TITLE I STANDARD ACHIEVEMENT GAINS FOR PROGRAM YEAR 1971–72. (SAMPLE REPORTING FROM 9 SCHOOL

Chairman PERKINS. Assuming that we follow the President's recommendations and the Congress goes along with this so-called special revenue package, what pitfalls can you see ahead from the standpoint of the effective operation of title I as it is presently operating in your State? Try to answer that question for me.

Mr. DELAYO. I would wonder whether or not title I would be recognized as such, whether those children who are educationally disadvantaged would actually receive the kind of direct aid and programs that we are now providing for them.

Would you care to add to that, Byron?

Dr. HANSFORD. No.

Chairman PERKINS. You would wonder, too, about the extent of the funding, would you not?

Mr. DELAYO. Yes, sir. This is a concern of mine, and it would seem to me that in this Nation, Mr. Chairman, we need to be reordering some of our priorities.

Dr. HANSFORD. I would just like to add, Mr. Chairman, that I think that, as we go to something like special revenue sharing, we are expected to be able to do all of the things which we have previously done under the categorical programs, but with materially less money at the State level.

Chairman PERKINS. I think you make a very good point. I would like to ask the superintendent one more question.

Do you believe that there is excessive paperwork, as is the complaint involved in the present programs? If so, how would you suggest we simplify it?

Mr. DELAYO. I do believe there is excessive paperwork at the Federal level, and I have felt this way for the 10 years that I have served in this capacity, Mr. Chairman.

I am advised by staff that there is authorization for a consolidation. Is this correct, Mr. Peterson, or was it Mr. MacKinnon?

Chairman PERKINS. Go ahead.

Mr. MACKINNON. There is a provision in the General Provisions Act, part C, which allows the commissioner to contract with States

if he wishes for the operation of programs. The Cranston amendment notwithstanding this does not contradict the categorical nature programs; we will merely administer closer to the clients. The commissioner does have that authority to move its administration to the State level on a contractual basis.

Chairman PERKINS. There is no assurance that the paperwork would not become greater under the special revenue sharing program than it is at the present time if the department had the authority to go forth with all the regulations they want. Am I correct?

Mr. DELAYO. We share your concern in this regard, Mr. Chairman. There is no such assurance.

Chairman PERKINS. Mr. Cross, do you want to ask any questions? Mr. CROSS. Just a couple of quick questions. Reference was made earlier to the use of general revenue sharing funds by the Governors. What has been the information you have compiled on how that money has been used and what amounts of money are going to reach schools through general revenue sharing and how much of this helps us?

Mr. DELAYO. Mr. Cross, we are at the moment gathering such data and will be happy to share it with you. I do not have the answer to your question, but I know that our Washington staff at the moment is engaged in researching that very question, sir.

Mr. CROSS. We would like to have that.

Mr. DELAYO. Very well.

Mr. MACKINNON. Of course, you are aware that all money that goes to the local government units may not be used for education. It is only the certain portion that would be left at the State level.

Mr. CROSS. I am aware of that, but one-third goes to the States.

Mr. MACKINNON. So that two-thirds goes to the local level with no use to education.

Mr. CROSS. Second, Mr. Quie asked the question earlier of the NEA witness, and I would like to ask it here: Do you believe there are any programs that could be either eliminated or consolidated?

Mr. DELAYO. Yes, I do.

Mr. CROSS. Which ones?

Mr. DELAYO. I am not prepared at the moment to offer some suggestion in this respect, but I think we have a responsibility to sit with this committee and to determine an order of priority and possibly make some suggestions on Federal programs that are not necessarily under the purview of this committee as well, if the Chair is so disposed.

Mr. CROSS. Thank you.

Chairman PERKINS. Mr. Mazzoli.

Mr. MAZZOLI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, gentlemen, for helping us today. I guess we will be visiting with one another in the days to come in an effort to work out our mutual problems here.

