The diocesan superintendent stated that the public school personnel have not consulted with him in 2 years concerning title I. Neither the principal of the Catholic elementary school nor the principal of the Lutheran school has heard from the LEA coordinator since the summer of 1966. The Lutheran principal expressed his desire to get involved in title I projects, but he has not been briefed about the fiscal year 1967 program. He feels that the minimal participation of Lutheran students in the program derives from the poor communication between the LEA coordinator and himself. The diocesan superintendent suggested that the public sector considers parochial school children as second-class citizens who should fit themselves into public school title I projects.

Prior to November 1965, the local school board was unalterably opposed to taking Federal funds. The preplanning for title I projects was rushed in order to try to have a program in operation by spring of 1966. The LEA title I coordinator, describing these events, stated that there was no time to consult non-public-school personnel before planning the program, and that only incidentally were the needs of the non-public-school students sought out or identified. The diocesan superintendent agreed to support proposals, 11 in all, for projects to be presented to the school board. The board approved the projects in terms of priorities reflecting what they thought was most important. The results did not agree with either the LEA coordinator's or the diocesan superintendent's priority lists.

Non-public-school teachers received no in-service training; however, public school teachers participated in several orientation programs pertaining to title I projects. In the future the LEA coordinator proposed that both public and non-public-school teachers should be involved in the in-service training sessions.

In short, non-public-school personnel were not involved in any planning phases. Communication was minimal between the Catholic and Lutheran school representatives and the LEA title I coordinator. The only vehicle of communication between the two systems was a periodic reporting of the number of parochial school students participating in title I projects. The coordinator stated that he did not want the parochial school to adopt a "dumping attitude" toward title I projects.

In fiscal year 1966 the title I remedial projects were scheduled on Saturday mornings. There was a large enrollment of parochial school students in this project. In fiscal year 1967 the groups in the remedial reading program were set up on the basis of ability. These classes were scheduled during the regular schoolday because public school personnel felt this was better, educationally, for the public school students. During the school year, 1966-67, there were no non-public-school students participating in the elementary school title I projects, since these projects were scheduled at times and places that made it impossible for non-public-school students to enroll, and the non-public-school principals were not informed of the existence of the projects.

The distance between schools and the lack of congruence between schedules were factors which minimized participation by non-publicschool students. The diocesan superintendent suggested that a title I public school teacher rendering service in the parochial school building would be the most effective means of participating in the project.

Shared services, of this nature, are prohibited by the State constitution. The time and location of the summer projects were factors which contributed to greater participation for the Lutheran and Catholic school children who were eligible to share in these activities.

The LEA title I coordinator and the Lutheran school administrator considered the climate for cooperation between public and nonpublic schools to be good. Catholic school personnel described the climate as "isolationism." The public and nonpublic schools go their separate ways. There is no antagonism or hostility between public and nonpublic-school officials; there is merely a lack of interest in any communication. The title I coordinator explained that the administration of the title I program was an additional responsibility for him. Very likely this factor has contributed to the lack of initiative on his part to establish communication with the nonpublic sector. "Involving people takes time," and he doesn't have the time.

Since the advent of title I, the diocesan superintendent felt that communication had improved. The interchange was purely informational, but there had not been any degree of understanding between the

two sectors.

Lack of qualified personnel presented a major problem. The LEA coordinator was forced to cutback the enrollment of non-public-school children. An offer by the elementary school principal of one of the Catholic schools to supply teachers for the title I projects was rejected by the LEA coordinator: "If we need you or your staff, we will call you." Shortage of qualified personnel, scheduling problems, and geographic location of title I projects were operational factors that inhibited the participation of non-public-school children in title I projects.

Non-public-school personnel were not involved in the evaluation of any title I projects. They did not review evaluation reports before they were submitted to the State department of education. As in the planning and operation, the non-public-school administrators were excluded from all phases of evaluation.

The LEA coordinator felt that the programs were effective in meeting the needs of non-public-school students; however, non-publicschool personnel (both Lutheran and Catholic) stated that there was no significant progress in accommodating the needs of eligible non-public-school children. The lack of involvement of non-public-school teachers and administrators in title I activities has generated very little interest on their part in the program. The fact that non-public-school children were excluded from the remedial reading project has caused a non-public-school official to remark, "exclusion from the project ruined any good that past efforts might have accomplished."

According to the diocesan superintendent, one of the main barriers to non-public-school participation is the fact that he was not and still is not involved in planning the projects. This attitude, "Here it is, take it or leave it," was criticized by both Lutheran and Catholic school officials.

The public school officials are somewhat confused by the organization of the non-public-school systems. They are not always certain of the identity of the non-public-school authorities with whom they should communicate. The diocesan superintendent of secondary schools is the identifiable referent for the parochial schools in the community,

although he admitted he did not communicate with the Sister principal of the nonpublic elementary school. This same individual is also the government programs representative for the Archbishop. The elementary school principal feels that this situation is regrettable. Although this liaison person is communicating about the needs of all eligible non-public-school children, "*** he does not understand the needs of the elementary school students." A problem not only is evident with communications between the public and non-public-school personnel, but with the organization of the non-public-school administrationin particular, with that of the diocesan school system.

