In special revenue sharing, this would be the one that would take the back seat. That is the threat to this program. It seems to me that this is probably the best program that I have known of as public aid to private or parochial education, probably proven the most successful, and for the administration to threaten this program, before it can get the show on the road, of any aid to private or parochial education, is not going in the right direction because I think Federal aid to private and parochial education has to clear the hurdle of the courts first. So, let's try to keep this program alive until sometime when we can give more direct aid to this program. There is no argument with that, is there? Sister HOAGLAND. No argument with that. Mr. LEHMAN. Thank you. If there are no other questions, Mr. Towell, we will adjourn until 9:30 tomorrow morning. I want to thank all of you folks for coming, and it has been a pleasure listening to your testimony. [Whereupon, at 12:34 p.m., the general subcommittee recessed, to reconvene at 8:30 a.m., Tuesday, February 6, 1973.] ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1973 TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 6, 1973 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, GENERAL SUBCOMMITTEE ON EDUCATION, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met at 9:40 a.m., pursuant to recess, in room 2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Carl D. Perkins (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Present: Representatives Perkins, Meeds, Mazzoli, Quie, Forsythe, and Towell. Staff members present: John F. Jennings, counsel; Christopher T. Cross, minority staff assistant; and Toni Painter, secretary. Chairman PERKINS. The subcommittee will come to order. A quorum is present. The General Subcommittee on Education is continuing today hearings on H.R. 69, a bill to extend the major Federal elementary and secondary programs and H.R. 16, a bill to authorize a new program for Federal general aid. We are very pleased to have as our witnesses today representatives from the Council of the Great City Schools. This council, whose membership includes 23 largest cities in the country, will be able to inform us of the progress and problems of ESEA programs in our urban areas. Dr. Richard Gousha, vice president of the council will be our first witness. Dr. Gousha, come on around. Glad to welcome you here, Dr. Gousha, and you proceed in any manner you prefer. If you have a prepared statement, without objection it will be inserted in the record, and just go ahead. STATEMENT OF DR. RICHARD P. GOUSHA, VICE PRESIDENT OF COUNCIL AND SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS, MILWAUKEE, WIS., ACCOMPANIED BY ALLEN NEWLACHEK, TITLE I COORDINATOR, MILWAUKEE, WIS., AND SAMUEL B. HUSK, COUNCIL OF THE GREAT CITY SCHOOLS, PROFESSIONAL STAFF Dr. GOUSHA. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am Richard Gousha, vice president of the Council of the Great City Schools, and superintendent of schools in Milwaukee. With your permission I would request that the prepared testimony of the council be entered into the official records of the House General Education Subcommittee. The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, so ordered. [The document referred to follows:] STATEMENT OF DR. RICHARD P. GOUSHA, SUPERINTENDENT, MILWAUKEE PUBLIC SCHOOLS AND VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL OF THE GREAT CITY SCHOOLS The death of President Lyndon Johnson two weeks ago, and the recounting of his legislative accomplishments as President, remind us of the historical context of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. After the assassination of John F. Kennedy, President Johnson supplied a spirit of continuity to the goals of the dead President: the right of every citizen to participate in a democratic society through the democratic process, and the right of every citizen, regardless of race or creed, to be treated equally under the law. Recognizing that these goals needed support programs, the Congress developed and adopted legislation that provided economic and educational programs related to those equal rights and opportunities. The vehicle was the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. The Education Act of 1965 culminated many years of debate on the proper role for federal involvement in what is traditionally a local prerogative, and constitutionally a state domain. President Kennedy had sought unsuccessfully to establish the principle of the Federal Government's involvement, namely, providing each child with the right to an education through general assistance: Lyndon Johnson with the cooperation of Congress sought to insure that right through a series of programs to improve the education of the educationally disadvantaged; to insure that adequate library materials and libraries were available; to stimulate local system improvement through risk capital; to conduct research into the problems of learning; and to strengthen the leadership capabilities of the states in helping local systems to improve themselves. Before President Johnson was to leave office, he also endorsed programs to provide improved programs for the handicapped and to create "new, dynamic and imaginative" programs for children with limited English-speaking ability. So we see that the approach and the design of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, while categorical in appearance, has become quite comprehensive in scope. It is the Council of the Great City School's