Newspaper Page Text
SOUTHERN SCHOOL NEWS—DECEMBER 1955—PAGE 3
Virginia Legislature Meets to Act on Segregation Plans
RICHMOND, Va.
rpHE Virginia General Assembly
convened in special session Nov.
30 to lay the groundwork for a pro
gram designed to prevent enforced
integration in the public schools of
this state.
Gov. Thomas B. Stanley had called
the legislators together for the sole
purpose of getting them to authorize
a statewide referendum on a proposal
that a constitutional convention be
held to amend Sec. 141 of the Virginia
constitution.
That section, as interpreted by the
Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals
last month, prohibits the use of pub
lic funds as tuition grants to students
attending private schools.
The proposed change — recom
mended by the state’s official segre
gation study commission—would per
mit the use of public funds as tui
tion grants to children attending
any nonsectarian school, public or
private.
KEY FACTOR
Under the segregation study com
mission’s plan, such grants would be
a key factor in the overall program
to prevent enforced integration. They
would help make it possible for local
ities to operate segregated private
schools as an alternative to inte
grated public schools.
If the proposed change in the con
stitution is made, then the next step
in the commission’s program will be
the enactment of laws by the General
Assembly to give the localities broad
powers to operate their school sys
tems as they see fit, including the
power to assign pupils to different
schools for a wide variety of reasons,
except that of race.
The board of directors of the De
fenders of State Sovereignty and In
dividual Liberties called on the Gen
eral Assembly to adopt a resolution
of interposition on the school segre
gation issue.
The Defenders, who claim a mem
bership of about 8,000 in Virginia,
urged the state legislature to declare
the Supreme Court’s opinion an un
constitutional usurpation of power
and to assert that the court’s orders
relating to school segregation “are as
a matter of right, null, void and of no
effect.”
Under the plan proposed by the
Defenders, the Virginia assembly
would call upon “our sister states to
join with us in interposing the
sovereign rights of the states and pre
serving the republican form of gov
ernment we have heretofore en
joyed.”
The official blueprint for changing
!rginia s school policies to prevent
enorced integration was presented
0 Gov. Stanley in a unanimous re-
Pprt from the 32 members of the
eneral Assembly who comprise the
lr ginia Commission on Public Edu
cation.
The commission had withheld mak-
g its report until the State Supreme
°urt had ruled in the test case of
• indsay Almond Jr., Attorney
general of Virginia, v. Sidney C. Day,
comptroller of Virginia.
tim^v Case * nv °l ve d the constitu-
s aa °f a law under which, for
u ? ^ years, state funds had been
Ph >>°- r tbe e< f u °ation of “war or-
1; ans iu various colleges, some pub-
®ud some private.
such 6 States fdgh court held that
Priv ? ayments to students attending
0 f g® e m stitutions were in violation
ec. 141 of th e s t a te constitution.
st U( j Ls r uling led the segregation
the p comm ission (commonly called
in an £ ay Commission, after Chair-
that ar ar *d Gray) to recommend
chain f governor set in motion the
Sec -141 6Vents necessary to amend
r pl .
he rr, 6 j^ ea * s that public funds would
childr 6 available either: (!) To all
down e . n m a locality choosing to shut
child ‘ r Public schools, or (2) To any
ti°n in °f e Pare lts rejected integra-
hUetn-a+j Cabtj choosing to operate
seated schools.
The other major device to prevent
enforced integration would be a pu
pil assignment plan to “permit local
school boards to assign their pupils
in such manner as will best serve
the welfare of their communities and
protect and foster the public schools
under their jurisdiction.”
“Assignments,” the commission
continued, “would be based upon the
welfare of the particular child as well
as the welfare and best interests of
all other pupils attending a particu
lar school. The school board should
be authorized to take into consider
ation such factors as availability of
facilities, health, aptitude of the child
and the availability of transporta
tion.”
Another basic point in the overall
program would be an amendment to
the present compulsory attendance
law, to provide that no child could
be required to attend an integrated
school.
While the commission’s report was
signed by all 32 members, two filed
brief supplementary statements say
ing that the report didn’t go far
enough, and that they favored “fur
ther safeguards of the fundamental
rights of the people . .
Gov. Thomas B. Stanley of Virgina (left) is shown here receiving from
state Sen. Garland Gray the report of the Virginia Commission on Public
Education.
tution directly affects payments of
public funds made for the education
of orphans of Virginians who were
killed in action or who were totally
The State Supreme Court ruling disabled as a result of military serv-
involving Sec. 141 of the state consti- ice.
