cent of Edgewood's total school budget ($108 out of $356 per pupil) comes from Federal funds. Alamo Heights, on the other hand, receives only $36 per pupil, which is substantially less than 10 percent of its budget. I suppose that a substantial portion of these funds comes from the ESEA title I program. Presumably then, the primary reason these funds are being given to the different school districts is to provide their disadvantaged students with compensatory education. One might assume, therefore, that when you give huge sums of Federal moneys such as those being given to Edgewood for compensatory education, disadvantaged children in Edgewood will have substantially more money spent on them than is spent on nondisadvantaged kids in neighboring Alamo Heights. Such an assumption, however, is absolutely without foundation. That is, kids from Edgewood, even with the additional title I moneys, have less spent on them than is spent on Alamo Heights pupils. Does that make any sense, as a policy matter? Can anyone here today really say that a disadvantaged San Antonio child who happens to live in Edgewood is truly being compensated for his disadvantages, when less is being spent on him than on nondisadvantaged kids from San Antonio who happen to reside in Alamo Heights School District? I say no on both counts. In short, I believe that, if Federal policymakers want to provide compensatory education in a very real sense, they have to require comparability in per pupil expenditures throughout a State, and not just within its individual school districts.

Now, I will qualify that proposal with a good point made by Mr. Ruvoldt. That is, comparability should be measured by educational offering, and not by dollars spent on education. That is, to the extent that one can demonstrate that offering costs differ among the various school districts within a State, these differences should be taken into consideration when formulating the amounts of Federal funds to be distributed. That would be true, for example, where it can be demonstrated that land for schoolbuildings has different prices, or that salary scales among a State's school districts differ substantially.

Mr. FORD. Do you say they use this rationale as a defense in the lawsuit, or do they actually take into account the distribution of State funds, the amount of Federal funds coming in under such programs as title I?

Mr. BROWNING. They use this as a defense throughout. By reading the Rodriquez opinion, one can easily see that the State of Texas never could understand that they could not count Federal money when comparing the per pupil expenditures among the various school districts. Mr. FORD. You did not mean to say that Texas is counting Federal money in deciding how to distribute State money?

Mr. BROWNING. No. Are you thinking about impact aid?

Mr. FORD. NO. We have a litigation going in Massachusetts, and that is the only State we have not been able to nail down, but it took us several years, but it was our intention in writing the legislation, that they would not be ineligible for the receipt of funds if they took the program such as title I into account in making distribution of State funds. It has been my impression they should automatically become disqualified from receiving title I funds for the entire State if they do as you said, and if that is the case, then we better do something about the law.

Mr. BROWNING. I don't know. All I know for sure is that the attorney general of the State of Texas, in defending the Rodriquez suit, argued that the court should consider Federal funds as a part of the total expenditures. Whether or not he was speaking for the superintendent of education of Texas who administers the program, I cannot say, but it is worth examination.

Mr. PUCINSKI. Well, Mrs. Carey, gentlemen, I do not know if you have anything else to add. You would be perfectly welcome to do it, but I must tell you, I am so tremendously impressed with your testimony today, that you may not be aware of the fact, that this might very well be perhaps the most important testimony we have had before this committee, because you have brought before the committee an explanation of a new challenge that we have to deal with, and I am impressed with your tremendous knowledge of the whole spectrum of educational problems.

You are young, but your youth deceives your great knowledge and expertise in this field, so I am very grateful to you.

It appears to me, from listening to your testimony today, that some legislation in this field is now inevitable. We must move expeditiously. I hope that the President's Commission will make his report, hopefully by the end of this week, and then I hope the administration will come in with their bill, so that we can proceed, and we will move as expeditiously as possible.

I would like to enlist your assistance as we move along, and keep an interest in what we are doing in this field, because you may have suggestions or comments, and we would be very, very grateful to hear from you.

It is obvious to me, with your expertise, and background knowledge, we can hammer out a very good bill, and one that will do the job that has to be done, so I am grateful to you for being here.

I want to thank you on behalf of the whole committee. You have made an enormous contribution today, and I don't think you fully realize the magnitude of your contribution.

Thank you very much.

We will recess until tomorrow morning at 9:30 a.m.

(Whereupon, the hearing was recessed at 1:25 p.m., until Tuesday, February 29, 1972, at 9:30 a.m.)

FINANCING OF ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY

EDUCATION

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 29, 1972

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
GENERAL SUBCOMMITTEE ON EDUCATION

OF THE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR,

Washington, D.C.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to recess, at 10 a.m., in room 2175, Rayburn Building, Hon. Roman C. Pucinski, chairman of the subcommittee, presiding.

Present: Representatives Pucinski, Mazzoli, Quie, Ford, Meeds, Bell, Peyser, Forsythe, and Vesey.

Staff members present: John F. Jennings, counsel; and Charles W. Radcliffe, minority counsel for education.

Mr. PUCINSKI. The committee will be in session.

We are very pleased this morning to have our colleague, Congressman Frank Horton, to introduce our first witness in the continuation of hearings on financing of elementary and secondary education. There is no question that this is a serious problem across the

country.

We had excellent testimony yesterday from a panel of attorneys who spelled out in great detail the status of the various lawsuits across the Nation, challenging the present system of financing education, which places a large burden on local property taxes, with the courts holding that such reliance on local resources produces unequal educational services.

