Is It Helping Poor Children?

    @ 

1: 
.~ 

~ 
0 
u 

A report by the Washington Research Pro/'ect of 
the Southern Center for Studies in Public Po icy and 

the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. 



Title I 
of 

ESEA 

Washington Research Project 
1823 Jefferson Place, N.W. 
Washington, D.C. 20036 

NAACP Legal Defense and 
Educational Fund, Inc. 
10 Columbus Circle 
N.Y. , N.Y. 10019 

~\G 



Revised second edition 

Copyright © December, 1969. Washington Research Project and 
NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. 



TABLE OF CONTENTS 

INTRODUCTION . . 
Why This Review of Title I . 
How This Review Was Conducted 
What This Report Covers . . 

CHAPTER I: HOW TITLE I WORKS 

v 
vii 
vii 

The Formula . . 2 
The Participants . 2 
Level of Funding 3 
How the Money is Spent 3 

CHAPTER II: TITLE I AS GENERAL AID 4 
Aid To All Schools . 5 
Aid To Non-Target Schools 9 
Failure To Concentrate Funds 9 
Misuses of Concentration . 12 
State Agencies' Use of Title I 

as General Aid 12 

CHAPTER III: TITLE I IN PLACE OF STATE 
AND LOCAL MONEY . 15 

Equalizing Poor Schools With Other Schools . 16 
Assuming the Funding of Programs Previously 

Supported by State and Local Funds . 19 
Title I and Other Federal Programs . 21 

CHAPTER IV: CONSTRUCTION AND EQUIPMENT. 23 
Construction . 24 



Equipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 

CHAPTER V: FAILURE TO MEET THE NEEDS OF 
EDUCATIONALLY DEPRIVED CHILDREN 29 

CHAPTER VI: LACK OF COMMUNITY INVOLVE-
MENT AND DENIAL OF INFORMATION . 36 

CHAPTER VII: FEDERAL AND STATE 
ADMINISTRATION OF TITLE I 43 

Division of Responsibility 43 
State Management . 47 
Approval of Projects 49 
Audit of Projects . . 49 
Federal Administration 52 
The Office of Education 

and Mississippi 53 

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 57 

FOOTNOTES 59 

APPENDIX A 66 

APPENDIX B 72 

APPENDIX C 73 



INTRODUCTION 

In 1965 Congress passed the Elementary and Secondary Educa­
tion Act (ESEA), the most far-reaching and significant education 
legislation in the history of this country. For the first time, the 
national government recognized the necessity of providing Federal 
aid to elementary and secondary schools. For the first time, the 
special needs of poor children were recognized and effective ame­
liorative action promised through special assistance to school 
systems with high concentrations of low-income children.1 

Our hopes that the Nation would finally begin to rectify the in­
justices and inequities which poor children suffer from being de­
prived of an equal educational opportunity have been sorely dis­
appointed. Millions of dollars appropriated by the Congress to help 
educationally deprived children have been wasted, diverted or 
otherwise misused by State and local school authorities. The kinds 
of programs carried out with Federal funds appropriated to raise 
the educational levels of these children are such that many parents 
of poor children feel that Title I is only another promise unful­
filled, another law which is being violated daily in the most flagrant 
manner without fear of reprisal. 

We have found that in school systems across the country Title I 
• has not reached eligible children in many instances; 

• has not been concentrated on those most in need so that there 
is reasonable promise of success; 

• has purchased hardware at the exp.ense of instructional 
programs; 



• has not been used to meet the most serious educational 
needs of school children; and 

• bas not been used in a manner that involves parents and 
communities in carrying out Title I projects. 

This study examines what has happened to Title I in the four 
school years since ESEA was passed. This is not an evaluation of 
compensatory programs, but a report on how Title I money has 
been spent and bow Title I bas been administered at the local, 
State, and Federal levels. 

Since passage of ESEA, Congress has appropriated $4.3 billion 
for the benefit of educationally deprived poor children-black, 
brown, white, and Indian children. Because most of these children 
attend inadequately financed and staffed schools, the windfall of 
Federal appropriations no doubt brings many improvements to 
these schools that these children never had. To hear the educa­
tional profession and school administrators talk (or write), Title I 
is the best thing that ever happened to American school systems. 
Educational opportunities, services, and facilities for poor children 
are provided. Some poor children are now well fed and taught by 
more teachers in new buildings with all the latest equipment, 
materials, and supplies. Early evaluations of academic gain have 
not been so optimistic. Some school systems report that despite 
the massive infusion of Federal dollars, poor children are not 
making academic gains beyond what is normally expected. Some 
report moderate academic gain in programs, and some report real 
academic improvement. 

Despite these reports, the almost universal assumption about 
Title I is that it is providing great benefits to educationally disad­
vantaged children from low-income families. 

We find this optimistic assumption largely unwarranted. Instead 
we find that: 

1. The intended beneficiaries of Title I-poor children-are 
being denied the benefits of the Act because of improper and 
illegal use of Title I funds. 

2. Many Title I programs are poorly planned and executed so 
that the needs of educationally deprived children are not met. 
In some instances there are no Title I programs to meet the 
needs of these children. 

II 



3. State departments of education, which have major responsi­
bility for operating the program and approving Title I project 
applications, have not lived up to their legal responsibility 
to administer the program in conformity with the law and 
the intent of Congress. 

4. The United States Office of Education, which has overall 
responsibility for administering the Act, is reluctant and 
timid in its administration of Title I and abdicates to the 
States its responsibility for enforcing the law. 

5. Poor people and representatives of community organizations 
are excluded from the planning and design of Title I pro­
grams . In many poor communities, the parents of Title !­
eligible children know nothing about Title I. In some com­
munities, school officials refuse to provide information about 
the Title I program to local residents. 

These practices should be corrected immediately. We recom­
mend that: 

1. The Department of Health, Education and Welfare (HEW) 
and the Department of Justice take immediate action against school 
systems where HEW audits have identified illegal uses of Title I 
funds and, where indicated, restitution of misused funds demanded. 

2. HEW enforce the requirement for equalization of State and 
local resources between Title I and non-Title I in schools in dis­
tricts throughout the country; in Mississippi such equalization be 
required by the 1970-71 school year as recommended by the Com­
missioner. 

3. HEW immediately institute an effective monitoring and 
evaluation system to insure proper use of Title I funds; the Title I 
office be given additional staff and status within the Office of Edu­
cation; and a capable director be appointed forthwith and made 
directly responsible to the Commissioner of Education. 

4. An appropriate Committee of Congress immediately con­
duct an oversight hearing and examine on a systematic basis the 
manner in which Federal, State and local school officials are using 
Title I funds. 

5. The provision requiring community participation under 
Title I be maintained and strengthened. 

iii 



6. Alternative vehicles for operation of Title I programs be 
provided where State and local officials are unable or unwilling to 
operate effective Title I programs. For example, private non-profit 
organizations are permitted to operate Title I programs for migrant 
children. 

7. HEW enforce the law; States be required to approve only 
those projects which conform with the Title I Regulations and the 
Program Criteria. 

8. Congress provide full funding under the Act in order to 
ensure sufficient resources to help poor children. 

9. All efforts to make Title I a "bloc grant" be rejected. 

10. Further study be undertaken on issues raised in this report 
including: 

a. use of Title I to supplant other Federal funds; 
b. equitable distribution of funds to predominantly Mexican­

American districts; 
c. Title I programs for migratory and Indian children; and 
d. relation between Title I and all other food assistance 

programs. 

11. Local school systems make greater effort to involve the 
community, including disclosure of information regarding Title I 
programs and expenditures. 

12. Private citizens demand information and greater community 
participation on local advisory committees; denial of information 
and illegal use of funds be challenged by community groups and, 
where appropriate, complaints made to local, State and Federal 
officials; lawsuits be filed and other appropriate community action 
be undertaken to ensure compliance with the law. 

13. States assure that Title I programs actually meet the educa­
tional needs of all poor children and recognize the cultural heritage 
of racial and ethnic groups. 

The goal of Title I is simple. It is to help children of poor fam­
ilies get a better education. Accomplishing that goal, however, is 
not simple. Existing educational structures at the State and local 
levels are the institutions responsible for the administration of 
Title I, but often they are the institutions least able to respond to 

IV 



a new challenge or to respond to the needs of poor minorities. In 
order to accomplish the goal of Title I, many changes will be 
needed. But before we can understand the nature of the changes, 
we need to understand what the law provides and how in fact it is 
operating in school districts across the country. That is the sub­
stance of this report. 

Why This R eview of Title I 

Reviews and evaluations of Federal grant-in-aid programs are 
usually made by "experts." This review was not prepared by edu­
cational "experts," but by organizations interested in the rights of 
the poor. We make this review because we feel that the accepted 
experts have fai led to inform the public honestly about the faulty, 
and sometimes fraudulent, way in which Title I of the Elementary 
and Secondary Education Act of 1965 is operating in many sections 
of the country. 

In December 1968, Federal education funds were terminated in 
Coahoma County, Mississippi because of the school board's refusal 
to submit an acceptable desegregation plan under Title VI of the 
Civil Rights Act of 1964. As a consequence of the termination of 
Federal funds , teachers, teacher-aides and janitors, all black, were 
fired. Their salaries had been paid by Title I , and their employment 
in the black schools was terminated along with the Title I funds. 
A group of parents and the NAACP Legal Defense and Educa­
tional Fund, Inc. brought suit against the Coahoma County School 
Board charging illegal use of Title T funds as well as the unconsti­
tutional operation of a racially dual school system. The lawsuit 
represented the first, and, thus far, the only serious challenge to the 
manner in which a school system utilizes its Title I funds.2 

In the spring of 1969, a small group of private organizations 
involved in the struggle for equal educational opportunities for 
poor and minority children agreed that they needed to pool their 
resources to examine how Title I funds were being used, and to 
what extent the educational needs of these children were being met 
as Congress intended. We knew that the situation in Coahoma 
County was not an isolated situation. Our decision to look at Title I 
was based not only on the incident in Coahoma County, but also 
on a number of complaints from individuals and organizations 
across the country about the operation of Title I in local districts. 

v 



We had three basic concerns about Title I. First, poor people 
knew little or nothing about the provisions of the law. They had 
even less to say about how these Federal funds were being used in 
their school districts despite the fact that the Title I Regulations 
require that they be involved in the planning and execution of 
Title I programs. Second, we suspected that much of the Title I 
investment was not being spent in accordance with the law and 
Regulations, and that much of the money was being used as general 
aid and in place of State and local education revenues. Third, we 
felt that an independent review was needed to determine whether 
the money was really being spent for the educational needs of edu­
cationally deprived children. 

Some may think that by inquiring into Title I we risk renewing 
old battles over Federal aid to education. Some may think that 
criticism of how Title I money is spent or the program adminis­
tered could jeopardize the entire legislation. Some may take the 
position that it is better to have Title I funds, even though they may 
not always be used exactly as Congress intended, than not have 
them at all. Still others may feel that any use of these funds helps 
in the process of educating children, even if the expenditures are 
in violation of the law. 

We disagree. We believe that poor and minority children should, 
indeed must, have the rights and benefits accorded them by law. 
We have decided to pursue our efforts because ultimately it is 
educationally deprived children who will be held accountable for 
the Federal investment. All the tests and evaluations to determine 
the effectiveness of Title I will be administered to poor children, 
not to school administrators or to State and Federal officials. Thus 
it seemed only right that poor people themselves, and private or­
ganizations working on their behalf, should make an attempt to 
find out what is happening to poor children as a result of the 
expenditure of billions of dollars. 

This report is intended as a defense of Title I. Our criticisms 
are offered in order to make its operation more effective and to 
ensure that the Congressional intent is implemented. We believe 
that Federal aid to education is now firmly embedded in our system 
and should be encouraged, not weakened. However, we feel obliged 
to report to poor people, to minority people, to the President, to 
Congress and to the Nation what we have learned about Title I of 

vi 



the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. We hope 
by bringing to light some of the more flagrant misuses of Title I 
funds that a concerted and continuing effort will ensue to help poor 
children get what the Nation promised them when the Act was 
passed. 

How This Review Was Conducted 

We collected information and interviewed officials at all levels 
of Title I's operation. As we wanted to know what the Federal 
government already knew about Title I's operation, we began there. 
We interviewed Federal officials and examined records and files at 
the Department of Health, Education and Welfare. This report 
relies heavily on information taken from government documents, 
especially the audits of Title I performed by the HEW Audit 
Agency. 

In addition to reviewing the program at the Federal level, we 
gathered information about Title I in selected local school systems 
and State departments of education to find out what programs were 
operating and what the attitude of school officials was toward Title I 
and toward poor children. We also interviewed parents in order to 
determine how much they knew about Title I and how they had 
been involved in Title I programs in local school districts. These 
interviews were conducted by staff members of private organiza­
tions and, in many cases, by local residents, members of poor com­
munities. Together we interviewed Title I officials in nine States, 28 
Title I coordinators of local districts, 39 principals or teachers in 
Title I schools and 191 parents. 

The State and local systems from which we gathered information 
were chosen on the basis of several criteria. An attempt was made 
to get a rough cross-section of State and local systems which would 
represent different regions, various sizes of enrollment and mixtures 
of racial and ethnic groups. We gathered information from rural 
school districts, from small and medium-sized urban systems, and 
from large metropolitan systems. 

What This Report Covers 

This report deals with the major part of the Title I legislation­
aid to local school systems with high concentrations of children 

vii 



from low-income families. In fiscal year 1969, $1.02 billion went 
to these school districts out of a total Title I Congressional appro­
priation of $1.1 billion. This report does not treat two other cate­
gories of financial assistance under Title I, aid to children of migra­
tory farm workers and Indian children attending schools operated 
by the Bureau of Indian Affairs.3 Nor does this report cover poor 
children in institutions for the neglected and delinquent, although 
they are all identified in the Act as beneficiaries of Title I. This 
does not mean that we feel that there are no problems connected 
with their operation. On the contrary, we know that there are 
problems and hope that these programs will receive early attention. 
Only because of their low dollar value and because of our limited 
resources are they excluded here. 

This report focuses on how Title I money is spent, how Title I 
is administered and some of the consequences for poor children 
resulting therefrom. It does not attempt to evaluate the educational 
value of specific Title I programs nor the impact of various kinds 
of compensatory education programs, although when we have dis­
covered Title I sponsored programs which we feel have no educa­
tional purpose at all , we say so. 

Chapter I explains briefly how Title I works, and specific refer­
ences to the Title I Regulations, the law, and the Program Criteria 
will be found in Appendix A. Chapter II deals with the use of 
Title I as general aid in many school systems. Chapter III examines 
the illegal use of Title I in the North and South to supplant State 
and local expenditures and the relation between Title I and other 
Federal programs. The purchase of massive amounts of equipment 
and the excessive construction of facilities is the subject of Chapter 
IV. Chapter V deals with the failure of some Title I-funded projects 
to meet the educational needs of poor children. Chapter VI deals 
with the exclusion of the poor community from decisions about use 
of Title I and the refusal of State and local school officials to pro­
vide information about Title I. Chapter VII examines how Title I is 
administered at the State and Federal levels. 

Many organizations and individuals have contributed to this 
report. Although the Washington Research Project and the NAACP 
Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. assumed major respon­
sibility for this report, other organizations contributing to the effort 
included the American Friends Service Committee, The Urban 

viii 



Coalition, the South Carolina Council on Human Relations, the 
Illinois Commission on Human Relations, the Delta Ministry of the 
National Council of Churches and the North Mississippi Rural 
Legal Services. We appreciate the help we received from the Office 
of Education and HEW Audit Agency staff. We are especially 
grateful for the financial support for this report from the Aaron E. 
Norman Foundation and the Southern Education Foundation. 
Numerous individuals in communities across the country gave their 
assistance. Chief among these individuals are the following: Wini­
fred Green, Roger Mills, Michael Trister, Beatrice Young and 
Electra Price. Ruby Martin of the Washington Research Project 
and Phyllis McClure of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educa­
tional Fund, Inc. had the responsibility for the final preparation of 
this report. 

ix 



I 

I 

HOW TITLE I WORKS 

Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 
provides financial assistance to school systems which have high 
concentrations of low income children residing within the districts. 
This Act is entirely Federally financed and requires no matching 
grant. Approximately 16,000 out of a total of 26,983 school 
districts in the Nation receive T itle I money. An estimated nine 
million children participated in some way in a Title I-funded 
project in the 1968-69 school year. 1 

Payments under Title I go to State departments of education, 
which in turn make payments to local school districts. Local dis­
tricts are eligible under the law to receive a certain amount estab­
lished by formula upon submitting a project application. Local 
school officials may use the money for a broad range of projects, 
but the expenditures must be in conformity with the law, the Regu­
lations, and certain Program Criteria established by the U.S. Com­
missioner of Education. The project application of a local school 
system must set forth (1) the program or programs to be supported, 
(2) a budget, (3) the number of eligible children, (4) designated 
target areas, (5) an identification of the needs of eligible children, 
and (6) provisions for evaluating the programs or projects . The 
State department of education is responsible for approving, reject­
ing, or renegotiating the project applications from local districts. 
These project applications do not go to Washington. The State is 
entirely responsible for paying funds, approving project applica­
tions, monitoring, audit ing, and evaluating the effectiveness of 
projects. 



In effect, Title I operates as a "bloc grant" since the money may 
be used in any manner the State approves as long as it is spent on 
disadvantaged children. Although the States determine how Title I 
money will be spent, each State must provide assurance to the 
Office of Education that it will approve projects that meet the re­
quirements of the law. For example, States may not permit Title I 
to be used as general aid to a school district or in place of State 
or local funds. The purpose of Title I is to provide special educa­
tional programs for educationally deprived children most in need 
of assistance, and according to the Federal Regulations, the pro­
gram must be of such size and scope as to have reasonable promise 
of success. Each local district must determine the needs of the 
eligible children in its schools and what programs it will operate to 
meet those needs. The Regulations and Program Criteria governing 
Title I are numerous and complex, but their purpose is to set 
standards for the wisest use of the money. Excerpts from the Fed­
eral Program Criteria are cited in Appendix A. 

The Formula 

The amount of money which a local district receives is based on 
a formula which is determined in the following manner: The num­
ber of children in the district from families with annual incomes of 
$2,000 or less (determined by the 1960 Census) is added to the 
number of children from families receiving AFDC (welfare money), 
plus the number of children in institutions for the neglected and 
delinquent. This total number of children is then multiplied by half 
the State per-pupil expenditure or by half the national per-pupil 
expenditure, whichever is greater. 

