The proposed new section 4A is patterned very closely after section 3 of Public Law 874 in identifying those children eligible to be counted for payment. Under section 3, a parent-pupil survey is conducted by the school district in which the status of residence and/or employment of the parent on Federal property is attested to in a questionnaire signed by the parent. The record is maintained by the school as a basis of claims and future audit.

To obtain information from a parent or guardian with respect to the welfare status of a child poses problems which we believe might make the information unreliable. The element of stigma may be introduced when a school, through a questionnaire, seeks to obtain information about the unemployment of a parent or the fact that a child is on the rolls of "aid to families of dependent children." There is also a rather high rate of change of families who receive aid to dependent children. Rolls are subject to change at least once each month in all States and twice a month in some. The median time for a child on such rolls is 2.1 years. In a 1961 survey it was found that 17 percent are on the rolls for less than 6 months for a given admission and that two-thirds of the families had never been on the rolls prior to their recent admission. The "incapacitation of the father" is a major reason for a child being in the AFDC program. The same study found that nearly 40 percent of such incapacitated fathers had less than 5 years of school, and among them were those who had never attended school. A school questionnaire to parents in order to identify eligible children is, I believe, of questionable accuracy.

As for areas of substantial unemployment, the bill provides that an area must be in such a status for a major portion of a year. Area labor market trends, however, are reported monthly and the status of an area is subject to monthly change from one degree of unemployment to another. Until a major portion of a year (presumably a school year) has passed, a finding of eligibility or ineligibility would be difficult, of course.

The bill, as noted, provides, first, that the child must reside in an "area of substantial unemployment"; and second, that at least one parent must be drawing State unemployment compensation and neither parent may be regularly employed. A determination as to whether a person is "regularly employed," however, presents a difficult administrative problem. It is hard to define and to obtain accurate information. Employment status, moreover, is likely to change frequently, and the child would be eligible only for those periods when neither parent is "regularly employed." Such intermittent eligibility would be difficult to assess and administer.

On

The Department, it should also be noted, has not had sufficient time to complete its estimates of the cost of this proposal which covers a very broad area to which precise and technical eligibility and other reqirements apply. the basis that nearly 70 percent of children on AFDC rolls are of school age, we believe that there are about 2 million children who would be eligible but, as I shall note in a moment, some of them will live in districts that may not meet eligibility requirements. In view of several difficult administrative factorschiefly the average number of children of school age for each parent drawing unemployment compensation and the loss of eligible children by virtue of their residing in ineligible school districts-we are not yet able to assess Senator Morse's cost estimate of $218 million for these amendments.

There are certain other areas of analysis which have not yet been undertaken and which doubtless should be. Because the rate of payment would vary widely from State to State, a projection of costs by States instead of on a national basis should be made. In addition to the 39 "major areas of substantial unemployment" cited in the Congressional Record of February 20, there are "smaller areas of substantial unemployment." There would be some additional cost to serve these areas.

There is also an offset in the potential entitlement which is very difficult to predict. Even within major areas of substantial unemployment, there will be school districts where eligible children reside but in which they will comprise less than 3 percent of the total average daily attendance. In States like California. New York, Pennsylvania, and others, there may be many school districts within a given county or a labor area. Here many children, otherwise eligible, would be lost because the 3-percent requirement is not met in a few of the well-to-do school districts. Among children residing within the corporate limits of the large cities, on the other hand, few will be lost for failure to meet the 3-percent requirement.

In view of these unresolved problems we think it only wise to give the MorseDent proposals for the amendment of the impacted areas programs the most careful investigation in the coming months. We shall do this with a view toward formulating proposals which will adequately recognize the Federal Government's role in improving educational quality and opportunity for the children of our slums and rural depressed areas.

This is not to say that the Department is indifferent to the immediate needs of the 4,200 school districts now receiving Federal payments under Public Laws 815 and 874, the temporary provisions of which are due to expire on June 30, 1965. Recalling that these temporary provisions last expired on June 30, 1963. and were not subsequently extended until December 18 of that year and that appropriations were not voted until the current calendar year, we can well understand the anxieties now felt by school administrators over the impending expiration of the Federal impact programs.

Uncertainty in educational planning brought about by the inability of many school districts to contract expenditures for which there is no legal assurance of receiving Federal financial assistance should be avoided wherever possible. Accordingly, we would not object to a 2-year extension by the current session of the Congress of the expiring provisions of Public Laws 815 and 874.

