II. LOCAL CHARACTERISTICS The LEA selected for study is one of 13 independent LEA's in the county. For fiscal year 1966, the county identified 1,244 eligible children (5-17) and received a maximum allotment of $236,297.80. Fifteen public schools comprise the LEA. The State title I director authorized $60,480.46 for this district. Three nonpublic schools were included and received maximum authorization for $15,309.59, making a total of $75,790.05. In this district, 400 children were eligible for title I funds, and a quote from a State administrative newsletter explains, "In public school districts where private schools are located, the amount of funds authorized for the district because of the resident lowincome family children aged 5-17 attending the private school will be listed. The public school agency is required by law to plan services for these private school pupils in the same proportion as the funds allocated because of their presence. Only the children in private schools in the public school attendance areas for which the project is planned. are entitled to services under title I." Twenty-eight non-public-school children participated in programs during the academic year. An undetermined number took advantage of the very fine summer program. In this LEA the director of elementary education was delegated by the local superintendent to handle ESEA title I activities. In fiscal year 1966, he and his staff talked about the project in the public schools and agreed on a remedial reading program. They contacted the nonpublic-school principals, went to their schools, discussed the project with them, and incorporated some of their ideas. In fiscal year 1967 a joint, day-long meeting of school administrators was held to discuss plans for projects for the next year. The principal of one of the junior high public schools is chairman of the Federal Relations Committee of the State Teacher's Association and was very active in lobbying for ESEA. A segment of the non-public-school sector was happy to take advantage of this invaluable assistance. The public school administrators were impressed by the enthusiastic positive response from two of the three eligible nonpublic schools. All three nonpublic schools were helpful and cooperative in providing data about children selected for participation in the funded projects. They provided complete files on these children. Non-public-school teachers were not on project staffs and, therefore, did not participate in inservice programs. However, the reading specialists conducted workshops for the teachers of the three schools she visited every week. Praise and compliments f The principal of the thing tute for the primopal whe It appears illa de subst renovation was assumed by the parish. The reason given for excluding the third eligible nonpublic school was that it was not in the project area. However, the field service coordinator senses major communications problems. The LEA coordinator lamented the dearth of qualified reading specialists during the academic year. This limitation restricted the number of children who could receive help. A sufficient number of specialists was available for the summer session. Transportation was provided for all children. Nurses, physicians, guidance counselors, speech therapists, in addition to remedial reading teachers, were engaged. Public and non-public-school personnel counseled and encouraged parents to send their children to the summer project. Both sectors complained of parental apathy in this matter. During the summer six teachers, a nurse, reading consultant, a director, and two assistant teachers were available for fewer than thirty students." A variety of supplementary learning materials and new equipment enhanced the summer program. The LEA coordinator and the teachers who staffed the funded projects evaluated them. They saw no need to involve non-publicschool administrators in this phase of the program. Copies of the LEA evaluation report were circulated during a joint meeting of school administrators in January 1967. "Unintentional omission" appeared to be the reason for not sending this report to non-public-school principals. The uncommunicative non-public-school principal considered it "bold to ask for the fiscal year 1966 LEA evaluation form." For this reason she did not request it. Complete reports on each child who participated in the summer project were sent to the nonpublic schools. The director of the summer program delivered the folders and explained the results to the nonpublic-school administrators. Both sectors expressed great satisfaction at the degree of improvement in reading. Test results and diagnostic information gave direction to remedial instruction programs. A consensus favored the continuation of the reading program. Increased funds would be used to equip a materials resource center to be used by both systems. The influential citizens-an officer of the chamber of commerce, a member of the school committee, and the secretary-treasurer of a local insurance company-knew little if anything about ESEA title I. "If I weren't on the school committee, I wouldn't know about it. The same is true of other interested citizens." They recommended that the LEA should use all means of communication to inform the public about ESEA legislation. At both the State and local levels, barriers which could discourage and hamper full participation in title I activities are practically nonexistent. The newly appointed nonpublic coordinator of title I will need to work very closely with the eligible non-public-school personnel who staff the elementary school and who wish to remain isolated and detached from Federal moneys. Not enough is being done in the LEA title I offices to solve the bilingual problems which seem to plague eligible title I participants. 