By contrast, I call to your attention the experience of Cincinnati. Cincinnati has a board of education which has been more courageous than we have had in Cleveland and has put the question: Shall there be compensatory education, shall the voters of Cincinnati provide extra money to spend on the inner city child?

Cincinnati did provide that money, but as a result, in the November election this fall and in a followup election held in December, the voters of Cincinnati rejected a 4-mill operating levy in the Cincinnati School District by the same 2-to-1 majority that the voters in Cleveland were approving the 4-mill operating levy which we presented to

the voters.

I suggest there is a lesson to be drawn from this experience, a rather sad experience, if you will, but a true one. The fact of the matter is that about all you can expect the big city school districts in this country to do by local effort is to try to catch up to the suburbs, to try to provide the same quality of education for every child as is available in the suburbs. They can do a little more, they can provide some money for the extra costs of educating the inner city children, but if we are serious in the United States about providing equal educational opportunity for all, which means providing more expensive education for inner city children than we do for the average child, the extra costs must come, most of them, from either the State or the Federal Government-now the State government.

There are several States in this country I am glad to say which do provide some money for the extra costs of disadvantaged children. Connecticut is one, Pennsylvania is another. The Governor of Ohio is interested in the big city problems and I am hopeful that Ohio will join the list this year. The most we expect to get from Ohio is some amount which will average out to $50 or $75 or perhaps $100 for each of the 70,000 disadvantaged children that we have in Cleveland. It costs $600 to run a Headstart program the way we do it, it costs $1,200 to do it the way private organizations do it.

The amount of money that we will get from the State, while it will be helpful, will not do more than add a little bit to what we already have. We are now getting about $70 from the Federal Government for each disadvantaged child. The amounts that we need and the amounts that we can profitably use are very much larger.

In 1966 the Cleveland Board of Education spent wisely and well every dime of the approximately $6 million which we got for the education of disadvantaged children through title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and through the Economic Opportunity Act.

In the current fiscal year we don't know exactly how much money we are going to get as yet. It will not be more than we received in 1966, it may be less. It results in a smaller rate of expenditure this year than we had last year for these programs because in 1966 we received the money rather late in the year and therefore we spend it at a monthly rate which is more rapid than we are spending this year. Therefore, the fact is that in Cleveland we are now conducting compensatory education programs at a lower scale then we were a year ago. In 1968 if the budget proposal which is before the Congress is approved and if the Perkins-Quie amendment becomes effective, the result

will be that we will have to spend in Cleveland in 1968 substantially less money, substantially less money than we have this year or last year.

The reason is that if you take the same amount of money allocated to the State of Ohio and then redistribute it among the school districts of the State, in accordance with the Perkins-Quie formula, it will end up in more money going to the rural areas in which there are a lot of children whose family incomes are less than $3,000 and less money coming to the big cities where there is the concentration of children who are on ADC.

I think the Perkins-Quie formula is a good formula, please do not misunderstand me, but only in the context of a higher appropriation. In the context of a constant appropriation, it is a decision that the level of compensatory education in the inner city will be reduced.

Now, there are a number who are pessimistic about the effectiveness of compensatory education. There are those who read the Coleman report published by HEW this year as indicating that compensatory education does not work. I urge the committee not to accept that view of the Coleman report, it is not, incidentally, as I understand it, the author's view of the Coleman report.

All the Coleman report shows is that to date we do not have a quality of education in the inner city that produces statistically measurable results, but I have seen schools in the inner city in Cleveland which I believe are better than the average school in suburban Cleveland.

I am persuaded, and I have no statistic to back it up, but I am persuaded by observation of what we are doing in Cleveland schools that the additional funds which we spend on remedial reading, that we spend on additional visual aids in the city, that we will spend on keeping the schools open in the afternoon and evenings, that we spend on interracial camping experiences, that we spend on a whole range of programs, are making a real difference for the quality of education of the children in the inner city.