I would only reiterate the request of all the committee members, and that is to hear from you about your recommendations as to what changes could be made, because I rather think it is pretty much selfevident that some changes will have to be made somewhere.

I think that each of us has an advocacy, and each of us has a constituency, and we pursue that to the extent we can. Realistically there will be changes, and to the extent that these changes can be ac

ceptable in a large part to all sectors of the educational community, they should be the product of a sort of mutual contact.

I would like to ask you, too, about the impact aid program. The gentleman to your right mentioned a moment ago about the nonmilitary B part of impact aid. What is the situation? Have you done any studies on that as to whether or not this is something that is absolutely essential, or whether this would be changed?

Mr. PETERSON. The situation to which I referred was the lack of payments in fiscal 1973 for some nonmilitary B category type students. It has been brought to our attention, for example, that in the State of Washington, the Atomic Energy Commission has an extensive facility. The school district there previously depended to a large extent on impact aid B payments and is not receiving them this year. Mr. Mazzoli, we are under a bit of a difficulty. We have a mandate from our members to litigate on impoundment; however, as you know, the continuing resolution does not refer to impact aid specifically, as it does refer to NDEA III and emergency school assistance.

We would hope that the Appropriations Committee and the House would make the first order of business a fiscal 1973 HEW appropriations bill at an early date, and we have expressed this; at a minimum we need clarifying language in the continuing resolution which might refer to such problems as we have presently with impact aid.

Mr. MAZZOLI. You mentioned earlier your accepting-in fact, even embracing the concept of revenue sharing for education, but you are not quite sure that this is the time and the place and the vehicle for it. Could you give me some idea of what you consider to be the time and place for this?

Mr. DELAYO. Of course we have not seen it, Mr. Mazzoli. The funding level would be a key to whether or not we could accept a proposal that is being directed at us.

Additionally, we would have to analyze the structure and determine whether or not the proposal would, indeed, provide greater latitude for the respective States than the latitude we now have, and I cannot answer that question intelligently.

We have had some general dialogue with Assistant Secretary Marland in this respect, and we have said, as I have said to you, that if we see the dollar amount and if we see the structure, generally speaking, we are not opposing this concept at the outset. We think it is a progressive movement, and we are not opposed automatically, but we would like to see it.

Mr. MAZZOLI. I commend your initial response, which is not an absolute negative.

Mr. DELAYO. Precisely.

Mr. MAZZOLI. I think it is commendable that at least you have an open mind to the details.

Mr. DELAYO. Indeed, we do, sir.

Mr. MAZZOLI. May I ask you, assuming that the money were in order and assuming that other phases of it, the red tape and what have you, are reasonably in consonance with your viewpoint, would you relish the prerogatives and latitudes that this would bring you or would you feel that that was a burden to you?

Mr. DELAYO. I think I have a responsibility to respond in that I would accept those responsibilities. With regard to relishment, I would

have to have some experience at it, but the States are capable of carrying out their responsibilities. I would have to respond, and I do, affirmatively to your question, sir.

Mr. MAZZOLI. Thank you, sir.

Chairman PERKINS. Does that conclude your questioning?

Mr. MAZZOLI. Yes, sir. Thank you.

Chairman PERKINS. Let me ask you another question, Mr. Superintendent. I take it that you place a priority on title I over general Federal aid until we adequately fund title I. Am I correct?

Mr. DELAYO. Yes, sir, you are correct. I favor those programs that will provide to the children of my State that which has not been provided historically, sir.

Chairman PERKINS. Where do you feel we could effectively peg title I from a dollar viewpoint and serve the students of the country? I know this is an ambiguous question.

Mr. DELAYO. Mr. Chairman, I believe Dr. Peterson has analyzed to some extent your proposal in this regard, and I think he would provide a more intelligent response.

Chairman PERKINS. Go ahead.

Mr. PETERSON. We do support the critical mass you name, the figure of $300 per child. The State of California has State regulations which provide a specific amount per child, and a number of other States do also hold to that concept.

