DOCUMENT RESUME

EC 073 893 32 RC 006 862

TITLE Programs for the Disadvantaged in Texas Funded UnderTitle I, ESEA. Annual Report, 1970-71.

INSTITUTION Texas Education Agency, Austin.SPONS AGENCY Office of Education (MEW), Washington, D.C. Div. of

Compensatory Education.PUB DATE Dec 71NOTE 40p.

EDRS PRICE MF-$0.65 BC-$3,29DESCRIPTORS Annual Reports; *Compensatory Education Programs;

*Disadvantaged Youth; Dropout Research; *FederalPrograms; Manpower Development; Mexican Americans;Negroes; *Pupil Personnel Services; RacialDistribution; Statistical Analysis; *Tables (Data)

IDENTIFIERS *Elementary Secondary Education Act Title I; ESEATitle I

ABSTRACTData were gathered from 22 large Texas school

districts (over 17,000 in average daily attendance) and 221 mediumdistricts to assess school participation in federally supportedprograms designed to assist the advancement of educationallydisadvantaged children. In this report, the data gathered from thesample school districts are arranged into 8 divisions: participantsin programs for the disadvantaged, pupil personnel services for thedisadvantaged, instructional programs for the disadvantaged, testdata from the programs, personnel serving in the programs, personneldevelopment, school dropout information involving the disadvantaged,and 1969-70 graduate follow-up. Interspersed with the data displaysare remarks which transmit findings derived during the treatment ofthe data and which may not be apparent in the presentation. Somespecific findings and conclusions follow; (1) medium districts wereable to identify the students most in need of services and to providethe needed services; (2) Title I funds are insufficient to meet theneeds of large districts; (3) the compensatory programs either didnot have sufficient appeal to hold the disadvantaged student betweenthe eighth and ninth grades and the ninth and tenth grades or lessemphasis was placed on the programs at this stage of his progress;and (4) a need exists to improve the programs for counseling orinterviewing students prior to leaving school. (Ha)

r,1

FILMED FROM BEST AVAILABLE COPY

II ` I.All IA.11 NI 01 A[

I 0111:111ItIPi ri I Al,[li+ ILI Ill /m" A HON

IHr ,1

Alt Ilit PHI IF! A'

MION P(1`,111(1' ift ,

4 ,

`1 Iff:,4".RECEIVFn o

.APR 18 .1973MALL' t-

o.

'I'',-\1.. VI ,r;)>/o.7i N . 4.

reN (. f.? 1: F., N F. 0'1

CNCOff..\ PROGRAMS F R ___ APRorsu1973

tom

..).

THEter, r%.>>

? ?-

R

r_oJti.

C. , /

IN

TEXAS

FUNDED UrDER

TITLE I, ESEA

ANNUAL REPORT

1970-71

Prepared byDivision of Assessment and Evaluation

Office of PlanningTexas Education Agency

Austin, Texas 78701Phone Number: 512/475-4448

December 1971

COMPLIANCE WITH TITLE VI CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964

Reviews of the local educational agency pertaining to compliancewith Title VI, Civil Rights Act of 1964, will be conducted period-ically by staff representatives of the Texas Education Agency.These reviews will cover at least the following policies andpractices:

1. Enrollment and assignment of students without discrimina-tion on the ground of race, color, or national origin.

2. Assignment of teachers and other staff without discrimina-tion on the ground of race, color, or national origin.

3. Non-discriminatory use of facilities.

4. Public notice given by the local educational agency toparticipants and other citizens of the non-discriminntorypolicies and practices in effect by the local agency.

In addition to conducting reviews, Texas Education Agency staffrepresentatives will check comflaints of non-compliance made bycitizens and will report their findings to the United State sCommissioner of Education.

rIl1.31111, I GAUD

State Board of Education

Porter M. Bailes, Jr., M.D., TylerVernon Baird, Fort WorthJack Binion, Houston

Doyle Corley, New BostonW. H. Fetter, La MarquePaul G. Greenwood, HarlingenE. R. Gregg, Jr., JacksonvilleGeorge C. Guthrie, San AntonioPaul R. Haas, Corpus ChristiCharles D. Hart, BryanJames W. Harvey, Archer City

Ben R. Howell, El PasoPaul Mathews, GreenvilleCarl E. Morgan, JasperFrank A. Pool , San AngeloEdwin L. Rippy, M.D., DallasWinthrop Seley, WacoJames E. Weeks, AbileneJames H. Whiteside, LubbockHerbert 0. Willborn, AmarilloMrs. J. Sam Winters, Austin

