Newspaper Page Text
kS-L.
■*£> /
f 7 n 7
.7
Factual
Southern School News
Objective
VOL. II. NO. 9
NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE
MARCH, 1965
Status of Compliance
Unofficial figures collected by Southern School News
through March 5, 1965
Local School Districts
State
Board
W/Negroes
Deseg.
Agree
Refuse
Signed
Total
& Whites
1964-5
To Comply To Comply
Ala.
No 1
118
118
8
106
1
Ark.
Yes
412
228
24
125*
Fla.
Yes
67
67
23
53
Ga.
Yes
196
180
14
190
La-
No 2
67
63
3
4
2
Miss.
Yes 2
150
150
4
22
1
N.C.
Yes
171
171
85
—■*
s.c.
Yes
108
108
17
42
Tenn.
Yes
152
141
66
152
Tex.
Yes
1,380
862
398
1,250*
Va.
Yes
130
128
81
70
SOUTH
2,951
2,216
723
2,014
4
Del.
Yes
78
43
43
59
1
Ky-
Yes
204
165
164
100*
Md.
Yes
24
23
23
23*
Mo.
Yes
1,096
212*
203*
1,096
Okla.
Yes
1,114
242
200
806
W. Va.
No*
55
44
44
55
BORDER
2,571
729
677
2,139
1
■
-
■ ■ —
—
REGION
5,522
2,945
1,400
4,153
5
1 State Board refused, state superintendent of schools signed for it.
* State Board refused to sign.
* State Board rewrote and signed statement; HEW said it would not be acceptable.
4 State Board decided its nominal control over individual districts did not require it to
sign a statement.
* State said no count or estimate available. ‘Estimated.
ALABAMA
Board Withholds Pledge;
Superintendent Signs
MONTGOMERY
T he Alabama State Board of
Education announced on
' March 2 that it would not sign
the “Statement of Compliance”
required by the U.S. Department
of Health, Education and Welfare.
Alabama School Supt. Austin R.
Meadows said March 5 he had signed
the pledge to prevent loss of federal
aid to schools. Meadows said he signed
the form as a constitutional officer of
the state. On March 2, he had voted
with the State Board of Education to
withhold action pending a court test.
_ Meadows revealed that as of March
i A 106 county and city school systems
I ® Alabama had agreed to comply,
j Among the local systems signing was
Barbour County, home county of Gov.
George C. Wallace, who has urged all
Alabama school systems not to sign
ihe form until it had been tested in
*he courts. Only Bessemer County an-
| “ounced it would refuse to sign and
arranged to file a suit on the matter.
Meadows said the Alabama constitu-
Uori empowers him to negotiate all
school financial contracts except those
involving exchange of land. The
superintendent said he had no inten
tion of bucking Gov. Wallace or the
state board in their decision not to
comply with the federal regulation.
Meadows said his independent action
in signing the compliance form re
lieved both the governor and the state
board from actions which might threat
en them under a federal court order
last July.
“The governor and the State Board
of Education are under a federal court
order to employ the state’s financial
powers to desegregate all school sys
tems,” Meadows said. “In signing this
agreement, I am relieving the execu
tive branch of that pressure.”
After its unanimous decision to re
fuse to sign, the state board said it
wanted further clarification of the
HEW regulations. The board said, “We
do not condone disobedience to any
law.”
Following is a tabulation as of noon
March 4 of 106 school systems agreeing
to compliance:
(See STATE BOARD, Page 2)
THE REGION
At Least 68 Per Cent of Systems
In South Indicate Compliance
A t least 68 per cent of the
South’s public school districts
have indicated compliance with
the new nondiscrimination regu
lations issued by the U.S. Depart
ment of Health, Education and
Welfare under the Civil Rights,
Act of 1964.
Unofficial figures compiled by the
correspondents and staff of Southern
School News showed that, through the
first week of March, officials of 2,014
of the 2,951 districts in the 11-state
area—had agreed to comply. Four
district boards had stated specifically
that they would not comply.
Local school districts may comply
in one of three ways: (1) sign an
“Assurance of Compliance” statement,
(2) provide a plan for voluntary de
segregation, or (3) submit a copy of
a court-ordered desegregation plan
that is being followed.
Eight Southern state boards of edu
cation have signed the “Statements of
Compliance” necessary for the con
tinued receipt of federal funds for
education. Mississippi’s board modified
the statement it approved, and HEW
officials in Washington indicated this
would be unacceptable.
