Page images


and local districts to spend the funds and explain what they did

afterward, rather than to submit proposals for approval before spending. We agree with Education Corni ssioner Sidney Marland that present "paper shuffling" is expensive, but it would be expensive also if Federal funds were used for projects very low on our scale of national educational priorities. Worse yet, loosening up the administration of funds would almost certainly result in the use of these funds to replace money which

otherwise would be raised from state and local sources.

It is not necessary to swing over to the lack of control implied in a review rather than approval procedure. Even under present regulations

large amounts of Federal money have been misused, in some instances in

violation of the law and in other instances by spending the money on ill

advised programs.

It would not be difficult to reduce the amount of paper

shuffling at the national level, at least, by decentralizing the compliance

[ocr errors]

and approval procedures.

Finally, we are not satisfied that the safeguards proposed by HEW

Secretary Elliot Richardson and the U. S. Office of Education would result

in speeding the process of school integration and compliance with the

Civil Rights Act.

In regard to the Administration's general revenue sharing proposals,

again we are not clear as to just what they would mean for education,

We have been told that since approximately 40% of local and state gover

mental costs go for education, it could be expected that approximately

40% of the new money to be generated by revenue sharing would also go for


We assume also that if pressed the Administration might possibly

agree to a guarantee to this effect. Since the Administration is proposing


$5 billion in revenue sharing funds, this would amount to $2 billion

for education over and above the amount for special revenue sharing.

Judged by the record of the previous three years of the Nixon

Administration, the $2 billion would be an astounding burst of generosity; however, judged by the needs of American schools and children, it would be unrealistic parsimony. The President's own National Educational

Finance Project, referred to above, recommends a far greater increase

within a relatively short period of years well over $15 billion.


Urban Task Force, sired by the President in 1969 but never acknowledged, reconnended $14 billion for the big cities alone.

Apart from the amount of money involved, what about the principle? In the first place, we fail to see why, if the five categories into which

present aid programs would be consolidated is a good plan for dispensing

the approximately $3 billion involved, the same scheme would not be a

good plan for dispensing the additional $2 billion to go to education.

Or for that matter for the additional 15-plus billions that are really


Secondly, we do not think it is proper to take money from one group

of citizens and give it to another without having some pretty clear idea

as to the use to which the recipient intends to put it.

There is a

distinction between Federal control and Federal standards.

We oppose

Federal control in education; Federal standards are a different matter.

Federal funds should not be passed out to states to use in ways which

American society disapproves.

Federal funds should not be used to

promote racial segregation, for instance.

When Federal funds are given

to other levels of government, the receiving agencies should be required


to adhere to fair employment standards. They should maintain decent working conditions and proper professional practices as well as other

standards of fair employment.

To sum up this statement, in our opinion Congress and the Administra

tion must face up to the fact that vastly increased sums of money will be

needed to provide a decent school system in this country.

As a goal, we

should strive to devote about 10% of our national income for educational


The Federal government should increase its share of school

support; the percentage or amount of increase will depend upon various

factors, such as the ability of other levels of government to maintain

equitable tax programs and the quality of education deemed desirable and

feasible in the nation.

We estimate that approximately $45 billion addi

tional will be required to maintain a proper school system.

The major

share of this increase should be borne by the Federal government and the

governments of the states.



Senator PELL. The next witness is the representative of the National Council of Jewish Women, Mrs. Philip Frieder, member of the National Board of the Council and elected member of the State Board of Education of Colorado. She is accompanied by Mrs. Olya Margolin_who has been of great help to this subcommittee. I know Senator Dominick is particularly interested in your testimony. So what you might care to do is read your statement and then we will as I requested, save the questions and by that time I am sure he will be back.


Mrs. FRIEDER. I am Mrs. Philip Frieder of Denver, Colo., national board member of the National Council of Jewish Women, and chairman of its education task force. Since 1959 I have also served as a member of the Colorado State Board of Education. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before this committee on behalf of the 100,000 members of the National Council of Jewish Women to expresss our concerns with S. 1669, “The Education Revenue Sharing Act of 1971."

