A COMPARATWE STUDY OF SELECTED FEDERAL PROGRAMS AND THE FUNDS RECEWED BY URBAN AND RURAL r SCNDDL DéSTRECTS Thesis for the Degree of Ed. D. MECHEGAN STATE UNIVERSITY CLYDE EDWARD LeTARTE 1 9 6 9 ‘ . .,-. W- ‘ , . . "n )“-“~-‘-.‘.I .o .- _ .4", 3 ‘v LIBRARY ‘ '1’ 41 This is to certify that the thesis entitled A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF SELECTED FEDERAL PROGRAMS AND THE FUNDS RECEIVED BY URBAN AND RURAL SCHOOL DISTRICTS presented by Clyde Edward LeTarte has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ed .D a degree in Ed 0 Adm o Date P 0-169 Nlichfi: in Sta University *— A C Ther that either the disadva: c: a Variet) fivantaGed < Ether mOre ZLTbeI-s Of Pragrams is vary ing 8 On 52dability ABSTRACT A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF SELECTED FEDERAL PROGRAMS AND THE FUNDS RECEIVED BY URBAN-AND RURAL SCHOOL DISTRICTS BY Clyde Edward LeTarte The Problem There now exists a substantial body of legislation that either directly or indirectly affects the education of the disadvantaged. Large sums of money have been expended on a variety of programs that are designed to provide dis— advantaged children with educational Opportunities that other more advantaged children have. There are substantial numbers of federal programs in existence. Each of these programs is directly affected by varying degrees of funding, varying sources of funds, and varying degrees of willingness and ability to spend the money appropriately and meaning- fully. Because of these many variables, it is possible that some disadvantaged children are provided greater educational opportunities than are others. If the federal aid that is provided to assist the disadvantaged is not uniformly received by that segment, then varying degrees of personal educational deprivation may szill exist in re heapens to reside enedby contin' The foil research on the a. The incr to schoc YOUngste have no: Populati *‘9 hyp foggy-mg cr its: 1. The fed federa] distri: 2. Pattie to be: eGUCat 3. Progra Schogw Sally The St PEItS: L A Com match. Clyde Edward LeTarte still exist in relation to the school district in which one happens to reside; and the cause of equality would not be served by continuing this type of distribution practice. The following hypothesis was presented to initiate research on this problem: a. The increased educational funds made available to school districts for disadvantaged school-age youngsters through recent federal legislation have not been uniformly received across that population segment. Methodology The hypothesis would be supported if any of the following criteria were found to be true: 1. parts: The federal per pupil financial input from a given federal program was found to vary among local districts; Participation in a given federal program was found to be based on any criteria other than that of educational need; Programs that are designed to be accessible to all school districts on an equal basis were not univer- sally sought and/or approved. The study was then divided into three distinct A comparison of urban and rural school districts matched on the basis of percentage of disadvantaged children for speci 2. Urban and upon per- basic ed: pared, b 3. Title 11 ACT. Was to deter funding‘ Clyde Edward LeTarte children was made based upon federal funds available for specified educational programs. 2. Urban and rural school districts were matched based upon per-pupil, state equalized valuation and the basic educational quality of the programs was com- pared, based upon seven specific criteria. 3. Title III of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act was selected for an in depth statedwide analysis to determine the cause of any discrepancy in federal funding. Findings Each of the three criteria previously established to determine whether the stated hypothesis was supported were met. 1. Federal per pupil financial input is different in every federal act studied. Twelve legislative programs were studied, and the amount granted per disadvantaged child to urban and rural districts varied in each case. In eight of the specific acts studied, the urban districts averaged more money per disadvantaged child than did the matched rural districts. In the remaining four legislative programs studied, the rural districts averaged more money per dis- advantaged child than did the matched urban districts. Using a case approach precluded statistical generalizations to the population, but the hypothesis is supported by finding that real twelve districts 2. Since gercentage of dis‘ trict and upon sta that the relative :‘isac‘vantaged in Since wide differ :etional need wer 3. It we Erans that funds 53331 basis and 5.3?! ove d . Clyde Edward LeTarte finding that real dollar differences do exist even among the twelve districts used as cases. 2. Since districts were matched on the basis of percentage of disadvantaged children residing in the dis- trict and upon state equalized valuation, it was assumed that the relative educational need for programs serving the disadvantaged in these matched districts was a constant. Since wide differences were found, factors other than edu- cational need were obvious determiners of this difference. 3. It was evident in many federal legislative pro- grams that funds were not accessible to all districts on an equal basis and that they were not universally sought and/or approved. Implications This study provides data that indicates a difference in federal funding procedures favorable to large urban school districts. The reasons for this are many. In some instances, it seems planned by reasons of arbitrary criteria, in others accidental by reasons of administrative necessity. For whatever reasons that exist, it appears that urban dis- trict students are favored over rural district students and that each urban disadvantaged child is supported by more money to assist him in gaining an adequate education than is his rural counterpart. In additi that the quality districts, based that offered in t the basic educati funding compound, or. "disadvantage: short, if dollar advantageous to EISE Clyde Edward LeTarte In addition to this, there are clear indications that the quality of the educational program offered in rural districts, based upon seven selected criteria, is less than that offered in the urban districts. These differences in the basic educational program and the differences in federal funding compound, rather than reduce, the relative attacks on "disadvantagement" by the two kinds of districts. In short, if dollars are the criteria, it is more educationally advantageous to be disadvantaged in the city than in a rural area. A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF SELECTED FEDERAL PROGRAMS AND THE FUNDS RECEIVED BY URBAN AND RURAL SCHOOL DISTRICTS BY Clyde Edward LeTarte A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF EDUCATION Department of Educational-Administration College of Education 1969 The WI tion to the ma .DSSIDLE. Partic Eeald, c..airma encouragement , Sincere apprec of the comitt‘ Dr. Ted Ward, encouragement. To the Department of assistance in t inter feels 0 his excellent SKPPort and on The vr ”MUS. Mr lief that th 30-.lege in spi ‘ F035 9 .cerstandin f“! Sincere ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The writer wishes to express his sincere apprecia- tion to the many individuals who helped make this study possible. Particular appreciation is extended to Dr. James Heald, chairman of the doctoral committee. His support, encouragement, and direction provided invaluable assistance. Sincere appreciation is also extended to the other members of the committee, Dr. Clyde Campbell, Dr. James McKee, and Dr. Ted Ward, for their helpful advice and sustained encouragement. To the many friends and colleagues of the Michigan Department of Education, appreciation is extended for their assistance in gathering the data used in this study. The writer feels particularly indebted to Dr. Harry Groulx for his excellent advice and to Dr. Donald G. Butcher for his support and understanding. The writer wishes to express his gratitude to his parents, Mr. and Mrs. Harold LeTarte, for their unfailing belief that their son could succeed in high school and college in spite of extensive evidence to the contrary. For her patience, continuous encouragement, and understanding support, the writer wishes to express his very sincere gratitude and appreciation to his wife, Kathy, without whom this study would never have been started. ***** ii ACE-BOWLEDGB'ZEXTS E330? TABLES ESTOF GRAPES Chapter I. THE PRC OVERK Intrc The E Limit Assun Hypot Defir Overt 11. REVIEW Feder Re\ Philc Fec' Argun Edt Argun TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LIST OF TABIES O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 LIST OF GRAPHS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chapter I. II. THE PROBLEM, DEFINITION OF TERMS USED, AND OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY . . . . . . . . . Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . Limitations of the Study . . . . . . . . Assumptions of the Study . . . . . . . . Hypothesis to Be Tested . . . . . . . . Definitions of Terms . . . . . . . . . . Overview of the Study . . . . . . . . . REVIEW OF LITERATURE . . . . . . . . . . . Federa1.Aid to Education Historical Review . . . . . . . . . . PhilOSOphical Arguments For and Against Federal Aid . . . . . . . . . . Arguments in Support of Federal Aid to Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . Arguments in Opposition to Federal Aid to Education . . . . . . . . . . . . Suggestions for Improving the Effective- ness of Federal Aid to Education . . . Summary of Legislation . . . . . . . . . The Elementary and Secondary Education Act . . . . . . . Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act . . . Title II of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act . . . Title III of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act . . . iii 0 Page ii viii Om\lO\U‘INl-‘ l-‘ H [—5 N 12 22 24 26 29 31 32 34 36 38 Ch ..apter 51 S cho c Chapter Title VI of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act . . . . The Adult Basic Education Act of 1966 . . . . . . The Vocational Education Act of 1963, the Vocational Education Act of 1946 or the George Barden Act, the Smith- Hughes Vocational Education Act . . Manpower Development and Training Act of 1962 . . . . . . . . . . Title III of the National Defense Education.Act of 1958 . . . . . . . The Child Nutrition Act of 1966 . . . Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 Title IB . . . . . . . . . Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 TitleIIB............. School Size anthducational Opportunity . Indicators of Quality . . . . . . . . Teachers . . . . . . . . . . . . . Guidance Services . . . . . . . . Pupil-Teacher Ratio . . . . . . Library Book Expenditure per Pupil . . . . . . . . . . . . . Accreditation . . . . . . . . . . Special Programs . . . . . . . . . ~Administration . . . . . . . . . . Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . Vocational Education Provisions . General Conclusions . . . . . . . . Summary and Implication of the Review of Literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Federal Aid to Education . . . . . . . Educational Opportunities in Urban and Rural Sparsely Settled Areas . . III. DESIGN PROCEDURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Method of Testing Hypothesis . . . . . . Section 1. A Comparison of Urban and Rural School Districts And Federal Funds Available for Specified Educational Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Section 2. A Comparison of the Basic Educational Offerings of Urban and Rural School Districts . . . . . . . . . . . . Section 3. A Determination of the Reasons for Any Discrepancy in Federal Funding Based Upon School District Size and Geographical Location . . . . . . . . . iv Page 40 41 42 44 45 46 47 48 50 52 53 56 57 58 62 63 66 66 66 67 69 69 71 73 74 76 79 81 Chapter IV. REPORT OF THE STUDY . . . . . . . . . . . . Section 1. Data The Elementary and Secondary Education Act--Title I . . . . . The Elementary and Secondary Education Act—-Tit1e II . . . . The Elementary and Secondary Education Act--Tit1e III . . . . The Elementary and Secondary Education Act--Tit1e VI . . . . The Elementary and Secondary Education Act--The Adult Basic Education Act of 1966 . . . . . The Elementary and Secondary Education Act . . . . . . . . . The Vocational Education Act of 1963 . . . . . . . . . . . . Manpower Development Training Act of 1962 . . . . . . The Child Nutrition Act of 1966, Section 4 . . . . . . . The Child Nutrition Act of 1966, Section 5 . . . . . . . . . . . National Defense Education Act—- Title III . . . . . . . . . . . The Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, Title IB—-Neighborhood Youth Corps . . . . . The Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, Title IIB . . . . . . . Section 2. Presentation of Collected Data Comparing Basic Educational Quality . . Per Pupil Expenditure for Instructional Materials . . . . Per Pupil Expenditure for Library Materials . . . . . Per Pupil Expenditure for Special Instructional Personnel . . . . Per Pupil Expenditure for Special Education . . . . . . . . . . . Per Pupil Total Operating Expenditure . . . . . . . . . . Average Amount of Teacher Training by Degrees Held . . . . . . . Average Number of Years of Teaching Exmrience O O O O O I O O O O 0 Summary of Federal Acts Studied and Presentation of Collected Comparative Page 83 85 85 90 94 97 99 101 103 106 108 111 112 114 117 120 121 123 127 129 132 135 138 Chapter Section 3. Collected Comparative Data Concerning the Relationship Between School District Size and Funding Approval Under Title III of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act . Summary of Findings . . . . . . . . . . . Summary Elementary and Secondary Education Act--Title I . . . . . Elementary and Secondary Education Act--Title II . . . . Elementary and Secondary Education Act—-Title III . . . . Elementary and Secondary Education Act--Title VI . . . . The Elementary and Secondary Education Act--The Adult Basic Education Act of 1966 . . . . . The Elementary and Secondary Education Act . . . . . . . . . The Vocational Education Act of 1963 . . . . . . . . . . . . . Manpower Development Training Act of 1962 . . . . . . . . . . Child Nutrition Act of 1966, Section 4 . . . . . . . . . Child Nutrition Act of 1966, Section 5 . . . . . . . . . . . National Defense Education Act—- Title III . . . . . . . . . . . The Economic Opportunity Act of l964—-Title IB . . . . . . . . The Economic Opportunity Act of l964--Title IIB . . . . . . . . of the Basic Educational Program . 1967-68 per Pupil Expenditure for Instructional Materials . . . . 1967- 68 per Pupil Expenditure for Library Materials . . . . 1967- 68 per Pupil Expenditure for Special Instructional Personnel 1967-68 per Pupil Expenditure for Special Education . . . . . . . 1967-68 Total Operating Expenditure per Pupil . . . . . Average Amount of Teacher Training by Degrees Held by Large and Small Districts in 1967-68 . . . Average Number of Years of Teacher Experience in 1967-68 . . . . . Summary--Title III in Depth Study . . . . vi Page 142 143 143 145 145 146 146 146 147 147 147 148 148 148 149 152 152 153 153 154 154 155 155 158 Chapter v, CONCLUSI RECOMHE FURTHEZ Concluf Suppor‘ Additi\ Implic. Genera Recomnu BIBLIOGRAPHY . APPENDIX: PROCEI TIT: SCH: Chapter V. CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS FIJRTfiER STUDY 0 O O O O O O O O O 0 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . Support or Denial of Hypothesis . . Additional Conclusions . . . . . . . Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . General Recommendations . . . . . . Recommendations for Further Study . BIB LIOGRAH-IY O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 APPENDIX: PROCEDURE USED TO MAKE 1967-68 E.S.E.A. TITLE I ALLOCATIONS TO MICHIGAN SCHOOL DISTRICTS . . . . . . . . vii Page 159 159 160 161 166 168 170 172 177 8A. as, Percent a: in which ‘ erS are a their are Percent a which hav teachers . ments re; SUbject f PerCent a which hav teachers require n PEr day, Percent g each Cate in th e a1 MEtIOPOI Ihe basi 1n the S LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Percent and number of senior high schools in which the specified prOportion of teach- ers are assigned to teach subjects outside their area of preparation, 1966-67 . . . . . . 55 2. Percent and number of junior high schools which have the specified proportion of teachers whose daily professional assign- ments require preparation in more than two subject fields, 1966-67 . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 3. Percent and number of senior high schools which have the specified proportion of teachers whose professional assignments require more than three lesson preparations per day, 1966-67 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 4. Percent and number of school districts in each category employing particular practices in the area of curriculum, 1966-67 . . . . . . 6O 5. Metropolitan and rural districts matched on the basis of the percentage of disadvantaged in the school district . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 6. School districts matched on the basis of assessed valuation per pupil . . . . . . . . . 80 7. Size breakdown of Michigan school districts . . 82 8A. ESEA Title I expenditure per disadvantaged pupil district based upon the percentages of disadvantaged pupils as determined by inter- mediate and local school districts . . . . . . 87 8B. Weighted average expenditure by large and small districts under Title I of ESEA based upon the percentage of disadvantaged pupils as determined by intermediate and local school districts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 viii %H 98. km. . Weighted small dis upon the 1 as determ school di. Baldwin, t ESEA Titl: child by , Weighted . small diS' upon the - Weighted 2 Small dis: UPON the j BaldWin’ ' ESEA Title FUpil by , 0 We ighted Small dis Upon the Small dis Table Page 8C. Weighted average expenditure by large and small districts under Title I of ESEA based upon the percentage of disadvantaged pupils as determined by intermediate and local school districts, excluding Detroit, Baldwin, and Leland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 9A. ESEA Title II expenditure per disadvantaged child by district based upon the 1960 census. . 92 9B. Weighted average expenditure by large and small districts under Title II of ESEA based upon the 1960 census . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 9C. Weighted average expenditure by large and small districts under Title II of ESEA based upon the 1960 census, excluding Detroit, Baldwin, and Leland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 10A. ESEA Title III expenditure per disadvantaged pupil by district based upon the 1960 census. . 95 10B. Weighted average expenditure by large and small districts under Title III of ESEA based upon the 1960 census . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 10C. Weighted average expenditure by large and small districts under Title III of ESEA based upon the 1960 census data and excluding Detroit, Baldwin, and Leland . . . . . . . . . 96 11A. ESEA Title VI expenditure per disadvantaged pupil by district based upon the 1960 census. . 97 113. Weighted average expenditure by large and small districts under Title VI of ESEA based upon the 1960 census . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 11C. Weighted average expenditure by large and small districts under Title VI of ESEA based upon 1960 census data and excluding Detroit, Baldwin, and Leland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 12A. Adult Basic Education Act expenditure per disadvantaged pupil by district based upon the 1960 census . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 ix BA. BB. MA, ,/ 14C. 153, NA. . Weighted small di cation A . Weighted small di cation A and excl Summary and smal Secondar; Summary . and smal. Secondar; Baldwin, Vocationa advantage 1960 Gene ° weighted Small dis tio“ Act We ighted Small dis tion Act excluding ° ManPOWer ased Upo Table 12B. 12C. 13A. 13B. 14A 0 14B. 14C. 15A. 15B. 15C. 16A 0 Weighted average expenditure by large and small districts under the Adult Basic Edu— cation Act based upon the 1960 census . . . . . Weighted average expenditure by large and small districts under the Adult Basic Edu- cation Act based upon the 1960 census data and excluding Detroit, Baldwin, and Leland . . Summary of the average expenditures by large and small districts under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary of the average expenditures by large and small districts under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and excluding Detroit, Baldwin, and Leland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Vocational Education Act expenditure per dis— advantaged pupil by district based upon the 1960 census data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Weighted average expenditure by large and small districts under the Vocational Educa- tion Act based upon 1960 census data . . . . . Weighted average expenditure by large and small districts under the Vocational Educa- tion Act based upon 1960 census data and excluding Detroit, Baldwin, and Leland . . . . Manpower Development and Training Act expen- ditures per disadvantaged pupil by district based upon 1960 census data . . . . . . . . . . Weighted average expenditures by large and small districts under the Manpower Develop- ment and Training Act based upon 1960 census data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Weighted average expenditures by large and small districts under the Manpower Development and Training.Act based upon 1960 census data and excluding Detroit, Baldwin, and Leland . . Child Nutrition Act, Section 4, expenditures per disadvantaged pupil by district based upon 1960 census data . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 100 101 102 102 104 104 105 107 107 108 109 NA ‘-v ;/B NC. Mm. 1A 16C ITL 13L . Weighted small dis Nutrition . Weighted a small dist Nutrition and excluc National 1 expenditu: district 7 WEIghted small dis National 1960 Cens weighted Small dis xatiOnal Baldk‘in' Expendit: r“Elghbork Table 16B. 16C. 17A. 17B. 17C. 18A. 18B. 18C.. 19A. 19B. 19C. Weighted average expenditures by large and small districts under Section 4 of the Child Nutrition Act based upon 1960 census data Weighted average expenditures by large and small districts under Section 4 of the Child Nutrition Act based upon 1960 census data and excluding Detroit, Baldwin, and Leland National Defense Education Act--Title III expenditures per disadvantaged pupil by district based upon 1960 census data . . Weighted average expenditure by large and small districts under Title III of the National Defense Education Act based upon 1960 census data . . . . . . . . . . . . Weighted average expenditure by large and small districts under Title III of the National Defense Education Act based upon 1960 census data and excluding Detroit, Baldwin, and Leland . . . . . . . . . . . Expenditures per disadvantaged pupil by district based upon 1960 census data for Neighborhood Youth Corps . . . . . . . . Weighted average expenditure by large and small districts under the Neighborhood Youth Corps and based upon 1960 census data Weighted average expenditure by large and small districts under the Neighborhood Youth Corps and based upon 1960 census data and excluding Detroit, Baldwin, and Leland . Expenditure per disadvantaged pupil by district based upon 1960 census data for "Head Start" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Weighted average expenditure by large and small districts under the "Head Start" pro- gram based upon 1960 census data . . . . Weighted average expenditure by large and small districts under the "Head Start" pro- gram based upon 1960 census data and exclud- ing Detroit, Baldwin, and Leland . . . . xi Page 110 110 113 113 114 115 116 116 118 118 118 Table 21 2L n. B. 2& 2% High scho: categories ESEA Title school 512 Percentage Title III high scho Summary of Studied t‘: SEMEry of by large c Summary of by large E DGtrOit, E Summary 0: education. Small rur. Summary 0 educatiOn Small rur Table 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. High school districts in state by size categories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ESEA Title III proposals submitted by high school size categories . . . . . . . . Percentage of districts submitting ESEA Title III pr0posals that were approved by high school size categories . . . . . . Summary of grants made to school districts studied through federal legislation . . Summary of averaged amount of funds received by large districts and small districts Summary of averaged amount of funds received by large and small districts excluding Detroit, Baldwin, and Leland . . . . . Summary of findings comparing the basic educational programs of large urban and small rural districts . . . . . . . . . Summary of findings comparing the basic educational programs of large urban and small rural districts . . . . . . . . . xii Page 142 144 144 150 151 151 156 157 Graph 7A. 7R, 7c_ 7D. Percent a. districts services . Percent a; districts SeIVices g Percent a1 which reg; COIlectiO: PerCent a: Which hBVQ Of Science PerCent a: which hay. for iUStr Graph 1. 7A. 7B. 7C. 7D. LIST OF GRAPHS Percent and number of Michigan K-12 school districts in which junior high counseling services are available . . . . . . . . . . . Percent and number of Michigan K-12 school districts in which senior high counseling services are available . . . . . . . . . . . Percent and number of senior high schools which regularly use paperback book collections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Percent and number of senior high schools which have available and make regular use of science laboratories . . . . . . . . . . . Percent and number of senior high schools which have language laboratories available for instructional use . . . . . . . . . . . . Percent and number of school districts in which special programs are available for all physically and mentally handicapped who need them, according to district size, 1966-67 . . 1967-68 per pupil expenditure for instruc- tional materials by the Detroit, Unionville- ‘Sebewaing, and Rogers Union school districts. 1967-68 per pupil expenditure for instruc- tional materials by the Flint, Crosswell- Lexington, and Frankfort school districts . . 1967-68 per pupil expenditure for instruc- tional materials by the Grand Rapids, Gaylord, and Hale school districts . . . . . . . . . . 1967—68 per pupil expenditure for instruc— tional materials by the Lansing, Engadine, and Pentwater school districts . . . . . . . xiii Page 57 57 59 62 62 65 121 121 122 122 Graph \1 E 7F. BA. BB. BE. as, WM 93. l967-68 . tional m~ district l967-68 instruct' districts Sebewaing 1967-68 ; materials Sebewaing . 1967-68 : materials and Fran} . 1967-68 l mater ia ls Hale sch< 1967—68 material, 1967-68 material 1967‘68 tricts e SebeWair Graph 7E. 7F. 8A. 8B. 8C. 8D. 8E. 8F. 9A. 93. 1967-68 per pupil expenditure for instruc- tional materials by large and small districts studied . . . . . . . . 1967-68 averaged per pupil expenditure for instructional materials by large and small districts excluding Detroit, Unionville- Sebewaing, and Rogers Union . . . 1967-68 per pupil expenditure for library materials by the Detroit, Unionville- Sebewaing, and Rogers Union School districts. 1967-68 per pupil expenditure for library materials by the Flint, Crosswell-Lexington, and Frankfort school districts . 1967-68 per pupil expenditure for library and materials by the Grand Rapids, Gaylord, Hale school districts . . . . . . 1967-68 per pupil expenditure for library materials by the Lansing, Engadine, and Pentwater school districts . . . 1967-68 per pupil expenditure for library materials by large and small districts studied . 1967-68 averaged per pupil expenditure for library materials by large and small dis- tricts excluding Detroit, Unionville- Sebewaing, and Rogers Union . . . 1967-68 per pupil expenditure for special instructional personnel by the Detroit, Unionville-Sebewaing, school di 1967-68 per pupil expenditure for special stricts . . . . . . . . and Rogers Union instructional personnel by the Flint, Crosswell-Lexington, districts 1967-68 per pupil expenditure for special instructional personnel by the Grand Rapids, Gaylord, and Hale school districts xiv and Frankfort school Page 122 123 124 124 125 125 125 126 127 128 128 Graph 90. 93. TX 108. um he 1mg HA_ .1967-68 p, l967-68 p instructi Engadine, l967-68 a Special 1 and small l967-68 a Special 1 and small Detroit, Union . Education Sebewaing Education and Frank: - 1967—68 education Hale Scho - 1967—68 educatiOn PentWater ° 1967‘68 a SpeCial e Graph 9D. 9E. 9F. 10A. 10B. 10C. 10D. 10E. 10F. 11A. 11B. 1967—68 per pupil expenditure for special instructional personnel by the Lansing, Engadine, and Pentwater school districts . . 1967-68 averaged per pupil expenditure for special instructional personnel by large and small districts studied . . . . . . . . . 1967-68 averaged per pupil expenditure for special instructional personnel by large and small districts studied excluding Detroit, Unionville-Sebewaing, and Rogers Union . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1967-68 per pupil expenditure for special education by the Detroit, Unionville- Sebewaing, and Rogers Union school districts. 1967-68 per pupil expenditure for special education by the Flint, Crosswell—Lexington, and Frankfort school districts . . . . . . . 1967-68 per pupil expenditure for special education by the Grand Rapids, Gaylord, and Hale school districts . . . . . . . . . . . . 1967-68 per pupil expenditure for special education by the Lansing, Engadine, and Pentwater school districts . . . . . . . . . 1967-68 averaged per pupil expenditure for special education by large and small distriCtS O O C O O O O O O O O O I O O O O 0 1967-68 averaged per pupil expenditure for special education by large and small dis- tricts excluding Detroit, Unionville- Sebewaing, and Rogers Union . . . . . . . . . 1967—68 per pupil total operating expendi- ture by the Detroit, Unionville-Sebewaing, and Rogers Union school districts . . . . . . 1967-68 per pupil total operating expendi- ture by the Flint, Crosswell—Lexington, and Frankfort school districts . . . . . . . . . XV Page 128 129 129 130 130 131 131 131 132 133 133 ND. IE. MA. NB. DC, ME My. BA. . 1967-68 ; ture by t school di l967—68 g ture by t school di l967-68 a expenditu studied . . 1967-68 ture by : excluding and ROgeg Average 5 degrees F SEbewalE: Average & degrees h and Frank Gegrees h and Hale degrees h Pentwater degrees h Graph 11C. 11D. 11E. 11F. 12A. 12B 0 12C. 12D. 12E 0 12F 0 13A. 133. 1967-68 per pupil total operating expendi- ture by the Grand Rapids, Gaylord, and Hale school districts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1967-68 per pupil total operating expendi- ture by the Lansing, Engadine, and Pentwater school districts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1967-68 averaged per pupil total operating expenditure by large and small districts studied . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1967-68 per pupil total operating expendi- ture by large and small districts studied excluding Detroit, Unionville-Sebewaing, and Rogers Union . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Average amount of teacher training by degrees held for Detroit, Unionville- Sebewaing, and Rogers Union . . . . . . . . . Average amount of teacher training by degrees held for Flint, Crosswell-Lexington, and Frankfort O O O O O C C O O O C O C C C 0 Average amount of teacher training by degrees held for Grand Rapids, Gaylord, and Hale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Average amount of teacher training by degrees held for Lansing, Engadine, and Pentwater O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Average amount of teacher training by degrees held by large and small districts . . Average amount of teacher training by degrees held by large and small districts excluding Detroit, Unionville-Sebewaing, and Rogers Union . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Average number of years of teaching experience of teachers in the Detroit, Unionville-Sebewaing, and Rogers Union school districts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Average number of years of teaching experience of teachers in the Flint, Crosswell-Lexington, and Frankfort school districts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xvi Page 133 134 134 134 136 136 136 137 137 137 139 139 Graph NC. ND. Average : Gaylord, Average n experienc " Engadine, Average 3 tEBChers Studied Average 3 teachers Studied e SEbEWaing Graph 13C. Average number of years of teaching 13D. 13E. 13F. experience of teachers in the Grand Rapids, Gaylord, and Hale school districts . Average number of years of teaching experience of teachers in the Lansing, and Pentwater school districts Engadine, Average amount of teachers by large studied . . . . . Average amount of teachers by large studied excluding teaching experience and small districts teaching experience and small districts Detroit, Unionville- Sebewaing, and Rogers Union . . . . . xvii of Page 140 140 141 141 In the 0 created Educatic Since this initi arena . federal '1 financial S‘dppor CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM, DEFINITION OF TERMS USED AND OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY Introduction In the Ordinance of 1785, federal legislation created educational endowments funded through federal monies. Since this initial entry by Congress into the educational arena, federal interest in education and funds for its financial support have increased substantially. The extent of this increased involvement became evident in 1960 when strong support deve10ped for an education bill designed to provide general aid to school districts to subsidize school construction and teachers' salaries. In 1965 a new priority was established for education by the United States Office of Education and President Lynden Johnson. This priority was the improvement of the education of disadvantaged children and was expressed in legislation known as the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Title I of this Act was considered the most impor- tant single element of the bill. It authorized the distri- bution of one billion dollars to strengthen local elementary and secondary 5 children in 10% The Act Latween the lac? emphasized the 2* training opport; Poverty. " Add it .aged. Existin: utilized- in var" J cities for disafi and secondary school programs designed to educate deprived children in low income areas. The Act recognized the existence of a relationship between the lack of educational success and poverty. It emphasized the need to incorporate educational programs and training opportunities into the federal government's "War on Poverty." Additional legislation was passed that directed funds to educational programs designed to aid the disadvan- taged. Existing legislation was modified, broadened, and utilized in varying degrees to expand educational opportu- nities for disadvantaged children. The Problem There now exists a substantial body of legislation that either directly or indirectly affects the education of the disadvantaged. Large sums of money have been expended on a variety of programs that are designed to provide dis- advantaged children with educational Opportunities that other more advantaged children have. There are substantial numbers of federal programs in existence. Each of these programs is directly affected by varying degrees of funding, varying sources of funds, and varying degrees of willingness and ability to spend the money appr0priate1y and meaning- fully. From even a cursory view, it appears that some school districts receive more money per disadvantaged stu- dent than do others and on this basis alone, may provide aore extensive s siren who reside If the tricts to assis: by that segment , __-— personal educatz. to the district cause of equali: distribution pr; To furtr districts do not grams in the 11' I evident when Co“ 1 districts . Some times as much De 5 w reg er a1 programs Off - ering Of the a profOIInd Programs deg ign E 5831 q eral funds at i. . , WMlChlgan wo more extensive special programs for the disadvantaged chil- dren who reside within their district boundaries. If the federal aid that is provided to school dis- tricts to assist the disadvantaged is not uniformly received by that segment, it then stands to reason that degrees of personal educational deprivation may still exist in relation to the district in which one happens to reside; and the cause of equality would not be served by this type of distribution practice. To further complicate the prOblem, Michigan school districts do not Offer financially equal educational pro- grams in their regular curricular offerings. This is evident when considering fiscal support levels in different districts. Some school districts in Michigan spend three times as much per pupil as do other districts. Since most federal programs are built upon the regular curricular offering of the school, this evident inequality may have a profound effect upon the success potentiality of federal programs designed to serve disadvantaged children. Equal federal funds added to the unequal educational bases found in Michigan would result in unequal programs and unequal Opportunities being Offered by Michigan school districts. Inequality would not necessarily be reduced. Should a difference in the distribution of federal funds for programs for disadvantaged children be demon- strated, determined by the nature of the child's school district, two questions should be raised: 1. IS is designed to vantaged childr children? If t Ends are beir g in distribution the fu.ds and p pregrams are nO‘ expenditure sho Educational pro 2. Is EXpand educatio; to attempt to er advantaged? If t is diSCOVereg ecucat iOna 1 pr 0C ‘11,: _ “”31 aid for :9: .eral fUnds ar he ‘34 . q allty 0f ed .aaed ShOuld t ‘ Sought It is th adifferenCe in :rap:ica1 OCat 1 1. Is it the intent of the federal legislation that is designed to expand educational opportunities for disad- vantaged children to provide equally for all disadvantaged children? If the answer to this question is yes and federal funds are being distributed unequitably, then the inequality in distribution should be related to the local base to which the funds and programs are added. If local educational programs are not of equal quality, any inequality in federal expenditure should provide an equalizing effect on the basic educational programs. 2. Is the purpose of this federal legislation to expand educational Opportunities for the disadvantaged and to attempt to equalize the life opportunities of the dis- advantaged? If the answer to this question is yes, and if it is discovered that the school districts with the better educational programs are also receiving more extensive federal aid for disadvantaged children, it is possible that federal funds are inadvertently being used to expand the inequality of educational opportunity among the disadvan- taged. Should this be the case, corrective measures should be sought. It is the purpose of this study to determine if a difference in federal funding does exist based upon geo- graphical location, population density, and the size of the school district. If this in fact does exist, an attempt will be made to determine whether this difference in federal finding has any 1:3; of the basil; c'istricts. The will be based UE papillation densi The stuc cf federally ii] in rural, spars able to disadva pepulation cone fietermine, on a federal legisla available to cl" COllected w 11 1 funding has any effect in reducing or expanding the inequal- ity of the basic educational programs offered by school districts. The comparison made between school districts will be based upon variables of geographical location, population density, and school district size. The study will attempt to assess the availability of federally financed programs for disadvantaged children in rural, sparsely settled areas as compared to those avail- able to disadvantaged children in urban areas with high population concentrations. An attempt will then be made to determine, on a financial basis, the degree of impact recent federal legislation has had on the federal programs made available to children in the two types of areas. The data collected will relate to the two questions raised previously. Limitations of the Study 1. This study is limited to selected Michigan school districts. Because some distribution formulas are determined at the state level, it is possible that the results Obtained may be applicable only tr>Michigan and not be generalized as a recurring situation throughout the entire nation. » 2. The study centers upon financial data and assumes a high correlation between the extent of funding and the quality of the educational offering. It is recognized that variables other than finance are involved in determin- ing success in a program. opportunities pr It is possible : specific progra: expended t‘nroug'r. intermediate dis: 4. In T. the basis of the in; in the scho: is recognized lI‘. ad" 'antagw famil Percentage of di ”9"“. no sati use. So 0111}, .~ ~ne basic educat 3. Consideration is not given to any educational opportunities provided outside of the local school district. It is possible that funds that are not expended for a specific program at the local school district level are expended through other educational institutions; e.g., intermediate districts and community colleges. 4. In matching urban and rural school districts on the basis of the percentage of disadvantaged children resid- ing in the school district, 1960 census data were used. It is recognized in the study that the high mobility of dis- advantaged families may have caused a difference in the percentage of disadvantaged in a given district at this date. However, no satisfactory substitute data were available for use. 1 5. Only eight criteria were selected for matching the basic educational programs of the districts. It is recognized that additional criteria could have been included. Assumptions of the Study 1. There is a general assumption made throughout the study that there is a relationship between educational quality and availability of funds. It is assumed in this study that increased educational opportunities are available as new programs are developed from new funds. 2. It is assumed that federal programs serving the disadvantaged do make a difference in expanding the educational OP? that increased opportunities . 3. It census is suffi- tricts, based 1: found within ti: 4. It valuation is a determining a 5 hate education 335 compared on 5. It Ethool district them with small that does exist 5' . . 125d Cities ar 53h . 001 1st: ict tlr on reee t rem educational opportunities of disadvantaged children and that increased federal aid will increase educational opportunities. 3. It is assumed that the accuracy of the 1960 census is sufficient to permit the matching of school dis- tricts, based upon the percentage of disadvantaged children found within the school district. 4. It is assumed that per pupil state equalized valuation is a satisfactory, though imperfect, means of determining a school district's ability to provide an ade- quate educational program, and that districts can be matched and compared on this basis. 5. It is assumed that by selecting the four largest school districts and cities in the state and by matching them with small rural districts, any investment difference that does exist will be maximal. Differences between middle sized cities and larger, rural districts will not be as substantial. Hypothesis to Be Tested The increased educational funds made available to school districts for disadvantaged school-age youngsters through recent federal legislation have not been uniformly received across that population segment. For the purpose trict and large They are define itan area excee a school popula definition incl Detroit, Flint, nests the popul its character n 5 true metr 0001 Rural 5 scnool district .lStrictS haVi] 2,200 StUdentS Definition of Terms Urban school district and large school district.-— For the purposes of this study, the terms urban school dis- trict and large school district are used interchangeably. They are defined as those school systems within a metropol— itan area exceeding a population of 100,000 people and having a school population in excess of 30,000 students. This definition includes the four largest cities in the State: Detroit, Flint, Grand Rapids, and Lansing. .Although Livonia meets the population requirements, it was excluded because its character more closely resembles a suburb than it does a true metropolitan center. Ruralschool district and small sparsely settled school district.--For the purposes of this study, the terms rural school district and small sparsely settled school dis- trict are used interchangeably. They are defined as school districts having a total student population of less than 2,200 students and having no population center within the school district exceeding 5,000 inhabitants. Eederalgprograms.--For the purposes of this study, specific federal programs were selected that were deve10ped to either directly attack a specific problem faced by dis- advantaged children or to indirectly expand and improve the education of these children. The federal acts selected and described in this study are: Tm Element Title I Title I Title I Title I dult Basic Vocational Manpower De Child Nutrj Sectior Sectior National De Title j Economic 0! Title j Title j QI§2§:; in the Element A%IChild‘betw Pres ently reCe Less than $2 0 E322;_ ofthis study used to imply BEiSiJ: % F 0 \§ OI The Elementary and Secondary Education Act Title I Title II Title III Title IV Adult Basic Education (Title III of the ESEA Amendments) Vocational Education Act of 1963 Manpower Development and Training Act Child Nutrition Act of 1966 Section 4 Section 5 National Defense Education Act Title III Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 Title IB--Neighborhood Youth Corps Title IIB--"Head Start" and "Follow Through" Disadvantaged children.--For the purposes of this study, the definition of a disadvantaged child, as stated in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, shall be used: Any child between the ages of 5 and 17 from a family which presently receives Aid to Dependent Children or which earned less than $2,000 in 1960. Equal educational opportunities.--For the purposes of this study, the term equal educational opportunities is used to imply equal per capita expenditure. Basic educationalgprogram and basic curricular offering.--For the purposes of the study, the quality of the basic educational program of the selected school districts was determined by seven criteria: a. Per p‘ b. Per p' c. Per p' perso: tiona perso: d. Per p: e. Total f. Avera: g- Avera: The 51 In the ad e A gene: 18 followed allow: 1. A Com: eduCat 2 of urb 10 a. Per pupil expenditure for instructional materials. b. Per pupil expenditure for library materials. c. Per pupil expenditure for specialized educational personnel, including guidance personnel, instruc- tional consultants and supervisors, audio visual personnel, and psychological personnel. d. Per pupil expenditure for special education. e. Total Operating expenditure per pupil. f. Average amount Of teacher training. 9. Average amount Of teacher experience. Overview Of the Study The study is organized into five chapters. The second chapter contains a review Of the literature pertinent tO the general area Of federal aid tO education and a com- parative analysis Of large and small schOOl districts. The section containing the review Of federal aid tO education is divided into three parts: an historic resume, a summary Of philosophical argumentation, and a review Of specific legis— lation included within the study. In the third chapter, a description Of the study is made. .A general summary Of design procedure is given. This is followed by the specific research techniques used tO aIIOW: l. A comparison Of urban and rural school districts based upon federal funds available for specified educational programs. 2. A comparison Of the basic educational Offerings Of urban and rural schOOl districts. 3. A deter in fede Chapter ids chapter is lags concerning program, and ar Title III of ti”. Section I conta studied and the eral aid is pre ofthe comparat criteria select Section III cor Ehmmnary and lected data Shc School district In Char Ta ll 3. A determination Of the reason for any discrepancy in federal funding, should one exist. Chapter IV contains a presentation Of the findings. This chapter is divided into three basic parts: the find- ings concerning federal aid, the districts' basic educational program, and an analysis Of funding Opportunities under Title III Of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Section I contains a brief summary Of each federal act studied and the collected comparative data concerning fed- eral aid is presented. Section II contains a presentation Of the comparative data collected on each Of the seven criteria selected tO determine basic educational quality. Section III contains the analysis made Of Title III Of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and presents col- lected data showing the relationship between the size Of the schOOl districts and program approval under this title. In Chapter V, a summary Of the study, conclusions drawn, and recommendations for further study are presented. In in areas of revi A ger be made inc lL philosophical legislative e A ba: between size available sh Presently pr not availabl CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE In initiating this study, it became evident that two areas Of review would be necessary: A general review Of federal aid tO education should be made including a brief historical resume, a summary Of philosophical argumentation, and a brief review Of each legislative enactment tO be considered in the study. A basic understanding Of present relationships between size Of districts and the quality Of education available should be studied. Does the urban school district presently provide educational advantages and Opportunities not available in the rural, sparsely settled school districts? Federal Aid tO Education gistorical Review Local control Of education existed long before the passage Of the Tenth Amendment tO the Constitution. It is rooted in the American Revolution when men fought against centralized power and church dominated education. This con- cern over federal control and separation between church and state is evident in the implied decentralization Of the educational authority found in the Tenth Amendment Of the 12 Constitution. delegated to hibited by it the states re premise has } cation to the The a right of the the constitm to jHWOlVe j_< assumes a Co: 13 Constitution.1 The Amendment provides that "the Powers not delegated tO the United States by the Constitution, nor pro- hibited by it tO the states respectively, are reserved tO the states respectively, or tO the people." This basic premise has historically delegated the authority over edu- cation tO the states. The acceptance Of this responsibility as the sole right Of the states has caused a long and tense battle over the constitutional and moral right Of the federal government tO involve itself in education. The federal government also assumes a constitutional right and responsibility toward education. Article I, Section 8 Of the Constitution, gives Congress the authority tO lay and collect taxes ". . . and tO provide for the common defense and general welfare Of the United States." Constitutionally, federal aid tO education has generally been based upon this "General Welfare" clause. Although the Open controversy over federal aid tO education has just recently gained momentum, the federal government has been involved in education since "The Ordinance Of 1785," and the "Enabling Act Of 1805," which created endowments tO education by the federal government without provisions for monetary control. These acts 1"Federal Aid and the General Welfare," Educational Leadership, XXIV (October, 1966), 35-37. initiated the to education One « ments was th not only bec colleges t‘nr first bill t under its pr not less tha (.1‘ ranches as in such a ma Promote the trial ClaSSE life.n3 This Precedent t} ldtloh milst on, ...e Morr il i there is a l tile r ight t l4 initiated the establishment Of a tradition Of federal aid to education without federal control.2 One Of the earlier major federal educational enact- ments was the Morrill Act Of 1862. This act was important, not only because it greatly assisted the development Of colleges throughout the country, but also because it was the first bill tO place federal restrictions on the use Of funds under its provisions. Each state was tO support "at least, not less than one college." They were tO "teach such branches as are related tO agriculture and mechanical arts, in such a manner as the legislatures prescribe, in order to promote the liberal and practical education Of the indus- trial classes in the several pursuits and professions Of life."3 This was an important step in establishing the precedent that conditions established within federal legis- lation must be Observed tO Obtain available federal support. The Morrill Act also established a basic tradition. When there is a national need, the federal government retained the right tO meet it. In this act, the federal government did place specific restrictions on the expenditure Of funds, 2Richard Axt, The Federal Government and Financing Higher Education (New York: Columbia University Press, 1952), p. 24. 3Ellwood Cubberly, The History Of Education (New York: HoughtonsMiflin Company, 1948), p. 706. on it left tt 4 states. Since rents dealing Each has been Article I, Sec degrees of res vision to the legislative er been Passed sj l9l7--The voca educ 1920~-The coo; gOVe PrOc 1936--The educ l94l--The Stri 15 but it left the supervision Of the funds tO the individual states.4 Since the Morrill Act, a variety Of federal enact- ments dealing specifically with education have been passed. Each has been based on the "General Welfare" clause Of Article I, Section 8; and each has incorporated varying degrees Of restrictions while leaving the program super- vision tO the states. Following are some Of the significant legislative enactments which relate tO education that have been passed since the Morrill Act: 19l7--The Smith-Hughes Act provided grants tO promote vocational training and tO encourage special education for teachers Of vocational subjects. l920--The Smith-Bankhead Act developed a policy Of COOperation between the federal and state governments for a vocational rehabilitation program which included education. l936--The George-Dean Act incorporated distributive education into the Smith-Hughes Act. l941--The Lanham Act established aid for schOOl con- struction in areas affected by federal activities. l944--The G. I. Bill Of Rights provided educational training benefits for veterans. 1944--The Surplus Property Act allowed for the disposal Of surplus government property tO health, educa- tional, and civil defense agencies. l946--The George-Barden Act broadened the COOperative federal-state vocational educational programs. l946--The Fulbright Act established international educational exchanges. 4Harry Groulx, "Federal Support for Education" (an unpublished paper submitted for Education 804A, Michigan State University, February, 1965). l946--The 2i distr and n l948--The St inter l9SO-—The ii l950--The I schoo tion, l956--The P: exten l958-—The 3; t0 st 1958-_The E‘ for t 1961--The E train 1962—-The I“. initi tetra The Var Dronlems has cl aLPPOIt for em tbec- lfl Pur bills th l6 1946--The National School Lunch Act allowed for the distribution Of fOOd and funds for both public and non—public schools. l948--The SmithsMundt Act provided another program Of international educational exchanges. l950--The Housing Act provided loans for college housing. l950--The Impacted Area Aid Act gave assistance tO schools in federally affected areas for construc- tion, maintenance, and Operation. l956--The Rural Libraries Act established a program to extend library services tO rural areas. l958--The National Defense Education Act provided funds tO strengthen critical areas Of education. l958--The FogertyeMcGovern Act provided encouragement for training teachers Of the mentally retarded. l96l--The Exceptional Children's Act provided funds tO train teachers for deaf children. l962--The Manpower Development and Training Act was initiated to provide occupational training and retraining Of the nation's labor force. The variety Of bills aimed at specific educational problems has clearly established a tradition Of federal support for education. Each Of the bills, however, has been in the nature Of categorical aid and was passed tO serve a specific purpose. In the early 1960's, strong support developed for bills that provided for general aid tO education. Three general concerns blocked this movement: (1) fear Of federal control, (2) the constitutional problem Of maintaining a separation between church and state, and (3) a fear by Ibid. Southern legislI of enforcing sci These c: that some Chang I :ade. Smietana Congress many 1' Proposals to in financial assis role was dGVelc was not providi Lally fl it EXtremely dl all of the fede 1' FIOm th: and SecOndary E ha . d an Increasi» . BC : :femsnt ames 2 On | E 9E | y" T llZabe 17 Southern legislators that federal aid would become a means Of enforcing schOOl integration.6 These concerns were countered by the realization that some changes in federal support Of education must be made. Smietana found that during the 1962 session Of Congress many legislators presented numerous and varied proposals tO increase the overall coherence Of federal financial assistance. They were concerned that Congress's role was developing in a fragmented, piecemeal manner and was not providing cohesive federal support. Lally found a great "diffusion Of authority, making it extremely difficult for schOOl administrators to learn all Of the federal assistance available for their schools."8 From the early 1960's tO 1965, when the Elementary and Secondary Education Act was passed, the Democratic Party had an increasing desire tO appropriate general aid tO edu- cation; specifically, in the area Of teachers' salaries and schOOl construction.9 In fact, the Elementary and Secondary 6Stephen K. Bailey, "The Office Of Education and the Education Act Of 1965," Inter—University Case Program #100, BObstMerrill Company, Inc., College Division, 1966. 7Walter Smietana, "The 87th Congress and Federal Financial Support Of Education; a Content Analysis Of the Congressional Record, Second Session" (unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, Boston University, 1965). 8James Arthur Lally, "A Catalogue Of Federal Aid to Elementary and Secondary Education" (unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, George Washington University, 1966). 9Elizabeth Brenner Drew, "Education's Billion Dollar Baby," The Atlantic Monthly, July, 1966, pp. 37-43. Education Act c supportive leg; The Eli was born p: that preva: Health, Ed; desperatioz‘ President J standing de federal ai: salaries, | parochial 5 Problems; :' demanded a gated schog oppositIOn federal in: Systems co: In the outstanding edi Invest eetch edL 900d. ll These e educatiOna 1 pr i Preside C03131er "n 1.10 dOmest iC me it wit} 18 Education Act culminated almost 100 years Of effort to gain supportive legislation for elementary and secondary schools.10 The Elementary and Secondary Education Act was born partly Of the attitudes about education that prevail at the top Of the Department Of Health, Education and Welfare and partly Of desperation. Neither President Kennedy nor President Johnson had been able tO put a long standing democratic proposal through Congress-- federal aid for school construction and teachers' salaries. Catholics demanded equivalent aid for parochial schools, which raised constitutional problems; Northerners and civil rights groups demanded a provision that nO funds gO tO segre- gated schools. These power blocks plus genuine Opposition tO federal spending and fear Of federal interference in the workings Of local systems combined tO kill school aid prOposals. In the summer Of 1964, President Johnson asked some outstanding educators to tackle the problem Of aiding ele- mentary and secondary education--"find out how we can best invest each education dollar so that it will do the most gOOd." These educators determined that the nation's tOp educational priority should be tO help schools serving children from the lowest income group.12 President Johnson tOOk this recommendation and coupled it with the administration's anti-poverty efforts. "NO domestic measure ever presented by any President tO any 10"The Elementary and Secondary Education Act Of 1965-4What tO Anticipate," Phi Delta Kappan, XLVI (June, 1965), 483-488. llDrew, O . cit., pp. 37-43. 12"We've Got It Started," NEA Journal. LIV: NO- 6 (September, 1965), 33-39. Congress has ge report."l3 Tt. interrelated tw :erstone in the abroad legisla large-scale sch. enacted not, as church and stat were reSOlVed; CORgIess t0 the AlthOug dec arcs of gener was broadly con {2' . ities, reCOmme age bEgan appe In the 19 Congress has generated greater Congressional interest and support."13 The Elementary and Secondary Education Act interrelated two central domestic issues and became a cor— nerstone in the attempt to eliminate poverty by providing a broad legislative approach to education."14 The first large-scale school aid bill in the nation's history was enacted not, as was widely believed, because the issues of church and state, segregated schools, and federal control were resolved; but because they were transferred from Congress to the states and school districts.15 Although the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 was the first bill ever passed that authorized any degree of general aid to education and the first bill that was broadly concerned with equalizing educational opportu- nities, recommendations for extensive legislation of this type began appearing in the 1930's. In the late 1930's, the United States Advisory Committee on Education found glaring inequalities concerning educational opportunities in the United States. They found too many school districts, great variations in state school expenditures, population movements from farm to city, and an unequal ability among the states to support education. 13Ibid. l4Bailey, Op. cit., p. 5. 15Drew, op. cit., pp. 37-43. The Committee c of adequately c In 1939 Youth Council C system is to tr liberal federal Opportunit ies . 1 In 1947 haSic responsih states and loca ment ShOUId act purPOSes . 18 20 The Committee concluded that federal aid was the only means of adequately correcting the situation.16 In 1939 a commission established by the American Youth Council concluded that if the public educational system is to truly serve the national interest, a policy of liberal federal aid must be utilized to equalize educational opportunities.17 In 1947 the Hoover Commission suggested that the basic responsibility for education should be affixed to the states and local school districts, but the federal govern- ment should actively assist them in meeting educational purposes.18 The Hoover Commission served as the basis for the educational legislation that has passed in the last 15 years. The Commission recognized the diffusion of specialized educa— tion functions in federal programs rather than a concern for general aid to education in the nation. The Commission accepted the historical premise of federal participation to meet essential societal needs.19 16"The Federal Government and Education," United States AdvisoryCommittee on Education (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1938). 17Newton-Edwards, Equal Educational Opportunity for Youth (Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education), p. 149. 18Hollis P. Allen, The Federal Government and Educa- tion (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1958), pp. ll-13. 191bid.. Pp. 289-291. At tt President 215 federal aid 1 general fedel federal aid \ In 1' mended four . 1. To c 2. Toi 21 At the 1955 White House Conference called by President Eisenhower, delegates overwhelmingly favored federal aid for school construction but were split on general federal aid to education. They also envisioned that federal aid would be available only to the public schools.20 In 1959 the Committee for Economic Development recom- mended four steps in financing education: 1. To consolidate small school districts. 2. To increase state financial assistance to local districts. 3. To give federal support for schools in states where the personal income per public school child in average daily attendance is below 80 percent of the national average. 4. To enlist the efforts of local citizens in gaining the first three recommendations. It is interesting that this Commission opposed general aid to education but was the first to suggest grants based on . 21 personalrincome. It is evident that support for general aid to educa- tion and concern for providing equality of educational opportunity was considered and discussed long before passage of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act which, to a large extent, combines the two. 20Fred M. Hechinger, "The White House Conference-eA Summing Up," Education Meeting at the Summit (Washington, D.C.: National School Public Relations Association, 1955). 21Allen, op. cit., PP. 289-291. AS preV | eral aid to edtl ical discuss 10" formulation af‘v’iil :ions of knfiWlE Sydney has meaning OR; agreed upon pul’ upon by authori national level. be justified or that the exist: ideals or accorr warranted and Charles 22 Philosophical Arguments For and Against Federal Aid As previously indicated, arguments concerning fed— eral aid to education have not been settled. A philosoph- ical discussion of federal aid to education necessitates the formulation and compilation of varying opinions and percep- tions of knowledgeable writers. Sydney Sufrin feels that "federal aid to education has meaning only if that aid is directed to securing some agreed upon purposes and goals--goals that must be agreed upon by authorities and publics at the local, state, and national level."22 He further states that "federal aid can be justified only if there is a need and such need implies that the existing educational system has not reached the ideals or accomplished the ends which are thought to be warranted and desirable in the national interest."23 ~Charles Benson contends that federal aid to educa— tion can be supported for two basic reasons: to equalize the wide variance found in the per pupil expenditure of funds of different school districts and to serve as a stimulant for increased local school expenditures. The former is a national problem because of the great mdbility 22Sydney C. Sufrin, Issues in Federal Aid to Educa- tion (New York: Syracuse University Press, 1962), Preface xi. 231bid. of our popul a violation because the :uecan en: Specific 8X; SUf] that the fec state Pattei fieir educa1 3°'-'ermnent ‘ practiCes_ Inall like inl’Olved in ed- cea tiOnal ““8 the s SDe ‘ eduCation \ 24 3 m. , C Knox-1 ( a. 25.. "cucation A 26 B 2 7S 23 of our population. Benson considers differing expenditures a violation of the principal of equal educational opportu- nity,24 as does Senator Wayne Morse.25 Benson's second justification may be supported because the stimulation for increased local school expendi- ture can encourage either increased general expenditure or specific expenditure to meet specified educational needs.26 Sufrin emphasizes that federal aid does not imply that the federal government approves or supports existing state patterns of education. The decision to aid states in their educational program does not imply that the federal government wants to assist present educational programs or practices. In fact, the opposite of this is probably true. In all likelihood, the federal government is becoming involved in education because it does not believe that the educational product either in quantity and/or in quality meets the standards which it considers appropriate.27 Specific arguments for and against federal aid to education are many and varied. The issue cannot be clearly 24Charles Scott Benson, The Economics of Public Education (Boston: Houghton Miflin, 1961), pp. 250-286. 25"Why Congress Passed the Elementary and Secondary Education Act," School Management, June, 1965, pp. 86-90. 26Benson, op. cit., pp. 250-286. 27Sufrin, op. cit., p. 38. defined. There the "absolute support. Argume: fall into two ( philosophical-.3 federal action. aid 0: "intervg Site Poles of I IN the pOOr on It ls bEe O‘JSlY COnSlde \28 Q 29 Q 3o 24 defined. There is little merit in statements expressing the "absolute rightness" or "absolute wrongness" of federal support. Arguments over federal aid to education generally fall into two categories. The first is the political- philosophical-administrative concern with the propriety of federal action. The second is the cost and value of federal aid or "intervention" where value and cost represent oppo- site poles of the dialectic.28 Argupents in Support of Federal Aid to Education "A great part of the American dream is that basic guarantee(s) of political and legal equality imply equality of opportunity. The major means of securing equality of opportunity is education."29 Sufrin goes on to state that education is a national concern and consequently requires national action. The federal government should act as an agent to redistribute the wealth from the wealthy states to the poor ones.30 It is important to note that this argument has not been accepted to date in any of the educational bills seri- ously considered by the legislature. Congress has denied 28Ibid.. PP. 25, 26. ngbid., p. l. 30 Ibid., p. l. fiself the ri fact, past PC state: “The public educat based upon a not exist in rmtdespotic. Galen .eadership p0: udto educati 1. Create the st 2- Extens PIOgra thrOug 3- The fe develo that n FEdera state The fe its at new pr Federa lethar CQngrel / OJ H. 1___ 3 1I Z, F——— 25 itself the right to make any decision over education. In fact, past positions taken by the Congress led Sufrin to state: "The fear that the federal government will dominate public education is, in my View, completely unfounded and is based upon a conception of government which, in fact, does not exist in the United States. The federal government is not despotic."31 Galen Saylor, in an article written for Educational Leadership points out several positive arguments for federal aid to education. He feels that: 1. Greater sums of money will be made available for the support of the educational effort of this nation. 2. Extensive national efforts of this size provide programs and services not possible or feasible through local and state efforts. 3. The federal government can support and foster the development of new types of educational undertakings that normally would not be undertaken locally. 4. Federal support frequently stimulates local and state agencies to increase their effort. 5. The federal government has clearly demonstrated its ability and willingness to initiate and support new programs in areas of urgent need. 6. Federal efforts "prod and pedantic, nudge the lethargic, and inspire the imaginative school." 7. Federal efforts clearly demonstrate the desire of Congress to deve10p a total program for the educa- tion of all Americans. 31Ibid., Preface xii. 8. A new r fosters nation: Dr. Wall Council of Eco: the federal got inthe financi: l. Educat: and an 2- POpula: nities can so: 3- The fe;.l (the C: a 10 b; expend: in stat a 11 p; 26 8. A new national interest in education has been fostered and education has become a matter of national concern. Dr. Walter Heller, former Chairman of the President's Council of Economic Advisors, lists four major reasons for the federal government to become a more active participant in the financing of public schools: 1. Education is an instrument in meeting national needs and an investment in our human resources. 2. Population mobility and unequal educational opportu- nities create a prOblem which the federal government can solve. 3. The federal government has superior taxing powers (the Committee on Educational Finance showed that a 10 billion dollar increase in public school expenditures would require a 40 percent increase in state and local revenue, while only requiring a 11 percent increase at the federal level). 4. The federal government has superior administrative resources. 4 Arguments in Opposition to Federal Aid to Education Many of the arguments used opposing federal aid have a basis in the concept that education is both the right and the responsibility of the state. 32Galen Saylor, "The Federal Colossus in Education-- Threat or Promise," Educational Leadership, XXIII (October, 1965), 7-19. 33"What Everyone Should Know About Financing Our Schools" (Washington, D.C.: Committee on Educational Finance, National Education Association, 1966), pp. 57-60. 34Walter W. Heller, "The Responsibility of the Federal Government in the Support of Schools," Perspectives on the Economics of Education (Boston: HoughtoneMiflin Company, 1963), pp. 259-272. Sufrin opposing feder it is a benefi 35 state level. over "invidiOu self" and a "s COVEIY of lOCa 55W Opponents excessive lY la 5:835. 37 Other :0 educat-1011 E l. FiSCa] SPEnd lOQa l edUCa‘ undue 27 Sufrin indicates that one of the major arguments opposing federal aid states that while education is good, it is a benefit which must be paid for and achieved at the state level.35 This argument closely parallels the concern over "invidious control over the program of education it- self" and a "stifling of creativeness and the skill of dis- 36 covery of local educational leaders." Benson feels that many opponents believe the federal government is already excessively large and should not become involved in other 37 areas. Other concerns expressed by opponents to federal aid to education are: 1. .Fiscal irresponsibility will occur. Districts will spend federal money more carelessly than they would local funds. This fear of irresponsibility of local educators could lead the federal government to an undue exercise of power over curricula.38 2. As stated previously, one of the arguments for federal aid is to assure a more proper distribution of wealth and greater equality of opportunity. Opponents point out that excessive equalization will destro the incentive of wealthier districts to excel. 3. Many Opponents question the ability of the country to devote more resources to education than it 3SSufrin, op. cit., p. 26. 36Saylor, 0p. cit., pp. 7-l9. 37Benson, op. cit., PP. 250—286. 38Ibid. 391bid. pre the 4. Inc moc of 5. Mar fec des Un: "cc efi scl bel otl su‘.’ De} Hea fu: of G0‘ 2' Wha 28 presently is doing. Simply stated, they feel that the tax system is already overloaded.4O Increased federal aid will develop attitudes and modes of operation of dependency and indifference, of kowtowing to entrenched bureaucrats. Many critics point to the lack of success of current federal educational spending, especially the programs designed for the disadvantaged. For example, the United States Civil Rights Commission concluded that "contrary to widespread belief, recent federal efforts to make available more aid to inner city schools have not appreciably affected the disparity between the resources of these schools and those of other schools in the city and better financed suburban systems." Further, Alice M. Rivlon, Deputy Assistant Secretary in the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, stated: "Federal funds so far have failed to stop the downward spiral of poor children's achievement."42 Many concerns have been stated concerning federal aid to education, and many issues are yet unresolved: What should be the role of the United States Government in education? What should the primary functions of the federal Office of Education be? Will the cumulative effect of the existing special (categorical) aid programs strengthen or weaken state and local school systems? Are the present approaches to providing federal support encouraging or discouraging increased state and local appropriations for public education? What kind of policies at the federal level would do most to stimulate state and local effort in planning and financing education programs and exerting education leadership? NO. 40Sufrin, 0p. cit., p. 26. 41Saylor, 0p. cit., pp. 7-19. 42"Report from Washington," Nations SChOOlS. LXXXI. 1 (January, 1968), 25. 6. If} cont gove of e metl ins! ize< 1,: Alt‘ the appropr anacceptan tOlearn to Acc from Illdian Boards Towa liOZ-fsinger maintaining t0 eduCatic cem: felt t thIEatEns l 29 6. If America is to retain a system Of local control, to what extent should the federal government influence such fundamental aspects Of education as financing, the curriculum, methods Of teaching, and the Objectives Of instruction? 7. TO what extent must we move toward a central- ized national educational system?43 Suggestions for gmprovingthe Effectiveness of Federal Aid to Education Although there are Obviously two views concerning the appropriateness of federal aid, there does seem to be an acceptance by the Opposition that they will probably have to learn to live with aid in some form. Acceptance Of this fact is shown in a dissertation from Indiana University on the "Opinions Of Indiana School Boards Toward Federal Aid to Education," by H. A. Noffsinger. Noffsinger found that a majority Of school boards favored maintaining or increasing the present level Of federal aid to education. This was in spite Of the fact that 65.9 per- cent felt that it leads tO undesirable federal control and threatens lay control Of education. A major concern seemed to be in finding a method that would incorporate factors of ability, need, and effort into the distribution Of federal funds while preserving state and local control.44 3"Issues Churned Up by Federal Aid," The American School Board Journal, CXLIX (September, 1964), 42. 44H. A. Noffsinger, "Opinions Of Indiana School Boards Toward Federal Aid to Education" (unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, Indiana University, 1966). The ; ofthe opposi potentiality Sever acthors. Sufri inelOping hi "Assistance t Ofstandards, i?- the redist 5@§ests that Standards to conflict COnc 1- There and s QUest lead and d 2' The C thIOU tangi State be at criti mEthO goals SaYlo ingfederal a ‘\\\\\\\\‘~ 45 Sufi 46 m 30 The problem becomes one Of meeting as many concerns Of the Opposition as possible while attempting to reach the potentiality forseen by the supporters Of federal aid. Several suggestions have been presented by various authors. Sufrin feels that federal aid can greatly assist in developing higher educational standards. He states: "Assistance to education in the states implies some notion Of standards, else federal aid becomes merely an exercise in the redistribution of income among the states."45 He suggests that two techniques should be used to wed federal standards to state standards and thus avoid much Of the conflict concerning federal and state control. 1. There should be frequent meetings between federal and state govenment to specifically discuss the question Of standards. These discussions should lead naturally to some mutual educational goals and desired standards. 2. The cooperation Of the states could be improved through subsidies, grants-in-aid, and other tangible benefits which could be given to the states on the condition that certain standards be attained. This method could create much criticism unless it is combined with the first method-—that of first reaching mutually agreeable goals. Saylor also has some specific suggestions for improv- ing federal aid to education: 45Sufrin, Op. cit., p. 39. 46Ibid. made. 31 The federal government should provide greater support for the total educational program. Federal support should provide for a great variety of program and educational undertakings -Of all kinds. Much Of the federal aid should be in research and development activities. Categorical aid should be carefully considered and supported only in those areas representing a wise investment Of funds that Offer great promise for major educational advances to the nation. All educational efforts should be coordinated and unified through a central agency. The administration Of the program should be placed in the hands Of competent, fully qual- ified professionals. Summary of Legislation In attempting to determine which federal acts to review and include in this study, two considerations were First, it was determined that all legislation spe- cifically designed to expand the educational Opportunities for disadvantaged children should be included. Second, legislation should be included which is not necessarily intended to aid only the disadvantaged but which does have a direct effect upon expanding their educational Opportunities. 47Saylor, Op. cit., pp. 7-19. On legislative 1. Elle II, 2. Ade 4. Mar 5. The 7- The 32 On this basis, it was determined that the following legislative enactments would be considered in this study: 1. Elementary and Secondary Education Act, Titles I, II, III, and VI 2. Adult Education Act Of 1966 3. Vocational Education Act Of 1963 4. Manpower Development and Training Act 5. The Child Nutrition Act Of 1966 6. The Economic Opportunity Act, Titles IB and IIB 7. The National Defense Education Act, Title III. The Elementary and Secondary Education Act The Report Of the National Council on the Education of Disadvantaged Children stated that "the subject Of Public Law 89-10 is children--in particular, disadvantaged children, Of whom there may be as many as fifteen million in the United States." It goes on to state: "Title I Of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act has, for the first time, made available major resources to bring Opportunity tO those who, until now, have lacked even hope. It has directed the attention Of educators toward the plight Of the dis- advantaged."48 8"Elementary and Secondar Education Act Of 1966," Hearings before the Sub-Committee on Education Of the Com- mittee on Labor and Public Welfare Of the United States Senate, 89th Congress, Second Session on S 3046, S 2778, S 2928, and S 3012, April 1, 4, 5, 19, 26, 27, 1966. WU. Vin G» Mun 33 Stephen Bailey lists five goals Of this legislation: 1. TO focus federal attention on the children Of poverty, those in greatest need Of education who were seldom getting it. 2. TO induce the rubbing Of shoulders Of educators and non-educators in the search for educational improvements. 3. TO create inducements for public and parochial schools to work together. 4. TO break down the "fortress school" concept so that schools serve the larger community before and after hours and around the clock. 5. TO promote research and experimentation in cur- riculum, method, and educational evaluation. For a more authoritative statement concerning the purposes Of the legislation, the Honorable Senator wayne Morse, Chairman Of the Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, testified that the principles upon which these legislative actions were taken are: . . . an attempt to supplement but not sup- plant state and local funds through encouraging new programs, originated at the local level, but directed at solutions Of prOblems that schools have been unable to OOpe with because Of lack Of funding and that, generally, it is geared to improving the quality Of education Offered to the educationally deprived child. . . . that until we can gain the necessary support Of the nation tO enact broad general federal legislation, we should explore every possibility tO provide financial assistance to school districts in support Of specific programs for which national assent has been Obtained.50 49Bailey, Op. cit., p. 7. 50"Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965," The Report Of the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare of the United States Senate, Together with Minority and Indi- vidual Views, p. 65. P» w .. t . L A v . . ~ . :a O . 7L . W5 Mylo n \ a Ian” 5.. «AU "I.“ ~ . upvh v V! .V! ‘-I ”bit ‘fi 5 may \ § \ fly 1% H.» L.» ably \ (L 0 s:\ , -. & 34 Title I Of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act The heart Of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act is Title I.51 Its general purpose is to strengthen elementary and secondary school programs for the education- ally deprived children in low income areas.52 Robert McKay, in an article written in the Phi Delta Ka an, states: "The relationship Of poverty and ignorance, long acknowledged, is being applied for the first time in Title I Of the bill."53 More specifically, the declaration of policy included with Title I states: In recognition Of the special educational needs Of children Of low income families and the impact that concentrations Of low income families have on the ability Of local educational agencies to support adequate educational programs, the Congress hereby declares it tO be the policy Of the United States to provide financial assis- tance to local educational agencies serving areas with concentrations Of children from low income families to expand and improve their educational programs by various means which contribute par- ticularly to meeting the special educational needs Of educationally deprived children.54 51Bailey, Op. cit., p. 7. 52"The First Work Of These Times," American Educa- tion, April, 1965, pp. 13-20. 53Robert McKay, "The President's Program: A New Commitment to Quality and Equality in Education," Phi Delta Kappan, XLVI (May, 1965), 427. 54A Compendium Of Federal Education Laws, Prepared by the Committee on Education and Labor, House Of Represen- tatives (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1967), p. 15. 35 The principal regulations Of the legislation are: l. The application must designate the attendance area where the project will be conducted. Projects must be carried out in areas with high concentrations Of children from low income families. 2. The Objectives Of the project must be clearly related tO the specific needs Of educationally deprived children. 3. Progress reports must be submitted annually to the State Department. They must include procedures and techniques that are used in evaluating the effectiveness of the project. 4. Children attending private schools must have an Opportunity tO take part in these projects On the same basis as children enrolled in public schools.55 This Title authorizes over one billion dollars to assist local school districts develop meaningful programs for the disadvantaged.56 The formula deve10ped to fund this proposal is relatively simple and easy to understand. -Each district takes one-half Of the average expenditure per pupil in the State and multiplies this by the number Of children between 5 and 17 years Of age within their district who come from families with annual incomes Of less than $2,000 and the number Of children whose income from Aid tO Dependent Children is over $2,000. 55"An Updated Guide tO Federal School Aid Laws," The Croft Federal Aid Service, March, 1968, p. 3. 56 pp. 13-20. "The First Work Of These Times," O . cit., 36 Average Number Of children between Total federal . 5 and 17 coming from fam- funds available Eggingaggie ilies with annual incomes to the district in State x Of $2,000 or less and num- ‘= under Title I ber Of children whose in- Of the Elemen- 2 come from Aid to Dependent tary and Sec. Children is over $2,00057 vEducation Act This formula affects 95 percent Of all counties in America but particularly benefits central urban areas in the North and rural areas Of the South.58 TO be eligible tO participate in this program, at least 3 percent Of the children being served by the educa- tional agency between the ages Of 5 and 17 must come from families with an annual income Of less than $2,000. Further, all districts containing more than 100 youngsters from this classification are automatically included. Each local district must design and submit a proposal to the State describing the Objectives and the relationship Of the project to the total program Of the local school district.59 Title II Of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act Title II Of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act is ". . . a program for making grants for the acqui- sition Of school library resources, text books, and other 57"The Elementary and Secondary Education Act Of 1965," The Report Of the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare Of the United States Senate, p. 6. 58Bailey, Op. cit., p. 7. 59A Compendium Of Federal Education Laws, Op. cit., pp. 19-22. :05 :iti Titl 37 printed and published instructional materials for the use of children and teachers in public and private elementary and secondary schools." It is to be used as part Of a plan to strengthen and improve educational quality and opportu- nities.60 The criteria listed for receiving grants under Title II are: a. title, That districts . . . "take into consideration the relative need, as determined from time to time, of the children and teachers Of the State for such library resources, text books, or other instructional materials." That assurances Of equitable distribution are provided. That assurances are made Of apprOpriate coordi- nation at both state and local levels, between programs carried out under this title and pro- grams carried out under the Library Services and Construction Act. That money is expended solely for the acquisition Of library materials. This includes books, peri— odicals, documents, audiovisual materials, and related library materials. That funds are used to supplement, not supplant, existing expenditures for library materials. One hundred million dollars was provided for this and allotments are made on the basis Of the number Of children enrolled in the public and non-public, elementary 6OIbid., p. 31. 61Ibid., p. 32. NJ; . I.‘ \y ATV Fbs 38 and secondary schools within each state.62 This title was a major concession to private school educators63 and estab- lishes as one Of the principal regulations the requirement that private school representatives must be involved in the planning Of the expenditure Of the funds.64 It is important to point out, however, that ownership Of all materials must remain with the public agency. The materials used by teachers and children in private schools is only on a loan basis.65 Title III Of the Elementapy and Secondary Education Act Title III Of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act provides for Supplementary Education Centers and Ser- vices. This title is based on the premise that innovations and a variety Of supplementary services Often make the difference between a poor school and a good one.66 The title provides 100 million dollars to serve three basic functions: 62 pp. 13-20. "The First Work Of These Times," Op. cit., 63Bailey, Op. cit., p. 8. 64"An Updated Guide to Federal School Aid Laws," 21>_-_ci_t..p. 304. 65A Compendium Of Federal Education Laws, Op. cit., p. 34. 66 pp. 13-20. "The First Work Of These Times," Op. cit., 39 TO improve education by enabling a community to provide services not now available to the children who live there. To raise the quality Of educational services already Offered. TO stimulate and assist in developing and establish- ing exemplary programs which can serve as models for regular school programs. Some Of the possibilities suggested in the guide- lines include: 1. Developing comprehensive guidance and counseling, remedial instruction, school health, physical education, recreation, and psychological and social work services designed tO encourage a person to enter, remain in, or re-enter educational programs. Developing comprehensive academic services and, where apprOpriate, vocational guidance and counsel- ing for continuing adult education. Developing and conducting exemplary educational programs. Providing specialized instruction and equipment for students interested in studying advanced scientific subjects, foreign languages, and other academic subjects. Making available modern educational equipment and specially qualified personnel, including artists and musicians on a temporary basis. Developing, producing, and transmitting radio and television programs for the classroom and other educational use. Providing special educational and related services for persons who are in or from rural areas or who are or have been otherwise isolated from normal educational Opportunities. 67Ibid. 40 8. Developing other specially designed education programs which meet the purpose Of this title. Title III is granted on the basis Of proposal sub- mission and approval. Although this title remains basically the same now as it was in 1965 when the bill was passed, some important changes have been included. Some Of the priorities in Title III have been changed. This was done by specifying in the legislation that 15 percent Of the funds must be allocated to special programs for handicapped children, and 50 percent Of the funds must be used for innovative purposes. Twenty-five percent Of the funds are allocated to the Commissioner for projects of national significance with special consideration to prOblems of big cities and remote, sparsely settled areas.69 Title VIOf the Elementary and Secondary Education Act This title is intended to assist schools in the initiation, expansion, and improvement Of programs and projects developed for the education Of handicapped children at the pre-schOOl, elementary,and secondary levels. In this Act, handicapped children are defined as mentally retarded, hard Of hearing, deaf, speech impaired, visually handicapped, seriously emotionally disturbed, crippled, or other health 63A Compendium Of Federal Education Laws, Op. cit., pp. 35—41. 69"Howe Tells What E.S.E.A. Changes Mean," Nations Schools, LXXXI, NO. 2 (February, 1968), 27-30. IA lg 41 impaired children who require special education and related services. This title is funded on a proposal basis. Proposals must indicate that programs will be Of sufficient size and scope tO assure a quality program that meets the needs Of handicapped children. Under this title, funds may be requested for the acquisition Of equipment and for the construction Of school facilities. Again, only public agencies are eligible.70 The Adult Basic Education Act Of 1966 This Act was formerly Title IIB Of the Economic Opportunity Act. Its purpose is to "encourage and expand basic educational programs for adults to enable them to overcome English language limitations, to improve their basic education in preparation for occupational training and more profitable employment, and to become more produc- tive and responsible citizens."71 Funding for this program is by submission and approval Of a proposal to the State. Although this program does not directly serve disadvantaged children, Senator Vance Hartke indicates a definite correlation between a child's disadvantagement and parents' lack Of education. 79A Compendium Of Federal Education Laws, Op. cit., pp. 367-372. 7lIbid.. pp. 335-341. 42 There is the indisputable correlation between the lack of education and lack Of economic resources. In the total labor force, the 46% who have not completed high school account for 64% Of the cases Of the unemployed. .Among fam— ilies with less than $2,000 income, the family head in 46% Of the cases had less than an eighth grade education, 62% of the jobless fathers of children receiving Aid to Dependent Children have less than an elementary school education.7 The Vocational Education Act Of 1963, the Vocational Education Act Of 1946 or the George Barden Act, the Smith-Hughes Vocational Education Act In considering federal aid to vocational education, one must include the SmithéHughes Act, the George Barden Act, and the Vocational Education Act of 1963 as one. The first act concerned with vocational education, the Smith-Hughes Act, provided funds to the public schools for agricultural, 73 The George Barden Act trade, and industrial education. built upon this initial act, rather than replacing it, and expanded the agricultural, trade, and industrial aspects of Smith-Hughes, adding federal financial support to home economics and distributive education.74 The Vocational Education Act Of 1963 incorporates both the Smith-Hughes Act and the George Barden Act to 72Vance Hartke, "At the Edge Of a Brave New World," Adult Leadership, XIV, NO. 4 (October, 1965), 117-118. 73A Compendium of Federal Education Laws, Op. cit., p. 259. 74Ibid., p. 247. 43 provide a broadly encompassing, vocational education bill designed to: maintain, extend, and improve existing programs Of vocational education, to develop new programs Of vocational education, and to provide part-time employment for youths who need the earnings from such employment to continue their vocational train- ing on a full-time basis, so that persons Of all ages in all communities Of the state--those in high school, those who have completed or discon— tinued their formal education and are preparing to enter the labor market, those who have already entered the labor market but need to upgrade their skills or learn new ones, and those with special educational handicaps--will have ready access to vocational training or retraining which is Of high quality, which is realistic in the light of actual or anticipated Opportunities for gainful employ- ment, and which is suited to their needs, interests, and ability to benefit from such training. Section 10 Of this bill greatly expands the scope and possibilities Of both the George Barden Act and the Smith-Hughes Act and makes provision for the coupling Of funds to provide a comprehensive vocational education pro- gram.76 This program is based On a 50 percentum matching basis and provided Michigan $9,900,000 in fiscal year l967-68.77 .A program is eligible if it is designed to prepare students to enter a recognized occupation upon completion of instruction. Funds from this Act may also be used to 7SIbid., p. 233. 761bid.. pp. 241-243. 77The Educational Report, II, NO. 44 (August 26, 1968), Michigan Department Of Education, Lansing, Michigan. 44 upgrade occupational skills to allow individuals to achieve stability or advancement in employment. Funds are also available under this act for the con- struction Of facilities, as well as for program Operation.78 Manpower Development and Training Act Of 1962 The general purpose Of this Act is to encourage "adequate occupational develOpment and maximum utilization Of the skills Of the nation's workers, promote and encourage broad and diversified training programs . . . and to equip the nation's workers with the new and improved skills that are or will be required."79 For the purposes of this study, one provision is especially important. This act specifies that "whenever appropriate, the Secretary shall provide a special program for the testing, counseling, selection, and referral of youths, sixteen years Of age or Older, for occupational training and further schooling, who because Of inadequate educational background and work preparation are unable to qualify for and Obtain employment without such training and schooling." Under this Act, it is permissible to pay a training allowance to enrollees. The act is funded through 7§A Compendium Of Federa1.§ducation Laws, Op. cit., p. 235. 79Ibid.. pp. 345-346. 45 the Secretary of Labor, and public schools are eligible to be recipients of available funds.80 Title III Of the National Defense Education Act Of 1958 The purpose Of this act is to provide substantial assistance to schools in order tO insure quality and quan- tity Of education in meeting the national defense needs of this country. ,Although originally limited to providing equipment for science, math, and foreign language courses Of study, the act has now been broadened to allow the purchase Of equipment in history, civics, geography, English, reading, and economics. .Equipment eligible for approval through approved projects includes fixed and movable articles such as audio- visual equipment, materials that can be expected to last for more than one year, storage equipment, test grading equip— ment, and specialized audio-visual library equipment. Local educational agencies are eligible for these funds by submit— ting a proposal which demonstrates the relationship between the equipment requested and the program Offered and which itemizes and describes the equipment desired. Grants do not have to be equally distributed to requesting agencies and can be approved on the basis Of need.81 801bid.. pp. 345-360. BlIbido I ppo 97-100. 4"” 46 The Child Nutrition Act Of 1966 The Act was passed in recognition Of the relation- ship between good nutrition and the capacity Of children to learn and is designed specifically for needy children in selected school districts where poor economic conditions exist. One Of the major features Of the bill is a special milk program which provides one-half pint Of milk daily per child to any district that wishes to participate in the program. Section Four Of this Act is designed specifically for the disadvantaged. This section allows for funding of special breakfast programs that are specifically developed to serve children from low income areas or children who must travel extensive distances prior tO school Opening. School breakfast programs must meet minimal nutri- tional requirements and be served without cost or at a reduced cost to children unable to pay the full cost Of the breakfast. Further, nO physical segregation or discrimina- tion shall be made because Of a student's inability to pay.82 Section Five Of this Act provides for non-food assistance for schools serving areas in which poor economic conditions exist. This assistance can be in the form of grants-in-aid, funds for the purchase of equipment, storage, 82Public Law 396, 79th Congress, Chapter 281, 2nd Session--H.R. 3370, "National School Lunch Act." 47 food preparation, food transportation, and the serving Of food. Schools selected must be able to justify the need for the assistance and equipment, and their inability to finance the needed food and equipment. Pre-school programs may be included if they are a part of the school system. This program provides for a matching arrangement Of 75 percent federal and 25 percent local.83 Economic Opportunity Act Of 1964 Title IB The purpose Of this title is to provide useful work experience Opportunities for young men and women who are unemployed, through participation in state and community work training programs. The intent Of the program is to increase employability, encourage the participant to resume his or her education, and allow public and non-profit orga— nizations to carry out programs which will permit or con- tribute tO an undertaking or service in the public interest that would not otherwise be provided. This program, more commonly referred to as the Neighborhood Youth Corps, can be Operated by any state or local public agency or any private non-profit organization 83Section 5, Information Sheet, Child Nutrition Act, Unpublished Bulletin, Michigan Department Of Education, School Lunch Program Section, School Management Services. 48 other than a political party. All proposals must be sub- mitted through the local Office of Economic Opportunity. Participants in the program must be unemployed, out of school or on the verge Of dropping out because funds are needed to continue, or on public welfare. Further, enroll- ment of a youth shall terminate upon completion of high school, completion Of two years in the program, or upon attaining the age Of twenty-two. In more general terms, the employment made available must be suitable employment for youth who need work experi- ence and assistance in order to prepare for skill training or increase their employability.84 Economic Opportunity Act Of 1964 Title IIB The purpose of Title II is to assist community action programs and help urban and rural communities combat poverty. The long-range purpose is to produce a permanent increase in the capacity Of individuals, groups, and commu- nities afflicted by poverty to deal effectively with their own prOblems. Part B Of Title II, Section 222, discusses special programs that may be carried out that meet or deal with particularly critical needs or prOblems Of the poor. Two 84Public Law 88-452, 88th Congress-S. 2642 (August 20, 1964), "Economic Opportunity Act Of 1964." 49 projects specifically listed as eligible under this section are "Head Start" and "Follow Through." "Head Start" focuses on children who have not reached compulsory school age. The programs Offered must consider the health, nutritional, educational, and social needs of the children being served and provide for direct participation Of the parents Of such children.85 The program is presently Operated as both a full- year program for pre-school children beginning at age three and as an eight-week summer program for children who will enter school for the first time in the fall.86 "Follow Through" primarily focuses upon children in kindergarten or elementary school who were previously enrolled in "Head Start." The same considerations must be given in this program as are required in "Head Start." Funding approval for these projects is initiated through the director Of the local Office Of Economic Opportunity.87 85Public Law 90-222, 90th Congress--S. 2388 (December 23, 1967), "Economic Opportunity Amendments Of 1967." 86"Catalogof Federal Assistance Programs," Produced by the Office of Economic Opportunity (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, June 1, 1967). 87Public Law 90-222, 90th Congress--S. 2388 (December 23, 1967), "Economic Opportunity Amendments of 1967." ' 50 School Size and Educational Opportunity Much has been written about the relationship between school size and educational Opportunity. In this study, the term large school district and urban school district will be used interchangeably, as will small school district and rural, sparsely settled school districts. Available litera- ture suggests that definite relationships between educational quality and school district size have been established. Neagly and Evans believe that a K-12 enrollment Of 5,000-6,000 enables a school district to have the resources necessary to provide quality education, individualized instruction, and economic efficiency.88 Evans stated that Fitzwater used high school size as a variable in relation to a comprehensive, quality program and found that a minimum Of 400 students should be in a graduating class.89 Conant also feels size is important, although he differs slightly with Evans on numbers. He feels that a high school must have a graduating class Of 100 to function adequately as a compre— hensive high school.90 The New York Committee for Economic Development stated that "substantial educational advantages continue to 88Neagley and Evans, Handbook for Effective Curric- ulum Development (New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1967), p. 130. 89N. Dean Evans, "How Large Should a High School Be?" Delaware School Journal, IV (1965), 9. 90James Bryant Conant, The American High School Today (New York: McGraw Hill Book CO., 1959), p. 14. 51 Occur until a school system has perhaps 25,000 students. There are advantages Of many kinds in even larger units, although other problems begin arising in an extremely large system."91 Ovaitt found in his study that by dividing educa— tional Opportunity into units, there is a constant increase in the number Of units Offered by four-year high schools as size increases up to and including the l,400-l,599 enroll- ment interval. Although the data are not as consistent for three-year high schools, educational Opportunity still tends to increase as size increases up to an enrollment range of l,400-l,799.92 The recently completed Michigan School Finance Study that was done by J. Alan Thomas discusses the problem of educational inequality. He states: The present procedures for distributing state school money in Michigan results in the provision Of an entirely inadequate revenue base in some school systems in the state. Further- more whether the criterion is the amount Of money spent for the education Of a child, the nature Of program and service Offerings, or the qualifications Of teachers, the present distri- bution system results in gross inequities between the wealthier and poorer school systems in the state. 91"Paying for Better Schools," New York Committee for Economic Development, 1959, p. 6. 92Stanley W. Ovaitt, "A Study Of the Optimum Size Of the High School? (unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1965), p. 70. 93J.~A1an Thomas, "School Finance and Educational OPportunity in Michigan," Michigan School Finance Study, Michigan Department Of Education, 1968, p. 199. 52 The Study points out the extent of the discrepancy by showing that out Of 559 school districts in Michigan in 1963-64, 138 had less than $8,000 state equalized valuation per pupil, while 101 had over $16,000.94 Thomas lists five selected factors which he presumes to be related to the provision Of educational Opportunity in Michigan: 1. Geographical location 2. Size Of school (enrollment) 3. School district wealth 4. Expenditure level 5. Social class differences, indexed by income levels.95 Most attempts at comparing educational Opportunities tO school district size have been Of a general nature. It has been assumed that a relationship exists between educa- tional expenditure and educational quality. Indicators of Quality Available research deals very specifically with a variety Of quality indicators other than financial factors. These indicators tend to support the generalized statements made previously; larger school districts provide a greater number Of educational Opportunities than do smaller districts. 94Ibid., p. 180. 951bid., p. 20. 53 Teachers Salary is Often used as an indicator of teacher quality. The assumption behind this is that higher salaries assure a greater teacher selection. Ovaitt found that the average salary Of teachers increased as the size Of the high school increased, up to and including the l,400-l,799 enrollment grouping.96 Years Of teaching experience and years Of tenure are often used as indicators Of teaching quality. Although Ovaitt found no significant differences between the size of a high school and the percentage Of teachers new to the school, there was a difference in years Of experience. "The data shows that teachers in high schools with enrollments Of more than 1,800 students tend to have more years Of teaching experience than do teachers in smaller schools."97 In terms Of educational degrees, the percentage Of teachers with Masters Degrees or beyond tends to increase with the size Of the school throughout the entire enrollment continuum, but the increase is not consistent.98 Additional training is also thought Of in terms of special training programs. Detroit reported that 55 percent of their high schools had less than 10 percent Of their 96Ovaitt, Op. cit., p. 96. 97Ibid., p. 93. 98Ibid., p. 89. 54 teachers attending summer institutes sponsored by either the National Science Foundation, the National Defense Education Act, or the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Other major cities reported that only 36 percent Of their high schools had less than 10 percent. Out-state Michigan reported 73 percent.99 ' Teaching assignments, both in terms Of teacher preparation and number Of different subject preparations, may greatly affect educational quality. Ovaitt found that "the percentage Of teachers whose teaching assignments include only those subjects in which they have a teaching major increase as the size Of the high school increases, up to an enrollment Of 1,000 in four-year high schools."100 In the same schools, he also found a corresponding decrease Of teachers teaching more than one subject in which they have a teaching minor and also a decrease in teachers teaching in subject areas in which they have neither a major 101 or a minor. This Observation is verified by Thomas in Tables 1, 2, and 3.102 99 . Thomas, Op. c1t., pp. 31-32. 100Ovaitt, Op. cit., p. 91. 101Ibid., p. 91. 102 Thomas, op. cit.. pp. 39, 40. 55 Table 1. Percent and number Of senior high schools in which the specified proportion Of teachers are assigned tO teach subjects outside their area of preparation, 1966-67* Classification and 10% or More Total Categories None Less than 10% Number School District Size: Over 5,000 78 (88) 22 (25) 0 (0) 113 1,001 to 5,000 62 (165) 34 (90) 4 (11) 266 1,000 or less 28 (35) 62 (76) 10 (12) 123 *Number Of cases shown in parentheses. Table 2. Percent and number Of junior high schools which have the specified proportion Of teachers whose daily professional assignments require preparation in more than two subject fields, 1966-67* Classification and 10% or More Total Categories None Less than 10% Number Enrollment : (%) (%) (%) Over 1,000 30 (31) 36 (38) 34 (36) 105 751 to 1,000 32 (27) 33 (28) 35 (30) 85 501 to 750 35 (39) 29 (33) 36 (41) 113 251 to 500 27 (38) 27 (39) 46 (65) 142 101 tO 250 24 (28) 16 (18) 60 (70) 116 100 or less 10 (8) 12 (9) 78 (61) 78 *Number Of cases shown in parentheses. 56 Table 3. Percent and number Of senior high schools which have the specified prOportion Of teachers whose professional assignments require more than three lesson preparations per day, 1966-67* Classification and 10% or More Total Categories None Less than 10% Number School District Size: Over 5,000 36 (43) 55 (65) 9 (10) 118 1,001 to 5,000 32 (87) 47 (126) 21 (56) 269 1,000 or less 11 (15) 19 (27) 70 (98) 140 *Number Of cases shown in parentheses. Guidance Services Ovaitt found that high schools with an enrollment of less than 600 students appear to have more difficulty provid- ing adequate guidance services than do larger school dis- tricts. He points out that although many larger districts do not provide an adequate guidance program, they do provide more than the smaller high schools.103 Thomas also found that there was a direct relationship between counseling services provided and the size Of the school district.104 103Ovaitt, Op. cit., p. 83. 104Thomas, Op. cit., pp. 42, 43. 57 School District Size N Over 5,000 I 97 70 1,001-5,000 I 66 189 1,000 or less I 40 Graph 1. Percent and number of Michigan K-12.schOOl districts in which junior high counseling services are avail— able, 1966-67. School District Size N Over 5,000 71 1,001-5,000 98 281 1,000 or less 70 111 Graph 2. Percent and number Of Michigan K-12 school districts in which senior high counseling services are avail- able, 1966-67. Pupil-Teacher Ratio The North Central Accrediting Association suggests that high schools maintain a pupil-teacher ratio Of 27 tO 1. All school district groupings averaged well under this ratio at the high school level. The smallest high schools, varying in size from 0 tO 399 students, averaged a 17.7 to 1 student— teacher ratio. The largest high schools, varying in size 58 from 2,400 to 2,599, averaged a 21.2 to l pupil-teacher 105 .At the elementary level, Thomas found that only ratio. 5 percent Of the schools with total enrollments under 100 pupils have grade K-3 classes with more than 35 students. Forty-seven percent Of the schools in school districts with total enrollments Of over 1,000 have some overcrowded K—3 classes. The overcrowding is most common in Detroit.106 Library BOOk Expenditure per Pupil Ovaitt found that smaller school libraries tend to spend more per pupil on library bOOks than do larger dis- tricts. In high school districts ranging from 0 tO 199 in enrollment, $5.20 per pupil was spent annually. In schools over 2,600 enrollment, only $1.62 per pupil was spent. The decrease in per pupil expenditure in relationship tO in- creasing high school size is fairly constant.107 It is interesting to note that while a greater per pupil expenditure is made in smaller high schools, much greater use is made of paper back books in larger high schools.108 losOvaitt, Op. cit., p. 82. 106Thomas, Op. cit., p. 22. 107Ovaitt, Op. cit., p. 80. 108Thomas, Op. cit., p. 55. 59 School District Size N Over 5,000 I 93 167 1,001-5,000 ] 76 206 1,000 or less _J 65 88 Graph 3. Percent and number Of senior high schools which regularly use paperback book collections. James Conant states that: the enrollment Of many American public high schools is too small to allow a diversified cur- riculum except at exorbitant expense . . . that such schools are not in a position tO provide a satisfactory education for any group of their students. . . . A small high school cannot, by its very nature, Offer a comprehensive curriculum. Furthermore, such a school uses uneconomically the time and efforts Of administrators, teachers, and specialists, the shortage Of whom is a serious national problem. A study conducted in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware noted a relationship between the size of the school district and the extent Of curriculum development efforts. It was found that the greater the pupil enrollment, the broader the degree Of large sc0pe revision.110 Thomas found a direct correlation between school . . . . . 1 district Size and four selected curriculum practices. 11 109Conant, Op. cit., p. 77. llqupren Marton, "What Curriculum Developments Are Finding Their Way Into Practice," Secondary Principals, XLVI, NO. 272 (1962), 16-17. 111Thomas, Op. cit., p. 37. 6O .momonucwumm CH ozonm mommo MO HODESZ* Ammo mm laws as Ammo ma Ammo os mama no ooo.a Amamv om Ammmv am Ammmv mm Amsmv on ooo.m op Hoo.a laps em Amps om Amsv ooa 156V mm ooo.m can» once at Axe Q; at 63.0. nonhuman Hmwuoumz mao>oq mamumoum mEmumOHm GOHuMOAmwmmmao HmcofiuoonumcH momma Ham 0cm quEmoHo>mn ESHOOAHHOU mcauooaom mo EOHM muonumoe ESHOOHHHOU new NHIM mo mmoooum on» CA mopsHOcH pomb uoauumwn mpoum vapodnom pmuaapup damn mmuuaeeoo mppmuso scum not spam ucmuasmcoo EOHDUAHHSO mmmum ucmuadmcoo OOASIuOHHuman shelooma .Esaooauuso mo mmum may CH movauomum umaoOHuumm mammOHmEo muomoumo comm a“ muowuumwp Hoonum mo Hones: pom unmoumm .w mHQmB 61 Thomas also found a strong relationship between the size Of a school district and the employment of central Office personnel with direct responsibility for curriculum development and improvement. Eighty-six percent of the districts with a total student enrollment over 5,000 employed someone with direct curriculum responsibilities. In the school districts with student populations ranging from 1,001 tO 5,000, only 36 percent employed a person with this responsibility. In the districts with less than 1,000 students, only 19 percent employed a person with curriculum responsibilities.112 TO further stress the relationship between size and curriculum, Thomas studied some specific areas within the general curriculum, science and language. In both cases, he found a larger percentage Of smaller schools without the apprOpriate facilities to enable them to Offer a program comparable to that Of the larger school districts.113 112Thomas, Op. cit., p. 44. 113ipgg,. pp. 51, 54. 62 Size of District N Over 5,000 I98 116 1,001-5,000 7] 95 257 1,000 or less I 87 121 Graph 4. Percent and number Of senior high schools which have available and make regular use of science laboratories. Size Of District N Over 5,000 J 91 108 1,001—5,000 pl 66 179 1,000 or less I 28 39 Graph 5. Percent and number Of senior high schools which have language laboratories available for instruc- tional use. Accreditation A recent study Of the National Education Association relating high school size and accreditation seems tO add weight tO statements made earlier concerning educational quality and size Of school. Only a little over one-fourth of the high schools with less than 300 students were accred- ited by a regional accrediting association. Further, within 63 that size group, a large proportion Offer no courses in foreign languages, advanced math, or advanced science.114 This finding was substantiated in Michigan by Ovaitt who found that all three-year high schools with enrollments over 799 students were accredited by both the University Of Michigan and by the North Central Accrediting Association. This is Opposed to 83.3 percent enrolling 600 to 799 stu- dents, 77.8 percent enrolling 400 to 599 students, and 66.7 percent enrolling less than 400 students. Further, he found that the only high schools not accredited by the University Of Michigan were those with enrollments Of less than 600 students.115 Special Programs Thomas studied nine special program areas and made a comparison between Detroit and some of the rural sparsely settled areas in the state of the frequency that they were Offered. He found that in the junior high school each Of the programs listed were Offered more frequently in Detroit than in the rural areas: 1. Classes for the verbally talented 2. Classes for the quantitatively talented 3. School mathematics study groups 4. Modern math at all levels 114"Research Bulletin--Volume 40," National Education Association. 115Ovaitt, Op. cit., p. 69. 64 5. Home Economics for girls 6. Industrial Arts for boys 7. French 8. Spanish 9. Special Programs for students unable to benefit from the regular curriculum (excluding special education). At the high school level, he found that Detroit: 1. Grouped more by scholastic ability 2. Grouped more by interest level 3. Grouped more by achievement 4. Used team teaching to a greater extent 5° Maintained program 0f total departmentalization.116 A great discrepancy also exists in the availability Of special programs for the physically and mentally handi- capped.117 Graph 6 indicates the extent Of the difference. In all cases, the smaller districts Offered fewer services than the larger districts. 116Thomas, Op. cit., PP. 29—31. lulbid. , p. 32 . 65 Percent Of School Districts Special Programs 10 20 30 40 so 60 7o 80 90 100 not“? 1 1 l L J l_ a 1 n 1 ' M: More than 5,000 I 81 55 1,001 to 5,000 A] 43 113 1,000 or less :1 14 21 Hard Of Hearing: More than 5,000 I 74 54 1,001 to 5,000 4_]43 113 1,000 or less :I 12 19 Blind: More than 5,000 7]75 51 1,001 to 5,000 455]39 103 1,000 or less 2 10 15 Crippled: More than 5,000 ‘] 87 58 1,001 to 5,000 fifISZ 136 1,000 or less :I 19 30 Homebound: More than 5,000 “] 73 42 1,001 to 5,000 I57 149 1,000 or less 138 59 §pg§ph qurectiqp: More than 5,000 ] 81 55 1,001 to 5,000 ‘3 78 206 1,000 or less ] 71 110 W Handicapped: More than 5,000 l 68 46 1,001 to 5,000 fit:l58 152 1,000 or less I48 75 Trainable Mentally gggdicappgd: More than 5,000 iI65 43 1,001 to 5,000 151 132 1,000 or less ,]39 59 Teacher Consultant: More than 5,000 157 39 1,001 to 5,000 :]51 138 1,000 or less 444]41 63 Emotionally Disturbed: More than 5,000 j::] 22 15 1,001 to 5,000 :1 18 49 1,000 or less I | 17 27 Graph 6. Percent and number of school districts in which special programs are avail- able for all physically and mentally handicapped who need them, according to district size, 1966-67. 66 Administration Ovaitt found nO consistent difference in the educational background Of principals. ,Every principal Of a three-year high school had a Master's Degree. He did find, however, that salaries were directly proportionate to the size Of the school, with the largest salaries paid to the principals Of the largest schools.118 Facilities Ovaitt found that the percentage Of high schools with an auditorium and a swimming pOOl tended to increase as the size Of the high schOOl increased, although this increase was not consistent. He found little relationship between size and age Of building or size and the inclusion Of a gymnasium in the physical plant.119 Thomas also found a relationship between size and provisions for special prO- grams. This was indicated earlier in the section entitled "Special Programs."120 Vocational Education Provisions Thomas found that the distribution Of federal funds for vocational education was definitely related tO school district size. If we assume that per pupil expenditure has 118Ovaitt, Op. cit., p. 105. 119Ibid., p. 111. 120Thomas, Op. cit., pp. 29-32. 67 any relationship to educational Opportunity, smaller districts are not providing vocational educational Oppor- tunities equal tO those provided by larger school districts. Thomas found that school districts with more than 10,000 students received $1.93 per pupil in 1965-66, while dis— tricts with less than 5,000 students received $1.65 per pupil.121 General Conclusions Chisholm and Cushman summarized more than twenty studies concerning the relationship Of size and cost to educational effectiveness. They concluded that "as size Of the school becomes larger, up tO certain limits, the quality Of its educational programs generally become more satisfac- tory and the per capita cost Of its educational program generally declines."122 The National Committee on School District Reorgani- zation found the same thing. The size Of the school and the cost Of education are directly related and the smaller the school, the higher the cost per pupil.123 121Ibid., p. 203. 122Leslie L. Chisholm and M. L. Cushman, "The Relationship Of Programs Of School Finance to the Reorgani— zation Of Local School Administrative Units and Local School Centers," Problems and ;§sues in Public School Finance (New York: Bureau Of Publications, 1956), p. 104. 123"A Key to Better Education," National Commission on School District Reorganization (washington, D.C.: National Education Association, 1947), p. 89. 68 In the 36th Yearbook Of the American Association Of School Administrators, the several disadvantages Of high schools with less than 300 students is pointed out rather succinctly: 1. The cost per student is higher than in larger school districts. 2. The educational program is extremely limited. Many desired subjects cannot be Offered. 3. Most teachers have tO teach at least two subjects and some classes are taught without proper preparation. 4. Smaller school districts have more difficulty keeping well prepared teachers. They tend tO gO where they can teach full-time in their field. 5. .Administrators and supervisors are Often Of poor quality as a result Of the relatively low salaries. 6. If shOps, laboratories and vocational units are provided at all, they are extremely costly in proportion tO the school plant as a whole. They must gO unused much Of the time. 7. Supplemental services, such as health and counseling, are not adequately available. 8. The limited educational programs provided cause accreditation problems.1 4 Although these negative factors are somewhat count— ered by a lower average class size, the evidence seems tO overwhelmingly indicate that educational quality is defi— nitely affected by school size and that the small school district does not Offer an educational program comparable 124"The High School in a Changing World," American Association Of School Administrators 1958 Yearbook, American Association Of School Administrators, 1958, 36th Yearbook. 69 to that Of its larger counterpart. It also holds, then, that the educational Opportunities available to a student are directly related tO the size Of the school district that he or she is in. Summary and Implication Of the Review Of Literature Federal Aid tO Education Federal aid tO education has historically been de- signed tO meet either a specific national need or intended tO encourage a general educational direction. Based on historical precedent, this tendency will prObably continue. Although federal aid initially was granted with no federal controls, most recent legislation has been Of a categorical nature with very specific provisions to be met upon acceptance Of funds. Within general restrictions and guidelines, there is freedom for local educational agencies to administer programs and develOp curriculum. The prOblem Of federal control and the constitu- tional prOblem Of church and state has not yet been solved. There seems to be a tendency to avoid these issues until they no longer remain issues. Federal aid has tended tO be uncoordinated and to lack a unified sense Of purpose. .It seems possible that a general direction has been established in attempting to prO- vide equality Of educational Opportunity for disadvantaged 70 children. The concern that equality Of education Opportu- nity must be provided has become the cornerstone Of current educational legislation. There is every indication that federal aid will become increasingly available and will greatly affect edu- cational Opportunity. There have been many attempts at providing general aid tO education. The Elementary and Secondary Education Act is considered as close to general aid as Congress has ever come. It is difficult to determine whether Congress will continue to work toward complete general aid or whether the new direction taken will be general funding within a broad specified area. There is a general acceptance Of federal aid to education even though there is still disagreement over the desirability Of it. Title I Of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act is the only educational legislation specifically designed to assist the poor. Many other bills, however, directly relate to the problems and needs Of the poor. The elimination Of poverty and provisions for equal educational Opportunity has clearly become a national prior- ity. It is quite possible that this will encourage a ten- dency toward minimum educational standards. Recent federal legislation tends tO encourage and expand educational programming for the poor. It attempts 71 tO supplement funds already used for this purpose, not supplant them and to free new monies at the local level. Educational Opportunities in Urban and Rural Sparsely Settled Areas It seems evident that pupils living in a large urban school district have a greater number Of educational Opportu- nities by almost any standard than those living in small rural schOOl districts. There are several specific advan- tages Offered in urban school districts. The general cur- riculum tends to be stronger. Larger schools have personnel employed tO expand and improve curriculum and greater empha- sis is placed On curriculum development and improvement. Larger school districts have teachers who are better pre- pared academically, have fewer subject preparations, are more prepared in the subject area they are teaching, and have longer tenure in the school system. Larger school districts Offer a greater variety Of special programs, such as special education, counseling ser- vices, and vocational education. They also have more ade- quate facilities tO handle these special programs. Larger schools Offer a greater diversity Of subject matter, especially with advanced subjects. There is also evidence that suggests that the qual- ity Of administration and the quality Of instruction in smaller school systems is not comparable tO that in larger systems. 72 Many Of the services provided in urban school dis- tricts are Offered in rural school districts only at exorbi- tant cost tO the district. Small schools pay a premium for remaining,sma11. Although there are differences Of Opinion concerning Optimal and minimal size Of school districts, there is sub- stantial evidence tO conclude that educational quality and economy Of Operation is adversely affected when a school district is tOO small. CHAPTER III DESIGN PROCEDURE This study was designed tO utilize both descriptive and case methods Of research. The hypothesis developed was formulated On the basis Of seemingly apparent trends in the. federal financing Of public school education. Rather than simply tabulate facts, the study was designed to collect information On the basis Of a stated hypothesis, tabulate and summarize the data, and then analyze it in an endeavor tO draw apprOpriate and meaningful conclusions. This type Of descriptive research is supported by Van Dalen when he states: Descriptive studies that Obtain accurate facts about existing conditions or detect signif- icant relationships betWeen current phenomena and interpret the meaning Of data provide educators with practical and immediately useful information. Factual information about existing status enables members Of the profession tO make more intelligent plans about future courses Of action and helps them interpret educational problems more effec- tively tO the public. Pertinent data regarding the present scene may focus attention upon needs that otherwise would remain unnoticed. They may also reveal develOpments, conditions, or trends that will convince citizens to keep pace with others or tO prepare for prObable future events. Since existing educational conditions, processes, 73 74 practices, and programs are constantly changing, there is always a need for up—to-date descrip- tions of what is taking place. The hypothesis that is used in this study is stated in the declarative rather than the null form: The increased educational funds made avail- able tO school districts for disadvantaged school- age youngsters through recent federal legislation have not been uniformly received across that population segment. This seems to be consistent with the general nature of the study and with Walter Borg's belief that "hypothesis can be stated in a number Of different forms. The delcara- tive form usually states a relationship between variables that the experimenter expects will emerge. . . . The null hypothesis is used principally because it is better fitted to the statistical techniques and the data displays."126 Method Of Testing,Hypothesis Based on Borg's statement, the stated hypothesis will be supported if: 1. The federal per pupil financial input from a given federal program is different upon receipt at the local level. 2. Participation in a given federal program is found to be based on any criteria other than that Of educational need. 125DeObold B. Van Dalen, Understanding Educational Research (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., June, 1962) , p. 215. . 126Walter R. Borg, Educational Research, An Intro- w (New York: D. McKay CO., 1963), p. 418. 75 Programs that are designed to be accessible to all school districts on an equal basis are not univer- sally sought and/or approved. The hypothesis will be refuted if: The federal per pupil financial input from a given federal program is equal upon receipt at the local level. Participation in a given federal program is based only upon the criteria Of educational need. Programs that are designed tO be accessible to all school districts on an equal basis are sought and/or approved equally. With these variables in mind, the study was divided into three sections: 1. .A comparison Of urban and rural school districts based upon federal funds available for specified educational programs. A comparison Of the basic educational Offerings Of urban and rural school districts. .An attempt to determine the reason for any discrep- ancy in federal funding, should one exist. 76 Section 1 A Comparison Of Urban and Rural School Districts And Federal Funds Available for Specified Educational Programs TO initiate a study comparing the extent Of federal funds in the educational programs in urban and rural schools, the four largest cities in the state were selected and matched with eight rural sparsely settled districts based upon the percentage Of disadvantaged children found in each district. The metropolitan areas selected are school dis- tricts having a school population in excess Of 30,000 stu- dents within a metropolitan area exceeding 100,000 peOple. The matched rural districts have a total student population Of less than 2,200 and have no population center within the school district exceeding 5,000 inhabitants. This match and the percentage Of disadvantaged students in each school dis- trict is shown in Table 5.127 This matching eliminated the variable Of numbers Of disadvantaged and the argument that districts Of one size might receive larger amounts Of federal funds than districts 0f another size because Of a greater percentage Of disadvan- taged. 127"Ranking Of Michigan School Districts Who Have 7OP§rcent or More Concentration Of E.S.E.A. Title I Eligi- bLLity," Michigan Department Of Education, unpublished. 77 Table 5. Metropolitan and rural districts matched on the basis Of the percentage Of disadvantaged in the school district Percentage Of Matched Percentage of MetrOpOlitan Disadvantaged Rural Disadvantaged Area Children Districts -Children (%) (%) Detroit 23.9 Baldwin 24.3 Leland 24.2 Flint 10.0 Armada 10.2 Tawas 9.9 Grand Rapids 13.8 Bachxe 13.9 Hale 13.9 Lansing 7.6 Richmond 9.4 Shepard 9.0 It was also determined that only legislation, either directly or indirectly affecting programs for disadvantaged children and available tO public school districts, would be considered. The specific acts selected were: The Elementary and Secondary Education Act Title I Title II Title III Title VI Adult Basic Education (Title III Of the E.S.E.A. Amendments) Vocational Education Act Of 1963 Manpower Development and Training Act 0 Child Nutrition Act Of 1966 Section 4 Section 5 National Defense Education Act Title III 78 Economic Opportunity Act Of 1964 Title IB--NeighborhOOd Youth Corps Title IIB--"Head Start" and "Follow Through" When considering size and geographical location, it was decided that several factors should be evaluated in determining whether one district received a greater prOpor— tion Of federal funds than another: a. b. The year the district first received funding under a given act. The amount allocated to a district the first year it received funds under a given act. The number Of disadvantaged pupils approved for the district based upon 1960 census data. The amount allocated tO a district in 1967-68 through a given act. The amount Of federal funds received per disadvan- taged pupil under a given act the first year the district received funds under it. The amount Of federal funds received per disadvan- taged pupil by a schOOl district in 1967-68. It was felt that collection Of these data would allow an analysis Of several specific items and a general analysis Of any difference which might exist in the impact Of federal aid on large and small districts. The collection Of these data allowed for: a. be The determination Of any difference tO school dis- tricts in per capita funding in each selected act. The determination Of any difference in the immediacy Of funding tO various school districts from the time the act was funded through fiscal year 1967-68. 79 c. The determination Of any differences existing between approval and funding Of urban districts as Opposed to rural sparsely settled districts. d. A general indication Of any existing differences in federal funds from a variety Of acts granted tO school districts. Section 2 A Comparison Of the Basic Educational Offerings Of Urban and Rural School Districts In assessing the total effect Of the impact Of federal aid on school districts' attempts tO serve dis- advantaged children, some concern must be given the basic educational program tO which federal aid is applied. If a difference exists between the quality and SOphistication Of an educational program because Of variations in the nature Of the school district, it will greatly affect the extent Of educational Opportunities made available to disadvantaged children. TO determine the degree Of similarity Of basic educational curriculum between large and small school dis- tricts, the same four large cities previously used were matched with eight other rural sparsely settled districts 128 on the basis Of per pupil state equalized valuation. The selected matched districts are shown in Table 6. 128Stanley E. Hecker, John Meeder, and Thomas J. Northy, Michigan Public School District Data, 1967-68, East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan Education Association. 80 Table 6. School districts matched On the basis Of assessed valuation per pupil Assessed Assessed MetrOpOlitan Valuation Rural Matched Valuation Area per Pupil Districts per Pupil Detroit 16,300 Unionville- Sebewaing 16,800 Rogers Union 15,900 Flint 17,800 Crosswell- Lexington 17,500 Frankfort 17,500 Grand Rapids 19,000 Gaylord 18,600 Hale (Iosco) 19,354 Lansing 16,200 Engadine 16,178 Pentwater 15,800 The districts were matched on the basis Of per pupil state equalized valuation because it was felt that this assured each district an equal Opportunity Of financially providing equal educational programs. Eight criteria were selected tO provide some basis for comparison Of educational quality between large and small sc hOOl districts: Per pupil expenditure for instructional materials. Per pupil expenditure for library materials. Per pupil expenditure for special instructional personnel, including guidance personnel, instruc- tional consultants and supervisors, audio visual personnel, and psychological personnel. Per pupil expenditure for special education. Total Operating expenditures per pupil. 81 f. Average amount Of teacher training. 9. Average amount of teacher experience. Section 3 A Determination Of the Reasons for Any Discrepancy in Federal Funding Based Upon School District Size and Geographical Location A determination was made that if a difference in educational Opportunities was found in direct relation to school district size and population density, it would then be considered relevant to gain some perception concerning the reason for this. An in depth analysis Of the programs funded under Title III Of the Elementary and Secondary Edu- cation Act would be made. Title III was selected because the submission Of a proposal is required for funding and because it is an act that is well known. All school dis- tricts submitting proposals tO Title III and all school districts receiving grants under Title III in 1967-68 were studied. These districts were broken down into four size categories to determine whether school district size had any relationship to proposal submission and proposal approval. The case districts were then compared to all high school districts in the state Of Michigan to allow a com- parison between the percentage of school districts in one size category receiving funds under Title III and those in another size category. The size categories used are those 82 presently employed by the Michigan High School Athletic Association. Table 7 presents the size breakdown and the number Of Michigan districts in each category. Table 7. Michigan school districts by size categories Number Of School Districts Size Categories in Each Category CLASS A School districts having 1,100 or more students in grades 9-12 113 CLASS B School districts having 450 to 1,099 students in grades 9—12- 191 CLASS C School districts having 250 to 449 students in grades 9-12 125 CLASS D School districts having 249 or less students in grades 9-12 109 CHAPTER IV REPORT OF THE STUDY The findings Of the study as presented in this chapter are divided into three parts. Section 1 contains a brief summary Of each federal act studied and presents the collected comparative data concerning federal aid. Section 2 contains a presentation Of the data collected on each Of the seven criteria that were previously established as indic- ative Of basic educational quality. Section 3 contains an analysis Of Title III Of the Elementary and Secondary Educa- tion Act and presents collected data showing the relation- ship between the size Of school districts and program approval under this Title. The data presented in this study were collected from records Of the Michigan Department Of Education. The finan- cial information collected concerning Title IB and IIB Of the Economic Opportunity Act was taken from the records Of Regional Community_Action Against Poverty Offices and the local school districts selected for the study. Sections 1 and 2 of this chapter present many tables and graphs tO help clarify the presentation Of the compara- tive data collected. Summary tables and graphs are presented 83 84 for each federal act studied and for each Of the seven criteria listed as indicators Of educational quality. There are two summary tables or graphs for each federal act or quality criteria listed. The first compares the weighted averages Of all Of the large school districts studied with the weighted average Of their matched rural districts. The second excludes the Detroit School System and its matched rural school districts from the comparison between large and small districts. This exclusion was necessary because Of the size Of the Detroit Public School District. .As the study progressed, it became evident that the Detroit School District so overwhelmed the other large districts that weighted averages Of all large districts were largely determined by Detroit's data. By excluding Detroit and its matched districts, no one district studied substantially overwhelmed the others and did not provide a disproportion- ate impact upon the averaged data. 85 Section 1 Summary Of Federal Acts Studied and Presentation Of Collected ComparativeQata The Elementary and Secondary Education Act--Tit1e I Title I Of the Elementary Education Act is designed tO strengthen elementary and secondary school programs for the educationally deprived children in low income areas. There are four principal regulations that must be Observed under this enactment: 1. The application must designate the attendance area where the project will be conducted. Projects must be carried out in the areas within the district with higher than average concentrations Of children from low income families. The Objectives Of the project must be clearly related tO the specific needs Of educationally deprived children. Progress reports must be submitted annually tO the State Department. These reports must include prO- cedures and techniques that are used in evaluating the effectiveness Of the project. .Children attending private schools must have an Opportunity to take part in these projects on the same basis as children enrolled in public schools. 86 Any public schOOl district is eligible tO receive aid under this Title if at least 3 percent Of the children between the ages Of five and seventeen in the school dis- trict are from families with an annual income Of less than $2,000 in 1960 or from families receiving Aid to Dependent Children. Any district with more than one hundred young- sters within this classification is automatically eligible. TO receive funds under this Title, a district must submit a proposal which meets the four major criteria pre- viously listed to the Michigan Department Of Education. Each county receives a basic allotment based upon the 1960 census and the determination of additional eligible children and districts are eligible for funding, based upon this number Of eligible children within the district, up to their proportionate share Of the total county allocation. The funding from the federal government is deter- mined by a rather simple formula. The average educational expenditure Of the state is divided by two. This amount is then multiplied by the total number Of eligible Title I children in the school district. The result is the maximum amount Of money that the district can receive under Title I. Average State . Number Of Total Mone Per Pu il . . . Y .p Eligible Title I Available to Educational x Ch'ld . = . . Expenditure 1 ren in School District 2 School District Under Title I 87 Under this formula, 95 percent Of all counties in the United States are eligible to receive funds. Based upon these criteria and the mathematical nature Of the formula, it should be expected that disadvan- taged children in Michigan school districts eligible to receive Title I funds should receive the same amount on a per pupil basis. The following charts show that some discrepancy did exist, favoring rural districts in 1967-68; and a reduced discrepancy in 1968—69 favored urban districts. Table 8A. ESEA Title I expenditure per disadvantaged pupil by district based upon the percentages of dis- advantaged pupils as determined by intermediate and local schOOl districts '% Of Am't. per Am't. per School Disadvantaged Dis. Pupil Dis. Pupil District 1967—68 1968-69 1967-68 1968-69 Detroit 23.9 25.1 159.49 139.36 Baldwin 24.0 27.1 169.96 138.45 Leland 24.2 24.6 166.46 138.46 Lansing 7.6 8.0 153.34 138.45 Richmond 9.4 8.4 171.23 138.45 Shepherd 9.0 10.4 177.15 138.45 Flint 10.0 12.9 152.85 138.45 Armada 10.2 7.5 139.11 138.45 Tawas 9.9 9.8 172.94 138.45 Grand Rapids 13.8 14.3 151.23 145.82 Hale 13.9 12.1 161.73 138.46 Bad Axe 13.9 12.3 165.43 138.45 88 Table BB. Weighted average expenditure by large and small districts under Title I of ESEA based upon the percentage Of disadvantaged pupils as determined by intermediate and local school districts Weighted % Of Am't. per Am't. per Disadvantaged Dis. Pupil Dis. Pupil School District 1967-68 1968-69 1967-68 1968-69 Large District Weighted Average 20.4 21.5 158.47 139.64 Small District WeightedAverage 12.3 12.0 166.46 138.46 Table 8C. Weighted average expenditure by large and small districts under Title I Of ESEA based upon the percentage Of disadvantaged pupils as determined by intermediate and local school districts exclud- ing Detroit, Baldwin, and Leland Weighted %.Of Am't. per Am't. per Disadvantaged Dis. Pupil Dis. Pupil School District 1967-68 1968-69 1967-68 1968-69 Large District's Average (Excl. Detroit) 10.8 11.9 152.32 141.24 Small District's Average (Excl. Baldwin and Leland) 10.6 9.9 165.54 138.45 89 In an attempt to determine why this discrepancy existed, interviews were arranged with Michigan Department of Education personnel: Mr. Jack Randall, Title I Accoun- tant; Mr. Ken Swanson, Coordinator Of Title I; and Mr. J. Ray Rothermel, Assistant Superintendent for Federal Programs. It was determined through these interviews that the school district boundaries Of local school districts are not neces- sarily coterminous with county boundary lines. Some school districts enroll students from several counties. Since federal funds are allocated on a county basis and school district boundaries have no relationship to county bound- aries, an equitable distribution Of funds presented a diffi- cult prOblem. TO solve this problem, the Michigan Department Of Education decided that funds would be distributed from the state level on the basis Of intermediate school district boundaries rather than by county. This eliminated the problem Of having local districts in more than one geograph— ical division. Local and intermediate districts, in con- junction with the state, were then given the responsibility for reassessing the numbers Of disadvantaged gained or lost as a result Of this change from a county allocation tO an intermediate district allocation. This was initiated in 1967-68. Some districts were able to complete the task that Year while others were not. The discrepancies shown in the Preceding charts in 1967-68 result from this changeover. 90 This revised plan was submitted tO the United States Office Of Education in 1967-68 as part Of a required description of State Title I distribution practices and was accepted at that time. It is, therefore, considered the Official dis- tribution procedures used by Michigan. Mr. Randall esti- mates that by 1969-70, no discrepancy will exist. The Elementary and Secondary Education Act--Title I; Title II Of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act is "a program for making grants for the acquisition Of school library resources, textbooks, and other printed and published instructional materials for the use Of children and teachers in public and private elementary and secondary schools." Its general purpose is to strengthen and improve educational quality and Opportunities. One Of the criteria listed for receiving state grants under Title II is the assurance Of an equitable distribution Of funds. Initially, all grants were distrib- uted equally on a per capita basis. On OctOber 25, 1967, the Michigan State Board Of Education approved a revised plan for the distribution Of funds under Title II. This new plan was deve10ped to assure a weighted formula to give inner city school's and rural pockets Of deprivation a bonus share Of the money. Michigan's new allocation formula is divided into four basic parts: 91 Forty-five percent Of the funds will be allocated for the use Of public and private students and teachers on a student enrollment per capita basis. Eleven percent Of the funds will be for the use Of public and private students and teachers on a rela- tive need basis which will be determined by the amount and availability Of existing resources as compared to State standards. Those buildings which indicate on the application form the least amount Of materials (books, filmstrips, recordings) per stu- dent will receive, via a formula using weighted values, a greater prOportion Of these funds with which tO purchase materials tO meet the needs Of students and teachers. Thirty-five percent Of the funds will be allocated for the use Of public and private students and teachers on a relative need basis which will be determined by the special requirements Of students and teachers located in schools serving areas Of school districts where economic, social, and other population characteristics create substantial con- centrations Of deprived students. .Deprived students are identified as those from families with $2,000 or less income, from homes with mothers receiving Aid tO Dependent Children, aid of over 2,000, and those from foster homes. School districts with a Table 9A. 92 disadvantaged pupil concentration Of 20 percent or more, or with over 600 in the district, qualify for this part Of the grant. Four percent Of the funds will be allocated on a relative need basis which will be determined by an assessment Of the special need for the establishment, continuation, or expansion Of instructional media centers. The 4 percent will be distributed in not more than five special grants. .ESEA Title II expenditure per disadvantaged child by district based upon the 1960 census School District Amount per Disadvantaged Pupil 1967-68 %,Disadvantaged 1960 Census Detroit Baldwin Leland Lansing Richmond Shepherd Flint Armada Tawas Grand Rapids Hale Bad Axe 23.9 15.12 24.0 15.95 24.2 9.66 7.6 25.56 9.4 11.60* 9.0 10.42* 10.0 22.23 10.2 10.49* 9.9 9.76* 13.8 17.02 13.9 7.28* 13.9 7.01* *NO poverty factor was allowed these districts (see Part C Of allocation formula). 93 Table 9B. Weighted average expenditure by large and small districts under Title II OchSEA based upon the 1960 census Amount Percentage Of per Disadvantaged School District Disadvantaged Pupil 1967—68 Large District Average 20.4 15.94 Small District Average 12.3 10.77* *Only 2 Of 8 districts included in this average were allowed a poverty factor. Table 9C. Weighted average expenditure by large and small districts under Title II Of ESEA based upon the percentage Of disadvantaged pupils as determined by the 1960 census excluding Detroit, Baldwin, and Leland Amount Percentage Of per Disadvantaged School District Disadvantaged Pupil 1967—68 Large District Average 10.8 20.87 (Excluding Detroit) Small District Average 10.6 9.49 (Excluding Baldwin and Leland) The preceding tables provide evidence that large urban districts received more money per disadvantaged pupil than did small rural districts. This is especially true when Detroit, Baldwin, and Leland are excluded. When com- paring all matched groups, the urban school districts 94 received 48 percent more per disadvantaged student than did the matched rural districts. When comparing Flint, Grand Rapids, and Lansing with their matched rural districts, the large districts received 120 percent more per disadvantaged child than did the matched rural districts. The Elementary and Secondary Education Act—-Title III This title is based upon the premise that innova- tions and a variety Of supplementary services Often make the difference between a poor schOOl and a gOOd one. The Act was established tO serve three basic functions: a. TO improve education by enabling a community to provide services not presently available tO the children who live there. b. TO raise the quality Of educational services already Offered. c. TO stimulate and assist in developing and establish— ing exemplary programs which can serve as models for regular school programs. When funds first became available under Title III, proposals describing the programs for which funds were requested were submitted tO the State Department Of Educa- tion. These were in turn submitted tO the United States Office Of Education with state department recommendations. Final approval Of prOposals and allocation Of funds was determined by the United States Office Of Education. 95 All proposals now submitted are approved or disapproved at the state level. The state receives a share Of the total funds approved by the federal government under this Act and reallocates these funds based upon the prOposals submitted by local school districts which are approved by the Michigan Department Of Education. Table 10A. .ESEA Title III expenditure per disadvantaged pupil by district based upon the 1960 census Date Of Am't. per Am't per School ‘% Of DiS- lst Dis. Pupil Dis. Pupil District advantaged Funding lst Year 1967-68 Detroit 23.9 7-68 ...a 14.14 Baldwin 23.0 NO proposal submitted Leland 24.2 NO proposal submitted Lansing 7.6 1-67 21.36 37.47 Richmond 9.4 NO proposal submitted Shepherd 9.0 NO proposal submitted Flint 10.0 6-67 ...a 38.28b Armada 10.2 NO proposal submitted Tawas 9.9 NO proposal submitted Grand Rapids 13.8 5-66 17.35C 51.10 Hale 13.9 NO proposal submitted Bad.Axe 13.9 NO prOposal submitted aFiscal Year 1967-68 was the first year project was funded. bThis is the total Of two projects that were approved. CThis project was cancelled by the Grand Rapids School System after 3 months Of Operation. 96 Table 10B. Weighted average expenditure by large and small districts under Title III Of ESEA based upon the 1960 census Am't. per Percentage Of Am't. per Dis. Dis. Pupil School District Disadvantaged Pupi1--1st Yr. 1967-68 Large District Average 20.4 1.59 18.28 Small District NO proposals NO proposals Average 12.3 submitted submitted Table 10C. Weighted average expenditure by large and small districts under Title III Of ESEA based upon the 1960 census data and excluding Detroit, Baldwin, and Leland Am't. per Percentage of Am't. per Dis. Dis. Pupil School District Disadvantaged Pupil--lst Yr. 1967-68 Large District Average (Excl. Detroit) 10.8 11.12 43.12 Small District Average (Excl. Baldwin and NO proposals NO prOposals Leland) 10.6 submitted submitted Tables 10A, B, and C clearly indicate that no rural districts included in this study received funds from Title III. They further show that the reason for this was the failure to submit proposals in all cases. 97 The Elementaryiand Secondagy Education Act—-Title‘v; Title VI Of ESEA is intended to assist schools in the initiation, expansion, and improvement Of programs and projects developed for the education Of handicapped children at pre-school, elementary, and secondary levels. Funds under this Act became available in June Of 1968. Funds are granted upon approval of projects submitted tO the Michigan Department Of Education. Table 11A. ESEA Title VI expenditure per disadvantaged pupil by district based upon the 1960 census . Am't. per School ‘% of Dis- Total Federal Funds Dis. Pupil District advantaged Approved 1967-68 Detroit 23.9 156,838 2.21 Baldwin 24.0 NO proposal submitted Leland 24.2 NO proposal submitted Lansing 7.6 NO proposal submitted Richmond 9.4 NO proposal submitted Shepherd 9.0 2,000 13.24 Flint 10.0 Proposal not approved Armada 10.2 NO proposal submitted Tawas 9.9 NO proposal submitted Grand Rapids 13.8 NO proposal submitted .Hale 13.9 NO proposal submitted .Bachxe 13.9 NO proposal submitted 98 Table 118. weighted average expenditure by large and small districts under Title VI Of ESEA based upon the 1960 census Amount Percentage Of per Disadvantaged School District Disadvantaged Pupils Pupil 1967-68 Large District Average 20.4 1.90 Small District Average 12.3 1.71 Table 11C. Weighted average expenditure by large and small districts under Title VI of ESEA based upon the 1960 census data and excluding Detroit, Baldwin, and Leland Amount Percentage Of per Disadvantaged School District Disadvantaged Pupils Pupil 1967-68 Large District Average (Excl. Detroit) 10.8 0.0 Small District Average (Excl. Baldwin and Leland) 10.6 2.28 The preceding tables show that only three Of the twelve districts submitted proposals and only two of the three submitted were approved: one large district and one small district. Based upon the limited number Of districts participating in this program (two Of twelve), the larger 99 districts received more money per disadvantaged pupil than did the small rural districts. This was reversed when Detroit, Baldwin, and Leland were excluded from the average. The Elementary and Secondary Education Act--The Adult Basic Education Act of 1966 The basic intent of this Act is to encourage and expand basic educational programs for adults to enable them to overcome English language limitations, to improve their basic education in preparation for occupational training and more profitable employment, and to become more productive and responsible citizens. Funding under this Act requires submission of a prOposal. No proposal is rejected. It is the policy of the Michigan Department section that administers this Act to accept all proposals, review budget requests, and revise them according to established state-wide criteria, and then fund all programs. If revised budget requests exceed the funds available, all projects are then granted a percentage of the total amount initially approved. Tables 12A, 12B, and 12C indicate that only one district of the eight rural districts studied submitted a “proposal. This proposal was approved one year and seven months after all of the large city school districts were approved to receive funds. 100 Table 12A. Adult Basic Education Act expenditure per dis- advantaged pupil by district based upon the 1960 census Date of Am't. per {Am't. per School % of Dis- lst Dis. Pupil Dis. Pupil District advantaged Funding lst Year 1967-68 Detroit 23.9 2-65 3.01 3.31 Baldwin 23.0 9-66 11.15 29.20 Leland 24.2 No proposal submitted Lansing 7.6 2-65 4.60 12.90 Richmond 9.4 No proposal submitted Shepherd 9.0 No proposal submitted Flint 10.0 2-65 1.94 12.91 Armada 10.2 No proposal submitted Tawas 9.9 No proposal submitted Grand Rapids 13.8 2-65 1.09 4.79 Hale 13.9 No proposal submitted Bad Axe 13.9 No proposal submitted Table 12B. Weighted average expenditure by large and small districts under the Adult Basic Education Act based upon the 1960 census Am't. per Percentage of .Am't. Per Dis. Dis. Pupil School District Disadvantaged Pupil--1st Yr. 1967-68 Large District .Average 20.4 2.89 4.23 Small District Average 12.3 2.19 2.50 ‘ 101 Table 12C. Weighted average expenditure by large and small districts under the Adult Basic Education Act based upon 1960 census data and excluding Detroit, Baldwin, and Leland Am't. per Percentage of ,Am't. per Dis. Dis. Pupil School District Disadvantaged Pupil-—lst Yr. 1967-68 Large District Average (Excl. Detroit) 10.8 2.15 9.74 Small District Average (Excl. Baldwin and No proposals No proposals Leland) 10.6 submitted submitted The one rural district receiving funds received substantially more per pupil than did any urban district. This large per pupil amount coupled with the proportionately low per pupil amount received by Detroit allowed the rural districts to show a higher per pupil amount in relation to large urban districts than would otherwise be expected. The large districts did receive more funds under this Act than did the rural districts, however. Table 12C, which excluded Ikatroit and its matched districts, increases the discrepancy auad shows the urban districts receiving substantially more. 3% Elementary and Secondary E_ducation Act In the past several pages, specific titles within ifima Elementary and Secondary Education Act have been dis- cEussed, and data have been presented. 102 Since the impetus for this Act was the equalization of educational opportunities for the disadvantaged, it is important to assess the total impact of this legislation in terms of the amount of funds available to large and small school districts and the relative equality of distribution of these funds among disadvantaged children in each school district. Table 13A. Summary of the average expenditures by large and small districts under the Elementary and Secon- dary Education Act Title Title Title Title I II III. VI ABE Total School District 67-68 67-68 67-68 67-68 67-68 1967-68 Large Districts 158.47 15.94 18.28 1.90 4.23 198.82 Small Districts 166.47 10.77 0.0 1.71 2.50 181.45 Table 13B. Summary of the average expenditures by large and small districts under the Elementary and Secon- dary Education Act and excluding Detroit, Baldwin, and Leland Title Title Title Title I II III VI ABE Total 67-68 67-68 67-68 67-68 67-68 1967-68 ‘ Large District Average (Excl. Detroit 152.32 20.87 43.12 0.0 9.74 226.05 Small Distr icts AVerage (Excl. Baldwin and Leland) 165.54 9.49 0.0 2.28 0.0 177.31 103 Under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, when considering Flint, Lansing, and Grand Rapids and the rural districts matched with them, the large districts received 27.5 percent more money per disadvantaged pupil than did the matched rural district. .When all large and small case districts are studied, the large districts received 9.6 percent more than the small districts. The Vocational Education Act of 1963 The Vocational Education Act of 1963 is designed to maintain, extend, and improve existing programs of voca- tional education, to develop new programs of vocational education, and to provide part-time employment for youth who need the earnings from such employment to continue their training on a full-time basis. It is intended to provide service for people of all ages in all communities of the State and to assure ready access to vocational training or retraining of high quality. The program is presently operated on a 50-50 match— ing basis and is funded through proposal submission. Each school district must submit a proposal requesting funds for specific vocational programs and receive approval from the State Department of Education. 104 Table 14A. Vocational Education Act expenditure per disad- vantaged pupil by district based upon 1960 census Date of Am't. per Am't. per School %.of Dis- lst Dis. Pupil Dis. Pupil District advantaged Funding lst Year 1967-68 Detroit 23.9 20.52 20.16 Baldwin 24.0 4.21* 3.48 Leland 24.2 .ALL No proposal submitted Lansing 7.6 FUNDING 20.50 36.89 Richmond 9.4 3.68* 8.21 Shepherd 9.0 BEGAN 17.92 21.03 Flint 10.0 FISCAL 11.43 14.73 Armada 10.2 19.49* 6.64 Tawas 9.9 YEAR 16.66* 5.70 Grand Rapids 13.8 63-64 15.04 12.44 Hale 13.9 26.38* No proposal submitted Bad Axe 13.9 4.91* *Funds granted for instruction only; no equipment included. ' Table 14B. Weighted average expenditure by large and small districts under the Vocational Education Act based upon 1960 census data Am't. per Percentage of Amount per Dis. Dis. Pupil Suzhool District Disadvantaged Pupil--lst Yr. 1967-68 Large District .Average 20.4 19.69 19.90 Small District lAverage 12.3 10.85 10.34 ‘ 105 Table 14C. Weighted average expenditure by large and small districts under the Vocational Education Act based upon 1960 census data and excluding Detroit, Baldwin, and Leland Amount per Amount per Percentage of Dis. Pupil Dis. Pupil School District Disadvantaged lst Year 1967-68 Large District Average (Excl. Detroit) 10.8 14.69 18.34 Small District Average (Excl. Baldwin and Leland) 10.6 13.35 12.87 The three preceding tables reveal some interesting data. Funding in 1963 favored the large districts at the expense of the rural districts in all cases. By 1967-68 urban districts had increased the difference and received even more than the matched rural districts under the Voca- tional Education Act. When comparing all urban and rural districts studied, urban districts received 92 percent more per disadvantaged pupil in 1967-68 than the matched rural districts. When excluding Detroit, Baldwin, and Leland, urban districts still received 43 percent more per disadvan- taged pupil than the matched rural districts. In 1967-68 five of the six rural districts receiving Ifixnds for vocational education were receiving these funds far homemaking only. Shepherd was the only small rural dis- trict in this study receiving vocational education money for 106 anything other than homemaking. They also received funds for a vocational agricultural program. Manpower Development and Training Act of 1962 The Manpower Development and Training Act of 1962 is designed to encourage adequate occupational development and maximum utilization of the skills of the nation's workers. It also encourages special programs for testing, counseling, selection, and referral of youths sixteen years oa age or older for occupational training and further schooling who, because of inadequate educational background and work prep— aration, are unable to qualify for and Obtain employment without such training and schooling. Local school districts are eligible to receive funds under this Act by submitting a proposal to the Secretary of Labor and receiving appropriate approval. The following tables clearly demonstrate a wide discrepancy between the large urban districts studied and the matched small rural districts. In 1967—68 no money was granted to any of the rural districts while two of the four urban districts did receive funds and the other two urban districts' programs had become a part of a larger county— wide effort. Table 15A. 107 Manpower Development and Training Act expendi— tures per disadvantaged pupil by district based upon 1960 census data Date of .Amount per Amount per School %.of Dis- lst Dis. Pupil Dis. Pupil District advantaged Funding lst Yr. 1967-68 Detroit 23.9 1962 13.76 34.42 Baldwin 24.0 1963 32.86 0.0 Leland 24.2 No proposal submitted Lansing 7.6 1963 3.78 Now county- Richmond 9.4 No prOposal submitted wide Shepherd 9.0 No proposal submitted Flint 10.0 1963 0.36 3.90 Armada 10.2 No prOposal submitted Tawas 9.9 No proposal submitted Grand Rapids 13.8 1962 12.28 Now county- Hale 13.9 No proposal submitted wide Bad Axe 13.9 No prOposal submitted Table 15B. Weighted average expenditures by large and small districts under the Manpower Development and Training Act based upon 1960 census data Amount per Amount per Percentage of Dis. Pupil Dis. Pupil School District Disadvantaged lst Year 1967-68 Large District Average 12.61 29.72 Small District Average 6.45 0.0 108 Table 15C. Weighted average expenditures by large and small districts under the Manpower Development and Training Act based upon 1960 census data and excluding Detroit, Badwin, and Leland Amount per Amount per Percentage of Dis. Pupil Dis. Pupil School District Disadvantaged lst Year 1967-68 Large District Average (Excl. Detroit) 10.8 5.71 1.59 Small District Average (Excl. No No Baldwin and Proposals Proposals Leland) 10.6 Submitted Submitted The Child Nutrition Act of 1966, Section 4 Section 4 of the Child Nutrition Act is specifically designed to serve disadvantaged children. This Section pro- vides for the funding of special breakfast programs that are specifically developed to serve children from low income areas or children who must travel extensive distances prior to school opening. Presently, funding under this Section is limited to a few selected schools. Because of limited funding, dis- tricts receiving grants are considered pilot districts; and the entire program is presently designed to determine the advisability of initiating additional programs of this nature and the possible benefits that can be derived from it. 109 If additional funds are available in the future and the program is deemed a worthwhile effort, criteria may be established to broaden the participation in the program. Table 16A. Child Nutrition Act, Section 4, expenditures per disadvantaged pupil by district based upon 1960 census data Amount per School %.of Date of Disadvantaged District Disadvantaged lst Funding Pupil 1967-68 Detroit 23.9 2-67 0.06 Baldwin 24.0 ... Proposal submitted-- no money granted Leland 24.2 ... No prOposal submitted Lansing 7.6 9-67 2.41 Richmond 9.4 ... No proposal submitted Shepherd 9.0 ... No proposal submitted Flint 10.0 9-67 0.33 Armada 10.2 ... No proposal submitted Tawas 9.9 ... No proposal submitted Grand Rapids 13.8 ... No proposal submitted Hale 13.9 ... No proposal submitted Bad.Axe 13.9 ... No proposal submitted 110 Table 16B. Weighted average expenditures by large and small districts under Section 4 of the Child Nutrition Act based upon 1960 census data Percentage of Amount per Disadvantaged School District Disadvantaged Pupil 1967-68 Large District Average 20.4 0.13 Small District Average 12.3 0.0 Table 16C. Weighted average expenditures by large and small districts under Section 4,of the Child Nutrition Act based upon 1960 census data and excluding Detroit, Baldwin, and Leland Percentage of Amount per Disadvantaged School District Disadvantaged Pupil 1967-68 Large District Average (Excl. Detroit) 10.8 0.59 Small District Average (Excl. Baldwin and Leland) 10.6 0.0 The preceding tables show that none of the rural districts studied received funds, and only one of these districts submitted a proposal. Three of the four urban districts studied submitted prOposals and received funds through this leg is lat ion . 111 The Child Nutrition Act of 1966, Section 5 Section 5 of the Child Nutrition Act provides for non-food assistance for schools serving areas in which poor economic conditions exist and which have no equipment or equipment that is grossly inadequate. Funds under this Section should be used to establish, maintain, or expand food programs. Because of limited funds, only selected school dis- tricts were allowed to participate. These districts are selected on the basis of need. The districts that are approved to receive funds under this Section are required to provide 25 percent of the cost of the program, with the 75 percent balance being funded federally. Only two of the districts being studied received funds under this Section. Detroit received eighteen cents per disadvantaged youngster in 1967-68, while Baldwin received $9.17. Flint submitted a proposal under this Section but was not approved for funding. No other districts studied submitted a proposal. Detroit received an allocation of sixteen cents per disadvantaged child in 1966-67. Baldwin did not submit a proposal in that year. In 1967-68 the pupils in all large districts averaged fifteen cents per disadvantaged child under this Section, while pupils in rural districts averaged $1.80. When Detroit, Baldwin, and Leland are excluded from consideration, none of the matched districts studied received any funds under this Section. 112 National Defense Education Act-- Title III This Title initially provided for the purchase of equipment for science, math, and foreign language courses of study. It has now been broadened to allow equipment pur- chases for history, civics, geography, English, reading, and economics. Each district is allowed a per pupil amount of money which is determined by dividing the total federal allocation to the state by the number of pupils within the districts submitting proposals and by a formula which grants a differ— ential based upon State Equalized Valuation. .Each district must submit an application 1isting_the items which they wish to purchase under this Title. Once the requested items are approved, the district is granted approval up to the maximum amount established for the district. It is evident in the following three tables that the rural districts studied received a greater amount of funds per pupil than did the matched urban districts. In 1967-68, the two districts studied that did not submit proposals were both rural districts. All urban districts submitted pro- posals and received grants. 113 Table 17A. National Defense Education Act, Title III, expenditures per disadvantaged pupil by district based upon 1960 census (For 2-yr. Period) Date of .Amount per Amount per School % of Dis? 1st Dis. Pupil Dis. Pupil District advantaged Funding lst Year 1967-68 Detroit 23.9 10.75 5.99 Baldwin 24.0 10.40 0.0 Leland 24.2 ALL No prOposal No proposal submitted submitted Lansing 7.6 DISTRICTS 20.43 30.95 Richmond 9.4 32.31 16.41 Shepherd 9.0 RECEIVED 19.59 18.59 Flint 10.0 APPROVAL 7.46 10.60 Armada 10.2 8.15 15.18 Tawas 9.9 IN 1958 23.13 19.44 Grand Rapids 13.8 30.30 9.83 Hale 13.9 38.40 6.13 Bad Axe 13.9 10.78 12.02 Table 17B. Weighted average expenditure by large and small districts under Title III of the National Defense Education Act based upon 1960 census data Amount per Amount per Percentage of Dis. Pupil Dis. Pupil School District Disadvantaged lst Year 1967-68 Large District Average 20.4 11.92 7.19 Small District Average 12.3 17.23 10.79 E 114 Table 17C. Weighted average expenditure by large and small districts under Title III of the National Defense Education Act based upon 1960 census data and excluding Detroit, Baldwin, and Leland Amount per Amount per Percentage of Dis. Pupil Dis. Pupil School District Disadvantaged lst Year 1967-68 Large District Average (Excl. Detroit) 10.8 18.98 13.68 Small District Average (Excl. Baldwin and Leland) 10.6 20.24 14.38 The Economic opportunity Act of 1964, Title IB——Neighborhood Youth Corps The purpose of this Title is to provide useful work experience opportunities for young men and women who are unemployed, through participation in state and community work training programs. The intent of this program is to increase employability, encourage the resumption of educa- tion, and to allow public and non-profit organizations to carry out programs which will permit or contribute to a service in the public interest that would otherwise not be permitted. 1 Funds for this project must be approved at the local Community Action Against Poverty agency. This program is often directly funded and administered through the Community Action Against Poverty agency and young men and women made 115 available to the public and non-profit agencies. In other instances, direct grants are made to the school district, and the school district administers the funds and the pro- gram. For the purpose of this study, only funds granted to a school district and administered by the district were considered. Table 18A. Expenditures per disadvantaged pupil by district based upon 1960 census data for "Neighborhood Youth Corps" (For 2-yr. Period) Date of Amount per Amount per School ‘% of Dis- 1st Dis. Pupil Dis. Pupil District advantaged Funding lst Year 1967—68 Detroit 23.9 1-65 9.56 25.75 Baldwin 24.3 None None None Leland 24.2 None None None Lansing 7.6 4-65 195.87 65.16 Richmond 9.4 None None None Shepherd 9.0 None None None Flint 10.0 6-66 21.24 40.63 Armada 10.2 None None None Tawas 9.9 None None None Grand Rapids 13.8 9-65 11.04 57.03 Bad Axe 13.9 None None None Hale 13.9 None None None 116 Table 183. Weighted average expenditure by large and small districts under the Neighborhood Youth Corps and based upon 1960 census data Amount per Amount per Percentage of Dis. Pupil Dis. Pupil School District Disadvantaged lst Year 1967-68 Large District Average 20.4 15.73 29.50 Small District Average 12.3 0.0 0.0 Table 18C. Weighted average expenditure by large and small districts under the Neighborhood Youth Corps and based upon 1960 census data and excluding Detroit, Baldwin, and Leland Amount per Amount per Percentage of Dis. Pupil Dis. Pupil School District Disadvantaged lst Year 1967-68 Large District Average (Excl. Detroit) 10.8 52.76 52.03 Small District Average (Excl. Baldwin and Leland) 10.6 0.0 0.0 The preceding tables clearly show that no rural districts received funding under this enactment and that all four urban districts did receive funds to Operate a Neighborhood Youth Corps Program. 117 The Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, Title_;;§_ The general purpose of Title II of the Economic Opportunity Act is to assist community action programs and help urban and rural communities combat poverty. Part B of Title II discusses special programs that may help solve some critical problems and needs of the poor. Two of these that directly affect public schools are "Head Start" and "Follow Through." Funding for these programs is granted through the local Community Action Against Poverty agency. Like Neigh- borhood Youth Corps, funds can be expended directly by the agency for this purpose or can be granted to the public school to expend and administer. Only those programs administered by the public schools were considered in this study. "Head Start."--"Head Start" focuses on children who have not reached compulsory school age. It normally is funded under two distinct categories. A distinction is usually made between those programs operating only during the summer and those Operating during the regular school year. Summer programs are normally referred to as "Head Start" Programs, and full-year programs are referred to as "Full Year Pre-School." For the purposes of this study, all funds received under both categories were considered "Head Start" funds. 118 Table 19A. Expenditure per disadvantaged pupil by district based upon 1960 census data for "Head Start" Date of Amount per Amount per SChOOl % of Dis- lst Dis.Pupil Dis. Pupil District advantaged Funding lst Yr. 1967-68 Detroit 23.9 6-65 14.23 16.95 Baldwin 24.3 6-66 99.03 148.87 Leland 24.2 None None None Lansing 7.6 3-65 20.00 93.98 Richmond 9.4 None None None Shepherd 9.0 None None None Flint 10.0 6-65 19.13 18.93 .Armada 10.2 None None None Tawas 9.9 None None None Grand Rapids 13.8 6-65 6.34 38.67 Hale 13.9 67—68 lst funds-- 67-68 63.03 Bad Axe 13.9 None None None Table 19B. Weighted average expenditure by large and small districts under the "Head Start" program based upon 1960 census data Amount per Amount per Percentage of Dis. Pupil Dis. Pupil School District Disadvantaged lst Year 1967-68 Large District Average 14.24 20.51 Small District Average 19.43 33.10 119 Table 19C. Weighted average expenditure by large and small districts under the "Head Start" program based upon 1960 census data and excluding Detroit, Baldwin, and Leland Amount per Amount per Percentage of Dis. Pupil Dis. Pupil School District Disadvantaged lst Year 1967—68 Large District Average (Excl. Detroit) 10.8 14.31 41.90 Small District Average (Excl. Baldwin and Leland) 10.6 0.0 5.18 The preceding tables clearly show that the large urban districts all received funding under "Head Start" while only two of the eight matched rural districts received funds. Table 19B indicates that even though only two rural districts were funded, the average per pupil expenditure for disadvantaged children was greater in the rural districts than it was in the urban districts. Table 19C indicates that the Opposite is true when Detroit, Baldwin, and Leland are excluded. This variance exists because of the very large per pupil amount granted to Baldwin and the proportion- ately smaller per pupil grant made to Detroit. When Detroit, Baldwin, and Leland are removed (as was done in Table 19C), a completely different funding pattern is presented; and large districts averaged substantially more per pupil. 120 "Follow Through."--"Follow Through" focuses upon children in kindergarten and elementary school who were previously in "Head Start." Detroit was the only district studied that received funds. It received a grant in Septem- ber of 1967 for $85,444 or $1.21 per disadvantaged pupil. When contrasting large and small districts, the large dis— tricts averaged $1.04 per disadvantaged pupil and the rural districts received nothing. SectionII Presentation of Collectedypata Comparing Basic Educational Quality A determination was made that the total effect of federal aid on disadvantaged children could not be appre- ciated without gaining some perceptions about the basic educational program to which federal aid is applied. Seven criteria were established to compare basic educational offerings, and comparisons were made between large urban districts and small rural districts, based upon these seven criteria: a. Per pupil expenditure for instructional materials b. Per pupil expenditure for library materials c. Per pupil expenditure for special instructional personnel d. Per pupil expenditure for special education e. Per pupil total operating expenditure 121 f. Average amount of teacher training 9. ‘Average number of years of teaching experience. Each of the seven criteria will be analyzed separately. Per Pupil Expenditure for Instructional Materials School District 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 Detroit [14.87 Unionville-Sebewaing l16.60 Rogers Union ] 9.63 Graph 7A. 1967-68 per pupil expenditure for instructional materials by the Detroit, Unionville-Sebewaing, and Rogers Union school districts. School District 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 Flint 122.79 Crosswell-Lexington _j 18.54 Frankfort p]l8.93 Graph 7B. 1967-68 per pupil expenditure for instructional materials by the Flint, Crosswell-Lexington, and Frankfort school districts. 122 School District 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 Grand Rapids l21.53 Gaylord __]29.27 Hale [21.25 Graph 7C. 1967-68 per pupil expenditure for instructional materials by the Grand Rapids, Gaylord, and Hale school districts. School District 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 Lansing ] 21.96 Engadine 119.66 Pentwater 1 17.82 Graph 7D. 1967-68 per pupil expenditure for instructional materials by the Lansing, Engadine, and Pentwater school districts. School District 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 Large Districts' 1 Weighted Average ]l6.9l Small Districts' Weighted Average 118.85 Graph 7E. 1967-68 per pupil expenditure for instructional materials by large and small districts studied. 123 School District 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 '30.00 Large Districts' Weighted Average l 22.13 (Excl. Detroit) Small Districts' Weighted Average (Excl. Unionville- ]21.63 Sebewaing and Rogers Union) Graph 7F. 1967-68 averaged per pupil expenditure for instructional materials by large and small dis— tricts excluding Detroit, Unionville—Sebewaing, and Rogers Union. The preceding graphs indicate a variance of expendi- ture by districts for instructional materials from $9.63 per pupil in the Rogers Union School District to $29.27 per pupil in Gaylord. Graph 7E shows an average expenditure of $1.94 more per pupil by the rural districts than that expended by the urban districts. This expenditure pattern is reversed, however, in Graph 7F when Detroit, Unionville- Sebewaing, and Rogers Union are excluded from the average. Graph 7F indicates an urban expenditure of fifty cents more than that expended by the rural districts. Per Pupil Expenditure for Library Materials The following graphs indicate that in 1967-68 two of the large districts provided more funds for library materials than did any of their rural counterparts. Expenditure 124 levels varied from a low of $1.03 in Detroit to a high of $6.44 in Hale. SChool District 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 Detroit : Il.03 Unionville-Sebewaing j 2.92 Rogers Union ]2.03 Graph 8A. 1967-68 per pupil expenditure for library materials by the Detroit, Unionville-Sebewaing, and Rogers Union school districts. School District 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 Flint J 5.28 W Crosswell-Lexington , H1.81 Frankfort 14.24 Graph 8B. 1967—68 per pupil expenditure for library materials by the Flint, Crosswell-Lexington, and Frankfort school districts. 125 School District 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 Grand Rapids Gaylord Hale J 2.34 1 1.92 16.44 Graph 8C. 1967-68 per pupil expenditure for library materials by the Grand Rapids, Gaylord, and Hale school districts. School District 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 Lansing Engadine Pentwater J 5.54 1 2.26 12.93 Graph 8D. 1967-68 per pupil expenditure for library materi- als by the Lansing, Engadine, and Pentwater school districts. School District 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5,00 6.00 Large Districts' Weighted Average Small Districts' Weighted Average ‘ 1 1.98 12.64 Graph 8E. 1967—68 averaged per pupil expenditure for library materials by large and small districts studied. 126 School District 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 Large Districts' Weighted Average 14.45 (Excl. Detroit) Small Districts' Weighted Average (Excl. Unionville- 412.72 -Sebewaing and Rogers Union) Graph 8F. 1967—68 averaged per pupil expenditure for library materials by large and small districts excluding Detroit, Unionville-Sebewaing, and Rogers Union. Graph 8E indicates a larger rural district expendi- ture for library materials than that found in the averaged urban districts. It is important to note that the very low averaged expenditure for library materials by urban districts is due primarily to the very low expenditure level in the Detroit School District. Graph 8F excludes Detroit and shows a definite reversal of the expenditure pattern. Graph 8E which includes Detroit shows rural districts spend- ing sixty-six cents more per pupil for library materials than urban districts. Graph 8F, which excludes Detroit, shows the urban districts spending $1.73 more per pupil for library materials than the rural districts. 127 Per Pupil Expenditure for Special Instructional Personnel 'The special instructional personnel in this section includes: guidance personnel, instructional consultants and supervisors, audio-visual personnel, and psychological personnel. The following graphs indicate a gross difference in expenditure levels existed for special instructional person- nel in 1967-68. In all cases, the large urban districts' expended substantially more for special instructional per- sonnel than did the matched rural districts. It is interest- ing to note that the rural districts matched with Lansing spent nothing in this area. The large districts spent an average of $20.15 per pupil, while the matched rural dis- tricts spent an average of $7.79. This is a difference of $12.36 per pupil and an urban district expenditure level 259 percent higher than that of the rural districts. School District 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 Detroit 119.40 Unionville—Sebewaing 16.36 Rogers Union 118.10 Graph 9A. 1967-68 per pupil expenditure for special instruc- tional personnel by the Detroit, Unionville- Sebewaing, and Rogers Union school districts. 128 School District 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 Flint Crosswell—Lexington Frankfort 122.36 No expenditures for this purpose 19.47 Graph 9B. 1967-68 per pupil expenditure for special instruc- tional personnel by the Flint, Crosswell-Lexington, and Frankfort school districts. School District 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 Grand Rapids 1 18.49 Gaylord 116.74 Hale No expenditures for this purpose Graph 9C. 1967-68 per pupil expenditure for special instruc- tional personnel by the Grand Rapids, Gaylord, and Hale school districts. School District 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 Lansing 125.57 Engadine No expenditures for this purpose Pentwater No expenditures for this purpose Graph 9D. 1967-68 per pupil expenditure for special instruc- tional personnel by the Lansing,.Engadine, and Pentwater school districts. 129 School District 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 Large Districts' Weighted Average 120.15 Small Districts' ~ Weighted Average :1 7 ' 79 Graph 9E. 1967-68 averaged per pupil expenditure for special instructional personnel by large and small dis- tricts studied. School District 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 Large Districts' Weighted Average 124.06 (Excl. Detroit) Small Districts' weighted Average . (Excl. Unionville i:::] 5.67 and Rogers Union) Graph 9F. 1967—68 averaged per pupil expenditure for special instructional personnel by large and small dis- tricts studied excluding Detroit, Unionville- Sebewaing, and Rogers Union. Per Pupil Expenditure for Special Education In all cases, the expenditure level for special education in 1967—68 in the urban districts was at least twice that of the averaged matched rural districts. The average expenditure by the urban districts for special 130 education was $31.74 per pupil. The rural average expendi- ture level was $5.96. The difference provided an urban district expenditure level 533 percent greater than that of the rural districts. When Detroit and its matched districts are excluded (see Graph 10F), the difference is even greater and the urban district expenditure level is 677 percent greater than that of the rural districts. School District 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 Detroit 130.67 Unionville-Sebewaing‘ 114.67 Rogers Union 0.38 Graph 10A. 1967-68 per pupil expenditure for special educa- tion by the Detroit, Unionville-Sebewaing, and Rogers Union school districts. School District 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 Flint 124.34 Crosswell-Lexington :3 0.65 Frankfort 119.51 Graph 10B. 1967-68 per pupil expenditure for special educa- tion by the Flint, Crosswell-Lexington, and Frankfort school districts. 131 School District 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 Grand Rapids 1 37.39 Gaylord ‘ 16.52 Hale No expenditure for this purpose Graph 10C. 1967-68 per pupil expenditure for special educa- tion by the Grand Rapids, Gaylord, and Hale school districts. School District 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 Lansing 146.34 Engadine No expenditure for this purpose Pentwater , 15.21 Graph 10D. 1967-68 per pupil expenditure for special educa— tion by the Lansing, Engadine, and Pentwater school districts. School District 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 Large Districts' Weighted Average 1 31.74 Small Districts' ~ Weighted Average :1 5'96 Graph 10E. 1967-68 averaged per pupil expenditure for special education by large and small districts. 132 School District 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 Large Districts' Weighted Average 134.59 (Excl. Detroit) Small Districts' weighted Average (Excl. Unionville :::15.11 and Rogers Union) Graph 10F. Averaged per pupil expenditure for special educa- tion by large and small districts excluding Detroit, Unionville—Sebewaing, and Rogers Union. It is important to note that special education pro- grams are often provided to rural districts through the intermediate school district. Per Pupil Total Operating Expenditure This comparison includes all expenditures incurred by the school districts studied in 1967-68 with the exception of that for capital outlay and debt retirement. In all cases, the urban school districts' per pupil expenditure was sub- stantially higher than that of its rural counterpart. The average per pupil expenditure by the large school districts was $682.46, while that of the matched rural districts was $511.37. This $171.09 difference represents a 33.4 percent greater expenditure by the urban school districts studied. 133 School District 4 Detroit Unionville-Sebewaing Rogers Union 400 500 600 700 800 900 51675.89 1544.90 1 516.76 Graph 11A. 1967-68 per pupil total operating expenditure by the Detroit, Unionville—Sebewaing, and Rogers Union school districts. School District 400 500 600 700 800 900 Flint Crosswell-Lexington Frankfort J 753.97‘ 1468.02 :1553.44 Graph 11B. 1967-68 per pupil total operating expenditure by the Flint, Crosswell-Lexington, and Frankfort school districts. School District 400 500 600 700 800 900 Grand Rapids Gaylord Hale 1619.41 1541.19 1 21467.84 Graph 11C. 1967—68 per pupil total operating expenditure by the Grand Rapids, Gaylord, and Hale school districts. 134 School District 400 500 600 700 800 900 Lansing Engadine Pentwater 1 707.25 1504.36 1463.93 Graph 11D. 1967-68 per pupil total operating expenditure by the Lansing, Engadine, and Pentwater school districts. School District 400 500 600 700 800 900 Large Districts' Weighted.Average Small Districts' Weighted.Average 1682.46 51511.37 Graph 11E. Averaged per pupil total operating expenditure by large and small districts studied. School District 400 500 600 700 800 900 Large Districts' WeightedlAverage (Excl. Detroit) Small Districts' 'WeightedzAverage (Excl. Unionville- Sebewaing and Rogers Union) 571699.41 1501.60 Graph 11F. 1967-68 averaged per pupil total operating expenditure by large and small districts studied excluding Detroit, Unionville-Sebewaing, and Rogers Union. 135 In an attempt to determine whether the difference in total operating expenditure shown in Graphs 11A to 11F is the result of higher teacher salaries paid in urban districts, a study was made of salaries paid in 1967—68 in the twelve school districts studied.129 At the Bachelor of Arts level with no teaching experience, the large districtsibeginning salary schedules averaged 11 percent more than that paid by the rural dis- tricts. When Detroit was excluded from the large district average, the large districts averaged only 3.7 percent more. At the top of the salary schedule for teachers possessing at least a Master's Degree, the large districts paid an average of 24 percent more than the matched rural districts. When Detroit was excluded from the large district average, the large districts paid 23.7 percent more than the matched rural districts. These initial inquiries provide indica- tions that educational expenditures are greater in urban districts even when the differential in salaries paid to teachers is taken into account. Average Amount of Teacher Training by Degrees Held There are also differences in the amount of teacher training by degrees held between the urban and rural school districts studied as shown in the following graphs. 129Stanley E. Hecker, John Meeder, and Thomas J. Northey, Teacher Salary Schedule Study, 1967-68 (East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan Education Association. 136 School District Degree Held 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Non-Degree :1 1.6% Detroit B.A. 4160% M.A.+ 138% Non-Degree 3 8.3% Unionville- Sebewaing B'A' ‘ 4178.9% M.A.+ (j :j]12.7% Non-Degree :] 4% Rogers Union B.A. 11175% M.A.+ 1 22.1% Graph 12A. Average amount of teacher training by degrees held for Detroit, Unionville-Sebewaing, and Rogers Union. School District Degree Held 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Non-Degree :13.8% Flint B.A. 1 59% M.A.+ 4136.5% Non-Degree :1 2 . 7% Crosswell- Lexington B'A' 5184.9% M.A.+ 1 12.3% Non-Degree No non-degree teachers Frankfort B.A. 186.5% M.A.+ 13.5% Graph 128. Average amount of teacher training by degrees held for Flint, Crosswell-Lexington, and Frankfort. School District Degree Held 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Non-Degree :1 3.5% Grand Rapids B.A. 1 69% M.A.+ 44127.4% Non-Degree a 6% Gaylord B.A. 1 84.3% M.A.+ 19.6% Non-Degree : 116.7% Hale B.A. 45183.3% M.A.+ No teachers with M.A. Graph 12C. Average amount of teacher training by degrees held for Grand Rapids, Gaylord, and Hale. 1L3? School District Degree Held 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Non-Degree 3 h% Lansing B.A. ] 63.5% M.A.+ 1 35. 1% Non-Degree ‘ 112.5% Engadine B.A. ] 68.8% M.A.+ ‘ 118.8% Non-Degree :] 6.7% Pentwater B.A. 1186.6% M.A.+ 6.7% Graph 12D. Average amount of teacher training by degrees held for Lansing, Engadine, and Pentwater. School District Degree Held 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Large District Weighted Average Non-Degree B.A. M.A.+ 212% 416I% 137% Small District Weighted Average Non-Degree B.A. M.A.+ 2:15.7% j 113% 181.3% Graph 12E. districts. Average amount of teacher training by degrees held by large and small School District Degree Held 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Large District Non-Degree [12.8% Weighted Average B.A. i]63.4% (Excl. Detr01t) M.A.+ 133.4% Small District Non-Degree ::15.5% Weighted Average 0 (Excl. Union.- B’A’ ‘ 183°5A Sebewaing & Rog. M.A.+ , 110.6% Graph 12F. Average amount of teacher training by degrees held by large and small districts excluding Detroit, Unionville-Sebewaing, and Rogers Union. 138 The preceding graphs clearly indicate that the matched rural districts, when averaged together, had a higher percentage of non-degree teachers and a smaller per- centage of teachers with a Master's Degree or greater in 1967—68. Large urban districts had an average of 2 percent of their staff without degrees, while matched rural dis- tricts had 5.7 percent of their staff in this category. Further, the large districts had 37 percent of their teach— ing staff with at least a Master's Degree as opposed to rural districts with 13 percent of the teaching staff at this level. Little difference was observed when excluding Detroit, Unionville-Sebewaing, and Rogers Union from this average. Average Number ongears of Teaching Experience The graphs which follow show that in 1967-68 the teachers in the rural districts studied averaged more experience than did the teachers in the matched urban dis- tricts. Teachers in the urban districts averaged 11 years of teaching experience while those in the rural districts averaged 12.5 years, or a difference of 1.5 years. 139 Years School Districts 10 12 14 16 18 20 Detroit 111.29 Unionville-Sebewaing 1 l3 Rogers Union 116.79 Graph 13A. Average number of years of teaching experience of teachers in the Detroit, Unionville-Sebewaing, and Rogers Union school districts. School Districts Flint Crosswell-Lexington Frankfort Years 10 12 14 16 110.47 112.47 4113.47 18 20 Graph 133. .Average number of years of teaching experience of teachers in the Flint, Crosswell-Lexington, and Frankfurt school districts. 140 Years School Districts 10 12 14 16 18 20 Grand Rapids 110.37 Gaylord 110 Hale ‘ 19.83 Graph 13C. Average number of years of teaching experience of teachers in the Grand Rapids, Gaylord, and Hale school districts. Years School Districts 10 12 14 16 18 20 Lansing I 1 10.19 Engadine 51 11.5 Pentwater ‘ 18.47 Graph 13D. .Average number of years of teaching experience of teachers in the Lansing, Engadine, and Pent- water school districts. 141 School Districts Years 10 12 14 16 18 20 Large Districts' Weighted Average Small Districts' Weighted Average 2 n p112.5 Graph 13E. ~Average amount of teaching experience of teachers by large and small districts studied. School District Years 10 12 14 16 18 20 Large Districts' Weighted-Average (Excl. Detroit) Small Districts' Weighted Average (Excl. Unionville- Sebewaing and Rogers Union) | 10.35 111.36 Graph 13F. Average amount of teaching experience of teachers by large and small districts studied excluding Detroit, Unionville-Sebewaing, and Rogers Union. 142 Section13. Collected Comparative Data Concerning the Relationship Between School District Size and Funding Approval Under Title IIITof the Elementary and Secondary Education Act Recognizing the limitations of the case technique, an in-depth investigation of one title was completed. Title III of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act was studied on a state-wide basis to determine what difference existed in federal funding to urban and rural districts. The year 1967-68 was selected as the year to be studied because it is the last full fiscal year and because previous data utilized this same fiscal year. A listing was made of all high school districts in the state, and these districts were broken down into four size categories. Each classification is determined by the number of students in grades nine through twelve: Table 20. High school districts in state by size categories Number of Districts Category Definition of Category in State Class A 1,100 or more—-Grades 9-12 113 Class B 450 - 1,099--Grades 9-12 191 Class C 250 - 449--Grades 9-12 125 Class D 0 - 250-—Grades 9-12 109 143 A listing was then made of all districts submitting proposals under Title III and a list of all districts receiving proposal approval. Table 21 shows the proposal submission by classification, and Table 22 shows the approvals by classification. Tables 21 and 22 show a relationship between the size of a school district and the number and percentage of Title III programs submitted and the number and percentage of Title III programs approved. As districts become smaller, fewer proposals are submitted and fewer proposals are ap- proved. In 1967-68, in fact, no districts under the Class B category (less than 450 students in the high school) received approval for any Title III proposals. Summarypof Findings Elementary and Secondary Education Act--Tit1e;; In 1967-68 there was a per pupil funding discrepancy favoring the rural districts studied. In 1968—69 the per pupil difference was reduced and the discrepancy found slightly favored the urban districts studied. It was deter- mined that the discrepancy that is shown is the result of a change in the procedures for distributing funds and it is anticipated that by 1969—70 no discrepancy will exist at all. 144 0.0 0.0 o N moa n.mmmao 0.0 0.0 o v mma U mmmao m.ma o.H m 0H Hma m mmmao h.mm b.m Ha hm mHH ¢.mmmao po>oumm¢ pm>onmm<. po>oumm¢ msfluuflsnsm muoauumao muommumo mammomoum mgHuuHEnsm muofluumwo muoflnuman macauumflo mo Honssz muoauuman mo ugmowmm mo unmouom mo Honssz mo Honssz mmauommumo mNHm Hoonom amen an pm>onmmm mum3 umnu mammomoum HHH Danae dmmm mgfluuflsnsm muoauumflp mo mmmugmouom .NN magma m H N moa Q mmmao m.m a mma U mmmao ¢.m 0H Hma m mmmao o.mm hm maa ¢.mmmHo molhoma mwlhoma pmuuasnsm muoflwumwo muommumo mammomoum moauuasnsm mammomoum mo Honsgz mo HmQEsz muoHHumHQ mo unmoumm mmawommumo gnaw Hoosom swan an pmpuwsnsm mammomoum HHH wanes cmmm .HN magma 145 Elementary and Secondary Education Act--Title II Title II was originally allocated on a per pupil basis. In 1967-68 a poverty factor was added and additional funds were granted to inner city schools and rural pockets of deprivation. As a result of this weighted formula, urban dis- tricts studied received $15.94 per disadvantaged pupil in 1967—68 while rural districts matched on the basis of equal percentages of disadvantaged children received $10.77 per disadvantaged pupil during the same year. ‘When Detroit and its matched rural districts are excluded from the average, an even greater difference is found. Large districts then received $20.87 per disadvantaged child compared to $9.49 received by the rural districts. Elementary and Secondapy Education Act--Title III In 1967-68 large urban districts received an average of $18.28 per disadvantaged pupil under Title III. No pro- posals were submitted by any of the matched rural school districts and, therefore, no funds were granted these dis— tricts under this title. When Detroit was excluded from the average, the large districts averaged $43.12 per disadvan- taged child. 146 Elementary and Secondary Education Act--Title V; Only two districts participated in this program out of the twelve districts studied. Shepherd received $13.24 per disadvantaged child and a total grant of $2,000 in 1967-68. Detroit received $2.21 per disadvantaged child and a total grant of $156,838. Flint submitted a proposal but was not approved for funding. Large districts averaged $1.90 per disadvantaged child and small districts $1.71. The Elementary and Secondary Education Act--The Adult Basic Education Act of 1966 Seven of the eight rural districts studied did not submit applications requesting funds under the Adult Basic Education Act. .All large districts submitted proposals and received funding approval. The large urban districts aver- aged $4.23 per disadvantaged child in 1967-68 as compared to $2.50 averaged by the small rural districts. When Detroit, Baldwin, and Leland are excluded from the average, the large districts averaged $9.74 per disadvantaged child, and the rural districts received no funds. The Elementary and Secondary Education Act When the preceding titles are considered in total, as one act, the large urban districts received $198.82 per disadvantaged child in 1967-68 as compared to $181.45 for the small rural districts. When Detroit, Baldwin, and 147 Leland are excluded from the average, the large urban dis- tricts received $226.05 as compared to $177.31 for the small rural districts. The Vocational Education Act of 1963 In 1967—68, large urban districts studied received an average of $19.90 per disadvantaged child through the Vocational Education Act. Matched rural districts received $10.34. The funds granted the rural districts were for homemaking and vocational agriculture. Manpgwer Eevelopment Training Act of 1962 In 1967-68 Detroit and Flint were the only two dis- tricts studied that received funds under this Act. Flint and Grand Rapids both received funds initially, but are no longer funded because the MDTA Project is now county—wide in these areas. No rural district studied submitted a proposal. Because of this, large urban districts received $29.72 per disadvantaged child in 1967—68 and the rural districts received nothing. Child Nutrition Act of 1966, Section 4 Three of the four large urban districts studied received funds under this Section and all large districts studied averaged thirteen cents per disadvantaged child. None of the matched rural districts studied received funds under this Section. 148 Child Nutrition Act of 1966, Section 5 Only two of the districts studied received funds in 1967-68. .Detroit received eighteen cents per disadvantaged pupil, and Baldwin received $9.17. Flint also submitted a proposal, but did not receive funding approval. Large dis- tricts, then, averaged fifteen cents per disadvantaged child, and small districts averaged $1.80. Nationalppefense Education Act—- Title III Large urban districts studied received an average of $7.19 per disadvantaged pupil in 1967-68 under Title III of N.D.E.A. This compares with $10.79 received by matched rural districts during the same time period. When Detroit, Baldwin, and Leland are excluded, the difference is reduced. Large districts, excluding Detroit, received $13.68 per disadvantaged pupil, and small districts, excluding Baldwin and Leland, averaged $14.38 per disadvantaged pupil. The Economic Opportunity Act of l964--Title ;E_ All four large districts received funds under this Act, and no small districts received funding. The large districts averaged $29.50 per disadvantaged pupil. When Detroit was excluded from the average, they received $52.03 per disadvantaged pupil. 149 The Economic OpportunitypAct of l964--Tit1e IIB "Head Start."-—All four large urban districts received funds under this Act, and two of the eight rural districts studied received funds. The large districts averaged $20.51 per disadvantaged child, and the small dis— tricts averaged $33.10. When Detroit, Baldwin, and Leland are excluded from the average, a distinct reversal occurs. Large districts then average $41.90, and small districts $4.18. "Follow Through."—-Detroit was the only district studied receiving funds through this legislation. This amounted to $1.21 per disadvantaged pupil in 1967-68, and an overall large district average of $1.04. The following three tables present a summary of all funds granted to each district, a summary of the averages for large and small districts, and a summary of the averages of the large and small districts, excluding Detroit, Baldwin, and Leland. 150 FHCOHN ... .0. .0. NOONH ... ... ... HFOmN ... ... .0. do.“ m¢0mofl ”é 0mm FHCmMN ... m00mw ... MHOQ ... .0. CO. ... CO. CO. ... mNCF mFOHQH ”Ham HH.~om ... so.mm mo.em mm.o ... ... ... oo.~H 65.6 ... oH.Hm No.5H m~.HmH .668 .00 $.NON .0. CC. ... ¢¢O¢H ... .0. .0. OFOm ... ... ... @FOm gONhH mm3MB N¢.th II. 0.. 0.. mHOmd 0.. .0. .0. vam .0. ... ... m¢OOH HHCmMH ”one: mm.mHm ... mm.ma mo.o¢ oo.oa ... mm.o om.m mn.¢a Hm.NH ... m~.mm m~.NN mm.~ma pagan ¢¢.o¢~ ... ... ... mm.mH ... ... ... mo.HN ... m~.ma ... N¢.oa ma.hha phonmonm m¢ON|ON .0. .0. ... H¢UQH IO. .0. ... HNOm .0. 0.. CO. OQOHH MNCHFH GGOEUMm om.mm¢ ... mm.mm oa.mo mm.om ... H¢.~ ... mm.om om.~a ... h¢.hm mm.m~ em.mma meamgmn NHO©NIH .0. .0. .0. .0. 0.. .0. 0.. 0.. CC. ... ... 000m 0¢0®0H wands no.0hm ... hm.mda ... ... ha.m ... ... m¢.m o~.m~ ... ... mm.ma om.moa sw3pamm oo.mm~ Hm.a m¢.ma mn.m~ mm.m ma.o oo.o ~¢.¢m ma.o~ Hm.m NN.~ ¢H.¢H NH.mH m¢.mma uaouuwo L n u m N as as m 3A and 3 3 a "a S o J H 0 He He Po as S S S S o .... m. m o mm mm. n1... u T... mm m m m a m T .1 P 9.: net. 8.4 .0. o m I o o 3.... _ m I I I T. a S I nnu mnu 1:0 V T. I n 3 I n onu o. I a U Tu D. 3.9 3.7 U P. n T. p m. 1 I: 1: TL T. 3 I. 1. .... .... v. a. 3. u m u 3 3 o 1 6 5 m. m. 1 m. u.. u u .4 codenamamma Hmumpmm nmsounu pmwpsum muowuumwp Hoonom ou moms magnum mo aumssbm .mm manna 151 8:33 ¢hOmON 000 mHOm 00. mm0¢H 0.0 .0. 0.. hmON-H .0. mm." 0.. quG «mOmoH ”an cflgfimm .Hoxuv ommuo>< uoauuman Hausa ma.¢mm ... oatnw mo.Nm mo.m.n ... mm.o mmé «n.3,. «56 ... NH.m¢ hm.ow .66.de Auwouuon .Hoxflv omnum>¢ commando mourn ma ...... ...... m m m... was m we. a... ... a .... .1 m... u.+ mfiu n.e «O W 1:: .31:3 3num 3;“ W .a w“ W suu be OI 18 I3 1T3 V on .r V 30 ....T. nI 30. PI. 1.9.... 23 a. 10 u 5m u I o 3 o 3.... . A I I I ....T. 6 u. I Nu .... u ....o V I I I o u I n o onu D. I 3 39 u .7 as n 1. a T. .l I. 3 panama new .saéamm .uaowuoo mcapsaoxo muowuumap Hanan psm omuma an pm>wmoou spasm mo unsoam commum>m mo humsasm .mN manna hv.hm~ ... oa.mm ... mh.oa om.a ... ... em.oa om.~ ah.a ... 55.0H ov.ood omnuo>¢ unauuman Hausa om.00m ¢O.H Hm.o~ om.m~ mH.h ma.o mH.o Nh.m~ om.ma mm.¢ om.a m~.mH om.ma h¢.mma omwuo>¢ uowuuman mmumq a... ...... ...... m a ...... as... m ......“ as. .... a a a a... um. No ea 0 W ....o 31.0 3no 8% W W W m ”U. are m.1 .12 1.3. ..1.3 V ..e 1. ..m ....T. T. 3? .PI. ...PI. 23 a. 1 u sum u I o .3 o 3.: . A .1 r. I Ill .b H. 71 Nun I. u .to V I 71 I a u I n o onu P I 3 3.: u b. "u! n 1. . T. T. W. 3 muoauumwp Hausa new uuoauumwp mound an po>wmomu modem Ho assess pomsu0>m mo humaasm .en manna 152 The preceding twelve legislative enactments provided a total of $306.96 per disadvantaged child to the urban districts studied in 1967-68 and $237.47 per disadvantaged child to the matched rural districts. The urban districts studied received 29.3 percent more under these federal enactments than did their matched rural counterparts. .When Detroit, Baldwin, and Leland are excluded, large districts averaged $354.18 per disadvantaged pupil, compared to the rural districts' averaged amount of $209.74. The urban districts, excluding Detroit, received 68.9 percent more than their matched rural districts. §gmmary of thegasic Educational Program l967-68 per Pupil Expenditure forglnstructional Materials The rural, sparsely settled districts studied expended $18.85 per pupil in the 1967-68 school year for instructional materials compared to $16.91 expended for this purpose by matched large urban districts during the same time period. The rural districts expended $1.94 or 10.4 percent more per pupil than the matched urban districts. This expenditure comparison is reversed when Detroit,-Unionville-Sebewaing, and Rogers Union are excluded from the average. .Excluding these districts, the large urban districts expended $22.13 per pupil compared to an expenditure of $21.63 by the small rural districts. This 153 is a difference of fifty cents and a 2.3 percent greater expenditure by the urban districts. l967-68_per Pupil Expenditure for Library Materials In 1967-68 the large urban districts expended $1.98 per pupil for library materials compared to an expenditure of $2.64 by the matched rural districts. This represents a sixty-six cent or 33.3 percent greater expenditure per pupil by the rural districts. This expenditure comparison is reversed when Detroit, Unionville-Sebewaing, and Rogers Union are excluded from the average. The large districts then expended$4.45 per pupil compared to $2.73 for matched rural districts. This is an urban expenditure level of $1.73 per pupil greater than the matched rural districts or 63 percent. 1967—68 per Pupil.§xpenditure for Special instructional Personnel In 1967—68 the large urban districts expended an average of $20.15 per pupil for guidance personnel, instruc- tional consultants, supervisors, audio visual personnel, and psychological personnel. This compares with an expenditure of $7.79 per pupil by the matched rural districts during the same fiscal year. The large districts studied had an expen- -diture level $12.36 greater per pupil or 258.6 percent higher than that of the matched rural districts. Excluding Detroit, Unionville-Sebewaing, and Rogers Union an even 154 greater difference appeared. Excludingthese districts, large districts expended $24.06 per pupil compared to a rural district expenditure of $5.67 per pupil for the same purpose. This is a large urban expenditure of $18.39 or 424 percent more. 1967-68 per Pupil Expenditure for Special Education In 1967—68 the large urban districts studied aver- aged an expenditure of $31.74 per pupil for special educa- tion. This compares to an expenditure of $5.96 per pupil by rural districts during the same time period. The large districts had an expenditure level of $25.78 per pupil or 532 percent more than that of the matched rural districts. This difference was even greater when Detroit, Unionville- 'Sebewaing, and Rogers Union were excluded from the average. The large districts then expended $34.59 per pupil compared to a rural district expenditure of $5.11. This is a differ- ence of $29.48 and a greater urban expenditure of 677 percent. l967-68_Tptgl,0pgratinq Expenditure per Pupil The large urban districts expended an average of $682.46 per pupil as compared to $511.37 expended by matched rural districts. This difference of $171.09 or 33.5 percent includes all expenditures made during 1967-68, with the exception of money paid out for capital outlay and bonded indebtedness. The difference is even greater when Detroit, 155 Unionville-Sebewaing, and Rogers Union are excluded from the study. .Excluding these districts, the large urban districts expended $699.60. This is a difference of $197.81 or 39.4 percent. Average Amount of Teacher Training byiDegrees Held by Large and Small Districts in 1967-68 The rural districts studied had a higher percentage of non-degree teachers than did the matched urban districts and a smaller percentage of teachers with at least a Master's Degree. In the rural districts studied, 5.7 per- cent of the teachers did not hold a B.A. Degree and 13 per- cent had at least a Master's Degree. In the urban districts studied, 2 percent of the teachers did not possess a Bache- lor of Arts Degree and 37 percent had at least a Master's Degree. There was no substantial difference when Detroit, Unionville-Sebewaing, and Rogers Union were excluded. Average Number ofggears of Teacher Experience in 1967-68 The teaching staffs of the rural districts studied averaged 12.5 years of teaching experience as Opposed to 11 years of teaching experience of the matched urban dis- tricts. .When Detroit, Unionville-Sebewaing, and Rogers Union were excluded, small rural districts averaged 11.4 years of teaching experience and large urban districts averaged 10.4 years. 156 The following chart provides an overview of the findings discussed in Section II concerning the basic educational program. Table 26. Summary of findings comparing the basic educa- tional programs of large urban and small rural districts Weighted Weighted Average Average of Large of Small Urban Rural .School .School Amount Percent Selected Basic Districts Districts of Dif- of Dif- Educational Criteria Studied Studied ference ference Per Pupil Expenditure for Instructional Materials 16.91 18.85 1.94 10.4 Per Pupil Expenditure for Library Materials 1.98 2.64 0.66 33.3 Per Pupil Expenditure for Special Instruc— tional Personnel 20.15 7.79 12.36 258.6 Per Pupil Expenditure for Special Educa- tion 31.74 5.96 25.78 533.0 Per Pupil Total Operating Expenditures 682.46 511.37 171.09 33.5 -Average 'Amount of Non-Degree 2% 5.W% ... ... Teacher B.A. 61% 81.3% ... ... Training M.A. 37%. 13.0% ... ... Average Amount of Years of Teaching Experience 11.0 12.5 1.5 ... Table 27. 157 Summary of findings comparing the basic educa- tional programs of large urban and small rural districts excluding Detroit, Unionville—Sebewaing, and Rogers Union Weighted Weighted -Average -Average of Large of Small Urban Rural School School .Amount Percent Selected Basic Districts Districts of Dif- of Dif- Educational Criteria Studied Studied ference ference Per Pupil Expenditure for Instructional Materials 22.13 21.63 0.50 2.3 Per Pupil Expenditure for Library Materials 4.45 2.72 1.73 63.6 Per Pupil Expenditure for Special Instruc- tional Personnel 24.06 5.67 18.39 424.0 Per Pupil Expenditure for Special Educa- tion 34.59 5.11 29.48 677.0 Per Pupil Total Operating Expenditure 699.41 501.60 197.81 39.4 Average Amount of Non-Degree 2.8% 5.5% ... ... Teacher B.A. 63.4%. 83.5% ... ... Training M.A. 33.4% 10.6% ... ... .Average Amount of Years of Teaching Experience 10.35 11.36 1.06 .. 