Mr. FORD. I notice in your testimony you lay it right on the line that you believe Headstart not only should be transferred to HEW but should become a part of title I. This is the strongest recommendation that anyone has made in this regard.

This puts you out ahead of anyone else in talking about a transfer. Do you really mean you want it to become part of title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act? I am not trying to trap you. I just point out to you do you really mean it when you stop to realize that the funds in title I can only go directly to a public school agency and therefore the non-public-school agencies operating under Headstart would not be included?

Is that what you mean?

Mr. HAZLETT. You raise a point I had not given full consideration to. I was thinking in terms of objectives of Headstart compared to title I rather than the availability of funds to nonpublic agencies.

However, it would seem to me that under a public educational agency the same students would be benefited regardless of who administers the money.

Mr. FORD. Are all the children in your city in the program of the public school system?

Mr. HAZLETT. In our school system the only Headstart program is operated in our city by the public school system; yes.

Mr. FORD. You don't have any parochial schools or private agencies operating?

Mr. HAZLETT. No. The contract from the community action agency is with the public schools system to set up the Headstart programs in the entire area.

Mr. FORD. I think I should tell you that approximately 30 percent of all the Headstart programs in the country and about 10 percent of all the children who are in Headstart are not in public school agencies. In the State of Mississippi no public school agency would handle Headstart. So we set up a community action program down there in a small college in northern Mississippi which administers Headstart on a statewide basis.

If we do what you are suggesting on page 4 of your testimony we would have to do one additional thing. We would have to convince the entire Congress that we ought to take the protective language out of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which was a condition to our getting this legislaiton passed, because the church-State issue is always just below the surface around here.

But for the very restrictive language that we put in the Elementary Secondary Education Act in 1935 we would not have passed it. So there is no chance of changing that language and having a bill. This means that if we follow the suggestion you are making, and as I pointed out you go further than anyone who has suggested this up until now, by specifying that it go into the education act, we will put Headstart out of business in Mississippi, we will put it out of business on the Indian reservations, we will put it out of business in those parts of the country where the only available resources have been nonpublic or church oriented, predominantly small programs.

Though it is 30 percent of the total number of programs, only 10 percent of the children are affected. But almost all of the Headstart

programs that are dealing with the American Indians, for example, and most of them that are available to migrant worker's children are operated by nonpublic agencies, or by agencies other than public school systems.

Some of them are, in fact, public agencies, but they are outside the school system. What I am really asking you, and I am sure that the other gentlemen will be asked about it later, are you really saying that you want to turn Headstart into a straight, no-nonsense education-type program administered by the public schools across the country and get everybody else out of it?"

Mr. HAZLETT. I consider that the Headstart is a preschool, education-type program.

Mr. FORD. You qualified that. You said "preschool, education-type program." That is exactly what we think it is; an education program. But if you don't put the word "type" in there, you are not describing it as we have in the legislation. But again that is not what your testimony says.

Mr. HAZLETT. In terms of my experience in my community, I would like to see Headstart administered under title I, in terms of our own community. I am not sufficiently knowledgeable, and I do not know in other communities there have been some problems about the relationship between the local public school system and the community action groups, and that there are some complications of one kind or another that do not appear in our own situation.

Mr. FORD. You are aware that we have a couple of States that have constitutional prohibitions against the expenditure of public funds for the education of children below the age of 6?

Mr. HAZLETT. Yes.

Mr. FORD. We had some difficulty in those places in running the Headstart program through the schools. But the schools have been able to contract with local community action agencies, which is another category of people concerned with what you are suggesting here.

What I am trying to do is to ask you to reflect a little bit on whether you want to go this far. We are making a record here and somebody on the floor will say, "We had a group of school superintendents in and they are back home and know how the program works. They say it should be in title I."

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman PERKINS. Go ahead, Mr. Hazlett.

Mr. HAZLETT. I think I have already indicated that with respect to title I we feel we could use more money in developing programs for the disadvantaged, that the allocation should be made in such a way that we can build into our budget our personnel and plan more efficiently.

With respect to the current amendments before the House Committee on Education and Labor, I would like to commend the amendments to the Vocational Act and to the Teacher Corps. We have great difficulty, as do all city school systems, in working for disadvantaged youth in recruiting teaching personnel and others to work in those schools.

