II. LOCAL CHARACTERISTICS

The title I project in this community was a remedial program to serve children with reading problems. A working committee was appointed by the LEA to plan and design the title I program; no nonpublic-school personnel were involved on this committee, but they were consulted. There were four parochial schools located in the attendance area for the project. In these schools, the percentage of pupils whose parents earned $2,000 and under per year was too low for total inclusion in the project.

TABLE 24.-LEA data, case No. M-2

Number of children eligible___

Number of public schoolchildren 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....

870

525

1:0.60

$394. 48

2(2)

3(8)

The diocesan superintendent appointed two Catholic school principals to work with the LEA on the title I proposal. They were involved in the decision to exclude nonpublic children from the title I program. The LEA officials and the two Catholic principals decided to "keep the lines of communication open and to further discuss the feasibility of offering remedial reading services to the few pupils who might benefit." There were no other private schools in the attendance area. The policy relative to nonpublic schools in fiscal year 1966 was repeated for fiscal year 1967.

The maximum basic grant for fiscal year 1966 was $221,064.29. The funds approved for the project were $207,100.

The fiscal year 1966 project was carried out between January 1966, and August 31, 1966. In fiscal year 1967 the project took place from September 1966 to June 1967.

The LEA title I coordinator requested the appointment of a parochial school coordinator in the initial planning stages of title I activity, and a Catholic school principal was appointed by the diocesan office of education. The title I coordinator has sought information from the diocesan superintendent's office and has provided that office with notices regarding all developments under title I, but there was no "followup" by the diocesan superintendent. The title I coordinator was and is reluctant to contact local parochial seshools without authority from the diocesan superintendent.

Parochial school personnel were not involved in the planning of title I projects, because it was determined by consultation with the parochial school principals that the number of eligible children in parochial schools were very small. The parochial-school consultants attended the first planning session, and later, in conference with one of these representatives, it was determined that there were not enough eligible parochial school students to make an attempt at a coordinated program. Information regarding the number of eligible children in parochial schools was requested from the parochial school representative during the preparation of the title I proposals, but no estimate of numbers was made available. Parochial-school personnel were not

included in inservice training programs because of their nonparticipation in the projects. The LEA title I coordinator believes that nonpublic-school teachers receiving pupils who have attended summer programs under title I are probably not well informed about the programs. Information is provided by the LEA, but everything must be directed through the office of the diocesan superintendent and "the communication chain seems to break down at this point; word does not reach the individual schools, much less individual teachers."

It was the consensus of public-school officials that the nonpublic schools showed little interest in involvement in title I, except for the summer program.

The assistant superintendent for the diocesan schools made the judgment that there were too few non-public-school students to warrant inclusion in title I. He explained that no information regarding number of eligible parochial schoolchildren was sought for the diocesan superintendent's office, but this is in conflict with the testimony of the title I LEA coordinator, and possibly reflects a lack of communication within the diocesan office of education.

The Catholic school liaison officer for Federal programs was not aware of any participation by non-public-school personnel in the planning phase, or of any consultation with parochial school officials. She had not been contacted by either the LEA or the diocesan office about the number of nonpublic students that might have been eligible for participation.

No orientation to title I projects was conducted by the LEA for non-public-school teachers, and no instructions were received by the non-public-school teachers from diocesan or community authorities indicating that parochial school personnel might seek such orientation. Parochial school pupils have been involved only in the summer programs under title I. Announcement of this program was made by mailing, directly to the parochial schools, the same bulletin that was used to describe the program to public schoolteachers and principals. The title I coordinator's experience led him to conclude that direct communication with individual parochial schools fosters the participation of their students in programs, while indirect communication through the diocesan superintendent's office impedes such participation. No title I activities in this LEA were carried out in nonpublic schools, and all special services provided by public-school personnel were restricted to public schools. The operational pattern did not differ from academic year to summer program.

The schedule of the title I program was such that non-public-school students could have participated without much difficulty, but with the exception of the summer program, there was no participation.

Cooperative efforts with parochial school principals and supervisors would not present any particular difficulties in the opinion of the LEA title I coordinator, but when everything has to be channeled through the diocesan office, the cooperative efforts never seem to get underway. Title I has not changed this situation in any way, "nor is it a matter of the individual proclivities of any particular diocesan superintendent; communication just bogs down."

A non-public-school principal stated the opinion that although parochial school personnel believe that the public schools offer pro

grams of high quality, they see no evidence on the part of public school personnel of any desire for joint programs. The only communication of which she was aware was the summer school announcement, and then she was unsure that it was related to title I. This instance brings into question the quality of communication within the parochial-school system, as well as the nature of contacts between public school and non-public-school administrative officials.

The attitude of some pastors, that participation in federally financed programs will eventually lead to Federal imposition, was a significant deterrent in certain instances.

Non-public-school personnel were not involved in any way in project evaluations. Advisory copies of the evaluation report were sent to the diocesan superintendent of schools. Since parochial-school pupils were not involved, there was no reason for review of the report by the diocesan superintendent. In answer to a question concerning the effectiveness of the title I projects in meeting the needs of non-publicschool students, the LEA title I coordinator explained that "we have no choice but to accept the conclusion of their designated representative that the needs (of nonpublic students) in this particular regard are minimal.”

