we have got to be sure we don't do it in a way that we compound the error by continuing segregation.

In the neighborhood where I live, for example, there is a school which is about three blocks away from my home.

You could easily spend $4 or $5 million-it is a junior high schoolin making that a wonderful educational temple for the children who are drawn from the surrounding neighborhood.

But unless you use some ingenuity and comomnsense, it would forever after remain an all-Negro institution, and I think this is the kind of reason why and I think this is the reason why we need then in this legislation a provision which says, "We will give aid to that kind of school, but the condition of that aid is that we will continually review the practices of the local school authorities to make sure that they are trying to break up that racial isolation, rather than just perpetuating it."

REASONS FOR AN UNSEGREGATED EDUCATION

Senator JAVITS. Is your reason for that a better education, or is your reason some other reason, moral or otherwise.

In other words, the prevailing view of educators now is that a racially segregated education is deficient in light of the American experience. Now suppose the technicians and educators came to some other view the next day, or in a year, where they felt that you could get as optimal an education for the child in an all-black situation, which they don't think now.

Would that change your view, and, if so, why?

Mr. MITCHELL. It would not change my view, Senator Javits, because, while I have a great respect for experts, I have an even greater respect for experience and commonsense in handling various problems that confront the human race.

When I was a young man, Negroes were not admitted to the law schools of many of the Southern States. In an effort to meet the constitutional requirement of providing educational opportunity for these aspirants to the law profession, some of the States set up separate schools, but the courts pointed out that in a lawyer's experience he comes in contact with classmates who will become judges, prosecutors, the members of the legal fraternity in his profession in his community, and therefore it is a handicap to a lawyer to put him in a situation, when he is in training, where he will be in contact only with the members of one segment of a community.

I think that applies all across the board, and I conclude on the basis of commonsense and my own experience, without even bothering to refer to what the experts say, although I know that they hold as you have stated, I have concluded that it is absolutely impossible to give children adequate education for today's world if you put them in separate schools.

Inevitably, the political life of a community being what it is, the separate schools which are for the black children do not get the same kind of treatment that then is given to the white children. I think it is an unchangeable truth in the field of education, as the Supreme Court has held, that separate education is unequal.

Senator JAVITS. So your reasons are not only education, but the total educational experience?

Mr. MITCHELL. I don't see how you can separate those things. For example, let us say in the civics class, it is the intention of the faculty people to bring the children to Washington, and some of the persons who know you, or know Senator Pell, because of their personal contact with you pick up the telephone and quickly arrange, even though it had not been in the original plan, a meeting with you so that the children have the advantage of seeing their U.S. Senator.

They have the advantage of being conducted up to the gallery, as you can and do. Also there are often things that you do for them. Along comes an all-Negro institution where it might be from a State in which the Senators are not as friendly as you are, and not as disposed to try to look after the schoolchildren, or the black group.

They just never get the experience.

I feel that if we are going to educate children, we just don't confine ourselves to the classroom, we give them the total experience of practical life I just want to make one observation in that connection.

A friend of mine who is a former schoolmate is now living in Norway. In a visit last week she said that in Norway efforts are being made to arrange situations where as a part of the educational program, children will be exposed to hazardous situations. For example, instead of 350 building a nice swimming pool, they rehabilitated the old swimminghole, so that the kids can understand practical hazards.

Well I think this is true of all education. We can't just have it in a classroom. We have to reach out in the practical, everyday experiences with all their risks and all their benefits if we are going to give the children all they need to have.

DISTRIBUTION FORMULA

Senator JAVITS. In view of the priorities to which you have testified, what do you think about the provision of the administration bill which would distribute two-thirds of the available funds on a State-by-State formula, but which holds one-third of the funds for the Secretary of HEW for distribution and allocation as he might be advised in the best interests of the legislation?

Mr. MITCHELL. We discussed that particular item Senator Javits, and I think we, as an organization, would like to see a smaller part of the money within the discretion of the Secretary of HEW.

That is the organization position. We have not spelled out how much would be within the discretion, but my own personal feeling is, and this is a feeling based on the experience around here in the last 30 years in the Capitol, the most important thing that you can have in a program of this kind is a man of integrity and ability doing the job. In my judgment if you have that kind of a person you don't need to worry how much of the money is being handled by that particular official.

So I guess the answer is that we would like to see a lesser sum than one-third in the Secretary's hands, but we also point out that the fundamental question is: Will we get a person of strength, of integrity and ability who will fairly administer that part of the law?

Senator JAVITS. Of course, another aspect of it is the formula by which the greater proportion is distributed. You have to be sure that that formula would not enforce a priority which you say is unwise

to enforce, to wit, a priority over correcting de jure segregation, to prefer that over racial imbalance, and yet you understand that that is very likely to happen.

Mr. MITCHELL. It will certainly happen if we try to do the double counting, and if we confine the aid, to which is not under the discretion of the Secretary, to schools affected by Federal court orders, that would automatically write off the States which have great need, like California and Michigan, Pennsylvania and others.

I think the administration ought to keep in mind that when we were working for the passage of the voting rights bill, the administration took the position that they did not want any regional legislation.

Well, in the form that the President has proposed it, this is regional legislation, but we have a national problem, and I think that the administration could just follow its own advice and avoid regionalism by supporting legislation which would reach the whole country.

Senator JAVITS. The division of these resources; should there be a relationship in which the States receive part?

Mr. MITCHELL. A question has arisen on how you get the count. I would like to say for whatever it is worth, it seems to me the simplest way of getting a count of minority group children is to ask the teachers in classrooms, or count heads without names, and turn those figures into the principal who in turn would give them to the officials to transmit them to Washington.

