ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION

AMENDMENTS OF 1967

MONDAY, MARCH 13, 1967

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR,

Washington, D.C.

The committee met at 9:15 a.m., pursuant to recess, in room 2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Carl D. Perkins (chairman of the committee) presiding.

Present: Representatives Perkins, Pucinski, Hawkins, Ford, Bell, Scherle, and Esch.

Staff members present: Robert E. McCord, senior specialist; H. D. Reed, Jr., general counsel; William D. Gaul, associate general counsel; Benjamin F. Reeves, editor; Louise M. Dargans, research assistant, and Michael J. Bernstein, minority counsel for education and labor. Chairman PERKINS. The committee will come to order.

We have with us this morning several distinguished Kentuckians. Mr. Marvin Dodson, executive secretary of the Kentucky Education Association in Louisville, Ky., will you come forward; and all the county school superintendents that have been invited by Mr. Dodson, or anyone else, please congregate around the table there the best you can. We will try to get started this morning. Proceed.

STATEMENT OF MARVIN DODSON, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY,

KENTUCKY EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, LOUISVILLE, KY.

Mr. DODSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I want to express my appreciation to your distinguished chairman and other members of the committee for this opportunity to testify very briefly on H.R. 6230. Before getting into that, I want to say how pleased we are that you have a distinguished Kentuckian as chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee. Like the ad we have all seen on TV, Carl Perkins stands "10 feet tall" among school people in Kentucky. We are extremely proud of him and believe he will make a real contribution to the schools of the Nation in the position he now holds. I know that this is not the purpose of this appearance, but I could spend the time allotted to me in describing the very fine qualities which Congressman Perkins has.

By way of introduction, I am J. Marvin Dodson, executive secretary of the Kentucky Education Association. KEA is an organization of certificated personnel in Kentucky and has approximately 31,000 members. This is about 97 or 98 percent of the potential of the qualified personnel in Kentucky.

75-492-67-pt. 2

951

Since we in KEA are in no way responsible for the administration of the funds distributed under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, nor is it the recipient of any, my testimony, naturally, will have to deal with some of my own observations and reactions which I have received from those who are more closely identified with the administration of the funds.

I would like to express appreciation to the committee for what the Elementary and Secondary Education Act has meant to our schools in Kentucky. Even though KEA is on record, and has been for a long time, favoring general Federal aid with the State being allowed to develop programs within the framework of its particular needs, we believe that the Elementary and Secondary Education Act has certainly brought improvements to our schools. Through the years, serious attempts have been made in the Congress to get general aid for public education but, as you know, it has met with defeat time after time. It is possible that this act is the only way that public education can be improved at this time. On the other hand, this does not minimize our conviction in the belief that the best possible way in which the Federal Government can assist public education is through some sort of general aid with an equalization factor in the distribution formula.

Most States have developed foundation programs for the distribution of State funds and, in my judgment, the bulk of Federal aid for education should come to the States under some approach similar to the foundation program laws which operate in most of the States throughout the Nation. This could be an objective formula which considers financial ability of a State with relation to its participation in Federal funds. Federal aid to education will never quite get the job done until this principle of distribution is recognized by the Congress.

It is our belief that all aid for elementary and secondary education under this act should be channeled through the U.S. Office of Education and the State departments of education to the local school districts within the State law. As I understand it, there are presently some programs which are not channeled through these particular agencies. For example, the Headstart program, which is currently administered by OEO, and the National Teachers Corps which is directly administered from the U.S. Office of Education to the local school districts are not handled in this manner.

I am sure you will hear a great deal about this during the period of hearings, but there seems to be a need for improved timing of authorization, appropriations, guidelines, and allocations. In my judgment, this will facilitate more effective planning insofar as programs are concerned.

In our State, there is still a tremendous need for school buildings and facilities. In our State, according to a recent survey, the need for classroom construction and related facilities is in the neighborhood of $143 million. The Kentucky Legislature, in trying to meet the increased demands for teacher salaries to keep them anywhere near the level they should be, has been unable to make any appropriation at the State level for buildings since 1960. The lack of appro priations by the legislature for school buildings has not only limited

the school boards in their abilities to build buildings out of current revenues, but it also has limited their capacities for the amortization of school bonds. The amount of bonds to be amortized by each district is determined by the resources which the district has for this purpose. This usually is determined by the revenue from special building taxes and capital outlay funds from the foundation program. Naturally, when the capital outlay fund remains constant over a period of years, the ability of a board of education to amortize school bonds is seriously crippled. Because of the factors which I have mentioned, there has been an accumulation of needs over the past 7 or 8 years which seriously impedes our education progress in Kentucky. Boards of education are limited by a statutory tax rate limitation that prohibits them from raising the necessary additional revenue at the local level.

Let me again express my appreciation for this opportunity to express my views on H.R. 6230 and also express my gratefulness to the members of this committee for what it is doing toward improvement of public education in this country.

Chairman PERKINS. Let me say, Dr. Dodson, that I appreciate your coming. You and I have marched up and down a lot of mountains frequently in the direction of Federal aid to education, commencing back in 1949 and 1950.

Mr. DODSON. Right.

Chairman PERKINS. I am delighted that you are making some progress. We have not been able to branch out in the direction discussed in your statement, but I feel that sooner or later we are headed in that direction.

Mr. DODSON. That is good.

Chairman PERKINS. Thank you for an outstanding statement. Are you going to preside over the panel?

Mr. DODSON. I will, if you would like me to.

