The third aspect of our proposal would be programs for disadvantaged children. We list on page 18 what we think ought to be consolidated into the education programs for the disadvantaged. We recognize that there are problems particularly in title I formula grant allocations and we would hope that we could continue to work with your committee, Senator, in arriving at what we think would be a fair and equitable way to get from 1960 census data to 1970 census data. I will stop anytime, Senator.

Senator PELL. I think Senator Stafford has a question.

TITLE I, ESEA, USE OF 1970 CENSUS IN

Senator STAFFORD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman; I do. It has to do directly with title I of ESEA. Your experience in West Virginia in switching from the 1960 to the 1970 census figures, what will the impact be as far as your title I funds are concerned in West Virginia? Mr. TAYLOR. In West Virginia, Senator, it would be devastating. We are a peculiar State in a number of respects. We would probably suffer more than any other State because of actual outmigration of considerable magnitude between 1960 and 1970. We recognize that. We expect to take a considerable loss when we go from 1960 to 1970 census data. We recognize that our citizens who were there in 1960 are now in Ohio, Michigan, or someplace else. But to do it all at once, to correct the 10-year imbalance in 1 year would be a reduction under which it would be very, very difficult for us to maintain any kind of program. It would be from about $21 million in title I of ESEA to perhaps $11 million. This would cut the program terribly.

Senator STAFFORD. Are you aware of other States which may be in the same position that West Virginia is?

Mr. TAYLOR. Yes, sir. I understand there are a number of States that are in that position. I do not know that they are in as severe a position as we are. We would recommend very strongly that there be some save-harmless position, some spreading out of that-correcting of that imbalance.

We recognize also, however, that the larger States and States that have had a significant increase in population and significant increase in qualifying children ought to receive additional dollars.

To go back to one of my original points: If we were to fund the program at its authorized level or close to it, then we would not have any problems.

Senator STAFFORD. Does the impact of the switch to the 1970 census figures fall differently on different localities within West Virginia? Mr. TAYLOR. Yes, sir; the magnitude is different. There are local education agencies in West Virginia that would lose as much as 70 to 80 percent of their ESEA title I entitlement if we are going from 1960 to 1970 census. Other local education agencies may lose only as much as 20 to 25 percent.

Senator STAFFORD. In that event, should a hold-harmless provision, if there were one, be developed on the basis of the effect on local districts?

Mr. TAYLOR. Yes, sir. I am not quite sure I understand the impact of your question but I think we would be willing to look at any way

that we could do it in an equitable manner. As you know, title I is allocated on a local basis now.

Senator STAFFORD. I was directing the question in terms of local districts being held harmless in terms of their present allocations. Mr. TAYLOR. Yes, sir.

Senator STAFFORD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator PELL. Senator Dominick.

Senator DOMINICK. Would you give us your comments, when you can find time, on S. 1900, which is Senator Javits' bill? I have been asked to do that on behalf of my colleague.

At a later date if you would give us that it would be helpful.

I am somewhat puzzled by your testimony. First of all, you say you do not like the Better Schools Act at all. Then you say the categorical grant programs are great. Then you say as you get further in your statement, that they all ought to be consolidated. How do you put those three together?

Mr. TAYLOR. No, sir; I did not mean to suggest that they all ought to be consolidated. I intended to say-I think the statement is perhaps clearer than I was able to make it in jumping through it—it seems to me that there are certain advantages in continuing to allocate money on categorical bases. I think it identifies a certain need. Senator DOMINICK. Who determines that need?

Mr. TAYLOR. I think that the existence of categorical programs as such has been generated as a result of some interest group convincing the Congress, for example, that handicapped children need some special attention or economically disadvantaged children or migrant children or vocational education, is in need of some attention-NDEA, in response to the Russian space activity.

There is an interest group that continues to stimulate interest and to provide direction in those specific areas.

