MEMORANDA FROM COMMISSIONER HOWE TO CHIEF STATE SCHOOL OFFICERS DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE, To: Chief State School Officers. OFFICE OF EDUCATION, Washington, D.C., April 15, 1966. MEMORANDUM From: Harold Howe II, U.S. Commissioner of Education. Several chief State school officers have inquired about the approval of Elementary and Secondary Education Act Title I projects for school districts which have not submitted 441-B compliance forms by April 15. This letter is your authorization to continue approvals under Title I until May 6, at which time any commitment of new Federal funds will be subject to deferral. We shall take a similar position in regard to various programs for which we approve funds in this Office. We will be in further communication with you. This extension has been arranged to give school districts time to complete their compliance arrangements. I hope that it is helpful. Within the next few days we shall be notifying school districts in your State which have not filed the appropriate documents for compliance about the forms and information which are still necessary. In the meantime, I hope that you will encourage superintendents to proceed with compliance procedures as rapidly as possible. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE, OFFICE OF EDUCATION, Washington, D.C., May 5, 1966. BUREAU OF ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION To: Title I Coordinators, ESEA. From: John F. Hughes, Director, Division of Program Operations. Subject: Compliance with the Civil Rights Act with Respect to the Projects to be filed for Fiscal Year 1967 under Title I. As stated in the Revised Statement of Policies for School Desegration Plans under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, local educational agencies whose voluntary desegregation plans have been accepted by the Commissioner may continue their status as applicants in compliance by filing Form HEW 441-B. Grants based on project applications filed for 1967 may be approved for all applicants who have established compliance as soon as funds are available. Any subsequent action that the Commissioner may take, prior to the effective date of a final order, will not affect the continuation of a previously approved project. However, any review or investigation disclosing that the applicant may not be in compliance could, of course, result in a notification by the U.S. Commissioner of Education to defer any new commitments of funds which would otherwise be approved for an applicant under Title I. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE, OFFICE OF EDUCATION, Washington, D.C., July 1, 1966. MEMORANDUM To: Chief State School Officers. From: Harold Howe II, U.S. Commissioner of Education. Subject: Responsibilities of State Education Agencies in Assuring Compliance for State Approved Projects. Recently a number of State departments of education have raised questions concerning their responsibility for assuring compliance with the nondiscrimination requirements of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Several State systems have objected that their agencies are not enforcement agencies and have no responsibility to assure that federally assisted programs funded through their agency are in compliance with the Act. I feel that it is most important that State agencies be reminded of their responsibilities in this area. The intent of Congress in enacting Title VI was that no further Federal assistance should be provided for programs in which there is discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin. Since, in many Federal education programs, the Congress has also prescribed that much of the educational leadership and administrative responsibility for the program shall be borne by the State departments of education, it is evident that State educational agencies have an important responsibility for carrying out the nondiscrimination policies now written into all of these programs. Each State educational agency has filed with the Office of Education a Statement of Compliance giving its assurance that it will fulfill these responsibilities as a condition for the receipt of Federal financial assistance through the Office of Education and outlining the methods of administration to be used by the State department of education in carrying them out. Each agency has set out, among other things, the methods it will use to "Review periodically the practices of the State agency, school districts, and other agencies participating in these programs, to ascertain and assure that these practices are in conformity with the Regulation and the Statement of Compliance." The instructions accompanying the Statement of Compliance forms, issued December 1964, stated that "While it is recognized that some discriminatory practices may occur in school districts and other agencies which are not within the control of the State agency, the methods of administration must describe the efforts that the State agency will make to effect compliance (such as advice and consultation), and must provide that where such efforts fail, the U.S. Commissioner of Education will be so advised." Such methods must also provide for the evaluation of compliance, for taking timely action to correct discriminatory practices found to exist, and for keeping the Office of Education informed regarding the disposition of complaints. Failure of the States to carry out these responsibilities violates the intention of Congress to maintain the decentralization of educational responsibility in the States and local school districts. It invites Federal action where it may not be needed. It furthermore constitutes a violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act which could jeopardize the continued participation of the entire State in federally assisted programs. The recent examples which have given rise to these questions of State responsibility have come up under the summer programs financed through Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. My memorandum of April 25 called attention to the importance of State educational agencies reviewing summer projects to make sure that they would be operated on a nondiscriminatory basis. Some State departments of education have informed local school districts of the April 25 memorandum and have undertaken to review all projects to assure compliance. Others have not done so. We are now receiving complaints of segregated summer programs conducted in violation