We have undertaken a most effective remedial and enrichment reading program for pupils in the primary, intermediate, and secondary grades in our summer schools of 1965 and 1966. Using ESEA title I funds, we established last April a remedial reading clinic which gives intensive attention to some 90 public, private, and parochial school pupils with critical reading difficulties, and which provides remedial reading specialists to work with other, less critical reading problems among children in the elementary and secondary school buildings of our city.

We are taking care of youngsters who are 2 years or more retarded in reading. We are concentrating our funds in one area, rather than several, to try to improve the ability of our youngsters to compete on equal terms, educationally and economically. Ours is one of the communities which has been cited by the NEA and other organizations for their work in integration. It seems to me that as we are able to give these youngsters a headstart, whether we call it through this formal name, or a headstart in the upper elementary or other grades by teaching them to read, which is the fundamental tool of learning, as we are able to do this we are improving our opportunities and the acceptance of our program of integration, in which we believe.

Since the funding of title I got started a little bit late and we were not able to make commitments, we had funds left over which we were permitted to use for a summer program in the improvement and work in curriculum, in setting up curriculum guides for the culturally deprived and other youngsters.

In setting up curriculum guides for the culturally deprived and other youngsters, through title II, as my respective colleagues have testified, we have been able to improve our library opportunities, which, again, is the heart of the program.

We have established a microfilm library in our White Plains High School, which is available not only to the public schools but the private and parochial schools, and under restricted conditions to the adults of the community. It is the only one in the county, I believe, and this has been made available through the funds which our Congress has provided.

I would like to indicate, also, that we are very grateful for these funds. We have done our best to spend them as economically and effectively as we spend funds raised through our own local real property tax levee.

One of the keynotes that we decided upon when these funds become available was that any funds, Federal or State funds, should be spent as prudently and as wisely as funds which were carefully scrutinized when we again came to our local meetings to discuss the local funds. I would like to endorse the Teacher Corps. The heart of improvement of any program, whether it is for the culturally deprived, for any handicapped child, is the teacher. Many of our teachers have worked in schools which have been predominantly for the privileged child, and are not fully aware of techniques and procedures for working with the deprived child, whether this deprived child be deprived through mental ability, through physical handicap, or through color. As our teachers develop a warmth in working with the handicapped child, our programs become more effective.

This is the key. In our own community, our teachers association is completely back of our program of integration and our program for deprived children. Indeed, they have established a committee to provide equal opportunities for all children.

Equal opportunities, of course, means for the deprived child and for the bright child. Our teachers are working in all of these angles. I believe that all funds should be directed through the State education department, that is, educational funds.

I would like to speak to the point that Mr. Ford made, because I would answer this that I believe that Headstart should be directed through the State education department. I acknowledge the fact, as Chairman Perkins requested me last year, that in some places there is not the availability of space under the direction of the public schools for the time, it seems to me, that the public schools should be directed and should have through the Office of Education and the State education department these funds channeled in that manner, and should be allocated in this manner if the public schools are able to accept the programs.

It was mentioned that in Mississippi this was not possible. It would seem to me that a proviso should be inserted, too, that no child would be denied this privilege, but that if the public schools were able to accept it, it should be through the public schools that they are administered.

I would acknowledge that in New York State we probably have one of the strongest of the State education departments. The leadership there is certainly unparalleled in the country. We have strong leadership and it is again leadership rather than a directorship. We are very grateful for that. In White Plains, the relationship between our public schools and the private and parochial schools, and the community action program, is absolutely harmonious.

We have been fortunate in this relationship. We have worked together happily and efficiently for the benefit of all the children of our community. But all communities have not been so fortunate.

Even in White Plains, the machinery for accomplishing such projects as prekindergarten programs and special summer remedial programs could be greatly simplified if applications for funds and administration of those funds were handled by the agency charged with carrying out the program; namely, the public schools.

Such a simplification of procedure would greatly expedite planning and would eliminate a great deal of time-consuming, expensive paperwork. I would indorse the proposal of Dr. Hazlett, that these funds be made available under title I.