CASE S-10

I. STATE CHARACTERISTICS

This case involves a county school system in a Western State. The maximum amount authorized was $1,463,660.10, based on a per pupil rate of $257.46. Other basic data for the State are summarized in table 59.

TABLE 59.-SEA Basic State data, case No. S-10

Non-public-school officials were invited to attend all State and area meetings. Project applications are not considered acceptable without a statement from non-public-school officials indicating that they have been contacted by the local school officials and that nonpublic students who qualify will be included in project activities.

There were no major constitutional problems. There was a question on "shared time" and the Attorney General ruled that such an arrangement was not in conflict with State law. The State constitution does not prohibit the use of title I funds for nonpublic children, but the money must be kept separate.

Non-public-school officials were not invited to review or endorse title I applications at the State level. A complete lack of communication between public and nonpublic State officials exists in the State. "The State title I Director did not know there was a diocesan government program director." It is the general policy of the SEA title I director that consultation between public and nonpublic administrators on matters related to title I be done at the local level.

The diocesan coordinator of Federal programs attended all workshops and meetings of the State department of education. He was not aware of how the program at RS, which is the focus of this case study, was planned, but he suggested to the parochial school personnel in RS that they insist on a title I teacher coming to their schools. This suggestion was not accepted by the pastors.

On a diocesan basis it was decided to push for remedial reading. The need of the non-public-school students for a remedial reading program was decided primarily on the basis of the opinions of the principals of

the parochial school system. The diocesan coordinator "was not consulted in the design of the project or in the decision of the final focus of any projects in the State," nor was he involved in the gathering or reporting of data concerning eligible nonpublic pupils on the State level. No non-public-school officials were involved in title I evaluations. There were no baseline data collected on nonpublic pupils.

The archdiocesan superintendent is located in another State. This placed the diocesan coordinator in a unique situation; there was no superintendent for the diocese in this State. The SEA title I staff had no meetings with the archdiocesan superintendent or any representatives of his staff. There are no formal lines of communication between the State department of education and the State's nonpublic schools. The general attitude toward communication with non-public-school officials at the State level is primarily for "public relations" purposes. The diocesan coordinator felt that title I "has helped the relationship between public and nonpublic schools in the State because it has facilitated communication with the State title I coordinator." Prior to title I there was no relationship between the State department of education and diocesan school officials. The diocesan coordinator indicated that since title I "the nonpublic officials have been consistently more informed at least in relation to what is going on in Federal programs." This improvement in communication was described as "informal." Title I officials have never sought the advice of the diocesan coordinator. The communication between the public and nonpublic sectors is primarily one way.

The SEA title I director and his staff also felt that "informal" communication has improved since title I. Before title I there was no communication between the State department of education and nonpublic administrators. Since title I the State department is conveying more information, but not necessarily communicating more with the nonpublic sector. To cite an example indicating a lack of communication, when non-public-school children were not included on a project application, the title I director "assumed that the non-public-school administrators were not interested." It was his opinion that it was the nonpublic-school administrators' choice; and, if they were not listed, they must have chosen not to be. He surmised that non-public-school administrators who did not participate were probably against Federal aid because certain LEA's did not participate for that same reason.

The diocesan coordinator suggested that communication between public and non-public-school officials should be improved to carry out the intent of the legislation. He advocated greater participation by nonpublic administrators in planning and evaluation in order to increase the effectiveness of title I projects. Concerning administrative procedure within the Catholic school system, he now feels that it would be better for each local school to decide its own needs and convey these to the public school officials, rather than having an overall diocesan decision.

The diocesan coordinator considers RS to have a better than average relationship between public and nonpublic schools, because of a high Catholic population (36 percent), and the fact that many members of that school board are Catholic. The public school superintendent of RS is also a Catholic. This has had various ramifications in the publicnonpublic relationship.

II. LOCAL CHARACTERISTICS

The title I project provided remedial reading and arithmetic instruction for the school year and summer term. Supplementary services included psychological and health services in addition to a classroom for the emotionally disturbed.

The fiscal year 1967 title I project was a continuation of the 1966 project. Remedial arithmetic was dropped and the program consisted of remedial reading and special education.

The title I program was focused on six public elementary schools:

RS has nine schools operated by the LEA with a total enrollment of 2,345.

The needs of the students were ranked in priority: reading, arithmetic, retarded, nutrition, preschool. These needs were ascertained from a study of achievement test scores, teachers' comments, grades, and counseling records. In particular, children in remedial reading were referred by their regular class teachers. The needs of the nonpublic children were not considered and the public personnel selected solely on teacher recommendations. Students from three nonpublic schools participated.

The planning and administrative preparation took place between October 1965 and January 1966. The project (fiscal year 1966) extended from January 17, 1966, to July 15, 1966. The project (fiscal year 1967) covered the period August 13, 1966, to May 26, 1967.

The maximum basic grant in 1966 and 1967 was $45,570. The full amount was approved for the fiscal year 1966 project; $38,851 was approved for fiscal year 1967.

The project took place on public facilities only during the regular school day and summer.

The bishop held a meeting in August 1965 at which he explained ESEA to both pastors and principals in the diocese. In November 1965 the parochial school personnel requested a meeting with the superintendent of RS to "express their desire to cooperate in the program."

84-775-67 -10