Table 15.-SEA Basic State data, case No. L-8 Number of children eligible.. Number of public school children participating. Expenditure per participant.. Title I expenditure rank_ State expenditure (1963-64) rank---. 13, 522 16, 832 356 0 1:1.27 $162. 29 3 (8) 7 (17) The State evaluation to the USOE for fiscal year 1966 reports that the following steps were taken to encourage initiative in contacting non-public-school officials: (1) A statement documenting the contact, the reaction of the private-school personnel, and the nature of their future involvement was requested. (2) Private-school officials were involved in the regional conferences devoted to planning and implementing the program. A non-public-school official on the regional level stated that the problems of distance and time have discouraged participation of nonpublic-school children. This official also said that no information was given concerning the use of equipment involved in title I activities. Further, no services were offered in the nonpublic schools. There was no communication between the public and private sectors prior to title I, causing one non-public-school official to remark, "Before title I, I didn't know they (the public sector) existed. Since title I, there has been some communication." This same official believed that the problem of prejudice still exists and cites as an example the fact that summer school tuition was higher for non-public-school children. However, the problem was eventually resolved with the aid of a public school official at the State level. Finally, this same non-public-school official on the regional level has recommended that plans be made which allow for more involvement and suggests, as an example, the creation of workshops for leaders of public and nonpublic schools on the problems of communication and involvement. II. LOCAL CHARACTERISTICS The maximum amount of funds authorized for the county was $1,039,712.24. There are no data on the amount actually spent. There are four school districts in the county. Table 16.-LEA data, case No. L-8 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...... 2.921 2,159 189 0 1:0. 80 $259.00 2 (5) 7 (17) The LEA title I coordinator said that original planning was done. on a cooperative basis with non-public-school personnel. The Catholic schools appeared to be the most interested and participated most often. However, a local Lutheran school displaved high interest and the Hebrew day school showed slight interest. While all nonpublic schools in the target area were invited to become involved in planning projects, the Catholic schools were the only ones which participated. Local public-school principals stated that the planning of projects was done on a district basis and that they did not cooperatively plan projects with non-public-school principals in their local schools. Non-public-school officials at the local level reported that they attended a series of meetings to orient themselves with title I and its purposes and that public-school officials were gracious and cooperative and seemed willing to involve non-public-school officials in title I programs. Lutheran school officials said that they were involved in planning projects but that their school was too small to become involved in title I activities. The LEA coordinator stated that, during the schoolday, materials are available to teachers and children of the non-public-school sector. Non-public-school teachers could go to the instructional center and check out materials which they could use in non-public-school buildings. He felt that making materials available for non-public-school personnel for use in their own way encouraged participation. He further remarked that in-service programs did not encourage participation. The public-school office informed the non-public-school officials about available social workers and psychologists and indicated the procedures by which their services could be obtained. By mutual agreement, public-school personnel were assigned to nonpublic schools. Public-school principals at the local level said that they had no projects in their buildings for the non-public-school pupils. They were never encouraged to make contact with the nonpublic sector and never did. Materials were made available for the nonpublic sector; but each sector, the public and nonpublic, was on its own. Local non-public-school officials state that the materials which were made available were helpful, but other programs and activities, for example, workshops, teacher aides, et cetera, were conducted at too great a distance to be of any help to the nonpublic sector. The different schedules of the public and nonpublic created an insurmountable problem. A public-school official said that personnel services for testing eligible children were made available to the nonpublic schools. The LEA coordinator commented that the non-public-school authorities were not involved in the evaluation of projects and did not review these evaluations before they were submitted to the State department of education. Further, nonpublic schools did not receive copies of these evaluation reports. No data on non-public-school children who participated in title I projects have been obtained. One public-school official at the local level stated that title I activities were effective in that they provided supplementary books they haven't had and couldn't otherwise afford. Another public school official has stated that it is too early to judge the effectiveness of title I. Non-public-school officials at the local level mentioned that they had filled out forms as requested. The lack of materials was the greatest. need of the nonpublic sector. The nonpublic sector needs more equipment. Non-public-school officials were in doubt as to how much they had a right to ask for. Non-public-school officials are not aware of any changes in educational practices that have taken place as a result of involvement in title I activities. The LEA coordinator has recommended that future funds for title I activities should be appropriated in April or May and should be on a continuing basis. He stated that in the past not enough time was devoted to planning title I activities, and that many people were away during the planning period. One of the major problems appears to be that of trying to keep within the intent of the legislation. Public-school officials at the local level explain that a history of separation between the two sectors appears to be a major problem. Prior to title I there never was a need to cooperate and no machinery had been established for this purpose. They recommended that there be more frequent communication between the two sectors and that the leadership of the separate sectors be brought together in meeting and committee. They also recommend that non-public-school teachers meet with public-school teachers in workshop activities. The nonpublic sector believes that a lack of