position that these programs are meeting real needs and that they must continue until such time as other needs of greater significance have to be addressed. There are some who question whether the categorical approach works, especially Title I, the compensatory education program. Yet, there is hardly a city that cannot show some measure of success in this program. The Education and Labor Committee in the past year has received testimony from the cities of Buffalo, Cleveland, Minneapolis, San Diego, Los Angeles, Baltimore, Chicago, Boston, Dallas, Houston and St. Louis. All of these districts have recounted to you at least limited and, very often, substantial successes in the Title I program. They have told you frankly of the "early" days of Title I when guidelines and regulations were confused and when program direction was not clear. They have admitted that the early experiments were not as successful as was hoped for. But in the past three years, Title I has stabilized itself in most cities. In almost every city the rate of learning for youngsters served has improved. Title I now has a vital role in the day to day operation of the schools and is showing significant success in meeting the special needs of special students. This has been accomplished in spite of some rather serious impediments in administering the Act, such as uncertain timing and levels of funding which have all but crippled sound planning and evaluation. This has been accomplished even in face of meeting new administrative requirements such as comparability, parent advisory committees, and public information programs. I am sure that it will come as no surprise to this committee that Council believes that Title I is the keystone of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act if not all of federal educational legislation. The cities have good reason to hold that belief. In 1965 the costs of education were spiraling upward, mostly to increase salaries. At the same time, our schools were under pressure for not serving the needs of the poor who had migrated to the cities, and who viewed the schools as an obstacle to their upward mobility. The situation was critical. The large city schools found themselves in a crisis that called for changes in curriculum and instructional techniques, changes in in-service and pre-service training. Title I's arrival at that juncture provided the cities with an opportunity to begin those changes in a few targeted places. However, we are faced with a continual rise in salary costs draining our schools of the resources that would normally permit them to extend program opportunities to boys and girls who need help the most. This is not time for the Congress to step back from its commitment to compensatory education, but rather to boldly step forward. For although the student population in our cities is decreasing, our students from low-income families is increasing, and we, under the current federal commitment, can serve barely half of those in need; in some cities the figure is closer to 25%. H.R. 69 At this point we would like to discuss specifically the effects H.R. 69 would have on our cities if passed in its proposed form. FORMULA FOR RATE The flat grant or "critical mass" variable of $300 per child in the new formula was offered to Congress and to the public last Spring in the Equal Educational Opportunities Act. It resulted from a study of the California Compensatory Education Program where the amount of $300 is a base. The actual amount expended per child is closer to double that amount. Our Council's analysis of its best Title I programs has shown that the addition of one half the actual per pupil expenditure usually provides the resources necessary to carry on a "quality" program. (A copy of that study is attached for the record). Others who have studied this question project expenditures far in excess of $300: The Riles' Commission $1,000 per child, and the National Education Finance Project study's index of 2.0, or twice the per pupil expenditure required to educate the child who is not educationally disadvantaged. For these reasons then we feel that $300 is an inadequate base. Further, $300 does not buy the same amount of services in New York City as it does in Los Angeles or Atlanta or in Houston. The cost differentials among those cities are real. The average reading teacher with the same experience might cost $10,000 in New York State, $9,500 in California, $7,000 in Georgia, $7,100 in Texas and $8,700 in Wisconsin. While we may not want to accept this situation, it is a fact. Costs are different by region and even in districts within regions. Therefore, the Council recommends retention of the current formula's per pupil rate of one half the state or national average, whichever is higher. FORMULA FOR POVERTY The next item that the Council would like to comment on-we do not have our own recommendation-is the use of census data to calculate numbers of eligible boys and girls. The Council concurs with those members of the Com.mittee who have held that the census base for calculating numbers of Title I eligible children does not reflect an accurate count of them nor their movement from place to place. We would add that while the aid to family with dependent children program may be a better indicator of current poverty and mobility it also has some disadvantages especially in those states where ADC has not been developed fully. Since there is question then about both the Census or ADC standards, the Council suggests that the Committee call upon the Commissioner