Page images

- 6

- Section 303(a), the American Personnel and Guidance Association disagrees

with the recomended uuletion of the words "Federild funds may be uscd for the same

purposes and thic funding of the same type of programs pru viously authorized by those


as recommended by the PNAC worksheet. The rationale for this was stated


Section 303(b)(3), the Association agrces that the words "supplenientary educa

tional services and activities: where found in the text anywhere in the Title should be

changed to the words "cducational innovations" or "cducationally inncvative" as appli

cable. Additionally, wherever found in the text, the Association recommends that the

words "guidance, counseling and testing" be changed to "guidance and counseling".

Section 303(b)(4) should be changed from the way it currently reads to the fol

lowing language: "(4) programs, projects and leadership activities designed to expand and

strengthen counscling and guidance services in the elementary and secondary schools."

Section 304(a), first sentence - the Amcrican Personnel and Guidance Associa

tion believes that the following change should be made: "(a) a grant under this Title

pursuant lo an approved Statc plan or by the Commissioner for an educationally innovative

program or project ..." In addition, the Association does not believe that grants should

be made available to institutions other than an elementary and/or secondary educational

agency or agencies.

Section 3052, (2)(.1), the association recommends the addition of a sub-section

(iv) wordd as follow's: "areas of professional competence in clementary and secondary

school counseling and guidance services."

Section 305(1)(1)(B)(i), the American Personnel and Guidance Association

agrecs that this section should be completely deleted and that uie paragraph that follows


(ii) should be re-worded in the following manner: "a coordinated and developmenta!

counseling and guidance program in clementary and secondary schools (i) that identify

needs of students for counseling and guidance services, and (ii) that assist students in

the decision-making process of educational, personal and career development and

planning through understanding their interests, aptitudes and abilities, in light of the

opportunities available to them.

Section 309(b), the Association feels that in the first sentence after the words

"handicapped children" the following should appear: "and at least one person who has

professional competence in the area of guidance and counseling."

Section 309(c), the Association agrees that the reporting date for the National

Advisory Council should be updated to March 31.

-- Section 309(b)(4), the Association recommends that the wording be changed in

this section to read as follows: "of Section 303(b) of such Title III, an amount at least

equal to the amount expended by that State for the purposes of Title V-A of the National

Defense Education Act of 1958 from funds appropriated pursuant to such Title V-A for

the fiscal year ending lunc 30, 1970."

The above, then, represent the major and specific recommendations of the

American Personnel and Guidance Association. Both Dr. McDonough and myself will ha happy to answer any questions that the Council may have regarding these recommendations

and the rationale thereof. Again, thank you for this opportunity to appear before you and!

to express our views.

Dr. LOMBANA. Unfortunately, guidance and counseling services in many States did not fare well through the merger of NDEA V-A and ESEA-III. In some States the 50 percent floor was misinterpreted as a 50-percent ceiling, resulting in huge reductions in State level funding. Since in many cases title III staff administer guidance and counseling funds, state level guidance programs are unable to control the expenditures of their unfairly reduced budgets. Such actions have, of course, severely reduced the effects of guidance and counseling programs in many States. The members of the American Personnel and Guidance Association believe that further mergers would compound existing problems; that the potentiality of misinterpretation of the law will grow proportionately as more programs are consolidated; that competition for the same funds pits the powerful against the less powerful and reduces the ultimate effect of all programs; that consolidation for consolidation's sake is illogical; that guidance services will suffer unwarranted cuts in budget, programs, and autonomy; and that program accountability is unrealistic when earmarked funds are not specified on an annual basis.

As you know, our increasingly complex society demands that our education system be accountable not only to teach our children Shakespeare and modern math, but also to assume responsibility for instruction and guidance in areas such as drug education, decisionmaking, race relations, career development, and communication skills. These very important and integral components of the curriculum are primarily the province of the school counselor. Yet, in spite of the increasing demand for counselors and their expanding responsibilities, it appears that Federal verbal support rises while financial support dwindles.

In closing I would like to reiterate the view of the members of APGA and the 50 State supervisors of guidance who are responsible for thousands of guidance programs around the State: that our desires in the form of Federal support lie in a categorical funding package designed as was NDEA title V-A, with autonomy and specified funds over a long-range period, to be used by each State according to its specific needs and plans. Barring this possibility, we advocate the continued categorical funding as a special section of ESEA title III, hopefully with renewed guidelines to reveal the designated intent of the law. In any case, because of the great potential dangers to guidance and counseling services, we cannot support any consolidated package which does not provide for specific funds allocated to guidance and counseling.

Thank you, gentlemen, for vour time and attention. My colleagues and I are available to respond to any questions you might have.

