ED 288 950

TITLE

INSTITUTION

REPORT NOPUB DATENOTEAVAILABLE FROM

PUB TYPE

EDRS PRICEDESCRIPTORS

DOCUMENT RESUME

UD 025 933

Compensatory Education: Cnapter 1 Services Providedto Private Sectarian School Students. Briefing Reportto the Subcommittee on Elementary, Secondary, andVocational Education. committee on Education andLabor, House of Representatives.General Accounting Office, Washington, D.C. Div. ofHuman Resources.GAO/HRD-87-128BRSep 87108p.U.S.; General Accounting Office, P.O. Box 6015,Gaithersburg, MD 20877 (1-5 copies free, additionalcopies $2.00).Reports - Evaluative/Feasibility (142)

MF01/PC05 Plus Postage.*Compensatory Education; Computer AssistedInstruction; Elementary Secondary Education; FederalCourts; *Federal legislation; Mobile Classrooms;Parent Attitudes; *Private Schools; Program Costs;*State Church Separation

IDENTIFIERS *Aguilar v Felton; *Education Consolidation andImprovement Act 1981

ABSTRACTThis document reviews the impact of the Aguilar v.

Felton Supreme Court decision requiring that Chapter 1 compensatoryeducation services must not be delivered to students in privatesectarian schools. The focus is on how these services have beenimplemented in such schools. Fifteen school districts were surveyedfor demographic data, comments from school officials, types ofservice delivery methods, and the effects of the method on programparticipation. The findings yielded the following factors that affectChapter 1 service delivery for private school students: (1) cost ofthe service; (2) availability of facilities; (3) amount of time thestudents may lose from their regular classroom work; (4) parentreactions, especially where safety is concerned; and (5) uncertaintyabout which metb-ds are legal. The criteria for selecting Chapter 1students remain as they were before the Aguilar decision, but thecosts have increased. Case studies are presented in the appendix anddata on individual locations are presented on tables. (VM)

***********************************************************************Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made

from the original document.************::**********************************************************

Office1' ;,

e §pbcommi:ttee on, and Vocational

On Education ande feseritatives

tedStitiOrfielieriiicAtetittitt I

U S DEPARTWIENT OF EDUCATIONOffice of Educational Research and Improvement

EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATIONCENTER (ERIC)

This document hat been reproduced asreceived Iron) the person or OrganozattonOrtcynattng .1

O Minor thanes have been made to improvereproduction duality

Points of view or opinions stated in this docu-ment do not necessarily represent officialOERI position or policy

14AiLABI.E

United StatesGeneral Accounting OfficeWashington, D.C. 20548

Human Resources Division

B-228853

September 21, 1987

The Honorable Augustus P. Hawkins, ChairmanThe Honorable William F. Goodlina, Ranking Minority MemberSubcommittee or. Elementary,

Secondary, and Vocational EducationCommittee on Education and LaborHouse of Representatives

This briefing report responds to your September 17, 1986,request for information concerning the Supreme Court's Aguilarv. Felton decision. This July 1, 1985, decision held that themost commonly used method to serve private sectarian schoolstudents under Chapter 1--sending public Chapter 1 teachersinto private sectarian (religiously affiliated) schools toteach--violated the establishment of religion clause of theFirst Amendment and was therefore unconstitutional.

To obtain the requested information, we reviewed the impact ofthe Aguilar decision on 15 school districts that varied insize, geographic setting, and number of students attendingprivate sectarian schools. We met with state, district, andprivate sectarian school officials to obtain their views onthe decision's immediate and future impact, the processes usedto adopt new service delivery methods, and the effect the newdelivery methods have had on program participation.Department of Education officials also provided informationregarding their role in implementing the decision.

Our review and a national survey by the Department ofEducation indicate that districts across the country generallysettled on one or more of several common service deliverymethods--public schools, neutral sites (stores, houses,libraries, etc.), mobile vans, portable classrooms, andcomputers. Implementing new service delivery methods wascostly. The number of private sectarian students served inthe 15 districts dropped from 28,880 in school year 1984-85 to15,145 in school year 1985-86, but rose to 21,566 in schoolyear 1986-87.

BACKGROUND

Chapter 1 of the Education Consolidation and Improvement Actprovides nearly $4 billion per year to states and schooldistricts to help meet the special educational needs ofdisadvantaged children, including those in private sectarianschools. In August 1985, the Department of Education issued

rl3

B-228853

initial guidance on the only two methods (public schools andneutral sites) that it considered in compliance with theSupreme Court decision. In June 1936, the Department ofEducation supplemented its guidance, allowing the use ofcomputer-assisted instruction and mobile vans or otherportable units located on public or leased property on or nearthe grounds of private sectarian schools.

To pay for increases in capital expenses because of theAguilar decision, the House of Representatives included aprovision in H.R. 5 (the School Improvement Act of 1987) toreimburse school districts for increased capital expenses theyincurred since July 1, 1985. This bill, passed by the Houseon May 21, 1987, authorizes an additional $30 million infunding for fiscal year 1988 and such sums as may be necessaryfor fiscal years 1989 through 1993 to pay for capitalexpenses. Such expenses include expenditures for thepurchase, lease, or renovation of real and personal property;insurance and maintenance costs; transportation; and othercomparable goods and services. These additional funds areintended to help needy districts restore Chapter 1 services totheir pre-Aguilar levels and quality.

INITIAL IMPACT OF THE DECISION

After the Aguilar decision, 10 of the 15 districts we visitedinitially spent an additional $7.3 million in Chapter 1 fundsto provide Chapter 1 services to private sectarian schoolstudents. They expected recurring annual costs of about $1.9million to continue providing Chapter 1 services using newservice delivery methods. From a local perspective, theseamounts are significant because Chapter 1 funds used toimplement new delivery methods have to be taken from the localChapter 1 grant, decreasing funding available to servestudents and consequently the number of students served.

Of the 15 districts we visited, only 6 provided uninterruptedChapter 1 services to private sectarian school students in thetwo school years following the Aguilar decision. Contributingto this situation were the short time available to comply withthe decision and the limited guidance provided by theDepartment of Education on service delivery methods. Severaldistricts initially obtaine-1 court orders permitting them tocontinue providing services in nonpublic schools.

NEb SERVICE DELIVERY METHODS

Local officials told us the most common reasons for selectingor rejecting methods were the cost of implementation, theavailability of an acceptable alternative classroom setting,

2

B-228853

the amount of classtime students _ost in transit, the leadtime needed for implementation, the methods' acceptability toparents, and uncertainty about their legality.

During the 1985-86 school year, each of the 15 schooldistricts considered or attempted to use public schools orneutral sites. However, only three used them to serve most orall of their students. Most districts eventually rejectedboth methods entirely (or used them sparingly) because nearbybuildings were unavailable or because parents objected to

. their children leaving the private school. Neutral sites werealso rejected because renovation costs to meet local buildingcodes for classroom buildings were considered elcessive.

Six districts used mobile vans because they were quicklyavailable and, in 3 of the 6 districts, less costly than othermethods. For the Ohio school districts, vans were alreadyavailable. The Philadelphia school district considered vanstoo costly, but eventually selected them after other methodswere rejected. In addition, beginning in school year 1986-87,Cleveland, Detroit, and Los Angeles began using portableclassrooms erected on the ground:, of the private sectarianschools. Johnstown began using portable classrooms before the1985-86 school year ended.

The use of computer technology as an alternative instructionmethod has also become more common. The Department ofEducation survey found that the percentage of private schoolstudents receiving all or part of their Chapter 1 instructionthrough the use of technology increased from 2 percent inschool year 1984-85 to 17 percent in school year 1986-87.

OPINIONS OF STATE AND LOCAL OFFICIALS

Chapter 1 program officials told us that the Supreme Courtdecision negatively affected the number of studentsparticipating in the program and increased program costs. Theofficials indicated that the decision also increased theiradministrative workload and caused private school students tolose valuable instructional time.

In most school districts we visited, both public and privateschool officials believed that appropriate individualsparticipated in selecting and implementing new servicedelivery methods. However, we found that parents of privateschool students were usually not formally represented byparental advisory groups in discussions concerning selectionof an alternative service delivery method. Instead parentsprovided comments to their school principal. Most of theprincipals at the private schools we visited believed the

3

B-228853

instruction method being used was the best availablealternative for providing Chapter 1 services.

FUNDING IMPLICATIONS

Although several of the 15 school districts we visited arelarge, they are a small fraction of the estimated 3,100districts that provide Chapter 1 services to private sectarianschool students. Nevertheless, 10 of these 15 districts spentabout $9.2 million more in school years 1985-86 and 1986-87 toprovide such services. This is a significant portion of the$30 million additional funding proposed by H.R. 5 for fiscalyear 1988 funding to reimburse school districts for increasedcapital expenses incurred since the Court's decision. Thetotal additional costs incurred by fiscal Isar 1988 forcapital expenses may greatly exceed the fiscal year 1988additional funding authorized by H.R.5.

