SCHOOL FINANCE

Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that your hearings will proceed by category and that we will have an opportunity to testify at a later time on the broader question of school finance. However, I would like to make one or two observations at this point in time, because I think they are relevant to your consideration of existing categorical programs.

Many of the special categorical programs for the disadvantaged, the handicapped, vocational education, et cetera evolved because of disparities in financing ability on the part of States and local educational agencies. This is not exclusively so, of course, but is a major contributing factor. The trend toward equalization of educational expenditures within States is a factor which, over time, must be taken into consideration in structuring Federal assistance for elementary and secondary education.

It may also be appropriate to encourage equalization through the way Federal assistance is made available. I will leave that subject for a later appearance before the committee. I would simply suggest to you at this time that in the near term, ESEA should be extended for an adequate period of time to permit a certain degree of stability to return to our educational systems, and advance funding be authorized to get away from roller coaster rides of recent years, but that authorization be not extended so far in the future so that there is an opportunity to appraise these programs in a timely fashion.

Through judicial decision and legislative action, some very significant things are happening in the States-on equalization, special education, career education, and the like. State governments are assuming an increasingly greater role in the financing of public education.

Equalization legislation has been adopted recently in Florida, Minnesota, Montana, Kansas, North Dakota, and Utah. Efforts to this end are underway in many other States. I will not review the implication of this trend for Federal programs except to say that the whole picture is changing and should be reviewed regularly by the Congress.

With respect to any of the suggestions I have made, we would be happy to supply any information which might be helpful to you. Also, the ECS staff and the staff of the National Legislative Conference are available to the subcommittee. Thank you.

Senator PELL. Thank you very much, Mr. Jensen. Your statement has answered most of the questions I would have. As I understand it, for a number of reasons you do not support S. 1319. You then went on to say that you thought the present ESEA Act with some modifications should be extended through fiscal 1976. We will be trying to incorporate the various ideas that come to these hearings in the legislative markup. We note your ideas and then they will be incorporated into our own thinking as will the suggestions you had with regard to the standards and financing.

Mr. JENSEN. Thank you, sir.

Senator PELL. Thank you very much indeed for being here.

Next we have a panel consisting of Mr. William G. Colman, consultant, governmental affairs and Federal-State-local relations, and

former Executive Director, Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations; Dr. Merlin Duncan, professor of educational administration, executive director, Southern Regional School Boards Association, Research and Training Center; and Dr. Carl Pforzheimer, Jr., past president, National Association of State Boards of Education.

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM G. COLMAN, CONSULTANT, GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS AND FEDERAL-STATE-LOCAL RELATIONS, AND FORMER EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ADVISORY COMMISSION ON INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS; DR. MERLIN DUNCAN, PROFESSOR OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, SOUTHERN REGIONAL SCHOOL BOARDS ASSOCIATION, RESEARCH AND TRAINING CENTER; AND DR. CARL PFORZHEIMER, JR., PAST PRESIDENT, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF STATE BOARDS OF EDUCATION, A PANEL

Mr. COLMAN. I have a very brief prepared statement, Mr. Chairman, if it would be satisfactory to read that.

Senator PELL. Fine.

Mr. COLMAN. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, my name is William G. Colman, and I reside at 9805 Logan Drive, in Potomac, Md., a small community in Montgomery County. I am engaged in State and local government consulting and in intermittent teaching at the Universities of Virginia and Maryland.

My interest in S. 1319 stems from a number of involvements with education and intergovernmental relations over the past few years, including current membership on the school finance advisory committee of the Education Commission of the States; former membership on the President's Commission on School Finance and the Maryland Commission on Financing Elementary and Secondary Education; an elected member of the Montgomery County, Md., Board of Education; and a 10-year stint as Executive Director of the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations (ACIR), a national bipartisan body created by the Congress and charged with continuing study and recommendations concerning Federal-State-local relations.

I appreciate the opportunity of appearing before you in support of S. 1319, because grant consolidation is one of the most demanding and difficult tasks on the domestic governmental scene. Consolidation of categorical grants in the field of education is urgently necessary for reasons of: (1) Manageability, (2) effective and equitable educational and school finance policymaking, and (3) maintaining a viable federal system, with appropriately shared powers among National, State, and local levels of government.

The cliche that "You can't run the country from Washington" is as relevant to education as to other fields of domestic endeavor. It is utterly impossible for any Federal department or agency to administer effectively a fragmented system of over 100 separate categorical aid programs dealing with a single subject matter fieldeducation in this instance-and to deal directly with several thousand local education agencies in the process.

The more narrow the purpose the more likely it is that the grant will have to be administered on a project, rather than a formula basis, and project grants carry with them the attendant problems of caseby-case evaluation and decision.

This is not to say that project grants and categorical formula grants do not have a proper place in the array of fiscal tools available to the national government. But to be effective, they need to be used selectively and not for purposes of large-scale financial support.

