The multiservice project took place during the regular schoolday in the public schools. The expense of transportation and the time spent in travel accounted for the decision on the part of non-public-school administrators not to participate in this activity. Generally speaking, the necessity of travel to public schools greatly minimized non-publicschool participation. The degree of non-public-school participation in the project for handicapped children is not clear. The fiscal year 1966 evaluation report stated that 62 non-public-school children participated in this project. The fiscal year 1967 program is a continuation of the fiscal year 1966 program with an additional activity; namely, an inservice training program for 90 public school teachers. Dialog has strengthened communication between the two systems. Public school officials believe that the nonpublic schools have a good, but restricted, program and a qualified professional staff. The nonpublic schools are judged by public school officials as being weak in providing for the vocational needs of their students. The non-publicschool personnel believe that the needs of the majority of youngsters in the public schools are very different from theirs, and that the greatest need for title I funds is in the 25 public schools in the poverty area. Participation has in no way been hampered by legal involvement. Principals of both sectors were asked to submit test data, anecdotal records, and informal observations as evidence of pupil growth resulting from title I programs. The non-public-school principals received test scores and other data about children who had participated in the remedial program during the second half of the 1965-66 school year and during the summer sessions. The involvement of a small number of non-public-school children did not lead to any curriculum changes in the nonpublic schools. The fiscal year 1966 evaluation report was written by the LEA coordinator and his staff. Principals of both systems saw the completed report but did not receive copies of it. LEA officials indicated a need for additional funds in order to provide for the needs of a greater number of eligible children. Other recommendations for future projects focused on: (1) psychological services, (2) special assistance for slow learners, (3) after school study centers, (4) remedial mathematics classes, and (5) general health. service programs. Two interested citizens, a member of the local school board and the director of county welfare, recommended a greater diversity of summer programs staffed by experienced personnel. Both of these people firmly believed that all eligible children are entitled to title I assistance regardless of the type of school they attend. CASE M-4 I. STATE CHARACTERISTICS Case M-4 describes a local school disrtict located in an Eastern State. The organization at the local level mirrors that of the State level. Three major types of schools exist; namely, the publicly supported integrated schools, secular private segregated schools, and nonpublic church-related schools. Based on a per pupil average of $179.10, the maximum allotment for fiscal year 1966 was $30,619,294.20. Funds actually committed during that period totaled $20,889,005. TABLE 27.-SEA Basic State data, case No. M-4 Number of children eligible___ Number of public school children participating--. Number of non-public-school children participating. Number of nonschool participants__. Expenditure per participant_. 170, 962 118,935 688 Title I expenditure rank. State expenditure (1963-64) rank_. 3, 186 1:0. 70 $175. 63 3(5) 8(24) The State requires that LEA's contact private school personnel within the district and offer them any services for which they are eligible. Such srevice as loans of equipment, inservice training, special testing, and guidance services have been accepted. The responsibility for the programs has been entirely with the LEA's. During the summer, there was a reasonable ratio of attendance of private school children ir public school programs. Although there were not "cooperative" projects in this State, public school officials experienced no particular difficulty with eligible private schools since most secular private schools refused to consider the services available under Public Law 89-10, title I. Public school officials suspect this lack of interest may be due in part to the reluctance of private school administrators to become involved with Federal aid to education. Furthermore, many private schools have not qualified by filing 441-C in connection with civil rights legislation. It appears that State law might have played a significant role in inhibiting the participation of non-public-school children. Private school children eligible to participate in title I activities are prevented by law from being transported in public school buses to a public school for participation. Further, a title I employee cannot legally teach in a private school. Services for the private school child would be provided in the public school. In addition, the State uses a tuition grant for parents who do not desire to send their children to an integrated public school. This grant permits these children to attend nonpublic schools. Such grants, however, were not extended to the parents of children who attended Catholic schools. Non-public-school officials at the regional and/or State level felt that the nonpublic schools were invited to participate in title I program which were geared to meet the needs of the public schools. One major problem seems to be that the needs of the nonpublic schools are not being given equal consideration with the needs of the public schools. Furthermore, the nonpublic schools were invited to participate only after the projects had been completely setup. While public school officials seemed to be willing to allow the nonpublic schools to participate in programs already planned, they did not seem willing to allow the non-public-school personnel to help in designing the projects. Finally, non-public-school officials are of the opinion that the main reason for not including a greater number of eligible non-public-school children in title I projects appeared to be the misinterpretation or the rigid interpretation of the law. II. LOCAL CHARACTERISTICS The maximum LEA allotment under title I for fiscal year 1966 was $519,927.30. The total amount expended during that same fiscal year was $357,460.91. Three projects were funded: (1) selected reading readiness, (2) an academic, cultural, and educational enrichment program, (3) a dynamic summer program for deprived, mentally retarded children. TABLE 28.-LEA data, case No. M-4 Number of children eligible. Number of public school children participating. Eligible Participant ratio.