schools, grades 1-12. Forty-four of them were enrolled in nonpublic schools, grades 1-8. There are no nonpublic secondary schools in this school district. The number of eligible children remained the same for fiscal year 1967. The maximum LEA allotment for fiscal year 1966 was $150,099.36 and for fiscal year 1967, $124,582. In fiscal year 1966, 99.9 percent of the allotment was used.

In November 1965, one project entitled "Special Programs" was approved. Subsequently three amendments to this project were approved. The programs included evaluation services of a psychological educational, and social nature; health services; special education; parent-group sessions; and remedial services during a summer school program. Thirteen staff members who worked full time or more than half time and five staff members who worked half time or less were employed for the title I program.

Health services, pupil personnel services, and psychological services were rendered by public school personnel to eligible children at the non-public-school building when and if this service was requested by non-public-school personnel. The data obtained as a result of the diag nostic testing program were used "as the basis for the introduction of a remedial program into our curriculum," stated a principal of one of the nonpublic schools. However, the eligible non-public-school children from this same building were unable to take advantage of the free lunch program because they would have had to travel to the public school in order to eat the meal.

groups

***

Principals from public and nonpublic schools disagree with one another with respect to the involvement of local non-public-school officials in the orientation and planning phase of the project. The LEA coordinator of title I agreed with the public school principals, "Non-public-school personnel were included in some planning generally interest was not too great *** they were relatively receptive and satisfied with the focus of the project. Înservice programs were concerned primarily with improving the operational level of certain key instructional personnel in the public schools. For this reason non-public-school teachers were not eligible for inservice programs. Two non-public-school principals were interviewed. Neither one had taken part in any kind of orientation for title I or in any planning of the program which was ultimately funded. Both administered schools attended by eligible children.

During fiscal year 1967 the approved program which was a continuation of that funded in fiscal year 1966 was enlarged to include art, music, speech therapy, physical education, and special education for the handicapped. This enrichment part of the program was not offered to eligible non-public-school children. The fiscal year 1967 LEA application form explains, "since the number of personnel in this activity is limited, students from nonpublic schools have not been participating." Each public school participant is receiving 30 to 40 minutes of instruction per week for 36 weeks in each of the enrichment areas.

In fiscal year 1966 non-public-school participation in ESEA title I was minimal. The approved program for fiscal year 1967 provides for enrichment experiences and instruction which is not available to nonpublic school children who are eligible for these services.

Two-way communication was almost nonexistent prior to title I. Since then, dialog has been encouraged by a mutual understanding of

and respect for one another's system of education. One non-publicschool principal remarked during an interview, "Communications are very good, but participation is very little."

The LEA coordinator judged the "cooperation between the public and non-public-school personnel to be excellent." One public school principal said "*** excellent rapport. The educational program is sound and the personnel are well qualified. We are happy for nonpublic-school involvement." A non-public-school principal of a school enrolling several eligible children stated: "At present we feel the public school personnel and programs are very good and we desire to participate in joint programs." "Most of the 150 children enrolled in this school come from families having an income of $3,000 or less," said another non-public-school principal of a school in which less than a sixth were identified by the State to be eligible.

There are no legal problems at the local level. Any minor concern over the church-state issue appears to be diminishing.

Several recommendations for improving participation were offered: 1. An increase in ESEA title I appropriations.

2. More definite guidelines concerning:

(a) Nonpublic school student participation.

(b) Use of non-public-school property and personnel.

(c) Successful approaches which would result in a more equitable non-public-school student participation.

3. Inservice training for nonpublic school teachers on an equal basis with similar training of qualified public school teachers.

4. Loan of educational facilities and equipment.

5. More equitable sharing in the services guaranteed by ESEA, I legislation.

title

6. Recognition of professional status of nonpublic schoolteachers and subsequent use of their specialized services.

A local physican who is a member of the board of education thought that the community was not knowledgeable about the title I program. He was not aware of improved communications between the two systems. Personally, he was aware of certain causes which hampered more equitable participation, such as religion, competition between the two school systems, and the low quality of education in the South.

CASE S-9

I. STATE CHARACTERISTICS

This case pertains to a small community in a Midwestern State. The maximum amount authorized for title I projects in fiscal year 1966 was $2.139,791.33, based on a per pupil rate of $200.44. Other basic data for the State are summarized in table 57.

The SEA, before it approved a grant, determined that the LEA provided sufficient opportunity for the participation of educationally deprived children enrolled in private schools and residing in the district.

The requirements of ESEA were interpreted by the State to apply to the total LEA program, not necessarily to each project. The LEA application for each project was obliged to show the degree and manner of expected participation by eligible non-public-school children. Because of State statutory limitations, activities and services for which the public schools are eligible are expected to be more numerous and varied than the projects in which non-public-school children may participate. Local officials were informed that they must make services which are funded under title I available to non-publicschool children in their districts.

