ED 075 520

AUTHORTITLE

INSTITUTIONPUB CATENOTEAVAILABLE FROM

DOCUMENT RESUME

UD 013 423

Sloane, Martin E., Ed.Title IV and School Desegregation: A Study of aNeglected Federal Program.Commission on Civil Rights, Washington, D.C.Jan 73192p.Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government PrintingOffice, Washington, D.C. 20402 (Stock Number0500-00085, $2.35)

EDRS PRICE MF-$0.65 HC-$6.58DESCRIPTORS Civil Rights; Federal Aid; Federal Programs;

Institutes (Training Programs); Integration Methods;*Integration Studies; *Program Administration;*Program Evaluation; Racial Integration; SchoolDistricts; *School Integration; School Systems; StateDepartments of Education

IDENTIFIERS *Civil Rights Act Title IV

ABSTRACTIn general, civil rights staff in the Department of

Health, Education and Welfare have agreed that Title IV, 1964 CivilRights Act grants should support TiL.le VI enforcement efforts byproviding a carrot of Title IV money to complement the stick of TitleVI enforcement. How best to utilize Title IV grants for this purpose,however, has been the subject of continuing disagreement. From thebeginning of the program, some officials have argued that local TitleIV programs should focus on educational problems which may becomevisible in the process of desegregation. Other staff members havecontended that the emphasis should be on desegregation per se andthat local programs funded under Title IV should help buildunderstanding across lines and improve interpersonal relations. Inits examination of Title IV, the Commission has concentrated itsinvestigatibn on the Southern and border States where the bulk ofTitle IV funds have gone. The Commission also has investigated theoperation of the program in New Mexico, where some programinnovations have been undertaken which seemed to merit specialconsideration. In examining the role of Title IV as a facilitator ofthe desegregation process, the Commission has looked at programsdeveloped by individual school districts, training institutes, anddesegregation centers established in colleges and universities, andat Title IV units in State departments of education. (Author/JM)

FILMED FROM BEST AVAILABLE COPY

TITLE IVAND SCHOOL DESEGREGATION

A Study of a Neglected Federal Program

January 1973

A Rep6rt of the U.S. Common on Civil Rights

A

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH,EDUCATION & WELFAREOFFICE OF EDUCATION

THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REPRODUCED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED FROMTHE PERSON OR ORGANIZATION ORIGINATING IT POINTS OF VIEW OR OPINIONS STATED DO NOT NECESSARILYREPRESENT OFFICIAL OFFICE OF EDUCATION POSITION OR POLICY

U.S. COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS

The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights is a temporary, independent, bipartisan Agencyestablished by Congress in 1957 and directed to:

Investigate complaints alleging that citizens are being deprived of their right to voteby reason of their race, color, religion, or national origin, or by reason of fraudulentpractices;

Study and collect information concerning legal developments constituting a denial ofequal protection of the laws under the Constitution because of race, color, religionsex or national origin;

Appraise Federal laws and policies with respect to equal protection of the laws be-cause of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin;

Serve as a national clearinghouse for information in respect to denials of equalprotection of the laws because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; and

Submit reports, finding, and recommendations to the President and the Congress.

Members of the Commission:

Rev. Theodore M. Hesburgh, C.S.C., ChairmanStephen Horn, Vice ChairmanFrankie M. FreemanMaurice B. MitchellRobert S. RankinManuel Ruiz, Jr.

John A. Buggs, Staff Director

CR 1.2: Sch 6/17

TITLE 1V AND SCHOOL DESEGREGATIONA Study of a Neglected Federal Program

A Report of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents,U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402

Price 112.35 domestic postpaid or 92 GPO BookstoreStock Number 0500-00085

LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL

THE U.S. COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTSWASHINGTON, D.C.March 1973

THE PRESIDENTTHE PRESIDENT OF THE SENATETHE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Sire:

The Commission on Civil Rights presents this report to you pursuant to Public Law 85-315, as amended.

Recognizing the potential of Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for developing a program thatcould assist in the orderly transition from a segregated to a desegregated school system in the coun-try, the Commission undertook a study of that Title.

The study revealed that Title IV represented an area of neglect. It had been relegated to the status ofa minor program, allocated insufficient money with which to function well, indifferently staffed, and,consequently, remained immobile. It cannot be called a failure. It has never really been tried.

But the study showed that, despite areas of resistance, the country is receptive to the idea of schooldesegregation. The Commission believes that Title IV can become an effective instrument in achievingsuccessful school desegregation if its import is realized and if its program is adequately financed andwisely administered.

We urge your consideration of the facts presented and your cooperation in effecting the Commis.sion's recommendations.

Respectfully yours,

Rev. Theodore M. Hesburgh, C.S.C., ChairmanStephen Horn, Vice ChairmanFrankie M. FreemanMaurice B. MitchellRobert S. RankinManuel Ruiz, Jr.

John A. Buggs, Staff Director

iii

ACKNOWLEGMENTS

The Commission is indebted to the following staffmembers and former staff members who participated inthe preparation of this report under the direction ofCaroline F. Davis, Chief, Education Division, Office ofCivil Rights Program and Policy; Rory F. J. Abdalla,*Klaire V. Adkins,* Doris Barnes,* Mary E. Bibb, Lu-cille L. Boston, Doris Chambers, Rodney J. Cash,Patricia A. Cheatham, Joseph R. Cooney,* Cecilia E.Cosca, Ruby T. Daniels, Lelia Findley,* WallaceGreene, Eunice Grier,* Bessie "'eggs*, Judith L. Licht-

men,* Carolyn O'Neal,* Nadine Price, Ulysses PrinceIII, John F. Sencindiver,* Beatrice W. Tootle, Addison N. Wallace,* Brenda A. Watts, David I. Weiss,*Carole Williams,* and Janie V. Young.*

The report was prepared under the overall supervi.sion of Martin E. Sloane, Assistant Staff Director,Office of Civil Rights Program and Policy Review.

No longer on Commission stag.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Letter of Transmittal

Acknowledgments

Chapter I.

Chapter IL

Chapter III.

Chapter IV.

Chapter V.

Chapter VI.

Introduction

State Departments of Education

Local Educational Agencies

University Desegregation Centers

Conclusion

Recommendations Appendices

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

The 1954 Supreme Court decision holding legallycompelled or sanctioned public school segregationunconstitutional 1 marked a decisive turning point inthe legal battle to assure equal rights for minorities.The Court expressly recognized that "separate educa-tional facilities are inherently unequal" and from thattime it was clear that equality in any area of signifi-cant governmental involvement could not constitution-ally be achieved on the basis of racial separation.From that time also the legal obligation of Southernand border school systems to desegregate their schoolswas clear.

During the decade that followed the landmarkBrown decision, however, the right to a desegregatededucation remained largely one established in legaltheory but not in fact. During the 10-year periodbetween 1954 and 1964, many desegregation lawsuitswere filed, numerous court decrees were issued, butlittle schoo' desegregation occurred?

In 1964, the Nation turned in a different directionfrom that of private lawsuits in the effort to redeemthe promise of the Brown decision. In July of thatyear, Congress passed the most comprehensive civilrights law since the days of Reconstruction andopened the way for a renewed and vigorous efforttoward desegregation. The Civil Rights Act of 1964established three related mechanisms for acceleratingthe school desegregation process.

Title VI, which prohibits discrimination in the dis-tribution of benefits from any program or activityreceiving Federal financial assistance, utilizes the leverage of Federal education funds as a means ofbringing about desegregation. Failure to comply withnondiscrimination requirements of Title VI may result

1 Brown v. l'oard of Education o/ Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 09841.2 During this 10.year period only about 3 percent desegregation was

accomplished. ;U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Staff Report: PublicEducation. 1464. Appendix 2 at 290.

In FY 1971 an estimated $1.85 billion in Federal funds helped supportactivities of local school districts under the Elementary and SecondaryEducation Act. Federal money silo supporta provision of school libraryresour:Jes, textbooks and other instructional materials. and supplementaryeducational centers and services. Other major Federal programs of aid toeducation include Federal financial assistance to school systems in federallyimpacted areas. h grants and fellowship swarth', manpower develop.went and training activities, cooperative vocational education, and higheredlICAllOtti facilities.

I

in termination of Federal education assistance follow-ing elaborate administrative enforcement procedures .2

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 also provides in TitleIV for lawsuits by the Department of Justice to re.quire desegregation. Thus, even if school systems arewilling to deprive themselves of the benefits of Federalfunds for the sake of maintaining segregation, lawsuitsby the Attorney General will require them to deseg-regate and render their acts of defiance an exercise infutility.

Title VI also established a third approach: that ofFederal financial assistance to school districts to helpthem overcome problems incident to desegregation.Under this Title, grants may be made to local schoolboards for teacher training or for hiring technicalspecialists; they may also be made to State departmentsof education for programs of technical assistance. Inaddition, provision is made for grants or contractswith institutions of higher education for training pro-grams and other technical aid to local districts.

In the congressional debate concerning financial andtechnical assistance provided under Title IV of thebill, Paul Douglas, then a United States Senator fromIllinois, a major proponent of the bill, spoke defini-tively about the need for desegregating school districtsand of the potential importance of Title IV's provi-sions:

They establish a commitment by the entire Nationto insure adequate education to all its children. Itis in every respect right that we not wash ourhands of the many problems in the South and inthe North as a result of desegregation; for nopart of the Nation is free of responsibility for thepresent condition of education among the poor,and the disinherited!

The new mechanism for desegregation established inthe Civil Rights Act of 1964 has begun to achievenoticeable results. Progress in desegregation has accel-erated in the South so that today, all-black and all-white schools are the exception, not the rule.

Of these three mechanisms, two are concerned withenforcement through administrative proceedings lead-ing to fund cutoffs and lawsuits by the Department of

a 110 Cong. Rec. 6828 (1964).

Justice. The third, contained in Title IV, takes a dif-ferent direction by offering technical and financial as-sistance to help school systems through the often diffi-ult process of desegregation. This mechanism, unlikethe other two, is concerned with facilitating desegrega-tion, not enforcing it. The way in which this mecha-nism has worked is the subject of this report.

Early Years of Title IV

Civil Rights Legislation Planning Group

The overall emphasis and direction of the Title IVprogram was largely determined before Title IV waseven enacted. In 1963, when passage of civil rightslegislation was anticipated, the U.S. Commissioner ofEducation appointed a Civil Rights Legislation Plan-ning Group to make recommendations on the wcy thepending Title 1V could be implemented most effec-tively. The Group, known informally as the Ludding,-ton Task Force after its Chairman, John Luddington,who was then Special Assistant to the Commissioner ofEducation, produced its report later that year andmade a number of recommendations which were toprovide the framework for the operation of Title IV.

Among its major recommendations was that thetechnical assistance offered under Title IV be con-cerned with a "problem oriented approach" to elimi-nate segregation and educational disadvantage. Thatis, in the Task Force's view, Title IV efforts were tofocus on actual problems likely to be encountered inthe course of school desegregation rather than on gen-eral sociological issues.6 The "problem oriented ap-proach", however, was conceived broadly to includeproblems of human relations and techniques for teach-ing disadvantaged children and was not limited specif-ically to problems of desegregation.6 The Task Forcerecommendation, while it constituted recognition ofthe fact that there were likely to be a wide variety ofproblems involved in the desegregation process, alsohad the effect of giving tacit approval to funding pro-grams that were not concerned directly with schooldesegregation.

The use of consultants in the provision of technicalassistance was another major Task Force recommenda-tion that had important implications on the futuresuccess of the Title IV program. In the Task Force'sview, these consultants could be key elements in en-abling local school systems to overcome the manyproblems they would face in accomplishing desegrega-tion. Among the services which it was believed theymight provide was to give advice on ways in which the

Civil Rights Legislation Planning Group Report at 1 (1963).Id.. at 20-21.

2

community could become an active participant in thedesegregation process thrc agh such means as the forma.tion of citizens' advisory groups and interracial coun-cils. Consultants also were expected to provide suchoiler forms of technical assistance. as developing pupiltransportation plans. reviving mel;hods for determiningschool plant locations, and est:A/dishing workable pro-cedures for class assignments and pupil guidance. Inaddition, it was hoped consultants could contribute toimproving intergroup relations in the community-at-large as well as in the school::

In light of the sensitive and important mission con-ceived for consultants. the Task Force recommendednot only that they possess the necessary competence,but that they be individuals known and respected byschool administrators and community leaders in theregion to which they were assigned. In this way, it wasthought, the problems involved in. bringing in "outsid-ers" could be avoided and the path of desegregationsmoothed. The use of indigenous personnel. however,also meant that consultants would often be individualswho themselves were products of a dual school systemand whose background and training might tend tomake them unsympathetic with the principle of deseg-regation. In addition, they would be subject to a vari-ety of political pressures which could render theirefforts cautious and tentative.

Independent Status for Title IV

In the early years of the Equal Educational Opper-tunities Program (EEOP), following passage of the1964 Act, the Title IV program was given little atten-tion. The major, almost exclusive, focus of the Federalschool desegregation effort was on use of the enforce-ment mechanism of Title IV. Its subordinate role inthis period is partly evident from its various locationswithin the program structures Initially, Title IV staffwas lodged in an overall training branch. Later it washoused with Title VI staff in units broken down intoregional alignments.9 It was not until 1967 that theTitle IV unit was established as a separate entity.

The reallocation of staff positions authorized forTitle IV to the effort launched under Title VI was stillanother indication of the minor role assigned to TitleIV during these early years.1° For example, during1965 every available member, of the Title IV staff waspressed into service to secure "voluntary plan" submis-sions from local school districts. Ne,.tr.ly all staff of the

Id. at 13.Internal U.S. Office of Education Memnrandu.n. Undated.

9 Id, At 2."id. at 2.

Equal Educational Opportunity Program (ESOP) ofthe Office of Education was committed to the effort tonegotiate initial desegregation plans from school dis-tricts which were, at beet, reluctant and, at worst,opposed to complying with the school desegregationrequirements of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of1964.

These plans amounted to little more than "papercompliance". In almost every instance, they followed a"freedom of choice" fon.-:it in which students or theirparents were allowed to select the schools they wishedto attend. With few exceptions, black children or theirparents did not choose to attend schools which wereformerly all-white, nor did white students elect to at.tend formerly black schools. Furthermore, when blackstudents did attempt to attend white schools, wide-spread discrimination was evident in various phases ofthe desegregation process, such as class assignments,treatment of black students by white faculty and stu-dents, and degree of participation in extracurricularactivities. Black parents and children often sufferedeconomic reprisals and even physical brutality."

Following adoption of these plans, much of TitleIV's staff was again co-opted by Title VI to secure"assurances of compliance", which incorporated re.quirements of HEW's Title VI desegregation guide.lines. During the summer of .1966, both Title VI andTitle IV staff made visits to school districts throughoutSouthern and border States in an effort to help themmeet applicable provisions of the Title VI guidelines.

Despite the emphasis on Title VI enforcement andthe diversion of Title IV staff to Title VI activitiesduring the first 2 years following passage of the CivilRights Act of 1964, a number of programs werefunded under Title IV auspices in Fiscal Years 1965and 1966. (See Tables A, Bl, B2, C2, and Dl.) Inmost cases, however, these grants were made withoutmuch regard to the substance or quality of the grantapplication. As one staff member in Title IV phrasedit: "We would support anything if they would agree tosay something about integration and desegregation.""

Hy Spring 196 ?, individual senior staff membersassociated with the Title IV program began to urge anew direction for it and to recommend that it beseparated. from Title VI enforcement. For example, theDirector of the Grants and Institutes Branch for TitleIV recommended that all compliance activities be re-moved from assistance operations and that Title IV

n Southern School Desesresstion: 1966-67, Finding No 6 0;0, at 88; also47. See also Testimony of Harold Howe II, United States Commissionerof Education, Dearing Before the Special Subcommittee on Civil Rights ofthe House. Committee on the Judiciary. 89th Cong. 2d Sem, ter. 23 sk

24 (1M)

function as an independent wait in the Office of theCommissioner of Education." In November 1967, arealignment occurred in part conforming to his sugges-tions and a Division of Equal Educational Opportuni-ties was established to carry out the provisions of TitleIV. However, instead of locating the Title IV unit inthe Office of the Commissioner, it was lodged within asubordinate bureau of the Office of Education."

Since the separation of the Title IV program fromTitle VI, the role played by Title IV in school desegre-gation has grown increasingly important. First, thedollar amount of grants which have been approvedunder Title IV has increased, from $4.6 million in1965 to an estimated $19 million in 1971. Second,Title IV's staff, freed from other responsibilities, hasbeen in a position to give full-time to Title IV imple-mentation, and, thus, to devote more attention to thesubstance and quality of individual proposals. Finally,Title IV's importance, through its function of assistingin the development of desegregation plans, has in-creased as a result cif the growing emphasis on achiev-ing school desegregation through voluntary means andtechnical assistance rather than through fund cutoffunder Title VI.

Emphasis of Title IV: Education v. Desegregation

In general, civil rights staff in the Department ofHealth, Education, and Welfare have agreed that TitleIV grants should support Title VI enforcement effortsby providing a carrot of Title IV money to comple-ment the stick of Title VI enforcement. How best toutilize Title IV grants for this purpose, however, hasbeen the subject of continuing disagreement.

From the beginning of the program, some officialshave argued that local Title IV programs should focuson educational problems which may become visible in

0, Staff interview with Dr. William Holloway. Evaluation Branch Chief,May 5. 1970.

to Memorandum from W. Stanley Kruger, Director. Comte and InstitutesBranch, ESOP to David S. Seeley. Assistant Commissioner, Equal Educe.tioual Opportunities Program, May 17, 1967. Mr. Kruger felt that dmbasic functions of this office should include; a) management of grantand Institution projects and related activities under Section 404 and 405of the Civil Right. Act of 1964; b) the provision of .technical assistanceauthorised by Section 40$ of the Civil Eights Act of 1964; c) the oral-Mon of elearieghouse of materials and Information pertinent to problemsof school loteerstloa sad the solution of these problems, snd thecoordination of activities of tailor pressena of the Me of Educationdirected towards a focus on school integration as major responsibilityof the Office of Education.

In addition to the grants made M local Khool systems, the memorandumrecommended that assistance to school districts include analysis of *cheatdemi:mistier' problems, development of plans to eliminate dual *shoalspites, etroecures, and help with implementation of educational programsdesigned to secure equal educational opportunities.

14 Since )S67 Title VI functions have been the responsibility of the Officefor Civil Right, in the Office of the Secretary In the Department of Iraldtb.Education, and Welfare.

u, Dr. Marie Danl. Progestu Specialist, Title IV Central Office, May1970.

3

the process of desegregation." These officials believethat desegregation, coupled with high educationalquality, will be more acceptable. In their view, deseg-regation will be easier to achieve if there is clearimprovement in curriculum, teaching techniques, andin the training of teachers and other personnel to dealwith poor achievers in desegregated schools.

For example, one senior official of the Office ofEducation, involved in Title IV programs from thebeginning, told Commission staff: "I believe that theanalysis of problems should begin with educationalproblems, individualized instruction, team teaching,an the like." le

This view was supported by a representative of auniversity where a desegregation center had been es-tablished who found that Title IV assistance was morereadily accepted when the program focus was on edu-cational techniques:

School systems were shy at first in seeking assist-ance since they thought it was aimed at desegre-gation. But when they saw that the program wasworking to improve instruction, to resolve educa-tional problems, to devise curriculum models toimprove instruction, the support of superintend.ents was gained."

Other staff members has :) contended that the empha-sis should be on desegregation per se and that localprograms funded under Title IV should help buildunderstanding across lines and improve interpersonalrelations. Title IV staff members criticized Title IVprograms for de-emphasizing desegregation and humanrelations:

The thrust should have been on human relations,with educational problems a distinct auxiliaryconcept, certainly not the main emphasis. Toomuch concentration on educational concepts ob-scured the need for change in behavior and inter-personal relationships necessary for a successfulschool program. An important educational pro-gram, without the ability by teachers and admin-istrators to communicate, leaves a school systemopen to social, if not physical, confrontation.18

This sharp split among HEW and other officials asto the most effective approach for Title IV never hasbeen entirely resolved.

The Commission's Study

In its examination of Title IV, the Commission hasconcentrated its investigation on the Southern and

/d.17 Interview' with Dean Janeph Hadley, School of Education, University

of South Alabama, January 1970,"Name withheld at request of staff member.

4

border States where the bulk of Title IV funds havegone .1° The Commission also has investigated the oper-ation of the program in New Mexico, where someprogram innovations have been undertaken whichseemed to merit special consideration.

In examining the role of Tithe IV as a facilitator ofthe desegregation process, the Commission has lookedat programs developed by individual school districts,training institutes and desegregation centers estab-lished in colleges and universities, and at Title IVunits in State departments of education.2°

Significance of Title IV

Although Title IV remains an ongoing Federal pro-gram, it has been superseded, to some extent, by themuch larger Emergency School Assistance Program."Its importance will diminish even more if the pendingEmergency School Assistance and Quality IntegratedEducation Act is passed by Congress. Further, theproposed "Equal Educational Opportunities Act", ifenacted, would turn the Federal Government's atten-tion toward compensatory education efforts in segre-gated schools, further lessening the importance of TitleIV.

Nevertheless, tILl: Commission believes a detailedevaluation of the Title IV program can be of substan-tial value. The program has been in operation forapproximately 8 years and there has been ample op-portunity, through trial and error, to develop knowl-edge and understanding of the kinds of programs thatcan he most effective in the often difficult process ofdesegregation. In light of the current controversy, gen-erated by the proposed "Student Transportation Mora-torium Act" and the "Equal Educational OpportunitiesAct", which would accept the inevitabilty of schoolsegregation, it is important to demonstrate that schooldesegregation is not an ideal incapable of achievement,but a reality that can work, even under the most diffi-cult circumstances. It also is important to determinethe kinds orbelp needed from the Federal Government.

The Commission issues this report with the convic-tion that thz Nation can learn much that is construc-tive from the experience under Title IV----from its fail.ures as well as from its successesand that this knowl-edge will contribute to enriched understanding of thenecessity for desegregation and stimulate a renewedeffort to make it work.

74 Between 1965 and 1971, 54.5 percent of Title IV funds have poneto Southern and border States.

2° See Tables A. Cl, and Dl for list of university Institutes, minters andState Title IV unite visited by Commission stag.

n For en evaluation of the ESAP program during its first months ofoperation, see report of the Wesbingtlo Research ProJeot.

CHAPTER II

STATE DEPARTMENTS OF EDUCATION

TITLE IV UNITS

Introduction

Under Section 403 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,the 'U.S. Office of Education contracts with State de-partments of education to provide them with funds toemble the State departments to render technical assist-ance to school districts.1 The purpose of technical as-sistance is to develop plans for desegregation and toassist with educational problems occasioned bydesegregation.2

States have established special Titie IV technicalassistance units in their departments of education tocarry out their responsibilities under Section 403.

These Title IV units are potentially key factors inbringing about successful school desegregation. TheOffice of Education funds State educaton technicalassistance units because the State's primary role in thedesegregation of schools is crucial to the achievementof equal educational opportunities. This supportstrengthens State education agencies to provide leader-ship and assistance to local school dist,icts in theprocess of desegregation_ The units make it possiblefor the State education agency to coordinate its pro-grams and services to aid desegregating school dis-tricts and to carry out the State agency's specialrequirements.2

The Office of Education requires that before it willenter into a contract with a State education depart-ment under Section 403, the latter must show its capac-ity and commitment to provide those services that aredirectly related to desegregation.4 State departments ofeducation must assist local school boards in the devel-

Section 403 authorises the Office of Education, itself, to render suchtechnical assistance. The Office of Education, however, bas interpreted thesituate as authorising it to contract with State departments of educa-tion to act as agents of the Office of Education to provide such technicalassistance. The State departments enter into cost reimbursement contractswith the U.S. Office of Education. See HEW, Opinion to the Office forCivil Rights Governing the Funding of Univenities and State Departmentsof Education, Aug. 10. 1967.

s Section 403.U.S. Office of Education, Division of Equal Educationa Opportunities,

Administrative Guidelines, 5 (1964)Office of Education. Division of Equal Educational Opportunities.

Program Resource Guide : The Role of State Departments of Education inImplementing the Letter and Spirit of Title IV of the Civil Rights Actof 1964, 5 (1970) .

5

opment, adoption, and implementation of acceptabledesegregation plans. In addition, the grant proposalmust set program objectives that will contribute todesegregation. The specific objectives required by theU.S. Office of Education are: dissemination of infor-mation to local education agencies regarding effectivemethods for resolving problems accompanying desegre-gation; assurance that related Federal and State edu-cation programs and functions are designed to facili-tate desegregation; and provision of planning as&st .ance to education personnel to enable them to copewith desegregation problems.6 State Title IV units arepermitted flexibility regarding the means used inachieving these minimum objectives.6

State Title IV units also have specific functionswithin the State departments of education. They areresponsible for keeping State boards of education.in-formed of the need for stronger desegregation policiesand procedures.?

They are to participate on a regular basis in depart.ment activities concerned with achievement of equaleducational opportunity, and in drafting and review-ing legislation affecting desegregation and equal edu.

31d. at 2. The Office of Education's Division of Equal Educational Oppor.tunities provides staff a aa i aa anee to help State departments prepare theirapplications for Title IV funding.

e Among the activities suggested by the Oise Of Education for carryingout these objectives are the following:

1. Identifying and analysing facts relevant to the instigation andaccomplishment of desegregation.2. Development of its- service training programs.3. Development of information and materials.4. Development of community support.5. Preparing supportive proposals for Title IV.6. Administrative and instructional reorganisation to cope with de.segregation.7. Development of lonrange educational policy and planning in rela.tion to the desegregation of schools and to education fors multiculturalsociety.8. Dealing with the problems of desegregation.9. Coordination with other Federal programs and assistance in effectiveuse of funds from such programs to advance desegregation and equaleducational opportunity.10. Providing immediate assistance to school districts which are facedwith sudden and serious local problems.

Program Resource Guide, supra note 4.Among the activities suggested by the Oftce of Education. Division of

Equal Educational Opportunities, Policies and Procedures Manual forTechnical Assistance Programs Based at State Colleges er Universities.

-ational opportunity-8 Further, these units ought to beinvolved in Federal and State educational programsthat develop policy relating to desegregation .8 Tocarry out these responsibilities, State Title IV unitsshould be placed high in the State department hier-archy if they are to function effectively."

State Title IV technical assistance units have been inoperation since 1965. The first unit was funded inTennessee. Since the inception of the program, nine ofthe 11 Southern States and Oklahoma have beenfunded." The contracts have ranged from $225,000allocated to the State of Florida in 1965 to $17,592given to the State of Mississippi in 1968.12 The aver-age contract has been $50,000 annually.

Performance

HEW Evaluation

According to a 1966 Office of Education evaluationreport, State Title IV units had been of limited value.The report found they had been helpful in processingnondiscrimination assurance forms and statistical re-ports and had accompanied Title VI staff on fieldvisits. Title IV units also provided the Office of Educa-tion with information about particular school systems,and had served as "catalysts" during negotiations withrecalcitrant school districts.18 They provided no techni-cal assistance and little informational assistance toschool districts in meeting problems incident to deseg-regation. The main value of State Title IV units dur-ing those early years of operation, according to thereport, was as a source of information for HEW on thecompliance status of school districts."

By 1970 the situation had not appreciably changed.One HEW Title IV Administrator said of the currentactivities of the State Title IV units:

The advantages of the State Department's gran-tees are: We occasionally get "intelligence" typeinformation; we are given information in the reg-ular course of their activities; the information weneed is made available more quickly; and theState grantee can even open some doors." He

Among the activities suggested by the Office of Education, Division ofEqual Educational Opportunities, Policies and Procedures Manual for Tech-nical ....Matinee Programs Based at Colleges or Universities.

Program Resource Guide, supra note 4.10 Id. at Pars 111, I.u See Table A.71 See Table A.34 Report by Mrs. Sherry Amman, Self Evaluation of Title IV (EEOP),at 24 (1966).u Ibid.

.a ry e w with Dr. Gregory Ansi,, Former Director, Division of EqualEducational Opportunities. On those occasions when IIEW's central orregional office staff is planning to visit particular school district, contactis made with the State Title IV unit to secure information.

6

concluded: "It is better to have a guy there, evenif he does not do anythi.ig." 16

In fact. HEW does not conduct regular and system-atic reviews of State Title IV units to determine howeffectively they are performing. Evaluations StateTitle IV units have been conducted on an ad hoc basis,in response to specific problems. Continuing contactwith State Title IV units is not maintained by HEWeither on a regional or a national basis. Therefore,HEW is not in a position to determine, without insti-tuting a special evaluation, how effectively State TitleIV units are using its funds.

Lack of staff is a major reason for HEW's failure to'ute a regular monitoring program. As one HEW

Title IV official told Commission staff:

If you heard about something special or some-thing went wrong you went [to investigate). Other-wise you didn't go out. There was no specificmonitoring program, but it was not because ofany plan not to monitor. There were just notenough personnel."

State Reports

State Title IV units are required to submit monthlytechnical assistance statistical reports and quarterlyreports concerning their activities. These reports pro-vide information on the number of desegregation plansdeveloped, the number of requests for technical assist-ance received, and the number of school districts withwhich the State Title IV unit has worked.

They do not provide a sufficient basis for -valuatingthe performance of State Title IV units. The technicalassistance reports give no information on the kind ofassistance given to school districts, the nature of theprogram adopted, or the impact resulting from theassistance. The quarterly activities reports, while theygive information on the activities of State Title IVstaff, provide little basis for determining the extent ofeffort involved, the quality of assistance rendered, orthe substantive results. For example, the TennesseeTitle IV unit reported the following activities duringthe 8-month period from November 1, 1967 throughJune 30, 1968:

1. Consultation with Chairman of Education De-partment, University of Tennessee at Martin.

2. Meeting with Title IV Director in ChesterCounty.

3. Knoxville team visit.

Hi Id.

Intert!ew with ., Edna Ellicott, former staff member Title IV, Nov.12, 1970.

feral court trial involving teach-

Annual TEA, Leadership Con-

te! cuce.18

A report from tlie Mississippi State Title IV unit onits activities during the month of January 1970amounted to less than one full typewritten page. Itconsisted of a reference to the three major activities ofthe unit: working with superintendents of the 30school districts under court order which made thetransition to unitary systems by December 31, 1969;collecting data on school environments in the 30 dis-tricts; and meeting with members of the U.S. Commis-sion on Civil Rights."

Commission Staff investigation

Commission staff interviews with State Title IVdirectors in the Spring of 1970 revealed little in theway of specific activities directed toward facilitatingschool desegregation.

Of the two major responsibilities of State Title IVunitsassisting individual school districts in meetingproblems occasioned by desegregation and assistinglocal school hoards in the development, adoption, andimplementation of acceptable desegregation plansfewof the eight State Title IV grant recipients had under-taken significant activity with respect to either. Fourof the eight State unit directors in Oklahoma, NorthCarolina, Te/ nessee, and Texas stated they had con-ducted in-service workshops for school personnel andhad held conferences with superintendents, teachers,and students. Only two of these directors, one in NorthCarolina and the other in Oklahoma, could providedetailed information concerning such activities as thenumber of workshops held, the specific informationimparted at them, and the impact the workshops andconferences had made on their participants.20

rs Tennessee State Department of Education, Title IV Office, TechnicalProgress Report, Nov. 1, 1%7June 30, 1968.

rs Mi "ppi State Department of Education, Title IV Office, Resume ofActivities for the month of January 1970 submitted to the Office of Educe.tion, February 1970. There is some question about how much value, If any,HEW places on these reports or whether HEW personnel actually reviewthem. For example, Commission staff, in trying to secure copies of State

Title IV unit interim reports, were told by HEW Title IV officials inWashington that these reports were sent to the regional offices. Commissionstaff requests to the regional office elicited this response: "If we havethem I don't know where they are. . . Maybe the central office hasthem." Interviews with Turn Kendrick, Senior Program Officer, HEW RegionalOffice, Dallas. Tex., Aug. 20, 1970. Four special requests had to be made of11EW's Atlanta Regional Office before State IV Unit interim reports weremade available.

" Interviews with State Title IV directors of Oklahoma, North Carolina,Tennessee, and Texas. The North Carolina Title IV unit held a 3dayworkshop in 1970 for militant superintendents in an effort to help themrecognize their role In enuring that black teachers and other schoolpersonnel were adequately represented In the school system. North Carolinaalso held human relations workshops for teachers and Is currently trying

7

The most significant in-service workshop activitieshave been carried out by the Oklahoma Title IV unit.It held four workshops for guidance counselors during1970, one in each corner of the State, in an effort toimprove educational opportunities for minoritystudents.2' The approach used was to utilize counselorsas active participants on panels to exchange informa-tion on the methods used in the various schoolsystems.22 In addition, as of July 1970, the OklahomaState Title IV unit was planning an ambitious in-sereice training program for teachers in eight medium.sized cities -in the State.23

Regarding the second specific contractual obligationof State Title IV units to assist local school boards inthe development, adoption, and implementation ofacceptable school desegregation plans, there is littleevidence of any significant activity. Most State TitleIV directors conceded that they had not participatedin the development of many desegregation plans. Theyexpressed the belief that plan development was theresponsibility of individual school districts, nottheirs.24

That St,aie Title IV units have avoided participatingin the development of desegregation plans is at leastin part, because of the political pressures to whichthey are subject in the State and local community. Forexample, the coordinator of the Georgia State Title IVunit told Commission staff that he had been advised bythe State attorney general not to prepare desegr egationplans.23 Early in 1970, Claude Kirk, then Governor

to establish student human relations councils in every high school. Further,a workshop concerning the role of superintendents b desegregation was heldin Wilmingtoi.. N.C. in July 1970. Interviews with Robert Strother, Di-

rector, Title IV Office, North Carolina State Department of Education.Raleigh, N.C., March 1970.

"Interview with Dr. Charles Sandman, former Director, Title IV Unit,Oklahoma State Department of Education, Oklahoma City, Okla., February1970.

21 Id.

"Id."Interviewa with directors of the Georgia, South Carolina, Oklahoma,

Tennessee, and North Carolina State Title IV units. The contract whichthe State department of education sling with the Division of Equal Educe.tional Opportunities to receive assistance specifically outlines those (unc-

tions which the units are to perform. One of the specific functions Is tomishit local education agencies in the development, adoption, and implementation of an acceptable desegregation plan. The Title 11/ State departmentunits are not the only Title IV office charged with the responsibility forwriting plans. The HEW Title IV Regional Offices and the university.baseddesegregation center' also maim in the writing of desegregation plans. TheTitle IV State units' responsibility comes into play when the units arerequested by school district to assist it in writing plan or when the0.E., DEED, central office requests the unit to contact school districtabout the drawing up of an acceptable plan. In the latter instance, theunits are expected not only to contact the district but also to assist it in

the development of plan. The local school Marlin is not required to

accept the Title IV unit's plan. But if this is the case, the school districtmust then develop is own plan which must be acceptable to the Departmentof Health, Education, and Welfare.

la Interview with W. M. Harry, coordinstor, Title IV Program, GeorgiaState Department of Education, Atlanta, Ga., Feb. 24, 1970.

Florida, personally intervened in an effort to preventdesegregation in his State.

Many State Title IV officials feel that their participation in the preparation of school desegregation plansundermines their ability to work effectively with localeducators. The State Title IV coordinator in SouthCarolina explained that, in his opinion, requiring StateTitle IV directors to prepare desegregation plans tendsto place them in the class of "crusaders" and therebyinterferes with their relationships with school superin-tendents,26 He added: "Let the blame fall on HEWTitle IV people rather than myself, so as not to impair

usefulness."27

Regardless of the validity of the reasons why StateTitle IV unit directors have avoided involvement indesegregation plan development, their obligation to doso is a contractual one. Further, the need for participa-tion of these units in the development of such planshas increased in recent years because of the growingtrend of the courts to order immediate desegregationwhich requires preparation of a substantial number ofdesegregation plans.

Effectiveness

Because of the many forces that bear on schooldesegregation, the effectiveness of State Title IV unitscannot be measured by reference to the degree ofprogress in school desegregation in a given State.Court decisions, HEW Title VI enforcement, the activi-ties of university-based desegregation centers all havecontributed, so that it is impossible to attribute suc-cessful desegregation solely to the work of the StateTitle IV unit. One measure of the effectiveness of theState Title IV units is the impact they have had onpeople with whom they work. Using this measure, itdoes not appear that State Title IV units have contrib-uted significantly to progress in school desegregation.

Of the teachers, principals, and superintendents interviewed by Commission staff, only a handful madeany reference to the work State Title IV units andthen only in response to specific staff questions con-cerning their activities. One Florida school officialtold a Commission staff member:

There has been no real contact with the StateTitle IV Office. Most of the assistance was received from the University of Miami {Desegrega-tion Center].

Interview with J. C. Durham, Title IV Coordinator, Technical AssistanceUnit, South Carolina State Department of Education, Columbia, S.C..Mar. 3, 1970.

old.

8

An official of the Shelby County, Tennessee schoolsystem said bluntly: "There was no input from theState," 28 In fact, school officials in most districts vis-ited by Commission staff were even unaware of theexistence of a State Title IV Office.

Personnel at university-based desegregation centerscomprise another group with whom State Title IVunits are supposed to work. In view of the fact thatState Title IV units and centers are charged with thesame responsibilities, program coordination is es-sential to the effective operation of both. But despiteoccasional examples of this coordination,29 there is noevidence that it has been done on a consistent orsystematic basis. On the contrary, State Title IV unitdirectors and center directors alike, concede that theirprograms have overlapped and have even conflictedbecause of a lack of coordination."

There is evidence of distrust and hostility betweenstaff of the State Title IV units and university desegregation centers. A Title IV unit director criticized auniversity desegregation center as trying to do toomuch in too short a time in an attempt to changeattitudes.n He added: "I don't know what they aredoing, and they don't either." By the same token, anofficial of the same university, desegregation centercomplained of the State Title IV director: "He isaround here all the time." 32 In another State a TitleIV coordinator, describing the relationship betweenthe university desegregation center and his State TitleIV unit, told Commission staff:

There is a feeling at the University which is com-municated to the State Department that the StateDepartment does not know what it is doing. Ithink the way we are getting sidetracked is thatthe University personnel tend to give us all aparticular name--"bigots." 33

In short, university desegregation centers and StateTitle IV units, rather than working in harmony andclose cooperation toward the goal of school desegrega-tion, frequently conduct their activities in isolation

2,7 Interview with Cornell Wells, Coordinating Administrator, Shelby CountySchool System, Memphis, Tenn., Feb. 20, 1970.

20 For 'example, the Oklahoma State Title IV Unit worked with theDesegregation Center at Norman, Okla. on a 2week teachers' workshop durtog the summer of 1970. Interview with Van Wright, Human RelationsCenter, State Department of Education, Oklahoma City, Okla.

s9 See, e.g., Interview with Robert Strother, Equal Education OpportunitiesProgram, Title IV, Department of Public Instruction, Raleigh, N.C. andinterview with Robert Sharpe, Director. Equal Education Opportunities Pro.gram, State Department of Education, Nashville, Tenn.

at Interview with Gilbert Conoly, Director, Title IV unit in the Officeof the Commissioner of Education, Texas State Board of Education, TexasEducation Agency, Austin, Tex., Feb. 12, 1970.

ax Interview with Leon Cashew, Texas Educational Des .gregation Technicaland Advisory Center, Division of Extension, Office of Extension Teachingand Field Service Bureau, Austin, Tex., Feb. 11. 1970.

ar Interyiew with 3. C. Durham, supra note 26.

from one another. They are distrustful of each other'sprograms and methods of operation and one is largelyignorant of what the other is doing. As the Director ofa State Title IV unit concluded: "There is no coordi-nation of programs between the Center and State TitleIV."34

State Title IV units are to work with other units inthe State departments of education and potentially canhave the effect of promoting State policies that furtherschool desegregation. Few of the State Title IV units,however, can point to specific activities they have engaged in with other education department personnel.In response to questions from Commission staff mostState Title IV officials were vague regarding the na-ture of their work with other units in the department.For example, the North Carolina Title IV directorcould report only that his staff works with the guid-ance and curriculum units and is on "liberty" call forservice to all other units in the State department.85 Ofthe eight State Title IV units evaluated by Commissionstaff, only those in Oklahoma and South Carolina pro-vided specific information on programs jointly carriedout with other units of the State department. TheSouth Carolina Title IV unit director explained toCommission staff his view of the role the State Title IVunit must play in relation to the rest of the Statedepartment of education:

Every aspect of the department must focus on theproblems which come from the elimination of thedual school system. . . . The teamwork approachshould be taken to alleviate the problems broughtabout by the elimination of the dual schoolsystem.86

Thus, he has worked with units in the State depart-ment responsible for the administration of funds underTitle I of the Elementary and Secondary EducationAct, with State department officials concerned withungraded classes and with developing new learningmaterials, and with those concerned with educationresearch."

The Oklahoma Title IV unit has set up a curriculumcommittee comprised of representatives of the Title IVunit and of the State department's curriculum division.One of the continuing projects of this committee isconcerned with developing materials on the history ofthe Plains Indians. Another is developing materials onBlack History in Oklahoma."

interview with Robert Sharpe, supra note 30.II Interview with Robert Strother, supra note SO.

Interview with I. C. Durham, supra note 26,rInterview with Van Wright, Human Relations Center, State Department

of Education, Oklahoma City, Okla.

9

Reasons for Ineffectiveness

In most cases, the State Title IV units have littlecontact with other State department of educationoffices and little influence on department policy.

