32/ ESEA Title III Annual Report

(Continued from page 29)

Title III of ESEA has a unique function which brings with it a unique problem of identity. It is intended to stimulate the creation of new approaches to teaching and learning at the local level of education. Ideas which are generated by educators in response to their own needs are implemented by funds provided under Title III. This Title cannot, therefore, claim to be responsible for any single thrust in American education; and indeed, it succeeds best if it remains inconspicuous. In an individual Title III project it is the ideas which are important-not the source of the funds with which they are carried out. For this reason, Title III is often not recognized as a factor in a successful educational innovation, even though without it the entire venture would have been impossible.

In these circumstances, Title III is the least well-known of the titles of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Yet, in terms of its basic accomplishment of opening education to change and innovation at the local level, it has had more effective impact that any other title of the Act.

The special function which is carried on under Title III-change and innovationis highly susceptible to financial pressures. In times of fiscal stress, the tendency of educators is to move cautiously in familiar patterns, whether or not they are truly productive. At the present time, all public education funds are critically needed in many competing areas of activity, and it will require steady, supportive federal interest if local schools are to be able to maintain efforts to improve educational practices. A proposal for education special revenue sharing introduced in the 92nd Congress included as one of the purposes of the proposed legislation "... to encourage innovation and development of new educational programs and practices." Yet, though it would repeal Title III of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, the legislation does not specify that the states must expend any part of their shared revenues for innovation and development.

The bill is not silent on other educational priorities. Funds are stipulated to be spent by the states for education of the handicapped, compensatory education, impact aid, and vocational education. This protection of the federal interest in certain areas of education does not seem to imply a lack of confidence in the states, but is rather an affirmation of the federal-state intent to support critical areas known to need such support. Exclusion of innovation from protection seems to be a failure of the federal government to implement one of its own commitments to education, as expressed in the bill itself.

The national interest in innovative change in education has been well expressed and effectively carried out in Title III of ESEA. This legislation, which is now coming to maturity and which has a steadily stronger and more capable administration in the states, seems the best vehicle for continuing the federal presence in this vital educational area.

Senator PELL. Our next witness is Mr. James R. Kirkpatrick, associated secretary, American Association of School Administrators. STATEMENT OF JAMES R. KIRKPATRICK, ASSOCIATE SECRETARY AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF SCHOOL ADMINISTRATORS

Mr. KIRKPATRICK. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Having heard your admonition on other hearings, we have tried to come in with about three and a half pages of summarized testimony giving our reactions to S. 1539.

I would like to touch on these if I could directly.

Senator PELL. Please.

Mr. KIRKPATRICK. I believe I would be remiss if I did not express our commendation to the chairman and the committee for the intelligent and really I believe well-planned approach to the consideration of the issues embodied in S. 1539. It seems to me the organization of the hearings along the lines of basic issues plus the comprehensive approach to the consideration of the future structure and course of the Federal interest in elementary and secondary education, I believe, is most effective.

I do want to comment that I believe I have read quite a few bills in this Congress and this is one that has truly excited us. I think in your opening remarks in April you made the comment that this was a study document. I believe it is extremely stimulating and from our point of view perceptive.

While there may be those who would accuse us of wanting to have our cake and eat it too, AASA continues to believe that there is a need and place for both categorical and general aid programs within the Federal interest in education.

There is, indeed, a need for a delivery system of Federal funds that permits State and local education agencies the flexibility to seek solutions to problems through their own determination. AASA equally believes that special needs and problems of a national interest must be dealt with specifically without the loss of Federal revenue resources due to State or local misconceptions or loss through negotiations conducted at the bargaining table with staff.

Despite the criticisms directed at the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, we continue to believe that its worth outweighs the many-and some valid-points raised against it. ESEA has brought to bear more attention and concern relating to the educational opportunities for overlooked portions of our Nation's youths-low income, migrants, Indians, handicapped, bilingual and so on-by our educational system than any other piece of legislation to date.

And, while admitting that shortcomings do exist, we would also have to point out, in all fairness, that the level of funding enacted has never been commensurate with the needs as determined by this committee.

From our point of view, we believe that the most vexing problems relating to ESEA title I stem from the formula, lack of advance knowledge as to the amount of funds to be made available locally and the amount of paperwork, that is, "redtape" involved. AASA appreciates the fact that section 411-422 recognizes the need for advance funding while section 459 gives evidence that S. 1539 is cognizant of

the amount of paperwork that swamps the less well-staffed school districts.