Another, and then it seems to me, equally cogent argument for putting Headstart directly under public school administration through the Elementary and Secondary Education Act is that such an arrangement would make possible continuous, systematic followthrough during the primary grades of those children who enrolled now in Headstart preschool classes.

As the committee is aware, the major national evaluation of Headstart, published in 1966, disclosed that Headstart youngsters in many communities began losing ground academically after entering regular kindergarten and first grade classes.

If Headstart were incorporated in the public school system as an integral unit of the elementary and secondary program, however, provision could more readily be made to monitor the social and academic progress of each pupil, remedial and enrichment programs could be planned as indicated, and evaluation would be facilitated.

One extremely important aspect of the Headstart program is the development of close working relationships between the schools and economically deprived families. The interests and involvement here of these parents would be easier to sustain when their children enter regular school, if Headstart were in all cases operated by the public schools.

It seems to me that as we have nurses working with these youngsters, and as we have doctors examining them, and as we work in small groups we are learning a great deal about both the child and his family. We are making anecdotal records and reports of these cases.

This becomes part of the record and part of the knowledge with which the public school undertakes the education of these youngsters.

It is, indeed, no mystery, it seems to me, that you have classes where the requirement is 15 for working with the Headstart youngsters, the maximum classes, and then you move them to double that. No wonder that there is a lowering of the efficiency with which these children are taught.

The key to the teachers is two things: One, the competition and dedication and warmth of the teacher, and, two, the classes and the opportunity to know each individual child and to know the family of the child, the roots from which this child comes, it makes all the difference in the world whether a child come from the home of one of this committee or come from a cold-water flat where four children were competing for a bed in one room.

Throughout the country you have that kind of situation. Some of it is in our affluent Westchester County. The Teacher Corps will help to insure the kind of teacher that we are looking for. It will give the teacher an opportunity to work in the kind of situation where that teacher will learn this dedication, will get to know the family of these youngsters and will become enriched through this kind of association.

I would urge also that in America we still have rural areas where teachers do not wish to go, unless there is an unusual dedication. I would urge that the proviso of the Teacher Corps be made available. The strength of America is not just in the large cities, although increasingly this is becoming the center of population, not alone in communities which have a heterogenous population in this suburban community, but also there are still many youngsters in rural America and the Teacher Corps should be made available there, also.

Another important point, one on which there has been a great deal of complaint, is that these funds be spent prudently, that we not rush into projects just because money is available, and so that we won't let it go by.

If we are to spend this money prudently we must have adequate time to employ the competent staff which is necessary. If we start a program in September, that program should be funded and we

should know and have certain knowledge and be authorized to begin to employ teachers in January.

We are involved in a recruitment program. We start school in September and immediately start looking for teachers for the next year. If we do not know by January and are not able to make wise and prudent use of this money, it is not as prudently spent as are those funds which are locally derived.

I don't like to use the word "complaint," but I suppose I will. There is the paperwork. We realize that local districts must be and should be accountable for Federal funds, and we acknowledge the right of the Congress to require meticulous accounting of disbursements and the manner in which disbursements are applied at the local level.

But let us work together somehow to simplify all reporting procedures so that the man-hours spent on reports and accounts will be kept to a minimum. It is becoming increasingly difficult for local school budgets to absorb the hidden administrative, clerical and accounting costs necessitated by many Federal assistance programs.

Might I say that the programs that are in the areas which need them most are handicapped by the nature of the proposals which are necessary in order to receive these funds. I am not speaking for White Plains, because we have developed a degree of sophisticated-of sophistication-in applying for funds, but the places that need them most must either put out of the blood and sweat and tears of the administrative staff a proposal which may not be as polished as would be desirable in order to receive these funds, or they must go outside and pay a professional plan designer to draw up these plans.

I do not believe that it is the purpose of this committee or of the Congress to require school districts to employ outside consultants to design plans in order that they be approved.

I would hope that they might be simplified and that there might be some kind of supervision which would go in and look at a program and see what is being done rather than what a beautiful writing says is being done in our communities.

