ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 FRIDAY, MARCH 10, 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, Dent, Brademas, Erlenborn, Scherle, Dellenback, Esch, and Steiger. Staff members present: Robert E. McCord, senior specialist; H. D. Reed, Jr., general counsel; William D. Gaul, associate general counsel; Benjamin F. Reeves, editor; and Louise M. Dargans, research assistant. Chairman PERKINS. The committee will be in order. A quorum is present. This morning I will ask the members to refrain from questions until all the witnesses have made their state ments. First I will call on Sister Miriam J. Farrell, supervisor, archdiocesan schools, Gilroy, Calif. STATEMENT OF SISTER MIRIAM J. FARRELL, SUPERVISOR, ARCHDIOCESAN SCHOOLS, GILROY, CALIF. Chairman PERKINS. You may proceed with your statement at this time, Sister. Sister FARRELL. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, let me identify myself. I am Sister Miriam Joseph Farrell, a member of the Sisters of the Presentation of the Blessed Virgin Mary, whose headquarters are in San Francisco, Calif. I have been supervisor of elementary schools in the archdiocese of San Francisco, Calif. Currently I am supervisor principal in Gilroy, Calif., and member of a commission, set up by my religious community for the study of our role in education. I have been involved with ESEA-Public Law 89-10-as a member of the Advisory Committee on Supplementary Educational Centers and Service-title III-established pursuant to section 306 of Public Law 89-10 and I have participated with my public school counterparts in Gilroy, Calif.-a rural area south of San Franciscoin implementing both title I and title II. As a member of the title III advisory committee, may I take this opportunity to present the following observations: 901 Because of staff and budget limitations, the division of plans and supplementary centers has not been able to achieve a satisfactory response to the request of the advisory committee relative to site visitations to determine reliability and validity of project requests, and postapproval visits to determine the effectiveness of the project. That the State role in title III continue to be that of advisory to the U.S. Commissioner of Education. The need for support and development of education centers, each serving its own region and forming one link in a nationwide network of centers. It is a distinct pleasure for me to appear before you this morning to discuss and support the administration's legislative proposals as embodied in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act Amendments of 1967, H.R. 6230. Before I enter into that discussion and express that support, however, I should like to commend this committee for its very positive contribution to the entire spectrum of American education as evidenced in the historic Public Law 89-10. Further, I want to assure you that from my experience what you envisioned is being fulfilled-not perfectly, but in significant strides. It was to be expected that legislation as revolutionary and of such magnitude as ESEA would meet with problems. However, if the spirit that initiated it prevails, it cannot but be an effective vehicle in improving all of American education. One factor in the successful implementation of ESEA is the staff of the U.S. Office of Education. The people I have had the privilege to work with in that Office have been both highly competent and genuinely professional. Permit me, Mr. Chairman, to address myself to H.R. 6230, a bill to strengthen and improve programs of assistance for elementary and secondary education. In general, on the basis of experience, the proposals it embodies reflect a necessary evolution of Public Law 89-10 in the pursuance of both quality education and educational opportunities. I would strongly support the extension and expansion of the National Teacher Corps program for the following reasons: The unprecedented shortage of teachers, especially in urban slums and depressed rural areas, is a matter of record. We need trained, creative, committed teachers to work with the disadvantaged. The concept of teacher-intern is realistic. Our present culture is such that this type of dedication can be made attractive to young people who impound a vast reservoir of talent and willingness to serve. My current experience in a migratory area applauds your extension of this program to migrant groups. This would not only benefit the children of migratory workers. It would enable the local school system-in this instance, the Gilroy Unified District-to improve its stability and its effectiveness in the education of the children of the permanent community. I would likewise support the amending of title V (ESEA) to include statewide educational planning. Quality education and the needs of children necessitate rational and complete planning. The coordination this implies would, hopefully, improve present programs and develop new ones. Planning is one aspect of education that is best carried out within a State-local relationship. The Federal Government is hereby fulfilling its role by assisting all educational agencies in developing comprehensive systems of both planning and evaluation. I have highlighted specifically the National Teacher Corps and comprehensive planning. I would like to, generally, support H.R. 6230's proposals regarding innovation in vocational education and expanded educational opportunities for handicapped children. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I have kept this testimony relatively concise and to points within my competence. I stand ready to attempt to answer any questions you might want to put to me. Let me assure you of my vital and compelling interest in our Nation's education needs, and of my awareness that congressional action is needed to keep American education moving forward. Thank you, gentlemen, for this opportunity. Chairman PERKINS. Thank you very much, Sister Farrell, for an excellent statement. We will refrain from asking questions until we hear from all the witnesses in order to conserve time. Our next witness is Dr. Andrew P. Torrence, dean of academic affairs, Tuskegee Institute, Tuskegee, Ala. STATEMENT OF DR. ANDREW P. TORRENCE, DEAN OF ACADEMIC AFFAIRS, TUSKEGEE INSTITUTE, TUSKEGEE, ALA. Mr. TORRENCE. Mr. Chairman, members of the House Education and Labor Committee, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, whose underlying purpose is to strengthen and improve the Nation's schools at the precollege level, is one of the most significant pieces of education legislation ever passed by the Congress of the United States. The need for this legislation is patently obvious, and the best efforts. of all Americans are required if its necessary and wide-ranging programs are to succeed. Most important to supplying the adequately trained manpower which our Nation needs for an ever-changing and complex society