Attorney General's ruling. Present at this meeting were two ESEA title I representatives from the U.S. Office of Education, two representatives from the State department of education, two assistants to the Attorney General, representatives from the larger public school districts, the legal adviser for the diocesan schools, the diocesan superintendent, and the diocesan director of Government programs. The public school representatives seemed most cooperative and willing to make provisions for as many non-public-school children as their school buildings and programs could accommodate. There was no attempt made by the representatives from the State department of education or from the USOE to develop ways other than dual enrollment without providing for free transportation. At the present time in this State it seems apparent that non-public-school children who are eligible to participate in title I programs will not receive fair and equal treatment. The following excerpts are taken from various bulletins and newsletters sent from the diocesan school offices to non-public-school administrators. "In order for them (public school administrators) to carry out their obligation, it will be necessary for you (non-publicschool administrators) to cooperate with them in every way you can. Do not hesitate to make the first contact. We sincerely hope that the public school authorities will ask your advice about the types of projects which will benefit your educationally disadvantaged children." Dual enrollment without provisions for free transportation was not feasible for most children who were eligible for title I assistance and who were enrolled in nonpublic schools, for the following reasons: (1) The additional expense for transportation would most likely equal the cost of providing the services they should be receiving without cost through title I; (2) in many instances the geographic location of the public and nonpublic schools is such that the time spent in travel to participate in a remedial reading program, for example, is as great as the time spent in the class; (3) the problem of coordinating class schedules placed on the administration of both systems is very difficult; (4) nonpublic attendance areas overlap the public school districts. This creates another enormous problem since the benefits are provided to the child in the project area of the local school district in which he lives, not where he attends school, and (5) it does not seem to be sound educationally to shift children who lack social development. Adjusting to another situation could be harmful.

A large portion of title I funds in this State was used to hire additional classroom teachers in order to reduce the pupil-teacher ratio in target area schools, to train and hire teacher aides, school specialists, and clerical assistants, to purchase equipment and resource material, and to equip resource centers. Almost none of this expenditure benefited eligible non-public-school children.

Some of the larger LEA's sponsored inservice programs for teachers of educationally deprived children. Non-public-school personnel who were teaching in similar situations were invited to attend general sessions but not workshop sessions. Public school teachers received a stipend for attending; non-public-school teachers received nothing. Non-public-school participation hinged on the various interpretations of "dual enrollment" which ranged from ultraconservative to daringly liberal. In both fiscal year 1966 and fiscal year 1967 participation of eligible nonpublic school children in title I projects has been

limited to summer programs. During fiscal year 1966 speech therapists were sent into a few of the nonpublic schools 1 day a week. In most instances this service was discontinued in fiscal year 1967. The reason given was: "These specialists were needed full time in the public schools."

At present there is no title I litigation. For almost 2 years the nonpublic school children who were entitled to receive ESEA title I assistance have received next to nothing of the 2-year total $30 million authorized for the State. The consistent and conscientious efforts of administrative personnel in the diocesan department of education have borne little fruit. In the meantime the gap between the two systems broadens and deepens. More forceful and drastic measures are being considered by the diocesan officials to insure equitable sharing of title I funds.

I. LOCAL CHARACTERISTICS

In fiscal year 1966, 644 children were identified as eligible for title I funds which amounted to $116,750.76 for the county in which this LEA is located. This LEA is one of the larger school districts in the county. In fiscal year 1966, $49,311.25 was allocated to the district which administers 14 public schools. Six of these schools were identified as target areas with the greatest concentration of educationally deprived children. Basic data at the local level are summarized in table 54.

In this local school district the superintendent of schools assumed the additional responsibility of administering and coordinating Federal Government programs. He informed non-public-school personnel about the title I projects which were available. No orientation was provided for non-public-school personnel. They were not involved in planning any of the projects because: "We planned to meet the needs of the public school children and assumed that the needs of the non-publicschool children were the same." Subsequently one nonpublic school became involved in title I activities. The non-public-school principal requested help in the area of remedial reading. The matter was given no further attention because the focus of approved projects in which non-public-school children could participate was the summer program. This project was designed for kindergarten-age children who would be entering first grade the following September.

There is disagreement and/or misunderstanding with respect to the attendance of non-public-school teachers at inservice programs. The non-public-school teachers said they were not included. One public school principal of a building in the target area agreed with the superintendent who said: "Non-public-school teachers may attend any inservice programs offered." A statement taken from the fiscal year 1967 application mentioned that the principal of the parochial school

indicated that her teachers would participate in an inservice program developed by the art coordinator. She felt this would be the only possible involvement of her school. This, of course, would allow the students to benefit indirectly through an improved elementary school art

program.

In summary, there was no orientation, no involvement in planning projects, and very little productive communication. While intercommuncation between the two sectors is highly satisfactory, the major barrier is encountered in the LEA office.

Insistence on dual enrollment without transportation dealt the deathblow to nonpublic participation. "No help was given in the area of remedial reading. We were told that no visiting remedial reading teacher was available because of lack of funds and personnel," commented a non-public-school principal of the eligible school.

The LEA superintendent agreed to the idea that involvement of nonpublic-school children in title I serves the educational needs of the community, but "I object to the principle of using public funds for nonpublic schools."

"Non-public-school officials understand the public educational system better than the public school officials understand the non-public-school system," was the way one non-public-school official appraised the degree of mutual respect for one another's system. "Their nonpublic schools) program is inadequate because of inability to provide proper staff due to lack of funds," commented an LEA official. Another public school principal regretted that there was not enough cooperation between the schools of both systems.

