My first experience with the Detroit program is that it has been relatively trouble free. A thousand CAP programs across the country have had enough publicity to slow down the rest of the problems in New York, Boston, Los Angeles, and I can't pick the fourth one quickly, I hope in judging the cooperation between the educational system and the community action program that you will look out to the experience of some other large cities across the country, and I am not even prepared to guess why it is working in Detroit and not in Cleveland, New York, Los Angeles, and in other places.

I leave that to the people who know that area better but I hope in considering the value of the respective programs that we are dealing with at the Federal level you look to the experience of other cities other than your own.

As an outsider-Mr. Scheuer can't say this and he might take issue with me your record in New York is not distinguished in that regard. Chairman PERKINS. Thank you, Dr. Bowman, Mrs. Levin, and Mrs. Benjamin. I thank all of you for appearing here on a Saturday especially. You have presented some excellent testimony. I again want to thank Congressman Scheuer for having the foresight and vision for inviting you people from the great State of New York. Mrs. BOWMAN. We thank you for the opportunity.

Chairman PERKINS. If there is no objection I would like to insert in the record at this point a statement of Mr. Joseph D. Lohman, chairman, California Advisory Education Commission, 721 Capital Mall, Sacramento, Calif., along with a letter I addressed to Congressman Moss and an article in the Carnegie Quarterly.

(The documents referred to follow :)

Hon. JOHN E. Moss,

U.S. House of Representatives,

Washington, D.C.

MARCH 17, 1967.

DEAR JOHN: I appreciate very much your communication of March 14 which I received this morning. I am very grateful for your thoughtfulness in furnishing me with a copy of the statement of Joseph D. Lohman, Chairman of the California Advisory Compensatory Education Commission. The proposed funding of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act as reflected in the administrative budget is, as Dr. Lohman points out, substantially below the authorizations provided by Congress in extending the Act last year, PL-89-750.

I strongly favor a full funding of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, particularly in Title I, and I intend to make my views known to the House Appropriation Committee at the appropriate time in connection with its consideration of the appropriations for the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.

In the meantime, I shall be most pleased to make Dr. Lohman's statement part of our current hearings on the Elementary and Secondary Amendments of 1967. Warm regards. Sincerely,

CARL D. PERKINS, Chairman.

STATEMENT OF JOSEPH D. LOHMAN, CHAIRMAN, CALIFORNIA ADVISORY COMPENSATORY EDUCATION COMMISSION, SACRAMENTO, CALIF.

When Congress passed the 1966 amendments to ESEA Title I, it authorized $1.45 billion, which would have meant about $110 million to California. But the President only recommended, and Congress passed, an appropriation of $1.05 billion, or 80 percent of the authorization. And while Congress' 1966 amendments to the authorization bill provided that additional children receive ESEA Title I services, the appropriation bill did not include the $123 million authorized

to fund programs for these children. As programs for the new children had to be funded from the $1.05 billion requested by the President, the effect was to reduce the ongoing programs to 70 percent of the authorized amount.

However, in California our appropriation for fiscal 1967 is only 67 percent of our authorization. We are faced with providing programs for more children than last year with less funds than we received last year. Last year's appropriation amounted to $252 per eligible child. The fiscal 1967 authorization would have provided $259 per eligible child. But our actual appropriation was drastically reduced to $180 per eligible child. This means that California either will not be able to include all of the children programmed in the authorization, considering the additional children Congress added, or the quality of the entire program stands to be severely impaired by spreading the funds too thinly.

