Second, the local community has the advantage of the Foundation funds for initiating programs for improving instruction. Third (and this is very important), the local public schools have built an extensive and effective organization to administer such programs.

2. Nonpublic schools in the local district (as in most communities) do not have an organization which is geared up to handle Federal programs. However, the public schools in the local district do have. an effective organization. Public-school personnel are very aggressive and are actively maintaining a high degree of involvement of nonpublic-school children.

3. This particular district stands out as one in which non-publicschool officials were extensively involved in planning projects. The non-public-school officials in the local situation met with public-school personnel and jointly determined what the focus of the program would be.

CASE L-7

I. STATE CHARACTERISTICS

This State is located in the Southwest section of the United States and borders on the Gulf of Mexico. The local school system is situated in the northeastern part of the State and is a large school system. The maximum amount of title I funds authorized for this State for fiscal year 1966 was $78,197,017.80. The total expended was $65,749,389. One half State average current expenditure per pupil for 1963-64 was $196.68.

TABLE 13.-SEA Basic State data, case No. L-7

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___.

397,585 397, 731

9, 659 25, 621 1:1.04 $151.84

6 (12)

8 (19)

The State annual evaluation report contains the following information. The State education agency strongly encouraged officials of public-school districts to work with officials of the nonpublic schools located in their districts and to plan for the participation in title I of educationally deprived children enrolled in nonpublic schools. Representatives of nonpublic schools were invited to participate in the 10 regional workshops conducted in September of 1965 so that they could learn about opportunities available to them under title I. At these workshops, it was emphasized that public-school officials were required to take the initiative in contracting non-public-school officials. Consultants from all divisions of the State education agency involved in assisting local school officials in planning their title I projects were informed of the necessity for involving nonpublic schools.

The project description in the application for participtaion in Title I called for a detailed description of the efforts made to include non-public-school officials in title I planning. This section of the application was monitored by a review consultant, and the extent of these efforts to involve non-public-school officials constituted one of the criteria for approval of the application.

84-775-67

In many instances of cooperation between public and nonpublic schools, committees or some school officials served as the communication link. They offered leadership for:

a. Briefing and orientation sessions concerning title I in the initial stages of planning,

b. Exchange of ideas concerning instructions, equipment, materials, and procedures for non-public-school participation, and

c. Workshops for inservice training of title I staff members, in some instances, conducted by public school officials specifically for non-public-school staff members. In almost all cases nonpublic-school personnel were invited to attend workshops under public school auspices.

In a few instances, public school officials purchased equipment and materials upon request of officials of nonpublic schools and made these items available to nonpublic schools on a circulating basis.

A very important type of involvement was the participation of officials of nonpublic schools in the Summer Institutes for Teachers of Educationally Deprived Children. Non-public-school teachers and administrators were enrolled in several of these institutes.

Although strong encouragement was given and a monitoring system for public school officials of nonpublic schools in the planning of title I program was devised, the effort was not always successful. Of the 1,133 school districts with title I projects, only 161 (14.2 percent) reported having non-public-school pupils residing within their geographic boundaries. Statements made in the annual evaluation reports of these school districts indicated that some had made only limited efforts to involve non-public-school officials in the initial planning. On the other hand, a number of the non-public-school officials who were contacted chose not to participate because:

a. They felt that they did no have enough educationally deprived children,

b. They were located too far away from the public school,

c. They were reluctant to sign civil rights compliance forms, or d. They did not wish to participate in federally-funded programs.

A few school districts reported that, while initial contacts and cooperation had been achieved, coordination gradually deteriorated as the year progressed.

A significant problem connected with the involvement of non-publicschool children was that, while the public-school district in which the child resided was charged with the responsibility for providing special activities and services for him under title I, a number of children resided in one district but attended a nonpublic school within the geographic boundaries of a neighboring public-school district. There was no adequate provision for the transfer of funds to the receiving districts in these cases. The regulations were merely permissive and did not prescribe or require an equitable procedure for such transfer of funds.

More than one-third (37.9 percent) of the 161 public-school districts with nonpublic schools within their boundaries reported that the nonpublic schools did not participate in their title I programs. Of the 100 remaining public-school districts having nonpublic schools, 47 took

advantage of title I services both during the regular school term and the summer period. These 47 districts accommodated more than threefourths of the non-public-school children who participated in title I programs in this State.

The State title I director has stated that prior to title I there was really no basis for a relationship between the public and private sector. Since title I, relationships have been wholesome and communications have improved greatly. This improvement in communications has been a joint effort. At times, both sectors have initiated communication and confrontation. Communication and cooperation have increased during the second year of the program.

Neither sector is aware of any legal problems which hinder the participation of non-public-school children in title I projects.

II. LOCAL CHARACTERISTICS

The maximum amount authorized for the county for fiscal year 1966 was $3,472,975.44 and the total number of eligible children in the county was 17,658. There are eight local school districts in the county.

The LEA evaluation to the State educational agency reports that in mid-April 1966, the administrative assistant, the coordinator of project affairs, and the assistant coordinator of Project Affect met with the diocesan superintendent of Catholic schools, and later met with the respective heads of other denominational groups to discuss specifics of the program and outline plans for contacting pupils in those schools designated as being eligible for title I funds. Immediately following this meeting, the coordinator and assistant coordinator of Project Affect visited each of the designated nonpublic schools to talk with the principal and to leave enrollment materials. Each principal was asked to contact children in his building, oversee the enrollment procedures, and return the enrollment cards to the project coordinator.

