Page images
PDF
EPUB

Vocational Education: Could be included, or perhaps should be a separate "block grant."

Program guarantees could be written into the legislation providing that no program previously funded with federal grant funds shall be reduced or discontinued except with the permission of the Commissioner of Education.

Existing special aid programs which probably could not be included in the block grant are impact area aid for pupils whose parents live and work on federal property, Title IV of ESEA (Educational Research and Training), school food service and school milk programs, and civil rights programs. In addition, the shared revenue from public lands could not be included because of the concentration of federal lands in a few western states.

Please note that the NEA does not support a "block grant for education" unless there is a far greater commitment of federal funds than the present 69 per cent contribution provides. We believe the federal share should be 33 per cent.

Senator PELL. Thank you very much.

Mr. MCFARLAND. Senator Pell, I would like to commend this committee for what they have done in the area of handicapped and what you are attempting to do in the higher education bill, because we feel this is a real step forward.

Senator PELL. Thank you.

Secretary Richardson, in his prepared statement referred to revenue sharing in education. Do you have any counter-rebuttal you would like to offer at this time, or would you like to submit that?

Mr. MORRISON. I believe, sir, that we've done this in our prepared statement. As a matter of fact, it sounded to me as though the Secretary's statement was written as a rebuttal to ours.

Senator PELL. Right.

Mr. McFarland?

Mr. MCFARLAND. We hear a lot of rumors from the U.S. Office of Education concerning a brand new program, the educational renewal centers. This sounds very exciting in many respects, and possibly one of the most interesting aspects is that it would provide a delivery system for NIE, as well as providing some consolidation of programs.

Our concern at this point is that there seems to be some inconsistencies between the rumors about the renewal centers program and the special revenue sharing proposal. Most programs are State grant programs, and the reliance of the renewal centers on discretionary money raises questions about the authority of the U.S. Office to shift these

moneys.

Now, at this point I don't know enough about the renewal centers to make any serious criticisms about them. But I think there are questions that should be asked.

Senator PELL. You are quite correct. Conversations are going on at the staff level with regard to these proposals and also with regard to the legal base that would be necessary to move ahead in this field. Mr. MCFARLAND. Yes, sir.

(Information subsequently supplied for the record follows:)

nea

NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION 1201 16th St., N.W., Washington, DC 20036 (202) 833-4000

DONALD E. MORRISON, President

SAM M. LAMBERT, Executive Secretary

STATEMENT OF

MR. DONALD E. MORRISON

PRESIDENT

OF THE

NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION

ON

H. R. 7796

THE

SPECIAL REVENUE SHARING PLAN FOR EDUCATION

BEFORE THE

SENATE SUBCOMMITTEE ON EDUCATION

OF THE

SENATE COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND PUBLIC WELFARE

OCTOBER 27, 1971

I am Donald Morrison, President of the National Education Association.

The NEA

is an independent, voluntary organization of educators, open to all professional teachers, supervisors, and administrators.

It presently has 1,100,000 members and is

the largest professional organization in the nation, with members from school systems in every state. In all, counting its affiliated state and local organizations, the NEA speaks for a combined membership of approximately 2,000,000 educators. With me

is Stanley J. McFarland, Assistant Executive Secretary for Government Relations and Citizenship.

We appreciate this opportunity to present our views on H.R. 7796, the proposed Education Revenue Sharing Act of 1971. The stated purpose of this bill is based on the premises that the federal government has a responsibility to assist state and local governments in meeting the costs of education in areas of special national concern, and that prior programs of federal financial assistance are too narrow in scope to meet the needs of state and local school systems.

It is somewhat ironic that the administration reached this substantial conclusion and is recommending a major overhaul of the federal grant system when many of the grants involved are not and never have been fully funded. Indeed, the major problems of the federal grants are related to the fact that they have never been fully funded rather than to the narrow scope of the grant programs. This proposal would eliminate all dollar program authorizations other than those for impact aid, and all requirements for state-local matching funds. We do not feel that this is a realistic approach.

This proposal, H.R. 7796, is apparently not based on a substantive review of the grants in existence. We find no evidence that the existing grants have been studied carefully to determine if the area of national concern to which each of the grants was addressed has been sufficiently relieved to permit the conditions of the grant to be relaxed. Indeed this proposal for a major overhaul in the federal grant system came a year before the report of the President's Commission on School Finance-a major and comprehensive investigation of school finance.

2

At this time we oppose the bill as presented for a number of reasons I

shall discuss.

I'd like to emphasize that the NEA is not opposed to the concept of block grants, grant consolidation, or simplification of the administration of federal grants per se. Our objection to the proposals in the bill is based largely on several factors: (a) the inadequate amounts of money requested; (b) extension

of the coverage of all programs to include private school pupils; (c) the creation of new state agencies for overseeing federal funds; (d) the dilution of aid to federally connected pupils; (e) the lessening of the surveillance of federal progræs to insure that funds are indeed directed to top educational priorities--school integration, education of the handicapped, education of the educationally disadvantaged.

Level of Funding. As you are no doubt aware, the schools are in financial crisis. This year many school systems across the nation are cutting back staff and programs with the net effect of a decrease in the educational services pupils are receiving. The administration's proposal does not provide any increase in funds for existing programs. It simply tosses in an additional $200 million to cover the difference between the total of the state allotments under the existing grants and the formulas in this proposal.

We cannot help but conclude that the major purposes of H. R. 7796 are unrelated to its stated purpose. It seems that the thrust of this bill is to provide administrative convenience and perhaps to bring political relief from the pressures for full funding of existing grant programs.

This is not to deny that the administrative process could benefit from simplification--but much of this simplification could be achieved by hacking away at the administrative rules and regulations which accompany each title and by more coordination among the federal administrators of the several federal grant programs.

True, some consolidation of federal grant programs is no doubt feasible, but not without a careful analysis of whether the national interest these programs are

designed to serve has been met. Indeed, we feel it would be a disaster to eliminate some specific programs--for example, those which provide milk and lunch subsidies for the nation's school pupils. This proposal provides that the states may transfer up to 30% of the funds from one block grant to another, except that transfers cannot be made from formula funds for a A category of federally connected pupils or from the Title I pupils. Because this proposal does not provide for a substantial increase in federal funds or even an increase to meet inflation, the national interest would not be served if the states elected to transfer, for example, 30 percent of the vocational funds to the education of the handicapped or vice versa. We do not believe that this proposal is feasible at the existing levels of funding and without a substantial increase in general aid-type funding.

[ocr errors]

Private School Pupils--We object to the inclusion of private school pupils in those programs which are now limited to operation within the puplic schools. While the bill provides no more funds, approximately 5 million additional pupils would be sharing the programs. The loss to public school pupils will be acute in

those states where the percentage of private school pupils is highest. programs in public schools will be especially hard hit.

Vocational

New State Agency--Forty-nine of the fifty states already have state school boards elected or appointed to oversee the states' schools. It is our belief that the appointment of the state advisory council provided in Section 9 would do nothing but create confusion. We also object to the fact that this proposal permits the state's chief executive to by-pass the chief state school officer in appointing the advisory council and even in administering the special educational revenue sharing. It makes no sense whatsoever to set the stage for two agencies-for the state education agency to administer state funds and programs and the governor's appointed council and agency to administer federal funds and programs.

Federally connected children--We note that the federal impact aid is not weakened for category A pupils--those whose parents live and work on federal property. But

« PreviousContinue »