to ask a question on what the doctor was just describing here about your critical mass. It is interesting, if I might ask one question.

Assuming that the critical mass is reached, whether it is 7 million or 6 million or 10 million, what have we achieved at that point? What is the measureable advantage of using the critical mass insofar as our children are concerned? What would be the product of the application of the critical mass?

Mr. MACKINNON. One would be reduced class size, for example. This has been shown. If there is enough reduction of class size to reduce it one or two or three children, that does not seem to have significant impact. But a significant impact in class size does seem to have some effect on the outcome for the children, and that would be one way that you could use the critical mass-just reducing class size. Mr. MAZZOLI. Then assuming you reduce the class size, to whatever the national figures seem to be the best ratio

Mr. MACKINNON. Depending upon the child and the circumstances. Mr. MAZZOLI. Then do we have some way to measure the product of the application of this mass insofar as the child is concerned? Can we say that we will now have a child who reaches SAT scores of thus and so, or something like that? Is there any way that the people can get their teeth into what is the net effect of the critical mass or the compensatory education theory?

Mr. MACKINNON. This will vary by States, depending upon the availability of fairly comprehensive testing programs, so that you can see whether the application of the additional resources on a particular group of children is having the effect that they are progressing as well as other children who are not disadvantaged.

The key part would be the instruments to measure, and this will vary from place to place.

Mr. MAZZOLI. I think that the difficulty for me, and for those of you in the room this morning when Congressman Steiger was asking some questions along this line, is determining if there is some empirical way to show just what improved education does for our children.

I think that is one of the problems. That is more of a political problem, maybe, than an educational problem; but the difficulty that I have found personally, and I am sure other ones have suffered through it, is how you justify to a largely jaundiced, jaded, reluctant public that these programs, this infusion of money, this additional money is, in fact. productive. What does it do?

We really can't answer that very basic question, and that is what I was asking.

Mr. MACKINNON. The fact that more children are staying in school longer must mean that something is being done for them. being able to stay and not dropping out.

Mr. MAZZOLI. Thank you very much.

Mr. DELAYO. Mr. Chairman, thank you for your hospitality. We are available at your call, sir.

Chairman PERKINS. Let me thank you, and especially thank you for missing your plane in order to stay here with us today. We appreciate your efforts. You have been very helpful to the committee and I look forward to seeing you again.

Come around, Mr. Megel and Mr. Humphrey. We are glad to welcome you gentlemen here. You have made many previous appearances and have been very effective. Proceed in any manner you wish.

STATEMENT OF CARL J. MEGEL, DIRECTOR OF LEGISLATION, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF TEACHERS, AFL-CIO, ACCOMPANIED BY GREG HUMPHREY, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF LEGISLATION, AFT

Mr. MEGEL. We thank you very kindly, Mr. Chairman.

My name is Carl Megel. I am the legislative director for the American Federation of Teachers. I have with me this morning Mr. Greg Humphrey, assistant legislative director of the AFT.

Because of the importance of the legislation which we are considering, we had asked our national president, David Selden, to make the presentation. Unfortunately, because of rescheduling of this date of testimony, Mr. Selden could not be here.

I am, therefore, privileged to present a statement which he has prepared with assistance from Greg Humphrey for presentation today. Before I make my presentation, however, Mr. Chairman, I wish to express our sincere and deep appreciation for the leadership which you continue to provide for the education of America's children.

I know that this committee will give the chairman full cooperation because the needs are so great.

There are today more than 8 million economically deprived children in this Nation. The full funding of the authorization which we are considering will provide some assistance, however small, to more than 17 million boys and girls in the schools of our Nation.

Each and every one of these 17 million children, if they could, would personally thank this committee for preparing and sponsoring this legislation.

I spoke about the need as being so great. The teachers in Chicago, even following a 10-day work stoppage, were able to negotiate a contract, and yet yesterday the board of education stated that they must close the schools for 1 month in the fall semester unless additional funds become available. The situation is even more critical in Philadelphia and St. Louis and in the disadvantaged areas of the big cities of our Nation.

