test scores and other data on non-public-school children, who participated in title I projects, have been forwarded to their respective schools. Local public school principals were not involved in evaluation of title I projects and "don't know anything about evaluation."

The nonpublic sector claims no knowledge of project evaluations since they were not effective in meeting the needs of non-public-school students, because the nonpublic sector was not sufficiently involved in title I activities. This same official also stated that test scores and other data on non-public-school children who participated in title I projects were brought to the nonpublic schools by parents and were not forwarded by the public sector.

The educational projects director states that they have had only one statewide title I conference and that there was no evidence of parochial school involvement. They should become more involved and it might be desirable to have a 2-week workshop with more direction from the U.S. Office of Education. Another recommendation is that regional meetings, which transcend State boundaries, should be held.

Local public school officials state that they don't know the needs of the nonpublic sector. It is up to the nonpublic sector to determine their own needs and to show more initiative. These public officials further recommend that the nonpublic sector should write its own proposals and submit its own applications.

The nonpublic sector recommends more communication between the public and nonpublic sectors; there should be more information on both sides. The public sector should be asked to attend meetings where information can be obtained. There should be more contact between the public and nonpublic sector.

One interested citizen has stated that he favors separation of church and state. He would prefer not to see title I involving nonpublic schools since he prefers complete separation of church and state. The citizen feels satisfied with the present operation of title I activities in the local district.

CASE M-10

The school system described in this case study is located in a Northwestern State which was authorized a maximum allotment of $10,693,883.81 for fiscal year 1966. One-half of the 1963-64 State average expenditure was $205.93. About 98.2 percent of the maximum was expended in fiscal year 1966.

TABLE 39.-SEA Basic State data, case No. M-10

The most pressing needs that title I projects were designed to meet were the low-grade-level performance in reading and in other skills (language, mathematics) on a statewide basis.

The Attorney General ruled that Federal money, including title I money, is not State tax money and therefore can be spent on non

public-school programs. It would be illegal to spend tax money from the State on non-public-school children.

The State title I coordinator felt that the State constitution might "potentially" prohibit the use of title I funds for non-public-school children, but there are no litigations involving title I in the State.

The Federal programs director for the State and the supervisors of guidance for the State department were involved in the review and approval of fiscal year 1966 applications. Non-public-school officials were not invited by personnel at the State level to review or endorse any applications prior to approval, nor were they involved in evaluation procedures at the State level. The policy of the State department relative to the exclusion of non-public-school children for title I project applications was stated by the title I coordinator: "Applications simply are not approved unless non-public-school children are included."

The State department of education held early exploration and planning meetings in the fall of 1965. Both public and nonpublic school officials attended. A non-public-school official, who acted as "contact man" between public and nonpublic personnel during the planning phases of all Federal programs which affect non-publicschool children, found them "quite helpful." The State superintendent and his staff encouraged school districts to contact non-public-school people and involve them in the planning of the program.

This LEA was described by a nonpublic official on the State level as "fairly typical" of the interaction between public and non-publicschool personnel in this area, "Although there are some places where the feeling is not as good as it is there."

The relationship between the State Department of Education and the chief non-public-school officials prior to title I was described as good, but "there was little actual communication." Title I acted as a catalyst for improving communication. "This has been the case all over the State." Non-public-school officials contend that title I has developed more communication, "but it would be hard to improve the kind of relationship we have had."

The public sector initiated communication at the State level. As a non-public-school official commented, "because it was their program to offer." A State title I official summed up the public-nonpublic schools relationship in this way: "There is much positive evidence of increased understanding of the problems that each has, and of mutual respect as they communicate better." The State title I evaluation summarizes: "With few exceptions the State has enjoyed a good climate between public and nonpublic schools."

II. LOCAL CHARACTERISTICS

The title I project provided a program for the enrichment of the educational experiences of children in grades K-3 by adding professional personnel in a team approach.

The title I program was focused on 14 schools in the district, including one Catholic elementary school.

The remaining Catholic schools were not included in the program because they were not in the target area.

The planning and administration preperation took place between June 1965 and January 15, 1966. The fiscal year 1966 project was carried out between January 17, 1966, and June 10, 1966, and the fiscal year 1967 project between September 1, 1966, and August 31, 1967. The project took place on public school grounds, and on non-publicschool grounds for nonpublic children during the regular school day. The maximum basic grant (fiscal year 1966) for the LEA was $696,422. The primary grade enrichment program accounted for $266,323 and funds for construction of three instructional resource centers and supplementary classrooms accounted for the balance. The maximum basic grant (fiscal year 1967) was $625,098.

