ED 049 333

TITLE

INSTITUTION

PUB DATENOTE

EDRS PRICEDESCRIPT01-6

IDENTIFIERS

DOCUMENT RESUME

UD 011 423

The Weakest Link: The Children of the Poor. Title I,E.S.E.A. 1971 Annual Report to the President and theCongress.National Advisory Council on the Education ofDisadvantaged Children, Washington, D.C.1 Mar 7141p.

EDRS Price MF-$0.65 HC-$3.29*Compensatory Education Programs, *CostEffectiveness, Cultural Differences, EducationalAccountability, Educational Administration,Educational Finance, Educational Quality, FederalPrograms, Federal State Relationship, *LongitudinalStudies, *Parent Participation, School Integration,States Powers*Elementary Secondary Education Act Title I, ESEATitle I Programs, New York

ABSTRACTIn this 1971 annual report of the National Advisory

Council on the Education of Disadvantaged Children, the Council hadas its central concern the question: "What is best for the children ?"Instead of another Title I ESEA evaluative survey, the Ccuncilconcentrated on three elements affecting the success of Title I --delivery of services, parent involvement, and cultural diversity. Therelationships of compensatory education and the dynamics of schooldesegregation were also important concerns the Council faced. Amongthe Council1s recommendations are: (1) discussion of need to solveserious funding problems; (2) endorsement of three-way communicationamong parents, teachers, and school officials; (3) endorsement of acombined approach to school desegregation and compensatory education;and, (4) endorsement of curriculum materials and teacher preparationwhich are oriented to the affective factors of teaching culturallydifferent children. (Author/DM)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATIONSt WELFARE

OFFICE OF EDUCATION

r.4.% THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REPRODUCEDEXACTLY AS RECEIVED FROM THE PERSON ORORGANIZATION ORIGINATING IT POINTS OF'4\ VIEW OR OPINIONS STATED GO NOT NECESSARILY REPRESENT OFFICIAL OFFICE OF EDI.)

CFN CATION POSITION OR POLICY

THE 1971 ANNUAL REPORT

TOTHE PRESIDENT AND THE CONGRESS

-TITLE I, E.S.E.A.---

The Weakest Link:

The Children of the Poor

CeJC4 NATIONAL ADVISORY COUNCIL ON THE EDUCATION OF DISADVANTAGED CHILDREN144 1717 H Street, NW., Washington, D.C. 20006

"Psi

e sI0IQ=

NATIONAL ADVISORY COUNCIL ON THE EDUCATIONOF DISADVANTAGED CHILDREN

WASHINGTON, D.C.

W.W.E. BlanchetJames BranscomeFather Pierre Du MaineNelson GrossVivian LewisAlfred McElroyFrank RainesRobert RidgleyLouis RodriguezRalph TylerSheldon White

Herman R. Goldberg,Chairman

March 1, 1971

Dear Sirs:

I am pleased to submit to you the 1971 Annual Report of the National Advisorycouncil on the Education of Disadvantaged Children. From their appointment onMarch 3, 1970, every major concern facing the Council members was ultimatelydecided by their repeating to themselves the simple question, "What is best for thechildren?" The Council maintained its perspective throughout the year ofdeliberation by repeatedly returning to its central concern, "What is best for thechildren?"

Anticipating the abundance of evaluative studies devoted to Title I, ESEA duringits 5th anniversary year, the Council decided against instituting more of the sameresearch. Instead, the Council concentrated on three elements affecting the successof Title I delivery of services, parent involvement, and cultural diversity. Therelationship of compensatory education and the rapidly moving dynamic of schooldesegregation was also an important concern the Council faced.

In addition to its dedication and energy, the very composition of the Councilwas most beneficial to this year's undertakings. The Council was itself "culturallydiverse," with a broad range of levels and types of educational experience, anage-span of three generations, and wide geographic distribution. The resultantdisparity of viewpoints enhanced the Council's performance in its role as evaluatorof administrative practice and the sociological insight behind that practice.

Robert L. Ridgley, member of the Board of Education, Portland, Oreg., chairedthe Subcommittee on Delivery of Services during its investigation of the crucialproblem of cooperation between State and Federal levels of government insuccessfully administering Title I programs. Alfred Z. McElroy, board member ofthe Independent School District of Port Arthur, Tex., led the Subcommittee onParent Involvement during its active contribution to the preparation of new U.S.Office of Education guidelines strengthening parent advisory councils. JamesBranscome, Youth Director of the Appalachian Regional Commission, Washington,D.C., headed the Subcommittee on Cultural Diversity in its discussions of theurgent necessity for compensatory education programs to incorporate the specialneeds of culturally different children in program planning and execution.

The Council acknowledges with appreciation the participation in its discussionsof a number of concerned representatives from both official and voluntaryorganizations including Hon. William H. Ayers, former Congressman from Ohio;Theodore Tetzlaff formerly with the office of Hon. John Brademas, Congressmanfrom Indiana; Charles Ratcliffe, Minority Counsel, House Education and LaborCommittee; Jack Reid, Majority Counsel, House Education and Labor Committee;Ruby Martin, Washington Research Project; William Denton, Coordinator of Title IResearch, Council of the Great City Schools; Phyllis McClure; NAACP LegalDefense Fund; and Mark Yudof, Staff Attorney, Center for Law and Education,Harvard University.

For their cooperation in providing needed information, the Council extends itsgratitude to U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare and Office ofEducation Personnel, including Timothy E. Wirth, former Deputy AssistantSecretary for Intradepartmental Education Affairs; Richard L. Fairley, Director,

iii

- 2 -

Division of Compensatory Education; Cornelius Butler, Acting Chief, ProgramSupport Branch; Barbara Desind, Program Officer; Glen Kamber, EducationProgram Specialist; Hilda Maness Lynch, former Education Program Specialist; andDr. Gilbert Austin, Special Assistant to the Director of Evaluation, Office of theSecretary, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. In addition, the Councilwishes to thank Helen Weinman, House Education and Labor Committee, for herassistance. The Council also wishes to thank the staff of International JointCommission- United States and Canada, for their gracious hospitality throughoutthe year in permitting us the use of their conference room facilities at 1717 H. St.,NW., Washington, D.C. and for sharing equipment with the Council during peakperiods of production.

The Council further recognizes the special contribution of two experiencededucators who served as consultants- Mr. Isadore Pivnick, Assistant Superintendentfor Innovative Planning, San Francisco Unified School District, San Francisco,Calif., and Dr. Louis J. Rubin, Dean, Nova University, Fort Lauderdale, Fla.

The Council, and especially the Chairman, acknowledges the highly competentand creative work of the NACEDC staff- Roberta Lovenheim, Research Assistant;Lois W. Paul, Research Secretary; and Annie M. Phillips, Secretary.

Any enterprise as vast and as comprehensive as America's compensatoryeducation programs for disadvantaged children requires the full understanding andcooperation of those who would improve its effectiveness. In expanding theirawareness of the functioning of Title I programs and what they can to to supportthem, it is the Council's hope that the President and Congress will follow theCouncil's advice to itself to maintain as the fulcrum of their deliberations anddecisions the question, "What is best for the children?"

Respectfully submitted,

3i44.,..reHerman it GoldbergChairman

The PresidentThe White House

Honorable Spiro T. AgnewPresident of the Senate

Honorable Carl B. AlbertSpeaker of the House of Representatives

Enclosure

SI iv.4

E

2441/7--

PREFACE: NACEDC Comments on the House Committee on Government Operations Reporton Presidential Councils and Commissions

Before presenting our evaluation of the effectiveness of Title I of the Elementary and Secondary EducationAct, the Council in the spirit of facing itself, feels it appropriate to call attention to a recent study onPresidential advisory bodies. Since there is no National Advisory Council on National Advisory Councils, wewish to comment on the Forty-third Report by the Committee on Government Operations: The Role andEffectiveness of Federal Advisory Committeees, presented to the House of Representatives, December 11,1970.

From the experience of the National Advisory Council on the Education of Disadvantaged Children, weendorse the following recommendations made by the House Committee on Government Operations regardingthe organization and management of Presidential Councils:

1. The Office of Management and Budget should be strengthened to include a Committee ManagementSecretariat.

2. Departments and agencies should establish fixed procedures and responsibilities for committeemanagement and reporting at the highest organizational level, such as the Office of the Secretary,Undersecretary or Assistant Secretary, or the Office of the Director.

3. Wherever possible, an advisory body should be established as an independent entity, but subject tomanagement guidelines. Presidential committees should be funded either independently by the Congress orfrom the President's contingency fund, but not from funds previously designated by the Congress foragency operations.

4. The charter of an advisory body should not be ill-definedk It tould be clearly stated and within thecompetence of the committee. Vague mandates are costly and inefficient.

5. Congress should provide advisory groups with the funds to publish their work when it involves publicstudies and reports.

6. The mechanism to provide a balanced representation and to maintain continuity through rotation ofterms of office shot,'Id be achieved through law and guidelines.

7. A permanent depository within the Congressional Reference Service of the Library of Congress should becreated where the public reports of advisory groups would be available. All commissions and committeesshould be required to forward such materials to the Library of Congress.

An advisory body can be useful to the three divisions of Government with which it works - the agency itexamines, the President it serves, and the Congress to which it reports. These and other recommendationsmade by the House Committee on Government Operations seem, in the Council's opinion, to be preciselywhat advisory bodies need to function more efficiently.

v

4

CONT ENTS

Letter of Transmittal

Preface

Introduction

Chapter I

Chapter I I

Chapter III

Chapter IV

NACEDC Comments on the House Committee on Government Operations Report onPresidential Councils and Commissions

Parent Involvement and Accountability in Title I: Promise and Performance

Title I and School Finance

State Discretion and Delivery of Services: An Admnistrative and Management Reviewof Title I

Quality Compensatory Education and Quality Integrated Education: A Report of aThree-Year Longitudinal Study (Fifteen Point Program) in the City School Districtof Rochester, N.Y., 1967-70

Chapter V Cultural Difference in the "Melting Pot" Society

Chapter VI Summary and Recommendations: What We Can Do Now

Appendixes

A. Presidential State-Federal Title I Internship Proposal 29

B. NACEDC Extended Remarks on Parent Involvement, October 1970

C. Cost Analysis of Three-Year Longitudinal Study (Fifteen Point Program), Rochester, N Y.,1967-1970 35

Page

iii

11

15

19

23

31

D. Comparative Study Chart, Title I Evaluations Completed Since January 1969

E. Recapitulation of Recommendations of Previous Council

vi

5

39

45

INTRODUCTION.

The atmosphere of hope and expectation whichsurrounded the birth of Title I of the Elementary andSecondary Education Act (ESEA) is now becomingone of wider frustration, and even sporadic despair.Through our democratic process, the fate of thosetrapped by economic, and consequently educational,deprivation is placed squarely in the hands of anincreasingly spending-conscious voting public. Simul-taneously the public asks for more programs designedto bail our 17 million children out of their "disad-vantaged" situation, and expresses concern over itsshrinking purse. These mutually exclusive concernscompound the difficulty in getting the funds necessaryto support compensatory education and then todeliver them effectively where they are needed most.

In evaluating the educational attainment of disad-vantaged children as a result of Title I assistance, theNational Advisory Council has not lost sight of thedependent relationship between extensive compensa-tory education and the current financial crisis. Specif-ically, the Council has asked "How have thesefinancial pressures at all levels of Government andamong the American public affected the delivery ofeducational services to poor children?"

Title I has become another exercise in despair.From the depths of near bankruptcy, local schooldistricts wcrking with State and local funds view this$1.5 billion Federal program with ambivalence.

School costs are rising geometrically, with thelargest increases being for teacher salaries and reduc-ing class size, while voters visibly challenge efforts toraise taxes or approve bond issues.

Educational services cannot improve under thesechoking financial conditions. Several urban boards ofeducation, mayors, and city managers have statedthat they do not expect in 1971 to be able tocontinue school programs as their constituencies haveknown them. Although some feel that they will squeakby for the remainder of the current school year, theydo not expect to continue basic, let along present,supportive services.

There are other voices of despair. An AmericanIndian usually earns no more than $1,500 each year -

that is 75 percent below the national average. Even

1

today the same Indian can expect to survive for only44 years.

Although we have had some special bilingualprograms, there are still 10 million Americans whoseprimary language is Spanish and who are frequentlyforbidden to speak their native tongue in school.

In the opinion of their teachers, approximatelyone-sixth of the children receiving Title I assistance ingrades 1-6 will not complete high school. Fortypercent of all children of migrant families who areeligible for Title I aid will not complete high school.The Appalachian dropout rate is 25.30 percent higherthan the national level of 30 percent. The averageeducational level for all Indians under Federal super-vision is 5 school years, and more than one-fifth of allInelan men have less than 5 years of schooling.

Underscoring the full cyclical relationship betweeneducation and economic success, 40 percent of Title Ielementary pupils in 1968-69 came from familieswhere the head of the household had not completedhigh school. (In order to be eligible for Title I

assistance, the children must be from families earningless than $2,000-3,000 per year.)

The ethnic spectrum of Title I children consideredto be potential dropouts by their teachers was 53percent Negro, 35 percent white, and 10 percentSpanish-surnamed.

The polarity is clear: Cyclical poverty for theethnic minorities and Appalachian poor contrastedwith economic conservatism among taxpayers. Un-certainty in the funding of needed compesnatoryeducation is a political frustration for both groups,and genuine despair is the outcome.

A study on Title I completed by a regionallaboratory administered by the U.S. Office of Educa-tion reveals that 54 percent of teachers surveyed hadnot received any special training in teaching theacademically disadvantaged. Federal directives haverequired local school districts to concentrate theirfunds on those Title I eligible pupils having thegreatest need. This leaves two-thirds of Title I eligiblestudents unserved and many more poor children,whose parents gross more than $2,000-3,000 an-nually, ineligible.

6

School administrators face uncertainty each yearas the Congress and the President determine slowlyand heatedly the DHEW-Labor Budget. Yet the sameadministrators face the criticism each year that theydid not adequately plan their Title I programs.

