lower Federal courts discussed in the enclosed memorandum make it clear that the maintenance of a dual system of schools for children of different races is unconstitutional, and that it is the duty of local school officials to establish a single system of schools for all children, white and Negro. The decisions also make it clear that desegregation necessarily includes faculty desegregation and that delay in desegregating schools is no longer tolerable.

As your second letter points out, Arkansas has made a start in the desegregation of its schools. Last fall, some school systems in Arkansas completely desegregated their schools and most others started desegregation in accordance with the 1965 guideline. Most of these school systems agreed to assign students to particular schools on the basis of the choices made by pupils' parents. Most districts agreed to start faculty desegregation by holding joint faculty meetings and in-service training programs on a desegregated basis. Working under the 1965 guidelines, many school systems made significant progress. In these systems, a significant proportion of Negro children entered desegregated schools and school officials made preparations for teacher desegregation. But other school systems made less progress, and some made no progress at all.

In some instances, progress was thwarted by the attitude of school personnel, both Negro and white, who made it clear that Negro children should choose to stay in "their" Negro schools. In other instances Negroes believed that if they chose white schools for their children, they would incur the displeasure of the white community, and perhaps suffer economic injury. Such beliefs may, in many cases, be incorrect, but they are nevertheless very real to the Negro parents who hold them. Even in communities where desegregation is well accepted, Negroes who have been taught all their lives that Negro children belong in "their" Negro schools are reluctant to send their children "over there to the other school." It has been our experience that problems such as these can be overcome only by extensive preparatory work in the Negro and white communities. When such work has not been done, there has been little progress.

But whatever the problems encountered by the school systems which have made little or no progress, the law is clear-school systems with a dual school structure must proceed expeditiously in converting to a single, unsegregated school system. This is a local responsibility. Hence, the 1966 guidelines reflect the expectation, supported by the law, that school systems in carrying out their responsibility to desegregate their schools will be able to progress significantly further in the 1966-67 school year than they did in 1965-66. The differences between the 1965 and the 1966 guidelines are not differences in principle. They differ only in placing more emphasis on performance, requiring that progress be made in 1966-67 beyond what was achieved in 1965–66, when schools were starting desegregation.

Of the specific differences between the 1965 and 1966 guidelines, perhaps the most important concern teacher desegregation. But first of all, it is important to not that the 1965 guidelines also required that "all desegregation plans shall provide for the desegregation of faculty and staff" and that steps shall be taken to eliminate past segregated assignments. The impression that the faculty desegregation requirements are new arises from the fact that school districts beginning desegregation were permitted, during the first year, to prepare their staff for desegregation by joint faculty meetings and in-service training programs (Section V-E-4 of the 1965 guidelines. The 1966 guidelines define the objective of faculty desegregation in greater detail than did the 1965 guidelines. The pattern of teacher assignments to schools "may not be such that schools are identifiable as intended for students of a particular race." Moreover, the 1966 guidelines indicate that there must be actual progress in teacher desegregation. "Staff desegration for the 1966-67 school year must include significant progress beyond what was accomplished for the 1965-66 school year in the desegregation of teachers assigned to schools on a regular full-time basis." The guidelines give several examples of what school systems might do in 1966-67 for staff desegregation. One example is "some desegregation of professional staff in each school." There is, however, no requirement that there be any particular pattern or proportion of staff desegregation. Each district is free to proceed as best suits its situation, as long as the progress is real. The enclosed memorandum shows that the staff desegregation provisions are in accord with the decisions of the Federal courts. Another important difference between the 1965 and 1966 guidelines appears in

the section concerning the acceptability of free choice plans. Last year the guidelines provided (Section V-D) that:

The responsibility to eliminate segregation rests with school authorities and is not satisfied by rules and practices which shift the burden of removing discrimination to the class or classes of persons previously discriminated against. Desegregation of a school system may, however, be initiated by a "free choice" plan [that assigns pupils in accordance with the standards of the 1965 guidelines.]

