ÀҾ˹éÒ˹ѧÊ×Í
PDF
ePub

tional and invalid." 18 In June of 1954, Baltimore decided to desegregate its schools the following September.

Baltimore has about a million inhabitants, and Negroes constituted 39 percent of the total enrollment when the schools opened in September, 1954.19 The most significant fact in the desegregation of Baltimore's schools was the simplicity of the plan. Students were allowed to enroll in whatever school they chose, provided it was not already overcrowded. Baltimore had never established school attendance zones except in instances of overcrowding. Thus it was only necessary to remove the classification of schools as being for one race or the other. No special attempt was made to integrate faculties, but from 1954–55 on, race was not to be a factor in the assignment of teachers.20

Another noteworthy feature of Baltimore's desegregation was the absence of specific programs of orientation and preparation either for school staff members or for the community. Such programs were deemed unnecessary in view of the state of readiness and acceptance that had been achieved during preceding years.21

In September 1954, the Baltimore schools opened with students of both races in 49 of the city's 163 schools. These 49 schools were attended by 46,431 white and 3,973 Negro pupils, constituting 53.6% and 6.9% of the total white and the total Negro enrollment respectively.22 Most of the Negro pupils in desegregated classes were kindergarteners and first graders whose parents registered them in schools nearest their homes. A few hundred others registered in formerly all-white junior and senior high schools, some because these schools were nearest their homes and some because of preference for a particular school.23 In the first year, six Negro teachers were teaching white or mixed classes.24

The Baltimore transition was unmarred by strife or incidents of a serious or lasting nature. About one month after the schools had opened, adult picketing occurred at one elementary school where twelve Negro children had been enrolled in kindergarten. This spread to about a dozen schools, primarily in southwest Baltimore. School attendance fell off badly. But within a day or two, many community groups rallied spontaneously behind the School Board. At the opening of the new school week, the Police Commissioner announced through all communication media that the picketing was in violation of two statutes relating to disturbing a public school in session and attempting to induce a child to be illegally absent from school. He

18 S.S.N., Sept. 1954, p. 6.

19 Ibid.

20 Statement of Superintendent John H. Fischer submitted to the Commission on Civil Rights. Nashville Conference, pp. 147-48.

21 Ibid.

22 Information supplied to the Commission by John H. Fischer, Superintendent of Baltimore Schools.

Statement, op. cit. supra note 20; Nashville Conference, p. 148. 24 S.S.N., Oct. 1955, p. 2.

stated that the picketing would have to stop by the next day and that these statutes would be enforced. The picketing did stop, and shortly thereafter attendance was back to normal. There was no further difficulty during school year 1954–55.25

Dr. John H. Fischer, the Superintendent, reflected that, were he to face the problem again, he would not materially alter the procedure followed.26 "We continued to operate our schools after September 1, 1954," he stated, "precisely as we had up to that point with one exception. That was that from that point forward, the race of a child would be no consideration in any decision made about that child . . . our purpose was to open the doors of all of our schools to all children without discrimination, but not to push or pull anybody through a door. We have said that we believed it wrong to manipulate people to create a segregated situation. We believe it equally wrong to manipulate people to create an integrated situation. We believe it wrong to manipulate people." 27

Washington-Baltimore comparison

Although Washington and Baltimore both represent large city school systems with a comparable community readiness, and although both utilized basically the immediate and total method in desegregating their school systems, there were differences to be noted. The fundamental difference was the complete freedom of choice in Baltimore compared with the compulsion inherent in the school zone attendance feature of the Washington plan. This difference in approach was not so much a matter of choice in the two communities as it was a result of the difference in organizational history of the systems themselves. Baltimore never had zoned its school system, Washington had. In Washington, therefore, considerably more planning and preparation was necessary in order to merge the two separate school divisions into one zoned system.

It is noteworthy that the relatively complete freedom of choice offered by the Baltimore plan resulted in the attendance of both races in less than one-third of the city's schools, while the zoning plan utilized in Washington brought mixed enrollment to threequarters of the schools in the first year. Other factors, such as the difference in percentage of the Negro school population and in the housing patterns of the two cities, were no doubt involved.

WILMINGTON

Delaware's only major city has more than one-fourth of the State's Negro school enrollment.

Nashville Conference, p. 141.

23 Id. at 144.

As early as 1952, Negroes had gained admittance to all-white schools under court order in two districts in Delaware. The State court found that equal facilities were not being provided and ordered the pupils admitted to white schools, but this left them subject to reassignment to Negro schools whenever equal facilities might be provided. The case 28 was consolidated with others to constitute the School Segregation Cases, and thus it reached the Supreme Court in 1954.29 Also in the early 1950's, a three-room country school near Wilmington had admitted a few Negro pupils on its own volition.

The Attorney General of Delaware advised the State Board of Education immediately after the 1954 decision 30 that the "separate but equal" provisions of the State constitution were no longer binding on the State's school districts. Under direction of the Governor, the State Board of Education issued on June 11, 1954, a formal statement authorizing all school districts to formulate desegregation plans and on August 2 approved the Wilmington plan for immediate implementation.31

The Wilmington school system had already adopted a biracial policy in respect to various school functions. Teachers' organizations and adult education courses were desegregated. Teachers of both races worked together on committee assignments. Classes for handicapped pupils were biracial, and special student activities, including sports, were also unsegregated."

