tendents, the men where the buck stops cannot afford to be left in limbo in the sense that now they need to know as soon as possible what it is that they have to deal with in the terms of money, because they are making personnel and budget decisions in April, for example, for the next fiscal year for contracts and so on.

Therefore, our consideration at the moment is let's make certain we have the authorization so that the implementation or appropriations process is not delayed.

Mr. MAZZOLI. Very good. Thank you, sir. I appreciate your being

here.

Chairman PERKINS. Mr. Towell.

Mr.TOWELL. I have one brief question.

You mentioned, I think, briefly, impacted aid to certain areas there, and I know that it has been broken down very recently into A and B and so forth, on down the line. Could you give a little more detailed answer. Do you want the total program or do you think that we could live with cutting out a part?

Mr. KIRKPATRICK. Well, from the standpoint of impact aid, our position is simply there are people who point out Montgomery County. Maryland or some other places; at the same time others come back and can cite equally convincing arguments in other districts.

Now, as we look at it from the point of view of our total membership, which we must do, we see some possibilities which I am not prepared to fully identify today where some reform, some revamping, might be feasible and might be possible.

The point that we are making is that before you do this, let's make certain that some of these districts with an inordinate amount, percentage, of their budget wrapped up in impact aid-let's make certain that they do not suffer unduly in that transition period.

In other words, to our way of thinking, if you go into a general funding or a general aid pattern, we could see where you can phase this out, but at the moment to ask some of these districts to come up with the kind of money that would be needed to replace by just a meat-ax approach, we cannot accept that.

Mr. TOWELL. In other words, it is that your philosophy or your thought there somewhat follows your idea about forward funding? Mr. KIRKPATRICK. Yes, sir.

Mr. TOWELL. To give districts and States and so on.

Mr. KIRKPATRICK. Yes, sir. You see, I approach it from the standpoint as a superintendent. After I had negotiated a contract with the various units, whether they be teaching personnel or nonteaching, I then was faced with the decision that I had to get contracts ready.

Now, if I had no knowledge of what I have coming, this presents a real problem for me in trying to determine what I can keep and what I have to get rid of, and that is just one aspect of it.

Mr. TOWELL. Well, I appreciate your testimony here today and I regret your having a rather long wait today.

Chairman PERKINS. Mr. Lehman.

Mr. LEHMAN. Just real quickly.

One question is: Are you going to have your convention again in Atlantic City this year? Can't you find a better place?

Mr. KIRKPATRICK. Well, as you know, we do put on the largest convention for educational people. I would like to point out to you, though,

that we got a little smarter this year and frankly, due to the size and the fact that Atlantic City can no longer handle us, we now have two conventions-one at Atlantic City and one in San Francisco.

Mr. LEHMAN. The superintendent may be in order

Mr. KIRKPATRICK. Ed happens to be a very good friend of mine. Mr. LEHMAN. He made the statement that the people criticize compensatory education, and then the idea was that we have never really tried compensatory education.

Mr. KIRKPATRICK. Well, frankly

Mr. LEHMAN. What do you think it would take to really have truly compensatory education?

Don't answer that question.

Mr. KIRKPATRICK. I certainly subscribe to the idea. We are quite taken with the fact that accountability is a thing which has a great deal of appeal to people, and we would not reject it; but as I alluded to in my testimony, there have been programs authorized and passed that started in this committee. We have never really given them a chance to prove themselves, and we would be held accountable if someone would first of all let us really have the funds to really get the job done.

Mr. LEHMAN. Thank you.

Chairman PERKINS. Let me thank you, Mr. Kirkpatrick.

I undoubtedly will have the opportunity to interrogate you more fully in the future.

We now have just enough time to vote.

Give Fred my best wishes.

You have been very helpful to the committee. We appreciate your being here and we appreciate your patience.

Mr. KIRKPATRICK, Thank you.

Chairman PERKINS. We will reconvene in the morning at 9 a.m.

[Whereupon, at 2:45 p.m. the subcommittee recessed, to reconvene at 9 a.m., Thursday, February 1, 1973.]

ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION

AMENDMENTS OF 1973

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 1, 1973

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

GENERAL SUBCOMMITTEE ON EDUCATION

OF THE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR,

Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met at 9 a.m., pursuant to recess, in room 2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Carl D. Perkins (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Representatives Perkins, Ford, Lehman, Bell, Sarasin, Towell, and Huber.

