Senator MORSE. Senator Yarborough, you have missed some things that needed to be said. You ought to have heard the administration's testimony this morning. I want to say that you have got a colleague now who is going to fight just as hard against the administration trying to sweep this under the rug as they have been trying to sweep your GI bill under the rug.

Senator YARBOROUGH. I am with the chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I am on the Committee on Aging. We are having an executive session, writing many of our recommendations in our report. I am forced to go back since it is an executive session, but I came by to express my appreciation to the chairman for his diligence here and express to the school people my intense interest in this. I am not putting other matters ahead of this. It is simply that we are in executive session marking up the report.

Senator MORSE. I want to say to the witness present, he has no cause for concern about the dedication of the Senator from Texas in support of needed education legislation. You are one of the greatest supporters I have had for some years here in the Senate on the committee. In fact, I am glad he did not hear the testimony this morning because I would not want to have his feelings hurt. I mean the testimony of the administration.

Senator YARBOROUGH. The staff has the admonishment that I must leave. Thank you.

Senator MORSE. Proceed, Dr. Willis.

Dr. WILLIS. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Senator Yarborough.

I have one other reference to make. We have a document with the title "Compensatory Education" which I cannot leave with you, but it had gone to the printer. I do want to underline something that General LaBrum referred to more specifically from information regarding our own city.

For instance, we have taken a look at our districts-21-and by a number of different measures, but we want to be sure just what we are doing. We have a classification known as special service teacher which we began many years ago supplying additional staff members to make sure that we were getting teachers in relation to pupils. When we look at our 21 districts, in one group of districts we have spent some $1,700,000, whereas in another group of seven we have used some $7,791,000 for this purpose.

In connection with the master teachers I referred to, the expenditure in one case, one-third of our districts, was $82,000, and another third was, and I am taking the low and the high, $5,800,000. This is an attempt to make an adjustment in terms of need. Equality of education is a phrase, but, in accordance with the need is a phrase that I would add to equality of education because needs do differ as has been suggested this morning. Again, in the question of assistant principals, in one area there would be 2, another area, 46. This would have to do with size of staff. From the standpoint of after school reading clinics, we have used 10 times as much for reading clinics in one-third of our districts as we did in another third, attempting to meet a special situation. In still another, in our recreational situation, we have used twice as much in one-third as in another.

From the standpoint of lunchrooms, again if we take such a factor

as free lunches served in one area it would be 96,000 and the comparable figure in another third would be 479.

If we would refer to school cases, reports processed, and reasons for referrals in terms of home conditions or what not, we find 656 in one area and 2,106 in another. And so on through. If we take psychological services, the same kind of a situation exists. The point being that in adjusting our program to need, we find these differences. But we are fast running out of available dollars in a situation which I think is after all our large cities are quite important. They are quite important to the country as a whole and important to all the people in them, and we need to take the kind of program that Philadelphia has described and that I have alluded to and do more about them and do it quickly.

Senator MORSE. Dr. Willis, I most sincerely want to thank you for this powerful statement that you have made before this committee this morning. It is unanswerable. In fact, I want to thank you and General La Brum for the contribution you made to this record, and I want to say if you did not have the privilege of hearing it yesterday that a similarly strong record in support of the legislation was made by Mr. Robert E. McKay, the chairman of the Legislative Commission of the National Education Association, by Mr. Richard H. Lawrence, coordinator of legislation and special projects of Los Angeles, and by a panel that was directed by Oscar V. Rose, superintendent of schools, Midwest City, Okla.; Mr. B. F. Minor, assistant superintendent of schools, San Diego city schools, California; Richard Taylor, superintendent of Widefield School District, Colorado Springs, Colo.; and Mr. Bennie Steinhouser, superintendent of schools, San Antonio, Tex. And we have statements in the record in support of the legislation from Senator Bartlett, Senator Gruening of Alaska, Senator Dodd of Connecticut, and more statements will be filed by Senators who have spoken to me on the floor of the Senate in support of this legislation.

That is

The record is voluminous. The evidence is undeniable. why the Chair did something this morning that in his 20 years he has seldom found it necessary to do, to express his vigorous opposition to the administration just ignoring the facts, trying to sweep them under the rug. I will tell you what the administration's attitude expressed here this morning reminds me of. It reminds me of finding an accident case bleeding to death and instead of putting on a tourniquet and giving a blood transfusion, the decision is to have a blood analysis of the blood on the ground.

That is the best description I can think of to explain the position of the administration, and when I think of what this subcommittee of mine has done over the years to try to assist the Republican and Democratic administrations alike, seeking to do something for the boys and girls of this country who are the victims of failure on the part of the people of this Republic to provide them with those educational facilities and opportunities that will develop to the maximum extent their intellectual brainpower, I think I have cause to speak as harshly as I have this morning.

I hope to accomplish at least a little second thought on the part of this administration, including the President of the United States.

There being no further witnesses, I close the record. As I announced yesterday, I close the public hearings, and I shall close the

record as of 5 p.m., August 6, and I thank all the witnesses for the great help they were to this subcommittee, and I want to say we are going to win. Maybe not this session, but the facts are with us, and we are going to win.

(The prepared statement of Dr. Willis and the documents referred to are as follows:)

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. BENJAMIN C. WILLIS, GENERAL SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS, CHICAGO, ILL.

I am Benjamin C. Willis, general superintendent of the public schools in Chicago, Ill., where I have served since September 1, 1953. I am here to testify on behalf of Senate bill 2528 and to endorse the amendments to Public Law 874, 81st Congress, to provide assistance to local educational agencies for the education of children of needy families and of children of unemployed parents residing in areas of substantial unemployment.

