count the average daily attendance of such children for a Federal payment, all other eligibility requirements being met by the district.

Present legislation does not permit the local school district to count, as eligible, the children of uniformed personnel after the parent or guardian has been assigned to another installation, without the installation is within commuting distance of the district or the family lives in Government-owned housing. This creates distinct injustice in many districts, especially where we have military installations from which personnel are reassigned from time to time to other installations, in many instances overseas, and leave their families behind until they return.

(An example of this is noted at Fort Smith, Ark., wherein some 380 children are currently enrolled in the Fort Smith schools who came into the district with their parents when the parent was assigned to Fort Chaffee, and who remained in the district with the mother since the father has been assigned overseas.) This proposal would make the children of uniformed personnel eligible for assistance so long as the parent remains in the uniformed service, all other eligibility requirements being met.

4. That the law be so amended as to eliminate any deduction from an applicant's entitlement, as a result of any payment in lieu of taxes on Federal property, without the applicant claims as eligible children, the children of parents employed on the specific property concerned.

Present law requires the commissioner to deduct from the amount of payment due a school district, any payment in lieu of taxes on Federal property, regardless of whether the district claims the children as eligible, in connection with the property concerned. This proposed amendment would not allow such deductions without the applicant district claimed as eligible, children whose parent or guardian worked or lived on such property-this feature already applies to National Forest, Taylor Land Grazing, and Flood Control Payments, and it is herein proposed it be made applicable in like manner to all Federal properties.

5. That a district be allowed to count as eligible, under section 4 A all directly federally connected children the first and second years these children are in the district if they represent an increase in average daily attendance over the average daily attendance of all children the previous year, and the district can establish the needed requirements as set out in section 4 A.

Currently, a district must experience a 5-percent growth in the average daily attendance of directly, federally connected children, and a 5-percent growth in the total average daily attendance of all school children over the average daily attendance of these children for the previous year, before the district can qualify for any assistance on a directly, federally connected child the first year he is in the district.

The purpose here is to allow the district payment on new directly, Federally connected children without regard to any percentage increase, just so long as these children represent an actual increase in the total average daily attendance of all children in the district for the previous year, providing actual financial need for assistance is established by the district.

As an example of how the present law operates to the disadvantage of a district, experiencing an impact of new directly, Federally connected children, the situation in Pulaski County for the school year 1954-55 is cited.

(This district experienced an actual increase in the average daily attendance of directly, Federally connected children during the school year 1954-55 of 481. The district was unable to qualify for any assistance on these children due to the 5-percent increase requirements, even though the district had to employ 21 additional teachers and experienced all the other additional maintenance and operating costs incidental to these additional children. These children came into the district when the parents moved into the district, either to work or as uniformed personnel who were assigned to the Little Rock Air Force Base.)

The present requirements serve as a deterrent in many instances, to the formation of larger and more desirable administrative units.

6. That a floor or base be placed under section 3 payments to eligible districts which would guarantee that in no event shall the local contribution rate be less than the average of the local contribution rates of all eligible districts receiving section 3 payments in the continental United States as determined for the second fiscal year preceding the fiscal year in which the district qualifies. The major inequity existing in the present legislation appears to be in the formula used for determining the amount of payment a local district is entitled to receive for each section 3A and 3B child.

It is a matter of common knowledge and record that the States and school districts with the least ability to adequately finance programs of instruction are States where we have what is known as high State-aid programs.

The Congress recognized this condition when Public Law 874 was amended so that, at present, payments for section 3 children to school districts are based on the amount of funds spent by comparable school districts from local sources with a proviso that no district will receive less than one-half the per capita State cost for maintenance and operating purposes for each 3A child and onefourth of this amount for each 3B child.

A casual study of the annual reports, published by the Commissioner of Education, on the administration of Public Laws 815 and 874 wil show that districts in those States with a high State-aid program and a low local-support program have been penalized to the extent that the Government actually payed an average of $239.98 per child whose parents lived on and worked on Government property in New Hampshire; $237.50 in Illinois; and $234.25 in Vermont; to as little as, $67.07 in Alabama; $72.00 in Tennessee; and $78.88 in Arkansas; for the same child in 1953-54. (See table No. 4, page 113.) Annual Report of the Commissioner of Education on Administration of Public Laws 874 and 815, dated June 30, 1954.

Surely it is reasonable to expect the Federal Government to pay as much of the costs of providing an instructional program per child in a low income State, as it does in a high income State. Actually we find from a study of the Annual Report of the Commissioner of Education for the 1953-54 school year that the average local contribution rate for New Hampshire was 98.3 percent of the average per capita costs in the eligible districts while in my own State of Arkansas it was only 55.4 percent of the average per capita costs in the eligible districts.

Your attention is directed to exhibit A attached, which shows these data for all States. You will note that these data point up the inequities existing at the present time.

It is recognized that averages sometimes do not reflect true situations and while it is possible that some particular districts may actually receive a greater or lesser percentage than is indicated in the table, the average when related to total school population in all affected districts in the State, and the average current operating expenditure per child in average daily attendance in these districts is valid. The application of these criteria indicates the injustices resulting from the present distribution formula.

These same data cannot be made available at the present time for the 1954-55 school year as the Commissioner's Fifth Annual Report, did not carry the total average daily attendance of all children in the federally affected districts. When a check is made, however, of average local contribution rates for the 1953-54 school year, as shown in the attachment, against the average local contribution rates for the 1954-55 school year, as shown in table 4, page 59, of the fifth annual report, it is clearly indicated that little, if any, change in these relationships took place during the 1954-55 school year.

