cerned, but all I am saying is that I hope it can receive the congressional, executive, and educational consideration that it deserves.

There are amendments dealing with evaluation and long range planning for education; the timing of Federal funding would be an excellent place to start both of these studies.

Now I would like to direct my comments to each of the specific titles of the act. Title I-Education of Children of Low-Income Families, has worked out relatively well. I can support the amendments being recommended for this title, including the change in amount of funds available for State agency administration and inclusion of the teacher corps as a new section.

I am pleased to see the amendment to the Teacher Corps section providing for authority of State departments of education but cannot support the retention by the U.S. Commissioner of Education of authority "to provide members of the Teacher Corps with such training as the Commissioner may deem appropriate."

It seems to me this is a serious breach of relationships regarding teacher preparation programs and ought to be corrected immediately. "Appropriate training" for teachers is a State function and responsibility and should remain so.

My support of the amendments regarding the Teacher Corps should be qualified by a statement that I am opposed to the way the entire proposal has been developed out of the U.S. Office of Education. Such a program could be implemented by appropriation to the State educational agency under a State plan arrangement with considerably greater authority and flexibility vested in the State.

I am disappointed to note that the executive branch of the Federal Government has not recommended the development of a "State plan" philosophy for title I of ESEA. This procedure has been used with much success in other Federal educational aid programs, notably vocational education and NDEA and could in my opinion do a great deal to help each State meet specific and unique needs of the respective State under the broad quidelines of the law.

It would also provide the opportunity to eliminate considerable red tape for school districts, State education departments and the U.S. Office of Education. State departments now have authority for approval of title I project application by local school districts; it would only be a short, but important step to provide for a State plan method of operation for the title.

The most disturbing matter relating to the title I, I have saved for the last. It relates to the method of funding used for this fiscal year. At the outset I might say that I am well aware of the fact that the inclusion of more eligible children without the corresponding increase in appropriation added to the distribution problem for this title. However, the fundamental situation is still there with all of its resultant problems and issues.

For fiscal year 1966, Minnesota was allocated approximately $24.5 million for title I. Late funding, late receipt of Federal guidelines and a large number of school districts in our State contributed to our inability to develop sound programs to expend all of the funds allocated.

More important than these reasons, however, was the fact that our State department of education in particular, and the school districts

in general, accepted the philosophy that considerable good judgment and discretion should be used in developing the best possible programs under this title; rather than simply spending the money because it was available.

As a result of our exercise of educational judgment and restraint, Minnesota school districts ended up spending about $18.2 million of the $24.5 million available under this title. In my judgment the funds were well spent on worthy educational projects and I am not overly concerned about the fact that we were not able to spend all of the allocated amount.

I am concerned, however, about the fact that Minnesota is being penalized in allocation for 1967 because of the fact that we did not spend all that was allocated in 1966. I think this procedure is both unwise and dangerous. On any future program it is going to be difficult indeed to prevent spending for the sake of spending in order to keep from being penalized in a subsequent year.

Title II-School Library Resources, Textbooks, and Other Resource Material, does not come in for much discussion and/or change. I think there are two reasons for this.

First, title II provides for a State plan which makes it easily administered by the State, and school districts and therefore not much comment or difficulty.

Second, title II is unquestionably the title of this act which most specifically gets entangled in the church-state issue. In my judgment, its administration within the many school districts across my State and the Nation will have many instances of clear cut, legal violation of the separation of church and state.

It is also my opinion that, within reason, it is impossible to administer this particular title in many of the States without a breach of the church-state separation. In this regard, as well as with all Federal education legislation, I would strongly support the establishment of a workable judicial review procedure.

Title III-Supplementary Educational Centers and Services has been the focal point of my concern about ESEA 1965 from the day it was introduced in Congress 2 years ago. I am extremely disappointed about the fact that the executive branch of Government has not deemed it wise or necessary to introduce amendments regarding this title.

I strongly oppose the present from of this title, and the new amendment for the Vocational Education Act of 1963 resembles this one to a shocking degree, whereby the U.S. Office of Education, for all intents and purposes, completely bypasses the legally constituted State agency in dealing directly with local school districts within each State.

When I make such a statement I am well aware of the "review and recommendation" provision for State departments and the fact that in the President's message he indicated that "the recommendations of the State have been sought and followed in more than 95 percent of the projects" under this title.

It does not take an unusual amount of insight or intelligence to see how the percentage can get that high so easily when one realizes that the U.S. Office of Education has the sole decision making authority and the States can't possibly do anything about the situation no matter how strongly they might differ with the judgment of those in USOE.

I would be the first to admit and indicate that all State departments of education are not staffed to do as good a job in educational leadership as they desire. They are all working diligently, within the environment of problems associated with State government and local school districts on one hand and rapidly expanding Federal education legislation on the other. A significant amount of assistance is being provided by the best and most easily implemented title of ESEA 1965, title V, and I will address myself to it in more detail later.

It has been said that State departments do not have the quality of staff to make proper judgment where new ideas and educational innovations are concerned.

From what I have experienced, all ideas and innovations relating to education-good ones, that is, don't originate in the U.S. Office of education and they never will. State departments of education need a chance to exert educational leadership.

Title III, under the responsibility of the State, would be a wonderful and unique opportunity for the State department of education to flex its muscle and exert initiative in meeting the exciting possibilities of the title. On the other hand, the present administrative arrangement could thwart and curtail actually much leadership development opportunity.

It is not difficult for me to envision, in view of the present freedom and flexibility of the title and the rapid increase of funds now in the title for, over a short period of years, a federally operated system of educational institutions to be operating in each State with little, if any, control or direction of it from the State department of education or any other State agency.

