Mrs. FLANIGAN. I have just received the 1970 census distribution of numbers of children at various income levels. I really would appreciate the opportunity to get it on the computer and run it off and study it before we respond to that question.

Mr. STEIGER. I would be delighted to find out what the computer has to say about that question.

My concern, as you can understand, is, for example, in the case of Wisconsin that we lose a percentage change of something like 40 percent minus. In the State of New York they go up to something like 25 percent.

Mrs. FLANIGAN. I have heard that rumor, but I don't know whether they are going up because of the other factors in the formula, or whether they are going up because of an increased concentration of low income children in the State.

Mr. STEIGER. Just based on the low income factor, would it be possible for you, at the point at which you have run this through your computer, that, Mrs. Barrett, you could submit something to us that would indicate what you judge to be the impact of the census data, and what suggestions you would make?

Mrs. BARRETT. We would be very happy to provide this, and any other information that any of the members of the committee might find they need. If we have it, certainly will make it available to you upon request.

Mrs. FLANIGAN. Yes.

Mr. STEIGER. I would be very grateful for that, because I am sure, knowing the propensity of the House particularly for data and statistics, that will be a major factor in whatever decisions this committee makes as they come to the floor and attempt to defend whatever decisions we may have reached within this committee.

You have just distributed for all of us a publication from your research division on the estimates of school statistics for 1972-73, and that information is always of interest, but out of that I don't find, for example, any substantive analysis of the impact of title I of the ESEA.

What has it done? What kinds of results have you found in terms of the effect on children of the use of elementary and secondary education money?

I don't really see in here anything related to how the funds are broken down. For example, in title I. what percentage goes to instructional materials, what percentage might go to teachers' salaries, what kind of percentage goes to administration and overhead, this kind of thing?

Have you got any data that would be available to the committee that will give us some guidance on that question, or those questions? Mrs. BARRETT. Mrs. Flanigan is also a part of this study, so I am going to turn it over to her.

Mr. STEIGER. Mrs. Flanigan.

Mrs. FLANIGAN. Every year we ask the States for this data. We also ask the States to fill out a separate sheet by Federal program which would just get the amount of funds, program by program, that they expect to receive. Generally, they don't fill that out, because they don't know, so they are guessing in total rather than allocation by specific program.

The information you requested on the impact of ESEA funds on programs I think is best gotten from the evaluations of the ESEA that have been done under a number of contractors who went right into the districts and studied them. They have been summarized and should be available to you.

Your question on how the funds are spent is answered in the annual evaluation of ESEA that the Commissioner of Education does.

Mr. STEIGER. Does not the NEA take any evaluation of ESEA? Mrs. FLANIGAN. We have reviewed other people's evaluations. The amount of money involved in these evaluation studies is in the nature of $100,000; those contracts have been let by the Federal Government generally. We have not participated in those.

Mr. STEIGER. But that does not answer my question.

My concern here is that, as the chairman rightly said, this is one of the leading national organizations in the field of education, a professional organization, and we still at this point, I think, for example, are waiting to find out should we concentrate in reading and math in terms of the use of title I money under ESEA?

Does the NEA think that is a good idea, a bad idea? What is the evaluation that you make?

You come here, yon have said you support an extension of ESEA, and I would hope that out of this we might

Mrs. FLANIGAN. I think Mrs. Barrett answered your question when she said that reading and math may not be the prime need of a given group of children in a given classroom. They may need breakfast first, or they may need social studies, or they may need help on intercultural relationships.

I think one beauty of ESEA is that, when money reaches the school district level, the school can then apply the funds to meet its greatest

need.

Mr. STEIGER. Right, but out of those districts undoubtedly there is an NEA affiliate involved in the teaching of the elementary child, and one would, I hope, be able to come up with something that would say, yes, the reading level was increased by a percent, that the child gained a number of pounds, if it is a breakfast question or a lunch question. What do you have for us from a professional standpoint on the rightness or the wrongness of this concept of aid to the disadvantaged? Mrs. FLANIGAN. I think if we have learned one thing since ESEA went into effect, it is that there is probably not a short-term cure for all of the education ills that have been pyramided over generations. I think the pursuit of the one thing that is going to solve all the educational problems we have, we are less enamoured with it than we were

10 years ago.

