gave to the reporter, but this was dictated hastily, so there are a few points that are in this that are not in the printed copy that you have.

Mr. CAREY. Well, it is an excellent statement, Doctor.

Dr. MCCLURE. As my final plea, I would hope the deaf are not going to be lost in a welter of the other handicapped that have different communications problems and lacks. The deaf child stands alone in his need for teachers to develop language and communication. All your other groups of the handicapped have similar communication problems with normal hearing children, and I think this is the paramount problem in meeting the aid that the deaf need.

Thank you very much.

Mr. CAREY. Thank you.

The next witnesses are Dr. Wayne Sengstock and Mr. Paul Sherlock, of the National Association for Retarded Children, Inc. Dr. Sengstock and Mr. Sherlock.

STATEMENTS OF DR. WAYNE L. SENGSTOCK, EDUCATION CONSULTANT, AND PAUL V. SHERLOCK, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR RETARDED CHILDREN, INC.

Mr. CAREY. Dr. Sengstock is a former teacher of the retarded at elementary and secondary levels, and Mr. Sherlock is a former director of special education for the Rhode Island Department of Education, currently on the staff of Rhode Island College. Let me state that while he is not here today, our distinguished colleague from Rhode

Island, Mr. John Fogarty, certainly needs to be mentioned in connection with any provision of law concerning the help for retarded children.

Many persons do not know that a great deal of personal funds have been contributed to the John Fogarty Foundation in his own State for retarded children, and that he has, on behalf of his committee, with his colleague and our colleague from Wisconsin, Mr. Laird, truly opened up a great many paths and doorways for better treatment, training, education and rehabilitation of the retarded, so that it is a real pleasure to welcome Mr. Sherlock. I am informed that he is a very close confidante and hopefully a helper of Mr. Fogarty in this great State of Rhode Island, and you come well recommended in that connection. Mr. SHERLOCK. Thank you very much, Congressman.

We in Rhode Island continue to stand in awe of Congressman Fogarty's continual ability to demonstrate positive interest in these problems, and I am sure that he holds you in the same respect.

Dr. SENGSTOCK. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, in addition to being a State director of special education in Rhode Island for 7 years, Mr. Sherlock is also a parent of a retarded child, and will soon be a member of the staff at Rhode Island College.

The National Association for Retarded Children is a voluntary organization devoted to promoting the welfare of the mentally retarded of all ages and degrees of disability by fostering the advancement of research, services, and facilities and by developing broader public understanding of the problem of mental retardation. The association is composed of more than 1,000 State and local member units with a total membership of over 100,000 individuals.

As education consultant of the National Association for Retarded Children, I would like to say that we are delighted to know that Congress is taking a fresh look at Federal involvement with the education of handicapped children. We are pleased to have this opportunity to express our findings and opinions regarding the education of these children.

Much of the interest of special education throughout the country can directly be attributed to far-seeing legislation passed during the last decade. To coin a phrase, the rocket may be off the lift pad, but we are not yet willing to scuttle the booster. Hopefully, the concern of Congress will continue until all children have a truly "equal opportunity" to develop their capacities to a maximum.

As you have stated, I personally have taught elementary age mentally retarded children in the Midwest, high school mental retardates in the Far West, took my graduate training in the East, engaged in teacher training in the South, and have traveled to 27 States in my current position with the National Association for Retarded Children, observing and evaluating special education programs. While tremendous gains have been made in research, teacher training, and demonstration projects, there are still many areas where Federal assistance is needed. In our testimony, we would like to confine ourselves to four primary areas of concern requiring immediate attention. They

are:

(1) The organizational structure of the U.S. Office of Education,

(2) Improving school programs for handicapped children,
(3) Providing trained personnel in education, and
(4) Recreation for the handicapped.

THE ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE OF THE OFFICE OF EDUCATION

We are hopeful that this committee will thoroughly evaluate the recent reorganized structure of the U.S. Office of Education.

Ever since the section for handicapped children and youth was formed in 1931, special educators have been striving to elevate the status of special education in the U.S. Office. When the Division of Handicapped Children and Youth was formed in 1963, special educators throughout the country rejoiced because special education had finally achieved the status which it deserved and needed to carry out its vital function of educating our Nation's handicapped.

The Division of Handicapped Children and Youth functioned under the direction of a consistent philosophy and operating policy. Under the present structure, special education, as fragmented, operates under several different philosophies, with a lack of consistent policy. Because the Division of Handicapped Children and Youth was, between 1963 and 1965, able to function as a unified operation, it was so successful that it was awarded a Presidential citation for excellence. This was possible in the short period of only 18 months.

In order for leadership in a democracy to be operational, it is mandatory that leaders secure all available information and consult with numerous sources regarding any operation before making their decisions. This was consistent with Division policy. By consulting with national leaders about its operations, the Division was able to secure support from the field which has not been obtained under the present structure.

