submitted they were probably not representative of the cost of complete school facilities in that State for that year, and for that reason, at our initiative, I think it was, the report by Dr. Coleman, our field representative, was made.

Mr. FOGARTY. So you raised the cost estimate from $663 to $1,030; is that right?

Mr. GRIGSBY. That is correct.

Mr. FOGARTY. On the basis that you did not think they had built complete facilities?

Mr. GRIGSBY. That is right.

Mr. FOGARTY. Did North Carolina have a State school construction program at that time?

Mr. GRIGSBY. I believe it did. I believe the State was just then undertaking a program which the investigators describe in some detail in this report. The type of construction that our field representatives found in examining a list of buildings was a type of construction which by and large would be regarded as the most simple, most austere type of construction-omitting special purpose rooms, or the so-called allpurpose rooms, without finishing the floor and in some cases without the electrical fixtures that would be added later. That is one of the difficulties in this whole concept, and I think the investigators have been helpful in putting their finger on a concept that is very difficult of administration; namely, a State average cost per pupil of constructing school facilities, particularly when you add the concept of complete school facilities which is without definition and cannot be defined unless you are going to set a Federal standard as to what constitutes complete school facilities. That standard would have to vary with the size of the school and between an elementary school, a junior high school, and a senior high school.

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN COMPLETE AND MINIMUM FACILITIES

I would like in that connection, if I might, to read a little from the report of the House committee in reporting the bill which became Public Law 246, which amended the original Public Law 815 and added a new title 3. It goes to this question of what is the difference, if any, between complete school facilities and minimum school facilities. It is about three short paragraphs.

Mr. LANHAM. May I ask this question at this point: The law was changed, but I do not recall when it was.

Mr. LILLYWHITE. August 1953.

Mr. GRIGSBY. This is the report of the House committee in reporting the bill which became Public Law 246.

Title II of Public Law 815 provided a school district would receive an entitlement based upon the number of eligible children multiplied by a specified percentage of the cost of complete school facilities. The new title III bases the school district's maximum payment on the number of federally connected children to be counted in the three categories outlined above, multiplied by the applicable percentage of the cost of minimum school facilities. The term "minimum school facilities" used in the bill does not mean that the test to be applied will be one based upon the use of inferior materials, or on the provision of inadequate space for the basic school needs of the children. There is no substantive difference between minimum and complete school facilities so far as facilities for classrooms, administrative, and operational purposes are concerned. The difference between these two terms comes primarily in the fact that under the term "minimum school facilities," allowance is not made for a room which must be used exclusively as an auditorium, a gymnasium, or for some other special activity. It should be further

pointed out that the term "minimum facilities" merely insures against Federal participation in expenditures beyond those needed to conduct an adequate school program and hence spreads Federal funds as far as possible to meet adequately the basic needs. Under this concept the Federal payment to the school districts will be based on the cost of the type of facility which the average school district has in recent years been building out of its own funds.

In the next paragraph there is this further statement made:

Your committee has not attempted to define the term "minimum facilities" in the law since to do so might run counter to State or local standards, and might be construed as permitting the imposition of standards by the Federal Government. In determining whether or not any facilities are minimum school facilities, and in determining the average per-pupil cost of constructing minimum school facilities in a State, the Commissioner of Education is required to consult with the appropriate State and local educational agencies.

That is as near as we can find in the report of the committee anything that approaches an indication of intent of the committee with respect to the difference between complete and minimum school facilities.

METHOD OF DETERMINING THAT FACILITIES ARE NOT COMPLETE

Mr. FOGARTY. How did this field representative of yours then go into North Carolina and raise this estimated cost from $663 up to $1,030 per pupil?

Mr. LILLYWHITE. I think that I can answer the question as to how

he went in.

Mr. FOGARTY. How did he arrive at the conclusion?

Mr. GRIGSBY. If I may read from his report, this is a report dated January 12, 1951:

I found that a disproportionate part of the construction was located in rural and small-town communities as follows: Population strictly rural and towns under 500, total pupil capacity reported 7,860. Towns between 500 and 2,500, total pupil capacity reported, 2,190. Cities with population over 2,500, total pupil capacity reported, 2,960.

A disproportionate amount of the construction was located in poor districts. A special effort was made last year to provide State aid for districts too poor to finance construction independently. The amount of funds available for many of these districts is still too limited to provide complete school facilities. Many of these poor districts have a large percentage of colored pupils.

