of the private schoolchildren in America at this point, and we support the full funding.

I am sure you know the genesis of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act as it was worked out in Congress was the breakthrough that for the first time there was a partnership that developed in American education between private schools and the public schools, that for the first time that Congress was in effect saying that the total American education effort is comprised of all school systems, not just the public school system but the private school system and we are all working together for the good of the total American educational effort. Private schools, and before Congressman Perkins' committee we so testified, have begun to feel a real impact in their programs because of the help that they have received from the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. They also have been receiving quite a bit of help from the NDEA Act which predated ESEA of course.

During that time, the one title that at least to date has been most meaningful to the private school student has been title II. If you were to go out into the hustings and talk to the teachers and the parents of the children that come to our school, and you say what has the Government done for your school that has helped most, they say the books, it is the most meaningful, it is the most visible.

I think it is safe to say that title I has helped in our schools and of course in the cities helped us in helping the disadvantaged child. Title III is certainly exciting and has been in many instances in many school districts a very fine cooperative venture between private and public in cultural activities, but you speak to the average private school person and it is title II that seems to be the one that sticks in their mind as that, that has been most meaningful in helping them, the most meaningful aid they have ever gotten from the Federal Government.

And now I have been getting phone calls from our superintendents all over the country in the past few weeks and they are just up in arms because title II is completely done away with. Some of them have said in effect, Mr. Nixon in his campaign said he was interested in helping the private schools, even going further than ESEA, but now the first thing he does in the field of education is cut out the one title that is meaningful to the private school student.

Mr. PERKINS. I think you ought to tell the committee how title II works, how the books and materials are loaned out through the local public agency.

Monsignor DONOHUE. They go through the local public education agency into the public schools and into the private schools. They remain their property because, as you know, the mechanics of the ESEA is based on the child benefit theory and it is apparently obviously constitutional to say that the book goes to the child, not to the institution. So the books belong to the children and it is a per pupil cost kind of a thing that figures how many books each individual private school will get. The books are placed in the private school by the local public education agency for the use of the children in that school.

While very definitely, and I think probably history will show that title I and perhaps title III in time will be the two titles of ESEA that will have the most far-reaching impact on American education,

it is title II at the moment as far as private school students are concerned that is making the difference. We have been kind of holding back a tidal wave of letters and telegrams because we wanted the opportunity.

Mr. FLOOD. You have been holding back a tidal

Monsignor DONOHUE. A tidal wave at the moment.
Mr. FLOOD. You mean there is another one coming?

Monsignor DONOHUE. You have not heard from the Catholic schools

yet.

Mr. FLOOD. Oh, yes, I have.

Monsignor DONOHUE. Not to the extent that you may well hear in

time.

Mr. FLOOD. We have been using the term "avalanche" here. They are interchangeable.

Monsignor DONOHUE. I think that is the sum and total of what I would like to say.

If you have any questions.

Mr. FLOOD. We will later.

Who is next?

Mr. PERKINS. Mr. James R. Kirkpatrick, associate secretary of the American Association of School Administrators.

STATEMENT OF MR. JAMES R. KIRKPATRICK

Mr. KIRKPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I am James R. Kirkpatrick, the associate secretary of the American Association of School Administrators. We represent the school superintendents throughout America, both from the very large city systems of our country to the rural districts throughout the land.

I am pleased and somewhat embarrassed to have this opportunity to appear before you.

Mr. FLOOD. Embarrassed?

Mr. KIRKPATRICK. Pleased in the sense that I do consider this to be the vital committee; embarrassed because I have been on the road out of the District for about a number of days and I just returned and I did not have time to prepare a written statement.

I would hope that would afford me that courtesy of submitting it. Mr. FLOOD. Yes, indeed.

(Statement follows:)

STATEMENT OF JAMES R. KIRKPATRICK, ASSOCIATE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF SCHOOL ADMINISTRATORS

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I am James R. Kirkpatrick, associate executive secretary of the American Association of School Administrators, the professional association of school superintendents representing all sizes and descriptions of public school district throughout the Nation.

The opportunity to appear before this vital committee is most appreciated, and I would like to commend to you the testimony previously presented by the able chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee, the Honorable Carl Perkins.

Rather than to repeat the statistical information contained in that excellent presentation I would, rather, relate to you some observations noted in the course of working with practicing school administrators.

