disadvantaged students in the community, or in other words, programs that were not being offered by the school district.

Therefore, none of these funds can be used for the general operating expenditures.

Title II funds are provided only for the upgrading of library resource materials in all districts in all the States. These funds are allocated on a per pupil basis varying from $1.40 to $1.90 per student enrolled in both the public and nonpublic schools. None of the funds under this title can be used for salaries.

The philosophy of the Federal impact legislation or Public Law 81-874 is basically that the U.S. Government is to provide its proportionate share of the local revenue, or in other words, this revenue is in a sense in lieu of tax payments.

The moneys under this category, therefore, may be used for the general operating costs of the district in the same manner as those received from local taxation. As I mentioned before, it is evident that the funds are not provided for the same purposes and Congress should constantly keep this fact clearly in mind in all future legislation.

Another Public Law that was enacted in 1950 along with Public Law 81-874 expires June 30, 1967. This is Public Law 81-815, as amended, which provides for construction of minimum school facilities in federally impacted areas. Originally this legislation was designed to be of a temporary nature, however, the burden imposed on local communities has proven to be permanent. I am sure there will continue to be a progressive need for greater funds under this legislation. It is a must that this construction act be made permanent.

The immediate problem facing the 90th Congress is to provide funds to finance the construction projects currently pending in these impacted areas across the United States. Table V shows the 17 school districts in Illinois who have applied for constructions funds prior to the cutoff date of February 20, 1967. Unless funds are provided by a supplemental appropriation, very few, if any of these construction projects in Illinois can be approved. This is a serious situation and. must have immediate consideration by the 90th Congress. (The document referred to follows:)

TABLE V.-Construction projects in Illinois filed prior to cutoff date of Feb. 20,

To summarize the facts presented, we must first of all recognize that Public Law 81-874 and Public Law 81-815 are to assist in financing educational services and facilities for all pupils in federally impacted areas, and title I and title II of Public Law 89-10, ESEA, are to compensate for deficiencies within only a portion of the school's total pupils. Funds for the ESEA are for an entirely different purpose and cannot be substituted for impact funds.

Next we are faced with the emergency situation of the supplemental appropriation under the present Public Law 81-815. Many urgently needed classrooms cannot be constructed unless action is taken immediately.

Although Federal assistance under Public Law 89-10 is essential to fill the gaps in the experience and skills of many children from disadvantaged backgrounds, the consensus of opinion of all school administrators in federally impacted school districts is that Public Law 81-874 and Public Law 81-815 should become permanent legislation since this is a continuing and progressive problem.

Why face this problem every 2 years or so, when action by the 90th Congress could alleviate such situations for the future?

If this cannot be accomplished during this session of Congress my recommendation would then be that the expiration of Public Law 81-874 and Public Law 81-815 coincide with the expiration date of Public Law 89-10, ESEA.

It has indeed been a pleasure to present my views on this very critical situation which affects the Rantoul City schools as well as hundreds of school districts throughout the United States.

Chairman PERKINS. Thank you very much for an excellent statement, Professor Eater. How many have not yet made a statement, Mr. Rose?

Mr. ROSE. Mr. Hood does not have a statement but he will make some verbal comments.

Chairman PERKINS. We are always glad to see you back.

STATEMENT OF R. E. HOOD, SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS, BRUNSWICK, GA.

Mr. HOOD. I am Ralph E. Hood, retired superintendent of schools of Brunswick, Ga., and a representative of a number of schools throughout the South working on this problem.

Chairman PERKINS. How long were you the superintendent at Brunswick, Mr. Hood?

Mr. Hoop. 25 years and 14 days and I enjoyed coming up here most of those 25 years and we would never have survived if there had not been an "up here."

I want to apologize to the committe for not having copies of my testimony. My testimony is resting comfortably somewhere in an airport, I don't know which airport yet.

I will just hurry along and make a few statements and bring out about two points which I think should be brought out.

First I want to congratulate this committee and the Congress and the Nation upon the excellent law, Elementary and Secondary School Act. It is a great law.

Make no mistake about that. If it is financed properly it is going to make a remarkable impact not only on the health and happiness of the people of the United States but upon the economy. My very conservative figures, if this bill is continued in operation and adequately financed the 8 million children thereby involved will, in a few years when they get on to the working market, earn about $20 billion a year more than they would have if this bill had not come along. That $20 billion will give a considerable boon to the economy of the United States of America. It was a great law.

I want to congratulate and thank Mr. Perkins' committee through the years for his unusual patience in letting the school people come in here and tell their story. No matter how many of the great and alleged and actual acclaimed experts come along, he has always listened and listened and listened and given the school superintendents of the United States a great deal of time to come here and discuss things, and we appreciate it.

Last year was a very good example of the functions of democracy along those very lines. A group that I will refer to as noneducating educators recommended to the people of the United States and the Congress that they more or less chop up this impact aid substantially. Well, chop it in two, you might say, and Mr. Perkins heard the testimony of all of the people involved at great length night and day. He allowed us to bring forth the fact that that law would have caused millions of children to suffer, many of them with a curtailed school year, not even having a 9-month school.

The Congress, therefore, listened and corrected the recommendations of some of these noneducating educators and I am not reflecting on them for being that. It just shows in a democracy you have to have a governing body to ride herd on the experts. Mr. Churchill said democracy is the worst form of government in the world, unfortunately there are no alternatives. I want to point out one thing that might turn out to be serious if things like this go on through the years. The Office of Education hired the Stanford Research Institute to go in and study this law and they came out with some strange doctrines.