The Participants 

Although an estimated nine million children participated in some 
way in a Title I-sponsored project during the 1968-69 school year, 
it is important to understand that Title I does not reach all poor 
children who are educationally disadvantaged. The Office of Edu­
cation estimates that about 18 percent of the students in Title I 
participating schools are severely educationally disadvantaged, and 
that only slightly more than 50 percent of those pupils are partici­
pating in Title I compensatory programs (reading, arithmetic, and 
language).2 

2 



Level of Funding 

There has always been a wide gap between the amount author­
ized by Congress ($2.7 billion), and the amount actually appro­
priated for Title I. In fiscal year 1969 Congress appropriated 
$1.123 billion, only 41 percent of the amount authorized. The 
$1.123 billion represented a cutback of $68 million from the pre­
vious year. ESEA is before the Congress this year for an extension 
of the legislation and appropriation of funds for the 1969-70 school 
term. The present Administration has asked Congress to appropriate 
$1.216 billion for Title I. 

How the Money is Spent 

There is cause for alarm when Congress does not appropriate 
sufficient funds to meet its own professed commitment to serve the 
educational needs of children from America's low-income families. 
These children will never get a chance unless there are significant 
Federal resources behind the Congressional rhetoric. The declining 
appropriations and the rising cost of education mean fewer oppor­
tunities for poor children who suffer educational handicaps. While 
we are concerned about this weakening Federal support, and urge 
full funding under the Act, we are dismayed about the failure of 
many local school officials to use the available money in the best 
interests of poor children. We note with interest what the National 
Advisory Committee on the Education of Disadvantaged Children 
has said: 

"Some [projects] are imaginative, well thought-out, and demon­
strably successful; other projects exemplify a tendency simply 
to do more of the same, to enlarge equipment inventories or 
reduce class size by insignificant numbers." 3 

3 



II 

TITLE I AS GENERAL AID 

Title I money is not to be used as general aid. To do so dilutes 
services to poor children and denies them crucial benefits under 
the Act. When Congress enacted ESEA, it intended that Title I 
would enable local school districts to provide services and programs 
which they were unable to provide to meet the special educational 
needs of educationally disadvantaged children. However, many 
school districts see this massive infusion of Federal funds as an 
opportunity to improve their schools generally, to buy large amounts 
of equipment and supplies, and to construct buildings and additions 
to schools. No doubt much of the money spent in this way has 
provided needed resources to the total educational program. No 
doubt many poor children benefit from having services, facilities 
and teachers that they may never have had before. Despite this, 
they are still being cheated because they are not receiving the full 
impact of the legislation. 

The determinations as to which children should receive Title I 
assistance are clearly spelled out in the legislation passed by Con­
gress, in the Federal Regulations, and in a number of Program 
Criteria. 1 The law specifies that Title I assistance should go to: 

• Individual children, not entire school populations; 

• Children who have one or more educational handicaps and 
who come from low-income families, not all children in all 
poverty-area schools; 

• Programs that seek primarily to raise the educational attain­
ment or skills of children, not exclusively to projects or 

4 



services dealing with health, welfare, or recreational needs 
of poor children. 

Our review of HEW audits and our interviews reveal that re­
quirements for identifying the educational needs of children and 
for concentrating funds have been frequently ignored. Instead of 
focusing Title I resources on the educational problems of those 
poor children most in need, Title I is frequently used as general 
aid. The use of Title I as general aid typically falls into four cate­
gories: 

1. Title I funds purchase services, equipment, and supplies that 
are made available to all schools in a district or all children 
in a school even though many children reached are ineligible 
for assistance. 

2. Title I funds are spread around throughout all poverty-area 
schools instead of focusing on those target areas with high 
concentrations of low-income families. 

3. Title I funds are not going to eligible children at all. 

4. Title I State administration funds support non-Title I opera­
tions of State departments of education. 

Aid To All Schools 

• Curriculum and materials centers, language and science labora­
tories are common uses of Title I funds as general aid. These cen­
ters usually contain books, supplies, visual aids, equipment, and 
other learning "hardware" that can be checked out by any teacher 
in the school system. These centers are frequently located in the 
school system's central office, in a Title I purchased mobile unit, 
or at a non-Title I school rather than at a "target" school. While 
Title I children may receive some benefits from these centers, so 
do all children whose teachers avail themselves of the materials. 
SOUTH CAROLINA boasts of 23 such centers. Eight out of 18 
MISSISSIPPI districts surveyed by Office of Education staff had 
instructional materials centers. 2 

• HEW auditors found that three GEORGIA school districts 
were making Title I projects available to all schools in the system. 
GWINNETT COUNTY had a mobile curriculum center, costing 

5 



$70,646, serving all schools. A $340,763 reading clinic served all 
schools in MUSCOGEE COUNTY. In BIBB COUNTY a $459,068 
curriculum materials center served all schools.3 Our interviewers in 
Bibb County reported that consultants and educational television 
funded by Title I are also available to all teachers and all children 
in the system.4 

• In OXFORD, MISSISSIPPI, a curriculum and materials cen­
ter is located at a non-Title I school, near a police station, report­
edly for fear of burglary. Furthermore, the Title I coordinator in 
Oxford is principal of a non-Title I, white school.5 

• In GREENE COUNTY and SUMTER COUNTY, ALA· 
BAMA, and in NEW ALBANY, QUITMAN COUNTY, and 
PONTOTOC COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI, Title I coordinators told 
our interviewers that Title I material and equipment are available 
to the entire district. 6 

• An HEW audit of MILWAUKEE, WISCONSIN disclosed that 
in fiscal year 1967, $21 ,605 was spent on salaries for school per­
sonnel not involved in Title I projects, such as the swimming coach 
and teachers assigned to general teaching duties. 7 

• ATTALA COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI constructed two lagoons 
for sewage disposal, costing $16,000, with Title I money and in­
stalled an intercom system costing $1,750.8 

• In CAIRO, ILLINOIS, Title I money was used to support 
general overhead costs. Title I paid for half the rent of a building 
which housed the administrative offices of the school district. 
Title I offices were located on the second floor of the building.9 

• The 1967-68 Title I Project Application of WAUKEGAN 
(District 61), ILLINOIS revealed that Title I paid the full-time 
salary of an assistant principal who performed general adminis­
trative duties at his school. Nineteen percent of the school's enroll­
ment was eligible for Title I benefits.10 

• The DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA school system charged the 
Title I budget during fiscal 1966 through 1968 for salaries of per­
sons who were not performing duties connected with the program. 
The school system apparently selected each year a certain number 
of employees to be paid out of the Title I budget. For 1968 they 
selected 10 and the auditors found that only one of the 10 was 
working primarily on Title I activities. "The remaining nine em­
ployees were devoting only a negligible amount of time to Title I 

6 



activities or dividing their time between Title I projects and other 
general school activities." 11 

• In BENTON COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI, interviews with the 
superintendent, Title I coordinator, and a teacher revealed that 
Title I is being used to benefit children in the system whether or 
not they have been identified as educationally disadvantaged. The 
district has 2,020 students and all children in the district's three 
schools participate despite the fact that the Title I coordinator said 
Title I eligibility was determined by income, size of family, and 
whether or not the child lived on a farm. Seventy-one percent of 
the county was said to have an income below $3,000 per year. In 
the 1968-69 school year, Title I funded an Instructional Resources 
Center, a heating system for one school, and a summer curriculum 
study for nine teachers and nine college student assistants. In addi­
tion, a summer school was funded by Title I at two of the three 
schools (one all-white school and one predominantly white). The 
Title I summer school was open to "all students who need a credit 
to meet minimum requirements for graduation or who want an 
extra math subject credit." A principal told our interviewer that 
five regular classroom teachers were hired with Title I money. In 
the summer of 1968, Title I paid for an arts and crafts program in 
which any child who was interested could participate. 12 

• A review of OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA's $2.75 million 
Title I program by the State's Office of Compensatory Education 
disclosed a number of problems. It found that health and psycho­
logical services, and guidance and counseling services, were reach­
ing more children than the determined number of participants, thus 
diluting services to participants. Other parts of the Title I program 
were not reaching all participants. For example, a reading program 
designed for 8,000 elementary pupils reached only 4,851 pupils. 
As a result, the State report found that the Title I program "tended 
to become . .. one of general aid to the local schools" rather than 
"a comprehensive compensatory education program for individual 
children." 13 

Oakland's Title I program rotated Title I participants in and out 
of Title I activities on a " turnstile basis" so that there were no 
planned comprehensive services for individual children. In addition, 
the State found that approximately 28 percent of the total profes­
sional staff worked in or out of the central office. A small number 

7 



of these staff persons provided direct services to identified par­
ticipants.14 

• The INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA public schools purchased 
five school buses with Title I money, but HEW auditors found 
that only 25 percent of the time the buses were operating were for 
Title I field trips. During the remainder of the time, the buses were 
on regular daily school runs. The HEW audit of Indianapolis also 
revealed that Title I paid social workers and counselors who were 
assigned to Title I schools but there was no documentation that they 
actually worked at those schools.15 

The installation of educational television and data processing 
equipment in the central office of local school systems, which serve 
all schools and all children in the system, is another way in which 
Title I is used as general aid. 

• The MEMPHIS, TENNESSEE school system received approval 
from the State Department of Education for a project to improve 
pupils' reading ability. The project called for hiring additional staff. 
At the end of the 1965-66 school year the Memphis superin­
tendent advised the State "that a total of $197,525 of project funds 
were unexpended because the school system was unable to fully 
staff the project." He requested and received approval to use the 
unused funds for an IBM computer-based system for accumulating 
and reporting development on each pupil within the Title I area.16 

The HEW Audit Agency asserted that the State should not have 
approved the project: 

"School officials told us that their data processing center oper­
ated as a service agency to all departments of the Memphis 
Board of Education. Thus we believe that since the IBM equip­
ment purchased under the project became an integral part of the 
existing data processing center and since the center serves all 
departments within the school system, the project equipment was 
purchased primarily to improve general school programs rather 
than specifically for ESEA Title I purposes. Local school offi­
cials confirmed our conclusion. They told us that eventually the 
equipment would serve all schools in the system." 17 

• In FRESNO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, during fiscal years 
1966, 1967 and 1968, several school districts transferred approxi­
mately $930,000 to the county superintendent to construct, equip 
and operate a county-wide instructional television system which 

8 



benefited not just educationally deprived children but all children 
in the county. Part of this money was used to remodel a county­
owned building for a television studio, to purchase and install 
equipment and to operate the system.18 

Aid to Non-Target Schools 

In some cases, Title I does not even reach educationally deprived 
children. 

• An HEW audit of LOUISIANA school districts covering Title 
I expenditures in fiscal year 1966, the first year of the program, 
found that 23 parishes (counties) "loaned" equipment costing 
$645,624 to schools that were ineligible to participate in Title I 
programs. The auditors noted that much of the "loaned" equipment 
was "set in concrete or fastened to the plumbing." Much of the 
equipment had been at ineligible schools since its acquisition.19 

• In the DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, $264,714 was spent at 
45 schools that had not been designated as target schools. And 
$224,733 of the $264,714 was spent at 25 elementary schools 
which had less than the average incidence of eligible children.20 

• An HEW audit of selected CALIFORNIA school systems 
covering September 1965 through August 1968, found that the 
SHASTA UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT had spent Title I 
money in fiscal years 1966 and 1967 in three high schools when 
only one of these high schools was eligible. "The inclusion of the 
two ineligible schools in the project," the audit report noted, "re­
sulted in a substantial reduction of available funds for the school 
th~t was eligible . . . " 21 The two ineligible schools were subse­
quently dropped from the project under orders from the State's 
Office of Compensatory Education. 

• The CALIFORNIA audit showed that the SANGER UNIFIED 
SCHOOL DISTRICT had spent $14,496 of Title I funds to pro­
vide a portable classroom located at an ineligible school.22 

Failure to Concentrate Funds 

Federal law and Program Criteria require that Title I funds be 
concentrated on a limited number of children most in need of 
assistance, in a limited number of eligible attendance areas, and 

9 



that the Title I program be of sufficient size, scope, and quality to 
provide reasonable promise of substantial progress. Concentration 
of funds also means that a child must receive a variety of services. 
If some children get only eyeglasses, some only dental care, some 
only remedial reading, some only tutoring and some only field trips, 
then services are not being concentrated. 

Title I Regulations specify that aid must go to those areas of a 
school district with a high concentration of low-income families and 
educational deprivation. School officials determine these areas by 
establishing the average percentage of low-income families in the 
whole district and then concentrating funds in those areas that are 
above the district-wide average. 23 

Despite these Federal requirements, many school districts tend 
to use Title I resources to reach as many children as possible, with­
out regard to concentrating services on those most in need. The 
consequence is to dilute services to children who qualify as Title I 
beneficiaries. The use of Title I funds in this way in many districts 
has simply failed to achieve the purposes of the legislation. 

• In CHICAGO, ILLINOIS, the school board purchased approx­
imately $3.8 million in audio-visual films and equipment for distri­
bution to every school in the poverty area, rather than to only those 
schools having a high concentration of children from low-income 
families. 24 

• An HEW audit of PENNSYLVANIA covering fiscal year 1967 
disclosed that, in approximately 130 local school districts (out of 
486 in the State), the Title I project application included schools 
that did not appear to be eligible because they did not have the 
required concentrations of children from low-income families.25 

• A principal in OXFORD, MISSISSIPPI, told our interviewer 
that all children in his school receive benefits from Title I even 
though not all are eligible.26 

The rationale for requiring concentration of funds is clear. The 
larger the investment per child, the greater the likelihood that there 
will be a significant impact on the educationally disadvantaged 
child. The greatest testimonial to the lack of concentration and the 
dilution of Title I resources is that i.n the 1967-68 school year the 
average Title I expenditure per child was $108. In 1966-67 the 
average expenditure per child was $99, and in 1965-66 it was $96. 

10 



The Title I National Advisory Council calls these expenditure levels 
"hardly enough to make a difference." 27 

An analysis of Title I programs in five school districts, done by 
General Electric Company (TEMPO) under contract to the Office 
of Education, reported: 

"There is a general tendency to allocate . .. 20 percent of Title I 
funds to a very small number of pupils and to allocate the other 
80% over such a large number of pupils that in most cases the 
funds amount to less than $5 per pupil." 28 

Although per-pupil expenditure levels will vary from project to 
project, the evidence shows that most of the Title I annual invest­
ment is spread so thinly to so many children that there is little 
reason to expect any substantial gain in academic achievement 
from Title I participants. 

The dilution of Title I money exists despite the Office of Educa­
tion's requirement that the annual expenditure per child for Title I 
compensatory services "should be expected to equal about one-half 
the expenditure per child from State and local funds for the . . . 
regular school program." 29 The Office of Education does not en­
force this requirement and most States ignore it. While Title I 
officials in a few States say that State policy is to encourage con­
centration, only one State-CALIFORNIA-makes concentration 
of Title I services mandatory. This year the California State Board 
of Education announced that its supplemental policies for Title I 
require that at least $300 per child be spent, over and above the 
regular State and local expenditures, and that priority in designating 
target schools should be given to elementary schools.30 

In his testimony before the House Committee on Education and 
Labor, Dr. Wilson Riles, Director of Compensatory Education in 
the California State Department of Education, explained that this 
State policy was adopted because: 

"Our research and evaluation have shown that . . . piecemeal 
projects which have attempted through a single-shot activity to 
overcome learning handicaps caused by poverty [have] usually 
fail[ed] to result in demonstrable achievement gains ... We have 
found that projects which concentrate at least $300 per child 
over and above the regular school program were the most suc­
cessful." 31 

11 



Misuses of Concentration 

The requirement to concentrate services in target schools in a 
limited number of attendance areas has been misused in some 
school districts to frustrate school desegregation plans. The use of 
Title I to upgrade black schools has served to discourage and in­
timidate black students from transferring to white schools for fear 
of relinquishing Title I benefits. This misuse of Title I funds was 
pointed out over two years ago in a report by the U.S. Commission 
on Civil Rights which stated that: 

"Under free choice . . . improvement of substandard Negro 
schools itself inhibits desegregation. As a result, the objectives 
of improving the quality of education and achieving desegrega­
tion conflict with instead of complementing, each other." 32 

Despite this warning by a Federal fact-finding agency, the Office 
of Education continued to allow Southern school boards to use 
Title I funds to maintain the dual school system. 

Federal Criteria provide that Title I services "follow the child" 
and that they be offered at locatioqs which do not prolong the 
child's racial, social, or linguistic isolation. These Criteria are largely 
ignored. Most Title I projects are conducted in isolated settings, 
and in many districts Title I services do not follow a child to a 
school outside the target area. Interviewers in BIBB, TELFAIR 
and WORm COUNTIES, GEORGIA and GREENE COUNTY, 
ALABAMA reported that Title I services did not "follow the 
child." 33 A State review of OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA's Title I 
program revealed that 215 Title I eligible children did not get in­
tensive academic help that was supposed to follow them.34 

A few school systems which are totally or partially desegregated 
have complied with the Criteria in their Title I projects and have 
concentrated services on eligible children no matter where they 
attend school, but most have not. 

State Agencies' Use of Title I as General Aid 

State departments of education bear the main responsibility for 
the proper administration of Title I, but they are frequently not in 
a position to act against local school systems for using Title I as 
general aid as they are themselves guilty of using Title I for general 

12 



administrative aid. They invariably report that shortage of admin­
istrative funds prevents them from hiring sufficient staff to carry 
out their responsibilities adequately. While this is undoubtedly 
true, some State agencies have used Title I funds to enhance the 
State department of education and their general operations rather 
than to administer Title I. 

