III. STATE AND LOCAL OPERATIONS

A. STATE ADMINISTRATION AND ORGANIZATION

Title I set the stage for a new era of leadership by SEA's. Suddenly and dramatically, the States were called upon by title I to allocate $1 billion to their local school systems, to lend a hand in planning and developing thousands of new educational programs, to review and approve them, and to evaluate their effectiveness. How they exercised their leadership in assisting LEA's to meet the call of title I is outlined in this section.

1. State operations and services

Although time limitations made it impossible for SEA personnel to visit each school with title I projects, the SEA's felt it imperative to establish early, direct communication with LEA's to insure adherence to the special criteria established in the legislation. All but two of the 54 SEA reports mentioned State services to local school districts. The SEA's planned conferences, meetings, and workshops to explain to local educators the ramifications of the new law and what it entailed for the school systems eligible for the additional Federal assistance.

The Washington State Office of Public Instruction, for example, used a statewide two-way, amplified telephone conversation for one of its conferences. Pennsylvania conducted more than 100 regional conferences. Maryland, foreseeing a heavy demand on the financial accounting resources of the LEA's, contracted with an accounting agency to help LEA's prepare for the new program.

The State reports showed that direct SEA assistance was concentrated in the area of project applications and evaluation. As just one illustration, the South Carolina title I staff met with each of 108 school districts to review procedures for submitting project applications and held over 300 office conferences. As a consequence, it was able to approve all projects and avoid the misunderstandings and delays that might have resulted from temporary disapprovals.

Another important area of assistance was curriculum and educational program development. Among the States commenting in detail on this service, New Jersey and Florida cited practices proving particularly successful.

In New Jersey, teams of four members, each with a different specialty, were deployed to every county to assist in the planni ng development, and operation of projects. Florida reported that education generalists worked with local districts "to make certain that title I projects are focused toward the needs of educationally disadvantaged children and that these projects are, in a very real sense. integral parts of the LEA's ongoing educational prograin, and not something that operates on the fringe." When the need arose, the generalists called in specialists from the State department.

Thirty-eight States reported visits and consultation by SEA personnel; 45 held workshops and conferences; 18 issued written and oral communications. They utilized these methods to provide the following types of assistance:

The five titles of ESEA were planned and developed to serve as a coordinated program. Title I would provide a massive, comprehensive State-administered program for educationally disadvantaged children. Title II would provide additional library materials. Title III would provide supplementary centers and services. Title IV would provide educational research in the problem areas of the educational enterprise. Title V would strengthen the capacity of State departments of education to provide leadership in the entire process. The architects of the legislation hoped that ESEA would become a powerful vehicle for change in schools throughout the Nation.

The 54 State reports indicate that the most prevalent interrelationships existed between titles I and II, which most States reported using in a mutually reinforcing manner. There were many instances of interaction between titles I and III but relatively few of coordinated planning. The State reports reveal little interaction between titles and IV. Because of its special significance with regard to State operations, the relationship of title V to title I is presented first. The frequency of title I relationships reported with all titles is shown in exhibit III-1.

EXHIBIT III-1.—Interrelationship of title I with other titles of ESEA

MOST DIRECT RELATIONSHIP OCCURRED WITH TITLE II, LEAST WITH TITLE IV

Since title I is a State-administered program, its implementation led to expansion of State education department staffs and services with title V funds. Many States established field service staffs. Curriculum specialists were in many cases added to the permanent State staffs to provide advice to LEA's. Some States increased their technical-assistance capability by hiring consultants and their evaluation capability by adding testing services and hiring evaluation

experts. The need for fiscal accounting in several instances led to the establishment of data processing systems supported with title V funds. Title V funds in some States were used for inservice training programs and workshops for title I personnel.

An example of the scope of title V assistance is illustrated by the following quotation from the Nebraska report:

Title V funds have been used by the State Agency to strengthen its leadership capacity. In this respect, the SEA has funded new positions in the area of preschool, social work, research, and finance, which improve the ability to promote the intent and purposes of Title I apart from the direct application funding procedure.

Provisions which will be added under Title V with which to supplement Title I are consultants in the following areas: social studies, elementary education, English and language arts, health and physical education, and educational television. The educational television consultant will be hired specifically to plan and develop programs to benefit the educationally deprived student. The consultants in the other areas will be used to assist local school personnel in assessing needs of children, in designing projects to alleviate the needs of the educationally deprived and in reviewing activities funded under Title I as they relate to their special area.

The 36 States reporting direct title I-title V relationships listed the following activities: hiring State title I staff (22); adding curriculum staff (11); testing, evaluation, and data processing services (11); inservice training for title I personnel (5).

The Wisconsin report states that "new positions were created with title V funds in areas of preschool education, social work research, and finance which will improve the capability and programs in title I." In addition, “new finance positions relating to audit procedures and requirements under title I were created," and "title V data processing capabilities related to title I audit, evaluation, application, and approval will benefit all education programs in the State." Indians school systems sponsored workshops under title I and title V for preschool teachers in target areas, and in West Virginia title V money was used to create an Office of Research which assisted the planning and evaluation of all title I projects.