Senator HATHAWAY. Doctor, thank you very much for your testimony. I am not going to ask any questions. I agree with you 100 percent, and I welcome your testimony.


Senator BEALL. Doctor, if I ask you a question it is not because I do not agree with you.

One of the things that we continually hear as we talk about categorical aids, categorical programs and combinations of categorical

programs, is that the strong will get everything and the weak will get nothing. Everybody comes in and testified to the weak.

I am wondering who are the strong who are going to get all this money when these combinations are made. Who are the strong people so that the guidance people do not get it or the libraries do not get it?

Dr. LOMBANA. Every State is different. In Florida the strong people are the people with the strong lobbies. Reading programs have strong lobbies. Environmental education has strong lobbies.

I am sure this will vary from State to State. Guidance and counseling does not have a very strong lobby, and we are so busy serving the kids that we just have not had an opportunity to get terribly involved in the political situation.

Senator BEALL. The assumption therefore is that all the decisions made by the State board of education or State school administrator are political in nature. Am I to assume we cannot count on States to make wise decisions, that these decisions all have to be made at the Federal level ?

Dr. LOMBANA. No, I do not want to assume that, Senator Beall. I do feel that where money would go to a State in a block grant there are going to be lots of people competing for it. If we could be assured that competition and the funding was going to be based on the worth of individual programs and program need, I would be all for it, but it is my experience and my true belief that this just is not the way things work out in practice.

Senator BEALL. Is it fair to assume needs differ from State to State or from educational department to educational department?

Dr. LOMBANA. Yes. I believe that is true to a certain extent.

I believe, speaking for my own interests, in guidance and counseling, that since we serve all children in all schools all across the country, our needs, our plans are generally felt throughout the Nation. Senator BEALL. Thank you. Senator HATHAWAY. Thank you. Senator Stafford. Senator STAFFORD. I have no questions, Mr. Chairman.

Senator HATHAWAY. Thank you very much again, doctor, we appreciate your testimony.

Our last witness is Mr. David Selden, president of the American Federation of Teachers. It is always a pleasure to see you again. Dr. Selden, would you introduce those with you.



Mr. SELDEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee. My name is David Selden, and I am president of the American Federation of Teachers, AFL-CIO, a union of almost 400,000 teachers and other educational employees.

I am submitting my statement, but I do not intend to read it.

Senator HATHAWAY. Without objection, the entire statement will be made a part of the record and will be inserted at the end of your testimony.

Mr. SELDEN. I am accompanied by Carl Megel, our director of legislation on my right; by Greg Humphrey, assistant legislative director on my left; and, to his left, Phil Kugler, also an assistant legislative director.

The thrust of what I have to say really has to do with funding the Elementary and Secondary School Education Act. When the act was adopted in 1967 all of us in education were delighted and hopeful. We felt that this was the beginning of the Federal Government's assumption of its full responsibility for financing education. Those hopes have not been realized and the level of funding has not risen over the years in spite of inflationary pressures on the school systems and in spite of the fact that State level funding and local funding has risen a great deal.

The problems that are created by this limitation on funding are illustrated by some of the things that are going on now in the other House. It is like a bunch of rats in a cage fighting over a small piece of cheese.

There is, for instance, a proposal that funds be distributed, not on the basis of the present formula which takes into account the economic circumstances of children, but on the basis of some examination procedure.

Senator STAFFORD. Excuse me. Maybe we should note for the distinguished witness that all three of us at one time served in the other body, after hearing his description.

Mr. SELDON. I did not mean to criticize the other body—I just mean to say that things are happening in the other committee. A bill has been reported out which does have some very bad features. One of these is a proposal which would give local districts and States the options to claim their money on the basis of standardized tests.

One of the reasons given for putting this option in the bill is that census data, on which the present title I distribution is based, is outmoded. Well, when you test students you test them on what they learned last year, and that group of students is not at the same place by the time any funds would arrive, so that in terms of timeliness of data, testing is no cure.

If timeliness of data is the main consideration, local districts should be allowed to provide their own census data if they believe they are being unfairly treated.

There are other programs that have this kind of feature. About 15 years ago New York City felt it was getting shortchanged on Federal aid, and it ran its own census, which it was allowed to do under the then existing law. The census proved New York City was getting too much money, however, so they went back to the original figure. An option of that kind could easily be written into the bill.

Testing children and rewarding school systems on the basis of how poorly they are doing would be a bad system. The testing expedient is proposed, however, because the money in title I is going to big city school systems by and large because these are the school systems that have large numbers of children from poverty families. The members of Congress do not all come from big cities or poverty areas. Many of them come from suburban areas that are not favored under the present system, so they would like to get some of this money returned to their own districts. Instead of providing better funding for the

« PreviousContinue »