and the number of children who actually participated in title I projects in the various LEA's.

In order to study the relationship between the amount of money expended by LEA's for each participating child and the degree to which non-public-school children were involved in projects, rank order correlations were computed for those factors separately for the three groupings of 10 LEA's, and for the total sample of 30 cases. The data are summarized in table 63.

TABLE 63.-Rank order correlations between LEA expenditure per participant and LEA rank for percent of non-public-school participants in title I projects

None of the rho's is statistically significant, and it is concluded that there is no systematic relationship between the LEA's per-pupil expenditure and the percentage of participants drawn from nonpublic schools.

In the large LEA's the expenditure per participant ranged from $280.95 to $47; in medium LEA's the highest was $408.72 and the lowest expenditure was $33.13; in small LEA's the per-pupil costs of title I projects fell between $316.54 and $89.14.

The percentage of total participants in title I projects who were enrolled in nonpublic schools were as follows for large, medium, and small LEA's respectively: 23.53 to 1.78 percent, 20.71 to 0.00 percent, and 41.91 to 0.00 percent.

Another possible relationship which was of interest to the project staff was the correlation between the percent of non-public-school participants and the ratio of eligible to participant students for the various LEA's. Did LEA's in which participants substantially outnumbered the quota of eligible children also enroll high percentages of pupils from nonpublic schools, or was the discrepancy between eligible children and participating children attributable to large numbers of pupils drawn from public school settings? The eligible participant ratios for large LEA's extended from 1:3.19 to 1:0.71; in medium LEA's it ranged from 1: 5.25 to 1: 0.60; and in small LEA's from 1:2.33 to 1: 0.61.

The data pertaining to this analysis are summarized in table 64. TABLE 64.-Rank order correlation between LEA percent of non-public-school participants and LEA eligible-participation ratio

The rho coefficient for the relationship between the percent of nonpublic-school participants and the magnitude of the eligible: participant ratio was statistically significant at the 0.05 level for small

LEA's, but the hypothesis of no relationship is accepted for the large and medium LEA's. In small LEA's high eligible: participant ratios tended to be associated with a high percentage of participants from nonpublic schools, but in the total sample these factors are independent. The analyses of the foregoing data do not indicate any consistent pattern of differences between SEA's represented by large, medium, and small LEA's. In addition, they fail to establish any significant relationships for SEA's between (1) the fiscal factor used in determining maximum basic grants and (2) expenditure per participant, or between (1) SEA expenditures per participant and (2) the percent of participants in title I projects who came from nonpublic schools. Nor do LEA's in the three size classifications manifest any statistically significant degree of correlation between (1) their perpupil expenditures for title I activities and (2) the degree of involvement of non-public-school students, or between (1) the ratio of eligible to participating children and (2) the percent of non-public-school participants. The involvement of non-public-school children in title I projects in the LEA's studied is independent of the per-pupil cost and of whether or not the LEA projects enrolled more or fewer participants than the total number of eligible children used in determining allocations. The one exception to the general rule of no significant relationships was found for small LEA's where a moderately high positive relationship indicated that the degree of involvement of non-publicschool children varied systematically with the disparity between the number of eligibles and the number of participants.

B. Implications of the Case Studies: State Level

1. Legal problems

The Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, the first Federal law to give explicit recognition to the existence of nonpublic elementary schools and non-public-high schools, has been described as "combining basically irreconcilable policies into the same law." It has also been asserted that some of the assumptions which underlie ESEA represent issues which require considerable study. The act, particularly in its acceptance of the shared time strategy, assumes that (a) the teaching of some secular components of the curriculum in public schools may be carried out in a way that poses a conflict with the basic viewpoints of some religious groups, and that (b) the teaching of these subjects in a manner which is not compatible with the religious beliefs of students attending church-related schools can be supported by public funds in public-school settings, but-on the other hand-nonpublic schools may not have access to public funds to teach these same secular subjects in a framework which reflects their philosophy and their interpretation of secular reality. In essence ESEA concedes that the public school is not neutral, but has a point of view of the meaning of secular reality which-at least in some points-is different from the orientation of certain religious groups.

