call in 1965 when the act was proposed the administration bill that was sent up recommended that all of the cost of the salaries of the local school system would be handled by the local school system. In the Senate, the change was made so that the Federal Government would pay 100 percent of the cost of the salaries, and this did not meet with the approval of the administration. They sent out to the Democratic Members of Congress a little memorandum with the argument as to why it was unwise. I would like to read it to you right now. Here is what was said: Local school districts should be required to give some support to the Corps as an indication of their belief in it. Otherwise, there will be a strong tendency for school districts to apply for the free ride, taking all the experienced Teacher Corps volunteers they can get, all paid for by Washington. It wasn't I who said that. We believe it is an unwise precedent for the Federal Government to begin paying 100 percent of the salaries of local employees while the Administration is concerned with the improvement of teacher salaries wherever they are inadequate, we question the wisdom of a precedent in which the Federal Government could ultimately be held responsible for 100 percent of the salaries of two million local employees. They also said: We also believe it would be better from a viewpoint of maternal control of personnel for the school district to be making a major payment of teachers' salaries. I thought that was a pretty wise statement, judging from the fact that some other programs are in operation very similar to the Teacher Corps and where the local schools are willing to pay the amount for the salary which reflects the amounts of work they get out of these supplemental individuals, that they should be willing to do it in this case, too. Mr. Howe. One's predecessor's words come home to haunt him. I don't know the status or nature of this statement, of course, but it does seem to me that when you are setting up a supplementary service in a school district, the Congress has recognized that you can't legislate that it shall happen and the school districts shall pay the bill. All of the supplementary services that the Congress has created in the school districts of the country, and there are a great many of them, through title I, title III and title V, all make some provision for payment by Federal funds for the cost of these additional services over and above the regular costs of education. It would seem to me it would be preposterous for the Federal Government to try to say to local school districts that they must provide a service that the Federal Government has decided it wanted at the local expense. Looking at the matter very practically, in terms of a requirement it wouldn't make any sense, and in terms of simply getting them to volunteer to do so, you wouldn't be able to mount a program. Had I been around here, I wouldn't have agreed with that particular proposition, although someone might have defeated me before it got up to the Congress and I would have found myself presenting it. That occasionally happens; let us recognize it. But the fact is that if the program of supplementary services is going to move, it is going to have to have some Federal support. There has been a good deal of discussion about what the levels of Federal support ought to be. As I recall, the Teacher Corps did have a 10-percent contribution from local sources. Mr. QUIE. This came out of the Appropriations Committee. Mr. Howe. It came out of the Appropriations Committee. I was consulted about this last year. I said I saw no objection to such a contribution, and I wouldn't know where, arbitrarily, to draw a line here. Ninety-ten is a possibility for local school districts. Most of them are hard pressed for funds. The only point I would make is if there is going to be a line drawn about a local contribution, it should never operate on a school district coming in in the first year, because then the planning cycle is such that its budget is likely to be solidified and it isn't likely to make its contribution. This is what I tried to stick up for when this 10 percent matter came up last year. It seems to me that if you are going to have programs of this sort move, there is going to have to be, however, a major Federal contribution to them. I will do a little detective work and find out where that thinking came from. Mr. QUIE. It seems that not only are the local school districts performing some service as you indicate in the education of these interns, but also the interns are providing quite a service to the schools as well judging from the comments that are in your report. Mr. Howe. That is right, but a supplementary service. Mr. Howe. Of the nature of title I. That is 100 percent Federal funding. One of my associates gave me a note pointing out the proposal you are discussing was designed to allow the payments of salaries through title I funds and assumed the title I funds would pick up the costs of the salaries. So it wasn't a proposal, evidently, from the Federal Government for local tax funds picking them up, but, rather, for the use of other Federal funds. Mr. QUIE. This possibly could be done presently, is that true? On the 10 percent are they prevented from using Federal money, the 10 percent? Mr. Howe. The 10 percent has to be from local funds. Mr. QUIE. If we see down the roads a way that there are more programs or more people receiving similar type training for the local school district paying the entire salary than is the case in the Teacher Corps, would you then think we ought to take another look at it? Mr. Howe. Do you mean if Teacher Corps Mr. QUIE. Do you want me to repeat it? Mr. Howe. No. It does seem to me that their doing that is probably the result of stimulation of this pattern of training by the Teacher Corps. The fact that there seemed to be a larger proportion of this through those sources than through a very small enterprise like the Teacher Corps would not argue to me for the abandonment of that enterprise. Mr. QUIE. Not the abandonment of the enterprise, but perhaps the local school district would be willing to pay a little bit more in the Teacher Corps since other ones are willing to do it privately who run programs of a similar nature. Mr. Howe. I know this committee will have some school superintendents testifying before it. I think that the best evidence on that point you will get from school superintendents who have an even more immediate insight than I into the problems of the local school budget. These are difficult problems and for them to absorb new Federal programs isn't an easy matter. Mr. STEIGER. Would the gentleman yield? Mr. QUIE. Yes. Mr. STEIGER. Earlier in the day you were asked for information regarding, as I understand the question, the number of schools involved in training teachers. I don't want that figure because that is pretty substantial. I do wonder whether or not you can specify the number that are involved in specific programs aimed at encouraging people to go into deprived areas, to get involved in the Teacher Corps