3. Is it possible to use the $150 million well between now and September 30, 1970? The best estimates are that approval from the Congress of the $150 million will come by the end of June, if all goes well. That leaves three months to obligate the entire amount. I do not believe that an efficient structure and mechanism for processing applications or well thought out priorities can be devised within HEW in this short time. Moreover, it is highly questionable whether you will get any decent plans from states and a real danger exists of canned applications seeking to do the minimum to get the money. States are likely to do what they want to do if Title I is any lesson-regardless of the project proposals which will be vaguely drawn. Worse, there is a real likelihood that the money will be used in the South to resegregate students within nominally desegregated schools.

What kind of regulations will be written for the $150 million and for the $1.35 billion? How soon? Will they build in safeguards against waste and abuse, especially in the South, and build in specific criteria for use of the money to discourage poor projects being submitted? Can guidelines be done well within the next few weeks in order to dispense with the money in the time allotted?

So far, I have been unable to get a clear indication of who has principal drafting authority for the guidelines and I certainly get no sense in discussing safeguards, that enough detailed thought has been given to these or to priority programs that ought to be supported and programs that ought to be avoided? A further technical question is whether the President has to sign the regulations (as they are referred to in the bill)? Will the government Interagency Committee have to pass on them? If so, what additional time requirements do these steps impose?

4. It is unclear what the role (Section 7(a) (2)) of the state educational agency is regarding applications. Will they have a veto? What specific role will the states have in dealing with this money? What is the structure at the state level that will relate to this money?

5. Section 4(b)—What happens when local school districts come in with bad applications? Can the Secretary turn them down and reallocate the money to other states with worthy projects? If districts in a state fail to meet the time deadline, say September 30, for the $150 million, in submitting applications, can the Secretary then reallocate money, to which that state would have been entitled, to other states that have submitted good applications?

6. What evaluation of existing programs has been made in order to avoid the mistakes, waste and abuse that has occurred in the use of some of this money? What is working and what is not? What thoughtful consideration has gone into preventing the use of this money to duplicate other programs and how it will specifically relate to increasing and maintaining desegregation? For instance, it seems foolhardy to talk about additional money to Title IV without having made an assessment of how Title IV has been working. Many of the authorized activities in Section 6 of this bill are activities that are already authorized in other education legislation. Has anybody looked at the other programs and Titles to see if they are effective? For instance, teacher training is supposed to be the main thrust of the Education Professions Development Act. What kind of training have they been conducting, and where? How effective has it been? How will the teacher training, if permitted under the Emergency School Aid Act, be different? This bill authorizes the purchase of equipment and renovation and mobile educational facilities. Anybody familiar with Title I knows that most Southern school districts and Northern school districts have bought massive amounts of equipment. Why should they be permitted still more under this Act. Further, there is no logical relationship between stocking equipment and making desegregation work. Such minimal expenditures for reorganizing facilities can be paid for out of local funds.

WHAT MUST BE DONE?

Minimal criteria should be drafted which would spell out which districts would be eligible for funds and which not to insure that priority will be given to those districts who will use it best based on a record of decent effort towards desegregation and to discourage recalcitrant districts from applying. This will also lessen the massive administrative burden of processing hundreds of project applications this summer.

The guidelines should exclude from funding:

a. School districts still operating under freedom of choice plans;

b. School districts where state and local fund allocations or millage have been lowered in the last two years (there is a trend toward this in the South with the increase of the private school movement and the use of federal money to supplant the lessened local support for public schools);

c. School districts in which there have been firings and demotions of black teachers and administrators, or which have imposed new teacher qualifications not heretofore required that have the result of forcing many black teachers out of the system;

d. School districts that have refused and/or failed to take advantage of federal programs designed to help the poor and minorities such as School Lunch, Title I, etc.;

e. School districts that are maintaining segregated classes within schools; f. School districts which have instituted new procedures which have the effect of resegregating pupils (there are a substantial number of these school districts which have instituted tracking and/or sex separation as a result of desegregation orders, and which impose tuition fees heretofore not required which principally affect poor black pupils);

g. School districts with unupdated court order plans;

h. School districts in states which permit tax deductions to private school attendees;

i. School districts which have chosen sites for new school construction to perpetuate segregation;

j. School districts which have closed down acceptable black schools rather than send white pupils to them;

k. School districts which have transferred or sold equipment to private schools.

Authorized Activities in the Act: While not exclusive, Section 6 outlines certain things for which money can be used. Indeed, the way they are drawn up, they will be subject to abuse and to resegregation devices. Taking them one by one, many more specifics must be spelled out if the money is not to go down the drain or achieve the opposite purpose:

Section 6(a)-Provisions for additional personnel or other staff members and the training or retraining of staff. Titles I and IV have been doing this, as well as the Education Professions Development Act. The concept of training has been merely to have a few staff seminars by whites for whites which has made very little practical difference in understanding or improving the desegregation process. Secondly, there has been much evidence of use money simply to pay already existing teachers, giving them a different title, but little different function. Federal money has been used to equalize black teachers' salaries which is the states' burden (in other words, to supplant state money). I can think of very few needs for additional staff and professional members incident to desegregation, and such as they are should be specifically spelled out in order to ward off misuse:

(1) Community relations staff specifically designed to educate and help the community in planning and adjusting to desegregation.