• INDIANA-"The State claimed administrative expenses total­
ing $45 ,823 for fiscal years 1966 and 1967, which were not proper 
charges to ESEA, Title I. In addition, the State Agency has con­
tinued to improperly charge the ESEA, Title I, program for ad­
ministrative expenses during fiscal year 1968 . . . Salaries and 
related retirement costs, totalling $40,244 (included in the $45,823), 
have been questioned for those personnel who, by the nature of 
their positions, could not have expended 100 percent of their efforts 
for the benefit of ESEA, Title I program." 35 

• SOUTH CAROLINA-Salary increases for State personnel 
were charged even th<;>Ugh the personnel did not work full-time on 
Title I. "Effective January 1, 1966, the State Department of Edu­
cation granted salary increases of varying amounts to ... 69 per­
sons who were at that time full-time employees of the State agency. 
In his letter requesting State Budget and Control Board approval 
of the increases, the State superintendent of education stated, 
'Several of the people are working on the Federal projects now and 
have been for quite some time.' The salary increases [for all 69 
persons] were approved and the entire amount of the increases was 
charged to Title I funds ... Title I funds [were] used to pay sal­
aries of full-time State agency personnel donating less than full-time 
to the program totaled approximately $31,900 for fiscal year 1966 
and $54,300 for fiscal 1967.'' 36 

• LOUISIANA-An HEW audit report, dated October 27, 1967, 
states that the Louisiana State Department of Education used 
Title I administrative funds to pay for costs "not directly related to 
the program, obligation of services to be rendered after the end of 
the project, a duplicate payment and various other unallowable 
costs. The total costs questioned [by the HEW Audit Agency] for 
State Administration amounted to $68,296 or 43% of total the 
costs claimed by the State. . . . " 37 

• NEW JERSEY-Salary payments in the amount of $44,114 
were charged to Title I funds for employees donating less than 

13 



full-time to Title I activities. The State department claimed that 
the charges were reasonable because other employees of the de­
partment donated time to Title I activities and none of their salaries 
were charged to Title I. The HEW auditors found no records to 
support this proration of salaries." 38 

• CALIFORNIA-Even in California, the HEW auditors re­
ported: "For 1968, the State Department of Education ... drew 
$81,856 for Title I funds in excess of recorded expenditures. In 
addition, for 1966, 1967 and 1968 the [State] improperly claimed 
Title I funds for the prorated cost of the Executive Section alld 
claimed rental costs in excess of the amount properly allowable to 
Title I." 39 

• ILLINOIS-An HEW audit report issued June, 1969 states: 
"Administrative expenses of $183,304 claimed by the State agency 
for the three-year period ended June 30, 1968, were not directly 
related to administration of the ESEA, Title I program and, there­
fore, are not reimbursable with Title I funds." The questioned costs 
consisted of acquiring and operating four mobile guidance vans for 
another Federally financed program; salaries and related retirement 
benefits for an assistant superintendent and divisional directors 
whose positions would have been filled regardless of the Title I 
program; and office equipment purchased with Title I funds but 
used in other functional departments of the State agency.40 

• ALABAMA-HEW auditors found that $130,939 in Title I 
funds were spent in Alabama in fiscal year 1968 to supplement 
salaries and travel of school superintendents and principals al­
though they were not free to accept employment on Title I 
projects.41 

As these examples document, Title I is used as general aid to 
entire school systems. It is not concentrated on those children most 
in need. Some State agencies use Title I administrative funds for 
general salary increases and other forms of general support for 
State operations. Under these circumstances, it is impossible to 
hold poor children responsible for dilution of resources intended 
to benefit them. 

14 



III 

TITLE I IN PLACE OF 
STATE AND LOCAL MONEY 

When Congress enacted ESEA, it intended that Title I funds 
would supplement State and local education funds, not replace 
them. Title I Regulations and Program Criteria are clear in this 
regard. When school districts do not use Title I money in addition 
to local and State funds, they are said to be supplanting local and 
State money.1 

This means that school districts must not decrease the amount 
of money they are spending, or would have spent, in Title I eligible 
schools just because they are receiving Federal money for students 
in those schools. Title I is not to be used to equalize expenditures 
in poverty-area schools with other schools in the district. 

Congress could hardly sanction the practice of a school district 
decreasing the amount of money going to a school simply because 
that school was receiving Federal funds. In order for Title I to have 
sufficient impact on the educational problems of low-income chil­
dren, Federal expenditures must be over and above existing 
expenditures. 

In many ways this requirement is wishful thinking. Widespread 
patterns of unequal expenditure between schools within the same 
district existed prior to the inception of Title I North and South. 
Schools enrolling large numbers of poor and non-white children 
invariably receive less· State and local funds and less of the educa­
tional resources invested in the education of children from middle 
and upper-income homes. Title I funds are thus spent for pro-

15 



grams in schools attended largely by children from low-income 
families and are almost inevitably used to bring these schools up 
to the level of other schools. 

While the Office of Education requires that local school systems 
show on the Title I applications that they are maintaining the same 
per-pupil effort district-wide, it does not require comparative ex­
penditure figures for all schools. Per-pupil expenditure may in­
crease or remain the same on a district-wide average but it may 
vary widely between schools within the district. Although compli­
ance with the requirement for not supplanting State and local funds 
is vitally important to a successful program, the local school dis­
trict need only sign an assurance that it will comply. In fact, the 
Title I application filled out by the local district does not even 
require information necessary to determine whether funds will be 
supplementary to local expenditures. There is apparently no effort 
made at the State level to check whether a district is providing 
equal programs and expenditures in Title I and non-Title I schools. 

There are three basic kinds of supplanting: 
1. Equalizing poor schools with other schools in the system. 
2. Assuming funding of programs previously supported by 

State or local funds. 
3. Replacing other Federal money. 

Equalizing Poor Schools with Other Schools 

Southern States have traditionally operated unequal and dis­
criminatory schools for blacks and whites. 

In a recent report on how SOUTH CAROLINA used Title I 
funds, the State Department of Education reported that approxi­
mately 74 percent of all Title I recipients during the 1966-67 
school year were black and that the same was true for the 1967-68 
and 1968-69 school years. The South Carolina Director of ESEA 
candidly admitted to our interviewer that much of the Title I 
money was spent in black and poor schools to make them com­
parable to white schools. This assertion is demonstrated by the 
huge investment, amounting to $2-3 million annually, that the 
State has made in black schools providing classrooms, libraries, 
and other physical facilities.2 

• During the 1968-69 school year, SUMTER COUNTY #2, 

16 



SOUTH CAROLINA operated a total of 13 schools, seven black 
and five predominantly white. All five of the predominantly white 
schools had libraries which were constructed with State and local 
funds that were well stocked with books. At least six of the seven 
all-black schools now have libraries also well stocked with books. 
However, all six of these libraries were built and stocked since 
1965 and with Title I funds. Apparently, the library books at the 
white schools were paid for out of State and local money or per­
haps Title II ESEA. 3 

• Another school system, HAMPTON COUNTY, SOUTH 
CAROLINA, in 1954 constructed with State and local funds, two 
elementary schools, the Fennell Elementary for black and Hamp­
ton Elementary for white students; one of the original features of 
the Hampton School was a library. Using fiscal 1967 Title I money, 
the school system purchased a mobile library and library books for 
the Fennell School. Hampton County also built a new school for 
black students in 1966 with State and local funds, complete with 
library. However, furniture and books for the library were paid 
for with Title I funds. 4 

• Under a project entitled "Improvement of Curriculum and 
Physical Needs of Students," BAMBURG COUNTY, SOUTH 
CAROLINA received State approval to use Title I funds for the 
construction of six new classrooms as permanent additions to 
all-black Voorhees Elementary School. School officials stated in 
justification that, "these classes are needed in order that the 
teacher load may be decreased." Yet during the 1968-69 school 
year, Voorhees Elementary School continued to have the highest 
teacher-pupil ratio (1 -30) of any school in the system.5 

The South Carolina ESEA Director commented that "Congress 
assumed that there would be an effort to equalize expenditures 
across schools. That assumption was wrong." He added that the 
whole matter of supplanting was very unclear. His interpretation 
was that "If in the past you did not spend State and local money 
in a certain school for a certain purpose, how can you call it 
supplanting if you now spend Federal Title I money in that school 
for that purpose. You cannot supplant what you have not spent." 6 

Nevertheless, South Carolina is using Title I money illegally to 
compensate for years of neglect of black schools. These expendi­
tures probably improve the schools attended by poor black chil-

17 



dren, but if State and local funds had been used, Title I money 
could have been directed to the educational handicaps they suffer. 

School statistics from the State of MISSISSIPPI also illustrate 
supplanting of State and local funds. The per-pupil expenditure 
from State and local sources is greater in non-Title I schools than 
it is in Title I schools virtually everywhere in the State. Non-Title 
I schools (usually white) have more teachers per student than 
Title I schools (usually black). In COAHOMA <::OUNTY, for 
example, in the 1967-68 school year, non-Title I schools received 
$324.71 from State and local funds and Title I schools received 
only $175.00.7 The QUITMAN COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI Superin­
tendent testified in Federal Court that the highest per-pupil ex­
penditure for black schools in his district was about half that of 
the lowest per-pupil expenditure in white schools and that Title I 
was going into black schools in an effort to equalize expenditures.8 

Mississippi's Title I allotment is going almost exclusively to black 
schools and is being used to build and equip cafeterias and libraries, 
to hire teachers, and to provide instructional materials and books 
long available to white students. 

However, the use of Title I funds to supplant State and local 
funds is not just a Southern practice. Many Northern school dis­
tricts also have disparate per-pupil expenditure between schools 
and use Title I funds in poverty-area schools to provide programs 
and services already provided in schools in more affluent areas. 

The MICHIGAN State Department of Education published a 
school finance study in 1968 which showed that the level of ex­
penditures in a school was related to the socioeconomic level of the 
students who attended the school, as measured by the major occu­
pation of the father, the family income, and the type of housing. 
The more poor children in a school, the less was spent on that 
school. The study found that the level of expenditures in a school 
was related not only to the provision of special classes for aca­
demically advanced children, but also to the provision of remedial 
services for children who could not benefit from the regular school 
program. Michigan schools with higher per-pupil expenditures em­
ployed more remedial reading teachers, librarians, and art teachers, 
and utilized more innovative education methods than schools with 
a lower per-pupil expenditure.9 It is for these same kinds of 
remedial services and extra personnel that Title I funds are so 

18 



often used. While we do not know precisely how much Title I 
money supported reading programs and supportive personnel in 
Michigan, such expenditures usually constitute a major proportion 
of Title I programs. In four out of five of the local district projects 
in Michigan which we examined, a major feature of the Title I 
program was reading and language arts. Reading teachers, reading 
specialists, and reading materials were funded in the schools en­
rolling the largest number of children from low-income families in 
each district. 

Assuming the Funding of Programs 
Previously Supported by State and Local Funds 

Another kind of supplanting of State and local funds occurs 
when local school systems use Title I money to support programs 
and services which were paid for by local funds before Federal 
money became available, or to provide identical services to all 
schools but charge Title I for these services in target schools. HEW 
auditors have uncovered numerous examples of such illegal use of 
Title I. 

• The ALTOONA AREA SCHOOL SYSTEM in PENNSYL­
VANIA used $66,9 15 of Title I funds to help expand and extend 
an existing district-wide audio-visual system. The cost of the project 
in target schools was charged to Title I. The HEW audit report 
noted, "[W]hen an expenditure is made to serve general educa­
tional purposes for all children and at the same time to serve ... 
educationally deprived children, then charging Title I with that 
part of the cost of the program that is applied to low-income chil­
dren [penalizes those children] with respect to the amount of State 
and local funds used for them which is contrary to the provisions 
of the Act." 10 

• In CHICAGO, the Board of Education budget provided for 
the acquisition of mobile classrooms to be financed with the 
proceeds from the sale of a city-owned college. However, the 
$1,151,315 cost of the mobile classrooms was charged to Title I 
instead. In the 1966-67 school year, the Chicago Board of Edu­
cation charged $56,138 in teachers' salaries to the After-School 
Program, a Title I project. For the same period, HEW auditors 
found a decrease in Chicago's own budget for the program of 
$56,138. Moreover, some teachers assigned to the Teaching Eng-

19 



lish as a Second Language Program in District 26 in Chicago were 
being used as substi tute tea_chers.11 

• In MILWAUKEE, HEW auditors found that 1966 Title I ex­
penditures, totalling $43,653, included charges for teachers salaries 
and related fringe benefits previously borne by the school district.12 

• The DETROIT Board of Education was enrolled in a program 
with the Midwest Program on Airborne Television Instruction for 
several years prior to Title I and had extended its membership 
through fiscal year 1967. Even though the television commitment 
was made before Title I began, the Board charged $266,649 of 
the television costs to Title I for fiscal years 1966 and 1967.13 

• The COLUMBUS, OIDO school system spent $195,551 of 
Title I funds to construct additional classrooms at six schools. The 
school board had previously committed local funds for the con­
struction, but on "May 3, 1966, the Board cancelled encumbrances 
of bond funds . . . and authorized, instead, the encumbrance of 
ESEA Title I funds." Contracts for construction of four of the six 
schools were awarded prior to the date that the State approved the 
project.14 

• CINCINNATI, OHIO utilized $44,335 of Title I funds to 
supplant State and local funds. Bids for the construction of portable 
classrooms at eight schools were let between March 30 and April 1, 
1966. No Title I project for construction was presented to the State 
prior to the opening of bids. Then on May 9, the School Board 
passed a resolution to finance construction at two schools with 
Title I money.15 

• In ROCKFORD, ILLINOIS and in MARSHALL COMMU­
NITY UNIT SCHOOL DISTRICT in ILLINOIS, Federal audi­
tors found that certain salaries of district personnel had been 
charged to the Title I program even though these positions had 
been in existence prior to Title I.16 

• In FRESNO, CALIFORNIA, HEW auditors disclosed that the 
school district spent "$24,640 of fiscal year 1967 funds to pur­
chase and install television antenna systems in nine target area 
schools and the . . . administration building while at the same 
time used local funds to provide the same systems in fifteen non­
target area schools." 17 

• HEW auditors discovered that the DETROIT CITY SCHOOLS 
charged to Title I a percentage of the overhead costs of the school 

20 



system which would have been incurred even if the district had not 
participated in Title I. The audit report concluded that Detroit 
overcharged Title I to the extent of $1.3 million in fiscal year 1966 
and that similar overhead costs of $2 million were charged to Title 
I in fiscal year 1967 .1s 

Title I and Other Federal Programs 

Title I is frequently used to provide food services to hungry 
children. In fiscal year 1968, $32 million (or 2.9 percent of total 
Title I expenditures) was spent on food services, $25 million of it 
in the 17 Southern and Border States. 

The poor coordination of Federal programs at all levels of gov­
ernment and lack of imagination, particularly in State educational 
agencies, have resulted in approval of Title I money for projects 
which could have been funded from other underspent budgets. 

One deplorable example is the inadequate coordination of Title 
I with the Nationa1 School Lunch Program administered by the 
Department of Agriculture (USDA) through State educational 
agencies. Using Title I funds to provide breakfasts, lunches or 
snacks for hungry children is entirely within the intent of the law 
and may help improve their academic performance. Until the 
National School Lunch Program more effectively reaches all needy 
pupils, school districts are justified in including food service in 
their Title I projects. However, States must be challenged if they 
use Title I funds for food service when other money is available. 

A special Congressional appropriation, commonly referred to as 
"Perkins Money," 19 was allocated in fiscal 1969 to the States for 
expansion of school breakfast and lunch programs for needy chil­
dren, and for purchase of equipment in schools without facilities for 
food service. In the absence of specific guidelines from USDA con­
cerning how the $43 million Perkins funds should be used, State 
educational agencies exercised broad discretion in disbursing the 
funds among school districts. Strikingly, some States returned sub­
stantial percentages of their Perkins allocation while using Title I 
funds for food service. For example, Arkansas spent $2,488,915 of 
Title I funds in fiscal year 1968 for food services and returned 
$443,515 (or 43 percent) of its Perkins money. 

States with large numbers of needy children should have ex­
hausted all available funds to expand feeding programs. When 

21 



unable to do so quickly enough, Perkins money should have been 
used first because it was available only for food service. Yet some 
States returned Perkins money and used Title I money for food 
services. The table below compares the amount of Perkins money 
returned with the amount of Title I money expended for food 
services. Although the years are not comparable, we have no reason 
not to believe that States were spending comparable amounts of 
Title I funds on food in fiscal year 1969 as they were in fiscal year 
1968.20 

Amt. Title I 
Amt. Perkins % Perkins Money Spent On 

Money Returned Money Returned Food Service 
State FY 69 FY 69 FY 68 

Arkansas $443,515 43% $2,512,818 
Delaware 51,361 80 % 127,301 
Louisiana 336,828 25 % 198,203 
Missouri 285,670 28 % 408,235 
Montana 30,051 25 % 64,003 
New York 350,900 18 % 854,542 
Nevada 14,748 50% 21,192 
Pennsylvania 578,971 37% 663,085 
Virginia 159,478 9% 1,471 ,544 

We recognize the difficulty of using Federal funds efficiently 
when they become available after the school year begins, and when 
they come to a State agency through different programs. However, 
much improvement is possible, and a greater burden rests on the 
States to create the machinery necessary for planning, coordination 
and technical assistance to school districts. Effective machinery to 
do this job is sadly lacking in many States. 

Title I money also lacks coordination with Title II ESEA which 
provides funds for school library resources, textbooks, and other 
instructional materials. Fifty mill!on dollars was allotted to school 
districts in fiscal 1969 under this legislation. We have indications 
that Title II money may be used in some school districts exclu­
sively in non-Title I schools while Title I is spent in target schools 
for identical items. 

When community groups complain that they cannot determine 
where the Title I money is going in their school system, it is often 
because so much of the money is used as general aid and in place 
of other funds. 

22 



IV 
CONSTRUCTION AND EQUIPMENT 

While Title I Regulations do not prohibit the use of money for 
construction purposes or for the purchase of equipment, construc­
tion (or the rental of space or purchase of mobiles) and the pur­
chase of equipment must be clearly related to a specific Title I 
project and essential to its successful implementation. The con­
struction of permanent facilities is considered the responsibility of 
local districts and is permissible only in cases of extreme hardship. 
The purchase of equipment is permissible only if the local district 
does not already have similar equipment in its own inventory.1 

The Office of Education has said that no more than 10 percent 
of a State's expenditures should be approved for construction 
projects. Its attempt to set a limit of 6.393 percent on the purchase 
of equipment was removed by Congressional action. 2 Such restric­
tions on the use of Title I are necessary to ensure that school sys­
tems do not spend money on hardware to the detriment of instruc­
tional programs. The Title I National Advisory Council found in 
its evaluation of several compensatory programs that large amounts 
of equipment were not a necessary ingredient of a successful pro­
gram.3 

Despite these provisions, many districts spend Title I money on 
the construction of regular school facilities and purchase excessive 
amounts of equipment, and State approval of these projects violates 
the Regulations and Program Criteria. The largest expenditures for 
equipment and construction came in the first year of Title I when 
almost one-third ($305 million) of the entire nation-wide expendi­
ture was for equipment and construction. There are several reasons 

23 



to account for this. In the first place, Congress did not appropriate 
money until after the school year had begun. It was then late to 
spend much of the money, to hire personnel or to put together a 
program. Many districts therefore simply spent their allocation on 
buildings and huge inventories of equipment. It is also likely that 
initially local and State school officials may not have understood 
clearly what constituted allowable expenditures under the new Act. 
No doubt many financially hard-pressed districts saw an opportu­
nity to make much-needed purchases. And in the South , some 
school systems, facing possible cut-off of funds because of their 
unwillingness to submit an acceptable desegregation plan, pur­
chased large amounts of hardware that would remain in the district 
after funds were terminated. 

