Mrs. ROBINSON. We are not consulted so much as we let them know what we are thinking constantly, I suppose sometimes they wish we would not, but no, we were not consulted. However, we do have a great deal of give-and-take back and forth. Fifteen percent of title III funds, as you probably know, are allocated from the Commissioner's Office from Washington. Eighty-five percent of title III funds are given out by the States.

There is probably more coordination between these two amounts now than there has been. We feel that the State advisory councils in the local communities should have some input on all programs so that they always do answer the needs of local areas.

We feel that the career education is a proper thrust for Federal expenditures now. We feel the need for children of all ages to have this kind of information on all kinds of occupational programs that they don't have presently.

Mr. HAWKINS. In the legislation that we passed, we included a provision for these councils-we have just listened to one, the National Advisory Council on the Education of the Disadvantaged-and the administration comes out and goes in a different direction.

I just wonder why we are expending all of this money to get these reports, to get the advice, and then the advice is thrown away and statements are made that would seem to indicate that what you are doing is worthless.

I don't know what the answer is, but do you have any answer as to how you

Mrs. ROBINSON. Is that a real question or a rhetorical question?
Mr. HAWKINS. What are the findings that you make?

Mrs. ROBINSON. Well, as I say, every year we give our findings to the Office of Education and we always get a response from them, and I must say we always do get some results from them, too. For instance, the complaint has been made that there is too much paperwork involved with any dealing with the Office of Education. We have very effectively gotten the paperwork in title III reduced appreciably. Our working relationship with them is very good.

Mr. HAWKINS. I am glad you got something done. Getting the paper reduced is some accomplishment.

Mrs. ROBINSON. At the worst we can recycle it.

Mr. HAWKINS. Did you get any substantive changes?

Mrs. ROBINSON. Yes; we feel we have.

Mr. HAWKINS. What innovative ideas in education have you succeeded in getting adopted?

Mrs. ROBINSON. Across the country?

Mr. HAWKINS. Yes.

Mrs. ROBINSON. I could not possibly enumerate all of them. I have tried to give you an outline of some of the programs that are going on in various fields, but if you discuss anything from the year-around school-are you from California?

Mr. HAWKINS. Yes, I am.

Mrs. ROBINSON. There is a year-around school being operated in your State now being tried out with title III funds, for instance, in Elk Grove, Calif. We will find out how it works.

All title III projects must be based on new ideas and they either succeed or don't succeed, but we learn from all of them. The integrated

day method of that came over from England. Open classroom concepts have been tried out with title III money, and all these results have been disseminated by the Office of Education, by us, spread across the country.

You can't take any one idea and say that this has been tried out and made successful by title III in Podunk, Utah, alone. However, across the country

Chairman PERKINS. Mr. Lehman.

Mr. LEHMAN. Just one question. You said you were on the State board of education and that you found out that they didn't always put the money where it was needed most. I notice these title III funds are 85 percent allocated directly through the State administration.

Would you consider it a better idea, perhaps, if we didn't put that vast majority of the money through the State and if we did make any changes in title III funds-assuming we don't have to go to the general revenue-would you like to see it more categorical or more direct aid to the local school boards?

Mrs. ROBINSON. Well, what I was talking about was the State education department's rush for funds that come to it. Now we deal with the State advisory council that allocates money to local districts. We believe in the title III concept as it is administered because we feel that only by earmarking funds for innovation will money in fact be spent for implementing change.

Mr. LEHMAN. Well, what I was trying to say, some people must do a better job than others in this field of allocating title III money to get the kind of innovative programs, the experimental programs you would like to see done.

What safeguards, with 85 percent of this money, can you do in order to prevent those States from doing as poor a job as they are doing? Mrs. ROBINSON. Well, I don't really feel they are at this stage, the title III game, that any States are really doing a poor job. The Office of Education provides the control for seeing that quality control is there, and so does the State advisory council.

They must each year revise their plan for spending funds. They must all provide a needs assessment for receiving the funds. So there is control, I feel, and I would only unify the program more and see that it all went through the States.

Mr. LEHMAN. Really?

Mrs. ROBINSON. Yes.

Chairman PERKINS. Thank you very much.

Mrs. ROBINSON. Categorized.

Chairman PERKINS. Mr. Quie, do you have any questions now that you would like to ask Mrs. Robinson?

Mr. QUIE. No.

Chairman PERKINS. You have been an excellent witness, Mrs. Robinson. Thank you.

[The National Advisory Council on Supplementary Centers and Services annual report on ESEA, title III, referred to earlier in testimony follows:]

NATIONAL ADVISORY COUNCIL ON SUPPLEMENTARY CENTERS AND SERVICES

ANNUAL REPORT, ESEA TITLE III

FEBRUARY 15, 1973.

