Let me give you an example. We have a part C program, part C carryover, and we are concentrating those funds in the 10 eligible elementary schools.

Now the resources are there and we required each principal to make a proposal of how the money would be spent. He identified the children on whom the money was going to be spent. Most of the programs are programs that deal with language development and mathematical competence.

You have the limited resources and the program is being planned and supervised by the regular classroom teacher with teacher aides being brought in to extend what the classroom teacher can do.

Now, I maintain that there are other children in the school who could not only benefit from the program but could help the children who are deficient in language and in mathematics and you would accomplish the purpose of desegregation which relates to the interaction of children with each other, children from various backgrounds. Then you have an additional resource to help the youngster improve his competencies. Teachers know in so many, many cases children learn more from other children than they do from the teacher.

So by isolating the title I child from a more advantaged child you are depriving him further because you are depriving him of a peer resource which could help him in his learning.

So you are not spending the money which is already there for the deprived child, you are just using him really as a resource and he is helped and the title I child is helped too, but the guidelines as set would penalize us for bringing in other children who are more advantaged to participate in this program even though their presence would enhance the benefit of the program of the title I child.

Mr. JENNINGS. So what you are saying then is that you don't use title I money as general aid to that school?

Mrs. RANDOLPH. No.

Mr. JENNINGS. Just to reduce class size for everybody.

Mrs. RANDOLPH. No.

Mr. JENNINGS. But you do have a special program or remedial teacher and you open up her class to more children.

Mrs. RANDOLPH. That is what we would like to do. I am saying in this way title I is incompatible with the purpose of desegregation because it deprives the title I child of the peer influence in a special

group.

Mr. JENNINGS. What you say has been said by Coleman and the rest?

Mrs. RANDOLPH. Yes.

Mr. JENNINGS. Children could learn more when they have socially mixed classrooms?

Mrs. RANDOLPH. Yes. It is not a dilution of the funds because the funds are there already for the deprived children.

Chairman PERKINS. Now, do you feel that we can provide a solution whereby these children can be identified in a situation such as you have in Mecklenburg?

Mrs. RANDOLPH. Listening to the two financial experts who have just spoken makes me very, very aware of the problems which this would entail but I favor a formula which would be based on identification of the educationally deprived in a district.

Of course my experience is with Charlotte-Mecklenburg but I believe such a formula would identify the poor more adequately than the present formula does because the present formula excludes many of the poor because the formula is based on concentrations of low income families here.

I am thinking about a mill community where there is quite a bit of poverty but the poverty is not as concentrated as it is in another section of the city.

Another thing about it, it is a white mill community as far as the residential area is concerned and cannot benefit from title I funds although they have serious educational disadvantage because their concentration does not equal or excede that of the district.

Chairman PERKINS. Let me ask you one question. Having experienced these problems in Mecklenburg County, how would you suggest that we amend the law to identify the so-called disadvantaged youngster? Mrs. RANDOLPH. I would think that there should be some participation of the local LEA in the identification process. I don't have the expertise in statistics and finance to suggest a formula but I believe that the local educational agency should have some part in identifying the children to be served in that locality and not have to apply a general formula which in the specific instance really acts against the identification of the children whom you think should be identified.

I think if a formula could be devised where the LEA had some way of participating in the identification process, that the funds would be more fairly distributed and the eligible children would be more readily identified.

Chairman PERKINS. Mr. Chris Cross.

Mr. CROSS. Just one question.

Yesterday I think the Chicago people suggested that to prevent the sort of fluctuation caused by schools being eligible 1 year for title I and then, because of a change, becoming ineligible next year that a school be identified as eligible for 3 years. In other words once a district was identified it would remain eligible for 3 years.

Would you support something like that?

Mrs. RANDOLPH. I can see some value in it certainly in a place like Chicago.

In our urban-rural area there is quite a bit of mobility and that has been one of our problems with credibility in the low income. community.