The amount of money spent on construction and equipment has 
declined sharply since the first year. Nationwide Title I expendi­
tures in these categories accounted for only 9.8 percent in 1968.4 

Some States have reported a drop in the amount spent and indi­
cated that they were rarely approving projects for large expendi­
tures on equipment or the construction of facilities. The decline in 
such expenditures is probably explained by the comment of one 
State official that the local districts had purchased all the equipment 
they would need for years to come. But many_ States have not de­
creased the amount of Title I funds spent for construction and 
equipment. For fiscal year 1968, MISSISSIPPI spent 30 percent 
of its Title I allocation for these two items.5 

While levels of expenditures in each State may now be within 
acceptable limits, local districts have continued to spend Title I 
money to construct regular school facilities, and to purchase exces­
sive amounts of equipment in violation of Federal Regulations and 
Program Criteria. Some of these projects may well have benefited 
children from low-income families, but many of these expenditures 
probably deprived these same children of much-needed instruc­
tional programs and additional personnel. 

Construction 

• The DETROIT, MICHIGAN Board of Education purchased 
the Temple Baptist Church, with $1.4 million of Title I funds, to 
house Title I administrative offices and activities. HEW auditors 
found, however, that "only a small portion" of the space was 

24 



actually utilized for Title I projects and that "The greatest bene­
factor to date appears to have been the Temple Baptist Church 
Congregation" which continued to use the building in the evenings 
and on the weekend. The church space was "substantially in excess 
of that needed to accomplish the objectives of Title I. ... " 6 

Title I funds have been used to strengthen the dual school system 
despite Federal requ irements that projects should be conducted in 
ways which eliminate racial, social, or linguistic isolation of chil­
dren. In 1967, the Commission on Civil Rights pointed out that 
Title I money was being used to perpetuate racial segregation.7 

But the Commissioner of Education has never expressly forbidden 
the use of Title [ funds for the construction of racially separate 
facilities. 
• In YAZOO COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT, MISSISSIPPI, 
HEW investigators found that Title I money was used to perpetuate 
segregation. Funds were used to renovate completely a dilapidated 
three-room black school located in a cotton field. Six portable units, 
including a lunchroom purchased with Title I funds , were added to 
the school, and covered walkways were built to connect the many 
portables. The result was a trailer school. At a second black school, 
Title I built a new library and new classrooms, and portables, con­
nected by walkways, were added to the site.8 

• The FAYETTE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM, 
TENNESSEE used 90 percent of its entire Title I entitlement 
($452,555) for construction of a school and 10 percent for equip­
ment in the 1965-66 school year. When the project was submitted 
to the State, a site had not been acquired, a survey of building 
needs had not been completed, and architectural services had not 
been acquired. The school built with Title I funds has a predomi­
nantly black enrollment despite a Federal court order that Fayette 
County desegregate its school system.9 

Equipment 

• The HEW Audit of the State of ILLINOIS for fiscal years 
1966 and 1967 found that the State Department of Education's 
Title I office had approved purchases of equipment by local dis­
tricts without obtaining assurances that the amounts were reason­
able, or that the equipment was actually to be used for Title I 
programs. The EAST ST. LOUIS SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 189 

25 



used $228,660 to equip and operate a central instructional mate­
rials center and 22 attendance centers of audio-visual activities. 
But State files contained no documentation that the quantity of 
films and projectors purchased was "reasonable." The ALTON 
COMMUNITY UNIT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. ll's Title I 
project for 623 students purchased 475 16 mm. films at a total cost 
of $71,250, but the quantity of films was not explained in the 
State's files. In DECATUR PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 
61, $5,000 of its Title I budget was listed for unspecified equip­
ment to be purchased as "additional needs are likely to become 
apparent." 10 

• Some school systems do not spend their Title I money as they 
have outlined in their project proposals to the State. Unless dis­
tricts are carefully audited, they may spend more on equipment 
than they told the State they would. HEW auditors found that the 
State of Illinois had approved a Title I project proposal from 
PEORIA PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 150 for $523,941, 
of which 40 percent was to be spent on equipment. When auditors 
visited the district, they found that the actual amount spent was 
$256,735 , of which 75 percent was spent on equipment.11 

• The LOUISIANA State Department of Education spent 
$55,317 for equipment for uses other than Title I, such as multi­
liths for the printing office, furniture for the Special Education Unit, 
and electric typewriters for the School Transportation Unit. Audi­
tors found that the purchases had been intended as Title V ESEA 
(aid to State departments of education) expenses, and that they had 
been charged mistakenly to Title I.12 

• An HEW audit found that the MILWAUKEE Public Schools 
used $11,621 of Title I funds to purchase 14 tape recorders and 
two language labs for use by a National Defense Education Act 
program. In addition, the district purchased three tubas costing 
$1 , 173 for a non-Title I school. 13 

• MACON COUNTY, ALABAMA purchased football uniforms 
with $2,230 of Title I funds. 14 OXFORD, MISSISSIPPI purchased 
$35,000 worth of band uniforms with Title I money. HI 

• The MEMPHIS City Schools spent $323,668 for equipment, 
materials, and facilities for training high school students in eight 
schools in vocational education fields for trades, industrial and 
distributive education and office occupations. The eight schools 
already had vocational education programs financed in part by the 

26 



Vocational Education Act of 1963. Title I funds were used to 
"tool-up" for the beginning of the 1966-67 school year. The HEW 
audit found that this was an improper use of Title I and that the 
apparent purpose of the project was "to equip schools with voca­
tional equipment to serve future classes of children without identi­
fication of students or the nature of their educational needs." rn 

• MEMPHIS purchased 18 portable swimming pools in the sum­
mer of 1966 at $3,500 each. The justification for the expenditure 
of $63,000 was that funds originally approved for a summer re­
medial program would not be spent and the money would other­
wise be unspent.17 

• The Patton Lane High School in SOUTH PANOLA COUNTY, 
MISSISSIPPI, with an enrollment of 2,069 , is saturated with Title 
I equipment. According to a principal, Title I purchased 12 tele­
vision sets, tape recorders and filmstrip projectors for every two to 
three rooms, several 16 mm projectors, library books and textbooks, 
dictaphones, bank statement machines, mimeograph machines, 
three calculators, 10 adding machines, I 0 electric typewriters, a 
deep fryer, glasses and trays for the cafeteria, uniforms ($9,000 
worth), instruments, a piano, music, choir robes, a bedroom suite 
for the home economics department, sewing machines, and a china 
closet. The principal commented: "We never have too much equip­
ment. We could use more and most of the equipment is obsolete." 1 ~ 

The National Advisory Council on the Education of Disadvan­
taged Children noted in its 1966 report that although bright, new 
equipment might be a morale-raiser for teachers, much of that 
equipment could be a "screen for teachers to hide behind as a sub­
stitute for establishing rapport with the child." 10 Some teachers 
have reported that Title I equipment in their school remained in 
storage because they had never been taught how to use it. 
• In WORTH COUNTY, GEORGIA, a district with much Title 
I-purchased equipment, a principal of a Title I school told our 
interviewer that all teachers did not make use of the equipment. 
He thought that the district should cut down on equipment pur­
chases and increase food services. 20 

• A principal in NEW ALBANY, MISSISSIPPI told our inter­
viewer that materials and equipment are sent to his school without 
asking him what he needed. "The equipment is very useful," he 
remarked. "The only problem I have is getting teachers to use it." 21 

Some of the major lobbyists for the passage of ESEA were text-

27 



book publishing companies and the producers of educational hard­
ware. Their lobbying efforts have paid off because millions of Title 
I dollars have been used to purchase their products. In a very real 
sense, the professional producers have influenced the manner in 
which Title I funds have been used as much as, if not more than, 
the professional educators. 

A 1966 memorandum from the Arkansas Title I Director to 
local school systems summarizes what we believe to be the situa­
tion even today: 

"Evidence is piling up that field representatives of educational 
equipment and materials companies and representatives of text­
book concerns and other publishing concerns are busily engaged 
in assemblyline production of [Title I] project proposals involv­
ing specific products." 22 

The purchase of large amounts of equipment, which is either 
unused or unnecessary, resulted in wasting millions of dollars which 
could have been used instead to assist poor children in overcoming 
their educational handicaps. 

28 



v 
FAILURE TO MEET THE NEEDS OF 
EDUCATIONALLY DEPRIVED CHILDREN 

The Title I Regulations are very clear about the purpose of the 
legislation. It is to provide educational assistance to educationally 
disadvantaged children in order to raise their educational attain­
ment to levels normal for their age. Title I programs must be 
directed to the "special educational needs" of disadvantaged chil­
dren, and these may vary depending on the child and the com­
munity. Such special educational problems might be low reading 
levels, inability to speak English, need for greater individual atten­
tion, or need for instruction more relevant to a child's cultural 
background. But the central purpose of Title I is to raise academic 
achievement. Expenditures for health, food, and recreation must 
be supportive to the main program of academic instruction and 
must be fully justified on the basis that the resources of other 
agencies are inadequate to meet the need for these services.1 Where 
school officials fail to use Title I for the special educational needs 
of poor children, they are not only violating Title I, they also dis­
criminate against these children, whether they be black, brown, or 
white. 

There are wide differences of opinion as to how to raise aca­
demic achievement, but this is not our debate. We contend that 
Title I in some school systems is not being used at all, or only in a 
limited way, for academic programs for the special educational 
needs of children from poor and minority communities. 

Too many local school systems use Title I to purchase excessive 
amounts of equipment unrelated to meeting the educational needs 

29 



of children, to add to the administrative staff, to sponsor non­
academic programs, or to provide health, food, or recreational 
services which may be either unneeded or may be supported by 
other governmental agencies or private groups. In some school dis­
tricts, Title I may provide no academic assistance at all, or very 
little, to enable children to overcome their educational handicaps. 

• An HEW Title I audit of the DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 
(D. C.) indicated that during fiscal year 1966 the sthool system 
spent $1.2 million, out of a total of $5.6 million, for programs that 
were not designed to meet the special educational needs of educa­
cationally disadvantaged children. One project, Environment Im­
provement Project, was a drop-out prevention project. The stated 
purpose was "to make the classrooms attractive and functional and 
thereby create an attractive environment for students from de­
pressed areas." To achieve the aims of the project, $375 ,000 was 
transferred to the D. C. Department of Buildings and Grounds for 
repair and renovation of target schools. Another sum of $895,177 
was used for the purchase of equipment. HEW auditors found that 
of the amount transferred to the Department of Buildings and 
Grounds and reported as an expenditure, $224, 199 was actually 
unspent. The balance of $150,801 was used to carpet 18 kinder­
garten rooms, replace chalk and tack boards in 54 schools and 
repair an administration building at a special girls' school. 

The HEW auditors noted: 
" ... [l]n discussing this project with [District of Columbia 
school officials] at the time of our review, we were informed 
that the environment improvement project had not been designed 
primarily to result in measurable benefits to students in target 
schools but instead to make the schools different from all other 
schools and therefore motivate and improve the performance of 
reachers and principals .... In addition, school officials and a 
contract official responsible for evaluating all Title I projects 
stated that the project was not evaluated because criteria used to 
evaluate the Title I program were student oriented, and since the 
project was oriented toward the needs of schools rather than 
identifying the needs of students, there was no way to determine 
whether any educational benefits had accrued to students as a 
result of the project." 2 

• Title I funds for a summer project in the DISTRICT OF 
COLUMBIA were also described in an HEW audit report as a 

30 



violation of the Title I policies and Regulations. The school system 
transferred $250,000 in July 1966 to the Department of Recreation 
for help in financing a summer project called "Step-Up." Accord­
ing to Federal auditors, the school system had no part in designing 
the project and could not even identify the children who partici­
pated in it. The school system had no assurance that the program 
would meet the educational needs of poor children and, because 
the district did not know who participated, there was no evaluation 
of the children's educational attainment.3 

An example of a district that did not use Title I to support an 
instructional program during the regular school year is the BUENA 
VISTA DISTRICT #9 in MICHIGAN. The entire Title I pro­
gram during the regular school year in 1967 consisted of hot lunch 
for 30 children and instrumental music for 30 children. The Title I 
summer program did provide a language arts program for some 
children, but it was conducted for only half a day, five days a week 
for five weeks. The district's Title I application justified the use of 
Title I for lunches on the basis that the regular school lunch pro­
gram could not afford to pay for the lunches of 30 poor children. 
The district admitted that more than 30 children needed free 
lunches. The stated purpose of the instrumental music program was 
to enable children to compete successfully in the regular school 
program and to overcome factors which prevented "culturally dis­
advantaged children" from participating in the special program. 
Among these factors was the limited number of instruments for 
loan and the inability of poor parents to buy instruments. Six 
thousand dollars of the Title I budget was used to purchase in­
struments. 4 

In other school districts, a minor portion of the Title I program 
is devoted to instructional programs. In BENTON HARBOR, 
MICHIGAN, for example, during fiscal year 1968, 27 percent of 
the budget was spent on dental services for 1,400 children while 
only 19 percent was spent on instructional programs. The Title I 
budget specified salaries for a dentist ($15,000), five nurses, a 
dental assistant, a dental hygienist and a secretary. Other budget 
items consisted of the cost of supplies and operation of a dental 
office ($5,000), and a medical and clothing fund ($3,000).5 

Some school systems do not use Title I to provide assistance 
to children with special educational problems, particularly those 

31 



school systems with substantial numbers of Mexican-American or 
Puerto Rican children from Spanish-speaking homes. These chil­
dren face the impossible problem of coping with the regular in­
structional program which is conducted in a mguage foreign to 
them. When the school system does not provide bilingual programs 
to help them learn English and at the same time make use of their 
first language, these children inevitably are held back. They fall 
behind, become discouraged, drop out of school at an early age, 
or are relegated to classes for the educable mentally retarded. 

• In BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA where 22 percent of the 
school enrollment is Spanish-speaking, no bilingual program is 
funded by Title I. The in-service training for Title I teachers does 
not include any training in Spanish to enable teachers to com­
municate with their Mexican-American students even though Mexi­
can-American students constitute approximately 50 percent of Title 
I participants. In Bakersfield and other districts there has been 
controversy over the exclusion of predominantly Mexican-Ameri­
can schools from the Title I program. Only two of the four ele­
mentary schools in Bakersfield, enrolling more than 50 percent 
Chicano students, were included in the Title I program in the 
1968-69 school year, while three of the four predominantly black 
schools were included.6 In part, the exclusion of certain schools 
may be due to the insistence of the State's Office of Compensatory 
Education that Title I funds be concentrated on fewer children in · 
order to produce the maximum academic achievement. However, 
Mexican-American parents complain that their children are the 
first to be cut out and that the criteria for concentration of funds 
do not include any consideration of the language problems of a 
substantial proportion of the poor population. Mexican-American 
parents further contend that English as a Second Language pro­
grams sometimes funded by Title I are not a substitute for bilingual 
instruction, because such programs do not include instruction in 
Spanish which is a vital part of the child's cultural heritage. 

• The Office for Civil Rights of HEW recently notified the 
BAKERSFIELD CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT that it was in viola­
tion of Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act because of discrimina­
tion, in part, against Spanish-speaking students. HEW charged that 
Bakersfield fails to provide Spanish-speaking children with the pro­
grams necessary to -assist them in overcoming the language and 
cultural barriers which prevent them from enjoying equal educa-

32 



tional opportunities. The school district had made no effort, accord­
ing to HEW, to determine which of its Spanish-surnamed students 
were not fluent in English and had failed to provide programs de­
signed to meet their special language needs. Title I was not used to 
provide such programs. 7 

• Another failure of local school officials to use Title I to meet 
the special educational needs of disadvantaged children comes from 
OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA. In 1967, Oakland's Lockwood Ele­
mentary School was designated as a Demonstration Center and 
Title I funds were invested in a media center, a music program and 
a health and physical education program. Five physical education 
teachers were hired for a physical education program, tlie goals of 
which included the necessity of exercise to "prevent heart trouble," 
to increase the "flow of blood to the brain," and to provide 
instruction on the ill effects of the use of tobacco, alcoholic bev­
erages and drugs. Parents of Lockwood students asked whether 
the money could not have been used to provide instruction in 
remedial reading. They were reportedly told by school officials that 
they knew what was best for their children and that the special 
physical education program would help their children read better.8 

• We also have disturbing evidence that some Title I programs 
may be designed to serve the economic interests of the affluent 
population rather than the educational needs of poor children. In 
BENTON COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI, Title I funded a six-week 
course in homemaking for 11th and 12th grade black girls at the 
Old Salem School, an all-black school. The homemaking course 
was conducted in private homes three days a week, for four hours 
each day. At the white high school , Title I provided a summer 
school program in math and English. We suspect that these black 
girls were being trained with Title I money to become maids for 
the local population.o 

• The HEW audit of MASSACHUSETTS identified 22 out of 
24 approved applications that did not provide any assessment of 
the needs of children as required by Office of Education's Program 
Criteria. The audit report commented: "Until such time as these 
... criteria are met we believe that certain inequities could result 
because the needs of certain groups of educationally deprived chil­
dren may possibly be ignored." The Massachusetts Audit further 
revealed that $1 million of Title I funds, in each of three separate 
fiscal years ( 1966, 1967 and 1968) allocated to the State went un-

33 



ij 

I • 

used. In the auditor's judgment, this money was not used to meet 
the needs of educationally deprived children because of the State's 
poor management.10 

• In BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS, school officials told HEW 
auditors that limited Title I funds precluded providing additional 
service to some attendance areas with high concentrations of chil­
dren from low-income families. In fiscal year 1967, Boston did not 
spend $412,000 of its Title I entitlement, and in fiscal year 1968, 
$263,000 was unspent.11 

• The NASHVILLE-DAVIDSON COUNTY, TENNESSEE 
school system used $79,942 of Title I funds to convert a manual 
pupil information system to a computerized pupil data system. The 
system, which was designed to identify needs of children and report 
them to a central facility daily, served all students in the project 
area rather than only the educationally deprived children. HEW 
auditors found that the system was not designed to meet identified 
needs of deprived children but to accumulate data for future use.12 

• The LOUISIANA audit further noted the construction of two 
olympic-sized swimming pools in CLAIBORNE PARISH built 
with Title I funds. The two outdoor pools were located at black 
schools, but the auditors were told that no other schools had swim­
ming pools. The two towns in which the pools were located oper­
ated municipal swimming pools during the summer months.13 

• The method for allocating Title I to school districts prevents 
local school officials from meeting the needs of its poor students. 
Congress allocates money to counties, and where there are several 
school districts within a county, the State has the responsibility for 
dividing the Title I allocation among the districts. Because of the 
manner in which CALIFORNIA divides Title I funds, predomi­
nantly Mexican-American districts have been receiving fewer funds. 
The EL RANCHO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT in LOS 
ANGELES COUNTY, for example, received $362,000 in 1965, 
$308,000 in 1966, $247,000 in 1967, and $172,000 in 1968. The 
district estimated that it would receive approximately $100,000 
in 1969. A school board member of El Rancho Unified School 
District reported that: 

"Due to the severe reductions, our programs under Title I have 
also been drastically reduced to such a degree that many of our 
Mexican-American youngsters once served under the program 

34 



can no longer receive the educational benefits provided under 
Title I." 14 

• In DARLINGTON COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA, the su­
perintendent described the summer Title I program, a pre-school 
program in the black schools, staffed primarily by white college 
students, as a wonderful experience in human relations, but a black 
leader said he thought the program was simply a way of giving 
summer jobs to white college students. No contact had been made 
with the black community regarding the summer program.15 

• Some Title I summer programs fail to provide for the academic 
needs of educationally disadvantaged children. In WORTH 
COUNTY, GEORGIA, for example, an academic program was 
operated in the white school rn and a recreational program was 
operated in the black school. Although black students may transfer 
to the white school for the summer program, many do not wish to 
challenge the traditional barriers of racial separation. This prac­
tice indicates that school authorities sometimes have little expec­
tation that black or brown children can benefit from academic 
work and that white children can. 