It is very easy for us to become discouraged about the effectiveness of the poverty program, about the effectiveness of title I. These programs are only a year or two old, I think it is extraordinary how much they have accomplished how soon.

I urge the committee if it can possibly do so within the limitations imposed by the Vietnam war and by the pressures of the budget to try to provide a steady increase year after year of Federal funds to improve the quality of education in the inner city.

This is not an interference in local affairs, this is simply a recognition that the problem of lack of education and the problem of poverty in the United States is a national concern. We are now engaged in the reconstruction period from the Civil War, most of the families who come to Cleveland. Most of the families who come to Cleveland, and incidentally some of our less-educated families and those who most qualify for and get the additional Federal help are not Negro, they are the white families from Kentucky and Tennessee, it is the generations of inadequate education that these children and their families and their grandparents have received that create the problems for the inner city.

It is not fair to expect the people of Cleveland to provide the extra money to deal with the problem, it must come from the Federal Government.

Thank you.

Chairman PERKINS. Any further statements from any of you gentlemen?

Mr. ACKERMAN. No.

Chairman PERKINS. Go ahead, Mr. Lund.

STATEMENT OF KENNETH W. LUND, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, SCOTT, FORESMAN & CO., AMERICAN BOOK PUBLISHERS COUNCIL, AND AMERICAN TEXTBOOK PUBLISHERS INSTITUTE

Mr. LUND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That is a most eloquent statement to follow.

My name is Kenneth W. Lund, senior vice president of Scott, Foresman & Co., book publishers, of Glenview, Ill. I am appearing today on behalf of the American Textbook Publishers Institute and the American Book Publishers Council, the two major professional associations of book publishers, the members of which produce more than 95 percent of the books of all kinds published in the United States. I have with me Mr. Robert W. Frase, director of the joint Washington office of the institute and the council.

I want to extend our thanks on behalf of our organization for a chance to make a brief statement.

I will file a statement with the reporter here and this may expedite matters a bit.

I of course want to add a wholehearted endorsement to the spirit, the nature and the intent and implementation of the ESEA bill in the past and the extension prospects in the future. The cause is urgent, as has been eloquently said, and we merely add our voice to those of others in this respect.

In that process you and we both are hunting for the most effective. use of the money, and to that extent we add our voice to the hope that you will give serious consideration to the many pleas for the extension of time. Planning the acquisition of people, the allocation of facilities, all take time and the extension, as has been mentioned, for 4 or 5 years seems more than wise, urgent really, in connection with this type of act. We have two special comments we wish to make in connection with the bill.

The first one is an endorsement of the general idea of entering into services with the private sector as well as the public sector for educational research. We think there is a broad range of talent both interested and capable of contributing to the urgent cause at hand, and we urge that you lend your endorsement and see ultimately that this becomes part of the act.

The second comment has to do with a special part and in that it has not been referred to today during my hearing, I would like to read that part of the statement.

I come now to a provision of the bill which frankly disturbs usthis is the language on page 38, lines 15 through 19, which read as follows:

** producing and distributing educational media for the use of handicapped persons, their parents, their actual or potential employers, and other persons directly involved in work for the advancement of the handicapped * * *”

Commissioner Howe, in his prepared statement of March 2 on the bill, explained and justified this provision in the following way:

The U.S. Office of Education may now support research regarding educational media. This is generally restricted to research concerning the effectiveness of existing media. With the exception of the specific authority under the Captioned Films for the Deaf program there is no authorization to enter into contracts for the development of new media. There is no authorization which would permit specialized training programs to train specialists in the use of such media nor is there any authorization which would permit involvement in the production of such materials or media except for that under the Captioned Films program. Although the Office of Education has no particular interest in the production and distribution of educational materials there are some instances where this can be important. For example, there is some value in the support of sheltered workshops for adolescent-aged retarded or otherwise handicapped youngsters. Such support would indirectly or directly require support for production of materials produced in the workshops.

