Page images
PDF
EPUB

CASE L-5

I. STATE CHARACTERISTICS

This State is located in the North Midwest section of the United States. The LEA involved in this case is a large school system situated in the central part of the State.

The maximum amount authorized for this State for fiscal year 1966 under title I was $39,094,561, of which $34,094,561 was actually committed. One-half State average current expenditure per pupil for 1963-4 was $220.93.

TABLE 9.-SEA Basic State data, case No. L-5

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_

177, 367

205, 814

16, 127

0

1:1.25 $153. 62 5 (11)

6 (16)

The State evaluation report for fiscal year 1966 states that, before the advent of the title I program, State personnel had open channels of communication with non-tax-supported schools in the State.

In regard to the relationship of tax-supported schools to non-taxsupported schools, the State revised code (3301.07, D.) states:

In the formulation and administration of such standards for non-tax-supported schools, the board shall also consider the particular needs, methods, and objectives of such schools, provided they do not conflict with the provision of a general education of a high quality and provided that regular procedures shall be followed for promotion from grade to grade of pupils who have met the educational requirements prescribed.

When the title I program was implemented, existing lines of communication were utilized and new ones were opened. One of the first steps taken was to inform non-tax-supported schools of current legislation and guidelines. Non-tax-supported school officials were placed on the SEA's title I mailing list. Representatives of non-tax-supported schools were invited to all statewide title I conferences as participants and/or consultants.

The State interim report says that all school districts were advised to contact officials of private schools in their districts.

When proposals were submitted for title I projects, each proposal was screened by title I staff members a staff maintained by the State department of education-to determine the number of non-taxsupported school students who were to be involved in the project. If no non-tax-supported students were to be involved, the local school district was expected to show the cause for exclusion. Three of the most common reasons for not including non-tax-supported school students

were:

1. No non-tax-supported school students reside in the school attendance area;

2. The non-tax-supported school students in the attendance area do not meet the selection criteria; and

3. Non-tax-supported school officials do not wish to participate. Other factors tend to distort the number and percentage of non-taxsupported school participation. These factors deal with the grade level of project students. Many projects were directed at preschool children. In these projects it is impossible to determine whether or not the participants were to be classified as tax-supported school students. Some non-tax-supported school systems do not have kindergartens or first grades; others do not have junior high schools or high schools. These are some of the factors which limited the possible participation of students from non-tax-supported schools.

Projects involving non-public-school children's participation have produced no significant changes in the existing relationship among school systems. Title I programs have not engendered directional shifts in the relationships between public and nonpublic schools because, over the years, there has been a general and gradually increasing spirit of cooperation. For the same reasons, increased interaction and communication, there have been no outstanding problems.

Some problems have occurred, however. The initial misunderstanding of the intent and purpose of the legislation on the part of some non-tax-supported, school leaders has now largely been resolved. Other problems, involving identification of students' needs, dissimilar methods of recordkeeping, and scheduling of services are being analyzed. Joint discussions of cooperative projects have made school leaders from both tax-supported and non-tax-supported school systems aware of each other's problems.

In some rural areas of the State, certain religious denominations have decided not to participate in title I programs, but a large number of students was not involved. The vast majority of public-school leaders who completed project evaluation reports expressed no strong sentiment concerning their relation with non-tax-supported schools.

The State director of title I reports that, while relationships between the State department of education and non-public-school officials have been good, they seem to have become stronger subsequent to title I involvement. He says that the State department has invited non-publicschool officials to planning and information dissemination meetings and non-public-school officials have made presentations at such meetings. He reports that communication has been initiated by the public sector, but response and cooperation from the private sector has been good.

The diocesan superintendent of Catholic schools reports that he attended a series of meetings with local public-school personnel to discuss how non-public-school children would be involved in title I programs. He reports that public-school personnel were willing to cooperate but feels that in most cases he had to make requests. In his words, public-school people did not come to him very often. He reports that communications between the public and nonpublic sectors are very good and the climate for cooperation seems to be quite good. He reports that there were no legal implications.

The State department of education does not feel that pressure groups are attempting to exert influence either to include or exclude nonpublic-school children. Some eligible LEA's did not participate in title I. The reasons for nonparticipation revolve around staffing and other

resource problems, not because of reactions to the church-state and/or Federal versus local control questions.

It appears that there is mutual understanding between the publicand non-public-school officials. One reason for this may be the fact that title I revolved around child benefit rather than benefits to the educational system in general.

II. LOCAL CHARACTERISTICS

The maximum amount of funds authorized for the county for fiscal year 1966 under title I was $2,795,206.36. The total number of eligible children in the county for fiscal year 1966 was 12,652.

[blocks in formation]

The maximum amount of funds authorized for the local school district for fiscal year 1966 under title I was $2,284,522.16 of which $2,153,481.92 was expended.

The LEA title I coordinator reports that planning conferences were held at upper administrative levels. These conferences involved both public and non-public-school personnel. A considerable part of the involvement of non-public-school staff occurred on the operations level; for example, orientation sessions and staff-development sessions. Nonpublic-school personnel were asked to react to and make suggestions about preliminary proposal outlines because local public-school people were actually working on tentative projects before the act was passed or the guidelines distributed. Information about all eligible children in the target areas was collected. Nonpublic school personnel were asked to collect data on eligible children and to select the children to participate. Teachers interviewed students and parents. Nonpuble school personnel actively participated in the in-service programs. The private schools even adjusted their schedules in some cases to increase this kind of participation.

