If this body will provide the leadership, then we can do it in the classrooms across the country.

In this vein I wish to begin my testimony. I have a prepared text that you have.

Chairman PERKINS. Without objection your prepared statement will be inserted in the record.

[The statement referred to follows:]

TESTIMONY OF JOHN V. UDELL, TEACHER, DADE COUNTY, FLA.

My name is John Udell. I am employed by the Dade County Board of Public Instruction as a Classroom Teacher. I am also the spokesman for a group of classroom teachers in one school in Miami, Florida-Floral Heights Elementary School. I, and the teachers I represent, teach in all Black inner-city schools located in the central negro district of Miami. As teachers we are confronted daily with some of the most basic, gut-level problems concerning the learning and educational achievement of Black disadvantaged elementary children.

The reason I am appearing before you today is because we have at our school, and one other, Edison Park Elementary, been afforded the opportunity to achieve some partial solutions to the problems of educating disadvantaged children. Last year, in 1972, and during the current school year, we created an instructional program which demonstrated significant results in reading and mathematics achievement. A copy of those results was included in the testimony of Charles Blaschke who spoke before you on February 1, 1973. The instructional program that we established at Floral Heights was sponsored by and funded under Title I of the 1965 ESEA Act. Because the program was sponsored and funded with Federally appropriated monies the results and implications of this project should be brought to your attention.

As I mentioned before, the schools we work in are Black inner-city schools. In the rank-ordering of the one hundred and seventy-four (174) elementary schools in Dade County there are only five (5) schools that rank in overall achievement lower than Floral Heights. The average sixth grader at Floral Heights has traditionally scored two and one-half years behind his middle-class counterpart in reading achievement.

The Floral Heights project dealt with fourth, fifth, and sixth grade children who were a minimum of one year behind in both reading and mathematics achievement. All of the lowest achieving children in the fourth, fifth, and sixth grades were thereby put into this project. It was with these very low achieving childern, that we, as teachers, with the cooperation of the school and district administrative personnel, were able to demonstrate significant learning potential and learning achievement in reading and mathematics. We, the teachers, put forth our own money, time, and professional reputation to guarantee that we would move these children in reading and mathmematics achievement farther and faster than they have ever moved before. We guaranteed significant student and the students achieved it.

It is important to point out that we, the teachers, do not claim to be the creators of the most advanced educational research theories, however, we do claim to be the creators and users of some very effective instructional techniques and methodologies. (See Attachment)

In the following sections I would like to deal with two major topics; firstly, the reasons why we, or another group of teachers, would guarantee student performance and put up their own money to back that guarantee, and secondly, the conditions that made it possible for this project to succeed.

To understand why we undertook this project, or why any other group of teachers would undertake similar projects it is necessary to explain what Dade County was attempting to accomplish when it got into the performance contracting business.

The Dade County Board of Public Instruction through the utilization of Title I ESEA funds wanted, in a limited way, to experiment with performance contracting. The Board, firstly, wanted to find out whether performance contracting would give rise to instructional innovations and/or exemplary programs. Secondly, the Board wanted to find out whether commercial educational businesses could come into Dade County Title I eligible schools and do a demonstrably better job of teaching disadvantaged children reading and mathematics than the existing Title I programs. Thirdly, they wanted to find out whether Dade County

teachers or groups of teachers could, if provided with extra money, technical assistance, and instructional self-governance plus decision-making authority, do a decidely better job of educating Title I children. The performance contracts to be awarded teachers were called "internal" contracts.

As a teacher I was intrigued with the challenge offered by this "internal" type of performance contracting. What Dade County, by implication, was challenging me and all other teachers to do was this-"For years teachers have said they could do a superior job if they had sufficient control over their instructional program, adequate administrative assistance, and sufficient money to buy what was necessary to do the job. Now we will see if they will put their money where their mouth is."

We, as professional teachers, could not allow that challenge to go unanswered. We were confident that we could do a far more superior job than had ever been done before by other teachers or any private commercial enterprise. Finally, we were given adquate tools to do the job; the money, the authority, and the technical administrative assistance. There was one additional thing, the potential to make extra money if we significantly increased student performance, that struck a sympathetic chord.

As internal contractors, we were given fifty-five dollars ($55.00) of operating capital per child to purchase supplies and materials and another fifty-five dollars ($55.00) of risk capital per child to purchase equipment and teacher training. The fifty-five dollars ($55.00) was to be paid back to Dade County in the event that our children failed to exceed their traditional expectancies in reading and mathematics by at least fifty percent (50%). This fifty-five dollars ($55.00) per child was to come out of our pockets.

On the profit side we could make one hundred and ten dollars ($110.00) per child if the children exceeded their traditional expectancies by one hundred percent (100%). In essence, what we were saying as internal contractors was: "We, the teachers, will guarantee that we will move our children academically further than they have ever gone before, we will risk our time, our money, and our professional reputations to guarantee this growth, but in return for this superior achievement of our children we demand to be paid for a job well done. We simply could not pass up this opportunity."