You have areas of a town that gradually shift from black to white because you see there still is residential segregation. Although our schools are 70-30 we achieve it by transportation and the residential segregation is very very much there and you have white flights from communities where blacks move in we have drastic black-white shifts within a school year.

That is what has been our problem with title I in the past and the problem that got us into difficulty is with the auditors. The auditors say that we were serving the wrong children. They identified areas. where we were serving title I youngsters in newly poor areas. They used to be affluent areas and they have changed.

So if you have an area designated as title I for 3 years, if it changes drastically in 1 year you still have the problem.

Mr. CROSS. What you said about an area becoming newly poor; would that be because census figures are so far behind?

Mrs. RANDOLPH. That is right.

Mr. CROSS. The census is not an accurate reflection.

Mrs. RANDOLPH. Absolutely not.

Mr. CROSS. Thank you.

Chairman PERKINS. The General Accounting Office audited you and contended that you had not spent the money rightfully because of this problem in Mecklenburg?

Mrs. RANDOLPH. They said they were looking at the census and they said these are not eligible areas, and indeed they were.

Chairman PERKINS. And they were?

Mrs. RANDOLPH. Yes.

Chairman PERKINS. Thank you very much. Again, you have been most helpful to the committee.

Mrs. RANDOLPH. Thank you, sir.

Chairman PERKINS. We look forward to your return.

Mrs. RANDOLPH. I believe in title I and if I ever can be of any kind of help all you have to do is ask.

Chairman PERKINS. Thank you very much.

The committee will reccess until 9 a.m.

[Whereupon, at 11:23 a.m. the general subcommittee recessed, to reconvene at 9 a.m., Thursday, February 8, 1973.]

ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION

AMENDMENTS OF 1973

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 1973

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

GENERAL SUBCOMMITTEE ON EDUCATION

OF THE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR,

Washington, D.C.

The subcommittee met at 9:00 a.m., pursuant to recess, in room 2257, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Carl D. Perkins (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Representatives Perkins, Lehman, Towell, and Quie.

Staff members present: Jack Jennings, majority counsel; and Christopher Cross, minority staff assistant.

Chairman PERKINS. The subcommittee will come to order. A quorum is present.

The General Subcommittee on Education is today continuing hearings on H.R. 69, a bill to extend the major Federal programs affecting elementary and secondary education, and H.R. 16, the School Finance Act of 1973.

We are pleased this morning to have as our first witness Dr. Norman Drachler, former superintendent of schools in Detroit. Following Dr. Drachler, we will hear testimony about Title III programs in New York, New Jersey, and Wisconsin.

Come around, Dr. Drachler.

STATEMENT OF NORMAN DRACHLER, DIRECTOR, INSTITUTE FOR EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP, FORMER SUPERINTENDENT FOR PUBLIC SCHOOLS IN DETROIT, MICH.

Chairman PERKINS. Without objection, your statement will be inserted in the record and you may proceed in any way you prefer. (The statement referred to follows:)

STATEMENT OF DR. NORMAN DRACHLER, DIRECTOR, INSTITUTE FOR EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP, GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY

Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen of the committee, I am Norman Drachler, Director of the Institute for Educational Leadership. The George Washington University, and formerly superintendent of Detroit Public Schools from 1966 through 1971. I believe that the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 has made a very positive contribution to American education. And I am pleased to have the opportunity to appear before your committee today. Having served as a superintendent in a large city school system that was affected by nearly all the misfortunes that have faced urban communities in the past decade, I regard the ESEA Act of 1965 as one of the chief benefactors to the children of our schools during those grim days. I am convinced that what little educational improvement has prevailed in our schools system was largely due to the impact of this legislation.

There are those who question the worth or desirability of Federal aid to education-particularly the effectiveness of Title I. I share some of the concerns expressed by critics. There are, however, many strengths in this legislation-and I wish to review these, based on my experience in Detroit.

This legislation has influenced American education in a variety of ways:

1. ESEA has highlighted the shortcomings of our educational system and has