spective school officials, special attention was focused on involvement of non-public-school personnel in title I orientation sessions, in the planning of projects, in the operation and implementation of approved programs, and in the evaluation of projects. Recommendations from both sectors for more equitable sharing by eligible non-public-school children are included in this section. CASE L-1 I. STATE CHARACTERISTIC Case L-1 is a large city school system located in an Eastern State. The maximum basic grant for fiscal year 1966 was $55,941,428.28. Half the State average current expenditure per pupil for 1963-64 amounted to $237.39. TABLE 1.-SEA Basic State data, case No. L-1 Number of children eligible. Number of public-school children participating___ Eligible Participant ratio_. Title I expenditure rank. State expenditure (1963-64) rank. 235, 652 248, 359 60, 367 4,710 1:1.30 $178.94 2(4) 5(13) Constitutional and statutory provisions state that no appropriation shall be made to any charitable or educational institution not under the absolute control of the State except by a vote of two-thirds of all the members elected to each house. A statute authorizes a district to provide free bus transportation only of public school pupils. Article 10 reads as follows: No money raised for the support of the public schools of the State shall be appropriated to or used for the support of any sectarian schools *** Any school established and controlled by a sect, which teaches or propagates the peculiar or special doctrines of that sect, is a sectarian school. In July 1966 the State effected a complete reorganization of school districts. This reorganization has seriously hampered efforts to secure certain data in the form and detail specified in Federal guidelines. To expedite dissemination of initial information concerning the act, three meetings were held in the State department of education buildings. Non-public-school authorities and all LEA officials were invited. These meetings were followed by some 100 regional conferences. TV, the news media, films, filmstrips, brochures, and all other means of communications were used in order to disseminate information about the act, and in particular about title I. Non-public-school officials had no part in the review and approval of projects at the State level. The Federal guidelines simply recommended that non-public-school officials endorse action at the State level. "In the first year, cooperation was a little difficult to achieve. This year it is much better. The State department followed guidelines very carefully and insisted that if there were no eligible non-public-school children, both parties had to so state this. Frequently, our policy caused LEA's to initiate contacts with dioceses," commented a State official. He also expressed belief that communication between public and non-public-school officials has vastly improved. Relationships have always been cordial and professional. Now there are frequent discussions of mutual problems and some cooperative planning of joint programs to help to solve these problems. "Parochial school people are well educated and highly competent people." Lawsuits and legal involvement have caused delays and some problems at the operational level in establishing the ESEA title I program. The major lawsuit will be described at the local level of this study. One of the 67 counties did not want to be involved in Federal programs, and it refused to accept the $19,000 allotment. Six LEA's (less than 1 percent of all LEA's in the State) refused to participate. Community action agencies exist in 64 counties of the State, each having a chairman and a board of directors. Two of these agencies attacked the title I program because all of their suggestions had not been included in certain projects. According to a September 1965 publication, approximately 92 percent of the maximum allotment was spent in fiscal year 1966. Projects funded for fiscal year 1967 have already accounted for most of the maximum State allotment. An analysis of 820 title I projects submitted during fiscal year 1966 reveals a preponderance of reading and basic skills activities. An excerpt from the fiscal year 1966 SEA evaluation says: Public and non-public school officials have cooperated in a variety of ways to develop and implement projects. Generally, this cooperation has consisted of providing services and/or equipment to the non-public school locations. Field trip experiences appear to be a successful joint venture with transportation being furnished on an equal or joint basis. The problems concerned with developing or implementing public and non-public school projects appear to be of four general types: (1) Local bias, (2) Sects which do not believe in using federal funds for education, (3) Absence of non-public schools in some areas, (4) Sects which will not accept public education-only the limited teachings of their own culture. The concluding paragraph from that section of the fiscal year 1966 SEA evaluation report is worthy of note: Legislated action is not a solution to the public and non-public school participa. tion in cooperative educational activities. Cooperation, additional development and implementation of projects, accomplishment of objectives in cooperative ventures, and the time to adjust to each other's needs will accomplish more in this area than legislated dictates could ever accomplish. II. LOCAL CHARACTERISTICS The county and local school district are coterminous in this instance. This is not typical of the majority of other local administrative units in this State. Approximately 51,429 eligible children accounted for the authorization of $12,208,730.31 for this local school district. attitudes at the top don't always filter down. In our situation there is good rapport with the nonpublic schools of our area. In general, this is so. I think that the parochial schools feel they have a better educational program and product, but I feel that this is not as accurate as they think. Their selection process for hiring teaching personnel is poor. Classes are too large. They have fewer facilities and less equipment than the public schools have. Their statistics are better because they are not required to keep youngsters," said one public school principal. The LEA coordinator thought that some of the public school principals and some top administrators had stereotyped ideas with respect to the parochial schools. As a result of interaction, their attitudes have changed. Some of the teachers in the nonpublic schools of this area are very dedicated but not always well qualified. Some have little training beyond a high school diploma. Another public school principal believes that the nonpublic schools have a good program; however, a number of their teachers are not certified. He admitted that he had tended to remain separate. A non-public-school principal commented: My contacts with local public school people have been frequent and positive. The principal of the neighboring public school has been very cooperative. We have exchanged ideas. He calls frequently to pass on information or to make inquiries. We have attended meetings at his school. He and his staff have attended ours. I do not think that the public school community realizes the quality of education in the parochial schools. Some are shocked to