tional Association an opportunity to make their general statement

now.

STATEMENTS OF JOHN M. LUMLEY, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF FEDERAL RELATIONS, NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION; MRS. MARY C. GEREAU AND STANLEY J. MCFARLAND, MEMBERS OF THE STAFF

Mr. LUMLEY. I have filed my statement. In the interest of time, Mr. Chairman, you may want to just file it.

Chairman PERKINS. Your prepared statement will be inserted in the record at this point.

I hear no objection.

You can proceed in any manner you choose, Dr. Lumley. (The statement referred to follows:)

TESTIMONY OF JOHN M. LUMLEY, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF FEDERAL RELATIONS, NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:

I am John M. Lumley, Director of the Division of Federal Relations of the National Education Association. Mrs. Mary C. Gereau and Stanley J. McFarland, members of our staff, are with me this morning.

I appreciate this opportunity to appear before your committee to discuss the Elementary and Secondary Education Amendments of 1967.

Passage of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 has been one of the most important educational events of this generation. After only two years, there have already been major impacts on the scope and quality of American education. We believe that federal money alone will not solve the problems facing our schools but we also believe, that, under existing school financing arrangements, they cannot be solved without federal money. The ESEA, by providing comparatively substantial funds as an incentive to state and local education agencies for specific purposes and under specific conditions as determined by the Congress, has already achieved three important contributions to the ideal of meaningful education for all American children:

1. By focusing attention on the economically disadvantaged, the Congress has recognized the importance of education in overcoming the problem of the poverty cycle if each individual is to have an opportunity to achieve economic and social well-being. This recognition has activated public interest in an appreciation of the vital role of education. Although improved educational opportunities alone cannot solve all the problems faced by those who live in poverty, it is encouraging to note a national recognition of the fact that without improved educational programs none of the problems will be solved.

Unfortunately, the handicap of limited state and local financial resources has resulted in many school districts being unable to meet the special needs of the economically disadvantaged.

Title I of ESEA has given the school authorities who recognized these needs an opportunity to develop programs which they knew were needed. Title I has also served to awaken those who may have been unaware of these problems. And, finally, Title I has served as a federal incentive-to the school systems who ignored the needs of this special group. The degree of success of Title I programs is probably measurable in direct proportion to the attitude of the local school officials. Thus, since the programs have been overwhelmingly successful to date, we can conclude that local school boards are interested in providing good educational programs when possible.

2. The Elementary and Secondary Education Act has encouraged innovationby providing the funds to state and local school systems to discover and utilize the creativity which has been financially undernourished in local districts. Under Title III, for example, we see the fundamental innovative philosophy of ESEA.

Increased cooperation between the teacher education and research programs of higher education institutions and the local and state school systems is proving

to be mutually beneficial. More involvement of state education agencies is essential in this picture, however, if the results of the school-college cooperation is to be disseminated widely beyond the local area in which the innovation takes place.

3. The provision in ESEA for the inclusion of all school children, including those not currently enrolled in any school, has been of great value-to both the educators and the children involved. A positive value of this congressional policy has been to bring the public and nonpublic school educators together to plan and execute programs to improve education for all children.

The ESEA has assisted educators in meeting their responsibility to all schoolage children including those not currently enrolled. Programs designed to meet the challenge of these children are becoming more widespread.

Our recommendations for strengthening H.R. 6230 follow:

I. Full funding of the authorization provided in Title I of ESEA is essential. We are concerned, as surely this Committee must be, that the budget request for FY 1968 will not meet the Committee's intent that no state receive less than it received this school year, even though the income factor in the formula was changed for $2,000 to $3,000. The school districts have been planning on funding at not less than their allocation for this year. This will not be possible within the present budget request. We realize, of course, that the appropriation function is under the control of another Committee. We strongly recommend that you urge the Appropriations Committee to meet the stated intent that no district will receive less funds next year than it received this year. According to estimates given to this Committee last year, full operation of the amended Title I program would cost in excess of $2.3 billion.

A major concern of state and local school systems is the problem of the timing of the appropriations. The story is one with which you are all very familiar. Present appropriation time and the fiscal school year are not compatible. This problem of appropriations being made too late is the most frequently voiced concern of school officials all over the country:

We recommend a five-year authorization to provide for long-range planning and most efficient use of funds.

II. The intent of Congress has always been to strengthen the state departments of education.

a. However, the establishment of Regional Education offices can, in our opinion, place an unnecessary additional level of bureacracy between the state education departments and the Office of Education. It could be an avenue for direct involvement of local and federal officials without any relationship to the state education agency. USOE dealing directly with 50 state education agencies, without an elaborate regional organization strengthens both the federal and the state agencies.

b. We recommend that at least 75% of Title III funds should be transferred to the state education agency for distribution to such local district projects as the state education agency approves. For the present, the remaining 25 per cent should be reserved to the Commissioner for special demonstration projects designed to meet national objectives. These projects should be reviewed and a recommendation made by the state education agency or agencies within whose jurisdiction the pilot and demonstration projects will operate.

c. We recommend that Title V B as proposed be amended to provide that the state education agency be responsible for establishing the Comprehensive Educational Planning Agencies. All funds should be channeled through the state education agency in accordance with a state plan approved by the Commissioner. d. We are aware that some state education departments are small and their financial resources are inadequate. We support the allocation formula change as provided in HR 6230 as a practical way to strengthen these state education agencies.