This morning we are very pleased to have State Senator Thomas Laverne, chairman of the education committee of the New York State Senate with us, and I would like to recognize our colleague from New York, Congressman Horton, for the introduction.

STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK HORTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Mr. HORTON. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, first of all, I want to express as I have done on numerous occasions, my deep respect for the Education and Labor Committee of the House, and more particularly for this subcommittee, and for your leadership, Mr. Pucinski.

As you know, I have been very deeply interested, I think most Members of the House are, in the problems of education, and under your leadership and leadership of the other members of this committee, and the leadership of the chairman of this great committee,

I think we have made some major strides forward to solve these very difficult problems of education.

I am very pleased and very honored this morning to have the opportunity to introduce to your subcommittee, a very close personal friend of mine.

I have known Thomas Laverne for many years. As a matter of fact, since I first went to Rochester since 1947, he has represented me in the State senate, he served there for some 12 years, and during that time, he has exercised a leadership role, not only in this field of education, but in many other fields.

As you mentioned, he is the chairman of the State senate education committee, he is a member of the Fleischmann committee, which has just made a very comprehensive study of problems of education in the State of New York.

He is here testifying as chairman of the National Education Finance Task Force, which is the task force of the National Legislative Conference.

He is also chairman of the Joint Legislative Committee on Metropolitan and Regional Area Study.

With this background, I think you can certainly be aware of the fact that he is one of the leaders of the State of New York in this field of education.

I am very pleased and very honored to introduce to you, my close personal friend, a man who, I think, stands very high in the field of education in the State of New York, the Honorable Thomas Laverne. I wish I could stay with you, Mr. Chairman, but I do have to go to another meeting.

I will turn him loose on you, I hope you will treat him with the great dignity you have always treated other witnesses, and I am sure he will give you and your committee some very interesting thoughts with regard to this problem we are all concerned about.

Mr. PUCINSKI. Thank you, Congressman.

Before I call on Mr. Laverne, perhaps our colleague, Mr. Peyser, will want to add something by way of introduction.

Mr. PEYSER. I appreciate the opportunity, and I also want to welcome our distinguished senator.

I am always glad to see somebody from the State of New York here, particularly testifying on this critical issue.

The senator has many achievements, but I will not hold up your testimony, except to welcome you here.

Mr. PUCINSKI. You may proceed in any manner you wish.

I know that New York has recently had the Fleischmann report prepared and issued, and that report was alluded to yesterday in the hearings, and we will be very happy to have you proceed in any way you wish.

STATEMENT OF SENATOR THOMAS LAVERNE, CHAIRMAN OF THE EDUCATION COMMITTEE OF THE NEW YORK STATE SENATE

Mr. LAVERNE. While I am going to direct my attention to three bills, which I was told was the subject matter of this inquiry, H.R._7796, H.R. 6179, and H.R. 12695, I will not read the statement, but I will present it to the committee with the hope it will be incorporated into the record of this hearing as if I had read it in full.

Mr. PUCINSKI. Your statement will be incorporated as read.
Mr. LAVERNE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am Thomas Laverne, chairman of the Task Force on School Finance, National Legislative Conference, chairman, Joint Legislative Committee on Metropolitan and Regional Area Study, chairman, New York State Senate Education Standing Committee and member of the Fleischmann Commission.

I was invited here to testify on behalf of the National Legislative Conference on three bills now before your committee: H.R. 7796, the "Education Revenue Sharing Act," H.R. 6179, the "National Partnership in Education Act" and H.R. 12695, the "Quality School Assistance Act."

In my testimony today, I want to emphasize the following points: 1. The regressiveness of the property tax and the need for Federal assistance in abolishing it.

2. The desirability of full State funding.

3. The immediate need for Federal revenue sharing.

4. Some recommendations with respect to a possible amalgamation of the most desirable features of these three bills.

My capsulization of the three bills are as follows:

H.R. 7796 appropriates $3 billion. It removes all categorical grants and brings into play a new formula.

Briefly, we do not feel that the appropriation is sufficient nor can we concur with the proposed distribution between the States and within the State.

We do, however, concur with the proposal to consolidate the 34 existing programs.

H.R. 6179 proposes a rate of assumption of cost over a 3-year period, continues existing programs but creates a new program.

The formula is based on the adjusted number of children in the school district taking into account the poor children, State and local tax effort as well as per capita income..

H.R. 12695 makes special provision for districts with large concentration of students with low income and provides for construction and modernization of overcrowded and obsolete conditions. The rate of assumption is higher than 6179.

H.R. 6179 would provide the greatest amount of Federal funds for the State of New York.

These bills represent some of the best of the recent expressions of concerns in educational finance. A combination of various provisions of these bills can remove the patchwork administrative morass that has plagued some existing programs.

At the same time, the bills cause the Federal Government to assume its proper role in sharing the responsibility for education of the children in our country, through revenue sharing.

Generally, I support these bills.

The proposals here have been discussed and recommended by the National Educational Finance Project studies, the New York State. Commission on the Quality, Cost and Financing of Elementary and Secondary Education, the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, the Education Commission of the States and many other groups addressing themselves to the financial crisis in our public schools.

80-973-72-22