The PRESIDENT,

The White House,
Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: The members of the National Advisory Council on Supplementary Centers and Services are pleased to submit to you and to the Congress this report on the operation of Title III of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act in fiscal year 1972.

Our report, the fifth which the Council has made, has the special responsibility of conveying the Council's recommendations as to the future of Title III, since during 1973 the Congress will be reviewing the Elementary and Secondary Education Act to determine if there is justification for continued commitment to its objectives. Title III is that part of the Act which provides federal funds to the states for locally conceived and administered innovative educational programs in elementary and secondary schools. Title III projects address learner needs which are not being met by traditional educational programs, after these needs have been identified and given priority by concerned local citizens and educators. The Council has examined the strengths and weaknesses which it sees in the Title III program and presents herewith its assessment of the status of this federal education effort. We are honored to have this opportunity to work with you, and we join you in concern for the improvement of all education. Respectfully yours,

DOROTHY S. ROBINSON,

Chairman.

STRENGTHS OF TITLE III

Title III of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act is the most effective force in American education for constructive innovation and change. Since its enactment by Congress in 1965, Title III has made federal funds available to the states for projects which apply new methods and research to educational problems in local elementary and secondary schools. In doing so, Title III has stimulated interest in improved educational practices at the grassroots level of education and has brought research and development directly into the classroom. For most school districts, the funds available from Title III are the only funds available for experimental research and development. School administrators find it difficult to take the risks which are inherent in innovation if the money for this purpose must come from hard-pressed local fiscal resources. Congress recognized this, and also that a continuing process of self-improvement in education is in the national interest, when it provided federal support for innovation to local schools through Title III.

Under the legislation, Title III funds may be used for projects in any curric ulum area. The administrative machinery of the Title III program at the state and national levels does not need to "tool up" for each new problem or approach. This fact, that it is a flexible program in being, makes it possible for Title III to respond to educational needs as they arise. The program is therefore a valuable model-creating resource, both to education as a whole and to other federal education programs.

Title III pilot projects exist in many of the fields in which the federal government has made major commitments to education in recent years: environmental education, preschool, ethnic studies, bilingual education, reading, career and personal guidance and counseling, special education for the handicapped, and compensatory education for the disadvantaged. That the Title III experience, which is a practical source of expertise, is often not tapped by other government programs is a failure of cooperation within and between government agencies rather than of the Title III concept.

Title III projects are locally initiated, locally administered, and respond to locally identified educational needs. This conforms to the American commitment to local control of education and also fulfills one of the conditions for educational change: that it must rise out of local concern and be sustained by local conviction. Change imposed on schools from outside-and especially from above--has historically not endured.

Title III projects respond to learner needs which are identified by school systems through systematic assessment of current educational outcomes. If programs in certain curriculum areas are not producing good results for children, or if there seems to be need to give children new kinds of educational experiences, Title III can provide development capital for innovation, to demonstrate the possibility or feasibility of making changes in educational practices.

A successful new practice developed in a Title III project can be copied, in whole or in part, by other schools. Change thereby spreads by a process of diffusion, as a blotter absorbs ink. This kind of change is sometimes criticized as noncomprehensive and too gradual, but it has the great advantage of producing lasting effects in attitude on the part of educators.

Title III projects operate in classrooms-which is where the problems are. In doing so, they bridge the gap between theory and practice which has often rendered education research sterile and unprofitable. A Title III project proposal must show that existing research in the subject field has been taken into account and that the project directors are aware of and knowledgeable about the background work which has been done by other educators. The Title III project then moves immediately to practical application of this theory to the needs of children in classroom situations and thereby provides the practical evidence which educators need of the applicability of research to their own problems.

The stimulation of new solutions to difficult educational problems is the vital central objective of Title III. However, in achieving it. Title II has developed a process of needs assessment, research utilization, management by objectives, evaluation, and accountability which impacts far beyond the program itself. In all of these areas, Title III staffs in the United States Office of Education and state education departments are in the forefront of new educational thinking and provide leadership to other programs.

Title III has made a distinctive contribution to public participation in education decision-making. Each state is required by the legislation to appoint an advisory council composed of persons who represent the broad educational and cultural interests of the state, and each operating project is required to have a local advisory council made up of citizens of the community. These councils, state and local, have become a network through which citizens can express their concerns about education, and they have been highly effective in creating the public understanding which is essential to successful educational change.

Title III has been instrumental in developing cooperation within the educational structure, by stimulating creation of intermediate units which serve a number of school districts with research, dissemination services, equipment, or personnel; by bringing together public and nonpublic schools; and by encouraging interrelationships between education departments and other public agencies and community facilities.

