dren, new techniques had to be devised to measure the framework rather than the substance of title I programs as they benefit these non-public-school children. In essence, this framework consists of the new patterns of initiative, understanding and cooperation-all too often lacking in the past and all too often based upon competition rather than cooperation-which must provide the setting for projects and programs under title I.

The first area of evaluation is based upon a gathering of evidence and insights at the local level which spawns the local title I project and is responsible for its function and effectiveness. The responsibility for launching a fundable title I project rests with the local public school administration. Thus, there is the need to cast-study public authorities in their procedures for estimating common educational, cultural, and related needs of the district's poor. Where a number of these poor are in nonpublic schools, an effective program demands the knowledge not merely of the needs of deprived children in public education but the commensurate needs of their non-public-school counterparts. Common needs demand communication, and this first new pattern of dialog between public and private school authorities is frequently a new level of dialog and cooperation. In the past contacts between these sectors were often cordial, but were infrequent and were concerned with the periphery, and not the substance, of education. Cooperation is a mutual enterprise. Consequently, desire and initiative on the part of public school authorities are futile without corresponding interest and activity on the part of non-public-school personnel. A study of the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of title I in the local setting begins with a study in human relations and human dynamics. Legislation cannot mandate this framework, but evaluation of the fulfillment of legislative enactments can provide new guidelines and directives for more intensive efforts at partnership and progress.

The second area of evaluation concerns itself with the role of State government and its educational agency in fulfilling its responsibility regarding the intention of title I. The State agency is charged with evaluating local programs. By and large, State departments of education have been involved mainly with workings of public education, and their interest in nonpublic schools, by mandate or by tradition. has been concerned with adequate education in nonpublic schools for legal purposes of attendance. State agencies have provided services to nonpublic schools and in some instances have administered fragmentary State educational benefits to non-public-school children, but in the main, nonpublic schools have never been considered a fullfledged member of the general educational community. The reasons for this tradition are manifold. A nonpublic school is basically a protest school, protesting the authority and responsibility of government alone to maintain, finance, and administer the total process of schooling. A nonpublic institution such as church-related education which over a period of time has maintained a separate identity beyond the scope of the public domain, is prone to enclavity because it need not inform a public larger than its own constituents. Because it need not conform to all public school legislation, as a nonrecipient of public funds it is often nonrecipient of the benefits of new and dif

ferent legislation. Because it need not subscribe to the educational mainstream, it often becomes insular.

Title I has demanded that the State agency assume a new responsibility toward the children in nonpublic schools as recipients of local title I projects and programs in terms of both educational content and congressional intent. An evaluation of this State function and all of its ramifications is an essential part of an understanding of this total framework.

Thus, the scope of this report is to identify at the local and State level, in product and in process, the extent to which the intent of Congress and the legislation of title I itself has been realized for the children of citizens, victims of poverty, who have chosen to subscribe to the nonpublic sector of American education.

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

The Department of Education, Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, Boston College, Chestnut Hill, Mass., herein presents the phase I report of its national-level study of the impact of title I, Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, on the participation of non-public-school children in this program. The period of the total study began on July 1, 1966, and will end on September 30, 1968. The approximate cost of the total study was estimated at $157,381. An initial grant of $76,747 for the first fiscal year was awarded in June 1966. The study was organized into two phases: The first, from July 1, 1966, to June 30, 1967, has resulted in this report centering on publicnonpublic relationships, communications, program planning and development, implementation, and evaluation of projects funded under title I during this period of time. Phase I has been of a comprehensive, extensive, and diagnostic nature. This report has generated hypotheses to be tested in phase II. The second phase of the study, from July 1, 1967, to September 30, 1968, proposes to sponsor, fund, and coordinate a limited number of intensive, selective, and analytical companion indepth studies focusing on critically important problem areas pinpointed during phase I.

OBJECTIVES

1. To study administrative relationship changes that have developed between public and nonpublic sectors at the Federal, State, and local level.

2. To describe the involvement of local non-public-school officials specifically in the areas of

(a) Planning and development of the information that was used in filling out the original application forms.

(b) Operation and implementation of the projects.

(c) Evaluation of the projects.

3. To identify those factors which, in the judgment of public and non-public-school officials, have facilitated or impeded the development of relationships.

4. To identify constitutional, statutory, regulatory, and other possible legal barriers at the State and/or local levels related to participation of non-public-school children in title I projects.

5. To describe the characteristics of the non-public-school children participating in title I projects.

6. To determine the proportionate involvement of non-public-school children in title I projects.

7. To identify the factors (attitudinal, geographical, environmental, and so forth) which influence the extent of participation of eligible non-public-school children in title I projects.

8. To identify and describe practical operational problems which inhibit participation of non-public-school children in title I projects. 9. To describe the foci of title I projects available to non-publicschool children.

10. To determine the relative importance of title I projects for eligible non-public-school children as perceived by public and nonpublic-school administrators and to solicit their recommendations for improving title I.

11.To identify and to describe existing or planned curriculum changes in nonpublic schools which are related to the participation of non-public-school children in title I projects.

12. To complete a limited number of intensive, selective, and analytical in-depth studies focusing on critically important problem areas suggested by phase I reports.

PROCEDURES, INSTRUMENTATION, AND ANALYSIS OF DATA

A letter from the U.S. Office of Education to the chief State school officer with a carbon copy to the State title I director announced the selection of each of the 30 school systems included in the sample. These were followed by letters from the administrator of the Boston College project to the State title I coordinators and to the diocesan superintendents. This correspondence notified the respective administrators of the project of the name and address of the field survey coordinator assigned to a given district, and of the school system selected for special study.

Phase I of the study has been completed with the professional assistance of 14 field survey coordinators. An all-day meeting of Boston College project staff, field survey coordinators, and resource people was held in the early part of October for purposes of orientation and consultation. A tentative outline of responsibilities for each field survey coordinator was discussed: (a) Collecting copies of LEA project applications for fiscal year 1966 and fiscal year 1967, LEA evaluations of these projects, State evaluations of projects fiscal year 1966 which were sent to the U.S. Office of Education in December 1966. (b) compiling a list of names and addresses of LEA title I coordinators, nonpublic school regional directors, principals of public and nonpublic schools attended by children who participated and/or are participating in these programs, interested citizens, and civic leaders residing in the school districts selected for the study; and (e) conducting interviews with people mentioned in the above categories and with the State director of title I projects. The Boston College staff designed five different interview guides to meet the specific needs of the interviewee.

Boston College has assumed responsibility for receiving authorization from State and local educational authorities prior to undertaking the studies in districts selected for the sample. The U.S. Office of Education has assisted us in this matter. Capabilities from other sources have been requested and received.

Interview guides were designed for use by the field survey coordinator with each of the following groups: (1) State title I directors, (2) nonpublic school regional director (s) of Government programs, (3)