THE UNIVERSITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

THE STATE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT

OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNIVERSITY

AND COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION

ALBANY, NEW YORK 12234

November 2, 1977

Dear Congressman Perkins:

I received a carbon copy of a letter sent to you on October 10, 1977 by a William Asher, Professor of Education and Psychological Science at Purdue University. Mr. Asher states that my testimony on the Title I is in error because of a faulty research design.

It is unfortunate that Mr. Asher did not take the time, nor did he have the courtesy, to contact the New York State Education Department concerning my testimony. We are fully aware of the problems he raises in his letter, particularly the phenomenon referred to as "regression toward the mean." The study which I cited in my testimony, in fact, extensively discusses this issue.

If I understand Mr. Asher correctly, his primary objection is that the New York State Education Department accepted a faulty conclusion that "... children who did not participate in compensatory programs scored higher at the end of the year than the Title I children." The study results did indicate that non-participants scored higher than Title I students. Both the study I cited and my testimony clearly indicated that students were not randomly assigned to either the Title I group or the non-participant group, as would be called for in a true experimental design. Had the evaluation of compensatory programs been conducted with a true experimental design, we would be justified in concluding from the data that the overall program treatments were simply not effective in improving students' reading achievement. We did not conclude, however, that the Title I programs were ineffective. Given the uncertainty of the magnitude and direction of regression effects, our conclusion which I cited in my testimony was that "(T)hese results would seem to contain an implicit challenge to the effectiveness of the compensatory education programs involved. " Notwithstanding Mr. Asher's objections, we believe the results of our study do raise questions which should be addressed.

I hope that this letter clarifies any misunderstandings which may have arisen as a result of the letter from Mr. Asher. If you require any further clarification on this matter, please contact me and I will be glad to provide whatever additional information that may be necessary.

Sincerely,

Sh M Ambal

Gordon M. Ambach

The Honorable Carl D. Perkins, Chairman

Committee on Education and Labor

Subcommittee on Elementary, Secondary and Vocational Education

Rayburn House Office Building

Washington, D. C.

20515

cc: Mr. P. Alistair Mac Kinnon

PART 12: NATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 1977

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ELEMENTARY, SECONDARY

AND VOCATIONAL EDUCATION, COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 8:30 a.m., in room 2175, Rayburn House Office Building, the Hon. Carl D. Perkins (chairman of the subcommittee), presiding.

Members present: Representatives Perkins, Mottl, Miller, Quie, Jeffords, Goodling, and Pettis.

Staff present: John F. Jennings, majority counsel; Christopher Cross, minority senior education consultant; and Nancy L. Kober, staff assistant.

Chairman PERKINS. The hearing will come order.

Today we have a panel consisting of Dr. Wilson Riles, Superintendent of Public Instruction, California State Department of Education; Mr. Albert Shanker, President of the American Federation of Teachers, AFL-CIO; Dr. Will Davis, President of the National School Boards Association; and Honorable Jeannette Reibman, Pennsylvania State Senator, Chairman of the Policy Committee of the Education Commission of the States.

STATEMENT OF WILSON RILES, SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, CALIFORNIA STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, ACCOMPANIED BY WILLIAM WHITENECK, DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, CALIFORNIA STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION: ALBERT SHANKER, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF TEACHERS, AFL-CIO: WILL DAVIS, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL SCHOOL BOARDS ASSOCIATION: HON. JEANNETTE REIBMAN, PENNSYLVANIA STATE SENATOR, CHAIRMAN, POLICY COMMITTEE, EDUCATION COMMISSION OF THE STATES

Chairman PERKINS. Our first witness will be Dr. Riles. Dr. Riles, it is a great pleasure to welcome you here this morning from the great State of California. You have made a wonderful record out there. The record speaks for itself throughout the United States of America. Perhaps you have done as much for the disadvantaged youngster as any school administrator living.

(417)

It is a great pleasure to welcome you here. We are delighted to hear from you at this time. You may proceed.

STATEMENT OF DR. WILSON RILES

Dr. RILES. Chairman Perkins and members of the subcommittee: As Superintendent of Public Instruction in California, I am deeply grateful for your kind invitation to be here today and share some of my thoughts and concerns regarding the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and the other important programs contained in H.R. 15.

Before I begin, Mr. Chairman, I would like to express my heartfelt thanks to you for the excellent job you have done in providing the leadership needed to expand the Federal commitment to education while at the same time improving program quality.

Since you assumed the chairmanship of the Education and Labor Committee in 1967, Title I spending has increased by 117 percent while Federal education spending in general has increased by more than 144 percent. Indeed, largely as a result of your strong leadership, the Nation benefits from more than 120 federally supported education programs. Education owes much to you, Mr. Chairman, and to this subcommittee, and I am sure the other witnesses who will be testifying before you today share my feelings about your fine work.

While all of the programs being reauthorized in H.R. 15 are important and deserve your attention, I will confine my remarks to Title I which is by far the largest. With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit to the subcommittee a thorough review of the other programs in H.R. 15 within the next few weeks. Of course, I will be more than glad to answer any specific questions you may have today about our experience with all the programs included in H.R. 15.

Mr. Chairman, it is hard to overstate the impact of Title I on the delivery of appropriate educational services to children. Prior to 1965 the conventional wisdom tried to equate the equality of educational opportunity with equal dollars behind every child. The enactment of Title I brought about a fundamental shift in public policy by formally recognizing that students have diverse needs which require differing amounts and kinds of resources.

As you well know, we have come a long way since the enactment of Title I in 1965. Many changes have occurred at the Federal, State and local levels, and I believe one of the most significant and positive changes has been the growth of State compensatory education programs. Today I understand there are some 17 States with their own compensatory education programs.

Although California had enacted pilot legislation in 1963 which focused on the problems of disadvantaged students, it was clearly the adoption of Title I that provided the momentum we needed in California to develop the major State commitment to compensatory education which we call the California Educationally Disadvantaged Youth Act.