the aid does not follow the category B pupil with a parent merely working on federal property or in the uniformed services. The proposal that not more than 30 percent of the entitlement for category B children can go to districts without any such pupils is slight protection indeed. We believe that the funds appropriated by Congress to relieve the local burden of excessive numbers of pupils whose parents are not employed by a taxable employer should be directed toward the school system so impacted.

We also note that this proposal does not provide impact aid for children living in public housing. This was authorized in the last Congress but has never been funded, We stress the need to fully fund this authorization. These pupils do not have a local taxpayer or, in many instances, a taxable employer behind them. These are concentrations of children who need special educational services if the chain of poverty is to be broken.

We view

Weakening of Surveillance--Finally, at this point we are reluctant to weaken the rate of progress in getting a fair share of educational opportunity for those pupils who need it most--the minorities, the poor, and the handicapped. this proposal--the no strings, no red tape approach--as an abdication of federal responsibility for these pupils. The Commissioner of Education, Sidney Marland, has announced his intention of skewing all possible federal programs to the low income, minority, and handicapped students. We applaud him for this effort this year. We find H.R. 7796 which, in general, would weaken his ability to direct federal funds inconsistent with his stated goals.

In summary, we urge the Congress to fully fund the grant programs which are now law and to enact a substantial general aid program before considering consolidation of existing grants.

Senator PELL. The subcommittee will stand in recess until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning in this same room.

(Whereupon, at 11:55 a.m., the subcommittee was recessed to re

convene at 10 a.m., Thursday, October 28, 1971.)

EDUCATION REVENUE SHARING ACT OF 1971

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 28, 1971

U.S. SENATE,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EDUCATION OF THE

COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND PUBLIC WELFARE,

Washington, D.C.

The subcommittee met at 10 a.m., pursuant to recess, in room 4200, New Senate Office Building, Senator Claiborne Pell (chairman) presiding.

Present: Senator Pell.

Staff members present: Stephen J. Wexler, subcommittee counsel, Richard D. Smith, subcommittee associate counsel, and Roy Millenson, minority professional staff member.

Senator PELL. The Subcommittee on Education will come to order. The first witness today is Mr. B. Alden Lillywhite, representing Byron Hansford, executive secretary, Council of Chief State School Officers. We welcome you to the subcommittee.

STATEMENT OF B. ALDEN LILLYWHITE, ON BEHALF OF BYRON HANSFORD, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, COUNCIL OF CHIEF STATE SCHOOL OFFICERS

Mr. LILLYWHITE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My name is B. Alden Lillywhite, and I am assistant to the executive secretary of the Council of Chief State School Officers. As you probably are aware, the council is composed of the chief State school officers (State commissioners of education or State superintendents of public instruction) in each of the 50 States and in the six territories. The council appreciates this opportunity to express its views to this subcommittee on the educational revenue sharing proposal, S. 1669. In presenting this testimony, we do not intend to discuss the details of the proposal but only to raise major policy questions.

I have given Mr. Wexler several copies of the statement and have briefed one copy down for reading purposes, which will take a shorter period of time because of some things that I think need not be read. Senator PELL. I thank you very much.

Mr. LILLYWHITE. I don't feel I can summarize this because it is interwoven, so I will proceed, if that is satisfactory.

Senator PELL. Please proceed.

Mr. LILLYWHITE. The council and its individual members have been vitally concerned with legislation authorizing Federal funds for education during the past 10 years. However, the number of categorical aid programs have multiplied since passage of the National Defense

Education Act in 1955, until there are now a very large number of different programs for elementary and secondary education Lubriring funds for specific purposes, each having rigid guidelines and requiring separate applications and reports, which are extremeT cult for most districts to most efficiently use the Federal assistan that is available.

For these and other reasons, the chief State school officers incred the statement made by Secretary Richardson in his speech to that group at their annual meeting in Miami Beach in 1970, when be sig gested that a more viable approach to Federal aid might be to consolidate into one legislative act all education programs that jend fancial support in operating and maintaining the current educational eforts for elementary and secondary schools which would emphasize Elock grants to the States with broad discretionary powers for the States to use Federal funds in five major areas.

The council officially commended Secretary Richardson for his thoughtful analysis, recommended that he attempt to implement the positions he described, and pledged its support of those efforts. The members strongly favor the concept of S. 1669 which is based on the block grant approach to providing Federal funds for education, with considerable discretion left to the States, to decide just how the funds should be used in each of the major areas.

The need to reduce the large number of separate narrow-purpose programs that now exist with the accompanying paperwork which results is urgent. It makes good sense to let each State decide the specific ways in which the Federal funds should be spent, since they are responsible for administering the State and local funds for educational purposes which constitute on the average more than 90 percent of all funds spent for public elementary and secondary education

programs.

In the opinion of the council, that is the most viable way to make the improvements urgently needed in education.

The co neil also is convinced that the Federal share should be at least 25 percent of the costs for elementary and secondary education, if we are to provide the kinds of programs that will make it possible for each child to reach is full potential. A strictly categorical aid program involving this volume of Federal funds would in our opinion be unmanageable. It would not be difficult to manage under the block grant or more general grant approach.

Specifically then, the conneil favors the approach in the special educational revenue sharing bill submitted to Congress by the administration which proposed to condense most of the existing categorical aid authorizations it to five major educational areas as follows: (1) compensatory education; (2) federally impacted areas: (3) vocational education: (4. programs for the handicapped; and (5) support services

This proposal gives the States the additional discretionary authority to transfer up to le percent of the funds from any of the five categóries, except con pensatory education and part of the impact aid program to any of i e other categories where greater need exist.

The council gen Mlly favors the earmarking of Federal funds for a small number of broad edational areas as is proposed in S. 1669 with provisions that Federal funds supplement rather than supplant