The conditions established by the Dade County Board of Public Instruction for project implementation were crucial factors which made it possible for the Floral Heights Project to be a success.

The first condition, that of teacher incentives, I have dealt with in a previous section. The teacher incentives were primarily motivational. The incentives encouraged participation of the teachers in a program to guarantee student performance and to hold themselves directly accountable for the learning of their children. Most importantly, the incentives encouraged the teachers to work harder and more effectively.

It should be noted that "inner-city" schools have great difficulty recruiting competent teachers and retaining competent teachers. The staff turnover in "innercity" schools is high because the general working conditions are more hazardous and the children are generally more difficult to teach. Given the opportunity to transfer from "inner-city" schools to the more preferred suburban schools, teachers invariably exercise that option.

Monetary incentives, as described in this report, may go a long way towards recruiting and retaining the type of teacher needed in our "inner-city" schools. The second condition that was incorporated in the internal contracts was the decentralization of decision-making to the school and the classroom level. This decentralization was revolutionary. We were self-governing, we were given primary authority over what we used in our instructional program and how we used it. The instructional management program, the instructional design, and the materials utilization scheme were all our creations, and we controlled the implementation of each. This particular condition is so important that had we not had this self-governing authority we could not have accomplished what we did. Decentralizing decision-making to the school level is necessary for several reasons. Firstly, it is within the school that the learning of academic skills occurs or doesn't occur, therefore, school instructional personnel, due to their proximity, are more aware of what is educationally necessary for adequate educational achievement, i.e., they know what their children need because they live with them seven hours a day. Secondly, and more importantly, any effective and efficient instructional program in any individual is the result of the correct balancing and amalgamation of three major instructional variables. These three instructional variables or factors are the following:

A. Instructional staff assignments;

B. Student learning capabilities-Present and potential;

C. Equipment and materials utilization-Quantities and configurations. For reasons that will follow, it is only at the school and classroom level that these three instructional variables can be correctly balanced and amalgamated. Each school is dramatically different from all other schools. Each school has different types of teachers-old, young; rigid, free-thinking; complacent, upwardmobile. The experience of school administrators and teachers vary, their competencies vary, and staff togetherness and cohesiveness vary. Add to this personnel allocation policies which make school staffing fairly static and tenure regulations which make school-to-school transfers of inadequate teachers difficult. As a result of the staff variabilities amongst the different schools, that which is effective instructional staff utilization at one school is ineffective utilization at another school. In other words, what one school staff is capable of accomplishing another school staff cannot, and visa-versa.

School student populations vary. The students in two particular schools may all be Black and from the same neighborhood, but still they are individually and as a group different. Their attitudes vary and are different; their potentials are different; their personal backgrounds and experience are different; and most importantly, their perceptions of their school, their teachers and themselves are different.

The last instructional variable, equipment and materials utilization, must be manipulated to fit the two preceding variables. In one school, a certain type and quantity of materials will be necessary, whereas in a sister school such configuration may be inadequate or unnecessary. Material and equipment configurations are dependent upon the recognized needs of the student population and the capabilities of the instructional staff. To deploy material and equipment without considering the two preceding variables is to waste such material and equipment.

The only people who can adequately attempt to manipulate and balance the three instructional variables are the individual school instructional staffs. Provided, they have the decision-making authority to control these variables. Presently, under the existing guidelines for Title I allocations within school districts, the authorization for decentralized decision-making has not been provided for. In those districts and states, Dade County and the state of Michigan in particular which have decentralized decision-making to the classroom and school level, significant progress has been shown. In those districts that have not decentralized the above authority significant failure has been demonstrated.

As a classroom teacher, I would like to make the following recommendations for your consideration:

1. Do not reduce or eliminate Federal assistance to education. Some of the most significant innovations in education have resulted because Federal assistance has been provided to local school districts. The Dade County experiment would not have been possible without Federal assistance.

2. Specific guidelines must be provided for the dissemination and general application of the innovations which have resulted from Federal funded programs. Many excellent instructional programs have been developed through the utilization of Title I and Title III funds. The rest of the educational community could economically utilize many of these programs, if they were aware of their existence.

3. Provide specific guidelines for the decentralization of decision-making authority to the school and classroom level. Do not authorize funding to school districts which create administrative positions for personnel who can not, due to the nature of their positions, effectively dictate viable instructional programs. This is precisely what has occurred under existing ESEA legislation.

4. Recognize that "inner-city" schools are dumping grounds for incompetent teachers and administrators. Recognize that competent teachers and administrators must be recruited and retained for these schools. If "inner-city" schools offered teachers and administrators the opportunity to create significant instructional innovations due to self-governance and financial recognition in the form of incentives for student achievement, then we could get the teachers we need. 5. Create legislation that provides for technical assistance to school districts and individual schools who are in need of such assistance. Many schools recognize the need for expert help to assist them in solving the complex instructional problems associated with the education of the disadvantaged. Provide the funding capability for such assistance.