In place of an LEA evaluation report for fiscal year 1966, periodic progress reports containing sketchy bits of information were given to the field survey coordinator. This appears to have been the extent of evaluation of fiscal year 1966 projects in this LEA. A completely subjective narrative discussing the benefits of the summer session kindergarten program was written by one of the teachers of the staff. There was no formal or official evaluation of title I projects by non-publicschool personnel. The LEA superintendent explains: "Public funds should be spent for public purposes, and non-public-school personnel should not give official evaluation. I'm sorry. I don't dislike them, but that's just the way I feel about it. Church and state should be separated. Yes, I still believe that and nothing will change my mind." He claimed that non-public-school personnel could see the evaluations if they wished; however, they would not receive copies of the report.

No data concerning eligible children enrolled in nonpublic schools were ever requested from non-public-school principals. They (nonpublic-school principals) did not receive any data from the LEA. No testing programs were undertaken by public school personnel in the nonpublic schools.

In the opinion of a public school administrator, the enrollment in the nonpublic school is so small it hardly justifies a separate school system. He recommended the "consolidation" of nonpublic schools with public schools. As a side remark, he added: "I wish we could get their (nonpublic schools) buildings."

Non-public-school officials urged that: (1) Federal moneys be kept from State control, (2) provisions be made by Congress for a "bypass" law similar to the one provided in titles II and III, and (3) several amendments in the State constitution should be repealed.

Comments from three interested citizens (an administrator of community action programs, a member of the local school board, and an attorney) contribute additional insight into this local community. "There is excellent cooperation between the junior high and the nonpublic school which is eligible for title I." The two citizens involved in educational programs expressed satisfaction with the title I program. On the other hand, the lawyer appeared to be scarcely aware that it was underway: "Little, if anything, is said about it (title I), and I am sure many in the community do not know that it exists." He "assumed" the title I program was equally effective for both sectors.

"I really don't know much about the Catholic school. I just know where it is located, but I have never been too concerned about it. Public school officials are somewhat suspicous of nonpublic schools. I can't say how non-public-schools people view public schools." One of the three citizens added: "Nonpublic schools teach too much religion. The Catholic school curriculum is limited because of financial reasons. I think non-public-school people think highly of the public school system. Catholic school officials admire and like us." All three agreed that involvement of non-public-school children in title I activities would serve the educational needs of the community.

State constitutional and statutory provisions are creating greater imbalance between the two systems. Both exist side by side to provide educational opportunities. Both play an enormous role in transmitting our cultural heritage and enriching it. Under present State legislation this is impossible.

CASE S-8

I. STATE CHARACTERISTICS

This South Central State contains 410 independent school districts. The maximum ESEA title I allocation for fiscal year 1966, based on a per pupil rate of $152.54, was $22,600,021.32. The SEA evaluation report indicates that 90 percent of this sum was spent on title I projects for that year.

TABLE 55.-SEA Basic State data, case No. S-8

Expenditure per participant (90 percent allotment)
Title I expenditure rank.

148, 158 167, 710

1,499 3,074

1:1.16

$118.06

3(17)

State expenditure (1963-64) rank----

9(28)

The State evaluation for fiscal year 1966 notes, "Geographic factors separate the State into two socioeconomic groups: The mountainous area with practically no Negro population and the delta area with a high percentage of educationally deprived children.

The State is divided into 75 counties. Assuming compliance with civil rights requirements, all counties were entitled to receive financial assistance from title I ESEA.

The State has constitutional provisions for use of public resources for private purposes under certain conditions; namely, the two-thirds vote of the members of each branch of legislature. However, the same constitutional provisions explicitly prohibit appropriations of money

or property to privately controlled schools or institutions, without legislative action.

Organization for title I programs at the State level took place early in July 1965. The State commissioner of education and the State director of ESEA conducted preprogram informational conferences in 11 sections of the State for the benefit of public school administrators and other interested individuals. In October 1965, the State director and members of his staff conducted statewide regional conferences for these same groups. Project application forms and tentative State guidelines were distributed.

Nonpublic participation was initiated at this time. In an interview the diocesan superintendent stated that he had attended one of the regional meetings and had discussed the matter with the commissioner of education. However, the diocesan superintendent regards his responsibilities as being similar to those of the State commissioner. The major responsibility for administering the school rests with pastors and the principals. There is no diocesan director of government

programs.

Practically no communication between the public and nonpublic school systems at the State level existed before ESEA enactment. The public sector initiated communications which have steadily improved, and correspondence from school administrators at the local level to the diocesan office indicates that LEA officials have been most cooperative.

According to the State evaluation (fiscal year 1966), "non-publicschool children were not included in some approved applications because: (1) Civil rights compliance was not met, and (2) a lack of desire on the part of some nonpublic schools to participate in this program."

Thus far, both public and nonpublic personnel agree that there have been no legal problems related to title I. The prospects of any are diminishing.

Efforts to include non-public-school officials on an advisory basis were frequent, but participation of non-public-school personnel at the State level was negligible.

II. LOCAL CHARACTERISTICS

The county in which the school district under study is located is in the delta section of the State where need for ESEA title I funds is great.

The local school district selected is one of six in the county. This LEA administers 13 school buildings. As shown in table 56, in fiscal year 1966, 984 children (5-17) were identified as educationally deprived. Nine hundred and forty of them were enrolled in public