-7

to adhere to fair employment standards. They should maintain decent working conditions and proper professional practices as well as other standards of fair employment.

To sum up this statement, in our opinion Congress and the Administration must face up to the fact that vastly increased sums of money will be needed to provide a decent school system in this country. As a goal, we should strive to devote about 10% of our national income for educational purposes. The Federal government should increase its share of school support; the percentage or amount of increase will depend upon various factors, such as the ability of other levels of government to maintain equitable tax programs and the quality of education deemed desirable and feasible in the nation. We estimate that approximately $45 billion additional will be required to maintain a proper school system. The major

share of this increase should be borne by the Federal government and the governments of the states.

mg

opeiu2aflcio

Senator PELL. The next witness is the representative of the National Council of Jewish Women, Mrs. Philip Frieder, member of the National Board of the Council and elected member of the State Board of Education of Colorado. She is accompanied by Mrs. Olya Margolin who has been of great help to this subcommittee. I know Senator Dominick is particularly interested in your testimony. So what you might care to do is read your statement and then we will as I requested, save the questions and by that time I am sure he will be back.

STATEMENT OF MRS. PHILIP FRIEDER, NATIONAL BOARD MEMBER, NATIONAL COUNCIL OF JEWISH WOMEN, ACCOMPANIED BY OLYA MARGOLIN

Mrs. FRIEDER. I am Mrs. Philip Frieder of Denver, Colo., national board member of the National Council of Jewish Women, and chairman of its education task force. Since 1959 I have also served as a member of the Colorado State Board of Education. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before this committee on behalf of the 100,000 members of the National Council of Jewish Women to expresss our concerns with S. 1669, "The Education Revenue Sharing Act of 1971." And with regard to the comments that the Senator made to the preceding witness, I would merely comment that I represent an organization which is a segment of the public which does understand the need for public education and is willing to support it.

The National Council of Jewish Women, founded in 1893, has sections throughout the United States and in their local communities councilwomen work with the public schools in a variety of ways. Sections sponsor tutoring programs, provide special assistance to handicapped children, finance and service special enrichment programs, and serve as volunteers in a variety of settings from the preschool up to, and including, adult education. Our traditionally strong support for public education is rooted in our belief that, and here Ï quote from our resolutions, "American Democracy depends on a strong system of public education to develop the highest potential of the individual." To that end our members have pledged themselves to promote expanded educational opportunities for all children and to work for a higher level of financial support for public education: (a) By supporting adequate State and local funding; (b) By supporting Federal aid to public education;

(c) By urging reappraisal of the basis of financing public education;

(d) By protecting public funds from being diverted to private elementary and secondary education.

We view S. 1669, as an attempt to deal with two basic problems: (1) The desperate financial plight of public education and the needs for additional financial support-especially from the Federal level; and

(2) The proliferation of Federal legislative titles, programs, and grants dealing with education, the numbers of which are not only very confusing but also are sometimes self-defeating.

Both of these are laudable objectives. The National Council of Jewish Women certainly concurs with the need for more efficient, more responsible, and more responsive institutions and government, at

every level; and we have a consistent record of working for the adoption of legislation designed to provide additional financial support for public education.

However, as we have examined the proposed legislation, we fail to see a clear expression of intent to increase significantly the total amount of Federal assistance to public education. What we do see is some consolidation of existing programs, the granting of additional flexibility to the States to allocate moneys presently appropriated, and, because additional discretionary powers will be given to the States without any additional funds, we see the very real possibility that certain beneficial education programs could be cut at the State level, and eventually even eliminated.

Members of our organization are fully in accord with the proposition that governmental programs should not be allowed to proliferate needlessly and endlessly, and that once a particular problem has been resolved or a need met, the relevant program ought not to be continued. We do, however, feel strongly that there are certain areas of national concern which require the special focus and attention that only a categorical program can provide. We hope the Congress will weigh carefully the necessity for insuring that the needs of children, as pinpointed by certain categorical programs, will continue to be met.

So, although the purpose of the bill is "to strengthen education by providing a share of the revenues of the United States to the States and to local educational agencies for the purpose of assisting them in carrying out education programs reflecting areas of national concern" we feel that it falls short of its stated goal: (1) It fails to recognize the current financial crisis in public education-a crisis which reflects the inadequacy and the inequity of the present method and level of support for public education. The importance of public education to the well-being of the Nation cannot be overemphasized. Public education is a national concern; it should be a national priority, and as such, in our opinion, deserves a far greater degree of Federal financial support. As we all know, most of the Federal programs are not and have not been funded even in the less than adequate amounts authorized, so that schools now receive for each authorized program only a fraction of the amount specified in the original bill.

In the legislation before us the schools will be asked, in effect, to divide up the presently grossly inadequate appropriation, and to spread it even thinner. We sincerely hope that the committee will consider this aspect of the bill, and move to authorize sufficient funds to meet the stated legislative objective of strengthening education. (2) S. 1669 also proposes to consolidate some 33 legislative titles and grants into 5 broad areas of legislative support, but does so, in our estimation, without adequate safeguards to insure that needed programs are not under-implemented or phased out. Accountability is a key word these days in the education community. Citizens, parents are demanding that schools and government must be accountable to the public.

