forth. In other words, has the board of education been on notice for a long time that it was failing to provide the leadership that it should have been providing in the schools in this area?

Mrs. TACKETT. Well, I came to Los Angeles in 1952 and shortly after coming here I began working on the education committee of the NAACP, and at that time NAACP was calling to the attention of the board of education certain inequities in education. They were dealing then with the hiring of minority teachers, or specifically Negro teachers, as we called them then-black teachers now-and the upgrading of these teachers.

A little later on, when the schools in the black areas began to be so overcrowded, they talked about that.

You know, Los Angeles has never had written out on the books that we believe in separate schools and our schools were supposed to be equal, but then they began to address themselves to the boundaries which crept along with the population. I did a thing called gerrymandering before the board of education in 1963 and I mentioned in that the Jefferson-Darcy-Fouche creep. The boundaries had been moved some, I believe, 24 or 25 times over a period of years just a block at a time, so that, as the whites moved over and the blacks moved in, the boundaries changed to contain the black school population.

This still happens. Just as late as 2 years ago, neighbors unlimited formed a group, a spin-off group, called Parents for Equity in Education and they were dealing with boundaries that then were being drawn north and south, and drawing them north and south separated the population; whereas, if they had drawn the boundaries east and west it would have kept the schools integrated.

So that we believe that our Los Angeles City School System has knowingly contributed to the separation of the races in our schools. Mr. HAWKINS. So this is a type of concrete action by the boarddrawing the boundaries, for example, and so on-that the court took notice of

Mrs. TACKETT. Yes.

Mr. HAWKINS (continuing). Declaring that it was not just a matter of residential segregation, not just a matter of omission, but was affirmative action of the board itself that created this problem.

I have a lot of other questions, but I know that time is running out and I know that the other members would like to ask you some questions.

Thank you very much, Mrs. Tackett.

Mr. PUCINSKI. Thank you, Mr. Hawkins.

Mr. Bell?

Mr. BELL. Mrs. Tackett, first I want to clarify a few of my statements earlier relative to the Gitelson decision on cross bussing and make it clear that I have been strongly in favor of integration in schools. It's just the principle of how this is done that concerns me. I don't think it's hitting the nail on the head. That's essentially what I want to make clear.

Do you feel that the school system is not hitting the nail on the head in the context of the 1965 Federal aid to education bill?

Mrs. TACKETT. That's right.

Mr. BELL. You feel that the program, as laid out by the various titles, is not really hitting the nail on the head at all?

Mrs. TACKETT. That is right; and I said to the board of educationso that you know that the statements I am making here are statements I have made to the board of education, I said to the board of education at that time that what they did was wait until they knew they were going to receive some money.

And, then, I happen to know for a fact that some of the people, you know, just called others and said, "Look, we've got a lot of money. Would you like to be a consultant and make an extra $65 a month?” Well, who's going to say no to that?

I've had teachers who were made reading specialists say to me, "You know, I'm a reading specialist and I don't have the slightest idea of what I'm really supposed to do."

And I feel that our board thought, "Well, here's a lot of money we've got and we're just going to spend this money," and the fairhaired boys, as I said to them, received preferential treatment.

Another thing about that program, they knew that in Los Angeles that the majority of children or the concentration of children who were not achieving were in the black and in the Mexican-American community. They have consistently headed their ESCA programs with white administrators, some of whom have only spent a couple of years or so teaching in a black community, so they had no feel, no real concern or idea or knowledge of the needs of that community, and they were simply incapable, actually incapable of addressing themselves to the real needs and doing some things that they could have done, because compensatory education with that $75 million could have done a lot more than it did.

Mr. BELL. Mrs. Tackett, in view of what you said, that we could have done more than we did and so on, should we not then study and program better, perhaps by thinking farther in advance, before we jump in and just scatter our shots? Is this a fairly honest concept, do you think?

Mrs. TACKETT. I will say again that we have said: We need quality integrated education, and we must educate children now wherever they are, give them the very best possible, and move toward, as rapidly as we can, all children having the same exposure at the same time.