The act assumes the existence of a plurality of American education which calls for the creation of a wholly new juridical entity-the child who is a part-time student in a public school but who, for reasons of conscience, is enrolled only

1 Robert F. Drinan, review of "The Shared Time Strategy," Indiana Law Journal, 1967. p. 277.

in those courses in the public school where the instruction will not contradict his interpretation of the meaning of the secular order."

Some legal experts have argued that the 1965 Elementary and Secondary Education Act is basically an extension of the ruling which emerged from the case of Pierce v. Society of Sisters. The Supreme Court decision in this case that the interpretation of secular reality and nonsacred learning transmitted in private, church-related schools must be accepted by the States as a satisfactory substitute for the interpretation transmitted in a public school can be regarded as leading logically to the conclusion that schools which the State must constitutionally accept as satisfying the provisions of the State's compulsory attendance law should not be excluded from the benefits of public funds appropriated for the improvement of the schooling of educationally disadvantaged children. However, the act fails to take the next logical step of establishing a policy that the public school cannot teach a certain point of view in value-oriented subjects, especially when this practice compels a large number of parents to bypass public schooling for their children and to establish and support private denominational schools in order to have compliance with compulsory attendance laws.

While ESEA recognizes and perhaps even offers some encouragement of nonpublic schools, it is clear that private schools are for the purposes of the act-to be severely subordinated to the tax-supported schools. Almost all of the educational activities authorized by the act must take place on public school premises. Educational material and equipment may be placed in nonpublic schools only on a loan basis from the local public educational agency. The values interwoven into the fabric of the public school curriculum are regarded as being neutral, while the values inherent in the curriculums of private schools are considered to be sectarian and beyond the scope of public support.

The paradoxes, debatable assumptions, and imperfect analyses which are incorporated in ESEA have given rise to a host of legal problems and to a variety of uncertain interpretations which have hampered the implementation of the provisions of the legislation. These difficulties are compounded by the variations in State constitutions and statutes. For example, dual enrollment programs-which in the opinion of many interpreters of the legislation was intended by Congress to be the primary mechanism for involving private school children in title I projects have been held to be contrary to State constitutions in rulings by a number of State courts and State attorneys general.

At the practical level SEA's and LEA's have been plagued by the ambiguities and imprecise definitions which characterize crucial sections of the published regulations and the legislative history of the enactment. Typical of issues which are clouded with legal uncertainty, and subject to variant interpretations, are the permissibility of including non-public-school teachers in inservice training programs, and the utilization in nonpublic schools of mobile equipment-purchased with title I funds for projects which are not remedial in nature.

Ibid., p. 275. 3 Ibid., p. 276,

Information gathered by the field survey coordinators indicated that in some localities the participation of non-public-school children was impeded during fiscal year 1966 by delays in rulings of State attorneys general concerning possible conflicts between the provisions of title I and state constitutional requirements. In other settings the opinion of the legal counsel for the SEA has been accepted as a substitute for a ruling by the attorney general.

The data reported for some of the 30 cases in this study justify the conclusion that in some settings adherence to State constitutional safeguards has resulted in only token communication with the private educational sector by State education officials, and in minimal involvement of non-public-school children. This situation has prompted some nonpublic-school officials to question the legality of allowing such States to accept the full amount of the maximum basic grant. Instead, it was suggested that the State should be awarded only that part of the grant which reflects the number of eligible children enrolled in public schools. The balance of the grant, based on eligible children in nonpublic schools, would be withheld from the State until such time as the constitutional obstacles to the full implementation of title I were surmounted.

One of the SEA's included in this study has recommended that LEA's establish a method of determining the dollar amount of services provided to eligible non-public-school children. The extension of such a procedure to all SEA's would provide a basis for determining more precisely than is now possible the extent to which the comparability factor as defined in the rules and regulations is being achieved in practice.