Alabama’s state school board decided
unanimously that it would refuse to
sign, but three days later State Supt.
of Schools Austin R. Meadows an
nounced he had signed the statement
to prevent the loss of federal funds.
In This Issue
Monthly Reports
Alabama 1
Arkansas 14
Florida 8
Georgia 4
Louisiana 3
Mississippi 1
North Carolina 5
South Carolina 12
Tennessee 1
Texas 7
Virginia 9
Washington 1
Special Articles
The Region 1
Books and the Issue 15
Border States 16
Text
Shaping Educational Policy 13
MISSISSIPPI
Board Adopts Modified Agreement
JACKSON
'Phe State Board of Education
1 Feb. 24 its own
| reified version of a federal di-
j ^ ve authorizing it to disburse
®~ era l funds to districts that
I to desegregate their schools.
State Board . . . emphasizes the
^^that in submitting a compliance
! feted nien * : that we have specifically
of y? that we recognize the principle
by ° Unt “y segregation as pronounced
' and 6 Suited States Supreme Court
hnj” lany °ther courts throughout the
- ■ the board said in a prepared
T«nent.
1 Hie T /3S the only indication that
yytation form had been revised.
Hw ar< t said the compliance agree-
^as forwarded to the U.S. De-
' ^elf a ent °t Health, Education and
«. e ’ w hich can either accept or re-
^the pledge.
Hor y State Board has taken this ac-
av ail = ki° rder that funds may be made
bibutj 6 ^ th e State Board for dis-
those local schools and
Sortie f 0 t“ at ma M see fit to enter into
rj frj er j 1771 , °t compliance agreement in
, Sd s » ° be ehgible to receive such
A ’ the statement said.
PATTERSON LADNER
The board is composed of State Supt.
of Schools Jack Tubb, Attorney General
Joe T. Patterson and Secretary of State
Heber Ladner.
New Federal Law
The new federal law requires Mis
sissippi schools to agree to desegregate
as a prerequisite to receiving continued
federal funds. That compliance must
come before they submit their operat
ing budgets for the 1965-66 school year.
Tubb said on March 2 that most local
school boards are expected to decide
by April 15, whether they will comply.
“Actually,” Tubb said, “local boards
can comply at any time, but they will
need to comply by that date for their
own planning purposes.”
Tubb explained that local districts
must submit a tentative budget for next
year to the state board by April 15 and
a final budget by July 15.
The state board had until March 4
to sign a compliance pledge authorizing
it to disburse federal monies to schools
which qualify.
Eighteen Mississippi school districts
have announced they will either sign
a compliance agreement or submit de
segregation plans. The Wilkinson Coun
ty Board of Education said on Feb. 6
it would not sign the required pledge.
“The State Board of Education de
sires that it be distinctly understood
that this board in signing and submit
ting a compliance agreement does not
commit or obligate any local school
board to enter into any form of agree
ment that it does not voluntarily desire
to enter into,” the statement said, add
ing:
“This action is taken for the sole
purpose of making available federal
funds to local boards that sign a com
pliance agreement . . .
“It is necessary that the State Board
of Education submit its proposed com-
(See STATE EDUCATION, Page 10)
Louisiana’s State Board of Education
announced it would not sign a com
pliance statement, but said that the
individual districts and programs under
its jurisdiction could sign on their own.
Incomplete figures and misunder
standings about the interpretation of
the new HEW regulations made it im
possible to determine the full extent
of compliance and the effect it would
have on school desegregation. Several
states reported additional applications
were in the mail or had been prom
ised. In some instances the states
reported the number of districts in
compliance but did not identify them
by name. Already 723 public school
districts in the South were desegre
gated by practice or policy in the
current school year.
(The U. S. Office of Education in
Washington, on March 3, reported it
had received compliance agreements
from 1,132 districts in four Southern
states. See Washington Report in this
issue for those official figures.)
The money at stake for the 11
Southern states amounted to $372.6
million under educational aid programs
approved for the fiscal year beginning
July 1, 1965. Another $503.7 million
would become available for the former
Confederate states under proposed aid
programs for elementary and secondary
schools and higher education.
Tennessee was the first Southern
state to report every district agreeing
to comply with the terms of the 1964
rights act. All 152 districts have sub
mitted “Assurances of Compliance”
(the HEW 441 form), agreed to a vol
untary desegregation plan, or submit
ted a court-ordered desegregation plan
being followed by the district.
