Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

fails to accomplish what had been expected by the proponents of cross-busing and the courts which was better race relations.

There are other significant educational disadvantages in our school system's present structure. It has been necessary to use buildings not designed for the grade levels assigned to them. Stability is lacking in that students attend five different schools in different areas of the county during the course of their education, and many times they are required to travel a great distance from their neighborhood. Black and white parents, some with children in four or five different schools at the same time, show less support for their schools. Some schools are greatly overcrowded while others have empty classrooms. This exists today even though our enrollment in each school was within its capacity when our present plan was implemented only two and one-half years ago. As the housing pattern changes, it changes the enrollment in our schools. Adjustments are difficult and often unrealistic due to the fact that to correct a situation in one school it will affect feeder patterns and may involve as many as six, eight or ten schools.

This year we implemented the first phase of our Public Kindergarten Program and, again, we were hindered by our present assignment plan and crossbusing. Five-year-old children are being bused out of the inner city to the outer rim of the county. Three times as many five-year-olds will be bused as we implement our total kindergarten program during the next two years.

Daylight Saving Time presented an unbearable problem for us. The first week, 26,000 students went to school in total darkness. Within three days we had two children injured and several bus accidents, due to the darkness. We immediately delayed the opening of school by one hour (which already was operating on a staggered schedule). Our regular opening schedule began at some schools at 8:00 a.m. and at intervals of 15 minutes with the last grade level, junior high schools, opening at 9:30 a.m. With DST, the junior high schools do not begin until as late as 10:30 a.m. and close at 4:30 p.m. with children arriving home at 5:30 p.m. and, in some instances, even later. The one-hour delay that we felt was absolutely necessary for the safety of our children, was the cause of great confusion and concern for working parents who have to leave small children at home unattended and for hundreds of working students working after school, either as part of our school program or in some instances because of necessity. Buses are also on all major highways during the peak afternoon and late evening traffic.

School Boards everywhere are faced with a multitude of problems that can only be dealt with and solved if School Boards are given the freedom to meet the needs that are often unique to their particular system. As Chairman of the Board of Education, my principal problem goes beyond these matters. It is a crisis of public confidence in the ability of local, state and national government to deal fairly and uniformly with an issue of major importance to the future of public education. This crisis of confidence is compounded by confusion and uncertainty as to what the Federal Courts actually require in the realm of public integration, as to the intent of Congress and as to the distinctions between school systems in the south and school systems in the north.

I would like to outline a chronology of developments that have added to the confusion and uncertainly in our own school district and further eroded the base of public support which we desperately need to improve our educational program. The Winston-Salem/Forsyth County School System, the second largest in North Carolina, is a consolidated school district with an enrollment of approximately 46,000 pupils. The systemwide ratio of black pupils to white pupils is approximately 30 percent, and most of the black pupils live within the city limits of Winston-Salem.

Prior to 1968, the school district had not been involved in desegregation litigation. The school system had consistently adhered to guidelines set up by the Department of Health, Education and Welfare, pursuant to the Civil Rights Act. HEW representatives visited the school system and approved its pupil assignment plan and attendance area maps on every occasion until a lawsuit was filed against the system in 1968.

The present pupil assignment plan under which the district is operating was ordered by the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina as a result of one of the two desegregation suits filed against the Board: Catherine Scott et al v. Winston-Salem/Forsyth County Board of Education. Following the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in Swann v. the Charlotte/Mecklenburg Board of Education, the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, on June 10, 1971, remanded the Scott case to the U.S. District Court with instructions to obtain from our Board a revised pupil assignment plan.

The District Court told the Board that: "Despite the substantial difference between the findings of this Court... and the findings which form the predicate of the decision of the District Court in Swann, it is apparent that it is as 'practicable' to desegregate all the public schools in the Winston-Salem/Forsyth County System as in the Charlotte/Mecklenburg System and that the appellate courts will accept no less. Consequently, this Court can approve no less..."

Acting in good faith, the Board developed a plan for submission to the Court. The Board unanimously advised the Court that, although "this is the least expensive, least disruptive, least burdensome and most equitable plan the Board has been able to devise and still accomplish the required objectives of achieving a racial balance in the public schools of Forsyth County which will be acceptable to the Court, it is not a sound or desirable plan, and should not be required because the residential pattern of Forsyth County makes the accomplishment of such objective impossible without massive, expensive busing which imposes an otherwise unnecessary financial burden on the public and a tremendous burden of inconvenience and time consumption on pupils and parents, and traffic hazard on pupils.