• The Office of Education policies require that program evalua­
tions must meet the needs of children and not the needs of research 
specialists. However the COLUMBUS, OHIO school system paid 
Ohio State University $3 17,565 for evaluating T itle I , but the re­
search project, according to HEW auditors, seemed designed to 
meet the needs of researchers and the thesis requirements of grad­
uate students rather than the needs of educationally disadvantaged 
children. According to Ohio State, the purpose of the evaluation 
project was not "service" but research into evaluation techniques 
and instruments. The Ohio State Department disputed this con­
clusion and declared that the evaluation was a "prudent and wise 
use of funds. " HEW auditors replied that the State's assertion was 
undocumented.17 

Until Title I is used to meet the educational needs of poor 
children, the goals of the legislation will not be met. 

35 



VI 

LACK OF COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT 
AND DENIAL OF INFORMATION 

No educational effort can truly succeed apart from the com­
munity in which the students live. The Office of Education recog­
nizes this and requires that each local district provide for the 
maximum practical involvement of parents in the design, planning, 
operation, and evaluation of Title I programs. Some appropriate 
vehicle for community involvement, such as a Title I advisory 
committee, must be established by school systems, with at least 
half of the committee composed of parents and representatives of 
community agencies serving the poor community. The Title I pro­
gram itself should include activities and services in which parents 
may be involved .1 

Many school districts ignore these requirements, and where they 
are followed, they are often manipulated in such a way as to ex­
clude the community or make it more difficult for poor people to 
become involved in, and knowledgeable about, Title I programs. 
Most people in poor and minority communities, including those on 
existing Title I advisory committees, do not know that the project 
application which every district must file wi th the State in order to 
receive its Title I entitlement must include the signature of the 
head of the local Office of Economic Opportunity community 
action agency, certifying that it had been involved in the planning 
of the proposed project. Approval by community action agencies 
in many communities is a perfunctory exercise signifying no in­
volvement in the design of Title I projects. 

The National Advisory Council on the Education of Disad-

36 



vantaged Children reported in its 1968 study that out of 116 pro­
grams observed by its consultants, only two reflected an attempt to 
involve parents . The Council concluded: " ... one area of almost 
no apparent progress is . .. parent involvement . ... " 2 

In some communities, there has never been a Title I advisory 
committee and the poor community is completely unaware that one 
is required. In other communities, an advisory committee may 
exist in name only, but poor people, including sometimes its sup­
posed members, are unaware of its existence. For example, 191 
parents were interviewed for this study and not one, including active 
community leaders, was informed about Title I and how it operates. 
A few were vaguely aware of Title I, but the vast majority of 
parents knew nothing about the program although they might 
know about changes in their child's school. Interviews with several 
principals of Title I target schools confirmed that parents are not 
involved in the planning or execution of Title I projects and that 
Title I advisory committees do not exist. Most school officials whom 
we interviewed indicated that decisions concerning the needs of 
children and the allocation of funds were made by a few school 
personnel with little or no consultation with poor, white, black, or 
brown people. 

• The DORCHESTER COUNTY, SOUm CAROLINA Voters 
League recently sent a memorandum to the superintendents of the 
three school districts in the county asking for a list of the local 
advisory committees and an explanation of how the members were 
chosen. The Voters League, the most active group in the black 
community in a county that is 65 percent black, had no ·knowledge 
of any Title I advisory committee and had only recently been aware 
that such a requirement existed.3 

• The Title I Coordinator in ALBUQUERQUE, NEW MEXICO 
told our interviewer in August, 1969 that he hoped to start a com­
mittee soon. 4 

• In ABERDEEN, MISSISSIPPI, several black citizens were 
called together by the district superintendent in August, 1969 and 
told that they were members of the Title I advisory committee. 
The superintendent of schools told the group that he had already 
sent the Title I proposal to the State, but he wanted to let them 
know what the proposal contained. This action took place after 
the Commissioner of Education had written to the Mississippi State 
superintendent of education regarding the State's failure to require 

37 



local districts to provide for adequate involvement and participa­
tion of local citizens.5 

• In OXFORD, MISSISSIPPI, the Title I coordinator told our 
interviewer that an advisory committee representing a broad cross­
section of the community made decisions about the Title I program 
and that meetings were held fairly frequently and were well at­
tended. But the principal of a Title I school told the interviewer 
that there had never been any advisory committee. Moreover, a 
parent, whom the Title I coordinator identified as a member of the 
advisory committee, denied any such membership and said that 
she knew of no meetings which the committee had or which had 
been attended by anyone she knew. She had attended PT A meet­
ings but had not heard any mention of plans for Title I funds. 6 

• A Mexican-American mother, active in the TUCSON, ARI­
ZONA poverty program and knowledgeable about her community, 
complained to our interviewer that she did not know how the funds 
were spent. A black worker active in a neighborhood Office of 
Economic Opportunity center asked how Tucson got Title I funds 
without the poor being informed.7 

• An HEW audit of Title I in OHIO found that in three cities­
TOLEDO, AKRON and COLUMBUS-the local community ac­
tion agency stated in the Title I project application that it had not 
been included in planning the Title I project.8 

• Parent interviews in COOK COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT 
# 151 (Phoenix-South Holland), ILLINOIS revealed that the black 
community had not been properly informed, if at all, of any meet­
ings held about Title I. Our interviews reported: "There seems 
to be little or no knowledge of any new programs within the 
schools .... " 9 

• An interviewer in SUMTER COUNTY, ALABAMA reported 
that he spoke at a community meeting about Title I but there was 
little awareness of what Title I was.10 

In some communities, a Title I advisory committee exists, but 
poor and minority people do not think it represents their interests. 
These advisory committees generally are appointed by the superin­
tendent, the Title I coordinator or the principals and may be com­
posed entirely of school personnel. The advisory committee usually 
agrees with the proposal drawn up by a few school officials and 
acts as a rubber stamp. Members of the committee may even be 
unaware of the content of the proposal which they approved. 

38 



• Parents and officers representing c1v1c groups in seven MIS­
SISSIPPI school systems reported to the. Office of Education in 
April and May of 1969 that they had no knowledge of Title I 
programs and expenditures in their districts, that school officials 
had rebuffed overtures to establish parent involvement, that black 
principals and teachers frequently knew nothing about Title I pro­
grams in their own schools, and that where advisory committees 
existed, their members were selected by white school officials or 
board members and performed no real function. Parents had been 
told they could not see the project application or any other Title I 
material.11 

• In NEW YORK CITY, the Council Against Poverty was 
established in September 1966 to increase participation of poor 
people in anti-poverty programs. It was then the only policy­
making organization for the city's anti-poverty programs, and 
attempted to work with the board of education in planning Title I 
projects. But it was frustrated in its attempts. The Council's chair­
man, Reverend H. Carl McCall, wrote to the President of the 
Board, Lloyd Garrison, in October, 1966 informing him that the 
Council was in no position to approve the proposed projects 
because: 

"In spite of repeated requests, this agency has not received in­
formation sufficient to permit it to make ah informed judgment. 
To this date, it does not know the Board's goals or priorities or 
even the specific areas and schools in which Title I projects are 
proposed." 12 

The next year the Council Against Poverty and board members 
were again denied access to evaluation reports of the previous 
year's Title I programs until just before the monthly board meeting. 
Hearings were held in August on programs that would commence 
in September. An observer of the New York City school system 
writes: 

"Evidence on this controversy suggests that the Board of Edu­
cation at least partly disregarded the spirit and intent of the 
Federal law. It used traditional organizational strategies-delay­
ing the formulation of a program until it was too late for any 
citizen review; informing the board members on the program at 
the last possible moment; maintaining a facade of consultation 
through citizens groups in the form of 'democratic ceremonials' 
while refusing to invite them in on any joint planning basis. And 

39 



it did this despite a Federal law and an increasingly enraged 
citizenry who were opposed to that style." 13 

Denial of Title I Information 

It is clear that many parents and community leaders are unaware 
of the Title I program in their school district. But many citizens 
have sought Title I information from local and State school offi­
cials and been denied. Federal Regulations provide that the terms 
and provisions of each approved project should be made available 
for public inspection. The Office of Education interprets this pro­
vision to mean that any citizen must have the opportunity to ex­
amine Title I materials and to make copies of them at his expense. 

Yet private citizens, including interviewers for this study, were 
denied access to project applications. Some school officials even 
refused to provide specific information on the number of children 
participating and how Federal money had been spent. 
• School officials in ANDERSON #5, SOUTH CAROLINA, 
and AUTAUGA, GREENE, and SUMTER COUNTIES, ALA· 
BAMA denied our interviewers access to materials. In ANDER­
SON #5, a school official told our interviewer that he was not 
going to show records to anybody. "How do I know you're not a 
Communist," he said. In TELFAIR COUNTY, GEORGIA, our 
interviewer was permitted to look at Title I records but not to make 
copies of them.14 

• Black citizens in MISSISSIPPI have had continuing problems 
with local and State officials who have denied them Title I infor­
mation contrary to Federal Regulations. As a result of complaints 
to the Office of Education regarding denial of Title I information, 
Commissioner James E. Allen wrote to the State superintendent of 
schools reiterating the Federal provision on public information of 
Title I records. Since then Mississippi State and local school offi­
cials have intermittently made available Title I records or portions 
of Title I records. Our latest information, however, indicates that 
local black citizens are continuing to experience denial of public 
information. 

Interviews in school systems across the country elicited responses 
from school officials that serve to explain why there has been a 
lack of community involvement, a failure to establish and utilize 
Title I advisory committees, and a denial of Title I information. 

40 



Some school people were courteous, frank and anxious to provide 
information about Title I programs and they were very helpful in 
providing materials for this report. Other school officials were not 
only unhelpful, but were openly hostile and antagonistic to the 
interviewer. 

• A WAUKEGAN, ILLINOIS school administrator told our in­
terviewer that the administration knew "everything" and thus he 
saw no need for community involvement.15 

• In TUCSON, ARIZONA a principal was asked about com­
munity involvement and responded: "We don't need that kind of 
involvement." 1s 

• A principal in OXFORD, MISSISSIPPI told our interviewer 
that parents "play no part" in the Title I program, but that since 
he himself was a parent any decision he made would be sufficient 
for other parents.17 

• A parent in BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA reported that a 
school official told her that her child was eligible for special classes 
but would not be admitted because her child "did not want to 
learn." 18 

In several other communities our interviewers reported that 
some school officials reflected an attitude that Title I children were 
beyond help. Some school personnel apparently believe that brown, 
black, and poor children are inferior. In communities where there 
is outright hostility to minority rights, poor parents definitely be­
lieve that neither the schools nor the Title I projects are being run 
in their interest. 

We believe that a major cause of the lack of community involve­
ment in the Title I programs in many school districts stems from 
a lack of communication. Too many school systems rely exclu­
sively on newspaper, radio or PT A meetings to convey information. 
Poor parents often cannot get information through these channels 
or because of the press of work and family problems cannot attend 
meetings. There has been a general lack of effort in many districts 
to reach out into the community and make sure that not only are 
parents aware of what is happening in their children's schools, but 
that they are involved in decisions affecting their children. 

A school official in ALBUQUERQUE, NEW MEXICO com­
mented that he thought the communication gap was the school sys-

41 



tern's fault because it made no effort to extend itself into the 
homes.12 

The communication gap exists between the school and parents 
in many communities. However, it can be closed where there is a 
genuine willingness on the part of the school establishment to com­
municate with and be accountable to the poor and minority com­
munities. Poor people want to participate. Several parents com­
mented during our interviews that they would be glad to have more 
information about their schools and that they would appreciate the 
opportunity to learn about and become involved in Title I projects. 
Comparable willingness on the part of school officials could involve 
citizens in school affairs. 

42 



VII 

FEDERAL AND STATE ADMINISTRATION 
OF TITLE I 

The responsibility for administering Title I is divided among 
the institutions traditionally responsible for American education­
local school systems, State departments of education, and the 
Office of Education. So also is the responsibility for illegal use 
of T itle I money shared by these levels of government. 

That there has been misuse of Title I funds in many State and 
local programs stems in large measure from inadequate, and often 
negligent administration of the law. The States' unwillingness or 
inability to administer a large Federal program according to the 
law and in the best interests of poor children should deter any 
trend to give the States still more control over more programs as 
advocates of "bloc grants" urge. With few exceptions, the States 
lack the ability to administer programs in a manner faithful to 
national policy. 

Division of R esponsibility 

The Federal government has overall responsibility for imple­
menting the national policy of helping educationally disadvantaged 
children. The responsibility for approving projects rests with the 
States. Although both the State and Federal governments are 
ultimately responsible for implementing the legislation, basic de­
cisions about the allocation of Title I resources are made at the 
local level. This report provides numerous examples of decisions 
concerning the allocation of resources that are illegal, unwise, and 
often unresponsive to the needs of children . 

43 



While all three levels of educational administration are legally 
responsible for implementing Title I, the Federal government has 
special responsibility. Broad authority rests with the Commis­
sioner of Education to establish policies and procedures for the 
program and criteria for the design and approval of specific 
projects. The law and the Regulations direct the Commissioner to: 

• determine the maximum grant to which each local system is 
entitled; 

• establish basic criteria for use by the States in approving local 
projects; 

• approve State applications for participating in the program; 
• make periodic audits of State and local expenditures; 
• withhold Title I payments to State and local educational 

agencies when there is a failure (after reasonable notice and 
opportunity for hearing) to comply with the Regulations; 

• provide national leadership and support to meet the aims of 
the legislation. 

State Departments of Education are required to: 
• implement the criteria established by the Commissioner; 

• approve project applications from local educational agencies 
and determine that approved projects are actually imple­
mented; 

• establish accounting and fiscal controls which assure proper 
distribution of funds; 

• provide for annual audits of State and local expenditures; 
• investigate complaints; 

• make periodic reports to the Commissioner evaluating the 
effectiveness of local projects; 

• make available for public inspection the terms and provisions 
of all approved Title I projects; 

• provide State leadership to carry out the goals of the legisla­
tion. 

The Office of Education, the Federal agency responsible for the 
administration of Title I and the implementation of Congressionally 
determined policy, views Title I as a State program, and looks to 
the States to implement the criteria it has set forth. In turn, many 
States take the position that Title I is a local program and that 

44 



they merely act as conduits for Federal funds. Some local school 
officials take the attitude that criteria for spending money are set 
down by the State and thus Title I is not truly a local program. They 
reason that if Title I were a local responsibility, local districts 
could literally spend the money in any way they saw fit, including 
using it as general aid to education. Thus real responsibility for 
administering the law and spending the money is commonly not 
accepted at any level. Rather, it is shunted around in such a 
manner as to make impossible any rational and coherent ad­
ministration. 

No doubt real problems obstruct the orderly administration of 
the law. School officials unanimously agree that late and uncertain 
Federal funding makes planning and hiring of qualified staff ex­
tremely difficult. Insufficient staff to monitor Title I projects and 
meet the State's obligations under the law is another problem. 
Some State officials say that their job is made more difficult by the 
failure of the Office of Education to insist on its own criteria for 
projects and the failure of the Federal government to back up the 
State when it does seek to require local districts to adhere to 
Federal criteria in its expenditure of money. The sheer size of the 
Title I program and its uniqueness in American education further 
contribute to difficulties in administering the program. 

Administration is also complicated because Title I is caught in 
a political thicket. State education agencies have historically 
guarded their prerogatives jealously against what they consider the 
imminent encroachment of Federal control. In some areas, local 
authorities are as suspicious of State power as States are of Federal 
power. 