This is as it should be. Unfortunately, in this bill, standards of quality appear to have been considerably relaxed, and provisions for accountability in many of the programs are so vague as to be practically nonexistent, since only mandated "flow through" funds would be subject to Federal review. Here, again, we would urge that the committee carefully examine the proposal.

(3) But our primary objection to this bill is based on our strong commitment to protect the principle of separation of church and state, which is basic to our system of public education. It is our firm conviction that separation of church and state is essential to the continued political and social health of this country. Accordingly, we oppose all proposals which would allow public funds to be used for private schools.

Last April, in his message on Special Revenue for Education, President Nixon stated:

Nonpublic schools bear a significant share of the cost and effort of providing education for our children today. Federal aid to education should take this fully into account. This proposal would do that by considerably broadening the authority for extending aid to students in non-public schools. Nonpublic school students would be counted in the reckoning of population for purposes of allocation, and all forms of educational services would be available to them.

It is apparent that S. 1669 could well provide substantial support to nonpublic schools-a development which we deplore. Once the concept of Federal revenue-sharing is extended to include church schools we will have made a major departure from our basic doctrine of separation of church and state, and we may then expect to see further weakening of the wall of separation. To us the constitutional and historical safeguards of separation of church and state represent, not sterile legal doctrine, but important public policy—a policy which must not be diluted or otherwise weakened.

There is no doubt that public education needs strengthening— with better planning, greater accountability, and greater financial support. This is true in every State and in every school district in the country. However the bill before us falls far short of meeting those needs, and, in our opinion, it carries within it the potential for great harm-both to education and to our society as a whole. We hope the committee will reject this proposal, therefore.

Thank you on behalf of the National Council of Jewish Women for the opportunity to appear before you to voice our concerns.

Senator DOMINICK. Mrs. Frieder, on behalf of the chairman and myself I want to express my thanks to you for coming back and presenting this testimony. I think it is extremely helpful.

First of all, I should say we have another vote on in a minute which is why Senator Pell just left. As soon as he gets back I will have to go again. I am not quite clear about the separation of church and state in connection with your opposition to the special revenue sharing. Am I reading it wrong in here? Is your comment related to the special revenue sharing bill or isn't it?

Mrs. FRIEDER. Yes; our comment was related to the special revenue sharing bill, particularly that aspect of it which would allow or which would bring into this act several acts which now are excluded from the provisions of ESEA, title I. As I understand, this bill as we read this bill, the provisions of ESEA title I with respect to nonpublic schools would be thus extended through this legislation to all the programs under this title.

Senator DOMINICK. Well, there is a provision in the bill as you know, referring to the provisions of State law which might prevent State agencies from allowing parochial students to participate in State funded programs, but it was my understanding, and I want to be sure that the record is clear on this, that under special revenue

sharing, we were not doing any more for private schools than is presently being done under title I where you can participate in a public school program. Am I wrong in this?

Mrs. FRIEDER. It is my understanding that the provisions of title I with regard to nonpublic schools would be extended in this legislation to the 32 other titles which will be consolidated, which as we see it, is extending the possibility of Federal funds being expended for nonpublic schools, in a variety of titles.

Senator DOMINICK. But in a variety of educational programs, not in religious programs.

Mrs. FRIEDER. Educational programs.

Senator DOMINICK. All right. We have had this tremendous difficulty with this church-state problem before, as you know, in all the elementary education and secondary education programs. We have usually included specific restrictions relating to assistance to a private school. We have tried to avoid that issue by saying that the children who are in parochial schools can participate in other programs if they want, thereby benefiting the child as opposed to the school. Does this not also follow in this bill?

Mrs. FRIEDER. Well, that is the public-benefit theory and as a matter of fact, looking at the results of 6 years of ESEA we see that the public-benefit theory in fact does result in assistance to the school, to private schools. Under section 7, subtitle B1 of the bill, I think you will find that the Secretary is given discretion to arrange by contract or otherwise for children enrolled in the private elementary or secondary schools within such State; that is, if the State constitution precludes such dispersal of funds, the Secretary is given discretion to arrange by contract or otherwise so that the children enrolled in private elementary or secondary schools within such States, will receive on an equitable basis, services similar to those provided from the funds made available to children in the public school.

In other words, should the State constitution of the individual State prohibit the dispersal of such funds to nonpublic schools, there is an escape clause.

Senator DOMINICK. Yes; I understood that but the escape clause is still related to the pupil as opposed to the school.

Mrs. FRIEDER. Mrs. Margolin would like to add something.

Mrs. MARGOLIN. Senator, I think one can interpret that any way one wants to. The point is that the aid is going to be given to the school because that is with whom the Secretary is signing the contract. He is not signing the contract with individual children; he is giving it to the school.

Senator DOMINICK. He would be signing a contract with the public schools in order to provide services for parochial school students, as I understand the bill.

Mrs. MARGOLIN. I am talking about the nonpublic schools. I am reading title VII.

Senator DOMINICK. So am I. I think that what they say in here is that the Secretary is to control the funds received under it but the equipment purchase will remain with the State and local education agency.

Mrs. MARGOLIN. I think the whole issue that we are constantly discussing, and this is not the first time, is, Is this a benefit to the child or to the school? The child is attending a school and when you are