On July 26, 1971, the District Court ordered the plan into effect. It resulted in approximately racial balance in every school in our school district. The plan, in the opinion of the Court, was neither more nor less than was required by the law. On August 31, in response to a request from the Board for a stay, the Chief Justice of the United States handed down an in-chambers commentary that, while denying the stay, suggested that the District Court had required something that was indeed more than the Constitution required. It is my understanding that copies of this ten-page opinion were dispatched to every District and Circuit Judge in the United States.

The Board asked the District Court to vacate its order, in view of the Chief Justice's statement. Meanwhile, the plan was implemented at the start of the 1971-72 school year.

On October 4, less than six weeks after the start of the school year, the Board's Counsel received a letter from the District Court saying that the Court had become "increasingly concerned about the children being bused on the Interstate" (Interstate Highway 40) and adding that there was serious question as to whether the Court "should continue to require implementation of a plan that involves busing so many children on this Highway." The Board replied that it needed more definitive guidelines as there were many four-lane (and even two-lane) highways that were very dangerous.

On December 3, the District Court issued a lengthy memorandum order which cited the school system's numerous good faith attempts to comply with relevant court decisions and stated that it was clear, "by any standards, that the Board of Education is now operating a unitary system." In a sharp criticism of cross-busing, the Court said, "The fact that the practice of 'cross-busing' existed to achieve segregation in dual school systems prior to Brown-and was condemned in Brown-does nothing to support its validity now." The Board was given the opportunity to submit a revised assignment plan for the 1972-73 school year, a plan which "need not result in any particular degree of racial mix in any school in the system." However, the Court reminded the Board that its previous assignment plan for 1970-71 was not accepted on appeal and that “adequate consideration" should be given to busing and split zoning.

The Board submitted a revised plan that would halt cross-busing of elementary school children except for voluntary majority-to-minority transfers. This revised plan was rejected by the District Court and later by the Court of Appeals.

Under the present plan, a total of 32,000 pupils are being bused-or approximately two-thirds of the pupils in the system. Several thousands of our pupils are being transported greater distances and over more heavily traveled roads and highways than would otherwise be the case. The school system operated 216 buses in 1970 and 276 the following year when eight schools were clustered and paired upon orders from the Court. The implementation of the present plan would have required 314 additional buses if the schools were to operate on the same opening and closing schedules and 157 additional buses were needed if opening and closing times were to be staggered. With local tax funds for the purchase of new buses severely limited and without the necessary time to order and receive the buses if money had been available, the Board had to "make do" with a total of 366 buses-including more than 100 vehicles that were 12 or more years old and "borrowed" from other school districts' discards. These buses are presently making 720 trips daily. Prior to cross-busing, the total bus mileage per day was 11,000 miles-today the buses travel 22,000 miles daily or nearly 4 million miles each

school year. The total transportation cost this school year will exceed $1.4 million as compared to $502,000 prior to cross-busing. Our local system is responsible for the initial purchase of school buses and for salary supplements for adult bus drivers. Because of the limited number of buses, the opening and closing schedule for our junior high schools is totally unrealistic and educationally unsound. An additional 65 to 70 buses will be necessary to correct this situation. Additional adult drivers would also be necessary and both at the expense of our school system.

While the burdensome cost of the present assignment plan was a factor in the Board's judgment that it is neither sound nor desirable, it was by no means the only factor, or even the principal factor. The Board is also concerned with the distance traveled by our students (up to 46 miles for some) and the amount of time spent by pupils involved in cross-busing (up to approximately three hours per day in some instances, and an average of an hour and 20 minutes throughout the system), and the Board is concerned with the traffic hazards that are inevitable in the transportation of 32,000 pupils.

Because of the geographic size (about 600 square miles) and residential patterns of the school district, it is necessary under the present pupil assignment plan to transport several thousand pupils daily on four-lane expressways including Interstate Highway 40, U.S. Highway 52, and U.S. Highway 421. Under the present plan, loaded school buses travel more than 1,000 miles per day on high speed highways at a speed limited by State law to 35 M.P.H. The risk of tragic accidents are very real on limited-access expressways with slow moving buses traveling where high speed traffic exists.