J. W. Edgar, Commissioner of Education

M. L. Brockette, Deputy Commissioner of Education

Charles W. Nix, Associate Commissioner for Planning

Walter Howard, Director, Assessment and Evaluation

Andrew T. Nutt, Educational PrOgram Director

Joseph P. Hegarty, Consultant, Evaluation

Walter Rambo, Consultant, Evaluation

Pamela Tackett, Statistician

Cathy Roach, Statistician

Betty McCright, Graphics

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction1

Basic State Statistics 2

Basic State Sample Statistics 2

Participants in Programs for the Disadvantaged 4

Pupil Personnel Services for the Disadvantaged 8

Instructional Programs for the Disadvantaged 12

Test Data from Programs for the Disadvantaged 20

Personnel Serving Programs for the Disadvantaged 22

Staff Development of Personnel Serving Programsfor the Disadvantaged 27

School Dropout Information Involving theDisadvantaged 30

1969-70 Graduate Follow-Up 32

Findings and Conclusions 34

iv

INTRODUCTION

Local school districts of Texas for thesixth consecutive year participated in federally supported programs designedto assist the advancement of educationally disadvantaged children. Federal

assistance for those activities was provided through Title I, Elementary andSecondary Education Act of 1965, Public Law 89-10. The contents of this pub-lication comprise the annual report of those programs for fiscal year 1971.

In view of the fact that there were 1,187 local school districts in Texas, astate sample was selected to be representative of the universe. The sampleconsisted of 243 school districts of which 22 had an ADA* of 17,000 or moreeach and those were referred to as large districts, while the remaining 221had an ADA of less than 17,000 each and were termed medium districts.

Within the sample, which embraced a total enrollment of 1,438,820 students,were 222,082 educationally disadvantaged children who received specific in-struction and/or services sponsored under Title I, ESEA. In order to providea complete school program to those disadvantaged students, the districts ex-pended a total of $149,780,984**. Of the total expenditure, $21,939,467,***Title I funds were utilized in the compensatory programs and an additional$127,841,517 were expended from all other sources.

The basic statistics about the sample and the succeeding data relate only tofiscal year 1971 programs with the exception of the graduate follow-up infor-mation. Each student in the sample was identified with one of three ethnicgroups: Spanish Surname, Negro or Other. The group addressed as "Other"included Anglo, Indian and Oriental. All agencies, other than the schooldistricts, were referred to as "Other Agents."

The information gathered from the sample was subsequently arranged into eightmajor divisions and is presented in the report accordingly: Participantsin Programs for the Disadvantaged; Pupil Personnel Services for the Disadvan-taged; Instructional Programs for the Disadvantaged; Test Data from Programsfor the Disadvantaged; Personnel Serving Programs for the Disadvantaged;Staff Development of Personnel Serving Programs for the Disadvantaged; SchoolDropout Information Involving the Disadvantaged; and 1969-70 Graduate Follow-up. Interspersed with the data displays are remarks which transmit findingsderived during the treatment of the data and which are not necessarily appar-ent in the presentation.

*Average daily attendance**1970-71 forecasted per capita cost ($674.44) x the disadvantaged

participants***Title I funds expenditure reported by sample districts

1

ST Al" i12.1

l'i:1',TAT!STgeS

'1970-7i Data Reflect theNumber of Pupils Allocatedfor Participation in ProgramsEartially or Wholly FundedThrough Title i, ESEA.

xemerawr*lerctr.umetomnaa.".,.....aritxx....vw

Number of School Districts in StateNumber of School Districts with Title 1

Funded Projects?v,Ineleeer..13177.3.6.11.11[4.1,214,.1.4.117,111.C51,1.2110,111.1.0701.411M*0.1.11..Mnill,SW,"1.,,,,,Als.

Percent: of Total School Districts HavingProjects F":1 (I ed from Title I, ESEA

N urn bet' of ocf'ular Project,

Number of Co()perative Projects

Number of Schools in Cooperative Projectswxnanw*movom.xassms.aauguaes...,,swockeleDevanaxsa,,,AnKti.s,awnw.,

Total State Enrollment of Public SchoolsTotal Direct Participants in Title 1 FundedProjects'Percent of State Enrollment Directly

vr,nrre

Participating00.11i4AWVIRMatrari.,ImieynagEn014.r.1[Marnaaw.7.777

..117.11.1.6827.467061.1*VAULPager.NVOMMUMS.1,1,47WW.........9.001,1,5enwe,agory..

ie STATESAMPLE LS TATRSTECS

(This report is based upon' the datagathered from the school districtscomprising the selected statesample)

'This figure coT,;,?sts of 157,841disadvantaged students allocated/approved fog services under theprovisions of Title I ESEA and64,241 participants supported by local,state and other, federal funding sources.

