THE FOURTH ANNUAL REPORT OF THE PRESIDENT'S NATIONAL ADVISORY COUNCIL ON SUPPLEMENTARY CENTERS AND SERVICES

TIME FOR A PROGRESS REPORT, ESEA TITLE III

Hon. RICHARD M. NIXON,
The White House,
Washington, D.C.

MARCH 1972.

DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: The members of the National Advisory Council on Supplementary Centers and Services are pleased to submit to you and to the Congress this report on the operation of Title III of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act during fiscal year 1971.

We are honored to serve on this Council because we believe deeply in the principles embodied in Title III of ESEA. We are convinced that education urgently needs opportunities to innovate, to experiment, and to find new solutions to difficult problems. We are aware that demands upon local funds for the basic operating costs of schools are such that many localities are unable to engage in creative educational innovation. Federal support extended to local school districts specifically to encourage innovation, under Title III, is an indispensable contribution to the improvement of American education.

The effect of Title III is visible in more than four thousand innovative projects in school systems throughout the country, but the most significant result of this program is the receptivity to change which it has created. In a climate conducive to change, education can utilize new theory and new practices to achieve the flexibility and responsiveness it needs to meet the many heavy demands now being made upon it.

We welcome the opportunity to inform you of the progress of the Title III program in the past year and to make suggestions for its improvement, a responsibility mandated to us by the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. In doing so, we join with all who are working for the continuing revitalization of American education.

Respectfully submitted,

INTRODUCTION

HERBERT W. WEY,

Chairman.

Children who were born in 1965, the year the Elementary and Secondary Education Act became law, are now in the first grade. They are the first children whose school experience may be affected from the beginning by the federal government's participation in education. It seems appropriate to ask at this time—"Is the first grade better for these children than it would have been without ESEA?"

This annual report on Title III of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act is a progress report after six years of Title III programs. In seeking to measure the effect of Title III on the classrooms which the children born in 1965 are now entering, the National Advisory Council on Supplementary Centers and Services has sought information from many sources.

Of primary importance are the descriptions of Title III projects which are included in the states' annual reports to the United States Office of Education. They show Title III participation in every subject areas of elementary and secondary education, with innovative approaches being applied to the solution of many kinds of educational problems. Of the thousands of projects active during fiscal year 1971, this report lists those named by the states as their most exemplary. They are representative of other equally successful projects.

In addition, the report includes summaries of eleven projects which were selected as models for dissemination by a nationwide assortment of Title III conducted by the National Advisory Council under a grant from the United States Office of Education. These projects have achieved measurable gains in student performance and are judged to be replicable in other sites.

The report also includes the views of state advisory councils which have been appointed to oversee the Title III program, and of persons who have administrative responsibility for Title III in state departments of education. The members of the National Advisory Council have contributed their personal comments about Title III in its relation to education as a whole.

Believing that the Title III program has reached a point at which it should be examined closely, the National Advisory Council in 1971 commissioned studies

of two aspects of the program. They deal with state advisory councils and the rate of continuation of Title III projects after federal funding terminates. Summaries of these studies are included in this report.

From all of these sources, the National Advisory Council has drawn a picture of the impact of Title III on the education of children now coming into our schools. It shows that many first-graders are better prepared for educational experience because they have participated in creative preschool programs. Others are learning to read by new methods which try to reach more children more effectively than traditional approaches have done. Mathematics has become an exciting exploration of materials and measurements in many classrooms. Young children are having experiences in the environment and the world of work which were once reserved for secondary school. Many first-graders now receive regular guidance and counseling at the age when academic problems are known to begin. A range of supportive services available to teachers is making it possible to retain handicapped and learning-disabled children in regular classrooms where they may achieve normal personal and social development. Innovative approaches to all of these aspects of education are represented in Title III projects active during fiscal 1971.