158 Summary-~Title III In Depth Study It was discovered that there is a relationship between the size of a school district and the granting of Title III funds to the district. .As the size of a school district increases, the numbers of grants submitted were increased and the number of programs funded were also in— creased. In 1967-68, 33.6 percent of the largest districts submitted Title III proposals and 1.8 percent of the small- est districts submitted. During this same time period, 29.7 percent of the largest districts submitting proposals were approved, and none of the smallest districts received approval. CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY Conclusions The purpose of this study was to test the hypothesis that: the increased educational funds made available to school districts for disadvantaged school-age youngsters through recent federal legislation have not been uniformly received across that population segment. It was determined in Chapter III that this hypothesis would be supported if: 1. The federal per pupil financial input from a given federal program is different upon receipt at the local level. 2. Participation in a given federal program is found to be based on any criteria other than that of educational need. 3. Programs that are designed to be accessible to all school districts on an equal basis are not univer- sally sought and/or approved. 159 160 It was also determined that the hypothesis would be denied if: 1. The federal per pupil financial input from a given federal program is equal upon receipt at the local level. 2. Participation in a given federal program is based only upon the criteria of educational need. 3. Programs that are designed to be accessible to all school districts on an equal basis are sought and/or approved equally. Support or Denial of Hypothesis Data collected support the hypothesis on each of the three points previously determined: 1. .Federal per pupil financial input is different in every federal act studied. Twelve legislative programs were studied, and the amount granted per disadvantaged child to urban and rural districts varied in each case. In eight of the specific acts studied, the urban districts averaged more money per disadvantaged child than did the matched rural districts. In the remaining four legislative programs studied, the rural districts averaged more money per disad- vantaged child than did the matched urban districts. Using a case approach precludes statistical generalizations to the population, but the hypothesis is supported by finding that real dollar differences do exist even among the twelve used as cases . 161 2. Since districts were matched on the basis of percentage of disadvantaged children residing in the dis- trict and upon state equalized valuation, it was assumed that educational need for programs serving the disadvantaged in these matched districts was a constant. Since large dif- ferences were found, factors other than educational need were obvious determiners of this difference. 3. It was evident in many federal legislative pro- grams that funds were not accessible to all districts on an equal basis and that they_were not universally sought and/or approved. The preceding conclusions generally support the hypothesis and indicate that each of the three criteria listed provide support for the hypothesis. The data presented in Chapter IV also provide a basis for drawing additional conclusions concerning the differences found. Additional+Conclusions 1. Some of the legislation contains regulations that either prohibit the participation of rural districts or does not provide an opportunity to share equa11y_in the fund- ing. The weighted formula used in Title II of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act is an example of this. This formula was designed to provide additional funds to districts 162 with high concentrations of disadvantaged children and clearly benefits the large school districts studied. To receive additional funds, a district must have at least 20 percent of its student population classified as dis- advantaged 9£_at least 600 pupils in this category. In the districts studied, all four large cities received the bonus funds available under this weighted formula, while only two of the eight rural districts did. Three of the large dis- tricts could not meet the required 20 percent pupil disad- vantagement but did have over 600 disadvantaged pupils. The rural districts did not have sufficient numbers of pupils in this category and, therefore, could not meet either criteria. For whichever criteria was not met, disadvantaged students in some rural districts are denied participation by the arbitrary restrictions imposed by the acts or the administra- tion of them. Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act also contains regulations similar to those found in Title II but not as restrictive. Federal regulations require that at least 3 percent of the children in the district must meet Title I criteria of disadvantagement, but any district with more than 100 youngsters in this classification is automatically eligible. It appears that the districts that would have the greatest difficulty meeting this criteria would be small rural districts, since large urban centers with less than 3 percent disadvantaged could still be eli- gible by having 100 disadvantaged students. 163 2. Another possible reason for the differences in funding between urban and rural districts is the lack of proposals submitted under the various acts and titles. None of the rural districts studied submitted a prOposal under Title III. The data available in Section III of Chapter IV shows that out of the 234 smallest high school districts in the state, only six submitted proposals under this title. To further support this, seven of the eight rural districts used as cases did not submit proposals under the Adult Basic Education Act of 1966, Section IV of the Child Nutrition Act, or the Manpower Development and Training Act of 1962. Baldwin was the only rural district studied that submitted a proposal and received funds under each of these three acts. It is interesting to note that Baldwin is the only rural district studied that employs a federal projects coordinator to write proposals and stay abreast of federal funds available to the district. 3. There are indications that smaller rural dis- tricts do not enjoy the same respect from other community agencies that the larger districts do. Titles.IB and IIB of the Economic Opportunity Act are funded through local Community Action Against Poverty Agencies. Funds for educa- tional programs can be granted directly to local educational agencies to be administered by the local district. The Community Action Against Poverty Agency also has the Option of keeping the funds and administering the program itself. 164 There is a distinct tendency by local Community Action Against Poverty Agencies to grant funds for educational programs like "Head Start," Neighborhood Youth Corps, and "Follow Through" to the large districts studied and to administer these programs themselves in the areas served by small rural school districts. 4. It is possible that the differences shown between urban and rural districts in federal funding prac- tices is even greater than a cursory view of the data indi- cates. In the preceding pages, it was pointed out that rural districts averaged more money per disadvantaged pupil than matched urban districts in only four of the twelve legislative acts studied. The four acts favoring the rural districts were Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Edu— cation Act, Title III of the National Defense Education Act, Section 5 of the Child Nutrition Act, and Title IIB of the Economic Opportunity Act. Table 8B on page 88 does show Title I funding patterns slightly favoring the rural dis- tricts in 1967-68. This same table, however, also shows this trend was reversed in fiscal year 1968-69 and large districts became slightly favored. Because of this, it can- not be stated that Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act provides substantially more funding to the rural districts studied than to the matched urban districts. Title IIB of the Economic Opportunity Act and Sec- tion 5 of the Child Nutrition Act also provide data indicat- ing that rural districts receive more per disadvantaged child 165 than do urban districts. In both cases, only two of the twelve districts studied received funds under this act; and data are, therefore, insufficient to allow any conclusions to be drawn. Title IIB of the Economic Opportunity Act pro— vides data indicating greater rural funding only because one district received a diSprOportionate amount of money in com— parison to other districts studied. 5. Section II of Chapter IV clearly indicates that based upon the seven criteria selected to determine basic educational quality, the large urban districts provide an educational base superior to that provided by the small rural district. The large urban districts expended greater sums per pupil in each category studied, even when the teacher salary differential is considered. Further, the large districts have a lower percentage of non—degreed teachers and a higher percentage of teachers with at least a Master's Degree. The teachers in rural dis- tricts did have more teaching experience than those in the urban districts. The differences found in the basic educational pro— gram offered by large and small districts are consistent with other studies referred to in the review of literature. Large districts do provide a more comprehensive educational program than rural districts. Such differences in the basic educational program compounded by differences in federal funds increase rather than reduce, the relative attacks on 166 "disadvantagement" by the two kinds of districts. In short, if dollars are the criteria, it is more educationally advan- tageous to be disadvantaged in the city than in a rural area. Implications This study provides data that indicate differences in federal funding procedures favorable to large urban dis- tricts. The reasons for this are many. In some instances, it seems planned by reasons of arbitrary criteria, in others accidental by reasons of administrative necessity. For what- ever reasons that exist, it appears that urban district stu— dents are favored over rural district students and that each urban disadvantaged child is supported by more money to assist him in gaining an adequate compensatory education than is his rural counterpart. Urban riots and publicity resulting from the causes of these riots focuses attention on the prOblems of the poor in the urban ghettos. The development of solutions to the problems of the large cities has become a priority need in this country. The major cities of this nation have made their problems known; and the nation, in turn, is restructur- ing its many resources to solve these problems. Too few people know that fourteen million Americans live in poverty in rural areas. They also do not realize that this number would be much larger had not so many of these people moved to the cities. The urban riots of 1967 167 had their roots in rural poverty. .A high proportion of the people crowded into city slums today came there from rural slums.130 The migration of the rural poor to the cities is still continuing. They move because they hope for a better job and a better place to live. Migration to the cities is a result of the belief that life will be better there. The data in this study indicate that, educationally, this belief is correct; on a financial basis educational Opportunities for disadvantaged children appear to be greater in the large city school districts than they do in rural districts. It seems logical to assume that as federal programs provide increased funds to the cities and large school dis- tricts without providing corresponding aid to rural areas and rural school districts, the rural poor will increasingly be attracted to the cities. This will have the effect of increasing the already complex problems of the cities. Nathan Wright, Jr., states that: the rate of the migration to our urban centers of the poor, indigent aged, the diseased, the crippled, and the disinherited is accelerating throughout the nation. Central cities offer more survival services Of a specialized nature to meet particular needs than do areas of lower population.131 130The People Left Behind, A Report by the Presi- dent's National Advisory Commission on Rural Poverty (wash— ington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, September, 1967), p. xi. 131Nathan.Wright, Jr., Black Power and Urban Unrest (New York: Hawthorne Books, 1967), p. 31. 168 The President's National Advisory Commission on Rural Poverty questions the wisdom of massive public efforts to improve the lot of the poor in our central cities without comparable efforts to meet the needs of the poor in rural America. Unfortunately, as public programs improve the lot of the urban poor, they provide fresh incen- tive for the rural poor to migrate to the central cities. The only solution is a coordinated attack on both urban and rural poverty.132 General Recommendations 1. The State of Michigan and the federal government should establish a rational basis for providing funds based upon the need to provide equal educational Opportunities. They must recognize that disadvantaged children do not reside in convenient pockets of poverty in rural districts and that equality of educational opportunity cannot be achieved if they are ignored. 2. The State of Michigan and the federal government must recognize that rural school districts not only do not receive an equal prOportion of available federal funds, but also do not provide an educational base comparable to that of the large districts. This Often results in smaller amounts of federal funds being applied to an already infe- rior educational program. To counteract this, it will be necessary to develOp a formula based upon a district's edu— cational need. Unequal federal expenditure might become a 132The People Left Behind, op. cit., p. xi. 169 necessity to achieve equal educational Opportunities for children. 3. The State of Michigan and the federal government must establish means of assuring fuller participation of rural school districts in available federal programs. Local districts must be encouraged to submit proposals requesting federal aid and be assisted in writing proposals. 4. The federal government and the State of Michigan must recognize the existence of differences in educational needs of disadvantaged children in different social and geo— graphical settings. It may become necessary for the federal government to establish funding criteria based upon factors other than head count. Qualitative factors such as the nature of the disadvantagement and the child's social milieu might also be considered as partial determiners of financial distribution. 5. Federal and state regulations that negatively affect the funding of rural district projects must be eliminated. The regulations discussed concerning Title I and Title II of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act requiring a percentage of disadvantaged or a minimal number are restrictive toward the rural districts. 6. To truly achieve parity with large urban dis- tricts, rural educational leaders must join with other community leaders in developing an effective lobby similar to that of the urban centers. Attempts at solving the problems of the rural poor will not command the resources 170 now available to the large urban districts until the plight of the rural poor becomes well known and highly visible. Recommendations for Further Study The problem alluded to in this study may be more severe than this limited study would suggest. There are indications represented in current news stories and polit- ical interviews that large school districts will receive an increased priority status. Because of this, several studies are suggested: 1. There is a general consensus within the Michigan Department of Education that the intermediate districts in the Upper Peninsula and the upper part of the Lower Peninsula are not as strong as, and do not provide services comparable to, those serving large urban districts. The relative effec- tiveness of intermediate districts should be studied. 2. Many §£3£g_programs exist that are designed to specifically serve the disadvantaged. The 1968-69 State Aid formula, for example, is weighted to assist districts with a large percentage of disadvantaged children. How State fund- ing favors disadvantaged children in various kinds of dis- tricts should serve as the basis for additional research. 3. .Many new federal programs have come into exis— tence in 1968-69 that seemingly are designed to specifically serve the urban disadvantaged. Title VII of the Elementary 171 and Secondary Education Act was added this year to develop bi-lingual educational programs. Only two districts received grants in Michigan: Lansing and Pontiac. Title VIII was added to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act this year and is designed to assist dropout prevention programs. Several districts submitted proposals for planning grants in Michigan. Detroit was the only district to receive approval. The Michigan Department of Education received a grant under the Educational Professions Development Act to train sub- professionals. A study to determine the differential impact of these programs on relieving "disadvantagement" should be undertaken. 4. The Michigan Department of Education is now completing a study Of educational needs in the State, as determined by superintendents, principals, teachers, and lay citizens. One of the findings emerging from the study is that rural districts are expressing a high priority need to attack problems of the rural disadvantaged. Should programs be deve10ped to meet these needs, corresponding research efforts should be undertaken. B IB LIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY A Compendium Of Federal Education Laws. Prepared by the Committee on Education and Labor, House of Representa- tives. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, May, 1967. "A Key to Better Education," National Commission on School District Reorganization. .Washington, D.C.: National Education Association, 1947. A Working Summarygof Federal Aid to Education Programs 1967-68. Unpublished document from the Office of U.S. Congressman, Donald W. Riegle, Jr. "An Updated Guide to Federal School Aid Laws," The Croft Federal Aid Service, March, 1968. Allen, Hollis P. The Federal Government and Education. New York: 'McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1950. .Anderson, C. Arnold. "Patterns of Variability in Distribu- tion and Diffusion of Schooling," Chicago: Addine Publishing Company, 1965, pp. 341-342. Anderson, Myron L. "A Financial Analysis of Title I, Public Law 89-10, and the Formation of a Defensible Federal Financial Aid Distribution Plan." Unpublished.Ed.D. dissertation, Indiana University, 1967. Axt, Richard. The Federal Government and Financing Higher Education. New York: Columbia University Press, 1952. Bailey, Stephen K. "The Office of Education and the Education Act of 1965," Inter-University Case Program #100. BObbs-Merrill Company, Inc., College Division, 1966. Benson, Charles Scott. The Economics of Public Education. Boston: Houghton Miflin, 1961. Borg, Walter R. Educational Research, An Introduction. New York: D..McKay CO., 1963. 172 173 “Catalog of Federal.Assistance-Programs," Office of Economic Opportunity. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, June 1, 1967. Chisholm, Leslie L., and.Cushman, M. L. "The Relationship of Programs of School Finance to the Reorganization of Local School Administrative Units and Local School Centers," Problems anngssues in Public School Finance. New York: New York Bureau Of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1956. Conant, James B. The American High School Today. New York: .McGraw Hill Book Company, 1959. Cubberly, Ellwood. The History of Educat;9n.~'New York: Houghton-Miflin.COmpany, 1948. 3’ “” I-u Drew, Elizabeth Brenner. "Education's Billion Dollar Baby,": The Atlantic Monthly, July, 1966. Edwards, Newton. .Equal.Educational Opportunity for Youth. Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education. "Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1966." Hearings before the Subcommittee on Education of the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare of the United States Senate. 89th Congress, Second Session on S 3046, S 2778, S 2928, and S 3012, April 1, 4, 5, 19, 26, 27, 1966. "Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965.“ The Report of the Committee on Labor and Public welfare of the United States Senate together with Minority and Individual Views. Evans, N. Dean. "How Large Should a High School Be?" Delaware School Journal, IV (1965). Guide to Support Programs for Education. St. Paul, Minnesota: Visual Products Department, 3M Company, Education Service-Press, 1966. "Federal Aid and the General Welfare," Educational Leader- ship, XXIV (October, 1966). Groulx, Harry. "Federal Support for Education." 'An unpublished paper prepared for Education 804A, Michigan State University, February, 1965. Hartke, Vance. "At the Edge of a Brave New World," Adult Leadership, XIV, NO. 4 (October, 1965). 174 Hecker, Stanley E., Meeder, John, and Northey, Thomas J. Michigan Public School Data, 1967-68. East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan Education Association. , , and . Teacher Salary Schedule Study, 1967-68. East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan Education Association. Hechinger, Fred M. "The White House Conference--A Summing Up," Education Meeting at the Summit. Washington, D.C.: National School Public Relations Association, 1955. (Reprinted from the New York Herald Tribune, December 4, 1955.) Heller, Walter W. "The Responsibility of the Federal Government in the Support of Schools," Perspectives on the Economics of Education. Edited by Charles S. Benson. Boston: HoughtoneMiflin Company, 1963. "Howe Tells What E.S.E.A. Changes Mean," Nations Schools, LXXXI, No. 2 (February, 1968). "Issues Churned Up by Federal Aid," The American School Board Journal, CXLIX (September, 1964). Lally, James Arthur. "A Catalogue of Federal Aid to Elementary and Secondary Education." Unpublished Ed.D. dissertation. George Washington University, 1966.- McKay, Robert. "The President's Program: A New Commitment to Quality and Equality in Education," Phi Delta Kappan, XLVI (May, 1965). .Marton, Alpren. "What Curriculum Developments Are Finding Their Way Into Practice," Secondary Principals, XLVI, No. 272 (1962). Neagly and Evans. Handbook for Effective Curriculum Develppment. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1967. "New Directions in Financing Public Schools," National Education Association. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1948. Noffsinger, H. A. "Opinions of Indiana School Boards Toward Federal Aid to Education." Unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, Indiana University, 1966. 175 Notes and‘Working Papers Concerning the Administration of Programs Authorized under Title III of Public Law 89-10, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1964 as Amended by Public Law 89-750. Prepared for the sub- committee on Education Committee, Committee on Labor and Public Welfare of the United States Senate. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, April, 1967. Ovaitt, Stanley W. "A Study of the Optimum Size Of the High .School," Unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1965. "Paying for Better Schools," Committee for Economic Develop- ment. New York, 1959. Public Law 396, 79th Congress, Chapter 281, 2nd Session, H.R. 3370, "National School Lunch Act." Public Law 88-452, 88th Congress, S. 2642, August 20, 1964, "Economic Opportunity Act of 1964." Public Law 90-222, 90th Congress, S. 2388, December 23, 1967, "Economic Opportunity Amendments of 1967." "Ranking of Michigan School Districts Who Have 7 Percent or More Concentration of E.S.E.A. Title I Eligibility," Michigan Department of Education, unpublished. "Report from Washington," Nations Schools, LXXXI, NO. 1 (January, 1968). , "Research Bulletin," National Education Association, XL, NO. 1 (February, 1962). Saylor, Galen. "The Federal Colussus in.Education—-Threat or Promise," Educational Leadership, XXIII, NO. 1 (October, 1965). "Section 5, Information Sheet," Child Nutrition Act. Unpublished Bulletin, Michigan Department of Education, School Lunch Program Section, School Management Services. Smietana, Walter. "The 87th Congress and Federal Financial Support of Education; A Content Analysis of the Congres— sional Record, Second Session." Unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, Boston University, 1965. Sufrin, Sydney C. Issues in Federal Aid to Education. Syracuse, New York: Syracuse University Press, 1962. 176 The Educational Report, II, NO. 44 (August 26, 1968). Published by the Michigan Department of Education, Lansing, Michigan. "The Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965-4What to Anticipate," Phi Delta Kappan, XLVI (June, 1965). "The Federal Government and Education," United States Advisory Committee on Education. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1938. "The First Work of These Times," American Education, April, 1965. "The High School In a Changing World," American Association of School Administrators, 1958 Yearbook. .American Association of School Administrators, 1958. The People Left Behind. A Report by the President's National Advisory Commission on Rural Poverty. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, September, 1967. Thomas, J. Alan. "School Finance and Educational Opportunity in Michigan," Michigan School Finance Study, Michigan Department of Education, 1968. Van Dalen, Deobold B. Understanding Educational Research. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., June, 1962. "We've Got It Started," NEA Journal, LIV, NO. 6 (September, 1965). "What Everyone Should Know About Financing Our Schools." Committee on Educational Finance, National Education Association. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1966. "Why Congress Passed the Elementary and Secondary Education Act," School Management, IX (June, 1965). Wright, Nathan, Jr. Black Power and Urban Unrest. New York: Hawthorne Books, 1967. . APPENDIX APPENDIX PROCEDURE USED TO MAKE 1967-68 E.S.E.A. TITLE I ALLOCATIONS TO MICHIGAN SCHOOL DISTRICTS The following is a step by step procedure used to make the allocations for 1967-68 under ESEA Title I to the school districts in Michigan. 1. See attachment set #1. The 60 intermediate district superintendents were furnished worksheets, copies of the 1960 census tract, a listing from our State Department of Social Services of Families receiving AFDC Aid and the number of children in such families, the number of court appointed foster children (again from Social Services) and the number of children in Homes for Neglected and Delinquent. The distribution of the 1960 census was made using school districts' enrollment percentage of Civil Divisions school population times the eligible children on the census tract, the identification and placement of the AFDC and foster children was made using current information at the district level, correcting counts reported to H.E.W. The worksheets showed the number of children in the above eligible groups that resided in one county by attended school in another county. These transfers were posted at the county level. Example: InghamCounty Total eligible children per USOE county aggregate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,598 Add children from Clinton Count . . . 33 -Eaton County . . . . 47 Jackson County . . . 46 Washtenaw County . . l Livingston County . ._§§_ 195 Less children going to Shiawassee County . . 3 Eaton County . . . . l4 17 Grand total eligible children in Ingham County . . . . . . . 3,776 177 178 4. Totaling all children reported in school districts whose administrative unit falls within Ingham County, we then computed each district's share of the total reported. .Example: (Ingham County; NO. of Percent of School District Children County Total East Lansing 148 3.82 Lansing 2,398 61.82 .Dansville 91 2.35 Haslett 77 1.98 Holt 219 5.64 Leslie 117 3.02 Mason 155 3.99 Okemos 27 0.70 Waverly 204 5.26 Webberville 67 1.73 Williamston 50 1.29 *Stockbridge 326 8.40 Total 3,879 100.00 5. Using the grand total Of eligible children arrived at in step 3 and multiplying by the ratably reduced per capita rate of 161.51 (ratably reduced alloca— tion $30,670,217 divided by total eligible children 189,900) the amount to be allocated to all districts in each county was computed (3,776)c161.51==609,847). 6. By applying the districts percentage share Of the counties total (see step 4, column 3) we were then able to arrive at each school district's total allocation. *This district's allocation based on the following (for detail see attachment): Eligible children in Ingham County 212 .Jackson County 45 Livingston County 68 Washtenaw County 1 Total 326 The total 326 is 8.40 percent of all eligibles in Ingham County school districts; 8.40 is $51,227 of total allocation for all school districts in Ingham County. be used 1. 179 The following is a step by step procedure that will to compute the 1968-69 tentative allocation. .Using the information in step 3.of the procedures for this fiscal year's computations, the adjusted counts of eligible children for each county was converted to a percentage of retainment (reported residency divided into adjusted count of attendance) for that county. Each county's count of residency for the current year was updated by posting the new AFDC count furnished by the Department of Social Services dated 12/31/67 and by doubling the foster child count for each county (this count was doubled as there was no possibility of getting a new count until early May). The percent of retention was applied against this updated county count to arrive at a count of eligi- ble children attending schools in the county and multiplied by the new per capita figured on updated count of eligibles divided into last year's alloca- tion. The attached letter was mailed to the intermediate superintendents requesting confirmation of the school districts' percentage share of the county allocation of new distribution information. Upon receipt of the requested information from the intermediate superintendents the school districts allocations were figured by multiplying their percentage share by the county's allocation; 180 .mwum man ca chHuHOcOO HMAOOm paw acadzmmumommlamcoflumuschOHeocOom may mcacumocoo cofiumEHOmcfi ucmnuso co comma Goduonwuumflp anon mnu muomammu ucmpcmucfiummsm mumwpmaumuc« mcu an nonmacusm muowuumap mo cosponauumfip one .¢ .mucsoo >cm CH m.Hmm> puma mo umnu moa3u Ummoxm uoc HHA3 ucOOu Hmumom one .m .ucmum m.Hmm% puma Op Hmsqm on HHH3 mqu cmmasowz_ou ucmuw one .N .mOAOCOOO Hmnuo Eoum mummmcmuu mo mummuoca any mo scauumammu manmuasqw cm on Haaz assoc monopwmmu Omumpms m.mucsoo mo Goducmuwu usmoumm moa .H chHuaesmm¢ .mmmn mmmucmoumm was so pmusnwuumap ma mocmamn mnu cosy 0cm umuwm Omuomeoo ma cOHumOOHHm was» .mmw3umnuo .chAOMUOHHm zmou mnu mm0= mum mums» mm .mmmmucmuumm uofiuumwp HO Goducmuou aucsoo Hmzuwm mcacwaumump ca poms Houomm 6 no: ma mucmovcHHop pmuomamwc mo ucoou one "muoz oom.¢ oom.¢ mo.o v mmm.¢H mmmsfla mH.o m mmm.mm www.mm mN.o N hmo.mm NmN.m om mmh.mm mm.o H mmN.HOH NmN.m om mmN.HOH mmm o.moa mmm Nfi omH oo¢ Hmuoa .ooaac .Hmn .uoHH« Hmuoe councmumm Hmuoe. umumom came mwmcmo pouuumun .32 .92 no N 83. Nuance