diation of emotionally disturbed and socially maladjusted children in school attendance areas having a high concentration of economically deprived children, for inservice training of teachers, for improving reading ability of second graders in deprived areas, and for deaf and severely hard-of-hearing children in economically deprived areas. In general, non-public-school educators working in economically deprived areas were disturbed and disappointed that the favorable communications with the LEA did not result in the loan of equipment and materials from the resource center or in equal opportunity to participate in inservice programs. Through recent correspondence, the LEA executive assistant said that it was permissible for LEA to lend equipment purchased with title I funds to nonpublic schools enrolling students eligible for title I funds. Title to the property is retained by the LEA. Attitudes and opinions were also solicited from interested citizens. Mr. X of the OEO staff described the relationship between his office and the LEA as cooperative and congenial in caring for the prekindergarten and kindergarten children. The OEO control office is located in a convent leased by the bishop for a dollar a year. This is indicative of cordial relations between the public and parochial sectors. A journalist who reports educational matters in the large city newspaper indicated that "there appeared to be some community feeling about ESEA title I matters. However, people in the community seemed willing to submerge those concerns in favor of improving educational opportunities for our children." He was unable to comment significantly on the involvement of non-public-school children. The chairman of the county board of education believes in segregation and in States rights. Recognizing that the county cannot take care of its own economically deprived children, he will accept any outside help he can get. Since he himself cherished fiscal efficiency, his prejudice against Federal aid is mitigated because LEA officials are doing an excellent job. CASE L-4 I. STATE CHARACTERISTICS Case L-4 is based on a large school district, the only LEA in the county. All 95 counties of this central Southern State were eligible for title I funds. The maximum State allotment for fiscal year 1966 was $32,206,225.28. Approximately 92 percent of this amount was actually committed for funded projects. One-half of the State average current expenditure per pupil amounted to $146.36. TABLE 7.-SEA Basic State data, case No. L-4 Number of children eligible-- Number of public school children participating--- Eligible Participant ratio‒‒‒‒. Expenditure per participant. State expenditure (1963-64) rank_ ----- 220, 048 240, 619 1, 007 2, 100 1:1. 11 $121. 57 8(16) 10(29) A State constitutional provision authorizes public resources for private purpose with the concurrence of three-fourths of the votes cast at the county, city, or town election. Section 49-2202 provides that all pupils in a county shall be furnished equal opportunity to attend schools with transportation provided at public expense. The State department of education is charged with regulatory and leadership responsibilities to 152 local school districts. With the advent of ESEA of 1965, the assistant State commissioner was named the acting State title I director. Outside professional consultant services were sought in order to structure activities designed to prepare local school personnel for participation in title I. The director and his staff undertook an intensive study of the Federal act and guidelines before attempting to develop State guidelines of various kinds. These were ready in the fall of 1965. During November, in various areas of the State, five regional clinics, each lasting a full day, were conducted by the SEA. All school systems were represented. Participant reactions were generally favorable. During the first half of 1966, a full-time State title I director and 22 staff members were hired to work on title I at the State level. The State commissioner of education, acting upon the advice of his staff, made final decisions about funding projects for fiscal year 1966. The SEA required each LEA title I applicant to furnish evidence that the LEA title I coordinator had contacted non-public-school officials, had acquainted them with the content of the proposed title I program, and had extended to the non-public-school officials the opportunity to participate in title I programs. In the event that the LEA district did not include any nonpublic schools, a statement to that effect was to be sent by the LEA to SEA. During fiscal year 1966, private schools participated in 18 of the 352 funded projects. According to the fiscal year 1966 SEA evaluation, there appeared to be some reluctance by both sectors to launch into cooperative programs without thorough study of the implications. The late appropriations by Congress and the urgency for submitting projects for approval did not provide sufficient time for such a study. It should be noted that no problems of communications or misunderstanding between the two agencies developed. On the contrary, climate for cooperative planning seemed to be favorable. A section of the fiscal year 1966 LEA evaluation report considered the question of non-public-school participation. Of the 152 LEA's in the State, 68 percent chose not to comment about legislative changes governing non-public-school participation in title I programs. Of the 32 percent responding, 1.3 percent recommended increased non-publicschool children's participation, 2.7 percent recommended no revision of title I legislation, 2.0 percent recommended a reduction in non-public-school participation, 13.3 percent recommended separate and distinct legislation for public and nonpublic schools, and 12.7 percent recommended exclusion of non-public-school children from participation in public school activities. Moreover, 81 percent of those responding held strong opinions against the integration of public and non-publicschool children. This attitude was articulated by a minority of school officials operating programs in small LEA's, representing only a small percentage of public schools in the State. Although the diocesan and State geographical boundaries are the same, the diocesan superintendent has appointed several assistants who have charge of school affairs in certain sections of the State. The assistant in charge of the geographic area under consideration, in this case is also principal of a nonpublic high school. In his judgment, public school officials at the State and local levels have been very honest, cooperative, and willing to involve nonpublic school personnel in title I activities. He was invited to numerous meetings and regional clinics. Prior to title I there were few contacts between the two sectors at the State level. Now it is not unusual for the State commissioner to call non-public-school officials in order to discuss various aspects of ESEA and other educational matters. The extent of non-public-school involvement in title I projects depends, in most instances, on the good will of the public school officials. The State title I director said there were no instances of approved applications which did not include non-public-school children. The field survey coordinator believed there was sufficient evidence to conclude that there is mutual understanding of and respect for one another's educational system and teaching personnel. The legality of the act has not been challenged. There have been no pressure groups. Although a few LEA's did not participate, the church-state issue was not the reason. They simply chose not to apply. II. LOCAL CHARACTERISTICS This large school system, the only public school system in the county, identified 10,146 eligible children and was alloted $1,484,968.56 in fiscal year 1966 and 85 percent of fiscal year 1966 was authorized for fiscal year 1967. Forty-six schools, included in the current project area, comprise roughly one-third of the LEA. For the various projects, the percentage of children from low-income families ranged from 11 to 80 percent. TABLE S.