of Title VI. There is particular concern about those school districts which have purposely switched the funding of their summer preschool programs from the Office of Economic Opportunity to the Elementary and Secondary Act in the hope of avoiding the nondiscrimination requirement. We are now planning visits to some of these programs to review these charges. member to work with our staff in remedying any noncompliance. If we cannot I hope that if any such visit is required in your State you will assign a staff count upon State agency responsibility in this matter we will have to review the status of compliance of the State educational agency with its Statement of Compliance. I am sorry to say that we have heard of some instances in which local school districts have canceled their summer programs rather than comply with the nondiscrimination requirements. I hope that the strongest leadership can be exercised from the State level to prevent local school districts from taking such action. Already we have received strong pleas from local groups for the Federal Government to finance directly programs to help disadvantaged youngsters where local school authorities have abdicated their responsibility for using the available funds for the purpose intended by the Congress. I am sure you feel that direct Federal funding or operation of such programs is not desired by most people, but you should recognize that failure of local school districts to take responsible action will certainly increase the pressure for such an alternative. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE, OFFICE OF EDUCATION, Washington, D.C., February 1967. MEMORANDUM FOR SCHOOL DISTRICTS OPERATING UNDER FREE CHOICE We believe it will help school districts this year if they are more fully informed of the procedures the Office of Education will use in reviewing the operation of "free choice" desegregation plans. GENERAL PROCEDURE Each school district with a plan is required to file with the Office of Education by April 15 a report of its anticipated staff and student assignments for next fall. School districts using free choice plans should file the report of their anticipated student assignments within 15 days of the end of the choice period. As soon as we receive the report we will make a preliminary determination of the probable compliance status of the district. Generally speaking those districts operating under free choice plans which meet the criteria set out below will receive a letter indicating that on the basis of the progress reported they appear to be in compliance with the Act and will require no further review this year. If we later receive information indicating less progress than anticipated or other compliance problems, then a review which looks at all aspects of the desegregation plan may be necessary. CRITERIA FOR EXEMPTION FROM REVIEW ON THE BASIS OF SPRING REPORTS Student desegregation For progress in student desegregation beyond what has been achieved in 196667, the criteria for preliminary review are those already set out in Section 181.54 of the guidelines. It should be noted that the guideline percentages apply only in cases where there is a "sizeable percentage of Negro students." In many districts with a small percentage (e.g., less than 15%-20%) of Negro students more substantial progress in eliminating the dual system than that indicated in Section 181.54 would be expected. Staff desegregation Last year school districts requesting a rough guide to expected progress were told that the equivalent of one classroom teacher assigned on a desegregated basis in each school normally would be adequate evidence of a sufficient start on staff desegregation, so that no review would be required. For the coming school year double that degree of progress and staff desegregation in both formerly white and Negro schools would be expected to assure that a plan is operating effectively. It should be recognized, again, that this can only be a very rough measure. For instance, in districts with a few large schools more progress would be expected, and in districts with a great many small schools less might be expected. Other factors Other factors that will be considered in making preliminary reviews include: existence of complaints affecting free operation of the plan, existence of small, inadequate segregated schools and other evidence of unequal programs, evidence of building programs which would perpetuate the dual system, and discriminatory transfers in or out of the districts. Factors which might indicate adequate progress despite failure to meet the student and staff criteria above might include such consideration as the special difficulties presented in school districts where there is a very high percentage of Negro enrollment in the schools (such as 70% or 80% or more). Districts requiring review Districts which do not meet the above criteria on the basis of their April 15 reports will be considered to require further review because of probable compliance problems. These will be divided into two groups: (a) those districts whose performance falls substantially below the criteria listed above and (b) those districts coming closer to the above criteria but still requiring review. Each district in these two groups will be notified of its status, and those in category (a) above will be visited for a review on a priority basis. Districts in category (b) will not be visited immediately and should review their own plans carefully and take every possible step to improve their progress before school opens in the fall. Review of these districts is likely to fall during the school year, and adjustments to achieve compliance are always more of a problem while school is in session. Summer programs In addition to the operation of their regular desegregation plans, school districts should be alert to the requirement that their special summer programs cannot be operated on a segregated basis. State officials have responsibility for reviewing carefully the proposals for these programs to make certain that ineligible projects are not approved. A bulletin about the requirements for summer programs is attached. HAROLD HOWE II, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE, OFFICE OF EDUCATION, Washington, D.C., February 8, 1967. MEMORANDUM FOR CHIEF STATE SCHOOL OFFICERS Subject: Civil Rights Compliance in Summer Programs Operated Under Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as Amended. I want to remind you that