32 under this section and the time or times such amounts are to be paid; and the Secretary of the Treasury shall pay to the State at the time or times fixed by the Secretary the amounts so certified. Payments to a State under this section may be made in advance or by way of reimbursement in accordance with procedures prescribed by the Secretary." (5) striking out in paragraph (g) of section 11 ", including those applicable to funds apportioned or paid pursuant to section 4 or 5 but excluding the provisions of section 7 relating to matching,"; (6) striking out in section 11 (h) (1) "to extend the school lunch program under this Act to every school within the State, and (C)"; and (7) striking out paragraphs (4), (5), and (6) of section 12 (d) and renumbering paragraph (7) as paragraph (4). SUMMARY OF H.R. 69, 93D CONGRESS (NOTE. This summary describes the major substantive changes the bill would make in existing law. It does not explain provisions appearing in the bill only for technical or reorganizational purposes.) The short title is the "Elementary and Secondary Education Amendments of 1973". TITLE I-EXTENSION OF PROGRAMS The bill extends through fiscal year 1978 the programs which provide Federal assistance for elementary and secondary education. These programs (and the sections of the bill which extend them) are the following: 1. Title I ESEA (compensatory education) (sec. 101). 2. School library program (sec. 102). 3. Supplementary educational centers and services and guidance, counseling, and testing (sec. 103). 4. Programs to strengthen State and local educational agencies (sec. 104). 5. Bilingual education programs (sec. 105). 6. Drop-out prevention programs (sec. 106). 7. School nutrition and health services demonstration projects (sec. 107). 8. Improvement of educational opportunities for Indian children (sec. 108). 9. Assistance to Federally impacted school districts (sec. 109). 10. Assistance to local educational agencies for education of Indian children (sec. 110). 11. Education of the handicapped (sec. 111). 12. Adult Education Act (sec. 112). Title I of the bill also extends until July 1, 1978, existence of the following advisory bodies: National Advisory Council on the Education of Disadvantaged Children. National Council on Quality in Education. Advisory Committee on the Education of Bilingual Children. National Advisory Council on Indian Education. By reason of section 14 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, these advisory bodies would terminate October 6, 1974, unless extended by law. TITLE II-AMENDMENTS OF EXISTING LAWS Revisions of formula for allocation of title I funds among school districts In general, the present law establishes the amount of Title I funds a school district may receive by multiplying the average per pupil expenditure for the Nation or for the State (whichever is higher) by the number of school age children in the district who fall in one of the following categories: (1) Those in families having an annual income of less than the low-income factor (which, subject to adjustment under section 144, would be $4,000 for FY 1973). (2) Those in families whose income exceeds the low-income factor from AFDC payments. (3) Those in certain institutions. This distribution system is modified by the bill (Sec. 201) to distribute the funds as follows: First, each district would be eligible to receive $300 for each child in one of the three categories listed above (using $4,000 as the low-income factor). Second, if there are appropriations remaining after making the payments above, then (and only then) the district would be eligible to receive an amount arrived at by multiplying the number of its children in one of the three categories listed above (again using $4,000 as the low-income factor) by the average per pupil expenditure for the Nation or for the State, whichever is the higher. It should be noted that, where appropriations are inadequate to give school districts all the funds they are eligible to receive, revised section 144 provides for their pro rata reduction. However, a floor is provided by that section under which no district will receive more than its FY 1972 allocation until all districts have received an amount at least equal to their FY 1972 allocation. State operated programs Existing law provides that assistance for State operated programs for handicapped children, migratory children, and neglected or delinquent children is pro vided out of the funds appropriated for part A of Title I (and before local educational agencies receive their funds). The bill would establish these programs independently in a new part B. Funds for these programs would not be taken from funds appropriated for assistance to local educational agencies, but instead would be appropriated directly for these programs. Discontinuation of certain grants The bill would not continue the special incentive grants provided in part B of Title I or the grants provided in part C of Title I for urban and rural schools serving areas with the highest concentration of low-income families. Counting of children in low-rent housing under P.L. 874 and P.L. 815 The present law, in certain cases, permits children living in federally assisted low-rent public housing to be counted for purposes of determining a school district's entitlement under the Federal laws providing assistance in federally impacted areas. The bill (Sec. 208) would delete these provisions and restore those Acts to the way they were prior to the amendments made by the Act of April 13, 1970 (P.L. 91-230). TITLE III-STUDY OF LATE FUNDING OF ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION PROGRAMS This title requires the Commissioner to make a study to determine the extent to which late funding of Federal elementary and secondary education programs handicaps school districts in the effective planning of their education programs and the extent to which late funding harms the programs. A report on the results of the study is to be made within one year. Chairman PERKINS. I am pleased to welcome before the subcommittee this morning representatives from five outstanding education organizations, the National Education Association, Chief State School Officers, the American Federation of Teachers, the National School Boards Association, and the American Association of School Administrators. I recall very vividly that it was the strong support of these organizations that culminated in 1965 in the enactment of the first substantial effort on the part of the Federal Government to assist State and local educational agencies in meeting the urgent needs in our Nation's schools. The Elementary and Secondary Education Act has meant many different things to many children. It has meant many different things to local educational agencies. Our local educational agencies and our State educational agencies are as diverse in composition and as diverse in the problems confronting them as there are trees in the