As a minority group trying to operate within separate bureaus, special education only receives the "tricklings" of Federal appropriations for education. This is generally true at State and local levels of education administration also. In many sections of the Office of Education, special education has no representation to voice its needs regarding the administration of appropriations. This is true of titles II and V of Public Law 89-10 and many others. Consequently, special education project funds quite often add up to only a token amount. A good example of how special education fares when administered under general education is the history of the Cooperative Research Act. The first year it was in operation, $1 million was appropriated for projects with two-thirds of the money designated for projects dealing with education of the mentally retarded. The second year, over $2 million was appropriated and many areas other than education of the mentally retarded were open to funding. As restrictions to special education were relaxed and areas to be supported were opened to general education, the amounts of money released for special education projects were decreased each year until, in 1963, special education received a little over $121,000 for research.

The continuum of services needed by handicapped children requires the coordination of a central controlling agency. This continuum includes programs of education or training for preschool-age children on one end and adults on the other. Under the present organization

of the Office of Education, for example, the Handicapped Children and Youth Branch of the Bureau of Research cannot fund projects dealing with preschool programs nor can they fund projects dealing with adult mentally retarded in need of vocational education. If the Branch functioned within a Bureau of Special Education, it could handle projects dealing with the entire range of research possibilities. A single unit within the Office of Education would be better equipped to determine the educational needs of the handicapped and coordinate the disbursement of funds. By having an identifiable focal point for its operations, it could better coordinate the following: a. Dissemination of information.

b. Reporting of research findings.
c. Meetings of staff personnel.
d. Field site visits.

e. Direct assistance to field requests.

IMPROVING SCHOOL PROGRAMS FOR HANDICAPPED CHILDREN

Mr. SHERLOCK. It gives me great pleasure to represent the National Association for Retarded Children with you in presenting testimony in this committee.

As you know, the NARC is deeply interested in all those handicapped children whose deprivation results from a greater or lesser degree of mental retardation. In addition to those many thousands of children who later function as retarded adults, due to any number of hidden disabilities, social, emotional, and physical, my good friend and colleague, Dr. Eric Denhoff, a former president of the American Academy of Cerebral Palsy, believes that within the syndrome of neurological impairment, there are a variety of so-called hidden disabilities which cause abnormal educational behaviors. Children with these behaviors present such learning problems that without timely special help their educational achievement is limited and their futures remain quite uncertain.

It is predicted that by 1975 there will be 75 million children in our school-age population of these, 12 million will be handicapped. Within this handicapped population, it is estimated that there will be some 3 million mentally retarded, considering a precise definition of that disability category, and another 3 million with specific learning disability which will represent a functional retardation unless strategic special intervention takes place.

In light of these awesome concerns, we are grateful for the opportunity to discuss with you certain aspects of Public Law 89-10, the Elementary and Secondary Act of 1965, on the future of these children and the unmet needs which we foresee, with special reference to what might be accomplished through pending legislation.

Paramount among our concerns is the need for earmarking funds for special education. Experiences testifies to the overwhelming impact of the total educational structure of Public Law 89-10. As a special interest group, we appreciate the great Federal interest in public education for we perceive quality education possible only in situations where there exists parallel strength in the normative sense. However, as you know, special education for the mentally retarded and other handicapped has lived a precarious young life-totally dependent upon

the existence of sound educational philosophy and practice accompanied by a common desire on the part of professional educators and lay school boards both willing and able to accommodate these children physically and financially. In all too many cases, special education still exists as an appendage to a neatly organized kindergarten through high school program.

It has been my experience that the major underlying cause of the fringe status of special education has been the inability of local boards and administrators to marshal the funds necessary to carry on quality special programs.

The advent of title I of Public Law 89-10 created renewed expectation and hope that Federal assistance would improve this situation for the handicapped. In some situations it has; however, in most, the restrictions of this title to certain "school attendance areas" requiring definition and priorities to pockets of poverty creates a situation where only "doubly deprived" handicapped children can be beneficiaries of this title. It is our impression that the existence of a handicapped condition is such sufficient deprivation that it alone should qualify for special assistance and that special education projects for all types of handicapped children be entertained under title I, regardless of the domicile or neighborhood of residence.

The effects of the current approach are quite destructive of good special educational practice. Not only does it accentuate segregation of children living in low-income neighborhoods from other children but also tends to prevent optimum grouping of handicapped children for educational purposes. Good practice in special education brings together children with similar handicaps living in several different school attendance areas. without regard to their economic characteristics. Indeed, in many moderate sized communities, it would be appropriate to consider the entire school district or even several districts as the "school attendance area" for special education purposes. We recommend that, as a matter of policy, special education operations be considered at least district-wide for the purposes of title I and that all handicapped children be considered eligible as educationally deprived, regardless of where within the school district they may live.

The Board of the National Association for Retarded Children recently adopted as one of the association's objectives the following: Provide identifiable federal aid for special education services at the pre-school, elementary, secondary, and supplementary adult education levels...

As you know, children in State operated and supported schools have been beneficiaries of title I. We have been impressed with the wholesome effect of this assistance and recommend continuance of these provisions. Still, we are impressed with the need for similar assistance for the many handicapped children living in their own school districts. All schools substantially supported from State and/or local public funds should be eligible. We recommend that a formula similar to that under Public Law 89-313 be utilized in providing for appropriations as well as for making disbursements for the education of handicapped children.

It is our hope that a Federal-aid formula may be devised which will enhance cooperative State-local planning for the expansion and improvement of special education programs.