I find it inconsistent in the action again as I read that title it was initially to strengthen State departments of education. Now we have an amendment that would seem to create another agency to perform those duties. If in the State of Colorado the Governor were giver the opportunity to appoint another agency, I believe it would be undermining the State department of education and reducing the effectiveness that it has gained during the past year by operating under the previous title V.

Item No. 4, I should like to present the idea that the present forms of categorical aid have been successful in meeting identified educational needs. While some school administrators voice approval for general Federal aid, we also recognize that it would not permit the direct attack on the serious educational problems that we have had to face.

I believe that the Federal Government, committees such as this meeting with working superintendents such as we are gathered here in the identification of the needs have an obligation to work to appropriate funds to then attack those needs as they exist in a specific manner and not by working through a district and saying here are increased general funds, do with them as you will.

Many, many local boards of education would find it very impractical or practically impossible to attack some of the major problems that we have been able to do by having categorical aid.

My last item, No. 5, when the committee considers the extension of section five for the buildings for impacted districts, I would request that serious consideration be given to the term minimum facilities. I believe that this term and its interpretation has kept the children in heavy impacted districts from having an education that is comparable to those in nonimpacted districts.

I was certainly very happy last year to see that esthetics and esthetical values should be a determining factor and looked at when these funds are allocated.

If I could relate to a particular district in the Whitefield school district we have eligibility for about 650 students at the present time. We have over 900 students attending part day or half day sessions. So we have the eligibility for the funds but since the funding has not been made, the children are suffering.

They are being shortened in their educational opportunities because here is the eligibility and yet there are no dollars to carry it out.

I should like to thank the committe again for listening to me, for the opportunity to present these and would certainly hope that you might later have some questioning further on some of my ideas. Chairman PERKINS. Thank you very much.

Mr. Rose. Mr. Chairman, our final person to testify is Mr. Hanks from the Ysleta School District in El Paso, Texas.

Chairman PERKINS. Mr. Taylor's complete statement will be placed in the record at this point.

(The document referred to follows:)

TESTIMONY OF RICHARD D. TAYLOR, SUPERINTENDENT OF WIDEFIELD-SECURITY

SCHOOLS

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: I am Richard Taylor, Superintendent of Widefield-Security Schools, suburban Colorado Springs, Colorado. I wish to express appreciation for the opportunity to respond to H.R. 6230. I also will discuss some of the needs of Federally impacted school districts.

The National Teacher Corps should become a part of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act with advance funding to enhance the necessary planning for continuing programs. This program to aid the impoverished schools is necessary in the attempt to equalize opportunities for all American youth.

As a counter-part, I would suggest an extension of the National Defense Education Act to allow for the funding necessary for lengthening the employment of teachers in critical subject areas such as mathematics and science. The trained teachers in these fields are becoming more acute due to the inability of schools to compete with industry. By making a part of the teacher's salary eligible under Title 111, N.D.E.A., schools could offer employment on a twelve month basis at a salary that would enhance teaching to the more capable college graduate. The extra time would be well used in developing programs for both teacher in-service and student subjects.

Part B, the new proposed addition to Title V, "Grants for Comprehensive Educational Planning and Evaluation", appears to be inconsistent with the original law. Title V has done much to add needed strength to State Departments of Education. It provides funds to improve educational planning, identify educational problems, evaluate programs, record and store data, engage in research, and other activities that provide for more effective State Education Departments. Education in general has been advanced because of the leadership made available by this worthwhile legislation.

Now the amendment is proposed that will require the State to designate a "State Educational Planning Agency" which shall set forth a statewide program of systematic planning and evaluation, including such activities as goals and priorities, means of accomplishing educational objectives, planning new programs and improving existing ones, collecting and cataloging information. This planning agency would, therefore, be duplicating the functions of the State Departments of Education and quite possibly create dissention among both.

It is further provided that grant applications must be recommended by the State Governor. This is not in keeping with the desirable sound practice of many states to keep education separate from political functions.

The State of Colorado is not alone, in that it does not consider knowledge or ability in educational matters as being a requisite for the office of Governor. The other provisions of H.R. 6230 are examples of the creativity and imagination that have been so prevalent in recent educational legislation. They would certainly improve programs that are even now doing a tremendous job toward the elimination of ignorance and poverty from the American scene.