There are a number of reasons why the full poten.tial of State Title IV units has not been realized as asignificant factor in facilitating school desegregation.The funds provided to State Title IV units are insuffi-cient to permit them to undertake aggressive programs.For example, the Florida Title IV director told Com-mission staff:

We do not have the wherewithal to develop plans,as well as conduct in-service training programsfor the various counties."

These are the responsibilities that the Title IV unitsare contractually obligated to perform. Nearly all ofthe funds provided to State Title IV units are used topay personnel salaries. In attempting to carry on suchactivities as in-service training workshops, State TitleIV units have had difficulty finding funds to meet suchexpenses as stipends for teachers' travel expenses, -:on-sultant 'les, and the purchase of instructional materi-als. Fu.. a to finance Oklahoma's planned inservicetraining program in eight mediumsized cities will notcome from the State Title IV budget, but from a sup-plemental HEW grant."

Some States have strengthened Title IV units byadding their own funds to the program to supplementthose provided under contract with the Office of Education. In 1970, the Oklahoma and North CarolinaState Title IV units received $3,125 and $34,720,respectively, from their State departments of educa.tion, to assist in meeting the cost of operating theirunits.

State Title IV units have been in addition, hamperedin the fact that they occupy relatively low positions inthe hierarchy of the State department of education.For example, the Georgia Title IV director is threesteps removed from direct contact with the State super-intendent of schools.

In addition, State IV unit personnel have only in.frequent contact with the State superintendent and areunable to exert a major influence on department deci.sions. In Oklahoma, the State Title IV director toldCommission staff that he worked directly under theState superintendent's office and reported directly tohim. Asked how often he met with the superintendent,

Interview with Don Cunningham, Director, Technical Assistance Program,Florida State Department of Education, Florida,

4" Interview with Dr. Charlou Saritimite, Diractur. State Title Iv Unit,

February MO,

however, the director could only reply: "Wheneverthe need arises." 41 The response of the Tennessee TitleIV director to the same question was, "As needed."'In most cases, there is no evidence of regular contactbetween the State Title IV office and the State superin-tendent nor is information provided on what is accom-plished on those occasions when meetings do occur.

North Carolina appears to be an exception. Thedirector of the Title IV unit is considered by the Statedepartment of education as a member of the executivestaff. He meets with the superintendent at least twice aweek to discuss his programs and problems and he isincluded in dl meetings where department of educa-tion policy c.s determined. In other States, Title IVunits are far removed from the centers of policy anddecisionmaking.

In many of the Southern States in which Title IVunits have been established, it has been official Statepolicy to resist school desegregation. This has restrict.ed the efforts of Title IV unit personnel who, despitetheir contractual obligation in the matter, often believethat their first allegiance is to further the policies ofthe State department of education. In Mississippi,where the State department of education has openlyresisted school desegregation, the State Title IV direc-tor's cornmitmenfto desegregation was considered souncertain that HEW officials operating in Mississippiduring the Spring and Summer of 1969 did not evenask for his assistance."

A former director of the HEW Title IV Programexpressed the view that in at least two States theproblem was so severe that the State program shouldbe discontinued.44

In some States, despite a political climate opposed todesegregation, Title IV officials have persisted in goodfaith in bringing about desegregation. In Florida,where in 1970 the Governor actively intervened toprevent desegregation, the State Title IV unit contin-ued its work of preparing desegregation plans for anumber of counties in the State. The Florida Title IVdirector told Commission staff :

Our position is that regardless of the statementin the public press by the Governor and otherpoliticians, we tell people at the local level thatthe [unit's] policy is remaining the same until we

at Interview with Van Wright, supra note 18."Interview with Robert Sharpe, supra note 30.as "The Georgia and Mississippi State Department Title IV Units should

be closed because of loyalties of the directors." Interview with Dr. GregoryAnrig, supra note 15.

44 Id.

10

have received an official statement in writing tothe contrary."

The directors of the Title IV units evaluated in thisreport are white southerners with previous experienceas teachers, principals, or superintendents in Southernschool systems. The majority of these staffs also con-sist of southerners who previously worked in Southernschool systems. Of the 21 State Title IV professionalstaff members in the eight States, only six are blackand one is a Mexican American.

Most of the directors of these units are products ofsegregated school systems and have gained their pro-fessional experience working in school districts thathad not desegregated at the time they were employed."On the basis of the educational and professional back-ground of State Title IV unit personnel, there is rea-son to question whether these officials possess sufficientknowledge or sensitivity concerning desegregationproblems to pros ide the kind of assistance school dis-tricts need to accomplish successful desegregation. Inaddition, in view of the fact that Title IV units arecomposed of indigenous personnel, many of whom mayhave political ties to the State, there is a strong likeli-hood that their first loyalty is to State and not toFederal policy.

One potential advantage in selecting white southern-ers to staff Title IV units in Southern States lies in thehope that these are people acquainted with the areaand with the school personnel with whom they mustwork. They could be in a better position to stimulate

45 Interview with Don Cunningham, supra note 39. The Title IV Unit pre.pared plans for Hamilton and St. John Counties and assisted in thedevelopment of desegregation plans for Leon County, St. Lucie County, endPalm Beach County.

"J. C. Durham, Director, Title IV Unit, South Carolina State Departmentof Education is a native of Pickens, S.C., the area with the lowest ratioof blacks In the State. Mr. Durham attended segregated schools and beforecoming to Title IV, wan superintendent in Pickens which was notdesegregated at the time he left, and is still not desegregated.

Dr. Charles Sandman, pastDirector, Title IV, Oklahoma State Departmentof Education, previously worked in the guidance section of the Statedepartment of education. He has a B.S. Degree from Eau Central Collegein Oklahoma, and M.E. and Ed.D. from Oklahoma University. He explainshis multicultural experience as working with integrated schools while inGuidance.

Van Wright, Director, Title 1V Unit, Oklahoma State Department ofEducation, has been superintendent in Reed. Greenfield, and Cheyenne,Okla. Neither Reed nor Cheyenne had a minority population In theirschools, Mr. Wright received his bachelor's degree from Southwestern StateCollege and his master's from West Texas State University.

Robert Sharpe, Director, Title IV Unit, Tennessee State Department ofEducation. was an English Professor at Louisiana State University, theUniversity of Tennessee, and Vanderbilt University. Mr. Sharpe stated thathe had had no multicultural experience other than teaching.

W. M. Harry, Coordinator of Federal Programs. Georgia State Departmentof Education, has held other positions in the State department of educationas Coordinator of Title Ill, NDEA, and counselor in the Vocational Rehabilita-tion Division. He was a superintendent in a school system which was nottleseuregated.

The information given above was compiled from the interviews with therespective directors and the Secretary to the Director of the Georgia TitleIV Unit.

successful desegregation than outsiders unfamiliarith the area and unknown and distrusted by the local

community. This potential advantage, however, hasproved to be an illusion. The director of the SouthCarolina State Title IV unit told Commission staff that,although he previously had been a superintendent inhis State, he now found that other superintendentswould not ask him for help.47 The Oklahoma StateTitle IV director stated that, although he had workedwith superintendents in his State in his previouscapacity as guidance counselor, he was now unable tobreak down the "I have no problems" attitude of hiscolleagues.48 He had assumed that his past friendshipswith school superintendents would provide him withan opportunity to work effectively for school desegre-gation but this had not occurred. The superintendentsgave him no support and they would not "let him tryanything." 49

Perhaps the relative ineffectiveness of State Title IVunits has been caused by their failure to assume aleadership role. In most cases, their posture has beenone of timidity and reluctance to disturb the statusquo. For example, the Title IV coordinator in Georgiaexpressed the view to Commission staff that: "TheTitle IV office is not obligated to tell districts whetherthey should obey Federal or State laws where theyconflict." He added: "The Title IV office is interestedin quality education for all." 50 In Oklahoma, where aState antibusing law had been enacted, the Title IVdirector told Commission staff: "This takes care of ourbusing problem." 51 In Mississippi, which has 106school districts, the director of the State Title IV unitadvised the Commission representatives that a staff oftwo [he and his secretary] were adequate to handlethe functions of his unit.52

Title IV personnel have also expressed views insen-sitive or unsympathetic to school desegregation. Thus,the Georgia Title IV coordinator said of the discred-ited "Freedom of Choice" desegregation plans: "Free-dom of choice is democratic, right and moral." 53

Some Title IV units have managed to close theireyes to the existence of problems incident to schooldesegregation. Despite numerous investigations con-

a7 Interview with J. C. Durabm, supra note 26." Interview with Charles Sandman. supra note 40." Interview with W. M. Harry, supra note 25.6° Id.51 Interview with Van Wright, supra note 29." interview with John Ethridge, Director, Title IV Unit, Mississippi

State Department of Education, December 1969."Interview with W. M. Harry, supra note 25. Freedom of choice is a

mechanism utilized in an interim desegregation plan which permit!' a parentor student to chooae the school the student will attend in the following year.Under freedontufehoice plans there is usually very little desegregation.

These plans have been largely abandoned since they do not meet currentstandards for desegregation.

11

cerning his State and other States in the South whichdocumented large scale displacement of black teachersand principals in Georgia during the course of deseg-regation, the Georgia State Title IV director told Com-mission staff:

[T]hey haven't run into it [displacement of edu-cators] much....[T]hey haven't had this too much in Georgia."

According to a 1966 Office of Education evaluationof State Title IV units, not only had they failed toassume the leadership role intended for them, but somehad openly subverted the efforts of the Title IVprogram.55 While this charge may be unduly harsh,the Commission's recent investigations indicate that itis, in large part, still warranted.

State Title IV units have lacked sufficient statuswithin their departments to affect desegregationrelatedpolicy. They have been timid in their efforts to supportdesegregation and are opposed to becoming involvedin developing actual plans for it. Their role continuesto reflect lack of coordination with other units of theirdepartment or with other institutions in their Stateinvolved in Title IV programs. In short, Commissioninvestigations have found underfunded, uncommitted,and ineffective State department units of Title IV.

A wide range of causes on both the State and Fed-eral levels is responsible for this lack of success.

The Department of Health, Education, and Welfareand the U.S. Office of Education have not insistedthat State departments adhere to the "Program Re-source Guide: the Role of State Department of Educa-tion in Implementing the Letter and Spirit of Title IVof the Civil Rights Act of 1964." Both HEW and theOffice of Education lack sufficient staff to carry outregular and systematic reviews of the effectiveness ofthe State Title IV units. Finally, the quarterly reportssubmitted by these units do not provide n adequatebasis for comprehensively evaluating their programs.

While the situation varies from State to State, andalthough not all the problems in the following listapply to any one State, the State education departmentTitle IV units have been hampered or made ineffectiveby adverse situations. Sometimes these are beyondtheir control; sometimes they are self-willed.

The great weakness of most State Title IV units hasbeen found in their inability or unwillingness to as-sume an appropriate leadership role in assisting schoolsystems in planning and implementing desegregation.In some cases this has been due to a lack of under-

" Interview with W. M. Barry, supra note 25.'S OE report, supra note 13 at 24.

standing of what is expected of them; in others, therehas been lack of commitment and even hostility to theidea.

In some States, political pressureincluding the in-tervention of the Governor or the attorney generalhas made their situation difficult but not always unten-able.

Generally, State Title IV units have not enjoyed ahigh position in the hierarchy of State departments ofeducation. Their directors seldom have direct access tothe State superintendent and the units have little rela-tionship with others within their department. Staff isseldom of sufficient size to carry out contractual obli

gations while insufficient funding is the rule not theexception.

In some States there is distrust and even hostilitybetween the State Title IV unit staff and the staff ofthe university desegregation center.

In most States, the majority, if not all the profes-sional staff, had previously worked for the State de-partment of education in some other unit. They are,for the most part, indigenous, educated in segregatedpublic schools, and are the products of segregatedcolleges, universities, and graduate schools. This is astrue of those State Title IV units which have func-tioned well as for those which have functioned poorly.

12

CHAPTER III

LOCAL EDRATIONAL AGENCIES

Introduction

It is at the local level that the demands of socialchange are ultimately met. This holds true for desegre-gation am well as any other social change. Establishingnational policy is crucial; State assistance (oracquiescence) is of g7eat importance; but "the buckstops" on the conference table of the local schoolboard and the desk of its superintendent. Experienceclearly shows that where local school authoritieS haveprovided leadership, the desegregation process hasmoved more smoothly bringing better educational re-sults and less community disruption.

Section 405 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 author-izes grants to local school systems for two purposes:in-service training programs for teachers and otherschool personnel which will aid them in dealing withproblems incident to desegregation and for the employ-ment of specialists to advise local districts on

desegregation.'From 1965 to the end of fiscal year 1971, a total of

510 grants was awarded to 534 school systemsthroughout the Nation. About 70 percent of the grantswent to districts in the 17 Southern and border States.The total expenditure for these grants was nearly$26.5 million during the 7-year period. The averagegrant was about $50,000. There have been a fewgrants of more than $100,000, made to very largeschool districts, and some grants of less than $10,000,awarded to small rural districts?

There were few applications for Section 405 fundsduring the first year of Title IV's life; indeed, only 24grants were made. The unwillingness of school dis-tricts to undertake any but the most minimal stepstoward desegregation accounted for the early lack ofinterest in Title IV funds. Hence, few sought or wouldeven accept the assistance available from a Title IVgrant.

As Title VI enforcement was accelerated, however,interest in Title IV assistance also grew. In 1971, atotal of 139 grants---nearly six times the numberawarded in 1965was made to local districts. About

Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title IV, Section 405.See Table 5-14 for state -by -State summary of Section 405 grants,

13

two-thirds of the 1971 grants went to districts in theSouthern or border States.

Objective of Local Grants

There never has been a clear and ummbiguousstatement setting forth the goals or objectives to be

met by Scction 405 grants, the specific problems to besolved, or the type of programs suitable for funding.To the extent that these issues have been dealt with atall, they have been discussed in general rather thanspecific terms. Thus the Civil Rights Legislation Plan-ning Group, established in 1963 to make recommenda-tions to the Commissioner of Education regarding im-plementation of Title IV, said relatively little of aspecific nature about the local grant program.

The report did urge that funds be used to supportprojects which could serve as "prototypes" for "thetesting of hypotheses and the demonstration of tech-niques pertinent to the entire [Title IV] program." 8"The idea of the prototype or model project," thereport further stated, "is not that the program shouldbe limited to a few favored communities, but . . . thatthe limited funds not be so thinly disbursed that nocommunity is in a position to make a significant con-tribution to the technology-of educational civil rightsadministration." 4 The report also recommended thatlocal projects be directly related to matters having acivil rights base, be supported by persons of influencein school affairs, and be part of a total program toimprove equal educational opportunity in the schoolsystem.5

The Policies and Procedures Manual developed forTitle IV grants to local school boards also offers littleguidance in implementing Section 405. While the Man-ual states unequivocally that: "The primary mission ofthe program is to focus available Title IV resources onpermanent elimination of school desegregation," 6 itleaves open the question of mechanisms for implemen-tation. "No one program approach," it states, "has

3 Civil Rights Legislation Planning Group Report (1963), at p. 11.Id. at p. 29.

5 Ibid.6 Policies and Procedures Manual for Grants to School Boards. Division

of Equal Educational Opportunities, Bureau of Elementary and SecondaryEducation, Office of Education. Revised, October 1969, p. 2.

been found suitable for the wide variety of problemswhich may confront school systems." 7

The lack of specific HEW guidelinesgoals and objectives for the Lord 1 ,, 3,,

(LEA) program has resulted in a lack of consistencyin the type of professionals that were approved. FormerTitle IV officials told Commission staff that decisionson funding particular LEA programs frequently weremade on the basis of the views of the individual TitleIV staffJwinber involved, rather than established cri-utria of unniform applic.ability.8 The lack of specificcriteria also led to the funding of programs totally_unrelated to desegregation. Despite the language ofTitle IV limiting LEA grants to programs concernedwith "praiblems incident to desegregation," proposalsoriented entirely to educational matters such as teamtessehing and compensatory education frequently weremap/roved"

tool Educational Agency Grant Funding

lypically, the local Title IV program begins duringthe rear prior to a major desegregation effort,but at atime when the local school system is aware that suchanatifort will be madeFrequently, the program hasbeers instituted when the:district has decided, whetheron -its own volition, under court. order, or throughurging from HEW, that it must change from a free -dorm of-choice desegregation plan -as to one which in-volves rezoning of school boundary lines and /or ofFederal financial ai-sistance.11 The threat of fundcutoff wasarvoided wben McCondt, Mississippi secureda court-ordered desegregation plan which was lessstringent than the one sought by the Federal Agency.12

Because of the limited-resources available for TitleIV, the funding of school districts not committed todesegregationtresults both in a waste of money and inan inability-am fund proposals from districts that aremaking successful efforts to desegregate. For instance,at the timethe Tupelo and McComb, Mississippi pro-posals were funded, HEW declined to award a secondTitle IV grant to the New Albany, Mississippi SchoolDistrict which had just successfully desegregated itselementary schools with the aid of a Section 405

concerningAgency

pro-Ibid.Interview with Dr. William Holloway and Xelased Shirley, former Title

IV staff members,. May 1970.**Stemless with..Itichard Paisley, supra note 8." freedom of choionis a mechanism utilized...M an interim, desegregation

P8-* *itch perinito.a.smarent or student to chasm the school the studenttrend In the fallowing school year. Crosier freedom-of.choice plans

usually very little desegregation. nieur plans have been largelyn,nad since they doe not meet curressmstiniclatimafor desegregation.

finding of noncompliance with Tilde, of . the Civil Rights Act of190 results in an order of termination obWderist'financial assistance tothe 181Mol district.

2 also °Maiming a court ordereadhanleggatio- n plan, thereby avoid.ing ke2rer negotiations with HEW.

gram and was requesting assistance to desegregate itssecondary schools."

Participation In Local Title IV Programs

School Personnel

Participation in training under local Title-7N pro-grams is limited by statute to "teachers cared otherschool personnel." The typical local training4notrainhas focused exclusively on teachers and has iffivatift3 a2- or 3 -week seminar or workshop held pricer:us theopening of school, followed by periodic sessinest- dur-ing the school year.

The guidelines for Section 405 grants specificallystate that the statutory term "school personnel" ,mayinclude a wide variety of school system eurninwees,such as "teachers, administrators, school boat:ifmem-hers, counselors, health workers, clerical andrminte-nance staffs, etc." " Nevertheless, although thek,Com.mission found some training programs which ioniudedprincipals, counselors, and other school protiessionalpersonnel in the sessions, in most districts pentrtramswere largely directed only toward teachers.

14

Community Representation

The Commission did find a few districts-vsiiich ini-cluded parents, students, and community -learders ilntheir training programs astubservers or consulitants. Inthese districts, broad participation by represeentativesof the community helped create a climate offtspinionconducive to successful desegregation. One swill dis-trict was Muskogee, Oklahoma, where panelled com-munity leaders participated in a workshop inr, whichthey shared with teachers their views on a widerangeof civil rights. issues, including open housing, theimpact of the news media on desegregation;,ffiir eta-ployment, and the economic values of desepopatime.The quarterly technical progress report made no theHEW Regional Office described the panel ashalows:

. . . these lay people were used as resome peo-ple. The most important understanding acquiredby the teachers was that our leading lay animaswere truly interested in achieving coroplete.diang-

3 HEW stab explained the Deparnosnes decision not to makeweroanoadaward to New Albany on the ground/11.41ot Section 405 grants are - mgt -modsbeyond 3. years and are not given toe school systems which have oprop1000desegregation. The 9 -year limitation MUDS a strange juestification inemmuehas the district had received only a oleic 1.year grant under Title.TV. Theclaim that New Albany bad already :accomplished total desegregation svaaalso inappropriate since the grant laws intended to accompany nanotniamschool desegregation. Interview with. Elton Ridge, Chief, Southern -Brooch,DEED, Mar. 31. 1970.

14 Policies and Procedures Manual tor Grant., to School Boards. p. 1.

re;.. ion of the community as well as the schools.'t the teachers acquired a great feeling of secu-rit in their efforts at resolving problems relatedto teaching in a desegregated school and to cur-riculum and techniques appropriate to the situa-tion. . . .15

The Title IV coordinator in Muskogee also soughtto obtain support for the system's desegregation plansfrom influential citizens and community groups. As aresult, several of these groups made public statementssupporting the desegregation plan."

The Muskogee Title IV program also involved stu-dents and parents. Prior to the opening of school in1968, about 100 student leaders in biracial sessions,supervised by teachers, worked out methods of electingcheerleaders in desegregated schools; election proce-dures for student council representatives, homeroomofficers, and club officers to assure representation fromboth races; procedures for consolidating athletic teamsand other extracurricular activities and choosing ofschool colors. Student meetings under the Title IVprogram continued for 2 school years.

In addition to the student sessions, town hall-typemeetings were held in which black and white parents,students, and teachers were encouraged to raise andfrankly discuss any questions they might have aboutdesegregation.

Efforts also were made in Muskogee to involve everytype of district staff member in planning and imple-menting the desegregation process. For example,school librarians developed a publication which pre-sented annotated information on library books, film-trips, and other visual aids having multiracial andmultiethnic content. Language arts and social studiesteachers were organized into groups with responsibil-.ity for developing appropriate curriculum for thecourses they taught. The result was new material onthe achievements of blacks in literature and AmericanHistory.

In addition, through the process of working to-gether black and white teachers developed increasingrapport. Moreover, some teachers were given an op-portunity to work in a summer school session withelementary school students, thereby gaining the benefit

"'Technical Progress Report, August, September, October 1969. MuskogeePublic Schools. Muskogee. Okla.

"'For example, the Muskogee Jaycees passed a resolution which stated:. . . the Muskogee Jaycees commend and support the Superintendent of

Schools and the Board of Education for their courageous efforts in adoptinga program that not only satisfies the law but, takes forward step forprogressive education for the children of Muskogee." Id.

The Ministerial Alliance also supported the position of the school board:"Therefore, be it resolved that the Muskogee Ministerial Alliance com.mends the Muskogee School Board and the Superintendent of Schools fortheir efforts toward formulating a workable plan to bring about integrationin the Muskogee City Schools at the earliest time iesaibla." Id.

of actual interracial experience in a classroom situa-tion prior to the opening of school. According to theMuskogee Tide IV coordinator this was of substantialhelp in breaking down walls of hostility and fearamong faculty and toward students."

In Moore County, North Carolina, efforts also weremade to gain community participation as a means ofhelping to facilitate desegregation. After having deseg-regated the elementary and junior high schoolsthrough the device of "pairing," the county schoolboard developed a plan to desegregate the high schoolsinvolving construction of a new high school to servestudents attending the three existing schools." In theSpring of 1969, school administrators held meetings ineach of the three localities in the county that would beaffected by the high school desegregation plan to beimplemented the following September. Parents, commu-nity leaders and interested citizens were invited toattend these meetings to discuss their respective rolesin making desegregation a success. School officials ex-plained how the plan would work with student leadersof the schools to be desegregated. As a result of theseefforts to assure that the community was informed andinvolved, according to the school superintendent, theschools were desegregated the following Septemberwithout incident."

In Brevard County, Florida, the school board estab-lished broad-based community committees whichplayed an active leadership role in helping to facilitatesuccessful desegregation. The committees, which in-cluded a local mayor, PTA members, several ministers,an NAACP official, two local doctors, and two aero-space industry employees, held a number of open meet-ings in black and white schools throughout the countyexplaining how the plan would work.

In the city of Melbourne, the committee, through aseries of such meetings which received good press cov-erage, was able to gain community support for thedesegregation plan. According to one local schoolofficial, the fact that community representatives ratherthan school officials explained the plan made the resi-dents more receptive to it 21 In his view the fact that

15

',Interview with Whitt Abbott, Title IV Program Coordinator. Muskogee.Okla., Feb. 11, 1970.

',School desegregation by pairing is achieved when the attendance tressof two or more nearby schools are merged so that each school serves dif-ferent grade levels for a new, larger attendance area. For example, theattendance zones of a predomlnantly black school, each serving grades1-6, would be merged so that all children in trades 1-3 in the new ottendonce area would attend one school, and all children in grades 4-6 in thenew attendance area would attend the other school.

15 Interview with Robert E. Lee, Superintendent, Moore County Administrative Unit, N.C., Jan. 7, 1970.

23 Id.n Interview with Dr. Frank Williams. Director of Federal Projects, Brevard

County School Syttera, Brevard County. Fla.. Apr. 1. 1970.

Melbourne voluntarily adopted and implemented a de.segregation plan while the rest of the county awaited acourt order was in large part a result of the efforts ofthese county committees."

Speakers and Consultants

Speakers, consultants, and other persons whoconduct local training programs have most often beendrawn from three major sourcesthe nearest office ofthe United States Office of Education, the State depart-ment of education, and nearby university desegrega.tion centers. Occasionally, speakers are invited fromother school districts which have effected desegrega.tion. According to several participants in local train.ing programs who were interviewed by Commissionstaff, speakers, discussion leaders, and consultantshave been predominantly, sometimes exclusively,white." As one Title IV central office staff membersaid:

Consultants, particularly in the early days of theprogram, were almost exclusively white with theexception of a few black college presidents.School systems which had always operated dualschool systems simply had no notion of whom tocontact to serve as consultants."

The Title IV Coordinator

Title IV funds for advisory specialists usually havebeen used by local school districts to employ a coordi-nator for all Title IV activities, including trainingprograms. Typically, these coordinators have comefrom within the school system.

Although most coordinators enjoy the formal statusof reporting directly to the school superintendent,there is evidence that many lack prestige or influencein the school hierarchy. For example, in Charlottes-ville, Virginia, the Title IV coordinator, called upon towork with a biracial faculty committee, had no voicein the selection of participants. All were selected bythe school principals." Further, the office space as-signed to the coordinator was a cubicle near the backdoor of a high school, far away from the center ofschool activities and at a distance from the elaborateoffices of the school system's administrative staff."

Id."At one Title IV workshop participant maid "There were no Meek con.

militants In the Title lY program. Out of all the workshops I participated In.I cannot recall one black consultant. One white staff member answered mewhen tithed why a black in the system was not used as a consultant:"Maybe you've been black too long [to understand)." William Dorsey.Public Relations (Nicer. Chattanooga City Schools. Chattanocgs, Tann"Feb. 10, 1970.

"Interview with Miss Edna Ellicott, former staff member of the Divisionof Equal Educational Opportunities, November 1970.

Is Interview with Dr, E. W. Rushton, Superintendent, Charlottesville CitySchools, March 1970,

16

In another district, during the course of Commissionstaff interviews, the superintendent continuously calledthe Title IV coordinator by his first name although hegave courtesy titles to the white staff members in theroom." In still another district, the Title IV coordina-tor had so little contact with the superintendent thatthe latter did not recognize her as a school systememployee. The coordinator's office was on the samefloor as that of the superintendent and she had beenemployed by the school system for 20 years.28

In some instances, Title IV coordinators appear torepresent apologists for the status quo rather than to beinstruments for expeditious and successful school inte-gration. In Charlottesville, Virginia, the Title IV coor-dinator contended in an interview with Commissionstaff that there were no integration problems in hisschool system." Others, however, told Commissionstaff that serious problems existed,8° and even theCharlottesville superintendent conceded that: "We havedesegregation, but it will be a long time before wehave integration." al In Chesapeake, Virginia, the TitleIV coordinator, in response to Commission staff ques-tions on progress in school integration, warned repeat-edly: "We can't go too fast," 88

Factors other than special competence appear tohave intruded themselves in the selection process forTitle IV coordinators. Race has been one such factor.Most local educational agency Title IV coordinatorshave been white. In some cases, however, there isevidence to suggest that the position of Title IV coor-dinator has provided a convenient source of employ-ment for black principals and administrators who aredisplaced in the process of desegregation.

For example, in Florida a black principal acceptedthe Title IV coordinator's position, after having first

so A Title IV staff member when visiting the program learned that LaneHigh School faculty thought the Title IV eoordlustor was a member of thehigh school faculty and was unaware of his role In Title IV, When theTitle IV staff member recommended that the coordinator be moved to

Central Office along with other adminietrators, the superintendent indicatedthere wee no room feu him, Dr. William J. Holloway, Chief, EvaluationReview Branch. May 1970.

07 Names withheld at the request of the Individual, interviewed.al Inconsistent goals rampant In the program may be attributed at lent

In part to the frequency with which leadership changes occurred at thedirector level of the overall program. One staff member commented thathe had served under six directors in 5 years. Dr. Holloway, supra at 26.

N Interview with Fred Murray, Advisory Specialist, Charlottesville CitySchools, March 1970.

"Among the charges made were that black students were being called"nigger", black students worn being prevented from wearing leather jacket"because they were Ilene of block power, bleak children had been physicallyabused by white principals, and expulsion of black students over trivia:netters was common, Interview with R, T. Greene, staff specialist, Universityof Virginia D eeeee nation Center, and Mrs. Robert Greene, remedial readingteacher, Lane High School, Charlottesville, Vs., March 1970,

it Interview with Dr. E. W. Rushton, Superintendent, Charlottesville CitySchools, March 1970.

" Interview with W. A. Johneon, Advisory Specialist. Chesapeake CitySchools, Chesapeake. Va.. March 1970.

refused it, only when his school was phased out 3weeks following the original offer." In Danville, Vir-ginia, a black elementary school principal, replaced bya white principal when the school became integrated,was assigned to work in the Title IV program in thecentral office, and later was reassigned as a specialassistant to the superintendent in connection with an-other Federal program, the Emergency School Assist-ance Program." Still another black high school princi-pal in Essex County, Virginia, accepted a position asTitle IV Advisory Specialist when his school becameintegrated. Although a black replaced him as principal,the school was downgraded to an intermediateschoo1.35 As one HEW Title IV member said concern-ing the selection of Title IV Advisory Specialists:"The selection process had nothing to do with theneeds of the program." 36

Role of the School Superintendent

The school superintendent plays a key role in deter-mining the success or failure of desegregation in acommunityindeed, in determining the overall qualityof education afforded to the community's children. Heis the school system's chief executive officer and it is tohim that teachers, principals, members of the schoolboard, parents, and the entire community look forguidance and leadership. Through firm commitmentand positive action he can do much to facilitate asuccessful transition from segregated to integrated edu-cation.

For superintendents to assume the leadership role inbringing about successful desegregation requires initia-tive and often courage. In so doing, they frequentlymust risk opposition, abuse, and even their jobs. Inmost communities visited by Commission staff, superin-tendents have been reluctant to assume this role. Mosthave adopted essentially passive postures, keepingtheir involvement in the desegregation process to a

33 Interview with William Dandy. Director of Title IV Program (1969).Broward County Schocl System. Fort Lauderdale. Fla.

" Interview with Curtis Richardson, March 1970. In Virginia during 1969and 1970. a period of great increase in school desegregation in that State.most persons assigned as Title W coordinators were former black principalsor administrators. During the same period there was a drastic decline in

the number of black secondary principals. Between 1965 and 1971 the num-ber of black secondary school principals in Virginia declined from 207 to17. interview with J. F. Banks, associate director of secondary education.Virginia State Department of Education. March 1970.

33 Interview with James Carey. March 1970.36 Interview with Miss Edna Ellicott. November 1970, former Title IV

member. It should be noted that positions as Title IV coordinators. unlikepositions in the local school system, last only so long as the Federal program continues to operate in the locality. Thus the transfer of black schoolofficials from positions as local school administrators to positions as Title IVcoordinators can result in a loss of job security. One former black ele-mentary school principal in Nottoway, Virginia, who became an advisoryspecialist. commented: "I wonder what will hapepn at the end of Title W.I don't want to slide back in the classroom." Interview with Macio Bill.June 1970.

17

minimum. Some have actively opposed desegregation.In few communities, however, superintendents haveexhibited firm resolve and their efforts often have beenrewarded, even in areas where opposition to desegre-gation has been strongest.

For example, J. Bryant Smith, Superintendent ofPublic Schools in New Albany, Mississippi, was instru-mental in moving his community toward acceptance ofquality, integrated education. During the summer of1965, Mr. Smith attended a Title IV desegregationtraining institute at the University of Mississippiwhich was concerned with desegregation. The nextsummer he attended a similar training institute at theuniversity, this time bringing with him several of hiskey administrators. Largely as a result of his experi-ence at these training institutes, Mr. Smith becameconvinced of the value of desegregation and began tomake efforts to persuade his school board as well."

In 1967, the school board applied for and received agrant of $50,000 from the Kettering Foundation whichenabled board members and senior staff persons tovisit schools outside the State which had desegregatedsuccessfully. These visits had a dramatic effect on theoutlook of school board members toward desegregationand toward education generally. As one member said:"We learned that our schools were providing an infe-rior education for all our students." " These out-of.State visits helped bring about change in board mem-bers' stereotyped images of minorities. In the course oftheir visits, they met what they characterized as sev-eral "sharp black educators" and recognized that theNew Albany schools could benefit from the advice andassistance of local black school personnel."

The primary effect of the visits was to convince theschool board that the New Albany School Systemneeded to be completely overhauled, and the membersbecame receptive to suggestions by the superintendentand outside consultants. Among the suggestims forchange that the board accepted was one fordesegregation." Mr. Smith developed a two-phaseplan, calling for desegregation of elementary grades inSeptember of 1968 and desegregation of secondarygrades the following year. His plan was adopted by theboard.

To help facilitate successful desegregation duringthe 1968-69 school year, the school board, at Mr.Smith's suggestion, applied for and received a Title IVgrant providing funds.for an extensive in-service train-

ST Interview with J. Bryant Smith, Dec. 4. 1969."Interview with Dr. Paul X. Shannon. Chairman. New Albany School

Board, Dec. 4, 1969.

9, Id.Id.

ing program for elementary school teachers concernedwith techniques for team teaching and individualizedinstruction.

Thus, the process of desegregation in New Albanywas linked closely with efforts under Title IV to im-prove the quality of education and the entire programwas enthusiastically received by the faculty." The factthat the desegregation plan was locally designed andimplemented on a voluntary basis helped unite thecommunity behind it.

By September 1969, after a year of successful expe-rience with elementary school desegregation, the NewAlbany School Board prepared to desegregate its sec-ondary. schools. At the same time, the national admin-istration was seeking court delays in the implementa-tion of desegregation plans for 30 school districts inMississippi, indicating a retreat from its resolve toinsist upon immediate desegregation. As a result, manyMississippi districts, including a number that borderedon New Albany, reneged on their commitment to de-segregate by September 1969. Mr. Smith, however,remained firm, and his faculty remained united behindhim. Despite strong pressure to remove the superin-tendent and delay integration, the school board sup-ported the superintendent and integration in New Al-bany's secondary schools proceeded uneventfully."Mr. Smith later resigned his position voluntarily tocomplete studies for his doctorate and accepted ateaching position at Mississippi State College forWomen. He continues to serve as a consultant to theNew Albany School District.

Hoke County, North Carolina, is another example ofcommitment and leadership by the school superintend.ent which contributed significantly to successful deseg-regation. Hoke County is located in the south centralpart of North Carolina in a traditionally conservativearea. The student population of nearly 5,000 consistsof three distinct racial groupswhite, black, andAmerican Indian. Until the 1968-69 school year, thecounty had maintained separate schools for each racialgroup. The school board had consistently rejected pro-posals for desegregation made by the school superin-tendent. In December 1967, the incumbent school super.intendent died and was replaced by Donald Abernethy,who previously had been a successful principal in thecounty school system.

Mr. Abernethy was able to persuade the schoolboard to prepare voluntarily for desegregation, to be

"Id. Despite the success of Title IV grants to facilitate desegregation ofthe elementary schools. an application for a grant to facilitate secondaryschool desegregation was rejected by REW.

accomplished in September 1969. He applied for andobtained a Title IV grant to fund human relationsworkshops during the months preceding desegregation.The superintendent made special effort to assure that aschool board member, as well as teachers of all races,participated in these workshops, which were addressedby leading human relations consultants." According toMr. Abernethy, the workshops had the effect ,sf de-creasing apprehension concerning desegregationamong the school teachers of different races and in-creasing their awareness and sensitivity concerninghuman relations problems as they worked together andbegan to know each other."

During the same period, the school board and thesuperintendent sought to involve the communitythrough a public meeting advertised as an opportunityto discuss consolidation of the district's three highschools. At this meeting, the discussion focused on theissue of school desegregation and a number of ques-tions were asked concerning the necessity for desegre-gation and how- it would work. Opposition was alsoexpressed to the actions the board and the superin-tendent proposed to take. The superintendent statedfrankly that the board had decided to desegregate vol-untarily under its own plan, rather than wait for acourt order or administrative enforcement proceedingunder Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Thebasic reason for this decision, he said, was "because itis right for the school system." 45

Complete desegregation of the Hoke County SchoolSystem took place without incident in September of1969. The faculty as well as students were integratedand school functions and activities were conducted onan integrated basis.

In May 1970, the first school board election follow-ing desegregation was held. A., incumbent schoolboard members were reelected. The school superintend-ent has been retained and still occupies his position. InMay 1972 another election for school board will beheld. No candidate is running on a platform opposedto desegregation. The black community has not pro-posed a candidate because it is satisfied with the waythe schools are being run.""

Another school superintendent who sought to leadhis community to successful school desegregation wasAllen Thornton, Jr., Superintendent of Public Schoolsfor Lauderdale County, Alabama. In 1966 and 1967

18

43 Interview with Donald Abernethy, Superintendent, Rake County PublicSchools. Mar. 28, 1970.

"Id." Id.a Id.

desegregation of the Lauderdale County schools waspartly accomplished largely through Mr. Thornton'sinitiative and persistence. He also received Title IVgrants for those 2 'years to fund programs emphasizingteaching techniques and individualized instruction,

Mr. Thornton was convinced that less than full de-segregation was not enough and took steps, with theaid of Title IV, to persuade his school board and thecommunity to accept total desegregation. As he put it:"I did not want to leave the job undone."47

He utilized the funds under the Title IV grant toconduct in-service training programs for LauderdaleCounty teachers and to bring in guest speakers, suchas Mrs, Elizabeth Koontz, then President of the Na-tional Education Association, and Dr. John Letson, Superintendent of the Atlanta Public School System, whospoke of the advantages of desegregation. Under theTitle IV program, teachers of both races were broughttogether to work cooperatively on dealing with prob-lems that would be encountered in the process of de-segregation, The teachers also visited other school sys-tems where desegregation had been successful.

At the time, Mr. Thornton made successful efforts toobtain Federal program money to help improve thequality of school facilities in Lauderdale County.Through funds provided by the Appalachian RegionalCommission, a new vocational high school was con-structed and named after Mr. Thornton. In September1968, total desegregation of the Lauderdale Countyschools was accomplished.

Mr. Thornton, like the superintendents of New Al-bany and Hoke County, through firm commitment andeffective use of Title IV funds, was able to lead hisschool system to full school desegregation, Unlike theexperience of the other two school superintendents,however, his efforts resulted in the loss of his position.In November 1968, after having served as superintend-ent for 16 consecutive years, Mr. Thornton was de-feated in a bid for reelection through a write-in cam-paign initiated by State and local officials.48 His suc-cessor told Commission staff that he would not havepushed for desegregation unless ordered by thecourt." After his defeat, Mr. Thornton accepted aposition as assistant principal of the new vocationalschool which carries his name.

Types of Programs Funded

As previously indicated, Section 405 provides for

,*1 Interview with Allen Thornton, Jr., Assistant Principe/ of MICA

Thornton, Jr. Vocational School, Lauderdale County, Alabama, Jan. 16, 1970.48 Interview with Mr. Thornton's successor. ()able Tinvelle, Superintendent.

Launderdale County Schools, Florence, Ala., Jan. 16, 1970.as Id.

19

the funding of two types of programs, one for in -serv-ice training dealing with problems incident to desegre-gation and one for the employment of specialists toadvise concerning problems incident io desegregation.In practice, however, the distinction has amounted tolittle more than a difference in the funding mechanismutilized, the level of funding provided, and the greaterflexibility in staff selection made possible at higherfunding levels. The programs, as they actually havedeveloped, have merged the in-service training andadvisory specialist functions of the directors of the twotypes of programs.

Advisory specialist grants normally have been

funded at a lower level than in-service training grants.The advisory specialist program often has utilized ex-isting school district personnel in conducting their pro-grams. The in-service training program, by contrast,has been able to bring in greater numbers of consult-ants and experts from nearby facilities, such as institu-tions of higher learning, desegregation centers, andhuman relations organizations. Thus, the in-servicetraining program has been a richer program and plan-ning has been projected on a broader scale.

Content of Programs

Local programs can conceivably cover a broadrange of topics.5° In the school districts visited by

A review of grant applications that were accepted yielded the followingrange of topics: Presentations by specialists on psychological and sociologicalfactors incident to school desegregation, exploration of feelings of personsof representative ethnic groups, techniques for grouping children for inotructional purposes, examination of materials in order to create understanding of children with polyethnic backgrounds, exploration of techniquesof working with parents through parentteacher conferences, problems incident to the favorable self-images in children of opposite ethnic groups, ArtHistory, Negro History, Cultural Dialect, Curriculum Development, Childrenwith Learning Difficulties, How Child and Family Service Serves the Family,Teaching Young People in the Detention Home, Education and the Courts,Psychological Aspects of Desegregation, Intellectional and Social Competenceof the Disadvantaged, educational needs of disadvantaged children, helpingthe crossover teacher communicate with the disadvantaged child, use ofbehavioral theories and instructional techniques and materials, teaching ina bongraded school', teaching as one of a team, use of standard tests formeasurements, television as a classroom tool, communication skill develop.ment required to teach effectively in racially mired clams, Health Practicesof the Poor, Consumer Practices of the Poor, Effect of Cultural Deprivation,Nutrition and Intellectual Development, Compensatory Programs, PreSchoolPrograms, Effective Use of Verbal Behavior in the Classroom, Croup Dynamicsin the Classroom Setting, Simulations as Learning Devices, Measuring andEvaluating Student Accomplishment and Curriculum Materials, and Processesin Social Studies Patterns of Internal Classroom Organization Designed toAchieve Academic Competence which Promote Worthy SelfImage the Roleof Principa:s, Administrators, Counselors, and Teacher. in the Desegregationof Schools.

