center. In our case, it has been the professional guidance we have had from the University of Illinois. Mr. HAWKINS. Yours is a very excellent one, apparently, but what has happened in the other States? Mrs. DAVENPORT. I think, in my opinion as a lay citizen our committee is now experiencing the same phenomenon. After all, those people participating in the 1955 conference are now reaching ages where they are wanting to do other things. They are reaching retirement age. Even though I am still interested in education and always will be, my children are producing grandchildren and I am going to be interested in spending some time with them. As one grows older and the children are out of school, one doesn't have the same kind of motivation, should I say. Mr. HAWKINS. That suggests the next question. With the involvement of youth and younger people, have you been able to involve them in the activities of the Illinois Citizens Education Council? Mrs. DAVENPORT. To some degree, but not to the extent that we want. This is why I feel that we need this new incentive and new opportunity for people to really become involved at the local level to get a better understanding of education and realize that they too can do something. Mr. HAWKINS. You also indicate that if such a conference would be held it should not degenerate into discussions on such subjects as campus unrest, violence and similar activities, but that you would examine the factors which might have led to unrest and acts of violence and seek solutions which might prevent such behavior from developing in our younger generation. What do you mean by that? Mrs. DAVENPORT. Actually, what I am transmitting to you is the feeling of our executive committee on that. They are concerned over the interest and attitude now of the citizen on the situation of campus unrest and campus violence. The citizens I know and work with are very unhappy about this situation. They are getting a little reluctant to support higher education if this kind of thing continues to go on. Therefore, it seems to me that we could design a conference whereby we could keep from dealing with just those subjects, but could deal with those other things that would override those subjects; that we would be getting further ahead. I am sure I am not expressing myself as well as I should. Mr. HAWKINS. You are expressing at least a hope. But I am wondering how the hope will be realized. As I stated, I am in general agreement with you. However, I just don't see how such subjects can be excluded from such a conference. Mrs. DAVENPORT. You are dealing with human beings, and with the situation presently with us, I think it would be difficult. But I would hope that we could work toward that goal. Mr. HAWKINS. I certainly want to agree with the purpose of which you have brought about the encouragement of this bill and certainly want to commend your Congressman, Mr. Erlenborn, for having brought this subject to the attention of this committee. Mr. PUCINSKI. Mr. Erlenborn? Mr. ERLENBORN. Mrs. Davenport, I think you are probably aware that in 1965 there was also a White House Conference on Education but it was structured in a different wav. It involved, as I recall, only about 1,000 educators who spent a few days here in Washington. As you know, your Council has suggested patterning this Conference after the 1955 Conference, which involved State conferences and, preceding that, conferences at the local level. Would you tell me why you feel that this is a better pattern than one involving only educators meeting for a few days? Mrs. DAVENPORT. Well, as a member of a group that has been involved and has been making contributions to the cause of education, we heard nothing. There were no results that came back to our group as a result of the White House Conference in 1965. I think that the people at the local level had very little knowledge, outside of perhaps an article in the paper, that this Conference took place. Therefore, it had little effect on the citizen at the local level in helping him develop an understanding of educational issues and problems facing us today. Mr. ERLENBORN. In our communities in Illinois, as well as communities across the country, nowadays many school bond issues, referendums to increase taxing powers, are being rejected. Do you feel that the lack of citizen participation in determining the goals of education and understanding the problems of education is one of the problems that the educational community faces in trying to get the active support of the voters in the problems of education? Mrs. DAVENPORT. Very definitely. And we have seen this throughout our experience with citizens' committees. In those communities where you have an ongoing citizens' committee where the community is constantly kept abreast of the problems of education and needs of education, you find that these are the communities that are supporting the referendums. Mr. ERLENBORN. Do you feel that the White House Conference involving community conferences and State conferences could provide a renewed interest at the local level that would generate greater support for education and these bond issues and referendums? Mrs. DAVENPORT. I have a great faith in human nature and I feel that when people know and are knowledgeable they will support those things that are good for our society. Mr. ERLENBORN. Again, I want to thank you, Mrs. Davenport, for having come here today to testify and for your excellent presentation. Mrs. DAVENPORT. It was my pleasure. Mr. PUCINSKI. Thank you very much, Mrs. Davenport. Our next witness is Mary Condon Gereau, a very able and highly distinguished legislative consultant for the National Education Association. Mrs. Gereau, you have a statement and we will let you proceed in your own way. It is good to have you before the committee. STATEMENT OF MARY CONDON GEREAU, LEGISLATIVE Mrs. GEREAU. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It is a pleasure to be here, as always. The statement is very brief. Perhaps it would be simpler if I read it. It is only two pages. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, the National Education Association, on behalf of its one million members, supports the purpose of H.R. 17772 which provides for the convening of a White House Conference on Education to report to the President and the Congress not later than December 1972. We believe the proposal outlined in this bill is a proper one, up to a point. It provides for a National Conference Committee of not more than 35, of whom not more than 12 shall be educators, which shall provide overall guidance and planning for the 1972 White House Conference on Education. The national committee will select a conference director, provide overall planning and guidance for the White House Conference, give necessary assistance to the organization of local and State conferences, and shall render a final report of the results, findings, and recommendations of the Conference to the President and the Congress not later than December 1, 1972. The bill, in providing assistance to the States, both monetary and otherwise, recognizes that the control of education is in the States and that the input into the Conference must come from the State and local communities if the Conference is to be productive. We have some specific suggestions for amendment which we believe will strengthen the bill. We urge that the National Conference Committee be designed to provide a specific number of members-perhaps 35, I should say 36, because we go on to say at least one-third of the membership of the National Committee be educators. It is hard to take one-third of 35. The present language sets a limit of 35, with "not more than 12" being from the field of education. This language could result in exclusion of all educators from the National Committee, which we do not believe is the sponsors' intent. Since the Conference is to consider all phases of formal education in public and private institutions from preschool through graduate school, including vocational, adult, disadvantaged, handicapped, and programs for the gifted, it is necessary that the overall planning committee include a broad spectrum of educators. Under the language of the bill, as written, it is possible that a National Committee of three, or less, could be selected, with no educators included. We believe the results of such a possibility would be totally ineffective and unacceptable to the American people, including the educational community. We believe that the White House Conference and the preceding local and State conferences will be a waste of time unless section 2(a) is amended to add an additional paragraph directing the Conference to deal with the subject of financing education. It is neither practical nor productive to avoid this issue, as the history of previous White House Conferences can verify. While the experience of gathering people together to examine educational practices and problems is interesting to the participants, it is counter productive if it merely identifies problems without suggesting solutions. And solutions require considering finances, whether through redistribution of existing resources or through provision of additional revenue. This is a crucial area and cannot be ignored, if the Conference is to have any credibility or impact of the kind we believe the sponsors envisage. If a conference such as we suggest is held, the National Education Association stands ready to be of every possible assistance, if so requested. Mr. PUCINSKI. Thank you very much, Mrs. Gereau. I am sure that the suggestions that have been made here today will be considered by the subcommittee to strengthen this bill. And we do agree with you that unless we address ourselves to the problems of financing education, we are just going through another series of meaningless discussions. In this subcommittee we prepared a compendium on the educational needs for the 1970's in which some of the Nation's top educational leaders state many problems and suggestions for a solution. But it is the financing that I think is the most pressing problem today. I think that there would have to be some sort of mandate, it seems to me, to have the White House Conference really address itself to this problem if it is going to have meaning. Mr. Hawkins? Mr. HAWKINS. Was there any particular reason why financing was not included under section 2? Was it an oversight or is there a particular reason not to get into that