As requested by your office, we did not obtain officialcomments from the De Artment of Education or the 15 schooldistricts included in our review. We did, however, discussour principal findings with knowledgeable Department ofEducation officials and responsible local school officials.Their comments have been incorporated where appropriate.

We are sending copies of this briefing report to theDepartment of Education and the 15 school districts weanalyzed as well as the education agencies in the six stateswhere they are located. We will also send copies to otherinterested parties and make copies available to others onrequest.

Should you wish to discuss the information provided, pleasecall me on 275-5365.

Wi lam ainerAssocia Director

4 6

ContentsPage

LETTER 1

BACKGROUND 7

OBJECTIVES, SCOPE, AND METHODCLOGY 11

SELECTION OF SERVICE DELIVERY METHOD 13

IMPACT OF DECISION ON SERVICES 31

VIEWS OF STATE, DISTRICT, AND PRIVATE SECTARIAN SCHOOLEDUCATION OFFICIALS 42

APPENDIX

I

TABLES

1

2

3a

SCHOOL DISTRICT CASE DESCRIPTIONS 49Los Angeles, California 50Montgomery County, Maryland 54Boston, Massachusetts 58Easthampton, Massachusetts 62Springfield, Massachusetts 66Detroit, Michigan 70Grand Rapids, Michigan 76Lowell, Michigan 80Carey, Ohio 84Cleveland, Ohio 88Columbus, Ohio 92Interboro, Pennsylvania 96Greater Johnstown, Pennsylvania 100Mahanoy City, Pennsylvania 104Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 108

Locations visited and servicedelivery methods used 10

Students served by service delivery methodin school districts visited by GAO 26

Private student participation before andafter Aguilar decision (School years1984-85 and 1985-86)

3b Private student participation before andafter Aguilar decision (School years1984-85 and 1986-87)

35

36

4

5

6

7

FIGURES

Initial and recurring Chapter 1 costincreases

State officials' views on the immediateimpact of Aguilar decision

District officials' views on immediateimpact of Aguilar decision

Private school principals' views on theimmediate impact of Aguilar decision

39

43

44

44

1 Districts with Chapter 1 serviceinterruptions in school years 1985-86and 1986-87 33

2 State officials' views on the futureimpact of Aguilar decision 46

RECENT GAO REPORTS AND TESTIMONY RELATEDTO EDUCATION OF THE DISADVANTAGED 116

6

COMPENSATORY EDUCATIONChapter 1 Services to Private Sectarian School Students

BACKGROUND

Chapter 1 of the Education Consolidation and Improvement Actof 1981 gives federal aid to state and local education agenciesto help meet the special educational needs of disadvantagedchildren. The Chapter 1 program is the largest federalelementary and secondary school aid program, distributing over$3.9 billion to states and local school districts in school year1986-87. Since its inception in 1965, as Title 1 of theElementary and Secondary Education Act, the program has requiredthat school districts give Chapter 1 services to eligiblechildren whether they attend public or nonpublic schools,including private sectarian schools. During school year 1986-87,the Chapter 1 program served 5 million public school students and131,000 nonpublic school students, of whom 126,000 attendedprivate sectarian (or religiously affiliated) schools.

AGUILAR V. FELTON

On July 1, 1985, a Supreme Court decision changed the mannerin which Chapter 1 services could be provided to privatesectarian school students. In school year 1984-G5, 177,000private sectarian school students received Chapter 1 services.In Aguilar v. Felton, the court held that the most commonly usedmethod to serve private sectarian school children under Chapter1--sending public school Chapter 1 teachers into privatesectarian schools to teach--violated the establishment ofreligion clause of the First Amendment and was thereforeunconstitutional.

At issue in this case was the Chapter 1 support ofsupplemental courses taught by public teachers on the premises ofprivate schools, most of which were sectarian. The City of NewYork provided a variety of programs, including remedial readingand math, English as a second language, and guidance counseling,to eligible children attending private schools. These serviceswere provided by public school employees on the premises of thesectarian schools in classrooms free of religious symbols, byfull-time employees of the public schools system, and withmaterials and equipment purchased by the public school system.In its July 1985 decision, the Supreme Court held all of theseprograms unconstitutional because of the excessive entanglementof church and state affairs. After 20 years of experience withthe Chapter 1 program, local school districts had to find newmethods of delivering services to disadvantaged children inprivate sectarian schools.

7

GUIDANCE FROM THEDEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

In August 1985, the Department of Education issued guidanceon the decision in the form of 23 questions and answers on how tocomply with the ruling. Public schools and neutral sites weretha only service delivery methods specifically mentioned in theguidance as allowable. In June 1986, the Department issuedsupplemental guidance based on issues raised during the year bystate and local officials and other interested parties, whichspecifically allowed the use of mobile vans or other portableunits and computer-assisted instruction. This guidance mademobile vans or portable units on public property near the privateschool acceptable, whereas the constitutionality of placing themon property belonging to a religiously affiliated private schoolwas less clear, but possibly permissible under the followingconditions:

- - The property is far enough from private school buildin7lathat the mobile van or portable unit is clear]ydistinguishable from the private school facilities usedfor regular instruction.

-- The mobile van or portable unit is clearly and separatelyidentified as property of the district and is free ofreligious symbols.

- - The unit and the property on which it is located are notused for religious purposes or for the private school'seducational program.

- - The unit is not used by private school personne].

The 1986 guidance suggested that following the twoguidelines cited below might bolster a district's decision tolocate units on the property of a religiously affiliated privateschool:

- - Before placing a unit on private school property, thedistrict can determine that other locations for theservices are unsafe, impracticable, or substantially lessconvenient for the children to be served.

-- The public school district could enter into a leasearrangement with the private school for the use of theland owned by the private school on which the unit is tobe sited.

The Department said that its guidance was based on itsinterpretation of the Chapter 1 statute, implementingregulations, and the Supreme Court's decision, but warned states

8

10

and districts that it could not guarantee that the courts wouldrule favorably on positions taken in the guidance.

At the time we completed our fieldwork in July 1987, theDepartment told us four major cases were pending in the courtsdirectly challenging the Department's administration of Chapter 1insofar as the programs affect private sectarian school students.The cases were:

- - Americans United for Separation of Church and State v.Bennett, (D.C.D.C. filed November 20, 1985).

- - Pulido v. Bennett, (W.D. Mo. filed September 5, 1985).1

- - Walker v. San Francisco Unified School District, (N.D.Cal. filed November 14, 1986 .

-- Pearl v. Bennett, (S.D.N.Y. filed April 28, 1987).

According to the Department, these cases involve similarclaims against Department policies (1) allowing use of mobileequipment and portable units to serve private sectarian schoolstudents and placement of the units on private school propertyand (2) direc'ing districts to take the costs to comply with theAguilar decision from their total Chapter 1 grant rather thanfrom the share set aside for services to private school students.From a lc-al perspective, this latter issue is particularlyimportant because Chapter 1 funds used to implement new servicedelivery methods have to be taken "off the top" of the localChaptE.r 1 grant, decreasing the funding available to servestudents and consequently the number of students served.

1This case was dismissed on December 5, 1986 because the courtheld that it did not have subject matter jurisdiction. Thisdecision has been appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for theEighth Circuit.

9

41

Table 1 : Locations Visited and Serv'..e Delivery Methods Used

School Districts Service Delivery Methods Used

'..'.. '....''..0100nte

Los Angeles Portable Classrooms

Minfipci 7....,......... , . ....

Montgomery County Mobile Vans

fli*isachusetts-:

. .

Boston public Schools, Neutral Sites, Computers

1 Easthampton Public Schools, Neutral Site

Springfield Public Schools, Neutral Sites

fidthitian

Detroit Public Schools, Neutral Sites, Portable Classrooms

Grand Rapids Computers

Lowell Consultant ...ervices

ONO

Carey I Mobile Vans

Cleveland Public Schools, Mobile Vans, Portable Classrooms

Columbus Mobiie Vans

Peonsiiiiania

Interboro Neutral Site

Johnstown Neutral Site, Portable Classrooms

Mahanoy City Mobile Vans

Philadelphia 40//,' Neutral Sites, Mobile Vans, Computers11111111111111IMENft INIIIIMV21

10

1.2

OBJECTIVES, SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY

On September 17, 1986, the Chairman and Ranking MinorityMember, Subcommittee on Elementary, Secoriary, dnd VocationalEducation, House Committee on Education and Labor, asked us toreview the methods being used to provide off-premise Chapter 1services to students attending private sectarian schools. Theyexpressed particular interest in

-- how private school students are selected to participatein Chapter 1, and whether these selection processeschanged after the Court's decision;

- - why the new service delivery methods were adopted;

- - how public and private school officials and parentaladvisory groups representing the affected children viewthe slivery methods; and

- - what effect the delivery methods have had on programparticipation.

To obtain the requested information, we selected 15 schooldistricts in six states as the focus of our review (see tab-. 1).We selected these states and districts on the basis ofinformation we gathered from the Department of Education andstate Chapter 1 coordinators in 12 states regarding what servicedelivery methods were used and which states served significantnumbers of private school students. We attempted to selectdistricts that varied in terms of (1) Fize, (2) geographicsetting (urban or rural), and (3) number of students attendiiprivate sectarian schools.