Since it was enacted by Congress in 1965, Title II has been nurtured by the contributions of many educators, supported by citizen advisory councils, and strengthened by the increased competence of state departments of education. The needs are still great, but the foundation and the framework have been laid, and in the years ahead. Title III can serve as the focus and the incentive for continuing educational improvement.

RECENT ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF TITLE III

Unlike most other federal programs. Title III depends upon people at the state and local levels to define the critical areas for educational innovation and reform. The program operates on the assumption that practitioners in the field know best what problems they face and are best able to develop appropriate responses to those problems.

Of the more than 6,000 projects which have been funded by Title II to date, many have had considerable impact--as continuing projects within their own communities; as models which other communities have adopted; or as ideas which have had opportunity to be tested and which subsequently have been implemented in larger, more substantial contexts.

CONTINUATION AND ADOPTIONS

The first impact of a Title III project is, of course, at its original site. To evaluate this effect, the National Advisory Council in 1971 commissioned a study of the rate of continuation of projects after the termination of federal funding. Eight hundred school superintendents were asked what had happened

at the end of the three-year federal funding period to Title II projects started in their districts in the year 1966, 1967, and 1968. The responses indicated that 53 per cent of all these projects were still in existence in November, 1971, operating with local funds, as specific identifiable components of the school system, still meeting the needs for which they were originally undertaken. Thirty-three per cent of them were being funded at a level equal to or as much as one and one-half times higher than the level of federal funding.*

The University of Kansas recently completed a project-by-project study of Kansas programs whose Title III funding had terminated, in order to determine the "continuation" rate. This study, useful for its descriptions of specific project activities, revealed that of 20 programs examined, 10 were continuing 90 per cent or more of the activities initiated while under Title III funding; only two of the 20 were operating at a level of less than 25 per cent of their previous activity. Survival of a Title III project cannot be measured, however, solely in terms of the continuation of a separate, identifiable entity in a school system. Ninetynine per cent of the superintendents who responded in the National Advisory Council study said that "materials and concepts" created by their Title III projects continued in use in the school system after the termination of federal funding, with 50 per cent indicating that the use was at a "significantly greater" level than during the period of federal funding. Many who responded that their projects had been "discontinued" qualified that statement with the information that components of the project were continuing.

The superintendents also were asked about the effects of their Title III projects on other communities. Sixty per cent of the superintendents said that they knew of "at least" one adoption of the project, in whole or in part, by another school district. Many said that on the basis of visitations and inquiries which the projects had entertained they were sure there were many more adoptions or adaptations of which they were not aware.

EXTENSIONS OF TITLE III IDEAS AND ACTIVITIES

In a variety of ways, ideas which were given initial tests under Title III funding have been recognized as worthwhile and instituted in an expanded manner by agencies using local education funds. A number of Title III-sponsored preschool programs, for example, now serve as models for their school districts and have contributed to the design of national efforts. One of the early Title III projects, the Ypsilanti, Michigan, Preschool Curriculum Demonstration Program, now has increased funding from other sources and is one of the most widely known of the cognitively-oriented early childhood programs.

In the State of New Jersey, several years of Title III-funded activity in the field of environmental education led to increased state support. In August, 1971, the legislature passed the New Jersey Environmental Education Act, as a master plan for statewide environmental education. Title III funds not only supported several of the most noteworthy environmental education projects in the state but also were used to initiate a State Council on Environmental Education which helped design the new legislation. Without the accomplishments of the exemplary Title III projects, and the research and planning functions of the Title IIIfunded State Council on Environmental Education, it is doubtful whether the Act would be operative at this time.

Similarly, the Hawaii English Program (HEP) was begun in 1966 with a Title III grant, and state funds now cover most of the costs of development, dissemination and training. In addition, HEP materials and instructional techniques currently are being introduced to schools in Guam, American Samoa, and the United States Trust Territories of the Pacific.

In several states the importance of regional service centers has been recognized by school districts and state education agencies. These centers, initiated with Title III funds, provide a variety of services to individual districts and facilitate cooperation, joint planning, and mutual support within a given region. In Texas and New York, state funds have been allocated to continue networks of regional centers, and the State of New Jersey recently authorized the establishment of three additional centers to be modeled after the Title III-funded Education Improvement Center now serving southern New Jersey.

The usual period of federal funding of a Title III project is three years. Therefore, only those projects which were begun in the earliest years of the Title III program can be assessed in a study of continuation at this point in time. The continuation rate does not, therefore, reflect the increasing professional skill in selection and administration of proj ects which characterizes current Title III activity.