About Southern school news. (Nashville, Tenn.) 1954-1965 | View Entire Issue (Jan. 6, 1955)
PAGE 14—Jan. 6, 1955—SOUTHERN SCHOOL NEWS South Carolina COLUMBIA, S. C. HE beginning of a new year, 1955, finds South Carolina still en meshed in a critical public school problem, stemming out of the Su preme Court’s anti-segregation de cision and complicated by financial problems which face the forthcoming General Assembly. Actually, the new year does not change the existing situation at all, except insofar as it may herald a de tailed Supreme Court decree stipulat ing how the anti-segregation ban is to be implemented. In the South Caro lina (Clarendon County) case pend ing before the Court, the plea is made by Clarendon’s public school officials that the matter be remanded to the local district courts for the issuance of decrees. The brief filed with the Supreme Court makes that position clear. A similar line of thought advanced in the latest brief of the United States attorney general in the matter has drawn generally favorable response within the state. Gov. James F. Bvrnes had this to say on the subject after the Brownell brief had been filed: Our position is that the Supreme Court should remand the case to the District Court, with instructions to write a decree not inconsistent with the May 17 decision. That is the course usually followed by the Supreme Court and there is no reason why it should not be followed in this case. REPORT READIED On the state level, a special com mittee studying the segregation issue has drafted a second interim report on its findings and recommendations. This latest report (an earlier one was made public in late July) will be made to the 1955 General Assembly when the legislative session opens on January 11, and will contain “certain specific preliminary recommenda tions for consideration by the General Assembly during the 1955 session.” NASHVILLE, Tenn. UNDS for public school education rather than public school segrega tion dominated the educational news in Tennessee last month. Not that discussion of the segrega tion issue was totally absent—it was not. But it was, for the most part, confined to comments from only three people—a state senator-elect, a race relations expert, and a Fisk univer sity professor. As in past months, there was no official public comment on what ac tion Tennessee and its 95 counties will take after the U. S. Supreme Court implements its decision of May 17, 1954, rendering public school segregation unconstitutional. The reason for the “All silent on the official front” attitude, according to observers, was the imminence of the next session of the state legisla ture. BIG MONEY PROBLEM Tennessee, like most other states, is faced with a complex educational fi nance problem, and the problem of how the state will meet its needs was receiving the full attention of state school officers. It was reported previously in Southern School News from sources close to Capitol Hill here that the state administration did not want to take any action on the segregation issue lest it place in jeopardy the state’s total educational program. There has been some evidence to substantiate their concern over this matter. State Sen.-elect Charles A. Stainback of Sommerville, Tenn., re stated on Dec. 10 his plan to intro duce a bill in the next legislature to maintain separate schools for Negro and white children. The bill, said Stainback, will em power local school boards to assign pupils to designated schools on an individual basis. “If the bill, incidentally, should preserve segregation in the schools,” Stainback said, “it will be the most beneficial bill ever passed by the Tennessee legislature.” The committee chairman, State Sen. L. Marion Gressette, is releasing no further information concerning the report until the convening of the legislature. His committee comprises five senators, five state representa tives, and five appointees of the gov ernor. Meanwhile, South Carolina’s school equalization and expansion program is steadily moving forward. During December, the Educational Finance Commission authorized additional construction projects totalling $3,500,- 000. This latest increment brings to $124,329,394 the amount of money ap proved for public school construction or improvement in South Carolina since the state launched its equaliza tion and expansion program in 1951. Of that total, more than 60 per cent has been earmarked for Negro schools. These construction funds are provided through bond issues sup ported by a three per cent general sales tax. PROGRESS REVIEWED A review of the accomplishments of that program was presented re- cently in Spartanburg by Gov. Byrnes. His address included the fol lowing summary: “When I became Governor (in 1951), there were approximately 1,200 school districts in the State. Now we have only 103. The one- teacher schools of the rural areas have almost all been abandoned. Since the consolidation program has eliminated 824 inferior schools in rural areas. Of these, 287 were white schools and 537 were Negro schools. “The boys and girls who attended these schools now attend consolidated schools. They have educational op portunities equal to the opportunities afforded the boys and girls of our larger cities. “The consolidation of schools in creased the pupil transportation The bill proposed by Stainback pro vides that no pupil shall attend any school except that to which he has been assigned by the education board of his county, municipality or special school districts. “CONTROL” PROVISION The “control” mechanism of the bill regarding segregation, however, is the broad provision stating that the board “shall take into considera tion the educational needs and wel fare of the child involved, the wel fare and best interests of all the pu pils attending the school . . . and other factors which the board of edu cation may consider pertinent.” Voicing an opinion diametrically opposed to Stainback’s was a nation ally known race relations expert, Dr. Herman Long, director of the Amer ican Missionary Association’s race