Under this approach, Federal general aid would be provided for school districts with large numbers or high proportions of low income children. Districts with low-income children in excess of either 5,000 or 20 percent of their total enrollment would be entitled to an additional payment for each child above these levels. The proportion of the entitlement paid would depend upon whether a State matches these Federal dollars with new State dollars, for example on a 2:1 basis. The State matching basis could be subject to two provisions. First, matching requirements would be reduced for States with equalization plans in proportion to the degree of equalization actually achieved. Second, matching requirements would be reduced where State payments to eligible districts are above the per pupil average for the State. To increase the incentive for State equalization, Federal general aid would go to the State instead of to the district, provided that: one, the State has a finance system that meets Federal equalization criteria; and two, that expenditures per pupil in eligible districts are above the State average. This approach would leverage State money into urban and rural education, thus aiding cities and some poor rural districts to defray the costs of extra educational burdens generated by large concentrations of special need populations. Negative aspects to this approach are that the matching provision could induce some States to opt out of the program. Further, the provision of targeted special aid to selected districts is a weaker incentive for State participation than is general aid to States. Finally, some urban areas with high poverty concentrations may not be sites with the greatest fiscal need within a State. This alternative would cost $500 million in FY 79. The long-range estimate is $1 billion. Another consideration that might be taken into account would be to modify the current Federal equalization standard by using a weighted per pupil measure. Under this approach the equalization standard discussed under the first three alternatives could be replaced or supplemented by one that requires greater expenditures for pupils with special education needs that meet Federally approved standards. In addition, each State could be required to develop adjustments to compensate more equitably the high cost education areas within the State. This approach would create a unified Federal school policy that relates the distribution of total school resources to pupil needs. It is consistent with long-range Federal policy goals of providing an adequate educational opportunity for all children. This alternative would not involve additional costs beyond those estimated for the first three alternatives. 9 In sketching the options above, I have meant only to be suggestive and responsive to the interests of the Committee as expressed in your letter requesting this information. Each of the alternative approaches I have discussed needs refinement, elaboration, and evaluation before it could be seriously considered for adoption. Further, as I noted at the outset, basic issues concerning whether and with what priority programs of this kind are appropriate to the Federal role remain to be determined. Certainly, our historic commitment to the educational needs of the poor, the handicapped, and the victims of discrimination must remain our central concern. The issues you have raised in your recent hearing on H.R. 1138 are challenging ones and go to the root of improving the quality of educational opportunity in the nation. I look forward to continued study and discussion of these matters and apologize for the delay in this response. Sincerely, 1427 Mary F. Berry 10 Appendix: 6 Congress' Role In Fostering High Aspirations for Equal Educational Opportunity Among The States Addendum to the statement of: David C. Long, Director School Finance Reform Project Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Given to the: Subcommittee on Elementary, Secondary Addendum prepared by: David C. Long and Martin Brigham, Intern Northeastern University School of Law I. Introduction Those who wrote the state constitutions enshrined education as the most important obligation of the states and guaranteed, in the words of many state constitutions, a "thorough", "efficient", "uniform", "general" or "adequate" free public educational system. These obligations, reflecting high aspirations of equal educational opportunity, could not, and most likely would not, have been assumed without Congressional support and prodding. Beginning with Ohio's admission to the Union in 1802, Congress granted lands for the support of common schools to every entering State that contained federal land. In total 145,000,000 acres, over four times the size of New York State, were granted to the states as the cornerstone of their public school systems. Given the limited financial resources of the fledgling states, these lands served as a sorely needed stimulus to public education. In addition to providing financial inducements for the establishment of schools, Congress planted the seeds of state supported education systems through its territorial administration. With few exceptions, the states admitted to the Union after 1789 were first organized as territories. During this territoral stage Congress directly supervised the territories' government and appointed their executive officers. Congress mandated the provision of education in the territories and established a firm precedent for statewide systems of schools. Furthermore, Congress, exercising its discretion over whether a state should be admitted to the Union, set as a prerequisite to admission that states provide education to its children. This |