ED 128 497

DOCUMENT RESUME

95 OD 016 264

AUTHOR Jayatilleke, Raja, Comp.TITLE The Law, the Courts, and Minority Group Education.

ERIC/CUE Capsule Bibliography Series, Number 4.August 1976.

INSTITUTION Columbia Univ., New York, N.Y. ERIC Clearinghouse onthe Urban Disadvantaged.

SPONS AGENCY National Inst. of Education (DHEW), Washington,D.C.

PUB DATE Aug 76CONTRACT 400-75-0008NOTE 41p.AVAILABLE FROM Institute for Urban and Minority Education, Box 40,

Teachers College, Columbia University, New York, N.Y.10027 ($0.50)

EDRS PRICE MF-$0.83 HC-$2.06 Plus Postage.DESCRIPTORS Affirmative Action; *Annotated Bibliographies;

*Educational Legislation; Educational Resources;Elementary Secondary Education; Ethnic Groups;Federal Court Litigation; Federal Legislation;*Integration Litigation; *Minority Groups; *ReferenceMaterials; Resource Materials; School AttendanceLegislation; *School Integration; Supreme CourtLitigation; *Urban Education

ABSTRACTThis is the fourth of a series of Capsule

Bibliographies on current issues in urban and minority education. Itis a selection from a computer search using suitable descriptorsmatched against a standard Educational Resources Information Center(ERIC) Clearinghouse profile for urban and minority concepts. Suchdescriptors (subject headings) as educational legislation, schoolattendance legislation, Federal legislation, integration litigation,Federal court litigation, Supreme Court litigation, and affirmativeaction are used to encompass the concepts of the law and the courts.The bibliography covers materials in the ERIC system from January1970 through July 1976. The cited items are arranged exactly as theyhave been printed out by computer. Citations are in descending orderof ERIC number. Documents follow the journal articles in thebibliography. A categorized index to the references is provided.(Author/AM)

***********************************************************************Documents acquired by ERIC include many informal unpublished

* materials not available from other sources. ERIC makes every effort ** to obtain the best copy available. Nevertheless, items of marginal* reproducibility are often encountered and this affects the quality* of the microfiche and hardcopy reproductions ERIC makes available* via the ERIC Document Reproduction Service (EDRS). EDRS is not* responsible for the quality of the original document. Reproductions ** supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original.***********************************************************************

'ERIC/CUE CAPSULE BIBLIOGRAPHY SERIES

Number 4, August 1976

THE LAW, THE COURTS, AND MINORITYGROUP EDUCATION

Compiled by

Raja Jayati !leaks

U S DE PARTME NI OF HEALTH.EDUCATION & WELFARENATIONAL INSTITUTE OF

EDUCATION

DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REPRO-DUCED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED FROMTHE PERSON OR ORGANIZATION ORIGIN-ATING IT POINTSCh: VIEW OR OPINIONSSTATED DO NOT NECESSARILY REPRE-SENT OFFICIAL NATIONAL INSTITUTE OFEDUCATION POSITION OR POLICY

'ERIC CLEARINGHOUSE ON URBAN EDUCATION

'Teachers College-Columbia University - New York, N.Y. 10027

2

This bibliography is one in the ER1C/CUE Capsule Bibliography Series produced by

the ERIC Clearinghouse on Urban Education under contract 400-75-0008 between

the National Institute of Education (DHEW) and Teachers Coilege, Columbia Uni-

versity. Additional copies will be availoble from:

ERIC Document Reproduction ServiceP.O. Box 190Arlington, Virginia 72210

Its ED identification number and full ordering ireructions will be found in Resources

in Education, the monthly ERIC abstract jou-nal or can be obtained by contacting

ERIC/CUE.

Copies are also available from the Institute for Urban and Minority Educcition, Bo:<

40, Teachers College, Columbia University, New York, New York 10027, far $050

each.

The ERIC Clearinghouse on Urban Education is part of the Institute for Urban and

Minority Education (IUME), an agency for human resource development and school

organization improvement in the notion's cities. Founded in 1973, the Inst:tute is

sponsored by Teachers College, Columbia University, New York, New York 10027.

3

INTRODUCTION

This is the fourth of a series of Capsulc Bibliographies on current issues on urban and

minority education. It is a selection from a computer search using suitable descriptors

matched against a standard Clearinghouse profile for "urban and minority" concepts.

Such descriptors (subject headings) os educational legislation, schooi attendance

legislation, federal legislation, integration litigation , federal court litigation, sup-

reme court litigation, and affirmative action were used to encompass the concepts of

the law and the courts. The bibliography covers materials in the ERIC system from

January 1970 through July 1976.

Journal articles, identifiable by the "EJ" prefix to their ERIC number, are not available

through the ERIC system, but may be read in many public or college libraries. Other

cited documents, identifiable by their "ED" prefixes, are available through the ERIC

system, except where a statement to the contrary i, noted; alternate sources of avail-

ability are then found in the citation. For complete availablity statement, please see

page iii.

The cited items are arranged exactly as they have been printed out by computer: cita-

tions arc in descending order of ERiC number, and documents follow the journal articles

in the bibliography.

A categorized index to the refertmces is provided on page iv.

DOCUMENT AVAILABILITY

Documents cited in this bibliography with ED numbers can be obtained in microfiche and paper copy from the ERICDocument Reproduction Service, unless otherwise noted. To order copies, follow these instructions:

I. All orders must be in writing, prepaid or accompanied by an official purchaseorder.

2. Orders must state ED numbers, type of reproduction (microfiche or paper copy)and number of copies desired.

Microfiche: 4x6 inch sheets of film, each sheet containing up to 96 81/2:x11inch pages and requiring special readers to enlarge the print.

Paper copy: a paper photo copy or facsimile of the original document.

3. Order from:

ERIC Document Reproduction Service (EORS)P.O. Box 190Arlington, Virginia 22210

UNIT PRICE SCHEDULE

Microfiche (MF)

Number fiche each ED number Price

?aper Copy (HC)

Number pages each ED number Price

I to 5 (up to 480 pages) S0.83 i to 25 SI.676 (481-576 pages) 1.00 26 to 50 2.067 (577-692 pages) I .16 51 to 75 3.508 (693-768 pages) 1.33 76 o 100 4.67

Each additional microfiche 0. 167* ach adiitional 25 pages 1.34

4-Total price should be rounded to nearest cent.

CHART FOR DETERMINING UNIITED STATES POSTAGE"

!'Costs for Priority Shipment availabk uport request.

1st CLASS POSTAGE FOR 4th CLASS POSTAGE FOR TOTAL MF OR FIC PAGES INDICATED(Allow 3-4 weeks delivery time from date of order)

3 4-7 60 or less 61-120 121-180 181-240 '413(X) 301-360 361-420 EachMicrofiche Microfiche MF or HC ME or HC MF or HC MF or HC MF or HC MI' or HC MF or HC Additional 60Only Only Pages Pages Pages Pages Pages Pages Pages MF or HCPages.13 .24 .21 .30 .39 .48 .57 .66 .75 .08

Index(by citation number)

Admission Criteria 1,8,9

Affirmative Action 2

Americans Indians 5,7,10,11,12,13,14,15,19,22,27,33,40,41,42,44,47,48,53,56,59,60,62,63,66,68,70,71,75,80,81,84,85

Asian Americans

Bilingual Education

Bus Transportation

Educational Legi Htion

Equal Education

Federal Court Litigation

Federal Legislation

16,35,37,38,49,57,58,76

34,35,36,38,43,45,48,49,52,57,65,78

29,31,39,76

5,25,35,41,42,44,45,47,48,49,53,86

4,18,32,37,38,43,50,57,58,61,64,72

6,32,36,54

7,10,11,12,13,14,15,19,20,21,23,40,50,51,52,56,59,60,62,63,66,67,68,69,70,71,73,75,80,81,82,85

Higher Education 1,26

Integration Litigation 3,6,24,27,28,29,30,39,46,55,76

Mexican Americans 24,26,29,30,34,43,45,46,52,61,65,77,78

Puerto Ricans 3,34,54,65,77

Secondary School Students 23

School Attendance Legislation 74

School Integration 3,6,17,28,30,55,74,77,79,83,84

Supreme Court Litigation 1,2,8,9,16,38,49,57,58

iv

6

Ed12.51e4 HE505S4SPrOlerenttal Law School Admissions ard the Equal Protection

C;duse; An Analysis of the Competing ArgumentsRedish, Martin H. UCLA Law Review, 22; 2; 343-400 Dec

74Descriptors: wHigh:7" Education/ 'Mirionity Groups/ *Admission

Criteria/ *Racial O'scriminationj 'Supreme Court Litigation/Equal Protection/ Law Schools/ Legal Pesponsitility

Identifiers. 'Affi-ml.tive Action/ DeFunis v OdegaardExamines the DeFunis case and preferential admissions

policies, the star:lard of judicial review in testing theseprograms under the edual protection clause, the relevance ofthe educational setting to the scope of judicial review, thegoals offered to justify preferential admission, and pos*..iblealternative means of accomplishing the goals. tJT)

2EL/126183 HE506848

Constitutional Law--Equal Prutect.on--"Berign 01scr1mirv.itio-n--Minority Admissions Programs--Suoreme Court's ReF.00nse to

Preferential Treatment--CeFunis v Otegaerd. 416 U.S. 312(1974): Kahn v. Shevin. 476 U.S. 351 (1974;; Morton v. Manca-i.417 U.S. 535 (1974)

Bloom. Judith Ilene Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review; 8;191-211 75Descriptors: *Higher Education/ 'Minority Groups/ *Admission

Criteria/ *Racial Discrimination/ *Supreme Court Litigation/Equal Protection

Identifiers: *Affirmative Action/ CeFunis v Odegaard/ Kahn vShevin/ Morton v MancariThree U.S. Supreme Court rutinGs on minority preference cases

are analyzed with reference to the question of the

constitutionality of minority preferential admissions. It isconcluded that the Court's unpredictability casts doubt on thevalidity of minority preference and That special considerationshould be given in a racially neutral manner. (4T)

3E0121854 U0503564

Puerto Rican Problems in IntegrationIntegrated Education; 13; 3: 8-10 May-Jun 75Descripcors: "Puerto Ricans/ 'So:- Integration/ *Employment

Opportunities/ 'Legal Problems/ Integration Litigation/

ETPloyment Practices/ Government Employees/ Zanguago Handicaps/

Civil RightsIdentifiers: *New York CityThe focus of. this testimony, presented before a public

hearing of the New York City Commission on Human Rights in May

1974. is on tne issues that the Puartc Aldan Legal Defense Fund

has been involved in over the past cuple of years; litigation

has been pursued agairst both school segregation and barriers

to public employment against Puerto Ricans. (Auihor/oM)

4EJ117315 CG508582The Role cf Fetoeral Frianciai Aid in Equalizing Educational

OpportunityRoss. Jimmy Jowrrial of the National Association of College

Admissions Counselo-s: 19: 4: 13-le Mar 75

Descriptors: vEcuel Eck:cat:on/ *Financial Support/ *Fs-ceral

Aid/ 'Minority G-:_os/ EdLcat'onal Finance/ Higher Education/

State CF The Art Re,..sThe ch.oll er. of rzolizir.; ea.-alit,' in education ls a great

and costly aLtror exe7:nes the role of the fsderal

government in th is mr.eat.

5EJ115259 AA520427

Federal FundsCarpenter, Iris Anerican Education: 11: 3: 39-40 Apr 75Descriptors: *Educational Legislation/ 'Educational

Improva.ieri:/ -;.r.erican Indians/ *Program Descriptions/ *ProgramCoSts/ 'Educational Opportunities

Described the Indian Education Act. designed to improve thequality of Indtan ecucation while offering programs not usuallyavailable in schools Indians attend. (Author/RK)

6EJ115253 AA520372

Ncy: One Judge's Opinion: Morgan V. Hennigan and the Boston

SchoolsAbrams. Roger I. Harvard Educational Review: 45: 1: 5-16 ,

75Descriptors: *Federal Court Litigation/ 'Negro Students/

"Schooi Systems/ *School Integration/ *School Policy/ DecisionMaking/ Board Of Education Policy/ Pacial Balance/ Racial

AttitudesIn this article. the author, who was one of the plaintiffs'

counsel in the litigation of Morgan v. Hennington. examined the

factual and legal bases of the federal district court's

opinion. (Editor/Rii)

EJ114700 PC501738Federal Indian Policy to Undergo Rei..iewEducation Journal of the Institute for the Development of

Indian Law: 2: 8: 13-15 74Descriptors: 'American Indians/ *Federal Legislation/ 'Policy

/ *Review (Reexamination)/ Federal Government/ Political Power/Research Committees

Identifiers: *American Indian Policy Review CommissionThe Act (Public Law 93-5801 which created an American Indian

Policy Review Commission is given. (NO)

aEJ106743 U0503194

Affirmative Action. Quotas. and InecualitySquires. Gregory D. Journal of intergroup Rslations: 3: 4:

26-37 F 74Descriptors: *Admission (School)/ 'Admission Criteria/

"Supreme Court Litigat:on/ 'Educational Opportunities/*Minority Groups/ Racial Discrimination/ Social Discrimination/Public Policy/ College Admission

Argues that ,:ualizing opportunity alcne will not bring abouteguallty with rescec:. to the way cun society distributes itsresources: changing individuals in some fashion withoutaltering social structural relationships will effect a

relatively small chance in the present unequal distribution ofgoods and services. ;A...thor/cnil

9EJ105741 UD5O3192Ad-rissIons Pol'cles .tfter DeFunisBusi. Frecerick Journal of Irterc:oup Relations: 3: 4:

13.15 F 74Descriptors: *Aorrission iScncol)! *Admission Criteria/

:Supreme Co.:-t Litigation/ .ncrity Groups/ -Political issues/Racial Discrimiratior/ Social Discrimination/ Policy Format!on/Law Schools/ Col:scse Sonission

Argt.t:s 4,1tn all their talent andexperti,.e. ruit -..ocify th m,iars and no: the goals ofrecruit-en: policy before other cases. with more percuasi.iee.iter.e. onr.e tefare ie courts. ::.1.-,-.0r/c;M;

8

10Ed1C3045 RC50155'

Law Suits Free Indian Eeucatioe VonleeEecarecn Ocu7nal ef tne Insteteze for the Develccment cf

Indian Law: 1; 7. 11-le Mar 73Descriptors: CIn Ind'aes/ *Court Litigation/

-Edecatioeal Finance/ 'Feceral Legislation/ Boards of Education/ Federal Co%ernmenti Financial Neees/ Legal Aid Projects/ SelfDirectel Groups

