Page images
PDF
EPUB

The parochial school representatives were asked the needs of their pupils, and they urged a remedial reading program. The public school personnel had decided prior to the meeting that their program would include remedial reading, etc. The parochial school personnel presented no specific proposals, outside of remedial reading.

In December 1965 the LEA title I coordinator visited the two parochial principals and informed them of the nature of ESEA. Before January 1966 the superintendent and title I coordinator held a meeting of all faculty in the public school system and explained Government programs. "There were no non-public-school personnel included in any of the meetings related to title I programs." The nonpublic principals stated that no one discussed title I provisions for nonpublic schools.

There is a mutual willingness in both sectors to involve the nonpublic schools in title I, but there is a lack of initiative. The LEA coordinator felt that the parochial administrators seem to resist having any formal meetings with the title I coordinator. They are not included on any title I committees, because the coordinator "assumed" that the nonpublic peronnel "would not want to give up their time to attend meetings." He thought he would have a representative of nonpublic schools on future application and evaluation committees.

The nonpublic personnel had little or no involvement in the detailed planning of title I projects. As the superintendent commented, "They seemed to be satisfied with the programs that this office decided upon.' For the future the superintendent feels "that they should be involved in the planning of projects and probably should sit on committees." This attitude of cooperation is not reflected in the planning for fiscal year 1967. As the coordinator stated, when the applications were in preparation the pastors indicated that they "liked what they had last year and would like the program continued." The superintendent offered the explanation that in fiscal year 1966 "the rush of getting the title I application prepared made it impossible to involve the nonpublic officials in planning." The planning was and is centralized with the title I coordinator and he "determined the needs and final focus of the title I projects himself."

The principals of both Catholic schools expressed a desire for title I remedial reading projects that would begin in the primary grades. The project is directed toward the intermediate grades. This request concided with the suggestions of the public principals. This suggestion was rejected by the superintendent who felt that remedial reading was necessary in the intermediate grades. It was then that the nonpublic officials "learned that we were fit into the preestablished program set up by the public schools under title I. It is fortunate that our needs are in some way similar." The pastors were consulted about the needs of the parochial school students to the extent that the LEA title I staff "stated to them that there were specific educational needs in the public schools and asked whether the proposed programs would also meet the needs of the parochial schools." The project applications were submitted to the pastors for review before they were submitted to the State department of education.

The superintendent suggested that communication should be improved and indicated that the fault probably lies with his office; but he further pointed out that he believes that the needs of public school

pupils "since they are in the majority"-should dictate the focus of the program. This attitude is also held by the coordinator of title I who stated:

Preference should be given to the public school students because of the representation of community.

In planning the projects the title I staff "did not consider the nonpublic-personnel pupil needs, etc. The parochial school children who were referred for participation in the project were evaluated and if eligible were "placed on a list according to greatest needs and entered the program accordingly." The parochial schools did not participate in the all-day emotionally disturbed or special-education projects, since pupils from these schools could attend only in the morning. The times and places of the project sessions were determined by the public school officials, and nonpublic schools had to fit into the prearranged public school schedule. An elementary parochial school principal requested that a title I teacher conduct sessions in her building, but this request was denied because there were no personnel available. It was decided that it would be more economical to send parochial students to the public schools. However, the title I activities were not scheduled at times convenient for nonpublic participation in title I.

There was much greater non-public-school-student participation in the summer project, and there were more personnel available during the summer. The superintendent felt that, "if they (parochial school pupils) did not need to be taken out of their school, there would be greater participation during the school year." Also, the distance of one parochial school from the project school hindered participation. This necessitated busing the non-public-school children to the public school. The parochial school had to contract its own bus service. For fiscal year 1966, $30 was alloted in the title I budget and $100 in fiscal year 1967 for bus service. During the summer there was no need to bus the nonpublic students.

The proximity of the other parochial school to the title I project school increased participation, but this was also limited by the establishment of a quota for parochial school students. During fiscal year 1966 and fiscal year 1967 the school was alloted a quota of students who could participate in the remedial reading programs. This year the quota was nine.

There were no title I activities carried out in the nonpublic schools, apart from testing and screening of eligible pupils, and guidance evaluation.

The figures for nonpublic pupils were originally based on guesses by the pastors. There is a discrepancy in the figures for both public and nonpublic from application to evaluation. The main hindrances to full nonpublic participation were a lack of qualified personnel in the overall operation of title I, and the time scheduling of projects.

Before title I, there was little communication between public and nonpublic school officials. The climate was aptly described as "friendly indifference."

The nonpublic education organization is beset with some problems related to title I. It is a question of authority-who is in charge of nonpublic education? "The public school people may have trouble in establishing communication with the parochial school because they are not really sure who runs the school-the pastor or the sister-principal."

There has been more communication between both public and nonpublic-school officials since title I projects began. The nature of the communication can be described as information sharing or an "exchange of facts." It does not go beyond this point and contact is still relatively infrequent.

The public school superintendent felt that nonpublic pupils should be involved in title I projects because it is "good public relations." This attitude is also reflected on the State level. "Since the community is primarily Catholic, it makes them feel that they are getting something for their money." The superintendent stated that "since the allotment is based primarily upon the numbers of educationally deprived youngsters who are in attendance at public schools, this factor should have something to do with limiting the participation of non-publicschool children."