To begin, I am deeply impressed with the change of attitude on the part of school superintendents toward Federal partication in the education process.

From a hestitant, sometimes reluctant, stand on Federal aid to education, the adIninistrators have come to an acceptance of the Federal role and have cooperated accordingly. Now, with proposed sharp cutbacks in the Federal programs, many of these people are quite concerened as to just what they can expect in the future from an entity they had finally accepted as a partner.

To many school administrators Federal participation provides a bright light of hope as they struggle with the multi-faceted problems of providing programs of education of sufficient quality to meet the challenges posed by our transitional society. Especially is this true in the area of financial resources.

Today, State and local financial support issues when put on the ballot are being treated roughly. As an example I cite the experience last week-May 6— in Ohio when only about 40 percent of the requests for additional funds were approved by the voters.

Will their hope of federal support be snuffed out leaving them to face the bleak prospect of coping with the immense needs of our society with ever-diminishing resources?

Those portions of the fiscal year 1970 budget messages sent to the Congress by both the old and new administrations that pertain to Federal education programs have created confusion, concern and indecision on the part of school administrators who must soon make hard-and-fast program and personnel commitments for the coming school year. The number and kinds of inquiries received by our office provides eloquent proof of this statement. They are looking to the Congress for help to get on with the job at hand.

Another problem confronting the "man-on-the-firing-line" is the constantly decreasing funding of established Federal programs with the resulting increased pressure on the local school district budget. I cite to you the example of title V-A (NDEA) which, in its early years of existence, provided a high degree of support for the establishment and maintenance of guidance counseling in school systems. It was a most impressive success and schools were able to provide a service that hithertofore had been limited to only a few systems. But Federal funding steadily decreased until the burden fell almost exclusively on the local budget which was already burdened by other demands and the inflationary trend. I would like to read to you a letter from Dr. Jack Davidson, superintendent of schools, Manatee County, Fla., to emphasize this point:

A serious problem facing school administrators today concerns the level of funding of Federal programs. Programs of various kinds are funded at a certain level in the first year of the program. These have served as "incentive" type programs designed to promote future involvement and support by the local school systems. The following items complicate this matter:

1. Funding by the Federal Government decreases significantly the second and third years of the program. This decrease comes without prior notice, and after operating budgets have been adopted, resulting in a forced increase in the local contribution.

2. Local costs for salaries of personnel, equipment and materials increase substantially each year.

3. Local communities see the value of these new programs and request acceleration, or at least continuation of the programs at the same level.

4. Higher percentages of the local tax dollar must go each year to support simply a continuation of the Federal programs.

All of this occurs at a time when a wide variety of pressures are demanding a greater share of the local tax dollar and when there is a greater interest in educational innovation and experimentation. The funds spent on Federal programs are generally specified for programs not previously in existence in the local school system; such as titles I, II, and III of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. The net result is that Federal programs which were designed to aid the local systems are, in effect, causing the local school system greater problems due to decreasing appropriations on one hand, and increasing costs on the other. The problem is compounded further in those school systems where a millage cap, or tax limit, is in effect either by State legislation or local limitations. Many local communities have become increasingly suspicious of new Federal programs because of this problem, and are voicing real concern about the wisdom of participating in Federal programs.

This places greater emphasis on the need for long-range projection of funding for Federal programs and the full funding of same. A 3-year authorization with funds appropriated at least 1 year in advance will enable school systems to plan adequately for the best use of local funds.

School administrators, quite frankly, are not impressed with the reshuffling of funds within the programs. To them this is a "robbing Peter to pay Paul" operation that does not solve the problem of adequately providing an effective program of education for all boys and girls in every walk of life. What is needed is not the rearrangement of existing funds but an increase in the funding pattern to bring it in line with the authorization figures. E. C. Stimbert, superintendent of schools, Memphis, Tenn., puts it this way: "The recent enactments of Congress furnishing support for elementary and secondary education have been of substantial value to those children, teachers, and aides participating in programs. I should like to clarify the foregoing statement, however, by further stating that the level of appropriations simply does not permit us to serve the educational needs of approximately 25,000 children who because of the limitation of funds cannot be served." This point is also borne out by the recent followup study of the Kerner Committee which indicates that the lack of funding is restricting the implementation of programs designed to relieve the great needs of our large cities.

Perhaps full funding of Federal programs in education is not realistic, but until such a realization comes about we shall never really know the full fruition of the hopes and aspirations of America.

