STATEMENT OF DR. JAMES MOFFAT, ASSISTANT
SUPERINTENDENT, CHICAGO PUBLIC SCHOOLS

Mr. MOFFAT. Mr. Chairman, I am James G. Moffat, assistant superintendent, Chicago public schools. I will address myself to some of the problems we face in implementing programs under provisions of this legislation and offer recommendations which I feel will be of benefit to many school systems as they develop ESEA programs.

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, your prepared statement will be inserted in the record, and you may proceed in any manner you prefer. Mr. MOFFAT. My comments relative to title I fall into four categories: (1) determining eligibility of school attendance areas, (2) determining pupil participation, (3) funding procedures under title I, and (4) comparability requirements.

For a local school district to apply for ESEA title I funds a list of eligible ESEA title I schools must accompany the project application. Although fairly explicit guidelines are provided through the Federal and State offices of education, an annual gathering of this type of data in the large urban school system is an expensive, complex, and timeconsuming process.

Moreover, the need to do this every year creates a time lag that seriously hampers the development of educational programs by each

school.

It also creates a situation in which, because of changes in citywide or neighborhood conditions, a school may be on the ESEA list one year, off the second year, and on the third year. As schools move on and off the eligibility list, education activities must be implemented, closed, and then reinstated.

Aside from the administrative, technical, and educational problems this procedure raises, it creates serious difficulties with our school communities. Parents cannot understand why their children are suddenly ineligible to participate in ESEA title I programs, especially when their own economic situation has not been altered.

Furthermore, as pupils are shuttled back and forth in these programs, any gains that could be attributed to participation in an ESEA title I program are diminished if not completely eliminated.

Because of these problems, I recommend that once a school eligibility list for ESEA title I programs is determined, that that list be maintained for a period of 3 years with the provision to include additional schools in neighborhoods that experience severe economic decline.

This change in policy would assure the continuation of an ESEA program in a school for at least 3 years and provide each child participating in the ESEA title I program the opportunity to benefit from this experience for that period and thus give him greater opportunities for success.

For the current ESEA title I program in the Chicago public schools, funds were channeled to Chicago through the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction of the State of Illinois, based on a per capita allocation for the number of low-income children identified in the 1960 census and the January 1972 listing of lowincome children whose families were receiving AFDC assistance.

The guidelines mandated that in developing an ESEA title I program only the most educationally disadvantaged children residing

in low-income areas could be served. The Chicago public schools title I program for this year focuses on 51,701 of 249,791 identified low-income youngsters.

In developing this program, two problems became readily apparent: (1) the ESEA title I programs, because of the mandate to serve only the most educationally disadvantaged children, serve only one-fifth of those children residing with low-income families; and (2) children who speak a language other than English as their first language put whose families do not receive AFDC payments are deprived of title I services because their geographic area will not be designated as an eligible title I attendance area; yet these children may be severely educationally deprived as a result of their language problems.

I recommend that (1) funds be appropriated at the full ESEA title I authorization level so that some services can be given to all educationally disadvantaged youngters residing in low-income areas; and (2) the guidelines be altered to permit school systems to develop programs to serve all youngsters identified as educationally disadvantaged who are residing in low-income areas.

The manner in which ESEA title I funds are authorized, appropriated, and distributed to local educational agencies does not allow sufficient leadtime for adequate planning. For example, as of today, the board of education of the city of Chicago has not been informed of the final ESEA title I allocation to the Chicago public schools for the current program which ends August 31, 1973. This makes it difficult to revise current programs or plan summer activities.

To provide continuity of title I activities and to allow time for longrange planning, I recommend a 3-year funding period similar to that of ESEA title III. Further, I recommend that within this 3-year period, allocations for each year be available 6 months before the program is scheduled to be implemented.

The efficient management of title I money is further affected by the manner in which these funds are disbursed. Currently, title I is operated on a reimbursement basis. The Chicago public schools therefore must expend local educational funds to pay title I bills and then submit a request for reimbursement from the State office of the superintendent of public instruction.

