This question was asked of State directors of special education. Twelve responded that it would result in inequitable distribution. Three have a neutral response. One felt it would be equitable, and I would add that this individual has a very strong position politically in the State, in addition to being the director of special education. Senator PELL. That doesn't add up to 50. Mr. BRADDOCK. We polled only 16. Senator PELL. Just a random sample? Senator PELL. Good. (The prepared statement of William C. Geer follows:) STATEMENT OF WILLIAM C. GEER EXECUTIVE SECRETARY THE COUNCIL FOR EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN TO THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON EDUCATION OF THE COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND PUBLIC WELFARE UNITED STATES SENATE REGARDING S.1669, EDUCATION REVENUE SHARING ACT OF 1971 October 28, 1971 Additional Witness: Mr. David Braddock, The Council for Exceptional Children Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee: The Council for Exceptional Children, representing over 40,000 professionals involved in the education of the handicapped, is delighted to have this opportunity to present our statement regarding the "Education Revenue Sharing Act of 1971." We are, however, saddened by the recent death of your esteemed colleague and long-time advocate of programs for the handicapped, the late Senator Winston Prouty. We share this feeling with millions of handicapped children and their families. We shall miss his leadership. The sponsors of Senate Bill 1669 and the Administration are to be commended for including specific provisions for the handicapped in the proposed legislation. Such inclusion is in consonance with the call of Commissioner Sidney Marland of the Office of Education for full educational opportunity for the handicapped by 1980. Approaches which simplify administration and enhance the stimulative role of the federal government are to be applauded. The federal role in the education of the handicapped is severely restricted by insufficient funding. is $115 million, of which $37.5 million goes to the states for model programs. Additional support is earmarked under specific sub-parts of Title I and Title III of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and under the Vocational Education Act. Combined federal support comes to about $215 million, which compares to $3 to $4 billion in state costs and amounts to only $26 services they need. Senate Bill 1669 repeals and consolidates this legislation, and, while it simplifies the administration of funds, it increases the likelihood that an inequitably small share of education monies will serve the handicapped. This should be of particular concern to this committee since it initiated the earmarks in the aformentioned legislation. Using the proposed formula in the Bill and applying it to a $3 billion total appropriation figure, only $171 million is provided for the education of handicapped children. This figure, which is a reduction of $44 million in earmarked federal support, could further be reduced by 30 percent. Consequently, many of our members in leadership positions in state agencies have expressed anxiety that removing these earmarkings would jeopardize the movement of the handicapped child into the mainstream of education. Fewer children would be afforded fewer services than they now receive. In a poll conducted by our organization among our members, most respondents felt that the handicapped would lose the 30 percent discretionary allotment. Yet 70 percent of the state directors of special education polled indicated they could effectively spend increments from double to nine times present expenditures under the aid to states provision (Title VIB) of the Education of the Handicapped Act. Title VIB of the Education of the Handicapped Act is basically an education revenue sharing provision. Its level of funding, although it has gradually increased to $35 million, indicates the unwillingness of this Administration and previous administrations to adequately fund it. Yet, education of the handicapped is cost beneficial. Costs of institutionalization often exceed $4000 per year and, like welfare costs, can be avoided for the vast majority of the handicapped by providing appropriate education. The states use federal funds to stimulate local and state support by demonstrating the effectiveness of new educational programs and initiating programs with federal funds that are subsequently continued under state funding. Even with the limited level of federal funding, Title VIB has achieved admirable results. Unfortunately, all we envision Senate Bill 1669 doing is reducing the level of federal support through a Title VIB approach. We are not opposed to the concept of education revenue sharing. We are opposed to any federal posture which provides illusory program growth for the education of handicapped chil dren. Although we express no general disapproval of the concept embodied in Senate Bill 1669, we implore recognition of two facts: 1. Handicapped children are a minority in education, and programs of substance have not emerged until legislative statutes specified their existence. |