Mr. KIRKPATRICK. Thank you, sir.
That was my embarrassment, sir.

Mr. FLOOD. Then you comment as though you had one.

Mr. KIRKPATRICK. I do have several points I would like to share and they are based on 8 years as a schoolteacher, 15 as a superintendent, and about the last 4 or 5 working with the school superintendents both on the State and National level. So these are the reactions I would like to share.

First, I sense a very distinct change in attitude on the part of school administrators throughout the land toward Federal participation over the relationships in education. I think it has been a very positive change. It is one that I think speaks well of past programs and certainly behooves a great deal of consideration toward the effect of budget cutbacks on their attitudes in the future.

I would suggest to you that many school administrators throughout the land are looking increasingly toward the Federal participation because of situations which seemingly are becoming beyond their control on the local and State level.

I would like to point out that a week ago Tuesday, in the State of Ohio, during the general primary, approximately 40 percent of the school district requests for additional taxation authorization were approved. Now, having intimate knowledge of the State of Ohio, I can assure you that this is a catastrophe, this is drastic, the men are shook out there. Forty percent.

Mr. FLOOD. You are speaking of local bond issues?

Mr. KIRKPATRICK. And operating tax levies: yes, sir.

They are faced with, frankly, a crisis. And this is not just one State. I am certain you gentlemen have heard this from those States that you represent.

I would like to point out along with the good father the number of inquiries that come across my desk in particular, coming from all parts of the country, from men who are saying, what do we do in regard to our Federal programs as we look into the planning of school years 1969, 1970, and 1971. They are asking questions which frankly no one can answer at the moment. But they are concerned as to what do they do from the standpoint of, do they continue to look forward

to planning for more innovation, more changes in trying to meet some of their problems, or do they begin to crawl back off the limb.

I think I sense another thing on their part. They are concerned with the watering down effect they sense in the appropriations pattern as it deals with Federal programs in education.

I would like to cite only one, and then I would like to read a short letter from a gentleman that I think states it much better than I could. I cite the NDEA title V-A, which deals with guidance counselors. I recall as superintendent at the time that was passed we, too, were able to put in guidance programs in our schools that we had never had before. I talked with the gentlemen just within the past 24 hours and they are now hard put to maintain them because the finances have dwindled and they in turn are being hard put to maintain their basic program or the so-called elemental subjects on the basis of their local and State tax efforts.

I think if we look at the follow-up on the Kerner study we certainly get an indication that the needs of the cities obviously need no delineation, but I think this follow-up indicates that one of the problems that the schools are encountering among a number in the large cities rests in the fact that the programs which have been developed to help meet those needs have not been financed fully or adequately, whatever adjective you might care to use.

It seems to me that one thing that I hear men saying throughout the country comes out something like this. When you say now, what is the most important thing as you see it, well, you hear many different responses to that question, but the one thing that they are not interested in and would not be impressed with is the reshuffling of funds within the total program to provide more money here at the risk of deprivation of the program over here.

One man very succinctly described it to me this way: He said, you take a balloon and you stick your finger in on one side and it will bulge out on the other, but you really have not changed a thing.

I would like to quote two people here. One is Eldon Stimbert, superintendent of schools at Memphis, Tenn. This is in support of a statement made earlier by Chairman Perkins. It relates to ESEA and deprived children. His reaction to this matter of support, I am quoting:

The recent enactments of Congress furnishing support for elementary and secondary education have been of substantial value to those children, teachers, and aides participating in the programs. I should like to clarify the foregoing statement, however, by further stating that the level of appropriations simply does not permit us to serve the educational needs of approximately 25,000 children in Memphis, Tenn., who, because of the limitation on funds, cannot be served.

I have a letter here from Dr. Jack Davidson, superintendent of Manatee County, Fla. He had made a statement and I feel it is worth showing because he is talking about funding levels in Federal programs. It is short. I would like the opportunity to present it:

A serious problem facing school administrators today concerns the level of funding of certain Federal programs. Programs of various kinds are funded at a certain level in the first year of the program. These have served as incentive-type programs designed to promote future involvement and support by the local school systems. The following items complicate this matter: (1) Funding by the Federal Government decreases significantly the second and third years of the program. This decrease comes without prior notice and after operating budgets have been adopted, resulting in a forced increase in local contribution; (2) local costs