(b) Greater coordination and communication with the nonpublic schools as to the details of the various projects needed; (c) Greater freedom for nonpublic schools to determine the nature of programs which will deal primarily with non-publicschool children; and (d) Further clarification of what is and is not possible under the State law. II. LOCAL CHARACTERISTICS This LEA is one of 29 local school districts in the county. However, this large LEA received about half of the county grant because it enrolls the greatest number of needy children. A total of 19,212 eligible children in the county accounted for all maximum grant of $7,024, 675.68. TABLE 4.-LEA data, case No. L-2 Number of children eligible_‒‒‒ Number of public school children participating--. Number of nonschool participants--- Eligible: Participant ratio_____ Expenditure per participant_ Title I expenditure rank. State expenditure (1963-64) rank_ 16, 861 24, 000 8,000 2,000 1:2.02 $131. 76 8 (21) 1 (1) The intent of the title I program was to provide the additional staff necessary to insure that each elementary school child in the public and private schools of the target area would receive adequate exposure to remedial work in reading and in mathematics. Additional speech teachers were engaged to cooperate with the classroom teacher in improving children's expressional abilities. Extensive field trips, afterschool enrichment programs including programs in the arts, music, industrial arts, and physical education and evening activities were also part of the program. The estimated number of children in the target area of the LEA under consideration was 27,900. They were distributed in 27 public and nonpublic schools. The children were drawn from the core of the city which is distinguished by the high proportion of educationally deprived children. The title I programs began in February 1966 and ended in June 1966. The title I summer program began in June 1966 and ended in August 1967. The summer program was designed to meet the needs of educationally deprived children in grades 1-12. Emphasis was placed on raising achievement and aspiration levels of children from the target area. Non-public-school personnel had direct contact with public school officials. Several meetings were conducted by the director of special projects for the public schools, and non-public-school personnel were involved in every meeting. The diocesan director was constantly consulted in the planning of projects and the inservice programs. A great deal of interest in title I was displayed by non-public-school officials. Non-public-school officials were involved in the planning of title I projects to a degree, but not as fully as we would have preferred. The diocesan director of special projects explained that for every proposal from the public schools, there was a representative from the nonpublic schools as a member of each committee. Particularly in the enrichment and remediation program, a non-public-school principal explained that non-public-school personnel were consulted as to the special needs of non-public-school students and they participated in discussions about what was to be done. The diocesan director indicated some limitations to the participation of non-public-school personnel in the planning phase, and stated that, "some projects were conceived and presented to us by the public schools. It would be an improvement if we were included in the generation of ideas also." The LEA sought and received information about non-public-school children in preparing applications. Non-public-school-teaching personnel were included in the inservice program, one for every three public school personnel. The participation of the Catholic school children has remained high in the second year of the program, with a greater involvement and enthusiasm on the part of the non-public-school children and teachers. The only problem encountered in scheduling project activities to suit non-public-school students was the State law which stipulates that public school facilities be used first, if it is possible to do so. Thus, the afterschool programs are all held in public facilities. The appeal of the programs to parents is one factor which encourages substantial participation by non-public-school children. Things seem to go best when there is direct contact with the school principals. Poor participation is related to a lack of this direct communication. In some areas, some parents of non-public-school children apparently send their children to nonpublic schools to avoid contact with Negro children. All activities which were conducted in the public schools were also offered in the nonpublic schools with the exception of the afterschool programs. All personnel were essentially duplicated with a great variety of specialized personnel services available to non-public-school children (for example, a remedial reading teacher, school psychologist, social worker, attendance officer, teacher aides, visiting teachers. et cetera). The administrative personnel in the schools were responsible for running the programs in their schools. Generally, people were not assigned, but were pooled, many of them circulating among several schools. There has been no difference in the operations between fiscal year 1966 and 1967. However, there was more time for planning and communication with the nonpublic schools. The climate of cooperation between public and nonpublic school officials prior to title I was very good. At the higher level of administration, there was an indication of more cooperation than at the principal's level. Since title I, the climate has remained good and the programs have opened up channels of communications that did not exist before title I. With title I, the public sector has been given a greater awareness of what the parochial schools are doing, and they have come to understand some of our problems. Contact between the public and nonpublic schools takes place frequently and proves to be valuable. Non-public-school personnel cooperated in gathering test data and administering questionnaires in their schools. They essentially handled their end of all projects. They were not involved in the coordination or planning of evaluation procedures. Non-public-school personnel did not review the project evaluation reports, nor did they receive copies of the evaluations sent to the SEA. They did receive copies of the individual project reports pertaining to participants from their schools. Evaluation procedures have remained essentially the same for fiscal year 1967. There has been some change in the educational practice of the nonpublic schools as a result of title I. The testing program has been developed and standardized. A few schools have adopted a nongraded approach. There is a greater use of audiovisual materials, and more individual attention is now possible through the use of teacher aides. The State constitution has made the distribution of some materials difficult and complicated. It would simplify matters considerably if this provision is changed or clarified. A major problem centers on prejudice in terms of race and occasionally in terms of nationality. This tends to lower Catholic schoolchildren's participation in projects conducted in areas with a large Negro population. CASE NO. L-3 1. STATE CHARACTERISTICS This is a southeastern State, consisting of 67 counties, all of which were eligible for ESEA title I funds. The maximum State allocation for fiscal year 1966 was $27,478,937.07, computed on a figure of $192.79, half of the State average expenditure per pupil for 1963-64. The basic description data for the State are summarized in table 5. TABLE 5.