The 1966 guidelines continue to accept free choice as a means of undertaking desegregation (Section 181.11). But the 1966 guidelines place greater emphasis on the responsibility of school officials to obtain community support so that their free choice plans will be an effective means of desegregation (Section 181.54). They provide that if the choices made will lead to only a small degree of desegregation in 1966–67, usually the second year of desegregation, the U.S. Commissioner of Education may review the plan to determine whether it is an effective means of meeting the school system's obilgation to desegregate. On the basis of all the information gathered in such a review, the Commissioner may take up with the school system further steps that it should take in order that there will be reasonable progress in 1966-67 toward establishing a single desegregated system of schools. In order to give school officials a guide to the standards the Commissioner would use in scheduling plans for review, the section states, in percentage terms, the performance that would normally be expected in several situations. Here again, this section reflects the expectation that where local officials implement their plans responsibly, reasonable progress will be made in desegregating schools, but does not set down any rigid requirements of what that progress must be. Each school system's situation will be reviewed according to the facts applicable to it. These guideline provisions, as the enclosed memorandum shows, are in accordance with the court decisions that school systems must move forward in desegregation.

The 1966 guidelines contain several provisions which were not in the 1965 guidelines. For example, Section 181.42 provides that a high school student's own choice of school will be binding if his parents do not choose a different school within the choice period. This provision should make free choice plans a more effective means of carrying out the responsibility to establish a single system of schools. There are cases where parents are reluctant to choose a desegregated school for their children but may not object if the child makes his own choice of a desegregated school. In February and March, a Federal district court in Alabama included a similar provision in several court ordered plans.

Section 181.14 provides that a student attending school on a desegregated basis for the first time may not be disqualified from athletics and other activities because he is a transfer student. He may, of course, be disqualified for some other reason, such as failing grades at his previous school. In many school systems, students who transfer voluntarily are subject to a one year waiting period before they can play football, but students who are transferred by school authorities in, for example, a school consolidation, are under no such a limitation. Because changes in assignment under a free choice plan are made primarily to satisfy the obligation of the school system to desegregate its schools, rather than because of the transfer desires of the student, such transfers should be treated in the same manner as any other officially arranged transfer. In any case, a waiting period would discourage students under a free choice plan from changing schools and would make free choice plans less effective. This provision is supported by the Oklahoma City school desegregation decision handed down last September, which provided that each student transferring under that desegregation plan

shall have all the rights of the school [to which he transfers] academic programs, and athletic programs notwithstanding any rules to the contrary. inasmuch as the law of desegregation supersedes any rules requiring residence and time.

Section 181.15 provides that if the facilities at a school established and still maintained for students of a particular race are inferior to those generally available in the school system, the school should be closed and the students assigned to other schools. We have found that in 1966 there are places in the United States where Negro students are still segregated in one and two rooms schools, with little heat and no running water, while white children living in the same locality attend modern brick schools equipped with the latest teaching aids.

Such Negro schools do not even meet the "separate but equal" standard developed in the years following Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896). The reason and authority for this provision are obvious. In the Lowndes, Bullock, Macon and Montgomery County, Alabama school desegregation cases decided in February and March, 1966 the U.S. District Court ordered the closing of 65 such small, inadequate schools.

A final difference between the 1965 and 1966 guidelines is found in the various forms issued with the 1966 guidelines. The 1965 guidelines described in general terms the contents of the notices school systems with free choice plans would use to inform parents of their opportunity to exercise a choice of school. Each school was expected to write its own notices and include them with the plan sent to the Commissioner. Because a great many of these notices were inadequate for their purpose, much time had to be spent last summer in helping to prepare proper notices for many individual plans. The acceptance and implementation of plans for the 1965-66 school year was delayed, and so was the assignment of students to schools. As the result of this experience, it seemed desirable to issue with the 1966 guidelines appropriate texts for school officials to use in their notices, even though not everyone would agree with any particular wording. There are, of course, other differences between the 1965 and 1966 guidelines, but because they do not seem to be controversial, there is no need to labor them here. With regard to Mr. Stratton's twelve assertions, I will quote them in groups and follow with my comment.

