« PreviousContinue »
U.S. Office of Education statistics on Title I programs for 1971 reveal that only eight-tenths of one per cent (.8%) of the Title I appropriation was spent on audio-visual equipment and only seven-tenths of one per cent (.7%) of the funds was spent on materials. This low rate of expenditure in comparison to other budget items reflects an atmosphere of restrictiveness surrounding the acquisition of equipment
to provide the best
We suggest that the intent of Congress services and facilities for children from low income families be made
more clear. We strongly encourage the adoption of the concept of educational technology as an integral part of all learning, and not merely as easily expendable accessories for a particular program. Congress can most easily clarify its intent by amending H.R. 69 so that there is no doubt that the acquisition of equipment and materials is permissible. Again, we support the Title I programs, but believe that their effects could be intensified if the use of educational technology was more clearly supported by Congress.
The expanded use of technology is not being advocated just to make sure media specialists can retain their jobs. On the contrary, the systematic application of technology can insure that interaction between teacher and student and between student and student is more productive and is tailored to the needs of the individual. technology is rooted in communications theory and research, we are confident that it can help teachers to teach as well as they would like to teach. Technology has helped to change the classroom from
being the domain of the teacher to the domain of the learner.
TITLE II. ESEA Title II programs, providing for school library resources, textbooks, and other instructional materials, has been a very effective and popular program in the nation's schools. It is one
of the few programs in which children attending both public and nonpublic schools benefit from federal funds on an equal basis. In the more affluent schools, Title II funds may provide supplementary funds for materials designed to further enrich and support a comprehensive school program, whereas in less affluent districts the monies may be the only source of library and equipment acquisitions. In each case, however, the funds are being applied where they are needed most.
ESEA II has also helped schools to respond quickly to new curricular thrusts such as career education. Schools could not have
acquired sufficient career education materials without Title II assistance.
The Administration's plans to terminate federal support of this Title and other library resource programs as proposed in the Better Schools Act reveals a lack of understanding as to the tremendous impact educational technology has had on American education and its potential contributions. Currently, less than one-fifth of the schools in the United States and virtually no schools in the less affluent areas have the equipment, materials, or budgets to meet the recommended Standards for School Media Programs. Withdrawal of federal support at this time will only serve to widen the gap between what is and what is "supposed to be!! (as delineated in the aforementioned Standards for School Media Programs, a joint publication of the American Library Association and the National Education Association.)
Clearly, we are calling for the renewal of ESEA Title II programs in its present form as one aspect of categorical aid to education. Title II provides the tools with which the goals and objectives of the other titles can be
TITLE III. The thrust of ESEA Title III has most consistently stimulated the innovative and cost-effective uses of educational technology. The concept of supplemental centers and service programs is a sound one in that each school does not have to establish specialized facilities for each area of instruction. School districts and larger units have collaborated to develop and maintain highly sophisticated centers in reading, math, or special education, for example, far more effectively than any of them could have done individually. Children can be brought to such centers for intensive training in a given skill or subject area and they are no longer dependent on the "hit and miss" approach of so-called "visiting teachers." And, cooperation within and among districts in one area has been shown to produce a synergistic multiplier effect in that personnel are stimulated by the interaction and elect to continue to cooperate and share resources in other areas.
As you heard yesterday from the American Personnel and Guidance Association representatives, they too object to the loss of identity of Title III, ESEA. The need for long range development of guidance programs in the states and the danger of wasteful competition for funds among many interest groups at the state level mitigate against any move to consolidate Title III with other programs.
TITLE V. ESEA Title V has recently been criticized for its failure to stimulate a genuine rethinking of priorities by state departments of education. It is indeed unfortunate that adequate leadership from the federal government did not accompany the unrestricted grants to state departments, for the states can provide an important perspective on long range program development and training.
We believe that Title V program efforts have been further stifled by severely low funding. In the area of educational technology, there is a real role for the state to play in developing programs for in-service training of media specialists and classroom teachers who want to improve their technical expertise.
TITLE VII. Bi-lingual education programs, ESEA Title VII, were well conceived by Congress, but like Title V, have suffered from low funding. The dual-language student needs special learning situations and materials which are not generally a high local priority. Continued federal influence is needed in this area to insure that the needs of these children are met so that they can become fully functioning members of society.
In addition, bi-lingual programs have made extensive use of audiovisual equipment and materials with good results. The programs may thus be looked at as pilot programs or demonstration projects, the results of which can be applied to other areas of education.
We have reviewed some of ESEA's contributions to promoting the effective use of educational technology in our schools, and we have studied the Administration proposals for education special revenue sharing. Revenue sharing does not appear to be an adequate substitute for present forms of categorical aid.
Proposals have been made in previous testimony by representatives of the National Education Association, the National School Boards Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers to consolidate some of the existing titles into a "support services" program in this new legislation. Let us examine the advantages and disadvantages of consolidating versus continuing categorical programs.
If, for instance, the following titles, ESEA II, III and V, NDEA III were consolidated, what would the benefits be?
First, the Chief State School Officer would gain maximum flexibility for the expenditure of the funds or at least a great deal more flexibility than he presently has. He would be able to devote all of the grant funds for equipment or all for materials or all for books or all for career
education or all for fourth-grade reading. In fact, there will be 50 different statewide programs with each state commissioner free to set his or her own statewide priorities. This is the kind of flexibility state departments of education are seeking these days.
Second, under this consolidation proposal, non-public schools would be able to obtain federal money for equipment grants just as they presently can obtain materials under ESEA II. At present under ESEA II, approximately 10% goes to non-public schools.
Third, it will give equipment and materials presently provided for
in ESEA II and NDEA III, a new five-year lease on life. However, NDEA III was renewed last year in the Education Amendments Act of 1972 for a threeyear period.
Fourth, this proposal to consolidate some support services would furnish the President with some modicum of education revenue sharing which is intended in his proposed Better Schools Act of 1973. Therefore, there is a possibility
that it may help secure his signature on the authorization measure.
Let us turn now to some of the disadvantages of this proposition. First, the mix of titles with matching provisions and titles without matching provisions is an incompatible and irrational merger for the sake of merger. It is not logical.
Second, lumping these programs together would cause them to each lose their identity and their special features in order to provide support services. The programs as they presently exist are popular and effective. Under NDEA III and ESEA II presently, each administrator and local school board decides for itself on how it wants to use NDEA III and ESEA II. If discretionary authority is granted to the chief state school officer,
he will have more control over how the local administrator may use the