I am Donald Morrison, President of the National Education Association. The NEA is an independent, voluntary organization of educators, open to all professional teachers, supervisors, and administrators. It presently has 1,100,000 members and is the largest professional organization in the nation, with members from school systems in every state. In all, counting its affiliated state and local organizations, the NEA speaks for a combined membership of approximately 2,000,000 educators. With me is Stanley J. McFarland, Assistant Executive Secretary for Government Relations and Citizenship. We appreciate this opportunity to present our views on H.R. 7796, the proposed Education Revenue Sharing Act of 1971. The stated purpose of this bill is based on the premises that the federal government has a responsibility to assist state and local governments in meeting the costs of education in areas of special national concern, and that prior programs of federal financial assistance are too narrow in scope to meet the needs of state and local school systems. It is somewhat ironic that the administration reached this substantial conclusion and is recommending a major overhaul of the federal grant system when many of the grants involved are not and never have been fully funded. Indeed, the major problems of the federal grants are related to the fact that they have never been fully funded rather than to the narrow scope of the grant programs. This proposal would eliminate all dollar program authorizations other than those for impact aid, and all requirements for state-local matching funds. We do not feel that this is a realistic approach. This proposal, H.R. 7796, is apparently not based on a substantive review of the grants in existence. We find no evidence that the existing grants have been studied carefully to determine if the area of national concern to which each of the grants was addressed has been sufficiently relieved to permit the conditions of the grant to be relaxed. Indeed this proposal for a major overhaul in the federal grant system came a year before the report of the President's Commission on School Finance-a major and comprehensive investigation of school finance. - 2 At this time we oppose the bill as presented for a number of reasons I shall discuss. I'd like to emphasize that the NEA is not opposed to the concept of block grants, grant consolidation, or simplification of the administration of federal grants per se. Our objection to the proposals in the bill is based largely on several factors: (a) the inadequate amounts of money requested; (b) extension of the coverage of all programs to include private school pupils; (c) the creation of new state agencies for overseeing federal funds; (d) the dilution of aid to federally connected pupils; (e) the lessening of the surveillance of federal programs to insure that funds are indeed directed to top educational priorities--school integration, education of the handicapped, education of the educationally disadvantaged. Level of Funding. As you are no doubt aware, the schools are in financial crisis. This year many school systems across the nation are cutting back staff and programs with the net effect of a decrease in the educational services pupils are receiving. The administration's proposal does not provide any increase in funds for existing programs. It simply tosses in an additional $200 million to cover the difference between the total of the state allotments under the existing grants and the formulas in this proposal. We cannot help but conclude that the major purposes of H.R. 7796 are unrelated to its stated purpose. It seems that the thrust of this bill is to provide administrative convenience and perhaps to bring political relief from the pressures for full funding of existing grant programs. This is not to deny that the administrative process could benefit from simplification--but much of this simplification could be achieved by hacking away at the administrative rules and regulations which accompany each title and by more coordination among the federal administrators of the several federal grant programs. True, some consolidation of federal grant programs is no doubt feasible, but not without a careful analysis of whether the national interest these programs are 3 designed to serve has been met. Indeed, we feel it would be a disaster to eliminate some specific programs--for example, those which provide milk and lunch subsidies for the nation's school pupils. This proposal provides that the states may transfer up to 30% of the funds from one block grant to another, except that transfers cannot be made from formula funds for a A category of federally connected pupils or from the Title I pupils. Because this proposal does not provide for a substantial increase in federal funds or even an increase to meet inflation, the national interest would not be served if the states elected to transfer, for example, 30 percent of the vocational funds to the education of the handicapped or vice versa. We do not believe that this proposal is feasible at the existing levels of funding and without a substantial increase in general aid-type funding. Private School Pupils --We object to the inclusion of private school pupils in those programs which are now limited to operation within the puplic schools. While the bill provides no more funds, approximately 5 million additional pupils would be sharing the programs. The loss to public school pupils will be acute in those states where the percentage of private school pupils is highest. Vocational programs in public schools will be especially hard hit. New State Agency--Forty-nine of the fifty states already have state school boards elected or appointed to oversee the states' schools. It is our belief that the appointment of the state advisory council provided in Section 9 would do nothing but create confusion. We also object to the fact that this proposal permits the state's chief executive to by-pass the chief state school officer in appointing the advisory council and even in administering the special educational revenue sharing. It makes no sense whatsoever to set the stage for two agencies-for the state education agency to administer state funds and programs and the governor's appointed council and agency to administer federal funds and programs. Federally connected children--We note that the federal impact aid is not weakened for category A pupils--those whose parents live and work on federal property. But 4 the aid does not follow the category B pupil with a parent merely working on federal property or in the uniformed services. The proposal that not more than 30 percent of the entitlement for category B children can go to districts without any such pupils is slight protection indeed. We believe that the funds appropriated by Congress to relieve the local burden of excessive numbers of pupils whose parents are not employed by a taxable employer should be directed toward the school system so impacted. We also note that this proposal does not provide impact aid for children living in public housing. This was authorized in the last Congress but has never been funded. We stress the need to fully fund this authorization. These pupils do not have a local taxpayer or, in many instances, a taxable employer behind them. These are concentrations of children who need special educational services if the chain of poverty is to be broken. Weakening of Surveillance--Finally, at this point we are reluctant to weaken the rate of progress in getting a fair share of educational opportunity for those pupils who need it most--the minorities, the poor, and the handicapped. We view this proposal--the no strings, no red tape approach--as an abdication of federal responsibility for these pupils. The Commissioner of Education, Sidney Marland, has announced his intention of skewing all possible federal programs to the low income, minority, and handicapped students. We applaud him for this effort this year. We find H.R. 7796 which, in general, would weaken his ability to direct federal funds inconsistent with his stated goals. In summary, we urge the Congress to fully fund the grant programs which are now law and to enact a substantial general aid program before considering consolidation of existing grants. |