Page images
PDF
EPUB

-3

U.S. Office of Education statistics on Title I programs for 1971

reveal that only eight-tenths of one per cent (.8%) of the Title I

appropriation was spent on audio-visual equipment and only seven-tenths

of one per cent (.7%) of the funds was spent on materials.

This low

rate of expenditure in comparison to other budget items reflects an

[blocks in formation]

educational technology as an integral part of all learning, and not merely

as easily expendable accessories for a particular program.

Congress

can most easily clarify its intent by amending H.R. 69 so that there

is no doubt that the acquisition of equipment and materials is per

missible. Again, we support the Title I programs, but believe that

their effects could be intensified if the use of educational technology

was more clearly supported by Congress.

The expanded use of technology is not being advocated just to

make sure media specialists can retain their jobs. On the contrary, the systematic application of technology can insure that interaction

between teacher and student and between student and student is more

productive and is tailored to the needs of the individual.

Because

technology is rooted in communications theory and research, we are

confident that it can help teachers to teach as well as they would

like to teach.

Technology has helped to change the classroom from

being the domain of the teacher to the domain of the learner.

-4

TITLE II.

ESEA Title II programs, providing for school library

resources, textbooks, and other instructional materials, has been a

very effective and popular program in the nation's schools.

It is one

of the few programs in which children attending both public and non

public schools benefit from federal funds on an equal basis.

In the

more affluent schools, Title II funds may provide supplementary funds

for materials designed to further enrich and support a comprehensive

[blocks in formation]

whereas in less affluent districts the monies may be the

only source of library and equipment acquisitions.

In each case, however,

the funds are being applied where they are needed most.

ESEA II has also helped schools to respond quickly to new

curricular thrusts such as career education.

Schools could not have

acquired sufficient career education materials without Title II

assistance.

The Administration's plans to terminate federal support of this Title

and other library resource programs as proposed in the Better Schools Act

reveals a lack of understanding as to the tremendous impact educational

technology has had on American education and its potential contributions.

Currently, less than one-fifth of the schools in the United States and vir

tually no schools in the less affluent areas have the equipment, materials,

or budgets to meet the recommended Standards for School Media Programs.

With

drawal of federal support at this time will only serve to widen the gap between

what is and what is "supposed to be" (as delineated in the aforementioned

Standards for School Media Programs, a joint publication of the American

Library Association and the National Education Association.)

Clearly, we are calling for the renewal of ESEA Title II programs in its

present form as one aspect of categorical aid to education.

Title II provides

the tools with which the goals and objectives of the other titles can be

achieved.

TITLE III. The thrust of ESEA Title III has most consistently

stimulated the innovative and cost-effective uses of educational technology.

The concept of supplemental centers and service programs is a sound one in

that each school does not have to establish specialized facilities for each

area of instruction.

School districts and larger units have collaborated

to develop and maintain highly sophisticated centers in reading, math,

or special education, for example, far more effectively than any of them

could have done individually. Children can be brought to such centers

for intensive training in a given skill or subject area and they are no

longer dependent on the "hit and miss" approach of so-called "visiting

teachers."

And, cooperation within and among districts in one area has

been shown to produce a synergistic multiplier effect in that personnel

are stimulated by the interaction and elect to continue to cooperate

and share resources in other areas.

As you heard yesterday from the American Personnel and Guidance

Association representatives, they too object to the loss of identity of

Title III, ESEA.

The need for long range development of guidance programs

in the states and the danger of wasteful competition for funds among many

interest groups at the state level mitigate against any move to consolidate

Title III with other programs.

TITLE V. ESEA Title V has recently been criticized for its failure

to stimulate a genuine rethinking of priorities by state departments of

education.

It is indeed unfortunate that adequate leadership from the

federal government did not accompany the unrestricted grants to state

departments, for the states can provide an important perspective on long

range program development and training.

We believe that Title V program efforts have been further stifled

by severely low funding.

In the area of educational technology, there

is a real role for the state to play in developing programs for in-service

training of media specialists and classroom teachers who want to improve

their technical expertise.

-6

TITLE VII.

Bi-lingual education programs, ESEA Title VII, were

well conceived by Congress, but like Title V, have suffered from low

funding.

The dual-language student needs special learning situations

and materials which are not generally a high local priority. Continued federal influence is needed in this area to insure that the needs of these

children are met so that they can become fully functioning members of

society.

In addition, bi-lingual programs have made extensive use of audio

visual equipment and materials with good results.

The programs may thus

be looked at as pilot programs or demonstration projects, the results of

which can be applied to other areas of education.

We have reviewed some of ESEA's contributions to promoting the

effective use of educational technology in our schools, and we have

studied the Administration proposals for education special revenue

sharing

Revenue sharing does not appear to be an adequate substitute

for present forms of categorical aid.

Proposals have been made in previous testimony by representatives of

the National Education Association, the National School Boards Association

and the Council of Chief State School Officers to consolidate some of the

existing titles into a "support services" program in this new legislation.

Let us examine the advantages and disadvantages of consolidating versus

continuing categorical programs.

If, for instance, the following titles, ESEA II, III and V, and

NDEA III were consolidated, what would the benefits be?

[blocks in formation]

för equipment or all for materials or all for books or all for career

-7

education or all for fourth-grade reading.

In fact, there will be 50

different statewide programs with each state commissioner free to set his

or her own statewide priorities.

This is the kind of flexibility state

departments of education are seeking these days.

Second, under this consolidation proposal, non-public schools would be

able to obtain federal money for equipment grants just as they presently

can obtain materials under ESEA II.

At present under ESEA II, approximately

10% goes to non-public schools.

Third, it will give equipment and materials presently provided for

in ESEA II and NDEA III, a new five-year lease on life. However, NDEA III

was renewed last year in the Education Amendments Act of 1972 for a three

year period.

Fourth, this proposal to consolidate some support services would furnish

the President with some modicum of education revenue sharing which is intended

in his proposed Better Schools Act of 1973.

Therefore, there is a possibility

that it may help secure his signature on the authorization measure.

Let us turn now to some of the disadvantages of this proposition.

First,

the mix of titles with matching provisions and titles without matching

provisions is an incompatible and irrational merger for the sake of merger.

It is not logical.

Second, lumping these programs together would cause them to each lose

their identity and their special features in order to provide support

services.

The programs as they presently exist are popular and effective.

Under NDEA III and ESEA II presently, each administrator and local

school board decides for itself on how it wants to use NDEA III and ESEA II.

If discretionary

authority is granted to the chief state school officer,

he will have more control over how the local administrator may use the

« PreviousContinue »