6. Lastly, as Congressman believe in your responsibility for the education of the disadvantaged children of this country. We, the teachers in Dade County, and a few Black children have shown you that Black and all disadvantaged children can learn. As one student spokesman parsimoniously stated, “I'm no Pumpkin-head, I can do my work." (Jelmo Kirk, fifth grader, Floral Heights Elementary)

Thank you.

Mr. UDELL. Thank you.

No. 1, we are classroom teachers. The teachers that I represent work in all black ghetto schools in Miami, Fla. The particular school we are working in is called Floral Heights Elementary. It is one of the 174 elementary schools. There are five schools in Dade County that rank lower in overall achievement than Floral Heights.

The project that we applied for and accepted was to raise the reading and mathematical achievement of fourth, fifth and sixth graders at Floral Heights Elementary.

These children were selected on the basis of their prior achievement. They had to be at least 1 year behind in reading and mathematics achievement.

What we got were the lower children in fourth, fifth, and sixth grades. We got the lower children in one of the lower schools in Dade County.

The results of what we did are significant. For every month of instruction we got 3 months of growth in reading and we got 2 months of growth in mathematics.

Based on historical expectancy of these children in reading, we exceded the traditional expectancy by over 500 percent in reading and over 200 percent in mathematics.

Chairman PERKINS. You are talking about a special education program under title I?

Mr. UDELL. No; this is a title I funded program under ESEA. Title I eligible children. Special education children were not eligible for participation nor were children above grade level in both reading and mathematics.

Chairman PERKINS. You are talking about an inner city school? Mr. UDELL. Yes. This is an all black inner city school. What we did was the result of two major factors.

The first factor, the first legitimate issue is why we go into it in the first place. What we did was guarantee as teachers that we could do the job. Why did we do it or why would any other group of teachers do it?

To answer that question you have to understand why Dade County got in the business of performance contracting in the first place.

What they were trying to determine was: Is performance contracting a method by which you can arrive at educational innovation and exemplary programs in education?

No. 2, they wanted to find out whether outside commercial funds, educational commercial funds, could come into title I eligible schools and do a better job than had been done heretofore by teachers working in those schools or programs funded under title I in those schools. No. 3, they wanted to find out whether teachers could get together and guarantee to move the children farther and faster that they had evere done before. That was to us as teachers a very great challenge. We were challenged by commercial firms to do a better job. We were

challenged by other teachers to do a better job. We couldn't afford to pass up that opportunity. What was it that we were given to do?

No. 1, we were given extra money. We were given self-governing decisionmaking at our level-the classroom. We could decide what we wanted to do, what we wanted to use, and how much of what we had to use.

We had control as classroom teachers over our instructional curricula. That was unique. We were given $55 per child for instructional material as operating capital.

We were also given $55 per child as risk capital. Risk capital which we would have had to pay back and dig into our own pockets to pay it back to Dade County if we did not get the gains. If we did not exceed expectancy by 10 percent, we would have had to pay back 100 percent of the risk capital and that was $55 per child.

If we did not exceed expectancy by 50 percent, we would have had to pay them back half or $27 per child. We stood to lose almost $3,000 out of our own pockets if we did not move these children at least 10 percent above what they had traditionally done in our school. If we exceeded the traditional expectancy by 100 percent, we got 100 percent of the incentives that were made available to us. We could earn $110 per child for the incentives.

As I said before, we exceeded expectancies by over 500 percent in reading.

The conditions that were established by the Dade County Board of Public Instruction were the crucial factors in the success and implementation of this program.

The first one was the teacher incentives. These incentives were primarily motivational. They got us to do the job. They got us interested. We were guaranteeing that we could move the children but we were also given the opportunity that if we moved those children, we would earn extra money as a result of doing that.

There is one thing I would like to point out. Schools like Floral Heights, inner city schools, have tremendous difficulty. We have tremendous difficulty in our school in retaining and recruiting competent teachers. Excellent teachers who have the opportunity to transfer from inner city schools do in fact do that. They transfer when the opportunity is available to them.

The retention and keeping of competent teachers within our school is a very difficult task.

Incentives gives the opportunity for retaining and recruiting the kinds of teachers necessary to work in inner city schools.

The second and in my estimation the most crucial factor involved in this program was the decentralization of decisionmaking authority to the school and classroom level.

The instructional program, the instruction design and material utilization schemes were our creations. We decided what we needed to use. We decided how to use it. Why is decentralization of decisionmaking for the classroom necessary?

There are three crucial factors that affect any instruction at the school level.

No. 1. The type of instructional staff you are working with. Two. The children that you are working with and their learning capabilities.