Dissemination of evaluation reports on Title I is

inadequate, leaving the planning of compensatoryeducation programs months, even years, behind avail-able data and trends. There is questionable valuegained from these evaluation projects since thefeedback mechanism is sorely inefficient.

It is, therefore, valid to ask "Have we really hadcompensatory education as a national experience for5 years?"

In his first speech following his appointment asU.S. Commissioner of Education, Dr. Sidney P.

Mar land, Jr., launched an attack against "the abomi-nation known as general education." Scorning the"pap" which is advertised as vocational education,Commissioner Mar land denounced the general educa-tion provided to 50 percent of all secondary schoolstudents (1.5 million youngsters).

The Commissioner called for the elimination ofthe "general education" hoax. For the "unfortunateinmates" of the "general education" program, Mar-land proposed a true "career education," which 100percent of the students could, and probably would,call upon at any time during their sojourn throughsecondary school. "Career education" would, there-fore, lack the scorn of the "academic snobs."

Mar land suggested that the goal of education inthe seventies be that every high school graduatewould either be prepared to enter higher education or"useful and rewarding employment" - "And I'm nottalking about blacksmithing," exclaimed Mar land.

A summary of the benefits of Title I ESEA wouldinclude the national commitment to upgrading theeducation of the poor, identification of the educa-tionally deprived, and some excellent attempts toconquer the problem. But the money has been toolittle and too thinly spread to accomplish the intentof the law.

In addition to the crippling effects of underfund-ing, Title I has met serious administrative criticism atall levels. A Council subcommittee study of theavailable audits completed by the DHEW AuditAgency revealed that naivite, inexperience, confusion,despair and even clear violations of the law, haveundermined the wise spending in some districts ofalready limited funds.

The Council's interest in these audits was furtherstimulated by the fact that so few State audits have

2

7

been conducted during the five years of Title I.* Itsreview of the audits indicated certain recurring majorviolations. These ranged from administrative inexperi-ence (such as losing interest monies unnecessarily,taking inventories improperly, and failure to time thereceipt of materials and payment for them within theschool year funding dates) to direct violation (such asspending Title I funds on college-level students,supplanting locally funded services with Title I funds,and paying salaries in questionable circumstances).

Yet even these do not adequately describe theextent of frustration of services to the educationallydeprived. There are many difficult, though notfraudulent, cases where school administrators, besetand beleaguered with unusual budget pressures, werefrustrated by the concentration guideline. As childrenwere removed from a target school to a desegregatedsetting, efforts to have the Title I aid "follow thechild" most in need were sometimes classified asgeneral aid and were, therefore, reviewed.

The criticism most often launched against a localschool district is that Title I funds have been spent asgeneral aid - clearly an infraction of the law. FourteenStates audited from 1966 to 1970 were criticized forthis infraction.

Some violations were classified as general expendi-tures for entire populations of students, poor or not,Title I eligible or not. Some were expenditures for thepurpose of expanding a successful Title I programinto the general educational program, and continuingto fund the Title I project in the same manner asbefore while funding the general program from othersources.

At the other extreme, there were cases of fundinga program in a school which served poor children,some of whose parents grossed incomes of over$3,000 per year.

The Council's examination of the violations citedin the audits reveals that the degree, the intent, andthe exercise of the infraction varied considerablyfrom one State to another. This, however, does notexcuse the apparent lack of compliance-mindedness

*DHEW State Audits

Number Completed Year

0 19666 19677 1968

12 196915 1970

Source: DHEW Audit Agency (based on 40 audits)

on the part of Federal and State officials alike.Consequently, the Council advocates that appropriatecorrective steps be taken to insure that an atmosphereof enforcement and legal conformity (compliance)surrounds such extensive program funding as that forTitle I, ESEA.

The greatest academic need identified duringevaluations of Title I programs was for compensatoryreading programs. Two and one-half million pupils inTitle I elementary schools in 1968.69 were judged bytheir teachers to require special reading programs.Most of these children were located in urban areas. Inaddition to general need among Title I eligiblechildren, Spanish-surnamed students required bilin-gual instruction.

Compensatory education programs such as Title IESEA cannot be considered in isolation from othercontroversial education issues, such as desegreation,integration, categorical grants, accountability, andmore than equal treatment for the economicallydeprived. As a categorical grant with significant

3

funding levels designed to accomplish wonders in theeducational and social arena, Title I carries theoverwhelming assignment of miracle worker.

The 1971 Annual Report of the National AdvisoryCouncil on the Education of Disadvantaged Childrenwill present these issues with Council recommenda-tions in light of the latest research and thinking of theeducational community. More importantly, however,the Council will relate these issues and solutions tothe effe..t they will have upon America's disadvant-aged children, our foremost concern.

The Council is committed to the revolutionarydream of freedom and opportunity which swept thisNation in the 1770's. It suggests that the weakest linkin the chain toward fulfillment of that dream is theeducationally deprived, and consequently economic-ally impotent, community of the 1970's. Title I

ESEA is designed to serve this segment of ourcountry, to strengthen it, and to foster self-reliance.The frustration of that service is contrary to thenational interest and requires political responsiveness.

8

CHAPTER I. PARENT INVOLVEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY INTITLE I: PROMISE AND PERFORMANCE

A direct result of the taxpayer revolt and its consequent reexamination ofpriorities has been the issue of accountability. In education this has meantincreased interest in performance contracting, management techniques, andparent involvement. The Council encourages early and continuing parentinvolvement as an application of accountability. This is another way ofbroadening the integrity of the home School partnership.

The taxpayer, as never before, is asking for resultsfrom his school tax dollars. I n education, the first levelof accountability has been from the school board to thetaxpayer. This relationship is founded on the executionof priorities in the education program of the schooldistrict and the examination of the expenditures of theschool system to achieve those priorities. The next levelis between the chief administrator (the superintendent)and the school board which hires him, examiningwhether or not this one person has administered theirinstructions throughout the local district. The staffmust them report to the superintendent, the childrento the staff (teacher), and the children to their parents,who are taxpayers. When the cycle is completed, theeffect is often substantially different from the originalcharge to the board of education.

During a reading mobilization year, many childrenmay still fail to read effectively. In a year oftransferring to the 'new math', many children are stillconfused by abstract mathematics. And in any oneyear, it may be very diccicult for the parent-taxpayer,and ultimately the financially hard-pressed group oftaxpayers, to understand the route of their tax dollarsand the effectiveness of their expenditures.

Coupled with this lack of communication andunderstanding, the late 1960's were marked bycontinuing pressure from the voters for an accountingof the expenditure of their tax dollars. Bond issueswere resoundingly and emphatically denied. Tax rateincreases, where possible, were firmly rejected. Manyschool systems threatened to close, and some schoolsystems had to shut down for lack of funds, and stilltax raises were turned down at the voting booth. In

5

1971 mayors and governors are stating the same pleafor funds, and the taxpayers are still in revolt.

Schools are not in crisis, governments are incontradiction. The political response has been re-trenchmentreexamine priorities, cut costs, and de-mand 'accountability' in order to counter wastefulspending of the limited funds now available.

In the field of education this has meant theinfusion of management specialists and businesspractices on a large scale. It is assumed that objective-oriented educational designs will mean a bettereducation for the children and a better value for thelimited dollars spent.

Thus we see the appearance of 'performancecontracting,' an educational style whereby the schoolsystem hires an outside agent - usually industry - toapply new techniques to teach difficult classes, inreturn for which only success will determine thepayment. If there is no success, there is no payment.

Who determines success? Usually a standardizedtest, many of which are now under heavy criticismfor being 'culture bound.' But this is accountability.

The danger is that the industry may be ac-countable today and not tomorrow. In its zeal forinstant success, it may have yielded to the temptationof teaching to the test instead of teaching the child.The Council, however, is not prepared to deny thatwith further experience and refinement, Performancecontracting may evolve into a very useful tool for theschool administrator.

We also see a return to the standardized test andthe need for national norms and comparisons. Whileeducators are wary of the results of such standardized

9

testing, and minority groups are resentful of thelimited cultural scope of the general informationquestions, the taxpayer seems to need a standard ofassurance that his dollar is being well spent. Thus therespectab;lity of these tests is renewed in politicalexplanations. of the performance of the local schoolsystem. Along with the implication of a need fordeveloping a..more reliable standardized test mechan-ism, it is apparent that accountability is politicallyripe.

The Council encourages further educational re-search toward the immediate improvement of stand-ardized tests currently being used to analyse theintellectual capabilities of all children. Particularly,the Council would applaud the development oftesting devices which take into consideration thebackgrounds of those children whose social andcultural experiences may differ considerably fromthose of the average American child.

Accountability is built into the design of Title I

ESEA. The local district submits a plan to the State,which approves it on the basis of assurances it mustgive to the Office of Education.

Although provision has been made for publicaccountability of Title I funds, poor State ad-ministration of the program has made such pre-cautions ineffectual. Twenty-five out of 38 Statesaudited by the DHEW were criticized for pooradministration. In one instance, a State developeda priority list for funding proposals and thenproceeded to leave those with top priority theleast amount of financial support. Another Staterenewed the application of a project which hadbeen demonstrated to be ineffective. Yet anotherState used a file of receipts as its ,accountingprocedure, without any orderly compilation of theexpenditures made with Title I funds, such as useof a ledger.

Compounding their difficulty in altering this evi-dence of poor administration is the fact that mostStates do not have the money to staff adequately thedepartments in charge of monitoring. Yet the regula-tions require that they assure the Federal Govern-ment that appropriate measures have been taken toguarantee the proper expenditure of Title I funds.The Council is aware of the complications for Stateand local officials accompanying the current financialcrisis. We feel it necessary, nevertheless, to insist thatthe most elementary standards of sound management

6

10

and administration be employed throughout theimplementation of title I programs, from the initialproject design and application to the recording offund expenditures and evaluation.

With the popularization of accountability hascome the associated demand for more local control.Communities desire active participation in the deci-sions which affect their lives without spending largesums of money for 'overhead', namely, a bureaucracyto administer these decisions at all levels of govern-ment. In Title ;, the evolution of mandated system-wide parent advisory councils is evicence of thistrend, as well as an indication of Government'sresponsiveness to it.

Parent advisory councils are particularly essentialin large school districts where school boards may notbe elected, or where it is felt that the school board asa districtwide body may not adequately represent aTitle I attendance area. The concept of the parentadvisory council for Title I is an extension of therellionship of the school principal with his parents,and the school superintendent with his community.The main value of increased and mandated parentinvolvement is the intensified focus it usually gener-ates on keeping Title I oriented to poor children.

A uniform comment from the studies the Councilreviewed has underscored the relationship betweenthe parent's value on education, the parent's under-standing of the goals of the school system, theparent's subsequent cooperation with the schoolsystem, and the educational attainment of the child.Not only books and magazines, but also a genuinevaluing of formal schooling in the home affectsstudent performance. Parent involvement, with accessto advisory councils, intensifies the integrity of such ahome-school partnership in the formation of thechild's destiny.

It is this type of accountability, founded on acommunicative, informed partnership, which holdsthe greatest promise.

The Council regards the trend and popularizationof accountability in education to be a healthyresponse of concerned citizens and an expression oflocal control. The Council recommends a furtherencouragement of parent advisory councils to effectoptimum accountability, with appropriate provisionsfor and guarantees of technical assistance and accessto public information.

T,,,erli.,...........4,41,..

CHAPTER II. TITLE I AND SCHOOL FINANCE

Education faces a fiscal crisis nationwide and this financial pinch hasaffected compensatory education programs. Two approaches have beensuggested this year to alleviate this pressure: education vouchers, still in theexperimental stage, and block grants with revenue sharing, now in heavydebate. The Council is observing these approaches and comments upon theirimplied effect on compensatory education.

The Secretary of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Elliot L. Richardson, stated on January25, 1971:

We are now engaged in discussions with the education community, seekingdramatic ways to simplify and rationalize this multitide of programs. Theobject of this exercise is to package Federal financial support of education torespond to local needs as perceived locally.This does not imply a removal ofFederal requirements from grants of specific program funds - indeed, weintend to pursue those requirements (such as, Title I of the Elementary andSecondary Education Act) with vigor. Rather, we are seeking ways in whichto reduce or eliminate red tape and unnecessary duplication, and to allow localschool officials to seek assistance in solving local problems locally, not as de-fined by Federal statutes.

This effort at consolidation and simplification shows the complexity ofthe Federal role in education. Education is both a national concern and alocal matter. We are seeking a way to allow the Federal Government to watchover those interests whose protection is mandated by Federal law, while atthe same time permitting local school officials the freedom to experiment andadapt.

The block grant is emerging as a remedy forpresent financial crises, aggravated by complex gov-ernmental procedures. Proposing a Federal Govern-ment which does not mandate complicated guidelinesas it offers financial assistance, the Administrationsuggests block grants as an alternative to higheradministrative costs. Red tape is cut while trimmingthe number of regulations needing enforcement.

Since the Federal Government now contributesapproximately 6-7 cents for each education dollarspent, the Council is interested in the effect whichblock grants will have on education funding. The

7

President's bill, Revenue Sharing Act of 1969, H.R.13982, specifically excludes independent school dis-tricts from the definition of local government. Themeaning of this is clear - school districts, as in thepast, will have to approach their taxpayers or theirmunicipal governments for funding requests. Underrevenue sharing plans, the priority of spending foreducation will remain a matter for State and munici-pal governmental discretion.

By 1972 the Administration proposes to reversethe 10-year amoebic expansion of the Department ofHealth, Education, and Welfare. The Elementary and

11

Secondary Education Act of 1965, often referred toas the major reason for the present size of the Officeof Education, would be streamlined into the Educa-tion Renewal Act of 1972 and the EducationAssistance.Act of 1972. By separating the education'pork barrel' from education reform, the Administra-tion hopes to untie the Gordian knot of bureaucraticallegiances, and rekindle enthusiasm for State-Federalpartnership in education.

