PART 12: NATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 20, 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, Blouin, Mottl, Weiss, Kildee, Corrada, and Quie. Staff present: John F. Jennings, majority counsel, Christopher Cross, minority senior education consultant, and Nancy L. Kober, staff assistant. Mr. MOTTL. The subcommittee will come to order. The subcommittee is continuing hearings today on H.R. 15, a bill to extend certain expiring elementary and secondary education programs for five years. I am delighted that this week and part of next week we will be hearing from representatives of all the major educational organizations and associations. Today we have with us representatives of the National Education Association, the American Association of School Administrators, the Council of the Great City Schools, and the National Association of Secondary School Principals. Many of you have been here before many times. The committee has benefitted from your thinking on several educational bills throughout the years. Each of you has made contributions to the improvement of education too numerous to mention. I am continually impressed with the dedication that all of you have shown in your efforts to serve our young people, and I am sure the committee will give your comments thoughtful consideration when we mark up legislation next year. The chairman, Mr. Perkins, will be with us very shortly. I would like to bring to your attention at 9:30 we have a full committee mark-up. So, if we can have the cooperation of our distinguished representatives this morning, to be as brief as possible, so we can make sure we can get as many people in. Without further ado, we have the pleasure of having Dr. John Ryor, President of the National Education Association. (1) STATEMENT OF JOHN RYOR, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, ACCOMPANIED BY STANLEY MCFARLAND AND JAMES GREEN OF THE NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION Mr. RYOR. Thank you very much, Congressman. I have with me our Director of Government Relations, Stan McFarland, on my right, and the Assistant Director of Government Relations, Jim Green, on my left. We will abide by our advice to keep the remarks brief, even though this problem and this issue is of great importance, not only to the National Education Association, but we believe to the United States citizens and parents and teachers in general. The NEA wishes to express its gratitude to this committee for the extensive hearings it is conducting this year on elementary and secondary education. Except for the hearings held in 1973, these hearings are the first in-depth examination of the role of the Federal Government in elementary and secondary education since 1965. Our members are present in nearly every school district in America. Therefore, they have a unique perspective concerning this law and a deep interest in its reauthorization. We see in your deliberations the opportunity to redirect these programs to ensure that they do the best job possible for schools, students and teachers. During the past two years, two standing committees of the NEA have conducted an extensive study on the Federal role in education in the United States. Hearings were conducted in every region of the country. At those hearings classroom teachers presented their views on how existing Federal programs were being operated and what should be done to make them more effective. Our testimony will reflect those findings as well as other relevant NEA policy. Something must be done to relieve the school tax burden at the local level. Last year at least 13 school districts closed because they simply ran out of money and thousands more operated with totally inadequate funds. Local tax proposals continued to fail more often than not because in most states schools remain unmercifully dependent on the regressive, rigid and unpopular property tax. The obsolescence of our systems for financing the great American experiment in popular education is evident in both the inadequacy and the inequity of the property tax as its principal source of revenue. State governments are also confronted by massive problems in financing the schools. In 1976-77, the highest spending state expended 267 percent more per child than did the lowest. One thing is clear, that equality of educational opportunity cannot be achieved unless the methods of financing public education relate specifically to that goal. Federal assistance to encourage the states to equalize revenues among school districts should be expanded, and should include Federal incentives for state equalization programs which move away from the property tax as a primary source of education revenues. The existing pattern of Federal aid to education is a complex scheme of categorical programs designed to meet specific educational problems. Even though the categorical approach used by Congress has achieved some success, unforeseen administrative problems have arisen at all levels of government. There is confusion and consternation over the undue complexity of Federal aid and the failure of appropriations to achieve promises made in authorizing legislation. Some basic needs for assistance have not been addressed. It is becoming apparent that, within the next five years, school systems in every area of the country will be facing extremely difficult financial situations. All the evidence we have now indicates that in the next few years more schools will be closed for an extended period each year, simply because they do not have the money to continue to operate. One recent study reports that the expenses of maintaining the present level of services for elementary and secondary school children will exceed the revenues from present sources by about $15 billion by 1981. It is our belief that Congress will be faced with a serious 'education problem' very shortly. For this reason, we recommend that this committee extend the scope of these hearings to include a prospective study of education finance during the next ten years. As the committee reviews the Federal programs for possible renewal or change, we request that you use the following set of general principles as a guide for the reauthorization of the programs. Federal funds should be available to: One, assist with the cost of basic maintenance and operation of elementary and secondary schools; Two, provide special assistance designed to meet the educational needs of students from low income families, handicapped students, students of limited English speaking ability, and American Indian students; Three, be used to solve educational problems which are of national or regional concern; and Four, assist in improving the quality of American education by supporting research in the field of education and encouraging the development and adoption of improved educational methods, practices and techniques. A high quality education and equality of educational opportunity for all Americans