The categorical aid that has been provided by the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, has served a purpose that would not have been achieved by a general aid program. Each Title has identified a specific need and made the school public aware of problems that previously had been the concern of educators. This total approach to a Nation's problems must continue if we are to gain the support needed to correct the educational deficiencies.

The ESEA programs do not replace the need for Impacted Area support. Both programs relate to different problems. The present urgent need of impact districts is for the funding of P.L. 815.

In the Security School District there is an eligibility for funds to house six hundred students. Since the funds have not been made available, nearly nine hundred students are attending school in half-day sessions. The school district has 60% of its students from parents employed on Federal property. This high percentage places the district greatly dependent on P.L. 815 and 874 funds. Because of the failure of P.L. 874 funds to increase with the costs, the local property tax rate has increased 23% in the present year.

The military build up to meet the National Emergency is creating an ever increasing burden on the local school districts with Federal installations in their locality. I sincerely urge that the provision to adopt "group rates" be replaced with a system that will more readily increase or decrease with the average cost of education in a given state.

The threeway partnership that is referred to regarding the education of children of employees on Federal tax exempt property, should become one of equal sharing of financial responsibility. Then heavy impact school districts could become leaders part of the time rather than always being behind.

I wish to thank the Committee for inviting me to appear and present these points of concern. Your accomplishments of the past have had a marked influence on the education of this Nation, and I am sure the future efforts of this committee will be for continued improvement.

Mr. Rose. Mr. Hanks is from El Paso but city limits and school districts do not coincide so he represents the Yslet a School District and he has been there for a great many years and I think he will give you something about the growth of those schools in that area since he came from there many years ago.

STATEMENT OF J. M. HANKS, SUPERINTENDENT, YSLETA SCHOOL DISTRICT, EL PASO, TEX.

Mr. HANKS. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am J. M. Hanks, superintendent of schools, Ysleta Independent School District, and have held this position for a number of years during which time it has been my privilege to file statements with this committee regarding what has come to be known as Federal impact legislation. It is my understanding that this committee is considering amendments to the ESEA of 1965, under H.R. 6230, and the ESEA of 1967.

This bill, introduced by the honorable chairman of the Committee on Education and Labor, amends the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 and again makes some changes in Public Law 874 and Public Law 815, as amended.

In addressing my comments to the Elementary and Secondary Education Amendments of 1967, I do not care to raise any objections to these amendments. This act is a good approach to problems in certain areas, and the Ysleta Independent School District would qualify for aid under these sections of the present law, as amended.

In addressing my comments to the Elementary and Secondary Education Amendments of 1967, I do not care to raise any objections to these amendments. This act is a good approach to problems in certain areas and the Ysleta Independent School District should qualify for aid under these sections of the present law as amended; but this aid certainly would not take the place of assistance presently secured under Public Law 875 and Public Law 815, 81st Congress, as amended. It is to the miscellaneous amendments to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and the federally impacted areas program that I shall address my remarks.

You will note that the temporary provision of Public Law 815, which affects students whose parents live off and work on Federal property expires June 30, 1967, and the same section of Public Law 874 expires June 30, 1968.

These sections should be extended to expire June 30, 1972, the same date as the proposed amendments to Public Law 815 and Public Law 874 under H.R. 6230 to protect school districts like the Ysleta Independent School District where a large part of the Federal impact. comes from families living off the property and stationed on or working on Federal property.

In asking for these changes in H.R. 6230 I would like to furnish recent information on the school district I now serve, commenting briefly on the Federal impact along with the non-Federal pupil growth. The Ysleta Independent School District is one of the more heavily impacted districts in this area receiving aid under Public Law 874.

For instance, in the school year 1951-52 there was a total of 728 federally connected students in attendance in the Ysleta Independent

School District with a total of 4,737 students in membership at the end of the school year. This means that 15 percent of the students were federally connected.

In the school year 1965-66 there were 5,216 students federally connected out of a total membership of 25,307 or 21 percent federally connected. In the current year, 1966-67 there are 7,099 students federally connected, with a membership at present of 27,223 students, showing 26 percent federally connected.

