In fiscal year 1966, there were nine separate projects under the general organization of three programs: 1. Model school program is located in nine core area schools where underachievement rate is high. These nine elementary schools serve a population of 6,016 children, grades k-8. Up to 90 percent of the children in some of these schools were below the city mean in achievement. Five of these schools have a heavy concentration of Negro children. This multifaceted program provide a wide variety of intensive services directed at raising the level of all the children in these schools. Because this program is directed at general elementary education in these nine schools with generally low-achievement levels, the nonpublic schools did not send children during the school day to the public school. Non-public school officials were informed of the prgoram and told them students were eligible to participate. During fiscal year 1966, nonpublic children participated in some extended day programs, in summer school and in library usage. 2. Elementary disadvantaged program emphasized the improvement of reading skills. During fiscal year 1966, nonpublic schools were informed about the reading development and library programs in the elementary schools. They were invited to make use of whatever programs and facilities that could be of service to students. Some nonpublic children participated; particularly, the afterschool library project which included individual assistance to pupils. The same invitation was extended for fiscal year 1967. Specialists will be offered to nonpublic schools for demonstrations and discussions. All the inservice classes will be open to nonpublic teachers. 3. Secondary disadvantaged program emphasis was placed on reading deficiency. Since all projects were of the in-school variety, nonpublic-school administrators did not foresee the possibility that their students would be able to participate in the total effort. Tentative ar rangements were made for specialists to visit nonpublic schools for demonstrations and discussion. The number of public and nonpublic children participating in the fiscal year 1967 program is estimated to be as follows: The fiscal year 1966 project took place during the summer of 1966, and the fiscal year 1967 project between September 1966 and August 1967. The maximum LEA grant for fiscal year 1967 was $1,649,130. Non-public-school children participated on public school grounds during the regular school day, after school, and during the summer. The orientation of nonpublic personnel was "post facto" in that it took place after plans had been made and projects were ready for im plementation. The LEA spent several months trying to interpret the Federal and State laws, and "even so, we (LEA) went too fast right at the beginning." The LEA planned for their own needs in the public schools, and then made these same programs available to the nonpublic schools. The assistant superintendent of the public schools explained that the "tendency (of non-public-school officials) is to demand what they want and to offer ideas that are not appropriate to title I." For example, he explained that a nonpublic elementary principal "feels she and her schools are badly treated if she does not get what she wants for her whole school, instead of limiting services to the educationally deprived. In the opinion of the assistant superintendent, "the non-public-school officials do not seem to grasp that title I is for the seriously poverty stricken and truly educationally deprived * * * title I is not generalized." A nonpublic principal described LEA's cooperation in these terms: "I can only assume that they (LEA) did not really intend to cooperate at all, but I have only come to the conclusion lately, after giving them plenty of favorable consideration." Non-public-school officials described the cooperation of local public-school principals, stating, "There seems to be a breakdown between the upper echelons and the school principals." A nonpublic principal characterized "the willingness in title I" as "minimal, even antagonistic," but this seems to be an over-statement colored by emotion as reflected in a public principal's description of nonpublic involvement, "We shared ideas together about what could and should be done. Some of these were discarded, others were used." The public-school sector felt local nonpublic officials displayed a great deal of interest in getting something for their schools, but showed "no grasp of the intent of title I." Nonpublic teachers did not participate in the in-service program for title I because, as the assistant superintendent stated, "We just did not think of it for the first year*** although we did the second." The public-school officials felt that local nonpublic officials "do not grasp what real poverty is, or what title I is for." The LEA tried to arrange a public school contact for each non-public-school principal, usually the principal of the nearest public school of the same level. No nonpublic high school qualified for title I, because the highest rate of disadvantaged student enrollment was about 5 percent of the total enrollment, as compared with a rate of 15 percent as the lowest rate among public high schools. Given the fact that the LEA officials initially planned for public school needs, project activities were scheduled at times and in places convenient for non-public-school children only secondarily. In particular, the summer project in which public school remedial teachers conducted the title I remedial reading program in the nonpublic schools resulted in no scheduling problem. Also, the extended day program, because it was held after school hours, fit the time needs of non-publicschool students. Programs during the regular school day resulted in scheduling conflicts. One factor which encouraged substantial participation by nonpublic schools was the "agitation" of an individual non-public-school principal with public school administrators. She made "constant phone calls to public school headquarters." Prior to title I the assistant superintendent commented that there were "some congenial relationship, but not many;" it was a "noninvolved mutual respect." Title I has "forced" the public and nonpublic schools into more cooperation and communication, and "we (public school personnel) have managed to keep the climate good." The public school officials "are trying to be patient with the "nonpublic-school principals' impatience, and gradually show them how we must operate under title I." A non-public-school principal described a "high state of tension" between the public and nonpublic schools, not at the principal level, but "higher up." There was a consensus among all officials that there has been an "improvement" in attitudinal relationships between the two sectors. The climate of communication is polite and congenial, but limited by need. Unless there is some definite need, the public and nonpublic school personnel do not communicate. Non-public-school officials were not involved in any phase of the evaluation fiscal year 1966 title I projects. They did not receive copies of the evaluation report. Non-public-school officials felt title I was not effective in