ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 TUESDAY, MARCH 14, 1967 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR, Washington, D.C. The committee met at 9:30 a.m., pursuant to recess, in room 2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Carl D. Perkins (chairman of the committee) presiding. Present: Representatives Perkins, Green, Pucinski, Daniels, Gibbons, Ford, Hathaway, Scheuer, Meeds, Ayres, Quie, Bell, Erlenborn, Scherle, Dellenback, Esch, Eshleman, Gardner, and Steiger. Staff members present: Robert E. McCord, senior specialist; H. D. Reed, Jr., general counsel; William D. Gaul, associate general counsel; Benjamin F. Reeves, editor; and Louise M. Dargans, research assist ant. Chairman PERKINS. The committee will come to order. Our first witness this morning is Carl L. Marburger, Assistant Commissioner for Education, Bureau of Indian Affairs. We are glad you are here this morning. The provision that we added last year concerning the Indians which you know expires this year, we would like you to review this and then proceed with your statement. STATEMENT OF DR. CARL MARBURGER, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER FOR EDUCATION, BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Mr. MARBURGER. The Department of Interior supports and endorses an extension of the Indian provision in the Elementary and Secondary Education Amendments of 1966, as proposed in H.R. 6230. The Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 did not include provisions for Indian students in Federal schools. Based on such factors as family income, isolation, English fluency, and cultural deprivation; American Indian children constitute one of the most severely disadvantaged segments of American society. In an attempt to remedy this omission, we cooperated with the Office of Education in drafting an Indian amendment which was included in the Elementary and Secondary Education Amendments of 1966. The Committee on Education and Labor is to be highly commended for its support of the Indian amendment, for without this support, ESEA programs for Indian children in Federal schools could not have been implemented. 1021 It is also to the credit of our school staffs that so much progress has been made under the 1966 Indian amendment in enriching our educational program. The 62 title I projects approved to date include the following components: 38 percent of the projects relate to reading programs; 48 percent of the projects relate to guidance, counseling, attendance, social work: 19 percent of the projects relate to parental service, home-school counseling; 56 percent of the projects relate to English as a second language, English language arts; 6 percent of the projects relate to speech therapy; 40 percent of the projects relate to physical education and recreational activities; 51 percent of the projects relate to cultural enrichment; for example, art, music, field trips; 45 percent of the projects relate to reduction of class size and development of remedial learning centers; 32 percent of the projects relate to inservice and preservice training; 32 percent of the projects relate to teacher aids. At present, there are a total 42,650 Indian children being served by title I projects totaling $4,746,548. Chairman PERKINS. Before we get away from title I, where you have 42,650 Indian children being served, with a total of $4,746,548, what is the per capita expenditure? How much does that average? Mr. MARBURGER. About $100 a child. It will range between roughly $35 and $100. Chairman PERKINS. I thought it would range more than that. Mr. MARBURGER. Because of the funding time and a half-year program beginning about January 4 when the money was transferred to the Department of Interior, with only a 6-month program, we actually received much less than the normal school system would. Chairman PERKINS. If you had been on an all-year-round basis with the added formula we put in the bill last year what would the allocation be? Mr. MARBURGER. It would have been closer to $8 million to $10 million. Chairman PERKINS. A little over $200 per child? Mr. MARBURGER. That is right. Chairman PERKINS. That is what puzzled me. Go ahead. Mr. MARBURGER. $127,000 was made available under title II of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act for students attending Federal schools. A formula based on enrollment and need has been devised and approved for expending these funds. The average per pupil allotment will be $2.62. Under title III of ESEA, the Bureau of Indian Affairs was advised of an allocation of $204,000. Twenty-two title III projects have been submitted, totaling $782,979. The educational programs offered under the authorization of the 1966 amendments has expanded our ability to provide both quality and quantity of enrichment, whereas our regular appropriation has been limited to a traditional operating base for our schools. Problems have arisen, however, in the implementation of Indian projects. Because of the necessity to work out administrative details, the transfer of funds from the Office of Education to the Department of Interior was delayed until January 4, 1967. Thus, the Bureau of Indian Affairs became an active participant at an inconveniently late date. Projects had to be developed in a short time which did not always meet the most urgent requirements of quality education. Also, the 1966 amendments limited the Indian program to 1 year, ending June 30, 1967. The time available for the implementation of projects, January 4 to June 30, 1967, does not permit the development of programs that will make a real difference in the achievement of Indian children. These factors of time, the late start coupled with the cutoff date of June 30, 1967, have been severe handicaps. Extension of the Indian amendment to June 30, 1968, as proposed in H.R. 6230 will permit: 1. The planning phase for projects proposed for the 1967-68 school year to begin immediately. This would allow (a) intensive consultation and planning between the Indian community and the school to establish priorities. (b) consultant help from the Central Office Staff, Bureau of Indian Affairs; and Office of Education to help organize plans for projects. (c) recruitment now for personnel that will be needed for projects planned for 1967-68. Specifically, quality programs depend on quality personnel. These people are available in the early spring and summer for contractual agreements for the next school year. They are rarely available in September or January. 2. Successful projects now in operation could continue where appropriate. 3. Advantage could be taken of a "continuing resolution" type of legislation to allow continuity in program development. 