subject? Mr. ERLENBORN. As a draftsman of the bill, I would think it is an oversight, rather than a conscious exclusion. And I think the suggestion of Mrs. Gereau for the National Education Association is a very constructive suggestion. Mr. HAWKINS. That is all I have. Mrs. GEREAU. We assume that you weren't intentionally overlooking it and assumed that they could hardly avoid getting to this subject. But we think it is rather necessary, in agreement with what has been said, that the participants not interpret it as being excluded, since it is not specifically stated in the bill. Mr. HAWKINS. What was the involvement of the educators in the broad sense at the last White House Conference, the one in 1955? Mrs. GEREAU. In 1955? I would believe that it was less than one-third. Mr. HAWKINS. Less than one-third? Mrs. GEREAU. Yes. In 1965-I happened to be on the staff of that one-it was an entirely different situation. If I may respectfully correct the Congressman, they were not all educators in 1965, either. And if the committee is interested, there was a reprint by the Senate Education Subcommittee of papers from the Conference which listed all the participants in the back of the book. And you can see by looking at it that the majority of the participants were not educators. But it is true that on the panels which performed there were large numbers of educators, which, in my own personal opinion, was not proper, but that is the way it was. Mr. HAWKINS. Other than educators, what was the representation? Do you recall? Mrs. GEREAU. I couldn't give you the exact percentage for 1955, because I was in that one as a participant. I can give you an example of my own State of Montana. The Governor appointed a businessman from one of our larger cities as chairman and appointed me as cochairman. And the makeup of the conference was probably about threefourths lay people and one-fourth educators. The educators in that particular State viewed their role as one of more advisory than directive. I mean, they were there to give the background and information and so forth, but did not dominate. I must say one of the problems that professional educators have in this kind of thing is that quite often the lay people want you to tell them what to do. There is a real effort to not do that. I think that the design of this bill in limiting the educators to at least one-third, as I think was the intent, is proper. Mr. HAWKINS. Were the persons selected nominated from local communities by those communities? Mrs. GEREAU. In 1955, we had, as Mrs. Davenport described in Illi nois, regional conferences in Montana. We had seven regional conferences which involved about 750 people, about 200 of whom were educators and they sent delegates to the State conference. And then that group elected about 20 delegates to go to the national conference on the same proportion, that is, the majority were lay people, and they came to Washington. There were several thousand, maybe 2,000 people at that national conference. One thing I would like to say that I think was better about the 1955 one than the 1965 one. As I recall very vividly, in both conferences Members of Congress were invited. At the one in 1955, they were there. They weren't there just as speakers, but they were there, it was hot and they had their coats off, sitting around tables and really in there pitching. I can remember very graphically several of them. I hope it happens again, because I think they had a great deal to contribute and I think a few of them learned something. Mr. PUCINSKI. Mr. Quie? your Mr. QUIE. I gather, Mary, that you worry that if we have "not more than 12" there may not be any educators, but you don't advocate in recommendation that at least a third of the members be educators, or at the other extreme that all of them would be educators. Mrs. GEREAU. Not more than a third should be, but I want it so that you couldn't have 35 lay people and no educators, which technically is possible under the language; but I don't think it is the intent. Mr. QUIE. But technically what you suggest is not less than a third? Mrs. GEREAU. If the President decides to appoint 12, then not less than a third of 12 would be educators; if he appoints three, one would be an educator. Mr. QUIE. So you are really recommending that a third be educators rather than not less than a third? Mrs. GEREAU. Right. If you want to make it a fourth, fine, but I think you ought to somehow guarantee that some of them ought to be educators and it should be a percentage. Mr. QUIE. The other main point you make is there is nothing mentioned here in the financing of education. Could you give us some information on the other two White House conferences where you were involved, the extent financing was involved? Mrs. GEREAU. In Mrs. Davenport's excellent statement, she reminded the committee of what the categories were that the conferences all over the country discussed. The value of that conference was the involvement for over a period of a year and a half of this thing going on all over the country and people were directing themselves roughly to these six major points that she has outlined in her document. The first one was "What should the school's accomplish?", which I think |