Mr. ROSENFIELD. I do not know enough about constitutional law, sir, to answer that question.

Mr. ABERNETHY. Well, if I may be a little facetious, I do not think anyone does in this day and time-it changes so fast. You have no opinions as to whether it might lead to such.

Mr. ROSENFIELD. Well, this case, as you know, is being appealed. And there is a possibility that this appeal may go all the way to the Supreme Court. And I cannot make any judgment until we hear what the Court of Appeals does first, or if it is carried further on, what the Supreme Court will do.

Mr. ABERNETHY. You do have the opinion that it might be applicable

across what are now state lines.

Dr. HAYNES. May I respond to that?

Mrs. ALLEN. Mr. Congressman, we have already sent letters to neighboring school districts, asking for meetings at which time we might discuss what cooperation there could be across school district lines.

We have not had such meetings, but we are certainly exploring the possibility. Now, this is something certainly that is not going to take place overnight, certainly not to any great extent.

Mr. ABERNETHY. Did you get any response?

Mrs. ALLEN. We have had some informal responses, and there will be meetings.

Now, again, this is only preliminary discussions with school districts about feasibility and possibility.

Mr. ABERNETHY. Well, the probabilities are that within a year or two, if the population of the District continues as it is-you are about 7 per cent white now in the schools-you are moving quite rapidly toward a completely integrated system.

Mrs. ALLEN. We have a heavy concentration of minority persons just now.

Sir, on the first statement you made-I would like to disagree with Mr. Rosenfield. That is a very fresh approach, one that I have not heard, and I am certain that other Board members have not heard it. I disagree in this sense. What Judge Skelly-Wright said to us essentially, as I read the opinions and the decree, is that we should set up something like an educational park or scientific school, which I happen to be working with people in Maryland and Virginia on at the present time-on the-say Eastern Avenue. It would be an outstanding science school, and one that the people from Maryland and Virginia and the District would be happy to send their children to on a part-time basis.

We are also working on something like a drama school of this type. Now, this is in the embryonic state. It takes time and patience, because we are dealing with people, people who have fears. And this is white and black alike, sir.

Mr. ABERNETHY. Since you mention that-they do have a hospital out there now, or there is such under construction, which is more or less operating as a District and Maryland Hospital, do they not?

Mrs. ALLEN. They do, sir. And we have this in mind. Now, I agree with you one hundred per cent when you say you are going to be tight-and by that I mean our area is just limited. We cannot keep extending outward. And what you are saying is true. So what we must

do in the District of Columbia is to build schools in a manner that they have not been built before. We must build them up, we must build them over railroad yards, we must build them over apartment buildings. And this is what I think our Board of Education is leaning to.

The statemnt you made is something I think we will have to think about. I jotted it down. It is an excellent suggestion, I feel. But I would like to think about it before commenting on it.

Mr. ABERNETHY. That is all.

Mr. BROYHILL of Virginia. Mr. Chairman-I want to associate myself with the remarks made by Mr. Nelsen. This is very clearly an area in which we can delegate full authority to the people of the District of Columbia to operate their own school system, without necessarily having any conflict with the responsibilities or interests of the Federal government. I have sponsored an elected school board for a number of years. In fact, I felt that we should go even further, and give the elected school board the authority, as well as the responsibility, of raising their own revenues.

With this bill, the elected Board of Education will still be looking to the City Council and to the Congress for appropriations. And I see the possibility of some conflict as to what should be the proper expenditures.

Now, I am wondering if you folks feel that the elected Board of Education should have the authority and responsibility to set their own budget and raise their own revenues and let Congress provide the funds that it provides for every other school system, through the various Federal programs such as the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, the National Defense Education Act, the Vocational Education Act, and the Aid to Impacted Areas which you get now. By providing those funds, and the authority given the Commissioner to set the tax rate on property, the Congress can then step completely out of the picture.

Would that not be sufficient to operate your school system? Or would you need any additional help, other than what the community receives from the Federal government?

