far as the dollars are concerned. These are not going to be Federal dollars that are going to be applied directly to classroom needs. Mr. FLEMMING. Mr. Chairman, Congressmen, as I understand your figures, it does take this proposed apportionment of the $600 million of capital construction and then you take what we show in this other report as the shortage of classrooms in a particular State, and determine how much would be available per classroom in terms of the shortage figure.

Now I think the only thing that that does not allow for is that under our bill this would not become available automatically to all districts that report shortages, the districts would have to establish the fact that they are making a reasonable tax effort and they cannot go beyond that. Of course it is difficult to determine what that would do to those figures at this particular time. We would have to have some experience under it. But it clearly would change the figures State by State to some extent because in some of the States there would be more probably needy school districts than in others. In other words, it is my understanding that you could take these district by district and even though a district shows a shortage it does not automatically follow that it is not capable of dealing with that shortage. The district may be capable of dealing with it under our plan they will not have to do it, only step in where there is a need.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I wonder, Mr. Brademas, if you did the same thing with H.R. 22?

Mr. BRADEMAS. I have not.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. As I read the figures there would be more available to Alabama under the administration program using your own figures than there would be under the H.R. 22 if that is a fair test. In other words, according to the distribution under H.R. 22 Alabama in the first year of operation could get $22,275,000, Wisconsin would get $24,675,000.

In other words, Alabama would get less than Wisconsin. As you indicated, they probably need far more. Under the administration program the figure that I assume you used for distribution or that the bonds that could be issued in Alabama with State-Federal guarantee would be $17,699,927, whereas Wisconsin could only get $12,625,202.

So if your approach is valid it certainly would more of a damage case against the distribution formula under H.R. 22.

Mr. BAILEY. Now, if the Chair may interpose this note. This kind of discussion belongs in executive session when we consider this legislation.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Unless the Secretary has any comments to make about this suggestion.

Mr. BRADEMAS. I understand your point.

Mr. FLEMMING. I have reacted to the suggestion.

I have nothing further to add to the issue or the question raised by Congressman Brademas.

Mr. BAILEY. Have you concluded your arguments? I understand you have to be over at a committee meeting of some kind pretty soon. So you go ahead and we will not allow any more interruptions.

Mr. FLEMMING. Mr. Chairman, as far as the comments that I wanted to make at this time are concerned, I have concluded those, and I just want to underline the fact again that the more I go into this, the more I consider the problem that confronts all of us, the more I am convinced of the fact that we have a program here that would produce 75,000 additional classrooms, and I think it is a good program in terms of getting off dead center as I indicated the last time. I think it will give us an opportunity of helping needy school districts that have exerted a reasonable effort and cannot go beyond to really get the additional classrooms that they need.

I will be very happy to respond to any additional questions, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. One short question, Mr. Chairman, if I may. Mr. BAILEY. Go ahead.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. We have discussed several times the feasibility of this program. I wonder if you have any information as to whether a comparable program has been practiced and proven of value in States. Is this based on some kind of experience that has been developed?

Mr. FLEMMING. Yes. My understanding is that the State of Michigan has operated a comparable program and likewise I think the State of California has operated one that is very close to the type of program that we are suggesting here and then, of course, the basic principles underlying the equality situation practices that are followed by various States could likewise be applied to the operation of this type of program. In other words, we are convinced that a State could operate under the program. I might also say this, Mr. Chairman, on the basis of further checking that has been done, I am convinced that all States could qualify under this program either by grant provisions, loan provisions, or appropriations which would enable them to participate in these debt service payments in the same way that we proposed that the Federal Government participate. I think by taking one of those three routes there is no doubt at all but that any State could qualify.

Mr. BAILEY. Now, may the Chair inquire if that last pound of flesh is in the project that is being operated up in Michigan or in California or is that just the thought of the

Mr. FLEMMING. As far as I know, that is not in either the Michigan or California plan, is that correct? Am I correct that is the 10-year proposal?