Now the American Federation of Teachers, AFL-CIO, welcomes the opportunity to appear before this committee to lend our support to the proposed extension of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. We are convinced that extension of ESEA along with the proposed amendments in title II of H.R. 69 will best meet the current needs of education.

We have long been supporters of the concept of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act approach to Federal aid. The American Federation of Teachers has felt that the major effort of the Federal Government in education should be directed toward those most in need.

For this reason we can find no acceptable substitute for title I, ESEA. While we also favor general Federal aid to education, we see it as a supplement to the basic categorical programs of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.

The title I program has been under attack recently. There have been accusations that funds spent under title I have been misused, that funds have been spent for services that are of no benefit to disadvan

taged children or for children who are not disadvantaged and not in need.

In some cases the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare has ordered reimbursement of title I funds by school districts in violation of the regulations. These incidents have served to cast a shadow on the title I concept. They have been used by people who have always been opposed to Federal aid for public education as further reason to continue their opposition.

While abuses do exist, and while we know that many title I programs would benefit from a more vigorous review of program goals and achievements, it is our opinion that most of the failures attributed to title I are a consequence of the inadequate and untimely funding of this program. If the school board does not get the money in time, they cannot set up a good enough program, and we need the funds advanced in time.

In fiscal year 1973, the Administration requested approximately $1.5 billion for local educational agencies under title I. This amounts to approximately 35 percent of the authorization for 1973, which was, I believe, a little over $42 billion, and an expenditure of about $204 per child.

The Administration's own testimony before this committee on another education bill admitted that very little improvement occurs until at least $300 per child is spent for compensatory programs. Using even the cutoff figure of $2,500 in family income to qualify as a disadvantaged child, $2.34 billion in funding for title I would have been required before noticeable improvement could be expected from educationally disadvantaged children.

In regards to the efficiency of title I, there seems to be an inconsistent pattern; the Administration objectively admits $2.34 billion is necessary for title I success, yet requests only 35 percent of that figure and proceeds to veto even the modest increase voted by the Congress in the first Labor-HEW appropriation bill for fiscal year 1973.

This, of course, was an unprecedented fourth veto of education's funds. Having set up the conditions to guarantee failure, we are then told "Social programs that haven't worked will have to be ended." It is not the title I concept which has failed; it is the U.S. Government.

It is our opinion that the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and most especially title I are sound programs with an essentially unrealized potential, a potential to improve education that has been denied by inadequate funding. The educational services funded in title I are after all designed to aid needy children.

Given the fact that last year the Congress passed a bill providing over 5 billion a year, two-thirds of which may be used in any manner whatever except for education by State and local governments, with no control or oversight by the Congress, we question the objectivity of those who are now offering criticism of one of the most rational concepts ever devised by the Congress of the United States.

We feel that title I programs, if given a chance through adequate and timely funding, can prove to be an effective and useful tool toward achieving equality of educational experience for millions of underprivileged American schoolchildren.

Although the subject of school desegregation is not really germane to this bill, and we certainly hope that H.R. 69 does not become embroiled in the school desegregation controversy, it does seem to us that

at this time an opportunity has presented itself to members of this body who are opposed to busing for purposes of desegregation. Even they say they want quality education for all children in neighborhood schools.

Therefore, all factions in this educational controversy should unite to provide a meaningful program to improve innercity schools.

This can best be done by renewing the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and properly funding title I before considering other programs which, under present budgetary restrictions, take funds already authorized through established programs and then fraudulently proclaiming such money as something new and innovative.

During last year's deliberations on Federal aid to education, the Congress came very close to doing just that. Members of this committee can enact a meaningful program of educational enrichment by passing this bill and then providing the funds to make it work.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I had planned to summarize the remainder, but because so many questions that were asked this morning are contained in the remaining portions of the statement, I would ask permission to read the remainder of the statement.

