Dr. FULLER. We would be delighted to do that and present it for the record.1

I would like to introduce a very distinguished commissioner of education for more than 20 years.

He has been in the State Department of Education in Arkansas, in the vocational education division for some years, and now, for about a dozen years, he has been the State commissioner in Arkansas.

He is the president of the Council of Chief State School Officers, Dr. A. W. Ford.

Senator YARBOROUGH. Proceed, Dr. Ford.

STATEMENT OF A. W. FORD, PRESIDENT, COUNCIL OF CHIEF STATE SCHOOL OFFICERS

Dr. FORD. Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, I appreciate this opportunity to appear before the committee and speak on S. 580. I speak on elementary and secondary education and not higher education; on title V, part A of S. 580 and on the section dealing with the training of teachers.

The importance of education and the complexities involved in improving education at all levels makes it crystal clear that it is time for the Congress to meet its responsibilities in this field.

An excellent statement on the importance of education was included in the opinion of the Supreme Court in its decision of May 17, 1954. In the opinion, the Court had the following to say about the importance of education and the responsibility of State and local governments in this area.

Today, education is perhaps the most important function of State and local governments. Compulsory school attendance laws and the great expenditures for education both demonstrate our recognition of the importance of education to our democratic society. It is required in the performance of our most basic public responsibilities, even service in the Armed Forces. It is the very foundation of good citizenship.

Today, it is a principal instrument in awakening the child to cultural values, in preparing him for later professional training, and in helping him to adjust normally to his environment.

It will be noted that the Court recognized public education as a function of State and local governments. Assuming that the Court was correct in stating that elementary and secondary education is the most important function of State and local governments, it seems logical that the Federal Government should assist in meeting the financial responsibilities inherent in providing adequate public schools for the children of the Nation. This is true primarily because of the Federal tax structure and its relationship to the tax structures supporting the public schools in the 50 States and thousands of school districts in this country.

We know there are areas of controversy and that a satisfactory solution to adequate financing of the public schools will not prove to be an easy task. More importantly, however, is the fact that there is general agreement that the need for improving elementary and secondary education is urgent, and that it should not be long delayed.

The draft amendment, in the form of a committee print, is available in the commitee

If the principle that the operation of public elementary and secondary schools is the responsibility of State and local authorities is valid, then Congress should avoid the passage of legislation that destroys that principle. I believe that S. 580 proposes to inaugurate a program in the public schools that would eventually result in Federal control of the curriculums, and, to a significant degree, the personnel. It is for this reason that I am opposed to S. 580 as it applies to general elementary and secondary education.

I want to emphasize that I am speaking here in the field of general education.

OBJECTIONS TO S. 580 CATEGORICAL APPROACH

The approach in S. 580 so far as elementary and secondary education is concerned is, essentially, an expansion of categorical or special aids. A categorical aid program is of necessity a specific proposal with Federal funds earmarked to do a specific job and with strings attached to see that this job is done in the manner desired by the Federal Government. While many of the aims and objectives are meritorious, the categorical approach, if extended to various areas of the curriculum and to personnel, can only result in eventual loss of State and local control of the public schools.

Let us review, briefly, steps which are taken in implementing a categorial aid program enacted by Congress. First, there is the usual statement with reference to the continuation of State and local control of education. This is a general statement and its only effect is - psychological because the specifics of legislation supersede the general. The program is implemented in accordance with interpretations of the legal counsel of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare with reference to specífic provisions in the law. Significant decisions are made by the Federal Government and the States are forced to comply if they receive Federal funds. It is difficult to imagine any more direct control than that exercised in such specific type legislation.

Categorical programs enacted by Congress are intended to be controlled. It would seem that there should be little disagreement on this point. The expansion of categorical programs in the field of general education at the elementary and secondary levels would eventually divest the States of the control of both the curriculum and, to a degree, the personnel.

If categorial aid programs were to be enacted for the public schools as proposed in S. 580, Congress would be assuming that the Federal Government should make the decisions as to curriculum needs, determine methods and procedures for upgrading personnel employed by local school boards, and establish priorities through selective use of the Federal tax dollar. I believe this approach is wrong in principle and if pursued would result in the erosion of the rights of State and local communities to make these decisions.

A sound policy of aid to education is illustrated by a resolution of the New York State Board of Regents on May 25, 1962:

Federal funds for the support of public elementary and secondary education should be apportioned to the States for general rather than categorical purposes so that the responsible educational authorities within the State may apply such funds for purposes consistent with State and local needs and objectives. Fed

eral legislation for the allocation of such funds to the States should be sufficiently flexible to permit the State and local authorities to determine the purposes and needs for which such aid should be used and to spend accordingly.

I believe that Congress should assume that they know the kind of program the people desire for their children and that they should be permitted to establish urgent needs and priorities.

Congress should not make decisions as to what is needed with reference to the curriculum. The improvement in the qualifications of personnel should remain a State function. Congress should determine the extent to which the Federal Government should participate in financing the needs of the public schools as established by the States. The tax structure of the Nation and the inadequacy of the public schools make it urgent that the Federal Government accept this responsibility.

Federal aid to the States should lose its identity upon reaching the States and such funds should be used to supplement State and local moneys for educational purposes. There could be no valid objection to approval by the Commissioner provided the needs and priorities are established by the States. S. 580, however, gives too much discretionary authority to the Commissioner.

SPECIFIC ILLUSTRATIONS OF S. 580 CATEGORIES

May I use some provisions in S. 580 pertaining to teachers as illustrative of objectionable categorical aids included in this proposal? It provides for specific aid to three groups of teachers. Why these three groups? The point is not that these groups do not need assistance but that this is not a sound approach to problems existing in faculties of the Nation.