We don't suffer from this because we have good programs and we have good writers. This is a good combination. But the places that need the program most desperately are not always thus able to provide the polished report and request which is sometimes needed.

Another program which has been most helpful is the work study program, the program for vocational assistance for youngsters on the job.

I shall not dwell upon that. I will conclude by saying that I personally feel, and I know that my colleagues who are here would agree, that the continuing interests of the Congress, which the Congress has taken, in Federal aid to education during these past several years is indeed one of the most reassuring developments of the post-World War II era, directly and as a catalyst to State and local endeavor, the assistance provided in legislation sponsored by this committee has enabled the schools of America to move forward.

We have far to go, as my colleagues have testified, and we must make haste, but with continued Federal, State, and local collaboration, you have no doubt, sir, we shall succeed.

Thank you.

(The document referred to follows:)

STATEMENT OF CARROLL F. JOHNSON, SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS,
WHITE PLAINS, N.Y.

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am Carroll F. Johnson, Superintendent of Schools in the City of White Plains, New York, a community of some 50,000 population and the County Seat of Westchester County.

It is indeed an honor to appear again, as I did last year, before this distinguished Committee. And it is a privilege to testify to the efficacy of the Elementanry and Secondary Education Act, which has done so much to help pupils in White Plains and throughout the nation.

Thanks to funds made available by the Congress, under the Elementary and Secondary Education Acts of 1965 and 1966, under the Economic Opportunity Act and other federal legislation, we have been able in White Plains to give a "Head Start" to approximately 180 pre-kindergarten children in Head Start centers last summer and the summer before that. We have undertaken a most effective remedial and enrichment reading program for pupils in the primary, intermediate and secondary grades in our Summer Schools of 1965 and 1966. Using USESA Title I funds, we established last April a Remedial Reading Clinic which gives intensive attention to some 90 public, private and parochial school pupils with critical reading difficulties, and which provides remedial reading specialists to work with other, less critical reading problems among children in the elementary, and secondary school buildings of our city.

With Title I ESEA funds, we also were able to assemble a faculty team last summer to review kindergarten through 12th grade curricula in the areas of English, science, social studies and mathematics. This team wrote new kindergarten through 12th grade curriculum guides for the use of our teachers and prepared special study guides and teacher material for culturally disadvantaged pupils.

Under the Vocational Educational Act of 1963, we were able to arrange parttime employment for 44 students who are taking vocational training at the high school. This combination of work and study has enabled most of these pupils to remain in high school and complete their vocational courses. It had the additional benefit of making that vocational training more meaningful and more useful to the students involved.

We have been able to purchase library books and badly needed instructional equipment with federal funds under Titles I and II of the Elementary and Secondary Eduaction Act. And we are even now installing at White Plains High School a microfilm center which will serve the public, private and parochial schools of our city. This microfilm facility will make available to our students the back issues of 28 major periodicals, dating back to the mid-19th century in some cases. Unique in Westchester County, the microfilm center will be an invaluable adjunct to our school library and classroom facilities and will serve, as well, adults who wish to do serious periodicals research.

Federal aid from all sources for our elementary and secondary programs, including the National School Lunch Act and the National Defense Education Act totals approximately $413,000 in the White Plains School Budget for the current year, 1966-67.

We appreciate this assistance very much. We have done our best to spend these funds as economically and effectively as we spend funds raised through our own local real property tax levy.

We have been invited today to submit comments regarding the proposed Elementary and Secondary Education Amendments of 1967, specifically, amendments relating to the National Teacher Corps, to Comprehensive Educational Planning, to Innovation in Vocational Education, to Expanded Educational Opportunities for Handicapped Children and to Miscellaneous amendments including the Federally Impacted Areas Program.

The proposed amendments take account of many pressing needs of our society and our schools. The amendments are worthwhile and farsighted, and I believe that they should all be enacted into law.

In certain particulars, however, I believe it would be possible to strengthen the proposed legislation so that federal funds allocated under these amendments would go farther and do a more effective job.