have improved a little, but one cannot be sure title I is the important factor in this improvement." The title I director asserted that "Title I has not changed attitudes. It has merely provided a test of how genuine our attitude of good will was, forcing us to see whether we could get down to working things out at the operational level." He felt relationships are improving as time passes.

SEA personnel took the initiative in sending non-public-school officials title I information, but they were not formally invited to participate in any regional conferences. Non-public-school officials attended some regional and LEA meetings. These sessions were generally informative and discussion was devoted to what was and was not possible under title I in the light of the State constitution. The diocesan superintendent stated, "as it turned out, not much was possible." The SEA insisted that no programs could be provided on the premises of nonpublic schools, no equipment could be provided to nonpublic schools, and title I funds could not be used to bus nonpublic students to title I activities on public school premises.

Non-public-school personnel are not on the SEA mailing list for title I materials. The title I staff "assumes that the local title I coordinator will disseminate the proper information to nonpublic schools."

The diocesan superintendent explained that nonpublic officials "have had to go after them (title I personnel) many times to try to obtain information. We are kept constantly guessing as to what they have done, what they are doing, and what they plan to do." A consultant for the archdiocese described the nonpublic (Catholic) relationship with the SEA as "rather poor for a number of years." Relationships are better at the local level, though the consultant estimated that the Catholic schoolchildren received at least 30 percent below what they were entitled to receive under title I at the local level. In his opinion "most of the problems lie at the "State level." The rigid approach of the SEA is an indication of timidity rather than antagonism toward Catholic schools. Public administrators "constantly express the fear that they will be held personally liable for something."

Factors inhibiting non-public-school children's participation in title I, as explained by the diocesan superintendent were

(a) The inconvenience, loss of time and safety hazard for nonpublic children traveling to public schools;

(b) Some Catholic parents who have chosen a Catholic school for their children hesitate to allow them to attend the public school part time; and

(c) Non-public-school schedules must fit public school schedules, an arrangement which leads to serious difficulties.

The diocesan superintendent recommended that some title I programs should be held on the premises of nonpublic schools in order to better meet the needs of nonpublic school children. A major problem in carrying out the intent of title I in terms of involvement of nonpublic children was "closed doors in public school administration." There is little genuine communication and the diocesan superintendent desired a free discussion of these problems. The nonpublic sector expressed a need for equal representation in the planning phase of title I projects.

No public schools refused to participate in title I because of the provisions for nonpublic schools; but many Lutheran schools in the

State have refused, as a matter of principle, to participate in title I projects.

The field survey coordinator reported that he was unable, in spite of repeated questions, to draw out a description of a clear-cut mechanism for checking on the inadequacy of non-public-school children's participation. "My impression is that many cases of inequity could go unnoticed unless someone at the local level happened to complain loudly."

Questioning of the SEA title I director revealed that there was only one representative of the nonpublic schools on the advisory committee of approximately 22, and that he had not been appointed until very recently.

II. LOCAL CHARACTERISTICS

The major need of children within this school district was remedial and/or corrective reading programs. The title I project was designed specifically to assist students in the areas of (1) educational adjustment, (2) educational and prevocational decisionmaking, (3) cultural experiences, and (4) personal worth. The two main programs initiated were (a) in-service training for teachers of the disadvantaged, and (b) corrective reading and remedial instruction for educationally disadvantaged pupils.

There are 23 public schools in the school district, including 16 elementary public schools. The fiscal year 1967 title I program was a continuation of the fiscal year 1966 with little or no change.

Planning for the fiscal year 1966 project took place from November 1965 to February 1966. The fiscal year 1966 project took place from April 1, 1966, to August 31, 1966. The fiscal year 1967 project took place between September 1966 and August 31, 1967.

The maximum basic grant (fiscal year 1966) for the LEA was $140,860.89; for fiscal year 1967 it was $98,131.

The program was carried out during the regular schoolday and in the summer, on public school grounds.

There was no orientation to the title I program for non-publicschool personnel. The nonpublic officials were informed about the remedial reading program for the summer of 1966 by letter, and an exploratory meeting was held by the LEA. Before non-public-school personnel were invited to send non-public-school children to the summer program, the officials of nonpublic schools had heard nothing about title I.

Children in the Lutheran school system did not participate in title I projects, and Catholic school personnel were invited to send only a limited number of fourth and fifth grade students to the remedial program, although the program covers all of the elementary grades.

The school district has been reluctant to accept pupils from nonpublic schools who reside outside the school district; these non-publicschool students need title I assistance more than any. Non-publicschool officials have not been contacted by the school district in which these children reside concerning programs for these children during the school year. In general the public school officials "have been very willing to include non-public-school children" and "have expressed disappointment that more non-public-school pupils do not participate" in the title I program.

Non-public-school personnel were not involved in any phase of the planning for title I. The title I coordinator (who is the superintendent of public schools and coordinator of Federal programs) explained, "We would never have gotten this proposal written if we had asked all kinds of people to give us their ideas." He described the school district and his administration as a "benevolent autocracy." The needs of the nonpublic-school children were not determined by the public school officials: "We assumed that our needs would be their needs," and nonpublic-school personnel were excluded from any determination of the kind or focus of the projects. Non-public-school personnel were not included in the inservice program because "they are not staff members under title I." The non-public-school teachers were well aware of the summer project and received a file of information on the performance of each non-public-school student.