Source: Proposals for the following School Systems, WilliamsburgJamesCity County School Board (Va.) ; West Carroll Parish Board (La.) ; Biloxi

Municipal Separate School District (Miss.) ; Bossier Parish School Board

(La.) ; Asheville City Board of Education (N.C.) ; Chesapeake Public

Schools (Okla.) ; Enid Public Schools (Okla.) ; Sampson County Public

Schools (MC.) Alamance County Schools (N.C.) ; Chesapeake Public

School. (Vs.).

Commission staff, activities developed by Title IVcoordinators 61 have included publications of a pain.phlet about desegregation in the school district (NewAlbany, Mississipr: and Cha:lottesville, Virginia) ; de-velopment of model or demonstration schools forobservation of desegregation techniques (VolusiaCounty, Florida and Muskogee, Oklahoma) ; and crea-tion of a special teacher corps to advise and trainregular faculties in such areas as team teaching, cur-riculum studies, audio-visual materials, and textbookevaluation (Volusia County, Florida). They also haveincluded visits to minority areas to see first-hand theenvironment in which minority children live. In Ber-nalillo County, New Mexico, teachers visited the SantoDomingo Pueblo to attend a mass offered in honor ofthe Pueblo's patron saint, St. Dominic. The teachersalso saw ceremonial dancing, and had a live-in experi-ence at the Cochiti and Santo Domingo pueblos withIndian families.62 Occasionally, visits have been madeto schools or districts in which desegregation alreadyhad taken place."

Most programs have placed major emphasis onproblems likely to be encountered in teaching the dis-advantaged child, on the introduction of new teachingtechniques, and on problems of human relations in theclassroom.

The usual format has been the formal lecture by avisiting consultant, followed by group discussion ofthe lecture topic. Some pfograms also have utilizedsimulated classroom settings in which teachers cangain experience in teaching a racially mixed group ofstudents. Following observation by colleagues and su-pervisors, teachers receive suggestions on handlingparticular issues and problems arising during theteaching session.

Although the desegregation process necessarily in-volves white as well as black children and teachers, thetraining sessions have tended to view it as a blackproblem. In a number of districts visited by Commis-sion staff, black teachers commented on the limitationsof this approach. One black teacher said:

The program [Title IV workshop] was one-sided.Blacks moved into white schools, but the teachersonly got information on how to work withblacks."

Coordinmors here refer to advisory specialists or directors of in.aervice training programs.

Bernalillo Public Schools Tri-Cultural Sensitivity In-Service TrainingProgram Report. Also interview with Arnold 1. Reel. Director of Title IV inBernalillo. February 1970.

53 Id.

"Interview with Mrs. Edna S. Sheppard, St. Lucie County, Fla., Apr. 8,1970.

20

Another had this to say:

I thought it was a fine gesture to bring teacherstogether to discuss the problems. . . . Blacks gaveall the information on the characteristics of thedisadvantaged [black] child. Blacks got no information from whites on whites."

Muskogee, Oklahoma was again unusual amonglocal recipients of Title IV funds in that schoolofficials recognized the need to deal with the concernsof both races if desegregation were to work. Theyanticipated, for example, that many whites would fearthat desegregation would lower the quality of educa-tion available to their children. To overcome thesefears, training sessions were devoted to various ways'of improving the quality of education. These involvedsuch techniques as team teaching, nongraded class-rooms, new programs of art, music, and drama, andthe development, of innovative types of curriculum.Although the program emphasized quality education,the focus on desegregation remained constant.

Muskogee school officials were also aware of thebasic fear amorg black teachers, parents, and studentsthat desegregation would result in giving them a re-duced role in the integrated school system. To meetthese fears, the school system consciously involvedblacks in every aspect of planning for desegregation,made successful efforts to recruit black administratorsfor the desegregated system, and took steps to assurethat black students would participate as leaders insuch student activities as athletics, clubs, student coun-cils, and cheerleaders.

In some cases, the programs have tended to perpetu-ate the system of segregation. For example, Commis-sion staff viewed a film developed under the McComb,Mississippi, Title IV program which showed segregationthroughout the program. Students were shown learning,about various occupations. Black students saw blackbusinessmen and white students saw white business-men. Of special note was the fact that black studentssaw only blacks in menial trades while whites sawarchitects, nurses, doctors, and persons in comparableoccupations.

Assessment of Local Programs

The realistic standard by which the value of TitleIV grants to local educational agencies should bemeasured is the extent to which the programs theysupport have helped school districts achieve desegrega-tion with minimum delay, disruption of the educa-

" Interview with Charles Bryan... Classroom Teacher, St. Landry Pariah.La., Mar. 8-13, 1970.

tional process, or disharmony in the school and 'com-munity. The Commission recognizes that many factorsother than the Title IV programthe quality of lead-ership exercised by the school board and its chiefadministrators. the political climate in the State orlocality, the vigor with which Federal Title VI enforce.ment is pursuedoperate to determine the success orfailure of school desegregation in particular communi-ties. The effort under Title IV rarely can be decisiveand it is difficult to measure with any precision thecontribution that LEA grants have made. In view ofthe sizable amounts of money that have been expendedunder this aspect of the Title IV program; however,there would appear to be an obligation on the part ofHEW and other entities involved to try to determinehow effective these grants have been. Such evaluationsas have been conducted have been superficial, subjec-

tive, and inconclusive.The one effort by HEW to evaluate the impact of

Title IV activities was made in 1966. Because of timepressures, personal visits to local projects to form thebasis of a judgment on the value of these programswere precluded." Thus, the evaluation was based en-tirely on an analysis of files. In fact, the evaluationreport reached no conclusion regarding the qualityand effectiveness of the programs." So loose was thecontrol exercised by HEW Title IV staff members thatthey were even unable to inform the staff investigatorwhen training sessions were being held." Some assess-ments of local programs have been made by grantrecipients, participants, or outside evaluators. These,however, typically have been far from thorough orobjective."

At the local level most school administrators inter-viewed by Commission staff were convinced that theTitle IV program had helped their districts, but seldorncould specify the contributions it had made. For exam-ple, the Title IV director in Moore County, North.Carolina expressed the benefits from the Title IV pro-gram only in general terms, such as: helping teachersof both races to work together, building better racerelations generally, and avoiding many racial problemswhich might have arisen."

A Georgia school official indicated the ". . . oneaccomplishment of the program was the fact that thecommunity knew that we recognized the problems and

,s Report by Mob Sherry Arnstein, Sell Evaluation of Title IV (EEOP), at28 (1966).

'7 hi,"Id." Participants in training program, have been asked by program leaders

to rate the speakers on a three or four point scale and to make narretivecomments on the value of the session'.

fo interview with Lawrence H. Robinson, Title iv Director, Moore CountySchools. Carthage, N.C., Jan. 27, 1970.

were trying to do something about them!" " AnotherGeorgia official said:

Our teachers [black and white] associated in alearning situation, and they learned that they hadsimilar problems, yet both had unique problems.. . . If not for the program, we would have had alot more trouble than we had.62

A school principal in McComb, Mississippi toldCommission staff that the program brought two groupsof educators together to communicate. "Before, we hadno communication whatsoever." 88

Faculty and administrators in New Albany, Missis-sippi, where total integration was achieved withoutserious incident in September 1969, were somewhatmore explicit: "Withcut Title IV we could not haveconvinced the faculty, which influenced the schoolboard." 84

According to one account of the New Albany pro-gram:

. . . this project is unique in that it is designed toimprove the quality of instruction for every childwhile providing acceptance for and a smoothtransition to complete desegregation."

According to this report, published by the schooldistrict itself, the program demonstrated that introduc-tion of new teaching techniques could result in improv-ing the quality of education for black and 'white stu-dents in New Albany. Other elements which contrib-uted to success in New Albany were said to be frankdiscussions of human relations issues which helpedteachers of different races work together cooperativelyin developing programs for team teaching and individ-ualized instruction. The element of "continuous prog-ress," under which children may move to the next levelof difficulty as soon as they have mastered the mate-rial, was another important factor."

Persons interviewed elsewhere repeated the themethat the Title IV program had provided faculty andother school officials with new experier-_,es acrossracial lines, In Hoke County, North Carolina where, itwill be recalled, the population contains three majorgroupsblacks, whites, and American Indiansthemere fact of holding joint faculty meetings was consid-

21

at with J. Edwin Stowe, Superintendent, Stephens County

Schools, Toccoa, Ga., February 1970.Interview with C. N. England, Director of Special Services, Clayton

County School District, Jonesboro, Ga., Feb. 24, 1970.Interview with John Gilmore, Principal, Higgins High School, McComb,

Miss., Dec. 10, 1969."Interview with 0, Wayne Goon. High School Principal, New Albany,

Miss December 1969.02 The New Albany Story, New Albany Independent School District, New

Albany, Miss, 1969.co Id.

ered a momentous achievement. The current superin-tendent told Commission staff:

This program brought together for the first timethe teachers of all three races. They wrestled withmany of the problems they would ultimately facewhen they began teaching in integrated schools.But most valuable, I think, was the experience oflearning to work together as teachers."

In McComb, Mississippi, the coordinator of the TitleIV program reported that the major benefit of theprogram was that white teachers began speaking toblack teachers when they met downtown after theprogram."

In Richmond, Virginia, a participant commented onthe city's Title IV program: "It was the first timeblacks and whites could work together and respecteach other." 69

And in Silver City, New Mexico, the Title IV Coondinator reported:

The purpose of the program is to get the twogroups to communicate. . . We have made abeginning in realizing the purpose. The groups[Chicano and white Anglo] are talking to eachother."

Some participants interviewed by Commission staffwere more crit.cal of the Title IV programs. Oneteacher who took part in several workshops on deseg-regation noted severe limitations in their effectiveness:

We've got to live this stuff. It won't do any goodto talk about integration if people still refuse tocooperate. While it was helpful to the partici-pants, the most prejudiced persons did not takepart."

This observation was common to many of the pro-grams since participation usually has been on a volun-tary basis. There were also numerous complaints thatthe program did not deal with the specific issue ofdesegregation, but rather concentrated on materialsand techniques with which any good teacher shouldalready be acquainted.

One teacher complained:

The program was on teacher techniques. They

" Interview with Donald Abernethy, supra note 41°, Interview with W. L. Tobias, Director, Title IV Program, McComb,

Miss., Dec. 10, 1969.

" Nathaniel Lee, Director of Title IV, Richmond City Schools, Richmond,Va., March 1970.

" Interview with Mrs. Maria Cuttierez Spencer. Silver City Schools,H. Mex., February 1970.

Interview with Leonard C. Jewett. Teacher, Hampton City Schools, Mar.16, 1970.

22

told us what to do and how. I think it failedbecause they were not talking about the childrenwe would have to teach. It was holing. I thoughtI was going to die. The consultants were paid$100 a day plus travel expenses to tell us how toteach."

Several participants in Title IV programs expressedthe view that the workshops were inadequate in thatthey failed to consider fears of desegregation felt byminority faculty, students, and parents. As previouslynoted, few instances were found by Commission staffwhere attention was given to the fear of black teachersand principals that they might lose their jobs, be de-moted, or otherwise have problems in a newly inte-grated, formerly white school. Nor was adequate atten-tion paid to the possibility that black students, parents,and teachers might resist leaving a familiar situationin which there was pride in long-standing traditions.

That these fears were not unfounded was reportedby a black school official in Biloxi, Mississippi, whodescribed to Commission staff the experiences of blackstudents who transferred to the white high school:

Two girls who chose to go to white schools stayedonly six weeks. The- students at Biloxi HighSchool did not le them into their social groups.Many students here were disappointed because ofthe lack of warmth at the white high school. . . .

They felt left out."

His remarks were confirmed in interviews with stu-dents who had attended Biloxi High School. As oneblack student put it: "You feel very alone when youdon't have any friends." 74

Basic Weaknesses of Local Programs

In the course of Commission staff investigations intothe working of local Title IV programs, a number ofbasic weaknesses have been revealed. One has been thelack of sufficient resources for funding them. The typi-cal grant to an individual school district has beenabout $50,000 for a training program and even lessfor an advisory specialist program. While theseamounts may appear impressive, particularly in rela-tion to the budgets of small school systems, they areminiscule in relation to the enormity of the problemsof behavioral and attitudinal change that school sys-

" Interview with Mrs. Dorothy Sealy, Teacher. Hardy High School, Chatta.moan. Tenn., Feb. 27. 1970.

73 Interview with Bruee Steward, Student, Biloxi School District, Biloxi,Miss., January 1970.

interview with Philip Candy, student, Biloxi School District, Biloxi,Miss., January 1970.

tems must meet in the process of desegregation.75 Fur-ther, even where sufficient funds have been available toenable districts to initiate effective Title IV programs,there has seldom been continuing financial assistanceso that the gains could be reenforced.

Insufficient funds, however, have by no means beenthe sole. or even primary, weakness in the local TitleIV programs. Perhaps the most serious shortcomingthe Commission has found has been the lack of clearconsistent goals which the programs had been expectedto achieve. From the beginning, the entire Title IVprogram has been characterized by a failure at thenational level to enunciate goals and to delineate ap-propriate strategies for program emphasis. Confusionnationally has been reflected in local school districtsand has led to the funding of programs which havedealt only indirectly and peripherally with desegrega-tion.

Consequently. many local programs have not cometo grips with specific desegregation issues. Insteadthey have focused almost entirely on teaching tech-niques and on imparting information relevant to understanding the so-called disadvantaged child. As onewhite participant said of the program she attended:"The sessions treated educational problems, but notthe unique problems caused by teaching in desegre-gated schools." 76

S) gingerly has the approach to desegregation oftenbeen that another teacher told Commission staff thatshe had not even been aware that the program wasrelated to desegregation. As far as she could tell theprogram has been designed to provide understandingof poor children.77 She felt that she had not derivedany benefit which helped prepare her for a desegre-gated classroom. The failure to establish goals relatedspecifically to desegregation is also apparent in thestatement made by a school official in Biloxi, Missis-sippi, who explained that the major focus of a trainingcourse funded by Title IV was "remedial reading." 78

In short, many Title IV programs have been di-rected primarily toward educational goals and onlysecondarily, and often remotely, to the goal of desegre-gation. In the many school districts visited by Commis-sion staff, there were few success stories in Title IV

" One former Branch Chief In the Division of Equal Educational Opportunities in Washington commented that LEA grants were funded at a"paltry level" as was the entire Title 1V program thereby making nationaldesegregation impossible. The political leadership should have been awareof the consequences of such a funding level.

76 Inter view with Mrs. Brenda Berrybill, teacher, Tuscaloosa County, Ala.,Feb. 13. 1970.

71 Interview with Mn. s Venie Yancy, teacher, Madison County, Ga., Feb.25, 1970.

" Final report of Title IV project. February 1966 to June 1966, p. 1.

Remarks of Bill Lee, Assistant Superintendent, Biloxi Public Schools.

programming because desegregation issues were ig-nored or kept as a hidden agenda.

Many local programs have been further weakenedby the permissiveness of superintendents and adminis-trators in determining participation on a voluntarybasis, leaving out those most in need of informationand guidance on desegregation.

Still another flaw has been the failure to involve thecommunity-at-large in the desegregation process. Typi-cally, efforts under Title IV have been confined tothose officially connected with the school system, butcommunity leaders rarely have been asked to partici-pate or even to support desegregation. Administratorsof these programs have assumed community oppositionto the purposes of Title IV and, rather than seeking tochange the perceived climate of opinion, have acceptedit and approached the task of overcoming the problemsincident to desegregation timidly and equivocally.These programs have been of limited value. By con-trast, in several cases where programs have been suc-cessful, a key element has been a determined effort bylocal administrators to involve community leadership.For example, administrators in Muskogee, Oklahoma,and Moore County and Hoke County, North Carolina,set about the task of desegregation by making anaffirmative effort to enlist and mold community leader-ship support. In all three school districts desegregationtook place without serious incident.

In addition, the Title IV programs in LEA's werenever integral parts of the school system's administra-tive structure and, therefore, the director could notinfluence personnel selection, budgeting, school siteselection, and other major activities which tend tosupport, perpetuate, or break up segregation.79

Finally, the program has suffered from local auton-omy in the operation of the programs. As the directorof one university desegregation center told Commis.sion staff:

23

Behind the theory of the LEA grant are the as-sumptions (1) that they [local educational agen-cies] can analyze their own problems and, (2)that they have the talent to run an effective pro-gram to solve the problem. We do not think thatthose assumptions are commonly fulfilled in ourState."

He concluded: "The LEA grant program is ineffectivein that it requires a sick patient to cure himself." 81

7° Dr. William J. Holloway, Evaluation Review Breech, May 1970.to Interview with Clen Honts, Director, Educational Resource Center on

School Desegregation, New Orients, La., Mar. 11, 1970.a Id.

CHAPTER IV

UNIVERSITY DESEGREGATION CENTERS

Introduction

The Federal Government makes grants under twosections of Title IV to institutions of higher learningto meet the problems incident to desegregation. UnderSection 403, colleges or universities, under contractwith the U.S. Office of Education, provide technicalassistance to local school boards in preparing andimplementing desegregation plans.' Under Section 404,the institutions, under grant or contract with the Officeof Education, conduct training institutes for schoolpersonnel? Since 1968 grants under both sections havebeen merged under a single program. These forms ofassistance are provided through "desegregation cen-ters" which are often affiliated with a university'sschool of education from which they draw heavily forstaff and other resources?'

Center activities include training programs andshort -term conferences for school districts, and assist.ance to local districts in the preparation of proposalsfor direct assistance under Title IV. They oftenconduct local surveys and studies to pinpoint desegre-gation problems and develop and distribute desegrega-tion materials to local school districts. Centers alsogive assistance in planning, evaluation, and reportingon local school system projects supported under TitleIV.

Although the first center was established in 1965,less than a year after enactment of Title IV, it was notuntil 1968 that the center concept became a key ele-ment in the operation of Title IV. In Fiscal Year 1966,less than $341,000 was expended on centers, followedby an even lower expenditure of $236,000 in 1967.Rapidly thereafter, the figures jumped to $2.8 millionin 1968 and to almost $3.6 million in 1969. By 1970,the expenditure for centers had more than doubled to

1 Civil Rights Act of 1964, PL 119-352, Title IV, Section 403. Section 403authorizes the Commissioner of Education "to render technical assistucein the preparation, adoption, and implementation of plans for the denary's.tion of public schools." This technical aulatance was initially provideddirectly by the Office of Education through its own staff and the use ofconsultants. Since 1966, however. the Office of Education has increasinglyused the services of colleges or universities which are under contract toprovide technical ',Materna within a particular geographical area.

Civil Rights Act of 1964, PL 88-352, Title IV, Section 404.Desegregation centers have been established in the Southern and border

States in order to provide cervices within States' geographic areu. Recently,there have been several such centers in the North and West.

$8,168,391. This increase reflected the additional ex-pense to be incurred by virtue of technical assistanceprovisions of university desegregation center contracts.and the anticipated increase in center activity in thepreparation of desegregation plans for school systemsordered to desegregate pursuant to court orders direct.ing that assistance be rendered by center personneland Title IV staff. By 1971, most desegregation planshad been written and a reduction to 85,145,621occurred in allocations to centers for technical assist-ance. This amount. however, still represented an in-crease of 11/, times the amount expended in 1969.4

In the early years following enactment of Title IV,training institutes at colleges and universities wereseparately funded and administered under Section 404.These were designed as short-term training programs"to improve the ability of teachers, supervisors, coun-selors, and other elementary or secondary school per-sonnel to deal effectively with special educational prob-lems occasioned by desegregation." 5 Although theOffice of Education still funds occasional independenttraining institutes under Section 404, most university-run training activities are now operated through thecontiquing desegregation centers and are part of anoverall effort to provide technical assistance.

24

The Institute Program

Training institutes played a significant role in theoperation of the Title IV program in its early years.Between 1965 and 1967 nearly $9.5 million, or morethan 40 percent of the total Title IV budget, was spenton institute programs. By contrast, in the years 1968through 1971, the amount spent on institutes was only$3.6 million, or 6.2 percent of the overall Title IVmonies spent for that period.6

A total of 65 colleges and universities in the South-ern and border States has sponsored 162 training in-stitutes for local school personnel. These institutionshave been approximately evenly divided between pri-vate and public colleges and universities. Thirty-one

1971 figures may not be final as contracts may be amended to includeadditional expenses incurred during 1971-72. See Table C2.

Civil Rights Act of 1964, PL 88-352, Title IV, Section 404.° See Table Dl.

institutes were held at 18 colleges with predominantlyblack student enrollments? Most institutes were heldunder the auspices of the school of education withinthe college.

The institute program was based largely on recom-mendations of the Special Task Force established in1963 in anticipation of passage of civil rights legisla-tion which would bring substantial school desegrega-tion responsibilities to the Office of Education. The taskforce expected institutes to concentrate primarily ondevelopment of techniques in human relations and ondesign of curricular content for children from an"atypical environment".3

Program emphasis needed to be developed, stated theTask Force Report, so that the limited resources couldbe used most effectively.9 Further, the report recom-mended that an effort be made to identify situationswhich could be developed as prototype projects andthat a priority system be established for the evaluationof applications received in response to programannouncements.'°

In December 1964, a Leadership Conference on In.stitutes, composed of specialists in education, schooladministration, the behavioral sciences, and communityintergroup organizations, was held at the University ofMaryland." The specialists considered the geographi-cal areas which should be served by the institutes,appropriate subject content for institutes, the kinds ofschool desegregation problems institute programsshould consider, evaluation techniques, and desiredfollowup programs." The final conference report pro-vided a working document that was later utilized byTitle IV staff in developing guidelines and proceduresfor operation of the program. Many of the recommen-dations were incorporated in materials disseminated toprospective applicants.

The report focused on procedural issues, such asformat, eligibility for participation, and geographicalareas where the assistance of training institutes wouldbe needed. Thus the conference concluded that:

Where several institutions of higher learningcould jointly plan with adjacent interested schooldistricts, an institute might have a better chanceof achieving its goal.

Personnel recruited for institutes could be of sev-ral kinds. The statutory term "school personnel"

7 see Table DS.Luddington Task Force Report. at 1.

9 Id.le Id.n Office of Education Report . . . Leadership

1965. University of Maryland. Dec. 16-19, 1964.72 Id.

Conference on Institutes,

was defined broadly to include school nurses, busdrivers, and orofessional community persons con-cerned with education, as well ay those tradition-ally considered school personnel.

Participation by teams of school personnel from agiven school system was preferable to individualsbecause they could be more effective in facilitat-ing desegregation plans when they returned home.

Although areas in the South where the problemswere most severe and compliance in st difficultmight well request and need assistance most, acuteproblems of desegregation existed in other partsof the country and merited consideration and as-sistance.

Those institutions of higher education which ex-pressed early interest in developing training instituteson desegregation were sent copies of a Policies andProcedures Manual kr Training Institutes." TheManual provided guidelines for developing instituteproposals and designated format and time limits forsubmission. It encouraged colleges and universities in-terested in holding institutes to seek out school dis-tricts to persuade them to participate." One reasonwhy the Manual encouraged these contacts was to enable school systems facing or anticipating school deseg-regation problems to plan the institute proposaljointly. Such joint planning would offer opportunitiesfor most effectively utilizing available resources withinthe school districts." Later, when the program becamemore widely known and accepted, school districtsbecame more directly active in seeking participationfrom the colleges and uninsities.

Content of Institute ?rogram

The Manual, like the Leadership Conference Report,emphasized issues of procedure and provided littleguidance for the content or specific objectives to bemet by the institutes, except to state broadly that thepurpose of institutes was to:

improve the ability of teachers, supervisors, coun-selors, and other elementary or secondary schoolpersonnel to deal effectively with special educa-tional problems occasioned by desegregation."

In discussing the content of programs directed towardthis purpose, the Manual stated:

°Equal Educational Opportunities Program. Porkies and Procedures forInstitute, for Special Training on Problem's of School Desegregation, 1964.

1 Id.Id.

la Id. This statement in fact la simply partiel restatement of Section404 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, p. L

Institute programs may be developed with respectto any of the special educational problems occa-sioned by desegregation in public elementary orsecondary schools. . . . Sociological, psychologi-cal, curricular, instructional, or administrativetopics may be considered as long as there is logi-cal relationship to problems associated with theassignment of students to public schools andwithin such schools without regard to their race,color, religion or national origin.17

The Manual provided that acceptable programs couldcover a broad range of subject matter so long as therewas a logical relationship to problems associated withthe process of elementary and secondary school deseg-regation. Further, it provided that programs were tobe aimed primarily at school personnel who could in-fluence others in the district, to be oriented towardaction on specific desegregation problems, to providefor followup relationships between institute staff andparticipants, and to provide interdisciplinary ap-proaches to school desegregation problems.12 It alsosuggested that areas of administration and curriculumwere particularly pertinent to desegregation problemsand were the concern of each level of the school dis-trict hierarchy, implying that these were desirableareas for institute programming.19

Although the Manual offered only general guidelineson program content related to desegregation, it wasspecific, and even emphatic, about educational content:

It is the philosophy of this program that "thespecial educational problems occasioned by deseg-regation" referred to in the Act are just that:namely, educational problems. . . . Such mattersas motivation for learning, academic achievement,methods of instruction, instructional materials, de--sign and content of curriculum, counselling and,,nidance, teacher attitudes and the organization

', Equal Educational Opportunities Program, Polities and Procedures forInstitutes for Special Training on Problems of School Desegregation, 1964.This statement in fact is simply partial restatement of Section 404 ofthe Civil Rights Act of 1964, p. 1.

ld." Although no detailed requirements concerning pregnant content were

Provided in the Manual, there were indications of matters which might beanalyzed by school districts within a training institute program: understand.tog different value systems of different racial and class subcultures in thecommunity and the Implication of these for the classroom situation, under.standing characteristics of an impoverished community and the nature,causes, and effects of cultural deprivation, means of organizing the schooland classroom for improved instructional quality, development of appropriatevocational. special education, and other specialized programs designed toprovide instruction appropriate to individual student differences, proceduresfor dealing with disciplinary problems in desegregated schools resultingfrom lack of communication among students, planning content, organisationand conduct of extracurricular activities in situations involving students ofdifferent bacgrounds. U. pp. 3-4.

of classrooms, teacher staffs and schools wouldseem to be of paramount importance."

The failure to establish requirements or specificguidance on how institute programs should relate todesegregation left Federal officials with little in theway of objective standards by which to judge theworth of institute proposals. This led to the approvalof proposals of minimal value for purposes of desegre-gation. In discussing early institutes funded underTitle IV, one Federal administrator stated: "We werevery naive about the implications of the proposals.There were a lot of proposals on compensatory education. We accepted them as good then. Looking back,they were horrible." 21 He concluded: "We were prob.ably okaying things that did more harm than good." 22

At the time the Commission uLdertook its investiga-tion, the institute program had been largely de-empha-sized, except as part of a larger university involvementin desegregation. Thus, examination of the actual oper-ation of individual institute programs was not possible.Furthermore, few written reports on the program exist.Evaluation, therefor,-;, necessarily relied heavily uponinterviews with former institute directors, with centraloffice personnel in Washington, and with former par-ticipants in institute programs.

According to institute reports available to Commis-sion staff and interviews with officials and partici-pants, the emphasis of institutes was frequently on newtypes of teaching techniques and problems of the dis-advantaged, but was rarely focused directly on deseg-regation.

For example, an institute held at Knoxville College,Knoxville, Tennessee, in 1967, dealt mainly with lan-guage arts. Lecture topics included: linguistic aware-ness, dialect study, effective strategies for teaching po-etry, understanding the "world of work", and improv-ing writipg, ability. There is no record that these topicswere in any way related to desegregation. The pro-gram also ,cluded a presentation by two performingartists who read works from black authors.23

Other institutes had titles which clearly suggested afocus other than desegregation. For instance, a 1965institute at Auburn University in Auburn, Alabamawas entitled "Special Training Institute for Teachersof Culturally Deprived Children." There was one at-tempt at interracial training at the Auburn institute,

26

"Equal Educational Opportunities Program, Policies and Procedures forInstitutes for Special Training on Problems of School Desegregation, 1964,pp. 4 and 5.

sr Interview with Dart Rullt, REV?, Central Office, Title IV, Apr. 1, 1970.22 Id.

is Interview with Dr. Ralph Martin, Knoxville College, Feb. 17, 1970.

which consisted of a picnic intended to encourage freecommunication between participants and staff. Thepicnic also was meant to provide a casual setting soparticipants could share their views regarding issuesof desegregation informally. Howes er, since there wereonly two black teachers among th«- 50 participants. itis unlikely that the cause of interracial understandingwas significantly advanced."

A number of institute programs included visits tolow-income neighborhoods from which many blackchildren could be expected to come. A summer insti-tute in 1967 held at Hampton Institute in. Virginiadealt with problems of teaching disadvantaged chil-dren and included trips to playgrounds, communitycenters, clubs, and youth service organizations in alow-income neighborhood, so that institute participantscould observe the out-of-school habitat of the childrenwhom they might be instructing in the fal1.26

One example of a program aimed specifically atmeeting problems of desegregation was a summertraining institute on group integration in desegregatedschools held in Spring Hill College, Mobile, Alabamain 1967.26 The major objectives were to develop groupleadership skills of educational personnel involved indesegregation, to improve group participation skills ofeducators, to promote integration of working teams ofeducators at all levels of the school system, and todevelop the classroom management potential of teach-ers by providing specialized training in group develop-ment skills in an integrated classroom setting.27 Theinstitute also sought to explore aspects of group inter-action and modern techniques of group problem solv-ing to facilitate the desegregation process. Among thesubjects included in the training sessions were thesocial psychology of the small group, the dynamics of.group development in the desegregated school, and themanagement of the biracial group in the desegregatedschoo1.26 In short, the entire program was directed tovarious elements of desegregation within the schoolsystem.

Staff of Institutes

The directors of the institutes were, for the mostpart, faculty members from the sponsoring schools ofeducation. They included professors of education,directors of teacher education programs, directors of

See Final Report, 1965 Summer Institute, Auburn University, Auburn,Al..

'6 See Director's Technical Report, 1968 Summer Institute, Hampton Insti-tute, Hampton, Vs.

Summer Training Institute on Croup Integration in the DesegregatedSchool, a proposal of the Spring Hill College, Mobile, Ala.

Id."Id.

educational research, chairmen of education divisions,and deans of schools of education.22 There were also afew professors of sociology and psychology who servedas institute directors. In those cases, the institutes em-phasized issues of human behavior and human devel-opment, rather than educational technique."

Statistical data on the racial or ethnic backgroundof institute directors and their staffs are unavailable.Commission staff inquiries, however, revealed thatprincipal personnel of institutes were almost invariablywhite. Of the 13 colleges that responded to the Com-mission's inquiry, only oneSt. Augustine's College, apredominantly blac.k institution had a black institutedirector.31 At an institute held in 1969 at West Vir-ginia Wesleyan College, which dealt with updating in-terethnic aspects of public school education in WestVirginia and strengthening community rapport regard-ing equal educational opportunities, the staff directorof the institute, the associate director and other staffmembers were all white. In addition, all institute con-sultants from outside the State, with one exception,were white.22

Institute Participants

Section 404 requires that persons selected for partic-ipation in institutes be "school personnel"." Ths termwas interpreted broadly by the Office of Education toinclude not only principals, counselors, and teachers,but also cafeteria workers, bus drivers, and schoolnurses." About 70 percent of all institutes were heldfor teachers, about 18 percent for administrative per-sonnel, and about 12 percent for other school person-nel. Occasionally, participants also included commu-nity leaders involved in community organizations con-cerned with the educational process within the schooldistrict. Two institutes involving community leaders

27

Id.ao Id.la Commission Staff Survey.to A I-year program for updathl interethnic aspects of public school

education in West Virginia nod fur strengthening community support in

regard to equal educational °ppm :unities held in 1969-70. Out.ofSteteconsultants included Dr. Ralph B. Kimbrough of the University of Florida,Dr. Joe Hall, Dr. Claud Kitchens and Dr. Samuel B. Ethridge. Dr. Ethridgewas the only outofState consultant who was black and who was not apart of the Title IV program.

ss Section 404 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 provides: The Commissioneris authorized to arrange, through grants or contracts, with institutions ofhigher education for the operation of short term or regular session institutesfor special training designed to improve the ability of teachers, supervisor',counselors, and other elementary or secondary personnel to deal effectivelywith special educational problems occasioned by desegregation. Individualswho attend such an institute on a full time basis may be paid stipends forthe period of their attendance at such institute in amounts specified by theCommissioner in regulations, including allowances for travel to attend suchinstitute.

Interview with Dr. William J. Holloway, Evaluation Branch Chief. MaY1970. See also, Office of Education Report of the Leadership Conference onInstitutes (1965) at 5.

were held in 1965 at the University of Mississippi andAuburn University.2°

Most elementary and secondary school teachers whoparticipated in the institutes were selected by the prin-cipals of their schools. Participants usually includedboth blacks and whites although black representationwas often on a token basis. The teachers came fromthe same school district to attend an institute. Partici-pation was almost always voluntary. In fact, accordingto a number of former institute participants, a teacherusually had to express special interest before he wasasked by his principal to attend." Thus, teachers whomight be most in need of training available at insti-tutesthose unsympathetic or uninterested in desegre-gationwere least likely to participate.

In addition, teachers selected for participation werenot necessarily those who had been or would be as-signed to desegregated classrooms when they returned.This, according to the Manual, was a matter left todetermination by the college operating the particularinstitute." While the institute program was supposedto be concerned specifically with training school per-sonnel to deal effectively with problems of desegrega.tion, the participants were not necessarily those per-sons who would have occasion to profit directly fromthe training.

One of the few institutes which did require that itsparticipants teach in desegregated settings was held atPaul Quinn College in Waco, Texas in 1968.88 Theinstitute participants were recent graduates of PaulQuinn, Baylor University, and other colleges, who hadsigned contracts to teach in the Waco area schools as"crossover" teachers.22

Another institute which made teaching in a desegre-gated school a requirement for participation was heldat the University of Miami, in Coral Gables, Florida,during the summer of 1966.4° Forty teachers from theSouth Florida area were chosen to participate afterthey had indicated that they would be teaching indesegregated schools in the 1966-67 school year.

Unlilk acher training institutes, those for schooladminist, ,)rs (i.e., principals, school board members,and superintendents) generally included only one typeof administrator from several adjacent school districts.In cases where selections were necessary, the auperin.

"The Lesderehip Conference viewed "participation by school personnel"as a wide net Including community leeders. University of Maryland (1965).

" Commission staff interviews with Institute participants.a Office of Education Policies and Procedures Manual for Institute' at 25.se Proposel for funding of 1968 Institute on Cross.over Teacher Training,

Paul Quinn College.el Id.

Leadership Training Institute for Advanced University Study for Teacher'of Newly Desegregated School.. Final Technical Report, 1966 Teacher Train.Jug Inctitute, University of Mierg,

28

tendent usually decided who would attend.The institute program made only an occamonsel cf.

fort to involve the community outside the witted sys-tem. TI,ss Leadership Conference at the tniversiity ofMaryland in 1964 had viewed the statutory term"school personnel" as a category which could includecommunity organization persons and community Dead.ers. Generally, however, Office of Education comtrac.tors subscribed to the view that people in the comma.nity who had no clear connections with the schoolsshould not be trained under Title IV.41 Thus, sewinstitute programs permitted participation by COMUMI-nity leaders who did not have some formal affiliationwith the school system.

Nevertheless, two institutes were held at the Uni-versity of Mississippi and Auburn University in 1965which did involve community leaders.42 The Universityof Mississippi program included not only school ad-ministrators and school boards members, but also afew persons suggested by school superintendents asholding leadership positions in the community." TheAuburn University program included only two commu-nity persons out of a total of 178 institute participants.Such limited participation by leaders from the commu-nity suggests that the institute program, like otherprograms under Title IV, failed to involve the broadercommunity in the desegregation process.

Commission staff found only one case in which stu-dents played a significant role in training institutes.44At the Hampton Institute program, mentioned earlier,about 25 students, then enrolled in desegregatedschools, were brought in to recount their experiencesand problems of adjustment. The teachers were alsogiven an. opportunity to utilize new teaching tech-niques and material developed during the institutewhile working with these children.

Although the Office of Education Manual specifiedthat institutes were to be biracial, in the early daysthere was often only token participation by blacks."As previously noted, the institute on teaching cultur-ally deprived children at Auburn University had onlytwo black participants among a group of 50 teachers.

"See Final Reports of Toss Southern University, 1968 and the Untveosltyof Miami. 1965.

" See Final Reports for University of Mississippi, 1965 and AuburnUnivereity, 1965.

"Among the topicx covered in the inetitute were the provisions of theCivil Rights Act of 1964, procedures used by various school districts tocarry out desegregation, and plenning of future courses of tuition to befollowed in the districts participating in the institute. The number of cormmoony leader. participating I. not known,

The institute an the School Principalship held July 1, 1968 throughFeb. 98. 1969 at Testae Southern University had a block end white studentexplain to the participant, the students' expectations In des gggggg ted schoolsituations.

" See Final Report, Auburn University, 1965 Summsr Institute.

Early institutes for superintendents and school boardmembers also lacked black participants, largely be-cause few school systems employed black persons atpolicy-making administrative levels.

Instructional Techniques and Format

According to institute proposals and reports. themost frequently used instructional technique for insti-tutes was the formal lecture, preceded by assignmentof readings on the lecture topic, and followed bygroup discussion. The speakers were usually collegeprofessors and their fields of specialization rangedfrom education and the behavioral sciences to mathe-matics and science.

Lecturers utilized in the institutes often came fromthe faculties of education and the social sciences at thehost institution or from neighboring colleges and uni-versities. Noted specialists in intergroup relations orother facets of the social sciences were occasionallybrought in from universities or public school systems.These were usually suggested by Office of Educationpersonnel or were persons already known to the insti-tute directors. Presidents and professional staff fromblack institutions were used considerably less often,except at those institutes held in black institutions.

Institutes were criticized from the outset for theirrigid adherence to traditional learning techniques andlack of imagination. For example, an internal memo-randum by Office of Education staff stated in 1966that few institute staff "had tried or even heard ofinnovative techniques. . . . Most discussion groupswere being led by people inexperienced in sensitivitytraining or human relations." 46 The memorandum alsoexpressed disappointment over the fact that there werefew efforts to simulate classroom settings as laborato-ries so that participants could actually experienceteaching on an integrated basis.'

There were other, more basic, dissatisfactions withthe institute program. One was recognition that train-ing is only a single element necessary to carry out asuccessful desegregation program. In addition, the in-stitute program, as initially conceived in 1964, pro-vided only for a one-time project for each school dis-trict rather than a continuing effort as communitiesactually engaged in the desegregation process. Finally,there was a growing recognition that an institution ofhigher learning could make many contributions to theentire concept in addition to training teachers andother school personnel.

For example, a college or university possessed thecapacity to provide technical assistance, then being

" Sherry Arnstein, :unto note 36 at 12."Id.

provided by U.S. Office of Education staff and consultants. to local school districts. It also could be able torespond more quickly and effectively than the Office ofEducation to problems in the local districts because ofits closer proximity and more limited territorial re-sponsibility. In addition, universities could provide aconvenient umbrella for institutes that would permitstaff to assess on a continuing basis existing programswithin a school district and to follow up on themfrequently. A university also had on hand a readysupply of faculty and staff with varied skills and back-grounds to assist in resolving problems. Finally, therewould be opportunity for developing stronger relationships between consultants and local school authoritiesbecause of increased freq.zency of contacts.

In short, the potential role of universities wasviewed as extending beyond that of merely serving asa resource for training to becoming centers for provid-ing a full range of continuing desegregation services.

Desegregation Centers

The concept of desegregation centers was not con-templated at the time of the passage of the Civil RightsAct of 1964. but interpretations of Section 403 (tech-nical assistance) and Section 404 (grants or contractswith institutions of higher education) by the Office ofGeneral Counsel at HEW provided the legal undergird-ing necessary for the development of this concept."

At the peak of the Center program activity in 1970,there were 15 university-based desegregation centersin the United States." All except two of those centers

" The thesis set forth by the HEW Office of General Counsel was that"the Commissioner could tell . . . the University to provide technicalassistance in accordance with requests from any 'school board' withinparticular geographical area and that it would be unnecessary to make anyreferrals to the Office of Education except where the contractor bad futonto question the of the applicant as 'school board' or where it wasunable to render the technical assistance requested."

Although this memorandum provided the legal foundation for the develop-ment of Centers. one additional reason why Centers were so eagerly soughtse Title IV approach was that each contract for an Institute had to beseparately processed. With a limited staff, paper work wai. increasinglyoppressive, and delays in funding legion. The Center was one means ofmaking a single grant Or Contract ,,,,, support for a given year whichhad to meet the rigid funding style of the Office of Education only oncefor the several progrant voniponents Title IV contracts for ealabihdo,,ns ofCenters to Deal with Problems of DesegregationUse of State EducstionAgencies and Universities, p. 9, Aug. 24, 1967.

