the money as in the capital programs would be drained off for administration and little is left for education. That is my concern. My testimony before in terms of Title I is that 90 percent of the money went to teachers' salaries and then you have the built-in problem of union contracts so that any program, educational, must be used where teachers are certified and recognized as teachers. You cannot use outsiders regardless of competence. You must use city schoolteachers and that carries a special price tag, and working weekends means additional overtime, and the money I think is wasted. I am concerned primarily at the present time with cost benefit analysis for programs, compensatory or regular programs. I don't know of any city that so far has developed the ability like an industry would do, the cost of producing a product and getting rid of the fat and all the other wastes.

We have many programs in New York City, compensatory education programs. In fact I think we might be the leader in providing them but they never spread for the benefit of all the youngsters. And Dr. Wheeler mentioned the fact that programs start and are not continuous so we have no articulation from one grade or level to another. And no follow through to find out whether or not the money spent had any appreciable difference in the achievement of the youngster through high school as it may have had when he started in prekindergarten.

Senator MONDALE. Now in your highly prestigious position, you are the chairman of the board of education in New York City, do you feel in this powerful new position you can shake the system up?

LIMITED POWER OF SCHOOL BOARD

Mr. ROBINSON. My preface pointed out the fact that we have special political interests that operate in New York City and the board of education like most boards does not really control the system. It is a policymaking body and it can use its persuasive powers to do some things through its leader.

Where legislation is needed it must go to Albany. Invariably the powers of the unions and its supporters through other unions in the city defeat us. So the flexibility sought even in legislation is almost impossible.

Senator MONDALE. So you see the importance of being involved in the board, but you are under no illusions that you are actually in charge of the system.

Mr. ROBINSON. That is right. I think it is real from your point of view.

Senator MONDALE. How much power do you have?

Mr. ROBINSON. The new law gives us two powers: one, to make policy; two, judicial power, to hear appeals of violations of those policies and appeal mechanism, from students, parents or staff. And that is all.

The operational powers under the new law are given to the chancellor and community districts.

Senator MONDALE. I had lunch with Rev. Milton Galamison, who I think is no longer on the board. He went to Boston, and this was during the Brownsville

Mr. ROBINSON. The whole hassle for desegregation.

Senator MONDALE. When I asked, "Why all the troublemaking there?" he responded with something like, "Senator, there is nothing they can do to hurt that school. Any change has to be an improvement." This was a statement by a member of the board of education, in great resignation and despair over what those schools were doing to the children of that area.

Mr. ROBINSON. You mean Brownsville.

Senator MONDALE. Yes.

Mr. ROBINSON. I think it is still the same. Until that political problem is settled I don't think it will change. The opinion is that if the schools were closed 1 year or 2 the kids will not miss too much. They are still in the lowest in the State, and probably in the Nation.

COMMUNITY CONTROL

Senator MONDALE. We had a witness here yesterday, Dr. Gittell, who discussed that brief experimental period where the Brownsville school district was controlled by a board in an operation which had distinct authority as opposed to this token decentralization of today. There was evidence of far greater parental involvement, a whole host of innovative programs were undertaken, and the children were doing substantially better in the administered tests. It was her opinion at least that helped to prove the need for community control.

Mr. ROBINSON. I agree to some extent. They never had complete authority to do anything. They were under the illusion that they had. Now to operate a program in a district one must, of necessity, have the resources to do it. If you start mounting programs and are frustrated because you must rely on central headquarters for delivery of equipment, books, supplies, et cetera, the delivery of approval of sites for programs, renovations, and all of these things, while there were successes in the move, by and large their frustrations with the battle between them and the central authority is upon the understanding of what their authority really contains. And so, every district, including 201, had the same problem of starting a program under Title I, or any other program where the law says you start July 1 or September 1, and by the time you have the thing off the ground it is now March. And the program really becomes effectively operative in March and you have only 2 or 3 months.

Now you have to evaluate for a year of expenditures because that is the year the money started. Most of the thing is built in fighting and trying to get the resources to do the work and going through the bureaucracy for the delivery.

The flexibility needed is the ability to go to the local places and put it on order through the board or whatever, and have it delivered. There is no point in waiting while a supply department claims it is piled up on orders and they make a delivery 1 year later.

