This will summarize the Nevada State Department of Education's point of view with reference to proposed actions regarding grant consolidation legislation and "special educational revenue sharing".

At a meeting in Miami Beach, Florida, the Honorable Elliot L.
Richardson made a presentation to all chief state school officers
which was very much appreciated because of its candor and the strong
references he made to the key roles of state education agencies.

Subsequent regional meetings conducted by the U. S. Office of Education
have disclosed more of the thinking behind "special educational
revenue sharing", and I have become somewhat concerned regarding the
directions toward which enabling legislation appears to be headed.
Let me therefore reiterate special elements of concern in the whole
matter of grant consolidation and "special educational revenue sharing",

1. The term "special educational revenue sharing" is ill-defined and misleading.

2. The proposed legislation seeks to circumvent legally constituted authority and responsibility for education, namely the state boards of education and state education agencies.

3. The proposed legislation could conceivably fragment and
disorganize educational efforts.

4. It proposes no new assistance.

still an apple.

An apple by another name is

5. The "no loss" provision will not protect allocations for
Nevada in future years, as long as these are to be based on
populations alone.

6. The incentive proposals will provide less money for states
less able to increase tax revenues.

In previous years I have indicated to you that the Nevada State Depart-
ment of Education favors consolidation of aid programs with similar
characteristics and purposes. This would permit consolidation of
administration at the state level and most likely reduce recording
and reporting requirements. The proposed legislation does not provide
for reasonable or judicious consolidation.

The Honorable Alan Bible

The appended paper presents the rationale for the position of the
Department in this matter.

I feel that all of us in the various states should be provided with preliminary legislative specifications issued prior to meetings and regional conferences so that each of us would thereby have an

opportunity to review and comment upon those specifications before the legislation is finally submitted.

I very much appreciate all of your past efforts on behalf of education and also this opportunity to present the preceding position statement for this department..

BL:ms

Enc.

Sincerely,

Dasson

Larson,

Superintendent of
Public Instruction

Speech and
Hearing

Sheltered
Workshop

Counseling

Work-Study

Mentally
Handicapped

Physically
Handicapped

Emotionally
Handicapped

Home
Bound

Special
Nursing

Learning
Disabilities

Visually
Handicapped

Hearing Impaired

Hand

The Honorable Claiborn Pell
United States Senate

325 Old Senate Office Building
Washington, D. C. 20510

Dear Senator Pell:

I understand that certain measures are now being considered by the
Senate Subcommittee on Education concerning revenue sharing and
block grants. I am project director for two Title III programs
in Great Falls for emotionally disturbed and gifted children. I
am quite concerned about what might happen to these types of pro-
grams should block grants be made to states.

Title III has allowed us to try new ideas such as these and provide
some very valuable and needed services for youngsters, who too
ofter have been forgotten and overlooked. I have a strong fear
that a block grant can too easily become a political football and
these particular interests of innovation would be lost in the
shuffle.

I therefore ask your cooperation in maintaining Title III as a
separate entity in the federal education program.
As final appro-
priations for ESEA Title III are now being negotiated, I urge you
to approve at least 230 million dollars, which represents 40 per
cent of the 575 million dollars authorized for fiscal year 1972.

I also invite you to visit, not only the Title III projects here
in Great Falls but the others which exist in our state any time
you have the opportunity. Information regarding these programs
is available from Mr. Harold Rehmer, ESEA Title III Supervisor,
Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction, Helena, Montana.

Thank you for continuing your interest in education and consideration of my request regarding Title III.

Sincerely yours,

4.87

W. L. Findley, ED.D.

Supervisor of Special Education

WLF: tr

NATIONAL

ASSOCIATION OF STATE BOARDS OF EDUCATION

1575 SHERMAN SUITE 604 DENVER, COLORADO 80203

303/825-3573

Northeast

MRS. KATHLEEN L. ROBIE

9348 Reid Circle

Fort Washington, Maryland 20022

Central

BEN R. HOWELL

1225 Cincinnati Avenue

El Paso, Texas 79902

Southern

JAMES M. CONNOR

P. O. Box 544

Kingstree, South Carolina 29956

Western

VERNON T. DELGADO
Box 66

Pinedale, Wyoming 82941

DIRECTORS AT LARGE

SAM L. KESSLER
Medora.

North Dakota 58645
MRS. RUTH TABRAH
P. O. Box 308
Kapaau, Hawall 96755
DR. HAROLD L. TRIGG

1308 South Benbow Road Greensboro, North Carolina 27406

TELEGRAM

Honorable Elliott Richardson
Secretary, Department of Health,
Education and Welfare

330 Independence Avenue, S. W.
Washington, D. C. 20201

and

Dr. Sidney Marland, Commissioner
U. S. Office of Education

400 Maryland Avenue, S. W.
Washington, D. C. 20202

The National Association of State Boards of Education (NASBE) consists of the several hundred elected or appointed members of the state and territorial education agencies responsible for elementary and secondary education, including in many cases vocational and special education and in some cases post-secondary education as well.

NASBE is following with deep interest the formulation and progress of legislative proposals to implement President Nixon's General and Special Revenue Sharing. program. A good many NASBE members attended the recent U.S.O.E. regional conferences at which administration plans were outlined and discussed.

The NASBE Executive Committee has authorized me to convey to you not only our urgent concern about avoiding any possible ambiguity in legislative language relating to administration of federal education funds flowing to the states but also to convey our strongest endorsement of a clear legislative mandate insuring that Special Revenue Sharing funds for education and, any General Revenue Sharing funds determined by the States as applicable for educational programs, are to be administered by the state agency already responsible for public elementary and secondary education.

Honorable Elliott Richards on

Dr. Sidney Marland

Page 2

March 31, 1971

Thus NASBE firmly believes in pri that federal funds can be utilized to a maximum effective when carefully blended with state funds allocated to local education agencies.

We, of course, appreciate the courtesies the United States Office of Education has accorded NASBE. We also appreciate the efforts you have taken to keep us informed. We shall be pleased to cooperate in any way we can in the formulation of definitive legislation.

James H. Rowland
President, NASBE

CC: House and Senate Education Committee members

State Boards of Education Presidents and Chairmen
NASBE Board of Directors