A little bit of background about the Portland Public Schools might be in order. Many of the problems that are encroaching upon urban education nationally are making themselves felt in Portland. We have taken a particular shellacking financially in recent years. We have lost credibility at the polls with the voters. We have lost votes on finance issues, both for capital and for operation.

At the same time, we found that an increasing proportion of the students that come to us for help carry with them a greater burden of problems to be dealt with.

As a measure of some of the problems we were faced with last year, we closed school a month early in order to keep our expenses within

revenues.

Not only were our kids deprived of 20 days of the education to which they are entitled, but virtually all of our employees took a 10 percent salary cut.

This year we have been forced to make deep cuts into programs in an effort to restore the lost days of last year. We restored 15 of the 20 school days that were lost last year. The only bright spot in being able to keep expenses within revenues has been a decline in enrollment which has, at least in part, offset some of the more dramatic effects of insufficient revenues.

The State is embarking on, under the leadership of Governor McCall, a new school finance proposal. I am pleased to report that the Oregon State legislature (house of representatives) last week passed this package virtually intact and that it is going to receive speedy consideration by the senate soon.

Under this plan, 97 percent of school support would come through State sources. When the legislature has concluded its action on this plan, it will be referred to voters, as it involves constitutional change as well as legislation, perhaps in April, and the voters will decide then whether or not this new package will be adopted.

Of course our speculation on that item is greatly up in the air.

I would like to mention now some of the concerns and ideas we have with regard to reenactment of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.

First of all, I greatly appreciate this opportunity to appear before the committee and to testify favoring reenactment of that legislation. I think it is to be commended that early hearings are being held because this will help remove some of the problems that local school officials face having to do with uncertainty of programs and uncertainty of funding.

I am also delighted to understand that there is a broad base of representation that has been appearing before this committee and will continue to appear before this committee. I think that will insure a broad base of support for the legislation that results.

I would like to make some comments about title I of ESEA. We recognize that there have been abuses and we recognize that there have been examples of ineffective programs. However, we have had good experience in Portland with title I. Some of the barriers that we see to title I being totally effective include:

1. Insufficient funding.

We are faced with funds only sufficient to serve about half of the youngsters who really are entitled to compensatory services.

2. Outdated distribution formulas. I think it is inconceivable that we would continue to use the 1960 U.S. Census as a basis for distributing funds under title I.

In Portland we have noted a shift of poverty population to the urban area. Approximately 36 percent more youngsters are on welfare rolls in Portland today than were during the period during which the 1960 census was taken.

At the same time the 1960 census data remain static and we continue to use that for distribution of funds.

3. Further and this is of some personal anguish to me-is the uncertainty of funding. This year is a good example inasmuch as we are operating title I on a continuing resolution and don't have official world as to what the final amount of the allocation to a local school system will be.

It is about a 111⁄2 ulcer job each year to try to estimate the amount of funding you will receive under title I. It makes it very difficult to do adequate advance planning in that air of uncertainty.

4. A particularly acute problem in Oregon is the difficulty of planning, and utilizing effectively, title I moneys in a school system that is undertaking a voluntary desegregation plan. It is extremely difficult to concentrate sufficient funds to youngsters who are being transferred to new school settings to provide the breadth and depth of services that they need to make it, educationally.

I don't really have a good creative solution to that problem but I think it is one that this committee must undertake in its further deliberations. I would also like to comment that our experience with title I has been favorable and it is looking more favorable.

Appended to my written testimony is a brief statement regarding some summary test information which is beginning to look more favorable and I think it also points to the fact that title I in its initial years probably did not take hold and the plans and programs were probably not as effective as they might be and certainly as they are

now.

So I think the more recent information we have shown in the last 2 or 3 years is beginning to look far brighter.

Mr. Harold will have comments on the particular effectiveness at the local school level of title I programs.

I would like to direct a couple of comments about the Elementary and Secondary Act regarding some of the other titles, particularly title III.

I think the Federal Government's emphasis upon innovation and change and the necessity for education to keep pace with the changing times and modern world through providing funds under title III has had a fantastically good effect upon education.

I think that the development work that has been done has been particularly responsive to the necessity for change in education.

We all talk about the redtape that is involved in applying for and managing and reporting on Federal funds. However, the redtape that is involved, oftentimes, in applying for a title III grant is good redtape because it results in a rigorous planning exercise that I think is beneficial to a school system.

