Page images
PDF
EPUB

(Mr. Brademas subsequently asked, and permission was granted, that the following letter and accompanying documents be inserted at this point in the record:)

Hon. CLEVELAND BAILEY,

INDIANA CONGRESS OF PARENTS AND TEACHERS, INC.,

Indianapolis, Ind., March 13, 1959.

Chairman, House Subcommittee on Education,
Washington, D.O.

MY DEAR MR. BAILEY: It has come to our attention that certain individual testimony before your subcommittee concerning Federal grants-in-aid to education was meant to leave the erroneous impression that parent-teacher groups and related organizations in Indiana were doing nothing to gain public support for education here.

Having just come through a rigorous 61-day session of our State General Assembly, I can personally assure you that this accusation is either made out of ignorance of the economic facts of life or else the gentleman's remarks were grossly misunderstood.

I was 1 of 13 individuals appointed to a Governor's committee on school aid distribution to draw up a realistic formula for a sound educational program for Indiana, and served as secretary of that committee during the 10 months of continuous study. The total amount of this program if carried out would have amounted to $238,650,000 for the biennium. However, during the last frustrating days just passed we saw one by one the programs we knew to be sound and desirable-kindergartens, capital outlay for buildings and bus bodies, ample current operating expense-all these things we saw cut out in order to fit the Governor's budget figure of $205,500,000. Yes, and all these cuts had the sanction of the very "special interest" spokesman who stood before your committee and would have you believe that nothing is being done in Indiana to gain public support of education.

These interests made no attempt to stop State matching funds taken from support of education in order to qualify for Federal highway funds.

Perhaps some of us here are putting our efforts in the wrong locale. Perhaps we should spend more time before committees in Washington instead of staying at home frantically in search of funds which always seem just out of our reach. Sincerely yours,

MARGARET HERRIN
Mrs. Don Herrin,
First Vice President.

The Honorable HAROLD W. HANDLEY,

Governor of Indiana,

State House,

Indianapolis, Ind.

DEAR GOVERNOR HANDLEY: In accordance with your request, the committee on school aid distribution has met and discussed possible ways to adjust the cost to the State of the committee's recommendations for the distribution of funds for local schools.

These adjustments are listed to show the flexibility of the proposed program and are not to be considered as recommendations of the committee. The committee reaffirms the original recommendations in its report as constituting à good program, within practical limitations that exist, for the distribution of State funds for schools. Any adjustments necessitated by cost considerations can be accomplished only through changes in the plan which the committee believes would cause it to be less effective in carrying out its purposes.

The cost of the program to the State for the 1959-61 biennium could be adjusted downward in any of the following ways:

[blocks in formation]

A possibility for a further substantial reduction of the cost to the State of the committee's recommendations would lie in the elimination of the "no loss" clause under which school corporations are guaranteed, under the committee's plan, that they would receive in State funds (on meeting one specified condition) at least the perpupil amounts of State funds received by them for the 1958-59 school year. Through such a change, combined with all the other adjustments that have been listed, the financial requirements of the proposed plan probably would be pared down to the vicinity of $200 million of State funds in the 1959-61 biennium. However it is the consensus of the committee that elimination of the "no loss" clause undoubtedly would make the plan, as a practical matter, unacceptable to the public and the legislature.

The order in which the possible cost-adjusting changes in the committee's recommendations have been listed in this letter should not be considered as in any way implying conclusions of the committee as to preferred priority of adjustments in the event any are made.

As indicated, the amounts of possible reductions reported in this letter pertain to the full 1959-61 biennium. The figures may be interpreted best in conjunction with table I, page 10, of the committee's formal report issued in December 1958.

It is to be noted that item "a" of the possible adjustments listed here, elimination of proposed grants for school construction, would forestall the institution of a program which most members of the committee feel is long overdue as a means of assuring acceptable classroom facilities in school corporations where the need for State assistance in providing such facilities is the greatest.

Similarly, the adjustment represented by item "b" would involve the elimination of the proposed State grants for the purchase by school corporations of school buses and tires. A large majority of the committee believers such grants are highly desirable as a means of encouraging and aiding local school corporations to reduce school transportation costs substantially through self-ownership and operation of school buses.

The possible adjustment represented by item "c" contemplates not that the recommended formula for the distribution of funds for transportation operating expenses would be changed, but rather that the total amount receivable by any school corporation under the recommended formula would be reduced for each year by the amount of $3 per transported pupil. The committee felt that if an adjustment were to be made at this point, it would be more equitable for it to be made in the manner suggested rather than through a change in the recommended formula.

The possible adjustments represented by item "d" and item "e" deserve further explanation. They deal with the basic foundation program for instructional salaries and other current expenses (excluding transportation). In making its original recommendations, the committee was seeking to effectuate the objectives of (1) assurance of a more realistic and adequate school foundation program; (2) better equalization of the burden of financial support of schools; and (3) assumption by the State of a larger share of total school costs.

