Dr. MEMBRINO. There are gross inequities between A's. There is no reason why some A's should be fully funded and others at 90 percent. Certainly the large number of B's across this land are now being funded at 73 percent the current fiscal year and the elimination of certain B's in the coming year

Chairman PERKINS. Will you write me a letter for the record, setting forth some specific illustrations of those inequities?

Dr. MEMBRINO. I certainly will.

Chairman PERKINS. I would appreciate your doing that.

Dr. MEMBRINO. I will do that, Mr. Chairman. We feel that category C, that was part of legislation that this committee worked out and had numerous hearings on, should be funded.

I think those three generally are the areas. The recommendation in the 1973 budget is grossly inadequate to handle that which has already been authorized so what we are appealing to is, first of all, to compliment the committee on a job well done and we certainly hope that it will see fit to continue Public Law 874 and possibly make it sufficiently strong and equitable so that others will understand as this committee has understood in the past.

For example, the city that I represent is a city with about 13,000 students of which 2,300 are category A students and an additional 800 are category B. students. The reason for the impact in our community is the location of Westover Air Force Base.

This military installation has removed from the tax rolls 5 square miles of an existing city of originally 27 square miles. And I would like to point out, Mr. Chairman, just how. In respect to support of particular category B students in Massachusetts, as I am certain in other States, those in the military who live off base do not pay sales tax because of their being afforded PX privileges.

Most do not register their automobiles in the State where the installation is located because they continue their registration in their home State, thereby exempting them from such things as excise taxes and sales taxes and registration and other necessary taxes for the State.

They further do not work at a place that helps the local and State tax base. Primarily, they are on Government property and they don't pay taxes on their employment as would be the case, let's say, in some large manufacturing concerns in our city such as Spalding Sporting Goods or Uniroyal Tire Manufacturers.

The B category student I think has been criticized and we are all aware of it. There is no one with us today representing the Greater Montgomery area, Montgomery County, on which so much attack has come in the past and we think unjustifiably. I think, as an Impact superintendent coming from outside the greater metropolitan district area, we know, as was illustrated by one of the previous witnesses, that if the Government had to educate that one student, it could not do it as economically as it can under impact aid Public Law 874.

It has been proven time and time again that when section 6 has had to be invoked for the education of military or other students located on Federal property that Government has not been able to do it as inexpensively as has the local district. It has spent more money than what it would have spent if Public Law 874 were fully funded and continued.

I would like to make one final point, and again I think it is important, for this committee and for the record, to say that my State unfortunately has not followed the mandates of an amendment that was passed by Congress in 1968 having to do with how Public Law 874 funds are treated in a local district.

We heard testimony this morning to the effect that the original intent of the impact aid law was to guarantee funds to the local educational authorities in lieu of local taxes, and if this still is the intent of Congress, and if this is the intent of that 1968 amendment, then there is one State still in noncompliance and that is Massachusetts. Last year, I know that the chairman is aware, and other members of the committee, that funds were stopped, Public Law 874 funds, for Massachusetts for a period of 4 months and then released. I would just like, for informational purposes, to let the committee know that that is now before the Federal court, the District Court of Boston, and we hope that before long the hearings will be held.

But it seems most unfortunate that of 50 States, one still resists the basic intent of Congress and, Mr. Chairman, I would like to be corrected if it is otherwise. This is still the intent without change.

Chairman PERKINS. Thank you.

Dr. MEMBRINO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman PERKINS. Let me compliment this distinguished panel. I can assure you that I am going to do my best to uphold the viewpoint as so ably expressed by all these gentlemen today on behalf of education in this country, and I think the majority of the members of this committee on both sides of the aisle feel as I do.

But for this program, I just don't know what would have happened in certain sections of the country. We would certainly have had chaos in some of the schools.

Thank you, gentlemen, for your appearance here today. You have been very helpful.

Our next witnesses are representatives of the Ohio Education Association of Teachers, William C. McDonald, president of the Ohio Education Association, Anthony Warren, Federal Services Coordinator of the Ohio Education Association and Doris Allen of the Ohio Education Association.