Mr. STEIGER. What has been the reaction of the National Education Association, Mrs. Barrett, to Christopher Jencks' latest study?

Mrs. BARRETT. Well, I think that perhaps our reaction is as mixed as many of the reactions that have been expressed.

We find very little new in Mr. Jencks' latest statement. We find pretty much a review of statements by people who have ventured into this same field prior to Mr. Jencks.

Mr. STEIGER. Do you think that the Jencks' study contributes anyunderstanding of what we ought to be doing in this field?

thing to our

Mrs. BARRETT. Well, I am sure that it makes some contribution if

only to review what other people have said originally, but I do not believe that the contribution is substantial.

It certainly should be read, it should be evaluated in terms of education today, the needs that exist, and so on and so on, but I don't think it will make any significant impact on what is happening in education. Mr. STEIGER. One last question, if I may, Mr. Chairman, knowing that our time is short, and there are many others who are here.

In your statement, on page 4, you have made a suggestion which says that,

We recommend that consideration be given to changing the authorizing legislation by establishing a priority for distribution to school districts with a high proportion of pupils who are dependents of those in the uniformed services.

Do you want to go a little further with that? Are you saying that the law ought to be changed so as to reflect a greater concentration of men and women in military with dependents, rather than just the Federal impact concept that we now use?

Mrs. BARRETT. Yes.

Mr. McFarland, please.

Mr. MCFARLAND. We have a great concern over the way that appropriations come through for this program.

One major example is Bellevue, Nebr., which is about 45 percent impacted. Each year, the school district, the school board, and the superintendent go through having to decide if they can continue to operate the schools. Certainly this affects the teachers.

In December, from somewhere, they were given an additional amount of money so that they could proceed. Their problem is mixed up with the fact that the appropriations bill was twice vetoed, and so forth, and the level of spending was at the previous year.

We are concerned. If a remedy could be sought to alleviate this situation in the authorizing legislation, we would be interested in working something out.

I don't remember the figures, Mr. Steiger, right off the top of my head, how many are A's or B's. There are about 25 to 40 school districts across the country that have this very severe problem each year, and part of it is related to the appropriations.

Mr. STEIGER. That I appreciate.

Thank you very, very much.

Chairman PERKINS. Mr. Mazzoli.

Mr. MAZZOLI. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mrs. Barrett and your colleagues, we thank you for coming today and giving us some information.

Mrs. Barrett, why would you figure that we ought to keep part B of the impact program?

Mrs. BARRETT. Stan.

Mr. MCFARLAND. Very simply. The payment for federally connected students is in lieu of tax. Because of the Federal property, the school districts are very heavily impacted and prohibited from taxing all available bases.

Mr. MAZZOLI. You use the term "impacted," and that kind of reminds me of a sore wisdom tooth, and I am not sure that isn't why the word was put together, because it is very highly descriptive, and it conjures up in our minds something quite worrisome and bothersome and painful.

Is it that painful as a general proposition to retain this kind of assistance program?

Mr. MCFARLAND. I think one of the problems has been that over the years there have been amendments to that portion of the bill that have extended the number of B students. For example, Congressman Quie always used the example of Montgomery County, Md., which is receiving impact funds, even though he is working in the District of Columbia.

I think that there are provisions of the act that we would recommend the committee take a look at.

Mr. MAZZOLI. Would you submit such recommendations?

I can understand part A, and I can understand-even though we didn't fund it-part C, but I am a little bit befuddled by part B. I would appreciate recommendations from you about what we can do with the impact program.

Mrs. Barrett, why the near paranoia on the part of professional educators about allowing a special revenue program to take place?

Mrs. BARRETT. A special revenue funding for education, in the opinion of educators, defeats the whole purpose, the whole reason for which public schools were founded is, to provide an adequate, equitable kind of program of education for every child, wherever he is, in terms of his needs.