To add to the seriousness of the problem, it is our understanding that the President's fiscal 1968 appropriation request for ESEA Title I is based on the fiscal 1967 figures. This means that the deleterious effects of the cutback will be projected into the future, despite the fact Congress' authorization bill increases the income eligibility formula to $3,000 instead of the current $2,000 figure. While the authorization for fiscal 1968 is $2.4 billion, the President has requested an appropriation of $1.2 billion-exactly half of what is needed to reach the number of children the Congress intended. Because California's cost of living is higher than that of many other states, the use of a $3,000 allocation formula with no significant increase in appropriations means that California's share of the national appropriation will be substantially reduced compared to that of other states. In other words, California is likely to receive even less per eligible child than it did under the current year's already-reduced appropriation. More than 90 percent of California's school districts have an entitlement under ESEA Title I and are affected by Congressional action on this appropriation. In the program's first year, close to 300,000 California children in 1,044 school districts benefited. But even last year's appropriation was only enough to begin the job since it provided a meaningful compensatory education program for less than half of the California children in need of compensatory education. A 1964 survey by the Governor's Advisory Committee on Compensatory Education found that about 700,000 California children from poverty backgrounds were not succeeding in school and needed special help. Even more funds will be needed if, indeed, we are to reach all of the children who need compensatory education. We cannot serve more children in 1967 than were served in 1966 with a reduction of funds without seriously diluting the program to the extent that it will not make an appreciable impact on the children served nor contribute to raising their achievement level.

[Carnegie Quarterly, Vol. XIV, No. 4, Fall 1966]

THE RICH GET RICHER & THE POOR GET POORER . . . SCHOOLS

"The present allocation of fiscal resources works against education in the central cities. The lesser resources applied to education in the cities apparently hold down educational performance, particularly in the low income neighborhoods. Additional resources, if massive enough, would probably improve educational achievement. The political possibility of finding such resources for central city education is, at the best, uncertain."

In those dispassionate sentences, Alan K. Campbell, professor of political science and director of the metropolitan studies program at Syracuse University, sums up some of the early findings of a series of Carnegie-supported studies of large city school systems. Economists and political scientists are looking at the policies which emerge from school politics and at the ways in which the decisions which produce these policies are made by whom, how, why, and in what environments.

Professor Campbell gave some of the findings in a paper delivered last summer at Stanford University's Cubberley Conference (copies are not available, so please do not request them; however, a list of books and journal articles which are forthcoming from the study will be found at the close of this article). He presented an array of facts, figures, and analyses which add up to a totally disheartening picture of the present efforts and future prospects for financing education in American cities. It is not merely that those that need it most-the city

schools-are getting least. That was already known, though how badly their situation has deteriorated just recently relative to the suburbs was not known. It is the portents for the future that are alarming. For if the interested groups in the cities, including the boards of education, perform in the future as they have up to now, it appears unlikely that there will be effective voices demanding the educational resources the cities so desperately require. One may ask: "Who speaks for the city schools?"

As recently as 1957, annual educational expenditures per pupil in 35 of the largest metropolitan areas were roughly equal in the cities and their suburbs. By 1962, the suburbs were spending, on the average, $145 more per pupil than the central cities. This differential is primarily a reflection of the fact that during those years the disparity in wealth between cities and suburbs was growing.

The shocker, however, is that state aid to the schools, which one might think would be designed to redress this imbalance somewhat, discriminates against the cities. On the average, the suburbs receive $40 more in state aid per pupil than the cities.

Some of the federal aid to education (which came too late to be included in the 1962 statistics) is, of course, aimed directly at disadvantaged areas. But while the federal programs are always referred to as "massive," and while one and a quarter billion dollars per year are a lot of dollars, when they are spread over fifty states, for rural as well as city areas, the impact on any one city--or any one school-is not massive at all.

Whatever the sources of the money, local, state, or federal, the point is that the nation is devoting many more resources to educating suburban children than city children. Or to put it another way, it is spending much more money to educate the children of the well-off than the children of the poor. And every shred of available evidence points to the conclusion that the educational needs of poor children are far greater than those of affluent children. By any measure one wants to use-pupil performance on tests, dropout rate, proportion of students going on to higher education-the output of the schools in the depressed areas of the cities is very much poorer than that of the suburbs. There is little reason to believe that even to equalize treatment would begin to close the gap. To achieve the substance rather than merely the theoretical form of equal educational opportunity requires the application of unequal resources: more rather than less to the students from poor homes.