procedures instituted in 1966 governing civil rights compliance in Title I summer programs remain in effect for projects undertaken by local educational agencies in the summer of 1967. The revised Title VI desegregation guidelines, issued on January 1, 1967, repeat the 1966 provision (§ 181.14 (b) (4)): All special educational programs, such as preschool, summer school and adult education, and any educational program newly instituted, must be conducted without segregation or any other form of discrimination. Free choice desegregation procedures normally may not be applied to such programs. More detailed explanations of the responsibilities of State agencies for enforcing this provision are contained in my memoranda of April 25, 1966, and July 1, 1966, on this topic. I urge you to review these documents, as they clearly spell out your responsibilities for assuring that summer programs are operated in a totally desegregated fashion. The Office of Education attaches great importance to the effective implementation of these procedures. I hope you will remind the local educational agencies in your State of these requirements. In reviewing and approving applications for summer projects, you are requested to review thoroughly with the applicant the procedures that it will follow to assure that the program will be fully desegregated. If projects have already been approved, they should be reviewed again to assure that this requirement is being met. We hope that a careful review at this time will help avoid the necessity of discontinuing or restructuring a project after it has begun. Title I staff will visit selected State agencies this spring to review with State Title I Coordinators the procedures your agency is following. In the meantime, I hope you will call upon us if we can be of assistance in clarifying any relevant matters. HAROLD HOWE II. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE, To: Chief State School Officers, State Title I Coordinators. In its report isued on January 31 the National Advisory Council on the Education of Disadvantaged Children made the following comment and recommendation: "As racial desegregation of school progresses, reports made to the Council indicate that insufficient planning results in some impoverished Negro children being cut off from the benefits of important programs that may exist in their former segregated schools. . . . A major new area for vigilance and administrative care is that of insuring that special educational services follow the eligible child who is transferred under a school desegregation program." The purpose of this memorandum is to provide (1) the following statement of policy: no child who would otherwise participate in a Title I activity or service is to be denied such participation because of his exercise of the right to enroll in another school and (2) guidance for the implementation of this policy. In this connection your attention is called to my memoranda of April 25, 1966, on summer programs and of July 1, 1966, on the responsibilities of State educational agencies for compliance with the Civil Rights Act. Your attention is also called to my letter to you dated August 9, 1966, concerning the use of Title I funds for children living in racially segregated attendance areas. Questions have been raised by Title I Coordinators concerning the location of Title I services when children are attending schools under a freedom-of-choice, open enrollment, or other plan designed to bring about desegregation. We realize that with the implementation of such plans local educational agencies may need some special guidance in determining the children who will participate in the Title I program. We ask that you advise all Title I applicants in your State as follows: 1. The revised Title I regulations differ from the previous regulations in two important respects regarding project areas: (a) It is no longer permissible to designate as project areas attendance areas with less than average concentrations of children from low-income families. (b) The regulations specifically state that projects shall be located where the children can best be served. 2. The purpose of the "attendance area" requirement in Title I is to identify the "target population" from which the children with special needs are to be selected. The children in the target population include all children (a) who are attending a particular public school which has a high concentration of children from low-income families (see item 4), (b) who had been attending that school, or (c) who would be attending that school if they were not attending a private school or another public school under a freedomof-choice, open enrollment, or other plan designed to bring about desegregation. 3. Educationally deprived children from this group should be selected for participation on the basis of the priority of their needs. Appropriate activities and services designed to meet those needs should be provided at locations where the children can best be served which, in most cases, are the schools they now attend. 4. The degree of concentration of children from low-income families for the purpose of determining eligible attendance areas or "target populations" may be estimated, if better data are not available, on the basis of the number or percentage of children from low-income families actually attending each of the schools being operated by the applicant local educational agency. 5. The only basis on which Title I services may be offered in schools enrolling children most of whom are not in the "target population" (see item 2) is that those services are designed for and will be serving primarily educationally deprived children selected from that population. Other children who have needs which can be met through such a project may participate in it but the number of such children must be limited so as not to dilute the effectiveness of the project for the children for whom it was designed. 6. The types of services that would be appropriate under these circumstances include special health, nutritional and social services; guidance and couseling; and remedial programs. In applying such services, consideration should be given to the special needs of the children in their new school environment. The types of services that on the surface would not be accentable would include such activities as field trips for large numbers of children. general cultural enrichment activities, construction, and the installation of equipment. |