Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

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)