STATEMENT on S. 1669 EDUCATION REVENUE SHARING ACT OF 1971 for submission to the EDUCATION SUBCOMMITTEE SENATE LABOR AND PUBLIC WELFARE COMMITTEE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF THE UNITED STATES by JAMES E. CONNER, ED.D.* The National Chamber supports the philosophy and the intent of S. 1669, embodying the Administration's special revenue sharing proposal for education which seeks to consolidate 32 categorical programs into six broad classifications. But, considering that there are currently over 100 categorical programs administered by the Office of Education, the proposal does not go far enough. This view gains added credence if we consider that at least 26 other federal agencies administer significant categorical programs in education running into billions of dollars, much of which is spent on duplicative efforts. The history of federal assistance to education reveals that the present morass of categorical assistance programs had its beginning in the National Education Defense Act, enacted in response to the threat of our nation's loss in a science and technology race with Russia. Later, a different rationale provided the impetus for greater federal involvement in education. This involvement took form in a series of titles and programs designed to correct known educational deficiencies. Some programs have yielded beneficial results, although cost effectiveness/benefit data are rare. Other programs, most notably Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, have failed to correct deficiencies among the disadvantaged. Difficulty in Monitoring Programs The most significant message emanating from OE's reports is the admission that discoveries of malpractices were not made until years after the monies were spent. The lesson is clear: In the rush to correct social and educational ills, adequate program monitoring and control failed to be built into legislation. In *Senior Associate for Education, Chamber of Commerce of the United States -2 short, the twin concepts of responsibility and accountability were excluded. With the almost unchecked growth of narrow categorical programs, proper monitoring of federal programs is impossible unless more federal watchdogs are employed. But this will surely result in more federal interference in, and greater control over, the affairs of state and local education agencies. Thus, by even a rough analysis of the concept of categorical aid, we begin to see just how tangled a web even the best intentions can weave. For example, grants may be made under 38 authorizations in support of "instruction," under 37 authorizations for assistance to "low-income pupils," and under 22 in support of "reading instruction." This totals 97 authorizations in a single purpose area! Little wonder that "grantsmanship" has become one of the fastest growing specializations in education. One large city school superintendent expresses his ambivalence over the pleasures and pains of categorical programming with a story of the mountain lion, who in spite of his love of hunting, pauses midway in his pursuit of a skunk to remark: "I think I've enjoyed about as much of this as I can stand!" Indeed, evidence is mounting that state and local education agencies have "enjoyed" about as much categorical assistance as they can stand. It is becoming obvious everywhere that the American people are finding such programs far too inefficient and costly. Priority Distortion and the Decision-Making Process The Federal Government's contribution to education is only 7 percent. However, the power of that relatively small percentage to push state and local education agencies in various directions is formidable. The lever to move and direct educational priorities is the categorical grant. But in all too many instances, categorical programs have led to unbalanced growth in the schools. Some programs are surfeited with funds, even while other programs suffer malnutrition. Often there is an attempt to correct deficiencies by increasing the number of categorical programs. Thus, the Federal Government supported science and mathematics while neglecting the humanities. Humanities gained federal support, even as support for basic skills was neglected. The gifted were celebrated by grants for research and program development as the "average" student was all -3 More but ignored. The 'mining" operation designed to dig up the gifted from the student population found its ultimate expression in "Project Talent." Then came the Coleman Report which pointed to the nation's neglect of the disadvantaged. recent studies point to these programs' failure. The cycle of misdirected action and belated reaction continues. The point is: We do not need a national school board operating from the deep, inaccessible recesses of the federal bureaucracy. Bureaucrats, for all their good intentions and humanity, cannot know the problems of state and local education agencies, except in a general way. By engaging in narrow-gauge programs, the Federal Government has often blunted initiative and imagination, even as it reaches out a helping hand. The determining of needs too often is denied the people most closely affected. What we see in the whole web of laws, regulations, and guidelines is a paternalistic mentality, which starts with the premise that the federal bureaucrats know what is best for the local educators and that the answer to educational problems is a liberal dose of money usually administered in a hurry. Its harvest is waste, confusion, and loss of initia tive. Administrative and Managerial Function Distorted ness. Categorical programs have had the serious effect not only of mauling educational priorities at the state and local levels, they impede efforts by successive U. S. commissioners to organize for greater efficiency and effectiveSpecial purpose programs have resulted in a fragmentation of administrative organization and function. Federal staff people are deprived of a sense of a common mission and often find themselves involved in parallel and duplicative activities. Indeed, there is serious question whether these highly qualified professionals are needed to perform what has become largely a paper-shuffling operation. The Flood of Paper Categorical programs have given rise to a national preoccupation with paper. Commissioner of Education, Sidney P. Marland, Jr., once stated that an estimated 75% of staff time in the Office of Education is spent "massaging" paper. He forecasts that, should the Administration's consolidation proposal be enacted, two-thirds of the current 0.E. staff time would be freed to provide greater technical assistance to states and localities. -4 There is something ludicrous in the "tribal dance" spawned by federal programming. Eight-inch documents are required within the Office of Education to process each federal project. Add to this state plans needed to qualify for funds, plus clarifying documents to local school districts, not to mention the flow of paper back to the Federal Government, and education grows more and more remote from children. To the question: "How much of the federal education dollar reaches the child in the classroom?" the Office of Education acknowledges it does not have the answer. This is perhaps the most damning admission of all, for if OE does not know, Congress which must make hard decisions on how to allocate scarce resources, cannot know. Indeed, it is irresponsible to continue spending money in the absence of an answer to such a fundamental question. We see demonstrated an inadequate concern for requiring information related to the cost effectiveness and cost benefits of programs. One can well conclude that there is an inattention to cost effectiveness in the Office of Education. Consolidation of programs is a necessary move in the right direction, but it is obvious the American people must be able to obtain information on what tax dollars are buying in education. Dr. Alexander Schure, President of New York Institute of Technology, sees the information gap widening with each increase in educational expenditures: We are not prepared to characterize all our efforts in education to date as total failure. Our problem is that we do not know where or whether we have failed or not. We have poured millions of dollars into hundreds of programs and collected mountains of unusable data. A larger investment will only generate more undecipherable data because we do not have the capacity to relate the data from one system to data from another among the myriad of systems tests administered by our schools. Obviously, additional federal expenditures for education cannot be justified until there are some fundamental reforms. Reforms cannot be dictated from Washington; the states are best equipped to encourage the necessary changes in administration and management. But a state or local education agency cannot be expected to exert influence without the wherewithal to do so. S. 1669 has the virtue of fostering state initiative and planning and reducing Office of Education control to a minimum. |