LITIGATION EXPENSES

Senator JAVITS. There are two suggestions I would like to comment on. These are suggestions made in your testimony. One is an amendment to the administration bill, S. 3883, to help defray the cost of litigation, including counsel fees, plaintiff's experts and out-of-pocket

expenses.

You would like to see that included. We have done something like that in the equal employment opportunity bill which was just approved by the committee-and I assure you that Senator Pell and I will be most sympathetic to trying to get that.

BUSING

Another thing which you speak of is busing, and you have a very interesting suggestion, that we seek to really eliminate in this legislation the inhibitions or prohibitions of the various amendments with which we are so familiar around here with relationship to the busing question.

Now I would like to ask you a question, and this comes now as to the attitude of the black community.

The big point is made that busing may only be involuntary where it is in pursuance of a desegregation plan, and either pursuant to a court order, or with HEW and that all other busing must be voluntarily done. That would include, of course, busing as to racial imbalance, because that is not a subject of agreement with HEW or the subject of a court decree. What do you say to that and I would like the attitude of the black community.

Mr. MITCHELL. I have the good fortune of being one of your friends for so many years, Senator Javits, that I ought to in fairness say that I don't think anybody could give you the view of the black community.

I think one can only give the view as one sees it, from his vantage point.

It is my opinion that the question of busing among the people of the so-called black community is really an irrelevant problem.

If it is necessary to give children a good education by putting them on a bus, I think people not only want to do it, but have done it.

I believe there is resentment about the one way street arrangement on these things. The busing plans to achieve desegregation usually are designed to take the Negro children out into the white community, but not to bring any children back into the black community.

In my judgment, in order to be fair about it, if white children are to be brought back into the black community, then there ought to be something worth while to bring them to, which means that we must have schools or teachers or courses that are really desirable, and that the parents of children want their children to be exposed to.

I don't think we have had that yet in this country, but in my judgment, if we put the safeguards such as we have suggested in this legislation and appropriate the money, I believe we can accompish it.

It is amazing to me as a grandfather that there would be any dispute about busing, because I would-I so well remember the course in education, or whatever you had to take in college to graduate, where we talked about. consolidated schools, which meant we eliminated the little country schools and bused children for miles which we continue to do, in order to give them a good education. If we say that busing must be voluntary in all situations, except that which you mention, we would have to abolish the compulsory school attendance law, because all the parent would have to say if he did not want to send the kids to school, and would prefer to have them pick cotton or something, would just have to say, "I am not going to submit to busing."

Senator JAVITS. So you would apply the standard of relevancy to any kind of busing, so long as it is consonant with an optimum education?

Mr. Mitchell. I certainly would, Senator Javits. I don't see how you could expect a successful desegregation plan if you tie the hands of the local board of a school by saying "you can't have any of this money for busing", then they are confronted with a situation where it may be necessary to use some busing in order to accomplish an adequate desegregation plan. By withholding the funds, the Federal Government is a party to continued segregation.

Senator JAVITS. Thank you very much.

Senator PELL. Thank you very much, and thank you, Mr. Mitchell, for coming up here, and we will take your considerations very seriously indeed.

Mr. MITCHELL. Thank you.

Senator PELL. Thank you.

Our next witness is Mr. Paul Parks, Director of the Model Cities program for the city of Boston, Mass.

STATEMENT OF PAUL PARKS, DIRECTOR, MODEL CITIES PROGRAM, BOSTON, MASS.; ACCOMPANIED BY DR. BARBARA L. JACKSON, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR EDUCATION AND TRAINING, BOSTON MODEL CITIES; AND MRS. VIRGINIA RICHARDSON, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, BOSTON MODEL CITIES

Senator PELL. Would you introduce your colleagues?

Mr. PARKS. Mr. Chairman, I have with me to my left Dr. Barbara Jackson, who is my assistant administrator in charge of education and training programs in Boston.

To my right, I have with me, Mrs. Virginia Richardson, who is assistant administrator for administrative services for Model Cities and I would like to take this opportunity to thank you and the committee for inviting us here to testify on Senate bill 3883.

We would like to place ourselves in favor of this legislation, and would like to say a couple of things concerning it. First of all, the question of de jure versus de facto, and let me go back for a moment and say that I have been privileged to work throughout the country along with the assessment of education that was funded by the Carnegie and the Ford Foundations and, where we went into communities all across the country, looking at education trying to get and adequate assessment of what we were doing in American public education.

Also, I was privileged to work at the State legislative level and again the passage of what is called the racial balance act of the Commonwealth, which outlaws all racially imbalanced schools in the Commonwealth, and mandated upon those communities that had racially imbalanced schools, and found racial imbalances being any school that had 50 percent minority population, and mandated that each one of those communities that have such schools in operation should immediately submit plans to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts as to how they were going to solve their problem.

So that bill was passed in 1965.

Also, I was a part of the establishment of what is called the METCO program in Boston, which takes black children out of the black community and the inner city and we moved them to some 26 communities which are predominantly white, outside the city of Boston.

There the State legislation, once again, that pays for the cost of the movement of the children, and at one point was paying for the cost of the tuition they were attending outside their community.

I am glad to say at this point that most of the communities outside Boston who are receivers of the children have eliminated a tuition cost, and the cost now is supportive services for the children in the schools they arrive in, and the transportation of children to those schools.

I was also a party to the organization of the program where we moved children to predominantly white schools within the city. We come at this bill from a position of support, and the fact that we are talking about education.