Identifiers: 'Indian Educetion Act of 1972/ Native AeericanRights Fund/ Coalition of Incian Centrolled School Boarcs

In 1973. ween it become evident that the FederalAdministration was not going to implement tne 1972 IndianEducation Act or release its fonds unless pressure was apPlled.both the Native Lmerican Rights Fund and the Coalition ofIndian Controlled Scnool Boards filed suit against tne FederalGovernment. (KM)

11Ed103045 RC501550

An Indian EaucatIon Leader Speaks Out on the Indian EdJeationAct of 1972

Sahmaunt, Herschel Education Journal of the Institute forthe Development of Indian Law: 1: 7; 4-10 Mar 73

Descriptors: *American Indians/ -Adult leziers/ -EducationalLegislation/ *Federal Legislation/ Court Litieatior/ FieancialSupport/ Futures (Of Societyl/ Program Development/ Speeches/Self Directed Groups

Identifiers: 'Indian Education Act of 1972/ Nat)onal IndianEducation Association

Tbe 1972 Indian Education Act is the first piece of

legislation enacted into law that gives Ind!an people onreservations. in rural settings. and in the cities control overtheir own education. A brief history of the Act, the past anapresent struggle for appropriations, lawsuits for Indianeducation, the struggle for Implementation, and the future arediscussed. (KM)

12EJ103044 RC501549

Indian Self-Oetermination and Education Reform Act of 1973Education Journal of the Institute for the Cevelopment of

Indian Law: 1: 5: 3-20 Feb 73Descriptors: *American Indians/ *Educational Change/ *Feeeral

Legislation/ *Individual Powr/ Developmental Pregreme/Educational Philosophy/ Laws/ Legal PeSponsIbi)ity/ PeogramDescriptions/ Self Directed Groups

Identifiers: "Indian Self Determination and Education ReformAct of 1973

The issue summarizes and reviews the IndianSelf-Determ!nation and Educational Reform Act of 1973 (5.1017).which was introduced into the Senate at tee end of February.Sections cover how a bill becomes law and a summary of 5.1017(including Indians in public schools. professional development.and research and development). (KM)

13EJ103040 RC5C15415

Aeoropriations for an Eeucetion Act: An Le:hill SAiMEducation Jourra1 cf the Institute for the Develcpmerit of

Trdze Lae; 1. 9-I5 Oct 72Descrietc^s: -aeerican Indians/ 'Educe:tuna) Firaece/.

-Federal Legise?,..7-1/ 'Federal Aid/ eeult Leaders/ Future (Of

Societyli Legislators/ Success Factcrs, Speeches% Treatiesidentifee-e: Ececation ect cf lee;The a-ticle tne feedirg of the 1972 Indian

Eeecaticr Act. a-c the eestac'es that alrost pre...ented 'ts

passage. 7!".? Eteps ene cereerclegically revic..ed . alec

inclLee-e, tne ;Esteny cf Iee.ar leecers arid a summary cf

appropriaticn recues:s. tef.11

9

1. 14EJ1C3038 RC501b43

A Quic$ Review ot TilJe IV. P.L. C2-318: 'Indian Education

Act"Education Journal of the Institute for the Development of

Indlan Law: 1: 3: -1'5 0C 72

Descriptors: *C-ierican 'Eucational 002ortunities/

0*Federal Legislat .cr/ FinanciPil 5-pport/ Laws/ Theaties

Identit!erf,Education Act of 1972

15EJ103029 PC501534A Fair Sharekicking Bird. Kirke Education Journal of the Institute for

the Development of Indian Law: 1; 1: 4-13 Aug 72

Descriptors: 'American Indiana/ 'ECuoational Resoonsibility/

*Federal Legislation/ "Government Role/ Federal Programs/

Financial Support/ Legislators/ Puolic Schools/ Politics

identifiers; 'Indian Education Act of 1972/ Office of

EducationOn June 23. 1972. Con3ress passed Public Law 92-318 ("The

Indian Education Act') which Ce7egates authority to the U.S.

Office of Education (USOE) to make a significant contribution

'n the area of :ndian education. Tnis article explains why CE

was not prevto....sly involved in Indian education. and gives a

general introduction te OE and the aot. (FU)

16E6l098760 UD907.987Suprere Court Ruling on Chinese ChildrenIntegrated Educatior: 12: 1-2: 32-35 Oan-Apr 74

Descriptors: 'Supreme Court Litigation/ -Chinese Americans/

*English (Second Language)/ Minority GroJp Children/

Educational Dpoortunitiesi English Instruction/ Non English

SpeakingIdentifiers: -San

Francisco/ California/ Lau vs Nichols 1974

Presents tre telt of a unanimot.s Supreme Court opinion

delivered by Justice Douglas. as well as two sedE.rate

concurring co;niors. which granted non-English speak'ng Chinese

stucehts cetitIon nr relfe0. froT Lneoual and uncohsLitutional

eCucatlora: oodo-tun'ties resnitirq.)rom an absence of Ensr,

irstrua:loh. )1uthr/SF)

EJ099737 UD502962Twenty Years After Brown. An Anniversary Look at School

IntegrationGrelder, William: And Others Race Relations Reporter: 5: 9

: 18-36 May 74Descriptors: *Negroes/ 'School Integration/ 'Racial

Integration/ 'Classroom Integration/ Social Integration/ Racial

DiscriminationIdentifiers: *Brown vs Board of Education

Consists of 8 articles entitled: (1) Winners and Losers: i2)

What the Statistics Say: (3) Nortnern Integration: (4) Massive

Resistance Northern Style: (5) The Case of New York City: (6)

As the Students See It: (7) rylississippi Conversations: (8)

Reflections on the Past Twenty Years. Each deals witn the

aftermath of Brown vs. the Board of Ecucetion. (SB)

18EJ095141 ECECg:'

Lz-:wsuit on the Fights of hannica.7oed Chilcrer.

Nem Cut'cok for t'e ElinC: OS: 1: 33 Jan 74

Cescr:ptcrs: Excootional Crilc Ecucaton/ 'Educationally

aCantcgedi -C.tu-t Cases/ -EcLa: Education.' Learning

icentif-ers: -Califc-n0eA cls c'c lt t ras been filec in California on b.t-elf

of chilc-<.n icanti4'ed at ecur.:at:c'ally ne-cice":-.r.7cnot

gi.,e,1 3 soeL;a; c"rr,.".1- Cue to c state statute ih limits

to ti,v pe-r-;:nt o the stulent copulation. ICS)

10

19EJ095063 10501434

Retmonse to the House Standirg Committee's RecoMmendations

.7or Indian Education IWatson Report;

Northian: 10; 1: 1-7 W 74

Descriptors: *ATerican Indians; *Educational Policy/

'Educational Needs/ Feder! Legislation/ Curriculum Enrichment

/ Gowernmznt Role,' Program EvalLationIdentifiers: 'Federation of Saskatchewan 1:idians

A total of 17 recommendations concerning the House Stpnding

Committee's Recommendations for American Indian Education are

presented, with commgnts for each from the Federation of

Saskatchewan Indians. (FF)

20ELP.,94652 t4504642

Legislative Priorities for Vocztional Education

Lecht. lecnaro A. Inequality in Education: 16: 19-rt7

Mar 74Descriptors: *Federal Legislation/ 'Vocationa: Educatian/

'Handicapped/ *Disadvanteced Youth/ "Federal Aid/ Educational

Legislation/ Vocational Schools/ Revenue Sharing/ Secondary

SchoolsAs vocational education legislation comes up for

Congressicnal reconsideration in the next year. the author

examines some of the problems vith existing laws and programs.

(Editor)

21EJ091420 HE505047

The Constitutional Right to Education; The Quiet Revolution

Dimond, Paul R. Hastings Law Journal: 24: 6: 1087-1128

May 73Descriptors: *Education/ *Federal Legislation/ -Educational

Needs/ 'Disadvantaged Youth/ 'Educational Objectives

There is a class of largely ignored children for whom the

crisis in American education means total noneducation or

miseducation. The author examines a limited constitutional

right to education which can be invoked to protect ;nese

neglected children. (Editor)

22CJCE24A9 S4E6

The Ranais.lance of Indian Ed:ication

Posenfeit. Daniel M. Inequality in Education; 15: 13-22

Nov 73Descriptors: *American Indians/ Community Control/ 'Citizen

Participation/ 'Bilingual Education/ -Federal Pncgrams/

Elementary Schoo:s/ Secondary SchoolsIdentifiers: Inoian SchoolsDiscusses the practical considerations that face Indian

communities as they begin to move toward transforming the

rhetoric of "Indian control* into the reality of quality

education. (Author)

23:Jc81246 AAS16173

The Srrergercy S.c.-.cc Aid .tctAmerican EOL..ca:7or: 9: 6: 9-11 l 73

Cescriptors: -Educational Ouality/ 'Racial Integrat;cn/

-Federal legis'at!on/ *Minority Groups/ School Distric'.s/

Racial Segredationi Elerrentary School Students/ Secondary

School Stt.Jcents' Edual EM.:cationSchoo: Aid ESA.1.

tr,el.ing LJO The :3-c.:Isiors of a new Feoeral

that oi'fers s,.rr :0 a r?,17e c' i.fforts to demi with radial

isolaticn

11

24EJ0'72502 EME-02317

Imp'ications of the Serrano anc tne Rcdniguez Cases cn tneEducation of N'exican Ariericans

Gonzalez. Simon Educational Resources and Technicues; 12:2: 27-31 Sum 72Descriptcr: 'Cour Litigation/ "Educational Finance/

*EducPtional Needs/ 'Educational Problems,' 'Mexican Americans

EJ074607 Et502.542The Case for Extending 'SEAPerkins. Carl 7. Compact: 11-13 Feb-Mar 73Descriptors: -Disadvantaged Youth/ Educational Finance/

'Educational Leg!slationi -feceral Aid/ Financia Support/Handicapped Chilc ren/ -Public Schools/ Vocational Education

Identifiers: 'Revenue SharingTitle I Is a remarkable success in view of all the

administrative P roblems confronting school systems. (Author/JN)

26EJ074021 S0501743Testimony Given Before the Caliorria Legislature Joint

Committee on The Master Plar for Higher EducationNew School of Education Journal: 2; 4.: 77-84 73Descriptors: Educational Disndvantagement/ 'Educational 1Legislation/ Educational Needs/ Eiticational Policy/ 'Higher

Education/ 'Mexican Amricans/ 'State ProgramsIdentifiers: Servicio Peciagogico de A7tian (SEPA)

27EJ070418 U0501976

Chronicle of pace and SchoolsWeinberg. Meyer Integrated Education: 11: 1: 16-22

Jan-Feb 73Descriptors: "American Indians/ Educational Finance/ -Ethnic

Relations/ Federal Aid/ 'Integration Litigation/ IntegrationMethods/ Mexican Ar'ericans/ "Pol;tical Issues/ SchoolIntegration/ 'Transfer ProgramsA compendium of reports on relevant events on the Federal and

State levels covering the period October-November. 1972. (0Mi

zaEJ063969 UD501758

Integration: Is it a NC, Win Policy for Blacks?Bell. A. Derrick Integrated Eduration; 10: 5; 32-451

Sep-Oct 72Descriptors: Black Power/ 'Commur ty Control/ Compensatory

Education/ *Integration Effects/ Integration Litigation/*Negro Education/ Racial Discrimir ...School Integration/Student Teacher Relationship/ Unite, States History

99EJ063968 U0501756

Chronicle of Race and Schools. dune-July. 1972Weinberg. Meyer Integrated Education: 10: 5; 12-23

Sep-Oct 72Descriptors: Bus Transportation/ -Educational Diagnosis/

Educational Legislation/ Federal Legislation/ *IntegrationLitigation/ 'Mexican Americans/ "Public Opinion/ 'SchoolIntegration/ Student Transportation

12

30Ed045077 1)0501152Chronicle of Race ano Schools. dune-duly. 1971Weinberg. Meyer Integrated Education: 9: 5: 54-64 seal

71

Descriptors: Academic Achievement/ 'Educational Finance/Individual Power/ *Integration Litigation/ 'Mex.ican Americans/,Racial Balance/ Racial Differences/ 'School Integration/iSupreme Court Litigation/ *Teacher Employment

31Ed037084 EA501449

An Educator Looks at BusingCooper. Charles R. National Elementary Principal: 50: 5:

26-31 Apr 71Descriptors: 'Bus Transportation/ Civil Rights/ Court Cases/

Cultural Awareness/ Ethnic Distribution/ *Integratic,n Methods/'Minority Group Chilcren/ School Buses/ *School Inter,ration/*Supreme Court LitigationThe school bus plays a central role in helping this country

achieve its social and educational goals. (Author)

32E0120313 UD015898

Federal Concern for Equality of Education Opportunity: SomeHistorical Indications.

Pemberton. S. MacphersonNational Inst. of Education (DNEW). Nashington. D.C.Publ. Date: 31 dan 74 Note: 35p.

