men. (The following statements are indicative of the responses of the superintendents and principals.)

(a) "Our Corps members have served our area well in the short time we have had them. The interns have performed invaluable services in remedial programs for individuals and small groups. The contact with the community and its problems have been useful both to the community and to the Corps members themselves."

(b) "Such activities as home visits, creative writing, tutorial services, remedial reading instruction, and 4-H Club work are some of the services being performed by the Corpsmen. We find the members most willing to accept responsibiltiy and to have a good attitude toward the children."

(c) "The Corpsmen on the whole are doing community work and have been able to greatly enrich and assist in our Title I work."

(d) "Use of NTC has enabled us to reduce the pupil-teacher ratio."

(e) "The shortage of teachers has been such that we had five classrooms without teachers from September to Christmas. We integrated the Corpsmen with a language arts remedial program under Title I. They have introduced new methods into teaching. They work both with the parents and with the children. They are very devoted and conscientious with the children. I only wish we had 25 instead of 5 that I might put them in all our schools. We have not had a single incident or problem with the Corpsmen. Please help to get more adequate funds so we can have more."

(f) "Because the interns and the team leader are not required to teach a full load of classes, they can offer individual help to some children. They are planning also to offer a new type of seminar in order to help some of our underachieving students who might benefit from small group work. The preservice and inservice training stresses the use of innovative material and the Teacher Corps team is planning to experiment with the use of some new materials which might be valuable in this school and which might be valuable in similar schools."

Mr. MCFARLAND. The questionnaire in the testimony indicates we surveyed the 111 school districts that have Teacher Corps programs. We received a response from 79 percent of the districts and 50 percent of the 400 some odd principals who are operating programs in the 111 school districts.

I think from the response we received to questions that the overwhelming response was favorable for the total Teacher Corps program. I would like to point out that one major item, question No. 3: What do you see as the greatest benefit from the Teacher Corps program? The overwhelming majority talked about its being a service, an available source of personnel in these disadvantaged districts, and also a future source of personnel.

Chairman PERKINS. What did the returns there disclose on the Teacher Corps by numbers?

Mr. MCFARLAND. Actually in terms of the superintendents, 42 superintendents replied that this would be a source of personnel available for work in the district serving the poverty areas at the present time. Forty-one indicated it would be a future source of recruiting teachers that would probably remain in this type of teaching. Five indicated other reasons.

And in analyzing the other five, basically wanted to state their feelings in a little different way.

Chairman PERKINS. Are there any further questions?

Mr. MEEDS. Mr. Chairman.

Chairman PERKINS. Yes.

Mr. MEEDS. If I may, is this report in any condition to be put in the record?

Mr. MCFARLAND. It is attached to the testimony, the last part. Mr. LUMLEY. I just wanted him to call attention to the major feature there.

Mr. MEEDS. Thank you.

Chairman PERKINS. Again I want to thank you, Dr. Lumley. Your testimony has been most beneficial and we appreciate your appearance. The committee will recess until 9:30 a.m. tomorrow morning.

(Whereupon, at 2:40 p.m., the subcommittee recessed, to reconvene at 9:30 a.m., Wednesday, March 15, 1967.)

ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION

AMENDMENTS OF 1967

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 15, 1967

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR,

Washington, D.C.

The committee met at 9:30 a.m., pursuant to recess, in room 2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Carl D. Perkins (chairman of the committee) presiding.

Present: Representatives Perkins, Green, Daniels, Brademas, O'Hara, Carey, Mink, Scheuer, Meeds, Ayres, Bell, Erlenborn, Scherle, Dellenback, Gardner, and Steiger.

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.

Our first witnesses this morning are Dr. Mattheis, commissioner of education, State board of education, St. Paul, Minn. and Dr. J. A. Byrne, director, division of education, College of St. Thomas, St. Paul, Minn. I call on a distinguished member who has perhaps contributed as much in this field as anyone on this committee to introduce Dr. Mattheis and Dr. Byrne, my colleague, Congressman Al Quie.

Mr. QUIE. Thank you, Congressman Perkins.

It is really a pleasure to introduce to the committee Dr. Duane Mattheis the commissioner of education for Minnesota. I look to Duane Mattheis as one of the great men in education. He is doing an outstanding job in Minneapolis as the commissioner of education and I am extremely proud of him.

He was the superintendent of schools when I first met him. Some of my colleagues remember my reaction generally to the elementary and secondary schools in previous years. It was not exactly the most favorable.

I also remember Duane Mattheis kind of chiding me in my opposition, so he comes to you as a person who has long supported the Federal Government's involvement in elementary and secondary schools.

I was extremely impressed with his testimony to Mrs. Green's subcommittee that traveled across the country when we studied the Office of Education and were in Minnesota. I felt, Mr. Chairman, his testimony would be extremely worthwhile to us now that we are considering H.R. 6230 and also looking at the total of ESEA.

1089

Perhaps the way we ought to proceed is to have Dr. Mattheis speak first and then afterwards get to Dr. Byrne because I would like to talk to Dr. Byrne and I imagine you would, too, specifically about the Teacher Corps.

Chairman PERKINS. You may proceed Dr. Mattheis.

STATEMENT OF DR. DUANE MATTHEIS, COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION, STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION, ST. PAUL, MINN.

Mr. MATTHEIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, and Congressman Quie, in particular. I appreciate very much the kind introduction from the gentleman from Minnesota. I did have the opportunity as superintendent of schools of Minnesota of voting for the Congressman. I am not in his District anymore so I appreciate the kind comments you have put my way.

I am Duane Mattheis, commissioner of education for the State of Minnesota. I am very pleased to have this opportunity to present testimony to you today regarding the Elementary and Secondary Education Act Amendments for 1967. Although the testimony will relate primarily to the amendments, I will also be commenting on those portions of the act not involved with amendments.

At the outset, lest my criticism and suggestion convey something to the contrary, let me say that I have long been a strong advocate of Federal aid to public elementary and secondary education.

I would also have to say that I have been, and am becoming increasingly so, a strong advocate of general Federal aid for public elementary and secondary education rather than categorical aid.

Categorical aids tend to treat all districts and States the same, distort balanced educational programs, develop unnecessary and undesirable administrative bureaucracies and generally-especially with portions of ESEA 1965 and some of the 1967 amendments-retain too much control and direction for local school district and State educational agency decisions in the U.S. Office of Education.

Another general comment might even be appropriate at this time. It deals with the matter of amendments as well as the President's message on education and health and the concern of most of us in education at a time when Federal financial participation in public elementary and secondary education is increasing rapidly.

That matter is the timing of renewal of acts along with authorization and appropriation of funds. Much has been said about the schedule of funding and appropriations by the Congress. I only wish to add my request to the many I am sure you have received in recent months that this matter receive your most careful attention and consideration.

It is impossible for the school districts of our State to effectively and efficiently expend available Federal educational dollars if they continue to be appropriated just prior to or, as has been the case in the last 2 years, after the opening of a school year.

I realize there are some problems regarding the possibility of the Congress making any kind of a funding decision in the spring of the year, which would be the most desirable and effective situation as far as the school districts and State departments of education are con