TABLE 42.-LEA data, case No. S-1 Number of children eligible-- Number of public school children participating---- Number of nonschool participants. Eligible Participant ratio___. Expenditure per participant__ Title I expenditure rank.. State expenditure (1963-64) rank_-. 120 162 117 0 1:2.33 $99. 40 9(26) 4(15) The assistant to the superintendent is the LEA coordinator of ESEA title I. He assumed these responsibilities in September 1966. The fiscal year 1967 program was a continuation of the fiscal year 1966 approved project for remedial reading which had been designed and written by his predecessor. The superintendent volunteered the information that his former assistant had designed and planned the only funded project-that of remedial reading. The assistant explained it to the pastor, now deceased, who had been very interested in the project and indicated a desire to participate, since his parish school had been selected for title I involvement. Subsequent interviews with the principal of that school and with the newly appointed principal of the nearby nonpublic high school revealed that they were aware of this meeting, but did not know what transpired at that time. This took place during the summer months, and the non-public-school principals were informed of the remedial reading project by the assistant to the superintendent. The new ESEA title I coordinator said that the non-public-school administrators were very interested in participating in title I projects. Decisions concerning fiscal year 1967 had already been decided before he assumed his new responsibilities. Both sectors agree that he is working very closely with the two non-public-school principals. The nonpublic high school principal said, "Generally speaking there is a genuine willingness to involve us in title I and in a shared-time arrangement in the new vocational high school." "They know they have to consider us," was the way the nonpublic elementary school principal described the willingness of the public sector to involve non-publicschool children. "They made the decision as to what to do, then let us know about it so we could go along with it. We could not institute a project even though I tried in fiscal year 1966 and fiscal year 1967." She wanted a program to aid those children with bilingual problems. She did succeed in getting a vocabulary development program as part of the summer session for these children. Non-public-school teachers were not included in in-service programs for teachers of title I children because all such instruction was done by public school teachers. The nonpublic sector felt the reason for their exclusion was nepotism. One non-public-school official stated, "Personnel involved in the program were all related to public school officials by marriage." Original plans called for a central reading center. The nonpublic elementary school principal suggested that the teacher come to the respective schools rather than transport the children to one public school. As a result, all elementary school children, public and nonpublic, stayed in their own school, and the one school idea was abandoned both in fiscal year 1966 and fiscal year 1967. This was true of the nonpublic high school participation in fiscal year 1966 only. In fiscal year 1967 the new reading teacher, wife of the superintendent, did not drive a car. The students were required to go to the public high school. Scheduling did not permit this kind of arrangement; none of the eligible nonpublic high school students participated in the fiscal year 1967 program. In explaining this situation to the interviewer, the superintendent said the change in participation was due to the fact that funds were cut back and that there were scheduling difficulties. He declined to mention the cause for the latter. He assured the interviewer that this had been compensated for by increasing the number of nonpublic elementary school children. This was contradicted by the nonpublic elementary school principal, "The numbers were cut down this year (fiscal year 1967). Further, when children were returned to class after completion of treatment, there was no student replacement as before. The time spent by the teacher was reduced by half an hour daily." The teacher conducts remedial reading classes for eligible children in grades 3 through 8. The superintendent said that public school teachers conducted classes in the nonpublic school once a week. He appears to be misinformed. The public sector claimed that limited available funds was a major reason for not including a greater number of eligible non-public-school children in title I projects. The nonpublic sector disagreed. They claimed that lack of qualified public school personnel was the limiting factor. When teachers and services come to the nonpublic schools, participation is maximized. Conversely, if non-public-school children must be transported elsewhere, participation is minimal. Generally, the cooperation between the two sectors has been favorable. Some tension existed a few years ago when the pastor of the parochial school opposed and urged opposition to the construction of a new public high school. His motives were not clear. The nonpublic high school principal expressed regret that in the past nonpublic administrators wished to keep their system separate. "The climate was not very good and it wasn't the public schools' fault * * *. The nonpublic schools wished to stay by themselves. The climate has definitely changed for the better in the last 2 years; however, this was not caused by title I. New people with new ideas and a better spirit of cooperation *** have improved the climate in the educational area. There is good rapport between the newly appointed ESEA coordinator and our schools. He had guaranteed a meeting for the purpose of jointly developing new programs." The nonpublic schools are academicaly oriented and have turned away the vocational and less capable students. If the plan for shared time at the new vocational high school can be worked out, the nonpublic schools will be able to provide for the needs of the abovementioned groups. The remedial reading specialist at the elementary level remarked, "I don't know about their schools, I work with children." The nonpublic-school principal comments, "With regard to personnel and curriculum, the public schools are overrated. They are not as efficiently managed as they should be. The nonpublic schools, on the other hand, are underrated and suffer from an inferiority complex traditional among these schools." Educators from both sectors agree that involvement of all eligible children from both sectors is highly desirable. "Title I permits programs and services which we could never afford. This, in turn, benefits the total community. Future leaders come from both sectors," remarked the ESSA coordinator during the interview. There is evidence to conclude that he is acting accordingly. LEA evaluation of the fiscal year 1966 project did not involve nonpublic school personnel nor did they receive a copy of the same. Because the State guidelines failed to mention this, it appears that it simply never occurred to public school personnel to involve the nonpublic school personnel in project evaluations. The nonpublic elementary principal was not aware that evaluation was a part of title I. Had she known, she would have requested a copy. Both nonpublic school principals indicated that they would call this to the attention of the ESEA coordinator. Records containing test scores, anecdotal reports, and progess charts of individual nonpublic school children were sent to the nonpublic schools. The ESEA coordinator mentioned the fact that the parochial school had an excellent testing program of its own. "Title I has forced us to take a look at our curriculum, especially in English ***. More emphasis will be placed on reading skills and on the identification and correction of reading difficulties," commented the nonpublic high