Research is research. They came out with this doctrine that they were expressing opinion in there, that the dollars in Public Law 874, not just these words, had not increased the amount of learning in the United States as much as these other laws would or might.

To my consternation I went to San Francisco to talk to these people. I got hold of the head man who directed the study and I asked him "Do you justify what you have done in here in expressing these opinions?"

He said, "The Office of Education told us to express opinions."

I said, "Dr. Spiegelman, didn't you just tell me you did not know anything about education?" He said, "Yes, I did. I don't know anything about it." I said, "Wouldn't it seem a little more plausible and feasible to give opinions they would hire somebody who knew something about education?"

He said "that is right" and he made no bones about it. I said we could hire his outfit to come into Georgia to make a study of the amount of learning that the State was getting out of their money, and he said, "No, we are not equipped to do that."

75-492-67-pt. 238

First he was mad because I didn't bring Oscar Rose with me but he just admitted they were out of place he thought in expressing opinions about education. I spent a lot of time in my life studying research and that is an old problem, and old trick if you will allow me to say for a research outfit to do 100 or 1,000 pages of research and slip in a few opinions and the man assumes that is all research and they grab and run with it.

Another very serious thing some people at the Office of Education, a great many of them in fact I have heard make a statement that this 89-10 would do the same thing as 874 and take the place of it. Now, gentlemen, that is a serious accusation. I mean it is serious and I don't see how they can bring themselves around to that because their own rules in the Office of Education make it impossible to take the place of it.

We spent $30,000 in my school trying to get some 89-10 money and we got it and it is great and it is grand, but a lot of those that sit in the seats of the mighty have made that statement all over the United States and nobody has ever given me any evidence after you tell them that.

I was disappointed and I noticed that the Commissioner of Education did not call attention to the fact that-did not mention 874 which was a law which did great things and resulted in great things being done for an enormous number of children throughout this country. According to my very conservative arithmetic Public Law 874 has actually made it possible for 42 million children to get more education and better education than they would have down through the years.

It is a great law and it was not even mentioned at all. Had it not been for that law, those 42 million children would have received a watered down reduced education, some more and some less.

I also urge the full financing of 815 and 874. It has already been touched on by the other gentlemen. I appreciate the opportunity to come back, Mr. Perkins.

Chairman PERKINS. Thank you very much, Mr. Hood. You have made a good statement just as you have always done in the past. Our next witness is Mr. Rose.

Mr. ROSE. Mr. Richard Taylor from Widefield District of Colorado.

STATEMENT OF RICHARD TAYLOR, SUPERINTENDENT, WIDEFIELD SCHOOL, COLORADO SPRINGS, COLO.

Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am Richard Taylor, superintendent of Widefield-Security Schools, suburban Colorado Springs, Colo.

By way of some of the history of the school district which I believe in the past I presented to Mr. Perkins and this committee I would like to say the Security School District was 12 years ago a one room country school with 24 students.

Last week it passed 6,200 students and is growing at the rate of 40 some per week. With about 60 percent of the students being federally connected, so we owe the existence of our educational programs to Public Law 874 and 815.

To avoid repetition, I would prefer not to read my testimony as many of the things covered in it have been covered by the people who preceded me and perhaps I could refer to about five points.

No. 1 is where I relate to the various shortages of qualified teachers of mathematics and science. As it is necessary in the national interest to provide a Teacher Corps to work in areas of the underprivileged, it is also necessary to insure the adequate instruction of the future leaders of industry and science.

The competition from industry for trained teachers must be met. if schools are to continue to meet this challenge.

I believe that funds that would allow school districts to pay for a full year's employment of teachers in critical subject areas such as mathematics, physics, and chemistry would provide an incentive for college students to enter the teaching profession.

Item No. 2, I believe it should be clearly stated that ESEA programs do not replace impacted area needs and certainly we have heard this mentioned before. In fact, if funds are decreased to schools which are so dependent on 874 the funds as the district I represent it would mean a decrease in the expenditure per pupil and thereby eliminate us from the eligibility of title I, title II of ESEA and as I read the interpretation of the act.

A heavy impacted district such as the Security Schools then would become completely ineligible because we would not have the sources to raise the money and continue the per pupil costs thereby again we would be ineligible for ESEA programs.

The build up of Federal activities to meet the national emergency has created an ever increasing burden on other schools near military bases. Because of this I have suggested that a plan for payment of the Federal Government obligation to aid in the education of children in these areas be based on a formula that will more nearly reflect the true cost of education and will allow for an adequate and acceptable educational program.

I would propose as a just method of determining support a base such as one similar to the one that all impacted districts now have and work under and this is determined by arbitration with the U.S. Office of Education and that this base be either increased or decreased yearly according to the average cost of education within a given State. Thereby, we who operate so entirely on impacted funds could keep our programs during recent periods of time the costs have increased yearly, the Federal payments have not kept up with the costs, so we must find some manner to cap up our expenditures if we are going to keep even.

I believe that the decrease in the quality of education being offered in heavy impacted districts is not being fair to the students of the military people particularly when their fathers are fighting to preserve equality and freedom in other places.

Item No. 3 I should refer to is part B of title V of the amended act. This does not, to my point of view, aid in the strengthening of State departments of education. Instead it would create another agency to do those duties which are the function of good State departments of education.