But with regard to Federal programs generally and the possibilities of redtape and administrative burden creating an overload, and in

95-545 O 73 pt. 1 49

some cases hampering effectiveness of a district in delivering services, I think that is true.

In the Portland public schools we carry 192 special fund accounts to segregate and keep separate the various categories and programs we operate.

Each one of those accounts has behind it the guidelines, the regulations, the project proposals, the contracts and other data that are required to report and work with projects. The elimination of artificial program separations would be of immense assistance to us locally.

Were Federal funding to increase, and we would certainly advocate an increase in Federal support to education, I believe that not only should categorical programs of national urgency be continued but, with additional funding, there should be general aid to local school systems.

I believe that funding in the area of 25 to 30 percent of the cost of education nationally ought to be undertaken by the Federal Government.

In summary, I would like to thank the committee again for the privilege of appearing. I could answer questions now or perhaps you would rather hear further from Mr. Harold.

[The statement referred to and additional information provided by Mr. Clemans follow:]

STATEMENT OF CHARLES A. CLEMANS, DIRECTOR, INTERNATIONAL
RELATIONS, PORTLAND, OREG.

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, my colleague, Mr. Robert Harold, and I are most appreciative of the opportunity to appear before this committee in support of the proposed extension of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.

My name is Charles Clemans and I am Director of Intergovernmental Relations for the Portland Public Schools in Portland, Oregon. I hope to bring to this committee through my testimony the perspective of a local school district as it attempts to respond to local needs against the backdrop of urgent national priorities.

Allow me to provide a little background about the Portland Public Schools: We serve approximately 69,400 students in a city of roughly 383,000 citizens. To the casual visitor, Portland appears to be a prosperous, thriving community. A diverse business and industrial base supports its economy. Most of the outward signs point to a strong urgan area broad-based in terms of socioeconomic makeup. However, a closer inspection reveals that many of the problems that characterize the Nation's large cities are encroaching upon the lives of Portland's citizens. An increasing proportion of the population brings severe problems to be solved, while a decreasing proportion of the population has solutions.

The schools, in particular, have taken a real shellacking in recent years. Faced with increased needs on the part of our students, the dual factors of taxpayer revolt and decreasing regard for education on the part of Portland's population have conspired to erode our ability to respond to thse needs. Last year, 1971-72, we were forced to close our doors twenty days early in an effort to keep expenses within revenues. Not only were students deprived of twenty days of the education to which they are entitled, but virtually all employees took a 10-percent salary cut. Faced with a possible withholding of State basic school support because of our substandard school calendar last year, we this year restored fifteen days through massive cuts in program and increases in class size. An additional benefit has accrued because of a decline in enrollment of 2,900, thus offsetting, at least in part, some of the effects of insufficient revenues.

We hold some hope that stability of school finance might be brought to Oregon through Governor McCall's school finance proposal currently being considered by the State legislature. Under this plan, 97 percent of school support would come through State sources. Although the legislature is acting on this proposal with great dispatch, it will be referred for voter approval in April and its fate at the polls is subject to great speculation.

Let me now address some of the concerns, ideas, reactions, and suggestions that we in the Portland Public Schools have related to reenactment of ESEA. First, we would like to commend the committee for your timeliness in initiating action on extending this legislation and also your obvious commitment to achieving broad participation in the hearing process. These conditions will both provide assurance that responsive legislation will result.

Title I of ESEA has been subject to much criticism. Although examples of abuses and ineffective programs do exist, I would suggest that the major barriers to effectiveness in this otherwise most worthwhile program are:

1. Insufficient funding: In Portland, a title I budget of $2 million serves approximately 8,500 youngsters. An additional 7,000 youngsters qualify for compensatory services but are excluded because of the lack of sufficient funds.

2. Outdated distribution formulas: I believe that is totally unjustified to continue the use of 1960 U.S. census data as one of the criteria for the distribution of title I funds. In Portland, we noted a 36-percent increase in aid to dependent children welfare numbers-that is, double the State average-between 1960 and 1970. Although the ADC youngsters are counted in the formula by which we receive our title I allocation, 1960 U.S. census data still plays a part in keeping Portland's allocation lower than that to which we believe we are entitled.

3. Uncertainty of funding: We note with pleasure that H.R. 69 provides for study of the effects of the timing of appropriations legislation. At the local level, I can attest to the fact that the annual guessing game that is required to put to gether sound educational plans is a most unsettling condition.