It is self-apparent that reduction of the average instructional salary unit value from $4,700 to $4,600 and of the unit value for other current expenses from $1,500 to $1,400 (indicated by item "d") would both lower the contemplated level of the assured foundation program and reduce the share of school costs to be borne by the State. The increasing by 10 cents of the uniform local tax rate (indicated by item "e") would not in itself affect the already reduced foundation program level, but it would force local school corporations to finance a larger share, and the State a smaller share, of the foundation program. Through additional sacrifice of the foundation program, the instructional salary and other operating expense unit values conceivably could be cut in further successive steps. Or the required uniform local tax rate could be increased further. The complicating factor, however, is the effect of the "no loss" clause.

Under the committee's program as recommended, the on-the-average "crossover point" between a "no loss" guarantee and an increase in State school aid was the school corporation with adjusted assessed valuation of $12,000 per pupil. Under the program as recommended, this meant that 11.55 percent of classroom units and 22.22 percent of the taxable wealth of the State would be covered by the "no loss" guarantee, while there would be increased State distributions for the remainder.

If the adjustment represented by item "d" were put into effect, it is estimated that 14.99 percent of the classroom units and 26.89 percent of the taxable wealth would be under "no loss" coverage and the "crossover point" would be an adjusted assessed valuation of $10,800 per pupil. With the dual adjustments represented by item "e" in effect, the percentages under "no loss" coverage would rise to 31.28 percent of the classroom units and 46.27 percent of the taxable wealth, while the "crossover point" would be an adjusted assessed valuation of $9,500 per pupil.

It is obvious that if further adjustments of this character were made, still more school corporations would come under the "no loss" coverage, which in itself is virtually tantamount to remaining under the present minimum school foundation program. If such adjustments were carried to the extreme necessary to bring the State funds requirement down to the level contemplated by 1957 law provisions, all school corporations (with possible very minor exceptions) would be under the "no loss" clause and nothing in the way of further equalization or other objectives would be accomplished.

In the absence of a "no loss" guarantee, much better equalization of the financial burden of support of schools could be accomplished under the principles of the committee's plan than under the present system even at a State biennial appropriation figure of $190,500,000, although in that instance the objectives of a more adequate foundation program and the assumption by the State of a larger share of school costs would be completely sacrificed. However, as previously indicated, it is the consensus of the committee that its plan, without the "no loss" clause, would disturb school budgets to such an extent in so many school corporations losing State funds that it would be publicly and legislatively unacceptable.

We hope that this letter gives you the information you desired. Certainly we of the committee will stand ready to continue to cooperate and be of assistance to you in this important matter in every way possible. Respectfully submitted.

GOVERNOR'S COMMITTEE ON SCHOOL AID DISTRIBUTION,
Mrs. JEAN PILOT, Chairman.

JANUARY 9, 1959.

"FROM THE CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED"

TO THE 91ST INDIANA GENERAL ASSEMBLY: “*** HAVING DONE ALL, TO STAND.” These were the words of the Apostle Paul to the Ephesians at their time of crisis.

The Indiana Congress of Parents and Teachers has watched a steady procession of Indiana lawmakers grace the statehouse since the PTA State branch was organized in 1912. We have watched the work of these dedicated guardians of the State government, and it has been, for the most part, to the good.

During these years, a steady, remedial type of legislation has given local communities an "assist" in solving their school problems.

But for the past five years, a noticeable urgency has been felt among the people in Indiana who are interested in children-simply for the sake of the children. These people want, most of all, qualified teachers, small classes in well-equipped classrooms, and forward-looking administration.

The antiquated laws on the statute books of Indiana do nothing to encourage the organization of school districts to provide the desired educational opportunities. On the contrary, they tolerate and perpetuate small, inefficient units. State leadership is necessary to help these communities help themselves. Today we live in a "sputnik" world. Although we cherish the nostalgic traditions of the covered wagon days, we can no longer afford the luxury of such reminiscence.

The PTA legislation program follows, on the inside pages. It is not new. We stand on its principles as being sound and realistic.

We therefore admonish the Ninety-first General Assembly in the words of Paul: "*** Having done all, to stand."

1958-59 PROPOSED LEGISLATION PROGRAM

INDIANA CONGRESS OF PARENTS AND TEACHERS, INC.

Third object: "To secure adequate laws for the care and protection of children and youth."

The Indiana Congress of Parents and Teachers, Inc., promotes and supports legislation designed to aid and protect children and youth. The legislative policy shall be to inform its members about vital issues which primarily affect the welfare of children and youth, to help build public opinion, and to support legislation that has merit. It has not been the policy to introduce specific bills to the general assembly, but to support in principle certain measures to be considered affecting the welfare of children and youth.