Chairman PERKINS. Yes.

Mr. DODSON. The next one, Mr. Chairman, will be Mr. G. C. Burkhead, superintendent of Hardin public schools down in Elizabeth

town.

STATEMENT OF G. C. BURKHEAD, SUPERINTENDENT OF HARDIN COUNTY SCHOOLS, ELIZABETHTOWN, KY.

Mr. BURKHEAD. Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Education Committee:

I am G. C. Burkhead, superintendent of schools in Hardin County, Elizabethtown, Ky. May I express my appreciation for the opportunity to present certain facts and viewpoints on the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and amendments of 1967. I would also like to request the privilege of commenting on the operation and results of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. Kentucky is a State where 24 percent of its youth are from families with incomes less than $2,000. Financing schools, even with heavy support from the State under the minimum foundation program, has fallen far short of providing the bare essentials of an adequate school program. The act has greatly aided in providing needed equipment,

materials, books, personnel, planning, enrichment of curriculums, and, in some instances, construction. On the whole, the act has been very helpful in spite of its many weaknesses.

I suggest that the law would become more effective and efficient if the following points could be given some needed study and, in my opinion, urgent attention and action.

1. The guidelines under which the present law is operating should be less stringent, giving school authorities greater choice in spending the money where it is most needed and will do the most good.

2. Much better planning and use of funds could be made if school authorities were given assurance of funds several months in advance instead of a few days. Crash programs are poorly planned and are, as a result, inefficient.

3. Excessive paperwork under title I applications should be reduced. For example, more paperwork has been required in the 2 years of title I operation than has been necessary in the 15 years of operation under Public Law 874.

4. The law, as it now stands, is discriminating, particularly so in large school districts. In my county of Hardin, for example, there are 13 schools; 9 of these qualify under the act, and 4 do not. School A, which is Upton, has 160 children with a qualifying percentage of 25; school B, Radcliffe, has 1,000 children with a nonqualifying percentage of 12. In school A there are 40 economically deprived children; in school B, there are 120 children who are economically deprived, and these 120 children are denied any benefit under title I of the act. Thus the greater number of children in school B are denied, while the smaller number in school A are favored.

This is not true in a district which has only one school, for in such a district no one is denied. This discrimination is as unjust as the "Colonial Saw" which provided a fine for the rich man and lashes for the poor man for the same offense. This should be corrected so that every underprivileged child has the same opportunity regardless of where he resides. It is recognized that we could have elected to choose the schools which have the greatest numbers rather than using the percentage method in choosing. This would have denied the smaller, poorer school of the aid which it so desperately needed. In a sense, therefore, there was no choice.

5. The OEO Community Action Committee requirements should be changed in reference to selecting personnel. Presently, this is in conflict with Kentucky State law which provides that the superintendent of schools must recommend all personnel. The program should be administered by a single agency if it is to be most effective. Chairman PERKINS. Before you leave No. 4, what method do you use in locating the educationally deprived in your hometown under the guidelines?

Mr. BURKHEAD. The principals and teachers select the children. They know the children well enough to know whether they are economically deprived.

Chairman PERKINS. Do you have a census as to the income of the families, or something like that?

Mr. BURKHEAD. Mainly through the welfare agency in the county we are able to determine how many.

Chairman PERKINS. Do you mean to tell me that the guidelines have prevented you from giving assistance to one of your communities where you have two school systems with 120 educationally deprived children?

Mr. BURKHEAD. That is right, Congressman. You either have to take the percentage method or the numbers method. That is the guideline. We made a desperate effort to get Radcliffe qualified, because 75 percent of those children at the Radcliffe School are federally connected. The children there are deprived educationally because they have been in schools all over the world, but we failed.

I am not sure that that is the guideline from the Federal level or the State level.

Chairman PERKINS. How is the income in general of the school where you have the 120 that were denied participation, compared with the income level of the other school districts that do participate?

Mr. BURKHEAD. The income is much higher in the area of Fort Knox, because the Upton School is in the southern part of the county and largely agricultural.

Chairman PERKINS. The reason that the school did not qualify is

that it is in the Fort Knox area?

Mr. BURKHEAD. But the 120 children there are just as poor as the 40 children down in Upton.

Chairman PERKINS. Go ahead.

Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question about five before he goes on?

Chairman PERKINS. Yes.

Mr. FORD. You said in the second sentence of the fifth recommendation that community action requirements conflict with the Kentucky State law which provides the superintendent of schools must recommend all personnel. Are you talking about Headstart there?

Mr. BURKHEAD. Yes, sir; Headstart. And under the OEO program, it is the same.

Mr. FORD. If we made Headstart an educational program as distinguished from the community action program, would the Kentucky law require that all the personnel approved by the public school agency could be employed in the program?

Mr. BURKHEAD. That is right.

Mr. FORD. Would that, then, under Kentucky law, prohibit a parochial school teacher from teaching in Headstart?

Mr. BURKHEAD. I believe it would, but I am not sure. I think it would; yes.

Chairman PERKINS. Go ahead.

Mr. BURKHEAD. No. 6. In my school district, and in Kentucky as a whole, there is a serious shortage of classrooms. The money received cannot be spent as wisely-I am talking about money received under title I-or as effectively, since there is no space in which to house the children for special classes. In some instances, makeshift rooms or substandard rooms are being used; however, there are very, very few of these available. The lack of classrooms is probably the greatest handicap for school officials in carrying out an effective program under ESEA. Construction money should either be made available under the act or a new construction act passed.