STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE CALVIN L. RAMPTON REPRESENTING THE EDUCATION COMMISSION OF THE STATES BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON EDUCATION OF THE COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND PUBLIC WELFARE WASHINGTON, D.C., SEPTEMBER 11, 1973 Mr. Chairman, I appreciate this opportunity to appear before you today representing the Education Commission of the States and the National Governors' Conference. As I feel a discussion of the issues pending before this subcommittee will be more useful than a lengthy monologue, I will make this prepared statement very brief, and, I hope, concise. On August 1, 1973, Representative Tom Jensen from Tennessee appeared before this committee representing ECS and the National Legislative Conference to address issues manifested in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, and the several bills which have been introduced to amend and modify that legislation. Since that time, the Education Commission of the States staff with the involvement of a number of governors, state legislators and other state officials, have devoted further attention to the development of recommendations for modification of existing Federal education programs in the elementary and secondary education area. These efforts have been further focused by the Education Subcommittee of the House Education and Labor Committee reporting a bill which contains a number of the ideas suggested in Representative Jensen's testimony. Α discussion of school finance must include specific recognition of categorical Federal aid and its impact on state and local governments. My statement will be addressed to this relationship and suggest that reform of school finance systems cannot be carried out properly by the states without modification of Federal programs. Mr. Chairman, the primary issue in school finance today is what the states are doing or are going to do about equalization in the wake of the Rodriguez decision. ECS and the Governors' Conference have long taken the position that increased state aid and involvement in school finance to insure equality of educational opportunity in elementary and secondary education is both good educational policy and morally right. In keeping with this objective, the National Governors' Conference has gone on to add that state action to achieve equal educational opportunity must begin immediately, progress rapidly and have the aggressive leadership of elected officials in state government. The Governors believe that while a number of alternative finance systems are available to the states in this endeavor, states must focus on one primary objective the elimination of local wealth as the major determinant in educational opportunity. I don't believe anyone fully understands the complexity of the problem and has adequate information on the diverse finance systems which exist throughout the 50 states. We are now in the process of trying to gather such information and compile it in a manner which will assist governors and legislators in addressing the issues involved in equalization legislation and also to assist the Congress and officials of the Executive Branch at the Federal level in understanding the situation. The essential point that I would like to make is that Federal aid to education, whether categorical in character with specific guidelines or administered with considerable state discretion, must mesh with state school finance systems in order that Federal assistance does not distort opportunities and priorities at the state and local level. This is particularly true where a state has adopted a school finance system which recognizes the higher costs of meeting the educational needs of those students who are given special attention by Federal programs (i.e., the disadvantaged, handicapped, etc.). This committee has before it several bills addressed specifically to the need for increased state funding, property tax relief, and equalization. These include S. 1900 introduced by Senator Javits and S. 1539 introduced by Chairman Pell. Both would provide financial incentives to states to reform school finance systems to bring about a more uniform pattern of expenditures among local agencies. Both of these, however, seem to view equalization as a desirable goal to be achieved through the provision of a new Federal program alongside existing categorical programs rather than the means for developing a comprehensive and consolidated fiscal relationship between the Federal government and the states which is responsive to the educational needs of all children. As effective equalization legislation is adopted by more and more states, the ability of local districts with substantial numbers of economically disadvantaged children to finance the education of those children will be enhanced. Where state law goes beyond financial equalization to provide special financial assistance to meet the higher costs of compensatory education and special education, this fact must be recognized by the Congress in the way Federal aid is provided. Ultimately, state finance systems which contain these factors should be the vehicle for most, if not all, Federal assistance which should, under these circumstances go to the states on an unrestricted basis. -3 We are in a period of rapid change. Within the last two years, substantial efforts toward increased state funding equalization of educational expenditures have been taken in a number of states. At this point I would like to insert into the record a fairly detailed description of how seven states have achieved or attempted reforms in their education finance systems (Attachment A). I will not read this material, but would hope that it be included in the record. Most other state legislatures will face the school finance issue in their next sessions. Because the picture is not uniform, it is not feasible to consider a total consolidation of existing programs at the present time, and to be totally realistic, it does not appear likely that substantial additional Federal money will be forthcoming to promote increased state funding and equalization. What Reform of school finance systems, nevertheless, is proceeding state by state and will continue to do so with or without Federal assistance. can be done by the Congress at this time is to shape existing Federal education programs for elementary and secondary education to facilitate and assist and encourage this process. We would suggest to you that this can be achieved through a 4-point strategy. First, existing categorical programs should be consolidated into functional areas with broader discretion at the state level and fewer Federal controls. This is badly needed in all states if we are to deal with problems rather than simply produce paper. Secondly, the impediments to reform of state school finance systems which are contained in Federal programs should be eliminated. Thirdly, total consolidation of Federal aid in the form of block grants to states should be permitted for those states which have school finance systems which meet certain minimum standards. Finally, we should all continue to work together over the next few years to develop 97-457 O 73 pt. 5 2 more tangible and accurate information about the true state of school finance 1. Compensatory education. Aid for disadvantaged children under Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) should be continued. school districts should be free to allocate funds to individual schools on the Local basis of low-income families or according to educational needs except that when a state has a statewide testing program local agencies shall use educational needs for allocation. States should be required to submit to the U. S. Commissioner of Education a state plan acceptable to the Governor and approved in accordance with state laws. States should be free to merge federal funds with state compensatory education funds. 2. Career education. Recognize the continuity of career from kindergarten through graduate and continuing education by consolidating parts A to H of the Vocational Education Amendments of 1963 and the Smith-Hughes Act, and insure cooperative planning with state higher or post-secondary education by implementing Title X-13 of the Education Amendments of 1972. States should develop a career education plan approved in accordance with state law. Emphasis should be on articulating and coordinating vocational or occupational education programs with academic programs as much as possible, including greater emphasis in academic programs on career development. 3. Exceptional children. Consolidate Part B of the Education of the Handicapped Act and the handicapped set-asides from the Vocational Education Act and from Titles I and III of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) into a comprehensive program for exceptional children, both the handicapped -5 |