In this regard, we would be pleased to submit our separate comments to the committee on this problem. Nationwide, there has been broad public concern over the educational proficiency of students upon completion of high school. At the Federal level, two bills have been introduced in the Congress to establish a national system of testing, i.e., H.R. 6088 and H.R. 7116. NSBA opposes such national legislation on the ground that it is inappropriate for the Federal Government to determine the standards or process for high school graduation. Especially since more than one-half of the States have already taken action in this area, we believe that this well-intended legislation should not be given favorable consideration. Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the National School Boards Association, I wish to thank you for this opportunity to testify. Mr. QUIE. Thank you, Dr. Davis. We will now turn to our last witness, Jeanette Reibman, State Senator. STATEMENT OF HONORABLE JEANETTE REIBMAN Mrs. REIBMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Jeanette Reibman. I represent the 18th senatorial district, and I chair the Senate Education Committee in the Pennsylvania State Senate. I am currently serving as chairman of the Policy Committee of the Education Commission of the States, ECS, and appear today on behalf of ECS to testify on the need for legislation to extend and amend Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. With me are several members of the ECS staff who will be available to assist in answering any questions the subcommittee might have, and I appreciate having this opportunity to appear and hope that our testimony will be helpful. I wish also to express our appreciation to the members of this committee and to the Congress of the United States for focusing national attention for special needs for children and helping to provide for those needs. I have a rather lengthy prepared statement and supporting materials, which I believe have been distributed to the members of the committee. Rather than read that—— Mr. QUIE. Without objection, it will be made a part of the record. [The information follows:] REAUTHORIZATION OF TITLE I OF THE ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION ACT BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON ELEMENTARY, SECONDARY AND VOCATIONAL EDUCATION U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 1977 ON BEHALF OF THE EDUCATION COMMISSION OF THE STATES TESTIMONY BY STATE SENATOR JEANETTE REIBMAN OF PENNSYLVANIA ON REAUTHORIZATION OF TITLE I OF THE ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION ACT BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON ELEMENTARY, SECONDARY AND VOCATIONAL EDUCATION U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 1977 Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee: My name is Jeanette Reibman. I represent the 18th senatorial district and I chair the Senate Education Committee in the Pennsylvania state senate. My home is in Easton, Pennsylvania. I am currently serving as Chairman of the Policy Committee of the Education Commission of the States (ECS) and appear today on behalf of ECS to testify on the need for legislation to extend and amend Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. With me are several members of the ECS staff who will be available to assist in answering any questions the Subcommittee might have. I appreciate having this opportunity to appear and I hope our testimony will be helpful. As a preface to specific comments on Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act let me briefly review the ECS policy process as it bears on this matter. At the Commission's Annual Meeting in May of 1976 the bylaws were amended to establish a permanent policy committee. This was done in response to a desire among state officials to create an ongoing means of focusing attention on major areas of concern to the states, especially as a means of promoting a more cooperative and effective state/federal partnership in education. 2 Over the past year the ECS Policy Committee has identified a number of issues of concern in federal policy and worked to identify and define areas where change is required. One of these is the field of compensatory education perhaps the major area of federal involvement in education through Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. At the ECS Annual Meeting in June of this year the Commission adopted a policy statement on compensatory education and specifically on Title I. This statement was the product of a lengthy period of examination and analysis by the Policy Committee and my testimony today is based on that statement and its conclusions. I request that a copy of that statement be made a part of the hearing record. This policy statement was developed in cooperation with the four other major national state organizations: the National Governors' Association, the National Conference of State Legislatures, the Chief State School Officers and the National Association of State Boards of Education. While the details of the positions of these organizations vary, each emphasizes several common themes representing the position of the states on federal education policy. The National Governors' Association has requested that I indicate its full support of this testimony and I request that a copy of the policy position of NGA on Title I be made a part of the record of this hearing. The ECS policy statement was adopted without the benefit of the final results of the National Institute of Education study of capensatory education. We have taken into consideration the first two reports from - 3 the NIE study in this testimony and expect to refine our position on the reauthorization of Title I as additional reports become available. Because the focus of ECS is on state policy and the effect of federal programs on it, my testimony will focus on the need for modifications in Title I which will facilitate better use of federal and state money to meet the needs of disadvantaged students. There is no doubt that Title I has been a major factor in focusing national attention on the need for special services for the disadvantaged student. Its enactment in 1965 was a giant step forward for education in the country and it has supported the provision of badly needed services to many children who would not have been served otherwise. Title I has also drawn attention to the needs of disadvantaged students and has stimulated states and local education agencies to commit additional funding for compensatory education and to develop effective instructional methods and services to meet the needs of disadvantaged students. We strongly support the continuation of this program. My testimony today is addressed to the need for modifications which are necessary to improve the equity and administration of Title I in light of current circumstances. As a legislator dealing regularly with education issues in Pennsylvania I believe it is important for us to recognize the limits of our abilities as legislators to achieve educational results through statutory law and regulations. In the final analysis, state and federal education programs can put money in certain districts and schools for certain purposes but the accomplishment of learning will depend upon the capacity of the staff and the instructional environment created within the school or other instructional 4. forum. I make this point because it is essential both at the federal and state levels that we recognize the limits of our legislative power and seek to do the best possible job within those limits. I would submit that our collective responsibility in formulating public policy in education should be guided by four basic criteria: (1) Programs should apply services or benefits equitably, and if intended to meet the needs of specific students, the programs should be targeted to those students; (2) (3) (4) Federal education programs should not be viewed in isolation Federal and state programs should stress decentralization to Where possible, accountability should be for results, rather than for compliance with detailed procedural requirements and restrictions which do not have a clear and positive relationship to legislative goals should be eliminated. |