Descriptors: American History/ "Disadvantaged Groups/Economically Disadvantaged/ Educational Legislation/*Educationally Disadvantaged/ 'Equal Education/ EqualizationAid/ Equal Ooportunities (Jobs)/ "Federal Aid/ Federal ;

Government/ 'FeCeral Legislation/ Federal Programs/ FinancialI

Policy/ Minority Group ChildrenIdentifiers: NIE ArchivesHistorical notes on national interest in the problem of

!

educational inequality as well as a tracing of the initiallygraluai and then intensified Federal involvement with equal !

educatioral opportunity comprise the focus of this pacier. Theconcept and various definitions of ecual educational :

opportunity are also discussed. Section headings incluCe: trieearliest attempts (18th/19th centuries): the early challenge to.the States: toward Federal consideration of ecuality ofeducational opoOrtunity: the thrust of the 1859's: the 1960'31toward greater Federal involvement: desegregation and equality,of educational opportunity: developmert of the concept of equaleducational opaortunity: the search for a workable definitionof equality of educationa) opportunity: and the three goalsthat should be adopted in the effort to achiee equality cfeducational opportunity (equal access to educational resourcesand elimination of fiscal discriminatioA. equality cfeducational benefits or outcomes among ethnic grOups. anCeconomic equality among ethnic groups in society). Efforts toeliminata inequalities in educational opportunity are;considened to have procuced some social mobility. There isdei-mro to be evidence of reasonable correlation betweenediAcntional attainment and econTic opportunity. A concertedattack to be conlucted on economic. inequality an0 theinequalities in the educational systems is urged. (Authon/AM)

13

33E0119929 RC009073

A Compilation of Laws Pertaining to Indians. State of Maine.January 1974.Maine State Dept. of Indian Affairs. Augusta.Publ. Date: Jan 74 Note: 70p.; For related document. see ED

076 281

Descriptors: 'American Indians/ *Education/ 'Elections/Forestry/ Health/ Housing/ 'Laws/ Legislators/ Motor Vehicles/Nonreservation Amerlcan Indians/ Poad Construction/ StateAgencies/ 'State Legislation/ Treaties

Identifiers: 'Maine/ Passamaquoddys/ PenobscotsCompiled from the Maine Revised Statutes of 1964 (including

amendments through 1973). the Constitution of Maine. and theicurrent Resolves and Prii.ate and Soecial Laws, this compilation'of laws pertaining to American Indians includes ,,itatutesrelative to the following: (1) Constitution of Maine (bondIssues: guaranteed loans for Indian housing; qualif-ications ofvoters): (2) Department of Indian affairs; (3) Education(scholarsnips; reservation schools and school committees): (4)'Elections (apportionment of Indian voting districtsstate !senators and representatives; state, county and Federal;tribalPassamaquoddy and Penobscot: voting rights): (5) Fish!and Game (free licenses; hunting and trapping: tribalordinances re hunting, fishing. and trapping); (6) Forestny:(duties of foresters): (7) Health and Welfare!(destitutePassamaquoddy, Penobscot. and non-tribal members); '(8) Highway (reservation roads and tridges); (9) Housing,Authorities: (10) Indians (Indians and tribes generally;Passamaquoddy: Penobscot): (11) Legislature: Indian'Representatives (election of Passamaquoddy and Penobscot;general provisions; special license plates); (12) MiscellaneousProvisions (dogs: Off-Peservation Gifice of Indian Development; :ordinances: Penobscot Baptist Churcn: Public dumpIndian!Township: zoning): (13) Motor Vehicles (ekcise taxes and'trai!ers): 114! Treaties ard Act of Separation. (JC)

34ED1-17285 UD015705

Consent Decree in Aspire et al.. Plaintiffs vs Board ofEducation of the City of New York. et al.. Defendants.New York City Board of Education. Brooklyn. N.Y.Publ. Cate: 30 Aug 74 Note: 32p.: Parts of this document may

not be clearly legible due to the print quality of the originaldocument

Descriptors: "Bilingual Education/ Bilingual Students/ 'CourtLitigation/ Culturally Disadvantaged/ EducationallyDisadvantaged/ 'Educational Needs/ Educational Polio Y/ English(Second Language)/ Ectual Education/ Minority Group Children/Non English Speaking/ Social Discrimination/ Social Integration/ Socially Disadvantaged/ 'Spanish Speaking/ Ten!

Identifiers: 'Aspire v Board of Education/ New York(Manhattan)This document contains a press release and consent decree

dealing with establishing city wide basic elements in theieducation of children whose functional language is Spanish. The'major elements of this agreement extend on a city-wide levelthe best practices that are currently being attenf'd andimplemented for target children in the New York City schools.Certain provisions of the agreement specify the class ofchildren entitled to the full program: that is, those whoselanguage deficiency prevents them from participating in thelearning process and who can more effectively participate inSpanish. An imr.rored method cf identifying and classifyingchildren who are Spanish speaking or Spanish surnamed is alsobeing' Cevelopec. The ele.rents cf the n;ogrem tf-at are to neprovided in fil t/ Septenti.-- 1.275 er.e: (a. intensive,instruction in Fngli:_h: lb) instruction in sJhject ar-easSpanish: and. fp) :re reinfarc&mert of the pupils' use of!Spanish aro reaping corphenensicr in Sparisn where a ncea isiirdicated. tcdit:anally, ano nct at the exrense cf these tnreeielements. these s:,dents are to sberd maximum time with other'children as tc avo'd isolation and segregation from theirpeers. The basic orcgram will be operable in a number ofschccls wnicn latil set up pilot programs bY February. 1975.(Author/aV)

1 4

35ED117211 UD0155?6

Labs. Ruling Se: Eases for Bilingual Programming.Aquila, FrankKent State Univ., Ohio. Center for Educational Development

and Strateg%r Services.Publ. Date: Jur 75 .Note: 3p.: Article appeared In kEDS

Annual Report. v2 n= ,:un 1975

.11

Descriptors: Asian Americans/ Biculturalism/ 'BilingualEducaton/ Bilingualism/ Bilingual Schcals/ Bilingual StucentS/Civil Rights Legislation/ 'Court Litigation/ DiscriminatoryLegislation/ 'Educational Legislation/ -Educational Policy/-Minority Grouc Children/ PLerto Picans

Identifiers: Lsoira et al v Board of Education City of NewYork/ Civil R,gnts Act 1964 Title VI/ Four Point Memorandum/Lau v K!7.hols/ Se-ra v Porta'es

This document provides a detailed discussion of two laws and.three court cases affecting the education of nen-Englishspeaking children. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of ;964addresses equal edL.cation opportunities for all Americans. TheFour Point Memora-dum issued by the Department of H..alth..Education and Welfare specifically deals with discriminationland denial of services on the basis of national origin. The Lauvs. Nichols legal case was filed in San Francisco to protect'the rights of Chinese speaking stuCents who were not receiving:aCecuate education because of their ability to speak Englisn..This landmark case in the movement for equal educational;opportunity for non-English speaking people considered to havespurreC bilingual education programmirg. The Serna vs. Porta les;case continued the push for bilingual education by directing:its efforts to Sparish-speaking persons in New Mexico. A courtievaluation of the merits of bilingual/bicultural education !concluded that (1) bilingual education was the best way of'meeting the needs of the Spanish-speaking children. and !2)ordered an expansion of these services. The Aspria et al sthe Board of Et:v.:cation case was brought to court in theiinterests of youngsrs born in Puerto Rico or recent adult'immigrants who are also parents. The Aspire decision led to a'consent decree signed by both parties to provide bilingualprogramTirg for New York City chlidren newCIng help In

language. (Author/AM)

36ED117202 liD01584

Plaintiffs' First Set of lnterrogatories...Rosa Marla Rlos.et al.. Against Henry P. Read. et al.. Defendants.

District Court. New York. N.Y. Eastern District ot New Yorh.Publ. Date: 11 Jun 75 Note; 890.

Descriptors: Bilingual Teachers/ Educazional Finance/

Educational Needs/ *Educational OpOortunities/ English (SecondLanguage)/ 'Federal Court Litigation/ Language Handicavs/Minority Groups/ Personnel Policy/ *Public Schools/ *SpanishSpeaking/ Special Programs/ Standardized Tests/ StudentPlacement

Identifiers: New York (Medford)/ New York (Patchogue)/,*Patchogue Medford Public Schoois

The plaintiffs in the case Rosa Maria Rios. et al.. against-Henry P. Read. et al.. in the United States District Court Forthe Eastern District of New York. involving the

Patchogue-Medford School District public schools. werepresented with 200 questions. organized into twelve sectionsdealing respectively with general enrollment data. standardizedtesting, special cot.:rses arci!or programs. students with Englishlanguage deficisncies. clas placement. truancy. dropouts.graduate data. instructional and othen staff fluent in Scahish.ipersonnel licensing. funding sources. ard p,airti:f data. This1document lists the 200 Questions icr interrocatories) to be !responded to witnin 30 day's after service of notice.'

(Author/uM)1

1 5

37ED116722 9E JC760040

Report of the Florida Public Community College Eqeal

Access/Equal Opportunity Consulting Team.Gibson. Juanita M.: And OthersFlorida State DePt. of Ecucatior. Tallahassee. Div. of

Community Junior Colleges.Publ. Date: Sep 74 Note: 205p.

Descriptors: *Affirmative action/ Civil Rights/ CollegeEnvieonment/ *College Integration/ Ceurt Litigation/ Data

Collection/ Delivery Systems/ Educational Alternatives/ 'EcealEducation/ Equal Cpocrtunities (Jobs)/ Group Intelligeece tests/ *Junior Colleges/ rMincr:ty roePs/ Minority Gre....p Teachehs/Negroes/ Recruiteent/ school holding Poker

Identifiers: Civil Rights Act 1954 Title IV/ "FloridaThis report presents the findings and recommendations ot a

consulting team dedicated to helping the Florica Division ofCommunity Colleges achieve its goal of enrolling and eecleyingBlaci*.s and other minerities in approximate proportion to the18- to 64-year-old population of the State by 1980. TrOs reportincludes: (1) a detailed description of a data system designedte collect the information on attritien and retention neeced tomonitor Progress toward this goal: (2) a discussion of methous;of develcping alterrative instructional zelivery systers for .ensuring successful" learning by mirerity students: 13) a review(of testing as a screening and diagnostic device, accompanied byrecommendations that group or standardized tests yieldirg 10;scores be discentinued for use in the ccemunity colleges of:Florida and that student advisers be urged to utilize other;tools to assess student potential: (4) discussions of theelements of an optimum human relations atmosphere at community !colleges and methods of improving campus life and career'awareness for minority students: (5) descriptions of metheds of

recruitino and retaining minority faculty, professional staff.and students; and (6) a review of court cases relating to TitleIV of tne Civil Rights Act of 1964 and their implicationsFlorida's community colleges, (DC)

3aED116457 FL007260The Lau v. Nichols Supreme Court Decision of 1974. Testimony

of Edward H. Steinman before the Committee on Ways and Means ofthe California State Assembly. CATESOL Occasional Papers. No.2, Fall. 1975.

Steinman, Edward H.California Association of Teachers of English to Speakers of

Other Languages.Publ. Date: 10 Dec 74 Note: 14p.

__Descriptors: *Bilingual Education/ Bilingual Teachere/1

Chinese/ *Chinese Americans/ Civil Rights/ *EducatioealDisceimination/ Educational Legislation/ Educational Policy/English (Second Language)/ 'Equal Education/ LanguageInstruction/ Language Planning/ Second Language Learning/*Supreme Court Litigation

Identifiers: "Lau v NicholsThis document reviews the arguments and the ruling in the Lau'

v. Nichols case. and the general legal foundation for bilingualeducation. On March 25. 1970. a suit was filed by 13

non-Englishspeaking Chinese students in the District Court inSan Francisco. cn behalf of nearly 3.000 Chinese-speakingstudents, against the San Francisco Unified School District. ;The complaints were: (1) non-Engl:sh-speakng stuCents were:being denied their rights to edecation tecause they couldn't,function in the medium of instru:tion: and (21 these steCents:were being doomed to becoming droe7ets. eno to ureeployeent, asa result of their language prcblees. Basic issues ee-e weeteerthe San Francisco school cistrict should te rece!red to crevicespecial instruction in English. and whether irstructlen srouidbe handled by biliegual Chinese-seeaking teachers. Wmile theschool district and tre federal court argeee that the schooldisteict had no responsibility to rectify the situation. tneSupreme Court ruled that the failure of the school System toprovide Criglisn-language Instruction to ricri-English-speak4rg,

students constitutes cenial cf eop:rtentty tc participate inthe edecationel erogram. Furtherrere, it was recegnized bcth atthe feceral a-,d state level that to be effective, tneinstruction must be bilirgual. (CLK)

39ED114444 UD0154136

Mandatory Busing and Minority Student Achievement: New

Evidence and Negative Results.Felice. Lawrence G.'.arnsoring Agency: Office of Education (DHEW1. Washington.

Contract No.: OEC-672-0739-(509)Publ. Date: Mar 75 Note: 210.: PaPe r presented at the

Southwestern Sociological Association Annual Meeting (San

Antonio, Texas, March 26-29. 1975): Nine pages of tabulated

appendices and a bibliography have been deleted from this

document due to Print size in the original document

Descriptors: *Academic Achievement/ Academic Failure/ 'Bus

Transportation/ Comparative Analysis/ Court Litigation/

Disadvantaged Youth/ Equal Education/ Integration Effects/

Integration Litigation/ *Integration Methods/ Integration

Studies/ Longitudinal Studies/ *Minority Group Children/

Negative Attitudes/ Negro Attitudes/ De.Cial Attitudes/ RacialIntegration/ School IntegrationIdentifiers: "Texas (Waco)This study evaluates the effects of busing on the subsequent

achievement performance of bused black students. Differences in

achievement gains or losses are hypothesized as being both a

function of bused students attitudes toward busing and

desegregation and of the interracial climate of acceptance in

the receiving schools. Findings from data gathered by various

statistical analyses indicate that the achievement performance

of bused black students after the two year period of busing is

significantly lower than that of the non-bused black students.In two years. bused black students are said to have advanced an

average of only one month in grade placement. School

interracial climate and student attit.,,cles are considered to

account for the significantly lower achlevement performance of

the bused students. The major conclusion of this study is that

mandatory busing to desegregate sc,-.00ts in communities with

great resistance to busing may serve to weaken the achievement

performance of the bused minority sadeni. (Author/AM)

40ED114218 PC008837

The American Indians: Answers io 101 Questions.

Bureau of Inaian Affairs fDept. of Interior:. Washington,

D.C.Publ. Date: Jun 74 Note: 72p.: For related document. see ED

025 353Available from: Superintendent of Documents. U.S. Government

Printing Office. Washington. D.C. 20402 (Stock No. 2402-0SC40.

$1.25)

Descriptors: *American Indians/ Bibliographies/ Definitions/

'Elementary Secondary Education/ 'Federal Legislation/ Health/

Higher Education/ Information Sources/ Land Accuisition/ Land

Use/ Laws/ Publications/ 'Reseeeations (Indian)/ 'Socioeconomic

StatusIdentifiers: BIA/ 'Bureau of Ind1an Affairs

Presented in a simple and straigrtfcrward manner. this

publication answers questions oasic tc an understanding of the

American Indian and his socioeconoric position in the United

States. The following identify major areas covered and

reprnsentativ9 questions: (i) The Indian People (Who is an.

Indian?): (2) The Legal Status of Indians (Are Indians "wards'

of the GoN,ernment7); (3) The Bureau of Indian Affairs (How is

the Commissioner of Indian Affatra ecoointed?). (4) Indian

Lands (Whet is an Irdian reservaticn?l, 15! The Economic Status

of Indiaes (What is the averags income of Indians?): (6) Indian

Education (Wily are there Federal Indian schoo?s?): 17) Law and

OrCer on P.he oeeervations io other 3;enCieS hve

responsibilite for law enforcement and criminal investiaa!aon

on Indian reservations?). (8) Indian Health (Co Indians have

spec'al health preolems?): 19) To Help Indians (How can a

non-Indian college studert get a s'..mmer joo w:tn the 9ureau cf

Indian Affairs on an Indian reservation?). Among additional

information sources presented are: (1) a selected bibliography

for adults: 12) an annotated bieliserephy for young people: (3)

a selesteo reacinc; list on Indian crafts and lcre: (4) c 'ist

of Indian museums: and (5) a list of Indian publications. (JC)

1 7

41ZE0113070# 95 RCCCE775

Testing. Fvaluation and theIndian.Education Act of 1972.