"Auburn University, University of South Alabama, Ouachita RootletUniversity, University of Miami at Coral Cables, University of Georgia,Tulane University, id" ppi State University, University of New Metico,Teachers College of Colombia Unisersity, University of Oklahoma, St.Augustine's College, University of South Carolina, University of Tenneaee,University of Testis, and 11o. Onivosity of Virginia. The University ofSouthern Mississippi Center has been replaced by Mississippi State Uniserairy. In addition, the University of Delaware Center and Western KentuckyUniversity are no longer being funded. Three additional centers establishedfollowing completion of the Commission's field work are not included inthis study. (University of California at Riverside, the National Center forResearch and Information for Equal Educational Opportunities at ColumbiaUniversity. and Ole Office of Research and yield Services at the School ofEducation at the University of Pittsburgh).

29

were located in Southern or border States.5° Cur-rently, despite a lower level of funding, there are 17.61Twelve are in publicly supported institutions and fiveare in private colleges or universities.62 Sixteen of theinstitutions are predominantly white in student enroll.ment, and one is predominantly black..63

Relationship to University

Despite the potentially significant role that Centerscan Play in helping to resolve a problem of paramountnational concern, there is some indication that theuniversities at which they are located view them in alesser light. For example, while a few of the Centershave been allotted good central accommodations withintheir institutions, the physical location of several sug-gests that they suffer from a low status. Thus, theUniversity of New Mexico Center is located in thecramped space of one room, although it has a full-timestaff of eight persons. The University of Miami Centeris housed in an unairc.onditioned building on a campuswhere airconditioning is generally regarded as stand-ard equipment. The Center at the University of Geor-gia is located near the University's duplicating equip-ment behind some rest rooms and on a floor directlyabove shop equipment.

Several other Centers, while housed in adequatequarters, are located well away from the collegecampus. For example, the Center at the University ofSouth Alabama is found on a separate campus for-merly used as an armed services base several milesdistant from most other university activities.

Universities, also, have shown little pride in theirassociation with desegration centers. They have madeno effort to publicize the existence of desegregationcenters on their campuses. In some cases, they evenhave taken action to prevent such publicity. Thus, in1969, efforts by the desegregation center at the Uni-versity of Georgia to distribute a newsletter providinginformation to school officials on current developmentsand problems in school desegregation were suppressed

as University of New Mexico Cultural Awareness Center at Albuquerque.New Mexico and the National Center for Research and Information for EqualEducational Opportunities at Columbia University (Teachers College).

to Auburn University, University of South Alabama, Ouachita Baptist Uni-versity. University of California at Riverside, University of Miami. Universityof Georgia, Tulane University, Mississippi State University. University ofNew Mexico, Teachers College of Columbia University. St. Augustine's College.University of Oklahoma. University of Pittsburgh, University of SouthCarolina, University of Tennessee, University of Virginia,

as Auburn University, University of South Alabama, University of Cali-fornia at Riverside, University of Georgia, Mississippi State University ofNew Mexico, University of Oklahoma, University of Pittsburgh, Universtiyof South Carolina. University of Tennessee. University of Texas, and theUniversity of Virginia. Centers at private institutions are, Ouachita BaptistUniversity. University of Miami, Tulane University, St. Augustine's College.Columbia University (Teachers College).

" St. Augustine' College.

at the express order of the university administration. "Center staff as well has exhibited a similar reluctanceto be identified with desegregation. In response totelephone calls trade to centers, only one indicated thatit had anv connection with desegregation.55 The othersresponded in a variety of ways, none of which sug-gested a school desegregation function:

"Special Programs" 66"Auburn Center" 57"TEDTAC" ""3213" 69"Education Center" ""Educational Resource Center" 61"General Extension" sz"Human Relations Center" ss"Consultative Center """Cultural Awareness Center" ""Technical Assistance" ""Educational Plannirr, Center" 67

30

Staffing Patterns

As in the case of institute programs, Center staffingpatterns have tended to reflect the attendance patternsof the institutions in which they are located." Of the

" interview with Dr. Mona' Hall. University of Georgia DesegregationCenter Director.

ss University of South Carolina, Columbia," University of Son* Alabama, Mobile, Ala."Auburn University, Auburn, Ala.

Ouachita Baptist Unlearaity, Arkadelphia, Ark.University of Miami, Coral Cables, Its.

" University of Georgia. Athena, Ga." Talent University. New Orleans, La." Mississippi State University, State College. Miss." St. Augustine's College. Raleigh, N.C." Univenity of Oklahoma. Norman, Okla.at University of New Mexico, Albuquerque. N. Men.ss Univenity of Tess, Austin, Tex.sT Ustivenity of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tenn.as per example. at the time of the Commission visits to seven of the

IS (now 17) centers, the following situations prevailed. Auburn UniversityCenter had no blacks OP its staff. (The Center Director as well es theDean of the College of Education indicated that they bad difficulty findingqualified blacks despite the fact that Tuskegee Institute and Alabama ABM,potential sources for "qualified blacks** were within SO mile' of Auburn.)The Centers at the University of South Alabama. Georgia. and Tennesseehad no blacks in professional capacities (Tennessee had block studentassistant), the Universe.), of South Carolina Center bad only one blackserving in a professional capecity, and the University of Minna Center hadonly one black professional although the Center did have block studentassistants. The single black Professional was not located at the MiamiCenter but rather at its northern breech located at predominantly blackFlorida 450 University In Tallahassee, The University of New MexicoCenter. on the other band, had neither black nor white professional 'tail.Since the Commission's visits to the Centers, pains changes have occurredboth because of pressure from the Washington Title IV once and becauseof pressure from individual districts served which indicated that the Centersshould practice what they preached. For example, there is one black pro.feesional staff member and there are two black professional assistants atAuburn University. There remain no black professional staff at the Universityof South Alabama. There are three professional staff members at OuachitaBaptist University. The university now has a block assistant director and"semi staff eneenitams who are black. Mississippi State University nowhas black program specialist and a black assistant professor, At only fiveof the 17 universities does the minority student enrollment exceed 4 percent.

Centers existing at the end of 1971. all but two ofthe directors were white.`" Until 1970, the bulk ofstaff members also were white. Furthermore, mostdirectors in southern centers were products of segre-gated education in Southern or border State schoolsand gained most of their professional experience insegregated institutions as well)*

Center Programs

The two broad categories of programs which centerscarry out have been training of school officials to helpthem adjust to and overcome problems incident todesegregation, and the provision of technical assist-ance, particularly in the form of preparing school de-segregation plans. In addition, desegregation centershave been in a position to promote a climate of opin-ion favorable to school desegregation through theirability to affect the training of teachers at their uni-versities' schools of education and by virtue of theprestige their universities enjoy in the area.

In carrying out these various functions, centers havebeen virtually free of control by the Office of Educa-tion. The amount of supervision that OE has exercisedin the appointment of center staff, in the selection ofconsultants utilized by centers, and in the kind ofprogram carried on, has been minimal. From the view-point of the centers, this has been welcome. As onecenter director told Commission staff: "One of the bestaspects of the center is that so little control is or canbe exercised from Washington or the regions by the

es The Center Director et 5t. Augustine's College, s predominant', blackco117.-1. Dr. William A. Caine., is black. Dr. Joba A. A.agest. the Directorof the University of New Mexico cultural Awareness Center. is MexicanAmericas.

"For example, Dr. John S. Martin attended Alabama State inetitutionegraduating from them in 1951, 1956. and 1959. A chock of these institutionsreveal.. a,cording to the President's office. that no black students wereadmitted prior to 1964. Dr. Martin is at the Auburn Center. lie wu inthe Adult* Public Schools from 1963-1969 when little desegregation hadoccurred in Atlanta.

Dr. Morrill H I1. Director of the University of Georgia Center. attendedEmory University is 1941 and 1946 priorni desegregation of Emory. Rereceived his doctorate from Florida State University in Tallahassee In 1956.The first black student was admitted to Florida State University le 1960-1961.

Dr. lames L. McCullough received his bachelor's and etaster'a degreesfrom Mississipi State University In 1949 and 1954 respeetire11'. Ne receivedhis doctorate from Mimiseippi State University in 196g. Nis Ent two degreeswere obtained prior to the admission of black studio's, but in 196S therewere only .8 percent black students attending the university. The dratblack student war admitted in 1963.

Dr. Hash received his A.R.. M.A.. and Ed.D. degrees at the University ofVirginia in 1949. 1954, and 1960. The first black wee admitted to theUniversity of Virile!. to the school of law in 1951. flowerer, In 19611

only .4 percent desegregation existed and in 1970 the institution war ..31,1.8 percent desegregsted This suggests that even today thou is

desegregation. In addition, Bash's teaching experience MAI in utreptedschool systems, i.e.. Fittsylvania County, Prince Edward County, and

Charlottesville, Ve.

31

Office of Education:" 71 Failure of the Office of Education to exercise control, however, has led to a lack ofoverall focus to the center program and has resulted ininconsistency in approach, content, and objectives ofthe various centers.

Measured by efficiency in overall operation, lack ofOffice of Education control has represented a weak-ness, not a strength, to centers as functioning units ofthe Title IV program.

Training Programs

Training programs, or institutes, differ substantiallyin content and approach from center to center. Tosome extent, the differences reflect the philosophicalorientations of personnel at the various centers. Somecenters have felt that if training programs are to be ofmaximum effectiveness, they should be directed towardconcrete issues specifically related to problems of de-segregation. Such programs have been addressed todeveloping sensitivity among various school officials toproblems of minority children and enhancing theirawareness of the cultural values that minorities bringwith them. Other centers have been convinced thatproblems of detzgregation can best be resolved byapproaching them irdirectly. That is, in their view, thefocus of training programs should be on overcomingeducational disadvantage through improved curricu-barn and other aspects of compensatory education,while approaching problems of minorities obliquelythrough lectures on such subjects as anthropology andthe history of blacks.7t

An example of how the indirect approach operatescan be obtained from an institute held from July 6-17,1970 by the Consultative Center for Equal EducationalOpportunity at the Oklahoma Center for Continuing

',Interview with Gordon Foster, former Director, University of MiamiCenter. Miami. Fla. The former Director of the Auburn University Centeralso told Commission' staff that there had been almost no contact with Wash.ingtonbased Office of Education staff. Whit little contact with the Office ofEducation he bad had, had been wid. the regional office.

"In some eases, there Is substantial conflict even among the staff of thesame center as to whether the direct or Indirect approach should be utilised.One such cuter, visited hy Commismion staff, was the University ofOklahoma. In fact, the content of the various training programs at thatcenter has depended upon the outlook and orientation of the particular stagmembers responsible for conducting the specific programs. To some extent,the views expressed by Oklahoma Center stag have hrokeo down alongracial linesuinodties wishing to use the direct, and whites the indirect,approach. According to a former stag member at the Oklaboms Center,minorities felt that the only way that twining could be of value in over.eoming the often unspoken fears of blocks arid whites concerning demure.gatio» was to bring Mum out in the open, and through Durk dtscumions,lay them to rest. White stag members expressed feu that if a directapproach were undertaken, they would lose favor with local school districts.thereby damaging overall university relations and possibly undermining theuniversity's financial support. Iaterviews with University of Oklahoma

Desegregation Ceater stag. Warrior with Dr. Wayman Slaver. formerOklahoma Desegregation Center staff.

Education at the Unkersitv of Oklahoma in Norman.Oklahoma.

The Institute dealt with various aspects of humanrelations and social studies curriculum for Oklahomahigh schools by focusing on such subject areas asloyalty. the "generation gap". and economic power.These topics in turn were only dimly related to theissues of desegregation through a round-about discus-sion in the classroom.

Thus, in the section dealing with loyalty, the discus-sion was concerned with different types of Myatt,. : Toschool, family, peers. community. country-, religion andethnicity.

The unit covering the "generation gap" was con-cerned with helping students to feel comfortable withthe established code of society. The development ofmaterial was directed toward an awareness of whatconstitutes a generation gap. the value of communica-tion where there is such a gap, and an explanation ofwhy generation gaps exist.

In the section dealing with economic power, thediscussion centered around change in economic powerstructure, power denied one because of what he is, andmeans by which to increase economic power.

The loyalty, generation gap, and economic powerprogramming developed for teaching in social studiesclasses was concerned only tangentially with issuesassociated with desegregation. Thus in the sectiondealing with loyalty the only effort to reach issuesrelated to desegregation was through a discussion ofpoems such as that by Carl Schurz:

Our country, right or wrong. When right, to bekept right. When wrong, to be put right.

The evil of racial discrimination was among subjectsraised. In considering the "generation gap", the differ-ent attitudes of the younger and older generationstoward racial discrimination were explored. And in thesection covering economic power the economic disad-vantage of black people was discussed. The value ofthis institute for purposes of desegregation was lim-ited.

As a staff coordinator of the program stated:

The material utilized was good, but it would havebeen so much better to move directly to the issuesconcerned. A round-about approach to problemsof race through the medium of loyalty or eveneconomic power dilutes the thrust and the in-tended result of the program. We need to zero inon the problem of race and prejudice and avoidthe circumlocutions.73

"Name withheld at the request of individual inteniewed.

The direct approach_ while carrying greater poten-tial in theory for resolving problems of desegregation.has not been free from the weaknesses in practicewhich serve to lessen its effectiveness. Examples ofcenter programs carried out at the Universities ofSouth Carolina, New Mexico. and Texas. illustrateboth the good and the bad of the direct approach.

A University of South Carolina center program.held in February 1970. provided an example of thedirect approach. It involved an approximately equalnumber of black and white teachers and was con-cerned with "leadership development potential." Itsprimary purpose was to initiate sensitivity training.One such training institute observed by Commissionstaff members covered a 3-day period and featured "icebreakers": mixers. large group activities, and smallgroup discussiotts aimed at stimulating positivechanges in the participants' attitudes and behavior to-ward persons of another race. Major activities wereusually directed by two leaders, one black and onewhite. for small groups evenly divided by race. Lead-ers at this training institute expressed great enthusi-asm regarding the results obtained from this approachand the results obtained from it. On the basis of Com-mission staff observations, however, there was littlesupport for this enthusiasm. For example, on thesecond morning of the training institute following afull day of integrated activity, generally conducted insmall groups, Commission staff entered a general meet-ing room before the beginning of the day's session andfound the participants rigidly segregated, blacks onone side of the room and whites on another. The fewblacks and whites who were sitting close together hadturned their backs on each other.

When the session began, the participants were di-vided into small groups evenly composed of blacks andwhites. Each group was led in activities by one blackand one white leader. Although the black and whiteleaders were presumably of coordinate status, eachsmall group was known by the white leader's name,i.e., Holly's group, Conrad's group, and the like. Allleadership functions were performed by whites, eventhose concerned with such minor tasks as providinggeneral directions, calling the roll, and making an-nouncements. The entire group perceived whites as theleaders of the institute.

Extraordinary emphasis was placed upon franknessat this institute. Assurances were given that no criticalassessments made by the institute participants of theschool systems or race relations generally would beused against individuals making them."* In a further

32

ra Conrad Powell, University of South Carolina Desegregation Center stall,

effort to encourage candor, evaluations of the programwere done nonverbally, by such means as evaluationcheckoff forms filled in by participants or by actingout attitudes about the institute." Nonetheless, the at-mosphere at this training institute was one cf less thancandor.

One black consultant, in assessing the institute [shewas a team leader], gave Commission staff her view ofwhy the openness and frankness sought by the direc-tors of the institute had not been evidenced either byinstitute staff or participants." "The fact that allcenter personnel in attendance at the institute werewhite," she said, "inhibited black leaders." Whites,also, were less than open in their expression of theirviews. As the consultant put it: "Since white consult-ants realized that they would have to return to con-servative communities in the State. they could not af-ford to be candid for fear that their positions in theirhome communities would be jeopardized. If the leaderscould not afford to be candid," she said, "how couldone expect participants, whose entire life styles hadbeen forged within the framework of segregation, tobenefit greatly from the institute program?" Theconsultant further indicated that no follow-throughwas planned for the group as a whole. She summed upthe net effect of this training institute: "A lot ofmoney was being wasted." 18

An institute held in 1970 under the auspices of theUniversity of New Mexico Center provided anotherexample of the direct approach.79 The primary empha-sis was on cultural awareness. A weekend institutevisited by Commission staff covered material on prob-lems experienced by minority children. Emphasis wasplaced on language and stereotypes of cultural groups.Two films provided the basis for discussion"Black.History, Lost, Stolen or Strayed" 80 and "Three Menof the Southwest."" Participants at the institute wereteachers, principals, and superintendents from ruraland "conservative" sections of the State."

The program offered the positive benefits of presen-

"I Commission gaff obsereetion." Mrs. AMA. Jordan, Consultant to University of South Carolina De.

segregation Center for the Sumter Institute program, Feltner/ 1970.TY id.

"Regarding Internal criticism made by intimate staff that there were no

Permanent center Miff member, in attendance who were bunk, the responsewas that they, the center staff, were unable to find anyone "qualified." Thledespite the fact that the Center Director had previouely been employed at ablack institution (Benedict College) located in the Name city at the Centerin which he was working.

le Sante Fe Workshop Seminar for Selected New Mexico School Personnel." Originally developed for presentation on television by Xeros Corporation

for a eerie, entitled "In Black America."as Prepared with Title IV funds with conseltant mimes from Dr.

Alexander Kite of the Santa Pe Museum and the University of TexasDesegregation Center.

tations by consultants covering a variety of culturalissues, including anthropologically oriented lectures onAmerican Indians indigenous to the area conducted ata museum where Indian villages were reproduced.There were also lectures on concepts necessary foreffective teaching of the Spanish speaking child. Therewere no black or American Indian Center staff mem-bers present at the institute. Further, followup withparticipants in the program was not conducted becauseof time, staff, and monetary constraints.

Evaluations of this training institute were twofold:oral and written. For the oral evaluation, a "fish bowl"setting was established. Anyone wishing to commentwas invited to the center of the circle of participants[fish bowl] to make his comments for the benefit ofcenter staff [taping was done of criticisms] and partic-ipants alike. In addition, a written evaluation sheetwas distributed. A further indirect assessment was pro-vided through comments of individual participants in-terspersed throughout the institute program."

The comments did not suggest increased sensitivityon the part of participants. For example, one commentrepeated regularly was that there were "no problems inX school district because we love all our Indians andMexicans."

This institute program was one weekend in durationand could not realistically be expected to bring aboutlasting changes in attitude or behavior. The variety ofapproaches to the issues dealt withfilms, total groupparticipation, human relations discussions, interracialand intercultural diningwere important strengths ofthe programs. The evident skills of some programdirectors, observed by Commission staff, were also amajor plus. Despite these positive elements there waslittle indication of significant change in the attitudesof the participants.

An example of a more effective use of the directapproach was a Conference for Group Leaders heldFebruary 13-15, 1970 under the auspices of the TexasEducational Desegregation Technical AssistanceCenter of the University of Texas at Austin(TEDTAC).

The approach utilized by the TEDTAC Center in-cluded the use of several film sequences from the Lake-mont Package developed by the University of Tennes-see Desegregation Center. One film portrayed a teach-ers' lounge and a minority group teacher who wasasking for advice about dealing with another teacherwho had a Confederate symbol on her car. A secondsimulation film showed an irate white parent coming to

33

Na Obeervation by Commission staff.

school to complain that his elementary school daughterbad been kissed by a black student in her class. Athird film depicted a teacher seeking advice about han-dling the subject of the Civil War in a racially inte-grated classroom. Still another film entitled "The Iso-lated Child" showed a black child who had just trans-ferred to a formerly white schooL The child was iso-lated from the other children on the playground. Theteacher was faced with the problem of deciding whatto do when one group of children suggested the childjoin in the group while another said that maybe thechild just didn't want to play.

In addition to these four simulation exercises, theprogram utilized inclusion processes in which re-sponses of individuals to being rejected by the groupand being welcomed within it were explored. Anotherissue examined was the relationship of teachers tochildren and vice versa (student bringing an apple toseek favor or teacher catering to upper class children).

The program observed by Commission staff wasaimed at leadership training, that is, training of per-sons who would serve in consultant roles throughoutTexas school systems in conjunction with staff mem-bers of the TEDTAC Center. Because of the racial andethnic imbalance in Texas school districts, school sys-tems were asked to send participants roughly repre-senting the overall racial and ethnic composition of thedistrict at the faculty leveL

The simulations described above related to black-white issues. Another aspect of the program related tothe Mexican American problems. A film entitled "Mex-ican Americans: The Invisible Minority," treated thevarious movements of the Mexican American: BrownBerets, lettuce and tomato strikes, the activities of Ti-jerina, Gonzalez, and Chavez, and a school boycottwhich resulted in a fired teacher's reinstatement.

Another film developed by TEDTAC, entitled"Grouped for Despair", portrayed the inability ofwhite Anglo teachers to recognize the concerns ofMexican Americans by failing to comprehend pronun-ciation problems and labeling Mexican American chil-dren automatically as slow learners, low achievers, andthe like. Further, the film revealed the lack of knowl-edge and concern of teachers for Mexican Americanchildren who had problems different from those of theoverall student body.

Discussions following the films dealt with insensitiv-ity and the inability of teachers to understand anethnic or racial group other than their own. In addi-tion, the group leaders were asked to grapple withquestions of how the group viewing the film saw it,what kinds of long- and short-terms plans needed to be

developed, and the value judgments which the filmrevealed.

Another film developed in conjunction withTEDTAC was "Three Men of the Southwest". In thefilm, an Indian, a Chicano, and a white Anglo wereportrayed, all of whom held vicious stereotype imagesof each other and of blacks. The film showed theunfortunate effect of stereotyping, irrational prejudice,and name calling. It indicated the damage done to theindividual and attempted to solidify groups by stress-ing the positive characteristics of each group."

Leaders utilized "Incident Response Sheets" to stim-ulate participants to re-examine their own views andperceptions about the place of racial and ethnic minor-ities in American society. Questions were asked con-cerning black Americans such as: "Why do you thinkcertain black figures were left out in history? What doyou know of the development of black culture andblack achievement in Africa before the beginnings ofslavery in this country? Was Amos and Andy-a harm-ful program?"

Questions directed toward Mexican American con-cerns included: "How do you feel about La Hue lga, LaCausa, La Raza, Cesar Chavez, and Reyes Tijerina? Doyou agree with the narrator of the film that the Mexi-can American has been economically exploited?"

The leadership provided by the TEDTAC consult-ants and staff in exploring the materials shown andstimulating substantive participation from those pres-ent was a great strength of the program. Its patterninvolved showing of the film, followed by discussionand inclusion-exclusion exercises. According to mostparticipants, the program was effective in bringingabout changes in the attitudes and thinking of thosewho took part. As one participating teacher said: "Ithought I was already convinced about racial andethnic equality but these sessions cleared out cobwebswhich surprised me in still existing." 86

Training institutes held in the South since the ad-vent of centers differ in some important respects fromthe ones held earlier. For one thing, the early insti-tutes generally held for longer periods---6 to 8 weeksor throughout a school semestercontrasted with in-stitutes of only a few days' duration under centerauspices. Another difference relates to the racial corn-

s One serious flaw In the film was that it failed to correct the stereotypedpicture of Weeks, Another film, however. entitled "Black History, LostStolen or St eyed", which was presented did deal with issues relating tothe universalOy of the stereotype, the omitted contributions of blackAmericans in rirtually every recorded form of data preservation, and thedestruction of black self Image in to number of media.

86 Mrs. Ida Fernandez, Group Leader Participant, Conference for CroupLeiden, Feb. 13-15, 1970, Meager Hotel, San Auteuil), sponsored byTEDTAC, The University of Texas at Austin.

34

position of institute participants. Now, as opposed topast practice, there is adherence to biracial require.ments for institute participants.86

In one key respect, however, there is little differencebetween early and present training institutes: the atti-tudes and backgrounds of institute instructors gener-ally remain the same. For example, a Title IV consult.ant of past institutes said of them:

These institutes were just shot through withracism. Most instructors were trying to develop aprogram which would be appropriate for makingkids conform to particular values and standardsof achievement in terms of white middle classachievement."

The consultant further characterized the attitude ofthose conducting past institutes as follows: "We don'twant to do it, but the courts say we have to, so let'sput the burden of proof on these kids to come up toour standards." 88

Institutes of the present, conducted at centers, sufferfrom the same disability. In most cases, they are con-ducted by center staff, most of whom, as noted earlier,are products of segregated education in Southern orborder State schools and have gained most of theirprofessional experience in segregated institutions.Often, when center staff utilizes consultants, these arepersons who also have been educated on a segregatedbasis, who have been employed in racially segregatedschool systems, and who have lived most of their livesin segregated environments. One center director, whileconceding that this was true, sought to justify use ofsuch persons as consultants:

By utilizing a (nearby) superintendent as a con-sultant, no matter how limited he may be, we maybe able to secure greater cooperation from him, inthe future in his own district."

A staff member at another center indicated that utili-zation of faculty connected with the university atlarge was a "necessary face of life," whether or notsuch persons ever had evidenced knowledge or concernabout desegregation."

" For example, the University of South Carolina Dracgregatian Centerand the University of New Mexico Cultural Awareness Center institutes,previously described, had approximately equal numbers of blacks and whitesand Chicano and white Angloa participating. Institutes held by the Universityof Texas Center in several Texas locations in February 1970 also hadaubstantial integration both at participant and staff levels.

7 Dr. Paul I. Clifford, formerly Professor of Education, Atlanta University,Atlanta, Ca.

Id.(0 Interview with Cordon Foster, Director, Univenity of Miami Center,

Miami, Fla.6'3 Nona withheld at the request of Individual interviewed.

35

In his view, the insensitivity evidenced by thoseresponsible for conduct of the institutes was a fatalflaw:

A major component of a successful institute is thepeople who carry it on. There were a great manypeople involved in the institutes who had no realconcern for human beings, accept in the contextof their own ethnocentric notions."

One center staff member, formerly superintendent ofa large metropolitan school district, was criticizedopenly when he met with personnel from his formerdistrict on grounds that he had been and continued tobe against desegregation." This same staff memberwas largely responsible for drawing the plan for PalmBeach County, Florida, which was repeatedly foundunacceptable by Title Vi staff of the Office for CivilRights."

Technical AssistanceDesegregation PlanDevelopment

The development of desegregation plans is a signifi-cant aspect of the technical assistance role played bycenter personnel. The function of desegregation plandevelopment was riot generally a principal componentof the center's activities until early 1969. Thereafter,courts increasingly required participation of HEW toassist school districts in complying with the court'sorders. The former director of Title IV delegated re-sponsibility for plan development in part to regionaloffices of Title IV and to personnel located at desegre-gation centers."

One reason why center personnel, as well as Title IVstaff, became involved in plan writing rather than TitleVI staff was HEW's belief that desegregation plansprepared by educators would be more readily acceptable to Southern school administrators than those writ-ten by civil rights enforcers. However, neither compli-ance officials nor educators employed under the TitleIV program proved satisfactory to school administra-tors when these persons worked on desegregation plandevelopment.

Despite the fact that all center proposals containrequirements for producing desegregation plans, center

" Dr. Paul I. Clifford, former Professor of Education, Atlanta University,Atlanta, Ga.

92 Dr. Joe Hall fs now a member of the staff of the University of MiamiCenter but 88 recently as 1970-71, he was criticized by former colleagues andTitle VI staff of the Office for Civil Rights for hie activities at the desegre.gation center. Interview with Dr. Cordon Foster, former director of theUniversity of Miami Center.

oil Dewey Dodds. Office for Civil Rights, Atlanta Regional Education BranchChief. May 1970 (Title VI enforcement).

" Interview with Dr. Gregory Anrig, former Director of the Title IVprogram.

personnel often have resisted becoming involved inthis aspect of their responsibilities. The principal rea-son has been the fear that they would be viewed ascivil rights enforcers and thereby lose their effective-ness. One center official told Commission staff:

I have spent a lot of time writing desegregationplans, but the center's assistance would be betterdirected towards getting people more responsiblefor implementation involved rather than centerpersonnel 96

Another said:

Drafting of desegregation plans is not an effec-tive, productive area of responsibility. for schoolsystems would rebel if we drew up pito:9, just asthey have against the Office for Civil Rights(HEWTitle VI). We are reducing our effective.,ness because we are having them desegregate inways they do not want to which results in afailure to secure return visits to the districts.96

The desire of centers to avoid becoming involved inimposing desegregation plans on local school districtshas been exhibited in a variety of ways. Thus onecenter [since abandoned] flatly refused to assist in thewriting of desegregation plans.97 Other alters havesought to avoid direct involvement by encouragingdistricts to develop their own plans. An official of onecenter explained that school systems and the commu:nity itself are more likely to carry through a planwhich they themselves have developed.98 Personnel atthat center insist that the school district include apolicy statement: "This board assumes legal responsi-bility to establish a unitary school system." 99 Theofficial also explained that he favored "practical deseg-regationlegally acceptable, educationally sound, ad-m;aistratively feasible." He went on to say: "If a planprovides 'reasonable' desegregation, but not. completedesegregation, which would not fit practical desegrega-tion, then 'reasonable' will suffice." too

Centers also have limited their involvement to pro-viding assistance to local school districts in their ef-forts to devise desegregation plans or to present alter-native plans, leaving the selection to the local schooldistrict. These devices have had the effect of removing

Ou Ira Eyeater, former University of Oklahoma Desegregation Center staffmember.

Dr. Wayne Shiver, former staff member, University of Oklahoma De-segregation Center.

22 University of Southern Mississippi Daegregation Center, Hattiesburg,Miss.

22 Interview with Allen Cleveland, former Assistant Superintendent of theSelma, Alabama Public Schools (1963-1968), formerly field representativefor the Auburn Center, and now Associate Director of the Auburn Center.

Id.10 Id.

36

the centers frtym direct involvement in the develop.ment of desegregation plans, limiting their role to as-sisting school districts in drafting their plans."' Theplans that result, he emphasized, are those of theschool district, not the center.102 The director of theUniversity of Oklahoma Center explained: "We helpschool districts to design plans and we help to presentalternatives." 108 A University of Virginia Center staffmember explained to Commission staff his theory ofthe appropriate role for centers in devising desegrega-tion plans:

I have never felt that the Center's responsibility isplan writing. Rather, the Center should provideinformation to administrators so they can writeplans. My suggestions have personally affected 11or 12 desegregation plans in Virginia, but I havenot actually written any. We push subtly and giveadvice, but the courts have to clear up de jureand de facto segregation questions, so we can'tgive advice on that,1"

Still another problem relating to center involvementin devising desegregation plans has been lack of agree-ment on what constitutes an acceptable desegregationplan. Palm Beach County, Florida reflects a situationin which Miami Center personnel, Title IV staff, andTitle VI staff were not readily able to come to agree-ment about-the kind of plan to be drafted. Palm BeachCounty had received more than $200,000 in Title IVLEA funds during the years 1966 and 1967. Duringthe period of these grants several Palm Beach Title IVstaff members were devoting their time to developing adesegregation plan for the Palm Beach School District.In 1968, the county presented a proposed desegrega-tion plan. that would have left several all-black highschools and numerous all-black elementary schools.HEW rejected the plan as not in compliance with TitleVI.

Following this rejection, administrative enforcementproceedings under Title VI were initiated against PalmBeach. The district was found to be not in compliance,but appealed to a higher level at HEW, where thematter rested until a new plan was submitted to theDepartment for approval. During the time the decisionwas on appeal, Palm Beach County officials_agreed tohave Miami Center staff review the high school seg-

101 interview with Dr. William Gaines, Director, St. Auguatine's HumanRelations Center.

202 Id.Ha Dr. Joe Garrison, Director, University of Oklahoma Desegregation Center.

Interview Feb. 9, 1970."4 Interview with Roger I.. Long. Staff Specialist, University of Virginia

Desegregation Center, Charlottesville, Va.

ment of their plan. The staff prepared a new plan forpresentation to the county school board.

On June 4, 1969, Title VI staff visited the MiamiCenter to examine the high school plan developed bythe center staff. Despite the fact that center personnelhad drawn the plan, neither the center director norTitle VI staff approved the plan because it still re-tained all-black schools. It was agreed that the planwould be changed to meet Title VI objections.

Subsequently, another Title VITitle IV Center staffmeeting was held concerning Palm Beach, but an im-passe occurred regarding the new plan's adequacy; thecenter director this time supported the plan draftersfrom the Miami Center. The Title IV Director cam!from Washington to mediate differences between theOffice for Civil Rights (Title VI) and the MiamiCenter. The Washington Title IV Director agreed withthe Title VI contention that the plan was unacceptable.

A new plan, which still left all-black schools, wasfinally accepted by Title VI Washington staff over theobjections of regional Title VI staff, who indicated,=long other reasons for not accepting the weak plan,"that the credibility of the Miami Center would bedamaged and their further efforts undermined in otherdistrcts, and as well, the credibility of Title VI wouldbe damaged." los

An onsite review was conducted by Title VI staffmembers following implementation of the plan. Theyconcluded that the plan did not effectively eradicatethe dual school system and was, therefore, unaccepta-ble. Thereafter, center staff members once again wereasked to develop a plan to be implemented in the1970-71 school year. The third plan developed byTitle IV Center staff did not differ materially fromother plans previously developed by the center, for itagain left several all-black schools on the high schoollevel and numberous all-black schools on the elemen-tary level. Title VI staff objected to this plan andbecause differences about the kind of plan to be imple-mented appeared irreconcilable, the Palm BeachCounty file was sent to Washington, once again forcommencement of administrative enforcement proceed-ings.106

U6 Michael Stolle, Profeuor of Education, University of Miami. formerlyDirector of the University of Miami Center.

m5 Before administrative proceedings were initiated, however, a privatesuit was filed against the Palm Beach County System. Both Title VI andTitle IV Center staff testified. Title Vi supporting plan eliminating all.black schools and Title IV Center staff continuing to urge adoption ofa plan which failed to eliminate aiblack schools on the high school level.The plan finally ordered for high schools eliminated albiack high schoolsin Palm Beach County following the decision in Swann v. Charlotte.Illecklenburs Board of Education in April 1971. The plaintiff returned tocourt seeking further relief at the elemetuary school level.

37

The recent posture of the Federal Government hashad the effect of limiting center desegregation activi-ties. For example, in 1969 an ad hoc Committee,consisting of high level representatives of HEW andthe Department of Justice, was formed to review plansdeveloped for presentation to local school districtsand/or the courts.1OT The policies established by thead hoc Committee have tended to reduce even furtherthe effectiveness of center efforts in devising workabledesegregation plans.

Shortly after its establishment, the Committee tookthe position that desegregation plans developed byTitle IV personnel and center personnel should mini-mize busing and seek to avoid school assignmentsacross geographical zones.'" This policy resulted in theacceptance of plans that were clearly inadequate. Thusa plan for Caddo Parish [Shreveport], Louisiana, de-veloped, in part, by the Tulane University Desegrega-tion Center, which would have resulted in the elimina-tion of all-black schools, was rejected by the Commit-tee because it involved busing and noncontiguouszoning.1" The Committee directed those responsiblefor developing the original plan to draw up a lessradical one. The plan subsequently presented andaccepted by the ad hoc Committee left 9,000 blackchildren in segregated schools. It was rejected by theFederal district court.'"

The impact of the policies of the ad hoc Committeehas been to discourage effective desegregation plansgenerally. For example, a Title IV staff member in theCharlottesville, Virginia Regional Office of HEW, in-volved in drafting a desegregation plan for the Rich-mond, Virginia, schools, conceded to Commission staffthat the plan was ineffective, but cited the policies ofthe ad hoc Committee as the reason why the plan hadnot been stronger.'"

Despite the restrictive policies of the ad hoc Com-mittee, some centers continued to attempt to developviable desegregation plans, including the use of busingand noncontiguous zoning, which would completelyeliminate the dual school system. In Volusia County,Florida, in 1969, the Miami Center collaborated withthe Daytona Beach School Board in drawing up adesegregation plan. The district was already involved

107 Among the members of the Committee sae the Assistant Attorney Cell.eral. Civil Rights Division, Department of Justice. the Director of HEW.Office for Civil Rights, the Director of HEWS Equal Educational Opportunities Program. the General Counsel of HEW, and a Special Assistant to theSecretary of HEW.

"I interview with Tob Kendrick, Senior Program Officer, Dallas RegionalOffice, Title IV.

"1 Id.1.1° Id.

al interview, with former HEW staff member. C.harlotterrille Regional(Mee.

in substantial busing unrelated to desegregation. A planwas developed invoking two of the three all-blackelementary schools [secondary schools were alreadydesegregated] in cross-busing [whites to black schoolsand vice versa]. The third school was deemed inade-quate because of its physical plant and was closed.

According to the center director, although theschool district wished to implement the plan, the adhoc Committee initially disapproved because it re-quired too much busing.112 Ultimately, however, theCommittee approved the plan, largely because theschool district wanted the plan, and thereafter it waspresented to the court where it was accepted for imple-mentation by the school district.'"

The most recent and dramatic example of Federalpolicies restricting center activities in the area of de-segregation plan development occurred earlier thisyear. In January 1972, Federal District Judge RobertC. McCrae, Jr. ordered the Memphis, Tennessee SchoolSystem to eliminate the dual school system and wroteto the University of Miami Desegregation Center re-questing assistance in the preparation of a desegrega-tion plan. Such assistance previously had been re-quested of centers, as well as Title IV staff by Federaljudges in cases involving school desegregation in suchStates as Louisiana, South Carolina, and Mississippi.In each case, the assistance had been provided.

Judge McCrae's request, however, received a differ-ent response. On January 6,.1972, Associate U.S. Corn-missioner of Education for Equal Educational Opportu-nity, Herman R. Goldberg, wrote to the director of theMiami Center prohibiting him from complying with thejudge's request.1" The Associate Commissioner's justi-fication for this prohibition was that ". . . our author-ity to fund your activities is limited by the require.ment [under Section 403 of the Civil Rights Act of1964] that you act on behalf of duly constitutedschool authorities," not at the request of Federaljudges.'"

The Associate Commissioner also questioned thecompetence of personnel funded under Title IV todraw up desegregation plans, stating that Title IVexpertise is limited to truly educational matters relat-ing to desegregation. Thus, in his view, HEW's Divi-sion of Equal Educational Opportunity could best ful-fill its role by offering assistance primarily in pro-grammatic areas such as curriculum revision, teacher

of Dr. Gordon Foster, Director. Miami Center.Its Id.rta Letter from Berman E. Goldberg. Associate Commissioner for Equal

Educational Opportunity. to Dr. Tosiab Hall. University of Miami Desegregs.tion Center. Jan. 6, 1972.

ua Id. (Emphasis added.)

preparation and development programs and specialcommunity programs, rather than "logistics". He fur-ther emphasized the desirability of having persons in-digenous to the area draw up specific desegregationplans."16

It is also our view that a locally developed plan,both because it is likely to be more accurate andbecause it is locally developed, is more likely towin the broad community support which is criti-cal to any plan's success.117

Goldberg's letter, if it stands as Title IV policy,would appear to resolve the continuing dispute overthe appropriate role of Title IV in facilitating desegre-gation. Those who have contended that Title IV deseg-regation activities should be indirect, limited to assist-ance in improving the quality of education and avoid-ance of appearing in the role of civil rights enforcer,would appear to have won out over those who havemaintained the view that only by dealing directly withproblems of school desegregation, including active par-ticipation in desegregation plan development, can TitleIV be of maximum effectiveness. After numerous casesin which desegregation centers, often reluctantly, haveprovided assistance to Federal courts in devising work-able desegregation plans, this area of activity wouldappear to be at an end and centers would appear nolonger to be available as a source of assistance to thecourts unless directly requested by local educationalagencies.

Testimony in Desegregation Litigation

Another important service that center personnel canprovide is expert testimony in school desegregationlitigation. Their experience and impartiality can be ofsignificant assistance to the courts in determining theadequacy of particular desegregation plans. But just ascenters have been reluctant to become deeply involvedin preparing desegregation plans, they have alsoavoided testifying in desegregation lawsuits. The rea-soning is the same: if they are placed in the positionof testifying against a school district they will assumethe role of civil rights enforcers and their relationshipwith that district will be impaired.

Most centers are reluctant to undertake any involve-ment in desegregation litigation on grounds that thiswould undermine their delicate relationship with

38

u° This point fails to acknowledge that Center Staff is usually indigenousto the area, though one questions why the University of Tennessee Center,located at Knoxville. wan not requested to provide the assistance since itpresumably was more "locally oriented".

xtr

school districts and make their services unwelcome.'"To the extent that centers are obliged to present testi-mony in such litigation, their preference is to do so incases involving school desegregation in States otherthan the one in which they are located. An official ofthe University of Oklahoma Desegregation Center explained that by limiting participation in litigation inthis way, the center could maintain its friendly rela-tionship with school districts within its own State andavoid being cast in the role of civil rights enforcer.'"

In some cases, officials of different desegregationcenters have testified on opposite sides in desegrega.tion litigation. Sometimes, the points of view expressedby the center officials appear to reflect the allegianceof their particular centers. For example, in 1970, inlitigation involving the Norfolk, Virginia School Sys-tem, the former director of the University of MiamiCenter testified on behalf of the plaintiffs, urging thatthe desegregation plan adopted in that city leave noallblack schools. The director of the University ofVirginia Center, on the other hand, testified on behalfof the defendant school board, in support of a planwhich would have left a substantial number of blackstudents in all-black schools.'"

Although the opposite positions taken by the twocenter officials may well have represented legitimatedisagreement on how to accomplish desegregation mosteffectively, it is also of significance that, the officialtestifying on behalf of a strong desegregation plan wasoutof-State, while the official testifying in support ofthe weaker plan was from within the State. As theformer Miami Center Director contended:

. . . the plan [supported by the Virginia CenterDirector] would have left 75 percent of the blackstudents in schools that the defendant admittedwere bad. If you accept that premise, how do youdecide which black students should be placed inbad schools?"'

