Page images
PDF
EPUB

Non-public-school children participated in each of the four projects conducted on the local level. The local evaluation to the State reads, in part, as follows:

Cooperation with nonpublic schools has been rewarding. Representatives of nonpublic schools were involved in the original planning phase of title I projects. The same bulletins of information and personal contact with school personnel were employed in disseminating information on the implementation of the projects with nonpublic schools as with public schools. Participation of nonpublic pupils in the summer projects was excellent. A teacher's individual appraisal, in writing, of the achievements, attitudes, interests, and talents of each student was sent to the non-public-school principals for use in followup procedures.

When interviewed by the field survey coordinator, one non-publicschool official at the local level made the following comments:

Public school officials indicated a willingness to involve nonpublic schools in Federal programs. Non-public-school officials were not involved in the actual planning of the specific projects and were not consulted in the determination of the focus of projects. Public school officials did not ask for information regarding students who might participate in title I projects. Non-public-school personnel did identify students who were eligible to participate in the projects. Non-public-school teachers did have an opportunity to participate in inservice programs.

This same individual indicated that there is a move in the nonpublic sector to provide a position for a person who might serve as a coordinator of Federal programs. He views this as a very positive

move.

The field survey coordinator has reported his general perceptions of the local title I program as follows:

This program has been planned and implemented from the central office. As a result, only one person has an adequate overview of the total program. Principals and even project directors are not at all familiar with the title I guidelines and were hard pressed to give specific reactions to questions regarding the focus or goals of the program. These people had little information regarding the degree of participation of non-public-school children in title I projects.

There are definite organizational problems in the nonpublic sector. The diocesan superintendent, after conferring with State department personnel, determined that the situation called for local rather than State or regional direction. Thus the local non-public-school principal was designated as the contact person for Federal programs. This principal, however, has a full-time job running an understaffed high school and does not have the same authority over principals which a local superintendent of schools would have. This is not to say that the various non-public-school principals do not cooperate but rather that the high school principal has been given the responsibility for coordinating Federal programs without the authority to do so.

The nonpublic high school principal mentioned that there had been talk regarding the appointment of a diocesan coordinator of Federal programs. While this would certainly be better than the present situation, it would still leave much to be desired. Attempting to coordinate programs in one city of the State from a central office in another city of the State would present a number of problems. Such problems would, of course, be compounded by attempts to coordinate programs in other counties and cities located within the diocesan boundaries.

The field survey coordinator went on to report:

A word of explanation as to why I talked only to the high school principal is in order at this point. When my trip was planned, a series of meetings were set up with several non-public-school people. However, the high school principal met with the elementary school principals, and they decided that they should not meet with me because they were not involved in title I programs. In fact, he wished to talk to me primarily to find out why nonpublic schools in the local

area were not participating in title I programs. Obviously, there seemed to be a severe breakdown in communications between the public and nonpublic sectors. During the first half of the interview with the nonpublic high school principal, I told him how nonpublic schools at the local level were participating. Needless to say, this was somewhat ridiculous. Non-public-school personnel were under the impression that they were participating under title II of ESEA.

If it is fair to say that most public school personnel, with the exception of one or two people from the central office people, are not familiar with ESEA guidelines and purposes, then it is also fair to say that non-public-school personnel are almost totally ignorant of the specifics of these programs.

CASE M-6

I. STATE CHARACTERISTICS

Case M-6 involves a medium school system of a Midwest State located in the Central United States below the Great Lakes. The maximum amount authorized to this State under title I in fiscal year 1966 was $61,095,946.88. The total number of public school students participating in title I on a statewide basis was not available, but the total number of nonpublic students was given as 124,927 (duplicated count).

TABLE 31.-SEA Basic State data, case No. M-6

[blocks in formation]

The basic allocation was made on a county basis, and $265.91 was allocated for each child qualifying under title I. An arrangement was worked out to allow for school districts that overlapped county boundaries. Non-public-school children were not figured in the SEA calculations; the State has no information concerning expenditure in nonpublic schools. In fiscal year 1966, about 66 percent of the State maximum basic grant was used.

[blocks in formation]

The total number of children eligible for title I in the county was 2.282.

The SEA, before it approved a grant, determined that the LEA had provided sufficient opportunities for the participation of educationally deprived children residing in the district who are enrolled in nonpublic schools. Non-public-school participation was encouraged by the SEA through guidelines, local conferences, and State meetings with publicand non-public-school administrators at the State level. The SEA officially recommends "that planning committees be set up (at the local

level) including parochial school representatives, in advance of all project writing."

The State was divided on a county line basis into nine regions. A title I regional supervisor was assigned to service each of these regions, with the exception of the large metropolitan areas where two supervisors were assigned. The title I staff held seven regional workshops covering the State in the summer of 1965.

The needs identified on a statewide basis: reading, language arts, study skills, and library use. Reading improvement programs accounted for approximately 70 percent of the compensatory educational activities in this State.

The most serious deterrent in the development of an effective and efficient statewide program for title I was the acute shortage of personnel: administrative, general teaching, and specialists.