32

Negroes constituted about 30 percent of the total enrollment in Wilmington in school year 1953-54.33 It was expected that this percentage would be about the same in September, 1954. A more cautious approach to desegregation was adopted here than in Washington or Baltimore. Various desegregation plans and proposals were carefully studied by the school officials during June and July, and public hearings were held. On August 2, the School Board approved and announced the first steps in the plan.

The plan involved redistricting of elementary school attendance areas without regard to race. This was coupled with continuation of a policy permitting transfers. Upon request of parents, pupils could move to a school in another zone, as long as space was available.

At the high school level, trade or industrial courses and advanced academic courses that were taught only in certain schools were opened to all qualified students without regard to race. All evening school classes were similarly opened. The summer school program, the

28 Gebhart v. Belton, 91A. 2d 127 (1952).

20 347 U.S. 483 (1954).

30 Nashville Conference, p. 82.

31 S.S.N., Sept. 1954, p. 3.

Nashville Conference, p. 71.

33 S.S.N., Sept. 1954, p. 3.

course in practical nursing, and certain classes in special education. were also to be integrated."

The school administration conducted a program of home visitation by white and Negro principals and teachers during the summer of 1954. This was a get-acquainted and orientation program for parents, pupils, and teachers who would be affected by desegregation in the fall. Additional social workers, psychologists, and home visitors were employed to deal with problems that might arise.35

The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People urged that integration be direct and complete the first year. Its request was rejected, however, and desegregation was spread over a three-year period. After the first year, NAACP officers in Wilmington complimented the Board of Education for proceeding as it had.36 School opened in September without significant opposition. The expected rash of transfer requests did not develop.37

The immediate result of the Wilmington plan was desegregation of 8 of the city's 14 elementary schools. Four remained all-white and two all-Negro. Approximately 600 Negro pupils entered formerly all-white schools (most of them in three schools). About 20 white pupils entered formerly all-Negro schools. Although a number of high school courses were open to members of both races at certain white and Negro schools, no desegregation actually took place at that level. Only one high school transfer was requested, and the pupil did not qualify scholastically. Six Negro teachers taught the first year in three formerly all-white schools. The final step in Wilmington's desegregation program was taken in September of 1956, with the result that only five of the city's schools remained either all-white or all-Negro. These exceptions were due primarily to residential patterns, and in the school year 1958-59, although three schools remained all-white, all the Negro children were in schools attended by white children.40

39

Wilmington had earlier moved toward a Three Track System for differentiating students on a basis of ability. Though a disproportionate number of Negro children were in the lower third, Dr. Ward I. Miller, the Superintendent of Schools, reported that there were also

Nashville Conference, pp. 72-73, 83; Ward I. Miller, Equal Educational Opportunity in Wilmington (an article prepared by the Wilmington Superintendent for the 1958 Yearbook of the Middle States Council for the Social Studies); S.S.N., Sept. 1954, p. 3. Nashville Conference, pp. 73, 81.

36 Id. at 73.

"Miller, op. cit. supra note 34; Nashville Conference, p. 83.

3 Special Memorandum re Integration, from the Office of the Superintendent to the Board of Public Education in Wilmington, dated Feb. 21, 1955; S.S.N., Oct. 1954, p. 4. "Commission Questionnaires 1958-59, completed by school officials of the individual school districts. (Hereafter, this will be referred to simply as Commission Questionnaires.) 40 Nashville Conference, p. 73; Commission Questionnaires.

a number in the honors and advanced placement classes, proving their ability to make good in competition with white students.11

ST. LOUIS

About half of Missouri's Negro pupils were enrolled in the public school system of St. Louis in 1954. They constituted one-third of the city's total school enrollment.*2

The Governor of Missouri promptly announced in 1954 that the State would comply with the Supreme Court's decision. The Attorney General, in response to an inquiry by the Commissioner of Education, issued an opinion on July 1, 1954, declaring that the segregation provisions of the State Constitution and statutes were "superseded by the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States and are therefore, unenforceable . . .” 43 "43 He further stated that school districts were free to desegregate their schools at once. Shortly thereafter, both St. Louis and Kansas City announced desegregation plans. The St. Louis plan provided for:

1. September, 1954 Desegregation at the junior college and teacher college levels and desegregation of special city-wide schools and classes (e.g. schools for handicapped children).

2. February, 1955-Desegregation of the high schools, which in the meantime were to be redistricted. This step included desegregation of the adult education program, but not the technical high schools.

3. September, 1955-Desegregation of the technical high schools and of all the regular elementary schools."

The new high school districts were to be drawn on a non-segregated basis, and the map was to be published on November 15, 1954. The new elementary school districts were to be similarly established and published by February 1, 1955. The new attendance districts were mandatory, and transfers were authorized only to relieve over-crowding. However, a student affected by the new districting could continue in his old school until graduated.45

This gradual plan was a product of the school administration's belief that the community needed ample notice of steps to be taken. The interval between the announcement and the implementation could be used profitably in preparing parents and pupils for the transition and in making necessary adjustments within the school system.

"Nashville Conference, p. 75.

St. Louis Public Schools, Instruction Department, "Desegregation of the St. Louis Public Schools," Sept. 1956, p. 4.

1 Race Rel. L. Rep. 277, 282 (1956).

*St. Louis Public Schools, op. cit, supra note 42, at 13-14.

Ibid.

« ¡è͹˹éÒ´Óà¹Ô¹¡ÒõèÍ
 »