« 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.
rate of expenditure in comparison to other budget items reflects an
educational technology as an integral part of all learning, and not merely
as easily expendable accessories for a particular program.
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 per
missible. 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.
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 non
public schools benefit from federal funds on an equal basis.
more affluent schools, Title II funds may provide supplementary funds
for materials designed to further enrich and support a comprehensive
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
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 vir
tually no schools in the less affluent areas have the equipment, materials,
or budgets to meet the recommended Standards for School Media Programs.
drawal 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
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
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.
Bi-lingual education programs, ESEA Title VII, were
well conceived by Congress, but like Title V, have suffered from low
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
In addition, bi-lingual programs have made extensive use of audio
visual 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
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, and
NDEA III were consolidated, what would the benefits be?
för 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 three
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.
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
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.
authority is granted to the chief state school officer,
he will have more control over how the local administrator may use the