84-775-67- -8 CASE S-3 I. STATE CHARACTERISTICS This case is a small school system, one of the four LEA's located in a county on the western borderline of a Gulf State. The fiscal year 1966 State maximum basic grant was $30,894,243.60 for more than a quarter of a million children who qualified for aid under title I. Funds committed during fiscal year 1966 amounted to $20,882,315. The discrepancy between the basic grant and the amount committed is due chiefly to the fact that a number of local school boards voted not to apply for title I funds. Others did not choose to comply with civil rights requirements. TABLE 45.-SEA Basic State data, case No. S-3 Number of children eligible___ Number of public school children participating-- Eligible Participant ratio_ Expenditure per participant_ Title I expenditure rank.. State expenditure (1963–64) rank.......... Since the diocesan boundary is coterminous with the State boundary, the duties and responsibilities of the diocesan superintendent are similar to those of the State commissioner. He has not appointed a director of Government programs but does have a large staff of school supervisors who keep him informed of title I activities. "The State ESEA director oriented the nonpublic schools through regional and local meetings and through correspondence. He and his staff have been most cooperative and apparently are quite willing for the nonpublic sector to have its due. At no point, however, were non-publicSchool officials involved in the planning and writing of projects." In the opinion of the diocesan superintendent, the community selected for study is typical of the kind of non-public-school involvement in ESEA title I activities in this State. "I am not very happy with this program of Federal aid under title I. It is going to put us (the diocesan school system) out of business, since the intent of the law to give comparable aid to non-public-school children is not being fulfilled. There is no possibility of this as long as we are not involved in the planning of projects at the local level." By September 1966 a letter of civil rights compliance for all of the parochial schools in the diocese had been sent from the superintendent's office to the State department of education. In addition to this, he asked each principal to write a letter to the local superintendent stating that the Catholic school is in compliance and expressing a wish to be included in the projects being planned for eligible children. During fiscal year 1966 there were instances of nonpublic schools wishing to participate in ESEA title I, but the local school district was not in compliance or did not wish to have any part of Federal aid. For them, there was no further recourse. "ESEA title I most seriously fails to recognize the competency of the non-public-school system. The aid coming to our schools in this State has been in the form of the loans of projectors and films. During fiscal year 1966 one school had the service of a remedial reading teacher. As long as we have no voice in the planning of projects, our schools will be an afterthought, picking up what is left over." The problem of inequitable sharing is only emphasized by the fact that about $10 million reverted to the Federal agency in fiscal year 1966. The greater part of the $20 million that was expended was used to hire additional teachers to reduce class size, for teacher aides, for furniture, equipment, and teaching materials. Almost none of this was shared with the nonpublic schools. Some discrepancies were noted between the fiscal year 1966 SEA evaluation and statements made by the State title I director during an interview. He grossly overestimated that 94 percent of the fiscal year 1966 State funds were expended. The director claimed that the failure of local systems to comply with the civil rights provision or to request funds accounted for the residue. These residual funds were to have been portioned out to the other counties already in the program. "Some eligible LEA's have not submitted proposals because title I is generally considered a Negro activity." According to a State official, no deliberate estrangement exists between the public and nonpublic schools. It stems from the traditional separation of church and state. He believes that title I legislation could be improved in two ways: (1) more stable funding, and (2) revised legislation which would provide aid for all eligible children regardless of the type of schools they attend. On the fiscal year 1966 SEA evaluation, this same suggestion was made together with the additional restriction that these services be rendered in the public school facilities only and on a space-available arrangement. The diocesan superintendent believes that the only alternative would be recognition, at the Federal level, of nonpublic schools as a separate but equal educational agency. II. LOCAL CHARACTERISTICS This county identified 8,601 eligible children and was granted $1,042,441.20 for fiscal year 1966. The LEA district under study, one of four in the county, received a maximum allotment of $352,086 in fiscal year 1966 and $224,731 in fiscal year 1967. Sixteen public schools, 11 elementary, and five junior and five senior highs, comprise this LEA. In these schools children from low-income families account for from 61 to 92 percent of the total enrollment. The principal of the only nonpublic school located in the target area conducted a survey to determine that 32 percent of the enrollment in that school came from lowincome families. The major problem in this LEA is that the need far exceeds the available ESEA funds. The LEA coordinator believes that title I activities in this district may actually be encouraging segregation since Negro parents would rather avail themselves of title I benefits in a target school than send their children to a nontarget, predominately white school. |