Two of these schools are concrete blocks with no veneer. Eighteen of the buildings do not have plastered walls. In no case is the cost of grading school grounds included. In many cases the concrete floors are bare and the intention is to add tile later. The cost of the light fixtures has in all cases been excluded since they can be obtained directly by the board from the State at a lower cost. This cost is estimated at $12 to $15 per pupil. None of these buildings has a bell system, nor an intercommunication system or clocks. Only Walter Williams at Kanopolis was fully equipped with lockers, millwork, kitchen equipment, and furniture. Several school buildings were incomplete as to facilities.

The Caswell County Training School is to have a gymnasium built later. The Graham High School now has a gymnasium under construction, the cost of which was not included. The effect of building with adequate or inadequate funds is demonstrated by comparing the per-pupil cost of the adequate Walter M. Williams School with the per-pupil cost of the inadequate Negro high school, which 2 schools are only 3 miles apart.

ESTABLISHMENT OF STANDARDS

Mr. FOGARTY. I think that is enough for the question that I asked. What I was leading up to is this: When he made the recommendation that the estimated cost be increased from $663 to $1,030, what does

that mean? Does it mean that he was imposing higher standards than they had thought necessary in that State at that time, or what?

Mr. LILLYWHITE. I think what he did was to take the data submitted by North Carolina and look at it. He starts out:

After examining the data I became convinced that the list of contract costs for 1949-50 do not represent the true costs. I therefore investigated the data and following is my report.

That was just read. I simply report he had reported that to the office. The office made the determination. It used that data in connection with all other data available.

Mr. FOGARTY. In determining that amount of $1,030, did you then, in consideration of his report, determine that they should have tile on the floor and that where the walls were unplastered they should be plastered?

Mr. LILLYWHITE. I think that you have to determine that certain of the school facilities were not complete school facilities and eliminate them from the computation of the average cost of complete school facilities in the State.

Mr. FOGARTY. Did you make that decision, then, that a school should have some covering over a concrete floor?

Mr. LILLYWHITE. I do not think we made that decision that it should have, but I think we made the decision that if the walls were left bare and rough, or if there was no work on the grounds, it was not a complete school and the cost of that school did not represent the cost of the complete school as the law required us to use. I think that is the kind of determination that we would make from these data. Mr. FOGARTY. Does a complete school facility call for other than concrete floors, or does the complete school facility call for other than unplastered walls? I am just asking for information. This is not being critical of you. I am trying to find out what they meant.

Mr. GRIGSBY. You are getting at the point of difficulty. The concept of complete school facilities is full of subjective judgments of the sort that those charged with the administration of this law are required to make without much guidance.

Mr. FOGARTY. From what is said in the committee report, they did not want to set up any standard because it would be an imposition on the State. If you determine the cost of $663 per pupil is ridiculous and that the schools built by the State for this amount do not constitute complete facilities, are you not imposing some standards on that State?

Dr. BROWNELL. I think you are making it possible for the school district to provide a better kind of school without the penalty that would be there in terms of the amount of the Federal reimbursement on that project. In other words, you are not saying to a school district that they have to put a covering on a floor, to use your illustration. But the school district that puts a covering on the floor and thereby raises its per-pupil cost would not be penalized if you set the higher per-pupil cost available in computing the Federal portion of the building. If you take only for the basis of your figures those where they have no flooring, then what you are doing is saying in terms of reimbursement by the Federal Government they would only be reimbursed on the basis of that kind of school.

Mr. FOGARTY. Which came first, the money or the floors? Were they told that if they did not put some type of covering over the concrete they would not get their proportionate share of Government funds?

Dr. BROWNELL. If I understand the reimbursement, we do not reimburse them on the basis of the flooring, or the basis of the light fixtures, or what not, but on the basis of so much for the total cost of the building, and they are to use their judgment as to how they can get the most for their money. But we do, in determining what is a reasonable per-pupil cost, or square-foot cost, as a basis of reimbursement, have to decide whether certain things might be considered reasonable things to find in a school.

Now, a school might put in more money on blackboards and things of that sort and find that it could not get floor covering, and there would be no insistence on the part of the Federal Government that they put on the floor covering. In determining what is a reasonable school, schools that have flooring, floor coverings, are not excluded. Mr. LILLYWHITE. Many of these schools that entered into this computation were not in federally impacted areas and would not get any money. They did not figure in it. They did not relate to impacted

areas.

Mr. GRIGSBY. This was based on the construction of 1949-50, which is the year preceding the enactment of Public Law 815.

Mr. FOGARTY. What about the other States? Were all the original computations that far off all over the country?