S Special HJexl
12 Recommendations Made By Gray
FOLLOWING is a partial text of the
Gray Commission’s recommenda
tions:
There has heretofore been pending
before the Supreme Court of Appeals
of Virginia the case of Almond v.
Day, in which the court had before
it . . . the question of whether the
legislature could validly appropriate
funds for the education of war or
phans at public and private schools.
On Nov. 7, 1955, the court . . . held,
among other things, that Section 141
of the Constitution of Virginia pro
hibited the appropriation of public
funds for payments of tuition, insti
tutional fees and other expenses of
students who may desire to attend
private schools.
If our children are to be educated
and if enforced integration is to be
avoided, it is now clear that Section
141 must be amended. . . .
Accordingly, it is recommended
that a special session of the General
Assembly be called forthwith for the
purpose of initiating a limited con
stitutional convention so that Section
141 may be amended in ample time
to make tuition grants and other edu
cational payments available in the
current school year and the school
year beginning in the Fall of 1956
Contingent upon the favorable ac
tion of the people relative to the
amendment of the Constitution here
in proposed, your commission rec
ommends the enactment of legisla
tion in substance as follows:
1. That school boards be author
ized to assign pupils to particular
schools and to provide for appeals in
certain instances.
. . . Assignments would be based
upon the welfare of the particular
child as well as the welfare and best
interests of all other pupils attending
a particular school. The school board
should be authorized to take into
consideration such factors as avail
ability of facilities, health, aptitude
of the child and the availability of
transportation. . . .
Any parent, guardian or other per
son having custody of a child who
objects to the assignment of his child
to a particular school.. . should have
the right to make application within
15 days after the giving of the notice
of the particular assignment to the lo
cal school board for a review of its
action. . . .After the application is
received by the local school board a
hearing would be held within 45 days
and, after hearing evidence, the
school board would determine to
what school the child should be as
signed.
An appeal, if taken, should be per
mitted from the final order of the
school board within 15 days. The ap
peal would be to the circuit or cor
poration court. ... If either party
be aggrieved by the order of the
court, an appeal should be permitted
to the Supreme Court of Appeals of
Virginia.
2. That no child be required to at
tend an integrated school.
3. That the sections of the Code
relating to the powers and duties of
school boards relative to transporta
tion of pupils be amended so as to
provide that school boards may fur
nish transportation for pupils.
... It is felt that it should be made
perfectly clear that no county school
board be required to furnish trans
portation to school children.
4. That changes be made in the law
relating to the assignment of teach
ers.
Local school boards should be
vested with the authority to employ
teachers and assign them to a par
ticular school. The division superin
tendent should be permitted to assign
a particular teacher to a particular
position in the school, but not to
assign the teacher to a school differ
ent from that to which such teacher
was assigned by the local school
board without the consent of such
board.
5. That localities be authorized to
raise sums of money by a tax on
property, subject to local taxation,
to be expended by local school au
thorities for educational purposes
including cost of transportation and
to receive and expend state aid for
the same purposes.
Those localities wherein no public
schools are operated should be au
thorized to provide for an educational
levy or a cash appropriation in lieu
of such levy. . . . limited in the same
manner as school levies or school ap
propriations are limited.
The procedure to be followed . . .
for obtaining these educational funds
would be the same as prescribed by
law for the raising of funds for pub
lic school purposes. The educational
funds so raised would be expended
by the local school board for the pay
ment of tuition grants for elementary
or secondary school education and
could, in the discretion of the board,
be expended for transportation costs
. . . under their own rules and regu
lations.
Localities should be granted and
allocated their share of state funds
upon certifying that such funds
would be expended for tuition grants.
6. That school budgets he required
to include amounts sufficient for the
payment of tuition grants and trans
portation costs under certain circum
stances; that local governing bodies
be authorized to raise money for such
purposes; that provision be made for
the expenditure of such funds; and
that the State Board of Education be
empowered to waive certain condi
tions in the distribution of state
funds.
This would be companion legisla
tion to that dealing with the assign
ment of pupils and compulsory ed
ucation. . . . Without such a meas
ure, enforced integration could not
be effectively avoided since many
parents would then be required to
choose integrated schools as the only
alternative to the illiteracy of their
children.
The division superintendent of the
schools of every county, city or town
wherein public schools are operated
should be required to include in his
estimate of the school budget an
amount of money to be expended as
tuition grants for elementary and sec
ondary school education. The local
ity would be authorized to include in
its school levy or cash appropriation
an amount necessary for such tuition
grants.