Dr. HAYNES. I would like to respond to that. I think the first and most important thing that we need is an analysis of how the money is spent, and where it is needed. I think there should be a very careful evaluation of procedures in the management, so that we can evaluate what we get for the dollar spent-whoever controls it, it is important first of all that there is a point at which we must make a report, some kind of a statement showing clearly that this is a worthy cause and that the money is not being wasted, but that the results are really there.

There should be measurements set up.

Mr. BROYHILL. Well, what I am suggesting is that you have the same authority, the same rights, and the same responsibilities that every other community in this Nation has.

Now, you have a per capita income that is among the highest in the Nation. Therefore, you have a source of revenue, as far as income and property value is concerned. Insofar as Federal buildings being located in the community, the Aid to Impacted Areas Program has an excellent formula by which the Federal government discharges its responsibilities to whatever community has a Federal installation.

83-350 0-67- 4

All the other programs take care of the various problems where there are poverty areas, and low-income areas, and the very special problems in education.

Now, this is supposed to work in other communities, and generally it does work. And so unless there is something peculiar about the District of Columbia, it ought to work here.

Dr. HAYNES. I agree. I think that it really should work here. As I said in my statement, I think that provision should be made for the Board to be able to carry out its responsibilities, each member of the Board-any elected board should be in a position to carry out its responsibilities to the community. And of course handling funding of its organizations and of its programs is a very strong point in that. Mr. BROYHILL. We find that problem here ourselves every day. It is very easy to complain about a problem, the solution for which may depend upon the appropriation of money, and yet not measure up to the responsibility of raising the revenue to solve that problem. We are having that right now on this 10 percent surcharge proposal. So I think this is very important in the operation of the School Board, or in any other local control or local responsibility.

Dr. HAYNES. I do think that the Board of Education has a responsibility which they must be in a position to discharge. Mr. BROYHILL. DO you have a comment?

Mr. ROSENFIELD. Yes. Congressman Broyhill, the biggest problem we have in the District at the present time as far as I am concerned is the lack of facilities to take care of the children who should be in school. For example, we should have the age limit lowered to get kids in school earlier, into the proper environment, healthy environment. Now, whether we should get the money through self-determination, or through the Congress, is something I am not prepared to debate at the moment. But I do say this. There is a dire need for further funding, and perhaps your committee here could evaluate our needs further, and maybe a crash program to alleviate our inner school system in the ghetto areas, where classrooms are so needed.

Mr. BROYHILL. That may be true. But I think this would be a case in point, then, because this might indicate that the Congress has an additional responsibility towards the schools of the District of Columbia over and beyond that which it has in any other community of the country.

Now, we spell that out. We know about the Federal property taken off the tax rolls, and I thoroughly agree that there is a Federal responsibility in that regard. But that responsibility is to every community where Federal property is located. We have been benefited in Northern Virginia as a result of that law.

But if we discharge our responsibilities, through those formulas that we consider to be fair and equitable every place else in the Nation, and then in addition to that we have yet a further responsibility to the school system of the District of Columbia, then this knocks down the argument that Congressman Nelsen was trying to make, that this is an area where we can separate the interests and the rights and responsibilities of the people of the District of Columbia from the interests of the Federal government.

If we cannot separate them, that is a case against the elected School Board.

I am trying to find these areas of separation, sincerely trying to find areas where we can turn over the operation of local affairs to the people in the District of Columbia, and let them finance these programs themselves. But if we have to come back and say that Congress is always going to have to underwrite these local problems in the District of Columbia, because it is the Nation's capital, I will accept that as an argument. But it defeats what I have been trying to do, and that is to provide for local responsibility.

Mrs. ALLEN. I would like to commend that as a goal, I feel that fiscal autonomy for the School Board is highly desirable. However, the techniques for providing a substantial enough fiscal base to operate our schools in the way they should be operated is something that would have to be worked out very carefully. And I think, yes, the Congress does have some responsibility to the District schools over and above that which can be raised by taxes.

We are different from other areas because other areas are in states which provide state equalization formulas, funds from state sources. Mr. BROYHILL. But you have a state taxing authority in the D.C. also the same authority of taxation which the states have, without all the responsibilities of the states.