He concluded: "If a man is a director of a center andhas to support that kind of position, he should not bea center director." 122

Influence on the Climate of Opinion

In addition to specialized activities of desegregationcenters, such as conducting training institutes and pre-paring desegregation plans, centers can play an impor-

1 Interview with Wayne Shiver, University of Oklahoma Center.119 Interviews with Michael Stolle, former Director, University of Miami

Center.12' Id.In Id.In Id.

39

tant, though less formal, role in developing a climateof opinion favorable to school desegregation. Thereare at least two major ways in which the influence ofcenters can be brought to bear for this purpose. Thefirst of these is through their ability to affect thetraining of teachers at the schools of education of theiruniversities.

In early thinking about the role of desegregationcenters, it was anticipated that center personnel wouldbe able to influence the training of teachers through-out the State, which would result in a new teacherproduct, one sensitive to human relations problemslikely to be encountered by minority and majoritychildren in the new integrated environment. The Okla-homa Center has, in fact, been able to move otherState institutions in developing curricula for theirschools of education that will train future teachers towork effectively in integrated educational settings.'"Most other centers, however, have been unsuccessful inthis regard. Several deans at schools of education atuniversities which have desegregation centers toldCommission staff that there have been no coursechanges brought about through the influence of uni-versity centers.124 It is apparant that centers have hadlittle impact in influencing the schools of educationwithin their States. In fact, the flow of influence maywell have been the reverse of that contemplated in thatcenters have made extensive use of consultants who areon the faculties of schools of education. Often theseare persons who have little experience or knowledge ofdesegregation, but are steeped in the traditional atti-tudes and perceptions of schools of education.

Centers can also stimulate a climate of opinion fa-vorable to school desegregation through employing theprestige of their universities in the area and in theState at-large. They have enjoyed some success alongthis line in small, rural school districts. In communitiessuch as Enid, Oklahoma, and Tangipohoa Parish,Louisiana, according to the local school superintend-ents, the programs and the influence of the desegrega-tion centers at the University of Oklahoma and TulaneUniversity, respectively, have been major factors ingenerating a climate of opinion conducive to successful desegregation)"

In large metropolitan areas, however, where theproblems are more varied and more complex, theimpact of university centers has been negligible. Inmany cases, the assistance of centers, when offered,

128 Interview with Dr. Glenn Snider, Professor of Education, University ofOklahoma, Februarl 1970.

1.4 Deans of the University of South Alabama, Auburn University, andUniversity of Tennessee (Hadley, Pierce. Cohokus).

Lao Interviews with Scbool Superintendents.

has been refused.128 For example, the Mobile SchoolSystem rejected university center services until or-dered to accept educational expert assistance by thecourts. Although assistance was offered to OklahomaCity, the school board of that city generally rejectedassistance made by the Oklahoma DesegregationCenter, as did Tulsa, another large city. Sometimes thereason given for rejecting center assistance is a lack ofconfidence in center personnel. Thus, an offer of assistance by the University of Virginia Center was rejectedby the Charlottesville School Board on the groundsthat center personnel either had worked in the schoolsystem or had gone to the university with people serif-ing in the school system and, therefore, were no moreexpert than people in the school system.'"

The Role of the Office of Education with Centers

As noted earlier, the Office of Education has beenextremely permissive regarding the operation of cen-ters. It has issued no directives indicating any coordi-nated approach to desegregation plan writing, nor hasspecific guidance been offered which would govern thetypes of institute seminars or workshop programs thatshould be developed. Further, no apparent attempt hasbeen made to determine what programs have beenmost effective for various types of school systems,

In fact, there has been little contact between TitleIV staff in Washington and the centers. In 1970,center directors complained that they had never heardof the person who was then the new Director of theTitle IV program.128 They also complained that there

10 Stag interviews at the University of Oklahoma Desegregation Center,University of South Alabama, and the Unlvereity of Virginia Center.

car Interview with Dr. James Bash, University of Vicente DesegregationCenter.

1" Dr. Joe Garrison, Dr. David Bjork, Dr. James Bash interviews. Thesemen me center directors at University of Oklahoma, University of SouthAlabama, and the University of Vicente, respectively.

40

had been no effort made since the departure of Dr.Gregory Anrig to hold meetings to which center direc-tors could come in order to pool information, learnnew approaches, or get encouragement for programapproaches, desegregation plan writing, or court testi-mony.

The Office of Education has also failed to give in-structions or information concerning the kind of per-sonnel most suitable for centers or even issue rulesgoverning permissible activities of center employees.One center permitted staff members to operate a con-sulting service offering assistance, for profit, which thedesegregation center was funded to provide.129 An-other center engaged consultants lacking the profes-sional experience or background in human relationsnecessary to provide training in human relations orany kind of academic degree to offer the services hasfailed to insist upon consistency of approach, system.atic provision of information to centers, and has failedto provide for systematic evaluations based upon de-fined and measurable guidelines for operation. Theresult, at best, has been an individual approach to aprocess which demands a national, coordinated strat-egy. At worst, the result has been to waste scarceresources on programs and institutions that contributevirtually nothing to the cause of school desegregation.Thus, with the single exception of the University ofSouthern Mississippi, the Office of Education has per-mitted centers which have failed to support currentdesegregation standards to remain in existence simplybecause they represent "a foot-in-the-door". The prom-ise of desegregation centers as instruments for facili-tating successful desegregation remains largely unre-deemed.

129 Tulane University Center.110 Auburn University Center had virtually no experience in the field.

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSION

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 accelerated the pace ofschool desegregation in the South. In the 8 years fol-lowing its enactment school attendance patterns havechanged substantially. In 1964 segregated schools inthe South were the rule; today they are the exception.School segregation problems have not been eliminated.Indeed, they have spread to other parts of the Nation.Nevertheless, significant advances have been made indiminishing racial segregation required or authorizedby State law.

The progress of school desegregation has comeabout largely through the exercise of the enforcementpowers of the Federal Government, the threat of fundtermination under Title VI of the 1964 legislation, andlaw suits filed by the Attorney General under Title IVof the same act. The 1964 law has another importantprovision bearing upon the problem of school segrega-tion.. This provision is not concerned with enforcementbut with providing help for the schools. It does notseek to coerce school districts into desegregating, butto aid them in accomplishing it successfully. UnderTitle IV, the Federal Government offers technical andfinancial assistance to enable schools to adjust to anintegrated system and to help reduce the problems thataccompany such a change.

Title IV is an unique law compared with other lawsconcerned with equal rights. It is not prohibitory nordoes it force changes in behavior. Its approach isbasically conciliatory. It offers help in meeting prob-lems that are attitudinal and emotional as well as be-havioral. Through Title IV the opportunity has beenpresented to assure that the change from segregated tointegrated education could be accomplished peacefullyand successfully. The basic conclusion of this report isthat the opportunity has largely been lost.

Many factors influence the way the desegregationprocess works, or whether it works at all. The vigor ofthe Federal Government's enforcement efforts, the po-litical climate in the State or locality, the attitude ofthe school hierarchy, and the mood of the communityare key elements in making this determination. Techni-cal assistance under Title IV is only a part of theprocess, and it is unlikely that it alone can determine

the success or failure of school desegregation in anycommunity.

Controversy over the issue of school desegregationsuggests not so much that Title IV has been unable toovercome the problems involved in desegregation, butthat it has not really been tried. With few exceptions,funds expended under this title have been wasted, theirobjectives blurred, and their purposes thwarted.

The entities involved under the Title IV programrepresent key elements in the educational process.Each can contribute in different ways to achievingsuccessful desegregation. In combination they can bepowerful instruments for making it a reality.

First, the U.S. Office of Education, which has firmties with State and local officials and educational insti-tutions, establishes the guidelines governing the opera-tion of the Title IV programs. It monitors the projectsit funds to assure that they are accomplishing theirpurpose.

Second, local educational agencies (LEA's) operateat the community level and are directly faced with theproblems at which Title IV is aimed. LEA's receivedgrants from the Office of Education which pay forin-service training programs for teachers and otherschool personnel and for the employment of specialiststo advise on how to meet problems of desegregationmost effectively.

Third, State departments of education, which are ina position to influence and even set State policy ondesegregation, can influence the climate of opinionwithin the State. State departments of education re-ceive Title IV grants to provide technical assistance toschool districts in the form of helping them developplans for desegregation and cope with desegregationproblems.

Fourth, colleges and universities provide a reservoirof technical knowledge and competence and frequentlyenjoy great prestige in the areas in which they arelocated. They receive grants from the Office of Educa-tion for the purpose of conducting training institutesfor school districts.

Thus Title IV seeks to involve public and privateinstitutions that are traditionally concerned with edu-

41

cation as active partners in the process of desegrega-tion. Except in scattered instances, none of these insti-tutions has carried out its role effectively. Conse-quently, Title IV has largely been a failure and thedesegregation process has suffered.

The failure of Title IV begins at the Federal leveland extends to every level of participation in the pro-gram. Lack of money is an obvious reason for itsfailure. At its peak the Title IV program received lessthan $20 million annually for national distribution. Bythe same token, HEW staff has never had adequatepersonnel to administer the program at the Federallevel. It has not been possible for HEW to monitorTitle IV activities to determine how well State andlocal programs are operating, or to weed out thoseprograms that are nonproductive. As a result, HEWhas not been in a position to know which programsare working well. In some instances, HEW has fundedprograms that should have been terminated, and hasrefused to continue programs that were proving effec-tive.

The problem at the Federal level, however, has byno means been one solely of inadequate resources.Problems of low status and priority for Title IV in theHEW desegregation effort, of bureaucratic pressures,and of confusion regarding the purpose and approachof Title IV, have also served to blunt the force of theprogram and diminish its effectiveness.

In its early years, Title IV staff was detailed to workon Title VI enforcement. This was considered an activ-ity of higher priority. When Title IV was separatedfrom Title VI, it was not established as an independentunit reporting directly to the Commissioner of Educa-tion. It was made a subordinate unit in one of thebureaus of the Office of Education.

Title IV administrators, instead of husbanding themeager program funds available to them to assure thatonly the most promising proposals were funded, exhib-ited more concern with assuring that funds were dis-persed as quickly as possible, regardless of the meritsof the proposals for which the funds were sought. Thiswas true in the early years when the patterns foroperation of programs were being established. It re-flected, in part, the view that the measure of a pro-gram's success is the quantitative one of how muchmoney has been expended, rather than the qualitativeone of what has been accomplished. As one Title IVif they would agree to say something about integrationstaff member phrased it: "We would support anythingand desegregation."

More important is HEW's failure to provide guide-lines governing the substantive operation of the pro-

42

gram. The numerous task forces and committees estab-lished by the Department to consider standards andcriteria for Title IV concerned themselves more withprocedure than substance. In fact, HEW has nevertaken a clear position on what the scope and purposeof Title IV activities should be. Although there isgeneral agreement that Title IV activities should cormplement those of Title VI, there has been no uranimityregarding how these complementary functions can bestbe carried out. Difference of opinion centers aroundtwo viewpoints: one, that Title IV can effectively pro-mote desegregation by focusing on educational im-provement; the other, that Tide IV should be con-cerned with problems of desegregation and changes inattitudes and behavior.

Weaknesses in the administration of the Title IVprogram at the Federal level have been reflected in theprograms carried out by State Title IV units, the localeducational agencies, and the university desegregationcenters. The directors of State Title IV units, whosejob is to advise the State superintendent and partici-pate actively in the formulation of State educationpolicy, have often been placed several layers below thesuperintendent in the State education hierarchy andhave rarely participated in discussions of policy. TitleIV advisory specialists under the LEA program fre-quently have been physically isolated from otherschool officials and have had almost no contact withschool superintendents. And institutions of higher edu-cation in which desegregation centers are located sel-dom have exhibited pride in the fact that they areactively involved in facilitating desegregation. On thecontrary, through such means as physical location ofcenter staff and failure to publicize the existence of thedesegregation center, they have even shown a reluc-tance to be associated with this controversial issue.

Similarly, the lack of clear guidelines on substantiveprogram operation has led to confusion at the Stateand local levels and has resulted in some programs andactivities that are inappropriate to Title IV. For exam-ple, programs having nothing whatever to do withdesegregation have been initiated with Title IV funds.Other programs, concerned with training teachers tocope with the problems incident to desegregation, haveinvolved those who continue to teach in segregatedschools. In some instances grants have been made tolocal educational agencies that exhibit no intention ofdesegregating. Terms of the grant contract have fre-quently been violated with .impunity. Some State TitleIV units, that are contractually obligated to assist inpreparing desegregation plans, have refused to involvethemselves in that activity. And decisions on whether

programs would be concerned with desegregation oreducation have been made, not on the basis of uniformguidelines, but on the particular viewpoint of individ-ual grant recipients.

Hesitancy underlies the weaknesses in the program,and is common to every level of administration. Timidbehavior has been justified on the grounds that TitleIV can be a more effective instrument to facilitatedesegregation by avoiding the appearance of civilrights enforcement or advocacy. Officials associatedwith the program have attempted to disassociate them-selves from those involved in Title VI enforcement orthose who go to court to require desegregation.

For example, local education agencies have almostalways employed personnel indigenous to the area inimplementing their programs. This is true of thosewhich functioned well and those which functionedpoorly. The employment of indigenous personnel hasthe advantage of avoiding the use of "outsiders" notfamiliar with the community and whom local residentsmight not trust. In practice, the disadvantages of usingsuch personnel have proved formidable.

In the South Title IV personnel generally have beenpersons whose training and experience have been in asocial climate and atmosphere in which racial segrega-tion has been the accepted rule. Often, they have beenapologists for the status quo. Further, these officialshave been susceptible to intense political pressure fromState or local officials unsympathetic to desegregation.This has caused them to be less than vigorous incarrying out their functions. They have-also been bub-ject to conflicts in allegiance, having to decide whetherto follow Federal policy requiring desegregation orState policy opposing it. Despite their positions asTitle IV officials, funded by the Federal Government,they have frequently resolved this conflict on the sideof their State.

Another example of timidity that has pervaded theprogram is the reluctance of Title IV recipients toprovide expert testimony on behalf 13f plaintiffs indesegregation litigation. They I- ye expressed a prefer-ence for avoiding this activity completely or, if necessary, presenting testimony in litigation involvingStates other than their own. The effect is to deny toFederal judges the benefit of an expression of views byexperts fainiliar with the particular locality and capa-ble of contributing to the successful elimination ofsegregated schools.

Title IV recipients have gone to great lengths toavoid participation in the preparation of school deseg-regation plans. Some have flatly refused to participatein any way. Others have limited their participation to

providing alternatives a local school board might selectas appropriate. In this way, he Title IV recipientsavoid the position of determining school desegregationplans imposed upon a local district.

The involvement of Title IV recipients, such as uni-versity desegregation centers, in the preparation of de-segregation plans has often been at the request ofFederal district courts that need expert help in devis-ing means to elimiinate dual school systems. Until re-cently these requests have been honored. In January1972, a significiant change in policy became evident. AFederal district court judge, considering ways to elimi-nate the dual school system in Memphis, Tennessee,requested the expert help of the University of MiamiDesegregation Center. The Associate Commissioner ofthe U.S. Office of Education prohibited the centerfrom providing the requested assistance on groundsthat centers were authorized to provide such aid onlyto school personnel, not to Federal judges. If thispolicy stands, Federal courts will no longer have avail-able to them the knowledge and experience of desegre-gation center personnel. The Commission on CivilRights believes this is a serious error.

If Title IV has generally failed to accomplish itspurpose of easing the path toward the desegregation ofthe schools, there have been instances in which it hasbeen successful. In communities such as Muskogee,Oklahoma; New Albany, Mississippi; and HokeCounty, North Carolina, LEA funds have been usedeffectively for achieving desegregation. It is not possi-ble to isolate the basic elements or to weigh theseelements in their importance in the desegregation proc-ess. Nor now is it possible to determine in any casehow important Title IV really has been. In those com-munities where desegregation has been achieved, sev-eral common elements are evident that can be identi-fied as important. In each case school administratorshave been committed to desegregate the schools andmake desegregation work. They have tried successfullyto gain support for desegregationor at least haveneutralized the oppositionfrom local officials, civicgroups, and business interests. In conducting programsunder Title IV, efforts have been made to assure community participation not only by teachers, administra-tors, and other school officials, but also by parents,civic leaders, and other community representatives,acting as observers or consultants. The school officialshave recognized the fears of the white and black com-munity over the desegregation issue and have soughtto alleviate them. Thus, conscious efforts have beenmade to improve the quality of education as desegrega-tion proceeds. Moreover, the black community has

43

been actively involved in preparing for desegrega-tion and assurances have been givenand honoredthat black school officials would not be demoted fol-lowing desegregation.

The Commission has found instances in which StateTitle IV units and university desegregation centerscourageously resisted local opposition and politicalpressures to contribute effectively to the integrationprocess. These instances, however, are the exception,not the rule.

The failure of Title IV can be attributed to weakadministrative policy at the Federal level and timidoperation of the program at the State and local levels.Perhaps the key to Title IV's lack of success has beenundue reliance on local control and local autonomy.Since controversy surrounds the issue, the absence ofFederal control or Federal guidelines has had theeffect of dissipating the meager resources availableunder Title IV. Consequently, locally devised programsinevitably have been weak and ineffectual. One ob-server pinpointed the essential reason why Title IV hasfailed: "The . . . program is ineffective in that itrequires a sick person to cure himself."

Compared with most Federal financial assistanceprograms, Title IV is small in size. Even if effectivelyadministered, it could not, in itself, have resolved themany problems that are incident to the desegrega-tion process. But Title IV could have made a substan-tial contribution. That it has not been effective hasimplications that are deeper than the mere failure ofa minor Federal program.

44

The future of school desegregation is uncertain. Al-though there are examples of success in many parts ofthe Nation, many peopleblack and whitequestionwhether integration can work. The chief contributionTitle IV could have made would have been to estab-lish the fact that desegregation can work, even in areasof the country most opposed to it. Under this program.prototypes of successful school desegregation commu-nities could have been developed and the doubt aboutintegration's value could have been quieted. Title IVhas failed, and with it an opportunity to advance theNation toward racial unity has been lost.

It is important not to learn the wrong lesson fromthe experience of Title IV. The lesson is not thatdesegregation cannot work or that the problems asso-ciated with it are so intractable as to defy our bestefforts. The fact is that desegregation has worked, andcommunities thought to be most resistant have madethe transition. from segregation to integration. Sub-stantial improvement in the quality of education of-fered to all children has been one result. Despite thegeneral mismanagement of Title IV a number of pro-grams funded under that law have been a key to thedesegregation process.

The lesson of Title IV is that there is a reservoir ofreceptivity to desegregation which Federal aid, care-fully structured and wisely used, can tap. If Federalpolicy is firm and unswerving in its dedication to thegoal of complete desegregation. we can achieve it. Inshort, the Commission is convinced that the promise ofTitle IV is worth redeeming and that its policy andapproach must be strengthened, not abandoned.

CHAPTER VI

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. The Office of Education should establish clearguidelines governing the substantive operation ofthe Title IV program, including specific conditionsof eligibility for prospective recipients.

a. While projects concerned, in part, with educa-tional problems and remedies should be consid-eted eligible for funding under Title IV, itshould be required that the primary emphasisof all projects mast be to deal directly withproblems of desegregation.

b. All Title IV recipients should be required todemonstrate that their projects will be useful inactual desegregation situations.

(1) Local Educational Agencies (LEA) shouldbe required to show that their school sys-tems already have desegregated or, as partof the grant agreement, that they will doso on or before commencement of theacademic year following the grant.

(2) University-based desegregation centersshould require teachers and other schoolofficials participating in training institutesto show that they are already operating indesegregated schools or that they will doso on or before commencement of theacademic year immediately following par-ticipation in the institute.

c. All Title IV recipients should be required toassure proportionate representation, on an inte-grated basis, of all relevant racial and ethnicgroups, in the formulation and administrationof projects and as participants.

d. The Office of Education should develop criteriafor evaluating grant applications that give apriority to the funding of "prototype" pro;ertsthose that involve school systems in whichthe likelihood that Title IV assistance will helpmake desegregation work is strongestandshould assure that the size and duration of thegrant will be sufficient to facilitate success.

The following recommendations, while Ppecifica 11 y directed to the TitleIV program, apply equally to other programs concerned with facilitatingsuccessful desegregation, web as the Emergency School Act. passed on J4ne23, 1972 as Title VII of the Education Amendments of 1972.

45

e. The Office of.Education should conduct an annual training institute with representatives ofcurrent and potential Title IV recipients (Statedepartments of education, LEA's, and universitydesegregation centers) to assure a common un-derstanding of objectives, strategies, and per.missible activities.

Discussion

Although there is general agreement that technicaland financial assistance under Title IV should serve tocomplement enforcement efforts under Title VI, thereis no clear understanding, within HEW or among themany Title IV recipients, as to how this functionshould be performed.

Some projects having little, if anything, to do withdesegregation have been funded and renewed. Othershave limited their use of Title IV funds to projectsconcerned only with compensatory education or educa-tional improvements generally. To the extent that re-cipients have used Title IV for purposes of dealingdirectly with problems of desegregation, they havedone so on their own, not as a result of clear guide-lines from the Office of Education.

By the same token, Title IV funds to help overcomeproblems incident to desegregation have been providedto LEA's which maintained segregated schools andexhibited no intention of desegregating in the nearfuture. Teachers and other school officials have freelyparticipated in Title IV institutes concerned withtraining to teach in desegregated school environments,even though the school systems in which they havetaught and to which they will return remain segre-gated.

In addition, Title IV projects frequently have oper-ated on a racially exclusive basis, both with respect toadministration and participation. Except in the rela-tively few cases in which recipients have been predom-inantly minority institutions, minority representationas administrators and participants usually has beenminimal. Decisionmaking authority for the operationof projects, even when the staff has been integrated,almost invariably has been in the hands of whiteofficials.

Further, the Office of Education, because of thelimited funds available under Title IV, has madegrants of small size and short duration to many recipi-ents. Rather than limiting the number of grants tothose recipients that show greatest promise of successand thereby developing "prototypes" of successfulschool desegregation, the Office of Education has ad-ministered Title IV as an "entitlement" program--giv-ing something to many recipients--thereby dilutingthe impact of the Title IV program.

2. Funds should be provided for systematic evalua-tions of all Title IV projects, either by a unit ofthe Office of Education independent of the Title IVoffice or by contract with private organizations. Noapplication for refunding of a Tide IV projectshould be approved prior to the performance ofsuch an evaluation.

Discussion

One of the major inadequacies in the administrationof Title IV has been the lack of independent andsystematic evaluation of funded projects. This has re-sulted in the renewal of projects that have been un-productive art,d the failure to renew projects that haveproven successful. Wihout adequate resources for theperformance of independent evaluations, the Office ofEducation has lacked information necessary to deter-mine the worth of particular funded projects and hashad to rely largely on occasional evaluations by recipi-ents, which have tended to be self-serving, haphazard,and superficial.

3. The Office of Education should reverse its policyprohibiting Title IV recipients, such as university-based desegregation centers, from honoring re-quests for assistance from courts in desegregationlitigation, and require recipients to offer the fullrange of their knowledge and experience in helpingto devise workable desegrgation plans.

Discussion

Early this year, the Office of Education adopted apolicy prohibiting university-based desegregation cen-ters from honoring requests from Federal courts forassistance in formulating plans to end school desegre-gation. Requests for such assistance previously hadbeen honored, with no objection from the Office ofEducation. The Office of Education's new policy, ifcontinued, will serve to deny to the Fc -deral judiciarythe benefit of the knowledge and experience of TitleIV recipients and will further discourage recipients,

many of Avhich already are reluctant to play an activerole, from making a maximum contribution to the de-segregation process.

4. The Office cf Education should give greater consid-eration to funding desegregation centers located atprivate institutions of higher education.

Discussion

Most of the desegregation centers funded by theOffice of Education have been located at State sup-ported colleges and universities. Many of these centershave failed to assert a vigorous role under Title IV.Thus they have been reluctant to testify against localschool districts in desegregation litigation or to partic-ipate in the preparation of school desegregation plans.One reason has been that their status as State sup-ported institutions has made them wary of taking astrong stand on the politically sensitive subject ofschool desegregation and susceptible to external politi-cal pressures from State or local officials opposed todesegregation. Although private institutions are notentirely free from such political pressures, they aregenerally less subject to them than publicly supportedcolleges and universities. Commission investigations ofthe performance of various university.based desegrega-tion centers suggest that private institutions, becauseof their greater freedom from external political pres-sure, generally have performed more effectively.

5. The Office of Education should firmly enforce thecontractual obligations of Title IV recipients, in-cluding withholding further payments under thecontract and use of fund recovery mechanismsavailable to it.

46

Discussion

Some Title IV recipients, such as State departmentsof education and university desegregation centers,have been reluctant to fulfill contractual obligationsunder their Title IV grants for fear of being placed inthe position of "civil rights enforcers". Thus StateDepartments of Education have refused to become in-volved in developing desegregation plans, even thoughtheir grant contracts obligate them to do so. Desegre-gation centers also have sought to avoid becominginvolved

t-

involved in preparation of desegregation plans or intestifying in school desegregation litigation, althoughthese activities are in the nature of technical assist-ance, and as such, are part of their contractual respon-sibilities. While the reason for their reluctancethatthey can be more effective as conciliators than enforc-ersmay be understandable, their refusal to become

involved in such activities has the effect of denying tocourts and school districts alike, the benefit of theirknowledge and expertise, in clear violation of theirgrant contracts. The Office of Education has over.

47

looked such contract violations and, indeed, as notedabove, in recent months has actually prohibited deseg-regation centers from providing assistance to thecourts.

TABLE A-- -Title IV Grants to State Departments ofEducation (Southern States), FY 1965-1971

TABLE BITotal Title IV Local Education AgencyGrants by State, Fiscal Year, and Amount (AllStates with LEA's Receiving Grants)

TABLE B2Total Title IV Local Education AgencyGrants by State, Fiscal Year, and Amount (South-ern and border States with LEA's ReceivingGrants)

TABLE B3Total Title IV Local Education AgencyGrants by State, Fiscal Year, and Amount (StatesOther Than Southern and border States withLEA's Receiving Grants)

TABLE B4Total Title IV Local Education AgencyGrants by State, Local Education Agency, FiscalYear, and Amount (All States with LEA's Receiv-ing Grants)

TABLE CITitle IV University Desegregation Cen-ters

TABLE C2Title IV University Desegregation Cen-ters by State, Fiscal Year, and Funding Level (AllStates with Centers)

TABLE C3Title IV University Desegregation Centers by State, Fiscal Year, and Funding Level(Southern and border States with Centers)

48

TABLE CITitle IV University Desegregation Cen-ters by State, Fiscal Year, and Funding Level(States Other Than Southern and Border Stateswith Centers)

TABLE C5Title IV University Desegregation Cen-ters by State, Sponsor, Fiscal Year. and FundingLevel 4All Statzn with Centers)

TABLE DITotal Title IV Institute Project Grantsby State and Fiscal Year (All States ReceivingGrants)

TABLE D2Total Title IV Institute Project Grantsby State and Fiscal Year (States Visited by Com-mission Staff Receiving Grants)

TABLE D3Total Title IV Institute Project Grantsby State and Fiscal Year (Southern and borderStates Receiving Grants)

TABLE D4Total Title IV Institute Project Grantsby State and Fiscal Year (States Other ThanSouthern and border States Receiving Grants)

TABU, D5Total Title IV Institute Project Grantsby State, Sponsor, and Fiscal Year (All StatesReceiving Grants)

GRANTS TO STATE DEPARTMENTS OF EDUCATION (Southern States) FY 1965-1971

...

TABLE A 1

1

TOTAL

1

-.............m....

1965

.,........-..,k

1966

1967

1968

.......,--

1969

1970

.1971

ALABAMA

60 000

.

---

---

60,000

FLORIDA

855,542

225,000

___

134,820

179,808

98,823

103,980

113,112

GEORGIA

412,477

---

165 700

37 865

54 578

45 639

46 000

62 695

MISSISSIPPI

122 835

---

23 650

17

105

27 815

27 673

NORTH CAROLINA

259,590

94,890

62,350

102,350

OKLAHOMA **

..

154,263

---

44,263

50,000

60,000

SOUTH CAROLINA

379 394

---.

79,622

70,987

71 285

75 000

82 500

TENNESSEE

314 463

22,078

61,870

---

62,965

46,050

.54,000

67 500

TEXAS

225,255

---

--_

---

40 538

43 933

50 000

90 784

VIRGINIA

77,528

---

---

---

---

---

77,528

011

0

*Alabama and

do not have

**

Oklahoma is

Virginia

units.

a border

did not

state.

have Title

IV units

until 1971.

Arkansas

and Louisana

still

,....,

-.........,.......,-...-

I--.----

TA

BL

E B

1-1

TO

TA

L T

ITL

E I

V L

OC

AL

ED

UC

AT

ION

AG

EN

CY

GR

AN

TS

BY

ST

AT

E, F

ISC

AL

YE

AR

, AN

D A

MO

UN

T (

AL

L S

TA

TE

S R

EC

EIV

ING

GR

AN

TS)

.V

IIM

ileIM

---=

'=-.

"""

-

TO

TA

L

1111

:C=

1:11

.,,^M

MI.M

INIW

N

1965

1966

1967

1968

1969

1970

SIG

Nia

il.

1971

AL

AB

AM

A1,838,741

40,000

306,265

73,150

223,111

1145,099

659,276

391 840

AR

IZO

NA

1200

0--

----

MII

IIH

IIPI

IIM

IA

RIC

A D

S A

§-

6 01

4114

48

620

RM

IIII

IIM

IIIN

IEII

----

106

216" 62

796,

222

.

IIII

IIII

III

100

0

-:ek

T,T

F0 T

Z7T

2,41

2,75

2--

1 C

I 10

.1

.70

00L

OR

AD

O1

000

----

CO

NIE

CT

ICU

T40

6,53

8--

--32, lao

79, o

w--

--, 5

123

DE

L.n

.w.it

E53

,130

----

----

-_--

55,1

30D

. C.

Co oo

__

--

.--

--

--

o

1,'LORIUA

2,55

1,75

0882 69

81,60

44 402

42 18

73E

0ii.:

";IA

1, 2

50.5

001

002

lr 0

.000

283,205

It 1

8'),

975

?,-)

cc-0

.r.]

11.

13(7

11

107,

724

150,

757

174,

829

ILL

I::0

I365

2,71

6--

--58

,09(

.79

o59

IT3I

.^7T

A12

2 (.

)(:'

'--

_--

53,331

.

--

6 i.(

IOW

A:3

1,95

4--

__--

---_

--31,954

._.:1:-.,;5

45,500

--

__

__

--

ir;

I-n

(.17

.'TU

CK

2 01

6'10

pron

,-,F

);

nog

LO

UIS

IAN

A1,

282,

035

--40

,000

--62

,162

56,1

193

166,

612

681,

3311

4112

,041

::AR

YL

AN

D52

1:19

4__

.---

----

----

----

---.

(.. n

o25

0,97

91,

7,60

3

-___

....._

._.

,.._

.__

__

TABLE

B 1-2

TOTAL TITLE IV LOCAL EDUCATION AGENCY GRAM'S BY STATE, FISCAL YEAR,

AND AMOUNT (ALL STATES RECEIVING GRANTS)

4.11

TO

TA

L19

6519

6619

6719

6819

6919

7019

71

.`.A.SSAcTrUSETTS

197, 310

..

130 124

--

..

--

--

6186

--

;:acliaGAII

888'

-224

o._

r11

1111

E11

61

MINNESOTA

--

--

;--

...

11111111111

2o4,169

MISSISSIPPI

720,008

41,035

88,800

53,866

122,548

!.ISSOURI

.

---

91,626

--

59,910

126,450

124,841

15,6

00--

....

....

--1

800

:EVADA

226,

,9

--

__

._

62 QII

A2_,Ao

--

X55,053

So 265

--

--

81,448

9,325

37,072

176,943

NEW

IZX

ICO

5''''

....

bo 4

177646

133,932

JEW YORK

X)RTH CAROLINA

212

26

11

44

--

37?-6

2 4 012

417,211

70.000

68,22.5

91.026

.

4

DHIO

339,987

--

--

--

OKLAHOMA

762,265

--

43 420

--

192,686

183,267

100,160

242,732

OREGON

148,839

--

--

--

89,437

59,402

PE:II:SYLVANIA

381,615

168,764

_.

--

30,538

r211

125,100

RHODE ISLAND

SOUTF. CAROLINA

623,363

------

--

--

--

'

--

--

46

133256

............-...

130,360

......59252

78,654

6o,887

357,888

ILNNESSEE

790,546

227,013

8,065

--

62,889

..

TABLE

B 1.3

TOTAL TITLE IV LOCAL EDUCATION AGENCY GRANTS BY STATE, FISCAL YEAR, AND AMOUNT (ALL STATES RECEIVING GRANTS)

TO

TA

L19

65

--

1966

1967

1968

1969

1970

1971

TE

XA

I;1

7814

' 9--

1. 2

--84 028

8 6

sSr

548,714

184,496

VIE

GM

A2,000,651

261,440

176,384

197,424

185,377

i369,454

626,076

!ASHIUGTON

364;641

. --

--

--

67,980

81,231

44 88o

170 500

-:133T VIRGINIA

24,037

--

--

--

--

--

--

......

.a.il

an...

.

---

6,r,o8,422,

TO

TA

L26

, 319

, 621

2 690 941

2 067

-2

00

66

22

84

6,483,934

--,.......

..............

--_-_-..-----

................-

...

_

TOLE 11 2

TOTAL TITLE IV LOCAL EDUCATION AGENCY GRANTS RY STATE, FISCAL YEAR,

AND AMOUNT (Southern and Border States)

TO

TA

L19

6519

66

......

...d, 19

6719

6819

6919

70w

1971

.TAn !,./1

(1-q

i14

* 00

006

6/

1 0

221

111

140(

62

6ca

840

\P.=

rs

As

633,

919

6 014

32,3

14lil

t , 3

4378

,620

133,

333

105,

672

'16

3,62

3

..TT.i:_'-7J7

53,1

30--

-_Y

3.0.

3q,..

.

. -D

IST

F:IC

T O

F C

OL

.(0

.000

----

-:.

--.

.

--:-

.60

000

21.0

1:ID

A2,

551,

750

332,

695

423,

517

381,605

177,

716

411,

1402

294

(23

31,2

,10

r:1-

n0:E

A1,

250.

500

71,0

0215

0.00

023

3 . 2

0518

4.07

7119)593

314 894

107,

7211

711

'CaY

rq,',

,(Y

r39

2.01

7J

71.0

/3...

...86

,720

....._

123

7)1

379

,820

LO

UIS

IAN

A1,

232,

035

--40

,000

--62

,162

56,493

(81,334

1111

2,04

1

7211

94--

----

36,0

0016

6 61

22r

0.9

610

!I51

.33I

PPI

720

008

--20

C41

035

33,3

00--

53,8

66..

59,9

34

122

'020

4 16

ISSO

UR

I40

2,82

7--

91,6

2612

6,45

012

4,84

1

z,47

-,:4

cr:

RnT

,DIA

,r,

.--

701-

:Ttl

CA

BO

LPI

A

1,89

5,93

0.2

1 "

12c

4 01

241

211

?22

886

68 2

266,

475

(2,-

=0

--...

..--

133

256

,565

78,6

511

357,

388

TE

1:7:

17,3

SEE

790,

546

227,

013

8, 0

6518

4, 9

6317

7, 2

5613

0, 3

60--

62,089

TE

XA

S1,

784,

797

(

--71

327

--84

,028

301,

876

778

852

548,

714

VIR

CII

NIA

1..d

.wia

176,

384

197,

1424

135,

377

369,

4514

.

--62

6 07

618

4 11

96

WE

ST V

IRG

INIA

14 0

134

01

1,62

1, 3

631,

934,

334

TO

TA

L17

,122

,142

02,

015,

917

11,

661,

469

1,97

7,45

91 4

,496

,401

3,41

5,47

7

TABLE B 3-1

TOTAL TITLE IV LOCAL EDUCATION AGENCY GRANTS BYSTATE, FISCAL YEAR, AND AMOUNT

(States Other Than Southern & Border States with Local EducationAgencies Receiving Grants)

.......

TOTAL

1965

,..........--.......

1966

1967

1968

-1969

1970

1971

ARIZONA

125,000

--

--

--

--

40,000

50,000

35,000

.7.ALIFOR7IA

432,752

--

139,103

177,303

263,729

349,664

706,731

7,96,22,

COLORADO

1-.000

--

--

--

--

--

1000

00UEECTICUT

406,533

--

'

--

32,410

79,000

--

--

_225,128

174,829

71LIMIS

652,716

--...---

--

189 975

8 0.6

-

059

150,787

77DIA"A

122.c1C9

--

--

--

--

51 331

69,638

IOWA

31,954

--

--

--

31,954

KANSAS

45,500

--

--

--

--

--

--

400

!1SACFUSETTS

197.,710

130.124

--

67-#2.8.E

IICilIGAN

888

224

011 06

140

--

.....62aa..

...2214,i51._

ai7TESOTA

139

I--

PO

4

MONTAM

15,300

--

--

--

--

i'-' II'

-4...-4,0.

-.

7..v

AyN

A226 272

100 921

--

--

62,931

,-,

-1:,)

,,i3-,

..

:TV JERSEY

355,053

50,265

--

--

81 448

-ran

_9 t 42`'L-..

;IT6YV,--q.,-;:-!

-

-.....,:..-4,!,

::-4t;!,,

1

.

-

gnew

m.

:EW MEXICO

334,073

--

--

.....

4° li 0

Wil

,,,,,,,,,,,.._,-

...,

....r.,==

-

TABLE B 3-2

TOTAL TITLE IV LOCAL EDUCATION AGENCY

GRANTS BY STATE, FISCAL YEAR, AND AMOUNT

gencies Receiving Grants)

(States

Other Than Sout ern & Borer

701.

1111

MIII

IMM

...11

1M,

a es w

GIO

NN

IMM

Ilar.

r11G

IMIII

MIZ

EG

liMil

TO

TA

L.

1965

1966

......

1.57

/taca

Nra

ccr.

.

1967

1968

1969

amm

asam

asem

ser.

..-

1970

1971

:04

YU

RK

793,

380

--21

20

26

144,

--

1101

337,169

/7(,86/

OH

IO--

----

---

70,000

93,126

2 265

,--

43,420

--

192,686

183,267

100,160

242,712

OnEGON

148,339

--

--

--

--

---

8. 4

59.402

TIT

ISY

T.L

,IT

A168,764

..

--

--

30,538

J7. 21 -

125,100

,623

----

--49,673

44,111

59'.950

60.887

::r,S

HIN

GT

O:J

364,

641

...

--

--

6 .990

81 281

44 880

1Do

---

TOTAL

9,097,201

6024

40

62

1972m

1 2

)1,987,533

3,192,945

121=EZINII

SI1

CJI

AL

AB

AM

ilTABLE B 4-1

TOTAL TITLE IV LOCAL EDUCATION AGENCY (=RANTS BY STATE, LOCAL EDUCATION

AGENCY, FISCAL YEAR, AND AMOUNT

(ALLitates with_14wOLzamition_ Agencies

Rec

eivi

ngGrants)

_Lauderdale Co.

......

......

....u

......

...-

TO

TA

L

--...

......

......

...

.. 1965

1966

---.

.--

1967

.-,

......

.....

-,- 19

6819

6919

7019

71

144 060

20,000

49,097

--

74,963

--

--

--

Bd of Ed

Tuscaloosa City

20,000

20,000

--

--

--

--

--

--

TI!caloosa Co.

201.690

--

--

."

--494449

90,031

62,170

Bi of Ed

TrOy City Bd ofIIIIIIIIIIII

MN

--

155,255

--

Anniston Cit

PA of Ed

Ilimmill

--

20,283

73,150

--

--

30,000

--

Anniston Public

35 000

--

--

--

--

35,000

--

Schools.

..1=1

.241

121M

pa

ALABAMA (cont.)

TABLE B 4.2

TOTAL TITLE IV LOCAL EDUCATION AGENCY :AUNTS BY STATE, LOCAL EDDCATIOU AGENCY,

FISCAL YEAR, AND AMOUNT

(All States with Local Education AgenciesReceivina!Granla)

\H11

JIIC

SWA.1.11

TO

TA

L19

6519

6619

6719

6819

6919

7019

71

IRM11111111111111111

21 624

1111111,1111

Bd of Ed

98 239

--

.

--

22

P,

79.757

.-

111111111,111

30,000

of Ed

Auburn City Schs

36,425

--

--

--

--

--

36 42

airmingham City

104 705

.--

--

--

--

--

104

Or

13,1 of Ed

war

wri

7783

......

r~...

Demopolis City

73 78'3

--

__

--

warimersuesorre*

--

....

ofEd

MlgIMIHIMIMIIIIII

Bd of Ed

--

-_

-_

__.

0 000

Phenix City Bd

34 000

--

--

--

--

34,000

--

of Ed

.

..,..1

,..r.

r.-

.---.....

......................---

..745.0n1

IIII

IMII

IIIP

IIM

II._

....

..

ALABAMA (cont.)

TABLE B 4-3

TOTAL TITLE IV LOCAL EDUCATION AGENCY GRANTS BY

STATE, LOCAL EDUCATION AGENCY, FISCAL YEAR, AND AMOUNT

. _ _

__lA

IL.I

SAW

ILX

L.U

6901

*

1965

cauc

aApi

l,Ara

lISM

AX

EM

IZA

PR k

,ran

ts,

-zam

mus

imm

......

nr.,=

=.0

.---

.N...