Education block grants would not be without,..categorical features. States would be given broaddiscretionary powers to use Federal funds for voca-tional education, aid to federally impacted areas, aidfor children of low-income families, assistance toeducate the handicapped, and education supportservices. Commissioner Marland has stated that Fed-eral aid for children of low-income families willremain constant. This supports the President's fiscalyear 1972 budget recommendations for education.The StateFederal partnership would reflect Federalfunding and guidelines with State administration andbroad discretionary authority.

In a business partnership, each party expects tohave responsibility and an equal share of the harvest.At times, one or the other of the partners may takethe lead in advocating or in strengthening a neededposition. In the three-way partnership of Federal,State, and local governments, one might expect thesame ground rules to be valid.

But there are times, because of a special identi-fiable national need, where one partner must take thelead. This is one of those times. The intermittentleadership role of the Federal partner, in this in-stance, should not be identified as an activity ofdomination. There can only be one quarterback.

The State-Federal Presidential Title I Internship,mentioned in chapter III, section 2, and fullydescribed in appendix A, is an example of providingfor a pool of competent and sensitive practitionersfor this triple partnership to enhance the educationalopportunities for poor children.

Each local education agency (LEA) is entitled toreceive Title I funds through a formula based uponfamily income and Aid for Families with DependentChildren (AFDC) assistance data from county welfaredepartments. The funds come to the LEA, however,only after State approval of a project geared tomeeting the intent of the legislation - "improving theeducational attainment of educationally deprivedchildren."

The States have generally given broad latitude tothe LEA's on what constitutes a 'suitable' Title

8

1 l,

project for approval. As a result of strengthenedparent advisory councils, the States have also come torecognize more and more that a locally approvedTitle I project application represents what both thelocal Title I administrator and the parents want. Thisthen indicates that the wide range of approvedprojects appears to possess already some of the blockgrant features within a categorical program.

The experience of Title I, ESEA has shown thatthis federally supported program with numerousregulations has not been an example of Federalimposition upon the States' discretion and power.The States receive 1 percent of their allocationearmarked specifically for administrative costs. Fed-eral audits are so infrequent that State discretion isundisturbed. Until 1970 there had been no com-pliance suits filed by the Federal Government forinfractions of the law. During 1970 there were somehearings, but money has not yet been withheld forlack of compliance. This would give the impressionthat once a State has made the assurance to theFederal Government that it will take responsibilityfor the action within it, the State virtually has carteblanche. Infractions discovered by audits, parentadvisory councils, or news reporters are the result ofpoor State monitoring and Federal default.

Block grants, then, would reflect a Governmentresponse to this reality and require no assurance thatcomplicated guidelines have been executed. By limit-ing the number of strings, without entirely sacrificingthe concept of "strings-attached," a compromisebetween reality and desirability would be achieved.

A second fiscal promise for the swift rescue offinancially strapped communities is the educationvoucher. Welcomed by people of all political persua-sions, the voucher plan is in the early stages ofimplementation. In any local education agency, avoucher worth the amount of 1 year's educationexpenditure would be given to the parents of a pupil.With this voucher, the child could attend any publicor private school authorized to accept these forms.The school would then exchange the vouchers forfunds with which to operate.

At this time, further study is necessary to assurethat education vouchers do not counter the currentlaws regarding the free exercise of civil rights. Wemust be wary of the potential within the vouchersystem to encourage the mushrooming of privateschools designed primarily to circumvent the philoso-phy of desegregation. Guarantees to the parent mustalso be part of the design so that children will not bevictims of flagrant deception perpetrated by "hit and

run" purveyors of questionable education programs.Unless the education vouCher system can be provedto be a worthy alternative to the current, thoughbeleaguered, style of public education, it could turnout to be a disruptive detour to education renewaland reform.

Certainly all the facts -about the effectivenessof performance contracting, block grants and ed-ucation vouchers are not as yet in and a verdicton them by this Council in either direction would bepremature. During its first year of appointment, theCouncil has been able to conduct only preliminarydiscussions of these concepts and plans to continueits examination of their respective merits and defects.

At present, nevertheless, cautionary views havebeen expressed by the membership with regard to theadvisability of the implementation of any new educa-tional styles without first incorporating sufficientassurances that they will coincide with currentlegislation. If Title I, for example, is to be blunted,diffused or displaced by any combination of these

9

concepts, the Council feels there should be adequateprovision within them for the same standards ofequity embodied in Public Law 91-230 and Title I,ESEA.

Title I has been a vehicle for innovation incompensatory education. There are numerous ex-amples of success, along with a number of examplesof waste. Title I needs overhaul, but not majorsurgery. As a categorical grant program, Title I hasgiven much discretion to the States. Even though it isprimarily prescriptive, Title I has set priorities forspending without forcing the withdrawal of localinitiative.

The Council recommends that consolidation ofeducation funding include a strong program for theeducation of children from low-income families. TheCouncil members stand ready to assist throughconsultation in the design of any contemplatedchanges of Federal assistance for compensatoryeducation.

1 $

CHAPTER III. STATE DISCRETION AND DELIVERY OF SERVICES:AN ADMINISTRATIVE AND MANAGEMENT REVIEWOF TITLE I

The Council recommends several means to more effective delivery ofservices to the TITLE I eligible child even without an increase of funds.

The effective delivery of services to children iscrucial to Title I, whatever deficiencies may exist inpresent evaluative techniques. Sound management ofFederal programs cannot guarantee that educationalprogress of disadvantaged children will be accelerated,but even the possibility can be diminished for lack ofappropriate structures for the delivery of services.

Data reviewed by the Council suggest that the"input" of Federal dollars, even if substantiallyincreased, will not necessarily result in commensurate"output" of appropriate services to individual chil-dren unless there is careful review and revision of thepolicies and procedures for the distribution andexpenditures of Title I funds. A useful, though notcompletely adequate, index of the problem is thewide variation among States and school districts inthe average expenditure of Title I dollars per partici-pant. The existing range of expenditures suggests notonly the inadequacy of funding at the service levelbut also some inequity in distribution among eligiblechildren in different States and districts. This is anaddition to some evidence that many programsinclude significant numbers of ineligible or "low-priority" participants, while excluding otherwise elig-ible Title I children.

The Council is not suggesting that administrativerevision is the sufficient, or even primary, requisitefor improving the results of Title I. Further, we donot believe that more specific or detailed Federallegislation, regulations, or guidelines will achieve thedesired effect. Rather we feel that the most promisingdirection for improvement lies in the fuller develop-ment of a constructive Federal-State partnership indelivering services to Title I children.

More specifically, we conclude that the criticaldiscretion in the administration of Title I rests (as it

419-878 0 - 71 - 2

should) with the State education agency (SEA) andthat the Office of Education (with commensurateCongressional funding) can best direct its effortstoward providing information, counsel, negotiation,persuasion, and evaluation that will enable the Statesto satisfy the goals of Title I by meeting the peculiarneeds of the target population within each State.

The SEA determines 1) how the Federal entitle.ment to each county will be suballocated amongLEA's and, within LEA's, among candidate targetschools and eligible pupils, and 2) the extent to whichTitle I funds can or must be concentrated (with orwithout complementary State or local funds for TitleI purpose). Once the SEA has determined, through itsguidelines and application procedures, how thesematters will be handled, it also has the responsibilityto monitor not only the compliance of the LEA withthe State policy, but also the effectiveness of theSEA/LEA administration in achieving the Title I

objective.The Council believes that certain desirable charac-

teristics of SEA administration can be identifiedgenerally, even though there is still wide latitude foradaptation to regional and local circumstances. Theseinclude:

11

1. A "concentration criterion" with a supportingrationale, by which the SEA will try to assuresufficient dollar expenditures per pupil to havesignificant impact. The Council doubts that atthe present time an absolute amount can befixed at the Federal level, but we do believethat Federal authorities should assist States inestablishing a norm for their own jurisdiction.

2. An opportunity and incentive for LEA's tocomplement Title dollars with State and local

funds available (even if not legislatively ear-marked) to Title I purposes. Perhaps only inthis way will the "concentration criterion"have the desired effect of increasing both thenumber of participants and the dollar expendi-tures per participant.

3. "Comparability criteria" that will insure thatthe two principles outlined above will result inequitable, as well as adequate, application ofFederal dollars to increase the level of serviceto disadvantaged pupils. The recently adoptedFederal guidelines on "comparability" shouldprovide a basis for negotiation between theOffice of Education and SEA's to see thatworkable "comparability criteria" are imple-mented.

4. "Suballocation criteria" that will incorporatethe three principles above in such a way thatspecial problems within counties (e.g. highconcentrations of disadvantaged children inurban schools) will be recognized.

5. Provision for fiscal audits that will insure thatactual expenditures have been in accord withbudgets developed by the above criteria.

6. Provision for "program audits" that will assessthe success of program components in reallyassisting the target population in overcominglearning difficulties. The effectiveness of pro-gram components must be measured in termsof pupil performance or other appropriatecriteria; and the SEA's must assist the LEA's indeveloping evaluative and testing techniques todo this job.

7. Distribution procedures which will not penalizethe LEA that integrates its schools. Title I

funds should "follow the child" when desegre-gation occurs, and Federal guidelines shouldaffirmatively support this principle by recogniz-ing that target populations can best be identi-fied by place of residence rather than schoolattendance patterns. There must be a consistentemphasis on the identification and service ofindividual pupils who need Title I, regardless ofthe school attended.

There is ample evidence that few of the aboveobjectives can be realized by SEA's without strongsupport and counsel from Federal authorities, in bothlegislative and executive branches.

Attention to several important questions canenable the Office of Education, in its relations withthe SEA's, to improve the delivery of services to

13

children in local districts. The Council would suggestimmediate emphasis on the following: State supple-mentary funding, State administration, Federal auditsand evaluation, and Federal funding.

1. State Supplementary Funding

Does the State provide a supplement to TitleI funding through either special grants foreducation of the disadvantaged or provisionin the State aid formulas to recognize thespecial needs of those LEA's with largenumbers of the disadvantaged?

Sixteen States appropriated special funds for thedisadvantaged in 1968.69, ranging from $52,000,000in New York to $80,000 in Utah. Four additionalStates had basic foundation programs with specialfeatures which took account of educationally disad-vantaged children.

The startling fact is that the majority of Statesprovide neither categorical assistance nor favorablecriteria in the distribution of general funds. This mayindicate a lack of commitment on the part of SEA'sor State legislatures, or both, to the purpose ofcompensatory education. More directly, however, ithighlights the problems which are inherent in at-tempting to set national standards for concentrationof funds. In those States where supplementaryfunding is not available, uniform national concentra-tion requirements may result in a drastic reduction inthe number of children who benefit from Title I. Thismay result in better services to those few who areaided, while the educational performance of thosewho are not will deteriorate.

The Council recommends that Congress order thedevelopment of a plan of financial incentives toinclude bonus amounts to SEA's in States whichprovide supplementary funding to allow LEA's toconcentrate funds. This effort could induce the Statesto become partners of the Federal Government byproviding equal educational opportunities to all chil-dren. The form of providing the incentive shouldrecognize discrepancies in State and local ability tofund basic noncompensatory education programs -perhaps by measuring State effort for compensatoryprograms against State and local expenditures forbasic programs.

12

2. State Administration

Do the SEA's provide to their LEA's work-able guidelines and help in achieving con-structive evaluation of local programs?

Management by objectives, including strong man-dates at the State level, can be a positive force indeveloping more effective programs for children. Onthe other hand, the SEA may do nothing more thancreate its own brand of "red tape" and extrapaperwork which the Title I practitioner sees as anunnecessary burden in the performance of his job.

The Council has undertaken a review of Stateapplications and guidelines. There is a striking dis-parity apparent in the quality of administration bythe SEA's. Study of the documentation from theStates with regard to fiscal management, parentalinvolvement, selection criteria, public information,aid to nonpublic school children, and interpretationof Federal guidelines indicates that only in a fewStates is there significant interaction between theSEA and LEA's in the development of effectiveprograms. But there are few examples of exemplaryState administrative techniques.

At whose doorstep should this deficiency be laid?The Office of Education must bear its share ofresponsibility. Even with 5 years' experience withTitle I, doubts persist regarding positive impact of theFederal Government on management practices of theSEA's. During the last year an intensive internalevaluation made by OE's Division of CompensatoryEducation provided promise of the development of amechanism for continuous reciprocal counseling be-tween Federal and State officials. Whether these rec-ommendations will become practice remains to be seen.The Council recognizes the strengthening of the Officeof Regional Coordination as an important first step.

The proposal for a State-Federal Title I Internshipprogram (appendix A) originating with the Council isseen as one method by which a meaningful under-standing of the State-Federal partnership may bedeveloped. Until administrators at both Federal andState levels can understand the goals and problems oftheir counterparts little progress can be expected. Webelieve that the Office of Education must recognizethe need for inservice training of its staff membersand those who are expected to administer Title I inthe SEA's. Much could be gained by having availablea pool of outstanding Title I practioners from theSEA's whose services could be available to theFederal Government and the States. These expertscould share their best thinking as to effective deliveryof services with the SEA's which are most deficient inmanagement controls, and they could assist in devel-oping practical models for development of Stateguidelines and application writing to assist all SEA'sand LEA's in making Title I work.

If the State applications and sJidelines are goingto become more than "necessary paperwork to getthe money," a relationship of trust and confidencemust be constructed. However, many "political road-blocks.. are in the way. This will require capablepeople in Washington and in the State capitals - but itwill also demand an administrative structure whichmakes Federal monitoring a positive force rather thana potential threat.

Such a joint effort would seem especially crucial ifSecretary Richardson's suggestion for simplificationand combination of all Federal programs into blockgrants within five categories is to be implemented. Ifadditional administrative discretion with regard toTitle I funds is to be provided to the States without adissipation of the existing effort to help the disad-vantaged, there must be a strengthening of commit-ment at all levels to the effective delivery of services.

3. Federal Audits and Evaluation

Does the Federal program for monitoringSEA'S assist in better delivery of services todisadvantaged children?

