« PreviousContinue »
Selden, David, president, American Federation of Teachers, accompanied Page
by Phil Kugler, assistant legislative director; Greg Humphrey, assistant legislative director; and Carl Megal, director of legislation..
1819 Prepared statement (with attachments)-
1826 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Articles, publications, etc. :
“Annual Report—ESEA Title III," by the National Advisory Council on Supplementary Centers and Services--
1919 "City Fails on Jobs," from the Plain Dealer, Cleveland, Ohio, September 2, 1973_
1708 “COMPAS-A National Design for the Elementary School,” published by the American Federation of Teachers—AFL-CIO.
1862 “COMPAS-A National Design for the High School,” published by the American Federation of Teachers—AFL-CIO..
1832 "COMPAS-A National Design for the Middle School,” published by the American Federation of Teachers—AFL-CIO__
1881 "Disgrace at City Hall,” from the Cleveland Plain Dealer, June 12, 1973
1711 “Focusing on Changing Needs," pamphlet on ESEA Title I, concerning Cleveland (Ohio) Public Schools.
1712 “Get Serious on Summer Jobs," from the Cleveland Plain Dealer, August 8, 1973_----
1709 "Snafu in Summer Jobs," from the Cleveland Press, September 4, 1973
1707 "Special Educational Revenue Sharing : An APGA Report,” by Janet C. Heddesheimer, American Personnel and Guidance Association, Spring, 1973
1787 “Youths Prefer Jobs Run By Schools," from the Cleveland Plain Dealer, August 7, 1973..
1710 Communications to:
Wexler, Stephen J., counsel, Subcommittee on Education, Committee
on Labor and Public Welfare, from Patrick J. McDonough, Ed. D.,
EDUCATION LEGISLATION, 1973
Categorical Education Programs
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 11, 1973
Washington, D.C. The committee met at 10:10 a.m., in room 5110, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Senator Claiborne Péll (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding
Present: Senators Pell, Hathaway, Beall, and Stafford.
The Subcommittee on Education today meets to hear testimony about the present categorical education programs and, of course, the administration's special revenue sharing proposal, the so-called Better Schools Act.
This hearing is especially timely in that the President and his aides have, over the past 2 weeks, repeatedly spoken about enactment of the administration's legislative proposals, and have repeatedly spoken about the lack of action on the part of Congress. I think that this would be a propitious moment to try to understand just what the President is speaking about when he refers to his "education legislation."
The President sent up his initial special revenue sharing bill for education in April of 1971. In that year, the Subcommittee on Education held 3 days of hearings and heard eight witnesses. During those hearings, the only voices in support of the legislative proposal were the administrations and a single group of school administrators who saw the measure as enhancing their own power. With this lack of support, the subcommittee naturally took no action on the administration proposal.
This year, the President again submitted to the Congress a special revenue sharing bill for education, entitled the “Better Schools Act.” We again immediately held hearings, and, again, the only voices heard in support of the measures were the administration's and those groups who saw some administrative benefit to their own situations. Here we have the crux of the problem.
While the measure is termed the Better Schools Act, nothing has been presented to the subcommittee which demonstrates just how the measure would benefit the quality of education in this country. This is what we hope the witnesses today will help us do.
Like all social legislation emanating from the administration, it seems to reflect an accountant's rationale, in that it affects the administration of programs without affecting their substance. If the administration had presented one piece of supportive evidence which would show how the quality of education would be enhanced by this legislation, as to how it would make for "better schools," then perhaps there would be some support for it. However, not one reputable educator so far has supported this legislation by telling us that it would improve the quality of education received by youngsters in this country.
The President has called upon us to get along with the people's business.” I submit that the Congress has been tending to “the people's business.” The people have a right to know in just what manner the administration operates. This subcommittee has been tending to the people's business” by taking a long and searching look at this piece of legislation, by understanding just what it does and by listening to witnesses discuss it. "The people's business" is served by the subcommittee recognizing that this proposal is wanting.
We have seen no special benefit which would be served by its immediate enactment, but, rather, certain negative results as reasonably successful programs are jettisoned. Perhaps "the people's business would better be served by an administration supporting, quality through substance rather than rhetoric inflating an accounting ploy into a major education proposal.
As those in the education community know, the Chair has tried to keep as open a mind as possible on revenue-sharing proposals with regard to education, no matter what they are labeled.
It is for that reason that we are running these hearings, and I must say some of us on the subcommittee feel there is very little real merit to simplification of present programs in the degree of consolidation. Nevertheless the question remains are the new programs going to produce a higher quality of education for our children. This is what we are looking forward to hearing from the witnesses today.
Our first witness is the Honorable Calvin Rampton, Governor of the State of Utah, who represents the National Governors Conference and the Education Commission of the States. It is a very real pleasure. I look forward to hearing from you.
STATEMENT OF HON. CALVIN RAMPTON, GOVERNOR, STATE OF
UTAH, REPRESENTING THE NATIONAL GOVERNORS CONFER-
Mr. RAMPTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for giving me this opportunity to appear on behalf of these two organizations and to present the viewpoint of the Governors on Federal aid to the States in the financing of education.