One public school principal reported that the orientation of all personnel, public and nonpublic, was and is provided for only central office staff. Contact on the building level was limited. The field service coordinator reports that projects were developed and communications initiated with non-public-school personnel primarily at the central office level.

The diocesan superintendent of Catholic schools reports that the local public-school central office staff developed the proposals and made decisions regarding the focus of programs. The non-public-school officials were involved after the proposal-development phase of the title I program. He reports that, even though there have been problems in the local district, he is well pleased with the situation. He indicated that other areas in the diocese are not so well off. This local

school district is definitely atypical on the favorable side, as far as non-public-school participation is concerned.

Two local non-public-school principals and the local title I coordinator for Catholic schools report that they attended meetings and conferences for planning and orientation purposes. They report that public-school officials have been most willing to give help and assistance in involving non-public-school children in title I programs. The coordinator of title I for the Catholic schools reports that the major aspects of title I projects were planned by the local public central office staff. However, non-public-school personnel did read these proposals and make some suggestions. These suggestions were written into the program.

The local district developed a "buddy" system between a public school and a nearby private school to facilitate non-public-school student participation. The public sector reports that this arrangement of pairing a public school with a private school seems to be working well. Certain teachers-for example, reading and mathematics teachers spend part of the day in a public school and part of the day in a nearby private school. The thought here is that instructional service is taken to the children rather than taking children to the service.

Regional centers have been established in which medical and dental services are available to both the public- and non-public-school children. In addition, counseling services and study center services are available to non-public-school children. The nonpublic schools made use of some mobile equipment.

Differences in annual and daily schedules initially inhibited full use of resources for non-public-school children. The nonpublic schools have made some adjustments in scheduling in order to take better advantage of public-school teachers.

The nonpublic school sector reports that those programs which are integrated with the regular program are the most productive. While health programs and summer programs benefit individual students, those projects which most directly benefit non-public-school children are those which are built into the regular school program. Also, the use of specialists and additional staff members seem to be very productive.

The following personnel and/or services are provided within the nonpublic schools: enrichment teachers, reading specialist, mathematics specialist, music specialist, social worker, counselor, physical education specialist, books, materials, and equipment and machines on loan from the public schools. The enrichment teacher, the materials, and machines are housed full time in the nonpublic schools. The various specialists provide services at scheduled times.

The diocesan superintendent of Catholic schools reports that the participation of non-public-school children seems to be fairly close to the numbers listed in project applications.

The LEA title I coordinator reports that the evaluations for title I programs are being carried out by an outside agency, the evaluation center of the school of education of the State university. He reports. that public- and non-public-school personnel are involved in evaluation activities. He stated that neither sector reviewed these evaluation reports prior to their submission to the State department of education and neither sector received copies of the evaluation reports. Non

public-school people are described as being enthusiastic about title I programs. They wish they could do more and have not been as successful as they would like in some areas. It is his impression that nonpublic schools are engaging in more activities such as: (1) grouping practices, (2) small groups, (3) team approaches, and (4) more individualization of instruction.

One local public-school principal claimed that test scores and other evaluative devices seem to indicate that expectations, in terms of student achievement, were surpassed in both the reading program and the mathematics program. This principal said that the private schools now seem to be less formal and traditional. The nonpublic schools and teachers seem to be more prone to try new approaches and new content in educational programs, since the advent of title I programs.

The diocesan superintendent of Catholic schools stated that nonpublic- as well as public-school teachers are involved in evaluation procedures. Non-public-school officials did not review evaluation reports prior to their submission. However, the local title I coordinator for Catholic schools did receive several evaluation reports and could request information and receive it at any time. Test data are available for non-public- as well as public-school personnel.

The nonpublic sector reports that title I projects have been most productive. As a result of title I involvement, the nonpublic sector has experienced some changes in the use of instructional materials, in instructional approaches and in the ways in which professional personnel are used in the instructional situation. Non-public-school teachers are making use of machines and materials which they were not using prior to title I.

The public sector recommends the following areas for future title I projects: (1) health and recreation programs, (2) extended parent education and involvement programs, and (3) extended early-childhood programs.

The public sector also feels that much more attention should be given to training and orientation programs for inner-city teachers. In addition to more emphasis on staff development, there should be more concern for selection criteria and procedures for teachers of educationally handicapped children.

The public sector feels that focus on such areas as preschool children and home involvement will sidestep to a certain extent the churchstate situation.

The nonpublic sector recommends more emphasis on the reading program. The depth, scope, and time spent on reading activities should be extended. The nonpublic sector also feels that more staff training would be most helpful. The feeling was also expressed that nonpublic schools are at a disadvantage in terms of administrative personnel to implement and facilitate title I programs in the nonpublic schools. The diocesan superintendent of Catholic schools states that the major problem seems to be the lack of administrative organization in the nonpublic schools. He is quite pleased with the local situation but feels that part of the success is related to the fact that he is physically close to the situation. Physical proximity is not a positive factor in terms of other programs in the diocese. Thus, for this reason alone, the local situation is atypical.

« PreviousContinue »