We would like to comment on some of the amendments to be found in title II of H.R. 69. The establishment of a $300 concentration for title I children is a very sound approach. As we stated earlier, the administration has admitted that measurable improvement does not occur until at least $300 is concentrated per child.

However, again the question of funding occurs. We can only hope that funds are provided to make this more than a paper commitment. The formula for distributing title I funds after the $300 commitment is met also has merit, although we cannot imagine that we will soon achieve the level of funding that would activate this part of the distribution formula.

We also heartily concur with the language change under "Determination of number of children to be counted"; $4.000 is a realistic figure for purposes of determination. The Bureau of Labor Statistics has set a family income of well over $4,000 as the poverty level.

While this will, of course, increase the eligibility factor in the formula, we believe that this fact can no longer be avoided, assuming that this does not result in further dilution of the title I concentration factor. I want to add, however, the increase will not be as large as expected, because of the cost of the increase in the cost of living between 1960 and 1970, so that the $4,000 level will not bring in as many children as you might expect; it cannot be near twice as many.

According to our calculations, this would require a total of $3.6 billion to fund the $300 title I commitment, an increase of approximately $1.262 billion over the cost of continuing the current cutoff figure an investment which we consider well worth making.

In part B, "State Operated Programs for Handicapped Children.” and "Programs for Migratory Children" as well as in the "Bilingual Education Programs," the funds for programs under these titles are vulnerable to Executive impoundment. We would suggest that language be added to protect these desperately needed programs from arbitrary Executive impoundment.

As I am sure the committee knows, State grant programs are currently immune from impoundment. We hope the committee will find a way to protect all education programs.

On the impact aid provision, we are of course in favor of extension of Public Law 874. The impact aid programs have been among the most controversial of all educational aid programs. It is the position of the AFT that without a genuine program of general aid as a supplement for the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, impact aid is an indispensable part of the total program of Federal aid to

education.

While the impact program has been opposed by every recent administration of both political parties, there can be no doubt that a large Federal presence in a school district requires direct measures on the part of the Federal Government to ease the burden.

We are, of course, disappointed to see impact aid for pupils in public housing projects transferred out of the Office of Education. Though the Congress has never seen fit to fund this program, it is potentially one of the most useful of the impact categories in terms of putting dollars where the need is greatest.

We also would like to offer our support for title III of H.R. 69. A study of the effects of late funding is certainly in order. It is our opinion that the variables of the appropriation process present an intolerable situation to local school districts. Title I programs need to be continuous to be effective, and we have in the past supported the idea of forward funding to accomplish this purpose.

As I am sure you know, we still do not have an appropriation bill for fiscal year 1973. This fiscal year has only 5 months left, and there is still no indication as to when or if we will get a bill. This is an intolerable situation and makes the job of a school superintendent extremely difficult, especially if then he is asked to account for the funds expended in terms of student progress.

No testimony on this subject would be complete without mention of what exactly is at stake here. Through the efforts of the Chairman of this committee and many of the members sitting here, Federal aid to education became a reality. Thanks to your work and the leadership of the late President Lyndon Johnson we began to dispel the myths that Federal aid meant Federal control. The Elementary and Secondary Education Act proved that these suspicions of Federal takeover were groundless.

We now have new myths that could very well kill this program when previous myths could not. We are speaking about the current rage for noneconomic solutions for the problems of inequality in education services.

The President of the United States and his closest advisers announce that the Government will no longer attempt to solve social problems by "throwing dollars at them." Anyone who has knowledge of the educational structure in other industrialized countries knows very well that the United States has not thrown dollars at its educational problems.

Less than 8 percent of the total costs of education in the United States are borne by the Federal Government. The American Federation of Teachers long advocated a figure of 33 percent. This 8-percent figure rates very close to last among industrialized nations.

Large-scale Federal aid designed to aid those in need has been functioning for only 7 years, hardly enough time to make a judgment