he would be in racial minority, and (1) he is to be assigned to a school where he would be in a racial majority, or (2) the school system proposes not to process his choice for any reason, the relevant facts must be reported promptly to the Commissioner. (c) Transfers for Special Needs. Wherever a student is permitted, under §§ 181.48 or 181.50 above, to attend a school other than the school to which he is or would be assigned under the other applicable provisions hereof, and whenever a request for such attendance is denied, the school system must retain records showing (1) the school and grade applied for, (2) the school and grade to be transferred from, (3) the race, color, or national origin of the student, (4) the reason stated for the request, and (5) the reason the request is granted or denied. Whenever the total number of transfers permitted from any school exceeds two percent of the student enrollment at that school, the relevant facts must be reported promptly to the Commissioner. [§§ 181.56 through 181.60 reserved] SUBPART E-MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS § 181.61 How To Submit Reports Each report to the Commissioner required under this Statement of Policies must be sent by first class mail addressed to the Equal Educational Opportunities Program, U.S. Office of Education, Washington, D.C., 20202. § 181.62 Alternative Administrative Procedures If an administrative procedure provided for under this Statement of Policies is not administratively feasible in a particular situation, the Commissioner may accept an alternative procedure if he determines that it will accomplish the same purpose. § 181.63 Revision of Statement of Policies The Commissioner may modify this Statement of Policies as may be necessary to accomplish the purposes of Title VI. § 181.64 Copies of Documents for State Agencies Each school system submitting any plan form or report to the Commissioner under this Statement of Policies must also submit a copy of such form or report to the appropriate State education agency. § 181.65 Definitions As used in this part, (a) The term "Commissioner" means the U.S. Commissioner of Education or any official acting under assignment or delegation from him to carry out any of his functions under this Statement of Policies. (b) The term "discrimination" means discrimination on the ground of race, color, or national origin. (c) The term "dual school structure" means a system of separate school facilities for students based on race, color, or national origin. (d) The term "HEW Form 441" means the printed document provided for the use of certain school systems by the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, entitled "Assurance of Compliance with the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare Regulation under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964." (e) The term "HEW Form 441-B" means the printed document provided for the use of certain school systems by the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare entitled "Assurance of Compliance with the Revised Statement of Policies for School Desegregation Plans Under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964." (f) The term "HEW Regulation" means the Regulation issued pursuant to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (Part 80, of Title 45, Code of Federal Regulations). (g) The term "parent" means an adult individual who exercises parental control over, or is otherwise acting as parent of, a student or prospective student. (h) The term "school official" shall include, but is not limited to, any person who serves on the governing board of a school system, or attends meetings of such board in an official capacity, and all administrative and supervisory personnel of a school system. (i) The term "school system" means, as the context may require, either (1) a legally constituted school authority (such as a local board of education) which has administrative control of one or more elementary or secondary schools, (2) the geographic area over which any such school authority has administrative control for school purposes, or (3) the schools and facilities over which any such school authority has administrative control. (j) The term "Statement of Policies" means this Revised Statement of Policies for School Desegregation Plans under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. (k) The term "Title VI" means Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (PL 88-352, 42 USC 2000d to 2000d-4). [§§ 181.66 to 181.70 reserved] Mr. LIBASSI. On both of these issues the Department has been advised by its General Counsel and by the Department of Justice that the policies of the Office of Education are fully consistent with and supported by title VI of the Civil Rights Act and the decisions of the Federal court. In essence the policies of the Department permit a district to initiate the desegregation of its schools by offering the children a choice of schools. The method of student assignment which has been traditional in most parts of the country has been assigning children to neighborhood schools on the basis of geographic attendance zones. This method takes no account of the preference of the student and may well result in his assignment to a school against his expressed wish. The assignment of students to a particular school on the basis of the student's choice has in the main been an innovation adopted in connection with the desegregation of schools that have previously been segregated on the basis of race. It has been accepted as a permissible means of desegregation but courts have made it clear