......

..

TO

TA

L

mgm

awas

==

=...

.---

--,

1966

1967

"...w

axv,

==

sera

c.a4

awas

mas

zass

isas

1968

1969

1970

1971

l'ike Co. Ed of

q6,000

"...A

_96.000

allTid fra

40 000

--

--

--

--

40,000

--

.

".7onectth Co. &i

7,7.000

R.7 cm

of Ed

,e Co. 3d of

,000

--

',t; 00

.1::,'

:,..-idison Co. Bd

65,268

_...

--

--

--

65.268.

0.. r.a

;arion City Bd

21,79

1110

10PI 7o2

of Ed.

:obile Co. pubii

62.801

--

'

62.=

Sens.

Yoelika Cit

1 34

....

ii

of Ed

.

......

.....1

1/0.

0012

,.V

aini

elip

ier"

...lai

---,

.

TOTAL

1 838,741 IIIM

40 000

of 26

...w

ar...

4...4

1112

alul

ac. I

*,81

,p=

AiliZOAA

TABLE B 4-4

TOTAL TITLE IV LOCAL EDUCATION AGENCY GRANTS BY STATE, LOCAL EDUCATION AGENCY, VISCAL.JEAR,

AND AMOUNT

(Allaaes.sithLac

s)

mr.

.

.em

.. -.

.sna

mom

moe

m--

TOTAL

...W

i 1965

IS04

4.43

..

1966

1967

wv.

.MN

EIn

nose

re19

68,

1969

1970

1971

11111111114111111111,1111

....

...

40 000

0 000

000

min

1111111111111111111111

IIIIM

TO

TA

L125,000

....

-..

--

10,000

50,000

35,000

11111111111111111111111111111

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII.

..aM

OM

IME

MP

IPN

E.,,

El

MM

aaft

.0.1

/MIM

PIN

IMM

M.M

.O.

......,..

Mil

.

M11

1111

1cc

Lww

ory.

,.

1'

..

..

. _ .

''

.

AR

:W.:S

AS

TA

BL

E3 4-5

TOTAL TITLE IV LOCAL EDUCATION AGENCY GRANTS BY STATE LOCAL EDUCATION

AGENCY, FISCAL YEAR, AND AMOUNT

WA states

withocs1492usmplesiluran..,

=' 7

1111

1111

MIC

ASC

IRS

1966

..41.

2199

10

1968

JIM

MIN

OM

MIN

IUM

INIU

1969

liallilliiIWIN

...........t........

TO

TA

L19

6719

7019

71

Faycttcville Sci

6,01h

6 014

__

--

--

--

..:: a

Little Rock Pub.

81,066

--

32,

314

--

28 620

20 1 2

..

--

Schs.

,-!mosteal. Co.

40,604

--

--

40,804

--

....

thil or Ed

Pulaski Co. 3mc

49 752

--

47

2--

..

Sch. Dist.

-arnoton Sch.

2.767

--

--

21.787

--

--

Dist. No. 1

.

*:'Inticclio Sch.

50 000

--

--

--

21222...

..

...

Dist.

................

Conwny Pub.Schr

80 9 r

--

--

..

..

so

..

...

.7rirnolia Sch. Di

;t.

42 400

--

....

--

....

--

..

No.11.

-ww

ww

ww

ww

w/W

-(cont.)

...

2=gazigmagmllimmss

,

ARKANSAS

(con

t. )

TABLE B 4-6

TOTAL TITLE IV LOCAL EDUCATION AGENCY GRANTS BY STATE, LOCAL EDUCATION AGENCY, FISCAL YEAR, AND AMOUNT

(All States with Local Education Agencies Receiving Grant

,

TOTAL

..

1965

1966

1967

1968

1969

1970

1971

MIN

Lakeside Pub.

'. 81

--

--

....

--

....

Sch.

Lakeside Sch.

14.556

--

--

..

..

..

1111111111

--

Dist. No.1

i.

Camden Sch.Dist

--

--

--

--

IIIIMIIIM

No.35

1111111111

Camden Sch.Dist

18 500

--

--

--

.-

..

18 r00

111.1111,1

;0 E3?_8

--

--

--

--

.-

........L.........

..

rigleMIPININ

--

...

..

..........

..

Pine Bluff Pub

000

--

..

..

--

--

--

r9 000

Schs.

Wynne Sch.Dist.

20 004

--

--

--

--

--

20 004

No.y.

- ..T

IWPO

OM

P....

...f

.11'

...11

.~.1

,14.

-_

TOTAL

6 3 919

6 014

1111111111

114 34

.78,620

133 333

105,672

163,623

._

CA

LIF

OR

NIA

TA

BL

E B

4.7

TOTAL TITLE IV LOCAL EDUCATION AGENCY GRANTS by STATE, LOCAL kuUCATION AGEI'CY, FISCAL YEAR AND

AMOUNT

All States with Local Education A encies Receiving Grants)

......

..--

TO

TA

L19

65--

,..,..

.19

6619

6719

6819

6919

7019

71

.-

-ow

.0.

II...

.....4

"I'

MO

_..

..1City Unit. Sch.

Oakland Unif.Sc

.0 000

..

0 0..4

...

--

--

Dist.

Riverside Unif.

99

44

--

....

.

Sacramento Unif.

139,391

--

--

2 -

6r02

1111111111

Scn.D1s .

10

.-

--

I'

..

Sch. Dist.

San Mateo Sch.

. 118,592

--

....

...

58 943.

.......2160,...

IIM

Dist.

Richmond Unif.

120 1

--

--

'

11.11111111111MllEtiallIMMI

--

Sch.Dist.

-.......

Pittsburg Sch.

--

--

--

6 00h

801

6 114()

Dist.

''sc'ilands Sch.

152,464

.........

.-

--

----

.,....

211.

x6.

....

,,44.

4288

4o000

Dist.

--...-....

(cont.)

CALIFORNIA (cont.)

TABLE B 4-8

TOTAL TITLE IV LOCAL EDUCATION AGENCY GRANTS BY STATE, LOCAL EDUCATION AGENCY,

FISCAL YEAR, AND AMOUNT

(All-States with Local

Education Agencies Receiving Grants)

TOTAL

1965

1966

1967

1968

1969

1970

1971

Los Angeles Co.

6!,250

--

--

--

--

--

30,500

33,750

Yerced City Sch

135,716

--

--

--

--

--

*000

80,716

Dist.

.

.__

--

__

--

53,700

53,700

.

few

1ve

n L

tnif

.126,700

.....

....

....

..-.

--.

66,700

60,000

Sch. Dist.

--

--

--

--

--

97,500

99,997

Sch.Dist.

Perris unif. Sc

--

--

--

--

--

45,914

35,000

Dist.

.

San Francisco

,5

--

--

--

--

--.

138,659

149,907

Unif.Sch.Dist.

Sanford Joint

4 ,60

--

__

--

--

--

--

49,360

Union High

MM

II.",

,,,

Inglewood Unif.

61,292

--

--

--

--

--

--

61,292

Sch. Dist.

="-----1=21221=12.1221m"--(cont)

ramilm......'=.

CALIFORNIA (cont.)

TABLE B 4-9

TOTAL TITLE IV LOCAL EDUCATION AGENCY GRANTS BY STATE, LOCAL EDUCATION

AGENCY, FISCAL YEAR, AND AMOUNT

(All States with Local Education

Agencies Receiving Grants

7.1i

=n1

1.11

M=

1.1,

TOTAL

.R

I,11

{011

1=1=

=91

1965

.-...

.--

1966

1967

.

1968

1969

1970

1971

3 .21 Mateo Elem.

43,314

43 314

Sc .Dist.

',nnit ip

n75 6ro

--

--

75.r60

Sch. Dist.

riOTAL

2,432,752

17

'?so

(:)

4 COI

6

.-------

----..

------.

COLORADO

TABLE B 4-10

TOTAL TITLE IV LOCAL EDUCATION AGENCY GRANTS BY STATE,

LOCAL EDUCATION AGENCY, FISCAL YEAR, ANDAMOUNT

All.States with

;

TOTAL

Education Agencies Receiving Grants)

1965

1966

1967

1968

1969

1970

1971

East Otero Sch.

Dist. R-1

COMIECTICUT

TABLE B 4-11

TOTAL TITLE IV LOCAL EDUCATION AGENCY GRANTS BY

STATE, LOCAL EDUCATION AGENCY, FISCAL YEAR, AND AMOUNT

(All States wit

Loca

E ucation Agencies Receiving Grants)

,...-.......---m=--,.-........-..

TOTAL

1965

1966

--,=.m.=.=-4.-.....1967

1968

1969

1970

1971

_.

::-.,-

---1

.k il

aof

12,410

2 410

--

--

__

-..

Ed

,rtford City

"7),000

--

--

79,000

--

--

-_.

3d of Ed

;1.-1-,-

-i,..0

77,1

or:'

190_7c,

--

--

129,755

Ed

1121den Ad of Ed

49,614

--

--

--

--

--

--

49,614

Tbamford Ad of

i115,759

--

--

--

--

--

--

115,759

,d

TOTAL

406,538

--

- --

32,410

79,000

--

--

295,128

-..,......m......=-

.-,------.--_-

DELAWARE

TABLE B 4012

TOTAL TITLE IV LOCAL EDUCATION AGENCY GRANTSBY STATE, LOCAL EDUCATION AGENCY, FISCAL YEAR,

AND AMOUNT

iti14,..a64.zaxlEajozEararaccecea.ving

'rants)

--

-.-...............---......-----..-..-.........,--,

TOTAL

1965

...T.......,-

1966

1967

--.

_

1968

.........

1969

...........

1970

1971

Appoquinimink

28 130

-_

__

__

Pa, 1 :in

Scn.Dist.

sa

a--

....

--

--

30,000

of Ed

.

ll.

8 1

8 1

Mk

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

TABLE B 4.13

TOTAL TITLE IV LOCAL EDUCATION AGENCY GRANTS BY STATE, LOCAL EDUCATION AGENCY, FISCAL YEAR, AND AMOUNT

(All States with Local Education Agencies Receiving Grants

ME

WTOTAL

Wash.

,D.C. Pub.

Scns

TOTAL

1965

1966

1967

rf.=

;12:

MI:

1611

11G

1968

1969

1970

1971

6oso

o

6000

FLORIDA

TABLE B 4-14

TOTAL TITLE IV LOCAL EDUCATION AGENCY GRANTS BY STATE, LOCAL EDUCATION AGENCY, FISCAL YEAR, AND AMOUNT

(All States with Local Education Agencies Receiving Grants)

Ti=

==

MO

M. TO

TA

L1 965

-1.7

.MM

MW

......

..

1966 . _.

1967

-'--

.Z.1

=32

7ili&

INA

MIC

L

1968

,IIIM

MIIM

MO

M...

.1969

1970

1 971

Palm Bench Co.IMMIM

I--1

--

Bd. ot Pub. Ins

.

Polk Co. Bd of

24 262

--

24 262

--

__

__

__

__

Pub: Inst.

3rovard Co. Bd

183,715

--

--

--

.__

--

__

oi.

. no

.

Aanatee Co. of

178,592

-

68

82

282

8--

--

--

1011111111111111

23,155

--

16 563

6(2

--

--

--

__

Pub.Inst..

PIIMINIIM11.11

of

160 0 4

---11162

--

--

__

PUb.Inst.

)t. Lucie Co.

--

--

66

c__

--

e Co. Gd. of

40 831

--

--

4o 8 1

--

--

D. nsl..

cont.

....m

ot-.

1-,~

0.,,-

el-"

1!'n

-

FLORIDA (cont.)

TABLE B 4-15

TOTAL TITLE IV LOCAL EDUCATION AGENCYGRANT!: Z1, SATE, LOCAL EDUCATIONAGENCY, FISCAL YEAR, AND AMOUNT

(All States with Local Educei.:ionAgencies Receiving Grants)

,-........-,-m..................-/...=,

TOTAL

1965

1966

_1967

1968

1969

1970

197.1

Dde

o. ,ch.

46 313

so

--

_-

-_

larillu

Q Q,

Bd.

:7illsborou.h Co

6o

48

. 6

48

__

__

__

__

__

__

Pub.Schs.

" :i11 borough Co.

--

--

--

--

--

:;ch. Supt.

.

.

Hillsborough Co.

628

--

--

--

--

_-

628

--

Scn. Bd. of Ed.

,.

--cevard Co. Bd

;162 6111.111111101111

--

--

of Pub.Inst.

'

anchua Co. Sch.

96,500

--

__

__

__

--

600

4o 000

Encambia Co.Sch.

39 764

__

--

__

--

--

--

64

Bd.

(cont.)

.

_........

___

FLORIDA (cont.)

TABLE B 4-16

TOTAL TITLE IV LOCAL EDUCATION AGENCY GRANTS BY STATE, LOCAL

EuliCATION AGENCY, FISCAL YEAR, AND AMOUNT

glelogilhLocal Education A encies Receivin

Grants

....... 47

---"--

.31,

~11

1161

Mar

aftli

Mla

ir,

TOTAL

VE

INC

.7.1

=4"

-zar

zsra

arse

wro

osm

1965

1966

-,...

...m

mG

=a.

......

X.,-

1967

1968

1969

1970

1971

Duval Co. Bd of

000

--

--

-_

--

--

411111E1111111111.111.

Ed

Polk

o. c h.

80 13

--

--

--

--

--

--

80

1

Bd.

..

.

TOTAL

21

0882 6

428

11 60

116

44 402

4 628

42

..-----

GEORGIA

TABLE B 4-17

TOTAL TITLE IV LOCAL EDUCATION AGENCY GRANTS BY STATE, LOCAL EDUCATION AGENCY, FISCAL YEAR, AND AMOUNT

=States with Local Education Agencies Receiving Grants)

......

TOTAL

1965

1966

____.

_1967

r

1968

1969

1970

_...._

1 97 1

Y6lanta Bd of E0

130 608

1 002

--

606

Atlanta Pub.Schc

0 22

--

--

--

--

City of Atlanta

325,000

--

1 0 000

1000

--

..

nu oi r;

cook Co. Ed of

59,128

--

....

'6

0--

23,073

zu

31ayton Co. Bd

72.1 0

--

--

'P

0of Ed

nattoo

ACo.BflMIEM

--

--

_-

60,8e7

--

of Ed

:-1dison .M of r,'MEN

--

--

Dckdale Co. Ed

7L6(0

--

--

--

---7-14(Q---rax---r=------

of Ed

-,,r

rava

rne-

-(cont.)

.^1.

"l"

.i....

.....

_-___.-..........

:._.

.

GEORGIA (cont.)

TABLE B 4-18

TOTAL TITLE IV LOCAL EDUCATION AGENCY GRANTS BY STATE, LOCAL EDUCATION AGENCY, FISCAL YEAR,AND

AMOUNT

(All States with Local Education

encies Receivi

Grants)

TOTAL

1965

1966

1967

1968

.........

1969

1970

1971

iggs Co. Bd of

21:,398

--

--

--

--

24,898

--

__

Ed tenhens Co. Bd

41,1040

43,040

--

of Ed

autts Co. Bd of

29,540

--

--

--

--

--

29,540

--

Ed

lriffin-Snaldinr

40,000

40,0oo

Co. Bd of Ed

aGrenre-Troup

)6.790

46,390

Co. Bd of Ed

Blurens Co. Bd o

110,000

--

,--

Ed

ltephens Co. Bd

19,000

--

--

--

--

--

10,000

--

of Ed

ift Co. i

of

24,930

--

--

--

--

--

29.930

--

Ed

1111

IIII

cont.

GEORGIA (cont.)

TABLE B

4-19

TOTAL TITLE IV LOCAL EDUCATION AGENCY GRANTS BY STATE, LOCAL EDUCATION AGENCY, FISCAL YEAR, AND AMOUNT

cAll aates with Local Education A encies Receivin

Grants)

O10

1GO

W1U

.G.,LCO LG,G1V.A..

TOTAL

1965

1966

1967

1968

1969

1970

1971

a. cross Pub.

424

__

__

__

__

3chs.

Ilaldmin Co. Bd

19,976

--

--

--

--

--

--

19,976

of Ed

Crisp Co. Bd of

27,277

--

--

--

--

--

2T,277

Ed

Dourhert

Co.

1 141

__

__

--

--

--

__

Bd of Ed

Hstwkinsville

01

--

--

--

--

--

--

0City Bd of Ed

TOTAL

12 0 500

71 002

150,000

283,205

184,0177

139,598

,314,894

107,724

IEEE

_...

...

..

ILLINOIS

TABLE B 4-20

TOTAL TITLE IV LOCAL EDUCATION AGENCY GRANTS BY STATE, LOCAL EDUCATION AGENCY, FISCAL YEAR, AND AYOUNT

(All States withLocal Education A encies Receiving Grants)

--

TOTAL

......

,

1965

1966

q1967

1968

1969

1970

1971

qenander Co.

r (vir

-..

1.2'

_--

--

--

--

Intermediate

Dist.

ch.

r -

Conso1

3.1c) 61:0

--

--

184o

__

__

__.

Sch, Dist.-65

.

---

:7hicaqo Bd of W

54,210

--

--

4210

--

--

--

__

Pvanrt

ra6

--

--

--

-_

Schs.

Carbondale Elem.

17.610

--

--

--

--

Sch Dist.

'

3outh Holland

1:h 959

_.-

__

__

--

44

959

__

__

Sch.Dist.-1

......................

763

Peoria Pub. Salm.

B',.2 Q

--

--

-_

--

16

490

..

66

qouth Holland

119 028

--

--

--

--

_ _

111411111

Elc:r..Sch.Dist.

-151

(cont.

TABLE B 4-21

ILLINOIS (cont.)

TOTAL TITLE IV LOCAL EDUCATION AGENCY GRANTS BY STATE, LOCAL EDUCATION AGENCY, FISCAL

YEAR, AND AMOUNT

All States with Local Education A encies Receiving Grants)

$-

MiN

lii0

_

TOTAL.

^am

m...

..mae

),

1965

44cg

csar

ax=

=3.

r+m

ozir

-

1966

1967

1968

N

1969

1970

1971

..1

'-,-.1z,,e Sc l

.77.1li0

--

77,440

--Dizt. -3

:iammond Pub.

62;355

--

--

--

-.62, 355

;,c: S.

i

TOTAL

652,716

--

139,975

53,096

79,059

150,757

174,829

..

I: D

IAI3

ATABLE B 4-22

TOTAL TITLE IV LOCAL EDUCATION AGENCY GRANTS BY STATE,

LOCAL EDUCATION AUtala, tIbURL IEAR, AaD AMOUNT

AllStateWitbULPIE020.0.on Agencies Receiving Grams)

1

TO

TA

L19

6519

6619

6719

68

_

1969

.

1970

1971

c-..ilz-., City of

53,331

--

--

--

--

53,331

--

__

7n,,/)1r. pa. of

(0.6,.8

--

--

--

--

--

__

69,638

Ed

r

TOTAL

122,969

--

--

--

--

53,331

--

L..

(),633

f

---1

..-.-

...,..

......

......

.....

......

......

......

..,..

......

......

.....,

.

1-,w.,.........--,-

,-,,--,-1----

..._..._

L ()WA

TABLE B 4-23

TOTAL TITLE IV LOCAL EDUCATION AGENCY GRANTS BY STATE, LOCAL EDUCATION AGENCY, FISCAL YEAR, AND AMOUNT

All States with Local Education Agencies Receiving Grants

r+.-

TOTAL :

,a9m

Inno

lmam

sor

1965

--ni

ir..7

1773

133=

t:

1966

1967

.'==

.., 1968

1969

- -

---

-

1970

1971

Sioux. City Comm.

7.4.1

,C)

1!--

--...

....

....

.--

Sch.Dist.

TOTAL

31,954

--

--

.

--

--

--

31,954

---..-

was

nre.

egm

eEG

li--

TW

IMM

1011

0...

..:1=

1:=

...

.. -

.

KA

NSA

STABLt A 4-24

TOTAL TITLE IV LOCAL EDUCATION AGENCY GRANTS BY STATE, LOCAL

EDUCATION AGENCY, FISCAL YEAR, AND AMOUNT

.011 States with Local Education Agencies Receiving Grants)

_TOTAL

..._1 _

1965

1966

....967

1968

1969

1970

1971

Lawrence Unif

00

r00

Sch.Dist.

.

1

TOTAL

45,500.

--

.... -

--

--

--

--

451500

.141

1-.0

r-...

,.., .

......

..--

-.

KENTUCKY

TOTAL

TITLE IV

TABLE B 4-25

LOCAL EDUCATION AGENCY GRANTS BY STATE, LOCAL EDUCATION AGENCY, FISCtL YEAR, AND AMOUNT

Allaates with Local Education Agencies Receiving Grants)

1...........,=====.1

ITOTAL

1965

1966

.

1967

. 1968

1969

1970

1971

renrim ron

o.

5= n 0

-W--0

--

--

City Ed of Ed

ekinsville.Inr-.

134,324

134,324

--

-

--

--

--

--

--

Sch.Dist.

P11,-;,;t36/1 ro.

rAj.c.r)

06.(00

--

-.

Bd of Ed

Lexington Dd of

107,145

107,145

--

--

--

--

Ed--

r.aldvell Co. ni

7,690

7.690

-_

--

of Ed sv

P9

7)r,4

__

--

LiM

--

....I

'M I 7

2 7

.21=

1111

1Schs.

Eovling Green

2402

--

-_

2' 402

Pib.Schs.

1

r

(cont.)

..T..1

1..1

0:11

10...

r"e2

L"-

7',.,

",,"

TIM

M01

1

12.0

51=

1.11

=11

1113

=Z

MII

KENTUCKY. (co..)

-c

TABLE B 4-26

TTTLE IV LOCAL EDUCATION AGENCY GRANTS BY STATE, LOCAL EDUCATION AGENCY, FISCAL YEAR, AND AMOUNT

JA11 States with Local education A encies Receivin

Crents)

-

Imm

o.p.

......

.....r

..,sP

eOla

iii11

1131

1.0,

921F

igM

ilia.

TOTAL

1965

milw

arria

.m...

..

1966

1967

1968

1Q69

1970

.

1Q71

...--

-r

.vr

V--

---

rg

rv

A.

....

r0

UP

7111

IIIM

M11

11.!

S.

S.

...V

s.

Fulton Co. Bd

0 1 9

--

--

--

--

--

15

068

10 1

of Ed

.

Covin-ton Ind.

16'420

. --

__

....

__

--

16

420

Bd. of Ed

I.

.

Jeffersoh Co.

53 428

)--

--

--

__

__

Sens.

_-_----

'Simpson Co. Pd

11 (o

--

--

__

__

--

__

of Ed

immirom

ES:

TOTAL

693 992

2010

6 o

86

20

--

'Is/

.---

,...

......

....

..0.

...,0

712I

MM

IMW

.W...

e.".

TABLE B 4.2;

TOTAL TITLE IV LOCAL EDUCATION AGENCY GRANTS BY STATE, LOCAL EDUCATION

AGENCY, FISCAL YEAR, AND AMOUNT

(All States with Local Education Aencies Receiving Grants)

Orleans Parish

ISIN

TOTAL

SIZ

NE

V=

INC

EM

M,-

.101

Mis

.

1965 _

1966

1967

..:13

.701

2,G

1968

1969

1970

1971

102,162

--

40 000

--

62 162

__

--

,,cti.Vist.

lerrobanne

27,998

--

--

--

--

--

--

Parish Sch. Bd.

rFourch

28.r00

--

-:

--

28

0-,

--

Parish Sch. Bd.

----------

,'.cadia Parish

39.9'12

....

--

-_

--

--

4 ,

''-1,-,inv. .,,i,l,

62.2r0

--

-_

--

...

--

62 2 0

--

:.;ch..3ist.

f>lelf;ieu Paris]

I,

000

--

--

--

--

--

45,000

ch.Dis t .

---- ------

F.r!st 2aton Rourr!

142 7

--

--

--

--

--

--

Parish Sch.3d.

rt

P'

i,

.0 5 0

--

--

_-

--

--

Parish-Sch.Bd.

(cont.)

LOUISIANA (cont.)

TABLE P. 4-28

TOTAL TITLE IV LOCAL EDUCATION AGENCY GRANTS BY STATE, LOCAL EDUCATION AGENCY, FISCAL YEAR, AND AMOUNT

(All States with Local Education Agencies Receiving Grants)

-...

eam

mw

mill

mom

mim

wm

ilmra

waa

mim

me.

......

...-w

riaz

zasa

lai

,-

TOTAL

culia

CC

M.,r

......

......

......

1"..s

.

1965

1 9 6 6

1969

C.4

:11=

0101

1111

11M

IL.

1970

1971

1967

1 9 6 8

Lincoln Parish

66 200

--

--

..

--

66,200

....

Sen.Dist.

L.-

Vorehouse Paris;

20,90E3

--

--

--

, --

--

20,906

--

Sch.Dist.

Ouachita Parish

1.000

--

51 000

--

.Sca.Dist.

St. Landry

as?.a----

67.L.?!214

--

fiaa Sen. Bd.

1.:..!:.artin

I104,00

--

--

--

--

--

60 000

J44,000

Jarish Sch. Bd.

I

Vermilion Paric-

?6 )03

--

--

--

__

.,

36 463

. -

---------

12,c11.1.3a.

/t

---.......

.

18.600

/lest Carroll

3B (...00

'4rish Sch.

I.

--

--

--

Arm

*--

46,922

gasr

arki

rma.

MM

w*

Ascension Paris

4C ')22

3cn.3d.

Caddo Parish

150 000

--

--

--

--

--

....

t....-rer-

-----,.........,.........150,000

Sch.2d.

......,

-.........................-

--

(cont.)

---...-.i=====gmlic==.

1

=11

1111

1113

111M

EM

i 1

''ISC

OS=

Lr

LCUISI= (cont.)

TABLE B 4-29

TOTAL TITLE IV LOCAL EDUCATION AGENCY GRANTS BY STATE, LOCAL EDUCATION AGENCY, FISCAL YEAR, AND AMOUNT

0177171E774iLoca

ucat on

genc es Rece v ng

rants

:301

1311

1.11

211.

2111

0111

111i

x.ra

takm

ccon

me

--rw

awas

mie

wom

om il

mag

eage

r.i=

sern

Im

oom

mol

oara

mac

ia.V

....

=ter

..17

1111

kM2C

OIN

E. "

...11

,2M

RM

IIIM

M...

-

2971

:...s

omas

aaa.

TO

TA

L29

6529

6619

6729

6829

6919

70

State Industria

Sch.-Div. of

i93,970

-..

--

....

..

e

Dept. of

Corrections

't. in:nes Parirb

57.610

--

--

--

..

--

57.610

sch.a1..

t. John Baptist

/6,511

.....

--

--

16,511

Parish

II

:est Feliciano

023

--

mm

..

Parish TOTAL

1,232,035

--

40,000

--

62.162

56.08

681,114

442.041

p.

wrw

row

irw

.r.N

.T...

.-41

-,

rang

==

=--

MARYLAND

TAMS: v, 4-30

TOTAL TITLE IV LOCAL EDUCATION AGENCY GRANTS BY STATE, LOCAL EDUCATION AGENCY, FISCAL YEAF, AND AMOUNT

All States with Local Education Aeencies ReceivtLanil.

AM

WO

MIN

IMIM

ININ

IMM

MIM

M12

.1.

...

TOTAL

1965

-..........

1966

1957

1.....=

1966

1969

.............

.. 1970

.1

1971

..r

.7(

nr,

Dist.

--.arles Co. Bd.

46 6 8

--

__

-

of Ed.

-... ..

:ent Co. Bd of

29,499

--

-29,4,))

.Lu

-me Arundel Co.

72,294

--

--

--

7_,(7.147q

41-31,1

_:.a 03:

-.:..u.

'altimore City

1..30.2)

6Q, hnn

41,035

27,203

Pub.sehs.

alvert Co. Dd.

,-

--

1 365

--

f Ed.

----..... ...

)orchester Co.

53,796

--

--

--

--

26,398

27,398

------v,

3d. of Ed.

Trent Co. Bd. of

(.%

(.%

--

...

..

a .

19)9

98*f

t..1

10M

.f...

..11.

11...

ton.

t.-1

0111

.111

P,11

114

1..1

1..

'..

r

L

MARYLAND (cont.)

TABLE B 4-31

TOTAL TITLE IV LOCAL EDUCATION AGENCY GRANTS BY STATE, LOCAL EDUCATION AGENCY, FISCAL YEAR, AND AMIUNT

(All States with Local education Agencies Receiving Grants)

IIM

e.

----

t.TOTAL

1965

1966

1967

1968

1969

-==r1.7.

1970

1971

Prince Georges

0 000

----

--

--

--

_ GOO

,.Pub.Schs.

A)

st. vn.,v's co.

18 0.4

--

--

--

--18

28)

4,1

,0 f

liatf

ttiM

OM

I

-a :a

Bd of Ed

q0,,,ot co.

(1.000

--

--

....

..

i____2.111S9

Sch.Bd.

St. Mar

s co.

4 100

--

--

--

--

.-

-.

4 000

Sch. Rd.

111111111

TOTAL

521./94

--

--

--

6 000

3)

166,612

250,979

67,603

----

.................

...

.

.........--.

MASSACHUSETTS

TABLE B 4-32

TOTAL TITLE IV LOCAL EDUCATION AGENCY GRANTS BY STATE, LOCAL EDUCATION AGENCY, FISCAL YEAR, AND AMOUNT

(All States wit

Loca

/1.1

MIS

MM

IMM

milm

omm

ucation

gencies

ecn V rig

ran

..-

-7.

TOTAL

1965

im====.....-."

1966

1967

1968

1969

......mmm.mi..

1970

1971

tOMPOOMOMMAIMMW P

._.__

Am..

......ww,....

A)mmonwealth of

130,124

130,124

--

--

--

Mass., Boston

..

(-1/'

--

6186

Dist-. TOTAL

147t=0

130,124

--

--

67,186

_.

...

........

-......-.,,,,,,,-

TAM: H 4-33

TOTAL TITLE IV LOCAL EDUCATION AGENCY GRANTS BY STATE, LOCAL EDUCATION AGENCY, FISCAL

YEAR, AND AMOUNT

11w

ow..

1111

1911

IPM

iani

MM

INC

2 ri=

1:11

212P

f

(All States with Local EducAtionAetixj,.

a,--

-- -

-

TO

TA

L19

6519

66

...=

mom

is&

1967

1.17

LIZ

SZIO

NO

IRlil

ial.

1968

1969

1,91

0

r

1971

110"O

224 Or0

--

38,IhO

..

..

...

..

7c,diat

Sch. Lit.

.nrilanti Sch.

11,0(5

-------

--

11,0(5

--

....

..

-rand Rapids Pa

144 487

...

....

--

69,231

75,256

-.

Schn..

-1r,r1loo PO).

1.:(,3%

--

--

--

....

811,d713

51,518

r,nnri ,i Sch.Dist

--

--

--

..

"I

74,325

...

'llvin corrnunit

hg.429

--

--

--

--

..

10,05

Sch.Dist.

= I'M

cont.

11111111

.DIM

MO

NIN

NIM

.a.

..---

MICEIGAN (cont.)

TABLE B

4-34

TOTAL TITLE IV LOCAL EDUCATION AGENCY GRANTS BY STATE

LOCAL EDUCATION AGEN v

FISCAL YEAR

AND AMOUNT

All States with Lo(-al Education Agencies Receiving Grants

diff

smO

wls

omos

a

TOTAL

1968

som

eliti

ll

1969

_

.A11

1211

1011

110M

1110

1970

165

1966

1967

_19

71

Ilia

dDetroit Pub.Schr.

110 IU

--

--

-......sa,

:.icks

;4,....

50 000

..

....5g..Q=.

Schs.

MI=

MINIM

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

1111111111110111.1111

=TOTAL

st

WWII

11 06

08 a

'3

IIIIIIIIIII

.

IIIIIIIIIII

'

,..

Mill

weemmwmpwr..-

.prrwft7Irr.grr

...............*

.........

*.O

NM

IIMM

ON

WO

,-.

.

iOTA

TABLE B 4.35

TOTAL TITLE IV LOCAL EDUCATION AGENCY GRANTS BY STATE

LOCAL EDUCATION AGENCY, FISCAL YEAR, AND AMOUNT

I Education A envies Receivin

Grants

(,111 States

with Loca

MY

Mm

',.11

MM

II.M

illim

MM

MIN

IIMM

MM

.MM

MO

MM

WM

YW

..........

TOTAL

1965

1966

-,

...mmummostimov4winsbuisamme..

1967

1968

1969

,...mmilimm......

1970

1971

87'5°°

....

;t. P aul Pub.Scll

.v1.1,24

'inncanolis Snec4

871500

--

--

:- ch.D.i.ct.

111111111111

nnicendent Sch

.69.150

Dist.-309

........

...

TOTAL

1e9,97:;

--

..

.120 824

.....

69.150

:...--...---

...

---.....---

-

.................

-.lam,

-,..-m....m.

....-...-...--

-

Ow

...

I

'

1

MISSISSIPPI

TOTAL TITLE IV LOCAL EDUCATION AGENCY GRANTS BY STATE

LOCAL EDUCATION A ENCY

F S A

(All States with Local Education Agencies Receivi

Grants)

TABLE B 4-36

4.4:

41/4

/44

a1 h

T O T A L

. . . . . . . . . - -- . . . . . . - - . . - - . - -

1965

1966

1967

1968

1969

1970

1971

Biloki Mun. Sch.

20

0s

--

Dist.

:leComb Mun. Sep.

94 901

--

--NM

--

8(6

--

--

Sch. Dist.

:em Alban

Sen.

135 840

--

--

__

.4,

__

Seh.Dist.

orinth Mun. Sep

10,000

--

--

--

--

--

10 000

--

ca.

1St.

South Pike Conso

.21 4

--

--

--

--

--

Sch.Dist.

estern Line Con.01. 44 0r--

--

--

--

Sch.Dist.

.....44-Q1

3aldwIn NUb.Schs

29,630

--

--

--

--

--

--

26

0....

(cont.)

---

-..........--

--........---

TABLE B

4-37

MISSISSIPPI (cont.)

TOTAL TITLE IV LOCAL EDUCATION AGENCY GRANTS BY STATE, LOCAL EDUCATION AGENCY, FISCAL YEAR, AND AMOUNT

(All States with Local Education Agencies Receiving Grants)

TOTAL

1965

1966

1967

1968

1.9:7797

1971

7olivar Co. Sch.

47,200

--

--

--

--

--

--

47,200

Dist.-1

%

lreenvood Munici al 42 000

--

--

--

--

--

--

42,000

Sep.Sch.Dist.

Inlianola Mun.

1 .07

--

--

--

--

--

15,075

Sep.Sch.Dist.

afevette Co.

10,709

--

--

--

--

--

--

19,709

Bd of Ed

Lauderdale

1() 600

,,

--

--

--

--

--

__

19,C00

------

fonts0A Co. Pub.

=0.95

--

--

--

--

--

--

h

30,955

Schs.

TOTAL

720 008

--

209,590

41,035

83,800

53,866

122,548

201+,169

........---

....-

M166UUdi

TABLE B 4-38

TOTAL TITLE IV LOCAL EDUCATION AGENCY GRANTS BY STATE, LOCAL EDUCATION AGENCY,

FISCAL YEAR, AND AMOUNT

All States with Local Education A encies Receivin Grants)

TOTAL

1965

_. __

1966

_

1967

1968

1969

1970

1971

.ansas Cit

Sch.

1 626

--

1 626

__

--

--

-_

Dist.

3harleston R-1

186,360

--

--

--

--

04

--

Sch.Dist.

--:orth

enisco

_-

--

--

--

%--

--

64

Reorganized S.D

3t. Joseph

5r1,906

--

--

--

--

--

__.

Nam

est

,59.9)6

A

TOTAL

o2,8

--

--

1 626

--

59.910

126.456

,,4

12!I mil

,.

......

......

.....e

.w.s

r,-r

zwvi

rmal

lev=

....."

- ...

..--

- -

- -

,.

--

-- ..

.. .

,y

XONTANA

TOTAL TITLE IV LOCAL EDUCATION AGENCY GRANTS BY STATE, LOCAL EDUCATION AGENCY FISCAL

TABLE B 4-39

4\1 401

It

Iv, ocacvaisau4,252cLauFzIapaz

1966

e cies Ae

-.1 ,O

_,.;_.

_,..........-.7....--=.2.......,............,

TOTAL

',VIM

IEL

2=7:

=5.

..e

1965

1967

...

196R

1969

1970

1971

lolf

Point

15,800

--

1 800

,

TOW',

15.800

15.800

itMon

.-.........-------oe

ur

fneP

V1,

..-,

rreV

.ras

wlr

.,_L

--r,

1

...

NEVADA

TABLE B 4-40

TOTAL TITLE Ill LOCAL EDUCATION AGENCY GRANTS BY STATE, LOCAL EDUCATION AGENCY, FISCAL YEAR

AND AMOUNT

States with Local Education Agencies Receiving Grants)

TO

TA

L

......

......

,.....

.....

....m

m...

..,,..

...

1965

1966

1967

1968

1969

...-.

...4=

==

1970

1971

7,roc moo.

n.

226,232

i100

21

--

--

62

3162

00Dist.

TOTAL

226,232

100,921

--

--

--

62,931

62,380

--

-.........-..-...--

NEW JERSEY

TABLE B 4-41

TOTAL TITLE IV LOCAL EDUCATION AGENCY GRANTS BY STATE

LOCAL EDUCATION AGENCY

FISCAL YEARS AND AMOUNT

All States wit

Local E ncation Agencies Receiving Grants

..10111=1111Mb

'

TOTAL

1965

1966

1967

- -- 1968

1969

.=.==.......m

1970

1971

.'.orristown City

50.265

50,265

Sch.Bd.

't:nf,,lewood Pub.

I71.,948.

--

--

71.948

__

6chs.

7.elitune Tovhchi: I

13,825

9,500

9, ?25

__

Sch.Dist.

Fairfield Town-

37,072

37,072

shin 3a. or 1!..d.

:wing, To,:ms1111)

q7 ,q00

,--

--

--

--

--

--

97,500

Orange Bd of Ed

79,443

l--

--

--

'OW

.111

111.

1111

11

79,461

TOTAL

355,053

'

50 265

--

8i 448

e...t

r."

....1

."...

nr,n

r..1

.,...1

1.11

...^.

NEW MEXICO

TABLE B 4-42

TOTAL TITLE IV LOCAL EDUCATION AGENCY GRANTS BY STATE, LOCAL EDUCATION AGENCY, FISCAL YEAR, AND AMOUNT

tates wit

oca

1111

011ca

Lon

genies

ecelvIng

ran s

- -

.....,--.

,110

11C

M.

..,11

=11

1=10

0.-

TOTAL

-_____

7^.1

.0.0

==

11,..

1965

1966

._.

1967

.--................

1968

1969

1970

1971

i Los Lianas Conso

.87.350

40, 450

Ikr).900

--Sch.

Las Vegas City

84,o62

--

--

--

--

41,236

42,776

--

ocns.

silver Cit Con

71.660

--

--

--

?t) rco

_32.000

Sch.

7.ernnlillo Pub.

90.32;

40,800

h1,02r

Schs.

Albucuerque Pub

;0,131

--

--

--

50,181

--

Schs.

TOTAL

3811,073

--

--

h0,450

177,016

133,932

22,000

4....

4....

...M

.211

1.0.

11.1

1.1,

-...

1....

......

...

:a14 YORK

TABLE B 4-43

TOTAL TITLE TV LOCAL EDUCATION AGENCY GRANTS BY STATE, LOCAL EDUCATION AGENCY, FISCAL YEAR, AND AMOUNT

(All States with Loca17757771777777771777FFIVTIV-GFait2)

4.1W

......

......

......

..

TO

TA

L19

65

'-5=

=7"

.....

1966

1967

1968

1969

IF-.

.2.:s

omm

=sw

--...

.....=

em.

1970

1971

T:e

mYork City

1(1),951

as r

01

----

----

Ed of Ed

-:iracuse Sch,

12,0311

--

12,0e4

--

--

--

--

--

Dlsz.

3oosPve1t.Pdb.

26,533

-------

--

--

26,533

--

--

.

--

--

Sens.

-----

.!d York City!

11 Jil'

117,h43

Sch. BI.

I.lochester Pub.

2T200

--

--

100,200

32,7,000

Sens.

1-7ty of Niozara

200,169

--

--

--

--

--

-Pq9.,169

t3_,I.:;

.

TOTAL

793,330

--

212 035

26,533

117,W3

--

100,200

...:07,169

---,,,...-....,

.

AC

IZ=

1201

1111

1111

1111

=.

J.

A.,

,..,e

,

'0

NO

RM

) C

AII

DL

IDA

TABLE B 4-44

TOTAL TITLE IV LOCAL EDUCATION AGENCY GRANTS BY STATE, LOCAL EDUCATION AGENCY, FISCAL YEAR, AND AMOUNT

(All States with Local Education Agencies Receiving Grants)

-15

MM

.

TO

TA

L

..1O

WIIM

O.

196.

519

6619

6719

6819

6919

7019

71

!-,s

_rv.

kol..

-oh

Co.

13d

2b2.'20',

1.3537-s4

2 000

68

16

11

--

...-

--

of Ed

1111,111121111

---

-_

--

Ed

Lenoir City Ed

64 1

--

100

--

21 08

--

-_

20

of Ed

!!!)o e Co .

14d. of

225 122

--

100 2

--

90 000

3 00

--

--

Ed

.

::adison-Nayodan

36p00

--

--

16 000

,20 000

--

"-

--

City lid of E

.

