as to how many sit on this side of the aisle and listen to these questions and to the profound answers.

Chairman PERKINS. Mr. Ford?

Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman, I was very happy to hear my colleague's questions about the Job Corps. He put his finger on a very sensitive point that this committee will go into, not with this particular piece of legislation but with another one that is coming along.

I am on the subcommittee that wrote this legislation in the past couple of years, with the chairman. A fight has been developed over there over the concept of the Job Corps which seeks to remove a particular type of fellow from his home environment. I could give you a profile.

We may or may not have a large number of them. I don't have very many of these people in the district I represent, although I have some very poor people.

The surroundings that the poor people live in, in my district, are far superior to most of the areas that the Job Corps recruits come from. I don't suggest it is better to be poor in good surroundings than in bad, but a lot of the pressures that these kinds have on them before they come to the Job Corps don't exist in a suburban type area like I represent.

I don't mean to confuse this with the Neighborhood Youth Corps, which is a program for the in-school and out-of-school youth. I thought that is what the gentleman from White Plains was describing as the program he was cooperating with now, the out-of-school Neighborhood Youth Corps. One of the concepts under fire in the Congress is the concept of putting boys in a camp type of arrangement which some of the members of Congress characterize as being semimilitary, though it is a long way from that.

We find a very marked difference in our success with these kids. Quite frankly, as a defender of the Corps I have to admit we have a lot of problems. We find marked difference in our success between the conservation centers, where the boys are closer to the CCC type operation than with some of the urban centers where we have more diversity in the kinds of things we try to teach them.

But the defenders of the Job Corps say that one of the great gains we make even with a boy who drops out is that for a short time he is in a new environment where there is a new set of personal disciplines made available to him. Eating regularly, getting along with a group, and doing all of these things are not possible when he leaves the training area. Do you think that the boy out of the big cities' slums or out of the extreme rural poverty of some of the sections of Appalachia would be reached by a program that was operated in the local school district the same as when it reaches him in the Job Corps?

Mr. BREIT. I had the occasion to visit a Job Corps center in Idaho, which is a conservation type, and I thought the program there was very effective. As a matter of fact, we have six teachers currently working with the Job Corps there. I would think the overall picture would be that it would probably be a better program, such as the conservation program I visited there, if that were continued, although in conjunction with that we are planning to set up in our school system next year a Job Corps center for our own youngsters, not from other communities or other cities.

Mr. FORD. Will this be residential?

Mr. BREIT. They will all live in the town.

Mr. FORD. They will still live in whatever home they have?

Mr. BREIT. Yes; eventually we could develop, and we have this in the future as a possibility, a residential type, but it would only be for our own students. We think there is a lot of potential in that.

Mr. JOHNSON. To be effective in the long range there has to be an educational foundation and the collaborative efforts which have taken place, where there is an educational foundation. In the efforts to even get these youngsters back in school, it is the most prudent expenditure of Federal funds.

The end is not to keep the youngsters out, but to take him and induce him to come back to school. Then to ultimately give him enough education whatever environment you may find him in, so that having had a taste of education he will be willing to come back to school and see the need of it.

Mr. HAZLETT. I have two opinions and they are just opinions. One is if it is desirable that there be a new and structured type of environment for these youngsters to permit some observance of their habits, that could be acheived locally in a residential-type setup.

Secondly, it would seem to me that one of the objectives would be to gradually cause these individuals to assume a place in a normal kind of setting in terms of jobs and living with their neighbors.

It might be better effective if it could be done in the area where they live. If you could come and combine both of these in a residential setting and a gradual moving into the community, it would be wiser.

Chairman PERKINS. I want to thank all of you gentlemen for your appearance this morning. A quorum has sounded. If agreeable, as many of you as can please return for further questioning. You are being most helpful to the committee. Your testimony certainly enlightens the committee in preparing this legislation.

I hope I am not imposing on you too much. If I am, and if any of you have to leave this afternoon and cannot conveniently be present, of course you have that right, too.

The committee will be in recess until 2 p.m.

(Whereupon, at 12:30 p.m. the committee recessed, to reconvene at 2 p.m. the same day.)

AFTER RECESS

(The committee reconvened at 1:57 p.m., Hon. Carl D. Perkins, chairman of the committee, presiding.)

Chairman PERKINS. The committee will come to order.

I feel that all the members, perhaps, have had the opportunity to interrogate the witnesses, so I have only a few questions, and then I will excuse you, if someone does not walk in within the next 5 or 6 minutes.

I would like to ask Dr. Breit, and have the comment of you other two gentlemen, whether you feel that if you had a general Federal aid program, as a complete substitute for the categorical approach, that we now have under title I, involving the same amount of money, do you feel that the disadvantaged would reap the benefits to the extent they are now receiving benefits under title I of ESEA? Mr. BREIT. Well, I suppose this would depend on the handling of the funds by the local schools.

Chairman PERKINS. I mean, if we just turned it over to the States to handle.

Mr. BREIT. Yes. I think my own reaction would be no, that under categorical aid, where it is specified for specific uses, then you do apply it to those critical areas and you use it there. If the same amount of money that is now going into title I came as general aid, I doubt that you would get the same degree of concentration.