relations department, with offices at Fisk University. On Dec. 3, speaking to a meeting of the Teachers Benefit Association at Nashville, Long declared the “schools are going to be desegregat ed whether we want it or not.” Long urged the teachers (all Ne groes) to realize that their part in the desegregation movement will not be a personal one, but rather, they will be standing for a number of much broader principles highly val ued by Americans. CRITICAL OF PRESS At the same time, Long sharply criticized the press for “seizing upon occasions to publicize incidents where desegregation has not been too suc cessful,” while “de-emphasizing” incidents where there have been suc cessful efforts to comply with the high court ruling. Long also criticized the press for reporting that a recent survey in Florida revealed sentiment favoring gradual desegregation, while failing to report that the same survey showed the “overwhelming majori ty” of school superintendents and Negro teachers said they thought de problem because consolidation has produced the necessity of transport ing a great number of pupils to and from schools . . . Over the entire state 142,000 pupils were being transported in 1950-51, but this year 241,000 ride to and from school daily. Under the old system it cost an average of $24.77 per year to transport each pu pil. Under the new system the cost is approximately $17 this year. “The number of Negro pupils being transported throughout the State has increased from 29,000 in 1951 to 79,000 in 1954. Substantial equality with the transportation of white pu pils has been attained.. .. “Negro schools have received two- thirds of the funds allocated by the State for buildings. When the build ings already approved for Negro pupils have been constructed their facilities will be substantially equal to those for white pupils. Negro pu pils comprise only 229,000 of the pub lic school enrollment of 525,000. By a simple calculation it will be seen that an average of $147 has been al located for each white pupil and $314 for each Negro pupil under our building program.” December brought public state ments from officials of two organiza tions which stand at odds regarding public school segregation: the South Carolina Farm Bureau Federation and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. Both statements were made in Charleston. Farm Bureau President E. Hugh Agnew, whose organization is tak ing the lead in promoting a “free choice of association” approach to the problem, had this to say before the Charleston Exchange Club: “We must admit that we can no longer have separate schools for Ne groes and whites by law. We must also admit that we can no longer prevent mixed schools for those who want mixed schools but those who wish to attend separate schools should not be denied the right to do so. “If Negroes are to have the right segregation could be accomplished without too much trouble. At the same meeting, a Fisk uni versity sociology professor, Dr. Pres ton Valien, declared that desegrega tion presents an opportunity for the South “to create a society of Negroes without shame on their faces, and whites without guilt in their hearts.” Valien said, “I think the South can meet the challenge.” But the public statements on pub lic school segregation were over shadowed by discussion revolving around financing public school edu cation in Tennessee for the next two years. Like many other states, Tennessee is confronted with a problem not of just enriching the present minimum education program, but of actually maintaining its present standards in the face of a sharply increasing school population. FINANCIAL STATISTICS The state legislature opened Jan. 3. Here is the problem it faces: A report of the state comptroller, Mrs. Jeanne S. Bodfish, released Dec. 23, disclosed that total expenditures for all phases of public education from July 1, 1952 to June 30, 1954, (including the minimum education program, higher education, and spe cial schools) was $155,024,461. This was drawn largely from ap propriations for the biennium, total ling $146,566,076, the difference being made up in expendable receipts, ap propriations transfers, and obligations and reserves of prior years. A special Education Finance Re search Committee established by the 1953 legislature reported that since 1947, there have been 412,621 births in the state, averaging 82,524 a year. As a result, the state department of education projected public school enrollment and average daily attend ance through 1960 as follows: Year Enrollment Average Daily Attendance 1954-55 732.000 661.000 1955-56 753,900 682.000 1956-57 771,000 702,000 1957-58 791,000 718,000 1958-59 810,000 735,000 1959-60 824,000 750,000 of free choice in attending separate or mixed schools if they wish, then even the Supreme Court cannot deny to white people that same free choice of sending their children to separate or mixed schools. “We have long enjoyed, and still enjoy, admirable race relations in South Carolina. There is no denying that we have made extraordinary progress in industrial, agricultural, economic, educational and social ad vancement. To do this dastardly thing of forced integration in public schools would be creating chaotic problems and intense hatreds in many instances and completely dis rupt our era of progress in every field of endeavor. “The farm people of South Caro lina, both white and colored, are bit terly opposed to such a program as the Supreme Court outlines. They earnestly desire both separate schools and a continued relationship of peace and harmony but they are deter mined that this vile thing shall be circumvented. They want neither abolition of public schools nor do they want a shotgun solution to the problem, but if worst must come they are ready for either or both.” LETTER TO NEWSPAPER The NAACP statement came from A. J. Clement Jr., president of the Charleston branch, in the form of a letter to the Editor of The News & Courier. In that letter, he said this: “I think all of us should recognize that there is a hard core