Exhibit B attached, applies the minimum floor herein recommended of the national average contribution rate for the 1954-55 school year of $147.06 to the 20 States whose average local contribution rate was below the national average. You will note that based on average daily attendance of section 3 children for the school year 1954-55 and the national average for the same year of $147.06, as a base, that the increased cost to the Government would be approximately $8,026,821.

It is my position that this proposal of placing the national average contribution rate for the second preceding year as a floor, under section 3 payments would materially improve the local contribution formula and remove at least the major portion of the inequities existing in the present law.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to compliment the committee for its concerned interest at this time, in the proposed amendments to both Public Laws 815 and 874. It is a clear indication that the trust and confidence of local school administrators in the committee is more than justified.

Mr. Chairman, these superintendents, in whose districts some 500,000 directly, federally connected children are enrolled, look to this committee with confidence based on past experience that the problems involved in trying to provide an adequate educational program for these children will be given every consideration in your deliberations.

EXHIBIT A

Average daily attendance; total current expenditures; average current expenditures per child, in average daily attendance; average local contribution rate; percentum Federal payment per child is of average current expenditure per child

[1953-54 data taken from tables 1, 2, and 4, of the Fourth Annual Report of the Commissioner of Education, dated June 30, 1954)

1 Columns 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6 data taken from tables 1, 2, and 4 of the Fourth Annual Report of the Commissioner of Education, dated June 30, 1954.

2 Column 4-column 2÷column 3.

3 Column 7=column 5÷ column 4.

Column 8-column 6÷column 4.

EXHIBIT B

List of States whose average local contribution rate for 1954-55 was less than the national average local contribution rate as shown in the United States Office of Education Fifth Annual Report dated June 30, 1955

Mr. MOORE. First, I would like to compliment Mr. Perkins for his stand on Mr. Udall's proposal. I agree with the chairman's stand with reference to the attachment of that proposed amendment to this legislation. I would like to compliment Mr. Udall for his foresighted action in this case. I feel sure that he will find some support, if the amendment is offered as separate legislation, from a lot of school people south of the Mason-Dixon Line.

Mr. UDALL. May I ask you a question at this time, the same question I directed to your associate there. Assuming that Arkansas eventually, as I believe it will, begins to move down that road, do you feel as a person conversant with the facilities needed, that if and when Arkansas does begin moving along that this legislation will be helpful? Mr. MOORE. Mr. Udall, may I say this in that connection, that in a number of our districts which operate dual programs, they are already bonded, gentlemen, to the maximum of 15 percent of the assessed valuation. Now, where it becomes necessary in the reorganization program to build additional facilities they have no means of their own that they can reach out and get to provide the facilities that they have to have.

Mr. UDALL. They are just up against it.

Mr. MOORE. That is right.

Mr. UDALL. And a program of this type would fill in the void there. Mr. MOORE. That is right.

Mr. UDALL. It would help them both to comply with the law and also to get the necessary schools built.

Mr. MOORE. That is right.

Mr. UDALL. That is all I have.

Mr. WIER. You may proceed, Mr. Moore.

Mr. MOORE. The first thing I would like to mention, Mr. Chairman, in connection with both of these laws-it applies to both of them— that as a State department of education person who has attempted over the past 5 years to assist local districts in our State in their efforts to secure the aid to which they are entitled under the two laws, that I seriously recommend for your consideration and the consideration of your committee that the laws be made continuous. We have had to come back to your committee, I have had the privilege of testifying before this House committee a number of times on the extension of these two bills, and so far as I can see I think without question the responsibilities of the Government in the areas concerned are going to continue for a good long period of time.

After approximately 6 years of experience, undoubtedly we should know what is needed to make the laws applicable to existing situations. We should be able to write legislation which will meet those situations in the foreseeable future. I believe, with the proposals that have been made, that that would be the case in both Public Laws 874 and 815.

With just a 2-year extension you have conditions develop which it is impossible to meet. First, I shall deal in that connection with Public Law 815.

Mr. Dunn and Mr. Blackburn represent two school districts in which the Jacksonville Air Base is the major Federal activity. In Mr. Dunn's district at the present time the Air Force have on-base housing, not only programed, but, according to the information I have received since arriving in Washington, they are in the process of letting contracts for that housing. Public Law 815 expires as of June 20, as you know. Mr. Dunn, as the superintendent in that district, and his board, cannot get any aid at the present time in the planning and providing of housing for those children who are going to be in that district next September. Some of them will be there next September. Now, the same thing will occur 2 years from now. Not only in one district, but any number throughout the country.

To me, that is one of the major problems, coming up to this 2-yearend and you cannot plan a normal program to take care of your impacts that you know are going to be there. We know they are going to be there, the Office of Education knows they are going to be there, the Air Force knows they are going to be there. The same condition prevails in no telling how many districts throughout the United States today.

Mr. WIER. At that point let me make this comment. When we first prepared these bills and had them enacted into law we were aware of the many diversified problems of all of the districts, no two of them operate under the same conditions and the Government moves around. So we felt it advisable to give these two bills a 2-year experimental time and if we were to operate today under these two bills for the amount of money that was appropriated under the first bill there would have been a terrific impact. Last year I think we added