The financial burden such enrollment growth places on a district is easy to understand. Not so easily understood except by those immediately involved in administering federally impacted districts are the special problems impact enrollments pose. The extent of these problems generally varies in proportion to the degree of impact enrollments, particularly of military enrollments. In looking at Clover Park's situation, we will consider the operating (Public Law 874) and capital outlay (Public Law 815) programs separately. PUBLIC LAW 874-OPERATING To repeat, certain characteristics typify a heavy Federal impact district. Out of an average 1966-67 enrollment of 14,500, Clover Park will have a turnover of 25 to 30 percent. This means that about 8,700 students will be with us for less than the full school term, about 4,350 moving out and 4,350 moving in during the year. What this implies in program dislocations needs no amplification here. The school must continually adjust and readjust courses, classrooms, teachers, and materials to the needs of those coming and those going. That this turnover is in direct ratio to a district's proximity to a Federal activity is indicated by a survey in 1965 of school districts at varying distances from the impact center. (The chart follows:) Chart II Pupil turnover as related to proximity to Federal impact arca "Depressed area" is a term commonly associated with teeming metropolitan tenants, or with Appalachia. It is not the usual nomenclature of suburbia. Yet "impact" suburbia can be a "depressed area," educationally speaking. The culprit is not poverty but transience, and in Clover Park's case, linguistics (non-English-speaking enrollees.) The Iowa tests of basic skills administered to Clover Park pupils in the fall of 1965 showed mean performance of sixth-grade classes in the district's highest elementary school at the 92d percentile compared with the national mean of 50. However, in the lowest school the sixth graders were achieving only at the 38th percentile. This 300-percent range from low to high means very expensive adjustments in the elementary grades, staffwise. It means even more difficult and expensive program adjustments in the junior high schools which these students enter and in which the school must offer programs. (The chart follows:) CHART III RANGE OF STUDENT MEAN PERFORMANCE OF SIXTH GRADE CLASSES Mr. HAGENESS. Lower per pupil valuation, characteristic of the Federal impact district, is a big handicap in today's special levy economy when schools depend so heavily on local property taxes. Washington State valuations for 1965 in first-class districts (districts in excess of 10,000 population) range from a low of $2,530 (a heavy impact district) per pupil to a high of $11,220. The State average for such districts is $6,119. Clover Park's is only $3,426. Chart IV shows graphically what this means in comparative ability to finance education through local effort. (The chart follows:) CHART IV CLOVER PARK PER PUPIL VALUATION COMPARED WITH OTHER FIRST-CLASS DISTRICTS WASHINGTON STATE The four lowest valuation districts (first class) are all Public Law 874 recipients, three of them heavily impacted. The chief reason for their low valuations is the large proportion of tax-exempt property they embrace. Clover park must compete for staff with a district near the top in per pupil valuation. In order to support a comparable program, it would be necessary for Clover Park to vote 314 times the millage levied in the other district. The is an impossible situation. Impact funds enable Clover Park to maintain a comparable program on tax rates comparable with those of other first-class districts. Public Law 874 is the only source of Federal funds that keeps impacted districts on a par with the others in the State. 75-492 0-67-pt. 2- --37 This program of support is so well established, so well administered, and allows such flexibility to local boards in meeting local needs, that we respectively ask the Congress to consider giving Public Law 874 a bit more permanence than it now enjoys. We say this not out of ingratitude but because of the continual uneasiness besetting districts such as ours that this is for 1 year only and next year something could go wrong. Though the number of districts eligible for impact aid is not as great as those eligible under other portions of Public Law 89-10, impact districts have particular problems that can be met only by the basic support provided by these impact funds. The capital outlay companion law to Public Law 874 is Public Law 815. As with Public Law 874, it has been a real boon to Clover Park District. Clover Park presently operates five elementary schools on Federal property, three on Fort Lewis and two on McChord Air Force Base constructed under section 10 of Public Law 815. Presently the district has applications pending with the U.S. Office of Education in the amount of $1,933,500 for two more projects on Fort Lewis and for an additional building off post. It is our understanding that funds are sufficient to pay only 21 percent of applications now filed with the U.S. Office of Education. At this time we do not know Clover Park's priority but, should the funds be prorated, it would mean that, of the $1,933,500 we would receive only $406,035. Meanwhile, the district has 609 elementary (kindergarten through grade 6) "A" category students unhoused on military reservations. By June 30, 1969, the target date for facilities pending in present applications, the total number for which classrooms are needed will be 1,440. Under Washington State's support formula, Clover Park District buys the site and received about $1 in State money for every $1 which the district invests in buildings and equipment. However, Clover Park's low valuation (explained earlier) makes it impossible for the district to raise enough local tax funds for matching purposes to build needed classrooms even with this State help. It is extremely urgent, therefore, that Public Law 815 entitlements be available to take up the slack particularly so when 62 percent of the students have Federal connection. The board and administration of Clover Park School District appreciate the concern Congress has shown toward Federal impact districts over the years and appreciate, too, the very excellent manner in which Public Laws 874 and 815 funds have been administered by the governmental agencies concerned. Certainly there has been a minimum of "redtape" and boards have been able to apply the funds to existing emergencies. Clover Park School District is not relying on Federal funds without effort of its own. This year the total tax levy for school purposes is 46 mils. Only 14 mils of that amount is the basic school tax. The 32 additional mils were voted on themselves by the residents of the district. As explained before, the fine local effort is not enough in view of this district's particular problems. That is where the impact aid fits in. We respectfully urge that both Public Laws 874 and 815 be extended for several years in order that the school district may experience continuing stability in its general operations and building program. We hope, too, that funds may be available soon to start badly needed facilities eligible for reimbursement under Public Law 815. A matter of concern to Clover Park is the need to extend Public Law 815 at it applies to the "B" category pupil, living off military property with a parent employed on a military property. Of Clover Park's 8932 federally connected out of a total enrollment of 14,500. 