Osman, Jack W., "The Dual Impact of Federal Aid on State and Local Government Expenditures," National Tax Journal, Vol. XIX (December 1966). Rainwater, Lee, and Yancey, William L. (Eds.), The Moynihan Report and the Politics of Controversy (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1967). 'Sacks, Seymour, and Harris, Robert, "The Determinants of State and Local Government Expenditures and Intergovernmental Flows of Funds," National Tax Journal, Vol. XVII (March 1964). Schultz, Theodore W., "The Rate of Return in Allocating Investment Resources to Education," The Journal of Human Resources, Vol. II, No. 3 (Summer 1967). Scrimshaw, Nevin S., "Infant Malnutrition and Adult Learning," Saturday Review, Vol. 51, No. 11 (March 16, 1968). Sexton, Patricia Cayo, Education and Income (New York: The Viking Press, 1964). Siegal, S., Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences (New York: McGraw Hill, 1956). Simon, Kenneth B., and Grant, Vance W., Digest of Educational Statistics (Washington, D. C.: U. S. Government Printing Urrice, 1907). Thomas, J. Alan, School Finance and Educational Opportunity in Michigan (Lansing: Michigan Department of Education, 1968). Waller, Willard, The Sociology of Teaching (New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., reprinted in 1965). Walsh, J. R., "Capital Concept Alplied to Man," Quarterly Journal of Warner, William Lloyd, Havighurst, Robert J., and Loeb, Martin B., Who Weikart, David P., Preschool Intervention: A Preliminary Report of the Perry Preschool Project (Ann Arbor, Michigan: Campus Publishers, 1967). Weisbrod, Burton A., External Benefits of Public Education (Princeton, Princeton University Press, 1964). New Jersey: U.S. SENATE, SELECT COMMITTEE ON EQUAL EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY, Prof. JAMES GUTHRIE, School of Education, University of California at Berkeley, DEAR JIM: I want to thank you for taking the time to come and testify before our Committee. You and Hank have both added immeasurably to our knowledge. As Hank will tell you, he did not have the fortune of encountering Senator McClellan, but Senator Jennings Randolph did a beautiful job of putting equal educational opportunity in perspective (and before you take that seriously, you might want to ask Hank to explain.) Senator Mondale did not have an opportunity to ask you questions concerning comparability and the issuance of Title I regulations which are explained in the attached article from the WALL STREET JOURNAL. We would appreciate it if you would let us have written answers to the enclosed questions on this subject so that we can include them in our hearings record. Again, many thanks for your help. Sincerely, WILLIAM C. SMITH. Senator MONDALE. This morning has been very interesting and valuable. We stand in recess until tomorrow morning at 11. Thank you very much. (Whereupon, at 12:05 p.m. the committee recessed, to reconvene at 11 a.m. of the following day, Thursday, October 1, 1970.) EQUAL EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY THURSDAY, OCTOBER 1, 1970 U.S. SENATE, SELECT COMMITTEE ON EQUAL EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY, Washington, D.C. The committee met at 10 a.m., pursuant to recess, in room 1318, New Senate Office Building, Senator Walter F. Mondale (chairman of the committee) presiding. Present: Senators Mondale, Randolph, and Spong. Staff members present: William C. Smith, staff director and general counsel; A. Sidney Johnson, deputy staff director; and Mike Uhlman, chief minority counsel. Senator MONDALE. The committee will come to order. This morning we are very pleased to have as our witness Mr. Henry M. Levin, associate professor of education and economics, Stanford University. You have a prepared statement. You may proceed as you wish. STATEMENT OF HENRY M. LEVIN, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF EDUCATION AND ECONOMICS, STANFORD UNIVERSITY Mr. LEVIN. Thank you, Senator. I would like to address myself to the relationship between educational finance and equal educational opportunity. SCHOOL RESOURCES In making this statement, I wish to explain beforehand that usually when one thinks of the financial problems of equal educational opportunity, one thinks in terms of finding technical solutions to the problem, new State aid formulas, new Federal strategies for achieving this particular end and particular mechanisms at the local level. Because my own work has tended to be in this area in the past, I thought that it would be important that I depart from that approach in this statement in order to try to get at what I conceive to be the more stringent underlying problem in insuring equal educational opportunity. "Action speaks louder than words" is an adage that we pass on to our children. Yet, when it comes to the issue of financing equal educational opportunity, the rhetoric is pronounced with a clarion. call, while the actions deserve no more than a whimper. The point is that the entire structure within which our schools are financed guarantees inequality of educational opportunity. It is a system which has been so cleverly veiled in piety that it yields compensatory education to the rich while saddling the poor with a higher relative tax burden. The outside observer may lift his eyebrows at this stage and with an ingenuous sigh assert that these charges are incredulous. After all, hasn't the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1963 provided over a billion dollars a year for poor children? Don't all of the States provide equalization aid to bolster the poorer school districts? Haven't many local school districts provided special assistance for students from low-income families? The answers to all of these questions are most assuredly "Yes." Yet, the inequalities in expenditures on children from different social classes are greater than they have ever been. The paradox is a very simple one. All of the programs combined have provided an impression of equality without actually providing the equality itself. SCHOOL FINANCES-PER PUPIL EXPENDITURES Let us consider the facts. At each level of government, the amount of wealth or income of the population is the principal determinant of how much will be spent on the schooling of each student. Students who live in poorer jurisdictions have less public funds invested in their educational development than students who live in wealthier areas. This means that on the average, lower social class children will receive poorer schooling than middle-class ones, because there are higher concentrations of the poor children within the lower income jurisdictions. The average child in relatively low-income Mississippi had about $476 spent on his education in the school year 1969-70, while the average student in the wealthier State of Michigan received an educational investment of $842, and a student who resided in New Jersey had $963 spent on his schooling. These figures are representative of the disparities that exist in our Federal system. What is significant about this particular comparison is that all three States were making the same relative efforts, spending about 4.7 percent of their incomes on education. Yet, with the same relative sacrifice, the children in the latter two States received twice as many educational dollars as students in the former. At the extremes of the expenditure spectrum, students in New York State benefited from three times the educational investment of the average pupil in Alabama. To reiterate, these expenditures differences can be explained principally by differences in wealth, not effort. States that were trying equally hard showed vastly disparate results. Senator MONDALE. Will you yield, there? FEDERAL FUNDING (TITLE I) AND EFFORT Of course, one of the key problems we always face in devising legislation to fund education programs is how to reward effort. Of |