"Total state enrollment in nonpublicschools 128,907 (Private and ParochialSchools of Texas, 1970-71 Listing)

2'vasotqcztettatyeapeacusersustosnikaAarratesti,l7. n2.7.1.6

:TY

1965-66 1966-67 1967-68 1968-69 1969-70

VtaXIMVINIP artv.M.M.mMatmemmml LommmprARIMIT,O.L.14WAI

1,273 1,242 1,227 1,187

(.1.1.122121.0:4.111*10179.2

AMA

1,330 1,303

1,133 1,155

661

1.1%11:1.1147.10,11.11..0.1.1....inif Rpm%

1,157 1,107 1,091 e1,061

88,6% 90.8eX, && 89.1%m Pammummormmammgmom mmmomemmememormmoom. .+v.w «xnnrovm.wmv imeramma

716 750 749 763.1Z11:1019.1.9W/114,InTM aras,ammmosmmmaomm..mm

151 124 H 5 100

474 439 407 358

2,493,390 2,554,30.8 2,615,623 2,682,229

415,011 421,2H 438,704 598,080

16.6% 16.5% 16.8% 22.29%

ett....11MMOMAMM....

8,19

91

328 296

2,728,007 2,803,721

467,853 398,224

iPeneVniPiestal...r....7re.W.V.,X,W1401.1/4 MtptteSintia...,,,,,.....r..s..... MMTarm.

Itern

71..1.1.,1130.01,166.9110:97.6111.0/0*..,.11(11",

Number of School DistrictsummerrmammommmmompomMemmo,mmons*.mmmamem*mmamonmemammammeosmum

Total Enrollment of Public SchoolsNumber of Public School Students

1 Allocated for Progri.ms for theDisadvantaged

ammmemm memememsTmommmammmamsmmammem.............---

Number of Public School StudentsParticipating in Programs for theDisadvantaged*Percent of Students Enrolled inPublic Schools Participating inPrograms io for the pis aTotal Enrollment of Nonpublic

Number of Nonpublic SchoolStudent!, Allocated for Programs 732for the Disadvanta ed

IROCM.(61191122iMMY41 LI11.37,11/00.04MJA6Z0(12Percent of Students nrol;ed in Non-public Schools Participating inPro rams for the Dislcivantaue.d

14.2%

DistrictsUnder

Districts17,000 and

17,000 ADA 1 Over ADA(Medium) (Large)

221

i 320,885

61,465 P 96,376

61,967MIMM.217.

160,106

/9.3% t 14.3%

5,964 27,925mmezmmtamosammmmmma ammrwmormmormumumm.

3

12.3% l59 % 15.2 To

PARTICIPANTSIN PROGRAMS

FOR THEDISADVANTAGED

PARTICIPATIONBY GRADE LEVEL

Grade

Pre-Kindergarten

Kindergarten

1

2

3

5

6

7.

8

9

I0

12

Ungraded

4

ParticipatingStudents

3,218

12,724

23,599

22,751

22,397

22,132

20,626

20,022

18,744

16,543

12,496

7,554

6,156

5,419

7,701

}

4.

n

'

S.

'Of " rt."

10, , dit

r

- ' 44 ..

.

w IP

' e

NUMBER PERCENT

PARTICIPATIONBY ETHNICGROUP - TOTALSAMPLE

Spanish Surname 108,176 48.7Negro 74,367 33.5Other 39,539 17.8

222,082 100.0

PARTICIPATION -PUBLIC ANDNONPUBLIC

Public enrollment 1,438,820Public participants 222,082Percent public

participating 15.4

Nonpublic enrollment 33,389Nonpublic participants 5,166Percent nonpublic

participatidg 15.7

PROGRESSIONSTATUS OFPARTICIPANTS(Not includingpre-kindergartenand ungraded)

Total Underage(Less than 5+ gradelevel) 5,255 2.5

Total On Age(5 6+ grade level) 191,015 90.5

Total Overage(Greater than 6+grade level) 14,893 7.0

6

NUMBERIN

SAM PLE

NUMBERIN

SAMPLE

1,524

4,319

1,405

7,248 MEDIUM DISTRICTS

OTHER

SPANISHSURNAME

NEGRO

1,030

2,349

MB 4,266MEI MINI all

LARGE DISTRICTS 7,645

AGE RANGE OF STUDENTS OVERAGE

GRADE LEVEL AGE SPAN

K

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

I0

I I

12

7

7-8

8-14

9-14

10-16

11-14

12-16

13-17

14.18

15-18

16- over 20

17- over 20

18- over 20

19- over 20

PUPESERVICESFOR THEDISADVANTAGED

Medium districtsprovided clothingto a higherpercentage ofchildren(approximatelyfive times more)than the largedistricts - 6.1% to1.1%.

