BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION OF ALBERT L. ALFORD

Present position: Assistant Commissioner for Legislation, U.S. Office of Education.

Business address: 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Washington, D.C. 20202; Phone: Worth 2-5976 or Worth 2-3457 (area code 202).

Home address: 9222 Manchester Road, Silver Spring, Md. 20901; Phone: Juniper 8-4348 (area code 301).

EDUCATION

University of Akron: A.B., political science, September 1941-February 1943, September 1946-June 1948.

Princeton University: A.M., Ph. D., political science, September 1948-August

1952.

MILITARY SERVICE

U.S. Army Air Force, 1943-46, communications officer.

PROPESSIONAL EXPERIENCE

Research assistant, bureau of governmental research, University of Maryland, 1952-53.

Instructor, department of government and politics, University of Maryland, 1957-60.

Assistant professor, department of government and politics, University of Maryland, 1957-60.

Consultant, special tax study commission, Baltimore City, 1956–57.

Consultant, committee on taxation and fiscal matters, Maryland Legislative Council, 1957.

Consultant, commission for new revenue, Baltimore City, 1958.

Consultant, financial advisory committee, Montgomery County (Md.) Council, 1959-60.

Specialist, public finance and school support, Office of Education, 1960–65. Deputy Assistant Commissioner for Legislation, Office of Education, 1965-66. Assistant Commissioner for Legislation, Office of Education, 1966 to present. Occasional lecturer, University of Maryland, 1960 to present.

PUBLICATIONS

Reports (6) in connection with consulting work listed above.

Articles in School Life, the County Officer, Industrial Arts, and Phi Delta Kappan. Reporters summaries of panels, Digest of American Society for Public Administration national conferences, 1957, 1958.

"Sources of Revenue Other Than the Property Tax," proceedings, National School Boards Association, 1961.

Nonproperty Taxation for Schools, Office of Education, 1963.

"School Libraries and School Support in the Large Cities," School Library Supervision in Large Cities, Office of Education, 1966.

"Where We Are in Federal Legislation Program," Frontiers in Industrial Arts Education, proceedings, American Industrial Arts Association, 1966.

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH OF F. H. HUNDEMER, JR.

Twenty-five years Government service: Veterans' Administration, National Science Foundation, and HEW Office of Education. Last 12 years involved in contracting: Diploma course in accounting (1948-53) equivalent to masters of commercial science.

Mr. FOUNTAIN. As I pointed out to you before we opened the hearing, we have a number of general background questions, some of which you probably have answered in your prepared statement which we would like to go into the record so that the total picture of your operation can become a part of the record. We are going to forego asking those particular questions this morning and submit them to you so that you can prepare the answers for the record.

And also as I suggested before we convened, if you can either summarize your statement or pick some points of it relating primarily to the specific purpose of our inquiry-and put your statement in the record, it would help us because of the limitation of time.

(The statement referred to follows:)

PREPARED STATEMENT OF NOLAN ESTES, ASSOCIATE COMMISSIONER FOR ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, the functions and responsibilities assigned by law to the Office of Education 100 years ago have been significantly increased over the decades, particularly in the past few years. I should like to highlight some of the accomplishments of State and local educational agencies under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act this past year to point up the fact that we have come a long way in our efforts to provide high-quality educational opportunity for all children.

TITLE I-EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

The first year of operation of title I saw the beginning of major changes to meet the special needs of the children of poverty in the elementary and secondary schools throughout the Nation. Nearly $1 billion was spent to provide special services and programs for 8.3 million educationally deprived children-children in poor, rural counties in the South and in the ghettoes of our major cities. Reports submitted to the Office of Education by State educational agencies after the first year's operation of title I programs reveal both their scope and promise. Seventeen thousand, four hundred and eighty-one local educational agencies conducted 22,173 projects during the school year, ranging from comprehensive preschool programs to courses in mathematics and job skills for high school dropouts. Children in prekindergarten through the sixth grades accounted for almost 70 percent of the total number of participants; food service programs accounted for over 2 percent of local educational agencies' expenditures in fiscal years 1966 and 1967; medical services utilized another 2 percent of the title I funds; almost two-thirds of the projects were concerned with language arts and remedial reading; and instructional services accounted for over 50 percent of the funds expended in fiscal years 1966 and 1967.

Many of the school districts were extremely creative in their uses of title I funds. Perhaps the most encouraging aspect of the evaluation of the projects are the reported changes in attitudes both of teachers and students-attributed to title I expenditures. In its January 31 report to the President and the Congress the National Advisory Council on the Education of Disadvantaged Children stated: "The attitudes of teachers are crucial in improving the education of disadvantaged children." The council report cited summer schools aided by title I last summer as having "an atmosphere of experimentation," and "fresh feeling of success with children" as instrumental in changing traditional teacher attitudes, and the State evaluation reports reflect that such change has, in fact, occurred.

