up and give his testimony. We can then proceed when Mr. Dominick comes back. Just a moment, here is Senator Dominick now. I think it will be interesting because I am sure you both have quite different views. Mr. D'ALESSIO. I am sure we have. Senator DOMINICK. Mrs. Frieder, I just want to say again how glad I am that you are here and I am happy to hear that the latest bond issue passed. Mrs. FRIEDER. It did. Senator PELL. That is unique in Colorado, unique in the country. LOCAL, STATE, AND FEDERAL TAX SOURCES Senator DOMINICK. It is pretty unique and that was the point I was making a little earlier. With the local resource tax funds available for educational purposes, or for all State and local purposes it is inevitable that conflict will arise between those that think education ought to be priority No. 1 and those that think that something else ought to be priority No. 1. In order to overcome that problem, we have either got to find a method of providing more resources at the local and State level or try and get some money to help on the State level out of the rapidly increasing Federal tax revenues. Now obviously, the best way to do this would be to reduce the Federal taxes so that the State and local governments could pick it up if they wanted to but the chances of doing that over a $400 billion deficit are not very good. So my question to you then is, under those circumstances with your reservations on this church-state situation, do you think that the revenue sharing, both special and general are going to be helpful? Mrs. FRIEDER. Let me say first, that as I read this bill, there are not the additional dollars in it that will do any kind of a job such as we know needs to be done. This is not adding appreciably. As I understand it, something like $200 million, I don't know if there are any figures there yet but that is the figure that I have heard in additional funds, would be in the bill. Now that is not providing the kind of support that the schools need, particularly as we know that the legislation, the present Federal legislation has never been funded to the amount authorized. So this proposed legislation does not do the job as it is presently written. With regard to the general area of revenue sharing we have great concerns about the greatest area of need and as I think the point I made in my original testimony, there are certain national concerns and that may or may not be recognized on a local level. There are the problems of cities. There are the problems of the disadvantaged. You made the point in your question in the initial part that there are various constituencies and various interests that are in contention for the funds available. Now that is true at the national level. That is true at the State level and it is true at the local level, in a greater degree even because it is closer there. So when you have the block grant or the revenue sharing, there is always this very great possibility, to my mind, that the most urgent needs may not be met. Senator DOMINICK. Why would they not be met? Mrs. FRIEDER. Because of your opening statement which was that there are many voices and great contentions, many groups asking for money and political power is not always directly related to the need. Senator DOMINICK. No, but if the funds are coming into State and local agencies for school systems, it would seem to me, in theory at least, that the local areas are going to put those moneys into the areas which they think are going to be the best for the school system as opposed to nationally imposed standards. Mrs. FRIEDER. You made the point if they are going into States for education. I didn't realize your initial question was couched in those terms. I thought you were talking about general revenue sharing. Certainly, if dollars are going into the States specifically for education, there would be a greater chance that those dollars would end up meeting the needs of every child. I still would have great reservations about the problems of the cities which are very much greater in magnitude than regular problems and that a school district within a State is one school district within a State, be it city, suburban, or rural and that is one of the strengths and one of the needs that has been met by ESEA and other categorical aids. I think there are some national priorities and national concerns that the Federal Government should meet. Senator DOMINICK. Fine. Thank you very much. Senator PELL. Thank you very much indeed, Mrs. Frieder. You are very kind to have come. (The prepared statement of Mrs. Philip Frieder follows:) 69-927 0-72- -14 NATIONAL COUNCIL OF JEWISH WOMEN, INC. 1 West 47th Street, New York, N. Y. 10036 TESTIMONY OF MRS. PHILIP FRIEDER ON S. 1669, REVENUE SHARING November 3, 1971 I am Mrs. Philip Frieder of Denver, Colorado, National Board Member of the National Council of Jewish Women, and Chairman of its Education Task Force. Since 1959 I have also served as a member of the Colorado State Board of Education. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before this committee on behalf of the 100,000 members of the National Council of Jewish Women to express our concerns with S. 1669, "The Education Revenue Sharing Act of 1971". The National Council of Jewish Women, founded in 1893, has Sections throughout the United States and in their local communities Councilwomen work with the public schools in a variety of ways. Sections sponsor tutoring programs, provide special assistance to handicapped children, finance and service special enrichment programs, and serve as volunteers in a variety of settings from the pre-school up to, and including, adult education. Our traditionally strong support for public education is rooted in our belief that, and here I quote from our Resolutions, "American Democracy depends on a strong system of public education to develop the highest potential of the individual". To that end our members have pledged themselves to promote expanded educational opportunities for all children and "to work for a higher level of financial support for public education by urging reappraisal of the basis of financing public education C. d. by protecting public funds from being diverted to private elementary and secondary education." -2 We view S. 1669 as an attempt to deal with two basic problems: 1. the desperate financial plight of public education and the needs for addi 2. the proliferation of federal legislative titles, programs and grants dealing with education, the numbers of which are not only very confusing but also are sometimes self-defeating. Both of these are laudable objectives. The National Council of Jewish Women certainly concurs with the need for more efficient, more responsible, and more responsive institutions and government, at every level; and we have a consistent record of working for the adoption of legislation designed to provide additional financial support for public education. However, as we have examined the proposed legislation, we fail to see a clear expression of intent to increase significantly the total amount of federal assistance to public education. What we do see is some consolidation of existing programs, the granting of additional flexibility to the states to allocate moneys presently appropriated, and, because additional discretionary powers will be given to the states without any additional funds, we see the very real possibility that certain beneficial education programs could be cut at the state level, and eventually even eliminated. Members of our organization are fully in accord with the proposition that governmental programs should not be allowed to proliferate needlessly and endlessly, and that once a particular problem has been resolved or a need met, the relevant program ought not be continued. We do, however, feel strongly that there are certain areas of national concern which require the special focus and attention that only a categorical program can provide. We hope the Congress will weigh carefully the necessity for ensuring that the needs of children, as pinpointed by certain categorical programs, will continue to be met. So although the purpose of the bill is "to strengthen education by providing a share of the revenues of the United States to the States and to local educational -3 agencies for the purpose of assisting them in carrying out education programs reflecting areas of national concern" we feel that it falls short of its stated goal: (1) It fails to recognize the current financial crisis in public education - a crisis which reflects the inadequacy and the inequity of the present method and level of support for public education. The importance of public education to the well-being of the nation cannot be over-emphasized. Public education is a national concern; it should be a national priority, and as such, in our opinion, deserves a far greater degree of federal financial support. As we all know, most of the federal programs are not and have not been funded even in the less than adequate amounts authorized, so that schools now receive for each authorized program only a fraction of the amount specified in the original bill. In the legislation before us the schools will be asked, in effect, to divide up the presently grossly inadequate appropriation, and to spread it even thinner. We sincerely hope that the committee will consider this aspect of the bill, and move to authorize sufficient funds to meet the stated legislative objective of strengthening education. (2) S. 1669 also proposes to consolidate some 33 legislative titles and grants into 5 broad areas of legislative support, but does so, in our estimation, without adequate safeguards to ensure that needed programs are not under-implemented or phased Accountability is a key word these days in the education community. Citizens, out. parents are demanding that schools and government must be accountable to the public. This is as it should be. Unfortunately, in this bill, standards of quality appear to have been considerably relaxed, and provisions for accountability in many of the programs are so vague as to be practically nonexistent, since only mandated "flow through" funds would be subject to federal review. Here again, we would urge that the committee carefully examine the proposal. (3) But our primary objection to this bill is based on our strong commitment to protect the principle of separation of church and state, which is basic to our system of public education. It is our firm conviction that separation of church and state |