That knowledge is, of course, what underlies the idea of compensatory education being pushed by the federal government and to a much lesser extent by a very few of the states. The trouble thus far with compensatory education, however, is not the idea but the few funds allocated to it. They are spread so far and so thin that only barely perceptible improvements, by and large, can be made. And barely perceptible improvements have barely perceptible effects on pupil performance.

It does little good to reduce class size from, say, 31.6 to 30.8 (like the average American family, the average American classroom seems always to contain a number of whole children plus a fraction of a child), or to raise expenditures for pupil supplies from $7.25 to $8.50, or to add one social worker to the staff of a slum high school. The evidence already in on compensatory education tends to prove this.

There is scattered evidence, however, from the few places where it has been tried, that dramatic efforts-placing enormous concentration on the teaching of reading, for example, in very small classes-have dramatic effects. Though this evidence is not conclusive because there is not enough of it, it does suggest that some of the seemingly intractable educational problems of the cities' schools would yield before the infusion of massive resources.

The question is where to find them, or, more accurately, how to get them for the city schools. For the money is not hidden, after all. A great deal of it is spent in this country every day, for education and for housing, freeways, war, national parks, liquor, cosmetics, advertising, and a lot of other things. It is a question of the allocation of money, which means the establishing of priorities. That is primarily a political process, and it is heavily influenced by the clarity, vigor, and power with which spokesmen for various interests press their claims. In education, the decision-making unit at the local level, and the principal spokesman for the schools, is the board of education. Various members of the Syracuse group are making case studies of the role of the school boards in

75-492-67-pt. 2-48

several cities, with particular emphasis on Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, New York, and San Francisco. In the cities studied—and though there may be some striking exceptions, the rule appears to hold for most cities-the boards of education have proved to be more tax-conscious than expenditure-conscious. They have tended to tailor demands to what they calculated the tax traffic would bear rather than to hammer home the needs of the schools and the expenditure levels that would be necessary to meet them.

Since taxpayers' groups have many spokesmen and school children, especially poor ones, have few, one might have expected the boards of education to have attempted more in the way of cajoling, pleading, and demanding. This line of reasoning, however, ignores the composition of most school boards. At any rate, though boards of education might have accomplished much more if they had tried harder in the days when the cities were affluent, the question is now almost academic. Most of the big cities are strapped financially, and although some could raise more locally if they would, it is clear that the kind of money that is needed simply cannot be raised by the cities from local sources alone. Much of it will have to come from increased state and federal aid.

Here the passive role of the school boards is much less easy to understand. If they despair of the possibility of getting adequate tax money at home, it is hard to fathom why they have not been leading the fight for external aid, but they have not. So far, the Campbell group concludes, the boards of education have played a relatively minor role, and "there is no evidence in the studies we have undertaken to indicate that this role is going to undergo any drastic change."

Even if it did, it is obvious that strong and active school boards alone could not bring sufficient pressure to bear on behalf of increased aid to the cities. But a coalition of school board members plus local business leaders, various civic groups, school administrators, and teachers' organizations might be able to. "No such coalition now exists." Campbell says, though there are signs in some cities that business leaders are becoming increasingly concerned about the quality of education. As their concern grows, perhaps they will serve as rallying points for strong coalitions to speak for the cities' schools.

(The following statement by Dean Daniel E. Griffiths was submitted for the record:)

STATEMENT BY DANIEL E. GRIFFITHS, DEAN, SCHOOL OF EDUCATION,
NEW YORK UNIVERSITY, MARCH 21, 1967

EVALUATION OF THE ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION ACT (P.L. 89-10)

General

1. The Act has provided stimulus for educational change and development. 2. The most frequently voiced criticism is that proposals are acted upon and allocations made too late for effective implementation of plans. Early commitment by local districts is essential. Decisions come so late that providing for complementary funds in local budgets and for staffing is extremely difficult. Budgets need to be drawn and approved before precise project allocations are made. Further, late decisions make it necessary for local districts to gamble on projects being approved and funded, and those that need the help the most are often least able or willing to "gamble" or "invest" local funds. Uncertainty about allocations has had a debilitating effect.