communication is a major problem. Officials of nonpublic schools do not have an adequate understanding of the provisions of title I. One non-public-school official would like the public-school sector to spell out more explicitly what materials and services the nonpublic schools can obtain under title I. This same official thinks that private schools need to get involved in State educational conventions and associations. Interested citizens at the local level indicated that, since the nonpublic sector comprises such a small percentage of the school population, they would prefer that major emphasis be placed on programs which benefit the public-school students. These interested citizens are of the opinion that the public at large has not been sufficiently informed concerning the purposes and activities of title I. CASE L-9 I. STATE CHARACTERISTICS Case L-9 is a large school system in the northwest section of a Pacific coast State. The maximum amount authorized to the State under title I in fiscal year 1966 was $8,166,813. One-half of the State average current expenditure per pupil amounted to $272.80. The SEA followed one of the optional Federal formulas in determining the amount of money available to each LEA. In union high schools and their districts the SEA gave four-thirteenths of the number of students in each elementary district to the union high school districts that feed into it, as apportionment of and for title I funds. The calculations of the 1963-64 State average expenditure per pupil did not include the number of non-public-school students. In fiscal year 1966, 84.4 percent of the maximum grant was expended; the figure for fiscal year 1967 was not available. The total number of children eligible for title I in the county was 8,816. The SEA stipulated that "each project *** include arrangements for the participation of children enrolled in private schools consistent with the number of educationally deprived children residing in the project area and attending such schools." The State guidelines maintained that school districts mounting 1966-67 projects should include in the planning, administrators of nonpublic schools who have children. residing in the project area. Mobile equipment can be temporarily loaned to nonpublic schools. If required for the successful operation of project activities, title I personnel may provide special services on the non-public-school premises. Such services must be designed to meet the special needs of educationally deprived children. The project could provide for transportation of non-public-school children to a public school participating in project activities. Opportunities for participation in title I projects by non-publicschool children must be substantially comparable to those provided for children in public schools. The SEA guidelines and other SEA correspondence stressed the importance of planning implementation of programs to include nonpublic-school children. It was required that a statement of previous contact between the LEA and the nonpublic schools be included in the application. The State constitution does not prohibit the use of title I funds to non-public-school children in any form. There were no questions pertaining to the participation of non-public-school children in title I which required a ruling by the Attorney General. (There was a decision relating to title I.) One general title I consultant, the title I director, and special consultant for reading, language arts, and so forth, were involved in the review and approval of the fiscal year 1966 and 1967 applications. Chief nonpublic officials were not invited to participate in the review or endorsement of applications prior to approval by the SEA. The State advisory committee for title I did include a Lutheran representative, and the superintendent of the Catholic schools. In general, the SEA assured non-public-school officials that the State authorities would help nonpublic schools in "troublesome districts." The SEA insists, as title I policy, that the LEA document their ef forts to include non-public-school children. The title I director explained that the community in this case study "has been slow to implement this part of their program, and they seem to be having a little trouble communicating with each other. In other parts of the State, things seem to be working fairly smoothly." The archdiocesan superintendent explained that "in many other districts over the State, there is a better spirit of cooperation and much more concrete cooperation, but even in (the case-study community) the spirit is friendly." The title I director described the relationship between the SEA and chief nonpublic officials as "excellent." Title I has increased the amount of communication, but has not brought about a change of climate. Non-public-school officials also support this statement. The SEA initiated communication with the nonpublic sector and personnel in the State office communicate with the local public school authorities, and they, in turn, were asked to contact the local nonpublic schools. It was common opinion among both State public and non-publicschool officials that there is a mutual respect for competency in matters relative to title I, but the title I director expressed this reservation: "nonpublic officials tend to request specific kinds of participation, to enhance the overall program rather than things which are remedial and therapeutic for the students who are academically and educa tionally disadvantaged because of poverty *** but then so do public school administrators, for that matter." No project in the State featured dual enrollment, shared time, or facilities, and so forth, "but arrangements are in the works." There has been no involvement for the nonpublic sector, in any segment of title I evaluative process. Since title I has only been in operation from the summer of fiscal year 1966, there has not been enough involvement to evaluate. To better meet the needs of the non-public-school children, the archdiocesan superintendent suggested remedial and therapeutic physical education. Also, he suggested psychiatric social workers. A major problem in carrying out the intent of title I is "the fear of the public school district that public school children will suffer if nonpublic children are given any programs." The archdiocesan superintendent offered a general solution to a lack of non-public-school involvement in title I, "repeated insistence from HEW that all children can be served." Also, "a statement from the nonpublic schools as to whether they feel they have received the help they deserved under the law, as a part of the LEA title I application." II. LOCAL CHARACTERISTICS This LEA is one of 12 LEA's in the county. The maximum county allotment for fiscal year 1966 was $2,405,004.80. TABLE 18.-LEA data, case No. L-9 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--- 6, 310 16, 418 418 0 1:2.67 $103.00 9 (25) 2 (4) |