E. Modification and redirection of title I components The large umbrella of component program services that was developed for the 1965-66 fiscal year under Title I provides the opportunity to view an array of programs all soundly conceived and directed toward the alleviation of pupil deficiencies, as well as improvement of their skills and enrichment of their experiences. However, this approach contained the major deficiency of the low funding element per component. Thus, these programs spread over the lives of thousands of children reduce the number of dollars expended per child thus finally weakening the total impact per child. In an attempt to provide concentration of effort in order to gain maximal impact per eligible child in the school district, a reconstruction of the Title I programs was begun in 1967-68. All of our eligible schools were categorized as A, B, or C schools. This categorization related to the total percentage of eligible children per school. Thus, an A school received maximum services, a B school moderate services, and a C school minimal services. In 1969-70 service to C schools was discontinued in favor of further concentrating services within A and B schools. Conceivably, then, program impact will be increased through service to a reduced number of eligible children in the remaining A and B schools. This means that 52 fewer school attendance areas or target areas (126 schools vs 178 previously) now receive Title I programs. Within a given A or B school, the services available are rendered only to those students who have multiple educational handicaps. That is, a student must meet at least three of the following criteria in order to be served: 1. one or more years retarded in reading achievement, 2. one or more years retarded in mathematics achievement, 3. a minimum of ten days absence per semester, 4. one or more years overaged in grade placement. 5. one or more police contacts, 6. three or more school counselor contacts for disciplinary action, 7. member of a low-income family. In the course of 1971-72 program planning it is anticipated that where indicated, modification will be made in these criteria. Some further refinements have been suggested. In determining whether or not a student is eligible for service, the “degree" of eligibility within each criterion must be taken into account. For example, a student with 12 days of absence and a student with 20 days of absence both meet that criterion of eligibility related to absenteeism, but if service must be limited, the student with the greatest number of absences (20) must be ranked as first to be served. It would seem that with criteria such as these, only a very few students would be eligible for service, but this is not the case. Perhaps, surprisingly, the massive nature of educational retardation and economic deprivation makes an overwhelming percentage of the students in almost all "A" schools and many "B" schools eligible. A review of the achievement scores from these schools will bear this out. (See attached chart-"Correlation of Pupil Achievement with Economic Conditions of Family in 35 Title I Schools) Moreover, Title I school attendance areas in Detroit, ranked only by one factor-concentration of pupils from low-income families-demonstrates again that for only the one criterion of low income, large percentages of students require special service. Add to this the other handicaps of poor achievement and frequent disciplinary contacts, and the number of pupils needing compensatory educational service in the Detroit Public Schools is vast. F. Additional Comments and Recommendations Related to Title I and Other Compensatory Educational Programs Philosophically, those who have responsibility for planning for the so-called educationally disadvantaged in the Detroit Public Schools are in agreement with the need for greatly increased per pupil expenditures, while maintaining the basic per pupil expenditure level established throughout the district. Put another way, DPS school officials have no problem with the concept of disproportionate funding of pupils, disadvantaged vs advantaged. But local officials do have a problem with levels of total funding which generate insufficient resources for the total number of educationally retarded pupils who absolutely must have compensatory educational experiences. Consistent with the modification and redirection of Title I components has been the development in 1967-68 of a program of class-size reduction and staff inservice training in 35 schools having pupils, almost 100% of whom are educa tionally disadvantaged. This redirection of Title I money was only accomplished through the serious reduction of other Title I programs with high potential. As a result of this development, thirty-five elementary schools, in the heart of the inner city and housing pupils with the highest degree of deprivation, are enjoying class-size reduction to a maximum of twenty-five in grades kindergarten through two. Though programs are being modified, these modifications are not made easily, Indeed, they are made with great difficulty and generate many problems for those responsible for their implementation. For example, to bring about the "35 School Program" alluded to above, at least one promising program-Communication Skills-was reduced by two thirds. Since this modification in 1967-68, other high potential programs have also been diminshed or discontinued in the interest of redirecting and concentrating effort. The "After School Enrichment and Remediation Classes" represents another example. Each of our Title programs serve as excellent models and have strong support among community groups as well as through the various Title I Project Advisory Councils. Any attempt to meet a higher priority local need through redirection and concentration of monies at the expense of a given program elicits a vigorous and serious protest from clients and community who have a vested interest. Thus, for example, a minor reduction in the Program to Continue Education for Pregnant Girls is met with angry protest from many citizens and clients. Even though citizens are now demanding a "reduction-in-class-size-inservice training" thrust on the one hand, they insist, on the other hand, that this must not come about by the curtailment of promising programs. These problems, in the absence of additional funds, remain with the local school district. Massive expansion of Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and other compensatory education legislation would enable the school district to maintain its specialized programs and expand them. It would also allow the development of ideal conditions in the local schools with high concentrations of eligible children toward the acquisition of significant academic achievement gains. This school district has courageously