INTRODUCTION This is the first national report of the operations and programs of title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act for the education of disadvantaged children. Essentially, it is a summary of the individual reports submitted by 50 States, three territories, and the District of Columbia covering activities for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1966. It is a report of progress and promise as well as of problems. It reveals new strengths in the American educational system as well as many difficulties in dealing with the blight of poverty in disadvantaged section of this Nation. The dimensions of the report are broad and far-reaching: Aid to 8.3 million children in 17,481 school districts in every State in the Union. Nearly $1 billion provided for vital educational and other services in 22,173 projects ranging from summer science camps through remedial reading, hot meals, health services, studentparent night classes, educational television, computer instruction, and bus service in isolated areas. Created 200,000 new, part-time and full-time teaching positions. Created 180,000 part-time and full-time professional and subprofessional positions. For many communities the impact of title I on local education was dramatic. The State of South Carolina said in its report that title I "was bringing about an educational revolution." This statement is echoed in the reports of one State after another. For millions of children served by title I in its first year, the "revolution" meant, for the first time, individual instruction in reading, writing, mathematics, and other fundamental aspects of learning. For some it was a hot meal every day, eyeglasses, and medical and psychiatric assistance. For others it meant a new library book, a concert, a visit to the zoo or to an art gallery. To an Oregon boy it meant that his classes had become so exciting that he walked 61⁄2 miles so he could get to school earlier than if he rode the bus. A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON EDUCATION Across the country, from hard facts or soft data, test scores, teacher impressions, parent reactions, fingerprinted and smudged notes from children, etc., the reaction to Title I in general has been that it has, in fact, had a significant impact on education, and that the disadvantaged children are being given a greater opportunity to participate in the existing educational system. Within the first year of operation, with the mammoth problems, hang-ups, and a majority of people who completely "lost their cool," the fact that Title I got off the ground, and in addition accomplished significant gains, is pretty phenomenal. -Wisconsin For teachers it meant a smaller class, a teacher's aide, new materials and equipment, and often the discovery of a new, hopeful attitude on the part of their students. For parents it was a new awareness of the school and its relationship to the community and to the lives of their children. For school administrators it meant additional resources to reach the goal of providing equality of educational opportunity. This report describes projects which were in operation only about 4 months of the 1966 school year. It is based on data submitted, for the most part, in response to the "Office of Education Guide for State Evaluation Reports." Because of time limitations, lack of established evaluating procedures and techniques, failure to use achievement measuring systems, and the lack of trained evaluators, the report lacks some of the specifics of a technical evaluation report. Nevertheless, a great amount of useful and illuminating information has been accumulated by the States and territories. From that information emerges a clear picture of how American schools met the mandate of Congress to provide for educationally deprived children. Background Congress hereby declares it to be the policy of the United States to provide financial assistance to local educational agencies serving areas with concentrations of children from low-income families in order to expand and improve their educstional programs by various means * * * which contribute particularly to meeting the special educational needs of educationally deprived children. -Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (Public Law 89-10 Signed into law by President Johnson in April 1965 and funded by Congress the following September, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA) became the Nation's first large-scale attack on the educational deprivation of children of poverty. It came after a careful look at schools serving urban and rural areas of extreme poverty-schools with high dropout rates, low achievement levels, poor health and food services, inadequate staff and physical facilities, and not enough trained teachers. In practice, the goal of title I is to provide "compensatory education" for the millions of schoolchildren whose crippling background of poverty offers them little hope for successful schooling. California described that goal as encompassing "all services and activities which children from poverty environments need in order to have an equal opportunity to succeed in school." To Illinois, "compensatory programs represented and became a symbol of hope-hope that school activities having meaning, reality, and usefulness to their children, in their efforts to become fully functioning citizens, were being provided. Briefly, the act provides financial assistance to local educational agencies for special educational programs for disadvantaged children in areas having high concentrations of low-income families. Projects are planned, administered, and executed by local schools after State approval. The Federal Government lays down broad guidelines for proper administration of the funds to insure that the money is spent on children of poverty as Congress intended. The act also requires an evaluation of title I programs at four different levels by local agencies, the States, the U.S. Office of Education, and a National Advisory Council on the Education of Disadvantaged Children appointed by the President. The Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare specifically requested the Office of Education: to provide it early in the next session with a report on the evaluative measures used and the findings resulting from the evaluations made, in order that 1 A discussion of evaluation can be found on pp. 924-925. cognizance may be taken of desirable changes which should be made in future perfecting legislation. What follows is the response of the States and the Office of Education to that request. Scope Fifty States, the District of Columbia, and the territories of Guam, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and the Trust Territory of the Pacific participated in the first year's program of title I of the ESEA. A summary of the eligibility and participation of local educational agencies follows: Total local educational agencies or school districts, fall 1965: 26,983. Total local educational agencies eligible for title I: 24, 926. Total local educational agencies participating in title I: 17,481. Total local educational agencies eligible, but not participating in title I: 7,445. Approximately 92 percent of the Nation's local educational agencies met the criteria for eligibility established in Public Law 89-10. However, of these eligible agencies, approximately 30 percent did not participate in title I. One hundred and four of them (whose allocations accounted for about 2 percent of the total entitlement) were not in compliance with title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.2 A majority of the other 7,341 eligible local districts not participating felt that their allocations were too small to make individual or cooperative projects with other school districts practical. In some cases, the States reported, it was necessary to reject applications from local agencies with small allocations because the proposed projects failed to meet Federal or State criteria for size, scope, and quality. In all, during the first year of operation, 8.3 million children were served by title I and some $987.6 million was expended, including about $11 million for handicapped children under Public Law 89-313. Expenditures totaled 84 percent of the allocations. The average title I expenditure per pupil was $119, but the expenditure ranged from about $25 to $227. For many States this represented a substantial increase over average current per pupil expenditures, the national average being about $532 for 1965-66. Nearly 52 percent of the $987.6 million in title I funds the first year was spent on instruction; about two-thirds of that amount was spent for language arts and remedial reading, which were identified as the top priority by the majority of local educational agencies. Some 20 percent of the total was spent on educational equipment, and about 10 percent was spent for construction. Food and health services accounted for 4.5 percent of the total expenditures. 1 Eligibility and the amounts of grants are determined by a formula based on the number of school-age children from low-income families multiplied by one-half the State average per pupil expenditure. 2 Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 states: "No persons in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subject to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance." Exhibit 1 shows estimated expenditures by category for fiscal year 1966. Nearly 65 percent of the participants in title I programs were in preschool through grade six. Ninety-two percent of the students were enrolled in public schools and 6 percent in nonpublic schools. About 2 percent of the students were not enrolled in school. Exhibit 2 shows the distribution by grade level and by type of enrollment of children who received title I assistance. EXHIBIT 2.-Number of children who received title I assistance, by grade level and type of enrollment |