The Council reviewed 52 audits which wereprovided by the DHEW Audit Agency and whichwere completed by November 14, 1970. FifteenStates were audited for fiscal year 1969 and 24 forfiscal year 1968. It is the view of the Council thatmany of the completed audits are inadequate in scope- and there is an absence of any consistent policy inthe monitoring process. In 10 States there have beenno audits conducted since the passage of the Ele-mentary and Secondary Education Act in 1965. Thisfact alone indicates that the Office of Education haslacked the necessary staff and resources to do aneffective monitoring job, if that is the intent ofCongress.

In recent months, there have been numerouscriticisms related to alleged m!suse of Title I moniesand, more recently, of special desegration funding. Itmay be that effective guidelines on comparability,parental involvement, and concentration of funds willdo more for fiscal control than any amount spent onmonitoring procedures. But it seems that a prudentgoal would be for DHEW to audit every State at leastonce every 3 years. To do this will require more staffand greater commitment to the development of thecontinuous communication between OE and theSEA's recommended earlier.

The recent study by the Council of the Great City13

1B I

,

I

Schools on evaluation practices and exemplary proj-ects in the large cities concluded that evaluationresults at the State and ,Federal levels had littleusefulness at the local level. The suggestion forcontinuous monitoring of projects and for "otheraspects of process (or formative) evaluation in anonthreatening and economically feasible way" holdsgreat promise. But, as the study points out, and asthis report has previously indicated, this will require areordering of priorities within the States as well as theOffice of Education. The Council urges reconsidera-tion by Congress of the Federal and State monitoringand evaluative process toward this end.

4. Federal Funding

Does Congress hinder effective delivery ofservices through its appropriations process?

Prior reports of the Council have repeatedlystressed the handicaps to effective administration ofTitle I created by the Congressional funding process.If proper planning and evaluation of projects of theLEA's are to be encouraged, Congress should provideforward funding so that Title I practitioners andschool boards can know what is available earlyenough to spend funds wisely.

14

Early and adequate funding commitments are alsocrucial to a better evaluative system. At the presenttime the LEA is faced with making its application forfunds without any assurance that existing programswill continue. The incentive for continuous progressevaluation is absent, since the success of one programhas little effect on the LEA's chance of gettinganother funded. Congress should consider requiringthat a minimum of 5 percent of Title I project fundsbe expended for evaluations which would assist theplanning process. But to impose this requirementCongress must also give assurance to the LEA's offunding much earlier than at present, so applicationscould truly reflect the evaluation-planning-program-evaluation cycle.

The Council is encouraged by recent indicationsthat the Office of Education and the SEA's desire toimprove communication, interaction, and mutualevaluation. This development should be aggressivelysupported, with all necessary funds and planning, toimprove the delivery of services to children. Specialefforts in training and administration of personnel atall levels in the process are needed; the Councilbelieves that its recommendations, if implemented,will assist in the development of a new Federal-State

partnership to meet the needs of disadvantagedchildren.

CHAPTER IV. QUALITY COMPENSATORY EDUCATION AND QUALITY INTEGRATEDEDUCATION: A REPORT OF A THREE-YEAR LONGITUDINAL STUDY(FIFTEEN POINT PROGRAM) IN THE CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT OFROCHESTER, N.Y., 1967-70

The Council highlights a study which has contributed to the available harddata which document the contention that the best program for children fromlow-income families is the combined compensatory education-desegregationapproach.

To integrate or to compensate? - that is thequestion. Even Hamlet did not face as complex anissue as racial and ethnic isolation in the UnitedStates. The most affluent Nation in the world has inits midst pockets of poor families locked in isolatedcommunities where there is little opportunity forchange or escape.

While armies of citizens philosophize about humanrights, civil rights and legal rights, housing remainsessentially segregated by socioeconomic levels and byethnic and racial concentrations. From many geo-graphic centers residents developed a new concept, as

precious as it was unconscionable, "the neighborhoodschool." Those minority groups which did nut findtheir confinement advantageous or even acceptable,present to the American conscience the problem oflegal inequity for all.

It is 1971 - 17 years after Brown vs. Board ofEducation of Topeka, and 8 years after the majorcivil rights thrust at Birmingham, Ala. Delays andshocks carry us from crisis to crisis, and finally todisillusionment and intermittent apathy. Our sensesare dulled, our purses stretched, and still the voicesfrom the ghettos, the "barrios," and the reservationscry out, identifying legally sanctioned inequity.

During the midsixties, the City School District ofRochester, N.Y., responded to the many divergentvoices by developing a Fifteen Point Plan to reduceracial isolation and to create alternative solutionswithin its financial means.

On November 21, 1963, the Board of Educationpaved the way for its first large-scale open enrollmenteffort. After a number of sequential steps toward

desegregation over the next 4 years, Rochesterdeveloped, in February 1967, several alternativeplans. Significant features of the alternatives includedreducing class size sharply, employment of teacheraides from the community, two-way open enroll-ment, employment of reading specialists, integratedprekindergartens, the World of Inquiry School (anintegrated, urban-suburban experimental school sup-ported by Title III program funds), and cooperationwith interested community agencies and the ModelCities Project. The third and final evaluation report ofthe study, completed in September 1970, states:

15

Specifically, black pupils enrolled in racially-segregated compensatory and integrated class-rooms were compared in terms of scholasticachievement as measured by selected standardizedtests, school attendance, and social growth andwork habits as perceived by the classroom teacher.In addition, white pupils who transferred fromtheir predominantly white neighborhood schoolsto attend classes at an inner city school werecompared with their home school counterpartsand, whenever feasible, with their new classmateson the same basis.

At the beginning of the Fifteen Point Program,it was believed that at least three years of intensivefollow-up of pupils participating in each of thecomponents was necessary to assess the programadequately. Now, in retrospect, it appears that thischoice was discreet since both pupil mobility andchanging instructional emphases would haveaffected prolonged or plausible follow-up efforts.

18

The Council wishes to highlight the followingspecial features which were assessed during thislongitudinal study:

The selected features of the Fifteen PointProgram covered by this report may be reduced tothree major components. The first represents thatstyle of education which has come to be known as"compensator)/ education." In this approach, noattempt was made to desegregate the raciallyimbalanced neighborhood school in the blackcommunity, Rather, energies and funds werechanneled into avenues that permitted smallerclass sizes by increasing the ratio of adults topupils, and expanding provisions for supportiveand remedial services

The assumption on which compensatory educa-tion is based is the belief that greater pupil-teacherinteraction yields higher pupil achievement Statedspecifically for this study, the more a teacher or anauthorized adult works and interacts with ateducationally disadvantaged pupil in his neighbor-hood school, where the average class numbers15-18 pupils, the greater are the pupil's achieve-ment and growth on selected scholastic measures.

The second component features integration ofchildren by way of both the traditional manner;i.e., where black children transfer to schools whichhave predominantly white pupil populations (Inte-gration-Out) and the reverse, a unique provision ofpupil transfer in which children from predomi-nantly white schools transfer into the core or innercity schools with a pupil population predomi-nantly black (Integration-In at Clara BartonSchool No. 2 and Dag Hammersjold School No. 6.No overt attempts were made to restrict class sizeas characterized by the compensatory educationalclasses. Thus, the implicit benefits of integratededucation are subsumed from the interaction ofteachers and pupils in standard class size settings(average 27) where some pupil ethnic differences(and in this case economic differences) are pre-valent. Stated somewhat differently, the pupilbenefits derived in this context are believed to beassociated with both teacher influences and theexchanges among/between classmates who havediverse backgrounds.

Segregation is the final component and repre-sents the ethnic status at selected inner cityschools where no overt intervention has occurred.It arises largely from housing practices exemplifiedin a particular neighborhood. While segregation

1 j

16

exists in both white and black acially-dominatedneighborhoods this study focuses primarily uponcontiguous schools of the inner city. Hence, classesthat are described as segregated refer to thoseconsisting of approximately 24-28 black pupilswho are essentially similar to each other in termsof socie-economic characteristics and who attendtheir neighborhood inner city schools. Specifically,selected pupils from classes at Clara Barton SchoolNo. 2 and George Mather Forbes School No. 4represent the segregated pupils in this report

NOTE: Because unusual pressures occurred at theSegregated Control School (No. 4) during the1968.69 school year, two additional controltype schools were identified and utilized indata analysis.

The objectives were sharply drawnreducing racialisolation in the schools and providing a qualityeducation for all children. The superintendent's fourprospective solutions were as follows:

Plan I COMPENSATORY EDUCATION

The plan called for the reduction of class size ingrades K-3 (15-18 pupils) and for the provision ofextensive supportive services: employing a teacheraide for each room, utilizing a special reading teacherand a full-time elementary school counselor, intro-ducing new educational media, and similar benefits.

Plan II INTEGRATION-IN

Under this plan, white pupils from outer-cityschools were voluntarily transferred to inner-cityschools with predominantly black enrollments. In

addition, special programs in language arts, blackhistory, and cultural enrichment were made available.Instruction in beginning French was provided for theintermediate grade pupils and specialists assisted theteachers to introduce Far Eastern studies, as well asto improve the teaching of reading, mathematics andscience.

Plan III INTEGRATION-OUT

In this, the third of four plans, black pupils fromthe inner city were voluntarily transferred to pre-dominently white schools located in the outer city.To enhance the program in these schools, supportiveservices were provided, but on a more limited basisthan under the former two plans.

Plan IV SEGREGATION

Black pupils were retained in their neighborhood,inner-city schools. Supporting services, similar tothose provided in Plans I and II, were initiated.

In sum, the study made it possible for theRochester schools to compare the effects of integra-tion and segregation and to assess the comparativebenefits of providing extra program support.

In its final analysis, the study was impressive in itscareful attention to comprehensive evaluation. Forexample, the effect of each of the four programs onthe learning achievement of black students and onthat of white students was carefully recorded. Testsof reading comprehension, word knowledge, arithme-tic concepts and computational skills, and problem-solving ability were administered. In addition, datawere compiled on school attendance, teacher percep-tions of the students' work habits, and social growth.In short, much attention was given to a globalassessment of the experiment: the comparative costof each of the four programs was calculated, thesocial impact of integration was analyzed, absentee-ism and other unanticipated developments wereexplored, and a strong effort was made to appraisethe management problems created by each of thefour options.

Among other questions, the study examined thefollowing issues:

1. When black pupils are kept in a segregatedschool, does the reduction in class size (15-18children in kindergarten through 3rd-gradeclasses) improve learning achievement?

2. How does the achievement of black children ina segregated school with reduced class sizecompare with the achievement of black chil-dren in racially integrated classes at inner-cityschools and the achievement of black childrenin racially integrated classes at outer-cityschools?

3. What are the effects of voluntarily transferringblack children to predominantly white outer-city schools, and the reverse, voluntarily trans-ferring white children to a predominantly blackinner-city school?

4. Does the educational achievement of whitechildren diminish in racially integrated classes?

5. Do black and white children perform equallywell in integrated classrooms?

A relatively elaborate program of statistical analy-sis was used to evak. ate the results. Moreover, theprogress of pupils was monitored over a period of 2

17

or 3 consecutive years. Although the directors of thestudy acknowledged that pupil mobility, reassign-ment of teachers, and other limitations posed prob-lems, tmey were convinced that their research conclu-sions had reasonable reliability. The following arenoteworthy findings:

1. Black pupils enrolled in segregated classes atschools having enriched program emphaseswere not appreciably different in their scho-lastic performance from similar pupils enrolledin segregated classes at control schools.

2. Black pupils enrolled in compensatory classesachieved more than black pupils in segregatedclasses.

3. Black pupils in integrated classes achieved morethan black pupils in segregated classes.

4. Black pupils in compensatory classes achievedas well as black pupils in integrated classes.

5. On the New York State Pupil EvaluationProgram results, pupils in compensatory classeswere the only group assessed which recordedgains in mean percentile standing during thefirst two grades of school.

6. Black pupils in integrated classes at theirneighborhood school were not appreciably dif-ferent in performance from similar pupils inouter-city schools.

7. There were no appreciable differences in

achievement between white pupils in inner-cityschools and white pupils in their own neighbor-hood schools.

8. Black pupils attending segregated classes faredleast well on the measure used for assessingpupils enrolled in the various plans.

9. Black pupils and white pupils who scoredsimilarly on pretest measures and who attendedintegrated classes tended to have similar scores3 years later.

10. Black pupils integrated at the primary level(grades K-3) showed relatively higher scholasticgains than those black pupils who were inte-grated at the intermediate level (grades 4-6).

11. Pupils having a stability in residency during theperiod studies reflected higher achievementgains.

12. Children who attended schools in their ownneighborhood recorded fewer absences thanthose enrolled in schools outside of theirresidential district.

The tabulation which follows indicates the com-parative benefits of the four plans.

20

1.

Rank Order of the Four Plans

Achievement In Orderof Effectiveness

1 I Compensatory 1 (Highest)Education

2 II Integration-In 23 III Integration-Out 4 (Lowest)4 IV Segregation 3

Plan Cost

The evidence from the Rochester study wouldseem to suggest that compensatory emphases areappropriate in overcoming the disadvantages of segre-gation. By inference it would appear that suchcompensatory services would yield the greateststudent benefits if provided in integrated classrooms.

A. Unlike one type of Compsnsatory EducationalProgram in New York City, (MES), theRochester Compensator)/ Educational ap-

proach showed measurable benefits over athree-year period.

B. While six recent cross-sectional studies foundminority integrated pupils' performance to behigher, the evidence was suspect because con-trol measures were not adequate (Radin (1966)Ypsilanti, Mich., Jessup (1967) New YorkCity; Meketon (1966) Kentucky; Lockwood(1966) New York State; Matzer (1965) Cali-fornia). The evidence shown in the FifteenPoint Program is quite conclusive, i.e., inte-grated minority pupils recorded higher achieve-ment gains than segregated minority pupils.

2 14

C. Evidence demonstrated in the Fifteen PointProgram corroborates that found in otherstudies (Coleman, 1965; Fortenberg, 1959;U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 1967) thatthe younger children are when they enroll inintegrated classes, the higher the probability ofscholastic success. (Abstract, pp, 4-5)

A more extensive presentation of the costs andcost theory involved with the implementation ofthese four plans can be found in appendix D.

It is interesting to note that the findings of theRochester study closely parallel the conclusion of thePresident in his Message on Education that there is a

necessary linkage between compensatory educationand desegregation measures.