Large districtsappeared topros r e moretransportationcervices for thedisadvantagedthan did mediumdistricts - 21.6%to 11.3%.

Large districtsprovided thepayment of fees(i.e., admissionfees associatedwith enrichmentand culturalactivities, etc.) toa higherpercentage ofpupils than themedium districts -13.7% to 6.5%.

NUMBER OF STUDENTS BY GRADE SPANRECEIVING SEF /ICES FROM THE SCHOOLDISTRICT

Prekin.. Kinder- Ungraded Specialdergarten garten El. & Sec. Education

Social Services 1,347 3,552 31,484 17,998 547 854G u id an ce & Counseling 1,115 3,313 '45,948 27,596 1,189 1,531Food

Breakfast 949 1,347 9,433 1,107 96 812Snack 628 4,359 2,626 125 428 141

Lunch 2,182 7,419 57,603 20,286 211 2,741Medical

Screening 2,396 5,437 41,314 11,923 1,783 1,975Referral 197 2,037 16,339 3,905 268 617

DentalScreening 746 3,373 26,976 7,929 1,078 1,203Referral 317 1,203 13,068 2,343 155 341

Clothing 36.-

352 4,087 821 3 246Trans.ortation 2 861

i4 424 29 373 3 548

.628 688

Fees 234 2,265 21,220 1,781 92 370!Psychological Services 315 578 6,699 1,506 40 1,720

Medium districts provided medical and dentalscreening to a higher percentage of pupilsthan the large districts. However, the percentof pupils referred was approximately thesame. Possibly large districts were able todetermine better which pupils needed screen-ing whilemedium districts screenedall pupils.

SOURCE OF PUPIL PERSONNEL SERVICE FUNDSDOLLARS PERCENT

Title I, Regular 6,437,555 37.3

Title I, Migrant 78,977 .6State 1,262,103 7.3

Local 9,439,537 54.8

Total 17,218,172 100.0

(These funds were those expended by the sample school districts inproviding only pupil personnel services to students participating incompensatory programs sponsored under Title I, ESEA.)

9

E d. NT OF PUPILSAVING SERVICES

FROM THE SCHOOLDISTRICT

Social ServicesGuidance & CounselingFood

BreakfastSnackLunch

MedicalScreeningReferral

DentalScreeningReferral

C'othingTransportationFees

Psychological Services

PERCENT OF PUPILSRECEIVING SERVICESFROM OTHER AGENTS

PERCENT

25.1

36.3

6.23.7

40.7

29.210.5

18.6

7.82.5

18.7

11.7

4.9

Social Services 4.5Guidance & Counseling 4.5Food 20.8Medical 11.1

Dental 4.1Clothing 4.2Transportation 2.0Fees 1.2

Psychological Services 1.7Recreation 7.4

10

9,998

55,782

80,692

1123,36324,556

9,023

17,427

5.545

9,434

4,459

11112T1115,962

r81711130,858

NUMBER OF PUPILS RECEIVING SERVICES

FROM LOCAL SCHOOL DISTRICTS 111111

AND rtTHER AGENTS 111N

Social Services

Guidance & Counseling

Food (Lunch)

Medical (Referrals)

Dental (Referrals)

Clothing

Transportation

Fees

Psychological Services

41,522

90,442

11

12

1,

A

't

cptiAR,TIp.mATiort,, ETHNIc:_oflomrs)-,,

GradeLevel

Prekindergarten

Kindergarten

1

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

Ungraded

Special Education

SpanishSurnam e

Negro Other Total

2,315 427 90 2,832

2,972 1,772 964 5,708

4,334 3,384 923 8,641

3,539 2,786 684 7,009

3,145 2,207 410 5,762

2,530 1,847 470 4,847

2,359 1,086 492 3,937

2,136 1,661 512 4,309

1,116 504 699 2,319

1,049 488 714 2,251

709 528 424 1,661

660 451 350 1,461

483 486 248 1,217

356 197 223 776

657 30 25 712

158 45 41 244

28,518. 7,269 53;686

o

13

I

I

32,766

II

.