1. It changes our plan of desegregation which we accepted last year and which we have kept in good faith after approval from the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.

7. It destroys all confidence on the part of those who have thus far worked to meet the law with courage and sincerity because we find that we cannot trust the authorities who approved our original plan.

12. We feel that we should be allowed to continue with the three year plan which was approved by the Commissioner of Education and which the schools and its patrons have accepted. Continual and more stringent regulations will but lead to resentment and possible rebellion. Comment. The 1965 guidelines and the letter accepting this school district's plan stated plainly that changes in the guidelines and the district's plan might be necessary from time to time. But no changes of substance in this district's plan are required by the 1966 guidelines, if the plan is an effective means of desegregation in the district. The plan in this particular case provided for the desegregation of 8 grades in 1966-67 and 12 grades in 1967-68. There is no requirement in the new guidelines that this time schedule be changed. In accordance with the 1965 guidelines the plan provides for joint faculty meetings and in-service training programs as "a first step toward integration of faculty." The 1966 guidelines require that a second step be taken in 1966-67. Apart from the expectation that this school system make further progress under its plan in 1966-67 toward the desegregation of its students and teachers, the only changes to its plan required by the 1966 guidelines relate to matters of procedure and form, such as the uniform texts of the letters and notices, the reason for which was explained above.

With regard to the possibility of "rebellion," I have commented below in connection with item 6.

2. The revised orders violate the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in requiring racial balance in schools and goes much further than Congress intended. Comment. The concern here arises from the percentages in $181.54. These percentages have been misinterpreted by some as requiring "racial balance," or a particular percentage of Negro children in schools with white children. As I stated in the discussion of $18.54 above, the percentages are in the guidelines to give school officials some guidance as to a reasonable degree of progress that might normally be expected under free choice plans. Depending on the circumstances, failure to make the indicated progress might, or might not, mean that school officials should take further steps or change their plan so that there will be progress. The guidelines do require that reasonable progress be made. but nowhere do they require that there be any particular proportion of Negroes and whites in any particular school. The "correction of racial imbalance' 'is a phrase referring to the busing of children from neighborhood schools which have not been officially segregated, but which, because of residential patterns, are “racially imbalanced." The guidelines do not deal with this situation at all.

3. The changes demanded have come to us after obligations and contracts with teachers have been made and compliance with them will force the administration and school board to renege on contracts and commitments already made to teachers and pupils.

Comment: I regret that it was not possible to issue the guidelines until March 7. It appeared desirable, however, to consult a great many persons within and without the Government, including many State and local school officials, during the preparation of the guidelines. Arranging the consultations and making use of the advice given us took longer than was anticipated. Nevertheless, the fact that the guidelines were under revision was widely reported in the press, and chief State school officers were kept informed. The provisions of last year's guidelines and our statements while the guidelines were under revision were such that responsible school officials should have been preparing for further progress in teacher desegregation next fall.

4. The policies force the use of certain language, which is not the will of the school authorities, in notices to parents and advertisement in the paper and requires that the school adopt it in toto. When official freedom of expression is denied, the time is not far away when personal freedom of expression also will be denied.

Comment: As I explained above, our experience last summer demonstrated the advantages both to local school officials and to the Office of Education of providing acceptable notices and forms ahead of time and on a uniform basis. 5. The time schedule for advertisement and registration of pupils cannot be met because of the late notice to the schools.

Comment: The choice period required by the guidelines could start as late as April 1, 25 days after the guidelines were issued. Section 181.62 states that if a required procedure is not feasible, the Commissioner may accept an alternative if he determines it will accomplish the same purpose. Late starts have been permitted when there is a good reason for them.

6. The severity of the changes will create antagonism among teachers, pupils, and patrons and, hence, will cause serious problems in administration of the schools.

8. It leaves the feeling that the Civil Rights leaders are using a club to force their will and show no respect for our rights or opinions. There can be no enthusiastic attempt on the part of administrators or board members to comply with such orders and the entire school system will suffer.

10. It makes no provision for local traditions and opinions but assumes that all situations can be handled in the same manner. There are some 150 or more schools in Arkansas that have none or few Negroes while some have as much as 60% Negro.