A fact which is clearly evident in the cases examined in this study is that many local school officials, both public and private, operated during fiscal year 1966 on the basis of incomplete and even erroneous understandings of the provisions of title I and the first amendment. LEA officials in some instances denied legitimate requests by private school authorities, and in other cases the non-public-school sector sought participation in a mode that was clearly beyond the intention and purview of ESEA. Both types of actions, when they are the products of ignorance or misunderstanding, have a strong deleterious effect on the spirit of cooperation and mutual trust between the two educational systems. The need for school officials to be fully and authoritatively informed on all aspects of title I, and on the constitutional and legal context of the State, is a pressing one. The sooner the need is satisfied the earlier will harmonious working relationships between public and private schools be achieved.

The legal problems associated with the implementation of title I are formidable, complex, and emotionally charged. They directly affect the nature and extent of participation by private school pupils. This phase of the study has been able to deal with them only in a general manner, but funds from the project's appropriation for fiscal year 1967 have been assigned for an expert and intensive examination of constitutional prohibitions, statutory barriers, and legal rulings.

2. Administrative relationship changes (SEA)

The reports submitted by the field survey coordinators for this proiect indicated that in all 30 cases in the sample the private schools which showed the greatest interest in and expectation for the involvement of

pupils in title I projects were schools conducted by the Roman Catholic Church. While available data showed some participation by pupils enrolled in schools conducted by other faiths, the numbers were extremely small. As a consequence of this fact, the analysis of administrative relationship changes at the State level is limited to a consideration of changes and needed changes in the relationships between SEA's and the officials who are responsible for Catholic schools in the State.

Catholic elementary schools in the United States are almost exclusively parochial, meaning that the support of the school is provided by the members of the parish in which the school is located. The pastor of the parish, who is responsible to the bishop of the diocese, has a considerable latitude in administrative decisions pertaining to parishsponsored activities and agencies-including the school. The authority guaranteed to a pastor by canon law can, if not judiciously exercised, lead to problems and conflicts involving him and the principal of the school, who typically is a member of a religious community of women. Some pastors are deeply interested in the educational activities of the parish school; others could care less. Some pastors with no formal preparation as school administrators hold a tight rein on every aspect of the school's policies and practices, but others completely entrust the dayto-day, and year-to-year operation of the school to the nun who serves as principal.

Some parishes also support high schools which may be either coeducational, coinstitutional, or restricted to students of one sex. The control of the parochial high school is also included in the pastor's authority. But Catholic high schools in the United States may also be classified as interparochial, diocesan, or community sponsored. The interparochial high school is supported by funds raised by a combination of geographically adjacent parishes and is typically administered by a sister, brother, or priest. The pastors of the parishes who support the school exercise shared canonical authority over the institution.

Diocesan high schools, on the other hand, are supported by funds from the diocesan treasury. These schools typically have a principal who is appointed by the superior of the religious community which staffs the school. The principal is then responsible to the diocesan superintendent of schools in matters pertaining to the policies and practices of the school.

Private Catholic high schools differ from parochial, interparochial, and diocesan high schools in that the expenses of establishing and maintaining the school are borne by a particular religious community of men or women. These high schools are administered by a member of the community, are not under the authority of any pastor, and generally attempt to be as independent of the diocesan superintendent of schools as the local situation permits.

The overall responsibility for leadership and coordination of effort in this variegated array of educational institutions is vested in a diocesan superintendent of schools who is appointed by the bishop of the diocese.

Catholic diocesan boundaries in the United States do not cross State lines, but while some dioceses are coterminous with States, other States are divided into several dioceses. Each diocese (or archdiocese) has its own bishop (or archbishop) who appoints a diocesan superintendent of schools as the responsible agent for the formal educational activities of all the schools located within the diocesan boundaries.