Carter -t

o.

11,

--

--

) o ?1)

--

--

--

--

of Ed

IMMIIMIIIMI

_-

--

69 947

--

--

--

Bd of Ed

71?.71.(q.son

o.

178,60

a=_

-0 0

wrq

w.r

.MM

INW

--1

04

.

--

of Ed

(cont.

"e1P

~Ifi

glIV

I,"

NORTH CAROLINA (cont.)

TABLE B 4-45

TOTAL TITLE IV LOCAL EDUCATION AGENCY GRANTS BY STATE, LOCAL EDUCATION

AGENCY, FISCAL YEAR, AND AMOUNT

(nIL states WLCtt i.dcai Laucaclua age= es- Keceivtttg Grattrer'

.11;n

.MIMMir

TOTAL''

1965

.

1966

-- -

1967

-- .. --

1968

1969

--

1970

1971

--'111-ry21 Hill lid

1C0

06

--

--

--

a 3.6

--

of Ed

Chapel Hill Pub.

22 466

. --

--

Schs.

nke Co. Sch.

135 444

--

...

--

Dist.

:Jake Co. Bel of

22 212

--

--

-.

--

....

ElatIlam Co. Sch.arrialli

--

-_

,

--

19,047

5,737

,--

--

Dist.

nnnson Co.Sch.111NMI

Dist.

__

..

',1amance Co. Bd.

10,171

--

--

--

--

24

c24 t 4

--

of Ed

,ranrc Co. Ad of

-_

--

_-

82

2168

--

.

.

_.,

.

NORTH CAROLINA (cont.)

TABLE B 4-46

TGTAL TITLE TV LOCAL EDUCATION AGENCY GRANTS BY STATE,

LOCAL EDUCATION AGENCY, FISCAL YEAR, AND AMOUNT

(A11 States with Local Education Agencies Receiving Grants)

4111

111

1111

.NO

M^.....

TOTAL

IM2f

iffe

ina=

7.A

.

1965

11966

..aa.

1967

-S

IMM

I111

0.0

1968

1969

"7

1970

MIM

MIII

MIN

IMM

= V

.

1971

4-

Jones Co. Bd of

39,436

. __

--

--

--

23,936

15,500

Ea

Tonne Co. Bd.

L',77

--

--

--

--

1 3 1 7

--

of Ed

,

Asheville City

18,037

--

--

--

14,487

-3,550

Jd. of Ed

hcthrIn Co.

pr,ON3

_9(:).(9111

of Ed

7;ur1inc:ton City

23, 397

--

--

--

23,397

..cas.

lurham City Sch.

-

45,510

45,510

2,a.

77,svettnvilip Cit

^ 7,

r)22-1

'1B 029

Ed. of Ed.

7:yde County Bd.

18,470

--

--

--

--

--

18,470

--

3i E .

+----

--.......

-..4...i.....n..-----

.IC

CU

ISIC

t.t.kr

CAtIOLiM kcont. )

TABLE B

4-47

TOTAL TITLE IV LOCAL - EDUCATION AGENCY GRANTS BY STATE, LOCAL EDUCATIONAGENCY, FISCAL YEAR

AND AMOUNT

All States with Local Education Agencies Receiving Grants

--

TO

TA

L19

65 _._

1966

Wii.,,WOM.MIMNONG

1967

1968

1969

.iiiiiMMWWW=M

1970

...,

1971

inston City

-4,779

--

.

n -...

n.

)o.-4i

--

--

as..

--

--

obeson Co. Rd.

1 ..

--

--

--

f EJ

:,lisbury City

36.226

--

--

....

--

17,685

18,541

cns.

-'me Co. 7,d of

21 82(

--

--

--

--

--

21,826

,..

_lion City, 3,1

35,535

--

--

--

--

--

17,910

17,625

lisnn co. Tid of

27 ":0('

--

--

21

.

, inzt

on-',

iale

nn-

.b, .-

,S2

--

--

--

..........,

--

10 2(4

2; 4`.36

.:ory-i4:c Co.

.....wegrem~.ftem.-#-

,`1`

..r!.

_..t.

27-"

-

=TOTAL

=========1

1,895,930

135,734

231,317

254,012

==

="1

2111

112.

1213

=21

21=

i

417,211

322,886

268,295

266,475

1

_.

.

NORTH CAROLINA (cont.)

essz

o011

19.-

TABLE B 4-48

TOTAL TITLE IV LOCAL EDUCATION AGENCY GRANTS BY STATE, LOCAL

EDUCATION AGENCY, FISCAL YEAR, AND AMOUNT

1111

111M

IMM

INIM

MIN

IIIIII

TOTAL

1965

1966

1967

1968

1969

........---.....--

1970

1971

Dayton Pub.Schs.

0000

--

--

--

--

0 000

--

Princeton Cit

173

642

--

--

--

--

--

93

126

80

516

Sch.Dist.

Maker Heights

96

345

--

--

--

--

-6

4

City Sch.Dist.

,.,

TOTAL

339

937

--

--

--

70 000

126

1 6861

-....

....w

ww

WW

W-

..1...

..011

,...

-,-

-,.

.

OKLAHOMA

TABLE B 4-49

TOTAL TITLE IV LOCAL EDUCATION AGENCY GRANTS BY STATE

,LOCAL EDUCATION AGENCY, FISCAL YEAR, AND AMOUNT

. All States with Local EducationAgencies Receiving Grants)

TOTAL

.

1965

1966

1967

1968

1969

1970

1971

Ardmore Bd of

.

43,420

--

43,420

--

--

Ed Fox Bd of Ed

47,3

11,8

I111

,5Q

11

Ber

gs E

d of

Ed

19,11!

--

--

--

19,114

--

--

Oklahoma City

185,

4o3

---

95,4

0890,000

=-

yd of Ed

Oklahoma City

80.000

--

89,s

eoPub. Schs.

usko(oe Sch.

75,247

--

--

--

-......32421E7------21000---f-

--

15.000

iss.

*Okmulgee Sch.

62,236

--

--

RP 076

30,160

Dist.

Enid Ed of Ed

31,763

--

31,763

--

..

1DS-57.

11

1111111

?0.000

1111111

--

--

--

.

--

_Ed

.:',0A,P9,2___

cont.)

'

em

OKLAHOMA (cont.)

TABLE B 4-50

TOTAL TITLE IV LOCAL EDUCATION AGENCY GRANTS BY STATE,

LOCAL EDUCATION AGENCY, FISCAL YEAR, AND AMOUNT

AStates wit Loca

acation

gencies

eceiving

rants

TOTAL

1965

-

1966

1967

1968

1969

1970

1971

16.210

----

----

--16,210

i

Schs.

Stilwell nd.

40 000

--

--

--

40 000

--

Sch.Dist.

:.;tilwell Ind.

45,600

--

--

--

--

--

45,600

Sch.Dist.-25

.

Devar Tnd. Sch.

4,877

--

--

--

--

--

--

4,877

Dist.

.

Hupp Ind. Schoo

4 995

__

--

--

--

__

--

4,995

Dist. -j9

Tulsa Ind. Sch.

67 050

--

--

--

--

--

--

67,050

Dist.-1

TOTAL

762,265

--

43,420

--

192,686

183,267

100,160

242,732

L...

s.er

n,-.

..---gr.........-

...w

a-

Mt..

..-

A.

..

...--

-.

OREGON

TOTAL TITLE IV LOCAL

EDUCATION AGENCY GRANTS BY

STATE. LOCAL EDUCATION AGENCY

F

TABLE B 4-51

(All States with Local Education Agencies Receiving Grants)

_

TOTAL

.

1965

1966

_

1967

1968

r---

----

1969

1970

1971

Portland Pub.

148,839

..._

--

__

--

--

84

59,402

Ochs.

i148,8 9

-...

-__

__

__

--

84 i

59,4o2

---......

.

...,..

..."r

rrI-

-----.-

-..t..-

._

..

-..

......

.....

AS

/11-

1V1,

1,1.

L11

TABLE B 4-52

TOTAL TITLE IV LOCAL EDUCATION AGENCY GRANTS BY STATE, LOC.d. EDUCATION AGENCY, FISCAL YEAR, AND

AMOUNT

(All States with Local Education Agencies Receiving Grants

---,

i

TOTAL

1965

1966

1967

1968

_.

....

..

1969

..,===.=sisaaxm---.........m.m.m.....,,...

1970

1971

Phila. Sch.Dist

193,764

168,764

--

--

--

--

--

30,000

7-1-tol

',ch.

r37.751

--

--

--

--

30,533

57,213

__

Dist.

flarrisburg City

60,000

--

--

--

--

__

60,000

,3ch.Dist.

7:orrThtmz: Area

15,000

1

__--

----

__.

15,000

Sch. Dist.

York City Sch.

20.100

------

--

--

--

_...

--

--

20.100

Dist.

...--,....--,---

--............---

TOTAL

7.31.61'

168 764

--

--

--

'0

7:8

12` 100

___-

RHODE ISLAND

TABLE B 4-53

TOTAL TITLE IV LOCAL EDUCATION AGENCY GRANTS BYSTATE, LOCAL EDCUATION AGENCY, FISCAL YEAR, AND AMOUNT

(All States with Local Education Agencies Receiving Grants)

0111

_.

TOTAL

--.........===.

1965

1966

1967

1968

...a.,

1969

1970

1971

Providence Pub.

21)!

,623

----

--149

673

6o 88

Schs.

------

TOTAL

214,62?

--

--

.

44

11

co

0E0 88

......

esnr

o

-..

1111

1111

111

.

.

SOV:H CAROLINA

TABLE B 4-54

TOTAL TITLE IV LOCAL EDUCATION AGENCYGRANTS BY STATE, LOCAL EDUCATION AGENCY,

FISCAL YEAR, AND AMOUNT

I''1

yjth in,

inty

TOTAL

1965

1966

190

1968

1969

1970

1971

Kershaw Co. Bd.

58;708

--

52.603

6,1oo

01. Ld

Cershaw Pub.Schs

Iles

--

-_

10 000

__

"exiarr.ton Co.

q.0'

-_

-_

q10,000

Sch. Dist.No. 5

Ilcster Co. Pub.

ho 68

__

__

)1°,685

__

--

Scn.

Tnion

o.

.66.-J.20

.

__

--

4C5

18,855

__

Dist.

rangeburg Sch.

79,559

__

--

--

__

__

39,799

39,7E0

3ti-5

ilendale

26,192

--

__

26,192

Schs.

cont.

---.............--

aowm=ousi

[WM CAROL= (cont.)

TABLE B 4-55

TOTAL TITLE IV LOCAL EDUCATION AGENCY GRANTS BY

STATE, LOCAL EDUCATION AGENCY, FISCAL YEAR, AND ANVOI-ST

(All States with Local Education Agencies

Recskla Grants)

TOTAL

1965

1966

1967 q

1968

1969

.1970

19-L1

IN 11

Anderson Co.

i24 614

__

--

-..

--

--

--

Berkeley Co. Bd

40,000

--

--

--

--

4o TO

Edgcfield Co.

23

6--

__

--

__

--

__

Sch.Dist.

narlboye Co. td

27,796

of s...auca,,ion

...------

2000

alt144,44

'6,,

0..-..-

.!!, !

,--

_

Ronion V Ed Ser.

..

_.

...

Ctr.

TOTAL

623,-163

--

--

--

133,256

53,565

78,654

357,888

T.7

0....

.117

.--

...1.

,VM

MA

INN

O"-

-- -

.','

..,T

."...

.....

.. .

TENNESSEE

TABLE B 4-56

TOTAL TITLE IV LOCAL EDUCATIONAGENCY GRANTS BY STATE, LOCAL EDUCATION

AGENCY, FISCAL YEAR, AND AMOUNT

(412.1.4,zat,gazgiaLlag.

Receiving Grants)

.;I

mm

isC

i

TOTAL

..0=

ea

1965

'1966

C

1967

1968

=.62.0107

1969

1970

1971

Chattanooga Pub.

c6-9/5

lb

1 0 '-10

2 6

6860

--

--

Schs.

Dak RidPe Bd of

77:287

28

--

--

--

--

--'

Ed

';iles Co. Rd of

422,635

--

8 06

14

0--

--

Ed

:helb Co. Bd of

107,882

--

--

--

--

64,500

43,382

-a!,(1

covinf:ton city

19,907

--

--

--

--

--

19,507

Schs.

Am

wra

mm

.11.

..**

TOTAL

90

i27,013

8,065

184,963

177,256

130,360

--

62,889

----------

---,--

7a.Ns

TABLE B 4-57

TOTAL TITLE IV LOCAL EDUCATION

AGENCY GRANTS BY STATE, LOCAL

EDUCATION AGENCY, FISCAL YEAR,AND AMOUNT

(Ali States with LocalEducation Agencies ReceivingGrants)

--,

----....-......

TOTAL

--...............-T.,:p...

1965

1966

1967

,

1968

1969

1970

1971

727 r

12

--

1--

--

t--

11crman Ind.Sch

62,990

--

--

--

17,990

45.000

Dist.

F,nnis Ind c'ch.

101.038

IAA

--

Dist.

::nuston Ind.Sch.

233 Orl

--

--

;C/5.0....

POrcik5

--Dist.

brs1cana Ind-

258,515

--

--

t

126-400

32,114

Sch.Dist.

.

c_

I

Yilmer-Mutchins

l7,626

.....j

a ,L

ai_

Ind-Sch.Dist.

T;roveton Ind.

84,1

Foo

____

--__

44,9

0039

,500

Sch.Dist.

Abilene Pub.Schs

45,000

.

45,000

--

4El Carob Ind.

100,280

--

Sch.Dist.

(cont.

ILAAL) kcont.i

TABLE B 4-58

TOTAL TITLE IV LOCAL EDUCATION AGENCYGRANTS BY STATE, LOCAL EDUCATION AGENCY,

FISCAL YEAR, AND AMOUNT

.(A11 States with Local EducationA.=encies Receiving Grants

TO

TA

L19

65

...=.......-...r

1966

-.-

1967

1968

1969

1970

1971

Galveston Ind.

2 098

--

--

--

--

--

2 008

__

L;cn.Dist.

.

Gindowater Ind.

V8'580

--

--

__

__

--

0c.

Sch.Dist.

.C8

Pittsburr; Ind.

110,400

--

__

_-

--

110 400

-_

ca,..Dist.

ill

l!axahachie Ind.

1842

--

--

--

MWichita Falls

10.r0'

--

--

--

.

--

'M

--

.Pub. Schs.

'-',ishon Conso1.

10,000

--

__

__

__

--

--..-----

--

ISD

Crvstnl City

40

_-

_-

__

__

--

4ro

Ind.Sch.Dist.

i

Pecos-Bartov

',8

4--

--

--

,a4

Ind.Sch.Dist.

-...............-

,........,--

.....-9--e---

cont.

TEXAS

(con

t.)T

AB

LE

B-5

9

TOTAL TITLE IV LOCAL EDUCATION AGENCY GRANTS BY STATE, LOCAL EDUCATION AGENCY, FISCAL YEAR, AND AMOUNT

----...0

(AU ctates...withLarnal_Eclugarjaajmejariv

n1 G

rant

s.1

1.S

iMM

OM

TOTAL

1965

,=

1966

......

.....;

U

1967

1968

1969

-3G

raiii

in0=

==

=

1970

1971

3outhnide Ind.

45,000

45,000

Sch.Dist.

TOTAL

1,784,797

--

--

84,028

301,876

8 8 2

548,714

t

.1

imm2"Tris.auull

1

...

VIRGINIA

TABLE B 4-60

TO

TA

L_TITLE, TV LOCAL EDUCATIONAGENCY GRANTS BY STATE, LOCALEDUCATION AGENCY, FISCAL YEAR,

AND AMOUNT

(/)13..atar45-141111guiLcon AgenciesReceiving Grants)

TO

TA

L19

6519

6619

6719

6819

6919

7019

71

Fairfax Co.Sch.

74,800

35,770

39,030

--

--

Arlington Co.

213,745

'

75,000

--

50,931

--

--

ocn:

.

Richmond Pub.

469,313

150,670

--

147,474

61,169

--

110,000

--

.A.LI.J.

Charlottesville

161,458

--

29,327

--

20,79,

13,106

City Sch.Bd.

Lynchburg Pub:

77,512

--

20,183

--

--

29 2 9

28,070

--

:.ens.

Clifton For;*e

3C,8(10

',6,8qo

--

--

__

City Sch.Bd.

ilampton City Sets

98,260

--

n,00

pq,036

32 6 8

'22

6

Ea.

ortsmouth ,c b.

113,870

--

--

--

43,291

47,536

22,993

--

3d.

(cont.)

VIRGINIA (cont.)

TABLE B 4-61

TOTAL TITLE IV LOCAL.EDUCATION AGENCY GRANTSBY STATE, LOCAL EDUCATION AGENCY, FISCALYEAR, AND AMOUNT

(All States with Local Education

Agencies Receiving Grants)

TOTAL

1965

1966

_

1967

1968

1969

1970

1971

:luvanna Co. Bd.

22,3

89--

----

--22.

, )--

--

_---

--:

--__

of Ea.

Y7,

764

____

_-__

7,76

4--

----

----

-__

1I

____

--

--

14,4

0017,521

--

ames City Co.

--

--

--

--

17.525

--

--

Amelia Co.Schs.

51,845

--__

__

--16,62'1

-....

15,440

19,780

Pittsylvania Co.

49,77,0

.

-_

_-

--

49,730

__

--

Schs.

?;.,

Chesapeake Pub.

12,283

--

--

--

--

28-

6000

__

Schs.

'(con

t.)-zusetesami

.. ..___

VIRGINIA (cont.)

TABLE B 4-62

TOTAL TITLE IV LOCAL EDUCATION AGENCY GRANTS BY STATE,

LOCAL EDUCATION AGENCY, FISCAL YEAR AND AMOUNT

All

States with Local Education Agencies Receivin Grants

.--

TO

TA

L19

6519

66

......

....-

1967

1968

1969

1970

1971

llorfolk City Ea

49,oc0

--

--

--

--

45,000

--

--

of Ed

Amherst Co.Sch.

26 653

--

--

2_6.z 653

.

i

--

113.

1975

--113.975

--

Fluvanna Co.Sch;

21,300

----

21, 3

00--

Franklin

City

16,170

-_

_-

16,170

Schs.

Green r lle Co.

15,137

15,277

_30,414

Louisa

971',562

--

--

14.962

__

--

--

10,h96

--

--............-

-q.-

(cont.)

.

ri

iI

_

VIRGIHA

(cont.)

TABLE B 4-63

TOTAL TITLE IV LOCAL EDUCATION AGENCY GRANTS BY STATE, LOCAL EDUCATIONAGENCY, FISCAL YEAR, AND AMOUNT

(All States with Local Education Agencies Receiving Grants)

- .....

---.

..Mm

emai

MM

Mm

mM

irs

TOTAL

sour

=te

nr-

"sm

iwom

mum

mm

enm

a

1965

F-

1966

1967

1968

F-.

..7=

min

alam

on=

=

1969

---j=

tpui

li.

1970

. talin

mel

iMsM

lom

mtM

9pin

1971

:2cklenburr Co.

6 466

--

Mill

--

--

--

6,466

--

sch..3d.

:-..w 7-:prtt Co. '.

cl-

18.02r

--

--

--

-_

--

18 02

--

Bat

at-e

1:nwoort News Sc h

2' 486

--

. --

--

--

--

2486

B1

--:orfolk Cit

Scl

00

--

--

--

--

--

52,500

--

.

orthumberland

16,070

--

--

--

--

--

16,070

--

Co.:-.;ch..;!,d.

:ottoway Co. Sch,

17 300

--

--

--

--

--

17,300

-,-

Ni.

Pittsylvania Co.

50 050

--

--

--

--

--

50 050

_-

Scn..13d.

Roanoke City

22,000

--

--

--

--

--

22,000

--

...,cus.

......

,ww

w-

"....

......

ge.f

teer

-,..

TV

".."

.(cont.)

.

iii.

I

VIRGINIA (cont.)

TABLE B 4-64

TOTAL TITLE IV LOCAL EDUCATION AGENCY GRANTS BY STATE, LOCAL EDUCATION AGENCY, FISCAL YEAR, AND

AMOUNT

eaci

er-R

atre

lvtr

igeT

uritt

,a

a a.4

103.

=1.

TO

TA

L19

6519

66

......

....,

1967

-A--

1

1968

_._

...

1969

1970

R

1971

----

="m

14,518

Bristol Co.,

14,518

--

-_

--

--

-_

.-

xboll Co.Gcl

.13.519

--

--

--

--

--

'18y519

Dist:.

sex Middlesex

1P.,350

--

--

--

--

--

18,850

.o.:,cns.

oochland Co.

19,582

--

--

19,582

Schs.

Lancaster Co.

19.'45

--

49,3115

Sch. Bd.

Louisa Co. pub.

117,915

--

...

--

--

--

--

17,915

'Sens.

..................

r................

--1.icITmond Co. Sal.

20,560

--

--

--

--

--

--

20,560

zu.

York Co. Sch.Bd.

'

20,150

--

--

--

--

--

--

20,150

TOTAL

2,000,651

261,440

176,384

197,424

185,377

369,454

626,076

184,496

WASHINGTON

TABLE B 4-65

TOTAL TITLE IV LOCAL EDUCATION AGENCY GRANTS BY STATE, LOCAL EDUCATION AGENCY, FISCAL YEAR, AND AMOUNT

(All States with Local Education Agencies Rece ving urants

.1.0

.11*

MI1

MN

TOTAL

.............=.m.

1965

1966

1967

1968

1969

1970

1971

',,,Itile Pub. Sc

.99,675

14,175

--

--

35,500

11111111111

' -co

res$ch. Dint

98,685

--

--

53,8

05

--

-- 22,191

44,88o

--

- --,--

--

oattic Sah.Dist

22 101

--

1:o. 1

.-- --- v,

',--t

144 090

L__

____

__59,090

--

85,0

00No. 10

___.

2.

--TOTAL

364,641

--

67,980

81,281

44,880

170,5c0

III

-...............-..-

.V.J

.710

1101

10.1

=====e_

WEST VIRGINIA

TABLE B 4-66

TOTAL TITLE IV LOCAL EDUCATION AGENCYGRANTS BY STATE, LOCAL EDUCATION AGENCY, FISCAL YEAR, AND AMOUNT

TOTAL

(All States with Local Education Agencies Receiving Grants)

vem

a=no

w7

WN

VS

MO

MM

I4S

nMeI

gNiZ

SIZ

IWO

ON

n....

.-*=

MII

aINO

WN

IMM

it IM

=M

GIC

OM

MIN

NIM

INI=

Aar

1965

1966

1967

1968

1969

1970

1971

Cabell Co. Schs

14,037

TOTAL

14,037

Pf

14.o

r

14,037

?11.

12.1

1111

1111

01.1

......

m

UNIVERSITY DESEGREGATION CENTERS

AlabamaIntercultural Center for Southern Alabama**University of South AlabamaMobile, Alabama

Auburn Center for Assistance with Problems Arisingfrom School Desegregation"

Auburn UniversityAuburn, Alabama

ArkansasArkansas Technical Assistance and Consultative CenterOuachita Baptist UniversityArkadelphia, Arkansas

CaliforniaCenter for the Study of Ethnic AccommodationUniversity of CaliforniaRiverside, California

De/awareEducational Consulting Center for School Personnel*University of DelawareNewark, Delaware

FloridaFlorida School Desegregation Consulting Center"University of MiamiCoral Gables, Florida

GeorgiaSchool Desegregation Education Center**College of EducationUniversity of GeorgiaAthens, Georgia

KentuckyWestern Kentucky Human ';:elations Center for Educa-

tion*Western Kentucky UniversityBowling Green, Kentucky

LouisianaEducational Resource Center on School Desegrega-

tion"Tulane UniversityNew Orleans, Louisiana

MississippiThe Consultant CenterMississippi State UniversityState College, Mississippi

TABLE C 1-1

New MexicoConsultative and Technical Center"University of New MexicoAlbuquerque, New Mexico

New YorkNational Center for Education and ResearchColumbia UniversityNew York, New York

North CarolinaEducational Leadership and Human Relations

Center"St. Augustine's CollegeRaleigh, North Carolina

OklahomaConsultative Center for School Desegregation"University of OklahomaNorman, Oklahoma

PennsylvaniaOffice of Research and Field ServicesSchool of EducationUniversity of PittsburghPittsburgh, Pennsylvania

South CarolinaSouth Carolina Desegregation Center"University of South CarolinaColumbia, South Carolina

Tennessee

Educational Opportunities Planning Center"University of TennesseeKnoxville, Tennessee

Texas

Texas Educational Desegregation Technical and Advi-sory Center

University of TexasDivision of ExtensionOffice of Extension Teaching and Field Service BureauAustin, Texas

Virginia

Consultative Resource Center for School Desegrega-tion*

University of VirginiaCharlottesville, Virginia

122

eNo longer funded.Centers visited by members of Commission eta.

.APPENDIX B

TABLE C 2

TITLE IV UNIVERSITY EESEGRECATION CENTERS

BY STATE, FISCAL YEAR, AND FUNDING LEVEL (AU

states with Centers)

ALABAMA

ARKANSAS

CALIFORNIA

DELATiARF

FLORIDA

GEORGIA

KENTUCKY

LOUISIANA

MISSISSIPPI

7RW vmgo

:1EW YORK

NORTH CAROLINA

OKLAHOMA

PENNSYLVATIA

SO1

1 CAE.

,

TENNEMEE

-.2:XAS

/IRaIlTr1

TO

TA

L

2.216.975

1,259,622

664,995

381,758

63

1,28

5,26

9

.245

,933

1,33

5.2)

5

1965

1966

1967

*.Z

.6.7

1=1:

1111

1231

=11

.11.

0111

1111

1171

1111

19.-

1968

'19

69I

'I 7

(I

287,

981

416,

589

- -

1971

962,119

510,256

247,

305

658,

419

353,

898

.00

299,998

364,997

99,224

117,618

144,(9.6

340,

650

293

126

1 92

84

050

610,732

216,409

246,386

617.514

204.660

1,496,436

6

22

0 1

il3 ,212_

167,742

,225,295

642,10

100 C00

14

182

20- 6

6r( 421

48o 200

190, 000

2'

0 )1

0

130.

718

906 927

14

1 q 2(.0

24' 27(

290 2114

1.0

8

220 3 0

239,096

04 6(

424.32 i

1

4041

188 836

'798.519

2 042 374

013

0

98,4

3220

0,08

7

40534.,

349,999

1110,754

....-.11411a..

300,000

200 000

648,50o

6?4,341

....2

1122

Z11

LIZ

ZZ

IZZ

IML

0121

C1

OC

IIM

I

TABUS C 3

TITLE IV UNIVERSITY DESEGREGATION CENTERS BY STATE, FISCAL YEAR, AND FUNDING LEVELS (SOUTHERN AND BORDER SIAM'S)

TOTAL

1965

1966

1967

1968

1969

A................

1970

1 911

ALABAMA

2,176,975

--

--

--

287,981

416,589

962,119

510,286

ARKANSAS

1.259.622

--

--

--

--

2))

- 0

6 8 41(

8'41

DELAWARE

181.758

--

--

--

99,224

117,616

144.91.6

..

--4FLORIDA

2 6 1 611

40 6 0

23

931

261 (2

rP

84 ow

61o,732

GEORGIA

1.285.269

216.409

P46.186

617.514

204.960

IPIV

PIK

Y245.911

222.02.1

2..2

(11

LOUISIANA

1.115.915

--

167.742

225.295

012,F1:0

lno DO'1

'USETSSTETI

1.498.)P6

--

--

.--

...10g1_18",

199.260

o9:11 /2

1

2117,219

.Q1.22h-

-

r9004 P14

Wt.:J.3

1I_

70,211;

ao A. PC1

-

IORTR CAROTANA

906.027

r

OKLAHOMA

1.499.491

--

--10uTil CAROLINA

1.588.836

--

--

--311al

220.170

219.006

704.697

421413

200 .ODD

6111

.4.41

T-rin.,,,-,yp

TA clo

--

v

--

--

98.43?

')0Q,C07

livi

c_.)

(n

'00,000

(.11

8,41

Wmils

2.012.3'74

--

--

4o9,5-44

JP (

T0

ii( 0

--...

_es

rf1

9ol

c,r

7-

4

19um ,.,

2:5.9?1

2,826,894

3437,2491

.7,283,917.

,TOTAL

I626

--

.

.....

:a.

d:te

r

TABLE C 4

TITLE IV DESEGREGATION CENTERS BY STATE, FISCAL YEAR AND

FUNDING LEVEL (Non Southern and Border States

fi

L97

1T

OT

AL

1965

--19

6619

6719

6819

6919

70

CALIFORNIA

66499

--

--

--

--

299 9,)8

*64,09-

NEW YORK

1 0

18

--

--

--

--

PE7:*;YLVANIA

140

1--

--

--

--

--

--

140.)17,

955.671

--

--

--

--

C.

(4r)14 7(

271).010.

TOTAL

1,891,697

--

--

--

--

190,000

864,44

817,22-J

=1.

..1.1

1111

1111

11.

eam

aNN

Ianw

, .10

....1

001.

....

1.li

Plr.

10.0

.1.0

0.1.

.a..

. .m

me

mI.

.g,

r,ea

re.e

sers

.ot

...1.

111W

ON

INIM

Sl

OIT

RU

BIA

lfallt

fenf

t.

CALIFORNIA

TITLE IV DE SEGREGATION CENTERS

TA

BL

E C

5-3

TO

TA

L19

6519

6619

6719

6819

6919

7019

71

Uni

v. o

f ca

l.66

4 -9

----

20

Riv

ersi

de

TO

TA

L.

664,

995

----

----

299,

998

36),

997

-....

......

orst

omea

.

NM11

-...*

NP

OW

IMM

II...

......

....1

11..

!.....

r...2

!.....

......

...r

...M

.....

01,

.,'

ft...

".".

....."

*" ''

''re

anta

arda

nalta

ttbi Z

ZA

CIE

MO

MM

IKS

: 1I

'...

..,...

}....

.ltrI

er .e

......

1.10

.I

ZU

J:**

"'""

"....

=41

1==

=i

TABLE C 5-1

TITLE IV UNIVERSITY DESEGREGATION CENTERS BY STATE, SPONSOR, FISCAL YEAR AND FUNDING LEVEL (All States with Centers)

=7.

..'I.

f

TD

TA

L19

6519

6619

6719

6019

6919

7019

71row

auburn Univ.

6117,75

--

--

--

112,305

192,62

-"11 41

22_

liAu urn

;ray. or7S. Ala.

1,329,217

--

--

--

175,676

223,962

640,706

268,873

...

"

TOTAL

2 1 6 Irr

--

...

....

2n

81

4 6 s3

cif)

q

,ad

m11

1110

MO

IMA

S.

.S

MO

NIN

IOM

INN

INN

III.

I

..

1.

ARKANSAS

TITLE IV DESEGREGATION CENTERS

TABLE 0 5-2

TO

TA

L19

6519

6619

6719

6819

6919

7019

71

Ouachita Ba tist

1 2

622

--

--

-_

24

0Univ.

Arkade hia

TOTAL

1 2 C 622

--

--

--

...-

()"

id'

15.1.6 a-

41 11

1111

1=

MN

A.0

1101

1111

11

aaa

00.1

111.

0.11

.111

.

- .-

rww

ww

ww

w-.

.-ro

err.

t.O

WIN

MI=

1.1.

=71

ME

N12

12.1

1111

11=

11=

1114

:I,

4111

1110

1Z2L

Ti .

:2;.-

azas

ipira

mar

n.,L

ISM

WD

ZIE

NZ

LIL

,a11

110,

1001

111=

261.

:.4

AN

IMO

ILIM

INIS

I1 1

1111

1111

1111

1M11

1110

444/

BC

DO

SIN

IOna

l/ig

1610

1111

1111

1111

MW

S,

DE

LA

WA

RE

TA

BL

E C

5.4

TIT

LE

IV

DE

SEG

RE

GA

TIO

N C

EN

TE

RS

TO

TA

L19

6519

6619

6719

6819

6919

7019

71

niv. of Deleware

381,758

--

" 224

1618

144

16

Newark

TOTAL

381,758

--

--

99,224

137,618

144,4216

4...-

-..-

-m

a as

r..

......

......

..r-

mM

.1.

..411

.101

1101

1111

1MI.

...11

1111

t

.tPe.

......

...W

....

. -...

...

1001

101.

1.11

11.1

111.

.1/0

,AM

MU

MV

Ona

1am

FLORIDA

TITLE IV DESEGREGATION CENTERS

TABLE C 5-5

TOTAL

1 96 5

1 16 6

1967

)-......./C.

1 96 8

1969

J-1-

AW

INN

IVIN

II

19 70

1971

Florida State

280 60

14

...

--

...

------

Un v.,

Tallahassee

Univ. of Miami

2,391,006

--

203,34.

92,635

261,923

375,325

447,050

610,732

MPMIIMIM

TOTAL

2 6 1 611

--

4o

02

261

2

1.1111111

11.0

.1,..

ItT

e....

--

-- -

I#

litS

ZS

ISO

NM

EN

EV

211

==

==

112

1=11

1211

11=

Cia

.

GEORGIA

TABLE C 5-6

TITLE IV DESEGREGATION CENTERS

TO

TA

L...

...

1965

1966

1967

1968

1969

1970

1971

Jniv. of Geor is

1 2 4 064

-

__

__

--

216 40

246 86

606. o

204 60

Athens

Southeastern

Ed.{

11 205

--

--

--

--

--

11 205

--

La

., A

an 'a

TOTAL

1 28

26-

--

--

--

216 4o

246 '86

61

144

6o

...

==

==

=.0

...sa

imm

i=t:

=m

aTim

...--

;..4;

,76,

==

=;

---,

==

c_-

-- -

- 1.,

ii.--

...--

----

-....

KENTUCKY

TITLE IV DESEGREGATION CENThRS

TABLE C 5-7

TOTAL

1965

1966

1967

1968

1969

1970

1971

Western Ky. Univ,

245,933

22P.021

_

23,912

--Bowling Green

TOTAL

,245,933

---

--

222.021

2Q12

--

--

,1

1r

.....,........===i

...,-,...-..--,...-1......,-,-,-...,,--

========.1m=.-:....14====m....0.--

1

-

LOUISIANA

TITLE IV DESEGREGATION CENTERS

TABLE C 5-8

TOTAL

1965

...r....=,.=...zv_.._

1966

1967

P

1968

____

1969

_-

1970

1971

Tulane Univ.

I =V'

nc

642 8q3

00 0.0

New Orleans

TOTAL

1,335,935

--

--

--,

167,742

225,295

642,898

300,000

.

.,........----

---......-

,-

A. r

ue, 0

,.....

...,..

..

--a

MIS

SISS

IPPI

'

TITLE IV DESEGREGATION CENTERS

TABLE C 5-9

TO

TA

L19

6519

6619

6719

6819

6919

7019

71

Miss. State tint\

100;200

480. 000

State College

Miss. State Univ.

r 1

h2

Starksville

inv. of Southern

358,815

--

149,182

209,631

_-

LMiss.,

TOTAL

1,498,436

--

--

--

149,182

209,633

659,421

480,200

t11

7%.5

11.t.

1.11

RW

ITT

7.1.

...1M

e."

^T

NEW Imico

TITLE IV DESEGREGATION CENTERS

V

t- TOTAL 1965 1966 1967

--._

.=.=

.=.a

.....-

-

1968

1969

1970

'19

71

Univ. of N. 4ex.

6--

--

--

--

1 0

00

IIII

Albuquerque

TOTAL

955,671

--

--

--

--

100000

4 4

6i

2 0 010

,.....

......

.....w

.ew

or.

.

/

r 1

=...

...,r

ar,w

.w, "

e.."

,""r

"V""

..1.

=24

2==

""""

1= 13

''',at

=i

=:X

n.

,1

v...p

.m4

Id

TIT

LE

IV

DE

SEG

RE

GA

TIO

N C

EN

TE

RS

TOTAL

1965

._

1966 1

1967

1968

1969

1970

1971

Teachers Coll.

10 718

--

--

__

-_

__

81

Co umbia Univ.

New York, N.Y.

TOTAL

130,718

__

__

__

OA

--...

-....

......

....-

...,-

-

......

......

-....

......

.-.1

:==

-.

.

NORTH CAROLINA

TITLE IV DESEGREGATION CENTERS

TABLE C 5-12

TO

TA

L19

6519

6619

6719

6819

6919

7019

71

St. A

uzus

tine'

s90

6,c;

27--

----

199.

260

2h7.

239

290.

211+

170

21h

Col

. Ral

eigh

TO

TA

L90

6,92

7--

----

199,

260

247,

239

290,

214

170,

214

......

.., -

-....

....

......

......

.....

.,71M

111.

1T7-

....

OR

LA

RO

MA

TA

BL

E C

5-1

3

TIT

LE

IV

DE

SEG

RE

GA

TIO

N C

EN

TE

RS

..,,

TO

TA

L19

65

_.

1966

1967

1968

1969

,.19

7019

71

Univ. of

Okl

aho:

a 1,

421.

Y91

314,

062

'22,

224

5511

,(13

fl30

q.26

7N

orm

an TO

TA

L1

119,

h91

----

/st

,-).

: q:

203,

2(,7

""'"0

".-

.I

.

'-"""

","t

=.'

......

e...1

11.1

101,

C1C

.

I

, ."1

.714

11:1

017,

....

..

.==

I+'..

".'."

'.. ''

'-""-

,.-=

==

mur

amm

i.-t

I-.

......

......

...-

.V..,

,,",.r

,I

PENNSYLVANIA

TITLE IV DESEGREGATION CENTERS

TABLE C 5-14

'w..

.

.asi

llIO

NIN

C,Z

ION

ES

IMC

=0.

..

TO

TA

L19

6519

6619

671968

1969

--Z

O11

.91=

7:01

1101

Sr

1970

1971

Univ. of Pitts-

140,313

--

--

--

--

--

--

140 11--'

urc , Pitts.

TOTAL

140,313

--

--

--

--

--

140,313

.-----,.

--...

..r...

.--.

^...-

++

......

...,.-

-a--

mr-

-..-

re

----

-- -

-I

-

SOUTH CAROLINA

TITLE IV DESEGREGATION CENTERS

TABLE C 5-15

-----------

-

TOTAL

_..

1965

..

1966

1967

1968

1969

1970

1971

Univ. of South

1,588.886

--

--

--

220,370

2?9.096

704,697

42 %,723

Caro Ina

TOTAL

1,588,866

--

--

--

220,370

239,096

704,697

424,723

--f

,.......--...

.._

.

i

------

1-===.......

r

-

TENNESSEE

UNIVERSITY DESEGREGATION CENTERS

TABLE C 5-16

.=_.

_-

TOTAL

.

1965

_...._ .

____

1966

,

1967

_

1968

___

1969

1970

1971

Univ. of "rmn.

798

19

4 2

200 037

200 000

c'(-. COO

Knoxville

TOTAL

798,519

--

--

--

98 432

200 037

300,000

200,000

.................

."---..........7-,

^"'"

'",

,MG

MM

==

==

.,

TEXAS

UNIVERSITY DESEGREGATION CENTERS

TABLE C 5-17

TO

TA

L19

6519

6619

6719

6819

6919

7019

71

rt.

2.01

421 4

409.

1a

11. o -

CLi.c.c0

,,,

Austin TOTAL

2,042,374

--

--

--

409,534

-Lc (--.0-

..)

.1...,,...,

(.1..,41

,.................

--..... ....,........,..-_...-

,.-..............-.---

_ .

_..

-_

,---..-.,

-.. +

. . r

,.M

OA

CIR

Y.0

_.rnmmcm.

mumem_mm

VIR

GIN

IA

UNIVERSITY DESEGREGATION CENTERS

TABLE C 5-18

_..,

...m

mw

TO

TA

L19

651.

966

1.96

71.

968

1.96

919

7019

71

Univ. of Va.

0 8(0

249

.7',1.

1R

7Charlottesville

TOTAL

703,890

--

--

--

180

4

..m...

.

__ft

...sr

,"5.

--

.2Z

ZO

ZN

/Gba

-=

=11

1t1=

=1:

3[.

,.

.V

2122

WIM

MO

IMIN

I=2=

-ZE

Z^/

2=16

:

TOTAL TITLE IV.INSTITUTE GRANTS BY STATE AND FISCAL YEAR (All States)

=1I

IIM

INE

R

TABLE D 1-1

1-

1

TOTAL

.

1965

1966

1967

1968

1969

1970

1971

m

T.,A9

`04.

865,

542

28

-1e4 II 1

--

--

__

,.?

0; oh

26 040

--

--

--

--

__

AiiKAMAS

484,037

57 ,703

--

1 4 8 6

4n °2s

(I

1

C.A,LIFOr N

A132.795

--

1111111111111

--

--

COLORADO

8 VO

--

296,151

--

--

--

8,.7,34

DELAW;M

1V.4h9

3,786

42 104

--

--

__

iL0aIDA

1.400.Y4

1.28

102

f--

--

_ _

t;':01'";

73 (7r-

--

/11111111111

-

--

--

--

11i

175

ILLII1OIS,

'-',32

I.,'I2

--

--

96,206

129 c)74

--

--

1,-2,

-,:DIA:!A

36,r(b

51.093

__

--

__

__

__

rowA

160 ,:(,9

--

--

--

1(0.6,,-,")

::.:1.:7::A2

75,012

--

---

7';0=2

:::::`,CD.:Far

673.!

179.375

0, 1

()9.208

400.000

__

--

7,71-!! A-,

,v:".1-i

__

17,420

111.,

--

__

--;:;____

--

,.._,V,24L9.