Non-public-school personnel were not involved in project evaluations. The nonpublic school did not receive copies of evaluation reports, but neither did the public school principals.

Little consideration was given to a need for base line data from parochial schools. The parochial schools had base line data, but they were not requested.

The LEA coordinator stated that the remedial education project was successful and met the needs of both the public and nonpublic students. Yet "because of the way the project has been established, the lowaverage pupil with a reading problem is not being helped by the program." These pupils need remedial reading help more than those selected for the project. Both public and nonpublic principals are of this opinion.

The public school principals proposed "mutual planning" which would give them greater involvement in developing projects.

CHAPTER V

ANALYSIS, SUMMARY, AND CONCLUSIONS

This chapter presents an analysis of the quantitative data which are reported in the tables of chapters II, III, and IV. It then reports the implications for SEA's which can be drawn from the case studies in terms of legal problems, administrative relationship changes, and extent of involvement of non-public-school officials and children. The data pertaining to LEA's are examined from the point of view of administrative relationship changes, extent of involvement of non-public-school personnel, and the general thrust of the projects which have been funded under title I. The final section of this chapter is devoted to the conclusions and recommendations which are suggested by the preceding analyses.

A. Analysis of Quantitative Data

The formula which was used to compute maximum basic grants under title I for fiscal year 1966 contained a factor which was defined as "one-half the average per pupil expenditure in the State for the second preceding year." This factor multiplied by the total of the children in the State who are aged 5 through 17 and who (a) come from families with an annual income of less than $2,000, or (b) come from families with dependent children under title IV of the Social Security Act, determined the maximum basic grants. Consequently, information on this factor is useful, not only in establishing the representativeness of the sample used in this study, but also in studying the relationship of this factor to other aspects of title I programs in the SEA's and LEA's which were surveyed in the present investigation.

In the 10 States which were represented by large LEA's, this factor ranged from a high of $365.64 to a low of $146.36. For States from which a medium-sized LEA was drawn in the present sampling, the value of the factor had a high of $287.79 and a low of $155.73. The States which contain the small LEA's had a maximum value for this factor of $275.75 and a minimum value of $121.20. It is apparent, then, that an eligible child in one SEA in the sample had an allotment that was more than three times as large as the allotment made for a child in another SEA.

It seemed useful to raise questions such as: Is there any relationship between the funds per eligible pupil which an SEA received and the amount per pupil actually expended in title I projects in that State? Did this relationship vary as a function of the size of the LEA's drawn from the 30 States?

In the States represented by large LEA's the per participant expenditures had a range from $255.09 to $73.89; for States represented by medium-sized LEA's the range was from $375.73 to $32.94; and

for States in which small LEA's were sampled the average cost per participant for title I projects was between $174.19 and $80.91. Even on an inspectional basis it was obvious that there was little relationship between the amount per eligible pupil allotted to SEA's and their average cost per participant. For example, the State which spent $73.89 per pupil in title I projects received $238.34 for each eligible child, and the State which expended $375.73 on each title I participant had its maximum basic grant calculated on the basis of $287.79 for each eligible child in the 5 to 17 age range. These discrepancies reflect differences in the ratios of the number of eligible children to the number of children who were actually enrolled in projects. The data for these variables, expressed as rank order correlation coefficients, are summarized in table 61.

TABLE 61.--Rank order correlations between one-half State average per pupil expenditure (1963–64) and SEA expenditure per participant in title I projects Group:

States represented by large LEA.
States represented by medium LEA_.
States represented by small LEA----.
Total

Rho

-0.12

.47

.20

.29

All the values of rho shown in table 61 fail to achieve statistical significance at the 0.05 level. There is apparently only a chance relationship between the cost factor used in determining State allocations and the per participant cost of title I programs.

Another relevant question which was studied was: Do SEA's with relatively high expenditures per participant also have relatively high percentages of non-public-school pupils enrolled in title I programs? The appropriate analysis, summarized in table 62, indicates no significant relationship between these variables for any of the 30 States, regardless of whether they were represented by a large, medium, or small LEA.

TABLE 62.-Rank order correlations between SEA expenditure per participant and State rank for percent of non-public-school participants in title I projects Group:

States represented by large LEA---
States represented by medium LEA.
States represented by small LEA__.
Total

Rho

0.13

.48

.32

.24

Turning now to the data for LEA's, there were again marked discrepancies in the per-pupil expenditure for title I participants, both within and among the three size levels for LEA's. In the 10 large LEA's the cost per pupil for title I activities ranged from $280.95 to $47: for medium size LEA's from $408.72 to $33.13; and for small LEA's from $316.54 to $89.14. It is of interest to note that the allocation for the LEA which expended $33.13 per title I pupil was calculated on the basis of $173.68 per eligible child, while the LEA which expended $316.54 per participant had its maximum basic grant calculated on the basis of $262.15. Some LEA's expended substantially more per participant than the value of the factor used to compute the maximum grant, while other LEA's spent an amount for each participant that was considerably lower than the factor. These differences reflect disparities in the ratios bet ween the number of eligible children

« PreviousContinue »