Substantial Acceptance
Six other Southern states reported
district acceptance on a large scale.
Alabama listed 106 of its 118 school
districts, Florida 53 of 67, Georgia 190
of 196, and Texas 1,250 of 1,380.
Arkansas reported at the end of
February it had received agreements
from an estimated 125 districts, and
State Education Commissioner A. W.
Ford said he expected 350 of the state’s
412 districts to comply this year.
The other states reporting districts
in compliance, and their total number
(See SURVEY, Page 13)
WASHINGTON REPORT
Office Reports Pledges
By One-Third of Districts
WASHINGTON
M ore than one-third of the
estimated 3,000 local school
districts in the 11 Southern states
filed assurances of nondiscrimina
tion in compliance with Title VI
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by
March 3, the U.S. Office of Edu
cation reported.
(The Region story and some state
reports in this issue include figures
available after March 3.)
Signed assurance forms were re
ceived from 1,132 districts in four
Southern states—941 from Texas, 89
from Arkansas, 60 from Georgia and
42 from Virginia.
Another 1,635 assurance forms came
from school districts in the six-state
border region—931 from Oklahoma,
564 from Missouri, 78 from Kentucky*
60 from Delaware and two from Mary
land. The border states have an esti
mated total of 3,100 school districts.
In the entire nation, 6,775 school dis
tricts out of approximately 27,000 filed
assurances of nondiscrimination by
March 3, the Office of Education said.
Regulations for the enforcement of
Title VI, which bars federal financial
assistance to segregated agencies or
activities, were published by the De
partment of Health, Education and
Welfare on Jan. 3. The agency called
for compliance reports by state de
partments within 60 days, but did not
specify a deadline for individual school
districts.
Officials of the Office of Education
stressed, however, that the end of the
60-day period was a “target date” and
not an absolute deadline. The officials
said efforts to obtain voluntary com
pliance with the act will continue, and
no action to withhold federal funds is
imminent.
Voluntary Plans
In addition to the districts filing as
surances of nondiscrimination, 246 dis
tricts which still have some segregated
schools filed voluntary desegregation
plans which they hope will meet the
requirements of Title VI. The Office
of Education issued this state-by-state
breakdown of voluntary desegregation
plans:
Texas, 181; Florida, 21; Georgia, 9;
Arkansas, 8; South Carolina, 8; Mis
souri, 7; Virginia, 4; Kentucky, 3; Mis
sissippi, 2; Alabama, Oklahoma,
Tennessee and West Virginia, 1 each.
Thirty-nine school districts in eight
states submitted court-ordered desegre
gation plans in an attempt to meet the
requirements of Title VI. They were
listed as:
Texas, 15; Florida, 8; Geo-gia, 5;
South Carolina, 3; Virginia, 3;
Arkansas, 2; Kentucky, 2, and Ala
bama, 1.
Government officials said the court-
ordered and voluntary desegregation
plans, as well as the assurances of full
compliance with the Civil Rights Act,
would be checked to ascertain whether
they actually reflect equitable policies
and practices of desegregation.
In addition to the compliance efforts
by local school districts, 23 state de
partments of education filed by March
3 statements of nondiscrimination in
all federally assisted programs and
activities, the Office of Education re
ported. These included five Southern
and border states—Delaware, Ken
tucky, Maryland, Missouri and Mis
sissippi.
However, Mississippi officials re
worded the standard compliance form
to stipulate that the state would not
insist on desegregation of local school
districts receiving federal funds
(See U. S., Page 16)
TENNESSEE
All Districts
In State Meet
Pledge Terms
NASHVILLE
A ll of Tennessee’s 152 public
school districts have pledged
compliance with the Civil Rights
Act of 1964.
State Education Commissioner J.
Howard Warf made the announcement
on Feb. 26, nearly a week ahead of the
March 4 deadline, as Tennessee became
the first Southern state to report that
all of its public school districts had
met requirements of the federal act.
“In view of the fact that several
states have been having difficulty with
the problem of desegregation of then-
public schools,” Warf said, “I am
pleased that the boards of education
in all school systems in the state have
seen fit to comply with the provisions
of the Civil Rights Act rather than to
lose federal funds.”
Warf said he was notifying the U.S.
Department of Health, Education and
Welfare of the action by the local
boards of education and said he would
transmit to federal officials the Assur-
(See EVERY, Page 6)