The comments of the field survey coordinator are as follows:

1. Generally, the climate for cooperation and communication between public and nonpublic personnel in the local area is healthy. Both public and non-public-school personnel were enthusiastic about the title I program. There are a number of indications that this positive situation is definitely not typical of the diocese in general.

2. These programs were planned and are administered from the central office level. As a result, few public-school officials on the building level are involved in major policy decisions.

3. There is some indication that the situation indicated in No. 2 above has resulted in some gaps between program foci and perceived student needs. However, this feeling is not widespread.

4. The evaluation situation is quite unique in that the entire evaluation was subcontracted to an outside agency. Several public- and nonpublic-school personnel indicated a desire to see evaluation reports. Feedback data are available primarily to project directors and, through them, to teachers. However, formal evaluation reports are not widely distributed throughout the system.

5. The comparable public school-nonpublic school participation in use of personnel, facilities, and materials is evident. At present there is a great concern from public- and non-public-school personnel on the operational level regarding the pending decisions concerning program cutbacks. Central office personnel are faced with major cutbacks in certain aspects of the program due to the funding problems.

CASE L-6

I. STATE CHARACTERISTICS

This State is located in the North Central area of the United States and borders on the Great Lakes. The local school system is a large one and is situated in the eastern part of the State. The maximum amount of funds authorized for this State for fiscal year 1966 under title I was $34,727,568.04. The total amount of funds actually committed was $30,990,551. One-half the State average current expenditure per pupil for 1963-4 was $238.34.

TABLE 11.-SEA Basic State data, case No. L-6

Number of children eligible---

Number of public-school children participating.

Number of nonschool participants__

Number of non-public-school children participating.

Eligible: Participant ratio__.

Expenditure per participant_

Title I expenditure rank_.

State expenditure (1963-64) rank_

145, 706

343, 341

65, 382

10, 710

1:2.88

$73.89

10(29)

4(12)

The State interim report of December 1965 claims that non-publicschool officials were extended an invitation to participate in regional meetings on title I. In the application review process where it is apparent that the involvement of non-public-school children is not clear, local public school officials are requested to spell out by additional attachments what steps have been taken in planning to insure nonpublic involvement. Guidelines suggest that the superintendents of public schools should

(a) Inform officials of nonpublic schools of the formation of a public-school planning committee:

(b) Suggest that a study be made by the nonpublic schools of their pupils needs;

(c) Establish channels of communication between public and nonpublic schools; and

(a) Establish a method of determining the dollar amount of services to be provided non-public-school children.

Non-public-school representatives were members of the overall State advisory committee for implementation of title I in this State. Statewide bodies of the largest denominational school element worked very closely with the State department of education. For example, the State Catholic conference, which is an association of the five Catholic dioceses in the State, has worked, and is working, continuously with Catholic schools for better participation in Public Law 89-10 pro

grams.

The State evaluation report for fiscal year 1966 reaffirms the close cooperation between public and nonpublic schools and cites the following statistics: a total of 279 LEA's out of 438 with a nonpublic school in their area included non-public-school children in their title I programs. Non-public-school representatives were involved in designing 293 projects. Non-public-school representatives were included in the evaluation process in 133 projects. Only 27 LEA's reported having any problems in developing and implementing title I projects with nonpublic schools.

These data are based on responses from 502 of 557 LEA's in this State.

Local education agency and non-public-school cooperative projects have ranged from shared-time activities in public-school facilities to implementing projects within nonpublic schools and to Saturday, evening, and summer activities.

As stated above, only 27 LEA's reported having any problems in developing and implementing title I projects with nonpublic schools. Some of these problems were

1. Some nonpublic schools misinterpreted the law and felt they were to get a portion of title I funds directly;

2. Differences in salaries and working conditions made some nonpublic schools reluctant to accept staff members from public schools;

3. Some nonpublic schools were reluctant to participate on a shared-time basis;

4. Some nonpublic schools wanted equipment only, not services; 5. Difficulties in coordinating schedules at the secondary level; 6. Difficulties in identifying and justifying special needs of non-public-school children in some areas because nonpublic schools tended to serve a selective population; and

7. Difficulties arising over costs of maintenance and servicing of equipment.

The State title I director reports that in most cases communications were initiated by the public sector. He also reports that the nonpublic schools (especially the Catholic schools) have strong organizations in the State and these organizations have initiated communications on occasion. Catholic, Lutheran, Jewish, and Christian Reform are a few

of the nonpublic sectors which are represented at the State Advisory Conference. The title I director reports that most pressure has been positive and has come from the religious organizations mentioned above. Negative pressure applied by a local organization (Civil Liberties Union) was never strong and seems to have almost completely died out. Eligible LEA's, which refused to participate in title I, did so because they were highly affluent districts. No districts refused to participate because of church-state questions. However, the Seventh-day Adventists in the State chose not to participate. There were no legal problems in this State according to reports from both the public and nonpublic sector.

The Catholic superintendent of schools attended planning sessions and was in communication with the Catholic representatives on the State advisory board. He attended planning meetings in the local area. In these meetings decisions were reached regarding needs of students, focus of programs, and the degree and manner of involvement of nonpublic schools. The Catholic superintendent reports that communications have improved but are still not extensive. He also reports that, while there has been conversation by various pressure groups, he feels that such conversation has had no impact.

II. LOCAL CHARACTERISTICS

The maximum amount authorized for the county for fiscal year 1966 was $1,243,896.46. The total number of eligible children in the county was 5,219. The maximum amount authorized for the local school system was $720,740.16 of which $720,113 was approved for title I projects which served 3,455 children.

