Mr. QUIE. That's right, he was, but it would be set up similar to vocational education advisory councils.

Chairman PERKINS. Mr. Steiger.

Mr. STEIGER. Three questions, Mr. Wettergren. No. 1, in all of the talk that we have had thus far today, and I generally hear in meetings on education, one assumes from what one hears that all we need is more money to solve the problem. Is that fair or would it be better if we attempted to do a better job of assessing whether or not all those things we now do should be done, whether or not the kinds of programs that have developed over the years ought to be continued, and are we sufficiently raising the issue of accountability of education. If we are not, in your judgment, what role can school boards help to define, both for your own agency as well as for the Congress?

Mr. WETTERGREN. Mr. Chairman and Congressman Steiger, I think that school boards, their teachers and their administrators, if I am reading them correctly, in the last couple of years, even though there is a plea for money, are starting to get away from the concept that the answer to the education problems is more money. I think that we are finding, as we are here in Minnesota now with the assessment program being operated, promulgated by the State department, which representatives of my board of directors happen to have a part in, that we are going to find ways to make better use of our money. I don't think we are going to be able to eliminate some of the outdated, outmoded programs that are not useful until we get into that kind of an assessment process.

I think for a while that professional educators feared this and school boards did, too, as to what the assessment would be because it provided competition between school districts and they didn't like this aspect. However, I see a very definite change in the last year or so in the willingness on the part of school boards and administrators to get into this assessment process, and I think it comes, if you please, due to the pinch of money. I don't think that the public, the State legislators, and probably the U.S. Congress, are going to allow this kind of a thing to go on without greater assessment of the pro

gram.

Mr. STEIGER. Second, how much thought and effort and time is being put forth by your association, for example, on better use of school buildings, whether or not we should continue the single purpose school buildings, whether we ought to open them up in the evening, use them more in the summer, change the school year, attempt to try and reduce the burden on the taxpayer through modifying what has historically been the pattern of educational offerings?

Mr. WETTERGREN. I think, Mr. Chairman and Congressmen, that we, if I recall the figures correctly, have about 40 percent of our boys and girls in school in the summertime. We do well here, and we work hard in this particular area to make greater use of our facilities. The adult education programs that are primarily going on in the evening in Minnesota are fantastic, really, and I think that we are starting to get some pressure the other way, that those buildings have to be painted and the windows have to be calked and things of this type, and custodial staffs just aren't getting enough time to do all these things. So I submit I am probably a poor man to ask that

question, because I think our programs in Minnesota are quite pretentious in this area.

Mr. STEIGER. Third, in your testimony as it relates specifically to the special revenue sharing for education, you indicate that you think it is a step forward, but I don't find in your statement an indication of, for example, where you think, if at all, an emphasis ought to be put. Should we, for example, maintain some degree of categorization, are we to free it up altogether and send the money to a local educational agency and let them make the determination without reference to the disadvantaged or the handicapped or books and equipment or innovation? How best ought we try to handle that particular problem in terms of the allocation of these resources?

Mr. WETTERGREN. Mr. Chairman, Congressmen, I think first that somebody, somewhere, and I think we do a very poor job in Minnesota, has to define what an educationally handicapped child is. I submit that we are in a rut in this area. We think that a handicapped child is one that comes out of a broken home or comes from an AFDC family or something of this type. I don't think that we have ever had testimony in our Minnesota legislature or by the State department of education to really define what an educationally handicapped child is.

This program, in itself, may be one of a categorical nature for the Congress, and I probably would limit the program to that extent.

I think other programs of need should be of a more general basis, because, as an example, in your State in Wisconsin the school districts are not the same. You are physically made up like we are. Or in Kentucky they are not the same. It is not possible that a categorical program is going to fit Kentucky, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and their individual school districts.

