Senator MORSE. Dr. Brownell, you know I held your work in the field of education in extremely high regard when you were in Washington. I think education is greatly indebted to you. I think this subcommittee is indebted to you for adding your voice in support of this legislation. I think it is going to carry a great deal of weight in our deliberations in the committee and in the Senate, and I think it is particularly fitting that we should close our hearing with the testimony you have given.

(The prepared statement of Dr. Brownell follows:)

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SAMUEL MILLER BROW NELL, SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS, DETROIT, MICH.

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I am Samuel Miller Brownell, superintendent of schools, Detroit, Mich. I am appearing before this committee to speak in behalf of S. 2528 which proposes certain amendments to Public Law 874. The two changes proposed would provide assistance to local school districts, based on the total number of pupils enrolled in a given school district that are members of needy families and pupils of unemployed parents in areas of substantial unemployment.

I appreciate this opportunity to once again appear before this committee to discuss Public Law 874. During my tenure as U.S. Commissioner of Education it was my pleasure to meet with this committee to discuss proposals that appeared in each session of the Congress to amend, expand, or to change what is now known as our maintenance and operation impact law. You may recall that I was trying to develop as permanent legislation the continuing Federal impacts, so that local school districts could do continuing and sound planning of their school programs.

S. 2528, if enacted, would add two additional categories of children among those who would be counted in the computation of Federal assistance under Public Law 874. These changes would be accomplished by inserting after section 4 a new section to include "children of needy families and children residing in areas of substantial unemployment with unemployed parents." The two new categories would be (1) dependent children enrolled in a particular school district who are dependent children for the purposes of title IV of the Social Security Act, or commonly known as ADC children, and (2) children who reside in an area which, during a major portion of such year, was designated by the Secretary of Labor as an area of substantial unemployment, with one or more parents, neither of whom was regularly employed and at least one of whom was drawing State unemployment compensation.

A discussion of these two new categories can best be viewed in terms of the declared policy of the Federal Government in providing financial assistance to local agencies in areas affected by Federal activities as is presently cited in section 1 of Public Law 874. The policy states that financial assistance will be provided to local educational agencies in areas where Federal activities have been carried on if the local agency has been placed under financial burdens by reason of the fact that "(1) the revenues available to such agencies from local sources have been reduced as the result of the acquisition of real property by the United States, or (2) such agencies provide education for children residing on Federal property, or (3) such agencies provide education for children whose parents are employed on Federal property, or (4) there has been a sudden and substantial increase in school attendance as the result of Federal activity." A 3-percent eligibility requirement is in effect for school districts having an average daily attendance less than 35,000, and 6 percent in school districts with an average daily attendance in excess of 35,000. I will speak further of the difference in percentage requirements later in my testimony.

This policy statement acknowledges a Federal responsibility where Federal purposes are involved. The present proposal to add the two new categories is a further acknowledgement of such responsibility. The very fact of the Federal participation by way of ADC grants and provisions for unemployment com. pensation is a declaration of Federal purposes. These Federal purposes are the economic maintenance and the general well-being of these children. An extremely important element in the ultimate economic well-being of these children is their education. It is, therefore, in consonance with this policy statement

that the costs of educating these children be acknowledged as involved with a Federal purpose.

The two new categories proposed in S. 2528 are, in fact, Federal connections in as great a degree as the presently recognized categories cited above. The Federal Government in both instances of the two new categories proposed are contributing directly to the family maintenance of the children involved. From these funds comes the income to provide the food, the clothing, and the shelter that is provided by Federal income in terms of wages in the other categories now in effect. In the instance of the new categories, however, the payment is not sufficient to permit them to contribute to the local taxes which are necessary to maintain the local school system. The propriety of such a support program by the Federal Government is certainly in keeping with the needs of our time. It is only logical that, since the Federal Government shares in certain of the costs of maintaining such children, it should recognize and provide for the educational services necessary to enable a local school district to provide an adequate educational program that will assure all of the children at least a basic education. A discussion of the educational services required to provide adequate education for the children who would be directly affected by the proposed legislation has been documented before this committee on numerous occasions. I would say at this time, however, that, as superintendent of schools in one of the largest metropolitan centers in this Nation, I have observed at close range the multiple and varied problems of these youngsters that require costly educational services far above and beyond the local and State sources of revenues available to large city school districts.

This problem, while talked about for many years, has more recently been brought into sharp focus in the thorough discussions of the total problems of poverty-stricken people. My personal involvement in this matter leads me to the conclusion that the funds required to make an inroad on this problem are massive to such an extent that existing tax provisions are wholly inadequate. The probability of changes in State legislation are so slow and the need for massive action without delay is so great that only the Federal Government can provide the needed revenues at this time to provide relief in all areas of the country. I might also add that S. 2528 would provide relief in both rural and urban areas. Poverty does not respect location and should be faced wherever it is.