The Office of Education has always dutifully honored the prev­
alent philosophy of State control over education in its adminis­
tration of Federal programs, and Title I is no exception. The power­
ful Council of Chief State School Officers has defined what it thinks 
the Federal role in education should be: 

"The U.S. Office of Education should become a cooperating 
partner of local and state educational systems, with all levels of 
government using a team approach to achieve the basic purposes 
of public education." 1 

"Cooperating partner" is the key to the division of authority. 
Even when national policy is at stake, the States not only define 
what the Federal responsibility will be, but they assign to the 

45 



Federal government a junior partnership in achieving the basic 
purposes of national legislation. The Council of Chief State School 
Officers' position is that: 

"The Federal government should assist the States financially, 
but it should not seek to require uniformity . .. through Regu­
lations or other techniques affecting eligibility of State or local 
educational agencies to receive Federal funds.2 

The philosophy of State control is so deeply embedded that some 
States have refused to permit Federal auditors to audit Title I 
projects at the local level. In an audit report of Title I in NEW 
YORK STATE at the time when James E. Allen (presently U.S. 
Commissioner of Education) was State Commissioner of Educa­
tion, HEW auditors reported: 

"Although we determined that the records at the State level 
were inadequate, the State agency did not accept our request for 
clearance to visit [local educational agencies] for audit purposes 
on the grounds that such action would weaken or interfere with 
the normal State-local relationship." 3 

Thus, State control of education has been used to prevent the 
Federal government from auditing its own programs. An audit 
report of the State of KANSAS stated: 

"During fiscal year 1967, the State Agency had conducted audits 
of some local educational agencies receiving [Title I Funds] . . . 
Our reviews disclosed certain weaknesses and documentation of 
the audits performed. We were particularly concerned about this 
problem since the State Agency has insisted that audits of local 
educational agencies be carried out by the State rather than 
the HEW Audit Agency." 4 

The ex1ent to which State and local school systems have violated 
the letter and spirit of the law demonstrates what can happen when 
the Federal government adheres to the time-honored policy of 
local control. The Federal government has been timid and negli­
gent in implementing Title I. As a result, the rights of children 
whom Congress designated as the sole beneficiaries of Title I have 
gone unprotected. Clearly, fears of Federal control are unwarranted 

46 



based on the evidence. If anything, there has been too little 
Federal control. 

The "cooperating partnership" between Federal, State and local 
education authorities may mean that a national law like Title I 
is not implemented properly. Chicago is a case in point. An HEW 
audit of ILLINOIS in the first fiscal year of the program found that 
the Chicago Public Schools spread Title I funds to 228 schools 
in the poverty areas of the city instead of concentrating funds on 
those children most in need so that there would be reasonable 
promise of success. 5 This practice is a violation of the requirement 
for concentrating services. The State Title I office has attempted to 
secure Chicago's compliance with this requirement; however, its 
recommendations have generally gone unheeded and Chicago con­
tinues to spread Title I resources to all poverty-area schools. A 
State of Illinois official told our interviewer that the State did not 
feel that it had the authority or power to enforce this requirement 
even though it is a Federal requirement. Nor has the Federal 
government taken steps to enforce the requirement in Chicago, or 
elsewhere, to our knowledge. A State official was convinced that 
the State would have a much stronger hand in enforcing the Fed­
eral requirement if the Federal government itself was serious about 
enforcing the law. For example, the official commented, the Fed­
eral government comes in and does an audit but it never follows 
up by insisting that corrective action be taken. When local school 
systems find that the Federal government is not going to force the 
issue, they ignore the State with impunity. 

State Management 

The Council of Chief State School Officers believes that: 
"It should be entirely possible and practicable for Congress to 
define national educational goals to be met through federally 
financed programs and thereafter to rely upon state and local 
agencies for the details of their administration." 6 

Unfortunately it is neither possible nor practical, for national 
goals are subverted by inadequate management at the local and 
State level and the responsible Federal agency does little to correct 
the situation. 

Misuse of Title I money discussed in previous chapters is well 
known to Federal and State authorities . Indeed, the HEW Audit 

47 



Agency issued a special report to the Office of Education in March, 
1969 summarizing the instances of improper administrative pro­
cedures and misuse of funds on a State by State basis for the 15 
audits it had completed.7 Each State audit is discussed with State 
officials and the audit report itself is submitted to the State for 
comment, response, and further information. A period of months 
follows while Office of Education and State officials negotiate 
during which State officials attempt to justify the expenditures 
questioned by the auditors. In a few instances, the ~tates are re­
sponsive to Federal findings and seek to take corrective action. 
But in other instances, some States categorically refuse to respond 
to the issues or to accept the validity of the findings. 

• HEW auditors found INDIANA State officials unwilling even 
to discuss the audit findings. The audit report noted: 

"The state representatives did not avail themselves of the op­
portunity to discuss the findings and recommendations presented 
in our report at the exit conference arranged for that purpose. 
They stated, instead, that they wished to be quoted as neither 
agreeing nor disagreeing with our findings and recommenda­
tions. They refused to engage in any discussion of matters dis­
closed in our audit report to furnish a reason for their state­
ment." 8 

• In an audit of Title I in ILLINOIS, HEW auditors questioned 
the excessive purchase of audio-visual equipment in several school 
systems, and State officials responded: 

"With respect to the amount of materials and equipment pur­
chased, we emphasize these were professional judgments of 
professionally trained school administrators. We question 
whether a man without specific training in the field of education 
and no experience as a school administrator can make a valid 
judgment in this area." 9 

• When HEW auditors questioned the lack of a proper audit 
procedure in GEORGIA, the State Superintendent responded: 

" ... The amount of ... Title I money provided for the State 
Department of Education administration . . . is not enough at 
this time to cause a greater amount to be expended by our 
Financial Review Section . . . for . .. Title I review work, and 
furthermore the legal responsibility for actual audit work in 
Georgia rests in the Duties and Powers of the State Department 
of Audits." 10 

48 



HEW audit reports and our own interviews uncovered major 
problems in the administration of Title I at the State level. Many 
of these problems concern fiscal and management controls. The 
major deficiencies in State administration which affect the quality 
and appropriateness of projects and determine whether benefits 
are reaching eligible children are the approval and auditing of 
projects. 

Approval of Projects 

In some States where we interviewed officials it was apparent 
that the approval of Title I project applications and the determina­
tion that the program met Federal Criteria is a perfunctory exercise 
at best. 

• In SOUTH CAROLINA the Title I coordinator was asked 
how the State determined that local Title I programs were meeting 
the needs of the educationally disadvantaged children. He replied 
that the local officials who are closest to the problems know what 
their students need, so their decisions concerning use of the funds 
are accepted without question.11 

• An ILLINOIS official told our interviewer that each regional 
supervisor was able to evaluate project applications based on his 
personal knowledge of the district and its past programs. In some 
cases this judgment is based on one or two visits a year to the 
local school district.12 In some States, officials rarely approve a 
project application without some changes. However, States have 
approved projects without sufficient information to determine 
whether the program will meet the goals of Title I. The Director 
of HEW Audit Agency reported to the Office of Education that: 

"In five states we noted that the [State Agency] had approved 
projects and advanced funds to [local districtsl for projects that 
had not been submitted in substantially approvable form or the 
project data lacked pertinent information needed for determining 
that project objectives met the requirements of the Act." 13 

Audit of Projects 

Our State interviews and the HEW audit reports clearly indi­
cate that many States have failed to carry out their fiscal responsi-

49 



bilities for the Title I program. The Director of the HEW Audit 
Agency reported to the Office of Education that 14 out of 15 
States audited did not have adequate accounting and fiscal pro­
cedures and that most States did not exercise sufficient control 
over funds disbursed to local districts. One problem common to 
many States is the inadequacy of the audit procedures. The HEW 
Audit Agency found that in 12 out of 15 States, the States had 
made few or no audits of local districts and that when audits had 
been made, the State took no action on the items questioned.14 

• The HEW audit of NEW YORK State for fiscal year 1966 
revealed that the State had not audited Title I projects in the 
three largest school systems-New York City, Buffalo, and 
Rochester .15 

There is no special audit of Title I programs in some States. 
Districts often arrange for a local accounting firm to audit their 
books annually, but this auditor is not provided with specific 
information about Title I and the criteria for expenditure of funds, 
so the audit is inadequate. 

• In some States, such as MICHIGAN, the State Department 
of Fiscal Management conducts audits of local systems including 
Title I, but the State Title I coordinator never sees the results of 
these audits. Any information uncovered in these audits concerning 
Title I violations is referred to the responsible State office only 
if the finance officer decides to do so. The Michigan Title I co­
ordinator said that he "assumed" that the Fiscal Management 
Office handled instances in which their audits uncovered improper 
expenditures, but he himself knew few details about the State 
audit reports. 16 

In March of 1969 the HEW Audit Director reported to the 
Office of Education that 78 specific weaknesses in 10 areas of 
program management had been uncovered in State and local ad­
ministration of Title I. He advised that State administration of 
Title I needed improvement in four specific areas: 

1. better financial management to ensure that Title I funds 
are spent in accordance with the law; 

2. clearer understanding of the allowability of administrative 
and overhead costs for Title I program purposes; 

50 



3. more effective procedures for controlling and reviewing 
"the substantive aspects of proposed local projects to in­
sure that the objectives of the law . . . are met"; 

4. more effective auditing by States of local projects.17 

Furthermore, the problems brought to light by these audits had 
not always been remedied by State authorities. "Additional audits 
of the Title I program in 20 States now in process,'' reported the 
HEW Audit Agency, "indicated that the basic problems discussed 
in this report still exist and have not yet been fully resolved." 18 

• Apparently HEW audits have had relatively little impact on 
the administration of Title I in some States. For example, the 
second audit of ILLINOIS noted: 

"Action taken by the State agency to implement the recom­
mendations and resolve the questioned costs in our prior audit 
. . . bas been untimely and ineffective. As a result many of the 
illegal and improper practices and procedures discussed in our 
prior report were continued during the current audit period are 
presented in this report as repeat findings ." 19 

In the second audit of COLORADO, HEW auditors wrote: 
"In our previous audit of the Title I program, we discussed 
weaknesses in the administrative areas . .. State Agency of­
ficials concurred in our recommendations . . . [but] adequate 
corrective action has not been taken arid these areas are dis­
cussed again .... " 20 

• In December of 1968 the HEW Audit Agency completed the 
second audit of CALIFORNIA'S administration of Title I. In 
reviewing the status of its prior recommendations, the report 
commented: 

"Although the State was responsive to the need for improve­
ment in administering the Title I program, our current review 
in other school districts in the State disclosed that the same 
problems continued to exist." 2 1 

Why do these problems in the administration of Title I persist 
despite the recommendations of the Federal auditors and the 
acknowledgment of the State? A large part of the answer lies 
in the fact that State departments of education are not yet equipped 

51 



to administer a large program of aid to local school districts. Even 
a State such as California, with a better than average record in 
administering Title I, finds difficulty in attempting to meet all of 
its obligations under Title I on a limited administrative budget. 
California's Title I office responded to the Federal audit: 

"The Office of Compensatory Education must service 800-900 
projects in individual school districts . . . in each fiscal year 
. . . Resources have primarily .. . been devoted to the develop­
ment and approval of projects that are in accord with law .. . 
School districts will continue to require substantial assistance 
in meeting all of these primary obligations . . . Existing staff 
must continue to devote their major efforts to insuring that only 
eligible projects are approved." 22 

Federal Administration 

Since Title I began the HEW Audit Agency has conducted 
audits of programs in 24 States and the District of Columbia. The 
audit reports cover, for the most part, the early years of Title I, 
but some audits cover more recent years. The HEW Audit Agency 
sends its audits to the Office of Education which has the responsi­
bility for acting on the auditors' recommendations. The audit 
reports have brought to light numerous violations of the law and 
have recommended that millions of dollars be recovered by the 
Federal government. Yet in only three cases has the Office of 
Education sought and received restitution of funds illegally spent. 

Massachusetts returned $692 which has been spent on staff 
salaries prior to approval of the local district's project. Wisconsin 
has returned $43,653 which represented salaries charged to Title I 
in Milwaukee when only a portion of staff time was spent on Title 
I activities. Two Federal audits of Chicago, in which auditors 
recommended that the Office of Education seek recovery of ap­
proximately $1.2 million, are still being negotiated by State, local 
and Federal officials. The Office of Education, however, did ask 
for and received $249,642 from Chicago which represented in­
terest earned on Title I funds deposited in the school system's bank 
account. With these exceptions there has been no Federal action 
against State and local districts which have used Title I funds 
contrary to the law and Regulations. 23 In seven other states, .there 
has been a final determination of an audit by the Office of Educa­
tion but none of these involved any financial restitution. 

52 



Even in the most flagrant cases of unlawful use of the money­
the two swimming pools in Louisiana for example-the Office of 
Education has failed to act. When the Office of Education has 
recognized the existence of widespread violation of the Jaw, the 
Commissioner of Education has responded to it by sending a 
memorandum to the State school superintendents calling upon 
them to see that local districts take corrective action. The States 
normally circulate the Federal memorandum to local officials with 
this typical comment: 

"It is expected that you will take appropriate action to see that 
your Title I program is planned and operated in keeping with 
the information contained in the guide." 24 

The circulation of Federal memorandum reiterating the Regu­
lations has not served to correct the abuses. Federal administration 
of Title I has been characterized more by exchange of paper with 
the States than by firm action. The Office of Education does not 
conduct regular program reviews of Title I in States or local 
districts. Only in Mississippi has a program review been conducted, 
and it is still not known whether this practice will be extended 
to other States. 

The Office of Education and Mississippi 

In response to numerous and persistent complaints from black 
citizens of Mississippi, the Office of Education conducted a pro­
gram review in July and August of 1969 of Title I in 20 local 
school districts and reviewed the State's administration of the 
program. The results of that program review have not yet been 
made public, and negotiations are going on between the State 
and Federal government with respect to the operation of Title I 
in Mississippi. However, in a letter of July 9, 1969, Commissioner 
James E. Allen informed State Superintendent Garvin Johnston 
that as a result of the program review, the Office of Education had 
reached "preliminary conclusions" concerning Title I operations.25 

The Office of Education found that Mississippi had not en­
forced Federal policies with respect to Title I projects applica­
tions, that it was not helping local districts develop projects which 
would meet the needs of educationally disadvantaged children, and 

53 



that the State was not providing sufficient monitoring of Title l 
programs. In its review of local district Title I projects, the Office 
of Education found: 

1. supplanting of State and local funds; 
2. excessive expenditures of capital outlay (i.e. construction 

and equipment); 

3. use of Title I funds to maintain segregation; 
4. use of funds in non-target schools; 

5. use of funds as general aid. 

On the basis of these conclusions, Commissioner Allen in­
structed the State Superintendent of Schools on July 9 not to 
approve any Title I projects for fiscal year 1970 until certain 
remedial action had been taken. As school opening approached, 
that order was amended and Mississippi was instructed to approve 
only those projects in such critical areas as "health , nutrition, in­
struction and welfare." A Federal freeze has been put on any 
projects from Mississippi districts for expenditure of Title T funds 
on construction, equipment and supplies, cultural enrichment 
projects, or the provision of custodial services. 26 

As a result of this Federal action, State Superintendent Johnston 
called all Mississippi superintendents together on July 30 to an­
nounce "new" policies for the administration of Title I programs. 
Dr. Johnston told the Superintendents that these "new" policies 
would mean "radical changes" for some districts. 27 

The "new" policies announced by the State required that: 
1. school districts have a functioning advisory committee; 
2. school districts establish complaint procedures; 

3. Title I funds be used to supplement rather than supplant 
State and local funds; 

4. Title I applications show that the needs of eligible children 
had been assessed; 

5. the State Department review proposals for construction and 
the purchase of equipment; 

6. school districts make Title I information available to the 
public; 

7. Title I services follow eligible children to non-target schools. 

54 



The most potentially significant Federal requirement is that local 
districts achieve comparable services, facilities and expenditures in 
the target and non-target schools. State Superintendent Johnston 
has taken the position that this should be accomplished by Sep­
tember, 1971. On the other hand, Commissioner Allen has strongly 
urged that comparability be accomplished in Mississippi one year 
earlier, in September, 1970, and that intermediate steps be taken 
at once. This requirement is one of the issues involved in the 
current negotiations between the Office of Education and Missis­
sippi. 

There are several lessons to be learned from the series of 
events surrounding the Office of Education's involvement in 
Mississippi. First, the action taken thus far by the Commissioner 
of Education illustrates what can be accomplished by positive Fed­
eral leadership and enforcement. Past evidence indicates that if the 
Commissioner of Education had not taken action to halt the 
approval of 1969-70 projects, the State would not have acted by 
calling a meeting of local superintendents and issuing "new" State 
policies for Title I. Indeed if the Federal government had not 
acted, misuse of Title I money would have continued unabated for 
the State had given no indication that it would implement Title I 
policies most of which were announced almost four years ago 
when Title I money began to flow to local school districts. 

Second, the comparability requirement could bf:COme a major 
Federal tool in forcing school systems to eliminate disparities be­
tween schools attended by poor children and those attended by 
more affluent children. This could have a major impact in Missis­
sippi as well as other States. 

Third, the fact that the Office of Education did not act until 
there was overwhelming evidence of illegal practices from private 
sources, as well as a law suit, indicates clearly that there are no 
regular, on-going Federal procedures for ensuring that Title I is 
meeting the goal set by Congress. The question remains whether 
the Office of Education is prepared to institute regular program 
reviews of Title I in all other States. 

Fourth, the Office of Education has asked Mississippi to provide 
"regular reports" on the steps it will take to improve the ad­
ministration of Title I. What the Office of Education will do with 
these reports and whether the Commissioner is prepared to de­
termine whether Mississippi is actually implementing its "new" 

55 



policies remains to be seen. Will the Commissioner permit Missis­
sippi school officials to violate Title I requirements until 1971, or 
will he insist that steps be taken now to achieve comparable re­
sources and facilities in the schools of Mississippi? 

The answers to these questions will provide some indication as 
to whether the Office of Education intends to enforce the law in 
the interests of educationally disadvantaged children, or whether 
it will continue its present course of timid administration and 
implementation of Title I. 

56 



SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 

This is not a comprehensive report on Title I. We did not have 
to probe deeply to uncover violations of the law, Regulations and 
Program Criteria of Title I, or to learn that many Title I programs 
are poorly planned and executed. Many of the misuses of Title I 
funds are so gross that even non-experts can readily spot them. 
We hope that private organizations and/ or public agencies will 
probe more deeply in attempts to correct the abuses pointed out 
here and others that we have not touched upon. 

One of the major criticisms of some OEO Community Action 
Programs is that community people do not have the expertise to 
administer programs, particularly those involving the management 
of substantial amounts of money. The evidence is clear that there 
is a great deal of mismanagement connected with Title I, which 
is supervised by education experts. It might be worthwhile for 
someone to compare the administration of a Community Action 
Program and a Title I program in the same community. 

In this report we have tried to spell out Title I requirements 
and match them against what is actually happening in many dis­
tricts. We found that although Title I is not general aid to educa­
tion but categorical aid for children from poor families who have 
educational handicaps, funds appropriated under the Act are being 
used for general school purposes; to initiate system-wide programs; 
to buy books and supplies for all school children in the system; 
to pay general overhead and operating expenses; to meet new 
teacher contracts which call for higher salaries; to purchase all­
purpose school facilities; and to equip superintendents' offices with 
paneling, wall-to-wall carpeting and color televisions. 