The support for the development of instructional media is particularly important at this time. Development costs run high, yet the future of education for the handicapped may well depend upon the availability of media not yet off the drawing boards.

Although the granting of authority to the U.S. Office of Education to get into the business of producing and distributing educational materials is limited in this provision of the bill to the production of such materials for the handicapped, their parents, their employers and other persons involved, this authority strikes us as being unwise in itself and a bad precedent. Unlike the situation in some other countries, the U.S. Federal Government has not been responsible for the production and distribution of educational materials. This has been left to private enterprise and to some extent to nonprofit organizations and the result has been, I believe, better and more abundant educational materials than exist in any other country.

As you well know, there have been many examples. This is a Benjamin Franklin done in large type by a man, Keith Jennison, who has really mobilized the private sector to accomplish this kind of thing. We do not think we are far apart in this respect, and we believe that there can be working appropriately prepared to enlist in this instance the resources of the private sector.

May I just add one word in closing. I spent some 10 years of my life working in the Chicago public schools concerned with the programs for the handicapped. No comment here should interpret any less concern than most of you have for effective programs in this field. We are just anxious that you use the full resources of the education community, including the private sector in this respect, and we would both endorse, support, and try to find ways of implementing and disseminating this kind of research.

It is only the question of entering directly into the publishing business.

Chairman PERKINS. Let me ask you one question. You people in the National School Boards Association and other witnesses all endorse the National Teachers Corps, the national recruiting and Office of Education?

Mr. LUND. That is a question for you.

Mr. ACKERMAN. Well, the comment we made in the statement was that we endorse the program as it is amended. We think it is one way. We think that it has created an environment, we don't think it is the only way, and we would like to see it kept on the pilot program.

Chairman PERKINS. How is it working in the city of Cleveland? Mr. CALKINS. It is working very well. We have a small program with about 25 Corps members being trained at the University of Akron.

Chairman PERKINS. Twenty-five Corps members, teachers, besides your interns?

Mr. CALKINS. Twenty-five interns and only two or three teachers. It is very small, but it is working very well and we are pleased with it.

Chairman PERKINS. Can you evaluate the effectiveness thus far? Mr. CALKINS. Yes, second-best program for recruiting inner-city teachers into inner-city schools.

Chairman PERKINS. Any other comments on it?

Mr. LUND. The plan I think is wonderful. I do not have the direct experience.

Chairman PERKINS. What about yourself? Do you favor the inner city?

Mr. WEBB. We feel it is one of the ways in which people can be attracted into teaching in the inner city in the problem areas where otherwise we might not be able to assign them for a variety of reasons. The business of bringing people who volunteer or present themselves for special training in this area-then we have some evidence.

Chairman PERKINS. Briefly tell us why you are able to recruit teachers from the National Teachers Corps when you are not otherwise able to recruit teachers for these disadvantaged areas. Some of the members of the House would like to have a concrete statement from the school board representatives.

Mr. WEBB. This would be my opinion, and I also would like to give Mr. Calkins a chance to expound on this, too, from the viewpoint of Cleveland.

I think there are a couple of factors. One is that the nature of the Corps itself is such that there is a charisma, a sense of mission, that can be generated with this kind of a program. When people are recruited into the program, given special skill and knowledge as to how best to teach in this area, then they have a sense of security and success that enables them to stay with that kind of teaching.

The second part that I was going to make is that it recruits from people who have not originally planned to go into teaching and entered it through another route.

Chairman PERKINS. Go ahead.

Mr. CALKINS. The quality of courses in education given at many American colleges is so bad that many of the ablest students going to college do not take them. Instead, they take history, government, economics, mathematics, science, and a variety of other things that they think are better taught, have more content and will do them more good in whatever occupation they wish to enter. If they then decide to be teachers, they are confronted with certification requirements which say they cannot teach and they are confronted with adminis