New York State implemented several title V programs bearing on activities under title I. Its office of urban education project seeks to identify the problems of urban education and devise ways of relating the resources of the State department of education to these problems State department personnel work closely with school and municipal leaders. A final phase will involve actual implementation of new ideas. "The educational problems of title I children," the State reported, "are herein being carefully considered in a manner predicated upon thoughtfully planned procedures rather than in the present manner of providing expedient stop-gap measures whose value seems at times questionable."

Title I and title II

The close coordination between these two titles, reported by 47 States, reflected the prevalence of reading and language arts programs under title I. Many of the title II materials purchased were used in such academic areas as reading, math, and science.

While title II funds were paying for materials, title I money augmented library programs by making it possible to add librarians and library aides to the staff, 21 States reported. Eleven State agencies said that title I funds were used to construct or remodel library facilities that could house new materials acquired through title II

In implementing its title II program, South Carolina gave top priority in its distribution of title II materials to children from low-income families and schools with the greatest State library standard deficiencies. The entire State title II plan was written and administered, the State reported, "to enable the State to operate title I and title II as integral aspects of the same program with regard to library materials and textbooks. Title I funds are used to construct and equip libraries in these schools, [and] title II funds are used in those schools *** having a major deficiency in library acquisitions."

In Texas, title II resources and special books were available to title I projects and students during special summer and afterschool programs, and instructional media centers established under title II were available and "of great benefit to title I instructional projects," the State report noted. "Source guides" were developed with West Virginia title II funds to help local teachers and administrators select suitable materials for title I schools.

The New York State evaluation report cited 70 school library projects under title I that were cooperatively funded under title II:

When title II grants were utilized in target areas, it was necessary when warranted to complement title II activities and services with personnel and equipment funded under title I, ESEA. Librarians were employed with title I funds and, in many cases, funds for remodeling existing facilities or renting quarters to house the library resources were granted. This funding also included mobile libraries.

To supplement title I projects, title II funds were used to add library materials and in many cases to inaugurate classroom and/or school libraries. Title II funds were allocated to equip instructional resource centers including audiovisual materials, periodicals and books, to be used in conjunction with curricula, both academic and nonacademic, being implemented under title I.

Illustrations of how title II materials were used to complement title I reading programs were found in the Illinois report. Title I and title II funds were used in approximately 45 percent of title I projects, State officials reported:

The overwhelming majority of these funds were expended on supplementary library materials, uniquely geared to the interest and abilities of the disadvantaged or to supplement inadequate basic libraries in target schools. It is worthy to note that the titles were used relatedly in a large proportion of smaller school projects, wherein the title I educational loan may well have been limited. Title I and title III

The interrelationships between title I and title III were limited for several reasons: many school districts, especially the smaller ones, did not submit proposals under title III; title III proposals usually were not specifically written to meet the needs of the title I population; during fiscal year 1966 most title III projects were still in the planning stage; and many States reported that differing application procedures discouraged development of interrelated programs.

Even so, there were instances of interrelationship between titles I and III. These instances for the most part, however, were not based on joint planning.

Title I in one Idaho community paid for subprofessionals, while both titles helped support a student learning center. The inclusion of the aides to supervise the study hall freed teachers to work with the students in the special center. In the same State, both titles were also used in a cooperative teaching project, with title I supporting the inservice training for all teachers.

In Colorado, the use of title I funds for transportation made it possible to launch interdistrict cooperative title III projects. Title I materials were used extensively in a number of title III summer programs. In the same State, title I provided the money to screen children in low-income areas so needy students could take advantage of a title III reading service center.

Title III funds in West Virginia were used to establish regional centers serving the needs of several counties; the centers offered specialized services to small school systems which could not offer such services under title I. A title III educational service center served a number of New Mexico title I schools with guidance, speech, reading curriculum, research, and computer services.

Title I and title IV

Only four State reports demonstrated board interrelationship between title I and title IV. The development of title IV regional laboratories occurred after most title I programs were well underway.

Missouri reported that the Midcontinent Regional Educational Laboratory, in conjunction with four large cities, planned to develop a pilot project-the community service school. This school would operate on the concept that the problems of the educationally disadvantaged are not confined to the classroom but are inseparably related to the child's overall environment. It would "provide a whole range of services and activities related to the remediation of educational deficiencies and improvement of learning skills among students and adults."

Michigan used title IV funds to conduct conferences on evaluation for the benefit of title I teachers.

Problems of interrelationships as reported by States

Some of the major obstacles to coordinating the 5 titles of ESEA, as reported by 21 States, were:

Lack of personnel. In many States a limited staff was called upon to implement and manage numerous programs. Their first priority was to initiate these programs, and under these conditions coordination was sometimes necessarily neglected.

Lack of planning time.

Timing of funding. The school planning cycle begins in the spring when money is budgeted for expenditure the following fall. The fiscal year 1966 ESEA funds were not appropriated until late September. The States reported that this time differential made coordination almost impossible.

Lack of consistency in the approval procedures among titles. A few LEA's said that programs rejected under one title were subsequently approved under another. Moreover, development of interdependent projects, especially those involving titles I and III, was inhibited by the possibility that one part of a coordinated proposal might be approved but another part disapproved.

Lack of awareness at the LEA level of the need for interrelationship among the titles. Some States noted that certain library materials purchased under title II proved to be incompatible with title I programs.