of traditional and inherited attitudes in both races that have got to be considered as we face the implications in our Supreme Court ruling that racial segregation is unconstitutional. There are sensibili ties and sensitiveness in both racial groups that of necessity will have to be remodeled and reshaped for the future because of the carry-overs of the past. “No one concerned with this prob lem likes to be identified as being a ‘gradualist’ but we who are realists have got to understand that long es tablished customs and habits, no At a meeting on Dec. 16 with state educational and civic leaders, Gov. Frank G. Clement said that on the basis of projected enrollment figures, 810 new teachers (in addition to re placement needs) will be required in 1955- 56. It is further estimated, he said, that 880 new teachers will be needed in 1956- 57, and annually thereafter un til at least 1960. These calculations, Clement said, indicate that additional teachers alone will require increased educational expenditures of $1,940,000 for 1955-56, and $2,130,000 each year thereafter on the present state teacher’s salary schedule. STATE BURDEN HEAVY In view of the fact that the state provides 58.2 per cent of the revenues available to local school systems, compared to 29.9 per cent in 1939-40, as enrollment and attendance in creases, the state will be called upon to provide ever-increasing funds. In another statistical projection, based on the enrollment and attend ance table cited above, Clement out lined the state’s financial needs through 1960-61 to maintain the mini mum foundation program as follows: Year Estimated Estimated Increase Amount by Years 1955-56 S 76,300,000 $3,600,000 1956-57 S 80,200,000 S3.900.000 1957-58 S 84,500,000 $4,300,000 1958-59 S 89.300,000 $4,800,000 1959-60 S 94,500,000 S5,200,000 1960-61 $100,000,000 $5,500,000 By way of illustration, the estimat ed amount needed in 1960-61 is ap proximately one-third of the state’s total revenue resources in the fiscal year ending June 30, 1954—$293,- 262,000, an all time high. The state legislative council, cre ated by the 1953 legislature to study the needs of the various state de partments, and recommend means to meet these needs, declared in its re port, “We realize that it might be possible to operate the schools, col leges and universities in Tennessee during the next two years on the same budget that they have been op erated on during this biennium. “Such a policy, however, would matter how erroneous or abhorrent, will not be suddenly cast aside. Some individuals are able to adjust them selves to change much quicker than others. My chief concern is that there be no ‘backward steps,’ no ‘marking time.’ “Those who have studied com munities that have accepted the process of desegregation are quick to point out that there has been a period of community education and community preparation among both races for the acceptance of desegre gation and because I believe in the value of this type of preparation and education, I hope very shortly in this state various communities will spon sor interracial councils that can sit down and without emotion but with intelligence seek the solutions to our community problems as all the South moves with determination, poise and undersanding toward the implemen tation of our Supreme Court’s ruling. “These interracial councils meet ing about the state and throughout the South will go a long way in re ducing the need for pressure on the parts of interested persons in liti gating, propagating and disseminat ing the necessary information for an ultimate attitude of understand ing ...” LAWS ANALYZED The latest issue of the University of South Carolina Law Quarterly de votes its lead article to a study of “The Legal Standing of the South’s School Resistance Proposals.” Author of the article is Francis B. Nicholson, a South Carolinian and a graduate of the University Law School, now teaching at the Stetson Law School at St. Petersburg, Fla. Mr. Nicholson discusses in some detail the various types of “evasive action” being pro posed by several Southern states and concludes that they have little chance for legal success. He does suggest, however, that their adoption might serve the useful purpose of buying time for adjustment to the changed situation. mean that classrooms would be even more crowded than they are at the present time,” the report stated, “that the state would not be making progress or holding its own, but would, in fact, be losing ground in its long and earnest effort to raise the standard of schools in Tennessee.” As a result of its study, the coun cil made the following appropriation recommendations for the years 1955- 56 and 1956-57, exclusive of funds for college and universities: Recommended Year Appropriation 1955- 56 $75 550.399 1956- 57 $78,366,459 How the state will raise even the minimum funds officials declare are necessary is an unanswerable ques tion, and one that will be answered in the political arena of the legisla ture. The one concrete—and politically volatile—proposal offered so far is to increase the present two per cent sales tax to three per cent. The strongest force supporting this proposal is the Tennessee Education Association, regarded as one of the most powerful lobbying organizations in the state. The TEA has a membership of ap proximately 21,300 white teachers in the state. Its administrative council has strongly endorsed the proposal, declaring that adding one cent to the present two cents-on-the-dollar tax will raise an estimated additional $25,000,000 a year—or $50,000,000 for the next biennium. Gov. Clement had not officially commented on the proposal, but a source close to the governor was re ported as saying Clement opposed the increase. Dr. Quill E. Cope, state commis sioner of education, has not released the specific sum to be requested from the legislature to operate the educa tional establishment for the next two years. According to The Nashville Ten nessean, however, it was reported Cope will request the legislature f° r $177,009,133. Tennessee
