Page images
PDF
EPUB
[graphic][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][merged small][merged small]

encoura ement of adult basic education, even though nearly 25 million American adults had less than an eighth grade education. It was not until 1969 that The Adult Education Act of 1966 was amended to include support for adult secondary education, even though another 40 million American adults had not completed high school. Appropriations have been under a third of the amounts authorized: only a few million adults have thus been able to be enrolled in adult basic education programs and even fewer in adult secondary DIO Iams, which have scarcely becun.

The need for adult basic and secondary education programs is increasing, both as a result of increased immigration and also of continuing school drop-outs: it is doubtful if we are even maintaining our round, while Japan and Russia are among those nations which have virtually eliminated functional illiteracy.

It has been said by some that under S. 1669 the states would receive the same amount of money as they are now receiving for adult education, and which is true, and that states could even allocate more funds to adult education: that it would be up to those concerned to put pressure on the states for adult education. We believe that this is an unrealistic point of view. First, those in need of remedial adult education are least likely to lobby or exert pressure. Second, in most states adult educators simply are too few in number and without the resources of time, money and political know-ho. to be able to exert enough influence. Third, most of the states simply have other pressing needs in education for children and youth for which the better-educated parents will lot by ardently, backed by time, money and political know-how.

Most states have shown little inclination to develop remedial adult education programs on their own initiative. California, North Carolina, South Carolina, Indiana, Michican, Texas and Puerto Rico have made firm commitments both in terms of public policy and in terms of hard cash appropriations. we have reason to believe that as many as two-thirds of the states would drop their programs without the present Federal incentive, and allocate the funds to children and youth.

It is also a fact that as economic pressures increase, adult education aupport in states and local communities decreases. In Massachusetts our Director of the Bureau of Adult Education estimates that in the past year, 35 per cent of the pronrams in the Commonwealth have been severely cut back, with many being completely eliminated. Mr. Harold V. McNulty also noted that the poorer the community and the greater the extent of undereducation among adults, the more likely were cutbacks. He further commented that in a number of cases, the only programs continued were those supported by Federal funds or those which were completely self-supporting.

In addition to the possibility of repeal of the Adult Education Act of 1966, we find a number of other problems of concern to adult educators in the present wording of S. 1669:

[blocks in formation]
[graphic][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][merged small]

1)

Pell...1/10/72...p.3.

All sections concerning allotments and distribution of shared revenues refer to 'average daily attendance of children, 'per pupil expenditure', and so forth. This does not necessarily include adult students and is also an ineffective measure of adult participation, tending to reward poor teaching (the longer you keep an adult in class, the more money you get) and discounting more effective methods of adult learning such as independent study, small group study in conjunction with radio or television, and so forth.

2) Although 'educationally disadvantaced and handicapped children' are a priority, we doubt if many states yet accept the evidence of Headstart, ESEA and the Coleman Report that education programs for the children alone, without involving their parents and their adult living environment, have much long-range effect.

3) we see no recognition that repeal of the Adult Education Act of 1966 would affect many other programs resulting from other legislation, particularly in areas of welfare, job training and corrections.

4) By repealing the Adult Education Act of 1966, the National Advisory Council on Adult (Basic and Secondary) Education would be abolished. The Council, which recently named Gary Eyre as Executive Director, has already performed notable service in bringing together information about the 28 or more Federal pro rams in adult basic education and should certainly not be dissolved at a time when the Right To Read program is just getting into gear and when further knowledoe about the relationships of reading to other dimensions of adult basic education is essential.

Members of AEA-USA directly involved with adult remedial education will be glad to provide the Subcommittee with any further information it requires about the possible effects of S. 1669 for the nation's undereducated adults. In the meantime, the Subcommittee might wish to consider alternatives such as the following:

1) Delete any reference to the Adult Education Act of 1966,

2)

3)

4)

CC:

Add adult education as a program priority,

Include adults in the allocation and distribution formulae, and/or
Recommend a separate revenue sharing act for adult education.