-SEA Basic State data, case No. L-3 Number of children eligible....... Number of public school children participating_ Number of non-public-school children participating. Number of nonschool participants___ Eligible Participant ratio__- Expenditure per participant_ Title I expenditure rank State expenditure (1963-64) rank. 142, 533 167,338 2. 434 502 1: 1.20 $161.38 4 (9) 9 (20) The State constitution prohibits the use of public funds for the support of sectarian schools. Statutory provisions prohibit the use of public funds for the transportation of private school children. The philosophical intent of title I of Public Law 89-10, section 205(a) (2) *** has been accomplished to the extent possible within the framework of State statutes regarding the use of public funds for non-public-school students (taken from fiscal year 1966 State evaluation). The establishment of dialog between public and nonpublic school administrators with regard to ESEA title I was initiated by the State department of education in June 1965 when non-public-school personnel were invited to joint meetings and conferences. State department officials suggested at this time that non-public-school representatives be appointed to LEA advisory committees, that non-public-school officials be briefed and informed about title I activities, and that nonpublic-school administrators be invited to assist in making arrange ments for non-public-school students to participate in approved projects. In order to insure frequent and more satisfactory communication between the SEA and the LEA, an intermediate post, that of regional liaison director, was created. Each regional director is responsible for one of six regions into which the State has been divided. "This may explain, in part, the limited communication, by correspondence exclusively, between the diocesan superintendent and the SEA director of title I. The State agency seems convinced that the nonpublic segment is properly grateful for title I assistance," remarked a State official during an interview with a field survey coordinator. The State department of education, through the regional directors, focused attention on the importance of local administrative initiative in contacting nonpublic-school officials. "There has been no litigation generated by title I. The advent of title I and similar programs has initiated a dialog between public and nonpublic school administrators which augurs well for the future. There appears to have been no appreciable opposition to the involvement of the parochial school element in the program," answered a title I State supervisor to the question of possible legal involvement. II. LOCAL CHARACTERISTICS In this State the boundary of a school district is identical with that of the county. The county included in our study is located in the extreme northeastern part of the State. In fiscal year 1966, $2,468,675.95 was allocated as the maximum local grant. Approximately 96 percent of this amount was expended. For fiscal year 1967, $2,392,809 has been authorized for approved projects. Basic descriptive data for the local school agency are summarized in table 6. TABLE 6.-LEA data, case No. L-3 Number of children eligible....... Number of public school children participating---. Number of non-public-school children participating Number of nonschool participants__. Eligible Participant ratio--- Title I expenditure rank-- State expenditure (1963-65) rank.......... 12, 805 15,927 288 0 1:1.27 $146. 16 7 (18) 9 (20) The LEA coordinator is a retired military officer. The military philosophy of organization and management is much in evidence. At the time of the field survey coordinator's visit to the LEA, the project directors were called into a special meeting. Each reported on his project, generally and specifically, with regard to nonpublic involvement. "From these reports it seems clear that the non-public-school children have benefited principally from the reading programs. Eligible children from the two nonpublic schools have visited the reading laboratory and have had speech and hearing diagnoses. The reading specialist has visited and has taught remedial classes in two parochial schools. The staff working with the mental health project will accept referrals for diagnosis." All projects originate with the central office staff, with some involvement of public school principals and teachers. Non-public-school personnel do not participate in planning or evaluation. They are informed of approved projects and are urged to participate; however, transportation and scheduling difficulties prevented eligible non-public-school children from participating in seven of the nine approved projects. Judging from a description of the fiscal year 1967 program, limited participation is again restricted to remedial reading programs and health services. Summer programs are open to all. The LEA coordinator believes that title I legislation "delineates limited involvement of non-public-school children." He thinks that present guidelines from USOE prevent aid from reaching youngsters who need help, and that more stable funding-not restricted to a 30day period-would enhance the effectiveness of the program. He is willing to make available certain materials and services and believes that the latter should be rendered on non-public-school grounds. He describes himself as, "leaning over backwards," to help the parochial schools. In reality some discrepancies exist. A project funded for the 6-week summer session of 1967 will enable 300 teachers from project schools to receive special training at a State university. They will earn six trimester hours of undergraduate or graduate credits. The budget of the approved project is $298,157, which includes $75 per week stipend, tuition, $25 book allowance per participant. "Parochial school staffs are welcome to audit but naturally cannot be granted stipends," the LEA coordinator reported during the interview. A nun is one of the diocesean school supervisors of elementary education. She has the additional responsibility of coordinating title I activities in this region. She has had very little contact with the State agency except through the regional liaison director of title I. Because Sister was attending the NCEA convention at the time of the interview a lay woman, the diocesan liaison between the diocese and the LEA, agreed to discuss non-public-school involvement. Even though she worked closely with the LEA staff, she did not participate in the planning or evaluation sessions. She appeared resigned to settle for an "occasional crust of bread," and feared that if she "rocked the boat" too much, the non-public-school children would lose the small benefits they were currently getting. In this county, only two diocesan schools are benefiting from ESEA title I activities. The principal of one of nonpublic schools receiving title I assistance reported that her school was selected "through a blind stab at names of private schools listed in the phone book." The reading specialist helped eligible second graders in the non-public-school building. This arrangement was credited to the project director who insisted on helping all children who need it. Results of referrals to the reading laboratory took, at times, 3 months to reach the schools. She expressed much concern about the gap between the very careful briefings about approved projects, available aid, et cetera, and the difficulty of obtaining services and equipment. The county staff worked diligently to write projects for eligible kindergarten youngsters, for cataloging educational media received under Federal grants, for development of audiovisual and printed resource materials and services, for in-school identification and reme 84-775-67- -3 |