It is true that not every child experiences a Title III project directly. The level of appropriations for Title III has always been far below authorization, and the states have never been able to fund more than a fraction of the qualified innovative proposals which they receive from local education agencies. But the Title III program is intended to serve as a stimulant to educational change, and a Title III project in one classroom benefits many children elsewhere by giving evidence that the educational system is open to creative new thinking.

To summarize its report, the National Advisory Council makes eleven recommendaions for the improvement of Title III. Three of these are similar to recommendations made in the 1970 report of the Council and not yet acted upon by the Congress or the Office of Education. The Council urges that attention be given to them at this time.

THE RATE OF CONTINUATION OF TITLE III PROJECTS AFTER FEDERAL FUNDING HAS TERMINATED

This National Advisory Council report on the rate of continuation of Title III projects explores only that form of continuation which is represented by the actual identifiable existence of a program under local sponsorship after the end of federal funding. The continuation of the ideas and concepts embodied in Title III projects, and their influence upon other educational programs, is a major contribution of the Title III program and should be the subject of continuing study at both state and national levels.

Superintendents of 788 school districts which received ESEA Title III funds for three-year operational grants beginning in 1966, 1967, and 1968 were contacted in September, 1971, regarding the continuation of their Title III projects after federal funding expired. There were 679 responses. For the purposes of the questionnaire which was sent to the superintendents, "continuation" meant that the project survived beyond the federal funding period and continued to meet the original needs and objectives.

Sixty-seven per cent of the 679 respondents indicated that their projects continued after federal funding terminated. Of these continued projects, 79.2 percent were in existence in October, 1971, while 20.8 per cent had continued for some time after federal funding but discontinued prior to October, 1971. Therefore, 53 per cent of the Title III projects funded for three-year periods between 1966-68 not only continued after federal funding but are in existence today. (see table 1).

In response to another question, "To what extent does the project continue to meet its original needs within its original jurisdiction?" respondents from continued projects replied as follows: 1.4 per cent, not at all; 13.5 per cent, on a significantly smaller scale; 30.3, per cent, on a somewhat smaller scale; 18.3 per cent, on the same level; 21.4 percent, on a somewhat higher level; and 14.7 per cent, on a significantly higher level. Nearly 55 per cent of the projects, therefore continue to meet the goals developed when the project was initially funded.

PROJECT ADOPTION BEYOND ORIGINAL SITE

School superintendents of districts which have had Title III projects believe that their projects were adopted in full (15%), or in part (45%), by at least one other school district. Only 13 per cent felt that there had been no adoption of their projects, even in part, but 53 per cent agreed that no other schools had adopted them wholly. The need for development of instruments for measuring such dissemination of a local project is underscored by the "uncertain" response of 32 per cent of the superintendents to the question of adoption in full and the even higher rate of uncertainly (41%) concerning partial adoption (See Table II)

It is a major responsibility of Title III to effect widespread adoption of innovative practices and programs. This requires dialogue among educators at all levels, dissemination of project reports and other written materials, and on-site visitations and conferences. The role of the project director, as the individual best informed about his program, is crucial in all these efforts.

I. The National Advisory Council Recommends That Specific Procedures for the diffusion of Exemplary Programs Be Developed at the Project, State and National Levels

LOCAL COMMITMENT TO FEDERALLY TERMINATED PROJECTS

To determine local commitment to Title III projects in terms of funds provided, a comparison was made between the third or last year of federal funding and local support after federal funding had terminated. When asked, "As a percentage of the last year of federal funding, at what level of funding did the project continue?" 96.5 per cent of those questioned replied, with responses breaking down as follows:

Funding was unnecessary for continuation__
Less than 25 percent of 3-year funding..

25 to 49 percent of 3-year funding....

50 to 99 percent of 3-year funding---.

100 to 124 percent of 3-year funding

125 to 150 percent of 3-year funding_
Greater than 150 percent of 3-year funding.......

Percent

12.1

17.2

17.0

17.7

14. 8

12. 8

4.9