Statement of Edward G. Holley before the Subcommittee on Education of the Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare on S. 1539, Elementary and Secondary Education Amendments of 1973 July 25, 1973 My name is Edward G. Holley. I am Vice President/President-elect of the American Library Association, a nonprofit educational organization of about 30,000 librarians, trustees, and other citizens who are committed to the advancement of library service to all the people. For the past eighteen months I have been Dean of the School of Library Science of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and prior to that for almost ten years I was Director of Libraries at the University of Houston, Texas. In both capacities I have been very much involved in the planning for and distribution of federal funds for libraries, having served on both the Texas and North Carolina state libraries' LSCA advisory committees, having worked with higher education boards in both states, and having served as an appointed member of the U.S. Office of Education's Advisory Council on College Library Resources for Title II-A of the Higher Education Act of 1965 from 1968 to 1971, the last two years of my term as chairman. For these reasons I have been able to view the impact of federal programs for libraries at first hand and am personally, as well as professionally, concerned about the decreasing funding of the past three years and the proposed elimination of all funds for libraries in the present fiscal year. First, Mr. Chairman, I speak in support of Title I, Part B of S. 1539, the Elementary and Secondary Education Amendments of 1973, which would extend through fiscal year 1977 the program of school library resources, textbooks and other instructional materials authorized by Title II of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Having watched the introduction of elementary school libraries in a city the size of Houston where few elementary school libraries existed prior to -2 ESEA Title II, and having had four children in elementary school during the period when Title II began to have great effect, I can testify strongly to the value of this program in providing elementary school libraries throughout the country. Since that time, I have become aware of the existence of school libraries in smaller communities solely because of federal funding. These communities would never have been able to establish school libraries without federal assistance. In a time of financial stringency for local school systems, I believe continuance of Title II is essential to the maintenance of elementary and secondary school library service. My own strong belief in the value of this program is amply supported by an evaluative survey recently conducted by the U.S. Office of Education which shows that a generally acute need for library materials continues to exist in school districts throughout the nation. This survey recommends, among other things, that the federal supplement to state and local funds through Title II be increased to 1/ the level of authorization. And yet, the Administration proposes that Title II be terminated. As you know, in the Administration's special education revenue sharing proposal, school library resources would be consigned to the "supporting materials and services" category, along with a whole range of other programs such as school lunches, guidance and counseling, adult education and many other existing categorical programs. As an integral part of the instructional program, school libraries cannot be viewed as providing only "supporting" services. On the contrary they are fundamental to the total educational process. With increasing emphasis on individualized instruction, a wide variety of library resources and multi-media learning materials are essential for an effective educational program. Accordingly, the American Library Association endorses the provisions of S. 1539 that would extend the Title II program through FY 1977. Attached to this statement are a series of comments from the states which clearly illustrate the necessity of continuing this vital program. (Attachment A) 1/ U.S. Office of Education. An Evaluative Survey Report on ESEA Title II: Fiscal Years 1966-68. September 1972. -3 Second, Mr. Chairman, I would like to express my concern about the failure of the U.S. Office of Education to carry out the intent of Congress, and I concur heartily with Senator Pell's statement upon introducing S. 1539 that there have been "distortions of the intentions of Congress with respect to the administration of education programs." Like Senator Pell, I believe that Congress ought to "legislate with a broad brush and leave details to trustworthy administrators" to work out the implementation. Although the Education Amendments of 1972 (PL 92-318) have corrected the situation, Title II-A of the Higher Education Act of 1965 is a classic case where guidelines were distorted to emphasize priorities not in the original intent of Congress, and where the Advisory Council was told, in effect, that the Administration had decided to target Title II-A grants in selected colleges and universities, first in institutions with deficient library resources in large urban areas, and later in colleges and universities serving large numbers of minority groups. The Advisory Council was told that the Office of Management and Budget had decided how many grants would be awarded, that funds would not be made available for more than that specific number, despite Congressional appropriations to the contrary, and that the Advisory Council should therefore construct guidelines which would assure this intent. As chairman of the Advisory Council, I protested this administrative change, first to Commissioner Allen in May 1970, at a meeting of the Council which had then been reduced to three members because no new nominations had been made to fill vacancies, and subsequently to Deputy Commissioner Muirhead at my final meeting with the Council in May, 1971. Later, when Commissioner Marland wrote a routine letter of thanks for my service on the Council, I responded with the attached letter of December 2, 1971, expressing my disappointment that the Office of Management and Budget had been permitted to move the program away from its basic goal of helping all our weaker college libraries become stronger and more adequate to serve the needs of their increasing student bodies. (Attachment B) 97-457 73 pt. 4- 11 -4 To prevent such situations from occurring, S. 1539, with its prohibition against "use of practices or procedures which have the effect of requiring, or providing for, the approval of an application for funds derived from different appropriations according to any criteria other than those for which provision is made in the law which authorizes the appropriation of such funds" seems essential if congressional intent is to be carried out. Mr. Chairman, we frequently hear the argument used against Title II-A that categorical aid, in the form of basic grants of $5,000 for college libraries, is too small an amount to do any college much good. This statement can only be made by those unfamiliar with college library budgets, by those with an ignorance of the wise provision of the Congress requiring local matching funds and maintenance of effort on the part of the college, and perhaps also by those who tend to look for massive and grandiose solutions to our educational problems. There are few programs enacted by Congress which have been so directly beneficial to the smaller college and university library, as well as the libraries of those emerging institutions like the University of Houston which saw their enrollments double or even triple during the sixties. Let me cite a survey, Resources of Texas Libraries, which Dr. Donald D. Hendricks and I made for the Coordinating Board, Texas College and University System, in 1967, a survey whose distribution, incidentally, was funded by the Texas State Library under the Library Services and Construction Act. That was the first year that HEA Title II-A was funded at a level of $25,000,000 by Congress. Yet even this relatively modest amount of money in the federal budget enabled junior and senior colleges in Texas to increase their total library budgets by from five to thirty percent, and the proportion devoted to book budgets, by even more. Attachment C provides two tables which indicate how helpful these basic and supplemental grants were for such libraries in Texas, but every state could provide similar examples. Let me call the attention of the Committee to the grants for the private colleges, many of which have -5 inadequate library collections and whose very survival is now a matter of grave concern. As we noted in our 1967 survey, a good undergraduate library can be established at around 100,000 volumes but many of the private schools have difficulty meeting even this goal. As a matter of fact, only five years ago there were still 358 four-year colleges serving up to 5,000 students with fewer than 50,000 volumes. Yet a number of them offer graduate programs and their ability to support their instructional programs was greatly enhanced by their receipt of library funds under HEA Title II-A. Moreover, the provision that they must match the $5,000 basic grant and must maintain their library expenditures at a level equivalent to the average of the previous two years has resulted in increased private support at a significant level. If the Title II-A program had been funded continuously at even the $25,000,000 level as opposed to the substantially higher authorized level, then another decade might well have found us with libraries in every institution of higher education which would be adequately stocked, competently staffed, and sufficiently financed. What we have had, instead, is a refusal on the part of the Administration to spend even the reduced funds Congress has appropriated, as well as a redirection of the program in ways that the Congress did not intend. The following table indicates Congressional appropriations and Office of Education expenditures from 1969-1972. But subsequently reduced under the 15 percent discretionary provisions There seems little question that college library appropriations have suffered proportionately a greater reduction in federal funding than other education programs in recent years. Unfortunately, this reduction has come at a time of spiraling costs of books and journals so that many smaller colleges have now had to drop subscriptions to such fundamental, but expensive, reference sources as Chemical Abstracts, the basic |