meeting the needs of nonpublic children; "there has been almost no program,' except for remedial reading. The LEA title I coordinator observed a need for "more freely working lines of communication, and a more refined and more realistic definition of the 'disadvantaged child'." The assistant superintendent asserted that the "non-public-school principals would be better off if they could understand the true intent of the remedial and therapeutic kinds of programs intended by title I." Non-public-school principals vowed a need for "sound workers, teacher aides, and more remedial reading," and criticized the "unsuitable criteria" for inclusion in title I programs. Criticism from non-public-school personnel was directed in two areas: "unsatisfactory communication with public officials, and not being on any of the planning" of title I. This city is in the throes of a sort of crisis in its public-nonpublic school relationships. A principal of nonpublic school would appear to be one of the irritants in an already unstable situation. The administrator very nearly answered all the areas to be covered in the response to one question. She was not visibly angry or upset, but she said she has finally come to the conclusion that there is a conscious effort, and fairly determined one, not to include non-public-school children unless the public schools are compelled to do so. The public-school administrators may have been possibly dragging their feet somewhat in providing title I assistance to non-public-school children, but evidence also suggests that they are correct in their opinion that the public schools bear a much greater burden of seriously deprived "clientele" than do the nonpublic schools. This is supported by impressions from visiting schools and observing where parish and public-school boundaries fall in relation to these stricken and not-so-stricken areas. Communication is poor and colored by emotion. The administrative personnel of the non-public-school system do not seem to grasp the exact nature or explicit requirements of title I. Nothing is happening yet to improve the situation. CASE L-10 I. STATE CHARACTERISTICS This State is located on the west coast of the United States. The local school district is a large district and is situated in the north central sector of the State. The maximum amount authorized for this State for fiscal year 1966 was $77,886,285.51 with 1,205 school districts eligible to apply for funds. A total of 1,044 districts participated in the first year's program and received approval for $73,819,443 for 1,353 separate projects. Onehalf the State average current expenditures per pupil for 1963-64 was $252.67. TABLE 19.-SEA Basic State data, case No. L-10 Number of children eligible-- Number of public-school children participating_ Number of non-public-school children participating Eligible Participant ratio---- Expenditure per participant__ State expenditure (1963-64) rank___ 308, 253 258, 761 19, 817 10, 804 1:0.94 $255. 09 1 (2) 3 (9) Title I projects reached children of all ages, ranging from preschoolers to teenagers who had dropped out of high school. The majority of the activities were in the elementary schools, especially in the second, third, and fourth grades. In addition, title I activities often involved the parents of target area students. The State evaluation report for fiscal year 1966 states that the Federal requirement that non-public-school children be given an opportunity to participate in title I programs opened up channels of communication between public and non-public-school officials. About 8 percent of the children participating in title I activities were enrolled in nonpublic schools, most in parochial schools. The most successful activities were those which Federal regulations allowed to be implemented on non-public-school facilities. These were auxiliary services, such as health, psychological, and counseling programs, and remedial instruction, in which the title I teachers traveled to the nonpublic school for a specified time each day or week. Cultural enrichment activities were also common projects involving both public and non-public-school children. Federal legislation mandated that control over employees and equipment funded by title I was to remain in the public school district, which would provide the services to the children enrolled in nonpublic schools. The State guidelines for compensatory education state that LEA's shall provide compulsory education services for educationally deprived children enrolled in nonpublic elementary and secondary schools. Opportunities for these children to participate on the basis of designated target areas shall be comparable to those provided for children enrolled in public schools. The applicant school district was required to furnish evidence that it provided for the participation of non-public-school children who reside in the target areas. Such evidence was furnished by the public school district in its project application. The State director of title I reported that non-public-school officials did not review or endorse applications prior to their approval during fiscal year 1966. However, non-public-school officials were invited to assist in developing guidelines. In the second year of operation private and parochial schools participated in originating the guidelines. The public sector insisted on a committee with representation from different private and parochial schools on the advisory committee. Also, State public school officials required a joint signature by a non-public-school leader and an LEA official when a nonpublic school is in the district. The State title I director explained that Seventh Day Adventists were against Federal aid. Also, some private academies noted they had no eligible children. He further stated that communications were initiated and encouraged by the public sector since the nonpublic sector often was not aware of the benefits. Since the programs were for children and not institutions, public school officials made sure the children were identified, even if the institution failed to do so. At the present time there is understanding and agreement about the provisions of the act. Earlier there was disagreement because of misunderstanding of the intent of the law, and what services, what materials, et cetera, could be provided. In some counties questions on busing non-public-school children were raised. The State law, however, permits the busing of nonpublic-school children. In one county, allocation of funds was delayed pending a ruling by the Attorney General. One county delayed the first year, because it did not believe in Federal aid. There did not appear to be any major legal problem in this State. II. LOCAL CHARACTERISTICS The maximum amount authorized for the county for fiscal year 1966 was $2,376,361.35. The total number of eligible children in the county was 9,405. The maximum amount authorized for the local school system was $391,638.50, 1,588 students participated in the title I program. The public school officials at the local level reported that the district provided orientation activities for the nonpublic sector. Local public school principals explained that they visited Roman Catholic |