: .

17,131

1:

17,'880

: : I

67,777

'MATHEMATICSr-. , , -

`PARTICIPATION r 75,1r111011C CM UtriT.i)

Grade Spanish Negro Other. TotalLevel Surname

Prekindergaiten 119 30 149

Kindergarten 894 298 132 1,324

I 2,048 1,017 519 3,584

1,375 476 372 2,223

3 831 746 319 1,896

4 931 359 517 1,807

5 ,752 457 530 1,739

6 657 418 418 1,493

7 1,146 965 563 2,674

8 870 736 541 2,147

9 805 496 330 1,631

10: 470 604 233 1,307

,11 135 406 139 680

12. 91 214 152 457

Ungraded - 258 732 990S'. 'Oda( Education 39 78 47 164

Total 11i421 : 7,270-, 5,574 24,265

15

fltiCH 4tioTivrrags,fPARTI*W4Or1oN:Olili,

GradeLevel

Spanish NegroSurnam e

PrekiridOrgarteiy

kindergarten

16,

rigradedr

pedal> Education

Tota -

214 3

1,091 2,949

1,867 5,856

1,378 2,764

1,500 2,657

1,413 3,761

1,453 3,628

1,091 2,768

319 891

218 360

248 132

219 161

20 150

9 171

633

234 636

1';907;;, i 24c887-'

16

Other

12

170

399

300

224

320

336

263

89

89

67

54

32

25

102

Total

229

4,210

8,122

4,442

4,381

5,494

5,417

4,122

1,299

667

447

434

202

205

633

972

'2482 '41'2/6-

I .

1

I

PER PUPIL EXPENDITURE FORCOMPENSATORY PROGRAM INSTRUCTION

MEDIUM

DISTRICTSLARGE

DISTRICTS

English Language ArtsReading

Mathematics

Enrichment Activities

$232

234

105

44

$142

170

186

9

PERCENT OF TOTAL SAMPLE PARTICIPANTSWHO RECEIVED INSTRUCTION IN EACH

SUBJECTSUBJECT AREA:

English Language Arts 24.2

Reading 30.5

Mathematics 10.9

Enrichment Activities 18.6

Other Instructional Areas 12.6

18

Agents other than the public schooldistrict provided instructional servicesor funds for instructional services to33,315 students or 15% of alldisadvantaged participants in thesample. (i.e., 0E0, Headstart, VISTA,AFDC, NYC, Texas RehabilitationAgency.)

19

, -FROM

20

0

.7. .7-

.:

`Pr

GRADE NUMBER OFPUPILS TESTED

MEAN GAIN PER ASSUMEDMONTH OF INSTRUCTION

NUMBER OFDISTRICTS

985 .7 5

3 1,671 .6 10

4 867 .8 8

5 969 .9 10

6 1,145 .9 8

7 35 A....

22

8 29 .7 2

READING TEST RESULTS PRESENTED INMEAN GAINS PER ASSUMED MONTH

OF INSTRUCTION

(RESULTS FROM LARGE DISTRICTS)

GRADE NUMBER OFPUPILS TESTED

MEAN GAIN PER ASSUMEDMONTH OF INSTRUCTION

NUMBER OFDISTRICTS

2 918 1.0 SO

3 1,095 .7 57

4 850 1.0 61

5 973 .7 52

6 543 .6 37

7 428 .8116[0.141111

24

8 556 .7 27

READING TEST RESULTS PRESENTED INMEAN GAINS PER ASSUMED MONTH

OF INSTRUCTION

(RESULTS FROM MEDIUM DISTRICTS)

PERSONNELSERVINGPROGRAMSFOR THEDISADVANTAGED

Approximately 50%of the teachersserving disadvantagedpupils had one to twoyears of experiencein these programs.

Approximately 60% ofthe aides had oneto two years ofexperience workingin compensatoryprograms.

TEACHERSAND AIDES

Elementary Teachers

Secondary Teachers

Elementary/Secondary

Teachers

Aides

GUIDANCEPERSONNEL

Elementary

Secondary

Elementary/Secondary.

NUMBER PERCENT

23

80.6

17.2

Elem entaryTeachers

2.1

SecondaryTeach ers

66.3

31.6

74.6

Percent WithoutDegree

92.6

7.4

95.2

Elementary/ Elementary SecondarySecondary Guidance GuidanceTeachers Personnel Personnel

93.

6.9

Elementary/SecondaryGuidancePersonnel

Percent Bachelor Percent MastersDegree Degree

DEGREE STATUS OF PROFESSIONAL STAFF

One 'hundred ten 'nurses served thedisadvantaged:participants.

24

The professional attendancepersonnel serving compensatoryprograms totaled 70.

CERTIFICATION STATUS OFPROFESSIONAL STAFF,

Elementary Teachers 88.6

D.EG RE E

9.2

NO DEGREE

2.2

Secondary Teachers 90.4 7.5 2.1

Elementary/Secondary Teachers 85.7 3.2

Elementary Guidance Personnel 90.7 9.3

Secondary Guidance Personnel 100.0

Elementary/Secondary GuidancePersonnel 916.6 3.4

The majority of professional personnelserving disadvantaged students spentfrom 75 to 100 percent of the workingday in these programs.

25

AVIEHAGE NUMBER OF YEARS-31EIctONNEIL HAVE SERVED IN

ROGRAMS FOR THEDISLOVANTAGED

Elementary Teacher s

Secondary Teachers

Elementary /Secondary Teachers

Elementary Guidance Personnel

Secondary Guidance Personnel

Elementary/Secondary Guidance Personnel

Aides

26

Staff developmentactivities includedworkshops,college courses,study groups,professionalmeetings, projectvisitations anddistrictconferences.

Many personnelparticipated inmore than onetraining activity.

27

STAFFDEVELOPMENTOF PERSONNELSERVINGPROGRAMSFOR THEDISADVANTAGED

The most popular staff developmentactivity was the workshop - of thosereceiving training, 87 percentattended workshops.

NUMBER PERCENT

PERSONNELWHO RECEIVEDTRAINING(UNDUPLICATED)

Teachers 2,241 56.2

Aides 1,576 39.6Other Personnel 168 4.2

3,985 100.0

FUNDSEXPENDEDFROM ALLSOURCESFOR TRAININGOF PERSONNELSERVINGPROGRAMSFOR THEDISADVANTAGED

Teachers $205,891 40.9Aides 253,253 50.3

Other Personnel 44,629 8.8503,773 100.0

PORTION OFEACH GROUPTHATPARTICIPATEDIN COMBINEDTRAINING(TEACHER/AIDETRAINING)

Teachers 1,115 49.8Aides 1,295 82.2Other Personnel 94 56.0

2,504 or 62.8 percentof all personnel trainedparticipated in combinedtraining.

29

SCHOOL DROPOUTINFORMATION

INVOLVING THEDISADVANTAGED

A dropout isconsidered tobe any pupilwho leaves aschool, for anyreason exceptdeath, beforegraduation orcompletion of aprogram ofstudies andwithouttransferring toanother school.

REASONS FOR DROPPING OUT

Physical

Mental

Economic

Marriage/Pregnancy

Underachiever/Overage

Lack of Communication Skills...............,Disciplinary Action

Curriculum Unsuited to Pupil's NeedsUnknown

OtherTotal Per Grade

REASONS FOR DROPPING OUT

Physical

MentalEconomic ....Marriage/Pregnancy

Underachiever/Overage

Lack of Communication SkillsDisciplinary Action

Curriculm Unsuited to Pupil's NeedsUnknown

Other

Total Per Grade

30

DROPOUTS FROM EDUCATIONALLY DISADVANTAGED POPULATIONS

5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 TOTAL

13 37 44 51 64 61 21

,......,292

5 2 . 13 II 24

243

33

411

16

361

18,-.....-iii248

122

1,4434 15 39 122

2 5 60 142 296 388 330 202 1,425

7 11_

48 87 246 262 235 132 1,028

1 5 18 35 64 52 55

91

154.---....38

245

7 34 58 98 104 430

1 4 22 18 106 122 124 _ 45 442

16 43 64 88 317 336 292 a 182 1,338

10 21 52 43 184 188 183 139 820

47 126 387 648 1,629 1,960 1,748 1040 7,585

DROPOUTS FROM TOTAL SCHOOL ENROLLMENTAT EACH GRADE LEVEL

5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 Total

40 67 112 158 255 353 355.

202 1,542

5 10 28 55 240 194 151 48 731

5 19 103 261 716 1,408 1,424 1,054 4,990

5 13 113 330 750 1,124 1,110 823 4,260

9 18 104 197 853 742 606 383 2,912

I 5 40 64 216 158 177 79 740

I 18 82 240 425 481 483 245 1,975

1 6 34 107 338 409..