TABLE 12.-LEA data, case No. L-6

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....

3, 024 3, 120

335

0

1:1.14

$208.43

3(7)

4(12)

The public sector reports that non-public-school personnel participate in in-service training programs. These include periodic one-half day workshops and a formal session planned for the summer of 1967. Non-public-school-teachers attended workshops and individual sessions which were used for orientation purposes. Also they have access to consulting services. Non-public-school personnel displayed a great deal of interest and enthusiasm in becoming involved in title I programs. The public sector further reports that non-public-school officials were involved in determining both the nature and the extent of their desired participation in the title I program. Non-public-school personnel provided baseline data in determining eligibility of target schools. Cumulative record cards and anecdotal records were kept for participants and were available to teachers. These cards contain information such as test scores, kinds of student participation, and materials used.

The nonpublic sector reports that it was involved in workshops, inservice training sessions, and meetings for the purpose of planning and focusing the title I program. Public-school officials were most willing to involve nonpublic schools and have been most helpful. One principal of a local nonpublic school could not say enough concerning the high regard which she had for public school personnel.

Data were requested by the public sector from the diocesan superintendent and local principles. These data were supplied.

Permanent record cards are kept on all children who participated in title I and copies of these records are sent to their respective schools. The diocesan superintendent of schools reports that his local school district is not typical of the general climate between the two systems. In most cases the relationships are not very good. Projects were planned and focused before nonpublic schools were invited.

The public sector reports that activities took place within nonpublic-school buildings, and scheduling was done on a building basis. All children in the target school who are in the curriculum area, and on the grade level chosen, participated in the program. The public sector reports that the following services are available to, and are extensively used by, the nonpublic schools:

1. Mathematics and reading specialists.

2. Mathematics and reading materials and machines. 3. Teacher aides.

4. School social workers.

5. Participation in parent organizations.

Specialized consulting services are provided periodically and often are available upon request. Materials and teacher aides are placed permanently in the non-public-target schools, and the reading and mathematics specialists work regularly with non-public-school personnel. Title I programs were designed to service mathematics and reading needs at elementary grade levels.

The diocesan superintendent of Catholic schools reports that all children in target schools participated in the mathematics and reading programs which the nonpublic schools agreed were the most crucial

areas.

Two parochial schools-both elementary-were designated as being in the target area. The principals of both schools report that title I activities take place within the nonpublic school during regular school hours and are conducted by non-public-school personnel. They also report that reading and mathematics consultants work with their teachers. Materials and machines are kept in nonpublic schools, teacher aides are housed in nonpublic schools, and social workers render services in nonpublic schools. The teacher aides and social workers are paid with title I funds. All children in target schools participate.

The public sector reports that the nonpublic sector was involved in project evaluations. Individual teachers collect student achievement data periodically. Also, teacher attitudes, criticisms, and reactions to both student programs and in-service programs are collected. The title I program was just getting started when evaluation reports were due. As a result, the local school district report was merely a summary of what was being done. The report was compiled in the central office and was not distributed to private or public school personnel. Students were

given pretests in reading and mathematics and these skill levels were used as baseline data.

The general feeling regarding title I impact is quite positive. However, there is at present very little hard data available. Formal evaluations have not been made.

Non-public school teachers are using materials and machines which they did not use before. There have been some changes in terms of teaching approaches or methodologies. Nonpublic schools are availing themselves of the services of teacher aides and social workers much more than before title I. A more extensive use of individualized reading and mathematics materials has changed the focus of content and instructional modes in nonpublic schools.

The nonpublic sector believes that title I programs appear to be productive. Teachers in nonpublic schools are using machines and materials which were not available or not being used before title I.

The field survey coordinator talked with officials from the publicschool sector at the local level, and the public sector plans to post test students this year and should have some hard data to go with the present subjective-type evaluations which they have been collecting. The diocesan superintendent of Catholic schools spoke of the evaluation problem generally and was not referring to the local situation. He feels that evaluation is a crucial problem in title I programs. He mentioned that evaluation, in terms of non-public-school participation, was extremely difficult since most non-public-school children were involved in programs which had been developed by the public sector. In other words, it is not possible to properly evaluate if non-publicschool personnel were involved after programs had been planned and focused by the public sector. Often the program did not relate directly to the most crucial needs of the nonpublic schools.

The public sector made no recommendations. The nonpublic sector would like to participate in building programs since lack of space is a major problem. The nonpublic sector would also like to add staff members in order to reduce class size. Teachers in nonpublic schools seem to be more aware of individualization of instruction as a result of title I programs. This awareness only serves to emphasize the lack of space and staff.

The nonpublic sector feels that the present programs are not focusing upon the most crucial problems in the non public elementary schools.

The diocesan superintendent of Catholic schools feels that the guidelines are restrictive in that the concept of defining and interpreting target areas is poor and is not adequately spelled out in the guidelines. Also, he feels that the guidelines should spell out the involvement of nonpublic schools in the planning and evaluation phases of projects. He suggests that letters of endorsement be required from nonpublic schools as part of project applications. This would insure involvement of nonpublic schools in planning and evaluation activities.

The field survey coordinator made the following comments:

1. Relationships between public and nonpublic schools in the local district and the degree of participation of nonpublic schools in title I programs are excellent. However, this is not a typical situation. First, the State has taken leadership in enacting legislation in this area.