At each of these states and school districts, we obtainedinformation on the impact of the Aguilar decision on providingChapter 1 services to students attending private sectarianschools. We met with Chapter 1 program officials at -.he stateand district levels and with representatives of several privatesectarian schools at each of the 15 districts. We visited theprivate schools to obtain principals' and teachers' views onChapter 1 services before and after the decision. Also, while atthe school edstricts and private schools, ie observed the methodsbeing used to deliver Chapter 1 services,

Since parental advisory groups were generally not involvedin the selection of alternative service delivery methods in theschool districts we visited, we did not obtain their views on themethods selected. For the most part, parents made their viewsknown to the private school principals. Parental views arebriefly discussed in appendix I.

11

13

To obtain consistent information at each state and schooldistrict, we used a standard data collection instrument indiscussions with state and district Chapter 1 coordinators,private school representatives, and principals and Chapter 1teachers. We also obtained school district records of studentparticipation before and after the decision and of the districts'costs to comply with the decision.

We also obtained information from Department of Educationofficials about the impact of the decision, the Department'sguidance to states and districts, and pending legal casesconcerning services to private sectarian schools. We obtainedthe results of a 1987 Department study of a national sample ofdistricts, which compared Chapter 1 services provided to privatesectarian schools before and after the decision. We also metwith a representative of the U.S. Catholic Conference, whichrepresents most of the schools affected by the decision.

We performed our field work between October 1986 andJuly 1987. Our revie',, was conducted in accordance with generallyaccepted government auditing standards, except we did notindependently verify the r sults of the Department's 1987 study.In addition, as requested by your office, we did not obtainofficial written comments from -epartment of Education. Wedid, however, discuss the princ.._ '.indings with knowledgeableDepartment officials and respo.,ibie local officials. Theircomments have been incorporated where appropriate.

1:-.

14

Selection of Service Delivery Method

Method Providing Instruction in Nearby Public Schools

Teaching Students at Neutral Sites, such asLibraries

Parking Mobile Vans on or Adjacent to PrivateSectarian School Property

Placing Portable Classrooms on Leased PrivateSectarian School Property

Using Computers rather than Teachers in theClassroom to Provide Instruction

Selection Cost --Were Funds Available and WithinCriteria Reason?

Availability Was the Building or EquipmentAvailable in a Timely Manner?

Time Lost -- Would Students Lose ExcessiveClasstime in Transit?

Parent Reaction -- Would Parents Object forSafety or Uther Reasons?

Legal Uncertainty -- Would the MethodComply with the Supreme Court Decision?

13

15

SELECTION OF SERVICE DELIVERY METHODS

As a result of the Aguilar decision, the 15 districts wereviewed chose to provide Chapter 1 services to private sectarianstudents by using one or more cf several methods: in publicschools, at neutral sites, in mobile vans, in portableclassrooms, with computers, or through consultant servicesarrangements. The Department of Education's 1987 national surveyof a sample of school districts found the same methods being usedin districts across the "ountry, except for consultant services.We found several small districts in Michigan using the consultantapproach, in which the public school Chapter 1 teacher consultswith private school teachers or parent volunteers on teachingstrategies and student needs. The private school teacher orvolunteer then provides Chapter 1 services directly to thestudents.

According to Chapter 1 officials in the 15 districts, themost common reasons for selecting or rejecting these methodswere:

o Cost: Chapter 1 funds are based on the number ofstudents in need. Larger districts with more studentsgenerating funds appeared to have more ability thansmaller districts to select relatively expensive deliverymethods, e.g., vans, computers, or portable classrooms.

o Availability: Districts chose some methods becausebuildings or other facilities were readily available; forexample, a public school or a neutral site located nearthe private school. Conversely, some methods were notavailable to some districts because of the long lead timerequired to get them in place. School districts in oursample tended to select methods that they could implementquickly.

o Time Lost: A major consideration with some methods wasthe amount of class time lost while students went fromtheir private school classroom to the location whereChapter 1 services were provided. School districtstended to reject methods with excessive lost time.

o Parent Reaction: Some methods were rejected becauseparents objected to students having to leave the privateschool building or grounds. Safety was a major concern.

14

6

o Legal Uncertainty: State and school district officialscomplained that the Department's August 1985 guidanceleft them uncertain about which methods were legal. Onedistrict said it would have selected a different methodhad the Department issued clearer guidance earlier.

Details on the nature and use of each method follow.

15

17

PUBLIC SCHOOLS

"di ti

Boston - Public School with Nearby PrivateSectarian School (in background)

_t

Springfield - Private Sectarian School (in left foreground) withNeighboring Public School (on right)

16

18

PLBLIC SCHOOLS

When this method is "ceA, PriV't° c°'t=rin c*"A°n*c g^ -F.^ =public school for Chapter 1 services. The public school providesa classroom or other space where the private school students canbe taught separately from public school students. Private schoolstudents either walk to the nearby public schools or aretransferred by the district if public schools are not locatedclose to the private schools. The instructional time lost whenstudents move between schools varies with the transportation modeand distance traveled.

The Department's national survey showed that 55 percent ofthe districts used this method to serve private school students;however, most of these apparently are smaller districts, sincethey account for only 22 percent of the private school studentsserved.

Of the 15 school districts we visited, 13 had consideredusing public schools. However, nine of the 13 districtseventually rejected this method because either the public schoolswere already overcrowded, they were located too far from theprivate school, or parents objected to their children leaving the'rivate school building. Of the five districts that used publicschools, four used other methods to serve most of their students.Three of these districts were largecity districts (Boston,Cleveland, and Detroit), which used public schools in isolatedinstances to supplement the primary service delivery methods.The fourth district--Springfield, Massachusetts--served 15students in a public school and 147 students at neutral sites.

In the Springfield district, parents had withdrawn about 75percent of the private sectarian school students from the programsince the Aguilar decision. According to a school official, manyparents and a parent advisory group opposed busing childrenbecause of their concerns about safety and lost time, whileothers were reluctant to have their children go to a publicschool. The problem was compounded by a lack of support for thechosen delivery methods by some Catholic school principals whopreferred other methods that had been used successfully in otherdistricts.

17

19

NEUTRAL SITES

'AL

4-4....01A.,tex""*""'"

Springfield - Private Sectarian School and Social Center (onleft) Used as a Neutral Site

I«

Easthampton - Town Hall Used as a Neutral Site

18

NEUTRAL SITES

Chapter 1 Services are provided at a public nr privafolyowned building, located nearby but off the private sectarianschool property. Buildings used as neutral sites include stores,houses, and libraries. Students either walk or are transportedto the site. This method depends on the availability of anacceptable building within a reasonable distance from the privateschool.

School districts also looked for neutral sites as a solutionto their dilemma immediately following the decision. TheDepartment's survey found 24 percent of the school districts useneutral sites. The method accounted for 30 percent of theprivate school students served. Of the 15 districts we reviewed,12 considered neutral sites, but only 4 selected this method.Eight districts rejected neutral sites for one or more reasons.Five indicated that suitable sites were not available and thatcost was also a factor. For example, four of these districtsindicated that renovations needed to meet building codes were toocostly. Four districts also indicated the method was rejectedbecause of parent objections to children leaving the privateschool.

In school year 1986-87, only two districts--Springfield,Massachusetts, and Interboro, Pennsylvania--were using neutralsites to serve most of their private school students. As shownin table 2 (see p. 26), Springfield used this method to serve 147students and Interboro used it to serve its 33 students.Easthampton, Massachusetts served four students at a neutral siteand four in a public school.

Despite rejecting neutral sites as a primary servicedelivery method, three large-city districts used neutral sites ona limited scale. In school year 1986-87, Boston served 78students, Detroit served 158, and Philadelphia served 50 atneutral sites.

19 21

MOBILB VANS

Philadelphia - Mobile Van Parked Beside a Private Sectarian School

obWijKk44011;i0o Pp

Tt UuXx Yy Zz

16:71 2 36 7 9

,VII/11140

Montgomery County - Interior of Mobile Van

20

22

MOBILE VANS

These are drivable vehicles of varying size and layout,purchased or leased by the school district. The vans are usuallydriven daily to one or more private sectarian schools by Chapter1 personnel. Vans are parked near the private school on eitherthe street, leased private - school property, or adjacent property.When parked, the vans are connected to an external power sourcefor utilities. Students are escorted to and from the vans byschool personnel.

According to the Department's survey, 19 percent of theschool districts use mobile vans, which serve 29 percent of theprivate school students.

Of the 15 districts we reviewed, 12 had considered usingmobile vans, and 6 selected them as a service delivery method.Three of the six were in Ohio, where many districts had beenusing mobile vans for several years under a state-funded programto provide remedial services to private school students off theprivate school premises. After the Aguilar decision, many Ohiodistricts were able to use these vans to provide Chapter 1services to private sectarian students.