'Heath, Robert W. Nielson. Mark A

American Indian Resource Associates, Oglala. S. Oak.; Navajo

Cormunity Coll.. Tsaile. Ariz.

Sponsoring Agency: Office of Education (DHEW). Washington.

D.C. Office of Indian Education.Contract No.: 0E-0-73.7094Publ. Date: 74 Note: 33p.: For related docoments. see RC 008

769-774. 773-303

Available from: b:ot available seParately. see PC 006 772.

ERIC/CRESS. Pox Las. Cruces. New Gexico 89003 (on Icanl

Docunent Not Avallacie from [DRS

Descriptors: °A*eri.r.an Indians/ Criterion Referenceo Tests/

'Cultural Differenc.isi Cultural Piura.lism/ Culture Free Tests/

Economically Disa:.antagedf °EoL,cational Legislation/

Elementary Eoucation/ °Evaluation Criteria/Secondary

Multilingualismi Norm Referenced Tests/ 'Policy Formation/

Program EvaluationIdentifiers: *Ind:an Education Act 1972/ Indianization

The history of testing and evaluation in Indian education has

been less than satisfactory since achievement and intelligence

testing irstruments traditionally have been norm-referenced.

rather than criterion-referenced. and have not accounted for

cultural cifferences. The Indian Education Act of 1972 proviCes

for Inaizn involvement in the evaluation of Federal Indian

education programs. Sound testing and evaluation proceduresl

should rake provision forva

practicality, while useful prograr2Ilreliamiit . and

ilions snould include:

(1) tangible criteria: (2) accurate and relevant information:

(3) an evaluation plan: (4) a program description: 45: able and

cooperative people: and (6) use of and reports of the results.

Issues critical to policy information under te Act srould

include consideration of: (1) Pluralism: 42) multilingualiem:

131 poverty: and (4) cultural differerces. Position statemerts

on the evaluat:on cf Indian education programs are pr000sed as

follows: (1) the authority for external evaluation should be

eAercised by local Indian communities: (2) use of

ne-m-referenced fttandardizedachievemert and IO tests should me

J:scouragad: 13) ar evaluation reviw canel shoulo me orgamtzed

b:vo veview projects and aPPlic:stiors for adequacy of evaluation

nlans and de;ree of community oartic:pation in evaluation. 4iJC)

43E01/1572 RC009753

Educator-LawyerOctober 17. 1973).

Conference Report (Albuqueraue. New Mexlco.1

Casso. Henry U.. Comp.: Esauibel. Antonio. Como.National Education Task Forge de la Raze. Albuquerque. N.

Mex.Pub), Date: 17 Oct 73 Note: 1So.

Descriptors: Bilingual Eoucation/ Change Strategies/.'Conference Reports/ Count Litigation/ Data Bases/ "Eoual

Education/ 'Lawyers/ Legal Aid/ Mexican Americans/ -MinorityGrcups/ Puerto Ricans/ Summative Evaluation/ 'Teachers

Identiflers: New Mexico !Albuquerque)Sponsored by the National Task Force de la Raze. the

confererce was attended by prominent lawyers and educators fromtnroughcut the United States. The conference was an

*exploratory° or °brainstorming° session. :1:7signed to identifykey issues and to lay the grouncwo cor techniques andstrategy of dealing with various prot. 4,os. Purpose of theccnference was to: 411 review varic iegal. administrative.and legislative actions having serious implications on theconceot of quality and eq,:al education for the culturally andlinguistically distinct chilo: 121 assess the implications andimpact of activities and trends acainst Eaual EducationalOoporturity for m'rority groups. particularly the MexicanAmericar anc the Puerto Rican: and (31 identify lines of legaland edLcation aiLt'on and strategy reece-.- to combat such allegeddiscriminatory practices. This report summarizes the keyconcerns. issUes, actions, and recommendations of the'

particimants. Topics summarized are: general mytns to be .

combatted: educator-lawyer interface reeds: data base system:oilingual bicultural dichotomy: eoual access vs equal benefits:compensatory assumption: the Lau Case and its implications: andthe tangential suggestions. (NQ)

1 9

44ED111553 95 RC008734

The Indian Education Act of 1972 -- A Brief History.

Analysis, Issues and Outlook.CPI Associates. Inc.. Washington. D.C.Sponsoring Agency: Cffice cf Education (CHEW). Washington.

D.C. Offce of Indiw, Education.Date: 15 Ncv 73 Note: 104p.

Descriptors: 'American Indians! Birth Rate/ Community Pole/

Rate! giOemogrhyl Crccout Fuucational Leslation/R,cb!ieTs! F,ture:. fcf Society)/

--istory/ Plannirg.ca.7t,fiers: °:r=tr- Et-cation Ac: 1:172Inalyzirg the IrPiLn E.atr ;1st of 1972. this rectJrt

presents both nis:crizal tackg-7.Lro and future projections

relative to the 7ne h'sto,-y of tre Act is cresented in

terms cf discuss::n cn: III LegISlative Preparation; i2)

1-,-'arings: (3) :raft'ng ahd Pa,,sirg tre 2i;1: (4) Acorcon!at.ng

FL.nds: (SI Pescirpst F...ro's: and fi) Funding for 1373. Analysis

of the Act is orcsented as fol7ows: (1) Discussion of PartsA-F: (2) Purpose arc Policy of the Advisory Council (Formingthe Office of InCian Education anc Funding Initial Grants.): (2)

The Long-Run Promise of the Act (Entitlement): and (41 TheOutlook for Fiscal 1974 (Funcirg. Program Direction andpriorities. and Issues to be Resolved). Presentation of futureprojections relative to the Act include sections on the

(1) Characteristics Of the Native AmericanPcou;ation (Longuages. Participation in the Economy. Health andLongevity. Birth Raze. Infant Mortality, Aoult Causes of Ceatn.

Communtcaole Discases. Age Composition and Life Expectancy):(2) Historical Backg:-ourd of Incian Education: 131 India-

Participation in the Educational System (Retention and DropoutFate-s. The Quality cf Ecjcat'on. Acnievement Measures. Spec!a!Problems. and Ability vs Acnievement): (4) Planning Priorities(A Planning Point Checklist): and (5) Role of the IndiarCommunity (United Action). (JC)

45ED111542# RC008722

An Economic and Political Analysis of Bilingual BiculturalEducation Legislation at the Federal Level.Gonzales. TobiasChicano Fellows. Stanford. Calif.Publ. Date: 75 Note: 16p.: For related documents. see RC 0081

Descriptors: Biculturalism/ *Bilingual Education/1

*Educational Flnance/ *Educational Legislation/ *Federal,

Government/ *Mexican Americans/ Personnel/ Policy Formation/1

PoliticsThe Bilingual Act first became law as a part of the

Elementary and Secondary Education Amendments of 1967. At that

time Congress appropriated $7 1 /2 million for Bilingual

Education programs. In 1974 according to "Education Daily"nearly $60 million will be spent. This paper makes an economicand political analysis of current Bilingual legislation andfunding at the Feceral level. Recommendations on policy and

budget for the 1975-76 school year are also made. Divided into5 major areas, the paper discusses: (1) the key issues benind'

Bilingual Education. (2) the merits and drawbacks of currert'legislation. (3) relevant studies that are significant for

Bilingual programs. (4) positions of various powerful votinggroups. and (5) recommendations for future policy and funding.(Author/NO)

720-721. RC 008 723-724Available from: Not available separately. see RC 008 720Document Not Available from ECRS

20

46ED108322 95 E4007238

Inequalities in Educational Resources: Their Impact onMinorities and the Poor in Texas ano California. Final Report.Brischetto. Robert. Arciniega, Tomas A.Our Lady of the Laee Coll.. San Antonio, Tex.Sponsoring AgEncy: National Inst. of Education (CHEW).Washington. D.C.Bureau No.: BR-3-2064Grant No.: NE-C-00-3-0062Publ. Date: Nov 74 Note: 183p.: Best copy available

Descriptors: Comunity Influence/ -Ccurt Litieatione EconomicDisadvartagerent/ Edecatioeal Eeuality/ Educational Finance/Educaticnal Resou-cese Elementary. Seconcary Education/ *EqualEducaticn/ Eeuel Prctect'on/ -Finance Reform/ Fiscal Capacity/ !-N'exican Aee-iemes/ Minority Groups/ -Negroes/Nordiscriminatory Eeucetion, Property Taxes/ Scnool DistrictSpending/ Tax Ecforeei lax Petes

Identifiers: California/ Podrigeez/ Serrano vs Priest/ -TexasThis research effort exaeines irecualities in educationalinput resources among school systems in TexaS and Caltfcrnie inlight of the Rodriguez and Se-rano court cases. Low-incomefamilies in both states were foi-nd to be in districts of lowper-pwoil-Expenditures and inferior educational services,primarily becaese teey ere locatec in districts with loe;prcperty valuatiens. Mexican-American pupils in Texas tend tobe ethnically isolated in low-wealte districts and have fewereeucaticnal resou-ces aveilaele to teem than do Anglo pupils.Important diffe-ences were foend between Texas and California

.in regard to etenic ieelation. Since eexican-American pupils inCalifornia are nct concentrated in predominantly ethnic,districts. not much Interethnic disparity in the distributionof edecationa resourc!is ar,-Png d:stricts waS found. Black !pupils in riot!: Texas and Celifornia are'concentnated in :argoierban center-s where e:.pet:;;Zu,es are generally at or above the,state These ftroIngs. nowever, do not take into !considereltion cease dilft.pantials between urban and nonurbanareas and municipal overburden. The hypothesis that blackPuPils in large urban districts are disadvantaged byietradistrict inequalities is offered for further research.(Author/IRT)

47,E0107399 95 RC008527

So That All Indian Children Will Have Eqeal EducationalOpportunity. Volume 2. USOE/BIA Study of the Impact of FederalFunds on Local Education Agencies Enrolling Inoian Children.ACKCO, Inc.. Boulder, Colo.

Sponsoring Agency: Bureau of Indian Affairs (Dept. ofInterior). Washington. D.C.: Office of Education (DHEW).Washington. D.C.: Small Business Administration. Washington.D.C.Publ. Date: Sep 74 Note: 300p.

Descriptors: Administrative Agenclap/ Agency Role/ ',AmericanIndians/ Attitudes/ *Educational Assessment/ ;1'ducationalEaualitye Educational Legislation/ *Federal Programs/Financial Policy/ Managemeht/ Parent School Relationship/Program Effectiveness/ *Relevance (Education)/ Tables 1Data)Volume 2 of a 3-volume report presents the major findings anddiscussions of ACKCO. Inc.'s legislative reviee and empiricalresearch of the Impact-Aid Program. Johnson-O'Valley (JCM)Peogram. Indian Ecucation Act. and Elementary and SecondaryEaucatich ACt Title I. The empirical findings, which foem tnebasis for most of the conclusions and recommendations. are fronthe fiscal, manageeent. and prcgran studies. Among thesefirdings are: (1: Indian children are rot receiving an adequateshare of Title I feeds to meet theie needs; (2) the JCV Act hadnot been used as extehsively as it cculd and should be cue tothe BYA's :rterpretatiOn cf the Act: (3) a g-eat differenceexisted in the morey aPprouriated for BIA education and teemoney actually spent per pupil in BIA schools: and (4) existingmethods of school financing have ne:ther assured that Indianchildren receive an eaualized cer pupil expenoiture nor teattney are provided an adeauate basic edecation program.Recommerdations are also given for Titles I and IV. P.L. 874.JOM. and tee SEA. Results of the surveys of parent advisorycomnittees and ef tesiness comeunity attitudes toward theeCucational program are also- included. A discussion ispresented on the degree of seccess of these programs in meetingthe Indian educational needs. (NO)

4aL0107298 95 RC008526

So That All Indian Children Will Have Equal EducationalOpportunity. Volume 1. USOE/BIA Study of the Impact of FederalFunds on Local Education Agencies Enrolling Indian Children.ACKCO. Inc.. Boulder, Colo.Sponsoring Agercy: Bureau of Indian Affairs (Dept. of

Interior). Washington. D.C.; Office of Eoucation (DHEW).Washington. D.C.: Small Business Administration, Washington.D.C.Contract No.: OEC-0-74-2089Publ. Date: Sep 74 Note: 2310.

. _

Descriptors: 'American .Indlans/ Community Involvement/*Educational Assessment/ Educational Equality/ Educational'Finance/ 'Educational Legisiution/ *Federal Programs/ Financial'Policy/ Futures (of Sotiety)/ History/ Individual Power/.Management/ *Relevance (Education)/ Socioeconomic Influences

The House Committee on Appropriations requested the U.S.Office of Education (USOE) and the Bureau of Indian Affairs(BIA) to review the: Impact-Aid Program. Johnson-O'Malley:Program, Indian Education Act, and .Elementary and SecondaryEducation Act Title I. ACKCO, Inc. a private Indian-ownedprofessional service firm, was contracted to examine theSe:major educational programs which provides funds for the!education of American Indian children in public schools and to;recommend changes so that all Indian children will have an;equal educational opportunity. The programs were viewed from:four different perspectives: (1) legislative--history. intent.iand implementation: (2) management--capanilities of the'respective agencies handling these programs: (3)'fiscal--compliance with rules and regulations. accountingiprocedures, and relationships of Federal. State. and local,funding sources: and (4) the program--attitudes of parentadvisory council members, administrators, and teachers towardprogram success. emphasis. and relevance. The final report iscontained in 3 volumes. Volume 1 covers: (1) the study'sbackground. purpose, organization. and procedures: (2) thebasic issues in education with respect to educationaleffectiveness, community participation, school finance, andmanagement in education: and (3) the past. present. and futureof Indian education. (NO)

49ED105720 FL006334

Equal Protection for Non-English-Speaking School Children:Lau v. Nichols.Sugarman. Stephen D.; Widess. Ellen G.Publ. Date: Jan 74 Note: 27p.Available from: Fred B. Rothman & Co.. 57 Leuning Street. i

South Hackensack. New Jersey 07606-

Descriptors: *Asian Americans/ *Bilingual Education/!

