under this bill are determined by the State administering agency to be comparable to the services so provided in its other schools. The Governor of each State is required to designate a single State agency for administration (or supervision of the administration) of the program. That agency will develop a plan for the distribution of funds not "passed through" to local educational agencies, and for the expenditure of such funds. The distribution must be made on a basis which takes into account the relative needs of the local educational agencies in the State for the types of assistance for which the funds may be used, but in doing so the amount "passed through" to local educational agencies for education of the disadvantaged may not be taken into consideration. In developing the plan the agency must give an opportunity for comment thereon to interested persons, but there is no requirement of Federal review or approval of the plan (§ 8). The Governor of each State is required to appoint an advisory council which is to advise the State agency on the preparation and administration of the plan and to evaluate activities assisted under the bill (§ 9). Each State must provide education for Federally-connected children on a nondiscriminatory basis (§ 10). Ten per cent of the funds may be reserved by the Secretary for direct payments to States to assist them in carrying out activities under § 4 (§ 11). Title VI of the Civil Rights Act is made applicable to the program (§ 13). There is an advance funding provision (§ 14), a provision for an annual report by the Secretary to the President and the Congress (§ 16), and a provision permitting funds under the bill to be used to match other Federal funds available for educational purposes (§ 17). There is also a provision permitting interstate agreements (§ 19), a provision concerning records, audits, and reports (§ 18), and a provision concerning the recovery of funds (§ 12). Excerpts of the President's Message to Congress. April 6, 1971 A very substantial part of what American government does is directed to the future and to the creation of a suitable legacy for generations to come. In this sense, government reflects a central purpose of the basic family unit and seeks to serve that purpose: as we move to condition the future, we move also to prepare our children to take their place in that future. In this task, all levels of government recognize the Nation's responsibility for educating its youth. Primary responsibility, of course, rests with State and local governments, as it should. The Federal Government can help provide resources to meet rising needs, but State and local education authorities must make the hard decisions about how to apply these resources in ways that best serve the educational needs of our children. To enable State and local authorities to do this more effectively, I am proposing today a new system of special revenue sharing as a means of providing Federal financial assistance for elementary and secondary education. This message is the last of six special revenue sharing proposals which I have put forward over the past two months. Combined with the administration's $5 billion general revenue sharing plan and welfare reform proposals, special revenue sharing—as a new and more flexible approach to Federal aid-would fundamentally reform the fiscal roles and relationships of American federalism. The other five special revenue sharing proposals have been in the areas of urban community development, rural community development, transportation, manpower training and law enforcement assistance. The plan I am putting forward today for Education Revenue Sharing brings together more than 30 Federal aid categories and deals with one of the Nation's most complex systems for providing public services. There are 46 million students presently enrolled in public schools in America, with more than five and a half million more in non-public schools. There are more than 117,000 schools and nearly 18,000 public school districts, each with its own unique conditions and each with its own problems. Federal expenditures for elementary and secondary schooling over the past decade are projected to increase from $0.9 billion in fiscal year 1961 to $5.5 billion in fiscal year 1972. Yet there are serious problems with the way in which this aid is provided. The Present System Under the present piecemeal system of Federal aid, education grants are available to local schools under 38 separate authorizations for "instruction," 37 separate authorizations for low-income students, and 22 separate authorizations for reading instruction. The confusion is so great that some school districts have had to hire separate staffs charged solely with cutting through the maze of applications, guidelines, regulations and reporting requirements which are an intrinsic part of the present grant system. There are other problems: • The time, energy and imagination needed to bring educational reform is frequently drained off into what is an essentially nonproductive effort to qualify for Government grants. Yet, at the same time, rigid qualifications for grants frequently stifle creative initiative. In the end, a system which ought to promote innovation instead discourages it. And because Federal programs are resistant to change, we see money being spent on programs which may have outlived their usefulness, or that simply are ineffective, while funds for new ideas cannot be obtained. • Educational planning is made difficult because of the fragmentation of grants. Under the present system, a community must make a series of separate applications to a series of Federal officials. There is no assurance that every proposal will be funded, or that any proposal will be funded. Consequently, the present fragmented procedures virtually eliminate any possibility of preparing a comprehensive, coordinated program. There is little accountability under the present system; if a pro gram fails it is difficult to assess responsibility. Although it is the common response to blame Washington if something does not function according to design, such an exercise is usually futile given the cumbersome nature of the Federal bureaucracy. There is little flexibility in the present system. Individual grants are often too narrowly defined and designed to achieve the things Washington wants, while at the same time allowing little latitude to meet individual community needs. • There has been little useful evaluation of how Federal aid programs under the present system help children learn more effectively, or of how they provide the children with equal educational opportunities. The diversity of the country and the large number and great variety of Federal aid programs have made it impossible for those at the Federal level to measure the success or failure of their efforts, and so we resort to judging effectiveness by how much we spend rather than by how much we accomplish. My proposal for special revenue sharing for education is designed to overcome these problems by substituting a basic new approach to providing Federal assistance. To help formulate this proposal, the Office of Education held ten regional hearings to discuss the specifications for Education Revenue Sharing, and my proposal has benefitted from the views of educators and those interested in education all across the Nation. Education Revenue Sharing Education Revenue Sharing would revitalize the relationship between the Federal Government and State and local governments. It would stimulate creativity and new initiatives at State and local levels. My proposal would establish a new instrument of Federal assistance which would bring together more than thirty major Office of Education programs representing approximately $2.8 billion in grants in the 1972 budget, and provide for an increase of $200 million in total funding in the first year. These funds would provide support for educational activities in broad areas where there are strong national interests in strengthening school programs. The national priority areas included are compensatory education for the disadvantaged, education of children afflicted by handicapping conditions, vocational education, assistance to schools in areas affected by Federal activities, and the provision of supporting services. This new Federal aid instrument would have the following important features: Automatic Distribution of Funds Funds would be distributed automatically on the basis of a statutory formula which takes account of the total school age population in each State, the number of students from low-income families, and the number of students whose parents work or live on Federal property. No State would receive less money under Education Revenue Sharing than it receives under the present grant system. In addition, authority for advance funding would be requested to facilitate careful planning free from the vagaries of the present practice of delayed appropriations. No Federal Approval of State Plans States would no longer be required to submit exhaustive plans for extensive Federal review or Federal approval, but would simply develop and publish a plan in line wtih State and local needs so as to permit all concerned citizens to become involved with the allocation of these Federal resources. States would also appoint an advisory council broadly representative of the public and the education community, in order to further insure that all interests are heard. This new system would substitute genuine citizen participation for routine bureaucratic sign-off. Broad Definition of Purposes The areas of Federal assistance would be broadly defined in keeping with national interests. • The provision of equal educational opportunities to all of our children is a key national priority. As I pointed out a year ago, the most glaring shortcoming in American education today is the lag in essential learning skills among large numbers of children of poor families. The largest Federal program in education-Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act-was designed to meet the special educational needs of these children. The Education Revenue Sharing Act would provide that over one-half of the $3.0 billion proposed for the first year be used for providing compensatory education for disadvantaged children. These funds would be passed through directly to local school districts which enroll large concentrations of these children. The specific needs of handicapped children are and would continue to be a matter of concern to the Federal Government. When time is so critical to the training and social development of these youngsters, any delay in the funding of their education can have irreparable consequences. Nevertheless, in the present circumstances, delay is common. I propose to change this. Funds would be allocated directly to the States and the procedures for obtaining these funds would be simplified. 69-927 724 |