The National Advisory Council has considered theAdministration's increased interest in desegregationand the enactment of the President's bill, EmergencySchool Aid Act of 1970, H.R. 17846. The Councilhighlights the findings of the Rochester study and thestated goals of the President by concluding that thebest compensatory education program appears to bedesegregation. We may also conclude that, ifRochester is typical of other cities in the Nation, itappears most desirable to encourage further desegre-gation of the schools and, concurrently, to makeeffective compensatory provisions available to disad-vantaged youth who attend these racially desegratedschools.

18

CHAPTER V. CULTURAL DIFFERENCE IN THE "MELTING POT" SOCIETY

The Council proposes that cultural differences have been, in part, a contributing factor in thepoor performance of I v-income children on "culture-bound" standardized tests. The Councilsuggests that members of the education establishment have assistance where necessary forbetter understanding and sensitivity to cultural differences. The Council expects that respectand recognition of the United States' cultural diversity in school programs will improve theperformance of children from low-income families, and consequently their educationalattainment.

"Don't go beyond the level of your raising," anAppalachian mother with a 9th-grade educationwarned her school-age youngster. In an effort to freethe disadvantaged child from economic bondage andeducational shortchanging, compensatory educationprograms have too often separated the "raisings"from the "risings."

"Today there is widespread - if tardy - recognitionthat one of our country's richest assets is its culturaland linguistic diversity," explains Dr. Terrel H. Bell,former Acting U.S. Commissioner of Education.

Both of the foregoing comments illustrate thesame concept - that cultural difference is a naturalresource to be prized along with efforts to attaineconomic viability for our children.

A nation created by earlier dropouts from Euro-pean ,societies intolerant of minority views andlifestyles cannot continue to pursue a course whichdiscriminates among its resident citizens. The Councilhas come to believe that America's schools still havesome distance to go to assure each minority pupil thefreedom to express openly and with pride his ownunique cultural heritage. We recognize this basicfreedom as an important prerequisite to addressingthe problems of poverty, as are the usually citedissues of economic self-sufficiency and the right to agood education.

The last century's melting pot has become thisgeneration's cauldron. Spokesmen for culturally dif-ferent minority groups in this country have let it beknown that their people no longer wish to assimilate,to fade into the masses, to emulate the image of thosewho have won economic success in our society. On

419-878 0 - 71 - 3 19

naturalization day, the first day of their newly-wonAmerican citizenship, immigrants are often told notto forget their heritage and sacrifice their back-ground, for the United States would only be thepoorer without them. Yet, in order to compete in thejob market, many sublimate their culture to be morelike the neutral man, to them a cardboard pattern ofa soulless person.

The Council believes it is significant that ethnicgroups, including Appalachians, Blacks, Cubans,

Indians, Mexican-Americans and Puerto Ricans areseriously questioning whether they will follow thesame pattern in the future. Cultural expression haswon respectability, and the courage to practice one'sown heritage is now not only an acceptable, but apreferable trait. Whether or not our educationalinstitutions honor this new cultural expression maywell have more to do with solving the educationalproblems of minority groups than any other singlefactor.

Yet among the poor, children are deprived of thenecessary ego strength stemming from family sta-bility, secure peer relationships, and help in reachingrealistic goals. Poor children lack the serene, middle-class faith in thr future. Because of this, many lackself-control, cannot risk failure, will not acceptcriticism, cannot take two steps backward to go oneforward, have no regular study habits and few basicskills. In short, their condition is educationallydeprived and its source is mostly their poverty.

Nevertheless, a former school board chairmandeclared: "We have no inferior education in ourschools... What we have been getting is an inferior

2 2

type of student." Educational achievement studieshave consistently pointed out that one of the mostimportant factors in determining educational successis whether the child feels he has some control over hislife. This feeling of self-sufficiency and independencehas been frustrated by a number of factors - themonocultural emphasis of our school curriculums, thelack of training and therefore understanding amongteachers of culturally different children, and intelli-gence and psychological tests which place a highemphasis on the child's ability to 'clentify thesymbols of a majority culture.

Strict cautions must be observed to be certain thatchildren from minority groups are not prematurelyassigned to classes for slow learners or the mentallyretarded, based upon inconclusive evidence. In addi-tion, children so assigned must not be retained insuch classes 1 day beyond the availability of evidencethat the pupil is ready for an upgraded class place-ment.

The National Advisory Council pursued theseissues by establishing a subcommittee to examine thephenomenon of cultural diversity. The findings aresobering. The average educational attainment forAppalachians is 8.5 school years; for Indians, 5 schoolyears; an i for Mexican-Americans, 7 school years. In1970 the U.S. Census Bureau reported that there wasa large increase in the number of black high schoolgraduates - 65 percent as compared with only 40percent in 1960. Notably in one State, the frequencyof students' being penalized for speaking Spanish inschool is startling.

The Council strongly endorse, the determinationof ft.rmer Acting Commissioner of Education Bell,who remarked, "We must muster all available assist-ance - public and private - to change educationalattitudes that have resulted in educational failure forthousands of young Americans whose only fault wasthe possession of a different language and a differentculture."

A serious deficiency of the educational system isthe lack of emphasis on cross-cultural experience.Even though there is a seemingly high exposure forAmericans to other cultures through the mass media,this exposure is illusory because it is passive. Only byliving in a different cultural context, going to schoolwith children from different backgrounds, and experi-encing other behavioral patterns and cultural traitsdoes an individual become really aware of the culturaldistinctions which are uniquely his own or gainrespect for those of other people. If the goal ofeducation is to teach people how to learn and to

function effectively with other people and institu-tions with whom they may have contact, suchexperiences are not only valid but essential. Seriousattention needs to be given to research and demon-stration projects which allow teachers and students togain a new understanding of the nature and importanceof cultural pluralism in a democratic society.

Until now many school systems have been suc-cessful at what society wanted them to do - obliteratethe differences and adjust children to the techno-logical society as obedient integers. The schools arethe world's most relentless channeling devices forthose students who do not drop out of them.

Society has now begun to demand a democraticframework for student activity. Pupils ere beingoffered opportunities for independent work, school-work programs, and time for creative expression.Cultural history courses have yet to reach fullmaturity, but they have dune much to salvage someof the self-esteem deprived children used to lose asthey matured.

James Coleman tells us that the most importantthing in determining educational success is whetherthe child feels he has some control over his life. If theunique heritage from which he comes is destroyed byefforts to make him acceptable to the ideal socialnorm, instead of being merely modified by thateffort, the resultant human being can only feelpowerless in a majority society.

The very concept of a "majority society" in theUnited States is, however, the primary error. As anoperating theory, "the melting pot" is invalid. OurNation of minorities who fled from cultural andreligious oppression must ask itself if repeating theerror is worth the sacrifice of a culturally rich, totalenrivonment. We have the unique opportunity to be aworld miniature, a viable world society.

The Council is not seeking cultural tolerance, forthat implies that one culture is sufficiently superiorto another to tolerate the rest. The Council seeks,instead, an orchestration of cultures performing asone Nation.

Accordingly, the Council urges educators to giveattention to the development of culturally pluralisticcurriculums and cross-cultural teaching techniques.We would hope that this would emerge as a respectedand popular element in the American educationalstructure. Because an educational system whichrecognizes and capitalizes on the unique culturaldifferences is so important for the education of poorchildren, Title I funds should legitimately be spent inthis field.

20

The Council recommends that State educationagencies be required to ensure that the applications oftheir local education agencies provide for curriculummaterials which are based on the children's culturalbackground; and that the applications provide forteacher preparation. and inservice training programswhich are oriented to the affective factors of teachingculturally different children.

We also recommend that local and State educationagencies reinforce expectations that publishers devel-op culturally oriented and culturally pluralistic mate-

rials. To facilitate the creation of culturally basedinstructional materials, Title I should be amended toprovide the appropriation of $25 million whichwould permit the Commissioner of Education toenter into contracts with local school districts, Stateschool agencies, universities, and private organiza-tionsprofit and nonprofit. These materials would befor initial use in Title I programs. Priority would begiven to organizations and institutions with first handknowledge of various cultural groups and demon-strated skill in developing these greatly neededmaterials.

21

CHAPTER VI. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS: WHAT WE CAN DO NOW

Concluding comment and summary of the Council's recommendations.

From its inception, the goal of Title I has been tobreak the cyclical menace of educational and eco-nomic deprivation. With funds in excess of $5.5billion since 1965, Title I has assisted State and localeducation agencies in relieving the deplorable realityof disadvantage which encircles nearly 17 millionchildren.

The present financial dilemma hamstringing Stateand local governments has reached crisis proportions.Unfortunately, the victims are the same educationallydeprived youngsters whose plight was the inspirationfor Title I, ESEA 5 years ago. Many local officialshave been hard pressed to meet the persistenteducational needs of these children. Out of despera-tion, more than with any deliberate intent to circum-vent public law, some officials have relaxed theircommitment to meeting standards of fund concentra-tion, comparability, and parent ;evolvement.

While the National Advisory Council understandsthe scope of their financial difficulties, we see noalternative but to insist on the rededication ofFederal, State, and local officials to following theintent and prescription of public law.

CONCENTRATION

The Council endorses the recommendation of itspredecessor, which called for "adherence to theprinciple of concentrating funds where the need isgreatest so that a limited number of dollars can havegenuine impact rather than being dissipated in laud-able but inconclusive efforts." We applaud the effortsof some States to raise concentrated educationalexpenditures to as much as $300 per pupil. Theserepresent a genuine response by SEA's, even in timesof financial distress, to the principle of concentratingeducational services on a limited number of children.Where desegregation is occurring, the Council recom-mends a "follow the child" approach.

23

COMPARABILITY

The Council believes that a desirable feature ofState educational agency administration is the stipula-tion of comparability criteria. These standards wouldinsure that the principles of concentration andincentives will result in equitable, as well as adequate,application of Federal dollars to increase the level ofservice to disadvantaged children. The recentlyadopted Federal guideline on "comparability" shouldprovide a basis for negotiation between the Office ofEducation and the State education agencies to seethat workable comparability criteria are imple-mented.

PARENT INVOLVEMENT

During the past year, the Council contributed tothe preparation of new guidelines on parent involve-ment which were sent to the State education agenciesin late October 1970 (see appendix BI. The Council isconvinced that an effective means of obtaining thecooperation and support of the community in achiev-ing successful compensatory programs is to enlist thetalents of parents. Manifold benefits stem from thecreation of three-way communication among parents,teachers, and school officials:

Parents are encouraged to feel that their advice iswelcomed, that their contributions are used by theschools, and that parental apathy and hostilitytowards the school are unfounded.

A more accurate and equitable procedure is estab-lished for the collection and dissemination ofinformation relevant to the education of the child.

The child begins to realize that a broad spectrumof adults around him is concerned and interested in

25

his education. This is most helpful in reducing thedisparity that often exists between the lower-classatmosphere of the home and the middle-classatmosphere of the school.

The teacher is stimulated to bring her teaching andoutlook closer to the basic needs and problems ofthe child and his cultural community.

Specifically, parent involvement attacks a problemto which we have assigned top priority in thefuture - the diversification of educational methodsand goals that will acknowledge the culturaldiversity of children in our schools.

Parents become familiar with the administration ofthe educational programs. They become capable ofmaking constructive contributions which acknowl-edge the complexities of educational systems andtheir management. They learn to talk with theteachers and, in the same process, the teacherslearn to talk with the parents.

Parents help ensure that Title I programs and fundsare used wisely in the improvement of educationalopportunities for their children. They help keepTitle I oriented toward its basic objectives.

Generally, parent advisory councils served to en-hance the worth of education and the dignity ofparenthood; they contribute a spirit of integrity tothe educational process.

The Council is cognizant of existing argumentsagainst the formation of parent advisory councils, andit recognizes that such arguments are sometimesjustifiable. Some parent advisory councils have beeneither politically disruptive or apathetically neutral.On balance, however, the Council is persuaded thatthe merit of the parent advisory council mechanismsestablished to date has been overwhelmingly positive.

While we are pleased with the accomplishments ofparent involvement, we feel it essential that, insofaras possible, teachers in disadvantaged areas mustperceive the needs of parents and, in turn, parentsfeel a sincere involvement in the education of theirchildren and their schools. We recommend thatFederal administration of Title I encourage theestablishment of parent advisory councils beyondtheir present mandate at the system level to eachtarget area school.

26

Whereas Title I has placed primary emphasis onthe child, we feel there is further need for extendingthe insights of parents and teachers. For children torealize their full potential, they must be influencedand guided by parents who both accept their parentalroles and strive to improve their personal compe-tence. We recognize an additional need for legislativeauthorization to develop programs for parents andparenthood. Simultaneously, we endorse existingsupport for teacher preparation and development inthe hope that such programs can be given specialemphasis for teachers in disadvantaged areas.

Finally, consistent with the guidelines providingfor accessible public information, we recommend thatsuch information should be disseminated to allinterested cultural groups in language familiar to thecommunity and accounting for bilingual backgroundswhere appropriate.

24

DELIVERY OF SERVICES

The Council recommends that Congress order thedevelopment of a plan of financial incentives toinclude bonus amounts to State education agencies inStates which provide supplementary funding to allowlocal education agencies to concentrate funds. Theform of the incentive should recognize discrepanciesin State and local ability to fund basic noncompensa-tory educational programsperhaps by measuringState expenditures for compensatory programsagainst State and local expenditures for basic pro-grams.

We believe that an understanding of the goals andproblems of their counterparts must be developedamong administrators at both Federal and Statelevels. Proposals, such as the State-Federal Presiden-tial Title I Internship program originating with theCouncil, are methods by which this desired State--

Federal partnership may be developed. The Office ofEducation must recognize its obligation to provideinservice training of its staff members and those whoare expected to administer Title I in the Stateeducation agencies.

If proper planning and evaluation of projects atthe local education agency level are to be encouraged,we recommend that Congress provide forward fund-ing in order that Title I practitioners and schoolboards may know what funds are available earlyenough to apply them wisely.