3961 are "A" category and 4971 are "B" category enrollees. While "A" category legislation is permanent, the "B" category provision expires June 30, 1967. "B" students, whose parents work in tax-exempt facilities do contribute an extra cost load on the school district. Though the home in which the student lives may contribute taxes, probabilities are particularly if there are several brothers and sisters of school age, that the house cannot provide sufficient taxes to make up for the school costs incurred from enrollment of the several children. Adequate local school tax revenues depend on privately owned, nonresidential property, industrial, retail, or other, not housing children. I thank you very much, Mr. Ford and other members of the committee, for this opportunity to testify. Mr. ROSE. Mr. Ford, I would like to defer to you to present the gentleman from your great State of Michigan. I might say that Dr. Simmons once was not in the position he is now in as deputy superintendent of one of the largest school systems in the United States but he was in school systems similar to ours and it has been very fine that he could have the tie-in with the other types of schools that now Mr. Simmons can give and we are very happy to have him with this group here. Mr. FORD. I am very happy to welcome Dr. Simmons here and add when he was in the small but honest school districts, it was in my congressional district. Now that he has gone to the big city he has displayed a continuing interest in the neighboring small schools. I might say that in my area it is not always popular to be cooperating with the big city of Detroit but in relation to schools, our cooperation has been excellent. This is largely because Dr. Simmons has taken to the Detroit school system an understanding of the smaller schools and suburban and rural areas surrounding a big city. We have a dialog established as a result of his efforts that leads us to support common causes. Sometimes I wonder how common they are when we get $12 million for Wayne County and his school district gets $11 million, and the other school district gets what is left over, but we are very happy to have Dr. Simmons back here. He was with Dr. Drexler, our new superintendent, a few weeks ago and did not get the chance to testify. Your statement is now being placed in the record by the unanimous consent of the members of the committee. I wonder if you would summarize it for us as quickly as possible because we want to adjourn in about 10 minutes. (Dr. Simmons' statement follows:) TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM SIMMONS, DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: I am William Simmons, Deputy Superintendent of Schools in Detroit, Michigan. I also serve as the staff chairman of the fifteen largest school districts in the nation. I appreciate very much this opportunity to join with my long-time colleagues from the Impacted Areas Districts to discuss the amendment and extension of Public Laws 815 and 874. While my viewpoint today will reflect the position of the largest cities receiving financial assistance under the impacted area legislation, my former involvement in the program, when superintendent of schools in a rural suburban school district, makes it possible for me to understand and support the unique problems of my fellow panelists. Since the Great Cities Superintendents have discussed in full the amendments to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, I will make specific reference to H.R. 5471, H.R. 6118, and H.R. 6558. The school districts of the Great Cities are now active participants in the impacted area assistance programs. Prior to the adoption of the new uniform eligibility requirements by the 89th Congress for P.L. 874, only three of these districts received assistance: Philadelphia, San Francisco, and San Diego. This year all the large school districts and many in between will be eligible for assistance under P.L. 874. The major problem in this regard is the lack of an appropriation to fund the most recent amendments to the law. San Diego has received construction aid and is a current applicant under the most recent filing date. Each year since 1950 I have followed with great interest the extension and exansion of these two laws by the Congress through the efforts of this Committee. On several occasions I have had the pleasure of appearing before this Committee to discuss such proposals. A review of a few notes from the historical record relating to these two laws seems pertinent at this time because of the similarity of the questions that seem to reappear with each annual congressional appraisal of the two laws in both the authorization and appropriation process. A summary of the arguments, pro and con, summarized from the records of the 1953 and 1956 debates include the following points: The arguments against the legislation were directed toward: (1) the need for a balanced federal budget, (2) the increased wealth of local communities, (3) the inherent autonomy of local communities, (4) the varied degrees of federal responsibility, (5) the real benefits of widespread federal activities, (6) the inconsistent features of federal support programs, (7) the liberal administration of grant-in-aid programs, (8) the emergency nature of Public Law 815 and Public Law 874, (9) the unrealistic requirements of the program, (10) the support of segregated school systems, (11) the welfare state philosophy of all federal programs, and (12) the limited relief offered under any federal program. Arguments supporting the program of federal assistance offered under Public Law 815 and Public Law 874 include: (1) the vital role of education in national defense, (2) the nationwide scope of the problem of impacted school districts, (3) the bipartisan support of defense programs, (4) the excellent administration of the impact program, (5) the efficiency of the federal government as a tax collection agency, (6) the inadequacy of the local property tax, (7) the complete absence of federal interference, (8) the need for good schools in defense areas, (9) the unfairness of federal property tax exemption, (10) the adequate eligibility requirements found in Public Law 815 and Public Law 874, (11) the lasting nature of federal impact programs, and (12) the unfairness of the unequal educational opportunities created by federal activities. Now, of course, there has been added a new, forceful dimension, the federal educational programs authorized under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, the National Defense Education, the Economic Opportunity Act, the Vocational Education Act, and several other programs with widespread application. These programs are making tremendous changes in the educational process, as the record of these hearings will show, and require appropriations far beyond the requirements of P.L. 815 and P.L. 874. While the enactment of these laws would seem to indicate a broadening in the congressional viewpoint in regard to federal financial assistance programs, I am realistically aware that the debatable points mentioned will, once again, be part of the congressional |