TABLE 40.-LEA date, case No. M-40

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 expenditure rank

State expenditure (1963-64) rank_

2,774 5, 023 123

1:1.86 $135. 27

8 (20)

4 (10)

Inservice meetings were held for public school teachers, but nonpublic-school teachers were not invited. The title I coordinator explained, "It just did not occur to us to invite the non-public-school teachers. Nobody thought of it." They will be involved in fiscal year 1967, "if there is a program next year." The non-public-school officials had two meetings with the title I coordinator in October 1965, which the non-public-school personnel found "very helpful in clarifying" title I. The relationship between the public and nonpublic schools was described as "excellent" by non-public-school officials. Public school officials appeared "very willing" to involve the nonpublic school in title I.

Representatives from the nonpublic schools were not involved in planning projects in fiscal year 1966, but they were "consulted." A nonpublic-school principal explained, "They asked for, and we gave them, extensive information about our students' needs." Non-public-school officials were involved in planning during the second year. In fiscal year 1966, one meeting was held between representatives of public and nonpublic schools to determine the non-public-school needs. Non-public-school officials were consulted in a limited way in determining the needs of the non-public-school students and the final focus of the project.

The title I coordinator admitted to "moving very slowly" in applying title I funds to children in nonpublic schools in order to avoid as many difficulties as possible. "We want to work, and we want to avoid problems rather than solving them after they have arisen."

In fiscal year 1966 the public school sector made an agreement to share one-tenth of the title I resources with the nonpublic schools because the enrollment is about one-tenth that of the public schools. The enrichment projects for grades K-3 involved specialists in almost every area. These specialists constitute the point of contact with the nonpublic schools. The public schools have added one extra teacher and one teacher aide for each three teachers already in the building.

Non-public-school principals stated that "scheduling was very cooperative." The public schools consulted with them about the best times for employing the specialists. There were scheduling problems in fiscal year 1967, but they were worked out through the joint cooperation of both sectors. The ready availability and the desirability of the program resulted in substantial participation of nonpublic schools in fiscal year 1967. In fiscal year 1966, the nonpublic schools received minimal benefits from title I, but in fiscal year 1967, title I coordinators stated that the nonpublic schools were better organized. As a result, the nonpublic schools enjoyed a considerable amount of participation and services.

Prior to title I, the climate for cooperation between public and nonpublic schools was described by both parties as excellent, "but we did not have much to do with each other." The climate has been altered only in the fact that there is more cooperation since the implementation of title I. More knowledge has been gained "about each other's programs and philosophies," and there has been "more dialog, more mutual understanding." Both public and nonpublic sectors had an excellent impression of the quality of each other's educational pro

grams.

Non-public-school personnel were not involved in the project evaluation, "but we (title I staff) evaluated ourselves with regard to how well we thought we had served them, considering the resources we had." The non-public-school officials received copies of the evalua tions. The public school principals also were not involved in the evalua tion process.

Both public and nonpublic officials were in agreement that the title I project was effective in meeting the needs of the non-public-school children.

The title I coordinator would like to see the money granted directly to the nonpublic schools. "They could then develop the programs they need and want without having to funnel the effort through us."

The public school principals suggested that more specialists should be assigned to nonpublic schools either full time, or for a majority of their time. A better arrangement to suit the nonpublic school was advocated by public school officials.

CHAPTER IV

CASE STUDIES-SMALL SCHOOL SYSTEMS

The 10 case studies reported in this chapter describe ESEA title I activities which center around the involvement of non-public-school children in 10 small school systems.

These school districts enrolled less than 10,000 pupils. The geographic distribution is as follows: Three Northeastern States, three Southern States, one Central State, two North Central States, one Northwestern State. Each case describes a school system located in a different State.

Information for these 10 studies has been obtained from the same sources listed in the beginning of chapter II. The description of State and local characteristics follows the same pattern as those cases described in the two previous chapters.

CASE S-1

I. STATE CHARACTERISTICS

This case describes a small school district located in a predominately rural Northeastern State. The State's title I allotment for fiscal year 1966 was $1,731,377.55. Approved projects accounted for 95 percent of these funds. Half of the State average current expenditure is $224.65.

TABLE 41.-SEA Basic State data, case No. 8-1

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...---

7,707 11, 872 1,671 659 1:1.84 $115.82

6(20)

4(15)

The State is divided into 14 counties, 13 of which were eligible for ESEA title I funds. Sixty-three of the more than 200 school districts enroll more than 300 youngsters.

State constitutional and statutory provisions concerning the use of State funds for nonpublic schools are vague. A 1961 ruling in the case of a private citizen versus a local school district held that public funds may not be used for support of a sectarian school, even though such a school was being used by the school district to discharge its educational duties and all students of the district were required to attend. The maximum LEA allotment for fiscal year 1966 was $26,733 and for fiscal year 1967 was $24,100. In fiscal year 1967 the State included delinquent children and neglected children and used the 1965 AFDC figures. This increased the number of eligible children in the State and funds had to be spread out more sparsely in fiscal year 1967.