It probably would be spread over a wider area.

Chairman PERKINS. Let me have your comment on it.

Mr. HAZLETT. Yes, I would agree that there would not be the emphasis on educating the disadvantaged, under a general Federal aid program. It is a radical concept that is causing many of us to reexamine some of our basic philosophies, really, with respect to the possibilities of education.

Mr. STAPLETON. I would agree with my colleagues here. We obviously would still face, under general aid, the decision of priorities, and I have a feeling that there might be a different ranking of priorities, a diffusion of participation of them, which I think the majority— Chairman PERKINS. Do you feel that if we had this same amount of money going into the States from the Federal level, as complete substitute, that the State authorities would not reach the disadvantaged children to the extent they are now being reached under ESEA, and that they would spend their funds for teachers' salaries, and other State obligations and they would not emphasize the disadvantaged as they are now being emphasized under ESEA?

Mr. HAZLETT. I believe that we would not get the same kind of emphasis on the disadvantaged. There would be some diffusion.

Chairman PERKINS. Now a couple of other questions. Do you feel that we are placing this money under title I of ESEA to the greatest possible advantage at the present time, considering the needs at the elementary-secondary level?

Mr. BREIT. Yes, I think the direction of this categorical aid to the low-income-family youngsters, those of limited cultural backgrounds, is well placed. I think it is money well spent.

Mr. HAZLETT. Well, under the objective of the elimination of poverty, and providing education for these disadvantaged, I think it is being placed correctly.

Mr. STAPLETON. I believe that it is being placed correctly. I am made mindful of the fact that perhaps our district, other districts, perhaps, should view the research available today, and do a little more in terms of saturating at the earlier grades.

We have heard comments to the effect that we have had patchwork, remedial work, at later stages, in secondary, and while I believe that these programs are necessary, and that we need to continue them, and have good programs at other levels, I believe there needs to be a concern for saturation of services for the disadvantaged, under this program, at the earlier grades.

Chairman PERKINS. Is it your experience that we only have enough money for programing purposes under title I available at the present time, and do not have funds available adequate for school construction?

Mr. BREIT. Well, under the present title I program, we have used no money for school construction. It has all been for mostly personnel, and we could use twice the amount that we are getting.

Chairman PERKINS. If you had another billion dollars, in addition to the funds now available under title I of ESEA, how would you recommend to the Congress that the extra million dollars from the Federal level be expended?

Mr. BREIT. Well, I think the first emphasis and concentration should be on program, and then insofar as you need facilities to

Chairman PERKINS. I did not get the first part of the answer.

Mr. BREIT. I would say the emphasis on the use of funds should be on the program for the children, and then if you need facilities to augment that program, to implement it, there should be this privilege and opportunity to use some of the money in that direction, but I think the focal points should be on programs and services to children, as your first use of the funds.

Chairman PERKINS. Go ahead.

Mr. HAZLETT. Well, most of our schools for the disadvantaged are also among our more crowded schools. It would be desirable if we could have funds to be replace outworn buildings, and also provide more classrooms to reduce the class size in the area being served.

However, I would consider that secondary to program development. Chairman PERKINS. Yes.

Go ahead.

Mr. STAPLETON. My reaction to this would be that program development obviously comes first. However, I am made mindful of the fact that we cannot separate a quality program or qualitative program from the various components that make up a quality program, which would be personnel.

Chairman PERKINS. I am sorry. Restate that.

Mr. STAPLETON. I was just stating that I personally feel that obviously one would make program the priority, but I find it hard to distinguish between program development or a quality program and the various components or ingredients that go into making that program, starting with, of course, quality teaching or quality personnel, quality material support, quality conditions of work, quality facilities. I am made aware of the fact, also, however, that there is a subtle area, and as a curriculum and instructions person charged with that specific job, I feel that we need program money which would get at methodology, and this type of thing, as opposed to buildings, but I would not make it an either/or situation.

Chairman PERKINS. I think I will recess. I know some of you want to leave pretty soon, and the other members, it would appear, have had the opportunity, and we have an important bill on the floor this afternoon, and perhaps they will not be back, but let me thank all of you for coming here today, and helping the committee.

Your testimony has been most helpful. And certainly, it has gone a long ways, in my judgment, to pointing up the need for the Teacher Corps. And the city superintendents, by and large, have endorsed the Teacher Corps. This did not occur 2 years ago. Of course, there are some amendments to it, in the proposal this year.

It makes me feel that our hearings have been very constructive. Not only that, but the operation of the Elementary-Secondary Act in general. You people, you educators, have come before use with illustrations, and have evaluated the different titles, which to my way of thinking will go a long ways relieving the Congress of much criticism, because many programs have been criticized that evidence shows are operating very effectively in the country today.

I want to thank you all for coming. Thank you very much.
Mr. BREIT. Thank you.

Chairman PERKINS. I hope that it will not be the last time. I know some of you have been before the committee before, and I hope you will continue to help us in the future.

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you.

(Whereupon, at 2:10 p.m., the committee adjourned, subject to call of the Chair.)