FEDERAL AID TO ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION

Education as a federal priority has survived the last eight years despite the efforts of the Nixon-Ford Administrations to severely curtail and in many cases totally eliminate federal aid to education programs. This survival, despite seven funding vetoes in eight years, gives witness to the concern and support of the American people for federal aid to education. Without the support of the American people, the education community and the labor movement would not have been able to rally the support in the Congress to override these vetoes. In the end, almost seven billion additional dollars for education were provided by the Congress over the objection of the President.

Because of this assault, it has been virtually impossible up until now to address the real needs for federal action on education. These last eight years were marked by efforts to prevent losing previously won programs, to maintain existing support rather than gain new ground or address new needs with the election of a new Administration that campaigned on a platform of improving federal support for education, the opportunity now exists to look with a fresh eye at the federal aid to education structure with the purpose of improving rather than seeking to dismantle it.

Elementary And Secondary Education Act Of 1965.

The ESEA of 1965 was the landmark program of aid to education sponsored by President Johnson and it represented a major departure from previous federal aid to education concepts. It was categorical rather than general in that it aimed the funds towards specifically targeted purposes. For example, Title I, the largest ESEA program, was designed to provide funds for the education of disadvantaged children. Other titles were designed to provide aid for other categorical needs such as education innovation, educational equipment and materials, bilingual education, etc. This approach which was supported by the AFT represented a real opportunity to provide an aid package which could have made a breakthrough in the quality of education. Unfortunately, the promise of the Elementary and Secondary Edu­cation Act was never fully achieved in large part because with the exception of the first years of the program ap­propriations never matched the needs established in the Title I formula. This short funding was brought about as a result of the previously mentioned education vetoes and it created problems with Title I that have never been resolved. Title I has made a difference; without it the education of our children would be in dire straits. We continue to support the Title I concept but we seek resolutions to the following problems with the current law in an extension of ESEA:

Targeting. Over the years, because appropriations did not match need, targeting of Title I schools was de­veloped as a method of making sure that Title I funds would not be dissipated over too large a population with a resulting dilution of their effectiveness. This targeting took the form of designating schools as eligible for Title I services if they contained percentages or numbers of students who were at or above district-wide averages. The result, of course, was that schools falling below the district-wide average did not receive funds even though their need for assistance was equal to those that did. This arbitrary selection, while it concentrated Title I resources, in the long run caused difficulties for children and teachers. Because of the requirements for receiving Title I services, Title I personnel and resources were shifted out of schools that had previously utilized them and, in many cases, involved involuntary transfers of Title I personnel. In addition, an unhealthy sense of competition developed with parents from non-target schools rightfully resenting the fact that their children with equal needs did not benefit from Title I services.

What is truly needed to deal with the problems described here is full funding of the Title I program. While other solutions have been offered, such as the distribution of Title I funds according to test scores, the real answer is adequate funds. Full funding would assure that resources would be available to serve all schools that had need for Title l-type aid. Proponents of using tests argue that not all educationally disadvantaged children are economically disadvantaged. While this is true, the purpose of Title I is to provide additional educational resources for those children who come from communities with large concentra­tions of disadvantaged children.

Comparability. A second difficulty with Title I is what is known as comparability. At the time Title I was enacted, comparability was not a problem because of the fact that only one state had a state-wide program of compensatory education and the movement for equalization of resources had not yet begun. Comparability requirements (that is to say that local services must be provided on an equitable basis to target schools and Title I services must not duplicate other compensatory services) can best be met by permitting flexibility in the Title I program so that state and local compensatory education efforts are not hampered because of the presence of Title I. Current com­parability regulations tend to reduce flexibility of staffing options as well as the ability to provide increased local aid to non-targeted Title I schools.

Comparability is another one of those requirements that needs to be thought through and made to work in a way that enhances the operation of the Title I program rather than causing disruption in it.

Supplantation. Title I aid has always been granted with the requirement that it not be used to supplant state and local efforts. This is essentially a sound requirement; however, in administering the program, many irrational decisions have been made in the name of enforcing this provision. For example, states have sought to restrict the use of Title I personnel in ways that create difficulties for local unions whose collective bargaining agreements spell out duties for all personnel employed by the local education agency. It is claimed that the prohibition on supplantation prohibits Title I personnel from performing routine duties such as homeroom because this amounts to supplanting local efforts. While we support the prohibition against supplanting, it should be made clear that this prohibition on supplantation has also been used to prevent the duplication of successful Title I programs with lo­cal funds for non-Title I schools. This clearly is not in the interests of good education.