that it can be used only if it is effective in abolishing the racial dual school system. Where community hostilities or other pressure preclude a truly free choice, then some other method must be used in converting to a nonracial system. In some it has been the system of this Department that the free choice is permissible as a method of desegregation only if it is effective in eliminating the dual system based on race. If it is not effective than an alternative method of assigning children to particular schools not based on the choice of the students or their parents must be adopted. With respect to faculty the Department of Justice has advised that title VI not only permits the Department to require faculty desegregaion but obliges the Department to do so as a condition for the continued receipt of Federal funds. The position of the Department is consistent with the rulings of the Federal court including the Supreme Court. Furthermore, every effort has been made to assure that these policies are administered fairly and objectively. School districts are scheduled for review based on a district's own report of the extent of actual student and faculty desegregation. In August of 1966 the Commissioner notified the State education agencies that it would be the policy of the Office to review the districts with the poorest performance first. Approximately 250 schools were— school districts were in this category. At the same time the Commis sioner stated that another 400 districts that had made progress would be scheduled for review during the school year. These 400 districts were urged to take steps on their own to improve the extent of student and faculty desegregation. The largest number of districts between 700 and 800 were notified that their performance was adequate and no review of their plans would be undertaken. The committee should know that generally the 250 school districts that were first reviewed, those with the poorest performance, had no student desegregation or less than 2 percent of the Negro students in formerly white schools and no faculty desegregation. In addition many districts had denied choices of the Negro students to attend the white schools, they had discouraged Negro students from choosing a white school, parents had been intimidated, the school district had failed to make efforts to prepare the community for desegregation and had not followed the guideline vital to its success. Recently the Department administrative hearings parents testified of night riders shooting into their homes, that insurance on their homes was canceled for no apparent reason after they enrolled in white schools and their children as well as themselves had been harrassed and threatened. They spoke of losing their jobs, their credit, and sometimes their homes when they chose a white school. The transcript of these hearings gives a more vivid picture of community attitudes than anything I might say. During field review where progress is not sufficient to carry out the efforts of title VI, renewed efforts, voluntary efforts, implicit in this duty, in this responsibility is a duty to make suggestions and recommendations to school districts of steps that they might take in order to proceed with school desegregation and the effort is made to tailor the suggestions and recommendations to meet the problems of each particular district. For example, where a district must bus its white or Negro students on the basis of their work to a neighboring school district to be educated, it would be recommended that this practice cease and all the children be educated in their home district. The courts have required districts to take such action even prior to the Supreme Court's decision of 1954. Where districts are still operating small and adequate segregated schools for Negroes, it has been recommended that these schools be closed and that the students and teachers be reassigned on a nonracial basis. The courts have simply required the closing of small inadequate Negro schools. We would not be carrying out the spirit of title VI if we did not suggest to school districts what steps they could take to meet their obligations. Districts are urged to come up with their own plans if all recommendations appear inappropriate to them. Over 600 desegregation plans have been reviewed for the current school year. As of now approximately 100 of these plans have been found ineffective to eliminate the dual school system. In approximately one-fourth of these districts there is absolutely no desegregation of any description. All students and faculty continue to attend schools traditionally serving their race. Recommendations of the staff were rejected by these districts which also refused to sbumit alternative desegregation plans. The Depart ment was left with no alternative but to offer these districts an opportunity for a hearing. Chairman PERKINS. As a whole do you have a breakdown of where those districts are situated? Mr. LIBASSI. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Chairman PERKINS. Would you make that available for the record, please? (The document referred to follows:) Statistical summary on title VI administrative enforcement actions by the department for the 1966-67 school year (under the revised guidelines) Total school districts in the nation____. School districts in 17 southern and border states__ School districts operating under voluntary desegregation plans--- 24, 539 4, 942 1, 813 173 DISTRICTS SUBJECT TO ENFORCEMENT CONSTITUTE Total school districts in the Nation (percent). 0.7 School districts in southern and border states (percent). 