III. At several points in HR 6230 it is proposed to authorize direct contracts between the USOE and profit-making private agencies. We continue to believe that this is a questionable policy. (See attached letter dated May 3, 1966.) We recognize the tremendous contribution industry is making to improve technology. We believe that industry has a vital role to play in education. We oppose only the direct contractual relationship between industry and the Office of Education. This education-industry relationship should be limited to the state or institutional level.

Specifically in HR 6230, Title II Amendments to the Vocational Education Act, it is proposed that $30 million be allocated to the states for experimental

and pilot innovative programs in vocational education. This is commendableexcept that the amendment would allow the U.S. Commissioner to award grants or to make contracts with the state education agency or local public or nonprofit education agencies—or with private profit-making agencies from the state's allocation. He could completely by-pass the state agency.

We oppose placing this responsibility on the U.S. Commissioner of Education. The acceptable alternative would be to make the allocations to the state agencies for vocational education, under a state plan, with authority to contract with public or private agencies for services not possible within the normal Vocational education program of the state. We find no justification for contracts between industry and the Office of Education.

IV. The proposal to extend the benefits of Title I for another year and the benefits of Titles II and III to both the Indian Schools and the DOD Schools presents us with a dilemma. These are federal schools and should be supported to the fullest extent by the respective Departments. Including them in the legislation providing funds for schools operated in local school districts reduces the funds available for local use. However, any legislation that benefits large numbers of American children cannot be opposed until the basic problem has been resolved.

We would repeat our suggestion of last year that the Congress appoint a committee to study the needs of the children enrolled in the B.I.A. schools-a study similar to the excellent one of the D.O.D. schools made by a sub-committee of this committee.

V. We have supported, and continue to support, the National Teacher Corps as an innovative experimental programs to provide teachers for urban and rural schools with large concentration of children from low-income families. We believe that the transfer of this program from the Higher Education Act to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act is a wise and constructive action. NEA's support of the program is based on the principle of assisting school districts with large numbers of disadvantaged children to secure highly qualified teachers. We believe that the amendments proposed in HR 6230 are sound. 1. The amendment concerning intern reimbursement is valid.

2. State agency approval is vital.

3. Clarifying the local control provision as provided in Sec. 115 is essential. 4. Authorizing the Teacher Corps to accept gifts is proper.

5. The inclusion of programs for migrant children are valid improvementsprovided the appropriate state education agencies' approvals are secured.

6. We question the advisability of including the federally operated Indian schools in the Teacher Corps program. Improvement of the B.I.A. schools is a federal responsibility that should be met by direct appropriation. (See attached survey.)

VI. The amendments relating to education of the handicapped prompt a mixed reaction. The NEA is very much in favor of expanding federal incentives to the states for education of exceptional children.

However, these children should be served, with special supplementary services where necessary, within the aegis of the local public school systems in the states. There should be greatly increased appropriations to the states for assistance to local schools to supplement state and local funds for education services for exceptional children. These funds should be in addition to Title I ESEA funds and not transferred from the Title I appropriation. There should be additional Title VI funds provided-in substantial amounts for the education of the handicapped.

In specific reference to the provisions in HR 6230 relating to the handicapped, we believe the proposal for Regional Resource Centers needs very careful consideration. If the purposes of Sec. 608 are carried out exclusively with institutions of higher education and state education departments, or combinations of such, and not arranged with profit-making agencies we believe they can be useful. Expansion of the Captioned Films for the Deaf Program into an Instructional Media Program to include all handicapped children is a sound proposal.

VII. With respect to the disaster relief amendments, we urge that they be extended as proposed in HR 6230. However, we believe there is need to consider some type of assistance for situations in which a local school or college facility is destroyed by a catastrophe which does not meet the definition of disaster.

VIII. The need for substantial financial assistance to the states for school construction is still increasing. This is caused by constantly expanding enroll

ments, and the fact that the purposes of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act cannot be achieved unless space and facilities keep pace with the program. Good teachers will continue to migrate to modern facilities in the suburbs as long as the slum school buildings, are overcrowded, unsafe, dimly-lit, evil-smelling, obsolete structures without space or equipment for creative teaching.

We urge Congress to provide funds for school construction without further delay. We cannot subscribe to the premise that such a proposal is in conflict with the nation's defense needs. The cost of military defense, highway construetion, exploration of outer space and stimulation of industrial development should not be borne by children of this nation.

In conclusion may I say that the objective of NEA is to assist the Congress in improving the educational opportunities for all of our nation's children. But to achieve this objective, we believe that local and state control of education must be strengthened.

Thank you.

NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION,

Washington, D.C., May 3, 1966.

Hon. CARL PERKINS,

Chairman, General Subcommittee on Education,
Rayburn House Office Building,

Washington, D.C.

DEAR CONGRESSMAN PERKINS: We are concerned that the proposed amendments to Title II of P.L. 89-10, Sec. 203, although related to library resources would create serious administrative problems if made applicable to textbooks and instructional materials. Inclusion of these amendments tends to over-emphasize the library purpose of the Title. We continue to believe the textbook and instructional materials provision of this Title is of equal, if not more, value to children.

We support the increased funds for state and local administration of Title II. We see no reason, however, to amend the Act, other than for increased administration funds, because of problems not inherent in the Act itself, but rather created by faulty guidelines.

In his testimony before your subcommittee, speaking officially for the National Education Association Dr. Adron Doran voiced our opposition to the proposed amendment to the Cooperative Research Act which would include profit-making agencies under the benefits of the Act.

This proposal provides that profit-making agencies may contract with the U.S. Office of Education for the training of educational research personnel. As our official testimony states, we see no necessity to further break the pattern. of confining federal grants and contracts between the Office of Education and the non-profit public and private institutions, organizations, and agencies. There is no evidence, as we see the situation, that the non-profit public and private institutions are not equal to the task of educating people in the field of research, if given the opportunity and necessary financing.

We supported the original cooperative research act, and subsequent amendments, primarily because it provided opportunity to strengthen the programs of higher educational institutions. We fear that including profit-making agencies in the Act for the purpose of training personnel will weaken the non-profit institutions in several ways.

First, the training of educational research personnel should properly be carried on in the same institution which trains other educational personnel, such as teachers, administrators, and other educational supporting services personnel. The interaction of the disciplines which comprise the educational effort should be strengthened, rather than dissipated through assigning the research training function to a completely separate agency.

The Cooperative Research Act was enacted for the purpose of strengthening the educational research function of higher education institutions. It was contemplated that educational research be done in the field, not be the USOE itself. If this premise still stands, as we insist it must, then it is not necessary for the USOE to train research personnel.

If the purpose of the amendment is merely to make it possible for USOE to contract for training of key punch operators, and other sub-professional computer specialists, then such provision should be made in the administrative budget of the USOE, not by an amendment to the cooperative research act.

Second, if the intent of the amendment is to bring the computer type of research training and resources into the educational picture, this can better be accomplished by contracts between the USOE and the non-profit institutions. These institutions can in turn, as the occasion warrants, purchase services from the commercial research firms. Such a system will keep non-profit educational institutions in control of the programs. Profit-making agencies, with the wellfinanced public relations and promotional services available to them, can, and we have reason to fear, will "merchandise" their programs, sound or not, in a way potentially dangerous to a balanced educational system.

Third, since these firms are in business to make a profit, we feel that the training program they may offer, must necessarily be more expensive to the taxpayer than that offered by the public and private non-profit institutions.

Fourth, we question the propriety of the U.S. Office of Education becoming directly involved in the training of research personnel. The USOE is an administrative agency, not an educational institution, nor should it be. It is reasonable to assume that many of the problems which have arisen with P.L. 89-10 are related to the lack of understanding on the part of some USOE personnel of the structure of the elementary and secondary school systems in the various states. Researchers can greatly influence the subject with which they are concerned. We do not believe that such influence should emanate from the Office of Education through personnel trained by non-education oriented, commercial profitmaking agencies.

Finally, the profit-making agencies can and do lure away the most competent faculty members from the non-profit institutions to the detriment of the whole educational process-by offering higher salaries. We have seen this happen in science and mathematics. We do not want it to happen to professional education.

The language in the present cooperative research act, provides for limiting the grants and contracts for training personnel to public and private non-profit institutions, agencies, organizations. For these reasons we urge the Committee to reject this amendment.

Sincerely yours,

JOHN M. LUMLEY, Director, Division of Federal Relations. Chairman PERKINS. If the members have had the time to read it they may just want to ask questions.

Give us your evaluation of the present elementary and secondary education.

Mr. LUMLEY. Mr. Pucinski asked the question earlier, if there was any evaluation. We have to give the evaluation which is subjective

Chairman PERKINS. Give us the results of your study.

Mr. LUMLEY. We say there the program has had a great impact on education, title 1, particularly.

Chairman PERKINS. Does your statement today spell that out?

Mr. LUMLEY. Yes. You see, this was necessary because of the fact that many districts with limited financial resources could enter into the things they knew they should do for the disadvantaged. This made it possible for them to move into programs that people had to meet with compensatory education. We had other groups that were stimulated to do things which possibly had not given enough thought to this. You will find in your statement we give you three categories.

Chairman PERKINS. From your organization studies have you been able to come up with any positive results that are obtained as a result of title 1?

Mr. LUMLEY. I would have to say to you, Mr. Chairman, at the moment that our research division is in the process of surveying districts and we will make this available to you as soon as it is complete. Chairman PERKINS. I would like to have that information when it is available.