57 



Though Title I funds are supplemental to regular money, there 
are numerous cases where regular classroom teachers, teacher 
aides, librarians, and janitors are paid solely from Title I funds. 
New school construction and equipment, mobile classrooms, and 
regular classroom construction and equipment are common costs 
charged to local Title I budgets which should be paid for out of 
regular school budgets. 

Title I funds are not to supplant other Federal program funds . 
But the extent to which Title I funds have been used to feed edu­
cationally deprived children, to purchase library facilities and 
books, to provide vocational education for disadvantaged students, 
raises serious questions as to whether Title I funds are being used 
to supplant National School Lunch, Child Nutrition Act, Title II 
ESEA and Vocational Education Act funds. 

Title I funds are not for the benefit of non-poverty children, yet 
teaching personnel, equipment, supplies, and materials purchased 
with this money are found in some of the most affiuent schools 
where not a single educationally disadvantaged child is enrolled. 

And Title I funds are not to equalize racially segregated schools. 
Yet many Southern school systems which have steadfastly refused 
to comply with the Constitutional mandate to desegregate use 
Title I funds to make black schools equal to their white counter­
parts. These funds are sometimes used to actually frustrate de­
segregation by providing black children benefits such as free food, 
medical care, shoes and clothes that are available to them only 
so long as they remain in an all-black school. 

Community involvement in developing plans to utilize Title I 
funds to raise the level of educationally deprived children is non­
existent in many school systems, although the Federal policies 
require community participation. Lack of community involvement 
is undoubtedly one of the reasons why so much misuse of these 
funds goes practically unnoticed by the public. 

We believe that Title I can work if properly funded and ad­
ministered. By pointing out some of the misuses of Title I funds, 
we hope this report will provoke private organizations, community 
people, and Federal, State and local officials to commit themselves 
to fulfilling a long-needed promise to our Nation's poor children. 

58 



FOOTNOTES 

INTRODUCTION 

I . See Appendix A, p. 66. 
2. Taylor v. Coahoma Co. School District, Civ. No. C.A. DC698-S (N.D. 

Miss., filed Feb 21, 1969). 
3. Mi1?ra11t Educatio11-Title I provided $45,556,074 for migrant education 

in fiscal I 969 which was allocated to States on the basis of the esti­
mated number of migratory children residing full or part time in that 
State. The problem with this formula is that neither the States nor the 
Federal government has any reliable estimates of the number of mi­
grant children. The current estimates are based on the Department of 
Labor's Farm Services Bureau count of migrant farm workers in each 
State. This count underestimates the actual number of migrant workers 
since not all workers are registered with the Farm Services Bureau. 
Nine States-Ariz., Calif., Fla., Mich., N.J., N.Y., Ore., Tex., and 
Wash.-receive the bulk of this money. 
Each State department of education must submit a State plan to OE 
which outlines where the migrant children are located, and how the 
money will be spent. There are no special Program Criteria for migrant 
education programs which set priorities or guide the States in spending 
the money. Migrant programs may be operated directly by the States. 
by local school systems, or private non-profit organizations. 
Indian Education-The Department of Interior received $9 million 
of Title I funds in 1969 fiscal year for educationally deprived Indian 
children attending schools operated by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. 
Tl:.e $9 million is but a small portion of the total BIA education budget 
of $62 million. The sum of S 126 per student is distributed for approxi­
mately 55,799 Indian children in boarding and day schools. In fiscal 
year 1968, Title I funded 45 proposals for enrichment projects; 3 7 for 
teachers aides; 28 for guidance; 21 for remedial reading; 13 for recrea­
tion; and 11 for English as a Second Language program. Indian chil­
dren attending regular public schools may also receive Title I benefits. 
but there is no cooperation between OE and BIA to determine how 
to use Title I to meet the needs of Indian children. 

CHAPTER I 

1. HEW, Statistical Report Fiscal Year 1967, 11, 27. 

59 



2. Hearings on Extension of ESEA before the House Committee 011 
Education and Labor. (Part 4 ) 9 lst Congress, I st Session. Prepared 
Statement by Hon. Robert H. Finch, Sec., HEW, 2912 (Mar. 10, 1969) 
[hereinafter referred to as House Heari11gs). Educationally disadvan­
taged children were defined in the study as all those children whom the 
teacher felt would not complete high school. 

3. National Advisory Council on the Education of Disadvantaged Chil­
dren, Title I-ESEA: A Review and a Forward Look, Fourth Annual 
Report-1969, 13 (1969) [hereinafter referred to as Title 1 Advisory 
Council 1969 R eport]. 

CHAPTER II 
I. See Appendix A, p. 66. 
2. Interview with S.C. officials. Interview with OE staff. 
3. HEW Audit Agency, Georgia State Department of Educatio11 Audit 

of Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, 
September 23, 1965-June 30, 1967, 6-8 [hereinafter referred to as 
Ga. Audit). 

4. Interviews in Bibb County, Ga. 
5. Interviews in Oxford Mun. Sep. School District, Miss. 
6. Interviews in Greene County, Ala., Sumter County, Ala., New Albany. 

Miss., Quitman County, Miss., Pontotoc County, Miss. 
7. HEW Audit Agency, Report on Audit of Title I of the Eleme11tary 

and Secondary Education Act of 1965, Wisconsin State Departme11t 
of Public Instruction, Madison, _Wisconsi11, September 1, 1966 to August 
31, 1967, 16 (Nov. 22, 1968) [hereinafter referred to as Wis. Audit 2). 

8. HEW Audit Agency, A udit of Title I Eleme11tary and Secondary Edu­
cation A ct of I965, Mississippi State Departme11t of Education, Jackson. 
Mississippi, Sept. 30, 1965-June 30, 1967, 16 (Undated ) [hereinafter 
referred to as Miss Audit]. 

9. Letter from Leslie Crumble, Jr., Asst. Supt. of Schools to Mr. Mont 
Davie, Regional Supervisor, Ill. State Department of Education, 
Feb. 20, 1969. 

10. Waukegan City Schools, Application for Federal Assistance ( 1967-68), 
Item 13 attachments (Aug. 1967 ) . 

11. HEW Audit Agency, Report on Review of Programs and Pro jects 
under Title I of the Elementary and Seco11dary Education Act of 1965, 
District of Columbia, Fiscal Years I966 a11d 1967, 30-31 (July 1969) 
[hereinafter referred to as D. C. Audit]. 

12. Interviews in Benton County, Miss.; Benton County, Miss., Title I 
Project Applicatio11 (1968-69) Attachments. 

13. Division of Compensatory Education, Calif. State Department of 
Education, Status Report on Oakland City Unified School District's 
ESEA, Title I Project (Draft ), 9-22 (May 1969). 

14. Ibid. 
15. HEW Audit Agency, Title I ESEA State of Indiana, State Office of 

Public Instruction, Period Sept. 23, 1965 to Aug. 31, 1967, 15, 16 
(Undated) [hereinafter referred to as Ind. A udir]. 

l 6. HEW Audit Agency, Tennessee State Departme11t of Education Audit 
of Elementary and Secondary Education Act-Title I, Sept. 23, 1965 
-Aug. 31, 1966, 4, 5 (Apr. 1969) [hereinafter referred to as Te1111. 
Audit). 

17. / d.at5. 
18. HEW Audit Agency. Report of Audit, Title I of the Elementary a11d 

Secondary Education Act of 1965 Administered by the State of Cali-

60 



fornia for the Period Sept. 23, 1969-Aug. 31, 1968, 7 (Dec. 23, 1968) 
[hereinafter referred to as Calif. Audit]. 

19. HEW Audit Agency, State of Louisiana Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act Title 1 and Title JI, Sept. 30, 1965-Aug. 31 , 1966, 
IO, 11 (Oct. 27, 1979) [hereinafter referred to as La. Audit]. 

20. D. C. Audit, 14. 
21. Calif. Audit, 31-32. 
22. Ibid. 
23. See Appendix A, p. 67. 
24. HEW Audit Agency, Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Edu­

cation Act of 1965, The State of Illinois and the Chicago Board of 
Education, Period: Sept. 23, 1965 to Aug. 31, 1966, 32 (Undated) 
[hereinafter refer red to as II/. Audit I]. 

25. HEW Audit Agency, R eport on Audit of the Elementary and Second­
ary Education Act Title 1 Administered by State of Pennsylvania, July 
I, 1966-August 3 1, 1967, 16, 17 (Undated ) [hereinafter referred to 
as Pa. Audit]. 

26. Interviews in Oxford, Miss. 
27. Title I Advisory Council 1969 Report, 14. 
28. Mosbaek et. al. Analysis of Compensatory Education in Five School 

Districts Summary, 3 (Undated). 
29. See Appendix A, p. 68-69. 
30. Supplemental Policies for ESEA Title I Projects Adopted by the Calif. 

State Board of Education Feb. 14, 1969 in House Hearings, 2523. 
31. Id. at 2525. 
32. U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Southern School Desegregation 

1966-67, 82 (July, 1967). 
33. Interviews in Bibb, Telfair and Worth Counties, Ga. and in Greene 

County, Ala. 
34. Supra note 13, at 25. 
35. Ind. Audit, 25. 
36. HEW Audit Agency, South Carolina Department of Education Audit 

of Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, 
July 1, 1965-June 30, 1967, 6 (April 16, 1968) [hereinafter referred 
to as S.C. Audit]. 

37. La. Audit, 3. 
38. HEW Audit Agency, Report on Audit of Elementary and Secondan 

Education Act, Title / , State of New Jersey, Sept. 23, 1965-A ug. 31, 
1967, 11-12 (Undated) [hereinafter referred to as N.J. Audit]. 

39. Calif. Audit. 
40. lll. Audit 2. 
41. HEW Audit Agency, Alabama State Department of Education Audit 

of Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, 
Sept. 27, 1965-June 30, 1968, 4 (Undated) [hereinafter referred to 
as Ala. Audit]. 

CHAPTER III 
1. See Appendix A , p. 67. 
2. S.C. State Dept. of Ed. , Helping the Deprived Child Climb, 8 (Un­

dated). 
3. Information taken from the desegregation plan prepared for Sumter 

Co. by the Division of Equal Educational Opportunity (D.E.E.O.) 
Office of Education pursuant to Whittenburg v. Greenville Co. Cl A 

61 



4396 (1969), 2-8; and, Sumter County's Application for Federal As­
sistance for the Education of Children from Low-Income Families, 
(May 6, 1969). 

4. Id. for Hampton County, 1-4; and Id., (May 22, 1967). 
5. Id. for Bamberg County #2, 3-5; and Id., (Mar. 31, 1966). 
6. Interview with S.C. official. 
7. Miss. School Statistics prepared by OE. 
8. Hopson v. Quitman County Bd. of Ed., Testimony of Superintendent 

Cecil Oliver Sharp, Dec. 18, 1968. 
9. J. Alan Thomas, School Finance and Educational Opportunity in 

Michigan, 19-27 (1968). 
10. Pa. Audit, 39. 
11. Ill. Audit, 28-30. Chicago Daily News, June 30, 1969. The story cited 

a report on Chicago's Title I program by a State official. The facts 
contained in the news story were subsequently verified in an interview 
with the State official. 

12. Wisc. Audit I, 38. 
13. HEW Audit Agency, Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Educa­

tion Act of 1965 State of Michigan and the Detroit Board of Education 
Fiscal Year 1966 Program, Period: Sept. 23, 1965 to Mar. 31, 
1967, 38-39 (Undated) [hereinafter referred to as Mich. Audit]. 

14. HEW Audit Agency, Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Educa­
tion Act of 1965, State of Ohio: Period: Sept. 23, 1965 to Aug. 31, 
1968, 54 (June 13, 1969) [hereinafter referred to as Ohio Audit]. 

15. Id. at 50, 52. 
16. HEW Audit Agency, Report on Audit of Title I of the Elementary 

and Secondary Education Act of 1965 Administered by Office of Public 
Instruction, State of Illinois, Springfield, Illinois, Period: Project 
Grants 9-23-65 to 8-31-67, Administrative Expenses 9-23-65 to 
6-30-68, 41-42 (June 13, 1969) [hereinafter referred to as Ill. Audit 2]. 

17. Calif. Audit, 37. 
18. Mich. Audit, 17-18. 
19. The sponsor of the special appropr.iations was Congressman Carl Per­

kins of Kentucky. 
20. Fiscal year 1969 data on Title I expenditures is not yet available from 

the Office of Education. 

CHAPTER IV 
1. See Appendix A, p. 67-68. 
2. OE Program Guide No. 47B, Nov. 20, 1968. 
3. Title I Advisory Council 1969 Report, A-3. 
4. Statistics supplied by OE. 
5. Ibid. 
6. Mich. Audit, 13. 

·1. Supra Chapter 2, note 32. 
8. Interview with HEW Personnel, Aug. 25, 1969. 
9. Tenn. Audit, 10, 11. 

10. Ill. Audit 2, 30-32. 
11. Id. at 64. 
12. La. Audit, 9. 
13. Wisc. Audit 2, 17. 
14. Ala. Audit, 6. 

62 



15. Interviews in Oxford, Miss. Mun. Sep. School District. 
16. Tenn Audit, 7-9. 
17. Id. at 19-10. 
18. Interview in South Panola, Miss. 
19. Report of the National Advisory Council 011 the Education of Disad-

vantaged Children, 30, (Nov. 25, 1966). 
20. Interviews in Worth County, Ga. 
21. Interviews in New Albany, Miss. 

CHAPTER V 
I. See Appendix A, p. 70. 
2. D.C. Audit, 19-22. 
3. Id. 24-26. 
4. Buena Vista #9 School District, Attachments to Application for Federal 

Assistance 1968-69. 
5. School District of the City of Benton Harbor, Application for Federal 

Assistance 1966-67. 
6. Bakersfield City School District, Application for Federal Assistance to 

Meet the Special Educational Needs of Educationally Deprived Children 
1968-69. 

7. Office for Civil Rights, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, 
Summary of Title VI Findings Bakersfield City Elementary School 
District, I, 5 (Undated). 

8. Oakland Unified School District, Application for Federal Assistance 
Appendix K & L, 185-186; Letter from Electra Price, American Friends 
Service Committee to Jean Fairfax, NAACP Legal Defense and Educa­
tional Fund, Inc. , March l, 1968. 

9. Benton County, Mississippi Amendment Request ESEA Title I Attach­
ments (May 13, 1969). 

10. HEW Audit Agency, Report on R eview of Grants Awarded to the 
Commonwealth of Massachuse/ls Under Title I Elementary and 
Secondary Education Act of 1965, 16 (January 1969 [hereinafter 
referred to as Mass. Audit] 

11. Id. at 18-20. 
12. Tenn. Audit, 9-10. 
13. La. Audit, 18. 
14. Letter from Gil De La Rosa to Phyllis McClure, July 31, 1969. Mexi­

can-American leaders have told us that the use of welfare statistics upon 
which allocations to districts are made is responsible for declining 
funds in predominantly Mexican-American school districts. They feel 
that Mexican-Americans are not on the welfare rolls in proportion to 
their numbers in the population because they tend to work in the fields 
rather than apply for welfare. 

15. Interviews in Darlington County, S.C. 
16. Interviews in Worth County, Ga. 
17. Ohio Audit, 54-56. 

CHAPTER VI 

I. See Appendix A, p. 70. 
2. National Advisory Council on the Education of Disadvantaged Children, 

Report of the National Advisory Council 011 the Education of Dis­
advantaged Children, 22 (Jan. 31, 1968). 

3. Memorandum from Dorchester County (S.C.) Voters League to the 
Superintendents of Dorchester County school districts #I, #2, #3, 
(Aug. 24, 1969). 

63 



4. Interview in Albuquerque, N.M. 
5. Interview in Aberdeen, Miss. 
6. Interviews in Oxford, Miss. 
7. Interviews in Tucson, Ariz. 
8. Ohio Audit, 15. 
9. Interviews in Phoenix-South Holland, Ill. 

10. Interviews in Sumter County, Ala. 
11. Information supplied by Rims Barber, Delta Ministry. 
12. David Rogers, 110 Livingston Street, 453. (1968). 
13. Id. 460. 
14. Interviews in Anderson #5, S.C.; Autauga and Greene Counties, Ala.; 

Telfair County, Ga. 
15. Interviews in Waukegan, Ill. 
16. Interviews in Tucson, Ariz. 
17. Interviews in Oxford, Miss. 
18. Interviews in Bakersfield, Calif. 
19. Interviews in Albuquerque, N.M. 

CHAPTER VII 
1. Council of Chief State School Officers, State and Local Responsibilities 

for Education: A Position Statement (1968). 
2. Ibid. 
3. HEW Audit Agency, Report on Audit of Selected Programs Adminis­

tered by the New York State Education Department, July 1, 1964-June 
30, 1966, 17 (Undated) [hereinafter referred to as N.Y. Audit]. 

4. HEW Audit Agency, Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 
1965 Titles I, II, and V Administered by State of Kansas, September 
23, 1965 to June 30, 1966, 7 (Jan. 12, 1968). 

5. Ill. Audit 2, 33. 
6. Supra note 1. 
7. HEW Audit Agency, Report on Problem Areas noted During Audits 

of State and Local Educational Agencies Title I Elementary and 
Secondary Education Act of 1965, Mar. 21, 1969. 

8. Ind. Audit, 8. 
9. Ill. Audit 1, 32. 

10. Letter to Mr. Jack Conort, Branch Manager, HEW Division of Audit 
from Mr. Jack Nix, State Superintendent of Schools, Ga., May 1, 1968. 

11. Interview with S.C. officials. 
12. Interview with Ill. officials. 
13. Supra note 7 at 11. 
14. Id. at 3, 15. 
15. N.Y. Audit, 6, 13. 
16. Interview with Mich. officials. 
17. Letter, Mar. 21, 1969, transmitting report, Supra note 1. 
18. Ibid. 
19. Ill . Audit 1, 89. 
20. HEW Audit Agency, Report on Audit of Title I of the Elementary and 

Secondary Education Act of 1965, Administered by State of Colorado, 
for the Period July I, 1966 to August 31, 1967, 4 (June 24, 1969). 

21. Calif. Audit, 6. 
22. Id. at 72. 
23. Interviews with OE personnel (Oct. 20, 1969). 

64 



24. William H. Moore, Associate Commissioner for Federal Programs 
(Ark.) to All Title I Claimants, Field Operations Memo No. 69-37. 
Misuse of Title I Funds, (Aug. 28, 1968). 