The State department of education could not approve applications from local school boards for programs or projects in which a public school board proposed to send one or more of its teachers to instruct students on the premises of a nonpublic school.

The State school board opposed an amendment to the constitution which could have permitted local school districts the right to allow parochial school students to ride the public school buses. This stand antagonized the Catholic school superintendents throughout the State. The coordinator of State government programs and the director of title I formed the fiscal year 1966 application review committee. The criteria employed were primarily the Federal guidelines. Projects that were general aid to the district rather than specific aid to educationally deprived children were turned down. Non-public-school officials were not invited to review or endorse applications at the State level. Major reasons for nonparticipation of non-public-school children in title I projects throughout the State were: Scheduling problems, additional expense of transportation, and the belief that "if the parochial school children go to the public schools, they may not choose to come back (to the parochial schools)." The State title I director is trying to make sure that the intent of title I legislation is being met in fiscal year 1967 by on-the-spot visits to the local school districts.

The relationship between public and nonpublic school personnel was described by the State title I director in these words: "They go their way, and we go ours." Since title I, the State department of education is cooperating with nonpublic schools. The diocesan superintendents hired an attorney to represent Catholic interests in negotiating a fair share of ESEA funds.

The Catholic sector has complained about not being involved in title I planning of the projects in which non-public-school children will participate. The policy of the SEA director is that the non-publicschool administrators should bo to the public schools in the local districts and get involved in the planning of projects. "It is their responsibility to initiate communication." The direct or insists that the needs of eligible non-public-school children be considered in the planning of title I projects.

Participation by parochial school children during fiscal year 1966 was weak, but participation in the summer projects was considerably better. The State department of education was unable to account for these differences. It was the director's opinion that the public school

administrators should include non-public-school officials before title. I programs are planned. "They should plan the program together."

II. LOCAL CHARACTERISTICS

The title I program provided for remedial reading and arithmetic projects and a vocational training project. These activities were continued in fiscal year 1967.

The local school system selected for this study is one of four public school districts in a county situated near the northeastern borderline of the State.

The average percentage of deprived pupils for the district was reported to be 13 percent. All elementary schools having a higher concentration than the district average were designated to be eligible attendance areas. The No. 1 and No. 2 schools were named as the sites for the remedial projects. Students from the remainder of the district, both public and nonpublic, in need of remedial work, were encouraged to attend. The title I program focused on the following schools:

It was the stated intention of LEA authorities to invite and encourage students from the entire area which had been designated as the project area to participate. This included a Lutheran elementary school and two Catholic schools. The remedial program can be described as a series of classes for groups of six or eight students. They meet three times a week for one-half-hour sessions. After diagnosing educational weaknesses, a program was developed which would eliminate these deficiencies. The vocational program was designed to help those students who would terminate their schooling either before or immediately after graduation from high school. The chief objective was to make these courses interesting and practical and to provide some training in salable skills.

After public school officials surveyed local schools, visited classroom teachers, and accepted recommendations from principals, the needs of the students were ranked in priority. The most urgent needs were for remedial work, for vocational training, and for special edu

cation in the junior and senior high schools. The public school officials first identified the children who were educationally deprived and then proceeded to identify those children who would benefit most by the remedial work and special education programs. The participating nonpublic schools included a Catholic elementary school, a Lutheran elementary school, and a Catholic secondary school.

The maximum basic grant for fiscal year 1966 was $121,542. The total amount expended was $73,226. The funds approved for the remedial program amounted to $47,200, but $27,276 was actually spent. Per-pupil cost for this activity was $43.02. An amount of $55,310 was approved for the vocational training project. A total of of $45,950 was expended at a per-pupil cost of $1,312.86.

In the vocational training program the discrepancy between the projected enrollment reported in the application and the actual enrollment reported in the evaluation form is extreme. Both projects took place on weekends and during the summer on public school grounds. In fiscal year 1967 the remedial classes were held during the regular school day.

Prior to the inception of the title I program, a meeting was held by the State department of education at which the public and non-publicschool administrators were informed of their rights under ESEA of 1965. Catholic school administrators attended, but the Lutheran principal was not invited to attend. In general, the Lutheran principal thought that the Lutheran schools in the State were not included in the State department of education's communication network.

Following the State-level meeting, the LEA director contacted the diocesan superintendent, who is also the principal of the participating Catholic high school, and informed him about the kinds of title I projects which local school board members might agree to. Non-publicschool officials were informed of the availability of three projects for nonpublic students. The general mode of operation for title I was that the public school personnel had established the program and then had informed the parochial school principals of the possibility of participation. The non-public-school principals were not consulted about their needs or about the final focus of the title I projects. The title I coordinator made efforts "on several occasions" to try to orient non-public-school personnel to the title I program. This orientation was directed to representatives of the Catholic and Lutheran schools.

The justification for the title I projects was based on the needs of the public school students in every case. The overriding philosophy of the LEA coordinator was that "the majority of needy students should dictate the limits and focus of title I projects."