Mr. GRIGSBY. The investigators called attention to these seven States that they listed in their initial report. Whether they had similar criticisms with respect to the other 43, including Alaska and Hawaii, we do not know.

ENTITLEMENT COMPARED WITH 1950-51 CONSTRUCTION COSTS

Mr. FOGARTY. The investigative staff's analysis of the Office of Education reply states that next year, 1950-51, the average cost of constructing 44 elementary schools was $567 per pupil; 4 high schools, $507; and 67 consolidated schools, $540, but that the entitlement rate was maintained at $1,030. Do your records indicate these figures. are substantially correct?

Mr. GRIGSBY. I would not be able to answer that because we got this report so late. We could go back and check our records. Mr. FOGARTY. Would you check and give us an answer? (The requested answer follows:)

The figures given as to average cost of the specified number of elementary schools, high schools, and consolidated schools are substantially correct. There were 44 elementary schools, 3 junior high schools, 1 high school, and 66 combined schools reported by the State. However, the State failed to report to total square feet of floor area for 15 of the elementary schools and 37 of the combined schools. Therefore, we were unable to use these 52 schools in our determination of the average per pupil cost. After elimination of these 52 schools and of 26 other schools which were deemed not to be complete school facilities, and, after combining the data on the basis of 2 elementary schools to 1 high school, we arrived at a computed State average of $1,030.

DIFFERENCE IN CALCULATION OF ENTITLEMENT BETWEEN 1951 AND 1952

Mr. FOGARTY. On page 7 of the investigative staff's analysis they say that North Carolina was granted an entitlement of $1,030 for

1951 and the same for 1952. They say that this figure was arrived at in 1951 by using a square footage of 94 feet per child multiplied by a cost of $11.04 per foot. The next year the Office of Education increased the cost to $13.75 per foot, apparently to reflect price increases, and reduced the square footage to 75 feet per pupil arriving at the $1,030 figure previously granted. They say, "This certainly indicates juggling of figures. to support a predetermined amount." What do you say about that?

Mr. GRIGSBY. Well, I would like to say again one of the difficulties in this concept is that there were no existing standards in these States in 1949, 1950, and 1951, by and large, which would determine the square footage per pupil in construction of school facilities. Two or three States had set up what they regarded as ideal standards in terms of square feet per pupil for an elementary school of a certain size, for a junior high school or for a high school, but in most cases such square footage standards were not available. Do you allow 50 square feet per elementary school pupil, or do you allow 75?

Mr. FOGARTY. That was not the question or the statement, how much. They were charging you people with juggling these figures to arrive at $1,030. All I know is what the staff report says. I hope that is not the way that you arrived at this $1,030.

Mr. GRIGSBY. We will check that. I do not think that is right at all.

Mr. FOGARTY. Would you check and give us an answer to that? (The requested answer follows:)

The figures for North Carolina used by the investigators, as shown above, were evidently taken from a penciled summary sheet in the entitlement files of the Division and from two mimeographed sheets that had been prepared for office use only. At the time of the investigation, the entitlement files apparently did not show all of the computations used in the determination of the average perpupil costs. Later a complete review of the files and of the basic data used in our computations shows the following facts:

In 1951 the area per pupil for the schools used in our computation was 75 square feet for the elementary schools and 160 square feet for the high schools. The combined average based on a relationship of 2 elementary to 1 high school was 103 square feet per pupil. This was reduced to 100 square feet per pupil and at an adjusted cost of $10.26 per square foot gave $1,026.00. An average cost of $1,030 was then submitted to and approved by the State.

In 1952 schools reported by the State which were considered to be complete facilities gave an average area of 82 square feet per elementary pupil and 130 per high school pupil. The combined average computed on the same basis as indicated above gave 98 square feet per pupil. An adjusted cost per square foot of $10.62 was used, which gave $1,040 per pupil. An average cost of $1,030 per pupil was then submitted to and approved by the State.

Mr. GRIGSBY. What I would say is this: there is in this conceptthe State average cost of constructing complete school facilitieswide areas of discretion. In the absence of specific State standards, how do you determine what constitutes a complete school facility and a minimum school facility?

Mr. FOGARTY. I can understand that. I happen to be in the class that likes to have something better than a concrete floor. I am a bricklayer and I like a brick floor and I like plastered walls, in fact, I like the best in construction. I do not like these cheap and inferior products that are replacing some of the old-line materials. I do not like cheap construction. But I think you can cut out a lot of the frills and do a good-looking job inside and out and save a lot of money and still have a good modern up-to-date building.