Staff members present: John F. Jennings, counsel; Charles Radcliffe, minority counsel; and Toni Painter, secretary.

Chairman PERKINS. The subcommittee will come to order.

The General Subcommittee on Education is today continuing hearings on H.R. 69, a bill to extend the major Federal programs for elementary and secondary education, and H.R. 16, a bill to provide States with Federal general aid.

We are very pleased this morning to have as our witnesses two individuals who have been deeply involved with one of the outstanding State compensatory education programs in the country. Mr. Charles Blaschke, president of Education Turnkey Systems, has been providing technical assistance to the State of Michigan and to 67 school districts to improve their compensatory education programs. And, Dr. John Porter, State Superintendent of Public Instruction in Michigan, has been the key individual in his State responsible for making the compensatory education program work for disadvantaged children. Both Mr. Blaschke and Dr. Porter will tell us of their experiences in these programs.

Mr. Blaschke is here; Dr. Porter, I understand, will soon arrive from the airport. Identify yourself for the record and proceed in any manner you prefer. We are glad to welcome you here this morning.

STATEMENT OF CHARLES L. BLASCHKE, PRESIDENT, EDUCATION

TURNKEY SYSTEMS

Mr. BLASCHKE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My name is Charles Blaschke. I am president of Education Turnkey Systems. We have worked with over 100 school districts in 20 States attempting to introduce accountability techniques in various programs, most of which have been funded under ESEA legislation. Chairman PERKINS. Go ahead and summarize your statement. With

out objection, your entire prepared statement will be inserted in the record.

Mr. BLASCHKE. Thank you, sir.

[The statement follows:]

STATEMENT OF CHARLES L. BLASCHKE, PRESIDENT OF EDUCATION TURNKEY

SYSTEMS, INC.

My name is Charles Blaschke. I am President of Education Turnkey Systems, Inc., a Washington, D.C.-based management support firm which has been involved in planning, developing, and implementing accountability projects in over 100 school districts in 20 states over the last three years. Most of these projects were funded under ESEA legislation and included activities such as performance and incentive contracting, education program audits, project management training, teacher training in classroom management, ESEA evaluations, economic analyses of school operations, technical assistance in implementing the Michigan Accountability models, and assisting federal agencies in implementing large-scale field experiments, such as the O.E.O. Performance Contract Experiment.

Education Turnkey Systems, recognized by Phi Delta Kappan as a “leader in the accountability movement" is relatively small in nature, whose contract services with potential clients are dependent upon the results achieved by past clients who have used our services. Today, as an independent, catalytic agent, I am honored to share my experiences with you and hypothesize why some clients were successful, suggesting serious implications for ESEA.

Very briefly, the argument which I present today is, first, that projects and programs under ESEA legislation can work: if strong project management and evaluation techniques exist; if an environment conducive to innovation and the effective application of proven techniques and technology in education is created; if incentives are provided to those responsible for achieving objectives; and if procedures are built into ESEA projects which decentralize decision-making while ensuring self-governance and accountability. Clearly, while success can be achieved under existing legislation, it could be accomplished more widely and effectively with some modifications.

Second, the apparent budget cuts in many ESEA programs without consideration and demonstration of feasible alternatives have already resulted in: the departure of a very limited number of qualified school personnel whose unique capabilities are essential for education reform; the jeopardy of many successful projects; and an all-time low of morale in education at all levels with the only prospect of morale leadership coming from the Congress.

And last, the time is uniquely opportune for introducing changes which will encourage the reform of public schools to benefit disadvantaged students.

In order to argue my case, I have chosen three innovative projects in which we were involved which indicate that ESEA projects can work, offering some hypotheses why these results were achieved.

