strongly urge that presently authorized programs be given sufficient permanency so that school officials can plan with greater assurance and that the authorization be fully funded so that specific needs of the children they are designed to meet can be met. We urge full funding of these authorized programs for two other important reasons: 1. In a real sense, their authorization represents a promise at the federal level to provide badly needed programs to children and it is bitterly frustrating when the promise is not fulfilled by funding; and 2. The general public seems to learn more often through the media of a substantially higher authorization for education programs than the actual level of funding, leaving the mistaken impression that much more is being expended than actually is. Additionally, we are firmly convinced that the Congress and President should take steps to provide from the federal level approximately one fourth to one third of the total cost of elementary and secondary education. Increasingly, the federal government has recognized the importance of educational opportunities for all of our citizens, and has expanded its role in that regard. It is past time, at the federal level, that we recognize by fiscal act and deed that the interest and security of our society require an enlightened and well-educated citizenry and that the federal government must pay its share of the cost of adequate school programs. As citizens in any part of the country and from any segment of society, we already pay by way of federal taxes and federal expenditures for the inability and/or failure of states to provide adequate education programs. Better that a substantial portion of the cost be provided from the federal level in the first place and infinitely better for the individual recipient of a sound education made possible by significant federal participation. Another important reason that the Congress and President should take steps to provide approximately one fourth to one third from the federal level for the total cost of education is that the low income states such as Kentucky simply do not have the resources to pay for the kind of school programs our youth need if they are to successfully compete with the youth of higher income states. For years, Kentucky has been near the bottom among states in the amount of money spent for school programs per child and in the most recent years, we have dropped closer to the bottom. It is true that Kentucky could do some more based on our ability as related to income. To that extent, it represents our failure. But to a substantial degree, our low level of expenditure per child reflects a lack of resources within the state. To that extent, it represents our inability and conceivably the absence of a significant federal general support program. Recently, the higher courts of two states have given rulings which some interpret as at least a severe frown on the wide disequalization of resources behind education programs within the states. We submit that there is also a wide disequalization of resources among the states and that the provision of a large share of the basic cost of elementary and secondary education programs that would somehow be distributed in a manner that took into account the ability level of the states would tend to correct this disequalization. We would suggest that precautions be taken so that states would not reduce their own levels of support as the federal support level increased. We would strongly encourage that federal support programs be channeled through existing state education departments or agencies. This would assure a more effective and efficient planning and coordinating of education programs, both at the state level and at the point where services are delivered to children. Again, Chairman Perkins, the Kentucky Education Association appreciates your invitation and this opportunity. You can be sure you have our continued support in the fine effort you are making. (Whereupon, at 2:50 p.m. the committee adjourned.) (The following statements and letters were submitted for the record :) Hon. CARL PERKINS, CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES, Chairman, House Committee on Education and Labor, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR COLLEAGUE: I am enclosing a copy of a letter that I have received from one of my constituents, Mr. Hobart Jones who is Assistant Superintendent of the Guthrie Public Schools in Guthrie, Oklahoma. I thought you would be interested in the survey that he made of his school. I would appreciate any consideration you might give this matter. Sincerely, Enclosure. HAPPY CAMP, Member of Congress. GUTHRIE PUBLIC SCHOOLS, Congressman HAPPY CAMP, Longworth House Office Building, Washington, D.C. SIR: I am writing you at the suggestion of Mr. Bill Moyer of Gage, Oklahoma, who was in my office today discussing some problems we might have with federal programs in education. There are two problems in regard to Title I, E.S.E.A. that I feel need some attention. The first problem deals with identifying of eligible students, using the income of parents as the criteria, Section 1.11 under definitions read "Low Incomefactor' means number of children of families earning $2,000.00 or less, according to the 1960 census." I believe that the $2.000.00 figure is much too low. As an example, we ran a survey of our schools (see attachment) and found that there are a total of 158 students in grades K-12 whose parents' income is between $2,000.00 and $3,000.00 (see column 4 of attachment). I believe these students