This means that the membership in the Ysleta Independent School District has increased 1,916 students since the school year 1965-66 or 1 year ago. Also during this same time the increase in Federal students in the district for the year has been 1,883, or almost as much as the increase of all students in the district for the past year. The impact has grown not only in numbers but percentage wise as well.

This legislation has been commonly referred to as impact legislation. May I point out that the impact of federally connected students in the Ysleta Independent School District for the school year 1966-67 is approximately 26 percent of the membership, while the estimated entitlement of all sections of Public Law 874 is only 9 percent of the current budget.

This simply means that the local district is putting forth a great effort to meet this problem.

The continuation in its present form of Public Law 874 would protect the school districts in federally impacted areas in planning their budgets for the school year 1968-69 and this information is needed early in 1968 so that school officials may plan to meet the impact area problems.

Present legislation would allow the temporary provision of Public Law 815, which affects students whose parents live off and work on Federal property, to expire June 30, 1967. This section would be extended to expire June 30, 1972, the same as other proposed amendments, to protect school districts like the Ysleta Independent School District where a large part of the Federal impact comes from families living off the property and stationed or working on Federal property.

For instance, a growth in number of Federal students would require building aid. The continued increase in federal activity in this area would certainly create a problem if this section of Public Law 815 were to expire June 1967.

Since the school year 1960-61 the Ysleta Independent School District has provided more than $15 million from local funds in an effort to house students in this fast growing impacted school district.

This shows that a great effort is being made to provide facilities for all students in the district. It can easily be seen that over a period of years there is a direct relation between the Federal growth and nonFederal growth.

In conclusion, I wish to thank the committee for the privilege of appearing before it in behalf of the proposed Federal impact program amendments under H.R. 6230. I sincerely urge that this committee pass H.R. 6230 at an early date and that the expiration dates of Public Law 874 and Public Law 815, which affect students whose parents. live off and work on Federal property, be extended to June 30, 1972, so that these laws will continue to render service to thosuands of schoolchildren over this Nation.

Chairman PERKINS. Thank you very much, Mr. Hanks. As usual Oscar Rose for many, many years has spearheaded the drive to make sure that the Congress did not destroy the impacted legislation.

You are here with a most outstanding panel and I appreciate the statements of all of you distinguished educators. I regret that I did not hear all of these statements but I have tried to glance through all of the statements here on my desk. Your contributions have been great and your contributions have been great throughout the years in assisting this committee in writing this legislation and helping to keep us on the right track.

Mr. ROSE. Thank you, Mr. Perkins.

Chairman PERKINS. Mr. Rose, we have a situation at Fort Knox, Ky., Commonwealth of Kentucky states that they do not have the authority to participate in the education of any of the children on Government property and the legislation that is now proposed provides that if the State does not participate by June 30, 1969, that there will be no Federal assistance.

I am wondering whether you have had complaints of a similar nature from different States?

Or is it only peculiar to Kentucky? I certainly have not heard of any other complaints.

Mr. ROSE. There are no other States which have a similar restriction in connection with this matter. However I am not completely familiar with it. Last year I testified and I mentioned again in my testimony this morning, I believe after all I left, that the impact area schools of any State should not be saddled with or required to modify the normal State taxes within a State.

After all we are only 4,000 districts and a great many more than that in the United States and in the various States we only represent a few, so our political influence within a State is not only always sufficient to protect ourselves.

So I think that the State law is not of our making as the impact area people. Thus we should be very careful in eliminating funds within a State under the impacted area legislation, 874, in particular, prior to the State having an opportunity and a rather lengthy opportunity to modify its laws so that the Federal Government's intent would not be abrogated or would not be eliminated.

Chairman PERKINS. It is common knowledge that in this particular area that the Harding County School Board could not take over Fort Knox without many years of planning and Fort Knox after many years of planning, undoubtedly the Hardin County school district would lose money.

But assuming Kentucky did participate and assuming they did participate only to a limited degree and the Government would continue to operate the school at Fort Knox, then would the State lose any money under this statute?

Mr. ROSE. I do not think they would. I think there is a rather liberal interpretation of just how this particular amendment would be applied.

Chairman PERKINS. I would like to ask Mr. Lillywhite to comment on the question. Assuming Kentucky participated and recognized in the education to a limited degree on the Federal property in the