to forward the study on Title I county suballocations and formula, which the Congress required in 1969 and which was due on June 30, 1972. Attachment A will demonstrate why the Council believes the formula as proposed in H.R. 69 would be inequitable. In FY 1970, the school systems were receiving their Title I payments using the 1959 data. We have reconstructed the payment to 19 of our member districts if the 1970 census data had been used. The Committee will note that the amounts that should have gone to the cities did not go there. It is the Council's position that those extra dollars lost annually add to our urban education crisis, and that similar inequities will eventually occur if the $4000 data for measuring poverty and ADC participation becomes law. TITLE I-PART C Another change proposed in H.R. 69 which the Council feels it must oppose is the elimination of the program that provides extra amounts of Title I monies for school districts with high concentration of low-income children. This program serves 5,000 school district with at least 20% of their student population or 5,000 children from poverty families. The program has provided the large city districts with additional dollars to increase educational services. By eliminating this part of Title I, the Congress would be dividing these resources among the 16,000 school districts already provided for in the basic program. This change would dilute the amount the cities and rural areas would be receiving. The Council would recommend that the program not only be restored to the legislation, but that the Congress look to this provision as a means of getting scarce Federal resources to those districts with greatest need. This could be done by adding the concept of concentration by district as a second stage of the H.R. 69 proposed pattern, i.e., after a federal expenditure of $300 per child has been reached, an additional amount of half the per pupil expenditure by state or national average would be concentrated on the communities with the greatest problem, those formerly the recipients of Part C monies. These additional dollars could assist those school districts which have substantial numbers of children who are eligible but not participating in compensatory education programs. Funding this type of program would also allow school districts to provide services to children as they proceed from grade level to grade level and to those children, who because of targeting criteria and guidelines, find that they are receiving services one year and not the next. We have often heard from our districts that the school board and staff feel compelled to "pick up" with local funds. These Title I schools fall outside a particular year's requirements. We strongly urge the Committee and the Congress to commit its concerns and resources to the boys and girls in these communities which have been paying additional costs through great sacrifice by the taxpayers or who have been forced to provide inadequate resources to disadvantaged students who need this extra help. PUBLIC LAW 874-PUBLIC HOUSING II.R. 69 also provides for the extension of the P.L. 874 program which gives assistance to school districts with extra tax burdens because of the location of Federal activity. However, H.R. 69 proposes the elimination of the public housing pupils from the program. This is unfortunate because it is our belief that the addition of public housing has put a burden on school resources that has not been redressed. Furthermore, the Federal Housing authorities, implementing Federal legislation, are not usually responsive to the effects that the construction of public housing has on the Education system. Because of the public housing, large numbers of poverty or near poverty children attend the same schools increasing the need for additional funds in those buildings. Frequently, public housing units cause overcrowding of school buildings or require new school construction. The average Federal payment which the districts get in lieu of taxes is somewhere around $25. The public housing section of P.L. 874, if fully funded, would provide half the district's per pupil expenditure. Such sums would certainly provide needed property tax relief in the central cities for many taxpayers who are just emerging from poverty or who are old and on fixed incomes. Attachment B shows the distribution of a $100 million appropriation by Congressional districts (as drawn in 1971). It is interesting to note that Fairfax County would receive only $23,000, Montgomery County $80,000, Bucks County, Pennsylvania, $2.000, and Westchester County $100,000 under the Public Housing provision. The Council urges the Committee to place this needed program back into the legislation. HOLD HARMLESS PROVISION In Fy 1973, three of our cities in the South--Atlanta, Houston, and Dallashas substantial increases in ADC children. H.R. 69's grandfather clause would result in a substantial loss of entitled revenue for each of those cities. The Council recommends that the Committee study the effects of the Hold Harmless Provisions of H.R. 69 to see whether all local education agencies will be treated equitably. HANDICAPPED Up to this point the handicapped program has been an experimental and project grant type program. Because of recent legal decisions in Pennsylvania, and the District of Columbia, the Council of the Great City Schools recommends that a more extensive measure be adopted which will assist those school districts which will be required by law to absorb handicapped children into the regular |