Bilingual Schools/ 'Educational Legislation/ Educationally!Disadvantaged/ English (Second Language)/ 'Ecual Education/Equal Protection/ Ethnic Groups/ Language Handicapped/ MinorityGroups/ Non English Speaking/ *Supreme Court Litigation

This is a commentary on Lau v. Nichols. In which the issue is'stated as the constitutional rioht of non-English-speakingchildren 10 a meaningful public education. The principal legalargument of tne plaintiffs is that the San Francisco schooldistrict's "English-only" policy denies them ecual protectionof the laws by placing non-English-speaking stuCents in aneducational environment not designed to educate them.

Considerations are offered as to the manner in which variousequal protection doctrines may be applied by the Supreme Courtin this case. Decisions affecting educational discriminationagainst blacks are cited. as well as other decisions dealingwith educational discrimination and constitutional rights.

Consideration is also given to legal theories to which theplaintiff may have recourse. It is ccncluded that the argumentthat the English-only policy violates the Civil Rights Act of,1965 may be an alternative to the equal protection apProach.The commentary concentrates on these underlying issues and

policy considerations: (1) wheter non-English-speakingl

children ri.ed judicia' help: (2) what the extent and natu-e of

the harm is: 13; reasons for the English-only policy; and (4)

tiother the prc=lem is judicially marageanle. It is noteo that

in the event of a victory in Lau. problems may arise in the

form of efforts to circumvent the ruling or opoosition from

ethnic groups interested in ethnic culture preservation. (AMI

2 2

%V w..01,4,AW .WW=1 a. WI UWVOMS Ur wauu4cion..employment, and other assistance to areas with heavyconcentrations of foreign-born persons. Assistance is needed toprovide adequate education, to create employment opportunities.and to alleviate food, housing, and health needs. Funds wilt'alleviate financial strain on cities where great numbers ofnewly arrived foreign-born people reside. Testimony from a widevariety of ethnic and immigrant groups interested in th's tillis reprinted here. (Author/DW)

51ED104557 P5007789

Compensatory Education: Some Research Issues.ROtberg, Iris C.; Wolf. AlisonNational Inst. of Education (DHEW). Washington. D.C. Office

of Educational Equity.Publ. Date: 8 Nov 74 Note: 55P.

Descriptors: *Compensatory Education/ Delivery Systems/*Educationally Disadvantaged/ 'Federal Legislation/ FederalPrograms/ Financial Support/ *Guidelines/ Program Evaluation/Research Needs/ *State Federal Support

Identifiers: *Elementary Secondary Education Act Title I/ESEA Title IThis paper identifies various key aspects of the history and

administration of federal compensatory education, describes theproblems and issues associated with these, and suggests someways in which research might help further program goals. It isintended as a discussion paper designed to highlight somecrucial target areas for a =due studV of compensatoryeducation to be conducted by the National Institute ofEducation, in accordance with a provision of the EducationAmendments of 1974. The paper contains four chapters. The firstchapter describes very briefly the background of the study. theorigina1 purposes of Title I. and the way in which itsadministration was conceived. It also identifies the mainissues with which legislators and program administrators mustbe concerned. The following three chapters then deal with these'issues in more detail under the headings of: ResourceDistribution. Categorical Aid and School Organization. andEffects of Compensatory Programs on Children. Emphasis'throughout is on federal programs. and specifically. on Part Aof Title 1. An attempt is made to distinguish between those.areas which are researchable. and those which are not; that is,.between questions cf fact and value decisions, even though thelatter may be informed by findings on cost. efficiency, andconsequences. (Author/CS)

23

InED054273$ UD011766

Equal Educational Opportunity: Hearings Before the SelectCommittee on Equal Educational Opportunity of the United StatesSenate. Ninety-First Congress. Second Session on EqualEducational Opportunity. Parts 3E. 4. 5. 6. 7. and 8.

Congress of the U.S. Washington. D.C. Senate SelectCommittee on Equal Educational Opportunity.

52ED103166# PC008392

The Legality of Chicano Education.Floca, Kathryn Priscilla HainesPubl. Date: Dec 71 Note: 200p.: Master's Thesis. University

of Texas at AustinAvailable from: Inter-Library Loan. University of Texas. '

Austin. Texas 78712Document Not Available from EDR5.Descriptors: Bilingual Education/ Civil Rights/ *Court

Litigation/ 'Discriminatory Legislation/ *EducationalLegislation/ Elementary Secondary Education/ FederalLegislation/ *History/ Language Usage/ Legal Segregation/Masters Theses/ 'Mexican Americans/ Racism/ State Legislation I

Identifiers: Chicanos/ *TexasThe thesis briefly analyzed the laws of the State of Texas.

and of the United States which directly affect the education ofTexas Mexican Americans. The legal-political history of"Chicano" education in Texas was traced from the signing of the!Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848 to August 1971. Theeducational "problems" of Mexican Americans were examined inlight of their solutions as sought througn legislative andjudicial action. Most of the legislation discussed dealt withthe use of the Spanish language in the schools and withbilingual education. Data were gathered from: (1) legaldccuments obtained from various court and law clerks and (2).parliamentary journals for both the House and Senate. Eightcourt cases involving Mexican American students and Texas'schools were dIscussed: (1) Salvatierra vs the Del RioIndependent School District (I.S.D.); (2) Delgado Case: :3)Hernandez vs Driscoll Consolidated: (4) Pete Hernandez vs theiState of Texas: (5) Ross vs Houston I.S.D.: (6) Perez vs SonoraI.S.D.: (7) Cisneros vs Corpus Christi I.S.D.: and (8) GoodNeighbor Policy vs Class Apart Theory. Some of the topicsdiscussed are: segregation, educational politics. private andparochial schools, compulsory school attendance, the Federalgovernment's role, the economy. and adult education. (NO)

53ED103164N PC008390

Indian Education, Office of Education. Hearings Before the!Subcommittee on Department of the Interior and RelatedAgencies.

Congress of the U.S.. Washington, D.C. House Committee onAppropriations.

Publ. Date: 74 Note: 55p.; For related documents. see RC 008388-391

Available from: Not available separately. see RC 008 388Document Not Available from EDRS.Descriptors: Academic Education/ Adult Education/ *American

Indians/ *Budgeting/ *Educational Legislation/ Elementary.Secondary Education/ Federal Legislation/ *Federal Programs/Higher Education/ Program Administration/ Program Budgeting/.*Resource Allocations

Identifiers: *Indian Education ActThe proposed fiscal year (FY) 1975 budget for American Indian'

education for the Office of Education reauests 542 million (thesame amount provided in FY 1974) for the Indian Education Act.Ot this total. 532 million is to be focused on specialdemonstration projects fcr Indian children and $e million onspecial projects for Indian adults. These funds will also Peused to: (1) train Indian teachers ard acministrators. (2) testthe effectiveness cf various acciroaches to the delivery ofeducational services, (3) develop and test various ccmmunityischcol aperoaches. 141 develop acproaches to early ch"dhcodeducation and techniques which stress remedial basic :11s.and (5) support the National Advisory Council on Indian'EdLcaticri ard the Off.ce cf Indian Education. On February 27.1974. the Subcommittee on Depentment of tne Interior andRelated Agencies on the House Committee on Aporocriations metto hear testimony an the 1975 budget recuest for the IndianEducation Act prbgnam in tne Office of EaLcation. Witm?sseswere the U.S. Commissioner cf Education. Acting DeputyCommissioner for Inoian Education. Planning Officer and ProgramManagers for the Office for Indian Education, Acting BudgetOfficer of the Office of Educaticn, and BJdget Analyst of tneOffice of Education. (NO)

2 4

54ED099460 UD014698

1Parents' Commi'ttee of Public School No. 19. etPlantiffs. Against Cemmunity School Board of Community Board!District No. 14 of the City of New York. et al.. Defendants. .1. Notice of Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Complete with.Affidavits; and Memorandum in Support of Motion for PreliminaryInjunction.District Court. New York. N.Y. Eastern District of New York.Publ. Date: Aug 74 Note: 1162.: Reproduced from the best

available cope: parts of this document may not be clearlylegible due to the quality of print of the original

Descriptqrs: Boards of Education/ Court Cases/ %EducationalOpportunities/ *Elementary School Students/ Equal Education/*Federal Court Litigation/ Governance/ Governing Boards/ ParentIParticipation/ Puerto Ricans/ School Adminietration/ School'COmmunity Relationship/ School Districts/ *Spanish Speakingr Identifiers: Community School Board 14/ New York/ *New YorkCityThe plaintiffs are some 30 Puerto Rican and Hispanic Parentsand their 57 minor children who attend Public School 19(hereinafter P.S. 19) in Brooklyn. The defendants are theimembers of the Community DistricZ School Board Number 14 and of1the New York City Board of Education. The ConmunityiSuperintendent William Rogers and Chancellor Irving Anker are;also defendants. The complaint charges defendants withldiscriminatorily denying plantiffs an egeal educationallopportunity. Defendants have continually maintainedlsplit-session classes at P.S. 19 since the 1961-1962 school:year. The maintenance of these classes has caused plaintiffs tolcse one hour a day of education or effectively a day a week of.instruction. In response to the filing of this lawsuit, sin.defendant members of the Community School Board passect aresolution calling for the transfer of some of the fourth and,all of the fifth grade classes to Public School 122. ICdefendants' plan is not enjoined. plantiffs will attend tereeseparate elementary schools in three separate neighborhoodsbefore entering seventh grade in a junior high school. Tne

educators who have submitted affidavits to the Court all attestto the serious and irreparable harm that will result if tnetransfer is not enjoined. On June 12. 1974 the parents at P.S.19 voted almost unanimously against the traesfer. The parentsfavor use of the Community School District offices. (Author/JM)

55EDD95247# 1JD014519The Education of Black eeople In Florlea.Scott. J. Irving E.PubI. Date: 74 Note: 145p.Available from: Oorpance Co.. 1517 J.F. Kennedy Boulevard. !Philadelphia. Pennsylvania 19103 ($5.95, olothlDocument Not Available from EDRS.Descriptors: *Educational History/ Educational Needs/Educational Policy/ Educational Problems/ Integration Effects;Integration Litigation/ *Negro Education/ Negro Students/Private Financial Support/ Public Po) icy/ *RacialDiscrimination/ "Schuol Integration/ School Segregation/ State,GovernmentIdentifiers: "F:oridaThe contents of this book are organized into 10 chapters.Chapter 1 outlines the "Legal Background for Negro Schools inFlorida." Chapter 2, "Early Neglect. discusses theestablishment of the double-school system. focusing on thesituation in Duval County. Chapter 3. "Philanthropic Groups."briefly discusses some active foundations and funds: Chapter 4."OtIervation in Early Elementary School." discussei studiesmade between 1928 and 1952. Chapter 5 discusses the "Early

Development of Secondary Schools for Negroes.* Chapter 6discusses "Development of Higher ECucation for NeCrces inFlorida." Chapter 7 focuses on "The Fignt for Eeeal Salaries."arguing that the fight was foced on tee Negro t.z.achers becaeseof the unreasonableress of local superirteedente and schoolboards. Chapter 8 discusses "Negroes in the State Department ofEducation." Chapter 9. "School Integration." Ciscussesdevelopments since the 1954 Supreme Court C 'Aston. includingthe results of a survey of 67 county supere eneents. Chapter10, "Hopeful Points in Integration." demonstrates thatintegration has brought better school buildings and superiorequipment, not only to black .children but to many whitechildren. (AuthOr/JM)

56ED094899 RC008034

Assistance to Indians Enrolled in Public Schools.Johnson-O'Malley Regulations. A Progress Report. Research andEvaluation Report Series No. 15-A.Bureau of Indian Affairs (Dept. of Interior). Albuquerque. N.

Mex.Publ. Date: Jul 74 Note: 90p._

.

Descriptors: Administrative Change/ *American Indians/*Change Strategiesi Community Involvement/ 'EducationalDevelopment/ *Federal Legislation/ Financial Support/ Guides/History/ Locus of Control/ Program Proposals/ *Public Schools/Reports/ Reservations (Indian)

Identifiers: BIA/ Bureau of Indian Affairs/ 'Johnson 0 MalleyAct

The assistance program to American Indians enrolled in publicschools, known as the Johnson-O'Malley (JOM) Program. has drawnIncreasing attention in recent years for Indian people, thegeneral public, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). Thisihas resulted in the need for changes in the BIA Manual and theCode of Federal Regulations (CFR) material dealing witn theseiprograms and funds. Beginning with the passage of the JOM Actiin 1934. this document explains the original act and itsrevisions. including Its initial intent. Up to the FY 1975 !appropriation, the position of the Administration and dongress !has been that the JOM program is intended for public school,Indian children who live on or near reservations. There has'been. though, considerable expression of a desire to expand the'program beyond the present eligibility restrictions and to'include Indian children wherever they may live, so long as theyare from a federally recognized tribe. The BIA has instigatedassessments and audits aimed at improving the JOM program andis now working to change the CFR so that it better reflects themany changes that have been and may be made relative to theprogram. The report includes many of the various memos, drafts.proposed budgets and legislation. and reactions to proposedregulation changes. These cover special education programs.authority and definitions, contract eligibility. communityparticipation. and general contract requirements. (KM)

57ED091940 FLOG6104

Litigating the Rights of tho Bilingual School Child to Equal,Educational Opportunity.

Exelrod. Alan B.Publ. Date: 73 Note: lio.-Descriptors: *Bilingual Education/ *Chinese Americans/ Court!

Litigation/ Educational Discrimination/ EducationalOpportunities/ *English (Second Language)/ Equal Education/Language Programs/ Nondiscriminatory Education/ Non English,Speaking

In the Lau vs. Nichols case, a suit was brought by'Chinese-speaking students against the San Francisco UnifiedSchool District. asking the district to implement programs inChinese that would permit them to learn English. The basicclaim of these non-English-speaking children is that inrefusing to meet their learning needs, the district isviolating their right to adequate educational opportunity underthe equal protection clause of the Constitution. The social,economic, and political discrimination against the Chinese andMexican-Americans forced them into an isolation that hasresulted in large ccmmunittes of non-Erclish-speaking studentsin California and the Southwest. Since language is an integralpart of the etrnic culture of tre students involved,discrimination based on language is one manifestation ofdiscrimination based on national origin. In the Lau case. theNinth Circuit Court ruled that trere couid be no state actionunless the school district nad had a specific intent todiscriminate. However. the SuP reme Court cn other occasions hasfound a seemingly nondiscriminatcry policy to be e violation ofequal protection %hen it had a discriminatory irpact. It ispossible to find both the teachers and the funds to implementthe required programs, and the question now is to what extent

.

the courts will become involved in the eCucation process.(Author/DM)

26

58ED090798 FL006069Supreme Court of the United States. Lau et al. v. Nichols et

al.Supreme Court of the U. S.. Washington, D.C.Report No.: 72-6520Publ. Date: Jan 74 Note: 120..