The educational funds so raised
would be expended in payment of
tuition grants for elementary or sec
ondary school education to the par-
ents, guardians or other persons hav
ing custody of children who have
been assigned to public schools
wherein both white and colored chil
dren are enrolled, provided such par
ents, guardians or other persons hav
ing custody of such children certify
that they object to such assignment.
Each grant should be in the amount
necessary for the education of the
child, provided, however, that in no
event would such grant exceed the
total cost of operation per pupil in
average daily attendance in the pub
lic schools for the locality making
such grant as determined for the pre
ceding school year by the superinten
dent of public instruction.
Provision should be made for the
payment of transportation costs in
the discretion of the board to those
who qualify for tuition grants.
No locality that expends funds for
tuition grants should be penalized in
the distribution of state funds. Any
person who expends tuition grants
for any purpose other than for the
education of his child should be
amenable to prosecution.
7. That provision be made for the
reimbursement by the state of one-
half of any additional costs which
may be incurred by certain localities
in payment of tuition grants required
by law. . . .
8. That local school boards be au
thorized to expend funds designed for
public school purposes for such tui
tion grants as may be permitted by
law without first obtaining authority
therefor from the tax levying body.
Local school boards should be au
thorized to transfer school funds, ex
cluding those for capital outlay and
debt service, within the total amount
of their budget and to expend such
funds for tuition grants, in order to
give the local boards more flexibility
to meet the requirements of the tui
tion grant program.
9. That the employment of counsel
by local school boards be authorized
to defend the actions of their mem-
During the current year there are
27 students receiving such grants, but
21 of these are enrolled at state-sup
ported institutions, so there is no
question of the legality of the pay
ments in their cases. The six others
are enrolled in private schools, and
further payments to them (unless
the constitution is amended) will be
prohibited.
The ruling apparently also wipes
out completely the program operat
ing under Virginia’s Graduate Aid
Fund—from which 580 Virginia Ne
groes last year received $149,000 to
help pay the cost of graduate study
at out-of-state colleges.
It does not affect students attend
ing institutions receiving state mon
ey through the Board of Control, for
Southern Regional Education. This is
the program under which Southern
states pool their higher educational
resources so that a state lacking a
certain type of institution may send
its young people to such a school in
another state. This regional coopera
tive arrangement is specifically per
mitted under an amendment to the
Virginia Constitution adopted in 1952.
Other developments in Virginia
(See VIRGINIA, Page 15)
Commission
bers and that the payment of costs,
expenses and liabilities levied against
them be made by the local governing
bodies out of the county or city treas
ury as the case may be . . .
10. That the Virginia Supplemental
Retirement Act be broadened to pro
vide for the retirement of certain pri
vate school teachers.
The Virginia Supplemental Retire
ment Act should be broadened to pro
vide for the retirement of school
teachers if such teachers be employed
by a corporation organized for the
purpose of operating a private school
after the effective date of the enact
ment of legislation recommended by
this report.
The purpose of this is to protect
the retirement of status of those pub
lic school teachers who may hereafter
desire to teach in private schools that
are established because of the de
cision in the school segregation
cases. ...
11. That the office of the attorney-
general should be authorized to ren
der certain services to local school
boards.
The attorney-general should be
authorized when requested to do so
by a local school board, to give such
advice and render such legal assist
ance as he deems necessary upon
questions relating to the commingling
of the races in the public schools. . . .
12. That those sections of the Code
relating to the minimum school term,
appeals from actions of school boards,
state funds which are paid for public
schools to counties, school levies and
use thereof, cash appropriations in
lieu of school levies, and unexpended
school funds, be amended; and that
certain obsolete sections of the Code
be repealed.
Local school boards should be au
thorized, but not required to main
tain public schools for a period of at
least nine months. A locality may be
confronted with an emergency sit
uation.
The present procedure governinf
appeals from actions of school boards
should be clarified so that it will not
conflict with appeals in assignment
cases. ...
The requirement for minimum
school levies or cash appropriations
in lieu thereof should be eliminated
and levies or cash appropriation for
educational purposes authorized.
The procedure for the reversion of
unexpended school funds should be
broadened so as to make it apply to
appropriations for educational pur
poses.
The section of the Code requiring
segregated schools has been rendered
void by the Supreme Court of the
United States and should be repealed.
The section of the Code requiring
cities to maintain a system of public
schools should be repealed since it
duplicates another provision of the
Code.