The LEA coordinator of title I states that the LEA met with the leadership of the diocesan schools, the principal of the Episcopal school and the Seventh Day Adventist Academy to inform them about the title I program and how it would be carried out. There were at least three conferences and frequent telephone contacts. The interest seemed to vary with the kind of school concerned. There seemed to be a great deal of interest expressed by the Catholic diocese and the Episcopal school principal. The Seventh Day Adventist school principal was very cautious. The major concerns were with what kind of supervision and what, if any, control of the curriculum would be used. Projects were planned, for the most part, without consultation with the nonpublic schools. Projects were planned in the best interests of

all students in the district, whether public or private. The projects were presented to the nonpublic schools for their acceptance.

A non-public-school official has stated that public-school officials planned the programs and then told the nonpublic sector what was available and invited them to participate. It was assumed that the needs of both sectors were the same.

Significant changes have taken place in the second year of operation. The Catholic schools have organized a Catholic conference and have appointed a very able director of education who has prepared forms to be filled out by principals of parochial schools. This information helps to present the types of programs most helpful in the parochial schools in the target area. The title I coordinator of the LEA looks them over for possibilities.

The State Catholic conference has sent its director of education all over the State to both the diocesan and the public-school districts to clarify the role of title I programs. This has made for a good working relationship among the systems and has served to clarify issues for both sectors. The parochial schools want to be involved in the planning, to plan for the needs of their students, and to meet these needs with well-designed programs.

Project affect was the first project. It took place in the summer of 1966. The program was carried out in the public schools of the district and private-school children were encouraged to attend the school nearest to their homes. This summer program was on a completely voluntary basis. Of 10,245 participants, 456 were enrolled in nonpublic schools. This summer project was conducted completely by publicschool personnel.

The nonpublic sector states that the reasons for minimal participation can be related to:

a. Lack of communication as to what is available,

b. Inappropriate nature of the program,

c. Non-public-school children were hesitant to go into the public schools because of lack of contact with them in the past.

Since this summer project many changes have taken place. There appears to be a much better understanding of the responsibility of the public schools for the non-public-school children. Also, the nonpublic schools are suggesting programs which will meet their particular needs. In the fall of 1966, several certified teachers were added to the nonpublic and public schools to work with deprived children and were paid from title I funds. A reading clinic has been established in a target area parochial school. The projects that are taking place during fiscal year 1967 are, in most cases, located in nonpublic as well as public schools. These projects exist within the regular school program and are not considered voluntary. They contain many innovations which came about because of the nature of the 1966 summer program. A summer readiness and preparation program will be held in three nonpublic schools during the summer, 1967.

Since Project Affect took place in summer, 1966, in the public schools, the evaluation also took place there. This evaluation and its report was not a mutual undertaking. However, a copy of the summer program evaluation was sent to the diocesan superintendent of schools. Evaluation procedures were hampered by a lack of baseline data on nonpublic-school children. All children who participated were tested at the

end of the summer program. However, parochial-school youngsters did not use the same pretest; therefore, the pretest and posttest sequence was not helpful. Complete test data on participating children were sent to the school concerned.

Other changes have taken place since the summer program in 1966. This year, fiscal year 1967, the nonpublic schools were asked to furnish tests and other measures of evaluation on programs taking place in their schools. Pretests have been given, and posttest will be used. The nonpublic schools will be responsible for evaluating the programs that are underway in their schools. Program evaluation will be a shared responsibility among the LEA, the diocesan superintendent of schools, and the individual school principals and teachers.

There has been an adaptation of testing procedures to tie in with the requirements of title I programs. School supplies are made available to those who cannot afford them otherwise. A large assortment of teaching materials and equipment has been placed in the nonpublic schools on a loan basis. Also, the open lines of communication have provided for the sharing of ideas.

The public sector believes that it would be better to amplify the programs now underway than to propose new programs. The strength and growth of the present programs should be stressed, rather than initiating additional innovative projects.

Funding and timing continue to be major problems. A sizable portion of the public-school budget is concerned with Federal programs. It is hard to project the future on funds that might not be forthcoming. The Government fiscal year and the academic school year do not lend themselves to good timing procedures as far as funds are concerned. The nonpublic sector recommends a program for the visually handicapped.

It reports that more definite guidelines from HEW and the State should be transmitted to public- and non-public-school administrators alike. The nonpublic sector would like some method established whereby the amount of funds to be spent on non-public-school children can be determined. It recommends that this predetermined sum of money be spent on projects initiated by and conducted in the nonpublic schools. They would like some idea of how much is available to be spent in projects that are most needed. They express the feeling, "You really have to have some idea of the amount of money you will have before you can plan realistically."

The nonpublic sector states that the shared-time concept is not the way to solve the problem. These programs need to exist side by side in both the public and nonpublic schools.

CASE L-8

I. STATE CHARACTERISTICS

This State is located in the Rocky Mountain area of the United States. The large school system for this case is situated in the north central part of the State. The maximum amount of funds authorized for the State for fiscal year 1966 under title I was $2,820,824. The amount of funds actually committed was $2,789,495. One-half the State average current expenditure per pupil for 1963-64 was $208.61.