Mr. FLYNT. Mr. Chairman, the 10-year proposal is not in the Michigan plan. The Michigan plan has an indefinite claim on the district and so does California.

Mr. FLEMMING. So does the California? In other words, it goes beyond 10 years, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. FLYNT. It goes on forever.

up on

Mr. FLEMMING. Even with that information I will not back the statement I made to you if in the judgment of the committee it be better to strike that it is OK.

Mr. BAILEY. My thought is that is the worst kind of Federal interference with the affairs of local school districts.

Mr. FLEMMING. I certainly see your point and I am perfectly willing to yield on it because I think we should avoid that type of interference as much as possible.

37378-59-12

Mr. BAILEY. If there are no further questions, we appreciate your coming up, Doctor, for this additional expression of your views.

I assume that the Department of Education and its staff down there will be available in case we need to call on them.

Mr. FLEMMING. They certainly will, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BAILEY. When we get around to the stage of writing legislation. Mr. FLEMMING. If I can be of further help, I hope you will not hesitate to get in touch with me. I shall be glad to come up any time I can be of help to the committee on this.

Mr. BAILEY. Thank you, Doctor.

Mr. FLEMMING. Yes, indeed..

Mr. BAILEY. At this time the committee will be glad to hear from Dr. Edgar Fuller, executive secretary of the Council of Chief State School Officers.

Dr. Fuller, you may be seated and identify yourself to the reporter and give us your views on not only the administration's approach to this problem but the Metcalf-Murray bill and any other pending legislation that you have had a chance to study that is before the committee. STATEMENT OF DR. EDGAR FULLER, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, COUNCIL OF CHIEF STATE SCHOOL OFFICERS

Mr. FULLER. My name is Edgar Fuller, and I am executive secretary of the Council of Chief State School Officers. The council's members are the superintendents and commissioners of education in the States, Territories, island possessions, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. They would have heavy administrative responsibilities under any of the bills being considered here today. I understand, Mr. Chairman, that these include H.R. 22 by a number of Representatives, H.R. 2365 by Representative Udall, H.R. 4268 by Representative Frelinghuysen, H.R. 965 by Representative Thompson, H.R. 4223 by Representative Perkins, and many others. We are interested most in supporting certain administrative principles of H.R. 2365, the Udall bill, within the framework provided by H.R. 22, the MurrayMetcalf bill.

The Chief State School Officers have had definite policies concerning Federal support of education for many years. More than a decade ago, in the basic policy bulletin entitled "Our System of Education," they adopted unanimously the following statements which remain in effect today:

Federal funds for curent expense, capital outlay or other costs of education should be apportioned to the State education authorities by the U.S. Office of Education and not directly to local administrative units; the State education authority should apportion such funds to local administrative units in conformity with the basic plan for financing education in the State.

Another vital statement of policy from the same source concerns discretionary controls by the Federal Government over Federal funds apportioned to the States for public elementary and secondary schools. It reads as follows:

Funds collected at one level of government for expenditure at a different level should be apportioned in accord with an equitable and objective formula free from discretionary control by the aportioning agency.

Then, after the funds have been apportioned by the State education agency and expended by the local educational agencies, comes

the process of accounting. Here again the Chief State School Officers have a basic policy stated as follows:

Federal audits of Federal funds made available to the States for education should be restricted to the auditing of the records of the respective State education agencies.

STATE AND LOCAL ADMINISTRATORS AGREE

The administration of public education at the local level throughout the United States is largely in the hands of the city, town, village, and other superintendents of schools organized as the American Association of School Administrators. Only last week, this great organization of thousands of administrators of public education at the local level adopted the following statement:

Realizing that, under present tax structure, resources for local school purposes are woefully inadequate for quality school programs in many areas, and observing that recent events make it more clearly apparent that public education is essential to national strength, security and welfare, the American Association of School Administrators reiterates its belief that sustantial financial resources available to the Federal Government should be made available for the support of public schools. Unprecedented increased enrollments and the need for additional staffs and new physical plants make it urgent that greatly increased funds be made available for education in the immediate future. The association therefore urges that State legislature and the Congress of the United States at once make major appropriations to strengthen the general programs and facilities in the public tax-supported schools and colleges.