is the further strengthening of the foundation of education at the elementary and secondary levels. In a 4-year study of some 10,000 high school graduates, Leland Medsker and James Trent of the Center for Research and Development in Higher Education found that nearly 40 percent of the students clearly possessing college ability-upper two-fifths of their high school graduating classes did not enter college. Their study raises this point: While we continue to expand the opportunities for higher education, what can we do to devote further attention to an exploration of the question of the motivation of young people who might now go to college but who chose, for a variety of reasons, not to? Obviously, one of the answers lies in better teaching and counseling. and of students in the precollege years and the provision of the breadth 75-492-67-pt. 2- -6 and quality of programs which will instill in our young people the love for learning-and to do this in an atmosphere which is conducive to learning. ESEA is sharply focused to achieve these goals. Each title under the act is important and necessary; however, I shall direct my remarks specifically to Title III: Supplementary Educational Centers and Services. I have an especial interest in this title because (1) I serve as a member of its advisory committee and (2) and perhaps of much more consequence, I believe this title holds unusual promise for improving the quality of education in our elementary and secondary schools. The present legislation serves three basic functions: (1) to stimulate and assist in the development and establishment of exemplary elementary and secondary school educational programs to serve as models for regular school programs; (2) to improve education by enabling a community to provide educational and cultural services not now available to the children and adults who live there; and (3) to raise the quality of educational services offered. It permits, even encourages, the schools to experiment with innovative practices and to question the appropriateness of present curriculum-its organization, sequence, quality and quantity. This is, perhaps, the first attempt at wide ranging efforts to bring creativity and innovation into programs at this level of the American educational enterprise. The February 1967 issue of American Education sums up the accomplishments of programs under title III during the past year: By encouraging the efforts of schoolmen to translate the results of educational research into classroom practice, Title III has enabled schools across the country to offer their students everything from teach teaching and mobile art galleries to special programs for the emotionally disturbed. And while Congress authorized $100 million for the title in 1966, only $75 million was actually appropriated. The amendments to this act will broaden title III at several points: The provision of additional funds for the territories, for Indian school of the Department of the Interior, and for Department of Defense schools overseas. In his message, President Johnson requested "seed money for planning innovative school construction to deal with overcrowding, obsolescence, and segregation." He proposed that beginning in fiscal 1968 the school districts would be able to apply title III funds toward such critical educational needs as preschool education and replacing inadequate facilities. From studies which point up the weaknesses of our elementary and secondary schools and the many evidences of low motivation of high school graduates in pursuing college careers, the need for the continuation and expansion of this title is quite clear. Likewise many statistics, reports, and studies show the importance of this legislation's being adequately financed, administered, and directed at the Federal level. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 states: No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subject to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance. There has been blatant opposition to compliance with this and with the guidelines of the U.S. Office of Education in many States, especially those in the southern region. The skillful tactics of some officials, over the years since the 1954 Court decision to desegregate the public schools, point up clearly a need for Federal control of administration of funds for these programs. Examples of these tactics include the mushrooming of private schools whose pupils receive grants for tuition from the States in some cases and the general attitude of many persons that what has been traditionally in education-the dual system-is a "way of life" and each person must be given the freedom of choice about the school he will attend. In other words, unless there is Federal control of these programs there is, in the largest measure, the possibility that a large segment of our Nation's population-specifically, the Negro-will not be able to share proportionately in these programs which are so necessary to alleviate their present status as disadvantaged citizens. The late Adlai Stevenson summed up the importance of education in this way: The American dream begins in the classroom.. The question that looms large today is: How do we give all Americans an opportunity to share in the dream that begins with education? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman PERKINS. That is a fine statement, Dr. Torrence, and I appreciate your putting in an appearance this morning. Our next witness is Mr. J. W. Edgar, commissioner of education, Austin, Tex. It is my understanding that he is not here, but he is represented by Dr. J. Warren Hitt, deputy commissioner. You may proceed, Dr. Hitt. STATEMENT OF J. W. EDGAR, COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION, AUSTIN, TEX., REPRESENTED BY J. WARREN HITT, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION Mr. HITT. We are sorry that Dr. Edgar was unable to be here. He was previously committed to an educational planning meeting in Denver. I am Warren Hitt, of Austin, Tex., deputy commissioner of education for Texas, here to discuss titles III and V of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, as these programs operate in Texas. I am including title V, because these two programs as they operate in our State are closely interwoven. In preparing for the implementation of title III, the Texas Education Agency utilized the resources available to it under title V of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act to establish the office of planning to administer the State's responsibility for title III. Approximately one-third of the Texas allocation under title V was devoted to this effort. The office of planning under the direction of the associate commissioner also has the responsibility for coordinating the planning activities of all agency programs related to instruction— academic, vocational, compensatory, special, and adult. |