Staffing and training

Title I programs have created an enormous demand for teachers, specialists, professionals, and subprofessionals. Many States reported serious shortages of personnel and are trying to solve the shortages through special training, use of subprofessionals, and new recruitment methods.

They have sought the help of universities in the areas of curriculum development, inservice training, and evaluation. They have brought experienced, retired teachers back to the schools. They have tapped community resources for nonprofessional assistance and have encouraged parents to participate in the educational process.

Forty-eight of the fifty-four reporting agencies told of turning to salaried subprofessionals (often termed "aides" or "assistants"). By handling certain tasks, these aides free the teacher to spend more time on professional duties. Though most of these subprofessionals were used in the classroom, many assisted in the library, playground, nurse's office, and business office.

Some agencies have used volunteers from VISTA, the Neighborhood Youth Corps, and various community clubs and organizations. Older students have helped. Twenty-five States reported that local agencies had managed to increase or extend the assignments of existing staff through summer programs, night classes, and Saturday programs. Other approaches to recruiting additional staff included hiring of consultants and greater use of substitute teachers.

Although staff salaries accounted for 41 percent of title I expenditures, the figure would have been higher had more qualified personnel been available at the time projects were scheduled to begin.

Inservice training programs were reported by 51 of the 54 reporting agencies. The three techniques most frequently employed were (1) local agency training, (2) institutes conducted by colleges or universities, and (3) college course enrollment subsidized by the local agency. One State report said of the impact of title I on staff training: "Many schools have had more inservice training under title I than during the prior 10-year period."

In general, the States found that title I has

Provided additional and improved teaching services;

Had a positive, uplifting influence on staff;

Permitted inservice training for teachers and staff;

Helped staff to understand and help culturally deprived

children;

Provided for experimental instructional approaches;

Fostered and encouraged constructive new ideas;

Provided consultants for school personnel;

Improved teaching techniques;

Provided planning time; and

Provided financial incentives for inservice training.

Parents and the community

Parents and the community also have felt the impact of title I. Parents have become involved-often for the first time-in programs for their children, in conferences and parent education classes, and as classroom aides and community spokesmen.

States reported these positive benefits of parent and community participation:

Increased parental interest in children's education;

Improved school-community relations;

Greater parental involvement in school and community; Increased awareness of the importance of comprehensive, quality education;

Better cooperation between the school and other agencies;
Improved home-school relations;

Improved attitudes toward racial integration; and

Involvement of teachers and parents in child study programs. One Midwestern State pointed out that programs stressing parental involvement were vital and popular.

Those projects which brought parents and/or students into the early planning stages of the program, which took pains to discern the current image of the school in the community, to listen to the parents' definition of his children's needs, to listen to a child's perception of his school and his life-these programs were frequently oversubscribed.

The report from Ohio records the same dynamic quality in parentcommunity programs. Referring to "enthusiasm and vigor in the classroom," the report notes that "this revitalization" of interest. spread to "otherwise uninvolved parent and lay groups in matters of educational concern."

Nonpublic schools

In drawing up the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, Congress provided for participation of nonpublic school children from poverty backgrounds in title I programs. State agencies reported that, during the first year, over 525,000 children from nonpublic schools were involved.

Reports from the States generally indicated that there might have been more participation by nonpublic school students if local agencies had made a more intensive effort to involve nonpublic schools in planning and executing the title I programs. Nevertheless, many States reported that lines of communication between public and nonpublic schools have been established and improved. Often for the first time, public and nonpublic school administrators have come together to plan and coordinate certain activities.

The big cities

Title I programs in 32 of the largest school systems in the country involved about 1.5 million participants, 18 percent of the national total. The 25,000 new elementary and secondary teaching positions in title I programs in these 32 cities approximate the total teaching staff in a city the size of Chicago.

Local apprehension about future Federal funding apparently caused some cities to incorporate title I programs into their educational systems only on a short-term basis. This uncertainty was cited as a major factor affecting both administrative and educational decisions. Comment from the cities frequently focused on the need for assurance of Federal commitment to continue programs once they have been started.

Interrelationships of the titles of ESEA

The five titles of ESEA were planned as a coordinated program to strengthen the entire structure of American education. Educators

and the architects of the legislation hoped that ESEA would become a powerful force for bringing innovation to the schools.

State reports indicate that the most prevalent interrelationship between titles of ESEA at the local level existed between title I and title II, which provides additional library materials. Most States reported that the two titles were used in a mutually reinforcing manner. There were many instances of interaction between title I and title III (supplementary centers and services), but relatively few involved coordinated planning. There was no extensive evidence of interaction between title I and title IV (educational research).