Mr. BELL. But you would concur that that involves planning and thinking ahead and, in some cases, it might even involve experimental schools-this is what you would concur in?

Mrs. TACKETT. That is correct. However, I feel that we need a broader approach than an experimental school off here some place. We've been teaching children now for how many thousands of years?

I think that what we need to do is try to come up with programs that at the least possible expense can get to all of the children now, rather than dividing off a few and giving them a special advantage over other children in experimentation.

Mr. BELL. You also mentioned accountability. You felt that that is something that is very necessary on the part of schools. As you know, this administration has come out very strongly and stated that we should begin to hold schools accountable, which is in line with what you're saying precisely, and, as you will note, part of this administration's program is to plan in advance. That's part of their concept, to set up an advance program of planning and thinking.

In other words, what we did in 1965-I'm not saying that that 1965 education bill was not a good one, except that it scattered the

shots. It was not planned out thoroughly. It was not thought out completely, as much as some of us tried to bring this point out.

So I think that the concept of this administration, to think this thing through, try to get it programed a little better so that we actually hit the nail on the head rather than scatter our shots, I think it's a good one, and I see that you apparently agree with this.

I suppose that you feel you mentioned a few minutes ago the drawing of the lines of school districts-that the school board was doing this periodically. Are you saying, Mrs. Tackett, that you feel that the school board was acting in some way on a de jure basis, planned segregation?

Mrs. TACKETT. As a matter of fact, I said that. Our school board is a legal body elected by the people, and they really are not responsible to any other body such as the city council that is a legal body, and whenever that school board actually builds schools and places them in such a way that they have to, under the concept and under the way they are handling the schools-and, you see, children cannot go to school where they please; they do not have any choice or option. Children go to school where the board tells them they must go. They draw the boundaries and if you live within that boundary, you must go or you must get a special permit. They can't give special permits to everybody.

So that I would say this: That if a child-if the school board determines that for the best interest of the children of the districtand this should be their interest-that they should get on a bus and ride to school instead of walking to school, then I think that they must obey that law, and that if they just like they do, if they say, "You must turn left and go to school," or, "You must turn right and go to the school over here."

Mr. BELL. Well, as you know, the Gitelson decision goes even further than this. It states, in effect, that even if the lines were drawn long ago and were not changed, that by virtue of the fact that de facto segregation is occurring, that the States and local school boards have a de jure obligation to do something.

Mrs. TACKETT. May I give you just one example that happened in Los Angeles? There are two schools, Crescent Heights and BurnsideI think they've changed the name of Burnside now because it became so famous. As we talked about, Burnside was on double sessions and was a black school, and 14 blocks from that school was a white school where I don't remember the exact number, but I think it was seven empty classrooms, and the children would not have had to ride the bus. All they would have had to do was move the school boundary over for three or four blocks and just turn the children around-when they left home, instead of heading east to Burnside, simply head them west to Crescent Heights, and that would have integrated Crescent Heights School and would have taken those children off of double

sessions.

But our school board chose to ignore that until we brought it to their attention, and after we brought it to their attention they then decided that they needed those classrooms and they put education for the mentally retarded in those rooms where they'd have about 12 pupils in them.

Mr. BELL. Mr. Chairman, I know I have several other questions of Mrs. Tackett, but I know the problem of time, so I'd like to say, Mrs.

Tackett, I appreciate your statement. It's a very good one. I think you've done a very good job of preparation here.

Mr. PUCINSKI. Thank you very much, Congressman Bell.

And I also want to join in thanking you, Mrs. Tackett.

I only have one footnote to add. I have already acknowledged the fact that your testimony is most impressive and most helpful. I would only say that while I have been extremely critical of title I and recently U.S. News & World Report quoted me as saying that it's a national disaster, I don't know whether we really want to deal in such broad strokes. While it needs a great deal of improvement, I'm not too sure that compensatory education has been a complete failure every place. It has not worked as well as it should be working and I think you made that point very well in your testimony, and, of course, it needs a great deal of improvement.

One of those improvements could come in full funding. In talking to administrators of title I programs today, they tell us that they've never really had a chance to give it a chance to work because, as you know, we've only been able to get about 49-percent authorization on title I. So I hope that somewhere between your and my extreme statement that it has failed and the statements of some 150 to 200 school administrators across the country who have said it has not failed we can find some happy medium, and I think the happy medium can come in better financing. I'd be willing to give compensatory a further chance to prove it's value with additional funding.

I think that the bad programs, as you have said, will be very quickly discovered, particularly if our colleague here, Mr Hawkins, succeeds in developing some workable formula for accountability as you have proposed but I'm not sure that you and I are absolutely right in so thoroughly condemning compensatory education.

I am most grateful to you for your excellent statement. It's been most helpful to the committee. Thank you very much.

Mrs. TACKETT. Thank you.

Mr. PUCINSKI. If you ever get tired of living in California, I'm sure that people with your ability could find some good use in Washington. Mrs. TACKETT. You'll find me at the old folks' home.

Mr. PUCINSKI. Now, we have an added starter here today, a surprise witness that we're very pleased to have. We had not expected to have this privilege during our testimony.

Congressman Hawkins was good enough to draw up an excellent list of witnesses for today's session, but because of the pending crisis in education, particularly in so many of the large cities, Los Angeles, Chicago, New York, and some of the other communites, we are fortunate that the State superintendent of public instruction for the State of California, Mr. Rafferty, was in town today and we're very privileged to have him stop by in a very informal manner. His testimony was totally unscheduled, so he has not had a chance to prepare any formal statement, but I wonder if we could for a few minutes, Mr. Superintendent, discuss with you the most pressing problem right now and if you out on the west coast have any suggestions as to how we should address ourselves to this crisis that confronts my own city, Chicago-the school superintendent testified yesterday that we're $40 million in the red for the remainder of this school year. I see where you have a similar situation here in Los Angeles and a similar situation around the country.

So we're very pleased to have you here and I wonder if we could get some of your views on this subject and perhaps some suggestions. STATEMENT OF MAXWELL RAFFERTY, STATE SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Mr. RAFFERTY. Thank you, Congressman Pucinski and gentlemen of the committee.

There are several observations I would like to make and some suggestions. Of course, all school men today are looking for help. The situation is a desperate one on many fronts. I honestly believe that the time has come for Congress to take a long look not only at the evaluative process but the instructional process itself. Congress is going to get into education. There's no such thing as getting in halfway; you've got to get in all the way and you've got to understand the entire pro

cess.

If schools were taught properly with proper class sizes and using the proper techniques you wouldn't need any compensatory education. Compensatory education would be necessary then only for the kids who have been crippled so far by inadequate teaching techniques. If I were on your committee and were considering the problem of money for schools, there are three things, I think, that I would try to do. First of all is the obvious one: I'd try to get some advance on the 1971 money for right now. The schools have been strapped this year largely because of the inability of the Congress and the President to get together on ESEA and other legislation. We've been marking time now for the balance of this school year. It has become a very exacerbated situation, but that's the easy thing, simply to ask for more money. It's necessary, but it's trite.

The second thing I would do would be to take any money that I was giving to any of these title I projects particularly, and perhaps others as well under ESEA, and make them contingent on the school district reducing elementary class sizes sharply, because one of the biggest problems in California, as well as in many other States, is the fact that elementary school teachers, especially in the first three grades, are acting largely as babysitters. You get 35 or 40 kids in a class-and this has been common in California in the past years. It's a little better now, but not much.

California, I think, stands about 45th in the Nation in regard to the number of kids we jam and squeeze and cram into classes. The State legislature took this matter up a few years ago and passed a bill which gave financial incentive to reduce class sizes, but the financial incentives were not sufficient to overcome the financial advantages involved in cramming more kids into the classes, so the thing worked only partially.

You're never going to get kids to learn how to read if the teacher is in charge of a gang of people who look as though you'd moved an army into a classroom. Teaching reading is essentially a highly individualistic process. It requires individual help and attention. And if the first- second- and third-grade sizes are much over 25, you're not going to get things done using the current techniques.

The other thing I would like to suggest is an even more drastic one which will draw cries and screams-Macedonian outcries from