Page images
PDF
EPUB
[blocks in formation]

In short the nonpublic schools' only recourse has been Federal action to insure that the Congressional intent of the law is carried out at the state and local level.

In light of such history, I have a number of concerns about S.1669. I consider the language referring to the involvement of nonpublic school children too weak and consequently providing inadequate safeguards to insure equitable participation of such children. Six years experience with ESEA has taught us that legislative language must be as free from misinterpretation as possible. Section 7 (a) of S.1669 relating to the participation of nonpublic

school children contains little more than a hortatory note that

nonpublic school children should be given an opportunity to participate. This language is open to a wide diversity of interpretation at the

state and local levels and could be greatly improved.

The withholding provision of Section 7 (b) is inadequate. If the Secretary should determine that the provisions of state law do not prevent a state agency from distributing funds to nonpublic school

9.

children but the state persists in refusing to distribute such funds, then there is nothing which the Secretary may do. There is no provision which would give authority to the Secretary to withhold funds when there is a substantial failure to provide services required by Subsection (a) (1).

There is no provision requiring the state to give assurances that it has complied with the law with respect to nonpublic school children. Thus there is no basis for a mechanism which would afford the Secretary an opportunity to make provision for children in nonpublic schools.

Section 6 (d) provides that 30% of each of the amounts allotted to any state for vocational education, the handicapped and supporting materials and services may be made available for other educational purposes. The state may even exceed this 30% limitation if it demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Secretary that it furthers the purpose of the Act. This transfer privilege strikes at the heart of the services which are technically available to children in nonpublic schools. If there is to be a transferability provision, then it must be limited in such a way that it would not

deprive nonpublic school children of an opportunity of adequate

participation.

10.

Section 18 (a) provides that all revenue shared with

the states shall be accounted for as Federal funds. This language is ambiguous.

If it is the intention of the Administration to

earmark the shared revenues as Federal funds, then specific language should be inserted to accomplish this end. If this is not the intent, then it will probably be necessary to insert provisions reserving a certain amount of money for nonpublic school children. This reservation of funds should be in accordance with private school population and credit should be extended to the state on the basis of evidence of the extent to which there has been effective participation by nonpublic school children.

Finally, we feel that there is a basic inequity in this legislation in regard to the consolidation of funds from P.L. 81-874 popularly known as aid to Federally impacted areas.

schools.

Children of Federally-connected families in nonpublic

schools should be counted and benefit equally with children in public This would be true for children whose parents live and work on Federal property. If the Federal government is paying

substantial part of the cost of educating a Federally-connected child in a public school, it should pay the same proportion of the cost of educating a similarly situated Federally-connected child in a nonpublic school.

69-927 O 72 15

11.

In summary, Mr. Chairman, I feel that the following parts of this Bill would have to be changed before we could consider

giving it our support:

1.

2.

3.

4.

The language referring to nonpublic school participation
must be made explicit in terms of mandating full and
equitable participation of private school children.

The "by-pass" or "withholding" provision should not only
apply in a case in which a state is unable by law to
provide for participation, but in any situation at a
state or local level where there is a substantial
failure to do so.

The legislative language should insure that Federal
monies are not commingled with those of the state or
establish a mechanism to reserve a certain amount of the
funds to be expended only for the purpose of providing
services to nonpublic school children.

Provision should be made for nonpublic school children

to benefit from impacted area funds.

In closing, Mr. Chairman, may I point out that in a recent statement submitted to the House Ways and Means Committee, the United States Catholic Conference supported increased Federal funding for educational programs which benefit all American elementary and

secondary school students. This could be effected by expanding the

12-13.

funding of present education programs as well as including that percentage of funds which the Administration projects would be used from General Revenue Sharing for educational purposes in an Education Revenue Sharing Bill.

In conclusion, then, S.1669 raises difficulties which, while by no means beyond solution, do require careful study and sensitive handling. The United States Catholic Conference has no objection in principle to revenue sharing or any comparable plan for reducing the financial burden of the states and localities.

It is concerned, however, that state constitutions

[merged small][ocr errors]

-

or constitutional

as well as the attitudes and mind-sets of some

public officials, will in some areas create serious obstacles to

equitable participation by nonpublic school pupils in educational aid programs financed with Federal funds under revenue sharing. Experience under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 is not particularly reassuring in this regard, since, as various studies indicate factors such as these have in many states made it difficult or even impossible for, students in nonpublic schools to participate equitably in ESEA benefits. If Education Revenue Sharing were to become a reality, it would be imperative that the Federal legislation make adequate provision for whatever "by-pass" procedures might be necessary to insure the equitable participation of nonpublic school students, and that in addition adequate administrative procedures be devised and implemented to guarantee the same result.

Mr. Chairman, I am grateful for the opportunity afforded

by the Committee to speak on this important legislation. My

colleagues and I stand ready now to answer any questions you may have.

« PreviousContinue »