schools. That happens on occasion. So I don't think you can go wrong making schools better. I don't think you are necessarily imposing a segregation pattern. What may be happening in the set of circumstances you described is that an inadequate job is being done in the so-called upperclass white school.

It probably would lead us to the conclusion which I think would be borne out, that generally speaking we are really not satisfied with what our schools are doing. It is just that we are much more dissatisfied in the areas of so-called economic disadvantaged. If we turn around and look at these things on a performance standard and measure schools against performance and such as you are talking about, and plan on the basis of raising to the standard, then I think we tend to find a way with the segregation quetion and we are focusing on education, and we would not be, I don't believe, perpetuating de facto segregation.

This is a specific basic problem that our board is dealing with where we have rapidly changing neighborhood patterns in the Miami area and where we are concerned about the kinds of programs being offered in order to maintain the balance that exists within the community. There is no simple answer.

Mr. SPARKS. The studies that have been made on the equalization of educational opportunity would not support his testimony in the fact that the specialized school with higher standards would create a de facto segregation more extensive than we have at present. It means the possibility of wide comprehensive offerings would tend to eliminate this much more than specialized programs in certain schools. Mr. GORDON. If I could expand, if you had a school of technology that had fine technical training programs in a comprehensive high school that was located in what is now a disadvantaged area so that its programs would be designed to attract white students and advantaged students because this is where the best program was taking place in border areas and in areas that are tending to become segregated, one race or the other, you would tend to provide a mixture in a secondary school that could perhaps alter the housing patterns.

I personally am very much involved in the housing business and think it is an undue burden on schools to expect them to do all of the change in housing patterns that are necessary to provide for integrated neighborhoods. But they can imaginatively assist.

I am not suggesting that you put these schools out in advantaged areas and ask the few disadvantaged kids who can qualify to travel to get here. I am saying let us put those in the disadvantaged areas and change the character of the neighborhood that way.

Mr. GOODELL. The trouble with your argument, Mr. Gordon, is that you get school A with 55 percent of the students disadvantaged in a relatively concentrated area of poverty. Nearby is school B with 5 percent. Now under this act, you are under an obligation to allocate the bulk of the money to the school that has 55 percent. You are not talking about specialized services at a level that is going to attract the 95 percent in school B. You are talking about remedial type programs that are designed especially to help the 55 percent disadvantaged in school A.

So, by putting this money in school A you have a specialized program aimed at the 55 percent disadvantaged at a relatively low level.

It is not to attract people from the middle-income school nearby. In that situation, it seems to me the point made by several of the witnesses and raised by Mr. Erlenborn has validity. You are then encouraging the 55 percent disadvantaged to stay in school A where they have a fairly well mounted program aimed at their distinctive problems, while if they move over and become part of the 6 or 7 or 8 percent of the school B that now has 5 percent, they are going to find a much less adequate program to meet their specialized need.

Mr. FORD. You left out the fact that it is essential to have a proper interpretation of this formula. Are schools A and B in the same school district?

Mr. GOODELL. It could be in the same school district or different.

Mr. FORD. Within the school district the requirement placed upon the local authority for administration of funds is merely that they concentrate on programs which are calculated to improve the quality of education for the educationally deprived children. Educationally deprived is not defined in this act in any way that would put a stricture on the local people and say that means a person with a family income of $2,000 or on public welfare or other factors. Once the money goes in the school district, the local authority, in conjunction with your title I committee at the State level under your State plan, determines what the educational deprivation is in that school district and then tailors the program.

The program might be entirely in the school with 55 percent low income families. It might not even be located in the school. It might be located in the public library or an educational center or it might be a traveling teacher who goes to every school, even to schools with 1 percent poor.

In making this record I think we ought to make clear that we are not further complicating or confusing the picture facing the local school people in trying to administer that title. And there is no tie between the $3,000 income and education deprivation within the school district.

Mr. GOODELL. The gentleman has made a largely irrelevant argument. It is right. We do make the allegation purely on the basis of economic deprivation but the testimony of every witness we have heard on this point is that there is a high correlation between educational deprivation and economic deprivation in the areas. I am sure every one of the witnesses here would agree with that.

I also point out to the gentleman we do specifically, under the law, require programs to meet special educational needs for educationally deprived children in school attendance areas having a high concentration of children from low-income families. This is a specific requirement of the law and is not in a general sense that you have to set it up on a citywide basis.

We are requiring them to go into the high attendance areas of those from low income families. This is the law they have to operate under whatever the theory we would like to press here.

Mr. FORD. I disagree with you. The history of this legislation will show we did not mean to tie the hands of the school district, so that they had to pinpoint the program in a specific school or school attendance area. We meant rather, that they would give priority consideration to the problems of the children in the school attendance area with a relatively high number of educationally deprived children. In most

cases, the programs will undoubtedly be carried on in the school normally attended by those educationally deprived children, but not necessarily so.

One of the prime examples was the Greater Cleveland school system which was building a center which we used as a model not only for broadening the original proposal in title I, but also title III that was written into the 1965 act. A number of programs are contemplated where children will be bused from all over Greater Cleveland to a central science laboratory.

Mr. PAGE. Mr. Chairman, this might clarify it a bit as to confusion so far as the State is concerned. Might I read from a draft copy of an audit report of the Chicago funds under title I? We had our conference last Friday with them and challenged this as you have challenged it. They have challenged the wisdom and the right of Chicago to use these funds and I read from their report:

The schools were neither ranked as to the degree of concentration of poverty, nor identified to the projects comprising the two programs.

Therefore, they said Chicago did not have the right to locate these projects as they did unless they located them in the highest priority of high concentration on down the line.

Mr. FORD. I have to respect fully disagree with you. We are more than passively acquainted with the Chicago situation on this committee.