It is not unusual for a 90-day period to elapse between the time that a request for payment is made for an expenditure and the time reimbursement is received.

Since the Chicago public schools operate a $3 million-per-month title I project, approximately $9 million of local funds are being used continually to operate ESEA title I programs.

To alleviate the excessive financial burden imposed on large school systems. I recommend that ESEA title I be operated as a funded rather than a reimbursable program.

Federal ESEA title I guidelines mandate that school systems prepare a comparability report which shows that non-Federal expenditures for each school participating in ESEA title I programs are comparable with the average non-Federal schools not participating under ESEA title I.

This guideline was developed by Federal officials to assure them that ESEA title I funds were being used to supplement rather than supplant the services given to children participating in ESEA title I

programs.

This annual comparison, referred to as the comparability report, must be made in the following five areas: (1) per pupil instructional salaries not including longevity pay; (2) per pupil expenditure for textbooks, library resources, and other instructional materials; (3) the ratio of pupils to classroom teachers; (4) the ratio of pupils to auxiliary teachers; and (5) the ratio of pupils to instructional civil service staff.

Although the concept of this report to show comparability of nonFederal expenditures is a worthy objective, the requirement of having to provide comparability separately for each of these five areas restricts experimentation, and prevents individual schools or groups of schools. from developing instructional programs to meet the specific needs of their pupils.

For example, if one of the three administrative areas into which the Chicago public schools are divided decided to experiment in all of its schools, ESEA and non-ESEA, with a plan which would decrease the number of classroom teachers and the amount of money spent on textbooks, and use the money saved by this to effect an increase in teacher aides, counselors, and equipment, such a move would make the ESEA schools in that area noncomparable in per pupil expenditures for textbooks and in the three personnel ratios.

In order to reestablish comparability, the board of education would then be required either to include in the experimental plan all schools in the other two administrative areas or to abandon the experiment.

Under the present definition of comparability, this would be necessary despite the fact that the total per pupil instructional cost in the experimental schools had not changed.

Since some yardstick must be used to insure that local school districts will use ESEA title I funds to supplement rather than supplant funded instructional activities, I recommend that instructional salaries (not including longevity pay) be established as the sole criterion in formulating comparability. This would afford each school local options in meeting the individual needs of its pupils by allowing it to allocate its total financial resources as it chooses and yet assure the Office of Education that ESEA title I funds are not supplanting local funds.

Although ESEA title I is the single largest source of Federal revenue in the Chicago public schools, other titles of ESEA have provided funds on a limited basis to assist us meet the needs of our children. The implementation of these programs has not been accomplished without difficulty.

I would at this time like to address myself specifically to titles III. VII, and VIII of ESEA.

ESEA title VII provides funds to local school systems to develop pilot programs in bilingual education. As of September 1972, 11 percent or 61,900 of the children enrolled in the Chicago public schools were of Spanish background. More than 160 of our schools enroll 5 or more Latin-American youngsters.

In November 1971, our annual survey of pupils whose first language was other than English indicated that there were approximately 47.000 children in need of assistance due to an English language deficiency. Of these, 38,000 were children whose first language was neither English nor Spanish.

Despite the enormity of this problem, the Chicago public schools today, have only $591,000 of ESEA title VII funds to implement progranis serving 1,014 youngsters in nine schools. I would parenthetically note that in our title I project we have one program, teaching english as a second language (TESL) which is funded at $2.2 million and serves 5,500 youngsters.

I recommend that ESEA title VII funds be removed from the competitive arena and funds be allocated to local school districts on a per capita basis. This would obviate Chicago and the State of Illinois finding themselves in the present situation of receiving a share of title VII funds disproportionate to our Spanish-speaking population.

Additionally, funding title VII in this manner would permit each school system to concentrate its title I resources on meeting the needs of low-income youngsters and freeing title VII funds to meet the needs of youngsters whose first language is one other than English.

ESEA title VIII provides funds for the development of dropout prevention programs. Since 1969 there have been no new funds appropriated under provisions of this title. The Chicago public schools have never had the opportunity to participate in this program. That the need for these funds in Chicago is present is evidenced by these statistics: In the 1971-72 school year, 12,300 high school youngsters withdrew voluntarily from school. These youngsters represented 8.7 percent of the total high school membership of 141,478.