ACTION ITEMS

Action items are those receiving the most attention throughout the State on which legislation is anticipated in 1959. We will work for:

1. Maintaining high qualifications for teachers

The Indiana Congress of Parents and Teachers, a lay voluntary organization, does not presume to be an authority on the details of the educational program prerequisite to the issuance of a teacher's license or certificate. We are, however, keenly interested in the problem since in a real measure we are the consumers of the educational product. We realize that this is a very sensitive specialized function carried out by a duly constituted arm of the State government, the commismission on teacher training and licensing and of institutions of higher education charged with training teachers. The intricacies of the whole problem are such that this cooperative arrangement appears to be the best means whereby we can guarantee the most property qualified teachers to carry on the educational program that we desire for our children and youth.

The complexity of the problems related to teacher training seems to us of such a nature that it could not be resolved satisfactorily by legislative enactment.

Studies have shown that young men and women who are serious about their futures and careers want to enter a profession that will give them prestige. They also want a challenging profession, but they definitely want it to be a profession. The attraction to and the retention in teaching (in quality and quantity) of young persons can be accomplished by maintaining high professional standards in which adequate preparation in the subject field (s) and professional courses is guaranteed.

This has been the experience during the past years not only in teaching but in other professions. High standards of professional preparation attract to the profession in greater numbers the capable persons needed for the teaching in our school communities.

The Indiana Congress of Parents and Teachers is most concerned with adequate and proper preparation of teachers, and the attraction to the profession of a sufficient number of prospective teachers for the host of boys and girls who are continuing in school in greater numbers than ever before. We favor a continuing evaluation of the teaching-training program in cooperation with the people who use the products. Although we would support modifications in the

present arrangements that would improve the profession, it should be made clear that we have great faith in the teaching profession as it is today. 2. One hundred percent payment of an equitable State distribution formula

The Indiana Congress of Parents and Teachers has maintained an abiding interest in sound financing of our public schools. Our interest as a lay, volunteer group does not center on the technicalities of a mathematical formula but only as such a formula affects the educational opportunities of our children. For this reason then, we oppose any radical change in the present formula which would:

Increase the number of children per classroom.

Fail to recognize qualifications of teachers in terms of training and experience.

Minimize the value of increased educational opportunity by ignoring the length of school term.

We support the formula which works as an incentive to communities to offer the finest educational opportunities possible, and at the same time prevents the perpetuation of inefficient units.

We submit that the per capita base for tuition support would fail to accomplish the equalization of educational opportunity, since none of the above factors is taken into consideration.

3. State assistance for school building construction according to need and maximum local effort

When the minimum foundation program was enacted in 1949, the capital outlay provision for the State's sharing in costs of school plant construction was: not incorporated into the act. Since that time various costly "emergency" measures that circumvent the 2 percent bonding limitation imposed by the State constitution have been enacted. However, one important innovation during the 1957 general assembly recognizes the capital outlay principle as a responsibility shared by the State government. This was in the form of $7 million to be distributed over the biennium "provided that the amount received by each school corporation shall be used for school building repairs, construction of school building facilities (except gymnasiums), or debt service, including lease rental payments." The grant-in-aid principle was further established by a $3 million fund appropriated to the Governor to be distributed to destitute areas.

The next step, then, is for the legislature to establish an orderly, practical financing method which would incorporate the best features of the above capitaloutlay measures. An objective program, based on the equalization formula as practiced in the other three phases of the minimum foundation program (tuition support, operation, and transportation) would provide an incentive for local school corporations to earmark local funds and proceed with needed classroom construction.

4. Reorganization of local school administrative units to provide, economically, a better educational system, building program, and pupil transportation system

Legislation should be enacted which will encourage and facilitate more extensive school reorganization through local action on a voluntary basis.

County school reorganization committees, locally appointed, have been a key feature of successful reorganization laws in other States. The objective would be for such a county committee to develop plans for the establishment of school administrative units encompassing natural school communities. These areas would have sufficiently large enrollments and taxable wealth to be able to function efficiently and to offer educational programs for grades 1 through 12. These plans should specify the makeup and method of selection of members of administrative boards for any reorganized school corporations that might be proposed. We recommend the creation of a State school reorganization commission for a 5-year period to assist and give guidance to the countywide studies. Guideposts in the form of State minimum standards for school reorganization would serve purposes comparable to those now served by minimum State requirements with respect to 8-month school term, compulsory attendance, approval of basic textbooks, teachers' salaries, health and safety standards for buildings, equipment for buses and the licensing of teachers.

Local action on reorganization plans: Unless a school reorganization plan submitted for part or all of a county were ratified by a petition signed by at least 55 percent of the registered voters in the area, the plan would be submitted to

« PreviousContinue »