moved in many directions on behalf of its total student body and on behalf of its inner-city citizenry. This leadership has led to Detroit's current dilemma, demonstrated by willingness to improve in every educational direction and the lack of fiscal wherewithal to continue to expand and to more forcefully and fully develop its programs. Of serious concern to those who develop, operate and receive services from Detroit Public School special programs is the decrease (relative decrease in some cases) in funding level of these programs. The Detroit Schools no longer receive the $2,000,000 once provided by OEO for the Great Cities School Improvement Project. Funds totaling approximately $700,000 for the DPS involvement in the local Concentrated Employment Program (Urban Area Employment Program, employing and training 165 paraprofessionals) have been withdrawn. The funding of a very successful Model Neighborhood elementary reading program may suffer a 75% curtailment for the 1971-72 school year. Other factors complicate these money losses. Program costs increase at least 8-10% each year. This means an 8-10% increase in funding from year to year is necessary just to maintain existing levels of service. The number of students eligible for and requiring special educational service increases year by year. Pilot projects which were designed to demonstrate effectiveness need to be expanded. The realization is upon us that larger amounts of money per student are necessary to make differences in students' lives. This fact begs the concentration of limited resources on fewer and fewer students. As a result, many students with serious educational needs go unattended. The role of the paraprofessional in the Detroit Schools is critical. Some 2000 individuals employed in and out of the classroom have become key staff members; as essential to the smooth operation of schools as professional staff. Funds for the development of training programs and "career ladders" for paraprofessionals is a must. What is more, paraprofessionals are now organzing and developing bargaining units as formidable as those of teachers, administrators and other personnel. Where redirection and concentration has cost paraprofessionals their jobs, a disservice is performed in behalf of children as well as the adult paraprofessional. Needless to say, such a move creates problems. All of these factors have added up to one thing-severe demands being placed on limited funding resulting in unfortunate major modifications and cutbacks in all special programs. Inasmuch as these programs are essential to the prevention of educational deficits and improving students academic performance and behavior, it is critical that immediate attention be given by the Federal Government to increased levels of educational program funds to meet the new and ever increasing challenges to urban education. Detroit's experience of the past few years in special programming indicates that to bring about a more significant degree of improvement in the academic performance of students and to prevent the accumulation of educational deficits in children, more attention must be given to the provision of additional services to students during the school day. Furthermore, funds for services to students must be provided in quantities far in excess of the existing per capita allocations common to most urban school systems. When the DPS began developing and operating special educational programs sponsored by the OEO in 1964, program guidelines prevented the utilization of funds for students activities and programs during the school day. After school enrichment and remedial interventions, therefore, were emphasized as a fundamental vehicle for the involvement of students. Though many rewarding educational programs were mounted under this structure, experience suggests that a greater impact on student preformance and behavoir can be realized by the development of programs to involve students, teachers and parents during the school day rather than after. One of the important features of ESEA Title I, for instance, lies in its adaptability to meet local school needs during the school day. As was indicated, this was not possible with OEO funding. Detroit, for instance, has been able to provide services such as Reading Coordinators, Reduction of Class Size, special supervisory personnel in the person of Staff Coordinators for Elementary Schools, Communication Skills Centers, and Experimental Reading Programs as "during the school day" activities. Students who desperately need assistance and who, for one reason or another are not attracted to after-school activities, are able to be helped. What follows are charts and graphs showing relevant information regarding ESEA Title I in Detroit. CORRELATION OF PUPIL ACHIEVEMENT WITH ECONOMIC CONDITIONS OF FAMILY IN 35 TITLE I SCHOOLS 1 All schools are classified as A schools with the exception of Hillger-which is classified as B. 99 62 50 56 60 63 55 59 90 85 82 95 78 75 55 75 55 70 60 55 66 90 60 80 65 80 61 70 88 60 81 55 60 80 64 60 68 75 50 DETROIT PUBLIC SCHOOLS-ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION ACT, YEARLY FUNDING LEVELS III. EVALUATION SUMMARY OF THE EFFECTS OF COMPENSATORY EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS SERVING PUPILS IN DETROIT PUBLIC SCHOOLS These findings are based upon the results of the Iowa Test of Basic Skills administered to Grade 4 pupils as part of the regularly scheduled testing program in the Detroit Public Schools. This grade level was selected for analysis because most compensatory educational programs are directed towards pupils in the early grades. From 1968 to 1970, the percentage of Grade 4 pupils in all Detroit Schools more than one year below grade level in reading achievement decreased from fifty percent to forty-six percent. In 1968, sixty-four percent of the Grade 4 pupils in Title I schools were more than one year below grade level in reading achievement; by 1970, this percentage was reduced to fifty-four. The corresponding reduction in non-Title I schools was only five percent, from fortyfive percent to forty percent. Approximately one-fifth of the Title I schools showed a reduction of at least twenty percent; only one-tenth of the non-Title I schools showed a similar reduction. In 1968, one out of nine Title I schools had fewer pupils retarded in reading than the city mean; in 1970, the ratio increased to one out of five. The overall rate of improvement in the percentage of pupils retarded in reading was twice as great in schools, that were participating in projects funded by the state and federal government, in addition to locally funded programs. The following graphs indicate the extent to which the percent of pupils substantially below grade level in reading achievement has been reduced over the past two years. |