430 269a

1,594

86 205 412 412 1,085 1,330 1094 795...1

5,419

18 86 184 281 820 1,651 1,427 846I

5,313

171 447 1,212 2,105 5,698 7,850 7215/7 4,744 29,484

31

1969-70

GRADUATE

FOLLOW-UP

Disregard the color coding utilized on pages 32 and 33. Following each majorheading, the two upper blocks indicate the number and percentage of 1969-70graduates from the educationally disadvantaged population, while the two lowerblocks indicate the number and percentage of all other 1969-70 graduates.

4n3

GRADUATES9,854 13.5%

63,124 86.5%

EDUCATIONALLYDISADVANTAGED

ALLOTHERS

-EDUCATIONALLY DISADVANTAC

-ALL OTHERS

GRADUATES

Total 72,978 100.0%

PORTION OF EACH GROUPOF GRADUATES THATRECEIVED VOCATIONALTRAINING AT THESECONDARY LEVEL

27,902 or 38.2% of total graduates received vocational training at thesecondary level.

32

PORTIONS OF THOSEGRADUATES WHO RECEIVEDVOCATIONAL TRAINING AT

I 799$ 37.1%

THE SECONDARY LEVEL ANDWERE EMPLOYED IN THE AREAOF VOCATIONAL TRAINING

1

4,708 20.4%

6,507 or 23.3% of all graduates who received vocational training at thesecondary level were employed in occupations requiring vocational training

PORTION OF EACH GROUPOF GRADUATES THAT WASEMPLOYED IN THE AREA OFVOCATIONAL TRAINING

1,799 18.3%

4,708 7.5%

6,507 or 8.9% of total graduates were employed in their area of vocationaltraining.

PORTION OF EACH GROUP OFGRADUATES THAT WASEMPLOYED (THIS DATAINCLUDES THOSE EMPLOYEDIN THEIR AREA OFVOCATIONAL TRAINING)

3,345 33.9%

..--..

11,164 17.7%

14,509 or 19.9% of total graduates were employed.

PORTION OF EACH GROUP OFGRADUATES TAKING POST-GRADUATE TRAINING

1,059 10.7%

3,275 5.2%

4,334 or 5.9% of total graduates were taking post-graduate training.

PORTION OF EACH GROUPOF GRADUATES IN COLLEGE

2,559 26.0%

35,563 56.3%

38,122 or 52.2% of total graduates were in college.

PORTION OF EACH GROUPOF GRADUATES IN THEARMED FORCES

1,102 11.2%

3,082' 5.0%

4,184 or 5.7% of total graduates were in the armed forces.

33

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

After extensive treatment of the data, duedeliberation and discussion of the varied implications, and review of all related aspects,the following was discerned:

The number of pupils in medium school districts allocated for Title I aid waswithin one percent of the number who actually participated. This is an indi-cation that medium districts were able to identify the students most in needof services and to provide the needed services.

In large districts, a greater number of students were served through compen-satory programs than were allocated. The number allocated was 60 percentof those actually served. This implies that either identification of the targetpopulation was inadequate or that the system for determining allocation wasa constraint. Providing for the needs of the additional disadvantaged stu-dents required increased funds from local, state and other federal fundingsources. This perhaps is an indication that Title I funds are insufficient tomeet the needs of large districts.

The sharpest declines in participation took place between the eighth andninth grades (4,047) and the ninth and tenth grades (4,942). This impliesthat the compwsatory programs either did not have sufficient appeal tohold the disadvantaged student at this point in time or less emphasis wasplaced on the programs at this stage of his progress. In any case, this appearsto be a critical point in the pupil's progression.

The Negro ethnic group was the second largest group of participants (37.1percent) in the programs in large districts, however, this group comprised55.8 percent of the overage participants in the large districts. This tends toindicate that increased attention should be directed toward improvement oftheir progression.

The pupil personnel services provided by school districts most widely uti-lized by disadvantaged participants were in descending order the lunch pro-gram, guidance and counseling, and medical screening. It appears, due to theinfluence these activities have on student progress, that attention was prop-erly directed to important and pressing needs.

As was the case with local school districts, other agents also directed theirstrongest efforts to providing for the food needs of disadvantaged children.This further highlights the need for continued attention to the level of sup-port in this area of assistance.

In medium school districts, other agents provided medical services to ahigher percent of students than did other agents in large districts, 22.3 per-cent to 6.7 percent. However, this information was difficult to collect inlarge districts and many of the services which were actually provided maynot have been reported.