We have tried to meet the crucial need, in a program of this size, for communication with the teachers and administrators at the State and local levels through constant contact with State administrators and through a series of meetings with State and local educators concerned with compensatory education. The Federal-State-local dialog which has resulted has been most useful in helping us to serve the States better, and State and local representatives were unanimous in their desires for a continuation of the dialog. The communication links developed at meetings are being continued during this present fiscal year. Just last month a conference was held here in Washington with administrators and educators from the metropolitan area to discuss the educational problems particular to our large, urban centers.

TITLE II-TEXTBOOKS, LIBRARY BOOKS, AND OTHER INSTRUCTIONAL MATERIALS Title II of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act made available to the States a total of $100 million in fiscal year 1966 and $102 million in fiscal year 1967. Library resources have been given highest priority by most ap

proved State plans; in fact 45 States have authorized more than 50 percent of their allotments for this category. It is estimated that 49 million students and 1.9 million teachers in public and private elementary and secondary schools now have access to books and materials acquired under title II funds.

Up to 5 percent of each State's allotment, or a minimum of $50,000, is available for administrative expenses. In addition to meeting administrative costs, some State educational agencies are using these funds to conduct workshops, to provide consultative services, and to prepare publications for inservice teacher education. Nineteen States, six for the first time, have added school library supervisors to their staffs.

As in title I operations, the Office of Education is directing its efforts toward assuring continuity of title II programs, disseminating information, and providing a meaningful dialog between the Office and those States receiving Federal assistance. In November of 1966, for instance, a conference was held for State coordinators of title II programs and Office of Education staff. In addition, program personnel from the Office are conducting program reviews in each State, and are attending, as participants or consultants, numerous National and State education conferences.

TITLE III—SUPPLEMENTARY EDUCATIONAL CENTERS AND SERVICES

Since April 1965, when title III was enacted as part of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, 4,435 proposals for title III projects-Projects to advance creativity in education (PACE) have been submitted by 9,000 school districts. To date, 1,212 proposals costing $89 million have been funded and 1,300 proposals requesting $198 million are being evaluated for funding.

Title III programs are reaching over 10 million persons nearly 10 million public and nonpublic elementary and secondary school pupils, 93,000 preschool children, 250,000 out-of-school youth, 355,000 classroom teachers, and 131,000 parents and other adults.

Of the projects funded, approximately 59 percent are for planning activities and 41 percent for operational activities. They fall into the following categories: 39 percent for multiple-purpose programs; 36 percent for special programs, including remedial instruction and special education; 10 percent for administration and personnel programs, including inservice training of administrators and classroom teachers and planning and operating systems for data processing; and 15 percent for single subject matter programs, covering regular academic subjects such as science, mathematics, and language arts. School districts have been truly creative in planning PACE programs, as I shall point out later.

TITLE IV-RESEARCH

Several types of program support are carried on by the Office of Education under title IV of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act-the amended Cooperative Research Act of 1954. Under this authority the Office awards grants or contracts for any research or related activities which promise to benefit education. The largest number of research activities receive project supportclearly delineated, limited-time research on subjects as varied as the questions educators seek to answer. The other form of research activity is program support— specifically announced problem areas in education where there is felt to be a need for continuous, intensive attention.

Research development grants support the efforts of small or developing colleges to acquire sound research capacity. Research and development centers concentrate on a single problem area in education and conduct activities ranging from basic research through dissemination. Educational laboratories bring together the resources of universities and schools to develop, demonstrate, and disseminate new curriculum and new methods for improving education. Programs for training educational researchers support undergraduate, graduate, and postdoctoral training, training institutes, inservice programs, and special projects dealing with educational research.

To promote dissemination of educational research results, the Educational Research Information Center (ERIC) has been established. This is a comprehensive, national information system designed to serve American education by making available reliable, current educational research and research-related materials. The system is made up of a network of information clearinghouses located throughout the country and coordinated through central ERIC in the Office of Education. Clearinghouses have been established in the areas of:

counseling and guidance; disadvantaged; educational administration; exceptional children; teaching of foreign languages; junior colleges, linguistics and the uncommonly taught languages, reading; school personnel; science education; small schools and rural compensatory education; vocational and technical education and adult and continuing education.

TITLE V-STRENGTHENING STATE EDUCATIONAL AGENCIES

Congress, through title V, took steps to correct the imbalance caused by the rapid growth in responsibility of State educational agencies for federally assisted education programs without the concomitant growth in their manpower resources to carry out these responsibilities. The provision of grants under title V to strengthen State departments of education has given these agencies the means to fill personnel voids in their structures.

The response to this Federal assistance has been dramatic. Based on a firstyear appropriation of $17 million, the States applied for funds to cover some 1,800 new positions-1,000 of them professional. They are performing a variety of functions: study, planning, developing and evaluating education programs and research; extending instructional aid to local school authorities; carrying out general administration; performing statistical and data processing; and giving administrative aid to local educational agencies. These 1,000 new positions have begun to fill the personnel void so evident in many State educational agencies.

Office of Education activity in dissemination of information

When the Office of Education was first established in 1867, its primary function, prescribed by law, was to collect "such statistics and facts as shall show the condition and progress of education in the several States and Territories, and of diffusing such information respecting the organization and management of schools and school systems and methods of teaching as shall aid the people of the United States in the establishment and maintenance of efficient school systems, and otherwise promote the cause of education throughout the country" (20 U.S.C. 1).