If we are going to have that kind of education, we have to have an equitable dollar in terms of general support for education behind that child.

Mr. MAZZOLI. And you are convinced that a program of general revenue sharing, special revenue sharing with respect to educational programs, is not the way to guarantee to each child?

Mrs. BARRETT. Stan.

Mr. MCFARLAND. I would like to make a distinction. I don't think you can compare special education with general revenue sharing. Mr. MAZZOLI. Let's talk about special.

Mr. MCFARLAND. That does not talk about money. I think our problem is the times in which it is being proposed.

Mr. Mazzoli. Do you fear the unwillingness of local school authorities to fulfill the needs?

Mr. MCFARLAND. I think it is very basic that we have reason to fear a loss of revenue for education programs under the special revenue program. It is just that simple.

Mr. Mazzoli. Do you think that there is an enlightened leadership in education on a local level today?

Mr. MCFARLAND. Yes; in most school districts.

Mr. MAZZOLI. And in most situations do you think they can handle special revenue sharing adequately and equitably?

Mr. MCFARLAND. They probably could, but we are convinced that is not the problem.

As I said before, there will be a reduction of financial resources coming to districts through the special revenue sharing for grant consolidation.

Mr. MAZZOLI. For the pure academics of it, let's assume you have the same amount of money coming in, but this comes in with fewer strings and fewer categories.

Mr. MCFARLAND. Theoretically, and everything being equal, I don't

think that the NEA in the future could refuse to support that kind of a program.

Mrs. FLANIGAN. May I add to that?

Mr. MAZZOLI. Yes, ma'am.

Mrs. FLANIGAN. Last year we surveyed the large city school systems, and we found about two-thirds of them pretty much in a crisis situation.

The testimony we got from one Southern system which was under court orders for busing was that the only children in the system getting public funds for schoolbooks, supplies, and so forth were the children in title I. Now, quite obviously, they were the children who needed it

most.

We do fear that while the situation will not be that exaggerated if, for instance, there is a loud call in the State, probably through court order, for one type of child or another, it will divert funds from the low income children, from the neglected children, from the delinquent children, from the first Americans, et cetera.

Mr. MAZZOLI. What you are really saying is that you are not sure you could withstand the politics at the lower level?

Mrs. FLANIGAN. That is a part of it. The other part of it is the sheer fiscal crisis which has been existing annually at the local level.

Now this, coupled with the need for the State to equalize among districts, would give not very much protection to these special classes of children who live in fairly well-to-do districts, as we measure them, but as they may not be in fact.

Mr. Mazzoli. I wish I could pursue this further, but we are in a 5minute limit here.

Let me ask Mrs. Barrett how can you equalize per pupil expenditures, as these many court cases purport to do, when you in NEA have advocated adding generally on top of the categorical programs? Isn't that in and of itself unequal?

Mrs. BARRETT. No, not necessarily. It is not.

We are talking about general school aid, general school funds. We are talking about a basic program that will be adequate to the needs of every child.

Mr. MAZZOLI. Equalize expenditures, if you are going to have some children getting categorical programs, which would then mean that the per pupil expenditure for that exceeds an average? How can you have equal educational expenditures?

Mrs. FLANIGAN. None of the courts have indicated that they have considered it an unequal situation where a child needed and received additional educational services.

Mr. MAZZOLI. If I might just intrude a minute, I sat in here last year, and we had some lawyers who speculated that anything beyond an average for any pupil was unequal, as they read the general holdings, and they felt that that is what the Supreme Court will, in effect, say.

Mrs. FLANIGAN. Well, the response to the Minnesota case, for instance, permitted them to count in the welfare children at 1.5. We had an average weighted factor for them, and the court approved that. All of the formulas have considered such weighting.

Mr. MAZZOLI. Then we can say that the NEA feels that you can have unequal expenditures, is what it really amounts to?

Mrs. FLANIGAN. Yes.