Let me say this first, Mr. Chairman. I am quite in agreement that categorical programs through which the Federal Government aids the States in education in the past have served a very real purpose.
Not only have they brought needed money to the States, but they have given the States some direction in the expenditure of this money; that they might not have come around to so rapidly were it not for the direction of the categorical grants.
So the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which was passed in 1965, providing that substantial sums of money would be spent for disadvantaged children, has had the effect of concentrating the attention of the States on this very important part of our school programs.
There have been a number of things that have happened, however, in recent years which indicate a broader approach to the problem is indicated. As you are aware, the Serrano case, in the State of California, has pointed a new direction to the States in the equalization of educational opportunity.
It has been followed by decisions in seven or eight other States, some of the cases being in the Federal court, some of them being in State courts, in all of which cases the courts held that the States were required to provide equality of educational opportunity, not necessarily equality of dollars, but equality of opportunity.
Many of the States over the past 2 to 3 years have moved to bring their educational finance systems into line with general principles of equality. The fact that the Supreme Court of the United States in the Rodriguez case, which was decided this last year, held that this was not an issue for the courts, and so refused to sustain the decision of the Texas Federal court has not slowed this trend.
Even in the Rodriguez case, the Supreme Court pointed out that they were not implying that equality of educational opportunity should not be achieved by the States, merely that it was not a matter for the Federal judiciary to decide.
But in spite of this, Mr. Chairman, the States are moving ahead with the adoption of school finance formulas which do achieve equality of educational opportunity.
I would like to submit for the record a review of new finance systems in seven States, including my own State of Utah, which have been adopted by the legislatures which met this spring. In all of those cases the States have moved toward equality of education.
Most of the other States have been addressing this matter through their various interim committees, and it is my belief that in the legislatures that meet in January of this year, or January of the following year where they have only biannual sessions, that all of the States will come to some formula that will achieve the very thing the Congress of the United States has been seeking to achieve through the Federal grants over a number of years, that is, equality of opportunity for each student.
One problem that arises now with the strict categorical grants is that the States are attempting to assume responsibility-for equalizing educational opportunities, a responsibility which is fundamentally and rightfully theirs. The categorical grants established by the Federal Government do not always fit well with such State efforts to equalize.
So what we are asking is that this committee look at the possibility of consolidating all or a substantial number of the categorical programs which now total some $2.5 billion into bloc grants.
The administration calls it special revenue sharing, but I have never yet had anybody point out the difference between special revenue sharing and a bloc grant. Maybe the chairman understands the difference, but I do not.
Regardless of the term that is used, as Governors we feel and I am sure the legislators and the school people in our States feel the same way—that if this money could come to us with general guidelines, we would be better able to fit it into our own programs. The way it is now if we go ahead and equalize, and then additional Federal dollars come into our States, many of them going directly to the school districts, for the very purposes that we have put our equalization program into effect, the result is disequalization.
The best example of this is the impacted school funds which we are not allowed to regard as local revenue. So what happens in a State such as ours in a case like this—and this applies in many States—is that we go ahead and equalize on a State level, and make a contribution from the State to a county for the decreased tax revenue in the areas where they have heavy Federal installations, and then the Federal Government through the impacted aid bill comes along and puts money directly into the district, and disequalizes again.
In other words, the district that has the Federal installation now gets two grants for the disadvantages they suffer, one from the State government and one from the Federal Government.
Prior to the amendment of Public Law 874 in 1968 most of the States considered impact aid as local revenues in achieving State equalization. The amendment in 1968 prohibited this, and the subsequent court case in Maryland said it may not be disregarded.
In my State at the present time I am unable to tell you—and I do not think our office of education could tell you-how much Federal money actually is coming into the State in aid of education, because such a small part of it, comes through the State office of education. Most goes directly to the districts and we have no accountability for it.
Second, those that do channel through the State office, as I stated a few minutes ago, often are tied with such categorical strings that they do not fit well into our State program.
So while we agree generally with the approach in the past of the Congress in giving categorical grants to focus attention and to bring the money at places where it is needed, if the States are going to proceed to assume their responsibility—and I believe they will—this responsibility having been pointed out to them by the courts—then it is very important that the Federal grants come in such a way that we can use them in a manner compatible with our State programs and the State dollars we are spending.
Of course, the Federal money that goes into education in the United States, although it is very welcome by the States, represents only a small part of what goes into elementary and secondary education. The primary burden there has long been borne either by the States or the school districts, as it should be.
The supplemental Federal money, as I say, is very welcome, but it could be used much better if in fact we could have some of the strings removed from it.
I would not oppose it at all if it were made into a block grant, but before the States could qualify for the block grant they would have to submit to the Secretary of HEW a general overall plan to make sure that the State finance formula adopted does accomplish the things that the categorical grants originally were placed into effect to achieve.