The Council is encouraged by recent indications,

such as the Belmont Project, that the Office ofEducation and the State education agencies areworking together to improve communication througha more systematic and regular exchange of informa-tion on project design and evaluative techniques.Such efforts should be aggressively supported, withall necessary funds and planning, to enhance profes-sional understanding and ultimately to improve thedelivery of services to poor children.

DESEGREGATION

The Council noted in its 1969 Annual Report that"school desegration and compensatory education arenot an either/or proposition, but are mutually com-plementary actions which can lose much of theireffectiveness in isolation from each other." TheRochester, N.Y., study serves as a prototype for thesuccessful combination of these two concepts. TheCouncil suggests that such program designs provide amuch-needed, graduated response which can be ap-plied according to the educational and financialresources of the community, instead of an "all ornothing" ultimatum.

By combining and coordinating the use of Federalfunds available for school desegregation and extensivesupport of disadvantaged children, wherever they are,integrated or still to be integrated, the money couldbe effectively directed toward the common goal -improving opportunities for the disadvantaged. Aftera proper assessment of needs, an assembly of re-sources from all agencies could target on this goal.

Although the education voucher concept is still inits infancy, the Council wishes to caution thatappropriate steps should be taken to incorporatesafeguards to insure that the voucher system will notobstruct or divert efforts toward desegregation.

While its 1971 Annual Report focuses on Title I,the Council recognizes the importance of compre-hensive local planning efforts so that Title I programsnot fully funded can, by coordination with otherprograms, gain impact.

The Council further reiterates its conviction thatall administrative levels of government must exerciseresponsible initiative to insure that Title I benefits"follow the child" whenever desegregation effortsinclude the transfer of disadvantaged children toschools whose student populations consist of socio-economically advantaged children.

REVENUE SHARINGThe President's State of the Union Message of

January 21, 1971, outlined a proposal for more

equitable distribution of tax revenues between Fed-eral and State levels of government. While the Councilrecognizes that there are values to be derived fromshared revenues and block grants, there is need ofassurance that educational programs and services forlow-income families will receive the priority that theyare due in the allocation of funds by the State andlocal education agencies. The Council stands ready toassist through consultation in the design of anycontemplated changes of Federal assistance for com-pensatory education.

25

CULTURAL DIVERSITY

The Council recommends that State educationagencies be required to ensure that the applications oftheir local education agencies provide for curriculummaterials which are based on the children's culturalbackground. Further, the Council recommends thatapplications provide for teacher preparation andcontinuing inservice training programs which areoriented to the affective factors of teaching culturallydifferent children.

We also recommend that local and State educationagencies reinforce expectations that publishers de-velop culturally oriented and culturally pluralisticmaterials. To facilitate the creation of culturallybased instructional materials, Title I should be

amended to provide for the appropriation of $25million which would permit the Commissioner ofEducation to enter into contracts with local schooldistricts, State school agencies, universities, and

private organizationsprofit and nonprofit. Thesematerials would be for initial use in Title I programs.Priority would be given to organizations and insti-tutions with first-hand knowledge of various culturalgroups and demonstrated skill in developing thesegreatly-needed materials.

In conclusion, as our cover letter from Mega Citypupil Steve Miller indicates, "Title I is helping." TitleI is helping some children more than others. Title I ishelping to involve parents in their children's educa-tion and provide employment for school aides fromthe neighborhood. Title I is helping to provideadditional training for school aides and other para-professionals. Title I is helping to obtain neededequipment and supplies for teaching, testing andevaluation of pupil performance. Title I is helping tomeasure Steve's and Tom's educational progress. TitleI is helping.

2r

APPENDIXES

A. Presidential State-Federal Title I Internship Proposal 29

B. NACEDC Extended Comments on Parent Involvement, October 1970. 31

C. Cost Cost Analysis of Three Year Longitudinal Study (Fifteen PointProgram), Rochester, N.Y. 35

D. Comparative Study Chart of Title I Evaluations completed since January,1969. 39

E. Recapitulation of Recommendations of Previous Council. 45

2b'

APPENDIX A.

PRESIDENTIAL STATE-FEDERAL TITLE I INTERNSHIP PROPOSAL

PROBLEM Ineffective State-Federal-local liaison communication for improved functioning of Title I

PROPOSAL

Provide for the exposure of selected personnel from SEA's and LEA's to the programs and policies of theOffice of Education concerned with the Presidential announcement and support of a 1-year internship for onesupplicant from each State, to be conducted by the Division of Compensatory Education, followed by thedissemination of the information and experience gained by the intern to key personnel of SEA and LEA's inhis State.

OBJECTIVE

Improve the delivery of services through Title I to disadvantaged children and strengthen communicationand coordination between the SEA's, LEA's and DCE

ADMINISTRATION

1. One intern to be nominated by each SEA and appointed by the President.2. Eligible candidates would be drawn from the staff of the SEA or from LEA's in the State, with the

selection criteria based on the ability and commitment of the applicant to improve programs to assistthe educationally disadvantaged child.

3. Each intern would complete a thorough orientation to the programs and problems of his SEA beforecommencing the internship.

4. Those selected would spend 9 months in Washington and other appropriate locations as "PresidentialState-Federal Title I Interns," receiving comprehensive managerial training in the delivery of Title I

services to disadvantaged children. The intern program, to be conducted by the Program SupportBranch, DCE, would provide to each participant a broad exposure to specialists in instructionalproblems and all phases of Title I operations and to experts in bilingual programs, migrant education,non-OE community action services, and relations with nonpublic schools.

5. After completion of the 9-month period, the intern would return to his SEA for a program ofcommunication with SEA and LEA Title I specialists, the duration and content of this obligation to bedeveloped by the individual SEA.

6. Funding for the Washington internships and the subsequent service with the SEA would be throughFederal monies, supplemented as practicable by foundation support.

7. The SEA can establish conditions for postinternship service if it desires.8. Compensation would be based on the applicant's existing salary level in the SEA or LEA, adjusted for

cost of living differentials and travel expenses.9. Internships would commence on July 1, 1971. (They could be staggered to start at varying times.

Effective management techniques prohibit the accommodation of 50 interns at the outset.)

29

23

APPENDIX B

NATIONAL ADVISORY COUNCIL ON THE EDUCATIONOF DISADVANTAGED CHILDREN

WASHINGTON, D.C.

W.W.E. BlanchetJames BranscomeFather Pierre Du MaineNelson GrossVivian LewisAlfred McElroyFrank RainesRobert RidgleyLouis RodriguezRalph TylerSheldon WhiteHerman R. Goldberg,Chairman

419-878 0 - 71 - 4

October 26, 1970

Dr. Terrel H. BellActing CommissionerOffice of Education400 Maryland Avenue, S.W.Washington, D.C. 20202

Dear Dr. Bell:

As requested, the National Advisory Council on the Education of Disad-vantaged Children submits its recommendations urging the Acting Commissionerto act on Section 415 of Public Law 91-230 by stating his determination thatparent involvement does improve education programs and that it should beuniversally encouraged.

The NACEDC was established by statute to comment on Title I, ESEA, toevaluate the effectiveness of compensatory education programs and to recom-mend possible improvements of Title I. The Council believes parent participationis a necessary component in the effective operation not only of Title I, but of alleducation programs.

In 1969, the NACEDC Fourth Annual Report stated:

"Parental and Community Involvement

"No school or program can by itself hope to overcome the manifoldeffects of disadvantage. A youngster spends at most six hours a day in school;the rest of his waking hours are learning hours, too, and compensatoryeducation cannot outweigh the influences of the home and the neighborhoodon a child.

"This means that if Title I is to be successful, it must be part of an alliancebetween parents, community residents, and educators. Parents must under-stand what the school is trying to achieve, so that they can extend the effectsof compensatory education by encouraging learning at home. Other localadults can frequently supplement project funds with their own resources ofinterest, inventiveness, and special ability. Parental and community involve-ment represent a way of harnessing the voluntary spirt - which has alwaysbeen a remarkable feature of American life - to expand the benefits of limitedTitle I funds.

"We commend the Office of Education's recently issued policy guidelinessuggesting the establishment of local advisory committee to enable parentsand other citizens of the local community to become involved in theplanning, operation, and appraisal of compensatory education programs. Wefurther urge state education agencies to encourage and assist local schooldistricts in implementing the principle of parent and community involvementin Title I programs."

31

- 2 -

This position reflected the past Council's endorsement of Section 116.18 of the Title I regulations addedNovember 28, 1968 which states:

"each local education agency shall provide for the maximum practical involvement of parents ofeducationally deprived children in the area to be served in the planning, development, operation andappraisal of projects, including their representation on advisory committees which may be established forthe local Title I program."

As a result of Section 116.18, many voluntary local advisory groups were formed throughout the nation,producing new political expression for disadvantaged minorities. In the most successful prototype, minoritygroups, practiced representative democracy through which they gained familiarity with the administration ofeducation programs, especially Title I.

Where there had been apathy and lack of representation, a mechanism was now available to express theconcerns which frustrated local community leaders. Furthermore, more militant and aggressive groups found aconstructive channel to express their views. This brief experience with parent advisory groups for Title I indicatesthat the existence of this opportunity generates increasing parent interest which, in turn, brings a larger numberto seek representation on the council and to become active in educational affairs.

Parent advisory councils also communicated the spirit of the community to school administrators, and theconcept of voluntary parrent advisory councils embodied in Section 116.18 was realized.

It is now apparent that one Title I advisory council for a large school district may be inadequate. TheNACEDC recommends that to make arent adviso councils more effective and to uarantee better arentrepresentation on the councils, that the Office of Education declare to the States that local target Title I schooladvisory councils be an essential part of the local education agency's Title I application.

President Richard Nixon, in his March 3, 1970, message to Congress on education reform, reaffirmed hiscommitment to increase local community responsibility.

"The problem is that in opposing some mythical threat of 'national standards' what we have too often beendoing is avoiding accountability for our own local performance. We have, as a nation, too long avoidedthinking of the productivity of schools.

"This is a mistake because it undermines the principle of local control of education. Ironic though it is, theavoidance of accountability is the single most serious threat to a continued, and even more pluralisticeducational system. Unless the local community can obtain dependable measures of just how well its schoolsystem is performing for its children, the demand for national standards will become even greater and in theend, almost certainly will prevail. When local officials do not respond to a real local need, the search begins fora level of officialdom that will do so, and all too often in the past this search has ended in Washington.

"I am determined to see to it that the flow of power in education goes toward, and not away from, thelocal community. The diversity and freedom of education in this nation, founded on local administration andState responsibility, must prevail."

The NACEDC supports this Presidential commitment to local control of education.Mr. Nixon also raises the issue of accountability as part of the issue of local responsibility. Active parent

involvement in the form of meaningful parent advisory councils is one means of channeling the effort towardaccountability as a positive force. The ultimate benefit to the educational program and to the students theschools serve is sufficient justification for proceeding in this direction.

Although the NACEDC applauds all forms of parent participation, we prefer the formal structure of anadvisory council for each target school building. In addition, we recommend that, in school districts above a givensize - that critical size to be determined by the Division of Compensatory Education - there be a parent advisorygroup to the district. The membership of this district council should include delegates from each target areacouncil.

32

Therefore, we recommend the enclosed draft guideline for your consideration. We appreciate the opportunityto express these views to you and look forward to the release of your policy statement on Friday, October 30,1970.

HRG /lwpEnclosure

Herman R. Goldberg, Rochester, N.Y.Chairman

W.W.E. Blanchet, Fort Valley, Ga.James Branscome, Washington, D.C.rather Pierre Du Maine, San Francisco, Calif.Nelson Gross, Hackensack, N.J.Vivian Lewis, Wilberforce, OhioAlfred McElroy, Port Arthur, Tex.Frank Raines, Seattle, Wash.Robert Ridgley, Portland, Oreg.Louis Rodriguez, Phoenix, Ariz.Ralph Tyler, Chicago, Ill.Sheldon White, Boston, Mass.

33

32

APPENDIX C

COST ANALYSIS OF 3-YEAR LONGITUDINALSTUDY (FIFTEEN POINT PROGRAM)

ROCHESTER, N.Y., 1967-70

All of the accompanying figures and/or totals are based upon those items included in table I. It is importantto note what they are since the definition of "Instructional" expenditures is somewhat different from theusual one. Only those costs that related directly to the learning activities of pupils were used.

Table 11 reflects the per pupil instructional cost (as defined in table 1) for each of the different components.In addition, the per pupil instructional cost for students enrolled at the 34 other elementary schools wasaveraged for each of the years analyzed. Note that the average 3-year total cost at 34 schools was $1,321 perpupil. However, the 3-year total cost per pupil at School No. 3 (Compensatory) was $2,466, almr it twice asmuch as the former (86.7%). Also presented in table II are different referent indices that provi i, additionalcomparison bases.

The 3-year average (1967.70) per pupil costs are shown on the diagonal in table III. Off-diagonal amountsreflect the differences for each of the programs assessed. For example, Integration-In at School No. 2 costapproximately $333 less per pupil per year than the Compensatory program at School No. 3.

CONCLUSIONS

1. Pupils involved in Compensatory classes incurred the greatest average costs, i.e., $822 per year. They alsoshowed the greatest relative gains in achievement during the 3-year period studies, since they ranked loweston pretest measures. However, was it worth it? The answer appears to be NO! Both black pupilsparticipating in Integration-In (No. 2) and Integration-Out (8 schools) showed almost the same growth butat approximately 3/5 the cost (59.5% and 54.1% of the Compensatory costs respectively).

2. Expenditures affixed to maintaining Segregated classes at School No. 4 were not too different from thoserequired to integrate children at School No. 2 and 8 outer-city schools (No. 4 = $475 AV/CYR; No. 2 =$489 AV/C/YR; 8 outer-city schools = $445 AV/C/YR). Since transportation costs were not included inthe operational definition of instructional costs, the latter two averages should be increased somewhat ifthese costs are included in the interpretation.