4. Difficulty of planning in a desegregating school district: Portland has embarked upon a rather ambitious voluntary desegregation plan that allows parents freedom of choice of the school their children attend. This program even permits youngsters to transfer to other districts at our expense. However, many of the youngsters who participate in the program are entitled to, and definitely need, compensatory services. I don't have a good suggestion to make as to how to bring compensatory services to those that receive them. At the sending school, sufficient compensatory resources can be pooled, because of the high concentration of disadvantaged youngsters, to plan skill centers, employ specialists, and provide diverse support services. However, our data indicates that program success in such a setting is less likely because of problems associated with largely negative peer influences, low group norms, and the like. Although these latter factors are absent in the receiving schools, compensatory help is needed, and there are too few disadvantaged students in any one class or school to warrant à substantial or diverse program. Again, I wish to emphasize that I do not have a creative solution to this problem but do believe that it is one that should be somehow recognized.

Generally, Portland's experience with title I programs has been favorable. At the worst, I think it would be accurate to say that we have operated a successful "holding action" that has staved off the erosion of academic performance in the face of declines in the socioeconomic makeup of our student population. Particularly in the lower grades, and associated with Head Start and Follow Through, we have seen solid evidence of program success. Mr. Harold will have further comments on these programs. Data appended to my written testimony indicates the favorable results we are experiencing.

Portland's title I efforts concentrate an average of approximately $235 worth of program on each target student. To this amount is added additional funds through a special State appropriation for our most severely disadvantaged schools. We have found that the single most important element and ingredient to insure program success is personnel. Program managers, teachers, aides, and support personnel must all be selected with an eye toward their understanding and perceptiveness of the needs of disadvantaged. One-to-one and small group interaction produce the most positive results. Individualization of instruction can occur and does pay off.

ESEA generally has been an extremely effective force in education. The broad category areas cover priority needs that desperately require funding, but because of cost, are beyond the ability of many school districts.

I would like to comment briefly on title III of ESEA, which I believe has had a particularly profound effect on the course of educational change and reform in the Nation. By the Federal Government's funding of innovation and change in education, it, in effect, has charged us to keep pace with the changing times. Although we all deplore the redtape that is often associated with Federal funding, the creative planning that is required to achieve funding for a title III

project through competitive processes often is the most rigorous and sound development work that a district produces.

An example of the productive use of title III monies, together with funding from other Federal sources, can be found at our Roosevelt High School. The Rivergate career education program, funded through title III, is developing career exploration materials, guides, and methods for use by teachers. Career resource centers will be available to staff, students, and ultimately, adults from the community as they learn about the many employment options available to them. Also at Roosevelt, and serving the same youngsters, is a particularly creative title I program. Basic skills are emphasized, and the "stigma" of being singled out for special help is largely overcome by the knowledge each student has that he is making educational progress. Federal vocational education funds are being used at Roosevelt to develop and test new curriculum offerings in metals, health occupations, and building trades. Although the programs at Roosevelt that are financed from Federal sources are few in number and small in budget, they are among the most stimulating, effective, and promising.

A few comments about the administrative burden that faces a school district as it attempts to make productive use of Federal funding might be in order. The Portland Public Schools presently carry 192 special fund accounts for purposes of keeping track of the approximate $10 million in Federal funds that the Portland Public Schools manage. Each of these accounts is backed by proposals, contracts, agreements, guidelines, or related documentation. The irony of this situation is that many of these projects must be orchestrated at our local level in order that their impact can be most effective. Certainly, the elimination of artificial program requirements and unnecessary redtape would be of immense relief to us locally.

Before closing, I would like to direct a few comments toward the day that the Federal contribution to education is in the neighborhood of 25-30 percent of all of the costs of elementary and secondary education. Given that happy circumstance, I think that the Federal Government should remove from at least half of the funds that it provides any of the "categories" that now limit expenditures to areas of only national interest. Safeguards in the form of assurances of equal educational opportunity, of course, must be required, but by and large, local educational agencies ought to be able to set priorities, for a significant portion of their Federal revenues, totally in response to local needs.

In summary. I would again like to thank the committee for the privilege of appearing and would urge the extension of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Thank you.

APPENDIX A.-STANDARDIZED TEST INFORMATION, GRADES 3, 5, and 7

A-1

The displays on the following pages depict general reading and arithmetic achievement test trends in the Portland District during the past eleven years (1961/62-1971/72). Comparisons are drawn between samples of Disadvantaged and Non-Disadvantaged schools for grades 3, 5 and 7.