So these are the problems and it is all tied into the union problem. Each union has its vested interests and in the supplies you have their union and every other area has its unions and they are all tied in together, even the construction, into one mass. If you can break through that I would say you could get down to really thinking about education because they all impinge upon that classroom.

Senator MONDALE. That is very encouraging.

Dr. WHEELER. Senator, I don't know whether it is proper protocol to make a comment.

Senator MONDALE. By all means.

DELIVERY OF FEDERAL FUNDS

Dr. WHEELER. I want to add that in addition to the cumbersome machinery-this is by the way typical in most large districts the problem is enhanced by the timing of the allocation and appropriation of processes at the Federal level.

Senator MONDALE. Oh, yes.

Dr. WHEELER. We had an improvement last year by February of last year which is approximately a month past the beginning of the second semester. It wasn't February, maybe it was April, but I did notice there was some slight improvement.

Senator MONDALE. Right.

Dr. WHEELER. We had received the final allocation so we knew the total amount of money that we would have to support compensatory education programs. It has been even in April-when school closes now in June and it is difficult to plan when you don't know the amount of money that you will have.

Senator MONDALE. Finally, we broke a record this year, getting out the education appropriation. We have been having a big fight with the President over whether we will spend money on school children and we won a little of that. We got the largest appropriation, it is totally inadequate, but this year the President signed it and that will help a little. There is no question the Congress is always very interested in this field.

I wish to thank all of you for your participation.

At this time I will include an article from the New York Times for the record*, we had some Puerto Ricans testify about this. Also, I will place in the record at this point the prepared statement of Dr. Louis Monacel, who was unable to present his testimony in person. (The statement follows:)

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. LOUIS D. MONACEL

I. INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am Louis D. Monacel, Assistant Superintendent in charge of the Office of Federal, State and Special Programs of the Detroit Public Schools of Detroit, Michigan. I am pleased to have this opportunity to present to the Senate's Select Committee on Equal Educational Opportunity information on Compensatory Educational Programs, conducted by the Detroit Public School System.

The Federal Government, and to a more limited extent the State Government of Michigan, has for several years provided the only significant funds that the Detroit Public Schools have had for program improvement. Funds awarded to the school district under various acts have made possible a concentrated attack on the problems of education for the economically and educationally disadvantaged children of our city. Indeed, the funds received have provided the only dollars available for the kind of research necessary for program development in the area of compensatory education. A major difficulty that has been encountered is that the allocation of funds has only permitted

*See Appendix 3, p. 5799.

59-4110-71-pt. 12- -7

the mounting of programs that must still be described as "pilot" or "model" programs.

The financial plight of the urban school districts is well known to this Committee. For the record, I would describe briefly the serious situation facing the Detroit Public Schools at this very moment. This fiscal year the school district accumulated a deficit of almost thirty million dollars. This deficit was reduced by some ten million dollars through engaging in the undesirable procedure of reducing teaching staff in the spring of 1971. The School System in September of 1971 will undoubtedly start the year with a deficit in the neighborhood of twenty million dollars only to have that deficit increased by newly negotiated personnel contracts and other "cost of living" factors. Thus a fiscal dilemma of enormous proportion continues to face this large urban school district.

The millage on property tax, now a major part of the support of the Detroit schools, will expire in November of 1971. Funds from this millage will last until June of 1972. In the period between now and June of 1972 the Detroit Board of Education will undoubtedly present a new millage proposition to the voters to simply maintain existing levels of service to pupils, fearing that a seriously increased millage is absolutely doomed to failure. However, the probability of failure of even a "maintenance-of-existing-effort" millage is high. Unless alternative funding is developed the educational picture in Detroit will change from bleak to catastrophic-all at the expense of kids. The Detroit situation is typical of most of the large city school districts. The only difference is a matter of degree relating to numbers of pupils and the rate of decline in local taxation.

The need then, simply stated, is for more dollars, first of all to maintain the basic support required by a large school system but additionally: 1) to expand compensatory educational efforts showing promise by virtue of sound evaluative data and, 2) to initiate still more innovative program models that have been delayed only for lack of funding support. A standing recommendation of the Detroit Public School System has been the full funding of legislation which contains adequate authorization but for which inadequate appropriation bills are enacted.