3. Excluding transportation expenditures, the annual per pupil average difference for instructing children inan integrated inner-city setting, e.g., School No. 2, or at 8 outer-city schools, was $44 (table III). Althoughthe 3-year achievement gain favored the School No. 2 integrated black pupils slightly, it was not great andmay have resulted from the enrichment activities. In effect, Integration-Out appeared to have almostcomparable long-term achievement effects at a reduced per pupil expenditure (of $44 per year).

35

3 Lit

TABLE IFIFTEEN POINT PROGRAM INSTRUCTIONAL COSTS

INCLUDED EXCLUDED

1. Teacher salaries 1. Central Officeprofessional salaries (including instructional

2. Building administrative salaries services and pupil personnel services)

3. Teacher aides 2. Civil service salaries (operation & maintenance,clerical, and other)

4. Instructional supplies3. Equipment

:. Text books4. Office supplies

6. Work books5. Maintenance supplies

7. Pupil periodicals6. Custodial supplies

8. Library books7. Insurance

9. Records, tapes, films8. Fuel, lighting, power, water, & telephone

10. Professional and technical services services

11. Travel: in and out of District 9. Service contracts

10. Repair contracts

Local funds 11. Lunchroom costs

15 Point Program (State)FundingSources

Project Beacon (State)

12. Employee benefits(retirement, social security, and health & lifeinsurance)

Title I (Federal) 13. Pupil transportation

36

TABLE II-FIFTEEN POINT PROGRAM COMPARATIVE COSTS

1967-68 1968-69 1969-70 3-Yr. Total

CmprdC/P #3

% %

Cmprd CmprdC/P #3 67.68

%

Cmprd CmprdC/P #3 67.68 C/P

Cmprd#3

Compensatory $715 100.0 $870 100.0 121.7 $881 100.0 123.2 $2466 100.0#3

Integration -In 453 63.4 527 60.6 116.3 486 55.2 107.3 1466 59.5#3

Segregation 425 59.4 493 56.7 116.0 507 57.5 119.3 1425 57.8#4

Integration-Out#1, 7, 23, 30,38 , 39, 41, 46 387 54.1 457 52.5 118.1 492 55.8 127.1 1321 54.1

All Other Elem. Schools(N=34) _J7 55.5 443 50.9 111.6 481 54.6 121.2 1321 53.6

Total Budget $47,143,630 $54,209,298 115.0 $58,321,674 123.7

Consumer Price Index 100.0 105.4 111.1

TABLE III-DOLLAR DIFFERENCE IN PER PUPIL COSTBY PROGRAM (3-YEAR AVERAGE, 1967 -70)

Comp.

#3Integ. In

#2Seg.

#4Integ.Out

Other

Compensatory(Sch. No. 3)

Integration-In(Sch. No. 2)

Segregation(Sch. No. 4)

Integration-Out(N = 8 Schools)

Other Elem. Schools(N = 34 Schools)

822 -333

489

-347

- 14

475

-377

- 44

- 30

445

-382

- 49

- 35

- 5

440

CITY SCHOOL DISTRICTROCHESTER, N.Y.FEBRUARY 1971

37

AP

PE

ND

IX D

CO

MP

AR

AT

IVE

ST

UD

YC

HA

RT

Titl

e I E

valu

atio

nsC

ompl

eted

Sin

ceJa

nuar

y 19

69

ST

UD

YM

AIN

PO

INT

SR

epor

t of E

valu

atio

nof

B/A

Tot

alE

SE

A T

itle

I Pro

gram

sF

Y 1

969,

Bur

eau

of In

dian

Affa

irs,

Dep

artm

ent o

f Int

erio

r(O

ctob

er 1

969)

1. A

con

side

rabl

eam

ount

of T

itle

Im

oney

is n

ot u

sed

to d

evel

op s

peci

al'.'

proj

ects

,"bu

t mer

ely

to o

ffset

the

over

whe

lmin

gde

ficie

ncie

s in

B IA

scho

ols.

2. A

lthou

ghco

nsid

erab

le im

prov

emen

tin

the

exte

ntof

com

mun

ity,

pare

nt, a

ndst

uden

t inv

olve

men

t in

plan

ning

for T

itle

I pro

ject

s is

evid

ent,

mos

t par

ent a

dvis

ory

boar

ds a

re e

ntire

lyad

viso

ry in

natu

re a

nd h

ave

had

little

influ

ence

on T

itle

Ipr

opos

als.

3. S

ugge

sted

that

impr

ovem

ents

inin

form

atio

n/gu

idel

ines

wou

ld im

prov

epl

anni

ngan

d ex

ecut

ion

ofpr

ojec

ts.

Edu

catio

n of

the

Dis

adva

ntag

ed: A

nE

valu

ativ

e R

epor

t of

Titl

e I,

FY

196

9by

Lab

orat

ory

ofE

duca

tiona

l Res

earc

h,U

nive

rsity

of C

olor

ado,

Bou

lder

, Col

o.

1. T

he g

reat

est

inci

denc

e of

an a

cade

mic

nee

dw

as fo

r co

mpe

nsat

ory

read

ing

prog

ram

s, n

early

2.5

mill

ion

elem

enta

ry-a

ged

pupi

lsin

Titl

e I s

choo

ls.

2. T

he in

cide

nce

of c

ritic

al n

eeds

for

com

pens

ator

yed

ucat

iona

lpr

ogra

ms

prov

ed to

be c

orre

late

d w

ithpu

pils

' eth

nic

grou

p, in

com

e le

vel o

fth

e fa

mily

, urb

anis

mof

the

scho

ol, w

heth

eror

not

the

pupi

l's fa

mily

wer

e w

elfa

re r

ecip

ient

s,th

e co

ncen

trat

ion

of o

ne e

thni

cgr

oup

in th

e cl

assr

oom

,an

d th

e et

hnic

grou

p m

embe

rshi

p of

the

teac

her.

3. N

egro

pup

ilsco

nsis

tent

ly s

how

eda

grea

ter

inci

denc

e of

need

for

such

prog

ram

sth

an a

ny o

ther

ethn

ic g

roup

.W

ashi

ngto

n R

esea

rch

Pro

ject

and

the

NA

AC

P L

egal

Def

ense

Fun

d, "

Titl

e 1

ofE

SE

A: I

s It

Hel

ping

Poo

r C

hild

ren?

"M

artin

and

McC

lure

(Dec

embe

r 19

69)

1. D

iscr

etio

nary

pow

ers

gran

ted

to th

eS

tate

s ul

timat

ely

affe

ct th

esu

cces

s of

com

pens

ator

y ed

ucat

ion

prog

ram

s.2.

Evi

denc

e w

ithin

DH

EW

aud

itsco

nfirm

s th

atvi

olat

ions

of E

SE

Aha

ve o

ccur

red

innu

mer

ous

inst

ance

s.3.

An

indi

ctm

ent

is le

vele

d at

loca

lan

d F

eder

al o

ffici

als

who

eith

er a

)m

isun

ders

tand

the

purp

ose

ofT

itle

I pro

gram

san

d fu

ndin

g, b

)de

liber

atel

y vi

olat

eth

e le

gisl

ativ

ein

tent

of t

hepr

ogra

m, o

r c)

by

avoi

ding

enfo

rcem

ent a

ctiv

ity,

cond

one

such

viol

atio

ns o

f the

stat

ute.

4. F

ailu

re o

f Titl

e I r

ests

with

thos

e w

ho a

dmin

iste

rit,

not

with

the

prog

ram

itse

lf.

ST

UD

YM

AIN

PO

INT

S

Urb

an E

duca

tion

Tas

k F

orce

, Offi

ce o

f Edu

catio

n, D

HE

W,

Con

gres

sion

al R

ecor

d, 1

970

1. C

onfir

ms

need

for

com

preh

ensi

ve m

etro

polit

an p

lann

ing,

rec

omm

endi

ng "

dece

n-tr

aliz

atio

n,"

or th

e de

lega

tion

of a

utho

rity

and

resp

onsi

bilit

y to

sub

units

und

er th

esc

hool

boa

rd, a

s th

e m

ost e

ffect

ive

mod

el.

2. A

maj

or a

venu

e to

war

d in

stitu

tiona

l cha

nge

and

mor

e re

spon

sive

ness

to th

e ne

eds

of th

e di

sadv

anta

ged,

urb

an c

hild

is th

roug

h co

mm

unity

invo

lvem

ent,

the

"par

tner

ship

" of

par

ents

and

sch

ool o

ffici

als.

3. R

ecom

men

ds n

ew le

gisl

atio

n, a

n U

rban

Edu

catio

n A

ct, t

o de

fine

or c

larif

y th

e ro

leof

Sta

tes

with

reg

ard

to c

ompe

nsat

ory

educ

atio

n pr

ogra

ms

inst

itute

d in

thei

r ur

ban

cent

ers.

4. S

ugge

sts

that

ince

ntiv

e gr

ants

sho

uld

be e

xten

ded

to th

e S

tate

s pr

ovid

ed th

eyag

ree

to m

atch

Fed

eral

fund

s fo

r ed

ucat

ion.

Edu

catio

n fo

r th

e D

isad

vant

aged

: An

Eva

luat

ion

Rep

ort o

nT

itle

1, F

Y 1

968,

Pro

gram

Pla

nnin

g an

d E

valu

atio

n, U

.S. O

ffice

of E

duca

tion,

DH

EW

(A

pril

1970

)

1. N

o ge

nera

l ind

icat

or is

ava

ilabl

e to

illu

min

ate

the

"ben

efit"

der

ived

from

spe

cial

prog

ram

s, b

ut s

choo

l dis

tric

ts a

re a

ttem

ptin

g to

mee

t the

nee

ds o

f pup

ils fo

rsu

ppor

tive

serv

ices

, bas

ic s

kills

dev

elop

men

t, an

d cu

ltura

l enr

iehm

ent.

2. S

peci

al p

rogr

ams

devo

ted

to d

evel

opm

ent o

f rea

ding

ski

lls a

ccou

nt fo

r 47

% o

f all

Titl

eI

fund

ing.

Eve

n th

ough

dat

a ar

e fo

r F

Y 1

968,

val

uabl

e ac

hiev

emen

tin

form

atio

n is

mad

e av

aila

ble

here

.3.

Rep

ort

isba

sed

on th

e pr

emis

e th

at s

ubje

ctiv

e te

ache

r ex

pect

atio

nis

anac

cept

able

/val

id in

stru

men

t for

mea

surin

g re

adin

g ac

hiev

emen

t.

Titl

e I i

n th

e G

reat

City

Sch

ools

: An

Ana

lysi

s of

Eva

luat

ion

Pra

ctic

es a

nd E

xem

plar

y P

roje

cts,

by

the

Cou

ncil

of th

eG

reat

City

Sch

ools

, (A

pril

1970

)

1. S

ugge

sts

mor

e pr

actic

al m

odel

s fo

r ev

alua

tion

- br

oade

r ra

nge

of in

dice

s of

cha

nge,

prep

arat

ion

of b

ehav

iora

l obj

ectiv

es, a

ntic

ipat

ion

of o

ther

effe

cts

to b

e m

easu

red

beyo

nd "

achi

evem

ent,"

cos

t-be

nefit

mod

els,

etc

.2.

Cite

s "p

upil

mob

ility

" as

gre

ates

t sin

gle

eval

uatio

n pr

oble

m.

3. S

ugge

sts

the

follo

win

g F

eder

al a

dmin

istr

ativ

e re

visi

ons:

a)

earli

er a

lloca

tion

offu

nds,

b)

min

imum

of 5

% fu

nds

devo

ted

to e

valu

atio

n of

pro

ject

s, c

) m

ore

spec

ific

guid

elin

es o

n pr

ojec

t pla

nnin

g to

ass

ist L

EA

.4.

Sug

gest

s th

e sp

ecifi

c tr

aini

ng o

f eva

luat

ion

pers

onne

l to

obta

in m

ore

obje

ctiv

e,so

und

resu

lts.

Sum

mar

y of

Fin

ding

s E

xtra

cted

Fro

m th

e P

relim

inar

y R

epor

ten

title

d E

duca

tion

of th

e D

isad

vant

aged

, FY

196

9 by

Gen

eG

lass

, BE

SE

(Ju

ly 1

970)

1. T

each

er e

xpec

tatio

n af

fect

ed s

tude

nt p

erfo

rman

ce a

nd s

tude

nt s

elf-

expe

ctat

ion.

2. E

cono

mic

situ

atio

n of

the

fam

ily d

eter

min

es th

e ed

ucat

iona

l opp

ortu

nity

of t

hech

ild a

s w

ell a

s th

e ed

ucat

ion&

bac

kgro

und

of th

e he

ad o

f the

hou

seho

ld.

3. T

he f

amily

fac

tor

affe

ctin

g ed

ucat

iona

lat

tain

men

t is

the

educ

atio

nal b

ackg

roun

dof

the

head

of

the

hous

ehol

d.4.

The

rea

ding

ach

ieve

men

tga

p be

twee

n di

sadv

anta

ged

and

nond

isad

vant

aged

stud

ents

wid

ened

, in

spite

of

com

pens

ator

y re

adin

g pr

ogra

ms,

indi

catin

g th

at th

epr

ogra

ms

did

not c

ompl

etel

y m

eet a

ll of

thei

r ob

ject

ives

.

Com

mitt

ee o

n E

duca

tion

and

Lab

or S

urve

y, H

ouse

of

Rep

re-

sena

tives

, Con

gres

sion

al R

ecor

d(F

all 1

970)

1. T

here

are

mor

e th

an 1

6.8

mill

ion

child

ren

affl

icte

d w

ith e

cono

mic

and

/or

educ

atio

nal d

isab

ilitie

s w

hich

mus

t be

serv

ed th

roug

hth

eir

scho

ol e

xper

ienc

es.

2. T

he m

ajor

ity o

f th

ese

child

ren

are

loca

ted

in u

rban

or

rura

l are

as, r

athe

r th

an in

the

subu

rbs.

3. C

onfi

rms

the

Con

gres

s' d

ecis

ion

to f

ocus

atte

ntio

n an

d fi

nanc

ial s

uppo

rt to

the

publ

ic s

choo

l dis

tric

t as

the

vehi

cle

for

reac

hing

thes

e ch

ildre

n.4.

