ג 5 this purpose. The states are for the most part doing a good job of getting the word about successful new educational practices developed under Title III disseminated within their own borders. But there is a larger purpose which could and should be served by Title III. Because almost all projects represent answers to questions which are found in education throughout the nation, there should be effective national dissemination of information. As a step in this direction, the Title III community during 1973 cooperatively engaged in an Identification/Validation/Dissemination process by which a team of validation experts from one state visited and evaluated selected Title III projects from a neighboring state. The evaluations were conducted on the basis of guidelines prepared by the Office of Education in cooperation with state and local Title III personnel. One hundred and seven projects were finally chosen by this means as meeting criteria of innovativeness, exportability, cost-effectiveness, and significant pupil achievement or improvement. These projects will constitute a valuable resource of information for school systems throughout the country. A list of the 107 identified projects is appended to this testimony. They are found in 42 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico, and they cover such areas as early childhood, special education, environmental education, teacher/staff training, reading, individualized instruction, and As a contribution to this effort, and in pursuance of its curriculum. mandate to disseminate information concerning Title III, the National Advisory Council is currently preparing two publications which will briefly describe each of these projects. 6 The progression to dissemination as a priority in Title III is a natural one; the program has now reached a point of maturity at which it has many valuable materials to share with educators. The National Advisory Council supports a provision in House bill H.R. 69 which authorizes a nationwide directory of Title III projects to be published annually by the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare. We also suggest that comprehensive dissemination activities be made a regular part of Office of Education operation, through provision of specific funds for that purpose. Senate bill S. 1539 deletes Section 306, the Commissioner's discretionary part of Title III, from the legislation, and gives the states full control of Title III funds. We support the idea of discretionary funds for the U.S. Commissioner of Education provided that the legislation include safeguards requiring: (1) consultation with local educational agencies in the determination of national priorities, (2) open competition among school systems for state allotted funds, and (3) annual reports from the U.S. Office of Education concerning the use of discretionary funds and their impact on innovation. The National Advisory Council appeared to offer testimony before the General Education Subcommittee of the Education and Labor Committee of the House of Representatives in connection with H.R. 69, the bill introduced by Mr. Perkins of Kentucky, to extend ESEA. The Council at that time expressed opposition to consolidation of Title III with any other federal grant program. I would like to repeat for this Committee the reasons for our position on consolidation, since it seems likely that this question will arise in your discussions of S. 1539. The fundamental issue at stake in any grants consolidation is whether the objectives of the programs to be combined are compatible. Title III has some experience with grants consolidation, since in 1969, Title III of ESEA was consolidated with Title V-A of the National Defense Education Act, which provides funds to local schools for support and maintenance of guidance and counseling services. Title III provides funds to local schools also, but for innovative projects in a wide variety of areas, including guidance and counseling. In the consolidation, the legislation stipulated that each program was to continue to be administered according to its original objectives. We are well aware of the difficulties which are created for state education agencies when they are required to administer under one grant programs which have such widely differing goals and intent. We hope that this kind of problem will not again be created for Title III in any grants consolidation which may result from new legislation. The National Advisory Council believes strongly in the unique nature of Title III's activities, and we would oppose having its function confused or diluted by combination with any unrelated program. In conclusion, I would summarize the position of the National Advisory Council as follows: (1) (2) We believe that Title III is effective legislation as We oppose grants consolidation for Title III on the (3) (4) We support S. 1539 as written, with the reservations We suggest that future legislation provide specific The members of the Council have asked me to request that their February 15, 1973 report to the President and the Congress on ESEA Title III be included in these hearings. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to tell you the National Advisory Council's views about Title III. If the Council can be of help to this Committee in any way, by supplying information or materials concerning the Title III program, we will be honored if you will ask us to do so. 8 TEACHER/STAFF TRAINING Creativity in the Classroom, Joan Avitable, Director, 69 Grand Avenue, New Training Center for Open Space Schools, Marion M. Simons, Director, 415 12th Street, N.W., WASHINGTON, D. C. 20004 (202 638-6871). Project Success Environment: An Approach to Community Education Improvement, Marion Thompson, Director, 892 Vedado Way, N.E., Atlanta, GEORGIA 30309 (404 874-5771). Project League: Learner Guided Education, Leslie C. Bernal, Director, 101 A County Training Program in Behavior Modification, Barbara Pentre and Hilde Weisert, Directors, Palisades Park Schools, 249 Leonia Avenue, Bogata, NEW JERSEY 07603 (201 487-2707). Interning for Learning, Harry Brown, Director, Administrative Principal, A Synthesis Approach to Teacher Self-Evaluation, William C. Moritz, Director 2345 South Detroit, Maumee, OHIO 43537 (419 893-4611). Open Education, Robert J. Labriola, Director, Research and Learning Center, Millersville State College, Millersville, PENNSYLVANIA 17551 (717 872-5411 x 652). - Project Secondary English Teaching English to the Disadvantaged Student Stuart R. Brown, Director, Box 1069, Lancaster, SOUTH CAROLINA 29720 (803 283-4377). Region XIII Education Service Center, Joe Parks, Director, 6504 Tracor Lane, Austin, TEXAS 78721 (512 926-8080). Staff Development in Creativity, Edward Guziewski, Director, Oregon Consolidated Schools, 200 North Main Street, Oregon, WISCONSIN 53575 (608 835-3161). Interact, Gregory McElwee, Director, Cedarburg Public Schools, 439 North In-Service Training for Teacher of Natural Sciences, Jesus Vega Martinez, |