Prepared statements, letters, supplemental material, etc.—Continued Scott, Hon. Robert W., Governor, State of North Carolina, statement of.. Selden, David, president, American Federation of Teachers: Desmond, John E., president, Chicago Teachers Union, letter to "Educational Needs of Cleveland, Ohio," an article entitled_. Riordan, Mary Ellen, president, Detroit Federation of Teachers, "What New York City's Schools Need," an article entitled. Page 398 142 142 142 134 129 141 536 537 APPENDIX Bozeman, C. Howard, attorney, Knoxville, Tenn., letter to Chairman Brownell, John A., chairman, ESEA title III State advisory council, Cohen, David, et al., Harvard Graduate School of Education: Statement of. "The Effects of Revenue Sharing and Block Grants on Education," a report entitled. Cordell, George A., director, Somerset Regional Supplementary Educational Center, Somerset, Ky., letter to Chairman Perkins, dated April 19, 1972, enclosing a resolution... Page 832 833 791 792 834 Davis, Mitchell, chairman, State advisory council, title III, ESEA, department of education, Frankfort, Ky., letter to Chairman Perkins, dated March 27, 1972, enclosing a memorandum _ _ 834 Fobert, Rudolph J., chairman, ESEA title III, Massachusetts Advisory Letter to Chairman Perkins, dated February 29, 1972.. 839 840 Henry, Elizabeth J., Knoxville, Tenn., letter to Chairman Perkins, dated 842 Johns, Roe L., director, National Educational Finance Project, "Excerpts from Alternative Programs for Financing Education,' a publication entitled. 655 842 Laverne, Hon. Thomas, Senator, New York State Senate, letter to Jack an 794 825 National School Boards Association, statement on behalf of. Shields, Roscoe, Jr., chairman, ESEA title III state advisory council, Shapp, Hon. Milton J., Governor, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Wills, Jane (Mrs. Robert), Worthington, Ohio, letter to Hon. Chalmers 843 844 801 844 (VII) FINANCING OF ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION MONDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 1972 U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, OF THE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR, The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:30 a.m. in room 2175 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Roman C. Pucinski (chairman) presiding. Present: Representatives Pucinski, Ford, Meeds, Quie, Bell, Ruth, and Peyser. Staff members present: John F. Jennings, counsel; Toni Painter, secretary; and Charles W. Radcliffe, minority counsel for education. Mr. PUCINSKI. The committee will come to order. The General Subcommittee on Education is beginning today extensive hearings on the financing of elementary and secondary education. The purpose of these hearings is to secure action by the Federal and State Governments assuring a quality education to every American youngster. A year ago I introduced the National Partnership in Education Act as one means to assure this quality education. That bill calls for the assumption by the Federal Government over a 3-year period of onethird of the cost of elementary and secondary education, thus hopefully enabling local school districts to maintain a floor of $1,200 or thereabouts or as the minimum to be spent on the education of every student. Since I introduced that bill, most of the national education organizations have endorsed the concept of a one-third partnership by the Federal Government. And I was particularly pleased to learn yesterday that Commissioner Marland has now endorsed the idea that the Federal Government ought to provide at least one-third of the cost of education and that there ought to be a national floor guaranteeing that an equal amount be spent on the education of every child. But at this very hour and in this very building, the House Judiciary Committee is also beginning hearings, hearings on a constitutional amendment barring busing to achieve racial balance in the schools. I believe that the controversy and divisiveness surrounding that amendment have caused us as Americans to lose sight of what ought to be a fundamental national goal: making available a quality education to every American child regardless of his race and regardless of where he lives. I sincerely believe that if we were ever to attain that goal, pressure for excessive busing solely to achieve racial balance would wither away. (1) It is important, however, to recognize a basic fact which the growing national debate on busing has brought to light: in most instances, minority children are not now being provided a quality education. I believe that it is of the highest priority that we develop and act on a national consensus that a quality education be provided these children. But I would also like to emphasize that the problems of financing our schools are not just problems affecting minority students. They affect almost all our students-children from families with higher than average incomes as well as children from working class families. The dire financial straits which many school districts across the country find themselves in today, frustrates all efforts at securing the goal of a quality education for all children. A recent survey of the 100 largest school systems in the country revealed that almost half have had to lay off teachers, shorten the school year, close libraries, or in some other way seriously curtail their educational program. Portland, Oreg., for instance, plans to close its doors 21 days early this year due to the defeat of three consecutive bond issues. Chicago and Philadelphia each find themselves faced with budget deficits totaling well over $30 million. New York City has eliminated 5,000 teaching positions, reduced remedial services, curtailed summer instruction, and slashed adult education programs. This financial crisis, however, is in no way limited to the largest school systems. Independence, Mo., and Wood and Preble Counties, Ohio, are examples of suburban and rural school systems which have suffered bond issue rejections and have had to shut down completely for weeks or even months. The basic cause of this crisis lies in the undue reliance of our schools on the property tax as their major source of funding. Almost 53 percent of the revenue for our elementary and secondary schools comes from local sources, almost totally the local property tax, while the Federal Government pays a mere 7 percent. This is inversely proportional to the ability of the local and Federal governments to raise revenue. The Federal Government collects 64 percent of the total tax revenue in the country and local governments (including school districts) only 17 percent. These facts are not escaping the average taxpayer. According to the Investment Bankers Association, voters in 1960 rejected 11 percent of the school bond issues put before them; in 1965, the rejection rate was 33 percent; and by last year, it had leaped to 52 percent. The voters in this country simply will no longer tolerate a tax system based on the 19th century concepts of wealth. But more importantly, this antiquated tax system is causing a denial of equal educational opportunity to many American youngsters, measured in no other than dollar terms, as the recent court decisions have clearly documented. It is my belief that the Federal Government must begin immediately to correct this denial of equal educational opportunity and to lighten the burden of property taxpayers by assuming one-third of the cost of elementary and secondary education. A year ago I introduced the National Partnership in Education Act which provides for such an assumption over a period of 3 years. Since that time, as I stated, the six largest educational organizations have endorsed that concept; they are the National Education Association, |