PART 13: SCHOOL FINANCE ACT OF 1977 AND EQUALIZATION EFFORTS THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 29, 1977 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON ELEMENTARY, SECONDARY, AND VOCATIONAL EDUCATION, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice at 9:30 a.m., in room 2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Carl D. Perkins (chairman), presiding. Members present: Representatives Perkins, Mottl, Le Fante, and Quie. Staff present: John F. Jennings, majority counsel; Christopher Cross, minority senior education consultant; Nancy L. Kober, staff assistant; and Ms. Meredith Larson, minority staff member. Chairman PERKINS. The committee will come to order. We will start with you, Mr. Jordan, Senior Specialist in Education, Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress. The subcommittee will come to order and continue the hearings on H.R. 1138, Equalization Efforts. Go ahead, Mr. Jordan. STATEMENTS OF DR. JOEL BERKE, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION-(POLICY DEVELOPMENT)-DESIGNATE, HEW, ACCOMPANIED BY DR. RAY PETERSON, SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR LEGISLATION, HEW; DR. ALAN GINSBURG, DIRECTOR, ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION, OFFICE OF ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR PLANNING AND EVALUATION, HEW; DR. K. FORBIS JORDAN, SENIOR SPECIALIST IN EDUCATION, CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE, LIBRARY OF CONGRESS, AND DR. KENNETH QUINDRY, RESEARCH PROFESSOR, UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE [The prepared statement of Mr. Jordan follows:] Subcommittee on Elementary, Secondary and Vocational Education Thursday, September 29, 1977 Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee I am K. Forbis Jordan, Senior Specialist in Education with the Congressional Research Service in the Library of Congress. My role is, as a resource person, to provide information on the subject of equalization of resources for education within States. The guidelines of the Congressional Research Service on objectivity and non-partisanship require that testimony be confined to technical, professional, and nonadvocative aspects of the matters under consideration. In the following statement, an attempt has been made to identify some of the major concerns related to equalization in funding for elementary and secondary schools and also to discuss some alternative courses of action for the Congress as it considers the problems of fiscal and educational equalization within the States. The issue of equalization of educational opportunity among local school districts in a State has been a matter of concern among the States for several decades, and they have made varying degrees of progress in attaining the goal of equalization. Traditionally, equalization has been of primary interest to advocates for the poor. The issue has received increased attention since the California Supreme Court rendered its ruling in the Serrano case in 1971. The major principle in the original Serrano ruling was that the funding system for the schools must be fiscally neutral that the amount of funds available per student should not be dependent upon the wealth in the local school district. The decision did not require equal spending or the replacement of the property tax as a source of support for the CRS-2 schools. In a subsequent decision the California Supreme Court has reinforced its earlier ruling. Concurrent litigation in the Federal courts reached the United States Supreme Court in the Rodriquez case in 1973. The issue was whether or not the provisions of the United States Constitution guaranteed equal access to educational funding per pupil irrespective of the fiscal capacity of the school district in which the pupil resided. In this landmark case the Supreme Court by a 5-4 majority ruled that the matter was not a Federal issue so long as there was a rational basis for the State's funding mechanism for local school operation. In reviewing the Texas system, the court recognized the existing imperfections, but indicated that in that case redress should come through the legislative process or through the State courts rather than the Federal courts. Prior to the initiation of the fiscal neutrality cases, two Federal cases addressed (1) the matter of differences in the educational needs of pupils, and (2) the issue of whether or not the State must alter its school support program to recognize the differences in the educational programs that should be provided to pupils from culturally deprived homes or pupils who require special educational programs. These cases have been referred to as the "educational needs cases" be cause the contention was that the State should allocate different amounts of funds on the basis of the educational needs of pupils. In neither instance did the courts reject the contention that pupils |