The ESEA title I distribution formula presents complexities of both a political and social nature. Obviously there is no easy answer. Obviously, AASA like other components of the elementary and secondary education community is searching for a tenable solution. We are presently engaged in a variety of discussions, both with agency, legislative and association personnel of other groups.

In the judgment of the AASA staff, some categorical programs might be combined; others should not lose their particular mission on identity. In the first consideration, we believe that programs which might logically be consolidated would include ESEA II (textbook, library, and material resources); ESEA III (innovative programs); ESEA V (aid to State departments of education; and NDEA III (matching funds for equipment).

In a similar vein it would seem feasible to consolidate funds for current vocational education programs into a single grant with no decrease in available revenue and a hold-harmless provision.

Conversely, AASA would oppose the consolidation of programs for the handicapped, bilingual, Indian, migrant, and other programs of a similar thrust since the national interest would seem to require the further program development and protection which is found in the categorical focus.

Of more than passing interest to us was the section 412 dealing with regionalization aspects within the education division. While AASA believes the subject area is worthy of further exploration, we believe that its authorization is a matter of congressional concern and were gratified to note its inclusion.

Section 414 dealing with the establishment of a National Center for Education Statistics is a proposal which AASA would strongly support as a much-needed improvement in the provision of current pertinent statistical data.

It is our opinion that there is presently no public or private organization capable of such delivery. It could make a vital contribution to the national education scene.

As noted previously, AASA favors the development of a general application along the lines described in section 459. We would, however, prefer to have the power of the Commissioner more clearly defined in regards to the establishment of reporting requirements.

We feel a similar uneasiness with that portion of section 435 which provides for the enjoining of an expenditure or other program activity when the appropriate committee of either chamber asks the Comptroller General to provide an advisory ruling on the legality of some education division activity or expenditure.

We have no concern regarding the need for such oversight by the Congress; we believe it is necessary; we are only concerned that the meaning of the language is not construed so as to tie up an entire program for-possibly-extended periods of time.

While it is our understanding that the focus of this particular set of hearings deals with the ramifications of categorical and general aid, we would be remiss if we did not mention our considerable interest in title VIII of S. 1539. We trust that we shall have the opportunity at a later date to discuss this in detail. We understand that there will be hearings held in this area at a later date and we would certainly want to bring in some of our consultants to discuss this with you in detail. Finally, AASA, while having no offiical position in regards to that section (431) dealing with a national commission on education policy planning and evaluation, believes that such a proposal has considerable merit and is worthy of further serious exploration.

The United States has a foreign policy. We have an energy policy. We have other such policies. Why not a national policy in regards to education?

Thank you.

Senator PELL. Thank you very much indeed for your testimony and its brevity which is obviously reflective of studying all the previous hearings and the bills. So many of the witnesses who come before us have only glanced at one portion of the bill, at one bill, their portion of it, not as you have-you have studied them all.

As you have pointed out, S. 1539 was sort of a study document with new approaches that we hoped would catch on, that it would take more than any one man or any one subcommittee to make it catch.

In this regard, do you think the season is propitious for broad new approaches in the field of education, or do you have, as I must confess I have, some reservations I have about making broad approaches at this time?

Mr. KIRKPATRICK. Personally I have no concern whatever in making the broad approaches. I believe that speaking only from our point, in our attempts to improve school administration, this involves attitudes obviously as well as the actual change-I believe we are totally remiss if we do not at least make the attempt. This is what excites me about S. 1539. To me we have got to move in these directions and we have got to stimulate this discussion if we are ever to move from where we are at the present.

So, Mr. Chairman, I would say that every time it is propitious to try to make forward progress, it may not be politically feasible.

Senator PELL. What is your view with regard to the administration's proposals of putting the categorical programs into five general revenue sharing categories?

Mr. KIRKPATRICK. We maintain our original position at the time the Better Schools Act was introduced several years ago. In concept, philosophically we do believe in grant consolidation. We like the idea of general aid in the sense of flexibility.

I must also confess that we maybe want our cake and eat it too. But we believe there is still room for categorical. Now in regard to their particular proposition, we cannot at the present time support what has been pushed in the past.