We believe that internships provided under the Teacher Corps, under the supervision of an experienced teacher, would provide us per

sonnel that we could use during the internship program, and that ultimately they could be recruited as regular teachers in the school system.

We also would like to make the point that we feel that this type of internship program working with local universities might make a change in the training of teachers. We would hope ultimately that all teachers certified would have had sufficient background to be knowledgeable of the problems confronting educators in slum areas, of the large cities. We have in our region where we recruit teachers only one public college that is making any systematic attempt to train their young people to go into the urban community.

We worked out internship programs with them and we have about a 50 percent record in hiring those who do take their practice teaching in those areas. We also have a group of private colleges, small colleges, who agreed to band together some 14 of them, and under the regional laboratory work out a plan where students will take internship in Kansas City, Mo., and Kansas City, Kans.

So we think we see some values, not only practically but ultimately, in teacher training in the national Teacher Corps, and agree that it should be under title I because it is working with the kinds of students that are the objectives of the efforts of title I.

The expansion of the Vocational Act to do more planning and development in the field of vocational training is especially significant to us, I think, in the area of work study. We have one project involving the Rotary Club where some 47 dropouts this year on a part-time, part-time school basis have made complete changes in their attitudes toward school working with adults.

Some of them have gone to night school and some have actually reentered the regular school program. We need to experiment with guidance programs at earlier ages, vocational guidance programs at earlier ages, than presently we do and the availability of funds to work with young people in terms of vocational information would be very important, particularly with the disadvantaged.

There is one other comment I would like to make with respect to comprehensive planning at the State levels, this, in our judgment, would be very valuable to subsidize State departments of education. I am somewhat concerned that the wording, which implies possibly it could be some other State agency than the State department of education, is indicated.

In our judgment, the existing State departments should have the privilege of the overall planning. There are a number of matters which I have listed in my printed testimony which would be very appropriate for study in the State of Missouri.

I think, Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement-any statement I care to make at this time.

(The document referred to follows:)

TESTIMONY OF JAMES A. HAZLETT, SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS, KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI

My name is James A. Hazlett, Superintendent of the School District of Kansas City, Missouri. The District occupies 80 square miles, most of which is in a Kansas City municipality comprising 320 square miles, but part of it is in the city of Independence. The enrollment is 75,000 pupils from kindergarten through

the 12th grade; certified employees number about 3,000 and the operating budget approximates $40,000,000. About one-third of the enrollment can be described as culturally disadvantaged or economically deprived. Forty-three percent of the enrollment is Negro.

The availability of funds under Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act was immediately recognized as an opportunity to expand and intensify a very modest locally financed program of compensatory education in the amount of $150,000 which is still a part of our Title I effort. Organizationally, our approach was two-fold: (1) to interpret any programs financed under Title I as a part of our regular offering, not a second-level program, not one that would be provided personnel or services after the regular program needs were met; and (2) to give the person in charge sufficient rank to proceed to develop programs and make decisions with a minimum amount of delay. A division of Urban Education was created under the direction of an assistant superintendent charged with the responsibility of administering Title I programs, Headstart, and similar activities.

Program development proceeded under the following principles :

1. INTENSIFICATION AND SATURATION

Rather than spread funds over all schools having eligible students, a group of 21 schools (17 public and 4 parochial, enrolling over 15,000 pupils) with the most seriously disadvantaged pupils were selected and expenditure of funds was concentrated there. If and when funds are increased, we believe present experience will assist us in choosing the most promising activities to utilize in other schools to effect improvement.

2. EMPHASIS ON READING AND THE LANGUAGE ARTS

Recognizing reading as the basic tool for school success and essential for competent performance in adult life, reading becomes the focal point of curriculum effort. Workshops, reading specialists working with classroom teachers, reading centers, reading consultants and supervisors, teachers of speech and drama, a curriculum production center for producing learning materials-all these are receiving attention.

