MULTIHANDICAPPED CHILDREN

We estimate that the population of blind children with serious additional disabilities is somewhere in the neighborhood of 5.000 to 7.500. As I say, there are only about probably 100 of them enrolled in these special programs. Many of them are just kept at home without the benefit of any type of formal educational program. Others are, unfortunately, committed to mental institutions. That is where they languish.

Senator YARBOROUGH. Languish there for life?

Mr. SCHLOSs. That is right.

Senator YARBOROUGH. And the handicap of blindness makes that child more susceptible to emotional disturbances than if he did not have that additional handicap.

Mr. SCHLOSS. That is probably one of the factors involved in this emotional disturbance syndrome, I might say.

Senator YARBOROUGH. And vou say there are between 5,000 and 7,500 of these children with additional handicaps in the country as a whole?

Mr. SCHLOSS. About 5.000 to 7.500 blind children with severe additional disabilities to blindness in the country as a whole.

Senator YARBOROUGH. That is an estimate you have of it?

Mr. SCHLOSS. This is a very, verv loose estimate, I might add. Statistics in this area are very woefully inadequate.

Senator YARBOROUGH. And proper schools for those. there are only about 100 of those and this pilot project in Temple Sinai in Washington is one of the few pilot projects?

Mr. SCHLOSS. That is right.

Senator YARBOROUGH. Thank you for this informative statement. Any questions, Senator Javits?

ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF THE FOUNDATION

Senator JAVITS. I am very grateful to Mr. Schloss for being here. Of course, the organization is very well known in New York, from which I come. I am very proud of its work and I am very pleased that the chairman has seen fit to place such emphasis on the testimony. I know of no area where there is probably a greater feeling of distress than this one, where a child has so many things to learn, so many things to understand. I am grateful to Mr. Schloss for his appearance here.

Thank you, sir.

Senator YARBOROUGH. Thank you, Senator Javits, for that very informed comment. I know of your interest in the city where this foundation has done so much work.

Any questions of the minority or majority? (No response.)

Senator YARBOROUGH. Thank you, sir.

The next witness is Mr. George J. Hecht, publisher of the Parents' Magazine and chairman of the Bipartisan Citizens Committee for Federal Aid for Public Elementary and Secondary Education. Senator JAVITS. Mr. Chairman, would the witness allow me to ask him to yield at this moment?

Mr. HECHT. Certainly.

Senator JAVITS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to state that Mr. George Hecht, who is testifying this morning, is one of our most distinguished citizens in New York in the educational field. He happens to be a personal friend of mine, but this does not in any way detract from his greatness. He is a publisher of a journal of tremendous influence and importance to parents throughout the United States. He does not testify for them this morning, but for this committee, which I think is fine, because it has some very interested people.

Aside from introducing Mr. Hecht to the committee, I would like to note for the record that Senator Fulbright's bill, S. 1343, is one of the bills which is the subject of this hearing. So the witness' testimony is quite pertinent, I want to point out for the record, as far as we are concerned.

I shall have some questions later.

Thank you.

Senator YARBOROUGH. Off the record. (Discussion off the record.)

Senator YARBOROUGH. Back on the record.

STATEMENT OF GEORGE J. HECHT, PUBLISHER OF PARENTS' MAGAZINE AND CHAIRMAN OF THE BIPARTISAN CITIZENS COMMITTEE FOR FEDERAL AID FOR PUBLIC ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION; ACCOMPANIED BY BERNARD LOCKER, EXECUTIVE VICE CHAIRMAN

Mr. HECHT. Before I begin, may I present Mr. Bernard Locker, who is executive vice chairman of our committee.

Senator YARBOROUGH. We welcome you also.

Mr. HECHT. Mr. Chairman, my name is George J. Hecht. Unlike many others who have testified before your committee, I cannot declare that I am the spokesman of millions of people. Nor am I testifying as publisher of Parents' Magazine, a magazine which is read every month by approximately 434 million mothers and fathers throughout the United States.