What we are suggesting is that those programs as such be identified, but that the administration of the programs be moved to the State level. It seems to us that there is a far greater relationship of understanding between local educational agencies and State agencies. There is a far greater opportunity to exercise influence or to communicate more directly and that this is where in every one of the 50 States, constitutional responsibility lies for educating children. The administration of the programs ought to pass to the State level and that the administrative responsibility for them be simplified.

I do not believe there is any inconsistency in that framework. I also indicated that concepts of consolidation in certain areas are not repugnant to the Council of Chief School Officers at all. We think there ought to be some identification maintained, particularly with certain of those programs. We think the disadvantaged, for example

Senator DOMINICK. Let me cut you off. I do not have much time. I am going to have to go and I know that the chairman has got more things to do. I am not trying to cut off your testimony, because I have read the whole thing and I will study it again.

But do I understand that your chief objection, I gather this, to the Better Schools Act was the fact that there is not enough money in it? Mr. TAYLOR. Yes, sir; I think that, more than anything else, is the objection.

Senator DOMINICK. If we put more money in it then you would not think it was so bad?

Mr. TAYLOR. I would think that the Senate bill 1539 is far superior. I think the question of general school support which we have not addressed ourselves to, as part of that, is a very important aspect of this bill. If you look at this testimony, I have detailed section by section those parts of 1539 which we think are a much stronger approach, much better approach than the Better Schools Act.

Senator DOMINICK. Would you have any objection to putting into the Better Schools Act, or do you think it would help section 422 that I read to Mrs. Reimers-section 422 of the General Education Act, which says that the Federal Government cannot interfere in the direction, supervision or control over the curriculum, instruction, administration of personnel, of any educational institution or school system. Suppose we did that and said the State cannot ?

Mr. TAYLOR. I do not know how that possibly could be, because in most States, by their own State constitution, responsibility for education lies with the State.

The local education agencies are delegated agencies that have only those responsibilities that have been delegated to them by statute in the State.

I would have to think about that at some length to know whether that would really be appropriate at that level.

Senator DOMINICK. Give me your comments on that when you get a chance, will you?

Mr. TAYLOR. Yes.

Senator DOMINICK. That is all I have, Mr. Chairman. I am afraid I will have to go. I am terribly sorry. I have another appointment. Senator PELL. Thank you very much. I can assure you that your testimony will be examined carefully and I appreciate very much your support for S. 1539.

Our next witness is a good friend of the Chair and a friend of the subcommittee, Stanley McFarland, director of Government Relations for the National Education Association. Your prepared statement will be printed in the record.

STATEMENT OF STANLEY J. MCFARLAND, DIRECTOR OF GOVERN-
MENT RELATIONS, NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, ACCOM-
PANIED BY JEAN FLANIGAN, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF RE-
SEARCH, AND
AND JAMES GREEN, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF
GOVERNMENT RELATIONS

Mr. MCFARLAND. I intend to read excerpts from my statement. It was brief in the first place, though.

Senator PELL. Your statement is the same as Mrs. Wise?

Mr. MCFARLAND. I am giving Mrs. Wise's statement.

Senator PELL. You may have had a hand in putting it together.

Mr. MCFARLAND. I am Stanley J. McFarland, director of Government Relations for the National Education Association. I am pleased to appear before you this morning to present the statement of Dr. Helen D. Wise, president of the 1.4 million member association, on categorical aids.

Despite devastating delays in funding, four vetoes of funds by President Nixon, and failure on the part of both the Johnson and Nixon administrations to request and the Congresses to appropriate the level of funding authorized in the act, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act has been of great benefit to the school children it is designed to serve. Whatever failures have occurred can, for the most part, be laid at the door of late and inadequate funding rather than the unwillingness or inability of school systems to implement the programs provided. Evaluations have proved that well-planned adequately funded compensatory programs can and do work. Even the President concedes this.

We strongly urge that title I of ESEA be continued, with necessary formula adjustments based on the 1970 census factor, as evidence of the national interest and commitment to bringing educationally disadvantaged children the special attention they deserve.