(2) New bus drivers where additional busing is required under the desegregation plan.

(3) Teacher aides and transportation for these aides with the priority being given to placement of parents which would be an additional link of the community to the schools.

(4) Guidance counsellors that can specifically relate to the problems of black children in white schools, as there have been complaints from many black pupils about the harsh, insensitive treatment from white counsellors about their daily problems and career concerns.

(5) Hiring of special black studies professors or those capable of teaching black history, etc., which does not now exist in white schools.

(6) Later on in this paper is a strong recommendation for the establishment of bi-racial community committees that would help plan and approve applications and monitor and evaluate the use of this money. One would like to see these committees with staffs so that they can be truly effective.

(7) There are more than 200 school districts not in compliance which have been operating for years without federal funds. The lack of resources in the private sector and the lack of capability or the unwillingness of the Justice Department to take action against these districts results in the perpetuation of segregated school systems affecting thousands of children. These districts should be desegregated forthwith and a mechanism should be worked out and/or a percentage of the money set aside for either appointing 49-732 0-70-14

counsel or providing subsidies for private lawyers or legal services to bring desegregation suits in these noncomplying districts.

Section 6(b)-"Remedial and other services to meet the special needs of children in schools . . . including special services for gifted and talented children in such schools." This is nothing more than an invitation to use federal money to pay for testing and tracking, and therefore resegregation. Moreover, there is Title I which is supposed to provide remedial help for minorities and poor children. The only use for which I would allow money to be dispensed under this section would be to hire after-school tutors, perhaps parents or other students, to help those who need it. (Note Edgeville, S.C., tracking plan and their anticipation of the use of this money in furtherance of such plan.)

Section 6(c)—In addition to the guidance counsellors mentioned above, one of the great needs is for student support activities. Conversations with black students from various parts of the South indicate that much of the disruption and possible violence this fall will come from the failure of school systems to encompass blacks in their concept of integration, i.e., to understand that blacks are no longer willing to come to white schools solely on white terms or to view them as "white schools." These children are concerned about maintaining their identity and gaining respect for what they are in their new environment. They want to be free to wear Afro hair-dos and dashikis, to participate in extra-curricula activities fully, to have a fair chance in homecoming elections, have a chance to participate in student government elections and have them reflect their presence, and not have these elections conducted the year before, etc. There is no greater need than to have fair grievance procedures that these students can relate to. More than 300 black children, and unfortunately some of them the most bright and imaginative, have been expelled from schools on issues such as these in the last year and have remained out of school. This should be avoided at all costs. Fairness must prevail, and the special needs and growing militancy of black and Chicano students must be recognized and responded to. Moreover, extra support for black-white student activities in an effort to get them to know each other better must be devised and supported where possible. If students could be brought together during the summer to discuss expectations and potential problems, it would be very worthwhile.

Section 6(d)-I am unclear as to what this section means, but hope that the kinds of projects permitted would be limited to rewriting textbooks that would fairly reflect the history and status of blacks, providing books on black history, black art, poetry, etc. (even though this is what Title II can theoretically do). The purchase of audio-visual equipment, etc., bears no real relationship to desegregation and many school districts stocked up on this with Title I money anyway.

Section 6(c)-I am skeptical about this section and whether anything really imaginative will come out of it, but I assume what is meant is the Coleman idea of multi-site activities and the possible establishment of joint cultural and physical education programs, which children from all schools could attend. One should caution against these becoming the ends and used instead of reorganizing school systems, where possible, to permanently desegregate.

Section 6(f)-I would delete this section completely. If one can't delete it, then one should limit it to a very small percentage outlay (less than 5%). (The Southern interpretation of 'remodeling' has recently meant building fences around all black schools to keep white children assigned to black schools out of black neighborhoods, and painting bathrooms in black schools to make them more acceptable to whites.) I believe that expenses of renovation incident to desegregation are few and that local school districts can and should meet expenses for the very minor alterations that would come in the normal course of business. Mobile classrooms are hated in the black community because what they reflect are temporary and substandard additions to white schools which are overcrowded because of the failure and refusal by some school officials to assign white pupils to adequate black school buildings. So they close good black schools and put black children in mobile classroom units at the overcrowded white schools.

It is unclear whether or not construction is permitted under this Act. While it is not specifically mentioned, it is nowhere specifically forbidden, and it is strongly urged that not one nickel be given for construction. Title I money has been heavily used in some cases towards constructing new facilities to equalize black facilities with white ones and therefore perpetuate segregation.

Section 6(g)-Discussions reflect that we could live with this provision, but not with the original Administration's busing provision, which would not only

cut out, as we read it, the voluntary efforts of busing to overcome racial imbalance, but may not permit money for busing in situations such as Los Angeles. (Unless an educational purpose would be served?! Imagine the confusion this will bring!)