Congressman Quie alluded to or asked a question of Commissioner Casmey of how we define educational disadvantage, because our legislature just stuck $35 million into the AFDC program as a sweetener in the State aid bill, kind of a compromise to help some of the Minneapolis-St. Paul and Duluth school districts, the large city school districts. I have no question but that they need money. I suppose the school district can define, at least they think they can define, what an educationally handicapped pupil is. But I'm not sure. that just because a child comes from a broken home or from an AFDC family or a low income family, that kind of a thing, that this necessarily makes him an educationally disadvantaged child. I think this is one of the real challenges that educators, school boards, administrators, State departments of education, the Congress, face.

I can see how, with an educationally disadvantaged child who can't read, has problems, ear problems, eye problems, this kind of a thing, we could really make use of categorical aid, but I would rather see the other programs of a more general nature.

Mr. STEIGER. Do you have any performance contracting going on in Minnesota?

Mr. WETTERGREN. Mr. Chairman, we do not. We have only had, Congressman Steiger, about three school districts, to my knowledge, that have expressed an interest in performance contracts. We did make an attempt to create an interest in this regard a year ago now at our annual convention of the school boards association. We had

Mr. Flannery here from education to talk about it. We have conducted a couple of workshops in this regard. But so far we have not generated any interest.

Mr. STEIGER. Thank you very much for your testimony. I also might want to simply say that I would agree, not only with your last point about the school boards, with which, I think, there is unanimous agreement, but also about the fact that I don't think it is appropriate for the Congress to pass a Federal bargaining law covering teachers and local employees.

Chairman PERKINS. Thank you very much. You have made a very important statement today for us.

Our next panel is headed by Dr. John Davis, the superintendent of schools of this city, and Dr. Jack Kinder, superintendent of schools of Rochester, Minn., and Mr. Jerry Strupp, superintendent of schools of Fond du Lac, Wis.

We will begin with you, Dr. Davis.

Let me make this observation. We have one of the Wisconsin superintendents here, and a Congressman from Wisconsin who has made a great contribution to the advancement of education during the time he has been in Congress, Congressman Steiger. Mr. Steiger, do you wish to make any opening remarks?

Mr. STEIGER. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I can't obviously speak with the same degree of enthusiasm for Rochester and Minneapolis that I can for Fond du Lac, but it is a very real personal privilege for me to welcome to the Committee on Education and Labor, as a witness, Jerry Strupp. Jerry served as the principal of Woodworth Junior High School in Fond du Lac, Wis., at the time my wife took her internship so I have had some relationship with him before he became an important person in the role of superintendent of the school district in Fond du Lac, Wis. But Jerry has, I think, not only a unique background as a teacher, as a principal, as a superintendent, but as the president of the Wisconsin Education Association before he assumed the office of the superintendency of Fond du Lac, Wis. He is regarded, I think by all who know of him or know him, as one of Wisconsin's finest educators, and thus for me it is a very real honor to have him here today and have his testimony, and to have him as a part of this panel representing school districts, representing the superintendents of schools in both Minnesota and Wisconsin.

Chairman PERKINS. Thank you very much, Congressman Steiger. I agree that you have some outstanding witnesses here, and I want to also welcome this great panel.

Dr. Davis, we will begin with you. Go ahead.

PANEL II

STATEMENTS OF DR. JOHN DAVIS, SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS, MINNEAPOLIS, MINN.; DR. JACK KINDER, SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS, ROCHESTER, MINN.; AND JERRY STRUPP, SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS, FOND DU LAC, WIS.

Dr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, it is I who come from Minneapolis, and you distinguish me by indicating that I head this panel. I accept that; however, sir, I think I should like to turn, then, to Superin

tendent Strupp and let him respond directly to the fine introduction that Congressman Steiger has given him.

Chairman PERKINS. Go ahead.

Mr. STRUPP. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, it is a real pleasure to be here to speak on these matters, and specifically on H.R. 7796.

Before I go into the text, I want to tell you that I am very impressed with the kind of questions you have given. I have been listening this morning to most of the testimony. Sometimes when we on the local level are dealing with the Federal projects, there are some rather untimely attitudes that develop when we experience some of the frustrations, but I must say to you that it has been very impressive to me, certainly the dedication that you have toward doing a good job for the boys and girls in the Nation.

