Whether or not there are areas of compromise frankly depends upon the administration.

Senator PELL. To press you a little further in this, we are faced with a choice, and I hope we can work out a compromise of some areas, but if you are faced with a choice between the present ESEA and the administration's proposals, which would you take, if you had to make that difficult choice?

Mr. KIRKPATRICK. If we are referring to the bill that was introduced this past spring, the Better Schools Act in that form we would have no question, ESEA.

Senator PELL. Thank you very much indeed. Senator Stafford. Senator STAFFORD. I think you have just asked the one key question that I was about to ask, Mr. Chairman, so I have no questions. Sentor PELL. I thank you very much indeed. I will heed your admonition that now is always the time to move ahead with what we think is right and good.

Mr. KIRKPATRICK. Thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Kirkpatrick follows:]

AASA

American Association of School Administrations

STATEMENT ON BEHALF

OF THE

AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF SCHOOL ADMINISTRATORS

SUBMITTED BY

JAMES R. KIRKPATRICK, ASSOCIATE SECRETARY

CONCERNING

S. 1539

A BILL TO AMEND AND EXTEND

CERTAIN ACTS RELATING TO

ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION

PROGRAMS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EDUCATION

COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND PUBLIC WELFARE

UNITED STATES SENATE

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 1973

1801 N. Albore Street, Arlington, Virginia 22209 703/528-0700

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, the American

Association of School Administrators, the professional organization

representing some 19,000 members involved in the overall administration of the Nation's elementary and secondary schools appreciates this opportunity to comment on matters pertaining to S. 1539, The Elementary and Secondary Education Amendments of 1973.

Permit me to take this opportunity to express AASA's commendation of the Chairman and the Committee for the intelligent and well-planned approach to the consideration of the issues embodied in S. 1539. 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 - embodied in the bill all points to a most effective study of the matter. 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

-2

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 youth--low income, migrants, Indians, handicapped, bi-lingual 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.

At present, 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 paper work, i.e., "red tape" involved. AASA appreciates the fact that Section 441-442 recognizes the need for advance funding while Section 459 gives evidence that S. 1539 is cognizant of the amount of paper work that swamps the less well-staffed school districts.

The ESEA Title I distribution formula prèsents 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.

In the judgement 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,

-3

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, bi-lingual, 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.