Senator Morse and members of the subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to discuss with you this morning yet another way in which the Federal Government can exercise its proper role in promoting the general welfare. I wish to assure you once again that the administration will give the most careful study to this and any proposal which is designed to strengthen the Nation's educational system. I look forward to the months and years ahead in which we can carry on together the constructive record of the 88th Congress-the education Congress of 1963-64.

STATEMENT OF GEN. J. HARRY LaBRUM, PRESIDENT, BOARD OF PUBLIC EDUCATION, SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PHILADELPHIA, ACCOMPANIED BY JOSEPH W. MARSHALL, GENERAL COUNSEL, BOARD OF PUBLIC EDUCATION, SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PHILADELPHIA

Senator MORSE. The next witness will be Gen. J. Harry La Brum, president, Board of Public Education, Philadelphia, Pa. General, we are delighted to have you with us. Proceed in your own way.

General LABRUM. May I present to you our general counsel, Mr. Joseph Marshall.

My name is Gen. J. Harry La Brum. I am president of the Board of Public Education of the School District of Philadelphia, Pa.

I am here to urge the passage of Senate bills 2528 and 2725 and also to urge the extension of Public Laws 815 and 874. Perhaps a brief background of the School District of Philadelphia will be of interest.

The School District of Philadelphia is coterminus with the city of Philadelphia which has a population of approximately 2 million. Our school district has approximately 250,000 pupils enrolled in more than 250 schools. We employ about 16,000 people, of whom 10,000 are teachers.

The current budget of the School District of Philadelphia totals $140 million. This compares with approximately $125 million for 1963 and roughly $120 million for 1962. The $140 million for this year's budget comes from the following sources: local taxes, $90 million; State appropriations, $44 million; Federal grants, $4 million; and miscellaneous, $2 million. As you can see, the Federal contribution to the Philadelphia School District is presently about 3 percent

of its total budget. This indicates substantial local effort on the part of the citizens of Philadelphia.

This local effort, however, is being stretched very nearly to the breaking point. Very frankly, gentlemen, the School District of Philadelphia which is the fourth largest in the United States faces a cloudy outlook for the future. The proposed enactment of Senate bill 2528 is the only small ray of light to appear on the horizon in some

time.

What is the problem in Philadelphia? It is perhaps not too unlike the problem in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, or in fact many smaller communities greater numbers of children who urgently require intensive educational opportunities with a local tax base which is not keeping in step.

An area of our city known as North Philadelphia contains 20 percent of our schools and has an unemployment rate among males of 11.4 percent. Here, roughly one-fifth of the families have incomes of less than $2,000. Of every 1,000 people residing in this area, 146 receive public assistance and there are 314 aid to dependent children recipients for every 1,000 persons under 18 years of age.

These figures are not necessarily typical of the entire city. By the same token they are not unique.

In our Mantua area there are 322 aid to dependent children recipients for every 1,000 persons under 18, and in our South Philadelphia area, 374. The male unemployment rate in South Philadelphia is 11.2 percent and in Mantua, 12.4 percent. As you can clearly see a significant segment of the population of our school district is having a desperate time finding a place to live and getting enough to eat. There is very little left over to provide education for their children which is so desperately needed.

We have determined that there is a definite correlation between economic conditions and school achievement. The School District of Philadelphia is doing its utmost to create educational opportunities for these children in order that they may become self-sufficient and responsible members of the community. In recent years we have installed many programs, designed to raise educational achievement, develop a sense of civic responsibility, and insure the possibility of eventual employment.

We have developed significant programs for on-the-job in-service training for teachers, use of school-community coordinators, extension of the school day and week through remedial, tutorial, and enrichment programs offered after school and even on Saturdays.

Last year the Philadelphia School District instituted an all-out effort to prevent students from dropping out of schools. We sent counselors to visit with parents and students at home. All of this, however, costs money, and we must look to you gentlemen for help.

The provisions of Senate bill 2528 are most laudable. They will assist the public schools in providing the various programs so necessary for the children of needy parents.

At this point, I would like to refer specifically to one of the provisions of Senate bill 2528 which I feel is of extreme importance. This is the provision which permits the Commissioner of Education to continue the impacted area payments for an additional 2 years when a Federal facility within a school district is closed. The closing of

Federal installations present many problems to a school district such as the one in Philadelphia. While the activity is in operation we have to provide buildings, teachers, and equipment. This results in obligations which cannot be terminated the moment the Federal activity is closed. Indeed it may take several years

Senator MORSE. I want to interrupt only long enough to say I enthusiastically endorse this recommendation that you just made. I am somewhat familiar with what has happened in community after community after a Federal installation has been shut down and the community was in large measure dependent for its economic livelihood or at least hundreds-in many instances, several thousand-of workers were dependent for their livelihood upon that installation.

