Dr. AMBACH. I would appreciate seeing reference to that study so when we provide you with our information it would be in the context of that study. Mr. QUIE. Would you also furnish for us, as I have seen in Maryland, Florida and Pennsylvania, how you are selecting the schools in the Title I target areas. It looks to me, under the regulations, only those which have a higher incidence than the district average should be Title I evidence. There are schools which have a lower percentage than the average in the district and I would like to see what New York has. Dr. AMBACH. I will be pleased to provide that. Mr. KILDEE. I think it is apparent that the Chair believes the minority should be heard. We have an awkward situation. We have four other witnesses and the full committee will be meeting at 10 o'clock. If you would like to summarize in any order, you may please. STATEMENT OF EDWARD KELLER, DEPUTY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PRINCIPALS Mr. KELLER. I am Mr. Keller, Deputy Executive Director, National Association of Elementary School Principals, an organization of approximately 25,000 school principals. Our offices are at 18 North Moore Street, Arlington, Virginia. I will be extremely brief in my comments. I would refer you to our written testimony. We only submit at this time reference to Title I and to the consolidation simplification proposals, because we, too, are most interested in having an opportunity to review the study data from the NIE compensatory study data and we prefer to have an opportunity to submit written testimony after we have a chance to review that data. We do feel, however, there should be some opportunity, somewhere in this country, on an optional basis authorized by Congress, for a school district or a State, to have an opportunity to commingle funds, activities, evaluations and reporting requirements in a specific reporting program such as the improvement of reading achievement. We feel, somewhere let us find out if we can do this without violating all kinds of territorial guidelines which exist. In consolidation, our association is strongly in favor of concepts expressed in Senate 170, we are strongly in favor of optionality factor incorporated in that legislation. There would be a number of benefits for cost effectiveness of a variety of organizations. We also feel through this support or optionality that our association takes, there may be also some value in utilizing some of the concepts in Representative Quie's proposal, H.R. 7571, on an optional basis, before any nationwide mandate would be improved. The NIE compensatory education study deals in part with the issue of distribution of funds based on educational achievement, we do think it would be valuable for the committee, for us and everyone in education and I guess outside of it, to take a look at these studies before we come up with any definitive recommendations which might cause us to put our foot in our mouth in view of existing data. 97-528 O 77 nt 12 - 21 [The prepared statement of Edward Keller follows]. NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 1801 NORTH MOORE STREET, ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA 22209 703/528-6000 STATEMENT OF NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PRINCIPALS CONCERNING H.R. 15 TO EXTEND FOR FIVE YEARS CERTAIN ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION PROGRAMS SUBMITTED TO SUBCOMMITTEE ON ELEMENTARY, SECONDARY, AND VOCATIONAL EDUCATION OF THE HOUSE EDUCATION AND LABOR COMMITTEE September 22, 1977 Presented by Dr. Edward Keller, Deputy Executive Director Thank you Mr. Chairman. My name is Edward Keller. I am the Deputy Executive Director of the National Association of Elementary School Principals, an organization composed of over 25,000 elementary and middle school principals interested in better serving the elementary school principal, the elementary school principalship, and most importantly, the elementary school child. Our offices are located at 1801 North Moore Street, Arlington, Virginia. We appreciate this opportunity to share with you our comments and suggestions relative to reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. We will limit our comments at this time to two issues: Title I and Consoli dation. Title I While there are a number of significant issues in reauthorization of Title I, we are reluctant to offer recommendations for major alteration in the current program at this time. It is our understanding that the Compensatory Education Study directed by Congress and conducted by the National Institute of Education will be submitted to Congress shortly. The data available in that study could serve as a solid base for the development of alternatives in Title I. Not having yet seen the data and feeling that recommendations supported by soon-to-be-available data would better serve the interests of this Committee, we respectfully request the opportunity to submit additional written testimony after we have reviewed these data. We do feel, though, that restrictions should be changed in order to permit Title I services to follow the child. -2 We would also support increased research into what programs in Title I have proved successful and why, as well as the logical follow-through activity of dissemination and diffusion of successful Title I programs. Another area which we would encourage this Committee to consider seriously is an opportunity, perhaps on some optional, well-evaluated basis, for local and state agencies to commingle funds, activities, evaluations, and reporting requirements in a specific functional program, such as the improvement of reading achievement. Obviously strong maintenance of effort language and prohibition against supplanting would have to be a part of such an option. All agencies involved could receive the same program evaluation report and all could claim responsibility for program successes. Such an option would scem to provide for greater concentration of existing resources and thus have more significant impact on improving the lot of the educationally disadvantaged. Consolidation and Simplification Previous to this session, almost every consolidation proposal called for a block grant consolidation of funds and programs. These proposals also were mandatory, permitting little flexibility in phase-in time nor providing certain safeguards as to maintenance of effort by potential recipients. A major exception to these proposals is the Optional Educational Similification Act, S 1780, cosponsored by a bipartisan group of senators. Developed by Senators Domenici and Bellmon, this bill would permit states to select the current categorical procedure or to utilize a functionally consolidated approach explicated in the bill. Rather than repeat here much of the very supportable rational for the bill, we have attached a summary of the bill and a letter sent --3 to Senator Domenici from NAESP Past President Bertha Maguire. Federal legislation seems to have a history of being enacted to assure compliance by the least potentially successful actor. When considering legislation requiring state action, many times, it appears, Congress enacts bills which attempt to ensure that the least effective state will perform satisfactorily, thereby creating unnecessary strictures for states with competent departments of education. Options are reduced in favor of sim ilarity. Thus, with every recipient required to perform in exactly the same way, no opportunity is available for the variation that might discover new and improved means of delivering educational services. We believe that S 1780 grants this opportunity. There are a number of states with differing capabilities, state-funded programs, and successful experiences in utilization of federal funds. Given the chance to mold these efforts into a single thrust in a given program area, such as improved reading performance, states could increase significantly, we believe, their impact on program effectiveness. The coordination possible in such a proposai could also have the added benefit of reducing paperwork, requirements, in applications, records, and evaluations, savings which could be passed on through the improvement of direct services to children and youth. The Congress, too, would benefit from such an optional simplification proposal. With some states opting for simplification and others maintaining categorical operations, cost-effectiveness evaluations could take place |