Article VIII, section 3, of the State constitution prohibits public school employees from teaching on the premises of a nonpublic school. Mobile educational equipment may be placed on the premises of a nonpublic school on a loan basis. No wiring, construction, or attached fixtures can be approved. Work-study programs for non-public-school students have not been approved in this State.

The State holds that mobile units are legal as long as they are used for both public and nonpublic schools. A unit may not serve nonpublic schools only.

Catholic officials are disturbed by a ruling barring services and equipment from nonpublic premises. The diocesan director of Catholic schools testified to this opinion, and Catholic officials "wonder why he (the Attorney General) has not ruled on the question." There is a popular conception, especially on the local level, that the Attorney General made this ruling. This is not true; it was a ruling of the legal counsel to the SEA.

The State director of title I and six regional supervisors for the SEA were involved in the review and approval of fiscal year 1966 applications. There were changes in the process for fiscal year 1967, but non-public-school officials did not participate in the reviewing process.

All LEA project applications were studied for the inclusion of nonpublic-school students. In areas where the SEA has received complaints from non-public-school leaders, the SEA has held "conferences both with people from public and nonpublic schools to iron out the problems.

A regional non-public-school official considered title I information from the State level incomplete and unclear. The diocesan director for Catholic schools claimed: "The State never makes completely clear exactly what is permissible and what is not, and reasons for decisions are not always given."

Before 1964 there was little or no contact between public- and nonpublic-school officials at the State level. Since 1964, there has been much more extensive involvement. The relationship between the public and nonpublic educators was described as "generally good" by a SEA official. The non-public-school officials felt that the "State is becoming

a little more helpful and informative as time goes on." The appointment of one individual to the SEA title I office, completely in charge of the relationship with nonpublic schools, is presently being considered by the SEA. This is a good and constructive step as far as the non-public-school officials are concerned. As for the present situation, non-public-school officials have been successful in getting various kinds of information from the SEA. There is some suggestion that Catholic educators feel "brushed off" by the State officials. Catholic officials are convinced that the SEA personnel do not understand the Catholic school system.

The public sector initiated communications with nonpublic officials at the State level, but public school officials at the local level are more willing to involve nonpublic officials in the title I program than those at the State level. Information has been sent to non-public-school officials intermittently, but according to the diocesan director, “We have had to take the initiative on several occasions in seeking necessary information, and our efforts have frequently been unsuccessful."

The LEA involved in this case, according to the Catholic diocesan director, does not reflect the typical interaction between public- and non-public-school personnel in this region. Outside this county, the picture in the diocese is much less favorable, especially in some rural areas. In some areas, nonpublic schools have been completely ignored. The diocesan director maintained that the State ruling on nonpublic-school children's participation in title I projects is the major problem in carrying out the intent of the law. Other criticisms were directed to a lack of clear information from the SEA, and a tendency to put too much title I money into administrative salaries, and not enough into the title I programs themselves.

II. LOCAL CHARACTERISTICS

The title I program is essentially composed of reading, art, speech therapy, music, corrective physical education, and cultural enrichment aspects, with additional psychological, social, counseling, and diag nostic services available. The program was designed to improve the educational and cultural aspirations of individuals residing in an area of heavy concentration of social problems and poverty. The main objective of the project was to change the self concepts and raise the levels of aspiration of the individuals within the project area. This target area included the major concentration of disadvantaged children, although other "pockets" of disadvantaged children are to be found in other parts of the community.

The school district contains schools of very widely separated socioeconomic backgrounds. About 25 percent of the school population is in the project area where most of the children fall within the definition of culturally deprived. The severe learning problems in the county are predominantly confined within the project area. The title I program for fiscal year 1967 was a continuation of the fiscal year 1966 program with little or no change.

The title I program was focused on 13 schools in the district, including four nonpublic schools:

[blocks in formation]

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---

1,737 4,318 1, 128 0

1:2.02 $66.00 9 (28)

2 (3)

The fiscal year 1966 project began on January 31, 1966, and ended August 15, 1966.

The maximum basic grant (fiscal year 1966) for the LEA was $461,633. The amount actually expended in 1966 was $361,884.67, leaving $99,748.12 in unused funds.

The program took place during the regular school day, on public or other than non-public-school grounds. Catholic school students participated in the reading and speech services, and the Lutheran school students in the reading class.

The entire title I program of this community, as it affected nonpublic schools, was worked out cooperatively with the officials from nonpublic schools. At least six planning sessions for the title I proposal were held in fiscal year 1966 at which the diocesan director of Catholic schools was in attendance. At least one Lutheran representative also attended.

The office of the superintendent of public schools invited the Catholie diocesan director, the Catholic school principals, and a Lutheran school principal from the target area to meet late in 1965 to react to ideas and to propose their needs. There were several other subsequent meetings. The Catholic school personnel suggested a number of needs and all their proposals were incorporated into the first draft of the title I document. The Catholic school authorities requested a mobile unit with equipment for speech therapy, remedial math, and remedial reading; and the Lutheran school suggested an accelerated reading

« PreviousContinue »