In 1971, the Michigan State Legislature appropriated $23 million to conduct a unique Accountability-Compensatory Education program complementing ESEA Title I, described earlier by Dr. John Porter, Superintendent for Public Instruction. Several unique aspects need re-emphasis. First, $200 were allocated by the State Department to each district for each student who scored below the 16th percentile in math or reading in that district. In subsequent years the full alloention of $200 would be made to the district only if the individual student achieved 75% of his objectives, or approximately .75 grade level gain in math and reading combined. Where students did not achieve their objectives, then a prorated lesser amount would be allocated in the subsequent year. Second, flexibility was provided to the district regarding how the $200 allocation was to be used programatically. In many instances, districts receiving funds in turn allocated the funds to individual buildings decentralizing the decision-making authority to select what instructional programs, additional staff, etc. were to be purchased. The results of the program during school year 71-72 speak for themselves. In the Accountability Model (Appendix A), described above, involving 112,000 students in 66 districts, results indicate that 93%, 73%, and 63% of the students individually achieved their objectives in math alone, reading alone, and reading and math combined. In addition, the recently released results of the statewide Compensatory Education Program (ESEA Title I) involving 135,000 students, many of whom were also involved in the Section 3 Program, indicated that students achieved

1.3 months' gain per month in the program in math and a similar gain in reading, which is approximately 100% above the national Title I average.

Why was the Michigan Model so successful in producing significant achievement gains? We don't know the specific causal relationships. A proposal was submitted by the Michigan Department of Education to the U.S. Office of Education to attempt to determine any; however, it has not been accepted. A preliminary analysis of the statewide ESEA Title I program involving 135,000 students seems to indicate that programs which were individualized and consisted of small groups tended to do better than "remedial" programs. Having been directly involved in the program and working and communicating with the majority of the participating districts, I would offer the following tentative hypotheses based mostly on observation.

First, the incentive inducements combined with decision-making flexibility appeared critical, often resulting in variation yet success. For example, in Detroit, approximately $12 million was allocated to the District, which in turn allocated proportional amounts to Regions, who in turn allocated funds to individual school buildings. A two-week educational “fair” was held for potential suppliers of learning systems, after which time the individual faculties decided upon the learning systems to use. Moreover, the firms were not paid until they had trained the teachers in the use of the materials and had installed the program in each classroom.

The second project which I would like to describe was conducted in Dade County, Florida between January and June 72, although planning began 11 months prior to implementation. Again, additional information on this project can be provided not by a witness, but one of the members of the Committee, Congressman William Lehman, who until his recent election, was Chairman of the Dade County Public Schools Board of Education, and was instrumental in the initiation of this somewhat revolutionary project. Very briefly, through a participatory management process involving administrators and representatives from three of the local teachers associations, a Request for Proposal was designed and sent to individual school buildings with Title I students. Faculties were asked to submit proposals in light of the following conditions:

A. $55 per eligible student would be allocated to the teacher or faculty group to defray normal operating costs, such as the use of aides, consumable materials, etc.;

B. An additional $55 was available at the option of the faculty to expend for risk capital items, such as non-consumable equipment, investment in teacher training, etc., with the contingency that if students did not achieve at least 50% above expected gain, the faculties would have to reimburse the district for this risk capital allocation; and

C. A $110 bonus per student would be provided if the grade level average was 100% or more above expected gain in math and reading. Again, given wide flexibility regarding the learning systems design, the individual contracting faculties in two schools each designed an instructional system which they felt would work best. It is extremely interesting to note what they proposed. First, teachers chose to increase class size from approximately 25 or 30 to 1 to as much as 35 to 45 to 1. Second, the individual teachers and faculties chose to use individualized programed learning and teaching machine based instructional programs. And third, instead of using para-professionals, peerstudents were used to a great extent.

The results of the first phase of this two-year effort indicated that students by grade level, averaged between 50-300% above expected gain. (See Appendix B) Perhaps as important as the significant increases in student performance, was the fact that the cost per student month of instruction was lower than the average cost per month of instruction in the regular Title I Program, in five of the six schools involved. This saving was largely attributed to the increase in class size chosen by the individual teachers. The cost analysis also included the amortization of all of the materials and equipment over a short period of time, and the bonuses ranging from $2,800 to $3,200 earned per teacher. In an analysis recently conducted by our firm (See Appendix C), using a unique computerbased trade-off model, we found that in the average elementary school in the country, an increase in class size from 27.3 students to 1 teacher, to 27.9, or approximately 1 half student increase, would free enough money to increase the instructional equipment allocation per student-year of $18 to $35. You can imagine how much savings was occurred by increasing class size up to 35 to 40 to 1, allowing additional costs to be spent on instructional equipment, bonuses and other services.