As a staff member of the Arkansas State Department of Education for more than 22 years I believe that S. 580, if enacted into law, would be extremely difficult to administer, would create confusion and jealousies on many faculties of the Nation, and would commit the Federal Government to an approach in general elementary and secondary education which would be extremely difficult to alter in the years

to come.

The issue of State control of public elementary and secondary education is too fundamental to be compromised. Federal aid to the public schools should be met, not on a piecemeal basis, but on a total need basis in which all of public education would be improved. So-called "selective" improvement would tend to create imbalances in the curriculums and widen gaps which now exist in many and perhaps most of our public schools.

S. 1343 by Senator Fulbright, of Arkansas, and H.R. 5344 by Repre sentative Perkins, of Kentucky, make an essentially sound approach to the problem. Congress should stop piecemeal attempts to improve public education. An overall attack on this most fundamental problem should be made immediately. Congress should not, however, sacrifice State and local control of public elementary and secondary education by enacting into law various categorical, specific aid programs which will not meet the fundamental problem, and which violate the principle that it is the responsibility of State and local authorities to control the operation of the public schools.

Mr. Chairman, I believe Senator Fulbright has filed a statement with this committee with reference to the importance of education in support of his bill and I concur essentially in the thinking of Senator Fulbright on this problem.

Senator YARBOROUGH. Thank you, Dr. Ford. Does this complete your statement?

Dr. FORD. Yes, sir.

Dr. FULLER. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for letting me be the executive secretary of the group of three, because this gives me an opportunity to introduce a man who has already been introduced by the Senator from West Virginia.

I just want to add one word, that in our association together at the Harvard Graduate School of Éducation, back to a little more than 20 years ago, we dealt with school law and school administration together at that time. It is a real pleasure to introduce again the distinguished commissioner of education of New York, Jim Allen.

Senator YARBOROUGH. Well, Dr. Fuller can be excused for wanting to get into the act.

I see Senator Randolph is back and I will yield to him, but I have a little question which I will ask now, a little side issue on this state

ment.

I notice here, Dr. Allen, in your statement about the University of the State of New York, you say it is the oldest continuous State educational agency in America. I don't want to arouse any State rivalry here, but down in North Carolina, the State university has a sign, University of North Carolina, created in 1794. I believe the sign says "Oldest State university in America."

As I say, I don't want to arouse any State rivalry here. I notice you say State educational agency and you point out that it means many things in the State of New York.

STATEMENT OF JAMES E. ALLEN, JR., COMMISSIONER OF

EDUCATION, NEW YORK

Dr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, Senator Randolph; my name is James E. Allen, Jr. I am commissioner of education and president of the University of the State of New York. I appreciate this opportunity to appear before you and to express my views with respect to Senate till 580.

I want to thank Senator Randolph in particular for his very generous introductory remarks. Senator Randolph was a great friend and confidante of my father, was a teacher of mine, and counselor. I do not hold him responsible for all my faults, by any means. He is a great friend of education. So it is a privilege to have him present while I have the privilege of appearing.

I will skip some parts of my statement, Senator Yarborough, and ask that the whole statement be included in the record.

Senator YARBOROUGH. It is ordered that Dr. Allen's entire statement be printed in the record.

Dr. ALLEN. I might also point out that I am speaking here as the commissioner of education in New York and not as a member of the Council of Chief State School Officers.

Dr. Fuller has already presented very fully the views of the council. but as presented in the papers of Mr. Ford and myself, there is a great divergence of opinion, healthy divergence, within the council, which I think is one of the strengths of the American system.

The University of the State of New York is the oldest continuous State educational agency in America and consists of all of the ele mentary and secondary schools, colleges, and universities of the State-public and private.

Senator, it was founded in 1784. It is a corporation headed by a board of regents. It is not a university in the generally accepted sense in American education. It follows the French system of educationcomprising all of education within the State.

It includes also the museums, libraries, historical societies, and other educational and cultural institutions chartered by the State. The head of the university is the constitutionally created body, the regent of the University of the State of New York, of which I am the execu tive officer.

This year there are nearly 3 million students enrolled in the publi schools of New York State, and approximately 750,000 in the non publicly controlled schools. The 200 colleges and universities in th State presently enroll approximately 480,000 students.

New York State has long been a leader in education. The people be lieve in and want good education. Governors of both major partie have usually been advocates and strong supporters of education. The legislature, too, has seldom failed to give top priority to the welfare o our schools and colleges.

In my opinion, New York State is particularly fortunate in the soundness of its legal and administrative structure for education wherein all of education in the State, from the kindergarten to the graduate schools, is under the general supervision and control of the State board of regents.

This system facilitates sound planning and coordination, provide protection against partisan political control, and makes it possible t maintain a unity of educational purpose in the State while at the sam time fostering a wide diversity of opportunity and of institutiona growth and development.

I make specal mention of this unique structure for the governmen of education in New York State because I earnestly believe it is on of our greatest assets and I am concerned to see that the developmen and administration of Federal policies result in strengthening, no weakening, this structure.

Senator YARBOROUGH. Will you yield to a question there?
Dr. ALLEN. Certainly.

Senator YARBOROUGH. I notice with great interest your statemen that all education-does that include the private schools?

Dr. ALLEN. Public and private; yes, sir.

You see, the board of regents, by law, is head of this corporation which is the University of the State of New York, which charters al institutions, public and private, which sets the standards for all in stitutions-the general standards for all institutions-public and pri vate. In other words, the regents approve the degree programs fo Columbia University and Cornell University as well as for the publi