Mr. MOTTL. The subcommittee will come to order. If we could have Dr. Alexander, Mr. Odden, Mr. Hodge and Mr. Long at the front table here. The Subcommittee on Elementary, Secondary, and Vocational Education is conducting hearings today and tomorrow on H.R. 1138, a bill to provide general aid to school districts and to assist States in equalization of educational resources. These hearings will also address the general subject of equalization of educational resources. The situation of unequal resources, I believe, lies at the root of most of the problems we face in education today. I feel it important and appropriate that the subcommittee address this problem at the same time we think about ways to amend all of the major elementary and secondary education programs next year. In the chairman's State of Kentucky, for example, the richest school district spends about three times as much to educate its youngsters as does the poorest school district. We can add Federal categorical program after program on top of basic educational programs, but the simple fact will remain that in Kentucky the rich will have three times as much for their children's basic education as will the poor. Except for a small program to aid States in developing equalization plans, the Federal Government has not provided funds to remedy this situation. Following the Serrano v. Priest decision a couple of States initiated efforts to revamp their school finance systems on a more equalized basis. To my way of thinking, only the Federal Government possesses the full financial capability to bring about substantial change in this area. States are already providing 43.6 percent of the total elementary and secondary school funds, which marks a steady increase in the State's share over the past several years. Local districts provide 48.6 percent of these funds, and the Federal Government only 7.8 percent. This Federal share has remained fairly constant during the past decade. If funds are not forthcoming for a multi-billion dollar program of the type proposed in H.R. 1138, I am strongly convinced that the responsibility rests with the Federal Government to take some action to do away with the vast inequities that still exist in school financing. For that reason, I am pleased that we have such a distinguished panel of school finance experts here today. I hope that the witnesses today and tomorrow will be able to tell us first what is the status of equalization efforts throughout the country and second, what measures the Federal Government might undertake on a grand scale or on a more modest scale to further the goal of equalization. Our distinguished panel here this morning is Dr. Kern Alexander, Director, Institute for Educational Finance, University of Florida, Gainesville; Mr. Allan Odden, Director, Education Finance Center, Education Commission of the States; Mr. Michael V. Hodge, Director, School Finance Reform Project, National Urban Coalition; and Mr. David Long, Director, School Finance Reform Project, Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. We will hear first of all from Dr. Kern Alexander. Dr. Alexander, may I suggest to all of you, you either can read your statement or summarize it for the record. It is my understanding there will be a Democratic Caucus at 9:00. We might be a little rushed this morning. All of your statements will be submitted in the record in their entirety. Without objection, they will be so admitted. STATEMENT OF KERN ALEXANDER, DIRECTOR, INSTITUTE FOR EDUCATIONAL FINANCE, UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA, GAINESVILLE [The statement of Dr. Alexander follows:] FEDERAL GENERAL AID TO EDUCATION: COMMENTS ON H.R. 1138 by Kern Alexander* General aid to elementary and secondary education is long overdue in this country. Benefits accruing to the nation from education are of such magnitude as to justify a much greater Federal investment. Recognition of the need for a major Federal subvention is not new. As far back as 1931, the National Advisory Committee on Education, appointed by President Hoover, issued a report entitled "Federal Relations to Education" which justified more Federal involvement in education and maintained that the American people should use the Federal tax system to give financial support to aid education in the states. The report, however, emphasized that such aid should not delegate undue control to the Federal government. According to the Committee, funds should be allocated to aid education as a whole and not as special grants for stimulation purposes. Only a few years later, under the Roosevelt Administration, a report by the United States Advisory Committee on Education stated that grants should be made available to states for "all *Dr. Alexander is Professor of Educational Administration and Director of the Institute for Educational Finance, University of Florida, Gainesville. -2 types of current operating expenses". Over the years many sub sequent studies, including the National Educational Finance Project, have continued to recommend general aid for education to supplement State and local financing.1 Federal expansion of More innovative educational programs have The present Bill, H.R. 1138, introducing the "School Finance Act of 1977", represents an attempt to correct the inade 1Alternative Programs for Financing Education, National Educational Finance Project, Volume 5, Gainesville, Florida, 1971, pp. 193-194. 2 Ibid., p. 196. -3 quacies of our present educational grant system without drastic and possibly detrimental restructuring. As a policy shift, the Bill suggests that the Federal government may at least implicitly assume that the problems of education are largely related to a deficiency of financing and not altogether the result of inefficiency or ineffectiveness of the educational system itself. Purposes espoused in the Bill indicate a general desire on the part of the Federal government to play a more basic and monetarily important role in education without burdening the educational system with extraneous categorical requirements. A major change in Federal policy such as this must be considered not only in light of its technical fiscal impact, but also as to its more pervasive implications for Federal-State relations. Rationale which should be used in evaluating a major legislative innovation of this type should include at least the following: 1. Does the program promote development of adequate 2. 3. 4. Does the program provide for administrative arrange- Adequacy of Programs Whether programs are adequate may depend on many variables which include the educational services offered to the children -4 appropriate to their educational needs. Adequacy may also be viewed in terms of outputs or what is produced in the schools. This Bill promotes not only an adequate education but a quality one through the measurement of both inputs and outputs. Local education agencies will be required to submit applications to State agencies which include an assessment of educational needs of the children and also an evaluation of the effectiveness of the educational programs, measured in terms of educational The requirement of an assessment of educational needs is appropriate especially where the result is a plan which may improve the present educational program. Plans descriptive of specified educational services to accommodate particular educational needs of children can, with appropriate implementation, provide for more adequate or even quality education. Measurement of educational effectiveness, as mandated in the Bill, is a complex requirement. As a social phenomenon, education is not easily evaluated, especially in terms of objective measurement of educational achievement. Effectiveness of an educational program must be measured, not only in terms of immediate increases in achievement, but with regard to consumption and long term economic benefits to the individual and society. The term "effectiveness" suggests the use of input/ output analysis to identify alternative mechanisms to produce a more adequate or quality educational program. To date, effectiveness studies have yielded few reliable results. It may well |