We note that in Secretary Richardson's report on compensatory education one of the factors they noted as particularly effective was the critical mass figure. We feel that the $300 might be an adequate

amount.

New York State, which Mr. MacKinnon represents, has a figure somewhere between $400 and $450 per child.

Chairman PERKINS. But with the population problems and the census problems that we have, how would you suggest we get at this situation without appropriating a tremendous amount more?

Mr. MACKINNON. Yes, there would have to be a large amount of additional funds, and I think in the title I area before moving to the general aid, it might even be in excess of the $3 billion that you are suggesting in H.R. 16.

There have been some estimates that to do a leveling of expenditures among the States something in excess of $7 billion might be necessary. Maybe that is the figure which really comes very close to the full authorization of title I as it now stands, somewhere around $6 billion.

Probably then you would start having the targeting amounts and the critical masses, and the critical masses will vary by States like in New York State. We feel that $400 or more is necessary for targeting in New York State considering the cost of services, while in other States $300 may be appropriate considering the cost of similar services. Chairman PERKINS. Any further comments along that line? If not, I want to thank you, Mr. Superintendent. You have a great school system in the State of New Mexico.

I appreciate your coming here and representing your organization. You have been very helpful to the committee.

Mr. Mazzoli.

Mr. MAZZOLI. Mr. Chairman, if it is not an intrusion, I would like

to ask a question on what the doctor was just describing here about your critical mass. It is interesting, if I might ask one question.

Assuming that the critical mass is reached, whether it is 7 million or 6 million or 10 million, what have we achieved at that point? What is the measureable advantage of using the critical mass insofar as our children are concerned? What would be the product of the application of the critical mass?

Mr. MACKINNON. One would be reduced class size, for example. This has been shown. If there is enough reduction of class size to reduce it one or two or three children, that does not seem to have significant impact. But a significant impact in class size does seem to have some effect on the outcome for the children, and that would be one way that you could use the critical mass-just reducing class size. Mr. MAZZOLI. Then assuming you reduce the class size, to whatever the national figures seem to be the best ratio

Mr. MACKINNON. Depending upon the child and the circumstances. Mr. MAZZOLI. Then do we have some way to measure the product of the application of this mass insofar as the child is concerned? Can we say that we will now have a child who reaches SAT scores of thus and so, or something like that? Is there any way that the people can get their teeth into what is the net effect of the critical mass or the compensatory education theory?

Mr. MACKINNON. This will vary by States, depending upon the availability of fairly comprehensive testing programs, so that you can see whether the application of the additional resources on a particular group of children is having the effect that they are progressing as well as other children who are not disadvantaged.

The key part would be the instruments to measure, and this will vary from place to place.

Mr. MAZZOLI. I think that the difficulty for me, and for those of you in the room this morning when Congressman Steiger was asking some questions along this line, is determining if there is some empirical way to show just what improved education does for our children.

I think that is one of the problems. That is more of a political problem, maybe, than an educational problem; but the difficulty that I have found personally, and I am sure other ones have suffered through it, is how you justify to a largely jaundiced, jaded, reluctant public that these programs, this infusion of money, this additional money is, in fact. productive. What does it do?

We really can't answer that very basic question, and that is what I was asking.

Mr. MACKINNON. The fact that more children are staying in school longer must mean that something is being done for them, being able to stay and not dropping out.

Mr. MAZZOLI. Thank you very much.

Mr. DELAYO. Mr. Chairman, thank you for your hospitality. We are available at your call, sir.

Chairman PERKINS. Let me thank you, and especially thank you for missing your plane in order to stay here with us today. We appreciate your efforts. You have been very helpful to the committee and I look forward to seeing you again.

Come around, Mr. Megel and Mr. Humphrey. We are glad to welcome you gentlemen here. You have made many previous appearances and have been very effective. Proceed in any manner you wish.