The six districts that rejected mobile vans cited cost as areason. The Philadelphia district also believed the vans weretoo costly, but acquired them because the district's preferredmethod, portable classrooms, was legally uncertain in fall 1985when they were considering delivery methods.

The Montgomery County district selected mobile vans becausethey could be parked near a private school, minimizing lost classtime. This district contracted with a third party to provideChapter 1 services as well as the vans.

21

PORTABLE CLASSROOMS

6.0061Sweet A

*

Interior

Exterior

is," "'rm.

Los Angeles - Modular Classroom Assembledon Private Sectarian School Grounds

22

24

PORTABLE CLASSROOMS

These are semipermanent buildings erected on the grounds ofprivate sectarian schools, usually on a playground or parkinglot. Some are modular units, transported in sections andassembled on a cement slab; other are trailers, towed to theirlocation and parked on cement blocks. The property on which theclassroom is located is leased or bought by the school districtfrom the private school. The terms of the leases vary from a"token" amount ($1 per year) to paying all related expenses andutilities incurred by the private school for operating theportable classrooms.

None of the districts we visited used this method during theschool year immediately after the decision (school year 1985-86)due to uncertainty about its legality. The Department's initialguidance to states in August 1985 did not specify the use ofportable classrocms. However, supplemental departmental guidanceissued in June 1986 specifically allowed this method, anddistricts began implementing it in school year 1986-87.

Seven of the 15 school districts we visited considered usingportable classrooms. Four districts decided to use them, withmost indicating the major reason was the time factor--reducingthe amount of instructional time lost when students move fromtheir regular classroom to the Chapter 1 "classroom." Sinceportable classrooms are located on the private school property,the instructional time lost in transit is minimized. Portableclassrooms also resolve parent objections to children leaving theprivate school.

Three districts rejected this method. Two were concernedwith its legality, and one with its cost. Regarding legality,Philadelphia school officials said they preferred this method butdid not select it because initial Department guidance appeared topreclude using portable classrooms parked on private schoolgrounds. The Easthampton district also considered this methodbut found it too costly to serve its 38 private sectarian schoolstudents.

Portable classrooms were considered by most of the large-city districts we visited because, in addition to avoiding theproblems associated with leaving the school grounds, portableclassrooms are especially effective at schools with large numbersof students to be served. For example, the Los Angeles districtuses portable classrooms to serve many private schools withhundreds of Chapter 1 students. Also, although Cleveland usesmobile vans to serve most schools, the district is graduallyswitching to portable classrooms at private schools because theyoffer more usable space per dollar invested. The Detroitdistrict also uses this method to serve most of its privateschool students.

23

25

COMPUTER-ASSISTED INSTRUCTION

r

r,

Boston - In-School Computer Terminals at Private Sectarian School

`4,.101-

7T:A

Grand Rapids - Take Home Computer Unit

24

COMPUTER-ASSISTED INSTRUCTION

We found two variations of computer-assisted instruction atthe districts we re- viewed: in-school terminals and take-homecomputers. Districts using the in-school computer method installcomputer terminals in private sectarian schools and connect tint:-to a central programming unit using Chapter 1 instructionalsoftware at a public school building. In the take-home method,students' parents are loaned computers, which are connected totelevision sets at home. The television sets serve as visualdisplays of the Chapter 1 software programs. Computer , ftwarecontaining the student's progrimmed instruction is also provided.The in-school computer instruction takes place during the ncrmalschool day, whereas the take-home computer is an after-schoolprogram.

Seven of the 15 school districts we visitRd had consideredusing computer technology. Although four rejected it as beingtoo costly, two had implemented computer instruction and a thirdwas testing a pilot program. Chapter 1 officials in both theBoston and Grand Rapids districts said they were satisfied withthe instructional services students received using computers.The Philadelphia district was piloting a program using computersto serve 1,000 of the 3.000 students it was unable to serve whenmobile vans were chosen as a service delivery method. Officialssaid that preliminary reports about the pilot program had beenfavorable. They plan to extend the program to the remainingstudents in school year 1987-88.

Chapter 1 officials in some districts we visited sa4d thatthey did not seriously consider using computer technology becausethey were uncertain that computers could adequately replace thetraditional teacher-student instructional relationship. Somewere concerned with such legal issues as whether Chapter 1 fundscould be used to pay salaries of those who monitor students usingcomputers in the private school classroom and how computer usecould be restricted to Chapter 1 students only.

Despite the legal uncertainties, however, computer-assistedinstructional methods appear to be gaining in popularity. In itsnational survey, _.:e Department of Education found a noticeableincrease in the number of private school students receiving allor part of their Chapter 1 instruction through technology (e.g.,through computer, telephone, or television broadcast) without aChapter 1 teacher or aide present. The percentage of privatestudents receiving Chapter 1 services through such means rosefrom 2 percent in school year 1984-85 to 17 percent in schoolyear 1986-87. According to a Department ol Education official,the New York City school district, which serves about 21,000students attending about 250 private sectarian schools, plans touse computer instruction in 50 of its private schools in the1987-88 school year.

25

2

Table 2 : Students Served by Service Delivery Method in SchoolDistricts Visited by GAO(School Year 1986 - 87)

School DistrictsPublic

SchGolsNeutral Mobile

Sites Vans

,,, caillornia

Los Angeles I 0 0 0

. hilaiylend

Montgomery County 0 0 31

s: Nik.t'Ar.husetts

Boston 219 78 0

Easthampton 4 4 0

Springfield 15 147 0ss.:

Midligari

Detroit 90 158 0

Grand Rap ds 0 0 0

Lowell 0 0 0

Carey 0 0 20

Cleveland 6 0 1,607

Columbus 0 0 132

.' Pennsyfuania

Interboro 0 33 0

Johnstown 0 16 0

Mahenoy City 0 0 15

Philadelphia 0 50 3,900

TOTALAMMO, 'MOW

334 486 5,755eaimiffizmogisvolaszlemow

26

2 8

Portable Computer ConsultantClassrooms Technology Services School Districts

:.. :,,,,,,,,,, t ..... California

10,738 0 0 Los Angeles

,y ;...,\%..;.,. Maryland

0 0 0 Montgomery County

k . Massachusetts

0 1,255 0 Boston

0 0 0 Easthampton

0 0 0 Springfield

Mkhigan

1,307 0 0 Detroit

0 287 0 Grand Rapids

0 0 20 Lowell

4:t: . .. Ohio40 0 0 Carey

73 0 0 Cleveland

0 0 0 Columbus

AssPennsylvania

0 0 0 Interboro

311 0 0 Johnstown

0 0 0 Mahanoy City

0 1,000 0 Philadelphia

12,429 2,542 20 TOTAL

STUDENTS SERVED BY EACH METHODIN 15 SCHOOL DISTRICTS

In the 15 school districts we visited, 21,566 privatesectarian school students received Chapter 1 services in schoolyear 1986-87. Some districts used a combination of deliverymethods to serve them. (See table 2.)

Public Schools and Neutral Sites

Eight of the 15 districts were using public schools and/orneutral sites, but were serving relatively few students in them- -334 in public schools and 486 in neutral sites. The numbervaried considerably by district, ranging from 4 students servedin public schools in Easthampton to 219 in Boston, and from 4students receiving services at neutral sites in Easthampton to158 in Detroit. This information is similar to the findings ofthe Department's national survey of school districts, whichshowed that 79 percent of the districts use public schools andneutral sites, but serve only 52 percent of the students withthese service delivery methods.

Mobile Vans and Portable Classrooms

Mobile vans were used in six of the districts to serve 5,755students. Two large-city districts--Philadelphia (3,900students) and Cleveland (1,607 students)--wre serving largenumbers of students with mobile vans, but one (Philadelphia) saidit would choose less costly portable classrooms if it had to makethe decision again. Over half (12,429) of the students served inthe 15 districts were served in portable classrooms, which wereused in 4 districts. In the 1986-87 school year, the Clevelanddistrict began using portable :lassrooms at schools with largenumbers cf students because it found them more cost effectivethan vans.

Computer-assisted instruction

Services were being delivered to 2,542 students in threedistricts through methods using computer technology. ThePhiladelphia district was serving 1,000 students in a pilotprogram, which it plans to expand to 3,000 students who cannot beserved with mobile vans, according to district officials. TheBoston district served 1,255 students with computers. Thedistrict Chapter 1 coordinator said he was so impressed with thequality of the computer instruction private school students weregetting, he was considering a similar program for public schoolChapter 1 students.

28

INTERESTED PARTIES GENERALLYPARTICIPATED IN SERVICEDELIVERY SELECTION DRAPPAR

Public and private school officials generally believed thatinterested parties, who favored or opposed various alternateChapter 1 service delivery methods, had a voice in the methodselection process. In nearly all districts, school districtofficials, private school officials, and others took part innegotiating the methods to be used. Officials in 2 of the 15districts, however, told us that some of the appropriate partieseither did not participate in selecting the method or were notinvolved to the extent they thought necessary.

In Springfield, Massachusetts, and Cleveland, Ohio, certainschool officials indicated that their participation could have

been better. In Springfield, the parent advisory councilchairman said all necessary parties were invited to participatebut many parents declined. Several people we spoke with believeda cl.Lfferent service delivery method vans or computers)should be implemented. The Cleveland diocese's director ofgovernment liaison said she did not have a role in selecting a

method. She indicated a different method should be used,possibly a voucher system.

Chapter 1 coordinators in the states we visited identifiedseveral factors as important contributors to the successfulimplementation of new delivery methods:

o Positive relationships between public and private

schools.

o Leadership by the Chapter 1 coordinator at the schooldistrict level.

o Flexibility of public and private officials andofficials' positive view of Chapter 1.

29

IMPACT OF DECISION ON SERVICES

The July 1, 1985, Aguilar decision, which took effect withthe 1985-86 school year, allowed districts only about 2 months toidentify and develop alternative methods of serving students inprivate sectarian schools. This caused major problems in most ofthe 15 diStricts we visited, especially the larger ones, andChapter 1 services in many districts suffered. Conditionsimproved during the second school year after the decision, asmore districts were able to implement the new service deliverymethods.

In school years 1985-86 and 1986-87, only 6 of the 15 schooldistricts were able to continually serve some or most of theirprivate sectarian students. Most districts experienced one ormore of the following problems:

o Chapter 1 services to private sectarian students wereinterrupted at some or all schools for various lengths oftime.

o Student participation declined significantly in theschool year following the Aguilar decision.

o Costs to serve private sectarian school studentsincreased due to the implementation of new servicedelivery methods.

o Parts of the Chapter 1 instructional program could not befunded in some districts.

Although the Aguilar decision caused a number of adverseimpacts for school districts anu private sectarian students, wefodnd it caused none of the 15 districts we visited to change thecriteria used to select students for the Chapter 1 program.

31

32

CHAPTER 1 SERVICES INTERRUPTED

Following the Aguilar decision, nine districts had tocurtail services at the beginning of the 1985-86 school year toall their private sectarian students because they could notimplement new delivery methods in time. The service interruptionin these districts range_ from 1 month to the entire school year.

Of the six districts with 3 or more months of interruption,two (Philadelphia and Montgomery County) restored Chapter 1services to about the same number (within 15 percent) of studentsserved in school year 1984-85 for the portion of the school yearfollowing their interruption. In Philadelphia's case, however,the service resumption was achieved by obtaining a court orderthat allowed it to continue providing services on the premises ofprivate schools until the end of the school year. In MontgomeryCounty's case, a new means of service delivery was implemented,and a court order was not needed.

A third district (Boston) resumed partial service followingits 3-month interruption. About 20 percent of Boston's pre-Aguilar students were served, and partial service continuedthroughout the school year. The fourth district (Johnstown)obtained a court order to continue to provide service in privateschools and resumed such services in February 1986. Serviceswere provided in private schools until relocatable classroomswere ready. The fifth and sixth districts (Los Angeles andMahanoy City) provided no service the entire school year.

Of the three districts in school year 1985-86 with less than3 months of interruptions, two (Springfield and Easthampton)experienced a 1-month delay at the start of the school year,after which services were provided to some but not all of theprivate sectarian students previously served. The last of thenine districts (Detroit) resuled full service following a 1-monthdelay at the start of the school year, but continued throughoutthe entire school year to provide the services on the premises ofthe private sectarian schools while deciding on which servicedelivery method to use. According to a Department of Educationofficial, the Detroit school district initially told Departmentof Education officials that Chapter 1 services would not be heldin private schools after January 1986.

32

33

Figure 1: Districts with Chapter 1 Service Interruptions(School Years 1985 - 86 and 1986 - 87)

r -

SCHOOL YEAR 1985 -86 SCHOOL YEAR 1986- 87SCHOOL

DISTRICTS

Los Angeles, Calif.

Montgomery Co., Md.

Boston, Mass.

Easthampton, Mass.

Springfield, Mass.

Detroit, Mich.

Johnstown, Pa.

Mahanoy City, Pa.

Philadelphia, Pa.

Private School Students r"--1Served by School District:

None Some Most

33

In the second school year (1986-87) after the decision,seven of the nine districts had new methods in place to serve atleast some of their private school students beginning inSeptember. Another district, Detroit, began serving some of itsprivate students in October, when delivery of its portablebuildings began. Mahanoy City also had a 1-month delay beforeresuming full service in the second school year. Boston, LosAngeles, and Mahanoy City were the only districts of the ninethat approached or exceeded their pre-Aguilar service levels.(Montgomery County and Johnstown were serving all eligiblestudents, but participation decreased because there were fewereligible students.)

Of the six districts with uninterrupted services, four(Carey, Cleveland, Columbus, ani Lowell) were able to immediatelycomply with the decision and covtinue serving most privatesectarian students. Interboro and Grand Rapids also beganservices in compliance with the Aylilar decision at the beginningof the 1985-86 school year, but served only 50 percent and 77percent, respectively, of the students served previously.Interboro was capable of serving all its students, but parentsdecided to re-nove many of the students from the Chapter 1program. Grand Rapids was able to serve most of the students inthe 1986-87 school year.

PRIVATE STUDENT PARTICIPATION DECLINED

As shown on the next two pages in tables 3a and 3h, Chapter1 participation by students in private sectarian schools declinedsubstantially in the school year following the decision at the atmost of the districts we reviewed. In several school districts,the number of eligible Chapter 1 students also declined.However, when analyzing the participation rate on the basis ofthe number of private school students served from year to year,we found about half (48 percent) of the private sectarianstudents served before the decision went without service duringthe 1985-86 school year. The next school year, the numberunserved was 2E percent below the number of students servedbefore the Aguilar decision, as more of the 15 school districtsimplemented new service delivery methods. Information from theDepartment of Education's national study is consistent with ourfindings. For the same time period, the Department found anational decline of 29 percent. The slight difference in the twopercentages seems reasonable because the national study coveredonly the first 2 months of the 1986-87 school year and manydistricts expected an increase in the number of students servedby year end.

34

Tab It. 3a : Private Student Participation Before andAfter the Aniiilnr nocisi^n(School Years 1984-85 and 1985-86)

School Districts

BeforeDecision(1984-85)

AfterDecision(1985-86)

PercentChance

r ,..:.' California

Los Angeles 11,745 0 -100

Maryland

Montgomery County L 99 84 -15

IVISSSadiusett$ ,...

Boston 1,750 324 -82

Easthampton 38 13 -66

Springfield 616 266 -57

Ml

Table 3b : Private Student Participation Before andAfter the Arguilar Decision(School Years 1984-85 and 1986-87)

School Districts

BeforeRecision(1984-85)

AfterDecision(1986-87)

PercentChange

.m:,',v-\titlifOinia

Los Angelus 11,745 10,738 -9_

..P. .Mitryiand.

Montgomery County 99 81 - 18

s.:;* ' ,BISSiitchidetet_. ._...... .... -Boston 1,750 1,552 - 11

Easthampton 38 8 -79

Springfield 616 162 - 74

Natisi.gith.

Detroit 2,239 1,555 - 31

Grand Rapids 310 287 -7

Lowell 17 20 18

Carey 20 20 0

Cleveland 1,421 1,686 19

Columbus 179 132 - 26

:7 kilitSytvartia . .

Interboro 70 33 53

Johnstown 538 327 - 39

Mahanoy City 10 15 50

Philadelphia 9,828 4,950 - 50

TOTAL 28,880 21,566 - 25

36

37

PROGRAM COSTS INCREASED

The initial and annual recurring expense of providingChapter 1 services to private sectarian students increased as aresult of the new methods used, according to informationdistricts gave us. In total, 10 of the 15 districts we visitedsaid they incurred $7.3 million in initial expenses (includingobligations incurred to purchase equipment over a multiyearperiod) to implement new service delivery methods. About $1.9million in annual recurring expenses were expected to be spent bythe same 10 districts to provide Chapter 1 services using thesealternative delivery methods.

urge caution, however, in comparing costs across schooldistricts, between service delivery methods, and by per pupilexpenditures because:

o The accuracy and completeness of the cost data providedwere not independently verified by our staff.

o The initial costs to implement the service deliverymethods covered varying time periods depending upon howthe equipment was acquired. For example, some districtsleased equipment annually and others purchased equipmentfor several years' use.

o Some districts provided estimates of the costs incurred.

Before the Aguilar decision, the typical method of providingChapter 1 service to students in private sectarian schools wassending a public school teacher into the private school withsupplies funded by the p"4- school system. When the decisionmandated off-site service delivery, program costs began toincrease significantly except in several districts we visited.Chapter 1 costs did not rise dramatically in Ohio for tworeasons. First, major acquisition costs did not have to beincurred for any of the three Ohio districts because schooldistricts on a state-wide basis generally had enough excessmobile vans to accommodate Chapter 1 use. The costs for severalof these vehicles were incurred as long as 10 years ago. Second,except for the Columbus school district, recurring costs (e.g.,maintenance, operation, utilities) will not be funded fromChapter 1 allocations. Additional costs incurred in MontgomeryCounty and Interboro were paid with county and district funds,respectively, rather than Chapter 1 funds. The Lowell districtdid not incur additional costs due to the Aguilar decision.

