STATEMENT OF MRS. WALTER B. STULTS, LEGISLATIVE CHAIRMAN, BEN W. MURCH HOME AND SCHOOL ASSOCIATION, WASFINGTON, D.C. (The prepared statement of Mrs. Stults follows:) PREPARED STATEMENT IT MIS. WE F. SES CELINA Leststativy Cox MITTER, BEN W. Van HME AND SCHAL ASSCATION Mr. Stults is appearing on behalf of the f I wing District of Columba school's 1. Brightwood Elementary, 16th and Nishidson Streets NW 2. Hyde Elementary. O Street, between 38 and 33 Streets, N.WT. 3. Lafayette Elementary. Northampton Street and Broad Branch Road. N.W. 4. Murch Elementary. 36th and Ellicott Streets, N.W 5. Dea! Junior High, Fort Drive and Nebraska Arence. NW. 6. Eliot Junior High, 18th and Constintiin Avennes NE 7. Paui Junior High. Eighth and Ozlethorpe Streets. NW. & Coolidge Senior High, Fifth and Tackerman Streets, N.W. 9. Phelps Vocational Hich. 24th Street and Benning Road, NE 10. Roosevelt High. 13th and Upshur Streets, N.W. 11. Spingarn High, 24th Street and Benning Road. N.E. 12. Western High. 35th and R Streets, N.W. 13. Wilson High, Nebraska Avenue and Chesapeake Street, N.W. 14. Dunbar High, First and N Streets, N.W. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, the home and school associations I represent today urze you and the members of your committee to consider favorably those portions of sections 461 and 462 of S. 580 which would make it possible for the District of Columbia to participate in Federal impacted area aid funds for schools. It seems hardly necessary to mention that within the District of Columbia 30 percent of the school children are federally connected as defined under Public Law 874, 81st Congress. We find it hard to understand why the District has been excluded from this program in the past, since it is eligible for Federal highway, welfare and other funds. The metropolitan area schools benefited from this program in 1962, in amounts varying from $706,425 in Alexander to $3,997,987 in Fairfax County, It should be emphasized that the annual Federal payment to the District of Columbia general fund is not in any sense a substitute for school aid. No part of this payment is earmarked for schools, and in any event, the entire amount is too small to compensate for the District's tremendous loss of tax revenue because of Federal installations. In the fiscal 1964 budget, within existing revenues, the District government is requesting for the school administration an operating fund of $61% million, an increase of $4.4 million over 1963. We would like to point out that this increase is largely accounted for by an increase in salary scale for teachers and other school personnel, and an increase in the student enrollment of 6,000 in the last year. The pupil-teacher ratio will not be reduced. There will still be over 700 on a waiting list for kindergarten. There will be no beginning of an elementary school library program. There will be no increase in counseling services at any level. There will be no increase in the number of basic and social adjustment class teachers. The public schools of the District of Colorado are suffering from lack of funds. Almost daily the local newspapers describe their pathetic condition. We come to you seeking more than sympathy. What we need is help, and the way our local government is set up, the United States Congress is the authority that can help. Thank you. Mrs. STULTS. No. I simply want to include the statement, and let you know we support the stand expressed by the legislative chairman from the PTA. I think almost 100 percent of the parents of the District of Columbia schoolchildren would like to see this subcommittee consider favorably those portions of sections 461 and 462 of S. 580 which would make it possible for the District of Columbia to participate in Federal impacted area aid funds for schools. It seems hardly necessary to mention that within the District of Columbia 30 percent of the schoolchildren are federally connected and defined under Public Law 874, 81st Congress. Senator CLARK. Mrs. Stults, you are just reading from your statement, which has already been put in the record, so you don't need to do it again. Do you have anything to add to your statement? When it goes into the record in full, you see, you don't have to read it all over again. Mrs. STULTS. Fine. This expresses our views. Senator CLARK. Thank you ever so much. Mrs. STULTS. Thank you, Senator Clark. Senator CLARK. We are very grateful for having you here. I want to say personally I am very sympathetic to what you would like to see done. STATEMENT OF ELLIS HAWORTH, CHAIRMAN, LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CONGRESS OF PARENTS AND TEACHERS Mr. HAWORTH. May I just make a brief statement? I am chairman of the legislative committee of the District of Columbia Congress of Parents and Teachers, and I would like to supplement Mr. Rich's statement with regard to one matter mentioned by Miss Pincus from the Philadelphia group. The District of Columbia allocates only about 20 percent of its budget to its public schools, and I am challenged by the Commission and their assistant, Mr. Schuyler Lowe, on the ground that the District has to function as a State as well as a city. My reply to that is that if you take the per capita expenditure in Philadelphia, in Baltimore or in other cities comparable to Washington of what is paid in State taxes for mental institutions, for other health activities, for other fire activities and so on, then the amount spent in the District is still much lower for its schools than in any other community. For example, we spend about $1.50 per capita for higher education. The lowest amount by any of the States is in the neighborhood of $4.50, and some States spend over $20 per capita for higher education. So I would like to point out that the District is still very much lower. In yesterday's paper there was an article, a preliminary report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, on the income of Washington families compared to those of other large cities, and it pointed out that Washington had next to the highest family income than any other place in the country, and we do have ample income, but the Congress won't let us levy the taxes needed to raise the money for our schools and other necessary tax. Senator CLARK. I think the subcommittee is familiar with that situation, and I know the chairman and several of the other members are favorably disposed. Senator CLARK. Thank you very much. Mr. HAWORTH. I just wanted to get this in the record. The subcommittee will stand adjourned until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning. (Whereupon, at 12:04 p.m., the hearing was recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Tuesday, June 11, 1963.) 98-466-63—vol. 4 EDUCATION LEGISLATION-1963 TUESDAY, JUNE 11, 1963 U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON EDUCATION OF THE COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND PUBLIC WELFARE, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to recess, at 10:25 a.m., in room 4232, New Senate Office Building, Senator Ralph Yarborough presiding pro tempore. Present: Senators Yarborough, Javits, and Prouty. Committee staff members present: Stewart McClure, chief clerk; Charles Lee, professional staff member of the subcommittee; Michael J. Bernstein, minority counsel; and Ray D. Hurley, associate minority counsel. Senator YARBOROUGH. The Subcommittee on Education will come to order. The first witness will be Mr. William Truitt, assistant director of legislative services of the National Farmers Union. Come around, Mr. Truitt. STATEMENT OF WILLIAM TRUITT, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF LEGISLATIVE SERVICES, NATIONAL FARMERS UNION Mr. TRUITT. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, the Farmers Union is gratified indeed to have the opportunity of appearing before this distinguished subcommittee and presenting its views on vocational education. If you will recall we have done so numerous times in the past. Rather than speak to the entire education bill, S. 580, we would rather address ourselves to title V of that bill, S. 580, since that is the area of deepest concern to farmers. Today I speak not only for the 250,000 farm families we represent but also for our president, Mr. James G. Patton, who was a member of the President's Panel of Consultants on Vocational Education. At the outset we wish to commend the administration for such a comprehensive piece of legislation as S. 580 and further commend this subcommittee for its splendid work in finding the answer to some of America's thorny education problems. CONCERN FOR VOCATIONAL EDUCATION At our recent convention in New York City, two price factors motivated the great interest there in vocational education. The first |