Mr. PAGE. So am I.

Mr. FORD. Because when it came up last year we had a very serious complaint. I think most of the committee agreed that Chicago may have, on the basis of testimony we had last year, gone a little too far in the direction of turning this into general aid to the Chicago school system. There was some difficulty on the part of some groups to trace the effect of this Federal money into programs that were targeted for identifiably educationally deprived children.

You picked perhaps the only city in the country, as a matter of fact the only one in the country I can remember, where this charge has been made. On examination we find that in administering the program for the second year they were more careful in using these funds for a specific program and met the criteria that were set up. Here we have a situation where the city perhaps stretched in one direction further than we wanted them to go. I want to caution you that Mr. Goodell is probably more opposed to Federal control and Federal aid to education than anybody on this committee. If you agree too quickly with him

Mr. GOODELL. That is a high compliment of a kind that comes to me very seldom from the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. FORD. If you agree too quickly with him you are liable to find legislative history on this bill that will do more to put Federal strings on this money.

Mr. GOODELL. The way the law is written and the way the regulations are written and the guidelines they specifically require it to be in areas of concentration of poor families. I will listen as long as you want as to what you say the law should say, and maybe what we said in the off-the-record discussion it would mean, but the regulations are pretty specific on this point.

I don't think we serve the purpose, of this hearing by arguing it any further. It seems to me that the witnesses have indicated their view on this. We are in effect concentrating funds in areas where there is a special need. It does not seem to me that very many Members of Congress are going to dispute that that was our purpose.

Mr. Erlenborn simplified the point which I think is a very valid point that we should consider. In concentrating in areas of specialized need what is the ultimate impact on this whole question of trying to desegregate and balance, not just racially but in terms of education generally so that we are not having some schools in poor areas offering poor curriculum, poor opportunities for white or black students. Obviously if we are concentrating programs in those areas where they have poor schools now, we may be setting up specialized programs that will hold those students there.

It is a legitimate area for us to inquire into, without having to argue about the very obvious provisions of the law as they now stand.

I have concluded, Mr. Chairman. I thank the witness very much. I think your statements have been most illuminating and helpful to this committee.

Mr. FORD. Thank you. The gentleman has consumed, I understand, an hour and 5 minutes. I am sure he has contributed a great deal.

Mr. GOODELL. If the gentleman raises any point about it, the chairman made it clear at the outset we were going in depth. We had 5-minute questioning the first time around and thereafter there was no limitation. I think any snide reference to what time I took is uncalled for.

Mr. FORD. The panel's testimony has been directed pretty much toward the bill that is before us which presents one view of the things in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act that demand attention this year in the way of amendment.

There will be other bills introduced before we are through, affecting a number of other sections of the act, particularly the formula: I would like to ask you as representatives here of State school agencies if you have given any thought to the effect of the changes in the formula that go into operation with the next fiscal year beginning July 1 unless we change them, particularly the option of allocating appropriated funds on the basis of one-half of the national average per pupil expenditure rather than one-half of the average cost within the State.

Now I know from where I am sitting that there are two of you who are from States which are very substantial beneficiaries from this change and one is from a State that lost a lot of money as a result of this change.

Perhaps you would like to comment, bearing in mind that although we have authorized for this year, in title I, $2.44 billion the administration has only asked for in its budget $1.2 billion and therefore we are dealing for all practical purposes with a fixed amount of money.

Maybe it is an unfair question to Mr. Sparks.

Mr. SPARKS. It is not unfair at all because I would have to answer directly that we much prefer that the national average be used as a

basis for compiling the grants. Our reason, of course you could understand readily it would be quite advantageous to us.

Our people go to your State and to other States and in competition over the Nation with children who have-young people who have an excellent education basis. We need to do everything we can to improve ours. We are disadvantaged as far as the average income is concerned staying on the same basis. We feel that this type of approach would be near the same type of approach we use in distributing our own State funds.

It would be nearer on an equalization basis, on the basis of effort plus capability. We feel that if we could draw funds on the basis of the national capability, it would help us tremendously. The same equalization principle would apply that we tried to apply to our own State foundation program.

Mr. FORD. That is on the assumption that the only reason that some States fall below the national average is because they have a willingness to support their schools at the local level, but are totally without the resources to do it, and it presumes that the extra large expenditure by the States such as New York, Illinois, California, which are the leaders, is based on fact as other than a willingness to suport education at the local or State level.

Mr. SPARKS. I would say on the basis of our willingness plus as we apply to our local district, basis of the willingness in terms of our capability.

Mr. FORD. Does anybody else wish to comment on that?

Mr. PAGE. We will be one of the States that will get less of course. I do not know how much but we have no great concern with this formula because Illinois has demonstrated its willingness to support education and I do not think it is a major factor.

Mr. CHRISTIAN. Florida reaches almost to the average. It would make little difference to us. very We would favor a national average.

Mr. FORD. You are just below the breaking point.

Mr. CHRISTIAN. Just slightly below.

Mr. FORD. You have a slight advantage now but in 2 or 3 yearsMr. CHRISTIAN. I expect we will go over the national average so it would not matter.

Mr. FULLER. Speaking for the background of the entire group it has long been the policy of the council that there ought to be distribution of intergovernmental funds for education with equalization at all levels.

In other words, the State officers generally approve of the equalization features of State systems of school finance which now distribute more than $10 billion a year to local school districts.

According to the policy of the chief State school officers, these systems would have an equalization factor in them, a fairly substantial one I believe. It has always been the policy, and I know of very few chief State school officers from any States that have opposed the policy to have the national funds also exhibit an element of equalization quite substantial as among the States.

Mr. FORD. Did I understand you to say that your formula accepted that principle with respect to all intergovernmental funds for the support of education?