Newspaper Page Text
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