Descriptors: Bilingual Education/ Bilingualism/ *BilingualStudents/ *Chinese Americans/ Civil Rights/ EducationalOpportunities/ *English (Second Language)/ *Equal Education/Federal Legislation/ Non English Speaking/ Sociolinguistics/Supreme Court Litigation

Identifiers: California/ Civil Rights Act of 1964/ *SanFranciscoWith this decision the Supreme Court of the United States

reversed the judgments of lower courts and found that thefailure of the San Francisco school system to provide English:language instruction to approximately 1.800 students of Chineseancestry who do not speak English denies them a meaningful.opportunity to participate in the public educational program.The school system is therefore in violation of Section 601 of.the Civil Rights Act of 1964. which bans discrimination based"on the ground of race. color, or national origin.' in *any;program or activity receiving federal financial assistance.";end the implementing regulations of the Department of Health.;Education. and Welfare. (Author/PM)

59ED0E:16431 RC0O7603Comprehensive Indian Education Act. hearings Before the;

Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. United States;Senate. 92nd Congress, 2nd Session on S.2724.Congress of the U.S.. Washington. D.C. Senate Committee on

Interior and Insuiar ;:ffairs.Publ. Cate: 7 Mar 72 Note: 521p.: Related document. '

RC007604: Tables on pages 201 to 252 will take up two,microfiche each. actual page count is 469o.

Descriptors: *American Indians/ *Boards of EducationrComprehensive Programs/ *Educational Improvement/ EducationalObjectives/ Eskimos/ *Federal Legislation/ Feoeral Programs/Governing Boards/ Legal Resoonsibility/ Ncnreservation AmericanIndians/ Political Issues/ Public Schools/ Reservations(Indian)/ *Treaties/ Tribes

Identifiers: 'Comprehensive Indian Education Act! 5.2724.A transcript of the U.S. Senate's Public hearings on 5.2724.

the Comprehensive Indian Education Bill. is presented. Thepurpose of 5.2724 is to establish a national American Indian:education pro-cram by creating a National Board of Regents foriIndian Education. carrying out of a national Indian eoucationprogram. the establishment of local Indian school boards, andifor other educational purposes. This bill originated inSeptember 1971 as an outgrowth of hearings heid then on a bill

:

dealing primarily with the education of Indian children in'public scnools. Without exception. the Indian witnessestestifying at those hearings asked for a comprehensive Indian

.

education act to provide improved education opportunities forchildren and adults regardless of whether they were in Federalor other public schools. This hearing heard testimony fromrepresentatives of the majority of the Indian people, and fromthe 2 Federal agencies most involved with 5.2724Health.Education. anC Welfare and the Department of Interior--as wellas from spokesmen from the major educational organizations. Thetestimonies are presented in their entirety. (FF)

27

60ED08338e RC007533

Indian Education Johnson-O'Malley Activities. Annual Report.1970-1971 Montana .

Montana State Office of the Superintendent of PublicInstruction. Helena.Publ. Date: 71 Note: 225p.: Related document is ED 051 922 I

._.

Descriptors: *Aeleeican Indians/ 'Annual Reports/ BoarcengScnools/ 'Educational Finance/ ECucational Opeortunities/Elementary Schccls/ Feeeral Aic/ Feceral State Relationship/hgh Schools/ Kineergarten/ 'Public Sceools/ Reservations(Indian)/ School Activities/ School Irvolvement/ Statistics/Tables (Data)

Identifiers: 'Johnson 0 Malley Act/ MontanaIn fiscal yeae 1970. Montana Johnson-O'Malley (e0M) funes

were relieved of suDeorting school lunches for American Indianchildren, and were channeled into seecial project activities.Department cf Agriculture school-lunch funds became availablein larger amounts to make that transition possible. With mcrefunds, prcjects for special activities received an impetus ttlathas grown eace year. In january 1970. funds became availablefor kIncergarten programs. In fiscal year 1971. 22 kindergartenunits were in operation. Tee program now includestransnortation. boarding homes. home-school coordinators. rursecoordinators, cultural enrichment programs. special teacherSand workshops for teacher aides. During 1970-71 OM adviscryccmmittees were formed to involve Indian People. At the sametime JCM provided educational services to 37 school districtsand 5.418 school children. This annual report also providesstatistical data corcerning these Fedeeal aid programs 1nMontana: (1) Public Law 674 Payments: (2) Public Law 815payments: and (3) Public Law 98-10 payments. (Parts of thisCocument may be only marginal)y legible.) (FF)

61ED077602 RC007018

Implications of the Serrano and Rodriguez Cases on theEducation cf Mexican Americans.Gonzalez. SimonPuel. Date: 18 Nov 72 Note: 13p.; Paper prepared for a

Leacership Institete for Chicano Educators (University of Texasat El Paso, November 17-18. 1972)

-

Descriptors: Court Litigation/ 'Educational Finance/ EqualECucation/ Financial Support/ 'Mexican Americans/ -Property'Taxes/ *School Support/ 'State Legislation

Identifiers: Rodriquez v San Antonio Independent School Dist/*Serrano v PriestThe primary loch] funding eource for school support eas !

always been the property or 'ad valorum" tax. State funCs.Cetermined for each district by tee 'foundation Program"formula. supplement this tax. Local school boards. statelegislatures. state constitutions. and the voters have thepeeer to pecviee ceality edetation. In many states. hoeeveretee pewee which elent result f-ee increased eCucationalexpenditures eas eeen lim!ted. Teis is especially true foe teepoor Mexican eeerican pceulaticn. In Serrano vs Priest, theplaintiffs ccntene that tne deoendente on lccal property taxesfee eCucation results in wide reveeue dscarities ameng sehcel.C:stricts. Pocrigeez Nes San 4riton' I-ceeeneent Sceco: D str:ctargues teat tne s ml.tate miriu fcur7:ation pr and generalc,gramfenc centribetice do not ecLallze the great disparity intaxanle prcoerty areeng scnool :n teese cases theceerts did not reject tme prceerte tax tut did reject thereliance cn it fcr local funCIng. 77.e cirect effects cf thesecases on Vexican Arertcan ecucatioe are that they have: (Wsere'ed notice t'-at Chieaeos toil; nc: conttnue to toleeete:discriminatory 1aes or practices. (2) aroused interest amcng,Cntcano law studerts. and (3) focLsed on the ser'i0.15 need foriecreased resources for quality eeecation for everyone. (NO)

!

69ECC76281 PC:2C63-55

A Cc-bi:ztion cf Le.s Ferta:nin; to Indians. State of Maine.Maine State Dept. cf Indian Affairs. Augusta,Publ. Cate: va- 73 Note: 50p.

HC Not Available from Er:RS. PLUS POSTAGEDescriptors: -Imeriban Indians/ Sc.:dation/ Forestry; Housing/

*Laws/ Legal Fces npcsibility/ *State Agencies/ *State'

Legislation/ Welfare ServicesIdentifiers: *Maine/ Passamaquoddiesi FanobscotsThe document is a compilation of laws pertaining to the'

American Indians in the state of Maine. These laws are comoiledifrom: (1) the Maine Revised Statutes of 1954 and amendmentsthrough 1972: (21 the Constitution of Maine: and (3) thecurrent resolves and private arc special laws. Major topicsare: education. elections, fish ano game. forestry, health andwelfare, highways, housing, tribes, legislature, Motor vehicletaxes, and treaties. Also included are miscellaneous provisionssoch as liquor and public dumps. Not available in hard copydue to marginal legibility of original document. (FF)

63ED076274 RC006957An Evaluation of the Johnson-O'Malley Program: Muskogee Area.

Bureau of Indian Affairs.Coombs, Madison L.Bureau of Indian Affairs (Dept of Interior). Muskogee, Okla.

Muskogee Area Office.Publ. Date: Aug 72 Note: 44p.

Descriptors: *American Indians/ -Educational Finance/oFederal Programs/ *Program Evaluation/ 'State Federal Aid

Identifiers: *Johnson 0 Malley ACt/ OklahomaThe Johnson-O'Malley Act (JOM). passed by Congress in 1934,

authorized the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) to contract withthe states and other political entities for educationalservices to American Indians. Althougn the rationale fcr :meJOM program wai'criot understoOd well by a high proportion of theIndian patrons of public schools or by the schooladministrators, the nature of JOM funding end recentdevrlopments made the evaluation of these programs aninevitable reouirement. In April, 1972, the Muskogee AreaOffice of the EIA sent the Indian Education Section of theOklahoma State Ceoartment of Education a 1 page set ofsuggestions fon evaluating and monitoring JOM projects. Thisdocument was shown in its entirety. About a month later the EIA.office in AltL.a.Jerc6e. tehich handles the JOM program. forwardedto the Muskogee Area Office a similar and comprehensiveQuestionnaire which was then forwarded to the Oklahoma State;Department of Education. The returns showed an almost total;lack of standardizec evaluation test cata. Recommendations from!the schools stressed the need for inservice training of'personnel and changes in ttle program. (FF)

2 9

64ED072523 EA004828

Inequality in School Financing: The Role of the Law.;Clearinghous3 Publication No. 39.

Commission on Civil Rights. Washington. D.C.Publ. Date: Aug 72 Note: 8Ip.

Descriptors: Civil Rights/ *Court Cases/ *Disadvantav.d Youth/ Educational Finance/ Educational Legislation/ 'EqualEducation/ Equalization Aid/ Expenditure Per Student/ °MinorityGroup Children/ Property Taxes/ School Taxes/ Urban Schools/*Urban Youth

This survey gives a brief history of the movament towardequality of educational opportunity in the United States.reviews recent court decisions mancating equality ineducational expenditures. and raises some of the criticalquestions thus far unanswered either by the courts or by thelegislatures regarding ramifications of these decisions. Itsuggests that tne recent court decisions striking down Statesystems of school finance (because of intrastate inequality)may not be the panacea for minority group schoolchifdren thatit had originally been envisioned. Because minority grouPchildren are increasingly concentrated in urban areas, thed.mcisions will tend to benefit minority group children to tneextent they benefit the cities in which they live. The outcomeCeps.nds on whether cities as a whole will benefit from thedecisions. (Author)

65ED071803 RC006689

Education of the Spanish Speakirg. Hearings Before the CivilRights Oversight Subcommittee (Subcommittee No. 4) of theCommittee on the Judiciary. House of Representatives.Ninety-Second Congress. Second Session on Reports of the U.S.Commission on Civil Rights. Serial No. 35.Congress of the U.S.. Washington. D.C. House Committee on the

Judiciary.Publ. Date: Jun 72 Note: 105p.

. -

Descriptors: 8ilingual Education/ *Civil Rights/ Committees/Educational Policy/ -Equal ECucation/ *Mexican Americans/*Minority Group Children/ Public Schools/ *Puerto Ricans/Second Language Learning/ Spanish Speaking/ Tables (Data)

Identifiers: 'United States Commission on Civil RightsHearings on the reports of tne U.S. Commission on Civil

Rights on the education of the Spanish-speaking were held onJune 8 and 14. 1972. The Civil Rights Commission documented infts reports the effects of educational policies which navesimultaneously forced ethnic isolation and Anglo conformity

upon Mexican American and Puerto Rican students. Included aretestimonies by members of the Civil Rights Commissionconcerning the education of SPanish-sbeaking children. Some oft-- areas covered ty the testimcny follow: (1) Chicano pupilsachieve less well than Anglo stuCents: (2) the school systemsof the Southwest have not recognized the culture anC the'tradition of mexican Americans and rave not adapted policies'and practices that would enable r:exican American children to,participate fully in the edixatioral process: (3) more tr-al.400.000 Chicano pupils througnout the Southwest atterd schoolsin precominantly Mexican American districts: (4) Puerto Ricanchilcren constitute a relatively large minority in urban schoolsystems plagued by racial imbalance. tight budgets, andoutmoded school buildings in the Northeast and Midwest cities;and (5) statistical evidence demonstrates the failure of the'schools in the Southwest to reach and properly educate tneChicano student. Related documents are ED 052 849. ED 056 821.and ED 062 069. (FF)

3 0

66ED070551 RC006637

Annual Report. 1971-1972. to the United States Bureau oflIndian Affairs. Indian Education Program Nevada .

Poehlman. Charles H.. Comp.Nevada State Dept. of Education. Carson City.Sponsoring Agency: Bureau of Ind)an Affairs (Dept. of

Interior). Washington. D.C.Publ. Date: Oct 72 Note: 54p.

Descriptors: *American Indians/ *Annual Reports/ Average

Daily Attendance/ Dropouts/ *Educational Finance/ Enrollment/*Federal Aid/ Federal Legislation/ Program Descriptions/ *StatePrograms/ Tables (Data)

Identifiers: *Johnson 0 Malley Act/ NevadaAfter a brief discussion of the Johnson-O'Malley Program in

Nevada. the State's expenditures for the fiscal year July 1.1971. to June 30. 1972. a^e reported. Nevada's Indian EducationProgram is tne result of the Johnson-O'Malley Act (JOM). whichprovides funds for the administration of the program and forthe payment of tuition to school districts which enroll

eligible American Indian children. Thls fiscal year. Nevada'sallocation of JOM funds amounted to $194.750. Peports of dOMexoenditures and special fund allocations are presented oyschool district. Also presented ty school district are:tabulated data on enrollment and attendance. Data from a 5-yearsurvey of Indian dropouts are given according to sex and to thej

reason for dropping out. Hevada's plan for distribution cf JOU:contract funds. the procedures for determination of Stateapportionment for Nevada public schools. and the revised JOM;

1

guidelines are also included. A related document is ED 055 709.(NO)

67.ED069332 PS005795

Headstart. Child Development Legislation. 1972. Joint Hearing:

before the Subcommittee on Children and Youth and the

Subcommittee on Employment. Manpower. and Poverty.Congress of the U.S.. Washington, D.C. Senate Committee on

Labor and Public Welfare.Publ. Date: Mar 72 Note': 634p.: U.S. Senate. Ninety-Second

Congress. Second SessionAvailable from: Subcommittee on Children and Youth: Room 506.