I have been most pleased that the Congress in its discussion of the poverty legislation and other bills relating to metropolitan areas is doing much to dispel the myth that the large cities are centers of wealth that should be able to provide locally all of the dollars necessary to provide complete governmental services. All of the large school districts in this Nation are faced with programs that require greater revenues than they have available from local and State tax sources. Locally they are faced with practical limitations in the form of high tax levies needed to maintain other governmental services. In many instances, the total rates applicable in the metropolitan areas are actually at what has been described by some as a confiscatory level. The Federal assistance provided under Public Law 874 in its present and proposed form would provide substantial aid in financing an adequate program for the school districts educating the greatest share of our population. I might add that this is the share of the population that especially needs a greater than average diversified and costly education.

I would like, at this point, to discuss another problem of the large cities, particularly. During recent years there has been an exodus of business and industry from the center city to the outlying communities. This shift in tax base has reduced revenues of the large cities. It has also caused a shift in population from the large cities that has been replaced in great numbers by the poverty-stricken families that we have mentioned before. This situation is related in many instances to the location and relocation of Federal installations over a period of many years that, in many instances, provided the initial shift that brought about the loss of tax base and the change in the makeup of the families living in the cities. There are also, in most of the great cities, instances where the Government is providing a payment in lieu of taxes for Federal facilities, particularly Federal housing, which is far less than the tax revenue that would be derived from privately owned property. In almost every one of our large cities where this matter has been thoroughly studied, the statistics show that such payments are less per pupil than provided by private housing. The eligibility requirements in the proposed legislation would be at 3 percent of the total number of children who are in average daily attendance during the

school year and for whom the school district provided free public education. This percentage requirement applied equally for all school districts in realistic and would, if enacted, correct for those two provisions an inequity in Public Law 874 that I tried to have corrected for a number of years. It is my feeling the 3-percent clause should be applied equally to all school districts regardless of size. The right of the Commissioner to waive the percentage requirement in instances where exceptional circumstances exist is a desirable provision.

The application of the two proposed provisions to the school district of the city of Detroit will demonstrate their effect on a typical large city school district. The Wayne County Social Welfare Commission reports that we have in the city of Detroit approximately 16,500 families on ADC. We estimate there are approximately 32,000 children in public schools from these family groups. The Michigan Employment Security Commission reports that we have in the city of Detroit 32,130 cases receiving unemployment compensation. The estimated number of public school children of school age in this group is approximately 24,000. This would make the total number of pupils eligible under the two new provisions 56,000. Applying an estimated rate of $70 per pupil would produce revenues to the school district in the amount of $3,920,000. I call to your attention that the 56,000 eligible pupils are only approximately 20 percent of the total enrollment of the school district, 296,000. The actual assistance provided by the Federal Government would amount to less than 3 percent of our total budget of $142 million. I hasten to point out, however, that such a sum of money could and would make a substantial difference in the type of educational program that we could offer in Detroit.

In the development of the figures for the Detroit public schools, I noted with a great deal of interest that 17 other counties in Michigan would qualify for aid under the section providing for ADC children. While some of the grants would be small in comparison with the total grants, it would be a substantial allocation to the smaller school districts involved. In some instances a grant in the $5,000 to $6,000 class would mean an additional teacher to provide services for these rural pupils who also are in dire need of greater doses of the best possible education.

It is my understanding that the ADC section of the proposed legislation would provide assistance to 18,321,981 pupils throughout the Nation. The estimated cost of the program has been reported at $65,476,460. While this amount appears as a substantial sum, I am sure I don't need to remind the committee that the annual cost would be far less than the sum of money necessary to house these pupils in detention homes or corrective institutions for a number of years during their lifetime. I am not aware that the cost of the second provision relating to children of the unemployed has been computed on a nationwide basis. I am assuming that the cost of this program, nationwide, would have the same experience that we report for the city of Detroit. Such money spent for education is, in my opinion, one of the best investments of Federal tax dollars that can possibly be made.

In conclusion, I would like to suggest to the committee a number of observations relative to the extension and improvement of Public Law 874. I assure the committee that not all of the items require an annual budgetary appropriation, but, in my opinion, would strengthen what has proven to be a most effective public assistance program.

1. Public Law 874 and Public Law 815 should be made continuing legislation to deal with continuing Federal impact. School districts should be able to plan ahead on a sound basis.

2. Pupil eligibility categories should be extended into areas such as those proposed in this bill and into any other related areas that are associated with Federal impact.

3. Where Federal impact declines, the Federal payments should be continued long enough on a descending scale to permit orderly readjustment of school programs.

4. The absorption percentage requirements in all categories of Federal pupils should be continuously studied to arrive at an equitable Federal and local responsibility.

5. Eligibility requirements should be studied to determine whether or not federally connected pupil increases should be based on federally connected membership rather than on increases in both Federal membership and total membership.

36-177 0-64 9

6. Rate of payments under Public Law 874 should be continuously studied in reference to changing school costs to assure an adequate support program in eligible local school agencies.