should also be eligible Title I students. The second problem regards the establishment of a parent council Section 2.16 of "Eligible Applicants". This section states that parents of children to be served in the Title I project shall constitute the majority of the members of such council. This council is to help in the planning, implementation, and evaluation of the project. Seems to me, this is an illogical requirement. The purpose of Title I, as I see it, is to help students break the cycle through education and raise themselves above a poverty level when they become adults. Guidelines specified above makes it possible for low income people to control or recommend to the schools how this money is to be used to educate their children. It seems to me this would defeat the purpose of the whole program. The parents are not able to raise themselves from this poverty level, but can now tell us how to use this money for a program to benefit their child. Silly, isn't it? We appreciated very much the visit by Mr. Moyer and the opportunity to express ourselves to him and you about the above problems being faced by all schools when dealing with the federally controlled programs of education. Respectfully yours, HOBART L. JONES, Assistant Superintendent. Chairman, Committee on Education and Labor, House of Representatives, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN PERKINS: Yesterday I wrote to you regarding our need for an increased appropriation in the Elementary Secondary Education Act. I kept my letter brief because I felt that you were collecting specific information and that I should stick to the question asked. I appreciate the fine support that you, Congresswoman Green, our own Congressmen, and the other members of your committee have given those of us in education. Federal funds for education are absolutely essential, and I am thankful that we have people like you and the others mentioned above who are aware of this fact. In your letter of March 3 you stated that you would like to hear from us on other aspects of education support programs. While I appreciate your efforts, the different offices above us-State, Regional, and National Offices of Education and personnel employed there have mandatory requirements that are making it impossible for us to administer these funds in the best interest of children. Of course, I know that controls, budget practices, and similar things are necessary. I have no objection to these; but we are required to write projects, projects, and projects. Reports have to be written, re-written, and evaluated over and over, until the backlog of paper work is almost prohibitive. These people are researching us to death. Consequently, a great deal of the money appropriated by you people never really gets to the classroom where the children are because of the high administrative costs. Supervisors do not have time to supervise. School administrators paid by local funds find themselves "bogged down" in excessive reports and evaluations. Please do not misunderstand my attitude in this matter, but I wish you had some way of knowing how many projects we have to write, how many copies of each proposal are required, the amount of time we spend in proving comparability, and how difficult it is to live with the restrictions and policy guides set up by those in offices above us. Policies and forms are changed before one can become familiar with them. For example, the last proposal written for our small school system was over 100 typewritten pages and it was rewritten four times with numerous copies supplied to these personnel each time it was re-written. I know that research is necessary, and I know that a certain amount of feedback is necessary in order for those in responsible positions to know that funds are being well spent. I am for these things, but I wish there was some way to eliminate some of the questionnaires, project applications, reports, etc. demanded of us. Anything you can do that will enable us to spend more of the federal funds in a way that will directly affect and benefit the children will be appreciated more than you will ever know. Sincerely, R. M. COURINGTON, TACOMA, WASH., March 18, 1972. Congressman FLOYD V. HICKS, House Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SIR: Is there any chance that this whole issue of education (including the racial/busing problem) might be resolved by giving tax credits for education and allowing people to choose for themselves what constitutes a "quality" education? I believe this idea has been presented in the past, but I don't know the extent of serious consideration it has received. The proposal I have in mind would be to allow a tax deduction for private education expense (including college tuition) not to exceed the cost per student now being taken from public funds. Parochial schools need not be excluded because such a program would not amount to state financing of religion, but instead grant to all individuals (regardless of race, creed or religion) a choice in the use of their tax dollars for the education of their own children. Those funds not taken individually through tax credits would still be available for the public schools, reduced only in direct relation to the number of students who no longer attend. (The size of the student body wouldn't drop immediately for the simple reason that there are very few private schools presently in existence at least in the Tacoma area.) If and when private education is made available and able to compete financially with the public school system, the overall trend should