In order to provide this Committee with the full picture of compensatory educational programs serving public school pupils in Detroit a collection of materials is herewith attached and submitted as my testimony. The package contains the following sections:

I. Introductory Statement.

II. Historical Development of Compensatory Educational Program in the Detroit Public Schools With a Focus on ESEA Title I (Recommendations related to Compensatory Educational programs in Detroit are included).

III. Evaluation Summary of the Effect of Compensatory Educational Programs Serving Pupils in Detroit Public Schools.

IV. Recommendations Made to the U.S. Office of Education by Representatives of the Detroit Public School System-December, 1969.

V. Related Information.

A. Summary of Special Program Components in Selected Detroit Public Schools-1970-71.

B. Study of Elementary and Secondary Education Programs and NeedsA Report to the Committee on Education and Labor of the U.S. House of Representatives delivered by Former Superintendent Norman Drachler, Detroit Public Schools.

I trust that this material will serve to better inform this Committee of the progress of Detroit's compensatory educational programs as well as the concerns and needs still experienced by this large urban school district. As a consequence I hope that the work of the Senate Select Committee on Equal Educational Opportunity will be facilitated.

II. HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF COMPENSATORY EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS IN THE DETROIT PUBLIC SCHOOLS WITH A FOCUS ON ESEA TITLE I

A. OPENING STATEMENT

Detroit, like all other major cities in the United States, for decades has had families whose children have not been successful in the Detroit Public Schools. The complexity of community, home, and school conditions in the ghetto have

historically placed extraordinary pressures on people and on institutions. It is not believed necessary to fully develop the causative aspects of the problems of the ghetto. It is most necessary to admit that the major school systems in the United States, including the Detroit Public Schools, have not been fiscally or educationally equipped to meet the multiple needs of inner-city residents. A decade ago, the problems were severe but were seemingly invisible because of a largely black community that was frustrated with a sense of total hopelessness. The community also was voiceless. Today, many of the same problems remain but the same community is no longer mute. Instead, the frustration now manifests itself in great and demanding rhetoric. The current verbal ability to demand sound education and housing and employment now most easily can turn to physical rage, exemplified by the 1967 disorders in this city. The Detroit Public Schools have long embraced the concept that states and the Federal government must provide vast amounts of program money in order that local school systems can meet the demand and right of all citizens to acquire educational excellence for their children. Thus, the school district was engaged in experimental compensatory educational programs with its own budget and with the help of various foundational institutions as early as 1959. In 1964, the Detroit Public Schools attempted to assume national leadership in enjoining with the legislation provided under the Economic Opportunity Act to continue and enlarge compensatory educational programs for the disadvantaged. In 1965, the Detroit School system was ready to launch programs as massive as the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 would allow.

The various titles of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 have provided an opportunity to focus more directly on the problems encountered during the nine-to-three school day. In April and May of 1965, the Program Development-Special Projects staff met with every school principal and with as many community groups as possible. The provisions of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act were explained to these groups, and it was suggested that it was "dream time". They were asked to meet with their school staffs and parents and to submit their ideas on how they could "make the most significant difference in the lives of their children", whether disadvantaged or advantaged. Over one thousand such ideas were received. These were then categorized and sent back to representative committees from each high school constellation in the city.

These committees consisted of administrators, teachers, parents, and community people. They then assessed priorities to the categories of dreams and ideas which had been submitted.

B. THE EVOLUTION OF COMPENSATORY EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS IN THE DETROIT SCHOOLS-THE GREAT CITIES PROJECT

The Detroit Public Schools began, in 1959, a three-school experimental compensatory educational project called the Detroit Great Cities School Improvement Project. A year later, the Ford Foundation provided some support to the project and it was then expanded to seven schools, one senior high school, two junior high schools, and four elementary schools. The basic ingredients of that project were the addition to the staff of:

1. a school-community agent, as the liaison person between the school and the community,

2. a reading consultant for dealing with the problems of reading, both in the remedial and in the in-service training sense,

3. additional visiting teacher service,

4. the community school concept, where the school was kept open evenings, weekends, and summers for enrichment, remediation, and leisure activities for children, youth, and adults of the local community,

5. curricular modification, primarily as a result of the community involvement in the school program, and through in-service education of the local school staff.

6. additional supplies, equipment, and materials to compensate for the lacks in the lives of these children and to reinforce the teaching staffs,

7. a school fund to supplement the normal requisitioning and purchasing allotments.

Funding levels for the Great Cities School Improvement Project are indicated in the chart that follows: