TABLE III.-Estimated cost of migratory children amendments 1 Maryland. Michigan... Missouri.. Montana New Hampshire.. North Carolina. South Carolina_ South Dakota.. 476, 906 3, 328 146, 686 133, 610 2, 170, 328 Outlying areas.. 1 Estimated on the basis of estimated migratory children of migratory workers (FTE 1965) and 50 percen national average CE per pupil in ADA, 1964–65. ORPHANS, CHILDREN IN STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS, AND OTHER CHILDREN LACKING PARENTAL SUPPORT In adding this new program the committee took note of the testimony submitted by Senator Montoya and others (pp. 1286 ff. of the hearings record) in justification of the concept. Since the committee, in an amendment contained in Public Law 89-313, had approved a similar program for financing the education of children in State-operated or State-supported schools for the handicapped, it believes that the additional aid provided by this program will be of material assistance in improving the quality of educational offerings afforded these groups of young people. The following table sets forth on a State-by-State basis estimated amounts which could be made available: TABLE IV.-Add-on cost of Montoya amendment (July 25, 1966) TITLE I: ORPHANS, FOSTER CHILDREN, AND DELINQUENTS [Estimated distribution of funds under S. 3046, Elementary and Secondary Education Amendments of 1966, as reported, Senate subcommittee] TABLE IV.-Add-on cost of Montoya amendment (July 25, 1966)—Con. TITLE I: ORPHANS, FOSTER CHILDREN, AND DELINQUENTS [Estimated distribution of funds under S. 3046, Elementary and Secondary Education Amendments of 1966, as reported, Senate subcommittee] 1 Estimated on the basis of dependent and neglected children 5 to 17 in institutions (Apr. 1, 1960), children under 21 in foster homes under the auspices of public agencies (Apr. 1, 1960), juvenile delinquents 5 to 17 in training schools and detention homes (Apr. 1, 1960), and 50 percent State or national average CE per pupil in ADA, 1964-65, 3 percent added for outlying areas. Data on children based on 25 percent sample. In the administration of these provisions the committee suggests that the highly effective devices now used by the Office of Education in Public Law 874 administration be adopted to this program. FORMULA CHANGE-NATIONAL AVERAGE OPTION The committee feels that one of the purposes of Federal aid is to channel expenditures into socially beneficial activities which would not receive sufficient financial support were it not for the Federal expenditure. One such activity is education. Within a given federally assisted activity the committee believes that a high priority should be given to channeling funds into geographical areas showing greatest need. Among these are two areas in which the committee has acted to increase the flow of Federal financial assistance: low-income States and metropolitan areas. The committee is concerned by the fact that under the present title I formula, the per pupil Federal expenditure on a child from one of the lower income States is below that which is spent on a child from one of the relatively more affluent States. The Federal Government pays to each school district an amount equal to the product of the number of children in the district from low-income families multiplied by one-half the average per pupil expenditure in the State. The low-income States, with their smaller tax bases, are unable to spend as much on education as the wealthier States. Their per pupil expenditures in education are below the national average. is not due to lack of effort. Of the 28 States whose per capita expenditures on elementary and secondary education were below the national 69-477-66-2 average, the percentage of per capita income spent on education by 23 of those States was in excess of the national average. The committee bill would amend the formula to allow a school district to receive payments equal to the number of children in the district from low-income families multiplied by one-half the average per pupil expenditure in the State or in the Nation. This change would become effective in fiscal year 1968. The committee feels that this aspect of the new formula would assist the lower income States in bringing their educational expenditures up to the national average, while it would continue to reward those States which make expenditures in excess of the national average. The family income base changes (from $2,000 per annum to $2,500 per annum for fiscal year 1967, rising to $3,000 per annum in fiscal 1968), use of most recent aid to dependent children data instead of 1962 data of fiscal year 1966, in a similar fashion will bring increased financial aid to many metropolitan core cities, particularly those in States with relatively high State per pupil expenditures. The following table, prepared by the Office of Education for the committee shows the effect of the amendments in fiscal years 1967 and 1968 as contrasted to the proposal as introduced: TABLE V.-Estimated grants under title I, Public Law 89-10 TABLE V.-Estimated grants under title I, Public Law 89–10—Con. 1 Estimated maximum grants based on estimated 5 to 17 population; low-income factor, $2,000 per annum; ald for dependent children 1962; estimated average daily attendance handicapped children (June 30, 1966); estinated migratory children of migratory workers (FTE 1965); 50 percent State current expenditure per average daily attendance, 1964-65 (except migratory). 3 percent reserved for outlying areas. Estimated maximum grants based on estimated 5 to 17 population; low-income factor, $3,000 per annum; aid for dependent children, 1965; other data as in footnote 1. 3 percent reserved for outlying areas. Grants estimated on basis of estimated 5 to 17 population; low-income factor, $2,500 per annum; aid for dependent children, 1965; estimated average daily attendance handicapped children (June 30, 1966); estimated migratory children of migratory workers (FTE 1965); dependent and neglected children 5 to 17 in institutions (Apr. 1, 1960); children under 21 in foster homes under the auspices of public agencies (Apr. 1, 1960); juvenile delinquents 5 to 17 in training schools and detention homes (Apr. 1, 1960); and 50 percent State current expenditure per pupil in average daily attendance, 1964-65 (except migratory children). 1960 data on children based on 25 percent sample. 3 percent of 50 States and District of Columbia amounts added for the outlying areas (except migratory children). 4 Grants estimated on low-income factor, $3,000 per annum; 50 percent State or national average current expenditure per pupil in average daily attendance, 1964-65 (except migratory children); other factors as in footnote 3. It is estimated that the current expenditure per pupil in average daily attendance for 1965–66 will increase approximately 5 percent. This will increase the fiscal year 1968 amounts listed. REPEAL OF INCENTIVE GRANTS The committee after long and careful study was finally convinced that the incentive grant provision now in the act, was more appropriate to a general Federal aid bill than the basic legislation which is special purpose in nature. Since the committee has added new programs to those originally included in the measure as introduced, and in addition has, in certain instances, increased the authorizations. above the recommendations of the administration, it felt that the $320 million estimated cost of the incentive grant program should be used to fund the higher priority items which were added. PART B. Title II of Public Law 89-10 -SCHOOL LIBRARY RESOURCES, TEXTBOOKS, AND OTHER INSTRUCTIONAL MATERIALS Last year this committee considered the growing importance of school libraries and of up-to-date textbooks. As a result, title II |