-. Expenditure per participant Title I expenditure rank.. State expenditure (1963-64) rank------ 2,903 1,799 1 0 1:0.62 $200.02 4(9) 8 (24) Public school officials at the local level felt that the Roman Catholic parochial schools showed the most interest in participating in title I activities. However, as only one nonpublic school qualified, they assumed there was little need to involve non-public-school officials in planning title I projects. Also, because of the small number of eligible non-public-school pupils, communication between public and non-public-school officials was rather infrequent, though, what did occur appeared to be fruitful. Public school officials are of the opinion that the income limitation does not allow for any great degree of participation of non-public-school children. A non-public-school official at the local level stated that the needs of the non-public-school children were not met because their needs. were not included in the planning process. In addition, there has been very little communication between public and non-public-school officials regarding title I and seldom, if ever, do public school officials initiate contacts. It appears that the times and places scheduled for title I activities, and also the lack of transportation, limited to some degree the participaion of non-public-school children. Public school officials felt that only direct aid to non-public-school children could better meet the needs of these children. They further stated that nonpublic schools should be provided with regular classroom teacher aides and that teaching-aid materials should be made available to eligible nonpublic schools. Non-public-school officials recommended that they be invited to participate in the planning of future projects so that the needs of non-public-school children will be given equal consideration with the needs of public school children. They would also like to have mobile units made accessible to nonpublic schools; visual equipment housed in nonpublic schools; special teachers made available to nonpublic schools in the areas of guidance, art, science, reading, and free educational TV and radio. The field survey coordinator made the following observations: Although there are a number of sectarian schools located in the local school district, the only nonpublic school participating in any manner whatsoever was a Catholic parochial school. Even in this case the number participating was at best minimal. According to the public school personnel, every means was used 84-775-67- 6 to acquaint the schools with the potential invested in title I projects. Many of the secular schools did not even attempt to qualify. Only the Catholic schools actively applied and then only a small number of students qualified according to the rigid interpretation of the requirements of title I legislation. The minimum wage limit of $2,000 was used time and time again to explain the small number of eligible nonpublic students. He went on to report: While cooperation was expressed to a degree between both systems, it was evident that it was of a token nature. There was a degree of respect for each other as professional educators. Knowledge of title I in its local application was confined essentially to the coordinator and the director of instruction on the local level. Nonpublic personnel seemed to be interpreting it (guidelines for title I) broadly. The interpretation was very rigid and traditional. On the State level and the local level there has been an attempt to inform the administrators, but it does not seem to have worked. There appears to have been a definite improvement in the relations between the public and the nonpublic school systems as a result of title I projects. CASE NO. M-5 I. STATE CHARACTERISTICS The county school system described in this case report is located in a North Central State. The State's maximum ESEA title I allotment for fiscal year 1966 was $18.378,029.01. Half the State average current expenditure per pupil for 1963-64 was $230.01. Basic descriptive data for the State are summarized in table 29. TABLE 29.-SEA Basic State data, case No. M‐5 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____ 79, 901 115, 904 16. 233 0 1:1.65 $131. 10 6 (14) 6 (14) Steps were taken by the State educational agency to develop initiative by local administrators in contacting non-public-school officials. The SEA made attempts to encourage LEA personnel, from the very beginning of the planning of title I, to communicate and work with eligible non-public-school administrators of schools enrolling a stipulated percentage of children from low income families. These steps were reemphasized through meetings, private conversations, bulletins, and letters to the LEA coordinator. A State official has declared that in cases where non-public-school children were not included in project applications, the State department required that adjustments be made in the proposals. This same official said that title I has increased the degree of communication between public and non-publicschool administrators. Almost all communications have been initiated. by the public sector, but most of the response of the private sector has been immediate and positive. He also mentioned that there seemed to be a feeling that private education has not always been of high quality. Title I activities have had a positive effect. The question of nonpublic participation has been raised with legal authorities, and a ruling is pending. However, the State attorney general appears to be in no great hurry to settle this matter. Meanwhile, the State department of education, local educational agencies, local public and non-public-school personnel are proceeding with title I activities. Only one pressure group seems to be operating. Its members are advocating more and more direct involvement of the nonpublic sector in title I activities. This group would like to write projects and to receive funds directly rather than indirectly through the public school system. A few districts did not submit applications for title I funds. Some of these local school boards and/or administrators were hesitant about applying because they did not have the resources to satisfactorily implement potential projects. Two or three districts did not submit proposals because those responsible for such decisions harbored negative feelings toward Federal aid. Some of the districts that did not apply for title I funds in fiscal year 1966 submitted proposals in fiscal year 1967. A manpower shortage of professional educators throughout the State created a serious problem. Approved projects could not be implemented, in some cases. Others could only be implemented on a limited basis. A lack of knowledge of how to teach the educationally deprived created frustration throughout the State. Problems experienced in developing and implementing joint projects were (1) non-public-school personnel demanded services in a greater proportion than their children should receive, (2) some nonpublic-school principals did not want to identify the residences of the children they deemed eligible for title I activities, (3) the superintendent of the non-public-school system communicated with agencies or persons other than the SEA and secured information which was not appropriate for this State, (4) irresponsible newspaper reporters misinformed the public about title I legislation and about local title I activities. This misinformation was carried in the daily newspaper and in the diocesan weekly newspaper. A recommendation for revising the legislation regarding public and nonpublic participation is to make it mandatory for the nonpublic school to furnish public school officials with the names, places of residence, and special educational needs of eligible non-public-school children. The field survey coordinator did not interview any non-publicschool officials at the State or regional levels. II. LOCAL CHARACTERISTICS The maximum LEA title I allotment for fiscal year 1966 was $493,371.45. Almost the entire amount was expended. Approximately 85 percent of the fiscal year 1966 maximum grant was authorized in fiscal year 1967. |