Section 6(h)—This should be spelled out in very specific terms, and I would hope it would mean primarily that nonprofit groups from the Jackson white mothers who organized in 1964 to save the public schools to black groups involved in desegregation efforts, would be fundable under this provision. And it would be helpful if PTA's, which have been considerably weakened since desegregation, could be revitalized.

Section 6(i)-I don't know what "special administrative activities such as rescheduling of students or teachers" means, and I would strike it. The only possibility I can think of would be when there is large scale desegregation in the middle of the year such as occurred in January in districts affected by the Alexander V. Holmes decree, and it is unlikely that this will occur again. It is interesting to note that the local school boards managed to do it without federal help, and I would leave it that way.

Section 6 (j) and (k)—I don't say much and should be spelled out in specifics, and I would remove k completely or give specific indications of the kinds of programs that the Secretary thinks would meet the purposes of this Act such as the creation of educational parks or inter-district funding, i.e., predominantly black and white districts working out cooperative arrangements.

A strong and mandatory provision should be included in the Act for the creation of bi-racial committees elected by the respective communities to be involved in the planning and approval, monitoring and evaluation of these applications and the expenditure of the money. Such a structure is our best hope for effectiveness. Title I has a provision for advisory committees, but it has not been well enforced. Moreover, many courts are appointing bi-racial committees to oversee school desegregation plans.

In addition, a strong public information requirement should be built in which would insure that the applications are open to the community, and simple appeals procedures should be built in to allow community people to protest bad and inadequate plans or failure to spend money as approved. Cutoff provisions of district funds should be written into the guidelines where school districts fail to carry out the approved projects or to conform with the law.

Finally, there should be a reporting requirement that local school districts shall report on the operation of projects and the progress of these projects in furthering desegregation to HEW and to the appropriate committee of Congress. A few final comments: The thrust of criteria should not be to reward those who have resisted and penalize those who have attempted to comply in good faith. School districts that have voluntarily desegregated should have pupils doublecounted as well as others.

It may be said that little of what has been stated here is new. Maybe. But it has not been done and other similar program criteria contained in Title I and IV guidelines have been weakly, if at all enforced. One need only look at the practices. Many of the prohibitions stated here are not specifically prohibited elsewhere. Since this is new money, supposedly dedicated to pushing desegregation, it should get off to as good, as strong, and as clear a start as possible. That is, if people are serious about achieving something real.

Senator PELL. The final witness is Miss Frances Sussna, director of the Multi-Culture Institute in San Francisco, Calif.

Senator Murphy, a member of this subcommittee and the full committee, warmly recommended you to us and asked that we hear your testimony.

STATEMENT OF FRANCES SUSSNA, DIRECTOR, MULTI-CULTURE INSTITUTE, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF.

Miss SUSSNA. Thank you.

I am very grateful for the opportunity to appear today. I want to talk specifically about the features of the bill that provide funds for "new instructional techniques and materials designed to meet the needs of racially isolated schoolchildren" and for "special programs

or projects designed to enhance the possibilities of successful desegregation."

I would like to urge you and all who are concerned with desegregation to consider the question: "What is successful desegregation?". I believe it is more than getting children of different races to sit next to one another. I believe that truly successful and meaningful school integration must have as a major component methods for causing children to relate to their own ethnic identities and to those of the other children in ways which will benefit and enrich, rather than endanger, them and their communities.

In the past, educational institutions have often assumed that the most useful way in which to encourage "Americanism" is to ignore racial and ethnic distinctions, submerging them in an undifferentiated general curriculum.

There is an implication that the American ideal required us to strive to be "more American" by losing anvthing which distinguishes us from a nondescript fictional prototype. This concept is disparaging and detrimental to Americans who do have names, family backgrounds, group associations, and other characteristics of real people. Since a major key to every individual's behavior is his self-image, society cannot afford to ignore an aspect of that image which may be of great importance in the child's mind.

Whether we like it or not, every child defines himself partially in relation to his racial or ethnic group and also defines that group in relation to the composite American scene. Without public involvement, that definition will continue to be acquired on the streets, and mav be inaccurate and unwholesome.

Although we cannot prevent any child from exploring his identity, we can and usually do deprive him of the tools for exploring it positively and realistically. This unrealistic approach has deepened feelings of alienation and produced youngsters who have deficient understandings of themselves and others.

A child knows if he is different in the national origin of his parents, their religious affiliation, or the color of their skin. If he is taught, explicitly or implicitly, that the less said about this the better, the effects will be confusion, low self-esteem, and bitterness for the "different" children, and a false sense of superiority for the other children. It has too often been assumed that proximity of different groups to one another will automatically result in intergroup understanding. Very often, it does not.

At present, children can and do go through 12 or more years of typical schooling-whether in segregated or integrated classes-and come out totally unlearned in intergroup relations-in either information or attitudes.

Desegregation alone is insufficient to prevent the racial and ethnic distinctions from being used as barriers against intellectual and social communication.

Efforts to end school segregation are meeting with increasing success. But if we end our efforts here, will we have achieved a real in