Dr. Alfred Storey, Pres., AEA-USA.
Charles Wood, Exec. Dir., AEA-USA
Thomas Hamilton, Assoc. Chrmn, LPC

Respectfully submitted,

K

(Dr. Anita L. Martin)

Chairman, Legislative Policies Committee
Adult Education Association of the U.S.A.

Headquarters Office: 225 19th Street NW., Washington, D.C. 20038
P1 19th Street,
25066

[graphic][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][graphic][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

STATEMENT

on

S. 1669

EDUCATION REVENUE SHARING ACT OF 1971

for submission to the

EDUCATION SUBCOMMITTEE

SENATE LABOR AND PUBLIC WELFARE COMMITTEE
for the

CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF THE UNITED STATES

by

JAMES E. CONNER, ED.D.*
November 16, 1971

The National Chamber supports the philosophy and the intent of S. 1669, embodying the Administration's special revenue sharing proposal for education which seeks to consolidate 32 categorical programs into six broad classifications. But, considering that there are currently over 100 categorical programs administered by the Office of Education, the proposal does not go far enough. This view gains added credence if we consider that at least 26 other federal agencies administer significant categorical programs in education running into billions of dollars, much of which is spent on duplicative efforts.

The history of federal assistance to education reveals that the present morass of categorical assistance programs had its beginning in the National Education Defense Act, enacted in response to the threat of our nation's loss in a science and technology race with Russia. Later, a different rationale provided the impetus for greater federal involvement in education. This involvement took form in a series of titles and programs designed to correct known educational deficiencies. Some programs have yielded beneficial results, although cost effectiveness/benefit data are rare. Other programs, most notably Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, have failed to correct deficiencies among the disadvantaged.

Difficulty in Monitoring Programs

The most significant message emanating from OE's reports is the admission that discoveries of malpractices were not made until years after the monies were spent. The lesson is clear: In the rush to correct social and educational ills, adequate program monitoring and control failed to be built into legislation. In

*Senior Associate for Education, Chamber of Commerce of the United States

-2

With short, the twin concepts of responsibility and accountability were excluded. the almost unchecked growth of narrow categorical programs, proper monitoring of federal programs is impossible unless more federal watchdogs are employed. But this will surely result in more federal interference in, and greater control over, the affairs of state and local education agencies. Thus, by even a rough analysis of the concept of categorical aid, we begin to see just how tangled a web even the best intentions can weave.

For example, grants may be made under 38 authorizations in support of "instruction, "under 37 authorizations for assistance to "low-income pupils," and under 22 in support of "reading instruction." This totals 97 authorizations in a single purpose area! Little wonder that "grantsmanship" has become one of the fastest growing specializations in education.

One large city school superintendent expresses his ambivalence over the pleasures and pains of categorical programming with a story of the mountain lion, who in spite of his love of hunting, pauses midway in his pursuit of a skunk to remark: "I think I've enjoyed about as much of this as I can stand!"

Indeed, evidence is mounting that state and local education agencies have "enjoyed" about as much categorical assistance as they can stand. It is becoming obvious everywhere that the American people are finding such programs far too inefficient and costly.

Priority Distortion and the Decision-Making Process

The Federal Government's contribution to education is only 7 percent. However, the power of that relatively small percentage to push state and local education agencies in various directions is formidable. The lever to move and direct educational priorities is the categorical grant. But in all too many instances, categorical programs have led to unbalanced growth in the schools. Some programs are surfeited with funds, even while other programs suffer malnutrition. Often there is an attempt to correct deficiencies by increasing the number of categorical programs. Thus, the Federal Government supported science and mathematics while neglecting the humanities. Humanities gained federal support, even as support for basic skills was neglected. The gifted were celebrated by grants for research and program development as the "average" student was all

« PreviousContinue »