And with regard to the comments that the Senator made to the preceding witness, I would merely comment that I represent an organization which is a segment of the public which does understand the need for public education and is willing to support it.

The National Council of Jewish Women, founded in 1893, has sections throughout the United States and in their local communities councilwomen work with the public schools in a variety of ways. Sections sponsor tutoring programs, provide special assistance to handicapped children, finance and service special enrichment programs, and serve as volunteers in a variety of settings from the preschool up to, and including, adult education. Our traditionally strong support for public education is rooted in our belief that, and here I quote from our resolutions, "American Democracy depends on a strong system of public education to develop the highest potential of the individual." To that end our members have pledged themselves to promote expanded educational opportunities for all children and to work for a higher level of financial support for public education:

(a) By supporting adequate State and local funding;
(6) By supporting Federal aid to public education;

(c) By urging reappraisal of the basis of financing public education;

(d) By protecting public funds from being diverted to private elementary and secondary education. We view S. 1669, as an attempt to deal with two basic problems:

(1) The desperate financial plight of public education and the needs for additional financial support—especially from the Federal level; and (2) The proliferation of Federal legislative titles, programs,

and grants dealing with education, the numbers of which are not only

very confusing but also are sometimes self-defeating. Both of these are laudable objectives. The National Council o Jewish Women certainly concurs with the need for more efficient, moi responsible, and more responsive institutions and government, {



every level; and we have a consistent record of working for the adoption of legislation designed to provide additional financial support for public education.

However, as we have examined the proposed legislation, we fail to see a clear expression of intent to increase significantly the total amount of Federal assistance to public education. What we do see is some consolidation of existing programs, the granting of additional flexibility to the States to allocate moneys presently appropriated, and, because additional discretionary powers will be given to the States without any additional funds, we see the very real possibility that certain beneficial education programs could be cut at the State level, and eventually even eliminated.

Members of our organization are fully in accord with the proposition that governmental programs should not be allowed to proliferate needlessly and endlessly, and that once a particular problem has been resolved or a need met, the relevant program ought not to be continued. We do, however, feel strongly that there are certain areas of national concern which require the special focus and attention that only a categorical program can provide. We hope the Congress will weigh carefully the necessity for insuring that the needs of children, as pinpointed by certain categorical programs, will continue to be met.

So, although the purpose of the bill is "to strengthen education by providing a share of the revenues of the United States to the States and to local educational agencies for the purpose of assisting them in carrying out education programs reflecting areas of national concern” we feel that it falls short of its stated goal: (1) It fails to recognize the current financial crisis in public education-a crisis which reflects the inadequacy and the inequity of the present method and level of support for public education. The importance of public education to the well-being of the Nation cannot be overemphasized. Public education is a national concern; it should be a national priority, and as such, in

a our opinion, deserves a far greater degree of Federal financial support.

As we all know, most of the Federal programs are not and have not been funded even in the less than adequate amounts authorized, so that schools now receive for each authorized program only a fraction of the amount specified in the original bill.

In the legislation before us the schools will be asked, in effect, to divide up the presently grossly inadequate appropriation, and to spread it even thinner. We sincerely hope that the committee will consider this aspect of the bill, and move to authorize sufficient funds to meet the stated legislative objective of strengthening education.

(2) S. 1669 also proposes to consolidate some 33 legislative titles and grants into 5 broad areas of legislative support, but does so, in our estimation, without adequate safeguards to insure that needed programs are not under-implemented or phased out. Accountability is a key word these days in the education community. Citizens, parents are demanding that schools and government must be accountable to the public.

This is as it should be. Unfortunately, in this bill, standards of quality appear to have been considerably relaxed, and provisions for accountability in many of the programs are so vague as to be practically nonexistent, since only mandated "flow through” funds would be subject to Federal review. Here, again, we would urge that the committee carefully examine the proposal.

« PreviousContinue »