3. Districts need the help of design and evaluation specialists and other resource persons in the preparation of proposals.

4. Wealthy districts have an advantage over poor ones in securing grants for several reasons:

(a) They are able and willing to gamble local funds prior to the actual grant.

(b) Their staffs are better able to prepare polished proposals-greater educational sophistication and savvy.

(c) They are willing and able to hire consultants to help prepare proposals.

(d) Some estimate that it costs about $10,000 to prepare an outstanding proposal with a proper professional tone.

5. While it has been mandatory to build evaluation into proposals, the results have been token and of little valve. Further, there has been no widespread dissemination of results so that District A can take advantage of District B's experiences.

6. There should be provisions for interstate and interdistrict transfer of funds to take full advantage of unexpended monies. Further, adjustments from "line to line" on individual budgets should be possible as experience yields wisdom. Poor judgments on early estimates have hampered many projects.

7. Guidelines should be more general rather than categorical, to meet local needs. The problems of the suburbs are not the same as those of the inner city. It should be possible to tailor proposals to deal with the particular problems of states, regions, or local communities.

8. The role of universities in 89-10 projects should be broadened and spelled out.

Title I-Special programs for the deprived

1. Many districts do not have resources for planning-skills lacking.

2. Aid is too categorical and guidelines too severe. This reduces flexibility and limits creativity. Proposals must satisfy not only guidelines but transitory notions of government personnel. Only certain lines of thinking are encouraged. 3. There has been some difficulty in identifying children to participate. Definitions of poverty and deprivation should be made more inclusive.

4. Adjustment of budget items should be possible as project is implemented. 5. Administrative expenses are not taken into account sufficiently. Every proposal requires some local investment, and those districts most in need of assistance are often least willing to make the necessary local commitment or take a risk.

6. There needs to be cognizance of the newest developments in providing for the deprived. For instance, some wealthy districts are accepting students bussed in from slum areas. Title I allocations need to take this into account. Title II-Libraries and materials

1. General response to Title II is excellent.

2. There is some question about legality of providing materials for private sectarian schools. Some feel, however, that the fact that some public schools have acted as fiscal agents for securing materials for private schools has fostered closer relationships between the two.

3. There should be fewer categorical grants by subject area.

4. Sometimes local allocations for materials are cut back the year following Title II grant.

Title III-Supplementary centers and exemplary programs

1. Title II has fostered some innovation. It has been of tremendous help to New York City and other large cities, but of less help to smaller districts. It makes possible programs on a trial basis which would otherwise never be tried. 2. The phase in-phase out feature of Title III proposals is excellent, provided local districts are willing to take on full responsibility for successful proposals. 3. Encouragement of formal ties between schools and other local agencies is good-provides legitimate pressure for cooperation.

4. Delay in approval of projects and allocation of funds has hampered Title III projects more than others. There has been difficulty with last-minute staffing and coordination with other agencies. Long-range planning is especially important for Title III.

5. There have been difficulties in reallocation of line item funds as unforeseen needs arise and original estimates prove incorrect.

6. Districts which already have resources for planning make the best proposals, while others have the greatest needs. Districts must be provided with resources for planning.

7. While Title III proposals go directly to the federal government, they are usually approved by state departments of eduction. The states in this area have used this power to encourage regionalization or "clustering" of districts. A single district or agency (e.g., study council) is designated as applicant and administrator of the "package" proposal. While there have been some benefits from this (e.g., cooperation, reduction of overlap, more efficient programs), some creative ideas by individual districts have been lost. Local creativity is forced into the mold of the package. Regionalization or clustering is good for small