class. Initially, some services on the premises of nonpublic schools were planned, and the local school board attorney regarded all of these requests to be legal. The local board was moving ahead on these ideas, but the State suddenly turned down a number of these ideas "without explanation." Non-public-school officials were never able to obtain a satisfactory clarification from the SEA. One non-public-school official commented, "State authorities kept saying that if we pushed these ideas we would end up getting nothing; so we decided to settle for what we could get." All of the non-public-school officials felt that there was ample opportunity for non-public-school personnel to contribute ideas to the program at the local level. Local public school officials were open to ideas and considered them fairly and thoroughly.

When the first plans were turned down by the State, the non-publicschool officials were involved in efforts to set up alternative plans. The solution provided a flexible bus service to transport non-public-school students to and from the public schools. There was confusion over the legal wording used in the application. Some non-public-school officials feel that some of the original ideas would have obtained SEA approval if the proper wording had been employed, "because the same things have been done elsewhere in the State." The public school officials at the local level "seemed as much in the dark" as their non-public-school counterparts concerning the State guidelines for title I.

Non-public-school personnel were not included in the inservice programs for teachers of title I, because none of these teachers are title I staff members.

Operations for fiscal year 1966 did not get underway until February 1966, in great part due to delays in processing the proposals. For all practical purposes, the fiscal year 1966 program has been continued for fiscal year 1967, but a cutback to about 80 percent of the level of funding in fiscal year 1966 occurred in fiscal year 1967.

Due to statutory limitations project activities could not be ideally timed and located for non-public-school students. Within the framework of that limitation, public school officials have been flexible and adaptive in scheduling the activities to meet the needs of the nonpublic-school students. In fiscal year 1966 no bus service was available. Non-public-school officials stated that they would not have their students participate in fiscal year 1967 if bus service was not arranged. A nine-passenger bus was purchased with title I funds and is operating. A non-public-school principal commented, "The public school officials go out of their way to adapt to our schedule." An elaborate busing service was established so that non-public-school students could be transported to virtually any activity at any time in the title I program without losing more than 10 to 15 minutes of time, overall, in transit.

Non-public-school students have participated extensively in all programs offered under title I. Some testing services to screen pupils for title I, and health services were provided on the premises of nonpublic schools. This was illegal in terms of the State policy, but the "public school people quietly went ahead."

Special services for nonpublic schools which were made available included a remedial reading teacher, a remedial speech teacher, and a correctionist for perceptual and motor deficiencies (non-public-school grounds). These were not offered to nonpublic schools during the sum

mer, but the "umbrella program" (cultural enrichment) was maintained for non-public-school students. A lack of qualified personnel in the title I program was not a problem in this community, although this proved to be a prevalent problem throughout the State.

Before title I, the relationship between public and non-publicschool personnel was "cordial," but there was little contact between them. A new superintendent of public schools in the school district has contributed to this change. As the title I coordinator explained, he "has gone out of his way to develop rapport with the strong Catholic element in the community." There is close cooperation and continuous contact between public and non-public-school personnel particularly at the teacher level, though also at the principal level. There have been no complaints from non-public-school principals, teachers, or parents, concerning the title I program. The policy that frequent contact is valuable and important eminates from the superintendent to the entire school system at every level. The feeling prevails that everyone will gain if cooperative arrangements are established.

There is no formal mechanism for regular contact between public and non-public-school personnel at the level of local administration, but non-public-school officials are free to present complaints or suggestions at any time.

Non-public-school personnel were not involved in the project evaluation. All evaluation was based on data gathered by public school personnel who administered the programs. Many non-public-school personnel did not realize that an evaluation of the title I program had been made.

Public school officials expressed a desire to provide non-public-school personnel with certain critical equipment and supplies that have been provided in public schools under title I. Also, they would like to establish a "cooperative teacher" program to provide non-public-school teachers with assistant teachers and, in addition, folding partitions to help cut down on the large class size that exist in nonpublic schools. (All of these are prohibited by State law.)

All public and non-public-school personnel recommended that the State ruling be reversed. They referred to it as "stupid" and "ridiculous." They could work more efficiently, flexibily, and economically without this legal encumbrance. It is important to note that every official on the local level, both public and nonpublic, including the superintendent and the coordinator of title I, were under the impression that the legal decision involving title I was the result of a ruling by the Attorney General. As it is evident in the State description, this is not the case.

Non-public-school officials expressed a need for semimobile equipment to bring remedial instruments and services to the non-publicschool premises, public school personnel to teach and conduct services in nonpublic schools, and a center to provide instructional films, audiovisual materials, equipment, et cetera. They criticized the lack of information and unjustifiable rulings at the State level.

The Catholic educational sector also expressed a need for an individual within their educational organization who would be assigned full time to work with title I at the Federal, State, and local levels. The diocesan director does not have enough assistance, with the result that Catholic school principlas are not kept adequately informed, and constant contact is not maintained.

CASE M-7

I. STATE CHARACTERISTICS

This is a Southern State which borders on the Gulf of Mexico. The county and the local school system are located in the northwest corner of the State. The local school system is of medium size. The maximum amount authorized for this State under title I for fiscal year 1966 was $38,344,221. The amount of funds actually committed was $24,320,105.16. One-half State average current expenditure per pupil for 196364 was $190.50.