A public school principal observed that the inclusion of nonpublic school children in title I projects "was not automatic, and their leadership did not push for inclusion."

The LEA title I coordinator saw communication as the major problem, and the main cause of this difficulty as the remoteness of the diocesan superintendent, and the fact that he has so many school districts, with which he must deal. If it were possible for the public schools to work directly with parochial schools in the districts, cooperative efforts could be initiated. The LEA coordinator felt that the initiative for making this possible must come from the diocesan superintendent.

The public schools are not accustomed to thinking in terms of the needs of the non-public-school children, and the parochial schools do not seem anxious to get involved in any kind of coordinated program, except for the summer program. The tradition of coordinated programs does not exist in this community, and the parochial-school officials have not exercised any initiative to establish such programs. If a solution is to be found it will have to begin with some formal structure involving active school people from both systems.

CASE M-3

I. STATE CHARACTERISTICS

Case M-3 is a medium-size local school system, the only LEA in the county. The county is located on the eastern border of a Southern Atlantic State. All 159 counties of the State were eligible for title I funds. A total of 239,789 eligible children authorized a maximum basic grant of $37,342,340.97 for fiscal year 1966. Approximately 85 percent of this amount was allocated in fiscal year 1967. One-half the State average current expenditure per pupil 1963-64 was $155.73.

TABLE 25.-SEA Basic State data, case No M-3

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_-.

239, 789 388, 084 1,316 7, 481 1:1.66

$94.09

9(25)

10 (27)

Article 1 of the State constitution specifies that no money shall ever be taken from the public treasury, directly or indirectly, in aid of any church, sect, or denomination of religionists, or of any sectarian institution.

However, article 8, section 2, states:

Notwithstanding any other provision of this constitution, the general assembly may by law provide for grants of State, county, or municipal funds to citizens of the State for educational purposes, in discharge of all obligations of the State to provide adequate education for its citizens.

There is no provision for free transportation for schoolchildren attending nonpublic schools.

Shortly after the enactment of Public Law 89-10, the State department of education began rendering assistance to LEA's for the planning of the implementation of all parts of the act, especially title I. Statewide and semistatewide meetings of LEA superintendents were conducted by State department of education personnel. Regional meetings in each of the 10 congressional districts were attended by LEA superientendents and anyone else whom they wished to invite. The diocesan superintendent of one or two dioceses in this State did not attend and was not invited to attend any of these meetings.

The fiscal year 1966 SEA evaluation supplied the following information: (a) The necessity for including eligible non-public-school children in projects has been emphasized to local school administrators through personal contacts and group conferences as well as through printed copies of the "Act, Regulations, and Guidelines." The description of each project must contain information relative to the nature and extent of the involvement of non-public-school children in the activity or service. If non-public-school children are not to participate, the reason for nonparticipation must be satisfactorily explained before the project is approved, (b) cooperation between the two sectors on title I projects has been good. Perhaps the greatest amount of participation by non-public-school children was in summer projects which provided remedial instruction, (e) no major problems have arisen in developing and implementing title I projects involving both public and non-public-school children. In a few instances it has been rather difficult to get public school officials to actively involve non-publicschool officials in the planning stage rather than informing them about what has been done after the planning had been completed.

Since projects are administered by public school officials, direct contacts with public school pupils and their parents are more easily made than with non-public-school children and their parents. Public school pupils are more readily accessible for such activities as surveys, screening tests, and the dissemination of project information directly into the homes.

The first contacts concerning title I were made when LEA coordinators of title I programs for several local school systems met with the diocesan superintendent to inform him of projects which had been submitted for approval.

The State title I director cited two reasons why non-public-school children were not included in approved projects: (1) No non-publicschool children living in target areas, and (2) non-public-school officials did not believe their children needed the aid.

There have been no legal involvements at the State level. Two LEA's failed to file acceptable applications prior to the May 2, 1966, deadline. Neither one centered around the church-state issue.

II. LOCAL CHARACTERISTICS

The State is divided into 159 counties and into 195 LEA's. In the majority of cases the LEA is an autonomous administrative unit within the country. This is true of the LEA selected for this study. With half the State average per-pupil expenditure fixed at $155.73 with 55.554 eligible children, the LEA was alloted a maximum grant of $864.924.42 for fiscal year 1966 and $750,080.00 for fiscal year 1967; 25 of the 49 public schools in this district were situated in poverty areas and enrolled from 17 percent to 88 percent of the eligible children.

Three projects were funded for fiscal year 1966: (1) From January to June of 1966 a remedial reading program was in operation for grades 1-3. The summer program included activities for grades 1-7, (2) a multiservice program which consisted of food services, educational TV, physical education classes, and music for grades 1-12. Eligible students in grades 8-12 could take advantage of industrial arts and homemaking activities, and (3) services for handicapped children.

Initial contacts between the public and nonpublic sectors were made by the LEA coordinator. He spoke with non-public-school principals and solicited suggestions for projects which would meet the needs of eligible non-public-school children. Form letters were mailed to nonpublic-school principals informing them of projects which were being submitted for funding. Several principals acknowledged the letter and replied that they would not participate because they had very few children in need of the program.

Shared services and shared facilities were factors which contributed to the satisfactory participation of eligible non-public-school children in the remedial reading program. Some audiovisual equipment was made available to non-public-school personnel. This type of participation circumvented the problems which could have been created if busing had been required.