Mr. MICHEL. Was any pressure brought to bear on any employees to take advantage of this? Mr. KARSH. Absolutely not. DISCONTINUING FUNDS BECAUSE OF CIVIL RIGHTS LAW Mr. MICHEL. From how many school districts have you had to cut off funds because they did not comply with the civil rights law? Mr. Howe. Very few. Here again we will have to get you a figure. Mr. MICHEL. Has that question been asked? Mr. Howe. No, it has not. There have been some, however. Mr. MICHEL. Would you detail for the record the individual school districts around the country that have been denied funds? Mr. Howe. By name? Mr. MICHEL. Right. Mr. Howe. I think we could do this very easily. It is a relatively small number. Mr. MICHEL. And how much money was involved in each of these school districts? Mr. Howe. That is just their eligibility? Mr. MICHEL. Right. (The information requested follows:) No school district have had their funds permanently denied. The first 16 decisions of hearing examiners, under the title VI procedure, have recently been handed down recommending that funds be discontinued. These decisions are subject to review by the Commissioner of Education and the Secretary and then must be reported to the appropriate committees of the Congress. They become effective 30 days after the reports are made. Decisions in another 36 cases are expected shortly. Although no funds have been finally withdrawn, nevertheless, under the departmental regulation all new commitments to school districts were deferred as of January 3, 1965, until they filed acceptable assurances or desegregation plans. Names of the 16 districts mentioned above: Barbour County, Ala. Bibb County, Ala. Tarrant City, Ala. St. Bernard Parish Schools, Louisiana. Union Parish, La. Vermilion Parish, La. Webster Parish, La. Mr. MICHEL. Are these funds, in cases of this kind, reallocated for other uses once they have been denied a school district? Mr. KARSH. Wherever the authority exists for reallotment they are. Mr. Howe. As I understand it, we try to go into a process of negotiation with the school district and try to get them on the track and qualified again, and if they so qualify, we do manage to make funds available. CHICAGO CASE Mr. MICHEL. In the celebrated Chicago case, was this what went on, negotiation? Mr. Howe. I cannot speak to this in detail. I was not in the midst. of that. That was a December affair. Certainly, whether you describe it as negotiation, or something else, the fact is the authorization was restored. Mr. CARDWELL. The funds were never permanently denied Chicago. Mr. MICHEL. Could you tell me how many people were dispatched to Illinois to iron out this controversy in the Office of Education? Would you put that in the record? Mr. CARDWELL. Yes. Mr. MICHEL. Those sent to Chicago and to Springfield and for what purposes? Mr. CARDWELL. Yes. (The information requested follows:) One Washington staff member, together with a number of regional office staff, were sent to Springfield on Friday, October 1, 1965, to deliver the letter requesting the deferral of any new commitments and to discuss the matter with the officials of the State Department. Two staff members were sent shortly thereafter to Chicago to work out an acceptable assurance with the president of the Chicago School Board. At the present time there are several Washington staff members in Chicago engaged in a compliance review as a followup to the earlier proceedings. As of February 8, 1966, there were three Office of Education (Washington) staff members in Chicago. NATIONAL ASSESSMENT PROGRAM Mr. MICHEL. How much has the Office of Education expended on the development of national assessment? Mr. KARSH. We have not as of now spent any money for the assessment program. There has been a lot of discussion, as you know, with the program that the Carnegie Corp. is working on. We had funds in our budget to support this, but these funds have not been used. They have not been used because I believe Commissioner Keppel at the time made a commitment before the funds would be used he would come back and speak to the committee about them. Mr. Howe. Probably, incidental funds have been spent for travel for people going to meetings. Mr. MICHEL. Can you say as a matter of fact there have been absolutely no funds for a grant in this particular field from the Office of Education? Mr. KARSH. For a grant? Mr. MICHEL. Yes. Mr. KARSH. In terms of discussion of assessment with the Carnegie Corp., there has been no money spent. In terms of the Carnegie Corp. effort, there has been no money spent, and I cannot speak with 100 percent surety there were no other efforts incidental to assessment. GRANT TO UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA Mr. MICHEL. There has not been a grant of $50,000 then made yet to the University of Minnesota? Mr. KARSH. Not to my knowledge. Mr. MICHEL. Would you check that out and give me a flat yes or no answer in the record? Mr. KARSH. Yes. (The information requested follows:) The contract with the University of Minnesota is to bring panels of intelligent laymen, teachers, school administrators, and subject matter specialists together to discuss the development of objectives and instrumentation for a national assessment of the progress of education. These conferences will provide review of objectives set forth in various subject matter fields for differer 60-627 0-66-pt. 2-19 level groups, reaction to item prototypes proposed by test development agencies for assessing various objectives, and discussion of general problems involved in a national educational assessment. These conferences will also make provision for dissemination of information concerning the activities of the Exploratory Committee and the work of test development agencies working on this assessment. The various parts of the development of objectives and instrumentation for the national assessment will be handled by several different test development agencies throughout the country. Of vital importance to the development of the overall assessment procedures is coordination of the work of the contractors. In this part of the project the people working on various aspects of instrument development will be brought together periodically during the period of this proposal to confer and consult with the Exploratory Committee and one another on the various aspects of the total task being undertaken. This work was contracted to a major