11. It imposes a tyranny over our schools which affects the lives of all our people and destroys their faith in our government.

Comment: I am, of course, well aware that there are those who doubt the wisdom of the school desegregation decisions, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. I am also aware, that in some places, providing leadership so that pupils, parents, teachers and the community will accept desegregation is a most difficult task. But, as the enclosed memorandum points out, it is the law that desegregation must proceed expeditiously. Furthermore, it has been our experience that attitudes often change faster than would appear possible beforehand, and that with determined and resourceful leadership, school systems can make significant changes in a short period of time, to the benefit of all concerned. The guidelines provide for flexibility and by no means require precipitous change where local conditions require otherwise. Where local officials assume responsibility locally to bring about the change in a planned and orderly fashion there has seldom been trouble. The complaints of Federal interference and predictions of disorder usually come from communities that have not assumed local responsibility for desegregation.

Needless to say, to the extent of our resources, we will work with school officials to help make desegregation a success. I believe most school officials are aware that under Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Office of Education has consultants available who can provide school officials with on the spot advice about desegregation. It can also arrange for institutes and in-service training programs which will help school personnel deal effectively with the problems of desegregation. We have found that these programs can be very useful in overcoming the problems to which Mr. Stratton refers.

9. It places financial strain on schools to advertise, send letters, and employ additional clerical assistance to get letters to patrons. Comment: We are aware that the cost of printing, and sending out notices has to be met from lean budgets. But if a desegregation plan is to be effective it is essential that parents be given direct and individual notice of the plan and how it affects them. Furthermore, it should be noted that far more than the cost of the one mailing is still being spent, even today, on bussing and other arrangements made to preserve segregation.

In closing, I can assure you that there will be no doubt of the compliance with Title VI of Arkansas school systems which are proceeding with reasonable speed to establish a single system of schools. We will have to work closely with those districts which are making less progress and we will, of course, take into account their particular problems. If there is any assistance we can give to you and your staff in working with such school districts I hope you will call upon us.

Sincerely,

HAROLD HOWE II,
U.S. Commissioner of Education.

April 25, 1966.

To: Chief State School Officers.

From: Harold Howe II, U.S. Commissioner of Education. Subject: Special Civil Rights Compliance Problems in Summer Programs under Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.

All school districts operating summer preschool and other summer programs should be reminded that all such programs must be operated on a nondiscriminatory basis. School districts operating under desegregation plans should refer to § 181.14 (b)(4) of the revised desegregation Guidelines which provides that:

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 cannot be applied to such programs. For those school districts working under school desegregation plans for their regular school program, summer projects provide an opportunity for helping the community with the transition and helping the staff prepare for faculty desegregation during the coming school year. The way in which summer programs are used for this purpose can demonstrate the good faith of a school district in carrying out its desegregation plan.

Summer projects approved under Title I by the State educational agency either before or after the issuance of the revised desegregation Guidelines are subject to the same nondiscrimination requirements. Your agency must make special efforts to make sure that such projects are not begun on a segregated basis, in order to avoid the possible necessity of discontinuing or reorganizing the project after it has begun.

If a school district plans to conduct the same or similar activities at more than one location an evaluation must be made to determine whether this separation is justified on some basis other than the maintenance of segregation.

In making this evaluation the State educational agency should consider the racial composition of the teaching staff, whether the school at each location is thought of by the public as being for white or Negro children and whether the activities could be conducted at one location where members of both races would feel free to attend.

Another way of stating these requirements is that summer projects under Title I of P.L. 89-10 and Head Start programs under OEO will operate along parallel lines with respect to civil rights compliance.

While an area for a summer project may need to be selected on the basis of the number of children from low-income families currently attending a particular school, all of the children residing in the area surrounding that school should be considered for participation in the project according to their needs without regard to race, color, or national origin. Such a project normally should not be conducted at a school identified as a Negro school if there is another school not so identified within the project area or reasonably close to it.

It should be emphasized that the foregoing principles apply to the selection of school facilities, children, and staff for preschool projects.