Page images
PDF
EPUB

-8

funds.

If the chief state school officer decides that all funds will be

devoted to early childhood development, then a local administrator wanting

funds for equipment for materials for a reading program could well be left

out in the cold.

There will be growth in the amount of political activity at the state

and local level in order to secure funds for the discreet purposes that

are presently served by these categorical titles.

From the viewpoint of

my constituents, this invites divisive local and state battles among audio

visual and library interests, guidance counselors and other specialized

educational personnel.

The most serious detrimental effect, in my view, of this proposal to consolidate several titles is the danger of losing the matching provision

of NDEA III.

A matching program forces local school districts and state

legislatures to put up some of their own money to qualify for grants.

This

insures for the Congress the greatest amount of local responsibility.

Local

school boards, accountable to the local taxpayers, vote up to 50% local funds and thus look very carefully at the spending of each project dollar under the

existing NDEA Title III.

Furthermore, the matching provision makes more

prosperous school districts pay their own money to get federal funds. This

is equitable and should be continued.

Under NDEA III, each state is required

to match all administrative funds also so that the state department must pay

half the cost of each NDEA III coordinator.

This is one of the most successful

provisions of NDEA III, and if it is lost, the Congress would be removing a very

strong guarantee of local responsibility.

One other provision of NDEA was that the chief state school officer is

allowed to allot the funds in any way he pleases (according to a state plan

written by each state department) as long each state's net balance is 50-50.

-9

Often there is educational disadvantage to be found in more prosperous

districts that have not updated their instructional system

and the states

argue they need NDEA III to stimulate this updating. On the other hand,

many states have adopted variable matching under NDEA III so that the

poor school districts need only provide a small portion of the cost of

their equipment while the richer district must pay most of the cost.

This

variable matching provision has helped the low income districts very much.

At present, 15 states

low variable matching - Alaska, California, Florida,

Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, New Jersey, North

Dakota, Oregon, Utah, Wisconsin, Wyoming.

I

urge that you continue

this variable matching ability in the language of the law in order to help

the elimination of inequities that may occur in the states not presently

[blocks in formation]

NDEA Title III, the 19 states with law suits will find themselves with a

moot question and this effort to insure the availability of federal funds

under existing law will probably come to naught.

Finally, we feel that a full grown educational technology does not

exist in the schools and colleges of this country. Despite the strenuous

efforts of the Congress, very little has been spent on instructional media

due to the absence of funds clearly designated for this purpose.

We fear

that if, according to revenue sharing proposals, media funds are forced to

compete with school meals, adult education and the strengthening of state and

local educational agencies, even less monies will be spent. Consequently,

-10

the upgrading of American education, dependent to a considerable degree up

on increased application of educational technology in the learning environ

ment, will be substantially slowed.

ESEA is presently a categorical aid program that can help more schools

meet their media needs and it should not be abandoned at this time.

When

we can report a complete national acceptance of the new technology, we will

certainly recommend that federal support for instructional materials be

directed to some other need.

That this is not currently the case can be illustrated by data

from the National Center for Educational Technology relating to the

children's television program Electric Company. Considering all elementary

schools, almost half (48.7%) cannot receive a television signal.

Of those

elementary schools located in urban areas, twenty-nine and two-tenths per

cent (29.2%) cannot receive the signal. Only twenty-two and eight-tenths

percent (22.8%) of all elementary schools are tuned in to the program.

Because adequate use of instructional media has not yet been

established, we can only re-emphasize that ESEA programs have made an

invaluable contribution to the improvement of education, and that we support the continuation of Titles I, II, III, V, and VII, particularly. And we vigorously oppose the consolidation of NDEA Title III with these

ESEA Titles into one block of money for state departments of education.

[blocks in formation]

Senator PELL. The subcommittee will adjourn until Friday at 10 o'clock.

[Whereupon at 11 a.m. the subcommittee was adjourned to reconvene on Friday, September 14, 1973, at 10 a.m.]

[ocr errors]
« PreviousContinue »