Some have said that inasmuch as State departments are not of the desired stature, whatever that is, to handle the responsibilities of this exciting title, that the U.S. Office of Education could best operate it as is for a few years and then consider turning over part or all of the responsibility to the State departments of education.

It is inconceivable that on the one hand our department of education is sufficiently wise to make decisions for the expenditure of $20 million for exciting and innovative educational programs for the educationally disadvantaged under title I and then not be of the quality and stature to make decisions regarding $1.6 million under title III. I cannot envision any better way to encourage educational chaos in the States than to postpone action on this matter beyond the first session of the 90th Congress.

The States are ready and sufficiently able to administer this title now. A State plan arrangement would provide for sufficient control and direction by the U.S. Office of Education.

No one is saying that State departments will implement this title to perfection. I don't believe the U.S. Office of Education has or will eiher. By having the opportunity to exercise authority State departments could grow and improve.

Two of the finest methods of learning are by trial and error and to be given responsibility. Departments of education can grow to become more responsible State agencies by being assigned more responsible tasks. It would be far better for 50 State departments of education to in various ways and degrees work through trial and error of title

III than for the U.S. Office of Education to force the same trial and error on all of the states each time direction is changed.

I am not overly concerned about individual States making errors— to guarantee against making errors is the easiest way to stifle progress that I know. I simply ask that you give us a chance, under a state plan, to administer title III.

Title IV with its regional educational laboratories is relatively well organized in implementation at this point and fundamentally the only need here is for a clear indication, by appropriation, as to their future, and I don't know that I can react with sufficient knowledge about the proposed amendment to title VI at this time or not but it is at least conceivable to me that the functions of these new regional centers to appraise the special education needs of referred handicapped children and to provide services to assist in meeting such needs in so far as they pertain to any multistate responsibility might be carried out by the presently organized regional laboratories of title IV. I would hope that we might be able to eliminate the possibility of another organizational unit.

Title V-Strengthening State Departments of Education, has been by far the most acceptable, as you can readily imagine, and easily administered titles of ESEA 1965. The past has been excellent. Minnesota has used some of its funds to employ staff but the prime use of money has been for a long range statewide educational planning.

The proposed amendment of V-B looks like it came out of our program of the past 2 years. Which in and of itself causes me to wonder about the necessity of V-B when this is already a possibility under the present title.

It is true that there are a few things-a few new things in the amendment and they give rise to some serious concerns on my part.

First and foremost might be the question of, "If title V is to strengthen State departments of education, why can't funds under the new amendment be allocated directly to State departments of education similar to the original Title?"

Is it because of the inclusion of provision for the higher education option? Why not assign any funds for such study automatically to that State agency that is now required to administer the Higher Education Facilities Act and the Higher Education Act of 1965?

Why the designation by the Governor, when, quite clearly, in each State there is a specific, established state agency responsible for public elementary and secondary education?

I do not question the necessity of planning. I have indicated the importance that we gave to this area in the first and second years of the present act. Nationwide attention to statewide planning under title V can easily be implemented by encouragement of U.S. Office of Education personnel under the present act.

I am concerned about the 25 percent of title V-B which would be at the discretion of the U.S. Commissioner for project or contract to anyone and everyone. As the Commissioner has stated, a number of excellent projects have been initiated by State departments of education, working cooperatively and jointly, with funds under the 15percent provision of the present title.

I would strongly recommend that if statewide planning is to be emphasized, and I think this would be excellent, that it be done within

the present title with the simple addition of more funds and that special planning projects in this area continue to even be arranged for in the same manner as is presently used in title V.

There is also the possibility that any funds and/or regional planning contemplated under the Commissioner's 25 percent of V-B could go directly and more properly, in my judgment, to the established Regional Educational Laboratories under title IV of this act.

Title V is the best title. I am disappointed that someone has seen fit to meddle it up with what looks like a mixture of politics, bureaucracy and increased control and direction from the U.S. Office of Education. It is a good title now; necessary changes and expansion could best be taken care of by making additional funds available.

The U.S. Office of Education staff working in this area are the most experienced and understanding. They are the first to agree that the problems and needs of the various states are different and should be recognized. Many of them have had experience in State departments of education. They know the situation first hand.

I am disappointed with the fact that the one title of ESEA 1965. that has received almost complete and unanimous support from every segment did not warrant a recommendation for an increase in its basic appropriation.

I will only make a brief comment or two regarding the proposed amendment to the Vocational Education Act of 1963. This sounds. like title III of ESEA 1965 all over again, and I won't repeat my feelings about the title but suffice it to say that I strongly oppose this amendment. The stated objective of the amendment can be accomplished within the present act very simply by the U.S. Office of Education requiring that each state plan provide for the development of "exemplary and innovative programs or projects in vocational education."

And if the answer is that it can and should have been taken care of under the present act then I would say people at the State and Federal level have not been doing their job.

But just as one cylinder of an engine not functioning properly is no reason to throw out the engine so a minor problem with an excellent piece of legislation is no reason to alter it so severely as this. amendment would cause to happen. The engine like the act might just need a little tuning, not a complete overhaul or discard.

Minnesota has a State board for vocational education that is responsible for Federal vocational program administration at all levels. I am proud to say that I think we have one of the finest vocational education programs in the Nation-and we are constantly seeking ways to improve it.

In my judgment the amendment to the Vocational Education Act of 1963 could have a negative if not ruinous effect on our State program. I would strongly encourage the philosophy of the amendment to be provided for in the State plan provision of the act in its present. form.

I would also like to comment on something noticeably absent from the list of amendments proposed for ESEA 1965. I would like to add my strong recommendation to the many you have undoubtedly heard for the transfer of the Headstart program and the Headstart followthrough to the U.S. Office of Education and their inclusion as an integral part of title I, ESEA.

75-492-67-pt. 2- -18