38

Table 4 : Initial and Recurring Chapter 1rise+ Imerammene

INIDI 11Jarra

School Districts

InitialCosts(000)

AnnualRecurring

Costs(000)

:California .

Los Angeles ;" $ 806 $ 253

iiiiryiand

Montgomery County 0 ---..., .

iltalUtchusdtc

Boston 2,480 336

Easthampton 3 3

Springfield 40 31

Michigan

Detroit 1,000 50

Grand Rapids 41 46

Lowell 0 0

Ohio

Carey 0 0

Cleveland 0 0

Columbus 12 10

. Pennsylvania

Interborot.

0 0

Johnstown 24 16

Mahanoy City 5 - --

Philadelphia 2,850 1,200

TOTAL 47,261 5 1,945

39

3

REDUCED CHAPTER 1 SERVICES

As a consequence of the Aguilar decision, several districtswe visited reduced the amount of Chapter 1 instruction offeredprivate sectarian students.

The Philadelphia district discontinued service to themajority of the sectarian students in its remedial mathinstructional classes and almost 40 percent of its readingclasses. This action was taken because of the high cost topurchase mobile vans and insufficient space to park the necessarynumber of mobile vans to provide the level and amount of remedialinstruction previously provided.

As an indirect result of the decision, the Grand Rapidsdistrict discontinued service to its high school students becauseit could not provide a take-home computer program similar to theone for its elementary students. A school district official saidthe computer contractor did not have a software program availablefor the high school level.

In another example, the Boston school district usedcomputers in the 1986-87 school year to teach private sectarianstudents reading and math at the lower grades. However, studentsin grades 7-12 received only reading instruction because privateschool principals did not believe computers alone should be usedto teach math in the higher grades.

STUDENT SELECTION CRITERIA UNAFFECTED

Chapter 1 officials in the 15 school districts we visitedsaid that they did not change the criteria used to select privatesectarian or public school students for Chapter 1 services as aresult of the Aguilar decision. They also said the criteria foridentifying eligible students and selecting the most needy arethe same for both private and public school students.

To participate in the Chapter 1 program in these districts,private sectarian school students were required to meet the sameeconomic and educational criteria as public school students. Tobe eligible economically, private school students had to residein public school attendance areas that the district hadidehtified as having high concentrations of students from low-income families. School districts (including the 15 we reviewed)identify concentrations of such families in attendance areas byusing one or a combination of such poverty indicators as:

o Number of school-age children in families receiving Aidto Families With Dependent Children.

40

40

o Recipients of ...ree or reduced-price school lunches.

r, resncnc d=*m.

Whatever criteria are used, they must be applied uniformlythroughout the district. When a combination of the aboveindicators are used, children cannot be counted more than once.

Private sectarian school students in the 15 districts had tomeet the same criteria as public school students to beeducationally eligible for Chapter 1. Chapter 1 officials statedthat they used one or more of such measures as the following todeLermine student eligibility:

o Scores on standardized tests of reading or mathematicsskills.

o Composite scores composed of such indicators as classroomgraaes and test scores.

o Teacher judgment.

All districts but one said they used standardized testscores to identify eligible public and private students. Severaldistricts said they used tests for public and private schoolstudents, which, while not identical, were comparable formeasuring educational need. Teacher judgment was also afrequently used measure, with nine districts indicating they usedteacher judgment and test scores to identify eligible students.

Each district also told us that the criteria for selectingthe most needy students also were the same for public and privateschool students. Ofificials in 13 districts said they rankedprivate sectarian students by standardized test score, usuallyselecting the most needy first. The other two districts weresmall, rural districts that either used other tests incombination with teacher judgment to rank students for selectionor were able to serve all eligible students.

In obtaining informa-'ion on how the decision affectedstudent selection criteria in each district, we did not attemptto verify whether the districts were actually following theircriteria. However, in our previous review2 of the Chapter 1student selection process, we found districts hau criteriasimilar to those discussed above and generally followed them.

1Chapter 1 Participants Generally Meet Selection Criterion(GAO/HRD-87-26, Jan. 30, 1987)

41

Li.

VIEWS OF STATE, DISTRICT, AND PRIVATESECTARIAN SCHOOL EDUCATION OFFICIALS

At the state, school district, and private sectarian schoollevels, we obtained officials' views on the immediate and long-term impact of the 1985 decision. The nature and intensity ofthe decision's impact varied among the locations. For example,most states' Chapter 1 officials indicated that various aspectsof the program initially declined, but some said there was nochange. Regarding the decision's future impact, most stateofficials agreed conditions should improve as districts overcomethe initial problems. These views were generally shared by mostschool district Chapter 1 administrators (except in Ghio, whereadministrators indicated the decision produced little changebecause the districts we visited were able to use vans availableunder a state-funded remedial program.) Most private schoolprincipals believed their particular method of providing Chapter1 services to their students was the best available alternativeto on-premises instruction.

Some officials' views on the decision's immediate impact andlong-range outlook are summarized below and discussed in moredetail in the following sections.

Immediate Impact:

o Private s_udent participation decreased.

o Chapter 1 program costs increased.

o Class time lost going off premises.

o Program quality diluted.

o Administrative workload increased.

Long-Range Outlook:

o Participation will return to previous levels.

o Cost increases will subside.

o Program quality 11 improve to previous levels.

o Administrative workload should decline.

VIEWS ON IMMEDIATE IMPACT

State officials in four of the 'six states we visited saidthe Supreme Court decision resulted in decreased studentparticipation, increased program costs. increased administrativeworkload, and lost .ass time while students travel to receive

42

42

services. These views regarding increased costs and decreasedstudent participation are consistent with data we gathered at the15 school districts.

These same officials gave us a mixed response regarding thedecision's impact on Chapte 1 pupil achievement and servicequality. Three states' off.cials indicated no significant impacton pupil achievement in their states. Officials from the otherthree states were unsure of the decision's impact on pu,-,i1achievement. Regarding service quality, three states' officialsindicated no change, two indicated quality had decreased, and onewas unsure.

Regarding increased administrative workloads, some stateadministrators said the amount of time they spent on services toprivate schools since the decision had been disproportionate tothe number of Chapter 1 students in them. In 13 states, privateschool students made up from 5 to 11 percent of the Chapter 1students served in school year 1984-85; in the other states andthe District of Columbia, they accounted for less than 5 percentof the Chapter 1 students served.

Table 5 : State Officials' Views on the Immediate impact ofthe A uilar Decision

Factors

Number of States

Increased No Change Decreased Unsure

Student Participation 0 1 4 1

Pupil Achievement 0 3 0.1 3

Lost Class Time 4 2 0 0

Admin. Workload 4 2 0 0

Costs 4 2 0 0

Service Quality 0..- I -JLINSMEMIXIi 3 2 1

43/: r1L.r.t)

Table 6 : District Officials' Views on the Immediate Impact ofthe Aauilar Decision

Factors

Number of Districts

Increased No Change Decreased Unsure

Student Participation 0 8 7 0

Lost Class Time 7 8 0 0

Admin. Workload 11 3 0 1

Costs 10 : 1 1

Service Quality 1 8 4 2

Table 7 'ivate School Principals' Views on Immediate Impactthe Aguilar Decision

Factors

Number of Private School Principals

Increased No Change Decreased Unsure

Pupil Achievement 6 17 8 11

Service Quality 7 19 12 4

Instructional Time,...... 2 10 29 1

44

44

District officials, for the most part, said the decision hadincreased program costs and the workload for programadministrators. Their views were consistent with those of stateChapter 1 officials. Additionally, almost half of the districtofficials said lost class time had increased.

Private sectarian school principals at about 40 percent ofthe 42 private sectarian schools we visited indicated that pupilachievement and quality of service had not changed significantlysince the decision. However, about 70 percent of the principalsindicated that students' instructional time in Chapter 1decreased after the decision due to transit time needed to getfrom the regular classroom to the Chapter 1 facility. Mostbelieved the service delivery method being used was probably thebest available, short of private school classrooms.

45

4 5

Student

Participation

Program

Costs

Private and Public

School Relationships

Service

Quality

Legal

Issues

Figure 2 : State Officials' Views on the Future Impactof the Aguilar Decision

0 1 2 3 4

Number of States

5

ContinuedAdverse Effects

State Officials' Opinions

11.1114.

NoAdverse Effects Unsure

46

46

VIEWS ON LONG-RANGE OUTLOOK

Moe. 04.m.i..m 1,14.ved 4.} Artuilar Amnicinn will nnf-

continue to adversely affect private school participation ratesin their states. Most also believed the decision would notnegatively affect the relationship between public and privateschools. In their opinion, private student participation levelsappear to be returning to predecision levels as public andprivate school officials work together to implement new servicedelivery methods. The Chapter 1 state officials provided mixedresponses regarding the amount of program costs to implement theAguilar decision. Three officials indicated that the decisionwould not continue to have adverse affects on program costs. Twoofficials believed program costs would continue to be adverselyaffected, and one was unsure.

Officials in four of the six states believed the Aguilardecision will not adversely affect the quality of Chapter 1services in the future. One official indicated that the decisionmay lead to even better quality services overall Howet.er,another said quality decreased in the short term and would remaininferior in the future. Officials in three states indicated thatlegal uncertainties will continue to affect the program in theshort term but will abate over time. One state official said aSan Francisco case will affect many districts if the practices inquestion are declared illegal. That case, mentioned on page 9,challenges (1) the use of mobile vans and their placement onprivate school property, and (2) off-the-top funding of the coststo comply with the Aguilar decision. Half of the state officialstold us that more specific guidance from the Department ofEducation on these legal issues would be useful their schooldistricts. Officials in two of the six states believed theiradministrative workload would continue to be adversely affectedbecause of the Aguilar decision.

Views of school district officials varied regarding thedecision's future impact on participation levels. Nine of the 15districts visited either had returned to pre-Aguilarparticipation le'7els or were serving all eligible students. Ofthe remaining 6 districts, officials in Columbus and Philadelphiaexpected participation to return to pre-Aguilar levels, officialsin Easthampton and Springfield did not, and officials in Detroitand Interboro were unsure.

Easthampton and Springfield offered services in publicschools and neutral sites, and many parents have taken theirchildren out of the program because of the class time lost intransporting them, a concern for their safety, or an objection tohaving them in a public school.

47

7

Although Detroit served about 700 fewer private sectarianschool students in school year 1986-87 than in school year 1984-85, Detroit officials were particularly concerned about how theywould serve 432 eligible students at six private sectarianschools. The Chapter 1 cc'o:dinator said the six schools wereinvited to receive Chapter 1 services at the nearest publicschool, but the Catholic archdiocese had not responded.

Interboro's Chapte 1 program lost about half of its privateschool students because parents objected to the amount of classtime students lost and tte longer school day when childrentraveled to another site In addition, some parents opted totake advantage of a state-funded remedial program offeringinstruction in several subjects rather than the Chapter 1program, which taught reading only.

48

48

APPENDIX I

CASE DESCRIPTIONS OFAGUILAR v. FELTON DECISION'S IMPACT ON

15 SCHOOL DISTRICTS GAO VISITED

APPENDIX I

To continue providing Chapter 1 services after the Aguilarv. Felton decision was announced in July 1985, the 15 districtswe visited had to deal with a variety of circumstances. Thisappendix contains a case description for each of the 15 districtswhich, in addition to providing demographic information,describes in some detail the nature of the actions taken toselect and implement new service delivery methods, the problemsencountered, and the views of local public and private sectarianschool officials -n how the decision affected Chapter 1 servicesto their students.

49

49

APPENDIX I

Los Angeles Unified School District

APPENDIX I

,pae ,,, ss ,,r,..: q,.....;At. -I.: v;*,I.,4

School

1.I.,.: ,,: 4 006/81 Student kii414410h 0C-14rrAw,k."-

TotalDistrict Chapter 1 Percentage

Public School 590,287 232,156 39

Private School 97,170 10,738 11

Total 687,457 242,894 35

,kq:'$iSi!+atiSon of Chapter 1 Program Cboiacterlitics by School Year, .:',:'>`n '?). 4,,Z,V.AZ ' . ..MT

Program Characteristics 1984 -1985 1985- 1986 1986 -1987

Grant Amount (Millions)

Public Portion $ 55.7 $ 57.2 $ 57.6

Private Portion 3.8 3.6 3.5

Total $ 59.5 $ 60.8 $ 61.1

Students Served

Public 214,592 223,915 232,156

Private 11,758 0 10,738

Schools Served

Private 65 0 63

Compliance Costs

Initial N/A 0 $ 806,000

Recurring N/A 0 0, s

,-4.. tp, Singte:,peilyery Methods( PAW Year 1986/87)",(* v,

Delivery Methods Students Served Number of Units Cost

Portable Classrooms

Modular (Owned) Unavailable 24 $ 34,000

Modular (Leased) Unavailable 22 551,000

Trailers (Leased) Unavailable 17 221,000

Total 10,738 63 $806,000

50

50

APPENDIX I

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA

Background

APPENDIX I

In the 1986-87 school year, the Los Angeles unified schooldistrict had about 590,000 students, and about another Q7,000attended Catholic and other sectarian schools within thedistrict's boundaries (the city of Los Angeles and severaloutlying suburbs). The district's Chapter 1 program for 1986-87served about 232,000 of its public school students and ne._rly11,000 students attending private sectarian schools.

Chapter 1 Service Delivery Methods

In the 1984-85 school year, the district provided remedialinstruction to about 12,000 students on the premises of 41religious schools and in relocatable classrooms (modular units)on the grounds of 24 other schools where overcrowdiig was aproblem.

Shortly after the Aguilar decision, the school districtoffered various alternate service delivery methods to the privatesectarian schools. In January 1986, the school district andrepresentatives for the affected private schools agreed to use 46modular units--the 24 existing ones and 22 new ()Liesand 17trailers, all sited on ground leased from the private schools, asthe new service delivery method. The factors that led toselecting this alternative were: concerns about student safety,the ability to maintain continuity with the regular academicprogram with minimal disruption of regular studies, theavailability of the existing 24 units, and parental approval.After reaching agreement, services resumed in two increments: atthe start of the 1986 - -87 school year for the 24 schools withexisting modular units, and during January and February 1987 forthe other 39 schools receiving new modular units and trailers.All units were in service by late February 1987.

Implementation took so long for several reasons. First,school district officials said there was concern about thelegality of the chosen method and time passed while waiting forlegal opinions. In the interim, the district did not want torisk using the existing units or contract for the new equipment.The Department of Education issued guidance in June 1986 thatpermitted locating classrooms on land leased from the privateschools. After the legal issue was resolved, it then tookseveral months to lease the new modular units and trailers, getthem ready for service, and recruit teachers.

51

51

APPENDIX I APPENDIX I

School district officials considered a number of otherservice delivery methods, but rejected them for the followingreasons:

-- Neutral sites (including public schools): The publicschools were already overcrowded, and there was concernabout the safety of other buildings (e.g., earthquakestandards). In addition, there were concerns regardingstudent safety in transit and lost instructional time.

- - Computer-assisted instruction and other electronic systems:The school district was concerned about the cost of supportservices (e.g., telecommunications), and the archdioceserejected this option because it was not convinced thismethod would provide effective instruction and equitableservice.

-- Summer school/after school/Saturday programs: Parents wereopposed, and the archdiocese rejected these methods becausethey lacked continuity with the regular academic program.

-- Correspondence courses: The archdiocese said this optionwould not provide equitable service.

Impact of Aguilar Decision

The Supreme Court's decision had the following effects onthe Los Angeles school district's Chapter 1 program for privateschools:

- - Private sectarian school students received no Chapter 1direct instruction for the entire 1985-86 school year, andsome did not receive instruction until as late as February1987. As noted, the break in service occurred because ofthe time it took to decide upon the service delivery method,resolve the legal uncertainties, and obtain and install theunits and trlilers. During school year 1985-86, districtschool nurses and psychologists did provide Chapter 1support services to eligible participants at the privatesectarian schools.

- - The Los Angeles archdiocese filed a formal complaint withthe Department of Education in September 1985 regarding theinequitability of Chapter 1 services to the privatesectarian schools. During the 1986-87 school year, to makeup for the lost time, the school district used the unspentfunds from school year 1985-86 to intensify services to the

52

APPENDIX I APPENDIX I

private schools. Instead of continuing the procedureadopted in school year 1984-85 of using teachers' aides forChapter 1 instruction, the district began to providecertified teachers assisted by paraprofessionals.

-- The district spent $806,000 in the 1986-87 school year onmodular units it owned and leased and on leased trailers,and estimated it will sklnd $253,000 annually for recurringexpenses associated with its Chapter 1 delivery methods forprivate sectarian school students.

Views of Public and Private School Officials

We asked officials from the school district, thearchdiocese, and the private schools to compare several Chapter 1program quality factors before and since the Aguilar decision.They provided the following comments:

-- Despite the break in instructional service in the 1985-86school year, there has been no change in pupilparticipation.

-- Generally, the parties believed it was too soon to tell ifthe decision will affect pupil achievement. However, oneprivate school principal thought achievement may increasebecause removing students from the regular classroom forChapter 1 instruction is less distracting than the pre-Aguilar method of in-class instruction.

-- The school district and archdiocese beli -e there has beenno change in transit time; some principals think this factorhas increased but only minimally because the units arelocated close to the schools.

-- The cost per pupil has increased becaus of the lease costof the trailers and modular units and their upkeep.

-- The school district believes there has been no change in thequality of service; the lost instruction time will be madeup through intensified service and then stabilize over time.The archdiocese and principals believe service quality hasincreased because now teachers are used instead of aides andseparate units have reinforced the importance of the Chapter1 program.

