NEA speaks for a combined membership of approximately 2 million educators.

We appreciate this opportunity to present our views on S. 1669, the proopsed Education Revenue Sharing Act of 1971. The stated purpose of this bill is based on the premises that the Federal Government has a responsibility to assist State and local governments in meeting the costs of education in areas of special national concern, and that prior to programs of Federal financial assistance are too narrow in scope to meet the needs of State and local school systems.

It is somewhat ironic that the administration reached this substantial conclusion and is recommending a major overhaul of the Federal grant system when many of the grants involved are not and never have been fully funded. Indeed, the major problems of the Federal grants are related to the fact that they have never been fully funded rather than to the narrow scope of the grant programs.

This proposal would eliminate all dollar program authorizations other than those for impact aid, and all requirements for State-local matching funds. We do not feel that this is a realistic approach.

This proposal, S. 1669, is apparently not based on a substantive review of the grants in existence. We find no evidence that the existing grants have been studied carefully to determine if the area of national concern to which each of the grants was addressed has been sufficiently relieved to permit the conditions of the grant to be relaxed. Indeed, this proposal for a major overhaul in the Federal grant system came a year before the report of the President's Commission on School Finance—a major and comprehensive investigation of school finance.

At this time we oppose the bill as presented for a number of reasons. I shall discuss.

I would like to emphasize that the NEA is not opposed to the concept of block grants, grant consolidation, or simplification of the administration of Federal grants per se. Our objection to the proposals in the bill is based largely on several factors: (a) the inadequate amounts of money requested; (b) extension of the coverage of all programs to include private school pupils; (c) the creation of new State agencies for overseeing Federal funds; (d) the dilution of aid to federally connected pupils; (e) the lessening of the surveillance of Federal programs to insure that funds are indeed directed to top educational priorities-school integration, education of the handicapped, education of the disadvantaged.

LEVEL OF FUNDING

As you are no doubt aware, the schools are in financial crisis. This year many school systems across the Nation are cutting back staff and programs with the net effect of a decrease in the educational services pupils are receiving. The administration's proposal does not provide any increase in funds for existing programs. It simply tosses in an additional $200 million to cover the difference between the total of the State allotments under the existing grants and the formulas in this proposal.

We cannot help but conclude that the major purposes of S. 1669 are unrelated to its stated purpose. It seems that the thrust of this bill is to provide administrative convenience and perhaps to bring political relief from the pressures for full funding of existing grant programs.

This is not to deny that the administrative process could benefit from simplification--but much of this simplification could be achieved by hacking away at the administrative rules and regulations which accompany each title and by more coordination among the Federal administrators of the several Federal grant programs.

True, some consolidation of Federal grant programs is no doubt feasible, but not without a careful analysis of whether the national interest these programs are designed to serve has been met. Indeed, we feel it would be a disaster to eliminate some specific programs-for example, those which provide milk and lunch subsidies for the Nation's school pupils. This proposal provides that the States may transfer up to 30 percent of the funds from one block grant to another, except that transfers cannot be made from formula funds for an A category of federally connected pupils or from the title I pupils. Because this proposal does not provide for a substantial increase in Federal funds or even an increase to meet inflation, the national interest would not be served if the States elected to transfer, for example, 30 percent of the vocational funds to the education of the handicapped or vice versa. We do not believe that this proposal is feasible at the existing levels of funding and without a substantial increase in general aid-type funding.

PRIVATE SCHOOL PUPILS

We object to the inclusion of private school pupils in those programs which are now limited to operation within the public schools. While the bill provides no more funds, approximately 5 million additional pupils would be sharing the programs. The loss to public school pupils will be acute in those States where the percentage of private school pupils is highest. Vocational programs in public schools will be especially hard hit.

NEW STATE AGENCY

Forty-nine of the 50 States already have State school boards elected or appointed to oversee the States' schools. It is our belief that the appointment of the State advisory council provided in section 9 would do nothing but create confusion.