TABLE 33.-SEA Basic State data, case No. M-7

The State interim report of December 1965 states that all local educational agencies have been advised by the State education agency to contact the private school officials in their localities so that the private schoolchildren eligible for title I services will be given the opportunity to participate in the programs. This State is unique in that public school officials have had good relations with private schools for years. The State evaluation report for fiscal year 1966 states that, of the 67 LEA's in the State, only 41 were eligible to participate in title I. Only 38 chose to participate. The report also states that the nonpublic schools of this States were found not to be in compliance with the provision of title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and by virtue of this, were not eligible for participation in title I programs. However, some of the LEA's provided activities during the summer in which children participated who normally attended the nonpublic schools during the regular school session.

The field survey coordinator did not interview any school official— either public or nonpublic-at the State or regional level.

II. LOCAL CHARACTERISTICS

The maximum amount authorized for the county for fiscal year 1966 was $2,043,112.50. The total number of eligible children for the county was 11,332. The county and the local school system are coterminous.

The field survey coordinator did not interview any non-public-school officials at the local level. The perceptions of the public school officials who were interviewed are as follows:

The public school sector at the local level reports that letters were sent to the nonpublic schools which were eligible to participate. Two orientation meetings were held. January 16, 1967, was the date of the last meeting held. In addition to these meetings, there has been occasional telephone conversation.

The nonpublic sector is very anxious and wants to participate. Representatives of the nonpublic sector were not involved in planning projects. They were informed of what would take place. The nonpublic sector was in on the discussions but had no voice when it came to forming policies nor did the nonpublic sector have any voice in determining the final focus of title I programs.

The parochial school officials were asked to furnish data concerning their students and this data was made available as requested. The Census Department of the LEA keeps this census data. The Census Bureau receives periodic reports from the diocese.

The summer 1966 workshop for kindergarten teachers was on a fee basis. Parochial school people did not attend. Parochial school people were invited to attend an inservice meeting but did not attend this either.

There is an exchange of grades and progress reports resulting from the summer school enrichment program and the kindergarten program. Since parochial school children are in school at the same time as those in the public schools, they only participate in the after-school program, the kindergarten program, and the summer program. The after-school library hours make it possible for parochial school youngsters to participate. There is also an after-hour physical educational program. The parochial school youngsters were also invited to participate in the cultural improvement program. Due to school hours, the after-school program is the most popular.

The summer schools operated on a fee basis in 1965. In 1966, there were no fees in target schools. This provided for a wider participation. Health examinations and services were extended to all who attended the kindergarten program. Readiness tests, pre- and post-tests, were given. Counselors were available on an individual basis. There have been adjustments in the first-grade program due to a better readiness in pupils going through the kindergarten experience.

No activities were carried out in nonpublic schools. No public school personnel were assigned to nonpublic schools.

The State evaluation report for fiscal year 1966 mentions a spring and summer enrichment program conducted in the LEA. Students from qualifying schools were transported to the civic auditorium in a nearby city where they observed and heard a full-scale symphony orchestra. Concerts were provided by the city's symphony society in junior and senior high schools with a smaller, but complete, symphony orchestra. During these concerts, there were instrumental solos as well as excerpts from the standard operas. The symphony conductor made appropriate comments during these performance pertaining to the musical instruments used by members of the orchestra, the musical selections presented, and other areas in connection with units of work being studied by students in the music curriculum.

Prior to each concert, students were briefed by their classroom teachers, and librettos of operas were reviewed. After attending the performances, discussions were generated in the classroom so that the

children could express their reactions and so that the programs would have a more lasting effect on the children.

Since this project component was well received, not only by participating youngsters but also by their parents, who also attended some of the performances, the fiscal year 1967 project from the LEA includes this cultural enrichment activity.

Local public school principals report that, although parochial school students are not making use of the services available at the present time, they (the local public school principals) are aware that the nonpublic-school youngsters are eligible if they wish to participate.

The local coordinator of title I states that library and audiovisual equipment has been held in escrow because the diocese has been ruled as not in compliance with Federal guidelines.

The nonpublic sector was involved to the extent that questionnaires were sent out regarding kindergarten pupils who were in their first year of school. Health records were also made available. Progress reports were also sent on each summer school participant. The nonpublic sector reviewed applicable parts of project evaluation reports before they were submitted to the State department of education. The nonpublic sector was not sent copies of the evaluation reports but had access to them if they desired the information.

Evaluation procedures were hampered since the school systems were not using the same testing program. It was very difficult to measure student progress since pretest scores were based on different tests.

Title I projects were very effective in meeting the needs of public school youngsters. There has not been too much participation on the part of parochial school youngsters.

Test scores and other data have been sent to appropriate schools. The public sector is not aware of any changes in educational practices in nonpublic schools since the nonpublic sector has been only minimally involved in title I activities.

The public sector would like to see the program continue as it now exists. They feel the program is best operated through the public schools. They feel that there is a need for a more cooperative attitude on the part of the non-public-school personnel toward the program already provided in the public schools.

The public sector feels that the different philosophy between the public and nonpublic sector has adversely influenced the participation of non-public-school students in title I activities. Also, many economic situations face the parochial schools that are quite different from those in the public schools.

As relates to quality of personnel the public schools call for a better level of instruction and better training qualifications on the part of their teachers. The feeling expressed was that the parochial schools would prefer to remain parochial schools rather than join in a participation with the public schools.

The public sector states that communication has been helpful but there is still a long way to go.

The public sector recommends that the Headstart program, now under the community action program, could be more effectively handled in the public schools and under the auspices of the board of edu cation. The work could be better accomplished if placed in the hands of qualified personnel.