Restrictions on the Use of Title I Funds. In some cases, community-based organizations have gone into court seeking to have the Title I program placed under their control because of violations of federal regulations. It should not under any circumstances be possible to place millions of dollars in public money designated for the education of disadvantaged children in the hands of private groups that do not represent all of the constituents of a local education agency. The law should clearly prohibit such options.

Support for ESEA concept. We do believe that the Title I concept of providing aid to disadvantaged chil­dren is a sound one and that ESEA-l should be reauthorized, fully funded, and implemented in order to fulfill the promise of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. We do not believe that ESEA-l should be consolidated into block grants or anything else that would change the character of this most important of all aid to education programs.

ESEA IV B and IV C. Currently, these two sections of ESEA IV are aligned irrationally. Personnel and equipment programs have been consolidated together. A better lineup would exist if ESEA IV C contained all so-called "people programs" such as guidance and counseling, aid to innovations in education, grants to state education departments for personnel training, etc., and ESEA IV B contained all equipment programs such as audio-visual equipment, libraries, and media production.

ESEA VII. The ESEA currently provides $115 million for the purpose of bilingual education. While this figure does not come anywhere near needs, we do believe that this is an important effort and that this title should be strengthened and increased. Funds should be provided to local education agencies for the purpose of teaching English to children while at the same time providing education in the native language. This should last only until enough English is learned for the child to be able to function in a regular school program. Bilingual education, in most cases, should be a transitional and temporary effort with the emphasis on learning English.

General Aid. The AFT has long supported and continues to support the concept of general aid to all school districts as a matter or right. While many problems exist in the development of general aid pro­grams, we believe that the success of P.L. 874 (Impact Aid) indicates what can be done with a program that is essentially general aid in character. The value of categorical programs is not diminished by the fact that for most children nothing can better improve the quality of their education than a qualified teacher with a small class working under educationally advantageous conditions. With the current economic problems faced by school districts, it is less and less possible to provide such an education. No federal aid program now on the books can aid in this effort. General aid is a true necessity. In addition, we know that there are many other unmet education needs. While we do not believe that the new Administration and Congress can solve them all immediately, we do believe it is necessary to address the following areas

Equalization. So far, federal efforts at equalization have consisted of providing small amounts of money to the states for the purpose of coming up with equalization plans. We believe that because of the diversity of the structure of aid to education throughout this enormous and complex country that equalization can best be accomplished on the state level. The role of the federal government should be to provide financial and technical assistance to the states in the equalization effort. Federal guarantees would, of course, remain regarding nondiscrimination and other civil rights protections in the use of federal equalization funds. Equalization must also result in the bringing up of poor school districts to the level of resources enjoyed by the richer ones. It should not be an effort that takes the resources away from some school districts in order to bring others a part of the way up the ladder. Equalization must not result in a lessening of educational opportunities for any child.

Desegregation. The current Emergency School Aid Program does not meet the needs of school districts that have been required to desegregate or are voluntarily desegregating their operations. Emergency School Aid has been seen as a carrot to be offered to the school districts after desegregation has been accomplished. This concept is outmoded and inadequate. What is truly needed is a program to provide funds to school districts which are under court order or which are voluntarily desegregating in order to help them defray the additional costs for transportation or other services needed in the desegregation effort. Desegregation can and should be accomplished with proper federal help in order to maintain and improve the quality of educational services. Emergency school aid funds should be provided in an on-going way with the distribution of funds on the basis of clearly spelled-out requirements. Such funds should be provided to facilitate the desegregation process.

Consolidation And Coordination of Federal Aid Programs.

Many programs which provide aid to school districts are small in nature. These so-called discretionary programs permit the granting of funds to local education agencies on the basis of the quality of the application. This process, known as "grantsmanship," tends to put at a disadvantage many school districts who are without staff designated for this purpose.

While discretionary programs have their place, what is needed is some overall coordinating method for all education grants within a school district. Federal regulations could easily be modified to provide local school districts with the information necessary to apply for all appropriate grants on a single application form. This would probably require consolidation of various small programs. Such consolidation would be supportable by the AFT providing it was done in a manner that assured that the goals of various federal programs would continue to be met.