type of specific training. As an example: The State university at Oshkosh is running a program going into the schools in Milwaukee with about 25 students. They want to expand that program. Can you give us any information on that? Mr. Howe. I can't give you any statistical information on this. I can say that there are very few, if any, colleges or universities which are offering as rich a package of training as the Teacher Corps provides over a 2-year period. Most of them giving students this kind of experience are doing it on a one-semester basis. Therefore, again, I think it is worth catching in being as a demonstration enterprise a new pattern of teacher training. Mr. STEIGER. But it would be possible, would it not, to supply some information about institutions of higher learning that are involved? Mr. Howe. Yes. We could give you some examples. Whether we could give you a statistical survey of the whole country, I am not sure. That might involve a rather complex questionnaire process. Let us see what we can find in this area. We would be delighted to. Mr. STEIGER. Thank you. Mr. QUIE. Let me just ask one more question and then we have to go vote. I wish we had more time on title III. If I need more, I will talk to you privately. Looking now at your operation of title III, are there really two directions it is going, one for the supplemental centers, as it was originally anticipated, and the other side really just scattered programs which the school district has developed and which appears to be beneficial to the Commissioner but wouldn't be in a sense a supplemental center to be of service to an area of other schools around it? Would that be correct? Mr. Howe. Yes; although I wouldn't describe these other programs as scattered in the sense that we have endeavored to provide some guides as to the areas which may be most useful, and to subject all of the proposals that are of this kind to a rather disciplined examination in the process of deciding about them. I think one of the important things for us to try to get across to the Congress in this area of title III is the process which we use in making title III awards. There are many problems for us and for Congress men in the fact that we have to turn down over 50 percent of these title III awards. The process is one which we have designed to have integrity, to bring outside consultants into the picture, to make full use of a distinguished advisory committee, and really to be as fair and sensible a process as you can devise. So any of these scattered projects, as you described them, which do survive this are, at least in terms of this sort of an examination, projects which clearly have a good deal of hope to offer to the school systems which make them. Mr. QUIE. Then in a supplemental center part of it, in California I understand California has set up 19 of them. It gives the impression they planned it systematically so they could affect the entire State and the geographical location of the 19. I doubt that that has happened in all of the other States. I don't know which other ones it did happen in. But do you think this would be a good idea for a State to assume a responsibility in this development, as I understand they did in that State, and thereby bring about a good distribution within the State of their supplemental centers so as to affect the most number of students? Mr. Howe. It is an excellent idea. We tried to encourage it. Mr. Estes can give you more information about that. Mr. ESTES. We consider this a model for other States to follow. As a matter of fact, the representatives from the California State Department of Education have visited other States, including Texas, Pennsylvania, and New York. We see many States moving in this direction. New York has a similar system established; Pennsylvania through title III is doing a similar type of activity. In this month, in fact, Texas is establishing a similar system, as is South Carolina. We do not think that the innovative part is separate from the supplementary services. As you know from your visit to California, the innovative part will take place within this system of centers, which I think is extremely important. Mr. QUIE. It appeared to me to be an excellent arrangement. In our argument last year whether the States should be involved more, I was surprised to find out it was possible for the State to become involved directly as they did. I commend that encouragement to the other States. We are so proud of the way they did it in California, we want to make certain they do it in the other States. Chairman PERKINS. We want to thank you, Mr. Commissioner, for an untiring and very revealing discussion before the committee. We all appreciate it. You have displayed great knowledge of your office and the whole country can be proud of the great leader in the field of education that you are. We appreciate your coming in. As far as I know, we won't have to impose on your limited time by calling you again in the course of these hearings. I hope that is the case. Mr. Howe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman PERKINS. The committee will stand in recess until 9:30 tomorrow morning. (Whereupon, at 5:55 p.m., the committee recessed, to reconvene at 9:30a.m. Friday, March 3, 1967.) ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 FRIDAY, MARCH 3, 1967 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR, Washington, D.C. The committee met at 9:40 a.m., pursuant to call, in room 2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Carl D. Perkins (chairman) presiding. Present: Representatives Perkins, Green, Brademas, Hawkins, Gibbons, Scheuer, Burton, Quie, Goodell, Bell, Erlenborn, Scherle, Dellenback, and Esch. Staff members present: Robert E. McCord, senior specialist; H. D. Reed, Jr., general counsel; William D. Gaul, associate general counsel; Louise M. Dargans, research assistant; and Charles W. Radcliffe, special education counsel for minority. Chairman PERKINS. The committee will come to order. A quorum is present. We have with us this morning several members representing the National Advisory Council on the Education of Disadvantaged Children. If it is agreeable with the members of the committee, we will have the group representing the Advisory Council take their seats. If you will please identify yourselves for the record, you may proceed in any manner you wish. STATEMENTS OF DR. SIDNEY P. MARLAND, JR., SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS, PITTSBURGH, PA.; MRS. ELIZABETH D. KOONTZ, PRESIDENT, DEPARTMENT OF CLASSROOM TEACHERS, NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION; THOMAS W. CARR, STAFF DIRECTOR, NATIONAL ADVISORY COUNCIL ON THE EDUCATION OF DISADVANTAGED CHILDREN; AND MICHAEL KIRST, ASSISTANT STAFF DIRECTOR OF THE COUNCIL Mrs. KOONTZ. I am Elizabeth Koontz, a teacher from North Carolina, in Salisbury, N.C. Chairman PERKINS. You are acting as Chairman of the Council? Mrs. KOONTZ. Indeed, I am not. Dr. MARLAND. My name is Sidney Marland, superintendent of schools in Pittsburgh, and a member of the Council for Disadvantaged Children. 321 |