Clothing was provided to a higher percent of pupils by other agents in me-dium districts than was provided by other agents in large districts, 6.0 per-cent to 3.6 percent. It may be possible to identify individual needs moreeasily in medium districts.

34

In the instructional areas, the highest concentrations of disadvantaged pupilsparticipated in either English language arts, reading, or mathematics pro-grams ;Here were a few districts that elected to conduct compensatory pro-grams in science, social studies physical education and recreation, and coor-dinated vocational-academic education programs. Although needs exist inother instructional areas the predom1,-ance still is in the basic foundationsubjects.

The total expenditure of $28,466,482 for compensatory instructional pro-grams emphasizes the predominance of attention that was directed to assist-ing the disadvantaged student in the instructional area. Indications are thatthe trend should be for increased emphasis in this direction.

Standardized test data were requested from all districts where academic pro-grams were conducted for educationally disadvantaged pupils. The resultswere reported in mean grade equivalents for all pupils tested in a particularsubject area. However, due to numerous problems, the information was verydifficult to use in a statewide analys.s of the effectiveness of the programs.Districts were not provided guidelines for selecting standardized tests forthese programs. Results received were from a wide variety of tests and com-binations of tests. Not all pupils were administered standardized tests.Testing periods differed from one district to another. Some tested in boththe fall and spring; some only in the fall; others only in the spring. For com-parison test results had to be converted to a like base which caused some dis-tortion of the data. It can only be assumed that each pupil received instruc-tion during the full period between test dates. In order to effectively evalu-ate the progress of students in these programs, attention should be directedtoward uniformity in test selection and administration, and processing andreporting test results.

Both pre and post-tests were not always available; consequently, many dis-tricts did not report test results. Therefore, the effects of the programs uponmany students were not adequately measured. This would indicate a needfor advance planning in program administration.

Approximately 89 percent of all teachers had regular certification. The re-maining 11 percent held emergency certificates. Two percent of the teacherswere nondegreed. The staffing for these programs is not peculiar to the aver-age school situation. Certain circumstances limit the availability of degreedpersonnel,

All guidance personnel were college graduates and 94 percent held regularcertificates for their professional positions. The programs were staffed withqualified personnel to perform this important service.

Approximately 65 percent of the elementary guidance personnel have servedin compensatory programs from one to two years, while 86 percent of thesecondary guidance personnel have served disadvantaged students six ormore years. Apparently proper attention has been directed to the area re-quiring more experience.

35

The personnel mentioned in this report were only a portion of the peoplewho provided for the disadvantaged students. Many other people also servedin compensatory programs such as bus drivers, administrators, consultants(a wide variety), secretaries, food service personnel, clerks, nurses, atten-dance personnel, custodians, and many more.

Approximately 63 percent of all personnel who received training partici-pated in combined teacher/aide training: This may indicate that personnelare becoming more aware of the cooperative venture associated with theseprograms.

During the FY 71 program 50 percent of the funds expended for trainingwere utilized for aide training. Recognizing the increasing scope of servicesperformed by these personnel, constant attention should be directed towardthis effort.

The highest incidence of dropouts from both the total enrollment and thedisadvantaged participants occurred at the tenth grade level. Reasonableassumption is that the student reached the employment age and, for thedisadvantaged in particular, felt the need for an income. Attention should bedirected toward the improvement and/or expansion of programs beginningat the seventh or eighth grade levels and continuing through the twelfthgrade as possible methods for reducing the dropout rate.

School districts reported they did not know why 18 percent of the dropoutsleft school. This was true for the dropouts from the total school enrollmentand from among the disadvantaged students. This indicates a need to im-prove the programs for counseling or interviewing students prior to leavingschool.

In a proportionate comparison within each group of 1969-70 graduates,a larger portion of the disadvantaged (45 percent) were either employed orin the armed forces compared to the other graduates (23 percent), while alarger portion of the other graduates (56 percent) were in college comparedto the disadvantaged (26 percent).

Approximately 20 percent of the medium districts did not report gradu-ate follow-up program information. To better determine the effects thecompensatory programs have on the student population requires a compre-hensive and current graduate follow-up program.

Review of the 1969-70 graduate follow-up data disclosed that 1,789 gradu-ates from the disadvantaged group and 10,040 of the other graduates wereunaccounted. Acknowledging that a small portion of those missing for onereason or another (i.e., death, institutionalized, etc.) can be dismissed, theremainder indicates that either the 1969-70 graduates experienced a highrate of unemployment and consequently were not reported or the systemsfor follow-up were weak. Future studies should consider this unknown quan-tity.

36