is a primary goal of the National Education Association That goal cannot be achieved unless the nation's public school systems are adequately supported financially by governments at the Federal, State and local levels. Existing Federal education programs, as they are renewed, should be examined in view of this goal. Those programs which lend themselves to achieving that goal should be expanded, while others should be modified, curtailed or ended accordingly. Moreover, NEA believes that the Federal Government should assume the obligation of supporting one-third of the cost of public elementary and secondary education in the nation. Increased support is necessary for maintenance and operation of schools. This can be achieved by authorizing geneal aid which broadens the purposes for which funds can be spent at the local level. Special needs can still be met by adequate guarantees required as a precondition for receipt of maintenance and operation funds. The concerns we have outlined point to some general changes that we believe are necessary as the reauthorization legislation is drafted. One primary concern is the elimination of bureaucratic red tape. We propose that the new language retain only those statutory requirements necessary to ensure that Federal funds are expended in accordance with the purposes for which they were appropriated. The law should prohibit State regulations which go beyond the minimum necessary to achieve the intent of Congress. NEA recommends that wherever possible, Federal funds be made available directly to local school districts, leaving to state legislatures the authority to decide the extent of state education agency control over local program plans and expenditures. The new legislation should be designed to broaden the authority of local school districts to decide how the money provided by the Federal Government can best be used to start solving the problems to which the Federal legislation is addressed. There should be precise language providing for maximum teacher involvement in the planning as well as the execution of federallyfunded programs. Above all, the new legislation should state as simply and clearly as possible the problems which Congress wants to solve and the priorities it places on those problems. Such specific guidance would be of great value to state and local agencies as they interpret the law and develop their implementation plans. Turning to specific program recommendations, we believe that substantial changes are necessary in the ESEA Title I program for the disadvantaged. We believe that the focus of this major effort has become distorted over the years, both by congressional amendment and Federal agency interpretation. The reasons for this distortion are many: The original law was ambiguous; State and local administrators sought to use Title I to effect social change as well as improve educational opportunity; some State education agencies used Title I as a vehicle to extend an inordinate amount of control over local school districts; and appropriations to implement this vital program have been totally inadequate. To remedy these problems, we suggest that the ambiguous phrase 'educationally deprived children' be dropped from the language of the law and that it be made quite clear that Title I is to be used solely to meet the needs of children from low-income families. A major roadblock to timely funding has been the cumbersome process of determining and allocating the Part B incentive grant program. The amount of money available for incentive grants is so small that the administrative burdens of allocating the grants subvert rather than encourage local effort. We propose the repeal of Part B and the reallocation of those funds to Part A. The most inequitable distortion of the Title I program is the olicy of targ ting-singling out school attendance areas having the highest concentration of impoverished children and designating those areas as the sites for Title I programs. The result of this practice has been the neglect of millions of children who, by definition, should be legitimate recipients of the benefits of Title I. NEA's support of this program was based on the assumption that Congress intended to serve all, not a mere fraction. of, youngsters from impoverished families. We further propose the institution of two-year application and approval procedures for Title I programs. The current practice of funding projects for one year at a time has kept local school districts in a state of perpetual uncertainty and administrative chaos. Planning programs and recruiting personnel on a year-to-year basis would be unthinkable in the business world. It is impossible to implement a program as important as Title I with any degree of stability and predictability under the present scheme of annual applications. A significant improvement in Title I would be the authorization of local districtwide Title I plans. Chairman PERKINS. Let me interrupt you just a minute to say that the Commissioner of Education is inviting all the States in, and this happened to be Kentucky Week for Education. A number of people from Kentucky and from the Department had a breakfast this morning. That was the reason for my absence. I am delighted to be here. I may not be able to sit through the entire hearing because of the welfare reform legislation. But, I appreciate Mr. Mottl, Mr. Weiss, and all the other members who have been attending these hearings and keeping up with them by reading your statements. Excuse me for interrupting you. Go ahead. Mr. RYOR. I was saying a significant improvement in Title I would be the authorization of local districtwide Title I plans. This would allow school districts to move away from discriminatory targeting and into a process of planning how to improve services for all children from low-income families. Increased funding would be necessary to ensure that all eligible children received some benefit from Title I, but we believe that the equalization of educational opportunity-the basic promise of Title I would be enhanced considerably by changes we have proposed. Similarly, the Emergency School Aid program has suffered from one-year funding. School districts seeking Federal help in the desegregation process need help for more than one year. We recommend that the law be amended to authorize multi-year project funding, depending on the time necessary to complete an integration plan and overcome the need for emergency assistance. Finally, we want to discuss the future of the impact aid program. First, NEA stands behind this program and will oppose any attempt to cut it down until an alternative means of supporting our schools and fulfilling Federal obligations in a more nearly equitable fashion has been developed and implemented. The impact aid program is supported by teachers because it is the nearest thing to general Federal aid to education. It is popular because it provides funds with few strings attached. Once the |