Senate Annex, U.S. Senate. Washington. D.C., 20510 (no charge) :

-

Descriptors: *Disadvwitaged Youth/ 'Economically

Disadvantaged/ Educational Development/ *EducationalOpportunities/ *Federal Legislation/ Poverty Programs/ YouthEmployment

Identifiers: PROJECT HEAD STARTA Joint Hearing before the Subcommittee on ChilCren and

Youth, and the Subcommittee on Employment. Manpower. and

Poverty of the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare arepresented. The purpose of this hearing on S. 3193 is to providefor the continuation of programs authorized under the EconomicOpportunity Act of 1964. and for other purposes. The hearing onS. 3228 aimed to strengthen and expand the Headstart program.with priority to the economically disadvantaged; to amend the

Economic Opportunity Act of 1964. (RG)

3 1

68EDCE6205 PC000794

Indiari Education Division. NevaCa State Department of

Education. 19E0-1951 Annual Report to United States Bureau of .

Indian Afiairs.Haglurd. E. A.. CompNelada State Dept. of Education. Carson City.

Sponsoring Agency: Bureau of Indian Affairs (Dept.

Interior). Washington. D.C.

Publ. Date: Aug 61 Note: 22p._

Descriptcrs: Aceoemic Achievement/ Adult Education/ 'American

Indians/ 'Annual Reports/ "Educational Finance/ Federal Aid/

*Federal Programs/ 'Financial Support/ Grants/ Lunch Programs/

Preschool Progrems/ Special Programs/ Student Transportation/

Vocational EducationIdentifiers: Bureau of Indian Affairs/ 'Johnson 0 Malley Act

Information for toe second como:ete school year under the

agreement between the Nevada Decor:Tient of Education and tne.

Bureau of Indian Affairs for the orderly and equitable .

termination of the Johnson-O'Malley Program in the State of

Nevada is presented in this annual recort. Termination, over a!

5-year period, of the student transportation and school lunch,

programs under the Johnson-O'Malley Act are reported. The

Special Program Grants to individual school districts are

described. Major recommendations for American Indian education.

in Nevada include the establishment of preschool training. the

development of a post-hign school N,ocational program at Stewarti

Indian School. and the reestablishment of adult education !

programs for all Indian tribal groups. Related documents are ED:

013 147. ED 032 143. ED 032 186, ED 044 218, and ED 055 709.

(PS)

ED068190 PS005972Existing Day Care Legislation. Final Report: Part III,

Carlson. Rick d.Institute for Interdisciplinary Studies. Minneapolis, Minn.

Sponsoring Agency: Office of Economic Opportunity.

Washington. D.C.Publ. Date: Dec 71 Note: 116P

Descriptors: Child Develooment/ 'Day Care Programs/

*Disadvantaged Youth/ Elementary School Students/ Federal Aid/

*Federal Legislation/ *Financial Support/ 'Government Role/

Legislation/ Low Income Groups/ Parent Participation/ Preschool

Children/ Research/ Technical Reports

Existing legislation applicable to day care programs is

examined to discern what the Federal role has been. An overview

of existing Federal legislation is given. and legislation is

then analyzed as to its effect on the five components of the

day care delivery system. These components are: (1) al

product--the kind of day care program. (2) providers of that.

product--administrators. operators. educatons. etc.: (3)

consumers of the product--parents and children: (4) a medium of

exchange between the providers and the consumers--means of

financing the programs: and 151 regulation of the product and

the means of financing by the public--the quality of tne

product and the terms and conditions of exchange. An appendix'

includes descriptions of all relevant legislative enactments

affecting day care programs. (For related documents. see PS 005

969-971. 973-983.) (AL)

3 2

loW 111.4*Educaticnal Finance/ *Eoucational Programs/ Federal Programs/State Programs/ *Tables (Data)

Identifiers: Johnson 0 Malley Act/ OklahomaFinanced and operated under the provisions of a contract

between the U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs. Department ofEducation. and the Oklahoma State Department of Education. thisdocument describes the Indian Education Program in Oklahoma.which is authorized by the Johnson-O'Malley Act and supervisedby the State Department of Education. This 1962 annual repoat(was prepared by the Division of Indian Education. Tables forthe enrollment and attendance for 1950-61: the expenditure ofcontract funds in 1961-62 for administration and supervision.as well as for instruction, lunches, transportation, and otherservices: the estimated Indian pupil enrollment and attendancefor 1963: the enrollment and average attendance by areas andtribes for 1960-61: a financial statement of Indian educationfunds for 1962: the state contract funds allocated in 1961-62by counties and for special services: and the lunch and specialservice lunch fund reimbursement are given. Also included is anarea map of Indian tribes in Oklahoma. The appendixes show the

.

contract modification. the 1962-63 budget. the amendment to the'Oklahoma plan. an enrollment and attendance table for 1961-62.a table of attendance by area and tribe for 1961-62. the rules'and regulations for the Johnson-O'Malley Indian EduceitiontProgram, and a high school senior Questionnaire. (MUB)

60065234 RC006306Twentieth Annual Report of Incian Education in Oklahoma.Laney. L. J.Oklahoma State Dept. of EduCation, Oklahoma City.Sponsoring Agency: Bureau of Indian Affairs (Dept. of

interior). Washington. D.C.Publ. Date: 67 Note: 44p.

a

Descriptors: *American Indians/ *Annual Reports/ AttenCanceRecords/ Compensatory Education Programs/ Contracts/*Educational Finance/ *Educational Programs/ Federal Programs/State Programs/ *Tables (Data)

Identifiers: *Johnson 0 Malley Act/ OklahomaFinanced and operated under the provisions of a contract

between the U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs. Department ofEducation, and the Oklahoma State Department of Education. thisdocument describes the Indian Education Program in Oklahoma.authorized by the Johnson-O'Malley Act and supervised by theState Department of Education. This 1957 annual report wasprepared by the Division of Indian Education. Tables for theenrollment and attendance for 1965-66: the expenditure ofcontract funds in 1966-67 for administration and supervision.as well as for Instruction, lunches. transportatioa. and otaerservices: the estimated Indian pupil enrollment and attendancefor 1968: the enrollment and ave-ace attendance oy areas andtribes for 1965-65: a financial statement of Indta^ Edacationfunds for 1967: the state contract funds allocated by countiesand for special services: and the lunch and special servicelunch fund reimbursement for 1955-67 are given. Also includedis an area map of Indian tribes in Oklahoma. The appendixesshow the Indian Public School Contract: the Oklahoma plan: theenrollment and attendance table for 1966-67: the Indian pupilenrollment and average daily attendance by-areas and tribes for1965-67: a dropout report for the Anadarko area. the Muskogeeiarea, and for the Oklahoma Johnson-O'Malley schools as a whole:,and a high school senior Questionnaire. (MLB)

33

72E0058354 LID012027

Equal Educational Opportunity: Hearings Before the Select

Committee on Equal Educational Opportunityof the United States

Senate. Ninety-Secnd Congress, First Session on Equal

Educational Opportunity. Part 16D-1--Inequalityin School

Firance: General Appendixes.

Congress of the U.S.. Washington. D.C. Senate Select

Committee on Equal Educational Opportunity.

Publ. Date: Nov 71 Note: 328p.: Committee Print. Senate

Select Committee on Equal Educational Opportunity

Available from: Superintendent of Documents. U.S. Government

Printing Office. Washington. D.C. 20402 151.251

Descriptors:.*Disadvantaged Youth/ Economically Disadvantaged

/ *Educational Finance/ 'Educational Needs/ Educational

Opportunities/ Educational Resources/ 'Equal Education/

Resource Allocations/ Tax Support/ *Urban Education

Identifiers: District of Columbia/ Indiana/ More Effective

Schools Program/ New York/ Oregon

Appendix One, items pertinent to the hearing of SeptemJer 21.

1971. includes material supplied by Dr. Robert W. blanchard

concerning allocationsfrom Oregon's basic school support fund.

Appendix Two. items pertinent to the hearing of September 22.

1971. includes material supplied by Joel B. Berke on 'Tna

Current Crisis in School Finance:Inadecuacy and Inequity:" and

also by James A. Kelley on 'Judicial Reform of, Educational

Finance" and "The Fiscal Roots of Inequality in Educational

Opportunity." Additionally. the staff of the Select Committee,

on Equal Educational Opportunity provided material on

"Disparit'es in School Finance." Appendix Three, items .

pertinent to the nearing of September 23. 1971. includes tables

supplied by Julius W. Hobson concerning District of Columbia'

Public Schools Fegular Budget funds: Requests versus:

Appropriations, fiscal years 1966-71. and two pamphlets oy him:

"The Damned Children, and "The Camned Information.° Among tne

other materials in the appendix are summary reports from Glen

Robinson on financially induced cutcacks In staff. programs.

and services. Appendix Four includes the following materials

submitted by David Selden: The More Effective Schools Program.

a program report prepared by the American Federation of

Teachers: 'The Voucher Plan.' a reprint from the *Teachers

College Record": zrd four articles on the Gary (Indiana)

3annecker Scnool Experiment. Cue to the quality of the

original. severa pages of this document are not clearly

printed. (JM)

73E0057132 e0011921

Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965: Compilation!

of Legislation on Title IFinancial Assistance to Local:

Educational Agencies for the Education of Children of;

Low-Income Families. Reflecting the 1966. 1967. and 1970!

Amendments.Division of Compensatory

Education. BESF.

Publ. Date: Jul 71 Note: 380.

Available from: Superintendent of Documents. Printing Office.

Wastlinoton. D.C. 2O47.2 (HE 5.237: 37074: $0.26)

=

_

Descriptors: -Disadvantaged Youth/ Eoucational Finance/

"Educational Legislation/ 'Federal Lid/ "Federal Legislation/

Low Income GroupsIdentifiers: Elementary Secondary Education Act Title I/ ESEA

Title IThis government document contains a compilation of

legislation on Title I of the Elementary and Seconcary

Education Act of 19E5: it also contains the 1966. 1967. and

1970 amendments. In addition. General provisions under Title

III of Public Law 61-674 are induced. Title I is particularly

concerned with financial assistance to local educational

agencies for the eclucation of children cf low-income families.

(Author/JW)

3 4

74ED056408 EACC3865

Public School Desegregation in California Historical

Background. School Desegregation Bulletin Series.Colley. Nathaniel S.. Ur.California Univ.. Riverside. Western Regional Schoo0

Desegregation Projects.Publ. Date: Sep 71 Note: 320._

Descriptors: Court Cases/ wefacto Segregation/ Dejure

Segregation/ *Legal Problems/ *Minority Groups/ School

Attendance Legislation/ *School Integration/ School Law/

*School SegregationIdentifiers: CaliforniaThis paper first traces the history of racial segregation in,

the California Public Schools, revealing that while the first:

California constitution provided for a system of common'

schools, the schools were initially Common to white pupilt;1

only. The paper then demonstrates tinat the State has an'

affirmative duty under the 14th Amendment to end public school'racial segregation wherever it exists no matter what its cause.'

The paper concludes by arguing that there can be no such thing:

as de facto segregation in public schools. According to the1

author, all such segregation is de jure because public school:

officials compel attendance, fix zones and boundaries, and maike

school attendance assignments. (Author)

75ED055709 RC005661

Indian Education Program. Annual Report. 1970-1971 to United'States Bureau of Indian Affairs.

Poehlman, Charles H.Nevada State Dept. of Education, Carson.City.Sponsoring Agency: Bureau oi Indian Affairs (Dept. o '

Interior). Washington, D.C.Publ. Date: Oct 71 Note: 64p.

,

Descriptors: Adult Programs/ 'American Indians/ -Annual:

Reports/ Community Involvement/ Cultural Background/ Dropouts!'Education/ *Education& Finance/ Enrichment Activities/Enrollment/ Evening Classes/ *Federal Aid/ Program Descriptionn;/ School Community Relationship/ *State Programs/ Student Needs.

Identifiers: Johnson 0 Malley Act! NivadaAfter a 2-page history of the Johnson-O'Malley Act. rinich:

provides funds for Indian children attendin 2 Public schorls.basic objectives for educational programs, the problemsencountered in developing these programs, and accompanying,recommendations are discussed. Tabular reports of

Johnson-O'Malley (JOM) expenditures are then presented in

composite and by school district, and beneficiaries of specialfund allocations are enumerated. Three successful programs forIndian children in Nevada are described: (1) the Moapa Summer'Educational-Recreational Program (Clark County School '

District). (2) the Summer Reading Program for Primary Students'(a 1-school program in Lyon County School District). and (3)the Indian Pre-School Summer Education Program (Churchill

County School District). Public Law 89-10 Title I programsserving Indian children in Nevada are listed: also presented

are school district news (by district), enrollment and

attendance data (by district), results of the Nevada IndianDropout Study. Nevada's plan for distribution of JOM contractfunds. and prosedres for determiration of state apportionmentfor Nevada public schools. Related documents are ED 0:3 147. ED032 143. ED 032 166. and ED 044 212. 17.%.:6)

35

76ED054274# UD011767

Equal Educational Opportunity: Hearings Before the SelectCommittee on Eaual Educational Opportunity of the United StatesSenate. Ninety-Second Congress First Session on EqualEducational Opportunity. Parts 94 and 9,Congress of the U.S.. Washington. D.C. Senate Select

.

Committee on Equal ECucational Opportunity.Publ. Date: 71 Ncte: 951p.: Hearings held Mar 3-6. 1971. San

Francisco. Calif.Available from: Superintendent of Documents. U. S. Government

Printing Office. Washington. D.C. 20402 (Pt. 94. $2.25: Pt. B.$1.50)

Document Not Available from EDRS.Descriptors: Black Community/ Bus Transportation/ *Chinese

Americans/ Economically Disadvantaged/ EducationallyDisadvantaged/ Educational Resources/ *Equal Education/ HighSchools/ 'Integration Effects/ Integration Litigation/Integration Methods/ Racial Balance/ School CommunityRelationship/ *School Integration

Identifiers: *CaliforniaThese hear ngs before the Senate Select Committee on Equal

Educational Opportunity focusing on "San Francisco andBerkeley. California" are organizeo In two parts. The ccntentsof Part 9A include all of the statements by educationaladministrators, teachers, ard students: as well as byrepresentatives of involved minority communities and localgovernment officials. Evidence is presented regarding theracial distribution of students in the Berkeley Unified SchoolDistrict. the Riverside Integration study. and the role of theblack community in school integration. Part 98 is an"Appendix." which includes articles contributed by theInstitute on Desegregation Problems, various private persons.the Berkeley Unified School District. the Riverside UnifiedSchool District. the Sacramento Unified School District. theSan Francisco Unified School District, and the Sequoia UnionHigh School District: these articles focus on such issues as:educational finance: school integration and busing: legislationiproposals for the 1971 session of the California Legislature:group test results of intelligence and academic achievement:litigation regarding non-English-speaking students in SanFrancisco: the experience of teachers with schooldesegregation: and. the attitudes of parents and students !towards integration. For related documents. see Ed 045 795. UD.011 767. and UD 011 789. (.1M)

36

717E0054273il UD011766

Equal Educational Opportunity: Hearings Before the SelectCommittee on Equal Educational Opportunity of the United StateSSenate, Ninety-First Congress. Second Session on EqualEducational Opportunity. Parts 3E. 4, 5. 6, 7. and 6.