MEMBERSHIP OF THE BIPARTISAN COMMITTEE

Today, I have the honor of testifying as chairman of the 24-member Bipartisan Citizens Committee for Federal Aid for Public Elementary and Secondary Education. Its membership includes Dr. James B. Conant, president emeritus of Harvard University, two former Secretaries of Health, Education, and Welfare-Messrs. Flemming and Folsom; two former U.S. Commissioners of Education-Messrs. Derthick and McGrath; Walter Reuther, president of the United Auto Workers Union, William Benton, former U.S. Senator from Connecticut and president of Encyclopaedia Britannica, Adm. Lewis L. Strauss, former Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission, and a number of others of equal prominence. The copies of my statement contain a list of the members of the committee.

[Members serve as individuals-titles are for identification]

Chairman: George J. Hecht, Parents' magazine and chairman, American Parents Committee, Inc.

William Benton, chairman of the board, Encyclopedia Britannica, former U.S. Senator from Connecticut.

Barry Bingham, editor and publisher, Courier-Journal and Louisville Times. James B. Conant, president emeritus, Harvard University.

Gardner Cowles, editor and president, Look magazine.

Lawrence G. Derthick, former superintendent of schools of Chattanooga, Tenn., and former U.S. Commissioner of Education.

Walt Disney, chairman of the board, Walt Disney Productions.

Arthur S. Flemming, president, University of Oregon, former Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare.

Marion B. Folsom, director, Eastman Kodak Co., former Secretary of Health,
Education, and Welfare.

Edgar Fuller, executive secretary, Council of Chief State School Officers.
Nelson C. Jackson, associate executive director, National Urban League.

Eric Johnston, president, Motion Picture Association of America, former president, Chamber of Commerce of the United States.

Austin J. McCaffrey, executive director, American Textbook Publishers Institute, former State commissioner of education of New Hampshire.

Earl J. McGrath, executive director, Institute of Higher Education, Teachers College, Columbia University, former U.S. Commissioner of Education. William C. Menninger, M.D., president, The Menninger Foundation.

M. D. Mobley, executive secretary, American Vocational Association.

James S. Peters, board chairman, Bank of Manchester, Georgia, and chairman, Georgia State Board of Education.

Walter P. Reuther, president, International Union, United Automobile Workers. Mrs. Anna Rosenberg, public and industrial relations counsel, former Assistant Secretary of Defense.

Harry Scherman, chairman, Book-of-the-Month Club, and trustee, Committee on Economic Development.

Howard K. Smith, news analyst, American Broadcasting Co.

Jesse G. Stratton, farmer, member, Clinton, Okla., School Board, former president National School Boards Association.

Adm. Lewis L. Strauss, former Chairman, Atomic Energy Commission.

The members of this Bipartisan Citizens Committee have differed in the past as to the proper role of the Federal Government in the financing of education. As individuals, we remain, less than unanimous on particular details. Despite such differences, however, we have joined together in this committee to support a bipartisan approach to education legislation.

American parents and educators-both Democrats and Republicans-work together at State and local levels of government to keep partisan politics out of our schools. They consider education is too intimately tied to their hopes and aspirations for their children for it to be dealt with in a partisan manner. Our committee believes that bipartisanship is needed at the national level if the priority needs of our public education system are to be met. We are aware that no major education bill has ever been enacted into law at the Federal level which has not been formulated and supported on a bipartisan basis.

We are convinced that there is a clear majority in both branches of Congress, consisting of both Democrats and Republicans, who feel that Federal assistance is necessary to help the States accelerate the solution of their most pressing educational problems and who would support education legislation based on the principles which we are proposing today for your consideration.

SUPPORT PRINCIPLES OF S. 1343

Before presenting an explanation of the committee's basic principles for legislation, I must emphasize that as a committee, we neither support nor oppose any particular bill. However, the principles which we support are found in S. 1343, a copy of which I have here, introduced by Senators Fulbright and Carlson, and H.R. 5344, introduced by the chairman of the House Subcommittee on General Education, Representative Perkins of Kentucky. These identical bills illustrate a practical application of our principles, and by way of making my presentation more meaningful, I will be making references to various sections of this legislation.