We believe that some categorical programs can be combined and advance the following for the committee's consideration:

Title II ESEA (textbook, library and material resources), title III NDEA (matching funds for equipment), title III ESEA (innovative programs), and title V ESEA (aid to State educational agencies) could be consolidated into a single title, all funds for which would be channeled through the State education agency with designated funding for grants to locals and for State discretionary funds.

Within this new title the funds for existing programs should be earmarked to maintain congressional intent.

We believe also that funds for established vocational education programs could be consolidated into a single block grant to the State, thus permitting the State to make priority determinations. If such consolidations are accomplished, we believe total funds for the programs should be increased, and that a hold-harmless feature for both programs and States should be incorporated into a State plan provision.

We have not addressed the question of consolidation of programs for the handicapped because these programs are developmental and we believe funds should remain distinct at both the Federal and operational levels. At the State level the programs often are or should becoordinated with health department programs, which makes them somewhat administratively different from the other programs mentioned. We believe programs for the handicapped deserve special categorical attention such as they currently receive.

The same is true of the developing programs for bilingual pupils and migrant pupils. With these two groups of critical national interest, Federal programs must be continued under the present categorical method which stimulates and protects their development. Other existing categorical programs which are in the same context of critical national interest are:

Indian education programs, ethnic heritage studies, consumer education programs, correction education services, dropout prevention proiects, and school nutrition and health services.

The role of the State advisory councils in policy creation and the formulation of program objectives should be maximized. State advisory councils should be representative of the population of the State, including low income and minority groups and representatives of

occupations other than education, although educators should constitute the majority. All such advisory councils should operate under the aegis of and report to the locally constituted State board of education. Since the National Institute of Education has been created, we see no necessity or justification for continuing to set aside a percentage of ESEA title III or any other categorical aid funds for discretionary use by the Commissioner. We approve of the research and developmental approach vested in NIE. However, we think that the discretionary grants have been abused in the past, reflecting merely the biases of individual grant administartors at any given time. One glaring example of this is the financing of accountability studies with discretionary Federal funds.

I might add here in relation to the Better Schools Act, although Senator Dominick is not here, that we do think that its intent was to reduce funds. We also maintain that the administration is trying to consolidate the wrong programs. That is our primary reason for objectives to the Better Schools Act.

The desire for accountability is imminently reasonable. The question is accountability by whom and for what, and how people are to be held accountable.

Until teachers function actively in the decisionmaking of the accountability arena they will continue to be unfamiliar with the vocabulary of accountability and, therefore, less effective, either as a part of the decisionmaking or as constructive critics while others make the decisions.

In the process of reviewing and redesigning the categorical programs, a system for accountability must be established and a role must be developed so that the practicing classroom teacher may become involved as more than a nonparticipating victim.

We believe Public Law 81-874 and Public Law 81-815 should be continued in present form as separate and distinct programs and funded up to entitlement.

Attacks on Public Law 81-874 arise from the mistaken idea that the program is similar in intent to title I of ESEA. It is not. Public Law 81-874 funds are not based on the economic status of pupils. It is designed to reimburse districts for tax revenues lost by the presence of tax-exempt Federal property. It recognizes that such Federal installations contribute to increasing student population. Obviously, the Federal Government should make payments in lieu of taxes just as every other property holder in the district pays taxes.

We realize, of course, that there have historically been some inequities in the payments of Public Law 874 funds. The critics are forever screaming about Montgomery and Fairfax Counties-and with some validity. NEA's priority would be the full funding of those B pupils who are militarily connected and Indians. Moreover, if there are substantial changes in Public Law 874, they should be phased in to prevent disruption of education programs.

We also believe that part C of Public Law 81-874, which authorizes aid for schools of children who live in public housing-which has been encouraged by Federal policy-should be retained. NEA will continue to seek funding for part C. We support this because of the desperate financial plight confronting the big cities.

Categorical aids are a necessary facet of Federal aid to education. As new needs are defined, new categorical aids are proposed.