The Office is further charged with the responsibility of preparing and publishing a bulletin on the condition of education in the United States and abroad (20 U.S.C. 3).

In 1954 Congress passed the Cooperative Research Act (Public Law 531, 83d Cong.) the stated purpose of which is to enable the Office of Education "more effectively to accomplish the purposes and to perform the duties for which it was originally established" (20 U.S.C. 331). The Cooperative Research Act authorizes appropriations for "research, surveys and demonstrations in the field of education" and for "the dissemination of information derived from educational research. * **" The dissemination aspect of this authorization specifically includes "information concerning educational practices developed under programs carried out under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965" (20 U.S.C. 332).

More recent legislation has authorized dissemination in special areas of concern. Section 731 of the National Defense Education Act of 1958 directed the Commissioner to "disseminate information concerning new educational media" (20 U.S.C. 551). The Civil Rights Act of 1964 authorizes "making available" to agencies operating public schools "information regarding effective methods of coping with special educational problems occasioned by desegregation" (42 U.S.C. 2000c-2). The Higher Education Act of 1965 authorizes publicizing and dissemination of information regarding student financial aid and library programs (20 U.S.C. 1034, 1068).

The multiplicity of Federal programs which affect the education of children in almost every school district in the Nation has created a demand for information regarding Federal assistance. Since some programs in highly specialized areas are relatively sophisticated and require a great deal of local initiative, information is vital to the success of the programs at the local level.

The Office of Education has been severely critized for not making a greater effort in getting this information to the local schools. Last year the House Committee on Education and Labor was concerned about this matter and critized the Office of Education for inadequate dissemination of information concerning programs under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. The committee said that "a concerted effort by the Office of Education is needed to provide broader dissemination of both research and program information."

(H. Rept. No. 1814, 89th Cong. second sess., p. 31). The committee proposed an amendment to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act encouraging, among other dissemination activities, expanded use of conference and traveling seminars as dissemination techniques. This amendment was accepted by Congress and is now section 706 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (20 U.S.C. 886).

The annual report on title III of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act listed as one of the primary weaknesses of the program's administration a lack of information at the State and local levels.

The use of the large conference for the purpose of improving communication and disseminating information is widespread in our modern and mobile society. Educational organizations of all sorts hold annual meetings to review the actions of the past year and chart the course for the future. Professional groups-be they associations of lawyers, doctors, dentists, or undertakers-do the same thing. They do so because they share a common purpose in a common enterprise and they have learned from experience the value of the direct communication and the sense of participation which results from such meetings. This is particularly important in a world where we often seem to find ourselves with insufficient time to focus in depth on policy problems-and seem at times to be literally inundated with paper. The use of the conference device allows us to concentrate our energies and attention on a single series of topics, and provides us with an opportunity for direct, relevant, and complete communication. In education, and most especially under title III where dissemination is at the very heart of our efforts, we see no reason why education should be denied this most effective communications tool.

It is generally felt that one of the most efficient methods of making information available is the use of conferences. Conferences permit Federal, State, and local officials to meet with educators, scholars, parents, and other individuals and exchange ideas and new techniques. Federal officials usually benefit from these conferences as much as, if not more than, other participants. We find out how our programs are operating at the local level. We find defects in our own activities and most often get the benefit of creative thinking at the grassroots level which, in my opinion, is often the best thinking available. On several occasions I have altered procedures and recommended changes in Federal programs based on information I received at conferences.

Office of Education-Kettering IDEA seminars

Now I would like to turn specifically to title III of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. This program is designed to encourage school districts to develop imaginative solutions to their educational problems through effective utilization of research findings and intelligent use of supplementary centers and services. The program seeks to translate the latest knowledge about teaching and learning into widespread educational practice, simultaneously creating an awareness of new high-quality programs and services that can be incorporated in school programs. Therefore, title III seeks to encourage innovation, to demonstrate worthwhile educational innovations through exemplary programs, and to supplement existing programs and facilities. The heart of the program is the provision of a creative force for the improvement of schools. Title III is unique in several respects. Since projects can be funded for no more than 3 years, their purpose is to demonstrate to a community and to other educational agencies the value and feasibility of new programs. Title III does not perform a long term service directly to children. Rather, it provides a short term demonstration of a new service an innovation-for the benefit of the Nation as well as the local pupils.

The national character of title III requires great stress on dissemination of new research, new practices, and new technologies. Perhaps more than any other program, it requires that educators not only explain their own programs but also pick up new ideas from other areas. This means visits to other demonstrations, attendance at local, State, and national conferences dealing with innovations, and an openminded contact with other cultural and educational agencies. In fact, the law specifically requires participation in planning and operation of title III projects by "outside" educational and cultural agencies. If this criterion is not met, the project cannot be funded.

Through title III educators have sought to utilize the resources of all agencies in the community. These resources have included not only financial support from foundations and other Federal, State, and local agencies, but also contributions