3.5 9.5 TOTAL ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS FOR THE 1966-67 SCHOOL YEAR AND School districts failed to file the requisite assurance (441B) School districts-Commissioner of Education had reasonable grounds to 1 The total number of final terminations is 52; however, fund eligibility has been restored to approximately 17 districts by way of court ordered desegregation plans. Mr. LIBASSI. In many communities throughout the South school officials and community leaders have made substantial progress toward the elimination of dual school systems. Despite the difficulties connected with the operation of free choice plans, there are instances where they have worked effectively to desegregate schools. The key to success is the willingness of local school officials and opinion leaders to develop an atmosphere that will lead to significant progress. In addition to the 700 or 800 districts that were advised last fall that they had made satisfactory progress and were in compliance with title VI, other districts whose performance was inadequate have negotiated additional desegregation steps which brought them into compliance. For instance, one Georgia district has operated two segregated schools, one for Negro students, and Negro teachers, and the other for white students with white teachers. However, this district has now agreed to transfer the entire Negro eighth-grade class to the white school in September of 1967 and to assign three full-time teachers across racial lines. As a result 10 percent of the Negro students in the district will be attending desegregated schools next year. This case was recently the subject of a column by Mr. Eugene Patterson, the editor of the Atlantia Constitution, and with the permission of the chairman I would like to submit a copy of that column to be inserted in the record at this point. 75-492-67-pt. 2- 44 Chairman PERKINS. Without objection it is so ordered. (The document referred to follows:) [Atlanta Constitution, March 10, 1967] SCHOOLS GET A YEAR'S GRACE While remaining firm, the U.S. Office of Education is embarking on a more conciliatory approach to encourage desegregation of lagging Georgia schools. For one thing, letters to state departments of education are in the works, inviting the states to assume more responsibilities in effecting the guidelines. Federal funds will be offered to finance increased state activity. Of more immediate significance, however, will be a notification that one Georgia county is about to get from Washington. This decision, which has already been made, will signal a major adjustment in fund cutoff policy by the Office of Education. The Georgia county in question still has segregated schools. New federal funds have been withheld from it during the current school year, pending a permanent fund cutoff hearing scheduled to be held shortly. Many Georgia counties are in this shape, so they will be interested to know what is about to happen. In return for a firm commitment volunteered by the county school system that it will undertake significant desegregation beginning next September, the Office of Education is postponing the fund cutoff hearing until next September, and is additionally releasing to the schools all of the federal funds that have been withheld from them this year. In short, a school system that has been cited as not obeying the law up to now, but which decides to comply during the next school year, may retrieve the current year's funds it has lost and delay its fund cutoff hearing by simply spelling out its intentions for the future. The intentions will have to be spelled out; the Office of Education is not accepting vague promises. The county whose funds are about to be restored laid down a detailed plan for student and faculty desegregation, affecting some 10 per cent of its Negro students. But the significance of the new federal decision lies in its show of conciliation. Counties that have done nothing to comply with the guidelines heretofore are not to be consigned ruthlessly to the outer darkness; if they want to come back into the light they'll be welcomed and helped to catch up with the other school systems, with their past lag written off. The emphasis has thus been turned more decisively to encouraging compliance rather than terminating funds. Those reluctant schools that choose to do that which they have not yet done are offered financial forgiveness for their past omissions. Justice department lawsuits impend for the outright defiant, of course, so that ultimately they will be desegregated by court order if not by the Office of Education's new encouragement. But the new policy of conciliation in place of punishment offers a way out of the woods for those Georgia school systems wishing to take it. Mr. LIBASSI. Thus far 50 districts which were inadequate last year or this year and had to be cited for fund termination of hearings have come into compliance. In other words, Mr. Chairman, where we had notified these districts for hearing they have taken action even after they were notified for hearing and after we terminated the hearing process. Many other districts which would be cited for hearings took additional corrective measurements and thus came into compliance and voluntarily. Every effort will be continued to be made to encourage districts to follow this course of action. Thus far there are only 35 school districts in the entire United States that have had final orders terminating Federal funds issued against them. While we must face the fact that 88 percent of the Negro children in 11 Southern States continue to attend schools whose students are |