We are all aware of the energy crisis including the acute gasoline shortage that is being experienced here in Forsyth County as well as throughout the Nation. The problem is becoming more serious each day. Working people are having great difficulty in getting gas to go to and from their jobs. Volunteers who have assisted our schools in so many ways are finding it more difficult to obtain the gas to go to the schools to serve. While cross-busing is not a national problem, it is very real and has become even more distasteful to our citizens when they see 366 buses making 720 trips daily (powered by gasoline) while they (the people) are waiting in lines at service stations for an hour or longer to be told the limit purchase is $2.00 or "we are out of gas." An added frustration is the need for our school system to operate activity buses (also requiring gasoline) after school hours in order to continue any athletic or after-school activity. Before crossbusing, students were able to walk home or provide their own transportation (with schools closer to their homes).

Needless to say, the outcry of the people in Forsyth County is becoming louder and louder and it is understandable they feel little desire to cooperate with our national leaders in their plea for conserving energy when they witness every day such a great waste of energy.

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, on behalf of the people of Forsyth County and on behalf of the Winston-Salem/Forsyth County Board of Education, I respectfully urge you to do whatever is required to end the seemingly endless confusion and uncertainty over what constitutes a "unitary" school system in these United States of America. More important, Mr. Chairman, I urge you to free our 46,000 children who are serving an unjust sentence for something no one has been able to define. The future of our nation depends upon the education we provide for our children and our children are being denied this heritage. Thank you for allowing me to submit this report for your record.

PREPARED STATEMENT BY MRS. MARYANN DORIN, PRESIDENT OF THE LINDEN, N.J. OPEN ENROLLMENT AND NEIGHBORHOOD SCHOOL COMMITTEE

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I am Mrs. Maryann Dorin, President of the Linden, N.J. Open Enrollment and Neighborhood School Committee comprising some 1,200 members who are opposed to the forced movement of children within local school districts, between nearby school districts as well as the movement of children outside of school districts anywhere in the State. We advocate neighborhood schools with the endorsement of open enrollment on the principle of voluntary transfer with parental consent.

We will attempt to show you at this public hearing at least three areas in which we are concerned with forced movement of children or forced regionaliza

tion and they are: (1) the parental viewpoint; (2) the taxpayer's viewpoint; and (3) the children themselves with regard to their health, education_and welfare. After all, common sense dictates that we the parent, oversee all education; we the taxpayer pay for it; and last but not least, our child is the product of both.

1. PARENTAL VIEWPOINT

It is the belief of our committee that education, like charity, begins at home and it is a known fact, especially with all the controversy busing has brought about, that noted psychologists and educators all over the country have confirmed this belief. Whether a noted psychologist or just a parent, we know that the first seven years predominates the education that a child gets for the rest of his or her life. Even Hitler in his attempt to provide the Third Reich with an absolute genius of species maintained that "let me have your child for the first six years and then you can have him back-he will be mine forever". So, now the parent cries: "Do not take my child away. It is my child at birth and we begin the greatest part of his teaching for now and forever”. We now fight to keep that right—and I make note that this is not a local, state or national right, but rather a Divine right given us as our responsibility to see that he receives the proper upbringing and education. For the government to mandatorily move our children, do we not then have a taking away of our right? Yet we are bound to abide by the Constitution that says "men have certain inalienable rights." The government has the responsibility to provide our child with an education in the best manner-and to ascertain that the neighborhood concept which has built the country to what it boasts of as the greatest nation in the world-to determine that this is unconstitutional, unworthy, or any other adjective that may be derived, is preposterous.

To conclude the portion on parental viewpoint, we feel safe in assuming that all members of the U.S. Congress now know of the 50 states that have formed organizations such as ours firmly against the forced movement of children and forced regionalization of school districts and that, this in itself, clearly emphasizes the concern of parents about their children and about the way in which the government purports to educate them. We parents do not want to overstep our boundaries; however, we don't want the government to overstep theirs.

2. TAXPAYER'S VIEWPOINT

We come to the citizen who is a homeowner and has either already provided the education of his children by public, parochial or private school and feels that his job is over. We also meet the fixed income groups (or retirees) who may or may not have had any children to educate and we say "how do you feel about moving the children throughout school districts?" His first thought will be "how much"? Education has never gone down in price and even though it has always increased, and many times by a great percentage point, no one has ever cried not to pay for it because of the end product of its use. So, too, the taxpayer knows this and has accepted this burden throughout the years. We wish to point out that these retirees, these "finally finished" people are never finished paying for every other person's child's education because we are bound by law to provide this necessity. We are very much in favor of equalizing opportunities for education and educational costs; however, not at an added expense to the taxpayer for a service he doesn't even want. Capital expenditures are being left at the present rate--what about new buildings; and how will we handle changes to old ones? Again, the taxpayer will be left to guess at this until the time comes for him to merely PAY FOR IT.