We also object to the fact that this proposal permits the State's chief executive to bypass the chief State school officers in appointing the advisory council and even in administering the special educational revenue sharing. It makes no sense whatsoever to set the stage for two agencies for the State education agency to administer State funds and programs and the Governor's appointed council and agency to administer Federal funds and programs.

FEDERALLY CONNECTED PUPILS

We note that the Federal impact aid is not weakened for category A pupils those whose parents live and work on Federal property. But the aid does not follow the category B pupil with a parent merely working on Federal property or in the uniformed services. The proposal that not more than 30 percent of the entitlement for category B children can go to districts without any such pupils is slight protection. indeed. We believe that the funds appropriated by Congress to relieve the local burden of excessive numbers of pupils whose parents are not

employed by a taxable employer should be directed toward the school system so impacted.

We also note that this proposal does not provide impact aid for children living in public housing. This was authorized in the last Congress but has never been funded. We stress the need to fully fund this authorization. These pupils do not have a local taxpayer or, in many instances, a taxable employer behind them. These are concentrations of children who need special educational services if the chain of poverty is to be broken.

WEAKENING OF SURVEILLANCE

Finally, at this point we are reluctant to weaken the rate of progress in getting a fair share of educational opportunity for those pupils who need it most-the minorities, the poor, and the handicapped. We view this proposal-the no strings, no redtape approach-as an abdication of Federal responsibility for these pupils. The Commission of Education, Sidney Marland, has announced his intention of skewing all possible Federal programs to the low income, minority, and handicapped students. We applaud him for this effort this year. We find S. 1669 which, in general, would weaken his ability to direct Federal funds inconsistent with his stated goals.

In summary, we urge the Congress to fully fund the grant programs which are now law and to enact a substantial general aid program before considering consolidation of existing grants.

Senator PELL. I agree with your objectives. As I said earlier in the hearing, the most fruitful investment we can make is in education, but also we face the Appropriations Committee, of which I am not a member. It has the responsibility of dividing up the pie.

I would like to see all our programs fully funded, because we wouldn't have passed them, wouldn't have supported them, voted for them, and worked on them unless we believed they were right and

correct.

But on this particular bill and proposal, do you have any suggestion as to how the paperwork can be reduced, because I must say I don't sympathize with the idea of abdicating this Federal responsibility. I do think there must be more ways than we are presently using of reducing the load of paperwork that teachers and administrators and school superintendents presently have to take upon themselves.

As the president of the NEA, receiving letters from teachers all over the country, and presumably a former teacher yourself, do you have any thoughts in this direction?

Mr. MORRISON. Mr. Chairman, I think part of the problem is related to our lack of sophistication in program management. I think that Mr. Nixon is having this kind of problem with his management of programs.

Services are delivered to the local and State entities in this Nation at a much slower rate, and services are delivered from separate units of the Government. I think that we now find ourselves in the position when time won't give us that luxury of slowness. We have an oldfashioned delivery system. I know the NEA has the problem, and the Federal Government does, too. I think that we are going to go through a few years before we gain the sophistication in program budgeting

and planning and management of program. This is where the problem lies.

Senator PELL. I think one of the most medieval institutions from this viewpoint is probably the Congress. We are trying to get on the ball now. The House is a little ahead of us at this time with computers, and we are trying to get computers ourselves so that we can get information when we need it.

There is obviously tremendous room for improvement here, and perhaps the final compromise may be some way of figuring out how to reduce the paperwork, how to consolidate some programs. There is nothing wrong with consolidation, although every time you try to consolidate a little bit, the people with a vested interest in that particular program get very upset.

But I think there is a middle ground here, which I would hope, could be eventually developed. I was wondering if you thought there could be a middle ground, and if not, would you enlarge your own views on this?

Mr. MORRISON. A few years ago, former Senator Eugene McCarthy made a comment to a group of leaders from the urban associations in response to criticism by the superintendents of the Government on this paperwork. The Senator commented that it is rather strange for these superintendents to be criticizing the Government for this paperwork in view of the paperwork that is imposed on classroom teachers just in their normal responsibility and functioning as teachers.