Within the limitations of the State guidelines, project activities were scheduled at times and in places convenient for non-public-school children's participation. However, the non-public-school officials have nothing to say about the schedule. They received a completed schedule, and have to comply with the schedule as it exists.

No title I activities were carried out on the premises of nonpublic schools; some psychological testing for the screening process was made available to non-public-school students.

The minimal participation of nonpublic schools in title I is related

to

(a) Safety, time, and exposure to inclement weather in traveling to the public schools;

(b) The complete lack of control over the title I activities, with consequent conflicts;

(c) Do most needy non-public-school pupils live in another school district and "consequently are not eligible for services" in this district-these pupils are not offered title I services in their own school district;

(d) Participation was offered to non-public-school students in the fourth and fifth grades only; and

(e) Parents of parochial school children are reluctant to send their children to public schools part time.

The superintendent explained that the relationships between the public and nonpublic schools "have always been wholesome. Now there are more active efforts to cooperate, but the underlying attitudes are about the same." The public schools are in "rather regular contact" with the nonpublic schools. There appears to be more cooperation and communication on the level of the principal rather than on a higher

administrative level, but even this is infrequent. On the principal level the initiators of contact appear to be the public school principals, rather than the non-public-school officials.

The non-public-school principals criticized the lack of communication with title I administrators. They received no reports concerning the title I activities until the program had terminated. Also, public school officials did not contact non-public-school teachers for information on the pupils in the program. The non-public-school principals "submitted forms for the pupils we wanted to be in the program, but we never received any word concerning the decisions."

Non-public-school personnel were not involved in any phase of the project evaluation, nor did they review the project evaluation reports. The major problems emphasized by non-public-school officials

were

(a) No opportunity to participate in the planning of title I activities;

(b) The lack of participation in formulating a schedule; (c) The limited participation offered to the non-public-school children;

(d) The lack of communication about non-public-school pupils in the program, and the consequent lack of coordination with the regular classroom work.

The recommendations to solve these problems were

(a) Participation in title I planning;

(b) Participation in title I scheduling;

(c) Participation of all children regardless of where they happen to live;

(d) Close contact concerning the progress of non-public-school pupils while they are in the program, and coordination of the program with the regular classroom activities; and

(e) Enlargement of the scope of the program in order to permit participation of all needy children.

The Lutheran schools did not participate in title I because the Lutheran board decided, strictly on its own, not to participate for 1966-67. Some factors involved in the decision were: (a) The Lutheran schools have few students, if any, who can be classified as culturally deprived, and (b) the school board is wary of the tendency toward "Big Brotherism" on the part of the Federal Government.

A public school principal in whose school a title I project operates professed ignorance on questions involving planning and orientation, confirming the superintendent's observation that the control office was a "benevolent autocracy."

The public school principals were excluded from the evaluation process. The superintendent explained his belief that it is foolish to try to be "democratic in administration."

Most pupils in the Catholic schools in this area went to kindergarten in the public schools. Now that the Catholic schools have dropped the first and second grades, the students will have even more exposure to public schools. Relationships may improve as a result.

It seems obvious that Catholic educators have been ill informed concerning the provisions of title I, and have been disunified in their approach to public school authorities.

84-775-67- -9

CASE S-7

I. STATE CHARACTERISTICS

Case S-7 pertains to a small school system located in a county near the capital of this central southern State. The eastern part of the State has a large Indian population while the southwestern section annually attracts migrant laborers and their families from two neighboring States. Many are from Spanish-speaking families, and the schooling of these children is constantly interrupted by migration. The State received a maximum allotment of $17,375,921.34 for fiscal year 1966, based on one-half the State average expenditure per pupil of $181.29.

TABLE 53.-SEA Basic State data, case No. 8-7

An annotation appended to the State constitutional provisions concerning public aid to nonpublic schools defines the phrase "sectarian institutions" to mean parochial schools. Monetary aid to these schools and the use of public funds for the transportation of children attending parochial schools are unconstitutional. Subsequent appeals of this ruling have been dismissed and rehearings have been denied.

Shortly after Public Law 89-10 was enacted, the State attorney general ruled that dual enrollment was the only means by which the nonpublic school children could participate in title I activities.

There are more than a thousand local school districts in the 77 counties of this State. Some 796 of these had at least one title I funded project during fiscal year 1966. A few local school districts did not wish to participate in any Federal aid programs for education. A few others were eligible but declined to participate because the amount of money authorized was too modest. The remaining districts were not eligible.

Nine area assistant title I directors served as consultants in the counties assigned to them by the State title I director. These assistants also served as liaison people between the LEA and the State offices.

Prior to title I involvement, the principal relationship between the State department and non-public-school officials concerned accreditation. More frequent communication has resulted since title I involvement. "We were invited to attend one meeting sponsored by the USOE in our State. Other than this, we had to go to the State Department for all information which we wanted or needed," explained the nonpublic regional director of Government programs.

In this State the diocesan boundary is coterminous with that of the State. In August 1966, a meeting was held to discuss the participation of public and non-public-school pupils in programs developed under title I. This meeting was requested by the diocesan superintendent to determine whether or not ways and means could be found to provide equal and fair treatment for non-public-school pupils in view of the