-LEA data, case No. L-4 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 (1963-61) rank-- 10, 146 30, 587 1,000 500 1:3. 19 $47 10 (29) 10 (29) In fiscal year 1966, nine projects were funded: (1) Improvement of the physical well-being of deprived children in the elementary and secondary schools. Free lunches were supplied. Health textbooks and health instruction were provided. Ten additional physical education teachers were hired. The LEA fiscal year 1966 evaluation noted, nonpublic-school children did not participate in the activities of this project. Correspondence from the LEA coordinator to the non-publicschool assistant superintendent states: Our earlier communications with you concerning the services to be provided through this project led us to make provisions for eligible children in your schools only in the matter of health textbooks in grades 1, 2, 3, 7, and 8. As soon as possible you will please get in touch with us when you desire to borrow these books. (2) This project was concerned with outdoor education at the ele mentary level. Private schools in the project area will be informed of the project and may participate if they wish to do so. The fiscal year 1966 LEA evaluation report indicated that non-public-school children. did not participate. Reasons are not listed. One non-public-school teacher mentioned that parents of eligible children claim that their children do not need this assistance. (3) A project to provide materials and train teachers to meet the educational needs of underachievers at the junior high level. According to the fiscal year 1966 LEA evaluation, non-public-school children did not participate. (4) Diagnostic individualized approach to educational provisions for educationally deprived children. Non-public-school children did not participate. (5) Inservice education for teachers of educationally deprived children. Six hundred teachers from target area schools attended a 6-week summer session. Four teachers from the parochial system and six from other nonpublic schools were included in this project. (6) Improvement of education in elementary schools. Non-publicschool children were unable to participate during the regular school day. Some took advantage of the occasional Saturday classes. (7) Development of the art of creative living. A number of eligible pupils and/or teachers in private schools within the project area availed themselves of the opportunities provided in this project. (8) Developmental reading designed to meet the needs of educationally deprived (grades 7-12). Non-public-school children did not participate. (9) Reduction of pupil-teacher ratio, increased administrative, consultant, and library services. No special arrangements will be made with private schools in this regard due to the fact that the project is highly specific and by nature of the project any possibility of participation by private schools is impossible; however, the private schools will be informed of this project, as outlined in our comprehensive program. In fiscal year 1967, two additional projects and continuation of the nine listed above were approved. "The willingness of public school officials to involve non-publicschool officials in title I programs of this LEA was tremendous," commented a non-public-school official. He was the liaison person between the LEA and the non-public-school principals who administered schools enrolling a number of eligible children. He and the president of a private institute helped to identify target areas and to plan subsequent projects. Available information fails to indicate the degree of need existing in the nonpublic schools. The LEA coordinator sent advance notices of all project-planning meetings to the non-public-school principals. Many attended and they helped to determine the final foci of all projects. He requested appropriate data on eligible non-public-school children and these were always made available. No summer projects have been planned for eligible children during fiscal year 1967. The 2-week day camp experience in the summer of 1966 provided for some 193 eligible children. Limited funding may account for failure to provide for summer enrichment and/or remedial programs. Public school officials believe that the private-school personnel are doing an excellent job with the resources at their command, but sense that they are able to meet the needs of only certain groups of students. The non-public-school officials respect the competency of the staff and the quality of the educational program of the public schools. Formal and informal dialogue has increased. The frequency of communication can best be described as limited, but is considered valuable by both sides. The multiplicity of administrative responsibilities assumed by non-public-school officials curtails the amount of time which could be spent on public relations. Both sectors agree that involvement of non-public-school children in title I definitely serves the educational needs of the community. However, great care, stressed the LEA coordinator, must be taken in administering the program because of the church-state issue. He also expressed serious reservations about financing private education with public funds. No pressure groups or legal involvements on this issue have appeared. The likelihood of future litigation is decreasing. Non-public-school officials were asked to comment on the success or lack of success of fiscal year 1966 projects. They were not involved in writing the evaluation which was sent to the State department, but they reviewed the completed form and received copies of the same. Discernible changes in reading were encouraging. The in-service program for teachers who staff schools in the target area was credited with a curriculum change most frequently mentioned; namely, the nongraded-reading program which has been introduced at several schools in the target area. The cultural program afforded eligible high school students an opportunity to experience wholesome leisure-time activities. There appears to be a need for projects which would provide training of specialists in the areas of remedial reading and arithmetic, guidance and counseling, and mental retardation. Among the recommendations elicited by the field survey coordinator were these: Future funds should be appropriated in the spring; additional visual aids, materials and equipment, and demonstration of the use of them are needed by both sectors; and the non-public-school regional assistant superintendent should involve more non-public-school principals in the decisionmaking process. There was also a feeling the LEA coordinator could be more aggressive in publicizing and promoting the title I program, and that attempts should be made to overcome the problems of shared time. Summer-school projects should be planned for eligible students, and a program designed to promote readiness for school is urgently needed. The State constitutional and statutory provisions permit a great deal of assistance to nonpublic schools. The communication and dialog between the two sectors have the potential of establishing an ideal climate for action. In reality, participation is guarded by the fear of violating the first and 14th amendments of the Constitution of the United States. Revised ESEA title I legislation could pave the way for more and better participation of non-public-school children in funded projects. |