be toward an improvement in the quality of education by creating a broader base of experimentation in teaching methods and materials. As the enrollment dropped in public schools the tendency in public education would be toward smaller class size with more individual attention and/or consolidation of the existing school districts, which might involve busing and might also result in racial integration-not by mandatory order, but as a natural consequence. This proposal would give tax relief at a time and in an area where it is sorely needed, instead of adding to an already unbearable burden as President Nixon's proposal would (which should be unthinkable considering our present economic state). It would add a new dimension to the educational possibilities for our children and at the same time the best existing public facilities would remain in use for those who would still rely on the public system. I think we have a very dangerous situation developing wherein mass public funding is giving government a virtual monopoly in the field of education. I do not believe this is consistent with a free society or the principles of liberty by which we are supposedly governed. In this respect I think that a system of tax deductions for private education would be a step in the right direction by leaving the choices (and the money) where they belong-in the hands of the individual instead of the state. I hope you will give this proposal serious consideration and I would appreciate hearing your views on its possibilities. Sincerely, (Mrs.) JEAN HOCKMAN. MUNICIPAL SCHOOLS, Hobbs, N. Mex., May 2, 1972. Hon. CARL D. PERKINS, U.S. Representative, Washington, D.C. DEAR SIR: We are concerned about the direction and uncertainty concerning the future of present federally funded programs that have been a tremendous asset to the boys and girls of our community. We hope we do not lose sight of the specific programs such as Title III-NDEA or Title II-ESEA, that have served well and deserve continued support. The National Defense Education Act-Title III, has helped us introduce innovations in the use of up-to-date materials and equipment for such programs as: (i) educational television productions and closed circuit programs, (ii) video taping of career education opportunities within our area, (iii) learning laboratory equipment for disadvantaged as well as advanced learners, and (iv) classroom equipment for day to day use, such as overhead projectors, cassette and tape recorders, 16mm. projectors and various other student used equipment and materials. Education today is in a chaotic swirl of change and challenge and without help, state and local finances cannot provide the needed modern equipment and materials demanded for success. The Title II-Elementary and Secondary Education Act has also brought tremendous success in our school system. It is specifically for books and educational copyrighted materials for ready use in laboratory and classroom learning activity. We feel that this Title of the Act should retain its unique character and should not be buried in a broad new category such as "The Library Resource Account". This program has provided us with: (i) elementary, junior high and high school libraries throughout the system, each containing thousands of available books and materials, (ii) films, film strips and cassettes, and tapes of programed learning materials, and (iii) charts, maps, globes, etc., which the student handles and refers to daily. We feel that most senators and congressmen have been steadfast friends of education and that you are concerned about our problems. We hope that you recognize what it would mean to us if we had a major cutback or the elimination of these successful historic programs in education. We request your support for continued funding of these significant programs, as we count heavily upon them for a successful school year. Sincerely, R. N. TYDINGS, WASHINGTON COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS, Representative CARL D. PERKINS, DEAR REPRESENTATIVE PERKINS: It is our understanding that at the present time no funds have been appropriated by the Office of Education for NDEA, Title III. We in Washington County are very interested in this program. During this school year, we were able to purchase 23 Educational Television sets for all of our elementary schools. These were purchased through a state bid price of $6167.60. Since these sets were purchased with our NDEA Title Grant, the cost to our Board was only $3083.80. The funds that we have at our disposal in Washington County are very limited and it would not have been possible to purchase these sets without the help we received from the National Defense Education Act. Also, we have received many benefits from Title II, ESEA. With the help we receive from this fund, we are able to purchase additional library books, audiovisual materials and supplementary books so badly needed in our school district. Title II, ESEA is unique since it benefits both the public and non-public school equally. Our total grant for Title II, ESEA the year was $4800. Please give serious consideration to the funding of these two worthwhile federal programs. They both serve the ever increasing needs of the poor school districts. Thank you. MILTON K. GRAHAM, Superintendent. FRANKLIN NORTHEAST SUPERVISORY UNION, Richford, Vt., May 9, 1972. Hon. CARL D. PERKINS, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR REPRESENTATIVE PERKINS: I am writing in regard to the educational funding now under consideration. I am particularly concerned about the lack of |