7. The qualifying percentage now listed at 3 percent and 6 percent in the law should be made uniform for all local school districts. Perhaps the question should be raised as to whether or not a qualifying percentage should be necessary in clearcut cases of Federal responsibility.

It has been a real pleasure for me to appear again before this committee. You know, I hope, my high regard for the excellent work you have done in the area of education over a period of years.

Senator MORSE. I will insert in this record at this point a statement by Rt. Rev. Msgr. Hochwalt, who was unable to be present.

(The prepared statement follows:)

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL CATHOLIC WELFARE CONFERENCE, WASHINGTON, D.C.

Hon. WAYNE MORSE,

Chairman, Subcommittee on Education, Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR MORSE: We appreciate the opportunity to set forth the department's views on S. 2528 and S. 2725 extending and amending the Federal impacted aid program (Public Laws 815 and 874).

Hearings before your subcommittee have prompted speculation that the operation of the impacted aid program in some respects no longer conforms to the basic purposes for which the legislation was initially enacted by the Congress. It has been intimated that some school districts are receiving Federal assistance where there is little or no showing of economic loss resulting from the presence of the Federal installation.

A thorough review of the entire impacted aid program would appear to be in order with particular emphasis directed to a study of the economic impact on local areas because of the presence there of Federal properties. In this connec tion, we strongly support a recently approved provision in S. 3060, section 203 which requires the Commissioner of Education to transmit to the Congress on or before June 30, 1965, a full report of the operation of Public Laws 815 and 874, together with his recommendations as to what amendments to such laws should be made if they are further extended. Pending the result of such a study we would suggest that the present temporary provisions of Public Laws 815 and 874 be extended temporarily and without amendments. We are growing increasingly apprehensive that this form of Federal assistance may be assuming proportions approaching general programs of assistance without adequate appreciation of implications.

Again may I express our gratitude for the privilege of presenting to your subcommittee our views on this important legislation.

Very sincerely yours,

Rt. Rev. Msgr. F. G. HOCHWALT, Director, Department of Education, NCWC.

Senator MORSE. I thank you very much, and we stand in adjourn

ment.

Dr. BROWNELL. Thank you.

(Whereupon, at 10:45 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.)

APPENDIX

PROGRAMS FOR POTENTIAL DROPOUTS

Study Report No. 3, 1964 Series-Benjamin C. Willis, General Superintendent of Schools, Chicago Public Schools, May 1964

FOREWORD

Study reports of the various educational programs have been made from time to time during the past 10 years. These studies are in addition to the review and revision of curriculum materials. Reports have included such areas as elementary education, secondary education, junior college, teachers college, recreation, and the summer school program. Some areas have been formally reviewed and "next steps" recommended once during the past decade while others have been reviewed two or three times.

This report, "Programs for Potential Dropouts," is the result of a study conducted by a citywide committee, as were those named above. The membership on this committee reflects the various geographic sections of the city; the pertinent areas of the educational program, instructional materials, and/or facilities; and the various organizational levels of teaching, administration, and supervisory responsibility.

Grateful appreciation is expressed to the committee for an excellent description of the existing program for potential dropouts and for the committee's recommendations for expansion and improvement.

This report is a contribution to the study of schools approved by the board of education on January 9, 1963, and will be reviewed by the Chicago Public Schools Survey Committee.

For more complete understanding of the Chicago public schools, this report is being made available to the staff in the schools and for patrons of local libraries.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

Department of Instruction: James H. Smith, Deputy Superintendent. Department of Instruction: Thaddeus J. Lubera, Associate Superintendent. Department of Curriculum Development: Evelyn F. Carlson, Associate Superintendent.

Department of Operation Services: Edwin A. Lederer, Associate Superintendent. Department of Administration: Milton J. Cohler, Associate Superintendent. Department of Higher Education: Eileen C. Stack, Associate Superintendent.

COMMITTEE TO STUDY PROGRAMS FOR POTENTIAL DROPOUTS

John F. Erzinger, Superintendent, District 13, Chairman.

Lloyd J. Mendelson, Principal, Farren School, vice Chairman.

Frances Albritton, Teacher, Doolittle School.

K. Celeste Campbell, Librarian, Farren School.

Mary A. Coppinger, Supervisor, Bureau of Pupil Personnel Services.

Jerome H. Gilbert, Principal, Tesla School.

William J. Kelleher, Principal, Hirsch High School.

Claudine Lee, Counselor, Bond Upper Grade Center.

Herbert W. Lehmann, Director, Urban Youth Program.

Edward L. Praxmarer, Consultant, Department of Curriculum Development.

Mildred Rosenberg, Principal, Cather School.

Alfred Rudd, Assistant Director, District 11 Special Project.

Esther Sams, Teacher, Farragut High School.

Lester A. Spielman, Principal, Andersen Education and Vocational Guidance Center.

Shirley E. Stack, Principal, Byrd School.

CONSULTANTS

Evelyn F. Carlson, Associate Superintendent, Department of Curriculum Development.

Blanche B. Paulson, Director, Bureau of Pupil Personnel Services.