Go ahead, Dr. McDonald, and present your views. We are delighted to welcome you here. We have got educational problems all over the country. I know you have your part of them. You have some schools that have been closed and we would like to hear what suggestions you can give the committee.

STATEMENTS OF REPRESENTATIVES OF OHIO EDUCATION ASSOCIATION OF TEACHERS BY WILLIAM C. McDONALD, PRESIDENT; ANTHONY C. WARREN, FEDERAL SERVICES COORDINATOR; DORIS ALLEN, TITLE I TEACHERS, COLUMBUS, OHIO

Mr. McDONALD. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for the opportunity to be here.

Mr. Chairman, and distinguished members of the committee, I am William McDonald, president of the Ohio Education Association, an affiliate of the National Education Association. On behalf of the school

children of Ohio and 80,000 members of OEA, I am honored to have this opportunity to appear before this committee to express the association's views and concerns on Federal support for elementary and secondary education, and the future direction of that Federal support. With me are Miss Doris Allen, a title I teacher in the Columbus Ohio School system and Mr. Tony Warren is OEA's Coordinator for Federal Services. These are critical times, times when schoolmen and legislators must sit down, talk, and listen.

Recent developments in Ohio and across the Nation have made it paramount that in order to meet the financial needs of schoolchildren in this country a partnership must be developed and fostered, and that partnership must have three elements in it for the effective financing of the Nation's schools.

1. Locally determined needs and locally supported schools locally controlled.

2. State responsibility for the financial backing of schools.

3. Federal concern in those problems that transcend local and State boundaries. Let us focus our attention first on State and local roles in this partnership for funding schools, and also give you some background on what has been happening in Ohio.

Despite the biggest boost in State support of schools in Ohio history, spending for Ohio's public schools this year will still be well below national levels. According to estimates of school statistics, 1971-72, released by the National Education Association, State governments nationwide are supplying an average of 41 percent of the cost of public schools, while in Ohio, State government contributes 30.5 percent.

Elementary and secondary schools in Ohio will receive more than $2.16 billion this school year from all sources, compared with last. year's total of $1.98 billion, an increase of $180 million. This brings the per pupil spending in Ohio up to $812, an increase of $72 per child over last year but not enough to match the national average of $867 per pupil.

Per pupil expenditures vary widely from State to State and from a high of $1,322 in New York to a low of $511 in Alabama. Although dollar support from local school districts in Ohio will increase by $64.9 million this year the local tax share of the total school revenue will drop from 65.8 percent to 63.3 percent.

I am sure that you, as much of the Nation, are aware that over the last 5 years Ohio has had more school closings than the rest of the Nation combined. In 1971 we had 30 school districts that filed audits. with the State department of education in order that they might close their schools due to bankruptcy.

These figures, however important, are meaningless unless looked at in the framework of current trends. In 1950, in Ohio, 100 percent of all the levies on the ballot passed for schools. In the last 20 years there has been a steady decline from that 100 percent.

Last November, only 38 percent of the money issues on the ballot. for schools passed in the State of Ohio. I think this is an indication if we look from 1969 through 1971, the percentage of renewals has not fallen drastically in the general elections from 99 percent to 98.

However, when we look at the new tax levies, in 1969 through 1971, we find that in the general elections we have dropped from 51 percent to 38 percent.

But aside from the decreasing support property taxpayers are giving to Ohio schools there are other problems. The very nature of the property tax as a major source of school revenue is being challenged. The Ohio Education Association has filed suit in U.S. Federal District Court, in Columbus, Ohio, to have the present system of financing public schools in Ohio declared unconstitutional.

The suit points out that the present school financing system in Ohio based on local property wealth in each district violates the "equal protection clause" of the 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Data shows that revenues for school purposes vary widely across the State of Ohio with Cuyahoga Heights, near Cleveland, having an assessed valuation per pupil of more than $183,000 per child. On the other end of the scale, the valuation per pupil in the Huntington Local School District in Ross County, in rural Appalachia where I come from, was $3,100 per child.