forest. Hence, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, and in particular title I, has made impact on them in different ways. Neither in 1965, nor since, have we been confronted with the ideal situation of financially equalized educational opportunities in all of the States. I think that we can count as one of the significant contributions that the Elementary and Secondary Education Act has made to American education the current struggle and development to afford equalized financial educational opportunities in each State, This is evidenced by the many cases seeking equal protection of the laws for elementary and secondary school pupils and the action by some State legislatures to revise their school support laws to bring about equalization. All the studies that have been made of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, and particularly title I, have indicated its positive equalizing effect. Title I allocates money to those schools most in financial need and to those schools with the most critical educational needs. While we do not have before us at this time the specific proposals of the administration with respect to what it would do in the field of elementary and secondary education, I am alarmed by the clear indication contained in the administration's budget that the Federal, State, and local partnership in elementary and secondary education is to be abandoned; that the administration is recommending that the Elementary and Secondary Education Act be repealed; that portions of the National School Lunch Act be repealed; that the Vocational Education Act of 1963, as amended in 1968, be repealed; that the aid to federally affected areas be repealed; and, in their place, special revenue sharing be extended to the States. I believe that this can only bring bad news to the millions of children now benefiting from title I programs, from vocational education offerings, and from new innovative approaches for their learning opportunities under title III of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Since I have been in the Congress, the tactics of opponents to Federal aid to education have been many and varied, but this is the first time I have seen them desperate enough to want to buy themselves out of any Federal responsibility. As for myself, viewing the critical financial crises confronting many of our nation's schools, I believe the time is past due when that second great step forward should be taken to assist elementary and secondary schools in the Nation to provide each child with equa' opportunity for high quality education programs. Our hearings on H.R. 69 will be full and complete and we wil hear witnesses with respect to all of the programs which the act affects I have today extended invitations to Secretary-designate Weinberger. Assistant Secretary Sidney Marland, and Acting Commissioner of Education Ottina, to appear before the subcommittee at an early date of their own selection so that we can get the administration's views of H.R. 69 and their views with respect to Federal support for elementary and secondary education. We will now proceed. I am delighted to present as our first witness Catharine Barrett, president of the National Education Association, who is accompanied by Stan McFarland, director of government relations; Jean Flanigan, assistant director of research; and James Green, assistant director for legislation. Before the witnesses commence, I want to call on some members to make statements. Mr. Meeds, do you have anything to say? Mr. MEEDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I certainly endorse your opening remarks and want to indicate to the witnesses that I think this Congress probably has as great a task as the 89th Congress in creating elementary and secondary education. In other words, in breaking the barrier and getting into the busi ness of elementary and secondary educational aid from the Federal level, we have the greater task in this Congress of keeping the gains which were made by the 89th Congress as we have had in any time that I can remember since I have been a Member of the Congress. I think we really have an uphill fight. This special revenue sharing, as I see it, is nothing more than a wholesale giveaway by the administration of congressional prerogatives, a separation of the duty to tax and the responsibility of the Congress to spend wisely, which responsibility, if not impeded, certainly will be almost completely abrogated by parceling out the latter responsibility to the States, to the municipalities, and to the counties, and bringing between this duty and responsibility a third factor, which is another way of losing the powers, prerogatives of the Congress which presently exists under the Constitution. I certainly at the outset want everybody to know I am almost totally committed to fighting to the death on this issue. Chairman PERKINS. Mr. Clay. Mr. CLAY. I have no comments, Mr. Chairman. I wholeheartedly endorse those comments that you made, and those of Mr. Meeds. Chairman PERKINS. Mr. Mazzoli ? Mr. MAZZOLI. No, sir. Chairman PERKINS. Mr. Lehman? Mr. LEHMAN. I just want to endorse what Mr. Meeds and our Chairman have stated, that this is a way that the administration is trying to buy its way out of the responsibility of the Federal Government to support the public education of this country. Chairman PERKINS. Mr. Quie. Mr. QUIE. Mr. Chairman, I don't know what all the fuss is about. We have not even gotten a bill from the administration vet. I didn't really come down here to listen to my colleagues, but to listen to the NEA. I know Mrs. Barrett did a great job in Minnesota, and I look forward to hearing her today. Mrs. BARRETT. Thank you, sir. Chairman PERKINS. Well, we will hear from you at this time, Mrs. Barrett. I am delighted to welcome you here, and you proceed in any manner you prefer. STATEMENT OF MRS. CATHARINE BARRETT, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, ACCOMPANIED BY STANLEY F. MCFARLAND, DIRECTOR OF GOVERNMENT RELATIONS; MRS. JEAN FLANIGAN, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF RESEARCH; AND JAMES GREEN, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF GOVERNMENT RELATIONS FOR LEGISLATION Mrs. BARRETT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You have already recognized the staff people who are with me. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, just for the record, I am Catharine Barrett, president of the National Education Association, comprised of 1.2 million members. We appreciate this opportunity to express our views on H.R. 69, a bill to extend and amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, and for other purposes. First, we commend Chairman Perkins for initiating hearings on the renewal of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act early in this session of the 93d Congress. Programs operating under the authority of this act have played a significant role in the improvement of educational opportunities for millions of our youth. |