Fin

ding

s su

bsta

ntia

te O

E c

oncl

usio

n th

atm

ore

than

80%

of

all T

itle

I fu

nds

wer

eus

ed to

mee

t the

pri

mar

y ne

eds

of th

edi

sadv

anta

ged

pupi

ls f

or b

asic

ski

llsde

velo

pmen

t and

life

sup

port

ive

serv

ices

.5.

Alth

ough

pro

gram

s ar

e be

ing

targ

eted

an th

e ar

eas

of g

reat

est n

eed,

insu

ffic

ient

fund

s re

stri

ct b

oth

the

scop

e an

d ef

fect

iven

ess

ofse

rvic

e. A

ll el

igib

le c

hild

ren

are

not b

eing

rea

ched

, nor

is a

dequ

ate

assi

stan

ce a

lway

sav

aila

ble

in th

e ar

eas

of p

aren

tpa

rtic

ipat

ion,

hea

lth, a

nd n

utri

tion.

6. P

art I

I fu

rthe

r su

bsta

ntia

tes

the

posi

tive

cont

ribu

tion

bein

g m

ade

whe

re T

itle

I

fund

s ar

e em

ploy

ed, b

ut ta

kes

issu

e w

ith th

epr

escr

ibed

for

mul

a fo

r de

term

inin

gel

igib

le s

choo

l dis

tric

ts a

nd s

tude

nts,

sug

gest

ing

that

pla

ce o

f re

side

nce

shou

ld n

otbe

a p

rim

ary

dete

rmin

ant f

or a

ppro

val o

f T

itle

I fu

nds.

Titl

e I T

ask

For

ce,

U.S

. Off

ice

of E

duca

tion

(Mar

ch-S

epte

mbe

r1.

Pro

foun

d im

pact

an

educ

atio

n op

port

unity

for

disa

dvan

tage

d ch

ildre

n ha

s re

sulte

d19

70)

prin

cipa

lly f

rom

the

incr

ease

daw

aren

ess

of th

e ne

ed f

or s

uch

prog

ram

s ge

nera

ted

Prel

imin

ary

Prog

ress

Rep

ort (

June

8, 1

970)

by T

itle

I.2.

Mos

t cri

ticis

m o

f T

itle

1ha

s co

me

from

two

sour

ces:

a)

com

plai

nts

abou

tqu

estio

nabl

e al

loca

tion

of f

unds

with

in s

choo

ldi

stri

cts,

and

b)

conf

lictin

g an

dof

ten

disc

oura

ging

eva

luat

ion

repo

rts

of it

s im

pact

on e

duca

tiona

l ach

ieve

men

t.3.

Ind

icat

es th

at s

olut

ion

of a

) re

sts

with

tigh

teni

ngpr

ogra

m a

dmin

istr

atio

n th

roug

hne

w g

uide

lines

, bet

ter

prog

ram

rev

iew

, car

eful

han

dlin

g of

aud

its, a

nd c

ompl

aint

proc

edur

es. T

he u

ndev

elop

ed a

nd c

ompl

exna

ture

of

eval

uatio

n te

chni

ques

,ho

wev

er, m

akes

sol

utio

n to

b)

mor

e di

ffic

ult.

ST

UD

YM

AIN

PO

INT

S

Pro

ject

SE

AR

, Cal

iforn

ia S

tate

Dep

artm

ent o

f Edu

catio

n's

Offi

ce1.

Sin

ce s

choo

l sta

ff ef

fect

iven

ess

is th

e m

ost c

ritic

al m

easu

re o

f pro

gram

suc

cess

or

of C

ompe

nsat

ory

Edu

catio

n an

d th

e Lo

ckhe

ed M

issi

les

& S

pace

failu

re, t

each

er tr

aini

ng o

n a

form

aliz

ed b

asis

, as

wel

l as

impr

ovem

ent i

n al

l asp

ects

Com

pany

(A

ugus

t 14,

1967

- S

epte

mbe

r1970)

of p

erso

nnel

man

agem

ent,

shou

ld b

e m

anda

tory

.2.

The

re h

as b

een

brea

kdow

n in

sch

ool/c

omm

unity

com

mun

icat

ion

whi

ch fu

rthe

rem

phas

izes

the

need

for

incr

ease

d pa

rent

al in

volv

emen

t, te

ache

r ho

me

visi

tatio

ns,

and

mor

e re

alis

tic p

rogr

am e

xpec

tatio

ns.

3. T

he s

choo

l mus

t wor

k m

ore

effe

ctiv

ely

as th

e ce

ntra

l for

ce in

atta

inin

g co

mm

unity

unde

rsta

ndin

g, e

spec

ially

bet

wee

n th

e po

lice

and

youn

g pe

ople

.4.

The

bro

ader

ran

ge o

f nei

ghbo

rhoo

d ne

eds

calls

for

mor

e pr

esch

ool,

voca

tiona

l and

adul

t edu

catio

n, a

nd m

ore

extr

acur

ri-ul

ar a

ctiv

ities

.5.

Lac

k of

flex

ibili

ty in

pre

viou

s co

mpe

nsat

ory

educ

atio

n pr

ogra

ms

indi

cate

s th

e ne

edfo

r pr

ogra

m d

esig

n im

prov

emen

t to

acco

mm

odat

e di

ffere

nt le

arni

ng p

atte

rns

ofdi

sadv

anta

ged

yout

h, to

enc

oura

ge a

chie

vem

ent,

and

to im

prov

e th

e in

divi

dual

'sse

lf-im

age.

6.

The

par

adox

of t

he s

choo

l as

both

the

prim

e so

urce

of t

ensi

on in

the

neig

hbor

hood

and

its g

reat

est r

esou

rce

for

mai

ntai

ning

sta

bilit

y.

-P I3T

he B

elm

ont P

roje

ct, C

ounc

il of

Chi

ef S

tate

Sch

ool O

ffice

rsan

d th

e U

SO

E (

Spr

ing1969

to1972)

1. H

EW

sho

uld

do a

thor

ough

stu

dy o

f US

OE

dat

a co

llect

ion

effo

rts,

incl

udin

g th

eB

elm

ont P

roje

ct, t

o co

ordi

nate

a s

yste

m th

roug

h w

hich

SE

A's

and

LE

A's

can

mor

eef

fect

ivel

y ob

tain

info

rmat

ion

and

to c

ut d

own

fric

tion

betw

een

subd

ivis

ions

of

US

OE

itse

lf.2.

Gre

ater

effo

rt s

houl

d be

put

into

the

Bel

mon

t Pro

ject

to a

ssur

e th

e re

ceip

t of v

alid

achi

evem

ent d

ata

from

the

scho

ols.

3. B

elm

ont P

roje

ct s

houl

d ce

ase

deve

lopi

ng n

ew in

stru

men

ts u

ntil

the

curr

ent o

nes,

the

Con

solid

ated

Pro

gram

Info

rmat

ion

Rep

ort (

CP

IR)

and

Ele

men

tary

-Pup

ilC

ente

red

Inst

rum

ent (

PG

I), a

re o

pera

ting

wel

l.4.

In a

dditi

on to

rot

atin

g th

e ge

nera

l man

ager

of t

he B

elm

ont P

roje

ct e

very

2 y

ears

,al

tern

atin

g be

twee

n a

US

OE

offi

cial

and

an

SE

A o

ffici

al, H

EW

sho

uld

cont

act

CS

SO

to fi

nd o

ut w

hat t

hey

thin

k of

the

Bel

mon

t sys

tem

.5.

The

pur

pose

of t

he B

elm

ont p

roje

ct is

to e

stab

lish

a da

ta b

ase

for

a sy

stem

of

man

agem

ent a

nd e

valu

atio

n th

at w

ill e

nabl

e lo

cal a

nd S

tate

offi

cial

s to

mee

t leg

ally

man

date

d pr

ogra

m m

anag

emen

t and

rep

ortin

g re

quire

men

ts in

ele

men

tary

and

seco

ndar

y ed

ucat

ion.

Sta

te A

udits

, Aud

it A

genc

y, D

HE

W (

Nov

embe

r 19

70)

1. A

udits

wer

e co

nduc

ted

in 2

5 S

tate

s fo

r F

Y 1

968,

in 1

5 S

tate

s fo

r F

Y19

69co

verin

g a

min

imum

of a

3-y

ear

perio

d of

Titl

e I f

undi

ng.

2. T

en S

tate

s ha

ve n

ever

bee

n au

dite

d.3.

In n

early

all

inst

ance

s, le

ss th

an 1

0% o

f the

tota

l num

ber

of th

e LE

A's

ina

give

nS

tate

hav

e be

en r

evie

wed

.

4. T

he in

cide

nce

of v

iola

tions

occ

urre

d in

the

follo

win

g or

der

of fr

eque

ncy:

poor

SE

Aad

min

istr

atio

n, in

adeq

uate

rec

ords

, que

stio

nabl

e sa

larie

s, c

once

ntra

tion

of fu

nds,

equi

pmen

t inv

ento

ries,

sup

plan

ting

of fu

nds,

gen

eral

aid

, and

impr

oper

inve

ntor

y.5.

In fo

ur S

tate

s pr

ior

unre

solv

ed v

iola

tions

wer

e st

ill in

evi

denc

e w

hen

mos

t rec

ent

audi

t was

con

duct

ed.

An

Eve

n C

hanc

e: A

Rep

ort o

n F

eder

al F

unds

for

Indi

anC

hild

ren

in P

ublic

Sch

ool D

istr

icts

by

the

NA

AC

P L

egal

De-

fens

e an

d E

duca

tiona

l Fun

d, In

c. in

coo

pera

tion

with

the

Har

vard

Cen

ter

for

Law

and

Edu

catio

n (J

anua

ry 1

971)

c.) 0

1. In

vest

igat

es th

e la

ck o

f com

plia

nce

with

pro

visi

ons

of th

ree

Fed

eral

stat

utes

for

educ

atio

nal a

id s

peci

fical

ly to

Indi

an c

hild

ren

Impa

ct A

id P

rogr

am, J

ohn-

son-

O'M

alle

y A

ct a

nd T

itle

I of E

SE

A.

2. C

alls

for

chan

ge in

two

abus

ive

and

illeg

al p

ract

ices

: a)

the

use

of T

itle

I fin

ds a

sge

nera

l aid

(vi

olat

ions

of g

uide

lines

on

conc

entr

atio

n, s

uppl

antin

g of

fund

s,pa

rent

invo

lvem

ent,

targ

etin

g, c

onst

ruct

ion

and

equi

pmen

t) a

nd b

) fa

ilure

to c

ompl

y w

ithth

e st

atut

ory

regu

latio

n fo

r m

eetin

g th

e "s

peci

al n

eeds

" of

the

educ

atio

nally

disa

dvan

tage

d.

3. P

lace

s th

e re

spon

sibi

lity

for

the

failu

re o

f Titl

e I i

n di

stric

ts s

ervi

ng In

dian

child

ren

on a

ll go

vern

men

tal a

genc

ies

char

ged

with

adm

inis

trat

ing

and

impl

emen

ting

the

law

, but

pla

ces

part

icul

ar b

lam

e on

the

Sta

te D

epar

tmen

ts o

f Edu

catio

nw

ho h

ave

faile

d to

rev

iew

loca

l pro

gram

s.4.

The

rep

ort h

ighl

ight

s tw

o in

stan

ces

in w

hich

Indi

ans

have

suc

cess

fully

take

nco

ntro

l of t

heir

loca

l edu

catio

nal s

yste

mR

ocky

Boy

, Mon

t.,an

d R

amah

,N

.M.s

ugge

stin

g th

at th

is ty

pe o

f pol

itica

l/edu

catio

nal a

ctiv

ism

will

be

the

met

hod

chos

en b

y In

dian

s in

the

near

futu

re to

impr

ove

thei

row

n sc

hool

s.5.

Mak

es s

peci

fic r

ecom

men

datio

ns to

Sta

te D

epar

tmen

ts o

f Edu

catio

n, U

.S. O

ffice

ofE

duca

tion,

Bur

eau

of In

dian

Affa

irs, t

he D

epar

tmen

t of A

gric

ultu

rean

d th

eC

ongr

ess:

a)fo

r m

ore

stric

t enf

orce

men

t of c

urre

nt le

gisl

atio

nor

pub

licac

coun

tabi

lity,

and

b)

to c

ondu

ct o

vers

ight

hea

tings

to d

eter

min

e w

heth

er 1

)le

gisl

atio

n is

bei

ng p

rope

rly a

dmin

iste

red

and

2) if

suc

h le

gisl

atio

nm

eets

the

dive

rse

need

s of

Indi

ans

in th

e pu

blic

sch

ools

or

if ne

w le

gisl

atio

n is

nece

ssar

y.

APPENDIX E

RECAPITULATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS OF PREVIOUS COUNCIL

The most significant recommendations of the previous National Advisory Council are listed below. Theyclosely parallel the concerns of the present membership of the NACEDC. Action upon them is in 1971-72 evenmore urgently needed than it was 2 years ago. The limited extent of their application has been disappointing,but it exemplifies the throes of controversy currently engulfing, and consequently hamstringing, compensatoryeducation.

1. The U.S. Office of Education should augment its ongoing Title I information process by engaging in aspecial effort to disseminate examples of demonstrably successful compensatory educational programs.

2. The Office of Education should explore both administrative and legislative means of rewardingwell-designed, successful programs and providing incentives for their expansion and implementarion byother schools.

3. The Office of Education and State Departments of Education should cooperate in establishing Title Ispending priorities which reflect examples of proven success or suggested failure.

4. The Office of Education and State Departments of Education should cooperate in developing criteria formore uniform, comparable evaluation data than are now submitted by local Title I programs so thatmore informed judgments can be made about which programs are working and which are not.

5. Professional educators and social scientists should intensify review of current achievement tests tofurther reduce "culture-bound" components that are biased against the disadvantaged child and concealindications of his true, latent ability.

6. These professionals should also move beyond purely cognitive achievement tests and into other realmsself- concept, creativity, motivation, behavior where compensatory education may have equallyimportant long-range results.

45

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICES 1971 0 - 419-878

41