I am here to register support for this revenue-sharing proposition. Enactment of this bill, I think, will retain some of the good features of existing programs, while removing, or at least lessening, some of the undesirable features of these programs.

As Congressman Steiger indicated, I come from eastern Wisconsin, from his district. My city is called Fond du Lac. The community probably could be described as typical middle America. So you have a frame of reference of the kind of community I come from.

We have an enrollment of 8,500 pupils in our district and we have a budget that is approaching $9 million. Our Federal involvement financially last year was about $225,000 in titles I, II, and III and the school lunch and milk programs.

While the thoughts that are expressed here are my own, I think that they echo the sentiments of most of the people in positions like mine and educators in our section of the country.

ESEA programs have been beneficial to us. They have brought financial support into our districts that wouldn't have been there otherwise. We have been able to do things that would not have been done without this support. In our district, for example, special help in reading has been provided the youngsters from poor homes. Extended kindergarten has helped give children from poor circumstances a better start in first grade, one comparable to that of children from more fortunate homes.

We have had a very interesting, successful innovative program in the summer in which we have led children who have known very little but failure in school to success. This has made a difference in their adjustment during the regular school year. We have instructional materials that we wouldn't have had otherwise. All of these things have had a positive effect on the education of boys and girls. Because school districts have so many needs, they reach out for and welcome financial support on almost any terms. It has been that way with the title programs. The process of securing these funds may have been tedious and arduous and sometimes exasperating, but local districts have been willing to endure this in order to have the additional support.

We have before us a proposition now which should keep the beneficial provisions of ESEA programs and remove some of the negative aspects of that manner of funding. As seen from our level, the opera

tional level, it would seem that H.R. 7796 would make these improve

ments.

One, small- and medium-sized districts whose administrators generally don't have the time, nor the expertise, to successfully apply for these projects, would be able to participate more easily in these pro

grams.

Two, local administrators would be spared the continuous task of having to carefully study guidelines and regulations and the endless amount of recordkeeping and reporting of the variety of title programs.

Three, a greater opportunity to make optimum use of funds would be provided by giving the State agencies some discretionary authority for the use of these funds by permitting the transfer of up to 30 percent of these funds from one purpose to another. This should also lessen the chance for wasteful duplication of effort.

I think this is one of the criticisms people generally have. We think that Federal efforts in the local districts sometimes are not efficient because they are not putting the money where the local people would put it if they had their say.

We see some programs really flowering under the infusion of Federal funds, and some other programs that are probably just as worthwhile withering because of the inadequate local support.

I would like to endorse the principle involved here of the Federal Government dealing directly with the State education agencies instead of direct involvement with local districts. I think it is far more reasonable to expect the Federal Government to deal with 50 States instead of attempting to deal with thousands of local education units. Generally a principle of good administration is that you don't have any one agency or any one level dealing with too many because you can't do it.

I think another principle involved in the bill which will be appreciated at the local level is that of the flow of decisionmaking authority away from the Federal level back to the State and local units. It is a wholesome reversal of a trend toward authority increasingly being vested centrally. Educators steeped in day-to-day experience in school operation are in control at the local level and generally in the State departments of education. It seems reasonable that they be credited with a comparable amount of wisdom and good will as those who work at the Federal level.

I would like to comment on something that has been said several times today, and that is that the State and local units have done nothing about working out programs for the handicapped and for the disadvantaged and they have waited, I guess we said 150 years for the Federal Government to do this. You gentlemen may make that statement, but I think that people at the local level would not accept that or endorse that statement. I think that there have been things done, responsibilities accepted on the local level as well as at the Federal level for this.

It seems to me that while vesting some decisionmaking authority at State and local levels, it is apparent that adequate safeguards can be developed to insure that the Federal intent is carried out by the States in their administration of these funds.