I urge that funds be appropriated for ESEA title VIII so that school systems might develop programs to meet the needs of the dropout and dropout-prone youngsters.

I appreciate the opportunity to come before you today to share with you some of the problems and offer some of the recommendations as I see them from the vantage point of the implementation stage of Federal programs. I hope that as we look upon ESEA from our own vantage points, we can, working together, make ESEA better for the children we serve.

STATEMENT OF LARRY HARRIS, SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE SUPERINTENDENT FOR URBAN AFFAIRS, MINNEAPOLIS PUBLIC SCHOOLS

Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am special assistant to the superintendent for urban affairs in the Minneapolis Public School District. I speak today for Dr. John B. Davis, Jr., superintendent, who is in Minneapolis dealing with some budget

cuts in the crises of our schools.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak before this committee today to share some of the efforts that our school system is making to provide educational opportunities for all children in Minneapolis which will provide our students with dignity and competency.

The Minneapolis public schools currently educate 61,590 students in 92 regular schools and 27 special education stations. In addition to the 61,590 public school students in Minneapolis, approximately 11,800 students attend private or parochial schools.

The Minneapolis public schools are governed by a seven-member elected board of education. The unpaid board members are elected

at large and serve 6-year terms. Dr. John B. Davis, Jr. has served as superintendent of schools since 1967. He leads a certified staff of nearly 4,000 persons.

Minneapolis has the largest school district in the State of Minnesota. We face most of the problems confronting the districts in cities throughout the Nation.

Loss of students.-We have lost 8,560 students since 1968 and estimate that we will lose an additional 5,000 students by 1975.

Concentration of disadvantaged students.-12 percent of our student body came from AFDC homes in 1968, and 28 percent in 1973; 11 percent of Minnesota's families lived in Minneapolis in 1971, including 31 percent of the State's families on AFDC.

We have had a slow, but steady increase in minority group enrollments.-10.7 percent of our student body came from minority group families in 1968, and 15.9 percent in 1972; 80.8 percent of our black elementary school students attend 12 of our 66 regular elementary schools; 22.8 percent of our 1,486 American Indian elementary-aged students attend 4 of our 66 regular elementary schools.

Five of our 92 regular schools have a student body of more than 60 percent racial minority group students; 23 of our 66 elementary schools have minority group enrollments of less than 5 percent.

Our system is currently under an order of the Federal district court to implement a 3-year desegregation/integration plan which involves the construction of three expanded community elementary schools, additions to five elementary schools, and one new elementary school.

The desegregation/integration plan calls for changing a number of secondary school attendance boundaries, converting five junior high schools into schools serving grades 7-8 and three senior high schools into schools serving grades 9-12. One junior high will serve only ninth graders and one junior high will be completely phased out as a secondary school and converted into an elementary school.

This plan will move the district toward integration, but at great dollar costs including: $19,150,000 for new school construction and school rehabilitation, $544,000 for in-service human relations training for faculty and staff, and $198,000 in local dollars for transportation.

These necessary costs are justifiable, but they come at a time when budget shortages seriously threaten many educational programs.

Concentration of special education students. The Minneapolis Public Schools educate approximately 6 percent of Minnesota's public elementary and secondary students, but 15 percent of the State's special education students. We receive tuition from suburban districts to defray the costs of the physically handicapped and hearing-impaired nonresident students we educate, but inadequate State support for the vast majority of the special education population in our schools. Ten percent of our 1972-73 local budget will go for the disproportionate number of special education students enrolled in Minneapolis.

We have an old physical plant. Nineteen of our buildings in use are over 76 years of age. We will replace 14 of the oldest buildings by 1975, but the high cost of land acquisition and the added costs of helping displaced families find new housing units are such that we will not be able to bring our plant up-to-date without outside assistance. The newer school buildings in the suburbs surrounding our city help to attract families who are needed to keep the city viable.

95-545-73-pt. 1-28