3. REORGANIZATION AND EXPANSION OF BUILDING FACULTIES TO PERMIT TEACHER STRENGTHS TO FUNCTION BETTER

The traditional self-contained classroom is being reorganized to permit team teaching, departmentalized teaching, use of teacher aides. Additional supportive services such as counselors, social workers, and psychological workers are serving in pilot situations in one elementary school to determine procedures for ultimate effectiveness before introduced in other schools.

A model resource center is a pilot project in a second school. Over 200 additional personnel at various levels have been added.

4. INTERPRETATION OF PROGRAMS TO PUBLIC

To develop parental and public support in the area served, an individual has been assigned under the District Public Information Director to develop a systematic series of stories and releases and to meet with local groups to assist in building poitive, cooperative attitudes. Classes for parents are being developed and two schools are receiving extra money to develop total community service schools.

5. EVALUATION

As facets of the District Research and Development Department, four people spend their time testing, evaluating, and interpreting the various special features being developed in Title I schools. Not enough time has elapsed to produce meaningful evaluation results.

6. SUMMER SCHOOL

To compensate for ordinary learning loss and to maintain and increase standards in arithmetic and language arts, an attempt will be made to enroll at least 75% of eligible pupils in half-day summer programs for a minimum of 7 weeks.

75-492--67-pt. 2- 2

7. INSERVICE EDUCATION

A staff that understands the philosophy of compensatory education, the sociological conditions and problems, their roles in a newly conceived situation, and the technical aspects of curricular, methodological, and organizational changes is essential to transformation. Workshops and inservice education opportunities to develop these understandings are prominent during the first year. The Kansas City school system was allocated $1,800,000 in fiscal 1966 to spend in six months and $1,600,000 in fiscal 1967 to spend in twelve months. Recreational, enrichment, and feeding programs developed in 1966 were minimized in 1967 because of better designed efforts to work on basic skills and less money to be spent overall for a longer period of time. To broaden our program to serve more children and to add desirable supportive services, we believe additional funds are needed.

We consider Headstart a desirable supplement to Title I and I believe it could be more efficiently and more economically administered under Title I. Title III of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (PL 89-10) has provided us with funds to create upon our application a county-wide Diagnostic and Behavorial Enhancement Center as a pilot and a request for operational funds to maintain the Center is now being considered by the U.S. Office. A second grant is providing opportunities to plan for the use of a computer in eighth grade science and mathematics. One or two other activities of an innovative character are in the application development stage.

Our school system, in summary, has benefited from Titles I, II, III, IV, the NDEA Act, the Vocational Act, MDTA, the Higher Education Act, grants from NIMH, PL 874 for the first time last year, the Equal Opportunities Act, and the Civil Rights Act. These acts have enabled us either to seek new directions or to fortify important but costly programs.

Especially critical in our judgment is the determination of a method by which appropriations from Congress for certain programs, especially Title I of PL 89-10 can be synchronized with budgeting for a school year to allow time for hiring personnel, securing materials, sound programming, and minimal organizational changes within the school year.

With respect to the current amendments before the House Committee on Education and Labor, I would particularly commend the amendments to the Vocational Act and changes in the National Teacher Corps.

One of the values of the National Teacher Corps is that one of the long-range outcomes should be identification of the direction change in teacher-training programs should take. There is a need to assimilate practical information into present teacher-training programs that equip the new teacher with the distinctive insights, knowledges and attitudes that will improve instruction for disadvantaged pupils. Hopefully, the colleges and universities who train teachers will soon refuse to consider a graduate to be a fully qualified professional unless there is adequate development in this area.

It seems to be entirely appropriate and reasonable to include the proposed amendment relating to the National Teachers Corps in the Title I Program because of the following reasons:

1. Title I is the major effort attacking problems of the disadvantaged. 2. The provision of the practical part of the training, extremely important for adequate development of a teacher sensitive and responsive to the needs of the disadvantaged, will be facilitated.

The development of the intern program should provide needed staff for Title I

areas.

Funds may be inadequate to support "planning, development and operation" particularly if vocational equipment is to be included. Amendment should facilitate:

1. Meaningful articulation and cooperation between schools and industry. 2. Systematic examination and evaluation of present programs of vocational education.

3. Collaboration across school district lines to provide adequate vocational programs for larger areas.

4. Orderly consideration of vocational programs for post high school youth.