COMMENT ON JAVITS BILL (S. 1900)

Let me interject at this point, in reference to S. 1900 by Senator Javits. This is an ideal example, I think, of the occasional use of categorical grants of very sizable dimensions to help achieve a stated purpose in education. The purpose of Senator Javits' bill is to provide fairly sizable amount of Federal funds over a limited period of time to help the States achieve substantially full funding of the costs of elementary and secondary education. I fully support the objectives and content of Senator Javits' bill, S. 1900.

Now I will continue with the statement:

As our grant-in-aid system has grown more fragmented, the State and local agencies have found their flexibility increasingly inhibited, because as programs have multiplied, it has been necessary to create additional compartments for new programs with attendant problems of coordination among similar activities.

Also, this fragmentation has placed a growing premium on grantsmanship, since most of the newer, more specialized programs have been of a project nature. One fact often overlooked about grantsmanship is that it rather automatically favors affluence over poor districts.

For example, in nearby Montgomery County, Md., a small unit in the school system is concerned with seeking out, obtaining, and implementing Federal aid projects. The pavement between Rockville and HEW is kept fairly warm by this aggressive and highly competent group, and not surprisingly, their batting average is quite high. A less well-staffed system would not be able to keep up on all the new programs and regulations.

In brief, consolidation of categorical programs that have largely served their initial stimulative purposes into broad functional grants enables the State and local educational agencies to fit the available funds to their immediate detailed priorities and to change the priorities without fear of losing Federal aid. As new problems arise that in the view of Congress or the President require a precise targeting of funds, a new categorical program can be enacted, but with older programs folded, on a continuing basis, into broad bloc grants.

Unless we are to continue trying the impossible with a multitude of detailed and minor decisions cast up to Washington administra. tors, we as a country and as a governmental system need to devolve to State and local levels of government a major share of responsibility for policy initiation, program development, and day-to-day administration.

The pattern of administrative organization for providing public education varies considerably among the States and between each State and its local education agencies. We should not try to mandate these

matters from the halls of Congress or the "regulation factories" of the executive branch. A hallmark of federalism as conceived and practiced for two centuries in this country is to assure union while encouraging diversity.

In this connection, one section of S. 1319 might be construed as restrictive upon the relative roles of the Governor. State legislature and State education agency in carrying out the provisions of the act. Language such as the following would permit interstate diversity and is suggested for your consideration.

Sec. 9(a) Responsibility for administering the provisions of this Act in behalf of the government of a state shall vest in accordance with the constitution and laws of that particular state and with administrative action of the governor pursuant to such constitution and laws; in the absence of contrary provisions of state constitution or law or gubernatorial action pursuant thereto, such responsibility will be deemed to vest in the chief state school officer or such other officer as is charged under state law with responsibility for elementary and secondary education.

(b) Within the framework of (a) above and of Sec. 204 of the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act of 1968, the governor of each state will notify the secretary within (days) as to the responsibility designation applicable in that state and citing the legal source therefor.

(c) Funds otherwise available under Section 4(d) (2) (C) of this Act may be used for the strengthening of the policy and administrative capability of local education agencies and of those parts of the executive and legislative branches of state government that bear responsibilities for public elementary and secondary education in the state.

Mr. Chairman and members, let me conclude by expressing the earnest hope that you will report S. 1319 favorably and that it will be enacted into law at an early date. Thank you for this opportunity to appear before you.

I yield to the next member of the panel.

Senator PELL. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of William G. Colman follows:]

STATEMENT OF WM. G. COLMAN, GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS CONSULTANT, POTOMAC, MD.

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EDUCATION, SENATE COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND PUBLIC WELFARE
THE "BETTER SCHOOLS ACT OF 1973 "

ON S. 1319

August 1, 1973

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:

My name is Wm. G. Colman, and I reside at 9805 Logan Drive in Potomac, Maryland, a small community in Montgomery County. I am engaged in State and local governmental consulting and in intermittent teaching at the universities of Virginia and Maryland.

My interest in S. 1319 stems from a number of involvements with education and intergovernmental relations over the past few years, including current membership on the school finance advisory committee of the Education Commission of the States; former membership on the President's Commission on School Finance and the Maryland commission on financing elementary and secondary education; an elected member of the Montgomery County (Md.) Board of Education; and a ten year stint as Executive Director of the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations (ACIR) a national bi-partisan body created by the Congress and charged with continuing study and recommendations concerning Federal-State local relations.

I appreciate the opportunity of appearing before you in support of S. 1319, because grant consolidation is one of the most demanding and difficult tasks on the domestic governmental scene. Consolidation of categorical grants in the

field of education is urgently necessary for reasons of (1) manageability, (2) effective and equitable educational and school finance policy-making and (3) maintaining a viable federal system, with appropriately shared powers among national, state and local levels of government.