Mrs. ALLEN. We are a combination of state and city in that regard. And I am saying while cities have tax bases, and taxes in order to provide services and schools, so also do states provide over and above that amount of money to the local school districts.

What would be missing in our case would be one or the other of those, depending upon whether you look at the District of Columbia as a city of state.

Mr. BROYHILL. You do not miss either one of them, because I say again the taxes that the citizen of the D.C. pays are practically the same that the citizens in the surrounding areas pay in combination state and local taxes. So you have revenue that is equal to both.

Mrs. ALLEN. Let me say this, then. As a goal, I think that fiscal autonomy is highly desirable, but I would not want to be put out in a position where we had the responsibility and the authority, but no source for the funds to run the schools.

Mr. BROYHILL. I am suggesting that you have the source.

Mrs. ALLEN. If this should be the case, that would be fine. I am not prepared to say that would be the case-because we have only the single source of funds-namely, local District taxes.

Mr. BROYHILL. I don't think anyone should consider giving any group in the D.C. authority without making them accept responsibility at the same time. I think they go hand in hand. You cannot have your cake and eat it too.

Mrs. ALLEN. I agree. You should have not only the responsibility, but also the authority to execute the responsibility, as Dr. Haynes

has said.

Mr. BROYHILL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. MULTER. Have any of you members of the panel before us this morning given consideration to the time schedule set up in the bills as to when the elections would be held, and how they would be held, and when the first Board and second Board will take office?

Mr. ROSENFIELD. Yes, I have.

I think the time should be changed, sir. I believe the bill provides that it is to be in January. I think it should not be in the middle of a

school year. I think perhaps it ought to be some time in middle or late June to give a board an opportunity to get ready for the job ahead, because a lot of planning is done during the summer months. I think it might be a little disrupting if the election is held in January, sir.

Mr. MULTER. In other words, you think they should take office some time in June, and elections should be some time prior to that? Mr. ROSENFIELD. Yes, sir.

Mr. MULTER. As it is now in the bill, as I read it, your first Board of Education would not take office until January 1969?

Mr. ROSENFIELD. Yes, sir.

Mr. MULTER. What you would prefer to do is to move it to June of 1969, or 1968?

Mr. ROSENFIELD. I have no thoughts on that. I just have a thought as to the time when they take office. And I feel that it should not be in the middle of the school term, sir. It could be '68.

Mr. MULTER. What is the opinion of some of the other members of the Board?

Mrs. ALLEN. Well, my only comment on that particular section of the bill is that it seems to me at the present time there is no provision for staggering the terms of the at-large members. I would think it might be better to arrange for staggering those terms, so that the electorate has an opportunity every year to comment-every two years, rather, to comment by its election on the way the school matters are going.

Mr. ABERNETHY. I had that in mind by the suggestion I made. What would you think of having a School Board election in April, as we do in my State. You have time to have run-offs by the first of May, and for those elected to take office the first of June.

Do you think that would be better than having the election in November and taking office in January?

Mrs. ALLEN. I think that your suggestion is a good one.

Mr. MULTER. Now, then, what I would like to pursue for a moment is whether or not you want the election postponed so the first Board of Education will go into office in June of 1969, or would you like to see it advanced to June of 1968 ?

Mrs. ALLEN. I have no comment on that point.

Dr. ALEXANDER. I have no comment, sir.

Mr. ROSENFIELD. I have no feeling on that, sir.
Dr. HAYNES. May I comment on the dates.
Mr. MULTER. Yes, please.

Dr. HAYNES. I have heard it expressed that the question of November election would be a difficult period, and that coming in in January would be a difficult period. But not for the same reason that Mr. Rosenfield has said. I feel that not June but some time prior to June, such as coming on in April, will be a very good time, or March-something ahead of the June period. So that the new members coming on the Board will have some opportunity to become aware of the programs and problems before the Board at that time, before they are ready to step into action at the beginning of the next year, or at the June period when we do organize and when we then set up committees and so forth. They will have an opportunity to know something about what has gone on prior to their coming on the board, and they will be acclimated to some of our problems.