So, again, I think that we need to concentrate on new management schemes and the training of people for better delivery with fewer complications. But I feel that most of this could be done administratively.

Senator PELL. I think so, too. I think this was brought out in previous testimony, that the responsibility for approval is a very real one and should never be automatic.

Mr. McFarland?

Mr. MCFARLAND. In participating in a number of sessions across the country in which superintendents have been present, I have found a general attitude that superintendents feel that the amount of Federal money they are receiving is not worth the time and hassle of the paperwork. In other words, the expectation that has been in existence because of authorization is nowhere near being met by the appropriations, and what there is costs too much in time and man-hours to be worth it.

As an example, title I in the very beginning required that a school district have approximately 25-percent disadvantaged population to participate in the program. That percentage has climbed to 60, 70, and 80 percent because of the reduction in money, so far fewer districts are eligible for a lesser amount of Federal money in the program. The paperwork involved is such that it isn't worth filling out the forms for the amount of money that's available.

This massive stack of paper that the Commissioner brought is all very interesting, but in studying the bill I fail to see that it is going to relieve the paperwork at the State level. In fact, it is going to increase it. It may relieve some of the paperwork in the U.S. Office of Education. Over the years we have somewhat monitored the whole problem, and we found out that in many cases the gripe that local school people have is not what comes from the Federal Government, but the amount of work required from the States in filling out applications.

Senator PELL. Thank you.

Do you have any knowledge of reports that indicate that block grants to States have not been used effectively? Have you in your own travels and conversations come back with the opinion that many of these block grants are ineffective?

Mrs. FLANIGAN. One major study has just been completed at the University of Syracuse which did analyze the Federal programs, not so much in terms of their effectiveness as to their stated purpose, but whether they were equalizing, had funds gone to the low-income child. I think overall they found title I to be most effective in reaching its objective to aid the low-income child in that the money went where the poor children were.

Some of the other formuals were indicted because they were matching grants. Hence, it took a fairly wealthy community to participate in all the matching grant programs.

We do have that kind of major study behind us.

Senator PELL. I know, too, the point that Mr. Morrison made, that the President's Commission on School Finance has not yet submitted its report. I agree with you that it does seem odd that the revenuesharing proposal of the administration should come forward before that report is submitted. I would have thought that the President's proposal would have been based on what this Commission reports, or at least it would be fed into it.

On behalf of the Republican minority, I have two questions.

In Mr. Morrison's prepared testimony, he indicates that some consolidation of Federal programs would be feasible. Could you furnish to the committee a listing of those programs which you believe could be or should be consolidated and your rationale for doing so?

I realize this is very difficult for you, because you have a constituency that will scream at you for doing this, but I would be interested in your

response.

Mr. MORRISON. We shall submit that in writing to you. (The information subsequently supplied follows:)

CONSOLIDATION OF CERTAIN EDUCATION PROGRAMS AND RATIONALE FOR DOING SO

At the time when a substantial grant-in-aid for general federal support for elementary and secondary schools is enacted, it would be feasible to eliminate almost all existing grants for specialized purposes. If the general federal support is distributed on an equalizing formula and the support amounted to about 33 per cent of existing total revenue receipts for schools, the additional funds for every state would provide ample new funds in excess of current federal grants to permit the elimination of the special grants. We feel it is extremely important that categorical aids be retained until their purposes are accomplished and the national interest is fulfilled.

The grants which could be combined, when a federal contribution of 33 per cent becomes available, are:

Elementary and Secondary Education Act:

Title I-Aid for low-income pupils.

Title II-Textbook and library resources.

Title III-Supplementary services; innovation.

Title V-Strengthening of state education departments.

Title VI-Education of the handicapped.

Title VII-Bilingual education.

National Defense Education Act:

Title III-Assistance for equipment purchase.

Title V-Guidance and counseling aid.

Impact Aid (P.L. 81-874): All parts of this law except Part A which concerns children of parents who live on and work on federal property.