The additional burden of cost resulting from the forced transportation of children away from their neighborhood schools, will certainly increase the burden of taxation that is necessary for a proper education for our children. New Jersey has already had its own case of increased costs to the taxpayer with no benefit derived as shown in the city of Plainfield. In a state court case (Booker vs. Plainfield Bd. of Education) the court ruled that Plainfield institute a busing program to achieve racial balance. After ten years of using this program, the imbalance still exists because of people moving in and out of the city, and the taxpayer has now paid a cost of roughly $500,000 per year for something that has never been achieved.

3. CHILD'S H.E.W. VIEWPOINT

There isn't a parent, taxpayer or educator alive that doesn't want the best for our children. We have already listened to educators who have been in the school systems for 25 years and better conclude that New Jersey ranks in the top ten in

[ocr errors]

elementary and secondary education and boasts of this accomplishment. On the other hand, we are also well versed with the fact that higher education in New Jersey ranks as low as 48th out of 50th. It is true that the state has undertaken to try and remedy this situation and it is noteworthy to us that in many instances the State Colleges endorse the "open enrollment" policy to students and that this is accepted by our Commissioner and State Board of Education; however, on the secondary and elementary education levels, this same policy, although accepted, is frowned upon. The cost of the child's health, education and welfare still rests with his parents-whether it be a cost in worry or a cost in dollars. Weather factors regarding his health; extra-curricular activities regarding his education, and percentages of accidents are ours with which to deal.

This is why we oppose his riding anywhere else to school but rather prefer his walking to his own neighborhood school. The law of averages tells us that the more vehicles on the road, the greater the chance for an accident.

In closing, I would like at this time to tell you that as far back as April of 1970, Linden City Council went on public record opposed to regionalization and consolidation of school districts within the state. I am attaching a copy of this resolution. We of Linden are proud that when the voice of the people sounded our municipal government took heed and remembered VOX-POPULI-VOX-DEIX. For these reasons as outlined in this statement, we of O.E.N.S. in Linden strongly recommend the Congress take action and provide legislation remedies so badly needed throughout this Country to stop forced transportation of our children away from their neighborhoods unnecessarily.

Attachment-Linden City Council Resolution against Regionalization and

Consolidation.

A RESOLUTION OPPOSING THE REGIONALIZATION AND CONSOLIDATION IN THE
SCHOOL DISTRICTS OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY

Whereas, the New Jersey State Committee to Study the Regionalization and Consolidation of School Districts has issued a report referred to as the Mancuso Report, designated as such after its Chairman, Mrs. Ruth Mancuso; and

Whereas, said report recommends substantial changes in the boundaries of school districts which will exceed city lines and county lines where necessary; and

Whereas, there are additional recommendations that will not serve the best interests of the educational system in the City of Linden: Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Council of the City of Linden, That the Governing Body hereby expresses its opposition to the proposed Regionalization and Consolidation in the School Districts of the State of New Jersey; and be it further

Resolved, That copies of this resolution be forwarded to State Commissioner of Education C. Marburger, and the Senators and Assemblymen representing Union County in the Legislature of the State of New Jersey.

Passed: April 21, 1970.

Approved: April 22, 1970.

PREPARED STATEMENT BY M. STANTON EVANS, CHAIRMAN,

CONSERVATIVE UNION

"BUSING, THE FINAL FAILURE"

AMERICAN

It is impossible to understand the practice of busing without first understanding the general history of education in this country and the failure of conventional educationist formulae.

That busing is unpopular with the vast majority of the American people is apparent enough from the usual surveys of public opinion. Less widely known is the fact that busing is a desperate effort to salvage something from the debris of educationist failure-and that it is itself a failure of rather awesome proportions. When we add the fact that busing has laid a groundwork of authoritarian assumptions about the schools and the American family, the case for opposing this disruptive practice becomes conclusive.

For the past few decades, the dominant view on public schooling has equated proper education with increasing outlays of money. We have been told that "quality" is chiefly a matter of money for teachers, facilities, counselors, special aids, smaller pupil-teacher ratios, and the like, and it is for this reason that the traditional system of locally funded schools is alleged to be improper. Under this system, it is said, we have rich schools and poor ones, with suburban whites en

« AnteriorContinuar »