It has many economic effects, but one of the most serious is the effect that it has on the schools, and I quite agree with you that we ought to have a tapering off period, at least. Whether it is 1 year or 2 years, it depends as far as I am concerned upon the proof, but it seems to me 2 years is quite a reasonable figure, and I heartily endorse the proposal.

General LABRUM. May I say at this point, too, Senator, that I heartily endorse the statement you made after Commissioner Keppel had finished his talk. I think it is vitally important, one of the most important things that is facing the American people today, to provide proper and adequate education for many of the children who at the present time are not being properly and adequately educated because of the lack of funds and because of the great burden that is placed on local taxation where in many instances, as in Philadelphia, we are limited to those areas not already occupied by the State so that we are in competition with our own community for the tax dollar which makes it awfully difficult to do the things that we in the school district should be doing to help place these children of ours in a position to make a living after they graduate from high school.

Senator MORSE. I appreciate your remarks, General. I have heard enough of your statement to give the following instruction to counsel, and that is that I want him to send your statement to Commissioner Keppel with strong urging on my part that he read it and call it to the attention of the President.

I want to say also that we know how right you are in your statement and how wrong this administration is in its stalling tactics on this legislation prior to an election. Why, of course, we must spend money to meet the needs of this country. We ought to come out and tell the taxpayers that they have got to spend some money for their own protection. To be quibbling over whether or not we need to spend $218 million or twice that much or triple that much in the schools in the ghetto districts of this country is simply shocking to me, and to have such a suggestion come out of my administration this morning made it necessary for me to serve notice on this administration they have lost me on this issue as they have lost me on so many of their positions on economic programs before the election.

The time is now to tell the American people before the election what their problems are and what they ought to do to resolve those problems. I am shocked by this performance this morning. Proceed. General LABRUM. Indeed, it may take several years to make the necessary adjustments in our school system brought about by the term

ination of the Federal activity. Furthermore, it is difficult to adequately plan on a proposed termination of a Federal activity in that decisions are changed, circumstances change, and it is usually not until the activity is formally closed that the school system can take the necessary steps to make adjustments in its school facilities.

Not having experienced a disaster such as that recently suffered by our sister State, Alaska, we in Philadelphia are naturally more concerned with the provisions of Senate bill 2528 than those of Senate bill 2725 which would provide funds for the repairing, renovation, or restoration of public schools in disaster areas. I must say, however, that should a disaster strike the city of Philadelphia which would destroy our buildings, equipment, materials, and supplies without the aid which Senate bill 2725 proposes to furnish, many schoolchildren of Philadelphia could suffer irrevocably. Under the best of conditions and without the excessive burdens brought by a calamity we are having difficulty in Philadelphia in providing the desired facilities and equipment for our children.

As I have indicated, the Philadelphia Board of Education strongly urges the passage of both bills before this committee. More importantly, however, our board urges the extension of the life of Public Laws 815 and 874 which are scheduled to expire June 30, 1965. The Federal contribution

Senator MORSE. General, may I interrupt very briefly? This subcommittee and the full committee, I am pleased to advise you, have already passed the committees and it will be on the calendar of the Senate next week-a recommendation to extend the impacted area legislation for another 2 years. That item will be in conference with the House.

General LABRUM. That is wonderful, and we are very pleased bebecause this will permit us in making up our budget for 1965 to count on that help from the Federal Government.

Senator MORSE. As you may know, General, we have recommended that during the period of extension, be it 2 or 3 years, that the Department of Education conducted a thorough investigation into alleged abuses in connection with the administration of the impacted area law. I wish to eliminate any abuses that can be proven on the evidence, but I do not want to see a whole house torn down because part of it may have a few termites in it. I am for eradicating and exterminating the termites.

General LABRUM. The major responsibility of a school system today is the preparation of youth for successful vocational pursuits. Automation and new technology are taking over our economy. The public schools must educate our youth to be ready for the change. Help us make them ready.

As president of the Philadelphia Board of Public Education, I assure you that we have accepted and do accept full responsibility to do everything within our power to overcome educational deficiencies. However, we cannot do the job alone. The time has come for the Federal Government to assume its share of the responsibility for the educational well-being of our Nation.