In fashioning national legislation to help strengthen the vast network of State and local school systems, one must be particularly mindful of its great diversity.

There are no two States which organize and finance their school systems in the same way. Each State has developed its own program of State aid to meet widely divergent educational problems and needs, and the variations from school district to school district represent local citizen judgment as to the kind of schools and education they want for their children. No uniform pattern of federally defined educational activities can meet these requirements of great educational diversity which are a fundamental characteristic of our American education system. The principles we propose clearly point to the method which would be most effective in Federal legislation designed to strengthen elementary and secondary education.

PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITY LIES WITH STATES AND LOCALITIES

Basic to our platform is recognition of the fact that under our system of government, primary responsibility for education is a State and local function. We are, in fact, a nation of 50 separate State school systems, which in turn are made up of over 30,000 local school districts representing a wide variety of educational patterns.

Responsibility for providing public elementary and secondary education is a State function and the States determine general policies in education, but in large measure the operation of the schools is delegated to local boards of education made up of local citizens. State and local taxpayers are taxing themselves heavily to support our public education system and of the annual total of $16 billion of State. and local school funds, State appropriated funds now amount to more than $6 billion a year. That is $6 billion of State money out of $16 billion provided by State and local funds together.

S. 1343, TITLE I

Under title I of the bipartisan bill, each State would receive a 1year survey and planning grant to make a thorough study of its State aid program and its public elementary and secondary education system.

A special State committee would be established for this purpose consisting of persons skilled in public school work and an equal number of lay citizens broadly interested in education. This committee

and make public its report, which must not only assess deficiencies of education but must also propose a program of action to be taken by the State and its local school districts to improve the quality and content of curriculums, the quality of teaching, and the adequacy of school facilities and equipment. The report would also identify educational priorities and a method of allocating available funds among local education agencies to meet these needs according to their respective priorities.

If this survey and planning grant is approved, we will move forward as a nation in making a nationwide assessment of educational deficiencies, and establishing State-by-State and district-by-district plans and priorities for achieving higher standards of education. One of the important byproducts of this systematic examination of our school systems is that it would focus public opinion on the needs of our schools and help stimulate increased State and local effort.

S. 1343, TITLE II

Title II of the proposed legislation authorizes a 3-year program of grants to be used by each State to meet what it has found to be its highest priority needs. For example, if a survey should identify certain school districts in a State as having a critical classroom shortage involving serious fire and health hazards, without financial ability to correct such a situation, funds could be used to build such classrooms. The investment of a relatively small amount of funds under title I for comprehensive surveys and planning would provide each State with adequate and current information to assure that Federal funds would be used only in those particular areas where educational improvement is most needed.

Attached to my testimony is a schedule showing the estimated survey and planning grant which would be received by each State out of the proposed $6 million appropriation-that's the total first-year appropriation.

We believe that title II includes built-in safeguards which would make Federal control both illegal and impossible and which should reassure all those who honestly fear Federal control of education through Federal grants-in-aid. The term "Federal control" is so widely misunderstood, that I should like to take a minute to define it to a degree. We regard Federal legislative or administrative action that results in federally defined changes in the teaching content or process that goes on in the classroom as Federal control of education. On the other hand, we do not regard fiscal accounting for Federal funds by the State to the Federal Government as Federal control of education. With this definition in mind, we assert that there is no Federal control of education possible under the bipartisan bill.

PROVISIONS AGAINST FEDERAL CONTROL

Following are some of the specific provisions incorporated in this general grant program which make Federal control impossible: (1) Federal funds are specifically commingled with State funds upon receipt by the State, and thereafter are deemed to be State funds, with responsibility for reporting and accounting to the Federal Government confined to the official State agency for education.