It is the responsibility of the school to provide for the education of all the children of all the people regardless of the parents' economic contribution to the community or their direct or indirect payment of real property taxes. But in fulfilling this responsibility, the great cities of the United States are confronted with the effects of four factors shaping our society today: the tremendous mobility of our people, the mounting urbanization of the country, the technological advances, and the tensions of today's world. Each poses a challenge to education particularly in the great cities.

Mobility has drawn to the great cities large numbers of the persons least experienced in urban living while it has drawn to the suburbs many of those persons most highly urbanized. The concentration of people in large centers has altered the way of life and introduced persons needing more help. Not only have technological changes challenged educational programs directly, but they have altered employment opportunities particularly for the least able. Social ills concentrated and accentuated in the great cities have increased the tensions.

It is upon the children that the penalties fall. Data supplied by the Cook County, Ill., Department of Public Aid indicate that approximately 92,000 children of school age are receiving public aid. Of these approximately 88,000 reside in the city of Chicago. This number approaches approximately one-fifth of the public elementary school enrollment in Chicago.

This situation is not peculiar to Illinois or to the city of Chicago. Currently, in New York State 399,000 children belong to families receiving assistance: of this number, 257,000 live in New York City; in St. Louis on the first of May 1964, families of 29,496 children were receiving ADC. In April 1964, 145,531 children of families receiving public aid resided in Los Angeles and San Francisco out of 377,056 children in the whole State of California.

These figures describe some dimensions of the problem at present but they do not indicate the dramatic recent growth of the number of children on ADC rolls. In 1948 the average number of children on ADC rolls in Cook County stood at 30,370; by 1961 this number had risen to 98,121, an increase of over 200 percent and did not include the numbers added through extension of ADC to a new type of recipient. From 1958 to 1961 the number increased from 61,268 to 98,121 to 126,151, another increase of 29 percent.

The logic in proposing amendments to the existing act rests upon the premise that children of parents receiving aid for dependent children are in fact, federally connected through the Federal Government's provision for food, clothing, and shelter.

The financial problems of the cities' schools are further compounded by the fact that many of the recipients of ADC live in public housing from which the city or school district receives little or no revenue. In Chicago, in the fall of 1963, it was estimated that 50,000 pupils lived in public housing representing 10 percent of the total school enrollment. The per-pupil revenue from property taxes, based on the total enrollment, was $416; the per-pupil payments in lieu of taxes by the public housing was $9.48, equal to only 2.3 percent of the perpupil property tax revenue. Other large cities have similar situations. In appendix A to this statement are statistics for 14 major cities in the United States.

What this burden means to the financial health of the public schools in the large cities of America is underlined by the fact that financial support for the

public schools in the Nation's great cities comes mainly from the local property taxes as indicated in tables 1 and 2.1

TABLE 1.—Percent of local public school revenue derived from the property taz,

TABLE 2.-Sources of revenue for great city public schools 1

The great cities pay more of the cost of education with local funds and are receiving a smaller proportion of State and Federal support than do other school districts within their respective States. Table 2 illustrates the financial situation of the cities by comparing the sources of revenue of the great cities, with the sources of revenue for all public schools in the respective State. Twelve of the 15 great cities are paying well over 60 percent of the cost of operating their schools from local revenues. Two cities are burdened with 89 and 92 percent of the school cost locally. In only 4 of the 11 States in which the great cities are located, is the State supporting more than 33 percent of the schools' operating budgets. The portion provided by the State also includes Federal funds such as those for vocational education, which are channeled through State offices. Less than 1 percent of the public schools' budget in each of these cities comes from the Federal Government, with only two exceptions: Washington, D.C., derives its funds through congressional action; Philadelphia is a federally impacted area and derives 2.2 percent of its budget from Federal sources. The major financial source for the public schools is still the revenue from the local community.

The sharp increase in cost between elementary and high school instruction and the still greater costs of vocational and special education are revealed in table 3 which summarizes the findings of the Research Council of the Great Cities Program for School Improvement. Revealing as these cost ratios are in themselves their full significance cannot be understood until they are applied to school budgets.

As indicated in table 3 the per-pupil cost of the academic high school program is one-third more than the amount spent per elementary pupil. Vocational and technical programs cost 80 percent more per pupil than the elementary program

1 These and subsequent tables are taken from "The Challenge of Financing Public Schools in Great Cities," prepared by the Research Council of the Great Cities Program for School Improvement, 228 North LaSalle St., Chicago, Ill.

costs, whereas provision for the handicapped child is more than twice as expensive as is provision for the regular elementary pupil.

TABLE 3.-Cost ratio and average cost per pupil by instruction areas, 1962–831

1 State data from U.S. Office of Education, Digest of Educational Statistics, 1963 edition, table 31. Data is for 1962-63 fiscal year.

NOTE.-Information in table 3 includes all of the great cities except Washington, D.C.

Table 4 dramatically demonstrates that the programs of special and vocational education programs, and so the greater financial burdens for these programs, are largely concentrated in major cities. The average great city has only 18.5 percent of the total State enrollment, yet is serving 27.2 percent of the handicapped, and 52.3 percent of the vocational, trade, and technical school enrollments of the State. This situation can be expected to persist. The impact of automation and other technological developments falls most heavily upon large urban centers which continue to attract thousands of in-migrants with many children who can be effectively served only by special education programs. Public schools will be compelled to expand and adapt their vocational, trade, and technical programs at an even more rapid pace in the years ahead if the schools are to continue to serve their communities effectively. The greatest burden in this costly adjustment to modern technology will fall on the public schools of the Nation's large cities, where the competition for tax dollars is becoming increasingly severe.

• Statistics include handicapped pupil enrollment only for those pupils in ungraded classes.