learn that we teach more than religion. Another non-public-school principal felt that there was more freedom between both groups. They are not so much in awe of us. We have a very fine public school nearby. They have invited the pastor and me for a meeting on the topic of human relations. We really do not know much about their educational programs. I think the climate is already conducive to joint projects. The fiscal year 1966 LEA project evaluations were done by an outside professional agency. Principals of public and nonpublic schools were invited to meetings to discuss the values of ongoing projects. Questionnaires were also used as means of soliciting opinions about projects. Test scores and other data on non-public-school children who participated in title I programs were forwarded to nonpublic schools. Non-public-school personnel think the token involvement of their children is only a beginning. Much more needs to be done. Curriculum changes in reading, arithmetic, science, and creative writing have been made as a result of title I participation. More frequent and better use of audiovisual equipment has resulted from the inservice A-V training program. The community must be better informed about title I. The intent of the law has been so poorly interpreted that the public is thoroughly confused. The parochial schools educate more than one-fourth of the children in this LEA, but their students have shared in half a million of the $11 million authorized for this district. This is obviously disproportionate, considering the fact that the nine high school and 52 elementary schools of the diocese are located in designated areas in this LEA. The non-public-school director of government programs observes: I feel we are guilty of not pushing hard enough for our schools. I think this may come in time. Some of our people are rather passive and appreciate beyond reason the receipt of an overhead projector or other piece of equipment. If we want the aid, we have to accept the guidelines. The mere experience of the program will improve relationships between systems, groups, and individuals. Eventually they (public school officials) may come to see that improving educational opportunities for all benefits the community. The administrative time and money involved in soliciting benefits must be removed. These obstacles impede the initiative of non-public-school officials. A public school principal recommended that a learning center be provided in the parochial school. He deplored the lack of uniformity of interpretation of laws. This is a real knotty problem. It would be an advantage if they (non-publicschool children) could come to our school during the regular school day. Somehow we have got to break down this fear of one another. Interested citizens active in community programs agreed that all eligible children should be served by title I provided the guidelines are closely observed. One added: I am opposed to the Government, in any way, directly or indirectly, providing aid to any parochial schools. I would like to see them close the Catholic schools so the kids can integrate religiously and racially. Another recommended a greater number of dual enrollment programs. This, she believed, would require an extensive public relations program in order to orient the parents of both sectors. CASE L-2 1. STATE CHARACTERISTICS This case describes a large school system in a Northeastern State. The maximum amount authorized to the State under title I in fiscal year 1966 was $109,639.84. This figure was based on one-half the State average per pupil expenditures for 1963-64 of $265.64. In fiscal year 1966 at least 95 percent of the title I funds was expended. The field survey coordinator was informed that in fiscal year 1967, "it will probably be as high or higher." TABLE 3.-SEA Basic State data, case No. L-2 Number of children eligible-- Number of public school children participating---. 299, 856 751, 418 108, 063 0 1:2.87 $127.56 7 (15) 1(1) Private and parochial school administrators were advised of all regional meetings dealing with ESEA and were placed on the State department of education mailing lists so that they might receive all publications. Of the more than 200 LEA's which participated in cooperative projects with nonpublic schools, all met with at least some degree of success, but about half of these schools encountered problems. The most common difficulty was insufficient data on non-public-school pupils. Other problems included communication difficulties, deficiencies in planning, and uncertainty in ascertaining which children were educationally disadvantaged. The SEA maintained, in accordance with the Federal guidelines, that the participation of educationally deprived non-public-school children in target areas in title I must be substantially comparable to that of children enrolled in public schools. Also, it was insisted that non-public-school officials be involved in the overall planning of the local title I program. Under State law dual enrollment and shared time are not permissible. The State constitution does restrict the use of title I funds to aid non-public-school children. When title I was initially implemented, the Attorney General rendered a series of opinions. The SEA title I director explained, however, that "most judgments are made by our legal staff." In this State a number of lawsuits have been initiated to test the legality of various title I programs. The SEA "office personnel" were responsible for the review and approval of fiscal year 1966 applications. All applications go through the same procedure, and the differences are resolved through joint meetings of the various divisions. In many cases, outside consultants are engaged. Non-public-school officials were not invited by the SEA to review or endorse applications prior to approval, but the SEA title I director explained, "We do not approve a project unless there is evidence of the involvement of nonpublic schools." To the SEA, the only legitimate reason for the exclusion of nonpublic children from a title I project was if there were no educationally disadvantaged children in the nonpublic schools in that area. The relationship between the SEA and high-level non-public-school officials was described by the title I director as "excellent." As a result of title I programs, the relationship has been expanded, particularly in terms of communication and coordination. The title director perceived "a great deal of evidence of mutual understanding, and it appears to be growing most at the local level, where it tended to be uneven." The director of special projects for the diocese felt that the relationship between the SEA and non-public-school officials "left something to be desired" prior to title I. There was lack of communication resulting in a lack of cooperation. Since title I, "our relationships have improved a great deal." It was his opinion that "the nonpublic sector was primarily responsible" for communication between the public and nonpublic sectors, that it was "very good," but "recently it has slackened off a bit probably due to oversight." As a result, "communication is about as it was prior to title I." The diocesan director offered the following suggestions: (a) A liaison person from the Catholic school system in the public schools to act as a bridge to communications; |