25. Letter from Commissioner James E. Allen to Mississippi State Super­
intendent Garvin Johnston, July 9, 1969. 

26. Ibid. 
27. Jackson Daily News, July 30, 1969. 

65 



APPENDIX A 

Appendix A contains excerpts from the law, the Federal Regulations and 
the Criteria governing Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Edu­
cation Act of 1965 (P.L. 89-10) . The excerpts are organized by topic. 
Copies of the Regulations and Program Guides may be obtained by writing 
to the Division of Compensatory Education, Bureau of Elementary and 
Secondary Education, U.S. Office of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, 
S.W., Washington, D.C. 20202, or to your State Department of Education. 

NATIONAL POLICY 
"In recognition of the special educational needs of children of low-income 
families and the impact that concentrations of low-income families have 
on the ability of local educational agencies to support adequate educa­
tional programs, the Congress hereby declares it to be the policy of the 
United States to provide financial assistance to local educational agencies 
serving areas with concentrations of children from low-income families 
to expend and improve their educational programs by various means 
(including pre-school programs) which contribute particularly to meeting 
special educational needs of educationally deprived children." 
(The Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 P.L. 89-10) 

DEFINITION OF THE TERM "EDUCATIONALLY DEPRIVED 
CHILDREN" 

" 'Educationally deprived children' means those children who have need 
for special educational assistance in order that their level of educational 
attainment may be raised to that appropriate for children of their age. 
The term includes children who are handicapped or whose needs for 
such special educational assistance result from poverty, neglect, delin­
quency, or cultural or linguistic isolation from the community at large." 
( 45 C.F.R. § 116.1 (i)) 

TITLE I MUST NOT BE USED AS GENERAL AID 
"Each such project must be tailored to contribute particularly toward 
meeting one or more of the special educational needs of educationally 
deprived children and should not be designed merely to meet the needs 
of schools or of the student body at large in a school or in a specified 
grade in a school." (45 C.F.R. § 116.17(g)) 
"Title I resources should be concentrated on those children who are 
most in need of special assistance. Normally this process will involve 
determinations of both the needs of individual groups of children and 

66 



of tlie possibilities for success in working with those groups. Decisions 
should be made in terms of the effectiveness of providing comprehensive 
services to a limited number of children in a few groups as opposed to. 
the ineffectiveness of spreading diluted services over all eligible children 
in all groups. Consideration must also be given to the availability of 
assistance from other agencies and programs for specific groups of 
children." (Program Guide # 44, Sec. 4.2) 

NATURE AND SIZE OF TARGET AREA AND POPULATION TO BE 
SERVED 

" ... A project area may include one or more attendance areas having 
high concentrations of children from low-income families, but the 
project area must be sufficiently restricted in size in relation to the nature 
of the project as to avoid jeopardizing its effectiveness in meeting the 
aims and objectives of the project. ... " (45 C.F.R. § 11 6.17(c) ) 
"A school attendance area for either an . . . elementary or a . . . 
secondary school may be designated as a project area if the estimated 
percentage of children from low-income families residing in that attend­
ance area is as high as the percentage of such children residing in the 
whole of the school district .. . In certain cases, the whole of a school 
district may be regarded as an area having a high concentration of such 
children and be approved as a project area, but only if there are no 
wide variances in the concentrations of such children among the several 
school attendance areas in the school district." ( 45 C.F .R. § 116.17 ( d)) 
" ... The purpose of the attendance area requirement is to identify the 
'target populations' of children who are to be considered for participa­
tion in Title I activities on the basis of educational deficiency and need 
for special services .... " (Program Guide #44, Sec. 1.1) 

SUPPLANTING STATE AND LOCAL FUNDS 
"Each application . . . shall contain an assurance that the use of the 
grant funds will not result in a decrease in the use for educationally 
deprived children residing in that project area of State or local funds 
which in the absence of funds under Title l of the Act, would be made 
available for that project area and that neither the project area nor the 
educationally deprived children residing therein will otherwise be penal­
ized in the application of State and local funds because of such a use 
of funds under Title I . ... No project under Title I of the Act will be 
deemed to have been designed to meet the special educational needs of 
educationally deprived children unless the funds made available for that 
project are to be used to supplement, and not supplant, State or local 
funds." (45 C.F.R. § 116.17(h}) 
". . . It is expected that services provided within the district with State 
and local funds will be made available to all attendance areas to all 
children without discrimination. The instructional and ancillary services 
provided with State and local funds for children in the non-project areas, 
particularly with respect to class size, special services, and the number 
and variety of personnel . . . This means that services that are already 
available or will be made available for children in the non-project areas 
should be provided on an equal basis in the project areas with State and 
local funds rather than with Title I funds . . . [A]s services initiated 
in the project areas under Title l are extended to children residing in 
non-project areas, the applicant will assume fu ll support of those services 
under its regular school budget. This will release Title I funds to provide 
new activities for eligible children." (Program Guide #44, Sec. 7.1) 

CONSTRUCTION AND EQUIPMENT 
"No application for a project grant under Title I . . . may cover the 
construction of school faci lities unless such construction is demonstrated 
as being essential in order to assure the success of a program or project 
under Title I . . . If the construction of school facilities is so demon-

67 



strated as being essential for a program or project, the application must 
nevertheless comply with other requirements of Title I. ... " ( 45 C.F.R. 
§ 116.17(i)) 
" ... Rental or construction of school facilities [including portable units] 
not specifically related to a Title I project activity should not be allowed 
except in unusual situations where (a) such construction is necessary 
in order to bring children together at locations where they can be served 
effectively under Title I and (b) the local educational agency is unable 
to provide such facilities with its own funds. The construction of perma­
nent new facilities should be regarded as a local responsibility except in 
extreme cases of financial need." (Program Guide #44, Sec. 5.7) 
"The State educational agency shall not approve a project involving the 
construction of school facilities unless it determines that the construction 
is consistent with overall State plans for construction. It shall not approve 
such a project involving construction, other than minor remodeling, 
altering or improving of school facilities, unless the approval is con­
ditioned upon approval of the construction plans and specifications by 
State educational agency, and further conditioned upon the award of 
a construction contract on or before a date specified in the project 
application." ( 45 C.F.R. § 116.21 (c)) 
"The State educational agency shall not approve a project involving 
construction of school facilities if it finds that such construction would 
lead to, or would tend to maintain, the cultural or linguistic isolation 
of children .... " (45 C.F.R. § 116.2l(f)) 
"Title I funds will be used for construction only when necessary to 
implement projects designed to meet the highest priority needs of 
educationally deprived children in the applicant's district. ... " (Program 
Guide #44, Sec. 5.7) 
" ... All requests for the approval of funds for the purchase of . . . 
equipment must be fully iustified. This means that the application must 
show that (a) equipment has been selected and designated for specific 
purposes in connection with proposed project activities, ( b) the proposed 
equipment is essential to the effective implementation of the project, 
(c) such equipment is not available in the applicant's regular or T itle I 
inventories for use in the project, and (d) the applicant has the trained 
staff to utilize the proposed new equipment effectively or that arrange­
ments will be made to prepare staff for such use. The State educational 
agency will review existing Title I inventories and insure that equipment 
already purchased with Title I funds is being effectively used for Title I 
purposes. Equipment that is no longer appropriate for use in Title I 
projects should be sold or transferred to the applicant's regular inventory 
and the appropriate amounts refunded to the Federal Government." 
(Program Guide #44, Sec. 5.6) 
" ... The budget for a project shall avoid imprudent, extravagant or 
wasteful expenditures which would tend to defeat the intent of the Act 
to meet the special educational needs of educationally deprived chil­
dren . ... " (45 C.F.R. § 116.18(a)) 

CONCENTRATION OF SERVICES 
". . . Title I resources should be concentrated on those children who 
are most in need of special assistance .... " (Program Guide #44, 
Sec. 4.2) 
"Application for grants ... are to be concentrated on a limited number 
of educationally deprived children so as to give reasonable promise of 
promoting to a marked degree improvement in the educational attain­
ment, motivation, behavior or attitudes of children." ( 45 C.F.R. 
§ 116.IS(e)) 
"The applicant should make sure that the needs of children in eligible 

68 



areas with the highest incidence of poverty have been met before con­
sidering the needs of children in eligible areas in which the incidence 
is much lower. The program in the areas with the highest incidence should 
be designed to serve a large proportion of children and· to provide them 
with a greater variety of services than programs in areas with lesser 
incidences of poverty." (Program Guide #44, Sec. 4.6) 
". . . The proposed Title I expenditure per child is an indication of the 
concentration of effort, as indicated by investment per child, the greater 
likelihood that the program will have a significant impact on the children 
in the program. The investment per child on an annual basis for a pro­
gram of compensatory educational services which supplement the child's 
regular school activities should be expected to equal about one-half the 
expenditure per child from State and local funds for the applicant's 
regular school program. The investment per child per year for a pro­
gram such as a pre-school program which provides ·all of the services 
for the child involved should be expected to equal the applicant's full 
expenditure per pupil from State and local funds." (Program Guide #44, 
Sec. 4.7) 

TITLE I AND DESEGREGATION 
". . . All Title I program activities must be designed for educationally 
deprived children who live in eligible attendance areas but should be 
offered at locations where those children can best be served. Any pro­
posed Title I activities [including the construction of school facilicies] 
which, because of the location or for other reasons, . would in effect 
prolong the racial, social, or linguistic isolation of the children to be 
served would be self-defeating and should not be approved. Applicants 
for Title I funds should design effective compensatory education pro­
grams which include, where appropriate, measures for fostering integra­
tion in the community. 
"In some cases, the locations where the children can best be served will 
be outside the project area. The application should indicate clearly the 
locations both inside and outside the project areas where Title I services 
will be offered and the number of children from inside and outside the 
project areas who will participate at each such location. 
"No child who lives in a project area and who would otherwise receive 
Title I services is to be denied such services because of his exercise of a 
right to enroll in another school. Children residing outside the project 
areas who can benefit from the services inay participate on a space­
available basis." (Program Guide #44, Sec. 5.5) 

TITLE I ADVISORY COMMITTEES 
"Each local educational agency shall provide for the maximum practical 
involvement of parents of educationally deprived children . . . including 
their representation on advisory committees which may be established 
for the local Title I program." (45C.F.R.§116.18(f)) 
". . . [E]ach Title I applicant must have an appropriate organizational 
arrangement ... [L]ocal advisory committees will need to be established 
for the planning, operation, and appraisal of a comprehensive educational 
program." (Program Guide #44) 
"It is suggested that at least 50% of the membership of the committee 
consist of parents of disadvantaged children attending schools serving 
in the area where projects will be conducted, representatives of the poor 
from the Community Action Agency and parent members of the Head 
Start advisory committee, if there is a Head Start project in the com­
munity, and representatives of other neighborhood-based organizations 
which have a particular interest in the compensatory educational pro­
gram." (Program Guide #46, Sec. IA) 

69 



PARENT AND COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT 
"It is essential that public and private school teachers and other staff 
members, parents, and representatives of related programs and agencies 
be involved in the early stages of program planning and in discussions 
concerning the needs of children in the various eligible attendance areas. 
They are often able to corroborate or offer insights concerning the evi­
dence of educational deficiencies. They will be much more likely to lend 
suppor~ to a program of special educational services if, as a result of 
their involvement, they understand the premises on which such a 
program is based. 
"Officials of community action, welfare, juvenile protection, and other 
agencies which have responsibilities for helping people-children or 
adults-overcome the effects of poverty are among those to be con­
sulted concerning their views on the needs of the children in eligible 
attendance areas. . . . " (Program Guide # 44, Sec. 2.1) 
"The applicant should demonstrate that adequate provision has been 
made in the Title I program for the participation of and special services 
for the parents of children involved in the programs. T he employment 
of parents in the Title I projects is but one way to implement this pro­
vision. The primary goal of such activities and services should be to 
build the capabilities of the parents to work with the school in a way 
which supports their children's well-being, growth, and development." 
(Program Guide #44, Sec. 5.3) 

ASSESSMENT OF NEEDS OF EDUCATIONALLY D EPRIVED 
CHILDREN 

"The project . . . should be designed to meet the special educational 
needs of those educationally deprived children who have the greatest 
need for assistance .... " (45 C.F.R. § 116.17(f)) 
". . . Each local educational agency shall design its projects in such a 
manner, and apply them to such school attendance areas having high 
concentrations of children from low-income families, as will best meet 
the special educational needs of the educationally deprived children." 
(45 C.F.R. § 116.17(c)) 
"The application shows that the Title I program is based on a considera­
tion of the relative needs of children at all ages and grade levels and 
is designed to meet a limited number of high priority needs which 
cannot be met through the regular school program or other pro­
grams .... " (Program Guide #44, Sec. 42) 
" . . . T he first step in the development of a compensatory program to 
meet the needs of such children is to evaluate the evidence concerning 
the educational deficiencies of children who live in the eligible attendance 
areas .. . Specific attention should be given to the information available 
on educational retardation, results of educational tests, linguistic or racial 
isolation, welfare and nutrition, physical and mental handicaps, and other 
pertinent information on which the incidence and severity of the need of 
children in the project areas can be established .... " (Program G uide 
#44, Sec. 2.1) 
". . . All proposals to provide health, nutrition, welfare, and recreation 
services under Title I should be fully justified on the basis that the re­
sources of other agencies are not adequate to meet high priority needs 
for these services." (Program Guide #44, Sec. 3.1) 

PUBLIC INFORMATION 
"The terms and provisions of each approved project shall be made avail­
able, by the State educational agency, and by the affected local educa­
tional agency or agencies, for public inspection." ( 45 C.F.R. § 11 6.34) 
" ... The requirement that the 'terms and provisions' of each project be 
m ade available covers such materials as the approved application, amend-

70 



ments thereto, and supporting documentation, including correspondence 
between the State and local educational agencies concerning the project. 
State and local educational agencies are required under the foregoing 
regulation to make the information available to any citizen upon request. 
He must be afforded reasonable opportunity not only to examine the 
materials but also to copy information, including total reproduction such 
as xeroxing, at his own expense." (Program Guide #54) 

COMPLAINTS 
" . . . [State] reports shall include a disclosure of any allegations of sub­
stance which may be made by local educational agencies or private indi­
viduals or organizations of actions by State or local educational agencies 
contrary to the provisions of Title I of the Act or the regulations in this 
part, a summary of the result of any investigations made or hearings held 
with respect to those allegations, and a statement of the disposition by the 
State educational agency of those allegations. It is recognized that the re­
sponsibility with respect to the resolution of such matters rests, in the first 
instance, in the State educational agency." ( 45 C.F.R. § 116.31 (g)) 

STATE AGENCY RESPONSIBILITIES 
This is not an inclusive listing of all the legal requirements for a State 
Agency administering Title I. 

"The application for participation by the State in the grant program shall 
contain an assurance . . . that each application by a local educational 
agency ... approved by the State educational agency will comply with 
the requirements of Title I ... that the State educational agency will 
comply with the requirements of Title I of the Act .. . that the State 
educational agency will require each such local educational agency to 
carry out all assurances given by it in, and to perform all obligations 
imposed on it in connection with its approved applications for grants, and 
that the State educational agency will in all other respects comply with 
the requirements imposed on it by Title I of the Act . .. " ( 45 C.F.R. § 
116.31(c) ) 
" ... The State educational agency shall not approve such an application 
unless it determines that the application does effectively meet the require­
ments , of the Act ... " (45 C.F.R. § 116.34(a)) 
"Each application by a State educational agency shall contain an assur­
ance that it will make periodic reports to the Commission evaluating the 
effectiveness of the programs and projects of State and local educational 
agencies . . . " ( 45 C.F.R. § 116.31 (f)) 
"The State educational agency shall, for that agency and local educational 
agencies, provide for such fiscal control and fund accounting procedures as 
may be necessary for the proper disbursement of funds paid to the State 
and to local educational agencies under T itle I of the Act ... " (45 C.F.R. 
§ 116.48(a)) 

71 



APPENDIX B 

School Systems in Which Interviews Were Conducted 

Following is a list of school districts in which interviews were conducted 
for this study: 

Alabama 
Autauga County 
Greene County 
Hale County 
Sumter County 

Arizona 
Tucson 

California 
Bakersfield 
Fresno 
Riverside 

Georgia 
Bibb County 
Telfair County 
Worth County 

Illinois 
Waukegan District #61 
Cook County District # 151 

(Phoenix-South Holland) 
Springfield 

72 

Mississippi 
Benton County 
Oxford Municipal Separate 

School District 
Pontotoc County 
Quitman County 
South Panola County 
Union County 

North Carolina 
Guilford County 

New Mexico 
Albuquerque 

South Carolina 
Anderson #5 
Darlington County 
Williamsburg County 

Texas 
Karnes City 
San Antonio 



APPENDIX C 

AUDIT REPORTS, HEW AUDIT AGENCY 

State Period Covered 

Alabama .......................... ........ ........ September 27, 1965-June 30, 1968 
California ........................................ September 23, 1965-August 31, 1968 
Colorado ................. ........ ............... September 23, 1965- August 31, 1966 
Colorado ........................................ July 1, 1966-August 31, 1967 
District of Columbia ...................... July 1, 1966-June 30, 1967 
Georgia ............................................ September 23, 1965-June 30, 1967 
Illinois .............................................. September 23, 1965-August 31, 1966 
Illinois .............................................. State Administration-9 / 65-6/68 

Project Grants-9/ 65-8/67 
Indiana ............ ......... ....................... September 23, 1965-August 31, 1967 
Kansas ................... ....... .. ................ September 23, 1965-June 30, 1966 
Louisiana ....................... ................. September 30, 1965-August 31, 1966 
Massachusetts .................................. July 1, 1966-June 30, 1968 
Michigan ···· ······-····-···-···--····· ···-··-··· September 23, 1965-March 31, 1967 
Mississippi ........ .............................. September 30, 1965-June 30, 1967 
New York ...................................... July l , 1965-August 31, 1966 
Ohio ................................................ September 23, 1965-August 31, 1968 
Oklahoma ........................................ Period Ending June 30, 1966 
Oklahoma ···-·---···--·· ········ ··· ·······-······ July 1, 1966-June 30, 1968 
Oregon ....... ................ ..................... September 23, 1965-August 31, 1967 
Pennsylvania .................................. July 11, 1966-August 31, 1967 
South Carolina .............................. July 1, 1965-June 30, 1967 
Tennessee ........................................ September 23, 1965-August 31, 1966 
Texas .......................... ... ......... ........ .. September 24, 1965-June 30, 1966 
Utah ............ ..... ............................. .. September 23, 1965-August 31, 1967 
Wisconsin ........................................ September 23, 1965-August 31, 1966 
Wisconsin .......... ............................. . September 1, 1966-August 31, 1967 

73