Until such time as these appropriations are forthcoming, the American Association of School Administrators strongly urges the Congress to provide the necessary appropriations needed for the continuance of existing federally supported programs in education.

In addition to the foregoing resolution the AASA last week stated in its platform that it would work for the following:

Federal aid for operating and providing facilities for publicly supported and controlled schools, administered, without Federal control—

and that is italicized in the resolution

through the U.S. Office of Education and State departments of education.

Mr. Chairman, the Council of Chief State School Officers is in complete agreement with the American Association of School Administrators on these fundamental issues that are so greatly involved in the legislative proposals before your committee. Most of the other great national professional organizations concerned with public elementary and secondary education are also in accord with these principles.

SPECIFIC RECENT POLICIES OF THE COUNCIL

The Council of Chief State School Officers held its annual meeting in Chicago last November, and passed by unanimous vote the following resolutions, among other, from its resolutions and legislative committees. Each has equal standing as the policy of the council and was adopted with a large quarum of the members of the council present.

I quote the two resolutions:

That the council go on record as favoring Federal support legislation of the general type which leaves to the States complete freedom to determine the educational purposes for which Federal funds should be used.

And the second one:

The following legislative policy of the council for the period of the 86th Congress was recommended: (a) Concentration on full implementation of Public Law 864; (b) that the council go on record as favoring the principles embodied in the Udall bill as a long-range program and that the council take no position on the Murray-Metcalf bill.

The Udall bill referred to was the 1958 version, and was an effort to achieve the principles of administration that have been recited here. The Murray-Metcalf bill mentioned in the resolution was also that of 1958. Both of these bills, Mr. Chairman, have been improved in their 1959 versions, the Udall bill, H.R. 2365, and the Murray-Metcalf bill, H.R. 22.

Last year the members of the council supported the Udall bill with only one dissenting vote among the large majority that answered a written inquiry. This year the improvements in H.R. 22, the Murray-Metcalf bill, make it possible for the council to support that bill in most of its aspects, on provision that certain amendments are added to it which are believed by chief State school officers to be of great importance for the future of education in this country. These amendments seek to carry out major administrative and policy principles of H.R. 2365, the Udall bill.

Members of the board of directors and other chief State school officers held a meeting on these matters on February 16 of this year, and decided to bring the aspects of H.R. 22 and H.R. 2365 they support more closely together if possible. The decisions in this regard have been approved by all nine of the general officers and directors of the council and numerous other chief State school officers, and no dissenting voice has been heard from any State commissioner or superintendent in regard to them.

To accomplish these purposes, discussions have been held with leading representatives of education associations supporting other legislation. We have reason to believe there will be united educational support for the amendments to H.R. 22 we are about to suggest for your consideration. Provided the principles covered by these amendments are included, the Council of Chief State School Officers as a group will undoubtedly favor enactment of H.R. 22.

SUGGESTED AMENDMENTS

We suggest that section 7 of H.R. 22 be amended so that its title will read, "Certification by States," and that the text be revised somewhat as follows:

Upon receipt by the State, funds allocated under this Act shall thereafter be deemed to be State funds to be distributed to local educational agencies solely for the construction of public school facilities and/or for the payment of the salaries of public school teachers. The State education received shall certify annually to the Commissioner that funds received under this Act were distributed and expended in accordance with the provisions of this Act.

Mr. Chairman, the Chief State School Officers have learned much about Federal control of education in implementing the National Defense Education Act of 1958, and they desire to profit from their experience. They have worked closely with Secretary Flemming and Commissioner Derthick and his staff, and in substantial agreement with them at all times. No personalities or agency politics of