Title V of ESEA is designed to strengthen the capacity of State departments of education to provide leadership. Since title I is a State-administered program, the States responded to title I needs by augmenting their staffs and services with title V funds.

C. THE FUTURE: PROBLEMS, OBJECTIVES, RECOMMENDATIONS

The sheer magnitude of the title I concept presented a major organizational and administrative challenge to Federal, State, and local educators charged with responsibility for carrying out the program. State and local agencies took on the vast task with optimism and initiative. Some 22,000 projects were planned, analyzed, funded. administered, and executed with a relatively high degree of success.

Still, many difficulties plagued State and local agencies. The guide for evaluation and reporting sent to the States by the Office of Education asked for an analysis of problems and recommendations for solutions. Much of this title I report deals with these problems and recommendations, as reported by the States in their evaluations. Evaluation

This report represents the first national effort at self-evaluation of broad educational programs designed to assist educationally deprived children. Although it falls far short of long-range goals for accurate assessment of progress, it represents a historic first step in building an evaluation model for the future. It provides a guide for State and local agencies to improve their evaluation procedures, and it illuminates the need for more attention to the testing and assessment objectives of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. The basis of this evaluation report was the "U.S. Office of Education Guide for State Annual Evaluation Reports," a reporting form provided the States as a model for their own evaluation guidelines and reporting forms for distribution to local educational agencies (see appendix C). Although nearly all of the States distributed the U.S. Office of Education form to local educational agencies, the returns were not of sufficient quality to make an accurate evaluation of the effectiveness of title I programs.

As reported by the States, these were the major evaluation problems encountered at both local and State levels:

Misinterpretation of requirements by local agencies;

Lack of time to acquaint local agencies with requirements;
Shortage of evaluation personnel;

Lack of time to review evaluation reports; and
Limitations in data processing capability.

Three other factors severely limited the effectiveness of the first year's evaluation efforts:

The short duration of many of the programs. Most title I programs during the regular school season had been in operation for only 3 or 4 months by the end of the fiscal year in June 1966. A lack of appropriate tests and instruments designed to measure the specific handicaps and disabilities identified with culturally and educationally deprived children.

A lack of compatibility among the various measuring instruments used by the local educational agencies.

Major problems reported

The administrative problems reported by State educational agencies (SEA's) in their first year of experience with title I programs fell within three major areas: reviewing proposals, operations and services, and evaluation (see exhibit I-1).

1

EXHIBIT I-1.-State problems in administering title I programs

A major source of difficulty, according to the SEA's, was the conflict between congressional appropriation procedures and the traditional funding schedule of the schools. States reported that the congressional appropriations cycle is not properly meshed with the school budgeting cycle. Local school districts also said that they were hesitant to plan programs and hire additional personnel without some assurance that a specific level of funding would be maintained over several years.

Many States observed that the problem of the persistent shortage of specialized personnel had been magnified by title I, particularly among reading specialists, guidance counselors, school psychologists, social workers, special education personnel, and experts in evaluation (see exhibit I-2).

SEA's also observed that some local educational agency (LEA) title I proposals placed much emphasis on features of general aid to education, such as the purchase of equipment and construction for the entire school system, rather than on the provision of special activities and services for the disadvantaged. Part of this confusion concerning the appropriate use of title I funds may have arisen from failure to adhere to section 205(a) (1) B of Public Law 89-10, which calls upon LEA's to design programs "which are of sufficient size, scope, and 1 These 3 categories were cited as examples in the Office of Education evaluation report form. SEA's generally adhered to them in their reports.

quality to give reasonable promise of substantial progress toward meeting * **the special educational needs of educationally deprived children" (see exhibit I-3).

EXHIBIT I-2.-Personnel shortages by type of personnel and community size

READING SPECIALISTS AND GUIDANCE COUNSELORS AMONG MAJOR PERSONNEL

EXHIBIT I-3.-Number of States rejecting project proposals on the basis of size, scope, and quality, by reason for rejection

OVEREMPHASIS ON EQUIPMENT, SUPPLIES, AND CONSTRUCTION PRIMARY REASON FOR PROPOSAL REJECTION

The major recommendation that emerged from the State reports is Congress should appropriate funds earlier and for longer periods of time.

The school district planning cycle typically calls for budgeting funds in the spring for expenditures beginning the following fall Twenty-seven of the States suggested that allocations be determined early in the spring. The cities particularly emphasized the impor tance of long-term funding.

Another recommendation frequently made was that the Office of Education guidelines and regulations be available prior to the start of the fiscal year.

Both recommendations, if followed, would result in more effective planning, development, staffing, and implementation of projects. the States said.