- -

,,o r:',0

fLiYr..,',!fl)

r"

0 "(2

18,

-

2"i8,420

--

--

.

_.=mmus.:.,

ii

1

TOTAL TITLE IV INSTITUTE GRANTS BY STATE AND FISCAL YEAR (All States)

TO

TA

L

..-

1965

,_, 19

6619

67

-__

__

1968

_...

1969

_

1970

_

1971

YIC

HIG

AN

465

996

2 .9

4010

1 8

8.1

04

216

--111111111111111111,11

!41:

TT

EI:

10T

A6

000

--

--

--

--

--

--

65, 0

00

:.ISS

ISSI

PPI

5113

024

130.

721

197

978

1.1.

4 32

5...

.--

--10

0 00

0

:ISS

OU

RI

332,

489

78_,

740

36 1

1--

6o 06

6 .0

(88

,526

:."O

NT

91.1

AC

O W

O

......

.---

...--

----

----

--

....:r

,..M

RSE

Y86 oho

--

--

--

--

--

--86

, ( )

10

i:E".

YO

RK

786,

301

.21

7,08

518

8, 9

0319

3 05

611

6, 3

11--

46,606

::zd 1.:xico

74,756

--

74,756

--

--

--

--

-;ORTH

CA

RO

LIN

A7)7.551

173,285

190

201

1(14

'2

1 86o

--

3211

012

b.5)

6--

----

--_

tph cot,

91,8

47--

ocg

c)--

----

11,

0KT

,A1i

0!4A

01 q

11

0.20

12'

14 8

54--

---

-

PF.::

::3Y

LV

AN

I A

171,

663

36 954

69,4

07--

--65

, 302

;'.A

581

7,13

170

,051

63,8

3525

3, 7

%75

2(0

870

114

000

- -

0.00

0

-'01.

1T1!

C n

OL

T: I

A33

. ':!

i2.

----

r.;.'

"!--

-....

.....-

...,

--97

9,86

242

7 91

4353,353

1)3,55

--

.9-1

9,Se

rVP,

,--C

r---

--

4' ."

......

.=...

' -

7-1,

MM

elIM

...

...-

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

..---

_ __

......

......

......

....

......

......

.w...

.,...

......

-, -

......

.... .

. -

. . n

......

.r...

....-

..-.

..---

.....-

_-

.--

1

TABLE D 1-3

TO

TA

L T

ITL

EIV INSTITUTE GRANTS BY STATE AND FISCAL YEAR (k11 States)

TOTAL

1965

-19

6619

6719

68.

1969

1970

1971

VIR

GIN

IA66-087

--

21

1 6

-32 8

--

5 000

--

WASHINGTON

'

120,416

--

--

--

84,656

--

--

35,76o

WEST VIRGINIA

124 4 -

--

206

--

14

--

04

TOTAL

111175,048

2,933,571

.3,1A2,644

ha

16

1 026

'?2

580,426

399,654

.1,664,996

-----------

-.

-.47

0000

1120

/121

1Zek

2..

sES

TM

IPia

lling

='t-

X.R

e211

211m

1om

esic

,-:

.Rr.------

=Li

gnae

lloor

i

TOTAL TITLE IV INSTITUTE GRANTS BY STATE AND FISCAL '?EAR (States Visited by Commission Staff)

TABLE D 2-1

_

TOTAL

1965

1966

1967

1968

1969

1970

1971

ALABAMA

868

42

28

111111,11111111111111111111111111

--

FLORIDA

1,400,864

1 28

02

1 8

--

__

..

GEORGIA

8 6

__

IIPE IIPIIIMII

.P W M N

__

__

Lou sr,

--

( )

----

qr

(1

MISSISSIPPI

543,024

130,721

197,978

114,325

--

--

--

100 000

IlEd MEXICO

74,756

74 756

-.

--

--

- -

AORTH CAROLINA

797,551

167,413

173,285

190,201

194,792

1 86o

..

--

OKLAHOMA

703,961

1 0 201

2 4 8 4

205 006

--

--

__

--

SOUTH CAROLTAIA

33,382

--

382

--

--

--

--

TENNESSEE

979 862

8....7..7.....

"TEXAS

.817 131

0 0 1

68

4

..........---.1.7........

_.

0.000

VIRGINIA

66 08

--

c.

.410

2__

---

2 168

m---

TOTAL

7 692 148

14 12

2 ")8c

628

2.2

--,.......--

220 86

---....,...,

12400_4

232.1(13

_.-

1=========

TABLE D 3 1

TOTAL TITLE IV INSTITUTE PROJECT GRANTS BY STATE AND FISCAL YEAR (Southern and Border States)

TO

TA

L19

651

1966

,--

---

1967

1968

1969

1970

1971

1;68

42

28

34.4 1

..

..

..

ARKANSAS

484 03

174 836

148 736

49,920

Go

45

0,000

--

FLORIDA

1 400 864

____

71 28

1 879

--

--

....

--

........._

GEORGIA

anuc

KY

-71

171.

....

6 8

8'2

..A.la

smar

101

816

0) B

la10' 041

..

.

1 9 208

400 000

--

--

--

--

LOUISIANA

229 313

--

1420

111 8

--

r0 000

'

CO 000

MARYLAND

r7 072

18 652

38 420

--

--

--

--.

MISSISSIPPI

r43 024

130 721

1.7 978

114 32

--

.

--

MISSOURI

332 489

840

6 11

--

--

60 o6

6o-

cd8

26

7.L AWARE

132,1)49

39,786

42,1,94

50,169

--

----

-.

NORTH CAROLINA

.k

1167 41

123

1 0,201

-1 8

60--

OKLAVOVA

Cr, (.61

04

4OEM

--

--

: ;OUTU CAROLINA

=:2

--

3'3,

*332

--

--

--

..

4i

,) 8

6242

14lq

". '0

5.-

--

TEXAS

81 121

70,0 1

6? 835

258 375

260,870

114 000

--

50,000

VIRGINIA

665,087

--

W136"

27 706

--- ...-,

14

*3

...44-c-2°

65 429

--

1.,!.r.T...,!--.!--

-:

2,1'6

WEST VIRGINIA

124,497

--

.22%n-

--

___

_-

1,7.04')

413======

....asse.vaar-m.--

...ozaraccavue1=-

12=======MW==r,

-::..I.

--.==,)-......-...--

rs=c-amez _I

TABLE D 4-1

TOTAL TITLE IV INSTITUTE PROJECT GRANTS SY SYATE AND FISCAL YEAR (Non Southern and Border States)

TO

TA

L19

6519

661.

967

1968

1969

.

1970

1971

4zi7

.Oa

CA

LIP

OR

NIA

26 040

26 040

03

182 7

204 971

90 315

--

49,183

48,439

--

MU

RA

DO

8-20

--

--

--

--

--

--

63,320

:YOWECTiCUT

206.1c1

--

--

--

--

B3 3314

212,7(.7

IDAEO

141975

--

--

--

--

11F)975

ILLIUOIS

'82,462

--

--

98,206

129,924

--

--

15)4,332

INDIANA

86,660

5/1093

35,567

--

--

--

._

--

Tg.,:A

160,C69

__

--

--

--

..

."

160,(69

7a.p!%s

75 0".2

75,032

!.-7-cuclAu

46s..2q6

27.940

101.898

53,150

--a122Z

1:C1.000

Y,INN2SOTA

65, 000

--

--

---V2ALLL

--

--

65,000

::ffiTAI:_ft

Go 000

(0,0^O

NEW JERNEY

-

86

40

--

--

--

--

._

--

3`, 940

:YEW YOrilf

86.-)o

11

oB

188

o19 "n 0 e

116 -11

124,

2--

46 (06

cont.

,.....--....,

.......,---,-,

cr

.

i

_-gam=

...............1

2

TITLE IV INSTITUTES PROJECTS (Other than Southern and Border States

TABLE D 4-2

r 1 :.

.l

II

I_

r.....I..

...=

7=1111=

:

.11111111011.1111.

..44,4111.

..VO

IE.A

.M.W

rabi...............

......mr.

1.r.,

...t.6

DT

.e, )D

t/t/tt

tt9

1.06`t ktzU

.2, E 2,9 `L

7111C1L

..0.7,.........11eN

--

.... ...,e.....7 .77.

.4.T. I V

.1,-,......51e.e..7-am

omm

emoraer

i

...,:p

+4.W

.,...........werol

mm

m.....

9 I.1 AR

', ls

.1V

I.

......(

LT

1N

.,!,

11:'Ni, a

Lobc5

(1962.

....

.. _

Lice r-c6

965-531 .

anatio

DIN

O'

....

U67

OZ

OT

69679967

_....L

9679967

59611V

JOJ

I-S Q

(swpaD SuptiaDDS MnS TIV) 2V2A IVDSIA ogv 'scstioas

7ZVIS AR 91101d 2D2rma 214222SNI AI 27222 1V202

VWV111,7717

TO

TA

L19

6519

6619

6719

6R19

691

QPO

1971

5in

ill

22836

6 o

66

1,

h 4

a....

--

College, Mobile

Auburn Univ.

518,369

Auburn

......

121,539

--

labama, Mobile

TOTAL

668

42

IIIIIII

28

El=

111111

.

:

-----

4

..,

-2;

1111

=0:

11...

."'

21=

02i1

21=

1247

0Att/

ZZ

MA

ITY

A.

' Ii.2

2121

1=21

0:11

1111

1114

111i

%t

t

ARKALZAS

TABLE D 5-2

.TOTAL TITLE IV INSTITUTE PROJECT GRANTS BY STATE, SPONSOR ANDFISCAL YEAR CAI! States Recetvin Grants

____

_

1969

1970

1971

TOTAL

1965

-

1966

1967

1968'

Ouachita Bantis

22

001

--

112 262

6081

(20

&IVeTphia

Henderson State

40,375

-.

40,375

--

--

_..

--

--

Teachers Coll.

tiv!ylel

Philander Snith

10 11(1

8c

--

--

--

-.

ColleGe, Little

Rock

Univ..of Ark.

110

4--

--

__

--

a La.

Fayetteville

TOTAL

484,037

--

174,836

148736

49 920

60

4r0 000

1__

-----

--

AR

IZO

NA

TO

TA

L T

ITL

E I

V I

NST

ITU

TE

PR

OJE

CT

GR

AN

BY

sII

TA

BL

E D

._...

_.

_T

OT

AL

_..-

----

- --

-.19

6519

6619

67

.

196e

...

1969

1970

1971

Arizona State

26 04

..

...

""

-.

Univ., Tempe

TOTAL

26 oho

26,040

--

..

-.

..

. .

y.

....

-.

11,..

10.1

4.1.

1111

111M

NI*

.1,1

,...,.

.WW

W".

..n...

......

......

°....

-..w

WM

/MM

M.I.

W

..

CALIFORNIA

TABLE D S-4

TOTAL TITLE IV INSTITUTE PROJECT GRANTS

.ETATE,WRIPANt FISCAL WAR (All States Reeelvin

Grants

4**1

1.14

110N

OW

NS

.RO

MM

111O

MIN

TOilAL

.

1965

1966

1967

1968

1969

19/D

1971

IVIONNIE

___ _.

Stanford Univ.

77;163

45.8281111M

--

--

--

--

o

MN

MIN

Un v: of

.IIFISMINEWII

--

..

WANE

Berkeley

Wlingil

0=

Calif. St. Coll.

;1

-......--

..

.Los Angeles

1111111111111111

= NM_1.11.1101M

UM

W=

575,

703

anow

nE

mou

was

._

_ :

mom

_

Ei

111111

amom

mum

ammili_

aim

eim

mm

omam

..,...

......

._.

v.,..

.,_,

____

__...

.._

.-.

, ....

.....

il.asessaromasit

,-.Inuaczeinmeiei...vmsessesous,..sernisseessabt

.

COLORADO

TOTAL TITLE IV INSTITUTE PROJECT GRANTS 24 STJTE SPONSOR AND FISCAL YEAR All States

TABLE D 5-5

......

...m

w""

'"'

--w

atm

lwo=

mm

m-

1969

1970

1971

-t...

......

...-,

TO

TA

L1965

1966

1967

1968

Fart Tends C011

g;, 32O

25.120

Durango

,,,rtiy.r

Colo-

55.000

--

--

--

.._

444

rado : *ate Col-

TOTAL

83,320

..

--

--

--

3320

_.,

9.~-

itast

rev.

,..-

trer

r4".

".7!

a

-.e

rfra

nwev

erm

er

"=

0111

1021

111.

1bli

4.21

MIT

CPi

l=&

.4.

:111

='M

SI

3 I.

WIN

C I

. I

1 a

l--

7,...

1:=

.

CONNECT/CUT

TABLE D 5-6

TOTAL TITLE IV INSTITUTE PROJECT GRANTS BY

STATE,SPONSOR, AND

YEAR (All States Recoil/in

Grants)

-Iii.

TO

TA

L

tiammosismn-

1965

1966

1967

1968

1969

1970

1971

Universit of

' )

1 )

----

."...

IMIN

IMM

INIO

NE

NHartford

.4...

.r...

....

TOTAL

6,151

--

--

--

--

..............

Y"'"

111111111111111111111

TO

PM.o

.MO

MPO

-....

..010

*.eP

ler.

op. .

......

......

....

....

......

......

....

......

....r

......

.....

.....

......

......

..-.

......

.....m

r....

....

DELAWARE

TABLE D 5-7

TOTAL TITLE IV INSTITUTE PROJECT GRANTS BY STATE, SPONSOR,

AND FISCAL YEAR (A11 States Receiving Grants)

--

,..

TOTAL

1965

1966

1967

1968

1969

1970

1971

,t

-

Univ. of Dela-

1'2 44

II

....

-

ware, Newark

=I=

I I

-.rn

e,rw

ww

.*S

.4t.-

saal

sba.

i.....

..

P..r

.f.l.

CF.

.....-

..__.

-.

.

-....

.,a.

..

INN

IV IM

MI-

... 9

10 V

T-M

M 1

....

Mit

AN

DIM

Er.

.

4111

0011

1111

1.

-

FLO

RID

ATABLE D 5-8

TOTAL TITLE IV INSTITUTE PROJECT GRANTS BY STATE, SPONSOR, AND FISCAL YEAR

(All States Receiving Grants)

IIIM

IIA

NIM

MIM

.111

1

_T

OT

AL

1965

1966

1967

-:

1968.

1969

1970

1971

......

....._

Univ. of Miami

123 04

2 40

Zq

0--

----

Gables

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIILIMIII

2 6

=1

000

--

..

--

..

--Gainesville

L.

5tetson Univ.

48

10

2--

..

..

Deland

R NI

NOINN IIIMOM

WWII

8--

..

..

Daytona Beach

Florida state

2 4 641all

Illaffill

41 244

..

..

INVERIII

_

TOTAT

es

lin

1 28

02

r--

-.

,new

Om

disr

ft.V

......

.mM

eeni

ev-

avel

l.r..

.112

2T=

INSM

C.

....

il

....r

omem

oar

es,

=nmumaismor'V s

GEORGIA

TOTAL TITLE IV INSTITUTE 'ROI

rN

1Net

t

TABLE D 5-9

t

TOTAL

1965

1 96 6

1967

1 96 8

1969

1 9 7 0

1971

-Paine College

1,1

8 2

(24

--

Augusta

Clark College

82,045

47,944

34,101

--

._

--

--

ugusta

Emory.University

293,317

--

--

1E56,276

107,041

--

)

Atlanta-.

rp

I,'

ol p i

...6

42

--

--

69,3h2

--

--

--

College

04-

-TOTAL

573,67

--

101,816

369,818

107,041

--

--

--,,,,,--;-,

-.-----..)--,-,-

--

_....--.-r--_...;====c..A

-T"'"

,,,.'"

""ad

Zia

illia

iliN

I=.1

,"1

:125

1MIM

IIIM

IMS

s-=

3T.

-.2=

a3IW

ICX

CC

..-

IDAHO

#Y

r

Ard

alLa

p....

.AN

A=

acia

.C

TABLE D 5-10

---.................

TOTAL

1965

1966

1967

.

_

__________.

1968

UM'

____

1969

_ ___.

1970

1971

College, Boise

,-------

TOTAL

14,975

----

--

--

--

__

14 cr

..........--..........

......m.,........-..-

..

.

1iizzawa=c-zri..=====.

'-....

..-,..

.svg

,."::.

_Ism

argi

a;sg

aim

i.1=

2111

=m

ucru

m)s

a=22

11=

=;:z

amm

ingp

iLe7

CZ

.2=

==

=.1

=..

i

7LLINOIS

TABLE D 5-11

TOTAL TITLE IV INSTITUTE PROJECT GRANTS BY STATE, SPONSOR, AND FISCAL YEAR (All Stat,

Receiving Grants)

.1i..

.Ely

1111

.1.1

.-1

1....

..-..

TOTAL

.

1965

1966

-..r

....M

INIC

IIM,..

......

...

1967

1968

1969

1970

1971

Illinois State

73,192

--

--

--

--

--

78.192

University

Pormn1

.

3,.: ,1n1 colier:s,

76,140

. 1111111.

--

--

--

--

--

--

76,1'40

of Education

!.'v.---1.n,-on

1

NE

1111

111

all:ortheattern

Illinois Teacher

96,206

----

93,206

--

--

--

--

,olieL,e, Unice.L:o

.

Ill

St. ColieLe,

'r,;(.0

lon coh

--

--

--

Ja1171...

--

__

__

TOTAL

362.462

=18.206

12

0214

--

1%-----

c4':'

1

.,,,1

0.1.

1111

77...

......

......

..

...E

r

INDIANA

TABLE D-5-12

TOTAL TITLE IV INSTITUTE PROJECT GRANTS BYSTATE, SPONSOR, AND FISCAL YEAR (4.11 States Receiving Grants)

-TOTAL ---)

1965

1966

1967

1969

1969

1970

1971

Purdue Univ.

5/..Oc'

51,(193

Lafayette

Vincennes Univ.

'i5.567

35.567

vincennes

.

TOTAL

86,660

51,093

35,567

--

--

--

--

--

-._,mac

--___

____

/

IOWA

.TOTAL TITLE IV INSTITUTE PROJECT GRANTS BY STATE,_ SPONSOR, AND FISCAL YEAR (A11 States Receiving Grants

TABLE D 5-13

....-,-.........,,.........................-

-.,

TOTAL

1965

1966

1967

.

1 968

1969

197 0

1971

Univ. of lova

1CO,C6q

iFn 169

Iowa City

TOTAL

160,669

-------

--

--

160,669

4 I 1 1

..........=....

TY

SN

E.M

.Ye.

T.0

...".............

..

7=

wor

m

KANSAS

TOTAL TITLE IV INSTITUTE PROJECTGRANTS BY STATE

SPONSOR AND FISCAL

TABLE D 5-14

,:-......-........

TOTAL

1965

1966

--

-

1968

1969

197D

1971

4

.-r..........

Wichita State

75,032

75 (VP

Univ.

TOTAL

75,032

--

--

--

--

75,032

.

--.

..--.....

1

,..

'ft

..../.

...r.

4.0.

410

..=rf

Jr

KE

NT

UC

KY

TOTAL TITLE IV INSTITUTE PROJECT GRANTS BY STATE, SPONSOR,AND FISCAL YEAR (All States Receiving Grants)

111.

21

AIM

EN

11

TABLE p 5-15

--

-...........................m

TOTAL

........."......-...---

1965

1966

1967

1968

......._

1969

1970

1971

Univ. of Kentucl

6%282

6111

--

--

--

Lexington

W ^ e n

5 1190

1o

1 2 0

400.000

--

--

--

--

State College

TOTAL

6.8

81 o8

itoo.o o .

--

--

__

=20

110=

1111

7110

0122

.7:

s f

, nr,yrir., ....,

=19

.:sr

1

LOUISIANA

TABLE D 5-16

TOTAL TITLE IV INSTITUTE PROJECT GRANTS BY

STATE, SPONSOR, AND FISCAL YEAR (A11 States Receiving

Grants)

TOTAL

1965

1966

1967

1968

1969

1970

1971

.ouisiana State

1420

--

17420

--

--

--

--

- -

8Pielanelew

Tulane Univ.

i,,ew

r eans

111,893

--

--

111,893

--

--

--

--

;.r

,-.

r'fa

i--

--

--

0 000

0 000

Monroe

'..

TOTAL

22.-

117,420

111,893

--

-,

50,000

50,000

-.0

1111

y101

.11M

ILM

IYA

.-1

.-

..111

.ilim

mam

,7

c-.7

.1.-

-

-,...

.re.

.terA

wrn

-wir

- ..x

I-",-

nr...

.....r

f-sm

a..-

r.-.

...w

.

.

i_c=====._

1

VallYLAND

TABLE D 5-17

TOTAL. TITLE IV INSTITUTE PROJECT GRANTS BY STATE, SPONSOR, AND FISCAL YEAR (All States Receiving Grants)

_......---...........

TOTAL

1965

_

1966

1967

1968

1969

_ __ _

1970

1971

-..--

Univercit

of

'

18 6r2

....

....

--

--

Maryland

1,),20

__

1\ too

_...

--

....

__

_..

Collece, Balt.

TOTAL

0 2

18 6 2

420

--

--

__

__

wre

orrn

amrs

tc--

enst

ra-.

--.-

-I.

-

."--

r.T

.JM

.t..

.--.

....,-

..,-4

.4v.

i...y

r..t.

(.1

,,..

...=

Cii2

==

==

1

MICHIGAN

TABLE D 5-18

TOTAL TITLE IV INSTITUTE PROJECT GRANTS BY STATE,

SPONSOR, AND F150A1, YEAR (All States Receiving Grants)

7.

TOTAL

1965

____

..__

1966

.

1967

1968

1969

1970

_

1971

Univ. of Detroi

240

2208

2 1 0

4 216

--

--

--

Detroit

levee State Univ.

..7577o3=---

74,690

--

74,690

--

--

--

niv. of Mich.

P28

2--

---

__

Ann Arbor.

.,..--

TOTAL

65 996

27,940

101 898

53 150

54,216

--

98 792

130.000

..

-................_

...............-

-,-...........--

-T=MM=Mmlumpomair;M

''*---

....1====VMM=9=

i

65,0

00

MINNESOTA

TOTAL TITLE IV INSTITUTE PROJECT GRANTS BY STATE, SPONSOR, AND FISCAL YEAR (A11

States Receiving Grants)TABLE, D 5-19

-=11

10:2

Mtif

firia

lPre

...

TO

TA

L1965

Colleue of Ed.

Univ. of Minn

1966

1967

1968

1969

imm

umni

s==

==

.=Sm

im

1971

T,-

,-.-

eftr

anw

mot

orst

a-

-.51

-- =

1:1=

ZZ

ZaC

tIr

MISSISSIPPI

TABLE D 5-20

TOTAL TITLE IV INSTITUTE PROJECT GRANTS BYSTATE, SPONSOR, AND FISCAL YEAR (All States

Receiving Grants)

/11.

1.1*

0116

10...

..1.1

.1M

i.Nm

aam

mla

lle.

.................-,

TOTAL

___

1965

__

1966

1967

1968

1969

1970

._e_

1971

Univ. of Miss.

128,629

130,721

197,978

--

--

--

--

--

Oxford

Univ. of So.

__1121.111._

--

--

11)1,325

--

_-

--

--

Mississippi,

BIttient.mrL

:iss. State Col.

100,000

--

- --

.

--

--

--

10

000

Jacknon

TOTAL

94' 024

130,721

197,918

114.325

--

--

--

1C.:).000

iet

...w

omm

......

....

...77

.,,,,

V...

..f.1

0PIR

.

%

.._a

a

MISSOURI

TABLE D 5-21

TOTAL TITLE IV INSTITUTE PROJECT GRANTS BY STATE

SPONSOR AND FISCAL YEAR All States Receiving Crants

omie

s./..

/111

MN

AO

OM

MIM

......

...

TO

TA

L

......

...-.

.....-

-m...

...--

....

1965

......

,...,

1966

.....

---

1967

1966

-

1969

1970

i---

1971

.

t. Louis Univ.

.

44,166

44,666

__

--St. Louis

Univ. of Missour

70,191

34,074

36,117.

__;

_...

--

--

__

Jortheast Mo.

217,632

--

--

--

--

60.067

69,039

F3,526

State College

"n

ri nr,

nil

.

TOTAL

332;489

78,740

36,117

--

--

(0,067

69,039

83,526

_,

1----*

MONTANA

TABLE D 5-22 :

TOTAL TITLE IV INSTITUTE PROJECT GRANTS BYSTATE, SPONSOR, AND FISCAL YEAR (AII StatesReceiving Grants)

__.

igmalw.............

TOTAL

-

1965

1966

1967

1968

wal

earm

ese

1969

1970

._

1971

vst

Univ. of Montan:

60,000

--

--

--

--

....

....

(3.000

TOTAL

CO 000

--

--

--

--

--

FO 000

------

NEW JERSEY

TABLE D 5-11

TOTAL TITLE IV INSTITUTE PROJECT GRANTS BY STATE

SPONSOR. AND FISCAL YEAR (All States Receivin

Grants

TOTAL

1965

1966

1967

1968

1969

1970

1971

,

Rider Col lc.:c

.1(

91:0

--

--

--

--

8.. oh

Trenton

TOTAL

66, ;';0

--

--

--

--

--

--

36,94o

NEW AEXICO

TABLE D 5-24

TOTAL TITLE IV INSTITUTE PROJECT GRANTS BY

STATE, SPONSOR, AND FISCAL YEAR (All States Receiving Grants)

.....w

aram

ix,

TOTAL

was

.,=--

,tran

erse

msa

mea

var

1965

-........,=="-^

1966

1967

.-

1971

1968

1969

1970

_...

...._

____

....

......

......

..,,7

11S

tI.L,

Ma3

1.07

.S.

K1I

MV

.T7M

ME

MIN

,E11

.

:Iew rexico

',-tat

71!.'''"

,,

--

Univ., Univer-

,,,

..

TOTAL

7)1,756

--

74,756.

-.

--

--

--

t

------

,L...

./T f,

- ..

--

UEW YORK

TABLE D 5-25

TOTAL TITLE IV INSTITUTE PROJECI' GRANTS BY STATE, SPONSOR, AND FISCAL YEAR (A11 States Receiving Grants)

InTOTAL

1965.

1966

1967

1968

1969

1970

1971.

5yracu:-.c

Y0::11.v?,. uni.v.

5.(1.0

15,50

--

--

-_

--

--

::cd York

.

1,.%1_?, Univ. of

200,03

51,71(

. '83.651

(!.6')1

i:.Y., Albany

w v,Ir',. Univ.

4",')7.,

49 ,519

iii

--

_-

--

:,2-.

:vor

0..

.;ot-.)n Col.

105,2')2

--

105,252

--

--

--

--

--

Lon, Island

..ik

;to

L !:ol.

rt.,

11.

--

--

50,113

--

--

---........--.

--

--

:,-.c:::v. or

;:;3,077

--

--

12,7

5314

5,32

11--

----

.i i

.--

--

V;,162

5"1.)1J-5

,MM

MM

IIIM

IAM

MM

II

1211

"112

--

-.

III

,; .1.

3rji: :p!.)r..

t

- 3-1.=" pqi,.

S17.

...,

--

17.06('

:____

NORTh CAROLINA

TABLE D 5-26

TOTAL TITLE IV INSTITUTE PROJECT GRANTS BY STATE,

SPONSOR, AND FISCAL YEAR (All States Receiving :.rants)

..---..--

--...

-,............m...-,......,..--

TOTAL

1965

1966

1967

1968

19 iA

1970`

1971

Univ. of North

356,035

12,242

101,25(

--

1 2o q1=7

-_

Carolina, Chapc

v.111_

,

St. Au,:ustine's

105,401

/42 A(1 1

72 iron

1!n.2n1

__

co,11.:0-

Raleigh

Jam,

Spout

107 20

62,205

''

000

Institute

T.,

,- .

ai..tabeth Cit,,

26,f5C0

--

..

S4/

State College,

Toia,jy, pit:,

.0.1

TIP

.,.

TOTAL

797,

551

167,

1413

173,

285

150,

201

194,

7)2

71,6

.'0..

-....

..,...

--1

......

...-

1{

I

.....-

-1

Am

tanz

amm

Ega

. , .4

OH

IO TO

TA

L T

ITL

E I

V I

NST

ITU

TE

PR

OJE

CT

GR

AN

TS

BY

ST

AT

E, S

PON

SOR

, AN

D F

ISC

AL

"_1

.AR

(A

ll St

ates

Rec

eivi

ng G

rant

s)T

AB

LE

1)

5-27

..ird

ars

---

,.

-117

.1=

1.11

..CL

EC

.10.

01.-

1.

TO

TA

L

,-11

CS

IITR

IWIM

AD

==

,

19 6

5

......

.72r

.g.,-

--=

--,

l900

1 96

7,,

.i

1°,5

8

.....1

...

l969

...*.

.. *

M.

1 97

0

1.5

1.1.

1....

.a.m

r.17

16.1

.1-1

.0,

-,

1971

xi"

c'tn

teIn

iv1?

:,..r

.(16

__17

,,,r

''

Res

earc

h Fo

und

TO

TA

L12

);,,5

:2C

,.._

--_.

.--

--...

.12

)i,!

)0

.

.

.rm

imm

imom

moM

Mom

lmoo

mM

ell

en...

.0.0

1Mat

ael.

J M

.11

tom

mIN

oOm

IMIN

IMO

MPI

RM

710.

1....

..."

.

amom

mom

moo

mag

...

.1. 1

,11C

L.-

-1W

-431

,0.-

.1

-....

....

1I

=11

1...

..-...

.- ..

..- -

- -

....-

- -

..'...

'...,.

... ..

:r...

......

......

."..,

.."'

... '"

-==

:1=

171.

....1

-r

'''.r.

T..

.. "

''''...

.."Z

:=..

--r

^r,',

0.--

-x--=

4.e I

OKLAHOMA

TABLE D 5-28

TOTAL TITLE IV INSTITUTE PROJECT GRANTS BY STATE, SPONSOR, AND FISCAL YEAR (All States Receiving Grants)

TOTAL

1965

1966

1967

1968

1969

1970

1971

Univ. of Okla.

52; 669

62 044

166,719

293906

--

--

--

_.

Rorman

Univ. of Tulsa

10 '1

2854

--

-..

--

-.

Tulsa

anqston Univ.

68,911

4 6 0

4.281

--

--

--

--

Langston

TOTAL

703,

961

170,201

234,85h

298,906

---

..

1

,-------........

.....................---

...........................

e,rm

nort

s12.

0....

....-

...r.

---.

....-

onnw

ww

w

r======mol=====:

.:-.1=-4.7.=---

-,..--ft,-t.

,,,,,ux...2_,!

,,,A,lay,

.............*.

t_z.;:.z.,====.....

1,C.:=2,==c

I

-;...2=Jumm...........2.=.=

II

I

OFEGT.:;

TABLE D 5-29

TOTAL 7ITLE IV INSTITUTE PROJECT GRANTS BY STATE, SPONSOR, AND FISCAL YEAR (A11 States Receiving Grants)

Ilia

lwir

tayf

taym

mom

plin

mpi

t

TOTAL

1965

1966

1967

1968

1969

1970

1971

7niversity of

7n.

()BB

-,f),;

Drei.:on, Euil:ene

Port12ni

't-t.x

---......

ill.954

.....-- ............

--

univ., Portion:.

Tani,

'70

h;,

73.098

9.°O9

11 ()th

,.*al

ml1

071N

Wal

nera

min

owow

...."

0

...r.

.....a

1".

.....,

...1

,...

..

_.--

----

- --

-

PENNSYLVANIA

TOTAL TITLE IV INSTITUTE PROJECT GRANTS BY STATE, SPONSOR, AND FISCAL YEAR (All States

ReeeivinR Crants)

TABLE 1) 5-30

iMIN

NIIM

INU

MIM

I.1.1

111.

1111

1Ill

.111

11

TOTAL

----

----

----

----

---

1965

1966 - _

:..1967

......

.s,,_

erz,

seas

nma

1968

Imer

met

elM

M.A

MM

O.

1969

......

.r.tW

imol

amM

,:uM

irwW

WM

......

...19

7019

71...

.w.Im

inrw

rmw

rir

'V

tli t.

..°. r

V10

6,36

1%,,,

.-4,

(- -,ho'?

--

--

--

''

.Iv., v

:.',4"7.11.0

11(.;,::::o

__

__

__

1

."

__

...,,,..4,............

.'1.11v. oV PiLt1T,..

71C3.";!"!

_...

--

__

--

--

burgh,

Pittstinrzh

,....

-....................

..........,,,...,..--....

a:InI,

171,,l,":,

.'7,,',;'5;,

C),407

--

--

--

--

SCUTH CAROLINA

TOTAL TITLE IV INSTITUTE PROJECT GRANTS BY STATE, 0...ONSOR, AND FISCAL YEAR (All States Receiving Grants)

*....

11W

wTIME D 5-3t

,:..

.Lis

acax

sam

mat

-asw

ar

TO

TA

L

.s.v

ont=

m-

men

erro

vrie

1965

.."=

"7".

-

?.96

619

6 7

19 6

819

6919

70

I19

7 1

Claflin polo

.4:...-6o

-,

,)

- -

-=-1.-

:6 2

Uitanc,onurr,

TOTAL

33

2-_

.-; .

-) J

C_

.....

*a ..

.

....M

.selw

aMM

ON

I011

1.11

110M

111.

...

...m

ama,

......

...,..

......

. ,...

..,

"..'.

!....

.''^.

-...

."-S

11,..

--+

. ,.

--...

......

mw

as.

....

4.11

1101

1....

...11

110.

......

II7

_.:=

Z-L

=o

I4

.

TENNESSEE

TOTAL TITLE IV INSTITUTE PROJECT GRANTS BY STATE, SPONSOR, AND FISCAL YEAR (All States Receiving Grants)

11=

11,3

,111

16

111.

TABLE D 5-32

.101

11,"

Imw..mmuisimmnrm=mrown,

- T 0 TA L

1965

1966

1967

_

'1.468

.

1969

-runsamiliuMismAUWaits

1970

1971

.111

11-IvaliemmilimPorP

morti

4.11

0

Univ. of Tenn,

it

?3

-?)

,

,603

Knoxville

;:eorce Peabody

10 3,751.

10.i,751

-.

_Lt..,

Uashville

Ask Ilniv.

159,865

8'4 1 0

--

jaGaville

Dioxville Coller

152,1d1

26,821

69,360

6.000

...

..

Knoxville

..............

Pannesnce

A'.-

.T1 '04

...........

' 0

--

...

Univ.,Nachville

Jniv. of Tenn.

TOTAL

979,862

427,914

358,353

193,595

--

........~..a

--

..tw

ours

r....

...

r.r.

!!!

...04

..

....... ..

............

_ ,

.6...

.

raill

ill...

. ....

......

',-,.

...nn

IVIL

,,I1.

,42

,,t, .

..16,

e,-

Abb

eba

Maf

ia ..

.W.,

.__J

r ..o

r ...

...

.11O

ar.

~1...

.

TABLE 5-33

TOTAL TITLE-IV INSTITUTE PROJECT GRANTS BY STATE, SPONSOR, AND FISCAL YEA? (All States Receiving Grants)

TO

TA

L19

6519

6619

6719

68

......

=...

......

.....f

m...

..--,

-..

1969

1970

1971

Lemar St. Col.MN

k--

Beaumont

Univ. o '

6 (1;

hr -,'

.....--..........

--, h,

--__

Thomas, Houstor

exas .1

1, r

-'..0

' 6.8'

211 6,4

.4

,00

Univ.,Houston

T-x,,,; AP."

!,11. '.

...

iv

,;

Collece Static,/

Paul Cuinn Col.

Waco

NNW

alli

--

10 0

....

....______

.111

1N.I.

WO

OM

MIO

M./.1

1.14

I' II

IMM

INIM

.

-.am How:tan Col.

HuntsvilleME

--

.0.1

111.

00.4

93,762

..-

--

,)

42,000

'

--

.._

l',-"., Prairie

View

--........-....

Ear-,t Texas lAate

42,000

.....

..

--

lia.000

...

Univ.coltimeree

................

--

....

.....a

67ro

rmot

r

ucom

um...

''`

''''..

Achon C/)11; -e

LO 000

.-...............

---...............

........x.................

mam

mft

wam

m=

a

i:Zie

eMie

gat

=U

2,1=

4. =

12:2

1=.

- -

-...

=.-

--rm

......

..0..:

.7:4

1mw

mm

umm

e...

1ga

lign

....::

..f

.-39

m--

.--s

.r-,

VIRGINIA

TOTAL TITLE IV INSTITUTE

PROJECT GRANTS BY STATE, SPONSOR, AND FISCAL YEAR (All States Receiving Grants)TABLE D

TO

TA

L19

6519

6619

6719

6819

6919

7019

71

Old Dominion

60

..

60

....

41..

'

Co

., norrolk.

Virginia Union

16 860

I9

..

..

Univ,Richmond

L, chbur Col.

43 8-

............

i.

--

Lynchburc

iirrinin State

95,2111

--

4--

--..

Co ., nor b 4

ism ton Institute

245,360

--

86

60

1 ,

000

._

....

lia:vtOn

. 1(;7 Co6,.....

.met

tem

at .

..

.vio

nIM

MIM

M&

--

WIN

EM

IIMIM

Pla

ll~

..

16

606

.-

Charlottesville

--.........--

Lawrenceville

...

TrY

"hl% 70-nte

OW

Arm

--

rom

mlb

Illm

eam

--

y 000

--

--

Col., Norfolk

...............

.~.0

61..a

kel4

..

---.....

%...

''xr

...-7

;:rtt=

.-.z

.--

-.--

-..-

---.

...6i

mar

kme-

gis=

omen

sam

Agi

tsm

aten

tass

xxis

agw

assz

arst

e...

"...

.,==

ms.

-

Va. (Cont.)

TOTAL TITLE IV INSTITUTE PROJECT GRANTS BY STATE, SPONSOR, AND FISCAL YEAR (A11 States Receiving Grants)

TABLE D 5-15

Paa

lirni

aa.A

vAaa

lki,

1970

Ald

laa/

Msl

oam

OM

IN.

119 fl

reva

nara

rirI

TIO

Or.

1

TOTAL

I

1965

1966

196;

--es

eine

rt1968

-fra

ta.a

saM

a...a

da

--ii

1969

rmni

n.oa

ana.

..

Ccr

s tr

ul V

a. .

Com

m .

--

--

--

- -

a.1

Coll.,Lync.;.:ur

-------

' t:A

l.1.

',' i

.h.--

.A

M.

mor

a

a

.6.

Pt...

..11

!.1!

; 1 1

-.1

1f;

11 '1

.'?.I.

M.1

0111

1111

.111

ImO

D

eted

.'

Col

T.::

,.. C

oil .

..

7

aMik

mm

erliA

......

......

...-

.....r

r....

.,I

lmor

TOTil

(65,037

..

215,136

3.:2,7,3

Oa,

--

35 000

flin

ilIN

KII

IME

M

';2,163

------

---........

--

.............a

........

..........-

......

---

-4.

..gle

...1.

C.M

. L.-

11N

IM ..

vem

eato

.-

......

......

......

..

Hy.

. WIF

IBM

ILM

.,..[

*!M

,....

., &

AIM

"...o

. o v

s, ..

......

,,. M

. ,...

.. ,,,

. v. N

....

......

. -.

.,....

6, .

..a...

.....

......

.....

......

..r ..

.....

.... .

......

.... -

..-...

...

WASHINGTON

TABLE

5-36

TOTAL TITLE IV INSTITUTE PROJECT GMNTS BY

STATE,_.MOISSI.al.A1s1WCAL....16L2,..EllStaaLleggvit

.Wm

aMM

II

...

......

......

AV

....

TO

TA

L19

6519

66''''

''"'..

......

1967

...0.

1.0.

....

1968

1969...

1970

1971

ImM

ME

Em

mm

mm

hial

aIlli

-'1M

INIM

MIN

g.=

cattle Univ.

120.112Ln

1110

0O

WIS

IM,

Ni,

0 (

i.

Seattle

OIN

INIII

IINN

IMII1

1111

01rI

NI0

TOT!J.

120.16

1

-..

me

ean,i(r)

'V

7.4

a. 1

1e1O

N

umm

mo.

a.M

..b.

.111

..1

41.Y

.110

101

MN

ION

IMII.

. .......--

MR

AIN

=10

1010

11

11M

ION

IImer

eiur

-M.M

11.1

1111

11A

MM

INN

IMIIM

M.0

.M

INIM

OY

-....

jyry

.ge,

,..o.

k.

-., e

s...

.OW

an..4

1...1

111f

t

--...

==

eara

.--

.'"-=

' --

t

-....

......

ear.

---t

t.'

rovo

lYdO

MM

eeor

es

.:Sak

tatta

....m

aso

osom

onam

omM

4

, ..-

-.1.

-

WE

ST V

IRG

INIA

TABLE D 5-37

i';'7:17. TIM:: IV INSTITUTE PROJECT GRANTS BY STATE, SPONSOR, AND FISCAL YEAR (All StatesReceiving Grants)

....i

..

TO

TA

L19

651.

966

1967

1968

1969

1970

1971

st V

iri;i

rda

107.

; It

:3--

27.70(

11;

31',

! r,

.

%.1

22y:

In C

ol.

.r-sh:ill !Lv.

17,0:r)

--

--

--

--

--

--27

,70(

--11.',,i

rt-.42:)

--

--.122.-

...

_,...

.,_ 7

-.2

-...

f.:"

="-

.,=

"; 2

r-=

= "

.

I i1, I

i