Congress of thR U.S.. Washington. D.C. Senate SelectCommittee on Equal Educational Opportunity.

Publ. Date: 71 Note: 1789p.: Hearings held Sept 24. 1970 toNov 25. 1970, Washington. D.C.

Available from: Superintendent of Documents. U.S. GovernmcntPrinting Office. Washington. D.C. 20402 (Pt. 3E, $0.75: Pt. 4.

S1.00: Pt. 5. $1.75: Pt. 6. S1.25: Pt. 7. 51.25: Pt. 6. 51.25)

Document Not Available from EDRS.Descriptors: Dejure Segregation/ Educational Legislation/

*Educational Resources/ 'Equal Education/ Government Role/

Housing Discrimination/ Mexican Americans/ Minority Groups/

Puerto Ricans/ Racial Balance/ Pesource Allocations/ 'Schoolintegrat.ion/ *Spanish Speaking/ 'Urban SchoolsThe hearings before the Senate Select Committee on Equal

Educational Opportunity concerning *Desegregation under the

law* conclude with Part 3E. which features a discussion of tne

Preyer-Spong Elill. Part 4 is concerned with *Mexican Americaneducation.* Presentations focus on the issues of educational

re3curce5 allocation. including the distribution of ESEA Title

I funds; and the activism among eexican-American students and

parents, including school boycotts. Part 5. "De facto

segregation and housing discrimination. presents evidence

paralleling the housing situations in the Mexican American,

Puerto Rican, and Latino communities. and relating educational

opportunity to residential patterns. Part 6. "Racial imbalance

in uroan schools." records statements on the urban school

crisis and comp-ehensive planning to deal with it: and also on

the problems of implementing school desegregation. Part 7

presents expert testimony ana evigence on "Inequality of

eoucational resources.' Statements center on the impact of

adequate versus inacequate financial support for education, and

relevant public attitudes. Part 6 focuses on the problems of

'Equal educational opportunity for Puerto Rican children." The

public education system of Puerto Rico is contrasted with tne .

urban schools serving mainland Puerto Rican students. Fon'

related documents, see ED 045 795. U0 011 767. and UD 011 789.

(JM)

78E0052877 RCD05478

Equal Educational Opportunity: Hearings before the Select;Committee on Equal Educational Opportunity of the United States:Senate. Ninety-First Congrees, Second Session on Equal .Educational Opportunity. Part 4--Mexican American Education.Congress of the U.S.. Washington. D.C. Senate Select

Committee on Equal Educational Opportunity:Publ. Date: 71 Note: 256p.Available from: Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government

Printing Office. *Washington. D.C. 20402 (S1.00)

Descriptors: Academically Handicapped/ 'Activism/ *BilingualEducation/ Community Involvement/ *Educational Discrimination/Educational Opportunities/ Federal Aid/ *Mexican Americans/Socioeconomic Influences/ Teacher Selection/ Testing

Hearings on Mexican American education, held for 4 days inAugust of 1970 before the Senate Select Corimittee on EqualEducational Opportunity. are recorded in this publication.:Witnesses before the committee included rexican Americaneducators from California arc Texas. Presentations by thesewitnesses emphasized such areas as language and culture.educational levels. bilingual education, integration. Federalfunding, segregation, student militancy. social activism, homeenvironment, public and political attitudes. sct.00l policies.school faculties. coTmurtty ccntrol and invo!vement. V,e GIBill, and educational trackirg. "Spanish-Speaking PupilsClaSsified as Educable Mentally Retarced." a report from theCalifornia State Cebartment of Education. is included in thepublication. (A related document is ED 045 795.) (d6)

37

791:0048367 U0010965Hearings Before the Subcommittee on Education of theCormittee on Labor and Pub'ic Welfare. Ninety-First Congress.Secord Session cn S. 3833 and 4167. dune 9. 24. 30. July 10.and August 11 and 27. 1970. Emergency School Aid Act of 1970.Congress of the U.S.. Washington. D.C. Senate Committee onLabor and Public ik'e7fare.Publ. Date: 70 Ncte: 613p.

Descriptors: Court Litigation/ *Educational Finance/*Educational Problems/ Elementary Schools/ 'Government Role/*Minority Groups/ Political Influerces/ Race Pelations/ *SchoolIntegration/ SeconCary Schools/ Statistical DataThis document is the report of hearings before theSubcommittee on Education of the Committee on Labor and PublicWelfare of the United States Senate. held in June. July. andAugust. 1970. The hearings relate to the Emergency School AidAct of 1970. specifically, Senate Dills 3883 and 4167. Bill3583 sougnt to provide financial assistance to improveeducation in racially impacted areas 'and to assist with)desegregation problems in elementary and secondary schools and'other purposes. Bill 4167 sought to enforce the guarantees ofthe Fourteenth Amendment with respect to elementary and:secondary school desegregation. (OM)

80ED047867# RC005092

An Even Chance: A Report on Federal Funds for Indian Childrenin Public School Districts.NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund. Inc.. New York,N.Y.

Sponsoring Agency:Children's Foundation.

Washington. D.C.Publ. Date: Jan 71 Note: 80p.Available from: NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund.Inc.. 1028 ConneCtiout Avenue. Suite 510. Washington. D.C.10019 (51.00)Document Not Available from EDRS.Descriptors: Achievement/

*Administration/ -American Indians/Attitudes/ Demography/'Educational Finance/

*Equalization Aid/*Federal Aid/ Legislation/ Socioeconomic StatusThe document reports a study of Federalfinancial-assistanceprograms to schools with concentrations of American Indianchildren. The study involved collecting data by interviewingstate and local officials in 60 school

districts in 8 states:interviews were also conducted with Eureau of Indian Affairsand Office of Education officials in Washington. In addition.29 community surveyors interviewed 445 Indian parents whoseadvice and active participation were essential to the'study.The document provides statistical data and discusses instanceswherein school districts are alleged to have misused Federalmonies allocated for use in educating American Indian children.Disrussed are Federal programs specifically designed to aidpublic schools in educating Indian children under funds fromImpact Aid Laws - P.L. 874 and P.L. 81S. the Johnson-O'MalleyAct of 1934. and Title I of the Elementary and Secondary,Education Act cf 1965. A chapter is also devoted to Indian:involverent with public schools. (EL)

38

81E0C4421E RCOC..-1792

Indian Education Program: 1963-1970 Annual Report tc United

States Bureau of Indian Affairs.Poehlman, Charles H.Nevada State Dept. of Education. Carson City.

Publ. Date: Oct 70 Note: 84p.

Descriptors: Ao'ult Programs/ °American Indians/ °Annual .

Reports/ Community Involvement/ Cultural Background/ Cultural

Enrichment/ Drcpcuts/ 'Education/ *Educational Finance/

Educational Television/ Enrichment Activities/ Enrollment/

Evening Classes/ Federal State Relationship/ *Program

Descriptions/ School Community Relationship/ Student Needs/

Teaching GuidesIdentifiers: *NevataA brief history is given of the Johnson-O'Malley Act, which

provides funds for Indian children attending public schools.

and Nevada's plan for distribution of these funds is discussed.

Procedures for determination of state apportionment for Nevada

public schools are included, as are the beneficiaries of the

special fund allocations. Basic objectives for educational

programs and the problems encountered in developing these

Programs are cited. Two programs for Indian children in Nevacia'

are described: (1) the Summer Educational Program for Southern

Paiute Children and (2) The First Ones, an educational

television series for all school children in Nevada. (Lesson

plans and a teacher's guide for the series are included in the

document.) Public Law 89-10 Title I programs serving Indian

children in Nevada are listed, and school district news.

financial reports for 1969-70. enrollment data, and results of

the 5-year dropout survey conclude the report. (LS)

82E0043732 VT011136

Implementing the Vocational Education Amendments of 1968 for

the Disadvantaged or Handicapped. Suggested Utilization ofResources and Guide for Expenditures 1SURGE).Offlce of Education (DHEWI. Washington. D.C. C'v. of

Vocational and Technical Education.Publ. Date: Fet 70 Note: I9p.

Descriptors' *Disadvantaged Groups/ Educational Finance/

Expenditures/ *Federal Legislation/ -Handicapped/ Leadership'

Respprisibility/ 'Program Administration/ Program Development/Services/ -Vocational Education

Identifiers: 'Vocational Education Amendments Of 1968

Based on experiences and recommendations from vocationa!

education programs, this publication contains suggestions forState Department of Vocational Education staff in thein

leadership roles to local educational agencies and in their

relLtionship witn other state institutions in developing

services and programs for the disadvantaged and handicappedunder the Vocational Education Amendments of 1963. Definitions.

characteristics. uses of federal funds, areas to be served.

cooperating persons and organizatfors. and effective servicesand program commcnents are included for both groups. (S8)

83E0037325 24 EADC2315

Implementing Scnool Desegregation: A Bibliography.Elibliograby Series, Number Sixteen.Hall. John S.. Como.Oregon Univ.. Eugene. ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational

Administration.Socnscring Agency: Office of Education (DHEW). Washington.

D.C. Bureau of Research.Bureau No : 8cB-0353Contract No.: 0E0-0-8-080353-3514(010)Puo). Date: Mar 70 Note: 28p.

Descriptors: .Anrotated Bibliographies/ Bibliograbhies; Court

Litigation/ Defacto Seg-egation, Enal Education/ Evaluation/Federal Legislation/ 'Legal Problems! 1.1ethods/ 'Negro Education

/ Racial Balance/ 'School Community Relationship/ *SchoolIntegration/ State Legislation/ Urban Schools

Published mainly betseen 1966 and 183 articles. books.

papens. reports, and bibliograohies related to school

desegregation are listed under four headings. as follows: (1)Legal background. including assessments of court dr islons.

legislation. and administrative rules and regulatiqns; (2)

school-community relations. concerning patterns of interactionamong school officials. desegregation suPporters and opponents.and other interest groups. and the impact of these interactions

on community conflict and cooperation: (3) !mplementation

Problems and tecnniques. defining the feasibility of

alternative desegregation procedures; and (4) evaluation.

referring to the impact of the Cesegregation policy at bothnational and local levels and to future research and evaluationneeds. Several items are annotated. ()

841ED035351 RC004045

Indian Education in hew York State.New York State Education Cept.. Albany.Publ. Date: 69 Note: 20p.

_Descriptors: *Administrative Organization/ 'American Indians/

Attendarce/ 'Educational History/ Enrollment/ 'Expenditures/Legal Responsibility/ School Construction/ School Integration/*State Legislation

Identifiers: *New YorkThe development of Indian education in tne State of New York

is traced starting with the state assuming responsibility for,Indian education in 1846 and ending with the 1968-69 school:year. Initial provisions for Indian ch:ldren ane presented withcost and enrollment figures. Key leglslation is produced. and,the various administrative personnel are nerved as each major,advance is considered. Statistical tables on enrollment. statelexpenditures fcr Inolan eoucatlon. and student aid to Indiaryouth are induced. The report cono:uces with recommendationsregarding the administrative centralization of Indian eclucation'at the state level. (SD)

40

85ED034625 RC003886

Indian Education: A National Tragedy--A National Challenge.

1969 Report of the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare.

United States Senate. Made by Its Special Supcommittee on

Indian Education.Congress of the U.S.. Washington. D.C. Senate Committee on

Labor and Public Welfare.Report No.: R-91-501Publ. Date: 69 Note: 230p.

Descriptors: Administrative Problems/ -American Indians/ Case

Studies (Education)/ Educational Eactiground/ *Educational Needs

/ *Educational Policy/ *Federal Legislation/ Federal Programs/*Investigations/ School ConditionsSenate Resolution 165. 90th Congress. authorized an

investigation into the education of Indian children. Subsequent'

resolutions extended the investigation, the results of which

are Synthesized in this report. Historical discussion of

national policy toward the American Indian. the effects of

Federal legislation, and the failures of Federal schools are

presented. Public school findings ircluded the lack of Indian

participation or control; coursework which rarely recognizedIndian history. culture. or language; and anti-Indian attitudo*.

on the part ca* school administrators and teachers. Feder .

schools were found to be grossly underftnanced. deficient in

academic performance. unsatisfactory in quality andeffectiveness of instruction. seriously deficient in guidance

and counseling programs. and characterized by a rigid and

impersonal environment. Sixty recommendations were made in the

areas of national policy and goals, administration of Indian

education, the future of Federal schools. and the Federal role

in relation to non-Federal schools. Statistical tables are

presented in an appendix. (JH)

86ED033459 EA002568History of Title I ESEA.Office of Education (CHEW). Washington. D.C.Publ. Date: Jun 69 Note: 37p.

_ _

Descriptors: *EdUcational Legislation/ 'EducationallyDisadvantaged/ Federal Aid/ Federal Programs/ Federal StateRelationship/ 'Financial Policy/ Grants/ *Historical Reviews/Low Income Groups/ Program Administration/ Program.Effectiveness/ Program Evaluation/ Project Applications/.*Public Schools/ Resource Allocations

Identifiers: Elementary Secondary Education Act. Title 1The purpose of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act:

Title I is to provide financial assistance to local educationaliagencies serving areas with connentrations of educationallyidisadvantaged children from low-income families. This documentiexplains the administrative structure necessary to implimentTitle I programs on national. State. and local levels and theformula used in determining allocations. Amendments to theoriginal legisiation have broadened the provisions foreligibility and these are listed. The Commissioner of Educationiis responsible fcr determining the annual allocation of Title I.funds to eligible county and State education agencies, altnoughthis law places direct responsibility for administering andimplementing Title I on State education agencies. The localeducation agencies develop and imolement approved projectsicentifying the educationally disaavantaged children and theirspecial needs. Evaluating Title I projects has evolved from theoverlapping surveis of earlier years to a comprehensive andsystematic process that ty 1967. used standardized data. Tneimpact of the Title I operation can be noted in tables thatillustrate the snift of expend'ures away from equipment endconstruction in 1.966 toward mo-e actual instruction andservices in 1967-66. (LN)

4 1