school principal. With the present quota of available funds (approximately $25,000) there is no better way to spend the money. Problems are primarily operational in nature. Lack of space, scheduling difficulties, need for transportation. Additional money would enable the LEA to hire more teachers, some of whom would help at nonpublic schools. The nonpublic high school principal was very vocal on the subject of recommendation: "There is a need for counseling service for disturbed children, for educational and vocational guidance services ***. Many parochial educators are indifferent to Government programs: some are unwilling to give real cooperation in making them work. They are not involved in the competition of public schools * * *. Better communications must be worked out." * As evidenced by interested citizens who were interviewed, a member of the local school board, the editor of a local newspaper, and an officer of the chamber of commerce, the favorable climate in this local community is due partially to freedom from bias and prejudice. These gentlemen believe the public and nonpublic schools have always related very favorably to one another; however, they admitted that there have been instances of misunderstanding, such as opposition of some nonpublic school personnel to the construction of the new vocational high school at the same time they were building a new school of their own. Tension was eased when the new pastor supported the public school cause. "Also the clergymen's eccumenical association has notably improved mutual understanding in the local community." They agree in thinking that all kinds of educational facilities should be made available to all students. "I do believe in the separation of church and state, but have no objection to ESEA legislation. In fact, I would feel bad if the nonpublic schools were left out. Parents of these children pay taxes and need help just as much." They believe tax moneys set aside for the public schools should remain in the hands of the public school system but that all schools should share in its purchasing power. CASE S-2 I. STATE CHARACTERISTICS Case S-2 is a small school district located in a southwestern county of a northeastern State. In fiscal year 1966 the maximum State allocation was $4,014,213.35. According to the fiscal year 1966 SEA evaluation and State level interviews, approximately 94 percent of this amount was authorized and about 85 percent was expended on approved projects. Half the State average current expenditure per pupil for 1963-64 was quoted as $189.95. The State is divided into 16 counties, all of which were eligible for title I funds. The State department of education lists 412 local educational agencies functioning as independent administrative units. TABLE 43.-SEA basic State data, case No. S-2 Number of children eligible---. Number of public school children participating- Number of non-public-school children participating. Number of nonschool participants-- Eligible: Participant ratio_. Title I expenditure rank. State expenditure (1963-64) rank_. 21, 133 30, 374 1,887 57 1:1.53 $105.58 7 (22) 6(22) The State's constitutional provisions authorize public aid to private schools for educational purposes under certain conditions. Provisions are also made for transportation of school children to and from schools other than public schools, except such schools "as are operated for profit in whole or in part." This law may differ from one municipality to another, since the matter is discretionary with voters in each governmental unit. Majority vote controls the decision from year to year. Problems which could stem from such unstable legislation have been very few. From September to December, 1965, the SEA title I staff held a series of regional meetings for LEA superintendents and for public school administrators. Separate meetings were held for Catholic school principals and pastors and for the State school boards association during the month of November in order to explain the implications of the act. Since April 1966 three State title I consultants have been working full time with superintendents of schools in planning and evaluating projects. From information available, it appears that the LEA superintendents are also LEA coordinators of Government programs in this State. In March 1966 the State department of education published a report entitled "Title I of Public Law 89-10: Program Operation." This included a summary of guidelines and instruction for title I ESEA prepared by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, together with additional information which the State commissioner deemed necessary for clarification and for implementation at the local level. Provisions for non-public-school participation are listed: (1) The application for each project must show the degree and manner of expected participation by educationally deprived children enrolled in private schools in the project area of the LEA under title I; (2) programs shall not be designed solely for private school children; (3) funds cannot be used for inservice training of private school teachers; (4) funds cannot be used to strengthen the instructional program in a private school, and (5) each LEA must initiate comparable and equitable services for educationally deprived students who reside in the project area and attend private schools. Since the 1963-64 State average expenditure per pupil included the number of children enrolled in nonpublic schools, the State title I director and his staff strongly recommended that all eligible children be given equal opportunities to share in the benefits. In fiscal year 1966 about 90 percent of the applications included no participation by nonpublic-school children. In one or two cases the LEA's claimed the nonpublic schools were not interested. This was the exception, not the rule. On a statewide basis, a higher rate of participation by non-public-school children is evident because of a rather unique arrangement in the northern part of this State. In that area several public schools are administered by nuns because the non-Catholic children of school age are so few in number. The Jewish schools in this State have no eligible children, and the Seventh-day Adventists do not wish to participate in this program. The following impressions were gathered exclusively from interviews with title I personnel at the State level and with those in administrative positions in the Catholic diocesan school office, which has a statewide responsibility for administering the elementary and secondary schools under its jurisdiction. Communications between these two sectors have been excellent for at least the past 15 years. The diocesan superintendent commented that the State superintendent had been the best help he has had over a period of 10 years. They keep each other informed about educational matters. The rapport between the two superintendents has been excellent for many years. In such a climate of mutual understanding, problems of participation and equal benefits are negligible. The chief administrators of the nonpublic schools were not as knowledgeable of the local situation as perhaps they should be. Informed by the field service coordinator of details of the local situation, they judged it to be quite typical of the State situation. In general, the local non-public-school personnel are informed of a planned and/or funded project and asked if they wish to participate. When services are rendered at the nonpublic schools, substantial participation is possible. When children have to be transported, the numbers participating are reduced. The diocesan superintendent admitted that greater participation could be affected if the system had a title I coordinator. He indicated that such an appointment would be made in September 1967. He envisions possibilities of increased shared services and shared time activities. No legal problems have presented themselves at the State level. |