university to insure the broadest representation in an objective and professional manner to insure proper development of the program for assessment for American education. EDUCATIONAL STATISTICS Mr. MICHEL. In the special analysis of the budget on page 147 under "Educational Statistics," there is this language: The sum of $2.9 million is included for developing a new program of collecting educational achievement data on a uniform nationwide basis for the purpose of assessing the quality of education, for the purchase of data to be collected as a supplement to the current population survey, and to initiate a survey of adult education and training for employment. Where in the justifications, and where in the budget, can we find a breakdown of this $2.9 million figure. Mr. KARSH. That will be in salaries and expenses. It will be in that category under salaries and expenses that deals with the Statistical Center. Mr. MICHEL. That is the only reference made to it, in salaries and expenses? Mr. KARSH. That is correct. NATIONAL ASSESSMENT PROGRAM Mr. MICHEL. On page 65 of the justifications it is also stated: It is necessary to assess and evaluate the effects of Federal programs on educational systems and make analyses of data leading to a better understanding of the operation of the entire educational system. In the last session of the Congress, we were told the reason for a national type test on a random sample basis was necessary in order to report to the Congress the results of the newly enacted legislation. Do you think this is going to accomplish this purpose? Mr. Howe. Call my attention to the quotation again? Mr. CARDWELL. May I ask a question? Your reference here has to do with the request of a national assessment program? Mr. MICHEL. Yes. Mr. CARDWELL. I do not think that part of the budget deals with that program. It deals with the National Center for Educational Statistics. Activities, the gathering of basic data on education throughout the country at every level rather than an assessment program. Mr. MICHEL. You can say that as a fact? Mr. CARDWELL. Yes, sir. Mr. FLOOD. This is not a part of what you call your research appropriation? Mr. CARDWELL. No, sir. Mr. Howe. I think an example of this would be that we have an advisory committee concerned with title I of the Elementary-Secondary Act. That committee will be seeking a variety of information which we will provide them from the Statistical Center. EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES SURVEY Mr. MICHEL. Now regarding those questionnaires that went all around the country, supposedly to about 5 percent of the students. Where did that money come from for those? Mr. KARSH. That came from salaries and expenses for the civil rights activities. Mr. MICHEL. Is that not sort of an odd way to couch that item, in salaries and expenses? Mr. KARSH. It is in connection with the operation of the center in terms of collecting data. I do not know. I believe it is an appropriate cost for that particular area of operation. Mr. MICHEL. What was the return on that? What was the percentage of return, or participation in that survey? Mr. Howe. We would have to dig this out for you. Mr. MICHEL. Would you? Mr. Howe. Yes. (The information requested follows:) Response Rate of Sampled High Schools, USOE Educational Opportunities NOTE-New England: Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont; Mid-Atlantic: Delaware, District of Columbia, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania; Great Lakes: Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin; Plains: Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota; Southeast: Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia; Southwest: Arizona, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas; Far West and Rocky Mountains: Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Washington, Wyoming. CODING OF QUESTIONNAIRE Mr. MICHEL. We were given to understand this was going to be an anonymous-type thing, there was no reason for it being other than that. When I tore the pages apart where they were stapled together, I noticed a definite coding system on the questionnaires. I just wonder to what extent those were being coded and for what purpose and if the Office of Education had anything to do with this, or if this was just the contract firm. It did not seem to me to be just a coincidence. Any explanation? Mr. Howe. I assume any coding of this sort is to identify a classification of person to whom the questionnaire is sent. I doubt from it, without a great deal of backtracking, anyone could identify Jim Jones, or anyone would do so. Mr. MICHEL. It could definitely detail a particular area, or town? Mr. MICHEL. Or a particular school district? Mr. Howe. Again, I do not have the information. I would guess this is the kind of thing that would allow us to identify youngsters with particular characteristics whose responses were being examined on the questionnaire sent out. PERSONNEL FOR EVALUATION OF INFORMATION Mr. MICHEL. Where do we find the money in this bill for those who are going to be evaluating all this information that comes into the Office of Education? Where would we find that item, in salaries and expenses some place? Mr. KARSH. That would be the personnel employed. Mr. CARTWELL. It would be under the activity, National Center for Education Statistics. The justification begins on page 65 of volume 3. Mr. MICHEL. So in capsule form here on this $2.9 million, I read from the special analysis of the Budget: The sum of $2.9 million is included for developing a new program of collecting educational achievement data on a uniform, nationwide basis, for the purposes of assessing the quality of education. Is that an accurate statement? Mr. Howe. Does that apply only to the Office of Education activities? Mr. KARSH. That is correct, in terms of the expenditure; that is correct. Mr. MICHEL. A one-shot item, or will there be a request next year for more? Mr. KARSH. I believe this is a one-shot item. EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES SURVEY Mr. MICHEL. This past year the Office of Education sent out an Educational Opportunities Survey on which they did not ask any questions dealing with religion. It has come to my attention that another questionnaire has been sent out, I believe 35,000 of them, to parents, students without the knowledge of the school superintendents, or the |