Administration of Title III of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 V. 092686

About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

table,div,span,font,p{display:none}Please click here if you are not redirected within a few seconds.

092686 1 (1969-09-29)

handle is hein.gao/gaobacwoa0001 and id is 1 raw text is:

UNITED STATES GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20548

CIVIL DIVISION SEP 29 1969

Dear Dr. Allen:

As part of our review of activities carried out under title III of
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965, we examined
into the manner in which the Office of Education (OE), Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW) was administering certain aspects
of this program.

The title III program, which is referied to as Projects to Advance
Creativity in Education (PACE) is intended to support vitally needed
supplementary services and to encourage innovative and exemplary appli-
cations of new knowledge in schools throughout the nation.

We reviewed 21 separate PACE projects at 10 local educational agen-
cies (LEA) in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. OE made 43 grant awards
under title III of ESEA totaling about $2.5 million to these 10 LEAs over
a four-year period ending with the 1968 to 1969 school year. Our review
of grants awarded for the 1968 to 1969 school year related mainly to trans-
actions recorded through December 1968. While the administration of the
projects appeared to be generally in line with the OE guidelines, the
following matters were noted which we believe warrant your attention.

NEED FOR MORE COMPLETE DOCUMENTATION OF
RESULTS OF WORK PERFORMED BY CONSULTANTS

Our review of grants awarded to the LEAs under title III, ESEA,
showed that when grantees hired consultants, they generally did not
receive written reports regarding the consultation services furnished
and were not otherwise required to document the results of consultations
furnished. At 10 LEAs in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, we found,
that a total of 241 consultants had been hired with grant funds ata
total cost of about $78,700, and that only 32 consultants had submitted
reports or other adequate documentation relating to their consultations.

One of the major purposes of title IIT, ESEAis to stimulate and
assist in the development and establishment of exemplary elementary and
secondary school educational programs to serve as models for regular
school programs. Therefore, it would appear that documentation of the
results of consultations should be included in the grantees' records so

mmm 9Iwc 7