53

APPENDIX I

Montgomery County, Maryland Public Schools

APPENDIX I

..., . , o* fiOi Atear st986/87 Student Population (K-12,v-,,,School

TotalDistrict Chapter 1 Percentage

Public School 96,000 2,773 3

Private School 8,717 81 1

Total 104,717 2,854 3,. ..:. ..

tOttpariSbri of Chapter 1 Program Cheratteristits by School Year:T.., . C ..-, .- s, s

Program Characteristics 1984 -1985 1985 -1986 1986 - 1987

Grant Amount (Millions)

Public Portion $ 2.5 $ 2.6 $ 2.6

Private Portion .1 .1 .1

Total $ 2.6 $ 2.7 $ 2.7

Students Served

Public 3,012 2,766 2,773

Private 99 84 81

Schools Served

Private 3 3 3

Compliance Costs

Initial N/A $ 15,000 0

Recurring N/A 0 Unknown

' ' '' Servsite peihnity Method( School Year 1986/87)

Delivery Method Students Served Number of Units Cost

Mobile Vans (Contractor) 81 3 0

54

APPENDIX I APPENDIX I

MONTGOMERY mum-, MARYLAND

Background

In school year 1986-87, the Montgomery County school districthad about 96,000 students, and another 8,700 attend(d Catholicschools. The district's Chapter 1 program for 1986-87 served 2,773of its public school students and 81 students attending Catholicschools.

Chapter 1 Service Delivery Methods

In the 1984-85 school year, the district provided remedialinstruction to about 100 students on the premises of the threeCatholic schools with students eligible for Chapter 1 service.

Shortly af'Ler the Aguilar decision, the Montgomery Countyschool district, the Washington archdiocese, and private schoolprincipals began n:gotiating to find an alternate ser'7ice deliverymethod. In considering alternatiN,,,s, the district was concernedabout the cost of the method selected, while private schoolrepresentatives wanted to maintain services as physically close tothe schools as possible to minimize disruption to their students'instruction.

In late August 1985, the parties agreed to use mobile vansparked adjacent to the sectarian schools (two on neutral propertyand one on the school's property since no suitable neutral sitecould be arranged). The school district decided to contract forall Chapter 1 services--vans, instructional materials, andeachers--for the sectarian school students rather than leasing or

purchasing its own vans because it did not want to be left with theequipment should the law be chanced. After reaching agreement, thedistrict awarded the contract and began service in DecembeL 1985.The archdiocese requested compensation from the school district fordirect instruction time lost because of the break in service. Thedistrict refused, maintaining that (1) its staff had remained atthe private schools during the interin period to assist with pupilidentification and testing and (2) Chapter 1 services to Catholicand public schools were comparab]e because the Catholic schoolobtained instruction from certified teachers while the publicschools used instructional assistants.

The school district, the archdiocese, and private schoolprincipals considered a number of service delivery methods, butrejected them for the fcllowing reasons:

55

5 5

APPENDIX I APPENDIX I

-- Public schools: They were already overcrowded, and thearchdiocese was concerned about students losing instructiontime by being transported to a public school.

-- Voucher system for home tutoring: The archdiocese was opposedto this alternative believing it would not be cost effectiveto provide tutors for the number of children to be served.

-- Summer school: None of the parties favored this potentialsolution, and available space was also a problem.

- - Neutral sites: Private school officials were opposed tomoving their children because of concerns that transportationtime would take away from instruction.

Impact of Aguilar. Decision

The Supreme Court's decision had the following effects on theMontgomery County school district's Chapter 1 program for privateschools:

- - Chapter 1 instructional services to the three sectarianschools were delayed until December 1985. District officialscommented that the break in service occurred because of thetime required to reach agrec,nent of all parties on the newmethod, award the contract, and get the vans in place.

-- The district spent about $15,000 more in the 1985-86 schyear for contracted services than it wculd have cost toprovide teachers for the private schools. However, theseservices were paid with non-Chapter 1 funds by the MontgomeryCounty school district. The 1986-87 contract required noadditional expenditures over what it would have cost theaiRfrief fn prnv4Ac,

Views of Public and Private School Officials

In comparing Chapter 1 program quality factors before and after theAguilar decision, officials from the Montgomery County schooldistrict, the archdiocese, and the private schools had thefollowing opinions:

- - The school district, the archdiocese, and two private Echoolprincipals believe the decision has not affected pup-1participation. (Slight declines in participatiLl since thedecision were caused by enrollment changes, not the decision.)

56

ti 0

APPENDIX I APPENDIX I

-- There was some uncertainty about whether pupil achievement haschanged because not enough data are available yet, but oneprivate school principal thinks it may have increased.

-- School district officials believed there has been no change intransit time over the pre-Aguilar practice of sendinginstructors into the classrooms. The archdiocese and twoprivate school principals think time lost in transit hasincreased slightly, but the distance to the vans is minimal.

-- The school district believed there has been no real increasein cost per pupil because of the lower contract priceChapter 1 services for the 1986-87 school year.

-- Most officials are of the opinion that the quality of serviceis unchanged. However, one principal commented that qualityhas increased because certified teachers have replaced theinstructional assistants who were used before.

57

APPENDIX I

Boston, Massachusetts School District

APPENDIX I

*';;: .''',4' .5 'oor At**. 1986187 Student Population (K.12)., ....

SchoolTotal

District Chapter 1 Percentage

Public School 54,804 12,425 22.7

Private School 28,000 1,552 5.5

Total 82,804 13,977 16.9

'..:'0;inparison of Chapter 1 Program Characteristics by School Year

Program Characteristics 1984 -1985 1985-1986 1986-1987

Grant Amount (Millions)

Public Portion $ 11.04 $ 12.11 $ 13.49

Private Portion 1.82 .32 1.36

Total $ 12.86 $ 12.43 $ 14.85

Students Served

Public 10,955 11,430 12,425

Private 1,750 324 1,552

Schools Served

Private 33 8 30

Compliance Costs

Initial N/A $ 21,590 $ 2,480,000

Recurring N/A 0 $ 6,000

,

'' Service Delhiery Methods( School Year 1986/87)

Delivery Methods Students Served Number of Units Cost

Public Schools 219 3 0

Neutral Sites 78 2 $ 6,000

Computers 1,255 112 $ 2,480,000

58

58

APPENDIX I APPENDIX I

BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS

Background

In school year 1986-87, the Boston school district had about55,000 students in the 1986-87 school year; another 28,000 studentsattended private sectarian schools. The district's Chapter 1program for 1986-87 served over 12,000 public school students andabout 1,550 students attending sectarian schools.

Chapter 1 Service Delivery Methods

In the 1984-85 school year, the district provided Chapter 1remedial instruction to 1,750 students on the premises of 33private sectarian schools.

Shortly after the Aguilar decision, the district and theCatholic archdiocese began negotiations to find alternate servicedelivery methods. According to district officials, the criteriathey considered in discussing alternate methods were that they hadto be educationally sound, be fiscally responsible, and meet legalrequirements.

The district and archdiocese agreed in October 1985 to useneutral sites and public schools as the initial service deliverymethods. District officials said it took about 4 months to decideon their methods because guidance from the federal and stategovernments was slow reaching the district level and lackedspecificity. After agreement was reached, services started inDecember 1985 at seven public schools and neutral sites for about325 children from eight private schools. During this 2-month1. riod, school officials identified acceptable sites and obtainedthe necessary parental approval for children to leave their schoolbuildings to receive Chapter 1 services.

In December 1985, the negotiating parties also agreed to offercomputer-assisted instruction for Chapter 1 students in the privateschools. The school district selected the contractor in July 1986.Service using this service O'Jivery method began in the firstprivate school in November 1986, and by January 1987, 24 of the 25schools electing this method were receiving instruction (includingone school that switched from using a neutral site); the lastschool will begin receiving computer-assisted instruction as soonas a security system is installed.

59

vv

APPENDIX I APPENDIX I

District officials told us they considered a number of otherservice delivery methods, but rejected them for the followingreasons:

-- Summer program: In the spring of 1986 the district offeredthis program to 1,200 private school students who werereceiving no services while waiting for computer-assistedinstruction to begin; however, the archdiocese declined theoffer.

-- Vans: They were determined to be too expensive to buy,operate, and maintain.

-- Mobile classrooms: These had interior space limitations aswell as restrictions on where they could be placed.Further, there were concerns about securing heat, light,and water and about the cost of these utilities.

Impact of Aguilar Decision

The Supreme Court's decision had the following effects on theBoston school district's Chapter 1 program for private schools:

-- No private school students received Chapter 1 instructionuntil December 1985; then only about 325 of over 1,700students received service for the balance of the 1985-86school year an the early part of the 1986-87 year. Thenumber receiv :ng instruction increased to 1,550 by January1987 as computer-assisted instruction was implemented. Thedistrict expects to serve the remaining students by thebeginning of school year 1987-88.

-- The hardware and software for computer-assisted instruct