4. Personnel hired for the 1967 project period would not have to be dismissed June 30, but could continue in service for the following year. They would be available in the summer months to assist in planning projects. This would be of particular importance where highly trained professionals with special skills have been hired. While a start has been made, and we are pleased with our program as it has developed, we are aware of the limiting factors of traditional funding patterns. Extension of the Indian amendment to June 30, 1968, will provide additional funds enabling further progress in our program of enriching and upgrading Indian education. Chairman PERKINS. I appreciate your statement but I think somewhere along the line if we are going to give the various school agencies and the local districts the opportunity to plan in the future we might as well throw out the limit on these 1-year extensions. Do you not think it would be much better and provide a much better planning base from your standpoint if we extended the program, say, to June 30, 1969, because next year you are going to be under the same gun that you are under right now? Why not let us have a better opportunity to come in here and work on legislation when we are not under pressure and likewise you can. do much better planning. Do you agree with that statement that we ought to extend this program for Indians at least 2 years? Mr. MARBURGER. I not only agree, but I am happy to amend my statement to that effect. Long range planning does take a commitment of more than just 1 single year. Chairman PERKINS. We are just going to travel over the same ground if we continue to give these 1-year extensions and this is going to be a most discouraging thing to have on these good programs in the future. I certainly intend to offer that amendment before the committee and hope we can get it enacted. We appreciate your statement. You mentioned you did not get your funds until January 7, 1967, or sometime in early January. You do not feel that situation will recur next year, do you? Since you have had an opportunity to consult and advise with the Office of Education, do you feel you have gotten over that hurdle and that you will get your funding? Mr. MARBURGER. It was simply how the funds would be transferred and writing up the guidelines. Chairman PERKINS. How would the June 30 cutoff period affect you! Mr. MARBURGER. It affects us very seriously because we cannot encumber funds beyond the June 30, 1967, deadline, so we cannot involve ourselves even in summer programs for Indian children in schools. Therefore, the hiring of personnel became a critical problem for us because we could only hire people from the point of the beginning of the project until June 30, 1967. Chairman PERKINS. Mr. Ayres or Mr. Gibbons, any questions? Mr. MARBURGER. Mr. Chairman, may I just speak for a second to title III since it is part of the amendment as well. We had even more critical problems under title III because of the cutoff date. Our projects were submitted to the Office of Education by January 15. Approval has not yet come for any and the expectation is the projects will be approved sometime around the 15th of April and they must terminate as of June 30. So it gives us a very short time to do an exemplary model program. Chairman PERKINS. You may go ahead. Mr. MARBURGER. I was simply indicating we had had unique problems here in trying to run a program from approximately April 30 to June 30 and with no opportunity to obligate funds beyond that date. Chairman PERKINS. Do you have any questions, Mr. Gibbons? Mr. GIBBONS. No, sir. Chairman PERKINS. Mr. Scherle? Mr. SCHERLE. No questions. Chairman PERKINS. Thank you very much. Mr. MARBURGER. Thank you for the opportunity. Chairman PERKINS. I notice it is 9:45. Under the rules of the committee, today is reserved for an executive session of the full committee to begin at 9:45 a.m. At this point, since there are fewer than 17 members present we don't have a quorum for the executive session and therefore I will adjourn the regular meeting for the lack of a quorum and we will continue with these hearings just as we are continuing at the present time. We next have several witnesses representing the American Association of School Administrators, Dr. Everett Keith, executive secretary, Missouri State Teachers Association; Dr. Warren Phillips, superintendent of schools, Valparaiso, Ind.; Dr. Harold Spears, superintendent of schools, San Francisco, Calif.; Dr. Forest Conner, executive secretary of the American Association of School Administrators, Washington, D.C. You may proceed, Dr. Phillips. STATEMENTS OF EVERETT KEITH, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, MISSOURI STATE TEACHERS ASSOCIATION; WARREN PHILLIPS, SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS; HAROLD SPEARS, SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS; FOREST CONNER, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF SCHOOL ADMINISTRATORS Mr. PHILLIPS. I am Warren Phillips, superintendent of schools, Valparaiso, Ind. On my immediate right is Mr. Eldon Stimbert, formerly chairman of this committee, superintendent of schools, Memphis, Tenn. Next to Mr. Stimbert is Superintendent Harold Spears of San Francisco who has the unique experience this year of being president of the American Association of School Administrators and as such has visited and conferred with and spoken to school people and community groups all over this country. He has had a most unusual experience this year. On my far right is Mr. Everett Keith executive secretary of the Missouri Teachers Association. On my far right is Forest Conner, executive secretary, American Association of School Administrators. We appreciate this opportunty to appear here today. For more than a century, the Association of School Administrators presently with a membership of over 17,000 school administrators from the 50 States has been firmly committed to the preservation and strengthening of free public education. As you all understand, these men making up this association are devoting their entire lives and their energies to the daily and the lifetime task of providing better educational opportunities for all American youth. We welcome the opportunity of joining hands with the Congress and agencies of the Federal Government in strengthening the educational programs throughout this country. Since the membership of this association are in daily contact with all of the children, the entire school staff, all community groups, in other words, the forces of the entire community, we believe that we can be of help in bringing the resources made available by the Federal Government to a realization of the intent of Congress. We can pledge you full cooperation. We believe that through this background of experience, and training our associates represent the skill, competence, and training necessary for identifying the educational needs and translating programs into action in the classroom where education really takes place. |