To bring it more into focus, the people at Huntington Local School District would have to vote 63 notes to every one note in Cuyahoga Heights to raise an equal number of dollars to pay their school program.

Expenditures for school purposes also show a wide range of $2,705 to a low of $450 per child. With Ohio joining California, Minnesota, Texas, and New Jersey in challenging the heavy reliance on the property tax the picture is clear that new sources of revenue for schools must be found.

Even if these situations are effectively solved through the partnership that I alluded to earlier, the crisis in our urban and rural areas for the urban and rural poor will still be of vast proportions.

With your permission, Mr. Warren and Miss Allen will discuss the general fiscal problems affecting Ohio's urban centers and the impact of title I in one of these urban centers.

Mr. WARREN. Mr. Chairman, I am Tony Warren, Coordinator of Federal Services for the Ohio Education Association. I want to express my appreciation for an invitation to appear before this distinquished committee.

As Mr. McDonald pointed out, these are critical times, times when yesterday's solutions cannot be applied to today's problems. The financial problems of our urban centers are severe.

Dollars for governmental purposes are hard to come by in central cities, but educational dollars are the hardest of all to find because general governmental service needs place such a heavy burden on city taxpayers.

Couple this with a shift in population and business activities out of the city toward the suburbs, a deterioration of the property tax base, a high service requirement in the cities, and an increased cost of education for youngsters in the central cities and it is easy to see that the urban school district is a financial wasteland.

Therefore, it is imperative that some level of government fill this void. Several general conclusions can be drawn about the impact of Federal aid to education and the ability to cope with the problems of the cities. Title I of the ESEA, despite problems, has been an important and welcome source of funds to cities.

Its size, in comparison with other educational programs, title I representing about 40 percent of Federal aid to public schools, has

made an aggregate impact under which cities appear to get their share of the overall Federal funds in an amount proportionate to the population.

However, when we examine the other Federal aid programs individually, we find that many of them, even programs such as vocational education, are of far more assistance to the more favored suburban

areas.

Thus, although Federal aid funds taken as a whole may provide the cities as a whole with a share proportionate to their percentage of the population, there is a serious lack of even distribution of funds given for particular individual programs to individual metropolitan areas. Relative allocations, distributed by individual programs, seldom reflect size or extent of need of the target population. Federal aid needs to assist urban areas to a greater degree. There needs to be an increase in the amount of categorical aid to the cities of Ohio.

If anything, the relevant cost factors of 1965, when ESEA was authorized by this committee, have gone up and, therefore, upward movement in authorization should immediately occur along with full appropriations for those categorical programs. Coupled with inflation, the actual dollar amounts flowing to the cities are low with regard to increases in per pupil expenditure.

The current levels of funding barely provide assistance for operational expenses. While it is true that money alone cannot guarantee educational program effectiveness, it is equally true that without first providing survival operational funds and second, massive educational funds to plan, develop, staff, program, and implement the type of education which produces useful urban citizens, there is no chance for success.

Program failures do occur through lack of commitment, lack of expertise, and/or attitudes which anticipate failure. But one point must be brought home and that is that program failure must occur, must, mind you, occur when there is a desperate lack of sufficient funds to pay for what is needed.

It disturbs us in Ohio when we see that the proposed budget of $4.95 billion for education requested by the administration falls far short of the amounts authorized for existing programs.

The proposed cut of $138 million seriously jeopardizes what have proved to be among the most effective Federal aids to local public schools. But the agonizing question still remains, can increased dollars create better school programs if we view the funding of public schools in this country as a partnership among local, State, and Federal levels of Government.

Then the future direction of funding public schools in this country must place a great deal of emphasis on increasing Federal participation in that partnership. There are several options open to the Federal Government. One is to fully fund categorical programs as authorized by the Congress and two, to devise a system to reduce the heavy reliance on property tax for funding schools by federally putting public schools through a general aid concept. Several mechanisms are currently being considered, revenue sharing and a value-added tax.

We will comment on these approaches if the chairman desires, after our testimony. At this time, Mr. Chairman, with your permission, Miss Allen will discuss her experiences with title I.